Planning Commission Meeting   7/12/2022

Okay, nice small agenda.

We can talk about questions that we have on what we've got.

I actually have a question about the consent agenda.

Please.

It's a pretty simple question.

I think that just

Blah, blah, blah, blah, approve as submitted.

I think that's a good clarification.

So can we just do that a year?

to share notes that Schultzenberg approaches.

Good.

Are you good?

Feeling good?

We were just talking to Lisa.

Got to wrap up.

Any more issues on the consent agenda?

Did we get any more public comments?

Yeah, right here on the second one.

Did we hear from the people who spoke before?

Right after the last discussion,

Sorry.

Right after the last discussion, we received some feedback noting that the change that was being provided by the applicant was something that they were generally in favor of.

But that was like right after the hearing when they noted the change.

Questions on this one?

Off the regular agenda, I think this one will be potentially the most interesting discussion about the bus driver shortage.

This was an item that was raised by Commissioner Stolzenberg.

It is not on the formal agenda.

A discussion, thank you.

Wherein we can talk about ideas we have to share with staff.

We could make a recommendation to council if we have one.

We attempted to make a recommendation tonight, so do we get a chance to talk about it and think about it?

If we magically come to an actionable item, that would be fantastic.

If we don't, that would be understandable.

Questions on this one?

I do not want to go all night.

Please do not be concerned about this.

I'm going to do my best to keep this organized and productive.

Anything more?

We're five minutes in.

Can we talk a little bit, Missy?

He's not here.

Can we talk just a little bit about the emails I've sent back and forth?

You had to defer that and tell another time about the comprehensive, I mean, the Board of Architectural Review and the steep critical slopes.

You want to do that later?

Because I don't want to put you on the spot.

No, I think it's fine either way.

Mr. Mitchell had some comments concerning the diagnostic report, which we're in the comment period, so that's definitely an appropriate time frame.

And one of the potential recommendations

in the diagnostic is for both the entrance corridor applications and the critical slope applications to look at moving the materials to administrative review, putting the details into the code

for how those move forward and then they don't necessarily come to the ERB or City Council for review because they're much more technical and we anticipate that this will be an item that will be of interest for discussion about whether it makes sense to go that direction or not.

actually James and I were talking a little bit about it this week and noted that that would be a good conversation to tee up because it's kind of important as to you know are we looking at it from a more administrative or are we looking continuing to look at it from a review by

by bodies of the public.

I guess my thinking is the more technical

I think I'm cool with that because it would hold the developers to a higher standard.

But I think the entrance corridors, they have cultural layers and subjective layers.

I think it will be more difficult.

Again, I'm not an architect, so I'm hoping to architects.

That's why I sent the question to the architects.

I think you need to have a human

No, I agree with you.

I don't mind

If being reviewed by staff, I'd like to know that the staff, the appropriate staff are looking at it.

I know some of these reviews require several different departments to look at it.

There's staff from several different departments.

And from experience, I've also heard that sometimes they have the time to review it and sometimes they don't have the time to review it appropriately.

And I'd like to, I mean, I was fine with the way this was done in terms of the consent agenda with the signage package that there was a report that we could review and see the reasoning behind the recommendations and who was making the recommendations.

Something I've seen from staff.

I was going to say, yeah, I agree with that.

That makes sense to me.

Or even if it goes to, instead of us, the Board of Architecture Review.

Yeah.

and that would that'll lead to even more fun discussions just because the the BAR's what they are focusing on and looking at is a very different set of guidelines than what's under entrance corridor at least right now and so I mean the BAR would just take on the bar response but I mean the the ECRB responsibilities is two boards but it would

Right, but two separate guidelines.

So it's kind of two brain sets, kind of like you guys have to go from PC to EC.

It's still kind of two different paths because the BAR is thinking under this set of guidelines that they have here, whereas the EC has a completely different set of guidelines.

and so that has come up before.

And I know the BAR is trying to update their guidelines and, well, just that.

So it may be a good time to do that with the entrance corridor guidelines to look at both of those and create two different documents that then the BAR could, you know, do both or it's still kept separate.

Russell, did you have any questions about the agenda?

Thank you

A structure that I found productive was staff seeing an issue and then bringing it before us in like a work session.

I think, Liz, you had a pretty interesting question.

I think so.

I was having a hard time kind of

finding the place in the code where individually protected properties were treated, how that correlated to the major architectural control districts.

Because once I saw that it was treated as a minor, I was like, what does minor need anyway?

What Jeff clarified was it's, what did he say?

Protective property.

And then it was like, bing, everything kind of flew and fell into place.

So that made me feel better.

What I was worried was we were somehow missing the opportunity to have any sort of review of alterations or, you know, anything other than just demolition.

Thank you.

Do we have anything further we want to discuss during our premium?

We'll try and get something good.

That was the whole reason I applied.

I've seen you guys eating pizza.

I want some pizza.

We're wondering, where did that budget go?

That's great.

It was the first attempt to join Mid-Century Modern with the university columns in Britain.

Yeah.

But it's funny, we walked in the lobby and it still got here.

It had this marble wall with this 60s clock on it.

Yeah, right by the auditorium.

The dings tell me that we are at 530.

I call us to order for the July 12th meeting of the Charlottesville Planning Commission.

I'd like to start off with reports.

I can.

Let's see.

I had three meetings.

The first was the June BZA meeting, and we heard three cases.

The first two were pretty simple and straightforward.

and they were setback reductions.

And we did that.

They wanted to do that just to build additional structures on these sites.

Both of those were approved.

The other was a zoning determination appeal for setbacks.

And this was at 1150 Fifth Street.

And if you remember, that is the old Hardee's.

The applicant is not the owner of the property.

It is an adjacent owner.

And they were appealing the staff's determination that gas station setbacks were more restrictive than highway setbacks.

And both can be applied in this area.

But when you have two competing

setback ordinances.

The one that's the most restrictive is the one that you have to apply, the one that rises to a higher standard.

And it was the opinion of the staff that the gas station was the most restrictive.

After deliberations and after conversations with the applicants and lawyers, we agreed that the

The UVA master plan met as well.

I think I copied you guys on Bill's presentation there.

So I won't go through that.

But bottom line is what kind of planning and what kind of development is going to happen over the next 20 years at UVA.

And it focuses on sustainability, resilience, equity, accessibility, and flexibility.

And again, you guys have the power going for that.

The LUPEC Council met.

Last month was really boring.

I had no meetings to go to, no VAR, no tree commission.

I just didn't know what to do with myself.

So nothing to report.

Ms.

Russell?

No reports.

Yeah, I also had no meetings last month.

We have an NPO tech meeting coming up the Tuesday after next.

Thank you.

Very little, like, keep the trend.

Just, you know, Ivy Corridor, big construction site down there, continues the School of Data Science is the building you see coming out of the ground now, a lot of steel in that one, as well as the landscape, the stormwater pond, which I understand helped

held well in the rain last weekend and is starting to actually hold some water.

Just to add to what Hosea said about the Master Planning Council meeting for the general public, that presentation that was distributed to all the Planning Commissioners is posted to our website, off the architect website.

Thank you.

I actually had a meeting.

I met with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on June 23rd to consider whether we should apply for $215,000 of funds for the Housing Preservation Grant.

We decided, yes, we should apply for those funds.

What grant?

The Housing Preservation Grant.

It's a $215,000.

Okay.

Of course.

I would like to hear from the City Neighborhood of Development Services.

Neighborhood of Development?

All right.

I don't have anything specific to upcoming meetings necessarily.

I know James has got some things that he'll be sharing with us, updates on some of the efforts that we have going on.

So I'll let him take over.

All right.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

So I have my regular update on our Seville Plans Together zoning rewrite efforts.

As all of you know, on June 16th, we released the Zoning Diagnostic and Approach Report.

I hope everyone's had a chance to review it at least once so far.

And so as you guys know, the report outlines basically a slate of ideas for how we can

to modify our zoning to implement the comprehensive plan that you all and City Council adopted last November.

We then held a successful event June 27th over at the Ting Pavilion.

We had approximately 200 people attend over the course of the four hours that we were there.

And our intent for that meeting was really just to answer questions about the report we released and begin the process of collecting comments, ideas, concerns about what's in that report and what's to come with the rewrite of our zoning ordinance.

Our public feedback period lasts all the way through to the end of August, but one of the steps we're going to be taking here for your August meeting is we're going to issue a new or updated FAQ based on some of the comments and questions we've already started to receive and accompany that with a memo.

What we'd like to do is take all of the questions and comments we have begun to receive from you on the Planning Commission and others

put that in a memo and create some time in the August meeting to discuss those topics.

I understand some of that discussion already began tonight, which is great, but we figure we'll create some dedicated time at the August meeting to start to discuss the content of that report and each of your individual comments and questions.

So to that end, I'd like to encourage everyone here to submit or get back to us your comments and questions by the end of July so that we have time to turn something around for the August meeting.

Overall, then, as we're moving forward with this report, as I said, the public comment feedback period ends at the end of August.

That sets us up to finalize that document, create a final draft that we can then present back to the Planning Commission and City Council at your second meeting in September, the work session meeting in September.

So that's the timeframe we're aiming for, and then that moves us directly into the drafting phase.

The other big thing that's coming up is at the beginning of August we will be releasing the inclusionary zoning and market analysis report.

So the market analysis piece of that is the piece looking at how might our real estate development marketplace here in Charlottesville react to this new zoning.

What can we expect in terms of the timing for new development, the types of new development that might happen and where it might happen.

based on our existing market conditions and kind of what we can know today.

And, of course, the inclusionary zoning piece of that will be looking at what the proposed inclusionary zoning aspect of our new zoning ordinance will look like.

So, again, that report at the beginning of August, so we'll have an opportunity to begin talking about that at your first meeting in August.

That's all I have on that.

Any questions, comments, anything I need to know about on the zoning rewrite project?

Great.

Very clear.

Thank you.

That's all I have for this evening.

All right, I've got one for you.

So first of all, good to know that we should submit comments.

I wasn't quite sure what we should do there.

And then I wasn't able to make it to the meeting last week, and it seemed like based on the format, people were having kind of small group conversations.

Yes.

So overall, as I said, we're going to incorporate

Thanks for the question.

Last couple of questions on this?

Thank you.

All right.

Well, we'll both be working through this.

Do we have anyone who is in the room who is interested in speaking in matters from the public?

At this time, I'd like to consider the consent agenda.

The only change that I recommended is that we follow the recommendation outlined by staff, but ended with the conditions outlined on page seven of the staff report.

Can I get a thumbs up on that?

Okay, I see a thumbs.

Minutes?

Oh, I see.

Do we need a second to the motion?

And I hear a second.

Let's try that vote.

works for me.

Apologies.

And that's what I have for this section.

Actually, okay, I think we're good until 6 p.m.

Well, we're here anyway.

Ms.

Stolzenberg, do you see any issue with that?

No, that seems fine.

Great.

Ms.

Sure.

So it'll be a little bit of me and a little bit of James and then a lot of you guys on this.

But we received

Some comments concerning the bus driver shortage that is occurring.

And this is a concern that the city has, but it's a concern that we're having all over Central Virginia, and I'm sure way beyond that as well.

but the city has a pretty robust program that they're putting together to address how how they're addressing the the shortage at this point in time and some pretty innovative things on there so hopefully you all got a chance to take a peek at that if not we can make sure that you get the direct link to the website for the activities that are occurring there's a lot of different things including

engaging volunteers setting up mobile school buses getting crossing guards and additional locations so there's a lot of a lot of activities that are going on right now there's a number of community meetings that are scheduled to take place and this is through the through the school system and and the partners that they're working through

So that came to the attention of the group here and wanted to have a little bit of an opportunity to talk about the things that the Planning Commission can do to support efforts that focus in this realm.

Do you want to take her from here?

for a while and we'll just pop back and forth?

Sure.

My apologies.

Well, things change.

So we're just moving this until 6.

We'll probably

I don't know.

We'll figure it out so that we we start at six on the hearing so that we honor the time of others.

Right.

So I think I mean, two things that I noted

when I saw what the school department was doing in response to the issue they're facing.

And one is that in some respects this represents a great opportunity.

Our comprehensive plan that we recently adopted talks a lot about these issues of what can we do to address improvements to the safety of transportation safety, particularly in low-cost mechanisms in our neighborhoods, particularly around schools.

So wrapped up in this challenge is an opportunity to explore those options.

The flip side of that is it's a little early for us right now in that we are in the process of building out a transportation planning program with a transportation planner position

re-hiring a bike ped coordinator and bringing over the Safe Routes to School coordinator position into NDS.

But we aren't there yet.

Hopefully very soon.

So we expect that position to post.

very soon, and see that position as really being able to take a lead role in doing exactly this type of work, and that is coming up with innovative, low cost, and quick ways of improving pedestrian, particularly children's safety,

in the neighborhoods around our schools.

So we've got the policy backing.

We've got the ideas.

We've got the position approved within our budget.

Ms.

Um no I mean that that's that's the high level overview um you know we we uh do note that on on the traffic side we have a the traffic engineer and our safe routes to school coordinator they're not in our department right now but um and some will some won't um but of course we coordinate with these folks on a regular basis

and of course there's a lot of activity going on with the safe routes to school aspects of things we did a little bit of searching in the comp plan for more specifics and we do have you know really good support for

continuing to move forward in this direction.

So, yeah, I mean, all the we have tools in place where we just need to fill them with humans so that we can keep the work going from that perspective.

But, you know, there's some grassroots things that are going on as well.

I think even if we had staff in place, it would be hard to get something together before the school year starts.

I've done, for example, the

One of the go-to things would be to do curb bump outs at intersections, right?

It's a significant safety improvement, and you can do that with paint and potentially flex posts.

But even to do just that, you have to pull together some, you do need to do some engineering design, you need to coordinate with the public works streets folks, coordinate available materials and time.

So maybe within six weeks, but even if we had the staff available right now to do the work, it would be hard to do it in that time frame.

But I think A, the school department's plans are actually really good.

I think they have some good solutions in place.

and not have to wait for another year to implement a complete plan that they have been brought through.

Right.

I think this is something that we can move on incrementally as the resources become available.

I think a letter to counsel supporting that sort of activity sounds like a good idea and then you know the flip side of just staff time is the actual money needed to implement these things and is it safe to assume that there isn't within the currently allocated budget enough money to really you know address the things that these staff would potentially want to address or potentially to hire

I think I'd want to spend a little time scoping it out and understand how many streets, how many neighborhoods we'd be looking at before I want to answer that firmly.

Yeah, I mean, I think one recommendation the Planning Commission can make is to encourage council to dedicate a substantial amount of money in this fiscal year without waiting until next fiscal year, which will be an entire school year later, so that those incremental improvements can start, if not by August, then at least over the course of this school year as we can ramp up and then hopefully keep them going in future years, both in

rolling out to new locations and in hardening those improvements into things more permanent than flex posts.

As we saw, as I mentioned earlier, council just spent $1.65 million on a parking lot with 40 spaces.

Well, once the position is posted, if you know people who are interested, we would love that support.

If you know folks in the transportation planning realm, you know, it's really coming down to having the humans in roles to be able to move things forward.

And this is not an unusual concern.

This is a concern kind of all over the place.

that hiring is a struggle.

But you guys know lots of folks in different realms, and so that would be one thing that would definitely be helpful.

Have we done any benchmarking?

In fact, the city manager's office has a study in the works right now.

It's a class and comp study that's looking at our existing positions within the city and from a compensation perspective, comparing them to peer communities to see where we stand.

One more on kind of streets improvement stuff.

I guess I've kind of heard that this is the case from the school side, but is there value in identifying problem intersections or problem streets and the problems along those in order to take some of the workload off staff so that when they come in, they're not going to look at the map of the city and start walking around and looking for problems.

I guess I'm not going to say no.

Yeah, I think some of the data sets that we have in place will be helpful to that individual.

The MySeville app, when we get concerns and complaints, that data is something that's stored and definitely would be very relevant.

on a slightly different topic.

Has there been any discussion at the level of CAT about changes in transit service in order to better serve this kind of slightly different new need?

For example, in the school division's announcement, I saw that they were encouraging high schoolers to ride, I think it's Route 9, up to CHS.

I'm not familiar with whether CAT has taken any steps in that direction.

Sounds good.

Yeah.

I have two big questions.

Are we looking at speeds and are we looking at parking?

I'm a big fan of daylighting parking near crossings.

I don't know that we've gotten to any specifics at this point in time, but that, yeah, you said daylighting parking, but I guess I tend to think of that making the crosswalks more visible, right?

Yes, right.

Stepping back where cars are parked so that the crosswalks are more visible.

And what was the other thing, I'm sorry?

Speeds.

Speeds, of course, absolutely, yeah.

Actually, on that note, maybe along the lines of things we could recommend to council, I believe there's state authority to foot-speed cameras in school zones.

Is that something we've ever explored?

I am not aware of that being explored in the city side.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

Do we have any other questions or comments on this topic?

Can I get a straw poll?

I see some support.

Why don't we delegate the drafting of the letter to Rory?

Would someone be willing to work with them on this?

Would you be able to take this on?

Yeah, I suppose I can.

So I just want to say we're here.

We know what's going on.

It doesn't have to be, you know, a war and peace type of document.

So we understand the issues and we're hearing a lot from the citizens now.

Perhaps we can, staff will summarize some of the points that came out of your discussion and provide those and as you see fit to put together then can share with your colleagues before we send that on, if that makes sense.

I think that would be great.

Obviously time is kind of up the essence here, but I think

Our individual letter, rather, our sentiments have maybe already been conveyed as they sit here, maybe listening to us.

Okay.

Well, I mean, we can summarize the points by the end of the week and then provide that background.

And I'm sure you've got some already here.

Sounds great.

I see 6 p.m.

I would like to call together our joint city council and planning commission public hearing for July 12th.

Thank you.

I would like to hear from staff on this item.

Sure.

Mr. Warner is is also with us remote.

Oh, Brian, if you want to kind of start it off, we can pass it back and forth as necessary.

Members of the Commission and Council, this is a public hearing item for a request for a Special Use Permit, a property located at 415 10th Street NW.

This is the item you heard previously at your June meeting, so I will be brief because obviously you've heard all this before, but the request is for a rezoning from R1S to be too commercial with proffers.

In addition to the proffers you reviewed at your last meeting, there is one additional proffer limiting the number of residential units on the property to one.

So that would just kind of lock in the development as it is because there isn't a residence already existing on the property, but they would not expand the number of units.

I guess was there an expressed point to the new proffer limiting the units to one?

I can only speculate on that, so I would kind of forward that to the applicant.

No, the special use permit is for the tax map and parcel number, and both of those structures are on the tax map and parcel number.

So it covers the whole, it goes with the parcel.

So it would cover the entire site.

All three buildings?

Will this be one motion or two motions?

Right.

The reports are set up such that both of the IPP, the text and the map are included in a single motion and then the zoning.

Thank you.

I think we're fine.

Thank you.

I've got one, actually.

This could be for Jeff or Brian, I guess.

Have we heard anything from the actual Trinity Episcopal Church Congregation?

No.

I would say I know people have been in contact with them, asking them history, and things have been reported back to me.

I don't believe that as a congregation they've officially offered anything, but I know members of the congregation are aware of this and have been wonderful sharing some of the information.

Mr. Chair, may I ask a question?

Please.

The first one is, so this has been a month ago, this was before vacation, so I'm trying to reenergize the neurons.

So the notion of doing the IPP was basically something the applicant agreed to, correct?

And the idea is it kind of put some sort of

some sort of guarantee or good faith that the property as it is, the way it looks and so forth are going to remain that way.

Is that partly what that does, the IPP?

Right.

I think the stated concern in the staff report last month was there was no prohibition on demolition of the structure.

Got it.

So the special use permit was granting additional uses and while the applicant had stated their intention to use the building as it was, at the time that staff wrote that staff report there was nothing stopping them from getting the special use permit, demolishing the building and building a new building.

At the meeting, they stated their intent to seek individually protected property status, which would allow, prior to a demolition of a structure that's designated in such a way, it has to go to the BAR for a public review.

So any development would still be possible but it has to be approved by the VAR and so adaptive reuse small changes things that changes that do not impact the historic character of the building as interpreted by the VAR and as documented in the

National Registered Surveys.

And I read this, I have read this, I'm having a hard time, I didn't bring my computer with me, but the proffers, so the notion is to change it from R1S

to B2.

And so with the proffers that were put in and then also with what B2 is available, what would be the sorts of things that they could do in that space and the sorts of things that they could not?

In other words, things that people in the neighboring streets would be worried about.

Right, so the applicant in the original submission that we reviewed last month, and again tonight, there is a profit that the applicant has submitted that would restrict the uses, the additional uses of the property beyond R1S.

R1S does allow a house of worship, it does allow single family residential.

The additional uses that would be permitted

with the rezoning to B2 are art gallery, auditorium, private club, music hall, educational facility, technology-based business, and office.

So they are being permitted?

Yes.

Right.

I think if you look at B2, you'll see convenience store, retail, those uses are not permitted.

They're adding those seven uses as acceptable uses on this property.

Thank you.

I've got one more, actually.

So in the existing zoning, it's R1S, right?

So that allows single-family residential.

and look at the size.

I doubt it's... Roughly 8,500 square feet?

8,500, definitely not.

Minimum lot size in R1S is 6,000 square feet, so you need 12,000 to subdivide.

So in R1S, there's single-family residential and there's house of worship.

Let's say a church didn't want to rent the space.

The only remaining option, I guess, would be to turn it into a single-family residence, but since there's already a single-family residence, the former rectory, on the parcel, you couldn't have two of them, right?

Correct.

Yeah, if there's one unit on the property now, it can't be turned into a duplex because a duplex is not permitted in that zone.

So you are correct.

Yes, I have a quick question.

This is probably leading into a question for the applicant later.

I think this topic did come up briefly last month where it's kind of a larger discussion around the general rezoning and redrafting of the zoning ordinance of what we're going to do with properties like the proposal here or pre-existing zoning, previous rezoning applications that had proffers attached to them.

If you do a general rezoning, you may wipe those proffers out.

Now, that's probably ultimately a question for legal counsel as well.

But I think that ties into that where that's more of a general discussion of what do we do with R1S zoning if we do a general rezoning across the city?

What does R1S turn into?

And what's the scope of that?

You still have the issue here of the uses that they're asking for being

Additional questions?

It's not good when you get stuck in the chair getting up.

Good evening, members of Planning Commission.

I'm Craig Katarski with Timmons Group, and this is Zach Zinsheim with Stony Point Development Group.

Hopefully a quick presentation, and then if there are questions, we're certainly able to answer those.

City Councilors, thank you for having us as well.

So we do have a slideshow.

I think that will be pulled up momentarily, but just a little background, and as the slideshow goes up, we can go straight to the second slide.

Just a little background, so this congregation actually used to meet where the county office building was, but when Lane High School was built,

They were forced out.

And what's interesting is that the building was actually constructed in Fluvanna County originally and was deconstructed and brought and placed on this site back in 1937.

There's a lot of deep roots in the Tenth and Page community and neighborhood with regards to what this building's been used for.

Obviously a place of worship, but also during different periods of time.

It served as a school, a daycare, obviously outreach ministry, different community gatherings and such.

If you go to the next slide, you can see that one of the things I think that's important to recognize is that this property was acquired by Stony Point when they acquired the parcels across Tenth.

where the dairy market is.

So they acquired it in 2018, and there was sort of this desire from the community, from all the community meetings and such that had been had about wanting to sort of revitalize this property, which basically was just sitting vacant because, as Brian just sort of pointed out going through it, the uses really available are a church or a single-family residence, and there's already a single-family residence on the property.

So it was just sitting there, but obviously it means a lot to the community.

It obviously has a place within the community.

And so the idea was what can we do

to sort of revitalize it and make it useful.

And obviously, you know, community meetings, weddings are certainly make a lot of sense in a building such as this.

And so in 2020, the owner made some significant investment, and you can see that the image that you see on the screen right now is essentially what it looks like today after the renovations had taken place.

and if you go to the next slide you know why the request to rezone well we've kind of we've covered that right the R1S zoning under under it just doesn't allow for the building to be used and so as Brian went through what we're hoping to do with the B2 zoning is to allow for things like weddings social gatherings allow it to be used as a music hall or an art gallery and those sorts of things bringing it back and kind of restoring the vitality to that building once again

And then the last slide, I think the last slide, so proffers.

So we talked about foregoing the additional residential uses in excess of one dwelling unit.

To answer some of the questions that came up, that was actually in direct response to some of the things that we heard at our community meeting.

Some of the uses also allowed under B2 zoning would be sort of an apartment type building.

So we wanted to ensure that that was not, this isn't a bait and switch.

It was really, there is some desire of wanting to restore vitality to that building itself.

And then, you know, all the other nonresidential uses besides those that are listed that Brian went through, we're looking or proffering that we would waive those out of this zoning.

And then additionally, we've also noted that there would be no additional ingress or egress

to the subject property, and then lastly the individual protected property designation that would go on top of that.

I guess that's not necessarily so much a proffer of this, but sort of a separate application.

Questions for the episode?

Yeah, I think the way that's listed on that slide is probably incorrect.

It's a good question, Zach, with Stoney Point.

I think, again, the intention going back to always being our original thought, first and foremost, a gathering space for the neighbor and the community, and secondarily for the ability to hold weddings, being able to restore the church in the closest form to what it is and what it has been historically.

The only other thing that I would say with regards to daycare and that consideration is just the traffic component of that and also with little kids and drop-off zones and things of that.

It is a busy intersection and there's some challenges from that perspective.

Yeah, the access is what I was thinking.

Do you know when it was last used as a daycare?

I do not.

Yeah, that becomes a legal question.

Thanks.

Additional questions for the applicant?

Council, I'm looking in your direction.

Thank you very much.

All right.

First, we'll ask if anyone in our live audience would like the opportunity to speak in the public hearing.

Seeing no one at this time, I'd like to see if there's anyone in our virtual audience who would like to speak for the public hearing.

If you're interested in speaking, please use the raise your hand function in the Zoom webinar.

I would like to close the public hearing.

Mr. Mitchell, did you have thoughts on that?

That was you.

So you were saying that you support it?

I also support it.

I'm a bit hesitant about the limiting it to just one, but because there are some examples of churches and there are surrounding buildings being split into two apartments that are more affordable potentially or three, but that's my only hiccup, but I generally support it.

Are we talking about both, all three?

Okay.

Yes, I support it.

Russell?

And thinking about that, how that would maybe make us think about that density.

because in the general residential sensitive area, there is a one unit per lot, but additional with certain conditions, right?

So I just maybe think there's something to follow that precedent that that might set.

But I don't think I have any other comments.

I appreciate that this is also

speaking to our historic preservation, adaptive reuse goals within the comp plan, balancing conservation and preservation with change, right?

I support the rezoning.

I don't see that having an empty church with no rights to be anything but a church provides really any value to the community.

I agree with Commissioner Habab that I don't really see any downside to this property getting the same rights as any other in what will eventually be whatever R1 becomes with a sensitive overlay.

you know if they were to split that rectory into a duplex that would not seem to have any real downsides and it's only served to make it more affordable I don't really see how

keeping this property in amber in the existing state will lessen pressure on displacement in 10th of Page, or make the house that just sold for $550,000 on Page Street sell for any less.

And I do think that potentially one day, obviously it's not what this owner wants to do, that there could be a better use of this land that would better serve the community.

And without even the actual church who's building this used to be speaking up, saying that it should be saved and preserved forever,

I'm not sure that I'm prepared to support it being an IVP.

Thank you.

Don't have much to say.

I mean, it seems like there's general support.

It's great.

Maybe this is the type of project that in the future could be a bit of a template for some of the other church properties around Charlottesville, thinking of, like, the Wilmington Chapel and things like that, which is not as good as repairs.

Please.

Just a comment regarding Murray's comments.

I would ask that we remember that this is an important icon to the African American community.

So for that reason, we ought to give some additional consideration for the need to preserve it.

Thank you.

Just that I support it.

I think that the points that have just been made by

I don't have any real thoughts on it either.

I'm generally supportive.

Our family through the Episcopal Church had a lot of contacts with this church 50, 60 years ago.

It's been an important part of the community and it's important that it can remain an important part of the community.

Yes, I'm supportive of it.

I do understand the importance of this is building an African-American community.

I've seen it when it's been in use, and I'm not sure how this can be proffered or included, but I think it's important that somehow, just like they did for the Derry Building, that there'd be some allotment for community use because this building that once was an African-American church and

the pillar of the community will probably be home to you know expensive weddings that probably when people walk by in the community they won't see it really as part of anything that they not unless they invited to the to the wedding or whatever you know type of thing so

you know maybe during the week it could be used for community meetings and things like that and it's been a while since I've read the report but I assume that the parking for this can be attached to the dairy market the parking looking at stuff yeah

And for my part, I think this is a reasonable balance between current needs and future needs.

Things will keep changing, but I appreciate the effort to try and find that balance and bring people together.

That seems like the right direction to me.

Please.

Are there any tools to counsel on Wade's point about

Hi, all.

Zach again.

But happy to speak to it.

I think our, you know, with very similar to dairy market, you know, as mentioned, there's currently a neighborhood meeting that takes place monthly in the dairy market in the brick cellar.

it would always be it's always been the intention that that would you know if if the neighborhood would so choose to have it at the at the church that that would certainly be the meeting place of their choice going forward but I think in terms of a go forward plan

you know we were we would we would envision always just continuing this with the same relations that we've had with the community we've been very transparent and and open and dialogue always open to for conversation of whatever fits the needs of the community at that particular time to make sure that there's an action plan to enact that uh very similar in a very similar way as we've done with uh with the neighborhood meetings in the brick cellar um that's just one example but uh

Was that helpful?

Certainly, I think we've talked about it last month too.

Certainly once a month, you know, that once a month meeting absolutely continuing on as is because that's already in place, certainly committed to making sure that continues on.

Any sort of go forward plans and uses, et cetera, you know, the community is interested in.

I'm not sure what those are per se today as I stand here, but certainly open to any and all dialogue.

and making sure that we are able to make that happen by all means.

Chair, I had a quick question.

Absolutely, in a very similar fashion, you know, with the conversation, you know, with every event, everything's on a case, you know, case by case, you know, by all means, we would love to, you know,

folks in the community or in the neighborhood reaching out to us.

We would certainly be open to some sort of discount, you know, looking at the calendar bookings, et cetera.

If there's a recurring, you know, event every year that they would like to have, you know, we'd make sure that that is part of the calendar.

Correct.

And I'd just like to add that I have, you know, worked with nonprofits and things to rent the space and use the space, and they have been very generous.

It's not like, okay, you can only use it like, you know, like a small window, unattractive days.

It's been very generous with that.

So I

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is that the suggested motion that's in here, or do I have to craft something?

No, you can use the suggested motion.

That is permissible.

So, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I move to recommend that City Council approve ZT220001 and ZM220001 amending and reenacting the zoning map incorporated within Section 34-1 of the Charlottesville City Code 1990 as amended by

or as amended by rezoning of 415-415B, 10th Street, Northwest, Parcel 446 to add a historic overlay district designation to the property.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Yes.

Aye.

I believe that one passes.

Before we just to kind of drill down on this point about the one unit,

would it be reasonable to sort of have the restriction follow what is stated in the use category description for sensitive areas, which is that up to additional units are allowed if the first unit meets this affordability requirement and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

the language from the sensitive areas.

I guess I'd say I'd prefer it that way, but I don't know that we have the ability to affect their proffer.

I'd be curious to hear from legal counsel about what Mr. Haleska was saying about whether those proffers would be overridden when R1 changes.

I know Mr. Hubbard's online.

What specifically is the question?

Can we change proper to conform with our code?

I believe is the question.

I thought the question was when the zoning code changes whatever point that changes what happens to applications such as this or such as anything that has been improved with proffers as part of our rezoning do those does that zoning go away and it becomes the new designation

I'm not sure.

Essentially, if the proffer limits it to one unit and the new zoning of that property is three units or has an affordability bonus, how does that change when the rezoning happens?

Reasonable.

We don't know.

And I appreciate the applicant working with the community, and I think what I heard was that this was in response to what had been expressed, which is also like sort of what the sensitive area designation is trying to do.

Good question.

Thank you.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Aye.

I believe that passes.

Thank you very much.

Do we want to shift to talk a little bit more about buses or are we good on that?

I'm feeling pretty good.

I'm seeing nods.

Do we have any other issues we'd like to discuss?

I hear a motion.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Do I get fingers?

I see fingers.