Planning Commission Meeting   11/9/2021

I see that we are at 5 p.m., at least according to my computer.

Let's see, do we have, we don't have that many people yet.

I see one, this is good, hello.

Hello.

You have the floor.

No comment.

Thank you very much.

Much appreciated.

Fair.

I see.

Also true.

Yeah.

Fair point.

I got a Jody.

I got a Rory.

Welcome, welcome.

I see a Liz.

I think we have enough to start a conversation here.

That being the case, zero Nassau Street.

I have a question on that.

So the application materials kind of intermittently talk about the potential duplexes that could be built by writing the site.

being built or like underway or where there are building permits?

I went over there and there was like a Bobcat and the place next door under construction.

What is the status of that site now?

I'm trying to turn my camera on, Rory.

No, there's not.

I think the applicant was trying to explain what could

So we have Tony, Tony Edward is our floodplain administrator.

And so basically, you have a floodway

the 1% floodplain and then the 0.2% floodplain.

And you cannot build in a floodway.

You can build in the two floodplains if you meet certain criteria.

And that's typically handled by Tony.

My understanding, and not as an engineer, my understanding is the criteria to meet is fairly low.

I did have another question when I was looking on GIS.

The neighboring properties were built under community land trust, not that directly adjacent, but there's like maybe two duplexes at 812 through 820.

What is the status of ownership of those?

It doesn't say that they're owned by a community land trust still, but

I think that's still being all worked out because I believe there was three.

Kerry Rainey was the planner during over those.

In my understanding, there's kind of three partners involved at one point.

Okay.

Yes, they would have to, prior to getting site plan approval, the three lots,

And the one lot, the portion of lot, is a weird lot.

If you pull up the portion of lot in GIS, it is the lot, part of the subject property, an L-shaped lot to the south, and then another lot to the north.

It's all one, quote unquote, one lot.

But yes, there would have to be a boundary line adjustment to create one lot for the two apartments.

It doesn't have a use available under, for example, residential occupancy three or four unrelated persons, residential density one to 21 DUA.

I'm assuming that, you know, even though they didn't explicitly say they're proffers that, you know, they can build the five plexus and those five plexus would be allowed to be occupied.

Well, in the R3, you kind of lose your... You know, you're not going to be able to do accessory dwelling unit.

I'm talking about... So, well, there's the two line items for residential occupancy, three unrelated persons, four unrelated persons, which I think just applies to any dwelling unit, typically.

So they need, they're going to need to check one of those boxes because basically this is sort of creating a special zoning district.

And so if under our, at least our current ordinance, if you are not specifically permitted your prohibited, so they're going to have to pick one or the other.

And so they should, they should tell you which one they're, they're going to choose.

Great.

So it's safe to assume maybe then that that'll be worked out in the final proper statement for counsel?

You should probably confirm with the applicant.

So

You're correct that typically the residential occupancy for three is a more restrictive provision and we don't use it very many places.

So if the applicant should tell you specifically whether it's their intention to limit it to three.

Otherwise, most places in the city, it's a standard four.

But if they're gonna list it in their use matrix,

Well, so I guess, I mean, the youth matrix is in the staff report, right?

Like their proper was just words, I guess.

Yeah, so you should have them clarify either now or later on at the meeting.

That's my point.

I see you're on here.

Yeah, I specifically didn't put the unrelated persons four or three because I didn't want a restriction on unrelated persons in the proffer statement.

So I specifically didn't put that in there.

So the way I read it, and Lisa Roberson, if I'm wrong, let me know, but the way I read it is, the way I state it in the proper statement is, these uses are allowed by right, and I state single family, multifamily, single family attached, and I don't state anything about a restriction related to unrelated persons, and so I have to look at the

City zoning ordinance, there may be something in there that says there's a restriction on unrelated persons elsewhere.

But I'm thinking if I don't have that in the proffer statement that there isn't a restriction on unrelated persons.

So I'll go look it up.

I think the point is well taken that the quote matrix is in the staff report.

But if the purpose of the proffers is to identify the permitted uses, we do need to figure out what the intention is.

I think it would not be a good result.

So let me take a quick look at the general zoning ordinance provisions while you all move on.

But I do think as a general rule,

One of the existing use matrices in the zoning ordinance doesn't say otherwise, the rule is for unrelated persons.

But we want to make sure that we are not accidentally saying to you that someone could have six, eight, 10 unrelated persons by not addressing it.

So it's now kind of a matter that needs to get cleared up.

But let me go look at the zoning ordinance and I'll come back to you guys with

Thank you.

Additional questions on NASA?

Mr. Mitchell, looking at you.

I would be happy to put that on the consent agenda.

Thank you very much.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

We can't do that formally yet.

We'll do that once we get to the agenda meeting at 5.30.

I just want to follow up my email and understand kind of why this couldn't have been six homes with three duplexes.

You know, obviously given that it would have required a supremely close waiver.

So you mentioned that it would have required laying out six lots, but wasn't it six lots prior to the boundary line adjustment that happened?

It wasn't in a configuration that could be built without having to build a road.

Complication upon complication kept adding on to it and so the applicant ended up with the proposal that they have at this point after weighing all of the circumstances.

Pullman, last call.

None that I'm aware of.

I did hear from one lady.

I think she had some comment on the frontage on Coleman Court for the two lots.

But I haven't heard anything from her.

We do a public comment before we vote in the consent agenda, right?

So from a procedural standpoint, you all could vote to put it on the consent agenda.

You would then hear matters from the public.

If you were concerned about anything following matters from the public, you could remove it again.

Good.

So in announcing the matters from the public,

And I have a couple quick ones.

So is the lock configuration that's there now going to be the final lock configuration, so like the northern side of the duplex would have?

All of that hill in its lot and then the other one would be smaller?

Okay.

And then I didn't see like a yard sign zoning notice when I was out there.

It's a critical slopes waiver.

There wasn't a zoning.

Gotcha.

OK, thanks.

Good questions.

You have your hand up?

No.

Oh, not deliberately.

Not that.

Very good.

Let's move on from Coleman.

240 striveling, big topic.

So Rory mentioned that there was a letter that we kept a couple weeks back, but I don't remember that letter.

Is there some sort of draft agreement that I missed that is out there or missed between the folks in public works and the developer?

When we sent this back, we asked them to work with Public Works to put together a more robust agreement.

So I know that Public Works gave a presentation to Council about like their own kind of better, but still very preliminary cost estimate of it.

The developer has agreed to put up the money to provide the necessary infrastructure or does the city still have to do some work?

get to the heart of matter.

This would be a city capital project.

So the project would need to be referenced within the capital improvements program.

If you look at any capital improvements program, you list the projects that are your priority for the upcoming fiscal year and then for some period after that, typically five years,

and you list your projects that have priority and then you specify the source of funding.

It might be borrowing, it might be cash, whatever it is.

So the source of funding doesn't really matter.

In this instance, whether or not the debt that is incurred comes from a bond or is from the developer,

The fact that there would be a repayment obligation in subsequent years creates some amount of debt.

Now, you know, whether or not that counts against the debt limit depends on a number of factors.

But the long and the short of it is the agreement should counsel decide ultimately to approve it.

The agreement

would require in future fiscal years that city council use tax revenues they receive in that fiscal year to pay back this debt.

And they would be looking at the tax revenues from this particular development.

And so there are ways to do it, but ultimately,

if you're going to do things correctly and have a city project correctly teed up and referenced as being the basis for this debt that you are setting up, it's gotta be in the capital improvements program.

And so right now I do not believe there is consensus among all parties who have influence over what goes in the capital improvements program for the project

Right, it's a matter of bringing this to the top as a priority in the CIP for the upcoming year.

I'm not sure

I think the arrangements would call for the development to commence during the upcoming fiscal year.

I don't know whether the first payment would become due until a subsequent fiscal year.

But at any rate, the proposal would be for the sidewalk project to occur relatively simultaneously with the development itself.

which is a fairly substantial undertaking to plan, to design, to acquire right of way.

It's a big project.

And if we're going to get started, that would need to happen relatively soon.

But in an ideal world, something like this would go in the capital improvements project, capital improvements program for consideration.

That proceeds to city council for review along with the other budget items for the year.

And then the zoning matter could catch up with it later.

But we are, right now, it's my understanding that it's not in the capital improvements program.

There's not a consensus for it to be listed as one of the priority city projects for the next two or three fiscal years.

Yeah, the matter is we're pretty much back where we were a couple of weeks ago when we talked about this.

Yeah.

So I think that, much like always, you have options.

On this type of matter, you're making a recommendation.

So you're not actually making a final decision.

So your recommendations can be made based on

factors that present themselves.

So if, for example, you could recommend denial, unless the city undertakes a sidewalk project, you could recommend approval subject to the city undertaking a sidewalk project.

That is very helpful.

We can recommend approval if and only if the city moves the capital improvements for this project up in the queue.

We have the ability to do that.

Rory?

So, yeah, that is actually helpful in terms of just making your decision tonight contingent.

But

In the interest of thinking a little bit forward, since we'll be considering the CIP soon, do we have a sense of what councils hang-ups are about including it?

So I had thought that the worry was that we don't want to fund this project necessarily ahead of other projects.

But if it's merely about listing it in the capital improvement program and, you know,

The funding is coming in from elsewhere.

I'll make an assumption that it doesn't count against our debt limit.

Otherwise, the funding doesn't seem very useful.

Then what is there paying up at that point?

Is it prioritization of staff time?

I can't speak to that because I did not, there were some,

There were some emails on the topic today, but I must admit I did have a lot of opportunity to delve into those in detail.

But what I will tell you is that it's both a legal and a budgetary issue.

If you've been watching sort of things the last few months, there's a lot of tendency.

People are now starting to ask for things to be funded over multiple fiscal years.

And they say, oh, you can just earmark this revenue for that.

And so that's fine.

But what council is actually doing if they accept this arrangement is they're saying that, you know, if not next fiscal year, two fiscal years from now, if we would otherwise have had additional tax revenue to use for affordable housing, or to help pay, you know, the debt service on a school project,

We will have this much less of that revenue because we've agreed that we're gonna devote that revenue to paying for this sidewalk.

So no matter how you look at it, even though it seems like somebody's giving you money to do it early, what you're doing is kicking the can down the road and you're kind of taking money away from other priorities to fiscal years from now.

So I would be surprised if that's not part of what is under consideration, but it's a tricky issue.

And the question of sort of these arrangements for incurring debt that are outside of bond agreements, you have to be careful entering into them.

I think at the heart of it, it's probably both the fact that you're saying to other neighborhoods or other people interested in having a certain amount of annual funding for affordable housing, the fact that you're putting some, even if it's a relatively small amount of money, the fact that you're identifying it as a priority in the CIP over the next two to three fiscal years,

So that's helpful.

But I guess, so correct me if I'm wrong, maybe, but as I understand the agreement, the main advantage of it is that repayment is entirely based on any incremental tax revenue that comes from this project.

And so if we don't build the sidewalks and we deny the project, we're foregoing all of that potential future revenue

But if we approve it, they have to give us the money to build the sidewalks.

And so- Yeah, I mean, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's kind of it in a nutshell.

The choice is not, you know, most likely

You know, something is going to happen there, as you all always discuss within any application coming through, something will happen there.

But whether or not this is an opportunity that is the best thing for the city at this time is really a decision that's ultimately for council to make.

But, you know, again, we've, you know,

If you're going to embark on a multimillion dollar project, particularly if you're going to incur debt for it, it really does need to show up in your capital improvements program as one of your priority projects for those years.

And that's where we are right now.

And at some point, the counselors can speak individually for themselves because they haven't spoken on it as a group at this point.

You know, it's a complicated situation.

It's a very interesting proposal that we don't get very often because it's an opportunity to take something that may or may not even be one of our priority sidewalk projects overall according to our own records, but to move it up because we have an opportunity for somebody to

loan us some money on the front end if we earmark the tax revenues from their project on the back end.

But we're starting to see a lot of those requests.

And I think that the trick for the budget and finance people in the city is going to be keeping track of sort of what future revenues are we talking about devoting to particular things.

Again, I think your recommendation is very helpful.

And that's a discussion you all will be able to have later in the month.

Speaking of apples, I welcome you all to the Charlottesville Planning Commission regular meeting.

or presumably there will be apples.

Oh, gosh.

Okay, let me get my notes.

There have been a couple of meetings that I haven't had a chance to report on since we last met.

The first is Parks and Rec.

Once again, we are having staffing challenges and the staffing challenges are from top to bottom.

We are still looking for a leader of that department and we have a few senior leadership vacancies in Parks and Rec and there are lots of vacancies where the rubber meets the road so lots of work to be done.

I'm just getting people on board.

Progress is being made and Mr. Sanders is in the middle of getting doing interviews and things like that and getting us on board with that.

Another interesting piece happening there is

There is an unnamed park.

And the unnamed park is on 8th Street.

This is a little park that's just across from the West Haven Community Center.

We've recommended a name for that park.

And the recommendation we made or provided was Jenkins Park.

And that would be named after Hudson Jenkins.

Mr. Jenkins is an African-American blacksmith.

that who owned a livery stable that occupied that area, that space.

The stable burned down in 1913, but when it was active and people had access to it, it was frequented by people of all classes and people of all ethnicities.

It was very prominent, very, very, very popular place too.

to destroy horses and have them shoot things like that.

So that recommendation is being forwarded to council.

We've also been working on the capital improvement budget.

We've got about nine things that we'd like to do.

I understand that we're not going to be able to do all of them because of the school reconfiguration piece that's going to drive a lot of the budget.

But there are four things that we think are pretty key.

And again, I talked to you guys about this last month.

is McIntire Park because of the drainage issues.

We've got to fix that because we're out of compliance with all kinds of state regs.

We'd like to do the master plan because we'd like to know who we're going to be when we grow up.

And that's important to get done.

That's a second priority.

The other priority is completion of the MediCreep trails, the trails that Joey and I walked about three or four weeks ago.

We've got VDOT money in that that's helping us do that, and we just need to add to the VDOT money.

I think we've got somewhere around 700,000, maybe $750,000 from VDOT, and we just need to add a number close to that to complete that.

And then the fourth thing of the nine priorities that I'm keying about is key rank.

The roof is leaking.

We need to fix the roof so that, you know, I'm not slipping and falling when I'm trying to drive to the hoop.

So that's pretty important.

The other group that met was LUPEC.

Remember, LUPEC is a land use and environmental planning consortium, including the city, the county, UVA, and the water and sewage organization, the Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority.

That meeting focused in its entirety on energy and sustainability.

And we had a presentation from UVA's consultant that's helping them develop strategies to move toward strategies for thermal energy.

UVA would like to be carbon neutral by 2030.

That's not so hard to do because you can buy your way into being carbon neutral.

but they'd also like to be fossil free by 2050.

That ain't so easy.

So the consultant is helping UVA look at existing but also emerging technologies and strategies to get them to being fossil free by 2050.

There was a presentation by Albemarle relating to its large scale solar panels.

to do solo panels in Albemarle, a special use permit.

There are two that are either underway or either have been approved.

I don't remember exactly what their underwear are approved, but there are two that are bubbling up to the planning commission and then to the board of supervisors.

One's near Rivanna and one's at Midway, I think Batesville, that are on the way.

And there's one that they're thinking about that's probably going to be presented to the planning commission and then to the supervisors.

One more for an SGP as well to get a third farm, solar farm there.

So that's coming along.

We have partnered, I think, with the city and the county, we have partnered on a glasshouse emission study

But the presentation, while the city and county are partnered on this, the presentation was done by the county.

So I'm going to walk you guys through what the county presented.

It is our objective, and again, the city and county's objective, to reduce by 45% the emissions that were happening in 2008.

So 45% were going to reduce those emissions that were happening in 2008 by 2030.

Emissions of 2008 have been reduced by 45%.

Between 2008 and 2018, we're already down by 10%.

So progress is being made.

Interesting thing to note, the county's sequestration of carbon

is incredibly significant.

And the guy who was doing the presentation actually walked us through what the number was and all these nana things and things that went way beyond my head as to understanding what they meant.

But I could tell by the wows in the room that what the county's been able to do, their sequestration rate has been significant.

It's because of their canopy, the forestry.

So when Mr. Lehindra is beating us up about preserving and increasing their canopy, keep in mind that that canopy that he's suggesting that we need to protect and grow is taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

And one last thing, there was a presentation by the Water and Sewage Agency, Rivanna Water and Sewage Agency.

And that spoke about

the treatment of waste water.

And I didn't know, and maybe you asked, but I didn't know how much methane gas happens when you take the waste out of the water and you put the clean water back into the, into the, to Rivanna.

But it's tremendous.

If you're driving from Richmond to Charlottesville,

in between Exit 124 and 121, just as you cross the Rivanna River, and you look to your right, you'll see this spherical structure.

Has anyone ever wondered what that spherical structure is?

I have.

It is the methane storage facility.

When they take the gas that's created by cleaning the water out and store it, it goes into that.

And I think they just somehow have a way of burning it off.

It was built in 1980, so it's aging.

And so we're going to have to renovate that.

And it's going to cost us about $3 million to do that.

Thank you.

Ms.

Good evening, everyone.

I did attend the October 26th school CIP committee meeting, and so we did have five priorities, and then we also discussed the school projects that have been completed or that are underway.

One of the biggest things was the COVID mitigation equipment that has been installed in all of our schools.

The Performing Arts Center Chiller has been replaced and then our classroom HAVAC equipment has also been replaced.

Venable and KTEC are also underway to get upgrades and we are anticipating in 2022 that the building automation upgrades will be done to Clark and then also the Walker rooftop air units numbers one through seven will also be upgraded.

Some of the things that have been completed are the CHS parking lot signage is new.

The ventable annex has had to be repaired and also

fixed to be maintained.

They have a small safety issue with the building foundation.

So they have secured that and then moved staff out so they are safe.

But that is one of the projects that is coming up.

The Luego-McGinnis siding has been replaced and then Burley Moran has underwent their modernization of the school as well.

One of our other big items was the Buford Walker reconstruction or reconfiguration.

Construction is anticipated to start summer of 2023 with Buford getting the most renovations, major renovations in the gym and of the existing buildings.

Mr. Mitchell?

A question for Ms.

Dow.

It may be too much in the weeds, and if it is, we can talk about the line.

You mentioned K-Tech and some upgrades in K-Tech.

Is the roof included in that?

OK, I'll talk to you after lunch.

Mr. Rubab, please.

I have not been in any meetings since we last met.

But the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission

created the Rivanna River Bicycle Pedestrian Crossing Advisory Committee to help the Charlottesville Albemarle MPO develop a concept for the bridge that's going to happen between Pantops and the Woollen Mills area.

And they wanted a Planning Commission member to be part of that committee and I've been appointed to be on that commission so.

I'll let you know when, after we first meet, we're planning on meeting sometime in the next couple of weeks as our first meeting, and meetings will probably run until sometime around April of next year.

Thank you.

I attended two committee meetings since the last time

We met in, well, whenever that was, the Board of Architectural Review.

We've met a lot lately.

The Board of Architectural Review, they met October 19th.

We had three certificates of appropriateness approved.

And one of those of significance is for a small apartment building to go behind Preston Court, which is on Grady Avenue.

The apartment building is on the

A circular street behind Preston Court.

We had one deferral and then three preliminary discussions for small residential projects.

The Tree Commission met just last week, the second of November.

And we had a great report from the Education and Advocacy Committee.

They're making presentations to the city elementary schools on the health benefits of trees, and they're also working with the city schools to develop a curriculum study on trees.

We have been coordinating with the Parks and Rec to develop a final list of 167 trees that were going to be planted that the city is going to plant this winter.

That's less than the goal of 200 trees a year to be planted, and that goal is determined by just keeping level with the current canopy.

So we are behind that.

and as we also discussed the CIP coming up and we are going to make recommendations requests for budgets for both emerald ash borer treatments and for planting new trees.

In the last few years the city has combined those thinking that they were equivalent

They're not equivalent.

We need to save the ash trees.

If we don't, they're going to become hazards and it's going to end up costing more money to take them out.

And we need to be planting more trees to, as Mr. Mitchell pointed out, it's essential for many reasons.

the health of our residents as well as the environment and the earth.

And then lastly, a footnote to Mr. Mitchell's report.

We are losing our own urban forester with Parks and Rec.

Mike Ronayne has resigned and

He has been our liaison with the Tree Commission and between the Tree Commission and Parks and Rec so that's a sad loss and we hope to have them replaced sometime soon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

I have no reports.

Thanks.

Yeah, I've only had one meeting since we met last.

It was of TJPDC.

The main event at that meeting was a presentation of our annual audit.

It was very exciting, but I'll spare you all the details.

There was a clean bill of health.

The maybe interesting thing for you guys is that there is, or the Regional Transit Vision Study has kicked off.

And so the consultants on that team are now seeking input for what you and the community and everybody would like to see out of our transit system in the future.

So if you would like to see more frequent, reliable transit and new places, go to their website, which I'll paste the chat and go fill out the study or the there's a survey.

There is a map survey

and then there's kind of an open comment form.

Also there's an upcoming meeting I think November 18th that will kind of discuss that.

There's also separately from the vision study an Albemarle transit expansion study that will look at how to provide transit whether fixed route or micro transit to 29 North by the airport to Monticello and possibly one other location in Albemarle.

So those are the key events from TJPDC.

That is a good question.

The URL is not easy to find.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Palmer?

Yeah, sorry, I was getting off mute.

I had an email with that link in it that Rory was just mentioning, so I was going to try to throw it in the chat.

I can get to that after my report.

I don't have a whole lot.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about Emmett Street.

As you know, it's kind of closed down right now near the intersection with Ivey because we're doing a bunch of stormwater enabling work in the road to help with our planned development of Emmett Ivey site.

And what we're doing is putting in a big box culvert to replace three smaller pipes that conveyed stormwater under the road.

and that is progressing well.

And it should be done, supposed to be done November 12th, hopefully will be done a day early.

So that's helpful for people that are annoyed by being rerouted.

Along with that, it's not just the stormwater pipes, which will help us, but it also helps Emmett Street because periodically when it rained really hard, that road would flood.

This should,

I can't guarantee it'll reduce all flooding, but it should help with that, and I doubt it will happen as frequently, if at all, in the future.

I also took the opportunity to coordinate with RWSA on a big water line.

in that vicinity to kind of put a little bit of, to kind of help them upgrade their line there.

And we had to move the gas line.

So that all will get put back together, as I said, on November 11th.

And then the three projects, building projects that we have on Emmett Street, going from south up towards Ivy Emmett, our Contemplative Sciences is underway near the Education School.

and Adele.

And the School of Data Science has officially broke ground, but it's not a whole lot, you know, really happening there at Ivy Corridor other than the site, you know, getting site ready for that.

And then in January, we should break ground on the hotel and conference center, which is kind of against the parking garage that's there.

So it's a little setback from the road and further up towards Ivy Road.

Thank you.

I have nothing to report other than very much looking forward to city council discussing the comprehensive plan on the 15th.

High hopes on that topic.

Ms.

Sure.

Just a reminder, we have our first work session that we've had in a little while.

We have a work session scheduled for November 23.

So that's our fourth Tuesday, which you all have as a pencil.

We're just going to have one for real.

Confirming that time is going to be at five o'clock.

That's what's on the budget schedule.

And this is specific to the CIP.

So Ms.

Hamel from our budget office will be providing some background on the CIP and then it will be an opportunity for discussion.

And that's in preparation for December when that will come forward to you all for recommendation.

and then that moves on to council when they're working through their budget session.

So that's kind of one of those normal back on track scheduling things that we haven't had in a while.

And also we have a few new members and so there is gonna be the opportunity to have a little bit more 101 on CIP to assist in that.

Oh yeah, I represent planning commission on the CIP panel and I haven't seen the invite yet.

Do you guys know when, I'd like to have a preview of what's going to be presented to planning commission so I can either endorse it or not.

Let me, I'll pull back the schedule again.

Last couple of years, until last year, I got better last year, a couple of years before that, we got caught off guard.

We were not invited until we presented to the planning commission.

So I pulled up the budget meeting calendar, which is available on the city website, just in case anyone wants to take a look at that.

I don't see anything specific to internal meetings.

So I will ask Ms.

All right.

And then we do have a robust December agenda coming up.

So definitely just keep an eye out for materials.

We'll have that.

The hearing on the CIP will be somewhat familiar because you will have discussed it in November.

But we anticipate a couple of PUDs, the one for MACA and

Thank you very much.

Moving to public comment.

These are comments from the public on items not on the formal agenda.

I'm going to get it together.

Items like Coleman Street and 248 Stripling.

Basically anything except for zero Nassau Street.

Now is your time.

I think Mr. Tran.

Yeah, if you'd like to speak to the Planning Commission at this time, please click the raise hand icon in the Zoom webinar.

If you're joining us via telephone, press star nine.

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak.

Please say your place of residence when you begin.

Yes.

All right, Chair, at this time I see no hands raised.

This is your chance, if you wish to speak.

All right, seeing none, I close the public comment.

I believe we are moving to the consent agenda.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we approve the consent agenda as advertised, but I would also like to add the COVID application to this.

In doing so, I would like to be certain that the recommendations made by the city engineer on page six of the staff report be included in the approval.

Ms.

Sure.

I'm going to call on my screen order here.

Sorry about that.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Ms.

Dowell?

Aye.

I believe that passes unanimously.

Moving along.

I believe we are at our joint meeting.

Outstanding.

There are three of us present.

Excellent.

I think we can proceed.

Reading the staff report on Zero Nassau Street, we have Mr. Ofley.

Yes.

I am noticing my camera might be funny.

So if I keep freezing, just it's freezing on my end, but I don't know if you are freezing on y'all's end.

All right, so commissioners, tonight you will hold a public hearing for requested rezoning of 0 Nassau Street.

The proposed rezoning covers Tax Map Parcel 610079600 and 610079700 and a portion of 61007900 and is located on the eastern side of Nassau Street, the intersection of Florence Road.

Justin Schimp with Schimp Engineering, and Nicole Skrow, representing the owner, Franklin Street Land Trust 3, has submitted a rezoning application pursuant to city code section 3441 seeking to read a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classification for Zero Nassau Street.

The application proposes to change the classification

from the existing R2 residential two family to R3 residential multifamily with proffers and a development plan.

The comprehensive land use map for this area of the city calls for low density residential.

Key aspects of the development plan include two five unit multifamily buildings, three one bedroom and two two bedroom units in each building,

not more than 10 total units on the subject property, a central parking area between the two buildings, an outdoor recreation area behind the southernmost building, a greenhouse behind the recreation area, new sidewalks on the south side of Nassau Street.

The proffers include design elements that the design height density and other substantive characteristics of the project shall remain essentially the same in all

Material aspects as described within the application materials submitted to the city on July 16, 2021, including but not limited to the conceptual site plan dated July 10, 2021.

Height of the building and structure.

Any building and structure located on the property shall not exceed 35 feet in height.

And uses.

The permitted uses in the subject property will be

as follows, residential and related uses by right single-family, detached single-family, attached townhome, two-family, accessory buildings, structures and uses, multifamily dwellings, residential treatment facility one to eight residential uses, and home occupation with a provision use permit.

Other uses by right would be utility line and utility facilities with a special use permit.

During the applicant's presentation, they might touch on

conversation we had in the pre-meeting about adding in a weird part of our code that got kind of overlooked as far as our density.

Even though multifamily was allowed as a use, we also outline density as a use.

So I think the applicant might be amending their proper statement to add one to 25 DUAs by right, which I don't think would be in line with the presentation materials.

I think it was just something

This concludes my report.

Mr. Mitchell?

I've got a question, but I'd rather defer to Ms.

Russell if she's going to ask a follow-up question to her meeting in the pre-meeting.

She seems to understand a little better than I do and seems to be a little more eloquent to the question of plain stuff.

Ms.

Russell, are you going to ask about that?

Well, I'm happy to ask, for the sake of a public meeting, I was asking staff about the classification of this site as in the 1% exceedance floodplain per county, I mean, city GIS.

Definitely, I'll give kind of the what I said in the pre-meeting and then any follow-up questions we might have to defer to.

I believe we might have our city engineer on this call too, but there are three

There is a floodway, the 1% floodplain and the 0.2% floodplain.

You are not allowed to build in the floodway, but you can build in the floodplain provided you go through a process to receive a permit.

With that, I don't want to overstep my understanding of it.

So I don't believe our floodplain administrator is on this call.

But we might have someone in public works that could add

A deeper understanding of that would be key to our ability to approve this.

If there is no one from the city online that can talk to it, maybe we can defer to the applicant to talk to it.

Ms.

Mr. Offaly, we've received some emails today from the public about this project.

Certainly.

So during this process, I will say we've had limited interaction from the public reaching out to me.

The applicant held their required community meeting.

We did not have any

One from the public attend that meeting, but today we did receive quite a few emails from the public.

They mainly speak to the low density characteristic of this neighborhood, which is correct that the, this part of the comprehensive plan calls for low density use.

The other main points have been

Thank you.

Additional questions for staff?

Awesome.

Thank you.

I know there's been some power outages or something, so okay.

Okay, so bear with me as I get this up.

Okay, can everyone see my screen now?

Does that work?

Yep.

Okay, great.

Okay, so I'm Nicole Scrow, the applicant before you today.

It's me and Justin Schimp, who you've all seen many times.

He's not available today.

He is in Nelson County for another public hearing on more apartments out there.

So just a little bit of background because I know that myself, but mostly Justin, comes before the Planning Commission a few times, many times, representing applicants.

In this instance, both him as the majority stakeholder and me as a minority, we're the actual owners of the property.

So just for the sake of transparency.

Okay, so the property is located, I think this was kind of stated, along Nassau Street, and I've got a few of your questions.

from the pre-meeting jotted down.

So this is kind of a larger zoom out of the property.

So if you go down Monticello Road, you can get to it through off of Route 20, turning to get into the BB or Moose's restaurant.

Or you can go down Carlton.

At any rate, it's at the furthest side of the Carlton side of the Belmont-Carlton neighborhood.

It's the property in between the habitat units.

So this isn't a great picture because it doesn't show you all the new development that has happened.

Can people see my mouse?

Yes, okay, so on this side is where Habitat and the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust, so I think they changed their name finally, and this is where they have two duplexes.

Both of them have two duplexes each, so that's four.

Liz, you'll see in the land records or in the GIS that there's a new owner.

That's just the owner that has taken on the long-term leases.

So it's still in the land trust name in fee simple, but there's a lease to the occupant.

So that's why that's different in the GIS.

I'm not sure if the GIS was correct in doing that, but at any rate, it's still in the land trust model.

So that's on this side of the property.

On the opposite side, there's the... I'll zoom in, this is probably a better time to... Yeah, so this is zoomed in.

On this side, Commissioner Solzenberg mentioned there's, and I referenced this probably not as specifically as I could, there's two duplexes being built by Justin currently.

They're under construction over here.

and those are under construction by right building permits.

The site plan that was approved for this property includes this entire area including there's like one parcel here that wasn't included but includes so the site plan that was improved includes habitat

the Land Trust, the Bywright duplexes and had envisioned duplexes by right in this site area that I have outlined here.

So that site plan is effective and there's a land disturbance permit there.

So there's the ability and the legality to disturb that land and it has been disturbed for some fill.

So that's why you saw that bobcat there.

So there's no building permit but there's a land disturbance permit.

and there's two duplexes being built by Wright and a lot of the design, this is just a rezoning map, so this is the R2 along this corridor or along this street and there's a highway in pink over here

And there's, so there's a by right 28 unit apartment complex that has been approved in a preliminary site plan.

So this probably a better depiction of what I'm trying to talk about.

So here's the land trust over here.

Habitat, these are built and occupied.

These are the two duplexes Justin's built.

There's like gray siding on there now.

These are single family that owned individually and this is that rendering of that 28 unit apartment complex.

So this site was designed kind of to mirror what can be done by right and that's why I kind of mentioned it so much.

So this kind of full length driveway can be done by right.

So again, the disturbance area was approved, the floodplain fill has been approved.

the disturbance area, the flail and the flood plan, all those issues have already been approved.

So it's really a matter of whether we can allow that box of building, buildable area to have five units in it or two.

So the building footprints with some variation, so they're

But the question before you is really not amount of disturbance.

Not to get too much in the weeds, but it's not really about the amount of disturbance or buildable area.

It's about how many people or how many units can be in that area.

That's why I kept mentioning it in my narrative.

And this is just an aerial site plan.

So this is that, so it's R3, which requires some pretty hefty amenities, requirements.

And so this is our little rec area and we have kind of a greenhouse that, you know, Justin has.

Greenhouse up on his property in Nelson County.

We just put a water line in there to the greenhouse, so we're kind of hoping to put that same sort of greenhouse back here.

You'll see in blue is where the flood plain is, so not the flood way, but the flood plain, so that's not 1%, that's 0.2%.

I think Liz mentioned, or Commissioner Russell mentioned the county being different.

The county doesn't allow, in the same way the city doesn't allow, disturbance in the floodway.

But the county allows disturbance in the floodplain by special use permit.

So it's allowed by right in the city, but there's still

You know, there's still a permit process and there's still engineers reviewing it, so it's a very similar kind of review oversight, but it's a special use permit in the county and it's by right here for the flood plain, so that's 0.2%.

Here's Justin's greenhouse.

This isn't a picture of his.

This is just something I found online before his went up.

And that's all I've got.

So I know there's a lot of issues to cover.

Our main kind of thought process here was, quickly, was that in building the duplexes,

With the cost of construction rising, the rent to sort of cover those costs started to hit around $2,100, which is about market rate for three bedroom units.

These are fairly large units.

But the idea was, well, if we were able to kind of have this same or similar footprint, so just four more feet extended off of it, we can fit five units and we can accommodate more people at lower rents.

So this is designed to be a very simple construction to accommodate the lower end of the market rate rents.

And so that was the whole idea.

Instead of continuing to build by right,

and hitting those higher rents.

Why don't we allow more people to live here and hit lower rents?

So I'm here to answer questions.

I know there's kind of a lot of issues at play even with a small little project.

And let's do questions.

I'd like to talk a little bit more about the floodplain piece.

I think, based on what I've heard from Matt and others, that's not a real issue.

Yeah, so talk more about the floodplain.

So this can be confusing.

This came up with the project we had before in that if you look online, the map you see will cover more of the property.

And that's because FEMA doesn't update its maps when there's a map adjustment.

It just references it.

Literally, if you look online, it references it in text.

Right.

And so the floodplain is based on the elevation.

So to draw the correct floodplain, you need to look at the text and look up that amendment and look up what the elevation is for this area.

And so that's this blue line here that runs towards the back of the property.

So if there's people that are concerned that

More of this property is in the floodplain.

That's understandable because it's a little confusing, but it's actually just along this area.

You'll see habitat, if you look towards kind of, they have a driveway going in between their units and then they kind of have a turn off.

off of that driveway, that turn-off area is permeable pavers.

And so this isn't shown here, but there actually will be a certain number of permeable pavers that will likely be required for this back area.

That's because this side plan was approved under previous regulations, which were actually more stringent, that didn't allow you

So the disturbance that happens can't be covered by outside nutrient credits.

So there has to actually be mitigation on the property, right?

And so if we're to adjust a site plan that was previously approved for land that has already been disturbed, we have to

We have to abide by those previous regulations, right?

So any disturbance that happens on this property can't be mitigated by nutrient credit that actually has to happen on the property.

I'm sorry, that's a long winded, anyway.

There will be, these will be permeable pavers back here, even though that's not shown.

Thank you, it helps.

Thanks.

Ms.

Originally I was thinking when I was looking at it how, because I did look at Google maps before she showed the actual like examples of the duplexes that are actually up.

So originally I was like, oh, this is not going to be harmonious with the neighborhood, but I am having second thoughts about that, but did want her to touch on that just in case.

I know some of our city residents have issues,

So yeah, for R3, I know it can seem like a step up in density and in scale and in massing.

So we have a proffer that limits the height to 35 feet rather than 45 feet.

And the proffer also references the concept plan, which is supposed to be a very similar

building to what was what's up there right now and kind of so that's why I was it's really the building is going to be very similar and these units it's just slightly wider so imagine like a foot off of each and this has a better massing so it's just a matter of putting more people in a very similar

Mr. Hrabob, questions for applicants?

I guess just a few comments, questions.

Sorry, since we're in the question portion.

I was wondering about the playground rec, and I know you guys are building other duplexes next door.

Is that something that's limited to this property, or will other people be able to use that space?

Just out of curiosity, and have you considered permeable parking surfaces?

Yeah, yes to both.

This is owned by Justin slash kind of me.

Very small person.

Yes, it'll function as together, and it's kind of over-parked a bit, so we're hoping that also some of that parking can be utilized as well by the other units.

And so we're hoping for it to function together, but I'm just, I had some hesitancy, I don't know, Miss Robertson, if that can't,

the amenity requirements restricted to only those residents.

That was my hesitation.

And honestly, I meant to have that answered before being here.

So that answers the playground area.

If it has to be restricted to just these 10 units, there is the Reeves Park directly across the street.

So that's also great.

And so the permeable favors, yes, I think that's great, especially for this floodplain area, though, and this is not my area of expertise, you know, Justin was stating that sometimes disturbed soil can, you know, doesn't percolate as well, so it's not as helpful as it could be in other areas, but it still has an impact.

So, and it's going to be some sort of mitigation, either bioswale or permeable pavers will be required.

So one of those two and we're leaning towards permeable pavers.

Thanks.

And another question, we got some some of the emails touched on this that we got.

And it's regarding the pedestrian kind of bicycle safety aspect.

Can you speak to that a little bit and

Also, how the project contributes to, you know, the bicycle shared use road that's right there.

Yeah, I think bike racks is great.

I think it's one per

I wrote it here.

One bike space per two dwelling units is required.

But yeah, I mean, I think that we want to put in as many bike racks as we can.

So anyway, one bike rack per two units is required, so that's five bike racks.

I know this is designated as a shared road on the street network and so allowing though it was kind of we had quite a bit parking back there that also helps alleviate some of the street parking which does help with with some bicycle and pedestrian use.

So that's good.

We're extending the sidewalk.

I should have mentioned this.

We're extending the sidewalk that connects from Habitat to the Bywright duplexes so that whole strip of Nassau will now have sidewalks up to the single-family detached.

So that's very exciting.

And I believe this is

Kind of an unclear area, but when you improve sidewalk, you have to make sure that it's ADA compliant.

And with other projects, sometimes they've said that when you spill out into the roadway, you have to allow somewhere for them to go.

So it's kind of at the discretion of the site plan area, whether Florence comes kind of right where the edge of our sidewalk would be, so if they want to crosswalk.

there.

That's kind of whether the city wants that or not, but it might be something that's required at site plan based on ADA regulations.

Yeah, I did not review this project.

I don't really get involved in the rezonings here, but I'm familiar with both all the developments around there.

I would have to defer to the traffic engineer for how that applies, especially in Bi-Rite.

Generally, they have to improve the frontage with a sidewalk.

And so since this is not a development, they're essentially, I don't want to, I can't pluck these things in my head.

I doubt

I'd have to look at the plans.

It depends where they, as Nicole was alluding to, it depends where the ramps end up going.

You can't build a ramp to nowhere.

So we'd have to look at what ramps are existing across the street, how that will work.

We have one that's, you go both ways to either ramp on either side or two, you know, or how that would work.

And then it is an intersection, so it would require

Well, let me just speak to this to back this up.

This, again, we're planning commission.

This is the rezoning.

There's no site plan with this.

They would have to adhere to all site plan regulations.

Thank you.

I have none.

Ms.

I have a question that popped in my mind as you were showing the site, kind of the site plan overview.

At the end of your parking lot, it looks like kind of like

Looks like it continues on as if a road would, but I don't know if maybe that's like, yeah, at the end at the, you know, where the trees are, is that just an area for cars to back out?

Or is that the idea that that would one day extend in some capacity?

I'm muted.

Okay.

Yeah, so I don't think it would be extended because then it would need to be approved as a street.

So it's only, it's a driveway right now, so it can't be extended without more approval.

So it, yeah, so these actually, it shows, there's a lot of parking shown here, but these actually might be crossed off for as like turnaround areas.

So it might not be as much parking here as it's shown.

That's more of, I think we just have to look at the design for that.

This could also be extended a little bit for better turnaround, rather than removing parking spaces.

We have like four or five more than we need.

While you're on this visual, can you help me understand, because I'm having trouble reading these topos, where you show a retaining wall at the, I guess that's the northern corner, right?

So there's a retaining wall, max height, eight feet.

So what's the elevation difference between that point and the house next door, the habitat house next door?

That's a good question.

Topo is definitely just an expertise.

So there's this kind of a swale.

So what happens is there's a

Stormwater comes out right here.

And so you see this stream, it's not like a man-made, or it's not like a natural stream, it's a stormwater moving through here.

So there's a little bit of a dips down and goes back up.

I was trying to understand if there's a huge, you know, if this is a 35 foot capped height structure, but it's towering over its neighbor.

Gotcha.

It drops off in the back.

So from the street, these won't be above the street.

And there's actually some fill there that has some growth growing on it.

Some, yeah.

Yeah.

So yeah, they'll sit on top of that fill, which is about at street level.

So it's not like they'll be sitting above.

And this is the max height.

So it's not going to be eight feet across the entire portion.

It's just as this.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

Mr. Solzenberg.

Um, thanks.

Um, and I think just looking at the last chart, the top of the line that goes through the duplex next door is at 320.

So the top of the retaining wall is 324.

Rory, if I may just clarify that because I know nobody asked, but I do spend all day looking at these plans.

So I believe that that 20 is an existing contour because the finished floor was 28 for the existing as labeled.

And what they've got is 327.5.

So they're about the same.

It says max eight-foot wall, which holds the building up from the street essentially is what's going on there.

But again, none of this is relevant.

There's a reason I don't mean anything.

All of this gets worked out later.

Perfect.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Actually, very helpful.

I never knew what FF meant.

Great.

So I think I watched the questions I was actually going to ask.

I kind of got covered a little bit.

Maybe I'll expand on them a little bit.

With the playground, thanks for that question, Commissioner Habob.

If it is allowed and doesn't have to be totally private, I would encourage you

to potentially make it available to not just the people in your existing development next door, but also people in the land trust and habitat units, if possible, as well.

I guess that's not really a question.

With the crosswalk situation, again, recognizing this is something that gets worked out in site plan review, we did hear many comments complaining about people speeding down the street.

and so if there's anything we could do with traffic coming there of like having a bulb out to make that crosswalk with less wide, I guess I was gonna ask if that's feasible but it's probably too early to say with that too.

All right, I'll get into the actual question.

And what are the rents on those?

2,100 about.

Okay.

Probably around like a little bit less than 1,300.

These will probably be around like the 125 FMR or lower and we'd be thrilled with that.

That'd be awesome.

So these are kind of that workforce housing, I guess, between like 70 and 100 AMI.

Yeah.

I mean, they're really cool, right?

Cool.

And yeah,

Great.

Yeah.

So then that would be like 70-ish percent, maybe even a little lower.

So that's great.

That's a year.

And then I want to be really clear on the floodplain stuff.

So you mentioned that there was a letter of map revision.

It seems like there's two things going on here, right?

There's the broad area-wide letter of map revision from after the Woolen Mills Dam was removed, which lowered the floodplain elevations, where they published those charts, what the new elevation is.

And so you guys are saying that the new flood elevation, the 1% floodplain,

Okay, so that already is there.

He already has that, yeah.

A letter of map revision fill.

So that's like your site-specific putting in dirt to change the contours.

I went way too deep into this after the last time we talked about this area, clearly.

All right, and then

That greenhouse, what are your plans for that?

Is that just going to be a gardening space for residents on site?

I know last time we talked about a site down the street, you were talking about selling produce, though obviously retail is not part of the plan.

Gotcha.

That makes sense.

And I would just encourage you, if your residents don't have green thumbs and don't want to use it, to reach out to, you know, both of these Charlottesville, Urban Agriculture Collective and offer that space up if they'd like it.

That's all the questions I have.

Mr. Palmer, do you have any questions on this topic?

I don't think that I do.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I also do not, very clear presentation.

I do have two related questions.

One is how many square feet per building are you going to have a floor area? 1680.

Okay.

How many floors then?

Two.

Okay.

So we're talking about 3,200 square feet.

You would be allowed by right to have six units on those three parcels and you're proposing 10 units.

Yes.

And each

Yeah.

Okay, so you're looking at five somewhat smaller, I mean, they're not huge apartments.

You've got five of them in each of two buildings, whereas you could have, so a total of 10, you could have six units of substantially greater size per unit.

So in terms of intensity of the use of those three lots, I think we have to sort of keep in mind that the amount of density that we're adding here, and we're talking about going from six units to 10 units.

We're not talking about going from six units to 30 units.

That's okay.

That's fine.

Thank you.

That's all I had.

I just had a really quick question and I'm sorry if I missed it in the presentation or in the documents.

Just in general, what is considered affordable one bedroom, like what are the average one and two bedrooms going for in Charlottesville right now, currently?

Does anybody know?

I don't know.

you know what each percent of AMI can afford.

I don't really have anything for like what's the average like actual on the market prices though.

Thank you.

I do not.

But I don't think the objective of this is to improve the affordable housing stock.

It's just

I understand that, but my objective was always to consider actual affordable housing, whether it is that objective or not.

I think that's something that our city is clear that we need.

Yes, ma'am.

I believe Mr. Stolzenberg has pasted Affordable Rents by AMI in the chat.

I believe we are ready for discussion.

Open it up.

Excellent question.

Yes, we do have public comment.

Thank you very much.

It is a public hearing.

This is wonderful.

If you wish to speak, this is your time.

Yes, if you'd like to speak to the commission at this time, please press the raise hand icon in your Zoom webinar, or if you're joining us via telephone, press star nine.

You'll have three minutes to speak.

Okay, Kimber Hawke.

You are on with the commission.

Yes.

Hello.

How are you?

This is the time for the public comment on the easier NASA.

Yes, thank you very much.

Okay, so we just, you know, we've been through this before in 2018.

And we're a little dismayed to see the continued push to develop in inappropriate areas.

And especially on the NASA floodplain.

And I know there's all this back and forth about percentages, but

The reality is that building on the floodplain is bad planning practice as has been widely written about and I have sent you more information on that.

It's important to note that as far as what I understand is that this project would not be allowed in the county and that perhaps Charlottesville should adopt their reason of thinking.

Commissioner Mitchell pointed out something very interesting about the sequestration of carbon and the reason why I had

This is an important topic because it's trees and such that take carbon out of the atmosphere.

Previously, I'd sent to you some information about a Netflix special called Kiss the Ground, as well as reading the book Carbon Drawdown.

And as we learned in school, it's trees and green space that pulls carbon out of the air.

And so we can use the earth to pull all that dirty carbon out of the air.

And the best thing to do probably in this area would be more to plant pine trees.

Those pine trees would not only pull out the carbon and make a cleaner air in Charlottesville, but would also absorb a lot of the water in that area, which is something that actually Napoleon III did to create the Bordeaux forest.

So we could take a page from his book.

I also wanna address the racial and economic class injustice issues

related to climate change and where housing is provided.

This is a problematic area.

As the pictures I sent to you, it's very wet.

Perhaps this can be mitigated.

I'm not convinced of that.

But we've seen mold on the Linden Ave apartments.

In 2018, I sent pictures about that as well.

And people of color in low-income brackets are pushed into these problematic housing areas

And who will suffer when the flooding occurs?

The answer is clear, is the residents.

And there will be flooding.

That's just a matter of time.

We've already seen flooding from in the 1970s in Hurricane Camille.

People were riding in boats on NASA Avenue.

And back in 2018, we saw major flooding in Charlottesville as well.

And I sent you all those topics that you can look at at your leisure.

The other thing is that when you build, you push water or put infill, you push that water elsewhere.

So upon whom are you pushing it?

And a NDS staffer stated that that was an illegal practice, actually, in one of an NDS's meetings.

And so that needs to be checked upon.

Because if you're pushing water onto your neighbor, because they're lower or whatever, that's a problem.

And we're also concerned about the no direct interaction with the neighborhood, as pointed out in the packet.

Obviously, people have busy lives, and they didn't make that.

Hawke, your time is currently up.

OK.

Sure.

Sure.

I would ask you to please respect the previous denial of this type of plan and to vote no to increasing the density on the flood zone.

Thank you.

And next, please.

Jason Halbert.

You are on with the commission.

Hi, thank you.

Jason Halbert, 2633 Jefferson Park Circle.

I and friends of mine led the charge to remove the Willing Mills Dam in 2007.

The historical

Floodway was changed.

We provided hydrology studies to the city and others to help change the FEMA maps.

While there is obviously still possible to flood there, because it's down by the river, I think the removal of the dam will help mitigate some of that.

The 97 flood Hurricane Fran, that site was underwater.

I walked it.

I think if you build it up a little bit and with the mitigation from the dam removal, you should be good to go.

It's not to say that they won't have water in their yard if there's a bad hurricane, but we need the housing to do it.

Thank you.

Last call.

If you want to speak on this topic, now is your time.

All right, thank you all.

We closed this public hearing, or not the public hearing, closed public comment.

There we are.

We are now ready for discussion.

Sorry, can I ask one more question of the applicant that I didn't get to before?

Please.

So I know when you build in the floodplain without removing yourself from it,

You're required to have at least one foot of freeboard, so like the base level of your finished first floor is at least one foot above the base flood elevation.

Since you're removing yourself from the floodplain so that the building won't be in the floodplain after the fill, would you still have some amount of freeboard like above the floodplain when these are built?

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know if Justin is on this call.

He was at one point.

I'd like to maybe kick off a conversation picking up from where Commissioner Dowell left off.

And that is, you know, it's sort of like, I'll preface it with two things.

This proposal is in front of us tonight, and so we will review it based on the existing zoning ordinance.

But I think what's interesting that we can kind of

mull around a little bit is that this proposal is in what is designated a future sensitive area, where our objectives are to limit displacement, to increase affordable housing, and limit gentrification in however we want to define that.

So I just think this is an interesting

And we're kind of talking around this, talking around what's the affordability.

There's some reservations and some pushback from members of the public.

I don't know.

I just think that this, we could talk about what we want out of our sensitive community designation in using this as an example of, you know, how would this be different in a future review?

I think it's relevant.

I think it's important that we have the conversation

But I think we ought to focus on the application in front of us.

But not ignoring the suggestion, because she's just right.

We've got to have this conversation.

So I can give us an explanation with regard to the actual application.

Oh, please.

Please.

So it seems to me the big goals of sensitive areas is,

Objective number one, the most important is to stop displacement, right?

So existing residents aren't getting pushed out of their homes, so we're not tearing down affordable homes to build new homes.

You know, another goal I think is to maybe sort of help ensure or encourage any new development

to not be wildly out of line with existing socioeconomic conditions right now.

An example would be, for example, the vacant lot down the block that got redirected into that blue home on stilts.

That's something like a 60th percentile house in the city, which is significantly more expensive than the areas around here.

and so to me it seems like the buy-write use when I plug it into my little spreadsheet here is going to be three bedroom apartments, affordable to families of four that are at 94% of the median income and you know actually you know in a sense that's like not totally terrible it's you know affordable to people under you know on in the bottom half just very barely in the bottom half of the income spectrum but

We have the opportunity by allowing more smaller units to get it affordable to families of three at 66% of area median income.

And actually at that level, it's right around the mark where you could also apply a federal housing choice voucher and then be able to reach even lower levels, you know, 30% of them are below by adding federal subsidies.

Additional thoughts?

The only objection I would have had was the floodplain issue and I think staff is

made me pretty comfortable.

The question Ms.

So I'm okay with this.

I agree also.

I was just going to say that they proffered, you know, by proffering the height too, they ensured that it kind of fits into the neighborhood and the building's not in the flood plain.

So it's not an issue for me either.

Ms.

Second that.

Nothing, no.

I had to look to see if I had my hand raised.

I'm getting ready for a vote.

Sure, I'm going to go based on screen in order from before.

Oh, yes.

And I forgot Mr. Habab before, so I'm going to add him in.

He chimed in again.

Yes.

All right, Mr. Habab.

Yes.

Ms.

Russell.

Aye.

Ms.

You're on mute.

I. I believe that passes.

How are we feeling?

Do we want a short break or are we ready to, actually, first, closing the public hearing.

Thank you all.

Counsel, you're welcome to stick with us or have a nice, relaxing evening.

That would be okay also.

Do we want a short break?

Short break now?

Am I here?

Five minutes?

Sounds good.

Ooh

Mr. Trail, is my timing roughly accurate?

How close am I?

It is, yes.

All right, we are at five.

Welcome back all.

We only have one thing to talk about, how wonderful.

I believe that item is 240 Stripling Avenue.

Chair, that'll be Matt, myself, Matt Alfley.

Welcome, stranger.

On September 14th, Planning Commission held a public hearing for the requested rezoning application.

The application was seeking to rezone the subject property from R1S single-family small lot and R2 residential two-family to PUD plan unit development with a development plan in proffered.

The applicant was also seeking recommendation on the critical slope waiver at that meeting.

Both applications

are needed for the proposed development.

Detailed information on key elements of the plan you discussed on the 14th can be found in the staff report for the 14th or the update memo in front of you tonight.

During the planning, during the public hearing, Planning Commission heard from 16 members of the public.

Most speakers raised concern about the safety of Sterling Avenue and how additional dwelling units in the subject property would be detrimental to public safety.

Other speakers were in favor of the development and would like to see more affordable dwelling units in the city and felt this development would provide that.

If Stribling Avenue was improved and had sheltered sidewalks, those residents in the area would be in favor or less opposed to the development.

During Planning Commission's discussion, density, affordable housing, street trees, and proposed sidewalks and Stribling were all discussion points.

Most commissioners liked the development and the affordable aspects that it would provide.

but did not feel the proposed agreement between the developer and the city was detailed enough to make a recommendation.

Planning Commission and City Council did not have enough information to know the city would be able to cover any gaps in funding for the improvements to Stribling Avenue.

There was disagreement between what the developer felt it would cost and what the city engineer believed the estimate should be.

To address these issues, some of the planning commissioners, to address these issues from some of the planning commissioners and staff, the applicant requested was granted a deferral.

In that time, the applicant made minor modifications to the application for you tonight.

It's basically the same as what you were reviewing on September 14th with the following changes.

No changes to the critical slope.

Within the rezoning application, the applicant updated the setback requirements as found on page four.

The original application called for a minimum building setback

front, side, and rear of zero and adjacent to properties five feet.

The new setbacks being required are a minimum front, side, rear of zero and adjacent to outside properties of five feet, but a maximum for 10 feet.

This would create a build two zone within the development

So the original development setbacks, you had zero, but you go as far back as you wanted.

The new proposal is you could go zero, but you could only go a maximum of 10 feet back.

These setbacks exclude any frontage on Stribling Avenue.

The applicant also updated the phasing to the plan to reflect the requirements of open space requirements.

There was no information provided in the original application.

In the new application, a minimum of one acre of open space shall be dedicated in phase one.

At least 20% total open space shall be provided with each phase thereafter.

Planning Commission closed their public hearing on September 14th and no new public hearing is needed tonight.

Planning Commission can continue the discussion from the 14th and make recommendations to City Council.

This concludes my report and staff is available to answer questions.

Mr. Mitchell?

You're currently muted.

I'd love to see the applicant's presentation, but I'd also like to know what progress has been made.

We pushed back because we wanted the applicant to work with Public Works to figure out a way to coordinate the sidewalks and the improvement of streetscape and things like that.

What's happened and another question that the applicant needs

and that was responding.

The sidewalks on Stribling, I'll defer on that for a moment, but the sidewalks directly in front of the property, the applicant did look at that, but due to where the trees are and the actual width of Stribling, there's no way to preserve the trees directly in front of the subject property on Stribling.

Sure, I did a presentation to council, and I provided essentially what was over-under, which I said it was over that, and I don't remember what I think was 2.8 or 2.9 or something like that with a 20% contingency.

That was not, again, as I stated to council, it's not a complete estimate.

It's just improved upon estimate, but it is likely to be higher than that would be my guess.

I did that exercise, and I did provide that information to council.

Other than the pre-meeting, I'm not sure what happened with that.

I believe so.

Thank you.

I guess we need to... Please.

Once again, my question comes back to when will we be able to improve the infrastructure in the area relative to the building of, relative to moving this development along.

The objection we had, I think, was that we didn't have a way to make them work together.

Has the developer and staff been able to talk through that?

I do understand that we have a capital improvement backlog that needs to be addressed.

Just to touch on what Lisa mentioned earlier, I don't believe it's reflected in the current CIP.

So we can't do projects that aren't on the current CIP without money.

So yeah, we try not to initiate projects without funds.

So I can't speak to when that would be.

OK, my objective in asking those questions is to remind us of the counsel we got from Ms.

I guess I have one kind of more technical question for staff on the staff concern number four about the kind of dead-end service roads to service the garages for the townhomes.

I'm trying to understand, I guess, why they don't qualify as an alley.

Is it because they're too wide or it's because they're dead-end?

Or is it because they should be private roads rather than an alley?

So to answer that there are alleys have a very specific meaning in our code and alleys should connect they should not be dead in and so they function as an alley

but they're not alleys as we would define them when we are looking for discretionary rezoning and trying to further along some of the goals of our conflict.

Staff's not trying to say these aren't acceptable in these formations, that they don't serve the purpose of backloading the homes, but they're not alleys.

They are shared driveways and the lots are actually flag lots because of that and because of

how water needs to be provided to them.

Gotcha.

And then my quick follow up would be like, if if they were extendable, as in if the adjacent property owners wanted to extend them, and there were some agreement to allow them, would that make it a non dead end alley?

Um, if they extended it in the future, I mean, we would still, without seeing a future plan still, you know, still connect to the other property still be, until they actually dump back out into a city maintained road.

I don't see how they would not be dead in quote unquote, alleys.

Again, the staff feels a function for what they need to function.

They're not bad in providing that rear loading, but

Additional questions for staff?

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here again.

Okay, you all should have this now.

We are back in the familiar territory of 240's dribbling here.

So this is a rehash of the community engagement that this project has been through so far beginning in August of 2019.

All of this is familiar from our last meeting, except for the bold point where it was the last meeting we deferred primarily to address the discrepancies about the sidewalk cost and refine how

So changes in the plans that we made since the last meeting in September were in response to some commission comments we heard in that meeting.

and some ideas that we hadn't thought of, so thank you for that.

The first is we revised the setbacks, as Mr. Alphalay mentioned earlier, that eliminates potential utility conflict.

It's sort of a technical issue.

The next is we revised the phasing plan to clarify that open space will happen with each phase and went a step further to say that at least one acre of open space will happen with the

We also clarified the treatment of the tree preservation areas, made those easier to see, and added a specification for a native wildflower mix in areas that cannot have trees, for example areas where there's an existing sewer line,

Those can have a native mix, a ground cover, but can't have trees.

We added a few more trees and common areas internal to the development, and we did look into preserving those beech trees with our engineer, the city traffic engineer, and the city utility engineer, and it just comes down to it's not good overall practice to do so.

As it is, the roots are

of existing pavement on a road that's not wide enough per current city standards.

And though they are pretty trees, they just can't be saved with good engineering practice or with any widening of stribbling or adding sidewalk.

But we looked into that very thoroughly.

They're also not listed as a good street tree in the master tree list.

I don't know the reasons for that, but I assume it has to do with roots.

And the big one is that we increase the amount of funding we're offering in the separate performance agreement that goes to council, not specifically to planning commission for action, but increase that to the $2.9 million total.

The city's engineers under estimate was 2.873.

And so, though we feel that this work can be completed for significantly less, hence our previous amount proposed, we do think it's important enough that we want to make sure that our amount jives with city engineering estimate over and under.

To touch on the question about the process with public works on this for Mr. Mitchell, I got an email I think at 1130 p.m.

the night of the last planning commission from city officials to engage in discussions about this.

So there were immediate and substantial conversations and then

City Engineering shared with us their estimates and we had a meeting with our engineers and the city engineers and other officials to have some back and forth about where those numbers came from on either side you know where our numbers came from where their numbers came from and I'm not sure we necessarily agree on the estimates but

But we're trying to make that disagreement on the estimate irrelevant with this increased funding number proposal.

We want to get those sidewalks built.

We want to provide the funding so that it could be put into the CIP.

Whenever you all do that, if that's a necessary step, those funds will be there and

The timing of them is that we'd like for this to happen immediately.

We've already done a lot of the preliminary surveying.

I'm sure that some more will need to be done to pick up other items, but we've surveyed the entire corridor.

We've done a preliminary layout for sidewalks and drainage.

And now Mr. Dawson has also done a preliminary layout for the city's own due diligence.

on that.

There's some differences, but I think we have a pretty good idea of a basic what would need to happen.

There's a lot of details in the detail engineering that would come later.

But our funds will be ready for the construction to be paid for before we are allowed to file for a land disturbing permit for our site.

So that gives you an idea of the time.

And my slides are not coming through.

The city had their technical difficulties and now I'm having mine.

So if you'll bear with me, there's something important I want to show, but I can pull up another way.

Sorry about that.

Nice day today.

All right, so I want to talk about that money, because it's kind of nebulous to think about in terms of words.

But when you look at an image, it becomes very clear what this means.

We are offering funds up front to pay for this.

And then the way that cash flow works is our development

obviously significantly increases the value of the real estate at $240,000.

So the taxes go up.

And we're not just talking about they go up a little bit.

They go up a lot.

We're going from a tax of about $9,800 per year right now on the vacant land as it sits to an eventual tax

over $700,000 per year.

Those are the receipts to the city looking out in a 20-year horizon.

So the city always receives and keeps all of the tax that's shown in orange on this bar chart.

The blue is what is allocated to pay for the sidewalks.

And under this illustration, which I believe is a conservative estimate of the state tax rate, inflation, and the actual value of the

170 new homes that would be built.

These sidewalks are paid for in just over six years.

And then every dollar after that is tax receipts to the city that is unallocated.

It goes into the general fund and can be used for other priorities of the city.

So this just gives you an idea of how that cash flow pays for the sidewalks and other future things for the city without any

without any existing money having to come out of the city's coffers or CIP.

And this slide is the keynote of those dollars starting in year zero and going all the way through when the sidewalks are fully paid for.

And of course it raises upward from there.

In 20 years, this produces conservatively eight and a half million dollars of new tax revenue after paying for the sidewalks.

And this is just a reminder of context for the site.

You see UVA's Fontaine Research Park there in the background, Department of Forestry top left, apartments in Albemarle County across Moore's Creek to the south and Hauntley neighborhood to the east there on the right side of your screen with our proposed project in the middle.

And an idea of

what it would look like, the open spaces.

This is looking from the central park down toward Moore's Creek through a linear park.

And this is a view of that same central park area from one side.

And this is a typical example of the muse environment that's created.

Notice what you don't see here is those alleys or technically private roads as they're known.

What you see is the fronts of houses fronting on greens and pedestrian areas with the vehicle access really relegated to a secondary status once you enter this new community.

And of course, affordable housing.

We are pledging in the proffers about 25 units of new affordable housing at 60% AMI or less.

A quick question.

How long is the construction expected to last?

I know you have a number of phases for this project.

Of course.

If you remember the first bar chart I showed you, it kind of showed a ramp up of those real estate tax revenues that anticipated approximately a five year build out for the project.

Obviously, that's dependent on certain market conditions.

Sorry, Stolzenberg?

Please, Rory.

Sorry, I'll be quick.

Another question on timing.

I think someone said in the free being that you were hoping or expecting to break ground in the

upcoming fiscal year.

So that would be July 2022 to June 2023, which obviously you would have to put the money available to the city by then, but they have to do all their planning and, you know, laying out the route and engineering, etc.

to start on the sidewalk.

In your experience, is that really the timeframe where you would be looking at actually getting everything together to get approvals from the city to do land disturbance and to get your first building permits and all that?

When do you realistically think that you would break ground under realistic conditions?

Maybe I should tackle the Flint Hill question first.

We are still working through approvals on Flint Hill site plans.

I don't remember exactly when the Flint Hill PUD was approved, but I bet I could find out while we're

here on this call.

Actually, I just looked it up.

August of 2020, so a year and a quarter ago.

I think we probably still have nine months of likely approval process to go at Flint Hill before we can break ground.

There are some technical issues there that we're trying to work through, but it's not easy.

We're struggling.

I think that, yes, it's possible to break ground in the next fiscal year, which, as you say, goes through the middle of 2023.

But it's also, I'll use Mr. Dawson's term, over-under.

We could be over.

That's certainly a goal of ours.

We want to get these built and

habitable as quickly as we can.

But that's probably a good over under is right at the end of that fiscal year.

I would love the charts projections.

Those charts and projections are based on current market conditions.

We have no idea what the market's going to look like a year from now, but still, I'm cool with that.

I still think that we should

as we deliberate this, walk back to the advice of counsel.

And when we begin thinking about making a motion, tie any approval that we make to the allocation and move it up of the CIP plans to support this.

Questions for Ms.

Are we asking questions about the critical slopes as well, or are we just on the rezoning?

The whole package.

Mr. Armstrong, have you seen the recommended conditions from staff?

I have, and we didn't see those until they were in the staff report from the last meeting.

I don't have all of my engineer's thoughts in front of me, but some of them are very general, like super silt fence everywhere that silt fence would be specified.

If that's at the bottom of a hill or an area that receives a lot of water,

wholeheartedly agree with that recommendation.

It's something we often do anyway, even when it's not required on a site plan.

But if it's an area that is more or less flat or gently sloped or doesn't receive a lot of water, things like that don't have a lot of benefit.

That's not a deal breaker.

for us but what I think might be helpful and if you all are willing to put in your motion is to allow some discretion of the city engineer once we actually present a plan that shows these measures so that it's not so black and white that they're absolutely required even if they're not appropriate as determined by the city engineer at the time of the plan.

Sure.

Again, a lot of this goes to this thing way early in the process.

If we had a residential plan, then we could make a specific version.

I understand Mr. Armstrong's concern about where it might not be necessary, but this is a big project.

One of the

You know, we have a lot of conversations in here about how this stuff gets executed, but this is going to be a long, you know, I don't know, you talk about when it's going to start, it's going to be a long project.

We have one inspector, depending on how you count them, two inspectors in the city now to police all of these projects.

Then, you know, we applied enough discretion, trying to make sure we're improving performance based on all the different engineers and these things.

So it has perimeter sill fence in here.

I just had to bring it up.

So perimeter sill fence is at the bottom of the slopes generally because this whole thing is on a hill.

If it's the perimeter, there's some intention in that.

It's not just words that we put down here.

So I think we should stick with perimeter sill fence.

Whoever the contractor is on that day, if it's about to rain and it's four o'clock,

They don't have to worry about re-attrenching and all the silt fence.

They have wired back silt fences.

So my staff, I don't have to get personally involved in shepherding this project through, you know, successful erosion control measures.

Sorry, if I could follow up with Mr. Dawson there.

Please.

I mean, what you said about silt vents makes sense to me.

There's already discretion in there because I'm the one that gets to determine what perimeter meets.

So to me, as someone who reviews tons of these plans, has designed many plans, it's pretty clear.

So to their engineer, it should be pretty clear.

I don't, you know, in this situation, there's 20 feet of silt vents somewhere.

And we have some argument about whether that's perimeter.

I mean, it seems trivial to me at this point.

Well, it's your call.

I mean, you make that call.

You do.

You make that call.

So I'm pretty cool with it.

Again, Mr. Dossett, he makes it cool.

I believe we are ready for discussion.

I wonder if Ms.

Robertson would be kind enough, because I think we're at the point where we're ready to make a motion, if she would be kind enough to remind us of what an appropriate motion would be that protects the things that we want to protect.

I can do that?

Or Ms.

Well, it is.

Ms.

Sure, I have a motion for the rezoning that subject to sidewalk improvements on Stripling Avenue being prioritized appropriately in the City Capital Improvement Program, I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM20-0002 on the basis that the streets

proposed within the PUD development are laid out in a manner substantiated.

It's good.

Ms.

Russell, Mr. Chair, I would second Ms.

I hear a second.

Additional discussion?

Yeah, I'd like to say something real quick.

Please.

I mean, I know the funding for the sidewalks and whether they happen or not is kind of outside the scope of this.

I think that's appropriate for tonight's meeting.

But that said, we're probably going to revisit it in two weeks when we start talking about the CIP and then again next month.

So I think those charts really made clear what the trade-off is here.

What I was trying to express in my email earlier, but probably should have used the visual instead,

beyond the incremental revenue from this being able to fund these sidewalks that the neighborhood has been asking for since before I lived there.

And I moved there in 2013 and for years before.

And then on top of that, there could be enough revenue to support in bondable capacity or like debt service after those are paid off to pay for a whole one seventh of the school reconfiguration.

And then on top of that, we're getting

a project with a good urban form that we've asked for with grids, everything I've gleaned from all the architects and landscape architects and whatever on the place commission all these years.

I think it's a good project.

It provides a lot of housing, both housing that we need for the market to absorb some of this in rush of demand and a ton of affordable units, 26 units for families that will have somewhere to live now.

and I think council when they look at this and they're probably not listening to us right now but they really need to think long and hard about whether it's worth making this investment that doesn't actually require any upfront funds or forgoing all of that revenue and all that housing and just leaving this as a vacant parcel of land or locking it into some low density use for a long time that deserves the floats anyway

but then doesn't give us very much tax revenue.

To me, it's a positive win-win.

Mr. Stolzenberg makes a lot of great points.

Points that need to be discussed at another time when we get into the capital budget because I would like to move forward the vote, Mr. Chair.

Any more discussion on this topic?

Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Ms.

Dowell?

Aye.

Aye.

I believe that passes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Mitchell?

We have a steep slope, a critical slope to vote on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Very good, thank you.

This is important to note these things.

The issue I heard from staff is staffing, right?

Is not related, again, I'm sorry, not related to what we have in front of us, but we're hearing loud and clear that

It's one thing to approve and require conditions, but if we don't have the staff that can go and monitor, we're doing our community a disservice, the neighbors.

I am looking to the developer, Charlie, to Mr. Armstrong and saying,

And the good news is you've got Cena and Lloyd, Michael and Sam listening in so they know that we need more resources to make this stuff enforceable.

So I would ask leaders to

Were you about to make a motion?

So that would be recommendations from one through eight on page 11 of the staff report.

Discussion on this topic?

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Mr. LeHindro?

Aye.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Ms.

Thank you.

I believe this agenda item is now resolved.

Do we have any additional topics we want to discuss before we roll out?

All in favor, please give me a thumbs up.

I'll take it.

Have a good night all.