Planning Commission Meeting   5/11/2021

The Planning Commission will be in order and welcome to the May 11th regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Why don't we go ahead and begin with reports from the dias.

Yeah, hey, I just had two quick things.

One, I just wanted to point out that

UVA has kind of kicked off their affordable housing initiative.

They did that on the 29th, I think, of April with a public kind of Zoom kind of meeting forum.

They had President Ryan, JJ Wagner, and Gina Merritt, who's with Northern Real Estate Urban Ventures, who's the consultant helping us with that project, kind of do an intro.

And there's going to be a lot.

More opportunity for public input, I would say, hopefully.

I don't know the exact schedule and all that, but I just wanted to kind of just remind everybody that that happened.

I'll put in the chat when I'm done talking a link to that presentation because it's up on YouTube.

The other thing, just to

Remind everybody of as graduation is actually happening in person this year.

It's a lot different than in years past.

It's actually two weekends of graduation.

This weekend will be a smaller ceremony for people who graduated last year, didn't get to experience graduation and want to come back and have that experience.

And then not this weekend, but the following weekend, there's

Actually, like three days of smaller graduation ceremonies, starting at the Lawn and ending in Scott Stadium.

So just happy to see that happening.

But it's going to look a lot different.

But there still will probably be a lot more people in town next couple weekends.

Very good.

Thanks.

Ms.

So I met as part of the Rivanna River, pull out my notes, Rivanna Urban Corridor Steering Committee, met on April 26th, and we talked about the current draft of the plan and the recommendations for the area along the river that is sort of jointly bound by both city and county.

So that's from about Penn Park, I think down through

Riverview Park and then into Pantops and it stops at the I-64 crossing.

A vision statement has been crafted and many plans and recommendations that would be used to guide future development and there's a strong, I'd say the strongest, the

The primary driver behind the vision of the area is that the environmental characteristics be maintained and strengthened, but also looking at ways that people can better enjoy the outdoors along the river, that development might be appropriately, you know,

directed and designed in a way that's sensitive to the environmental aspects and more information about that plan is on the TJPDC website.

Also upcoming is the Fontaine Steering Committee meeting, and that meets tomorrow.

It is hosted by the Charlottesville Department of Public Works.

They will be holding a design public hearing for the Fontaine Avenue Streetscape Project tomorrow at 6 p.m.

And there's more information on, and people can register for that on charlottesville.gov slash zoom.

And Mr. Stolzenberg.

I'm a short report this month.

Yesterday, there was a meeting from the MPO discussing potential smart scale applications.

So if you have thoughts on that, the time to make them is now.

They will be appointing committees to review the applications prior to submission with the goal of

kind of preventing the miscommunication that happened last time, particularly with regards to a project on Route 20 for pedestrian improvements through the 64 interchange that would have run right through a whole row of trees planted by the Charlottesville area tree stewards just a few years ago that engendered

Pretty significant opposition and then ended up not being submitted at all.

So we were short one potential submission because everything related to that came up late and there was no time to make a new one.

So doing more outreach this time around for the newest smart scale round, which will hopefully prevent problems like that in the future.

And then there's an MPO tech meeting next week where we will have an interesting study of

Bicycle crashes and rates and data around them across Virginia, including Charlottesville and Albemarle.

So it should be an interesting presentation and I encourage you guys to join.

That's what I got.

Dowell.

Good evening, everyone.

The Housing Advisory Committee met on April 14th to discuss the previous draft of the future land use plan.

It's a very helpful snapshot of what was.

And then we've got Mr. DeLaIntra.

And once again, congratulations, Jody.

You're two years into your retirement.

You're living the good life now.

Two weeks, not two weeks.

Two weeks, I'm sorry.

I said two weeks, not two weeks, sorry.

Good evening.

The architectural review on April 20th

We had five certificate of appropriateness approved, two preliminary discussions, one of which on 485 14th Street Northwest for some rear additions being considered, and then 120 Oakhurst Circle for a rear addition that's being considered.

For the Charlottesville Treat Commission,

We met on May 4th.

We had presentations from the Botanical Garden of the Piedmont from Jill, and I believe we're going to be hearing her again shortly.

So, or the planning commission is going to be hearing her, I presume giving the same presentation, I hope.

We also had presentations from the Charlottesville area tree stewards and from the Grove in McIntyre Park.

Arbor Day was April 29th, a wonderful event.

Had good participation from a number of organizations.

And it was so nice to see that Walker Upper Elementary School took it seriously and had a class of students.

Dealing with trees and studying them all week in anticipation of Arbor Day.

One concern that we had in a committee report, the Emerald Ash Borer

It's hard at work.

We're starting to see many ash trees showing distress and decline.

And there's an emergency coming that somehow we need to get the city's attention because there's not enough funds being put aside for all the trees that are going to need to come down as a result of this infestation.

It's going to happen within the next couple of years.

And hopefully, well, the Tree Commission is working to figure out how to get the city and city community their attention to this fact.

All right, Mr. Landrieu, I represent the Parks and Rec Board.

And that is a key concern of the Parks and Rec Board as well.

We're attempting to help the director there find a way to deal with this.

So we are worried about it as well.

So the LUPEC group met recently.

Lots happening with LUPEC, but there are a couple of things that would be of interest to this group.

The first is what UVA is planning to do at the Emmett and Ivy Corridor.

The corridor starts at the intersection of

of Emmett and Ivy and runs all the way down to Copley.

Couple things that they're gonna do there that are adventurous.

UVA is going to build and manage and own a hotel there.

And they're gonna build and manage and own a convention center there.

And it'll be the largest convention center in our region.

And what I really like about this is even though it is UVA owned and operated,

It will be a tax revenue generating entity for our region.

So good news there.

It'll give us a little more money to spend towards things like affordable housing.

They're also going to be building in this little area, there'll be a school for data sciences.

There'll be a number of other buildings and facilities that I'm not gonna be able to talk about just yet, but these will be, these are to be announced and to be determined.

significant effort being put into enhancing the pedestrian and bike experience along this area and they're going to be undergrounding the utilities in the area.

The other piece that we talked about that would be of interest is the Barracks Road streetscape project.

This is something we looked at a few months back and we gave the thumbs up too.

And if you remember, this is supported by VDOT smart scale funding.

And the budget for this is $8.6 million.

And what they're looking to do is improve the operations, throughput, and safety basically at the barracks and Emmett intersection.

But along that corridor, they're looking to, again, enhance the biking and pedestrian experience and increase the safety for bikers.

and Jeff Stevens.

As I will tell you, when he's walking, riding his little girl, it's like up and down the area, it can be somewhat dicey.

And let's see, and then they're looking to enhance the aesthetics of the area.

Hoping to begin this in the spring of 2023.

In looking worst case to be wrapping this up in very early 25.

Also, I joined Ms.

Russell and Ms.

Creasy at the Rivanna Urban Corridor meeting as well.

And just to echo what Ms.

Russell said, encapsulating the vision that we're developing, the prime directive of the vision that we're developing for that is protection of the environment, protection of that waterway.

That does not mean that we won't be doing some small scale, very careful development.

But whatever we do, as Ms.

Russell suggested, will be environmentally friendly.

Any report from Ms.

Creason?

I do.

First of all, there's an advertisement posted on the city website for the planning commission seat that was recently vacated by Mr. Heaton.

so applications will be taken through June 11th with appointments scheduled for late June so reaching out to our listening audience as well as all of our participants in the meeting to consider this opportunity and encourage those who know who may be interested in applying for that seat

We'd also like to welcome Dannon O'Connell to the NDS staff.

Dannon is our new planner and he is recently from Pecosin, Virginia serving as the planner there.

Brings with him a variety of experience and certifications.

He's viewing the meeting tonight and we're going to be working to integrate him into operations in the months to come.

So we just wanted to give Dannon a welcome tonight.

And also, there are a number of Charlottesville plans together, community activities that are taking place this week, and I'll turn the time to Jenny in a minute to talk about those, but did want you all to make sure that you have inked in the work session for June 29th.

that we're gonna have from 5.30 to 7.30.

Remember, this is a little bit different.

This is a fifth Tuesday instead of a fourth Tuesday.

And we're grateful that you all were able to shift your schedules around in order to work with that timeframe.

And it's anticipated that the public communication and input that we received will be incorporated into the draft

that you will be looking at at that meeting.

So that'll be a really important meeting.

So now I'm going to turn the time over to Jenny to talk about the activities that are going on with the project.

Missy, hi everyone.

Yes, we're in the middle of the, we've sort of just kicked off the public engagement period.

Throughout the month of May, we have a series of events focused on sharing information and gathering input about the draft comprehensive plan chapters and the draft future land use map.

we've been hearing a lot of comments and we're you know compiling them as we go and we will share them with you both in written form and in our meeting on June 29th and we look forward to also at that point or before that responding to some of the questions you all have sent and let those that you may send us we're happy to clarify

As far as activities that are going on, we had a webinar last night.

The recording is posted on the website along with the PDF.

When I say the website, I mean SevillePlansTogether.com forward slash engage.

That's the sort of central hub for all the activities.

Engage3, yes, thank you.

SevillePlansTogether.com forward slash engage3.

Or just go to SevillePlansTogether.com and there's a link in a box at the top of the page.

So we had the webinar last night.

We had many comments, about 35, that we could not respond to during the webinar, lest it go until 10 p.m.

So we will be sharing responses to those Q&A comments in the future.

The next webinar is on the 25th, which is Tuesday at 6 o'clock.

There are also some in-person pop-up events and we're asking people wear a mask to these events and practice physical distancing.

We had the first event at Riverview Park on Saturday May 8th and we had I would say 15 to 20 people stopped by.

We anticipate there will be a lot of activity this coming weekend.

Friday will be at Reeds from one to three, and there will also be out on the downtown mall early in the evening.

We'll be sharing information about that time when that's finalized.

On Saturday, this coming Saturday, we'll be at the Farmers Market at Ixart Park from 8 to noon, 8 a.m.

to noon, and then we'll be at the Jefferson School from 2 to 5.

So these are all outdoor events.

We'd love to see you all there.

It'd be great for you to hear some of the things we're hearing, and we can obviously hear from you all as well at that time.

Other thing, we've got a steering committee meeting on the 19th, 53730.

Obviously, a couple of you may be joining us for that.

And so these are all ways we're sort of sharing and gathering information, but the ways we're asking folks to submit information are via, you know, they can send an email to us engage at sevilleplansco.com.

They can submit comments using the interactive map, which has had a lot of activity on it.

Or there's a comment form in the form of sort of a survey that's accessible on the website.

as well as the toll-free phone line.

So there's several different options for folks and we will be, as we have in the past, summarizing everything we've heard to share with you all and with everyone.

I will note during the webinar last night we received a lot of questions and there were, you know, we talked through changes at a high level that were made between the March map and the map that's out now.

We obviously, we didn't hit on everything, you know, in trying to talk through our rationale for some changes.

We did talk briefly about, you know, we sort of, we talked with the planning commission, we met with HAC, we received several bits of comments that we pulled together, and then

made some changes.

And so I would be surprised if you didn't hear maybe tonight some additional comments about the map.

I'll stick around for the public comment period as well to hear those.

But hope to see some of you this weekend.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, Mr. Rice.

I think we are ready to move to matters to be presented by the public that are not on the formal agenda.

So if there are folks out there that would like to talk with us about the work that we do that are not going to be talked about later in the public hearing, this would be your opportunity to do that.

Chair Mitchell, if you'd like to address the commission on matters not on the formal agenda, please click your raise hand icon.

Or if you're joining us by phone, press star nine.

When you're called upon, you'll have three minutes for comment.

First up, we have Peter Gray.

Peter, you're on with the Planning Commission.

Welcome, Peter.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak and thank you all for the hard work that you do on behalf of the residents of Charlottesville.

Roadsville and Harwell presented its latest version of the land use plan to the public yesterday evening.

As a resident of Charlottesville, I very much support the purpose and the goals of the plan.

However, the plan presented yesterday included a number of changes from the plan you saw in March.

One change is the injection of new medium-density land use into several neighborhoods, including my neighborhood, Lewis Mountain.

I have three short major points.

First, Lewis Mountain is a neighborhood that has since its exception been a mix of duplexes, triplexes, and single-family homes, but recent zoning restrictions have limited our ability to offer dwelling units for rent.

I personally have a basement apartment in my house that I am not able to rent out because of restrictive zoning and I know several others in my neighborhood who are in a similar position.

Transitioning Lewis Mountain to the new general residential category would triple the density of current residential zoning and could have a very positive impact on the availability of new living spaces while preserving the housing stock and giving the least incentive for developers to come in and tear things down.

I respectfully ask that the commission please consider general residential for Lewis Mountain neighborhood.

Second, the consultant's injection of new medium density land use into the Lewis Mountain neighborhood may not reflect the full wishes of the commission.

Last night, when members of the general public tried to point out the damage this could do to our neighborhoods, the consultants in effect said that their hands were tied by the commission, that they were requested by the planning commission to do this.

A review of the recordings from March 30th show that it was a small subset of members on the committee who made this suggestion.

I'd just like to make all members of the commission aware of the power dynamic that has been created in this way where the comments of a subset of the commission are taken by the consultants as constraints that triumph over their original thoughtful design and their public outreach.

Third, Lewis Mountain neighborhood has been treated entirely unlike any other residential neighborhood.

While the other residential neighborhoods have medium density placed along major traffic corridors, in Lewis Mountain the new plan has the entire neighborhood designated as medium density.

The logic behind this makes no sense.

The proximity to UVA does not mandate medium density and the alleged demands of UVA for additional student housing has already been addressed by UVA who will soon be taking a full third of the undergraduate student population out of the rental market by requiring all second years to live on grounds.

That's coming.

So the only thing that letting developers put 12 unit buildings throughout Lewis Mountain would be to create unaffordable housing while damaging the character and livability of our neighborhoods.

And so I would like to respectfully ask that if the plan proceeds, could Lewis Mountain please be treated fairly, that is, like other neighborhoods in Charlottesville with medium density only along major traffic corridors.

In summary, a tripling of density is great and would let homeowners participate in creating more housing units.

Please do not let comments of a subset of the committee be interpreted as an edict from all of you.

Please treat Lewis Mountain fairly, the same as any other neighborhood.

Ms.

Price.

And next up, we have Bill Emery.

Good evening, commissioners.

We're currently engaged in a comprehensive plan update and soon a zoning code rewrite, both catalyzed by an affordable housing plan to address the need for affordable housing in the city.

You know, it's been a long time since the 2013 plan.

And in the interim, we've had the benefit of the 2016 RCL Co.

study,

the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment.

We've had the benefit of years of work by the Housing Advisory Committee.

And we have the benefit of the recently approved Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan by Roadside Harwell.

I'm here this evening to ask for or to express an interest in three things.

It seems like common sense, which I know is sort of a loaded term, but I'd really like to have a map that shows where affordable housing currently exists in the 19 city planning areas.

Affordable housing would include public housing, LaTeX, PHA properties, and properties that accept housing choice vouchers.

and properties that are privately leased at affordable rates.

Then I'd like a second map, a vision map that shows where following the implementation of the land use plan and the realization of the goals of the comprehensive plan, the affordable housing will be.

Again, it'd be great to have numbers by planning areas.

And finally, with these super useful maps in hand,

we could begin to have a real conversation about how we can build neighborhoods to accommodate the 4,000 people, the cost burdened households, the homeless, the disabled, the seniors, the first time home buyers.

How can we build neighborhoods that will be loved, neighborhoods worth caring about?

The city needs to figure out how to build

you know, places that are worth caring about.

It's that simple, not warehouses.

Next, we have Elizabeth Sloan.

Elizabeth, you're on with the Planning Commission.

Hello, I'm Elizabeth Sloan.

I happen to also be an architect, and I live in the Lewis Mountain neighborhood.

I have just a very short,

I have two requests.

Number one, to slow this process down.

We're in the midst of a global pandemic, just beginning to have where it's safe for groups to start meeting.

The month of May, we really only have three weeks.

It's already the 11th.

It's just going too fast.

This is too radical a change and too important a change.

There's some wonderful work that's been done.

And we just, we need to build consensus from the ground up with the entire community supporting this plan and not finding themselves shocked.

Number two,

I think we need a three-dimensional model that shows how this will impact our city, a model that shows height and massing.

And the argument that because the code and zoning hasn't been written does not hold water, you can show worst case, you can show medium case, you can be clear.

on what you're showing.

And then finally, thank you for your hard work.

This is a very exciting time for the city.

And I just hope you will consider these two requests.

I see no other hands, Chair.

Right, we then can move on to the consent agenda.

And the only thing in the consent agenda are the minutes.

And I think we've got a couple of amendments that we've talked about.

Ms.

I think we're okay.

I have both of those in writing.

One was, both of them were editing errors and one was the spelling.

All right, then if we could have a motion to approve the minutes as amended, that would be great.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Any abstentions?

Any opposition?

The motion is passed.

I see Ms.

Zell, I see Councilor Snook.

I think we need one more, don't we, Ms.

Correct.

We have one and a half minutes, and we do have a third counselor hopefully on the way.

Is there anything that we can chat about in the morning?

There we go.

All right, so we will dilly-dally for about 40 more seconds.

In 40 more seconds, Ms.

Yes, counsel is in order.

We are now ready to begin our public hearing.

And it looks like there are three items on tonight's public hearing docket.

The first is ZM20-00003.

This is a rezoning application.

The second is SP21-00002.

This is a special use permit application relating to the rezoning application.

The next is P21-0023.

This is a critical slope waiver relating to the rezoning application and the SUP.

So all of these relating applications relate to one development project that are located on 0.65 acres with frontage on Valley Road extended.

Because all these applications are related to one development project, we're going to have only one public hearing

and one staff presentation and one application presentation for all three.

So one staff presentation for everything, one applicant presentation for everything, one public hearing for all three.

But we will need to have three separate votes and a vote on each application.

The rezoning application is a request to a request to move from R1 to R3

That would be from residential to family to residential multi-family medium density.

If council opts to approve that rezoning, then the applicant will be seeking a special use permit to increase the density that is allowed when you move from R1 to R3.

To net this out,

Through these actions, the applicant is seeking to increase the number of units allowed on the site from six by right under R2 to a number not to exceed 28 if the R3 rezoning is approved and if that is then supplemented by the requested SUP, the special use permit.

So specifically what they'd like to do is build four buildings.

Each building will house seven two bedroom units for a total again of 28 units.

There again is also a steep slope waiver application associated with these.

A couple of notes, there is a $48,000 profit

that would be contributed to the city's capital improvement program.

And this is for the construction of sidewalk improvements along Valley Road extended.

The other thing to note is the applicants in the applicant's development plan, they indicate an intention to restore, stabilize and improve

the section of Rock Creek that runs through the site.

And I think Mr. Elpley is managing this application.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

And you did a good job as far as there's not too much to add, but the applicant is proposing, as you stated, there are three applications under review.

a rezoning application which would turn the three subject properties from R2 to R3 with a proffer statement, a draft proffer statement.

And that draft proffer statement would donate the $48,000 to the city's CIP program for road improvements to Valley Road Extended.

That is one application.

The second application would be the special use application to increase the density from the 21 dwelling units per acre, which would be by right if the subject properties would be rezoned up to the 43 DUA, which would give you the 28 units.

They are also requesting a critical slope waiver to disturb all the critical slopes on site.

as the development would do.

There's also the possibility of a fourth application not in front of you all tonight.

It is talked about in stash report for a sidewalk waiver.

The applicant, and they can address this more during their presentation, have not indicated how they would go about this, but they would be required to build a sidewalk in front of their property on

on the city right-of-way or request a waiver or donate separately from their proffer into the sidewalk fund.

And like I said, that has not been determined at this time, but that could be the possibility before the application.

As Planning Commission hears during the public hearing from the public, from the applicant, and also during your discussion, you do want to keep in mind that

These are, again, three separate applications.

This is not, we don't have a unified development code.

The development as presented is not being proffered.

There's only one proffer, which is the donation that is actually in the proffer statement.

So if this is not a, you run the possibility of having a rezoning going from R2 to R3, that being approved and approved by city council,

The special use permit not being approved, but once that land is rezoned, it's R3.

And so that's something y'all might want to discuss as you're having your discussion.

But that is staff's basic presentation.

And Matt, if you don't mind, what I'd like to do is

Unless this is going to be too complicated from the rest of the commission, with the commission's permission, I'd like to just go through all three applications.

If that's not going to be too complicated, I think I'm getting fingers up to do that.

Sure.

So the rezoning from R2 to R3 through the staff report, you'll notice that this is a low density.

Part of the city, the current future land use map calls for this area to be low density.

And low density is not only a density, which is below 15 dwelling units per acre, it is a certain type of housing according to the future land use map.

And that is single family, two family, and single family attached.

So single family and duplexes.

The proposed rezoning would increase not only the density, but increase the change the

the housing type that would be allowed in the area.

That is one reason you would see in the rezoning report from staff why they're recommending that Planning Commission recommend denial.

There are certain uses that staff is concerned about that are not proffered out.

We are, the plan you're looking at tonight and the plan that staff has done their analysis on,

I think one thing to keep in mind too is when you think about site plans, you think about review.

And so you think about reviewing to very specific code standards.

When you're looking at a rezoning an SUP, you're looking at analysis.

So not really a review, but an analysis.

So that's something else to kind of keep in mind.

That's kind of the overview on the rezoning where there's specific questions

Okay, let's get all three of them and then we'll open up to questions, Ms.

Dowell.

Okay, the SUP report, if it was rezoned to R2, I think one of the helpful things in your staff report is you can

is there's a table that talks about things that can be altered through an SUP and things that cannot.

So the applicant is requesting in the increased density to get to 28 units.

And they are also requesting alterations to the setbacks and the rear and side setbacks to accommodate the development

The biggest issue in the staff report that staff found during the review is the increased density at a dead end street would increase traffic on Valley Road extended, which the traffic engineer has concerns about with the infrastructure for that road.

That is one of the biggest factors I think in staff's recommendation

for denial on the SUP.

Moving into the critical slope waiver, the critical slope, again, the developer would be impacting all critical slopes on site.

That's not all the critical slopes.

They go beyond the site.

And you'll notice in staff's report, the calculation talks about percentage of the full critical slope, which goes beyond the scope of development.

But the

impacts to the critical slopes on site would be 100%.

You would completely have to fill in the critical slopes to develop this site.

There was a question earlier about if these were developed by right, would critical slopes be disturbed?

And that question is a little hard to answer because it depends on how the sites would be developed by right.

Right now you have three existing lots.

Those lots actually have frontage on Grove Street extended.

not Valley Road extended.

So you would either need to reorient the lots so that all three had frontage on Valley Road, or you could build Grove Street extended to give frontage to those three lots, then you could build them.

But it also depends on how they were built.

If the lots were built one at a time, there's no site plan, there's no review.

So you would build by right

If there were built through all three at the same time, that is a development.

And that's when your site plan comes into play.

So that's why you see there's a little bit of when engineering looks at it, they're looking at it a little bit differently than when the planning department's looking at it.

When you're talking about whether these, you can develop on the site or not, you'll see kind of in the analysis where

That is talked about where the planning department says these could be developed.

And I believe engineering says they might not.

So that's why there's that discrepancy.

But both engineering, public works and planning

did put some recommended conditions on the critical slope, which is found on page five and six of the critical slope waiver.

Why don't we just go from left to right, and then we'll open it up.

I didn't have too many questions of staff.

I was kind of curious because I didn't couldn't quite tell from the plans and maybe staff can answer maybe the applicant can answer later.

How is that interface with unimproved Grove Street extended being treated?

Is there a fence or is it just is it used as a fire lane?

You know is there any sort of

Like interaction between the property and that unimproved right-of-way that exists there now?

If I understand, at the property line, they're shown what I believe are retaining walls on that property.

Correct.

Okay.

I'm thinking if I

questions to staff as opposed to developer.

We talked a little bit about the sidewalk proffer and it's, you know, the applicability of it.

I don't know if that's appropriate to talk about at this time or later, you know, is it, does it achieve,

Does it mitigate the impacts of the development and is it, the question to staff being is it feasible to improve the sidewalks on Valley Street extended with the funds being proffered?

Yeah, what I would say is that the proffer says that given amount, which I believe is $40,000,

And it's worded such that it would be in the CIP for this project.

This project is not on any pending improvement list.

So we don't have a project ready to go that this would offset some set aside contribution for in the budget.

And then I think $48,000 is obviously a pretty limited section of sidewalk that you would get there.

So the reality of us being able to leverage that into a project might be limited.

And there are some other issues.

Nothing's impossible, but it would be an expensive sidewalk certainly to do to complete the rest of the gaps in Valley Road extended.

That being said, it's not necessarily, and maybe Matt can speak to this, but it is just a proffer.

It's not necessarily to mitigate the impacts.

They would be building the sidewalk on their frontage.

The proffer is above what they would be required to do at site plan stage.

But that's what I was saying.

There hasn't been a decision.

There's several ways they could go.

They could build a sidewalk as required at site plan stage.

They could donate to the sidewalk fund, which would be the amount equivalent to providing a sidewalk.

Or they could request a waiver from city council.

I guess to follow up on that last line of questioning, I think they said at one point in the application that the $48,000 is based on some city estimate of sidewalk costs and would create 700 linear feet of sidewalk.

Is that still an accurate cost or is that about how much it would produce?

I don't know that I can give you a sense of what's missing on that road.

There's not much there.

You know, when you get, sidewalks are more complicated than they seem.

And when there's some sidewalk on either side, you're talking about mid-block crossings of these things.

To the cost, I believe this would have been from the sidewalk calculator, which was developed some years ago, not too long ago, based on a rough estimate of what it cost the city to build some sidewalks that were available to the people preparing that list.

The low hanging fruit in the sidewalk world has already been picked to some extent.

So I think those costs, what's left are the hard projects.

And so I think it skews more expensive than that.

I don't think the applicant is being misleading and stating that that's the calculation.

There is a calculator that will tell you, and that's based on what Matt was referring to, which would be donating to the sidewalk fund.

in lieu of building that equivalent sidewalk.

And that's where the calculator comes in.

So I would assume that's where that linear footage, that calculation comes from.

But no, you wouldn't be able to build the 700 or whatever it is.

Okay, thanks.

I just had a quick question and I tried to go back through the packet to see if I could see it.

It is on page

11 of 13.

Unfortunately, I'm going by my staff report page numbers, and I'm not sure what it is in y'all's packet.

13 and 14.

Thank you.

I don't know how I missed this.

It's a whole feature list.

Okay.

Mr. Sollihanz.

Mr. Sollihanz.

Two big questions.

Trip generations and walking dogs.

We've got two different estimates for the trip generations that this potential development would produce.

One very low from the applicant and one very high from city staff.

I thought there was just one ITE Bible that says these things.

Unfortunately, I did send that question on to the city traffic engineer.

And I don't have a good answer.

Thank you.

Walking dogs.

I have heard a whole lot about walking dogs from the public very recently.

My email is full of walking dogs.

Some people are for walking dogs, some people very much against.

It appears that this property is being used by people who are walking their dogs.

Legal or not, is there an alternative available for people walking dogs?

I mean,

It's private property.

I don't really can't give you a good answer.

You know, it's how that property is being used.

It's currently, you know, currently it's privately owned property.

Are those available?

Trying to pull up the closest part.

Is that doable?

But I just want to make sure we're not condoning people walking their dogs on private property, are we?

No.

Mr. Delintro?

No questions, Sheriff.

OK.

The only thought that I've got relates to the $48,000 profit.

I think this is a restricted, I'll call it a restricted grant, for lack of a better word.

the way it's worded in the staff report.

And it looks like we won't be able to get to that restricted grant for a number of years, if ever.

Does that, let's say they put the $48,000 into our coffers, and it just sits there for five years, does it go away?

It would sit in an account.

When we received this proper request, we verified how it would be handled logistically if it were to come to pass, and they would create a specific account for this, and it would sit there and await something.

But in the meantime, you may want to let Mr. Scheff in because he's going to be presenting in a minute.

I do have one question.

There was a reference in some of the materials to a long rumored, but not yet planned, as far as I'm aware, tunnel under the railroad tracks for pedestrian and bike traffic from Fifield to the university.

Any idea what it would cost if we were to move forward on it?

And the one thing that I do do, it would cost a lot of time and effort.

Getting right away above or under a railroad track from the railroad is

Darn near impossible to do.

Parks and Rec did it.

And it was a hurt to me enough, but they did get it done.

Right.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

On that note, I'll just say after hearing from many constituents, not on this regard, but in the past, there are many people who go through people's private property and just cross the railroad illegally.

But I'm just going to put that in because it's happening a lot from people who are trying to get to the university health system.

The Grove Street extended, like the status of that today.

So it's, that's just like a dead end.

I'm just trying, I meant to run over there today and I just did not make it.

It just, I'm not really clear on what the infrastructure there is.

So it's just a paper street.

Right.

There's no infrastructure.

There's no, there's some gravel thrown down, but yeah, it's just a paper street between

And then I'm going to touch this public access to the park thing.

The critical slopes, again, I'm sorry, I meant to get over those today in person, but where the topography, I'm just struggling to understand where the, where that big drop off is when I'm looking at it on the Google maps.

Can you just help me understand?

which critical slopes we're speaking of.

It just, it doesn't, I mean, just looks like a jungle and what Google has.

Trying to, in your mind, locate where it is like.

Yeah, I mean, I have it up, so.

It's in the middle, right in the middle of the subject property.

So that the homes you see up on the hill there to the east, they drop that where that drops down and starts to level out.

Okay.

And then my other questions are just related to this sidewalk piece because I don't think, yeah, I just think I'm more concerned about making sure that if we have that proffer that we will be able to maintain it in the sidewalk fund to go to other areas that really need sidewalks.

I also look, looking on the Google, I can see where there's a lot of issues with getting continuous sidewalks here, but I think that's it for me.

Hi, good evening everyone.

Before I start, is my audio okay tonight?

You've got a little bit of an echo, but I think we're good.

Okay, let me know if there's a problem.

I am using Justin Shamp.

I'm the engineer of this project.

The property owners are

a family from in Northern Virginia.

Actually, it's not a developer per se.

They bought this maybe a year ago or so, have hired us to pursue some options for it.

And that's what you see before you is the concept for our rezoning special use permit and the 28 units.

I do hope we get to a day when the new code comes about where these processes are a little simpler.

It's three different actions, a lot of paperwork.

There's a lot of things that are complex about

our plans proper, especially use permits applicable to this.

What at the end of the day we're trying to do is get to a design that creates more density in a neighborhood setting.

It's really all it is.

How we get there ends up always being more complicated than I'd like it to be.

But here we are with our three items.

So I will do my best to go through them quickly.

I think that process-wise is something to think about in the future.

Some of these questions about

The traffic, the trip generation being different.

We didn't know about that until the staff report came out.

I have no idea where that higher number came from.

There's only one number.

If you put the calculation in, it's like 151 trips.

So I'm at a loss, and I'm afraid we have no way tonight to tell you what the discrepancy is.

And those are the kind of things that really should have been sorted out ahead of time, which we had sent a few requests in for meetings, the traffic engineer, and I guess I know everyone's been busy,

which is that wasn't able to happen.

And so I think that some of the many issues ahead of us on the sidewalk questions and the traffic related to us not being able to flush those ahead of time.

And I hope we can get that a little more that next time.

Matt certainly has been very responsive to this whole process and pulling this all together.

No complaints there whatsoever.

It's just these few little issues have been nice to work out in more detail, but we'll go through them as best we can.

As was hinted, the sidewalk number does come from your city's calculation of 700 millimeter feet.

There are about 1,100 linear feet of sidewalk missing on that street right now.

So we came up with a number that was, we felt like, somewhere beyond the middle of that.

And there's a noticeable section of about 400 feet, 475 feet that goes from Cherry Avenue to the first

section of sidewalk on Valley Road extended that we thought was workable in that amount of money.

That's 400 feet versus 700.

And Mr. Dawson's right, there are things that happen to drive the cost up, but we were basing it on the city's number.

That was the fairest thing to do.

We certainly do not object to proffering it out more broadly.

I think in the context of a proffer, folks in the street, folks living in these units will be walking all over the city.

So I don't think it's a problem to put that money towards the general sidewalk fund.

I think I heard earlier that I'm saying that's a match by a grant.

So if $48,000 becomes $100,000 worth, that does become a meaningful contribution.

before the city's total contributions, 100,000, which certainly we realize is not enough, but I hope that in the context of that, you guys have realized that $48,000 was a significant figure.

In addition to that, we could also propose a sidewalk waiver, not waiver, but a green pavement in lieu of on our side of the streets, and there's no sidewalk on that side at the end, and that would further contribute additional dollars to the sidewalk fund.

So those are things we're willing to do, happy to change.

We realize I may have to do a revision to this before the city council meeting or possibly even a delay in another hearing to change those properties, but we're happy to do that.

On the stream protection issue, our code, our description references the DCR regulations on that.

So our thought was to, you know,

spell those out and say, hey, we'll do this in accordance with PCR regulations.

That's Department of Conservation and Recreation.

It's a state agency that deals with things like stream restorations.

I think a special use permit vision is reasonable on that.

Essentially more density is more parking is more impervious area.

And that's to us the tie that makes that make sense.

If I can put our presentation up, I'll go quickly across this.

I just wanted to touch on those other issues first.

Thank you.

So everyone can see this, I assume?

Yes.

The site, I think we all know where it is, the end of the street.

The unimproved section of Grove Street is between us and the railroad tracks.

Next slide, please.

So our site plan.

Site plan has not changed substantially from the work session we had back in October.

We have four buildings, seven units apiece.

They cantilever over the parking

and have a green space and amenity space around them.

The stream restoration is here.

We would either install the sidewalk along our side of Valley Road or pay into the fund to go towards other sidewalks throughout the city.

The next slide, please.

So here we have the summary and it's been stated.

There are the setback reductions as part of special use permit.

The R3 zoning district has some cumbersome, I'd say suburban setbacks.

The special use permit allows us to modify something more reasonable.

That's what we've done.

Again, as noted, the $48,000, we have no objection to amending that proffer to be used throughout the city sidewalk fund.

And last thing I wanted to note about that, well, no,

I'll test that next slide.

Next slide, please.

We also talked about these a bit for those who weren't at the planning commission work session.

We wanted to give an example to scale these buildings.

So on the left, you have your three townhome units, 60 by 40.

Our building's 47 by 53.

So it's about the size of three townhomes, a little smaller.

A duplex shown there on the screen would be the by right building here, 60 by 24.

That would house two units within it.

And our goal, as it is many projects, but this one particularly, is to

get some more meaningful density into a location where the buildings can still fit the scale of a house more than the scale of a park building.

You'll notice that the elevation in the top right hand corner that just gives you the scale is four stories or three stories plus an attic effectively with the lower floor being parking.

And if you go to the next slide,

I think I have another exhibit of that.

Yeah, so this is a step back.

The graphics are not quite as clear, but effectively the houses behind us that have a much higher elevation, our site tucks into the hill and we have this sort of three, four story building with a duplex across the street and then the single families up at the higher elevation.

And of course over to the behind us, as you can see the picture is

University, University Health System, everything goes along with it, obviously, much more significant heights and densities.

Next slide, please.

A couple examples we thought were compelling.

These are, I think, off Cherry Avenue in a similar neighborhood.

These are six- or seven-unit buildings.

I think Kelsey would have to clarify, but we saw these and found that it was a good example of a successful implementation of a plex-type building to a neighborhood.

There's single family around it, some duplexes around it, and it blends in the neighborhood very nicely.

Next slide, please.

Here's a cross-section illustrating what I was discussing earlier.

We have, from left to right, the top section A there, sort of Valley Road, extended over to, I think it's Baker Street, and just gives you an idea of how we cut this lower level into the hill, making it sort of a two and a half story building here.

I guess I might have spoken earlier about the four story.

It's three, it's four stories is the attic, I should say.

And the section, the cross section, again, railroad tracks,

There's a duplex, sort of typical, probably a 24 by 60 sort of duplex right here.

That's our closest existing structure.

Next slide, please.

So this is the detail on the stream restoration.

We updated this from the DCR regulations, diving into that more after our last meeting.

And I think probably maybe it should be clarified, especially as permanent conditions that essentially

Undertaking would be in accordance with the specifications from the DCR for this sort of thing.

And I think we are not at a point where we have designed fully detailed drawings for this, but the concepts can remain and be implemented.

I've heard some reference the pre meeting about this not being a good location for that I

That surprises me some.

I've rarely seen a stream that couldn't benefit from some restoration, especially in the city.

Most of them are compromised in some fashion.

If that's really true, we could maybe put a little more money into sidewalks instead of this.

We just felt like this was an appropriate improvement to make on the site, given we're asking for special use permit.

That's why we brought it forward.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

That is the conclusion of that.

I'll just go one more slide.

I have a critical slopes exhibit since we're talking about everything at once.

Worthwhile pointing this out because a question came up.

The critical slopes on this site are a little unusual in that they're sort of in the middle.

There's not a huge slope here.

I think the slopes are something like 26 or 27 percent and that the minimum the slope that gets you to be a critical slope being 25 percent.

So

that Mr. Dawson described about how the conditions were intended to force erosion protection.

And I should make it clear to everyone, I'm sure he'd agree that whether the slope is 22%, 23%, 27 or 50%, they are going to require that sort of protection

for any project, really.

I knew back, I think, when this original slope waiver business came about years ago, I think that some of the enforcement or the detail of erosion control plans was not as such as it is now.

But I can just tell you from my experience working in the city that the presence of the critical slope would not

change their perspective on protecting the stream by all means.

So for those concerned about that I think that is really covered thoroughly and this particular slope is not part of some larger slope system but rather just it carries on around a couple houses that are developed with an oddity of topography that happens now and then.

So I think it's all the items that I needed to cover.

I'm sure I have forgotten some.

I'm happy to go over any

questions of course but to summarize certainly we are about the sidewalk happy to amend that condition and oh and as far as the staff's suggestion of uses to restrict we are also happy to go along with that if there needs to be a restriction on some of the R3 uses those seem reasonable to us as suggested by staff so happy to amend our proper accordingly and

I wish we maybe talked about that beforehand, but as we, here we are, we're happy to comply.

They make sense to us.

Thanks.

Okay.

Ms.

Thank you.

Justin, I don't know if you'll be able to answer this, but I just want to clarify too that there is no feasible way that Grove Street could be extended to this site, even though the address is Grove Street, because of the way that the, what's that, is it North Baker, I think, sort of interrupted what would have been the right-of-way.

and the houses there, you couldn't go through them to connect.

That's correct.

Yeah, I can answer that actually, because I researched the deeds there.

And my first thought when I saw this project was, oh, if I could build like a pedestrian path even, right along that Grove Street, not in the railroad right away, but in the city right away, I could connect over to King Street, I think it's King Street, and you could walk on that direction.

And then the lots on Baker were, you know,

Cut off access, right.

So I was curious in your change or in understanding your change in the in the proposed units from when we saw this in the October work session, you had a mix of two bedroom and four bedroom.

So I think when my clients first looked at this property, they were thinking of it sort of as a student housing type project.

And what we heard from the neighbors, and I think we know from our on the ground experience there, is it's not necessarily that location, but the Planning Commission

I think encourages us to make it more of a family, a local person's development, right?

This is for folks who live around town and work around town.

And so just the two bedroom is a more conducive unit to those folks.

Okay.

The image that you showed, I mean, I am by no means an expert in stream restoration, and I understand that there would be very stringent requirements from DCR, but when you look at the plan, what struck me was the, you know, there's one third of the stream isn't restored, it's piped through a culvert,

More or less, maybe not exactly one third.

And then the entire other half of the stream is bounded by a retaining wall.

Yes, there's all different levels of that.

I suppose it would be

Maybe preferable to have vegetation on both sides, but you can create the pools and the vegetation needed on one side.

The retaining walls do stabilize the slope to the side, so you don't have erosion sedimentation on that side.

As to the culvert, we do have to drive across in some fashion.

I suppose, and I don't know if it's a discussion for now, it can be, I suppose maybe the thing to do would be to propose like a half pipe culvert sort of thing there, so the stream remained

In your presentation, you showed the plex structure.

I'm not sure the number of units, but I'm familiar with those plexes on Cherry.

And I think that they're a good example of more density that fits into the existing neighborhood.

They are, however, two stories tall as opposed to four stories.

Yeah, you're correct.

Those are smaller.

I think our thought was two things.

One, I think those benefit from probably having a little different parking situation and some of those older units there tends to be parking is not quite enforced as strictly as it is now.

And then we also have, in our case, we have the benefit of the slope.

So we felt like at least one floor

was effectively eliminated because we're cutting back into the hillside, leaving us more of a two and a half story, a three story effective structure.

So it is taller, but we are also separated from the units adjacent to us by more distance than those.

So your point is taken.

I love those units.

I think they're an excellent model for side by side.

Thank you.

It could be if that was necessary.

I think I have not surveyed that entire street.

Sorry, I'm going to caveat that.

If the ride away is similar at the entrance as it is at the end, I believe you could build a sidewalk and you're allowed to do, I think you have to have 36 inch minimum of the pole separations.

I think you could widen the sidewalk out and get someone around behind the pole without relocating the pole.

But you're correct, there's unknowns about these sort of things.

And we had proposed a fairly specific proffer in response to some back and forth with the city.

Maybe in hindsight we should have

I'll go through a little more because it is true that, you know, again, every resident of the city is going to walk on a city sidewalk somewhere.

All right, let's keep the thing rolling.

Yeah, so let's see, I've got a few questions here.

I guess first off, walk us through these proffers and I guess there's one proffer in the application and the additional proffer sounds like you just made.

I think you said that you weren't aware of the concern about additional uses in R3 until today.

Yes, I was not today until the staff report came out, I should clarify.

And so at that point, it's too late for us to, you know, amend the application because it's already gone out to the public.

So, but we're not, again, we don't have an objection to amending those.

So the proffer would then have two things.

I see.

Okay.

And walk us through the affordable housing.

Sure, so this project, which may be the first one I've run across in some time that we've done, actually trips the FAR limit for affordable housing.

So we fall under the city's policy in this particular one.

So we have no further proffers in that, simply we propose, or we don't propose, we must follow 3412, I think it is.

for the affordable housing.

I believe it triggers one unit with a number of Kelsey's on and she can jump in and make sure I have that number right.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay, so

There was some discussion from the public suggesting that you guys had set the rents for this project at $1,500.

I didn't see that anywhere in the application.

So I know we had a very extensive discussion in our preliminary discussion about housing affordability and specifically affordable housing.

So I guess my question for you is, so there's one unit that will fall under the

Regulations in 34-12, which I'm assuming would then follow the standard operating procedures and be priced at flood home high rents, which are fair market rents in this case.

Is that correct?

So that's correct as to the

the affordable unit that follow the procedure the city council has, you know, spelled out and we'll look at the fact, you know, should that change, we'll follow that procedure.

As to the other units, their market rate, they are designed to, this is not a luxury building, it's designed to be a building for folks who work around town, has an amenity space.

We don't have pools or roof decks or anything along those lines, it is really truly meant to be

A simple, reasonable place to live.

It's not restricted as affordable, but it is not designed to be expensive either.

Okay.

Good to know.

Yeah, I mean, I would just note that

The payment standard limit for 2021 for a two-bedroom apartment for CRHA is $1,392 a month.

Luckily, so we've talked about the stream and the restoration you're going to do for it.

I don't see anything in the application that says DCR or Department of Conservation Resources, whatever it was.

And you haven't proffered the development plan here.

Not that I'm asking for a proffer, but what assurances do we have that you would even do that?

It doesn't seem to be required by anything in this application.

You could do a buy-write under R3 after the rezoning.

Well, I think that it's proposed the condition of the SUP.

Frankly, we don't have a, since we're revising the proffer, we don't have an objection to putting it in the proffer, such that the land is zoned R3, we would develop it with a special use permit to prove or not, with the stream buffer.

I mean, our hope is that should this land be zoned R3, the special use permit would also be granted.

It would create some challenges.

We'd have a different sort of development that I think might not necessarily be as good as the only proposed.

So,

I think the stream restoration could be placed in the proper, we don't have an objection to that.

But as far as the plan development, especially use permit is granted, then the special use permit will have a condition in it that requires conformance with the plan as submitted.

So there is a scenario where R3, if council would approve the R3, but not a special use permit,

There is a scenario where there's a sort of a, you haven't seen the plan for that basically.

In which case, we hope that doesn't happen.

That really, I think is not, we can still build an apartment building there, but it's not going to be as fitting in with the neighborhood as our proposal.

But if it did happen, we don't mind moving the stream restoration to that category, just to protect from that odd occurrence.

Ms.

Good afternoon, Mr. Shep.

Most of my questions have already been addressed in the pre-meeting.

I had asked about

possible ways to repurpose the proffer for the sidewalks, being that it seemed like it was almost an impossible project to put together.

One of the other questions that I did have is that I was just curious as to how you are justifying the project being harmonious with the current neighborhood.

Sure.

The context, I'll give you a moment to give a little context.

It's important, I think.

So the previous sort of, the origination of the concept of in accordance or protecting neighborhood character, if you think about that in the context of zoning, it actually, I think, comes from sort of a dark place, frankly, right?

There's this idea that previously the neighborhood character needed to be protected.

and I think often that, frankly, in my career, not in Charlottesville, my career, I've had that used to basically say, oh, well, nope, we cannot allow this small business to go here.

We cannot allow this apartment building to go here because it would adversely affect people in single family dwellings who already live there.

So that came up at the neighborhood meeting.

Somebody asked about this and I said,

Bluntly, I don't mean to offend people, but I believe fully that putting more people in the neighborhood is a good thing.

And people will agree, disagree about that.

To me, the important consideration is not the number of people, because in my mind, the more they can fit into a place where they have good opportunity, the better.

But the buildings themselves do not carry sort of a

an awkward relationship, right?

And so our first sketch we submitted was kind of a larger, like one single apartment building on this property.

And thinking about that, like what we felt was reasonable in the neighborhood, that's we broke up into four smaller buildings.

They're not as small as the houses there, I don't concede, but they also are designed to look like a house.

And I would say that if you were to look around at some of the new single family houses being built in the city, they're of similar size,

to the units we propose.

So it's really about, in my mind, how you imagine a single family house, a structure thereof, accommodating more residents into the neighborhoods.

And that's the origin of many of our projects, but like this particular inspiration and why I think it does fit in that context.

If you look at the context as sort of a, you know, what does the street look like and not will I be interrupted?

by different people moving in.

Sometimes that character of neighborhood is used, I think, in a way to keep people out for the protection of others.

I'm not saying that the city does not do that, but the background of that

sort of concept has been used that way, but I look at it as how do these buildings fit?

How do we get compatible structures so there can be more neighbors in a neighborhood that still feels like a residential neighborhood that doesn't have high rises at every corner.

It does, thank you.

I was just curious because I know we've had a development come that was kind of up the street and around the corner from you.

And that was one of the big things is that it was not necessarily harmonious with the neighborhood and its current character.

People have feelings about vehicles.

This will shock you.

I've heard really a lot from people pro and con about the vehicles going to and from this site.

The two different trip generation numbers are concerning because I've got a recommendation for a rejection from staff based on one of those two numbers.

And there is really a big difference between.

I have concerns from residents saying there's not enough parking.

I have concerns from residents saying there will be too many trips.

It's going to be a nightmare.

It's going to be safe on the street.

I have concerns from residents that there won't be enough support for alternative modes, people walking, people doing bicycles.

I had one suggestion say, oh, free bikes for everybody.

I'm sure that excites you.

I'm really interested to hear your thoughts about this.

This is, well, one key issue.

OK.

Fair, yes.

Parking always is a key issue in these things.

And in the reality, I mean, quite bluntly, it would be less expensive for us to provide an e-bike to everyone to build a parking space.

Let's just throw that out there, right?

I mean, that is true.

I don't know if we can start getting into where we trade.

I'm sure some people would suggest we start trading parking space for e-bikes.

And maybe that's not a bad solution in the grand scheme of how a city gets built out.

Two things.

So in the parking, we did hear the neighborhood.

That was probably the number one concern at the neighborhood meeting was the, and we did propose, we asked the city about putting in some backend spaces off of Valley Road in front of our site.

I think we can get eight more spaces that way.

We're happy to do so.

The traffic engineers kind of said they weren't crazy about the idea.

It has been approved.

I don't know.

It's one of the attachments.

Let me pop that up.

We're completely open to this.

In fact, from a standpoint of getting all the neighborhood, having parking there is fine with us.

We've had this discussion before.

It's one of those things you build it and they will come.

So there's a question, should you put more bike racks or more

parking spaces but you know there can be compromising these things and we're not opposed to these kind of back-end spaces.

In this situation what we would do is we would definitely pay into the sidewalk.

It's fun, we would not build a sidewalk on our side of the road and similar to for the down valley road people would basically pull off the street into these parking spaces.

So the benefit of this location for that versus all the others is the very end.

So you don't have people walking past, no one would walk past our site on our side of the road.

So as far as conflict between pedestrians and parking, there really wouldn't be any.

So if traffic engineering is okay with that, we're happy to proceed with that concept.

We haven't gotten a blessing from them, but we would if they were to give us that blessing.

And then the traffic, it comes down to this sort of, you know, the number is very different, obviously.

But I have to ask folks, you know, consider, you know, yes, if there's 150 trips in this road,

How does that compare to 150 trips coming in on Fifth Street, right, every day, people commuting in from wherever they may be, people coming down 29 North and coming out of McIntyre's, lots of other busy roads in Charlottesville and a function of that is there's not enough housing, people commute from all over the place.

And if you put somebody where they can e-bike around easily and they do so, then you're contributing to the fix and not contributing to the problem, which is sending more cars from 29 North and 64 into Charlottesville.

So a roundabout way to answer that there, I personally do not believe that the 150 trips creates any particular detriment to the road.

People drive slowly on that road.

That's good.

More parking spaces can be provided, a city traffic engineer permits.

I think that's my comment.

Thank you.

That helps.

Oh, the dog walkers.

I have heard so much from and about the dog walkers.

Not your responsibility to run an unauthorized dog park.

Well, I can say it will affect very positively the quality of life for the people who move into the property, right?

I cannot speak to the dog walkers.

However, I think those who work around the area who can move into these units and cut a bunch of commute out of their life, can engage in bicycling or e-biking,

will be very happy in their lives and very positively impacted.

The folks and their dogs may just need to walk a little further somewhere else.

I'm sorry if they're inconvenienced, but it is private property.

I remain with my biggest concern being the traffic.

And I don't know how we resolve that.

The difference between the two traffic counts, I'm really surprised and disappointed that our traffic engineer is not part of this meeting, knowing how important this is to the neighborhood and the community and to us as a result.

But I don't know how to proceed.

It stays my concern.

And I wish

Yeah, this is Jack Dawson, city engineer, and I apologize for our traffic engineer not being here.

I was not part of that review, so I actually can't speak to those trip generation numbers.

I was involved in the review of the angled parking, and I can speak that that is not standard for the public right of way to have angled parking like that on that classification road.

So that would not be approvable.

And as mentioned, it does conflict with

The sidewalk, which is a requirement, at least in some reviews, and it's not a good idea.

Generally, you know, as stated, if you build it, they will come.

We don't want to displace a potential sidewalk with parking.

But again, I apologize about the trip generation numbers, but the parking is not acceptable without an innovative design proposal or something else.

So I will echo Jody's concern about the traffic.

One, the inconsistency in the counts that we've got, but traffic in general in that narrow space with all the people walking through there.

But I am piqued by your willingness to

to tighten up what you would be doing under R3 and restricting some of the things by a proffer that might be done there.

And I'm also piqued by your willingness to move the money into the general sidewalk fund that we talked about.

Just as an FYI in the chat, a private chat, Ms.

Robertson did inform us, or inform me that

You've got 12 years to spend proper money.

So we'd have 12 years to spend the money that you might, you might proper there.

I don't have a question, but I do kind of have a statement.

I think that being that this is private property, it is not fair to consider people wanting to not be able, I mean, people having an issue with not being able to walk their dog anymore on the property.

To me, that's not even fair to the property owner to bring up in a discussion of this nature.

That is private property.

Nobody has rights to it, but the people who own it.

I totally agree, but I think there was a little tongue-in-cheek on Mr. Stolzenberg's part.

Mr. Mitchell, could I ask... Oh, sorry, sorry.

Yes.

For the dog-walking point, I feel like that's prime tick-breeding ground, too, so hold your dog there.

But my question is about off-breed parking in this plan.

So I'm looking at page 67 on the packet that shows the

eight off-street spaces, the back end that we just discussed, and also the off-street parking lot.

And I'm counting 29 parking spaces there.

It's a 28, though, on the side.

So my question for you is, is this over-parked?

Is this under-parked?

Is this parked at regulations?

I know it's one space per two bedroom unit is required, but then I believe you mentioned something about bike lockers and that there's a reduction associated with that.

We haven't finished our final engineering.

I don't have that plan exactly in front of me.

Kelsey may can pull it up and confirm the number for you.

But the intention is to park it at the requirement.

If we can get 29, we were playing with some tweaks to that after the neighborhood meeting, just trying to get as many parking spaces as we could.

But we would not be requesting a reduction on the bike lockers.

There would certainly be at least as

Yeah, Rory, just to provide a little follow up to that, this exhibit that you see in your packet was explored after the community meeting.

And we were working through comments with city staff and received those comments kind of coming up on the deadline of Matt having to produce a staff report and get everything finalized to be on this planning commission date.

So that's the reason for the discrepancy we'd explored.

Exactly how many additional parking spaces we could find.

Picking up that one additional parking space on site was a result of just tweaking our retaining wall heights at the rear of the property to pick up some additional space.

But those are the reasons behind the plan that you see in your packet today.

And then I just have one other quick question about the parking.

And just so that I'm clear, the parking proposed in the packet tonight is enough parking to park the entire development, right?

They would not have to reuse on-street parking.

Yes.

Council, any questions from council?

I have no additional questions.

I have no questions.

Mr. Rice, we are ready for the public comment section.

Thank you, Chair Mitchell.

If you'd like to address the commission on matters regarding 1613 Grove Street, please click your raise hand icon.

Or if you're joining us by phone, press star nine.

You have three minutes for comment.

First up, we have Kevin Hildebrand.

Kevin, you're on with Planning Commission.

You have three minutes.

Good evening.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the commission and to the council.

My name is Kevin Hildebrand.

I live and own 1522 Cherry Avenue.

My parents purchased this house in 1955 as their first and only home.

My brother and I grew up playing in Rock Creek.

and in the woods that would ultimately become Johnson Village.

I distinctly remember the single family character of the neighborhood in the 60s before the boom and duplex developments that started in the 70s.

Since then, I have seen many single family houses converted to two family units, many of them rented to students at the university, and that's in our neighborhood.

My understanding of the comprehensive plan in our zoning ordinances is that they are to provide assurances to homeowners who invest in neighborhoods that there will be a consistency in character and density of their neighborhood.

And also that they will foster and protect the wellbeing of communities.

Our neighborhood, the area south of the railroad tracks is uniformly R1 and R2 low density residential development.

The railway lines act as a buffer to the higher density development that has been allowed around the university.

The request to spot zone the last three parcels at the end of Valley Road extended from R2 to R3 with increased density would be the first incursion of R3 into our neighborhood.

It is not just inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the character of our neighborhood,

It is hostile to it.

The rezoning would destabilize the neighborhood, setting a precedent for future rezoning requests that would drive the change of other lots on the road to be amalgamated into larger parcels for future apartment construction.

You've reviewed the developer's proposal and the analysis prepared by your staff, but I ask that you consider the proposal from a different perspective.

There are 30 residential structures on Valley Road Extension since.

Most of them are two family units that equates to 60 dwelling units.

The proposed rezoning to allow 28 new dwelling units represents a 50% increase in dwelling units on an already overcrowded road.

50% more units mean 50% more vehicles.

There are currently 80 to 100 vehicles parked on Valley Road extended.

A 50% increase would add at least 40

More cars attributed to the development.

Valley Road extended is smaller than any of the adjacent roadways and is too narrow for the additional traffic.

It does not appear that the roadway could be widened without culverting Rock Creek Park for the southern half of the road.

Alternatively, the by-right development of the site with two family units would provide six new dwelling units, an increase of only 10% over the existing condition.

That is a reasonable and supported development by the Comprehensive Plan.

It is also economically feasible to do so, as is evidenced by the current development of the duplexes on David Terrace and Shamrock Road.

They're currently under construction.

A 50% increase in dwelling units is outrageous.

I sincerely hope you will support your staff's finding that the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

and deny the request for rezoning to R3 and the special use permit for even greater density.

Next is Elizabeth Sloan.

Elizabeth, you're on with the Planning Commission.

You have three minutes.

I didn't actually intend to have my hand up.

And next we have Josh Karp.

Josh, you're on with the Planning Commission.

Hey.

Cool.

Um, so we've heard a lot of concerns about the character of the neighborhood, the character of the city.

And I think, like I said,

The character of the city today is that it's pleasant, it's beautiful, it's extremely expensive.

The character of the city in the neighborhood is that you've got to be a professional, white-collar, better to be able to afford a house here.

And I myself, I'm renting, I'm looking for a new place to rent.

There aren't a lot of options that are affordable and I'm doing okay financially.

So if you're not, I don't know where you're going to live around here.

So if character to you means

how tall the buildings are, that's one thing.

To me, character means what kinds of families can live in our neighborhoods, and are we hospitable to working class families?

And I think we should be.

Let me see.

More pragmatically, I walked around the parcel the other day.

I need to check for ticks, actually.

Thanks for the tip, guys.

And I'm not a traffic engineer or an expert, but I am skeptical of the high trip generation numbers.

So I was walking around the neighborhood and I was struck by how much it reminded me of my previous neighborhood in North downtown.

So for about five years, my family and I lived at the end of a dead-end street, First Street North, in a big apartment building for Charlottesville, 60-some units, on a very narrow street.

And I'm here to tell you that it was okay.

Traffic was not really very bad.

And as the parent of a young kid who is not afraid of cars, I really appreciated people driving slowly because they had to.

because traffic was not so bad, but there were some cars and they couldn't drive 30 miles an hour.

When you're a parent, that's great.

So I've lived the kind of life that people who would live in this development would also have.

And I think it was pleasant living in the apartment.

Traffic was not a problem.

It was nice to have slower cars.

And I think we were good neighbors to the people in single family homes on that block.

I don't know if people are always afraid of lots of new neighbors, but I think that

Me and my family and our fellow apartment residents downtown were decent neighbors.

I think it'll be okay.

I did see, like Councillor Hill mentioned, I think, I guess what you call it is a desire path from the parcel up to the railroad tracks.

And I don't want to condone law breaking, but I do think people in the neighborhood are walking, not all the way out valley to the hospital, but walking across the tracks to get to work at the hospital.

I'm not going to say you should break the law, but people are doing it.

And I think they will continue doing it and not drive all the way around.

Let me see.

And then I think this point was made by the applicant also.

If these homes don't get built here, the people who would live there will live somewhere else.

And they'll be driving.

And they'll be driving more than if they lived here.

So probably if you live in a place like this, you work at the hospital or nearby, if you can't live in this location, maybe you're elsewhere in the city, maybe you're in the county or farther out,

You're driving a lot more miles than you would if you lived here.

And so traffic on Sherry on 5th will get worse if we don't build this, which I think is worth considering.

Last thing, you know, I think a lot about affordable housing.

And one of the top concerns that we hear about this is that we don't want to displace people who are renting who are vulnerable.

And the weird thing here is this is a vacant parcel.

so no one lives there to get displaced.

That's rare in a city like this.

Oops, I'm being told to stop talking.

I'll finish the sentence.

The one thing that I'm missing from this is there's only one affordable unit out of 28, and I think, especially since these are modest departments, we can do better.

I can't tell you what the numbers should be, but I would love to see this come back with some revisions going above and beyond the very low numbers that were required from the city.

Thank you very much, Josh.

Okay, and next up is Crystal Passmore.

And Crystal, you're on with Planning Commission.

Hi, thank you for taking my comment.

Sorry, sorry.

Is this better?

Much.

Yeah, okay.

I just want to echo what what Josh said, um, in that I think people want to live in town.

It's very expensive to live in town.

I don't know how many of you have been apartment searching recently, or trying to buy a house in town recently.

But we just we need more housing in town.

And this is currently an empty lot.

And

Kind of like Josh said, I think we should be asking for more units here, not less.

It is private property, so I don't understand talking about people walking their dogs.

It's so close to the university.

It's so close to UVA.

Mostly, I just want to

I just want more people to be able to live here because people want to live here.

And if we don't build, sorry, my dollar's in the area.

And if we don't build these houses, I don't know where you think we're going to build these houses.

I don't know where you think we can put 20 more like semi affordable houses in Charlottesville in such a good area.

I have to go.

Okay, next up we have Stacia Reinhart.

Stacia, you're on with the Planning Commission.

Okay, I'm getting informed that she is using an older version of Zoom, and we'll have to promote Stacia to panelists to talk.

That's the first I've seen of this chair, so.

We can offer her a phone in or we can promote her.

Yep.

You're muted, Stacia.

You need to unmute.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for promoting me.

I appreciate that.

So I live on Grove Street extended on the other side.

So when you come down Valley, you turn left and we have four houses up that way.

So I drive up and down Valley from the very, very end to the very, very other end every single day.

I walk my dogs every single day.

My husband walks the dogs every single day in the mornings.

Okay.

The traffic count is very high after our, our committee meeting or the community meeting.

And they said it was like,

Some really low number.

I thought that can't be right because every time I walk down this street with my dogs at any time between 5 and 7 p.m.

I get at least three to four cars going by me and it takes me about five minutes to walk that distance So you do the math that's like 60 cars in an hour going up and down the street there's

There's no way that in a 28 unit apartment with two bedrooms each that there's only going to be 28 cars that need to park there.

Most people cannot afford those apartments at $1500 if they don't have two incomes.

And to have two incomes, most people have two cars.

So if you've got two cars, you're now talking about, let's say, let's be conservative and say 40 cars that need to park.

You're now putting another 15, 20, 30 cars onto Valley Road Extended.

OK, in addition to the traffic.

The problem that that causes is that you now have issues coming down the road for fire trucks, for rescue, for police.

Any time they come down the street, the road is blocked.

It is completely blocked until they're finished.

That's part of living here.

I don't have a problem with it.

But now you're saying it's going to be even worse because we're putting more cars on the street.

We're putting more traffic going back and forth.

We're putting more people on the ends.

You know, I think the whole dog walking thing, I think the point was that a lot of people walk their dogs on the street.

I don't walk my dogs in that property.

There's probably too many ticks.

It's all viney.

I have no interest in being on someone else's property.

But I do walk my dogs on the street.

I have to walk my dogs in the street because of how many cars there are.

Even more cars will mean more issues with having to walk in the street around cars.

I often have to step onto people's lawns to get out of the way for the cars to go by.

It's really a concern.

The last thing is we live on, I live on Valley Road extended.

It's a dead end.

People constantly come down the street and they turn around at the bottom.

That's fine.

If people start looking for parking, they're going to come up our street.

Gross Street extended.

They're going to come up our street.

Our street is not a city maintained street, which means any cars coming up and down the street are going to damage our street.

We have to pay for that out of our pockets, the four houses that live on that street.

So having more people looking for parking, having more people using our street to turn around, it's not really fair to us at all.

All right, I see my timer's out.

Okay, if anybody else would like to address the commission on matters regarding 1613 Grove Street, please click your raise hand icon.

And we have Michael Thomas.

Michael, you're on with the planning commission.

Oh, can you all hear me?

Yes, very well.

First of all, thank you for letting me speak here today.

This is the first time I've ever attended one of these, and it's entirely fascinating, so appreciate that.

Um, so I think my biggest concern, so I live at four or five B like right smack in the middle of Valley Road extended.

Um, I don't think the tra I don't want to debate numbers, but I don't think the traffic count is quite that high, but it's definitely somewhere in the middle.

Um, usually it just comes in like streams.

Like it'd be four or five or six cars coming in at once.

Um, I think the bigger issue, at least for me is that Valley Road extended extended is, you know, two lanes on paper, but there are a lot of pinch points in the middle.

So a lot of times we all take turns, we'll just wave each other on, we'll pull in someone's parking spot.

The other day I had two pedestrians coming from each side and a car coming and no one yielded so I had to park and wait for people to go by.

So I do think that like 28 new cars and realistically it's probably 28 times too because everyone has friends and family and Thanksgiving and holidays and stuff.

So I don't know, I feel like half the number of apartments would be a lot better.

Cause I mean, you know, I do agree that we do need more housing in the city.

I would definitely want to see all of it or most of it be affordable housing just because, you know, I don't know the average rent price of the street, but I imagine it's a little bit lower than places like the Beacon, City Walk, et cetera.

and I would really hate to see, oh, that's a timer, sorry.

I just saw that on the side of the screen.

But basically I would hate to see people start getting displaced that already live on the street.

My wife and I, we own this duplex, we're fortunate in that regard.

But if I own a place I'm renting and I see, hey, that person down there is charging 1500, I can charge 1500 too now.

All of a sudden, a lot of people are like, where do I get this extra three or 400 bucks a month to make ends meet?

So I would have a lot of concerns about that.

The only other thing is I would love for a pedestrian tunnel or bridge across the railroad.

I'm not going to confirm nor deny that I've ever trespassed across the railroad, but most people here do because it cuts about half the community UVA.

So that would be really cool.

I know it'd be really, really hard just dealing with the railroads in general.

I imagine it's not fun.

I'm pro pedestrian tunnel.

But yeah, that'd be really cool.

Oh, one more thing.

So I know there's a lot of stuff about stream restoration.

As far as I, the way I understand it, it just kind of applies to the front of the apartments there.

This may be a little bit unrelated, but it'd be really cool to see, I guess, the city take a look at the stream as a whole.

Currently, there's another pinch point right there where every time there's a good thunderstorm, it floods the entire street just for a long time.

It's not bad.

I haven't seen a car.

I've gotten two recycling cans from it, so it was kind of weird.

But no one ever claimed them, so now I have five in front of my house.

I feel really bad.

But yeah, that's a thing that might be worth checking out.

I think a tree fell on the first year I moved here, and that's why it's clogged up.

So ideally, I would love to see just the whole stream looked at just in general.

That's all I have.

Okay, I do see one more hand raised.

That's Kevin Hildebrand.

Chair Mitchell, I believe Kevin already, I think he kicked us off during this public comment.

Kevin, you're on with the planning commission.

Good evening.

Thank you for allowing me to double dip.

The only thing I was going to say is that while I'm concerned about this level of density at the end of a dead end road, I think there are other parcels that would be prime for the city to consider, particularly the street frontage of Johnson Elementary School, which is an underutilized parcel of land that contributes nothing to the school, and yet is a large available of blank space that would be perfect for consideration for affordable housing.

or something of that nature is a little bit more high density than you might normally consider because it is on a public main thoroughfare through the city.

That's all I wanted to contribute.

And if anybody else has a comment for the Planning Commission at this time, please click the raise hand icon.

Right.

So what we've got are three applications.

With the permission of the Commission, I would like to take our discussion and votes on each individual application.

If anyone disagrees with that, raise your hand.

Right?

No disagreement.

Let's begin with the rezoning application.

I'll just leave it open to the general discussion.

Any thoughts about the rezoning application?

Logistics concerns.

We have discussion of two proffers that we don't have.

We have two different trip generation estimates that don't match.

Well, the proffers

It's up to the applicant to revise the proffers.

So if the applicant would like to defer and revise the proffers, if the applicant would like to defer and consolidate the trip to generation stuff, it's up to the applicant to do that.

Ms.

Creasey, correct me if I'm not correct.

I'm correct.

But we heard something, the advocate said something today or I mean tonight in their presentation that they wanted to change the proffers, that they were offering something different.

We can and there is

Sorry about that everyone.

Are we referring to the change from where the funding would go?

The applicant offered two revisions.

One was a proper to restrict the R3 uses.

The other was to

Be a little more flexible on where the sidewalk would go.

The one that's specific to the amount and where that goes, there's probably a little flexibility on that.

The advertisement did not include additional proffers on restricting uses on the parcels.

So I'm not sure that we would be able to add that at this point in time and consider that with this vote.

And are those outlined?

Matt has them in the staff report.

I don't know if Ms.

to jump in there and just... Yeah, so in the city code, there is a section that talks about the proffers that you're looking at in your review of this matter are considered preliminary proffers, and they can be modified by the applicant verbally as part of the joint public hearing.

But if

If there's a proffer that's now being offered for the first time, or if there's a proffer that's being substantially modified from what was identified within the application, city code 34-64 requires that the application be continued by the planning commission to allow for review both by the planning staff and other city departments such as the engineer

and also to allow an opportunity for public comment on the new aspects of offers that are being offered as part of the application.

So that's a long-winded way of saying that you can consider things, but for anything new that is being offered now that wasn't part of the application, if it's something significant and isn't just sort of a modification of wording,

Kelsey and Justin, how would you guys like to proceed?

Sorry, that was a question to me, right?

Oh yeah, for you and Kelsey, yes.

Well, I mean, certainly to the extent, if we could proceed with a sort of verbal agreement of said proffers and we could put them into the final condition forward, that's our preference.

But if that is not allowed by city code, then it's not allowed.

You know, sometimes in the county, for example, often we can amend a proffer or add one as long as it's more restrictive.

than what was put forth forward.

So for example, if I had proffered to restrict those uses and at the meeting said, you know what, I changed my mind, I'm not gonna restrict those, then a new public hearing is definitively required, right?

That's because we're giving the public more protection now and more assurance of what's being put out there than less.

But if this code prohibits that, then I don't have an objection to this being continued.

It sounds like the, we haven't heard all the discussion yet, but it sounds like the,

The things I've said and agreed to can be put into writing and adjusted fairly easily.

So if that's what needs to happen, then we're okay to defer and do that.

The commission could perhaps finish their discussion so we could have a complete list of any changes.

So what would the body like to do?

I think we're leaning to a continuance, but out of fairness to the applicant, they ought to

understand any other objections or any other recommendations we've got to help them move forward.

So I think we ought to go ahead and continue talking about these to give them a little guidance.

I think we definitely need to continue our deliberations because I would hate for them to do a continuance.

Here, could I ask a question either of Ms.

Robertson or maybe the planning staff?

I'm curious about what the effect would be of proffers that would say we're not going to do this, this, this, and this under current R3 zoning if we're about to throw all of the zoning ordinance up in the air anyway.

If we're going to end up with a new zoning ordinance that doesn't even have an R3 designation as we now recognize it, do those proffers persist?

Yes, they would continue to go with the land where that is.

We do not have a proposed rezoning request at this point.

We're just working through the land use map.

Once we get further down, there may be more information, but it wouldn't be in a timely manner for the application that we have for us.

What's the effect of a deferral at that point?

If we defer and they come back

It will be much more than four or five months.

Justin is looking to defer.

My broad question is, since this proposed rezoning would put the parcel in violation of the land use map, both current and proposed, personally, I'm not terribly

I mean, to me, the issue that is more important than the details of the offer is the fact that I really think it is very poor policy for us to approve a rezoning that puts a, as one person commented, spot zoning

one parcel or three parcels right next to each other, you know, in a place that is completely violative of what we're about to be doing and what we currently have in the land use map.

We definitely have to use the tools that we currently have approved.

And in the back of our minds, we can, of course, consider where things are going.

But

Where things are going, we're not really sure quite yet.

We're in the public comment phase.

We're receiving quite a few comments from the public and we anticipate that that will continue to evolve.

At the end of the day, Mr. Shook, you're going to make the decision.

And I think it's probably good if you let us deliberate and give you our recommendation free of influence from the ultimate decision maker.

So, Ms.

Robertson, you were, if you're there, you may not be there.

I was just going to note that in land use and zoning, you know, in an ideal world comp plans are updated regularly on a five year cycle.

And you never have an absolute guarantee that that things are going to look exactly the same.

So for the Planning Commission,

Your job is to review the application in accordance with the current comprehensive plan and you have a timeline that that has to be done on.

City Council, once it receives your recommendation, does not have a specific timeline that it needs to act on.

So depending on, you know, sort of the schedule of certain things, City Council and its discretion can make its decisions accordingly.

I will also note that in a number of localities, although this is not something that Charlottesville's ever been comfortable with, but in many localities, when there's a proposed development in between cycles in which the comp plan is being updated, it's not unusual for landowners at all to present comprehensive plan amendments along with their rezoning requests.

So it's not,

You don't have to put applications on pause while you wait to figure out what you might want to do six months from now or a year from now.

You should go ahead and review it.

So, Kelsey and Justin, I think you all are leaning towards a continuance and a deferral.

If that is the case, what I'd like to recommend we do is we poll the commission on the whole package and just talk about things that we think would make the package better or things that we don't like that you need to think about.

That seems logical to me.

Yeah, if anyone feels this project is just

unacceptable period.

Let's, you know, hear it now.

I hope that's not the case, but we might well know now if there's things that we need to lock down that we've said we do to make it acceptable, we'll be happy to do so.

If I could make one just little comment because I didn't get a chance to respond to the public about the comprehensive plan.

You know, it's the map is just one part of it.

and I very much am leery of going purely by maps and land use decisions, right?

It's all about how you make the city better for the community within.

That means people living in neighborhoods and people to be living in neighborhoods.

So just, I mentioned that earlier and didn't get a chance, so I wanted to put that out there.

But yes, your plan of action sounds good to me.

Yes, so that we can have a linear conversation.

What I'd like to do is go from left to right with any thoughts about your just advice to these guys, or objections to these guys regarding the this, the whole thing.

Okay, so couched in those terms, advice for the applicant.

I guess I'd start by just pointing out, this has been mentioned, the crossing over the tracks of probably people going to work at the hospital or somewhere over there.

UVA definitely doesn't have any plans for building a tunnel.

Anything like that.

When we developed the Brandon Avenue area or took that street from the city and brought it into UVA and reorganized it the way we have, we did do a study to see like where a potential crossing might make the most sense.

And the area at the end of Valley Road extended from the study wasn't one that

that came out on top, it was actually, it seemed more feasible to do something along with the alignment of Monroe and maybe Patton, or Peyton Street, I can't remember how you say that one.

But in the event, it was just a study that we did as part of the closing, part of taking over Brandon Avenue, I just wanted to point that out, and provided that information to the city as well.

But you know, with that in mind, I think any advice to the applicant would be to really think about the connectivity with the larger sidewalk network.

I know it's Teflon Valley Road extended.

I was over there today, checked it out.

And

Beyond that, I guess from the university standpoint, I wouldn't necessarily have any other comments.

The stream obviously is important to restore there.

So anything along those lines and obviously affordability, affordable housing is always a big deal.

So all those three things, I guess I had three things that probably you'll hear from other commissioners as well.

So one thing I would want clarified in a future application via proffer, I'm not sure how to clarify this, would be around that stream restoration and what, you know, what at the end of the day, what standards it would be meeting and better articulating of that definition of restoration.

But in general, I am worried about the proposed jump in distance density of the site with the

you know, rezoning and the SUP.

I'm worried that it, you know, I think your application states that a multi-family, medium density, multi-family residential development would not be out of character.

And I agree with that intent, but I think what you've provided

as shown does overshadow the existing road, the existing parking, and isn't what I think we as Planning Commission are hoping to see in terms of more transit-oriented development.

That dog is drinking water right now.

And it's at the end of the dead-end road.

This doesn't seem like, you know, to speak to a future land use map, where we want to see the intensity within our neighborhoods.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Yeah, I mean, to that point, you know, I keep thinking about, maybe because it's where I live, but comparable apartments here in North downtown.

Specifically, on very comparable streets, too, in terms of being 20-foot width, with the sole difference, really, that there's always completely parked in one lane on those.

They're even narrower, in effect, on Altamont Street, on Altamont Circle, and on First Street North that were mentioned earlier.

So on Altamont Street, it's single-family homes, largely subdivided nowadays into

you know, maybe two apartments each.

And at the very end, there's a 20 unit apartment building and a 21 space parking lot.

Of course, an Altamont Circle famously developed single family home street, very expensive homes, well over a million dollars for most of them.

And at the end in the circle, there's a 30 unit building.

And we heard about the first street one earlier, it's like 60 units, even bigger.

And

You know, I think about the people living in those buildings, dozens and dozens of people and like hearing, you know, the neighbors and comments here, like, I wonder if we would ever approve those buildings today or if we'd say we don't want them living in our community.

And so, you know, I think there is a path to yes for me for this.

But I mean, I do empathize definitely with the neighbors concerns about traffic and the impacts of cars on that road.

I think the fact that it's fully parked means there really won't be much parking spillover.

And there's been a lot of talk about how two bedroom apartments mean two cars per apartment.

But if you look at the census data, which I'd love to show you guys right now, if that's okay with you guys,

That's simply not true.

May I quickly share my screen?

Mr. Rice, please.

I think I already have the capability here.

So if you see here, you can see in bedrooms, most units, the vast majority of units in the city have two or more bedrooms in excess, or about 85% of units.

about 74% of rental units.

But if you get onto vehicles available, significantly less than half of families have two or more vehicles available.

So the majority of all families have one or zero vehicles.

and then of renters, the difference is even more stark.

So only 37% of renter households have two or more vehicles available and an excess of 60% of rental households have one or fewer vehicles available.

So I think that's clear to me that there's plenty of parking here and that it does make me hopeful that there'll be fewer hard trips generated by this.

The other thing I'd point out,

We were talking about the railroad or the right of way to get places.

It seems that this part of grocery extension, the path to grocery is all railroad right of way.

And it's actually a lot wider than most of the railroad right of way.

So I wonder if there's a way to kind of recover that to create a pedestrian facility in the future.

Not that that's necessarily prerequisite for this.

I guess the actionable maybe suggestion I make, not that I would suggest anything related to proffers, is that if we're going to make this pedestrian improvements proffer more general, you know, I would hate for it to just be dumped into some general fund that might be applied elsewhere in the city without at least some consideration for applying it here.

So I would word it in a way where it's just for pedestrian improvements.

And then if the tunnel ever happens, that'd be great.

If there's some way to create that path there, that would be great.

Or even if it's something like traffic coming along Valley Road, things within the street that aren't sidewalks that you could do to make it more tolerable to walk along.

So the roads I mentioned earlier, the two Altamonts and First Street,

They do have sidewalks, but they're so narrow and so often blocked by things like trash cans that almost everyone ends up blocking to the street anyway.

So the sort of good thing is that it makes cars go slow.

The bad thing is you're in the street with cars.

So any way you can make that more tolerable, I think is better and something that I would hope city staff would be free to do with that money.

I guess those, well,

Those are my main thoughts.

I'd like to see the actual development plan be more solidified as the guarantee of what we get here, not necessarily just in staying a bed and breakfast or whatever aren't allowed.

And I'd love to have more of a reason for us and for council, who I know will care,

to get to yes here, to give a real significant public benefit.

And I do think that more rental housing and more availability for families to live in our community is a benefit, but more affordable housing would of course make it even stronger and even more of a reason for the neighbor, to ask the neighborhood to absorb these impacts.

That's my thought.

Okay, so I have a few thoughts about what's presented in front of us tonight.

And so on one hand, I do very much so strongly feel that we do need more units of decent housing in the city.

But on the reverse side, I also know that the point of a special use permit is to make the property

better or to provide a public benefit than what's already there.

And from what's been presented to us, I can't see how this is necessarily going to make that neighborhood better other than we are putting more units in the city.

It's not really that accessible.

And also we only have, which is by code, one affordable unit out of the project.

I agree with the citizens who commented.

I would definitely like to see if possible.

And that could be one of the proffers, maybe more, at least one or two more affordable units within the site.

I wanted to touch base on two was I think the resident made a great comment.

The prices may not look that bad to the average person looking on but when you compare them to the people who already live on the street and then when that landlord says,

The development at the end of the street can get $1,500 for an efficiency.

So I'm going to charge $1,700 for my duplex.

Then you do start displacing people out of the neighborhood.

So no, we're not displacing anyone off this site.

But without being responsible, you could displace the rest of the people that are already on the remaining part of the street.

Thank you very much.

There's a lot that I like about this project.

I've had my eye on that kudzu patch for quite a long time, especially for land use in the city.

And I don't like to talk about land uses harming residents in the city, but kudzu is invasive and actually really bad for the environment.

As far as the design, I think it makes a lot of sense.

I really like having the buildings over the parking, reducing the footprint on the land, reducing the visual impact of the property.

I think that's very smart.

That's something I want to see more of in the city.

It absolutely breaks my heart.

There isn't a clear connection to the university, but that potential is so exciting.

No question.

This is the big one.

I've said we're having a bandwidth problem.

We're getting every other word.

Affordable housing, very important.

Really excited to see how that develops.

Can I add just one other thing and I'm sorry I don't want to cut you off but I do feel like this is important to add to the minutes for this meeting is that I too would like to see those funds for the sidewalk that were proffered to stay in that neighborhood.

I think it's important

to use that to develop or have better amenities for the neighborhood instead of just to say, hey, here's funds for sidewalks throughout the entire city.

If in fact, and forgive me, Jody, I'll forgive you for a minute.

If in fact we do do that, if we keep the funds in the neighborhood,

Just remember the council we got from Mr. Dawson and the council in Mr. Alfie's package.

We have no idea when we're going to be doing any sidewalk development in that area.

No, for being on CSBG community block grants, I do know that sidewalk and road improvements are very expensive.

So I wasn't necessarily saying a sidewalk improvement right now.

But I also think that there can be something else that money can be allocated to to just improve the neighborhood in general.

I just want to see the funds

In that neighborhood, and I do not want us to wait 10 years to see the funds used.

If the development is going to move forward, then the funds that are supporting that development for neighborhood amenities or improvements need to coincide with that.

That's not proper.

And I agree.

Two points to that.

I like what Mr. Stolzenberg suggested, just improving general walkability and circulation.

And I like what Mr. Shep just posed.

We keep the money in the general area.

It may not hit Valley Road, but someplace around Bikeville.

But again, it's not my turn.

Thank you, Chair.

This is hard.

On the one hand, we're hearing from our city council that

We have to take into consideration an approved comprehensive plan that is eight years old now.

And we've been going through a process for the last seven years.

I'm sorry, the last three or four years, hearing that how that needs to change that comprehensive plan, but it's not there yet.

And but we know it's going to change.

And it's going to allow more density in the city.

But yet still, we have to use the tools that we have at hand that have been approved.

And

And then I look at the proposed development, and I can't help but feeling that when we have retaining walls that are a story and a half tall, and that's how you're able to fit this development on this site, that tells me that it's not really designed appropriately for this location.

So I'm tending to come down on the side of, and the traffic concerns too, I'm tending to come down on the side of, I would like to see more than the buy right amount of development allowed on these three lots, but not as much as what is being proposed.

And to have the design be more appropriate for the topography and the site that it is now.

I think anything that I might offer would be redundant.

The only thing that I will offer that may not be redundant relates to the critical slopes.

I would ask that you take a look at the staff recommendations at the end of that report.

The initial recommendation from staff is that we deny the waiver, but they do suggest that if we do,

approve the waiver, a litany of things be done.

I would recommend that you guys take a look at that and maybe include those recommendations in your next iteration.

Because the feedback I'm getting from staff is if in fact you do those things, they're going to be far more comfortable with the application than they are now.

Ms.

Cresci,

What is my next thing to do?

I think if you ask for the deferral, that would probably be much cleaner based on the discussions that have been had and the potential feedback that you all have provided.

Could I have one more thing, Chair Mitchell?

Thanks.

So we had a little short conversation there from Ms.

Robertson about comprehensive plan amendments.

And I recall we did do one for that 208 Maury project.

And so I wonder if that would be appropriate when this comes back to us so that it is in conformance with the map portion of the plan.

And I think it is in conformance with other portions of the plan and of the adopted affordable housing plan from a few months ago.

Though at the same time, I noticed that there are areas, small parcels, isolated parcels of R3 already in places like North downtown, like on Park Lane and on Farish.

that are not designated high density in the 2013 comprehensive plan and yet are designated R3.

Ms.

Don't forget that the comprehensive plan is a guidance document.

It's not a prescription.

So it's, you know, it's okay to make a recommendation or a decision that is not strictly in accordance with the plan, in particular, if you know that the city is moving in a certain direction.

It's just that generally, if you want your comprehensive plan to be effective,

Your decision should be made in a way that implements that plan.

But you're on the back end of a comprehensive plan that you're updating now.

So if the commission wants to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment for this location, you could do that and have it advertised for your next meeting.

Or it actually would take longer, I think, because staff would have to develop that

recommendations.

So I'm not sure that that's practical.

And from a legal perspective, it's perspective, it's, it's not necessary.

And then I think that, I'm sorry, Ms.

Well, I had just said, I have you talking about just now like a few seconds ago before you started.

So just be careful with your terminology.

Spot zoning, a lot of people use that term.

What spot zoning is, is when you own something purely for the benefit of a private developer.

It's not

Spot zoning is not when you agree to rezone a particular parcel of land just because a property owner has asked you to do so.

There's a difference.

So this, in my opinion, is not spot zoning.

It's just a proposed rezoning that has a number of impacts that aren't necessarily addressed

in terms of guidance within your current comprehensive plan for this location.

But you are, in terms of what the city would be getting, you would be getting the unit of affordable housing that your ordinance calls for.

So it's not the case that your decision would be solely for the

private benefit of the landowner.

I know that's kind of a line that's hard to understand sometimes, but just rezoning a single piece of property isn't the same thing as a spot zoning.

I would just say that I think makes sense about the comp plan amendment to me about not doing it for this but thinking ahead since I know Jenny is on the call you know I remember in the early stages of the map process before we saw any map we saw a map of vacant parcels in the city and to me it does make sense to

to develop those more densely, precisely because it doesn't displace anybody or create any pressure to tear down existing housing.

And so I was a little bit surprised to see that those weren't treated differently in the new comp plan.

Well, I would like to request a deferral at this moment.

I will take into account what I have heard.

I hope we don't have to start from square one, but I guess it'll depend on the nature of how much we revise the plan.

Ms.

I think it'd be good to vote to accept it.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

All right, thank you.

Thank you guys for your effort and time.

Appreciate that.

We've got about a 10 minute presentation.

Do you guys want to power right into that?

Or do you want a five minute break before we get the presentation?

Five minute break.

Council, you got Ms.

I'm sorry guys, I have to leave.

My kid has SOLs in the morning and I got to make sure she's in bed on time.

Council, this is going to be interesting.

It's about the botanical gardens.

You may want to stay and watch.

All the chewy noises go on my Patreon.

Yeah, maybe one day.

I'm not sure when the... I think we've all got shots in the arms, right?

Everybody got their shot?

Yeah.

Double shots.

I think we're just a party in your house.

Let's see.

I think we're waiting for Jody.

I'm here.

We'll go to gallery view so I can see everybody.

Okay, Ms.

Sure, briefly, yes.

This is Jill Trishman-Marx, and she is with the Botanical Garden

It's more specific group name, but she'll tell you what that is.

She's been reaching out to a lot of different groups to provide some presentation to get the word out about the projects that they're working on and the opportunities that there are for

This project that is pretty amazing for our community.

So I'm going to not ramble anymore and turn the time over to Jill.

And she has a number of, there are a number of people that, well, we have a handful of people on that may be part of the group that may have some things to comment on.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for inviting me and for your time and interest in the Botanical Garden.

I have learned so much tonight by attending your meeting, and I really appreciate the work that the members of the Planning Commission do as well as their staff to promote orderly development in our community.

And I look forward to working together as we build this significant community resource.

So as long as everybody can hear me.

Can we go to the presentation, please.

Excellent.

Okay, so we

As you may know, we started life with a different name, but last summer we invited the community to give us suggestions about a new name for the garden, and we got over 200 responses.

The name we selected, Botanical Garden of the Piedmont, was chosen because it's precise and concise.

It not only describes where we're located, but it also speaks to the flora and the fauna that will be highlighted in this garden.

Next slide, please.

In 2012, the idea of a botanical garden was first visualized on the master plan for McIntire Park East, which you can see at the top of this drawing.

Next slide.

In 2013, the garden became a public-private partnership when the city named us as their partner.

The city of Charlottesville has dedicated the land for this project, but that's where the taxpayer burden ends.

All of the funds that are needed to design, construct, and maintain this garden will be privately raised.

But once it's built, like any other city park, BGP will be free and accessible to all.

Next slide, please.

The idea of a botanical garden in McIntire Park East was refined in 2015 with the development of the East McIntire Park schematic park plan by Mahane Reichel, which is visible in the top of this slide.