Planning Commission Meeting   3/12/2019

And Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

And Bill.

And we'll begin now and move on to reports.

Jody, do you have anything you'd like to share with us?

Are you thinking or did you not hear me?

Jody?

Jose, you're much more soft spoken than Lisa.

Okay.

I attended the tree commission meeting last week, March 5th.

Not a whole lot went on.

The city will celebrate Arbor Day on Friday, April 26.

There will be a ceremony in Market Street Park.

at a large basswood tree that is on the protected list.

The tree commission would like to understand the neighborhood development services recite review process to understand how existing trees are identified for preservation and how they are protected during construction.

This is in regard or as a result of some recent projects that ended up taking out trees that weren't intended to be taken out and were supposed to be protected.

So an ad hoc committee will be meeting with NDS staff to understand the review process better.

and then two vacancies are open to applicants from CDBG neighborhoods.

Those are Starr Hill, Belmont, 10th and Page, Rose Hill, Ridge Street and Fifeville.

So please, we need your participation in the Tree Commission.

The Board of Architectural Review, the meeting that was scheduled for February 20th was canceled due to weather and will happen tomorrow night at 5.30.

The Housing Advisory Committee policy subcommittee met to discuss a joint meeting with City Council just talking about best ways to manage the meeting, sort of procedural issues, what to focus on, how best to present the material.

The material itself was interesting.

There's what they're calling a tool.

It's a Microsoft spreadsheet, but it has data on different types of solutions for addressing the housing crisis.

What they're calling interventions, which could be actual homes, could be improvements, could be guidance.

And the idea is that you can change the numbers and figure out, okay, it'll cost this much if we do this strategy.

It's sort of a guiding document in that way.

I've got some interesting public feedback about that, concerned about who was on that committee, whether they had a personal stake in the matter.

Interesting to think about.

The meeting itself went fairly well.

Council seemed to be interested in the tool.

Had some interesting feedback from the city manager saying that the tool really should be used.

Considering the comprehensive plan and land use issues should be considering, okay, how much space does this stuff take up?

Is it possible?

What's the best way to do it?

I attended a stakeholders meeting and then a public meeting last week of the fledgling Unity Day planning.

So I'm going to be on that committee as well.

So that should be an interesting process.

All right, I attended a place committee meeting on the second Thursday of last month, whatever that date was, where we mostly discussed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee's memo on the Standard and Designs Manual.

They have some concerns regarding the Standard and Design Manual's prescription of a minimum block length, which is essentially a very large super block.

and they instead suggest a maximum block length to create more connections and better, more connected street grid to make it easier to travel around, alleviate traffic.

And then we also discussed the new long-range planner position.

I understand there's going to be a steering committee that will be guiding the consultants and that that

Long Range Planner position, the job offer I think should be posted by now and we're concurrently drafting the RFP for the consultants with input from several members of PLACE and others including obviously us.

I also attended a human transit workshop at the Water Street Center, which was very interesting.

A whole bunch of city and county officials were there, including a bunch of city counselors and supervisors, and we got to lay out a transit system in a

I also attended that transit workshop and worked with Rory on a spaghetti system of a bus system.

So I'll just give a few updates on the latest Board of Visitors meeting that was held in the end of February.

and just a few highlights were that they agreed to rename the new, or actually name the new residence hall that's going up on Brandon Avenue Bond House in commemoration of Julian Bond, a former UVA professor and civil rights icon.

And just for those of you who don't know, that building's about 311 beds and should be open for the fall semester for upper class students, undergraduate students.

Thanks for watching!

They approved concept site design guidelines, which is kind of the release to continue planning and design for a university hotel and conference center at the Emmett Ivy area that we've been doing a lot of planning for.

That is estimated to be about 220,000 gross square feet.

That equates to about 225 guest rooms and 25,000 GSF of conference space.

Lots of twos and fives in there.

And it's going to be, preliminarily, we're looking at putting it adjacent to the IVM garage.

It's already there, so kind of laminating the garage and going around one of the corners of it.

It fits pretty nicely into the master plan that we developed and estimated, according to the notes,

from that item to be about 100 to 105 million dollar project.

And it's likely going to be done in partnership with like a third party developer and operator.

So no timeline on on that to report.

In addition, you probably heard that there was two committees that had been convened by President Ryan recently, and they presented reports to the BOV in that late February meeting.

The Emmett Ivey Final Report, which was kind of set up to provide a blueprint of what UVA stakeholders see as the best uses and activities and programs for the Emmett Ivey area, so in addition to the hotel, which they kind of started with that, like assumed that

That hotel is going to be coming.

They also recommended the site be prioritized for things like a center for the arts, an academic hub focused on interdisciplinary research and programs, things like maybe the Data Sciences Institute or school that was recently announced.

Also democracy focused academics, things like public policy and

Arts and Sciences initiatives in that realm as well.

And they recommended focusing a lot of development to the eastern end rather than the western end and kind of seeing the western end as kind of a later stage of development, not doing it all at once.

and then finally there was also the community working group that was set up by President Ryan and they've been working to identify issues and things between the university and the Charlottesville community and they identified the top four issues based on focus groups and surveys and stuff to be jobs and wages, affordable housing and workforce housing,

Public and equitable health care and youth education issues.

So there'll probably be more to come with that, but you know, President Ryan, we just announced that, you know, of raising that minimum wage at UVA that's paid to $15 an hour.

So I feel like that's kind of a start of like actions related to that study.

That's it.

Very good.

Thanks.

So on February 14th, the Parks and Rec

make that meeting because I was told that I had something else I needed to do that day.

It was Valentine's Day, so I miss it.

But there is good news.

The skate park is now open.

And there will be a grand opening on the 21st of April, I believe.

And we are still hoping that Mr. Hawks, this is Hawks for Hawks.

and Tony Hawk.

We're still hoping that Tony Hawk will actually be there for the grand opening, we don't know yet.

On the 28th of January, Jody and I participated in the Fontaine Streetscape meeting.

And basically that meeting was to focus us on the feedback that had been received, one, from the board members that are on the Speedscape committee, or the committee members, and also focus on the feedback that we got at the charrette that Bill and I attended.

And as you might imagine, knowing the Fontaine corridor as you do, the things that they want focused on, the board wants us to focus on, or the committee wants us to focus on, and the things that the neighborhood wants us to focus on are

to make it more bike-friendly.

They'd like bike lanes and they'd like to see buffered bike lanes up and down Fontaine.

They'd like it to be more pedestrian-friendly, so they would like to see crosswalks with beacons up and down the Fontaine Street in that lane.

and they would like to see side walls covering the area to provide just a buffer for the pedestrians.

They are willing to, the folks who live in that area are willing to sacrifice parking to make it more walker friendly.

to make it more pedestrian friendly and to make it more biking friendly.

It seems that the parking really doesn't do the folks in the neighborhood that much good.

It's usually consumed by UVA employees.

Those are the guys that are parking there.

But the businesses in the area would like to see us do something about parking in the area.

It is very difficult for the

for the patrons of the businesses to get in and out, especially during lunch because there's a paucity of parking in the area because again, a lot of the UVA employees are parking on the streets.

So some thought to maybe some off-street parking at some point along the way.

Jody, what else happened?

I left early.

No, I left soon after you to go to the transit workshop.

The only thing I would add to it, Jose, is that it's easier to get all that people want into the west end of Fontaine because we have a wider right-of-way there and it narrows down at the east where it meets

Alderman, or whatever it's called there.

And so there's the sacrifice of some tree planting areas to accommodate that and the buffer between the bike lane and the street.

But

I was very pleased to see that we're able to get a good-sized tree.

The other thing that they want us to make sure we think about is the fire station.

There's a fire station right there.

And we need to make certain that we do not do anything to significantly obstruct their ability to get in and out of there, especially if there's a fire they need to deal with.

Let's see, you all do not have a work session on the 26th on the fourth Tuesday this month.

You all had the meeting last week so that Chair Green noted that we did need a third meeting this month and I think we can all support her in that.

Next regular meeting will be on April 9th.

We'll let you guys know.

Most of you all last week got to meet Joey Winter, our new planner.

He's out in the audience there today just checking us out and he will eventually get to

come before you all at some point for an item.

We're still in the recruitment process for other positions, our grants coordinator position we're recruiting for, as well as our ADA coordinator at this point in time.

There's still other vacancies at NDS that we're working to try and fill as well, so we're getting things done with

with who we have.

But I think that is it at this point in time.

I do want to let you all know the April work session, we're working towards having that be your workshop on the standards and design manual.

It sounds like it's pretty timely based on some of the other discussions that have happened.

That was going to be your March work session, but council postponed approving the funding for that until last week.

And so once they did that, we weren't able to stay on schedule with the consultant.

So we're working towards that fourth Tuesday in April for that workshop.

They're working through the logistics right now.

I'm going to jump around just a little bit and move to the consent agenda.

There's only one thing or two things on the consent agenda.

Those are the minutes from February 12th and January 22nd.

I so move.

Second.

All in favor?

Any objections?

Any absences?

the agenda is approved.

So we will now move into public comment.

This would be the opportunity for the public to come up and chat with us about any issues that you may have related to the Planning Commission and planning in Charlottesville that is not already on the agenda.

So the Lehman Street

and the Block Grant and home.

An opportunity to comment on those will come later.

So if there's something else that anyone would like to speak to, please do so now.

Keep your comments to three minutes.

There are no comments.

I will close the public comment section and I believe we are now waiting for council.

Tuxedo Shoes

Wes is on 64th.

Good afternoon.

We are back in order and we are able to continue our deliberations.

There are

There are two applications tonight that both relate to the Lyman Street residences and I'd like to review both of those applications together so we will hear from the staff then we'll hear from the applicant and they will open up two public comments for all both of those together but we'll have to deliberate on these applications separately.

The first is for rezoning, that would be ZM1800004 and that is a rezoning from R1 to R2 and a rezoning from PUD to R2.

The second is a special use permit application and that is SP18000011.

And that will allow for three as opposed to two residents to be built on that property.

It will also allow for a less aggressive setback on the property as well.

The property that is in the back of all that.

If we must approve the rezoning to then move on to approve the SUP, but if we do not approve the rezoning, what I'd recommend that this board do is make recommendations to council regarding what the SUP ought to look like so that they have something to work with.

Good evening.

So members of the commission, this is two applications as our chairman stated for the evening, both related to development of two parcels on Lyman Street on the northern edge of the Belmont planning area.

area was these two properties were there was a request for rezoning of these properties that came to this body in 2013 and was ultimately voted on by City Council in 2014 that was a request to rezone to downtown extended.

That request was denied by council unanimously.

So the applicant has here, four years later, returned with a request to rezone to R2, both of these properties to R2 zoning.

To just take the rezoning by itself for the time being, by rezoning to R2 the applicant would have then two R2 lots.

To give you an idea of what the buy-write of that would be, those two lots would not be conforming to current zoning but our subdivision and zoning ordinance allow two non-conforming lots, a boundary line between two non-conforming lots to be shifted

under our ordinance so they could move the lot line to be perpendicular to Lyman Street creating two R2 lots that are generally square and then the zoning administrator would be, has the legal authority to grant adjusted setbacks to permit the development of a single family residence on those properties.

So that's what the rezoning would accomplish for the applicant.

and we've gone through that process, gone through the review of that in your staff report and staff does recommend approval of that.

In particular, I want to call out the R1 piece is R1 by virtue of the fact that at one point it was unzoned.

So it was railroad property that was purchased by the applicant, did not have zoning, railroad right of way is not zoned on our map.

So pursuant to section 34-13 of our code, when an unzoned piece of land comes into

Our zoning purview, if you will, it is automatically zoned R1.

So that's why it's zoned R1.

It did not go through any kind of deliberative process.

It was just by code zoned R1.

So the applicant is now asking for consideration of that to be rezoned.

The front portion was originally part of the Belmont Lost PUD.

We obviously review this in great detail.

Last time this application came up, a rezoning request came up for this.

We reviewed as much of the documentation of the Belmont Lost PUD as we have.

We could find no indication that this land was intended for any sort of use.

There is open space tied to the Belmont Lost property that's under control of their HOA that makes up the balance of this.

So the removal of this from the PUD does not make that PUD non-conforming and doesn't really impact the amount of kind of recreational or aesthetic open space that they have.

So staff recommends approval of the rezoning to R2, which brings us to the request for a special use permit.

This is an infill special use permit, which many of you may not have seen before.

It is a little bit of a different application than the typical special use permits that do come in front of you.

So, Infill Special Use Permits were created in our code when the Plan Unit Development Ordinance, which previously had no minimum lot size, was put back on the PUD of two acres.

And the Infill Special Use Permit was created as a substitute for the smaller sites

Close into the city center to allow some additional density on these units through the modification of the lot requirements in R1, R1S and R2 zones.

So essentially what you're looking at here is a request to modify those lot conditions, whether it be the minimum frontage required on a publicly accepted street, minimum setbacks and minimum lot size.

So the infill SUPE does allow for a certain amount of density or a certain amount of modification to the number of lots you can get.

This applicant has enough for three, not enough for four, regardless of how you cut it in the infill special use permit.

requirements.

So when looking at this application, obviously the review is, you'll notice the standard of review from section 157.

This should look very familiar to everyone who's seen an SUP before.

But you have the additional section of 165, I believe, yes, 165, which is the infill special use permit section of the code that you also need to review.

Staff has done this review.

In general, staff finds that this application is in keeping with the greater goals of our comprehensive plan and the Infill Special Use Permit process.

When this was previously reviewed, the proposed use under Downtown Extended was kind of a live work.

Unit, kind of one large building that was live work.

I think in looking at this application you see three houses that kind of reflect the character of that area.

Certainly the applicant was tied into the development of the Belmont Law so he's drawing from his experience there.

I think it frames Lyman Street better than currently the vacant land and I also kind of note that

The current zoning of this land doesn't really lend itself to much development at all.

You could potentially get a very creative house on that back parcel that's R1, but it would be a challenge.

So with that in mind, we do have a couple of conditions and I wanted to update you on a discussion that we had.

With the city attorney's representative, after you guys came down here, there was a question regarding ADUs.

So the way this section, this application was advertised, it was for three single family residential units.

Well in our ordinance a single family residential unit in R2, R1, and R1S all can contain an accessory dwelling unit provided they meet the guidelines in our zoning ordinance.

So that should, just put that out there and I'm sure the applicant will reiterate this, three single family residences the option to have an internal accessory dwelling unit

is available in each of these provided they can meet the parking requirements all those units require an additional off-street parking space so some of the land area here is going to limit that to a certain extent but provided they can meet all the regulations they could potentially do it but and as a refresher if you if an owner of one of these units elects to do that they do have to reside at the property in order to rent the other unit in the building so those are

some of the requirements that they have to meet.

Would there be an issue if down the road ADUs were permitted?

Given the requirements of the ADU under the current zoning ordinance, I don't believe so.

The fact that additional, the main concern here is Lyman Street is

The...

The configuration of Lyman Street is somewhat challenging for cars going down.

It's narrow, the turns on either end are kind of blind.

You may hear from residents, we've heard from residents about that, that it's kind of tough to see around those turns.

As all of North Belmont is, it's a popular route for people trying to avoid the major streets they should be staying on.

So I think there would be a concern if there were on-street parking on the north side of Lyman.

It's currently allowed on the south side of Lyman in spaces.

Any kind of overflow on the north side would create an interest, a potentially dangerous situation in terms of sight lines.

But provided that they can accommodate that extra parking space that's required under the code, I don't really see anything.

It's a, you know, as we were mentioning last night, it was a walkable, the walkable area.

ADU is an accessory dwelling unit so these would typically be what we know as in-law apartments or another unit in the building that is smaller.

It's limited to two unrelated persons and there is a certain size limitation based on the overall size of the project.

It can't be a 50-50 split between the gross floor area of a structure.

So it's somewhat limited in size, limited in its occupancy.

So with regards to parking requirements for you to use, I understand with the way this lot is laid out and the front lot being used not for anything, the driveways go all the way to the back and then there's sort of a fully paved area there.

We're getting beyond what I typically do here.

So I think if they meet the dimensions of that on a single family, I believe you're capable of stacking cars in that situation.

You can't stack in parking lots and have it count for two.

But we've kind of gotten into the realm of where the zoning administrator knows far more than I do.

So I may have to ask that question before.

Later.

The other point I would make is these are going to be at the individual discretion probably of each individual owner.

So some of these issues can be dealt with at a building permit or a provisional use permit.

Anyone asking for an accessory dwelling unit in their structure has to get a provisional use permit through the city.

Any other questions for Steph?

Does Council have questions for staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bruce Wardell and I'm the applicant for BKKW on the Lyman Street project.

There you go.

I'll put the pictures.

You guys don't need the zoning and the aerial photography.

Maybe just the renderings and the cycling would probably be most helpful.

I'm assuming the public, if you haven't seen your zone, welcome to come look at them.

I want to thank Brian Haluska, the staff member who helped us with this application.

He's been very thorough, very thoughtful, and has responded to our questions and our concerns all the way through.

I think the rezoning application was a very simple calculation in that these two lots in their current configuration wouldn't provide as R1

R1 zoning wouldn't provide any ability to build.

They were only 30 feet wide and 140 feet long.

And with the setbacks in R1, it was unbuildable.

So that led us to consider rezoning them to R2.

R2 would give us the ability to build two units there with a reconfigured site plan but still the setbacks wouldn't work and so then we move to the infill special use permit in which we could configure the sites or configure the property specific to this site

and using low impact development principles, the way we're developing the site, it allows us to increase the density by one unit so that the area calculation, that's how we come up with the three unit area calculation.

And with the discussion, I would reiterate the discussion that in the R1 and R2 districts that our assumption is that the owners would have the option if they decided to add an interior accessory unit.

We don't imagine anything happening exterior.

The interior accessory unit would be about 700 square feet and would be on the lower level.

That is still a component of the application.

The reason for the setback is that during the development of the larger setback off Lyman Street, during the development of the Belmont Lofts, the developer installed a new city water line that connected the Belmont Lofts to the main water line and that easement, actually the city's never

kind of codified that easement, which we will do for them.

But there is a water line that runs across that front parcel.

So about 80% of that front parcel is occupied by a water line.

And when the easement is set, it would essentially eliminate that whole front parcel.

So all we've put on it are biofilters for stormwater runoff and water quantity and water quality.

and you can see that in the landscape in the renderings.

and we do not anticipate any parking on the north side.

I think the street parks has on-street parking on the south side.

We've provided, each of these units are two-bedroom units and so they would require one space.

We've currently provided three spaces on the site development with the

If accessory units are desired in the future, we basically have space for one more parking space on the site without turning it into just buildings and parking, which is not what we want to do.

And with some bike storage, that would allow us for two accessory units out of the six.

The three single family and the two accessory units.

Other than that I think I'm happy to answer any questions.

We put a lot of thought into this.

The staff has been extremely helpful and we've met with the Belmont Neighborhood Association back in December.

and then we had a neighborhood meeting that we advertised.

I think we sent out 117 invitations in, was it January or February?

It might have been February and about seven or eight people showed up and we had about a two-hour meeting and discussed things that they desired.

What's the intention there?

The assumption was that we would be required to do a sidewalk.

However, that sidewalk goes to not another sidewalk on either end.

And we had a discussion with the neighborhood whether it was valuable to have that sidewalk on that side.

I think we would have to ask for a waiver to not have the sidewalk there.

We would rather have more planting on that side, frankly.

So a sidewalk on that side of the road would only serve the three residents?

No.

Yeah, on Douglas Avenue.

On the east side.

I mean, if we have to put it in the sidewalk, we're happy to do that.

As the applicant notes, that is a requirement unless it is waived, so that's usually something that's dealt with in the site plan process.

If they wish to seek a waiver of that sidewalk, that would ultimately come in front of, come to city council.

As the applicant stated, there was some, in the public meeting, there was some interest from the public in that area, not having it because the sidewalk across, there is a sidewalk alignment on the south side.

Maybe 1204 Carlton, something like that?

Not designed by staff, but by council.

I believe lack of adequate pedestrian infrastructure.

But because of that sidewalk issue?

I'm not looking to waste a resource.

I would trust staff and the community to decide whether or not a sidewalk is needed there and if it makes sense.

Anything else?

Mr. Wardell, so you purchased this land a few years ago in advance of that previous application, is that right?

Yes.

And that land is now assessed at, is it 194,300?

No.

Okay.

Mayor Walker, I was just reminded that I needed you to gavel counsel, so if you would gavel them in, that'd be great.

Looks like they're gaveled in.

Thank you.

So, very quickly, just for absolute transparency,

I live in Belmont Lofts and Belmont Lofts is adjacent to the property that we're working with.

I did advise legal counsel of the fact that I live in Belmont Lofts and counsel has informed me that I do not need to accuse myself because of my proximity to the property because I have no financial interest in what you guys are doing.

So just want to get that out there so everyone knows.

Council.

Any questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

No, we bought the front parcel for $2,500.

That may have been its assessment at that point in time, but we bought it for $2,500 in 2006 and we bought the back parcel for $120,000.

in 2008, I think.

I get assessments and appraisals wrong.

Assessment at one point in time went up, but the most recent appraisal

was $115,000.

We had it reappraised when our loan was renewed and the most recent appraisal was $115,000 for both parcels.

Okay, I got you.

That's what the appraiser told us.

This was an appraisal hired by Union Bank.

Oh boy, I've got a stack this thick of the title history of that property.

It was originally owned by the railroad.

It then, when CETA purchased the land that Innova and National Optronics are on, the transfer between CSX and CETA inadvertently left out this little strip of land.

And so when we found it, we had to tell CSX that they still owned it.

We tried to get them to give it to us, you know how that went.

And so we discovered that it was still owned by CSX and not as part of the National Optronics and ANOVA property.

Any other questions?

All right, with that, then I will open it up for public comment.

If you would come down, set your name, set your address, and keep your comments to three minutes, I would be grateful.

So it is now open to you.

Are there sign-ups?

Oh, there are sign-ups.

Oh, wait a minute.

There are sign-ups.

I didn't realize there were some.

So is it Van Reed?

Ah, yep.

There you go.

My name is Luus van Riel.

It's a Dutch name, I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry.

Actually, I'm not.

I'm extremely proud I was born and raised.

There is the most incredible place.

That's worth it right there.

There you go.

I live at 201 Douglas, which is on the corner of Douglas and Lyman.

So I look at the loft all the time.

I have a beautiful view from Lyman, you know, over the railroad and into the city.

And of course, if I had my absolute biggest wish, he would get a lot of money without building.

I would not have anything there because now I'm going to have buildings and people looking in my windows.

That said, we need to be fair.

I also was the first one who started this group of four townhouses, so I can't complain.

So that said, if anybody's going to build there, I want it to be Bruce.

I love his design and his integrity.

What he is doing, what I have seen in these pictures, it will make a perfect triangle.

It works together.

And if I'm going to be sitting there in my living room or in my bedroom and I'm going to be looking out, if I'm going to have to look at houses, I would like to look at those.

So there is an endorsement in there.

I don't really care much.

I think our one sidewalk is probably enough.

The three houses will not need more sidewalk.

They can just come out of their driveway and hop onto our side of the street.

Parking, definitely no parking on that north side.

That would be insane.

Right now I have the window on Lyman and Douglas, so I see a lot of what flies around the corner

When they can't see anything.

And it's amazing how many close calls there have been.

And when people go on to Lyman, either from Douglas or if they come from Goodman, they have to really slow down because if there is a car coming from the other side, you have to stop, sometimes back up, to give each other room to get through.

So putting more parking there, forget it.

That would be just absolutely horrific.

And I imagine that's about it.

Not at this point.

All right.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Joan Schatzman.

I live at 204 Douglas Avenue.

I've lived in Belmont since 1978 and I've seen the evolution of it.

I love it.

I want to encourage City Council to accept Bruce's plan.

Yeah, yeah.

So go for it.

And I wish he could have three accessory units with his three houses.

Hello, my name is Steve Huff, John Stephen Huff.

I'm currently the only residential property on Lyman Street.

I appreciate all the attention my little street's getting.

When I first moved there about 10 years ago, I wasn't on the 911 grid on a security system trip.

I was told I didn't exist, but I do exist.

Well, one of the days I said, well, the tax man knows where I am.

Lyman Street is still not on Google Maps.

So for what it's worth, USPS misses deliveries fairly frequently.

So it's a small street.

It's a connecting street.

Mr. Wardell was good enough to come and speak to the Neighborhood Association on a couple of occasions.

I think this design is much more sympathetic to the residential nature of the street.

I'm glad that it's not a high density development there.

I think three buildings is about right.

Would anyone else like to speak?

Going once, going twice, would anyone else like to speak?

The public comment session is closed.

Well, I have to remind myself as much as I like the design that's been shown to us and the layout.

It's very exciting.

I have to remind myself, though, that to vote for this doesn't necessarily mean that these will be built there.

It goes with the property, and the property could change hands again.

And so our decision here

I'd just like to say I think it's appalling that City Council turned down the last application and that on a piece of land that's valued at 900, that is assessed at $986,000 per acre that we're talking about putting giant single-family houses there that are going to be sitting on $65,000 of land alone underneath them

and the fact that we're seeing this proposal now of just very large single-family residences which will undoubtedly be quite expensive and we're seeing the Belmont neighborhood line up in support just shows the problem we face in trying to achieve actual affordable housing because if we

Only build these monuments to non-density and suburbia in a piece of land that is 825 feet from the parking modified zone, where you don't have to have a whole parking spot per person and you're breaking a law, 1250 feet from where we're sitting right now.

Downtown Charlottesville, where all the jobs are.

And this is all we're going to allow there?

I think it's appalling.

I strongly oppose the condition to limit it to three homes.

This is a spectacular place for housing.

This is tremendously walkable.

It's a wonderful area.

It's a area I've been many times have a lot of affection for.

Belmont is wonderful.

That is accurate.

The design is lovely.

It will fit in well.

I can see that.

I just wish there was more housing and I wish there was an affordable housing component.

In my opinion, this land that has heretofore been unused

So my opinion is based upon what's come to us for us to judge.

And I agree with Gary that I'd much rather see

See it developed then sit vacant and I think the proposed development fits in well with the existing character of Belmont and this neighborhood.

I'm so sorry.

I know you said that the public thing is closed.

However, I don't think we realized

that when we came to say what we have to say that this was not going to be that, yes, when you guys say yes, that's for the three houses.

We'll entertain the question.

There'll be no more after that.

We will answer.

Miss Creasy will answer your question.

That'll be it.

Right.

We can provide some clarification for you there.

So the proposal that's come forward is for rezoning to change both properties to one unified property.

The proposal for the special use permit has specific criteria under it and so it notes three single-family units as part of that development.

If that zoning change occurs and if that infill SUP is put into place, then that goes with the land.

And the Commission has to think about it in the effect of the words on the page and what's printed, basically.

Mr. Wardell could choose to sell that

package to someone else who chooses to develop three single family homes in a way that meets the criteria of what's set up as part of the zoning.

That's not what he's noting that he's planning to do, but it could potentially happen.

And so the commission always likes to keep in mind that what they are providing a recommendation on is

One thing that it's possible to do is modify the wording of those conditions a bit.

So one of the conditions says the characteristics of the development will remain the same.

You change that wording to say the use of

of the property shall be in accordance with the materials presented by the applicant in this case.

So you can limit the use of the property to the specific development being presented here, and then if somebody wants to change that, they can come back and

So that's one protection and I think that that's an important one.

You should go to your staff report for the special use permit, page 14, and under staff's recommendations they have three listed conditions.

I recommend changing the wording of number two just a little bit to make it clear that the use of the property shall be in accordance with the

application materials and that the

All right, just to state the obvious so that we're all on the same page, there will be two votes.

One vote will be on the resigning and the second vote will be on the special use permit.

Well, that's what I thought.

So the rezoning, we cannot put special... No.

We were talking about that.

I understand.

Sorry, one more thing.

Jody, you mentioned earlier that it fits with the character of the neighborhood.

And I think you mean in the built form.

I know that's what you mean.

But I just want to say that the character of this neighborhood is changing and rapidly.

The house right next to the one on the corner, 205, has appreciated in value from under $100,000

in 2002, a couple years before those lofts next to it were built, to now $420,000.

So a four and a half times increase in basically 15 years.

If we keep built form the same while the city grows in population, the character of the neighborhood in terms of the people that live in it will change.

And to close, I'd like to

Quote, a very wise comment that someone made once.

And it's this, I'm excited when there's high density development inside the city, rather than suburban sprawl.

That's from 2006.

Yes.

I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from PUD and R1 to R2 on the basis that the proposal would serve the interest of the general public and good zoning practice.

It has been moved and probably seconded.

Yes.

Mr. Lahendro?

Aye.

Mr. Stolle-Yates?

Aye.

Yes.

And the ayes have it.

So the rezoning has been approved.

Or recommended for approval.

Right, recommended for approval.

We move on now to the special use plan.

Correct.

I'd just like to note that I'm enthusiastic about the language that was suggested by the Council.

Wow, you're ideal to make the motion then.

Would you please make the motion?

Let me see if I can find it.

14.

That sounds like the one with a couple of amendments as discussed.

Oh, it's so close.

Let's all enjoy this moment.

Here we go.

I move to recommend approval of SP 18-00011 subject to

City Council approval of the request to rezone the subject property to R2 residential as submitted in application ZM18-0004.

The design, height, and other characteristics of the development shall remain essentially the same in all material aspects as described within the application materials dated December 21st, 2018 and revised February 28th, 2019 submitted to the city and in connection with the SP19-00011

application, except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with the building code requirements, the, here we go, use of the property will be in accordance with the materials submitted by the applicant and the number of single-family detached dwellings will be three.

There, um, before we, um, follow up on the question, um,

It was mentioned that the ADUs would be internal to the structures.

The single family dwelling that opens it up to the ADU ordinance which allows for internal and exterior.

I withdraw my request for an amendment.

I did second.

I'd like to make an amendment to strike condition three.

Which was that?

About the maximum number of single family units.

That was four.

That's four now.

That was three.

That was my four.

Well, you, so, okay, I didn't understand that the use of the property became number three, so that's, thank you.

The first two were as written.

Third is the use of the property will be in accordance with the materials submitted by the applicant.

It's a lot, but very similar to two.

Are you requesting a potential friendly amendment?

Again, if the new conditions are the use and the development have to be consistent with the materials,

So the changes to the second condition which added the use on top of the development kind of made number three superfluous.

So if the purpose of the amendment is to set a different

possibility for number of buildings, that's going to be working contrary to your other conditions.

So what I'd like to do is vote on the motion that's on the floor

If the motion passes, there has been a second.

If the motion passes, the motion passes.

If the motion does not pass, then we revisit his objection.

Okay.

Mr. Sola-Yates?

Aye.

Mr. Heaton?

Aye.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

The SGP is approved and recommended.

Wait, um, I'm sorry, so I got confused.

Was there a motion to delete the condition about the number of dwelling units?

No.

Okay, good.

So you just voted to recommend approval.

Yes.

With the recommendations.

Good.

Good.

The next item on the agenda is the block grant and home funding.

We do have a hearing, joint hearing on this.

And so as staff I would be the applicant as well.

I've only been involved with this.

And most of this process, Miss Tiara Howard, who has been our grants coordinator, has taken the task force through this process.

and she has just left the city so we're transitioning and I have been taking over some of these responsibilities and we do have her helping us a few hours a week in addition to her new job so we're very grateful to her for helping us transition at this point in time.

So each year the CDBG and HOME process occurs.

It's a very cyclical process.

Certain things happen every time at the same time every year.

CDBG community block grant funding as well as HOME funding are HUD based

Funding that focus a lot on housing opportunities within the community but they do have some allowances for economic development and for social programs and so this funding has been used in the past for a mix of all of those things.

We receive a certain allocation of CDBG each year and as an entitlement community that Charlottesville is as long as we continue to follow the rules we will continue to get this funding.

We're also the entitlement for the home funds but we work in a consortium with the home funds and so we work with the Planning District Commission and so funding goes to each of the localities within our planning district in order to spread affordable housing larger than just into the city.

So we get an allocation of the home funds and we work with

the larger region on how to focus some of those funds.

So this is the time of year where we bring forth the budget that would take effect starting July 1 or when HUD releases the money which usually ends up being like November.

but we have everything in place in order for to begin with that.

So there are a number of different funding pots that come from this but the CDBG task force and Miss Dowell is a representative on that for the Planning Commission.

They meet throughout the year to evaluate proposals for this funding.

We have a number of

of our nonprofits, housing and social nonprofits that apply for the funding and the task force evaluates those and brings forth a proposal which comes to you all and then goes forward to council for approval.

As part of that process, some of the money is taken and given directly to a priority neighborhood and then they use those funds, create a task force within the neighborhood and determine what makes the most sense from the neighborhood perspective to use those funds.

and so the CDBG neighborhoods as they're called have rotated through the process and so each of the different neighborhoods receive funding in order to work towards projects there.

So for the coming year, Belmont neighborhood is currently the priority neighborhood and so they have been meeting over the last year

to get ready for the funds that are available.

And one of the requests that we're gonna ask you all to recommend to council tonight is a bit of a change in the order.

So two years back when we requested that council provide the next priority neighborhood, they are and were focused on the SIA area and so chose to provide funding to both the Belmont and Ridge Street neighborhoods.

And as part of how they prioritized the neighborhoods, they alternated the years.

So they asked Belmont one year, Ridge Street one year, Belmont one year, Ridge Street one year.

Well, Belmont chose a program that we've gotten cost estimates on and if they are able to be two years together, then we can cost effectively address the project.

And so one of the things we're asking here is for you all to recommend to council that instead of alternating those years to allow two years for Belmont together and then two years for Ridge Street, we'll start working with Ridge Street in advance.

And that way we can cost effectively and spend that money down so that we don't

lose that money.

So that's really the big change in this from years past.

We have a budget proposal here that's gone through the CDBG task force, the priority neighborhood task force, and also the economic development projects go through the strategic investment area committee, which is another group that works on economic projects throughout the city.

So there are

has been a lot of feedback before it even gets to you guys from practitioners of whether it be housing, economic development, or neighborhood aspect priorities.

So let me see.

I want to hit any other highlights, but not go too off the rails here, because I could talk about this for a long time.

I did this solely myself many moons ago.

I don't know that there's anything more specific.

What we'll be asking you guys to do is what I was talking about with the priority neighborhood recommendation.

And also we never know exactly how much funding that we're going to receive.

We get an estimate.

So once they give us the direct funding of what it's going to be, we ask as part of the motion to note that it be prorated by percentage of projects so that we don't have to come back again for a few dollars here and there.

But that's pretty much the gist of it.

I can answer questions the best I can.

They do.

They are not quite there.

Ms. Howard was going to be starting discussions with them and then she left.

No, it's kind of twofold.

It will allow the Ridge Street to have some time to think about what they feel would work best for them and then kind of be ready to roll once the money is actually available.

Is it possible to get consent from Ridge Street Neighborhood on this?

And I don't necessarily think that we're doing that because it's the same amount of money.

It's just the timing.

Let me interrupt you because I don't want to lose count.

Do you guys have any questions or comments before you wrap up and leave?

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

The only project that's been chosen at this point is Franklin and the cost estimates it's going to take both.

We don't anticipate that.

Usually it's not a downward, it's usually an upward.

And it's usually just a little bit.

And so it's minor adjustments to the numbers that might make an odd number at the end of one of these large areas.

It just gives a consistent X percentage.

We'll go to each one because otherwise we have to come back even if we're changing it five dollars.

Okay.

And then my last question is

So I know in general federal funding for programs like these have dropped over time.

Have we seen that sort of thing with these two programs?

Well we have seen that in funding as well as that has occurred the priority neighborhood funding has not changed so council has chosen in the past to keep the same amount of priority neighborhood funding and then use the rest for the general pot that

Folks can come in for the competitive process and they could choose to do something differently but that's been done in the past and I would guess if they were okay with moving it one year they would want to make sure that the monies were equal.

back on logistics.

Is there a logistical issue we can't check with Ridge?

Well, I mean, we don't have, so typically a task force is set up that works through this process.

You know, I served on the Block Grant Task Force three times now.

I am confident that they have engaged or someone on the task force has engaged the folks in Bridge Street.

No, I mean, I've been there.

The fact that, I'm sorry, the fact that there's no project on tap right now.

There's lots of ways this could go.

If they were to be allocated, they would have to rush to get to a project.

That neighborhood's been spending a lot of effort on the Cherry Avenue plan right now, so there's a lot of different things that are going on there.

I can't speak either way, but I feel like

I would personally feel okay with having the two years and two years and mainly because it's always been that way.

I know you can always change the past, but typically the priority neighborhood has been for a three-year chunk along the way.

And so we've had a couple of changes here in the last couple of years.

CRHA was one, and then this change for the alternate years.

But having the number of years together has been really helpful in having

And typically the applicants have to present their applications before the task force.

Again, I'm pretty certain that Belmont and Bridge Street stood before the task force kind of walking through what they wanted to do.

Again, that's the way we used to do it at least.

I'm just hearing the concern that we don't set counsel up to be the victim of a soundbite.

And not being familiar with the program, needing to have a high degree of confidence that that is not the case.

Well, when the discussion came forth originally for this, there was interest in providing funding to both Ridge Street and Belmont.

And it wasn't specified specifically how to do that.

And I know that staff had recommended the bulk funding, you know, have one and then go next.

because of the economies of scale.

And I remember during the discussion with council there was talk about potentially splitting it each year.

But what occurs with that is the neighborhood has to build up the funds.

and we have spending deadlines and so if the city as a whole doesn't spend a certain amount of the money within a time frame then HUD can take the money.

So if we have the Belmont money if we were to keep that one half of the project waiting we would have that significant amount sitting in an account for an extra year which hurts the whole process

the whole pot

Would it be appropriate in the motion, would it be appropriate in the motion to stipulate that the Board Council acts on our recommendation, they check with Bridge Street to make certain that they're on board?

That's good.

So wow, you're ready to make a motion.

Let me open it up to the public.

Again, I'll ask counsel.

I just wanted to say that knowing that a significant construction project takes over a year normally for design, for bids, for construction, to have

Two years in a row where you can do a significant project and have the benefit of funding over a two year period makes extraordinary good sense to me.

I move to recommend approval of the proposed FY19-20 CDBG and home budgets to City Council as presented in this report with the requirement that the Ridge neighborhood be consulted.

When the actual entitlement amount is received, it is recommended that all recommendations are increased slash reduced.

At the same prorated percentage of actual entitlement, new agency will increase more than their initial funding request.

In addition, it is recommended that Council designate the Belmont neighborhood as the priority neighborhood for FY19-20 to allow for cost effective completion of the project selected and designate the Ridge Street neighborhood for FY20-21 and FY21-22.

Moved and properly seconded.

Voice acclamation all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

The motion is passed.

And we have a presentation, do we not?

We do.

It's also included in your packet, so it's kind of either way.

Yeah, where's Jim?

Actually, he's not feeling well today, or he might have been able to come by.

Not that you're not well.

Yes, so I haven't introduced myself yet.

I am Jacob Zomfeldy.

For those of you who haven't met me, I am with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and also the Charlottesville Albemarle MPO.

So I'm here to present on the long range transportation plan that the MPO has been doing.

So this is a follow up to an October presentation to you all by Wood Hudson, my colleague who recently moved to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.

So

You may be seeing me more with him having left TJPDC.

So yeah, just a very brief overview before I get into just kind of what the LRTP is.

Fewer slides than last time, but still making sure to explain that and then some of the project lists that have come out of the process.

So, as you might remember, this is a process that's been ongoing for over a year and we are nearing wrapping it up.

It will need to be completed by May of this year.

So just a little bit of background on what a regional long-range transportation plan is.

It's a forward-looking 25-year plan.

So this is LRTP 2045.

Looking forward to 2045.

It's updated every five years, focused on understanding the future transportation needs for the region.

And so it's a requirement for receiving federal transportation money is to create this plan.

Including projects in this plan is also a requirement for having them funded through the state's SmartScale funding program.

Although notably with SmartScale over the last few years, that essentially de-emphasizes the importance of the long-range transportation plan because the long-range transportation before kind of, you know,

made projects so they were ready to be funded.

Now they're ready to be applied for smart scale funding where they may or may not score high enough to be funded.

So that's an important thing to know with the sort of kind of LRTP process now with smart scale being a primary way that major projects are funded.

So the LRTP does plan for transportation needs that are regional in scope.

So not every single transportation project that the city is looking to do, but the regional in nature projects.

And this plan does use a performance-based approach, so that includes some somewhat recent requirements, federal requirements, particularly from the MAP 21 legislation.

And so this plan uses goals, objectives, and quantifiable performance measures to evaluate the roadway projects in the plan.

And also a travel demand model for the region to identify the

Use of the roadway network and also the transit network is included in the travel demand model So the plan includes a fiscally constrained list and unconstrained visioning list Those were also included the packet in the packet We'll get to them in a minute and as I noted a minute ago now projects are funded through smart scale and other competitive programs after being included in the long-range transportation plan and

So as part of this process, we did come up with an estimate of future funding, although this is challenging to do given the uncertainties of SmartScale.

So I've split it into a few categories.

So roadways, intersections, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and then bridges.

So these are the four different categories that made up the lists that were included in your packet.

And we can look at those

Well, in a moment, we'll go through those.

This is the background for how the roadway projects were evaluated in the LRTP.

So back in September, there was a complete list of projects that were presented and MPO Policy Board and the other MPO committees looked at those.

And then through evaluation, scenario evaluation, this was kind of refined into a refined scenario.

and then in the last month or so we've been looking to kind of narrow that down into this federally required constrained list as well as the vision list.

So those are what are in your packet and I'll briefly, I don't have this pulled up on as slides, so I'll briefly just kind of mention what these lists are.

If you have any questions about the projects that are included please bring them up.

So the roadway list, the constrained list primarily includes hydraulic and 29 area projects given the large expense of those projects and the emphasis on that in this region recently.

Also the proposal at this point is to include the remaining phases of the West Main Street project in the constrained list and also the Hillsdale Drive to Rio project in the Rio 29 area on the constrained list.

and then you can see in the draft roadway project or the vision list a number of other projects so of course we've been working closely with city and county staff I should note that as well so there are a number of projects in Albemarle and Charlottesville and the regional projects on this roadway vision list.

Then similarly with intersections, there's a constrained section that again is focusing on the hydraulic and 29 area and then a notable list of intersections on the vision list for the region.

And then the next category are bridges.

There's also a bridge list here.

And this is not a constrained or vision list.

It's just one list with the understanding that these will be evaluated and have money put towards them as applicable and as available.

And then finally there's the bicycle and pedestrian, actually not finally, there will be one more section after this, constrained and vision list.

And this came directly from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that was recently completed and approved by the MPO and the TJPDC.

And so you're likely to hear more about that.

I may come here to present to you separately or in coordination with city staff about the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan specifically, but included in the list for the LRTP there is a constrained list of bicycle and pedestrian projects that were identified as tier one top priority in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and then all of the projects that were identified in that plan are included in the vision list of the LRTP.

and then there are a few maps of that provided in the packet as well and then there is the transit list which was not as clear to do a constrained and unconstrained amount so there is on here listed a study for an express bus on the US 29 corridor so

That is one of a few projects that has been discussed in this process, and then a few other projects here listed, again not constrained, but things that are being looked at for the region.

So, the timeline.

is, as I mentioned, concluding in May, so yeah, here in March we have these finalized project lists that the MPO Policy Board will be looking at in two weeks.

Also there will be the document, the LITP document itself, multiple of those chapters will be reviewed this month.

In April, there will be a public hearing at the time of the MPO Policy Board meeting and the complete plan draft will be done at that point.

And then in May, there will be a final public hearing and approval by the MPO Policy Board.

So that is my update.

The big one sort of brought

Looking at the draft comprehensive plan and looking at this, I don't see a lot of connectivity.

I'm worried that we're out of step.

The comprehensive plan really talks about bicycle and pedestrian access.

It really talks about new and better transit service.

It doesn't talk about new vehicular lanes that aren't told, but that's the main thing that I see here.

So I would say

The evaluation that was part of the LRTP was largely focused on roadway and capacity, but part of the reason for that was that there is the separate Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that involved a lot of evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian projects that fed into this long-range transportation plan.

So yeah, I think that's kind of the main way that a lot of the specific LRTP evaluation seemed more roadway based, but the bicycle and pedestrian component had a whole separate plan that fed in.

I will also note that a number of the roadway projects

are multimodal projects.

I believe a majority that are focused more in that area are not within the city.

I work for the city.

What concerned me was the pizza slice.

It looked like a very small slice of the pie.

What do you think about the objectives of the city, which is where my head is at?

It sounds like the pizza slice maybe isn't as small as it looks.

Sure.

So the way that these numbers were arrived at were based on funding that has been received in the past and particularly based on the type of funding.

So within roadway, that was estimated based on the smart scale projects that the region has received, regardless of whether they were like capacity improvements or multimodal improvements.

So yeah, that suggestion of the amount for roadway versus the amount for bike-ped is based on the kind of specific program.

So within bike-ped here, that's the transportation alternatives program, TAP.

That's where these numbers came from.

It wasn't like the MPO had, you know, a large pot of money and they or we decided let's allocate 20% here, 50% there.

And really for projects to be competitive they have to have the multi-modal aspect that Jacob was talking about before and so when you get into the roadways and the intersections here it actually takes more and kind of goes into the bike pit and aspects of things.

But I would concur that a pie chart may not be the best way.

You may want to do that with different sized circles since you're not really talking about one piece of funding.

You're talking about several.

So that would be much more accurate to what we're talking about.

So it looks like the Dairy Road Bridge is the one bridge in the city that made the cut and is in pretty bad condition, poor condition.

Where in the project backlog is that?

So with the Derry Road Bridge, that's something that's been on our radar.

Our past city engineer, Marty Sillman, spent a lot of time working on this and it's another project that's on the radar.

They've done repairs to it to stabilize it for a period of time.

We also put in CIP requests to try and build funds to be ready for it when it's about 10 years where something has to happen.

That didn't end up getting funded in the CIP, but we still have it on the radar.

It's something we're including it in here, allows us to continue to keep it open for funding.

It's a very costly endeavor.

It's something that

It's hard to get funded until it's represented in this chart.

Probably not because it's not on a constraint.

It was just challenging, you know, whether it's replacing a bridge or whether it's upgrades.

This one is very high on

the technical end of the radar which is why we specifically ask for CIP monies to try and bring it along and so even though council or even though the proposal doesn't have it funded for this current CIP

we will continue to move forward with that because we know it's a priority that's going to come and there's going to be a point in time where it has to occur so that's something that's at least out there for discussion at this point in time but rest assured you can drive over it right now there were some interim work was done on that last year that got that into a place where it is

I'm a little bit concerned about the political realities of what we're proposing.

West Main has had sort of a hard time getting funded.

Of what the city is proposing, do we have a shot at smart scale?

I mean it was the only, right, so speaking specifically to the most recent smart scale application.

It was funded for West Main, the specific application the city put in.

It was the only application in the MPO area that was funded.

So from that perspective, it would seem it was quite competitive.

And it's in pieces so what was requested as part of the smart scale was a part of it and so it's coming from different sources which allowed it to be competitive.

So I have a

A question about what we've been working on for two years.

Our comprehensive plan that is pending is taking a leave of our absence for a while.

And we have a future land use plan in there.

And much of our discussion has been, or a big

The component driving structure to this plan has been transit nodes associated with high density developments.

So at what point is Thomas Jefferson planning this transit plan or your look ahead?

When does that become interested in what our future land use plan is proposing?

When do they start to work together

Well, one of the things that informs the evaluation for LRTPs in general and for the process we did here are the projected for 2045 population and employment numbers by it's called Traffic Analysis or Transportation Analysis Zones, TAZs,

areas within the city and within the region so the very start of this process like two years ago we worked with the city to identify where growth was going to happen over the next you know 25 years to come up with the distribution of population within the city and then separately we worked with county staff

Projections for 2045.

So that, you know, we were using Weldon Cooper Center numbers for what the city's overall population would look like 25 years out, but how that growth was distributed within the city was, you know, city staff looking at comprehensive plans, looking at, you know, that sort of planning efforts to say where is the population and employment, just what is the population and employment distribution going to look like.

And much of that so we were given a high number the top number from the Welding Cooper so you know it's kind of a you work with the data that you have with the parameters and so we were able to take what was currently pending currently approved but yet not built or currently under review and so that was our first broad brush of putting that on on the map and allocating

that amount of the numbers.

And then from there we worked through the areas where there was potential for growth.

The number that they have as a top number may not, I can't remember what it was at this point, but it may not be where the community necessarily lands.

But I don't think it's necessarily

and we had the pictures of the map where we were at that point in time but that was early on in our mapping phase of things and so the next round for this we definitely wherever we land with whatever map is approved will be taking all of those things into account but I think

Thinking back to that, because it has been a little while, that we didn't necessarily get into the nodes as specifically as we did with the commission and the latest map that you all worked through.

Well, until it's approved, you don't know.

I don't understand how you get from population concentrations to a a transportation plan.

No, that's kind of the deficiencies that are identified.

So one of the first steps of this plan was looking at the results of the model that used these population projections and saying if we don't build any new roads or add any new transit service,

What are people going to be doing travel-wise?

Who's going to be using the bus?

Who's going to be driving on roads?

Where will there be congestion?

Potentially, you could evaluate where bus routes are congested, too, but our tools are getting better at evaluating how transit fits in with roadway capacity, but for this model, transit was included, but not perfect.

Once the deficiencies are identified, places where a road does not have the capacity to serve the number of vehicles that this model suggests will be there, that's where you look at the possible roadway projects to either increase capacity or possible transit projects to increase the number of people who are able to travel on the existing roadway.

The presumption that it's going to be done with cars.

I want to know that it's feeding into thinking about transit.

Honestly from a city standpoint we don't have that ability in most places anyway and so we're having to look at it much more creatively than perhaps our county neighbors do because we just don't have the space to work with and so trying to

Good.

Well, I would say we've got West Main on there, so that's one.

We've had some pretty significant efforts occurring from a larger community at Hydraulic and 29.

We're anticipating changes there, and those changes are to take into account multimodal efforts, the bus stop,

are the bus transit nodes as well as increased pedestrian facilities just the change in Hillsdale overall has been a nice start to that so it's kind of a mix I know it's a mix but you know I

Yeah and I mean if you're referring to hydraulic and 29 specifically as rising to the top obviously that does have a vehicle capacity component but it's also you know a notable bicycle and pedestrian challenge right now is trying to navigate that area that's something that came up in our bicycle and pedestrian plan and so you know the possibility of the zan road

Overpass of 29 out of the discussion last week you know that rose potentially to the top as something that would happen first and that would you know be a very significant bicycle and pedestrian connection.

Okay, good.

That is all that's on the formal agenda.

Is there anything else you guys would like to discuss?

Then is there a motion to... Move to adjourn.

Second.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.