HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal PC Minutes 10282025ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Work Session and Regular Meeting
Final Minutes October 28, 2025
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Tuesday, October 28,
2025, at 6:00 p.m.
Members attending were: Fred Missel, Chair; Luis Carrazana, Vice-Chair; Julian Bivins; Corey
Clayborne; Karen Firehock; Nathan Moore; Lonnie Murray.
Members absent: None.
Other officials present were: Michael Barnes, Director of Planning; Khris Taggart, Senior Planner,
Syd Shoaf, Senior Planner, Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager, Kevin McDermott, Deputy
Director of Planning, Francis MacCall, Deputy Zoning Administrator, Stacy Pethia, Director of
Housing, Jenny Tevendale, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the
Planning Commissions.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Ms. Shaffer called the roll.
Mr. Missel established a quorum.
Public Comment on matters pending before the Commission but not listed for a
Public Hearing on this agenda
There were none.
Consent Agenda
Ms. Firehock motioned that the Planning Commission approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0).
Items Requesting Deferral
ZMA-2024-00005 – Belvedere Amendment
Michael Barnes, Director of Planning, said that the Belvedere subdivision had a rezoning
application before the Commission tonight. He said that the proposal essentially modified some
of the original proffers and added townhouses to the project. He said that the applicant had some
issues they were working through and had requested deferral. He said that this past week, they
had requested to defer the item until December 9, 2025. He said that if the Commission was
amenable, staff would recommend they make a motion to defer the item until that date specific.
Mr. Moore motioned that the Planning Commission defer ZMA-2024-00005 Belvedere
Amendment to the date specific of December 9, 2025. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously (7-0).
Public Hearing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
SP-2025-00003 – Flow HCDJR Outdoor Storage, Display, Sale Expansion
Khris Taggart, Senior Planner, said that he would be providing staff's presentation for the special
use permit (SUP) application. He said that as with all special use permits, they would need a
recommendation to forward to the Board. He said that for context, the subject property, located
at 960 Hilton Heights Road, contained the Subaru, Honda, and Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
showrooms, along with associated outdoor displays. He said that the display area highlighted in
red on the map, located in front of the Honda and Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram showroom building.
Mr. Taggart said that the special permit request was for the expansion of outdoor storage and
sales of vehicles in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, which he would subsequently refer to
as the outdoor display. He said that to accommodate this expansion, the property owners
acquired approximately one-third of an acre of land from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT). He said that the concept plan showed that a portion of the existing
landscape area along the frontage would be converted into paved parking, including triple stack
parking arrangements on both the northern and southern sides of the right entrance. He said that
to mitigate this expanded outdoor display, the concept plan includes new landscaping consisting
of large shade trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs between the frontage and the display area.
Mr. Taggart said that motor vehicle sales was a by-right use in the zoning district, but outdoor
display was a special use that required review under Section 30.6. He said that this review limited
the factors to be considered when determining whether the outdoor display was consistent with
the entrance corridor design guidelines. He said that the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
applied these guidelines and reviewed this request in September of this year. The ARB voted to
recommend no objection to the SP request, with conditions that were standard for this type of
request.
Mr. Taggart said that the conditions are listed in the report and included in the presentation, which
they could review further if necessary. He said that the favorable factor for this request was that
the outdoor display use would be consistent with the entrance corridor design guidelines if the
ARB's recommended conditions were upheld. He said that for this reason, staff recommended
approval of the special permit for outdoor display. He said that staff was available to answer any
questions and had drafted a motion for the Commission to consider.
Mr. Bivins said that he had a question about a VDOT-related issue at this location.
Ms. Firehock said that to clarify, the outlined trees in the drawing were the existing trees that
would be cut down. She said that then, new trees would be planted out towards the road.
Mr. Taggart said that that was correct.
Ms. Firehock asked if there had been any work to analyze the tree canopy equivalency, in other
words, how long it would take them to replace the tree canopy that would be removed.
Mr. Taggart said that the applicant likely could answer that best, but from staff's perspective that
would likely be reviewed as an aspect of a site plan amendment done after the SUP to match the
canopy calculations.
Mr. Missel asked if the applicant had acquired an easement from VDOT or if they had acquired
the actual land.
Mr. Taggart said that it was a land acquisition.
Mr. Missel asked if utilities on the site would preclude them from doing some plantings.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Mr. Taggart said that there were easements, and the new proposed landscaping was located in
front of those easements, closer to Seminole Trail. He said that the proposed landscaping was
situated outside of the easements, which ran behind and between the display area.
Mr. Missel said that he had a final question regarding the crosswalk. He said that he noticed that
the pathway led to and from the entrance, and he was wondering if there would be a striped
crosswalk included in the design.
Mr. Taggart said that he was not sure, so he would defer that question to the applicant.
Ms. Firehock said that she noticed in the conditions from the ARB that they stated they could not
park display vehicles on sidewalk or paved areas. She asked if the display vehicles needed to be
in parking spaces or somewhere else.
Mr. Taggart said that the display of vehicles must be parked in the paved areas depicted on the
plan. He said that they could not be parked in the landscaped grass areas, essentially.
Ms. Firehock said that currently, there was a sidewalk-type of bump out with a car parked on top
of it. She asked if that would be allowed per these new conditions for the SUP. She said that she
was trying to understand what exactly the ARB was restricting.
Mr. Taggart said that no, that would not be allowed.
Ms. Firehock said that currently, they were allowed to do that, but the ARB was imposing
additional restrictions.
Mr. Taggart said that the site's history included past code violations related to parking in areas
not permitted by the existing Special Permit, the primary purpose of which was being amended.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood they had very limited space at this site.
Mr. Missel asked if the applicant had a presentation.
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineer, said that Ms. Firehock was correct in noting that they had no
space, and that was the primary reason for their request. He said that he would present a brief
overview. He said that he was the engineer for this project, and Chris Marshall from his office was
also present, serving as the project manager for this and other Flow projects in Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and surrounding areas.
Mr. Shimp said that this site was the location of the Honda, Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram dealership.
He said that Subaru was also present on the site, but the special use permit primarily addressed
parking for the other dealerships, not for Subaru. He said that this site was situated near Route
29, and he believed everyone was familiar with its location. He said that the area of amendment
shown in this three-dimensional view currently displayed parking, landscaping, and a significant
amount of grass.
Mr. Shimp said that his work with Flow began several years ago, and it led him to this site, where
they identified the need for additional parking. He said that in research, he found that due to the
very steep slope on the right side. He said that what VDOT did when they took the right-of-way
for the Route 29 widening was to angle the parking area over, as shown in this picture. He said
that this discovery revealed that the area was unnecessary, and they were able to request to
purchase it from VDOT.
Mr. Shimp said that to provide some context, Flow Automotive was a prominent business in the
area. He said that Don Flow, the owner, was a University of Virginia (UVA) graduate and invested
in Charlottesville. He said that the company employed 465 people and contributed significantly to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
the local economy, providing services for many residents who needed car maintenance and
wanted to purchase vehicles. He said that they had been working with them on all but one project,
and their capital expense in Albemarle County was approximately $60 million, with about halfway
of that spent so far.
Mr. Shimp said that one of the challenges they faced was the existing parking arrangement, which
was not ideal. He said that the area was also used for County police training and other activities,
making it unreliable and a security concern for the company. He said that as a result, they had
limited space on the site and were short of the required parking spaces, with approximately 400
spaces needed to meet manufacturer standards for the five or six brands represented. He said
that one could observe that the site lacked adequate parking, although the manufacturer
standards were different from County standards. He said that upon visiting the site, he discovered
an opportunity to purchase the small strip from VDOT.
Mr. Shimp said that development began in 2003, initially as the Brown Auto Park, which was the
main project. He said that revisions started in 2022, and a site plan was created for the Subaru
side. He said that he became involved shortly after and was asked about parking, where he
noticed the available space. He said that they finalized the purchase with VDOT between July
and September 2023 and July of this year. He said that the process had been ongoing, and the
display area showed the existing trees to be removed, as seen in the picture.
Mr. Shimp said that the earlier picture showed the trees that would be preserved. He said that to
address Ms. Firehock's earlier question, they were losing approximately 12 larger existing trees
while adding 22 new trees. He said that they did not follow a straight canopy approach but instead
worked with ARB to exceed the bare minimum due to the proximity and replacing more mature
trees. He said that this was how the design ultimately took shape.
Mr. Shimp said that the provided picture showing the future landscaping displayed the proposed
green trees, with the existing trees' shadows and the solid green representing the new trees. He
said that this concluded his presentation. He said that he was happy to answer any additional
questions the Commission may have, but this was a familiar process, and it presented an
opportunity to acquire more parking for this auto dealership.
Ms. Firehock asked if the area below the gray line on the map was originally going to be graded
by VDOT.
Mr. Shimp said that that was right. He said that the area between the gray and the pink was right-
of-way, and because the slope started immediately at the hotel, they initially thought they could
start at the top of the slope to begin the easement, but the land happened to be flat at the top, so
it was a usable piece of property.
Mr. Barnes asked if Flow had graded it to be flat at some point.
Mr. Shimp said that he believed the area was left in that condition from the right-of-way creation.
He said that it appeared that no subsequent work was done on that area. He said that the site,
originally developed by Toyota and built according to the 2002 McKee Carson plan, with grass
that was left over and landscaped in some places. He said that there were numerous utilities in
this area, which ran parallel to the gray line. He said that notably, there were no utilities directly
adjacent to the back of the sidewalk on Route 29. He said that this allowed them to proceed with
planting the required ARB landscaping while acquiring the property, as most of it was acquired
and could not support landscaping due to existing easements.
Ms. Firehock asked why two trees near the road were being removed if they were not in the way
or in the parking area.
Mr. Shimp said that those trees would remain.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that it was a bit confusing.
Mr. Clayborne asked if they could consider pervious pavement for the display area.
Mr. Shimp said that it would be paved in some way, but it was possible they could do pervious
pavement. He said that it was a cost-prohibitive choice but would undoubtedly be a benefit to
stormwater management.
Mr. Clayborne asked for clarification as to whether the applicant would consider installing pervious
pavement for this expansion.
Mr. Shimp said that he would provide the owner with the options for stormwater compliance, one
of which was pervious pavers, which required consideration of cost, maintenance trade-offs, and
other factors. He said that they had found that using underground chambers with filters, such as
sediment filter mechanisms, was a preferred approach. He said that typically, they opted for this
method, which often involved on-site stormwater treatment, even though it was not required. He
said that the underground chamber's sediment capture capabilities were a key aspect of its
functionality, making it a popular choice among users who found it more cost-effective and easier
to maintain.
Mr. Missel asked if there was maintenance involved for cleaning the filters.
Mr. Shimp said that yes, they must be vacuumed out.
Ms. Firehock said that she had a follow-up technical question. She said that for permeable
pavement, she was not referring to the interlocking pavers that allowed grass in between them.
She said that she was referring to the solid interlocking pavers, which had a layer of sand
underneath. She said that this setup provided some water quality filtration as the water passed
through the sand and was then absorbed into the ground.
Ms. Firehock said that she was curious to know if this method was more effective in treating water
quality compared to the chambers Mr. Shimp mentioned, which had a sediment trap primarily for
volume control. She asked if Mr. Shimp knew whether the permeable pavers provided better water
quality control.
Mr. Shimp said that he knew that each measure was tested by the state and given a treatment
capacity. He said that the filters had about 80% sediment capture capability, which the state cut
in half for treatment quality measure calculations. He said that he doubted the pervious pavers
were more than 50%. He said that however, this site likely did not have good soil underneath, so
it may not be very effective in improving the quality.
Mr. Missel said that all the stormwater management aspects would be discussed and reviewed
at the site plan stage.
Mr. Shimp said that was correct.
Mr. Murray said that since the project was already going to happen, and changes to landscaping
were planned, it was worth considering how to handle stormwater management. He thought that
while it was clear that the community and the Commission would support the applicant addressing
stormwater in some way. He thought that if a better solution could be found, that would be
beneficial. He said that the landscaped areas, currently just grass, could be enhanced by
incorporating features such as lower-height shrubs and stormwater management elements, even
within the utility easement.
Mr. Shimp said that he understood. He said that they would be following all state regulations for
stormwater runoff and determine the appropriate method for implementation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Mr. Murray said that they had the utility lines above, and he assumed that was why they had
placed the lower shrubs there, as a result of the power lines crossing over them.
Mr. Shimp said that that was correct; the trees were on either side of the power lines.
Mr. Murray sked if there had been any discussion with utility companies about installing those
underground.
Mr. Bivins said that that line ran down the side of Route 29, and these high-tensity lines tended
to run above ground for maintenance purposes. He said that this line was likely feeding into a
continuation of the line at Rivanna Station, where they had to increase capacity on Route 29
South to manage energy flow between the institution and the university. He said that he believed
it had carried data at one point, but he did not know if it still did.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Shimp to consider adding in the names of the other dealerships at this
location, as there were many others than those they initially included. He asked if they had
considered extending the northern parking lot up a bit, as there was available land to do so.
Mr. Shimp said that the slope began immediately after the existing parking lot. He said that as
soon as one passed the edge of the parking lot, the slope became very steep, making it practically
unbuildable.
Mr. Bivins asked if the parking spaces for the new display area would be back-to-back or if there
would be an aisle.
Mr. Shimp said that they would be back-to-back in quadruple stacks.
Mr. Bivins said that he wanted to confirm that the green trees would be the new trees.
Mr. Shimp said that the proposed trees were the dark green ones, while the existing trees that
would remain were outlined in green.
Mr. Missel asked if they would be striping a crosswalk across the entrance.
Mr. Shimp said that he believed it was already there; however, it was part of VDOT's right-of-way
along Route 29 so they would be the ones to do that in any case.
Mr. Bivins said that further north from the south side of this property was a sign that says, "turn
right at the next signal," and the next signal's words were so small that people made the turn
prematurely. He asked if this application were approved, whether there would be a conversation
with VDOT to potentially move the sign or take the words "next signal" off so people would not
get so confused.
Mr. Shimp said that he would note that the sign had been there before Flow owned this property.
He said that however, he acknowledged the problem, as he had almost made that mistake
himself. He said that he would clarify that Flow could not change the sign whatsoever, as it was
in VDOT's right-of-way.
Mr. Bivins said that it would definitely improve traffic flow and safety if they moved that sign. He
said that additionally, if they put more vehicles closer to the edge of the property, it would indicate
to drivers that they needed to go farther before making the turn to the hotel. He said that they also
parked cars at the Kohl's.
Mr. Missel opened the public hearing. Seeing no speakers, he closed the public hearing and the
matter rested with the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that she had one additional question for staff. She said that the applicant had
indicated they would be planting twice as many trees as were currently on this parcel, but the plan
itself said that it was only conceptual, and the exact number of trees and shrubs would be
determined at a later date. She asked if they could assume they would be relatively the same,
despite the disclaimer.
Mr. Taggart said that it would be safe to assume that because the site plan would need to be
reviewed by the ARB, it may not be possible to replicate the exact match, but it would likely be
very close.
Mr. Moore motioned that the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP-2025-00003 Flow
HCDJR Outdoor Storage, Display, Sale Expansion with the conditions as recommended in the
staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0).
ZMA-2025-00004 – Attain on 5th Street Phase 2
Mr. Missel asked if two public hearings were necessary for the Attain items or if one public hearing
would suffice.
Mr. Barnes said that he believed one public hearing would be fine. He said that there was also a
special exception (SE) that the Commission did not need to provide a recommendation on, and it
would be forwarded to the Board.
Syd Shoaf, Senior Planner, said that he would be presenting the staff report on four applications
related to Attain on 5th Street Phase 2. He said that these applications included two rezoning
requests and two special exceptions. He said that the subject property, located at Tax Map Parcel
(TMP) 07600—00-00-054A1, spanning 14.5 acres and situated between Interstate 64 and Old
Lynchburg Road, with access points through Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Place.
Mr. Shoaf said that the property was initially developed as a student housing facility in 2002, under
the names Sterling University Housing and Cavalier Crossing. He said that there were currently
13 existing buildings on the site, consisting of 12 multifamily residential units with 144 units each,
and one leasing office. He said that the property was zoned R-10 Residential and situated within
several designated areas, including the Entrance Corridor, Airport Impact Area, and Steep Slopes
Managed and Preserved Overlay Districts.
Mr. Shoaf said that the surrounding properties include the 5th Street Apartments to the east, the
Region Ten Community Services Office to the west, the Albemarle Business Campus to the north,
and the Fifth Street County Office Building to the south. He said that the subject property had
been designated with three Comprehensive Plan designations: Urban Density Residential, Parks
and Green Systems, and Community Mixed Use. He said that tonight, he would present the two
rezoning applications, followed by the two special exceptions.
Mr. Shoaf said that the main application, ZMA-2025-00004, sought to rezone the 14.5-acre parcel
from R-10 Residential to Planned Residential Development (PRD). He said that the applicant was
proposing to add 165 multifamily units, dispersed among five new buildings, resulting in a gross
density of 21 dwelling units per acre. He said that the applicant also planned to reduce the overall
parking capacity from 660 spaces to 460 spaces, which was one of the special exceptions, and
he could elaborate on this further at the conclusion of his presentation.
Mr. Shoaf said that the property already featured existing amenities, including a dog park,
basketball court, volleyball court, clubhouse, and pool, and additional amenities would be
provided at the site plan phase if this rezoning were to be approved. He said that the applicant
was also proposing a 65,000-square-foot passive recreation area, depicted as light blue on the
map. He said that in addition, they planned to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
within the site by installing new sidewalks and crosswalks to connect existing buildings and future
connections to and from the site.
Mr. Shoaf said that they were also proposing a shared use path along their frontage on 5th Street
and improvements to the existing bus stop at the corner of 5th Street and Wahoo Way. He said
that provided was a map for context of the existing and proposed shared use path facilities around
the subject property. He said that currently, there was an existing substandard path from the 5th
Street Apartments development that extended south to Ambrose Commons, approximately four
feet wide and protected by an existing guardrail.
Mr. Shoaf said that several funded projects in the area included a VDOT project to construct a
roundabout at the intersection of 5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road. He said that the adjacent
property for the Albemarle Business Campus will construct a shared use path along its frontage
from the subject property to the corner of Old Lynchburg Road. He said that other improvements
on Old Lynchburg Road would also enhance connection between the County and the City of
Charlottesville for amenities such as the Rivanna Trail and Azalea Park. He said that additionally,
the County was pursuing a pipeline study for improved connections across Interstate 64.
Mr. Shoaf said that for this project, the applicant was proposing a new shared use path along its
frontage to its eastern property line. He said that it ended at a substandard facility, approximately
270 feet from the existing sidewalk at the 5th Street Apartments development. He said that
regarding housing, the County's Housing Albemarle policy, approved in 2021, recommended 20%
of new units on site as affordable. He said that an arm of this policy was the Affordable Rental
Housing Incentive Program (RHIP), approved in 2024, required 20% of total units to be affordable
at either 60% area median income (AMI) for 30 years for rental housing or 80% AMI for 40 years
for owner-occupied housing.
Mr. Shoaf said that RHIP was a separate grant application acted upon by the Board. He said that
Dr. Pethia, the County's Director of Housing, was present tonight to answer any questions
regarding Housing Albemarle and RHIP funding. He said that the applicant was proposing 165
additional units for this site, and under the Housing Albemarle policy, the applicant was required
to provide 20% of the new units as affordable, resulting in 33 affordable units. He said that the
applicant met the Housing Albemarle recommendation, which was sufficient for this evening's
discussion.
Mr. Shoaf said that, however, the applicant was also pursuing RHIP funding, which required 20%
of the total units on the site to be affordable. He said that with the total units, if this rezoning were
to be approved, the applicant would be required to provide 62 units to qualify for RHIP, exceeding
the affordable housing requirements. He said that this was a separate action by the Board of
Supervisors and not part of the rezoning before the Commission this evening.
Mr. Shoaf said that in summary, staff identified three positive aspects of this application. He said
that firstly, the request aligns with the land use recommendations for the Southern and Urban
Neighborhoods Master Plan. He said that secondly, the proposed rezoning met the strategies
outlined in Albemarle's Growth Management Policy to promote density in the development area
and aligns with the housing recommendations. He said that lastly, the request was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan's neighborhood model principles. He said that staff found no concerns
with this application, and based on this, staff recommended approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment request.
Mr. Moore said that he knew that a lot of the existing apartments on this property were four-
bedroom apartments and were being converted into one- and two-bedroom apartments with this
rezoning. He asked how many bedrooms would be in the new development, including the new
units being built.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Mr. Shoaf said that the site was originally developed as student housing in 2002, so there were a
number of three- and four-bedroom student housing units, for a total of 528 bedrooms. He said
that with this new proposal, they were shifting to a more traditional multi-family development, with
309 units.
Mr. Barnes said that it was not a direct one-to-one comparison.
Mr. Bivins said that perhaps the applicant could provide more information on that.
Mr. Barnes said that they did not consider that from a staff perspective. He said that they were
focused on traffic generation based on unit types and other factors.
Mr. Carrazana asked if the 62 affordable units were contingent on receiving a grant.
Mr. Shoaf said that from his understanding, yes, and the applicant could elaborate further.
Mr. Clayborne said that he was seeking some clarification on tracking the housing policy. He said
that prior to the adoption of the new housing policy, a rezoning would typically require that 15%
of the units be affordable at 80% AMI. He said that he was wondering if this rezoning was required
to have 20% affordable units, or if it was just a recommendation.
Mr. Barnes said that it was a policy, not a regulation. He said that when they referred to a
requirement, he interpreted that as something that was mandated in the ordinance, such as a
minimum number of parking spaces per bedroom. He said that this policy was applied to rezoning
applications, and applicants were evaluated based on their ability to meet the policy requirements.
Mr. Clayborne asked if the previous 15% affordable at 80% AMI was a recommendation and not
a requirement in their old housing policy.
Stacy Pethia, Director of Housing, said that that was correct. She said that the 15% of total units
at 80% AMI, which was the previous policy, was a recommendation, not a requirement. She said
that currently, the County did not have an ordinance that would require affordable housing with
rezonings.
Mr. Clayborne said that it was good to know that these were just strong recommendations.
Mr. Missel said that according to what he understood, the affordable units being discussed were
contingent upon the RHIP award. He said that if the RHIP award was not received, the decision
to build 15% affordable units at 80% or any other percentage was at their discretion.
Dr. Pethia said no. She said that the main difference between Housing Albemarle and the RHIP
was that Housing Albemarle recommended 20% of new units to be affordable, whereas RHIP
targeted 20% of total units, including those already in existence. She said that in this case, RHIP
would provide a rebate of property taxes paid, contingent on the property taxes for the entire
parcel, not individual buildings. She said that as a result, they would have to increase the number.
Mr. Bivins said that they had received a note indicating a change in Attachment 3. He said that
upon reviewing it, he noticed that in the previous attachment, there was an option for a cash
proffer. He said that however, in the current page 6, this option was no longer included or offered.
He asked, if the grant was not realized, what would be the applicant's obligation, as stated, and
what was the required amount of affordable units for a certain duration.
Dr. Pethia said that would be 20% of the new units that were being proposed.
Mr. Shoaf said that he would like to add that since RHIP was a separate application, it needed to
be sorted out before this application went to the Board of Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Mr. Murray said that the subject property was located in the dam break inundation zone. He said
that he would like to know if staff could elaborate on the additional requirements that were
imposed on properties within this zone.
Mr. Shoaf said that if a property was located within the dam break inundation zone, if this project
was approved by the Board, it would be subject to the different site plans and subdivision plats,
and so on. He said that it would be sent to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)
for them to review and assess the impacts on the dam break inundation zone.
Ms. Firehock asked if any units were within the dam break inundation zone.
Mr. Shoaf said that he did not believe so. He said that there may be a portion of the site included
in the zone.
Ms. Firehock said that she was having trouble locating the specific information regarding the
shared use path. She said that she would like more information on whether it was contiguous or
practical.
Mr. Shoaf said that according to the proposed map, the shared use path was depicted as green
at the bottom of the map and was built to VDOT standards. He said that it was constructed along
the frontage of the property, located on 5th Street. He said that it ended at the property line, and
upon inspection, it appeared to terminate at a substandard facility. He said that this was being
documented in the staff report, although it was not a factor that would be considered unfavorable.
He said that there was an existing sidewalk at the 5th Street Apartments, which would have been
a more suitable location for it to end; however, it ended at a facility along 5th Street.
Ms. Firehock asked if staff had a recommendation as to what could have been done better in that
instance. She asked if anything could be done differently.
Mr. Shoaf said that within this rezoning application, he did not think there was much for staff to
comment on. He said that the applicant was meeting the County's requirement along their
frontage.
Ms. Firehock said that it was at least noted that it was less than ideal and that someone would
have to walk along this weird, skinny strip between a guardrail, which was not the safest route.
Mr. Barnes said that to clarify, the Ordinance was trying to get to the facility to the edge of the
property. He said that a gap existed between there and the 5th Street Apartments. He said that
while there may be opportunities for the applicant to proffer something, but staff did not push it
that way and were mainly focused on getting to the edge of the property. He said that however, it
would be negligent if they did not mention that VDOT had questioned that segment.
Mr. Barnes said that they had been working with VDOT, and they had received recent comments
indicating that VDOT was worried about the termination at the substandard facility. He said that
they were taking the position that some level of connectivity was better than none at all. He said
that in this case, this was an improvement, moving them in the right direction.
Ms. Firehock said that she had not surveyed the site in person, but it appeared from the provided
materials that the issue could be fixed. She said that they had received applications in the past
where the path ran into a cliff, but in this case, it could be fixed. She said that however, there was
no promise of that.
Mr. Barnes said that the applicants' engineers may be able to elaborate on that point. He said that
a noticeable grade drop-off from 5th Street was in this location.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that it would likely be expensive to put in a sidewalk or create a buffer between
the guardrail and the path. She said that even with unsafe walkways, people would still walk on
them.
Mr. Bivins said that he recalled the ABC development was planning to provide some
improvements, including funding improvements for a roundabout and a bus stop. He said that
perhaps they could release this applicant from that obligation, and they could instead fix the
sidewalk. He asked if there was any clarity that could be provided regarding those past
discussions.
Kevin McDermott, Deputy Director of Planning, said that to clarify, the ABC development had a
shared use path that was being built in conjunction with the VDOT project and the developer's
work. He said that specifically, the section from Old Lynchburg to Wahoo Way would be
constructed by both parties. He said that the ABC development initially proffered a bus stop on
the southern corner of their property, but VDOT's design for the roundabout led to the bus stop
being relocated to the south side of Old Lynchburg Road.
Mr. McDermott said that VDOT would construct this new bus stop as part of the roundabout
project. He said that the developer had offered upgrades to the existing bus stop east of Wahoo
Way and was also providing the shared use path from Wahoo Way to the edge of their property,
adjacent to the bus stop.
Mr. Bivins said that that was very clarifying, and he thanked Mr. McDermott for the explanation.
Mr. Missel asked for the staff report on the steep slopes rezoning request.
Mr. Shoaf said that the second rezoning application was to rezone 0.55 acres of Steep Slopes
Preserved to Steep Slopes Managed in order to construct the additional proposed buildings. He
said that staff conducted a thorough review by analyzing and comparing the characteristics of
preserved and managed slopes, as outlined in their Ordinance, and concluded that these slopes
met the criteria for managed slopes.
Mr. Shoaf said that a previously approved site plan from 2002 provided evidence that these slopes
had been previously approved to be graded with the original development on this property. He
said that the map accompanying this presentation illustrated the concept plan for preserving these
steep slopes for the new buildings on site. He said that based on this analysis, staff recommended
approval of the zoning map amendment request.
Mr. Murray said that he noticed there was a man-made lake nearby, and the surrounding slopes
were managed rather than preserved. He said that he would like to consider making all of those
slopes preserved in the future, as they likely fell within the riparian buffer.
Mr. Shoaf said that he was unsure of the location of the riparian buffer, but to address the first
question, yes, it was a manufactured stormwater management facility located there.
Mr. Murray asked if buffers would be applied to standing bodies of water such as that, even if it
was a retention basin.
Ms. Firehock said that they may not want trees directly at the edge of the pond.
Mr. Missel asked if the applicant had a presentation.
Valerie Long, Attorney with Williams Mullen, said that she was representing the applicant,
Bonaventure Holdings and its entity that owned the property. She said that she was joined this
evening by Sam Tricoli, Director of Asset Management for Bonaventure, and Clint Shifflett with
Timmons Group, the Civil Engineer for the site. She said that she provided an aerial image that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
showed the extent of excess unused parking, particularly in this area and the entire back section,
which was previously open. She said that also provided was a zoning map, showing how this was
located within a patchwork of other zoning districts.
Ms. Long said that for context, this property was located off of 5th Street, with Wahoo Way and
the entrance. She said that the existing bus stop was also shown. She said that another image
showed the mature property, built a long time ago, with kudzu helping to screen the buildings from
the entrance corridor. She said that the entrance from Old Lynchburg Road was also shown,
which was located on the opposite side of the project. She said that the existing site plan indicated
where the new buildings would be located or proposed to be located in the vacant parking areas.
Ms. Long said that there were currently 12 buildings, with 144 units and 660 parking spaces, as
they were built as student suites requiring 1.25 spaces per bedroom. She said that there had
always been too many parking spaces. She said that Phase 2 of the proposed project involved
the brown buildings, with 165 new units in five buildings. She said that the concept plan showed
the proposed location of these buildings in relation to the aerial plan. She said that the proposed
upgrade to the existing asphalt path would be a shared use path, meeting VDOT standards,
typically 10 feet wide. She said that the applicant was also proposing to upgrade the existing bus
stop, making it more comfortable for everyone.
Ms. Long said that this area highlighted showed where the proposed off-site improvements would
be located. She said that they had worked closely with staff to identify opportunities to upgrade
the existing sidewalk and pedestrian connection. She said that all of the areas in yellow on the
site plan indicated new sidewalk connections, including some that would be required due to the
new Phase 2. She said that staff had pointed out some crosswalks that could be added, and they
had identified areas where new sidewalk connections were needed.
Ms. Long said that additionally, she would like to highlight the connection here, which appeared
to have been intended to be built originally but was not for some reason. She said that similarly,
there was an issue with the connection on the other side. She said that through their efforts, they
received valuable feedback from staff on how to improve those connections, and a result, they
could now demonstrate a direct pedestrian connection from one side of the community to the
other, which they believed was a significant improvement.
Ms. Long said that she also wanted to discuss the preserved steep slopes. She said that they
were man-made slopes, shown on the existing site plan for the buildings. She said that they met
the criteria for managed slopes, and notably, the property line roughly formed the boundary
between preserved and managed slopes. She said that this was consistent along the interstate,
regardless of whether the slopes met the criteria or not, if they were in the right of way, they were
managed; if they were on private property, they were preserved.
Ms. Long said that as noted, they were proposing that 20% of the total unit count between Phase
1 and Phase 2 would be affordable, totaling 62 units. She said that this was contingent on the
Board's approval of the RHIP or tax abatement program. She said t hat she would like to provide
a breakdown of the Phase 1 units, 144, and Phase 2, 165. She said that this increased the density
from 10 units per acre to approximately 21, which was significantly higher and more consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designation of up to 34.
Ms. Long said that they had mentioned the off-site improvements they were proposing, and she
had also included some information on the existing amenities. She said that Bonaventure had
been renovating the existing Phase 1 units and had also made improvements to the existing
amenities, such as converting a basketball court to a pickleball court and upgrading the clubhouse
area and leasing office. She said that they had conducted a traffic study as part of the rezoning
application, and to their surprise, the number of trips actually decreased when adding 165 new
units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Long said that this was due to the higher trip generation estimate of student suites compared
to non-student suites. She said that the good news was that, combined with the future roundabout,
there were no recommendations for any road improvements. She said that she would also like to
provide more information on the shared use path situation out front. She said that there was an
existing path, and Bonaventure had committed to building a new path as part of the project. She
said that the area shown was an aerial view, and the yellow areas indicated steep slopes. She
said that there was also an existing asphalt path all the way to this point.
Ms. Long said that while it was not ideal, it was worth noting that the existing terrain was quite
expensive to upgrade due to the steep slopes. She said that if one was standing near the bus
stop at the entrance to Wahoo Way, they could see the entrance looking north towards the
interstate. She said that they had taken photos this morning, so they were very current. She said
that although the current standards were not being met, this area was functional and usable. She
said that there was a segment, or area would be upgraded to a standard 10-foot-wide path by
Bonaventure. She said that there would be a significant amount of fill dirt needed to make that
work, which would be a considerable expense.
Ms. Long said that, however, they believed it would be a substantial improvement. She said that
another photo showed the path looking from the opposite direction, south on Fifth Street, towards
Wahoo Way. She said that this was the end of the sidewalk at the entrance to the adjacent
community, 5th Street Place at Afton Pond Court. She said that again, the path was present,
although it was not ideal; it was functional and usable but upgrading it further with these utilities
and the steep grade was challenging. She said that they had pulled the site plan for reference.
She said that the segment in blue represented the path that Bonaventure would upgrade to a
standard shared use path, while the yellow represented the existing asphalt path.
Ms. Long said that they wanted to highlight the other utilities, easements, and existing managed
steep slopes for reference. She said that it was not an easy project to make those improvements.
She said that additionally, she wanted to emphasize the project benefits. She said that this project
was infill development in the existing development area, resulting in a higher density rate, which
was a more efficient use of the limited development area land. She said that Bonaventure was
making substantial improvements to the existing student suites. She said that they were
converting the three and four-bedroom units into two and three-bedroom units, making them more
suitable for families and non-students.
Ms. Long said that they would have affordable units if the grant program was approved, and they
would be making improvements to the pedestrian network. She said that there would be no impact
on traffic, and the offsite improvements would be made. She said that they had provided some of
the updates and renovations to the phase one units. She said that Bonaventure had been
renovating them and re-leasing them. She said that some of the previous residents from Cavalier
Crossing had been able to stay and find new roommates, and they had had resident events to
help people meet new roommates. She said that this had reduced the need for residents to rent
a bedroom with strangers.
Ms. Long said that they had provided examples of the renovations, the standards and conditions
of the units before Bonaventure took over, and the quality of the renovations they were making.
She said that the building renovations continued to be underway, and she could do the math on
the bedroom count change if the Commission would like. She said that originally, the bedroom
count was 528. She said that following the renovations, the Phase 1 bedroom count would be
384, and the Phase 2 new units would have a bedroom count of 250. She said that therefore, the
new bedroom count was 634. She said that it was an increase in beds, but Bonaventure was
confident that the redevelopment would work very well.
Mr. Moore said that he wanted to ask about the affordable housing incentive. He said that their
County policy required that 20% of the units be priced at 60% of the AMI for a 30-year period to
qualify for the property tax discount. He said that the proposed plan, however, would allocate 10%
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
of the units at 60% AMI and 10% at 80%. He said that this deviated slightly from their policy. He
asked why this variance existed in the proposal.
Ms. Long said that that was what the project could support. She said that doing 20% of all the unit
count at 60% AMI did not make it viable. She said that it was a real challenge. She said that
originally, they had considered a cash option, as Mr. Bivins noted, but it proved to be unwieldy
due to the lack of policies in place for managing and reviewing it. She said that they ultimately
decided to focus on 20% of the new unit count only. She said that the County had expressed a
desire to see more affordable units on site during some of their meetings, and they were flexible
with them on the AMI mix. She said that as a result, this project did provide an opportunity for
housing that could accommodate a variety of income types and income levels.
Mr. Bivins said that he thought some of the buildings could have been built higher and
accommodated a higher density of units. He said that he understood the buildings at the front of
the property could not be that tall, but those farther back could have been higher.
Mr. Murray said that he agreed with what Mr. Bivins had said about the height.
Mr. Clayborne said that he wanted to thank Ms. Long for the applicant's willingness to be creative
in providing affordable units. He said that this was one of the only developments they had seen
with 60% AMI at all, so this did not happen often. He asked Dr. Pethia if the grant program enacted
in 2024 had seen much interest so far from developers.
Dr. Pethia said that this was the first application in front of the Commission that was applying to
the grant program. She said that staff was in conversation with a number of different projects, but
they had not moved forward yet.
Mr. Clayborne said that there may be potential for them to reconvene the collective group that
met two years ago. He said that although unrelated to this current application, he believed there
may be an opportunity for them to revisit this group if they were not seeing any progress.
Mr. Carrazana said that he had not seen any projects come forward with the grant program, so
he would like to hear how the process had been so far for the applicant and what the estimated
timeline was for completing it.
Ms. Long said that they were in the early stages of the process because the rezoning application
had undergone a review process, where they received feedback and refined their affordable
housing plan. She said that initially, they were not proposing to include 20% of all units in the
affordable housing, but rather just the new ones. She said that however, after receiving feedback
from the County, they emphasized that they would like to see more affordable housing, and she
was open to being flexible with the AMI breakdown.
Ms. Long said that as a result, Bonaventure had to re-examine the numbers and work with two
different investor groups to determine what could be done. She said that this led to a new
commitment, but the application had not yet been submitted to the County. She said that there
was a significant amount of paperwork involved in the application process, which they hoped to
complete soon. She said that the County would review the application, and they anticipated that
this would take some time.
Ms. Long said that they hoped to receive an answer before they presented the rezoning
application to the Board of Supervisors. She said that this may occur at a different meeting, or
potentially earlier in the same meeting, but they would need to know the outcome before the public
hearing on the rezonings.
Mr. Carrazana asked if the 62 total affordable units were inclusive of both the 60% and 80% AMI
units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Long said that yes, that was the current proposal.
Mr. Carrazana asked if the split would remain the same whether they did the 33 or 62 units.
Ms. Long said that the proposal outlined that if the grant was approved, it would provide tax
abatement incentives, and specifically, 20% of the 309 units would be affordable, with 10% at
80% AMI and 10% at 60% AMI. She said that if the grant was not approved, they would need to
determine their next course of action.
Mr. Carrazana asked if the 20% affordability for the new units would still apply in the case that the
grant was not approved.
Ms. Long said that they would need to reevaluate and determine what worked. She said that that
was the challenge. She said that the grant program was crucial to making it successful at 60%;
however, even that did not cover the gap. She said that prior to the March 2024 adoption of the
new grant program, the expectation was that 15% of new units would be affordable at 80% of the
AMI for 10 years. She said that since then, the dial for AMI, percentage of units, and term of
affordability had all shifted. She said that shifting those variables resulted in substantial financial
impact. She said that the grant was 15% of the total tax, which was an important figure to factor
into the financial calculations of the project.
Mr. Clayborne said that he was still not completely sure about the affordable housing process. He
asked what policy would be in effect if the grant was not approved. He asked if it would be the
15% or nothing.
Ms. Long said that the expectation was that 20% of the new units would be affordable at 60%,
per the policy, but it was unclear whether the Board would be amenable to a different mix of AMI.
She said that this was a challenge for the developer, as they must ensure the commitment was
financially viable. She said that they hoped the grant would work out, as they knew in that case,
they could certainly provide the 20% affordable with a blend of AMI. She said that they would
have to reevaluate and see what could work if the outcome was different.
Mr. Missel said that the bottom line was that the grant program had to work out.
Mr. Bivins asked how many affordable units they would have if they did not build Phase 2.
Ms. Long said that if they did not build Phase 2, currently Phase 1 did not have any affordability
restrictions because it was built as a by-right project. She said that in practical terms, however,
some of these units would be priced between 80% and 120% AMI. She said that she was unsure
of the current rent rates.
Mr. Bivins said that right now, no inventory had to be there, so there became a potential of
inventory if there was a grant. He said that if the grant was approved, it would cover the entire
property, and that was how they potentially would get 62 affordable units.
Mr. Clayborne said that he was grappling with the idea that things may have been better before
this policy was implemented. He said that theoretically, before the policy was passed, it seemed
that they were almost guaranteed to receive the 15% at 80% AMI threshold. He said that however,
as the ordinance did not guarantee this, he was now uncertain about what to expect. He said that
the numbers had shifted from 80% to 60%, and it appeared that they were now facing a more
challenging process. He said that he was left wondering which scenario was better, pre- or post-
policy implementation.
Mr. Clayborne said that it seemed like more proposals were not even considering it as an option;
the 15% at 80% AMI was seen almost as if it was a given, even though now that he was thinking
about it, he had always believed it was a requirement. He said that however, it appeared that it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
was not a requirement after all, and now it was like a big debate. He said that he was struggling
to understand which was better.
Ms. Firehock said that she would like to discuss the layout of the proposed development. She
said that specifically, she was concerned about the two apartment buildings that were replacing
the rows of parking at the top. She said that she had trouble visualizing what those buildings
would be like in reality. She said that although they had provided brown blobs and some
calculations from their engineers, it was difficult for her to imagine that those buildings would be
pleasant to live in, especially being situated in the middle of a parking lot. She said that in contrast,
the other units had trees surrounding them and seemed more appealing for living. She said that
she was curious to know if they could provide some insight into the design of the buildings that
would be replacing the parking lot.
Ms. Long said that she was not sure if they had designed them yet, but the vision was for two -
story buildings with garages on the ground floor and units above them. She said that it was an
attempt to be creative with infill development in an unused parking area and providing a variety
of housing types.
Ms. Firehock asked if they could assume there would be landscaping around them.
Ms. Long said that at the site plan stage, the site plan regulations would likely require plantings,
similar to what would be required for a total greenfield site.
Ms. Firehock said that she noticed the building in the corner of the site, which appeared to be
situated in a more desirable area for residences. She said that although she did not have a site
survey, she wondered if it was possible to expand that building. She said that being located in
that corner offered a more pleasant setting, with a view of the pond and surrounding trees. She
said that it seemed like it would be a more suitable location to increase density, rather than placing
it in the middle of the parking lot.
Ms. Long said that she understood and agreed that Ms. Firehock's point certainly made sense.
She said that she would take that back to the design team for consideration.
Ms. Firehock said that there was a large building located in the top left corner, so it seemed like
they could replicate that in this other corner.
Ms. Long said that she saw her point that it seemed like it would fit in better.
Ms. Firehock said that there was buffer and space that made it seem more pleasant than being
stuck in the middle of an urban heat island, surrounded by pavement on all sides. She said that
even landscaping improvements could not completely mitigate that.
Ms. Long said that there was a vision of potentially incorporating different unit types with the
garages, which would not be typical of a standard multifamily development. She said that she
appreciated the feedback, and she was glad to hear that they were open to exploring more height
and building density, as well as increasing the number of units.
Ms. Firehock said that in general, she was supportive of reducing parking and adding units. She
said that they applauded developers for coming forward to take advantage of the Comprehensive
Plan and their expressed desire for density. She said that she was not asking them to share their
site plan tonight, but it did bother her that there was this potential for a much more pleasant
residential setting in that corner of the site, as opposed to the middle of the parking lot.
Mr. Murray said that he also wanted to emphasize the opportunity for green rooves on the new
buildings, which would greatly improve the efficacy of stormwater management on the site. He
said that he hoped the developer would take this into consideration as they designed out the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Long said that they appreciated the suggestions, and she was not aware of the information
Mr. Murray had shared earlier regarding the different types of pervious pavers. She said that she
appreciated the feedback.
Mr. Murray said that the Soil and Water Conservation District had done a significant amount of
work on permeable pavers, as it was one of the areas they funded. He said that he was familiar
with their efforts because, as an associate director, he had firsthand experience with their work.
He said that if the applicant was seeking more information, they could certainly provide it.
Mr. Missel opened the public hearing.
Michael Monaco, White Hall District, said that he served as Chair of the Crozet Community
Advisory Committee (CAC), although that was not his capacity here tonight. He said that he was
representing Livable Cville, an organization that wished to express its support for this plan, this
site, and this project. He said that Livable believed this represented a real opportunity for good,
smart growth in the urban core of Albemarle County, particularly within development areas where
they should be developing.
Mr. Monaco said that this development would make it easier for people to live where they worked
and worked where they lived. He said that the improved internal walkability, added bus shelter,
and enhanced shared use path along 5th Street, as well as the reduction in parking spots, all
contributed to advancing principles of good, smart development. He said that it presented a
forward-looking perspective on mobility and transportation in new and infill development in
Albemarle County. He said that they also saw this as an opportunity to create homes for people
at various income levels.
Mr. Monaco said that they were aware of the RHIP grant and were hopeful that the process
worked well. He said that they were glad to see that some residents were able to retain housing
or remain in their homes when Cavalier Crossing changed ownership, although this was a
disruptive experience for many residents. He said that Livable Cville believed that this site plan
represented a chance to create more affordable housing in this location and make something
positive out of the site where Cavalier Crossing was. He said that they believed that this project
advanced Albemarle County's goals around growth, mobility, housing, and they expressed
support for that.
Mr. Missel closed the public hearing and the matter rested with the Commission.
Mr. Carrazana said that he would like to commend the applicant for this meaningful infill project,
which represented a rare opportunity to revisit and capitalize on lost development potential,
increasing density in the area. He said that he encouraged them to consider increasing the density
even further. He said that currently, the project was expanding from 6 to 34 units, and he believed
that the applicant had mentioned aiming for 21 units. He said that while parking remained a
consideration, he thought that some of the comments made today, such as removing the units
from the heat island area and increasing density in the other buildings may potentially offset some
of the parking concerns.
Mr. Carrazana said that he strongly advocated for exploring higher density options and additional
infill development in this location, which had been acknowledged as ideal for such development.
He said that he understood the challenges with affordable units, and he hoped that the grant
would be approved, allowing for units to be priced at 60% of AMI. He said that this would provide
a more affordable option, as the area median income continued to grow, and the current numbers
were still not considered affordable. He said that reaching 60% AMI would provide more
meaningful affordability, so he hoped they could figure something out with the grants.
Mr. Clayborne said that he believed this project accomplished several positive things. He said
that it was the first one he had seen that had reached the 60% AMI mark. He said that his
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
subsequent comments would be more focused on a global perspective and their overall approach.
He said that as the new housing market was gaining momentum, it was essential to track data
closely. He said that he would love to see the County take a more proactive approach, where they
were not just reacting to issues, but rather working together across all disciplines - including the
Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, staff, development, and the community - to
proactively workshop solutions, similar to how they did two years ago.
Mr. Clayborne said that this project had been on the books for a while, and he felt that it was
moving at a glacial pace. He said that he wanted to emphasize that this was not a criticism of
staff, but rather a recognition that something was not clicking. He said that whether it was the
funding or the approach, something needed to change. He said that he expected to see more
progress by now, and he feared that if they did not do things correctly, they may end up worse off
than before, despite the intention to improve with their new Housing Albemarle policy.
Ms. Firehock said that construction costs had doubled and tripled in some cases. She said that
people did not have the same ability to meet their policy today.
Mr. Missel said that he thought Mr. Clayborne's question of whether they were worse off was
important to address. He asked if Dr. Pethia could address that and give her thoughts on whether
they were missing something.
Dr. Pethia said that they were not worse off. She said that the Board had requested that Housing
Albemarle not be fully implemented until an incentive program was approved, so while Housing
Albemarle was adopted in 2021, the Board did not approve an incentive program until three years
later. She said that the result was that this was really just getting started. She said that the staff's
efforts over the past three years had laid the groundwork for moving forward once the incentive
program was approved.
Dr. Pethia said that if they examined the affordable units already in the pipeline, there were
approximately 2,100 to 2,200 units, all at 80% AMI. She said that however, about 20% of the
County's households fell at or below 80% AMI, meaning that 20% of their households could not
afford to purchase or rent any of the units currently in the pipeline. She said that this represented
a significant number of households.
Dr. Pethia said that since all of the proffered units currently in the pipeline were priced at 80%
AMI, it limited the availability to a very small group of people. She said that she did not mean to
imply that 80% AMI households did not deserve affordable rent; it was just that they were leaving
20% of their households in the County without affordable housing options. She said that
unfortunately, this number was growing, particularly with the current unemployment situation,
including federal layoffs.
Dr. Pethia said that they were not worse off, but rather, they were facing a growing need. She
said that staff was scheduled to review Housing Albemarle and reassess these issues. She said
that they were waiting for the Planning District Commission's updated housing needs assessment
to be completed. She said that preliminary data was expected to be released in January, which
would provide a foundation for their future decisions. She said that it did not make sense to make
changes to their housing policy until they had this data, as changes were likely to come. She said
that they simply wanted to wait until they had a solid understanding of the new numbers before
reassessing their County policies.
Mr. Missel said that he had heard anecdotally that people who could afford 80% AMI affordable
units were actually less likely to rent right at that number. He said that they were actually more
likely to choose units at a higher price, so that made it even more difficult to rent the affordable
units. He asked if Dr. Pethia had seen this occur.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Dr. Pethia said that she had not heard of that, but something she had noticed was that some of
the 60% AMI units that had recently become available, such as those at Hickory Hope, were
having trouble finding people who could qualify to move into them. She said that considering their
current area median income was $125,800, for a family of four, that would be $100,000 per year
in salary to meet the 80% AMI, which knocked the rents and for-sale units way out of reach for
20% of their households in the County.
Mr. Missel said that in their future discussions, it would be interesting to know how many people
with a 60% AMI were having difficulty renting apartments. He said that to him, it seemed that there
was a disconnect between the number of people who were ready to move in and the actual
availability of rentals.
Dr. Pethia said that it was due to how the low-income housing tax credit properties worked, those
rents were set by the state in order to make them affordable for the developer and the renters.
She said that as a result, lower-income households faced difficulties renting these units without
additional subsidies that do not currently exist. She said that several factors are at play, and the
competition for these limited resources was intense. She said that those who managed to secure
a spot on one of these lists were fortunate, while those who do not were left struggling even more.
Mr. Clayborne said that he was glad to hear that they were not in a worse position than expected.
He said that if 80% of the units came online and were not being used, then perhaps having fewer
units overall at 60% was acceptable. He said that he was not sure if this was the right approach,
but 60% did seem like a reasonable threshold. He said that he was also pleased to hear that there
was flexibility in the design of some of these solutions, as he had heard that the applicant would
revisit this with staff and there would be a push and pull to determine what was acceptable.
Mr. Murray said that as they went through the AC44 process, they discussed the vast areas of
unused parking areas in Albemarle County. He said that considering those issues, he was excited
to see this project come forward, as it addressed the issue of underutilized parking. He said that
as they evaluated projects like this, he hoped they could consider how to accurately calculate the
capacity of the growth area.
Mr. Murray said that this project demonstrated that they had more capacity than they were
currently using. He said that he thought this project highlighted the importance of not over-
expanding the Development Area. He said that if they had done so, projects like this would not
have been viable. He said that he believed this project was a great example of what they were
striving to achieve, and he thought they needed to aim to achieve more of it.
Mr. Bivins said that he disagreed with Mr. Murray's last statement. He said that the costs of
developing a greenfield site versus redeveloping within a developed site were vastly different in
terms of logistics and investment considerations. He said that whether he chose to build
something from scratch or renovate in this particular location, investors would come to different
types of projects, depending on the risk and their desired level of involvement. He said that there
was a balance that needed to be appreciated, saying that increasing something would have
eliminated this issue oversimplified the situation.
Mr. Bivins said that what he would say was that investors in this environment were playing an
interest rate game, and they must commit funds over a 30-year period, where they could not
predict their cost of money or opportunity cost. He said that as a result, if anything, he would
suggest reducing the length of time required to attract investors. He said that perhaps they could
explore alternative approaches, such as adjusting percentages. He said that however, he firmly
believed that asking investors to commit to freezing their funds for 30 years was unrealistic in
today's environment, where interest rates and money were moving at a different pace.
Mr. Bivins said that there were other investment opportunities available, as well. He said that what
he recalled was that in the past, they had been able to achieve more affordable housing through
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
density bonuses, where there was a nexus between increased density and the need to bring
something to the table. He said that however, the current message to developers was to do
everything by right, and they often put in place barriers to affordability because it simplified the
process.
Mr. Bivins said that as he saw it, the conversation should shift to finding ways to provide flexibility
to both the County and developers, so they could come to a mutually beneficial agreement that
balanced their investment goals with their need for affordable housing. He said that this was also
about addressing the economy of their area and the changing job profiles. He said that they could
discuss all the affordable housing they wanted, but unless they made significant changes to their
job profiles, this problem would persist and worsen. He said that as they moved forward, he was
concerned about the issue of widening the gap between those with assets and those who did not
have the ability to create assets.
Mr. Bivins said that one of the things that bothered him was that they had a park, Azalea Park,
located nearby the subject property. He said that however, there was an outsized difficulty in
accessing it. He said that he hoped that someone would mention a discussion between the City
and County regarding some type of improvement, which could potentially lead to increased
access. He said that however, it appeared to him that they had created spaces that catered
primarily to car-driven activities, while neglecting the needs of those who preferred more walkable,
stroller-friendly, or bikeable areas.
Mr. Bivins said that in this case, the park was inaccessible to those who needed it. He said that
this was a crucial point to consider as they discussed the use of land, as they must also think
about how to encourage people to use the full range of available spaces. He said that
nonetheless, he wanted to emphasize that he was supportive of this project and would support
the applicant in exploring ways to increase density on the site, even if it meant considering taller
buildings.
Mr. Barnes said that one of the projects they were moving towards, with a bid coming up, was a
sidewalk system. He said that they had attempted to work with VDOT to make it a shared-use
path, but they had encountered engineering issues. He said that the outcome would be that they
would be able to access the other side of Interstate 64 for the Rivanna Trail. He said that the City
had recently purchased the portion of Azalea Park, expanding it to include the area between
Moores Creek and the interstate. He said that ultimately, users would be able to access Azalea
Park. He said that they were working on other bike and pedestrian connections in the area, as
well.
Mr. Bivins said that Riverbend had mentioned that they would be spilling some of their people
onto a road further down that way. He said that this was creating a sort of energy in that area that
could not be accommodated. He said that when one drove down that road to access Fry's Springs,
the area was not conducive to pedestrians. He said that they should be thinking about how to
make that area more pedestrian-friendly.
Mr. Moore said that he believed that other people had shared similar thoughts with him regarding
this proposal. He said that he appreciated certain aspects of the project, particularly the
developer's willingness to collaborate with County staff and incorporate affordable housing into
the project. He said that he also appreciated the consideration of increased density, as it was a
suitable location for it. He said that having agreement from both Livable Cville and the Piedmont
Environmental Council (PEC) was a positive step.
Mr. Moore said that however, he recalled a headline from last year in Charlottesville Tomorrow,
which read "Residents are being kicked out of one of the area's most affordable apartment
complexes to make way for luxury units." He said that this was true; Cavalier Crossing, although
in need of renovation, was a very affordable option, with residents paying $560 per month for a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
bedroom in a shared apartment. He said that there were scant few places in Albemarle where
someone could find a comparable deal.
Mr. Moore said that the AMI for a one-person household was around $85,000, making it difficult
to find affordable housing in this area, even at 60% AMI, the rent would be approximately $1,300
per month. He said that he acknowledged that the County chipped in some funds and
Bonaventure had assisted in the relocation of those residents, but for the folks that were living in
this apartment complex previously, it was unfathomable that it would cost 2.5 times as much to
stay after the renovations.
Mr. Moore said that he could not fault the applicant for this, as Bonaventure was a company, and
companies had to make a profit. He said that he appreciated the developer's willingness to work
with County staff in this instance, but from a broader perspective, he believed they were still failing
to provide affordable housing options for those who worked for wages. He said that they were
relying on private developers to provide affordable housing with an incentive that was difficult to
define.
Mr. Moore said that he thought they still needed a social housing sector, and this was an example
of a situation where the County could have stepped in and bought this apartment complex in order
to operate as a social good. He said that this was a good private proposal, but it shed light on the
issue of their need for a secondary affordable housing market in perpetuity.
Mr. Missel said that he would reiterate that promoting infill development was key, as well as
incorporating the shared use path. He said that the parking issue had been a persistent concern,
which they had discussed many times previously. He said that this project was a great example
of how to utilize excess parking for additional units. He said that for the record, he wanted to
emphasize that the Commission strongly supported the application for the RHIP grant and
requested that it be approved.
Mr. Missel said that he thought that this project could serve as a case study, and to the applicant
he would say that it would be beneficial to receive feedback on how this was progressing and
where it could be improved in advance of potential discussions that Mr. Clayborne had
recommended, which he wholeheartedly agreed with. He said that a continued dialogue with
developers, staff, and others was crucial. He said that he believed these points resonated with
everyone.
Mr. Missel said that he would like to echo the importance of tracking data and metrics, as had
been mentioned by Mr. Clayborne. He said that he thought this was a vital aspect of the
discussion.
Mr. Missel motioned that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA-2025-00004
Attain on 5th Street Phase 2 (R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development) for the
reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Carrazana seconded the motion, which carried unanimously
(7-0).
Mr. Missel motioned that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA-2025-00005
Attain on 5th Street Phase 2 (Steep Slopes Preserved to Managed) for the reasons stated in the
staff report. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0).
Committee Reports
Mr. Missel said that as a reminder, the all-CAC meeting was scheduled for Thursday night in Lane
Auditorium, and he encouraged everyone to attend, as these meetings were often informative
and engaging.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 22
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Ms. Firehock said that the Historic Preservation Committee had lost their meeting space because
early voting was taking place there for the election this year.
Mr. Murray said that at the October Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Tech meeting that
there was a significant discussion about the interchange on Barracks Road. He said that the
proposal to increase the lanes to two lanes there sparked interest in how pedestrian traffic would
be accommodated. He said that currently, many people walked along that area to get to housing
developments in Charlottesville. He said that he found the discussion to be very interesting and
a concern that warranted further attention. He said that he planned to be more engaged with this
issue, and he encouraged the rest of the Commissioners to look into it as well.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: October 15, 2025
Michael Barnes, Director of Planning, said that one item was considered during the evening, and
that was the adoption of the AC44 Comprehensive Plan update. He said that it was adopted that
evening. He said that they were currently working at the staff level to develop a detailed
implementation plan and strategy, which they hoped to present to the Commission in the near
future.
Mr. Missel said that he congratulated staff on the approval of the Comp Plan.
Mr. Barnes said that he wanted to give his thanks to the Commission, as their discussions were
always interesting, albeit lengthy at times. He said that he sincerely appreciated all of their input
on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Barnes said that on another note, as Mr. Missel had mentioned, this Thursday would be the
all-CAC meeting. He said that it was not intended to be a public meeting for the Planning
Commission. He said that if they planned to attend, which they were encouraged to do but not
required to, he wanted to be aware that discussions about business between the Commissioners
should not occur. He said that this was to ensure that they did not run afoul of public notice and
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations.
Jenny Tevendale, Senior Assistant County Attorney, said that the Commissioners could attend
but should not congregate nor discuss business. She said that they could be in the same room
without it being an official meeting as long as they did not join together and discuss official matters
of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barnes said that the other item he wanted to mention was that the deferred item, Belvedere
Amendment, was moved to December 9, so the Commission's November 25, 2025, meeting
would be held at 6:00 p.m., and the December 9 meeting would also begin at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Murray asked when the Riparian Buffer Ordinance would be coming back before the Planning
Commission
Mr. Barnes said that it was on the Commission's schedule for their December 9 meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 23
Final Minutes - October 28, 2025
Adjournment
At 8:00 p.m., the Commission adjourned to November 18, 2025, Albemarle County Planning
Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m.
_____________________________
Michael Barnes, Director of Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; transcribed
by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 11/18/2025
Initials: CSS