Planning Commission Meeting   11/13/2018

Stroberson, you'll need to come up here and get up under here with us.

Wow.

Always something new.

Thanks.

Welcome.

Thank you all for coming.

I'll gavel us into session.

We all have some new committee assignments.

Maybe you all have been to some of your committee meetings, and maybe not yet.

But if we could start tonight's meeting with a commissioner's report.

Certainly.

I've attended two committee meetings since the last commission meeting.

First one was October 16th, the Board of Architectural Review.

During that meeting, there were 10 agenda items.

Three of those items after discussion were voluntarily deferred by the applicants to come back again with some revisions, and then seven certificate of appropriateness were issued to other projects.

and nothing more really to report of those projects that we reviewed.

At the October 18th meeting of the PACC Technical Committee, that's the Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee, we got upgrade dates from all the city, county and UVA participants on the various current projects and initiatives going on in their region.

But then more substantially we had a presentation by Alice Rauscher, the architect for the university on the Fontaine Master Plan, which is owned by the university foundation.

She went through the master plan.

The goal of that master plan is to test a fit of new facilities

to support the UVA health system and the engineering schools.

And they will replace outdated clinical and research infrastructure at the university.

Fontaine was targeted because of its proximity to grounds, its easy accessibility and the surface parking that it offers.

It requires coordinated enhancements to transportation network within UVA to make it work.

The existing development has 580,000 square feet, gross square feet.

The master plan identified a near-term potential expansion to 1.1 million gross square feet and in a long-term capacity of 1.4 million gross square feet.

And that's my report.

Thank you.

I want to remind us, please speak in the microphones since our secretary has since retired in our last meeting.

I know that the minutes we'll need to make sure we capture this on a recording.

Good evening.

On October 25th, I attended the school board CIP or Capital Improvement Project work session.

And the biggest takeaway was that we have to decide whether we're going to renovate or rebuild our middle school.

So they're trying to figure out what is the most cost-effective way to either combine Walker and Buford or to figure out which school they're going to

in which school they're going to proceed with.

We also talked about the improvements that were made as far as school safety and security where they've added any school that had direct entryway access, they've added a barrier as to where you have to reroute through the office to then actually get access to the school.

And the renovations are coming along at Charlottesville High School.

Thank you.

Yeah, let's see.

On November 7th, I attended a meeting with the people working on the regional housing needs assessment, interviewing Gary and myself about our views on development and housing needs in the greater Charlottesville area.

On Thursday the 8th, I attended a meeting of the place committee where we discussed the East High Street streetscape project that we'll be seeing tonight.

That culminated in the memo that was sent to us a few days ago, and then this morning I attended the MPO technical committee talking about our long-range transportation plan that we saw a presentation on last month at this meeting.

They've developed a new scenario, a mix of potential plans that performs much better than the projections on their other ones, and we spent

So the last six days have been pretty active.

On Wednesday, Alex and I visited with the UVA Master Plan Council, and they walked us through four different projects that they're working on.

One was IV.

and Ivy is really in the visioning process so there's really not a lot to talk about with Ivy.

The other is the Fontaine deal and Jody's kind of walking through that.

That is really all about bringing their research and their transitional research and clinics all together.

The one takeaway I got from that meeting was that they are more sensitive now than ever as relates to our low-income community that don't have automobiles and need transportation to get to the UVA facilities and they made that very clear that they're thinking about that and thinking through that.

The other piece was the athletic master plan and they're going to do a lot of work over there by JPJ and what one day used to be UO.

But most of the work that they're doing over there is just to upgrade the facilities that are already available to the athletes just to make them better.

I think they may add a softball field to that.

That's the only significant thing there.

Unbelievable.

That's pretty exciting.

The other piece was the Brandon Avenue master plan.

That's going to be kind of neat.

They're looking to make that a lot more pedestrian friendly than it is now.

And everything over there will be LED compliant, really a green space area.

And they're going to put in several new buildings and build a parking lot there as well to support those new buildings.

The other meeting was the Parks and Rec meeting and we walked through what's happening with the CIP and I'm actually going to meet with the Parks and Rec staff leadership next week just to go through their CIP in greater detail.

There was an update on the athletic programs that they provide.

The takeaway from that is more people from the county use our athletic facilities than people from the city, so something to think about as

As we look down the road, the exciting piece that they're working on, again, I talked about this last month, is a skate park.

That is gonna, as she has an email about this, it's pretty much done.

And we're gonna do a grand opening in December.

And I really think that we're gonna be able to get Tony Hawk to be there.

And you know who he is, he is the man when it comes to that sort of thing.

So we think he'll be there for the grand opening.

And one of the reasons we're able to do that is because a lot of people think this is gonna be one of the top three escape facilities in the nation.

And as a result, a lot of folks think that this will result in a significant economic boost for our area, bringing people in from the region and frankly from all over the US.

So keep your eye out for that.

The most exciting thing that I did was yesterday.

Yesterday, I joined the vice mayor in a flyover of the Rivanna River watershed.

Unbelievable, just the views you get when you're flying at 3,000 feet and the views you get of the waterways.

And there were three takeaways that I left there with.

One takeaway is at Moore's Creek.

That is more substantial a body than I thought it was.

There are parts of Moores Creek that are wider than parts of the Rivanna, so it is a significant waterway.

The other takeaway is that a lot of the riparian buffers, the buffers between development and the river, are very thin.

Sometimes a single tree stands between

the development and the rivers is something we need to think about as we work through our land use plan, especially where there's major industry along Morris Creek, for example.

And the other thing that I left that with is I renewed my desire to ask the developers who are developing near our waterways

Thank you.

development that's going to impact local waterways and the developer wants to mitigate by offering nutrient credits.

That sounds like a very exciting trip.

I beg to disagree on nutrient credits.

Okay.

There's a lot of talk about that CIP, just for the simple fact that there's a lot of things going on in the city, and so it's an interesting time.

That's all I can say about that right now.

But that is going on weekly.

The second thing is on November 1st, I attended my first TJPDC meeting, which was also extremely enlightening.

At that meeting, it was the financial audit of the organization, which was a pretty in-depth audit of the financial report, which they had an accountant review, and they're in good standing, which is always great.

We talked over some information about the regional housing partnership membership.

So after our housing audit and report, members of the TJPDC got together and decided that they needed a regional housing commission.

So they're going to be doing a study based off of the study that was done for the city to look at the inventory of housing and what is needed.

much like again for the city.

This will cover Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Green, Louisa and Nelson.

So it is regional.

At that time they were looking to add members of the community from different locations to that and put together a charter for that commission.

which we went over, which was interesting.

That is also, you can find that on the TJPDC website.

But it does involve a lot of the members of the public, stakeholders, public sector, private sector.

and right now they're just putting together members for that charter voting members for that charter and I think then out of the blue we got an invite to a meeting which you all attended last Thursday morning and I appreciate you guys doing that at short well Wednesday morning maybe it was you had like eight hours notice so I appreciate you going to that and

filling us in on that.

Thank you very much.

So stay tuned for more information on that regional housing partnership, RHP.

And then we got some information from the Virginia

Association Planning District Commission, Bob Koiner, and evidently the Virginia PDCs are celebrating 50 years this year.

Let's see, what else?

The housing strategy was what was most impactful to me, and then how we could apply for potential grants.

And I think that was all I had for a report.

So if you have any questions on that, the next meeting for that TJPDC is December 4th, I think.

So we'll hopefully hear more on that, and I'll fill you guys in a little bit more on the voting members of this regional housing partnership.

All right.

Well, you all have a work session scheduled for Saturday.

We'll be meeting from 11 to 4 in the NDS conference room, and that's public meeting, so anyone is invited to attend.

We'll be working on the comprehensive plan.

We also have a work session scheduled on next Tuesday which is November 20th and that is going to be getting the draft to a place where you all are generally comfortable with it so that staff can put it into the materials that will go to Council.

Council is scheduled to look at the comprehensive plan draft on December 17th.

So commissioners think about who might want to come and be a part of that evening.

That will be followed the next night by our work session on the CIP and we have the Emmett Street Scape presentation similar to what we've been doing with East High, Emmett Street's on its way.

And then I'm sure that we'll be debriefing what happened at council the evening before.

Those are the only meetings, well, those are the meetings that you all have scheduled before the end of the year.

We're not scheduled to have our work session on the regular night that we have, November 27th.

I'm guessing no one will be too terribly disappointed since we've been meeting weekly at least for the last while.

So for our comprehensive plan, we have this coming Saturday and pretty much next Tuesday.

Right.

And that's it before it goes to council.

Let me rephrase that.

For them to determine whether we need to focus on something else and or start public hearings.

So, we've got a lot of work to do this coming Saturday and we'll be talking about kind of the format and the structure of that as soon as we get through our public hearings this evening.

So, not staying late.

I want to make sure we talk about that so that at 11 a.m. we hit the ground running and stay focused and get this information that we need to pass on.

At this time we would like to ask if there are any members of the public to come forward and speak on anything that's not on our formal agenda.

The things that are on the formal agenda tonight are the East High Streetscape concept and you'll have an opportunity at that time to speak on that.

Carleton Avenue PUD, and you would have some time at that point to speak on that.

If you wanted to speak on the entrance corridor review board Derry Central 2, now is your time to speak on that.

So if you'd like to come forward, you have three minutes for public comment.

And I don't think we have anybody signed up, so is there anyone in the audience that would like to come and speak to anything not on the formal agenda?

Then I will close that public section of the public comment and we can move to our consent agenda.

We have three items on the consent agenda.

And they're all three zoning text initiations, amusement center location, site plan requirements, and mixed use code descriptions.

And this would just be an initiation to move forward with reviewing those code changes.

Madam Chair, I move to accept the items, approve the items on the consent agenda.

We have a motion and a second.

If we could get a vote by voice acclamation.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion passes for the approval of consent agenda.

Our next item on the agenda is the joint meeting with Commission and City Council.

We have confirmation that we have a quorum coming.

Okay.

So, are they selling tickets to C3-1-4-1?

I told the chair.

in the building.

I'm trying.

I'll go sister.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't think he knows everything that he's got.

Thank you.

And then we will begin with our first public hearing.

CP18-00001 East High Streetscape Concept.

Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232 and City Code Section 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the proposed East High Streetscape Concept, located on Market Street from 7th

Street to 9th Street, north on 9th Street to East High Street, and from East High Street to 10th Street, to determine if the general location, character, and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the city's adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof.

Following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission shall communicate its findings to the Charlottesville City Council,

with written reasons for its approval or disapproval.

Mr. Asse.

I'm calling Mr. Athlee, but he's not here.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Brian Peters.

Good to see many of you again.

I worked with Kimley-Horn tonight representing Neighborhood Development Services, working for them on the design of the East High Streetscape Project.

I hope I have my presentation.

So at this time, if any commissioners would like to go down so that we can see this presentation, it's a little bit different than our work session, right?

There are a couple of updates.

Great.

And I'll point those out.

You've already got a sneak peek from last week.

So we'll start just giving you an update on where we are in the process and the project overview as well as the schedule.

The East High Streetscape project was generated through the SmartScale process, which many of you are probably familiar with.

This is a VDOT prioritization process that began first in 2016.

This was funded through the first round.

It's one of several projects the city successfully got funded through SmartScale.

The biggest takeaway from being a SmartScale project is that the budget

The project limits, the scope, and the schedule are pretty much fixed upon the time that the funds are awarded.

The city was awarded $5.59 million through SmartScale.

I do want to note that that does not include the undergrounding of franchise overhead utilities such as Dominion Power and Verizon and CenturyLink and other folks that might be above ground.

That money is essentially a betterment.

The federal government doesn't pay for betterments to private utilities.

So if the city wishes to underground those utilities, they have to front the difference.

In your CIP review, you'll note that the city is requesting funds to cover the balance of the estimate for the undergrounding.

There's approximately two-ish million dollars on this particular project as well as several other street tape jobs.

The scope of the project is funded through SmartScale was to widen sidewalks, to add bike lanes, to install landscaping, to make ADA improvements, as well as wayfinding, signal upgrades, and transit improvements.

In general also, as I mentioned, to underground utilities.

The project runs down East Market Street, so in the lower right, if you're sitting in the audience,

Up there you'll see that the project limits are shown in green.

That runs down Market Street beginning pretty much just outside the front door to City Hall at the signal at 7th Street, runs to the intersection at 9th.

The yellow you see there running off to the left are the limits of the Belmont Bridge replacement project, which I'm sure we're all very familiar with.

What you want to take away from this graphic is the Belmont project and the East High streetscape job really work together.

They cooperate.

They are really one project.

They will be under construction, at least overlapping, partly at the same time.

But also the form and the function of how the street works and how it looks and how it's balanced and the street furniture and the street lights will all be consistent.

At the end of the day, with the Belmont Bridge Project and the East High Streetscape Job Project just on 9th or Avon all the way up from the Belmont side to the 10th and Locust side at CFA, you're going to come away with about a half mile of enhanced pedestrian, bicycle and landscape space that will be a transformative improvement for the entryway to downtown.

Where are we in the schedule?

We started about a year ago, earlier this year at the beginning of 18.

We have been through an engagement phase that I'm going to give you the key takeaways from.

Your staff report has even more details as well as the presentation that we gave at your work session last month.

on each individual of those data points that you see up there.

And you can see we are on the far right there at Boards and Commissions presentation.

We would look for your determination on being compliant to the comp plan tonight, assuming that you concur on that.

We'd then go to council in December.

The council would endorse the concept and then we'd begin detailed design.

And we'd be back before council probably by mid-year in 19 to get a design approval on the actual details of the design so we can begin right away in construction.

Right away would be estimated to take about a year, so we'd be beginning the project in about 2020 for construction.

I want to give you one slide just on the brief takeaways from the engagement.

This project has benefited from the visibility of the Belmont Bridge project, but also being next to the Martha Jefferson, Little High, and several other neighborhoods.

We had very good involvement from the neighborhood associations, was actually at one of the neighborhood's picnics in the spring to be able to answer questions and give information.

But we've received a lot of input.

We've received roughly a thousand touch points.

Those are our interactions with discrete individuals.

We had about 17,500 touch points or data points.

That basically means if you filled out something on MetroQuest or you gave us a comment card or we gave you a survey and we got that back, we got 17,000 individual data points from folks engaged.

We had 500 plus written comments.

Again, similar to the Belmont Bridge job, we used a interactive online platform to

I do online outreach through the internet.

We received over 500 responses through MetroQuest through that.

Most of those written comments you see as well came through MetroQuest as well.

And again, I'll share that the city and the constituents and the citizens should really be pat on the back for engaging through MetroQuest.

It's a very effective tool.

We'll use MetroQuest on planning projects across the country as a consultant firm at Kimley-Horn.

We'll leave a MetroQuest survey open for a year.

We're sometimes hard pressed to get seven or 800 comments or folks to interact with us.

So we got 500 on this one, I believe about 800 and some on Belmont.

Some key takeaways from all of that data that we were able to accumulate.

Basically, it would be like what you would hope to see on a streetscape project where you're talking multimodal.

We saw pedestrian facilities and bicycle and anything other than the car is extremely high priority.

Folks expressed a desire to have a safe and walkable street.

The street today, if you go outside and take a left down 9th Street, is far from being comfortable to a pedestrian.

It's unsafe or ugly or would be the keywords I think that would be used to describe the street environment in its current state and certainly have an opportunity to improve that.

And the last big key takeaway that was consistent from both our steering committee as well as folks who interacted with us through online as well as in-person engagement

would be to utilize design features and proposed amenities to enhance the environment for all users.

Again and again it came up that this route we're talking about really is the entryway to access the downtown mall and is really a unique opportunity to kind of transform that environment.

This is the conceptual design, very similar to the one that we presented to you about a month ago in your work session.

I do want to point out a couple big takeaways and then a few refinements that have occurred based on ongoing engagement.

For you to be considered tonight first you can see the project does start at the signal just outside City Hall at 7th Street and Market Street Yeah, we do have a little bit of green and we're able to introduce to Market Street We're not moving curbs the scope did not envision altering the curb lines on Market Street That's primarily a budget driven constraint you move the curb you have to deal with the stormwater if you deal with the stormwater then you have to deal with the utilities and the cost kind of

Unfolds quickly on itself, but we are able to reallocate the asphalt that exists curb to curb, and you will have a bike lane from 7th Street at the Signal all the way to the intersection at 9th.

We then take the left going up 9th today.

9th Street is essentially a four-lane road, though I will point out that the middle lane, the inside lanes in the southbound and northbound directions essentially act as de facto turn lanes.

And because on going south, even if you go across the existing Belmont Bridge, there's only one lane in and one lane out and going out towards Pantops on the right of the screen.

Same thing actually starting at East High, there's only one lane in each direction.

So we're going to take away that left turn lane and a terminology that we as transportation engineers call a redway diet.

to basically repurpose some asphalt for pedestrian and bicycle spaces.

What you see depicted between Market Street and East High would be a four and a half foot green space and a six foot wide sidewalk as well as a six and a half foot bike lane in each direction.

You'll note there are three lanes in Market Street.

That'll be kind of a reversible left turn lane if you're coming southbound from High Street.

and one to turn left onto Market will open up somewhere between Jefferson and Market Street, a left turn lane for you southbound and then similarly going the other direction northbound, you'll have a left turn lane that would open up near Jefferson, primarily not for Jefferson but for the east high intersection there at the signal kind of near Tarleton Oaks.

You will notice the ongoing development project at Tarleton Oaks that is their current site plan.

We do have a unique opportunity after meeting with them

about a couple weeks ago in that corner there you'll notice the greenery in front of their door at the northwest corner of East High and 9th Street kind of where that bend around to the right is.

That's going to create some public space.

Today we have a right turn lane there that is not in the design.

Right turn lanes typically take up valuable space we'd like to use.

They increase the pedestrian crossing distance and they don't do things from an urban design standpoint that we'd like.

We can achieve the same function at the intersection without the right turn lane, which I know personally we'll be appreciative of because every time I come to Charlottesville, though it's been for more than a decade, I always get in that right lane.

including tonight when I'm supposed to be in the left so that will be an improvement but we will be able to use some public right-of-way space from basically the existing curb line back out towards where those trees are and we're actively working on concepts that would be brought to the public in later parts of the design phase for what that plaza area could be so we can have a little pocket plaza right there on the corner to kind of open up the entryway to downtown.

As we go around the bend there, we do narrow down a bit.

We lose the landscaping space on the east side or the right side of the street going towards Pan Tops.

We are able to incorporate some new trees on the west side, left side in front of CFA that you see.

And we still have a six or a five foot wide sidewalk.

We essentially have a two lane or three lane section in each way and then we approach the end of our project on the right.

We redo the signal and redo the approach as well as address that really long pedestrian crossing that exists in the bottom right of the screen on the southern side of the Locust and 10th intersection.

These are the typical sections.

You can see they're essentially the same sections we talked you through at your work session.

I will point out, you'll see on the left side of the screen, the typicals for Market Street.

And on the right, you will see the typicals for East High and 9th.

Those on the right are the same.

The ones on Market, as you'll notice now, show a bike lane pretty much from 7th to the intersection at 9th.

And that is done purely by restriping and reallocating the asphalt.

So wrapping up my presentation, the question before you tonight is does the design that is currently presented, does it represent and does it comply with the transportation parts of the comp plan?

In summary, the existing condition of 9th Street has an inconsistent sidewalk width that is extremely narrow.

There are no on-street bike facilities on 9th Street.

There are in places some bike shared lane markings on Market Street.

Multiple driveway cuts create a lot of vehicular conflict points, including intersections.

Rugby whisks are fairly not consistent and if consistent, don't meet urban conditions or streets that work, either too wide.

And then we talked about the right-hand turn lane there.

Proposed conditions, the sidewalk will typically be six feet, some constrained locations will be five, but for the most part,

We get a much wider sidewalk.

We do implement a few access management principles that we talked about in our work session and also tested with the public in the open house in August.

We make ADA improvements throughout the corridor.

Today there are minimal ADA improvements.

We do realign Lexington Avenue, which if you'd seen our board in April at the Streetscape Summit, you would have seen nothing but red on top of the Lexington intersection as a weak space.

identifying to us something that we'd already heard but confirming it that that intersection is extremely challenging not just for pedestrians but also for any use vehicular or bicycle and then we do reduce crossing distances at intersections fairly drastically so this is a summary I won't read through every one but in essence we increase the safety we increase pedestrian accommodations we add bicycle accommodations

We create safe and convenient pedestrian connections within the half-mile of commercial and employment centers, obviously with the downtown mall and the area at Court Square.

We provide design features for roadways such as street trees and street buffers.

We explore and implement safe, convenient and visually attractive features.

We'll be using the same street furniture I mentioned as on the Belmont Bridge job that has been approved by the BAR.

We continue to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and we consistently apply ADA standards throughout the corridor

making our route to the major part of downtown accessible and pedestrian friendly.

We also meet many urban design goals summary.

We've had a significant amount of public comment and interaction with folks from neighborhoods, with the city at large, with stakeholders, and we expect that to continue throughout the refinement of the design.

The project meets AASHTO, where applicable VDOT standards, City of Charlottesville design standards, as well as we've used and implemented NACTO standards, which are the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

That's not a binding guide for us, but that guide is much more city friendly from an urban standpoint on the transportation side.

We've upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities like I mentioned with the Belmont project.

If you put the two together, you end up with over a half mile of contiguous enhanced pedestrian and bicycle space from the Belmont neighborhood all the way up to CFA at 10th and Locust.

We moved the right turn lane on High Street.

gives us an opportunity to open up public space also it enables us to look at relocating the CAT stop that's currently in front of CFA to that location which is the location talking with CAT would make sense based on the ridership data they have we're still looking at that we're working into that but with the right turn lane gone that's now a possibility on the table

We can consolidate access points and driveways, minimizing conflict points.

The one biggest way you increase transportation safety is lower traffic speeds and then also reduce the number of conflict points.

We do that through several access management concepts that were shown and tested with the public at the open house.

And we've had extensive public involvement to arrive at a preferred design.

So with that, I'll conclude my part of the presentation and certainly in your discussion if there's any questions

Thank you for that presentation.

Just a couple of questions.

So it can go either way.

We would move the utilities that conflict with the project's design, whether that be from an ADA standpoint or a design standpoint, how you like in the middle of the sidewalk or in the middle of the travel lane or the bike lane.

We would move them overhead to overhead and that cost is essentially zero dollar to the city based on the agreement they have with the franchise companies.

That's true on all their projects.

The undergrounding though would open up a lot of different things.

Second question.

Do you look at bus priority?

For example, it signals.

So we've had good discussion with the city traffic engineer on coordination, timing, and transit priority.

That's not something that's in the scope of this job, but it certainly would be something that Brennen has an eye on.

It would mostly be on the planning strip.

Certainly when you get into the design of overhead utilities, angles and bends and guy wires and those type things becomes more of a concern than if there were a duck bank underground.

I can't say there won't be an area where we'd have to narrow the sidewalk because of a utility pole because we haven't gotten to that detail yet.

Certainly we would open up landscaping possibilities and the pedestrian environment would be better with the undergrounding.

Now undergrounding comes, not only do we have the cost of the undergrounding betterment that is in the CIP request, we also have to consider that that affects how we build the job.

It also complicates the dealings with the contractor in a risk discussion, and it also means we may have to move some more utilities than if we didn't put a duct bank in the ground.

The duct bank doesn't, unfortunately, magically appear.

One more.

Can you address the comments of the place committee?

Yeah, we were aware of those comments.

They were comments in many cases we've heard before, starting with their last particular comment and dealing with the interactions and the public comment for the design of the public spaces such as in front of the Tarleton Oaks development.

Just because we're here before you and ideally before council in December doesn't mean that our engagement ends.

Our engagement will continue.

We would be making presentations to all of the commissions again with our design that we take in the spring back to the public and then ultimately that would come back before a public hearing before council for design approval probably in the mid-year with that.

There are other comments I think were really more suggestions.

I don't have that email printed with me, but I know one of them was the benefits of having the buffer

between the vehicles and the pedestrian right from a air pollution standpoint.

Certainly the more landscaping you have, the better off your air quality gets.

The city certainly, I think, would have a qualitative benefit from expending the funds on the CIP request to underground utilities.

It is in Kimleyhorn's scope to give kind of an outline to NDS on anything we know of or see with the

zoning in the area if there's something with the streetscape that should be evaluated and looked at.

They're not part of the streetscape project as a whole.

One of my deliverable items to NDS would be things that we would suggest be evaluated and considered, so that's already number two would be done.

Certainly design compatibility with the work of the project at Belmont Bridge.

If the two projects overlap or become one construction project,

They're existing at the same time.

I have no choice but to plan for that.

We're going to do that one as well.

We will be using some green stormwater management techniques.

We're already investigating some of those, whether that be a silva cell or biofilter or some type of green innovative measure.

We're not to the point quite yet to know exactly which one we're going to do.

And then, yeah, they asked about the use of a mounted median.

So the median goes back to the presentation.

There's a transitional area near High Street where there's some hashed out space in the concept drawing.

We certainly want to look in and are looking into ways to make that hatchable space not just be pavement marking, perhaps make it be flush concrete.

So just to remind everyone, we have had members of our commission on the streetscape

Committee for a while, even though they've rotated much like our commission has rotated for a little bit.

But it's my understanding also place had a member of their place task force on that committee as well.

So they were a part of this process, just as we are or were.

So that being said, the next steps of this process, so while this

Particular vote tonight is to move that this is or is not in compliance with the comp plan, the 2013 comp plan, not the one we're hashing out, so to speak, but it is in line with the 2013 comp plan.

It is not a final design vote for this evening.

Mr. Stolzenberg, did you have another question?

Sure.

Council, do you have any questions?

If that's the case, then I will open public comment.

Now's your time to speak on the East High Streetscape concept.

And this is not the final design.

This is just whether it's in compliance with the 2013 composite plan.

But please come forward.

You have three minutes to have your voice heard.

And I don't have anyone signed up.

But if anyone would like to come forward, please do so at this time.

Chair Green, planning commissioners, I've really enjoyed the... Can you just state your name for me?

Oh, my name is Bill Emery.

I live on East Market Street, 1604 East Market.

I really think they've done a great job in involving the public through it on this with informational materials in the 17,000 data points.

And I just wanted to selfishly

I'll reinunciate one of my data points I keep on trying to get in here, which is, you know, this is wonderful, it needs to be done, but East High really gets more hazardous for pedestrians, and I guess this is more a point for the Planning Commission than it is for this project, but East High really gets more hazardous as you go north towards the free bridge, where the sidewalk, particularly on the north

Thank you.

Please step forward.

Mark Cabot, 400 Altima Street.

Just a point of clarification.

Sure.

The existing right turn lane southbound in front of the Tarleton Oaks gas station would be the one that would come out.

Again, I'd like to say this plan is in concept only and that the final design is still to be completed, but we're close.

Please make sure if you have any other comments.

Is that comment section still up on the website so other comments can be made?

So you can go to East High Street.

I think you can get there through the city of Charlottesville.

So if you've got any comments on what you saw tonight, please do so.

You can still submit your comments.

And I'm sure there's still going to be public comment for this final design coming forward.

Is there any other people that would like to speak to this concept?

Just for clarification, we're only taking the right hand turn layout.

And I thought so, just in case anybody at home is wondering.

I just wanted to make sure we were clear.

There are two locations that had an access change.

One is the first situation you speak to.

So in the existing condition today, you can make lefts into and out of and rights into and rights out of at Lexington and East High, just past Charlton Oaks.

The concept as proposed right now would be what's called three-quarter access.

That means you could go left in northbound on East High into Lexington.

You can make a right out of Lexington or you could make a right in.

The only movement that would not be allowed would be the left out.

Interesting to note, that left out is extremely low in a 14-hour period.

The number is less than 50 vehicles in that 14-hour period that make that.

That basically means folks that want to go north onto High Street are doing that via other roadways currently in the existing condition.

On the other side of the street just past that intersection, there's the Nine and a Half Street intersection.

That's proposed to be a right in, right out.

Thanks.

Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion, although I lost it all of a sudden.

We have a motion and a second.

In pre-meeting, we had a discussion or there was some question about the resolution that's included.

And I accept that amendment to the motion.

So the motion would then… So the motion includes the resolution in our packet.

That's fantastic.

Ah, thanks.

Could you second that?

Second.

Second.

Are we in good legal standing now?

Ms. Roberts?

Yes.

Fantastic.

Okay.

Mr. Sola-Yates?

Aye.

Mr. Heaton?

Ms. Dowell.

Aye.

Yes.

Ms. Green.

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you all for your hard work and your community engagement on this project and we look forward to seeing that final design.

Next on our agenda is ZM18-0002 1335

and 1337 Carlton Avenue, otherwise known as Carlton Views PUD.

Hydro Falls LLC, Carlton Views 1 LLC, Carlton Views 2 LLC and ADC 4 Seaville LLC landowners

have submitted an application pursuant to city code 34-490 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the following four parcels of land.

1335 Carlton Avenue, tax map 56 parcel 430, 1337 Carlton Avenue, tax map 56 parcel 431,

Tax Map 56 Parcel 432 and Tax Map 56 Parcel 433 together now known as the subject property.

The subject property has frontage on Carlton Avenue and apparent frontage on Franklin Street

and are further identified on the City Real Property Tax Map 56 Parcel 430, 431, 432 and 433.

The entire development contains approximately 4.855 acres or

211,483 square feet.

The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the subject property from MI industrial to PUD planned unit development, subject to proffered development conditions.

The proffered development conditions include, one, affordable housing, providing affordable and accessible units for no less than 20 years,

In the following ratios, at least 30% of all dwelling units within the PUD will be affordable units for residents earning under 60% AMI.

At least 15% of all affordable units will be affordable units for residents earning under 40% AMI.

the required affordable units and for all other dwelling units within the development the landowners will offer them for occupancy as affordable dwelling units but if no grant funds financing or subsidy is available to support occupancy as an affordable unit

The unit may be rented at market rates.

The landowner shall provide documentation that they actively sought to establish each dwelling unit as an affordable unit prior to offering it for occupancy at market rate unit.

Two building design elements, minimum of 15% of all required affordable units will be designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility and minimum 30% of all required affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design, entrance feature on all

the building facades frontage on Carlton Avenue.

Three, maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 65 feet.

Four, parking, no additional parking over required city minimums will be considered on site unless required to obtain grants for financing to establish affordable dwellings.

Five, outdoor lighting, full cutoff lighting.

6.

Bus stop or sheltered, if requested by CAT 7.

Environmental site design, retaining tree canopy on east side of property adjacent to Franklin Street and pedestrian linkages between buildings, open space and the neighborhood

The PUD development plan for this proposed development includes the following key components.

Approximate location of existing buildings and building envelope for future buildings.

A phasing sequence of the development, phase one, the pace center completed.

Phase two, Carlton views apartments completed.

Phase three, Carlton views two apartments.

Phase four, Carlton views three apartments.

According to the PUD development plan, the total proposed density of the projects, all phases, will not exceed 32 dwelling units per acre for a total of 154 dwelling units.

The PU development plan contains details required by city code, including a use matrix for each phase,

Setback slash yard requirements for each phase, parking calculations for residential uses, open space, landscaping, architectural elements and signage.

The city's comprehensive plan and land use map calls for the area to be used as developed for business and technology uses.

The comprehensive plan contains no residential density range for this subject property.

Thanks for that.

Certainly, if you want to take a break, I'll take it from here, but I have several pages too.

Commissioners, tonight you're reviewing an application to rezone the four parcels near the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street,

from the existing MI to planning and development.

The rezoning request is part of a larger development plan that started back in 2012.

The first phase of the development was the completion of the Bi-Rite Blue Ridge PACE Center located at 1335 Carlton Avenue.

Completed in the summer of 2014, the PACE Center Program of All-Inclusive Care for Elderly

offers healthcare and health-related services designed to keep individuals living in their homes and communities for as long as possible.

The center is run as a partnership between Riverside Health Systems, the University of Virginia Medical Center, and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, and serving seniors who live in Charlottesville and the surrounding communities.

Services offered by the PACE include medical care, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, nutritional services, medical social work services, and home health care.

Over the last four years, the PACE center has provided a much needed service to the community.

In 2013, Phase 2 was started in order to create the residential component of the development.

In May of that year, City Council passed a special use permit allowing a maximum residential density of 21 dwelling units per acre for MI zone parcels.

This laid the groundwork for a 54 unit apartment at 1337 Carlton Avenue.

known as Carlton View Apartments.

In July 2015, the final site plan for Carlton View Apartments was approved and construction was completed in early 2017.

At the time of this public hearing, all 54 units are rented out to residents making under 60% AMI.

Phase 3 of the development started in the summer of 2017 in a preliminary site plan for 48-unit apartment building known as Carlton Views 2 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2018.

In early 2018, City Council awarded the developer $1.4 million for the acquisition of the site for affordable units.

Once completed, all 48 units will be rented out to residents making under 80% AMI.

Currently, the final site plan for Carleton View 2 is approved but waiting the posting of bonds before construction begins.

At the completion of Phase 3, which is the Carleton View 2, the development will have exhausted all the allowable density under the SUP.

As the zoning ordinance only allows a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre in the MI district, the developer needs to rezone all four parcels to increase density if they want a residential building for Phase 4.

The developer does not have the option of only rezoning the last remaining parcels, as that would remove acreage from the existing parcels, making them nonconforming.

In order to fulfill phase four of the development, the applicant is pursuing a rezoning of all four parcels to PUD.

The MI district was established to allow areas for light industrial uses that have a minimum of environmental pollution in the form of traffic, noise, odor, smoke, fumes, fire, and explosive hazards and vibrations.

Most uses allowed within the zoning districts are commercial and industrial by nature with limited residential uses allowed.

The 2013 Conference of Plan land use map indicates the subject property remained business and technology.

Business and technology is described

as properties that would permit small-scale offices that cater to startup business and technological development, as well as commercial activities that do not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more customer-oriented commercial areas.

The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the subject properties to plan unit development to accommodate a higher density development than the current 21 dwelling units per acre would allow by the SUP.

The 2013 comprehensive plan does not designate areas that would neatly conform to a PUD type development as they are special zoning districts.

The closest land use description from the 2013 plan would be mixed use.

Mixed use in the 2013 land use plan is described as areas intended to be zoned where the city encourages development of moderate or high intensity and where large variety of uses will be permitted, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.

According to the development plan use matrix,

Permitted uses within the PUD would be consistent with most of the MI uses with some exclusions and additions.

All of the non-residential industrial uses have been removed as allowable uses such as construction storage yard, kennel, and self-storage companies.

The main use proposed in the development plan are multi-family and non-residential.

The applicant indicates that the total allowable unit count for the development to be 154 and a total non-residential build-out of 50,000 square feet.

Currently, the site is utilizing 20,000 square feet for the Pace Center and 102 residential units.

This leaves a total of 30,000 square feet of non-residential and 52 residential units remaining for development.

Residential units could be spread throughout the site, but the non-residential uses would be limited to Phase 1, 30,000 square feet, Phase 2, 7,500 square feet, Phase 3, 5,000 square feet, and Phase 4, 7,500 square feet maximum.

The use matrix provided in the development plan indicates non-residential uses as commercial, retail, and general.

Although the PUD use matrix and the MI use matrix correspond in many areas relating to a lot of the commercial and residential uses, they do differ in a few ways.

The PUD use matrix removes all industrial uses

Currently allowed in the MI district.

With residential aspects of the site, this is a reasonable alteration to make, but one planning commission could consider.

The city has limited industrial areas, and a rezoning this size would remove close to five acres of potential industrial development.

Residential treatments facility, bank financial institution and private clubs are uses within the PUD use matrix that are not permitted in the MI district.

Planning Commission should also give some thought to those uses.

Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will increase from the SUP minimum 21 DUA to a maximum of 32 DUA.

Under the future land use map definition, this density is considered high density residential.

It should be noted that regardless of the rezoning, the subject properties are already high density residential based on the 21 DUA and the type of housing that exists on sites apartment.

In May 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning.

At that meeting, the Commission voiced concerns related to, one, the amount and configuration of open space, two, lack of innovation with building location design, three, pedestrian connectivity within the development, four, amenities within the development that could benefit the surrounding neighborhood, five, transit access.

The proposal before you tonight is substantially the same as the one reviewed on May 8th with the following changes.

An updated proffer statement that is reformatted for better enforcement.

Additional proffer language that encourages the development contain 100% affordable units.

The open space calculation changed from 0.76 acres to 1.31 acres.

and the internal pedestrian connection are now highlighted on the development plan.

So now if we could limit our time to questions for Mr. Affley, then we will hear from the applicant.

And you can ask questions at that time of the applicant.

So are there any questions from Mr. Affley?

I have a question.

You mentioned that the city has a limited amount of light industrial.

I don't have a percentage to offer, but there's this corridor along

Harris Street is another corridor of some industrial kind of where southern states and allied concrete are located.

I don't have a map in front of it.

We have limited areas that are- River Road?

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, you always can.

It's just very hard.

And so I can't, I'll let the applicant maybe speak to that.

If you look on starting on page eight of the staff report, it kind of just breaks down when these steps happened.

And I see on page 17 of the PUD application that they note that the number of bedrooms in any residential building shall not exceed three bedrooms, but that is not proffered.

Is that intended to be a commitment or just an intent, and is the purpose of that to mitigate certain impacts?

What page was that again?

This?

Yeah, that kind of thing.

So this is proffered.

OK.

If we could have the applicant please come forward.

Good evening commissioners.

I'm Kevin Wood.

I represent the owners, all four owners here of Carleton Views.

I'm here with Scott Collins of Collins Engineering who prepared the PUD application.

We will speak tonight to the four major concerns that we felt came out of the first hearing and the reason for the deferral to this hearing.

The first is

Clarification of affordability, the second is connectivity across the site, the third being adequate open space, and the fourth being an innovation in design.

As Matt said, we've made clarifications to this, but not substantial changes.

This project has always been about providing more affordable housing.

And in order for this project to be financially feasible and to earn tax credits at VHDA, we need to increase the density in order to provide an additional multifamily building.

And of course, we backed into this PUD after we finished three of the first phases and

We tried to go for additional density.

I had always assumed that we would apply for R3 on parcel D, but because of making the other parcels nonconforming, we ended up having to go for a PUD rezoning in order to get the additional density and create the affordable housing.

The one thing we did expand upon is a new proffer statement.

We worked with the council's office to try to proffer as much affordability on this site as we possibly could.

Of course, that is contingent upon getting a tax credit allocation in the upcoming round at VHDA.

Carleton I was successful.

Based on that success, we were able to get credits for Carleton II, and we are hopeful that we will be able to earn credits in the 2019 round that's upcoming in March.

Let me go over just a little history here.

and go through these photographs.

This is what the site looked like in 2012.

It was the old H.D.

Farron site.

A very difficult to develop site that was split up in four different parcels.

The corner here on the northwest side is A.

The Pace Center is in the center where the old H.D.

Farron building was.

Carlton Views is to the east of that, Carlton Views I, and then we have an open parcel, which is parcel D, and is really the reason for us coming for you to try to get a PUD rezoning.

As we go on, this was the original special use permit application plan.

This was what was approved and approved the density at 102 DUA.

What you'll see is that the location of the buildings is very similar and actually the Pace Center is almost exactly where it is because that was a by right development.

The size and scope of the center building which is building C1 on this plan is where the Carlton 1 is currently and that is almost identical to what was built.

and then you'll see the two outliers were smaller buildings.

So when you looked at the average size of the building in this SUP plan, there were an average of 34 units per building.

We're currently asking for about 51 units per building.

Carlton 1 has 54 units and the current designs for building A on this thing and building C2 here are about 48 units each.

And that is the center of the site before it was built.

This is what it looks like now.

That's the PACE Center, which is an elderly daycare center meant to keep those who are eligible, Medicare and Medicaid eligible, out of nursing homes.

So they have other supports and are able to come during the day and stay at this facility, get a couple of meals, prescriptions, overall medical care, etc., physical therapy.

It became the commercial center of this development.

The developers have done other projects around PACE centers, Richmond, Petersburg, and other areas where they started with the PACE center and then built affordable housing to complement the commercial use.

And that was the initial plan.

So in 2013, as Matt said, they went for an SUP and were able to start Carleton One.

So here's the site before Carlton 1 was built.

Here's another view of the site.

So you can tell it was an incredibly difficult site to develop.

And there is the current building at Carlton.

And just so you know, this is very similar to what would be proposed for the other buildings.

These are buildings that are financially feasible and are able to earn credits at VHDA.

The tax credits are

Vital are really the only game in town in order to get this type of housing done.

So that's the main reason why we're continuing to put forward a multifamily solution in this PUD application.

And just these are some street views showing the connectivity to the street, the neighborhood context that I think we've created here.

And this is something that will continue in each of the other.

projects.

Another view.

And then I'll leave this open to Scott after saying one more thing.

I think one thing Scott will touch on is the overall application plan, how we've created connectivity across the site and a cohesive design across the site.

But we were also, the concern of the Planning Commission earlier was that we did not have an innovation in design.

I think there are three elements to consider here.

The first is we had an incredibly difficult site to develop and we've created a cohesive plan, mostly around affordable multifamily housing, something that is much needed in the city, but also in a very mixed use setting where we were able to create some commercial use there and bring some employment opportunities and maintain the neighborhood context.

If you go down there,

In the evening now, there is no activity at the PACE center because it's an elderly daycare center.

So that commercial use is a very quiet use for the neighborhood.

It has a lot of activity during the day, but very little at night.

The second thing is that being around the PACE center, the PACE center is supporting these multifamily uses by subsidizing rental

for their participants when needed.

And we have an MOU with Riverside, who is a current owner of that, that will provide subsidy to participants as needed.

The third thing is the financing here is very innovative in that we have found a way to go down to VHDA and access tax credits, which is an incredibly limited resource.

Mr. Collins, talk fast.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

I will talk fast.

My name is Scott Collins.

I'm a civil engineer on the project.

And really, I think that what I want to point out is the connectivity through the site kind of highlighted in that purple throughout this site.

We worked really hard to create sort of a pedestrian and ADA accessibility throughout the site to all the buildings and all the facilities.

So that's been real important for the project.

We also incorporated a fair amount of open space

almost twice as much as we currently had or showed in the original PUD back in May and we've even incorporated areas that we can be not only pocket parks but some tot lot areas and other amenity features throughout the site.

One other thing I wanted to touch on as far as the overall comprehensive plan for this area, I mean currently right now the comprehensive plan

is for business and technology but that comprehensive plan is currently under review for some changes and this area is one of those areas that's been slated to change to more of a commercial and commercials use on this particular site with high density around it so this sort of kind of fits in with sort of the changes that is being reviewed under the comprehensive plan although that's not finalized I understand but when we're preparing this PUD it's sort of kind of meshed in

pretty well with the comprehensive plan that's currently under review.

As far as everything else, innovative design, I think Kevin hit on that pretty well, but it is a challenging site and this is really consistent with ultimately the plan that we laid out back in 2012 when we first started this project with the SUP.

I'm here to answer any questions as well.

Awesome.

The thing that makes this most consistent with the comprehensive plan is the affordable housing that you're going to bring to bear.

So what is the process of getting the tax credits?

What happens if you don't get the tax credits?

Well, we have tax credits on the first two projects.

So if Carleton Views 1 is complete, we have tax credits on Carleton Views 2 for a 48-unit building.

The next round of tax credits is March 2019, which we intend to apply for, for probably a 48-unit building on D if we're approved.

We cannot go get tax credits without zoning in place.

That is a requirement of getting the tax credits.

So we have

How many times we go back to try to get affordable units?

I think the way we tried to write these with the intention was that we could do affordable housing.

This may be a question for legal, but one for you as well.

Well, I think it's kind of, it sounds to me like a chicken or an egg thing, because we run into trouble with BHDA more maybe than a legal issue here.

So when we try to go for 100% affordability, we definitely need the zoning in place in order to get the credits.

You know, that's an interesting question.

I wasn't around in 2012, and I don't think that the developers were thinking, I mean, this sort of happened over a five-year period as opposed to thinking about it out of whole cloth from the very beginning.

So the SUP seemed like the vehicle that made no sense.

Everybody thought that 102 units would work on the site.

What we found is we started developing particular parcels.

The economies of scale, particularly given the difficult to develop site and the costs associated with that, made a 50 unit project about the size that it worked.

There's kind of a sweet spot for these things.

And so 54 was right there, 48 because of parking constraints on the other sites.

Once you get down at below 45, 40, the sites become financially unfeasible and aren't competitive for credit anymore.

So, you know, that's a weird way to answer your question.

I just don't think that anybody was thinking about that concern back in 2012 when they went for the SUP.

They thought that 34 units may work.

We developed the first site.

Once that was successful, we said, boy, this works.

We can replicate this once or twice again.

2012 they bought the Pay Center property because that was a buy-write project and they had an option to purchase the other.

Okay.

And how many current residents of the Carleton Apartments are members of PACE?

Three?

Three, yeah.

And in the first development, Carleton I, the MOU states that they will support up to 14 people with subsidy.

But the PACE Center actually picks up their participants, so it's only those that are in the diarist of need, and some of those sort of skip into needing full nursing care, so they can't use the PACE Center anymore.

But we believe that this

provides a great opportunity for those that could continue to use PACE services if they were lived in close proximity.

And PACE has utilized that a little less than we thought they would, but three out of 14.

Can you elaborate on that MOU?

They support the rent above 30% of the tenant's income.

To get into my next question, which is, I have a question about the pricing of these units.

So in your proffer, we have a mix of units reserved for 60% AMI or less and 40% AMI or less.

They're priced at LIHTC limits, which are established by HUD on an annual basis.

And they're slightly different than they are.

And are those 40% units priced lower?

Or?

Okay.

So they represent 30% of a 40% AMI.

So that's the definition of being affordable.

And that really gets at my question.

Are those units priced at 30% of that maximum income level?

That's correct.

And that's why on a lot of the 40% units you have to have a subsidy that picks up the rent over to tenants, 30% of the tenants' income.

If I'm saying, I think I said that right.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

And VHDA requires that as part of the application.

So we have to go find a subsidy to support extremely low-income residents.

30 years at VHDA is generally the extended use agreement on these.

Because there are certain outs if the affordable housing somehow doesn't work, which you don't see very often, and VHDA is very reluctant to allow for that.

But it gives us an out if for some reason the rents aren't supporting the building anymore.

So we proffer 20 and not 30, but we have committed to 30.

Question for you.

Well, I would assume right now of the 54, it's only three would be the answer because those are the PACE participants using the PACE center.

I'm sorry, you indicated that some people would not qualify for PACE because they need full nursing care.

Oh, I'm not sure I completely understand.

I think the answer is zero.

Right, I mean none of the Carleton View residents that needed full, nobody at Carleton Views would ever need full nursing care, if that's what you're asking.

Let me ask, so at Carleton One right now there are zero people needing full nursing care.

Correct.

The way I'm hearing that, it's a little confusing to me because that would mean they would need to be in a nursing home and would not be independent living.

Carleton Views is meant to be an independent living facility, not an assisted living facility.

But with the services at pace, somebody could be assisted.

Yeah, because there are no services provided at Carlton One.

The idea behind this is to do housing in close proximity to services so people in need of those services could potentially rent at Carlton Views One.

Well, it is until it gets beyond the capability of the services that are provided there.

PACE is meant to be services in lieu of going into a nursing home, so they actually, at some point, some of their participants will need to go into a full-service nursing home, which PACE is not.

It's an elderly daycare.

There is a community center and there are no playgrounds.

We actually did not assume that we would have children in this facility.

Most of the units are one and two bedroom units, so we assumed that they would be appropriate for elderly and disabled.

Fair housing regulations require you to rent

to families with children.

And these buildings are actually preferences given to Section 8 tenants.

So Section 8 families find out about a new building like this and say, oh, I can move, a single mom with one or two kids can move into a two bedroom.

And that happened on some occasions.

We talk about 15% at 40.

We have over

I think the average income at Carleton One is about $16,000.

So we have a lot because we accept housing choice vouchers.

There are no facilities on site, exactly.

We're probably three-quarters of a mile from Riverside Park.

And you're not proposing any?

Well, we do have some opportunities at Carlton D. to provide some open space, and we have talked to the residents, and we're just fine.

Carleton Ones has been in operation and leased up for a year and a half.

So we really didn't expect this issue that you're bringing up.

And the application PACE is listed as a joint venture of Riverside, UVA Medical Center and Java.

My understanding is as of November 1st, Riverside Health no longer offers PACE services.

My understanding from the developers is that Riverside will be replaced with another partner that does.

And I think that is in the offing now, but I don't want to speak out of school.

Totlots and pocket parks were mentioned, but we didn't get any detail because of time.

At this stage, we don't have anything concretely planned, and both of all of our site plans have been, for the first three phases, are sort of

They're approved and that's how we will build.

Carleton One, I think we have 49 spaces and five shared with the Pace Center to get to the 54 that was required, one for one.

I have done some non-scientific research because I live here in town and about...

10 to 12 spots are often vacant.

During the day, many spots.

But in the evenings, we usually see 10 to 12.

So we think that a 25 to 35% reduction in parking is appropriate.

Could I ask the engineer some questions?

You didn't think I was going to let you get out of here, right?

Okay.

And then, pardon me, my super eyes have gone to the wayside, but can you give us some of the elevations that are on this back proposed parking and how does that relate to the height of the building?

I mean, because there's a huge wall there.

There is, and a lot of that elevation difference will be taken up with the building because there will be some possible proposed parking underneath that last building.

So we're looking at putting some underground parking and letting the building step down as well.

But this back, the back parking,

I can't look at it.

Yes, it's lower than the tracks.

Okay.

The other concern that we were having is along the pedestrian ways along Carlton Avenue.

What's that grade change?

Is that going to still continue to be a very steep grade change in that area?

A lot of it's on site, but each of these buildings still sort of have that little plaza out in front, and that's going to remain based on the setbacks from Carlton Avenue to the buildings.

And so they're still trying, they're still accommodating sort of a streetscape and some type of interaction between the buildings and the street, like they accomplished with the first building.

And one of the things that we did have a conversation about again many moons ago is that the CAT and Jaunt service for the site itself, and I know that there's a proffer statement in there that would be

Yeah, I mean certainly there's some ability to have a circulation through the site, but what we're getting, what we're hearing from CAT is the way they have their traffic patterns set up, it doesn't really adhere to have it right in front of the site.

They have it, I guess it's a little bit to the west of the site where it comes up right now, but we're still talking with them about

possibly, reworking that.

And certainly, when the sites around this site redevelop every time, I think there's gonna be a lot more opportunities for that as well to incorporate that.

But along the street, along...

And I bring this up again for the simple fact that you've got all of your ADA internal circulation internally, so if you put that CAT or Jaunt bus stop out on the sidewalk or near the front on Carlton so that people can access that, I'm not sure how

Have you thought about that circulation for people with disabilities to be able to access that?

You're mentioning something west, and that navigation, and this has always been kind of a problem even that we discussed at Carleton, too, with the grade change there.

So our entrances, we do have sidewalks that give up our entrances that would still provide pedestrian access through to some of these ADA pathways.

And then Carlton 2, we actually redesigned that building so it has a step down that takes you all the way from the upper area down to the lower area through the elevator and then puts you outside access to that parking lot over to the Pace Center.

So if I'm in Carlton 3, I'm in a wheelchair, and CAT decides to put their bus stop west of this, on the west part of this property, I've got to follow this purple line, follow the purple line,

Now, along the, there's a sidewalk in front of the Pace Center at that entrance that will take you out to Carlton Avenue.

Okay.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

With respect to the first standard review for planning developments, encouraging developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required, we've heard some concerns about the quality of the construction in Carlton Views 1.

I understand council has been talking to you guys about some clawback provisions in there for their grants.

I worked for the developer as a consultant.

I know that the developer is working with city council and there has been some concerns that Carlton won.

My perception has been that there have been a lot of growing pains at Carleton One, and the reason for the complaints have been lack of on-site management, primarily, and that has caused a lot of uproar.

What we're hoping is with 54 units, it's very hard to put a site manager on there full-time, so somebody was there 20 or 30 hours a week, and the tenants did not feel like they were getting the responses they needed.

And that's what caused a lot of the concern.

Once we build this out to 102 or 150 units, but for sure, we will be able to put onsite management there.

So we believe that we're building at high quality.

VHDA has minimum design construction.

These are all highly energy efficient and Earthcraft certified buildings.

I had a question related to if you don't get the tax credits.

You were saying that there's other uses that you could put in its place.

Well, I think the PUD rezoning outlines those in the use matrix.

So what we've set this up, as Matt has described, is more of a mixed use environment so that the other uses are no longer

Can we narrow that any further?

Have you read this use matrix?

I'm just trying to get a sense for how, obviously our goal here is the affordable housing, and if it's not achievable because of tax credits, what are other ways that we can ensure

Well, I think that the rezoning that the matrix that we have put forward does assure residential uses on the three sites because the commercial uses stay focused on the pay center.

So I don't have it in front of me, but Matt describes it.

I think you can go from 20,000 square feet at the pay center to 30,000 square feet, and then you can have light commercial space.

uses at each of the residential.

But it's most likely that we'll have some sort of mixed-use building if the affordable housing does not work.

So you'll have potentially commercial.

But probably market rate if we can't do it affordably.

And that is just contingent on whether or not the tax credit market stays viable.

And like I've said, we've got tax credits on two of the three buildings.

And there hasn't been substantial changes to the pool that we usually go to in 2019.

But it's also, I think, important to note that under our zoning ordinance, because this is a rezoning, if you don't

Correct.

So the required amount, we set up the proffer.

with the intent of having 30% affordable required.

Right, which we normally don't get that specific a commitment.

Normally under our zoning ordinance, there's a requirement it can go up to 80%.

So in this proffer, they have agreed to provide

That's right.

So in a PUD, because it's its own zoning district, the uses have to be set out in the development plan, and so

I'm sorry.

So not only are the uses spelled out there, but the square footage.

So the square footage is broken down by the phases.

Correct.

At this stage, there really is no other game in town.

I mean, the low-income housing on this scale is generally done through LIHTC.

That's nationwide.

So at this stage, that would be the only

application we put in.

Right, and we will make that application.

And if you don't get those tax credits, then you also don't get the CAF funding.

So it's an additional delta that you have to make up.

Well, exactly.

But do you have a commitment to hold off until 2020?

Well, 2019 is not meant to be a drop-dead date.

That's correct.

That's what we tried to profit, yeah.

So what we know now is that we will have two buildings affordable because we already have tax credits for Carlton II.

What we're hoping is that we can get tax credit for Carlton III and that nothing changes between now and our attempt to

to get an allocation of credits and syndicate those credits.

This is a PUD, so there wouldn't be any conditions that we could put on this.

That can only be done in a special use permit conversation.

So what we're voting on tonight is a plan U development that is before us that has been advertised as it stands.

And just so you know, our intent is to do this affordably.

We don't have any other

options at this stage.

We're not considering other options for uses.

You know, we believe that we can do this affordably and if we get the tax credits, that's how we'll move.

If another funding stream, if tax credits were not approved for some reason.

And then some other streams came available.

Certainly.

And just so you know that we do have to apply for other streams.

Obviously, the city funds are vital to these things.

But we also go to DHCD for home funds and National Housing Trust funds.

which we probably will apply for, but those funds are really meant to be gap sources, not the primary source.

The tax credits, like I said, are 10 million or 11 million dollar projects, 5 or 6 million dollars is tax credit.

I have one last question, and it's probably from the engineer.

I walked the site today and it seemed rather steep in a certain area and I'm doing some quick calculations.

In front of the Carlton 1 building from that entry along the dashed purple line that you put on the site plan as the accessible route within the site to the road to the east is a 10-foot drop over about 150 to 170 foot

Lang, which is, of course, steeper than what's allowed by code for an accessible route, 1 to 20.

That purple path from the front, the north side of Carlton 1 to the road on the east

Right.

Well, other things that can be done in order to make it handicap accessible is to add railings.

We haven't incorporated that yet because that part to the east has not been constructed yet.

Okay, I thought I was understanding that that's an accessible route now, but it clearly would need some changes to make it accessible.

I mean, not just railings, but it's going to need a level of intermediate landing.

Okay.

Okay, at this time we will open public comment on this application.

Please come and limit yourself to three minutes.

And this is only for the Carlton Bews PUD.

And Mr. Affle, do I have anyone signed up for this?

I think so too.

So if there is one, please take to speak.

Please state your name.

And then we can move forward.

Please speak in the microphone.

Again, since we don't have a recorder here, we're going to be using this as a recording.

So and Miss Chris, you will start your three minutes when you give us your name.

Thank you.

My name is Bill Emery.

I live at 1604 East Market Street, and I apologize for reading comments.

I know it's not the best way.

Your PUD ordinance was introduced to improve design of new neighborhoods and preserve meaningful open space.

This PUD rezoning

Application is an afterthought, an inappropriate use of the PUD ordinance to increase density while the quality of life for the residents of this project takes a hit.

The approved Carlton Views Apartments 1 and 2 are already approximately 95% Crescent Hall size.

They're 102 units.

would increase the density for economically and physically vulnerable people, pile them in a people warehouse.

Carlton Views is located in a non-supportive area, a food desert, services desert.

There's not squat in East Belmont Carlton.

Apologies to the residents for that comment.

Its design is a step backward from Friendship Court in terms of amenities for residents.

Friendship Court was built in 1978.

This PUD rezoning is out of sync with the land use plan, the city's land use plan.

It's out of sync with good zoning practice.

It's out of step with equity.

The region, the 176 acre East Belmont Carlton, has never been studied, never been planned for.

There is no existing small area plan.

Planning is best before action is taken.

One cannot back into a PUD.

It's my hope when council denies the rezoning the applicant will build some of the things the zoning matrix allows.

The zoning matrix with a SUP allows for in lot D like daycare, a convenience store, incubator space for small business, a playground for the Carlton View's one and two children, a covered place for the elderly people to sit outside.

And then just on the question of the city's industrial area, these parcels represent 3.2% of the city, which is zoned for industrial uses.

And this PUD is ending, frankly, as spotlight.

If one were to consider a rezoning of this very limited manufacturing industrial resource, we should do it citywide so as to avoid a lawsuit.

Thanks, Mr. Emery.

If there anyone else would like to speak, please come forward.

My name is Mary Ann Nesbitt and I'm a resident at 1337

Carlton Views.

I have not lived there quite a year yet, and I have seen improvements happen, especially with management.

When you speak of the accessible attributes of this facility, the way it was built, looking at what PACE has done next door to it, yes, some of those residents do use it.

Some of them have then also moved on to permanent care elsewhere.

Looking at the way that it's designed, I am concerned for the building that's going to be going up next door.

Just because of the spacing and also knowing that we have a great industrial park that's very needed right close to us.

Across the street from us is another terrace, I believe it's called Terrace of Carlton View, where there are trailer homes.

The access roads that go by this are pleasant and the traffic is all doable.

Yes, we have people with multiple needs here, and this facility, when I first viewed it, I saw it as a place that was very functional for those that would be in my age group, per se.

I'm not seeing that it does accommodate when you have Section 8.

That is a fact.

But the facility is very much needed for people that it was originally designed for.

It's beautifully constructed, it's solid, and it does provide security and comfort.

It does not have a playground area.

I don't even see where you could put one in to be feasible.

I wanted to make these points because I have lived there, I've looked at the project, and years ago when we sold our farm in another state, I was part of the development and part of my input went in to put in an area that had private homes, individual family homes, multiple homes we also brought in.

this type of a facility so it could accommodate the low-income people.

The city needs it, the city benefits from it, the residents do, but there has been problems and the new management is certainly on top of it.

So I wanted to put a real positive note into this.

And I do look forward to the future and the expansion, but I also viewed it again today and looked at the aspects of it, your degrees of level of where the next proposed area is meant to be.

You've got a railroad track that is still very busy and functioning, and these buildings are close to it.

So I just wanted to let you know that I live there.

I find it functioning.

Mark Cabot, 400 Altamont Street.

I want to ditto basically what Bill Elmore said and also the letter that he wrote to the board.

There's a couple of things that I want to address.

As I mentioned in May, I was an employee at PACE for over two years.

So I know the facility extremely well.

We used to call them participants that were in the facility.

Everyone that is in the facility does qualify for nursing home care under the Virginia

The idea is to keep them out of it by providing them with the support.

We actually do have 10 to 15 people that stay at the Monroe and another facility nursing home in Madison County and come to Pace maybe two, three times a week.

Built before Carlton 1 View was finished being built.

If you go there now on any day, and if you get there after 830, all the parking spaces are gone.

The employees and pace are now parking in the road, have been for quite some time, and up the road a little bit.

So there is no extra parking.

I want to be sure that's understood.

The facility has been very concerned when I was employed there as to how they were going to accommodate the shared parking.

They even looked at the possibility of running a shuttle with a parking lot off-site someplace else in the area to accommodate the employees.

I have also been, I used to go into Carlton 1 almost on a daily basis, so I'm very familiar with the building, would go into the apartments,

and see some of the things.

I was very concerned about the management.

Hopefully, maybe if they did have more units, the management would be better and the property on the outside would be kept in better shape.

Where the purple line is, I used to walk on a daily basis between the front of the Pace Building over to Carlton View and where the roadbed is there, that's a very steep area.

I had to push a 400-pound person from one building to the other building and then back home.

One of the PTs actually joked with me one day and said, hope you don't let go of her because she's going to knock a hole in the wall, side of the wall when she goes through.

So that's a very steep area.

And as a side note, I actually have a business now that I'm installing.

and selling ramp systems.

I'm very familiar with slope and that's a long way from being ADA, nowhere near it.

The entire area is very slopey and would be very difficult for someone that was in a wheelchair by themselves.

Currently, Riverview is providing, is committed to providing four spaces in Caulkton One with no plans to increase that.

Thank you.

Nancy Carpenter, I live in Rose Hill.

I'm concerned about the low income tax credits.

Yes, we do need affordable housing, but one of the things in the last year and a half we've learned through the National Low Income Housing Coalition that due to the humongous tax cut that was given to a lot of people that provide funding for low income tax credits, sometimes the availability of those funds have been limited.

And that's an ongoing issue, so I don't know how 100% those funds would be able, hopefully they'll be applied to this project.

But the other thing is, 30 years ago when I was a planning technician in Culpeper County, PUDs were kind of the new kid on the block, I think.

And the idea was to have close-in housing, but also have amenities for families.

And unfortunately, I don't see that there's anything, even if you have a single mom or a couple with one child, that there's any place for that child.

to be able to have any outside time safely or where a mother can, you know, or a father can watch their child.

And that to me should be paramount.

What's the quality of life for folks here?

We heard one lady say that she's had an enjoyable quality of life down there, but it is a food desert.

There are some topography issues down there as far as people with limited mobility.

I mean, hearing Mr. Kravitz talk about a joke that somebody said about someone, you know, zooming into a wall

It's not really funny because it could literally happen.

So I think that there are some issues with the development of this last phase that I hope that you critically look at and think about the quality of life for folks that are in that area.

I know that the management has changed.

I know very well the management has changed, but there are still some things.

that aren't even really nice about the first one.

I remember this spring, I believe there was another, or my months run together, but there were people here talking about the tiny bit of green space that was in the original building and how folks that have dogs, which is fine, but they walk their dogs and they don't clean up after them, unfortunately.

And they were really frustrated with the fact that what green space there was, they couldn't really

Thank you, Ms. Carpenter.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open this for Commissioner discussion.

To any other developer, I do like the fact of the quantity of the amount of affordable units that you guys are providing without us having to beat down the door to get them.

My only, my biggest concern or the catch-22 to that is that if you do not get the tax score, if they do not get the tax credits, then what?

Sorry, I probably should have asked this in the question period, but I just want to make sure or clarify you guys.

That's what the proffer says.

So if you notice in the proffer, it talks about affordability and then it has an alternative provision that says if we get the tax credits, it will be

100% affordable at these limits.

If they don't get the tax credits, you still get affordable housing at those things.

17, actually.

17 on the Carlton Views Development PUD Application Plan.

This is the front of it.

There's a lot of page numbers in this packet.

I have a thought too that I agree the numbers are impressive and move us in the direction of a major goal for the city.

But we are talking about 20 years from now this is still going to be there and the type of restrictions and lack of amenities in terms of not only the quality of life in 2, 3, 5 year old facilities but a 20 year old facility is what we really need to be thinking about.

I'm not big on the PUD, so I think they waited for this for John Santosky to leave, but we won't go down that.

But I was specifically impressed with the

use matrix because so many times this is very glossed over and when you look at this I think it's very intentional.

Some of the use matrix is talking about the very things that we are talking about.

And had a restaurant, I'm pretty sure that's in there for Pace, but it also had other things like the retail.

It had convenience store and the things that we're talking about.

And so I'm also torn with this.

I really like the affordable units.

The site I'm very familiar with.

I've walked down there a million times in the past 15 years that I've dubbed in that area.

So I'm very familiar with the grade and the accessibility issues.

But I have a question for the Commission, and this is a question I'm asking myself.

While the amenities aren't there right now, when we're talking about redeveloping and trying to get these specific units,

Are we going to say, no, we don't want this affordable housing or no, we don't want this right now because the amenities are not there yet?

Is this a chicken and egg?

Are we saying you need to build the amenities first?

And this, like I said, this is a question I'm asking myself, and are we going to then also say, okay, and this is maybe something we talk about in our comprehensive plan as we discuss this.

Is there a percentage that we say is open green space?

I mean, we haven't really talked about that, but we've touched on it in a lot of places.

What's that percentage?

And then we look at a lot of things, and again, these are all the thoughts that are going through my head, so sorry about the stream of consciousness.

What is the conversation that we have when we talk about those areas that are next to parks?

Because this is not very far from two different parks that I walk to pretty much at least on a weekly basis, if not two or three times a week.

So is it that it's all needed to be provided on site?

Or is this places that it's close to?

So those are the struggles in my head I'm having.

Yes, this is a food desert, for sure.

I'd love to have a market through there.

But somebody's got to do it.

And so are we going to hold off on all affordable housing until that happens?

Or are we going to make, you know, are we requiring a certain percentage?

Again, I'm very conscious of the ADA and the ramps and the grade.

Very conscious of that.

The purpose of a planned urban development is to allow, is first to come in at the very beginning of a project and then through innovative design

be able to cluster the buildings so as to create open spaces and amenities and create a greater quality of life for the community that inhabits the PUD.

In our particular case here, in this particular case, it is being brought in way too late.

It's an expedient to maximize the density on the site and at the same time offer no benefits by having a well thought of innovative design that

That has already created the opportunity for outside amenities and the quality of life for the residents and the community that's going to be on this site.

I feel like my role as a planning commissioner is to support good planning practices.

So who I am, I have to agree with Jody that this really is nothing more than a technical means to an end.

There's no way that we're going to get additional 52 units on the site unless you go use the PUD route, the only way to get there.

But we do have a paucity of affordable housing in the city, and the only way to

to get 52 units on that site is to allow for the PUD.

And I think we are close to being able to fix this.

The reason that we had to use a technical means to an end is because our zoning practices and policies are not

such that there was another way to get here.

I have to agree with that.

As Mr. Emery said, I'd like to see this sort of thing be possible anywhere across the city without using technicalities.

I'd also submit there's plenty of open space in this site plan.

For parking, right?

You're going to kill me.

Y'all are going to kill me.

I've seen this approve way worse projects for two units and that's where my heartburn comes in on this.

Way worse unit, way worse projects with affordable of 80% AMI and only five years.

So while I agree, I hate the PUD and I hate this technicality.

You can't judge a PUD by what's being brought here though.

This is not fair.

I have a question for staff.

I'm looking over the bike ped plan and I see an arterial trail running directly from this site to Riverview Park.

I'm going to say long.

Great.

Thanks.

I don't have really anything to add.

And I would say that trail connection as far as one of the biggest hurdles would be Franklin.

It's a definite adrenaline exciting trip to go under that roll and trestle.

And I'm a bit of an adrenaline junkie, so I do enjoy it.

But, anyway.

I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone.

We have a motion and a second.

Would we like to have any further discussion?

Mr. Stolle-Yates?

Aye.

Ms. Dowell?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Aye.

It's not going to matter, but I'll say aye.

Motion carries.

We went down that path one night and it was an ugly path.

Do you remember that?

So we're not doing that tonight.

I'm sorry y'all missed that.

It was very exciting.

Thank you all for coming and your participation.

I had one thing that I missed that I wanted to say before we move into the Entrance Corridor Review Board, and that's my apologies to the Commission as part of my report.

We had had a conversation and I wanted to just make a statement on the New Hill project.

That is not something that we reviewed or had any knowledge of whatsoever as a Commission.

And so if there were any questions that were had on that, we are just as surprised at the project that has been commenced as the rest of the community.

Okay, good evening.

This is an entrance corridor review for Dairy Central Building.

This is phase two of the project.

The parcel address is 946 Brady Avenue.

This is on the southern portion of the parcel.

Just quickly, I know some of you were here in March and June, some were not.

So if you've got questions as I go through quickly, we can discuss those at the end.

Okay.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for a 228,700 square foot apartment building.

We'll have 175 units, approximately 1,400 square feet of commercial space and a parking garage beneath the building.

This project, which is phase two of a four-phase development,

It's on the southern section of a four and a half acre parcel within the Preston Avenue entrance corridor.

This larger parcel is occupied by the buildings associated with the former Monticello Dairy.

Phase 1, which is in the northern section, contains the dairy buildings and is designated as an individually protected property, and the BAR has approved the COA for Phase 1.

Phases 2, 3, and 4 are outside of the IPP and therefore subject to your review.

That's why we're here discussing Phase 2 tonight.

Relative to this proposal, back in March, the ERB reviewed a special use permit request to increase the residential density and the building height.

The ERB found that these would not adversely impact the corridor.

In June, the Planning Commission approved that special use permit, which was later approved by Council.

The Planning Commission's approval included three conditions related to design, and I will be paraphrasing here.

One was that the design height

Density and other characteristics shall remain essentially the same as presented, understanding that some changes might come up in the design review.

However, substantial changes shall require modification to the SUP.

Second was along 10th Street Northwest, the fifth floor shall step back a minimum of 10 feet from the floors below.

And third, along West Street, the fifth floor shall step back a minimum of 45 feet from the property line.

All of those have been addressed in this application.

Also at that meeting, there were four comments, requests that were made.

One was that the courtyards be designed as usable spaces.

Two, the 10th Street elevation must not represent a back wall to the street.

Three, a screening of the parking garage from West Street.

And four, that the landscaping plan that was shown will remain.

And all of those are addressed in this submittal.

In fact, except for a few minor changes, and that's primarily to some window and balcony locations, the massing scale design materials match what you all reviewed in March and June.

Relative to the design, the project features three bays separated by courtyards, with the bays joined by a building fronting on the alley between phase one and phase two.

The bays, courtyards, setback, contemporary design, variation materials, textures, and colors complement the adjacent phase one buildings and produce a design that is more compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that's as compared to a monolithic structure with limited materials.

Therefore, the design and details are consistent with the design guidelines.

Relative to the materials and colors, the first floor walls are brick with metal storefronts and punched windows.

The upper floors are a combination of brick and either fiber cement or metal panels, and they'll have punched windows, recessed balconies with glass doors and metal railings.

There will be a rooftop appurtenance to screen equipment.

The mixture of light and dark materials and of material types provides texture.

The brick and fiber cement panels

in that they simulate stucco, are consistent with material types typically seen in the city.

The building materials and color palette are consistent with the design guidelines.

Relative to the design and the arrangement of the buildings on the site, the three primary facades engage the street.

The wide sidewalks, landscaping, including street trees at 10th and West Street, create shade and a sense of enclosure and defined edges.

The benches enhance the pedestrian experience.

The courtyards provide open space for the building's occupants.

The parking garage is accessed through the alley.

That's between phase one and two.

There's a bike storage room near the building lobby.

The design and arrangement of the buildings is consistent with the design guidelines.

Relative to compatibility with the Preston Avenue entrance corridor, the proposed building, streetscape, site improvements, and site lighting are all compatible with this entrance corridor.

Relative to the city's vision for the Preston Avenue entrance corridor, a key goal is, quote, create a variety of new mixed-use, larger-scale projects.

Relative to the zoning, the intent of the central city corridor designation is to facilitate the development and redevelopment of medium-scale commercial and mixed-use projects.

This project complies with both of those.

Furthermore, this project provides a residential component to a larger mixed-use project of which a key component is the adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic structure.

With that, staff supports the proposed design and recommends approval with a series of conditions, and I assume you have them there.

I don't know if you want me to read through them.

I do want to note that

Number three, which addresses the glass.

The first floor glass, and there is a, the applicants here are here and can present the materials, but the first floor glass is 70 VLT, and we've had the discussions about the definition of clarity of glass, as you know from the discussions of Tarlton Oak, but this does, the storefronts are a 70 VLT, as we've typically required.

The windows and doors in the residential units

are probably of a lower VLT, possibly as low as 56.

And so I wanted to make sure that in any conditions, if you are amenable to the 56 VLT that we, as we did with Tarleton Oaks, express what's unique about this site and the use of that glass.

And I've offered some suggestions here.

Also at the bottom, I have an alternative.

And I say to number two, that's an error.

That's an alternative to that number three.

In that case, I simply left the VLT blank if you all believe that there's something more appropriate that you would like the applicant to consider.

So that's a quick tour through a long description.

Any questions?

I know in the BAR we've had a lot of discussions on this.

Phase one was what the BAR reviewed.

So that's why it's familiar.

I just got a neophyte question.

This is on the back of the building.

This is not in the entrance corridor.

Because it's a parcel, that's full parcel, correct?

And then the piece where the old dairy is, that segment is designated the IPP, not the entire parcel.

Let's talk windows.

I should have brought that memo, and Jody, we can chime in on glass.

If you recall on Tarleton Oaks,

They had asked to use a lower VLT and the BAR was instructed to take a look at it.

What we found is that in either the BAR design guidelines or the entrance corridor design guidelines,

is 70 established as a hard number.

However, it's become sort of the standard that we use.

So that's where 70 comes from.

The rationale is that at 70...

And it's particularly in concern, as it concerns storefronts.

You know, imagine something on the mall or Barracks Road Shopping Center, that that glass at that street level, you don't have a mirror or something that's dark.

The thing is, is as you go higher up on a building and you transition to punched windows instead of a storefront,

The design circumstances can change.

And also what we know is that most glass in, as I listed here, some of the commercially available windows, residential windows, is in that range of the 50s to maybe to the lower 60s, but normally in the 50s.

So that's what you get with that sort of thing.

I think in this case here, it's

The idea is you don't get a big glass building that is, you know, it looks like a big mirror.

We don't have that case here.

We don't have window walls.

Does that make sense?

And now, if perchance, and again, Mr. Padro can chime in because we've had in both discussions, if there's a sense that 56 is

too dark.

I've looked at lots and lots and lots and lots of glass samples and I would say it's fine as long as that lower level where those storefronts are is at 70.

And I know enough to say that it's way too complicated for me to understand.

But we saw the samples and there's a lot of characteristics, not just VLT, that affects glass and the transmission of light through it.

But looking at the samples,

There was negligible difference between the 56% and 70%.

I think you'll see also when Lee presents the renderings, you'll see the elements of phase one where there's a building that's all glass or a segment of that building and sort of that comparison of now you've got punched windows, you know, incrementally in walls.

It doesn't have the same effect.

I don't mind.

Okay, so we're not reviewing that.

We're reviewing this phase two in the back.

Correct.

I can answer that.

That was before my time, but Mr. Quill, yes.

What's the matter with the cow?

I like it.

I thought it was very imaginative.

I may have to go speak to a BAR.

I can't even imagine why you'd put a cow on the side of the building.

It's a dairy.

It's a dairy.

I'm not going to be able to get over this.

It's bothered me since I've been reviewing the packet last week.

And as Lee will show you, I think what's really important to recognize is that, yes, the entrance corridor is Preston Avenue.

And what is happening with phase two is

Its visibility from the corridor, it's not insignificant, but it's not up on the street.

So I think viewing it in the context of what's been approved at Phase 1 is sort of critical to seeing how this design works together.

Back on windows.

I don't know the window market, sorry to say.

How big of a burden are we talking about with the 56% requirement?

Is that eliminating a ton of window options?

Is that relatively minor?

How do I feel?

As Jody pointed out, there are about six different numbers that are used in looking at glass.

We, good or bad, pro or con, have come down in using the VLT.

You see some glass that has coatings on it, so it might be greener or bluer or browner than just clear.

But the VLT, as the BAR's explored it, it really comes down to that reflectivity.

At what point does it become a mirror?

One of the reasons, and the architect can address this, is that they used a lower VLT on that glass building on phase one, is you have an office space where

Some of it has to do with energy conservation, you know, but it also is you have people in there and, you know, if they're the sense of working like in an aquarium wall, you know, it's weighing those.

So, and that's where the BAR determined that if there's a good design argument

There's a good reason for this to deviate from that tacitly approved 70 VLT.

Make that case and we'll adjust accordingly.

With the intent being each project should be reviewed on its own merits and again, why I'm saying here, if we're going to change something or accept something lower, then let's be clear on why these circumstances are different.

But as far as the glass market goes,

If you're going down to Charlottesville Glass and doing a storefront, you get a metal frame custom made and then they get glass from a glass manufacturer that's sized to fit that opening.

Whereas something that's coming off the assembly line of a commercial window manufacturer,

Not quite that simple to say, you know, oh, let's just put in different glass.

This is sort of the glass we use.

Does it meet your criteria?

Yes, no, that's what we're producing.

I would like to offer this as an option so that we, because we have a lot of glass discussion at these meetings and as riveting as it is and as much as I'm learning, maybe after we get through this comp plan, this first little phase where we have a work session where we're just looking at each other with nothing to do, that you might come and talk to us about glass and show us differences so that we can understand and then when we get up here we're…

Yeah, Jody's right.

I have maybe a hundred samples in my office.

What do you think?

I defy you to find the difference in some of it.

But you need to see the samples outside there.

You can't do it under artificial light in a windowless room.

Because it has to do with reflectivity, the angle that you look at it.

Probably in a park somewhere with a cooler.

So we can do it Saturday.

Perfect.

So at this time we'd like the applicant to come and make his presentation.

I'd remind you you have 10 minutes.

Total, I know you got a big group of people here, so you might want to hold off on the sales pitch.

It's already done and maybe go straight for the technical.

And I don't want to talk about the cow.

Jody, how did you let that cow happen?

We sent down a very abbreviated presentation because we don't think you need to see the whole application again.

It's on?

I didn't have the control on that.

I left just as confused as I was before I started.

It is a presentation presentation.

Excuse me.

Okay, good evening commissioners.

We did prepare a presentation for the new commissioners that were not with us the last time we went through this project.

So we thought it would be worth taking a few minutes just to reorient people to the site and to what's already been approved and where we are today.

I'm here with Lee Quill from Cunningham Quill Architects.

They're the lead designer for the entire Dairy Central project.

And I'm Chris Henry, the developer with Stony Point Design Build.

So in front of you is a picture along

At the intersection of 10th Street and Grady Avenue, looking towards West Main Street, phase one of the project is under construction where we have the mural of the cow.

That's actually referencing an old picture we found from the 70s where they had like a 20-foot tall caricature of a cow.

It wasn't inflatable.

It was made out of plastic or something, but it was standing in front of the building as kind of this neat beacon to the ice cream shop that used to run there.

So there is a story behind the cow and the BAR thought it was compelling and it's been approved so we plan to actually paint the cow mural on the side and obviously it's a point of conversation which is what we hope to.

Next is an image along Grady Avenue.

I'm looking at the other direction along the front of the building.

This is a new public plaza that's being constructed in front of Monticello Dairy.

This will be immediately adjacent to the market hall.

That's being constructed right now in Phase 1 and then behind that there's four floors of office space above a structured parking level.

We just wanted to remind the Commission of the extensive community engagement process that we conducted starting with the Phase 1 design review process through the BAR, culminating with a series of community meetings and a small community design group that we met with monthly as we were preparing submissions to try and

and communicate and have lines communication open with the neighborhood.

So that was a great process.

We plan to continue meeting with the neighborhood as the project gets under construction and as different phases like the community room and things like that come online so we can figure out how to establish those relationships.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kris.

and Lee Quill from Cunningham Quill.

I'm going to go back to just these two original pictures because it's very important.

This is an entrance corridor review, so these two images are trying to show what phase two looks like.

So phase two starts behind the CAL where the buildings come up into the center of the site.

We'll talk more about that.

And as you look at it from Wood Street, the new Wood Street extended, you'll see the front building, you'll see the addition on top, you'll see kind of a green addition, that is the office building, which is part of phase one.

And just beyond that, you'll see a little dark area on the upper left hand corner and the white kind of with the lights, that's phase two.

So while this is back behind, you do see it from the corners, but it's not front and center, but it still, you need to see what it looks like.

So the location here, as you can see in red, is the Phase 2, which is on the corner of 10th and West Street, right behind the Derry Building.

The aerial here will show, this is the older building, so we're in the upper left-hand corner of the upper left-hand image.

And over here, we're on the right-hand side, the kind of edge right where you see all the trucks.

That is the site of Phase 2 in this area today.

Again, you've seen how this was broken down because this came to you before in both our March preliminary discussion, which we had with, some of you weren't here then, but we had a preliminary March hearing after everybody got sick in February.

And we're here, if you all remember that.

And then we came back in June for planning commission and then July for

City Council and received approval from both groups at that particular time.

And as Jeff mentioned earlier, we have not changed the layout and all that.

It's all the same except for a couple of windows at the locations, as he said.

But again, the front is important.

There's a breakdown in the frontage along West Street.

The activation we'll talk about on 10th Street.

We broke this into a street and block plan to provide interconnectivity in the block for pedestrians as well as some vehicles, again, addressing it.

And as Jeff said, the main entrances to the garage and the loading are internal along the Alley Mews.

and we've got the entrance to the office building in the area right across from the red block at the upper right.

That's the office entrance and we have the entrance to the residential building in that area creating a synergy of activity for these pedestrian-focused streets.

This was a diagram you saw in June.

Again, what Jeff talked about of the setbacks that we followed, et cetera, the openings and the porosity along West Street, et cetera.

That's exactly where we are today, as you can see in this image.

No changes on those, but wanted to take you back to what you had seen.

Again, the important things in seeing with this and the reason for these images are we kept it low with the existing historic building and then stepped up toward the middle of the site.

with where you see the Phase 1 now, where the office building is located.

And likewise, in the center of the site, again, the height of the residential building, the higher portion was back there.

And then as we come toward the residential neighborhood, toward the south and over to the west a little bit, we step down.

Very important to kind of have this up and then stepping back down to the neighborhood.

OK. And then again, this is the view.

You can see a step down and up.

Again, these renderings are, this is the entrance to the lobby along Wood Street.

and rough articulation of the green treatment and the landscape which you'll see in the plan in a moment.

This is our corner from 10th and West where the retail space will go.

We've activated the street along West Street, excuse me, along 10th Street with individual entrances to the units as you see there with stairs and then there are a couple of planters and planted area along 10th Street.

The trees are outboard at this point to provide protection

Pretty busy, 10th Street.

Along West Street, we had conversations about how the planter should work, how we should activate the corner, et cetera.

This has all been worked out with Water Street, who is our landscape architect, on this and with the stairs and activating that corner.

So this is the corner of 10th, excuse me, of West and Wood.

And then this is the corner of 10th going into the alley, which is the backside of the Derry Central project.

And you see the loading and garage entrance.

We have the materials board here.

You have images if you'd like to see them.

These are the images and the materials that we talked about and Jeff mentioned.

And then this is the landscape plan, which again follows direction to discussions we had with you all back in June with city council, getting into numerous trees, plantings, the planters, planting strips, et cetera, to really activate and enclose, as Jeff said, the street.

and Pedestrian Path to make it a very rich environment, not just a sidewalk that we have today with the face of a building or a chain link fence.

So we'll leave it on that, try to make it short.

We're going to go to questions.

Okay.

There may be some of those.

Good luck.

Yeah, we'll make this short because I know we're not, this is not the work session, but as Jeff had described, the areas that are, the large areas, this includes the lobby too, would be 70% or 68, remember that range we were talking about, as well as the retail on the corner, which is a larger glass area that Jeff had mentioned.

In the windows of the units above, Jeff covered that pretty effectively, very effectively in fact.

There's a range in the 50s to the low 60s where manufactured glass comes out.

The reason for this is this is where we get a lot of our energy efficiency.

We're going for Earthcraft on this, and if we had 100% open, we wouldn't be able to cover that.

So it's an industry standard.

We can't go in and dictate to them what class it is.

So that's the range that we run from the 50s into low 60s.

And what we've been looking at here is an arrangement around 56 for our windows.

It could vary slightly.