Planning Commission Meeting   7/9/2019

I want to call this meeting Planning Commission for July 9th in session and

Begin this meeting with commissioners' reports.

Yes, I'm still cleaning up.

So, over the last, since the last time we met, I have met with the Board of Architectural Review on June, I'm sorry, on June 18th.

We had seven certificate of appropriateness applications, five of which were approved, two were deferred.

The thing, though, I would like to bring to the planning commissions

Attention is an application we have for a special use permit.

This is for 612 West Main Street, which is the location of University Tire, and it came to the BAR for

for a designation of any adverse effect for increasing the density.

And that's what the special use permit is for.

It's going to be coming to the Planning Commission.

The density increase is from the allowed 43.

The UI is to 120.

And the BAR was asked to review it.

for City Council in terms of the criteria underneath the design guidelines for the BAR.

And under those guidelines, the BAR found no adverse effect but did have the following conditions attached to the approval.

That the garage entry would not be accessed directly from the building street wall along West Main Street.

that the building's mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site as well as the West Main Street context using a building modulation that the Holsinger Building, which is next door to the West, be seismically monitored during construction

that there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active transparent and permeable facade at street level and that the building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side.

The Housing Advisory Committee met on June 19th, a full group.

The rental assistance program is going to be expanded about 50% this year.

It's been successful.

The grant is written.

It should be going live soon.

Work is currently underway to create a new program to incent rental homeowners to invest in energy efficiency upgrades.

Let's see, we had a police committee meeting last month.

We discussed the Preston Grady intersection in advance of the SmartScale applications and a whole bunch of different options for that, including lights, roundabouts, oblong roundabouts, all sorts of stuff.

A couple days later, it turns out SmartScale is doing the Cherry Avenue intersection instead.

So I guess those plans will be pushed off for a while.

We also discussed the allowing duplexes and fourplexes in R1, as we've been talking about in the comp plan, and I expect that place will produce a memo on that subject over the next couple months.

Also, I went tubing on the Rivanna on July 4th the first time, and on July 5th it was announced that there was currently a bacterial flare-up in the river.

It's one of our impaired waterways, so stay clear of the Rivanna.

What about you?

Since I was not here at the last meeting on vacation, I did attend the TJPDC meeting in June.

And we had elections, so we have a new chair of that meeting.

And I cannot remember the guy's name.

I was trying to look it up.

He's from Greene County.

And then we had other discussions about the new

regional housing study that is taking place.

They did not have a meeting on July 4th for obvious reasons.

And the next meeting for that is scheduled on August 1st at 7 p.m. at the Water Street Center, if you are always so inclined to go.

Let you guys know that we do have a work session scheduled for the 23rd of July and that is the presentation of the Fontaine Avenue streetscape.

They're currently in the process of going around to different boards and commissions.

I believe they're presenting tonight to the tree commission so that the Consultants will be here and will be providing

the information on that.

And from a staff perspective, we're starting to get things geared up for phase two of the Rivanna River Project.

We weren't talking bacteria, but we are in some of the early phases prior to the steering committee getting back together again.

So that is that is still

still coming forward.

At this time, I will open this up to matters to be presented by the public, not on the formal agenda.

We only have one public hearing for this evening.

Anything else that is on the consent agenda or the

Regular agenda, which would be the David Terrace subdivision or the Fry Springs ZTA initiation.

Now is your time to speak on any of these matters other than the comp plan amendment, which is our only public hearing.

So, I'll open that.

Matters to be presented by the public.

And we have no one signed up, so I'll open it up at this time.

If you'd like to speak on any of those items, please come, state your name.

I'll give you three whole minutes.

There's flashing lights.

It's a lot of fun.

Seeing that there is no one who wants to speak by matters by the public, then we will close that and return to the agenda.

And we have five different items on our consent agenda.

Motion and a second.

I have a motion and a second.

So we will vote on this by voice acclamation.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

So the consent agenda passes unanimously.

Have a nice day, Mr. Patel.

And that would include your ZTA.

Okay, fantastic.

We have 15 minutes before the public hearing.

I like to put him about 11 p.m.

I feel like he's at his best.

Do you want to go through a regular item?

That's fine.

Chair, Commission, tonight you're going to be reviewing a major subdivision, which is 105 David Terrace.

This is a major subdivision due to the fact that it is extending public utilities.

The sewer line needs to be extended to make the major subdivision.

Staff has reviewed the major subdivision and finds it to be in compliance with all subdivision and zoning codes with one outstanding question.

which is section 29.161c.

No lot shall contain particular shapes, elongated designs solely to provide the required square footage of an area or frontage on a street.

The commission tonight needs to look at that code section and determine if this subdivision before you is in conformance with that code section.

There are

There's four lots on this site and the one in question is lot four with its design if it is in conformance with that section or not.

And with that I'll let you all deliberate on it.

There's not a lot of support from staff because staff is conflicted.

There's no

Consensus, thank you.

Consensus is better than conflicted.

You had lively debates.

That's kind of been one of the question is if how would you ever subdivide this without creating that particular, a particularly odd shaped lot.

There's a choke point between, you know, lots that are not owned.

What is that tax map 2262 and tax map 2246.25 that in any configuration you're still going to have that choke point.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can give you an answer.

That's kind of why we're here.

The only other thing would be for one of the adjacent property owners to purchase that piece and then include it into their lot.

Can I ask a question of your question?

It would also depend on what's built on that property.

If there's already a home there, you couldn't build a second structure behind it unless it was an accessory dwelling unit.

So if there's a home on, let's say, 2246.25, you would have to demolish the home because you couldn't have two structures.

The word design strikes me.

My sense just looking at this is that this parcel is residual of previous developments.

This was not a design.

This was not intended to be.

this shape.

I can't imagine anyone intending this shape.

Is my sense correct?

I mean, I do think it was residual.

This is where dry cleaners used to be on this.

On the back part?

Not the back part.

So that was my question.

As a building lot, there's no structure on there currently.

Correct.

These are vacant.

It wasn't located in that back corner near the railroad tracks.

It was closer to the road.

So now there are no structures on the property anywhere.

In terms of water and sewer, hookup for building lots?

Is lot four do a hookup?

Correct.

There's actually no that's one of the things there's no

There's no sewer, and so one of the criteria for a major subdivision is, regardless of the number of lots, is if you have to extend public utilities, which is going to be extending sewer down David Terrace.

There's a main here.

There's a main down here.

So if someone decided not to develop and just build one duplex on this, they could run a lateral, even though it would be a long lateral.

Under the street.

Correct.

There's no problem with their design for running the main.

The other thing I would also consider is one of the city's main water lines runs through here.

If you look on the plat, you'll see the easement.

Currently there's no easement.

on here.

It doesn't reach that 17 foot point.

So I have a quick question on that as well.

I see part of that easement on Mr. Franco's property.

Has that been established that that is doable?

So we're not going to be hearing or seeing or talking about some kind of pump station.

So we've got that like 3-4-896 access ordinance that requires access to things, right?

Oh, that's true.

Well, but there's other sections that apply to any, but like, I guess my question is, because it says solely to provide the required square footage of area or frontage,

So if you look at this code section, again, this is a way we'll get into your internal debate.

I think a lot of it was your typical flag lot.

Build a duplex.

One.

One duplex.

So we'd still be creating a peculiar elongation.

That would be my argument.

If you looked at this lot and you looked at this code, you couldn't say this was created to get around this.

This just happened to be created.

It over-meets, you know, it's way above the required square footage.

And again, I'm talking if you just wanted to build a complex, this lot has more than enough square footage, more than enough street frontage.

Correct.

It was already asked.

Mr. Mitchell?

No.

No?

Sure.

I had one quick question, though.

And not that it's, like, the major bearing, but it was in the report, so I just wanted for feedback on that.

And I can't give you a lot of clarification on that.

I think utilities would have better.

I can speculate, but I don't want to speculate.

I just would rather leave the comment as what they said during the meeting.

But I don't think it's been an ongoing issue.

Let's hear from the applicant.

Thank you.

Justin Schimpf, engineer for this project.

Just one or two quick comments.

One thing to note is that the triangle shape right in the back of lot four, that's a normal shape and that has like 16,000 square feet.

So we're not using the elongation to get the area.

I think we run into trouble or we run afoul of the ordinance in the situation is if I took lot four,

Let's say I wanted to sell a portion to a neighbor via bound along adjustment, and then I only had 7,200 square feet, including the elongation and my sort of square locked.

Then I think I would be crossing that line.

But as it is, the sort of elongation is there if you're really already there.

And anything you do is going to create kind of a funny lot, whether it be one lot, two lot, seven lots, whatever it may be.

But as far as the area, we're not really circumventing the area requirements of the ordinance with this division.

We have it, and we just have this little pinch point, and we can't do anything about it.

So that's kind of what led us to this design.

It would seem to be the frontage requirement that you're tripping here, not the area, right?

Well, the frontage, you have to have the frontage, which it has frontage now.

So the elongation has to essentially stay.

I could clean this up by just chopping it off at that little weird pinch point and having that back lot by itself.

But then it wouldn't have frontage.

So now you make it nonconforming as to that.

So I think it's kind of like it's got a nonconforming elongation now.

I really don't have an answer for that.

It goes way back and I know that the dry cleaner and the lots around were owned by members of the same family for a long time.

So I suspect it was something before the subdivision ordinance even existed where somebody said, oh, I'm going to cut off this piece from my house and cut off that piece for your house.

And it wasn't a rule to prohibit this sort of shape.

Not that I'm aware of.

I've walked back there.

There's some old fences.

There's a path back there, a road that goes past the house at 2262.

Many years ago this wasn't that uncommon.

It goes back far enough.

It wasn't necessarily a given 50 or 180 years ago that you would park in your garage.

You might walk a path back into the woods to your house and that was just sort of what you did.

That may have broken the logic back then.

Any more questions for the applicant?

or a motion.

I will make a motion.

We have a second.

I'm just curious because I am I mean I don't otherwise I don't see any reason not to approve it what would be the averse of the averse effects of what would be the I guess I I guess I should ask staff what would what are your concerns of if we do approve it like what had you so conflicting that you couldn't do this yourself

No, it's just staff and its internal discussions didn't come to consensus and we didn't want to be on consensus because we're making decisions as we move forward and reviewing and approving major subdivisions is up to the Planning Commission so we thought since we didn't have consensus we could bring this forward.

There was not a

Knockdown, drag out, this would be an issue or not.

We have a motion and a second.

Any more discussion?

Ms. Dowell?

Aye.

Mr. Heaton.

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

And Ms. Green.

Aye.

This means some other planners have to buy me lunch.

Okay, let's go back in our agenda.

It is past six, so we met our obligation, advertising obligation, and we will now begin

our public hearing.

Tonight we do not have a council quorum so we will hear this this comprehensive plan amendment now and then it's my understanding that another public hearing will be held when this goes to the council.

So tonight we are hearing CP-19.

0001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment-Future Land Use Map Amendment.

The Planning Commission and City Council will jointly conduct a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plans Future Land Use Map.

The Future Land Use Map is provided for the purpose of guiding a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the territory within the city limits in accordance with the present and

probable future needs and resources.

The purpose of this request is to evaluate approximately 1.6 acres of land identified within city tax records as tax map and parcel TMP 17-18, 17-18.1, 17-18.2,

17-184, 17-185, and Tax Map 17-186 collectively known as the subject property and which is the subject of this rezoning application.

ZM19-0002, which was heard at our last Planning Commission meeting.

This is seeking to increase the intensity of uses as well as allowable density of residential uses.

The subject properties have frontage on Maury Avenue and Stadium Road.

The comprehensive plan land use map for this area currently calls for low-density residential of 15 dwelling units per acre.

The proposed ZM 19-0002 seeks to reclassify the subject properties to the R

The comprehensive plan amendment is being evaluated by staff to see if it is appropriate to change the future land use map designation to high density residential.

over 15 dwelling units per acre based on existing patterns of development, probable patterns of development and other factors.

Madam Chair, commission.

Matt Affley, City Planner, Neighbor Development Services.

As the Chair said tonight, you are holding a public hearing on amending the comp plan land use map from low density residential to high density residential.

This was a component of a rezoning request that this commission recommended approval on their June 11, 2019 meeting, the July 1, 2019 meeting.

City Council meeting, they heard the rezoning and held their own public hearing.

At that meeting, City Council was inclined not to pass the rezoning recommendation.

That has moved to the August 5th agenda, most likely, but a final decision has not been made.

But their discussion on the dais made it sound like they were not in favor of rezoning the subject parcels.

The comp plan component as mentioned earlier currently is low density residential which is a certain type of housing which is single family and two family type dwellings under 15 dwelling units per acre.

Our definition of high density residential in the comp plan is a certain housing type which is

townhomes, small apartments, and a density over 15 dwelling units per acre.

One other piece of information as you're doing your deliberation tonight to consider is the two roads, Maury Avenue and Stadium Road, under the Streets at Work plan, are actually considered roads that should be accessed to higher density.

So that is one additional piece of information to look at when you're doing your deliberations.

Large scale, is there a public benefit to keeping housing away from this area?

Do you mean higher density housing?

So the subject property is located near Grounds.

It is in a typically single-family and two-family neighborhood.

The majority of the homes in the area have switched to rentals, but there still are some owner-occupied

Lots, you're kind of at an intersection of student housing to the northwest, student housing directly to the east, institutional, I'm not sure how you would really describe Jefferson Scholars, directly to the southeast, and then you are going down into

Lower density, even though it's rentals, it's still lower density as you go to the west.

This came up in a different rezoning application, but we don't really have a good transition

from something like an R3 down to an R1.

There is a little bit of balance on that because you do have some height and setback restrictions because the setbacks and height are based on density.

Did council have that in their discussion?

So their concern at their discussion didn't really get into the land use or the land use map.

It got into the request for rezoning that there was really nothing to review as far as a plan.

I think that made them a little uncomfortable.

from their discussion it wasn't that they were necessarily opposed to higher density in this location but they had a hard time visualizing what that would look like.

And I think commission if you all look back at your staff report from the 11th there's not a

Is there any more discussion, or I'm sorry, questions from staff?

Okay, right.

I'm good, I'm good.

I am going to open the public hearing at this time then.

And so, do we have anyone signed up?

Okay, this public hearing is for application for the comprehensive plan map update.

My name is William Atwood.

I'm an architect in town.

I've been associated with this particular project ever since.

The Jefferson Scholars Foundation tore down the sister house.

It was hired probably the next day by the wards back there.

Jennifer was raised in this house as was her sister, Ginger, who notified me about a strategy to protect the house.

We've been at it for five years and we have a couple of things that become apparent.

One is the neighborhood itself is a small-scale architectural endeavor.

It's almost like a

Horizontal apartment building in Brooklyn.

I mean it is very intense, very small, but it actually has a very, almost like the Minnesota model of number of units per acre.

It is that intense.

We start out with, of course, housing on Price Street.

We built three.

They sold instantly.

Across the street from Price, if you studied the area, you see that there are two white windowless elements built and were approved.

They're in the neighborhood, so it's transitioning not to high-rise, but to

kind of these white sardine cans with no windows full of students.

So there's a lot of pressure on it.

I mean, fortunately for us, I think the neighborhood's extremely stable.

Edward Laramie Barnes, who built, designed, famous architect of New York came, did Hereford.

Jennifer played in the park across Price, across, excuse me, Stadium.

There was a park there.

He moved his college way up the hill.

That park is still there, and that park is going to be there.

Across the street, you've got an apartment complex that's so organic, I think it actually is growing and heart beating.

It is very old.

I think it's probably 60 years old.

So you really have, from that side, a super stable environment.

You have a lot of graduate students.

You make a lot of money.

Then you have a non-conforming use.

which is not, I think, a star for why you would do this.

Then across the other is you have all of the housing across price.

Really, really not much has changed.

We've encouraged the commission to do a couple of things.

Consider transitional zoning.

This goes from R2 to R33.

This is not R3.

This actually is like taking a walk to the Omni for R2 and a walk to Chicago for R3.

It looks deceptive, but we had mostly apartment people come.

Everybody that came up for us, including Jefferson Scholars, made a proposal prior to just blank asking for the R3, and they all fell short.

It is a beautiful forested lawn, as is the whole neighborhood.

If you let something jump, that bomb gets across on that island, I think it's going to spread.

It's been fine.

It's stable.

It works.

We switched from housing to duplexes to increase the density, sold it to Charlie, and one night he had a bright moment and decided he wanted more units.

He hasn't designated a number.

That's, I think, the big rub.

We don't know how much.

Can't say 33 in the hallway.

I love him.

I want him to succeed.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to the comp plan amendment?

Please come up.

Hi, my name is Virginia Luna and my husband and I are neighbors of this zone and we saw the signs so really we wanted to try to understand more what was going on but I don't know if I'm quite clear but our hope is that it can be

kept as a zoning where there are more people invested in the neighborhood and the community.

I know a lot of our students, especially undergrads, live around there.

And mainly we've seen that they're there just in the semester they leave.

They don't really have that much investment in the neighborhood, in the community itself.

And as far as noise or trash,

Hi, my name is Cliff Fox.

Given the course of the comp plan to date, land use map, et cetera, I have no idea why the rush here.

You would think that and I

I'm a proponent, a strong proponent of higher density, better planning, better sustainable development of green space into our neighborhoods.

This seems to have been ripped out of the common

and placed into a special situation just like the Fry Springs issues that y'all are going to hear.

And I think that's not ordinary and it's not the best approach.

I think a more holistic approach for this whole area where you're going to have some idea of where green space is going to be, where your BMPs or area BMPs are going to be enhanced is a better format for looking at this, especially, and I don't know the exact land area, but if this is

seven-eighths of an acre and you can go to 87 units to the acre by special use permit, then you're looking at a pretty big building.

While it's good to utilize as much of the space as efficiently as we can, I think it's important that we keep the master plan process in context and not rip little pieces here or there out of context because then you, actually it's providing a privileged situation.

that never that everyone else doesn't have the opportunity to.

Thank you, sir.

This is not for the zoning.

This is about the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.

The rezoning has already gone from here to the Council.

Can you get with staff?

My name is Jennifer Ward.

I grew up on this property.

This is a stable neighborhood.

I know you're talking about comp plan change, land use change.

This area is stable.

It seems to me it would be a big mistake to make the jump right there to go to R3 zoning or to denser land use if it's a land use map.

It's a good stable neighborhood, and I think it would be a bad mistake to change.

There's one thing in the, I noticed the notes from the June 11th meeting.

There was something about how the back part of the house looked as if a fire escape had been torn off and shingles were on the ground.

That really doesn't make sense at all.

At one point, the garage was demolished.

There was a garage on the house, so maybe somebody saw that in process.

The house has been in good repair, lived in all along.

So it's always been in good repair always.

So I just sort of want to say that.

Thank you so much.

Sir, can I get you to just hold down the conversation so we can make sure we're hearing the speaker at the podium?

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Christopher Luna.

I'm also a resident at the Fry Springs neighborhood right next to Maury Avenue and Stadium Road.

I'm a researcher on sound, and I would just like to bring up the topic that I think is very overlooked, and there are many research

papers that are telling about the effects of noise pollution in the environment, in the people that live in the communities, and it's totally relevant to this zoning discussion we have on the table.

For instance, NYU's Steinhardt School of Music, they're very heavily invested on noise pollution research and how that affects

Samples of society that is subject to these practices.

Also, a lot of Nordic countries have been doing this study.

And I myself, and so has my wife, and several friends that we have in Fry Springs neighborhood that have experienced the impact of these practices, like Jefferson Scholars Foundation, for example, a lot of

Keeping up with leaf blowers, with gardening, all these machines that are happening, rezoning will have an impact in that sense too.

So I would just love for you to consider sound pollution for these matters.

Thank you.

Justin Shamp, I don't have necessarily an opinion on this slot since you guys looked at it last time and thought in favor of it, but as comp plan process goes, I will say as someone who watches it, I know you guys spend a lot of time working very hard on amendments.

As these things do drag out, it does have an impact on people.

The people aren't here who are impacted, but those trying to find housing in the community every day that goes by and there's not a house built is a little harder for them.

Rents are outrageous.

I see old houses being bought up and converted into high-rent investment properties.

result of not having projects like high-density student housing in this corridor.

And I get that it's tough, it's a transition, but at some point in time, you've got to think of the people who, more broadly or around, who are adversely impacted by not making these changes.

And I know you guys know that.

You talk about that.

But I just wanted to get that out on the record.

It's just something that, regardless of the project, regardless of the city of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Kent, wherever I work, I see that sort of trickle-down effect.

We have a lot of inequality problems in this world and this country and I think one of them is the preservation of housing in certain areas has kept other people out of those areas of opportunity and that's something that you get away and you look at these holistic sort of things so I put that out there for your consideration.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for this comprehensive plan land

use map update.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open this for discussion.

Now I want to remind us that we are not talking about the rezoning that is in front of council.

We are talking about the comprehensive plan land use map that we are looking at.

There are suggested motions, page four and five.

and we are discussing changing from low density to I guess higher density.

Now low density is not just R1 but R2, R2U, am I correct?

So the rezoning of that property to R3 is something completely different.

I have a question for Mr.

Awful.

Just missed you.

So we talked a lot about the House last time, and we have some people who know about the House here today.

Can you clarify the city's position on the House?

So your last meeting, the Eugene Bradbury House did come up.

We have, in the city, we have what are called IPPs, which are Individually Protected Properties.

This is not one of those.

There is a deed restriction on it that requires the House to stay and be kept in good repair.

That is a civil matter and is not something that a municipality would step in.

That's kind of the difference between a deed restriction and an IPP.

The city would step in.

Thank you.

And I'm a little confused.

We're going is currently zoned R2U, is that correct?

That is correct.

Yeah, it's zoned R2U, which does match the land use map for the definition of low density residential.

If city council were to rezone it,

And R3 takes it to... R3, it would match high density residential as defined in our city's comprehensive land use map.

So they are the decision makers so they would hear working with the legal department to make sure that this gets heard at the same time they make a decision.

So we're making the recommendation to council?

Just to be clear, for the purpose that when they do hear it, they're hearing both.

Correct.

Well, I didn't vote on this.

I know you weren't.

Anyone else?

Discussion or motion?

We voted against the zoning.

This is the map.

But they kind of voted against it.

But the reason you voted against the zoning is because you didn't know exactly what they were going to build.

And that's actually the reason council didn't want to move forward with this as well, because they were not comfortable with what we're going to do.

But I don't think that there is a better place in that general area to zone up than that.

I mean, it's right there at UVA, right there adjacent to the dorms, right there at Scott Stadium.

And I think I made this comment earlier in the pre-meeting just for full disclosure is that I would prefer that we stop doing this peace building.

If we're going to do our land use map and update it, let's do it all at one time.

So that's the other reason I have a hard time.

accepting this.

Yes, I do think if we're going to have, if we want to condense student housing so that, oh, he just left, so that we can open up other opportunities for people to have affordable housing in the city, then yes, this could be, it has the potential to be a good location, but with so many unknowns and then having the adverse effects on the neighborhood because it's already a lot of traffic and density as far as people are concerned there, I just still have some reservation about that.

I'd like to make a motion.

I move to recommend approval to amend the 2013 comprehensive general land use map for the subject property from low density residential to high density residential.

So we have a motion and a second.

Do we have any further discussion?

Yeah, I'm torn on this.

I mean, at the same time, I agree with Tania completely.

We shouldn't be doing this piecemeal.

We shouldn't be doing this out of context and we should be doing it with our entire comprehensive plan.

I'm also frustrated that the comprehensive plan has not gotten as far as it has and I'm frankly not very optimistic that it's going to get done anytime soon.

So I'm leaning in favor of approving this because of its context here.

contiguous to higher density residential.

I just wanted to mention two bits of 2013 comp plan text that we had discussed last time, just because Lisa wasn't here.

But it does call for us to have more density near UVA.

I think the first expert I mentioned in the transportation chapter is 5.2, work with University of Virginia officials to encourage students, faculty, and staff to live closer to the university or to use alternate modes of transportation wherever they live.

and then the other one is I think in the housing chapter.

It's 8.3, encourage housing development where increased density is desirable and try to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes and commercial services.

I think this area has all of those.

I think we all agree that this is the area where we want to see density, it's just the

that we are doing it piecemeal.

And I think I definitely agree with Tania that we should be doing this comprehensively.

I think where I differ is that we shouldn't be doing it piecemeal, because at this rate, two and a half years now into the comp plan update, probably a couple of years out from it happening, it's just going to be so much time of nothing changing.

And I think one thing I really wanted to note is we've talked about this neighborhood being stable.

in its 90% plus student or under 35 state according to the census.

But we hear from Fry's Spring all the time about how their neighborhood is not stable and how the student pressure is spreading farther and farther into Fry's Spring and taking up traditionally non-student housing and having negative repercussions for the neighbors there.

So if we want to avoid that, UVA's enrollment is set.

Mr. Mitchell.

I will not be supporting this.

I don't think this is the best approach to planning.

I feel like we do too much little spot planning throughout the city, and I think that's part of the biggest problem that we have in our comprehensive plan today.

I did watch the June 11th, for the most part, meeting, and it was interesting to me how we like to pick apart the zoning ordinance like we do the Bible and pick out the parts that we like that will peruse to us, which we think is going to make that the best.

In our comprehensive plan, we have talked about zoning, absolutely.

But a large part of that comprehensive plan has been talked about transition areas.

And that is not being approached or looked at at all in this area.

So while we think we're moving forward, this takes us about two or three steps behind because we're not doing what we really talk about wanting to do in providing the transition zones.

So that is my statement on why I will not be supporting this.

Please call roll.

Sure.

Mr. Solla-Yates.

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

And Ms. Green.

Okay, that's our public hearing.

We have moved along.

We have one final item on our agenda this evening that is not a public hearing.

It's just a regular item on our agenda.

Since we

was able to get through the subdivision at David Terrace.

The ZTA initiation R1 to R2 and portions of Fry's Springs is up.

Alright, Matt Alfley, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

The commission tonight, you have a zoning text amendment initiation.

So just an initiation.

There's no decision being made tonight on up zoning from certain properties in the Fry's Spring area from R1S to R2.

Within your packet, there is a map of the proposed properties.

They are broken down into five areas.

As part of your discussion, you'll kind of want to talk about these areas if they're appropriate in your scope of what you were anticipating.

Any changes?

Staff would like to get some direction on your initiation.

One of the reasons is a regular item and not a consent agenda item.

You'll notice too that staff has not done a full analysis, and we would not do that until this becomes something we're acting on, but there is a little bit of information on each area that the Planning Commission might want to consider as they're looking at this.

And just for an example, some of the parcels that were being proposed are, even though they are vacant,

There are building permits pulled for.

Those are the ones on Naylor Street.

So even though they're vacant building permits, permits have been pulled for single family homes, most likely single family homes that take up a large portion of the lot.

And the same for the Porter Avenue, Woodlawn, Woodland subdivision area.

There's two lots in there.

One of them, I believe,

No, that one, there's not been building permits.

They're still waiting on the road extension to be finalized and approved.

But once that happens, the same builder who's building in Naylor is also building there and I anticipate would be building permits.

One of the other areas mentioned is the area that's currently under consideration for a rezoning to PUD, which is the Flint Hill area.

That was at City Council at their July 1st meeting.

That received the reception.

That will be on the August 5th for a decision.

It will be a regular item at City Council.

There wasn't a lot of support from City Council, but there was an opening for the applicant to amend his proffer statement to allow additional affordable units or maybe for a longer period of time.

There also was some design concerns.

I don't anticipate the applicant to actually make any changes to the design, but I do anticipate him to make changes to his proffer statement to see if he can garner more support.

The other area is the Old Azalea Cottage area, which are non-conforming lots that staff has concerns about them being large enough for single-family homes.

Staff would have a lot of concerns about them being duplexes.

That was the same one y'all heard about the pump station for.

And then the last group is one single lot that actually has dual zoning.

It's a large lot that's at the end of Stribling.

that the front end is already zoned R2, but the back end is zoned R1S, and it's actually a fairly large parcel.

I have a question about the Azalea Cottage area.

Those lot lines could be moved, could they not?

It's just something for Planning Commission to consider there.

I think you all have a lot of fresh information on that parcel or parcels just because of recent

to develop proposed development.

So yes, you could always you could always move the lot lines as you saw that the applicant brought forward.

They're going to be any applicant is going to be leery to move the lot lines a lot, because once you give up that nonconformity, it's gone.

And that's why you saw the that applicant wasn't bringing those lots up to current 6000 square foot standards.

They were doing it just large enough to fit

Between Monte Vista and Azalea, is that an alley in the number two area?

So that is a platted alley, platted street back to again where the pump station, the proposed development for that was to switch

the location of the alley and the street.

Right now you have some lots that front on an alley.

They were going to reconfigure, again, move around lot lines to get everything on a city maintained street and then kind of move the alley where the street is.

I do know that we do need more density, we do need more housing, but I'm going to stand firm on this again that I feel like this is spot.

We should be doing this comprehensively.

We should not just be looking at one neighborhood and picking three or four lots and saying, hey, let's change these.

We should be looking at it citywide.

Once again, I just said we have somebody that we're hiring to look at things like this.

So for me, I'm not saying that it's not a good idea.

Yeah, I think that's a good point that we should do it comprehensively again.

In this case, I think there's some level of urgency for Fry's Spring in particular, largely because many of these lots have impending development on it.

Of course, we just heard Flint Hill.

Naylor Street is by right, and all those giant single-family houses that are going to go up will never go through us.

Like Matt said, they already have permits and we'll probably build them anyway, but if there's any hope of getting a better product that works better for the city to go into that spot, now is kind of the last moment for that, I think.

And so that was really my motivation in bringing this up now.

I did have a couple tweaks I think to the lots we've identified here.

My concern with this really from the beginning was that we don't just have problems in Fry's Spring, we have problems citywide.

Though I am compelled by the research that's been done that Fry's Spring is sort of the tip of the sphere.

That's where we're really seeing a lot of the action because UVA community is pushing further and further from the university.

Yeah, and I think along those lines too, one of my goals with this is for it to be, because it's a small incremental change that we're making between plans, and that are like totally consistent with the current comp plan, the vague goal is that because we do have these problems across the city, if we can set an example with this one and make a little bit of progress,

then we can start to look at other neighborhoods in the city next and you know make little bits of progress up until we finally get the comp plan done sometime next year something and then maybe and then the zoning code done some time after that another year or so maybe.

John Blair said five years on Twitter the other day, and that scared me.

But I just think it would be nice to have us making a little bit of momentum, while it would be much nicer to make all the changes at once.

If we were actually voting to do this tonight, I doubt that I'd be able to support it.

but the question is asking staff to begin studying this and maybe Rory you can help me a little bit because I still don't know exactly what we're asking staff to study.

I mean are we attempting to understand the environmental impact, the infrastructure impact, the neighborhood impact?

Yeah, no, that's a great question.

I mean, it seems to me that R2 is already strictly better than the R1 we have here now.

Just like in Flint Hill, right, like we were talking about how they're showing us plans.

And in the Maury case, where like the buy right alternative is so bad that we feel compelled to or more compelled to approve whatever they bring before us.

and I mean as I see it like if you look at Naylor Street South if you look at Flint Hill and you look at the prospect of building these you know large single-family homes by right there's really no situation in which it's not better to have at least the option of having duplexes there so I don't know exactly what it is that staff would be studying beyond the sort of normal like personal history and background that they do in any rezoning

And of course I've shown you guys my research on how clear the relationship is.

Even among new homes, which are all more expensive generally speaking than existing homes, the difference between the duplexes that have been built in Fry's Spring and the single family homes that we've seen go up in areas like Porter Ave and Christa Court

It's enormous.

It's hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's the difference between being around the median for a home in our city when it was first built, when it's first built, and being two, three times the median.

So to me, I think it's almost

a no-brainer.

I mean, to the point where like we've been talking about with the comp plan, like this and more should be legal everywhere, right?

Like we should let you build the duplex anywhere you can build the giant single family house.

I mean, you know, I read down the standards of review and none of these questions are going to be answered until we get a, you know, a more complete report from staff relating to the impact of the rezoning.

But I guess I have to ask, how much work is involved in the study?

I don't know that we are 100% clear on how much effort that's going to take.

We'll plan to take the guidance that we receive if this is initiated and we'll have some internal discussions to try and put forth a plan to present something that

provides something logical to you all for analysis.

So council works with you all or you all work with council to adopt a work plan for the year, right?

No.

Yes.

I understand, but I think that's why we get nothing done.

Do y'all not have a work plan that you work with council with on initiatives that you want to get done throughout the year?

Is there a work plan or is everything a fire?

So as a general rule,

The City Manager has a work plan, but as a general rule, Council, unless they are directing staff and the Commission to look at zoning issues or comp plan issues, Council is allowed to initiate a project for the Planning Commission in particular to review.

When you're using the word work plan, I think you're thinking of

A resolution from about three years ago now by which City Council asked for us all to take a look at the different provisions of the comp plan and to update discrete portions of it.

I know what that is.

We called that a work plan, but that really was more of a council-initiated look at the comp plan slash zoning ordinance.

I think that we've got to somehow figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

So you all have got plenty of time to do this?

I'm just saying, Ms. Green.

I don't, Missy can talk about whether there's something that's actually called a work plan.

Good evening commissioners.

In terms of work plan, every department in the city has a strategic plan and that strategic plan outlines departments, each department's work plan, you know, and that work plan has a

What is being proposed tonight is not exclusively or specifically listed in the work plan.

However,

Like I usually say, we have enough workload right now to keep us busy for the next five years.

And this is a true statement.

And we're not going to go and do this overnight.

It's not something that we have to do overnight.

It has to be balanced against

for that workload that staff has.

So once you initiate this, don't expect staff to come back next month, a couple of months from now or three months from now, and then provide you an immediate analysis and reports.

But we do what we can.

Great.

Now we're talking the same language.

Do you know of anything off of your work plan that you're balancing all the plates you're spending in the air?

I can tell you that right off.

We just have to sit down.

Actually, we have a management team meeting tomorrow.

We usually have it once every month.

The staff was asking for some direction for whatever work they might be doing if this moves forward.

So there's three that come to my mind right away.

One is the economic impact on property value and housing costs if you up zone it.

Second, transportation.

What is it going to do to these roads?

This is sort of a dead end area.

And then third, or Rory's favorite, parking.

If you do put more people in this place, I would like to know.

What's it going to do to the economic values and cost of housing?

What's it going to do to the number of vehicles that are going to try to use the same streets?

And then

So I'll just tell you all with a little bit of knowledge that I have, I'm kind of rezoning things, which is minimal I'm sure.

This is not an undertaking that is something that they can go and sit down in a week and go, oh yeah, let's do that.

This is just like you said, and it's not just all of the three things you just mentioned, it's the infrastructure, it's the water, it's the sewer, it's a lot of different things.

So it's not looking at one large area necessarily.

So that's another consideration.

Let me give you a little bit more.

We already know what they can do by right.

We know what the infrastructure can handle.

is what is currently there that could be developed by right, would that be significantly altered if you changed the density?

That's the question you want to ask?

Yeah, because they already know the answers to the infrastructure.

So typically speaking, in an area such as this, people wouldn't just pick out spots.

They would pick out contiguous areas.

I know.

It's called a small area plan.

And so all those you've worked on, so you know that it takes about 18 months to get to a small area plan, right?

So we're not talking that this is going to, I mean, that's just a small area plan to look at all the different kinds of things.

And you guys want to initiate this?

So be it.

I will not be supporting this.

I think it is another area where we are taking staff time that they could be doing the things that we need to do, like working on the comprehensive plan.

And this is not, I know it's an urgent need for some, but I haven't heard from the community at large in Fry Springs that this is urgent for that community.

I don't know how we look at this and go, great, let's rezone all this without it having some sort of, and I hate to say this word, but an overall look at all the things instead of it being kind of a

Scattershot.

It looks like Muckshot.

Pardon me, I know.

Y'all love it when I bring up these.

So I feel like if we want to pick an area and say, hey, let's do a small area plan here and take a look at the area comprehensively.

And I know what you're saying about the other small lots, the single lots, bringing that into conformity.

These people might not want to.

Yeah, we dropped those from the request.

Number five is not non-conforming.

That's the remaining empty Oaklawn parcels.

Personally, I would recommend that all of Oaklawn and Porter be considered because they're, I mean you're right, they might not want it, but those homes are clearly all big enough by far to be

Two families if they wanted to be.

So I don't see a lot of reason why we should leave the brand new ones out.

I'm going to make just one point of clarity on existing homes to consider, and staff would look at this during the analysis too if you wanted to look at it.

Converting a single family home to a duplex is very hard because of fire rating walls

So I think it'd be very hard for existing homes to be, especially new homes, like in that area, to be turned into duplex.

So let me just ask you a question real quick.

So it gets more into the building code issue.

Right.

So can I say something?

I've been studying these five parcels and looking back and forth to current uses around them.

It seems like the commonality between most of these parcels is the fact that they are vacant land now.

And the reason that they're vacant is because they're the most difficult areas to build in.

being asked to consider land use, then being vacant is not a land use that is of any benefit to the city.

But then I look at the uses around them, and I don't see that there's anything about the uses around these parcels that

I think that there's not enough compelling reason here for me to want to support doing this without doing before the comprehensive plan.

I think it should be done with the comprehensive plan.

And and the difference between how I voted for the prior application on Murray is the fact that that was a cohesive one large lot contiguous to a similar type of development.

May I say one thing?

Contiguous.

Yes, I think that's a really good point.

Looking at this over and considering staff time, I'm liking areas one and two more and more, and three, four, and five less and less.

And I'd also remind, when we were talking about the previous property over near the university,

You know, that is a compelling argument to do something that is not in perfect planning order.

So may I make a motion?

Sure.

I have a motion and a second.

Yeah, if I may respond to a couple of those things.

First off, I think there is a very real difference between vacant land and any other land as far as how its future land use impacts the existing residents of the city.

And if we want to say that this vacant land should be green space forever because it's difficult to build on and it's currently woods,

You know what, I might even be all for that.

But we need to make sure that we make room elsewhere on a currently used land for people to have homes.

And I think there is a very real expressed need from the community to address Chairman Green's point, not just from Fry's Spring, but across the city.

If we've heard anything throughout all of this outreach we've done, and we're throwing it away, but we've done all this outreach for the COP plan,

There's a housing crisis.

There's a need for more housing.

That isn't getting kicked down years down the road just because we can't get it together to do our comprehensive plan.

And I'd love to see us get that done faster.

You mentioned that this would potentially take staff resources off the comprehensive plan.

But as I see it, that's currently on hold.

And we're taking it out of staff's hands and handing it off to a consultant.

That's what the million dollars is for.

As much as sometimes I'd like to do that, we are bound by the state to have a commission.

And we are public servants of this city to make sure that we are good stewards of the land and we plan comprehensively.

Our role is also to be responsive and I think that what this commission has been trying to do

I just think moving forward though, we need to work on being more comprehensive and get away from not being more comprehensive.

And I'm not, and Rory, I think I've said this before, I don't think that this is like a bad idea.

We do need housing.

We need housing, but I'm just, as a planner,

as what our tasks are.

And we're supposed to be future planners and map out what we want the city to be and how we're gonna have housing.

If we piecemeal it, I just feel like we're not gonna get the overall goal of what we're trying to accomplish.

I do think that, yes, we should, I do like the fact that we're looking at vacant lots though, because I think I get where you're coming from.

If nothing is already on the land, then what can we do to make the land maybe somewhat better?

or to provide more housing, I do not agree with the spot zoning or the spot updates.

Everywhere needs more housing.

The 10th and Page area needs more housing.

People or businesses or high dollar homes are encroaching on that neighborhood too, but we're not doing a spot plan for that update.

Because I feel like if we were to approve this and we initiate

this study for these several lots then how do we comfortably tell the next resident of Charlottesville who's not in this area sorry we can't do that for you and your neighborhood though it's like we're gonna open up a can of worms when we already know

I guess it may be a while, but we already have this plan in the pipeline.

We have an RFP, we have a goal, and it may take some time, but all good planning takes time.

So I would much rather definitely include this in our review, but wait until we had a comprehensive review of the housing for all of the city and what that overall plan is going to be.

Because what if this ends up not, what if this one portion from whoever's going to do that review ends up conflicting?

Yeah, I mean, so for me, well, first off, I think it seems unlikely to me that any future plan won't include more density in these areas and elsewhere, given the shortage.

And more than that, I think, I

I think it's important to remind everyone that we have a comprehensive plan, an adopted one from 2013.

And that one talks a lot about infill development and putting housing on vacant lots.

I think that's definitely in conformance.

And we have a future land use map that this conforms to.

And on top of that, in my report, there's a whole bunch of different areas in the text that call for more housing and density and putting it in places with good access to amenities.

I think this initiation can easily be justified under the existing comprehensive plan.

I think if we're saying that we're going to have a new comprehensive plan sometime in the future, in the next several years,

I mean, that's great, but should we un-adopt our current plan?

Should we trash it?

I know we're state mandated to have that one, too.

But it means something, right?

OK, we have a motion and a second on the table.

Any further lobbying or discussion?

Ms. Creasy, will you call roll?

I'm not trying to remember what we voted.

The motion is for denying the initiation.

He wants to initiate it.

Yes.

And Ms. Green?

The motion to deny passes

Five to two.

Three?

Two.

Five to two.

Yes ma'am.

I do want to talk about this RFP for just two seconds since there's not going to be a staff person hired from what I'm just hearing this evening.

I think that what will be helpful for this is that once that we get some sort of clear passage from the decision makers at this point.

I think most of us, myself included, we're all hearing different things.

And so I think it'll be helpful that that once

There is some decision making that is provided down because I know that we're wondering about next steps as well and what role we will have in next steps and what role you all will have in

and it may be that those things are still being worked on by the core group there and that that information is to come.

But a lot of the things that were kind of talked through tonight were new to me as well.

So I'm hopeful that very soon that we'll have a clearer path.

We do know that it closes in mid-August

And so that path will need to be much clearer by the time that closes so that there'll be something in place for when that information is available.

So, you know, I think that's

That's one thing we're all hoping to have more information on very soon.

And we're in a big transition in a lot of ways community wise.

And so there have been wheels of action.

We've heard in the background on different different things.

But I'm hopeful that we can get something a little more concrete and not continue to perpetuate the frustration that that's going on.

Can we ask Mr. Ikithuna, since he's in the director level, to be able to provide us some type of update on the plan on August 13th when we next meet?

What do I want to plan?

I want the plan.

I will consult with the Assistant City Manager and the City Manager and they will provide you appropriate response.

Yeah, so I mean, putting aside the ZMA, you guys read the report, and I think you're right that Fry's Spring is a microcosm of the rest of the city.

We have a neighborhood with a diverse mix of home types that's historically relatively affordable, and now we have, you know, six, seven hundred thousand dollar homes being built by right in the middle of this two hundred eighty thousand dollar

Neighborhood and we have prices rising by double digit percentages.

So there is a problem.

I think you made a point.

We are all very aware of that.

I just think the issue, at least, and I can't speak for everybody else.

I can only speak for myself.

That issue is not only happening in Fry's Springs, and that's where my holdup is.

So I do not feel comfortable only addressing Fry's Springs.

I do not feel comfortable only addressing one neighborhood.

I feel comfortable

I think it's important for us to think about addressing our city as a whole because it shouldn't be, what are we going to do about Fry Springs?

Well, what are we doing about everywhere?

Because it's not only there that we already know, the affordability is leaving just as soon as it's going just as fast as we are building.

So for me to pick one area, I don't think that...

I don't think that your plan and the information you gave was inaccurate or incorrect.

I just think the timing, especially with us having this new position of somebody who's an expert who's supposed to be paying a good amount of money to look at, to figure that out.

That's what I'm doing.

No, I won't echo that.

I completely agree with you there that this is a city-wide problem, but it's bigger than that.

And frankly, I get a little resentful when people are always pointing at us folks that live in each city to address the issue.

This is a regional problem.

It's bigger than us.

And we've got to begin working with the surrounding counties as well.

cohesively to solve this problem.

We can't do it in our little ten square miles.

I would encourage commissioners too to realize that there is a commission so that things can be taken

that are outside of the designated comprehensive planning process because there's a commission so that the citizens can be, we can be responsive to the citizenry.

so that's why there is a commission but we are also here to try to educate the citizenry as to why comprehensive planning is best for everybody but we are also here when a compelling reason is presented to us we can take action so that I mean you need to be encouraged that this is this is not easy stuff to do but that's why we're here and I think there's a good balance being

I just think it was bad timing.

I'm going to just be honest.

I think the information you presented was very valid.

Your points are very valid.

I just think the timing was bad.

And I would say that I have agreed to serve as a planning commissioner by following the

The protocol of Planning Commission, which is you don't make decisions unilaterally, even as a group.

You have to make them based upon guidelines and a comprehensive plan.

That has to come first and then I sit up here on this dais looking at individual cases based upon that comprehensive plan.

And unfortunately, what has happened to us here within the last few years is that our comprehensive plan route has gone off track.

I spent two and a half years looking very closely at the city and looking at how the future land use plan should change.

And I have some very definite ideas based upon that.

But it's been held up.

It's been pushed aside.

And I'll just echo a couple things.

Since my work is public service, that is what I am.

Being on this commission means I'm a public servant to the citizens and the residents of this community.

And so I heard the word unilaterally.

Part of that comprehensive plan process is definitely the engagement and public outreach.

And so some of the reason that we pause this is that we're not getting the outreach from everyone that we need to hear.

So this is not just about not wanting to do anything, but it is about wanting to reach all the people, not just the people who want to show up at the meeting or have the opportunity to show up

many times.

We need to hear from everyone and how everyone who's affected by this and look at it comprehensively, not just about our land use plan and affordable housing.

Because you're right, it is a regional issue, which is why the Thomas Jefferson Planning District is looking at a regional housing.

I don't know if any of you heard the news that UVA is looking at requiring second years to live in dormitories.

It's a huge impact.

We don't know, but that's a huge impact on the housing that's surrounding this area at first and second years of living on campus.

So it is regionally, and we do have to get not only the adjoining counties, but the university involved in this topic.

They play a major part of the housing crisis in this community.

And guys, this is not just a region.

This affordable housing crisis is all over our country.

You can't talk or look at any other region in this nation that is not trying to figure out how to combat the lack of affordable housing.

And I've not seen anybody yet that's figured it out.

Even in other nations, we're not seeing people, the places that figured it out.

I'd love to see that.

I think we'd be all over that, seeing, okay, let's meet every night till we get this thing done.

So it's a huge crisis.

I know it's frustrating.

This is my ninth year on the planning commission, and this is my second comprehensive plan.

There's nothing more frustrating than having this comprehensive plan that was adopted, and we didn't change the zoning ordinance to make it work.

We don't know if the 2013 comprehensive plan works or not.

We never made the changes we needed to make to see if it worked.

So while I am discouraged at it taking this long, I am encouraged that we at least have something in place to marry the things together of the housing strategy, the comprehensive plan, and we are going to have supposedly a guarantee with this that we get this zoning ordinance changed.

So what do I do?

I meet about every other night that I take away from my family.

Anytime somebody wants to call me and have a sit down, I go have coffee with them.

If people want to have lunch with me, I go do that.

I have a motion.

Please.

I move we adjourn.

We have a motion to adjourn to the second Tuesday of August.