Planning Commission Meeting   3/8/2022

Hello, America.

I got one.

Outstanding.

I see advantages.

This is good.

We may say something useful.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Jody.

I was watching a YouTube video where you said smart things.

It was very helpful.

I'm sorry, what?

Wow, that's an unusual one.

I can confirm it.

It's true.

Can't imagine.

Was that the St.

Seville Plans Together.

I haven't trapped down the St.

John one.

Oh, Seville Plans Together.

Oh, that was the interview.

I never did see that come out in print.

Hmm.

I'm good.

I'm good.

Three years old.

And how is she?

She.

Okay.

I think.

How's she doing?

Happy, healthy.

That was not me.

I don't know where she gets it from.

It's not for me.

Yeah, I was always building blocks.

That's pretty good.

I was playing Robin Hood.

Or I was building little cities in the streams.

I had 500 acres to be running around in.

Oh, my gosh.

Well, there was 60.

Anyways, it's a land trust out in Nelson.

That's wonderful.

And so I played in the streams and stepped on bees' nests and all sorts of things.

I tell you no, that's the experience.

Oh, what a life.

That sounds like a novel.

Yeah.

Oh, that sounds wonderful.

There's a market opportunity.

Yeah.

Get those TV rights.

Yeah.

We had TV.

We had car batteries that charged down at the pole shed.

Oh, wow.

Had to build a kitchen.

Makes sense.

That is wonderful.

Yeah.

But I grew up, you know, houses being built all around me.

So that's all we did as kids was going into these places when they were being built and figuring out things.

We had some of those, but they never got finished.

All right, well, how are we on commissioners?

I'm seeing four?

Yep.

At least five now.

I think we're allowed to talk.

Jody, Kareem, Liz, Rory.

That feels just.

Welcome all.

This agenda might seem very familiar to you.

All of this has happened before, and it was all of us last time.

So hopefully this will be our most prepared we have ever been.

I guess really starting, do we have questions?

Well, I can give a little context first, just on a few meeting context items, and then we can see where things are.

We will have a report from the tree commission this evening on the state of the forest.

Now that will

depending on how long our 530 to six o'clock goes, if it goes very short and we don't have any public speakers, we might do it within that timeframe, but if we get past 540 then we're definitely going to do it after the hearing so that there's ample time for both and that we're able to work with the time we have from our council.

folks.

Mr. Can I go back?

Mr. Oh, geez.

I was going to, during my committee reports, I was going to ask permission to allow us to make this report.

So, I'm glad they

Ran with it.

Yep.

Good.

All right.

So Lyle, thank you for that time, Chair.

Of course.

Minutes?

Any issues with the minutes?

Ms.

Russell, would you be willing to make a motion when it comes to that?

Thank you very much.

I believe the motion that was made last time on the public hearing was made by Mr. Stolzenberg, is that true?

Should things go a similar way?

If you would consider making a similar motion, if that makes sense to you, I think that would be a helpful way of moving things along.

Any other questions?

That is correct.

Planning Commission asked the applicant to defer from the May, after the May public hearing.

There was changes made to the application.

There was the inclusion of the affordable housing proffer based on what the applicant heard in the May public hearing.

Gotcha.

It was the changes to the proffer.

There was no proffer for affordable housing in the May 11th public hearing.

Guy Coward, I think maybe I just like a note because I see at least one person on on the zoom who had emailed us about

the JPA project that there was some talk of coming up this month.

So the only hearing today is on Grove Street in Fightville.

So that will be up next month.

That's my understanding, Ms.

Chrissy.

Yes, so anything that's not for public hearing this evening, if there's any public comment should be during the matters from the public during the 530 to six o'clock time frame.

hearing none.

I'm forgetting the... Yes, yes, I think I've got it.

All right.

Thanks all.

See you shortly.

Hey, Lyle.

I call the March 8, 2022 Charlottesville Planning Commission meeting to order.

This is our regular monthly meeting.

And can we please start with Tania Dowell?

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The Rivanna River Bike Pet Crossing Stakeholder Committee met mid-February, February 17th, and we just kind of closed out that effort.

We're going to have some continued kind of like plugging in.

I don't have any feedback along the way, but I believe now the project is with the MPO.

This past month, the Board of Architectural Review met on February 15th.

We passed four certificates of appropriateness and then the requirements for one SUP was approved.

We had two deferrals and we looked at preliminary designs and had discussions regarding two projects.

One, a new residence at Zero Preston Place and the other is a new multi-unit residential building at 1301 Wirtland Street.

The second meeting I attended is Tree Commission.

That was March 1st.

We reviewed the annual Tree Commission presentation to City Council.

And because of the impacts on urban planning and setbacks and lot coverage, et cetera, decided that we would like to bring it to you all, the Planning Commission.

So you will be hearing that presentation at the meeting today, tonight.

The Tree Commission's Education and Advocacy Committee announced the Relief Arbor Day plans.

That particular Arbor Day celebration will be held on

April 21st from 1 to 2 o'clock, and it's going to be at Charlottesville High School outside.

We're going to have 15 to 20 landscape vendors and professionals set up in stalls, and the science students will be making their way around these stalls and learning from the professionals and vendors who will be there.

The actual Arbor Day is going to be on April 29th.

The Charlottesville area tree stewards are planning an event to which tree commission will attend.

And it'll be at Sojourner's Church around an elm tree there that is going to be nominated to be on the city's tree list.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Sorry, I don't have any updates.

Thank you.

I also don't have a report this month.

Yeah, thanks.

I don't have much to report.

There was a Board of Visitors meeting last week, and the only thing to note, there wasn't much on the agenda for buildings and grounds, but they did approve a project at the Fontaine Research Park, which I understand is not in the city, but just over the...

City-County line for upgrade to the, used to be called Health South, now it's Encompass Rehabilitation Facility there.

It's mostly a rehab facelift, but there's some exterior work, that's why we looked at it.

Thank you.

I personally attended two meetings of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

Many items were discussed.

To this body, I think, of relevance, really a lot of money is coming for rural broadband, which may change things in some ways for the entire sort of area.

Also, there is a new effort to do a rural transportation study, which again may have some effects for those commuting to the city.

I believe we are prepared to hear from Mr. Friess on the city.

Good evening.

Oh, I got it.

Well, I'm going to stick to MDS today, and Missy and I both have updates to share.

I'm going to start with a number of things that may be of interest.

First off, for those who attended the City Council meeting the other night, last night, in fact, we announced that there is a planning process for safety improvements and design for a new smart scale application for the Fifth Street corridor.

As part of that process, we do intend to engage the planning commission.

So you guys will hear more about that and we'll likely be scheduling some time on a future agenda for that topic.

So something to look forward to.

The other announcement from last night was with regards to the Climate Action Plan.

There will be scheduled a work session on April 18 at the City Council meeting.

So that's at their 4 p.m.

session to look ahead towards that Climate Action Plan.

And I'll note for Mr. Mitchell, because I know this is a topic that he's very interested in.

I'm sorry, what was that?

The conversation around natural gas hookups and all that is being rolled into that climate conversation and will be touched upon at that session on the 18th.

Then I also wanted to note that earlier this week we awarded the contract to Timmons Group for our new permitting software system.

So that is a big deal.

That's going to probably be up to about a year of implementation time.

Hopefully there'll be aspects of this project we can roll out periodically through that time, but it is moving us towards a digital permitting system.

So very excited about that.

And then on the zoning rewrite project, we had a steering committee meeting last week.

We last night were in front of city council with an appropriation request to to extend our fund for community engagement and project management and to add in funding to model the for modeling the housing market outcomes for of the new zoning or as of the proposed new zoning and that'll come as part of the approach report.

which you can anticipate seeing the will be releasing the approach report if we stay on schedule in mid April.

And then finally, I wanted to note that I'm actually working with a group of UVA students on an expanded and enhanced zoning 101 document of subtype.

We are fleshing out what that's going to look like, but imagine infographics and an explanation as to what zoning is, how it works, and what our proposal is in the approach document.

Our proposal for the Charlottesville zoning ordinance, I should say.

Oh, I'm happy to take any questions.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, really everyone.

The idea is to make the zoning project more universally understandable, right?

Zoning is a very technical topic.

It's one that may be surprised to all of us, but most people don't really know much about zoning and what's going on there.

So how can we make this project approachable and understandable so that people can kind of engage on it at a more or less equal basis.

Great.

So I just wanted to note things that we have coming up in April.

We have a couple of items that we're expecting on our April agenda.

The CDBG home budget will come forward as its yearly item.

We also have a couple of special use permits that are gearing up.

We're not sure exactly how many of them will be on the April agenda, but

We are working on that later in the week.

So we have a potential for four public hearings next month and talking with the chair about that potential, that is kind of a maximum.

And so we're going to

do the best we can to see how that works.

But as you all can see from the anticipated list, we've got a number of things that are in the hopper, though not all moving quickly.

So do not anticipate those coming terribly quickly.

But as the weather gets nicer, applications just keep flowing.

So we will keep you guys in the loop on that.

So that was the only update I had.

Thank you very much.

I see we have Hosea Mitchell.

But I do want to thank Mr. Freeze for the update on the gas hookups and et cetera, et cetera.

I believe it is now time to consider matters from the public, not on the consent agenda.

I know we've had quite a bit of people reaching out about a proposal on Jefferson Park Avenue.

If you'd like to speak to the Commission at this time, please quickly raise hand icon, or if you're joining us via telephone, you can press star nine.

Each speaker will be given three minutes.

Thank you very much.

Closing public comment on broader topics.

At this time, it would be appropriate to consider the consent agenda.

Ms.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

All four, thumbs up, please.

I see thumbs.

At this time, Mr. Chair, you'd have about 18 minutes.

And I'm not sure whether there would be questions from the commission about the report.

I would hope so.

I think it may be prudent to push until after the public hearing.

Thank you for your patience, you tree commissioners.

We appreciate it.

Would it make sense to maybe hear the presentation now and ask questions later just in the interest of doing something in the next 18 minutes?

We'd be happy to do that.

That seems reasonable to me then.

Please let us hear from you and then you'll hear from us later.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Ah, that's a reasonable question.

I would recommend that they stay and kind of get a taste for where we are with the hearing item, just based on your pre-meeting and the limited comments.

Well, with no further ado, if we might proceed, I think that first slide is a good one to start with.

So I'm Jeff Aiton, vice chair of the Tree Commission, and Peggy Van Yeres, who's chair of the Tree Commission, is also here tonight.

The purpose of us coming to you today is to convey to you the Planning Commission, the state of the urban forest and to solicit your help.

I'll present first and share some data and then Peggy will speak to the current work of the Commission.

Can we go full screen or do you all not care so much?

It'd be nice to see it a little bit bigger if possible.

figure out the tech, just bear with me.

Yep.

Yeah.

Can you start the slideshow?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Working on it.

It was working.

Now it's not.

Hold on.

We could share it.

Let's see.

I'm uploading the presentation.

Okay, that would be awesome.

Okay, great.

So next slide, if you wouldn't mind, Missy.

So our urban tree canopy is declining at an increasing rate.

We have good intentions and are planning for a robust urban canopy and our comprehensive plan, as you can see noted there on the right-hand side of this slide.

But we believe more needs to be done to ensure this is the case as we build for more affordable housing and adjust streets to be more friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists, et cetera.

So the city parks department and urban forester have over a number of years been contracting for aerial imagery to be collected and then analyzed.

And we've been doing this since 2004 on a five year cycle.

And as you can see, the trends are pretty clear in this bar graph shown here that we've seen a 10% drop in urban tree canopy coverage since 2004 to 2018.

Next slide please.

And given that our city is approximately 6,600 acres, that urban tree canopy loss equates to about 660 acres, a pretty sobering loss.

Next slide, please.

And the data that was used in the most recent report that we have is that 2018 data.

And once that's finalized, that will be shared on the city website, and you all can take a look at that in a little bit more detail.

But if we project out an additional loss of 5% from 2018 to 2022, we're looking at close to 990 acres of urban tree canopy loss of a pretty staggering amount.

Next slide, please.

And we can see in this chart and map that low canopy neighborhoods correlate with historically low income neighborhoods.

Those are the ones that are in red here that have very low urban tree canopy coverage.

It's also clear that as the subheading shows here that that canopy has declined in all but two neighborhoods.

And in those two neighborhoods, it's remained stable.

So again, not really the direction we would like to be trending in.

Next slide, please.

And that loss of tree canopy and the result in lack of tree canopy coverage is not good for our health or for energy costs.

This map shows the correlation between low tree canopy and more pavement

exposed to solar radiation and therefore more absorption and retention of that heat in the pavement, leading to worsening heat island effects.

That's what this graphic shows.

Next slide, please.

And to combat this, we're trying, but we're not doing a great job of planting, preserving, and maintaining our urban tree canopy currently.

There are many reasons for this, obviously, some in our control and some not.

Those reasons ranging from the pandemic to winter storms to funding and we're currently and have not recently been meeting the goal of planting 200 trees per year, which is we think a reasonable goal and we'd like to see that change.

You can see on the graph on the screen right that there's further detail relative to what we have been able to do recently.

For instance, the 151 trees that were planted in fiscal year 2020, 80% of those were new plantings, but just 13% were replacement plantings.

So even with that 151 trees being planted, only a portion of them are actually new, replacing lost canopy.

Next slide, please.

And we believe that there are code issues.

We can work with the Planning Commission on revising and updating.

Development in the city has been happening per code and staff is enforcing code, but we believe the code really does need to change to help preserve some existing high-value trees and to really incentivize developers to work with the city to keep those trees.

and or to plant new trees when existing ones must be removed.

So here's an image, of course, I think we all know this, lost some significant large canopy oaks along Garrett Street in 2020 with this development work.

Next slide.

And sometimes trees get removed and only one gets replanted.

Again, rows of oaks were removed along Garrett and we see just one tree planted.

And then one more slide and then I'll pass it off to Peggy.

We believe denser development and new affordable housing does not need to be at odds with tree preservation and sustainable tree planting.

In fact, really good planning needs to account for a robust urban tree canopy and it's one of the key components to healthy living environment for all city residents.

and then the last slide is this action is required when we believe there is collaborative work to be done between our two commissions to ensure a brighter or perhaps shadier future for the city of Charlottesville.

Peggy's now going to share some of the work that the tree commission is currently engaged in.

All right, thank you.

So what is the tree commission doing for this problem?

First of all, our ongoing activities.

We were set up 10 years ago, and we're basically an advisory body to you, council and staff.

We engage with the public often.

As you can see, we had a Venable Day celebration at Venable with the tree stewards a number of years ago, and we collaborate with lots of other nonprofits, and we monitor the effects of development on our green infrastructure.

Okay, thank you.

Now, the tree commission, our two main projects this year is one going to be reviewing the zoning ordinance with you.

We have four main objectives.

One is to increase the requirements for new trees, strengthen and enforce tree protection during construction, establish consequences for public tree damage.

I mean, you can see, again, this is

what happened along Garrett Street.

I mean, just to let you know, in Richmond, they have an ordinance when a developer is allowed to take down a public tree, they have to pay into a fund for more planting around the city.

And this can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Those oaks would be conservatively estimated at $25,000 a piece.

So eight times 25 would be $200,000 we could have.

So we're also going to want to refine the site plan application review.

Okay, Missy?

Our second project is a fund we just have started to develop this year.

And for the last couple of years, the Tree Commission has become very much aware of the relationship between trees and health.

Scientists have proven that areas that have low tree canopy have a much higher incident of heat-related and pollution diseases.

This includes asthma, strokes, and heart attacks.

Our relief, we have a big fat claim.

We think trees save lives, and our mission is to protect the health and well-being, particularly of our low canopy neighborhoods, from the heat effects of climate change.

Next, thank you.

So this is how we'll do it.

We're going to plant trees, preserve existing big trees,

and educate kids and families about trees and nature in the city.

Next slide.

Our first project is going to be in the Kenton Page neighborhood.

We chose this because it had very low canopy.

We have very few places to plant public trees, so they'll have to go on private homes.

We know in the 10th and Page neighborhood, it's been documented that over 50% of the families there pay more than 10% of their income on energy.

The average in the city is just 2%.

We haven't documented the health consequences, but I'm sure they're just like those that have been documented in Richmond with the low canopy neighborhoods.

So this is a project that we will be planting trees this fall and helping to preserve trees with the Tree Commission and Relief and Tree Students.

Next.

educate.

As Jody told you, we're going to have an event in the spring, this spring at CHS.

We're going to introduce kids to jobs in the green industries.

We have about 15 vendors coming.

It's going to be a fun event.

It's going to be the day before Earth Day.

We'll have music, food, everybody's going to come.

So we're working with the City of Promise to develop what we call Teenage Ambassadors.

These will be kids in the neighborhood, which will learn about the value of trees in nature, and they help us knock on doors in the fall to encourage people to plant trees.

We've given presentation or are going to give presentations about trees and nature to elementary school, City of Promise, Lou McGinnis.

I'm going to give you just a short few slides of

what we did, we gave this presentation to all third and fourth graders at Venables.

So why are trees?

Next.

Important to you.

Next.

trees improve health.

We took thermometers on one day in September, just, is it going, okay, sorry, out on the two playgrounds at Venable.

You can see one is hot, there are no children there, it's 102 degrees.

Next slide.

So trees improve health by cooling your playground.

You can see the shady playground, it was 82 degrees, a 20% difference in heat.

We know children are very vulnerable to heat.

So next one.

We had lots of other slides, some fun slides.

We show them how trees help animals.

Next.

by giving them a home.

Everyone thinks this is a shop, but it wasn't.

This is in Morocco, and that's the only place that goats can find food is on top of trees.

Next.

So it was a fun presentation.

As I tell people, I was more nervous about the third and fourth graders than I am about talking to you tonight.

So who are we?

This is a fund initiated by the Tree Commission, initially funded by the Virginia chapter of the Nature Conservancy.

So it's a partnership between the Tree Commission, Nature Conservancy, City of Promise, the Tree Stewards, and Manieri's Tree Company.

Next slide.

So what can you do for us?

OK.

Next slide.

planned and maintained trees.

We are very appreciative that you all have approved our CIP funding request for $100,000 for new trees in the fall, and that would get us to our 200 trees, and also our $105,000 for ash tree removal.

As you can see, all these trees by CHS are gonna come down.

Next slide.

We wanna help you create a zoning ordinance that treats trees as a vital asset.

increasing setbacks so we can have trees that we're not talking about. Some people think that means you're going to lose a lot of land. We're not talking about huge setbacks, 10 feet, 15 feet, just, you know, but, and also, you can see what happens when setbacks are taken to zero. If you look at the

So we want to increase requirements for new trees, better protect trees during construction, provide incentives or disincentives for damaging trees.

And perhaps a way to protect our natural resources is look for locating new developments or parking lots or other vacant types of land.

So next slide.

improve the city organization, and that's already happening, to encourage parks and NDS and public works together to work together.

We'd love to see a creation of a natural resource manager.

The Albemarle counties had one forever.

If you did that, the number three, the third point there would take care of itself.

Next slide.

Enhance our charge, too.

We particularly like to have some input on large site plans, such as Friendship Court.

As Jeff said in the beginning, we truly believe if we begin in the beginning of the process, trees, open space, and nature can go together.

There's often compromises, but there's no reason there has to be either or.

Again, encourage departments to work together.

Perhaps we could have a public works attend our tree commission.

And we really see that, you know, we're interested in trees, but we're interested in the whole urban ecology, all the natural resources.

So we'd like to see our charge expanded over time.

So again, we need your help to stop this loss of our tree canopy and our natural resources.

Next slide.

I'd like to end.

This slide came from our canopy study, and it shows that the eco benefits from the trees in the city save the city $16 million a year.

Now, this is the tip of the iceberg because if we were to plug in there the health saving costs for people and the energy saving for homes and businesses, we could probably triple this to $36 million a year.

So that's the benefits of trees.

And I just want to end by saying that we really see hope.

We're so excited about the new department heads.

That includes Dana Kassler, Stacey Smalls, James Fraze, Rian Anthony, who is in the parks, too.

And we won't forget Chris Genzik.

They seem very willing to work with us.

and want to be a partner.

And so we're really, really excited.

So there's great hope ahead.

And thank you.

I believe we are now prepared to begin our scheduled public hearing.

Warming up.

There we go.

All right.

Can everyone hear me?

Perfect.

There is a forum of council here.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner's, council, tonight you're going to kind of be redoing a public hearing.

So on May 11, 2021, on October 21, 2021, Planning Commission held a public hearing for proposed development

as before each night.

In preparing to move the application forward to City Council, it was discovered one of the tax map parcel numbers was mistyped in the public ad.

To ensure accuracy, all three applications have been re-advertised and returned to Planning Commission for action.

No information has changed or been updated in the application materials from what Planning Commission reviewed on October 21st, 2001.

ZM20000003, SP210002, and P210023, also known as 1613, 1611, and Zero Grove Street.

Landowner is Lavorn Investments, LLC, has submitted an application seeking to rezone in a special use permit and a critical slope waiver for approximately

0.652 acres of land, including multiple lots identified within the 2002 city real estate records.

These lots are collectively the subject property.

The subject property has frontage on Valley Road Extended and the unimproved section of Grove Street Extended.

The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the subject property from R2 residential 2 family

to R3 residential multifamily medium density, subject to certain proper conditions and development plan.

The proffers include, one, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the seventh dwelling on the subject property, the owner shall contribute $48,000 to the city as a cash contribution to support the city's construction of pedestrian improvements within the Fife Field neighborhood.

And number two,

28% of the dwellings constructed on site shall be affordable units.

As followed, 14% will be for rent such that the monthly cost of rent, including tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the fair market rate established by HUD by unit bedroom for the Charlottesville MSA.

And 14% will be for rent AUs such that monthly costs

of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed the fair market rate by unit bedroom for Charlottesville MSA.

All required AUs shall be reserved as such through a period of at least 10 years from the date on which units receive a certificate of occupancy.

The proposed development includes restoration of a portion of Rock Creek that runs through the subject property,

The SUP permit application seeks to increase the density from 21 dwelling units per acre or 13.69 units within the subject property to 43 dwelling units per acre or 28.0 units per city code per the use matrix in city code 34420.

The proposed development contains four apartments, multi-family dwelling buildings,

eight one-bedroom units and 22-bedroom units.

The total number of units would not exceed 28 units.

The comprehensive land use map for this area calls for general residential, which recommends up to 2.5 stories in height, up to three units per lot or four units if existing structure remains, and additional units allowed depending on zoning allowance.

The proposed development calls for a disturbance of land within critical slopes.

You'll also be reviewing a waiver for that tonight.

During the Planning Commission's last two discussions, traffic, density, stream restoration, affordability of units, and impact to the surrounding neighborhoods were discussed.

At the October 21st, 2021 meeting, Planning Commission voted four to two to recommend approval of the rezoning, four to two to recommend approval of the SUP,

and six to zero to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff from the Planning Commission?

Yes, the notice.

This was just out of abundance of caution.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

I believe we are ready to hear from the applicant.

Please.

Can you change your microphone input?

Or call in.

All right, sorry, guys, I'm relocating to Kelsey's office.

Hi, I'm Justin Schampen, the engineer of Project Kelsey.

Sean's here with me to whoever any questions that come up.

As was said, this is a repeat of our prior application and nothing has changed since then.

We do understand these things do come up with advertising issues now and then has happened.

So we'll go through this pretty quickly.

I think I saw maybe one new member of city council on in the case there are any neighbors who might be chiming in who didn't hear before, we'll go through our presentation and answer any questions that you have.

So the, I think everyone's very familiar with the location, three parcels undeveloped at the end of Valley Road extended.

Next slide please.

Okay.

Concept plan, as was said, is for four seven-unit buildings.

They are, you'll see the pink highlight here represents the dark pink is kind of the ground floor light, and then the lighter pink shading represents a building above a parking lot area.

So we have a surface parking lot in the center, buildings cantilevered over a portion of the parking that are three to four stories, and I'll get to that here in a second.

Next slide, please.

Now, just to explain this heading, there were first revisions between a May 2021 hearing and an October hearing.

So what you're seeing this slide is nothing new from what you didn't hear last time, but we didn't change our presentation because it's the exact same information.

But just as a refresher to folks, we

After hearing comments in the commission, we talked to the owner who is willing to commit to the 28% affordable.

That's four units at the 125 FMR and then four units at the FMR rent.

So eight that meet the voucher eligibility, four at the FMR level.

We adjusted the massing a bit to reduce the height to the building, trying to get into that scale we're looking for.

And we did some grading revisions to, again, help integrate the buildings into the site.

Again, things we know last time, but a reminder, folks.

Next slide, please.

Yep.

Summary is discussed, and we can go back over these details later if you want to.

Next slide, please.

Just as a quick refresher,

We ended up with buildings that were basically three stories in the front and then kind of a three story, but with units in the attic that back building has units sort of in the roof system.

So again, trying to keep it at that 30 to 35 foot building height.

So those were changes made in leading up to the last meeting where folks voted on it.

Next slide, please.

notes and revisions again, I guess a reminder for anyone who's new to the project, which maybe this is again one to the counselor.

So a little reference again would be on the left is Valley Road and then our four buildings parking the center.

That blue dashed line is the existing stream they propose some improvements to.

Next slide please.

Interesting bit we found last time, and I suspect has probably gotten the only worse in this proportion in the months between October and now, is that we have a number of structures built in the city.

There are over 3,000 square feet, not different in size from plexes.

Very few plexes get built.

plexes being triplexes, quadplexes, seven plex in our case.

And so this is a reminder, our buildings are while larger than a single family house, not substantially different in scale than a large three-story home you might find in some of the neighborhoods in town.

Next slide, please.

A couple other features to remind folks of, we proffered a $48,000 cash proffer towards the neighborhood sidewalk improvements.

And then we also have offered a stream restoration on the banks on our property, which would be to basically regrade, restabilize, and revegetate that area as part of the plan.

It's a sort of rough section of the creek right now.

It's been long kind of abandoned in this trash and it pipes, et cetera.

So when we're done with the project, we would have a fully vegetated and reclanted stream bank in that area.

It will help contribute in a small way, at least, to water quality downstream for the project.

Next slide, please.

That was a summary of our presentation.

Then, just as a reminder, these are the structures sort of in question.

It's that gray in the bottom is your kind of lower level units, and then there's units above.

in seven units in each building, three to three and a half stories.

We read through the staff report about the change in the comprehensive plan.

I think the only thing I'd really comment on that is, if anything, the comprehensive plan came a little closer to what our proposal was originally than it had been, essentially.

talking about infill opportunities and bonus densities for affordable housing.

This is both an infill and a affordable housing project with a 28% profit affordable.

So that is the summary, the quick summary.

And for those who are new or want to refresh the memory or anything, we are happy to discuss it.

We know the plan commission spent a lot of time on this over the fall.

So remind me, these stream improvements, they happen no matter what.

They're not linked to the sidewalk improvements.

They're going to happen when you redo this thing.

Yes, provided the plan is approved and it's developed.

It's sort of separate from the sidewalk could be an off-site improvement.

That actually isn't an off-site money.

Well, sure.

And I think that one of our efforts with the redesign from the May to the October plan was to scale down the buildings in a way to make them more

duplex type of scale.

They are still larger, we admit that, but we were trying to strike a balance of density, affordability in an undeveloped parcel and doing so essentially by going up an extra, what, maybe three stories versus a two and a half, the comprehensive plan, three and a half stories, we pick up that additional density and the additional affordability.

So we have edited the project over time to get these into

Additional additional questions for the applicant from the Commission.

Yes, I am that new council person that doesn't have history with this project.

And I just have a few questions that you may have already addressed.

And first of all, I'm trying to figure out, you know, for my planning days, even back then, $48,000 doesn't get you much sidewalk or

or is it a new way to build them cheaper now?

So what are we getting for about $48,000 and why not 40 or 50?

Why 48?

What's magic about that number?

There was a formula, yes, where that came from, the city has a sidewalk fund basically per unit.

So in our mind, if the city says, you know, instead of building in front of your house, you pay X dollars per unit, we use that same math.

Okay.

And I know this will probably come up at the council meeting.

It tends to

to come up is what is what definition did you use as affordable?

I think it was 28%.

That's right.

So because the 28% in total of affordable, which is eight units of those four of them, the rent, including utilities, is capped at the HUD fair market rate.

Rory can tell.

And then the 125% FMR is a higher number obviously, but that was selected because it falls within what the voucher limit is for the city.

Will students be eligible for those units?

Did you catch that?

The question is, would full-time university students be eligible for those units?

I believe so, yes.

I think, you know, if somebody qualifies based on income, you wouldn't necessarily, it wouldn't be different based on their occupation.

Um, HUD does restrict full-time university students from Section 8 vouchers.

So that's where I'm trying to, it's one is, you know, if it's affordable within the Section 8 range, but whether or not we'll actually be available to somebody with a Section 8 are two very different things.

And that's why I'm asking just

So they're not getting restricted like a LIHTC property or anything like that.

Correct.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry if that's right.

Just the rent is capped per those formulas.

They are very far.

It's at the very last lot.

So yeah, you can see it from the immediate houses around.

It actually sits behind a very tall railroad track.

So there's maybe 15 houses that can see it, but you cannot see it from Cherry.

And just many, many years ago, we built a habitat house on this road.

And I recall that the stream nailed a creek there.

It was in bad shape.

It's been many years since I've been by there.

And so I'm just trying to picture that if it's still in a rugged shape like it was when it has some debris there, you know, trash, that if just your section is

improved.

Would that kind of throw things off?

I live down there, Juan.

I thought they were deciduous.

Yeah.

Sino, you are having the same static issues that you did at the beginning of the meeting yesterday, but we hear you and we understand you.

So thank you all.

That's all the questions that I had.

Additional questions for the applicant?

I just wanted to clarify, you said the lower affordable units are at fair market rents, which is about a little under 60% AMI, called 60, and the others are at 125, 125% of fair market rents, so about 75% AMI?

That's correct.

And the sidewalk

The proffer for the cash for production improvements, that's separate from the sidewalks that you're going to build in front of the property, right?

Correct, yeah.

A site plan ordinance requires to build our own sidewalks, and then we would offer the money up for some improvement down the road.

We talked last time about maybe something, the entrance of Valley Road extended, that would be up the city.

Did we resolve the issue of the non-residential uses that not being proffered out?

Did anything change?

It does not come to mind as something that was still out there.

Hang on one second.

So, it's been a little while now, so I'm trying to jog our memories here, but I guess it looks like we did not prop with that.

Obviously, our, you know, development is intended to be in accordance with the SUP.

Should that density be built, we have to follow the plan that's offered.

What you have before you, you have three applications.

I mean, there is a possibility that city council could approve a rezoning, deny the SUP, but the proffers go with the rezoning.

So you have kind of this affordable proffer that talks about dwelling units.

So I can't give you a clear answer, but there's, you know, it's

three different things that there is a possibility of just getting the rezoning, but then any development that went there would have to conform to the two proffers that went with it.

I mean, I won't say it's impossible that someone can get the rezoning and build some of these other by right uses.

Thanks.

Seeing none, I believe we are prepared to hear from the public.

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

Each speaker will be given three minutes to speak.

And I see no hands raised at this time.

Oh, wait.

Paul Benesch, you are on with the commission.

I just had one question.

Any analysis done on the increase in traffic on Valley Road extended?

By my count, I counted the houses on that road currently, and this would seem to increase the total number of people on that road by about 30 or 40% potentially.

And it just seems like that road is already not wide enough.

It's only about one and a half lanes wide kind of card to get through there.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was unaware of that.

I believe we are prepared to close this public hearing.

Thank you all.

Mr. Stolzenberg, you've put something in the chat.

Sure, absolutely.

I was just saying on page 94 of the agenda, it has the traffic projections, the trip generation, and that's 171 cars or trips per day and 19 trips during the PM peak hour.

Thank you very much.

I believe we are prepared to discuss these requests.

Opening up, who wants to discuss?

I just had a question for clarity.

And so I apologize.

I did miss the last meeting.

Yes, one of staff's main concern was the condition of Valley Road Extended.

Valley Road Extended, you have on the eastern side, you have Rock Creek, and on the western side, you have a fully developed neighborhood with limited sidewalks and with parking.

So any improvements to Valley Road

pedestrians or vehicular traffic would be a major undertaking to and would probably remove a lot of parking from existing homeowners.

That was one concern because kind of the biggest concern from staff.

The scale at this end of the neighborhood, it's more apartment scale set in a single family duplex.

Street.

Thank you.

I guess I have two quick comments just on things that have changed or any new things since the last time we talked about it.

The first is that, I mean, to me, I think it makes sense that this fits in what we're talking about as general residential in our adopted plan.

There's no buildings to demolish on this site, so that's a four-flex by right.

and then we have provisions for bonuses at affordable housing.

And so in each of the seven, each of the seven flexes, the four different seven flexes, you have the four base units, you have your very affordable unit at

that can go to people with federal vouchers.

You have that workforce housing at 75% AMI that can go to people with city-funded vouchers.

And then you have that market rate bonus unit.

And to me, I mean, if that isn't what we're thinking about with the bonus provision there, you know, I don't know what would fit.

I mean, certainly there's four of them on what won't be a subdivided lot, but

conceivably could have been.

And I think I mentioned last time, I'm very sympathetic to the point that it's a thin road.

I'm thinking about like other thin roads, like Altamont Street, North Downtown that have a pretty sizable, or like Burk Street in North Downtown that have pretty sizable apartment complex at the end.

You know, in those cases, even more units.

and people kind of manage and, you know, people walk in the street and then people slow down when they see them.

One big advantage I see in this road is that at the probably the most dangerous point, which is that part where it curves about a third of the way down, that is the part that actually does have a sidewalk.

So no one, so you can, a pedestrian can get on the sidewalk at that blind curve.

And then the last thing I mentioned,

just because Commissioner Alejandro brought it up in our pre-meeting discussion of the BAR thing, that zero Preston Place, which I was just looking at in a recess, that's a single family house in R1, I think it's R1, that is going to have a footprint of 4,000 square feet.

And I think we just saw earlier that these are

These are 2,000 square foot or so, maybe 2,200 square foot in that slide.

Footprint houses, they're three and a half stories, less than 35 feet, which is what we allow in R1.

I mean, the structures are just big houses that are subdivided into more units on the inside.

And in that sense, I think visually, certainly, it is compatible with the surrounding area.

Can I follow up on that assessment of units and read of general residential because I think that's important and I don't read it the same way.

So my take on it is general residential, the category is three units per lot with an additional bonus.

And we haven't defined what that bonus is, but presumably it would be in another unit.

So we have three parcels here.

Max, I would think, would be four units per parcel, 12 units max.

And this is a proposal that proposes no more than 28.

So why that delta?

Am I completely off on my logic there?

So, I mean, I think the lot differentiation here and that it's originally three lots is a good point.

But in terms of the structure envisioned in general residential, there are four different structures.

So I'm taking them individually.

I don't read the conception of a bonus as meeting one more unit for two reasons.

First is, this isn't a sensitive area as we defined.

So if you're not demolishing a house, I would think the base would be four.

And then, you know, you can't have a bonus.

If we're adding a bonus to, which would be both extra units plus, and I think we said massing since it's a two and a half height limit base, you can't just have a bonus just to allow one affordable unit.

You know, typically with bonuses, it's like an incentive.

You give us something, in this case, an affordable unit and a workforce affordable unit,

and you get one market rate unit, right?

Yeah, I just, I guess, Justin, thanks for that presentation again.

I made these comments last time and I'll just make them again.

I you know there's a lot going on for this project that meets the com plan you're doing some stream restoration funds for pedestrian improvement affordable units it certainly checks a lot of boxes it's a greenfield you know site there's nothing on there so we should take that you know use that as an opportunity to add more housing where we can because there aren't that many left in the city and you're making use of the grade to add an extra level

My only comment I want to add, because I think I know where this is headed, and it's not going to be a surprise since we already voted on this before where I feel, but I really feel like in this case, the proffer does not address the impact to the neighborhood.

And I think that's an important component of a proffer is to directly speak to the impact in the neighborhood.

And as we've discussed, as

Other comments, questions or emotion.

Just really quickly, sorry, Commissioner Mitchell.

My other question would be, and like I said, I'm kind of coming up to speed.

I know I missed the last meeting, is what other adverse effects other than parking?

So I think parking, it'll be all right.

It has a, it has more than one parking space per unit.

I would compare it to the issue we discussed with Stribbling, right, of that being a big development that we had a lot of concern about traffic and neighbors walk on the street because, you know, people walk on the street because there aren't sidewalks or, you know, whatever.

Well, my other, I guess the reason for me asking that too about the sidewalks were is if we already don't have it in our regular CFE funding, Mr. Wade and just in general has already said that the 48 is not gonna make a difference in improving the project.

So I tossed out a couple of suggestions last time that I don't know if they're, I mean,

You're right that there are no projects for the neighborhood, but I think they had reframed it to be vague enough that it kind of could be used in the general area.

And at the end of the street, the intersection with Cherry, there's a curb with no curb cut.

So people in wheelchairs or with strollers going along Cherry can't keep going.

And so that is something that's in the CIP that they kind of pick out intersections every year that money could potentially be applied for.

The other is that there's a bus stop with no shelter or anything but a sign that CAT could potentially pull money out of that pot for building stuff up, for improving that bus stop.

I think no one has any comments, so I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Discussion on this topic?

Motion?

Hearing no discussion, Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Dow?

No.

Mr. Mitchell?

No.

Ms.

Russell?

No.

All right, I have another motion.

Okay, I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit for tax map parcels 2301-33000, 2301-34000, and 2301-35000, 1613 growth rate extended.

to permit residential density up to 43 units per acre and adjusted yard requirements as depicted on the site plan dated September 29, 2021 with the following listed conditions.

Conditions recommended by staff up to 43 dwelling units per acre are submitted on the subject properties with a maximum of two bedrooms per unit.

The restoration of Rock Creek as presented in the applicant's narrative dated July 14, 2020 and revised September 29, 2021.

Discussion on this topic?

Hearing none, Ms.

Ms.

Ms.

Russell?

No.

I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for tax map and parcel 2301-35,000, 2301-34,000, and 2301-33,000 as requested conditions outlined in the staff report based on a finding that the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope part section 34-1120B6D1.

Discussion on this topic?

Hearing none, Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Ms.

Russell?

No.

I believe we have resolved this item.

Council, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, all.

Thank you.

I believe we are ready to talk about the tree commission report.

Do we need a moment?

Are we still feeling fresh?

Do we have people from the tree commission here?

You're going to get into some technical things.

It might be beyond my experience.

Jeff, are you?

Jeff's much more technical than I am.

I don't know that I'm that technical, Liz, to be able to answer your question specifically, but there's basically aerial imagery, and they use that aerial imagery along with GIS information to map the various areas of coverage.

So they're mapping streets,

trees, ball fields, roofs of houses, et cetera. And then all of those overlays become various area parcels. And then they use that to determine if there's been a gain or a loss in any particular area. So they can also point to new areas of development, you know, new roads cut in, new clearings, et cetera.

Some of the loss that we saw was some restoration work that was done along Meadow Creek.

There were significant trees that were taken out as part of that stream restoration work and the sewer line realignment, et cetera.

But a lot of that is coming back up again and will eventually become canopy.

So you talked a little bit about the need to

to develop canopy and private homes.

Yeah, that's a good question, Hosea.

A couple of years ago, the tree commission went into the Belmont neighborhood working with the tree stewards and worked for two years there, knocking on doors and getting homeowners to plant trees, and that was very successful.

Right now,

As we said, you know, our project, Tree Commission and Relief, we're doing a lot of education of young kids and teenagers to get them to understand the values of trees and nature, and we're hoping that's going to kind of bubble up.

but also the tree stewards is already working for instance in 10th and Page and they've planted about 15 trees just going slowly door to door.

And so just in the last couple of months they planted about 15 trees.

We've learned from like the nature conservancy that has done a lot of these projects that is pretty slow at first.

You get a few people to do it.

You put signs up say, these trees provided by,

And then other people start calling and say, I want a tree, I want a tree.

I also like your suggestion that Chris and his team be more dialed into the Fluminstein.

So the future Land Loose Map is done, but more dialed into rezoning.

So good point that we make sure that Chris, his team, and you guys, Tree Commission, are dialed into the rezoning that we do and the way we configure the tree installations where we're going.

So thank you for that.

You guys were like, talked a little bit about why we lost so much for our canopy.

But you gave me like three or four

reasons why we lost so much.

What's the big reason?

Is redevelopment driving the canopy out?

I'll just start, Jeff, you might want to fill in.

The canopy study is not complete yet.

They're still working on it.

But it's been a lot of development, of course.

But as Jeff mentioned, there were two big projects, which is sort of ironic, restore a stream and lose canopy.

But, you know, it's a lot of its development.

So we'll know more when it's finished.

I can't answer that question completely, Hosea.

And the other question is the loss of ash tree.

Do we have a plan to replace the ash trees that we're going to take out because we want to take out, but also because of the infestation that they're dealing with?

Well, yeah, I mean, over the next five years, we're going to lose, these are just public trees, not private trees, because they're all going to pass trees, unless they're all going to die.

So we're going to lose at least 300.

Our plan to replace depends on how much city council and planning commission allows us to plant new trees.

So, you know, hopefully we'll be able to plant 200 trees a year for the, you know, for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chair, one more question and I'll see to other commissioners.

So, yeah, so ash trees are big trees.

What are we thinking about replacing them with?

More ash trees or something?

No, we wouldn't.

No.

Well, oaks, you know, maples, sycamores, you know, lots of, I mean, we believe, you know, shade trees are going to be the most to combat climate change and improve the health of the community.

My last question about relating to that is like, in our lifetime, are we going to benefit from that?

Hey, you're a lot younger than I am, so Hosea, I got a lot of grandkids, I have to worry about them.

But, you know, the other thing we want to do is preserve existing trees, because all the scientists and the arborists are saying, if you preserve the existing trees, that's going to do a lot more to combat climate change and make your community healthy.

And just to piggyback on that, those ash trees that are coming out that the city's removing are in the public right-of-way.

And so trees really need to go back into those same locations so they provide those same benefits because shade trees along streets, shade streets, sidewalks,

Mr. Stolzenberg, you've been tremendously patient.

Yeah, no problem at all.

A couple questions.

Well, first off, I noticed in the budget that the city manager released yesterday tree planting is still at 75,000 and not at the full 100,000 that we recommended.

So don't thank us yet, I guess.

And so that's about 166 trees per year, I guess, with the current.

It's like 450 a tree, right?

No, that's basically just for removal.

The arborists did an average cost to take down, to clean up the ash trees and, you know, they're all, most of them are a bit huge and they're very expensive to remove.

Yep, okay.

And then will you guys come and present to us again when the the canopy study is complete?

We could supply it beforehand so you get a chance to flip through it and look at some of the data.

We had some questions about the data to just some of the metrics that were used that that

were part of their recommendations.

I think Rory's suggestion is ideal.

I think I recommend that you guys contact the chair and Ms.

Okay, fantastic.

We'd also love to talk to you about some of those code issues that Peggy mentioned in her part of the presentation.

We've seen the sorts of things that are written into code that have to do with tree replacement as either per cow per inch or being paid into a fund that would then fund future tree planting.

effectively used in other municipalities like Richmond that's here in the Commonwealth and others around the country.

And I think it incentivizes developers to take a second look at a moment where they might be like, oh, well, that's just going to come out and I can replace it as part of this site plan standards that the city has.

But if they actually have some...

They could be penalized for doing something that they might be able to avoid.

We have a very, just follow up on Jeff, we have a very powerful codes committee that's working really hard and plus it has a couple lawyers on it, beware, that is looking at codes and zoning.

and wants to help the city.

I think James has said he's very welcome to that.

I think he has ideas of his own, too, about how we can make our, you know, codes and ordinances much stronger.

Mr. Alejandro, please.

So one of the

One of the impacts of this study, the tree canopy study, and the discussion that we've had

is going to, I think, play an important role in the ordinance rewrite when we get to setbacks.

And to my mind, and why I want to bring it up now, because I may not be around when and if this issue comes, well, it should come up.

The issue of you could have enough setback

on paper, but we need to remember utilities and the conflict between utilities and trees and really take a look at the kinds of clearances that the utilities department requires around their water lines and sanitary sewer lines and gas lines.

And

You know, there are clearances that have to be maintained between utilities and then clearances that have to be maintained between utilities and trees.

If you have the utilities going in the setback areas, you're not going to get any trees.

So it's something to remember and to include in the calculation of setbacks and how it works together and not just

think, well, I've got a 10-foot setback.

I can get a tree.

And then the utility department comes in at the end says, oh, no, we've got to put these utilities here and you can't have any trees.

You know, Jody, that's why we call you the dean of the commission.

As I've been pushing James and Sam and Missy to think about how we deal with the gas issues,

That's something I hadn't thought about.

So thank you for bringing that up.

Yeah, the infrastructure issues have to be thought through.

Hosea, will you be around?

You'll be deputized.

Thanks.

I was, I guess, just to kind of continue that same conversation, I was wondering if it had to do more with maybe number of trees along a frontage instead of a setback, per se, if we want to find different ways to control.

I don't know if that works or not, but just throwing it out there.

I have a similar one.

Courtyards.

I like courtyards.

I think you can play trees in courtyards.

Something to think about.

We used to build courtyards with trees in them.

To my mind, the slide that Peggy showed of Main Street and the difference between the standard and the

the lofts across the street and all the, you know, you go down Main Street, you don't think you have that many trees along it, but there really is.

And there in front of the standard, all of a sudden, bang, nothing.

And it's such a miserable place to walk next to.

Oh, I didn't say that.

Yeah, and I hope when we, when we get into this discussion, we can really explore like the kind of role of the right of way in this and how we can get more trees into the right of way.

You know, I think of some of our like residential streets, like some in Belmont that have like 50 foot right of way widths where you could easily have a bump out and put a tree.

And even the standards, a great example, it has those like little trees kind of like tucked into those nooks, but then it has those tiny planting strips with no trees.

and then that bike lane that's as big as a parking lane, so it's always full of cars parked, whereas the bicyclists probably would have preferred if the planting trip was thicker so that there were trees there and it wouldn't be perfect for parking in.

And, you know, I wonder if we can look at our rules to make it make more sense to be able to fit trees in front of buildings even without significantly increasing setbacks by using that right of way.

I mean, depending on the right of way with, of course.

I had one question.

When the tree stewards are planting trees, for example, in Tempted Page, are they, I assume they're doing it themselves?

And, you know, is there an opportunity for, for example, if the city wanted to plant 200 trees, but only had the money for 150 for those last 50 locations, could they have a wish list and say, hey, if you have the resources, put a tree here?

But, you know, right now the city doesn't plant trees on private property and

You know, there are other communities they bypass that by giving money to people like the tree stewards or relief to help plant trees on private property.

So that's one way to look at it.

But right now, I guess it's a liability issue trees just don't.

So Peggy, when the tree stewards did Belmont, we had, I mean, the tree commission, I was there, other tree commissioners were there, cats were there, and the residents were there.

The community was there helping to plant.

Chris Gensick was there, the city was helping out.

Another question.

This was something we talked a lot about with the strategic investment area.

Parking and trees.

Is parking space for trees?

Is parking there because trees aren't?

Well, trees and parking can coexist.

I should send you a picture from Burgundy, France.

They're called tree parks.

It looks like a park of trees and trees are planted underneath them.

I mean, you know, with tough urban trees, they don't need a lot of soil.

They don't need a lot of setbacks.

They can really survive in very small, you know, amounts of soil.

So I think we need to look at our parking requirements and trees and loosen that up, you know, because it only helps it cuts down on the, you know, the heat that we get from all that asphalt.

No worries.

Finally, my chance to get Mr. Palmer in trouble is that there are anything that large institutional landowners can do to help us with our tree troubles, say, for example, the city, the county and the university.

That was a general question.

I was asking the commission members on this one.

Although you're welcome to weigh in.

Well, from my experience at the university, the university is a model for the city.

The kind of care that they take, they've been treating their ash trees for many, many years now to save them.

And they're

adding trees all the time.

They have an arboretum committee that reviews any proposal to remove a tree.

It has to be approved.

They have two arborists on staff that work at the university.

So, yeah, we try hard to, you know, protect the trees we have, for sure.

But, you know, to Jody's previous point, we struggle with the same things with, like, utility conflicts and, you know, new construction taking down existing trees.

And we have to kind of reckon with that ourselves.

And we have, you know, guidelines in place.

And we try to, you know, all of our projects have landscape

architecture associated with them to bring back, you know, trees and stormwater and all those other, you know, natural systems.

I think a good place to look right now is the Ivy Corridor where there was a landscape of trees there that's no longer there and we are

you know we'll be putting them back but trees take time to grow but the end result 30 years from now let's say 20 years from now will be much better than what was there before and and also meet the needs of UVA's mission so it's a it's a difficult subject it's it's definitely these these canopies you know it's a point in time thing so

The hope is that if something is taken away 20 years from now, you'll see canopy back there, but that's not always the case.

Actually, there was something that I wrestled with as a project manager at the university for a long time.

And I don't know, I'm not sure if it's still there, but there was a landscape fund that whenever you did a new project, whenever a project manager initiated the project at the university, a certain percentage had to go to a landscape fund.

And that landscape fund could be used anywhere at the university.

I hope you will memorialize that.

Yay!

There sure is a lot of grass on that lawn of yours.

It's true.

That would be better than some of the buildings that have been proposed in the past.

Additional questions on the presentation?

At 7.08 p.m.

with this item resolved, I would entertain a motion to close up and go home.

Hey, Peggy, let's you and I chat offline about tip and page and what you guys are trying to do.

We can meet over beer or whatever.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Peace out.

Peace out.

I hear a second.

Can I get some thumbs up?

I see thumbs.

See you next time.

I have a question.

Oh, please.

Lyle, do we have a work session or Missy, I should ask.

I didn't see it.

They'll come back.

No worries.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.