HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 11 2018 PC MinutesER
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 11, 2018
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 11, 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, Pam Riley, Vice Chair, Daphne Spain; Bruce Dotson, Jennie
More, Karen Firehock, Julian Bivins and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative. Ms. Firehock arrived at
6:04 p.m.
Other officials present were Andrew Gast -Bray, Assistant Director of Community Development/Director
of Planning; Bill Fritz, Manager of Special Projects, Cameron Langille, Senior Planner, Rachael
Falkenstein, Principal Planner; Lea Brumfield, Zoning Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator and Andy Herrick, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
The meeting moved to the next 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.
Mr. Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum said that his organization annually presented a
reworked holiday poem as a literary gift to the Planning Commission, beginning with "Rudolph the
Form -Based Code" in 2017 and this year offering the poem, "Rio the Small Plan." Mr. Williamson read
the poem aloud and distributed copies to the Commission. (See Attached)
Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:04 p.m.
There being no further public comment, the meeting onto the next agenda item.
Public Hearing Item.
ZTA 2018 00002 Commercial and Industrial zoned properties not served by public water
The chair asked the staff to give their report which will:
• Amend Section 18-22.2.1 to permit eating establishments, automobile service stations, and
convenience stores as by -right uses in the Commercial (C-1) zoning district when served by public
water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-22.2.1 to permit by -right in the Commercial (C-1) zoning district those uses
permitted by right pursuant to subsection 10.2.1 of section 10.2, RA, Rural Areas provided that the
use is not served by public water or central water system;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 1
FINAL MINUTES
• Amend Section 18-22.2.2 to permit eating establishments, automobile service stations, and
convenience stores as special permit uses in the Commercial (C-1) zoning district when not served
by public water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-23.2.1 to permit eating establishments as a by -right use in the Commercial Office
(CO) zoning district when served by public water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-23.2.1 to permit by -right in the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district those uses
permitted by right pursuant to subsection 10.2.1 of section 10.2, RA, Rural Areas provided that the
use is not served by public water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-23.2.2 to permit eating establishments as a special permit use in the Commercial
Office (CO) zoning district when not served by public water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-24.2.1 to permit automobile service stations, convenience stores, eating
establishments, and fast food restaurants as by -right uses in the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning
district when served by public water or central water system;
• Amend Section 18-24.2.1 to permit by -right in the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning district those
uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 10.2.1 of section 10.2, RA, Rural Areas provided that
the use is not served by public water or central water system; and
• Amend Section 18-24.2.2 to permit automobile service stations, convenience stores eating
establishments, and fast food restaurants as special permit uses in the Highway Commercial (HQ
zoning district when not served by public water or central water system.
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, Manager of Special Projects, presented the staff report and noted that this was the first round
of a zoning text amendment to deal with what he referred to as "the 400-gallon issue." He said that in
the spring and summer of 2018, there were work sessions and public hearings with both the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission, and staff was instructed to go back and look at the work that
was done and bring forward something else. He said to try to bring it forward, staff had broken it into
pieces and felt this was something they could harness and bring forward quickly before bringing them a
broader zoning text amendment. Mr. Fritz noted that this particular zoning text amendment impacts
eating establishments, fast food restaurants, automobile service stations and convenience stores. He
stated that on commercially zoned property, these uses would be by right if served by public water or a
central water system — and by special use permit if they were not.
Mr. Fritz said for the ease of discussion, he would only use the phrase "public water," but that would
refer to public water and a central water supply system. He said that this zoning text amendment also
clarifies that convenience stores are a use in the C-1 district. He said they are already allowed by
determination but they are not listed as a specific use, so this cleans that up and makes it easier to
administer the ordinance. He said the zoning text amendment also expands the list of permitted uses
on commercial properties not served by public water — and those parcels would be able to use any of
the RA (Rural Areas) by right uses, in addition to the commercial uses.
Mr. Fritz said the four uses identified were those that could generate impacts inconsistent with the
Rural Area. He said currently in the RA district, a property may be developed as a country store but only
with a special use permit. He said that a country store has the characteristics of a convenience store, an
automobile service station, and can have food sales. He said that this zoning text amendment would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 2
FINAL MINUTES
treat similarly located properties with similar uses in a similar manner. He said by using the special use
permit review process, the impacts generated can be analyzed and hopefully mitigated with
appropriate conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that this process also allows the intent of the commercial
districts to be followed, which in part is that activities involving retail, wholesale and service businesses
shall be permitted at appropriate locations within areas designated as the urban areas, communities
and villages in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the zoning text amendment was reviewed in accord
with Section 33.6 of the ordinance, with the findings in the Commission's report — so he would not go
over all of them but would point out a few items.
Mr. Fritz said the establishment of commercial zoning was done years ago; for most properties, it was
done in 1980. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan has been updated several times. Staff opinion is
that this zoning text amendment aligns the zoning ordinance with the Comprehensive Plan, and they
are recommending approval of this zoning text amendment, with comments provided to the
Commission. He said he has also had discussions with one other person who is concerned that the
zoning text amendment does not include a provision to allow structures existing prior to the adoption
of the zoning text amendment to be used for any by -right use, provided there was no change to the site
other than maintenance and signage. He noted that this was in the language that went before the
Planning Commission and Board earlier in 2018. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Spain asked why the Board of Supervisors deferred action again and sent it back to the Commission
since this is the second time around for both bodies.
Mr. Fritz said the Board deferred and there was significant public comment on it, and the ordinance
that went before the Board of Supervisors was a fairly complicated ordinance to administer. He
,,. explained that it impacted uses rather significantly, so the Board deferred action on that and then held
a work session to provide staff with additional direction to look at uses in the rural areas that were not
served by public water and try to address those uses so there was an easier ordinance to administer,
gave more predictability, and tried to get at the impacts caused by those particular uses. He stated that
staff is working on it, it is a big project, and staff identified some specific uses and said they were
similar to country stores. He said that since country stores are by special use permit in the rural areas,
they can treat things similarly with a fairly confined zoning text amendment, which is what is before the
Commission now.
Ms. Spain asked Mr. Fritz to comment on Mr. Kohr's letter about his concern about downzoning in
other words.
Mr. Fritz replied that the zoning text amendment does not automatically remove or reduce any uses
from a property but does require a new special use permit process if there is no public water. He said
that currently, they would have to go through a review process to demonstrate whether or not the use
was allowed because of the 400-gallon provision in the ordinance, and this pertains just to the special
use permit instead of dealing with the water aspect. He emphasized that the use would not be
prohibited unless a special use permit was applied for and denied — so it essentially just moves from
the by -right to special use permit category.
Ms. Spain commented that it does not qualify for downzoning.
Mr. Fritz responded that this was staff's contention, as it was not a rezoning but was a zoning text
amendment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -DECEMBER 11, 2018 3
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Herrick agreed with Mr. Fritz that it is not a piecemeal downzoning.
Ms. Firehock asked if the use would convey if a person sold that property.
Mr. Fritz responded that it would be continuing a nonconforming use or would be covered by a
previous special use permit and would continue to operate as it has been. He added that the ownership
is not a factor and it just needs to remain in continuous operation without ceasing for two years — if it
does, then the nonconformity is lost.
Mr. Bivins said he tried to see in code where the term "convenience stores" is located but did not find
it, adding that he hoped it would be included.
Mr. Fritz said it is listed currently as a use in Highway Commercial district but is not listed as a use in Cl;
however, in looking at the other uses permitted in the C1 district, they add up to the convenience
store. He stated that there has been a long -running interpretation that you can do a convenience store
in C1, but it does not appear in the C1 section currently.
Mr. Bivins responded that this was helpful. He said that in talking about the impact of the rural area
and crossroads, there has been some significant change — with the Village of Rivanna raising the issue
of how this would evolve over the years, as well as the development of Bundoran at Crossroads. He
asked if there was language that allowed the rural crossroads to evolve, as they were no longer just
places where people got their general delivery packages.
Mr. Fritz responded that they were trying to break this into phases and in looking at the properties,
staff has discovered that the commercial properties are not all the same — with some in old villages,
some at interstate interchanges, and some in the middle of nowhere. He said that staff is trying to
bring forward a more comprehensive ordinance in the future and may revisit these uses in the future.
Mr. Fritz noted that it is possible they may revisit other uses also, so if certain performance standards
are met, it would become a by -right use. He emphasized that they were not there yet, but they would
continue to look at it and at all other uses.
Mr. Bivins stated that staff mentioned Light Industrial, but he also could not find that and hoped it
would be included.
Mr. Fritz replied that this ZTA deals only with CO, C1, and HC districts because these uses were only
listed in those districts — and staff would be bringing back something to address other uses in the
commercial districts and the industrial districts.
Mr. Bivins commented that in Attachment C at the top of the page, "Consideration of new uses in the
rural areas," the opening sentence is, "It is important that any change take place slowly," and he did
not know what that means.
Mr. Fritz responded that all the things in Attachment C were taken directly from the Comp Plan.
Mr. Bivins said that he assumed this was where they set out as the County what the considerations of
new uses would be, in this case in rural areas, but he was not sure what was meant by, "It is important
that any change take place slowly, with enough time to evaluate potential impacts."
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Fritz stated that he did not know the exact thinking behind that, but it seemed fairly consistent
with how Albemarle has done things in terms of making a change, seeing what the impacts are,
analyzing them, and then determining whether another change needed to be made.
Mr. Keller commented that dealing with proposed definition changes was getting them into more
specific questions, such as defining "slowly."
Ms. More said that she wanted clarification that a property not served by water that has a special use
permit currently, if the change were to take place, if a property owner could come back and request to
amend it if they wanted the property to grow.
Mr. Fritz responded that they could do that, and if there was a nonconforming or SP property -- with
this ordinance effectively making it nonconforming -- if they wanted to expand or add on a building
addition, they could make the application for an SP that would be reviewed by the Board and
Commission.
Ms. More stated that her other question pertained to whether sewer would be reviewed in size and
scale and appropriateness for those properties needing water and sewer.
Mr. Fritz responded that in the staff report, they pointed out that one of the advantages of the ZTA was
that it allowed them to have an SP, which allowed them to do the review to determine if it would be a
substantial detriment to adjacent properties and whether it was consistent with the character of the
district -- and the ordinance gave the opportunity to do all those things, with one being consideration
r of whether it was consistent with public health, safety, and general welfare.
Mr. Dotson asked how this ZTA impacted the church in Earlysville
Mr. Fritz explained that it was a representative from the church who reminded him that the previous
ordinance that went to the Board had a provision that said any structure existing as of the date of
adoption could make use of any of the by -right uses that existed in the ordinance prior to the adoption
of the ordinance, provided there was no change to the site other than maintenance and signage. He
explained that if there was a building in Earlysville that currently had a church that wanted to leave --
and an eating establishment wanted to go in there -- providing there were no changes to the site other
than maintenance and signage and interior renovations, this ordinance would have no impact.
Ms. Spain commented that on the first page, second paragraph, the language stated, "The proposed
amendment would make uses by right in rural areas district available to properties zoned..." and she
asked if this was available by right and by special permit.
Mr. Fritz responded that only by -right uses would be permitted, and the last of the uses in the C1
district says, Uses permitted by right pursuant to Subsection 10.2.1. of Section 10.2 Rural Areas,
provided that the use is not served by public water or central water system. He explained that if there
were a four -acre commercial property and the owner said there was no commercial viability, but they
wanted to put two houses on it, current regulations would not allow it -- but this change would.
Ms. Spain asked if it could say, "Permitted by right in the rural areas district, available by right, two
I%wproperties zoned commercial."
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 5
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Fritz responded that it was just poor wording on his part, the idea is that if there is a piece of
property zoned commercially without public water and sewer, a landowner has all the by right RA uses
available -- and that is what the ordinance states.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing.
Ms. Riley stated that there was one person signed up to speak, Scott Knight.
Mr. Scott Knight addressed the Commission and stated that he is the pastor of Rivanna Community
Church. Mr. Knight commented that the ZTA had already been harmful to the church and has had "a
chilling effect" on potential buyers for the property, with one contract lost because of the shadow this
has cast over it -- as well as losing the contract on the property they were planning to move into, which
would have saved about $75OK in building expenses.
Mr. Knight commented that a piecemeal approach was not appropriate, and not knowing what would
be happening to the property was especially bad. He said that what was before them did not get rid of
the 400-gallons-per-day regulation that was the problem the ZTA was originally billed to fix, as well as
being the stated reason for the ZTA in the resolution of intent. He said that the language was back in
this version of the ZTA and the proposal seemed like it should be a nonstarter in terms of what the
County had repeatedly told the church as being the reason for the amendment. He added that this did
not even accomplish what the Board of Supervisors wanted to accomplish in the ZTA, and he was
shocked when he didn't see the grandfathering clause -- which was one example of why it needed
more work.
Mr. Knight said that his plea to the Board was to slow down and do this right, but they seemed to be
having the same conversation as they were six months earlier. He noted that the grandfathering clause
was important to the church, and they ended up spending a lot of money to finish a site plan in time for
the June hearing. He added that the Board had indicated in June that they were going to seek property
owners' involvement in fixing the ZTA and perhaps even making a council that included property
owners, but none of that happened. He said that some of the flaws in the amendment could be easily
fixed if property owners were invited into the process, and he was frustrated and disappointed that it
hadn't happened -- and letters had not gone out to property owners about this Commission meeting.
Mr. Knight said that it was also frustrating to hear how easy it might be to do an SP, but on this side
from someone who had applied for an SP and knew people who had applied, it was extraordinarily
costly at tens of thousands of dollars and took three to six months -- with denial possible at the end of
that. He added that the things being moved from by right to SP were considered by property owners to
be lost by -right uses.
Ms. Ruth Dalsky of Keswick commented that she was affected by the development of C1 property in
their rural area, and she supported the amendment because the only protection homeowners had was
to have property owners who wanted to develop go through the SP process to ensure the
establishment was suited for the area, was responsible, and considered the rights of the property
owners. She added that this was needed for the protection of other property owners in the area.
Mr. Gordon Sutton of Tiger Fuel Company said he would echo Mr. Knight's comments about how
abrasive the SP process had been in their experience. He said that staff presented it as a seamless, easy *00
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 6
FINAL MINUTES
process to go through -- but it was an onerous, expensive process that put severe restrictions on a
business to the point it was no longer feasible. He added that he also objected to the amendment on
the pretenses that convenience stores would be by right, as he did not understand why the use would
need to be called out as a by -right use unless it was found to be inconsistent with the rural landscape --
which he did not find to be the case with country stores because they often carried goods and services
that were a real benefit to rural area residents.
Mr. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environment Law Center addressed the Commission and stated the
SELC felt the proposal was consistent with the direction the Board gave to address the incompatibility
of the zoning on these parcels and their rural area designation in the Comp Plan. He stated that the
SELC's main comment was a question, as the new proposed ordinance language would allow the four
uses as by -right uses when they were served by public water or a central water system, and they would
require a special use permit if they were not served by one.
Mr. Butler clarified that the SELC's question stemmed from the fact there were different subcategories
of what it meant to have "public water service," ranging from full-fledged water service to
subcategories that included water only to an existing structure or limited service. He said that their
question was how the by -right versus SP question be resolved for parcels having a more limited water
designation and whether they would be interpreted as being served by public water, making the uses
by right, or not by public water, making the uses require an SP.
Mr. Butler cited an example of a parcel with C1 zoning on it but was in the rural area and currently
having a structure being used for an antique shop, with the parcel granted water service to the existing
structure only. He asked if it would be deemed under this ordinance language to be served by public
water and therefore be able to change that use in that structure from the antique shop to a restaurant
for a convenience store without first obtaining a special use permit. He said that the SELC felt it was not
clear in the draft ordinance language but needed to be, as they did not feel it would be consistent with
the Comp Plan for that parcel to be able to develop more intensive uses by right.
Mr. Butler stated that the reasons the parcels had more limited water service designation was likely
because the Board determined at some point there was a public health or safety issue that required
extending water service in that limited fashion -- not because the Board made a broader determination
that this parcel was suitable and appropriate for much more intensive commercial development. He
added that in those instances where the parcels have a more limited water service designation, they
shouldn't be to be deemed to be served by public water and have the uses be by right -- they should
still require the special use permit. Mr. Butler emphasized that the SELC hoped it could be made clear
in the ordinance so there weren't problems in the future.
Mr. Williamson addressed the Commission and stated that the ordinance as it was written with 400
gallons was flawed, but the new proposal was also flawed. He said that it talked about by -right versus
SP processes, and the special use permit process showed that so many issues that were not really
about the use were more of a permission and less of a standard. Mr. Williamson said that businesses
and individual landowners could use by right with strict objective standards, and the work done on this
moves the ball forward just a little bit -- but there was a lot more work ahead and he wasn't sure what
benefit there was in breaking it into two parts.
Mr. Maynard Sipe, land use attorney and planner with Boyd & Sipe, commented that the original nexus
of this effort was to address water issues and usage, which this amendment did not do. He said that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-DECEMBER 11, 2018 7
FINAL MINUTES
staff indicated it was the first piece of a project that they had expected to do more work on and might
even reconsider the uses in what was proposed, which showed him that this might need more analysis
and thought. Mr. Sipe commented that in many states, having a by -right use and special use, the
special use was still considered a permitted use and people were entitled to it if they met certain
standards -- but Virginia was unique in many ways, including how it treated special uses as a legislative
decision by the Board. He said that Mr. Herrick had stated he did not feel it was a piecemeal
downzoning, but he did not say he did not feel it was a downzoning in general. Mr. Sipe stated that he
felt this was an appropriate way to look at it and thus should get more careful consideration, so this
probably needed more work.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing and brought the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Firehock asked Mr. Fritz to address the comment relating to public engagement and letters not
sent to property owners. She also asked if he could address Mr. Butler's comment related to parcels
with public water to only an existing structure.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff had sent notice only to those people for which there was contact with
the prior zoning text amendment and identifying every property that would be impacted by this was
not possible because it said, "for properties not served by public water." He said that if a property was
in a jurisdictional designation of "no service," it did not have access to water; if it was designated as
"limited," they would have to go back to when the jurisdictional area was established to determine
what the limitations were on it. Mr. Fritz commented that there were properties that had limited
service because they only had sewer service and not water; some had water service to only a few
structures on the property; and some had water only to existing structures.
Mr. Fritz said that they could identify the "no service," but there was a category that included
properties in the jurisdictional area for water or sewer but were developed without connection to
public water for one reason or another. He stated that the J.W. Sieg facility on Route 29 South was in
the jurisdictional area for both public water and sewer but was developed without connection to public
water because it was too far away to reach it. He added that it would be impossible to identify every
property like that. Mr. Fritz noted that in the case of an antique property that only had water to the
existing structure, that use has water and the designation of the jurisdictional boundary to water only
would be that the use had water to the structure -- and if the use within the structure changed, it still
had water. He said that if it was a limited service designation, it might have been limited to a particular
use, so that would have to be considered. He added that it was easy to do and would need to be done
on a parcel -by -parcel basis.
Mr. Keller commented that at the last session and this one, they had adjoining property owners come
forward and discuss potential impacts to their properties, so there seemed to be a logical trend that if
there was a decision made for the Board of Supervisors' public hearing to notify property owners, there
would also be a need to notify adjacent property owners.
Ms. Riley asked who received notice for this particular public hearing.
Mr. Fritz responded that he did not have the list with him, but it was not a very extensive list and may
have been about 8-10 people, adding that Rebecca Ragsdale had an email distribution list she was
using with people who were engaged and involved with the ZTA -- and that was the list he had used.
In
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 8
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Firehock recalled that in earlier meetings, that had gotten a list of parcels in all the affected
districts, with each Commissioner looking to see which properties and how many. She asked if that was
only a sub -list or for example list.
Mr. Fritz responded that Ms. Ragsdale had developed the list, which went through and provided all the
properties not served by public water and sewer -- and he did not recall whether it included limited
service and water only to existing structures, but it would not have picked up properties in the
jurisdictional area that were not served by water due to distance or other factors.
Ms. Firehock commented that she thought the entire list would have received notice of this meeting,
because they were identified as affected properties.
Mr. Fritz stated that the list included industrial and commercial properties, so some would drop off, but
staff did not notify because it was a ZTA and not a rezoning.
Ms. Firehock said that it was a change in legal status from by right to SP.
Mr. Fritz responded that the State Code has provisions as to when to notify for rezonings, and this did
not fit under that notification requirement.
Mr. Herrick pointed out that this was publicly advertised so they met the requirements for public
advertising for this hearing, but there was not a requirement for this type of public hearing to
individual property owners -- and that requirement was filled with public advertisement.
00- Ms. Firehock clarified that she was not questioning the legality of anything, but Mr. Knight had
mentioned the Board of Supervisors promising more in terms of engagement.
Mr. Fritz stated that with the broader analysis staff was doing, they planned to do something much
broader than what was done for this smaller -scale project.
Mr. Dotson said that on page 3 of Attachment B related to Highway Commercial, there was a list of
items -- the last of which was convenience stores, stating "public water or a central sewer."
on
Mr. Fritz clarified that it should be "a central water system" and confirmed that it was just a typo.
Mr. Dotson stated that the next agenda item proposed removing "eating establishments" from the
definition, and he wondered how that aligned with this ZTA.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff was aware of that, and whichever one went first or last would have to be
cleaned up to reflect the other and make them match.
Mr. Dotson commented that he also thought the 400-gallon provision was being removed, but when he
read Highway Commercial in Attachment B, page 4, it seemed that item 11 still stated that limit.
Mr. Fritz explained that the plain text language of item 11 was what was already in the ordinance, and
the underlined language section references were eating establishments, fast food, convenience store,
and automobile service station. He said that this left the 400-gallon provision in the ordinance, so for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-DECEMBER 11, 2018 9
FINAL MINUTES
other uses they were still going to have to go through -- but for those four uses, they would not need to
do an analysis of the 400 gallons.
Ms. More said that she was struggling with the idea of public water and examples that were raised, as
well as what Ms. Firehock had asked about water to an existing structure, and she understood Mr. Fritz
to say it would be really hard to break out those from the set of circumstances from those served by
public water.
Mr. Fritz responded that they can identify all those properties, but he can't tell whether a property that
is a commercially zoned property with limited service would be affected by this ordinance, because he
would not know what the limited service was on the property or what might be proposed on it -- and
he would have to go look at all of them.
Ms. More asked about a scenario in which properties were taken one by one.
Mr. Fritz explained that staff would look at the action taken by the Board of Supervisors to put it in the
jurisdictional area with a designation of limited service and look at it to see what limits the Board put
on the water service -- and whether it was limited to a particular use, a time period, a volume amount,
fire service only, etc. He confirmed for Ms. More that a use could change slightly without triggering the
special use property, citing an example of a limited meter size and a new use wanting to go in that still
met those parameters. He added that if a larger meter were required to meet building code
requirements for that use and the limited service said you were limited to a particular size, then you
would not be served by public water.
Ms. More said that she liked the part about conserving properties and their values, which she felt
spoke to both sides of the property value issue and addressed nearby residents as well as property
owners -- so notifying everyone affected could be challenging but was important to consider in thinking
about property values. She said that she appreciated the provision to look at substantial detriment, the
character of the area, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan because it allowed staff to look at
it in the bigger context of each property.
Ms. Riley asked Mr. Fritz to describe what the next phase would look like with these changes, as there
were concerns about the uncertainty of the process, and to address the timeline.
Mr. Fritz responded that the timeline was tricky because he was trying to go through and look at every
relevant property in the rural areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan and figure out any patterns
or characteristics that could be used so performance standards could be utilized. He said that for
example, the 250 East corridor was very different than a piece of commercial or industrial property that
was not adjacent to anything or even on a major highway. Mr. Fritz noted that the planned approach
was to look at every property and its characteristics, then come up with some guidelines to be used. He
added that he was trying to come up with a way to make uses that would be by -right or with
performance standards, with a special exception instead of a special use permit -- and build into a ZTA
the predictability for the property owners and adjoining property owners so they know what the
impacts are or may be in the future, and that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fritz
emphasized that this was tricky to do because there was no template, which meant there was no
timeline, and there would need to be some work sessions and discussions.
Mr. Bivins asked for an explanation of what an "ethical pharmacy" was.
In
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 10
FINAL MINUTES
M
Mr. Fritz responded that he did not know but the zoning administrator could answer that, adding that
his favorite term of all time was "automobile laundry."
Mr. Bivins also mentioned language stating, "It is expected to have a density similar to the city," and he
asked if that could be clarified to specify "Charlottesville." He commented that the city was thinking
seriously about its density, so if the county were going to follow that path, he would like for it to be
explicit in some way.
Mr. Fritz emphasized that it would be in the minutes, but he could not change it because it was
language directly from the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bivins noted that he was just putting a placeholder in. He said that in Attachment B, item 5
referenced libraries, and he asked if a library/museum deciding to put a restaurant in would need to do
anything, or if it was already permitted.
Mr. Fritz responded that this would be a situation in which the zoning administrator had to make
interpretations and having a restaurant or food service there would need to be evaluated in terms of
whether it was normal and customarily accessory to the operation of a library or museum -- which
seems to be a likely "yes." He said that the second consideration would be how small a library or
museum would get before it was no longer normal and customary. He added that just because it says
"library/museum" doesn't mean it couldn't also have another use, such as a financial institution,
because both of those uses are listed. He noted that it sometimes became an issue for the zoning
administrator because compounding two or more uses can actually create an entirely new use.
Mr. Bivins commented that at one point, the property in Earlysville was a restaurant, and he asked if
they would be allowed to revert to that use if they wanted to go back to being a restaurant.
Mr. Fritz responded that they would not as the ordinance was currently written, but as Mr. Knight
pointed out, with the language included in the ZTA that went to the Board of Supervisors in August, the
answer was yes unless it did not make exterior changes beyond normal maintenance and signage.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was a way to get that language back into this process.
Mr. Fritz responded that the Commission could say they recommended including it in the language, and
staff would carry that forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dotson asked for clarification that their concern was with properties zoned commercial but
designated rural.
Mr. Fritz explained that it was not a perfect equation and they could not use the Comprehensive Plan
because it was not parcel specific, so the best and closest parameter staff could find that would
designate a property as rural was the jurisdictional boundary the Board of Supervisors has set for the
Albemarle County Service Authority. He added that one of the things taken into consideration under
that scenario is the Comprehensive Plan designation, so that was the best tool staff had in this
instance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 11
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson commented that this was essentially a hybrid situation with urban zoning and a rural
designation, so they were grappling with how to reconcile and resolve that -- and the proposal had no
particular effect on commercial zoning countywide and impacted commercially zoned properties that
were designated rural.
Mr. Fritz responded that this was a fair analogy of what was happening but was not a perfect match,
adding that they took the jurisdictional boundary amendment into consideration and realized there
were some properties located that were clearly in the rural areas of the Comprehensive Plan but had
been designated for water and sewer service. He emphasized that this was an active decision by the
Board to say that the property was appropriate for some intense development and then provide it with
water and sewer -- so staff has proceeded on the basis that this decision had been made.
Mr. Dotson said that in terms of notification, the list that Ms. Firehock referred to earlier was an easily
generated list of those zoned commercial and designated rural. He stated that he was hearing some
interest from the Commissioners in having more notice to those property owners even if it didn't cover
all the subtle categories mentioned by staff. He added that since having this hybrid situation -- zoned
commercial but designated rural -- that was a special situation and it seemed reasonable to him to have
special handling through an SP for those situations.
Ms. More stated that Mr. Fritz had discussed the time it would take to look at the nature of different
properties by right with performance standards based on adjacency, and she asked if the four
categories that didn't have water would always fall into what staff was suggesting here.
Mr. Fritz responded that there was a lot of other work to do, and if they felt it was appropriate to
revisit this because if they came up with something that worked, they would at least recommend these 140
again -- and it may or may not be revisited, but there was no certainty because it was unsure what any
new products would be.
Ms. Firehock commented that at the top of page 5 of the staff report, the language stated that "the
amendment would require a special use permit for certain uses not served by public water or a central
water system," and she asked if it was correct to say that the amendment would require an SP for
certain new uses.
Mr. Fritz replied that it would apply to proposed uses.
Ms. Firehock noted that the current uses would be covered, because if there was a current use an
applicant would not come in for a SP -- but a new use would. She added that an existing use would
continue unless it was stopped for a period of two years, in which case it would lose its use status --
then the new owner would have to come in for a special use permit.
Mr. Fritz confirmed her points and said the nonconforming use would continue.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Fritz to address Mr. Butler's question about different structures on a parcel.
Mr. Fritz explained that if there was a piece of property that had water only to the existing structure
and an owner wanted to convert the use within that structure from its current use into a convenience
store, they would be able to do it because the designation was water only to the existing structure -- it
didn't say water only to a specific use, as that might be a limited use description. He added that water *04
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 12
FINAL MINUTES
only to an existing structure could provide for conversion of the use within the structure to a by -right
use because it had water.
Mr. Keller said that the other half of the question would relate to the addition of a new structure.
Mr. Fritz responded that if there was a new structure added, it would not be eligible for water because
the jurisdictional designation was water only to existing structures, and if a new structure were
proposed it would not have water -- so the use within it would not have water and it would require an
Sp.
Ms. More asked what would happen if the new use needed more parking.
Mr. Fritz replied that they would get a site plan, explaining that the designation was to the structure
and not to the property as it currently looked.
Ms. Firehock commented that a nonconforming use that needed to expand parking would be
expansion of a nonconforming use and would need permission to do that, which may trigger a special
use permit where none currently existed.
Mr. Fritz confirmed this, stating that if there was a nonconforming use that wanted to expand, the
function of the nonconformity was that you cannot expand.
Ms. Firehock said that was probably causing concern amongst people who had uses that would now
become nonconforming.
*4rw
Ms. Riley stated that it was important to understand what the definition of "expansion" was, as in the
case of someone wanting to put in new lighting or parking but not a new structure, and she asked Mr.
Fritz to provide some examples of expansion.
on
Mr. Fritz responded that putting in additional parking would be an expansion of the nonconforming use
and putting in lighting would not be an expansion unless the nonconformity was not complying with
the lighting provisions. He said that Section 6 dealt specifically with nonconforming uses, and the
zoning administrator looked to see whether you were expanding that use -- and if you were expanding
it, you need to come into compliance
Ms. Spain asked about the technicality regarding the difference between a public hearing and work
session and asked why they were doing a public hearing instead of a work session -- as the public could
comment at work sessions. She asked if this public hearing meant that the timing was important in
terms of coming to closure on this part of the ZTA amendment.
Mr. Fritz responded that they scheduled things for public hearing when something had a fairly narrow
scope, as in this case, and it was not uncommon to forego holding a work session -- and the
Commission and public could provide comments that would be provided to the Board of Supervisors.
He added that if they felt it was appropriate to refer it back to the Commission for additional analysis or
a work session, they could do so or hold their own work session.
Ms. Spain noted that she was having trouble understanding when closure would occur.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 13
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Fritz explained that with this ZTA, closure would hopefully occur when it went to the Board of
Supervisors, and then when the larger analysis of properties was finished, it would involve roundtables,
a work session or two, and a public hearing with the Commission and Board. He said that at that time,
hopefully the 400-gallon use issue would be resolved.
Ms. Spain said that the piecemeal approach would go into effect as it was passed by the Board.
Mr. Fritz confirmed this.
Mr: Keller asked if a Commissioner was ready to make a motion.
Ms. Firehock said that ideally, they would take the four uses -- eating establishments, fast food,
automobile service station, and convenience stores -- and spend the time to try to break out the
criteria under which they would need to have an SP in terms of setting, situation, access, and
surrounding uses. She stated that his example of a convenience store on Route 250 versus other
locations was relevant, as they varied based on where they were situated, and different criteria could
apply. She asked if it was too difficult to break them down depending on setting and by -right use versus
SP.
Mr. Fritz responded that this was being considered for the comprehensive analysis and for this
particular ZTA they did that because they were looking at country stores in the rural areas, which
looked very similar to these four uses. He said they tried to come up with a way to use a designation
that would match two properties located adjacent to each other -- but water was the only tool they
had to do that. Mr. Fritz noted that one rural property designated in the Comprehensive Plan with a
convenience store applied for a special use permit; a property zoned commercially but was in the rural
areas in the Comprehensive Plan could potentially do it by right. He emphasized that they still had to
address the water issue because it was in the ordinance, so those properties would be treated similarly
if they were in a similar setting.
Ms. Firehock commented that she understood that they were trying to avoid overusing aquifers, which
have not been mapped and did not have capacity information, but there was a lot of difference
between the water use of a convenience store and eating establishment. She added that Restore `N
Station did not get close to the water limit, and she did not see how they were in the same category as
eating establishments.
Mr. Fritz explained that they were because of what was listed in Section 5 as what could go into a
country store, which was how the uses were picked up -- and food sales was a permitted use within a
country store, up to 49%, with 51% having to be used for the store.
Mr. Bivins stated that he would certainly appreciate the opportunity to have the grandfathering clause
included if they moved this forward to the Board.
Mr. Herrick responded that it was already part of the zoning ordinance -- Chapter 18, Section 30.6 --
but was not in the ZTA before them.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that what they were referring to was a little bit different, and he referenced the
old proposed ordinance from August, noting that there was a clause proposed that essentially said if
the building was existing as of the date of adoption of the ordinance, it would be able to make use of all *90
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 14
FINAL MINUTES
the by -right uses within that building. He said that the ZTA referencing non -service by public water
would not apply. He emphasized that what was in the current proposal was a reference to the
nonconformity section of the ordinance that provided for continuance of use into perpetuity, unless it
was discontinued for two years or more, and expansion would require a special use permit.
Mr. Bivins commented that this was different from what was included in August, which was more
generous in its look at the building and history of the building.
Mr. Fritz said that the specific that the member of the public who spoke about the property in
Earlysville was referencing meant that if a property was sold and intended for a new use, with the
appropriate provision it would be permitted -- even though it wasn't served by public water, and the
County could write such a provision.
Ms. Riley asked how it would read.
Mr. Fritz responded that he did not want to craft the exact language now, but it could be crafted such
that it pertained to any existing building on the date of adoption of the ordinance.
Mr. Herrick said that he was looking at a document that was a draft from May 2018 and asked if it
might work: "Uses permitted by right or by special use permit in the commercial C1, CO, and Highway
Commercial HC districts, collectively general commercial uses as used in Section 26.3, not otherwise
expressly authorized by this section either by right or by special use permit, within structure existing or
vested on the date of adoption."
*4W. Mr. Fritz said that would be one technique, and another would be to add to the language "eating
establishment served by public water or a central water system" the text "or located in a structure
existing on" and have a specific date. He stated that there were several approaches and they wanted to
work with the zoning administrator to see what read the easiest, with as few words as possible.
cm
Ms. Firehock said that eating establishments could apply to all four of these and Mr. Fritz confirmed
this.
Ms. Firehock stated that she would strongly support that, adding that she lives in Albemarle County's
most southern point in the Samuel Miller District, where there are a number of rural stores. She said
that one had been for sale for four years and at some point the owners would want to retire, and she
asked what would happen if it didn't continue for two or three years while they tried to sell it.
Mr. Fritz responded that this would take care of that.
Ms. Firehock said that she could think of another store that was currently empty but would be a great
site for someone to open the business back up. She emphasized that it was a very tough real estate
market in southern Albemarle, so the likelihood that a use would discontinue because it couldn't be
sold was very high -- and that led to attrition of very vital rural services.
Mr. Keller asked if there was that provision in existence for the crossroads communities.
Mr. Fritz affirmed this, stating that the Comprehensive Plan addresses reuse of existing structures.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 15
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Keller said that could have gone out of use for more than two years, and he recalled that Mr.
Kamptner had said that if someone did a deed search and found it, that could be an argument for
instituting that use even if it was not showing on the map.
Mr. Andy Herrick clarified that in order to maintain a legal nonconforming use, it had to have not been
abandoned for more than two years; he said that he was not familiar with the specifics of the case
being referenced or what Mr. Kamptner had stated.
Mr. Keller responded that it pertained to country stores.
Mr. Herrick said that it would need to be a fact -specific determination by the zoning administrator as to
whether the use had lapsed for a period of more than two years.
Mr. Fritz pointed out the country store provision pertained to country stores existing prior to 1965, and
it became a Class A country store.
Mr. Keller asked if they could have the zoning administrator weigh in on this since she was present.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Albemarle County Zoning Administrator, stated that a lot of what they were
referencing would be zoned rural areas as opposed to commercial -- so they would be dealing with
country stores instead of properties that would be impacted by the ZTA.
Mr. Keller said that was understood, but they were grappling with rural issues and there were
extremely rural places that were affected, as well as extremely urban places adjacent or close to the
development area. He stated that Ms. Firehock seemed to be referring to the extremely rural ones that
were not served by public water, which comprised a subset of what they were discussing.
Mr. Fritz replied that they were probably not zoned commercially but were rural uses on RA property.
Ms. Firehock noted that they were convenience stores.
Mr. Fritz replied that he had done some quick research looking at all the country stores and found one
country store that was on a piece of property zoned commercially that was not served by public water -
- and that was the one in Earlysville. He said that all the other country stores are on properties zoned
RA, both Class A and Class B, and they were not affected by this at all.
Mr. Keller said that this was relevant on the one hand, but it was not relevant to this discussion
because they were addressing commercially zoned properties from back in the 8Os in the rural areas.
He stated that regarding Mr. Bivins point, he was inclined to be supportive of the property owners they
were talking about here, but he also felt that a compelling argument had been made by the public
twice now about the adjoining property owners and the impact there. He said that his question was if
this was going to go from special use to by right, what the mechanism would be for those adjoining
property owners to be able to be notified and to weigh in on the appropriateness in a by -right
situation. He asked if they were in effect losing that right through the changes made if the County
accepted this resolution.
Mr. Fritz replied that in a word, "no", because if a property currently was served by public water, then
the 400-gallon issue was not in play and it was a by -right use. The applicant would file their site plan
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 16
FINAL MINUTES
application and it would be processed It would be a ministerial process. He said that this did not affect
those properties at all, so if the zoning text amendment was approved, that property served by public
water would still be a by -right use, and the piece of property not served by public water right may or
may not need a special use permit because the 400-gallon analysis would be required now under the
ordinance. He explained that under the proposed ordinance, it would need a special use permit, which
meant the adjacent property owners would receive notice and be able to appear at the public hearings.
Mr. Keller said but if there was any by right, the adjacent property owners were not notified.
Mr. Fritz replied they were notified only of the site plan, and that was what would happen today and
what would happen after this zoning text amendment was approved -- so it would have no impact on
any property that was by right today, and it would be by right tomorrow also.
Mr. Keller asked if someone was prepared to make a motion on this and said that Mr. Bivins had an
idea for a motion with a modification.
Mr. Bivins replied that he did but did not necessarily have the appropriate grandfather language. He
said that if having Mr. Fritz provide that could be a caveat to move forward here, then he would move
that they approve the proposed zoning text amendment as discussed and presented but with
modification that language be inserted that treated existing properties the way they had intended at
the August 2018 meeting. Mr. Bivins apologized that he did not have the exact language but said they
may recall the struggle that took place around trying to have something put in to be helpful to those
properties.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited further discussion.
Mr. Dotson said he questioned whether they would like to stipulate that before the Board of
Supervisors public hearing, a wider public notice of properties would take place of those zoned
commercially and designated rural in the manner that they were notified in the earlier ZTA matters.
Mr. Bivins accepted the modification.
Mr. Keller asked how the Commissioners felt about the adjacent property owners being notified.
Ms. Riley suggested that they keep it to the property owners because this was directly affecting those,
and any future process if a property owner decided to go forward with a special use permit, at that
point the adjacent owners would be notified -- but she would keep it to the property owners currently.
Mr. Keller said he would agree, but what they were doing with approval of this was suggesting that a
lot were going to go from special use to by right, in which case they were not going to be notified.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that no one who by special use permit now was moving to by right -- and if you
were by right now, it would be by right under what was proposed. He said if anything, there were some
that potentially might be by right today that were moving into the special use permit category.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -DECEMBER 11, 2018 17
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. More said that knowing that not all of those from the list of properties provided before would be
affected by this if they were to do notification, she felt that notifying other people adjacent to
properties was important, as mentioned by a speaker from the public earlier. She emphasized that the
last time they considered this, there was a lot of concern about those unnotified property owners
versus those who had been affected and knew to come to the meetings. She reiterated that they were
only notifying those who were perceived to have potential issues with it if it passed and not those who
may see this as something helpful to their properties and values.
Mr. Dotson stated that when Commissioner Riley was speaking about this question, he agreed with her
analysis that the abutting owners could be notified at such time that a special use permit application
would come in -- and he felt it would be difficult to notify and the extent to go to potentially impacted
properties.
Ms. More responded that this would only be the case if this passed through the Board, and if they only
heard from people whose properties were directly affected, they were not hearing from citizens
nearby. She said that she was willing to let it go and did understand the challenge of notifying those
other owners, but she was concerned about those residents as well.
Mr. Keller said there was a motion and a second.
Mr. Dotson said he was proposing greater property owner notification of this ZTA and asked the maker
of the motion if they would accept this suggested amendment.
Mr. Bivins noted that he had accepted the modification to his motion that there would be a notice
provision.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff had enough direction if that was approved.
Mr. Fritz replied what staff heard was that the Commission would like them to notify all the properties
they could reasonably identify as being impacted by this zoning text amendment.
Mr. Keller asked for a roll call.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller thanked staff and the Commissioners and said that it would be interesting to watch this
move through. He stated that the Commission would take a five-minute break.
The meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:44 p.m.
WORK SESSIONS
ZTA-2017-00011 Section 3 Rules of Construction and Definitions
This work session will provide information regarding potential changes to Section 3 of the ordinance,
including the addition of Rules of Construction for interpretation of the ordinance and term and
definition changes. These term and definition changes include: non -substantive formatting,
capitalization, and ordering changes; moving terms and definitions throughout Chapter 18 into Section
3; removal of outdated terms or terms unused in the Zoning Ordinance; definition or term changes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 18
FINAL MINUTES
intended to clarify standing practice of ordinance interpretations; addition of terms used in the Zoning
Ordinance but not currently defined; replacing outdated or confusing terms with modern, consistent
terms; and combining two terms for consistency and clarity or codifying long-standing current practice.
(Lea Brumfield)
Mr. Keller said that the next item was a work session ZTA-2017-00011 Section 3 Rules of Construction
and Definitions, and because the first agenda item had taken longer than expected and there was space
on the agenda the following week to address this -- and give the small area plan matter adequate time -
- he asked Mr. Gast -Bray for direction.
Mr. Gast -Bray stated that given the lighter agenda for December 18, he would encourage a motion to
defer the ZTA-2017-11 to that time to enable the third topic for discussion at this meeting to go
forward.
Ms. More moved to defer ZTA-2017-00011 Section 3 Rules of Construction and Definitions to the
meeting of December 18, 2018.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion.
Mr. Keller invited discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Keller said the next item was the work session on CPA-2018-00003 Pantops Master Plan.
Work Session
CPA 2018-00003 Pantops Master Plan
Staff presented an update on draft amendments to the Pantops Master Plan, including the public
outreach process and proposed revisions to the plan's vision statement & guiding principles, land use &
center types, green infrastructure and transportation networks, and implementation and capital
projects. Many of the proposed revisions are intended to create consistency between the Pantops
Master Plan, other Master Plans, and new County implementation priorities that have occurred since
the plan's adoption in 2008. Staff also seeks guidance from the Commission on three land use decisions
that did not reach consensus during citizen meetings.
Cameron Langille, Senior Planner with the Planning Division of Community Development, stated that he
would lead the conversation of a work session for Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-03 and
said this was an update to the Pantops Master Plan. He then gave a PowerPoint presentation:
Purpose of meeting -
1. Background - Pantops Master Plan
• Current plan background.
• Overview of update process.
• Summary of the proposed revisions that we have come to consensus so far on.
2. Work Session
• Planning Commission input on three specific changes to the future land use plan in the
Pantops Master Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 19
FINAL MINUTES
Background Pantops Master Plan
• Originally adopted on March 17, 2008.
• The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors identified this update to the Master Plan as one of
its 8 top strategic priorities in the Albemarle County Fiscal Year 17-19 Strategic Plan — Strategic
Objective.
• June 2019 target adoption date.
With the Board's direction to begin this project staff from Community Development began a
public engagement/input process in January 2018.
• Public meetings with Pantops Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
• Information on the County website and online survey forms for feedback from the
members of the public that maybe could not attend those meetings.
• Staff from Department of Community Development, Parks & Recreation, Economic
Development, and Facilities & Environmental Services have all had a hand in this
engagement process so far and we all have been evaluating different aspects of the
proposed revisions to the master plan.
Mr. Langille pointed out this was not a total rewrite of the master plan, but they were looking at
updating what the 2008 Master Plan said to make it reflect current conditions on the ground, as well as
parts of that Master Plan which may be outdated and contained recommendations that no longer
applied or were no longer suitable. He said that was the main thing they were looking at updating with
this process and asked that everyone keep that in mind moving forward.
Mr. Langille said that Chapter 2 of the 2008 Master Plan was the vision statement and guiding
principles, and at the recommendation of the CAC members, there has been a large desire to revisit
Chapter 2 and look at some of the objectives and modify them. He stated that staff had taken the six
objectives in the 2008 plan and condensed them while retaining the objectives from 2008 that were
still relevant and adding new objectives as identified by the public and CAC. He said there were four
general themes that the six objectives from 2008 highlighted: land development, transportation,
community facilities, and open space and the environment. He said the bullets displayed on the slide
were not the finalized version of each objective in this plan update, but they captured the feedback
staff had received from the public. Mr. Langille noted that they would be further revised throughout
the writing process, and the bullet points were wording endorsed by the Pantops CAC at their
November 17 meeting:
Vision Plan and Guiding Principles
Land development:
• Encourage sustainable development and site design
• Encourage mixed -use and neighborhood -scale development and infill of suburban land use
patterns
• Protect existing neighborhoods and respect the rural character of surrounding areas
Transportation:
• Improve multimodal transportation options to, from, and through Pantops
Community facilities:
• Ensure coordination of development with infrastructure and community facilities
Open space & the environment:
• Balance new development with the strategic preservation of natural areas *04
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 20
FINAL MINUTES
OR
• Protect and enhance the relationship to the Rivanna River
• Protect and enhance viewsheds from Pantops
Land Use (As shown in maps on slide)
Mr. Langille said one of the biggest aspects of this revision of the master plan was focused on land use,
and Chapter 4 of the 2008 plan was the future land use recommendations for the entire Pantops
Development Area. He stated that some general themes had emerged, and they were not looking at
every single property on Pantops and proposing to change its future land use classification; there were
some general things such as proposed reclassification or name change of some of the options at
Pantops, so it matched more recently adopted master plans.
Mr. Langille referenced a slide showing that adopted land use as the 2008 Plan's future land use plan
and explained that the "Urban Mixed Use" classification was only seen in the Pantops Master Plan. He
stated that Attachment D was a table showing the recommended classification in this update and the
allowable uses there.
Mr. Langille stated that the name was proposed to be changed to "Community Mixed Use", which was
a designation available in the Places 29 Master Plan and Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods
Master Plan. He said it was virtually the same in terms of the uses that are allowed there, with some
changes to the performance standards such as square footage of buildings for certain use types, but it
remained fairly consistent.
Mr. Langille said that in looking at existing zoning districts on certain properties and development
applications that have been approved and constructed since 2008, some of those properties have a
land use designation that was different than what the use was today. He noted that the 2008 plan had
"Neighborhood Density Residential" as its lowest density residential future land use, and there are
some properties in Pantops that had zoning that allowed for densities higher than what "Neighborhood
Density Residential" called for -- with development applications coming through since 2008. He stated
that with input from the CAC, staff was proposing to upzone them to "Urban Density Residential" to
reflect existing density.
Mr. Langille stated that the 2008 plan had a classification called "Greenspace" that was being renamed
to "Parks & Green Systems", and this update would pull that back a bit so it fit where there are existing
environmental features such as 100-year floodplain, the managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay
District, and Water Protection Ordinance stream buffers. He noted that staff was trying to ensure that
the future land use plan captured all the environmental features already protected and that those
would be contained in the Parks & Green Systems designation.
Mr. Langille said that the last major thing to consider was the "center" designations, which include four
different types: "Core", "Community Center", "Neighborhood Service Center", and "Civic Green". He
said that with the update, they were hoping to call out two types of centers — "Urban Centers," the
areas that were most suitable and desirable for redevelopment as mixed -use projects that could be
served by public transit; and "Neighborhood Center", which was a slightly smaller designation. He
noted that there were also two districts: "Employment District", which was overtop of Martha
Jefferson Hospital and was meant to capture the properties along Peter Jefferson Parkway as the
primary employers at Pantops; and "Recreational District", where Darden Towe Park was as the main
public park and recreational amenity in Pantops.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -DECEMBER 11, 2018 21
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Langille stated that the 2008 Plan also had a "Parks & Green Systems" plan, which shows the
location of existing parks and recommended locations for future public parks. He said that it also
showed recommended future trail alignments throughout the development area, both in the northern
part of Pantops, which is primarily residential; and the southern portion of Pantops, which is
characterized by mostly commercial properties. He explained that staff updated the plan to show
existing trail networks constructed since 2008 and was retaining the 2008 plans for recommended trails
not yet constructed. He said that it also has labels for two new public parks recommended as
implementation projects.
Mr. Langille referenced a new map to be included in the updated plan, focused solely on pedestrian
connections -- sidewalks and greenway trails and private neighborhood trails that run through open
space. He stated that they had done a good survey on the location of where sidewalks exist currently in
Pantops, and proposed sidewalks were also noted and could be along streets that did not have
sidewalks, as well as locations where future streets were recommended. He said that the plan also
showed recommended access points to the Old Mills Trail along the Rivanna River.
Mr. Langille said there were two gray circles shown on the plan -- one at the intersection of Route 250
and Route 20, and one at the intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250 -- meant to represent the
general area where a future overhead pedestrian crossing could be located. He pointed out the
locations on a slide, noting the Pantops Shopping Center and other area business and commercial
properties.
Mr. Langille stated that there was a Framework Plan in the 2008 plan that reflected an actual street
transportation plan, and staff would rename it "Street Network and Intersection Improvements Plan."
He explained that it showed existing streets that had since been constructed and remaining portions
that had not been constructed but were recommended in the 2008 plan. He said they also called out
four intersections on the drawing that were in need of improvements -- either signalization or a
roundabout installed to increase traffic flow in its capacity. Mr. Langille noted that on both existing and
recommended future streets, they are cross -sections or future cross -sections if they were to be
improved. He stated that they had not yet finalized recommendations on what would be in those cross -
sections, but Boulevard was intended to handle the most traffic and highest capacity, then Avenue,
then Local Street, with Principal Arterial intended to be the arterial through Pantops.
Mr. Bivins asked where the pedestrian crossways were going to go.
Mr. Langille explained that it would go over Route 250 and connect the north side to the south side,
and it could basically be anywhere within the circle area as shown, as those were the two cores called
out on the land use plan.
Mr. Keller commented that people were increasingly using Route 20 to Proffit Road as a bypass and
asked if they were seeing those numbers approaching the level of Route 250.
Mr. Langille responded that he did not have those numbers on hand.
Mr. Gast -Bray stated that there is an effort to have distributed transportation as a key part of handling
traffic loads as they increase, but the amount of traffic is nowhere near on Route 20 what it is on Route
250, nor is it projected to be.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 22
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Langille commented that after they get through the work session questions, they have another
work session with the Planning Commission penciled in for January 22 -- and he would like to get
feedback as to whether any of the things he was discussing at the front of the presentation could be
revisited at that work session.
Mr. Langille reported that staff was proposing to add a new chapter to the master plan that wasn't in
the 2008 plan, and it would focus on economic development. He stated that it would be a relatively
short chapter, and the main goal was to make sure that the master plan supported the goals,
strategies, and objectives that would be in Project Enable, the Economic Development Office's plan for
Albemarle County. He added that in this chapter, they could also delve into identification of the
employment district as the area best suited for situating employment -generating uses within the
development area -- a concept supported by the land use plan.
Mr. Langille noted that the Pantops CAC and members of the public have said that the large buildings
associated with car dealerships along Route 250 could be repurposed for a multitude of uses in the
future if they were to be redeveloped, but there would be some text included that indicated it could be
used for economic development purposes.
Mr. Langille said that the Implementation chapter in the 2008 Master Plan was a few paragraphs and a
big, long list of actual projects that could be undertaken to implement the other goals in the master
plan. He mentioned that staff had taken the 2008 list and removed everything that had been
completed. He stated that they also looked at things that hadn't been completed yet and organized
them into the list, which contained new projects along with those that were not completed since 2008,
Mr. Langille said that the table had columns describing the project, the way it could be funded -- such
. as through the CIP or NIFI, or through private development. He noted that the list was endorsed by the
Pantops CAC at their November 19th meeting, with no objections to anything included.
Mr. Langille reported that the list was organized as transportation projects and parks and recreation
projects -- some of which were already underway. Mr. Langille said that the first project listed under
parks and recreation was the formation of the Pantops Trails Crew, which would be a group of
volunteers under the guidance of staff from the Department of Parks and Recreation. He explained that
the crew would go out to existing public trails in Pantops, such as the Old Mills Trail, and do some
weekend cleanup and try to keep things functioning. He mentioned the Crozet Trails Crew, which had
been operating for several years and was an excellent asset to the community in terms of keeping the
parks and rec system working well. He said that several members of the public had contacted staff, and
Dan Mahon was working with assembling the group now.
Mr. Langille reported that at the October 22"d Pantops CAC meeting, there were five specific land use
questions on which staff wanted to get consensus and endorsement on regarding changes to land use
designations on some properties. He stated that three of those did not have consensus, so staff
decided they would be the first thing brought to the Commission for input and ideas.
Mr. Langille stated that question one pertained to a land use designation -- not a property in particular
-- and that designation as proposed in this update to the plan. He explained that the 2008 plan had two
future land use classifications that staff was proposing to eliminate: "Employment Mixed Use and
Employment District". He said they were proposing to lump those in together now and call them
"Office/R&D/Flex", which was a land use designation used in other master plans. Mr. Langille noted
`+ that the uses were very similar, and it was basically the area that was the most employment generating
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 23
FINAL MINUTES
type of land use.
Mr. Langille stated that there had been no public opposition to changing that designation, but there
have been community concerns expressed about allowing light industrial uses, which is included in the
title of this designation in the other master plans, because they are felt to not be the most appropriate
uses at Pantops. He said that the vote at the Pantops CAC was 4:6 to eliminate LI from the use
classification, but staff believed that retaining LI would be appropriate here because it would allow for
further expansion of existing employment opportunities at Pantops. He emphasized that the LI
category excluded heavy industrial uses and things that would generate noise and pollution and would
otherwise be inconsistent with the character of the development area.
Mr. Langille said that any LI use would still need to comply with all the performance standards
contained in the zoning ordinance, which currently allowed manufacturing, processing, assembly,
fabrication, and recycling as permitted uses in all commercial zoning districts if the buildings are less
than 4,000 square feet. He noted that staff felt it was reasonable to retain light industrial, as the
Pantops area would have the most employment -generating uses.
Mr. Langille suggested that the Commission discuss these questions.
Mr. Keller said the Commission would take one at a time so they did not have to go over them twice.
Ms. Firehock said she wondered why some people were opposed to light industrial, but Mr. Langille
had gone to lengths in his staff report to explain that they were not talking about a use that had
noxious odors, loud noises, and other factors associated with heavy industrial.
Mr. Langille responded that staff heard concerns from members that live in a residential neighborhood
at the intersection of South Pantops Drive and State Farm Boulevard, but it was one of the only
residential neighborhoods in the southern side of Pantops. He said that the "purple" classification
proposed is in close proximity to their neighborhood, and industrial sounds scary if you are not familiar
with the entire scope of it. He added that he tried to point out in his staff report that there would be
quite a few restrictions on what would qualify as a light industrial use in this classification.
Ms. Firehock commented that it was helpful to hear that, and she did not have any problem with LI and
felt it was a good idea.
Ms. Riley said that if there was going to be more residential in the area, she would like to know where
the Martha Jefferson Hospital Apartments would be going and if other residential developments had
been approved in the area.
Mr. Langille responded that there were two by -right apartment complexes currently under review that
had initial site plan approval but did not have final site plans approved -- and one of them was currently
in the final site plan review process. He referenced the location of the MJH Apartments on the map
provided and said they did not have the final site plan yet; the other in that small area along South
Pantops Drive was another apartment complex called The Vistas at South Pantops, and its final site plan
was in review with staff currently. He said that the Vistas was proposing 144 dwelling units, which is a
figure he had on a later slide and could verify; the MJH Apartments would include approximately 282
units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 24
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson asked him to point out where neighbors were concerned about the term "industrial."
Mr. Langille noted the location on the map.
Mr. Carrazana commented that it seemed that better defining LI to those residents might help. He
explained that R&D can fall into light industrial, which goes hand in hand with certain R&D. He said that
he was not quite sure how to reconcile that if they took the LI out, but some people don't realize that
some pharmacies fall into the R&D classification. He said that it seemed to him to be very compatible
and would offer flexibility on how to develop that area, and several employers were in that area vying
for space. He added that they should be careful not to limit what can happen there, and he would
support keeping the light industrial.
Mr. Bivins stated that he would also support light industrial, and in thinking about places that would
integrate work and life more closely, this would help people live in this kind of community -- but he was
concerned about not being able to cross Route 250. He said that everyone can go up South Pantops,
but there is a group of individuals on the other side of 250 that it will provide additional possibilities if
they can cross it easily and without vehicles.
Ms. Spain mentioned that Mr. Langille had explained light industrial numerous times to the CAC
members, and what they would see in the split votes throughout the questions raised was a group of
people with different priorities for the area. She added that he had done an excellent job and was
extremely patient in the multiple CAC meetings held.
Mr. Dotson suggested that they identify some examples that people could go look at. He observed that
fir.• Commissioners seem to feel comfortable with the light industrial being added to that set of uses
because that was the convention in the other parts of the Comprehensive Plan where "LI" was part of
"Flex" and other uses. He stated that they would really like them to agree, but in the end the Board of
Supervisors would make a decision.
Ms. More stated that she was supportive of it, and Ms. Spain had answered her question about the
community engagement piece and the explanation of what it meant versus heavy industrial.
Mr. Keller said he was also supportive of it, and when they got to three, there was another one of what
the potential conflicts were between the park areas -- and many of them who were seeing these sorts
of developments occurring were particularly interested in the workforce and the workforce having
opportunities for onsite recreation. He said that by giving some examples, they might find some
employers in other locations developed as part of it and allowing surrounding property owners to use
the recreational amenities. He added that staff was going in the direction he was going in.
Ms. Riley concurred with fellow Commissioners on including light industrial.
Ms. Spain stated that she would also agree with including light industrial.
Mr. Langille reported that question two was looking at specific properties at Pantops and what land use
designation should be applied there. He said they were in the same general area, pointing out the
properties under consideration and stating that there were six separate properties located at the
northwest corner at the intersection of South Pantops Drive and State Farm Boulevard, all purchased
by Martha Jefferson Hospital in 2017. He stated that together they measured approximately 22 acres
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 25
FINAL MINUTES
and were currently undeveloped, and the environmental features map shows that the back of the
property contained some of the managed steep slopes overlay district.
Mr. Langille said that the western half was currently wooded, and the rest of the properties as you got
closer to State Farm Boulevard were open and did not have trees or anything on them. He added that
the properties were currently zoned CO, Commercial Office. He mentioned that the 2008 land use plan
called for public parks on about half of the properties, with the other half of the acreage called out for
urban mixed use. He said that staff was proposing to have the developable portions of the property
that did not contain the managed steep slopes and were not currently wooded to be within the R&D,
Flex, or Light Industrial classification because of their proximity to State Farm, Martha Jefferson, and
the overall employment district. He stated that at the October 22 CAC meeting, that was staff's
recommendation -- and the CAC had a 5:5 split vote, with their other option being having Community
Mixed Use instead of Office R&D and Flex. He pointed out the area under discussion and said everyone
was in agreement with the Parks & Green Systems designated area, but the question remained about
Community Mixed Use versus Office/R&D/Flex.
Ms. Firehock said that in looking at the 2018 land use and the Parks & Green System designation, it
seemed that the Parks & Green System got cut off from access to State Farm Boulevard -- as the green
went all the way up to the road in the 2008 land use plan. She stated that she would like to have a
sliver of green left going to State Farm Boulevard, so it was not cutting it off entirely.
Mr. Langille responded that staff was recommending creation of a new public park in this immediate
area, and the top right corner of the image shows a stormwater detention facility that captures the
storm water from the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center. He said that the 2008 plan called this out as a
public park and staff was keeping it as a recommendation in this update, with an evaluation done of
the pond and confirmation from staff in Facilities & Environmental Services and Parks & Recreation that
they would support acquiring the land for a park.
Mr. Langille stated that as part of the update of the Implementation chapter, staff was proposing to do
a public trail that would go through the Parks & Green Systems areas on the Martha Jefferson
properties, going down to South Pantops Drive and continuing to Old Mills Trail; going north, the trail
will go up to Rolkin Road and connect to the sidewalks within the shopping center area. He said that
currently, the County did a CIP project to install sidewalks along State Farm Boulevard and South
Pantops Drive -- so in theory, pedestrians would still have access to the Green System area even if it
didn't go up to State Farm.
Ms. Spain commented that she liked green avenues versus having to call the sidewalk a trail, and it
would be nice to have a green swath coming up to State Farm Boulevard and the future parkland.
Mr. Keller asked if the Sentara planners were involved in these discussions, as they obviously have a
significant amount of open space with trails -- and his sense was that a lot of this would be located
where Sentara-affiliated doctors would be in the long run.
Mr. Langille responded that County staff had engaged with some of the Martha Jefferson
administrative staff that work in the facilities division, who indicated that there were no specific plans
for what could go onto the properties. He said that County staff asked whether this configuration with
the Parks & Green Systems and Office R&D and Flex would be something MJH would oppose, and they
said absolutely not. He added that if they were to have a development to come through, they had done
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 26
FINAL MINUTES
a few walking trails through MJH and would support trails here as well.
Mr. Dotson asked what the argument was for "Community Mixed Use" instead of "Office R&D", etc.
Mr. Langille responded that the residents live close by, and the word Industrial sounded more intense
than" Community Mixed Use"
Mr. Dotson said that the mixed use sounded more intense to him because of the retail uses and fairly
sizable office buildings -- and this was about three -fourths of a Lowe's. He stated that auto commercial
sales and services would almost be more concerning than the employment -generated uses under
Office R&D, etc.
Mr. Langille agreed, stating that the "Community Mixed -Use" designation would allow for a
development that was both residential and commercial retail, which in theory could have a five -story
building and traffic at all sorts of hours of the day -- which was raised as a concern along Pantops and
State Farm Boulevard.
Ms. Spain stated that residents had said they would like to see restaurants, bars, and places that would
serve as community centers -- and saw that as possible through the mixed use but not through the
R&D. She said that some people on the CAC did not consider "the green ditch," which sloped
considerably, to be an adequate park or green space.
Ms. Riley commented that it was in "Office/R&D/Flex Light Industrial" to have commercial uses that
were supportive of the primary uses. She said that Community Mixed Use indicated "retail and services
1,r,,.= at the community level," which made it sound like Starbucks or a more locally oriented service, so it
was somewhat misleading.
Ms. Spain commented that one of the dilemmas was that it took higher density to make those
endeavors pay -- so there was a desire to have those services but also a desire to keep density low.
Mr. Carrazana noted that none of these designations were talking about a specific density at this point
and asked if they would come through a master planning process later.
Mr. Langille said that "Community Mixed Use" would allow for development of residential uses
between 6 and 34 dwelling units per acre -- and based on the existing zoning district, they would have
to rezone it to something and couple it with a mixture of uses such as ground -floor retail.
Mr. Carrazana said that was just in terms of apartments per unit, but he wanted to know what the
density would be if they were talking about a floor area ratio that starts to get at density.
Mr. Langille responded that it would be the same thing as a secondary use in the purple area -- 6 to 34
units per acre; institutional did not allow residential.
Ms. Falkenstein stated that floor area ratios had not historically been assigned in the master plan, with
some guidance around building footprint for certain types of uses.
Mr. Carrazana asked how they were limiting or assigning a density to the area as they got into office
buildings.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 27
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Falkenstein responded that there were recommendations within Places 29 of building footprints of
20,000 square feet for mixed -use buildings, 10,000 square feet for retail only -- and when they filled
out the master plan, they would have those recommendations around certain types of uses and could
use previous master plans as a guide.
Mr. Carrazana stated that some of the land use forms suggested that they were areas of more density,
so a developer would need to maximize the footprint to make a project feasible. He said that he had a
question as to whether they were providing enough opportunity for those developments, and he was
not sure if there had been added development areas -- with less institutional, more mixed and
residential.
Mr. Langille responded that there was more "purple" and less "blue" than the 2008 plan.
Mr. Gast -Bray stated that the uses of tomorrow were much more mixed, so there was a lot more
flexibility included -- and commercial mixed use would likely emphasize residential as the primary
driver, with retail on the first floor. He said that a developer doing R&D may want a building that was
focused because of clean rooms, where it was not particularly conducive to have a mix. He noted that
the emphasis was on the employment center, and in the mix of that would be residential. Mr. Gast -
Bray said that it was difficult to prescribe specific uses in a flexible designation beyond form and
general guidance.
Mr. Carrazana asked if Fontaine would likely be institutional if it were in this development, and he
would suggest it would move into a higher density because of those uses.
Mr. Gast -Bray agreed with this assessment.
Mr. Keller stated that his sense was that there was a tremendous transformation in the medical
community, and many of the doctors and groups not associated with UVA were going to increasingly
come under the Sentara mantle to have a reciprocal agreement, as well as hospitalists dealing with
people in the hospital per se. He added that there were physicians in the city that were having their
buildings become residential, so they were looking for a place and were now exploring the possibility of
working under Sentara, which would also allow for billing, etc. He stated that when they know what
was likely to be happening, planning should do future land use that supported that -- which is what Mr.
Carranza was getting at.
Mr. Keller added that the auto and insurance industries were also changing, and those were major
anchors in that zone. He emphasized that there should be an even greater degree of flexibility, as it
could change overnight, and Commissioners have heard for years that the economic development side
wants them to provide for more light industrial. He added that this was a logical place for more
workforce, with the need to move people across 250 -- and in cities with high density, people walk a lot
more to get to work than the distances they are talking about here. He said that this could be achieved
while protecting the environmental qualities discussed and having quality open space within that. He
added that at some point, the Commission and Board needed to come down in future land use
planning to respond to what would likely occur there.
Mr. Langille asked for clarification that Mr. Keller was saying that Community Mixed Use would be a
better classification on these properties because it could possibly allow for more workforce housing to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 28
FINAL MINUTES
be in this area.
Mr. Keller responded that he was saying light industrial.
Ms. Falkenstein clarified that he meant light industrial that was flexible enough to allow for housing in a
mixed use.
Mr. Keller confirmed this, so they could have several stories of this and residential with it.
Mr. Langille replied that it would.
Ms. Spain commented that part of the opposition to this was that some of the members of the CAC
took the 2000 designation as public parks as a promise that by considering any other use for that, the
County was somehow breaking a promise that was made in 2008. She said that Mr. Langille had tried
multiple times to explain the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the difference between zoning
and the Comprehensive Plan -- but that was what they saw and part of that opposition.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission wanted to hear from members of the audience who may have
been involved in this.
Mr. Keller suggested that they quickly go through the third question.
Mr. Langille stated that question three pertained to what the most appropriate future land use
classifications were -- where the Overlook Condominiums and Vistas at South Pantops Apartment Plan
was currently under review. He said the Vistas property was TM Parcel 78-20 and measured 13.11
acres; the Vistas at South Pantops plan was proposing 144 dwelling units for a proposed density of 10.8
units per acre. He stated that both properties were zoned entirely R-15, which would allow for up to 15
dwelling units per acre, and the 2008 land use plan called for green space over the entire TM/parcel 78-
20 and called for Urban Mixed Use on the Overlook Condominiums.
Mr. Langille said that staff was proposing to change the land use designation on the Overlook parcel to
"Urban Density Residential", as it would reflect the density of existing and proposed dwelling units. He
said that it was difficult to see, but on the map there was a triangular piece that would be within "Parks
and Green Systems", with the remainder of TM 78-20 also being in that designation because it had a
100-year floodplain and preserved steep slopes and could not be developed by right on that portion.
He noted that Overlook was a condominium development, so it was highly unlikely that it would be
demolished and rebuilt as something else that didn't fall under the Urban Density Residential land use
classification.
Mr. Langille stated that the options presented to the CAC on October 22 were to retain the Community
Mixed -Use designation at Overlook and leave the green space on TM/Parcel 78-20, and the staff
recommendation was to change the Urban Density Residential on both parcels and have the green
space there. He said that it was a 5:5 vote on this question because the residents of Overlook had
thought they were promised a park on the adjacent parcel where the Vistas was now proposed.
Mr. Keller asked for Commission comments before going to the public.
Mr. Dotson stated that he felt the plan should reflect the current reality.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 29
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. More agreed, asking if staff understood why Overlook residents felt this would be a park.
Mr. Langille explained that staff has discussed at length the need for some sort of program, at least
through the CACs, where they could do some education on the difference between zoning and the
future land use reflected in master plans, as there seemed to be confusion throughout the County and
development areas about what the maps really mean. He said that the Vistas plan was R-15 and they
were staying out of environmental features they could not touch, which was why it was being
developed. He said that it was probably in the 2008 plan to put a park there if possible.
Ms. More commented that she did support what staff was suggesting, but everyone wanted to
understand the potential development around where they lived -- so the idea of an education piece or
wording would help meter expectations.
Ms. Firehock said that she concurred with her colleagues.
Ms. Riley stated that she agreed with staff's recommendations and felt that there was an opportunity
to do this type of presentation at the joint CAC meeting and at the regular CAC meetings.
Ms. Falkenstein responded that this would be the proposed topic for the February joint CAC.
Mr. Keller suggested getting to high school students with some components of a basic land use
planning piece, and perhaps they could talk to the School Board about it, as he felt this would be an
enhanced process with student involvement. He added that staff had been going in the direction he
would support in terms of mixed uses.
Ms. Spain said that she also agreed with staff's suggestion but also wanted to mention that this was a
location with fabulous views of the mountains, which were a significant amenity. She stated that
Pantops was an entry corridor into the city, and when they came off 1-64 into the Pantops area, the
entire vista is viewable. She said that even though they didn't talk about heights specifically, except for
a hotel coming in, that view was a priority for people -- and that seemed to be dividing the group.
Mr. Bivins asked what the Malloy property would turn into, given that the business was moving to
Route 29 North.
Mr. Langille responded that with the master plan, they are looking at the extension of Olympia Drive,
which was on the 2008 transportation plan -- and they were keeping that on this plan because there
was an adjacent property that went through a rezoning that would have a street that connected Route
250 to Route 20. He said that if Olympia Drive's final segment, which was over the Malloy property, got
completed, it would be a great transportation network that was not on the main arterial of 250. He
added that staff hoped it would be a great mixed use on that parcel.
Mr. Carrazana stated that he agreed with staff's recommendations on these parcels.
Mr. Keller asked for public comments.
Cal Morris, Chair of the Pantops Community Advisory Committee, stated that there were several
people in the Overlook complex that were with the original group in the late 1990s that eventually
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 30
FINAL MINUTES
merged with the Pantops CAC. He stated that in looking at the 2008 land use picture, seeing
greenspace for 30 years implied that it was yours. Mr. Morris said that staff has been fighting an uphill
battle in that regard, and that was why the CAC ended up in a 5:5 tie. He emphasized that this was an
educational process that took time, and where the Vistas were going in was the next -door neighbor to
Overlook -- and that had also been greenspace.
Mr. Morris commented that they did not know when the first proposal came in that the greenspace
belonged to someone else and was private property -- and now they have come back with a by -right
proposal and have every right to put in apartments. He said that the same residents were now seeing
Martha Jefferson wanting to put in 250 units just below them. Mr. Morris stated that rather than
condemning these people, their point of view must be considered -- yet reality is reality and they
needed to take a look at the 2018 land use proposal.
Mr. Morris added that Ms. Spain's comments were very true, and one of the key elements uncovered
during the process of creating the original plan from 2003 to 2008 was that people liked the vistas, and
when they have had a proposal come before them to get input, it was for a six -story hotel to go into
the mixed -use purple area, which cut off those vistas. He stated that MJH had two floors underground,
giving people the impression that could be accomplished elsewhere.
Mr. Morris stated that people live with change but don't really welcome it, and until people can be
moved by foot or by bike from the northside to the southside, Pantops will never be a community. He
emphasized that it would be foolish to try to cross 250 unless you drive one block, park, and shop. Mr.
Morris commented that the staff had done a fabulous job in guiding the CAC, and he appreciated all the
input from the Commission.
Ms. Firehock commented that one of the potential locations of a pedestrian bridge was where the
Giant was located. She said that she recently had her car repaired at Free Bridge and wanted to get
something to eat while it was in the shop, but she could not find the Rivanna Trail head because you
have to go way up the lane -- but that could be an access point if there were a staircase to get people
from the northside of 250 under the bridge.
Mr. Morris responded that it existed now, but they need better signage, and it was about a block and a
half from where she described, with stairs going down and access underneath the bridge. He added
that the signage was one of the projects the Pantops CAC had for the NIFI money, and it was in
progress.
Ms. Firehock stated that planning for the Rivanna River was in the CIP but was always listed as 20 years
out, and she asked Mr. Morris for his thoughts about that momentum.
Mr. Morris replied that from the bridge going south/southeast and coming around the Rivanna, that
stretch was in progress -- with a lot of it completed -- and people were on it all the time. He stated that
Dan Mahon had done a wonderful job in terms of creating a safety net for people, and the trail goes
behind State Farm and wraps around to the old Woolen Mills site. Mr. Morris noted that there was a
problem going the other way because landowners had chosen not to have a trail on their property, and
the County has been reluctant to take the land and proceed. He added that there was an app being
developed for the trail that would include historical information.
Mr. Dotson stated that there was a portion of what was given in Attachment G, the implementation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 31
FINAL MINUTES
projects, and his concern was that this might generate expectations of "promises" that were just short
and long-term items on a list. He suggested having some value engineering or some approach that
would point out which were crucial.
Mr. Langille responded that it would be a great topic for the next work session, and some of the items
were underway currently -- with a lot of catalysts compared to the long-term time range -- but staff
could further refine the list to identify those things in progress and those that were not underway at all.
Mr. Dotson noted that this would apply to all their master plans, with more attention needed for
implementation and being realistic but futuristic at the same time.
Ms. Firehock asked that staff always include scales with maps.
Mr. Langille agreed that he would note that for the future.
Mr. Keller complimented the staff and said it was great to see the transition occurring with longtime
staff, as the enthusiasm reflected on the larger team. He said that he appreciated the comments
regarding the need for public education, and that was a positive thing that would just need continual
attention.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Committee Reports
Mr. Keller invited committee reports. Hearing none, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — December 5, 2018.
Mr. Gast -Bray reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 5, 2018.
Old Business.
Mr. Keller invited old business. Hearing none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business.
Mr. Keller invited new business.
Ms. Firehock reported that the meeting at Boar's Head had been cancelled and rescheduled to the
following Monday due to weather.
Mr. Gast -Bray noted that the December 18 meeting agenda had been changed, postponing the CIP
discussion until after the new year and the spot now filled by ZTA-2017-11 item from this evening with
your permission
Mr. Keller said it was done earlier.
Chair Keller announced:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018 32
FINAL MINUTES
• The next meeting will be on Tuesday, December 17, 2018 in the Auditorium at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Items for Follow-up.
Mr. Keller invited items for follow-up. Hearing none, the meeting moved to adjournment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. to the Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the COB -McIntire, Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Andrew Gast -Bray, Sec tary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Approved by Planning Commission
Date: 01-29-2019
Initials: sct
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-DECEMBER 11, 2018 33
FINAL MINUTES
2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE
Rn
REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE HELD AT
6:OOP. M. IN LANE AUDITORIUM
FINAL
PUBLIC HEARINGS, WAIVERS
WORK SESSIONS
NO SCHEDULED MEETING
AND MINISTERIAL APPEALS
January 15, 2019
January 22, 2019
January 1, 2019*
January 29, 2019
January 8, 2019*
February 5, 2019
February 12, 2019
February 26, 2019*
February 19, 2019*
March 5, 2019
March 12, 2019
March 26, 2019
March 19, 2019
April 9, 2019
April16, 2019*
April 2, 2019
April23, 2019*
April 30, 2019
May 7, 2019
May 14, 2019
May 28, 2019
May 21, 2019
June 4, 2019*
June 18, 2019
June 11, 2019*
June 25, 2019
July 9, 2019*
July 16, 2019
July 2, 2019
July 23, 2019
July 30, 2017
August 6, 2019
August 13, 2019
August 27, 2019
August 20, 2019
September 3, 2019*
September 17, 2019
September 10, 2019*
September 24, 2019
October 8, 2019
October 15, 2019
October 1, 2019
October 22, 2019
October 29, 2019
November 12, 2019*
November 19, 2019*
November 5, 2019
November 26, 2019
December 3, 2019*
December 10, 2019
December 24, 2019*
December 17, 2019
December 31, 2019*
January 14, 2020*
January 21, 2020*
January 7, 2020*
January 28, 2020
February 4, 2020
February 11, 2020
February 25, 2020*
February 18, 2020*
March 3, 2020
March 10, 2020
March 24, 2020
March 17, 2020
March 31, 2020
*Is a Holiday or possibly impacted by a Holiday during the preceding week.
Highlighted Planning Commission meeting dates in 2020 are based on application submittal dates in
2019.
FINAL 2019 PC MEETING SCHEDULE
1.15.19
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AS OF 1/15/2019:
ACE Committee Liaison:
Karen Firehock
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Oversight Committee:
Bruce Dotson
Chartottesville/AlbemarleAJniversity of Virginia Planning & Coordination Council Tech Committee (PACC Tech):
Julian Bivins
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC):
Pam Riley
Crozet Community Advisory Council Liaison:
Jennie More
Fiscal Impact Committee:
Tim Keller
Historic Preservation Committee Liaison:
Karen Firehock
Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee (MPO Tech):
Julian Bivins
Nah4Fal He4age Committee Liaison.- (PC membership not specified/required)
VACANT
Pantops Community Advisory Council Liaison:
Daphne Spain
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Liaisons:
NOW North — Daphne Spain
Hydraulic — Julian Bivins
Rio — Bruce Dotson
(PC membership not specified/required)
VACANT
University of Virginia Master Planning Council:
Bruce Dotson
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Liaison:
Pam Riley
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee Liaison:
Karen Firehock
Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA):
Jennie More
5th Street and Avon Street CAC (Southern & Western Neighborhoods):
Pam Riley/Karen Firehock
Residential Work Group:
Bruce Dotson/Tim Keller
Rivanna River Corridor Committee:
Daphne Spain
Long Range School Planning:
Bruce Dotson
Last Updated 1/16/2018
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
2019 RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. Officers
A. Chair. At its annual meeting, the Commission shall elect a Chair who, if present,
shall preside at the meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which
elected.
B. Vice -Chair. At its annual meeting, the Commission shall elect a Vice -Chair, who,
if present, shall preside at meetings, in the absence of the Chair and shall discharge
the duties of the Chair during the Chair's absence or disability.
C. Secretary. The Director of Planning shall serve the Commission as its Secretary.
The duties of the Secretary shall include keeping and maintaining custody of the
records of the Commission and such other duties as these rules may provide and
the Commission may, from time to time, assign.
D. Recording Secretary. The Director of Planning, or the Director's designee, shall
serve the Commission as its Recording Secretary. The duties of the Recording
Secretary shall include keeping the minutes of the Commission's meetings, acting
as the timekeeper, and such other duties as these rules may provide and the
Commission may, from time to time, assign.
E. Other Ofirces. At any of its meetings, the Commission may create and fill any
other offices as it deems necessary.
F. Term of Office. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall be elected for one-year terms; but
either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
G. Absence of Chair and Vice -Chair. If the Chair and Vice -Chair are absent from
any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chair.
2. Meetings
A. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January of each year shall be known as the
annual meeting. At the annual meeting, the Commission shall establish the day,
time, and place for regular meetings of the Commission for that year, and shall
elect the Chair and vice -Chair.
B. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet in regular session at the time and
place and on the day or days established for regular meetings. The Commission
may subsequently establish a different day, time, or place to conduct its regular
meetings by passing a resolution to that effect.
If the Chair, or the Vice -Chair if the Chair is unable to act, finds and declares that
weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Commission members
to attend a regular meeting, the meeting shall be continued to the next regular
meeting date. Additionally, if the Chair, or the Vice -Chair if the Chair is unable
Planning Commission
2019 Rules of Procedure
Page 2
to act, determines, in consultation with the Director of Planning, that all scheduled
public hearing items have been withdrawn or deferred at the request of the
applicant, the Chair may cancel the scheduled meeting. This finding shall be
communicated to the members of the Commission and to the press as promptly as
possible.
Without further public notice, a regular meeting may be adjourned from day to
day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the
next regular meeting, until the business of the Commission is complete.
C. Special Meetings. The Commission may hold special meetings as it deems
necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may
be adjourned from time to time as the Commission finds necessary and
convenient.
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chair or requested by two or
more members of the Commission upon written request made to the Secretary and
shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of the call
or request, the Secretary, after consultation with the Chair, shall immediately
notify each member of the Commission and the County Attorney. The notice shall
be in writing and shall be mailed or delivered to the person or to their place of
residence or business at least fourteen days prior to the special meeting. The
notice shall state the time and place of the special meeting and shall specify the
matters to be considered. The Commission shall not consider any matter not
specified in the notice at the meeting unless all members are present. The notice
may be waived if the time of the special meeting was fixed at a regular meeting, if
all members are present at the special meeting, or if all members sign a waiver for
the notice.
The Secretary shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such
special meeting and the matters to be considered.
3. Order of Business
A. Agenda Established by Secretary. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be
established by the Secretary in consultation with the Chair.
B. Organization of the Agenda. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be
organized in substantially the following order, subject to change at the request of
the Chair and with the consensus of the other members of the Commission:
(1) Call to order and establish quorum.
(2) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
(3) Consent Agenda (includes approval of minutes from previous meetings
when applicable). (If there are no Consent Agenda items, then this portion
of the Agenda shall be waived by the Chair.)
(4) Items Requesting Deferral (when applicable).
Planning Commission
2019 Rules of Procedure
Page 3
(5) Deferred Items (from previous meetings when applicable).
(6) Regular Items.
(7) Public Hearing Items.
(8) Work Sessions (when applicable).
(9) Committee Reports (when available)
(10) Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting (when applicable)
(11) Old Business.
(12) New Business.
(13) Adjournment.
C. Matters not on the Agenda. Each regular meeting agenda shall include a period
for matters not on the agenda. This period shall be limited to twenty (20)
minutes. Each person speaking shall be allowed to speak for not more than three
minutes; provided that, due to the number of speakers, the Chair, with the
consensus of the Commission, may reduce the time each speaker is allowed to
speak.
D. Time Limits for Applicants and Other Speakers. Each applicant shall be allowed
to make a presentation not to exceed ten minutes, and a closing remark at the
close of the hearing on the matter not to exceed five minutes. The Commission
may permit the applicant to exceed the preceding time limits if the Commission
determines that the proposed project's complexity requires additional time for the
applicant to make an adequate presentation. Each other person speaking on a
matter shall be allowed one appearance not to exceed three minutes. A speaker
may not reserve any time for rebuttal or transfer any time to another speaker. The
time limits set forth herein shall not include any time during which the applicant
or other speaker is responding to questions asked by the Commission. The Chair
may allow the applicant or any speaker to minimally exceed the applicable time
limit to complete the specific topic being addressed.
E. Deferrals. The Commission may defer any matter at the request of a member of
the Commission, the County staff, or the applicant; provided that the Commission
shall not defer any matter beyond the date that Commission action is required by
law unless the request for deferral is made by the applicant. The request may be
either oral or in writing, and may be made at any time prior to the vote on the
matter. The person making the request shall state the reasons therefor. A motion
to defer shall either specify the date to which the matter is deferred or defer the
matter indefinitely.
(1) Deferral to a specific date. If the motion to defer pertains to a matter for
which a noticed public hearing is required and the motion is to defer the
matter to a specific date, the Chair shall either close the public hearing or,
if the public hearing was not opened, open and then close the public
hearing, before the Commission votes on the motion. When the matter
returns to the Commission on the date specified, the Commission may
open a new public hearing and receive comments from the applicant or
cm
Planning Commission
2019 Rules of Procedure
Page 4
any other speaker, act on the matter, consider another motion to defer, or
any appropriate combination thereof.
(2) Indefinite deferral. A motion to indefinitely defer a matter should be
considered when neither the Commission nor the applicant are certain of
the date and time when the matter may return to the Commission for
consideration. If the motion to defer pertains to a matter for which a
noticed public hearing is required and the motion is to defer the matter
indefinitely, the Commission shall close the public hearing, or, if the
public hearing was not opened, it may in its discretion allow the applicant
or any other speaker to speak on the matter. An indefinite deferral does not
extend the time for which action is required on a matter before the
application is deemed withdrawn under Chapters 14, Subdivision of Land,
and 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
4. Ouorum
A majority of the voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for any
meeting of the Commission. If, during a meeting, less than a majority of the members of
the Commission remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting or
to adjourn the meeting to a fixed time and place. If, prior to adjournment, a quorum is
again established, the meeting shall continue. A meeting shall not be adjourned to a date
and time beyond that fixed for the next regular meeting.
5. Votin2 Procedures
A. Motions. Each action by the Commission shall be initiated by a motion that is
seconded; provided that a second shall not be required if debate immediately
follows the motion. Any motion that is neither seconded nor immediately
followed by debate shall not be further considered.
B. JMroval o Motion by Maiority. Except for a decision on a motion of the
previous question, each decision of the Commission shall be made by approval of
a majority of the members present and voting on a motion.
C. Time for Vote. Any matter before the Commission requiring a public hearing shall
not be decided by the Commission until after the public hearing has been held.
D. Manner of Vote. The vote on a motion pertaining to a matter for which the
Commission is making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors shall be by
roll call vote; provided that if it appears to the Chair that the Commission will be
unanimous in its recommendation, the Commission may make its
recommendation by a voice vote. The vote on a motion pertaining to any other
matter may be either by roll call vote or voice vote, in the discretion of the Chair;
provided that a roll call vote on such a motion shall be required if requested by a
member of the Commission. For each roll call vote, the Recording Secretary shall
record the name of each member voting and how the member voted on the
Planning Commission
2019 Rules of Procedure
Page 5
motion. For each voice vote, the Recording Secretary shall record the result of the
vote.
E. Tie Vote. A tie vote shall not be deemed to be a recommendation of denial, nor
shall a tie vote be deemed to be either a recommendation of approval. A tie vote
shall defeat any motion to approve a preliminary subdivision plat, a variation or
exception to a site plan, a final subdivision plat, compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232, or a private street.
F. Effect of Defeat of Motion to Deny or Recommend Denial. The defeat of a motion
to deny or to recommend denial of a matter shall not be deemed to be approval of
the matter. In such a case, the Chair shall call for another motion.
G. Abstention. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, the member shall
state the member's abstention. The abstention shall be announced by the Chair
and recorded by the Recording Secretary.
H. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Commission shall be
discussed and voted by the Commission before any vote is taken on the original
motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by the unanimous consent of the
voting members of the Commission.. If the motion to amend is approved, the
amended motion is then before the Commission for its consideration. If the
motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the
Commission for its consideration.
Em
Previous Question. The discussion of any motion may be terminated by any
member moving the "previous question." Upon a proper second, the Chair shall
call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a two-thirds
majority of those voting, the Chair shall immediately call for a vote on the
original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not
be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter.
Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Commission may be
reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an
adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The
motion to reconsider may be made by any voting member of the Commission.
Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the
exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
K. Cancellation o Motions. In any case where a motion has been made under Rules
5(A), 5(H), 5(I), or 5(J), or any combination thereof, and there is uncertainty as to
the status or effect of any pending motions or how the Commission is to proceed
at that point, the Commission may, by a majority vote, suspend Rules 5(A), (H),
(I), or (J), or any combination thereof, for the sole purpose of canceling any
pending motions and to permit a new motion to be made.
n
Planning Commission
2019 Rules of Procedure
Page 6
6. Communications with the Board of Supervisors
The Commission may adopt resolutions to request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
resolutions of intent to initiate comprehensive plan amendments, zoning map
amendments, or zoning text amendments. Upon adoption of such a resolution, the
Secretary shall provide a copy of the resolution to the Clerk for the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and to the Chair of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
within seven days of the Commission's action. Nothing in this Rule prohibits the
Commission from adopting a resolution of intent or initiating a comprehensive plan
amendment, zoning map amendment, or zoning text amendment, as provided by law.
7. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the voting members of
the Commission at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice
of the motion to amend is given.
8. Rules of Procedure not Covered by These Rules of Procedure
Any rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the
current Robert's Rules of Order.
9. Nature and Effect of These Rules
The purpose of these Rules of Procedure is to facilitate the orderly conduct of public
meetings and decision -making. The parliamentary Rules of Procedure (those rules other
than Rules 2(B), 2(C), 4 and 5(B)) are procedural, not jurisdictional, in nature, and Rules
2(B), 2(C), 4 and 5(B) are jurisdictional only to the extent that Virginia law makes them
jurisdictional. The failure to comply with the parliamentary Rules of Procedure shall not
invalidate any decision of the Commission.
(Adopted 01/12/99; Amended and/or Readopted 01/11/00 (§3(C)), 01/09/01(§2(B)), 01/15/02,
O1/14/03, 01/13/04 (§§1(C), 1(D)), 01105105, 01/11/06, 01/09/07, 01/15/08, 01/06/09, 01/12/10,
O1/11/11 (§§ 1(D), 2(C), 3(C), 3(D), 4, 5(A) (added), 5(B), 5(E), 9 (added)), 02/14/12, 01/08/13
(§ 3(C)), 01/14/14, 01/27/15 (§§ 1(A), (B), (F), (G), 2(A), (B), (C), 3(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), 5(A),
(C), (D), (F), (G), (H), (1), (K) (added), former 7 (deleted)), 1/17/17 (§§ 1(B), (D), 2(B), (C),
3(C), (D), 4, 5(E), (G), (H), (K), 6), 1/16/18 (§3(B)), 8/14/18 (§ 6), 1/15/19.
�4a C. �
19�.1 1 & PC_ fee ►n
5
December 11, 2018
Planning Commission
County of Albemarle
403 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Commissioners,
I am the owner of a popular local business with two locations in Albemarle County, Kohr Brothers
Frozen Custard. I also own two commercial properties in Albemarle County that I bought within
the past 13 years as personal investments. These properties are located along Route 250, just east
of the I-64 interchange at Pantops.
Earlier this year, the County considered a zoning text amendment language (ZTA 2018-0002) that
would have downzoned my properties and severely restricted the by -right uses that would be
permitted on them. This proposal was put on hold after numerous property owners and citizens
spoke against it and the immense negative impact it would have on property owners' rights and the
value of their properties.
I now find out that once again the County is considering, with little notice to property owners
affected, changes to existing zoning that down zones their properties. In my case, my properties
are zoned Highway Commercial (HC). The new ordinance being considered tonight will
severally impact my properties by making certain uses now allowed by right permitted only by
special use permit since my properties are not served by public water or sewer. In particular, the
use of eating establishments which is now permitted would in the future only be allowed by a
special use permit. This would make my existing frozen custard business non -conforming. The
County should not be making well -established, existing businesses that fit well into their
neighborhoods non -conforming.
It is hard for me to understand why these changes are being considered without more input from
property owners affected. I strongly ask that you do not recommend approval of this proposed
zoning change. Instead, you should task staff to work more directly with property owners and
stake holders on any proposed changes as was publicly promised by the Board back in June.
Sincerely,
Randolph Kohr II
M
Bin Fritz
rom: Hays Lantz <hayslantz@gmail.com>
,4'wSent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 12:17 PM
To: Bill Fritz
Subject: Amendment
Board of Supervisors wants to enact a zoning text amendment that will require that any future gas stations or
convenience stores proposed in a Rural Area not served by public water be required to obtain a special use permit. I am
totally in agreement with this amendment. Thank you.
Hays Lantz, Jr., PhD
4640 Vista Cy
Troy, Va
Sent from Gmail Mobile
En
1