Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 21 2016 PC MinutesM Albemarle County Planning Commission June 21, 2016 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Mac Lafferty, Acting Chair; Jennie More, Daphne Spain, Pam Riley, Bruce Dotson and Bill Palmer, UVA representative. Members absent were Tim Keller, Chair; and Karen Firehock, Vice Chair. Other officials present were John Anderson, Engineering representative; Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Acting Chief of Planning; David Benish, Acting Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum. Mr. Lafferty, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Lafferty invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being no comments, the meeting moved to the next item. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes — April 26, 2016 Mr. Lafferty asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Ms. Spain seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5:0. (Keller, Firehock absent) The consent agenda was approved and the meeting moved to the next agenda item. Item Requesting Indefinite Deferral. ZMA-2016-00002 Hollvmead Town Center (Al) PROPOSAL: Request to amend a Proffer on property zoned PD-MC which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre). PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING: Amend ZMA 2012-00005 Proffer #4 Public Transit Operating Expenses. The Applicant is proposing an alternate proffer contribution amount over seven (7) years, or a one time lump sum towards transit operating expenses. DEFERRED FROM THE MAY 10, 2016 PLANNING COMMUSSON MEETING APPLICANT REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL (Elaine Echols) Mr. Lafferty noted that ZMA-2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center (Al) was pulled previously so he did not think there would be anybody here for that. The request was deferred from May 10, 2016 and the applicant has requested an indefinite deferral. Note: Vote was taken later in the meeting. The meeting moved to the next item on the agenda. ZMA-2016-00006 Glenmore K2C ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 1 FINAL MINUTES MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville TAX MAP/PARCEL: 093A5000000100, 093A51<20600800, 09400000001600 LOCATION: Approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the intersection of Carrol Creek Road and Waterside Way. PROPOSAL: Reduce the currently approved cash proffer amount of $16,590 per lot to the cash proffer amount recommended by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee of $4,918 per lot. PETITION: Request to amend proffers on property zoned PRD which allows a variety of development for residential purposes and ancillary uses. No new dwellings proposed. OVERYLAYS: Entrance Corridor, Steep Slopes (Managed and Preserved), Flood Hazard PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density (Low) — residential (2 units or less/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship, schools, public and institutional uses in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JULY 26, 2016. (JT Newberry) Mr. Lafferty noted ZMA-2016-00006 Glenmore K2C has requested a deferral to July 26, 2016. He opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benish suggested that the Commission take action to defer to ZMA-2016-00006 to the specific date of July 26, 2016. Mr. Lafferty asked for a motion to defer ZMA-2016-00006 Glenmore K2C to July 26, 2016. Motion: Ms. More moved and Ms. Spain seconded to defer ZMA-2016-00006 Glenmore K2C to July 26, 2016. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 5:0:2. (Keller, Firehock absent) Mr. Lafferty noted that ZMA-2016-00006 Glenmore K2C was deferred to July 26, 2016. The meeting moved to the next agenda item. Deferred Item. ZMA-2012-00007 51h Street Commercial PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers and application plan of ZMA199900013 for 4.35 acres on property zoned HC — Highway Commercial, which allows commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and property zoned LI Light Industrial, which allows — industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). No zoning district change and no dwellings proposed. Special Use Permit Request for Drive through Windows on 1.1 acres under Section 24.2.2(12) of zoning ordinance. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY: Yes PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Regional Mixed Use (regional serving retail, service and office uses, non- industrial employment centers and residential up 6.01 — 34 units per acre) and Parks and Green Systems (parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams) in Southern Urban Neighborhood (N5). LOCATION: The east side of 5th Street Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. TAX MAP/PARCELS: 0.875 acre portion of 07600-00-00-055A0, 3.041 acre portion of 076M1-00-00- 00100, and all of 07600-00-00-055CO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville DEFERRED FROM THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 2 FINAL MINUTES (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols summarized the staff report for ZMA-2012-00007 51h Street Commercial Project - Amendment to ZMA-1999-13 in a PowerPoint presentation. The Commission received a staff report that included the old staff report as well as some updates to it. This is about the commercial project which is next to the Holiday Inn on 5th Street. There was some questions at the last meeting about the zoning and it is a little bit complex when you try to figure out what all is involved. This parcel of land has two different zoning categories on it, which is Highway Commercial with a proffered plan and Light Industrial. The area under consideration is the Highway Commercial; but, there is an area that is proffered for the green way and also contains some fill. If you think about all of the land shown in blue being in the floodplain and all of the land on the other side of Biscuit Run in all of these kinds of steep slopes you can see that really does not affect the Light Industrial property except for that fill area. The 1999 approved plan is shown on the left on the slide as a reminder to bring you back to remind you about where we were last time. The 2016 proposed plan with revisions is shown on the right. The big changes are in this building and the addition of a building close to 1-64. There were questions about the floodplain in our last meeting and Ms. Echols pointed out where the existing floodplain is and where the proposed floodplain will be. That has been approved by the Board of Supervisors with the special use permit. There were questions about LOMRs and a lack of clarity at the last meeting and she was hopeful that the attachment that our reviewing engineer included helped to clarify these things. There are no outstanding issues with regards to the rezoning right now that would relate to the floodplain. Anything that needs to be done can be done through the site plan process. In other words, the plan that you are looking right now is consistent with the special use permit that was approved prior to now for the fill in the floodplain. So there is consistency now. At that last meeting the Commission had a number of things you wanted the applicant to address. One was the idea of a bike lane and so the applicant has added a proffer, proffer #10, to provide for a bike lane on 51h Street. The Commission wanted to talk a little bit more about relegated parking and the applicant also to talk a little bit more about it as well. There is a special exception request, which she would go over in a few minutes. The applicant was asked to clearly show the floodplain, stream buffer and disturbed slopes on the plan, which he has done. Mr. Kamptner arrived at 6:06 p.m. The Commission asked the applicant to provide for terraced retaining walls at 6'. The applicant has provided for terraced retaining walls at 8' and not 6'. The Commission suggested the applicant should try to provide a walkway from the sidewalk on 5th Street and he has shown that the grades don't really work under his existing plan. One Commissioner had asked about the Monticello Viewshed and the Monticello Viewshed is a little tricky because the folks of Monticello can't tell whether or not it is in the viewshed, which puts everybody in a very awkward position. However, what the applicant has done is to say if in the wintertime it is shown that it is visible, then he will work with Monticello in dealing with their guidelines. The proffer that he has made is a typical proffer that we have received on other projects. The applicant corrected almost all of his proffered uses, which were on a list of uses that we said needed to have some clarification. However, the idea about gasoline canopies never did get resolved with the applicant. At the last meeting there was some statements made to the effect that there would not be any service stations so we would not need to have a proffer related to the gas canopy. However, that was rethought and the existing proffers include the possibility for gasoline service stations. Staff thinks the applicant needs to either proffer that any canopies will be behind the building or take the gasoline service stations out. The applicant does not want to do either one of those things. Therefore, that one was not adequately addressed. The applicant made a request for a special exception, which the Commission has in the packet. The applicant looked at the 3 criteria that would be required for them to address in order to make an ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 3 FINAL MINUTES application for a special exception, which included low impact design, unique parking or circulation and any target market design. The applicant made a case for the last 2 of those items. Any parking or circulation plan the applicant are saying that because they have a drive through that they need to push the building back so that the drive through lane can go through the front and that the parking can be in the front and the target market design was a drive through business at the interstate interchange. The Commission had some thoughts about whether or not there was something about the location which would then support a special exception. The Commission asked the applicant to try to find ways to get as close as they could to the 30' setback and to look at alternative plans. So there were several alternative designs. Staff had in the staff report that there were 3 with angled parking, and there were actually 2 with angled parking. Staff would show the Commission clearly what the 4 different options they described are. In the first alternative design the applicant basically reduced the travel width to 20' by increasing the size of the width of the parking spaces. In the second one the applicant explored angled parking, which really did not give a lot of room for a reduction in the amount of setback they needed. They tried it again in terms of further angled parking and it still resulted in about the same setback as what they were asking for. The last example the applicant sent, option 4, is actually what they showed on the plan, which is a 24' minimum travel islands that were 20' the first time around. Staff looked at what the Commission had said and noted that you wanted them to try to see if they could use a single row parking of parking in the front and we felt like maybe there were some other options that could be explored. Staff was surprised she did not get a call from anybody about alternatives A and B because they were missing from the staff report. However, she would show them what they are in a minute. But, one of the concerns that staff had when looking at how do to modify the plan was it is really kind of a complex spiral circulation plan. If you are coming into the site you have to go all the way around and through the parking lot to get into the driving lane to go all the way around the building and then back out to leave the site. So staff looked at ways to perhaps relieve the awkwardness of that. Alternative A which actually was in the engineering comments, but not labeled as Alternative A, would have moved that whole drive through use to the back building. We just moved the buildings from the back and the front and put the building that was in the middle up here that did not really require the drive through to make a more convenient way to go through a drive through circulation pattern and get back out. Staff felt like that was a more intuitive way to provide for circulation and it did not require as deep a setback. If you wanted to have parking in the front and a driving island in the front it could be done with a runway and also get a few parking spaces in front of the building. This was approximately 44' more than what the standard is. Alternative B, which the Commission did not see, sort of came out of the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC's) suggestions, which Ms. Riley will discuss after this about the CAC meeting that occurred last week. But, some of the suggestions at the CAC had to do with looking at a design maybe like the Chick Filet on Pantops. So she worked on a drawing with a planner and designer to try to convey some thoughts. She apologized for the roughness of the drawing. Basically, she took a facade that projected a little closer to the setback; but, there are any number of options that could take place and put the drive through in this area so that someone coming in would go through the parking lot and then do the drive through across the front like Chick Filet at Pantops and then come through the drive through window in this area. This is just a concept for any number of ways that one might be able to do this and retain a circulation pattern in front of the buildings. This one did not even require the special exception for setback. It relegated parking, which is what staff would be recommending. But, the Commission said that was perhaps not necessary in this particular circumstance. What staff did with that was just basically say we think that maybe there are other options that could have been explored but were not. The applicant has said that he believes that this kind of an area with a drive through for convenience off of the interstate really does suggest that it should be allowed in the way that they have requested it. Staff has tried to address the Commission's concerns as well as your questions about can something different happen here and shown those in alternatives A and B. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 4 FINAL MINUTES The Commission has to make a decision now on whether or not to support the special exception first. If the Commission supports the special exception, then maybe you also support the plan. But, if the Commission cannot support the special exception, then you cannot support the plan because the plan requires a special exception. Staff requests the Commission to talk about that and make a decision on that. Staff would also like the Commission to look into the situation of whether the retaining walls should be allowed to be up to 8'. One of the reasons staff wanted to stick to 6' is because the Entrance Corridor Guidelines talk about the 6' terraced retaining wall. That is also what our grading standards say if you have to disturb managed slopes. When you regrade you should be regrading back for a 6' retaining wall. Staff thinks that the applicant can achieve that. Our engineer has looked at it and said that should be fairly easy to do. But, the applicant is a little bit worried about not having any margin for error. So that is why they have said 8' because they want to leave some margin for error. Staff is not sure that 8' is the right margin; but, they will let the applicant speak to that. The Commission also needs to decide whether or not the canopy is an important feature. Again, the two ways to deal with the canopy would be to either remove a proffer or add a proffer; but, it would not affect the plan. In the staff report staff talked about the factors to consider. Favorable Factors • The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan; • To approve this would be supportive of expanding the tax base; and • The plan that was submitted could meet Entrance Corridor (EC) guidelines. That does not mean that a different plan could not meet EC guidelines. Staff worked with the Entrance Corridor guidelines and the design planner to see if there was something about those designs that could not meet the guidelines, and they said no those could meet it, too. Unfavorable Factors • The plan does not address Neighborhood Model Principle for relegated parking. Staff recognizes the +rrr► Commission may look at that a little bit differently. • The applicant hasn't adequately demonstrated why they need the really deep setback of 74'. • No commitment for canopies behind building closest to 5th Street, and • Retaining wall issues of being over 8'. ZMA Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval as it is written because of the factors unfavorable. Special Exception Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of the setback reduction based on the unique parking and circulation because other alternatives exist. Also, in terms of the unique target market it is really hard to make a case that a drive -through restaurant is a target market because any drive through restaurant then would make the same case or any business that requires most of the clients to access them would be through a car. So staff is not finding the uniqueness there. The Commission may find a uniqueness and staff respects your opinion on whatever you do decide with regards to this. Should the Commission choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment staff has provided a motion about recommending approval with proffers and for denial recommends stating the reasons. If the Commission wants to recommend approval staff would ask that they address any of the outstanding proffer issues at least in the discussion. Staff does not recommend that the special exception be approved. However, if the Commission wants to recommend approval of that special exception, then you would need to recommend the approval for the reasons of unique target market and/or unique parking and circulation; or, if the Commission recommends denial state the reason for the denial. The Board of Supervisors ultimately makes the decisions about special exceptions, and they would not always come to the Commission. But, if there is not a recommendation for approval, then the special exception comes to the Commission for a recommendation that then goes on to the Board of Supervisors. If there are any questions, she would try to answer them. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Lafferty invited questions for staff. Mr. Dotson said he had a number of questions. He said staff did not mention the trail connection from the neighborhood to the north across the existing bridge. He could not tell from the staff report and the exhibits whether that is being proposed to connect into the pad of the development or not. Ms. Echols replied that there is nothing extra that they are proposing to do. Going back to the plan she pointed out the bridge that is on the city side that goes over the creek. She pointed out what has always been proposed is a path that then comes up to the parking lot. This path is also helpful because it provides for the possibility for some kind of vehicle getting down to the creek should that be necessary. So this has not changed. The Commission may or may not be able to see that there is some kind of funny grades in this particular area and the grading that is going to take place up to this hill. When staff looked at the different alternatives one that they wondered about was whether or not you could get a sidewalk from 5th Street up to the site more easily and that is actually at the top of the hill. That might be a possibility. But, the applicant has said in terms of his proposal he does not believe he can make grades work to do anything more than what you saw on the plan, and she was going to go back to that plan so you have it to refer to. Mr. Dotson said so there is a path connection, but it connects to the neighborhood and not to 5th Street. Ms. Echols replied that is right. Mr. Dotson said he had a process question on proffer 5 about the gas station canopies. If we approve the rezoning tonight with a concept plan that shows no canopies and if at a future point the applicant wanted to include a gas station with canopies would that require a follow up zoning map amendment. That seems to go beyond the planning director discretion. Ms. Echols said she would try to explain it the way she believed it would work. She said with the current proffers and plan if the applicant wanted to put a canopy in this area and make this a gasoline station or a service station with a convenience store and have gas pumps in this area they would not have to make any changes; they could do that with this plan. That is why staff thinks in order to meet Entrance Corridor standards and guidelines it would make more sense to make sure that the canopy goes in the back if indeed they want to turn that into a gas station. That was the principle issue with the 1999 ZMA. It was that the canopies should be in the back and that is what that plan showed. She asked if that answered his question. Mr. Dotson replied that it did and an opinion is that it would be a significant change from what is shown here to have a canopy there with gas pumps. So the question perhaps of the County Attorney is could that be placed as a condition that in the event that the applicant sought to have this allowed use that would require a zoning map amendment to modify the concept plan. Mr. Kamptner replied that you could amend proffer 1 to identify the location of the canopy as a key element and that any change that would include a gasoline station canopy would require that. But, that would be something that the applicant would need to proffer. Mr. Dotson suggested that may be the applicant can consider that and comment on it. In reading over the engineering letter there seemed to be a concern about U-turns and he could not figure that out. He asked if staff perhaps with the site plan could explain what the concern about U-turns would be. Ms. Echols pointed out the reviewing engineer was in the audience; but, she was not sure he was prepared to speak to that. She introduced John Anderson, the reviewing engineer, who is going to a different department in our county organization. He has been a real asset to Community Development and so we will miss him. John Anderson asked what the question was. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 6 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson replied that the question was in reading over the engineering letter there was mention of concern about people making U-turns and he could not figure out where those U-turns were and what the concern was. Mr. Anderson explained if your patriots are coming in off 51h Street the driver habit is going to lead some people to want to go just beyond the median. They are not going to want to take the long path, but they are just going to want to duck around the median right quick. He pointed out the movement that drivers might be tempted to take, which is a pretty serious conflict point because everything goes out the window at that point the sight distance and it has sort of creeping effect back on out into 5th Street. It is just VDOT was very determined with their design to have that traffic carry on. So it is sort of a real overriding goal to try to prevent that motion and how can you do that because people with their habits and everybody is a little bit different. But, that was the main concern that was important in VDOT's comments and in their thinking. He asked if he missed what he was getting at. Mr. Dotson replied no, you have responded and he would guess the question is would that actually be wide enough for somebody to make a U-turn. Mr. Anderson replied that they would give it a try. Mr. Dotson said so they would end up making a K-turn or something if they were intent on it. Mr. Anderson pointed out that you see a whole variety of things. Mr. Dotson said they would be going up a one way down street. Mr. Anderson replied that he thinks that was the spiraling motion that Ms. Echols traced out pretty effectively in kind of a pinwheel line, the long path. He said there are things that he does not understand about marketing and how to lay out a site for optimal commercial success. However, that spiraling motion err really adds considerable length. So that is where he thinks the people are going to think if I want to get to that drive through lane I am going to do it whether cars can do it or not. Mr. Dotson suggested that perhaps the applicant could respond when it is their turn as to how they might try to mitigate that. He said those are my questions, thank you. Mr. Lafferty invited further questions. Ms. Spain pointed out she was confused about the Entrance Corridor wording that says this design can meet. She asked is there some distinction there between "can" meaning they have to meet certain criteria or "can, but". Why doesn't the sentence just say it meets the guidelines? Ms. Echols replied that there are some outstanding items related to the rear of the structure and so they were not ready to say your plan can be approved. They wanted to see the final plan because of the retaining walls. She thinks that the design as it is now there is nothing that is jumping out and saying it could not be approved. Ms. Spain said she had one other question although this may be for the applicant. She asked is there a great deal of cost involved in meeting the Monticello view shed color palate and why wouldn't any company that is even possibly in the view shed go ahead and paint the roof the color that complies with their concerns, and why does it have to wait until the leaves are off the trees to figure that out. Ms. Echols replied it was because it may or may not be visible and typically we don't ask people to work with those guidelines unless it actually is visible. If the applicant had not made this proffer we would not have pressed the issue because it really only affects what is truly visible. If there is a big question mark, it sounds like it probably isn't visible and so Monticello would not make that call. So the applicant decided that he would go ahead and proffer that if it is visible they will do it. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Spain said that was where she was confused about whether it is more expensive to meet those guidelines than whatever the roof would be initially. Is that the concern that would cost extra if he has to do the color in compliance with Monticello and why couldn't it just be a default color, which is all she is asking. Ms. Echols replied that she would have to ask the applicant that question. Ms. Riley said she had a couple of questions about pedestrian access to the site. If she was understanding staff correctly this current plan does not allow a connection for pedestrians to come off of 5th street down onto the sidewalk and to connect to the pathway or the bridge over Moore's Creek, and is that correct. Ms. Echols replied that is correct; you have to go through the site. Basically, if you are coming south you take the sidewalk and then curve around and hit the sidewalk here in this one and then you get over through the parking lot to get there if you are going north. If you are coming south from this, then you would come up here and she thinks there is also an opportunity to get onto the greenway that is proposed in this area. Basically the pathway takes you into the parking lot and if you want to get on the sidewalk, then you have to go through the parking lot to get up to 5th street and then to get on the sidewalk there. Ms. Riley said in the alternatives A and B that staff proposed is there better access from 5th Street for a pedestrian. Ms. Echols replied that she thinks there is; but, it has not been engineered. It looks like there should be because it is at the top of the slope where they have already proposed to do grading and to have a flat area. However, she thinks they would have to ask the applicant whether or not that is a possibility. Ms. Riley said she had another question. The applicant's argument for a special exception included the case for unique target market and within that was a criteria saying that close proximity to Interstate 64;the fact that no major housing subdivisions or apartment complexes are located within easy walking distance of the property; and that there is minimal neighborhood pedestrian traffic in the area. She said staff showed me at our CAC meeting there was a lot of discussion about the existing pedestrian traffic, which is pretty heavy, but is there not a new apartment complex going in just across 1-64 and was that taken into account. Does the planning staff ever go out and actually do any kind of counting of what pedestrian traffic is when you made evaluation of this criteria. Ms. Echols replied that staff actually does not because we take the principles of the Neighborhood Model at face value, there should be pedestrian access. So staff looks at that and we think that the development areas all need to have good pedestrian access. If the Commission thinks though that for some reason the interstate interchange proximity though is a reason why you would want to do something differently that is certainly your prerogative. Ms. Riley said she again would ask is there not a new apartment complex going in for something like 200 units just on the other side of 1-64, and Ms. Echols replied yes, there is Ms. Riley said she just wanted to point that out. Mr. Benish pointed out one other perspective in our transportation planning we do assessments and whether there was evidence of pedestrians crossing or walking along trails. As we make our transportation recommendations 5th Street is identified as a roadway needing improvements to address existing and future demand. It is somewhat sporadic, but we have evidenced pedestrian traffic out there. Some of it is actually employee traffic, too, going from one place to another. Ms. More said in the staff report from the March 151h meeting there was a unfavorable factor to the plan does not clearly show consistency with prior approvals to disturb the stream buffer, and she does not see that as a unfavorable factor. She asked is that addressed in the map that staff showed that also talks about the floodplain. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 8 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Echols replied yes, they have clearly shown where things are and so they do match up now and so it is no longer an unfavorable factor. Ms. More asked to clarify that we can find that in the image you showed, and Ms. Echols replied yes. There being no further questions, Mr. Lafferty opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come up and address the Commission. Katurah Roell said he was representing the applicant and would address some of the things he just heard recently as well as the staff report. He pointed out the ARB has approved this plan in this arrangement. We know that the newer ordinance that was passed reduced the setback for relegated parking. He thinks one of the things that Ms. Riley pointed out about the pedestrian access that were not able to be incorporated into the plans in a short enough period for a review to get back to the Commission. Since the laser pointed did not work, he asked Ms. Echols to put the pointer on the greenway trail. He explained that the bridge is built and as that comes up to the parking lot everyone has expressed concern about how you would get to 5th Street. The problem with turning to the right and coming up the road is that you have a 2:1 slope in that area and we don't want to impact the buffering anymore. So it would either require steps, which is not pedestrian friendly. But, once we got to the top of that hill we could just follow that blue line on grade right up to 5th Street and make a connecting sidewalk off the edge of the parking lot and tie into 5th Street at the end of the sidewalk that we are actually building on 5th Street. He thinks that would satisfy everyone's concern for direct access for a pedestrian to the trail. He hopes you would find that favorable. It also provides for the vehicular access for maintenance to get materials to the bridge, which Rivanna Trails and Dan Mahon is requesting. Mr. Roell said he would address another item about the glass canopies Mr. Dotson had brought up; and, actually we are willing as long as the plan is approved to completely remove that entire principle of gas stations/ gas canopies and delete it from the site. Star Bucks as well as Cracker Barrel and numerous tenants that have looked over this site over the last 6 years all want to have some parking in the front. ,,,.• They do not want to have just a drive through; and, it is a multi -tenant building and not a single user like at Chick filet where you can create that front. So we ask for some consideration to that; and, again when we talk about what we think this area's particular intent is in a large traffic vehicle area there are 57,000 trips going on in the interstate as well as a projected 36,000 trips a day on 5th Street. There may be 100 or 200 pedestrians and we will do everything in our site plan and provide trail and pedestrian access, but it is a vehicular driven area and even if there are 200 more apartments he would guess that most of those folks will have cars that they will use to drive to work and would need vehicular access. Mr. Roell said in addressing the U-turn situation that John Anderson has pointed out and again address that that is why the median is now been extended from literally 5th Street all the way to the narrowest point where it is at that point a mere 20 feet wide and it is impossible to make a U-turn in, and we are purposely directing traffic around the site to get back to that front entrance. He understands people's impatience and people do stupid things. When he did Hollymead and built the CVS there was no cross over so for a while people literally pulled out the CVS and turned left into the incoming lane even with a no left turn sign in front of them. So things happen and so we put up a bigger no left turn sign and we will put a no U-turn sign there; but, as we pointed out we necked it down and extended that another 60' with a concrete median to where it would be nearly impossible to do unless you are on a bicycle. Mr. Roell said some of the other concerns as far as just pedestrian use and access he pointed out that having an attractive building that services the clients of the community and the passers on the interstate and meeting the ARB's approval is paramount in both our tenants and the siting of the building. The drive through, as far as Star Bucks is concerned, is not in the program if they are in the middle back building; they want to be on the frontage and want to be seen when you come off the interstate and pull in there. We have done everything to work with them, their engineers, the county engineer and our engineer to engineer a site that is feasible, practical, and well thought out. We spent four years working this plan, and it has not been a whimsical thought. %"' Mr. Roell said to address the Monticello view shed the simplest way to do that is to put a brownstone gravel roof on top of the building. We are happy to do that and would have to put stone ballast on top of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 9 FINAL MINUTES there and instead of gray pebbles it would be brown stone. He asked Ms. Echols to go back to the topo map that shows the hillside and the floodplain, which was in the first overview. He pointed out that they were very low in the hill and then behind them is the stream. They are also going to be meeting with Piedmont Environmental Council to collaborate on a trail that would come possibly from the Biscuit Run direction along that far side of the stream at the base of the big hill. Most importantly you see we are sitting about 60' below a hillside that is directly to our rear that makes it nearly impossible to see Monticello. We cannot see the top of Monticello Mountain from our site; but, we are more than happy to put a brown stone roof on just as a condition of design as he helped to deal with Giant at Pantops in Monticello's view shed. That would be a simple resolution to that given an earth tone and the rest of the building exterior wall would be earth tone materials and subdue. He asked if there were any other questions he can address. Ms. Riley asked to further clarify what kind of multi -modal access is on the site and how it connects 51h Street, the Moore's Creek Bridge and now the referenced trail, which she is assuming he is saying is the proffered trail for 51h Street Station. This is one of the things that has been very difficult even at the CAC level for people to understand how the interconnectivity really would work with this site. Mr. Roell replied that is a good question and we are here to do what we can to pin it down and to understand it. He said to try to create direct access to 5th street if you image right along Moore's Creek on the very top edge at the floodplain there is a cut path that goes straight along Moore's Creek that goes all the way back to Biscuit Run and there is a collapsed bridge that use to cross that. That is one of the things they are talking about rebuilding to make that connection. The owner is anticipating dedicating all of the rest of the rear of the property into green space and making it available for improvements and trail connections, and we think it will benefit the entire area. Ms. Riley asked if he can then address how someone coming on that path from Biscuit Run would actually be able to get up to 5th Street. Mr. Roell replied not on that side unless someone builds a bridge across that stream that collapsed about ten years ago. That was a part of Biscuit Run and/or 5th Street Stations proffers; and, when Biscuit Run became a park that actual proffer went away from them. Ms. Riley said but then on your site if someone was traversing down from the city on 5th Street on their bike and they wanted to go across Moore's Creek Bridge on your site are they going to be able to come down. Mr. Roell replied that they are absolutely going to be able to cross Moore's Creek Bridge. He pointed out we repaired that bridge about three years and contributed funds to make that happen. Ms. Riley pointed out that she just saw in the application that you were saying that it was not possible to connect the sidewalk up to 5th Street there. She asked if he was now saying that it was now possible. Mr. Roell replied yes, because once they came up with a process to do that we could not get the plan turned around, back into review and then still make this deadline for the date of this hearing. So we are willing to add that proffer that we will follow that direct course at the northern edge of our parking lot directly to 5th Street from the trail. Mr. Dotson said just to pin it down you are suggesting that were this to be approved tonight between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting you would revise the proffers to include the sidewalk roughly following the blue line and delete the gas station as an allowed use. Mr. Roell replied yes, sir. Mr. Dotson said the other question was the 6' retaining wall. Mr. Roell replied that there is an anticipated amount of 12' of fill and the most you can do is a 2 to 1 slope on any fill, which they know the county engineering's standard for it. He said a 6' slope and then a 6' wall ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 10 FINAL MINUTES would kind of get you to the edge of the parking; but, then there are curb issues and we would really like to have a slight barrier to that back edge that is more obvious that we can then mount a rail to keep it safe. So our design would really would like to have at least the ability to go up to 8' if necessary. He pointed out that none of that wall is visible from any Entrance Corridor anywhere and it is a solid back of woods behind it. We have no wall on the north side as you come south off of 5th Street and a very short wall on the 1-64 side which you are not going to be looking 40' down from the bridge at 60 miles an hour to see a 6' wall there. So we would ask that you would give us that little bit of lead way on the wall height to make sure that we can fall under the 8'. We are 6' to 8' in planes because of the slope and grade. As he said it is not visible and it is not like looking down the entrance to 5th Street Station and seeing a 20' wall or the lowest wall on 29, which addresses that question. Ms. Spain asked so is the only issue that we really are discussing tonight the setback for the parking. Mr. Roell replied yes, it really is we need some parking in the front. He asked staff to go to the one plan that shows it. Again, one of the things we also want to avoid is coming out of that entrance we want to be able to have a two-way travel way in front of the building so that if folks do park in the front they can back up and they can come back through the site because we have a full width travel way to get internal to the site. We do not want to then if you get in that front parking lot force you to go back out into 5th Street in order to return to anywhere on the site go back down 5th Street, do a U-turn and come back in and then try to re-enter the site. That is not vehicular or pedestrian friendly and it is not safe. They will just be creating more traffic on 5th Street trying to make U-turns. So it is paramount to that. As you also see in that plan largely it is made up of handicaps with about four useful spots that other people can use. We all know if you have been to a Star Bucks there is a dozen cars parked out front because they are waiting with the rest of them in line and we have doubled the length of our drive through in order to accommodate that after seeing the fiasco in Pantops. So we are trying to accommodate what we can and given the fact that they are only the small building on the right and there are two other larger buildings to the left we want to be able to provide some parking for some of those other tenants and users or a possible restaurant that might sit there. We feel that this is a commercial district and it is not downtown and we understand the process in the Neighborhood Model; but, given 36,000 cars a day on 5th Street and 57,000 cars on 1-64 we are going to be attracting some of that traffic. We will do everything we can on the site to make it trail friendly, pedestrian friendly; but, we also want to make it vehicular friendly given the amount of traffic in the area. Ms. Riley said she would like to follow up with a little bit more of exploring these other alternatives because she is having a difficult time comprehending why this auto circulation plan is better than, for example the Chick Filet kind of modal, the alternative that was put forth. She did not know if it was alternative A or B. Ms. Echols explained this is the one where we have the drive through across the front and coming down the side. It is the alternative circulation where you come through here and she asked the ARB planner about a drive through here and she said no that the ARB prefers it to be on the side. That is why this little area here is to imply that would be the drive through. Ms. Riley noted what she is trying to understand is this seems to allow you to if that be within the setback it would make the setback lower; it would still give your client a pretty good visibility and so this last point that you brought up, which maybe she is beginning to wonder is more of the issue that is you needed to have a circular auto pattern for more loaded and more cars to be waiting. She asked is that really the purpose of your design since she really was trying to understand the utility and the aesthetic of it. Mr. Roell said he understands. It is also to have adequate parking and a building that actually is useful and faces the street. The architectural feature of the front of the building is where the people are going to and it needs to face the street. We don't need to have an artificial back of a building facing there, and then the other problem that concerns is how we get product into whatever those buildings are because now we have no real loading space, rear entrance and how do you get supplies and things into the building other than bringing them in the front door. It is a great concept and sometimes it applies; but, generally it is one shoe does not fit every person and we need to be able to consider what works in here. If the Commission is just determined to reduce the setback on what is a commercial interstate strip, then ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 11 FINAL MINUTES the most we could do would be to eliminate the front set of parking space, but still maintain a double travel way and allow for some parking up along the face of the building. That is both our tenant's desire and the property owner's desire in a practical engineering access point. Ms. Riley asked what the setback would become if you did that. Mr. Roell replied the setback would be 58' instead of 74' and he would be able to eliminate 16' of the front row of parking. Ms. Riley asked if that would give you one row of parking in the front. Mr. Roell replied that is you drew a line right across there and slide that up until it hits the green space so that the landscape would be parallel to the travel way and that whole front row of parking would go away. Then we lose 16' for that set of cars and it leaves us with 4 spaces in front of the buildings that are not handicap. So then you are creating something that we have to locate those spaces in the back and then in order to people to get in you are forcing everybody to park in the back and then walk all the way around to the front. He did not know if that is pedestrian friendly either. Ms. Riley thanked Mr. Roell. Mr. Lafferty said his concern about the multi -modal transportation is that this whole area will be a connector between Avon Street and 5'h street and it will be heavily used by bicyclists. He pointed out that putting a bicyclist in this circular traffic patter looks like problems. Mr. Roell pointed out that a bicyclist can travel those lanes as easily as anything and we will have a bicycle lane on 5ch Street once they approach. But, again if they are coming across 5ch Street on the far side on a bicycle he did not know how they would do it. If they are coming north they would be able to turn there. Mr. Lafferty noted that they would be cutting through one way or the other. Mr. Roell noted that he did not want to put a bicycle lane along our entrance road given that it is basically for local traffic because, again, he did not want to make that U-turn possible area any wider because that adds 5' and now you are inviting. Mr. Lafferty said as a bicyclist he would rather ride on the highway than ride in a parking lot. Mr. Roell said there is plenty of adequate travel way and flat 3 percent grade throughout the property so it is very accessible from that standpoint. He said you can take it and ride it right off the edge and down into the trail if you have a mountain bike. Mr. Lafferty asked if there are any further questions. Mr. Dotson said just to -follow up on the comment that you made with this exhibit on the screen how would the products and services come into the buildings as you've proposed them here. Mr. Roell replied that they, again, would park over on the side lot and there will be a sidewalk that will go there because the white space between the travel way and the back of the building is a paved area for product access and worker access. Mr. Dotson asked if somebody with a hand truck would come across the drive through lane to the area at the rear of the buildings, and Mr. Roell replied yes, sir. Mr. Dotson asked to go to staff's alternative B and asked how the loading would take place here. Mr. Roell replied only through a front door, and, again that does not allow for a bypass lane that we also have incorporated into our design that is required. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 12 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson said one other comment comparing this that this afternoon he went up and looked again at the Chick Filet on Pantops and it struck me that it is very visible from the roadway because it is close to the roadway. If you moved it back 40' or whatever distance it would be less visible. But, you seem to be saying that moving closer detracts from visibility and he did not understand. Mr. Roell replied from the standpoint of moving the building closer to the road and not providing any building and having an actual front of a building Chick Filet can have its front dining room up there and let their drive through pass around it and enter from the back; but, that is a unique model and it is stand- alone single user floor plain design. This is a multi -modal multi -use building of multiple tenants that require different services, accesses, pedestrian and vehicular access, and again you figure there is going to be a fair number of people that are going to get off the interstate and want to grab a sandwich, grab a coffee, get back out and get back down the road. If you have ever driven anywhere we have all experienced that. Mr. Dotson thanked Mr. Roell. Ms. More asked staff to go back to the part of the property that only shows one of the buildings that traffic also will feed back through to the red lines. She asked is that correct. Mr. Roell replied that is correct everything exits out that point. Ms. More asked if they have to go all the way around. Mr. Roell replied that they don't have to loop around, no, they won't have direct access. He pointed out if you are getting ready to go and she says I want to get a cup of coffee then you have a building to turn right and go pull in and you can either loop around and get in the drive through or pull up around front or you can go ahead and exist because it is two lanes. Ms. Riley noted the most bottom building is the day care center with the people who want to zip in and drop their kids off and zip out, and asked how they feed into this auto pattern since they are the people that are probably in the biggest rush. Mr. Roell replied that they can go drop their kids off and then go towards the entrance which would take them back out, and then because of that 25' — 30' radius off the exiting lane they can then make a U-turn because it is a wide enough radius. So you can go up that way and turn in and come right into the drive through lane. If you see it stacked up in front of the building, then you will drive around that way and pull into the front of it. So back to Mr. Dotson's point and the engineer's standpoint that is 20' there and it is 24' at the entrance. That is about a 25' radius which is adequate for a car to make a U-turn directly into the site. So any of those folks in that back lot have good access and turning radius to enter into that. He tried to think of as many things to satisfy as many groups and as many conditions that can possibly be squeezed into the same box. He appreciates all your consideration in this matter. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Lafferty invited public comment. There being no public comment and no applicant rebuttal, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. He invited further discussion. Ms. Riley said she would like to report from the 5th and Avon Street CAC that met last week and the meeting was primarily just to discuss this project. After a pretty lengthy discussion there were probably three or four residents that live right in 5th Street area in Willoughby, Redfields and Southwood. So there were some residential representation as well as a developer from the area. Most of the conversation took place between the people in the 5th Street area and not Avon. There was a little bit of confusion about the auto circulation proposal. She thought that people had difficulty in understanding it just in terms of how the whole site would work. In general she thinks the group is very interested in having more pedestrian oriented development. For those that have been tracking the city side that this may be an area and 51h Street may become a city small area plan and we want to make sure we are connecting well to the city. In the end she thinks people realize that there is a lot of existing development there that does not conform ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 13 FINAL MINUTES to this new setback requirement and they realize this is a new setback requirement previously established. But, she would say in the end the balance was towards we should be trying to establish the Model Neighborhood principles and pedestrian multi -model orientation on sites from here on. If we don't start doing it now when will we do it? So their resolution was that they wanted to ask the developer to please adhere as closely as possible to the 30' setback in a new design. Mr. Lafferty asked how about the relegated parking, and Ms. Riley replied that they listened to what the Planning Commission gave in terms of direction at the last meeting and felt that the relegated parking would be nice to have given that it would support pedestrian orientation, but that really the setback was more of the issue. Mr. Dotson said at our previous meeting on this application he thinks a number of Commissioners were sort of on the fence, they could see that this was not an in town location, it was an edge of the interstate location and were not sure maybe they could maintain more of a setback than the 30'. He was one who because the ordinance was fairly new wanted the applicant to look at some alternatives to see could in fact the site work with the 30'. He would like to commend the staff for going the extra mile and adding alternatives to what the applicant presented to us. Having said all of that he is very concerned that we not set a precedent that would sort of undo this 30' setback community wide, but it does seem that there is an argument that could be made that this is a site that has a unique target market because it is within a quarter of a mile of the nearest ramp of the interstate. If that was our rationale it would certainly limit any precedent in terms of being jurisdiction wide if we were clear that this was because it was within a quarter of a mile of the nearest ramp of the interstate. So those are some of my thoughts on the special exception. Ms. Spain agreed with Mr. Dotson, she also remember the discussion from the last meeting and several of us were more concerned about the multi -modal which the applicant is addressing and perhaps the gas station canopy which he is also addressing. If the model is going to attract a large restaurant chain and/or Starbucks the lack of an adequate setback and parking in front could discourage that. Even though she endorses the Neighborhood Model she feels in this instance that it is a special case and that the applicant has also done a great deal on every other issue that we raised in trying to meet every other concern that we raised at the other meeting. Ms. More agreed with comments both of the other commissioners have said. She sort of came in thinking that a lot of the issues were not addressed and after hearing the applicant speak it sounds like some of the concerns can be addressed with proffers. She agreed with particularly what Commissioner Dotson said that she did not think that everything is going to fit into the same box and that a case could be made here to allow for the greater setback. With that said she thinks we want to be careful about the language we put into that as to why the Commission would feel moved to do that. That would be her comment on that to make sure it is not setting a precedent. Mr. Lafferty asked if everybody is comfortable with the 8' versus 6' retaining wall. Mr. Dotson said a question for staff is the 6' he believes comes from guidelines from the ARB, which is not necessarily a requirement but a target of desirability, and he thinks that is reflected also in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Echols replied it is in both instances, yes. It is also the new grading standards if you are going to be disturbing managed slopes also requires 6' terraces. Our engineer who looked very closely at the plan might also be able to speak to you on margins and ability to meet that. She talked to the zoning administrator about that and they do leave a little bit of margin for error in that but not as much as 2' since 2' would be much larger than they would be comfortable with. Mr. Dotson said a question for the county attorney is could it be that the requirement was 6' but could be adjusted for a demonstrable reasons with a maximum of 8' with the approval of the planning director. Mr. Kamptner replied that they could work on some proffer language with the applicant that might build in that flexibility. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 14 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Echols noted that she thinks the proffer actually the way it is written does that. Actually, it is not a proffer it is shown on the plan as 8' retaining walls. What staff had asked is that they change the note on the plan to say 6' retaining walls, which they could do and put that small margin that is allowed by zoning. They could change the plan to say 7' or say the maximum of 8' but with approval of the county engineer or something like that, which would then say you don't just get it you have to demonstrate that you need it. It being a proffered plan and not a planned district that wouldn't be something that was available for a variation of a special exception. But, there could be a note on the plan that does that. However, right now what they get is a maximum of 8'. Mr. Dotson commented that he would be comfortable if it showed on the plan 6' allowing the county engineer to modify it up to 8' if necessary. Mr. Lafferty pointed out we have an affirmative sign from the applicant on that. Ms. Riley said she was generally comfortable with what was proposed; but, she thinks it is really important if we are going to make the special exception under unique target market that we clearly define and limit that to a quarter of a mile of the nearest ramp of an interstate. She thinks it is really important that it not be really broad, and she wants to see that the multi -model access and the connection to 5th Street to Moore's Creek in the attempt to try to connect to the Biscuit Run be through proffer. It is a compromise of trying to make it accessible, but recognizing that this is a site where this auto centered design is acceptable. Mr. Dotson asked the applicant to speak to that. Mr. Roell said to address that we are glad to add something to the proffer language where we will be happy to cooperate with any improvements to a Biscuit Run connection and/or path or trail way and provide easements based on our property for that. He would be happy to work with you in that community area in order to finalize some of those designs and make sure those paths are clear and accessible. Mr. Lafferty asked about the 6' to 8' retaining walls. Mr. Roell replied if they can have it as not to exceed 8' and between the 6' and 8' range, again those variances, and the last point of that those areas where we are going to put a retaining wall are not managed slopes, they don't exist yet because we are going to fill them and grade them. There being no further comments, Mr. Lafferty asked for a motion. Mr. Kamptner suggested addressing the special exception first. Motion: Mr. Dotson commented that he believed the applicant said they could live with a 58' setback with a single row of parking. But, he was going to recommend the 74' because he does see that it would put the parking and inconvenience the pedestrian at a greater distance to move it from the front of the buildings. So that is the rationale for going specifically to 74' instead of 58' and so the minutes can reflect that. Mr. Dotson moved to recommend approval of a 74' maximum front setback in conjunction with ZMA- 2012-00007 5th Street Commercial for the reasons of the unique target market within a quarter of a mile of the nearest ramp of the Interstate 64. Mr. Lafferty asked if the quarter of a mile is a condition, and Mr. Dotson replied that it is a rational. Mr. Benish agreed that it was a rational. Ms. Spain seconded the motion. Mr. Lafferty asked for a roll call. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 15 FINAL MINUTES The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5:0:2. (Keller, Firehock absent) Ms. Echols asked for a motion on the rezoning request. She said the Commission can make a recommendation to approve with conditions that the applicant will make the changes that they talked about before the Board meeting. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved for approval of ZMA-2012-00007 5th Street Commercial as stated by staff. He believed the conditions are the addition of the sidewalk connecting to 5th Street; the deletion of gas stations as an allowable use; and, the modification of the plan to show the retaining walls to be between 6' and 8' with any access over 6' to be approved by the county engineer. He said those are the conditions that he captured. Ms. Spain added the multi -modal condition. Mr. Kamptner asked if there is any particular criteria that the county engineer should be applying and that might be as demonstrated to be necessary to establish the walls without removing guardrails and whatever for the safety reasons that were stated by the applicant. Mr. Dotson replied yes, that should be added. Ms. Echols said she did not know if he was finished; but, there was also the roof and whether the Commission wanted to have the brown stone on the roof regardless of whether it is in the Monticello view shed. Mr. Dotson replied yes, on the roof he wanted the brown stone regardless of consulting with Monticello. Ms. More seconded the motion. Mr. Lafferty asked for a roll call. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5:0:2. (Keller, Firehock absent) Mr. Lafferty noted the motion carried and ZMA-2012-7 51h Street Commercial will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendations on a date to be determined. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m. Ms. More said she resides in physical proximity to the proposed project and she may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment to the value of my real property in an amount that exceeds $5,000 as a result of the action of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. She disqualified herself from participating in this transaction and requests this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Ms. More left the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Public Hearing Items. SP-2016-00003 West Glen MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055C00300000A0; 055C00300000A1; 056A1010002500, 056A10100026A0, 05600- 000011500 LOCATION: Southwest of Cling Lane and northeast of Peach Tree Drive and Orchard Drive PROPOSAL: Construction of stream crossing of Powell's Creek with box culvert and roadway in floodplain PETITION: Fill in the Flood Hazard Overlay under section 30.3.11 ZONING: R-6 Residential — 6 units/acre OVERLAY DISTRICT: FH — Flood Hazard Overlay ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 16 FINAL MINUTES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential — 3-6 units /acre, supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Greenspace — public parks, open space, environmental features (Rachel Falkenstein) Ms. Falkenstein summarized the staff report for SP-2016-00003 West Glen, a request for fill in the floodplain, in a PowerPoint presentation. The proposal is to construct a stream crossing of Powell's Creek, which requires fill in the floodplain. Special Use Permits are required for fill in the Flood Hazard Overlay under Section 30.3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed property is located west of Downtown Crozet. Five parcels, TMP 55-03-A, 56A1-01- 25, 56A1-01-26, 56-115, and 55C-03-A1 are proposed as part of this property. It is located south of Cling Lane, which is shown terminating the cul-de-sac and north of Peach Tree Drive and Orchard Drive. Powell Creek runs through the property and an area of floodplain runs along Powell's Creek. The property is zoned R-6 Residential. History: There was a previous special use permit, SP-1990-103, which is also a request for fill in the floodplain that allowed the construction of Cling Lane that also had a crossing at Powell Creek. That crossing, as shown in the picture in the presentation, was two boxed culverts. With this special use permit there was a condition stating that the crossing should serve accesses up to 30 lots so the construction of Cling Lane and 30 lots were constructed on the property. The condition also stated that no development of the residue property or access to adjacent properties shall be allowed until a second access is provided to Orchard Drive. The applicant is proposing to comply with that condition to provide a second access to Orchard Drive, and they are proposing an extension of Cling Lane. No longer ending in a cul-de-sac it will extend based on that proposal to cross Powell Creek. This will be the stream crossing that will run parallel to the creek 'fir until it intersects with Orchard Drive. The proposed crossing is a 10'x10' triple box culvert, and the applicants have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the county engineer that there will be no rise in the base floodplain elevation with this design. If approved, the applicant proposes to develop the property residentially at a gross density of about 4 dwelling units per acre. However, staff has not reviewed a subdivision plat for this yet and really just been focused on the design of the stream crossing at this point. If the stream crossing is approved they will have to come in for a subdivision plat to be reviewed against the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The applicant is proposing several mitigation measures to help mitigate the impact of the stream crossing. They are proposing the removal of an existing dam along Powell's Creek as pictured in the slide, which is about a 5' dam with a small area of impoundment behind it. They are proposing to remove the dam and restore the stream to its natural state. Staff from the Army Corps of Engineer has expressed their support for this dam removal project. They are also proposing some mitigation plantings in areas of the stream buffer that are not already forested as well as an area of greenway dedication that is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan. Before any disturbance is permitted they will have to submit a mitigation plan to be approved by the County Engineer. The Crozet Master Plan shows this property for land use of Neighborhood Density Residential (as shown in the yellow color) as well as greenspace (as shown in the green color). The greenspace coincides mostly with the stream buffer and floodplain as well as some areas of preserved slope on the property. The Neighborhood Density calls for a density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. As you can see there are also some conceptual street locations shown on the property. It shows connections going across the property to the east. It does not show a crossing of Powell's Creek or a stream crossing in this location. Ms. Falkenstein said she wants to talk a little more about these street locations shown in the Master Plan. Currently there is not adequate right-of-way to build streets in those locations as you can see by the map. She pointed out McComb Street, which is a small easement that has not actually been built or a public roadway. So there is not adequate right-of-way at this time for them to build a public roadway in this location. The other area shown crosses some private property to the east. If these roadways were to be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 17 FINAL MINUTES eventually constructed they would come out along Blue Ridge Avenue, which is a public road. However, it was built prior to current road standards; it is a very narrow roadway; it is very steep, and it was not designed for a large volume of traffic. The alternative connection that the applicants are proposing would come and connect to Orchard Drive so that they will be coming out onto Orchard Drive pretty close to Jarman's Gap Road, which runs east/west across the picture, which will be a more adequate roadway for the traffic demand caused by this development. In summary staff have identified some favorable and unfavorable factors with this request. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed stream crossing will not cause any rise in the base floodplain elevation. 2. The stream crossing will allow development of the property consistent with the Crozet Master Plan. 3. The applicants are proposing a greenway dedication in an area consistent with the Crozet Master Plan, and 4. The stream crossing in this location would promote interconnectivity and disperse traffic onto a road system that is better able to handle the additional traffic load. Factors Unfavorable 1. The Crozet Master Plan does not identify a road with a stream crossing in this location and the Comprehensive Plan recommends that roads with stream crossings only occur in areas shown in the Master Plans. 2. The stream crossing will also have some environmental impacts for features such as the floodplain, stream buffer and preserved slopes; however, they are proposing some mitigation measures. The staff recommendation is for approval of SP-2016-03 with six conditions. The first two conditions are kind of wordy; but, they are pretty standard conditions. The first one is a general accord condition just asking that the stream crossing be in general accord with the plan submitted by the applicant. The 1400 second one is asking for approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The third condition is that lots and associated streets resulting from the subdivision of the property be located outside of the 100' stream buffer with an exception of lots being allowed within the landward of 10' of the buffer only if they are adjacent to approved storm water management facilities within the buffer. Condition 4 is that the net density of the property shall not exceed 6 units per acres in accordance with the master plan. Net density shall be calculated by subtracting the areas within the floodplain, the stream buffer and preserved slopes from the total acreage. She will note that the applicant has done a calculation to determine this will be about 74 units. Condition 5 is prior to the issuance of a grading permit they shall dedicate the greenway trail as shown on the plan. Condition 6 would just be an expiration date on the permit of 5 years if the use is not commenced. Ms. Falkenstein presented suggested motions and said she would happy to answer questions at this time. Mr. Lafferty invited questions for staff. Mr. Dotson asked along the creek does the master plan show a trail sort of paralleling the alignment of creek. Ms. Falkenstein replied that it just identifies this area as a greenway, and she does not have a map showing a trail here. She will note that Parks and Rec staff has reviewed the request and said they would like to have a trail here and it will provide some connections to other existing trails. Ms. Echols pointed out the Parks and Green Systems Plan does show a trail in this area. Mr. Dotson said he had a question either of staff or the applicant. He asked if the trail is paralleling the -40 stream bed and it is interrupted by this road crossing how would someone using the trail get to the other side of the road. He asked would they go up onto the road and across; would they go through one of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 18 FINAL MINUTES three box culverts; would there be a trail way as part of that; or how would that happen Ms. Falkenstein replied that the crossing would be over the road, and Parks and Rec staff has weighed in on this and they said that would be an acceptable crossing in this location. Mr. Lafferty invited other questions. He noted that he had a few questions since he did not think our packet had the Crozet Master Plan showing the future connections and so he was wondering. He said attachment H came as close to it as possible. The restrictions in 7.1.91 about the connection to Orchard Lane refers to a tax map 55C, parcel A that he could not identify on the GIS system and so he just wondered where it is because he does not know if it connects all of this property or just part of it. Ms. Falkenstein asked if he was referring to the previous special use permit, and Mr. Lafferty replied yes. Ms. Falkenstein explained that the property has since been divided so that original tax map is no longer in the same configuration, and she would guess that tax map number no longer exists. Mr. Lafferty said he noticed that the map staff had up shows a connection going all the way up to Blue Ridge Avenue. He asked if that is where the Vue is going to be. Ms. Falkenstein pointed out that she had put a slide at the end in case a question about the Vue came up. She pointed out there is another by right proposal for people who are not familiar with this for the Vue, which proposes to construct apartment units on this portion of Tax Map 56/115. That will be a by right residential development to the R6 zoning ordinance standards utilizing the acreage of this property for that development by clustering the development on the front portion. The West Glen development will propose a road crossing through this property, but, is not proposing to develop any units on the property. So it won't actually connect the road way to the Vue because as you can see they will cross the stream once here and connect to Orchard Drive. However, in order to connect to the Vue and stay on this parcel they would have to do a second stream crossing. So that is not what they are proposing; it was just the connection out to Orchard Drive. Mr. Lafferty said he was surprised with the Vue that you did not have a condition like condition 4 where you don't include the floodplain and the buildable acreage. Ms. Falkenstein pointed out the Vue was a by right development so staff calculated it based on gross density and how we calculate density with the zoning ordinance. Since this is a legislative review we are able to. Mr. Lafferty said as far as health and safety go you said that Blue Ridge Avenue cannot handle the 81 units of the Glens; however, you approved 126 apartments that will dump right into Blue Ridge Avenue. Ms. Falkenstein replied that she was suggesting that the road ways probably are not adequate to safely handle additional traffic. However, with the Vue, again, that being a by right development we can't require upgrades to the road, can't deny development and are very limited to what we can do. Ms. Echols pointed out VDOT would be the ones who are ensuring that in a by right development and they did not require any changes. Mr. Lafferty said since we are not talking about the Vue right now the actual property is much less than what we were shown in the staff report and it does not include the stuff that goes up to Blue Ridge Avenue. Ms. Falkenstein pointed out the part they are proposing to subdivide is only about 19.7 acres that does not include the parcel highlighted on the left, the Vue, that is just a parcel included in this request because it includes the fill in the floodplain stream crossing. Mr. Lafferty noted in the engineering report a lot of it was not readable; but, it does say there is some section that is expected to have up to a'/z foot rise in the floodplain. In the conditions on the front page you say that the favorable conditions that the proposed stream crossings will not cause any rise in the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 19 FINAL MINUTES base floodplain elevation, and then in the unfavorable conditions you say we will impact the environmental features such as the floodplain, the stream buffers, preserved areas and slopes. That seems to contradict each other. Ms. Falkenstein said she would like to have the engineering reviewer, John Anderson, address his comment. Then if there are further questions about the favorable factors she can answer that. Mr. John Anderson said those were good questions. He has been with the county several years and had been with Community Development for two years and yesterday just started in Environmental Services. He said he had noticed the rise, too, and it was something that has changed in one revision of the plan initially. What we see now are three box culverts and combined with a 300 square foot opening. What we saw previous were a little bit less; it was a 192 square foot opening and we did see more of a rise. There is still that slight rise and where you find that rise is not at the crossing, it is not at the box culvert so much as downstream just a little ways where the road kind of hugs the floodplain and there is actually a retaining wall. He thinks you will see there is a stream cross section like letter G. It is where there is some fill that intrudes a little bit and that supports fill for a roadway. So you do see a 0.49 foot rise and that is something that he believes is a good condition for a special use permit because he thinks the next step is for Dominion Engineering, Mike Meyers, who is a certified floodplain manager. This guy knows his business and he respects that. He said Mike Meyers went to FEMA with his model and right now that is the data that you see as a 0.9' rise. So when he goes to FEMA with his condition it is incumbent on him that he work that model and maybe refine it with some additional cross sectional information. But, that is going to be a requirement if the Planning Commission or if the Board issues a special permit with a no rise, then that means no rise. Mr. Anderson pointed out at the moment after one very solid revision where they went from two boxes to three boxes lowering the rise substantially; there is still this little bit that is not at the box culvert, but it does have to do with that area where they have a retaining wall and a little bit of roadway embankment fill. So there are some options. As a little bit of side information, FEMA has people that evaluate the results of these models all the time and then they also contract out to firms that might specialize in it. There are firms that do that. So you are going to have an engineer representing the developer and an engineer representing the agency, FEMA, and they will be on the same wave length before it is done. He pointed out FEMA saw the application that came to the Commission earlier for 5th Street Commercial and way back when they actually issued a letter of that revision for that project in the year 2000. He noted that you don't just see changes in the map, sometimes you see changes in tabular data to the 1001h of a foot. He said so no rise is a strong condition and if it is a condition of approval then it falls to the developer in the process of getting a letter of that provision to make the point. Mr. Lafferty asked would FEMA have feet on the ground in Crozet because in the 5th Street Station when they did that they said they disagreed with the FEMA maps and they were going to do the surveying themselves. He thinks that is how they got some of the conditions changed. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Lafferty to help him understand what you are saying happened in the other case. Mr. Lafferty said he thinks they disagreed with the FEMA floodplain drawings and so they did actual engineering measurements on the ground. Mr. Anderson replied that FEMA in the maps will use day in and day are not always surveyed. There are floodplain maps that we rely on for a number of really important purposes they are based on gross topographic information. It is certain reaches of streams like this one, Powell's Creek, where you have a little bit more of refined effort on FEMA's part; they actually try to define a more critical part of the floodway called a floodway. But, a lot of times you can go beyond that and improve that, and sometimes if you look at our GIS lay area and you look at the floodplain line you will see a crossing contours. Floodplains will cross contours as you go upstream; but, you will them sometimes just part rather strongly and go up the hill or something. So those are the kind of things that engineers with field surveys can improve upon, and FEMA welcomes that. In fact, sometimes they will waive a review fee if someone were to approach them with what they call improved topographic data. So that is kind of a first step and Dominion Engineering will probably bring that to bear to try to run the base model that FEMA used to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 20 FINAL MINUTES establish floodway and base flood elevations here on Powell's Creek. They used a certain model and Dominion Engineering has access to that and the more discreet field run survey that they put into that model the more accurate the results of the model. It does to tend to lower base flood elevation when you put more refined improved topographic information into it. So you have seen something and the engineering has certainly seen it and if they propose to accept this condition of no rise they have to be confident that working with FEMA directly or FEMA contractors that they can prove it that will turn out that way. Mr. Lafferty asked would you suggest that the letter from FEMA in our documents are them just using the topo that they have available the data but they did not come up and do any measurements. Mr. Anderson asked that the numbers that they see in the application today are not based on any additional information. Mr. Lafferty replied it was the letter saying that it was a great project and removing the dam would probably be better. Mr. Anderson asked what the question is. Mr. Lafferty asked did FEMA do any on site work, and probably not or yes. Ms. Falkenstein suggested that the applicant might be able to answer that because they are the ones who provided that correspondence. Mr. Lafferty said okay while he has the engineer up here you mentioned the difference in the culverts the one downstream has a cross sectional area of 139 square feet. The new one has a 300 square foot cross sectional area. So the one downstream will block the water and above this we have been charged by the State of Virginia to do and what would happen downstream from dam if it broke. There are two 1*0w dams feeding this in Mint Springs. What do you think would happen because they are pretty big size bodies of water? Mr. Anderson replied that he can't say or answer on the spot now. Depending on the size of impoundments or dams, and he did not know the size of these runs, but the state actually does evaluate what we call the zone of inundation dam break zones and we consider that with our reviews. He can't speak to that; he was the planner who coordinated that with the state. He believes it the Department of Conservation or Recreation the dam safety division. They are cognitive and aware, in fact, the state has been looking at a dam that he had a chance to work on, the Hollymead dam that carries traffic. So it is in the forefront of people's mind both here and at the state. That is a tough question to ask what he thinks might happen. Mr. Lafferty said it probably would not be good for buildings close to the floodplain, would it. Mr. Anderson replied that it all depends on the magnitude of who you are talking about because we all have seen the movies and in fact we might all have had experience with floods. In fact, you have really put your finger on the purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program and that is why we have our Flood Hazard Overlay Ordinance; that is what it is all about. It is a balance of development and risk you might say. Mr. Lafferty said they have some unanswered questions, and Mr. Anderson replied yes, sir, and asked if there were any more. Mr. Lafferty replied that he did not think so since he thinks he has put him on the spot enough. Ms. Falkenstein said she would like to clarify quickly we don't have a condition recommending no rise in the base floodplain. That came from my staff report and what she should have said is negligible rise in the base floodplain and not zero rise. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 21 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Lafferty said but we have a project that is not compliant to the Crozet Master Plan and not compliance to the overall comprehensive plan. Ms. Falkenstein said that is correct, she had identified that as an unfavorable factor. Mr. Lafferty said at one time back several years ago there was a mention of almost a promise of a linear park connecting to the park in Old Trail. A linear park went up at Powell's creek and now we are putting another impediment to it of having of having to go up an incline and down it to have a linear park there. It just seems like that is another thing that we are losing for multi -modal transportation and the Crozet Park system, which the volunteers have been trying to do a circuit navigation around Crozet and they have been doing a great job; and he was just concerned about that. He asked does anybody have any questions. Ms. Riley pointed out in your report you said the applicant had approached other owners about another entrance way, but none of those had been successful. She asked were all of those alternatives going to be coming off of Blue Ridge or could you elaborate on them a little bit more. Ms. Falkenstein replied that she would prefer that the applicant spoke to that. But, she thinks he was looking to make the connection shown in the Crozet Master Plan in the general area here. There is a small easement along McComb's Street already existing. She was not sure if they explored widening that or not; but, they could probably speak to that better. Mr. Lafferty asked if there were any further questions. He said he would like to invite the applicant up to speak. Again, you have ten minutes as the timer readings go. He explained yellow means you have one minute left. Charlie Armstrong, with Southern Development, said that he had with him Keith Lancaster also of Southern Development and Mike Meyers of Dominion Engineering. We thank you for your time tonight. He said the first thing that he would like to do is address some of the big questions that have come up from you all that staff did not yet answer. He thinks he has answers for all of those that our plan has designed to. First, the other connection. One of our goals here was to make as many connections to adjoining places as we could. This special use permit from the 90's specifically requires a connection to Orchard Drive in order to develop the residue, and he would come back to that in a minute. But, we also wanted to look at making, if not, just the connection to Orchard, maybe an additional connection or maybe an only connection to Blue Ridge. That is the only other place that we could get to. There are no other streets in between our property and back down to Jarman's Gap. All of that property is owned ty one owner who owns a collection of parcels there. We met with that owner multiple times and discussed opportunities for a connection through there and a lot of different possibilities for how that connection could work. There is the McComb's Street right-of-way he believes is 30', which is not sufficient for a public road. Mr. Armstrong said we would be able to potentially provide an emergency access connection there. As the fire department said to us in one of our meetings with them whether our emergency access connection is there or not they are going to use it if there is an emergency because our road does abut that plan. So the end of those discussions was we were not able to reach any kind of agreement with them to connect through. So Orchard is the only place we are proposing a connection, and that is consistent, of course, with our special use permit. He found it very interesting that staff in their report came to a conclusion that says that the Orchard connection is probably a better place to connect, and it leads me to believe that if the master plan we agree on today that might be where a road connection will be shown and that one might not be shown going to Blue Ridge because of the inadequacy of Blue Ridge right now to handle additional traffic. It is just not designed to today's road standards. Mr. Armstrong said once we did not reach agreement with that other owner, and after learning of staff's thoughts on Blue Ridge we abandoned that possibility for a connection. Next, is the dam break scenario which is also an important one, which is downstream of Mint Springs. He pointed out that many properties in the county are downstream of one dam or another. We have thousands and thousands of ponds and dozens if not hundreds of what he would call lakes. So dam break is an important thing to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 22 FINAL MINUTES consider. In our analysis we did not do a sophisticated floodplain analysis for a dam break inundation study like the county has had to do. But, in our analysis it is easy to see that the two culverts that are upstream of this property going under Cling Lane and also going under the railroad tracks are significantly smaller than what we propose. Our culverts would be able to handle about 50% more water than those upstream culverts. So any water that comes down stream first has to clear those two smaller culverts before it gets to ours, which it would easily pass, and then it would hit Jarman's Gap Road again, which is smaller than what we propose as well and it may back up there, too. But, ours would be the largest culvert in proximity so water would pass here far more easily than it would pass any of the other culverts in this stream. Mr. Anderson said regarding the question about the trail connection and the greenway there, we are proposing to actually create and dedicate. That does not exist now. That is the greenway shown on the map. It is one that Dan Mahon and Parks really wants to see because it provides a critical piece of the connection from Downtown Crozet up to Mint Spring. Without that you are on road or going somewhere else to get to Mint Spring. With this there can be a multi -modal trail straight up along the creek valley to connect those important hubs. So we would like to be able to dedicate that greenway with this project and make that happen for the county. To think about it in terms of we are losing the green way is not really an accurate way to think about it. That greenway does not exist. We would be gaining a greenway. He would be gaining a greenway as a county resident. He hopes that answers the questions that came up. Mr. Andersons pointed out that he had a few other things that he would like to discuss. This property in that 1990's special use permit was designated as phase one of the development, and this has been owned since that time by Crozet Development Solutions. It has always been planned to be developed. It has always been phase 2 or 3 or however many phases it might be of that initial phase 1. They stopped short in the 90's because they did not want to build this road connection to Orchard which was desired at the time. It is an expensive thing to build, and they wanted to do the 30 units that they are allowed to do without making that expensive connection. So they did provide two additional road connections to this residue parcel, one of which is the extended cul-de-sac of Cling Lane. Instead of doing the traditional cul- de-sac we have houses surrounding it. Cling Lane extends about 200' into this parcel so that it would not have to disturb the adjacent residents through a lot. They were planning for this future development. The county documents that were submitted back at the time also call it phase one. Those plans from the 1990's also do show this conceptual stream crossing location on those plans. So this is really a request to complete a development that was started long ago and has always been slated by the landowner and by submitted county documents for future development. The site is zoned R-6 as staff pointed out or 6 units per acre. We don't propose to develop to that density or anywhere near it. The comp plan suggests a desired density of 3 to 6 units per acres, and we are proposing about 4 units per acre so we are well within that and certainly below the median point of that 3 to 6. Mr. Armstrong said environmental concerns were our first concern when we started looking at this; a stream crossing does have environmental impacts and there are ways to mitigate those so that they are not on the net. They are not detrimental to the stream; but, that was the first thing we needed to look at. So we zeroed in on this concrete dam that is in the stream channel pretty quickly. Dams impede stream flow; aquatic wildlife movement such as fish, thick organisms and things like that. So removal of that dam, which is a significant undertaking was where we looked first in addition to the plantings and other things that we can do that are helpful. But, this is really the big thing of that dam. You asked if the feds had come out to the site. He invited the Army Corps of Engineers to the site; they visited with me and walked the creek; and focused on that dam especially. After the Army Corps visit they determined that removal of the dam coupled with this new stream crossing; the stream crossing being this light environmental negative and the dam being a huge environmental positive, those two things together that this proposal is a net environmental benefit to the stream; and their letter says that very clearly which is in the packet. So we are excited to be able to do that. It will do something that we have never been able to do before. We are moving dams in my office that is just above Woolen Mills so he always looks down on where the Woolen Mills was and now it is a natural river when it was not before. He knows this is a little bit smaller than the Rivanna; we want to be able to do something similar. That is the start of our environmental studies of the property; it certainly is not the conclusion. We have to and will do significant other floodplain studies and will coordinate all of those with the Corps of Engineers, DEQ, Department of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 23 FINAL MINUTES Games and Inland Fisheries and the MRC to ensure that our development techniques cause no adverse impact. Mr. Armstrong said in my final few seconds he is going to ask you to consider two of the conditions and possibly remove them if you see fit. Condition 3, existing ordinances accurately address this right now. So he would ask that condition 3b be removed because what it causes is a longer road for the same number of lots. It allows lots only to be developed on one side of the road in a lot of cases, which means more impervious surface per house than otherwise would be possible. This is a designated growth area and condition 4 limits density. He feels that having the density here in one place is better than reducing density here when we are already proposing something that is well below the recommended median and what is below by right. It would be better to have the density here than to have fewer units, which means eventually somebody needs to build more units elsewhere to accommodate the same amount of growth. Thank you for your time and he won't take up any more of it. But, he was happy to come back with questions. Mr. Lafferty invited questions for Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dotson said he had a couple of questions. Condition #1 currently states as well as maintaining no increase in the 100-year flood elevation; can you live with that. Mr. Armstrong replied that he thinks that a negligible increase would be a better condition to have if we are talking inches. He did not think that disturbs anything and so should you see fit that would be preferred. But, he thinks with some engineering we can probably meet that condition if you all feel that is necessary. Mr. Dotson said you are objecting to condition #4 and if you could maybe translate this is saying 6 units per acre net density and you are building 4 units per acre gross density. Your gross density would translate to what net density. Mr. Armstrong replied that he believes that if this condition were imposed that it would be about 74 units maximum density there, which is still just around 4. Our plan of development is right around that density. So it does not have a tremendous impact on what we are planning to do; but, we bump right up against it to have that stream buffer and other areas removed for the purposes of calculation of the stream buffers and other areas are already removed from the area we are proposing to develop. That is not an area we are going to develop. This is just on paper for the purposes of a density calculation is what that is suggesting. Mr. Dotson said that he did not understand and perhaps the staff could comment about your suggestion that #3 be removed. It is a fairly technical condition and he was not sure he would fully understand it. Ms. Falkenstein said sure, so we have a Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) that deals with development and how it is permitted in the stream buffer. It has been interpreted by the county engineer and engineering staff that we would allow certain disturbances within the landward 50' of the stream buffer. We don't allow building sites within the stream buffer; however, we have allowed lots. So if you can demonstrate that your building site is outside of the stream buffer you can still have a private lot on the stream buffer. This is maybe not the best tool to enforce protection of the stream buffer because once it is on private lots individuals often times maybe don't even know it is a stream buffer and will mow, build sheds, playgrounds and things. When we have legislative reviews we try and ask lots be pulled out of the stream buffer. The way this condition is written we allow lots within the landward 10' of the stream buffer. If there is a storm water management facility already disturbing the portion of the stream buffer, this is for consistency sake; this is what staff had recommended with the Adelaide development also in Crozet so she was just trying to maintain some consistency there. Ms. Echols pointed out it is our standard practice to recommend that the stream buffer not be on lots because it is easier to ensure long term maintenance if it is owned by an association rather than each individual lot owner. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 24 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson reiterated what he thinks she is saying is #3 reflects our standard practice Mr. Lafferty asked staff to explain what attachment D, page 4 of 4 is showing. Mr. Anderson said he did not know if he had attachment D and if it was possible to put it up on the screen. Ms. Falkenstein asked if he was referring to the image on the engineering comments. Mr. Lafferty replied that it was engineering review comment on page 4 of 4. Ms. Falkenstein said that Mr. Anderson might want to speak to that, but she would pull up their application plan here. It is difficult to see on the screen, but a portion of this Red Tail Drive is also shown within the stream buffer. If this came in as a by right development there could be an interpretation that this road would be allowed within the landward 50', but the stream buffer because it is disturbance necessary to provide use of the lot, however, since we have a little more discretion with the legislative review with the condition 3 asking that this road be removed outside of the stream buffer. Mr. Lafferty asked if the yellow part shown there is the stream buffer or the floodplain, and Ms. Falkenstein replied the stream buffer. Mr. Lafferty asked if it actually covers some houses and the road, and Ms. Falkenstein replied yes, the yellow part with the road is the stream buffer. Mr. Lafferty pointed out there was no key to the drawing so he couldn't tell what it meant Mr. Anderson pointed out he was trying to say as Ms. Falkenstein was saying that here a hardscape within the stream buffer, and it is what Ms. Echols and Ms. Falkenstein are getting at is that the stream .w buffer does have a little bit of allowance in there for things to be done, but we prefer not to see hardscape improvements. He apologized for not having a key; but, every once in a while he will just copy an image and slash a little yellow on it trying to call attention to something. Mr. Lafferty replied no, it is fine because it brought it to my attention. He asked if there were any further questions from the Commission. Mr. Armstrong pointed out he thinks the answer to your question there is this comment and the condition came with the staff report subsequent to when this plan was submitted, and the answer is that this plan would have to be modified in order to comply with that. He has shown right here estimated when we originally submitted an application; this would not meet that condition. Mr. Lafferty invited further questions. Ms. Riley asked staff to elaborate a little bit on if the Corps of Engineers has concluded sort of the net benefit in terms of you building a road across this stream versus removing the dam and restoring the stream to its nature state there. Could you describe a little bit more what is going to happen when you remove the dam and whatever sort of improvements would you be making. Mr. Armstrong replied that they would have to come up with a detailed engineering plan for that, which we have not done yet. But, he has had significant discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers about how that would go about. He explained it would involve removing the concrete structure itself, so essentially hammering out a large concrete dam and hauling that away. Then the water that is impounded above it creates a small pond that he would guess is 40' X 20' or 30'. Since that water would then be allowed to flow freely in the original creek bed the sides of that pond would be bare dirt that would need to be reshaped and stabilized and then planted with native species in order to bring it back to what that creek bed used to look like or our closest guess to what it used to look like. You can't just blow up the dam and walk away, you have to do a lot of work to make it look like that dam was never there. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 25 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Lafferty said further down Powell's Creek the county just spent a great deal of money putting in two catchment basins so they could keep the silt out. He assumed that this pond has a fair amount of built up silk, which you would be releasing into the catchment basin that the county would have to clean up. Another good thing about the pond is you might use it as a catchment basin and clean it out instead of trying to destroy it. Mr. Armstrong replied well if that is what you prefer we can look into that. Mr. Lafferty said he did not know if he would prefer that or not. He just thinks it is going to be an expense that the county is going to have to bare to clean out the silt that is going to go down stream. Mr. Armstrong said that he will speak to that and absolutely not we can't just demolish a dam and let any of the silt that has accumulated behind it over the years run. We have to dredge behind it first to remove that so that does not happen. There is certainly and he does not know how deep but he can assure you that there is silt built up, and so that would all have to be dredged out with a backhoe and carried away before any of that water was released. So that would be part of the plan. Mr. Lafferty asked have any environmental studies been done on the creek, dam and the pond. Mr. Armstrong replied yes, sir. We have done a phase one environmental analysis which is more tailored towards environmental concerns generally. We've also have done a wetland delineation and a stream delineation with a certified wetland and stream delineator to make sure that we know exactly where any of the wetlands that are on the site are. Our plan avoids all of them and he knows exactly the structure and type of the classification of the stream that is there so that we can adequately do our engineering for that stream. There being no further questions from the Commission, Mr. Lafferty invited public comment. Mary Jane Richey, an adjacent property owner, said she had lived in my neighborhood for 19 years and over these 19 years the development of this property that we are talking about tonight has come up several times. Every time it comes up what enters is the floodplain, Powell Creek and the environmental issues that we are talking about tonight are the ones that are most concerning to me. She would guess when we say stream crossing we are talking about a road, and those two terms are interchangeable. She thinks the committee is considering tonight all about a road and she just can't believe that there is not another way to get to this property to develop it. She believed there is another way and heard the gentleman before me say that he had tried to work with the property owners. She has heard the opposite so she was not going to say who said what. But, you know how it goes. What concerns me in the report are the words used mitigation, mitigating, and alleviating. She said if you have looked in the dictionary to see what those words mean, and those two words mean the same thing and they don't fix the problem. What they do is to make less severe, less impact, less tense and less painful; it does not alleviate or take away the problem. The impact is going to be the impact on the environment. She knows from working as a naturalist in a park in Tennessee for 17 years that once you make a mistake like this in the environment you cannot take it back. So she is really concerned that the planners even considered when it goes against some of the county's rules about preserving floodplains, stream buffers and so forth. It also goes against what is stated in the master plan and this road is not shown in the master plan. The master plan states that no road should go across a stream unless it is shown in the plan. So if we have a master plan what good is it if we don't follow what is set down in the plan? She believes that property owners have the right to develop and use their land; but, she did not believe they have the right to destroy the environment. So she would ask the Commission to consider not accepting this proposal as is recommended. Mike Marshall, an adjacent property owner, said my wife Lisa and I own the 18 acres that is immediately east and south of the property that is being discussed. We were present on this property in 1990 when the original special use permit was approved. That parcel was a remainder from the development of Orchard Acres. The development of Orchard Acres could not reach that parcel; it was basically a scrap raw piece of land. We never thought it was going to be developed. What happened was that Mr. Rick McNealy, the developer of Orchard Acres, deeded it over to the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, now ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 26 FINAL MINUTES the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). In exchange he got a letter he thinks was endorsed by the county saying that he had given land worth $140,000 and therefore he got a tax credit for that. The county broke its rules against crossing streams in order to create Crozet Crossings because it was under pressure to show it was sensitive to the affordable housing needs in the county. At the time the PHA said it would not build the housing project there in which the houses cost $60,000 a piece, the average house at that time cost about $100,000. In the end when they were done the houses sold for $85,000, which proves that the PHA was not more efficient than a private developer. Mr. Marshall said that he would like to say on the subject of the dam that the dam was built during a hay day at the orchard and it was built to impound water to fill pesticide tanks. If you are going to look at what comes out of that dam you might want to look at what is around the dam because that is where they filled their tanks. The Wayland family had extensive orchards in this area in the hundreds of acres of trees and they had orchards for decades in there. On the subject of whether or not they were approached he would say that is a flat out lie, and the developer never came to us and offered any kind of discussion about how to get through us to get to Blue Ridge Avenue. The reason that this property was always considered undevelopable was because Blue Ridge Avenue does not really have access for the number of units that would want to come out on that street. He wants to point out that the 1990 special use permit (SUP) there was 60 units total, 30 were allowed and the additional roadway was to allow another 30 units, not another 74 units. We got a call from Mr. Charlie Armstrong wanting to meet with us. We have often been approached by developers who want to talk to us about our 18 acres and we thought this was a similar meeting. In the meeting Mr. Armstrong showed us his plan which showed 30 single residential family houses with the road that you are talking about now, and we said why are you showing us this and he said we are just trying to be nice. At the end of the meeting we walked out and we thought the point of the meeting was to say we are here to do this and you can't do anything about it. Well, okay we can't do anything about it. We had a subsequent meeting with him and he raised the question and said well a sensible road here would come off Jarman's Gap Road and go up the east side of the street and then you would never get into a stream crossing; and Mr. Armstrong said well that road makes a lot more sense for Crozet in 50 years. That was the end of the discussion. He said this is my wife and daughter who were both in those meetings with us and he thinks they would come in here and say the same thing that we were never approached about coming through our property. He wants that to be clear, and he resents that being in the staff report. He thinks the staff should have checked with us before they took that on face value. Mr. Lafferty thanked him Mr. Marshall for his comments. He invited the next speaker to come forward. Robin Luce said on behalf of the Crozet Advisory Committee she wanted to express their statement, which she believes the Commission received in the mail. They oppose the issuance of this special use permit as proposed for the reasons identified below: - Because of its impact on environmental features including the stream, wetland and floodplain area of Powell's Creek. - Due to a lack of compliance with the floodplain, stream buffer and critical slope ordinances which are on the Orchard Drive side, which Mr. Armstrong did not mention. He talked about the benefits of the dam and he did not talk about the slope. - Given concern is number 3. - Over protection of potential sensitive species that now exist in the area the CCAC suggests that a study be done by a third party to determine if there were the impacts to sensitive native species because one has not been conducted already by a third party. - Number 4, due to the impact and misalignment of the existing neighborhoods. According to the Crozet Master Plan new developments should be in keeping with the character of existing development. The development resulting from this special use permit is a significantly higher in the surrounding neighborhoods. Last, based on the CCAC's concerns regarding the method used by developers in the county including non -buildable acreage in density calculations which results in a higher number of allowed units than would otherwise be permitted based on zoning amendments were recommended by the CAP with only buildable acreage as utilized in the density calculations. That is for the CCAC. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 27 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Luce said as a resident on Cling Lane she just wants to say in response to the report that the proposal is indeed radical different from the existing neighborhood. She did not know a lot about the houses yet, but they are hearing 3,000 square foot houses. She pointed out that Orchard Acres is blue collar type hard working people. She feels that the damage to the stream and the impact to the existing neighborhood is being significantly downplayed in the staff report. She asked for additional time. Mr. Lafferty replied since she was representing the CCAC and the Orchard Acres people that she could go ahead a little longer. Ms. Luce, as a Cling Lane resident, said Charlie Armstrong talked about if it were designed today they would have surely designed the road in this way. Well she thinks that this is what can never be planned for is what happens when a neighborhood comes along and people buy in and what do we have. What we have on Cling Lane right now is children and little ones riding their bikes and riding to each other's houses and they need the cul-de-sac. They don't get fancy vacation this is what they have for their fun in life. It is a street full of little children and she understands the life of them. She understands that there is going to be growth. Does this have to be done right now and need growth so that we need to use this tiny remnant of land and destroy park that is here that does not cost anything. She suggested that they let these kids grow up and do it in ten years and we are we busting out of our seams. Kim Connelly, resident of Crozet, said she was not a neighbor of the property. She was a former member of the CCAC. She was here tonight because she was concerned about the big picture. If you look at this piece of property and the adjoining property that is going to be developed by right, which is the Vue, you have this little wedge of Crozet that is going to have a tremendous number of units. The Vue she thinks is 120 units by right and then this is another proposed 74 units. That is not in keeping with Crozet's Master Plan. She just wants to draw your attention to a few things in the factors that are unfavorable. The Crozet Master Plan does not identify a road with a stream crossing there. The stream crossing will impact environmental features such as floodplain, stream buffer and preserved slopes. If we have these rules to protect the environment why are we granting exceptions to the rules? It is unfortunate that there is this wedge of unbuildable land without this one access; but, that is not your problem or my problem to grant the developer access to this piece of property. They took a risk in proposing this development, sorry. She did not see the benefit of granting this exception when we will have permanent damage to the environment or at least impact on the environment. Ms. Connelly said she just wants to draw your attention to a couple of other things. The details of the proposal due to the narrow width of the parcel. South of the crossing point there will be additional disturbance to the floodplain within the floodway fringe and the road will traverse a small area of preserved slopes which cannot be avoided if this access is to be constructed. She is very concerned about the developer wanting proposal 3 and 4 of the staffs recommendation lifted. She thinks that is a very slippery slope and she hopes we don't go down it. The Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Objective 6 retaining existing buffers should be the priority. In Objective 7 the cumulative effects of reducing floodplain or building within them will reduce habitat, reduce flood water storage and increase the frequency of flooding for adjacent properties. We have these rules already set to protect our county so she urges you to turn down this proposal because she did not see the net benefit. She only sees the detriment to the community. There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Lafferty invited the applicant for his five minutes rebuttal. Charlie Armstrong said the first thing he needs to address is Mr. Marshall's comment essentially calling me a liar. We met in his office on September 22nd, December 171h in my office and on February 9th. In the second of those meetings Mr. Marshall drew on a plan and said this is the only alignment of a road which I would consider in order to allow a road through my property. That alignment took a road from one of our roads in our proposed subdivision down along the edge of the stream buffer through his property and out precisely at the intersection of Blue Ridge and Jarmans Gap. That poses a problem because it is through two additional properties which we don't have any control over. It is two additional land owners, one of which he did approach and he said absolutely not, no way ever no how, it just does not work for my property. That owner is the developer of the Vue. Apparently a road through there would not allow ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 28 FINAL MINUTES him to do what he was proposing to do on his property. So since Mr. Marshall said that was the only way ever he would consider it that is a dead deal. He was not going to get any further into the he said she said stuff and he will leave that to you all. But, that needed to be addressed. Mr. Armstrong said the comment about the environment that was brought up, he is an ecologist by education. My wife is also an ecologist and she has six years of education beyond my ecology degree. He understands environmental concerns, hydrology, and ecology. He has stood in streams and took samples to know what a healthy stream is and is not. When he met with the Army Corps of Engineers on this project to look at this stream and the Army Corps agreed that removal of that dam was a net benefit to the stream. If both of those things happen that carries a lot of weight in my mind. It was my own assumption because it is so important to have that unimpeded stream flow along as many linear feet as you can do it. The question about environment benefit in my mind is resolve. Mr. Armstrong said the resident who heard 3,000 square foot homes obviously the rumor mill has been gemmed up because we have no idea what size houses would be built here. We have gotten nowhere near that step. These lots probably would not if he was guessing be for 3,000 square foot homes; he would think significantly smaller than that. But, again, that is a guess we have not gotten anywhere near that stage of planning and the rumor mill has gotten significantly ahead of us. The comment about the Vue he thinks is interesting because it talks about having the Vue plus this project and the net impact of those two things being a lot of additional units. While he does not disagree with that he thinks it would be counterproductive to throw out a development that proposes the density that is desired in the comp plan while you have no control over one that is by right that it is proposing a density because of the way they are clustering it is significantly higher on a little piece of land that they are developing. With the two conditions that he asked to be removed in fact our density would be significantly below comp plan density and would not calculate any of those environmental features into that density calculation. So he still would still like to see those conditions removed if you see fit. If you don't, we have to find a way to live with it. He does not know where they go from there; but, it would pose significant restrictions on us that we would just have to deal with it. Thank you again for your time. Mr. Lafferty thanked Mr. Armstrong. He closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. He invited comments from the Commission. Mr. Dotson said he had a question for the applicant. He said you were asked before about removing the silts behind the dam, do you have any concerns that those silts might contain pesticides from the old orchard use and what approach would you take to that. Mr. Armstrong said that was a great question. He said yes, he did have concern not just there but on the property in general. Any property that was used for orchards in the past has a risk of pesticide contamination. That risk is generally pretty low and often times the residual pesticides on those orchard properties are at or below what is naturally occurring in the environment anyway. But, as you probably know a lot of the developed land in Crozet was once orchard. So that is a concern for most any developer who is paying attention in Crozet. We had done our phase 1 environmental study, which he mentioned. There is a phase 2 environmental study to come. It is significant undertaking and it is expensive. That is where there would actually be soil sampling in those areas and that silt would be sampled, too. This would be determined by whatever program the environmental scientist who is doing that sampling comes up with. Mr. Dotson asked if the silt would be sample. Mr. Armstrong replied that he would ask that it be sampled. He pointed out the environmental scientist determines what they think they need to do and in their phase 1 study they already identified the orchard use as a problem to be looked into further. It is not necessarily a problem, but it could be and should be further evaluated. Ms. Spain said Mr. Armstrong said he did not know yet about the size of the houses or the pricing of them. She asked will there be any consideration of affordable housing. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 29 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Armstrong replied yes, staff did not put it in their staff report. But, we had mentioned to staff and they did not feel it was relevant to the special use permit because affordable housing can't really be logically Iwo tied. But, our partnership agreement with the landowner is that we provide 15% affordable housing as part of our development. That is a private agreement and has nothing to do with the county. But, that is the deal, that is what they wanted; and that is what we will do. Mr. Lafferty said sort of to address your part about the adjoining development going on our primary responsibility is to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the people in the county. When we see roads that are getting too crowded, then we react to that one way or the other. So that is all part of our charge. He would like to mention that the staff report indicates that this will increase the connectivity. He does not see how that increases any connectivity except for the people who will be living in this development. He noted that it only has one road out and he does not see how it makes any different. Ms. Falkenstein agreed that was right; it will be primarily for the new lots. It might increase connectivity a little bit for existing residents on Cling Lane giving them a more direct route to downtown Crozet. Mr. Lafferty said my observation, something that has not been addressed, is that this is a run for deer right through this property across Blue Ridge Avenue and down into some of the wooded sections between Carter Street and Blue Ridge. He suggested that maybe the thought would be that by having a bridge they can transgress the area quicker, but then they are exposed to automobiles. It will have an environmental impact on the bear and deer that he has seen in the area. He said his concern is that it does not comply with the comprehensive plan and the Crozet Master Plan; it is interrupting slopes and critical slopes, it is filling in the floodplain where we said we would not do that, and to do that just to put in some more houses. He would like to ask Mr. Kamptner a question about the restriction put in 1991 that even if the parcel has been divided up is it still pertinent to this discussion. Mr. Kamptner replied it is from whether there is a reasonable use of the property kind of analysis you look at what the property was at the time the condition was imposed so the reasonably use or the 30 homes that were allowed to be built and the fact that the residue has this restriction on it really does not come into the analysis because it continues forward as one of the bundles of sticks of the property rights that continue with the property. As this moves forward we will look at that some more, but that is the approach that we look at this residue portion. Mr. Lafferty said that unless they can make a connection to Orchard Lane it is a no go. Mr. Kamptner said they can always apply to amend that special use permit to remove that condition. That is the other option that exists. Mr. Lafferty said they would have to have that intact if they were looking for a connection to Jarman's Gap Road or a connection to Blue Ridge Avenue. Mr. Kamptner replied or whatever because there are other ways in which this property can be developed beyond the 30 houses that were approved in 1990. Mr. Lafferty said his own personal opinion there would be no way to get rid of condition #4. As a matter of fact that is the one that eliminates the floodplain from buildable sites. He would work to get that included in the comprehensive plan; but, it is not there now. But, he would not be amendable to taking out #4 and #3 either. He asked are there any other comments from the Commission. Ms. Riley asked staff to put conditions #3 and #4 up on the screen. She would be inclined to agree to not remove conditions #3 and #4. She thinks that the applicant himself has said that potentially the net number of unites would be the same with #4 or not so she did not really see why they would remove that. She pointed out that she might be amendable to changing condition #1 to the term negligible as opposed to no. Mr. Dotson said in terms of #3 and #4 he favors retaining them. In terms of #1 he would like to see it maintain no increase rather than negligible. He said a question of the staff in the suggested motion if we ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - June 21, 2016 30 FINAL MINUTES were to recommend approval it does not mention the concept plan and often we do he believed. He asked should that be part of the motion not just the conditions but also the plan. Ms. Falkenstein replied that the plan is mentioned in condition #1 Mr. Dotson said okay so that is covered. Ms. Echols pointed out the other thing is that they are going to need to amend the plan. She asked to rephrase that, they can't accomplish the plan that they have presented if these conditions are applied. So we would want to make sure that any connection there refers to the corrected plan and not one that they could not accomplish. Mr. Dotson agreed and pointed out that was explained by the applicant the sort of the timing of the conditions and the drawing of the plan. He said the other question is about the dam, the restoration and the green space which has been presented as one of the pluses for this. He asked should there either something on the concept plan, and maybe it is on there, or in the condition that addresses dam removal, dedication of green space, restoration and removal of silt. Ms. Falkenstein pointed out the greenway is mentioned in condition #5. None of the conditions mention the other mitigation measures; they are noted on the concept plan but not in the conditions. Mr. Dotson said okay as long as they are noted on the concept plan that is fine. Thank you. Ms. Spain said this is a clarification for Mr. Kamptner. In the July 1, 1991 agreement that we were just talking about, item 2 saying the stream crossing needs to be constructed for these lots to be developed did you just say that the applicant could apply to amend that. Mr. Kamptner replied that it really is the second sentence of that condition Ms. Spain said if the applicant asked to have that amended then there would be no second entry required and we would not be having this discussion. Mr. Kamptner pointed out they would have to address fire/rescue's concern because of the number of units and the need for a second access. But, they would not necessarily have to connect to Orchard Drive. Ms. Spain asked what is involved in the applicant trying to do that or in other words how do they do that Mr. Kamptner replied that they file an application to amend SP-1990-103 and it would come through the same process and would be considered by the Planning Commission and by the Board. Ms. Spain asked if they can ask the applicant if he would be amendable to that, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes. Charlie Armstrong said that was one of our first discussions with staff. It was about which way staff would prefer to see this come forward. It is either an amendment to remove that condition or a new special use permit to provide the crossing that is specified there. He pointed out staff indicated that they did not think they could support a removal of that condition he guessed because of the road networks that it would be tying into, Blue Ridge particularly. They did not say at the time whether they thought they could support a new special use permit like we have presented here. But, we did not pursue it and he thinks it is spelled out very well by staff why we did not pursue it in the page titled stream crossing and master plan road network pros and cons list. There are more cons for providing the road precisely where it is drawn on the master plan than providing it where we are providing it here so we did not pursue it. Would we be amendable to it he would suppose, but he did not think it was the best thing for the county or for the residents. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — June 21, 2016 31 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Lafferty noted but to get a sign off from fire and rescue you are going to need a second entrance. So one way or the other you are going to have to address it. Mr. Armstrong said that is right since he believed they would need to have a second entrance and he believed a waiver might be possible for emergency access only. Developments have done that in other places. Whether that would be approved he would just have to speculate. Mr. Lafferty noted that McComb right now is a gravel road with ruts in it and it would have to be completely redone. Mr. Armstrong agreed and pointed out that adjacent land owners have expressed the desire that it not change there. He said that is why we are here. Mr. Lafferty said he feels like the proposal is premature. It asks us to go against the comprehensive plan and against the Crozet Master Plan and in doing these kind of things he wonders what the value of spending two to three years coming up with these plans are. There is already talk about residents of Crozet wanting to do on their own review their master plan because of what has been going on. He thinks that the proposal has too many questions about it and it is premature, which is a personal opinion. Mr. Dotson pointed out as another personal opinion, he thinks this is a close call or judgement call. He thinks the staff has accurately summarized the pros and cons and my thinking is that the pros is just a little bit stronger than the cons though there certainly are disadvantages to it. In terms of the Crozet Master plan and where it shows street connections he does know that at the master plan level these are not engineered surveyed, they are sort of broad brush conceptual connections. One way to look at the master plan is to say well what it is really saying is you need interconnections. If one interconnection does work then consider another one. He would suspect that those drawing those dotted streets weren't aware of the earlier condition that the connection be made to Orchard Avenue. That would probably be a level of detail they would not get into in doing a master plan. So while strictly speaking it is not consistent with it, it does get at the important principle of an interconnection a second point of access. Mr. Lafferty said when Crozet was doing their last master plan this area was actually when they were looking at the downtown development that had the greatest density and as you moved out past Carter Street in going in the western direction it got less dense and then less dense as you went on out as we have heard on Adelaide that it should have been by the master plan at the lower end of the density range. This area was a less dense area. He would think that there was a great deal of thought put into these different locations and some of the connectivity. He invited other comments. There being no further comments, he asked for a motion. Mr. Dotson moved to recommend approval of SP-2016-00003 West Glen with the six conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Riley seconded the motion. Mr. Lafferty asked for a roll call. Ms. Spain, Ms. Riley and Mr. Dotson voted aye. Mr. Lafferty voted nay. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3:1:1. (Lafferty; More, recused) (Keller, Firehock absent) Mr. Lafferty noted that a recommendation for approval for SP-2016-00003 West Glen will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to be heard at a date to be determined. Ms. More returned to the meeting at 8:56 p.m. The meeting moved to the next agenda item. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 32 FINAL MINUTES 4a. ZMA-2016-2 Hollymead Town Center Area (A1). Mr. Lafferty noted the Commission would need to go back to item 4a, ZMA-2016-2 Hollymead Town Center Area (Al). The Commission should either accept or decline the indefinite deferral of ZMA-2016-2 Hollymead Town Center Area (Al). Mr. Kamptner suggested that could be in a motion to indefinitely defer ZMA-2016-00002. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to indefinitely defer ZMA-2016-00002 Hollymead Town Center Area (Al). Mr. Lafferty noted that the request was indefinitely deferred. Other Public Comments. Mr. Lafferty invited other public comments. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said tonight's meeting has been very instructive and he thinks this group as well as the Board of Supervisors may wish to reconsider the general charge in your citizen advisory committees. This evening we have seen a drive though redesign by a citizen advisory committee. One week prior to the application we have seen significant environmental commentary from citizen advisory committees. He would suggest the charge of these committees, especially considering the upcoming legislation on July 1, needing to be either expanded or tightened. He would leave that for your thoughts. Thank you. There being no further public comments, the meeting moved to the next agenda item. Old Business. Mr. Lafferty invited old business. There being none, the meeting moved to new business. New Business. Mr. Lafferty invited new business. Mr. Benish said he would like to go over some schedule changes - July 19 meeting is cancelled with the items moved to July 26 and the addition of August 2 meeting. He will email the meeting schedule changes to the Commissioners. Mr. Lafferty announced that: • There are no Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 and Tuesday, July 5, 2016. • The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 12, 2016. Adjournment. With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the Tuesday, July 12, 2016 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room 241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. David Benish, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - June 21, 2016 33 FINAL MINUTES In Approved by Planning Commission Date: 9/27/2016 Initials: sct ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —June 21, 2016 34 FINAL MINUTES