Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 31 2017 PC Minutesin Albemarle County Planning Commission October 31, 2017 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 31, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Daphne Spain; Pam Riley; Mac Lafferty, Karen Firehock; Vice - Chair; Bruce Dotson; and Bill Palmer, UVA representative. Absent was Jennie More. Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:08 p.m. Other officials present were J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning; Tim Padalino, Senior Planner; Andrew Gast -Bray, Assistant Director of Community Development/Director of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and John Blair, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, urged the Commission to consider the impacts on neighbors from residential transient lodging. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said regarding the Commission's discussion last week on ZTA- 2017-01 Residential Transient Lodging Work and the complaints, he has an inquiry into both zoning and planning about the complaints to get some reporting. He said the complaints can be handled by ordinances that are already on the books and the challenge to understand what is gained by the limitation is the question that came up according to some of the notes was an idea that we need to keep it a primary use as residential. He pointed out we rent a home for a month, a year or whatever it is residential; there is somebody living there; there is somebody coming and going. He said when you rent a home for a weekend it is residential; there is somebody coming and going. He urged the Commission as you have yet another work session on this topic to consider focusing the energies on the perceived impacts you see that are different in short term rental versus a regular rental or home ownership. He asked which has more impact on me as a neighbor; if my neighbor rents out their home on "Airbnb" or another platform every football weekend; or if a family with five children of three teenage boys move in next -door, which has more impact on me and how are you regulating both of those entities. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and he hoped he did not scare you. Hearing no further public comment, Mr. Keller noted there was no items on the consent agenda and the meeting would move to the next item on the agenda, ZMA-2016-23 Brown Toyota. Public Hearing. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 FINAL MINUTES ZMA-2016-00023 Brown Toyota MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000001400,078000000014E0 LOCATION: 1357 Richmond Dr. (Rt. 250), approximately .30 miles east of the Riverbend Drive PROPOSAL: Request to change the zoning designation of approximately 0.25 acres of steep slopes from a Preserved slope designation to a Managed slope designation, which would allow the preserved slopes to be disturbed. This area has been subject to prior grading activity. PETITION: Request for 0.25 acres from Steep Slope Overlay District (Preserved) which allows uses under Section 30.7.4 (b) to Steep Slopes Overlay District (Managed) which allows uses under Section 30.7.4 (a). No dwellings proposed. OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Steep Slopes; Entrance Corridor PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial Mixed Use — retail, commercial services, office, hotel/motel/conference facilities, and wholesale uses; Urban Mixed Use — retail, commercial services, office, and a mix of residential types (6.01— 34 units/acre); and, Greenspace — undeveloped areas in the Pantops Development Area. POTENTIALLY IN MONTICELLO VIEWSHED: Yes DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 24, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (JT Newberry) Mr. Newberry presented the staff report for ZMA-2016-23 Brown Toyota. First, since not mentioned in the staff report Mr. Newberry noted the community meeting was held in January of this year at the Pantops Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting and David Benish attended that meeting on my behalf. Mr. Newberry said that there was no negative feedback received at that meeting and the primary concern was with the stream valley at the back of the property. Mr. Newberry explained that tonight we are going through a rezoning proposal to: • Remove approximately 0.20 acres of preserved slopes and approximately 0.05 acres of managed slopes from the Steep Slopes overlay district located at the rear of Brown Toyota on Pantops. • In exchange, the applicant has proposed establishing approximately 0.25 acres of managed slopes in the Steep Slopes Overlay District adjacent to that area. The new managed slopes would be contained within a 2.47-acre preservation area as shown on the rezoning plan and discussed in the proffer statement. In attachment A of the staff report Mr. Newberry explained that he overlaid the Steep Slope Overlay District with the overhead photography with an ortho photo to show more specifically the area that was to be removed. He pointed out the specific area on the left-hand side of the slide the preserved slopes that are proposed to be removed and on the right-hand side the managed slopes. He pointed out this area is currently used as a parking area and storage area for vehicles associated with Brown Toyota. In another attachment from the staff report he highlighted where the new managed sloped will be, which is directly beneath the area used for a parking area now. He noted there is a guardrail at the top that gives a fairly delineated edge as seen in the ortho photo and pointed out the location of the area of the Steep Slope Overlay District. Staff Analysis: • The original area that was designated for preserved slopes was actually a soil stockpile. This was a temporary man-made feature that just happened to be located adjacent to a larger system of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 2 FINAL MINUTES slopes and so staff did not find value in reestablishing these slopes or requiring that they remove as preserved. • The applicant once they became aware that this was a violation has been diligently working towards abatement of the existing zoning violation. • The proposed rezoning plan and proffers (and future WPO and site plan amendment applications) enable the existing conditions to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Newberry pointed out the factors for consideration and one of the important ones is that through the rezoning plan a preservation area at the back of the site would provide protection for the intermittent stream that otherwise would not be required. Favorable: 1. The Rezoning Plan corrects an inadvertent error in the adopted Steep Slopes Overlay District map. 2. The proposed slope designation balances protection of the new steep slopes with the potential need to remediate the area appropriately. 3. A preservation area at the rear of the site will provide protection for an intermittent stream that would otherwise not be required and is consistent with the intent of the original preserved slope designation. Unfavorable: 1. This was an unpermitted disturbance of steep slopes that created the need for this request. Mr. Newberry said for these reasons staff recommended approval of this application and he can take questions. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Hearing none, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward. Clark Gathright said he was the civic engineer representing Brown Toyota on this matter. He noted he did not have much to add to Mr. Newberry's presentation, but would be happy to answer questions. Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:08 p.m. Mr. Keller invited public comment. Hearing none, Mr. Keller invited the applicant back for questions. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Dotson asked if it was correct that the applicant is proposing a proffer where 2.47 acres is to be a preservation area. Mr. Newberry replied yes, that is correct. Mr. Dotson asked does that meet our criteria of a preservation area because he was wondering if it makes sense to have this a no disturbance area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 3 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Newberry replied my understanding is that there is no objections to calling it a preservation area; the zoning division reviewed the application and he believed it meets squarely the definition in the zoning ordinance and would qualify as a preservation area. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Keller asked for a motion. Ms. Spain moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2016-00023 Brown Toyota as recommended by staff. Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Keller asked for a roll call. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (Ms. More absent) Mr. Keller noted the motion was approved and the request moves on to the Board of Supervisors. The meeting moved to SP-2017-00023 Birdwood Boars Head Temporary Connector Road. Public Hearing Item. a. SP-2017-00023 Birdwood-Boars Head Temporary Connector Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 07500-00-00-06300 LOCATION: 410 Birdwood Dr., Charlottesville, VA 22903 PROPOSAL: Amend SP2017-09 to create a temporary connector road between the Birdwood Golf Course and Boars Head Inn (TMPs 059D2-01-00-01500 and 07500-00-00-06300) from Golf Course Drive on the Birdwood property to Berwick Drive on the Boar's Head property. PETITION: Swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facilities under Section 13.2.2.4 of the zoning ordinance. No new dwellings proposed on this 544-acre parcel. ZONING: R1 Residential, which allows residential use by right (1 unit per acre). OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): ENTRANCE CORRIDOR, AIRPORT IMPACT AREA, and STEEP SLOPES — MANAGED and — PRESERVED. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional use which allows for schools, libraries, parks, major utilities, hospitals, universities, colleges, ancillary facilities, and undeveloped publicly owned property; and Parks and Green Systems which allows for parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, and preservation of stream buffers, floodplains, and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams in Neighborhood 6 of the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods. (Tim Padalino) Mr. Padalino presented the staff report on SP-2017-00023 Birdwood-Boars Head Temporary Connector Road. This is an application for an amendment to SP-2017-009 that was recently approved by the Board of Supervisors. This request is an application by Ms. Ashley Davies of Williams Mullins on behalf of the University of Virginia Foundation. The proposal is to amend a previous special use permit SP-2017- 00009 to create a temporary connector road between Golf Course Drive on the Birdwood property and Berwick Drive on the Boar's Head Inn and Sports Club property. Vehicular use of the proposed temporary connector road is requested between July 22, 2018 and August 11, 2018 in conjunction with a major sports tournament to be held at the McArthur Squash Center at the Boars Head Sports Club. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 4 FINAL MINUTES Although the request is for the temporary use of the road, the road would be constructed as a 1%W permanent improvement. This proposal also includes permanent pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks, crosswalks and some exterior lighting to aid for better pedestrian movement and golf cart movement. Mr. Padalino reviewed the slides of the property pointing out it is a 544 acre property fronting on Ivy Road and US 250. It is tax map parcel 75-63 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. It is in the development area in the western Urban Neighborhood and as a reminder, it is also in the area defined as Area B. The property is zoned R-1, Residential and is subject to some existing special use permit conditions of approval, which were established in 1996 and carried forward most recently with special use permit SP-2017-09 for the UVA Golf Indoor Practice Facility. In looking at the existing conditions and some adjacent uses, you can see the Birdwood property is currently used for the Birdwood Golf Course and Clubhouse. Of course, the Birdwood Pavilion Historic Site is on the property as well. In looking at the center of the map, you can see the project site it could connect Golf Course Drive with Berwick Road and thereby allowing access to Boars Head Sports Club and Boars Head Inn, which are currently only accessible through Ednam Drive one point in and one point out. Mr. Padalino pointed out in a photograph taken from the edge of the Boars Head Sports Club property with Boars Head on the left and Birdwood on the right looking north you can see the existing conditions with Berwick Road and Golf Course Drive. The concept plan included in the staff report was Attachment C and Mr. Padalino said he would not go into detail and would allow the applicants to explain this in their own words. He said essentially staff have identified a few major elements including the connector road alignment between Golf Course Drive and Berwick Road. A gate or some similar physical barrier for the purposes of access management and the pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks, crosswalks and some exterior lighting. Mr. Padalino said this special use permit amendment application is on an expedited review schedule; it was submitted in September and a community meeting was held last Monday on October 23. He said the community meeting was well attended and there were lots of good questions and discussion among members of the community and there was no opposition or objection from attendees. He noted there were some questions about landscaping, traffic impacts both at 250 and within the Inn and the surrounding communities and those have been detailed in the staff report. Tonight, we have the hearing with the Commission and is scheduled tentatively for a December 13 hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Padalino said a very detailed analysis is contained in the staff report but as a summary staff identified several favorable factors including the fact that the Comprehensive Plan explicitly calls for this vehicular connection between these two properties. In addition, the non -vehicular infrastructure like the sidewalks and other connections those are also explicitly called for in the Comprehensive Plan and they further support an advanced Neighborhood Model principle. Additionally, the temporary use of this proposed permanent road is not expected to create significant transportation impacts and would in fact allow the applicants to manage transportation in connection with that special event at the end of July and the beginning of August of next year. Staff did not identify any unfavorable factors. Mr. Padalino said as such, the recommendation from staff is to recommend approval with conditions as noted in the staff report. Essentially, it is to carry forward the six existing conditions and to create a new condition #7, which are contained in detail in the staff report. He said he had provided a paraphrase summary on the screen essentially that the development be in accord with the concept plan including ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 5 FINAL MINUTES those major elements he identified a moment ago. There is a condition of temporary use as requested by the applicants. There is a condition for a review and approval from Fire Rescue as well as the county engineer about the gate or other barrier and signage to control and manage access. In coordinating with VDOT the recommendation is to have a maintenance of traffic plan be prepared, submitted and approved by VDOT in connection with this special use permit amendment request. If there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Ms. Spain asked what is considered the community for that area; is it Ednam or who are the people who came to the community meeting. Mr. Padalino replied that notice was sent by the applicants to the heads of the homeowners' association for Bellair, Ednam, Ednam Forest and Ednam Village with Ednam Village being the subdivision most closely located to this improvement. Ms. Spain asked if Farmington was notified, and Mr. Padalino replied no not Farmington; however, Kenridge and White Gables were notified across 250. Mr. Dotson asked what the Route 250 Stars Study is. Mr. Gast -Bray replied that the Stars Study is a more comprehensive analysis of the traffic patterns and potential improvements to the 250 Corridor going from the 240/250 interchange all the way at least to 29 and a little bit beyond. He said it certainly comprised this particular area and that is something that we have been trying to coordinate and part of the reason staff suggested they hold off on the 18 recommendations for a permanent connection until that was analyzed more closely. Mr. Dotson asked if there was any timetable on that. Mr. Gast -Bray replied yes, it is moving forward and it is slower than anticipated. He said there have been some recommendations for analysis that have come forward but it still has a ways to go before being officially adopted and he believed it would be coming in front of the Commission at some point. Mr. Lafferty asked would this study include the multi -use path to Crozet. Mr. Gast -Bray replied that it is one of the considerations, but he did not think as a result of this study that Three Notched Trail or any equivalence would be completely determined since this is more of a modeling of the transportation performance. However, there would be crossings and other things that would be theoretically as a part of this so the trail itself is being taken in account in that study, but it would not, for instance, determine an alignment of the Three Notched Trail or wait until we had a final alignment of the Three Notched Trail before coming to conclusions. Mr. Lafferty said he remembered in the past that the residents along 250 have opposed any improvements. Ms. Riley said just as a follow up question, the study that needed to be done to determine whether permanent use of this could be used and she is assuming Commissioner Dotson is trying to get a sense of what the timeframe might be. She asked to hear a little bit more about what other work would need ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 g FINAL MINUTES to be done before a permanent acceptance of this proposal here might occur. She assumed that in the conditions a maintenance of traffic plan by VDOT is really just specific to this temporary use, and asked if that is correct. Mr. Padalino replied yes, that is correct taking the last question first since he believed it was about transportation event management. He said the first question regarding what other efforts might be necessary for a permanent opening of that road he thinks it is more of a comprehensive traffic impact analysis for onsite and offsite impacts and what types of improvements could alleviate those impacts. He believed the applicants are working on some of those efforts right now, but that would not really be a necessary consideration with this request. Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Valerie Long with the Law Firm of Williams Mullens representing the applicant the University of Virginia Foundation, said also present was Fred Missel, the Foundation's Director of Development. She said they appreciate the opportunity to discuss this application with the Commission. She thanked Tim and Andrew for the significant amount of time they and their colleagues have spent with them discussing this application and others over the past few months. She said they have really worked well with us to come up with this expedited review and they are very grateful. As mentioned, this is a proposal to accommodate the anticipated visitors and traffic associated with the World Squash Championships that will take place here at the Boars Head Sports Club next summer. She said it is a very prestigious event and exciting and it is a real testament to the facility at the Boars Head and our community that the championships will be held here. Therefore, everyone is excited, and we just want to make certain that we are ready to accommodate the event and all the players, teams, visitors and fans who will be there to participate in it. Ms. Long said they originally planned to submit an application for a permanent connector road instead of a temporary one; we did not intend to have to break it up this way. However, we realized that with the timing and the need to have that road constructed in time then unfortunately, the process for going through the entire application for a permanent road given the VDOT Study and some of the other analysis that would be required for the permanent road frankly we just did not have time for that. She said with Mr. Gast-Bray's suggestion and encouragement we proposed to move forward with a temporary road instead. Therefore, as Tim mentioned it would be restricted for use for just a two -week period during just before and after enduring the squash championships. It would, however, be built to permanent road standards and everything will look exactly the same with the only difference will be that it will have a gate that can be closed when it is not permitted to be used. She said as stated the pedestrian infrastructure will be put in place and everything will be the same. Ms. Long said she had some slides to show the Commission as needed. Ms. Long said as Tim mentioned this is on the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and it is very specific with regard to this property that this connector road will be required. Ms. Long pointed the exhibits on the slide that shows everything that is there now as well as some things that are proposed. She pointed out the entrance at 250, the recently approved Indoor Golf Practice Facility, the existing Birdwood Mansion, Golf Course Drive that comes down to the existing Golf Clubhouse, and a proposed future use for a tennis facility for outdoor tennis matches that will come before you. She pointed out that is not part of this application, but we show it just for context. She pointed out the existing Boars Head Indoor Tennis Facility as well as the rest of the Boars Head Sports Club, its outdoor tennis courts and the Inn. Ms. Long pointed out the location of the connector road that was a very small span. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 7 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Long said the span of the temporary connector road is literally from point A to point B and will connect Berwick Road to Golf Course Drive to provide a very efficient and effective vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connection for those folks who are trying to get to and from that area. She noted that right now there is no way to get between those two facilities despite the fact that they are so close to each other and they are owned and operated essentially both by the Foundation and there are lot of people who belong to the club and want to go play golf and tennis. She said it is a challenge to get back and forth and it requires people to get back on to 250 at the Ednam Drive light, turn right and go down and turn right into Golf Course Drive and loop all the way around. Ms. Long said so this is a very logical connection. Ms. Long said she was actually involved in the rezoning in 2004 that permitted the addition of the indoor tennis facilities to the Boar's Head Sports Club. She said back then staff first brought up, at least first to me, the benefits of a future connector road. She said it was not something the Foundation was in a position to build at the time, but it has been something that we have been thinking about ever since. She said the fact that it is a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan we think makes quite a bit of sense; it will obviously help significantly with the squash tournament coming up. She said we also think it has many advantageous benefits for the long-term use, which we will get into more at the time that the permanent application comes to you. She said that among other things it provides a second point of ingress and egress for the many neighbors who live near the Boar's Head Sports Club, especially the residents of Ednam Village since they do not have a connection to Route 250. She pointed out the residents of Ednam Village have only one point of ingress and egress to their neighborhood at Berwick Drive and then they go down and come out at Ednam Drive onto 250. She said this will provide a second point of access, which is not only convenient but also is very important for life/safety purposes if there were ever an accident that blocked Ednam Drive's access to Route 250. So likewise, all of the residents in this area of Ednam Forest will also have the benefit of that. Again, this is only during this two -week period next summer that they would have that benefit but we are hopeful that in addition to providing a way to maintain traffic and access to overflow parking areas during the tournament it will also provide at least a short window into how well this works for traffic flow purposes. Ms. Long said the last thing she would mention that by providing access to Golf Course Drive it does provide access to the golf course parking lot that already exists near the Birdwood Club House. She said that area is used regularly by the Foundation for employee parking during events. She pointed out people are not usually golfing in the evenings, so those parking lots are vacant and it is a perfect location for staff and others to park during those events. She said the absence of a vehicular or even a pedestrian connection to that area makes it more challenging and not as safe and pedestrian friendly for their employees who want to walk back and forth to their cars. Therefore, that will be one of the many benefits of this connector road during the squash tournament and they will be using that area significantly for staff and overflow parking during that event. Ms. Long pointed out the detailed plan that was in their packet and offered to go into more detail but just wanted to orient you a little bit. She pointed out the existing tennis courts at the Boar's Head Sports Club, Berwick Road, the entrance to Ednam Village, existing Golf Course Drive and the connector is between these two points. She pointed out the road that already exists that goes down to the main entrance to the Squash Facility and that it is a very small, yet critical, segment that connects these two roads. She said there will be a little bit of reconfiguration of this area to accommodate that because there is golf course infrastructure in this area, but the Foundation has been working very closely with all of the residents as Mr. Padalino mentioned both meeting with them regularly and has been discussing this future road with them for many months. Ms. Long pointed out that it has always been discussed in the context of a permanent road, so she thinks everyone is also comfortable with it in the context of a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 g FINAL MINUTES temporary road. Ms. Long said she would be happy to answer any questions about this. She said there are sidewalk and landscaping proposed and there is a location for a gate to be installed so that access can be controlled when it is not permitted. She said the nice thing is that because the pedestrian infrastructure will already be in place even before and after the road is not permitted to be used for vehicles that it will remain open for pedestrian use and she imagined it be for bicycle use as well. She pointed out a rendering showing the access to the facility approaching the connector road. Ms. Long said she would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Keller invited public comment. Hearing none, Mr. Keller invited the applicant to come back for rebuttal and questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Dotson said that he did not think he had seen an explanation of how the small interconnector road will actually help during the squash championships and asked Ms. Long to explain that. Ms. Long explained there were several ways in that the road will help with traffic management by providing a second point of ingress/egress to and from the sports club facility. She pointed out the location of the Squash Facility and there is a proposed addition that will be added onto it that has been approved for the site plan. So right now anyone coming to the Sports Club for that or any other use comes in off Route 250 at the Ednam Drive where it is signalized; comes down and turns left onto Berkwick Road; comes all the way back down here and down the driveway and parks in this area. She noted if that area is full there is another lot and an overflow lot back here and other parking lots on the Birdwood property that are often used for events. She said right now with that being the only point of ingress and egress and Berwick Road being a small sort of country style road not designed to handle significant amounts of traffic. She said likewise the signal at Ednam Drive we feel would become overwhelmed with this amount of traffic volumes without a second point of ingress and egress. She said by having the connector road here vehicles would be able to exit the facility and access Route 250 from a second point and especially if you are heading back towards town that is probably the most convenient way to go. She said likewise coming into the facility vehicles can come in or out this way which will relieve some of the congestion that would otherwise be anticipated on Berwick as well as on Ednam Drive. She said it was that traffic flow but also the access to the parking, again, by having the connection people can then come over here to park in the overflow lot that is the existing Golf Course parking lot whether it is spectators to the event, team buses or Boar's Head Sports Club staff who might be asked to park over there to free up spaces closer to the facility during the event. Mr. Dotson said that helps me to understand the function, but certainly in terms of our Neighborhood Model approach of interconnectedness he understands it in that sense. He asked would there be during this week safety personnel at 250 for this unsignalized intersection. Ms. Long replied perhaps, we are not sure because we have not gotten to that point yet. She said certainly they will be working on a traffic management plan and depending on the precise expectations of the number of guests and so forth if, they deem that necessary and appropriate she would imagine they would do so. They regularly accommodate large events at the Boars Head more so than she even imagined. Sometimes you might have an event going on at the Pavilion and at the same time, you have a smaller event going on in the other areas of the Inn. She said they hire the traffic management events company when they need it, but they have staff who regularly are involved with directing folks to overflow parking lots; they sometimes utilize shuttle buses if necessary, so she would not be surprised if ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 9 FINAL MINUTES that is something that they decide to implement in order to maintain safety. Mr. Dotson said his third and last question is he thinks he heard it said both by staff and you that the road is being constructed to a permanent standard but it will be managed so that it is only utilized until it is approved to be permanent by some kind of gating or something like that. He asked if in the future once all the traffic studies on Route 250 and so forth are done it turns out to be a problem to have this be a primary source of entry and exit from the Boars Head and the Sports Club would you still feel that this road is justified just for internal connectivity or does its justification really depend on re -designating the primary entrance. Ms. Long replied at this point while there are plans at some point to re -designate Golf Course Drive as the primary entrance to the Inn that it is not an immediate plan but something they are looking at in the future as part of their overall planning. She said it is not in the immediate plans. She said so certainly that is not out of the question that if it does not work well that they would take a fresh look and reanalysis that issue. They do, however, as you might imagine have a real concern about the need to ultimately obtain permanent rights to use the road; it is a road that will cost them in excess of several hundred thousand dollars to construct perhaps more with the other entire infrastructure that is involved. She said while we know that the permanent connector road is subject to County Board approval as far as a future special use permit, we do want to be frankly just very transparent about the importance. She said we hope that by the time construction starts we will have made it through enough of the application process for the permanent road that we will have an idea about how likely it is and flush out any concerns or problems.. She said we have a traffic study we are working on so we will have an opportunity to assess the data from that and have the staff and VDOT review that traffic study. She said so our hope and expectation is that we will identify any traffic problems that might result from that. Ms. Long said she thinks that is the only objection anyone would have given that the road is on the Comprehensive Plan, but we do want to mention that it is something we are thinking through the challenges of the two-step process. Mr. Missel asked to comment to add one thing. He said we have been in conversations with White Gables and Kenridge for many months about a signal at Route 250 and Golf Course Drive and would love to make Golf Course Drive the primary entrance. He pointed out that they have had several meetings with VDOT and they are not ready to commit to allow us to build a signal there since they have a Corridor Preservation Plan. He said this is a bit concerning because it is going to be challenging to make left out from that road. He said the nice thing about it is we still have Ednam where people can do signalized lefts and that is why, as Valerie said, we are not 100 percent sure whether this is going to end up being the primary entrance or not. He said we know it is good for security; we know it is good for safety, we know the neighbors want it, we have had several meetings with Ednam Village and they are going to be looking at it and we literally just met with them and brought our landscape architect and agreed that at such time that we construct this, next March timeframe, we will bring a landscape architect, stand on their porch and they can point to where they want the trees to be screening of the road. Mr. Missel said long-winded answer but that is kind of why, but yes, absolutely we are looking at almost a million dollars to build this road and it includes some other improvements. He said we absolutely see this as needing something permanently and as Valerie said if all the stars align, planets and everything else that we may be able to never put those gates up. Mr. Missel said if we can make it through the actual permanent special use permit timeframe by the time it is ready to open we might be able to not have to put the gates up; however, this will allow us to start construction in advance of that. Mr. Lafferty asked will a multi- purpose path be built at the same time, and Mr. Missel replied yes for ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 10 FINAL MINUTES the one that is shown on our plan. Mr. Missel pointed out that they are going to have about 800 players from around the world at the squash tournament. Ms. Riley asked that they elaborate a little more on what VDOT has potentially shared with you on obstacles to getting that signalized there and you mentioned a Corridor Preservation Plan. She asked is the signalized intersections between Golf Course and Ednam too close together or what the other issues a re. Mr. Long replied that she was not the expert on this and so she may ask Mr. Gast -Bray or Mr. Padalino to jump in, but my understanding from speaking with our traffic engineer who has been working with VDOT on that study as well as working for the Foundation on this is that it is a comprehensive review and analysis of that corridor to figure out ways to make it work better for everyone both vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Ms. Long said she thinks the ultimate goal is to try to minimize the number of signals on Route 250 and not add more so they are looking at do we need to rearrange them or can we make other improvements instead of signals that can help manage the traffic without creating more delays. She pointed out that is the jest of it as she understands it. Ms. Long added that they have said if this road were to be opened on a permanent basis even without a signal they are willing to then go back and reassess whether that location meets the signal warrants and whether they would approve the installation of a signal in that location. She would also note that when the White Gables and Kenridge projects, which are just on the opposite side of Route 250 from Golf Course Drive, that when they went through the land use approval process roughly about ten years ago each of them were subject to proffers and conditions about contributions toward the cost of a signal in that location. She pointed out as Fred Missel mentioned, they very much want a signal there, and we hope that everything will come together at that time as well but there are still some analysis to be done. She asked if that addressed your question as much as possible. Ms. Riley replied, yes and asked if there is a remote possibility that VDOT might recommend that they not have a signal at Ednam and that they have a signal here instead if they had to eliminate one. Mr. Gast -Bray replied yes, that is one of the chief considerations that is to remove this one since they have also as part of the Star Study proposed alternative configurations for 250 as a whole; and there are considerations of when the traffic light would be enacted or put in or transferred. Mr. Gast -Bray said there are lots of state constraining conditions that have to be met that are called the so-called warrants, so you can't come to a conclusion before you have done all of the study; it is not a fait accompli before you do the study. He pointed out they are waiting for the study results to come up with the best program going forward; and we just do not have that yet. He said we did not want them to get into an awkward situation given that we are working towards a permanent solution and did not want to hinder the squash championships as well as everything else that is going to be coming forward. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Gast -Bray. Mr. Lafferty said it looks like it would be a perfect candidate for an adaptive control system if you had three lights there. Mr. Gast -Bray said that he did not think that VDOT would approve three sets of lights in that tight area ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 11 FINAL MINUTES at this point and they are not leaning towards that. He noted but yes, adaptive signals may indeed be a part of the overall picture. Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Ms. Firehock pointed out that she did not ask any questions because she attended the very informative and well -received public meeting. She said since they did an excellent job of informing everyone and the community as well as asked good questions she was ready to make a motion. Ms. Firehock moved to recommend approval of SP-2017-00023 Birdwood-Boars Head Temporary Connector Road with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Spain seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Keller asked for a roll call. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (Ms. More absent) The meeting moved to the next agenda item, 2016 PC Annual Report. Regular Item. a. 2016 PC Annual Report Review and adopt Planning Commission Annual Report for 2016 Ms. Echols noted the Commission received a general overview and PowerPoint presentation on the 2016 PC Annual Report several weeks ago. She said tonight's meeting is to look at the report in its new format, make any changes that are needed before it is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. She noted the Commission looked at it and liked the concept of performance measurements and she is hopeful that there will not be need to modify anything in a major way so that we can forward the 2016 PC Annual Report on to the Board. Ms. Echols suggested if we are going to look at different or more enhanced measurements, we could do that within the context of next year's annual report. However, there may be things in the report that the Commission believes are incorrectly stated or need greater clarification and she would be glad to try to answer or clarify any questions. Ms. Echols asked the Commission to point out those things that need any major corrections and asked that minor corrections be given to staff. She thanked Commissioner Spain for offering to give those to me in advance, as she had requested. Since she was, the only one Ms. Echols said she decided that it might make more sense for us to wait until after this meeting and then get everybody's written comments. Ms. Echols said she did not know how the Commission wants to go through this because the first part are just the basics that tell us what you did and hopefully you are okay with that. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Echols just to take them through what she thinks are logical sections and see if there are comments and then move to the next section. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-OCTOBER 31, 2017 12 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Echols agreed and noted the first section is the Natural Resources and we talked about wooden stream buffers and air quality there. This section may be the hardest to deal with and measure any kind of impacts not because there are not ways to assess it, but the measurement tools that we have available have not been used consistently over time. She explained that is why it is limited and we have limited impact on air quality, but we still like to report what is going on. Mr. Keller asked to jump in to set Ms. Firehock up the way he imagined that Ginny More would if she was here because there has been a lot of discussion over the last several months about stream buffers in Albemarle County and that transition from forestry uses to developing uses. Therefore, he wondered if we might have just a discussion not necessarily for you to change this report, but how we might accomplish reporting on this in a more comprehensive manner in the future. With that, Mr. Keller turned it to Ms. Firehock. Ms. Firehock said specifically on stream buffers it is kind of a softball one for me. She said because we have a high resolution for land cover of the County and a good map, what we could do is clip the 100' along the streams and compare that now with next time we run the land cover map again probably in a couple of years. It is a simple GIS calculation to see if they have increased or decreased. You could even break it up by urban ring or watershed and it would not take much work. Ms. Firehock said she knows someone on your GIS staff who is quite competent in doing that. Ms. Echols replied that she thinks we can; however, this time for this comparison, it was apples and oranges and we did not feel very comfortable with it. However, for next time we can. Ms. Firehock said you have to use the same precision of land cover maps, so we have just moved to a ww more precise one, so it will be between this one and the next one. We are also about to embark on more of an education campaign, if she understands correctly, for tree and buffers. We are not doing anything particularly to actively promote the event right now and we do not have the ability to enforce them. She pointed out we are not out monitoring what everyone is doing with their stream buffer especially in the rural areas. Mr. Gast -Bray said this is a discussion he very much wants to have with the Commission, and we want to integrate this into next year's report with this kind of thinking. He suggested if they could jot down your thoughts as we go forward on metrics that we could be looking at that since it was certainly something we had to kind of say let's call a day to get a report out this year comparing apples to apples based on where we started. But, he welcomes those ideas in the future and we will have a discussion later perhaps in the new year as we set up for next year's report. However, he thinks at this time we are really trying to ask if this report that we have was close to being able to at least be sent forth or are there real things that we need to change in this report given where we came from. Mr. Keller said we know the Supervisors are interested in this because of the tasking they have done to staff. He asked how about in the comments section maybe an asterisk at the end with a sentence or two that states what Mr. Gast -Bray has just said that is setting it up for the next year. Ms. Echols noted that she could do that. Mr. Keller pointed out we have a number of citizens that are quite interested in this topic. Ms. Spain said the air quality measure she thought perhaps should be deleted along with unemployment ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 13 FINAL MINUTES and averaging the wages because there is not much control that the county has over those. So if the point is to show how our management, interventions, policies and such have failed to create certain outcomes it seems that we should limit the variables to the ones that we actually have some influence over. Mr. Lafferty said no, he would think you would want to keep that and he thinks it is monitored by the one air quality monitor that we have near Albemarle High School. He said we would want to make sure that we stay in compliance of most of the pollution that is coming from the west since it was a good monitor. Ms. Echols said she leaves that to the Commission as a whole to advice staff on whether to keep it or not. She will say that there are not many tools that we have on air quality other than this one and we recognize that we do not have control. She pointed out it was important to the Planning Commission before and if it is still important to the Planning Commission; we can keep it; if it is not, please advise us. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Spain about the delineates between the ones the county actually has regulations that could effect and ones that could have state or national with a little square box on each one. That way it could remain in because citizens are interested but it would be clear through some sort of coding or asterisks that it was somewhere out of our control. Ms. Spain noted that she thinks that would only have to be those three variables that she mentioned the air quality, the average annual wages and unemployment. She said those two are subject to national and regional trends. Ms. Firehock noted regarding air quality that the number one cause of air pollution in this area most likely are individual vehicles. She said we have the Ohio Valley winds bringing things down, but if we can more compact development patterns and reduce, for example, the amount of idling buses and service vehicles it can help. She noted that Charlottesville changed their ordinance, but she did not know the state of ours, that you cannot have idling tour buses and things like that; you have to cut them off. She pointed out there are things you could do. She said it was correct that large scale is harder to control, but the more we have public transportation expanded, the more compact development, the alternative forms of transportation we have some ability to affect that even if it is small. She agreed that it is largely out of our control but there are things the county can do to limit vehicle emissions. Ms. Spain noted that would support Commissioner Keller's suggestion that there be some tag on those variables that we have the least control over. Mr. Lafferty said it is a measure of economic development. He said he would see this as a document that could be used in the economic development showing that the air quality is good and then we will only have a few days in six years that it exceeded the level that it should and that the average wages seem to be going up. Mr. Gast -Bray said he liked the suggestion and perhaps we can consider this sort of our starting point baseline just to show us where we are even though we have relatively little impact perhaps directly. Mr. Gast -Bray encouraged some of this feedback in the future since we are looking at what can we detect and are there more meaningful things that we can have an impact or detect in a more meaningful way than we are doing now. He said he did not have the answers today but does encourage that feedback, so he thanked you for that in and above what we might actually change in the report this time. Thank ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 14 FINAL MINUTES you. Mr. Keller asked if there were other comments on these two issues. Ms. Echols said we would get to the other ones just to confirm that - the Natural Resources and if we are good with the disclaimer that the coding that identifies that and then if we can just bring that back up when we get to the Economic Development so she can note that on those pages. She said she was glad to know which ones they were. Mr. Keller asked staff to go to the Historic Resources. Ms. Echols asked if we are good on these particular ones for the Historic Resources. She said we really did not have any good cultural and scenic measurement tools, but the ones that we could keep track of is how often there are new designations and what the demolitions are. Mr. Keller noted that for scenic you have scenic byways, scenic rivers, scenic streams and Entrance Corridor review. Therefore, there are three other criteria that you could look at to consider measurements. He said he thinks this is such a leap forward from what we had before that he would be comfortable with us suggesting things that we would like to see added to this in the next year's version so that you do not have to go back and rewrite this one. Mr. Dotson said that would be his question, too, and asked is what you are looking for now sort of permission, support to go ahead and submit this to the board. Ms. Echols replied yes. Mr. Dotson said rather than going through each of 25 or so goal areas rather maybe ask if there are objections. Ms. Echols asked to do that by section, first historic resources, are there any changes we need to do for tonight. Mr. Keller replied not until we get a Historic Preservation Ordinance that a lot of us would like to see discussion about. Ms. Echols noted the Economic Development disclaimer as Commissioner Spain said and the next is rural areas. Ms. Riley asked to go back to unemployment and just wanted to make sure you said we are not removing that we are just indicating that it is something that we are not setting at a local level, the wage level for an example. Ms. Spain pointed out staff skipped tourism. She noted that staff asked for some alternative measures. Ms. Spain said for the future she thinks the number of hotels and the lodging tax revenue might be indicators to be added to that section. Ms. Echols asked if in terms of this report is there anything different about these we need to capture for now. Hearing no none, Ms. Echols said they would be moving on to the rural areas. She asked if there ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 15 FINAL MINUTES are any changes that need to be made to what we have provided for you, which is timber, grapes, new lots, new dwellings, ag/forest district and conservation easements. Mr. Keller said he was interested in grapes being pulled out a subset because in the agricultural senses there is fruits categories that has grown dramatically in our area after going down for many years in the Nelson/Albemarle area and it is starting to go back up. Even if we were to just talk about the distilleries and the cideries, we know that is important. He asked if hops were considered a fruit. Ms. Echols noted hops are considered a grain. Mr. Keller said they were hearing about the growth of hops and the varieties that are being created for the Virginia climate then one might in the future want to look at that. He said those are direct correlations between these high growth industries that we want to seek keeping the rural areas viable. Mr. Keller said so again — for the future. Mr. Keller asked when the agricultural census is done again in Virginia. Ms. Echols replied that it was done every five years and it was done in 2012 so it is being done this year and we will not get the information until next year. The information on grape production actually comes through the state; it is a different source of information and we think we are accurate. That is why we did not use the census of agriculture but when we get the next one we can certainly look and see, what has changed between the last census of agriculture and when it is coming up. Ms. Firehock replied yes in the senses of agriculture as the number of farms and the size of farm, which you are saying you do not think that is accurate enough to report. Ms. Echols replied what she was saying was for grape production and fruits. Ms. Firehock suggested reporting on the number of farms and the average size is a useful indicator. Mr. Keller suggested that it be reported in every fifth year in one of the annual reports or have it in the appendix. Ms. Firehock pointed out she used that information a lot when she is looking at how counties are evolving in my work. In addition, she wondered about grazing because we have many beef cattle, sheep and actually have a lot more beef cattle than we use to. She said in the last 20 years that it seems to be expanding. She pointed out that eating local is cool now and there are many farmer's markets supplying beef. Mr. Keller said it would be interesting to look at some point in the future these are all things that we are going to be looking at and talking about in the future. Therefore, you might be decreasing the car emissions and increasing the animal emissions. Ms. Firehock asked could we include grazing. Ms. Echols said for next time we can retook at what the agriculture census has and what else the state has that they can give us on particularly agricultural activities. Therefore, the answer is yes; whenever we can get data, we can always report that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 16 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Firehock noted that there was a lot of hay production, too. Mr. Keller suggested in the different types of forestry that is reported in the agricultural senses but also in the mapping, which Ms. Firehock is talking about. So, again, without trying to create work just looking and seeing it seems to be the forestry that is in that state between being viable forestry in its transition to a development that seems to be where much of the friction in our county is so it would be interesting to understand forestry better. Ms. Firehock noted that you could potentially track the change in timberlands that are actively timbered. She said you could also take the soils for crops, it is available free from USDA; we can map it in ten minutes and then look at change over time. Again, this is not for helping you get this report out to the Board in a hurry. However, for next time Ms. Firehock said there is many data that we could do very easily because it would be a simple calculation of how much of that agr soil has not gone under development as in cannot now be used for agriculture. Mr. Keller said this is not about making more work. He said this is about whether there are data sets that would be useful in helping us understand some of these transitions that are in some cases viewed as positive and some cases viewed as negative and often depending on which population criteria you are using may be viewed by part of our population positively and the other negatively and vice -versa. He said that is why this data is quite helpful to have. However, again, not for this year. Ms. Echols said the Natural Heritage Committee that is working on the Biodiversity Action Plan is also going to be collecting some of this so it may be collected by someone else and then can be shared with the Commission. She pointed out they are looking at that from habitat fragmentation standpoints. Ms. Riley said this is just a comment about some of these categories in how there might be additional representation which is you have in the agricultural/forestall district conservation easements, the 2014/2016 numbers and then add the percentage increase or decrease which would be useful information. Ms. Riley said what they are saying is just try to get at a way to represent the land uses in the rural areas and what land uses are potentially increasing or decreasing in addition to production numbers of specific things. Mr. Keller noted that they might start seeing decreasing numbers because the Supervisors are not interested in seeing parcels without development rights being added to the Agri/Forestal districts. So, in this last round there were some that were not added that in the past may have been added. There are a lot of interesting changes and so in these first-time benchmarks that we do this year over the next several we might really need to have a fair number of notations that set that parameter for why things may be changing. He said it may be viewed as a positive by increasing the numbers of acres, but if it is decreasing and there is a rationale for why it is decreasing, it might mean it is a stronger regulation because of that. Mr. Dotson said he had an overall comment as we are going through the indicators that might for that future meeting that might happen in January or, so he thinks it might be useful because Andrew in his cover memo talked about the difficulty and time consumption sometimes. He pointed out here we are adding things, which might make it easier or they might consume more time. He said it occurs to me if we said which of the indicators (the two dozen or so) sort of rate them as to not much difficulty, medium and high difficulty in terms of time consumption. Then we would know that. Secondly, the time frequency of data such as agricultural census every five years, population census every ten years ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 17 FINAL MINUTES and then sort them by those we are doing well on and we should look at the indicators and make sure we really are doing well. If we are, we don't need to spend as much time talking about those and those that are in the middle or negative maybe we need better indicators. Then the Commission and staff could talk about setting priorities on additional measures, additional staff time ways to streamline this and maybe that would be a good way to talk about this two dozen sets of indicators when we have sort of a strategic lens on it. Mr. Keller suggested comparing that to the Comprehensive Plan priorities from the Planning Commission so that each time we have to look at CIP that would be interesting if you could actually begin to make these entire documents dovetail. Ms. Echols moved to development areas. Mr. Dotson said the question is there any problem with sending this forward as is. Hearing none, Ms. Echols said they would move on to housing. Ms. Spain noted there was a wording issue here that should be corrected under variety of housing types. The indicators should be the percentage of all of the units constructed that are single-family attached townhouse or condominium. The point is that these percentages add to 100 going down the line. Therefore, it is confusing to say percentage of single-family detached constructed since that is not really, what you are saying. She said you are saying of all units constructed what percent are single-family. Ms. Spain said so if you clarify that she thinks that is easier to understand. The senior housing and the proffered and built affordable units there is a text repeat 9.5.a is the same one under senior housing. Ms. Spain pointed out it was the proffered and built that needed to be something else. Ms. Echols noted she would have to get the updated number of units and plug it in here. Ms. Echols moved on to multi -modal. Ms. Spain said on multi -modal objective 10.3 there is something missing, and Ms. Echols agreed. Ms. Spain said also we should remember with the American Community Survey these estimates that 83% and 84% could just be a margin of error issue and she did not know if staff wants to make a note about that. Ms. Spain suggested that could easily be interpreted as being stable as well as mixed or no progress. Ms. Echols noted moving on to sidewalk and bicycle lanes. Ms. Spain suggested data are. Mr. Lafferty said under bicycle lane where you have bike lanes, is that a dedicated bike lane. Ms. Echols replied yes. She said next is Park & Rec, Greenways, Blueways and Green Systems. Ms. Spain noted the first indicator should be private parks. Ms. Firehock suggested there be a target set for greenways. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 18 FINAL MINUTES Ms. Echols said they would want the Parks and Rec people here to answer that. Ms. Echols said the next is Community Facilities, County building energy used, recycling. Mr. Dotson said the school facilities needs to go over to the next page. Ms. Firehock asked how we track the recycling — is it the volumes at the Rivanna Facility. Ms. Echols replied yes, it is volumes and the Solid Waste Authority provides that to us. Ms. Firehock said she knows they have done periodic surveys there, at least at the one in town she uses, where they can keep up to date with the percentages of county and city resident. Ms. Echols said it may be volumes and weights and she will check and get it noted as to what the unit measurement is. She pointed out it looks like it is tons as the recycling unit measurement. Ms. Firehock noted that she was just curious where all that stuff is coming from. Ms. Echols said the next page was schools. That is something she thinks the Commission has met with the school board and we know that the school division is working diligently on this particular issue. She asked them to provide input on what we are into on the annual report; so they have reviewed this and have given me words that they would prefer that we use. Ms. Echols said next is public water usage and police response times. Ms. Spain said under the comment for public water usage, although overall water consumption increased do you want to say due to population growth or due to increased number of connections. She was assuming that is what it is but it might not be clear to some people. Ms. Riley asked to go back to housing particularly in follow up to the transient lodging discussion and she does not know if this is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan or not but under variety of housing types we are not making any distinction between ownership or rental. She said at some point that she thinks we really need to be mindful of how much rental housing stock we have versus ownership. Therefore, for the future she thinks as another indicator perhaps we might do well to look at the ratio as well. Ms. Spain pointed out the housing tables were for the development area and she did not think you could split it between developments and rural and so that would have to be one of those indicators for the entire county homeownership. Ms. Echols agreed that it probably would have to be. Mr. Lafferty said under parks and recreation you should put something in about the development of the Rivanna River because there is talk about putting in a boat landing now under the new bridge. He pointed out we also have the canoe recreation facilities. Ms. Echols said that maybe for the future we would put public park facilities and not just Private Park. Ms. Firehock said that is something we could then easier measure is the percentage of county residents ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 19 FINAL MINUTES that are within so many miles of a regional park. She said that for the urban ring you could do walking distance to a pocket park or open space or greenway trail. Ms. Echols noted that would be for the future. Mr. Keller said there are interesting pieces where these fit together. He said there is a public heath component where the greenways and the ownership cycles that could be looked at in one way as rental versus ownership — but he was not so concerned about that as the relationship between the trails and where people are living. He said we have very interesting national data that there is a correlation between access to trails and health. So that one it seems would not be difficult to do and if one wanted to look at disparities then if you have the concentrations where there was owner occupied and not and if they had the same time to trails then that would tell you one thing. Then if they did not have the same times to trails as opposed to look at trend of health of citizens in the area that interesting study between the Center of Disease Control and the Design Community that came out of the Atlanta Olympics are still kind of a base line that we have to look at. He suggested looking at some of the indicators from the studies that were done then and seeing if there might be something in here that would allow one to go from some of the data they are already collecting to this next potential improvement and things the public infrastructure does to improve health. Mr. Lafferty noted there is a relationship between how close the trails are and the value of the houses. Ms. Firehock suggested getting a UVA class to do the tracking study. Ms. Echols said when they revisit indicators in the new year between what Andrew has to offer about some indicators and what Mr. Dotson has to offer about making sure we know how much time, intensity 1 and difficulty there is in getting and comparing that information we can give that to you and have a better assessment of exactly what it is you want for the future. Ms. Echols noted next is Police Response Times. Ms. Firehock said they were talking about the margin of error, so we have been looking at the rural area response from 2011 to 2016; it changes 3%. She asked if that is an absolute statistic or is there a margin of error of 5% or do we know. Since it is such a small change Ms. Firehock said she was not sure it is actually an improvement. Mr. Lafferty pointed out we are changing the way police are handling things instead of roaming all around the county having districts located so we might see a bigger change. Ms. Firehock noted they have not seen an improvement in Samuel Miller, but the police are trying as hard as they can but do not have enough coverage. Mr. Dotson said that he thought it was accurate and precise even though it might not be significant. Ms. Spain said so there is no margin in that. Ms. Firehock asked if that could be broken down by district. Ms. Echols pointed out the police provides regular reporting to the County Executive's Office and we are ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 31, 2017 20 FINAL MINUTES just reflecting the information that they give us. She suggested this might be something the Economic Development will be keeping track of as well as the Housing Department. She said staff expects that there will be other groups who are putting together more detailed and comprehensive statistics that would be available. Mr. Blair asked to jump in to say that he knows at least in year's past they have the Blue Ridge and the Jefferson Districts; they also have zones within those districts so that is probably where you get down and drill down to more intensive and granular data for the county. He said he does not know how those zones would relate to development versus rural areas. Ms. Firehock noted that was for another time. Ms. Echols noted next is Fire Rescue on the last page before getting into the capacity analysis. Hearing no comments, Ms. Echols said they would move on to the population and the capacity analysis. This is largely the set of calculations that were done for the Comprehensive Plan when there was a discussion on enlarging the development areas to accommodate future residential growth and whether or not it was an appropriate thing to do with the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Echols said the conclusion was that there was sufficient area, but it should be monitored regularly. In the meantime, the Weldon Cooper Center has created different population projections that made it difficult to compare apples to apples like where we were last time to where we are this time. But, this analysis she thinks speaks for itself in terms of what the conclusions are that we need to be mindful of density, but we also have opportunities for redevelopment that may give us the ability to accommodate future populations and that redevelopment was not incorporated into this study. She said we also know that all new development will not take place in the development areas. However, if it did this is what the capacity would provide for? Mr. Dotson asked what the horizon of our Comprehensive Plan is — it was approved in 2015 — but we have been working on it for a long time and normally Comprehensive Plans area 20 years. He asked was it 2030 or 2035. Ms. Echols replied that 2035 is probably the number, but she does not know what our future will bring and if we will want to be doing anything more quickly than that if there is a need for comprehensive updates. Mr. Dotson said the reason he asked the question is he thinks these charts are great and are clear as they can be on a complicated topic. He said it might be useful because the question is what the capacity in our Comprehensive Plan is to somehow distinguish between those things that come in years beyond what our Comprehensive Plan addresses. For instance, it could be that there is adequate land for housing within the time frame of our Comprehensive Plan, maybe 2035, but maybe by 2040, it starts to get thin, so the last two columns might be considered the future years then kind of an advanced look. He asked if that made sense and explained that it begins to build an agenda of things that we look at as we go forward. So, if there was some way to maybe shade the last two columns and indicate in a line that this is the time horizon of the adopted plan. He said his other question is when you have assessed the holding capacity under zoning how you get a low and a high. Ms. Echols replied what we use for a low, a high is what the maximum of the zoning district would allow without density bonuses, and the high is with density bonuses. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 21 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson said it is with and without bonuses, and Ms. Echols agreed. Mr. Dotson noted that was probably in a footnote. Ms. Echols replied that it should be. She explained that part of the reason that we did it that way is that we have heard from a number of people that the development community will maximize everything they can, and we would not want to put the low number in there and have it not be enough. Therefore, there are different ways this can be done and that was the way we chose to do it. We also looked at percentages in mixed -use districts and what percentage we thought would be residential and then did the same thing with the densities for zoning. For example, all the commercial districts allow residential by special use permit. So, we had a percentage we thought X percent of these districts the area could be devoted to residential, so it is pretty low. Mr. Dotson said so it is a good honest effort to come up with capacity. Ms. Firehock agreed under our current zoning, but she has not read all of the tiny footnotes but if there could be in that in the future there is a lot more room for density beyond what we have in our current zoning. Ms. Echols said right, and that is what you see on the Comprehensive Plan page and when you turn it over you see the zoning page. She pointed out we have both of those for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning where we have done that comparison, so you can see what the capacity is under each. Mr. Dotson noted that it was easy to miss the word zoning and Comp Plan and maybe put it in bold. Ms. Echols agreed that was a very good idea. Ms. Echols said the other thing that plays into this is the fact when a master plan is updated it could affect what the capacity is for that development area. Therefore, we just must be mindful of that in the future. Ms. Riley said when staff previously stated this does not account for in the zoning scenario redevelopment. She said redevelopment is a catch phrase for a number of things. She said it might be good to describe the subsets of what redevelopment means. It could mean rezoning, update to a master plan or maybe you did not mean redevelopment that way. Ms. Echols replied that redevelopment is intended to reflect a parcel that is already developed, which is then reused for a different purpose or for a greater intensity. For example, the Fashion Square Mall, if in the future a residential development were added to it we would call that a redevelopment. Staff was just looking at this study Greenfield. Although Greenfield may be a piece of a larger parcel, it is vacant, we could say okay you have a 30-acre parcel and one acre has a house on it. Therefore, we would break that off and the remaining land we would look at it is develop ability and give you the gross and the net. Ms. Riley said the redevelopment of those areas that we expect to have high density and residential could very much change these projections. Ms. Echols agreed. She noted the Places29 Small Area Plan might very well change how we do a capacity analysis. As we get them in the master plans, we can tweak them. Ms. Echols noted that was a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-OCTOBER 31, 2017 22 FINAL MINUTES very good point. Ms. Spain said under the Comprehensive Plan indicators of progress, the first table, would it be possible to put in the column for progress the timespan so that we have lost wooded stream buffers between 2009 and 2013. She said the dates are all in the rest of the report but if you have them in a summary table the reader can see that #1 they are not all standardized and not all by the same year. Ms. Spain asked if that is in the new version. Ms. Echols asked Ms. Spain to start again. Ms. Spain said for each indicator pout the timeframe under the progress column so lack of progress on stream buffers 2009 — 2013; Progress to air quality 2011 — 2016; Historic Properties 2015 — 2016 because she wondered what those years were and if they were standardized years or not. Then you could put in the title indicators of progress for selected years. Ms. Spain said on page Page 1 and 2 where it says you are giving the report for membership and activity during 2012 and probably should be 2016 right under the first page of the report. Ms. Echols thanked Ms. Spain and asked for her written comments. Mr. Lafferty agreed with Mr. Keller that it was a great report. He said staff has been doing some polishing, but he can see that it took some time to put it together and he thinks in the future it will be easier because you know where the data sets are. Ms. Echols noted that staff certainly hopes so and thanked him. Mr. Dotson said he made this comment to staff back in September when they first gave us this, he thinks it might be useful and warranted to enter this in the VAPA Professional Projects Award Category, not that it is perfect, but he would almost think enter last year's along with this as a sort of before and after so that other communities could see the steps of progress and in the explanation it could even include some of the things we have said tonight about how to improve it so that we are really talking about a planning process and not that this is a perfect document. Mr. Dotson said there are a number of people sitting here tonight who would submit one of the two required letters of support. Ms. Echols thanked him very much on behalf of Andrew Neupal as well who worked very diligently on this with staff. Mr. Keller said as we move forward in the more intense years of the Comprehensive Plan he thinks next year forward in our five-year cycle the question is rhetorical to think about and let's not answer now, but you obviously have used the Comprehensive Plan as the form giver to this and that is why he thinks we are all excited to see that. Having gone through that process Mr. Keller said he would be interested in hearing having gone through this process and having developed this document how it is going to affect the way you want to present the Comprehensive Plan in how that form will involve in light of this experience. He said he was looking forward to it. Ms. Echols said that she did need an affirmative motion from the Planning Commission to pass this on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dotson moved to adopt and forward the 2016 Planning Commission Annual Report to the Board of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 23 FINAL MINUTES Supervisors. Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (More absent) Old Business Mr. Keller invited old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. New Business Mr. Keller invited new business. Mr. Dotson said that he did not know if it was new or old business, but it was mentioned that the Birdwood-Boar's Head special use permit was on an expedited review process. He asked do we have a process called expedited review that he would like to learn about it at some point, what triggers it, how does somebody get an expedited review. Mr. Gast -Bray replied that there is the current process and under review staff are looking very seriously at a fast -track process which will be critical for something say at Rio 29 if you want to get development to happen in a "more complicated way" you have to offer some incentive because time is money for developers so developing a fast -track for doing the kinds of development we really want as opposed to what we have always been getting is kind of key to that. But there is today a development process that mostly revolves around economic development, flagging something that is submitted to Mark Graham who then authorizes it or if there is some other kind of process that basically gets endorsed the administration passing down, Frederick Peron robotics was also on a expedited process in which case we looked to see what kinds of things that we can do to expedite the process which is what we did in that case. Mr. Dotson said so there is an established review for that. Mr. Gast -Bray replied yes, and we had to respect that in order to do this. He pointed out it is a cumbersome effort right now which means we can't do it for everything for instance and that would be really a problem, so we are trying to have more robust and user-friendly way of doing that as opposed to one that just adds more burden to staff to obtain that kind of stuff. Mr. Dotson pointed out in his last two orders to Shutter Fly he choose the expedited process which meant he paid more so he knows in some realms there is a clear procedure. Ms. Firehock said she has worked with communities on expedited review if they use so many innovate storm water management practices so in our urban ring we do have a lot of development that predates more progressive storm water control. So, as we redevelop how do we incentivize to get greener development that is better at treating storm water and keeping our streams cleaner. Therefore, there are a number of ways we could incentive -using fast track to get some of the things that we would like to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 31, 2017 24 FINAL MINUTES n get that we cannot require. She said that is something to think about for the future. Mr. Keller noted there was no Planning Commission meeting next week and the next one will be on Tuesday, November 14tn Mr Gast -Bray noted he had one thing under new business just a joint meeting is now proposed for reviewing Rio 29. Originally, they had talked about it in December, it has been postponed, and right now, we are looking at January 30, 2018 for a joint Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission for Rio 29 Phase 2. He noted that so many things are changed between now and then but asked for a straw poll is that possible for the Commission's normal meeting on January 30. Hearing no one not being able to attend, Mr. Gast -Bray said he would try to get that in front of the Board. Ms. Firehock noted she would be absent at the next regular meeting on November 14. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, COB -McIntire, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Andrew Gast -Bray, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 3.19.19 Initials: SLB ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-OCTOBER 31, 2017 FINAL MINUTES 25