Planning Commission Meeting   6/13/2023

Let's do a Planning Commission pre-meeting.

I think we've got enough people.

A lot on the agenda.

Just starting from the top, any thoughts about the consent agenda?

There's quite a bit on there.

I'll just go down the list.

Lachlan Hill.

Only half of the space for apartment buildings, right?

There's still that big block for apartments left in it, right?

We looked at it in July 2020, and I was trying to understand what happened from that conversation where we said we'd like to see at least some variety of option in housing today.

Well, so that came to you guys.

whether it was a minor or major amendment and it was deemed to be minor the changes that they were requesting and so and that is the change from the apartment building to other units

Well, I mean, that's still unknown at this point.

It potentially could come back again.

A couple of questions about that.

Somebody remind me what an IPP is.

That's like a historic preservation designation?

Okay.

So we denied the demolition because it's an IPP that council had declared it was valuable enough to protect.

We did not rule on whether it should be an IPP or not.

Well, so, you want to give him the spiel, Matt?

Yes, so City Council, though, did approve removing the structure.

So contingent on there being plans that are approved by some kind of

body either BAR or entrance corridor but they with them approving the demolition there won't be anything to for the IPP to protect and so as part of the larger project they have to go through both a zoning map amendment which is initiated by an applicant

But for some reason in our code, we also list IPPs in a text.

You're probably going to answer the question I was going to answer.

So that contingency thing, right?

Correct, but it's also you can't go the other direction because if you went through the rezoning, you couldn't have just that IPP there.

They would have to come back after getting all their approvals and go through a process to remove just the IPP.

So approving the removal of this thing from the list of IPV properties does not necessarily condemn this thing to be torn down.

Well, and also what the initiation is just to study it.

All that's there tonight is just should we study it?

And by Planning Commission doing it, there's no clock.

If City Council initiated

Also worth a note that it's Woodward, LLC, because that's the street name, but it's not Wooderd Properties.

I think it's MSC that owns it, but then it's these guys who are coming to us later, subtext, who are doing the development.

And minutes would also be on this item.

Any concerns with minutes?

Did you all want to talk through the JPA item?

no it it it potentially could be but we just want to make sure that everything is taken care of from a procedural standpoint this one is coming back to you all again in order to address a procedural concern that came up with the timing on the mailing that went to adjacent property owners there is no other

We have a change to this application from the last time or the time before that it came forward.

And Jeff will be here to give you a brief overview.

The applicant will be here if there are any questions.

So we're off the concern.

Correct.

Yeah, talk about confusing the consent agenda and if it was there.

Yes.

Less than three minutes.

Everything has been done according to proper procedural.

West Market.

Questions on this item?

Didn't have any issues with that, right?

Very nice visualization of the apartment depth thing that complements my email this week.

First item, zoning ordinance.

So we'll have a briefing report of where things are during the regular meeting.

As soon as we, we'll see what kinds of questions we have on the agenda and then I wanted to chat with you all briefly about confirming those work sessions that I was getting some feedback from you guys on.

JPA 104 Stadium preliminary discussion.

Ideally, I'm thinking about 45 minutes, no more.

Correct.

Just a logistical question.

I mean, a side question.

For the life of me, I was over there this morning, and I could not find 4 or 9.

Oh, there's no, there's no house there.

There's no way to live in the browser, but it is a huge pain in the ass, so I'm not being able to figure out how to live.

It's annoying.

2117 Ivory Road, preliminary discussion.

Again, ideally no more than 45 minutes.

Bill confirmed he'll be here this evening.

He's good.

I think we'll be exhausted about it.

That's my sense.

I'm cool with it.

Would you be willing to make a motion on that?

Yeah.

That would be very helpful.

Wait, it just occurred to me I didn't totally get understanding of the whole IPP thing.

If the map amended moved forward, yes.

This is just a study to initiate this text because the applicant can initiate their own map amendment with an application to amend the map, but they can't initiate an amendment to amend the actual text of the zoning code.

So we're acknowledging that that is going to override the contingent on-site plan approval because it won't be an IPP anymore, but we're saying

Well, but if you left the IPP, so you could go through the scenario of you leave the IPP, they go through a rezoning, get the rezoning, the IPP's there.

But it's an entrance corridor on the other parcels as part of the larger project.

So it will have entrance corridor review unless something happens there.

So it will be one or the other.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not worried about that.

It's just a weird edge case of the contingents

If it wasn't initiated at this point, it could get pretty wonky down the road.

But again, this is only a decision to open the door to study it.

If something will happen, it'll come back forward at the proper time.

This is Andrew McRoberts, Sans Anderson, Acting City Attorney.

Just to give you a little background on this.

We worked with council because they were very concerned that there should be a review and should be an approval of something to replace, you know, what's there now.

And so it's envisioned that the IPP would be removed later at the appropriate time when the applicant comes forward with an application.

I don't think it was intended to remove it from the text right now, but instead to wait for that application.

And so when that comes

presumably at the end of the site plan process or somewhere near it.

At that point in time, the two can be synced up time-wise.

And so, you know, you do have the IPP in place.

There is a review.

There is a replacement site plan approved.

And then at that point, all of that happens kind of in succession.

But staff is absolutely right.

and you know that certainly seems supportable as long as the understanding is it's not moving forward right now yeah thank you sir can I get a clarification on so you said um there would be a review are you saying that council would like to have the BAR review this project um when it becomes like the the construction project we're reviewing it as ECRB

Right, but I thought you were saying you'd leave the IPP status on until later on in the design process.

All right.

And actually, this can be a follow-up question.

I know for the crossings, the SRO over on 4th and Preston, I believe part of that

Well, I mean, that one was adjacent to downtown, so there was the considerations from that perspective.

And it wasn't in an entrance corridor, so it wouldn't have had any sort of other type of review.

I guess it gets tricky in this case because it's an IPP.

They're now approved to demo it only in...

Okay.

Yeah, and I'm saying so only council can remove the IPP and this is

it allows that option that if in those conditions if something puts removing the IPP in ahead of it at least we have options because I think ultimately

It's a challenge because there's not a specific district in that area concerning the VAR.

So how do the guidelines apply?

I think it would be a challenge whereas the entrance corridor does I mean they do have some guidelines but yeah I mean there are a lot of challenges and I think kind of the key is providing those options down the road and the timing but please note that we will not bring this independent of

Thank you.

I see ten minutes left before the meeting begins.

Do you have anything you want to discuss during that time?

Do you want to talk briefly about the work session?

Yes, please.

Options?

All right.

So you all have a lot of flexibility in early July, and that is wonderful.

Thursday the 13th the evening meeting it looks like we have everyone available for for that so that one's pretty clear for the previous week and we don't have Kareem with us yet he's one of the the factors there I know we had oh and he just came right in the door I know we had a preference for a few folks for the evening opportunities

But we would miss out on at least one member if we did the evening opportunities on the week of the 5th of July.

I can be flexible with this.

We're trying to get it scheduled.

We figure there is plenty to talk about.

The first one, well, and I'll repeat this during the regular meeting for those who aren't listening quite yet.

We know we need to finish the map change discussion that we had from before, but there are many other things that will likely need discussion, so we want to frame that time so you all don't have to rush.

All right, so I will work on finalizing this with spacing and all of those things, but it looks like it would be July 5th, the Wednesday lunchtime, and then Thursday, July 13th in the evening.

See, I'm blowing my excuse.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

Five minutes.

Five-minute break.

Returning at 5.30.

I see 5.32 p.m.

Welcome all to the Charlottesville Planning Commission meeting for June 13th.

Dun, dun, dun.

I hope you're not afraid of the number 13.

Busy agenda.

I would like to start with Commissioner Reports.

Mr. Mitchell, can you start us off, please?

Let's see.

There were two or three meetings in the last month.

Parks and Rec we met, and there were two discussions.

One discussion was led by Peggy Vanieres, and that was another chat about the Grove.

I talked about the Grove at our last meeting, and again, that is a place of reflection to honor local community leaders.

I sent you guys a PowerPoint, so I won't go into detail, but check it out.

It is different from the other one that I sent you, but a little more detail.

There was also a presentation from the Executive Director of the Botanical Gardens at Piedmont.

And again, that's a 15-acre project that's located in McIntyre East.

You guys have the PowerPoint on that, so I won't go into detail either.

Lupec met.

And there were two major discussions.

Again, you guys have the PowerPoint on those, so I won't go into detail.

But the discussions were regarding the water supply plan.

and also what's going on with the UVA grounds and the framework plan and any progress being made.

The BZA met, and there was one applicant.

The applicant lived on Rialto Street, and what they wanted to do is reduce the setback from five feet to zero feet.

The objective is to replace an awning that is breaking down in disrepair.

That awning has been there forever prior to probably the setback being there.

I was all excited about that.

Yes, sir.

A couple of things to bring folks up to speed on.

HAC met on 5-17.

It was primarily a sort of process-type discussion of how to organize the new HAC going forward.

However, it was one of the first public appearances of our new housing program manager, Antoine Williams, who ran that meeting, considering that he had

barely had time to set up the obligatory picture of his family and find for the bathroom as he did an excellent job of that since his arrival a few days before I guess.

I was instructed by the Chair, ordered by Chair Johnson to once again bring to the attention of the Chair of the Planning Commission and of the Mayor the HACC's interest and need to be involved in the sensitive communities discussion.

So consider yourself attention called.

and there was a discussion of the status of and perhaps reviving the land bank and there's going to take some interest in looking at the existing draft ordinance and then there was a conversation briefly about the Mayor's discussion with the Commission back in March at the work session and my comments regarding

financing in RA and subsequent conversation where I promised to produce a memo.

Hack wants to look at that.

And so that's that.

The next meeting is 21st.

We're going to try to figure out the bylaws, it looks like, and bring some of this stuff home.

Charlottesville plan together met on 5-24.

And that, again, somebody raised a question about producing affordable housing in RA, and I mentioned that aforementioned memo, so apparently I'm actually going to have to write it.

And I'll defer the rest of that to you since I'm metaphysically certain your notes were better on that meeting than mine were.

And then the third thing is and I don't have anything other than that isn't already available but CDGB home has got some stuff on the horizon for an additional $340,000 coming down the pike in homes slash ARP funds

that is pointed to 60% AMI affordable housing that can be either shovel ready and dealt with within 24 months or the program fully deployed in 24 months.

And next week, the Office of Community Solutions is holding a seminar slash invitational meeting on the process for applying for these funds.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

There were two meetings since last.

I missed the first one.

It was the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee.

I was out of the country.

It was May 17th.

Yeah, that's today.

And I believe the link will be posted on social media and the website from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

I don't know if I said that in the right order.

But the second meeting I had was the Tree Commission.

That was last Tuesday.

A few things to note from that meeting.

There was an update on the RFP for the downtown tree replacement plan has been received and is being evaluated.

and the work is going to get started on invasive plant control in July and it's going to target the John Warner Parkway, Fry Springs and a few other areas around town.

Another big piece of news from the Tree Commission is that a grant was submitted to the Inflation Reduction Act for $300,000 that will help, if we receive it, will help fund the Urban Forest Management Plan and a reassessment of our urban forest.

I think our last study was from 2018, so it's a little outdated at this point.

and part of that in anticipation of receiving those funds the education and advocacy subcommittee of the tree commission is analyzing seven other Virginia cities and how they manage their urban forests to see what lessons we can learn from that and

Another thing we looked at was the comprehensive tree list.

That's being put together.

It's going to hopefully tie into Module 2 and the coverage requirements.

It'll be an easy access resource for people to look at and see what trees can meet different criteria that we are requiring.

And the last thing is there was some discussion on how we measure when it comes to the permitting and the requirement for the 15-inch caliper that we had on the trees.

There was some discussion on what that measure should be and if we should change that.

And that's an ongoing discussion.

I think the best practice that was suggested to me was it was an 8-inch diameter at breast height.

So I think I'll pass those notes along to James.

crew, but that's all for me.

Thank you.

Thanks.

My announcement is a sad one in that this will be my last Planning Commission meeting.

I am going to be moving and leaving Charlottesville, exploring different parts of the country.

Thank you very much.

I have some additional comments during my time.

All right.

Last month's BAR meeting wasn't too much of interest to the Planning Commission.

The one interesting topic was a discussion on repainting or refreshing some of the painted signs downtown, like Coca-Cola signs and the old businesses.

So the Downtown Business Association is looking into that.

the preservation community is kind of torn on how to do this.

So it's an interesting conversation.

We'll see what comes of it.

At this month's BPAC meeting, one issue that came up was the module three of the zoning rewrite, the issue of streetscapes.

It looks like there is an option for

If a parcel does not have sidewalks on either side of it, they can pay into a fund rather than being forced to put in a streetscape.

I can't speak for BPAC officially, but there seemed to be general agreement that it would be better if instead of that being at the developer's discretion, if they had to get permission from the director of NDS or the zoning administrator to do that.

and also just some concern about if they pay into the fund right away, the city should take into consideration how much it would cost to buy an easement later on.

And maybe it would be good to just do the easement portion right away and not the sidewalk.

Thanks.

So I had one meeting of MPO Tech.

We also discussed the Moving Towards 2050 plan, and it does look like that survey is online now, though it's hard to find.

There's also a webinar next Tuesday evening

and an open house at TJPDC the day after that on Wednesday about moving towards 2050.

We also discussed kind of preliminary planning for the next round of SmartScale and trying to get some projects

some project ideas that we might submit for.

So some possible options closer to the city ones are District Avenue and Hydraulic, the roundabout by the movie theater, which actually the latest is that it may be moved into funded for this smart scale round.

because it was narrowly missed and it might be switched, the whole thing.

The Fish Street extended improvements by Food Lion, re-scoping that project to make that area safer.

And then the Ivy Road interchange and area and then

the Barracks Road from Emmett to Georgetown area.

All right, couple things.

It's gotten quiet over at the university, finally, other than the construction.

but I did want to just point out there was a Board of Visitors meeting at the beginning of the month and where the Carson's to democracy building design was approved so you can go on to the website to see what that looks like that's in the Ivy Emmet Emmet Ivy corridor so that's exciting the other thing I wanted to just mention is

I think I mentioned it before, but our longtime director of parking and transportation, Rebecca White, is moving on to bigger things called retirement.

And so we're very happy that she's doing that, but she leaves behind quite a legacy for our system of parking, transportation, transportation demand management, regional transportation collaboration, and just

Thank you.

Big shoes to fill.

Yeah, and I didn't even mention the electric buses on the way, too.

Exciting.

For me, I've got two items.

One is more important than the other, so I'd like to offer it.

I'd like to offer a motion for consideration.

which I would like to read at this time.

Whereas Ms.

Elizabeth Russell served on the Charlottesville Planning Commission from September 2020 to June 2023 serving as Vice Chair from September 2022 to June 2023.

Whereas Ms.

Russell served as the Planning Commission representative to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and on the Rivanna River Planning Effort and Fontaine Avenue Smart Scale Steering Committee.

and whereas Ms.

Russell has been an advocate for neighborhoods within the city and has consistently encouraged fellow commissioners to consider the historic and preservation attributes of our community and whereas Ms.

Russell brought an important perspective to the work performed through the Seville Plans Together project

And, whereas Ms.

Russell has continuously been mindful of the impact of development decisions on underserved populations within the Charlottesville community, now therefore, we the City Council of the City of Charlottesville do hereby thank Ms.

Elizabeth Russell for her dedicated service on the Charlottesville Planning Commission and wish her success in future endeavors, signed and sealed, etc.

Does this seem amenable?

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Discussion on this side?

I personally am tremendously grateful to Ms.

Russell for her service on the Commission.

These have been hard, weird years.

We've gone through a lot of hard challenges, more than I had imagined, and I expect more than you imagined, too.

And your service has been exemplary, and I'm tremendously grateful for it.

Thank you so much.

And science, wow.

You get to give it to her.

I get to give it to her.

Any further discussion on this item?

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Havav?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Yes.

And Mr. Solla-Yates.

Thank you.

Less important matter, but it's still important, the Charlottesville Plans Together effort.

Before I did a discussion, I think I took three pages of notes.

There was a discussion about the lighting ordinance.

The team confirmed they are working on updated language.

I quote, currently editing, going to make revisions, make sure that there is light pollution controlled properly, and adhering to current best practice on dark skies.

There's been quite a bit of interest on this topic on this commission with the public, and my sense is that the team understands and is working on it.

Moving forward, who do we have?

Mayor Stoke, please.

Nothing other than it was a pleasure to sign that particular proclamation to Ms.

Russell.

Thank you, sir.

Sure.

Wanted to let you guys know we do not have a June work session.

So no work session on June 27th.

You all can take that off your schedule.

We are working towards two works.

That's our fourth Tuesday.

Fourth Tuesday.

We're working towards work sessions the first and second week of July, and so we have those tentative, and I will be getting the logistics together for those.

I'm going to continue in the vein of schedule.

So a bunch of stuff going on.

Today we actually kicked off our revisit of the affordable housing market feasibility analysis and the rate of change analysis.

Both of those were, if you guys recall, issued in reports last August.

And we are looking again at those analyses to make sure they still bear out given a lot of changes in the marketplace since that time.

tomorrow we have the module three open house right here in this room tomorrow late afternoon and then the remainder of the week we will actually be heads down with our consultant team and staff across a range of departments and city agencies to dig into our review of the draft document as it stands today get into some details all of this in preparation for us to

begin work on producing that consolidated draft that we'll be releasing at the end of July.

All of this feeds into that final work product.

So at the end of July, you can anticipate a consolidated draft document, the complete set of comments that we've received on everything to date, and I'm sure various and sundry other things that will be accompanying that when we get there.

what else did I have on the list oh and the the two meetings that we're working on scheduling topic wise those are to complete the conversation that we began on maps map related issues and then we're going to talk about module three and then to borrow the words of Commissioner Mitchell we want to land the plane on residential a b and c

Questions on schedule?

It actually all will likely come out at the same time as the consolidated draft document at the end of July.

That works.

Right.

I mean, kicking off today, you figure we've got to have that ready to go in advance of that date so we can do final reviews and all that stuff.

Thank you.

If there are any questions?

So the other announcement I wanted to make is that our new bike ped coordinator, Tommy Safranek, started yesterday.

Incredible change.

So I know he just started yesterday, but that's plenty of time.

Absolutely.

I don't know that I can speak to that point.

I understand that there are funds.

I don't know the stats of that entirely, but I know that there are funds that we're working from.

Thanks.

At this time, I would like to direct the Commission's attention to the consent agenda.

It's quite a bit on there.

Ms.

Ms.

Sure.

Perfectly sensible.

At this time, I would like to hear from matters from the public not on the formal agenda, which is absolutely anything you wish to discuss that does not involve 218 West Market.

Anything else?

all right so we will address this as we we typically do what we will do is we'll start with a speaker from our in-person audience and then we will move to our virtual audience and we will alternate back and forth as long as we have speakers each speaker will have three minutes and as the chair noted any

topic is game except for the West Market Street application, which we have a public hearing for that will be held separately.

Do we have anyone in our in-person audience who would like to speak?

Good evening.

I'm Ellen Cantini Morava from 225 Montebello Circle.

I'm speaking on behalf of Lorna Martins of 128 Observatory Avenue, who can't be here, with regard to the 2005 JPA project.

Recently, when Mr. Werner re-presented the 2005 project to the Planning Commission, alias the ERB, and also before City Council, he stated that virtually all the appellants' requests for changes are not the purview of the ERB.

However, back on May 10, 2022, when 2005 JPA first came to the Planning Commission for a vote, Mr. Werner said something quite different.

He said that in design review, the Planning Commission had a lot of power to redesign the project.

I quote Mr. Werner on May 10, 2022.

And you know, but speaking hypothetically, you could in the design review process say we want this to be separated into two buildings.

We want you to have that ability to push and pull design.

The design guidelines allow a tremendous amount of flexibility.

You all can change this design.

You have the ability to do that when it comes to you, unquote.

All but two of you planning commissioners were there and heard him say that.

If planning commissioners in their capacity as the ERB have the power to separate the project into two buildings, surely you have the power now to grant some of the minor design changes that the neighbors have asked for, such as getting rid of the side porches, entrances that will bring more traffic to the narrow dead end observatory avenue, conditioning the multipurpose path to be ADA compliant,

So don't just really re-vote in what you voted twice before.

Please look at the neighbors' appeals for yourselves.

Give this some thought and do something.

The massing and scale of 2005 JPA are a severe adverse impact on people living on Washington and Observatory Avenues.

City Council approved them on the assurance that design review would mitigate the adverse impact.

Matt Alphaly stated in the city council meeting, quote, it was determined that most of the massing and scale issues could be addressed and mitigated when the project comes back to ERB for design review and a certificate of appropriateness, unquote.

City councilors trusted that statement.

One of them said, I do have confidence that the ERB will be able to address the mass and the scale.

What happened to that?

The mass and scale have not changed.

All right.

Our next speaker will be a virtual speaker.

We have Tyler Miller.

Tyler, are you?

Hello.

Yes, sir.

Wonderful.

My name is Tyler Miller of 1500 Green Street.

I wanted to give the disclosure that I'm a member of the Charlottesville Tree Commission, but I'm here as a member of the public and a Charlottesville resident.

I wanted to voice my concern about the draft zoning module 3 section 6.4.4

Point D, Point 8, Point A, the designation of a particular violation in the schedule of civil penalties cannot be consprued to allow the imposition of civil penalties for activities related to land development.

I think that that should be removed.

Thank you.

All right, our next speaker will be an in-person speaker.

Do we have anyone else in person?

Okay, I don't see any hands right now.

We'll go to our virtual audience, which I do not see any speakers at this.

I see speakers coming up here.

And just a reminder to our virtual audience, you can either raise your hand in the app, or if you're on the phone, then you can click star nine, and that will raise your hand.

So our virtual speaker would be Kenneth Hill.

Kenneth?

Mr. Hill, can you unmute?

Mr. Hill?

I think what's happening is the I think what's happening is when people are speaking the hands get lowered so that that may be part of the technical difficulty.

My name is Dr. Dan Tanik.

I'm a resident here at 1107 Avon Street.

I wanted to make a brief comment about draft zoning module three.

This is

said as a supporter of modest density increases and missing middle housing to pick a couple of issues we're already looking at out of control Airbnb herding livability and affordability and I believe that the proposals 10 room lodging provisions that you can see in chart 312 on or around page 125 is going in exactly the wrong direction

There's a throwaway line later about a 25% commercial limit, but Airbnb laws obviously aren't enforced currently, said as somebody who has reported multiple illegal Airbnbs multiple times and had nothing happen.

So that's, I think, kind of going in the wrong direction.

I'm also deeply concerned that, you know,

The plan, as it stands now, doesn't touch covenants or NHOAs, and obviously that's because we're a Dillon rule state, and that's not in our control.

However, I think moving ahead with this plan without doing something to address the Dillon rule basically prioritizes or puts the burden of increased density on other less affluent areas, which I think is obviously a mistake.

Thank you.

All right, I will turn back to our in-person audience and see if we have anyone interested in speaking at this time.

My name is Jack Morava, 225 Montebello Circle.

At the meeting when the Board of Architectural Review discussed the proposed demolition of the stone house at 104 Stadium Road, the preservation architect hired by the developer described the stone house as marooned in its environment because there are no other stone houses on that side of Jefferson Park Avenue.

This was used as an argument for getting rid of it, but it could also be used as an argument for hanging on to it.

As Mr. Gestringer pointed out at that BAR meeting, quote, you would be surprised at how many people know of that house because of its distinctive character and its location.

It is an oddball.

Our city would be less if it were gone tomorrow, end quote.

The architect also noted that there are several other stone houses in the same architectural style in the district on the other side of JPA.

One is across the street from the Duton Stone House.

Together with 104 Stadium, these stone houses make a nice bracket at the university end of JPA, built of local materials and with a link to the city's past.

We homeowners who still live in the JPA neighborhood are also marooned.

We've heard a constant refrain from city officials about how desirable it is to keep students, concentrate students in our neighborhood as a way of keeping them from spilling into other neighborhoods.

And over the past year we've seen a steady series of proposals for bigger and bigger high rises to accommodate them.

Five to seven stories at 2005 JPA, eight stories at 1709,

and 9 to 12 stories at the corner of JPA Stadium in Emmett.

No one seems to ask what's left of the neighborhood that's been pushed toward 100% transient student renters and properties owned by out-of-state developers and absentee landlords.

Those of us who still have our homes there benefit the city by advocating compliance with city laws such as noise, safety, trash, and providing a sense of continuity and community.

And we would like to keep living there, but no one remembers that aging in place is one of the principles of affordable housing.

and so we're faced with either living next door to larger and larger high rises, giving up and selling our homes to one of the developers that are constantly hovering in hopes of demolishing them and replacing them with another student high rise.

all right we'll move back to our virtual audience we're gonna try again with Mr. Hill Mr. Hill are you able to unmute Mr. Hill are you able to speak you're unmuted

Hello.

I'm Elizabeth Sloan.

I live at 2024 Minor Road.

I'm here to say that I would like to encourage the Planning Commission to deny the special use permit for 211-17 Ivy Road to turn it into a plan unit subdivision.

This rezoning is not in any way what the plan unit subdivision is meant to be.

The scale of the proposed mixed-use building is not at all in keeping with the beauty of the surrounding area.

The commercial entrance corridor is primarily one and two-story buildings set back from the street with ample parking around them.

On the south side is the beautiful scenic campus of St.

Ann's Middle and High School.

Then there are several house-like office buildings which have very pretty details.

The north side is more commercial but the scale is very human.

one to two stories.

This proposed building is very ugly.

It will loom over the neighborhood in the beautiful UVA sports fields.

Proposed mixed-use department building could be from anywhere USA.

This developer, in fact, builds student housing across the United States in college and university towns.

These plans look like they were pulled out of a drawer and massaged slightly to fit the lot.

Already, the traffic at the intersection of Alderman Road and Ivy Road is backed up extensively at the end of the day.

During major events at the University of Virginia's adjacent baseball, soccer, lacrosse, and track fields, there may often be horrible traffic.

Exiting from the proposed two-story garage onto Copley Road just north of this intersection will be challenging.

It would make much more sense to exit onto Ivy Road.

And finally, just, I, um,

I mean, this violates everything that we have in the guidelines for the entrance review, entrance corridor, and it's not aligned at all with the intention of the planned unit development, which is meant to create residential spaces with open spaces.

Every piece of this property will be built or be paved.

All right, we'll turn back to our in-person audience.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak who is in the audience?

All right, we'll turn back to our virtual audience.

Anna Akonis.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you for that pronunciation.

That's okay.

It's difficult for people I know.

My name is Anna Oskounis, and I'm a member of the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Board.

Okay.

and we were very concerned about a number of things.

Extremely concerned about the traffic.

He is proposing to build a 10-story building with 600 residents at one of the busiest intersections in Charlottesville.

all of the football traffic, the basketball traffic, et cetera, as Liz alluded to, it's almost impossible to get there, get through that intersection.

And the university, as you know, is building a number of buildings along Ivy Road.

They have been really wonderful.

working with the neighborhood.

They've kept those buildings to say four stories to keep from overwhelming the neighborhood.

Just looking at that building and listening to him talk about how he's built these buildings in Chicago and Ann Arbor, and I asked him if he even knew the population of Charlottesville, and he didn't.

I said, you know, we are a small town to have a 10 story building and one of the busiest intersections and to have the opening on Copley Road and previously you couldn't even talk about building a building this big if you didn't have at least two acres of land.

This is barely an acre of land and it has the Norfolk Southern Railroad right behind it.

This just doesn't make any sense to any of us.

And I really, really hope you all will think about not giving this person permission to do this.

It's all about money.

When we tried to talk to him about various compromises or concerns, it was patently clear that he wasn't interested.

So I just I really I beg you this this is such a wonderful place to live on a wonderful neighborhood.

60% of the people in our neighborhood are renters.

We just we we love our neighborhood.

We have a wonderful sense of community and it just breaks my heart to think that this is going to happen.

So please, please take your time and consider this very carefully.

All right, any in-person speakers?

All right, we'll move to our virtual audience.

All right, thank you.

My name is Kenneth Hill, and I'm the owner of 111 Washington, and this is regarding the JPA 2005.

This appeal pertains to the ERB's COA that was granted at the public meeting held on March 14, 2023 regarding JPA 2005.

This follows up from the ERB meeting held on February 4, 2023 regarding the same project.

The 2005 project will not be affordable, does not fit within the existing zoning, and even exceeds what would be allowed by buy-right

in the rezoning proposed by the future land use map.

As such, there is strong imposition to this project for a variety of reasons.

It is a seven-story building towering over one and two-story homes in our tranquil neighborhood.

Therefore, I submit my appeal to deny the COA for JPA 2005.

This is a large project in a residential area sandwiched in between established homeowners, investment properties, and numerous student renters.

Residents stand to lose the very essence of their long-established neighborhood if this project remains as is.

The City Council should carefully consider the appeals of these citizens to find solutions or redesign a project largely due to the building's height, parking, and traffic issues and a host of environmental factors that will come to the neighborhood.

One of the main issues is parking.

My property with eight tenants is directly across the street from the JPA facade, 65 feet to be exact.

With parking on both sides of the street, on Washington Avenue in particular, there's barely enough room for two cars to pass at the time now.

When you add in the design of an enclosed parking garage,

entryway from 122 parking slots along with the service vehicles.

Adding service vehicles to the mix, it will result in major traffic bottlenecks at that location and in the general area.

When you add in traffic coming and going to the building on Washington Avenue from 122 enclosed parking places, the only entranceway to the project, it will get much worse.

The design of 120 parking slots for 390 students is woefully inadequate for the scope of the project.

An alternative for the city is to require a parking design so that the building has two entryways to relocate the entryway accordingly, which can better handle traffic flows in and out, which is closer to the entrance.

A traffic study is needed due to the increase this other growth will have in the future of this area.

Trash.

My property has a little setback from Washington Avenue.

It's right across from when a trash will be hauled off.

The presenters said trash will be pushed to the street once weekly.

This will create noise and debris in the area.

Trash pickup will further add to traffic scenarios on Washington Avenue in the nearby area.

The enclosed parking garage will have electrical and mechanical equipment.

The building will have high voltage electrical equipment near the garage entryway.

which will cause noise.

There will also be a generator which will have to be tested at times and will have fuel which will be smelly and have to be filled on occasion.

Accordingly, the walkway also behind the building at observatory between Observatory and Washington Avenue's needs to be of sufficient size width to allow for pedestrians and carriages to divert without the hassle of having to climb stairs.

Therefore, I submit my appeal

to deny the COA for this project.

All right, check in on our in-person audience.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Seeing none, I'll move to our virtual audience and check to see if we have any speakers.

Thank you very much.

Do we still feel good about that?

We do.

I have one more question that I should have asked during the pre-meeting, but it didn't occur to me until I saw Sam over there.

Does the approval of the major subdivision constitute the, like, Planning Commission generally in accord with the Comprehensive Plan determination for the new public facilities, which are the utilities?

So there are public utilities that will be serving the lots there.

Oh, not to that level.

So I know what you're asking.

Yes, because typically if it's, I mean, this determination was discussed earlier when this went through before.

What Mr. Stolzenberg is noting is that there is a code section that requires certain expansions of utilities as well as infrastructure within a community has to go through a comprehensive plan check.

Okay, cool.

Ms.

Greasy, would you call the roll?

Sure.

Mr. D'Orazio?

Aye.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

Mr. Havad?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Yes.

Aye.

At this time, I would like to change everything.

I declare us to be the Entrance Corridor Review Board in session.

That would be our usual order, Chair.

I know we're a little bit behind schedule and perhaps maybe polling our council members after they gavel in to see if there's any time constraints that maybe we can work with.

This is just so.

I declare ourselves to be the Planning Commission once more.

Mr. Mayor, is the council in order?

I would like to question.

Do you have time?

Do you want to sit around and watch us do design review?

We recommend we flip.

This seems reasonable to me.

It's the prerogative of the chair to change the agenda within reason and of course these are all advertised items so

This seems reasonable to me.

I would like to proceed with the public hearing at this time and immediately afterwards consider 2005 JPA and then proceed with additional items after that.

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

Oops, sorry.

Do you have too many papers for the podium?

Today you have before you a special use permit application to modify an existing special use permit for 218 West Market.

Our applicant group is Heirloom Downtown Mall Development represented by Williams Mullen today.

As I just noted, the applicant has requested a modification to the existing special use permit number SP19-00006 to modify required setbacks.

The existing SUP permits a mixed-use building with up to 240 dwelling units per acre and up to 101 feet in building height.

with conditions which include affordable housing obligations, a community space with reduced rent, a protective plan for the adjacent property, and building form requirements such as ground floor transparency.

The current application requests modification of the required 25-foot minimum step back at 45 feet in height for both the West Market Street Wall and the Old Preston Avenue Street Wall.

The request would reduce the 25-foot minimum to a 10-foot minimum along West Market Street and a 5-foot minimum setback along Old Preston Avenue.

The staff report in your packet includes links to the previous staff reports provided on the original approved SUP.

The current staff analysis in your packet focuses on the requested modification to the building's step backs as the density increased height were previously approved by city council.

The 2021 comprehensive plan future land use map designates the subject property as downtown core.

All adjacent properties are designated as downtown core or open spaces and parks.

The comprehensive plan describes the downtown core as a primary, central, mixed-use activity hub for the city.

The plan encourages a mix of uses in the same building, is encouraged to have forms compatible with and that respond to the existing urban scale and historic and civic context, and up to 10 stories in height may be contemplated.

Several goals in the comprehensive plan speak to a desire to promote additional housing options, particularly those in proximity to activity and economic centers, public transportation options, as well as context-sensitive redevelopment of underutilized properties.

Stapley's proposed development also aligns with the downtown core category description and will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent open spaces and parks designated properties.

The development will require a certificate of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review, or BAR.

On October 18, 2022, the BAR held a preliminary discussion on the proposed step-back modification and confirmed they generally supported the proposal.

On April 18th, 2023, the BAR took unanimous action to confirm the proposed step back modification did not adversely impact the downtown architectural design control district with the understanding that the final design will require a certificate of appropriateness from the BAR.

The previous city planner processing that's application waived the community meeting requirement.

However, we have heard from one member of the public who wrote in to express concern with the development's impact to the character of downtown and available parking.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission focus on appropriate building step back requirements and the BAR action confirming the proposed modifications will not adversely impact the downtown architectural design control district.

Included in your packet are proposed modifications to the original approved special use permit conditions to account for the requested modification to the building step backs.

Yeah.

So step back is something that would only happen after 45 feet in height of the building.

So there's no, I thought that I saw something

So it doesn't relate to the... So that's not specifically what the requested modification is addressing, but there is, as part of the conditions from the original approved special use permit, a section that includes...

Condition two, breaking down of the mast to provide compatibility with the architectural control district.

Condition three, there should be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable facade at street level.

And then there's also some conditions under number five, which has some modifications to include windows on all elevations.

Let's see.

I think those would be the main pieces that are dealing with our building form right now.

I had a question on the first condition, just out of curiosity more than anything.

Why was it that no more than one building shall be constructed on the site?

Why was that part of the conditions?

I do not know the answer to that.

I remember, yes.

Any other questions for staff?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Can we please hear from the applicant?

I am terribly sorry.

I should have specifically asked.

No.

Valerie, are you going to start or am I going to start?

We can hear you.

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Valerie Long with Williams Mullen.

We're representing the applicant heirloom development.

Jeff Levine is a principal of the applicant and is obviously here attending virtually.

We have some slides and a very brief presentation if that would be helpful to any of the Commissioners.

I'm always a little hesitant to pass on an opportunity to show a presentation.

In the event, questions come up after I finish speaking, but I also don't want to take up your time unnecessarily.

This is a very simple proposal.

As Ms.

Rainey indicated, the request is limited to modifying the step back requirements along West

Market Street from 45 feet to 10 feet and then along Old Preston which is the back of this building or future building from 25 to 5 feet we have some exhibits that they're the same ones essentially that were in the packet so nothing new I'd be happy to answer questions

As stated, this is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

We do note that under at least the draft zoning ordinance, it looks like there is not a plan to continue requirements for step backs.

That being said, the existing 25-foot step back in this zoning district is substantially larger than any other zoning district.

There's a lot of history to it, but

It doesn't seem to fit here.

There were a lot of exceptions made in other locations.

I think this just got overlooked, perhaps.

Thank you.

Great.

I appreciate it.

Super.

All right.

Next slide, then.

I think this is commonly referred to as the Artful Lodger site because of the furniture store that's located on the ground floor of this building.

It would comprise the entire site and as you can see on the side on the left side it's along West Market and then the rear of the parcel abuts Old Preston which then turns into the very end of the downtown mall.

Next slide.

I think we skipped one.

Yeah, thank you.

So on the right is probably the most helpful image.

You can see in red is the 25-foot step back from each of the two adjacent streets.

Again, that is within the existing zoning ordinance.

We're proposing or requesting to reduce that front step back from 25 to 10 feet there along West Market.

And just to reiterate, as Ms.

Rainey clarified,

This step back only kicks in at 45 feet and above.

So after that, as noted, there would not be any impact on any pedestrian experience.

And then again, on old Preston Avenue, which really we think functions a little bit like an alley,

than a more of a typical street, certainly very different character than West Market Street.

Nevertheless, the ordinance would require the 25-foot step back starting at 45 feet, and we're proposing to reduce it to five feet.

Next slide.

These are just some graphic images.

The top left showing what the existing approved special use permit would require with the 25 foot step back on either end.

And then the lower left exhibit reflects the proposed modifications.

We do note that the Board of Architectural Review, as part of the special use permit, as I think you all know, they reviewed this as an advisory review board to weigh in and provide comments as to whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the historic district.

And their finding was that this proposal would not have an adverse impact.

Next slide.

These are some images showing visually what the change would look like.

The top left shows again the existing approved design would require that large 25-foot step back after 45 feet in height of the street wall.

And the lower left shows what that would look like.

And as you can see from the image on the right, that's the view from West Market Street looking towards McIntyre Ridge.

Next slide.

I should also note that this project will, as was noted in the staff report, the full design, the building itself has not been designed to the level of detail.

It will require a certificate of appropriateness from the BAR before issuance of a building permit.

So that's why we're showing these in sort of box massing diagrams without a lot of detail.

This is the same image, just in reverse, looking the opposite direction up West Market.

Next slide.

This is the view from the mall, which again, as you know, sort of looking toward the end of that photograph between the Omni building and, because it's whiskey jar there on the end, is the start of old Preston, kind of behind the Omni parking deck.

the building would be visible from this vantage point on the mall and so again the top left is showing what would be what that would look like the level of visibility with the existing approvals and then lower left with the reduced building step back so it would still be visible but would not be out of character or scale with the other buildings nearby such as the Omni and of course the new code building next slide

These are just some comparisons of other step-back regulations in all of the other mixed-use zoning districts.

I know there's a lot there.

I don't expect you to be able to see it or read it, but we did do an analysis to determine what the other

mixed-use zoning districts require, and as you can see, most of them are in the 10-foot range, if not less.

The only exception really is along in the so-called South Street Zoning District, which is a very small span, about a half block long, special zoning rules for that street because of the historic properties that are located on that street.

Next slide.

I think that's it in terms of presentation.

Mr. Levine may want to make some comments.

One thing I should mention is, among other reasons, the request is important to help, frankly, the functionality of the building for residential development.

With such a large step back,

It cuts into, frankly, the buildable area, the building envelope, and makes it much more challenging to provide the number of units approved for in the site.

We do have some exhibits on that.

Thanks, Valerie.

Yeah, we should have led with the why.

Everyone's looking, going forward.

The why is really just there is a certain formula in my architects on as well who can discuss, but there's a certain formula to residential development as to how your car is run and how the depths of your units run.

And with this anomaly in the city of having two pinch points of 25 feet,

you just do not get layouts after those 45 feet that really work for residential development which defeats the whole purpose of building this site for residential development including the affordable housing that's included.

To be clear, none of what we're asking gives more density, more units, more height.

It's simply for better architecture, which is why I believe them and I was present, but why the Board of Architecture Review understood that and understand that for better design and for better layout and for better units that are marketable.

this change needs to be made.

You can even see on certain areas where Valerie was showing if there is a 25 foot step back the other side has zero so you still have that same upper tier and Mr. Schwartz could probably explain it better but that's what this is about we just as we got deeper into design and we started looking at this building and going through schematic design and thinking about going to BAR the upper building just does not work for residential development

and then my last thing is Mr. Schwartz mentioned could there be other conditions or go back on the other conditions we tried to make this narrowly focused on this amendment about the step back the original SUP was heavily vetted and to the other two commissioners comments that's why some of those things came about the pedestrian access was a concern that since we were going to be building a building on that artful lodger

parking lot, which acts as a connector between West Market and Preston slash the mall.

Could we please provide a pedestrian access through the building so there would still be that connection?

So that is just one of the concessions that came through the long and lengthy and costly vetting process through the SUP.

Same with those other

those other conditions that were mentioned.

I forgot the gentleman had one other, he had another question about another condition.

Oh, I'm sorry, the building broken up.

That was a BAR.

There's been, and I've gone through this with the BAR on other sites where

We're trying to respect these long width of the site to make sure that it's not one big building or one big face along the street wall.

So it's typically not our architecture to do that anyway, but it's the working with the BAR to understand, to make sure that there's certain depths and so you don't have one wall.

And that's how kind of

We articulated to say it'll look like more than one building or it'll be and it won't be but it won't be more than one building.

And that's where all that came from.

So the all those conditions were were heavily discussed and worked through.

So may I screen share?

Am I allowed to do that?

Sorry, we're not sure who's speaking.

Oh, that's me, Lisa Moran with Bushman-Dreyfus Architects.

Sure, we have a slide, too, but go ahead.

We have a slide, probably the same exhibit that you're referring to, but go ahead.

It's the top right.

We did a very detailed study of unit layouts and discovered that these are just not marketable.

We were pinched in terms of providing the natural light for the light wells.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell, oh.

I wanted to jump in because I was going off of something Jeff just mentioned.

So, uh,

With the whole pedestrian through access through the building, I thought I remembered us talking about that at length and putting that as a condition.

And now I'm seeing it not in the conditions.

And in the original materials, I guess BAR had recommended it as a condition.

So you guys are deciding it with that pedestrian through access.

Would you care if we added that as a condition?

I mean, it seems like it was an oversight.

The condition number one does reference the application materials that were submitted.

Yeah, we always thought it was a condition The only change from that original proposal

is with respect to the step back because we had proffered some kind of artificial step backs and

Those don't work as well.

So we really just looked at how the zoning works around the other parts of the city.

And we're proposing that this site just be treated the same as the other ones with a 10 and a five.

And then as far as architecturally designing the building, we can do that from those 10 and five foot step backs.

And as far as whether we do another step back, that's how we work in the bar is designing the building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is that Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Okay.

Mr. D'Oronzio.

No, sir.

I'm good.

I think I have no issue with the step back, and I'm sure the BayR can figure it out.

I will try not to comment on this a lot, and I don't want to rock the boat.

It's on other conditions that

especially on the affordability one.

If I do the math, we're roughly getting 130 something units, which if we're looking at our draft on it gets 10%, that'll be about 13 units at 60% AMI for 99 years.

And you're providing eight that expire.

most of which expired after eight years and two after 16 years.

And it's just not what we want now.

But in the spirit of not rocking the boat too much and this has already been approved, what I will ask or maybe this is something you can work with is if the I know two of the affordable units should remain affordable for 16 years and the six other ones

disappeared after eight years.

Were you going to keep the 80% for the eight more years, or was it going to be 50% AMI?

Yeah.

I don't think it was specified.

One, just for clarification, obviously this is such an important issue.

Sure.

I'm sorry.

Because it's actually a very important point in relation to looking at the rezoning.

You're bringing up exactly the trade-offs that need to occur to do that.

What you're failing to mention in the formula is that the new zoning grants bonus height of

three stories actually starts at a base height one story higher than this current.

So that is the city recognizing that, yes, the developer can do more, like you say, maybe do five more units, but in exchange for additional height.

Here, we don't have that option.

And if you do the formula under the SUP,

per the current Excel spreadsheet, the eight units and what I offered as far as affordability and length of time is more stringent than the formula that comes out under the SUP.

I think we're all hoping that the new zoning goes through and the affordable housing has a better program and everyone's looking forward.

But right now, we just have to operate under the rules that are before us.

Well, if I could just clarify, the conditions on affordable housing exceed what would be required under the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 3412.

That would require about 5% of the units and for no more, you know, five-year terms at 80% AMI.

Thanks.

Russell.

A little technical question, and I know I've asked this a couple of times, and I can't remember what the answer was, but so the street wall, I believe it was even indicated on one of your drawings, the step back has to occur between 40 and 45 feet.

Are you guys gonna have any issues with the sloping site?

I don't think market slopes so much, but I don't know if Old Preston slopes more than five feet.

I'll let Jeff speak to that or the architects.

I know they're aware of that.

Rather unique, not even rather unique.

Yeah.

We've studied that, and we've studied how it's been measured before, and I don't anticipate an issue with that.

I mean, they do have an eight-foot grade change across the front of the lot.

I mean, I guess it depends on which member of staff is, or how their staff is interpreting it.

Fair enough.

Yes.

Thank you, though.

Just one question.

Please.

I've met with James Fries, I've met with Chris Engel, I've met with the Omni, I've met with the code.

That would be an amazing goal.

We can have a conversation about the challenges of who controls what, but for the beautification and

I don't want to go too far down the road.

Yes, I feel the end of the mall right now is kind of like a life suck of it kind of dies there.

What we really want to do is invigorate and have it as an ending point, which all great pedestrian malls have.

They have like a ting, they have one thing on one end, another thing on the other end, and I think it's a little dark.

So yes, that would be my ultimate goal and there's work involved and that's why these take a long time, these projects.

But I hope, yeah, I hope that that becomes a

Great.

Mr. Palmer.

I have no questions.

No questions.

No questions.

This is a helpful presentation.

Mr. Bray here.

No, the visual is helpful.

Any additional questions?

Thank you very much.

and we will run this as we do all of our speaking sessions in our hybrid mode.

We will begin with speakers who are in our in-person audience and then we will move to our virtual audience and we will alternate back and forth as long as we have speakers.

So I'll begin by asking if we have any speakers for in-person.

Come on forward.

Good evening.

My name is Joey Conover and I manage 110-114 Old Preston Avenue owned by my mother, Virginia Doherty.

She is not able to be here this evening but she is actively interested in this discussion and I represent her interests this evening.

She and previously my father purchased their building in 1976.

I was not aware of this application for this change until I received notice of this meeting so I was not able to provide comments.

prior to the staff or BAR recommendations.

As stated publicly during the original SUB process for this property, I'm generally supportive of high density on this site.

However, I will use this setback change request this evening to ask the Planning Commission to seriously consider some tradeoffs in exchange for approval, some of which you just discussed.

Number one, required pedestrian access from Market Street through to Old Preston Avenue and the Downtown Mall.

I sent comments to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting and I think that prompted that discussion.

Number two, additional low income housing to be built or funded to match the new FLUM and zoning requirements.

Number three, require the light and air channel as shown in the application to be included in the future design to be presented to the BAR to address the potential increased snow load to our 100-year-old stone building from snow drifts piling up next to a much higher and wider building.

also in that the light and air section as shown I think we'll also provide a more broken up building with step massing that is interesting as the architectural design of the code building which is referenced in the application.

I'm going to just read a few of my other comments in the time I have.

The applicant argues that Old Preston Avenue functions more like an alley due to the Omni's utility cabinet and yet should also be treated as a numbered street.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time on the street, I can tell you that the street functions as an entrance corridor for the downtown mall.

And my opinion should be that additional city resources to maintain it better or even do more, as you all just discussed,

to maintain it better given the high amount of pedestrian traffic.

The Omni brought a backdoor feeling to part of the street that was not there when Vinegar Hill was more integrated into the downtown area.

The current Posture Pilates Studio and Artful Lodger also bring a more retail and open feel to the area.

As per the original SUP approval, I understand that Floor 1 will be commercial and there should be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable facade at street level.

I hope this is maintained as a priority by the BAR and Design Review and Old Preston Avenue is not made to feel more like a back alley prioritizing the garage entrance.

225-227 West Main Street, the Whiskey Jar, appears on the GIS to be built right up to the property line.

So if 218 West Market Street is built up to their property line, I fear that there will be no pedestrian access from 2nd Street Northwest, the Cross Street at Bebedero, and the intersection of Old Preston Avenue and West Market Street, the end of Lighthouse Studios, which is notably non-pedestrian friendly.

This large block would be more than double the width of all blocks on the downtown mall.

Both the code development and the transit center block have through pedestrian access.

Note that the Terraces is another through-block property with a variety of setbacks that are quite attractive and do not lead to a podium tower effect.

There is currently some pedestrian access through a private driveway on the west side of 210 West Market, Browns Lock and Key, and behind that building.

However, I understand the heirloom owns the Browns Lock

block building and has received permission from the city to demolish the building, implying that they will be designing and building another high-density building on that site where the existing pedestrian access would be lost.

Okay.

Okay, we'll move to our virtual audience.

Anne Benham?

Anne?

You can unmute.

Anne, if you're speaking, we can't hear you.

There you go.

Sorry, that was a mistake.

Ms.

Hi, I'm Dena Gould.

I'm the Executive Director of Lighthouse Studio, which is located at the Vinegar Hill Theater directly next to, on West Market Street, directly next to 218, the 218 proposed site.

Every year we teach 1,000 young people from ages 8 to 21.

We make films.

in our studios and we screen them in our theater.

We hold regular screenings for the public and we rent our theater studios and roof terrace to important income to support our nonprofit.

Our students regularly use the sidewalks, Orr Market and Old Preston to access the downtown mall.

I have a few concerns, the first one being pedestrian student safety.

Our students are constantly moving in and out of our building.

Access on Market Street, Old Preston, and into the mall are critical both during construction and post-construction.

I'm concerned about driver safety.

The narrow, curvy, hilly street segment creates challenging conditions for drivers.

Since 2017 our building has actually been hit by cars on two different occasions and I want to know how will traffic be managed when this new large structure which intends to attract community

both community members and house residents when it's in operation.

I'm a little surprised.

I'd really take a look at the street and the condition there for traffic.

And then finally, for our organization, the noise and debris from the build will prevent us from using our studios to teach our students in our

The noise and debris from the build will prevent us from using our studios to teach, our theater to screen, and our space to make the money we need to operate.

We have spent over 20 years growing our organization.

buying and renovating the Vinegar Hill Theater and adding new studios.

And we are concerned that the noise, debris, and dangers of the build will severely disrupt our organization and threaten its financial stability.

Thank you.

All right, I'll check our virtual audience.

Do we have any speakers?

Just as a reminder, you can raise your hand virtually, or if you're on a phone, you can hit star nine, which would raise your hand.

All right.

Okay, so no public hearing speakers.

Mr. Levine, you're an applicant, so you don't get to speak as the public.

My name is Linda Abbey.

Can you hear me?

I live at 205A, Second Street Northwest, directly opposite the proposed building.

I'm really concerned about the massive size of the building.

It's bigger than anything else that's been on the Mall, and the cut through between Market Street and the Mall is important.

I'm also very concerned about the light.

This massive building was going to put Market Street in shadow all the time and plants and trees need light to grow and that's not going to happen.

And they're also taking out 18 trees and I thought the setbacks, the previous setbacks were for some trees to be built so that the tree canopy in Charlottesville would not be changed as much.

But it seems that that's not going to happen if the setbacks are five feet and ten feet.

I'm very concerned about the noise when Market Street right now is really hard.

It's hard to hear anything when one of the emergency vehicles go through and with a huge wall on the other side.

There's no place for the noise to go except to go in between the walls.

And it also happens when those cars go by with those big boomer noises.

I'm concerned about the traffic.

There's 130 more units and people with cars.

There's only parking for 56 cars in the whole thing.

And where's the parking going to go?

Where are the cars going to go?

6% of the building is affordable housing.

That's not very much.

And it expires after eight years.

The building is built to the sidewalk, which is not even six feet wide.

I walk it all the time, and I know it is not six feet wide.

And this building is going to be a gateway to the Mall.

It's going to be taller than McGuffey or the Omni.

It sets up another precedent for other large scale buildings that would surround the Mall.

And I think that the trees would die because there would be no light.

And I want to know why people come to Charlottesville.

Why do they come here to visit or to live?

It's fairly low scale.

It's quiet.

It has history.

It has a sense of space.

And it's beautiful.

I would like you to consider all those things when you make your decision, please.

All right, I'll check our virtual audience.

I don't see any hands raised at this moment.

I'll move back to our in-person audience.

Do we have any additional speakers in person?

Okay, one more time virtual.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I would like to close public comment at this time.

Mr. Levine suggested he had some thoughts he wished to share.

I'd like the thoughts on that.

I'm seeing thumbs.

Mr. Levine, please.

Thank you.

I just wanted to hopefully provide some comfort with respect to some of the comments.

So we – I think we've already been clear that the pedestrian access was in the original

the original set of conditions.

We're sticking with that.

We understand that that's an important passageway.

So I hope that addresses a sector of those comments.

With respect to traffic, we had that in the first go around of the SUP.

Brian Holuska had done his study as long as well as we did a study.

It is why the entrance to the garage is on

Preston and not West Market.

It'll actually improve the traffic along West Market because there will be no turn in off of West Market.

So that I understand people see density and units and and feel traffic is going to be worse.

And I do know that

That stretch gets backed up, but we actually think this will be better.

I know that's hard to fathom with more density, but we'll actually improve that.

We also did shadow studies the first time around, and we also did, I know Valerie has it as the last slide, but with this step back revision, it does not affect the shadows at all compared to the other step backs, just the way the sunlight hits the building.

And in our original application, we even showed that

without an SUP, you can build six stories and the shadows are not, they're de minimis the effect of the sunlight going up the additional stories versus the six stories as of right.

So I just wanted the public to know that we gave a tremendous amount of thought to all those concerns and we feel that

The project will actually be an improvement overall and help the overall housing situation.

Thank you, sir.

Actually, Commissioner Mitchell anticipated that my comments were his.

Mr. Hibbop.

Same.

I think the step back is not going to be an issue based on what I saw.

And if we find a way to incorporate the

Layout, the general layout that we saw today into the application.

I don't know if that just kind of gets updated as part of the first condition or not since it's the new exhibit with today's date.

But other than that, I think maybe we just add the public pedestrian access 24-7 as a condition just to be safe even though you guys are providing it already.

Ms.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I was going to ask if there was some way of asking for or granting approval that it be generally in keeping with what we've seen in terms of light and air.

And I don't know if that's in the comments or if that's just understood.

Can you clarify, is this pedestrian access something that's open air?

Is it like a covered alley?

What is it exactly?

Well, I don't think we exactly know.

I think right now that's why in our original voluntary conditions, it was in there as just pedestrian access through.

So that was it.

Until we get into detailed design, I don't know what that will be, whether it will be covered.

Safety and security will be

Well, I just say I don't appreciate the slighted livery stable and maybe the armpit of the downtown mall, but it is our armpit.

I think last time we had talked about the through access kind of conceptually is something like York Place.

And so for that reason, I don't know that like a 24-7 requirement makes sense, but it does seem like putting a condition in there for it does make sense because it seems like a genuine oversight that we didn't do it last time.

So I don't know if, are you thinking we do a condition for the light wells as well?

Like I think Ms.

Conover was

Recommending, I think that might make some sense.

I mean, I think you need those light wells to do residential, but I guess it would stop it from being an office building usefully.

Thank you.

Mr. Palmer.

The concerns about construction creating problems, I believe we have an ordinance to address that to reduce business damage.

Can you confirm that, Ms.

Business damage?

Yeah, we had a concern from the public that during public comment that construction noise and disruptions would become a problem for doing business in the area.

Excuse me.

I don't really have anything to add beyond what's been stated.

It seems like a good project.

Ms.

I am concerned like Ms.

Conover is concerned regarding lighting, but I am extremely concerned about the safety of our students at Lighthouse Studios.

My organization has used that building on numerous occasions.

And we've got to just consider the safety of the students.

I'm not saying that those individuals that use Vinegar Hill for various and sundry activities should not be safe as well, but they are adults.

And as our executive director said,

Thank you.

All you guys can help me craft it.

So I think the ones we're considering could be additions to five, which is additional building design requirements, blah, blah, blah.

There's also just saying... Or in one.

Okay, so I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit in the downtown D mixed-use corridor zone at 218 West Market Street to permit a mixed-use development with a residential density of up to 240 dwelling units per acre.

Additional building height up to 101 feet, reduced setback requirements after 45 feet and building height of no less than 10 feet along the West Market Street street wall and no less than five feet along the old Preston Avenue street wall with the following listed conditions.

The seven conditions recommended by staff with an amendment to condition

one, let's say, that there would be public pedestrian access from Old Preston to West Market Street.

Do we want to put, so I guess I'll throw that out there, then I have a comment to make on it.

Yeah.

No, I would just make it its own thing.

Okay.

During normal business hours?

If that isn't what the zoning code says, it sounds pretty good still.

You can add it if you... Is that the full motion?

I would want to see that.

I would feel comfortable with that.

Because if so, then...

Am I allowed to jump in?

Please hold up right now.

So the BAR does have interest in preserving existing buildings around this project.

If we find a way to add them, but without constricting the architect, they might want to shift the building a little bit or, you know, make them wider or narrower.

That was good.

Which also seems weird, right?

Can you do that?

Not on a property line So it's going to require some pulling back of the building mass Maybe that's how they get their access Now I'm confused if that was why that's in there because I don't remember that being in there when we reviewed it last time either Is that at the above 45 feet?

No, it's everything

Oh God, where'd it go?

It's in five.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a BAR recommendation.

This is one of the ones that was added in that very lengthy council review.

If we do, could we?

Could we ask the applicant why that window provision is there and whether they meant to prohibit windows on their adjoining lot walls or require windows on the walls butting up against adjacent lots?

Can we ask them?

Please, sir.

so that there weren't, so you don't have this thing where there's just a sheer wall on one, it didn't mean that there was windows on every floor of every elevation.

It was just meant in the conversations with

the city that we wouldn't have if you've ever seen like a lot line completely concrete or brick wall with no windows.

And so it was left up to, so when we come into the BAR, we'll have windows in every side and there'll be, some will be step back, some might be fire rated as Carl was referring to, Mr. Schwartz was referring to, but it was,

All right.

I'll trust you guys can figure out how to build it then.

Thank you, sir.

Can we hear her?

That's all we did.

Excellent.

Sure.

Very good.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Mr. Russell?

Yes.

All right, thank you very much.

Could be a stretch, I agree.

That seems reasonable to me.

Let's take a short break.

Counsel, thank you very much.

If you wish to remain, you're most welcome.

But if you have your own life, that sounds fantastic, too.

Yes.

Far behind.

I don't see why these are hard.

I'm wrong all the time.

Yeah, I said I was gonna try and get .

Can I get the Planning Commission back?

First off, you guys worried me earlier when you bumped me later.

I'm like, all right, well, what exactly are we going to, what's the conversation that we're going to have tonight?

But just quickly, I do say Liz,

Congrats you know I hope the next step is a big one and exciting and you and I worked together a lot certainly a lot longer before I came to the city and and I'd like to think we accomplished some good things out there I think at Rio Mills we had a little something to do with that but

I wish you well it's been a pleasure working with you and particularly even here at the city so I also will say the BAR is far less formal when someone leaves so I guess we have to up our game or I've got my game as staff so my apologies the so again Jeff Warner the design planner and preservation planner here tonight wearing my entrance corridor hat and this

here reviewing a COA request for 2005 JPA.

I'm going to change my glasses because I'm

Just making sure.

You didn't spin in your chair like Lyle did.

So this is a COA request for the development 2005 JPA.

It's a 1.7 acre, three parcel property.

Their existing structures on the properties will be raised.

and for the construction of a multi-story brick and stucco apartment building with a footprint approximately 312 feet by 155 feet the building will feature two five-story wings separated by a courtyard and which is atop a two-story brick foundation or a podium as the architects have referred to it and this provides a street level primary entrance at JPA

and this lower podium encloses an internal parking garage which will be accessed off of Washington Avenue.

And I know this sounds familiar to you.

Yes, this is the third time we've discussed this.

You all reviewed this on February 14th.

The result was an approval of a COA, approved 7-0, and it is the identical motion with conditions that are in this staff report

there was an error in the public notice for that so we re-advertised that and again on March 14th the ERB you all reviewed the request note changes and with about six to zero again approved the motion and conditions that are in this current staff report

Following the ERB's actions on both February 14th and March 14th, neighboring property owners appealed the approval to City Council.

Council heard that appeal on May 15th of this year and amongst while I will say and I asked council very specifically were there any issues in the appeal comments that they felt needed to be addressed that you all needed to be taking into consideration they did not however there was some

Discussion about the mailing date, the meeting with you all was on March 14th, the letters didn't get posted, or they did get posted on March 1st, so because that was,

For arguably not 14 days, City Council requested that we re-advertise this, and that's why we're back again here tonight.

So just to be clear, nothing has changed in this proposal since what was presented to you on March 14, 2023.

I'm trying to be as precise as I can because I probably expect another appeal.

So what staff is before you tonight to recommend again approval I would recommend approval by reference to the motion that is attached again the same as what was approved in February and March and I know

Some comments have been made about what my recommendations have been or what I've offered in response to the comments, but I just want to be clear that there are certain things that are simply not within the ERB's purview.

Traffic, when trash trucks have come, I appreciate the comments that were made, but the only thing that I can respond to you all at the City Council and to the neighbors is that

I operate within what the entrance corridor allows me to make recommendations on.

So it's not trying to avoid an issue or it's simply stating what you guys have to review over and that trying to stay in my lane, if you will.

So, and then really,

Again, 6-0 vote in February.

I'm sorry, 7-0 vote, 6-0 vote.

So unless something significant has changed or you all have some additional questions about this, and we can certainly have that discussion.

But my staff's recommendation, again, is to adopt the prior motion and conditions.

Any questions for me?

I know the applicants are here if there are any questions.

That's sort of a process question.

Was this material in the packet?

You're referencing something I haven't read.

Huh?

What?

Oh, I'm referring to the motion.

Yes.

In the packet?

On page two.

I can't explain it, but I see it now.

Don't ask me a technology question, and I'm laughing that Hosea is over there saying, yeah, here's how you find it, right?

Sorry, forgive me.

So, yes, there it is.

That is the motion that was approved on February 14th and again on March 14th.

Do I?

I hear a motion.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second.

I hear a second.

Ms.

Creasy, or discussion?

Discussion on the side of beyond that?

Ms.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Ms.

Russell?

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

Is it really legally binding if he doesn't have a gavel?

This is the nation's gavel.

Oh, there is one.

I would like to consider the zoning ordinance.

We do not.

Would anyone like to raise any issues at this time?

So, yes, the Chair of the Hack directed me to, once again, request of the Planning Commission and the City Council that they encourage direct

I'm wondering why we need a motion.

I don't know.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

I would move that the Planning Commission resolve to request the HACC participate and request that staff and council facilitate

I just don't know that it's an appropriate thing to motion.

It seems like it's something that starts at the staff level.

Mr. Freese, please.

I just wanted to note that both myself and Sam Sanders are going to be attending the next HAC meeting, and I know one of the topics of conversation is going to be the sense of communities conversation.

That's fine by me.

Those weren't my orders from Chair Johnson, however, but that's fine.

Thank you for raising the issue.

The one thing I wanted to bring up was from a speaker earlier today on the removal of that civil penalties are waived against land use development, something like that.

I'm not sure what the exact language was, but I think it was brought up during the tree commission meeting.

And basically, you know, if we have a developer and they have to cut down some trees, do they end up

The penalties they would have had to pay get waived because it's a land development use.

And we don't want that to happen because we want them to pay if they do cut down trees.

That's kind of the loophole we're trying to close with this.

Thank you.

So I had taken notes on that at the meeting as well.

And we need to have legal counsel take a look at that because that's been language that had been carried over.

And so we definitely have...

pointed that out as something to take a look at, and we appreciate the speaker, and we assume that the comment letter that we'll get from the Tree Commission is going to include that as well, which will be helpful.

So on the radar.

Any additional discussion on this item?

At this time, I would like to turn to a preliminary discussion of Jefferson Park Avenue 104 Stadium.

And ideally, I'd like to hold this to 45 minutes.

We might be able to do it.

Planning Commission, Matt Alfley, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

I'll go through this quickly so that you can have your discussion and provide feedback to the applicant.

Subtext, developers, they're looking to redevelop the six properties between Stadium Road, Emmett Street, and Jefferson Park Avenue into a multi-family building with up to 350 units.

The proposed development will be approximately 101 to 115 feet in height with structured parking and improvements to city infrastructure.

To facilitate this development, as presented, the applicant will need to pursue multiple approvals from City Council.

These include rezoning of the subject property from R3 residential to planned unit development, PUD, removal of the IPP designation from 104 Stadium Road through both a zoning map amendment

and a zoning text amendment, approval of a critical slope waiver, closure of Woodrow Street, the probably approval of a sidewalk waiver for a portion of Montebello, and the development right affirmation for related to the restrictions placed on 409 Stadium Road.

So there's a lot of complicated things that will need to happen with this development moving forward.

It's a very preliminary stage.

The applicant and their team are looking for feedback tonight from Planning Commission on the proposed project prior to moving forward with application submittals and public hearings.

In your packet, staff has a few questions you might want to consider.

The applicant and their team with William Mullins is here tonight.

They have a short presentation and they are also

available to answer questions, and they have a few questions at the end of their presentation.

Mr. Mitchell.

They were placed when the IPP was placed on 104 Stadium Basically, from my understanding, it was they said we're going to put this IPP on 104 and you can't develop on the neighboring property The city also sold them that property at the time, right?

Okay, so that's four and nine there.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Sorry, so you put in there, I think, in that table of the differences, in the proposed PUD, for affordable units, you had 5% over one FAR.

There's no proper statement at this time from the applicant, so that is, when you go through a rezoning or an SUP, that is 3412.

Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Valerie Long with Williams Mullen.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here tonight.

We really appreciate it.

We are representing the applicant's subtext on the project.

Joining me is my colleague, Megan Nadastup.

We have several representatives with subtext here tonight, including the project architect, Neil Reardon, with

ESG Architects who's going to be giving you a presentation about the design and the project generally.

We just want to introduce it, and I can provide a very detailed explanation about the deed restrictions on 409, Mr. Mitchell, if you'd like.

We didn't factor that time into our presentation, but I'd be happy to answer that question and provide you with some detail on it.

But the restrictions do provide in the deed that's recorded that they can be amended with the consent or approval of City Council.

Sure.

409 Stadium, which is on the corner, and maybe if I could ask that our slides be put up briefly and I could turn to one of the pages that shows a map.

I think that might be helpful to, if you don't mind scrolling through until we get to a map showing the parcels.

One more.

I think it's the next one.

Next one.

There we go.

I don't know if it's possible to zoom in on that, but on the sort of top right corner of the assemblage is 409 Stadium, and then just to the left of that is 104 Stadium.

409 Stadium was owned by the city prior to 2011.

The city put out a request for proposals

to local or really to anyone who wanted to buy the property and develop it with residential units.

There were two bidders.

One applicant proposed to build a relatively small apartment building.

I can't remember exactly how many units, but I think it was maybe in the 12-unit range roughly.

Then the owner of the adjacent parcels also had a proposal

they very much wanted because they owned everything else they wanted to own 409 as well the neighbors who weighed in on the issue very much did not want any development on 409 so they advocated for council to accept the offer from the owner of 104 stadium and that owner proposed that he would agree not to develop right then on 409

and he would voluntarily put up 104 Stadium as an individually protected property because there is this stone house on site.

There was no discussion at that time in 2011 about any historic characteristics of

104 Stadium, which is why ultimately, well, I shouldn't say why, but as I think you all may know now, just last week, City Council did approve a certificate of appropriateness permitting the Stone House to be removed on 104 Stadium.

And then tonight, as you all initiated the Zoning Text Amendment to remove the first step in removing the individually protected property status of that property.

So that's the history, Mr. Mitchell.

It was really an effort to not have any housing on that parcel, even though that's what the original request for proposal was for.

There was quite a long discussion at City Council about that issue, and it was ultimately a split vote.

So it was a very interesting history.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Which neighbors?

Some neighbors in the adjacent neighborhood.

So there were a lot of comments about the importance of having open space there and some sort of room to breathe and parkland and so forth.

So as I hope you'll agree when you see the proposal we have, most of that corner is left open with some sort of quasi-public space.

and landscaping, sidewalks, improvements, that sort of thing.

But the building will not be right up there on the corner.

But we think at least it will relate to the street and this important intersection in an appropriate way.

And then also, of course, the entire project will provide substantial number of units that we all know need.

Interestingly, just for what it's worth, there are comments in the record at the time that the developer, the current owner at the time was saying,

I think a lot of it has to do with how those parcels were reconfigured and combined back in the 50s when some of the residential single-family homes were removed to construct the buildings that are now there that are apartment buildings.

So when they moved lot lines around and combined lots, I think that accounts for that.

Neil Brun with ESG Architects Who will walk through our proposal.

Neil Brun with ESG Architects Who will walk through our proposal.

Commissioners, Chair, thanks for having me.

We'll keep it fairly brief as I think there'll be a good dialogue back and forth.

So I have about 15 slides here.

I'll just give you the general framework of the plans.

I want to preface this as these are very initial plans.

Even some of the architecture you see here is really meant to just offer scale and context for the bigger questions that are really about the urban design and the public-facing portions of the project.

We have a long way to go.

We acknowledge that, but we appreciate the working session here and gathering feedback that can inform our more complete submittals in the coming weeks and months.

So just a kind of a front rendering here of a green cascading terrace.

This will come up again in the presentation in a short minute.

But if you can go to the next page, please.

And maybe, I don't know if you can zoom to the

full size.

Here we just wanted to show you some of the projects that the developer subtext has worked on around the country.

These are generally campus adjacent rental housing and these are examples of similar densities is what you're seeing here that have been built elsewhere in the country at major universities.

Next slide please.

As you know this is a site that just is really hugging the UVA grounds and so it's about three and a third acres as the assemblage of six parcels and it's really hugged here to the north by the older part of the UVA grounds and then the western as well with the western part of campus.