Planning Commission Meeting   5/10/2022

and I see that one minute.

Welcome all to the regular meeting of the Charlottesville Planning Commission, joint council with Charlottesville City Council.

Fantastic.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Matt Offley, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

My presentation tonight is going to be a little bit longer than I think y'all are used to, but I think there's some information I want to make sure that it is going across, but of course there'll be plenty of opportunities for questions and comments from both Planning Commission and Steve County.

Tonight we'll be holding a public hearing for a special use permit at 2005-2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue collectively

referred to as 2005 JPA or the subject of property.

The applicant is Aspen Top Co.

2 Acquisitions LLC, which is the contract for murder.

And they are being represented tonight by Mitchell Matthews Architects and Planners.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit pursuant to code section 34420, 34353.3

and 34162A, which allows increased residential density, additional height, and modifications of parking and setbacks.

The subject property has street frontage on Jefferson Park Avenue, Observatory Avenue, and Washington, and a by-right density of 21 dwelling units per acre.

The applicant is looking to increase density to 70 dwelling units per acre.

increase height from a buy right 45 feet to 75 feet, reduce the rear yard setback from the required 75 feet to 36 feet, and reduce the onsite parking by 22% from what is required under Section 34984.

The SUP is required to accommodate a development being proposed for 119 units of multifamily dwellings within one building

with underground parking.

Some key elements of the proposed development include underground parking with one access point off Washington Avenue, improved streetscapes for JPA Observatory in Washington, 119 units within one building in the shape of a U placed on top of the underground parking,

The 119 units would be a mix of bedrooms with no more than four bedrooms per unit.

Based on the application material, the total bedroom count would be around 390 bedrooms.

The building will be a seven-story structure fronting on JPA that cuts into the grade to become a five-story building in effect.

a required contribution to the City Affordable Housing Fund of just under $500,000.

The proposed SUP has generated a lot of interest and feedback from the community.

Planning Commission and City Council has received a lot of these comments directly and additional comments can be found as attachment D in the staff report.

The massing height of the building, traffic, parking, and impacts on quality of life are some of the main concerns staff has heard

from the surrounding residents.

Parking and traffic on Observatory Avenue is one area of particular concern.

As stated in the staff report, and now I'm going to kind of read from the staff report from this.

As part of the applicant's request to increase density, the applicant is also requesting to reduce the on-site parking by 22%.

Under Section 34984, efficiencies one bedroom and two bedroom units need to provide a minimum of one space per unit.

Three and four bedroom units need to provide two spaces per unit.

The applicant's materials do not call out the final count for each type, but it is indicated studio

Studio one, two, three, and four bedroom units are being considered.

If built out to the max of 119 four bedroom units, 238 on-site parking spaces would be required.

With 22% reduction, the minimum parking required in this configuration would be 186.

The application materials indicate the final space count will be 125.

This indicates some of the units will fall under the requirements of only needing one space per unit and not two.

Under the current plan, all parking will be provided under the proposed development with one access point on Washington Avenue.

Due to current regulations, the proposed development would not be eligible to obtain on-street parking permits in Zone 1.

This means residents and guests that the proposed developers will not be allowed to park in Washington or Observatory within the restricted hours set out in Section 15208, which states the restrictions go into effect Sunday, 12.01 a.m.

to 7 a.m.

Monday through Saturday, 12.01 to 7 a.m.

or 7 p.m.

Restricted parking areas designated within Zone 1 on after May 1, 2020.

In addition to the section I have just presented, I would also like to point out staff's findings as stated on page 21 of the staff report.

Staff finds that the application meets general standards 3, 5, and 6 with reasonable conditions.

Please see the six conditions that staff has recommended in the staff report.

The applicant would meet standards two and four and two, four and seven, but the applicant would not meet standard number one.

This concludes the staff report on the SUP.

As a reminder, Planning Commission will make two recommendations tonight after the public hearing.

One is a recommendation to City Council on the SUP as Planning Commission and one is a recommendation on the SUP as Entrance Review Board.

Staff is available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission or City Council this time.

In a few minutes, you'll also hear a report from the Preservation Planner, Jeff Warner, on the SUP as it relates to entrance corridor.

I'd like to roll it on the line.

Thank you.

I'd like to roll it on the line.

Yes, certainly.

If you'll bear with me one second while I turn to it.

I think it speaks to mass and scale.

Thank you.

Yeah, again, it may be helpful, Matt, just to, again, show the math in.

As also stated in the report, number one talks about existing patterns of development.

So this part of the city, your existing patterns of development is single and two-family homes with some small apartments.

And what about mass and scale, the height of the building?

So this, I believe, Commissioner, you're referring to, this would be on page 8 of the staff report where it talks about description for height under our current comprehensive plan.

It talks about five stories but eight at key intersections.

This is not a key intersection by any matrix that staff has.

So we feel five stories would be more consistent in this area.

You will hear from the applicant later for their arguments counter then.

But I believe that's what you're referring to.

And then, of course, the entrance corridor presentation might go into a little more detail on Mass.

Mr. Mitchell, does that suit?

That suit.

Perfect.

Dowell, please.

The question, and it might have already been asked before I got here, I just wanted to bring up the email that was sent.

I'm sorry.

And I'm not sure if you guys brought this up in our pre-meeting or not.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think I have some questions for lighting and landscape and that kind of stuff.

So at this point, that would come in final site plan review.

The other question I had was regarding permit parking on the side streets.

I know that was something that was brought up by the neighborhood and talked about.

Is that something that we can do or is being done?

It currently does exist.

And I think the comment was about enforcement of that.

And I guess just throwing this question out there is how is it?

Do we know how it's being enforced now or is it being enforced?

Okay, that's all I have.

And thank you.

So in the staff analysis, massing and scale of the project comes up and the analysis indicates some difficulties that they have with the massing and the scale.

Speaking to the SUP report, and I will leave it to Preservation Planner to speak more on entrance corridor, the biggest concern I think staff had was the rear elevation, was the five-story building going down into the mainly single-family, two-family neighborhood.

Staff does feel, you know, that is a concern, but staff does feel condition number six

MR. Staff also found that it had problems with the height of the building at the corner of Observatory and JPA.

No, I'm sorry, the corner of Washington and JPA.

So that is definitely something that came up in the analysis.

There has not been any conditions that staff has on this that would really mitigate that.

That's the highest point.

I believe in the entrance corridor, the guidelines from the entrance corridor would help mitigate that by breaking it up.

GREG BRUDNICKI.

Thank you.

Yeah, I have a couple questions.

First off, we heard, well, one of the comments I heard most from neighbors, it didn't quite show up too much in the written comments that we have in the staff report, but I heard it quite a bit when we took a tour of the neighborhood, was that all of the pipes along the street are old terracotta pipes.

And I'm wondering how

When this was reviewed, Utilities Department of Engineering were involved in the review.

They found that the SUP, there would be no difference between a by-right development on infrastructure or the SUP.

Anything they felt would be handled during site plan review as far as they would have to provide infrastructure that would work.

I don't think they're, I don't believe we have anybody from utilities in this meeting, but no concerns were raised from those departments as far as developing the site in a what's being proposed or a by right development.

Okay, that point is well taken.

I think if this is to proceed by right or under the SUP, I think it would be helpful to explain the actual specifics of it at the site plan conference.

But obviously, as you said, it's not a consideration really for this SUP.

My next question.

What is the street width of observatory in the proposed condition?

Is it the same?

Is it narrower?

I believe so.

Okay, and I think in the staff report it said that there would be net new parking spots as a result of the removal of all the curb cuts, right?

I don't think we have a number quite yet.

Okay, and then I guess this next question is kind of specifically for Mr. Duncan.

We heard a number of concerns among neighbors of either being unable to get out of their driveway if a car is parked in what is currently a legal on-street, permitted parking spot across from them, or in many cases of emergency vehicles not being able to get by.

And, I mean, again, recognizing that...

I think that the residents of this building wouldn't be able to park there anyway.

Does it make sense as part of this site plan review and approval to potentially restrict parking either on one side of the street entirely or in those congested areas to make sure that emergency vehicles can pass by and that people can get out of there?

So I guess that's a complex question.

Normally, yes.

If it was a new street, it would just be 100% on street width.

But we do try and not disrupt the status quo of a street too much.

If we can accommodate existing parking patterns and that kind of stuff, we don't want to make it so that when a new development goes in that we just take away half of the parking on an entire street.

The parking, I guess the road width along Washington is roughly 30 feet.

And I'd have to, I think it, you know, some spots there are parking on both sides, which is a little narrower than we would normally like.

Normally we would want 35 feet minimum to have parking on both sides.

So, I mean, that's definitely something that we could look at, but it was not something that we

for pushing for based on the traffic generated from this particular site.

Yeah, I think that was, that's pretty helpful.

And then I guess because there are, you know,

Yeah, I mean, that's something that we do on a lot of our narrower streets.

If there's a particular driveway or something, we've always had the petition to change public parking.

So if someone needs that, their driveway's narrow and they can't actually make the turnout or the

The parking that's there somehow restricts it.

We usually look at those on a case-by-case basis and a request basis, not necessarily a blanket.

Yep, that makes sense.

No further questions at this time.

Thank you.

Mr. Palmer, this is your neck of the woods.

Yeah, just one question.

In reading through the staff report, there was some comment on the conformance with the Streets That Work plan, specifically the seven-foot sidewalk, whether this would have that or not, as well as the tree verge.

I didn't catch quite all of that.

I'll speak closer to the mic.

the streets that work plan it was mentioned in the staff report that this didn't what you've seen so far doesn't quite conform with that plan and the type of street that JPA is categorized as correct for I wasn't here for the pre-conference I didn't know if you had anything to add to that or maybe you could just

So that's one of staff's recommended conditions would be redo JPA streetscapes in line with streets at work, which is a minimum three-foot planting buffer and a seven-foot sidewalk.

Currently, JPA sidewalk butts the streets.

Yes.

And thank you.

Hey, Lyle.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I don't have any questions.

You're out of sight, out of mind.

That's terribly unfair.

The parking permits for the street?

Correct.

The permits give you permission to park on the street Monday through Saturday.

I believe it's basically midnight until 7 p.m.

and then Sunday from midnight to 7 a.m.

Somewhere around those lines.

I'd have to look at it again.

But yes, for the most part, evenings between 7 p.m.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully you can hear me.

Yes.

A couple of questions.

So from the scanning I did, I can't say that I read the scores and scores of pages about how the traffic counts looked, but it seemed like the upshot was that the intersections that were at least on that map would not require signaling.

Is that correct?

Oh, I guess I asked that to Yeah, so the signal or the intersections that are not currently signaled would not meet warrants to signal them.

Correct.

Okay, and then the other question I had was, had to do around changes in terms of pedestrian crossings.

Yeah, so one of the recommendations for staff for this was to improve the crossing.

It's currently down at Harman Street.

And a lot of that, normally we would like it kind of as close to the project as possible, but the grades, because the JPA is kind of split grade, so Travel Lane East and West are at different elevations, so getting a pedestrian crossing that meets

ADA grades is difficult.

So we have one that's, you know, pretty good down at Harmon.

Chair Greg Musil.

Got it.

Thank you.

I guess the third question I have for Mr. You'll forgive me if I get your name wrong.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

One of the seven criteria that you mentioned, it sounds like six of them

Three of the six, roughly, the criteria were met.

Three of the six, a workaround could be deduced.

Maybe I've got my numbers wrong, but there was at least one, the first, in terms of its fit within the neighborhood that was problematic.

MR. Sure.

MR. Yes, Councilor.

So this is urban mixed use corridor and the height, this is where the height came up.

So it's five stories or up to eight key intersections.

So, and this has been one of the areas where our comprehensive land use map conflicts with our current zoning because our comprehensive land use map is anticipating our zoning changing.

But the future land use map measures in stories and not feet.

So the max height you could do under the current zoning with a special use would be 101 feet at this location.

and the max height by right is 45 feet.

Five stories.

That's an interesting question because, I mean, I think that's going to be one of the things that has to kind of mesh

with the land use map is going to be our zoning.

When we look at the specific zoning regulations for these areas, because areas could overlap, you know, just because an area is something designated something in the future land use map doesn't mean that's going to be one zoned area.

You know, we could have overlaps, we could have different districts.

MR. Right.

No, I think you would probably see the max height being five stories in certain areas and then the max height being eight stories.

No, I know.

And it's such a gray area because it's not complete.

Because what's coming to mind for me is that the framework that we've adopted for that is that if we're going above the buy-write height, the reason we're doing that is to have an inclusionary zoning program that's going to require affordable housing as part of that.

In that context, it's hard to say because it's so many gray areas and we don't know what it would settle out at, but if it turned out in theory that in this zone, say it's five stories by right and they're asking for above that, once we actually get completed with that, we would want them to include a specific amount of affordable housing as part of that and we're sort of giving it away, you know, if we ended up actually being in that situation once we got there.

But I know, you know, it's hard to speculate on because it's not finished yet.

Yes, that is the it's and I know community solutions is to in this meeting and they can jump into but I know it's

Right.

And I know it's their choice and we don't have any control over it, but I would just note for the record that we got an affordable housing report that included data on the subtotal subsidy needed to construct a new affordable unit.

And I can't remember the exact number, but I know in Virginia that total subsidy to build one new unit could be around $300,000.

So just interesting for the record, especially when we're thinking in the context of our inclusionary zoning program.

And last question.

So there's 17 existing units on these properties.

Do we know with certainty the status of all those units?

Are they all rentals?

Are there any homeowners?

And then could we say with any certainty whether all those renters are just students?

All right, thank you.

Ah, okay, there we go.

My questions focus mainly on the first criterion, and talking about the key intersections problem for the entrance corridor, the report indicates that the intersection at JPA and Morrie and JPA and Shamrock would seem to be

to intersections that would probably qualify as key intersections.

MR. That is, and that was done on a professional opinion.

MR.

How have we defined key intersections?

Well, and this is only talking with the

for the SUP as it relates not to entrance corridor entrance.

So that term is coming from the future land use map, where it's talking about eight stories.

But our future land use map doesn't define what a key intersection is.

So I guess you're sort of left at this point to try to figure out what you think we might someday down the road want to be adopting.

which I know puts you in an awkward position but you seem to have focused or coalesced around the idea that at the very least that JPA and Mori would be a key intersection.

I think most people would agree with that speculating that perhaps under this policy we would end up with perhaps an eight story building at Mori and we're really only one

one significant block away from a building that might be at that point.

MR. Well, and that is definitely one of the arguments the applicant is making, is that Moray being a key intersection, you would not want to jump necessarily up from five stories to eight, and that you would transition

as you went along, JPA going from 5, 6, or 7 up to 8 as you got closer to the intersection.

I think that's an interesting way to approach it.

And one of the key things that staff looks at in this is one of the goals of the Future Lane East Map, the comprehensive plan that we went through, is increasing density and increasing density in

certain areas in this city.

In this area of the city, you know, is one that looking to increase density.

And to increase density, especially at this scale, under 19 units, is going to create a big building.

I mean, when we were going through the future land use map debate last year, I was struck by the fact that the one area where it seemed clear that everybody was willing to agree we should have increased density was along JPA, yet there was basically no public discussion of that fact.

We're hearing complaints from the north downtown, we're hearing complaints from Greenbrier, we weren't hearing complaints from JPA.

I'm just wondering, did the planning commission or planning staff or anybody have any discussions about that that we counselors were not necessarily privy to?

That's a little hard to answer.

It was an awkward question, I realize.

Well, I mean, there was a lot of outreach, but not, you know, not everyone participated in the five-year process.

So there are definitely voices that probably did not get heard.

I believe we're hearing from them tonight.

But

I guess what I was really getting at was not whether folks in the public were heard from, but whether I'm just wondering whether you all had any discussions amongst yourselves at a meeting that perhaps counselors weren't paying attention to where you talked about

this area and the fact that you were apparently expecting to be substantially more dense in the JPA area.

And maybe you didn't have that sort of discussion.

I'm just wondering whether there was some other discussion, some substantive discussion on that that we were not aware of.

I guess the answer is probably no because you're looking at me like, huh?

Not that I'm aware of.

I think the answer is no.

So we didn't have a conversation about it.

I kind of have to disagree with that a little bit.

I think it was something that was discussed both over the course of it, but also kind of repeatedly when discussing this urban mixed-use corridor and the high intensity to the point where, you know, even in the September 21st

Solla-Yates, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers, Michael Myers,

8 stories at select locations, specifically the JPA Fontaine corridor.

Now, you know, in practice that gets a little bit tricky because high-intensity residential is not, in fact, touching JPA or Fontaine.

It's in the interior of the neighborhoods and it's urban mixed-use corridor that's along the road.

But

I mean, given that it was discussed, it's right there.

We did have those discussions, right?

Maybe we didn't...

The purpose of my question was not to suggest that somehow the issue hadn't been raised publicly, but I was just trying to find out whether you all had put some more flesh on the bones in some other discussions or whether it was left simply as starkly and as simply as what it seems to be set out.

I hope that's some help.

I have some questions myself.

I've had a lot of questions from the public about the trip generation study.

This is, to my knowledge, different from how we've looked at student apartments before.

We've looked at them more as a sort of generic suburban use.

This is a new approach, I believe, looking at as a student housing use near a university.

Sure.

So the Institute for Transportation Engineers has a manual they put out, update regularly.

And in the most recent update of that, they added a more specific section for off-campus student housing close to a university.

because, frankly, it does act much differently than other apartment complexes as far as their trip distribution and when those trips are being made.

So we had a meeting with the applicant

before they did their transportation analysis.

And they brought this up and said, hey, are you okay that we use this?

This is new.

And they shared that with myself and the city.

And we agreed that in this scenario, it seemed to make sense.

Yeah, I think that, again, the more applications that we get that would surround the university would probably make sense.

I think this one is kind of an obvious one, being as close as it is to the university.

We'll have to look

Does that work?

Yep.

All right.

So how are y'all doing this evening?

I'm Jeff Werner, I'm the Preservation Design Planner and since we have a lot of people here tonight, even Steve playing there, the majority of my time is spent as staff for the Board of Architectural Review, but I'm also the staff for the Entrance Corridor Review Board and it's in that capacity and I'm here tonight.

and I can tell you as we've learned with the BAR having remote discussions about design architectural design issues is extremely challenging and I'll do the best I can and I also I want to add just context is that in the last four years I've reviewed with the BAR almost 350 projects

tonight will be just the 23rd and the 24th project that I've reviewed with the entrance corridor review board.

So it's a little bit of a different dynamic here than we normally have.

And I know some of you are still asking questions about that whole entrance corridor process and we can get into that if you want.

And I'm offering that background, right?

Just exactly why Lyle, you know what I wanted to say.

So quickly, why are we here?

Code section 34-157, when a property that is subject of an application for a special use permit is within an entrance corridor, the ERB shall review the application and make a recommendation to city council as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the corridor, and if so, to suggest reasonable conditions that would mitigate that impact.

and the second piece, and it needs to be said, but it is not what you're here tonight to discuss, but it needs to be noted that regardless of what occurs with this special use permit, whether it's approved or denied, there's a section of city code 34-309

It requires that any subsequent development of this site that requires a site plan, the design review still goes through the ERB.

So there's a later piece of this project or any project that occurs there that must go through the design review.

So, in short, I also want to say, regardless of what's been presented conceptually from the Special Use Permit, your recommendation to Council is not an approval of a design, it's not a denial of design, it's not a proxy for the design review process.

And I'm just listening to you all discuss earlier, I think to answer one of the questions, it really comes down to, does the Entrance Corridor Review Board, which is the Planning Commission and

do you believe that later during the required design review process, do you believe that process can produce a result that mitigates the impact of any increased height here?

And so to address, I know the other question that's come up about the staff reports, I just wanna be clear that in the prior staff report and in this current one,

The suggested motion did not change.

It is that the impacts, first I said, could be mitigated through application to the design review, and in this one I'm recommending, the impacts can be mitigated during the required design review.

So in both cases, I've leaned on the design guidelines as giving us, giving the city a tool to come up with a design ultimately that affects any of the impacts from this increased height.

So just very quickly to go through the things that were requested.

Regarding the increased density, I've said before how a building is used is not a function of design guidelines.

It can be one big room.

It can be a building with a thousand little rooms.

What the BAR and the ERB looks at is the exterior, right?

And so therefore, in that regard, increased density does not have an adverse impact on the school board.

Regarding the increased height, this is where we, you know, some of this reevaluation change, but we have to acknowledge that this is what the comprehensive plan now says.

There were some prior planning documents and things have been advised, but the comprehensive plan vision for this corridor is that it transitioned to an area of higher density and mixed use, and that's facilitated by allowing taller and larger structures than in the current built form.

and increased height is allowed by special use permit.

So that use has been anticipated and it's not prohibited.

And anticipating the increased development, including taller buildings, the city established design guidelines here for the entrance corridors, which include recommendations that address the related height, masking scale of the building.

So because of

Because in my recommendation to you all, the application of design guidelines would mitigate the increased height, I then would suggest that there is not an adverse impact.

Regarding the reduced rear setback, very quickly that's not visible from JPA, so it's not relevant to having an impact on the corridor.

Regarding the reduction of Wall Street parking, the design guidelines are really

based on big open parking lots and how do we screen them, prevent them, not have them.

I think here we've got parking that's going inside the building.

So any level of parking that we don't see sort of is a positive relative to how the guidelines are used.

So I would suggest that reducing the parking will not reduce the

the production of off-street parking because the parking on site isn't visible anyway we're not addressing that as an adverse impact and so like I said during the later design review and approval of the COA the certificate of appropriateness you all will consider the design elements components and the colors and materials and the landscaping

and the whole range of things that come with the design review of a project like this.

However, for a recommendation that you make to Council about this special use permit, like I said, I suggested to you is that because the design review can mitigate the impacts, those impacts are not adverse.

But I did come up with three suggestions, and these are, they're sort of broad, they're the type of thing we've used with the BAR to kind of just, there might be some elements of this design that possibly you all want to memorialize.

There might be certainly more, we've got designers on the Planning Commission bringing to the table some additional thoughts.

are there elements that the ERB would recommend Council consider as memorializing, but not locking in this design.

I think that would be the wrong way to go.

And then to really explain that first condition, it had been discussed, and that idea of breaking up this building, you know, somehow on east to west, or I guess it's north-south connection, and

you know spending some time looking at the topography over there and kind of looking around town at what were the examples we had I realized I kind of had the examples showing them as oh this is like these places but in reality this is not like

the places we don't like.

And there's an awful lot of places in the city which have block lengths that are similar.

So I started to say, how does this thing, looking at the difficulties of kind of bisecting it with some sort of breezeway, what do we have in the sense of it being a block

Does that establish maybe a block design that can be repeated elsewhere?

And it actually fits in what we see around town.

So that's where I thought, all right, putting something through that building

I don't you know unless you just build two buildings that's up to you all decide but you can at least establish in that back there it's not a street necessarily but you establish it that will be that sort of sets that block that sets the dimensions of that block for that development so that I hopefully explains the first bullet like I said the other two really just sort of saying that expressing the applicant that we're not telling you to bring this exact design back

Well, we don't want something completely different.

Unless again, like I said, you all feel differently about that.

So I hopefully made some sense there.

That's a fantastic question.

Yeah, if you don't mind, what I'd like to do is attempt to regurgitate what we're expected to do, what our recommendation needs to be based on, the criteria that we use to make our recommendation.

And then if I get it wrong, maybe you can redirect us so that my colleagues know what we're deliberating.

So I'll do that in a minute.

I want to be certain we will see this again, even if we approve, if we suggest that this SUP will not have an adverse impact on the entrance corridor, we will see this again.

Yes.

You will see this currently has entrance corridor overlay, so whatever happens there,

presumably will require a site plan and you will see that design.

I can tell you that within entrance corridors I have a lot more flexibility than

what we have with the VAR.

So there's sort of a threshold at which if it's a new building, we bring it to you.

If it's not, there's an awful lot that we can do administrative.

But assuming a new building goes at this site, you will see it regardless of the special use permit.

And you will have, at that point in time,

You are the ERB, you're acting just like the BAR.

You have design, you have oversight.

And I think that's what it emphasizes.

And Jody, you can certainly help out, and Kareem, you have another architect on the panel.

That iterative process for this project

So what we are being asked to adjudicate, the question we're being asked to answer, the recommendation we're being asked to give to Council is whether we believe that this SUP will result in an adverse impact

at will.

Do we believe that there are mitigating actions that we can take to reduce the negative impact on the EC?

That's the net of the question we're being asked to answer and make a recommendation on.

Yeah, and I think I just wouldn't bifurcate it into, you know, it is either you believe that whatever impacts there are can be addressed adequately during the design review.

that's a positive.

If you believe no matter what the design review process will not address these impacts, whatever they are, that's the negative.

So I think putting in there whether or not adverse impact goes back to the basis of my recommendation is that whether you want to call it adverse impact or not,

At what point do we do, the three mitigating conditions that you have recommended, at what point do we, at what point should that impact our thinking?

Yeah, it's a function of

you know with the BAR we talk about the discipline of the process where there is a you know you don't come in with a project of this scale and then one night after a 20 minute presentation you get approval so there's a there's got to be

some discipline in what going into that process.

So I would say that if you didn't adopt any of these tonight, that's fine, because they can still come up later.

But they do in some ways maybe establish some, and I can tell you as a former builder, the most important thing is just even the smallest amount of predictability.

Let me know where I stand.

even if it's precarious, let me know.

And that will help John and Aaron and their team kind of maybe know where they stand on things.

Because you all may very much disagree with some of these things generally.

And I don't want to get down into the rabbit hole of the design, but if there are some things that you feel very strongly about tonight, like I cannot live with that, or when this thing comes back, it better have thus and so,

tonight is the opportunity to express that because a special use permit, it's not a wish list.

The condition of the approval.

So you can establish things that we can sort of have a hard line that we hold up during the design review, or you can, and I would say if you were the BAR, I'd say, I trust that process later that they're going to come up with a design.

I just don't know how to advise you.

You all know each other much better than I know you.

Maybe you're going to answer a question.

Let me ask it because I think you're headed that way.

If we elect to recommend approval of the SUP, and this question I sent you guys an email, and we think that Jeff's three mitigating strategies

would help make this better implementation of this project on the entrance corridor.

You have that opportunity.

Usually the conditions with an SUP are specific to what's going on.

And so those conditions are a little bit more broad.

If you all feel that those are things that council needs to hear,

when they're looking at that report.

You could with the ERB, the entrance corridor review, adverse impact, and that's the terminology that's used in the code.

That's why that's coming forward in that manner is we try to be consistent with

If this helps,

this a little bit.

The situation at Goward Court on Evan Street was a great learning curve in a lot of ways.

And one of them was that

when something's established in that as an SUP condition.

If later on John brings this thing in and says, gosh, I can't do this.

Let's say you say we want this thing to have from JPA three towers with two courtyards in between, and that's in the SUP, and John says, I can't make that work.

We can't resolve that with design review because it has to go back to council to have the SUV amended.

So that's why, yeah, you want some specificity, but you don't want to design this thing now because then it's going to encumber them.

So like I said, there's the, you know, Gordian knot here.

On one side, I would say if you all were to BAR, again, I trust them in that process.

I wouldn't worry about conditions.

This process is somewhat complicated in the code and it's definitely something that the folks who are reviewing the code for us, we have expressed some strong feelings.

on trying to streamline this and make it more straightforward.

But we have the code that we have right now.

The window of the decision that the ERB needs to make tonight is very narrow.

It's can the design guidelines address any adverse impacts?

or can they not?

And you've got, it's kind of a yes or no question.

Jeff has recommended that you wait until we see it again right I mean generally yes because it will come again and and and because of the just because of all of the elements involved with this with this a project of this magnitude the questions have already started about things that yes we're going to have those discussions down the road

and, you know, it's a cart before the horse kind of situation.

So that's why we're kind of, we're trying to narrow, trying to help you all narrow down to the question being asked right now.

Mr. Mitchell, does that help you?

Good questions.

Ms.

Mr. Hibab, Aesthetics.

We'll save those until it comes back.

No questions for me.

So, yes, and there's, this is where, you know, as Misty said, there's some, you know, there is no how-to manual in the design guidelines of this, that, yes, no, there's no dichotomous key that gets us to the end.

But looking back at past staff reports,

Relative to an entrance corridor, if you can't see it, then it is not of issue.

Very different from when we have something within a historic district.

But relative to an entrance corridor, the past practice has been it's back there, it's not visible from the entrance corridor, so I'm not addressing it.

So I went with that.

I followed my predecessor.

I don't know that that carried anything else.

But you all disagree.

You all can.

I think it's best to look at the project in total.

And if it's something slightly around the corner, but it's important to the design, raise it.

And it doesn't preclude you all at a later date.

The design review is clear that you all can approve or deny that design.

It comes back, it still has to meet a standard that you're going to establish.

Now, that is appealable to council, but you have your look at this the next time will not be sort of

It's going to be very detailed and very involved.

Okay.

And thank you.

Ms.

Russell, please.

Yeah.

I'm confused by that too and the sort of like are we viewing the building as a whole and I guess specifically one of the design principles is human scale asking to consider the impact of spaces created as it will be experienced by the people who will pass by, live, work, shop there.

Again, it's in the context of when this entrance corridor guideline was written and how that place was seen.

It's very different from where it is now within the comprehensive plan.

Well, we also, Jeff, we don't have a full design on the entrance corridor side of things at this point.

And so it's kind of a challenge to

Sure, but if we're thinking about conditions that, you know, are we thinking about conditions on the building as a whole or are we thinking about conditions just on the entrance corridor?

And, you know, we could talk about that more, but it

Yeah, I think that goes back to that maybe, and I'm not trying to oversimplify, but it really is the

Do you believe that the entrance corridor design guidelines allow you the tools to mitigate any impacts?

And what I've learned a lot from the BAR is that, you know, how a building is experienced and how people, you know, set that

When you're on the downtown mall and the trees play a role in that, you don't realize whether that's a 10-story building or it's a two-story building.

You're experiencing at that level.

And so a lot of that comes down to landscaping.

I do think one of the nice things about this project is that entrance to the garage is at the rear of the property.

It sort of pushes that thing back.

We're not getting curb cuts along there.

I know we're not addressing the design that they presented,

They've got that variation in the material at the base, that foundation.

They've got some landscaping on the walls and terraces.

So there's things happening on those side streets at that high level that it's not, you know, I'm not walking down an alley and just looking at a black wall.

so again how you all if you want to address certain things that you see tonight's the night to do it or to make a recommendation on council may say no I do know I've had you know sat in meeting where Lisa Robertson once said to me all right some how do I how do I write a condition that defines the word permeability so you know yes there has to be some specificity it can't be fluffy but I

I think that it is up to you all in the design review process to get it.

That's your chance to get it right.

Thank you.

Yep, I will turn it quick because I do look forward to that in-depth review, but that will not be tonight.

My one specific question, the number one recommended general guideline in this sub area is put utilities underground that are now located within media.

And so my question, given that the view of the building is obstructed by the utilities for someone walking along the opposite side of the street,

and that the utilities restrict the size of trees that could help obscure the view and, you know, green it up.

Any more questions?

All right.

One that maybe is, I'll phrase it as a question, but I don't know if there's really an answer, but it is what,

What went wrong in the design review process and the site plan process and everything with the standard?

And that came to mind to me because I think there are potentially a lot of similarities.

The standard was a company that I think operated internationally, has a portfolio of hundreds of student apartments.

They sort of have a cookie cutter design.

They come in and build.

And others may disagree, but I think

The city made a mistake in how that process unfolded, not that more housing was built, but in that something went wrong where there is a massive undisturbed block shadowing over West Haven, lower residential community, and it doesn't feel human scale even when you're on the sidewalk, even if you just look over to the other side of the street.

I mean, it feels much more cramped.

What went wrong that led to that?

Because this is best I could looking through the LLCs.

This is a company that operates nationally, that has billions of dollars in total financing, has a portfolio of hundreds of properties, student apartments are a major part of it.

And my concern, as others have raised, is about the scale massing in human scale.

And I think we really need to avoid repeating the mistakes that happen at the standard in terms of, again, at not being human scale and shadowing over a residential community.

Because I think in that context, we could have gotten, you know,

maybe that same amount of housing but designed in a much better way.

And I think my concern is not only for residents that it is not human scale and worse, but also let's think big picture and long term.

When that happened at the standard, people associated density on West Main with that project and what happened.

There was a de facto down zoning throughout that whole area.

So I think we really need to make sure that we're confident that we can get density that works, which I think we can, and we have plenty of examples of, you know, Altamont Circle, that apartment there is very human scale and works.

I think we can achieve that, but I'm not exactly...

I'm not sure how much confidence I have in our existing processes, and I don't know what, if anything, has changed to avoid repeating those mistakes.

I'll say, I know Sina and I talked about this some time ago.

The density of Altamont Circle and that block is extraordinary.

It's a wonderful model of what you can achieve.

And I dare anybody to say that's a terrible, you know, oh, I wouldn't want to live there.

It's extraordinary the amount there.

What's really interesting about that is a lot of those houses that were there were built this way.

Demographics that were there.

So a very successful example would be great to replicate that.

I will also say my trustee right-hand, Robert Watkins, who's in the room with you all, has raised some of these apartments that are being lost around town that are these old four-story, highly

Dents apartment blocks that are being knocked down.

So we're losing things that work.

As far as the standard, that was before my time.

I mean, I've lived here a long time.

I watched it happen, but I can't really address it.

I do know this.

The BAR, if there's something we talk about

Well, not more than lighting, but something we talk about a lot is, you know, what went wrong on West Main?

What can we do?

And one of the things that we look at is what it gets back to that, that sort of that idea of the block.

How do you break that up?

You know, maybe you don't break the building, but how do you create that break?

such that it is just not a wall.

Now, as far as on what's going on facing to the north there, I don't know.

I think there's a lot of questions that could be addressed, and we're hoping this summer to do to revise the design guidelines for both the entrance corridor and the BAR districts.

But again, remember that

The BAR, DRB doesn't look at how a building is used.

It could be a block of concrete.

We just care what that block of concrete looks like.

Or it could be one giant room that somebody runs around and yells in, I don't care.

I just worry about what the outside looks like.

So design gets you a long way, but they're

Do we know how many living spaces are currently in this block?

We talked about this before.

I do not.

I know Mr. Alpley has that outlined in the report.

Yeah, that's right.

Don't think so.

Of course.

I'd just like to say I really like this block analysis.

I think it's smart.

I think it's innovative.

I don't think I've seen it before.

Well done.

At this time, let me switch my notes here.

No.

I'm wrong.

I'm sorry about that.

Not quite.

That does seem fair.

That does seem fair.

Thank you, Matt and Jeff, for all your hard work.

Is it working?

Okay, I just can't tell.

There are a few points tonight that we want to reiterate.

as you consider the application tonight and when we last presented informally in the fall the project was generally well received and the majority of the comments were focused on the aesthetics, on the architecture.

We have incorporated some of those comments into the application you're seeing tonight and we know we'll be back to you of course to go through the entrance corridor review process with you and address many more of those aspects of the project as the project develops in the future.

But if we can have our slideshow Great, go to the next one

So this first page shows that 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue, which is right here, is in the middle of the Jefferson Park Avenue neighborhood.

And we pulled some census data that's at the top of the page.

And the points that we want to share with you tonight and stress is that this neighborhood is 93% renter-occupied, 79% is non-family, and the median age is 21 and a half.

All of those things tell us what we already know, which is that this neighborhood is predominantly a student rental neighborhood.

Next slide, please.

while we're scrolling.

We're putting purpose-built student housing in a neighborhood that already is predominantly student rental housing.

This zooms in on the site.

Again, the site is outlined in the red dashed line.

The point here is that we are,

one block away in each direction from the trolley stops, which are noted here and here.

So there's one at Shamrock Road and one near the corner of Maury Avenue.

We also, based again on our interpretation of the Streets That Work plan and the language that's in the comprehensive plan,

I believe that those reports are trying to identify Maury Avenue as well as Shamrock Road as key intersections as it relates to the comprehensive plan language and again the streets that work plan.

And so we'll come back to that point at a later moment but those are marked with the red dots here and here.

The site fronts on Jefferson Park Avenue and obviously has frontage along Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue.

Observatory is a dead-end street.

Washington Avenue is a through street and connects from Stadium Road to Jefferson Park Avenue.

Therefore, we've placed the garage entrance as noted earlier along Washington Avenue so as not to impact the dead-end street.

Next slide, please.

This slide is important because we've researched the GIS data on your website and based upon analyzing the owner addresses and the parcel addresses,

have identified which parcels are actually renter-occupied in the neighborhood and adjacent to the site and which parcels are other uses or owner-occupied.

So there's only one contiguous parcel with our parcel and that is to the rear.

This one house is the entire width between Observatory and Washington Avenue, that lot.

And it is renter-occupied and has been at least for 20 to 30 years.

And as you can see, all of the parcels that are across the three streets, except for one, are also all renter-occupied buildings.

Next slide, please.

This is the existing zoning map.

Again, our site is here.

As Matt and others have already mentioned, it's R3 zoning.

It's only permitted to have 21 dwelling units under a by-right condition.

That equates to 35 units.

So we are asking for 70 dwelling units per acre and at the acreage, or that, 70 dwelling units per acre, sorry.

The by right height is only 45 feet.

Under an SUP for our density range, we're permitted to ask up to 101 feet.

And so we actually fall in the lesser height range, the middle height range, even though our density is higher.

Which is to note when you get to looking at the rear setback requests, which again is for a density range, the 75 feet we don't believe was

It's sort of extravagant in our view and that's why we're asking for a rear yard reduction as part of this SUP process.

We'll show you the setbacks in a moment on a different plan.

You can go to the next slide please.

These are photos of some of the surrounding structures in the neighborhood, extremely varied in height and architectural character.

And another point that we want to note on these slides is that most of them do not engage at all with the street.

The precedent is

for very little engagement with the street with all these existing conditions.

Even some of the new structures that have been built do not have much street engagement and we have a very different vision for the project as proposed that you'll see in some of the perspective images towards the end.

Next slide, please.

This is the existing survey of the site and you can see that there are three buildings that are shaded red or sorry six buildings shaded red.

Those six buildings again have 17 units in them combined and I have more detailed information if we want to ask that question again to go into all of that about how many units are in each building and so forth.

But the point here is that there's a 37 foot drop across

the site from this corner to the corner at Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue and 37 feet is the equivalent of three stories.

So it's a very dramatic grade change across the site and why that's important is because the height that's perceived on Jefferson Park Avenue is not going to be the height perceived at the rear of the site because we're basically slipping the lowest two levels, sort of a basement condition, the garage, below grade and it disappears into grade

as you get towards the rear of the site and you'll see that in images further on in our slideshow.

Next slide please.

This is the new comprehensive plan.

Again, the zoning designation for our site is urban mixed use corridor.

the further definition is higher intensity mixed use development

for this area and that's exactly what we're trying to do, a higher intensity development.

Mixed use is not allowed under the current R3 zoning condition.

There's only an ancillary use permitted and we'll show you how we're addressing that with the idea that there's a transition occurring right now between the zoning ordinance we have and have to work under and the comprehensive plan that we're trying to strive towards.

Next slide, please.

This is the detail, the only detail that's provided about the mixed-use corridor, the urban mixed-use corridor you can see down here.

Again, the uses, commercial, employment, residential, active ground floor uses.

And then height, five up to eight at key intersections.

And then it lists such as intersections of downtown industrial mixed-use or neighborhood corridors in the streets that work plan.

So that is where we got our definition of what a key intersection is.

In a moment, we'll look at the Streets That Work plan and show you which of those are mixed-use streets and which of them are neighborhood corridors and how that then creates a key intersection on the plan.

If you can go to the next slide, please.

This is the Streets That Work plan.

So again, we're over here on the plan and this is an enlargement of that area.

so the different designations, it's a mixed use B Street which is this pink dashed line and that definition is right here in the middle and it was in the packet.

The brown dashed and solid lines are neighborhood streets and so again the intersections of a neighborhood street and a mixed use street

in our mind creates that key intersection and there are three in this sub area of JPA.

They would be at the intersection with Morrie, at the intersection of Shamrock and then at the intersection with Emmet at the base of grounds.

You can go to the next slide please.

So this is the adjacent designation to the rear of our site.

So our site, again, being at this dot on the end of that leader, the adjacent designation, the brown, is higher intensity residential.

That designation you defined as up to five stories.

And the point we want to make here is that if all of the mixed-use urban corridor was intended to only be five stories or mostly five stories with only tiny little spots of eight, then

it probably would have fallen into these two areas probably would have merged into one zoning designation that there isn't a significant difference between higher intensity residential and the mixed use corridor when it comes to height unless you look at the five up to eight stories as a variable between key intersections and that's the point I'd like to make on the next slide if you can go to the next one.

So here we've overlaid on an aerial the comprehensive plan in purple and brown and yellow.

So the purple is the mixed-use corridor, the brown the higher intensity residential, the yellow is general residential on the other side of the railroad tracks.

Our site again is dashed in red here.

And those same key intersections that we just discussed would be at Morey Avenue and Shamrock Road.

In our opinion, based on the language that's in your comprehensive plan, eight stories would be created around these key intersections.

So the blocks immediately adjacent to these key intersections here at Morrie and here at Shamrock would be eight stories in height.

and then that all the conversations I've listened to throughout the comprehensive plan process have all talked about creating a transect, creating transitions, not having harsh jumps between zoning designations and allowing height and

to be one of those elements that helps with the transitions between things.

So if we start here with eight and we know we're going back to eight here, then there's a transition laterally along Jefferson Park Avenue where a block away we're stepping down to seven and that is what we are proposing, seven stories in height.

and then perhaps it gets down to six before it returns back up to seven and eight at the intersection.

And there's a greater distance then between Shamrock Road and Emmett, further up JPA, where it would probably decrease the whole way to five before it again ascends back up to eight.

And this would create that rolling topography of a building height throughout this landscape.

Simultaneously, we would be also doing this perpendicular to the corridor.

So the tallest areas of these blocks and of these buildings would be along the corridor where we have seven stories along Jefferson Park Avenue.

And at the rear

as it transitions to the adjacent zoning designation, we would be meeting the height of that zoning designation.

So at the rear of our site, we're proposing five stories.

In the adjacent designation, it proposes five stories.

So we would be equivalent in height and we'll show that to you in a section.

And that is a key difference between what the current zoning ordinance does and some of the problems that were created at the standard and the differences between the standard and West Haven

between topography and the change, you know, enhance that problem.

If you can go to the next slide please.

This is a roof plan.

You're looking at the purple shaded area is the roof.

The beige shade or yellow shade here is a podium level that caps the top of the parking.

The red dashed line is the property line.

This lighter dashed red line are the setbacks.

So the front yard setback is an average along the street, being that where you have two corners, the side setbacks are both 20.

The zoning ordinance calls for a 75-foot setback, which is here, but we're asking for 36, which is here, and we're proposing that we would create a 25-foot buffer along the rear.

Jeff talked about this and all of you asked about it, about potentially this connection at the rear of the site.

I believe our client is open to that idea that there might be a bike and pedestrian path that moves across the rear of the site.

How it works would have to be defined later because of the topography changes that are occurring from this side of the site dropping in grade, you know, 11 feet over to this side.

It's also, you know, how it moves through that S3 buffer or around that S3 buffer we would have to work out but we're open to that idea.

Some other things to share is that the garage entrance, as has been mentioned, is up here on Washington Avenue, a significant distance from the intersection.

A lot of neighbors were also asking and concerned about trash.

Trash will be inside the building, stored inside the building, but then pulled out on the street at this moment as well, adjacent to that garage entrance when that happens, and that would occur just like the neighbors where they pull out their trash.

on trash day.

The main entrance is at this corner where it's connecting closest to the topography in the intersection of JPA and Washington Avenue.

At the other corner of Observatory in Washington, we have a series of terraces to try and engage again with the street and that's where we've created a small space that could be an ancillary use space.

It's sized to work with this current zoning ordinance.

as well as potentially become that mixed-use component in the future as things change along the street and the density is created on the street to support more commercial uses.

Something we heard from you in a previous meeting was that you wanted a better streetscape on observatory.

So we've added small stoops, porches, some with steps and sidewalks depending on the grade changes along here.

four of those that would be private porches to just those four apartments that they enter into.

Some of the neighbors didn't like those.

We're open to being either way, but we feel this provides that engagement and pedestrian activity and helps modulate the street condition and would be an advantage in the long term when additional development happens on the adjacent parcels.

Backing up a moment, I guess you already know it's a U-shaped building that opens towards Jefferson Park Avenue with the two narrow ends facing Jefferson Park Avenue and the pool condition is elevated from the sidewalk so it's up two stories above the parking garage that is below it.

Next slide, please.

So this is a diagrammatic section through the site.

This purplish pink color is our proposed building.

The orange is the maximum building envelope that could be requested under a special use permit.

So again, under a special use permit, we could ask for 101

feet in height and that's again to this top of this orange box and we are well below that 26 feet below it asking for a height of 75 feet and again that's taken from an average grade plane and there's a significant drop in the topography across the site.

Because the two wings don't both meet the street, you're looking at sort of the one wing in the background here and you'll see that again in perspective images and other elevations in a moment.

So this is the profile for sort of one half of the building and that's the other wing beyond on the other side of the courtyard.

To talk about the rear of the site for a moment, again, the current zoning ordinance

requires 75 feet.

We're asking for the reduction to 36 feet.

And we think that's reasonable, especially once the comp plan is translated and the ordinance includes the setbacks for the adjacent parcel.

So if the setback on the adjacent parcel is somewhere in the range of 15 feet, you potentially have a 50-foot building to building condition at the rear

between two buildings of equivalent height, both at five stories.

So again, this is showing 55 feet or approximately five story building on this side, which is what your comprehensive plan calls for, five stories on that side.

And this 35 feet is what the by right height is currently on that parcel behind us.

and again we're proposing this dense S3 buffer between the two buildings to help mitigate the two conditions as they might currently exist.

The one other item on this is that we have applied a hypothetical bulk plane similar to discussions that came out of the West Main Street zoning conditions.

There was

I guess the zoning ordinance was rewritten at one point to include the bulk plane for the transition between the higher density components along West Main Street to Star Hill neighborhood behind it.

And the bulk plane is sort of a reasonable zoning tool to try and help mitigate the transition from the one zoning district to another.

And so we've illustrated how we would be under a hypothetical bulk plane in this instance as well.

to show that we're cognizant of the conditions or situations that you've talked about in the past in other zoning districts and how they might apply in this district if that were incorporated in the future.

What call is a bulk plane?

A bulk plane, yes.

It's like a big 45 degree angle that's imaginary plane that is that diagonal line right there.

Yep.

Hi, my name is Kevin Riddle.

I work at Mitchell Matthews Architects with Aaron, and we're representing the project.

I'm going to discuss the following slides that show you something of the architecture and landscape that's being proposed here and the overall presence of the building on the corridor.

This is the front elevation of the project along Jefferson Park Avenue.

and based on suggestions made by commissioners in our last meeting, we revised the building where it meets the ground, extending masonry around the lower lobby and parking levels to emphasize the horizontal and give the building a solid legible base in a durable traditional material.

The building's wings extend upward from the base.

These will likely be clad in fiber cement panels and siding.

The Washington Avenue wing is the more prominent of the two on the right of this illustration.

It's where the entry of the building will be located that you see at the bottom there.

On the other side, the left of the image is the observatory wing, which is set back farther from the street.

And then what you see in between, that's really closer to the rear boundary.

That's where the two wings kind of link up.

They're bridged together by corridors and more apartments.

You can go to the next slide now.

here's another diagrammatic cross section this one's taken parallel to JPA so you take the last illustration and just move into the building and that's where we're looking now so again observatories on the left and Washington's on the right the proposed building is filled in pink again and the orange box as before represents the maximum building extents that would be permitted with an SUP or could be permitted with an SUP

Across either of the avenues that flank the project, you see the dashed red lines.

These outlines show building heights between five and eight stories that through the comprehensive plan the city aspires to allow in this district.

And just to jump in, again, under an FUP, it would potentially be nine stories, 101 feet permitted on both sites, both left and right, given that they're the same zoning designation.

And as if we follow the example that we provided earlier about the eight stories being closest to those key intersections, we envision that the left-hand side might be eight stories, whereas once you get past Washington Avenue, the next block over,

might be somewhere between six or seven stories, and that's what these two dashed lines represent.

We can go to the next slide, please.

Along Observatory Avenue, where this elevation is taken, you can see how the existing grades tend to benefit the project.

So as you move up Observatory Avenue away from JPA, the parking levels are eventually completely submerged.

By the time you reach the rear of the building, its perceived height has diminished from seven levels to five stories.

A five-story building is only one story taller than what's currently allowed by Wright in the R3 zone.

To the right in this image, close to JPA, you see the corner common space that Aaron was describing earlier.

It's near the street level.

It opens to Observatory Avenue, and it includes outside terraces that help transition this corner of the building to the sidewalks.

Above this masonry corner is that recreational deck that has the pool.

This would be used by the tenants.

In the background, a little faded, you're seeing the other wing of the building that's along Washington Avenue, where it projects closer to JPA.

We can go to the next slide, please.

And here's one more section diagram.

This one zooms in a little closer to the project where it sits at JPA.

You can see there's a relatively significant distance between the buildings, over 100 feet, that's created by the width of the avenue.

On the opposite side of the street, the comp plan envisions buildings up to seven or perhaps eight stories, and that's comparable to what we're proposing.

Go to the next slide.

Along Washington Avenue now, you see a secondary pedestrian entrance close to the corner with JPA.

And then as you travel up the avenue toward the rear of the building, you can see the entrance and exit to the parking deck.

So that's well away from the intersection with JPA.

It's over 200 feet away.

On this side of the building the grade does not rise as sharply as it does on observatory so this facade at its base is distinguished with greater exposure of the masonry base.

You can go to the next slide.

this is the rear of the project the rear elevation the parking levels here are fully buried along most of the facade and only five stories rise from grade and the next slide please now here's a partial site plan this is zooming in on the project where it meets the entrance corridor

The building wings are shown in a lavender fill with a heavy black outline.

To the left of the entry wing, you see the recreational deck.

That's above the parking levels.

It's shown in a light beige, has the pool and a courtyard.

And then as you come a little bit forward between the base of the building and the trees, we have a variety of paved terraces.

The one on the left is the one that's there near observatory, can be accessed from the sidewalk and transitions to a space within the building.

The longer terrace on the right wraps the Washington JPA corner and allows entry into the main lobby.

We expect there to be a lot of plantings here, a lot of street trees, and that along with some of the more specific architectural questions are ones that we plan to hash out during the entrance review process.

The next slide, please.

here we're getting into the perspective views so this is the proposed building seen from the other side of JPA corner terraces extend at the corner of observatory and JPA they provide outside space for tenants and friends and they also ease the building corner and bring it gradually out and down to grade and the next slide

here's a front-on view of the building it's also taken across the street and it's looking right toward the main entry that's there in the the white volume Jefferson Park Avenue it can be a bustling street heavily populated with traffic and pedestrians and we think this is the right environment next to which we would concentrate most of the building's communal spaces terraces at various levels invite outside meetings and gatherings the entrance

Heavily glazed, that portion at the front of the Washington wing, it brings light and visibility into upper level lounges.

To the left of the entry wing, above the masonry base, again, that's where that deck is located.

And all of these can contribute to the main thoroughfare's vitality.

The next slide.

This looks at the project at the intersection of Washington and JPA.

Here you see the masonry base extending around the corner, helping ground the taller residential wings.

Low site walls and plantings at this corner help create a gentler transition to the sidewalks.

And the next slide.

here we're getting a little closer to the front door the entrance terrace can be accessed from the sidewalk at multiple locations on level at about the middle of the site that's over there to the left in the image and then we also will have several stairs that come up from the corner ones around the corner and the other one you can see there leading right up to the front door

you can also see in this image the way the wing that's along Observatory Avenue there in the in the background the way it recedes back from the street enhancing variation in the building's presence on the corridor and the next slide and now we're

in a way on the entrance terrace close to the Washington Avenue corridor and we're looking toward observatory along the length of the terrace.

And we envision potential here to create an exterior refuge with multiple spaces to rest, study, eat, talk and gather.

In contrast, consider what's typical along Jefferson Park Avenue elsewhere.

There's really not much like this.

You walk between this building site and UVA and you'll see multiple nearby properties that have front yards designed less for people and more for their cars.

between 1709 and 1723, JPA specifically, a stretch that's over 400 feet long, all seven parcels have asphalt drives and parking spaces in the front yard between building and sidewalk, no engagement whatsoever.

And even in some of the better cases, it's rare to find more than a grass lawn that's divided by a single walk that leads up to a single stair and the front door.

A terrace like you see here

Generous with plantings and seating space, engaging activity at the building with activity on the street represents an improvement over what's typical elsewhere on the avenue.

Next slide, please.

Now we've gone back around

the building to the side along Observatory Avenue so that we can focus in specifically on the porches you see there.

This was a suggestion made by several commissioners in the last meeting, and we like the suggestion.

And so we have included these porches.

They allow points of contact with the avenue.

The building feels a little more accessible because of them, less sealed off from its surroundings, and they enhance the apartment bays with a bit of human scale.

So to reiterate,

This building might be taller than its current neighbors, but it won't be out of character with the future implementation of the comprehensive plan and the implementation of the vision that's been in the works for over 20 years for this particular neighborhood.

We believe we can address any of the architectural character components of it with you at a later date through the entrance corridor review process, and we

can answer any questions you have today.

We're joined by our client on the phone in this hybrid situation.

The client's on the phone as well as Timmins, the civil engineer and traffic engineer, is on the phone and can answer any questions related to those components.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT, Thank you very much.

Questions for the applicant.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT, Ms.

I had a quick question, more like a clarifying question.

So I heard you talk about the bulk plane.

No.

So we haven't done some studies to date.

The bulk plane is set by creating first a setback from the rear property line and then a height related to

I think the by right or the adjacent by right condition and then a 45 degree angle up from that.

So that would be one of my concerns is as Councilor Payne had already mentioned about like the standard that was one thing that I think we definitely dropped the ball on is the how that building is going to overcast or shadow on the existing neighborhood.

So that would just be one of my concerns off the top.

Thank you.

Let's see.

I guess one question is, did you consider any step backs?

So, again, the

Step X are hard to do with a residential project, of course, particularly this construction type with bearing walls.

But in addition to that, those single-family houses that are there are not going to be there probably for long.

It depends obviously on the owners, so no, I don't know if they're here or not, but the adjacent properties, you know, the zoning, there's R3 zoning along that corner adjacent on Observatory Avenue that would have, that already has I think a four story or five story

structure on it.

And again, they're all rental properties except for one.

And so even though they may appear to be single family residential dwelling units, most of them are all multifamily student rentals with cut up into apartments, more than one, you know, obviously multiple occupants inhabiting each of those structures.

So you did not, okay.

Can we pull up the sides again and go?

30.

So this is the ground level plan.

So the parking comes all the way up to the front wall at the lowest level.

And this portion of it is all below grade, right?

So even along JPA, a portion of this is all below grade.

And then this corner is where we have the lobby entrance condition.

And then if you go to the next slide,

So at this level is where we have the an amenity space that can be converted into the future mixed use ancillary use component.

And that's where it connects to those terraces.

So now we're up a story and the parking is obviously below this condition along there.

Does that answer the question?

Thank you.

That's all the questions I had.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Along JPA, you showed a very nice perspective of terraces and activity going on along that side of the building.

Have you considered what the staff's recommendations to

provide a seven foot wide sidewalk and at least three foot wide buffer would do to the availability of terracing terraces there to the to whatever kind of proposed use.

So we have talked to the client about the sidewalk condition, the buffer in the sidewalk.

I think, David, you can speak up if I'm wrong, but in previous discussions they were okay with that condition of creating that along JPA, of adding the buffer in the sidewalk, making that wider condition.

So if the staff's recommendations were accepted, then it doesn't negate the kind of public uses or outside uses along JPA.

Yeah, I don't think it would.

I mean, and you see that we're showing a fair amount of a decent planting buffer already.

between sidewalk and terrace.

So if the sidewalk does have to get a little bit wider, that the existing buffer we're showing, I think, could absorb some of that.

And then maybe the terraces do get a little bit narrower.

And as Erin said, we could potentially be looking at the building budging a little bit.

Yeah, we certainly don't want to lose those.

Thank you.

Ms.

Thank you.

I have a question about your trash.

You mentioned pulling trash out.

I'm sorry, I have a cold.

On trash days, I don't understand how that would be possible to be like, are you talking about individual trash cans or dumpster?

They can.

I'm not sure we've gotten into the

Trash calculation yet, but that is a very intense calculation to determine how often the pickups occur, what size containers you have,

It's a big component to a project of this size.

So I think we've done a preliminary calculation, obviously, to size the trash room that's inside the building to keep all of that trash inside until trash day.

Yeah, I can add to that if you can hear me.

So we do, as Erin said, we do take, my name's John Matthews, I'm a colleague of Erin's and Kevin's and we've been working on this together.

So we take the trash and all of those building services very seriously and they're one of the things that work out very early on in the process.

That trash room and the dumpster and the compactor and all of that work, so we're probably

I don't know who asked the question, but we would probably use a series of totes and the size of those totes.

We might have room inside the building for four or five of them.

They would be wheeled out and picked up, as Erin said, depending on the trash generation.

once or twice or three times a week, but it's not an afterthought.

We think about that right at the very beginning of the process.

So we have the trash well under control.

It won't end up on the streets.

It won't be sitting out there unpicked up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Yeah, thanks.

So Commissioner Habab kind of touched on, or actually pretty much got it, one of my questions, but I'm going to follow up on that.

It's about understanding the inside of the podium and how that relates to the street and the parking.

So, you know, when you last saw us, I think you were proposing that this would be fully parked at one, we're at a

the amount required by code.

Now, as recommended, you are requesting a parking reduction.

Help me understand what happened to the square footage associated with where that parking would have gone.

Is it going to additional units?

Has it disappeared?

I think maybe the slide kind of answered that.

Yes, because it's underground.

There is no ability to sort of change that parking into units.

I know that might have been the hope when it was requested, suggested to reduce parking.

But because it's all underground and it's particularly at the back of the site where at the end of the circulation condition of the ramps and the garage that

Yep.

Okay, that is helpful.

I think I understand why that can't be units.

I do still kind of have a hang up about that, the southwest corner and how it relates to the street with that kind of retaining wall where that terrace is.

At the lowest level.

At the second level, that's where we have that amenity space that's sized to be in ancillary use.

I see.

So you couldn't have the terrace lower to be closer to grade because then it would be adjacent to, well, nothing.

Yeah, okay, I understand.

And then my other question, help me understand why, I guess when I look at this, you know, from the JPA perspective, I see two towers and one, you know, on the east is, you know, right up to the sidewalk essentially, obviously with the setback.

And then the one in the back, while the podium is right next to me, the tower is recessed, and then if I go all the way to the back, it reaches up to the setback there.

I would say a couple of reasons one of them has to do with the fact that it's in an entrance corridor and so we were paying particular attention to how it relates to the entrance corridor and knowing critiques about building faces and street walls and everything that's been discussed in the past trying to provide thin

volumes as it comes to the street and also a rather deep setback is pulling that one wing back creates that deep setback.

Pulling the other wing at Washington Avenue out to the street helps define and create a clear point of entry, the main condition of where one would enter the building so there's a prominence given to that wing to help identify

which location one should arrive at when they come on site.

Right.

Yeah, so I think those second two make a lot of sense to me of obviously you want it to be the sun and you don't want to, I guess, create noise in the rear, especially on the observatory side, I guess.

The first, I think, seems a little bit ironic that because of entrance corridor guidelines being on the corridor side,

I think how to phrase this.

This is more about aesthetics at this point.

So I wanted to think about the aesthetics.

I noticed the bike parking, you have kind of a bike room on one of the lower levels, which is great.

There's other considerations for the exterior that I didn't see in the site plan or the materials yet, exterior bike parking, space for scooters, both the scooter shares as well as our students use a lot of moped type scooters.

So I think we have plenty of space in the garage that we still that's like narrow space based on the dimensions that we'll be able to accommodate scooter moped parking within the garage volume concealed from view corralled in that condition.

Thank you.

Ms.

Can I be repeated on the microphone, please?

You went a little fast, but I have a list too.

So it's a six bedroom, 2005 JPA is a six bedroom.

104 Observatory is a four bedroom.

108 Observatory has three units in it, a three, a two and a one.

106 has two units in it, a three and a two.

Mm-hmm.

Three fours and two threes.

for the units that you just spoke of, and I think I heard you say this earlier, are students already current and living in those properties?

Correct.

Can I ask one more question?

I forgot.

Please.

The treatment of the ground level, the basement level windows, parking, like, are those faux windows?

Are they louvered?

Sure.

At the moment, I think we do show three that are

foe that are spandrel conditions.

I think that treatment has been used elsewhere along JPA on garage areas.

It's not for me to say.

I think there's pros and cons of both.

They look fake, but also they don't let light through.

Owner-occupied non-rentals?

No, everything is a rental property on-site.

Not too many questions.

I guess two smaller questions is just one.

We're still evaluating into progress.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No questions.

Really, I thought it was a very good presentation.

Thank you.

I especially liked the sort of engagement with the fact that we're still working our way through what our comprehensive plan is going to entail when we actually get to the detailed zoning.

I thought the piece about going from Maury to Shamrock and the way

the elevations would be gradated there.

That was helpful too.

Yeah, that's all I have.

And Mayor Snuck, please.

The only question I had was a question of history because I must have missed something.

This proposal had been about to be heard about three months ago.

So one of the properties, I think it was 2007 JPA, which is on the corner of Washington and JPA, changed hands.

It was bought by the owner of the other parcels, and so that change in ownership required us to delay in order for the advertisement conditions to happen correctly.

Just an advertising issue.

That was the first delay.

It led us to creating some of the slides that Councillor Pinkston just referred to of trying to describe to you how we went about designing the project and our interpretation of the comprehensive plan as it relates to the building height and the conditions that we're

Correct.

We had already reworked it from all the comments that we received from our informal meeting in the fall and had incorporated those comments.

That's all I've got.

Thank you.

I'd like to pick up that thread.

There's been quite a lot of public comment and concern about this project.

So we actually found that a lot of the public comment received overwhelmingly sort of amount of public comment had to do with parking and traffic.

And so obviously those two things go hand in hand.

The less parking you have, the less traffic the project is going to generate.

So we believe that the parking reduction, not that the traffic was an issue before the parking reduction, it wasn't, but that it only,

helps with decreasing the amount of traffic that the project could actually create.

The parking, there's been a lot of talk about permit parking and the side streets.

And again, the client, Aspen Heights, has already started creating a parking management plan.

And I have copies of it if you're interested.

We just put together a draft.

just ahead of this meeting so apologies that you haven't gotten it in advance but they are working on that knowing that that is potentially part of the conditions that you would like to see and in addition they're completely

cooperative with the idea that students would not be allowed to get permits to park on those streets.

So Observatory in Washington would be not allowed and they would suggest alternatives like going to UVA and getting a permit to park at the JPJ lots.

which is where a lot of first-year students obviously store their cars and those lots are fairly empty on a daily basis.

We did have some data about the parking conditions on the side streets.

So I believe to answer a previous question, and sorry to find it, that there are

On Washington Avenue, the city will issue 61 regular permits and only 32 are actually used by residents.

And then they'll issue guest passes as well.

32 of those are permitted by the city and only six are used.

So then on an observatory, 72 are allocated and only 16 have been used or applied for.

And then 36 guest passes are allocated and only 11 used.

So the neighbors haven't necessarily utilized the permit parking that's available to them through the city.

I completely agree and understand that the quantity of passes does not necessarily align with the actual

parking spots available on the street, but we've also calculated that given the reduction of curb cuts along the length of the parcel on observatory, which is about I think 380 feet or so, say you take some out for

near the corner, there's the potential to have at least probably 16 spaces, 14 to 16 spaces along that side of the street that could be, that right now I think you only have about four or five because of the multiple curb cuts and the driveway widths are mostly two cars wide.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

I have heard those concerns also.

May I ask one question?

Please.

for staff or if there's a legal person.

The idea that Councilor McGill suggested that, you know, we restrict the parking 24 hours unless you have a permit, it seems like something we ought to give some thought to.

That would be a completely different process.

And I believe the idea was to make the parking permits available just to the people, the residents who live alongside, not who live inside the building.

Is that what you were?

Yeah, I agree, agree.

It's the residents who live, the folks in the neighborhood.

Right.

And so just to follow up on that, I too was like 100% behind you guys, but after hearing that we have so many spaces that are allotted to that area that are not being utilized, I would have a hard time with it being 24-hour permit parking, being that we're not using it to its full capacity for our city residents currently.

Does that make sense?

Actually, can I get a clarifying question from staff on that?

Is it that they aren't being utilized or that they haven't been given to the local residents?

So the way that our, and this goes back to our city code, the generic kind of

permit allocation is four residential permit passes and two guest passes for every parcel.

So that is where those larger numbers as far as how many permits are that the city would give out.

The ones that are being utilized, I mean, a lot of these parcels do have driveways and stuff, so they may not need them.

but so yeah, I don't have a number for you as far as how many actual parking spaces are available on those two streets.

but it is roughly 800 feet from one end to the other of Washington.

So again, minus the no parking for driveways and that kind of stuff, you would roughly have 40-ish parking spaces on either side.

Thank you, that's helpful.

I'll make one last call for questions.

Okay, I would like to ask one question of Dante.

The intersection between Washington and Observatory and JPA, as I recall from my site visit, it was something of a challenging intersection, especially if you're wanting to cross the median strip and go towards a hospital.

I don't have the data on accidents handy.

I can look that up, but there definitely are site distance issues when vehicles are parked in that area right in front of between Observatory and Washington that makes it more difficult.

So, you know,

We can definitely look at restricting parking within 40 feet of that intersection or so just to give those vehicles a little bit more sight line for the vehicles coming, I guess it would be westbound on Jefferson Park Avenue.

It is a little bit of geometry though as well.

There is a slight obtuse angle there.

So Jefferson Park Avenue kind of turns right at that observatory, probably about 10 degrees.

So again, just sight distance when you're coming out there, you're kind of looking back over your shoulder.

And as I recall, there was a topographical change too.

Correct.

Thank you.

And Mr. Duncan, is that the sort of thing where we can make a condition to put a bulb out, like a concrete bulb out there to daylight that intersection?

Yeah, that's definitely something we could do as part of the site plan process when we're looking at the sight lines and stuff.

and probably something that I would do as part of the site plan is to it.

Helpful.

Well, thank you.

Final call.

Questions on this project before we can hear from the public?

Hearing none, please.

I would like to hear from the public.

I believe we're going in person on the call, in person on the call.

Ms.

Sure.

So we'll start with our first in-person individual.

And as you're called, please do provide your name and address for the record.

Our first person listed in person right now is Ms.

Nina Barnes.

I'm Nina Barnes, board member of the JPA Neighborhood Association.

I live on Gildersleeve Wood.

The JPA Neighborhood Association has already written a letter expressing our opposition to this special use permit application.

I would like to return to some of the points that we made in our letter.

about why this application should be rejected.

The city's guidelines for special use permits state that the Planning Commission must consider, quote, whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, unquote.

Adverse impacts may include traffic or profit congestion.

undue density of population and massing and scale.

This project has adverse effects in all of these ways.

First, the massing and scale is far out of proportion in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood.

A five- to seven-story building that takes up half a city block would loom directly

across one- and two-story houses on Observatory in Washington and would deprive these homes of sunlight.

This massing in scale also conflicts with the city's entrance corridor guidelines, which specify that new building design should be compatible with those structures that contribute to the overall character

and quality of the corridor.

Second, a density of 390 students together with over 400 residents from the planned developments on Stribling Avenue and Maury Avenue will greatly increase the parking and traffic congestion on the JPA corridor.

Third, this project will not add to the city's inventory

of affordable housing for families.

Instead, it aims to provide luxury apartments for students at market rate.

Fourth, this building would have negative environmental impacts.

It would greatly enlarge impervious surface and reduce groundwater absorption.

It would also reduce the tree canopy that the city has been struggling to maintain.

In summary, this project would add to parking and traffic congestion, mar the environment, and do serious harm to the quality of life of residents of the neighborhood.

Please do not approve this application.

Okay, our first virtual speaker is Lindsey Daniels.

Lindsey?

Hello, can you hear me?

All right, great.

Hi, my name is Lindsey Daniels.

I live at 2205 Jefferson Park Avenue, which is about 1,000 feet away from the proposed site.

So first off, I'm coming to you from my single family, renter-occupied home as someone who went to UVA and stayed here.

Now at 36 years old, for the majority of the time that I've lived in Charlottesville, I have lived within a square mile of this site.

So I will tell you as someone who has lived here,

I walk through there every day and I want to correct the applicant on a couple things.

The first thing is less parking does not mean less traffic.

Less parking actually means that there is less parking on street.

Currently there is no permit for parking on JPA needed.

So what happens is that if you look actually on Google Maps, you can see it all the way down JPA and JPA Extended are used up by cars.

So what that means is if you have a whole bunch more people living there, there's going to be a whole much more taken up there.

The city could change this by changing this to permit parking or maybe doing what other higher density places do, doing something like a park mobile thing like they've done downtown.

But as it is right now, there are a lot of people who live on JPA who have that issue with parking.

Secondly, I'd like to correct with first year students.

They are prohibited from having cars at UVA.

They are not parking at the lot, she said.

And for students who live off grounds, they are not allowed to park at the stadium lot.

If these people were to be getting permits, then they would be getting permits at somewhere that's over a mile away from the spot.

Okay, key intersection, what does that mean?

I would assume that that means somewhere that has a crosswalk.

So I don't agree with the key intersection definition that's presented here.

I would also assume that that means that traffic coming on JPA would have to stop.

They do not currently.

if you look on Google Maps you will also see that there is someone jaywalking in the middle of a picture so what I would say is that this would need to be taken into account if a crosswalk can't be put in then something else needs to be done because the closest intersection is not going to be where the students cross and everyone who drives here every day knows that lastly I'd like to say that the trash is a serious concern I would say go look at any other place such as 1800 JPA

they have dumpsters and they have to be used there and I'd also like to say if you are looking at the pictures that the applicant used as far as what you see in the neighborhood the parking lot at JPA or sorry the parking lot at 1800 JPA is where they took the picture for 1800 JPA the JPA facing part of 1800 JPA actually does not look like what they perceived in that picture

Let me check my notes really quick and see if I left anything out here.

I thought that they said they didn't do any sun studies there, but they did say that they wanted to have the pool in the sun.

And so that indicates to me that they have done some sort of indication of what the sun would do.

Knowing where east and west is here, I can say that when the sun is rising

It would create a shadow onto the Observatory Avenue side.

So just want to put that into play there.

But I would like to see the sun studies on that.

You know, in closing, saying those single family houses won't be there for long is pretty offensive to the neighborhood.

You know, this family house that I've been in right here has been here since 1940.

And I'm sure that the person who I rent it from would love to keep it here.

I can't afford to buy a house currently in the city of Charlottesville, but I rent and I'm still here.

Thank you.

Ellen Cantini-Morava from 225 Montebello Circle.

As soon as residents of the JPA neighborhood learned of this project, we pointed out how its mass and scale conflicts with comprehensive plan guidelines, stating that new development should have, quote, forms and scales that are respectful of the surrounding neighborhood.

and how the height conflicts with entrance corridor guidelines recommending reduced height near lower density uses.

Residents also brought up the negative impacts this development would have on traffic, parking, the environment, and the quality of life of nearby homeowners.

The city staff report of March 30th originally affirmed these issues.

stating that, quote, the unbroken east and west elevations exceed what is typical within this corridor, in fact, exceed what is typical in Charlottesville, unquote, and further that, quote, a height of 75 feet exceeds the recommendation for this location and therefore results in adverse impact, unquote.

The developer asked for a postponement of the SUP review but made no changes to their proposal.

Instead, it looks like they used the time to lean on city staff to change their report.

The revised report replaces the passages that were critical of this proposal with text that favors the developer and suppresses any pretense of listening to the community's input.

The new report compares this building with other massive structures in the city, such as Memorial Gym and the Water Street parking garage and finds, quote,

no adverse impact on entrance corridor.

There's no paper trail documenting this about-face.

Why did city staff become complicit with a developer?

This application treats the rezoning that's proposed in the future land use map as if it were already in place, and you've heard this.

The revised city staff report appears to go along with that.

But as Mr. Fries has told us, quote, to be clear, the existing zoning controls.

The 2021 draft comprehensive plan projects rezoning to take one to three years using a deliberative community collaborative step-by-step process.

This application not only aims to short circuit the rezoning process, but even requests a height that's two stories higher than the five stories suggested by the future land use map for the JPA corridor.

If this SUP application is approved, it will not only harm the community, it will also set a precedent for building more such structures in the neighborhood, thus undermining the collaborative rezoning process that the city has committed to.

Thank you.

Our next online speaker would be Celia Cain.

Ms.

Cain, can you hear us?

Yes.

Hi, can you hear me?

Fantastic.

Hi, my name is Cece Kane.

My pronouns are she, her.

I live currently in UVA housing, but I've also lived in MSC Oxford Hill housing, and I'm currently the UVA Student Council President.

So I wanted to come kind of give a student perspective on this project.

I think in UVA or in Charlottesville, UVA students feel that we don't have enough housing options available.

So this means a couple things.

It means that rent is really high for students, especially close to grounds.

There's not a lot of options for lower rent for students.

We also don't have a lot of options in terms of where we're placed in the city, especially for students with budget constraints and students don't want to be displacing, especially with Charlottesville residents, but sometimes, especially when

people don't have unlimited budgets, that is the impact of people being in the city.

We also don't have a diverse pick of landlords, so we have to put up with exploitative policies and poor treatment with landlords that don't really have incentives to treat student renters very well.

There is a little reasonably priced

housing nearby UVA grounds within like walking distance.

Most students actually don't have cars or don't need cars and typically don't drive like around Charlottesville and don't like want to drive.

There's just very little housing around grounds.

So typically when we do have cars there,

like either stored in garages or it's just to drive back and forth from grounds.

And so that's why I'm in support of this project because it's within walking distance of grounds.

I think would limit overflow from students into the rest of Charlottesville, encroaching on affordable housing communities.

This project is also the special permit is consistent with the comprehensive plan, which has support from many UVA student groups, including every class council, including the UVA workers union and UVA student council.

students generally want to protect affordable housing in the city.

We also support the contribution that this would bring to affordable housing and want to stop encouraging on low income and especially historically black neighborhoods.

So I fully support this project on behalf of UVA student council and in the way it adheres with the comprehensive plan.

And I hope we can continue to trend towards high density housing closer to grounds and investments in affordable housing in the city.

And thank you.

Hello, my name is Ann Benham.

I live at 116 Observatory Avenue, which is across the street from the proposed building site.

Before I begin, I just wanted to say something about the traffic report.

I don't know that it came up this evening, but the traffic report was actually, excuse me, the data analysis

The data was collected on August 28th of 2021.

That was a Saturday, not a weekday.

And a weekday is a more typical day, so I would object to the acceptance of the traffic report on that basis.

That was incorrect.

to do that on a Saturday.

I oppose this development because of all the issues that others are describing this evening and also because of the following concerns.

Environmental concerns.

Six buildings and over two dozen trees, mature trees, will be removed to make way for one massive U-shaped building.

The impervious surface area of our neighborhood will be hugely enlarged.

and the removal of all the trees will further reduce the city tree canopy that has been declining for years, a decline the city claims it wants to reverse.

The tree removal plus a large increase in impervious surface area is a recipe for increased heat island effect in our neighborhood, not to mention higher energy costs that go with increased AC use.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists Killer Heat Report Interactive Tool, by 2036, the projected number of days over 90 degrees for Charlottesville is 84, up from 37, the number from the period 1971 to 2000.

If this proposal passes, a precedent will be set to build more high-rise, high-density buildings in the JPA neighborhood.

If all the green space and smaller drawings of the JPA area continue to be replaced by high-rises as some seem to favor, has the city considered the likelihood of rolling power blackouts being imposed due to high AC use in future hot summers?

A few neighborhood questions and concerns so far unaddressed by the city or by the developer.

Why doesn't the city consider the impact to the side streets as much as the impact to the entrance corridor?

For example, the huge concrete wall facade that will present across the street from my house

is overwhelming and will not be softened by a few tree saplings.

In the place where that facade is supposed to be is now a magnificent maple five stories high plus seven flowering cherries over two stories high.

And of course those will disappear.

The parking, in conclusion, I request that you carefully look once more at the immense building footprint of this project, which dwarfs every building inside of it and is inappropriate for the neighborhood.

The city and the developer have not sufficiently ensured that this proposed building will not negatively impact the neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Our next online person is Matthew Gilligan.

Good evening, Planning Commission and Counselors.

This is Matthew Gilligan.

I live at 726 Orangedale Avenue in Fifeville.

I'm speaking on behalf of Livable Seabill.

At Livable Seabill, we advocate for policies to build an inclusive Charlottesville area with affordable housing, sustainable transportation, and healthy neighborhoods welcoming to all.

I am speaking in support of the 2005-2007 Jefferson Park Avenue Special Use Permit.

We think this is an important project that should be approved.

A key to fixing Charlottesville's affordability crisis is building more housing.

The rental vacancy rate in Charlottesville is very low, possibly below 2%.

There simply aren't enough homes to meet our needs and rent continues to rise as a result.

Increasing the supply of rental homes will help shift power to the nearly 60% of city residents who are renters and away from landlords.

Every part of our city needs more places for people to live, but the JPA corridor is a perfect spot to add capacity.

Future land use map and comprehensive plan call for this type of density along JPA.

and housing with good transit, bike, and pedestrian access to key locations like UVA.

Best of all, by meeting student demand there, we can prevent students from sprawling into nearby neighborhoods like 10th and Page and Fifeville and worsening displacements of long-time residents.

This is the locations where students, who are nearly all renters, have said they wanna live.

UVA student council said last fall in an excellent letter about the comprehensive plan that more student housing should go along the JPA corridor.

allowing more housing where students want to be is consistent with the city's affordable housing which expresses the need to quote increase the supply of housing and slow the increase in housing costs while protecting lower income and other marginalized communities.

Another key to addressing our housing crisis is subsidizing affordable housing and the developer is planning to contribute nearly $500,000 to the Charlottesville affordable housing fund

as a condition to build.

This will help fund groups like CRHA, LEAP, AHIP, PHA, and Habitat for Humanity in the work to address local housing issues.

While the increased real estate tax revenue from the property will help fund other city services, including schools.

Approving this development will signal that the city wants more housing built along the JPA Fontaine corridor, and we think that's a good thing.

We call on the Planning Commission to recommend approval and for City Council to follow through on the commitments made in the comprehensive plan and vote in favor.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Megan Bushy.

I live at 126 Observatory Avenue.

Thank you so much for all of your questions and engagement so far.

This has been a great presentation, and thank you for your slideshow.

I'm here today to protest all of the special use permits that have been presented to the city for the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue.

My family and I are residents of Observatory Avenue and have lived here for over 15 years.

We didn't buy the property as an investment.

It was a decision made in good conscience to live close to where we work and recreate.

I work for UVA, therefore walk to work, and my husband works for Blue Wheel Bicycle downtown where we are part owners and he rides his bike to work.

We are a family of four, sometimes five, when a parent stays for an extended visit.

Our boys are seven and 10, play in the yard and along the entire street and neighborhood.

Our community on Observatory Avenue is unique.

We have 15 houses, nine are occupied by homeowners.

This does not include the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue.

This is the largest percent of owner-occupied houses in the JPA neighborhood.

When you're here, you can feel the difference.

We are active in our yards and use our surrounding amenities to the fullest.

Please understand that we are also close to a lot of green space like O Hill and the reservoir right down the road.

Many of our residents have lived here on Observatory Avenue for 25 years and one for even 40.

I'm here today to stress how important it is to keep the charm and character alive on our street and for the JPA entrance corridor to UVA and the City of Charlottesville.

Why does this apartment complex need to be any bigger than the current zoning allows by right?

We, speaking for my family, we oppose the special use permits for increased density to 70 dwellings per acre amounting to 119 units total.

This equals 390 occupants.

These 390 occupants are gonna come with their vehicles.

I know that a lot of people have said that they don't.

If you've been on JPA during the week, you know that there are a lot of cars and a lot of congestion already.

This will also reduce the green space.

It will increase the traffic, like I said, and the production of trash.

We oppose the special use permits for increasing the height from 45 feet to 75 feet and we oppose the special use permits for reducing on-site parking by 22 percent.

Of course this increase in height is to accommodate more dwellings thus is increasing the population and traffic that's already been mentioned and decreasing the parking requirements will clog our narrow streets and of course the shadowing and the reduction in green space.

We oppose the special use permit to reduce the rear setback.

Current zoning calls for 75 feet.

The special use permit reduces it to 36.

We would like the entire 75 feet to provide a vegetative buffer, hopefully of native plantings, to protect the charm and the character of our 100 year old homes.

I had visual aid to show everybody, but everybody here has one.

So I just think that we can do better.

Thank you.

Ms.

Sure.

It's a map of the area.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ethan Van Burkle.

Good evening, planning commissioners and counselors.

My name is Ethan.

I'm a first year urban planning and civil engineering student here at UVA.

I will be living at 102 Kent Terrace next month.

I'm an upcoming resident of the JPA neighborhood.

I'm speaking in support of this rezoning, not just as a student of UVA, but as a community member of Charlottesville.

The student housing and the general housing situation in Charlottesville is in a dire situation.

There's clearly not enough housing for the student population.

Even with the university's current housing creation programs, such as the new house, upperclassmen housing being constructed on Brandon Avenue, there's not enough space for every student to have a reasonable housing situation.

I recently went through this dreaded leasing process.

I had to deal with downright predatory landlord companies

some even unwilling to talk to me in person and I had to sift through thousands of houses that were just in incredibly poor visible condition.

Housing is a human right regardless of the status of the occupant.

Students are members of the Charlottesville community too.

The JPA corridor is perfect for this type of rezoning.

Students prefer this corridor due to its proximity to the engineering and STEM buildings on grounds and it's cheaper and laid back nature when compared to the corner and 14th street neighborhoods.

The approval of these rezoning requests will have trivial impact on the community.

JPA is vastly consistent of a student population.

We need to provide for the students as they are who make up the majority of the neighborhood.

Building here

in JPA, rather than in other areas, such as south of the train tracks, in Fifeville, or in areas such as the downtown mall, will decrease the pressure needed of student housing around the grounds of UVA and across Charlottesville.

This project will not single-handedly solve the student housing situation, but will serve as an example that Charlottesville welcomes progress.

Additionally, Pries realized that students rarely drive.

I can attest, I may be a first-year, but I will not be bringing a car next year, and I know many people who won't.

There's no reason to.

I walk to class, we walk to class, I drive home once or twice a semester.

And just like how CeCe said, cars are scantily useless.

I would also like to point out that a lot of the street parking on JPA is not used by students.

I've noticed a lot of UVA Health and UVA University employees

who park there rather than in the stadium lots as it does not cost as much money.

The apartment complex that is about to be approved is very close to classroom buildings and, once again, students drive significantly less than the average Charlottesville resident.

Students are community members regardless of their temporary nature.

I have asked around my friend groups in the planning school and I've noticed an overwhelming sense of support.

with these types of projects I aim to represent.

And I would like to point out that because this is a long public hearing on Tuesday night and we are in the midst of exam season.

I wrapped up exams this morning and we are in the middle of a evening exam period.

There are not a lot of students here, but I aim to represent those students.

What affects the students in Charlottesville will eventually affect the city as well.

A vote to pass this rezoning is a vote to support Charlottesville and its residents into the future.

and thank you.

We've completed our list of in-person individuals.

Are there any individuals who are in person still who would like to speak?

Yes, sir.

My name is Jay Brown and I live at 110 Shamrock Road, which is at about 300 feet from the proposed project.

I'm opposed to the special use permit and here's why.

The size of the construction and

and the setback.

I think the applicant was less than generous to the neighborhood in pointing out the least special

buildings along JPA.

The Woodard property, for example, right at the Ammon Street is a beautiful apartment building and it's all at five stories.

The building at 1815, the Crafic property is a wonderful place.

is all within five stories and the setback is terrific.

In the high-rent district, it's 1602, right at Valley Road.

There's a very nice setback and it's all within five stories.

Nice properties can be built in our neighborhood at five stories and I have some and they're already here and there's no need for a special use permit to permit the applicant to build something that's much, much higher.

Staying in compliance with the current zoning

is just fine and great properties can be built in compliance with the current rules.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, my mute button went funky on me.

Sure.

Our next speaker is Bailey Morrow.

Hi, are you hearing me all right?

Wonderful.

Good evening all.

My name is Bailey Morrow.

I live at 109 Shamrock Road.

I'm an urban planner and a renter and a former student of UVA and I'm here to speak in favor of the project.

with a caveat.

This development provides a significant number of dwelling units for students near the university, which is much needed given the squeeze that the Charlottesville student rental community is experiencing.

However, the commission is quick to dismiss student concerns because of the transient nature of student renters.

That being said, student renters are a vital force in Charlottesville's economy, especially in this section of town with the commercial mode

at JPA and Lory.

And Aspen is a well-known student housing provider in the Southeast and Midwest.

And so it's safe to assume that this developments units are going to be marketed towards students.

However, Aspen's student developments are often marketed as luxury living with rents often going over a thousand per bedroom in some of their other developments.

So from the staff report, I strongly disagree with the Office of Community Solutions comment preferring that on-site affordable dwelling units be provided for non-students versus the cash-in-lieu contribution

because this is a development that'll be for students.

Furthermore, I'm disappointed by Aspen's decision to make a cash in lieu contribution rather than provide onsite affordable units.

This is gonna result in pushing students who can't afford luxury units further away from their classes.

This exacerbates equity issues in Charlottesville housing.

Those who can't afford to live near the amenities that they need are greatly inconvenienced with longer commute times, living away from transit, food, commercial opportunities, and more.

Without affordable units for students, instead, students of lesser means like myself are pushed away from living near the university, encroaching on long-term rentals in homeowner-occupied neighborhoods elsewhere in the city.

Given the current rents of around 500 per bedroom in the existing housing on Washington Ave, more needs to be done to ensure that the new units that will replace them are affordable for the market that will be renting from that property.

Those are students.

Overall, this development moves Charlottesville in the right direction, as outlined by the comprehensive plan, this being a higher density mixed use corridor, but it only serves a small subset of privileged renters.

Thank you.

Sure, we don't have any additional in-person speakers, individuals who haven't spoken so far.

So we will go to the list.

And our next speaker is Marilyn Pulling.

Sorry.

Marilyn, are you there?

Can you hear me?

Okay, I'm Marilyn Poling.

I am a resident homeowner on 123 Observatory Avenue.

My main concerns are with parking and traffic.

There have been assertions that 390 bedrooms and 125 parking spaces won't be a problem.

My observations of student rented houses and small apartment buildings on Observatory Avenue is that there is one car per student.

Observatory is narrow and any parking related to the 2005 JPA project would make the passage of fire trucks and rescue squad vehicles impossible to go up observatory.

Even if there are permits required between, I think the hours were midnight and 7 p.m., that means it would be just fine for there to be no access for fire trucks and rescue squad between 7 p.m.

and midnight.

and a longer period of time on Sundays.

If permits were needed for 24 hours per day, seven days a week, how strictly and consistently could they be enforced?

Would it be strict and consistent enough to prevent all residents and their guests from ever parking illegally?

would enforcement be towing or just ticketing?

How often would the street be checked for illegal parking?

Would it be checked during the night as well as the day?

A party with guests parking illegally could happen during an evening when a fire truck or rescue squad vehicle is needed immediately.

This happening even once could have fatal consequences.

As for traffic, as I and several others have commented,

The outlet from Observatory Avenue to JPA is dangerous as it is since there is no visibility to the left when cars are parked along JPA.

Any increase in traffic caused by the 2005 JPA project will increase the danger in exiting from Observatory Avenue.

Also, I would like to take exception with something that was just mentioned tonight, and that is the developer's apparent hope or possibly plan.

that homeowners will just go away in the very near future.

Our next speaker is Crystal Passmore.

Crystal Passmore Hi.

My name is Crystal Passmore and I live on Forest Ridge Road.

I think this is a great project to move forward on.

It'll put students where students want to live.

Turns out UVA students will generally try to live near the school, just like the woman who talked earlier who chose to live a walking distance from work.

This will allow more students the exact same opportunity that she had and that she seems to appreciate.

And just as the last speaker was saying, it's very expensive to live in the city.

Moving farther from campus is not a trivial act.

And it would be nice if homeowners in the area recognize that other people, especially students, have these same desires.

I don't know where people opposed to this project think the students will live if not in this building and more buildings like it that will hopefully be built.

Students are being forced to live further and further out in Charlottesville, forcing them to drive.

The terrible traffic near campus is most likely from people who live over a mile away, not people who live close who parked their car a mile away.

I've had this experience when I lived on campus.

My car wasn't even a mile away, it was a half mile away, and I never used it.

The people who drove on campus were the people who lived in the outer counties.

I also want people who are concerned about trees to think about

where these students will live and where a new housing will go if not near campus.

There are plenty of trees being cut down in Albemarle to make new subdivisions so people can live there and it's a lot more than six trees.

So I think the environmental concerns, people don't consider what happens if you do nothing.

What happens if you do nothing is people drive into the town more

live farther away, drive farther, more people own cars.

Some of the things that they're complaining about are the results of not allowing this kind of housing.

So I just, I think this is a great project to move forward with.

And thank you.

That was our, oh, we do have another person, William Schraff.

William?

There you go.

All right, now I'm unmuted.

I'm sorry, can you try to speak more clearly?

We had you for a moment, then you dropped out.

Worse.

I'm not sure exactly I know how to change it.

Mr. Schaff, we can't hear you.

Thank you.

I'll

All right, well, if you can get it fixed, I see a couple other people have raised their hands.

If you can get it fixed, please do raise your hand.

We do want to hear from you.

No worries.

We'll move to Caleb Sikka and then we'll try Mr. Schaaf again.

All right.

Awesome, cool.

Yeah, my name is Caleb Sika.

I live on Moreland Street.

I'm a fourth year at the University of Virginia.

I want to express my support for the development, just under the caveat as well of the affordable housing provision and with cash in lieu of the affordable housing provision.

I think earlier in this meeting someone mentioned the kind of cost of affordable housing is about 300k per unit and I think around nine units would be kind of standard in a subdivision like this so kind of not even two units of passing on to the development I understand the need

for a business to run as a business, but if they're charging kind of luxury rate rents for student housing that's close to the university, that's much needed.

Obviously, more supply in the market is good for students.