HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP202100001 Staff Report 2022-12-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
CCP202100001 ACSA Avon Street Facility August 18, 2021
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT(S):
Review of Planning Commission Action for Walker, Filardo, McCulley, Rapp
Information Only
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on June 15, 2021, the Planning Commission moved by a vote of 7:0 to find the location,
character, and extent of the ACSA Avon Street Facility, public facility and public use thereof, as proposed,
to be in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment A is the staff report, Attachment B is
the Planning Commission Action Letter, and Attachment C is the Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Attachment A is a copy of the report and attachment B is a copy of the minutes from the March 23, 2021
meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The agenda item is for information only. No action by the Board of Supervisors is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attach. A — 06/15/2021 PC Report
Attach. Al — ACSA Avon Street Facility Vicinity Maps
Attach. A2 — ACSA Avon Street Facility Application: Project Narrative and
Concept Plan
Attach. A3 — ACSA Avon Street Facility Neighborhood Model Principles
Analysis
Attach. A4 — ACSA Avon Street Facility Comprehensive Plan Community
Facilities Analysis
Attach A5 — ACSA Avon Street Facility Notes from Community Meeting
Attach A6 —ACSA Avon Street Facility Conceptual Maps and Images of
Future Development
Attach. B — 06/15/2021 PC Action Letter
Attach. C — 06/15/2021 PC Minutes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
STAFF REPORT
Project Name: CCP202100001 ACSA
Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Senior Planner
Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: n/a — PC
June 15, 2021
finding forwarded for information only
Owner: Albemarle County Service Authority
Applicant: Albemarle County Service Authority
(ASCA), represented by Alexander Morrison
Acreage: 9.54 acres (TMP 91-1)
Comprehensive Plan Consistency for: Proposal
by ACSA to establish a training and maintenance
facility at the Avon Street Extended site.
Tax Map Parcel 09100-00-00-00100
Location: 1737 Avon Street Extended,
Charlottesville VA 22902. TM 91-1 fronts on Avon
Street Extended (SR 742) and Founders Place.
School Districts: Mountain View E.S.,
By -right use: Property is zoned R-1 Residential.
Walton M.S., Monticello H.S.
Use is considered a 'public use and building' per
section 18-13.2.1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers: None
Proposal: Proposal by ACSA to establish a
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
training and maintenance facility at the Avon
Street Extended site, including an approx.
15,600 sq. ft. maintenance building, 7,500
sq. ft. training area, associated parking, a
fuel station, and a vehicle rinse area.
DA (Development Area): Southern and
Comp. Plan Designation: Institutional — schools,
Western Master Plan; Neighborhood 4
libraries, utilities, hospitals, universities, colleges,
and other developed and undeveloped publicly
owned property.
Character of Property: This parcel has an
Use of Surrounding Properties: Mountain View
existing water tank and cell tower. It is
Elementary School is located approx. 350 feet to
mostly wooded and undeveloped. There is a
the south. Monticello Fire Rescue Station is
gravel access road from Avon Street
located to the east across Founders Place. The
Extended to the water tank and cell tower.
Mill Creek shopping center is located to the north.
Directly across Avon Street Extended are the Mill
Creek neighborhoods.
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed public facility is
1. None identified.
consistent with the applicable
Neighborhood Model principles for
public facilities, as described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is consistent with
the Growth Management policy in the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is consistent with
the future land use designation of
Institutional as described in the
Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Staff recommends that the Commission find the
location, character, and extent of the "ACSA Avon Street Facility" public facility and public use
thereof, as proposed, to be in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, for the reasons
identified as favorable factors in this staff report.
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 15, 2021
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: N/A
BACKGROUND
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) is proposing to construct a maintenance
and training facility at 1737 Avon Street Extended (the 'Avon Street site'). The purpose of
the facility is to "provide a training area and a minor repair facility for ACSA vehicles, as well
as redundancy for critical infrastructure that is currently housed at the Spotnap Road
headquarters". The applicant notes that the Avon Street site location is centralized within
ACSA's jurisdictional area and provides quick access to major routes. The site layout and
location would also provide an opportunity for joint training with Albemarle County
Fire/Rescue.
Additional information can be found in the applicant's narrative and concept plan
(Attachment 2).
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW
A Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review ("CCP Review" or "2232 Review", in
reference to the Code of Virginia statute which necessitates this type of local review
process), considers whether the general location, character, and extent of a proposed public
facility are in substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is reviewed by the
Planning Commission, and the Commission's findings are forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors for their information; no additional action is required of the Board. The
Commission's action is only related to the appropriateness of the site for the proposed
public use and is not an action or recommendation on whether the facility should be
constructed.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The 9.54 acre property (TMP 91-1) fronts on Avon Street Extended and Founders Place.
The existing gravel access road into the property on the Avon Street side is approximately
900 feet to the south of the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Avon Street Extended. There
are an existing water tank and cell tower on the site. The property is mostly wooded. There
are no FEMA 100-year floodplain, WPO stream buffers, or designated preserved steep
slopes on the property. (Attachment 1 — Vicinity Maps)
There are five parcels adjacent to the property that also front on Avon Street Extended. Four
out of five of these properties are also owned by ACSA and are undeveloped. The fifth
property has a single-family dwelling unit (TMP 91-1 F). No development is proposed on
these properties. A future water tank is proposed behind these properties to the east.
Directly across Avon Street Extended to the west are the Mill Creek residential
neighborhoods, and directly east, across Founders Place, is the Monticello Fire Rescue
Station.
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
The Mill Creek Shopping Center is to the north of the site, including an undeveloped
property (TMP 91-2D3) which is adjacent. TMP 91-2E is owned by the County and is also
adjacent to the north and undeveloped. An equipment and tools rental business is located
adjacent to the south (TMP 91-1D) as is a healthcare facility (TMP 91-12).
There are several existing and proposed schools in this area. Mountain View Elementary
School is located 350 feet to the south of the site. Nearby and along Mill Creek are
Monticello High School and the Tandem School. The future High School Center II is
proposed for TMP 91-11 (see Attachment 6 for conceptual maps and images of nearby
future development).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed ACSA facility consists of the following:
A two-story approx. 15,600 square foot maintenance building, which includes:
o Maintenance workshops
o Garage bays
o Offices
o Conference room
o Break room/restrooms.
• An approx. 7,500 square foot training area.
• Parking area, approx. 70 spaces, also to be used for storage of equipment and
materials.
• Fuel station.
• Vehicle rinse station.
• Stormwater management facilities and retaining walls.
• Additional security fencing around the site.
• A site access road connecting to both Avon Street Extended and Founders Place.
The existing access road only connects from Avon Street Extended to the existing
water tank and cell tower.
• See sheets 5-9 of Attachment 2 for additional details.
The site is served by public water and sewer and will extend existing connections to the new
maintenance building. Fire rescue service is located immediately adjacent to the site. There
are no critical resources identified for protection on the site — no FEMA 100-year floodplain,
WPO stream buffers, preserved slopes, cultural/historic resources, or any other resources or
features identified for protection in the Master Plan. The property was previously within the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. However, Avon Street Extended is not designated as an
arterial street; therefore, the Entrance Corridor Overlay is no longer applied.
Most of the parcel is located in the Monticello Viewshed. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation
has reviewed this application and provided the following: I have no concerns or comments
for this project. The visibility of this site from the historic Mountaintop is very limited due to
its siting and screening offered by Carter's Mountain.
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
VDOT and Transportation Planning staff have reviewed this proposal and do not have any
significant transportation -related concerns. VDOT does not anticipate traffic conflicts with
the adjacent school site, due to the low number of trips associated with ACSA's proposed
use. ACSA estimates approximately 10 — 15 employees onsite per day, with potentially up to
30 people onsite on days when trainings occur. The primary access for the site will be
Founders Place. Avon Street Extended is intended to be used as an exit for large trucks to
facilitate their movement out of the site. VDOT and Transportation Planning staff find the
use of Founders Place as the primary ingress/egress to be preferable, with a low volume
and limited access at Avon Street Extended.
The Avon Corridor Study (also known as `Avon Street Extended REVision') was endorsed
by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2020. The Corridor Study recommends a variety
of improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, including sidewalks, paths,
crosswalks, and intersection improvements. Some of these projects are underway, while
others will be longer -term. The Corridor Study shows a sidewalk along the frontage of this
property. This sidewalk identified for this site is part of a larger sidewalks capital project that
the County is pursuing using VDOT Revenue Sharing funds. The sidewalk construction is
currently out for bid.
If the CCP is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the next step for this
project is submittal of a site plan. All relevant Zoning Ordinance requirements will need to be
met during site planning.
COMMUNITY MEETING
The required community was held virtually on April 15, 2021 at 7:00 PM during the 5th and
Avon CAC meeting. A recording of the meeting is available at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvL7EJupwBA.
Community members asked if there were potential traffic impacts anticipated with this
proposal, especially if any vehicles would be turning left from Avon Street Extended into the
site. The applicant responded that the overall traffic volume generated by this proposal
would be very low. The applicant explained that Founders Place would be the primary
ingress/egress, and that Avon Street Extended would mainly be used for larger vehicles to
exit the site. The applicant did not expect many vehicles to be turning left off of Avon Street
Extended, as any vehicles using Avon would mainly be exiting from the site. The applicant
said that they would be working with Albemarle County Schools as site planning moves
forward to coordinate with the planned High School Center II site.
Community members also asked about potential noise and visual impacts (including existing
trees), especially to adjacent and nearby properties. The applicant responded that they
would be retaining as many trees on the site as possible. The applicant explained that they
will provide buffering with landscaping and that some of the existing topography on the site
provides natural buffering. The applicant stated that there will be security fencing around the
site, and the entrances will be gated. The applicant added that most of the fencing would not
be visible from Avon Street Extended, and that a more decorative fence style would be used
where the fence would be visible. The applicant explained that this use would be like a
typical office building and would not have constant power generation or after-hours use
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
5
(except to address an emergency); therefore no humming or other industrial noises are
expected.
A more detailed summary of the community meeting is included as Attachment 5.
CONSITENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff provides the following information for the Planning Commission to consider, regarding
the compliance of this proposal relative to the County's Comprehensive Plan (which
includes the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan):
Comprehensive Plan:
Albemarle County Growth Management Policy: Promote the efficient use of County
resources through a combination of:
A. Protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:... and
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety of land uses, facilities,
and services exist and are planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis
placed on density and high quality design in new and infill development.
Staff comment: This proposal is consistent with the County's Growth Management Policy by
establishing an ACSA facility in the Development Area.
Growth Management Goal: "Albemarle County's Development Areas will be attractive,
vibrant areas for residents and businesses, supported by services, facilities, and
infrastructure. Growth will be directed to the Development Areas..."
Staff comment: This proposal would advance the County's Growth Management goals by
establishing a new ACSA maintenance and training facility within the Development Area in a
centralized location that allows ACSA to fulfill its public utility service needs.
Development Areas Objective 8: "Preserve natural systems which are shown for
preservation on Master Plan Land Use Plans."
Staff comment: This proposal is consistent with the above Objective. There are no natural
systems on this site that have been designated for preservation in the Master Plan.
Transportation Objective 4: "Strengthen efforts to complete a local transportation system
that includes access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities."
Staff comment: This proposal is consistent with the above Objective. The proposed use is
not in conflict with the ongoing Avon Corridor projects. There are existing sidewalks along
Founders Place.
Community Facilities Goal: "Albemarle County's facilities and services will be of high -quality
and delivered in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner."
Community Facilities Objective 1: "Continue to provide public facilities and services in a
fiscally responsible and equitable manner."
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
Staff comment: This Community Facilities Objective and its supporting Strategies are
intended to apply to all types of Community Facilities, including public utility facilities. Staff
has reviewed this this Objective and its relevant Strategies and finds that this proposal is
consistent with these Strategies. Staffs more complete assessment of this section can be
found as Attachment 4.
Community Facilities Strategy 1 k: "Ensure that public buildings and spaces provided in the
Development Areas conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model."
Staff comment: The proposal adequately addresses the relevant Neighborhood Model
Principles. See Attachment 3 for staffs assessment of the project's consistency with the
Neighborhood Model Principles. Additional discussion of the Neighborhood Model Principles
is also found in Attachment 4.
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
The property has a future land use designation of 'Institutional' per the Southern and
Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. Institutional uses include the following: schools,
libraries, major utilities, hospitals, universities, colleges, and ancillary facilities. The
recommended height and acreage vary depending on the needs of the use. The proposed
ACSA training and maintenance facility are consistent with the Institutional designation.
The property is located adjacent to the designated Mill Creek Drive Center. This Center
includes the Monticello Fire Rescue Station, Monticello High School, and several large
undeveloped parcels owned by Albemarle County. Civic uses are expected on County -
owned properties in the future. The Master Plan recommends a Small Area Plan for this
Center to provide more specific land use recommendations for County -owned properties.
There was community engagement for the High School Center II project, which is proposed
on TMP 91-11, directly across Founders Place. Additional engagement and feedback on
recommended uses for this Center may be completed with a Small Area Plan or during a
County Comprehensive Plan update.
The Master Plan calls for a road connection from Route 20 to Mill Creek Drive. While the
road connection in the Master Plan is shown through the ACSA property, this location was
meant to be approximate and conceptual. The actual alignment of this road will be east of
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
the ACSA property, through the Galaxie Farm property. This road connection is in progress
and will be completed when the Galaxie Farm development connects to Founders Place.
Additionally, conceptual `greenways' are shown in the Master Plan that follow the road
connection and the existing Mill Creek Drive. Trails through the ACSA property would also
not be feasible due to security needs and are also expected to be provided through adjacent
properties to the east and north.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposed public facility is consistent with the applicable Neighborhood Model
principles for public facilities, as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the Growth Management policy in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use is consistent with the future land use designation of Institutional
as described in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission find the location, character, and extent of the "ACSA
Avon Street Facility" public facility and public use thereof, as proposed, to be in substantial
accord with the Comprehensive Plan, for the reasons identified as favorable factors in this
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for CCP202100001:
A. I move to find the location, character, and extent of the "ACSA Avon Street Facility"
public facility and public use thereof, as proposed, to be in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. I move to find the location, character, and extent of the "ACSA Avon Street Facility"
public facility and public use therefore, as proposed, to not be in substantial accord with
the Comprehensive Plan [state reasons for non-compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan].
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Vicinity Maps
Attachment 2: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Application: Project Narrative and
Concept Plan
Attachment 3: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Neighborhood Model Principles
Analysis
Attachment 4: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Comprehensive Plan Community
Facilities Analysis
Attachment 5: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Notes from Community Meeting
Attachment 6: CCP202100001:
ACSA Avon Street Facility Conceptual Maps and Images of
Future Development (High School
Center II and Galaxie Farm)
CCP202100001, ACSA Avon Street Facility
Planning Commission Work Session, June 15, 2021
oC-10/ c��-C o ;-
s7?
9'o02. /
m 90C-11 C'O3 — I 7 6 lj �33
Legend
(Hole Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Parcel Into
JC rC '�4 77-47
Mill_Ct 990C-8 90C-9 90C-03--A oc 90C-01-OG-36 \
b \
90C-21Qy` P - yp\�°��(///))) 77-47A
b� 90C-7' oG 0C-0G) �. Ip / 77-48 r
❑ Parcels
/ 90C-6' > 90eC-3l°C\ p� C�OG_q\°G �3
vC n Qj ,C l\
4
10
e0C0�G'?g
0 99OC /\Tpr hi, 91_-2D1 dch
m 90C-5 `� J G\6 / '2nl�CI\ 91-2
</g�cOOiO��O�`C,
90C-35 �G'7fo ^j� G�:.' 9�' 91-2D3
ir
LQO
so cQ0\``OG C°j# (- -90'3.0 0G 22gv. 91-1F
-13
7 t, 91-1A r'O
h�
o c J pC' 91-1B 91-2E 1
\\ {
58
go(
a C'Q 90C-57 190C 61
,f rye 1_
90 C56 i 9OC-62
'9 45 J r 91-1 MI.
90C 5/90C-63 /'' 91-1D Monticello
� � I
Fite
v a 9OC-64 Rescue '
90C-54
o J Cation
m 90C-53 90C 65 _
a ' `_
I9OC-66
9oc-sz ,1 �_ 1 �`e
file
�`/J
V I Cale _4 91-12 JC
-E5
6� a ,.- - r
oG" /91-13
m
91-12C
90C-A2 /9jq�z \ If 91-11
4 9 jO 0 J
m 376ft�91-126 —
/.g
�ew pbnoataSenoes
�9p: 2A
wvx,.GIS-Wb
altemaleorcilj7
2%6832
90=L 91A-33
roCa NM)
My determination oftopo3rapby or contours,or am/ depiction of physical Improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general Information only and shall not be used am Me design, modification, or construction of Improvements to real properly or for flood plain determination. May 28, 2021
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data tlownload page due M the projection used. Map Projection: Vi Web Mercalm (Auuliary Sphere) (EPSG 3857)
O 90C-7
9UC-2
/ 90C-6 90C-3
N 90C-4 .
�
0
m 90C-5 9�c'fl0C, '0 9
90�°</ O / )•
Cv9/
910
�90C-108 19,c
9 Q7 yo'
9°C
S� as 90C-58 _� 9
OC-
190
�A 90C-57 190C-(
�a
\ 90C-56 90C-62
90C/.
\J�90C-55/, 9OC-63 `
�� 90C-54/� 90C-64
m 90C-53 90C-65
-90C-52 I90C-66 /
1N
U
90C
1b
\ ry1b
9 1 -1 D
Cale
FS
91-13
91-1
T
1-12C
91-12A
Legend
himl Sons, eema on map may not appear In legend)
Parcel Info
❑ Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
■ R2 Residential
R4 Residential
■ R6 Residential
■ R10 Re thermal
■ R15 Resirienbal
Planned Unit Development
■ Planned Residential Development
■ Neighborhood Model District
■ Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
■ Commercial Cifice
■ Hghv2y Commercial
■ Planned Development Shopping Ch.
■ Planned Development Mixed Comm.
■ Doevntovm Crozet District
Light Industry
■ Heavy Industry
■ Planned Development Industrlal Par
■ Tovm of Scottsville
1
I. '
0
GISW b
Data Senl ces
N
..,..ads
. Ibemads drove.
1 O
,pinspe
(43M 2=2
Any determination of tap ]raptly or contours, or any depiction of physical Improvements, properly lines or Wundaries Is for general Information only and shall not be used for Me design, m chficalion, or mrmtmcllon of Improvements to real proped, orfor Pont plain determination. May 28, 2U1
Map elements may scale larger Nan GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data download page due to the projection used. Map Picin ion: AX3584 Wen Mercator (Autillary Shreve) (EPSG 3857)
t90 gf 90C=02-01-2 �90G-02-16-32
U 90C-10J`9�3000 l9pC `y. `90C 9pC. `
90 p r C ��Y;Jp?,•7
0 90C-11 O O ) pi-i ?: 7
��' �o�o o� ,?�C'18v�8, 3.
C O O) 36. 3S 39 '7 77-47
"/OCr�
NootteSometlma on map may nor appear In Lyme)
Parcel Info
❑Parcels
Mlll$F v90C-8 90C-9
y' /� - G` -%
� Y
Comp Plan Land Use Into
} Urban Gevelopmeni /vea Boundary
^ 3 V / 3 ( o` m
90C-21iy 90C-1 / .r
jd
�/ I OG / o '77-48 r
pV 90C- 90 `30 �V/
`, 90C-7 0� 9OC-2 ^� 0,1,0G.1I—`C, 0 91-2D
toy
/90C-3 ,flI �pC, .9 C.-�O'�1'fJU Gtq\G.33
90C-6 pC \
C\\
Comprehensive Plan Areas
Crozet Master Plan Land Use
■ Greenspace•
Neighborhood Neighborhood Density Residential L
Urban Den Neighborhood Density Residential
Residential
C 0
a 90C-4 9� p\^< O�' \ 91-2D2
c ;Oc-�O\t//TdE-dC\��';?g\ 91-2D1 d/`
\\ �•ii`07• hd
■ Mixe6Usesiy
■ Disseminator
■ Institutional
Light Industrial
■ See Crozet Masumplan Text
m 90C-$ WO O (
OG? n/•,Cj(
PaMops Master Plan Centers and Di
91-2
C O/ OC Oy go \5
O/ O O �TQ� C0\ \
\�`OG.' �•Q
9OC-35 C v » G-91-2D3
/ \ ��9 )'� ?q
O Uban center
Q Neighborhood Service Center
Employment District
O Reveatianal District
/
\�-U1PaMrin
`010C• 9QG�p`1G-?7 91-1F
90C 106 0 Cx 2Q7�Ot \'7
\C�O-V G3�w 91_1A
/p7
Master Plan Future Street N
Pnnapal Arterial
— Axis ueM
- Avenue(Conceptual Alignment)
0
90 / p
C OV \may r` '1-1B 91-2E
\
c�a
Street
Local Street (Conceptual Alignment)
— Rural Transition
'r2 90C-58 °j 90C-60/�V �\ .'..4
O
PaMops Master Plan Urban Center
Particle;Master Plan Land Use
O I OD ,
C?A 9UC-57 190C-61 °t
Y
■ CoDensity mmercial Mixed UseResitlential
Commerci
■ Urban Density Residential
90C-56/
■ Community Mixed Use
9UC-62
909t_1 MCI
C-45 ,
■ Office/R&D/Flex/ Light Industrial
. Institutional
■
90C-55 9OC-63
91-1D Dort Cello
Public Parks
/ Potential Public Park
Parks and Green Systems
a ��OC-64 e
90C-54
�
o loll.
a 90C-53 90C-65
910C-52 �UC 676
C^^ale
6' 91-43
O
OC-,m
o/ 9- 91-12C
+f�i
m 3-- '^ � ,�. 1c� 91-12B
c Data senicea
Fce�rapn
\91A-33. so, 9A :10
My oetenminalion Mtap ]2phy or company, or any depiNm Mphyslral Mprave rsaft gopeM lines or boundaries Is for general Information only and shall rot be used far the design, mMifiralion, or construl of Improvements to real pmpetly or for flood plain determinalion. May 28, 2021
Map elements may stale larger Nan GIs data treasured In the map or as fissured! on the data financed page due to the pool used Map Projection: VJG580 Web Mervator (Auuliary, Sphere) (EPSG 3857)
My determination of topography or tantrums, or any depichon M pMsical Improvements, properly lines a NuMares a Mr gere2l InMmrsOon only ant shall not be used Mr Me design, mMlPcallm, or ta116tNptlta of impraveral to hall propMy, rcN POM plain May 28, 2021
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data downba! page due to Me projection used. Map PmfetllonKGStM Weh Memcatw (Mother, Sphere) (EPSG 3W7)
Comprehensive Plan Compliance Application
Applicant: Albemarle County Service Authority, c/o Alex Morrison
Project Name: ACSA - Avon Maintenance Facility
Location: TMP 09 100-00-00-00 100; 1737 Avon Street Extended, Charlottesville, VA
Proiect Description
The ACSA Avon Maintenance Facility will consist primarily of the following components: a
site access road, maintenance building, vehicle storage yard, confined space entry training area,
fenced training area, fuel station, and a vehicle wash area. Associated site infrastructure includes
stormwater management, sanitary sewer and water main extensions, security fencing with two
entrance gates, and retaining walls. The maintenance building will be two -stories, and include
vehicle bays, vehicle maintenance workshop, a facility maintenance workshop, a breakroom,
restrooms, a server room, office space and a conference room. The goal of the project is to
provide a training area and a minor repair facility for ACSA vehicles, as well as redundancy for
critical infrastructure that is currently housed at the Spotnap Rd. headquarters.
Transportation Impacts
The site access road will be accessed form Avon street Ext. and Founders place. The site will not
be a significant traffic generator, as traffic to the site is expected to be limited to ACSA
employees and contractors during normal operations. Primary access to the site will be from
Founders Place; Avon will be used for limited access and to provide a second point of egress.
Community Engagement
ACSA will seek community input throughout the design process. Opportunities for community
engagement include:
• Avon Community Advisory Council
• Adjacent property notification with supplemental project description pamphlet
• Targeted communications with Board members, county staff, and/or property owners as
available
Role of ACSA and Project Need
ACSA plays a critical role in carrying out the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Public Water
and Sewer is required in the growth area. The Board of Supervisors has mandated that the ACSA
provide public water and sewer services in the growth area. In turn, the Board has forbidden the
ACSA to provide these services in the rural areas of the County.
The Avon Street Maintenance Facility project allows the ACSA to carry out its essential public
health and welfare functions, providing water and treated sewer mandated by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County at a reasonable cost to Albemarle County citizens in the
growth area.
• In 1987, the ACSA had 7,220 water connections. Today, the ACSA has 21,009 water
connections (serving 33,856 total units).
In 1987, the ACSA had 157 miles of water lines and 77 miles of sewer lines. Today, the
ACSA has 358 miles of water lines and 302 miles of sewer lines (as of July 1, 2020).
The current ACSA Spotnap Rd. maintenance facility has limited additional storage site capacity.
Redundancy for ACSA operations has been identified as a critical need for continuity planning
including:
• Second maintenance base of operations.
• Second server room.
o Supports on site and remote operations.
• Conference Room
o Classroom training location.
o Design to support Incident Command System operations.
• Second fueling station and storage.
• Additional equipment storage.
• Additional material storage.
The proposed Avon facility location will meet these needs for redundancy of operations. In
addition, the location is centralized in ACSA territory to provide access to Scottsville, Crozet and
Southern side of Urban ring (central to the growth area) and quick access to Route 29 by the
interstate (central to the growth area). The site will include a dedicated confined space training
area, which can also be used for confined space training with Albemarle County Fire/Rescue.
The site will also provide for replacement of the Crozet storage yard which is now owned by
RWSA, on which the ACSA has a short -tern lease that expires within 5 years of notification by
RWSA.
As shown on the attached graphics, some site layout considerations include:
• Designed to accommodate second RWSA water storage tank.
• Designed to use site topography and vegetation to provide natural visual and sound
screening to surrounding parcels.
• Designed with two entrances to allow circulation through the site and secondary
emergency access.
• Includes a dedicated equipment operator training facility.
• The upgrades to the existing Avon Street Ext. entrance have been coordinated with the
County sidewalk project and were the basis of the easement that the ACSA granted to the
county.
The proposed Avon Street Maintenance Facility parcel development meets the purpose of
Comprehensive Plan institutional designation, which includes primary uses such as: major
facilities, ancillary facilities, and County agency owned property not yet developed.
The project achieves a by -right development of ACSA property for the intended purpose as
outlined in the 1987 condemnation documents and court order approving the acquisition.
Maintenance Yard purpose was stated in the condemnation documents as a long-term purpose of
the acquisition of the site.
Site and Buildin¢ Graphics
The enclosed graphics include the existing site, the schematic layout of the maintenance facility
and associated parking and access road, schematic building floor plans, exterior elevations, and
building sections.
- / d
J/ TRV/9
1
� 1
I N/F
CREEKWILL
N/F , D.B. 00
C.
WHITEWASH, LLG PARCEL ID: D.B. 00-00-0020J
1 D.B. JSW.. PG. I55 1
D.B. 1895. PC. 168 (PUT) 1
1 PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-00201 d
d I Tpy/7 1335 PaMNM CIRCLE TRV/8
I N/F 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1 SERVICE AUTHORITY 1 "EMARLE COUNTY
1 D.B. 1089, PG. 6]0 I SERNCE AUTHORITY
PARCEL 10: 09100-00-00-00100 D.B. 1069. PC,, 670
PARCEL ID: 0910D-00-00-00100
- - 1737 AWN STREET
- - NrF 1 AREA: 9.54AC
ALBEMARLE COUNTY I
SERVICE AUTHORITY
D.B. I089, PC. 670
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-WIEO
IN/F
- O.B. ION. IPE' 0— - -
PARCEL ID: MOD-00-OD-Op"
1729 AWN STPEE'
ALBEMAR/ET ICOLr,^ II
SERVCE AUTHORITY
D.B. I089. PG. 170
PARCEL 10: 09f 00-00-G0-OOIAO
II
1
I
1
1
6\'\CH4JN UNK
\\ \ FENCE
-- I
NIP 1 I RWM
mT 1 IX. f
ALBEMARLE COUNT/ 1 1 1
SERVICE AUTHORITY \
D.B. 1089. PG. 670
x 11 v PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-00780
TRIPLE I' i
DOGWOOD s/ 1 5 CIWNFEH�E _ -� GAP
a...H �.
d
6' CMW LINK
1 zm o y, FENCE
h o
PP JLIN28
m� HIF
N BOM/NION CRANE & RIGGING INC
cA1 D.B. 1237. PG. 594
n� PARCEL 10: 09109100-00-0000-OOf00
NK 17l AWN STREET EAT
ti
]' GUM
50' RIGHT OF WAY
O.B. 360, PG. 185
D.B. 348. PG. IN
N/F
COUM OF ALBEMARLE
C/O RN CE
D.B. PG.
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-001E0
1515 FOUNDERS PL
STONE
WALL
1. d
v TRV/1
INV=504.58
RIP RAP 'm OS\ :p. CONCRETE
1 L/—
Jml 1 I I I Ll
\\\\\NV\\\�\\\\�\\\\ JN°99�i�TJ III IIII 1\ N IR '
\\Ili// \\ \s _
\\ \\\ \ \
�\II ////_-____---�)�\I\1 IIII \\\\\\
\X1\\\�\\ /iii,loI/l�l l l l l l \
\\;\\II\IIIII\\\\///�/���—�`;!;'/I II II I li I�\\\•
�hgllh /llll/h1:= ' may'':
Oil \\\(II (IIII \-'-ii%%-_� -
lilt
II IIII IIIII I
Oill 11
�t c
P�KNG�
N/F
ALBEMARLE HEALTH
CARE CENTER, LLC
D.B. 4IJ2. PG. 347
PARCEL 10: 09100-00-00-01100
1540 FODNOERS PL
1
Y / '
�5. CPP
c 0B�
0' 50' 100, 200'
Vic= ExistingConditions
SelrnceAuth6rity _Dewberry
Servin9�c«rorviig �� Application for Comprehensive Plan Compliance
Avon Street Extended County Maintenance Facility
wig
I NIF
N/F D.B.. FG.
WHOEWASN, LLG PARCEL ID: 09100-0000-00-OOP'
1 0.8. J86q PG. 155
D.B. 1895. P0. 168 (PUT) 11 1
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-002D1 A 1
I RVjB I
N7 1335 PARfMM CIRCLE
IRF 1 1
I NIF
Al REMAPLE COUNTY
SERVICE AUTHOMTY 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY \
D.B. 7089, PG. 670 I SERVICE AUTHORRY \
PARCEL 10: 09100-00-00-OOIAO D.B. 1089. PG 670
PARCEL ID: 0910D-00-00-00100 \
_ - - — 1737 AVON STREET LITT iP�\
- _ NIE 1 AREA: 9.54AC
ALBEMARLE COUNTY I
SERVICE AUMORITY
D.a 1G89, PG. 670
PARCEL ID: 09I00 W 00-OCIEO \ \
V?F - - All _Er
I Future
DONALD W. SHIFn. II Water Tank ; o\\\l\Q�\•
O.B. 1074, PG. 400
PARCEL ID. 09T00 00-00-0OIF0 1\ \ 1 I \\m\\
1729 AVON STREET EAT \
IRE N/F
ALBEMARLE COUNTY I �\
SERVICE AUOIORIN - \
O.B. 1069, PG. 670
PARCEL ID. 09100-00-00-OOIAO
\
kNCHAIN LINK
1 / / \\ \ FENCE
< 1
I N/F 1 I I Existing 11 11
EMARIF COUNTY I 1 Water Tank I
N/F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL
C/O FINANCE
D.B. PG.
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-DO2EC
1515 FOUNDERS PL
vA111�VA•v�,AovAvvvv�./ice /�,. _ � .v�vvvA. v
1. t1
i MV/1
INV=504.58
RIP RAP w OS\ a. CONCRETE
Phase 1 _ \,% S/W,
ti
Security Fence
—_-- -_ - -----_—y._--- -_ ----
Walls O ---------------------
Retaining 10' Setbao/-'-
.II/// /--_,_-
Stormwater
AB 1
SERVICE AUTHORITY\ \ / I Existing Cell \�
1 D.B. 1089. PG. 670 \ / Tower Site
PARCEL ID r 09100-00-00-007B0 \ `
x 1 v TRIPLE
IE GATE
n DOGWOOD 1 6' CHAIN UNIR--��/ FH \ ! \
zl $ a B
FENCE
l � 1 w 1� l l V A v Vv V `� V v� �•6 6ia_�` `cTR� � J --
P 040 A _
1 1 `I C VEL CC ROAD\ ` \
TRv/s 1 I (_ryt.-r r c,�s.c. i- r _—�6f0-CIO
1 0\\ 1
1 \ 1 ,L, 1 I 6 5' CHAIN LINK
FENCE
N/F
DOMINION CRANE & RIGGING INC
D.B. 1237. PC. 594
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-001DO
1745 AVON STREET EXF
i%
1%
\\\�
\
Vehicle Maintenance`, \ \
Building
,
f °\0
2 Story
'xl3
60'x130'
50' RIGHT OF WA
O.B. 360, PG. 16
O.B. 3A6. PG. 1a
STONE
> WALL
IRVN
e
14
la
I
I
Y
5
/2'� 11 11 �—7ra�ning�lea�
ED
w,,/2 Ma eAn
I llll� ii�� _ \ - ! / /r l^c� �• �' SIGN
/
11' Fuel Station
PVC
®9� ® TRVA3
OPP i
ja
c`g55R02A-%' P KNGttot grj ® 0' 50' 100' 200'
ElSteep Slopes - Managed
NIF
ALBEMARLE HEALM
CARE CENTER, LLC
O.B. 4IJ2. FG. 347
PARCEL ID: 09100-00-00-072M
1540 FOUNDERS PL
Land Use Table (Total Area - 7.4 Ac)
Use Type
Sq. Ft (AC)
% of Total
Parking Area
54,459 (1.25)
16.8
Building (2 stories)
7,800 (0.18)
2.4
Training Area
7,500 (0.17)
2.3
Open Space
200,652 (4.61)
62
Site Access Road
50,090 (1.15)
15.50
Retaining Walls
2,907 (0.07)
0.90
A&.Iad@Cw. y Proposed Development ,, Dewberry/
SernceAuth�rity Application for Comprehensive Plan Compliance 7
�� Avon Street Extended County Maintenance Facility
NO
C
W
o2
6i Q
IR
o_
0
N
N
O
CM
O
A3.01
A2.01
A' A B C D E F G H H'
129 $„ 3
1'-6" 18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
19'-0" 1'-2"
10'-0"
23'-8" 10'-0" 27'-0"
10'-0" 19'-2"
24'-6"
W1 A A A A
A
N
I
3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 W4 W4
0
BREAK OFFICE CONFERENCE OFFICE
N11
r=N6
4 A4.01 205N7
324 SF 136 SF 367 SF 136 SFW4LOCK
RS-32 FACILITIES
N19 N122
7 MAINTENANCE
WORKSHOP
202 203 204 205
SF
N17
660 SF
N
W3
N8 N20 v W3 206
W3
--- - - N3 5'-1" 4'-0" 207
'
1 JANITOR
IRS DNFF
ff
01 201 '
GARAGE BAY
v
213
SHOWER
4
nIUD
209
I_[L__
I
N3
LID
W5 209 F r 7 r 7 F _1
1 E
F r ,
2 I I I I I I
I N5 1
TOILET I
Aa.o2 I I I I I I I I
4 210
I I I I
z10
w3 N9
I N20
W1
2
11 TOILET
A3.01
z11
W5
211
N1
SHOWER
-
13H
212
I
— N2
_� -__ - J__ ..............
_�
4 212 L J N2 L — — — L L — — — N2 L
___ - -- ___ ____________ ___ - -_ J__
F01 r _ _� r_ _� r_ _ � r _
PE
I I I I I
I I
2136
213C
213D
213E
213E
13G
2,
13A wa
0 0
0 0
0 o
/\
0 o
0
o
0 p
an
N
j) UPPER FL
A' A
JANITOR
1 d �
I
1
1
II IIT---
1
IIIL___
_0
IIIir
---
rp
'L---
Alegi -.__<i�z
o limm
ilI�r�l
TOILET j
104
\1/
OOR PLAN
v` vlJ 1
A2.01 A3.01
v
U
A2.01
1
3
B C D E F A3.01 G H H'
N18 N10 W2
109A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109B 109C 109D 109E 109E 109G
101 ----- `--------------J----------- ---J------------- `--------- -- --J--------------J - - -r — — N2 L — — — r — — — N2 L
i 3 N1
1 N5 ,
Nz Nz
N3 N3
N20
' 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Nzo
L -1 L L L N16
102 A4.01
I I I I
103 GARAGE BAY u)
1 109
' A4.02
I I I I I
W3
ll " /P 1il 04 W3 1/ A11\ �) L- — — — J L L O '
r
— �
— _j N14
105
SERVER 22' - 7" 1
105
300 SF
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
107
MECH/ELEC
106
266 SF 4
W3
OFFICE
107
133 SF 4
W3 VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE
WORKSHOP
108
472 SF
20' - 0"
10' - 0"
35' - 6"
1
NEW WORK KEYED NOTES
NOTE
DESCRIPTION
N1
TRENCH DRAIN WITH REINFORCED GRATE (SEE PLUMBING) SLOPE
FLOOR TO DRAIN
N2
HOSE BIBB
N3
BRADLEY CORP WF2703 SINK
N5
EYE WASH SINK
N6
LOCKER 18"x24"x60", TYPICAL
N7
BENCH 18"x96"
N8
ICE MAKER (NIC), PROVIDE WATER CONNECTION (SEE PLUMBING)
N9
APPROXIMATE UTILITY TRUCK SIZE, TYPICAL
N10
6" STEEL BOLLARD, TYPICAL
N11
MONITOR (NIC), PROVIDE BLOCKING AS REQUIRED
N12
MOP SINK (MS)
N13
SERVER RACK, TYPICAL
N14
ISHELVING 12"x36"x72", TYPICAL
N15
SHELVING 21"x48"x72", TYPICAL
N16
APPROXIMATE VACUUM TRUCK SIZE, TYPICAL
N17
FLOOR DRAIN (SEE PLUMBING)
N18
DOWNSPOUT, TYPICAL
N19
MOP RACK (MR)
N20
FIRE EXTINGUISHER & BRACKET (FE)
WALL LEGEND
WALL
WALL
WALL
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
DETAIL
W 1
EXTERIOR WALL
PRE-ENGINEERED METAL WALL PANELS
W/ THERMAL BLOCKS ON 8" GIRTS AND
CRANE COMPOSITES MR GPDW/FRP
PANEL INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR
----------
8" GIRT
BATT INSULATION WITH 8'-0" TALL FRP
N
MIN. R-25 BATT INSULATION
PANELS ON 5/8" MOISTURE RESISTANT
GPDW
THERMAL BLOCKS @EACH
PANEL ATTACHMENT
METAL PANELS
EXTERIOR WALL
CONCRETE WALL (SEE STRUCTURAL)
CRANE COMPOSITES MR GPDW/FRP
_Ie�f PANEL INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR
=
W2
8'-0" TALL FRP PANELS AND 5/8"
' , ; ,:-" 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS
MOISTURE RESISTANT GPDW ON 7/8"
METAL FURRING CHANNELS @ 16" O.C.
q"
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
INTERIOR WALL
W3 - 8" CMU WITH MASONRY
REINFORCING UP TO 12'
<o
8" CMU
W3
HORIZONTAL
W3A - 1 HOUR RATED. EXTEND TO DECK,
REINFORCING @
SEAL WITH FIRE RATED CAULK
16" O.C.
INTERIOR PARTITION
3 5/8" METAL STUDS AT 16" O.C.
3 5/8" METAL STUDS AT 16" O.C.
W4
PROVIDE 5/8" GPDW ON EACH SIDE AND
SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS IN
BETWEEN. WALLS TO EXTEND TO 1'-0"
ABOVE FINISH CEILING
5/8"GPDW (PAINT)
12 R-13 SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS
v 5/8" GPDW (PAINT)
W4A - GPDW ON ROOM SIDE ONLY
W5
INTERIOR PARTITION
6" METAL STUDS AT 16" O.C.
PROVIDE 5/8" GPDW ON EACH SIDE AND
SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS IN
6" METAL STUDS AT 16" O.C.
5/8" GPDW (PAINT)
a
R-19 SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS
BETWEEN. WALLS TO EXTEND TO T-0"
ABOVE FINISH CEILING
r
5/8" GPDW (PAINT)
W6
STOREFRONT
Dewberry -
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540
434.797.4497 Phone
434.797.4341 Fax
www.dewberry.com
}
Lu
0
LL
Q
Lu
V
Lu
U
Q
Lu
2
u
LLu
W
a_
J
ct)
L Lj
LL
}
Lu
z
c�
U
0
J
0Q
%
Lu
Luz
m
Q
Q
Gc
SEAL
0 N
W
0rn
Z N
Lu
X>
W -
W
W J
W J
U7 W
Z
00
Q Q
co =
�U
PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
KEY PLAN
SCALE
No.
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY
CHECKED BY
DATE
TITLE
FLOOR PLANS
Description Date
WL
DTH
WL
2020.09.18
PROJECT NO. 50119301
FIGURE 3
SHEET NO.
R
In
V:
1
Dewberry-
E
A
u
on
6i Q
IR
O_
O
N
N
O
M
O
` ROOF
zo' - o"
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540
434.797.4497 Phone
434.797.4341 Fax
www.dewberry.com
E11 >_ W
E11,
E3 E1
O Q
E9
N Q
Q ui
E8 \ E6 E6 , ' -EFRSFLOOR
— W v^
FIRST FLOOR OLu
7 UP
-PI —I=+1 I-I�—I-1=1-1=1."-1-1 I•I—f 1-11.1-1=1'I-1 bi1'-—
I-
iiiiiiiirir�ifa—jaiiiF—ai W
•. ��� ��� ��,�����. J�.�—III j J
I LT .I ,� ril - E7 cf) w LL
NORTH ELEVATION E„ i- w
(j)Scale: 1/8" = T-0" z V
\\ E4 U O
E6 J w
BASEMENT ' E8 a
-20' 0" -- "1 1 1' = — Q
E12 Lu
r1 EAST ELEVATION Q
` ROOF
20' - 0"
FIRST FL(
0"
0 BASEMEN
20' - 0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES
NOTE
DESCRIPTION
E1
METAL WALL PANELS
E2
METAL ROOF PANELS
E3
OVERHEAD COILING DOOR, TYPICAL
E4
HOLLOW METALL DOOR & FRAME, TYPICAL
E5
ALUMINUM WINDOW, TYPICAL
E6
6" STEEL BOLLARD, TYPICAL
E7
CONCRETE WALL (SEE STRUCTURAL)
E8
APPROXIMATE FINISH GRADE
E9
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
E10
GUTTER 6"x6" MINIMUM
E11
DOWNSPOUT 4" 0 MINIMUM
E12
DOWNSPOUT ADAPTOR
ROOF_
20' -
1
FIRST FLOOR
0"
jh, BASEMENT
20, -_0"
WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SEAL
0 N
W
0m
Z N
H Q
w�
� W
W J
W >
�Cf)
U) W
U7 �
00
J
Q Q
cy)U
PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
KEY PLAN
SCALE
1
No. Description Date
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY
WL
APPROVED BY
Approver
CHECKED BY
WL
DATE
2020.09.18
TITLE
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
PROJECT NO. 50119301
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO.
5 4 1
Dewberry
E M
NED
wo
EVA
� 2
(V Q
u)
N
N
O
Cl)
O
MET.
WAT
MEN
CON
(SEE
2 ) 12'
ROOF
20 - 0„
METAL WALL PANELS
h FIRST FLOOR ;
CONCRETE WALL
(SEE STRUCTURAL)
BASEMENT
20' - 0' =ITG
2„
LOCKERS-32
207
2"11 _0„
DUMP TRUCK BED HEIGHT
APPROXIMATE
UTILITY TRUCK SIZE
i
GARAGE BAY
213 °D
APPROXIMATE VACUUM
TRUCK SIZE
GARAGE BAY o
1 Ju 109 aD
I T
TRANSVERSE SECTION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
METAL BUILDING
STRUCTURE
METAL WALL PANELS
FRP WALL BEYOND
MEMBRANE
WATERPROOFING
CONCRETE WALL (SEE
STRUCTURAL)
FRP WALL BEYOND
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540
434.797.4497 Phone
434.797.4341 Fax
www.dewberry.com
rW
NV
N
W (�
Q W
= W
a_ J
W L.L
W
cry U
Z z
O a
Q
Z
C�
G
SEAL
0 N
W
0m
Z N
W
X>
W
�W
W J
W J
U)
Z 1-
00
Q of
ce)U
PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
KEY PLAN
A' A t
C D E F t
HI
SCALE
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
ROO',
%L WALL PANELS '
- GARAGE BAY i
� 213
- - -
_
I
METAL I
STRUCI
I I
A3.02
I I I i-_ I I I I I I I
I I I I
I
_ _I
I =� L- I =T
- r III-i-
FIRST FLOG
I
1-
7
III
i
METAL I
PANELS
__ I �_
—I_ -
I � �r r i L 17 �--
IIII IIII I I
e-_
I
I I 1 I
� i
I
�
-
ill
II
II�II{
_
r
-
T
0
ERPROOFING
BRANE-
-IRETE WALL
TR T RAL
S UC U
BASEMENT I
a
-it
JL I A
- - -
I
MEMER.
WATER
CONCRI
( SEEST
`I
-_L T -
_- -_
r
-- ----___-I_- _ --I T
_
� -20'-0"
�.—._
_T
-
-
- --
-
-- --- - - -
41
- L.
SERVER
105
MECHIELEC OFFICE
106 107
LONGITUDINAL BUILDING SECTION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MAINTENANCE
WORKSHOP
108
WILDING
URE, TYPICAL
VALL
4NE
PROOFING
=TE WALL
RUCTURAL)
s � i
No. Description Date
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY
CHECKED BY
DATE
TITLE
WL
Approver
WL
2020.09.18
BUILDING
SECTIONS
PROJECT NO. 50119301
FIGURE 5
SHEET NO.
Attachment 3
CCP202100001 Planning Commission Work Session
Staff Analysis of Neighborhood Model Principles
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle is met. The proposed use is not in conflict with
the ongoing Avon Corridor projects, including the planned
sidewalk on the east side of Avon Street Extended. There are
existing sidewalks along Founders Place. Due to the security
needs of the site, additional public pedestrian connections
through the site would not be appropriate.
Mixture of Uses
This principle is met. There are a variety of existing and
proposed uses in this area, including residential, commercial,
and institutional (including public uses).
Neighborhood Centers
This principle is not applicable. The proposal is not located
within a Center. Due to the security needs of this site, it
would not be an appropriate public destination.
Mixture of Housing Types
This principle is not applicable. No housing is proposed with
and Affordability
this application.
Relegated Parking
This principle is met/not fully applicable. The proposed
parking area would not be visible from Avon Street Extended.
The parking area would be naturally buffered by topography
for properties to the south. Due to the needs of the site, a
more pedestrian -oriented development with fully relegated
parking is not feasible. Large trucks with equipment and
materials will need to navigate the site and have space to
store these materials (such as pipes needed for repairs).
There will be security fencing around the site and much of
the existing mature vegetation will be retained.
Interconnected Streets and
This principle is met. The primary ingress/egress for this site
Transportation Network
will be Founders Place, with the option to use Avon Street
Extended when needed. There are existing sidewalks along
Founders Place, and an ongoing VDOT Revenue Sharing
project will provide sidewalks along Avon Street Extended.
Public access through the site, vehicular or otherwise, would
not be appropriate. Development of this proposal will not
impede any vehicular or bike/ped extensions/connections in
this area.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is met. Sidewalks are existing along Founders
Opportunities
Place and will be provided along Avon Street Extended.
Parks, Recreational
This principle is met/not fully applicable. This proposal will
Amenities, and Open Space
not be accessible to the public, and therefore will not provide
any public open sace or amenities. The proposal will not
conflict any recommended or planned parks/trails/open
space projects in the area.
Buildings and Spaces of
This principle is met. The proposed building would be two
Human Scale
stories, which is consistent with the range of building heights
within the immediate vicinity. The building will not be
accessible to the general public; therefore additional scale
considerations are not applicable.
Redevelopment
This principle is not applicable. The site is mostly
undeveloped. There are an existing water tower and cell
tower on the site, however the proposed development would
be entirely on the undeveloped area of the site and would not
affect these existing uses. The existing access road would be
extended to fully connect through the site.
Respecting Terrain and
This principle is met. There are no preserved steep slopes on
Careful Grading and
the site. There are very small pockets of managed slopes.
Regrading of Terrain
Site planning and grading have not been completed or
submitted for this project to date. Proposed retaining walls
will need to meet Engineering and Building standards. The
applicant has indicated that they will develop this site as
sensitively to the topography and existing vegetation as
feasible. Based on available information at this time, this
principle is met.
Clear Boundaries between
This principle is not applicable. The property is not adjacent
the Development Areas and
to the Rural Area.
the Rural Area
Attachment 4
CCP202100001 Planning Commission Work Session
Assessment of Proposal's Consistency with Relevant Community Facility Objectives
Objective 1 provides overall strategies relevant to all types of Community Facilities.
Objective 1: Continue to provide public facilities and services in a fiscally responsible
and equitable manner.
The following are strategies for this Objective that are relevant to this project and the CCP
review process. Staffs assessment of this project's consistency with these strategies is
provided below each.
Strategy 1c: Continue to design all buildings, structures and other facilities to permit
expansion as necessary.
Staff comment: This site can accommodate future expansion.
Strategy 1d: Continue to locate related or complementary services and facilities together
when possible and when other goals of the Comprehensive Plan can be met.
Staff comment: This site can accommodate joint training opportunities between ACSA and
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue. The Monticello Fire Rescue Station is located directly across
the street (Founders Place). The site will also have conference facilities and space for Incident
Command.
Strategy 1g: Ensure that all government facilities conform to County regulations, site
development standards, and policies.
Staff comment: While this project is not a true 'government facility', it is owned and operated by
a public utility. This project will need to meet all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements and
related requirements (including stormwater management) during site plan review.
Strategy 1 is Continue to design and construct public facilities that are energy efficient
and environmentally responsible.
Staff comment: While this property is not owned by the County, the applicant has stated that
they would consider energy efficient options such as solar panels, LEED building standards,
and the use of native plants. The applicant intends to retain as many existing trees as possible
on the site. Additionally, the applicant provided information that the vehicle rinse station would
be low -flow and hand operated (not automatic) and have a catch basin with an oil -water
separator.
Strategy 1 k: Ensure that public buildings and spaces provided in the Development Areas
conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
Staff comment: This project will largely meet the Neighborhood Model Principles which are
applicable to public facilities as noted below. See Attachment 3 of the Staff Report for a
complete assessment of the project's consistency with the Neighborhood Model Principles.
The following Neighborhood Model Principles are applicable to public facilities and
services: Note: "It is understood that, due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility
and/or service(s) provided, not every County facility will be able to meet all of these principles.
Efforts should be made, however, to meet as many of those principles as possible."
All public facilities should be designed and/or located to accommodate multimodal
transportation options, including walkways, bike facilities, and transit access, if available
or proposed.
Staff comment: There are existing sidewalks along Founders Place, which will be retained with
this development. There are planned sidewalks along Avon Street Extended. The planned
sidewalk project is part of a larger sidewalks capital project with VDOT Revenue Sharing and is
currently out for bid. This site will not be publicly -accessible; therefore public access through the
site is not appropriate. The project will not impede planned multimodal transportation efforts in
this area.
Recreational and natural areas are amenities and should be sited so that residents and
workers can walk to a public park, use greenway trails, experience preserved natural
areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces.
Staff comment: Given the nature of this proposed facility and the associated security needs,
having parks and/or trails within the site would likely not be appropriate. However, the applicant
intends to retain trees and natural areas within the site where construction and grading is not
planned.
Building size and orientation on the site (and to the street and neighborhood) should be
in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to the extent possible and appropriate.
As a general rule, buildings should have their front entrance oriented to the street, with
parking relegated internal to the site and away from the street.
Staff comment: Given the nature of this proposed facility and the associated security and
storage needs, the typical Neighborhood Model building and parking orientation considerations
are not applicable. The maintenance building and training area and associated equipment must
be kept secured and are not accessible to the general public. The site requires a parking area
large enough to store equipment and materials when needed. The proposed building height is
two stories, which is keeping in character with surrounding neighborhoods and uses.
Take existing and proposed density of nearby areas into account with public building
locations. Avoid sprawling site development, which underutilizes sites and does not
create or contribute to compact, walkable neighborhood development.
Staff comment: See above comment regarding site layout.
Recognize that public facilities contribute to the mixed -use character of neighborhoods.
Therefore, strategic location and siting of facilities can contribute to mixed -use
neighborhoods.
Staff comment: Given the nature of this proposed facility and the associated security needs,
additional uses on this parcel would likely not be appropriate. However, there are opportunities
for joint training sessions with other Albemarle County staff, such as Fire Rescue. There are
also nearby opportunities on County -owned and County School -owned properties for these
types of active uses.
Provide for sidewalk systems to give pedestrians an easy walk to many destinations, to
provide alternative routes for traffic, and to reduce the number and length of car trips.
Staff comment: Given the nature of this proposed facility and the associated security needs,
there will not be public pedestrian access through this site. However, there will be pedestrian
access around this site on Founders Place and Avon Street Extended (see previous multimodal
comments).
Create on street parking and place parking lots behind buildings so pedestrians do not
have to cross major parking areas when walking along sidewalks to reach facilities.
Staff comment: Given the nature of the proposed facility and associated security needs, the site
will not be accessible to the general public. The large parking area is needed to accommodate
storage of ACSA vehicles and ACSA equipment and supplies, such as pipes for repairs.
Consider whether mixing housing and public building would be appropriate with new
building construction...
Staff comment: Given the nature of the proposed facility and associated security needs, housing
would not be appropriate on this site.
Reuse and/or redevelop existing sites.
Staff comment: This property has been owned by ACSA since 1987. There are an existing
water tank and cell tower on the site. While the proposed maintenance and training facility
would be new, the site has already been used for ACSA services for several decades.
When planning new facilities or modifying existing sites, work with rather than against
the natural grade to the greatest extent feasible. This principle should be given strong
consideration in site selection and site/building design. Even though grading and site
alterations will occur with facility construction, efforts need to be made to seek a
sustainable balance between better grading and preserving natural topography.
Protecting important environmental resources, such as steep slopes along streams,
stream buffers, significant wooded areas, wetlands, and the like, is important. The
character of the finished grading should avoid massive and tall retaining walls and take
into account the ability to maintain slopes and vegetation, and to avoid erosion.
Staff comment: There are no preserved steep slopes on the property or any streams. There are
small pockets of managed steep slopes on the site, and the applicant will need to meet all
grading and managed slope disturbance requirements during site planning.
Maintain a clear boundary between the Development Areas and the Rural Area when
public facilities are located at the boundary between the Development Areas and the
Rural Area.
Staff comment: This proposal is located within the Development Area and is not adjacent to the
Rural Area.
Establish public facilities as neighborhood centers (when possible) to bring diverse
activities to a neighborhood. Public facilities may be established and function as
neighborhood centers or open space areas; parks, libraries, and schools are obvious
choices for such centers, but facilities like fire departments and county offices may also
serve as centers because of their meeting rooms and public gathering function. New
public facilities will be encouraged to locate in existing neighborhoods centers, if
feasible.
Staff comment: Given the nature of this proposed facility and the associated security needs,
additional uses on this parcel would likely not be appropriate. However, there are opportunities
for joint training sessions with other Albemarle County staff, such as Fire Rescue. There are
also nearby opportunities on County -owned and County School -owned properties for these
types of active uses.
Attachment 5
CCP202100001 Planning Commission Work Session
Notes from April 15, 2021 community meeting: 5"' and Avon CAC
• Applicant presentation:
o Central location — part of reason why chosen
o Existing 2 million gallon water storage tank and cell tower
o Location suitable for second water storage tank and training facility, including
confined space training
o Coordinating with Avon St Corridor project
o Proposed landscaping along Avon/Founders for additional screening
• Question: Does ACSA have training facilities already?
o Alexander Morrison (AM) (ACSA representative): operating training, no facility
now — on the job; want to start doing that in a controlled environment so staff can
get more comfortable with trenching and making repairs and dealing with
topography
o AM: no dedicated facility for confined spaces training, usually use existing
manholes. Would like dedicated clean facility for controlled environment, plus can
do joint training with Fire/Rescue, which is good learning opportunity.
• Question: This is a large parcel, any thought for unused space for other purposes;
seems like a lot of parking
o AM: did a facilities master plan with Dewberry for workforce growth and future
training needs; could have expansions off of these buildings if needed. For the
parking areas, mainly for larger equipment storage, backhoes, dump trucks,
various pipe sizes on -hand. Need a lot of materials on stock to respond to
emergencies; need larger footprint to store materials.
• Question: Any impact to Mill Creek Drive in future? Parcel between ACSA and Mill Creek
Drive is separate; could be developed in future; opportunity for more of a buffer?
o AM: kept in mind while laying out the site; a lot of topography changes on site.
Wanted to limit clearing to keep as much mature landscaping as possible. Able to
maintain a fairly large buffer, will also have a security fence around site. Will try
to keep mature landscaping.
• Question: Are there any critical slopes on the property?
o Planning staff: small areas of managed steep slopes, no preserved or critical
slopes.
• Question: Any contact with Schools on Center II?
o AM: have not yet had a conversation with Schools yet; aware of the CCP for
Schools that went through; as get further along with talk with Schools to make
sure do not impact. Can use secondary access on Avon to have operational
flexibility to use that entrance when high traffic from schools.
• Question: Would you anticipate that normal traffic circulation would be one way from
Founders to Avon? Avon only one way so left turn off of Avon would back up traffic. But
if Avon is mostly an exit would be less impact.
o AM: majority of traffic will use Founders. Most of traffic going through site would
be pipe deliveries (which are infrequent) — Founders to Avon and go through
because hard to turn around for large trucks. Looking at right in/right out to
prevent left turns in. CountyNDOT may also improve Avon in future to include a
center lane.
Question: Have seen emails with concern about proximity to adjacent medical facility,
especially fuel station and vehicle rinse station. Would truck wash comply with low water
use standards that ACSA uses?
o AM: would use those standards for equipment. No automatic wash facilities.
Have wash facility on Pantops for low flow high pressure washes that are hand -
operated. Have catch basin with grit and oil water separator. Once separating
done, sanitary sewer connection closed so runoff during storm would go to
stormwater facility. Not a car wash facility; catch basin and hand -operated. Make
sure water is cleaned appropriately before discharged into sanitary sewer.
Question: Heard a neighbor comment that should keep as much buffer as possible
between this facility and medical facility.
o AM: agree — looked at road location and where adjacent to rehab facility. Need to
do a lot of grading to construct, but will do as much buffering/sound buffering as
possible. Retaining wall + landscaping. Vehicle wash and fueling station and
maintenance building would be completely shielded from medical facility.
Question: Will project meet lighting regulations and limit offsite ambient light?
o AM: with design of site will follow all County requirements — both spillover and
max lighting permitted.
Question: Have concerns about ambient lighting and excess noise pollution. Concerned
about parcels leaving natural — making sure keeping trees. Any issues with pollution?
Any zoning changes needed?
o AM: there is one residence in parcels along Avon — leaving area undeveloped
along Avon. High point at rear of those parcels before water tank and cell tower —
help create and keep buffer from residences across Avon (like Creekside). 8-5
business hours. After hours access would be to pick up equipment for an
emergency repair. Activities during normal hours do not produce much noise.
o AM: we've looked at LEED and other green initiatives. Looking at solar for
building roof. Any backup power generators will meet current standards and limit
pollution. Planning to use natural gas. Looking to limit carbon footprint as much
as possible.
o AM: will have to widen access road so will need to remove some trees, but will
leave the rest of existing trees along access road.
o Planning staff: property is zoned R1 Residential; this use is considered a public
use per Zoning; public uses are by -right in all zoning districts. Have CCP process
for this project to make sure consistent with Comp Plan, which includes this
community meeting and then PC work session before site plan.
Question: Any considerations with Tandem School?
o AM: nearby have Fire Department and then Tandem is a bit further down. Key
thing looked at for this site was two ingress/egress for flexibility during high -traffic
times so can make operational changes. Will look at schools for high -traffic
periods including events.
Question: Is this going to be a sewage facility that produce bad smells? Any buzzing or
industrial noises? How will Avon Street fencing look? Any additional security and
police/fire provided by County to support this?
o AM: water/sewer extension was just to provide public utility hookups for our
building. No treating sanitary sewage. Just discharging into system.
o AM: would be like an office building; no constant power generation. Do not
anticipate any low humming or constant noise.
o AM: a few different types of fencing for security. Vertical bars with aesthetic
appeal unlike a mesh fence. Most of fence will not be visible from Avon. If look
down entrance may see top of fence but that would be limited visibility. Use more
decorative style where visible.
o AM: security fencing recommended for this type of use. Will have internal
security that monitors doors/access on site. Have not proposed anything
additional that would need police staff. Would treat like Pantops site.
Question: Will there be gates also?
o AM: yes, gates at both entrances. Closed until authorized employee swipes
badge. Keep facility secure from public. Have something very similar at Pantops
site.
Question: Is there any ARB involvement?
o Planning staff: Avon currently not an Entrance Corridor because of non -arterial
designation. If that changes before site plan approval, would likely go through
ARB. Otherwise no ARB involvement.
Comment: Looking at pictures, hoping any plants that need to replant will be native
plantings. Consider alternate mowing for pollinators. See if any invasive species where
keeping native plantings.
o AM: will ask Dewberry to take note of that and will look into that. Will review
existing regulations and try to go above and beyond that and try to lower energy
consumption.
�' '•' < .<` f r •�'° MONTICELLO
HIGH SCHOOL
Al
y 4/ ;
O� ALBEMARLE COUNTY
• '� J FIRE & RESCUE
I 1y' � •��
46
Orr • Alt'
CALE ELEMENTARY - �-
HIGH SCHOOL�ir
�* CENTER II
COUNTY PROPERTY
j PARCEL 91-10
POTENTIAL EXTENSION �%►
OF GALANIE FARM LN
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL i Vim' J
" DEVELOPMENT c COUNTY PROPERTY
'• 9t„ PARCEL 91-88 r r
IRV
• r, .f
TIUJNL� HIGH SCHOOL CENTER 11
.w•
-".Mumum
I.
,,� •4k
FiGFi SCFi00L CENTER II
r
IIIINI HIGH SCHOQ
Figure 3: Conceptual View of School Entry from Mill Creek Intersection
QUIH[II HIGH SCHOOL CENTER II
EVU d VIEW OF SCHOOL ENTRY DRIVE MILL CREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION
JUNE 5, 2020
quinnevans.com
V
July 2, 2021
Alex Morrison
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department - Planning
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Rd
Charlottesville VA 22911
a m o rri s o n@ s e rvi c e a u t h o ri ty. o rg
Re: CCP202100001 ACSA Avon Street Facility Action Letter
Dear Mr. Morrison,
Tori Kanellopoulos
vkanellopouIosOalbemarle.or 1
Telephone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3270
The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its work session meeting, June 15, 2021 moved by a vote of 7:0 to find the
location, character, and extent of the ACSA Avon Street Facility, public facility and public use thereof, as proposed, to be in
substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Should you have any questions regarding the above -noted action, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Tori Kanellopoulos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, North Wing, I Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes June 15, 2021
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at
6:00 p.m.
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Rick Randolph; Daniel
Bailey; Corey Clayborne; Jennie More; Tim Keller; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Members absent: none.
Other staff members present were Bill Fritz; Francis MacCall; Stacy Pethia; Ton Kanellopoulos;
Jodie Filardo; Andy Reitelbach; 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(16), "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.oro on the Community County Calendar, when available.
Ms. Shaffer called the roll. All Commissioners indicated their presence.
Mr. Bivins established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
There were none.
Consent Agenda
Mr. Bivins asked the Commissioners if they wished to pull the item from the consent agenda and
heard no requests to do so.
Mr. Keller moved to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Public Hearings
ZMA202000007 RST Residences
Mr. Reitelbach, senior planner with the Albemarle County Planning Commission, said that evening
would be a continuation of a public hearing for ZMA2020-7, RST Residences, which first came
before the Planning Commission a few months prior on Tuesday, March 2nd, and Mr. Bivins, the
Chair, had said that it was deferred by the Planning Commission at that time.
Mr. Reitelbach reminded the Commission that the site was two parcels located near the
intersection of Ashwood Boulevard and Route 29 to the west of the Forest Lakes neighborhood.
He presented a zoomed -in aerial view of the site showing there was currently a motel on the site
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
as well as a mobile home community and a street -level view of the motel from Route 29. He said
the current zoning of this property is R-1 residential, which allows up to one unit per acre; by -right,
the property owner could have 19 dwelling units plus additional units depending on potential
bonus factors; and there are several overlay zoning districts on this site including the entrance
corridor, the airport impact area, and both managed and preserved steep slopes.
Mr. Reitelbach said in the comprehensive plan for this area (the Places29 Master Plan —
Community of Hollymead), these two parcels are largely designated for urban density residential,
which recommends residential at 6.01 to 34 units per acre and a maximum height of four stories,
and then there is a small sliver of the property mainly along Route 29 that is designated as
privately owned open space.
Mr. Reitelbach said the proposal had been before the Planning Commission previously on March
2nd when the Planning Commission deferred action at the request of the applicant. He said it
consists of two parcels of approximately 19.5 acres and includes a mobile home community, a
motel, and there is also a small cemetery on the site. Mr. Reitelbach said the applicant was
requesting to rezone this property to planned residential development (PRD) for a maximum of
332 residential units. He said there was also an associated special exception request to modify
the stepback requirements so that the fourth stories of buildings do not have to meet the stepback
requirement that is dictated in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Reitelbach said since the March 2nd meeting when the Planning Commission deferred action,
the applicant had made several revisions to the proposal, and on May 131h, the applicant did return
to the Places29-North CAC to present their changes. Mr. Reitelbach said there was a proposed
reduction in the maximum number of units from 370 to 332, which is 38 units. He said the applicant
was proposing 254 multifamily units and 78 two -over -two townhouse -style units. He said in the
original plan, there were eight rows of townhouses, and now that had been reduced to six rows.
He said the overall net density of the project had been reduced by approximately two units/acre
from about 19.8 to 17.85 units.
Mr. Reitelbach said the height of several buildings had also changed; the end townhouse unit at
the southeast end of each of the six rows (closest to the southeast property line) had been
reduced from four stories to three stories to provide a bit of a stepback and transition from this
development to the existing Ashland Townhomes development to the southeast. He said the other
townhouse units in each row would remain four stories. He said the fifth story of the two central
buildings was now proposed to be stepped back in line with what is required by the zoning
ordinance, and then the three other apartment buildings which are closer to Route 29 on the west
side of the site had been increased from three stories to four stories in height. He noted there was
a special exception request to modify the stepback requirement so that these four-story buildings
do not have to have that 15-foot stepback as required in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Reitelbach said there were buffer areas that had been increased in size; the buffer on the
southeast side of the property along the Ashland Townhomes property line had been increased
from 20 feet in width to 40 feet in width. He said the applicant had identified an existing berm
along Ashwood Blvd. to remain, and there was an expanded recreational area at the southern
entrance to the site at Ashwood Blvd.; because of this expanded recreational area, the first row
of townhouses coming from that southern entrance had now been set back farther from the
Ashwood Blvd. right-of-way.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Reitelbach said open space and recreational facilities had also seen some changes; the
applicant was now proposing 32% open space as opposed to the 25% minimum required by the
planned residential development zoning district. He said included with some of these increases
in open space were a courtyard area at the center of the townhouse section of the development
and an expanded recreational area at the southern entrance. He said the applicant had also
provided a substitution request better identifying and more clearly describing the proposed
recreational facilities and amenities that they intend to provide in this development.
Mr. Reitelbach said in concern about the lack of accommodation for transit, the applicant had
identified three potential sites for future bus stops to be provided on the application plan, and the
final decision on the location of those three would be made in consultation with the transit provider
(whoever that may be, whether it is CAT or JAUNT or some other provider) when service is
eventually expanded to this area, as currently there is no transit service to this part of the County.
Mr. Reitelbach said the amount and rate of affordable housing had been increased by the
applicant; the applicant was proposing to designate 75% of the multifamily units as affordable,
and these would be designated for 30 years for those earning between 30% and 80% of the area
median income (AMI) with an average income of 60% of AMI. He said this proposal on affordable
housing was more than what is recommended by both the existing County housing policy and the
proposed County housing policy that is currently under review by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Reitelbach demonstrated the revised plan showing the building and parking envelopes for the
development and a slide showing a conceptual layout for the development of the various
apartment buildings, the townhouse units, stormwater management facilities, open space and
recreational areas, parking, and that sort of thing.
Mr. Reitelbach said access and circulation was another issue that was brought up at the previous
Planning Commission meeting. He said there was a TIA provided by the applicant (Attachment
I.9). He said it was accepted and reviewed by VDOT according to their criteria, and no objections
were expressed based on the original study, which was for a maximum of 375 units, and now with
the revised plan as the applicant is now requesting a maximum of 332 units, there are still no
objections expressed regarding the TIA and traffic generation. He said the applicant was
proposing to extend or construct new turn lanes as recommended in the TIA.
Mr. Reitelbach said impacts to schools were also brought up at the previous Planning Commission
meeting; with the reduction in the requested maximum unit count, there would be approximately
11 fewer students generated by this development according to the public school system's student
generation calculator. He said the school system had also provided updated enrollment and
capacity conflict numbers for the next 10 years and demonstrated a chart reflecting that, where
with the projected number of students generated by this development, both Hollymead and
Sutherland elementary and middle schools would remain slightly under capacity, whereas
Albemarle High School is already over capacity and would remain over capacity, and with this
proposed development, it would continue to remain over capacity.
Mr. Reitelbach said staffs factors favorable that were identified included that this request was
consistent with the uses and density recommended by the master plan; affordable housing is
being provided with this development at an amount that is greater than both the existing and the
proposed housing policies; the request proposes to provide additional pedestrian connections in
the area as well as several potential locations for future transit service; the plan proposes to
provide more open and recreational space than the requested zoning district requires; and the 12
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
neighborhood model principles are being either met or mostly met
Mr. Reitelbach said factors unfavorable included that 1) the proposed development would result
in additional student enrollment in area schools, including Albemarle High, which is already over
capacity, and also 2) the proposed height of five stories of the two central apartment buildings is
higher than the four stories recommended in the Places29 Master Plan; however, there is a
stepback now proposed for that fifth story of these buildings. He said it was not proposed in the
original plan that the Planning Commission had seen on March 2nd
Mr. Reitelbach said overall with these revisions that have been made to the plan and the revised
staff analysis of factors favorable and unfavorable, staff recommends approval of ZMA2O2OOOOO7
RST Residences, and staff also recommends approval of the special exception request
SE2O2OOO003, which is a request to modify the stepback requirements for buildings in the
development with the conditions that are identified in the staff report.
Mr. Clayborne asked Mr. Reitelbach if he knew if the Albemarle County schools had any
expansion or renovation or improvement plans for Albemarle High School in the next three to five
years or so.
Mr. Reitelbach replied there were none in the CIP that he was aware of at this time
Mr. Keller asked if sidewalks were considered open space.
Mr. Reitelbach replied that they were included in the open space calculations.
Mr. Keller asked if locations of trash removal and dumpsters were considered open space
Mr. Reitelbach answered no.
Mr. Keller said he saw something about compaction of trash and asked if there was a location for
recycling.
Mr. Reitelbach said it was not identified on the application plan, but the applicant may have more
information on how they propose to deal with the waste generated by this development.
Mr. Keller asked given the issues and the policy that had been generated in the County if it would
behoove them to have this as part of something that is required in the plan discussions as they
are having more of these larger developments.
Mr. Reitelbach agreed that he would think so and said there currently were not any requirements
in the zoning ordinance, however, for recycling and that sort of thing. He said there are only
requirements for dumpster pad areas.
Mr. Keller said he appreciated the fact that affordable housing units were now being added to the
work that they do, where they have a discussion of that. He asked if it was discussed how many
units of affordable housing would be lost on the site with the removal of the trailers. He said he
would argue that they need to be talking about what the net gain on a site is, so when they have
a number that the applicant puts forward for how many units there are going to be, it would be
important to note what that actual number is as an increase for the County. He asked for a
summary of the number of units that are on site now that would be removed, the total number
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
proposed, and then what the net gain would be
Mr. Reitelbach said he did not remember the exact number of units that were on site; it had already
been reduced from what was there several years prior. He said the applicant may have more
information on that, but he believed it was somewhere around 75 or 80 units, and with the
proposed number that the applicant was identifying on the application plan that would provide 192
units, it would be an overall net gain of 110-120, somewhere around that figure.
Mr. Keller said he guessed this was a discussion on a different point, but it was important for the
Planning Commission to have some way to understand through the application and through the
staff report the net gains. He said they all know that affordable units are being lost every moment
in the County, and they need to be realistic about what the net gains are.
Ms. Firehock said along the lines of an earlier question for what counts as open space, she noted
the area by the pool that she guessed would be counted as open space and what looked like a
paved plaza on one of the conceptual drawings. She asked if the paved area was also counted
as 'open space."
Mr. Reitelbach replied yes; it would depend on exactly what ended up being located in that area,
but he thought it was being proposed as open space by the applicant at this time.
Ms. Firehock said if that were the case, she hoped they would consider permeable pavers for
their plaza because there was quite a lot of pavement of what she thought was going to be more
recreational space.
Mr. Copeland deferred his time to Ms. Valerie Long, who was representing them in this case.
Ms. Long thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to provide them with an update on the
RST project and introduced the team members so they would know the resources and expertise
that could be drawn upon if needed. She said they had met Mr. Scott Copeland with RST and
also introduced Mr. Ryan Yauger with Bohler Engineering, Mr. Alex Mays with RST as well, and
Carl Hultgren with Ramey Kemp engineers, who was the traffic engineering firm and expert that
has been advising them in preparing. She said there were several representatives of LAS, the
architecture firm, including Neil King, who had been instrumental in helping with revisions to the
plans to address the comments that had been received at the last meeting.
Ms. Long said she also wanted to recognize and acknowledge the tremendous amount of
assistance they had received from Mr. Reitelbach and others in Community Development since
the last meeting including Mr. Rapp and Ms. Filardo who were very helpful to them and the
transportation planning team whose guidance and input had helped them form the revisions to
the plan, and the time and guidance they had provided over the last few weeks were appreciated.
Ms. Long said that Mr. Reitelbach had covered the updates to the plan very thoroughly so she
would hit the highlights: reduction of the total unit count; updated layout of townhouses, removing
two rows of townhouses, and revisions to the height of the apartments; most significantly, they
had clarified the issue with affordable housing and were very proud to be able to commit that 75%
of the apartment units would be affordable for a 30-year term.
Ms. Long said following meetings with the Forest Lakes homeowners association representatives,
they had increased the buffer along the rear side of the property on the eastern boundary, doubled
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
the width of the buffer from 20 feet to 40 feet, clarified that the berm along Ashwood Blvd. would
be preserved, moved the townhouses back further, added more open space where some of the
other townhouses were originally located, and worked closely with staff to address some of the
comments and feedback they had originally provided about the opportunities to improve
pedestrian orientation and had added a number of locations on the plans where transit could be
located.
Ms. Long demonstrated the original plan with a total of eight rows. She said they had received a
lot of comment from the public about proximity to Ashwood Blvd. and demonstrated the new layout
with only six rows of buildings and a new common open space area in between; the building that
is now closest to Ashwood is about 190 feet away now from the property line, and they had made
replacement with some green space and other amenity areas nearby. She demonstrated the
highlighted areas where the transit would be located and noted they reworked the pool and central
amenity area to make it much more connected to the common area space, both physically
connected as well as visually connected, and improved the pedestrian access to that central
amenity area.
Ms. Long demonstrated the buffers and the area where they had doubled the buffer from 20 to 40
feet; she noted they still have 20 feet on either side and then the 100 feet along Route 29 as
recommended by the Places29 Master Plan. She said there was an awful lot of discussion at the
last meeting from the public about the distance of the townhouse buildings from the adjacent
property line so she wanted to clarify that all six of the buildings would be 88 feet away from the
property line.
Ms. Long said with regard to the buffers, they had discussed that a little bit at the last meeting,
and there is no requirement in the zoning ordinance in the PRD zoning district for a buffer. She
said they started with 20 feet on three sides because that is what would be required if they had a
commercial use that was adjacent to the residential use. She said just by note, if this use were
light industrial, it would only have to be set back 50 feet (for building setbacks) and 100 feet if it
were heavy industrial, and their building setback is 88 feet, so it is more than what would be
required if the use were light industrial and certainly more than what is required for commercial;
the undisturbed buffer areas are only 20 and 30 feet depending on the use, and they are proposing
again the 40 feet from the residential neighborhoods entirely voluntarily.
Ms. Long presented a slide to highlight the distance of the buildings to the adjacent property lines.
She said again all of the townhouse buildings are 88 feet; the five -story buildings are 324 feet,
321 and another 392 feet from Ashwood, for example. She said as discussed, they took to heart
the Planning Commission's comments and input with regard to the amenity areas; now 32% of
the area is open space. She said in response to Ms. Firehock's question, they are calculating that
based on the definition of amenity areas and open space in the ordinance. She demonstrated
those highlighted areas, particularly the central green, the new open space and plazas and
courtyards, which are counted as amenity areas under the ordinance.
Ms. Long said one of the most significant changes they had made in response to the feedback
was to provide that the unit of townhouses closest to the adjacent Forest Lakes community would
only be a three-story unit on that end; that would allow for transition from the two-story units to
the four stories on the rest of those units. She said they had updated the sight lines to reflect that;
again, depending on the angle, the buffer is 45 feet with an additional 57 feet in between, and the
slide shows that actually the sight line goes up over that, and they would see part of that fourth
floor, but it would be at a great distance, and likewise from the townhouses on Ashland Drive, it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
is perpendicular 40 feet of buffer plus a 48-foot difference (for the 88-foot distance) of that closest
three-story townhouse building to the property line.
Ms. Long said with regard to the special exception request, they had modified their request; they
are still asking for a waiver for the fourth floors of the buildings but have provided it for the fifth
floor and think that is a real improvement and appreciate the feedback on that. Ms. Long said just
to highlight the impact that the stepback requirement if not modified as requested would have on
the top floor of the two -over -two townhouse buildings, it would completely wipe out two of the
bedrooms, one of the bathrooms, and the stairwell and laundry area, so it has a significant impact
on those units and would frankly make them unmarketable.
Ms. Long said they tried to include some comments from the staff report with regard to why they
have recommended approval of the special exception request, which they thought were all very
spot-on. She said they had some additional positions as well that were included in their
application, most importantly that the five -story buildings have been stepped back, are centrally
located, are not visible from off site with the existing vegetation, and they are more than 300 feet
away from the adjacent residential property lines. She said they do not think there is any risk of a
canyon effect; there are screenings and buffers in place. She said they contend that there would
be no impact to the public in granting the waiver of the stepback request. She said certainly it will
help further the goals of affordable housing because if the stepback is enforced, that will result in
further reductions in unit count and certainly with reductions in affordable units as well, and they
do not want to do that.
Ms. Long presented an architectural rendering of how the stepback would look; she said it was
looking directly at the two five -story buildings, and she pointed out the fourth floor and the building
stepback, that are connected by open walkways. Ms. Long said they also took updated
photographs from Route 29 and Ashwood Blvd. to demonstrate the level of tree coverage that
exists offsite, which is not on their property, with a rendering that showed the buildings behind it
where the trees were leafed out, and on the next slide, the buildings were shown behind the
vegetation. She pointed out the areas of the vegetation on site that would be removed to
accommodate the construction project. She demonstrated another vantage point from Ashwood
Blvd looking into the new site with the existing trees both on the adjacent VDOT parcel including
the trees in the Ashwood Blvd. median, and again, the buildings would be behind those trees.
She said they had shown similar images from when the trees were not leafed out during the winter
at the previous meeting.
Ms. Long presented an exhibit showing the trees that would remain and those that would need to
be removed. She pointed out Ashwood Blvd and 29 North and the offsite trees on the VDOT
parcel and also the trees that would need to be removed to create the interconnection and another
tree to facilitate a connection to the offsite sewer line and otherwise the trees that would remain
including the berm seen. She said that would very effectively screen both the new open space
that is provided as well as the townhouse units that are about 190 feet away.
Ms. Long presented a slide of the application plan and pointed out what would be binding showing
the building and parking envelopes and where the 88-foot distance was measured from each of
those building envelopes to the adjacent property line and reflects the 40-foot buffer and all the
other amenities and provisions mentioned. She showed the conceptual plan and said it was
extremely hard to see, which was why they showed the colored rendering as well.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Long said they would ask for the opportunity to respond to any comments or questions with
regard to the traffic study, the school capacity issues, really anything. She said they had worked
very, very hard to incorporate the feedback and comments that they had received from the public,
from the Commissioners, and from the County staff and were very proud of the changes. She
said they thought it was a much better plan that it was when they were before the Planning
Commission in March and acknowledged that was largely due to the feedback that the Planning
Commission had provided to them. She said she would not get into the traffic issues but to please
know they had their traffic expert there, and their study had been vetted.
Mr. Keller asked for Ms. Long to put the slide back up of the plan view that showed the closeup
of the townhouses. He asked if he was reading it correctly that on the east, the townhouses to his
left did not seem to have sidewalks that connected from them across the east facades to that
central green space, but the ones to his right appeared to. He asked if that was just an early
version of the plan or if that was actually correct.
Ms. Long said she did not think they were entirely reflected there and went to another slide.
Mr. Keller said that was the one he was referring to. He said it did not appear to be showing
sidewalks "above" those townhouses to his left.
Ms. Long noted on the picture that they were shown to the right but not to the left. She said it was
probably just an error; they have a package of the renderings, and one of them is specific to
sidewalks. She noted on that next slide they were not shown and said she did not think that was
intentional and would ask their project planner or Mr. Yauger with Bohler to jump in.
Mr. Keller said to let the experts give the answer to that, and if not, they needed to know why
Mr. Keller asked if the cemetery was considered part of the open space.
Ms. Long answered no.
Mr. Keller said as an editorial comment (and he would be interested to see how his colleagues
feel), he thought a visualization that is showing tree cover that is going to go away with the
buildings just barely showing behind was almost disingenuous. He said if they were going to do it
as a visualization the way it is going to be when built, the Commissioners need to see the shorter
tree cover that is going to be there that is not going to be lessening the impact of that visualization.
He said he had never seen Ms. Long be involved in a project where there was not a candid
assessment of what the visualization was and was disappointed to see that.
Ms. Long said she wanted to understand better what Mr. Keller's criticism was. She said they
worked hard to try to be accurate, so if they missed the mark on that, that certainly was not their
intention.
Mr. Keller asked to see the slide which showed the buildings behind.
Ms. Long pulled up the slide from 29 essentially right at the intersection.
Mr. Keller said she had told them that the tree cover that was there now was going to be removed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Long replied no. She explained those were trees that would remain because they are offsite
of the project and were not trees on the RST parcel; however (and she would ask the architects
who helped her with the renderings to jump in if she was misspeaking), her understanding was
that this reflected the trees that would be removed to construct the project (daylight behind them),
but the trees seen would remain, or at least they would not be taking them down because they
are not on the RST parcel.
Mr. Copeland clarified that the image was to show not the trees that would be removed; the slide
was simply to show what is behind the trees. He said they made the trees opaque so that the
relationship of the renders of the actual buildings and the heights could be seen. He said basically
going back a slide without the trees in the opaque form they are in, it shows that the buildings
cannot be seen. He said they wanted to provide the Commission that the buildings were indeed
behind these trees. He said those trees were offsite trees and RST has no control if they are there
or if they are not, but if one were to go out there today and the buildings were behind it, this is
what would be seen. He said that was the intent.
Mr. Keller said that was fair, but he did think that when it is presented that way, it needed to have
the clarification that this site is not controlled by the applicant and that they could be removed
tomorrow. He said the argument could then be that whatever goes there would then block the
view.
Mr. Copeland said Mr. Keller was 100% correct; they are, and it should have been stated, in the
VDOT right-of-way; while they do not anticipate that those trees would be removed, Mr. Keller
was 100% correct in that they could. He asked Ms. Long to go to the slide that shows the trees
that are on the property line that would not be removed along Ashwood. He said it was an attempt
for them to show the amount of buffer and not intended to be disingenuous and apologized if it
had come off that way. He said it was an effort to show how much natural buffer there already is
between them and the future buildings.
Mr. Keller said it was a fair answer, fair response, and he accepted it. He said just in future, he
would hope they would have those kinds of clarifications.
Mr. Copeland said understood and thanked Mr. Keller.
Ms. Long apologized that she was not clear in her explanation. She said the other reason they
wanted to show those was because there was concern by a number of representatives from the
public that all those trees seen from that intersection would go away as part of this project, and
so their effort was to show that while they obviously have no control over trees that are offsite
(and she did not intend to say that they guaranteed those trees would stay because they know
that is not the case), RST would not take those trees down.
Mr. Clayborne thanked Ms. Long for the presentation and acknowledged the design team's effort
to come this far. He said a lot of improvements had been made, and that did not go unnoticed.
He said regarding sustainability and the design piece of it, at this point, those conversations
certainly are happening between the architectural team and engineering and site teams, and he
would like to hear a little bit about what the team is thinking with a project of this magnitude, what
sorts of sustainability features they were looking at, since this would be taking up a pretty large
footprint of the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Long said they appreciated Mr. Clayborne's comments about acknowledging the changes.
She asked Mr. Copeland or others to join in in terms of the sustainability but answered Mr.
Clayborne certainly with regard to the preservation of as much of the open space as possible,
obviously keeping away from all the preserved slopes, doing everything they can to minimize, and
they actually hope at the site plan stage that they will be able to have less parking than is actually
required under County ordinance if a waiver is granted. She asked Mr. Copeland to jump in and
share some of the issues. She noted a lot of this has not been developed yet at this rezoning
stage.
Mr. Copeland said he was afraid that he was not prepared to discuss anything in great detail. He
said they have been focused on this rezoning effort and have not focused on items that may be
addressed more specifically in the site plan and obviously at the architectural review board as
they continue on with the project. He said they are very sensitive to the issue of sustainability;
they are a family -owned business and take a lot of pride in what they build and develop and
manage and look for them to be a part of their portfolio for a very long time. He said as their
strategies evolve obviously in the next round of these approvals, they will address that much more
specifically. He apologized for being unable to provide Mr. Clayborne with more that evening.
Mr. Clayborne said his next question was regarding pedestrian and vehicular circulation. He said
his concern was that on the eastern property line with those townhomes back there, he envisions
there would be a number of children living there wanting to access that pool area that is in the
center of the site, and there is a vehicular pathway that bisects those townhomes and the hub.
He noted the way people drive in parking lots, and it is not 5 miles an hour, and wondered if they
could talk about traffic calming or the thoughts the design team had as they were making that
because of his concern about children crossing the street and trying to get to the pool in that big
neighborhood.
Mr. Copeland said that was a very fair question. He said they worked hard to create a little more
connectivity from a grading standpoint between the pool (the hub) and this new green space in
and around the townhouses. He said the area between the townhouses is designed to be elevated
(sort of like a tabletop) to help bring that side of the elevation up while at the same time they were
able to bring the elevation of the pool down a little bit (there was a large grade differential, maybe
8 feet, previously, and he thinks it is down to under 3). He said to Mr. Clayborne's point, a great
opportunity for them is to continue with that tabletop feature as a large crosswalk or speedbump,
if you will, that is elevated (obviously that is still safe to drive on) in the drive aisle so that it is a
calming from a speed standpoint and provides the safe area to cross the street. He said they will
be working with the architectural review board with site lighting and things that are allowable to
keep it as identifiable as humanly possible but yet again another detail that is yet to come.
Mr. Randolph said he had several commendations and then a series of questions. He said on the
positive end, he wanted to commend the developers on some improvements including adding
1,537 square feet to the tot lot along the property line with the Commonwealth of Virginia's
property, which is located at the northwestern part of the property; eliminating two rows of
townhomes and dedicating 1,700 new square feet as a recreational area; lowering the height from
four stories to three stories for the southeast -most townhome units in each of the six rows and
proposing five -story setbacks on the two five -story apartment buildings. He said he thought those
were forward steps and commended them for the 40-foot buffer now along the northwest property
line with Ashland and the reconfigured plaza area on the southwest sides of the roundabout that
now presents more of a central feel and character to this high -density development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Randolph asked why the stormwater management acreage was shown along the southeast
side with Ashland on the March 2, 2021, Bohler concept plan sheet #4 and was not shown on the
new Bohler plan before the Planning Commission that night. He said there was no mention of a
stormwater management facility which runs along that southeast side with Ashland.
Mr. Randolph said sheet #4 also of the 06/15/21 Bohler concept plan shows an 11,100 square
foot recreation area along the same southeast border with Ashland. He asked (given that the
03/02/21 Bohler concept plan sheet #4 indicates that stormwater management capabilities are to
be located in the same area) whether the 11,100 square foot recreation area was now identified
in any way as part of the stormwater management area.
Mr. Randolph said he wanted to make note about garages. He said it was cited that they were
going to be using garage space as one place for a car to be parked, and the other place would
be out on the asphalt or concrete pad in front of the townhomes, but in his experience in having
traveled through many different developments, garages are rarely used anymore to house cars
and instead are often used to house "stuff," and cars are parked therefore on the outside and not
on the inside in the garage. He said he was determining that probably 50% of the garage spaces
would not be holding cars but were going to have stuff in them. He asked where the residents
would park their cars with no garage for units. He said the applicants were confidently suggesting
that they were going to have more than enough parking spaces available but were making some
serious assumptions about human behavior that there would be cars in all these garages, and he
would question that.
Mr. Randolph said he had a question about the right turn lane off 29 North into RST. He said that
was a positive development, but it was not identified who would pay for this. He asked if RST
would be paying for this and said he did not see a proffer there indicating that money was being
set aside to cover the costs of the development of that right turn lane.
Mr. Randolph said he wanted to focus in on one major issue that he had brought up before that
he still feels is a serious vulnerability on this project. He said the applicants were looking to
establish a range of affordability which is between 30% and 60%, and he lauded that objective;
however, 30% AMI in Albemarle County currently with the median household income in 2021
being stated as $93,700 is $28,110. He said he would like to know how they expect people at
30% AMI to be able to afford an annual HOA fee which is going to pay for a swimming pool and
is also going to set money aside in a reserve account for maintenance of the roads and the parking
spaces with the extensive amount of asphalt that is going in. He asked how these people at that
level of income would be able to afford those HOA fees.
Mr. Randolph said he noted with interest a project they had worked on in Gaithersburg, Maryland,
the Y-Site on North Summit Avenue, where it was very clear that Mr. Copeland had stated publicly
that he saw this project as high -end affordable housing. Mr. Randolph noted the applicant was
indicating for this site that he would be providing 30% AMI, which he said he did not look at
realistically as high -end affordable housing but being at the lower end of the range, and he
appreciated that and thought it laudable to provide 30% AMI housing; however, he asked how
those people at 30% could afford the HOA fees for the amenities on this site, especially when
they were proposing that they not provide basketball courts and tot lots, which really have a very
low annual maintenance fee, and instead substitute for them what he looks at as being high -end
amenities like swimming pools, which he does not see how these people are going to be able to
afford at 30% and 50% AM I.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Copeland responded to the last question by telling Mr. Randolph he hoped he understood
one thing, and he wanted to make it very clear: The affordable units are in the rental portion of
this project. He said they are not proposing that those units are for sale; there will be no HOA
fees, zero. He said they will as a management company be responsible to maintain those
amenities and have done this successfully in several projects, and when he references a high -
end or a first-class affordable project, or market -rate project for that matter, it has nothing to do
with the tenancy; it has everything to do with the asset and the quality of amenities that is
deserving of every segment of the community. He said he trusts that when an individual or
household qualifies to live in that community because they qualify under the HUD guidelines
regarding AMI, they will be a productive member in their project and will be able to enjoy that
amenity space. He asked Mr. Randolph if that answered his question.
Mr. Randolph said not really because if, in fact, the housing wage for the community is $24.35 an
hour, which comes to $50,640 annually, and therefore at 30% AMI, somebody is looking at an
annual income of $28,110, he still is raising the question of affordability; dancing around the issue
of whether they are rental or owning, they still have a monthly cost.
Mr. Copeland explained that Mr. Randolph was missing the point on the rental; for the affordable
housing units in the 30% to 80% range (which averages at 60%), the rent is adjusted for 30%
households. He said if one qualified for a 30% unit because that is his income level, he would be
paying the equivalency of a 30% rent and not paying the same rent that somebody in a 60%
household or an 80% household or a market rate rent would be paying. He said he trusted that
there are plenty of families in Albemarle County that would qualify to live in that unit that currently
do not have that opportunity to live in such a property (to have a pool as an amenity and to have
all this open space as an amenity), so he thinks that this project should be applauded for serving
every segment of this community regardless of their income level. He said they are providing an
atmosphere and a place to serve people that are in the lower scale of wages all the way up to
market rate units, and they are proud of that.
Mr. Randolph asked what Mr. Copeland's anticipated annual HOA fee was for this facility then.
Mr. Copeland said there were no HOA fees.
Mr. Randolph asked how money gets set aside on an annual basis for maintenance of the property
and who would pay for the swimming pool and for repaving the parking lots and for the road.
Mr. Copeland said he does as the landlord. He asked Mr. Randolph in any other rental community
who pays for that.
Mr. Randolph said it is all covered as the property management fee.
Mr. Copeland said the property pays for it; if the pool needs to be repaired, the property pays to
have the pool repaired, and if the roads need to be repaved or the park equipment needs to be
replaced or a roof needs to be replaced or a sink needs to be replaced, just like in any other rental
community, the landlord is responsible to do that.
Ms. Long said there are no additional fees for any maintenance or anything like that; it is included
in the rent rate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Copeland said of course there are no additional fees; it is like any other rental project in any
community throughout the country and is no different. He said he had done it with thousands of
units in the state of Virginia and elsewhere.
Ms. Long said with regard to Mr. Randolph's first question about the stormwater management
and the size and location of that facility, when they had to rearrange the plans a little bit in between
the two Planning Commission meetings, the removal of the two rows of townhouse units and the
addition of the open space in the middle and the widening of the buffer and other things like that
did require their engineer to take a fresh look at conceptual locations for stormwater management.
She said on the most current set of the plans with the June date, there is a hard -to -see area (she
recognized there was a lot going on, but in the very first rectangular block shown is a grey
rectangle with an orange outline), and that is the proposed stormwater management area, and
the new conceptual locations are shown in essentially the top left corner of the townhouses (the
orange and grey shown in a rectangle).
Ms. Long said there is a smaller narrower strip right next to the buffer, and then there is also some
stormwater area shown to the far right of the page near the newer dog park and tot lot that are
shown adjacent to Ashwood, that area also again underneath some parking. She said it was just
a conceptual location; the stormwater management plan has not been fully designed at this point
and is not required to be, but the zoning ordinance does require for a PRD zoning district to show
on the application plan a conceptual stormwater management plan so that staff can be reasonably
assured that once the official design is underway as part of the site plan application that it is, in
fact, possible to comply with the stormwater ordinance regulations with a plan of this sort and this
many units. She said it had been relocated a little bit but is still there.
Ms. Long answered with regard to garages (and she certainly does not dispute that there are a
lot of individuals and families who live in homes with garages where they park their cars either in
the driveway or on the street, and certainly not everyone does but certainly some do), that is not
something they can control but are very confident based on the years of experience that RST and
its team have with developing apartment complexes and multifamily and townhouse communities
that there is sufficient parking to accommodate those needs. She said not every one of them will
have more than one car, but certainly some of them will, and there are extensive areas of parking;
in addition to the garages, there are parking lots and parallel parking spaces, and most
importantly, it complies with the County's zoning ordinance regulations for parking for these types
of units.
Ms. Long said with regard to the question Mr. Randolph had about who pays for the right turn
lane from Route 29 that goes into the project at the main entrance on 29, there is a note on the
application plan (sheet 3), and it is shown on that plan a proposed right turn lane extension (at
the very bottom of the page pointing to that turn lane) that is on the application plan, and that plan
is a proffered plan under the PRD zoning ordinance, so if the Board of Supervisors approves the
rezoning application, they would be approving this application plan, and it is a proffered plan and
thus a proffered obligation.
Ms. Long said they had already talked about the affordable housing and believed that was all of
Mr. Randolph's questions but asked him to let her know if she could help with anything.
Mr. Randolph said he had not caught that about the turn lane, so he appreciated that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Firehock said she only had one question, and that was about the buffer. She said she was
glad they had expanded the width and asked what would be allowed to go on in the buffer,
specifically, for example, if there would be a trail within the buffer (and when she says trail, she is
referring to maybe something that is more of an A.T. standard rustic -type trail) to make that buffer
not just a buffer but also part of usable open space. She said she was also concerned with
whether any stormwater management facilities would be located in the buffer, so she wanted
some assurance that the buffer would be precisely that and was curious as to whether it would
also allow for some recreational use by the residents so that it can serve as usable open space.
Ms. Long said there was a detailed note that addresses Ms. Firehock's question on the cover
sheet of the plans. She said it does expressly state that there are certain uses that are allowed in
the buffer; the main purpose of the buffer, of course, is to serve as a buffer, particularly along that
area where the adjacent community has made it very clear that they want that to be as robust of
a buffer as possible. She said that was one of the main reasons for expanding it. She said there
are notes on the cover sheet that say that certain things are permitted including pedestrian
multiuse paths and stormwater management facilities. She said they knew there would need to
be some limited disturbance of those areas to extend some of the utilities, and certainly they
would be looking to minimize that as much as possible.
Ms. Long said there is also a note in that same section that along that southeastern border, the
developer will supplement that buffer with additional planting in areas where it does not provide
screening right now; some of the existing vegetation there is not as robust or is more sparse in
some areas than in others, and so in response to a request from the adjacent owners, they added
that note and commitment to the plan that says that the developer would supplement the buffer
with additional plans to put up a fence, but screening was the main thing they heard about from
that adjacent community, so they want to honor that commitment. She said it was not intended
that that would be for active open space; they have all the other amenity areas and open space
that is more geared for that use.
Ms. Firehock said she had read that and was concerned about stormwater management facilities
because, by definition, that could be a very large stormwater pond that could basically obliterate
the buffer. She said she would like to know with some assurance that there would be a vegetated
maintained buffer and that it would not simply be removed to accommodate as -yet -unplanned
stormwater ponds or other large-scale items that would disturb its function.
Ms. Long said they showed the stormwater management facilities in the conceptual plan to
demonstrate that there are other areas where the stormwater management facilities can be
located. She said she would call on Mr. Ryan Yauger from Bohler Engineering to weigh in on this,
but she thought it was more knowing that there may be some utilities or pipes or any elements of
a stormwater facility that might need to disturb limited areas of the buffer.
Mr. Yauger said the intention behind that note was not to allow for large ponds as Ms. Firehock
mentioned but also to be outfall associated with the stormwater management facilities. He said
looking at a site this large with this type of development, a lot of times they do go underground
with the stormwater management detention to utilize the space in multiple different ways, so it is
not the intention to go with a large-scale stormwater management facility within the buffer.
Ms. Long added the buffer is shown on the application plan, which again is binding on the project,
and so certainly to the extent that a site plan application were to be submitted that showed what
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Firehock was concerned about (a large stormwater facility in the buffer) that really was not in
accord with the application plan, she feels fairly confident that the planning department would not
approve that change and would likely find it to be not in general accord with the application plan,
and they would challenge Mr. Yauger and his colleagues to figure out a way to fit the stormwater
in, in locations that do not so severely impact the buffer.
Ms. Firehock said she would take that for now but noted that even if it were extensive underground
storage, that would disturb tree roots. She said she knew they might have to sheet flow something
and knew they might have to have a pipe that goes through to convey water from point A to point
B, and of course, the Commission will work with staff on this to ensure that the buffer adheres.
Ms. More said she appreciated the clarifications that the applicant had given. She said because
of some of the emails they had gotten, she wanted to point out for the listeners as they head into
public comment that when Mr. Reitelbach in his staff report was saying affordable housing was
more than what is recommended, she does not know how it is that someone would feel that is a
bad thing or that the County should not accept more, so she hoped that was just a
misunderstanding, maybe in how it is worded, because that is a good thing. She said she wanted
to make that point and had a theory about why that could not actually be a misunderstanding, but
she hoped that it was and thought it was what the County would hope for, and when they see this
opportunity for more of that, that is really amazing and a good thing.
Mr. Keller said he was a bit harsh with his first set, but he was actually very positively inclined
towards this but thought it was their role to ask tough questions to make these projects better if
they can. He said he would like to hear a dialogue between Mr. Copeland and County council
about how to memorialize this idea of the average 60% AMI over 30 years based on Mr.
Copeland's experience and how they had done it in other communities and some issues that the
County has had where things seem to fall through the wayside through time. He said they often
see commitments that are made (not necessarily on affordable housing but other issues) and then
newer staff comes back a decade later and cannot find the answers to these kinds of questions,
and maybe this is something they need their housing staff member in on as well. He said he would
like to hear Mr. Copeland's take and then Mr. Herrick's response to that.
Mr. Copeland said he could go on for much longer than they would want him to about affordable
housing. He said the bottom line is that this project with the way that it will be financed will be
subject to a use agreement that will be between himself as the developer and the authority that
provides the bonds, the low-income housing tax credits, to finance the project. He said that will
be a recorded instrument beyond the County. He said they are subject to an audit on an
annualized basis to make sure that they are indeed in compliance with the affordable
requirements that the financing requires, and typically the tax credits are exchanged for equity in
the project with large institutions, and so there is a huge financial recourse to him if he does not
rent these units to people that are qualified through these ranges (the 30% to 80% income levels).
He said there are a lot of checks and balances along the way that candidly take the County quite
out of it; it is sort of beyond the County, so if a new housing director or someone comes along in
10 years, it is kind of immaterial because this document is recorded, and it runs with the land as
far as those restrictions are concerned.
Mr. Keller said he would like to hear Mr. Herrick's response.
Mr. Herrick said from the County enforceability perspective, as Ms. Long indicated, the plat notes
on this or the application notes on this are binding in that this is a PRD zoning, and in fact, there
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
is a note on this application plan that commits this owner to providing the affordable housing that
they have indicated. He said the mechanism by which the County would enforce that is via the
plat note that becomes approved as part of the plan.
Mr. Bailey said he appreciated listening and was very positive toward the change in the plans for
the townhomes in the back and the connection of the hub; the hub is a really nice thing for the
community to create that sense of place and community. He said he lives in Belvedere, and they
have something similar like that, and it is a good place where they gather and people play, and
that is a very positive improvement over the original plan.
Mr. Bailey noted as a lot of colleagues brought up that the applicant does not own the land that is
providing a majority of the screening; it is VDOT land on the southwest side of the property. He
said he could not tell, but in the conceptual drawing, it looked like there might be some trees on
their land popping up past that and asked if that land were to be forested and sold off or something
what type of screening plan was actually included in this on their side of the property along that
southwest corner and 29 and Ashwood.
Ms. Long shared her buffers and setback screen and said one way they are working to address
this is with the buffers that are provided, most significantly the 100-foot buffer that is along the
property frontage of Route 29. She said that was the area that was owned by VDOT; VDOT has
advertised this land for sale, so a new owner could come along and pursue development of that,
and certainly if they pursue a rezoning or frankly probably a special use permit, she suspects that
there would be an expectation for the 100-foot buffer to be maintained on that parcel as well as
recommended by the Places29 Master Plan. She said certainly they could come in and do a by -
right plan, and that would not be required; she did not know.
Ms. Long said what they have tried to do is certainly at a minimum show buffers on all sides, the
large one and 20 feet on either side; they have a fair amount of open space, and there are some
trees that are not in programmed space. She said they obviously will have landscaping along the
perimeter of the parking lot as required by the zoning ordinance, and the preservation of the
cemetery area will also have some benefits there; that area will be fenced off to protect it, so there
may be a little bit of disturbance needed to erect a fence, but otherwise that area gets left alone,
and that will help contribute to some screening as well. She pointed out an area where a large
portion of it is a preserved steep slope, so they would not be permitted to disturb that area.
Mr. Keller said he was primarily asking about the southwest side and along the property line with
the VDOT heading north. He clarified that it is intended that the trees remain on their side of the
property because that parking lot comes right up to the property line very closely. He said he saw
some light green trees that he assumed to be new plantings and then some existing trees and
asked if the intent was to maintain as much vegetated screening as possible that is existing.
Mr. Copeland said exactly right.
Ms. Long answered yes.
Mr. Clayborne said he was curious if they would consider making the circulation path continuous
that runs behind the building and is not continuous and is interrupted by that park and then
stretching the park so that it is green space that runs into the pool as opposed to the asphalt that
is going through there. He said this was to address his comment that he had mentioned earlier
about the circulation with pedestrians and vehicles.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Copeland said it was a very interesting comment; he knew that some of that area that would
be that connection is stormwater, and he is nervous about the relationship to the buffer, and he
said he could not make a commitment to that right now but could assure Mr. Clayborne that they
would look into that.
Mr. Bivins said they had spent a lot of time talking about the ZMA, and he would like to spend
some time about the special exception but before doing that had some questions. He asked who
would maintain the cemetery.
Mr. Copeland said they would maintain access to the cemetery and the landscaping in and around
the perimeter.
Mr. Bivins said there was a question by Mr. Keller about perhaps being able to pull the northeast
sidewalk across around the back so there would be some connectivity there. He said if they were
looking at sidewalks, he would ask them to give some consideration to perhaps taking a few
parking spaces from the tot lot and putting some green space there and then creating a walkway
to get from the tot lot to the cemetery so that people could communicate there. He asked they not
put a dumpster at a cemetery plot.
Mr. Copeland replied heard and understood
Mr. Bivins asked for the slide of the two five -story buildings. He commented that the new pool in
London where one could swim between two buildings was evocative, but he was sure there would
not be swimming between these buildings. He asked why this was something the Planning
Commission should support, what the functionality of the four different levels of crossover was
and what they were achieving there. He said while they had talked a good deal about the ZMA,
he did not believe they had necessarily wrestled a good bit with the special exception.
Ms. Long said a lot of it had to do with frankly recapturing some of the living space with the removal
of two entire rows of the townhouse buildings (that alone was a 40-unit reduction) and then they
removed it further by making a few other adjustments, and so there was a need to recapture some
living space. She said the three apartment buildings that were originally three stories and would
not have required any setback relief were now four stories, and so they would like relief from that
requirement so that they can actually take advantage of that living space and not lose it on those
buildings.
Ms. Long said with the five stories, it was frankly good suggestions from senior County Community
Development staff to help them look for ways to transition, and the stepback at the fifth floor would
help address the need and the purpose of that stepback waiver without creating an adverse
impact, that plus the change with regard to the end unit of all the townhouses making that a three-
story unit, that the stepback is essentially created where it actually can provide some benefit, in
this case to the adjacent neighbors (whereas the thought was it was not really needed as much,
certainly from their perspective, from the other vantage points because there just is not a canyon
effect). Ms. Long said she had a number of other slides she could show with some bullet points
for why if Mr. Bivins wanted her to go through that.
Mr. Bivins asked for clarification if the four buildings which are the multifamily buildings would be
rental and whether the properties along the northeastern boundary, the townhouses, would be.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Long asked Mr. Bivins if the question was whether the townhouses would be for sale or for
rent.
Mr. Bivins said correct.
Ms. Long said she did not know that had been decided yet but would let Mr. Copeland answer
Mr. Copeland said it had not been decided; it was to be determined.
Mr. Bivins said he was trying to understand what the property was, whether X amount of rental
and Y amount of ownership, and that would go to some of the questions Mr. Randolph was trying
to get into about the HOA.
Mr. Copeland said yes but to Mr. Randolph's question and comment, though, even if they were
for sale, the affordable nature does not accrue to those townhouses; that is why they were specific
to the multifamily, so the question regarding an HOA on the affordable units would not apply
regardless.
Mr. Bivins opened to public comments. Mr. Bivins reminded the community that they were talking
about the new pieces which were presented and reviewed in the resubmission. He said they had
received plenty of information and plenty of comment on the older piece and asked they confine
observations to the new piece.
Ms. Jennifer Brannock (1824 Amberfield Drive) said her HOA would be there that day to speak,
but she is not a part of their group and wanted to make it clear that they would not be speaking
for her. She said she was there to ask the Planning Commission to approve the RST residences
because she strongly believes that the people who work in this County should have homes in this
County. She said according to the County's housing website, 59% of people who work in
Albemarle County cannot afford to even rent an apartment there. She said these are the people
who work in the retail stores and restaurants, deliver packages, teach the children, and keep
homes safe. She said the foundation of the community lies in their labor, and these families
deserve the same access to the things that she and her neighbors already have like their parks,
shorter commutes, and proximity to good hospitals, and their children should be able to attend
the excellent schools.
Ms. Brannock said she was there to advocate for the 332 families that will one day live in these
high -density homes; it is time to put the needs of these workers and their families ahead of the
comforts of those who already live there. She said to the members of the Planning Commission
that she knew it may be difficult to approve these plans, and she was sure they were going to
hear much opposition, but as they are aware, the County is really committed to addressing the
housing crisis in the County. Ms. Brannock asked they approve this housing over the complaints
of her neighbors because it is the right thing to do and because it will give these historically
economically disenfranchised people a voice in the community.
Ms. Brannock said she would ask her neighbors to accept a few inconveniences in their lives and
maybe or maybe not a change in their commute and a big building adjacent to their neighborhood
because there is an opportunity here to lift up those who have less, to make progress on tackling
the affordable housing issue plaguing the community, and to welcome these new neighbors with
open arms into their community. She said she would challenge her neighbors to petition the school
board to build new schools and address overcrowding with the same vigor as they are going to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
use that day. She said they could use their power for good and create a community where all are
truly welcome and to create a community where everyone who works in Albemarle County can
have a home in Albemarle County.
Mr. Bill McLaughlin (1800 Easy Lane in Hollymead) said he was the chair of the Places29-North
Citizens Advisory Committee, and the committee did propose a list of comments and questions
about this development that they had forwarded on to Mr. Clayborne, and they wished that he
would forward that on to the rest of the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. McLaughlin
said a lot of things had already been covered; one of the things that disturbs him a little bit is
referring to 78 townhouses. He said actually there are six townhouses in this community and 72
four-story apartment buildings. He said any definition of a townhouse would be something that
shares its walls with its neighbor. He said these two -over -two "townhouses" also share a floor or
a ceiling, so he does not know why the planning staff and the County seem to be accepting a
definition of townhouse for something that is not actually a townhouse.
Mr. McLaughlin said the other thing that had just come up that evening that was a little disturbing
is that they are not making a commitment to actually sell these four-story apartment buildings as
condominiums so they could also be rental units, so in that case, this entire development would
be fundamentally a rental complex. He said even if they did attempt to sell them as condos, the
condominiums in his area (Hollymead Square Townhomes) are almost 80% rental units, and most
of the owners there are not residents in Hollymead Square, so he is afraid that all these
condominium apartments or most of them would actually be investment units as opposed to being
occupied by homeowners.
Mr. Richard DiMeglio said he lived with his family at 2674 English Oaks Circle in Forest Lakes
South, and they have lived in Forest Lakes for about a dozen years. He said he along with a few
others who would follow him represent the majority, he thinks, of the Forest Lakes and Hollymead
communities which comprise about 2,000 in housing and about 6,000 in residents which are
adjacent to the RST development. He said while the majority of the discussion that evening was
really focused on proposed development, they were going to discuss some of the impact on them.
He said he would begin with their bottom -line upfront recommendation with regard to the amended
proposal; they request the Albemarle County Planning Commission deny outright or at a minimum
continue to accept a deferral by the developer to address the many continuing issues involved
with this proposal. He said he would provide a bit of an overview and would be followed by some
other residents that were going to discuss some issues in greater detail.
Mr. DiMeglio said as a quick overview, the revised proposal is still too dense with too many tall
buildings in too small a space and grossly out of scale with the surrounding community, and it is
a density issue overall. He said the density issue is what they fear will create significant traffic and
safety problems, not just for the residents of Forest Lakes but also for this new development, as
well as a slew of other concerns. He said that despite the recommendation by this Commission
for the developer to engage the community, they received no emails or phone calls from RST or
its agents following the March meeting, and therefore they established this committee of residents
and reached out to RST in May to start a conversation, they hope, that could lead toward a
development design that would be supportable by the majority of residents of Forest Lake and
Hollymead. He said unfortunately that has not occurred.
Mr. DiMeglio said it was important to note they are not opposed to general development in the
area and applaud RST as many have done for its commitment to meeting and even surpassing
affordable housing goals, but they feel strongly and think it is important that this development and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
this process need not be an either/or situation. He said they have taken this issue very seriously
and examined the proposal and believe with some more refinement the development can be a
profitable venture for RST, can increase needed and truly livable housing in Albemarle County,
comply with the Places29 Master Plan, and blend into the existing local community with minimal
impact. He said indeed they feel if done correctly, this can be a model for future development
adjoining existing communities on the Route 29 corridor, and overall, they will note that they find
in part that the revised proposal is better than what was first presented and thanked them.
Mr. DiMeglio said the aesthetic improvements along Ashwood Blvd. and the larger buffer are a
welcome change, although they recommend some tightening of the language and more binding
commitments. He said they find in part, however, that the revised proposal is worse than what
was presented, especially with regard to the height of the buildings, but they also find in majority
the revised proposal is relatively unchanged and still fails to address many other areas that have
been extensively pointed out in prior presentations and discussions.
Ms. Jane Keathley (2657 Coralberry Place in Forest Lakes) said she had been a resident there
for about 25 years and is a current member of the Forest Lakes board of directors. She said she
would begin by acknowledging and thanking RST for the several positive changes in this revised
proposal; they have stated a commitment to improving the sight lines along Ashwood Blvd.,
removed some of the townhomes and increased the tree buffer between the townhomes and the
adjacent Ashland community, and expanded the green space amenities. She said these are all
steps in the right direction and are very much appreciated.
Ms. Keathley said some areas were made worse in the revised proposal; the planned buildings
will tower over the Ashland community, even with the stepbacks, with the townhomes at 55 feet,
well over the 45-foot maximum level, and apartment buildings at four and five stories and up to
65 feet. She said waivers would be required for these heights as well as other aspects of the
proposal such as the stepbacks. She asked the Planning Commission to not provide these
waivers and special exceptions.
Ms. Keathley said the revised proposal lacks binding commitments; many items are mentioned
with caveats and language that could be reinterpreted in the actual development. She said terms
such as "envisioned" and "not to scale" are frequently used, raising concerns about the actual
intention to realize these plans.
Ms. Keathley said density as has been stated is another concern; the proposal continues to be at
a density exceeding other local developments and would result in about 1,400 total housing units
between RST, Forest Lakes, and parts of Hollymead and Brookhill plus school -related traffic from
outside these neighborhoods all using the Ashwood Blvd. entrance. She said it is unrealistic to
think that these will have no effect on traffic. She said the proposed density could be further
reduced and still meet the County guidelines on density while alleviating many of the concerns
about traffic, schools, stormwater management, amenities, etc.
Ms. Keathley said indeed, this development provides an opportunity for the County to create a
precedent for future developments; alternate neighborhood models that utilize smaller scale
buildings are available that would effectively address the County's objectives on density,
affordable housing, aesthetics, and community livability both for future and existing residents. She
said these models deserve further exploration before a decision is made on this proposal. Ms.
Keathley said in summary, they respectfully request the Planning Commission to deny this revised
proposal and continue to work with RST to reduce the density and to build a neighborhood on a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
scale and design that is harmonious with the surrounding communities
Mr. George Pearsall (1486 Ashland Drive) said he represents the Ashland neighborhood, which
is most directly affected by the RST proposal. He said the homeowners of Ashland are concerned
not only with the height and density of the proposed buildings but also with the negative impacts
other aspects of the project would have on their neighborhood. He said they believe the heights
of the buildings are way out of scale compared to the Ashland neighborhood and Forest Lakes in
general. He said the distance from existing homes, although somewhat improved from the prior
proposal, is going to create an ominous effect on their community. He said many trees that provide
a barrier between the properties will be removed contributing to unsightly views; the developer's
proposal that the townhomes closest to the property line will only be three rather than four stories
would generate little if any improvement in aesthetics. He said residents are still going to be
presented with this monolith each and every day.
Mr. Pearsall said the residents are very concerned about the degree of light pollution that will be
caused by a project of this magnitude; they currently have a very pleasing community and would
be extremely saddened to have a light source akin to a shopping mall less than 100 feet away.
He said noise was another issue the residents were concerned about; adding 332 residences in
such close proximity is certainly going to contribute to noise levels experienced by the residents.
He said during the months that trees are in full leaf, noise would be somewhat abated; however,
for six months each year, there will be virtually no barrier to noise or to the light levels the project
would generate.
Mr. Pearsall said they also have concerns about the effects that clearcutting close to the property
line would have on trees in their neighborhood; tree roots do not honor property lines, and
therefore excavation by the developer would probably harm mature trees belonging to their
association. He noted they had said that they would provide plantings, but certainly a small tree
is no replacement for a large mature tree.
Mr. Pearsall said the Places29 Master Plan designates this and other properties as urban density
residential; however, those zoning changes have not yet been approved, and the plan is not a
signal for a developer to saturate a property. He said a comprehensive plan needs to consider
established communities and not approve development out of scale with the surroundings. He
said others have and will address other aspects of this proposal as there are many negatives to
this project. He said the Ashland Townhomes board of directors urges the Planning Commission
to deny this proposal and require a redesign of the project.
Ms. Paula Grazzini (1872 Kernwood Place in Forest Lakes South) said besides the details brought
up that evening, there are several higher -level issues here calling for actions and
recommendations from the Planning Commission; specifically, the first one is that the Places29
Master Plan density criteria of 6 to 34 units/acre merits a fresh review in light of how massive that
upper range is and consideration of the size of all the developments already approved for this
growth area. She said the density issue is relevant all over the County, Crozet being just another
current example, especially for affordable housing concerns; therefore, it is premature to approve
the RST proposal now.
Ms. Grazzini said secondly, the proposed concentration of affordable housing for this particular
parcel of 75% of all units is unprecedented and is contrary to the Places29 Master Plan which
envisioned affordable housing being spread among the developments in the growth area. She
said the jump from 15% to 75% affordable units was just offered by RST at the March Planning
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Commission meeting and has not had adequate time to be fully considered alongside the input of
other community groups interested in a regional collaborative approach such as the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, UVA's newly formed task force, and other groups. She said
more discussion and exchange of ideas needs to happen before making any decision on this
particular application.
Ms. Grazzini said thirdly, there is a definite need for VDOT to review and resolve the differing
traffic studies (RST's and Forest Lakes') so everyone could get on the same page. She said this
is a legitimate concern and one that they feel will have long-term impact in a designated growth
area, so they really need to get it right. She said this should be resolved before the RST proposal
moves forward. Ms. Grazzini said to provide the Planning Commission enough time to fully
explore these key issues and develop their recommendations, they recommend respectfully that
the current proposal be denied at this time.
Ms. Nancy Trudel (2666 English Oaks Circle in the Forest Lakes neighborhood) said she would
like to start by referencing sincerely that she is a proponent and supporter of affordable housing
and all the good that it represents; however, because of the scope of the pending application and
the growth density proposed, she would like to ask the Commission to please revisit their
requirements when considering an application such as this that is pending as set forth in Virginia
code at section 15.2-2283. She said there are requirements in that code section that are clearly
violated and in noncompliance by the proposed development; those include convenience of
access, reduction or prevention of congestion in the public streets, protection against the
overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing
or available, and danger and congestion in travel and transportation.
Ms. Trudel said at the last hearing, the applicant deferred his application and then slightly revised
it by a reduction in overall units of approximately 10% to the 332 presented, but then it actually
increased the proposed heights of the facility so that the development would still be grossly dense,
overbuilt, and fail to provide a reasonable place to live not only for the surrounding area but the
residents who would reside within the property.
Ms. Trudel said the RST traffic study even as amended in October 2020 fails to reference
numerous assumptions, the first being the true number of RST residents who would use the roads,
the second being the residents' daily use, the type of use and the timing. She said it also fails to
consider the existing roads as a possible means for ingress and egress including Ridgewood
Drive, Ridgewood Circle, McCauley Court, and as possible access through South Hollymead
Drive. She said finally, the study fails to consider the northbound rush hour and congested traffic
which crests the hill prior to the turning lane onto Ashwood and in doing so would overburden that
stretch of road so that it became a backup and dangerous stretch amongst Route 29. Ms. Trudel
said she appreciated the opportunity to present and respectfully requested that this Commission
deny the revised application.
Mr. Scott Elliff (1885 Kernwood Place in Forest Lakes South) said being one of the organizers of
their response to this development, it has been challenging to get everybody engaged, but there
is certainly a groundswell of issues on this; it is overwhelming, frankly. He said there was a petition
initially with over 500 signatures, lots of pointed comments, extensive testimony before, and levels
of analysis and documentation that he is sure that the Planning Commission seldom sees, and
now they have a detailed point -by -point analysis that is focused on the revised and amended
proposal and are still getting comments as well.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 22
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Elliff said the bottom line is the latest revisions are a start, as everybody said, but they just do
not go far enough; there are so many open questions that need resolution. He said it was the
Planning Commission's responsibility to deny this as it is currently written, and the previous
speaker, in fact, even gave a legal basis for what they need to consider that still has issues.
Mr. Elliff said this would affect a lot of people in a lot of ways so is serious business, and the
Commission is to be commended for wrestling with it all; it is a very big challenge. He said once
the trees are cut down, they cannot be put back up; once the buildings are built and the cars are
in the parking lots and on the roads, whatever traffic backups emerge cannot be undone. He
asked once there is a tall cluster of buildings that dominates the view what can be done
afterwards. He asked if the development does end up being what was previously called a
warehousing of people just staging to go to and from work down 29 how that would ever be
remedied later.
Mr. Ellif said it was not about affordable housing, but in fact people that are general everyday
working people were going to be using their cars to drive up and down all the time, and it is just
shocking to imagine that there could not be a significant impact on the traffic flows with 600 or
700 cars from RST and hundreds of cars coming up from the northern section of Brookhill all to
use the Ashwood traffic light. He said they showed before it was a 400-foot backup according to
using just some different assumptions and the same underlying VDOT model, so this needs to
get resolved. He said it would be a permanent long-term problem for the whole area otherwise.
Mr. Ellif told the Planning Commission they had an important role as a gatekeeper to ensure that
proposals are well thought through and appropriate for the County and communities before they
go on to the next steps, and the Commissioners have been doing that in lots of other situations,
and they need and ask them to do the same thing here.
Mr. Bivins closed the public comments and thanked the public for their very thoughtful comments.
Ms. Long said if there were any issues that remained unresolved or that she had not adequately
addressed, she would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions about anything the
members of the Commission thought was still outstanding.
Ms. Long said she would start with perhaps a controversial statement, but the comments that
were made that are critical of this being a for -rent community, perhaps an entirely for -rent
community, are incredibly unfortunate. She said as the first speaker, Ms. Brannock, stated so
eloquently, Albemarle County supports housing for all people at all income levels, whether they
are homeowners or renters or anything else, and this community is intended to provide a high-
level quality living community and neighborhood for anyone who wants to live there, and they are
proud of that for all the reasons that Mr. Copeland had stated earlier.
Ms. Long said the lighting concerns will be more than adequately addressed with the County's
lighting ordinance; in addition, the Architectural Review Board covers that issue as well. She said
regarding noise complaints, the buildings are going to be 88 feet away from the adjacent property
line, and she did not believe there was any basis for noise complaints; regardless, there is a noise
ordinance in effect in the County.
Ms. Long said there was a comment that expressed that there would be tree clearcutting adjacent
to the property line; the application plan, which is a proffered plan, shows a 40-foot buffer, and
there will be no clearcutting of the buffer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 23
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Long said regarding VDOT's need to "resolve the traffic studies," she would welcome any
questions to their expert qualified and credentialed traffic engineer who joins them on this call; he
can handle any question or concern that may be there, but she would reiterate again that VDOT
has already resolved this issue. She said they have thoroughly inspected and reviewed the traffic
study and raised a number of questions and comments which the team addressed, and they have
signed off on it, as has the County's transportation planner. She said there is no issue with regard
to traffic.
Ms. Long said in addition, the traffic study was already a conservative study to begin with, which
was very intentional. She said they had now reduced the number of units from 370 to 332, so it is
even less of an issue now. She said as far as the homeowner's association's so-called study,
they stated on the record at the Planning Commission meeting in March that it was based on
made-up numbers; it is not a valid study with bad facts in and bad facts out. She said their traffic
engineer even looked behind their numbers and confirmed that even if the basis of their study
was assumed as accurate (which they dispute), there is no traffic impact. She said the concerns
about traffic are all about their concerns that they will spend a few extra moments waiting at
Ashwood to turn south on 29. She said their traffic study demonstrates that is a nominal delay; it
is about 1 second using a very conservative number of assumptions, and they think actually it is
going to be less than that.
Ms. Long said also the queue length was stated by Mr. Elliff as being 400 feet additional backup;
in fact, their vetted traffic study demonstrated the additional increase in the queue length would
be 25 feet, which is the length of one car. She said again that was an extraordinarily conservative
traffic study, and she asked that if anyone had any concerns after she was finished to please pose
them to Mr. Carl Hultgren of Ramey Kemp traffic engineers; all he does is traffic engineering.
Ms. Long said they think a lot of these concerns (and the neighbors have shared this with them)
are really about opposing the Ashwood connection. She said they had heard a lot about that at
the first Planning Commission meeting; this connection not only furthers all the goals of the
comprehensive plan, and VDOT supports the connection, it is a critical connection for all the
reasons she knew they all knew, and again, there is no traffic impact associated with that.
Ms. Long asked that the Commissioners remember that there were a large number of public
comments at the first meeting in March strongly in support of this application. She remarked how
eloquent she thought Ms. Brannock's comments were and appreciated her comments; she does
not know her but thinks she summed up very well the comments that were made in March.
Ms. Long said with regard to the legal comments that were raised, she had pulled up that section
of the zoning ordinance; that section 15.2-2283 is about the purpose of zoning ordinances. She
said it is not a list of requirements; it is the state code stating the purpose of zoning ordinances,
which is to protect against these adverse impacts. She said she would contend (and would ask
Mr. Herrick if there was any disagreement) that the County zoning ordinance fully and clearly
complies with this Virginia code section, so there is no legal dispute about any violation of any
state code provision.
Ms. Long said there were comments about concerns about the height of the buildings, their
proximity to the adjacent property lines, and that the buildings are just too tall. She reminded
everyone again with the revisions to the plan since the March meeting directly in response to
comments from the neighbors, they very intentionally shifted the density of these units away from
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 24
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
the neighbors; they shifted it towards Route 29, shifted it away from Ashwood and shifted it
towards the north, or the left side when looking at the plans. She said they reduced that end
townhouse unit on every single row of units to transition it. She said they do not have to be the
same height as an adjacent project; they do not have to be the same density level as an adjacent
project.
Ms. Long said there is not an actual viable claim that there is going to be an impact to a three-
story building that is 88 feet away from a property line, with a 40-foot buffer in that, she might add.
She stressed the five -story buildings that are being stepped back are over 300 feet away from the
adjacent property line, hundreds of feet away from Route 29 and also from Ashwood Blvd., so as
far as concerns about the building heights, they dispute that there would be any looming of
buildings over anyone's neighborhood and think those concerns are unfounded.
Ms. Long said she would conclude with the request that to the extent anyone had any remaining
concerns about any element of the project to please feel free to ask any of their team any
questions; they were all there and ready to address those concerns.
Mr. Herrick confirmed that Ms. Long had correctly summarized Virginia code section 15.2-2283;
it states what the purposes of zoning ordinances are, and in fact, the County's zoning ordinance
does comply with 15.2-2283. He noted the Commissioners had heard Mr. Reitelbach, the planner,
recommend in favor of this proposal, and it is Mr. Reitelbach's opinion that this is consistent and
compliant with the County's zoning ordinance. He said they had heard a number of comments
from the public with a contrary opinion, and obviously it was up to the Commission and the Board
of Supervisors to judge between the two.
Mr. Randolph commended the team for their improvement in this application; they did listen very
carefully to many of the concerns of residents, but there still remained some issues for him. He
said while he appreciated the developer identifying now three potential locations along 29 North
for a bus stop, he still felt given the impact on Albemarle High School of the added student
population guaranteed to be generated by this high -density residential development that
compensatory commitments were appropriate for the actual continuation and construction of a
bus stop on 29 North.
Mr. Randolph said there was a need for a pedestrian crossing over 29. He said in the pictures,
there are not even hashmarks that signify on this major state highway that there is a pedestrian
crosswalk there, and there is not an island in the midst of 29 where people attempting to cross 29
actually have a safe place if they cannot make it all the way across in time. He said to be mindful
that into a community with high-level affordable housing, there were going to be people that are
handicapped and elderly, some of whom may need to move with wheelchairs and may be mobility
challenged, so an island in 29 would be totally appropriate.
Mr. Randolph said as he had indicated earlier the last time, there still is no bus stop proposed
along 29 South directly across, so for the advocates of this project to say there would be sidewalks
and people can go ahead and walk the three miles to Walmart, for the elderly and the
handicapped, that is not a viable suggestion, so he had concerns about the fact that the County
wants high -density affordable housing (that is a good thing), but there is nothing in this application
that addresses public transit except to say there could be three different locations and help guide
them here but no commitment to providing that kind of infrastructure and guaranteed access for
residents in this community.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 25
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Randolph said his second concern is that it is not sufficient that a proposed development have
no negative impact on public facilities and public infrastructure (it states that in the staff report).
He said with especially a development with the intensity of the density and the request for the
County to permit this, there should be a discernable positive impact, especially on public transit,
when there is a high degree of affordable housing units proposed, and he still does not see that
commitment here.
Mr. Randolph said he saw here much more clearly than he had before a slippery slope for the
County. He said if the public is granted access to private roads within this RST development, then
RST residents will quite validly argue in the future that Albemarle County shares a primary
responsibility to maintain those same roads, and again, his point when he was asking about HOA
fees, there is here no guarantee that this development will be putting reserved funds aside for the
maintenance of roads and the reconstruction of any damage in those roads in the future. He said
he had been down this path before in his district as Planning Commissioner with Arden Drive
where there were insufficient funds available, and the County had to help seek funds through the
insurance company to cover the stormwater utilities that were inadequate and constructed. He
said he did not want to see the County in the future having to step in and pick up responsibility.
Mr. Randolph said his last point he had raised earlier was the substitution request. He said they
were being asked that evening to approve higher cost units for amenities and recreation, pools,
dog parks (who is going to clean up), grill areas (who is going to clean up), indoor fitness center,
and a reduction of tot lots and basketball courts, which have less maintenance costs associated
with them. He asked they be mindful of that; it was wonderful that there would be people with 30%
AM I if they were owners, but they are going to be renting, and be mindful what the average rental
is in this community driven by the 800-pound gorilla UVA that increases all those rental costs.
Mr. Randolph said the County website does specify that the cost of living in Albemarle County
includes groceries at 100.7%, healthcare costs 105.4%, but housing costs 143.5% when 100 is
the average for Virginia, so housing and rental costs are greater, and he does not see how people
are going to be able to afford at 30% and even 50% AM I if they own but on the rentals be able to
afford these higher cost amenities.
Ms. More said speaking for herself, she was not sure that she thought it was appropriate for her
to make an assumption about this development that she would not just assume about any other
development that the County would have to come in and pay for roads or that there was going to
be a problem with upkeep of shared amenities and facilities. She said she had no reason to
believe that that would not be taken care of by the property management; it seemed like a
presumption that it is not going to work out well, and she was not sure why that was (if it was just
from an experience in the past), but she has every reason to believe that things would be taken
care of just like they would with any other development.
Ms. More said she really did appreciate all the changes that have been made; there is substance,
and it is better than what they saw the last time it was before them. She said she was not sure
what to say about the transit because she felt like there was a lot happening in this area (and she
understood probably part of the reaction from neighbors was there is a lot of development going
on right here); being from Crozet, she understood how that feels and how people react to that,
but it seemed to her that other developments there should be seen a part towards transit, or
maybe it is the County's responsibility to provide it. She said in her mind, the applicant has done
what they asked, at least what she thought they asked of them, which was to plan for that in the
future but that they are not being saddled with any particular responsibility to create something
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 26
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
that is not quite there yet
Ms. More said she does not know that they ask that of the other developments happening around
there, and then she feels like she is hearing things that evening that they did not hear before with
other applications that are right there in that area as well. She said she did not really know what
to say about Mr. Randolph's thing with the crossing.
Ms. More said with schools, the way she sees it is that Albemarle is already going to be over
capacity, and this is a situation that needs to be figured out regardless of this development; that
to her seems like one of the places that they would be putting a lot of energy, and she knew the
County has some land and there are some ideas and there is the Center as a place to redirect
some enrollment, so that does not give her pause here. She said it just in general is a concern
they all share and need to get to an answer with that.
Ms. More said she really was positively inclined for this development, and to get at the piece that
Mr. Bivins was talking about with the special exception and the height, they did hear from the
applicant about that but did not ask a lot about that. She said she is okay with those exceptions
because in her mind, it is a tradeoff, and part of that was taking feedback; the Commissioners
had pointed things out to them, said they wanted to see more open space, said they wanted to
learn a little bit more about the amenities, and then, though, there was a reduction in numbers,
and she felt like that is what they are seeing there. She said Ms. Long tried to explain also that
there is the desire to take back that space, so it is a little bit taller but is centrally located, and the
buffers are generous, and so she sees what she expected to see with this coming back; she sees
all those improvements, so she feels really good about it moving forward.
Ms. Firehock said she wholeheartedly agreed with Ms. More's comments and had received a
number of comments via email from the public; some of them were stating that the Commissioners
were just giving the developer a pass because they had affordable housing. She said she did not
think that was the case at all; the Commission gave them a very thorough review the first time
around, and they did a lot of work to bring this development into what she and they feel is a much
higher quality development. She said she did not share the concerns of some of the public that
there is too much affordable housing in one location; she sees that as an apartment building
where people who do not have as much means as some of the other people in close proximity
could find a place to live.
Ms. Firehock said she could remember being a person in her 20s and not being able to find an
apartment to live in because she had to pay more than 50% of her salary for housing, and people
would not approve her applications; she only finally got an apartment by getting their staff
accountant to lie about her wages when they called, and she never missed a rent payment in her
life.
Ms. Firehock said she does feel that these buildings are backed up far enough away from the
residences; there are other situations in downtown Charlottesville and Arlington, Virginia, where
there are really tall buildings towering over backyards, but this is not the case, and there is not a
problem with this level of density in this location. She said it meets the County's policies in the
comprehensive plan for more dense infill development, and so she is in support of this
development in its current form.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 27
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Bailey said there were a lot of concerns when this application first came about it lacking soul
and not having a place that was home; the applicant really took that to heart, reducing the density
and adding a hub and a central area to create a sense of community. He said there were also a
lot of concerns about it being largely affordable housing with questions of where they would work
and how they would get to places when there was not public transit. He said that remains a
concern; however, there was movement to identify opportunities for JAUNT and other services
like CAT to have a stop.
Mr. Bailey noted that 0.8 miles north of this site, there is a signaled crossing across 29, and two
miles north, there is a major shopping center that provides a number of employment opportunities
for people in the lower income bracket (that would be within walking distance) that could be able
to afford this place. He said it was not that everybody could be going in town; there are
employment and increasingly more employment opportunities coming in this area, as it is a
development area, that could be applicable for residents of this development.
Mr. Bailey said he is a small business owner and has employees that commute that cannot afford
to live in this area. He said he has friends that cannot afford to live in this area that have children
who have to time their departure from Charlottesville to travel 45 minutes or an hour so they can
pick their children up at school outside in a neighboring county. He said while he knows that there
is a struggle with Albemarle High School that needs to be addressed, given the opportunity to
allow 330-some families to come in and have less of a commute time and an opportunity to spend
more time with their children while they are trying to increase their means and have a way of living
where their employment is, that is a tradeoff worth taking and something that needs to be figured
out to provide that opportunity for the citizens of Albemarle County.
Mr. Bailey said once again, he is inclined to support this proposal and is very pleased with the
improvements made and the opportunity to bring this much and to make not enough dent but a
reasonably large dent into the affordable housing crisis in Albemarle County.
Mr. Keller said that Ms. Firehock and Mr. Bailey summed up his position very well. He said they
as a Commission have been working for many, many years to try to increase the number of
affordable housing units and thought that the proffers were going to provide an opportunity for
that for a long time; they now have seen the results of that work, having a housing manager in
place, and are seeing that they really did not generate that many new units through that process.
He said what is different about this particular developer is that they are specializing in affordable
housing units; they have shown what the security is that the County is going to have these
affordable units into the future.
Mr. Keller said for his mind as a designer asking a lot of tough questions along with staff and other
Commissioners asking a lot of tough questions, they have seen significant improvements to the
amenities and aspects such that they can feel good about what the amenities would be for the
people who live there.
Mr. Keller said that Mr. Randolph brought up an interesting point about the crossing, and he
supports this project and is comfortable either as is or with a condition as Mr. Randolph outlined
for at a minimum an island for crossing.
Mr. Carrazana thanked the team for their work and said they took the comments to heart as had
been stated. He said the density has been mitigated in many ways, both with the additional buffers
and the landscape that is there now, the existing tree cover, also topography, so there are a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 28
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
number of things that are working to the advantage of this project to mitigate the density, and they
have taken advantage of that now, maybe not so much the first time around.
Mr. Carrazana suggested (and Mr. Clayborne touched on this) that there is an opportunity here
to go a little bit further as the applicants consider the site plan and go further into the design (he
knows it is not architectural they are seeing —they are seeing massing —and he commended them
for the massing as well, which is much improved). He said he believes that they are now creating
not just a new development but a place for people to live. He said in this world now, they need to
realize that everybody is not going to just leave and go to work; there is a higher percentage of
people that are going to be working from home, and so thinking about the integration of
pedestrians (bike/ped) and the car, he asked whether the car be deemphasized. He said he
believed that is what Mr. Clayborne was getting at with his comment, so he would also urge the
applicants to think about that, think about a way they could make this even more pedestrian
friendly than they have.
Mr. Carrazana noted the applicants have made some really positive moves, but it could be
enhanced; there are some amenities that he finds disconnected. He said the cemetery might be
one of those amenities potentially. He encouraged them to think further, although he certainly
applauded what they have done and also understood that they are not at that level of development
yet but will be as they move forward to site plan and the architectural review, and it shows a lot of
promise.
Mr. Clayborne said he wanted to thank the design team; it has come a long, long way, and that
hard work does not go unnoticed. He thanked the public for making their comments. He said one
of the hardest things for them to do as a Commission when they make these decisions is that
they are not making these decisions necessarily off a subset of people but for the whole
community, and it is so unfortunate that the people who would be benefiting the most from this
project were not there that evening to speak whereas he thought one would hear a little bit of a
different story.
Mr. Clayborne said the recommendation he was going to make was based off the data that has
been provided to him. He said, for example, with the density, when one looks at the master plan,
this fits within the parameters; that master plan was done for a reason, and so when the data is
provided to him, he is using that to make his decisions.
Mr. Clayborne said he would just encourage the design team to really think through the
sustainability portion as the design progresses, and it should not be an afterthought; when they
build something that is going to be around for 50 to 75 years, they have that responsibility to make
sure that with the footprint that they leave, the world is left a little bit better than when it was found.
He said he had faith that they would be looking at that, and he sees the architects and planners
and civil engineers they had with them and would take that to heart. He said it is a big enough
project to where it does not really need to be a run-of-the-mill project; they have an opportunity to
do something pretty special and show something that is a first-class facility. Mr. Clayborne said
he was prepared to offer his support for it to move forward.
Mr. Bivins said one thing people should know is there is a study right now looking at enhanced
transportation up 29 to the research park, so there may be an opportunity as they move through
this working with the people within the County to talk about what that means for them, and whether
or not that is CAT or JAUNT or on -demand, there will be opportunities to bring mass transportation
to a project more up 29, and perhaps that is another project.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 29
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Bivins said he would hope when talking about sustainability that they look at some of the new
technology that is around to do that, whether or not that is panels on top of things, but hopefully
there will be EV charges (and not Tesla charges), so that if, in fact, this is going to be a place that
is going to be available for a host of people, then if people want EVs that they can get EVs without
having to move in that particular direction.
Mr. Bivins said (and he was not trying to be snarky with what he was about to say) those two
pieces of property were 100% affordable between the trailer community and the single -home
occupancy things there, and he is very pleased with the fact that the applicants will be coming up
to a project that is going to be 75% of that when this is all built out; that has been a place where
a number of tradespeople and people who have been in transition over the several decades he
has been in the County have found themselves living comfortably and safely, and he is thankful
that the applicants are looking to create a space for them and for people like that to do so again.
Mr. Bivins said he will be supporting both the ZMA and the special exception because he also
thinks that in the setback from the fourth floor to the fifth floor for the two apartment buildings,
there is a visual change that happens there that he is pleased with and would support. Mr. Bivins
encouraged the applicant to listen to his colleagues when they talk about having the opportunity
to tuck in there a very interesting project that not only can they herald as Commissioners at some
point, but the applicants would be able to use in their portfolio when they go to other places
(hopefully in the Albemarle ring as they build these things out).
Mr. Clayborne encouraged the team to continue to work with the community as this goes forward
(pictures, pictures, pictures/renderings, renderings, renderings) and continue to be transparent
as they walk through this process.
Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend approval of ZMA202000007 RST Residences for the
reasons stated in the staff report.
Mr. Bailey seconded the motion, which carried 6:1 (Mr. Randolph opposed).
Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend approval of special exception request SE202000003 to
modify the stepback requirements for buildings in the development with the conditions listed in
the staff report and for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Mr. Bailey seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins told Ms. Long and Mr. Copeland that they had heard from the Commissioners and
hopefully would receive it as wise advice and counsel from the Commission as they take this to
the next level to meet with the Supervisors. He said that one piece that Mr. Clayborne said about
having a really interesting set of visuals to share with them would probably be something they
might want to consider, and also if they have an opportunity to talk to other people in the
community that they do that so that they have included them in their movement to the next step.
At 8:35 p.m., Mr. Bivins called a 5-minute break.
At 8:41 p.m., Mr. Bivins called the Commission back into session.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 30
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Work Session
CCP202100001 ACSA Avon Street Facility
Ms. Kanellopoulos, senior planner in the Community Development Department, said they were
there that evening for a work session on a consistency with the comprehensive plan application
for a proposed Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) maintenance and training facility on
Avon Street Extended. Ms. Kanellopoulos said she would start with the purpose of the consistency
with the comp plan review, then cover the proposal and its background, and then discuss staffs
analysis of the proposal.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said the purpose of a consistency with the comp plan application (CCP) is
detailed in section 15.2-2232 of Virginia State Code, and in this case, it is for a proposed public
facility that is not shown in the County's comprehensive plan. She said the Planning Commission
reviews the proposal for whether the general location, character, and extent of the proposed
public facility are in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan; the Planning Commission
then forwards its findings to the Board of Supervisors for informational purposes only, and if the
Planning Commission finds the application consistent with the comp plan, the next step for the
applicant is to submit a site plan for review.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented an aerial view demonstrating the site and some of the surrounding
uses. She said the proposed facility would be located on tax map parcel 91-1 (highlighted in yellow
on the map) and is approximately 9.5 acres located off of Avon Street Extended. She said there
are several schools in the nearby area including Mountain View to the south, Monticello High to
the northeast, and Tandem Friends School to the east, and there are primarily residential
neighborhoods across Avon Street to the west including Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented a more zoomed -in aerial showing the existing site in more detail.
She said there were a water tower and cell tower already on the site, and these would both remain
with the proposed development. She said the parcel does have frontage on both Avon Street
Extended and Founders Place, and adjacent uses include the shopping center at Mill Creek to
the north, an undeveloped County -owned property to the north that is currently wooded, the fire
rescue station, a healthcare facility, and equipment rentals to the south.
Ms. Kanellopoulos demonstrated a few photographs of the area around the property and said the
top left photograph showed the current end of Founders Place, which is slightly past the fire
rescue station, and in the future, this road will likely extend to Galaxie Farm Lane, which is a
development off of Route 20. She described that the new High School Center II is planned along
Founders Place, and that will be in the area to the left of that photograph, and the top right photo
shows a view of the ACSA property looking across the street on Founders Place.
Ms. Kanellopoulos demonstrated an image of the proposed concept plan for the application; it is
not a site plan at this stage. She said the proposed use of the property is a maintenance and
training facility to provide a training area and minor repair facility for ACSA vehicles and
redundancy for critical infrastructure and operations at the Spotnap Road headquarters. She said
the proposal includes a 15,600 square foot two-story maintenance building, a 7,500 square foot
training area, which includes confined space training, associated parking, and storage areas for
large equipment such as pipes and vehicles, a fuel station, and a vehicle rinse station.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said there is some security fencing existing, and there would be more installed
around the site for these new uses. She said there is an existing site access road which comes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 31
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
in off of Avon Street Extended to get to the existing water tank and cell tower, and that would be
extended to connect all the way to Founders Place; Founders Place would be the primary access
point for this development, and Avon Street Extended would be used as an entrance and exit
when needed such as for large trucks that have a harder time turning around.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said VDOT and transportation planning staff did review this proposal and did
not find any significant transportation -related concerns; VDOT does not anticipate traffic conflicts
with the adjacent future high school site due to the low number of trips with ACSA's proposed
use, and ACSA estimates approximately 10 to 15 employees on site per day with potentially up
to 30 people on site when there are training days.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said there are also five additional parcels along Avon Street Extended in front
of this property; four are owned by ACSA, and a fifth is a privately owned property with a single-
family residence. She said there was a community meeting held for this application which was
during the regularly scheduled virtual 5th and Avon CAC meeting on April 15, 2021; the main
topics of discussion at the meeting were potential impacts due to traffic, noise, and lighting as
well as questions about landscaping and fencing. She said the applicant provided information
related to these topics at the meeting including that they would retain as much landscaping as
possible, that fencing that would be visible from Avon Street Extended would be more decorative,
and that use of the property outside of normal business hours would be for emergencies. She
said as previously noted, the traffic generation with this proposed use is expected to be minimal,
and VDOT and transportation planning staff do not anticipate any substantial traffic impacts.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said there are no stream buffers, floodplain, or preserved steep slopes on the
property; there are some managed steep slopes, but those may be disturbed by right if
engineering design standards are met. She said this property was previously in the entrance
corridor overlay; however, that designation is not currently being applied to Avon Street Extended
as this road is no longer designated an arterial. She said the property is zoned R-1 residential,
which allows public facilities and utilities by right; those are allowed in all the County's districts by
right, and so the zoning district of this property does not change with this request.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff reviewed this application for its consistency with the comp plan and
found it to be in substantial accord with the relevant recommendations. She said some of those
include consistency with the growth management policy by establishing a public facility in the
development areas; consistency with the development areas chapter including preserving areas
of natural and green systems, as there are none affected by this proposal, and consistency with
the relevant neighborhood model principles, which are also outlined in more detail in attachment
3 in the staff report; and consistency with the community facilities chapter including having
sufficient space for potential future expansion, locating complementary services together, which
in this case includes opportunities for joint fire rescue training and incident command operations,
and the relevant neighborhood model considerations for community facilities, and those are
outlined in more detail in attachment 4.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said in the southern and western neighborhoods master plans, the future land
use designation for this site is institutional, which recommends uses such as schools, libraries,
major utilities, and hospitals, and the recommended height and acreage vary depending on the
needs of the use. She said the site is located adjacent to the Mill Creek Drive Center, which
includes the fire rescue station, Monticello High School, and several large undeveloped properties
owned by the County, and civic uses are likely expected on those County -owned properties in the
future. She said there is a recommended small area plan for the Mill Creek Center that has not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 32
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
been completed yet and would use community engagement to determine future uses in this area,
and the intent of that small area plan is to look at County -owned properties and would likely not
include this property, so staff finds that the proposed development of this site is consistent with
the master plan.
Ms. Kanellopoulos said based on the factors favorable and the review with the comprehensive
plan, staff recommends that the Commission find the location, character, and extent of the "ACSA
Avon Street Facility" public facility and public use thereof, as proposed, to be in substantial accord
with the Comprehensive Plan, for the reasons identified as favorable in the staff report.
Ms. Kanellopoulos presented the two motions for the Planning Commission's consideration to
make a finding for the application and said she was happy to answer questions or defer to the
applicant or return to any previous slides.
Mr. Alex Morrison said he was a senior civil engineer with the Albemarle County Service Authority,
part of the owners group for this application, and he would be the project manager for this project
and development.
Mr. Morrison said he would like to start by thanking the Planning Commission for allowing him to
present their project, the County Community Development staff for facilitating their inclusion in
the meeting, and members of the public who were in attendance. He said he would be talking
about the Albemarle County Service Authority (Service Authority) Avon maintenance facility.
Mr. Morrison said he would go over a few quick agenda items that he would cover; he would go
over a couple of introductions for members of the team in attendance, the role of the Service
Authority and project needs, the project location within their jurisdictional area, the existing site
versus the proposed site development, cover some of the development components that have
been proposed, highlight a couple of proposed community partnerships that they are looking at
through this development, and then take questions.
Mr. Morrison introduced the owner and design engineer staff in attendance including himself as
senior civil engineer with the Service Authority who would act as the project manager; Mr. Gary
O'Connell, the Service Authority Executive Director; Mr. Pete Gorham, Service Authority Director
of Engineering; and Dewberry is their design consultant on this project, so Kevin Pennock with
Dewberry, who is acting as the site civil designer, and Dodie Hudson, who is the architectural
designer.
Mr. Morrison said the Avon Street Maintenance Facility project would allow the Service Authority
to carry out its essential public health and welfare functions, which include providing water and
treated sewer, mandated by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County at a reasonable cost
to the Albemarle County citizens within the growth area.
Mr. Morrison provided some background on the growth of the Service Authority since this property
was acquired in 1987. He said since 1987, they have increased from roughly 7,220 water
connections to just over 21,000 water connections, which is an increase of 290%. He said they
had increased from 157 miles of water mains to 358 miles, an increase of 228%, and have
increased from 77 miles of sewer mains to 302 miles, an increase of 392%. He said as of July 1,
2020, they own, operate, and maintain over 660 miles of public utility mains with new infrastructure
being installed daily.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 33
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Morrison said the proposed Avon facility location is centralized in the Service Authority service
area to provide access to the service area via major transportation corridors such as Route 20
South to Scottsville, 1-64 West to Crozet, 1-64 West and Route 29 North for their western areas
between the City of Charlottesville and Crozet as well as the northern service area from Rio Road
up to the Briarwood area north of Hollymead and Forest Lakes.
Mr. Morrison said this project achieves the long-term purpose of the 1987 property acquisition by
the Service Authority, which is a satellite maintenance yard. He said the current Service Authority
Spotnap Road maintenance facility has no additional storage site capacity. He said their current
location is bounded by highway commercial developments on three sides; to handle their
workforce growth, they have conduced internal renovations, expanded into an adjacent rental
house that they own, and expanded the employee parking lot. He said they have a small footprint
for a future building expansion; what they do not have is a footprint to expand their maintenance
yard for material and equipment storage and associated activities.
Mr. Morrison said redundancy for the Service Authority operations in the following areas have
been identified as a critical need based on their recently completed facilities master plan as well
as continuity planning. He said this includes a second maintenance base of operations, a second
fuel station and vehicle wash area, additional material and equipment storage, a second server
room to support onsite and remote operations, a dedicated confined space and operator training
area, and conference room and workspaces to facilitate classroom training and support of Incident
Command System operations.
Mr. Morrison presented an overview to demonstrate their service area within the County
(highlighted in orange). He said their service area goes as far south as Scottsville, as far west as
Crozet, as far east as Glenmore, and as far north as North Pines GE near the National Ground
Intelligence Center. He said their main site in Pantops was shown on the map, and a small satellite
facility with a short-term lease in Crozet was also shown. He said the proposed Avon facility was
shown south of the Interstate 64 corridor.
Mr. Morrison presented a slide showing existing site conditions with field survey contours within
the proposed development area. He said the location of the existing Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority water storage tank and a cell phone tower could also be seen.
Mr. Morrison presented the proposed site slide and said it showed components of the
development which would be described on the next slide. He said a public meeting was held
during the April 15Jh 5th and Avon CAC meeting, and community concerns were discussed during
the meeting to ensure the design mitigates and addresses community concerns. He said they
have discussed the proposed development with the adjacent resident along Avon Street bounded
by the areas of the Service Authority property to remain undeveloped, and no concerns arose. He
said they will be scheduling a meeting and work sessions with the Albemarle Health &
Rehabilitation Center, a parcel adjacent to their southern property line, to ensure appropriate
buffering is included in the site plan design prior to submittal as well as to present renderings of
the development for the property owner based on the proposed development and buffering.
Mr. Morrison said the proposed development and use is consistent with the comprehensive plan
designation as well as the future land use designation in the southern and western neighborhoods
master plan. He said he would also note that although the slide showed a future water storage
tank, the water storage tank is not part of this proposed development and is only shown to provide
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 34
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
an undeveloped area for a future tank. He said if Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority determines a
second water storage tank is required based on system demand and fire flow storage
requirements from growth, they will make the appropriate County applications for review and
approval at that time.
Mr. Morrison said the proposed site components are as follows: a site access road, which will go
from the current Avon Street entrance down to Founders Place; a dual level maintenance building
with vehicle bays, vehicle maintenance workshop, facilities maintenance workshop, breakroom
and restrooms, a server room and flex office space and conference room for training and the
incident command; a vehicle storage yard; confined space entry training area; a fenced operator
training area; a fueling station; associated stormwater management infrastructure; sanitary sewer
infrastructure and potable water infrastructure to serve the building; security fencing with two
entrance gates and associated retaining walls.
Mr. Morrison said he would also like to mention a few proposed community partnerships they are
or will be exploring as part of this development. He said the Albemarle County fire/rescue confined
space rescue team is located at the Monticello Fire Station adjacent to this site; they plan to
conduct joint trainings with the fire/rescue to allow them to be familiar with confined spaces that
the Service Authority enters while also allowing the Service Authority confined space teams to
obtain institutional and safety knowledge.
Mr. Morrison said they also plan to conduct joint training with fire/rescue within their operator
training area for trench safety and rescue. He said most of their maintenance activities occur
within trenches of varying depth and configuration, and it is important to conduct continued safety
training for these activities.
Mr. Morrison said they would also like to explore a partnership with the Albemarle County Public
School system to provide operator training for technical education programs, and they are also in
the process of creating a partnership with the Centers for Urban Habitats to provide biodiversity
education and conservation on the undeveloped portion of their property.
Mr. Morrison opened the floor for questions. He said he would cover project scope questions,
technical design questions would be directed to Dewberry, and any County process questions
would be directed to County staff.
Ms. Firehock asked if the square that said training in the middle was a building or a location where
they are doing training and what kind of training they are doing.
Mr. Morrison said that area was their operator training area; there will be a fenced area with
permanent E&S measures, but that is varying topography there where they will train their
operators on the use of equipment, specifically outriggers and trenching, so that they can refine
their skills and conduct trench safety exercises in a controlled environment so if there is a major
watermain break in the middle of the night which is an area that is difficult to access, they will
have those skills to safely make the repairs.
Ms. Firehock said she realized their objective that evening was to make a finding as to whether
they were in accord with the comprehensive plan and not a site review; however, she was curious
if they were planning to do any washing of vehicles on the site. She said she is concerned because
a lot of times these facilities do that, and there is [inaudible] runoff into the storm drain, and there
are separate and not combined sewers in the County. She said she was curious as to whether
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 35
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
any of those type of activities or degreasing activities would occur since there might be some
large equipment there.
Mr. Morrison replied that they were proposing a vehicle wash area similar to what they have on
their site in Spotnap, which is a collection pad using handheld wash equipment (not an automatic
car wash), and they are proposing to put in place oil/water separators and grit separators to
ensure that the stormwater discharge is treated and is not taking sediment into that system. He
said when it is not in use, it will discharge to stormwater; when it is in use, it will be discharged to
the sanitary sewer system, so any green chemicals that are used during that washing will actually
go through the sanitary sewer system and be treated at the wastewater plant. He said once that
activity is finished, they will switch a divertor which will allow just the stormwater runoff from rain
events off of the pad to go through the stormwater system and the associated stormwater facilities
constructed on this site.
Ms. Firehock told Mr. Morrison that was the right answer and thanked him
Mr. Bivins opened the public comments.
Ms. Pat Kesler (1301 Creekside Drive) said she also attended the Avon advisory virtual meeting.
She said she believed the gentleman had said that there were no objections at that time, and yes
there were objections at that time; she wanted to make a note of that. She asked what they
propose would be the approximate number of large trucks that would need to access the Avon
entrance or exit due to the fact they cannot turn around in the facility.
Mr. Morrison said when he had stated that no objection arose, he was specifically speaking to the
residence which is bounded by ACSA properties on the Avon frontage on the ACSA development
side of the road, and he apologized for any confusion. Mr. Morrison said as to Ms. Kesler's
question for the number of large trucks, these would mainly be pipe deliveries, which are
infrequent; they have a pipe delivery maybe every couple of weeks, if even that often. He said
they have other smaller delivery trucks that would bring meter boxes and valves, but that is also
every couple of weeks that they may have one of those deliveries come through, so they do not
propose more than one trip a week if they even have that many.
Ms. Kesler asked if Mr. Morrison foresaw that the primary entrance would be not from Avon but
from the other side.
Mr. Bivins asked Ms. Kesler if she had asked whether the primary entrance would be on Founders
road.
Ms. Kesler replied yes.
Mr. Morrison said that was correct, so although they would have the two entrances for operational
flexibility on the site, they will primarily use the Founders Place entrance. He said they were
looking to make the Avon Street entrance a right-in/right-out but will have the flexibility to utilize
the Avon Street during high traffic periods on Founders such as once the school center develops,
if school is letting out, they would have the ability to use Avon and not impact that traffic, but for
a majority of the time, Founders would be their primary ingress/egress to the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 36
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Ms. Kesler said Mr. Morrison had talked about the frontage there on Avon, the trees that are a
screen that makes it unable for them to see the project that is going to be going up. She asked
how long he foresaw those trees would be in existence or whether they would eventually be taken
down.
Mr. Morrison said at this time, they had no plans to develop the frontage; their facilities master
plan did not foresee any need to develop that area for 25+ years, if ever. He said this facility would
give them the redundancy in their maintenance, and they have a location on their Spotnap site
for an expansion of this building for administrative and engineering staff, so at this time, they do
not foresee those trees being removed any time in the near- or long-term future. He noted that
undeveloped area is also the area that they are working with the Centers for Urban Habitats for
the biodiversity education and conservation; they have done some recent surveys in there, and
that agreement is being worked on so that they can study and conserve some of that existing flora
that they have located.
Mr. Bivins closed the public comments.
Mr. Morrison said he did not have any closing remarks as the development had been covered
well in the presentation. He said his contact information was amorrison@serviceauthority.org and
asked the Commissioners to please not hesitate to reach out. He thanked the Commission for
allowing them the time to present and talk about this project.
Mr. Herrick said that Ms. Kanellopoulos cited Virginia code section 15.2-2232; that code section
actually requires that the Commission state the reason for its approval if it does approve, so he
would suggest that in addition to Ms. Kanellopoulos' motion that the motion state the reasons for
recommendation if recommendation is approved. He said it could simply be adding to the end,
"for the reasons stated in the staff report."
Mr. Randolph moved to find the location, character, and extent of the "ACSA Avon Street Facility"
public facility and public use thereof, as proposed, to be in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan as stated in the staff report and for the factors that were favorable in the
staff report because it is consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles for public
facilities as described in the comprehensive plan; the proposed use is consistent with the growth
management policy in the comprehensive plan; and the proposed use is consistent with the future
land use designation of institutional as described in the southern and western neighborhoods
master plan.
Ms. Firehock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins told Mr. Morrison that the Commission had found this project in compliance with the
comprehensive plan, and that notice would be passed on to the Supervisors.
Committee Reports
Mr. Randolph said the Village Rivanna CAC has reconstituted with five new members, and the
topic of main conversation after the officers were chosen was Breezy Hill. He said there was a lot
of active discussion about that, so the Planning Commission would be seeing this in July maybe
and asked Mr. Rapp for confirmation.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was discussion about Clifton
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 37
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021
Mr. Randolph said there was no discussion yet about Clifton.
Mr. Rapp said it looked like July 201h.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 2, 2021
Mr. Rapp said there was a Board meeting on June 2nd, where the Board supported the proposed
amendments to section 33 for zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, special use
permits, and special exceptions. He said there would be a Board meeting the following day with
a public hearing for the housing policy and Midway Solar projects.
Old/New Business
There was no old/new business.
Items for Follow -Up
There were no items.
Adjournment
At 9:15 p.m., the Commission adjourned to June 22, 2021, 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 and transcribed by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 07/06/2021
Initials: CSS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 38
FINAL MINUTES - June 15, 2021