HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000014 Staff Report 2022-11-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE:
SP202000014 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor
Sales, Storage and Display
SUBJECT/PRO POSAL/REQU EST:
Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of
vehicles
SCHOOL DISTRICT: Albemarle HS, Burley
MS, Agnor-Hurt ES
AGENDA DATE:
January 6, 2021
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Richardson, Walker, Kamptner, Herrick,
Baumgartner, Filardo, Rapp, Maliszewski
PRESENTER(S):
Margaret Maliszewski
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on November 24, 2020, the Planning Commission (PC) voted unanimously (7:0) to
recommend approval of the special use permit with conditions. Attachments A, B, and C contain the staff
report, action letter, and minutes from the November 24, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Shortly before the Planning Commission meeting, the County Attorney's office advised staff that review of
the special use permit request must be limited to `determining whether the outdoor storage, display
and/or sales is consistent with the applicable design guidelines," as set forth in Sec. 30.6.3.a.2.b of the
Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, the discussion in the PC staff report about conformity with the goals of
the Rio29 Small Area Plan is not relevant to this request.
"The applicable design guidelines" in this case are the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. It is the
responsibility of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to apply the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
in their review of development proposals within the County's Entrance Corridors. The ARB applied those
guidelines in its review of this request on September 8, 2020 and recommended approval with conditions.
The County Attorney's Office made a few non -substantive revisions to the conditions, as included in the
attached Resolution (Attachment D).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution approving the special use permit for outdoor
sales, storage and display (Attachment D), subject to the conditions attached thereto.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Planning Commission staff report
Al -Vicinity Map
A2 - ARB action letter
A3 - Applicant's proposed plan
A4 - CAC minutes
B - Planning Commission action letter
C - Planning Commission minutes
D - Resolution approving SP202000014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
Staff:
SP20200014: 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage
Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource
and Display
Management
Planning Commission Public Hearing: November 24,
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: January 6,
2020
2021
Owner: BNE Restaurant Group W LLC c/o W Craig
Applicant: Sasha Ismail - Charlottesville Albemarle
Worthy
Rental Properties LLC
Acreage: approximately .71 acres
Special Use Permit: Section 30.6.3 - Outdoor storage,
display and/or sales serving or associated with a
permitted use within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
TMP: 06100-00-00-120TO
Existing Zoning and By -right use: HC Highway
Location: 1680 Seminole Trail
Commercial — commercial and service; residential by
special use permit (15 units/acre)
Magisterial District: Rio
Conditions: Yes
School District: Albemarle HS, Burley MS, Agnor-Hurt
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
ES
Proposal: Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Core Area within
vehicles
Rio 29 Small Area Plan - area intended to have a
mixture of uses including residential, commercial, retail,
office, institutional and employment uses. Buildings
with heights of 3-6 stories, built close to the street, with
pedestrian access and relegated parking.
Character of Property: This property contains a Hardee's
Use of Surrounding Properties: A variety of
fast food restaurant building surrounded by paved parking
commercial uses exist in the immediate area, including
and travelways. There is limited landscaping on site.
Merchant's Auto, Enterprise Rent -a -Car, CVS
pharmacy, strip shopping centers, banks and restaurants.
Factors Favorable
Factors Unfavorable
1. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Rio29
goal of preserving scenic resources, the Neighborhood
Small Area Plan goals for building height, building
Model goal of redevelopment, and Rio29 Small Area
location and relegated parking.
Plan goals related to landscaping.
2. The ARB has reviewed the request and has
recommended no objection, with conditions.
Recommendation: The review of requests for special use permits for outdoor sales/storage/display in Albemarle
County have typically been limited to assessment and mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed use on the
Entrance Corridors, and the requests have typically been approved with conditions recommended by the ARB. The
location of the current proposal — at the most prominent intersection in the Rio29 Small Area Plan - introduces a new
factor into the consideration of the request. With no previous guidance from the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors on how to rank these competing goals, staff recommends that the Planning Commission evaluate the
importance of the Rio29 form and site design standards while reviewing this request for outdoor display in the
Entrance Corridors, noting that the proposal would not advance the County's adopted vision for the redevelopment of
this property.
STAFF PERSON: Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 24, 2020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: January 6, 2021
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201900014: 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage and Display
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100000120T0
LOCATION: 1680 Seminole Trail
PROPOSAL: Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of vehicles on approximately .71 acres
PETITION: Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted use within the
Entrance Corridor Overlay under Section 30.6.3.a.2.b of zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial — commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15
units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District — overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural
or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access.
ALA Airport Impact Area: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Core Area within Rio 29 Small Area Plan - area intended to have a mixture
of uses including residential, commercial, retail, office, institutional and employment uses. Buildings with
heights of 3-6 stories, built close to the street, with pedestrian access and relegated parking.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The subject property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rio Road. (See
Attachment A for a vicinity map.) A variety of commercial uses predominate in the general vicinity.
Among them are some automobile -related uses, including Merchant's Auto to the west and Enterprise
Rent -a -Car to the southwest, as well as 1640 Seminole Trail (two parcels to the south), for which a
Special Use Permit for outdoor sales, storage and display was approved in 2018. Other commercial uses
in the area include a CVS pharmacy, restaurants, banks and strip shopping centers.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
A site plan was first approved for this site in 1977. The restaurant building was constructed in 1978, prior
to the establishment of the Entrance Corridors, and a site plan amendment was approved in 1979. The ARB
reviewed signs for the site in 1992 and 1998, reviewed minor modifications to the building and signage in
2004, and reviewed additional signage in 2011. In 2012 the ARB approved a re -roofing for the building.
Two pre -application conferences were held for the current proposal in June 2020. The ARB reviewed the
current proposal on September 8, 2020 and recommended approval with conditions. (See Attachment B for
the ARB action letter.)
DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to establish outdoor sales/storage/display of vehicles in a total of 34 parking
spaces located along the north, east, and a portion of the south perimeters of the site, and on the west and
south sides of the existing building. (See Attachment C for the applicant's proposed plan.) The proposal
also includes 9 employee/customer spaces on the south side of the site. The refrigeration structure at the
west side of the building and the drive-thru structure at the south side of the building would be removed
to accommodate some of the proposed parking. Dumpsters would be consolidated at the southwest corner
of the site. Planting area would be expanded along the north and east sides of the site and trees and shrubs
would be added. There are currently no trees or shrubs along these frontages. In conjunction with the
expansion of the planting area on the north side, a portion of the retaining wall on Rio Road will be
removed. Trees and shrubs would also be added around the building. The three existing pole lights, which
do not conform to current standards for height and cutoff, would be removed from the site. New pole
lights would be proposed as part of the required site plan amendment and would be reviewed for
consistency with ordinance and guidelines requirements. The nonconforming freestanding sign would
also be removed.
SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY MEETING:
A community meeting was held as part of the Places 29 Rio Community Advisory Committee meeting on
August 27, 2020. County staff provided a general overview of the special use permit process and an
update on the status of the ARB and Special Permit reviews. The applicant described the proposal in
detail for the attendees. CAC members asked questions about traffic flow, inter -parcel connections, new
landscaping/density of planting/line of sight, consistency with the Rio29 Small Area Plan, and vehicle
repair uses. (See Attachment D for the CAC minutes.).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.40 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a
special use permit:
No substantial detriment. Whether the proposed special use will be a substantial detriment to
adiacent parcels.
The subject parcel is already developed. Although the proposal would add 1 I parking spaces, paved
area would not increase and some existing structures with negative visual impacts would be removed.
Also, planting area would increase, so the general character of the site would be improved, rather than
be a detriment.
The predominant character of the area is that of a commercial strip. Some automobile -related
businesses are located nearby, including Merchant's Auto to the west and Enterprise Rent -a -Car to the
southwest, as well as 1640 Seminole Trail (two parcels to the south), for which a Special Use Permit
for outdoor sales, storage and display was approved in 2018. A gas station and vehicle repair business
are located on the west side of Rt. 29, a short distance south on the corridor. The Colonial Auto
dealership, with outdoor sales, storage and display, is located on the west side of Rt. 29, a short
distance further north on the corridor. The proposed sales, storage and display parking is compatible
with those sites.
The ARB has reviewed this request and has recommended approval with conditions to limit negative
visual impacts on the Entrance Corridors (ECs). With the ARB's conditions of approval, no substantial
detriment is anticipated.
Character of the nearby area is unchanged. Whether the character of the adjacent parcels and the
nearby area will be changed by the proposed special use.
The intent of the special use permit requirement for outdoor sales, storage and display is to address the
potential impacts of the activity on the ECs. Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the intent
of the EC Overlay District is, in part, to implement the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving the
county's scenic resources because they are essential to the county's character, economic vitality and
quality of life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county's roadways
by using design guidelines. The ARB has applied the County's adopted design guidelines for
development within the EC to the review of this request and has recommended approval with
conditions. With those conditions of approval, the existing character and visual integrity of the area
will be maintained.
Harmony. Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter, with the uses permitted by right in the district,
One of the purposes of this chapter is "to facilitate creating a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community" (Section 1.4.C). The proposed use will achieve this by satisfying the ARB's
recommended conditions of approval, as outlined in an attachment to this report. Although a special
use permit is required for this use on this site due to the location within the EC overlay district, this use
is considered accessory to motor vehicle sales. Motor vehicle sales is one of the commercial uses
permitted by right within the Highway Commercial zoning district. The focus of the review for the
sales/storage/display use is on the impacts to the EC, not on the use itself. Consequently, the proposed
use is expected to be in harmony with the other by -right uses in the district and with the intent of this
chapter.
...with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no additional regulations in section 5 related to vehicle sales, storage or display.
...and with the public health, safey, and general welfare.
The intent of the special use permit requirement for outdoor sales, storage and display is based on the
need to mitigate the potential negative impact of this use on the aesthetics of the ECs. This is directly
related to promoting public welfare and general quality of life. The ARB has reviewed the proposal
and has recommended approval with conditions regarding appropriate lighting, landscaping and
signage. In addition, the way vehicles may be stored and displayed on site is a potential aesthetic issue
and a typical concern for this type of use. Elevating vehicles for display purposes is not considered
appropriate, and parking vehicles in multiple, tightly packed rows is also considered to have a negative
visual impact. Consequently, the ARB has recommended standard conditions of approval to address
these issues. With these conditions, the visual integrity of the corridor will be maintained, thereby
protecting the quality of life. Furthermore, a site plan amendment is required for this proposal. The
review of that amendment will consider compliance with the relevant development review regulations
that are also set forth to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, a combination
of proper site design and implementation of the recommended conditions, along with the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB, would sufficiently address this objective.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed special use will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets) establishes the goals for
preserving the scenic resources that are essential to the County's character, economic vitality and
quality of life. The EC Overlay District is intended to support those goals by maintaining the visual
integrity of the County's roadways. The ARB addresses potential adverse aesthetic impacts in the ECs
by applying the County's Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines during the review of development
proposals. The ARB reviewed the subject request for conformance with those guidelines on September
8, 2020, and voted 5:0 to forward a recommendation of "no objection" with conditions to the Planning
Commission regarding this proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as part of the Core Area within the Rio29 Small Area
Plan (SAP). This property is a central corner parcel that is designated as Urban Core and Core within
the place types of the plan. Properties within the Core are intended to have the highest intensity of
development and the tallest buildings which are offset by setbacks. Buildings facing the streets in
Urban Core should have first floor uses that activate the street, such as commercial or retail uses. This
designation is intended to have a mixture of uses including residential, commercial, retail, office,
institutional and employment in buildings with heights of 3-6 stories, built close to the street, with
pedestrian access and relegated parking. The SAP states that off street surface parking is discouraged
in the Urban Core but may be allowed by exception when screened and relegated to the sides and rear
of buildings. The outdoor display of vehicles along Rio Road and Rt. 29 does not support these
primary goals of the SAP.
SUMMARY AND ACTION:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable to the request for outdoor sales/storage/display. Factors
favorable include:
1. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving scenic resources, the
Neighborhood Model goal of redevelopment, and Rio29 Small Area Plan goals related to
landscaping.
2. The ARB has reviewed the request as it relates to entrance corridor requirements and has
recommended the following conditions:
a. Use of this site must be in general accord with the concept plan "Application & Conceptual
Layout Plan by Collins Engineering" last revised 09/21/20, as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan, development
and use of the site shall reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the vehicle
display/storage and landscape areas. Permitted modifications may include those required by
the ARB, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional
landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
b. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the plan
entitled Application & Conceptual Layout Plan by Collins Engineering" last
revised 09/21/20(the Concept Plan).
c. Vehicles for sales/storage/display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
d. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
e. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the
site plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum
requirements of the ARB guidelines and/or the Zoning Ordinance to mitigate visual impacts
of the prosed use.
f Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the
site plan). Maximum height of new pole lights shall not exceed 20'. Maximum light levels
shall not exceed 30 foot candles in the display lot and 20 foot candles in all other locations.
Nonconforming poles and fixtures shall be removed. All fixtures must have lamps whose
color temperature is between 2000 and 3000 Kelvin.
g. The existing freestanding sign must be removed prior to commencement of the new use. Any
new freestanding sign must meet zoning ordinance and Entrance Corridor requirements.
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Rio29 Small Area Plan goals for building height,
building location and relegated parking.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The review of requests for special use permits for outdoor sales/storage/display in Albemarle County have
typically been limited to assessment and mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed use on the
Entrance Corridors, and the requests have typically been approved with conditions recommended by the
ARB. The location of the current proposal — at the most prominent intersection in the Rio29 Small Area
Plan - introduces a new factor into the consideration of the request. With no previous guidance from the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors on how to rank these competing goals, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission evaluate the importance of the Rio29 form and site design standards while
reviewing this request for outdoor display in the Entrance Corridors, noting that the proposal would not
advance the County's adopted vision for the redevelopment of this property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP20200014: 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage and
Display with the conditions stated in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP202000014: 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage and
Display. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Vicinity Map
Attachment B — ARB action letter
Attachment C — Applicant's proposed plan
Attachment D — CAC minutes
SP-2020-14:
1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage
and Display Vicinit
Map
oCiy
-
45-100
4:5` 44.B 45-104B1
ej�a
Legend
("0�9 nre llama on map may nmappear mlegend)
�, 61M--14-1A+
�.�?yno ^oo�'"ooP 45-94B
�' �` h,
45-104B3
b
O
Parcel Into
Ni/ "�i�_
/'h.�
by
45-101
4S,
El Parcels
'/
�06
j sq
B7
45-10464
45-105
45C-03-00-00080+
� I
'•�t
45-102A
45-102
45-104B5
45-106
45-105A
61U-02--10
45-103
\ 45-106A
qrb
Pnt43/
�p
Noade
SG
\
�rk1brary 61-123D�>
12
\ 61U-02--9
LL=..
s 61-123H
61U-0310-003\\\�--"`1C
61 -120 K
m ro
C
61-120 ^ryo
Df W0-.^Q
ya t-120
61-123 f
IU-
61U-02-4"-
61-120U
61-120L
s
^
� 61 U-02-.-3
A
n'
61-120D1
61-120J
61 U-02--2
61-124
i
� 1K
61M--J1Z61U_02 1
61-122A
'
61-120E
61-120D;`
ro o
• 61U-01--7A
O
61-122
�)
� 61-120Z
61-132 61-133
61-124G
/
61U-01-If 0q,5
61U-p1 \11 6,�J' a
\
AL
376ft
61-120X
y
o
GIS-Web
1U-0�`V61U-01--3
.`C
pd'
I�
�'C61-130
61-124E''61
U-01--
61U.-01--1"
.anr� ( )zeo-se3z
My dete ruination of topography or contours, or any depindon of physical Improvements, property lines of boundaries Is for gerelal Nbmlallm orgy and Mall not be used for Me design. mMffide lon, or mrtSWNm of Improvements to real property or for Ill plain determination. Novanbc 5, 20M
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data tlownloatl page due to the pro ectim used Map Profe rmi WGS84 Web Mandell QIUMYar, Sphere) (EPSG 3857)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone (434) 296-5832
September 8, 2020
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett St, Ste K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Fax (4341 972-4126
RE: ARB-2020-87: 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage and Display (TMP 06100-
00-00-120T0)
Dear Mr. Collins,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on Tuesday, September 8,
2020, completed an advisory review of the above -noted request to establish outdoor sales,
storage and display parking and took the following actions.
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit: The Board by a vote of 5:0, forwarded the
following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB expresses no objection to the special use permit/rezoning, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or
storage on the Concept Plan.
2. Vehicles must be parked in striped parking spaces.
3. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan
(submitted with the site plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to
be in excess of the minimum requirements of the ARB guidelines and/or the
Zoning Ordinance to mitigate visual impacts of the prosed use.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted
with the site plan). Maximum height of new pole lights shall not exceed 20'.
Maximum light levels shall not exceed 30 footcandles in the display lot and 20
footcandles in all other locations. Nonconforming poles and fixtures shall be
removed. All fixtures must have lamps whose color temperature is between 2000
and 3000 Kelvin.
6. Eliminate the existing freestanding sign. If a new freestanding sign is proposed, it
must meet zoning ordinance and Entrance Corridor requirements.
Regarding the Concept Plan: The Board by a vote of 5:0, voted to require the following changes to
the concept plan prior to Planning Commission review. (The ARB did not require that the revised
plan return to the ARB for review.)
1. Coordinate the color used to designate proposed display parking in the legend and the
plan.
2. Revise the existing conditions plan to show both sheds at the southwest corner of the
property.
3. Revise the notes on the plan to indicate that trash receptacles will only be located within
the dumpster enclosure shown at the west corner of the property.
4. Revise the plan to bring the landscaping closer to meeting the guidelines for trees along
the EC street frontages. The addition of a planting island and the shifting of some
proposed trees may facilitate this.
5. Revise the plan to show landscaping in the planting island on the south side of the
building.
Reqardinq the future site plan amendment submittal: The ARB offered the following comments
on the proposal for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal:
1. Indicate on the plans how the building will be treated to achieve an appropriate
appearance in the areas where building elements are being removed.
2. Indicate if any rooftop equipment can and/or will be removed. Note that if replacement
equipment will be proposed, the new equipment must not be visible from the EC streets
3. Note that a Site Plan Amendment will be needed for this proposal (if the SP is
approved). A complete landscape plan should be provided with the first submittal of that
amendment.
4. Include the standard plant health note on the landscape plan in the first site plan
submittal.
5. Provide more detail on the removal of portions of the retaining wall. Indicate the extent of
retaining wall removal and provide detail about the treatment of the remaining wall.
6. Provide a lighting plan for review. Revise exterior lighting to meet ordinance and
guidelines requirements, including but not limited to:
a. All fixtures must have lamps whose color temperature is between 2000 and 3000
Kelvin.
b. Maximum height of pole lights (including bases and fixtures) must not exceed 20'
in height.
c. Illumination at the ground must not exceed 30 footcandles in the display areas
and 20 footcandles in all other locations.
You may submit your application for preliminary ARB review at your earliest convenience.
Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.albemarle.org in the
Community Development Forms Library under "View". If you have any questions concerning any
of the above, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
-V'l � .
Margaret Maliszewski
Chief of Planning/Resource Management
434-296-5832 x3276
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org
cc: BNE Restaurant Group IV LLC, c/o W Craig Worthy, P.O. Box 2629, Addison, TX 75001
Sasha Ismail, Charlottesville Albemarle Rental Properties LLC, 916 Preston Ave., Charlottesville VA 22903
File
Places 29-Rio Community Advisory Committee
Minutes August 27, 2020 lvfeetin
Virtual Meeting held via zoom according to BbS guidelines
ATTENDEES:
Committee — Todd Cone, Nancy Hunt, Audrey Kocher, Lee Kondor, Brian
MacMillan, Martin Meth, Tom Paoletti, Pete Thompson, Judy Schlussel,
Nicole Scro, Rick Seaman
Board of Supervisors — Ned Gallaway
Planning Commission —
County Staff — Rachel Falkenstein, Carolyn Shaffer (meeting facilitator)
CALL to ORDER — Chairperson Marty Meth called meeting to order at 6:02
with a Quorum.
Statement read by Rachel on emergency ordinance authorizing the Virtual
Zoom meeting and named all participants.
Approval of Minutes — Minutes for meetings held on February 27, June 25
and July 23 approved with several editing corrections on unanimous vote.
Community Meetingg, SP2020-14 1680 Seminole Trail Auto Dealership:
1. Presentation by County staff members Margaret Mal iszewski, Khris
Taggert and Scott Collins
2. Covered county procedures for applications requiring AFB approval.
3. First review by AFB scheduled for Sept 8
4. Site review comments due Sept 27
5. Property owner discussed special use request and answered question
from CAC members
Albemarle County Housing Update:
1. Presented by County staff member Stacy Pethia, Principal Planning -
Housing
2. Brief introduction to major components of draft policy to be submitted
to BOS later this year.
3. Various questions from members of CAC.
Watchlist Discussion and Future CAC topics:
1. Brief intro by Marty
2. Rick requested addition of Fashion Square Mall to list even though
not in Places 29-Rio small area
3. Trees/shrubs along E. Rio Rd between Belvedere Boulevard and
Dunlora
4. Update on Form Based Code each meeting
Liaison Updates
Ned Gallaway:
1. Rio Rd corridor study funded by BOS
2. Smart scale — round -about at J W Parkway and Rio Rd submitted
3. Discussion between Ned and Pete on R-cut at Belvedere and Rio
4. Malloy Ford compliance issues
5. Places 29-North needs members
6. Issues along Rio Rd discussed at BOS meeting, weeding and tree
maintenance county wide issue
Rackel Falkenstein:
1. FBC update
a. in drafting phase
b. working with consultant on draft
c. to produce mockup examples of development possibilities
2. Rio Rd corridor study — engga�ged a consultant, possible scope and
time line ready by next C , meeting
Next scheduled meeting: September 24, 2020
Adjourned at 7:48
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 10, 2020
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville VA 22902
scottCrDcoll ins-eng i neerinq.com
RE: SP202000014 1680 Seminole Trail Auto Dealership
Dear Mr. Collins,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 24, 2020, recommended approval by a vote
of 7:0 of the above -noted application with the conditions recommended by the ARB, as follows:
1. Use of this site must be in general accord with the concept plan "Application & Conceptual Layout Plan by
Collins Engineering' last revised 09/21/20, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan, development and use of the site shall reflect the
general size, arrangement and location of the vehicle display/storage and landscape
areas. Permitted modifications may include those required by the ARB, those necessary to satisfy the
conditions of this special use permit, and additional landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
2. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the plan
entitled Application & Conceptual Layout Plan by Collins Engineering" last revised 09/21/20 (the Concept
Plan).
3. Vehicles for sales/storage/display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
4. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site plan).
Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of the ARB
guidelines and/or the Zoning Ordinance to mitigate visual impacts of the prosed use.
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the site plan).
Maximum height of new pole lights shall not exceed 20'. Maximum light levels shall not exceed 30
footcandles in the display lot and 20 footcandles in all other locations. Nonconforming poles and fixtures
shall be removed. All fixtures must have lamps whose color temperature is between 2000 and 3000 Kelvin.
7. The existing freestanding sign must be removed prior to commencement of the new use. Any new
freestanding sign must meet zoning ordinance and Entrance Corridor requirements.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 296-5832 ext 3276 or email mmaliszewski0albemarle.org
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Manager
Planning Division
cc: Sasha Ismail
Charlottesville Albemarle Rental Properties LLC
1640 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville VA 22901
shokhzadaAgmaiI.com
BNE Restaurant Group IV LLC
Go W. Craig Worthy
PO Box 2629
Addison TX 75001
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes November 24, 2020
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at
6:00 p.m.
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Rick Randolph;
Daniel Bailey; Corey Clayborne; Jennie More; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Members absent: none.
Other officials present were Margaret Maliszewski, Planning Manager; Megan Nedostup; Kevin McDermott,
Chief of Planning; Charles Rapp, Director of Planning; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn
Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Bivins said the meeting was being held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance No. 20-A(14),
"An Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the COVID-19 Disaster." He said
opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting will be posted at
www.albemarle.org/community/county-calendar when available.
Mr. Rapp called the roll. All Commissioners noted their presence.
Ms. Firehock called the meeting to order and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda
There were no consent agenda items.
Public Hearing
SP202000014 1680 Seminole Trail
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Manager in the Planning Division of Community Development, said she would
be presenting the request for a special use permit for outdoor sales, storage, and display of vehicles in the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Ms. Maliszewski said she would provide some basic information on the property that is under review, some
details on the proposal itself, some general background on the outdoor display special use, and discussion
of the ARB's role and action in the process.
Ms. Maliszewski said the special use is requested for the site that is currently occupied by the Hardee's
fast-food restaurant, prominently located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Rio
Road. She said the parcel in question is zoned Highway Commercial. She said motor vehicle sales is a
permitted by -right use in the Highway Commercial Zoning District; and sales, storage, and display of
vehicles is considered accessory to motor vehicle sales.
Ms. Maliszewski said the general motor vehicle sales use was not under consideration that evening, and
that sales, storage, and display is the focus of the review.
Ms. Maliszewski said in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, sales, storage, and display requires a special
use permit. She said this site is bordered by two entrance corridors, as both Route 29 and Rio Road are
designated entrance corridors in the County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— November 24, 2020
Ms. Maliszewksi said the purpose of requiring a special use permit for this use is to allow for the review of
potential negative visual impacts on the entrance corridor streets. She said the intent of the Entrance
Corridor Overlay is to ensure quality development that is compatible with the County's important scenic,
historic, architectural, and cultural resources. She said the County has Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
that have been adopted to help meet that intent.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB applied those guidelines to the review of this application in a meeting on
September 8, 2020.
Ms. Maliszewski presented the applicant's concept plan. She said the proposal includes 34 display spaces
that are distributed primarily along Rio Road, along Route 29, and adjacent to the south and west sides of
the building. She presented an image that illustrated the display parking in tan or orange.
Ms. Maliszewski said to accommodate the display spaces adjacent to the building, the proposal includes
the removal of the drive-thru structure on the south side of the building and the refrigeration unit on the west
side of the building.
Ms. Maliszewski said the proposal also includes increased planting area along Route 29 and along Rio
Road. She said the increased planting area would be created by reducing the width of the travelways on
the north and east sides of the building. She said these increased planting areas would allow for significant
amounts of new tree and shrub plantings that bring the site much closer to meeting the entrance corridor
landscaping requirements.
Ms. Maliszewski said the proposal also includes the removal of nonconforming site lights and of a
nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as consolidation of dumpsters on the site. She said it is also
possible that a portion of the retaining wall that currently exists on Rio Road could be removed in connection
with the increase in planting area.
Ms. Maliszewski said over the years, the ARB has established standard conditions for mitigating impacts
of outdoor display of vehicles. She said one of these is the requirement that vehicles not be elevated
anywhere onsite. She said another is the requirement that cars only be parked in striped parking spaces.
She said these conditions help maintain an organized and orderly appearance onsite, and they are among
the conditions the ARB has recommended for this request.
Ms. Maliszewski said the increased planting areas, added landscaping, removal of nonconforming features,
and other planned improvements are all positive changes that increase consistency of the site with the
Entrance Corridor Guidelines. She said the staff report does note that the proposed use is not consistent
with many of the goals of the Rio29 Small Area Plan.
Ms. Maliszewski said given recent guidance from the County Attorney's Office, however, and the
consideration that this proposal is strictly limited to determining whether the use is consistent with the
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, factors unfavorable are eliminated, and staffs recommendation is
revised to one of approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Maliszewski said she had drafted motions available when the Planning Commission was ready for them
and offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Clayborne asked for clarification on the reason for the change in removal of the unfavorable condition.
Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) replied that Ms. Maliszewski and staff had originally drafted the
report to take into consideration consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said as Mr. Clayborne was
probably aware, in almost all applications for special use permits, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
is a critical factor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Mr. Herrick said that when taking a closer look at the conditions for this specific type of special use permit,
however, the ordinance limits review to determining whether the outdoor storage display and/or sales is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. He said for better or worse, the specific provisions of this
specific type of special use permit limit consideration only to that of the design guidelines, which the ARB
has already addressed.
Mr. Bivins asked if they would be hearing from the applicant.
Mr. Rapp said he did not believe anyone representing the applicant was present.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was anyone from the public present who wished to speak. Hearing none, he
brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Bivins said he had a question, and asked staff to pull up the image of the plantings. He said based on
his reading of the ARB's report, he would assume that this is to offer some visual buffer between the narrow
strip that comes along the on -ramp back onto the bypass, then comes around Route 29. He asked Ms.
Maliszewski if this was how she would interpret this.
Ms. Maliszewski asked Mr. Bivins if he could repeat his question.
Mr. Bivins said that around the spot where they see the increased planting area, he believed one of the
rationales for that was to bring some visual transition as well as some isolation from the vehicles on the
Route 29 side that take the on -ramp back onto the main part of Rt. 29 or, as one comes onto Rio Road
there, to offer some buffer so that they are not right up against the commercial area as they are today.
Ms. Maliszewski explained that the existing condition is not consistent with the entrance corridor
landscaping guidelines. She said the standard landscaping that is required along the entrance corridors is
large shade trees planted at 2.5-inch caliper, 35 feet on center, interspersed ornamentals, and rows of
shrubs. She said one could see from the photo on the screen that there is almost no landscaping along the
corridors at this time, so increasing that planting area is a big step towards bringing the site up to what the
guidelines are calling for.
Mr. Bivins asked if the plantings need to be in place before the applicant gets a permit (perhaps the
certificate of occupancy (CO)).
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she believed it was, in fact, the CO and that the site would need to be in
conformance. She said the applicant will need to do a site plan amendment so that the site is consistent
with the approved site plan.
Mr. Bivins said before moving along, he understood there was an applicant for the project who was trying
to access the meeting. He asked if the applicant was in the meeting yet.
Mr. Rapp replied that Ms. Schaffer noted that the applicant was in the public side of the meeting, ready to
speak.
Mr. Bivins said that he could see the applicant but could not hear him.
Mr. Rapp said the public could hear the applicant, but the County staff and Commission could not.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was a way to correct this.
Mr. Rapp said he was working on the issue.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
FINAL MINUTES— November 24, 2020
Mr. Bivins circled back to his earlier question to Ms. Maliszewski and apologized for interrupting her. He
asked if the applicant would need to do the plantings and meet all the requirements from the ARB before
they are able to open their business there.
Ms. Maliszewski replied yes.
Ms. Schaffer asked Mr. Rapp if he could hear her.
Mr. Rapp replied yes.
Ms. Schaffer said she had Mr. Scott Collins, the applicant, ready to speak when the Commission was ready.
She apologized for having microphone issues.
Mr. Bivins asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Scott Collins (Collins Engineering) said he appreciated the opportunity to present the project to the
Commission. He said Ms. Maliszewski did a great job with the staff report and highlighted what they were
trying to do. He said the applicant was focused on making this site meet many of the entrance corridor
requirements and landscaping requirements for the small area plan, even though the building does not
quite [inaudible] calling for.
Mr. Collins said the applicant recognizes that this corner is a predominant corner of Albemarle County, with
the two entrance corridors on two sides of the site, and so they focused on the site aspects they could
control and looked at enhancing the landscaping along those two corridors to create a much better
pedestrian zone along those corridors with the increase of greenspace, landscaping, and buffering from the
site. He said this was his main point.
Mr. Collins added that this predominant corner is made up of five parcels, and the total acreage is about
4.6 acres. He said this site was 0.7 acres of it, and his client also owns another property two properties
down, which is another 0.7 acres. He said the idea is that this is a good use, in the meantime, as things
start to evolve in the County with the idea that ultimately, these two parcels could be combined with the
other three properties in the future and that something could come that is more consistent with the small
area plan.
Mr. Collins said for now, however, the applicant is focused on what they can control and do with the site in
order to increase the landscaping aspect and buffering of the pedestrian corridor to enhance the site
aspects. He said it would be difficult to develop this property on its own, given its size, and will be in a better
place to be more consistent with the small area plan with the landscape buffering provided so far.
Mr. Collins said these were the main aspects he wanted to address, and that Ms. Maliszewski did a great
job with the staff report. He offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Bivins said Mr. Collins mentioned his client owns property that is two properties down.
Mr. Collins said yes.
Mr. Bivins asked if this was Downtown Auto.
Mr. Collins replied yes and explained that what the applicant would like to do is move Downtown Auto to
the subject site. He said the applicant has a pending lease to use that existing property two doors down as
a new, different business in Albemarle County. He said this is not an auto dealership and is a use that is
allowed in the Highway Commercial corridor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
FINAL MINUTES —November 24, 2020
Mr. Bivins said he may be wrong, but his recollection was that when Mr. Collin's client came before the
Commission for a special use permit to use that particular property where their business is located now,
there was screening that was supposed to be put in, as well as some striped parking areas to give a bit of
an orderly context for the particular property where Downtown Auto moved to when they moved off of
Preston Avenue. He said he comes to this area frequently and has not seen any of this put in place. He
said perhaps he was not looking in the right place, but he has not seen any screening put in, nor any cars
presented in an orderly manner on that lot.
Mr. Bivins said he was now somewhat cautiously nervous that the same actions will not take place on a
more prominently positioned place in the entrance corridor. He said he was sure Mr. Collins had not come
prepared to answer that question, but since he said his client was the person who owns the two lots farther
down the road, he was asking this question. He asked how the Commission will know that this will be better
than what it is right now.
Mr. Collins replied his understanding is that his client had his business downtown in the City of
Charlottesville, and he obtained this property and special use permit about a year and a half ago with the
intent to move there, but it was too small, so he had not moved over there yet. He said it was about 6
months ago his client found out that within a matter of 60 days, he had to vacate his site in the City of
Charlottesville. He said his client had to move his business over to the new site rather quickly, in the midst
of COVID-19, and so he has been scrambling. He said the site is small, and so his client had to work
through many issues on the site.
Mr. Collins said he met with his client about 6 weeks ago on the site, and his understanding was that his
client was working on getting the landscaping installed. He said he believed his client had to have
conversations with the County about it, and they were working through some aspects and getting the
landscape in.
Mr. Collins said the subject site gives his client much more room so that he can maneuver and function
correctly, which is the reason for the move.
Mr. Bivins said basically, Mr. Collins was saying that this was like going into a house and realizing that they
did not have enough closet space, which was why they wanted to move up to the corner.
Mr. Collins said this was a great analogy.
Mr. Bivins asked if there were other questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he asked if there was anyone
from the public who wished to speak.
Ms. Schaffer said there was no one with their hand raised at that time.
Mr. Bivins brought the matter back to the Commission for additional questions and discussion. He asked
Ms. Maliszewski if she had a sense that conversations between the applicant and staff had taken place.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she had multiple conversations with the business owner about landscaping
that was required. She said she had not been out to the study the site, and so she did not know what the
current condition was.
Mr. Bivins said he could share that as of that day, there was nothing going on except lots of cars there.
Mr. Keller said he had a question for both Ms. Maliszewski and Mr. Herrick and that it was, in many ways,
more for the public than for the Commission. He asked when they have a special use permit like this and it
is approved, what could then happen on the site with a different leaser without it having to come back to
the County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Mr. Herrick replied that as Mr. Keller was probably aware, special use permits run with the land. He said if
the special use permit were to be issued in this case, future owners and occupants of this property would
have to comply with the terms of the special use permit issued. He said this would survive even a transfer
of ownership.
Mr. Keller asked if this would limit it to outdoor storage and would not allow for a multistory closed storage
building.
Mr. Herrick replied that the owner would still have all the permitted by -right uses that exist under Highway
Commercial. He said in addition, they would have the ability to have outdoor storage and display subject to
the conditions of the special use permit.
Mr. Clayborne said he had a follow-up question that did not pertain to this specific proposal. He asked in
light of what Mr. Keller just said, what tools would eventually be put in place so that they can achieve the
vision of the form -based code and small area plan. He asked if the special use permit runs the life of the
property, how they will ever get to a three-story to six -story building and see it to fruition, from a policy and
procedural standpoint.
Mr. Herrick replied that the form -based code is still in development and is an optional overlay, meaning
property owners have the option of opting into the form -based code. He said owners that choose not to will
continue to have the by -right uses of the Highway Commercial Zoning District. He said perhaps Mr. Rapp
had something to add, but the form -based code would eventually be an optional overlay.
Mr. Rapp said Mr. Clayborne raised a point that was initially a thought that staff had as they looked into
this. He said this would certainly make implementing the Rio29 Small Area Plan vision more difficult, and if
they continue this, they eventually need to find a way to support that plan. He said as it was pointed out
earlier, they have an ordinance that restricts the way they can evaluate some of these proposals. He said
it will take some work on the ordinance as a whole to hopefully square some of this up and promote the
type of development they want in this area, if they want to see it come to fruition.
Ms. Firehock said she did note staffs comments to that effect, that it was not quite in keeping with the vision
espoused in the form -based code currently under development. She said she did want to point out a couple
of things about the way she looked at this.
Ms. Firehock said first, nothing that the applicant was proposing to do would structurally alter the site such
that a future building could not be constructed. She said it is currently a fast-food chain restaurant and is
attractive as it could be as such. She said she thinks the landscaping will dramatically improve it, and that
while one could debate whether this is the ultimate, highest, and best use of this premier comer parcel,
from the applicant's standpoint, it gives them great visibility for their business. She said she does not think
it precludes it converting, in the future, into the types of structures discussed in the form -based code project.
Ms. Firehock said there was talk about the pedestrian experience of that area. She said anything that adds
more vegetation will certainly improve the experience. She said she regularly took her car to one of the
repair shops behind the parcel, and she used the car rental place there on almost a weekly basis for renting
cars to leave town. She said she then walked back from that location down Route 29, and it is a difficult
and unfriendly place to be walking. She said this applicant is not responsible for fixing this, but it is really a
site designed to be accessed by auto and is not a pedestrian destination.
Ms. Firehock said she thinks the proposal is a great improvement, and nothing the Commission would
decide on that evening would prevent it from eventually evolving into the type of development they hope to
see at this corner.
Mr. Bailey agreed. He said it was unfortunate timing -wise, but from the perspective that the Commission
was being asked to look at it being in keeping with the Entrance Corridor Overlay, and with the proposed
vegetation, it is a significant improvement over what exists there today and makes it much more friendly
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
and inviting for the neighborhood
Mr. Bailey said the unfortunate part he wrestled with was that when thinking about trying to achieve the
small area plan vision, although it is within rights of the Highway Commercial District, is that a car dealership
is not a place where people come together, so it does not promote more walking. He said it promotes in
and out, and when one perhaps needs a car. He said it is on a prominent corner of the corridor, within the
Core, and with the vision they want to go in, it does not promote the coming together of the neighborhood
or area. He said this is where he struggled, but that it is within the applicant's right.
Mr. Bailey said with regards to what was presented and what Ms. Firehock stated, it is an improvement
over what exists today, and there is nothing to prevent it from achieving the vision down the road. He said
he supposed that the concern is since the by right, the special permit transitions with the land, it could get
stuck in that use, which is not one that promotes community gatherings. He said this was more of a
comment than a question, but he wanted to put it out there for the public.
Mr. Bivins said it sounded as if the Commission understood that this was a piece of timing and is within the
rights of this particular property owner to move in the direction that they want to move in. He said as Counsel
has advised and as staff has revised, the conversation that evening was to see whether or not what is being
proposed to the Commission is in keeping with the context of visuals, which they received something from
the ARB on and, given the conditions outlined, the ARB would find this in keeping with the general hope for
design of that particular corner. He said he believed Ms. Maliszewski said they would have to have a
particular approved site plan before they got the CO permit.
Ms. Maliszewski said she could not hear what Mr. Bivins said and asked him to repeat it.
Mr. Bivins said Ms. Maliszewski has assured the Commission that through the ARB, before the applicant
can receive a CO permit, they will have to go before the ARB and have the site approved and move through
all the various parts of the process they will need to.
Ms. Maliszewski said a site plan amendment is required.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Maliszewski to present the possible motions on the screen. He asked the
Commissioners if they were ready to take action.
Mr. Bailey moved to recommend approval of SP202000014 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage,
and Display with the conditions stated in the staff report.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins thanked the applicant for his work, adding that he knew he would continue working with County
staff to make this an interesting and appropriate site.
Action Item
ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill
Mr. Bivins noted that this was an item coming back before the Commission and that he would let Counsel
kick this off before moving through the process in order to provide the procedural process for the action
item.
Mr. Herrick said he thought it was important, given the volume of comments the County has received on
this item, to take a few moments to set the stage for where they are. He said procedurally, there has already
been a public hearing on this item before the Planning Commission. He said it was then referred to the
Board of Supervisors in the fall, which has now referred it back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Herrick said the item is before the Planning Commission for a non -binding recommendation. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
the Board has asked for the Commission's recommendation, but the Board of Supervisors will ultimately
have the final say on this.
Mr. Herrick said as noted, because a public hearing on this has already taken place, what is before the
Commission that evening is not a public hearing. He said the Commission can choose to accept public
comment that evening, but it was not required to do so because the Commission has already held a public
hearing in this matter.
Mr. Herrick said he also wanted to briefly go over the role of the master plan and Comprehensive Plan. He
said the master plan is not a contract nor an agreement, but is a guide to orderly development. He said the
master plan is helpful and informative and should be given the appropriate weight, but it is ultimately not
determinative.
Mr. Herrick said as the Commission has discussed at prior meetings, moratoriums on development under
Virginia law are not enabled. He said a local governing body does not have the authority to enact an
ordinance that would establish an outright moratorium on all zoning changes in a portion of a locality until
highway improvements are made. He said current and projected traffic, however, can be a consideration in
individual applications. He said along those lines, if traffic impacts do become a determining factor, it would
be better to focus on statements on the current state of the road infrastructure, whether approval or denial
is being recommended, than on the six transportation improvements listed in the master plan.
Mr. Herrick said he simply wanted to go over a few parameters of the discussion in trying to be responsive
to some of the comments that have been received. He offered to answer any questions the Commissioners
had now or at the conclusion of the presentation.
Hearing no questions, Mr. Bivins asked for the staff report.
Ms. Megan Nedostup, Development Process Manager in the Planning Division of Community
Development, said that as Mr. Herrick just advised, they would discuss the Breezy Hill proposal and
changes that have occurred since the proposal was last heard at the Planning Commission in July. She
reminded the Commission that this was a request to rezone seven parcels that together are approximately
84 acres located along Route 250 East in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan area, near Glenmore, from
RA to R4 Residential.
Ms. Nedostup said she would give a quick overview of the location of the proposed development, present
a quick slide that Mr. Herrick briefly covered on the meeting history of the project, present some of the
changes that have occurred since this was last heard at the Planning Commission, and conclude with the
updated factors favorable and unfavorable.
Ms. Nedostup said since this has been heard as a public hearing previously, she would not be presenting
all of the information from her previous presentation. She said if there were questions regarding that
information, however, she would be happy to answer them and bring up the previous slides the Commission
has already seen.
Ms. Nedostup presented a map to provide orientation as to the location of the proposal. She indicated on
the map to Route 250, noting that she drew in a red line to denote the edge of the Village of Rivanna Master
Plan. She said this line follows Route 250 east and that going west towards Charlottesville is the Village of
Rivanna Neighborhood Model Development. She indicated to the location of Glenmore, noting that the site
is outlined in yellow gold, with the Running Deer neighborhood to the east.
Ms. Nedostup said on July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and
voted to recommend denial. She said on September 2, the application was heard at the Board of
Supervisors as a public hearing and was deferred at the meeting by the applicant, with the Board accepting
the deferral.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Ms. Nedostup said the Board then voted on October 21 to send the application back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration, which was the reason for the present meeting.
Ms. Nedostup presented the revised concept plan. She said the applicant has made a number of changes
since the application was last before the Commission. She said those changes are fully outlined in the staff
report, and she would cover a few key changes. She indicated again on the map to Route 250 and Running
Deer Drive.
Ms. Nedostup said density was reduced from 160 units to 130 units, which equates to a gross density of
1.6 units per acre and a net density of 1.9 units per acre. She indicated on the map to Block 5 and said it
was offered to be proffered to limit the density to 1 unit per acre in that area.
Ms. Nedostup said the roads were revised to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planting strips for street
trees.
Ms. Nedostup said the applicant has offered to proffer that construction traffic be prohibited from using
Running Deer Drive.
Ms. Nedostup said a proffer was offered to restrict Block 6 (in the very back of the property) to one dwelling
via a deed restriction.
Ms. Nedostup said additional erosion and sediment control measures, along with grading and lots outside
the stream buffer, were added to the concept plan and proffers.
Ms. Nedostup presented another part of the concept plan showing the newly revised lot layout. She said
the lots are larger in the Block 5 area where the density was reduced, and there is now one unit in Block 6.
Ms. Nedostup said the factors favorable and unfavorable have been updated to reflect the changes by the
applicant. She noted that the factors listed on the screen in italics were newly added factors and that those
with a strikethrough were removed factors.
Ms. Nedostup said she would read aloud those factors that are now applicable to the application. She said
Favorable Factor #4 was added and read it aloud: "The proposal's affordable housing proffer would
generate $422,500 of monetary contributions." She noted that this number was reduced to reflect the 15%
of 130 units rather than the 160 units that were previously before the Commission.
Ms. Nedostup said Favorable Factor #5 is, "The proposal meets the applicable Neighborhood Model
principles."
Ms. Nedostup said the unfavorable factors include those elements that do not align with the master plan.
She said Unfavorable Factors #4-7 have been addressed with the revisions.
Ms. Nedostup said staff acknowledges that the applicant has addressed a number of concerns identified
and raised by staff, members of the community, the Planning Commission, and the Board. She said staffs
recommendation of denial, however, has not changed.
Ms. Nedostup noted for the Commission and for the public that the County has received approximately 234
emails since the Board voted to have the application heard by the Planning Commission, and that she
would provide a summary of the majority of the concerns that were included in that correspondence.
Ms. Nedostup said the concerns from the community were consistency with the recommendations of the
master plan, including transportation recommendations, density recommendations, and the overall density
of the proposal; the transition of development from Rivanna Village as the center; concerns raised about
the increased traffic from the development, specifically around adding vehicles to Route 250 going into
Charlottesville; impact and safety concerns to Running Deer residents with the connection to Running Deer
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Drive; safety concerns regarding access from Route 250 for emergency vehicles; the impact to school
capacity; and environmental impacts.
Ms. Nedostup concluded her presentation and offered to answer questions.
Ms. More said she believed she knew the answer to her question, but she wanted to ask it to Ms. Nedostup
simply for the purpose of having it as part of the record. She said when she watched the Board meeting,
she heard this come up in some of the final discussions and although she believed it was clarified there,
she wanted to clarify it here. She said during discussions of what the by -right number would be, she kept
hearing people referring to 65-66 units. She said she did not know if they actually have a by -right number,
but her understanding is it would be much lower, and the 65-66 range is what the plan recommends,
particularly on the guidance given by the Planning Commission in the work session. She asked Ms.
Nedostup if this was correct.
Ms. Nedostup replied yes. She said the parcels are currently zoned Rural Areas, which would involve a
determination on the number of development rights, which has not been done to date. She said the
applicant has done their own calculation and in their narrative on previous submittals, they have said there
would be 24 by -right units. She said the 65 number would not be by -right and would need a rezoning, which
was the guidance given by the Planning Commission at the work session in July 2019 on the interpretation
of what was provided in the master plan.
Mr. Bivins said they had received a big package of information from the applicant, and this is an action item
before the Commission where they can work off of the information that has been presented to them and
talk to each other about it without having to hear from the applicant. He said certainly, given the amount of
excellent public communication they have received, they can simply make a recommendation back to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bivins said that before moving in that direction, and given the materials they have received (including
Ms. Nedostup's report and the applicant's reports), he would like to get a sense from the Commissioners
as to whether or not they need to hear from the applicant. As he did not hear any feedback from the
Commission, he noted that if he heard nothing, he would take this as they did not need to hear from the
applicant, and they would then talk amongst themselves.
Mr. Bivins reiterated that the Commission had a lot of information and received a great deal of what he
deemed to be thoughtful input. He said Ms. Nedostup laid out the arguments, both pro and con (mostly
con) for the Commission, and the community stated this all quite well. He said the Commission received a
document the day prior from Mr. Armstrong that he believed was an attempt to extend his conversation, but
may have been thorough enough such that the Commission can have its conversation without hearing from
him.
Ms. Firehock said she did have a very minor question for the applicant, and she did not ask it to staff
because it was not one the staff would give. She said she understood the applicant was proffering the one
unit on the far parcel, but she was curious as to why they would even have one house there rather than
turning it into a park or some kind of other amenity. She said she was just curious about that design choice
for the layout and did not know if staff could answer that. She said she was assuming that the applicant
would be presenting, and the Commission would hear about that.
Ms. Firehock said she was also somewhat curious about the traffic calculations and the 10 hours saved per
year. She noted that having said that, she was not going to demand to hear from the applicant that evening,
but these were a couple of things she wondered about.
Ms. Firehock added that she was not at the Planning Commission meeting when they had denied it that
summer, as she was out of town. She said she did read the meeting minutes, but she was still curious about
those two items.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Mr. Bivins asked if there were any other Commissioners with specific questions, or if the applicant could
simply answer those questions.
Ms. More said she did not. She suggested if they were going to hear from the applicant about those two
specific questions, it should only be about those two and not an opportunity to expand.
Mr. Bivins agreed.
Ms. Firehock said this sounded fair.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Rapp if there was a way they could have only those two issues answered.
Mr. Rapp asked Ms. Schaffer if she could patch Mr. Armstrong through.
Mr. Armstrong said he could speak to those two questions.
Mr. Bivins noted that the Commission was not asking Mr. Armstrong to give them a treatise on all the
various things he would like to and that they only wanted responses to those two questions.
Mr. Armstrong acknowledged that the Commission had received a lot of communications and said he
appreciated their position on that. He said Mr. Bill Wuensch, Traffic Engineer with EPR, was present if there
were questions the Commission had for him later. He said Mr. Franco with Roudabush, Gale & Associates
was present as well. He said he would stick to what had been asked, however.
Mr. Armstrong said regarding the reason for having one unit on the rear parcel, there is a house there now,
and it seemed logical to leave that existing unit in place there as it currently exists in the fabric of the
neighborhood. He said this is not a "fall on your sword" kind of issue, but something that seemed to make
sense to the applicant.
Mr. Armstrong asked Ms. Firehock if she could repeat her first question.
Ms. Firehock said she was asking if the applicant could elaborate on the ten hours of time saved per year
(or 2.5 minutes saved per day). She said it was hard to explain this, but she thought it was complicated
modeling, and she wanted to get her head around how the applicant came to those numbers.
Mr. Armstrong agreed it was complicated. He asked if it would be better to have the traffic engineer tell Ms.
Firehock about that, or if he should offer a layman's interpretation.
Ms. Firehock replied that it was up to him.
Mr. Bivins reminded Mr. Armstrong of what the Commission asked him to do, explaining that if Mr.
Armstrong is to pass his time, the time is up when Mr. Wuensch finishes.
Mr. Armstrong replied that he would try to give his best interpretation and if it was not satisfactory, the
Commission could call on Mr. Wuensch later. He said the signal improvements the applicant is proposing
is a complete reconfiguration of the existing signals at Milton Road, at the intersection of Route 250 and
Louisa Road. He said by doing this, it provides additional capacity for those intersections to move more
cars through. He said the frustrating thing people see right now is because those signals are not
synchronized, are not timed, and do not have the modern sensor and computer technology that lets them
talk to each other, one might get a green at one and a red at the other, or a red at the first one while the
second one seen down the road is green and by the time one gets to the second one, it is red again.
Mr. Armstrong said synchronizing those signals means, in simple terms, that if one gets a green at the first
light and drives the speed limit, they should get a green at the second light. He said it moves traffic through
those almost as a single unit rather than as two independent stop lights.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Mr. Armstrong said the effect of this is saving each commuter who drives through from a theoretical starting
point of the Village of Rivanna or Glenmore to a theoretical end point in town 2.5 minutes on their commute
daily. He said this was not changing the world, but it was 2.5 minutes better after Breezy Hill, including the
new cars from Breezy Hill, than it would be if Breezy Hill were not developed. He said they were not just
mitigating the impact of the traffic Breezy Hill would cause, but were improving beyond that and providing
a broader community benefit.
Mr. Armstrong said the other numbers were just math. He said multiplying this by the number of cars that
go through the intersection every day, this is 2.5 minutes multiplied out to 11,000 vehicle hours per year.
He said when this is totaled, the exact number in the report is 11,350. He said the applicant did not have
this much supporting data and numbers the last time they spoke to the Commission. He said he hoped this
answered the question concisely.
Mr. Bivins asked the Commissioners if they could move forward with their own conversation.
Ms. Firehock said she wanted to make a comment based on Mr. Armstrong's response about the traffic.
She said it sounds like this was basically synchronizing the lights, which she recalled doing in Charlottesville
and it coming to about $45,000 per traffic light, which was years ago. She said she did not know what the
going rate was currently and would not ask Mr. McDermott to tell her. She said this is the type of project
that the County could undertake. She said it obviously requires money, but she wanted to throw it out there
as an idea for the County to do themselves if they want to solve that.
Ms. Firehock said to her, the question is if the developer's additional traffic project warrant approving this
development, or if the County could simply do this fix sometime in the future. She said she was not
suggesting they decide this that evening, but was putting it out there that it is a straightforward, relatively
simple solution that could be considered in the future.
Mr. Randolph said he would recall, as listeners in the Village of Rivanna area who served on the CAC will
also recall, that after the new bridge was put in across the railroad tracks, they had a meeting with Mr. Joel
DeNunzio (regional representative of VDOT), who explained that there was coordination between the traffic
lights at the Milton Road/Route 250 intersection and at the Route 22/1-ouisa Road intersection. He said if
this was done in 2014, then it has supposedly been operational now for almost six years. He said it might
be longer because by the time that bridge was opened, it may have been 2013 and not 2014, though he
believed 2014 was probably a more accurate figure.
Mr. Randolph said during that six years, traffic volume has continued to increase coming down onto Route
250 heading west in the morning. He said those who have some experience in the congestion on this
corridor, living with it on a daily basis, well understand that past technological fixes do not begin to address
the fact that the volume of automotive traffic has been increasing significantly year by year.
Mr. Randolph said into the mix comes Breezy Hill, hence the basis for the 223 emails that were received
since the community became aware that this application would be moving forward to the Planning
Commission. He said from that 223 total, he eliminated a couple of people who resubmitted. He said he
thinks 223 does represent the thinking of where people are somewhat justifiably suspect that technological
changes are going to solve all of the transportation ills of the Route 250 Corridor.
Mr. Bivins asked if they wanted to hear from the Transportation Director.
Ms. Firehock asked Mr. Bivins if she could make a quick comment back to Mr. Randolph.
Mr. Bivins replied yes.
Ms. Firehock said for the record that she was not suggesting that these solutions and traffic problems are
simply just with the lights. She said she was just saying that what the developer had proposed was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
something that could be done by another party. She said she did appreciate Mr. Randolph's background
Mr. Bivins said he understood. He asked if they wanted to hear from Mr. McDermott.
Mr. Randolph said this was fine. He told Ms. Firehock he was not directing his remarks to her, but more to
the argument that the technology fix would solve the problem. He said he thinks this is putting a band -aid
on an open wound that requires significantly more surgery than what $1 million would be able to address.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. McDermott to weigh in on the conversation and provide what would hopefully be an
optimistic view on what he sees in the future before coming back to the conversation. He said they were
pausing and putting a bracket around transportation and related solutions, and Mr. McDermott would be
that bracket before coming back to the discussion.
Mr. Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning, said he runs the Transportation Planning Division and wanted to
make a couple of points to Ms. Firehock's point about the improvements. He said this is absolutely
something the County could do on their own, but he wanted to clarify that it probably would not be a
$45,000-per-signal fix. He said he would estimate that they were looking at a couple hundred thousand
dollars, at the least, for something like this. He said it could be even higher, dependent on whether the
current poles can handle the signals they would put on them, and so they would have to evaluate that. He
said the new technology is fairly expensive and keep this in mind that is not something the County could
go out and fix right away.
Mr. McDermott agreed with Mr. Randolph that technological fixes are not going to solve all the problems
on this corridor in any manner. He said staff did review the application, and VDOT reviewed the data from
the signal changes that the Transportation Engineer provided. He said VDOT did agree with the
improvements' ability to improve the congestion situation at those two signals.
Mr. McDermott said he had not heard that those signals were previously timed and if they were, it was likely
done with much older software where there is now better software available to use nowadays. He said staff
did agree that there looked like there would be a significant improvement from updating those two signals
to be a coordinated system.
Mr. McDermott pointed out that there is a lot more friction on this corridor, meaning they see a lot more
congestion there than he thinks is entirely reflected in the results of the analysis because the amount of
time that looked like was coming through on the analysis does not always match up with what staff sees
from reports as far as congestion between Route 250 and the City. He said much of this could be due to
minor accidents and problems that are slowing things down. He said staff did see an improvement in the
general congestion levels, however, if the signals were upgraded.
Mr. Randolph said he wanted his fellow Commissioners to notice that with Mr. McDermott's helpful update
of what the real costs may well be with the installation of new poles to hold up the signalization, the $500,000
proffered by the applicant for transportation or schools could evaporate and end up all being dedicated
solely to the transportation improvements, with nothing therefore available to address the impacts on
increased enrollment for the nearly overenrolled Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Ms. More said she had comments, but she was not sure if they were at that point.
Mr. Bivins said this was among the Commission now, and so the conversations and discussions they would
have at this point on would move them to a point where they would hopefully make a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors one way or the other. He said at some point, he would assume they would hear
from the Commissioner in that jurisdiction to set the stage. He asked Ms. More to go ahead with her
comments.
Ms. More said if Mr. Randolph wanted to set the stage, this was fine. She said she did not want to preclude
any discussion, but she wanted to make sure that her comments were very direct about why she feels the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
way she does about this, which is the same way she felt about it before. She said the reason why she
wanted to be very clear is because she noticed at the Board that there seemed to be some comments that
some of the unfavorable factors had been checked off the list.
Ms. More said while this is a good thing, in her mind, some of the most unfavorable factors remained and
still do now. She said she worries that while she does think it is an indication that the process worked well,
she does think it moved forward from the Commission the last time to the Board, and the applicant was
able to adjust. She said lots of things were addressed, but the underlying concerns, at least on her part,
still remained and still do now, which is why she wants to be very clear about where she is coming from.
She asked if she should stop there in her comments.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. More if she could pause there and let Mr. Randolph make some comments.
Mr. Randolph said there was a lot to be said, but he wanted to go ahead and take two selective quotations
from emails that everyone had received. He said the first was from an individual who lives in the Village of
Rivanna, who said, "I understand that we need additional housing in the County, but jamming it into an area
that ignores the master plan for growth in the area creates additional gridlock on 250 and overcrowds our
school justifies common sense."
Mr. Randolph said the second remark also came from a Village of Rivanna resident who said, "As a retired
career civil servant, I worked under the watchful eye of public scrutiny and public trust. I encourage the
Board and thereby also this Commission to earn the public's trust and follow the Albemarle County's master
plan, and deny the developer's request for Breezy Hill development."
Mr. Randolph said he would skip a couple of sentences, noting that the resident ended his letter by saying,
" I respectfully ask you to earn the public citizens' trust and deny the Breezy Hill request."
Mr. Randolph said in remarks he sent everyone, he wanted to concentrate on what he viewed as the major
objection to this application, and this involves the master plan's guidance regarding density, as well as the
Comprehensive Plan approach that staff in the Community Development Department has followed for as
long as he has been involved with the County (nine years).
Mr. Randolph said in the 5-12-2010 master plan, page 20 makes clear that, for the Village of Rivanna, the
total number of new dwellings "is to be between 300-400 units." He said Rivanna Village, permitted in 2015
for up to 400 units, will at final buildout probably come in with some 300 units, and may even become below
at 290. He said this does not mean the potential extra residential capacity of some 100 units accrues
automatically to another development.
Mr. Randolph said the primary reason why the 2,007 maximum buildout number for Rivanna Village's total
dwelling units fell from some 600 in 2007 to some 400 in 2015 was more stringent federal wetland and
intermittent stream standards. He said those tighter federal standards ensure that new residential
development in the Village of Rivanna works with the environment rather than in spite of the environment.
He said shoehorning in new development just to satisfy a total buildout number that is no longer
operationally feasible is not sound planning.
Mr. Randolph said the revised development plan for Breezy Hill, at 1.9 net dwelling units per acre and 1.6
gross dwelling units per acre, still remains out of whack with the stated goal in the master plan of a tapered
density for the edge of the proposed expanded development area. He said given that Breezy Hill is east of
Carroll Creek, its residential density should continue to lessen as Running Deer is approached. He said the
latest Breezy Hill application continues to ignore that stated expectation and planning guideline.
Mr. Randolph said this resubmittal neuters the master plan by proposing a much higher level of density
than the master plan advises is appropriate as a transition from Development Area to Rural Area occurs.
Mr. Randolph said in Block 5, there is a proposed buffer. He said this buffer is a mere fig leaf covering an
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
egregious repudiation of the master plan's stated goal of concentrating density in the center of Rivanna
Village and having that density transition into approximately one dwelling unit per acre when abutting
Running Deer Drive.
Mr. Randolph said he rested his case on the master plan and Comprehensive Plan's approach to tapered
density. He said the resubmittal they have has not altered the ills seen previously in the application that
summer. He said he therefore urged rejection of the application.
Mr. Keller said he felt the same as he did when the application came before the Commission before. He
said he did not see significant changes, and did not think anything was gained by going over the points he
made last time, although he thinks there are a number of very important points that were made by the
various Commissioners who came together to address this and similar issues they are facing. He said he
also planned to vote "no"
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Nedostup if she had a piece of information to share.
Ms. Nedostup said she wanted to clarify one thing. She said the transit and transportation proffer with the
signals is a separate proffer from the cash proffer for transportation or schools. She said there are actually
two different proffers that could address transportation. She said one is that the applicant has offered to
upgrade, design, and install the signal timing coordination, which is separate from the $500,000 proffer for
transportation or schools that was also offered. She said these were Proffers #2 and #3 in the
Commissioners' packets.
Ms. More said she believed Mr. Randolph covered many points, and so she would be concise. She said
one of the notes she had that Mr. Randolph touched on was the idea that there is a reduction in the density
of the overall Village of Rivanna at full buildout and that somehow, these units could be transferable to
another property. She said she wanted to push back on that rationale as a convenient theory by someone
who would like to selectively use the master plan for one purpose, but not another. She said she would like
to set that aside because she heard that at the Board as well and it makes zero sense to her.
Ms. More said what she would also like to focus on is what she said before, when this was before the
Commission, that she understands the principles and ideas behind master planning, that they are asking
the community to engage in this process, and while this document is used as a guiding tool, it offers
communities a sense of what to expect.
Ms. More said there were two things she focused on in her notes that have come back to the Commission
yet again, which were that the density exceeds the recommendations and the idea of the edges being less
dense. She said this was in the master plan and Comprehensive Plan as a basic planning principle that
they have a transition to the edge. She said to her, these make up the bottom line and are the most important
things they still have not addressed with this current resubmittal. She said she cannot support it and would
recommend denial.
Mr. Randolph thanked Ms. Nedostup for correcting him about the proffers, as he did misspeak. He said
there is therefore about $1 million in the mix: $500,000 for transportation, and $500,000 for transportation
and/or schools. He said his point was that by the time Mr. McDermott finishes the work on the transportation
needs, he feels that in all likelihood, there will not be much in the way of funds available to address the
educational impacts of having the additional enrollment at Stone Robinson. He said he did misspeak and
thanked Ms. Nedostup for correcting that.
Mr. Bivins asked if anyone else wanted to offer their observations.
Mr. Bailey said his position on this matter had not changed since the last time. He commended the applicant
for trying to address some of the areas. He said as has been previously stated, however, they seem to have
fallen short on some of the major components.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
Mr. Bailey said less directly to the application, which he believed was well -covered and discussed at that
point on key principles like transition at the edge, what he was left with (which may be a future matter for
Transportation) is the amount of engagement from the community about the transportation issues and the
plan from a County Planning perspective to address this area. He said he saw many of the
recommendations and echoed what Ms. Firehock said about possibly increasing signalization. He said it
would be great to look at some of these improvements from a County perspective to the residents.
Mr. Bailey said in some ways, he was grateful for the opportunity to hear this application in the sense that
it illuminates a safety issue in the County, as evidenced by the outpouring of emails to this matter due to
those traffic issues.
Mr. Bailey said with regards to the specific application, he does not think it meets the criteria that has been
set forth in the master plan. He said he does think this is an opportunity for the County not to let it fall off
the radar that some attention needs to be addressed to this area.
Mr. Bivins said he has asked Mr. Rapp to make sure that at least once a year, Mr. McDermott can talk with
the Commission about the major places around the County that he believes require attention. He said every
year, Mr. McDermott puts together a list of priority traffic projects that analyzes traffic, accidents, the road
conditions, and other various items. He said Mr. McDermott has been presenting this to the Board of
Supervisors, and the Commission had this presented to them recently. He said it would help to have it
presented again and, as Mr. Bailey just spoke to, add onto that some of the opportunities that lie in front of
them, either through County or state funding. He said there is a whole host of funds that Mr. McDermott is
aware of to get those done.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. McDermott if he wanted to clarify any of this. He added that Mr. McDermott should
expect to hear from him soon about those issues.
Mr. McDermott said he would make a plan to come back to the Commission and talk about the future
priorities. He said this segment of Route 250 has already been looked at and prioritized. He pointed out
that the County has already put some significant funding to that corridor, in working with the state, through
the diverging diamond that is nearing construction, as well as improvements to the Pantops area on Route
250. He said they were working on this, but he would be sure to come back to the Commission and talk
more about future plans soon.
Mr. Clayborne apologized for not asking his question to staff earlier. He asked if staff could share more
about the 130-unit numberthe applicant came up with while making this proposal again, and what the magic
number was in terms of dropping 30 units, knowing that density was a major concern. He said this was
probably more of a question for the applicant, but he had failed to ask him this earlier. He asked staff if the
applicant had shared anything with them.
Ms. Nedostup replied no. She said the applicant had not shared anything with staff that would help answer
the question as to why it was 30 units dropped as opposed to 50 or 65.
Mr. Bivins said the Commission was moving in a direction.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Bivins if he was ready for a motion.
Mr. Bivins said he was.
Mr. Randolph moved to recommend denial of ZMA201900004 Breezy Hill for the reasons stated in the staff
report.
Ms. More seconded the motion to deny, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins said the Commission recommended denial of the proposal that came back to them to the Board
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
of Supervisors. He said perhaps this will be a project that goes before the Board, and that staff and the
applicant would know this. He said that evening, the proposal laid out before the Commission with the
changed conditions and proffers was being recommended "no" and they were not supporting this project.
Ms. Firehock said she wanted to clarify that normally when a Planning Commissioner votes "no," they
should state the reasons for their denial. She said she had simply voted no, but that she was going with the
same reasons that Mr. Randolph espoused in his motion. She said she believed this was assumed, but
wanted to make sure, as this is important.
Mr. Bivins said the Commission has been following the tradition that when each Commissioner supports a
motion that comes before them, they are supporting the motion and explanation that comes forth in the
motion. He said he believed they are doing that, and that for anyone who has read or listened to their
meetings over the course of the number of times that this application has been before them, no
Commissioner said they were changing their opinion or position from what they stated at the previous public
meeting. He said he believed what Ms. Firehock had said was well understood and that she was in the
same company as all the Commissioners in this decision.
Committee Reports
Mr. Keller said Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) met the prior week, and there were two
items that he thinks would be of interested to the Commissioners. He said they can find out more about this
by going to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) website, then to the Greater
Rivanna River subsite.
Mr. Keller said the first item was about looking at the Smart Scale transportation process to add more citizen
involvement but at the same time, if the Commission remembered the kerfuf le about one of the projects
that was out of sync with the Commissioners and counselors, taking a look at the full process to make sure
the timeline works well. He said he did not believe this would affect the next round, which is currently
underway, but would affect the one after that.
Mr. Keller said the second item, which has been alluded to by nearly every Commissioner at some point, is
a study that VDOT undertook with a consultant to look at two pedestrian/bicycle Rivanna River crossings
in the greater Woolen Mills area, or from Free Bridge to past the Woolen Mills area. He said originally, he
understood there were six proposed crossings that were considered, and VDOT actually narrowed this to
two: one that is an extension of Chesapeake Street across and up to the State Farm area, and the other
going from the Woolen Mills area to a small island and going across from there.
Mr. Keller said a rough conceptual design was done through cost estimates, and they then held a public
participation Zoom meeting that was very well attended, with over 60 participants. He said he attended as
well, as well as some things with the Rivanna Trail that had been offshoots of the TJPDC that he thought
were all relevant to his and Mr. Claybome's positions as the Commission's representatives on the Rivanna
River Study, Phase 3.
Mr. Keller said for details, he would encourage Commissioners to visit the TJPDC website for both of those
items.
Mr. Bivins said he thought he saw a bridge behind Woolen Mills. He said he was there for a tape cutting,
and there is a bridge that goes behind the renovated buildings to the back.
Mr. Keller said there is a Moores Creek crossing that has not been opened to the public, and perhaps Mr.
Rapp or Mr. McDermott could explain why.
Mr. Bivins noted he did not go on the bridge or trespass, as he saw the tape on it.
Mr. Rapp said Mr. Bivins was correct that there is a bridge back there. He said there is still some permitting
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
FINAL MINUTES — November 24, 2020
that needs to be accomplished before it is officially opened to the public for use.
Mr. Keller added that for anyone who has not been to the Woolen Mills building, which has one restaurant
open, it is a nice experience for those who have people they want to be with, but can distance in that outside
space and still enjoy good food.
Ms. Firehock said the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee met that day, and the committee will
primarily be considering the projects for the next two-year period rather than a five-year period because
they are trying to make some adaptations based on COVID-19 and the fact that the County is not currently
proposing to raise the property tax rate in light of the pandemic. She said it is an eye-opening experience,
and they did not make any decisions that day, but were talking about ways to try to accommodate as many
projects as possible. She said they will be meeting again for another two-hour session in a couple of weeks.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: November 18, 2020
Mr. Rapp said at the previous week's Board meeting, there were no public hearings from development
applications or other Community Development items. He said therefore, there was nothing new to report.
Old/New Business
Mr. Rapp said he has put together a draft meeting schedule for special meetings and work sessions for the
2021 calendar year.
Mr. Rapp noted that the Planning Commission for the following Tuesday, December 1, has been canceled,
as there were a few applications that asked for deferral as they work out some additional items.
Mr. Rapp said there would be a joint work session between the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors on December 8 to talk about the housing policy, as requested by the Commission and Board.
Mr. Rapp said he attached the 2021 meeting schedule, using a similar approach as has been done in years
past. He said for the most part, there will be meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month, with
a work session on the second Tuesday of each month and the fourth Tuesday off and the exceptions of
holidays and months that might have an extra weekend. He asked for the Commission to look at this before
officially putting the calendar out to the public.
Mr. Bivins said the Commission typically adopts the calendar at their first meeting of the year, and so they
had a month before getting there. He asked the Commissioners if they know they are definitely going to be
away on a particular date, to let staff know sooner than later, recognizing they are still in an extraordinarily
fluid time. He said the Commission will adopt the calendar at their first meeting of 2021, on January 12.
In closing, Mr. Bivins said this had been a good meeting. He said they dealt with what he thought were
some important and difficult issues, and thanked the Commission and staff for their work and attention to
all the details. He said if there were still people from the community listening to the meeting, he wanted to
thank them for their thoughtful comments and for feeling free enough to share their thoughts with the
Commission. He said they actually were read and digested, and as seen that evening, they helped inform
the Commission's decision and discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
FINAL MINUTES —November 24, 2020
Items for Follow -Up
There were no items.
Adjournment
At 7:31 p.m., the Commission adjourned to December 8, 2020, Albemarle County Planning Commission
meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting.
Charles Rapp, Director of Planning
(Recorded and transcribed by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Approved by Planning Commission
Date: 12/15/2020
Initials: CSS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
FINAL MINUTES— November 24, 2020
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP 202000014
1680 SEMINOLE TRAIL OUTDOOR SALES, STORAGE, AND DISPLAY
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the staff report prepared for SP 202000014
and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing, any comments received, and the
factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18-30.6.3, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby approves SP 202000014, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Ave Nay
Mr. Gallaway
Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKee)
Ms. Palmer
Ms. Price
SP 202000014 1680 Seminole Trail Outdoor Sales, Storage, and Display Special Use Permit Conditions
1. Use of this site must be in general accord (as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator) with the concept plan "Application & Conceptual Layout Plan by Collins
Engineering" last revised 09/21/20 (the Concept Plan),. To be in general accord with this plan,
development and use of the site must reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the vehicle
display/storage and landscape areas. Permitted modifications may include those required by the
ARB, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional
landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
2. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the Concept
Plan.
3. Vehicles for sales/storage/display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
4. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements
of the ARB guidelines and/or the Zoning Ordinance to mitigate visual impacts of the prosed use.
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the site
plan). Maximum height of new pole lights must not exceed 20'. Maximum light levels must not
exceed 30 foot candles in the display lot and 20 foot candles in all other locations. Nonconforming
poles and fixtures must be removed. All fixtures must have lamps whose color temperature is
between 2000 and 3000 Kelvin.
7. The existing freestanding sign must be removed prior to commencement of the new use. Any new
freestanding sign must meet zoning ordinance and Entrance Corridor requirements.