Planning Commission Meeting   9/10/2019

We're here well, I will call this meeting to order a regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting for September 10th 2019 and We will begin with commissioners reports.

Mr. Alejandro.

I would love to

I attended two committee meetings this past month.

The first one on August 20th for the Board of Architectural Review.

We had nine certificates of, no.

What are they called?

Certificate of Appropriateness.

Certificate of Appropriateness, that's what they are.

I just know them, COA, COA, COA.

Issued and were approved.

They included the final design for Belmont Bridge and a mural on the wall of the Violet Crown Theaters, which fronts 2nd Street.

And then we had two COAs deferred for more information.

On September the 3rd, the Tree Commission met.

We had a Charlottesville resident make a presentation on the compaction of tree roots at Meade Park due to the farmers market foot traffic.

And after discussing possible options for solving this, staff is going to follow up with some of those.

and then the 2020 Capital Improvement Project requests were reviewed.

Additional monies are being requested by the Tree Commission for funds to partner with an initiative to offset the cost for emerald ash borer treatment.

Currently, the funding is only protecting about 38 of the 107 mature ash trees that are in the cities right away.

and then a list of recommended trees for planting in city's gateway corridors was reviewed and approved.

Thank you.

The Allocation Subcommittee of the Housing Advisory Council met on Tuesday, September 10th, 2019 to discuss how to spend the Charlottesville, who am I gonna get?

the housing money.

We selected the crossings to project as the priority and AHIP as the secondary priority for funding.

The majority of my time has been spent on the RFP process.

We are working through the procurement process.

That is the quote.

Thank you, Miss Dowell.

None of my subcommittees this month, but I did go to the form-based code workshops at Crescent Halls and City Space and heard mostly from the consultants and a little bit from the community.

There's still time to get your comments in.

I know the audience is watching rapidly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure, I can go through a couple things.

The board of visitors is meeting this week and really the things of note for this committee might be that they're going to be reviewing the next phase of the athletics complex.

You know, they took down U-Haul and the next phase is really just to add some grass fields there in its place and some tying together with some pedestrian stuff and then future phases to follow, hopefully.

They're also going to have a presentation from the UVA Sustainability Office, which I thought was kind of interesting and reading through it.

I learned some things I didn't know about our sustainability efforts on grounds right now.

Right now we are on track to meet our greenhouse gas emissions goal, which was reduced by 25% below our 2009 levels.

By 2025, we should reach that next year, it sounds like, which is great.

We have a nitrogen reduction goal, which we are

using 17% less nitrogen over our 2010 levels and using 11.7% less water over our 2010 levels.

So those are good efforts and taking into account that we have grown a lot since 2010.

So even with that growth, we're seeing those reductions.

Thank you.

So I attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on Thursday evening and they had some vacancies and so it appears that they have filled those vacancies and the last introduction was the Southside Planning District Commissioner Executive Director which is Deborah Gosney

and so I think they've got a full commission or yes commission at this point so that was exciting news.

We had a full report on GO Virginia region 9 regional update and if you don't know about GO Virginia that is a a grant funding program for things in this region especially and the more

communities in the region that get together, the more grant possibilities there are.

It's interesting.

It's not really for economic development, but it's an interesting grant.

I think they have helped some infrastructure.

Maybe it's not really for infrastructure like roads because we have smart scale.

But I encourage you all, especially for us as a planning commission, it's go Virginia.

And it's some opportunities I think we should take a look at.

And I had my packet with me to bring and I left it sitting on my desk.

I was

Flip it through it.

So, but take a look at that.

Go Virginia.

And I mean, maybe there's something there for planning.

I mean, maybe there's money there for us to look at some of this planning opportunities for crossing boundaries, the river planning or something like that, since it is a more than one locality.

That.

And the second thing I have is we are going to hear in a moment a report from our nominating committee because tonight is our annual election of officers.

I just want to say I've been honored to be your chair for two years.

and to serve you all and the public.

I know there's a lot of things that we were trying to get accomplished and maybe we didn't get across the finish line and hopefully we can do that soon.

I appreciate your patience and your contributions and your faith in me to lead this commission for the last two years.

not according to the agenda.

Okay.

Well, I'll be giving that report.

And with gratitude to our chair, Lisa Green, for two years of strong, capable leadership.

Thank you.

I am delighted to make the

So we have a motion.

No.

Do we have any other nominations from the floor?

So we have a motion and a second.

No pressure?

Mr. Heaton?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Aye.

Aye.

Congratulations.

The thing that I remember most about...

That's true.

Over Ms. Dow and the current chair.

That's about it.

Oh.

Yeah.

But I want to begin by Lisa, Ms. Green, just saying thank you, thank you.

The passion with which you led this organization, the passion driven by your desire to see us do smart planning, smart development.

Planning and development that is socioeconomically, culturally sensitive, diverse, and respectful has literally made you a force of nature.

I mean, to the point, and this is true, that a couple of times I felt like a deer in headlights.

And I suspect that my friends on the dais also felt that way.

I am certain some of the applicants felt that way, and I'm certain some of the public felt that way.

But we are grateful for that.

Your passion is an inspiration to us.

But the thing that I think I'm most grateful for is the patience

that you use in guiding four newbies to the board.

We've got experience on boards like this before but not on this board under your leadership.

You had four newbies to break in in the last couple of years and you were very patient with us.

Yes, we are.

All right.

We have a busy couple of weeks coming up, everyone.

We have work session on September 24th.

That is our regular work session date.

And we're going to be having a preliminary discussion on 218 West Market Street.

And that is the development that we have seen in the news.

So we'll have more information and opportunity for discussion at that point in time.

September 30th.

That is the following Monday will be the work session, our workshop on the standards and design manual.

We're hopeful that we can get some good feedback at that opportunity.

And then it's on course to move forward through the approval process.

So

We're hopeful we'll make some progress there.

And we also in October, instead of having our work session on the fourth Tuesday, we're going to have that on the third Tuesday, which is October 15th.

And we've cleared that with everyone's schedule, everyone except for perhaps Jody is available.

and that is going to be a work session on the form-based code as we are getting the form-based code prepared for hearing in November so that'll be another opportunity for folks to

provide feedback on that.

So we've got a busy couple couple of weeks coming up here in the middle of that.

We've got the October regular meeting on the 8th.

So we'll be seeing you guys many, many times.

We are in the process of working for a candidate for our assistant position.

So we should hopefully have someone

joining us next week or next month.

But in the meantime, Carrie has still been on staff with us doing minutes from afar, and she's still providing us with with our minutes there.

And I think.

That's probably all we have right now.

I'm glad someone accepted the chair.

I appreciate that.

And thank you to the nominating committee.

I'm glad all that worked out.

It's always awesome when that occurs.

You know I'm not going to be able to stop talking, though.

Since our November meeting is going to be on foreign-based code, I think we're going to have a lot of public input, and I'd like for us, if possible, to take a look at that schedule and not

I'm thinking most applicants won't want to be on that day anyway, but we still have a little bit of time before the deadline date for that, but we'll make everyone aware of the circumstances and we'll do the best we can to balance the agenda.

Thank you.

Right.

With that, what we will do is open up for a public hearing.

Oh, oh, oh.

What else?

Sorry.

The consent agenda?

Yes.

Oh, I thought you said we were going to a public hearing.

So if there's anyone who I don't think anyone signed up, but if there's anyone in the audience that would like to chat with us about anything besides the rugby road SUP, now would be the opportunity to do that.

Please limit your comments to three minutes and state your name and address.

Moved and properly seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Voice, acclamation, ayes have it.

We are now going to be in recess until council arrives.

I think one council person is here.

Ms. Creasy, do we have three?

I don't know if it's down there or if it's in this here.

Interesting.

Were you there?

And, um,

Mike and Wes.

Yeah, I had the mic on there because I was going to say something.

Good evening again and we are ready to continue our deliberations.

Madam Mayor, is council in order?

and Council is in order and the Planning Commissioner is now in order.

We've got one public hearing and that one hearing relates to a special use permit.

The application number is SP1900004.

The subject location is 503 Rugby Road.

The project is fronting obviously on Rugby Road and Lambeth Lane.

The property is currently a sorority house that is zoned to house up to 36 residents.

The owners are requesting a revision in zoning that will allow them to house up to 37 residents.

There will also be some significant renovations associated with the application that we will review as well tonight.

It should be noted that the property is currently zoned multi-family for medium density.

It is also subject to historical overlays.

The property is also within the Rugby Road, the Rugby University Circle Venable neighborhood and architectural design control district.

And it should also be noted that the current land use map indicates that this should be a high density residential development in that area.

And what we'll do is we'll let you walk us through your report, then we'll have council and folks in the dais ask questions, and then we'll bring the applicant up, and the applicant will do a presentation.

Good evening, Joey Winter, City Planner and NDS.

So this item is a special use permit for a sorority of up to 37 residents at 503 Rugby Road.

Just as a reminder, there was a preliminary discussion of this at the August Planning Commission meeting.

The Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority is proposing to expand and renovate their existing chapter house at this location.

The property is zone R3 historic and it has a valid special use permit for sorority up to 36 residents which was granted by city council in 1978.

So the request is for one additional resident.

Additionally, modifications to the front and side setbacks are being requested.

The property lies in an architectural design control district, so the Board of Architectural Review made a recommendation on this request and BAR recommends that granting this special use permit will not have an adverse impact on the ADC district.

Regarding public comment for this item, there were two neighbors present at the community meeting held by the applicant on August 6th.

They were both in favor of the request.

Staff received one email from a nearby property owner in favor of this request and at this point no public comment in opposition to this request has been received.

Some issues to consider with this SCP request tonight.

Is the proposed use appropriate for the neighborhood?

There are at least 15 fraternities or sororities

within a thousand feet of the subject property.

The subject property also directly abuts the UVA campus and this subject property has been in use as a sorority with up to 36 residents for the past 35 or so years.

Another question is, are there reasonable conditions that can be set forth to mitigate adverse impacts the proposed use will have on the neighborhood?

And staff has some proposed conditions that I will get to in a minute.

And finally, should the front and side yard

Regulations be modified as part of this request.

The applicant stated reasons for requesting modified front and side yard regulations are to permit ornamental features, roof overhangs and covered porches, and also to permit the front and north side walls of the building to remain in their current locations.

So it's important to note that this request for modified yard regulations is not to increase density.

As I mentioned, staff has proposed six conditions for this SUP.

At your August meeting, the Planning Commission gave guidance to staff to look at the SUP granted for the Alpha Kappa service fraternity that's on Jefferson Park Avenue.

So those served as the basis for these proposed conditions.

Condition one would set the maximum number of sorority residents at 37.

Conditions two and three would modify the front and side yard regulations as requested by the applicant and recommended by BAR.

And then condition four deals with parking due to limited physical space available on the site,

Additional signing and pavement markings may be necessary.

So this condition would allow traffic engineering staff to require these markings and would also ensure that parking on site is utilized exclusively for the sorority.

Condition five would add additional requirements for site lighting.

That would be above and beyond what the ordinance typically requires.

And this condition is taken directly from that Alpha Kappa special use permit.

And condition six would require the screening of all trash receptacles.

And again, this is taken from that Alpha Kappa SUP.

So in conclusion, the general standards for issuance of a special use permit are found in city code section 34157 and also in your packet and city code 34162 which allows the modification of yard regulations as a condition of a special use permit is also included in your packet.

Really, well, I mean, there's a lot of pedestrian access in that area.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Got nothing.

Reverend Heaton.

No questions.

I know during our last meeting we asked about the noise impacts being that it was a sorority house but also got info or feedback that it was in their rules that they couldn't have parties or something of that nature.

I was just wondering was there any way we could get that memorialized in this only because we are, what if their rules change?

We never know.

You lost me.

Would you repeat that?

Oh, no worries.

So during our August meeting, we had talked about the noise impacts because this was a sorority and we brought up the question of parties and things of that nature.

The response from the applicant was that UVA's rules or standards is that sororities can't have parties or something.

I was just wondering if that is accurate, correct?

I've been wordsmithing.

I hope you'll indulge me.

Looking at proposed condition five, I'm thinking about a possible edit for it to read in the last sentence.

Fixtures shall completely conceal the light source.

So we're not specifying how the light source is concealed merely requiring the light source be concealed.

Does that make sense?

We took direction as staff from just taking what that previous

I know the applicant has had some concerns or would like some clarification on this.

The language that I'm describing, I'm just saying the fixtures shall completely conceal the light source from all viewing positions other than those on-site positions intended to receive illumination from the fixture.

Is that consistent with what we're attempting to accomplish?

I want to weigh in on this, but I'm going to do that at our discussion point.

I have some insight on that, I think.

Thank you.

Mr. Landfront.

Nothing.

Thank you.

Any questions from council?

Hi, my name is Erin Hannigan with Mitchell Matthews Architects again.

I have the full presentation here and the full packet from the revised materials that we provided to you, but I don't think it's necessary to go through it all.

So I can do as any small portion of it as necessary or can just highlight things that have been modified.

There have been very small plan changes that have occurred since we've seen you last.

Well, I think that walking through the modifications would be good.

Okay.

So in the packet we included a page that outlined those modifications, but that's this page.

This is a new page for your packet, but you did see it in the last meeting.

It talks about

the current conditions in the sorority house with very narrow bedrooms that are approximately nine feet wide and that that's one of the primary reasons that the applicant would like to undergo a renovation to increase the bedroom size.

The width of the bedroom is particularly narrow and by increasing that width we can get accessibility in all of the bedrooms.

They're currently, again, dealing with beds that are smaller than standard twin beds and this will allow them to utilize regular sized furniture after the renovation.

Additionally, in the chapter room, their current chapter room is

separated from the front parlor by a massive fireplace, and that restricts the length of the room and the amount of people that you can fit into that room.

Additionally, the chapter has grown in size significantly from the time of construction of this original design, and so we're removing that fireplace up through the building from basement to the roof.

and instead creating a large chapter room that takes over those two rooms and expands out the back and utilizes operable doors that allow it to open up and join those spaces during the particular evenings that the chapter meetings occur and close down and function differently during the rest of the week.

This is the same, so again,

This image for the general public outlines the spaces in red are the addition and it's generally to the rear of the building along with some infill on the front corner.

Skipping forward.

There's been no significant change to the site plan since you've seen it last.

The basement has not changed.

The requested or the calculation of the current setbacks was modified since you last saw it based on staff comments.

And so the front yard setback, we had to take into account the existing building in the average on the street.

And so that pushed it the front yard setback.

I think it came out, actually.

And then the side yard setback staff pointed out to us that we were utilizing

10 feet, which was the minimum, instead of the one foot for every two feet in height.

And so recalculating that based on the proposed height pushes it in even further.

But we did not change what our request for the setback relief is.

At the first floor, slight plan modifications have to do with openings here to save a lintel and appear with construction detailing that we've evolved since then.

And nothing has changed on the upper two residential floors.

And nothing has changed on the roof.

Again, just the setbacks show up differently.

I'll come back to these when talking about the lighting.

But the elevations do show some of the proposed lighting that is not recessed.

And the fixtures don't all conceal the light source.

But I'll come back to that.

So on the elevations, slight modifications.

Light fixtures were removed.

A roll-up course was added at the top of the brick wall.

Otherwise, the general detailing and massing of it has remained completely the same as you've seen before.

These renderings from the previous version that you saw have the landscape plan incorporated into the rendering.

So it's depicting the plan that's matching the site plans, the middle, and our landscape plans that are in the packet.

as opposed to the previous one, which was an early conceptual design.

And it has this sunken terrace.

If you haven't studied that, it has a sunken terrace off of Rugby Road that then allows you to walk up a few steps to get back to the front porch and in the front door to create a procession into the building.

It creates, again, that porch on the front is really important to us to create a character-defining feature

The front of the building that connects it to the street provides an entry on the street that it has its address on, which is not currently the case.

Nothing's changed here.

Again, the calculation's changed here.

And we added this column on the right that describes why we're asking for the modification.

And these diagrams have been updated to reflect those changed calculations.

Again, the numbers have changed, but the diagram generally stays the same.

And you haven't seen this.

These were prepared for BAR.

They show on the left what we're proposing with our eave depth at the roof line, and on the right, what would be allowed under the current ordinance with a maximum of 12 inches projection.

And it makes a significant difference when you look at the renderings.

This is what cutting those

Rufives back to the 12-inch currently allowable dimension would look like versus what we're requesting, which really caps the building.

These sections were also added to your packet to describe what the existing condition is on the left.

The elements dashed on the middle section that are being removed in the diagram on the right shows the proposed condition.

So before there were questions about

where the new wall was being proposed relative to the existing wall.

And you can see in these three wall sections that the foundation wall is staying the same.

It's the existing condition.

And the red line is drawn up from that in each of the three sections.

And so you can see the relationship between where the existing front facade was and where we're proposing it to be in the renovated condition.

Of course, the porch projects past that.

That's what's seen on the right.

and these are sections that do the same thing on other sides of the building.

The red line is again showing you where the face of existing construction lies and again we're extending that upwards to add additional story.

The same goes with these, the one on the right in particular we're expanding to the rear, that's where the chapter room connects to another room, it's called the sun room that allows that room to become larger.

Staff rounding rules changed our parking calculation and so we believe at this point we are required to have 11 spaces rather than 12.

It doesn't change the fact that we have 10 on-site and one will be provided off-site.

During the last meeting you asked questions about bicycle parking.

We've calculated that we will be required to have five spaces and we're providing five locations for bike racks.

These diagrams are showing that again, the revised calculations at the top.

And then this new diagram, again, this bike terrace that's off to the side will have five bike rack space locations.

In addition, we've illustrated that the bike lockers over here will have five bike lockers, which help with the reduction of the parking requirements.

And these are specifications for what we're using.

And the last thing that we started to update in this packet is the lighting plan, which in the previous packet we had an issue of

a fixture on this side that was outside the house director's entry that was causing spillover across the property line that wouldn't meet your ordinance.

We've revised that and removed that light fixture to drop the lighting levels over there.

Um, otherwise we've left the, the light fixtures as is the rest of the site works for the ordinance, the calculations of the property line, as well as, uh, the meeting the ordinance for full cutoff dark sky.

But the fixtures that we've selected, some of them are located under a porch or under other elements that actually restrict the

the light that's emitted from them and therefore if they even if light comes out the top it's being cut off by the porch roof for instance and therefore we're hoping that you'll just strike that last line from condition number five completely with the understanding that we are in a historic control district and that we will be going in front of BAR and BAR will need to approve all of our lighting fixtures and

Therefore, there will be additional scrutiny over what we're using and where we're putting it, and hopeful that you'll leave it to them to come up with the correct and appropriate solution.

If I can pull it back up.

The wordsmithing that I was suggesting earlier, removing the section about recessing fixtures and just saying that fixtures shall completely conceal the light source.

So in particular, the reason why we would request that not be a condition is because one of the fixtures that we're utilizing, and I'm going to pull up the cut sheet for it so you can see what I'm

And this is in the BAR packet.

It's not in your packet.

It looks like this.

You can see that the bulb is visible.

It is on the front porch.

It's on the pilasters that are back at the house rather than out at the front porch columns.

And so that statement we would argue would conflict with, like we would probably need to replace this fixture under that condition.

Well, that's where we feel, yes, and BAR would have purview over that.

No questions.

No questions.

UVA.

No questions.

Cool.

And counsel.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

And at this point, we can open it up for a public hearing.

So if you'd like to speak, please step up, state your name, and tell us where you live.

And there's a list of folks.

Hi everyone.

My name is Addie and I'm the chapter president.

I'm a fourth year at UVA and I lived in the house last year so I can speak to a little bit more of why this is necessary and

I also am in the house all the time.

So last year, living in the house, you can actually, if you're in bed, reach across and hold your roommate's hand.

So this, it's a little bit uncomfortable just living in these cramped conditions, living in, I'm five foot nine in a small twin bed.

It's a little bit uncomfortable as well.

Additionally, we hold chapter meetings every Sunday and we have to cram everyone into our main chapter room and it's uncomfortable for everyone to sit in there pretty much on top of each other on our couches and on the seats so it would be great if we could expand the chapter room.

And then also we're a chapter that's constantly growing and one of the

Main things that you do as a sorority is recruitment.

So we're recruiting new members every year, every January.

And aesthetically, our house just doesn't really suit our needs.

If you've seen the pictures, it's really hard to compete with some of the really beautiful sorority houses when we're inviting members into our house every January, inviting new potential members.

And so this would be another

Great way to recruit awesome new members into our house.

So that's pretty much everything that I was going to speak about today.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Hello and thank you.

I was here in 1978 when the Kappa House was being designed.

That was when interest rates were 17%.

The architects built a beautiful house.

But when the prices came in, it was absolutely unaffordable.

So it was tried to be minimized, which it was done.

And as a result, many did not feel it fit this particular area.

When the house was built, there were 60 members.

Currently, it's almost tripled in membership.

So everything

is getting very squashed on the interior.

The bedrooms were always tiny, tiny, and this was designated by the city because we had to have so many parking spaces per square feet of bedroom space, and they are unbelievably small.

So by accepting this new design, not only is Rugby Road being enhanced, but the entire sorority is being enhanced

I'm a resident of University Circle and everybody's very happy about this change as well as in the Venable neighborhood.

I'm Woody Oakey.

I was a member of this sorority back in the mid-90s.

I'm a local resident now, and I'm a member of the House Board, so I'm involved with the sorority very frequently.

Back, as everyone has said, I'd like to reiterate exactly what Addie and

Karen just said how small the rooms are, how cramped it is when I was there.

I mean we were squeezed in like sardines for chapter meetings and I can only imagine now with it being 30% bigger than it was then how they're able to do it.

I think the revised design is beautiful and is in keeping with the historical neighborhood and I know I also used to live right down the road on Rugby Road.

15 years ago.

And I would love to have seen this building on my daily walks.

The other thing that I don't think anybody's mentioned is the study spaces and the lounge spaces for the residents.

We have significantly increased with this design the amount of study spaces that are available to not only the residents but the other members who can come by the house, eat their meals, and study there.

and also the lounge spaces for the residents.

There are lounges on the second and third residential floors so they can feel more at home where they live.

So anyway, I would propose that you'd move this special use permit forward and that's all I have.

Would anyone else like to speak?

Going once, going twice.

The public hearing is now closed.

Ms. Green, you had some comments that you want to get out?

Sure.

A couple things.

Lyle, I think I understand where you're coming from with that completely concealed.

Some of this, and we've had some problems in some other

projects where the light in the stairwells and stuff is even more visible than the sight lighting because we've got such restrictions on the sight lighting.

being full cut off, which is why it's there for dark skies.

But I can see, so I can understand what the need for this concealment.

That being said, I'm not sure these two porch lights are going to be any different than the porch lights all throughout the corridor.

and based off of what we heard in a pre-meeting, I'm pretty comfortable with the site lighting meeting the dark skies ordinance and that dark skies ordinance does not allow for any horizontal spillover.

So the bulbs would be concealed at that point.

The only other thing I would say is

bike parking is important.

And I don't know why that wasn't a part of our conditions to make sure that happens.

So as I look at this, I wanna make sure we add that as a part of our conditions.

Potentially, hmm?

It's a requirement?

So is the amount a requirement?

Are they adding more?

What is the requirement amount?

They're meeting the requirement.

Meeting the requirement?

Yeah, it would be one space per 500 feet of bedroom space.

Well, I wasn't going to say anything until that.

But when this design was done in 1979 and 80, this was actually a notable building.

And it was an interesting building in Charlottesville, something that tried to transition between the traditional neo revivals that were done.

time and time again and modern architecture.

And it was an interesting building.

It remains an interesting building, despite what the ladies think and what you think.

Notice I'm not one of the ladies.

You hear that?

Just to put that in perspective, I've heard Jody give that exact same speech about my old house two doors down at 515 Rugby Road when all of the BAR was rooting for it to be torn down.

So personally, I don't feel that we need the lighting requirement.

I do think dark sky rules are important.

I was an astronomy minor.

But in general,

Even if there is some spillover of light that's not upward, I think this is a pretty good place for it.

You know, you have Pike on one side.

You have Westminster Church and 80 Pie across the street.

You have a big open street going down to Lambeth.

And I walked through that parking lot many hundreds of times back in the day.

So it's not super well lit now.

It can be kind of sketchy at night.

This looks like a huge improvement.

I'm excited about it.

The old building was great.

Ms. Dowell.

Reverend Heaton.

UVA.

I move to recommend approval of a special use permit allowing the specific development proposed within the application materials for SP 19-0003 subject to the following... 0004.

Huh.

Yeah.

Hmm.

I just printed that out.

0-0-4

on the basis that the proposal would serve as public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice for the special use permit to authorize a boarding, fraternity, sorority, house use with up to 37 residents at 503 Ruby Road.

The building within a building

Ms. Ferris-Hulliades, would you like to second that?

I would.

Voice acclamation, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

We will recommend moving forward with this to council.

And that would be the end of our public hearing and we will now move on to the private proposal on West Main Street.

and that would be SP1900003.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Solla-Yates, you got this?

OK.

All right.

That's right.

Here we go.

Discussing application for a special use permit, application number SP-19-00003.

So this is a continuation of an item that was on your previous agenda.

So obviously you completed the public hearing at your last meeting and are now, you've directed, you tabled this item at your last meeting so that staff could work on revised conditions for the building located at 612, the special use permit located at 612 West Main Street.

The applicant is

We've discussed the revised condition about the monitoring of the adjacent property at 620 to 624 West Main Street and have come with condition four in your staff report on page 14, which details all of the monitoring of that adjacent building that should be undertaken.

So that's the revised condition that's before you today.

The other items that, as we talked about in the pre-meeting, that the applicant would like you to consider, I believe, are items on condition one, items B and C, or items B and then, what is the parking one that I'm looking for, E. They drafted a letter that was forwarded to you regarding those two conditions, and they have a supplemental visualization of the parking that I can hand to you.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Nope.

Mr. Riverdini?

No questions.

I have no questions.

and Mr. Leonard.

First I want to restate what I said last time when this came before us that I need to be clear that I do pro bono advising to First Baptist Church but I receive no payment for that and I do not believe my advising to them affects my ability to be objective with this application.

With that, Brian, I do have a question.

Where did you all find the protective plan recommendations?

The broad general outline came from a publication of the Department of Interior that Ms. Galman actually located during the meeting the last time you were here.

All right.

This isn't a public hearing, so there's no public comment, correct?

Thank you.

Good to see you all again.

I know my wife is sitting there saying, after Commissioner Dowell gave you some gracious comments, you should stop.

But I have to respectfully request a modification to one of the conditions, please, and a clarity to one of the conditions.

The parking spaces that were provided in the original plan was just a very general outline, no different than the building design, which I had explained is

primarily a big ugly box so the 53 spaces was not created by any particular design it was kind of what could be shoved in as an indication and it particularly did not take into account what the BAR and as well as the Planning Commission has in a condition as far as us setting back the garage opening from West Main Street so we took another look at it to more appropriately look at what

the parking would yield and I think 40 spaces is much more appropriate for that.

It complies with zoning.

I will tell you we always have to comply with the zoning ordinance and we will.

I actually know that 40 spaces

complies more than required from the zoning ordinance because I believe you can have a large amount of the parking off site in this zone.

So I would respectfully ask that you change the 53 spaces to a minimum of 40 spaces, again looking for no relief from what the zoning ordinance would require.

The second thing is just a small clarification which I'm

Not 100% sure I need, but I would like to have it clarified because there was a discussion on it last time.

I was talking about trying to get possibly more stories in this envelope that's provided in the ordinance.

I'm willing to concede that understanding that four stories is appropriate, but I would not like to decrease the

I think it's important to note that this is the height limit that is permitted under the ordinance.

And that ordinance was specifically revised in this corridor by the city to decrease height there down to 52 feet.

So I do not know why we would further decrease that by two feet.

And two feet might not mean a lot, but to a developer it does,

changed the rules on appurtenances as well so I'm willing to definitively agree that the four stories be a maximum provided it does not and I have some language but that it's also four stories but permitted within the maximum height of the ordinance.

Any questions?

So, sorry, you said you're willing to concede four.

Does that mean you're going to do four no matter what, or would you prefer five?

I think that's the right design, and I've talked to my team, and I'm willing to limit it to the four stories.

I think that's an appropriate, and whatever comes out if we do a little more on the retail side, I think it's a good design.

I'm not going to try to shove the five stories in.

I heard your concern with that in the VARs.

Okay.

Thanks.

No concerns.

Yes, I just had one question for clarification.

The parking requirement, well, first of all, the other thing that's a little bit fluid is it also depends on your unit mix.

So right now we don't have a definitive unit mix and it's kind of this cart and the horse thing or chicken and egg because we have to come here, request density, so we understand how many units we can do.

Then when we understand how many units we can do in the envelope,

We can then lay out the unit layouts.

But based on a certain mix, and we've sent it on to Mr. Haleska, we think we'd probably only have to do like 20 spaces on site because of the allowance of the permission for off-site spaces.

There's another thing I wanted to point out.

In 600 West Main, I had come forward with an SUP and I requested a waiver for a half a car per studio space.

And here I'm not making that request.

I don't want to ask for things I don't need and I don't need that request.

And then I just had one other question.

Can you tell me what your offsite parking would be?

I haven't figured it, but I don't know if I'll need it.

Again, when I look at the unit mix and I come down to the exact, I mean, it might be that we need 50 cars and we can get 50 cars.

We only need 40 and we can do them on site.

It might mean we can do

We need 45, but we can do five offsite.

600 West Main, we provide them at Jefferson School.

So I would make similar provisions for that.

But I don't know the exact amount.

If it's two spaces, it could be found in a lot of places.

I have a couple questions about the protective plan.

I presume you've looked at it and are okay with it as it is now?

Yes.

My concerns are a couple of them.

To summarize, the protective plan has several components, baseline, survey, ongoing monitoring,

a protection, protective plan.

The baseline survey indicates that visual documentation is required, which may include color photographs and video recordings.

I'd like to say that I don't know how you do visual documentation without color photographs.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, maybe it was.

Yeah, that's fine.

and then the protective plan... Maybe so they could be black and white?

I don't know.

The historic nature of the building.

Yes, exactly.

It's a colorful building.

The protective plan calls for one, but it doesn't really tell us what it is.

And it says it may include seismic monitoring or other monitoring measures.

and I'd like to once again say shall include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures as recommended by the engineer and minimally will include installation of at least five crack monitors that will be inspected weekly during ground disturbing activities during demolition and construction

And then the reports of the monitor reading shall be submitted to the city building official and adjacent landowner within two days of the inspection.

This is just a way to monitor the building to see if there's, I mean, it doesn't do any good to have crack monitors or some other seismic monitoring.

If no one's looking at it during the process of construction and demolition to make sure that's nothing happening.

So this is just a way of having that monitoring being done actively during the construction process.

Can I ask my construction guru if he would?

Yes.

And I'd say I say ground disturbing

Demolition and Construction.

There's no need to be looking at the crack monitors when they're putting in the windows of the building.

Well, could we break it down into, because the shell do seismic, I thought we were leaving that for the city engineer and our engineer to work on what the appropriate

methods were.

I'm not saying that the seismic is required.

Thank you.

I don't know, the seismic or other specific monitoring measures, the minimum being five crack monitors.

Fine.

That's a good point.

Thank you.

All right.

I've got one more question.

One more question.

Depending on the part of the bedroom.

Yeah.

Additional questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Jody, thank you for that comment.

Because when we met last month, that was exactly what I was going for.

Yes, we have something in place or have a system, but what are we going to do to track it?

So that was awesome.

Thank you.

But I do want to thank the developer for and his consultants for considering this, for including something to help protect the historic building next door.

So on the subject of the stories requirement, so it seems to me that we're talking about 52 feet either way or 50 feet potentially, but they'd like to not have that.

But we're going to be imposing a limit of four stories within that.

And to me, I mean, I don't know what

I think that, at least from my perspective, we shouldn't be mandating that within the exact same building you have 12, 13-foot soaring ceiling heights.

I don't really even get what the visual problem with shorter stories is anyway, but just that extra multiple feet of ceiling height is naturally going to make those apartments higher end.

If I read The Room, I think the thing we want you to do is have more less expensive apartments.

And I think a fifth story within the same footprint or the same envelope

would be good.

More than the density doesn't change, right?

That's true.

Four or five stories.

But it would give room.

Further discussion?

How do we feel about parking?

Parking is just super important.

We have a lot of new projects that have went up on West Main Street and we've heard from the public that it is an issue.

I have a question about that really quick.

There's 53 on this plan or that was what I saw as a requirement?

Is that because of the commercial aspect on the lower floor to provide for that?

Because you will have that as part of 40 maybe ample for the amount of number of apartments.

The 53 was part of the condition that was drafted based on the original submission which showed kind of a template of a floor plate of parking the applicant provided and there were 53 spaces there so I think that's where that number comes from.

To answer Commissioner Dowell's question about the parking requirements in West Main to a little greater detail, any retail space of 5,000 square feet or less is exempt from

Any parking calculations in West Main East.

So as long as they keep the retail under 5,000, there's no parking required for that.

This is also in the parking modified zone, so all residential units, they require one space per unit regardless of size.

And then there are provisions for affordable units not counting towards the parking requirement as well.

And I think that's pretty much city wide.

In the parking modified zone, we also permit a number of ways for people to meet those requirements.

So a certain percentage of spaces can be, you can do them onsite, you can do them offsite within a certain distance.

or you can pay into a parking fund.

There's a number of ways parking funds, very few people have taken advantage of that.

I believe it's for the retail store.

I have a question about how many of these parking spots are reserved for the residents?

Which ones are available for

There's nothing in the application about that, about Sunday morning parking.

The management of parking, the code is silent on the management of parking, so people are required to provide parking in accordance with the code.

Can we ask the applicant that without talking about proffers?

Well, you can't talk about proffers at all.

You can certainly ask the applicant how they intend to do it.

They have, there's language regarding the off-site spaces.

We've had an agreement with them about the lease length.

and how that's managed.

So there is kind of a five-year period where if they can find alternate spaces somewhere or if we change our parking requirements, they're not tied into a very long-term lease at the Jefferson School.

I'm not sure how they're managing it.

We had a discussion about that.

I believe the way that condition is worded, and I'm doing this off the top of my head and my memory might not be great about this, but I believe we were asking that the parking deck be designed in such a way that

If it turned out that two and a half spaces per unit was dramatically more than they needed, that there was a way to potentially install a gate somewhere in that deck so that the lower portions could potentially be publicly used in the upper portions if they had a tag or whatever were reserved for whatever they needed.

So we really just wanted them to take the design into consideration in case it happened.

We wanted them to, initially we were like this seems like a lot and can you reduce it at all and they kind of said no we can't be in a Texas donut.

So the other issue there that is a zoning issue that ought to be the Commission ought to know is there are some complications in our code regarding public parking and public parking decks

and using facilities for both private and public uses at the same time.

That's something that's come up repeatedly about regarding like existing parking surfaces and being able to adaptively use them as throughout the day.

But didn't we talk to them?

I mean, wasn't that at the standard, right?

Yeah, I think it was the ground floor because that loops up and all the residential is above.

So the most desirable spaces are probably the ones closest to the doors on that deck.

But yeah, we were kind of thinking at the second floor, if they had an excess of 50 or 100 spaces that they could potentially block off

the upper floors for the private use of the building and open the public.

Do we not allow that by zoning?

It's complicated.

What did you ask?

First of all, I don't it's likely they'll just all be for the residential units.

All of them.

Yeah, they'll be.

I mean, that that's

I mean, that's how the formula is one per unit.

So I mean, we could talk about, I mean, I don't want to go down that road, but waivers and how to do it.

And as far as special Sunday provisions, that would just be private conversations with the Jason land owners to figure out how to accommodate that.

So all the parking spots would be leased by residents?

I mean, like you're asking me like three years down the road,

I can't assure you that it depends how many units and how many spaces we do.

That's what we're doing at 600 West Main, but then again we only have 21 spaces on site and the remainder off.

And part of why we're having that five-year revisit is

Just again from an urban planning, I think we tend to over park even though there's fear of a migration into local neighborhoods.

I disagree that it's all from residents living there and I believe that's a policing issue and not a development issue, but that's another story.

So I think that

we're greatly over parking for where we are and the parking's expensive and I also think that parking issues come more from poor parking management plans within the city and it's not because if you look at the shenanigans parking lot I did a parking count if you look at the shenanigans parking lot or the ABC store parking lot and you look at the amount of spaces that are available throughout the normal course of a week we don't have a parking problem in that area we have a parking use problem in that area so

The five-year revisit was do we really need Jefferson School spots or are we just taking up more spots?

And so you're asking me to look three years down the road when I opened this building.

I have no idea.

I mean, I would say we would want to make it as efficient as possible and not over park.

Well, I think the retail just by the size of the building is going to be under the 5,000 square feet.

So the retail would not be required for parking, and it would be dissimilar as it's been along West Main.

And I think there was some public comment asking, do you know the sort of retail it might be, restaurant versus store?

No, I have no idea.

Do we have any additional questions?

Thank you very much.

I'll try, since I have some suggested changes.

I move to recommend approval of a special use permit allowing the specific development proposed within the application materials for SP 19-00003 subject to the following reasonable conditions and safeguards.

Those conditions are presented in the staff report.

with the following changes.

In the staff report, there's quite a bit of writing in here, so I will limit my revisions to just those that I would like to see changed.

Staff recommendation 1B, I would like to change the building shall not exceed a height of 52 feet.

and then under staff recommendation 4A, I would like to change the second sentence to say the baseline survey shall take the form of written descriptions and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and or video recordings.

and then under staff recommendation 4B, I would like that to read, the protective plan, the landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the baseline survey to prepare a protective plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the development site that shall include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the adjacent property

as recommended by the engineer preparing the protective plan and minimally include installation of at least five crack monitors that will be inspected weekly during ground disturbing activities, during demolition and construction.

Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and adjacent landowner within two days of inspection.

It's a shame.

And then I just wanted a clarification for 1E.

I'd like to move to amend that motion and eliminate that parking condition and let it be governed by the parking ordinance which

I think is, actually, you guys know my feelings about the parking ordinance.

The parking modified zone is a little bit better, but it also, it already provides for quite a bit of parking, probably more than we need, but I get the concerns about the community, from the community, and I do think it's important, and I think it's a really good idea to have a real plan in place to

to let that pressure off somewhere besides the residential streets.

I think this could actually be a good source of revenue for both the Jefferson School and, I don't know, if I was the church I might, you know, try to get some money renting out those spots you don't need except on Sundays.

But I personally am a car warehouser.

Sorry, Ms. Edwards.

The, like, yes,

I put my car somewhere in my office and not on public streets in my case, but I don't drive it much and that is the road to eventually not having a car at all, which for me might come pretty soon because actually I need a tire store according to my inspection last week.

And we're not going to get there by making sure that it's never ever painful to have a car and that there's never any inconvenience.

So what was your amendment?

Motion stands.

We're in deliberations.

I'm actually, Betsy, could I have some guidance on this?

I don't see a need currently, but thank you.

So the current motion stands for now.

If the motion fails.

Well, so Jody, you made the motion.

Was there a second to your motion?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, then you're right.

You are correct.

But

Once the motion has been seconded, it's up to the entire body to determine.

So if Rory makes a motion to amend the motion that's been made and seconded, then you have to have a second.

If there's a second to Rory's motion, then you would vote on that.

Thank you.

I did not hear a second of Rory's motion yet.

I would entertain a second.

Further discussion?

Just to be clear, we're mandating that there be underground parking spaces for 53 units at $33,000 a pop.

Well, I just would like to note again that the conditions as they were drafted were

An attempt to reflect what was depicted in the application material.

So it's not exactly that this was being mandated.

It's that the conditions reflect the parking plan that came in with the application.

However, when the applicants, um, realized that that was something that, that, you know, on an SUP, we would be asking them to conform with the,

Originally, yes.

And so I'm looking at, I don't know, this piece of paper that I guess they handed out just now and it's got, I guess, 40 parking spots.

They would have to dig down further.

It would have to be designed per standard.

They're not going to fit.

At this time, I don't think that's our job to decide how it's going to fit and how it's going to work.

All right, additional discussion?

Let's call a vote.

OK. Well, if you approve it, the site plan has to conform with what's in the S.U.P.

So what we're saying is that it has not been unusual one way or another for you all to say when somebody submits an application that includes, as the ordinance requires, a site plan exhibit that someone is representing to you what the specific development is so that you can come up with conditions that are appropriate.

So you have to have details.

So if the applicant submits something to you, you're entitled to rely on it.

What this applicant is now saying, through Mr. Lopez, is that they gave you something that cannot be developed as they represented it.

It was intended to be more of a concept drawing rather than more of a site plan exhibit as the ordinance.

That's actually, the word site plan is used in our ordinance.

Have we done a calculation

based on I guess this is the current design and this is where I get frustrated every time we have one of these when we have a box because we don't really know what the heck we're voting on.

We're changing the land law of this land based off of a big square box.

Has anybody had any kind of

Calculation done, other than the applicant, I'm talking about within the zoning ordinance, within the requirements we have, because those requirements are put into place for understanding bedrooms, commercial parking and, you know, for the area that is proposed.

So that we are not going to have an impact on the neighborhoods.

Is there a number that we've come up with based off of what we have now?

Is 40 right?

Does 40 work for those amount of apartments?

We don't really know because we don't know the bedrooms, right?

He says we don't know the layout.

Hang on, let me finish this.

We don't know the layout of these apartments.

We don't know if it's one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom.

We don't know if they're penthouse apartments so I get two per floor.

We don't know what it is.

What is that?

I think in the planning world with parking, I think the scientific calculation is if you build it, they will come.

If you provide the parking, people will use it for the most part, and if you don't provide it, they'll find other means.

The thing that I would point out is our parking regulations are a minimum.

If an applicant feels or developer feels that the minimum does not suit their project, they're certainly available to provide more

But in terms of where a lot of cities are going right now, they're reducing their minimums in part to allow the free market to decide how much parking is out there.

But also, if they're mandating a large amount of parking, it's typically driving up the cost of the units.

And if you have a space per unit, those spaces get rented.

I think a better question is, why are we changing it from whatever the zoning ordinance, the thing that we sat down in the abstract and said, what's the right amount of parking that we need to make sure that people require?

We don't know that.

I don't have an answer from planning or zoning about what would be required from this project.

Well, I don't think anyone can say what a development is going to need for parking based until we know who's living there.

Are they taking the bus?

But we do this all the time, Brian.

We do this all the time.

People come to us all the time.

We don't get a roster of who's going to move in there.

Have they told you, what's the parking standard based on?

How many units?

The illustration that they had showed meeting 100% of their required number on site.

As you know, in this corridor, they have a number of options as to how they can meet their spaces.

So they showed 53 spaces on site.

They could do 40 on site, 13 off site.

That's an option to them under the zoning ordinance now.

Okay.

Correct.

Yes.

That's the issue raised by this condition.

Correct.

Well that's what the application materials show, so that's how the conditions were drafted.

If you all would like to

do what Rory was suggesting, saying it has to still be one space per unit, but those number of onsite spaces can be reduced if offsite is provided in accordance with your ordinance.

That's just what the regular rules are.

But what we try to do, because over the years we've had a significant amount of trouble of exhibits and drawings changing between the time you think you know what you're approving and the time a site plan comes in, that we have been working really hard to give you a set of conditions that accurately represent what the exhibits are within the application materials that come in.

These application materials showed 55 spaces on site.

but nobody on staff, what I'm hearing from staff is nobody on staff is necessarily tied to that.

If it would be better to provide flexibility to simply provide parking in accordance with the ordinance, that's fine.

I have just kind of a procedural question for just, bear with me.

So if I'm an applicant and I bring a drawing,

and I say this is what I want to do.

By the way, I still always recommend that we have a work session so we can hash this out before you set up here.

Hang on.

Which we did kind of last month.

So what does it take then for an applicant to change the application before it gets back here before we vote?

What is the process for them to be able to do that?

Because 40 is what we saw last time, right?

It can be, but the last time when you were here, you all said you didn't want to change the 55.

So they are asking, they submitted a request asking that you consider changing the parking to what's shown in the exhibit that's come in.

And that's fine.

Under the ordinance.

With condition 1E, it needs to be in underground parking, in an underground parking structure with all of those spots.

And under the ordinance, they still have to provide that many spots, but they're allowed to go down the street to, I don't know, maybe the big Amtrak lot that's always empty or the Jeff School and rent spots.

That's what off-site parking or shared parking, whatever it's called in the ordinance, that's how you do it.

I mean certainly there is, we've heard from the surrounding neighborhoods that there is a tremendous amount of pressure on the existing on-street spaces, particularly off of West Main.

Some of that's probably driven by construction and people who are not living in the area but coming in for construction work.

Typically because those sites are blocked off for construction, there's no parking on those.

Those construction vehicles go all over the place on parking in front of people's houses.

So there's some of that, but we've also heard that this has been an ongoing thing over many years, so any new space adds to the inventory on that corridor.

If they're using off-site spaces, those spaces are existing, so you're not increasing your inventory, you're just increasing the utilization of it.

So that could be perceived as a public benefit.

It's also a multimodal corridor that has pedestrians and bikes.

Yes, the city did a West Main parking study.

What were the...

I mean, the big takeaway of that was, I think the recommendation in that study was for another structured parking facility on West Main Street, you know, a public structured parking, in part because, you know, the West Main streetscape plan proposed the removal of spaces.

I can't comment on funding priorities from council.

Additional discussion on this item?

I believe we're ready to vote.

Oh, thank you.

That's wonderful.

Ms. Dow?

Aye.

I believe the motion passes.

Thank you.

.

.

.

.

Alrighty, I am gaveling us into the ERB session.

I want more red.

I'm just handing out the, I printed out the spreadsheet large so everyone can see it if that's of any assistance to anyone.

We can keep track of the score as we have this discussion.

Mr.

Chair, it's a lengthy staff report.

I know you all have a pretty good description of it.

I'll give a quick rundown, and then if you've got any questions, we can go from there.

This is a request for a comprehensive signage plan for the Hillsdale Place shopping center, which is where the old Kmart, the old gym used to be located.

It is within the Route 29 north and also in the hydraulic road entrance corridors.

The plan is for the approximately 87,000 square foot building to be reused for

10 tenants anchored on the west end by a 40,000 square foot store and on the east by a 20,000 square foot store.

You all approved the design for this earlier this summer.

The applicant is requesting the approval of a comprehensive signage plan.

You'll hear me say CSP.

and it will be applied to the building signage for the 10 anticipated tenants and includes three monument signs out on the hydraulic and on 29.

And I know that this is probably the first comprehensive signage plan you all have dealt with.

We haven't had, we have one other in Barracks Road Shopping Center but that went through I think before an ordinance change.

This is a bit of a new process, at least certainly for me.

So we'll walk through it together.

So what happens when there's a development that is subject to a site plan review and design review?

The applicant may request approval of a comprehensive signage plan, which is defined as a written plan detailing the type, quantity, size, shape, color, and location of all signs within the development, and it is subject of the plan.

and where the number of characteristics and other locations of the signs referenced within the plan do not comply with the requirements of the city code regarding signs.

And per city code, council may approve a comprehensive signage plan upon a determination that there is good cost for deviating from strict application of the requirements of the code

and that the comprehensive signage plan as proposed will serve the public purposes and objectives at least as well or better than the signage that would otherwise be permitted by Wright.

So, and just one quick footnote on this, there is Hillsdale Place is on facing north, it's on the west side of Hillsdale Drive, on the east is the Whole Foods store but they are all part of the same

Parcel, however, there's a comprehensive signage plan already in place for the Whole Foods and that will remain in place.

And the only thing that the Whole Foods, the connection is they will be allowed space on the monument sign.

So, very quickly, the code identifies nine signage types.

Very quickly, awning or canopy signs, this plan proposes those and they are what's proposed appears consistent with code.

Freestanding signs, none are proposed in this plan.

Marquee signs, none are proposed.

And when I say none are proposed, that means if not in the plan, they are not permitted.

Monument signs, as I said, there are three monument signs.

They are consistent with code.

Pole-mounted signs, there are none in the plan, therefore none are permitted.

Projecting signs, the proposed conditions are consistent with the provisions of the code except, and I'll get into the spreadsheet where the buy-write

is 30, but within an entrance corridor, the square footage drops to 15.

Sandwich Board signs the allowed, talking over with the zoning director.

We're not going to permit those in the sense of they won't require a permit or review by us.

However, the owners agree that they will only be placed on the sidewalk that is in front of the storefronts and they must be removed after hours.

And while we won't regulate those, any signs that don't comply with that that are left out at night or they're in other places on the property, we would view that as a violation of the comprehensive signage plan.

Temporary signage, there are some provisions in the code for various types of temporary signs.

By reference to the code, they'll be allowed.

And then wall signs, and this is where the CSP gets complicated.

There's several places within

The elevations where they've indicated signage may go, and there's also some different sizes and heights, and so we'll discuss that in the recommendations.

So quickly, relative to the code requirements,

The comprehensive signage plan, as I said, will serve public purpose and objectives, et cetera, and I'll summarize that in a second.

Code also says each application for approval of a CSP shall include the following information.

A written narrative of the overall plan, we have that.

Color illustrations or photographs of each sign.

We have information, color illustrations aren't provided, and that's understandable because

They don't have the tenants yet.

However, the comprehensive signage plan does limit the signage to no more than two colors.

The code requires a written description of the type, size, dimensions, materials, et cetera of the proposed location of each sign.

That information was provided.

The code requires a map of written identification and description of the existing signs on the property.

There are no existing signs, so that provision's not applicable.

Color illustrations or photographs of signage existing on adjacent parcels, that information was provided.

And finally a written description of the proposed lighting for the signage and that information was provided.

So the staff summary said there's basically two provisions where it deviates in the code.

One is in the average signage area.

Per the code, the maximum signage area within an entrance corridor is 75 square feet per parcel.

Now this is in a shopping center, and zoning staff has applied that condition as a per tenant maximum.

As outlined here, as originally proposed, all of the tenants exceeded that 75 square foot maximum.

Wall signage, there are code limits as far as a sign cannot be 20 feet above grade.

There are three locations on this plan where a sign may be allowed up to 28 feet.

And also, on the elevations, there are five areas noted

for these taller signs, with the understanding that only three signs can be used in those locations.

So they have an option of five places, but there can only be three of them used.

Finally, the staff supports, what did I say here?

Sorry.

Right.

As far as the higher elevation.

So there's the one place at the shopping center tower in the middle.

That's the central

a component of the parapet, and it generally aligns with the higher signage that's at the east, or I'm sorry, at the west end.

And at the west end where all the red is, is actually 15 feet lower than the grade of 29, so that that higher elevation of the sign is actually

It works out pretty cleanly.

And then just sort of following that line all the way down the length of the store to the eastern end, we feel that the 28-foot condition at those three locations is OK.

Relative to the entrance corridor design guidelines for signs, place signs that do not obstruct architectural elements.

This complies respect to design visibility of signs for adjacent businesses.

This complies.

use colors appropriate and appropriate materials to complement the materials and the color scheme of the building.

Per the plan, the tenants are only allowed two colors for their types of sign and the building owner, development owner will be reviewing that now and also the monument signs, the three monument signs will mimic the elements that are already approved for the building and the colors.

It says use a minimal number of colors per sign, again,

They're limited to two.

Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the city's outdoor lighting regs.

They do.

Illumination of any signs should not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street.

Plan complies.

Our guidelines say consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments, and that's what's before you.

I encourage the use of monument signs rather than freestanding signs with accent landscapes.

And of course, that's included in

Internally lit signs should have an opaque background so only the letters are lit.

You know, the appearing light at night.

This plan complies.

Flashing lights are prohibited and the plan complies.

So finally, recommendations.

Upon reviewing the proposed plan, staff believes that the condition of the proposed CSP are appropriate and we support recommendation of approval with the following conditions.

And I know they're in the staff report.

Bless you.

Revise the plan to clarify that condition I said about that while there are five locations identified for 28-foot signs that only three signs may be located in any of those five locations noted.

Revise the conditions regarding sandwich board signs to indicate that while such signs will not require permits, they must still comply with the provisions of a section of the code that I have stated here.

There is some discussion about there are certain definitions and certain general requirements for signage, and staff suggests that they be applied by reference.

And I'm going to talk to Lisa Robertson if she has a different way that she'd like that to be stated.

But that would, by stating these sections of the code on this date, are applicable to this comprehensive signage plan.

That would help staff in the future.

And then finally, to the chart that you all have.

And this is where, if I can just walk you through how I got here.

Simply looking at the tenants two through nine, I didn't put in here the length of the building front.

For wall signs, it's one square foot per linear foot with a max of 50 square feet in entrance corridor that's cut in half.

So 25 feet is the max if you get there.

But otherwise, these are what the code would allow.

Canopy signs, again, that's the

One square foot per linear foot with a max of 20 square feet.

There is no cutting in half for an entrance corridor.

For projecting signs, the code is not to exceed 30 feet with the area cut in half for an entrance corridor giving you the 15 square feet.

And a little unclear in the code how to apply the under canopy signs, but we were okay with the four.

The result is, as you can see, while there's a 75 square foot aggregate that's allowed in entrance corridor, the result for tenants two through nine is slightly lower.

The applicant has suggested maybe they be allowed the 75 square foot max for all of those smaller tenants.

You all can discuss that.

My only suggestion would be that there at least be some, um, cap on the individual signage types so that, um, you know, not all 75 feet is allocated simply to one large wall sign, however unrealistic that may be.

So that would be my recommendation in the conversations.

Any questions?

Jody?

No.

Not yet.

Okay.

Yes.

How do they mesh?

All right.

I'm going to say right up front.

The zoning administrator was hoping he was going to be here tonight to help with code.

I am not an expert on the signage code.

So in conversation with him, I will say we're comfortable with how all that is met relative to the signage.

Now lighting, things like that, parking lot lighting, that's different, but it's all subject to the ordinance.

We're confident with what they've stated and what I've recommended be added relative to these code references.

Thank you.

But I do.

I have several questions.

This is just from my own curiosity.

I think it's interesting.

You said if the applicants or storefronts were to put out their sandwich board signs,

And again, Mr. Brodhead, we're here.

He was amenable to that.

That's what they've done at Barracks Road.

I understand that.

What happens?

I'm a Nazi zoning administrator.

Are there fines?

There can be fines.

I don't recall.

Okay, just checking.

Secondly, I hate empty, you know, yeah, don't worry, you'll be in violation of what.

So secondly, based on this comp plan signage package and all these beautiful red lines around the proposed facade and building locations, right, this

Based on the plan, page 2, it appears that these signs are requested in this spreadsheet.

So the CSP, this is what they want, and staff, this is what you're saying they can have?

So if we are looking at

If we are looking at this plan, if we are looking at this, are these requests, these larger requests, the CSP requests, which is what we're voting overnight, right?

Yes.

Yep.

A recommendation to council, correct.

It's primarily based on, and the real key to this, and it's the same thing we did for what's done at Barracks Road, are these elevations.

That's the key.

What happens after I use all my numbers here and I decide to add one of these five future buildings?

We had discussions with that and the

A couple ways to handle it.

One was I think at Barracks Road there was a comment of any future outbuildings not covered in this would be subject to the standard signage regs.

One could be simply you need to amend your comprehensive signage plan, which is how it's worded now.

And that was the applicant's decision to leave those out.

So yes, they would have to come back and amend the comprehensive signage plan.

And how does this proposal compare to like the Whole Foods location?

I don't think they're selling any more fish sticks.

The guy who's the new manager of the Bearish Road for federal realty.

And, you know, I asked him, he goes, I've been in retail 40 years, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And I said, all right, let me ask you this.

What's up with signs?

I said, you know, I don't go anywhere because there's signs bigger.

I don't, certainly don't stop on 29 and go, oh my God, I got to buy a mattress.

They're on sale today.

You know, I said,

He goes, you're actually right.

He says, that's not what draws people.

And he says, but every single person that I talk to wants to have space in our store.

The first thing they ask is, what's the signage space on the layout?

He said, so, you know, real or fiction, the truth is that that's what the tenants first asked about.

And again, as we discussed earlier tonight, somewhat why we're here in accommodating some specific requests for particular tenants, possibly.

But the key to this plan is that that

chart, that table applies to tenants that are identified in the plan.

We know 1 through 10, these say where these signs can be, so there is a, so if tenant number 3 here with a 20-foot width comes in and says, I'm going to put in a sign, first off they would have to have an application signed by the owner, so we know that

The owner has said that's acceptable to me.

We would then say, well, all right, you're max for that and you already got two other signs.

We can't issue a permit for another one.

So it would, there would be almost a checklist for each one.

That's how it seems to have been handled out at Barracks Road.

I'll be honest, I mean, looking at the Barracks Road signage plan, which was approved, I think, in 10 or 11 years ago, I mean, so much has changed out there that the plan has, you know, there's been evolution.

So my concern is that these are

These plans go through this process, but they become pretty rigid.

And but applicants are willing to do it.

And I think in my review, I think this one's reasonable.

So sorry.

Mr. Ballmer.

I've come up with a question.

Oh, I thought I simplified it.

So am I reading this correctly in that the total area, the aggregate area that the comprehensive signage plan is requesting is 1,348 square feet and that the staff, what is staff?

Well by code is was so I when I say staff that's when I went through and said all right what do I get what do I get what I get

Maxima Agred at the end, the code says 75 square feet.

And that's a total of each location.

So there are different signage allowances for different types of sign for location, but they can't equal up to more than 75 square feet total per the code.

So he and Reed have taken it

each sign individually.

And then they've noted here at the end the code denotes.

OK, it's first off,

Take the first column, wall signs.

So we're the CSP.

So that's the applicant request.

Let's be succinct.

Staff means what is allowed in the entrance corridor by code.

Now, the thing is they didn't reach 75.

If they reached that much.

Right.

Okay, one more time.

Maybe I can do it.

We'll see.

All right, so each sign type,

has different allowances.

So if you take each one individually, the code gives you different allowances.

They may equal up to more than the 75, but you can't have more than 75 per site.

So there's a cap.

Right.

I can clearly read a chart.

I want to know what the title staff means then.

So what you have is a comprehensive signage plan is by its definition, it's almost, forget about what the code says, this is what the applicant would like to do in lieu of.

And so part of our response to that is to say, all right, how does your request, knowing that it differs from what's allowed, required by code,

What are the circumstances that we think are acceptable for that excess?

What are the things that we think would balance that out?

And so what I did is I understood that the two anchor tenants were really key in driving some of the requests here.

Having a comprehensive signage plan was helpful, and having the two anchors was what was necessary.

So Jeff, this line is what they're requesting.

The yellow categories are staff recommendation based on the concept as a whole.

And then when you get to this category over here, this gives the by code and this gives the staff recommendation based on the proposal that's been provided.

It takes lots of brains.

They want 1348.

Koch says 750, but you think based off of what we got, they could do it in 907.

It's a simple yes or no question.

The answer is yes because the number that we're trying to get to is 441.

That is the number that we're dealing with.

13 minus 907 is 441.

And that is the delta we're trying to close.

Correct.

and I felt like what we could do is the overall, looking at this thing in a whole, in total, by some adjustments in the tenants in between.

allowed the overall to work better and an understanding that a lot of this is occurring on the two ends of the building.

So these larger tenants have two sides that they're putting signs on.

I just have a question about how signage area is measured.

So if hypothetically they wanted to put up a sign that was circular, is that measured by the height times the width or is that higher squared?

It's going to be the area.

It's the area.

You can't cut the empty spaces out.

It's not lifting up the pen.

My understanding, because I did ask that, is that, I mean, there's all kinds, you took calculus.

Like a bullseye, how would you measure it?

Well, if it's a sign, it is that area.

But like, let's say it's letters, so it'd be, you know, that outline without lifting up the pen, so to speak, and that.

So for example, like Mudhouse has this really funky, I don't even, you know, T-shaped thing, you know, it's, you know,

Some heavy math.

I don't know.

There's a sign over on 10th Street to, yeah, something neat.

This is, um, this is really, really complicated for me.

But, but I think the number that we're working with again is 441.

That's the difference between the number they're asking for and the number I think you're comfortable with.

So my question is, how comfortable are you with that delta?

Is that delta so significant that you're not happy with it and we need to do more work?

To me, what's most compelling about this is that sort of three sides of a shopping center

A large block that we're talking about.

And we're using all of that to sort of distribute this signage.

That's where I felt okay.

Knowing that if you just took a store,

If you threw out the 50 square foot thing and just say, for every linear foot you get a square foot of wall sign.

That's an awful lot.

So I sort of worked from that one to one ratio backwards and ended up with below a one to one.

And I could live with that knowing that we had eliminated some types of signs that we weren't getting.

To me, reducing the projecting signs, big giant blades on the side of a building.

That's to me how where I felt most comfortable.

But again remember that the whole point of this is to say this isn't following regs.

This is different from the code.

It's kind of odd to say why am I, you know, how does not following the code do a better job than the code?

But I think that a better way to say it is how do we accommodate the amount of signage they're looking for in this space in a way that

This was done with extensive collaboration with the zoning staff who review all of the sign permits for the entire city and they're constantly reviewing different sign packages that are going through the city in a variety of places and so they have that overall perspective of the general feel for the city as a whole

So, just for clarity, the applicant is requesting 1348, but you feel more comfortable, and I think this is the role you're in, so we're looking for guidance from you.

And the understanding that you don't want to necessarily look to penalize the interior tenants because of what maybe is allocated to the larger places.

And that's why in my conversation with the applicant, I think it would take some internal discussion before it goes to the city council on this.

But I think that if a 75-foot max

were allowed for the smaller tenants in between, knowing that that exceeds that, you know, we're already exceeding it on the one in 10, but allowing 75 feet max, the interior tenants would exceed what the individual signage requirements add up to.

I think that would be okay if there were

some caps put on particularly the wall canopy and projecting signs.

No.

Yeah, it's just that when the applicant saw the staff report and the recommendations, they're like, and as they'll mention, we would like this.

again.

Think about that recommendation so you can begin wording it for us.

The last recommendation that you made.

Before I get started, can we get the projector going on the screen in case we want to reference any of these drawings?

Good evening everyone.

Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development.

I was here just a few months ago when we were looking at the entrance corridor.

We reviewed the entrance corridor package for this development and I just wanted to pull that up because

it at least gives you an idea of what this building looks like with some of the wall signage on there although as Jeff stated in our presentation that everything will appear lit white at night so that's a little bit off base but

The intent of the comprehensive signage package that we've provided is to really create a document and a code that is specific to this shopping center of which there are not that many shopping centers in the city of Charlottesville but

When you have one, such as Seminole Square or Barracks Road, they do each have their own comprehensive signage package.

So it creates a really harmonious environment within the development.

And as Jeff alluded to, really one of the main reasons to do that is if you have a site of this size and nature where you might need some flexibility in the code to suit the specific

needs of someone such as an anchor tenant that isn't your standard Charlottesville store.

If you look through the existing Charlottesville signage ordinance, it's really geared towards smaller parcels with one tenant.

I mean, if you even look at the illustrations, it looks like a small shop on the downtown mall.

less conducive to say a 40,000 square foot anchor that has over 600 linear feet of frontage.

So I think what these pictures show in our entrance corridor package is that the architecture has been carefully designed

In the comprehensive signage plan, we show very specifically the areas where the tenants might choose to place their sign.

And so we're trying to get them flexibility on locations.

But in almost every case within the comprehensive signage plan, we've copied what is the standard by right allowance throughout Charlottesville for the sign types.

So the sign types that we're allowing

for everyone except for the anchor tenants.

It really is copying all those buy-write standards into our code.

And so the real deviations that you're going to see are in the anchor tenants because those stores are so large, allowing some more wall signage

and then there's one spot in the middle that's not shown on this rendering but that gives the possibility for a shopping center sign on that middle architectural feature.

So you know and I didn't unfortunately Jeff and I met

Many times and so we added I mean we really had a lot of back and forth on this and he had some great suggestions to clarify our code, but So you'll see as you go throughout it for each of the sign types.

We created a chart and

that shows the maximum allotment for each of the tenants.

But I unfortunately did not get to see Jeff's chart prior to the staff report being released.

So when we saw that, that really made a lot of deviations from what we proposed to you in our comprehensive signage plan.

And I think that,

When you look at it as a whole, we're not going to allow tenants to do five different sign types.

We're designing what we think is a really nice commercial center and we want to keep it looking nice, but we wanted to

at least give the standard provisions from the code for each sign type to allow the flexibility of choice for which sign best suits each of the tenants.

But, you know, I think one thing that Jeff brought up is the projecting signs, which, like I said, we copied that directly from the Charlottesville code, all those provisions.

And right now the city allows a maximum of a 30 square foot projecting sign.

I don't see anywhere

on this development that we're going to actually need a 30 square foot projecting sign.

So if that type of compromise, like taking it down to a potential of 15 square feet per tenant helps in the decision making process, I think that's something that we're amenable to.

But really the reality of this center, as Jeff mentioned, is that it's 15 feet below grade on the 29 side.

It's hundreds of feet from

most of the public right-of-ways.

It's over 200 feet from 29.

It's over 300 feet from the hydraulic frontage.

So I don't agree with penalizing the middle tenants.

What we're really looking for is giving something unique to those anchor locations because those are what are gonna drive the success of the entire shopping center.

So I don't think by doing that you should make

what the middle tenants are doing smaller because they are so far from that hydraulic frontage but I think in many cases you've got for the smaller tenants they're only you know 18 to 20 feet wide so there's really if you look at those squares on the plan there's really not that much room to even provide signage there so the signs aren't going to be

very large and for any of like the under canopy signs those are listed as a maximum of four square feet if people choose to do them.

So those are more like if you're walking along Barracks Road they're kind of more for the pedestrian level if there's a canopy but those aren't even visible from the right-of-way at all.

You know, I think the main deal for the retail tenants are the wall signs and having some visibility of those.

And then the rest of them are just copying the code and providing some flexibility to what the tenants choose.

But I'm happy to provide more information or I have the comp signage plan up here if there's anything

You all want to go through.

We did debate about the future tenants and because that site plan hasn't been designed and we don't know what we'll be facing then, we felt like it was better to just come forward with an amendment at that time versus trying to account for any possibility that might come up in the future.

But so that's how we came to that agreement.

But

As you see, I mean, we really do kind of take it using the code standards that are in the regular sign ordinance and just pull it out for each of the ones that we were interested in.

And we tried to be very clear where we had any deviations from a standard by right allotment in the code.

But I think

You know, also we're fine for any of the tenants 2 through 9 having that maximum of 75 square feet that the zoning ordinance gives to any other standard tenant in the entrance corridor.

One of the things that you said bothers me though in that you think it's appropriate for the smaller stores to be able to put the kind of large signage necessary to be seen from 29.

I disagree with that.

I think that then is out of scale with those stores and to me it's the shopping center that's drawing the customers

based upon the anchor stores and also the monument signage.

So just to be clear, I'm not asking for larger signage for the regular tenants.

What I was trying to express is that I don't think we should be reducing signage for those tenants more so than we would for any other regular business in Charlottesville.

So I think that the signage

If you look at the standard signage allocations, that's something that would, for example, be applied on the downtown mall or in other commercial districts.

So I'm saying that that standard application of the code is fine by us for all those smaller tenants.

But what I didn't want to happen is have a recommendation that shrinks their signage size to accommodate for the anchor tenants.

So sorry if I didn't explain that well.

But I totally agree with you.

They're not going to be like the bullseye pulling people in.

So it is a bullseye.

No, no.

Sorry for the confusion.

Chair Mitchell, as I mentioned to you earlier, I must depart.

The only thing I would say, and so I'm leaving this in good hands with a full commission, is that we scrutinize our entrance corridor so very much, right down to the layer on the glass and what color it is.

Yeah.

I don't necessarily agree with that sign package, but I wasn't the one making that call.

I think there were a lot of calls made on that that were out of line with our sign package.

It's all county development.

Someone else, I'm not sure the same call will be made today, and that was on the 64.

I'm with Jody, why do we need bigger signs?

You're going to be sitting in a red light right there, and there's going to be ample time for people to see what's in that shopping center.

The small area plan that we created for this shopping center is based off of pedestrian model.

And if you've got an anchor store, that's what brings people in.

And like I said, I don't know how this relates to Whole Foods, but I don't know if y'all have been to Whole Foods, they're not selling anything less because their sign is smaller there.

That's not a large sign that you can see from 29.

That's just my opinion.

I probably have a different vote.

I didn't get the word.

My brain is just turning to jelly.

And I didn't get a copy of the suggested conditions.

That's not fair.

So if you have one, that would be great to see what I'm potentially... Is it a sapper for it?

Yep.

So, yeah, we're good with one through three.

Totally okay.

And I think what we were saying for number four is I had not seen the chart before the staff report, but Jeff and I had had extensive conversations and we put in for each of the sign types, we had to put in that matrix per tenant of

The maximums, but what I was suggesting is that for tenants 2 through 9, which are the non-anchor tenants, that they would be held to the standard aggregate maximum for entrance corridor tenants, which is the 75 square feet.

which I don't think is in our code right now so that would keep them from exceeding what would be allowed of any other tenant in an entrance corridor around the city and then what that does is you have that maximum to go by for those tenants and then you're really just looking at the anchor tenants as to you know those tenants have requested something additional

mainly because one anchor tenant is 20 times larger than the standard tenant.

And so it's not, I don't think it's that these signs are out of scale.

It's just that the architecture is larger.

So you've got these different components in the architecture.

And so you have signage in various areas around the architecture.

So it's less that you're gonna have one gigantic sign taking up the whole,

Wall and that's why we've kind of delineated these smaller areas and amongst the architecture so it could be chosen by the tenant this is where the sign goes but it also does outline okay you can't go beyond this limit and I will say that in 5th Street Station like I said I did work on that signage package and Wegmans

their primary anchor tenant did get a waiver from the board to double the standard signage allotment in the county.

And it was a recognition of that very thing.

It's a very large store, but it's architectural and you can see that it's not, the signage is kind of spread around on the variety of frontages.

it's telling you different things about like okay here's the cafe space here's the wine store so in a way it's you know it's a reflection of for these larger anchor stores there's often a variety of stores

mixed into the building itself.

So it's a way to have signage delineate like, OK, well, here's where this is.

And so it's not typically this one mega billboard along your entrance corridor.

Would the condition for here be an unreasonable burden on the tenants?

I think it is.

You know, I appreciate that Jeff is recognizing the importance of the anchor tenants to the success of the overall shopping center, but I don't think it should be at the expense of the smaller tenants.

So that's why

I had a couple of recommendations about the 75 square foot maximum for other tenants as the city would allow for any other tenant in an entrance corridor as well as knocking down the projecting sign from 15 to 30 as as Jeff had recommended saying that you know a 30 square foot projecting sign seems

A little bit out of alignment and it seemed like the rest of them we were pretty much right on track with them.

The recommendation, Jeff, that you were working on, does that supplement bullet number four?

So what one thing just to talk through quickly is let's say tenant number two came in and they were an individual store on an individual parcel and we reviewed a signage application

The applying that individually to that store, that building would be, would result in the numbers that you see for the wall signs for staff at 25 square foot.

Cause it would, let's say it was a, cause I know that building's a hundred feet.

Um, so that would say a hundred square feet, but we know it can't exceed 50 then EC it's cut in half.