Planning Commission Meeting   1/10/2023

I'd like to start the joint meeting of the Senate Commission and the City Council.

Mr. Mayor, is the Council in order?

Yes, we are.

Thank you.

You're going to have to separate those guys.

We'll pass notes.

Good evening, Carrie Rainey, City Planner with Neighborhood Development Services.

Scott Roth of Three Notch Brewery has requested a special use permit for 522 2nd Street Southeast to expand the existing brewery from 15,000 barrels per year of production up to 30,000 barrels per year of production, which is our small brewery use category.

The applicant has confirmed that no physical changes are currently proposed in order to support the expansion.

The narrative notes that currently 13 tractor trailers visit the site weekly to both pick up products for distribution and also deliver raw materials.

However, many of the tractor trailers are underutilized and thus the applicant estimates only six additional tractor trailers will be needed to access the site as a result of the increase in production.

Smaller trucks are currently utilized daily to pick up spent grain, and this will continue if additional production is permitted.

The traffic engineer has confirmed that he does not have any concerns with the increase in traffic created by the expanding brewery production.

The proposed development will necessarily result in some increased demand on physical facilities and services provided.

The assistant fire marshal has confirmed that there are no concerns with potential impacts due to the brewery expansion.

The preliminary review of the proposal indicates the city's existing water and sewer facilities are generally adequate to serve the proposed development.

However, the additional biological oxygen demand generated by the

Brewery expansion may require modification to the facilities on the subject property to address additional impacts to sanitary sewer treatment facilities.

You'll find later on that SAP has recommended a condition to be placed on the SUP should it be approved to ensure facilities are upgraded as necessary to address the additional impacts.

The 2021 comprehensive plan future land use map designates the subject property as urban mixed use node.

All adjacent properties, with the exception of Crescent Halls, are also designated urban mixed use node.

Crescent Halls is designated as higher intensity residential.

The comprehensive plan describes the urban mixed use node designation as urban mixed use districts that support community housing, employment, and commercial development.

The plan recommends a mix of uses in the same building, which are encouraged in up to 10 stories in height.

The higher intensity residential designation is recommended to provide opportunities for higher density, multi-family focused development.

That leaves the Rory expansion aligned with the urban mixed use node category and will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent higher intensity residential area.

The proposed brewery expansion also aligns with several goals of the 2021 comprehensive plan, which speaks to a desire to promote economic variety and the growth of existing businesses, particularly within areas designated for mixed use in the future land use map.

This includes the future land use map planning objective to ensure long-term economic sustainability of the city by planning for a wide variety of commercial land use types

as well as the objective for mixed use areas to include facilitating economic activity in the city and ensuring the availability of sites for incremental business growth and expansion.

This also includes strategy 1.2, the sub strategy which is facilitate economic activity and existing in new areas of mixed use opportunity as identified in the updated feature land use map and ensure the availability of sites for business growth and expansion.

The proposal also aligns with Goal 2 of the Economic Prosperity and Opportunity Chapter, which is to generate, recruit, and retain successful businesses and jobs, as well as Strategy 4.4 to encourage the development of the city's key commercial corridors and surrounding sites, including current commercial corridors and mixed-use corridors and nodes as identified on the future land-use map.

In addition to strategy 4.5, partner with internal and external stakeholders to implement the strategic area investment plan.

The proposal aligns with the Strategic Investment Area Plan, SIA Plan, which proposes 2nd Street Southeast as a retail corridor and encourages incremental change to meet the goals of the plan.

The proposal specifically aligns with the priority action items, one, to encourage local serving retailers to locate in the SIA, and two, to increase opportunities for jobs located in the SIA.

Staff finds the proposed brewery expansion will further several goals of the 2021 comprehensive plan, as well as the 2013 strategic investment area plan, aligns with the future land use map and will not create an adverse impact to the community.

Staff recommends the planning commission recommend the application for approval with the following condition.

Number one, no expanded brewery production beyond 15,000 barrels per year is permitted on the subject property until A, the utilities department confirms existing sanitary sewer facilities can adequately handle the increased biological oxygen demand generated by the expansion and brewery production, or B, facilities on the subject property are upgraded to address the increased biological

oxygen demand, and the utilities department confirms the upgraded facilities will adequately handle the increased demand.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell, do you want to share something?

Yes.

I've already shared this with the secretary and the chair.

I have a small stake in champion, and I'm one of the board of directors.

Thank you.

Do you have questions for staff?

Mr. Mitchell, do you have questions for staff on this?

Oh, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

I have no questions.

Sure.

So biological oxygen demand is a water quality parameter, which refers to the amount of oxygen required by organisms to break down organic matter in the treated water.

So basically breweries are one of the uses that may put in additional elements into

our sanitary sewer treatment facilities that require additional oxygen to break down, and our utilities department is currently doing testing to confirm whether there's adequacy at our facilities to handle that or if additional measures are needed.

Thanks.

No other questions?

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

No.

Mr. Schultz?

Let's hear from the evidence.

I don't think I can say it much better than she just did, but no, we're just excited to expand.

We won't go to 30,000 barrels anytime soon, but we're getting close to that threshold of 15,000, which was always kind of a talking point for us.

Please identify yourself for the public.

What's that?

Please identify yourself for the public.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Scott Roth, the president and founder of Three Notched.

So when we took over the H property, that was part of our original discussion about potentially getting to this threshold and

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant?

Mr. Doranthia?

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Russell?

No.

Mr. Schwartz?

Nope.

I have one question, maybe two questions.

I'll start with the first.

So I noticed yesterday you guys have a new non-alcoholic beer.

It would be for now.

We're going to be moving most of the production of that product down to our new facility in Nelliesford.

The other question I asked because one of our standards of review is odor, adverse effect of odor.

When you guys are brewing, there's certainly a distinct malty smell in the sidewalk around there.

Whether it's a bad smell, I guess it's up to the smeller.

I have never heard of anybody installing that.

I will say that the odor will not become more concentrated or stronger in any capacity.

We can only brew 20 barrels of beer at a time.

So it's really just the frequency with which we would be brewing that would increase.

So there's not going to be any more potency to it than what is currently experienced, if that makes sense.

So that would be, I think, my only comment around that.

I don't know that there'd be a great way to mitigate the wart smell.

which I happen to like.

Thanks.

No more questions.

Okay.

Mr. Palmer?

I don't have any questions, thanks.

I'll follow the council.

I see that you are here.

Mr. Payne, do you have questions for the staff or the applicant?

No.

Mr. Peekster.

No, sounds like a good project.

Mayor Snow.

No questions for me.

Mr. Wade?

No, sir.

I should have asked apologies.

As for me, very clear.

Thank you.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion.

I would like to make a motion.

Oh, oh, oh, sorry.

Right.

It's time for a public hearing.

We'll do as we do with our speaking.

We'll ask for any speakers within the physical audience to go first, and then we'll go to our virtual audience and alternate back and forth as we go.

Each speaker has three minutes to speak.

I will ask in the room if we have anyone who's interested in speaking.

All right, we don't see anyone at this time.

And our virtual audience, we have a hand raised.

Ms.

So I have two questions for the brewery.

First one is, I understood like a while back that if there's a drought, that the beer

making doesn't really cause a strain on the water count or the reservoir or whatever.

I'm wondering if that's still true.

And secondly, there is a hemp filter that goes in these green whatever they're called.

I don't even know what they're called.

You know, where they actually manufacture hemp products like CBD.

All right, I'll just check again if any physical, anyone physically here?

No.

Do we have any virtual speakers?

If so, please raise your hand virtually.

Thank you very much.

Deliberations, if we could, starting with Mr. Mitchell.

I just want to talk about it.

The motion would be, I move to recommend approval of application SP22-00011 with the conditions 1.A and 1.B outline on page 13 of the staff report.

I will second with an amendment to 1.A, 1 and 2.

What did I say?

discussion on this motion.

I'd just say congratulations on your success and expansion.

This is a big part of that.

Except for all that I just heard about Nellie's fur.

Totally different animal.

out of vote.

Sure.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Yes.

Good luck in your future pursuits.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

616, we're on fire.

I'd like to turn to the 250 bypass for public hearing.

Who's speaking to us on the stage?

Mr. O'Connell.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Daniel O'Connell.

I'm a city planner with NDS, and tonight I'll be presenting an application submitted by Scott Hendricks, who is Senior Project Manager for the Charlottesville Public Works, for a special use permit to allow for a new city fire station.

The subject property, I believe the technical address is 345 U.S.

250 bypass.

For this request, this property is owned by the City of Charlottesville, and it includes McIntyre Park, the Brooks family YMCA, and the existing city fire station number one.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 8,000 square foot station to the south of the existing fire station on the same parcel.

Subject property co-locates several park and amenity spaces, including McIntyre Park, Vietnam Memorial, Greenleaf Park, the YMCA and McIntyre Little League ball fields, and the Charlottesville skate park.

Surrounding parcels are developed with single family residential uses, as well as two public schools.

The subject property is currently zoned R1 single-family residential.

Under the R1 zoning classification, municipal offices or other government buildings are permitted only with a special use permit.

The current fire station number one is, we believe, a legal non-conforming use as it was constructed with no special use permit on file for the site.

The comprehensive plan's future land use map designates the subject property for open spaces and parks.

Open spaces and parks are specified to include both public and private spaces, but no density form or use restrictions are specified.

After review, staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map and harmonious with the existing patterns of use within the neighborhood.

The proposed redevelopment addresses several of the 2021 comprehensive plan's goals regarding efficient planning for public infrastructure and improving city fire and emergency medical services.

The proposed new fire station will be a LEED certified building with improved accommodations and workplace safety provisions for city fire department and EMS personnel.

The facility will permit the growth and expansion of the city's emergency response services and can accommodate both firefighting and EMS services from a single facility.

The proposed additional use would result in a reduction of public open space within the city.

However, the wooded area proposed for the development is not utilized for any active or passive recreational uses and construction of the new station would not interfere with the nearby trails connecting Charlottesville High School to the YMCA and the Greater Rivanna trail system.

So staff recommends that the request for a fire station could be approved with one condition, and the condition is that prior to site plan approval, the existing stub road accessing the property shall be vacated from the city right of way.

This was something that came up in our review.

It's sort of a minor administrative thing, but just a question of setbacks for this site.

The current design is compliant with required setbacks for R1 zoning, but just to make sure that's clear in the future, we would ask that the stub row, which is currently part of the right-of-way, just is deeded out and just becomes regular city property.

With that, I'll be happy to take any questions.

Now, Mr. Mitchell, questions about the applicant?

For now, it will remain in use to provide firefighting services.

To date, I don't think it has been cited exactly on what the building will be used for after the new station is completed.

If you know, that'd be helpful.

I think you've asked to answer

That's going to continue to exist.

It's still going to be city.

Property is still going to be maintained by the city.

And that's still going to be used as an entrance and exit.

The applicant.

In the applicant's application, section 1.5, the application was written on September 15th.

It suggests that the design team is going to continue to work with the city to mitigate the loss of trees.

Has any more work been done on that since back in September?

Have we moved?

Has it evolved?

Do we know more about saving more trees?

So when do we...

Well, there will be landscaping requirements as part of site plan review.

So if this use permit is approved, they would have to submit a final site plan to the city.

Mr. Ronson, questions for staff?

No, sir.

The...

Staff Report mentioned a community meeting.

Can you summarize if any changes or anything came up?

No, I don't think any changes were made to the plan.

The public seemed supportive, those who were in attendance, and it was mostly questions about removal of trees, any impacts to the parks or the trail systems, and LEED certification, how green the building would be.

No questions.

Thank you.

Mr. Schwarz?

No.

Yeah, so, well, I find this whole process very strange because we're asking ourselves permission to do things.

Yeah.

pretending, I guess, that the applicant is not going to do whatever they more or less want because they are us.

I have concerns about the stubbed road condition.

At the moment, council is at an impasse, agonizing over any vacation of any road or right away of any kind with no clear end date in sight.

So if we have it as a condition and are not able to do it for various reasons or it's delayed or whatever, that holds up this whole redevelopment, right?

My plan wouldn't be compliant with the code, though.

Oh, so it was a setback concern.

Well, to our review and knowledge, it is compliant regardless of what the stub road is or is not.

Yeah, I mean, I'm all for, like, the general concept of vacating it.

That seems fine to me.

Yeah, the condition is kind of like a housekeeping measure.

Smith.

Yeah.

Mr. Palmer, do you have thoughts on this one?

Just a clarification from my understanding.

You mentioned EMS would be run out of there as well as fire.

Nothing from me.

My understanding is that Parks is good with this.

Yep.

Mr. Pinkston.

Yeah, I didn't realize we were in a process of agonizing over anything.

It does remind me that things are a lot about that.

Oh, I've watched it.

It's agonizing or agonizing.

Yeah, no.

Sorry.

Great presentation, great project.

We funded it.

Looking forward to seeing it happen.

Thank you.

If it will help Mr. Stolzenberg at all, the counselor who is most agonizing over this issue will not be agonizing over it further.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

We've funded it already in the capital improvement program, so obviously we want to make sure that the site works and all the rest of that stuff, but we need it done.

I'm sorry.

Is the critical slopes piece part of this or just separate?

Is that a separate vote in a separate conversation?

I believe it's the same conversation.

Yes.

My understanding is this is the conversation.

So if you have questions for us.

Is that true?

All righty then.

So in order to accommodate the proposed fire station, the applicant is proposing to disturb critical slopes as defined in our critical slope ordinance.

The fire department wishes to keep the existing fire station in operation until its replacement is completed.

So the new building will be located to the south of the existing intersection along the bypass and encroaching into nearby critical slopes.

Nearby critical slopes run parallel to the 250 bypass and around the existing stub road and fire station as depicted in the map in your staff reports.

In evaluating their waiver request, city staff is in general agreement with the applicant's justification for a waiver approval under finding number two.

Critical slopes surround the subject property along nearly its entire frontage with a 250 bypass.

This unbroken critical slope area makes additional access to the property via the bypass or existing stub road impossible without causing some disturbance.

The existing fire station number one will be kept in service until the replacement building is completed.

Requiring the existing station to be demolished and replaced to avoid the critical slope area would unreasonably restrict the use of the property for providing public firefighting service.

Constructing the new station further to the east would require additional land disturbance and tree removals to extend the access roadway and cross an existing drainage area.

The proposed location south of the existing station allows for a compact

one-story design that reuses existing parking and road areas, minimizing tree removal and impervious construction.

Regarding negative impacts to consider, development of the site will result in some loss to the existing mature tree canopy.

However, the proposed fire station has been designed to minimize on-site land disturbance and will not negatively impact the adjacent public trails.

Alternative building sites on the subject property would involve additional land disturbance, tree removals, and trail closures or relocations.

Were we operating under the old way of reviewing critical slopes?

But no.

Mr. Dronthe?

Mr. Schwartz?

No.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

No.

Mr. Palmer?

No.

I have none.

Mr. Payne?

Ms.

Bigston?

No.

Mr. Wade?

Very clear.

Thank you.

Please hear from the applicant.

Please address both issues, if you will.

I'm Scott Hendricks with the City of Charlottesville, Senior Project Manager.

Glad to be here to talk about this important project.

To Mr. Palmer's question about the tree canopy, we have had a survey done of all the trees, their size, their caliper, their species.

We're evaluating that information now.

We're working with the City's arborists to try to come up with a solution to help mitigate the loss.

And there are going to be some requirements that we'll have anyway through statute and code to replace

trees as much as we can.

We understand the issue.

We understand the issue.

Any other questions?

I do have a team with me remotely.

Our architecture team here is here, and they're ready to make a presentation.

I am there.

I'm here.

Can everybody hear me?

Yeah, sorry you're there everywhere.

All right, well, thank you, everybody.

Like Scott said, I am Keith Driscoll with Hughes Group Architects.

We've been working with the city over the last couple of years to generate the plan.

Let's see, is the presentation that I sent, Dan, is that what's on the screen?

I can't quite, there we go.

All right, this is all the material that was presented to the community and was included in the information that you received with the two applications, so I'll just run through quickly so everybody has an understanding of what is being proposed.

Go to the next slide, please.

This is the site plan on the top edge of the sheet.

You can see the existing fire station to the south on the bottom edge of the sheet is the proposed new station.

We looked at a number of options when we started working with the city and the department to figure out what needed to be done.

First of all, the existing station does not meet the fire department's needs on a number of fronts.

Primarily, the equipment that needs to run out of the station no longer fits and a lot of the amenities and features within the station do not adequately protect the firefighters and EMS from hazardous materials and carcinogens that are associated with the fire apparatus.

So something new and something different needed to be done.

We looked at options to renovate and expand the existing station, as well as options to create a new station.

Ultimately, for a number of reasons, primarily creating a better layout and more functional space and cost reasons, a new station was determined to be the most effective use of city funds.

This location, keeping it generally in the same location, deploying out onto Route 250 as the current station does, was what was recommended in the 2016 fire station location needs assessment.

And so that was very advantageous to the department.

and that, one, this does not introduce new impacts to the surrounding community, and two, it maintains the current level of service and response times that the station can provide.

As was mentioned earlier, we looked at a number of options for locations to put the new station, including to the east and behind the existing station.

Ultimately, it was determined that this one-story station that's proposed would be the most functional for the fire department.

and it resulted in the smallest impact to the existing wooded area.

It was mentioned before, we are looking at annexing the stub road.

The limits of the stub road and the grading and the paving are all remaining the same.

That is it.

If there are any questions?

Mr. Mitchell, can you start us?

Mr. D'Oronzio?

I can't.

Ms.

I was interested in Mr. Mitchell's question about the intended use for the existing fire station, if any.

I didn't realize how old it was.

It's 1950s.

It's about 1962 is when it was constructed.

It's currently not designated with any historical designation.

The fire department is probably not going to have use for it.

It'd be great to find some use for a building that exists and is seemingly in

Okay condition, yeah.

Kind of generous.

There's asbestos.

There's a lot of materials in there.

Again, it's 1962 construction.

Mr. Schwarz.

I have one question about the vehicular access kind of around the back.

So it looks like there's a path now that goes down to like an asphalt path that goes through the park.

And then it shows it being rerouted.

But I think, does it only go to the bioretention facility and then stops?

It's for bioretention maintenance.

So it's devices required.

periodic maintenance and you need to be able to get equipment down there.

So it's not a paved road or anything.

It's just a graded, seated grassroot.

And so is the current one also for bioretention or is that just the current vehicular path that goes down the bottom of the hill?

That's more of a hiking path, I believe.

Yeah.

And so, yeah, I guess the question was going to be like, can we get the...

that hiking path, I guess, now, or this maintenance road driveway to the bioretention to kind of connect up to the trail, but to preserve its use, I guess, as the path that is now.

which I think is just like, you know, dirt, right?

But also potentially think about paving it.

I ask because we've kind of been like slowly, iteratively building the shared use path down 250.

And right now I think it ends at Meadowbrook Heights and it'll probably keep going a little while longer, but

Right.

There is asphalt path in place now.

on the other side of the station.

And the station's actually going to have a walking connection to that.

The station's also going to have a public restroom in the front of the building in a kind of secure location where people can't get into the building, but they can come in and use the restroom right off the trail.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking.

We're going to have a fitness center for the men and women to work out.

And the trails are another part of their fitness regimen, right?

And will that be a paved path down there?

It's existing a paved path.

That actually gets up to the station's level.

Awesome.

Cool.

Thanks.

Sure.

Mr. Fulmer.

Well, I had asked that question about

McIntyre Road.

It's designed to do that, and it's designed to have EMS features built into it, like the pharmaceutical closet and freezers and things like that that's required.

Will that be there on day one?

The only other thing I have that I didn't hear, and it's not really way out of my place here, but just because I have heard it with the YMCA after it was built about bird strikes and stuff on the big glass wall.

things that are out there to, you know, reduce burn strength.

I beg your pardon?

What is that?

Birds flying in the windows.

Not a labor action.

Mr. Bingston?

No.

No questions.

No sir.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, so first we will ask those in our physical audience for speakers, and then we'll ask our virtual audience.

In our virtual audience, if you're interested in speaking, please do raise your hand virtually.

We'll begin with our in-person audience, three minutes to speak.

Yes, sir, come on up.

I haven't done this for a long time, but I am the fire chief from 2005 to 2015.

Lived in and out of the station for 37 years.

So I just want to come here to reaffirm.

It sounds like you are all on board about making this happen, but I didn't want to take any chances because this was being discussed back when I was in the fire department.

The firefighters, one, deserve this for the role that they play 24 hours in the station.

It has, I think, originally a working bomb shelter that has been mired with mold issues in the station.

The station is very complex and small for the increasing number of staff.

And as you all have already heard, the location of the station is something we've looked at over the years repeatedly to show that the response times from the stations is critical to the service we provide as far as lifesaving.

but it's also critical for our insurance purposes and is part of the reason why we have an ISO class one.

So I just wanted to come here and reinforce the need for the station and urge you all to help pass this forward and get it done.

So thank you all for what you've done so far.

Are you Chief Charles Werner?

Charles Werner Fire Chief, 2005 to 2050.

Good to meet you, sir.

All right, our first virtual speaker will be Sam Guyland.

Sam Guyland, I can hear you.

Yes, sir.

Okay, great.

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I support the fire station and measures to give the fire department the resources they need.

And I think this building looks awesome.

I actually wanted to bring up a relevant section from state code.

The code of Virginia requires that new public facilities, roads, schools, fire stations must be approved by the planning commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan before they are authorized.

I don't think a comp plan review has been completed for this fire station, so I would just ask that any motion to approve the SUP also include the determination that this fire station is substantially in accord with the November 15, 2021 comprehensive plan.

Thanks very much.

Okay, virtual speaker, Ms.

Robin Huffman.

Ms.

Yes, I'm a registered nurse and I understand very much how needed right now, especially we need the EMT services through the fire department and paramedics and especially the medical

aspect of their facility needs to be really state of the art.

But I do have a question, like, since I've moved here, the 250 bypass has been burdened with, you know, different traffic.

They've been trying to do the turnabout

at 64 intersection and things like that.

It just seems to me that the traffic there is really cumbersome.

And I'm wondering what kind of signaling or something where the fire trucks can come out without any problem.

I'm just wondering if that's part of the plan.

Do you want me to speak to that?

All right.

No speakers in-house.

Any additional speakers virtual?

All right.

Thank you very much.

I'll close the public hearing.

Thoughts, questions, deliberations?

I would also entertain a motion if... What is the application of what we're talking about?

Steve Stolz, I'd like to consider SUP.

And I also heard an idea about substantial conformance.

Actually, Ms.

Creasy, can you confirm?

That is a requirement.

And, you know, we've been working on this project for a long time.

And I can't remember if we have done that in the past.

I know we have mention of it in our comprehensive plan.

So, you

There won't be any sort of concern.

I think that it would be okay if you all choose to include that in the motion, and then we will verify that that is appropriate enough.

You guys think we should be concerned that we're making our firefighters more vulnerable to bomb attacks?

No shelter?

Or at least a while will still be available.

It's interesting, just as a sidebar, we have several buildings in our portfolio that have that feature from when they were built.

And none of it shows up on any drawings.

They're just there.

Including City Hall.

That's where Michael's made his office.

I guess on a more serious note, well, I guess one comment maybe for you guys.

If you would think about, I don't know if you have already, on those stairs from the path, just incorporating bike runnels.

So if a firefighter were

Biker, Scooter or whatever, they could get up to the level of the entrance.

Great idea.

Thank you.

And then I guess I would I would make a motion and I would.

All right.

I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit in the R1 zone at 345 U.S.

That's it.

But I think we shouldn't include the condition just to give maximum flexibility for timelines on everything.

the condition about vacating the thing.

Just, Ms.

Oh, yes.

All right.

I'll second the motion.

I hear a second.

Discussion on this item?

Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Rethgel?

Aye.

And Mr. Solit?

We need two votes.

We have the critical- I would like to turn to the critical slopes.

All right, I'll leave it to you.

I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for tax map and parcel 450001000 as requested with no reservations or conditions based on findings that finding one, the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope.

per section 341120b6d1.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Do I hear a second?

Discussion on this item?

Ms.

Mr. Mitchell?

Aye.

Ms.

Russell?

Aye.

Aye.

I feel like it's in the staff report.

Yeah, the staff report is interested.

It is.

So typically when there's a new facility, like the gentleman said, he's spot on.

There is a code that notes that that is taken into account.

So it is taken into account and the analysis that was put forward, I think we may have done it before, but I can't remember.

And so it will not hurt one bit.

If you all are okay with moving forward with it being in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan for providing that vote, we will do some research on the back end, make sure that we covered all bases there.

I have a motion.

Please take that motion.

I move that the proposed US 250 bypass fire station located on US 250.

Do I hear a second?

Sure.

Do I hear a second?

Discussion on this item?

Ms.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Yes.

Hi.

Good work.

You get a bonus vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I would now like to turn to aesthetics.

Council, if you wish to stay and talk about aesthetics, you're more than welcome.

If you'd like to talk about, I don't know, the sciences or mathematics, that's completely acceptable.

Thank you very much.

Good to see you.

I believe it would happen this week.

So, yeah.

Mr. Warner, do we have him?

Good to see you.

Maybe he's walking over.

If we finish the meeting before he gets here.

Let's take a short recess for now.

I know most of you, I think.

I'm Jeff Warner.

I'm the city's preservation and design planner.

And do you have, it's just like, because I had like music with the first slide, I think.

And I'll say this right front, don't read the slides.

They're primarily to kind of help me going.

I don't like text in slides and presentations, but it's some of what I've had to use.

So yes, there's things to see, but it's not for you to read.

And so, Dan, I'm here to talk to you tonight about the city's entrance corridors and primarily your role, which is as the Entrance Corridor Review Board or the ERB.

And I'll say often, I'll say EC instead of Entrance Corridor, so you can follow me along.

Like I said, I have some slides, mostly notes to help me.

Please don't read them.

So you are the city's entrance corridor review board, a responsibility that was given to you by city council in 2003.

Within the city, there are several areas designated and designated by the city as design control overlay districts, and these include the city designated

historic districts, which are under the purview of the Board of Architectural Review or BAR.

And I stress city designated because there are historic districts which are not city designated.

The BAR does not have purview over those.

And then there are the entrance corridors.

So the map you can see, I tried to put both on there.

It's a lot going on.

And of course, the entrance corridors, which are under the purview of you all, the ERB.

And so the BAR

and the ERB review process are similar, but they're different.

And beep, beep, beep.

One more.

Yeah, so stay there.

Can we interrupt you?

Is that okay?

What's that?

Can we interrupt you?

No.

No, I'm only allowed to speak.

I can't interrupt you.

Yes, you can.

Would you like to ask me a question?

No, I don't.

Oh, okay.

Maybe other people do.

So in average year, you all... Sorry, sorry.

I'm a little brother again.

Remember?

Doesn't matter.

In an average year, you all will formally review maybe four or five requests, and that includes special use permits, comp plan plans, and then the design review and certificate of appropriateness for design review.

And you can see this is one you can look at.

In contrast,

on a monthly basis, the B.A.R., we review probably six to eight projects on a month.

So I'm very busy with the B.A.R., I'm not so busy with you all.

Are those unique projects or B.A.R.

reviews the same project three times?

So you're cutting it three times.

Otherwise, I'm going to run over and she's going to hit me with a laser pointer because that's a good question.

So I work with the BAR very directly.

You all can ask Carl all about it.

And I work with them very, very regularly from the inception of a project.

and often through a series of design review meetings and then towards the ultimate approval, the COA.

And I'm here tonight because I so infrequently work with you all that, and we have some things coming up in the entrance corridor that, so Nissy and James and I figured it was time to introduce you, reintroduce you to me and kind of give you a EC 101.

So next slide.

There you go.

Don't read that one.

Again, Council established the 12 entrance corridors, made the Planning Commission the Entrance Corridor Review Board.

Per code, the EC projects are reviewed for architectural design, form, style, materials, site design, and done through the application of the entrance corridor design guidelines.

The ERB's purview applies only to the exterior of the building and only to what can be seen from the entrance corridor.

So different from the BAR, what you're seeing from that road that's designated as an entrance corridor.

Next slide, please.

So design guidelines here, and that's what I had sent out a note to you all.

If anybody wants a copy of it, they are online.

Design guidelines are anchored in 10

design principles.

Not every guideline is applicable to every situation.

So that requires from you all a bit of flexibility in how and to what extent those guidelines were applied.

And these are the 10 principles.

And then, of course, the guidelines then stem from those.

Next slide.

So the design guidelines has five chapters.

an introduction, there's a chapter on streetscape, a chapter on site, a chapter on buildings, and there's a chapter that summarizes each corridor.

Next slide.

The last chapter is where things get into the specific corridors.

There's recommendations for each corridor.

And next slide, please.

So you can see the 12 there.

Next.

And then there's like for the recommendation for that specific corridor.

However, with the EC guidelines adopted in 2011, the corridor specific recommendations are somewhat out of sync with the current comp plan and even with current zoning.

um however and next two slides uh stop the the guidelines are still germane uh and useful uh being anchored in good design and and which is still important of course in 2022 so before getting into the how the guidelines were applied I would what what year what year for what 23

See, I was supposed to talk to you in December, so you get an extra month out of this.

No, thank you.

Good call.

So before we, I'll go back, which is still important in 2023.

So before getting into how the guidelines are applied, I wanted to talk to you the four scenarios in which they're applied to for.

So first is, next one is the staff administrative design review.

And as I mentioned, the most EC project requests can be reviewed administratively by me.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

He's counting.

He's counting to four.

I don't even look at him.

Yeah, the same problem I already have, right?

Terrible, terrible.

You've said you're one.

No, I've just totally lost myself.

As I mentioned, most DC projects and requests can be reviewed by staff.

And if someone disagrees with me, obviously it can be appealed up to you all.

I often tell them, we can work it out or you can go ask the ERP.

Next slide.

And so this is a good example of where in staff, this came to me

Gosh, but a couple years ago, this is the Kentucky Fried Chicken on 29 North.

They came in and I said, no, we're not putting a box of chicken on the entrance corridor.

You can do better than this.

And it had one version, even a bigger head of the colonel.

So after, it was only a couple of weeks and we went back forth and I asked them to tone it down.

They were great to work with.

And you can't really see because it's underneath the screen, but the result was a

I think something you would all say is a little bit better than a high franchise design.

And so typically the ERB, you all will only review what are new buildings.

So if it's a facade alteration in Barracks Road, I can take care of it or the alteration of a KFC, I'll look at it.

Next slide.

We also administratively review signs in the entrance corridor.

And this is a sign for the Raising Canes on Emmett Street.

You'll notice on the right-hand side, it shows, that's the illustration of a sign at night.

One of the things we don't, we control is light and glare.

Another is that if it has red in it, in the evening, we don't want to see a red glow from the sign.

So that's the type of thing that I can take care of administratively.

The other thing that then requires you all is when there's a request for a comprehensive science plan.

So, for example, for Barrett Road shopping center, large shopping centers, most recently you looked at something for the medical building on 10th and East High, and those result in you all reviewing it and making a recommendation to city council.

Next slide.

So things can be relatively simple, but they can also be extremely complex.

And I know some of you remember the comp science plan for Hillsdale Place, which actually will be coming back to you sometime soon.

Next, please.

Next, please.

And so the other thing that you guys look at

and review our special use permit requests within the entrance corridor.

And that's where you review it.

Is there a recommendation to counsel?

Do you feel that there will be an adverse impact on the corridor?

Can that impact be addressed with design view, et cetera, et cetera.

But it's not an action on your part.

It's a

It's a recommendation that you and also the Planning Commission send up to council.

Next slide.

And so it could be as simple as looking at a drive-through window at a Chick-fil-A.

Next slide.

Or it could be, you know, evaluating additional height, for example, 2005 JPA.

Next slide.

And then finally, the big...

The thing that you're involved in, though, that you do the least of with me is the design review of new buildings.

And so you go ahead and flick.

And so you did look at this Chick-fil-A in Barrett's Road Shopping Center.

You all get to make the decision on this, approving the COA, the certificate of appropriateness.

Applicants or anyone actually can appeal those decisions to city council.

So that's the next step up for those.

You've looked at things that are relatively simple like this.

Next slide.

You've also, if you recall, were involved in the apartment component of the Dairy Central Project, the part back on West Street.

And, you know, not only looking at the elevations and drawings, but go ahead.

There's wall sections, materials.

Next slide.

And you all even reviewed the landscaping plan and the lighting plan.

So it was probably as close to a BAR review that you all would be involved in.

And then, so back to the EC review process itself and applying what are guidelines from 2011 to a comp plan approved in 2021.

Next slide.

Don't need to read it, but there are, during your review, you all have to make some judgment calls on corridor-specific recommendations.

But overall, the guidelines are very flexible.

In fact, they're extremely broad and flexible, and they're not, and they're guidelines only.

They're not requirements.

There's not a check the box yes or no.

So you will have to give some thought to it, which we'll get to your question at the end a little bit.

And so,

There's enough, and you can flick to the next one, you know, just like anything, there's broad direction about lighting.

For example, it doesn't specifically say there what lighting means, but I will work with applicants, as we've done with PAR,

on levels of lamping from LEDs.

So because we are allowed to prevent unwanted glare, we have some measures that we apply.

We have in signage, again, what exactly does that mean?

Well, I can interpret do not obstruct architectural elements.

So if somebody doesn't like it, we can send it up to you all.

You also next, we talk about the facade organization of buildings, materials, colors, things that are important regardless of how a site is used or the density of it.

So the point being is the guidelines allow you a tool even if the comp plan and the zoning has changed.

And, you know, another thing, guys, I showed you the guidelines address franchise development.

They talk about the next, you know, to next one, please.

And then talk about mechanical equipment being screened.

So again, these are flexible guidelines that we can use regardless of what the underlying zoning says.

So there's pieces of this that are

You know, we can still use and still make use of what we will still use and make use of.

So it's with chapter six of the guidelines.

And remember, that was the corridor specific recommendations that I think, you know, we're going to have to work together on.

And some of you saw that with 2005 JPA, where there's some unclear, well, the language hasn't been the same as what the comp plan and the future zoning are saying.

As you know, since 2011, the comp plan has been updated.

The ordinance has changed.

We have some ordinance changes pending.

We have to have some discussions about that.

And we ultimately have to update the design guidelines.

But where we are now, with what we have now, I really want to have to rely on you all to work together to interpret as best we can, you know, the documents that we have, applying the current zoning, applying the current comp plan.

and then so pulling this all together.

Next, next.

Next.

So you have maybe next month, I'm hoping a look at the 2005 JPA.

I know the Hillsdale Place, that's being modified relatively simply, but still something that would come to you.

I know James and Missy have been working with you all on what's coming with the zoning ordinance changes and how we address entrance corridors in those.

And of course, I said the updating of the design guidelines.

So that's a very quick summary.

I hope it made sense.

It's okay if it didn't, because you can ask me questions.

So again, just reintroducing myself.

Want to know if you all have any questions about

Entrance Corridors, about the Entrance Corridor Guidelines, about the process.

You can ask me tonight.

You can come into my office.

We sit down and go through it.

With that, I wrote it.

Thank you for your time and for your service to the city.

There's a question about the JPA.

Is that going to be a nightmare?

That's going to be a real challenge.

Council has approved the number of units and pretty much approved the massing of that already through the SUP.

So how do we, you know the problem, it's going to be big and it's going to be massive.

How do we wrestle with the VAR concern about aesthetics when we know that the aesthetics are going to be difficult for a lot of people?

Height has been established.

So what you're working within is that height and does this design as presented comply with the guidelines?

And it's...

I mean, it's architecture.

It's subjective.

That's the truth.

But to the best of your ability, go through where does it fit, where it doesn't.

And to Rory's question, the BAR, so yes, six to eight projects a month.

When, for example, the courts expansion, I don't know how many, four or five times it came.

Now, it wasn't the same project every time, or it was another element of it.

So each time it goes to the BAR requires a staff report, an update, and a review.

So I don't, I mean, unless someone just has deferred something and doesn't change it, I don't get to just

Reprint everything and hand it out again.

And my relationship with the BAR, very, very different from you all.

I talk to BAR members very regularly.

We there's

The design review is much more of a discussion.

And Carl, you can certainly, you know, your perspective on it is be helpful.

It's just, it's a, if I have a question about something, I will send it out to the BAR.

Historically, if I had a question in an entrance corridor, I can only ask you all in a meeting.

And that's, it's, it's, I'm often telling the BAR, I'm not asking you to vote on something, I just give me a little bit of guidance and what I even have like next Tuesday evening, I'm going to be bringing some things to them and saying, kind of not sure how to, is this, do we have enough here, you know, before someone writes me a check and we, you know, come in here, you know, are we going in the right direction?

And, because I have said to people,

Don't bother submitting that or don't, you know.

So with you all, as far as it's traditionally been, once I have a project, once there is a design, I bring it to you.

And the architecture for a Chick-fil-A is very different from a tall building on West Main.

But

How you all choose to treat, for example, JPA, 2005 JPA when it comes.

I've seen the design.

I think it's something you all could act on if you want, but there may be questions.

You may have to, you know, say, what about this?

What about that?

That's up to you all.

What about dictating step backs?

You know, as we go up, is that a function of the planning commission and council?

But if you all make a judgment, if an applicant thinks you've done it wrong,

So there's a remedy.

You all, I mean, you want to do the best you can, but there is a resolution if someone disagrees with your decision.

So we can use the guidelines to, you know, think a step back is necessary or think something needs to be adjusted or additional landscaping.

But

What we do with BAR when we have these conversations, we're being very upfront with the applicant.

Because sometimes we have to communicate things and without taking an action, ask them to maybe go back and reevaluate something.

So there has to be a dialogue during the meeting.

It can't be, here's my design and the applicant sits down and there has to be some give and take.

So I can't really tell you what to do until we're looking at it.

I strongly recommend you take it.

Something else to consider as well, and I know I said this during the SUP review.

I will tell people what happens inside that building and whether it's 1,000 little apartments or one giant apartment where it's a block of concrete is irrelevant.

It's what we're evaluating is design and what you see.

And so we do

B.A.R.

often will get people come in and say, why are you allowing this?

And the B.A.R.

is not allowing that hauler building or more density.

They're evaluating the design.

So when we get going on, and there are others that are going to come in, you all have to kind of set aside what this is being used for.

The assumption is that use has been allowed, that density has been allowed, and you

You're evaluating the design, the materials, the landscaping, the lighting.

Is that appropriate or is it

So the BLR is focused on historic preservation things.

But they're also focused on design.

Right.

Design is a big thing.

So we talked about this the other day.

So fortunately, you guys right now have a couple of design professionals on your... Right now.

So, right.

You're flattered, man.

Now.

Now.

And yes, the BAR is more, we're heavy on architects, but I could have a quorum with business owners and a private, you know, owner in a district and two historians and not have any, I mean, the fact that Carl's an architect is a bonus, but we could actually have a quorum without any design professionals there.

So there's a yes and no to that.

I would say the difference between

between the BAR and you all is my frequency with which I work with them.

And quite honestly, the sort of informality with which I work with them and the number of times I've worked with them versus how we work with you all.

And I think that my job, I know that my job is to help you all.

I don't put something in your lap and go just, you know, I don't know.

I mean, I try to guide you as best I can.

That was a good non-answer.

So a question from the material that you gave us in our packet, there's an item, I don't know where it starts, but on page four of the

Judge Packett on page 91 of our PDF.

The express intent of the City Council enacting provisions of this subsection that matters related to public health and safety as may be defined by the Planning Commission shall prevail over issues within the purview of the ERB.

That seems to very much imply that

Council, at least when they enacted the entrance corridors, wanted the Planning Commission to review this and wanted us to look at public health and safety, which is not something that the behavior looks at.

It doesn't, but it sits very clearly in our ordinance.

So often, you know, when I brought things to you all, um,

The first question is, why are you here?

Why are you asking us?

And so sort of to be in government speak, my answer is because that's your job and that's what I've been told to do.

But in truth, that is what you've been charged with.

And until we are otherwise told differently, that's the process we have.

And so part of why I'm here this evening is I know very well that there's

William Bosch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Joy, Philip d'Oronzio, Rory Stolzenberg

an extensive project in 20 minutes in one evening and make a vote on it.

But that's okay.

I'm okay with that with the BAR.

Very candidly, I just haven't worked with you all enough, and I don't know what you're thinking.

I can generally guess where the BAR is going to go on something.

You all, I honestly have no idea.

And so it's, but that's what we've got.

And so I would say one of the things to

going forward is to say, we've got these guidelines.

What do they say?

What do they mean?

I'm familiar with them.

You'll find them very redundant.

You'll find them extremely broad.

And I think, Lyle, you do a really good job at the meetings of saying, what do you think?

What if you get that input and then you make decisions?

We have BAR meetings where sometimes certain members don't even speak, but they vote on it.

So you're just going to have to work together.

And then as far as updating the plan and updating the ordinance relative to the entrance corridor, we'll have to have that conversation at some point in time and offer what input I can.

But with these couple of projects coming up, I said, this is what we've got.

Did I remember there's something in the CIP for updating the BAR guidelines?

I have.

So our ordinance, every five years, the design guidelines are supposed to be updated or revised.

Now, that could be nothing more than, well, we changed the font.

And we had the same problem with the PAR.

Well, what you have with the guidelines for the historic conservation districts, which are the three neighborhoods, that's some very precise neighborhood stuff.

The ADC districts, which is the big book, and then you all have yours.

But before we go out and revise those guidelines, we want to make sure that the comp plan and the ordinance is sort of intact.

And some of the discussion I've heard is, well, should the BAR be reviewing entrance corridor stuff?

Possibly.

I mean, I have some thoughts on that, but I... So... That's for the 24th.

That's right.

So I think it's... There's no need to spend money revising those guidelines if, for example, entrance corridors change or something changes.

Before the 24th, can we get a clarification on that...

that paragraph that I read, it's item C3 under section 34309.

Yeah, like, so are we reviewing entrance corridor items

Well, everything, enabling legislation is, you know, everything has to be anchored in health, safety, and welfare.

I mean, so you pick any section of the code, that's where it starts with.

So, no, you aren't, I don't, I'm not aware of anything in the guidelines that talks about, you know, bus stops and, you know, people, you know,

just a pretty basic health, safety, welfare, pretty standard in the ordinance.

You are evaluating aesthetics.

The reason you are evaluating aesthetics and design is because of the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

I kind of read that, and I sort of paused for something on that.

I kind of read that as being, you know,

Planning Commission, you can't be forced down into a box canyon on an issue of the ERB if, in fact, it's interfering with the principle of the basic, you know, stop talking about aesthetics if you're talking about health and safety.

Stop.

And that trumps all else.

That's the way I read it.

I think that makes sense.

Our ordinance, I don't think the number of circumstances it might be, but they just wanted to make it clear that, look, if this is turning into a

The fact that you have voting in the state of Virginia is in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare.

Well, I mean, despite the advice from my learned chair, I'm going to squander this opportunity.

Relative to further information about?

Mr. D'Oronzio is a new planning commissioner and is not a major architect.

I'm having a hard time hearing everybody.

Sorry.

So I'm concerned that he is prepared.

It's fine.

Come on in, we'll chat through this.

I just meant in the sense of additional information, there are things that are coming from Missy and James.

I'm not necessarily planning on speaking to you all again until...

We come forward with something specific on some of the projects that are referred to.

It's just making sure I'm properly trained.

I believe you have valuable insight.

Yeah, I don't see why we should be holding up your background with that.

So, Jeff, I think your example of like big box retailers is a really great example of the entrance corridors working well, like

When I go somewhere and I can tell that there are entrance design guidelines in place, I go, wow, this place cares.

This place cares about their place that they don't just let a big box retailer come in and run their logo all over everything.

And I think that indicates

you know, a place that cares about its image and it's how it presents itself to its community and to others.

So I don't think that's a big imposition, you know, I think that's something that they can be, you know, asked to do.

I also think it's a little bit, we talk about elements of the comp plan

you know new new new buildings and new things being compatible with elements of of existing neighborhoods and so we on the planning Commission don't know what you know those things are I don't think we're doing.

I think we're being a little bit flippant in saying, well, we're not designers, we don't know, because then we're not really responding to the community saying, well, we care about our neighborhood.

So I do think it's important that we have some awareness of design and that being not just aesthetics, but materiality and things that are unique to Charlottesville.

And I think the entrance corridor guidelines do a really good job of not requiring someone to necessarily be a trained architect to go, well, does this do that?

Yes, no.

That's a good point.

And not to be flippant, you have a perfect statement.

I mean, none of us are land use attorneys or I'm not a civil engineer.

I'm not even an architect.

But you're representing an interest in the community and applying

You're not just being asked, what do you think of this?

You do have a lens through which to view something and to evaluate it.

So I think the tension is on things like

JPA, where we have a prior document that said something.

And so, but I think we have to, again, that's been litigated.

We have a special use permit, which has determined the height and the use, and now we're reviewing the design.

And I'm glad you said what you said about the entrance corridor because it's one of those things I was thinking about, like, all right, what works?

And I would say, you know, when you go into Fredericksburg on Route 20, I think, you know, yes, they have strip malls, but there's something very different about that.

And, you know, signage, lighting, trees, there are things that

When you're successful, my son always says, you know, success hides things.

And so, you know, when you're a team that's winning, you know, it hides your weaknesses.

Well, you know, we are succeeding in things and people just aren't paying attention to it because it's been successful, right?

But, you know, not to pick on UVA, but go over there and look at those lights at the tennis courts and it's blinding.

We

through the BAR have come up with some feasible guidelines that we've used.

You all asked us the BAR several years ago about glass, had a really good conversation about what does clear glass mean.

you or we or the general public would consider big failures?

I can certainly think of some from the BAI.

Yeah, yeah.

Yes and no.

I mean, I sometimes, okay, for example, the wah-wah that's down on Fifth Street, it's hard to get excited architecturally about a ship probably going to be gone in five years.

All seriousness, I asked when the Chick-fil-A came through several years ago, I asked Carl, I said, how would I describe this architecturally?

We actually had a good conversation about it.

It's difficult, but at the same time, the result is

positive.

I mean, the Wawa, they wanted to put like a big shed roof.

And I said, no, we don't have shed roofs.

That's not typical.

You did a hip roof out on 250.

I'd like to see that here.

I had some trouble with the fake Chippendale railing at the top, but I knew that they have to, we don't want to look at the mechanical units.

So I can live with that.

So there's some give and take, but I don't know if there's

I think more than anything, it's where we've missed something and it's happened.

We won't blame the Raising Cane's drive-through.

Yeah, that defies explanation.

So the WAWA is an interesting thing, or interesting point too, right?

Because I know at the County ARB, which is their UCRB, they have

agonized over that wah-wah or over their various wah-wahs.

And they came up with a wah-wah that I guess maybe we, to use the nomenclature, reflects the Charlottesville sense of place.

Should we be coordinating our entrance corridor guidelines and maybe review with the way that

The county does entrance corridors.

Yeah.

Margaret and I have been friends a long time.

You know, we talk.

I mean, they are, to a certain extent, coordinated.

They're certainly not at odds.

But, like, one of the big questions, you know, is, you know, what's the pedestrian experience?

It's a wallop.

But in fact, you know, the design guidelines say, you know, there are areas of the city that are intended to be auto oriented.

This is this is strip commercial.

We acknowledge that.

So it's not trying to make it, you know, downtown Charlottesville.

But what I try to do is I look at

Good materials, you know, and you're not coming in with a vinyl siding or fakes, you know, try use stone and masonry and metal and try to build some permanence at least into something.

Not something that in five years is going to deteriorate and look like heck.

That's sort of my first threshold.

You also try to look at what's there.

How will this fit into what's there?

Although with the comp plan changes, it's hard to say.

What's there now isn't the model.

But I could go through some, if it would help you all to maybe explore some of the things that have been evaluated.

We haven't had that.

Ranch Road Shopping Center's been here since, what, the 70s.

Well, for you all...

It was Derry Central, Arlington Oak, which has gone away.

Who knows?

It may come back.

Hillsdale Place, which will probably be coming back modified.

So that's about it.

And the Wawa, of course.

Naturally.

Mr. Palmer, aesthetics.

I'm sure-

Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, L

Ever.

Since we started doing government.

And I see many conflicts within the existing guidelines for the ERB, ECRB.

It is ERB.

Acronyms, that's how we keep you all in the dark.

So, you know, I understand the need for some updates, some moderations, some reasonableness.

So the conflict is really, as I said, in those corridor-specific recommendations where it says, you know, this really should be max three to five stories.

The current comp plan isn't there.

But the prior chapters that discuss, you know, what a building should be and, you know, how to, you know, the site could be designed and activated.

Those are still applicable.

There's nothing specific.

I mean, the guidelines are anchored in the ordinance.

They're allowed by the ordinance, not the other way around.

But it's where, what is an entrance corridor and where and which

what things fall under the ERB's purview, you may alter that.

I think, for example, it would really help to clarify what I look at and what you all need to look at.

Right now, we kind of have a policy that we work with.

I don't know.

I think I would share Commissioner Russell's kind of perspective.

I'm most interested in most immediately the JPA project and just kind of what practical, meaningful role the Planning Commission has on what that project ends up looking like.

Because, to me, that seems the most relevant area is those larger kind of developments, which our comprehensive plan now allows us trickiest areas, because those are the ones that people get the most upset about aesthetically.

And it seems like conceivably you go to other cities, there is a meaningful difference in the building materials and the designs of how those larger buildings look and

Do you have something that is better and more intentional or something that's just clearly the cheapest possible building materials and designs and you get your gentrification boxes that you could see in any city in the country anywhere.

But I don't know what if any mechanism there has to try to guide that design as we move to larger density and I don't know if this is actually a meaningful

place to try to guide building materials and design in a more intentional way.

It makes a lot of sense.

I would agree the process can result in just random articulations and a couple new building materials that functionally aren't interesting in any way.

To your point, it could even be worse.

But I don't know.

And I say this also as a builder in the first third of my professional career.

So, you know, you want me to build something inexpensive, I can build you something inexpensive.

In five years, it's going to look like I built it inexpensively.

And there's a reason my house...

couple blocks that way has been standing there since 1880s.

And there's a reason that places that were built in the 70s, people can't find a way to sell.

So there's a reality to the materials that are used.

Now that's separate from maybe how the architect puts those together, but there is an element in these guidelines about what are those materials and how are they incorporated in what project.

And I do think that's going to be a challenge moving forward because there are things coming and they look great on paper and they look great in the renderings and you go out there and it's styrofoam stucco that you can throw a ball through.

or windows that fog up after three years.

You know, gave me something to do tonight.

I didn't get any pizza.

I don't know.

We're not, BAR is not getting fed either.

I think you all can get there.

I really do invite you to stop in.

Let me show you what we do and how you fit into it.

It's a partnership.

It's a relationship.

It's

You're not a jury, necessarily.

You're helping to guide a process.

And I think my biggest fear is, like I said, there's an expectation an architect's going to put in a lot of money into a design and bring you a final design.

And that just isn't how the process works.

I think it's, honestly, we're going to have to go through the next two

design review projects and kind of go, how's this feel and what's this like?

Because I do think there are things that are going to start coming in and we're going to see each other more often.

So we're going to have to evaluate that process as it goes.

But the architects that I work with in town, and they're the same ones that will be bringing you EC projects, they keep asking me, well, can I just come in and talk to the planning commission about this?

It's like,

Not the same process, but... Why not?

Well, we can figure that out.

You guys have a lot on your plate.

And to have a good discussion about a design, it can't happen at 1130 at night.

Yeah, and we just don't have any work session space.

Would something like two over twos, as much as two on two...

I do that with BAR.

We've done that.

I think it's also, you know, what form should something have come in?

You know, at what point should you all be looking at?

And it's not like in BAR, look at something, it's just the sort of the polygons that's going to occupy that space and there's no skin on it, but you

Something we did with East High, something we did with East High, I can't remember which project.

The medical building.

That sounds right.

I think this was a review.

Like I said, we've done it.

It's just been like,

just hasn't been our practice with you all.

And we have to fix this.

Well, we can do it.

I thought it was productive.

Their designs were terrible and then became moderately less terrible.

Architects get used to getting beat up.

I will say that's part of their training is to have their

You know, they put their dreams and wishes on a piece of paper and have someone humiliate them about it.

They're used to it.

So it's okay.

Engineers are different.

So sorry.

I know it took more time than 15 minutes.

I think it's helpful.

I think we need to get to know each other.

You all, I urge you, go through those guidelines.

Yes, it's like any other document someone gives you to read, but you've got to, we've got a responsibility to these applicants to give them, you know, give them the full attention that they're due for, you know, or otherwise, you know, you can, it's fine, say, I abstain or present.

I mean, but if you're, if we're going to do the process on the community's behalf,

need to be at least familiar with the guidelines.

There are some on the BAR who have memorized the things, and I love that.

But I'm not asking you to become an expert on them, but be familiar with them so that we can at least work through them and apply them.

I am grateful for your service.

Thank you.

Thank you for your patience.

No, I

out of two patients tonight.

How are we feeling?

Are we ready to proceed?

You have more time.

Yeah, planning commissioners.

My name is Brennan Duncan.

I'm the city traffic engineer.

I'm here tonight to bring forward, I guess, talk about the staff's report for a street grade waiver that was denied by staff.

And the applicant has then taken their ability to appeal that to the planning commission.

So this is for 240 stripling.

I won't read verbatim my staff report here, but this first came before planning commission as a PUD application and critical slope application back in early 2021.

To give a little bit of the history of that from staff's perspective, during that process, we did note the steepness or the apparent steepness of some of the streets in that application to the applicant.

They subsequently said, not a problem.

We'll address that when we get to the site plan stage.

Again, we had made our comments known.

So fast forward to then getting the application for the site plan, noting that the 8% that should be met was 9.5%.

And the applicant for the code submitted a request for a waiver.

up to the 10%.

So they have grades at 9.5% on their current site plan application.

In their waiver, they identified five areas of reason that they should be granted the waiver.

Those included existing site constraints, minimizing the environmental impacts, community safety and welfare, accessibility considerations, and then basically

supporting documents from VDOT and AASHTO

that say that they allow for streets steeper than the 8% as well.

Their application for that waiver was included in your packet, so I'm not going to go over that in detail.

But the staff's, I guess, responses to those, as far as the existing site constraints, we didn't feel that there was enough justification to grant it solely on

On site constraints, there are steep grades on the site.

But as part of their current site plan application, they're moving a lot of earth.

There's cuts and fills in close to 10 to 12 feet all over the place.

So it's not like they're trying to adhere to the existing topography of this site.

They're doing a mass terraform of the site to get to their final thing.

um environmental impacts um they they noted that um there would be in order to accomplish the eight percent grades um that there would be a lot of fill that they would have to bring in um

They had not presented us with kind of background documentation of that, and staff didn't feel the need to ask for it because, in our opinion, it was more of a financial burden of having to bring in and truck out dirt than an actual environmental reason.

but again noting the amount of dirt that's moving on the site and looking at some of the topography I don't have the ability to to say yes or no as to you know whether there's truly a thousand truckloads that will be coming in so I'll just I'll note that the

The third item that they had on there, community safety and welfare.

Again, it was kind of the trucks coming in and out down, scribbling, and then also the fact that they would need to add retaining walls at the back.

Again, the retaining walls seems much more like a

financial burden, which in the city code does not allow staff to kind of take into consideration when making these determinations.

There's already retaining walls that are 10, 15 feet tall, adding, you know, four to six feet of retaining wall on top of that doesn't seem like it's, you know, really a safety concern, you know, over and above what's already there.

The fourth one is really where staff's

I guess hesitation with granting this waiver is.

It's the accessibility considerations.

ADA is a very complex document.

It's not even really a document.

It's a way of thinking.

I don't know how to put it.

There are guidelines for ADA as it pertains to buildings.

There are guidelines as it pertains to

the right of way for trails so like there's you know and a lot of times it's it's one of those things where you're not truly in violation until you're sued and so staff stance and on this is the the maximum

The juxta of the issue is the maximum allowable ADA grade that's actually presented in any text is 1 on 12, which is 8.33%.

there is a stipulation in there that allows for sidewalks to meet an existing road grade and that that's in compliance but it's staff's you know understanding and talking to FHWA the Federal Highway Administration as well as just the intent of the code that we feel um

it deserves is that, you know, it should be as accessible as possible.

The current code says it's 8%, you know, and that we can waive it up to 10%, but really, you know, we're trying to make it as accessible as possible and think that the 8% is achievable.

The last point, again, referencing the VDOT and AASHTO and PROAG guidelines

you know the city is allowed to be more restrictive than VDOT and AASHTO currently our code is more restrictive than VDOT and AASHTO so referencing that and saying that you know we're in compliance with that really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we should grant at least in our opinion the waiver so overall staff didn't feel like there was enough backing or enough reason

to grant the waiver.

Patrick, can you bring up a couple of the slides that I had?

So again, just for visual reference here, actually go to the next slide.

Yeah, so this is the development as was kind of proposed in the initial application.

On the left of the screen is Stribling Avenue,

Thank you.

And kind of middle of the screen on the top part, I don't think you can really see it that well in the PDF, but there's the cul-de-sac for Morgan Court.

So the green highlighted areas on the screen are the four locations where the road exceeds the 8% threshold.

The, you know, the

The application was put in as a kind of a blanket application for all of these areas, and we treated it as that.

If you so choose, you can kind of, you know,

maybe look at it as four separate areas, because I think there is possibly a way where you could make it work on some of these, if not all of them.

It's still my assertion that the development could be done.

Meeting the 8%, excuse me,

while still leaving the current layout.

Again, the fact that we had brought this up during the whole PUD discussion when the layout wasn't set, you know, that's a little frustrating from staff's point of view because, you know, you could have a completely different layout and this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Same thing with the critical slope saying that, you know,

We have to stay within the critical slopes that we asked for back when we were getting the PUD.

That discussion, again, if we had a different design or whatever, you're accounting for it on the front end instead of trying to do a design and then be like, oh, it doesn't fit, and now give us a waiver.

So more generally, one of the main reasons

for the denial was there's two fixed grade points.

There's Stripling Avenue and there's Morgan Court.

And the straight grade between those two roads is, I believe it's like 6.3%.

So there's really...

You know, no reason not to be able to achieve 8%.

We have granted the waiver in other recent things.

In fact, one of them was Charlie Armstrong's other development, Keen Court.

That street, you know, we had two fixed grades and you just could not physically get, you know, 8% between there.

So we made sure that the intersections were 100%, you know, met all of the stipulations of ADA.

And then the tangential pieces of it, we allowed to go steeper than that just so that we could actually connect to the streets.

So it's not that staff is saying that it's never appropriate, but in this instance, with the fact that, you know, those, you can physically connect those two points with a straight line of 6%, you know, there's really no reason not to reach 8%.

So yeah, so it's staff's recommendation that Planning Commission would uphold the denial.

We do have several suggested motions on there if you choose to follow those.

That's it for my presentation.

Mr. Mitchell, do you have any questions on that?

No, it's pretty clear I'm moving forward to the applicant's rebuttal.

Mr. Rathio?

Yeah.

Mr. Schwarz?

No questions for staff.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Not right now.

Mr. Palmer?

No.

Mr. Payne?

No.

Are we opening ourselves up to a lawsuit?

What?

If you approve the appeal, I don't believe so.

Thank you.

But I'm not a lawyer.

I would like to hear from the applicant, please.

Sure.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Clint Shiflett.

I'm with Timmons Group, a civil engineer representing the applicant's Southern Development on this project.

Great.

I hate to have to describe every slide.

Oh, no, it's us.

That was my plan.

So I won't go through an introduction.

I think everybody's aware of the 240 Shriveling Avenue project.

I think Brandon did a pretty good job of kind of running through our request.

Yeah, I guess we can go to the next slide.

So this is a pretty brief presentation.

Generally, I want to just kind of hit some of the high points for the most part in the waiver.

Can we go back to that one previously?

Sorry.

So real quick, I want to just kind of explain to the commission that kind of what is a 10% slope street?

What does it feel like?

I know we throw these percentages out there.

But, you know, kind of understanding where do they feel like?

How do they function?

I think it's important.

And what is some precedent, some context in the city?

So I just went through a couple of these just so we can kind of all be aware.

This one right here is at Rose Hill Avenue or Rose Hill Drive, excuse me, right at the intersection of Preston Avenue.

We can go to the next slide.

Just one more example.

This is Sunset Road, just down the street from the proposed development.

I think this location right here, we picked up a slope about 12.5%.

There's, of course, you go down further on Sunset Road, if you guys are familiar with this area, it gets quite a bit steeper than that.

This area right here that we kind of indicated is right at about 12.5%, just down the street here in the Frye Springs neighborhood.

You know, we'll note, you know, we kind of did a desktop survey across city GIS.

And it's important to note, there's a lot of precedent for this.

There are dozens that may even be an understatement of streets to the city of Charlottesville that well exceed 10%.

Next slide, please.

It's kind of an elementary diagram here, but we just kind of wanted to demonstrate, you know, hey, what is the difference in an 8%, 9.5% grade?

So that's what this represents.

The gray line here at the bottom is at 0%, the blue line at 8%, and then our waiver request, which is up to 10%, but our current design indicates a maximum slope of 9.5%.

So that's the difference.

That's to scale.

you know actual slopes.

Brent, some of our slides were overlap here.

So this one right here, we just wanted to kind of demonstrate, Brent touched on some, but demonstrating kind of how we're trying to limit the use of the steep grades.

You know, I think it's important to note that we're not, you know, coming in here and, you know, trying to throw steep grades everywhere, trying to be thoughtful about how we're implementing them.

And so the areas here in green indicate the areas that we are

Our current design has grades steeper than 8%.

You'll notice between the green areas, so this will come up later in the conversation when we talk about ADA accessibility.

We flatten out at the intersections intentionally to be able to provide pro-wag is the new buzzword now, public rights away of accessibility guidelines, which is kind of what the city engineering staff is hanging their hat on.

for these sort of things.

Again, just briefly, Brian kind of shared this as well.

So this is kind of existing conditions and constraints, Matt.

This is in the waiver.

I think a lot of these things that you're going to see here were in the waiver.

The brown lines there kind of indicate the proposed road network.

It's kind of overlaid on the existing conditions.

As you can see, we roughly have a slope across the site, particularly from that high point on the left end of the site, closer to Stribling Avenue, of about 11% in grade existing today.

As Brandon noted, if you do draw that blue straight line, it may be hard to tell on this slide here, but again, it's in the PC packet and in the waiver itself, but I think it's 6.3% is the existing slope, tying point to point.

That is accurate.

What we take into account completely is that there's a high point, you know, there's a ridge that comes up and then back down that you have to navigate as well.

And it also doesn't take into account the fact that we have to flatten out at each of those intersections to be able to provide a flat enough grade for adequate pedestrian crossing.

So it's kind of a tough, it's tough to evaluate it based on, hey, is it 6.3%?

Well, yes, but large segments of the road cannot be that steep.

I'll also note, I think we heard Brendan note two fixed points.

Those are two fixed points on the site.

You know, I would argue that maybe the more constraining element of the site as a whole over here on the east side of the site is associated with Morris Creek, the associated steep slopes and 100-year floodplain, which we have to stay completely out of.

So that kind of condenses that site in, further constricting, you know, length to be able to transition grade, things like that.

So, you know, there's several constraints.

Also note, kind of, if you look at the left side of the sheet here, closer to Stribbling, we have residential uses close to those property lines.

So we have to stay pretty close to grade and that left kind of like, if this was Oklahoma, right, this would be the panhandle.

On the extent of that, we have to

maintain as close as we can to existing grade to not impact the lot.

So that's also a constraint.

So, I mean, I would say this site is pretty heavily constrained, even beyond those two points that I think Brennan pointed out.

Next slide, please.

Sorry for the text, but environmental impacts, community safety.

So we were asked by engineering staff, and I think it's part of the waiver request process to demonstrate why granting the waiver would have a positive environmental impact, how it would improve community safety.

We kind of hung our hat on two items, and this is really the crux of why we're asking for the waiver to begin with.

So approval of the waiver would...

would provide a balanced site.

That is, earthwork of the project would roughly balance, meaning minimal dump truck loads in and out of the site to carry fill dirt, which causes decreased volume of construction traffic.

Denial of the waiver would result in north of 1,000 large dump truck trips to and from the site to import approximately 12,500 cubic yards of fill dirt.

That in turn means an increased volume of construction traffic on Stribling Avenue and everything that comes along with that increased air pollution, noise, vibrations, community nuisance of that many large trucks coming in and out of Stribling Avenue, which we feel can be avoided.

And I will note on the analysis we did for this, we did a really rigorous earthworks cut-fill balance analysis as part of our design.

We're taking into account things like compaction rates, depth of pavement sections.

We feel like that 12,500 cubic yards, 1,000 dump truck loads was arrived at in a

in a pretty precise manner.

So we do support that number.

We feel that is accurate.

Next slide, please.

I'm almost done.

The second part of the environmental impacts is

You know, the fact that street grades would also have a major impact to the site retaining walls.

We heard some things in the email correspondence, and I think again tonight, that maybe the perception of staff may be that cost is what's driving this waiver request.

You know, we ran some numbers, talked to Charlie, to the development folks, you know, early this week, last week, we crunched some of that.

It's important to note that that fill dirt is essentially free.

You've got projects going on at UVA.

getting rid of dirt and paying to do so.

And Charlie, you know, in Southern Developments and in my experience as well, it's really rare that a contractor would have to pay to bring in fill dirt.

That's essentially no cost.

When we looked at the cost of the retaining walls, the additional retaining walls that would need to be constructed, we get about $50,000 worth of retaining walls.

And that is a pretty nominal number given the overall scope and budget of the project.

But again, so approval of the waiver to provide the slopes up to 10% in grade would result in minimization of the retaining walls height and length.

Denial would result in additional 185 feet of retaining walls at about six foot average height and an additional two and a half to four feet in height to what we're proposing already of 231 feet of retaining walls.

Next slide.

This is kind of the second big point I think we heard from staff was pedestrian accessibility considerations.

So I guess I'll just kind of jump into the code here.

So road grades up to 10% as requested are consistent with the following accessibility guidelines, specifically the U.S.

Board's PROAG, which is the public right-of-way accessibility guidelines I mentioned earlier.

and their code section titled within street or highway right away, it states where pedestrian access routes are contained within a street or highway right away, the grade of pedestrian access route shall not exceed the general grade established for the adjacent street or highway.

That is a long way of saying if the sidewalk slopes match the adjacent street, then they are compliant.

The second portion, I think, so that kind of deals with longitudinal slopes.

So thinking about cross slopes as we cross intersections, kind of the second piece of this.

So in the section in the Pro-Ag documentation, the guidelines titled pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop control states where pedestrian access wraps are contained within pedestrian street crossings

without yield or stock control, the cross slope of the pedestrian access route shall be 5% maximum.

We've demonstrated in the site plan documents as well as the waiver request, which I think you guys have all seen.

We've ran profiles, cross section profiles across each of those intersections to demonstrate that we're actually at 4.8% max cross slopes across those intersections.

So the request of waiver requests for street grades that we're asking is also in compliance with national, state, city, national, state, and city standards of design as it relates to road design.

I think as Brendan mentioned, AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

And their green book is what this book is called, which is the leading guidance manual that contains the current standards for highway and street design.

VDOT kind of derives their standards from AASHTO.

City of Charlottesville, I think, at least in part, leans on some of that guidance.

But the green book for the local roads and streets states grades for local and residential streets shall be less than 15%.

way, way higher in steepness than what we are requesting.

VDOT's geometric design standards for urban and local street system also states that maximum percent of grade shall be 15%.

And then even in the Charlottesville standards and design manual, which is current,

and the geometric design standards for urban and local street systems states that the maximum street grades shall be less than 10%.

All right, next slide.

So to conclude, you know, I think it's kind of put a bow on this.

We would like to point out that this waiver request is in line with the goals of the comprehensive plan and considering the impact of development and natural and cultural resources, as well as prioritizing the quality of life for Charlottesville residents.

The waiver request demonstrates in great detail the environmental and community benefits, which significantly outweigh the reasons to deny the waiver.

Additionally, we've also demonstrated on top of all of that compliance with local state

and national guidelines and regulations for both highway design, street design, and accessibility standards.

So that's all I've got for my presentation.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell.

I am not.

Were you on the debate team in high school?

I was not, no.

I had an older sister, though.

Absolutely, because you've answered several questions, and you've answered most of them.

There's only one that you didn't answer, and I think the question is, why are we here?

I think these guys suggested all along that there were going to be problems with the grave.

if you got to a certain steepness.

And I think during the process, you indicated that you would work through it as you work through the site plan.

But we obviously didn't work through it.

So how do we get to?

Yeah, that's a good question.

And Brandon's 100% right.

This was discussed at the PUD level, that engineering, you know, unofficial conversations, email correspondence, you name it, you know, and 100%, you know,

The idea was, hey, you know, are you able to obtain this and stay within that 8% limit?

Because, you know, we would prefer you to do so.

And the answer is yes.

From an engineering perspective, it can be done.

Anything can be done.

We can make the road at 5%, 4%, 3%.

100-foot retaining walls and bringing in 10,000 loads of dirt.

So anything can be accomplished.

I think what happens is that the PUD process, and particularly with this one, we did a lot of front-end engineering work.

But I think we all know that the PUD is not a fully engineered document, not fully designed.

When we get our geotechnical data on the soils, we really start digging into the cut-fill balance.

What do those street sections look like, right?

Because that has a big bearing on how much soil is coming in and out of the site.

So it's just that next level of engineering that kind of informed us, hey, you know, can we do 8%?

Yeah, we can.

We think it's better for the community if we can get this at 9.5% though.

And it was kind of that final engineering process that led us to that decision.

And believe me, we would rather not come in for a waiver.

It would be easier that way for everyone.

That's good.

Mr. D'Oronzio.

Yeah, you've answered several of my questions.

All right.

Russell.

So I really want to try to understand what this means for people navigating the site, and that's where I struggle interpreting the code.

and understanding what the street means versus the sidewalk.

Sure.

Well, I will note just kind of overall, during the site plan review process, we are going to have to answer all those questions in great detail, right?

The city engineering staff will be reviewing the plans to make sure we're meeting all applicable pro-ag or ADA accessibility requirements.

Those will have to be demonstrated or they can't approve.

our site plan.

So that, you know, just to make kind of everybody, you know, there are checks and balances of that.

Like, we don't get this waiver and then, you know, it's kind of willy-nilly.

We can, you know, do whatever we want from that perspective.

But to answer your questions specifically, the site plan will demonstrate that, I guess.

You know, like, for instance, the buildings here, the two multifamily buildings have under-building parking with designated

designated ADA spaces with elevators, for instance.

So the solution to accessibility is different kind of depending on where you're at on the site and what you're trying to access.

But generally speaking, as far as the streetscape and sidewalks go adjacent to the streets and for the street crossings,

So like sidewalks would either step, you know, have like- So the sidewalks would just follow the road grade?

So, I mean, I find that point kind of moot because you're creating the road grade, right?

So like you were establishing the grades in the road.

So I don't really think that's really, I don't know, effective argument.

Sure.

I will note, I mean, the notion of 8.33% I think came up.

That number really has no bearing in this.

That number relates specifically to a ramp, so an ADA ramp.

Usually that is a curb ramp for a pedestrian access up onto a curb or access to a building.

You have to have landings and so forth.

That's kind of a different thing.

Really, by the letter of the law, if you have sidewalks that are not associated with roads or streets, the maximum longitudinal slope that you can have is 5%.

So 8% well exceeds that.

So if a sidewalk is not associated with a street, a different set of rules kind of apply, right?

So if you have a sidewalk that runs through a park,

and it does not follow a street grade or anything of that nature.

The sidewalk to be ADA compliant has to be at 5% or you can transition grade 8.33% slope ramps.

And is there, I think,

Commissioner Schwartz alluded to this in our pre-meeting.

Is there a public kind of like a park facility in the site plan?

I just don't remember.

Yeah, there is.

I mean, I think some of that's being programmed now as we speak with our landscape architect.

and architecture team.

But certainly there's, you know, kind of step down green space areas that kind of that larger area in the middle is a large green space.

I think for the most part right now, those are kind of being looked at as more passive uses, more passive green space areas as opposed to something more programmed.

Okay.

I guess there's been sort of like more esoteric questions we as the commission need to ask.

Some specific questions for you.

What, in your estimation, how long, how many days, how many, what's the pain factor of bringing in a thousand loads of dirt?

You know, like how many trucks?