Planning Commission Meeting   6/11/2019

And good evening.

I think we're just about ready to begin our deliberations.

And I think we will begin with commission reports.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I, over the last month since our last meeting, attended two other meetings.

The Board of Architecture will review on May 21st what I'm told is the quickest, fastest BAR meeting in recent memory.

Only two certificate of appropriateness applications, four miscellaneous discussion items.

Nothing significant to report to the Planning Commission, but I do want to let everyone know that the Board of Architectural Review is reviewing their guidelines.

We're doing this, we're meeting once a month in work sessions, the third Thursday of the month from 5.30 to 7.30 and we worked our way through about three chapters and we'll continue to do this for several more months and of course anyone is invited to attend.

The second meeting I was not able to attend.

It was last week.

It was the tree commission, but looking at the minutes from that meeting, there was an annual review of the urban forest management plan and consensus that the 2009 plan needs updating

to become more relevant to our needs today.

There was a committee making direct comments, proposed changes to the standards and design manual.

And then lastly, the Charlottesville area tree stewards and the tree commission will be working together again this fall to plant trees in the Belmont area.

And that planning is going on now.

The full housing advisory committee met on May 15th.

There was discussion about reforming our accessory dwelling unit policies, and the timeline I reported previously here was incorrect.

That work was done eight years ago, and I quote, nothing was done with it.

I have been asked to serve on the steering committee for the comprehensive plan, the housing strategy, and the rezoning RFP.

We need one more planning commissioner on that body.

The Housing Advisory Committee will start requesting monthly housing updates from the city, county, and university.

They may be a useful source of information to us also.

I was unable to attend the Housing Advisory Committee last month, but I did attend the Thomas Jefferson Planning District for the Regional Transportation Plan.

They brought on another committee member and are close to approving a plan to be passed on.

So they continue to do their work.

Hopefully we'll have action by the end of the summer.

And my continued involvement in the Unity Days

Sure.

There was a Board of Visitors meeting on Thursday and Friday of last week.

And some of the items and note for development and city interests would be the approval of a new school data science at UVA.

So it's a brand new school to stand with the others and it's the next step would be to get approval from the state.

There is a building associated with this that would be about 70,000 square foot feet and it was advanced to be the preferred site being on the Ivy Emmett corridor, where roughly where the Catlier Inn stood before.

They also unveiled the draft of the strategic plan for UVA, which takes us through the strategic plan through 2030.

It's called the Great and Good Plan.

I won't go into all the details.

There's four goals, 18 sub-goals, and 10 initiatives that are put forth in there.

Some of the interesting ones would be the Good Neighbor program, which focuses on the four community issues that were identified earlier this year, housing, living wage, local education opportunities, and health care access, and to advance those and engage better with the community.

It calls for establishing a community engagement office and no details on this yet because it's for now in plan.

The other is related to an IV redevelopment site.

It's just a specific initiative to further the development or put forth the development of that site focused on themes of creativity, democracy, and discovery.

and as I said the first major project there may be the School of Data Science and additional business from the Building and Grounds Committee was design approval for a inn at Darden which is the business school up in North Grounds and that is about a 200 room replacement of their existing facility

200 rooms, meeting space, and a pretty interesting outdoor arboretum that they're planning for that site.

And then there was design review for the next building in the Brandon Avenue corridor where we've been building student housing and right now this student health building.

So there'll be a second student residence that's being designed right now for that area.

Good evening.

I have not had the pleasure to attend a meeting, but as a general announcement for the betterment of the community, MACA Project Discovery will be holding a forum entitled College 101, what they don't tell you in the brochure, this Friday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The only requirements is that you are a recent high school graduate who is college bound.

come out and get some good resource for information.

We have the UVA Credit Union coming to talk about financial planning.

We have Officer Direct coming to do some one-on-one with our students about creating good relations with law enforcement.

And then others from local and not so local universities and colleges.

Cool.

So Bill invited Alex and me to the University of Virginia Master Plan meeting.

You've already talked about a lot of the stuff that we went over.

But the one thing that we didn't talk about was the parking and transportation and what's happening with that.

The university is going to grow about 15% over the next nine or 10 years.

That's approximately 5,700 people that we're going to be adding.

But we're also going to be doing a lot of capital improvement.

And that capital improvement is going to eat up a lot of parking.

So in the beginning, we're going to actually see a reduction of about 1,000 parking spaces in and around UVA.

At the end of all this, we're still going to be down around 600 parking spaces when everything is done and they built some of the parking back up.

So they're going to have to do a lot of really unique things to accommodate the growth and the reduction in parking.

And they've got a number of really interesting ideas that they're thinking about.

One would be just a change in the fee structure, you know what that means, change in the fee structure.

There would be greater cooperation with CAT and greater cooperation with Jaunt.

The other would be just some general technological enhancements to the way parking is managed.

So for us, it'll be good just to keep in touch with these guys to see what they're doing and see if there's anything we can use in the city to help us with our parking challenges.

The other meeting, well it was a meeting, but we recently got results from the Fontaine Avenue Speedscape Charette.

It was a second charette.

on April 18th and we got the feedback from that.

The feedback that we got from that was pretty consistent with the first threat and pretty consistent with what the street state board is asking.

Basically three themes, better bike lanes on Fontaine, wider sidewalks on Fontaine,

And we need to make certain that we don't do anything to obstruct the emergency vehicle access because we've got the fire station there on Fontaine.

So that would be my report.

Okay, a lot of different things going on this week of course right now we're finishing up the election so there's time to get out there if you still need to do that to anyone who might be watching the meeting.

There are a couple of workshops that are happening this week the East High Street streetscape

The next workshop, the next one in that is occurring tomorrow and that's at 5pm and that's at the Water Street Center.

So some information has been out there in the public on that, but that meeting is happening tomorrow.

There is a

Planning Commission City Council joint workshop, but it's an open meeting on Thursday for the standards and design manual.

This is a manual that's the technical manual for development and infrastructure.

So there is a feedback session for that on Thursday.

I wanted to let you guys know that we have a new grants coordinator.

So her name is Erin Attack.

She just joined us on Monday and we're getting her involved in our grants.

And I'm excited to have more people on staff because that means we can get more done.

Let's see.

They're still working to schedule the form based code workshop that

There have been a lot of scheduling difficulties with that one, but that's still on the horizon.

And hopefully that will come in the next couple of months for planning commission work sessions coming for the June work session, which is the fourth Tuesday, which is the 25th.

We have the access requirement discussion.

This is the code request that we received from Mr. Stegman concerning entryways into developments.

with more than 50 units.

And so that is scheduled for that work session opportunity.

And then in July on the on the fourth Tuesday as well, which will be July 23rd, there will be a presentation on the Fontaine project for the commission at that point in time.

So July 25th, July 25th.

All right, I think we are now ready for matters to be presented by the public.

This is an opportunity to chat with us about things that are not on the regular public hearing stuff.

So Flint Hill, for example, would be a good opportunity to chat with about Flint Hill if you've got issues that you'd like to chat about relating to that.

Good evening.

I hope everybody voted today.

I watched for both amusement and disappointment at the last Planning Commission meeting when Southern Development presented an application that needed a lot more work.

before moving on to the Planning Commission stage.

This and previous boards have been sending a message that it's okay to present incomplete plans that leave many unanswered questions.

However, the Commission now needs to send a clear message that this is not acceptable.

Tonight on the agenda is a question regarding rezoning on Hinton Avenue and hopefully everybody saw a petition that was sent to you all I believe about two days ago on this matter that goes into more detail what I'm getting ready to say.

A group of concerned citizens are asking that Gary Heaton and Roy Stolzenberger

We accused themselves on this matter tonight.

Mr. Heaton, while I appreciate your measured decisions on many issues, the fact that you are a Methodist minister means that it would be inappropriate for you to weigh in on this matter due to the potential conflict of interest.

And I seriously mean it when I say I do respect a lot of the decisions that you do make on this board.

Mr. Stolzenberg, your recent and ongoing public statements on social media shows a very strong bias.

You have made derogatory and sarcastic remarks to citizens who have expressed their views and concern on this matter as well as other development issues.

As a planning commissioner, you should be using

Zoning Code, Law, and Comprehensive Plan that guide you in your decision making decisions.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

All right, then we will move on to the consent agenda.

Move to accept the minutes.

Any abstentions in the opposition?

The consent agenda has been accepted.

And now we are ready for the joint meeting, but there won't be a joint meeting.

We don't have a forum for a council, so we're going to have just a public hearing and we'll be talking about the two applications that are in front of us, the one for Hinton and the one for Murray.

And I think we are now ready for the staff report for

Before I do that, let me remind you what that's all about.

Missy was giving me that look.

So in this application, ZM-1900001 is at Hinton Avenue Methodist Church.

And it is a proposal to move from low density residential small lot to neighborhood commercial corridor mixed use.

And basically, this will allow them to build 15 multifamily units on that lot.

which is not allowed by the current zoning.

There are seven proffers relating to this zoning.

Proffer number one limits the number of units to 15.

Proffer number two proffers four units that will be reserved for low income, so 80% or below of AMI.

Proffer No.

3 ensures that there will be interior locks that lead into the unit, so safety issues are addressed.

Proffer No.

4.

There will be no non-residential uses in these units with the exception of education and daycare which is going on there as well.

And of course any worship house related activities that need to be addressed.

Proffer number five.

The entrance and exits into the property, into the site, vehicular entrances and exits will be on Rialto Street.

And Hinton will be closed.

So the entrance of Hinton will no longer be open.

And proffer number seven is a setback proffer.

So a minimum setback of six feet, a maximum setback of 10 feet.

Oh, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We did get quite a few emails about the recusal of Rory and Gary.

And the commission did address that.

And Rory and Gary did address that directly with legal counsel.

And it is the opinion of legal counsel that they have no legal interest, no legal reason, no financial interest in what's happening with this application.

Commissioners, I am Brian Haluska, principal planner for the city.

I am the planner for this project, 750 Hinton Avenue, property also known as the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church.

In considering a re-zone, the re-zoning request is like you said for R1S, the current property is zoned R1S and this proposal would re-zone the property to neighborhood commercial corridor, which is a mixed use corridor with proffers, the proffers as read by Acting Chairman Mitchell.

Those properties are included in your packet.

I would like to go over them in a little more detail.

As you mentioned, proffer number one limits the residential density of 15 dwelling units.

NCC does permit special use permit requests for additional density, so this proffer would eliminate the possibility of doing that.

It would be a maximum of 15 units allowed on the property.

Proffer 2 is the affordable housing proffer.

It would require a minimum of four residential units meet the HUD definition of a low income unit.

Proffer 3 is the residential safety proffer which ensures that there will be locking doors between the multifamily use and the house of worship use.

Proffer 4 would prohibit any non-residential uses other than educational facilities and daycare facilities on the property.

So this would be any commercial uses would be prohibited.

The current zoning does allow for educational uses and daycare uses by special use.

In fact, there is an active special use permit on this property for a daycare facility.

Like I said, proffer five is access.

The access would be limited to Rialto Street.

The Hinton Avenue access would be closed at the time the multifamily structure is constructed.

Proffer six is a height limitation of 38 feet.

The maximum height in NCC is 45 feet.

The maximum in R1S is 35.

And then proffer seven is the street wall regulations will be as follows, a minimum of six feet required along a primary street frontage and a maximum of 10 feet.

The 10 foot maximum is the maximum that is permitted in the NCC zone.

That is not something that you can alter via proffer, any maximum setbacks.

So in evaluating this, obviously the compliance with a comprehensive plan or being in line with a comprehensive plan is a big part of your review of any rezoning.

The land use map of the city does show this as low density residential.

As we point out in the staff report, so it does not comply with that portion of your comprehensive plan, but

The comprehensive plan is more than the land use map.

The housing chapter, which was added in 2013, speaks very much about housing for underserved populations, and staff finds the compliance with that section to be a fairly compelling matter in this.

So that chapter really speaks to that.

The applicant will probably make mention of the fact that this housing is intended for developmentally disabled individuals, at least a certain point of that.

a portion of it will be available for people with developmental disabilities.

I don't know that we can really focus on that here tonight because there's no way for the city to kind of guarantee that.

I know that they have put forward that in their application and so I would you know

You may want to weigh it a little bit.

I would just note that there can't be really a guarantee.

They did attempt to proffer something along those lines.

The city staff was uncomfortable with that proffer and our ability to enforce that because that would put us in the position of trying to determine who is adequately developmentally disabled for the purpose of compliance with the proffer, something our zoning people are not really equipped to do.

But they do mention it throughout their application packet, which you have in front of you.

So that does lean in a little bit into the housing chapter.

But even without the language about guaranteeing developmentally disabled individuals, staff finds that low income housing is one thing that we're sorely lacking in this community.

The site is on one of our public transit lines.

It's two blocks from another public transit line.

It's very close to the downtown Belmont area.

It's also very close to our downtown area.

Walkable distances of both with a decent sidewalk network.

So given those factors, staff's recommendation, which you have in front of you, I won't read it all because it's rather lengthy, but staff finds the housing chapter to be a compelling interest, city interest, and recommends that the application be approved.

The other thing I would point out is I know there's been a lot of concern about the NCC zoning.

In reviewing this, I think we have to look at the regulations underneath the actual name of the zone.

There's no

There's been a lot of talk about R3 zoning as a potential medium ground.

I would note that R3 allows up to 87 dwelling units per acre by special use.

There's a proffer statement out there, but it is a more kind of intense zoning to a certain extent when it comes to multifamily residential.

You have a memo in front of you of other requirements that R3 requires as a part of a multifamily development.

So that's out there.

There are three uses that are being opened up as this rezoning is drafted.

There are three uses that are being opened up on the property and those are multi-family residential, educational facilities, and daycare facilities.

Those are the three uses.

So I would focus on that and the dimensional requirements because I think that was a big part of our original analysis before this almost came before you in May was the dimensions that will be required and how those fit in with the existing building and with the adjacent properties.

Any questions from the university?

Oh, gracious.

Well, for the sake of moving things along, talk to me, Brian, about

It's sort of unintended consequences.

If the church sold its property to an outside developer, what by right could happen to the church building itself?

It's limited to those three uses, as well as the existing use as a house of worship.

So typically when church buildings are sold,

That's a tough real estate transaction usually because those buildings are set up for churches, so usually you're looking for another congregation to come in there.

But it does open the door to a daycare facility or an educational facility.

No commercial uses are permitted.

This proffer extends to the entire property.

The House of Worship could continue to operate, but at such time that if it were to change hands and the uses were to change, the total number of units would still be limited.

So if those 15 units were built adjacent to it, it couldn't be expanded to 30.

15, OK.

All right.

Good evening.

Rachel's Haven is a ministry of the Charlottesville District of the United Methodist Church.

I am Kim Crater.

I'm a member of the vision team, which is the group that is leading this project.

Some of us on the vision team are clergy.

Most of us are not.

All of us are volunteers who feel that God has put it on our hearts to pay attention to the needs of people with developmental disabilities.

We want to create another housing option for people with developmental disabilities so that they can live safely, meaningfully, and as independently as possible.

Something different than group homes and vastly different than institutions.

People with developmental disabilities are diverse in their abilities and needs, and so group homes are not the best answer for every person.

So we would like to build a 15 unit apartment building adjoining Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church where people with developmental disabilities can live in their own apartments just like us but with supports alongside other neighbors in the building who don't have developmental disabilities.

And we aren't the only ones who want this.

I invite members of the audience to please stand who are in support of Rachel's Haven.

Our current plan is that 4 to 6 of the 15 apartments will be set aside for people with developmental disabilities.

We intend to offer these apartments as low-income apartments because this population typically is below 40% of area median income.

We are in the process of exploring a partnership with a nonprofit that provides low-income housing for people with disabilities.

This partnership would enable us to apply for low-income housing tax credits, and if we receive those tax credits, we intend to offer all of the apartments as affordable units.

But since we cannot guarantee at this point that we will receive those tax credits, we are only proffering four affordable units at this time.

but please know that it is our intention and our hope that 100% of the units will be affordable.

Our vision is to have a culture in the apartment building that is supportive of all the residents who live there, whether they have a developmental disability or not.

We intend to foster a sense of community where the neighbors know each other, value each other, and help each other.

One neighbor helps the other figure out who to call to dispute a credit card charge,

The other neighbor carries the groceries in.

And with the church attached to the apartment building, we see even more potential for true community and people knowing and caring for each other.

We feel this Belmont location is perfect for our supportive community.

Belmont is close to service providers, is walkable, is on public transit, and is an easy walk to downtown.

Our residents with developmental disabilities will be able to be part of Charlottesville life instead of sequestered away as in years past.

Belmont is one of the few neighborhoods that I know of that would rise up as they just did in defense of their low-income neighbors with disabilities who were recently evicted from Belmont apartments.

Yes, this is an ideal location for Rachel's Haven.

At least a few people in Belmont still have concerns about Rachel's Haven, especially that commercial activities may be allowed on the property should the church ever close its doors.

Our project is somewhat unusual, so no zoning designation fits it perfectly.

In our application for NCC, we proffer all non-residential commercial activity except for daycare and educational uses.

No commercial activity remains.

It has all been eliminated because, again, our goal is to serve God by serving people with developmental disabilities.

That is our aim.

It is ministry.

And I'll remind everyone that affordable housing and housing for underserved populations are both large needs in our community, and increasing both of these types of housing are goals in the comprehensive plan.

Meeting any goal, however, whether it is affordable housing or weight loss requires difficult decisions.

We have tried to make it as easy as possible to choose in favor of our gift of Rachel's Haven.

We have done everything we can to address the neighborhood's concerns and take the frightening aspects out of NCC.

After you consider our proffers,

If there are any concerns that remain, please ask yourself if those concerns are large enough to trump the needs of our low-income neighbors and people with developmental disabilities.

Thank you, Kim.

Good evening.

I'm Andy Thomas, an architect here in Charlottesville.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the vision team for Rachel's Haven Project and its rezoning petition.

You've heard how this project is being planned because there is a large need in our community for independent housing for people who are developmentally disabled.

Before I give you a brief description of the project and the rezoning request that will enable it,

I wanted to say how honored I am to be included as a helper on this project.

The vision team is a group of volunteers who continually demonstrate to me how committed they are to helping this population and their families find a home.

The project site is the Hinton Avenue Church.

The team wants to add the residential use by renovating and adding to the existing education wing of the building.

The architectural concept adds to the residential character of this context.

Some of the planned features include a building addition that will provide a continuation and enhancement of the existing pedestrian experience, but with residential building features, including a separate entrance and a separate identity from the church.

Also included is a residential scaled courtyard, a landscape and screened parking area, and a building that mediates between the scale of the church and the surrounding neighborhood.

The project is to be pedestrian-oriented.

While the parking concept follows the City Zoning Code standards for church and residents' parking, it is likely many of the residents will not be high users of single-occupancy vehicles.

The Hinton Avenue Church site is well-placed for transportation, jobs, and services.

It is important to note that the church plans to be a part of and continue to serve the community as it has done historically.

The requested rezoning to NCC zone best accomplishes the goals of this project because it provides a mixed use of the multi-family housing and the church uses and a setback envelope that best mirrors the existing church building and context.

The team wants to further tailor the NCC zone in this case to meet the needs of the project, but not open up the zoning to uses they don't envision or desire.

That is why the vision team has offered some proffers that will amend the provisions of the NCC zone.

An explanation of some of these proffers includes, number one, a provision for limited residential density, no more than 15 dwelling units.

Number two, provides for affordable housing, providing a minimum of four residential units.

Proffer number four, in addition to the church educational and residential uses, the team had originally proffered the allowance of a very limited amount of commercial use to serve the ancillary needs to the church and the residential uses.

Even with this very limited amount of allowed commercial use during several open meetings we hosted for the neighborhood, we heard concern expressed by neighbors that any commercial use

is unwanted.

The church wanted to be responsive to its neighbors and now includes a revised proffer that removes the commercial use.

Proffers 6 and 7 further restrict the new building envelope including a maximum height of 38 feet and includes both a minimum 6 foot and maximum 10 foot setback from the primary street.

These revisions are in line with the residential scale concept for the project and support the contextual design vision.

The housing chapter of the Charlottesville comp plan 2013 sets goals that include

To maintain and improve housing stock for residents of all income levels, it seeks to accommodate the housing needs of low-income households, seniors, and those with disabilities, and it supports those with challenges that would otherwise prevent independent living.

The main goal of this project, providing independent living for those with developmental disabilities, puts it squarely in line with these goals of Charlottesville's comp plan.

The NCC zone is modified to exclude commercial uses as a good match for the church and residential mixed use for this site.

This modified NCC zone makes a good model for institutional properties seeking to incorporate some residential space.

I encourage you to consider the goals of the comp plan and approve the rezoning of this property.

Hinton Avenue Church is asking to be allowed to donate some of its property and its services to this dramatically underserved population.

For the most part, people with developmental disabilities often do not.

And you said you'd be applying for low income housing tax credits.

OK. And so if you get the nine percent credits, that's when it'll be 100 percent affordable.

And to assist with the question you had concerning the parking area, it's not based on the type or the kind of folks who may be in the dwellings.

It's specific to land use.

So land use for apartments requires specific code requirements for parking.

All right, then we shall open it up for the public hearing.

So if you'd like to address this application, and there probably is a list.

Stuart Taylor, I live at 710 Hinton Avenue with my wife, Kim Taylor, and as part of the Belmar Carton Neighborhood Association, we have various different topics that each of us is going to speak on.

Tonight, I'm going to speak on traffic, and so there'll be others that speak to issues that we feel are important for you to consider as you

I've been in Belmont since 2006 and certainly moved into town to enjoy what's there with the Belmont restaurants and whatnot but as you guys know there's been creep from that area

up in both different directions and what have you since that time.

And so you've been down that street and if not, I've got some pictures you guys can share around with respect to, you know, how tight it is, it's like three each, down there at the Douglas Avenue intersection.

I mean, some of the neighbors have taken it upon themselves to actually paint mandalas in the streets to reduce the traffic in that area.

And so now we're talking about a building that's going to go on the two narrowish streets.

In the neighborhood, the Alto being the narrowest of all and you'll see when you drive down that street it's either a choice it's either stop at the stop sign and wait for the road to clear or it's take your life in your hands and you know a little bit of chicken with respect to you know whether it be a scooter or a pile of trash that might be you know in the road as a neighbor you know spread some mulch and whatnot so in my opinion there need to be traffic proffers

All the way around this building and so from that perspective I think that the planning has not been completed and it's going to lead to significant problems.

My notes say you know we don't want to be another Stonefield Commons and with scooters and bikes trafficking that area I think you're setting yourself up for a bad situation.

In closing

I was just curious, but you guys have answered a lot of my questions.

It appears there will be a bus stop then on Hinton as they get rid of that entrance.

It sounds like that's on the corridor, so that would be part of that traffic plan that we'd like to know about.

I addressed the Ubers and the Lifts.

What I did not address is really how parking has also caused problems.

If you go down there on a Friday night, all of the Ubers and Lifts and limousines are circling the block, trying to let their guest out in a safe spot.

And so from that perspective, it's usually traffic jams every Friday and Saturday night.

And then from my area where I'm at, we just get the overflow parking from the Garrett resident area.

That parking change has driven some cars up into the lower neighborhood, which then drives the cars that are going to the pavilion up into the neighborhood.

And then if you've got the cars sticking out, like I talked about on Rialto,

Good evening.

Kim Rahovky, 15 years at 709 Belmont Avenue.

This NCC rezoning application comes after a long 15-year history in Belmont of constant manipulation and distortion of the NCC designation, catering to developers rather than neighbors' quality of life, all in direct violation of the NCC code as written.

That is the developers' zoning game we are witnessing tonight.

Our comp plans clearly designate this land as R1,

and this application smacks of illegal spot zoning to suit the purposes of the applicant.

As Kathy Galvin stated, our existing regulatory regimen is honored more in breach than in observance evidenced by the unsustainable number of rezoning and SUP requests.

In 2009, over neighbor protests, the city flipped the affordable house at 814 Hinton

to NCC declaring it to be the logical endpoint.

It then took Southern Crescent years to open and they finally have opened and violating all legally binding proffers without fines or action by the city ever since.

When will this abuse of the NCC and proffers stop?

For years, Belmonters have seen their dreams of a quiet home life subjugated by the vision of developers who themselves have frequently been bad neighbors.

For example, the Taza had 130 police interventions in one year.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The vision of the applicant does not take precedence over ours.

We moved into the neighborhood before the pavilion, the restaurants, the X-park, all bringing their oppressive noise, traffic, and parking.

The neighborhood we bought into an established

Neighborhood Residential with a Historic District denomination.

needing renovation and preservation.

We chose Belmont to live buffered from commercial zones, the noise of UVA and high density.

Our hopes, dreams and the personal investment that we have should not be cast aside because the applicant has decided it needs NCC zoning to fit its application.

Neighbors are confused and have questions about this application.

Multiple last minute changes, lack of transparency, proffers only coming when neighbors protested inconsistencies.

A flip-flopping of staff recommendations.

Finally, no disabled housing written into the application anymore.

That was the point of the whole project.

Simple question that hasn't been answered.

What's the resident capacity?

15 units does not mean 15 people.

The planned 15 unit design means a minimum of 30 people, one per bedroom, and a maximum of 60 people, if two per bedroom.

Only 27 parking spaces, though.

The applicant has told us that they cannot control the number of people that occupy each unit.

That's simply not true.

That's what a landlord does.

Will the city for once stand with Belmonters and deny this faulty application until questions are answered and it is appropriate for the neighborhood?

We have always been pro-disabled housing and we also insist that development be appropriate to fit the neighborhood in size and scope.

Please insist that we get answers before rezoning.

Follow the law set forth in the comp plan, stand with us for a project appropriate in scope and size, help stop oppressive problems with parking, traffic, lighting, noise, loud HVAC systems, and protect our quality of life to preserve the neighborhood.

Good evening.

My name is Charles Lindendorf, 15 years at 709 Belmont Avenue.

We came at Belmont before it was a hot spot.

with our own dreams, renovating an old home, investing ourselves in establishing a residential historic neighborhood.

For years, we have invested our hands and hearts in renovating, doing most of our work ourselves.

Unlike friends and families who have moved out due to increasing stress of noise traffic, parking, and auto control assessments, we have stayed because our dreams.

It's bellman.

This application is inappropriate due to its reasoning, size, secondary effects, and applicants' failure to answer questions and lack of transparency, so very confusing.

Our last meeting, we were set to clear up all questions.

However, we tried asking questions.

Pastor Lewis wouldn't answer.

He told us that simply we have to trust them and to take a leap of faith.

However, given Belmont experienced historic inappropriate developments in the NCC and the businesses violating all their legal proffers every day, we simply cannot accept blind faith.

Um, is that because me?

not appear to be a developer but they act as in claiming it's not financially available unless they get the zoning they want.

They can't answer a question about the final project until after the rezoning and finally making multiple confusing last minute change to the application.

The most troubling is the removal of any mention of the mentally disabled housing in the application when it was to be the goal as entire project initially.

These are faulty excuses and reveal a faulty process.

Again, we deserve clear answers and transparency before rezoning.

Also, we discover an apparent link between the applicant and the 513 Rialto Hinton House LLC.

What are their intentions with it?

Why they failed to mention it in any meetings when it is, according to state papers, financially tied to them.

They have been tied to this house since 2010 too.

Why has not it been used as a pilot program for independent living for monthly challenges already?

It is possible to use this property plus a renovated education wing will be more appropriate in size, having less impact on the neighborhood.

Maybe such a project will be no need for NCC rezoning.

We cannot be incorporated in the application as a recreational space and management office for R3 zoning with commercial use, preferred art.

It would be easier.

We repeat, we do not reject this whole housing in the world, we embrace it.

It is already actually this type of housing, for the world and in the environment.

Please stand if you agree that reasoning to NCC is premature and unwarranted at this time.

Good evening.

I am the pastor at Ivy Creek United Methodist Church, and it has been said that societies will be judged by how they treat their most vulnerable citizens, and certainly the intellectually disabled are some of our most vulnerable citizens.

I have a man in my congregation who would certainly benefit from a facility like Rachel's Haven.

I want to endorse and encourage the approval of this project, not simply because I believe it's the right thing to do.

I've seen churches that, because of their dwindling congregations, wind up with large facilities that are largely unused or not used at all.

And so this is, I believe, a creative and beneficial use of this facility.

And you have the authority to recommend zoning changes.

That's your job.

And so you have the opportunity to, I believe, do what is right for our most vulnerable citizens.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Carol Starling.

I live at 759 Belmont Avenue.

I live directly behind the church.

I oppose this rezoning and I just believe that this is a problematic project that puts too much pressure on the neighborhood that is already suffering.

As mentioned before, I want to address the light pollution of one of many things that I have problems with.

But there will surely be more outside lights, not to mention some from the apartments.

And presently, we have some outside lights at the church right now that aren't too bad, but they're on all night long.

And they did have big lights, and now they actually have them going to the ground, which is nice.

They did that for us.

I just feel like, you know, it's a problem that's citywide and it was addressed in the Seville article of April by Lisa Provence called Bed Lights.

You know, I can only hope that the church will find a way to accommodate the disabled with the four to six apartments in the existing building and maybe the house that was mentioned.

We're not sure about that.

And the office and all the other things.

I believe there's enough room.

I think that Rachel's Haven's a wonderful idea.

I'd like to see more affordable housing.

I just feel like this neighborhood has just got too much pressure on it right now, the parking, this, that, and the other, the traffic.

But, you know, I just oppose the plan for 15 unit complex as it would greatly impact what we have left of our beloved neighborhood.

I feel that we need to leave the NCC where it is in Lower Hinton.

and not come up the road.

We just can't.

We just can't.

Anybody, everybody that agrees with me please stand.

Let me first say that I did hear some things and answer some of my questions.

I just don't understand why this was not mentioned.

were brought up last week when we met with them.

The church says that they need to be forwarded on this project, even though it may be years before they have the money for the project and are ready to build, that the community needs to have faith that they will do the right thing.

When it involves real estate, you need to have your I's dotted and your T's crossed, and it needs to be in writing.

There's still many unanswered questions.

Why are almost all the units two-bedroom units?

We should increase density with the individuals and possibly parking.

Why are there no written assurances that units will be affordable?

I think that's been somewhat kind of addressed, but that was a very strong concern.

We'd like to see affordable housing.

Why was it not disclosed that there was a house adjoining the property that's owned, appears, by the church and could be used to increase density if that house was to be torn down or made part of this parcel?

Why was that disclosed?

We found out about this about a day and a half ago.

How will this property fit into, how will that property fit into that project?

I think the biggest concern the neighborhood has is about the NCC.

They have been basically badgered to death with the areas with the restaurant that had that zoning and promised that it would not creep any further.

The neighborhood is very leery of proffers.

On April 9th, the Assistant City Attorney, I believe it's this lady right here, told the sports that they do not enforce SUPs and HOA violations.

I actually watched that video last night.

They have and still are numerous proffer violations taking place in this neighborhood.

Did you know that Wendell Wood is suing the county to remove a proffer he does not like currently?

It seems to me that this community is not saying no, they just want to be sure that they get appropriate development that meets the church vision plan and does not become a revenue stream as an apartment complex.

I hope that the applicant will defer this matter until all those questions can be answered.

What is the rush?

Thank you.

This looks like Bo Kreps.

It's not a hard one.

Oh, that's a B?

I'm glad you haven't started the clock, by the way.

My name is Bob Kreps, not Bo.

I live in the city, however I do not live in the Belmont neighborhood, and I do understand the concerns.

I am, however, and my wife, parents of a young adult daughter with autism who lives with us and is a lifelong dependent.

She's one of many developmental disabilities who are representative of the population that Hinton Avenue Project is targeting to serve.

I'm also the leadership chair of the Charlottesville Region Autism Action Group, which is an all-volunteer, parent-driven organization representing scores of parents of individuals with

Developmental Disabilities, self advocates and supportive providers.

Our focus is on finding lifespan solutions to enable individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities to lead fulfilling lives in a safe and supportive environment while maximizing their independence and contribution to society to the best of their ability.

Parents like us are unified by the common concern when we shut our eyes at night

We think about what's going to happen to our loved ones when we're gone.

Over the past year, affordable housing advocates have done an excellent job of raising awareness in this community, in the city of Charlottesville.

Missing from the conversation, or not at the forefront, I'll say, are the unique needs of individuals with developmental disabilities.

In addition to having low, read that no, income,

Beyond Social Security.

These individuals are in need of services in a supportive environment where they can lead fulfilling lives safely, side by slide, integrated with regular people in the community who do not have disabilities.

It's not an unreasonable ask.

The Hinton Avenue project represents a perfect solution to this challenge.

If approved and replicated by other developer provider partnerships, it can materially change the lives of so many wonderful individuals who by no fault of their own have unique challenges and are in need of supported services to pursue life's journeys.

Over 300 individuals in the Charlottesville and surrounding area are on the wait list for state supported waiver services.

These are developmentally disabled individuals.

In addition, there are those who have services that do not have adequate housing and supports due to capacity and affordability issues.

As parents, it is our job to position our children to survive in life to the best of their ability.

We all strive to do that the very best we can until we can't.

At that point, we all ask again, what's going to happen when we're gone?

The Hinton Avenue project, I believe, is a breath of fresh air.

It meets the planning commission goals in the comprehensive plan to create more affordable housing and housing for underserved populations.

Developmental disabilities are one such underserved population.

The commission and the city are serious about meeting the goals you have set forth this project and hopefully others like it in the future must be approved.

I thank you for your consideration

and my heartfelt thanks to the United Methodist Planning Team.

There's been mention of concern about them delivering on the promises.

I have every confidence that they will follow through with their commitments.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to listen to us.

My name is Ramon Pfaff and I moved to 733 Hinton Avenue 20 years ago.

I started, I moved here as a two-person company and we're now over 150 based over in the Inova building.

I think everybody here agrees that good and affordable housing is very useful to have here.

But as soon as you put the word commercial in anything here, it starts to become a big problem for me.

A lot of others have already mentioned noise continues to be an increasing concern.

Every single day it seems louder.

I have some new neighbors who have started calling the police also for noise concerns and just three days ago a band started up at Southern Crescent, which we won't mention so to speak, where in their proffer it says no amplified music at all.

Traffic continues to be endless.

I often come home and I can't get in my own driveway because somebody is parked in my street right there.

I'd also like to mention just a few other things about proffers and things that have been approved in the city.

For some of you, I've been here 20 years, and it was maybe 10 years ago when the flats was getting approved on Main Street.

And they had a gorgeous drawing for what it was going to look like.

It got approved by the bar after a lot of discussion.

It had a nice slanted thing that would allow sunshine to come onto Main Street.

It had a gorgeous little garden in the front area.

The developer decided not to do any of that, and they built a giant brick monolith, and we now have a lovely dark shadow gloom on Main Street permanently.

The other proffer that recently many other people have mentioned also, no amplified music whatsoever, but 14 days, four times a band has played.

just this past two weeks.

And from what I heard, the city is currently investigating that, but I have no idea if legally they can do anything about it.

How am I doing?

Lots of time, that's good.

I've been here 20 years.

I've seen a lot of things change in Belmont.

I really hope we could work with the current zone to do something with the R2 or the R3 or get a new classification for zones, which one of our candidates who was running had in his platform.

Thank you.

I understand very well the concerns about traffic and noise because these have been a concern for me ever since my son learned to walk.

My son is now 22 years old.

He has autism.

My son is able to maintain something in the area of a 3.0 something average at Piedmont Community College.

My son cannot drive.

My son, 22 years old, three point something average, is afraid to cross the street.

My son cannot get through the activities of daily living without substantial support.

My son wants friends.

He wants friends that are like the people he sees.

He has no friends, none whatsoever.

My son will never be able to drive.

No one could be more concerned about noise and traffic than I am.

My biggest concern as a parent, as all parents, is the safety of my child.

And I have given decades of my life to advocating for my son's needs.

And I, like any parent of a child with disabilities, will advocate fiercely to my grave.

And I will advocate for a quiet, safe neighborhood.

I could not want safety and quiet and peace for my child

Any less than anybody here.

And I believe that's what we all want and I believe that is what Belmont is capable of being.

Safe, affordable, walkable, and inclusive.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The previous speaker and I are related.

Everything that she said about our son is absolutely the truth.

And it's equally true that our son brings a lot of gifts into this world.

And he is an asset to any community that he becomes a part of.

My son can certainly do many things, and there are a lot of things that he cannot do.

But my wife and I walk the walk with him each and every day.

We drive him where he needs to go.

We look after his grooming.

We cook his meals.

And every morning, I look in the mirror.

and I see the lines deepening in my face.

And I wonder, when I'm 75, when I'm 80, will I be able to continue walking this walk?

And when I'm gone and my wife is gone, what then?

What will become of him then?

And that is why I am so excited by the Rachel's Haven Project

I feel like this is the kind of community that my son and people like my son need, a wraparound community of caring.

And I just felt so excited when I first learned about this project.

Now, as members of the planning commission, you're all about numbers.

How high the building?

How wide the setback?

How many parking spots?

But let's talk about some other numbers.

How many families like mine will have permanent benefit from a project like this?

How many families have people like me who will be able to have peace of mind as they grow old?

How many

Other communities like this will Rachel's Haven serve as a model for going forward.

How many communities will use Rachel's Haven as a model for their own communities?

And that's why I ask that we consider this with all due respect to those in the community who have raised concerns about this and we go forward with this project.

My name is Vicki Bravo.

I'm here on behalf of Impact, our local interfaith organization of 27 congregations.

I had prepared remarks, but after you all spoke and after Bob spoke,

I just on behalf of impact want to say that we completely support this project on behalf of the people who have developmental disabilities who would get this chance but also because our communities having a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis and this is an opportunity to address those too.

Gary Bibb I want to speak on behalf of the project.

First of all, affordable housing starts with money.

You can't get cheaper than free.

The land that's being provided for this project is free to the developer.

The reason it occurs is because the congregation at Hinton Avenue has gotten smaller.

The church hasn't gotten any younger, and it's costing a fortune to keep up.

So we said, what can we do about it?

Well, the idea came to us about this project, providing something good for the community and a ministry.

Like I say, affordable housing is a need in a town.

You can't get better than free.

Other things that I've heard, Hinton House.

Hinton House is totally independent of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church in that

It's only owned by 17 people that go to Hinton Avenue or used to go to Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church.

It is affordable housing in itself.

Right now, we have three tenants in the house.

They pay about $500 a person.

That's pretty good.

You can't get that in Charlottesville.

So that's that part.

Amplified music, well I hear the complaints and I just want you to know that it's not changed any.

In 1963 I started a band in the basement of my house on Little Grave Street and they solved that problem by calling the police and I'm telling you my dad said that we were playing for Thomas Jefferson up on Monticello Mountain and we may have but it hasn't changed that much and I agree that

You guys that live near the community where you have the vibrance of the commercial element, you shouldn't be battered by music.

You shouldn't be.

But I want you to know that the commercial aspect, I've seen downtown Belmont go from Belmont Market owned by Herman Doria back in 1956 where he delivered the groceries in his truck and ran tickets for families in the neighborhood.

The Dr. Pepper plant was across the street.

It has always been there.

The local was a used furniture shop and Collier's Barbershop was where one of the restaurants got a little room.

The reality is, yeah, there's a lot of traffic going on, but it is the exact reason that your property has increased in value extraordinarily in the last 30 to 40 years.

It started in 1990 when the NOVA was built and all the downtown was built with the ice park and all that.

And I began to see people walking across the bridge with a big bag with their shoes in it, going to work.

and that's about it.

Thank you.

My name is Lucius Bracey.

I live at 724 Northwood Avenue in the city.

I am a co-owner of 759 Belmont which has been

I mentioned here tonight, together with Ms. Celine, Kochis trustee as the other four.

Everybody seems to have a family story and I have too.

I have a nephew who is disabled, cerebral palsy.

My wife and I would have been charged with looking for a place for him to live had he not died before his mother.

who's still alive.

I hope I have her genes well into the 90s.

It seems to me the tension here is between fear of the lack of enforceability of proffers and the possibility of commercial use in property that is surrounded by residences.

The tension is, on the other hand, how to get the staff to work with one of the R zones

with appropriate proffers and waivers to satisfy the project.

That ought to be doable.

It seems to me that it's worth making them try to do that to relieve the tension that's developing over this project, as you can see from those that are here.

The land use plan, which is supposed to guide zoning,

calls for low density residential use in this property and I think the land use plan that is under discussion in this respect remains the same.

I think the staff has too lightly dismissed the dictates of the land use plan and I think the staff and I think Mr. Thomas

and yourselves are smart enough to find a solution and relieve some of the tension and pressure on this matter and I hope that you will do so.

The residential people in this neighborhood have put sweat and financial equity into their profits and they deserve

for you to carry out your obligations to them by not upsetting their security and comfort and what they have created for themselves and for the city.

So please do not dismiss those obligations lightly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Pastor Elizabeth Emery, co-pastor of New Beginnings Christian Community, which is in the Belmont area at 1130 East Market, and also a board member of IMPACT.

And I'm standing with Hinton Avenue Methodist Church, even though it's a competitor of ours.

And I really salute what they're doing.

As part of IMPAC, I know that there are 3,000 people in Charlottesville alone who are struggling to get affordable housing.

And someone has to work three jobs a week, three jobs, which is 24 hours a day, in order to afford an apartment, a two bedroom apartment, at minimum income.

Three jobs.

Can you imagine that?

to afford an apartment that has two bedrooms in the Charlottesville area.

We desperately need affordable housing.

And as a pastor who has people with developmentally disabled conditions in my church, we need housing for them.

Two of my members are now institutionalized.

One of them is at Western State and another one

is in a prison because there is no place for them to live here.

We cannot find a place for them.

They would come home if we had a place like Rachel's Haven.

We would have a place for them to live.

They're natives of Charlottesville.

They were born and raised here, and they want to live here, but they cannot live here because there is nothing for them here.

They cannot afford any

And for goodness sake and for God's sake,

Please support Rachel's Haven.

I know that there are concerns among the property owners, but those concerns don't affect the residents there.

There's no one who's going to be living at Rachel's Haven who's going to have a band.

or who's going to be drinking or inviting all their friends to party late at night.

There's none of that going to go on.

Few of them are going to have cars.

Most of them are going to live very quiet lives.

and we are blessed to have them and this will be part of our answer to affordable housing for our community and so that my two members can come home and find a place to live here.

Please support Rachel's Haven and Hinton Avenue's vision to really convert their church into a full ministry working for our community.

Thank you.

No problem.

Oh, you started already.

Okay.

The May 13th heading on NBC 29 News was Belmont Neighbors Raise Concerns Over Churches Proposed Housing Project.

A Charlottesville church is facing some backlash from community members over a proposed housing project that would require rezoning a residential area.

I am here tonight as the pastor of Sojourners United Church of Christ that is also a neighbor of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church in the Belmont Avenue neighborhood.

And I'm here to state publicly that we are in full support of this project.

Rachel's Haven will not create any problems with traffic or noise.

In fact, it will be a gift and a moral solution

for many concerns we have for our neighbors.

We have members of our congregation who have developmental challenges and they already live in Belmont and they do not contribute to any of the problems we have experienced.

Online there is a statement provided by the Planning Commission that states

Your purpose is to do guiding and accomplishing the coordinated and harmonious development of the territory which will in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of its citizens.

The neighborhood section, connection section, states its vision and two goals specifically relevant here.

To make Charlottesville a city where every neighborhood has the opportunity to succeed in realizing its full potential for contributing to a quality community.

To foster independent problem solving and sharing of assets within and among neighborhoods.

to involve all community assets in expanding and sustaining safe and healthy neighborhoods.

The City Council's vision statement promotes the following under quality housing opportunities for all.

Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric.

We've heard all of that.

for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities.

If all of this is true, and if these statements describing our community values, purpose, and intention are true, then I don't see how you cannot affirm with gratitude

Rachel's Haven of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church.

In fact, perhaps we should all pay them for doing what the wider community has not been able to do in meeting our own goals for enhancing the life and welfare of all who live here.

Thank you.

And Eleanor, Eleanor Byers Soiley.

Biasioli.

Planning commissioners, I'm Eleanor Biasioli, a Charlottesville resident and joint owner of a rental property at 813 Belmont Avenue.

If the applicants were three, five or seven blocks away from the NCC district, would they be looking for an NCC rezoning?

Would the Planning Department be supportive of such a scenario or of others who bring forth requests to rezone to NCC?

Diverting from the NCC zone in definition creates precedents that will impact both Belmont and Fry Springs,

the only two NCC zones in the city.

So that's just a planning issue I bring before you to think about.

The rezoning has been well publicized as a plan to build housing for developmentally disabled adults.

The proffer attached to this application only mentions that a minimum of four of these units shall be restricted to low income residents.

Where is any mention of adults with developmental disabilities or any kind of disability?

The church does have a worthy vision

At the neighborhood meeting last Thursday, one answer was given by a representative of the non-profit that they are in talks with for a possible partnership with such a jaw-dropping surprise.

She revealed that when selecting tenants, the non-profit does not ask about the nature of the disability and will not know the nature of the disability.

What happened to the church's vision of serving the development of the disabled?

Additionally, the church representatives didn't know if the apartments would be owned by the nonprofit, the church, or both.

It seems that they are at the initial stage of discussion and still have many substantial questions to be explored and answered and nailed down with this nonprofit to make sure they deliver on their vision.

Faison Residence in Richmond, the model for compassionate communities that Rachel Haven is using, reserves about a third of their 45 apartments for adults with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities.

Part of the Faison's extensive application process, a copy of the IEP, the Individual Education Plan, must be submitted

They know what the disability is.

They screen their applicants.

They provide occasional assistance and supervision.

Why is this nonprofit that they are having talks with not able to guarantee to secure the appropriate tenants, developmentally disabled adults?

I am intimately aware of the worry and heartache parents have if they have a child with a disability.

I have two nephews who live in supportive housing.

because of their disability.

One entered supported housing at 21, the other now 15 and in Asperger's was on a waiting list of 4,000.

My name is Frank Biaseoli.

I'm a Charlottesville resident and I own property in the Belmont neighborhood.

I'd like to comment that so far tonight we haven't heard, to the best of my knowledge, anybody oppose the vision of the Hinton Avenue Methodist Church.

The concerns have been more with what happens with NCC designation.

It was a manipulation of NCC that in this instance the project in reality calls for residential zoning.

The fact that we don't have residential zoning appropriate for it is a significant issue.

If other churches are having seen a decline in membership and looking for ways to utilize their properties for the

congregations are for their visions.

What's going to happen there?

You're going to put another NCC scattered Charlottesville with NCC properties.

You need, what we really need and what we really need to step back to is development of residential zoning type that takes the attention of and

enables this kind of project to go forward.

As my wife has said, we have relatives that are in need of this kind of help, that need this kind of housing.

We're strongly supportive of it, as I think everybody in this audience is today.

But there's real problems with NCC designation.

For instance, as it's already been mentioned,

Wendell Wood is challenging a proffer.

The proffer is the way that the NCC was, I think, manipulated this time.

Since they couldn't get anything else, they couldn't get a residential option that satisfied their needs, they had to go with manipulation of the NCC designation.

If you look at town, you've got large apartment complexes that have no setback restrictions and are literally almost on the street.

They're right up on the sidewalk.

It seems bizarre to me that you could have a project like this that seems very valuable, but if you try to go to a residential designation, you have to have a 20-foot setback all the way around the place.

That eliminates your ability to effectively develop such a project.

Let's see, what else would I like to say about that?

I guess basically that's essentially all I really have to say is that what we need to do is you need to stop looking at NCC designation.

Step back, call city planning, city zoning to task and say, look, this is what we really need.

If we look at the future, we're likely to have more opportunities here.

We don't want to scatter NCC designations throughout the city.

People are at risk because people like Wendell Wood could challenge the proffers made on the basis that they were made under duress because that's how you got these NCC designation proffers in place.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak that hasn't signed up?

Thank you.

John Santosky, 2421 Sunset Road.

I'm here tonight as the Executive Director of the Arc of the Piedmont.

We're an organization that works with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Some of you may know we operate group homes in the area, day programs, and assorted other programs that support people with intellectual disabilities.

To cut to the chase, I think this project as the way it's proposed tonight is probably about as close to good as we're going to get.

The reasons are one, of course, it's the right thing to do and affordable housing is a real issue in the city and we don't need to go any further down those lines.

But I've sat in the chairs where you folks are sitting tonight and I know that this comes down to that this is a rezoning.

And what's the implications of that?

You talk about an NCC designation that we promised the Belmont folks would not go beyond where Southern Crescent or whatever it's called, the restaurants are down there at this point.

And I know the folks down there have been felt for years that the NCC designation has not quite worked in the way that they had envisioned the NCC designation working.

It's basically turned into restaurants, not really other commercial properties.

Now this project, as I was sitting there,

You know, the last time that it had come up, there was a lot of issues that I had with it because it didn't proffer out a lot of the other uses that would really worry me as a planning commissioner because all of a sudden you could extend NCC from the church all the way down the street.

I mean, it's obvious that that could very easily happen in the future as other developers came forward and wanted to do that.

With this being proffered out so that you only have daycare, educational and residential,

and the fact that the density is a lot lower under NCC than it would be under R3 it's probably one of those things when you're sitting there you say you know we got to make the best guess that we can we can't predict everything that's going to happen in the future we can't predict what will happen with the property or who may buy it or anything else and we're going to try to protect the neighborhood we're going to try to do the right thing for housing and we're going to try to do the right thing as planning commissioners as we plan

So, you know, my sense is that at this point in time, this is probably as good as it gets tonight.

Now if you want to defer the project and send it back so that they can come up with something better or there's another zoning designation, you know, that may kill the project.

And this is a chance for Charlottesville to really kind of move in a different direction.

If you as planning commissioners really believe in what you've been talking about in affordable housing and housing for extremely low income people as a part of this, then this is going to be the right thing to do.

And you're not going to get a better plan than what you're going to see tonight unless you send them back to the drawing board and zoning is going to be willing to be changed in order to accommodate it even better.

I think it's something you have to do and have to do tonight.

Please.

My name is Nina Cortado Winkler.

I'm a member of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church.

I live in the Northfield area of Albemarle County.

I joined this church just a few years ago, almost exactly the moment that we decided as a congregation, and we're a very small congregation, to embrace this kind of a future for ourselves, a new mission field right in our own parking lot.

We speak a lot in the United Methodist Church these days about what we call extravagant generosity.

And we feel that as Christians, that is what God asks us to do.

And so the long-term leaders of this church, it so surprised me,

looked at this idea and said yes we're going to be extravagantly generous we're going to offer our property for this wonderful thing and it meant a lot to our pastor Rachel's Haven is named after his late wife who is very deeply committed to working with developmentally disability disabled people I guess I have one question for all of you this kind of housing

If not here, then where else in Charlottesville are you going to put it?

And if now, well when are you going to do it?

Where are you going to get the money?

We think that the money can be raised once you give your approval and that we cannot go forward with fundraising until we know that this city is behind us.

So I ask you those two questions.

If not,

Now, When, If Not Here, Where.

Amy Gardner, 753 Belmont Avenue.

My property backs up to the church.

Planning commissioners, thank you all for your time and your service.

I can't speak for all of my neighbors but I do think that most of us are in support of the concept of what the church is doing.

No one I know is hard-hearted enough to say that we don't want these people in our neighborhood and I think the media has perhaps painted us with broad brush strokes.

Everyone I surround myself with on Belmont Avenue, Hinton Avenue, we're all caring individuals and we all feel

that this is a great use for this church.

I think everyone here was also in support of the special use permit for the daycare facility that's there now, International School of Sherwood School.

are the unintended consequences.

When I went to hear the church members speak, I think they did a beautiful job.

I think they have a great idea.

I have a few concerns about the financial model and where things may end up.

And so my question is, though, where things may end up.

Say it's not feasible.

I hope it is.

But who's that next developer who buys that property?

Who's the next Wendell Wood who comes before city council and stomps his feet and demands that the proffers are overturned?

What then?

The church is built to the property line.

They're a great neighbor.

I have no problem with that.

It's just the what if and the unintended consequences

I think the Bassioli said it best tonight is really you all have more of I think a challenge right now with the way zoning is written because it seems that nothing is really fitting this project, which is a great project.

So instead of challenging you to make an abrupt decision now, I challenge you to write better zoning laws, codes that enable this project to really fit the neighborhood

as they intend it to and we want it to.

Reverend Robert Lewis, I'm pastor of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church.

I live at 1415 Melbourne Road across from Charlottesville High School.

I appreciate so much what was just said and I appreciate all the comments that have been registered tonight.

We have been working on this for a long, long time.

We have been in conversation with the city for well over three years.

In terms of how to approach the development issues and I think one of the things that I'm very much aware of is that everyone does think it's a great idea and the difficulty is in how do we do this.

One thing that does trouble me and I understand that it comes from those questions of what if but I do hear a degree of suspicion and paranoia and conspiracy thinking about what will happen next and to that all I can do is say the challenge is will you work with the people that you have as opposed to worrying about the people who might come next.

The issue for us in a lot of these questions and one of the things that we don't have things nailed down is because as a United Methodist Church we

own our building, but we hold it in trust for the entire denomination.

And so if our church were to close, were to cease tomorrow, that property would not be sold to a developer.

It would revert to the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, who I am very confident would seek to plant another church in that location.

I've had extensive conversations with my district superintendent about the fact that should Hinton Avenue ever cease to be,

The United Methodist Church is not going to abandon Belmont.

And so I know that that's not the usual model that we're working with, but I would hope that perhaps if there are deficiencies, if there are questions unanswered, if there are all of these things, it would be clear to you that we are not developers.

This is not our full-time job.

This is not our grand master scheme.

This is our vision given by God to try to be the very best stewards of the gift that we have.

in the time and the space that we have.

I really hear the concern and I share the concern that perhaps NCC doesn't fit.

And I think it's an excellent question.

What if this happened in other places where, or actually NCC wasn't even available?

But again, I can say we could enter some long process before we even begin of trying to define a whole new zone.

But as I say, we've been talking to the city staff for three years and we have been guided

over the course of that time toward NCC for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I have maybe made some statements or asked some questions or offered some thoughts in some of these public meetings where I didn't understand what I was talking about.

My concern in some of what I heard tonight though is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This is a zoning hearing, not a question of how exactly apartments will be funded or people with disabilities will be distinguished.

It's my understanding those things come later at other stages.

Things about lighting and such are part of a site plan, not a zoning hearing.

So we very much want to work with the neighbors, but we have to take each thing in its time.

And tonight we're asking for the permission to go ahead, to take the next step forward in our development.

Anyone else like to speak?

My name is Brian Cameron.

I'm a resident of Charlottesville, just as much a resident in tax payers as anyone else in this room maybe.

I'm in support of Rachel's Haven.

I couldn't put it any better than the applicants themselves.

This is a fiercely necessary project that would provide dignified housing for a severely underserved population.

I think that many of the what-ifs have been answered as best as they can this evening without us being clairvoyant.

We are talking about a church here, not some out-of-state developer who we need to be hyper skeptical of.

To many of the critics who've spoken up this evening, I don't know if I see the traffic concerns related to the proposal as merited given the information presented this evening that most people with developmental disabilities do not, in fact, drive.

If anything,

If you're really such an advocate of traffic safety, why not get together as a neighborhood, follow the trend of mainstream safety advocates and urbanists, and make a proposal to ban cars altogether from Hinton Avenue.

Charlottesville already has one pedestrian mall we love.

Why not have a second?

I'm sure the residents of Rachel's Haven will love it.

Those who bemoan the present lack of funding for this project yet also tout their knowledge of the development process apparently sorely misunderstood how low-income housing tax credits work, that they are more likely to get approved if the project already has the necessary zoning to fulfill that proposal.

And the possibility of 100% affordable units on this project is simply too good, too much to pass up.

Further,

If the tax credit doesn't come through, why not get together as neighbors and say, we'll match it.

We'll support this project.

I also want to point out, just think how personally offensive I find it that many property owners who specifically have mentioned becoming homeowners 25 years ago, and we all know have since seen the value of their properties, their assets, and their wealth skyrocket, who now want to deny decent, dignify homes to their neighbors with developmental disabilities is just, it's appalling.

Since we wanted to play this game earlier, if you support Rachel's Haven, please stand up.

Good evening.

My name is Lena Seville.

I live in Belmont.

I am the former president of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association and a member of the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition.

And I'm speaking for myself.

I just wanted to give you a little background.

I am encouraging you to approve this project.

While the neighborhood NCC zoning may not be perfect and there are so many problems with the R3, I don't think that's a reason to hold off.

We all know government happens slowly.

I don't think we can wait years to fix the R3, to maybe fix the R3, to have some affordable housing.

While I agree that it

is a good goal and that we should work on it.

I don't think we should wait.

We need this project and I hope you approve.

Hi, my name is Matthew Gillican.

I live at 726 Orange Dale Avenue and I would like for each of you to support this project.

I've worked with people with developmental disabilities for the last 13 years.

I'm currently a speech therapist at UVA Hospital.

I worked at the Virginia Institute of Autism for three years.

I worked at a group home in North Carolina.

And I've also provided respite care for people with developmental disabilities.

Something that struck me along the way as I've gotten to know the parents and their families and these people with developmental disabilities is it takes institutions like the planning commission, the school board, the hospitals, health care providers, those institutions have to use what they have, use their power to leverage change for these people.

There's no parent of any child with a developmental disability who has a lot of time on their hands to go out and work day in day out to change the rules.

And so when groups like the Advocates for Rachel's Place come along and say, we want to walk wrong side you.

We want to create something for your families and your children that will enable your family to be better and do better in our neighborhoods.

It is contingent upon groups like you voting in favor of them.

Our zoning laws are not an exception in the sense that they don't quite fit for these people.

Our society doesn't quite fit for these people.

We have to change our society to reflect that.

If you've ever spent any time with someone with autism, you've spent time with one person with autism.

They're not quite like the second person or the third person or the fourth person.

They're all different.

It's all changing.

It's always not quite gonna work out like you want to, but it turns out it's awesome.

And those folks are the people that we need to prioritize over anyone else in our community.

My name is Daniela Pretzer.

I am the executive director of the Bridge Line.

I live in Albemarle County.

At the Bridge Line, we serve adults with brain injuries, so that might not be exactly the same like developmental disabilities, but often they have intellectual disabilities.

I fully admit I don't know much about proffers and zoning but I am expert in what the need of people with disabilities are and I would even suggest we need more than four apartments rather than ten maybe for people who can live in that area.

We have four different programs and one of them is a residential program.

We own two homes, our organization owns two homes in Belmont Avenue or at Belmont Avenue.

A lot of people don't even know that we're there.

There are no signs.

Most people, we had one resident ever with a car that was, I mean, we celebrated when he got his driver's license because that was really amazing.

So they

It's not about acceptance.

It's about inclusion into the community.

And we cannot do this when they live out in the country somewhere.

So I really love that project.

And I encourage you to have more than four apartments for people with disabilities.

Let's say that.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

My name is Julia Williams.

I live at 751 Belmont Avenue, which is also directly behind the church.

Thank you, Planning Commissioners and everybody here for participating in this dialogue.

I feel a little bit like people are seeing the neighborhood that is concerned about NCC as being against the idea and the mission

And I have to tell you that when you ask people to stand who are supporting, you're seeing some of us who live right here who have concerns but still support it.

So asking us to stand as if we're saying vote yes or no is not really a good record of what really the issues are.

Frank Biasalo, I tortured your name, I'm sorry, but you said it so well.

This is a problem that Planning Commission, you can make this

An opportunity for big change.

We could leverage this where you do have support from many of the neighbors to actually say what's the right thing for this future possibilities and implement it here.

NCC and the second point I want to make is that if your decision is to support NCC as the way to move forward, can you also then support the neighborhood with

Explaining how you're going to make sure proffers are sustained and enforced because we really see a problem with this and it's my big barrier for this project.

Anyone else like to speak?

Going once, going twice.

The public hearing is now closed and I'll open it up to the board for comments and questions.

So my question is just for staff.

It's in general.

I don't know who to guess.

Probably for staff at this point.

How often or how unlikely is it for a proffer to be overturned or how likely is it for a proffer to be overturned?

Typically, if a proffer meets the legal definition that it remains enforceable, and that's one of the reasons why we have legal counsel on both sides of an application speak to that and talk that through to look into what can be enforceable, what may not be enforceable.

You know, there are

There's always the opportunity to argue.

And if if there is a need for a proffer to change, they would an applicant would need to go through the process of a rezoning.

So and you all have had that happen before where you've had somebody come back because they want to change a proffer, which is part of their zoning.

because ultimately the proffer is what's being provided by the applicant to address concerns that may exist with the project that they're providing for a rezoning request.

And so that proffer, that statement, that designation becomes part of the code for that parcel.

And so ultimately it's enforced as a zoning regulation

So as long as it's something that is legal, then it's not something that's necessarily overturned.

I can't really speak to the details of what's going on with the case and that folks have been referencing in the county.

But, you know, we I know we do our best on this end to make sure that we work through the language best we can to assure that it's something that you can look that the zoning staff can look at and say, yes, if the person does X, that

That means that they're complying with the zoning regulation.

Concerning the case that folks are referencing on Hinton, activities that were of concern had been brought to our attention over the last couple of weeks.

Prior to that, we hadn't gotten official word on

on any sort of concern that had been raised.

Now that that concern has been raised, our zoning staff has been working through the enforcement process.

Now for zoning, it's not not like police where someone can go out and arrest someone that does it doesn't work that way.

There's a due process where you provide you you talk with the individual you work through, make sure everyone understands the rules.

You give a

Period of time there's a notification letter with a violation that goes out and then there's a period of time and then there's if there's non-compliance there's actually the there's the opportunity to take that case to court to be addressed.

They're pretty difficult zoning cases when they move forward through those processes, but we're in the early stages of working through the concerns that have been raised by the community at 814.

So we're continuing to work through that.

Typically, we have two zoning staff and we don't have a lot of opportunity to be proactive.

And so we're typically complaint based.

So when we know about something, we're able to to do that.

And so we do encourage people to let us know what they're seeing, what they're hearing, those kinds of things.

I think your original question way back there, one of the issues that came up is, and I think I've stated this before at the community meeting is

At what point in a process do those proffers come into play?

And what I noted is six of the seven proffers that are before you tonight would be tackled at the site plan.

They are dimensional requirements or height requirements or access requirements that can be drawn onto a plan that is then reviewed and becomes a part of what the applicant has to build

Their plan gets approved.

They bring in a building permit that has to match that plan.

Then they have to go out and implement that building permit according to the site plan that was approved.

What we're debating about, you know, the operation of a business.

That's a very different thing.

And I mentioned, you know, hours of operation.

OK, if somebody exceeds their hours of operation when they're required to shut down, we don't have someone waiting at the door to slap a zoning violation on them.

There is a process that we go through.

With six of the seven here, with the exception of the affordable unit proffer, they're all on the site plan and the proffers are listed on the plan.

And they would have to you know, it relates to the physical layout of the site in some way.

Thanks.

Not from staff's perspective.

You know, typically we do see a time frame on them.

This one does not have one.

So there's a commitment to in perpetuity.

So potentially, I think there's some question of, you know, what could potentially happen down the road?

That would be a situation where if someone didn't want to do that affordability anymore, they would have to go back through the process.

They would not be able to just kind of throw their hands up and say, I can't do this anymore.

Give me some relief.

They would have to get that from city council.

with a new public hearing, with new notifications, with a new community meeting, presumably.

That's how that would work.

So I think the concern of enforceability there is the tracking of that, where you have somebody saying, yes, I'm doing it, and they're not, in fact, doing it.

But we do have our housing program coordinator position that has a listing of those units and would be following up with documentation about that.

Mr. Haluska, while I have you.

Don't go too fast.

We've heard from the public multiple times previously and again tonight about concerns about noise from HVAC, that allowing more homes will allow more HVAC, allow more noise.

My unit purrs like a kitten.

It's lovely.

But I understand there can be other issues.

Yeah, the noise ordinance regulations are a different section from zoning.

They don't really pertain to kind of these HVAC type stuff.

I think it's a valid concern that's coming forward from the community because in the past,

That's one of those items that kind of gets overlooked in the site plan process.

And that's a thing that we've noticed as a staff and recently kind of made applicants tell us where are you going to put these things?

It's come up in single family houses where people have, you know, they've built to the setbacks and they put an HVAC unit in a setback.

OK, they've got a problem now.

So not accounting for those in the front end has been an issue that's more with single-family houses, but we've incorporated that in the site planning.

So that's one of the things that I think we would address right from the start.

Where are your HVAC units?

Where are you putting them?

How are you screening them from view if you have the possibility of doing that?

What are you doing about the noise?

You know, how's that system running?

Really, I think if you start at the front end of the site plan process and ask the designers to consider it as opposed to worrying about it once they get site plan approval, you're going to come up with a better result.

And we still have, occasionally you do have issues with maintenance of those systems where something starts screeching really loudly and somebody's got to call the owner and say, fix your system.

But we've had that with industrial properties in the past, the bookbinding.

The place, I think, for a while was haunting Belmont with a screeching unit on a roof somewhere.

So that would be where it would be dealt with.

There's screening and noise attenuation.

And we've had situations where people have put in large chiller plants and then had the neighborhood complain and had to go back through the site during the site development process and work out a solution for that.

Thank you.

I would just add, now that I'm thinking about it, there is language in the noise ordinance about the amount of noise that you can do in a residential area, that you can project over the line in a residential area.

So this being surrounded by a residential area means that it's going to be a pretty tight rule that they're going to need to follow.

I don't know if this is for you or Missy, but there's been some discussion about the zoning designations.

There are other cities that have more zoning designations than Charlottesville has.

I'm just curious, the process of adding or adapting zoning designations so that you can be more flexible, what kind of timeline are you looking at to

to do that?

We have been put on hold on a lot of those items pending the RFP that's supposed to go forward to complete the comp plan, work through the housing strategy as well as the zoning ordinance.

That is one solution that was noted is is, you know, right now we're working with the tools that we have currently.

and so when you work with the tools that we currently have, this was the potential for a solution to the request that was being made.

There is potential for different opportunities from a zoning standpoint.

Being here for quite a while and going through these processes with the community for a number of years, it's not a quick process because there's a lot of dialogue that needs to occur throughout the community.

So

We're kind of in new territory, the RFP that's being framed now and how those three projects are going to work together with that outside source.

This is kind of a new thing on our end.

And so we're going to be learning and growing together on that.

Jody, do you have any comments?

I don't have any questions.

I have a number of comments.

So the application before us is for 15 residential units for affordable housing by way of an NCC rezoning.

Pray that Hinton Avenue Methodist Church will be here for hundreds of years.

As a planning commissioner though, it's our responsibility to think not only about the people in this room, but those who are not even born yet.

We have to consider

that this zoning, rezoning stays with this property and the property can change hands many times.

So that's the reason for my questions.

Rezoning is clumsy.

If it was a block away from here, I'd be very skeptical about it.

But I think that the unique circumstances of this property, this is the best possible zoning for doing what they want to do.

I have to trust the proffers.

and I am satisfied that the proffers are limiting the usage to what the church intends.

I'm very impressed with the church for listening to the community for the neighborhood and delaying until they could respond to the neighborhood as best as they can.

This is a large assembly.

Building that's in the middle of a residential neighborhood with single-family houses all around it.

That's why I say if this was a block away, I would be having a hard time with it.

But as it's designed as a building that is a support structure to a assembly church,

I think it fits in well for this particular block and is certainly very similar to what has been there ever since this church was constructed and the addition is appropriate in scale to the church and I think that the density is low and thus also appropriate for this location.

Madam Mayor, do you have any questions or comments?

I was kind of curious, it came up the 15 units and then what that would equate to the number of beds that may have been set at some point but I didn't hear a range.

15 units, two bedrooms each I think I heard.

But does it have to be two bedrooms?

Yeah, I have a question for the applicant.

You guys mentioned that you were hoping to provide all 15 units as housing for people with disabilities.

No, we never envisioned having all of these units for people with developmental disabilities.

It'll be limited to four to six for people with developmental disabilities.

What we are hoping is that 100% will be affordable units.

I see.

Having all of them being for people with developmental disabilities?

Yeah.

Yeah, two things.

One is that

It's really not the preferred way to care for people with developmental disabilities.

We really do want them integrated into normal life with the rest of us.

The second thing is it's also because of what I just said, it's also required by funding sources that it be inclusive and so the ratio

of people with developmental disabilities to those without is something like you know you can have a roughly a third maybe it's somewhere between 25 and 50 percent and we're kind of aiming for a third.

I think, Jody, you did a really good job of netting this thing out for us.

There's nothing that you mentioned that I disagree with.

The only thing that gives me a little bit of a heartburn is the Rio Rialto being the only way in and out of this.

I would, Mr.

Chair, move to recommend approval ZM1900001.

I think I got them on there.

to rezone the subject property from R1S to NCC subject to proffered development conditions to allow for the specific multifamily development described within the application based on the finding that the rezoning is required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice.

Is there any further discussion?

We have a motion.

It has been properly seconded.

Mr. Stolle-Yates?

Aye.

Mr. Heaton?

Aye.

And Mr. Mitchell?

The recommendation to council will move forward.

Just for information.

For next information purposes, the next step in the process, because we didn't have a council quorum for this evening, council will be holding a public hearing on this item.

We'll be moving those materials forward to the clerk.

It's anticipated it will be July 1st.

which is the next council meeting, the first meeting in July.

If there is a change to that, it'll be noted online.

If you are within, if you're an applicant or you're within the 500 feet, you'll get a mailing.

You'll see the signs up on the sites also.

You can also give us a call.

And the winner is...

Alrighty, let us begin again.

The next application

The next application is another rezoning application.

This is ZM19-00002.

It is an application in or around six parcels located in or around 209 Murray Avenue.

and impacts about 1.6 acres of land.

This land fronts on Murray and Stadium Road.

The request is to rezone from two-family university to multi-family.

The comp plan calls for this to be low-density residential, which is I think about 15 units per acre.

Thank you, Chair.

Matt Alfele, City Planner Neighborhood Development Services.

As stated tonight, you are making a recommendation to City Council in holding a public hearing on a rezoning request that has no development plan or proffers.

The rezoning request is for to rezone the parcel subject properties from R2U, which is residential to University, to R3, which R3 is our high density residential.

For comparison, I would recommend looking at page four through six of your staff report that will give you a comparison of the R2U versus the R3 in characteristics and uses.

And then because there's no development plan or proffers, I'll kind of just maybe give you all just a brief summary of your standards of review.

Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan, staff finds the proposed zoning would not comply with the city's comprehensive general land use plan but may contribute to other chapters of the 2013 comprehensive plan.

Whether the proposed amendment will further the purpose of this chapter and general welfare of the entire community.

This is undetermined by staff.

Staff finds the proposed rezoning would most likely further the purpose of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community.

Whether there is a need or justification for the change, staff finds no need or justification for the change.

And then finally, when

Pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed changes, if any, on the property itself and on surrounding property and on public services and facilities.

In addition, the Commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for the inclusion within the proposed zoning district related to the proposed set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification.

Staff finds the proposed rezoning would have no impact on public services or facilities and would most likely meet the intent of the residential zone district.

Okay.

No.

No.

I have a, it's a question, but it's more like a statement.

Okay.

Why don't we wait?

Can you help me understand, I see that there's a deed restriction ensuring that the Manor House be maintained in perpetuity.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

So the deed restriction is done between private parties.

The city has no involvement in that.

Thank you.

I believe it's 35 and 45, but let me double.

Yes, height max 35 in R2U, max height in R3 is 45.

Now do consider the uses, the comparison you're looking at are by right uses.

Correct.

Correct.

The biggest difference is the density, the educational facilities, and then there is what's called health clinic, which is allowed in R3 by right, not allowed in R2.

And I find the

Any more questions for staff?

Any more questions for staff?

Good evening.

I'm Charlie Armstrong with Southern Development.

We are the applicant on this as well as the next one you will speak to us about.

I'll give you a little history on this.

I'm looking forward to some interesting discussion because the way we're presenting this application is very different than the way we're presenting the other one we're going to talk about tonight.

A while back, a couple years ago, we bought three lots on Stadium Road.

They had been subdivided off of this property and were offered and we purchased them.

A short while later two more lots, these were fronting on Maury, were offered and we bought those.

And then not too long after that, the Manor House itself, which sits on an individual lot, was also offered for sale and we bought that as well.

When we bought those first three lots, we thought that that was probably all we were looking at, and we had planned for those to do what would be a buy-write development in the R2U zone, which is essentially duplexes, so six duplexes on three lots.

When we bought two more lots, which were not entirely contiguous with the other three, one of them was separated by the Manor House parcel,

We were looking at doing four more duplexes, so a total of ten there.

And then when we bought the Manor House, we still had that plan of buy-write duplex development until we took a step back and said, wait, we don't think this is the right thing for this parcel.

20, 30, 50 years from now are we going to look at these duplexes we build here and think that was the wrong thing to do for this parcel for the city and for us.

So that's what led us to where we are now.

The reason we are suggesting this rezone without a plan just as a straight R2U to our

III, zoning, is in order to get to the point where we have a plan that we know we could show you that would actually work, it takes ballpark $100,000 of conceptual architecture.

Unless we know the city supports the general idea of increased density here under an existing zoning designation that's already used in the city, that's not something that we're willing to put at risk.

It seems a little foolish.

So the context for this property has R3 zoned land and apartments across Maury Avenue from it.

It has university dorms across Stadium Road from it and diagonally across the intersection it has Scott Stadium itself.

Behind it is R2U zoned property that's bordered by a couple of other neighborhood streets.

Of those parcels that are in that entire square block,

According to the addresses where mail goes to those partials, only two of them are owner occupied.

The other 20 or so have already been converted to student rentals.

So we're looking at student housing most likely on this property no matter what, whether it's duplexes or R3 zoned.

R3 zoning would allow by the acreage calculation up to 33 units by right, so compare that to

10 to 12 that we're talking about in the R2U.

The staff report indicates that if we rearranged lot lines in the R2U zone, we could get more duplex units.

We haven't taken the time to look at that yet, but it is possible to change lot lines, make parcels a little narrower, do a little bit smaller product, and get more duplex units in R2 than just the 10 or 12 we're looking at.

The house is important.

It's a Eugene Bradbury house, not too dissimilar in history from the Beta House, which was torn down across the street from the Jefferson Scholars Building.

a deed restriction on it that is permanent.

It was placed there by the family who lived there two owners ago and the ladies grew up there and felt it was important to preserve it.

That deed restriction cannot be changed by us or you or anybody.

It says the historic manor house building located on the conveyed property shall in perpetuity, excluding natural disasters, fires, or other unforeseen calamities be maintained in good repair.

We've already started taking action to maintain that house better than it has been.

It needs some work.

And the previous owner, to their credit, took some action recently to do that as well.

So R3 is really a low-rise multifamily designation.

Characterizing it as high density I think is not how I would describe it.

I would describe it as mid density with the height limits and the density limits unless you go to SUP, which we do not intend to do.

We don't think the site could sustain higher density than just what the zoning has by right in R3.

We looked hard at the comp plan.

The current comp plan from 13 shows this as low density residential as it does a lot of the city.

The two iterations that I've seen come out of this body that are not approved and only exist in draft or concept and as I'm hearing may take many more months to get to a new draft all show this property with higher intensity.

One of them showed it with very high intensity.

So the COP plan is more than just a land use chapter, it's a lot more than a land use chapter, and that's why staff arrived at the conclusion that this would likely further a lot of the objectives of the current COP plan, saying nothing of where we want the COP plan to go in the future.

Keeping students from overtaking existing neighborhoods, particularly places like Fry's Spring or Venable, is critical.

University is hopefully taking steps in that direction and things like this which are perfect for student housing can help that as well.

As I mentioned, the surrounding block has already largely been converted.

Being able to take some of that pressure off of the residential neighborhoods, the owner occupied residential neighborhoods where we need affordable housing is pretty important and every unit we can put close to the university for something like this can do that.

So, you know, government moves slowly, as Miss Seville said earlier, and we've decided we can't wait to see what comes out of a comprehensive plan.

New draft, which as you all know more than I do, has been working for a very long time and will probably take some more time to do right and thoroughly.

We need to do something with this sooner.

And so, you know, I think if we're serious about adding housing in places that should support it in the right locations, this is the right location.

That one was first in your dorms, so I don't know if I'll count it.

Right, and some of that's recently been cleared along Maury to add a driveway directly into the Manor House property.

Gotcha.

So the Matterhouse isn't, at least wasn't visible at all from the street, right?

Because of that?

Right.

It's more visible now, but it wasn't at all for decades.

I would think so.

I mean, it's going to remain and it will be part of some larger development.

It would want to be a centerpiece.

In R3, if you do multifamily, there's requirement for some amenities.

That could be a place for that.

It could be a place for a couple of apartments if done right.

We haven't planned that.

We haven't done any architecture, so we don't know.

OK. And last question.

It never had crossed our minds.

NCC involves commercial and I don't know if the neighborhood here would support that.

Got a random commercial on the last one.

So I took advantage of your large driveway today and had a chance to walk around the house and peek in windows and I'm not sure if it's occupied but it didn't seem like it.

Okay, because I noticed it is in bad repair, almost demolition by neglect concern of mine.

Part of the porch roof on the back is off and it looks like a fire escape was ripped off the house and

Shingles lying on the ground, hips falling off the roof.

So I'm glad to know that Southern will be taking care of it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I guess that wasn't a question.

If there was a question, then there's no more.

I also used to live near here.

I lived in Lewis.

It was a great area.

It's a really good place for housing, actually.

You say that you're concerned that this area can't sustain an SEP or additional housing.

33 units in this property I think could be accommodated around the existing house in a sensible way.

To go denser than that I think would need to rearrange the existing building on the property to make it work right.

and also have access and things like that.

It's just in the very watercolor way we've looked at it so far, it just doesn't seem like that's something.

Now, if the architects come back and say, look at all this great stuff you can do, we might come back and see you, but I seriously doubt that.

Yeah, the way I read it is, no, there is an additional sentence that said, architecturally consistent additions or modifications to that manor house could be done.

We haven't gotten that far in how multifamily could be accommodated on there.

Yes, it could be.

It also could be amenity space for R3.

There's also an argument that

There shouldn't be a lot of architecture taken up by amenity space in a location like this with the Aquatic Fitness Center a quarter mile down the road.

But we just haven't gotten there.

Miss Dowell?

General comments, Bill?

You have general comments that you wanted to ask?

I mean it's not it is heavily you know this area is heavily used utilized by students and faculty and staff of the university I haven't had a chance to look into like the percentages of are the numbers of how many

Students or staff or faculty live over there, but I imagine it's pretty dense with UVA folks.

You know, it's an interesting site with the R3 across the street, but yet it is a neighborhood that seems to be trying to maintain some amount of its identity and so it's kind of a

It's a tricky site in a way.

I mean we do have the housing across the street that he mentioned.

Gooch Dillard housing which has recently been converted to first year housing.

It sits well off the road, off the intersection there so it's hard to look at that and say that is an equivalent to this.

Hearing the applicant speak it reminded me a little bit of the Oakhurst Inn site at the corner of JPA where they were able to maintain historic houses, house or houses there and add some density and it seems to be a

Nice sort of development there.

So it seems we're about ready for a motion.

Public hearing.

Oh, we haven't done that yet?

My goodness.

Everyone left.

Is there anyone who'd like to speak?

Is there anyone signed up?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

We are now gaveled into the public hearing.

Is there anyone who'd like to speak?

I see it both ways.

I see it as a possible transition site, but it's also a very sensitive site to me with the historic building on it and also with the neighborhood buildings around it.

I'm not completely against an upgrading of some kind to allow more dwelling units, but then again I want to know that it's going to be done sensitively to the resources that are here.

The reason is to make sure that a conceptual plan we present is something that can actually work and something we can stand behind is a process and a lot of architecture to get done and we have had a plan for development of this property which was our original plan before the whole thing was assembled and that's the duplexes that works and

from financially and from accomplishing some of the goals of the city is it does provide some housing.

So what I would say to that comment is we have a lot of places zoned R3 in the city already.

We know what the R3 ordinance is.

It allows a limited number of uses.

It has buffer restrictions to adjacent lower density residential.

It has setbacks established.

That all seems to work for what we would do in a higher density situation.

And it's a known quantity for the city.

It's a known quantity for zoning.

It's not inventing something new.

It's not proffering things out.

So just tell some numbers in here, because I love my data.

So the census publishes population by age for each block group.

So in this case, it goes from like Shamrock over here, then Maury's right up here, and then this is kind of down Fontaine.

So it's about 1,500 people in that block group entirely.

90% of them are under the age of 35.

So this does seem like an era that has kind of gone over the edge of its student area now.

And when we get complaints like we did last month from people from Fry's Spring who are worried about students encroaching into those historically non-student residential areas, building more housing near UVA is how you fix that, because the students would rather be closer.

In the texts of our existing comp plan,

I think it does support this in concept, even though the map doesn't.

Over in our transportation chapter, we have worked with the University of Virginia officials to encourage students, faculty, and staff to live closer to the university.

In our housing chapter, encourage housing development where increased density is desirable, strive to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes, and commercial services.

I agree not having any

substance to the plan makes it kind of difficult to decide but at the same time of all the areas in the city that I feel like need to you know have higher density even high density both by the principles that we've set forth in our comprehensive plan and you know in our general goals and seeing you know the problems that are happening in the city because we don't build enough housing this seems you know right up there on that list.

I'm just not sure how we're supposed to make a sound viable decision about something that we don't have sound viable information about to make that decision.

I too do feel that it being that close to the university if we're going to do density that this may be the area to do it, but I also feel like as planners we have to be able to plan accordingly and if we don't have information and materials to do such, how do you do that?

I have a question maybe for Missy.

I mean, and if they go with a buy-write development, it may not be something that needs to come to the commission.

Right.

So we may never see it again.

Not only that, I want affordable housing.

And I seriously doubt that any of those duplexes or whatever you're putting up is affordable.

I know every unit that's built can't be affordable, but at this point in time in the game, units that are being built need to be affordable.

I have a different perspective.

I think we are being asked to look at the standards of review.

And the one standard of review that I think this thing falls into is number two, and this

And it supports the general welfare of the entire community because it again allows us to concentrate the students in one part of the area.

And it allows us to address some of the worries that we've heard from the folks in Fry's Springs about students spilling over into that part of the community.

of the World.

So if I did support it, I'm not sure where I am yet, but if I did support it, it would be because of the general warfare piece of the standards of review, because I think that's all we can use, if I'm understanding correctly, Miss Creasy.

That's where we have to focus.

I mean, we can't look at what's going to be there.

It's like, does it make sense?

to make this modification based on the standards of review.

And as I read this, only standard of review number two on page 12 does this actually fit into, but it's still important.

I think the author of the application suggested that

If not there, then where else would you have this kind of density?

It does.

Yeah, it does.

Well, it doesn't comply with the current land use map.

And I'm not arguing with you, because I think Rory's onto something he would like to take a good hard look at this.

If we pass it, it may not ever come back.

Well the idea is that right now number one it's mixed on right because it confirms with the text but not with the map so if we're gonna make the change to the zoning map we should change the comp plan map to match what makes sense but I agree with Taneia I think in terms of number four you know we can see that there aren't gonna be any negative effects on like

you know transportation really because there's tons of buses and people will be walking but it will get us further away from the goals set by council to have 15% of our units be supported affordable housing and this is giving us at this rate no affordable units and a greater denominator of total units which means we're a lower percentage and so from that perspective

The effects of the proposed change could be negative for number four, but I agree.

Number one, I think it mostly conforms except for the map, which we should probably change.

And number two, general welfare helps.

And I would say under number four, the effect of the change on the property itself

Thank you for the extra time.

The affordable housing question is a very important one in everything we're doing.

The buy rate use of duplexes, there's definitely no affordable housing.

They're larger housing units.

They're not apartments.

attached houses.

So they will be among the less affordable kinds of housing that we would have if it's developed as it's designed and intended per the zoning to be developed today.

We can go pull those building permits.

We designed the product before we put all this together.

We had three lots.

We decided what product we were going to put on those.

and we've taken a step back to hopefully do something different but that's the least affordable housing we could get to get more units in a multifamily style which probably would in R3 be above the one FAR that triggers the city's automatic affordable housing ordinance.

gives lower cost units in an apartment setting, gives students a place to live close to the university which hopefully pulls them out of neighborhoods where they have made housing less affordable and probably triggers the affordable housing ordinance that the city already has that's automatic.

But I'm supposed to make a decision on the current map, not on what if I could remap, because we're still on hold on trying to remap the comp plan of the city.

My other heartburn that I have with this project is, because it is close to the university, we can't ensure that students are moving into these units.

We don't have a plan.

I don't think we're totally opposed to the density.

I think we're opposed to the unknown of the plan.

and definitely knowing that duplexes do not provide affordable, just can't bring about affordable units.

I just have a hard time approving this project.

And I'm also curious as a developer, do you think that in order for people who want affordable units only want to live in small apartments?

Is that, to me, that's unfair.

I should be able to have an affordable unit to fit my family size, not only because, oh, we're going to just stick you over here in a matchbox.

So using that as your leverage is definitely not a compelling argument for me.

I'd like to grasp a moment, if I may.

Something our zoning does a lot, and it does it here, is offer very different building types with very different heights across the street from each other.

And it makes me absolutely nuts.

It makes no visual sense.

It makes no practical sense.

It's just terrible practice.

But that's what we have.

Facing R3 doesn't bother me.

R2 facing R3 does bother me.

Those are very different looks of buildings.

I don't understand it.

I don't see why it was done.

R3 is across the street.

So you would support it?

So just so I can get a sense of where we are, because Gary just suggests what are our options.

Can I just poll the board?

Jody, how are you feeling about this?

Is this a yea or a nay for the application?

Nay.

I just want a poll.

I, too, would appreciate seeing something.

But based on what we know now, I think it makes sense.

Do you think it's reasonable?

Gary?

Tonight's about trust.

I'd probably have to say aye.

I just hate that our current zoning is so broken that developers can, like, use buy-write development as a threat to get us to do things because the, like, default state is so terrible for all of us.

Yep.

Mm-hmm.

The applicant can defer the like.

I'm getting a sense that the board is predisposed to

Yeah, well, I'd like to make an amendment to the comprehensive plan map if we're going to support this so that the comp plan, which should, by all rights, from the intent of it in 2013, should call for high density in this area.

So to answer your question, it's up or down or the applicant defers?

So let's see.

So in theory if you wanted to defer to your next meeting or another meeting and if you were all to if Rory were to ask for the agenda to be amended and you all agreed to initiate consideration of a comp plan amendment

Yes.

I'm not, no.

Especially when we're talking about amending our comp plan, where I think it sounds good.

In theory, I think in practicality, knowing that we are already working on amending the comp plan, that's that piecemeal stuff that we've been doing.

Yes and no, but you want me to do extra work on something that I don't have any clue or idea because I don't have a plan in front of me on what I'm doing extra work for.

So my thing is, we can defer it, but if we're not coming with a proposal or something that we can examine, and I can say, Jody, is this right?

It's going to happen.

I think we're at the point where we need a motion to move one way or the other.

Yeah.

I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from R2U to R3 on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice.

Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Dowell?

No.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Sure.