Planning Commission Meeting   8/13/2019

Welcome.

It's called to order the regular meeting for August 13th.

Thank you.

We were a little bit concerned.

We didn't have anybody in the audience.

Someone wasn't coming to our party tonight.

We'll start tonight, as we always do, with commissioners' reports.

The Parks and Rec board met sometime mid-July and we talked quite a bit about the activity surrounding our trails.

And part of the dialogue was to remind us that our trails are the number one amenity, the number one recreational amenity that members of our community want us to invest in.

The staff also reminded us that the greatest ROI on our trails would be to develop trails that allow for local travel from point A to point B.

Whether it be going to school, going to work, things like that.

But also then incorporate, you know, recreational activity and tourism.

To that end, there was quite a bit of discussion about the Metta Creek Trail system and the greenway associated with the giant development that we talked about maybe three months ago.

If you remember, there was a developer that was looking to develop the giant area that runs near the trail, and the developer was looking to make an investment in the trails to help us with that.

That has since been tabled, but the Parks and Rec staff, as well as the board, would like us to just be sensitive to the need to get that developed.

Parks and Rec will do it.

on the song if it must, but it would be wonderful to partner with anyone who might want to develop the area behind whatever happens with the giant lot.

We also got a pretty comprehensive update on the aquatics works that we've got by Philip C. Just a couple of fun facts.

We get nearly 100,000 visits to our aquatic facilities a year.

We teach about 1,200 people how to swim every year.

We've got at peak season, we've got about 180 people at work for Park Summer.

And we do a lot of really fun stuff, swim lessons I already talked about.

The Red Cross lifeguard training we do, quite a few fitness classes.

You guys have seen the lumberjacks who get on the logs and do the roll.

We actually do that in our parks and rec facilities.

And that's like a big, big attraction.

Folks really like that.

And the thing that I like most is the pups in the pool that we do.

I think we do it about once a month where we just open it up to local pups, and they just come out and have fun.

I hope it's once a month.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

All right, so I have two reports from this month on

Let's see, July 16th we had an MPO technical committee meeting where we discussed primarily the hydraulic road intersection and the three different options for that.

We're starting to get settled on what might be the solution that we shoot for, but it is starting to seem that it's getting rather urgent that we use that big pot of money that's left over from the other 29 projects and put it into something before it disappears.

Separately on the 8th of August,

Can I ask you a question about the MPO?

Yeah, it's Rio.

Yeah, that's the goal.

OK.

I attended the July meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District CTAC meeting.

I had to arrive late but they went on.

We had to have a quorum so I arrived in time to help complete the quorum and we added new members at that meeting.

They continued to look for some additional citizens to serve on that board and of course

Are Unity Days complete?

They'll be on until August and September.

Right.

And there's no end in sight.

oh yeah there's all kind of so and the tomorrow night is going to be doing some evaluation over how the weekend went.

Ms. Dowell?

Good evening.

The Barracks Road slash Emmett Street Improvement Project Steering Committee met for the first time on July 25th and discussed how to frame a survey soliciting public input, whether and how to make bicycling safe in the corridor, surprisingly contentious, and how to calm traffic, manage congestion and preserve trees.

The Housing Advisory Committee planning subcommittee met August 9th to discuss housing affordability impacts of the standards and design manual, focusing on street widths and clear zone spatial requirements and concrete material requirements, which can combine to raise the cost of new housing construction.

And last but not least, so I attended two committee meetings since the last time we met.

The first one, the Board of Architectural Review on July 16th, we approved seven certificate of appropriateness applications for projects.

Two were deferred and then lastly the BAR guidelines are still being reviewed and edited, updated at work sessions by the BAR members and it's open to the public on the third Thursday of the month.

The next meeting is this Thursday from 5.30 to 7.30 in the NDS conference room.

The Tree Commission met just last week, August 6th.

We had updates from several Tree Commission members who serve on steering committees for Fontaine Avenue, for the East High Street.

StreetScape Study, and Barrack's Emmett StreetScape Study.

And we are, of course, monitoring those studies and looking to make an impact, at least to

represent our concerns.

And then lastly, we spent a lot of time expressing frustration over a downtown urban, large urban project that has been submitting site plans since last October.

And our city urban forester and the site and the tree commission have been asking to review these plans without any luck.

and the last site plan has been submitted and unfortunately several large important trees are going to be taken down that we've had absolutely no input on and we're just trying to reconcile that with our mandate from

City Council in our bylaws which is to stay informed about local changes and intentions involving trees and plans for public lands and infrastructure in the city advocate for trees before City Council and the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

More on that later.

Thank you.

Um, Mr. Palmer, University Report.

Sure, yeah, I don't really have anything to report.

I'm actually back to work after being on parental leave for about the last two months.

Well, congratulations.

Wonderful.

I missed my TJPDC meeting on August 1st and I was on vacation and I have to be honest with you I didn't even look to see what was on the agenda so my apologies.

That's the first time I've ever done that but it was a wonderful family vacation and so I have nothing to report on that.

I do have to report that we do have a nominating committee that will be making a recommendation for the new chair in September

and vice chair in September.

Mr. Leandro and Mr. Sollias have agreed to be this committee and so I look forward to the recommendations and seeing where my chair will be after this is over.

Well, everyone is eligible to be chair or vice chair, only members of

That has happened in the past.

They're no longer on the Commission.

Anyway.

But that's all I have to report.

But I am going to just say one quick thing that I hope Ms. Creasy reports on is I saw some rumored emails that something's happening at the Belmont Bridge.

I think it may actually really happen.

No, it's the announcement that Ms. Janicek sent out to let people know about the upcoming events concerning the bridge.

Hang on, let her do the report and you come up and tell us about it because I am super interested about the Belmont Bridge.

Can you do that for me?

OK, well, before before Alex comes up and talks with us, just a few announcements on upcoming events that we get to be a part of.

This Thursday, we have a joint work session with city council on the form based code.

The consultants are coming back to talk with both groups concerning

moving forward with that.

And so you all have received some materials on that.

That meeting is from six to eight, and it is at City Space.

On August 27th, we have a preliminary work session with one of our applicants.

The application is 240 Stripling.

Because we anticipate public interest, we have reserved the Water Street Center for that.

and that meeting will be from five to seven, the Water Street Center on August 27th.

And on September 4th, make sure to pencil this in.

You'll probably ink it in very, very soon.

But there's a meeting concerning the standards and design manual.

If you all recall, there was a request last time staff brought it forward to council for additional discussion with

groups, as well as review of comments and then to hold a joint discussion with Planning Commission, City Council, representatives of a number of different community groups, including the cadre group, to talk through next steps for moving that forward.

September 4th.

And they are, let's see if I wrote this one.

I don't know if we have the set time yet.

It's either a six to eight or a five to seven, and I know that location is still pending.

That's a Wednesday, so that's not our typical Tuesday.

Correct.

mm-hmm don't maybe probably okay I will I will get more specifics on that but that's

That is coming.

And then we have our regular go back to our regular September meetings.

September will be our annual meeting.

So, of course, elections are held.

And that's pretty much what we do at our annual meeting for the most part.

I also want to put a bug in you guys's ear.

You all had noted that once you change leadership and

We kind of know where we are with some of the other projects that will be coming our way that Mr. Ikefuno will speak to in a second that you all were interested in having a retreat of some sort.

So I will leave that to you all to discuss.

It may end up being that whoever the new leadership is,

works with me through details.

That's usually how these things happen.

But that's something to just keep keep in your mind.

And we'll work towards that unless you all don't want to.

And then we won't.

So I think that that's all I have.

Alex, please, please tell us about this Belmont Bridge.

Good evening commissioners.

First, at your last meeting, you asked me to provide an update on the comprehensive plan update.

The RFP is closing on August 16th.

and Proposal Analysis Group has been set up.

This is driven by Assistant City Manager Mr. Murphy.

There will be 11 persons on this Proposal Analysis Group and the Proposal Analysis Group essentially will review

The proposal is submitted by various consultants and makes selection.

And the composition of that includes two from CLIC.

CLIC is an organization affiliated with the Legal Aid Center.

And there will be two members of the Planning Commission and a representative from CADRE, which is essentially a combination of business and development community.

And there will be two persons from HAC.

No one from another group can be on HAC.

In other words, you can be a member of the Planning Commission, and you are on HAC, and you are representing HAC.

And then there will be four representatives from the city.

you know, city staff.

That will make it 11.

These individuals will review the proposals and then work with the procurement office to select a consultant that will do this project.

And the other question that Madam Chair asked me to look into was the fate of the long-range planner.

And the city manager has put that on hold until he finishes the reorganization, so he will decide whether to move forward with that or not.

In the meantime, once the selection of a consultant to help the city in terms of preparing the update of the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and affordable housing strategy, when the decision is made in terms of who's going to be the consultant,

then staff will be working with that consultant along perhaps with the Planning Commission until the city manager makes a decision as to whether we need to move forward with hiring the long-range plan.

So that's my

Update on that.

All right?

OK.

Procedural question.

What is the backup plan if we don't have staffing to do this?

Well, NDS staff and the Planning Commission will be moving forward with the project with the consultant.

We have several projects.

I think NDS has a wealth of knowledge in terms of coordinating the activities of consultants.

So we figure out how to move the project forward.

Regarding Belmont Bridge, I think in the past year or year and a half or so, we've been providing quarterly updates to the Planning Commission and City Council.

You got in the past couple of weeks or two or three weeks ago, you got an update.

The same update I sent to the City Council, I sent to the Planning Commission.

However, in a nutshell, the Belmont Bridge is moving forward.

We have in the past 30 days requested and received authorization from the Virginia Department of Transportation to move forward with

right of wear position.

That is a major milestone.

And that milestone was contingent upon the approval of stage one bridge design.

Without that, they wouldn't have authorized the provided the authority to proceed with the right of wear position.

So we've started the work on right of wear position, and we are moving forward with phase two bridge design.

And once we complete the phase two bridge design, it goes back to a video again.

They will review it.

That sounds fantastic.

Does that mean the fences will be gone forever or just like during construction?

We still have to have some kind of fence.

Because Railroad, as much as possible, they try to keep people away from their track.

They've been very cooperative in terms of working with us.

Any more questions?

Thank you, Alex.

At this time, we are at the part of the agenda for matters to be presented by the public, not on the formal agenda.

So we do have two public hearings tonight.

One is about a special use permit on West Main Street.

You will have an opportunity to speak on that at that time during that public hearing.

The second one is on a zoning text amendment.

regarding access for dwelling units, more than 50 dwelling units.

You'll have an opportunity to speak during that public hearing.

So if you'd like to speak about anything else at this time that's not on the formal agenda, now is the time to do so.

So I'll open matters to be presented by the public.

Good evening.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

Sean Tubbs, Piedmont Environmental Council.

I'm here tonight to talk about transit.

Earlier this year, I made the decision to try to avoid driving within the city of Charlottesville.

I live a mile and a half away from where I work, and I decided it was really silly for me to drive that little bit because for years, I thought that the Charlottesville area transit system wouldn't work for me.

I had that in my mind.

That was definitely the thing.

But then I realized I had to challenge myself

And I've got my commute down to 20 minutes from my door, straight from my door, to my stop.

I got coffee so it kind of slows things down.

Now I know that doesn't work for everybody, especially for those in the urban ring.

And so I think it's important to realize that we can make vast improvements if we work together.

And there is such a body that is helping us to do that right now.

It's the Regional Transit Partnership.

And I'm here tonight to just kind of try to raise the profile.

You guys gave a lot of committee reports earlier, and this is just a small one there.

So many of our planning objectives call for us to reduce the number of people who drive

to work alone.

I was one of those people.

But to get there, we're going to need options.

Part of that is biking.

And of course, BEC is working on that and walking.

But transit, I think, is something especially for those areas in the urban ring and the outlying counties.

We have three transit agencies in this community.

And it's been fantastic both as a reporter before and now as an advocate to sort of see how this group is coming together.

To get the improvements we need faster, better coordination is going to happen.

We're probably not likely going to have an authority that does it all at once.

But every month, the RTP gets together and discusses these.

And we know that there are some early successes or better sharing of data, discussions of best practices, and most importantly, an agreement that gives Albemarle a lot more clarity about how the money they contribute to CAT is spent.

But I know that you guys are also having transit questions, too.

And at the July 23 work session you had on the Fontaine Avenue streetscape, one of the things that came up was transit and how is transit going to be served on that corridor.

Well, as you may or may not know at this point, CAT doesn't travel on Fontaine.

It turns right onto Maury Avenue with a trolley there.

There's no regular UTS service that I'm aware of, but there are extensive shuttles, which of course are not necessarily open to the public.

As the Fontaine Research Park grows, there's going to be need to kind of coordinate that and make it work a little bit better.

Now, there's so much I can talk to you about transit, and gosh, I'd love to.

Instead, I do have a long article that I've written from the last meeting, which I'd love to send to you guys, like you two did with that album.

You're going to see it in your...

But I just wanted to say that my quality of life has improved through transit, getting out of my car, seeing people on the buses every time I get on there, realizing I'm part of a community.

I want that to happen in Albemarle, in Jaunt and the other areas we're coming.

This regional transit partnership is a place where we already are talking about those things and discussing.

And I just hope that you guys will pay attention and maybe one of you will join us.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to matters to be presented by the public, not on the formal agenda?

The motion.

And a second.

Opposed.

Passes unanimous.

Okay, next on our agenda is our joint meeting commission and council.

We do have three council members.

Good evening.

Would you like to call in?

Thank you so much.

First on our agenda is SP19-0003.

Landowner Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC by its agent Milestone Partners is requesting a special use permit pursuant to City Code Section 34-641 to allow additional residential density for a mixed-use building at its property having an address of 602

through 616 West Main Street, having approximately 163 feet of frontage on West Main Street.

The applicant is proposing a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space and up to 55 residential units above the ground floor.

The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 29 as Parcel 3 from here out known as the subject property.

The subject property is zoned West Main East Corridor or WME subject to the West Main Street Architectural Design Control Overlay District and the Parking Modified Zone Overlay District.

In the West Main East Corridor residential units

are allowed by right including multi-family dwellings at a density of up to 87 dwelling units per acre and additional density up to 120 dwelling units per acre is allowed pursuant to a special use permit.

Buildings within the proposed development are to have a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of 52 feet subject to a bulk plane restriction.

The ADC architectural guidelines state that the height should be within 130% of the prevailing average of both sides of the block and should relate to an adjacent contributing building.

The comprehensive land use map for this area calls for mixed use, but no density range is specified by the comprehensive plan.

Madam Chair, I should have thought of this earlier seeing the audience.

I'm reminded that I

in the interest of full disclosure provide architectural preservation consulting to the First Baptist Church, which owns the adjacent building and has concerns about this project.

And I in no way receive any payment for my consultation to them and do not believe that I have a conflict of interest for which I would look to council to verify.

I do not believe you have a conflict, so that is a legal issue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your disclosure.

Anyone else?

Mr. Londo, you also serve on the BAR, has this been?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So as the Madam Chair stated, this is a special use permit request for property located between 602 and 616 West Main Street.

It is currently the location of the University Tire and Auto Center.

The proposal in front of you is in conjunction with a plan to demolish the existing structure on the property and build a new mixed-use building on the property that would be mixed-use between a ground floor commercial and the potential for residential on the upper floors.

Currently, one of the issues we had with the agenda item is it said the buy-write density is 87 dwelling units per acre.

It's actually the buy-write density in the zone is 43.

That was our mistake back doors.

So under a buy-write scheme, the building would be limited to 20 residential units.

The proposed special use permit in front of you would increase the density on the property to a maximum of 120 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum allowed in the zone, which would permit the applicant to build up to 55 residential units on the property.

The size of the building is not impacted by the SUP request, so we're really talking about, like I said, where the walls are inside the building.

Staff has reviewed this.

against the standards in Section 34-157 of the city code.

That analysis is included in your staff report.

One item I will call out is the school

I want to talk about the population issue partly because this has come up in a few times and in a conversation with the school board and it kind of flies in the face of sort of conventional wisdom about multi-family structures of this kind that they don't impact school population because there are no, typically this type of unit does not

appeal to families with school-aged children, but what we found in when other units along or other developments on West Main Street have opened is that

that there's a reshuffling of residential units.

And it's not necessarily that school-age children are living in those large apartment buildings, but that the residents that move in there move out of housing that is attractive to families with young children and those children that are going to the schools.

So the schools have reported, school superintendent has reported that they did see spikes in enrollment when large multifamily structures were opened on West Main Street.

We might be talking about a different scale here.

The unit count is much lower.

This is a different end of West Main Street, probably appealing to a different population.

In most of those cases, we may have been talking about students at the university that were living off grounds because they couldn't find an apartment.

And once those apartments opened, they moved into them.

But nonetheless, we wanted to highlight that because that is something that you don't normally think of as an impact of these types of developments.

I'll also touch briefly on the staff's recommended conditions.

On page 12 of your staff report, you have the recommendation from the Board of Architectural Review.

They found no issues with the request, but they did add some conditions that they suggested that do relate to the design of the building.

So those conditions have been carried forward.

I did make one edit to clarify which building they were talking about in the conditions.

Condition one is different in your staff report.

That is a new condition that staff has added.

And as we talked about in the pre-meeting, that is a condition that we like to use to sort of memorialize the materials that are in front of you so that there aren't a whole lot of changes from what you've received in your packet.

You don't see something dramatically different.

get built or get submitted at the final site plan.

I do know in discussion with the applicant prior to the meeting, I do know that two of these items, I think they would like to have further discussion on.

One is item 1B that the building height shall not exceed the height of four stories and item E regarding kind of the prescriptive condition on how the parking is arranged.

They may very well want to discuss that, possibly a little more leniency in those two conditions.

Based on the materials that we have in front of you and staff's analysis, staff does recommend that the application be approved.

We found no issues with the impacts of this and we feel the conditions do serve to mitigate.

Our main concern when this project is coming forward is the design review, which would be handled at the BAR, but there's definitely a

An opportunity here for what we would call kind of a stretch of the street that is not, has a building that's set back, parking in the front.

There's an opportunity to really create something that contributes to the overall nature of the West Main East corridor that we felt so strongly that we rezoned this several years ago to get development that was more conducive with the existing character of that street.

That's our main concern and I think it's reflected in the staff report.

I have quite a lot on this.

First up, setback from street.

I'm seeing a 10-foot setback.

I have to pull up the regulations on that, but I don't believe the

Yeah, I don't have it on me in terms of what it is, but I'll look it up.

Thank you.

Yeah, and one of the issues with West Main Street and any kind of any of these streets where the mixed-use code is the

the amenities in front of the building and being able to accommodate that in terms of the amount of space that we have.

So we've had issues in, as Mr. Leandro mentioned, on downtown extended 10 feet minimum.

So there you go, 10 feet minimum.

But that is the minimum.

There's a maximum of 20 feet.

But one of the reasons for that setback is to open up the space for

Street trees, give buildings a little more room to accommodate utilities if there are in front of there without eliminating the ability to do trees.

And also the potential for street furniture, other amenities out there, even cafes potentially.

The affordable housing was called out as just a question mark.

This application does require, by virtue of going through the special use permit process, does require adherence to Section 3412 of our zoning ordinance, which is our affordable housing code section.

The applicant has not indicated how they would meet that section, but they do acknowledge that they will have to meet it.

Finally, this is something I'm struggling with, we're finding no impact visually and then we have a bunch of requirements recommended to offset the non-impact.

I would couch it in terms of, I haven't heard anything from the applicant that says that they have an issue with this.

They're going to have to go through the BAR review process.

Yeah, I would concede that when we're talking about the actual increase in residential density, the visual, that's another element that would get dealt with at another time.

So that's certainly, I think that's true.

I think the idea behind putting this into conditions is partly that it's not forgotten.

Should it be months down the road that this item is still brought up.

The elements of the BAR discussion are not lost at any point.

I guess that's probably the best I can do on that.

Obviously, condition one, we're looking at the materials that we were presented and there's always been a big concern about getting materials on a special use permit prior to site plan review, prior to BAR review.

and seeing a certain type of material and having council vote on it and then once it goes through the site plan process at the commission, the BAR process, that what is actually constructed was not what council remembers voting on.

Prevention.

Somewhat related to that, one of the staff's recommendations is that the mass of the building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site.

So that, and it goes on, that particular recommendation, are we tonight,

I believe that ultimately having it as a condition of the SUP just highlights that as the intent.

That's a BAR.

The BAR recommended that.

That was a note from their discussion, as you well know.

So it's making sure that that continues to go through the process, that it's not forgotten or anything like that.

But I don't think the drawings tonight need to reflect that.

I think it's just a reminder to the applicant and staff that

So if this was approved, the drawings as they exist now were not approved in the drawing, the details of those drawings?

Correct.

And so how do we reconcile that condition to the building she'll be working on to look like the multi-parcel massing with one A that says only one building?

Why do we have a problem with them having, I don't know, two side-by-side buildings so it actually would be multiple parcels?

Or they just need to pretend it is?

I don't think the applicant's intention, and they can certainly speak to their intention regarding building this, I don't think their intention is to build two buildings.

That would certainly achieve the intent of what the BAR is looking for, but I think in the absence of an intent to build multiple buildings on the site, what we're really saying is, okay, they are going to build one building, but that building, particularly that facade and that front, needs to reflect

Kind of the pattern of West Main East, which is not the entire width of this lot, that there needs to be some modulation or some attempt to kind of break up the massing of that.

You don't want a wall along the front.

Before we move on, I need to make a disclosure as well.

I am a member of First Baptist, and I make regular offerings and tithes.

So I do have a financial interest in that I give them money.

Unfortunately, my mother's not very happy with me because I don't go as much as she'd like.

but I do contribute regularly and I was not aware that they had an interest in this for or against.

I do not believe that

Your contributions give you a legal conflict.

You're a member of a congregation that includes three or more people.

Can I ask you a quick question about the affordable housing?

Since we don't have anything like we just have a range, we don't know how many dwelling units are actually going to be in this development.

Based on typically the way this would work, obviously, 3412 is a zoning requirement.

Right.

So there's no way around it.

There's no way that someone can just not decide not to do it.

What we typically do with this is we, based on the site plan that comes in, the actual engineered site plan, particularly probably the final site plan where we have square footages, we have hard numbers, we would then plug that into our spreadsheet.

generate the amount of number of units that if they were doing on-site or off-site or the amount of the cash contribution should they choose to forego units.

That would typically come in final site plan.

They usually have to state on the plan.

Well, they have to stay on the plan exactly what they're going to do, how they're going to comply with that, and then they need to comply with it prior to certificate of occupancy should they do a cash contribution or they're working with our housing program.

Okay, thank you.

But sorry, on that point, we do have the gross floor area now, right?

Like it's listed by floor over on that?

It's general.

It's rough.

And part of the calculation takes out, like certain areas don't count.

Certain areas do.

So part of the core part of the building, the stairs, the elevators.

So our spreadsheet kind of lists that out.

And you really have to have a pretty detailed building plan to be able to say,

So I, forgive me for kind of doing the spreadsheet, but just see if I'm in the ballpark.

I took out the parking and then just did the square footage of all the rest of the ones and I ended up with about

48,000 square feet over that 1.0 ratio.

So it's 5% of the number of square feet above 1.0 floor area.

So that would be about 2,400 square feet.

Or it's $2 per square feet above 1.0, right?

Yeah, it would probably be a little lower than that.

But we're talking ballpark.

I don't think it's going to be dramatically off.

Sorry, I'm looking at the recommended conditions again.

I'm not seeing the materials section you were referring to.

Which, the materials section?

Page 12.

So conditions under the recommendation, conditions two, three and four were ones directly carried over from the ones that we brought forward from the B.A.R.

's recommendation.

Item one is one that was kind of cobbled together.

There's a few things in there that are from the B.A.R., but they're also

Any other questions?

If the applicant would like to come up and you have a presentation.

And I'd like to just remind you of the 10 minute

I actually don't have a full presentation.

I just have a couple of comments.

I'm Jeff Levine.

I'm the developer.

I was with the developer, with Erwin Development.

The first thing, I feel like I have to admittedly apologize for the box that we just showed you on the site.

It's unattractive and architectural.

It has no integrity, and we know that because we're here today to discuss what

can go in that box.

And so as we've worked with Commissioner LaHendrel, we went to the VAR early on, got their feedback, and that's why you see some of those conditions in there.

We know that we have to have some articulation along the road.

We know that we have to break it up, and we know that this thing has to be a beautiful thing on West Main Street, similar to what we've done in the past in Charlottesville.

So I do get that, and I understand that.

I wanted to talk about the conditions that Mr. Huleska brought up because they are a little restrictive and the four stories we fully intend to comply with the ordinance, which is a 52 foot maximum height ordinance.

The stories to us, it's really irrelevant.

You'll get a certain amount of stories within that 52 feet, probably max five feet, but it'll depend probably on

Again, we haven't looked at the detail of the grading and of the site and to see if you could get five stories.

But again, it won't impact the amount of units or everything else in the staff report as to adverse impact.

In our mind, it's just a matter of how many stories you can fit when you really break down the site and look at all the grading and all of the height differentials from floor to floor.

So we're not that far along, but we would like the flexibility to not have restriction to four stories.

Similarly, with respect to parking, we just laid out a general tray of parking and it came out to about 53 spots.

It's by no means very well articulated with full circulation and trash and below and that we're definitely going to get 50 spots.

That was more actually to provide comfort because the last time when I was before a few of you a few years ago, we were talking about parking relief on the 600 West Main site and I was just really

making the point here that we shouldn't need any parking relief here, that there's ample space to park according to the zoning ordinance the amount of spaces that are required by the ordinance.

So I would like to eliminate any particular count of parking spaces that we need and just make it clear that we'll comply with the ordinance including taking into consideration the credits that you get and what kind of units we build because that's still up in the air.

Other than that, I'm here to answer questions.

I really appreciate your time on this.

I will speak to some of the things just about the neighboring and the First Baptist Church, for example.

I've just asked the commission to recognize that.

We're here to talk about this particular SUP and the amount of units that can go within this box But if we were not going to go for an SUP for residential density, and we were just doing office or we were doing hospitality You could have for example 60 hotel keys built here as of right so There's nothing particular this development.

That's that's actually adversely impacting

any of the neighboring landowners with respect to just building these additional residential units.

So that'll yield my time, and LJ, did you want to add anything or read it?

Great.

We should stay up here, right?

Mr. Levine, in April of last year, you spoke to Sean Tubbs, who was here a few minutes ago, from Charlottesville tomorrow, and you said you didn't have any prices available for your phase one of this project at the time, but they would be priced higher than the general market, but wouldn't be the most expensive units in town.

Now, I'm looking at the rental rates for the project that's almost complete.

And I think I'm your target market for this.

And it's looking like a studio is somewhere between $14.99 and $17.50 a month, going up to two bedrooms between $26.80

and 3860, and then a three-bedroom for $4,090 per month.

I know they're not.

I mean, these won't come to market till three years from now probably, so it's hard to say how they'll be priced.

It depends what the market is.

But they will be market rate, whatever market rate units are at the time.

So I had a question on, I know you have three options available for the Affordable Housing Fund.

I don't know until I see the whole formula and what it comes out to.

I mean, what I can say, and I'm actually proud to say this on the record, in my last in 600 West Main, I had an agreement on the site plan to pay into the fund and voluntarily sat down with

Stacey Bethy at the time who was working on the affordable housing and voluntarily built them on site.

And I think I probably, I shouldn't say this definitively, but maybe one of the only developers to do that.

It's too hard to tell now without laying out the entire building and seeing what the yield is and how it works.

I thought we were here.

I don't have a mortgage.

I am a renter.

I think I get more than 495 square feet for my 1,600 bucks.

So at four stories,

This is, I know it's the limit of the zoning, or 52 feet is, but it's actually going to be one of the shorter buildings on West Main East, shorter than I think the CenturyLink building just across, or a little bit down, and then the old Albemarle Hotel right across the street is also four stories.

And I think the steeple of First Baptist is a little bit taller as well.

Would I go higher if I could get

Yeah, I mean, well, now you're getting into a larger urban planning discussion.

And I think I mentioned at the time, I mean, the fact that we're going to have a six story, my building that I'm completing now is going to be the certain height and then next to it's going to be a shorter building.

I don't want to get too deep into it, but I do think there are better urban planning things.

I don't think height is the only definitive measure of context along the street.

I think going along setbacks and wedding cake as you come up is also indicative of contextual.

It's not just about 52 feet versus 70 feet versus 101 feet.

It'll be at even five stories it'll be stick construction.

With a concrete podium underneath for five.

Maybe not.

I think you could do five-story stick pretty well, fire rated these days.

And would you say that if you weren't unrestricted and you would go higher and you would provide more units presumably rather than just making them bigger to fill the space, would those units potentially have to be lower priced in order for you to sell them all, rent them out?

That's a very hypothetical question.

I don't know because I mean you're

You're asking me like deeper development questions.

I'd have to sit down with the site because you might not even need to do more units.

You had more height and you had more views.

It might make sense maybe because the setbacks.

I mean, you're talking about things.

I'd love to sit down with the city and talk about just general urban planning concepts of why height isn't the only definitive measure and that there's a lot of things to do in the city and that you're you're talking about a lot of different things that factor into the equation and my pro forma.

But you're

It's very hard to answer that.

If you should specifically tell me your concern, maybe I can address it, but I don't.

And then I think my last question is related to the side setback you have next to one of the historic houses you're preserving.

In your designs, you show a mural that you have that side setback in order to preserve the view of, I guess?

That mural, we're very fortunate actually, we're having an internationally renowned muralist, Faith 47, actually BAR approved her work and she's coming in mid to late September to do that mural and so

me being the adjacent landowner rather than covered up with a building that if someone else was doing University Tire might just do that as of right, I have the opportunity to, and it also works with the BAR's recommendations and what I think is good development is to have kind of courtyard and leave that available and visible that mural and also have some open space so again things I'll work through with the BAR as far as setback and again to your point which was a good point that we again show the box

As zoning allows with a 10-foot setback, it doesn't mean that there won't be 10, 15, or that it won't be job to have better architectural design, which is what we pride ourselves on.

Great.

And actually, sorry, I got one more question that you just sparked in me.

You mentioned the courtyard that I think was one of the conditions last time, your meditative courtyard.

I don't know.

Okay.

That's, again, a much larger conversation about combining them or not combining them, but I don't know the answer to that.

Any other questions?

Could I ask you a quick question?

Sure.

If we allowed you to build 12 stories, how much affordable housing would you put in this thing?

Real affordable.

Or would you go all market rate?

Well, first of all, if you're telling me free market, would I build all market rate?

Probably build all market rate.

Would you say the choice was between the status quo and 12 stories if you put in affordable housing, like the height bonuses we're talking about on Thursday in the form-based code?

You don't have to know that part.

Yes.

Do you want to have a real conversation?

The real conversation is that

The private and the public sector should work together to build true affordable housing in the way that they do it.

We build every day as developers.

I've said this to Ms. Pethia as well a while ago that there should be some collaboration in how we build

I operate under the current rules today and the ordinance today.

I'd love to have a conversation about different inducement.

And I've seen another, I've worked in New York, Boston, I've seen different municipalities work together to achieve what I think Charlottesville's looking to achieve from the public and private sector.

But a lot of time without that inducement, I mean they call it inclusionary housing and some other things.

That's another thing as long as we're on that topic I'd like to just make sure everybody understands in our zoning ordinance there is a generally applicable provision that says if you reference four stories that refers to 50 feet of height.

In the West Main Street East zoning district, you're allowed to have 52 feet of height maximum.

So if what the applicant's asking for is to be able to go to whatever the maximum height in the zoning ordinance allows, you don't need a condition at all that describes height.

And I noticed you bought this property a few months ago for twice market for $2.9 million.

Were you in a hurry for some reason?

Objection for relevance.

Your questions are very good, but I don't know if they're relevant to this application at all, are they?

No, I don't believe so.

Again, it's very important to focus on the details that are presented in the application materials and then to ask questions to clarify how your ordinances and the general land use issues to be addressed in those ordinances are to be tailored through your conditions.

We'll have a quick question before we go on.

So staff recommends that the building height shall not exceed four stories.

It's not five stories.

The attorney, Robertson, was very clear.

The zoning speaks for itself as to 52 feet in height.

I mean, I would respectfully say I don't know why we would rewrite the rezoning with a condition.

I have to comply with the 52 feet height.

Standard architectural practices will tell you I'm only going to get probably five feet in there, but to just say four stories.

And I understand why is because my indicative plans happen to have

Mr. Levine, the staff recommendation for the underground parking, no direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the building street wall along West Main Street.

It's funny, I was listening to that during the BAR, it'll have to be set back.

along West Main.

It'll have to be set back a little so it's not in the building wall.

I recall maybe it was

Tim Morris was talking about maybe there's a little drive aisle back a little further and going in.

I mean obviously it has to come off of West Main Street, but I interpret that BAR in this condition, which I'm okay with, is it can't be right in the street wall and actually 600 West Main isn't in that building wall.

It is set back as I would imagine the BAR would like it because it's set back behind the Blue Moon Diner and

and the future retail.

It's worded a little awkwardly.

So, yeah.

Yeah.

Any other questions related to this application?

Then I will thank you so much.

At this time, we'll open up the public hearing.

I remind you of three minutes for your public comment.

Please stick to this time.

The light will come on and give you that information.

And if you have signed up for this at this time, we have no one signed up for this application.

So if there's anyone that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

Good evening.

I'm Pat Edwards.

And before I don't go, I want to thank all of you for what you do.

Thank you, because I wouldn't want to do it.

And I thank you for it.

All right.

I come tonight to talk about

the building we call the Annex and it is the Holsinger Building.

It is a delicate building and thankfully one of the conditions is that it should be seismically monitored.

I would love for you all to flesh that out and say how that goes on and who would be responsible for reading it and communicating to the church what is discovered as a result of it.

I also say there's a mural on the wall of our building and I'm sure it was not done by some famous person but it is there and it may well be covered up.

I also want to say that that alley that runs between those buildings, the retaining wall belongs to Mr. Levine.

We had a nice conversation out there in the hall.

We even hugged

The retaining wall belongs to them, but we use that alley.

It is an active alley, and we cannot have it blocked or otherwise made, so we can't use it.

And then the last thing I would like to comment on is the fact that

The Starr Hill neighborhood right now is being parked in by everybody and his brother, okay?

UVA, construction workers, people getting on the Amtrak train and, you know, you see them taking their luggage heading up Brown Street, okay?

Parking is a serious issue for the neighborhoods.

And you say, oh, well, just good neighborhood parking.

No, it's not that simple, and it's not particularly convenient.

So I'd appreciate very much if you would be mindful

of the fact that surrounding neighborhoods are being impacted by all the construction and the fact that there will be people, yes they'll ride their bicycles, but guess what they'll also have?

Cars!

And you probably are not going to have enough parking for the men.

So they're going to long-term park them in our neighborhoods.

And that is the problem.

The trash men can't back down the hill anymore because there are cars on either side.

And so those poor guys have to walk down the hill to get the trash and bring it back up.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mark Cabot.

Earlier this year or last year, I don't really remember which one the board members made a comment that when some of these developers come before

the group here with a request for SUPs.

They need to give back to the community and I think this is a

Good case of where that could be done and should be done.

It would be really nice if the developer was to do some efficiency type units, smaller units, which could be possibly done at a lower cost.

There's definitely people that live and I will say work in the downtown area who would like to not have to be taking cars into town and trying to find affordable housing.

And this could be a good location for something like that.

So I do feel that there should be some affordable housing on site.

And so I hope the developer will look at that.

I have the option to be able to be very blunt in some of my comments and what I like to say, which sometimes you all can't do.

But I think we have a developer here that basically is looking at it from the standpoint of how much can he possibly get out of the units and maximize his return on investment.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

My name is Paul Reader.

I live the other side of the tracks in the Fifeville neighborhood.

So I would firstly like to just echo the comment that was made about parking in the neighborhoods.

We have yet to see the impact of the allowance for a lower parking provision from 600 West Main Street.

I believe that it's going to impact

parking in the Fifeville as well as the Starr Hill neighborhood.

Since we have the convenience of having the same developer here, perhaps we ought to be looking to make up a little bit on what we haven't got because my recollection a long time ago was that you agreed to make provisions for parking for people who couldn't park within 600 West Main Street.

and I was wondering where that had got to because I haven't seen any of it yet.

I just think it's a little bit naive to expect that we're going to put up these very expensive apartments and expect that people won't have cars and they're just simply going to ride their bikes or crash their scooters.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this project?

Then I will close the public hearing and open this up for discussion.

I actually have a question for staff following up on public comment, if I may.

Hello.

I had a question about seismic monitoring procedure, which is something I don't know much about.

How detailed can we get?

I don't know much about it either.

So I'm not entirely sure how much we would, at what point in the condition you'd want to spell things out versus,

what could be left to the applicant to kind of demonstrate that they've complied with that.

The only I think the guidance we may have is City Council's blasting ordinance did kind of delve into that a little bit so we do have some people within the city who have

going into some of that in terms of how they've done it.

I know the applicant mentioned, you know, they were working very close to the, what we consider the ABC building, but the adjacent building on the other side of 600 West Main and the diner.

So they were working extremely close to that building when they were building their current project.

And they had to go through precautions there.

Typically, you know, there is seismic monitoring that can be done in conjunction with

Blasting, there's a whole process by that.

Obviously, we're not talking about that here.

I really shouldn't be using the B word at all.

But there are methods that are similar in terms of doing a survey of the property prior to any construction activity, documenting it and periodically checking on it to see if there's any

any kind of signs of damage or signs of disruption and mitigating those as soon as you can.

Obviously letting a problem continue makes things worse.

What is the age difference in say the Blue Moon Diner and the

On the current building, they've worked around three buildings.

Two they own.

The ABC building was where the ABC started.

So here's a picture of it when it was the standard produce company with the horse wagons pulled into the first floor and Holsinger's studio was upstairs and there's still in the basement the freight elevator from this operation and the 1920s cooling system that cooled the produce company, the operation.

So it does go back.

It has some wonderful history.

And in terms of the monitoring, I'm a little familiar with it because of my work at the Rotunda, but that was a very

I was going to suggest that the details of this of course have to be worked out but at least to modify the recommendation to say that real-time notification to building occupants of significant movement would be required and that way we have

It's being monitored as the work is going on, and then there are set limits, certain movement amounts.

At the rotunda, when it moved a 20th of an inch, we received a notice at a

At an eighth of an inch we received an alarm and at a quarter of an inch we shut the project down.

So something similar to that can be worked out so that we have the, and I think the main concern is the first off, the safety of the occupants of the building as this project is going up.

Can I ask you a question based off of your knowledge with that?

Does it make sense, and I don't know if this is, since this is a special use permit, we can have conditions on this.

Does it make sense to pull that further back on that side?

Because right now, the only thing that's, is it the alley?

I'm not asking you for engineering, but I'm just saying from a standpoint of having just that whole structure moved a little bit further from the Holsinger Building.

To give more room to work.

Shockingly, I probably

I am fine with just the alley being there because that is the historic development of projects and buildings on this street.

They had alleys between them and they put them as close as they could and that's the historic development.

I'll catch all kinds of hell from my good friends.

As an architectural historian, I would say that

Dali is fine.

So and so let's just play devil's advocate what happens if

So we have a condition that says, you know, seismic monitoring as this project goes.

What happens if all of a sudden there is damage to a historic, obviously historic structure?

So the question in those cases is always how close a relationship

There is between damage that somebody finds in their building and somebody's proving that that is the result of some sort of seismic activity caused by the development on the parcel.

and so that's not something the city would typically be in the middle of but I would suggest that if you do include a condition that requires the gathering of data regarding seismic activity generated by the development activities that perhaps the easiest thing to do is would would be to

require that information to be shared with an adjacent property owner on request.

But would it at least be like a tort that they could sue over if they could prove that they... That's generally what happens in those cases, yes.

Yeah.

The city would not typically be involved in that.

Gotcha.

So it would be wise to digitally document the building before construction starts, then to have it monitored during construction, and then do the same kind of documentation at the end of the project to see if there's been any movement.

Now the details of this I can't give you, and I hope that doesn't

I hope there's a way around that, that the details can be worked out as the project goes along.

I know the applicant is mentioning that he might have some language to suggest in this regard.

I do have a question.

Why was this not something that the staff thought of, since we do have

a historic building right next to it.

We've never put a condition in terms of seismic monitoring.

We've done conditions in terms of notification of businesses prior to construction, you know, maintenance of a hotline type thing or, you know, a phone number contact.

The Holstinger building is a contributing member to the historic district, so yes it is a certified historic building.

So I just have a question.

It's not, I think the rationale behind that would be that there's a condition on the SUP to generate a record that the parties that are involved here would be able to access.

I don't know that, you know, the city, the recourse from the city, the city's not swooping in into a civil matter.

We're not a party to that.

So, you know, anytime there's a,

some dispute between private property owners.

The city doesn't mediate that.

We don't come in and do an enforcement action.

So I guess my question is, is clearly there was some type of issue or that arise from the BAR if they made the condition.

So let's say construction starts.

We notice that there's some shift in the building.

So not so much as an, oh, you destroyed our building, now you got to pass.

But if we're going to have this monitoring in place, what is the purpose of it?

The way the condition is worded, I think they satisfy, the applicant satisfies that condition by having the monitoring in place.

What's done further beyond that is a matter between the private property owners in terms of, okay, in the event of this, this happens, or the church has access to the data and somebody can say, okay, we've got these issues that arose because of this construction activity.

Let's talk about how we're gonna fix that.

On this, from the BAR, why was there not a section of this about data collection?

Because it just talks about demolition or seismically monitor

Because again, the details of what this would be, the kind of equipment, what kind of monitoring, how much of a difference before someone is notified.

Is it real time?

Are the occupants notified as soon as they have it?

Lots of details.

Thank you.

I was just going to say, I was going to try to put people's mind to these a couple of things.

So I did in a similar agreement with the adjacent landowner.

I mean, the partly comforting thing is I built 600 West Main and didn't knock four buildings down.

So that was a good news.

And two of them were contributing structures and very old.

But I did have an arrangement and I could probably work with you on language that I've done with adjacent landowners that has, I know the detail you're looking for and it is very

specific as to how you monitor and you get the reports and get some on his phone.

And I can put everyone at ease with language that the building's not going to come down, it's not going to move.

And the ultimate recourse is to get sued for taking down a building is not a good idea.

So one modification might be to simply require an agreement with that adjacent property owner under a written agreement setting forth the terms of, you know, under which monitoring would occur and whatever type of agreement you're referring to.

The reason I could never agree to that is that you would put the power in the adjacent landowner that I could never get an SUP until they agreed with me, and then they would just simply not agree.

So what I would do is I would agree to the condition that we will seismically monitor, provide data, and not cause any structural damage to the neighboring building.

And how I will do that, I will provide

So I think that where this is going I think there has to be more words in this condition and I think that you could make a recommendation for those categories of things to be included and then the applicant can send us whatever specific language that he would be agreeable to including within the condition which could be incorporated

Could say something like the applicant agrees to provide data, monitor, seismically monitor the adjacent structure during activities involving involving demolition, excavation or construction of the building and underground parking and agree to not cause any damage to the adjacent structure.

The agreement language to be worked through and agreed to by the city attorney.

I've never written conditions, so I don't know.

I'm just kidding.

Is that acceptable to you?

That's still very well worded.

I don't even think you need the last part, because once you put in that there can't be any damage and I have to do all that, essentially, I'll never get a certificate of appropriateness or anything else unless I've shown that I didn't do that.

So I don't know then what other language.

I mean, I don't know.

I think that what you just read is fine.

I think that the wording of the final condition needs to be finessed.

I don't like doing it on the fly here, what's in there.

I'm sorry it wasn't flushed out before it got to you but it's too general.

The applicant is offering a solution but I believe that the applicant should provide the specific wording for the final wording for a condition which will be consistent with

I understand that part.

This is what concerns me with that.

This is not a proffer, so all this is not left up to the applicant to provide us the language he wants.

How can we vote on this tonight without that language?

As long as the final wording is consistent with what's been discussed here tonight, I'm comfortable with that.

I would like to hear more about the applicant and the landowner.

So first act is being able to come to an agreement, not just with the landowner

It's not sitting well.

If you're talking about being able to settle this in court, clearly the landowner will have more funds available to do that.

And so you're bringing a church in a position where they may not be able to fight a legal battle.

Yes.

Councilman Galvin.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

I just sent this to Ms. Roberts.

for the National Park Service.

They had guidelines for protecting a historic structure during adjacent construction.

And one statement is when historic structures are exposed to adjacent construction, demolition should be protected by hand, including documentation, monitoring, and specific safeguards should be implemented to prevent damage or loss of historic fabric.

There's a whole bowl of stuff in this document that might very well provide that language,

In short, it sounds like there should be a protected plan.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm interested in under our current guidelines if there, since this is an SUV, if there are potential enforcements from the city.

And if legal can look into that.

Based off of what I know of the state law, this is a civil matter between two private landowners, except for this special use permit condition.

I will say that the reference to a protective plan, given the status of that building is a historic building, is something that I would be more comfortable with

in a condition such as this, in a special use permit condition.

But again, it's really difficult to do this at a public meeting.

But the notion that we would require a protective plan, I'm more comfortable with that than the language that just says monitor seismic activity.

I think that's more consistent with our historic district guidelines and the requirements that everyone not do harm to historic buildings.

But I don't, we don't know what that plan would look like right now.

So this is a good opportunity for me to say I always encourage you all to come to us at a work session.

That's just my plug for that little thing.

We'll definitely do one.

I'm bringing another project before you and I've requested that meeting.

But what I would suggest is once you put in the condition that seismically monitor, notice, notify the landowner and cannot cause

structural damage to this building.

I will have built an entire building, be done with a project, waiting to open it, and I will have to demonstrate that I did not structurally damage that building.

In my mind, that's all you need is no other hammer larger than

than that.

I don't feel comfortable with that because as we can see these different bodies love to punt, as my fellow commissioner said, items off to other people.

So if you are asking for a special use permit for

to feel comfortable granting you that I would like to see the details of what this should look like because just saying that you're going to monitor it is one thing if you're monitoring and this is what happens if XYZ happens then those are details so just saying oh I can't get a certificate of occupancy still does not it covers you

Reiterate my specificity.

I'm not just saying I'll monitor it.

I'm saying that I will not cause structural damage to that.

So you won't just have in the condition that I'll monitor it.

You'll have this ultimate thing which none of us can know until the project's over.

And what everyone's looking for is that there's no structural damage to this building.

So once you put that condition in, that's what's larger than that.

I can't, you're not punting it.

You're basically, it's no different than saying,

I can't build over 52 feet or I have to have my driveway off of it.

I mean, what's your protection?

I don't put my driveway off.

I mean, you're putting a condition in this resolution that says I cannot cause structural damage to this adjacent building.

In fact, the risk on me, I'm going to have to stand before someone one day and show you that I have not caused that structural damage.

So no one's punting it.

You're you're you're laying your your burdening risk where risk should be.

It's on me.

You're putting the risk on me to not cause damage to this neighboring building.

OK, thank you so much.

OK. Is it a possibility to say?

The Holsinger Building, Shelby, seismically monitored what this language says activities involving demolition, excavation,

So you tell me how the zoning administrator is supposed to resolve a situation in which the owner of this property says I didn't cause any damage.

and the owner of the adjacent property says I have damage and I think it was attributable to this.

And the zoning administrator is that it's not a zoning issue.

I do like Ms. Galvin's suggestion that we talk about

A protective plan, I think that's more consistent with how we are set up in connection with looking out for historic properties under our

our zoning requirements and our BAR guidelines but I just I haven't I can't read a Park Service regulation while I'm sitting in a public meeting right I think that

I'm happy to review it.

I'm happy to review the language of that with the applicant and discuss what the pros and cons of that may be and the comfort level.

That's not to say that it's necessarily for the applicant if our office is satisfied that it's a reasonable condition related to

you know, land use.

I do this every day.

I didn't say that, but what I'm saying is that

The notion that there would be a land use condition and a special use permit that requires a protective plan relative to an adjacent historic property is much more consistent with our general approach to crafting conditions for special use permits.

I can't think of another situation that I've been involved in where we make somebody promise absolutely no damage to an adjacent property and that gets enforceable through by the zoning administrator.

There's all sorts of ways in using your property you can damage somebody next to you.

Zoning is concerned with your use of your property.

Our historic district regulations are concerned with protecting historic properties.

I'm willing to consider looking at

I agree with you if it's two individual properties, right?

It's a civil matter, but this is not.

This is a special use permit.

I'm not suggesting he is, but I am suggesting that we make something and have something in here to be able to at least give the church some peace of mind.

OK. Can I make a suggestion that may get us somewhere that

Well, it would be something to the effect that the applicant shall implement a monitoring service that protects the Holstinger building and its occupants.

during construction that does the following.

First, digitally documents the Holsinger Building prior to construction.

Second, seismically monitor during the construction with real-time notification to occupants of significant movement.

You still feel uncomfortable with that?

and that way it's up to, I mean, ultimately it's gonna be the church that has to prove that something happened to their building.

So they have the documentation before and after construction to show that something did happen and could then take it as a civil matter to the applicant.

I'm no lawyer.

Could you read those one more time?

I won't be the same.

The applicant shall implement a monitoring system that protects the Holsinger Building and its occupants that does the following.

Digitally documents the Holsinger Building prior to construction, seismically monitors the building during construction with real-time notification to occupants of significant movement,

I still have the question of the cause and effect.

So if for some reason, and I know their goal is not to damage the building because he doesn't want to have to be reliable, but he's also not the one doing the construction either physically.

So my question is, is if we are putting in a monitoring system in place and kind of like you said with the rotunda, if it moves however many centimeters of an inch or whatever,

Then what?

Are we going to keep building?

Do we stop building?

Do we fix what the problem has caused?

I guess I'm okay with the agreement, but I feel like if we're going to have an agreement, we also need to have if this happens, then this takes place.

Do you see the cause and effect?

Or just in general, shouldn't be left on them to be like, hey, well, we messed up your building.

We're going to keep going.

So maybe that gets incorporated into the plan that Kathy mentioned.

So they lay out a plan with, I assume, a structural engineer that says this is the threshold of seismic movement where it matters and something else needs to happen.

Does that make sense?

So I have a question.

What's our time frame on this?

Or the condition that... Or language in this to make it... Because right now we're just throwing out words and maybe forgetting something.

But if our legal counsel has the opportunity, maybe the applicant and also all parties involved to take a look at it prior to us

I mean, it all can't fall upon the applicant.

The church has to take responsibility that if they're notified that there's been movement that's occurred, then the church puts the applicant on notice that movement has occurred and you have created damage to our building.

If the applicant proceeds with construction and takes a chance of the building failing, I mean, that's a huge lawsuit.

I'll offer that second.

So as part of the site plan process, we're responsible for providing a traffic management plan.

I wonder, and that site plan also has to return back to the planning commission.

So if we condition the preservation protection plan to be worked out between now and the time of site plan to return to the planning commission for review and its approval,

Is that a potential alternative to allow us the opportunity to work through the details, the specifics, the language of that preservation protection, what details, what industry standards for the size of monitoring, the vertical and horizontal movement, pre- and post-construction documentation, and what the parameters are, and as a side note,

Mr. Leandro, what you outlined is exactly what we have done on the current 600 West Main for the directly adjacent property line ABC store.

Preconditioned photo documentation, seismic monitoring, which had real time notifications and those limits set to industry standards per the geotech analysis and their geotech industry standards.

Those were provided both to

applicant developer, construction team, and also the adjacent owner, and then post-construction documentation, photo documentation.

So to the extent that that may be an acceptable alternative to include as a similar vein as a traffic management plan, a preservation protection plan, we'd submit that at the time of site plan, which would return to the Planning Commission.

Would that hold up legally?

But this is a special use permit condition.

So I think I think that's doable.

It would include a requirement for a preservation protection plan.

You should have that resolved so that an approved protection plan can

can be established before final site plan approval.

I don't know that I'd like the idea that it's part of the site plan, but if we could agree on who's going to approve that plan and the plan has to be in place before final site plan approval could be obtained, then I think we're there.

It would be a simple condition.

We'd change the condition to say that a preservation protection plan shall be approved by blank prior to final site plan approval.

Maybe it's the BAR?

if I might recommend we have to return to the BAR for certificate of appropriateness for design regardless of it's this application or a buy-write commercial application that still meets all of those guidelines and that condition came out of the BAR so I might condition that as the BAR and we have to return to the Planning Commission for the final site plan review as well so if you put both bodies in there

We can work with staff to craft the plan between now and return.

Well, we could do a deferral.

because maybe we don't like your plan.

Not saying that we wouldn't, but then maybe depending on what that plan looks like, I may not want to vote for your SUV.

I'm just saying I feel like if we're going to vote, we should have all the information as we've said before in front of us, let us review it and make that decision from that.

Because right now I don't feel comfortable with this.

I don't think we have enough details.

That's just my personal opinion.

Does it have to be a city staff person that approves it?

Well, no, it could be the B.A.R.

It could be you.

But I think it needs to be you know, your site plan approvals are based on requirements in your ordinance and other zoning regulations.

This isn't

This is a big thing to put your name on.

Yeah, I think that's, you know, it's very difficult, while I understand the issues at stake, they're important historic issues, but it's very difficult

But I'm just saying it's difficult

And I get that.

But that was a question.

Had this not been in here, protection of these buildings is a huge topic of discussion I was going to have tonight anyway.

But whether it was in there or not, we can we can certainly include a condition that requires an approval of a preservation protection plan.

But we need to specify who's going to approve that.

So if it's going to be if the

Landing Commission needs to determine that the preservation plan is adequate at the time of site plan approval, then it can be you.

Since the BAR was the source of the recommendation, you could specify in the condition that the plan would be approved by them, and it has to be approved before you can get final site plan approval.

or you can specify somebody else who will approve the adequacy of the plan.

It wouldn't necessarily be guaranteeing that what's in the plan is going to keep damage from happening.

I just had a quick question that we may have already covered this.

Who is going to be in charge of monitor monitoring on city staff?

This they're monitoring.

Is somebody already in place for that?

Now that now

Periodic reports to someone on city staff could be part of a preservation plan.

That could be part of that.

Are you coming down to enlighten us with something?

on this?

I'm a civil engineer who happens to be the traffic engineer at the city.

If you're going to rely on the city staff, I would say that we make a condition more like we do for structural walls and that kind of stuff in the city, that there be a plan for the preservation that's stamped by

you know a structural engineer who focuses on historic preservation or something like that that then staff can review but I don't think that putting the whole emphasis on a particular staff member would be a good idea.

Just because it's a it's a very specialized field as far as the structural engineering And I don't know that we have any of our civil engineers on staff that are that specialized to speak to seismic You know Fluctuations and stuff.

I mean we can review a plan and see if it makes sense and again we're we're relying on the stamp of someone who

And their license as well.

I mean, I studied structural engineering in college, but I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my stamp on a plan saying that, by all means, this is going to protect that building.

So just to clarify, the suggestion is that the requirement would be that the applicant would develop a plan, and we would review it.

Correct.

Yes, it would have to be some kind of stamped plan.

I mean we can work with a structural engineer.

Right, whether it's, you know, and I would even go further than that and like someone who's had experience with structurally preserving historic buildings because I think that's, I mean there's a difference between a structural engineer who their whole career is, you know,

Building new bridges or buildings versus trying to maintain and preserve those that are existing.

It's up to you if there's time for a deferral.

You don't have to act until your next meeting.

Missy says there's time.

Yes.

I think he means continue to the next meeting.

Yes.

Well, for you all, it doesn't matter.

Usually, you use the word to defer when the applicant's requesting.

You all are just sort of tabling it until your next meeting.

She's the lawyer, though.

Procedural question, when you reference, do we have time between meetings?

is what would be the next council meeting or agenda that this would go on?

Is it a planning commission meeting in between then and the council meeting?

And if it were acted upon in any capacity tonight, then it would go on which council agenda?

September.

Well, it's not the first.

It's the Tuesday because of the holiday, Labor Day holiday.

And would it be the first of October at the first meeting?

Yeah, it is also the first.

Oh, no, it was the Tuesday.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, we're the Tuesday people.

So we would make a motion to move this to the, to continue this.

To your regular September meeting and direct staff to bring you a better condition.

A more comprehensive condition.

I didn't know what you meant by continue either.

I think it's earlier.

It is the 10th, you are correct.

and direct staff to work on this condition to reflect the discussions that we're having this evening about our concerns and have a protection plan referenced in that condition.

Did I state that correctly?

Fantastic.

Hang on.

We're in the middle of this motion.

I'll second that motion.

Direct staff to take our comments and come up with a more comprehensive condition.

We have a motion and a second.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

I will just say that during this time Mr. Heaton has had an emergency of some sort and Mr. Mitchell has decided he probably can't vote on this without some being bare-minded in his own head I guess so he left.

So that's where we are.

So we're now at five.

For clarity, if this does get deferred, the return here, are we going to narrow this conversation to a protection plan?

I'd like to hear at least a discussion or a poll on the other things, because we discussed not having a four-story limitation.

We discussed not having a parking.

We've got this broader thing.

And so I'd prefer not to start again if we're going to come in with a protection plan and discuss that.

then that would kind of focus us and I could be limited to that.

And I also would, I didn't bring an attorney to this so I'll ask you, but the thing that seems to jump out at me is that the discussion should be about how the incremental density has an adverse effect on the neighborhood and I don't know how the increased density has any effect on the adjacent landowner's building.

I just put that out there so it's on the record, so maybe my counsel will call.

I don't know how this kind of goes into the level of whether how additional density has an adverse impact on the adjacent owner, and I've proffered some very good compromises this evening, which I think should give you the comfort to vote.

I'm disappointed we're not having a vote but if we are not I'm going to defer it then I would like to limit it just to this protection plan and I'd also like to reserve the right to have a further conversation with my council and understand how the limited review of increased density has an effect on seismic

We're going to take a vote and then we'll have some further discussion about anything else that y'all may have concerns with.

I'll still go back to we offer these at work sessions so we can have back and forths before we get up here and try to make sausage in front of everyone and all the people.

So I prefer to make sausage in the work sessions.

So we have a motion and a second and that is to come back to the September 10th meeting

You sure?

Well, it's going to come back with more language, with a better language on this protection plan.

But we won't take a vote until September.

It's not really a deferral.

You're right, it's not really a deferral.

It's a continuing to then.

But staff has been directed in the motion to listen to the discussion we've had and come up with a protective plan based off of what?

Why don't you vote on the motion that's on the table and you can make a little bit more discussion.

Mr. Solla-Yates?

Aye.

And Ms. Green?

The motion to continue to September 10th carries.

Based off of the other

conditions and things that were discussed here.

Is there anything that you have further discussion, you want to have further discussion that's giving you pause?

That was one of my concerns.

And then we also haven't talked about how we're going to exactly mitigate parking because the applicant itself said that what he gave us in this draft that we are reviewing is not definitive.

It was just, oh, and a roundabout.

So how am I supposed to make an informed decision on a roundabout?

Not even a great estimated figure when I already know we've had this discussion about how these projects impact the surrounding neighborhoods.

What if we look at these conditions really quick?

Kind of look not by head of nod that we have consensus on them as we go down.

So condition one,

The special use permit part A is no more than one building.

Are you consensus with that?

I would scrap it, but I don't think it matters.

But I would scrap it because it doesn't matter.

Same.

Okay.

I'm anti.

Same.

I think the idea is they might be able to squeeze it in but if they end up with four they're gonna be pretty huge ceiling heights right like that's yeah

Well, I mean, yeah, right?

But it would be better, though I guess they say for some reason, I don't quite understand why it doesn't affect the density.

But to me, it would be better if there were more apartments in general that were somewhat lower down the market, even though they're going to be obviously at the top regardless.

But I mean, it does make a difference if you're building what's at the top of the water house.

I guess for me too, keeping into consideration that we talked about preserving the view of a mural, which I totally get that, that's fine, but what about, we often don't take in the context of the existing neighbors, where is their view?

We get these big tall massing buildings,

What about their view?

Well I was just saying in general, you know, that's an issue for me when it comes to height.

And it's not just on this project, it's on all the projects that we see.

So that's not, hang on, I like four feet.

Four stories.

True, but do you really think those diversity of housing types are going to get us what we really need in the comp plan?

I'm inclined to stay with the four stories only because of the transition areas that we are talking about in our comprehensive plan as well.

and having a historical site next to that.

And I don't think anything should be as high as that steeple anyway.

So that would be my – I'm sorry, but I thought that it doesn't actually change the height.

Or I guess it's two feet.

I don't see any value to it, and I see some potential issues with it, but ultimately the proposal is for 55 units.

It's the maximum allowed by a special use permit anyway.

Actually, I did have one question on that.

If you multiply the density we're allowing per acre times the acreage, it's

54-point something.

Round it up.

That specific also relates to the parking and so if we're having that situation where we're bringing in more so that for me 55 that's what's proposed I'm good with that.

D, Building shall not contain space, shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses which shall be located on the ground floor of the building facing West Main Street.

So I know often on other projects we

Very clearly describe what type of retail we want to see in these spaces.

Is this one of those cases?

So that what you're talking about typically is when we're doing a rezoning and people have those uses filled out and they take it away.

But this being a special use permit, I think it'd be anything that's allowed kind of in that district.

Does that make sense?

Retail, right.

Okay.

That's a great question, but that's kind of the difference there.

Thank you.

Any heartburn about this condition?

Mr. Stolzen?

Fine.

Good, good.

Look at that.

You nailed some up.

Underground parking shall be provided within a parking structure constructed underneath the building.

Provide at least 53 spaces serving the use and occupancy of the building.

No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the building's street wall along West Main Street.

The template that they put in there for parking doesn't take into account all the specifications that they may need to consider and they didn't include any of the potential

credits that they could receive through the ordinance.

And so they expressed concern with that number, though that's what was on the document.

I see.

Yeah, I mean, I would like to add a clause saying, you know, less any reductions allowed under the zoning ordinance.

Because there's like all these incentives to do extra stuff like

you can like donate in the park modified zoning like donate to the transportation fund like a ton of money which is for an underground parking spot the equivalent is like $50,000 to the transportation fund because they use it like national benchmarks so I would like a clause that allows them to use the incentives and the zoning ordinance that we have.

How does that help the neighborhood?

I mean, it doesn't obviously directly address the concerns but the incentives we have in the ordinance are with the goal of lessening the traffic problems in the entire city by shifting people to alternative modes of transportation.

which I mean you're right that that's not a magic thing where suddenly one day everyone's gonna wake up and stop driving but like I mean we're talking about like two three people out of 55 that maybe we can push to be better and you know not right particularly because

or, well, potentially because they have the choice to do in lieu payments.

But if they do on-site affordable units, people with lower incomes are much more likely to rely on transit.

It's true, but let's be real.

We're talking about real-time monitoring.

Let's be real in the present time.

Well, only if they're required to, right?

I asked you a question.

What affordable unit do you see going in this property?

You were the one who told me about the price points.

No, I mean the ones that are required to under 3412, which is only 2,400 square feet.

I don't like the specifying 53.

If they meet the code, I think meeting the code is adequate.

What's the difference in the code and what this is?

We don't know because we don't know, right?

The mass of the building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel mass and historically on the side is West Main

Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side.

Yeah, the recommendation is good.

Great.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Great.

Bless you.

It's down.

Oh, we're good.

And four.

There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent and permeable facade at street level.

Mr. Solis, to start with you.

Four.

Madam Chairman, just one little nit.

I don't know what a permeable facade is.

I don't know what's... Well, permeable, I guess, is more than just transparent.

Well, I know you lawyers figure it out.

Yeah, so, I mean, for it to be just a sheet of glass all the way across the entire length of the building is not what we're... Access points?

Do you have any additional that you'd like to add other than what we've talked about?

I didn't touch on three again.

They would have to meet the criteria that were part of the Fort Bob program.

So they would be plugged into the tool that's put in place that's based on the legislation that we've been provided and they would have to meet the criteria for that.

Correct.

Yes, that's correct.

All right.

Next one?

Way on to the next?

Do you have everything you need?

Okay.

I know council's ready to get out of here.

Currently, the ordinance requires two points of access for any development that contains 50 or more dwelling units.

This requirement is outdated and does not match current fire code or other engineering and safety standards.

The purpose of these amendments

We have many people supporting this item this evening.

So to remind you all of how this

came to to be a consideration.

So at the May Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Trey Stegman requested that the commission consider a text amendment to this section, and he provided some background information

concerning that and you all decided to discuss that at your next work session or at a upcoming work session and so you all scheduled that for the June work session and that was held and you all decided to initiate that so in this case there is not a specific applicant

because text amendments have to be either initiated through Planning Commission or City Council.

So at that meeting you initiated the review and then at the, well actually you asked for it to be initiated and then at the July 9th meeting it came forward for that formal initiation.

So we've received some comments today concerning this and this is kind of one of those things that's a little bit difficult to explain because, well first of all, the access section of the ordinance as well as many other portions of the ordinance are problematic.

their updates that need to be made, their conflicts with existing standards.

So since this was brought forward for you all's review, we took a deeper look at that and determined, well found that the standards exist that would

that would create safe and secure situations, but the number that was placed in the section for two entryways with 50 units or greater was arbitrarily put in there.

There wasn't a specific reason that we could find for that in consulting of the fire code as well as the standards and design manual.

Those are the locations where the true information needs to come from and not specifically in the zoning ordinance and so with that number in the zoning ordinance we in some cases it could limit the situation where fire requests something different or traffic needs something different based on

So we brought this forward after we've had the work session in review.

We do want to be clear that this wasn't pertaining to a specific development.

We looked at this code section independently of that.

However, we did anticipate that we would have some concern from the community because there are a number of developments throughout the community where the concern would

could result.

And so we did anticipate those.

We've provided some background on that so far and we plan to do some more tonight.

So I just wanted to reiterate what Missy said.

We did go through, staff reviewed this, fire reviewed this.

The code that we have, as she said, is arbitrary.

Language within the draft standards and design manual that should be coming before you all and council later this this fall this year that addresses some of these access issues from a traffic management standpoint and then the fire code already addresses it from the health and safety aspect of it.

So there's kind of the two reasons for this.

When I as a traffic engineer I'm looking at this the code that we currently have

is restrictive because it all it is looking at is the dwelling unit so it's the only thing that it's taking into consideration it's not taking into consideration whether it's a corner lot it's not taking into consideration you know other buildings that are around it you know what road it's coming out on to is it coming out on to 29 versus you know

I want a question and then I want to clarify something real quick miss Tracy Since we do not have an applicant yes, could we open public hearing for the benefit of council and

and then we could have more discussion after that and then, how do you all feel about that?

I know how council feels about that.

Go lock Rory in that bathroom.

I'm just kidding.

But really quickly on this, this states that, as I read this, this is outdated from

the current fire code.

Yes.

The fire department, the fire code official would be reviewing it.

It's Fire Code Appendix D, and there's several sections.

So again, this

This only applies to the, you know, how many dwelling units, but the fire code actually speaks to commercial and industrial developments, to multifamily, to one or two family.

So there's more information in the fire code than what our current zoning code even provides.

And they review all site plans.

Thank you.

I have one.

We've received a lot of public comment from people in the Belmont neighborhood concerning that there was a relationship to a specific project in Belmont, which I think is currently under proposal.

I don't think it's a buy-write.

Would this affect that?

Would that change it?

I'd have to look at it, I mean the fire code official would have to look at it from their point of view.

From my point of view it will still require multiple access points.

So I don't know with that particular project that this code change would affect anything from my point of view.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners, Trey Stegman, Management Services Corporation.

As I mentioned to you before when I brought this to your attention in May, represent numerous property owners, numerous clients in the city of Charlottesville from a development perspective.

This actually came to our attention very surprisingly in February of this year during a pre-application meeting with the city staff where we were proposing a project that otherwise was a by-right use project of approximately 90 units.

and we're told that because of our site plan and because of this access management zoning code, we'd actually be restricted to no more than 49 units.

That obviously was a surprise to us in a city that is severely lacking in the number of units that we need to support the existing and future growth of Charlottesville.

Beyond that, it also came to our attention by doing some limited research that over the past dozen years, at least nine projects of new construction development type have been approved where this code was not enforced.

for whatever reasons.

But it certainly was peculiar to us that we were being asked to, you know, limit our proposal to this zoning ordinance.

And then further, the staff has done a great job of kind of digging in here and I think agreeing that the arbitrary number of no more than 50 units without two points of public access or access period is just not

not really practical for urban type development.

And so we appreciate the staff.

We appreciate your suggestion of a work session that we had last couple months ago where we felt like a lot of things were put on the table and we felt like this zoning text amendment was a very good idea.

The staff, including the city attorney's office has come forward.

with a solution here that kind of corrects an unenforced, previously unenforced situation and one that frankly doesn't make any sense.

And to Brendan's point, having the staff analyze projects that are brought forward on a case-by-case basis, particular to access management.

We're not talking about fire.

We're not talking about public safety.

Those are all things that are addressed.

in other departments in other ways.

Thank you.

My name is Kat Meyer and I'm at 208 Douglas Avenue and if you put the amount of consideration to all of the applicants that come forward looking at different access that you just did to the last project,

I have complete trust and faith because you really took your time.

You went through all the nuance.

You protected the neighborhood and you really listened to the applicants.

So kudos to you all.

I just came to really figure out what is this with the access to be educated.

I think in some ways there's a lot of contra folks in Belmont, but we just really want to be your allies.

You know, we're looking at development

It is our hood.

We moved there because 20 years ago we could afford it.

There was diversity.

It's changing.

So we just really want to be your ally.

So if you hear anybody coming from Belmont, don't get nervous.

And the thing is, it's just the safety.

I think climate's changing.

So my thought was there's a lot more emergencies.

There's a lot more storms.

There's a this might be an older standard.

But dating, I think we have to look forward into the future that we do need easier access.

We need to have people to get out.

We need to have folks getting in to help out.

So I think when I hear that each one will be considered by the fire department, each one will be taken at its own consideration, then I just think you all have both sides and have a heck of a job.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm concerned that basically that this could be opening the floodgate to a lot of

development that's on the books right now that are being required to either have two or three entry points and going down to one entry point.

Here's an example is 100 Avon Street.

Currently I understand that there may be two entry points for it, but could just end up being changed.

Anybody that's tried to go from that area

over there to Avon Street onto Belmont Bridge and with the development that's planned for that area, if that does get done as one entry point at some point in order to accommodate the development, it's going to really be a headache trying to get out of there in a long, long way.

And it's not just a question of emergency vehicles and emergency vehicles being able to get to the project and get out of there, but it's also a convenience factor for the people that are there and have to deal with the other traffic situations.

It was mentioned about the one in Belmont that Capshaw is doing, I think it's called River Run or something like that.

But I know that they're having difficulty trying to have two entry points and so could we be looking at the potential

of eventually going down to one point.

So I personally would like to just see it more done as a situation where it's looked at and counted on each individual merit as to what we have versus, you know, just doing a blank change to one entry point.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

I just wanted to call your attention to paragraph A of the proposed text, which I think sufficiently addresses the comments that were just raised.

It continues to provide discretion to the city's traffic engineer to require additional access points.

At the beginning, the new text you see in red says, each entrance onto any street for vehicular traffic to and from a development shall be designed to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets

Minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street and on site.

Minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes such as fire, rescue, police, et cetera.

And then it says that to these ends, the traffic engineer in the review of the site plan may specify the type or excuse me, the number, type and location of access points on a public street and it goes on to

retain significant amount of discretion, just as Mr. Duncan said, the flexibility for him and his colleagues to review each application on a case-by-case basis to determine in the context of that project, in that location, that neighborhood, those existing traffic conditions, what makes the most sense.

I apologize.

I don't know if I stated my name when I started Valerie Long.

Thank you.

I want to reiterate thank you for the work you do because I know it's a long night already.

My name is Julia Williams.

I live in Belmont.

also recently became aware of this, so I was trying to quickly read through it.

And as I was reading through it, I recalled the quarterly meeting that the neighborhood associations had with the city manager and staff.

I happened to stand in for our president, Belmont Carlton.

And when I was looking through my notes and summarizing all the critical issues, the thread that was most common was concern about development pressure.

We didn't dive into it deeply.

I think it was probably, for the most part, conflicts between residential and commercial development.

But I think housing density also creates pressures that are very similar when you have lower density residential neighborhoods.

So I just wanted to put that out there.

I also think that in considering this proposal, it makes me think that a long-range planner

is still a position we very much need in the city.

So I want to put that out there again to encourage the city manager to consider that.

A couple specifics.

In section A, each entrance, let's see, the new text says then designed to reduce or prevent congestion in public areas, minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on public streets and on site.

Why doesn't it say

We see in our neighborhood in Belmont some intersections that may work better for traffic but we're actually getting a lot of complaints and concern about safety of pedestrians and other kinds of traffic.

Why can't we build that into this language as well since we are trying to be a multimodal community?

I was also a little surprised that it's a traffic engineer who has all the review on this.

And maybe I haven't read through the whole thing.