Planning Commission Meeting   7/11/2023

Good to meet you.

Hello, all.

Thank you for calling into the pre-meeting if you've called in.

I don't know if anyone has.

I see five people.

Thank you very much.

Looking at the agenda, relatively straightforward, relatively.

Quite a big consent agenda.

Any issues with what's on the consent agenda?

Is there anything that anyone wants to pull?

Seems reasonable?

No.

Rory, you're looking thoughtful.

We don't have .

Got it.

Would somebody be willing to make that vote to approve the consent agenda when we do come to that time?

That's very exciting.

Thank you.

It took me a lot of reading through that CIP meeting to realize that this wasn't the latest CIP reading.

Thank you, sir.

It's true.

I have no advice.

I was going to ask about that.

I mean, our organizational meeting is in what?

September?

Yeah.

Or August?

Okay.

Sure.

Can you stop saying that?

I mean, he walks the work.

I guess he did get hit by things.

That was a truck.

No, that was an SUV.

Oh, well, in that case.

Did they have a plan for what to do with parking when the thing's under construction?

I didn't see that.

The applicant will speak to that.

That came up in their community meeting and they can speak more to basically none of their services are going to be interrupted during construction.

Can I address the commission please?

Please.

My name is Jay Stroman.

I'm the new city attorney and so appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I had a brief conversation with Commissioner Stolzenberg about the statute that he raised with LUPA.

and some correspondence earlier today.

I would merely say that that is a nuanced question.

Which statute is this?

I'm sorry, this is RLUPA.

This is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Thank you.

I wish I knew the citation by heart but it's in the federal code and that's basically a statute that prohibits local governments from unduly burdening religion

or applying different standards in making a land use decision.

And clearly we don't see the latter issue as playing any role in it tonight and certainly in the research that we have done.

It suggests that there could be legitimate land use reasons for the Planning Commission to either recommend in favor or against.

So at this juncture, it does not appear that Rilupa should play a role in

our advice our office's advice was that that statute does not really play a role in your determination of this item at this juncture and obviously any discussion of

the religious roots of the applicant or their need to do so is really outside of narrow land use criteria that you're bound to apply and making a determination on a special use permit.

So thank you for that.

And if you don't, if you'll indulge me, I was coming in, I was very hurried and I was asking one of my other clients who I needed to chat with, Commissioner Stolzenberg, and he said, well,

The guy with the beard, I must tell you, that doesn't narrow it down very much.

So anyway, it's a pleasure, and thank you for allowing me to do that.

If I may offer one other observation with respect to the application that you will consider tonight, there has been a change in the law that I think is certainly Director Fries and I have discussed, and Senior Planner Creasy, and...

depending on sort of what happens tonight if the Commission should conduct a public hearing and offer a recommendation then it's likely that I will ask Council to consider a motion consistent with the changes that have been made to 15.2-2204.

If the Commission elects not to

to offer their recommendation this evening, then I may ask for a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if that's okay, and offer a similar motion that I think would address some of the changes in the notice statute relating to

Not getting too deeply into it, but I'll get as deeply as you'd like.

Just making sure that the record is clear that this public hearing is being conducted this evening or this afternoon with the potential intention to adopt.

So my suggestion, but it's merely that.

is as your discussion progresses, if it appears that it would be appropriate to have a motion, have the commission consider a motion in addition to the council, what I've typically done in the past is to say point of order.

And if the commission is willing, I'll then come to the podium and offer that suggested motion verbally, if that's all right.

This is helpful, thank you.

So let me give you just the thumbnail sketch.

The Code of Virginia 15.2-2204 provides for the advertising requirements for the consideration of a land use matter, both by the Commission and by the Council.

the General Assembly in its wisdom added some language, I'm gonna grab my code book if that's all right, added some language that ties the advertising requirements

to both the Planning Commission and the Council's intention to adopt.

So now it's not just, here's the advertising requirements that you have to have to conduct the public hearing, but here are the advertising requirements that you must have to conduct a public hearing on a given day with the intention to adopt.

It's entirely possible the Planning Commission may hear the comments tonight, have a discussion and simply move forward with a recommendation.

If it doesn't,

I'm going to suggest language to continue consideration of this item with the intention to adopt so that your consideration in that motion is consistent with the new language that's been added to the statute and the purpose of that is merely to ensure that the record is clear that the Commission and the Council are completely

I'm going to give you an answer lawyers give that's not always popular.

It depends.

This is an evolving issue.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

And that's for the commission.

For the council, it's possible that they almost never, it's my understanding, but I just got here, would act when you make your recommendation at the same meeting.

And so it's likely that

that there will be motions that will be required for them probably on a regular basis for the commission, perhaps not depending on when you decide to offer your recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Stolzenberg wants to make sure I stay in practice on my legal research.

So, Rory, what was the objective of your question?

I mean, he even said a disclaimer, don't scramble to get me an answer.

I did say that in my defense.

We have a little bit of time left.

I did have one question that I forgot about on the Seminole Square subdivision.

Why is that, like right around the roundabout, they're dedicating some land to the public right-of-way or it's like a current landscaping easement or something.

Why, what's the purpose of that?

Yes, it does.

They are dedicating that to us as public right-of-way.

The reason is because of our wonderful setbacks for Highway Corridor.

Yeah, so rather than pursue a variance, they just gave us the right-of-way.

Did you have something?

No, I did.

So, yeah, questions for staff on the Salvation Army.

We received an email, let's see, it went through the, get the date on this.

Ah, rah, rah, rah, rah.

On the 10th, from Miles Hingeley?

Yes.

And he listed a bunch of possible solutions to the pedestrian network issues around there.

And I'm just kind of curious if any of those are even remotely possible.

Build a bike path west to 5th Street from the end of 4th Street for access to the on-grade crossing at 5th Street.

Build a bike head bridge over the tracks.

I know that's part of a master plan.

So it's kind of broken down into two parts.

The offsite improvements we typically don't do with SUPs.

Understood.

I guess it's more of are they even possible?

Like is there room to improve the sidewalk?

When you're talking about improvements that are adjacent, that abut the property, similar to the sidewalk between the fire station and the subject property, I mean, you're getting into then removing kind of by-right setbacks, which are zero for that zoning district.

so there's some nuance I would say the Ridge Street side is definitely probably the more problematic side there's a code section that speaks to existing sidewalks you're not required to provide sidewalks so you get into that that side of it there there is a

Hopefully a smart scale project down the road for improvements to Ridge Street.

And I guess my question wasn't actually for the applicant to provide this, but if they were even possible physically to fit those things in there for the city to do in the future.

I wasn't sure if, I can't remember the

I remember there was a smart scale project.

I just can't remember how it all worked out.

Yeah, and I won't speak in absolutes, but I believe the smart scale is more on bike lanes and removing a few on-street parking spaces.

I believe that right-of-way is pretty tight, especially at the intersection.

Okay.

Sorry.

I think we don't have the right-of-way to get to 5th Street, right?

Like that's owned by the tow lot thing and then it's just the railroad, right?

I mean there's, I'd have to look at the map again, but there's, so the pedestrian bridge has always been a long-term biped goal.

I mean, I think a lot of the goals in that plan were aspirations.

I mean, look at the Valley Road Extended Tunnel is another example.

We were going to make UVA pay for that one.

I mean, that's fair.

Okay.

I'm looking at the Charlottesville GIS website.

Yeah.

Yeah, but then it can go east or west.

But not to, yeah.

No, that's one of the applicant will speak to.

That's one of the concerns that came up to in the neighborhood is you're getting a lot of cut through traffic and the proposed development would actually try to alleviate that.

Correct.

No, pedestrian.

Okay.

Yeah, currently there is space for people to cut through, but that has been an issue that has been raised as far as that this proposed redevelopment would help cut down on that.

It's, from my understanding from the public engagement meeting, it's been some people in the neighborhood don't want that cut through traffic.

I thought it was the traffic of, okay.

Rory, you really do get this story.

I mean, I understand it.

Yeah, I want to make sure you... Well, but that's not even, I mean, if they're talking cut-through traffic, are you talking not even, like, residents of the shelter?

We're digging deep here.

We do have four minutes left.

I'll ask a question.

I'll defer to the applicant when they give the presentation.

And I just wanted to mention a thing, it's not directly this application, but like that whole like build two, I mean the exemption they're asking for for the build two width to save the tree seems like it has a lesson to draw for the new ordinance.

I mean I guess it could technically be a pedestrian amenity area if they put in a bench or something.

Sounds like it applied to that site plan for Seminole Square as well, right?

Any further on this item?

I'll be open to a short break before we start formally if that's of interest.

Sure.

I see a bounce.

Welcome all to the July 11th, Charlottesville Planning Commission meeting for 2023.

Uh...

on the third Wednesday of June.

They took a look at Module 3, asked us something to take a closer look at that.

The notice on that was somehow went astray because people didn't know to be there.

But I'm not sure how that happened.

But at any rate, one member of that committee wrote up a bunch of recommendations provided to you, Mr. Chair and to the Mayor and to Mr. Freese, most of it regarding

compactness in terms of alleys from 20 to 10, narrowing things like easements, et cetera.

I think that some committee members may offer some edits on that, but that document is available and might be worth looking at on Thursday.

Second is that the CAF,

committee met today as a workshop to try to figure out TikTok and policies and procedures, and we're working on that.

Exciting.

Oh, I see.

Thanks.

The tree commission rescheduled their meeting to today from last week since it was a holiday.

And I will report more on it next time as I get notes from the commission.

But on the agenda, the codes committee submitted recommendations for modules one through three in June with a meeting of city staff and consultants.

And a fun item I saw was that on the invasive plant control,

The city will be using goats to make initial entry on Fry Springs and Washington Park and then they'll return to do some probably spot herbicide applications on regrowth and they're doing some chemical treatments and mulching at Forest Hill Parks, Azalea Park and the trail system from Jordan Park to Fifth Street Station.

Thank you.

Last month's VAR meeting, we approved a sort of restoration preservation of the historic painted signs on, I don't know which side street that is.

It faces the Dewberry Unfinished Hotel.

Second.

Yes, thank you.

So that'll be an interesting project to watch.

They're going to do that in August.

It should take a week or two for the artists to complete it.

And as opposed to a full restoration, it's really just to kind of bring the... And there's a lot of layered signs on there, so...

Something that, it's just a fun little thing that's going to be going on.

We also looked at this Salvation Army project, which I think you saw our minutes in our packet.

And this month there will be no B.A.R.

Thank you.

Yeah, in one meeting this month of the Downtown Mall Committee, City Manager's Committee, we discussed side streets and access.

It turns out every side street has a slightly different pattern of traffic and parking and how much of it is bricked and pedestrian and how much of it is not.

and some of them work okay and some of them work very poorly and some of them of course are through streets so there was a robust discussion kind of spiraled into talking about an all-around access and loading plan and

Yeah, it sounds like Mr. Freese has his work cut out for him.

Coming up next week, we have an MPO tech meeting.

We'll be talking about all sorts of stuff, including and maybe especially that moving towards 2050 long-range transportation plan.

One piece of news I have in advance is that we did not get the RAISE grant for preliminary engineering for the Rivanna River pedestrian bridge.

That's all I got.

Thank you for the bad news.

Not today.

You are missed, sir.

As for me, the big news is I am without a vice chair, and should something terrible happen to me, for example, a bus was proposed as one option, we would have procedural challenges.

I hear a second.

Ms.

Creasy, would you call the roll?

He doesn't get a choice.

Mr. Habab?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Thank you all very much.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I do have one quick amendment to mind.

The CDBG Home Task Force will be meeting twice in July to contend with the latest round of funding to get it to this body as quick as possible.

At this time, I would like to hear

Actually, I suppose Neighborhood Development Services might have some thoughts.

A few.

Just a reminder that we have a work session this Thursday from 5 to 5?

5 to whenever.

scheduled from 5 to 7 this one is in the basement conference room of City Hall so I will in each reminder that I give throughout the week I will be clarifying location if you come here you would be part of the police review board

Do you think we will get into Module 3?

It's probably higher level, but if you all have some concerns or thoughts that you want to dig into in Module 3, let us know and we'll make sure that we are prepared for that.

The other thing I had was the Vice Chair, but you were already all over on top of that, so we're good to go there.

Mr. Priest, do you have anything to add?

Okay.

Thank you.

At this time, I would like to turn to the public.

If you would like to discuss an item not on the main agenda, which is only, I believe, the Salvation Army public hearing.

This is the time.

All right, so we will do our proper procedure on this where we ask everyone who would like to speak during matters from the public can speak up to three minutes.

We will start with our in-person audience and ask for those interested in speaking and then we will move to our virtual audience and we will alternate back and forth

and make sure that we address all of our speakers.

So I will start by asking if we have anyone in our in-person audience who would like to speak during matters from the public.

Okay.

I hope you can hear me.

Yes, sir.

I'm way out of the edge of internet land.

Very iffy connection here.

I know you guys aren't talking about funding tonight, and my comments aren't particularly organized.

But regarding rights, sometimes it's called a gray field, sometimes it's called a scrapyard, or sometimes it's called a property down in a hole.

Never anything particularly

complimentary.

But I think that you guys are sort of potentially veering away from the mapping logic document, which would suggest that this was supposed to be a neighborhood mixed use parcel and that you're more trending towards

and landed the plane on the back of your May work session.

That would be hard to check.

I mean, I don't know.

I haven't been able to find minutes for the May work session.

But I'd like to suggest that before you deviate from the mapping logic document that you land the plane regarding the Willemville's 1988 formal small area plan request to city council,

Additionally, you know, I'd encourage you to speak with the scrapyard property owner and adjacent neighbors regarding your plans for where they are, where they work, where they live.

You know, NX3 seems more appropriate in most cases on the draft sending map.

It seems like when you drop mixed use and

Thanks very much.

All right.

I'll check with our in-person audience.

Do we have any speakers for matters from the public?

All right.

Seeing none, I'll move to our virtual audience.

Robin Hoffman.

Hi.

I am sort of concerned about the rain bombs that we've been having over near East High.

I just want to observe for you, we've been having continuous sort of flooding in the streets.

It's something that you don't see unless you're right here, but it's actually getting worse.

So I want to say it's like

As soon as it rains, the water just comes from I don't know where and rushes through the streets here on Fairway and Caroline and all the little streets, Mead Avenue and everything, and it doesn't really have a place to go.

So, for instance, that area that's in the field there that they want to build 251

residents.

You know, just to give you an idea, as soon as a rain happens, it's just mush over there, right?

So what I'm thinking about is, do you guys really understand that happening, you know, how the water is traveling?

And is that area in the field actually a watershed area?

I'm just wondering if anybody's actually, does anybody actually know what happens with the water when it goes through the streets here and then, you know, and what happens if that field is not a field anymore, if there's nothing to absorb it?

Thank you.

All right.

I will look to our in-person audience again.

Any speakers for matters for the public?

All right, seeing that, I'll move to our virtual audience.

We don't have any hands raised.

If you're interested in speaking and you're in our virtual audience, please raise your hand in the Zoom app.

If you're on a phone line, doesn't look like anyone is, but you would hit star nine and that would raise your hand.

All right, thank you very much.

At this time, I would like to turn to the consent agenda.

Do I hear a second?

You do.

Ms.

Sure.

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

And Mr. Solla-Yates?

We have a 15-minute gap.

Would you like to use that in some way?

I would also entertain an idea to take a break.

I hear a break.

Let's resume at 6 p.m.

Is this live?

Welcome all.

I would like to open the Joint City Council and Planning Commission public hearing for Advocate Salvation Army of Charlottesville.

We have a quorum of council here.

The city attorney has raised an issue.

Okay.

All right.

We'll deal with that later then.

There's a picky little point under the Freedom of Information under 15.2-2204 blah blah blah that we'll raise at the end of things.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Matt Alfley, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Service.

Tonight, you'll be holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to City Council regarding a special use permit for a sheltered care facility at 2007 and 2011 Ridge Street.

The applicant, the Salvation Army of Charlottesville, is pursuing an SUP in order to expand the existing shelter care facility, modify yard setback requirements, and reduce on-site parking.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property and expand the existing services.

To date, the use of the shelter is legal non-conforming and any expansion of that use beyond what is permitted under Section 341147B requires approval of an SUP.

That code section speaks to non-conforming uses other than structures may be expanded on the area of the lot not originally devoted to the non-conforming use provided such expansions meet all current requirements of this chapter and applicable only to the expansion.

It goes on to state that permitted expansion for residential nonconforming uses that require a special or provisional use permit are required to obtain a special or provisional use permit only when such expansion exceeds 25% of the gross floor area of the existing structure.

The code only speaks to non-conforming use expanding within existing structures and does not address new construction, addition, or renovation.

In other words, the shelter could expand by 25% within the existing building, but any new building expansion or redevelopment requires the applicant to obtain an SUP under the current code.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site and expand from 58 emergency shelter beds to 114 emergency shelter beds

Expand mill capacity from 80 seats to 120 seats.

Increase the size of the multipurpose room from 1,928 square feet to 2,415 square feet.

And expand the meeting room's capacity from 40 seats to 84 seats.

to facilitate these expansions the applicant in addition to requesting the SUP for shelter care facility use is also requesting alterations to the yard setback street wall requirements and on-site parking requirements the specifics of these requirements can be found in the staff report although it is not in your report I would like to go over verbally a few of the existing how the existing zoning and what is being proposed in the draft zoning would deal with this plan

and the reason I didn't put it in it is because we all know the draft is still a draft.

It's until it's adopted by city council.

There was not a full analysis done on the draft, but just to hit some highlights between where they are now, what they're asking for and where the plan is supposed,

where we're going with the code is shelter care facility under the current code requires an SUP.

With the SUP that they're pursuing would be allowed and then under the draft zoning it would be a by right use.

The heights would stay the same of having a minimum 35 feet height so you have a minimum

and a maximum of 52, that would stay the same.

Under the proposed code, you would have an eight-story building, but it could be up to 10, depending on if shelter care is considered affordable, which we have not looked at that, so I can't tell you if it'd be eight or 10, just depending on how we define shelter care if it's residential and affordable.

Under our current code, shelter care facility is under the residential portion of the code.

It's under a civic under the draft zoning ordinance.

It's not under residential but under civic.

Parking under the current code is required based on uses.

What they're requesting is a reduction to zero, but their plan is showing 32, so it'd be around 32, and staff does address that in some of the draft conditions, which we can speak to later.

Under the proposed draft zoning ordinance, parking would not be required for this site.

So that is just kind of an overview of some of the big picture differences between where we are with the current code, what they're requesting in the SUP, and the draft zoning ordinance.

Um...

Staff and Planning Commission has received a lot of public comments related to the SUP.

Many of these comments express support while others are concerned with increased traffic, trash, and parking, and the impact that the development would have on 4th Street Southwest.

This concludes staff's prepared remarks.

Mr. Mitchell?

Got a couple questions about the recommendations, if it's appropriate to ask.

So Matt, you and I talked a little bit about this before.

Parking is a major worry for many people, me as well.

But you've got a recommendation on page 15, recommendation number four.

That recommendation will allow them to reduce the parking to 32 and actually go to zero so that they can eventually build in the space that those 32 parking spaces are in.

So I don't think there's an immediate plan to go to zero parking.

It leaves them some flexibility for future phasing, but it would not go that low for what they're proposing right now.

That conditions staff, the city traffic engineer, would review this application.

They felt around that 32 range was fine.

If they drop below that, we don't.

Traffic parking is a concern.

This would give the staff

It gives them the flexibility to keep reducing parking, but it does allow the city to influence that as it relates to how they're going to handle parking moving forward, whether that's off-site, alternative forms.

Yeah, so the objective of that is not only to help them, but also help with the parking and manage the parking as it becomes more.

That's correct.

More and more difficult.

And the recommendation number six, I think we talked about that, I think I got the answer.

That is my understanding the applicant can speak to this.

They're about two-thirds to their fundraising goal and just how our code is set up and SUP could expire after 18 months if they don't have an approved site plan, but City Council can adjust the timeframes.

Mr. Habeau I don't have any questions Mr. Schwartz I don't think I have any questions Mr. Stolzenberg So this is an increase in parking over the current conditions right it's just it's a reduction you mean like existing condition

Yes, yes.

Where, I mean, not that you were there in 2003 or 19 whatever, but like where does the number, the ratio of parking spots to beds for a shelter

come from for that requirement.

I don't have a good answer for you, Commissioner.

Just basically it's using what's in the code.

Fair enough.

As for me, very clear.

Thank you.

Ms.

Payne?

Likewise, none for me right now.

Ms.

Mayor Snook.

Not for me either.

Thank you.

I believe we are set.

Thank you very much, sir.

All right.

Thanks, Matt.

Again, I'm Erin Hannigan with Mitchell Matthews, Architects and Planners.

And I believe we have a prepared slideshow that will come up.

So joining me tonight is John Matthews, Principal in Charge.

Also here is Campbell Bolton with Timmins Engineering who will join me towards the end of the presentation to talk specifically about the site design.

and then representing the Salvation Army is Captain Mark Van Meter, the commanding officer, as well as Brenda Smith, the residential program manager, both of whom will speak during the public comment section and can answer more specific questions about the Salvation Army's program and their current statistics.

So about the Salvation Army, the Salvation Army is a non-profit faith-based organization that works to alleviate human suffering and distress without discrimination.

They provide both disaster relief and emergency assistance.

The Salvation Army has been serving Charlottesville since 1912.

They have occupied this site at 207 Ridge Street since around 1965.

The Salvation Army is the only year-round shelter available in Charlottesville.

Last year they helped more than 21,000 individuals and families with critical social services.

They currently cannot accommodate all of the unhoused individuals and families who need their help.

Reading from their goals.

The Salvation Army's goal is to have each person they serve partner with the Salvation Army in the Pathway of Hope program.

Their plan is to assist in breaking the cycle of poverty and to assist individuals and families to achieve their goals through securing stable jobs, housing, and becoming self-sufficient.

Bingo.

Here we're looking at existing aerial photos of the site.

The existing site is occupied by three buildings, again built between 1965 and 1992.

The chapel administrative offices and gymnasium were first developed in 1965.

This is the building at the street.

I apologize I didn't bring a laser pointer but

the two closest to the street labeled with 207 and then it stretches back along the Nolan side of the property.

Around 1980 they built the emergency shelter at 211 Ridge Street which is the building on the 4th Street side of the site.

Around 1992, perfect.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

You're going to want to turn the dial again.

The dial is different from the, but that's the type of light.

Right now it's like black light.

The issues cited with the existing conditions include that the facilities no longer have the capacity to serve the need.

The men's shelter is constantly full.

There is no good space to accommodate families or clients with other specific needs.

The current facilities are in three buildings, so even though it's an addition for the transitional housing, they're not directly connected through interior corridors.

therefore the programs they house are disconnected and it makes it difficult to staff the facility and currently the transitional housing is not being used.

Additionally, they mentioned poor wayfinding on the site.

The main entrance doors seen off Ridge Street here, again, lead into the chapel, which is not the services that most people are looking for when they arrive on site for help.

And there's lack of visibility for the community to all the services that are actually provided on site.

So if we can scroll through.

So this is again another angle.

We're above Monticello Avenue at this point.

If we go again.

This is above 4th Street Southwest, so you can see the emergency shelter building located back here.

There's a parking lot that stretches into the site.

This is the transitional housing facility and soup kitchen.

And then there's a small area reserved for a playground as the site dog legs around the rear of the fire department.

This is an aerial obviously from above and you can again see how the site wraps around the back of the fire station.

The site is a double frontage lot.

It's well connected to public transportation routes and is easily walkable to downtown and all the amenities located there.

Again, it's located between the fire department and Nolan Plumbing and because of the site's proximity to both the fire department and the intersection at Monticello Avenue, all vehicular access must occur from 4th Street Southwest.

So this is a survey.

Again, this outline here is the existing shelter at the rear of the site.

This is the two buildings that were built at the front.

The most important goal for this project is allowing the existing shelter to remain operational during redevelopment.

This drove the site plan and the proposal that you're going to see.

Additionally, both the design team and the BAR agreed that the 56 inch oak tree that sits on Ridge Street, which is this little dot right here, should be maintained during redevelopment.

These two requirements, again, are the primary drivers of the footprint of the building and its overall massing.

So to speak to more of the goals, they include, again, increased capacity for shelter, food, and services, providing dedicated family spaces, providing inclusive spaces to meet diverse client situations, providing increased privacy and dignity for clients both in the shelter and when receiving social services,

Providing increased security and separation within the shelter to address safety concerns of both the clients and the staff.

Connect the various programs and improve adjacencies.

Provide better way finding to main entries and the various programs like the social services or training programs.

allow for future future flexibility and growth over time and show the community of Charlottesville the need that is present here as well as the work and services that are provided by the Salvation Army and its volunteers.

So the site is located in the West Main East Mixed Use District.

This designation governs the uses permitted on the site that Matt went over, as well as the height, density, and form of the building.

So we'll review some of the things that we're asking relief on in a moment.

First, I'll go over the use in more details.

Unfortunately, the color is not showing up on this, but it's in the packet.

The same use currently exists on site, but we're asking for increased capacity.

The use is broken down into two functions, the house of worship, which is referred to as the core, and the center of hope, which is the shelter care facility.

A house of worship is a by right use but the shelter care facility is only granted by the special use permit.

The color coding that you cannot see but is in the packet is repeated in other tables and drawings to show the relationship between the various programs.

You can see that we're increasing the capacity on site.

Matt mentioned those numbers already.

It's primarily for the shelter and soup kitchen and secondarily increasing the classrooms and meeting rooms which are shared between the uses.

So I'm going to go through a series of perspective views that show the before and after conditions.

This first one is from the intersection of Ridge and Monticello.

Again, we're saving this oak tree at the front.

And if you can go to the next.

So the oak tree and pulling the building away from it.

to preserve it requires some of these modifications to the zoning requirements.

If you wanna go to the next one.

This is a view standing approximately on the bridge over the railroad tracks looking towards the Salvation Army.

and the one after that, again, a view on that side.

So we've tried to be frugal and efficient in the design while also reflecting the character of Charlottesville.

The project is being funded by donations and the capital campaign is in its early stages.

I believe they've raised less than two-thirds at this point and donations would be most appreciated.

The project is currently being repriced and the reason I bring this up is to inform you that the project may change in appearance as it continues through the public approval process.

The site requires a certificate of appropriateness from the BAR.

Let me go to the next one.

So this is the current view from 4th Street.

That is the building that will need to be maintained during construction.

And the next one.

So in its place is the parking lot, which can be the last component added to the site.

Great, this is an aerial view.

Again, looking towards downtown and West Main Street.

The next one.

So in particular, we're asking for relief because it is a double frontage lot with both Ridge Street as a primary street and 4th Street Southwest as a linking street.

So we're asking for setback relief on the linking street, which is 4th Street Southwest.

It's required to have a setback between 5-foot minimum and 12-foot maximum.

We proposed a 10-foot minimum and no maximum.

This allows us to pull the building towards Ridge Street and have a much greater setback on 4th Street.

It helps with constructability so that while the existing shelter can remain intact during construction and that the green space and part of the parking lot can be used for lay down space.

The project goals were to utilize the available height and leave undeveloped area open for future expansion.

Again, this means that we're pushing the project towards Ridge Street so that we have space to expand in the future, which hopefully won't be necessary but has been the pattern since they've inhabited the site.

and modifying the minimum to 10 feet aligns with the street buffer requirements of 10 feet which would then remain during future expansions and the no max again permits what's shown here.

So what you're seeing in red is the section cut and then the majority of the building rises in the background behind it.

The darker purple fill is the building envelope under the current zoning conditions.

So again, we're meeting the setback with a chapel that pops out to Ridge Street on this side.

This is the 4th Street side.

We're set back

much deeper on that side.

This piece is the multipurpose room that stretches towards 4th Street along the parking lot.

These lines up here, this represents the height that is proposed as eight stories under the future.

zoning ordinance, and if it were 10 stories, depending upon, again, how a shelter care facility is defined for affordable, it would be able to go up to 10 stories.

And setbacks are actually

would force the building again towards both streets, which would run into the same problem that we're having now.

We're not actually trying to maximize the lot by making the building short and spreading out.

Instead, we're trying to utilize the vertical area available right now and leave open space for future development.

If you can go to the next slide.

So this one is showing the footprint of the building to demonstrate the reduction in the build two percentage requirements.

The purple building here in the parking lot again is the existing shelter that must remain during construction.

This light-colored salmon-colored footprint is the one-story condition of the shelter, and then this darker pink condition is rising to four stories, again, closest to Ridge Street.

this allows future expansion to happen over the multipurpose room in this vicinity or a separate standalone structure to occur here which will be in the short term developed as open space, green space, playground space hopefully if the budget allows and then can convert again to a building if necessary but that is probably

20 years out, so no immediate goal to do another expansion in the near term.

The requirements for this are to be in the Build 2 Zone, 80% at Ridge Street and 40% on 4th Street.

We're only 32% at Ridge Street, and we're asking it not to be required at 4th Street.

At Ridge Street, again, this leaves space for the protected 56-inch oak to remain.

and at 4th Street, it gives us this advantage of keeping the shelter occupied during construction and leaving open space.

This is the site plan, overall site plan.

So the next two items that we're asking for modification on relate to the parking.

The parking is again located off of 4th Street Southwest and along the southern property line where the existing emergency shelter currently stands.

So that's this dashed outline that runs through the parking lot.

and the position of this parking allows for the larger green space to the north which gives us a larger more open space now but again larger footprint for a future expansion if necessary

and then we're gonna zoom in on the next slide to the parking lot.

So we've calculated that the required parking quantity would be 52 and we've added a table since the application that'll be seen on the next slide.

Don't go there yet, please.

So we'll show you how we got to 52 in a moment and we're proposing 32 spaces.

Secondly, we're asking not to have covered parking, which is a unique requirement to the West Main East Zoning District.

We believe that both clients and other visitors to the site would be more comfortable and feel safer without it being covered.

So we're asking for it not to be required.

Campbell stepped in.

Okay, so the parking table here, we've again color-coded this, you can't see the colors, to match the previous table.

These are the major spaces in the facility, well all the spaces in the facility lumped into these categories.

And the zoning code requires, has a requirement for spaces based on either the square footage of that space or the quantity of bedrooms.

and so we've calculated across the required parking for each of these categories that brings us to 56 spaces there's an allowable reduction of two spaces per use in the ordinance so we've taken two spaces for the house of worship and two spaces for the shelter care facility out of that that brings us to 52 then we're

We want to relay to you that why again while we're why we are proposing the quantity of spaces we are because it's come up as a neighborhood concern is that the chapel is generating a significant number of spaces 10.8 the soup kitchen is creating 11.2 spaces and the multi-purpose room is requiring 12.1 spaces

Those three spaces are never going to be used simultaneously.

They are programmed for different times of the day, different days of the week.

The chapel has service on Sunday at 11 a.m.

as well as Bible study Wednesday evenings.

6 p.m.

The soup kitchen serves breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with dinner being the major service.

And then the multipurpose room is in the program to allow space for clients and visitors to stay prior to being allowed to go into the

dining room for meal service and it's also for special events that may occur once or twice a year for the telethon, coat drive, that are very limited occurrences.

Again, those would not be scheduled at the same time as church service.

Getting to the point, if we take out two of these three generators of parking, the two lower ones, it brings us down to 30 spaces.

And there are currently 30 spaces on site, which answers one of your questions from earlier.

We're currently proposing 32 spaces.

We're asking for condition four, even though it already has flexibility in it, to

use 30 as the number rather than 32 just to give a little bit more flexibility to the Salvation Army so that they don't need to hire a professional to create the parking plan should there be a very slight change needed to the quantity.

This allows them to potentially deal with trash that was unanticipated or a donation box that might not be currently shown on the site plan or even

you know there could be something else that comes up and that just eliminates the need for them to spend money on professional services immediately gives them that buffer so that the money that they are raising through donations is actually going to the people that need it so if we can go to the next slide

This is counts taken by staff over the course of the last week.

So even though there are 30 spots on site, 15 was the highest quantity used when they were able to count them and that was on Sunday for church service, which is when there's a lot of on-street parking also available.

15 for the current facility, we're obviously increasing it, so 30 is twice the 15, hoping you'll gravitate towards 30.

If we can go to the next slide.

And this last one demonstrates that there are seven parcels that have either frontage or a side yard on 4th Street Southwest that are residential parcels on that street.

Six of those, which are shown shaded in red, all have off-street parking on their lot and by my count, which was approximate and very conservative, there are at least seven on-street parking spaces along the one side of 4th Street that has parking.

when I was there to do this analysis, there were only three cars on the street.

And then, next one.

So those five lots also have off-street parking?

Yes, another concern that was brought up was the entrance location.

The entrance location currently along 4th Street is 30-ish feet to the north, page north here.

Given that we're kind of switching where the parking lot in the building goes, the entrance gets shifted page south, which brings it a little bit closer to those off-street parking spaces.

We took a look at this.

I mean, there is still some distance, approximately 16 feet there between the entrances.

This isn't currently written as a condition, but it was a concern brought up by a neighbor at the one neighbor that attended our community meeting, and that neighbor asked for a stop sign exiting the parking lot, and we can oblige that without a problem.

We were already intending to propose that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I think in reality it's going to be difficult.

We just don't know what the tree roots have attached to underground, if they're, you know, attached to some of the building that they're going to take out.

Mr. Dronzio.

I don't think I have anything either.

No questions?

So obviously you're doing the more important thing, which is preserving the existing shelter during construction.

Okay, so there's some thought behind that, okay, great.

And I guess just to confirm, the chapel is pulled up to the minimum setback, not the maximum setback?

It's in between.

It's in between, okay.

Thanks.

I guess first one quickly.

So you showed us that parking table.

We don't need to go back to it.

And you talked about the cooperative parking reduction.

As I understand it, that's in the code and only needs administrative approval from the NDS director.

Gotcha.

Yeah, that's fair.

Okay, and then so I don't know if you were here during the pre-meeting, but I was asking about this pedestrian crossing from ridge to forth or, you know, sidewalk.

It looks like there's a sidewalk along the north side of the site.

Mr. Bob here pointed out that it has like doors.

So the existing condition does have a sidewalk along the northern boundary line between the fire department and the building.

The client asked us to block it because they relayed to us that there are numerous people who obviously trespass across the property to shortcut through it rather than taking the city sidewalks and that they cause problems with the clients on site.

I've not witnessed that myself so I can't speak exactly to what happens but

there's interactions that occur that they want to limit.

Okay.

Okay, and then I guess last question, so on that other, if we go back to that front like view, sort of related to Mr. Mitchell's question about the tree, have you given any thought to, I don't want to add to your costs or anything, but like maybe just a thought for site plan, is like to doing a bump out at that crosswalk, I imagine

Does that make any sense?

Yeah, we have not really looked at that.

I think one thing is that the wall in front of the tree, we're proposing to leave as the existing wall, so tearing that down, I think would be more disruptive to the tree.

Yeah.

So that wall would stay anyway.

We have not looked at a bump out, certainly something we can look at that, I mean, there are some on-street parking in there that we're trying to keep as well.

So just how that plays together.

It's something we could look at, though, if it's interested.

Okay.

I just wanted to plant that seed.

You do have a crosswalk and a fire hydrant, so I think you could do it without disrupting too much entry parking, but as I said, you're not really changing the front right now, so it's fair.

All right.

I hesitate to raise this issue, but it concerned me, and I'd just like to note it.

In some of the public comment, there was concerns that the police are regularly being called on the guests here.

Is that standard?

What's happening?

I haven't been spying on the site.

I have no idea.

I'm going to have to defer to the Salvation Army about that, our client, to speak to that question.

But I will say that Captain Mark Van Meter is new to Charlottesville.

His predecessor retired mid-June, and so he's only been here for two or three weeks.

Yeah.

So I don't know if they'll have a response.

Do you either?

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Mark Van Meter.

You know, any time you bring together a group of individuals, you're going to have the potential of issues.

We would all know that homelessness is oftentimes promoted by various reasons, loss of job, family situations.

But some of homelessness comes as a result of mental health issues, drug issues.

And so we, you know, we're in a place of service to the community where we see a number of those people come to our property.

And my staff, they are not trained, you know, for physical restraint or anything like that, but we're not a medical facility.

And so the best course of reaction is to make sure that our local police department is attentive and servicing as well.

Questions on that?

Who should be handling that interaction?

It's better handled by us because we're typically the ones that have the relationship with the clients and we can help de-escalate situations but it's like any given situation.

You have individuals who want to promote their own cause and reasons and oftentimes it goes against our policies and so we just have to have somebody step in and help make sure that the policies are held strong.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Payne, questions for the applicant.

You sure?

Congratulations.

Mr. Payne.

Yes.

So, first of all, I think this is a great project.

I'm excited to see that this is happening.

I've been in the building

twice, I think, with Vice Mayor Wade, who's not here with us tonight, but who volunteers all the time.

And it's a real hodgepodge of buildings.

And so this is exciting to see.

On council, one of the things we're reckoning with all the time is how best to help those in our community who are unhoused.

Can you remind me, so in terms of the increase in beds, what are we looking at here?

So the current shelter has 58 beds and the proposed capacity is 114 beds.

That's in the emergency shelter component.

So that's adding 56 beds.

The transitional housing is currently 28 beds.

spread across nine units.

We're gonna get those same 28 beds in seven units.

Thank you.

And then the last question that I had, and this is just because I'm learning the lingo, the language.

You mentioned the front, the build-to was within specifications, I guess, but on the backside it was not.

What is build-to?

Two different issues.

So the building facade is in the setback, min-max.

The build-to percentage is a relationship of the width of the building frontage versus the overall width of the lot, expressed as a percentage.

That's on both the front and the back.

Ms.

Burrier.

I did have a question.

Sorry.

That's what we are.

Well, I'll let them.

So again, I ask my staff to just randomly count throughout the day as they were coming in, as they were leaving for lunch, those sort of things.

I would say about a third of our numbers represent staff and the balance represents individuals who are either coming to meet with us or are coming for the various shelter program or soup kitchen.

Okay.

And the only other question was one of the proposed conditions is in S3 screening along the 4th Street southwest boundary.

so a buffer is already required and I think staff's language changed it to an S3 screening that gives us a little bit more flexibility to do it with either a fence or plantings but I believe we

have proposed, not necessarily in our rendered site drawings, but if you look at the civil landscape drawings, which I don't know that we included in the submission, we do have plantings along 4th Street, and they were represented in the perspective view from 4th Street, which is on page 17.

Yeah, because obviously, I mean, we've just got multiple people who live there.

I do think it's fair to go above and beyond the bare minimum in terms of, like, screening for the folks who are going to live there all the time.

Other than that, no other questions.

And as others said, I think it's clearly something the city doesn't want to be an obstacle to trying to make happen if we're serious about our goals about homelessness reduction.

Thank you.

Ms.

Okay, I'm on.

So I'm glad to see that you have greenery, particularly shrubs.

The fence looks okay.

So that's probably going to depend on the budget.

At the moment, we don't know whether it will be in or out of the budget, but long term, they hope to have playground equipment.

They currently have, I think, a swing set and some other slides, some other basic playground equipment.

The fundraising that you're doing now though, from what I'm understanding, is for your structure and the increase in the beds for your residents.

So you are saying that at some point you will be doing something to improve the playground.

I didn't say next week or next month, but at some point that will be happening.

At some point that is the goal.

Okay.

Okay.

So the current residents are in that building that's at the rear.

There is a sidewalk along the front of that building.

Grades are very difficult because there's also a lower level entrance there.

There will need to be a temporary sidewalk ramp extension happening that connects that to 4th Street to allow egress that would need to also be protected from any of the construction activity.

What's your plan B for your oak tree?

So do you have renderings of that somewhere?

No.

Okay.

So what was the two-thirds figure?

Matt mentioned that.

No, no.

So the campaign goal is $22 million.

The construction goal is $17 million.

We are right at $5 million for our major donor gifts.

So whenever

We think the construction timeline because we have to work around the existing shelter and that's going to be tricky and extend the timeline on site.

Construction will take anywhere between 18 and 24 months, so a year and a half to two years to construct the facility.

and I think the site plan process will actually be the longest lead time leading up into when we can begin construction if fundraising stays on track as Captain Van Meter indicated.

Probably later.

I think we projected maybe summer or fall of 26.

Yeah, sorry, I forgot, I've been thinking about this for a couple days and I forgot to ask.

So we obviously are kind of coming out of a global pandemic where congregate shelters, because of the contagious nature of the disease, like were problematic at best.

I don't know if you guys stayed open

Obviously the feds gave us gave lots of money to put people in hotels.

So what is going to be pulled up is a shelter floor plan of the fourth floor.

Keep a few more.

There.

That'll work.

Yep.

So this is the shelter floor plan.

So the floor plan has two wings.

This wing has the transitional housing in it, the apartments.

This wing is the shelter portion on this side.

So right now the conditions

for the men's shelter in particular, it's one large room with bunk beds.

All 58 beds are in the, maybe slightly under, because there's a few, on the women's side, there's one separate room.

But the majority of them are in one large bunk room.

So to increase privacy, dignity, separation, we're creating alcoves where there'll be four people to an alcove.

around the perimeter of this.

The building will be fully mechanically ventilated and it'll meet ASHRAE standards for ventilation.

So filtration is really the necessary part of that, I think, to control contaminants and spread of ventilation.

Great.

Great answer.

Thanks.

Yes.

Awesome.

Very good.

Anything additional for the applicant?

Thank you very much.

All right.

We will move forward with our current standard.

Each speaker has the opportunity for three minutes to address the Planning Commission and City Council.

We'll start with our in-person audience, and then we'll move to our virtual audience, and then we will alternate back and forth until everyone has had the opportunity to speak.

We'll start with our in-person audience.

Do we have interested speakers?

We have a gentleman who has stood and we'll let him come forward.

Hi, my name is Frank Flaschenreem, and I live at 405 Dice Street.

So I live on 4th and Dice, where the main entry corridor, I guess what you would call for the property.

You know, we were shown a picture of five houses that are on 4th Street.

The one thing I would say is maybe when you would

Went and looked at your survey of that street and the parking available there that was probably during the daytime.

Most of those houses have one off-street parking spot, if they have one.

I know I'm on the very corner.

The house next to me does not have any.

They have two vehicles.

The one next to them has an ADU in the back that they rent out as an Airbnb and they have two vehicles on top of that with one space.

So there's that kind of situation that happens there.

That particular street when there is cars parked on the street is a single lane road then.

So you're talking about having construction vehicles coming down that road, I assume, for entry to the property and all residents.

My other concern would be, you know, when the, I understood that there'd be six staff vehicles there in a given daytime.

I'm sure there's more than six staff.

And then if you're talking about residents and we're talking about doubling the number of beds,

I do want to say that I'm definitely in favor of this.

I just would want the city to address not necessarily even the Salvation Army per se, but that street dead ends there then.

And so it's very limited access.

And so figuring out kind of what that looks like for the neighborhood and then I would just say

No, I'm not even going to say that.

So that would be my main commentary there, is again, the access, because even Dice Street is a single lane road when cars are parked on it.

So, you know, again, it's very limited access.

So, yep.

Thank you.

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

Our first speaker is Brian Crenshaw.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

My name is Brian Crenshaw.

I live at 225 4th Street Southwest in Charlottesville.

I'm directly behind the Salvation Army.

I'm concerned about the Salvation Army proposed changes to on-site parking and the removal of covered parking requirements.

First, they're requesting a reduction of on-site parking from 52 spaces to no minimum.

While the applicant has provided proposed providing 32 spaces, the request to eliminate the minimum requirement is problematic.

As my neighbor just mentioned that the street is very small and in its own drawing from the applicant.

they indicate that the driveway would be moved, which would actually eliminate a parking space for my neighbor.

In addition, there's also plans for the Monticello intersection, Monticello Ridge intersection, which also will eliminate all on street parking to the on Ridge Street in front of Nolan.

And so I think that this is a great project and

It's something that we need to move forward for, but we also need to understand that the expansion that is being asked for is 50% more beds, 50% more beds.

And while they say that they, the people do not drive, I can confirm that the parking lot has been full and with an additional bed space, you will see more people overflowing and the request to remove all parking

is just not in line with the use that they are proposing.

I also want to express my objection to removing the requirement that limits the percentage of off-street parking spaces that can be open-service parking.

Elimiting this requirement

Okay, turn to our in-person audience.

Hello, excuse me.

My name is Chris Dunbar.

Me and my wife live at 227 4th Street, actually Brian's neighbor.

And I think, you know, what has been said is true.

Talking with our neighbors, we're definitely in favor of the project, but our concerns are the entrance on 4th Street.

If there's really just one car can kind of go at a time.

To answer your question, there are emergency vehicles that go down.

There's...

there's dumpsters, there's trash pickups I wasn't aware that the sidewalk would be cut off too so you're also looking at more foot traffic coming around the Noland sidewalk which if you go on a snowy day you'll see that rarely it is shoveled it's in kind of states of disrepair

you know on our block technically I think there are seven houses there are two domiciles set back so technically there's probably nine sort of parties that need parking on that street so there's a little more parking necessary on that street there's also

five children under the age of five, all in that six block radius.

So adding traffic more, I think, might not be the best idea, especially if you have Ridge Street.

I don't know how much the project looked at an entrance from Ridge Street, but it just seems like kind of a natural entrance as opposed to a dead-end Fourth Street kind of behind the Salvation Army.

and to answer your question, I actually don't think there is, I don't see a lot of parking from like Thompson Park or anything there, just to say that.

I appreciate it, thanks for your time.

All right, our virtual audience, do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

Please raise your hand in the app.

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

yes ma'am thanks my name is Brenda Smith and I do work for the Salvation Army I am the resident program manager of the shelter I've been with the Salvation Army a total of 18 years six years in a position of the shelter manager and I just want to share a few stories with you on what I've been able to see

with the shelter residents, but I call them my guests because they are a guest while I'm there at the shelter, and how much this new facility is needed.

So the first one that I want to bring to mind is, I'm just gonna do first names.

A lady by the name of Joy and her husband Patrick, they checked in.

Joy was from Michigan and Patrick is from Virginia.

He was actually transferred here from another area in Virginia.

He had an IT job waiting for him in Charlottesville but they didn't know anybody here in Charlottesville so they came to the shelter.

they moved out in a couple of months after working very hard they actually had lost custody of their two girls because they were traveling and they didn't want to bring them on the road with them so when they found the housing they actually gained custody of their two children and they are doing well now I also have a gentleman by the name of Michael he was one of my favorite stories to tell

he checked in in July excuse me he was with us for almost a year he checked into his new apartment and when he arrived he has he was just evicted from his place he was sharing with other persons they left him to pay the bill and he wasn't able to he had to humble himself to come to the Salvation Army and having this on his record they also tried to get him to pay the full amount that was due

we actually referred him to legal aid to help him with that bill they cut the rent down to half so he can pay and then he also was referred to another organization that paid off some hospital bills he had and when he left the Salvation Army he left there with ten thousand dollars and

and he was able to get his own apartment at that time and lived sufficiently.

And he also worked at Walmart for seven years.

So these are the people that come into our residence for help.

And then I have a young lady.

This was my first family that came into the shelter.

B8, she was a single mother.

She was pregnant.

She had two children.

At the time, she was staying from house to house.

Her mother said she could not stay there.

When she came in, she had such a terrible attitude, but I broke her out of that, because what we have to do, we have to show love, and we have to meet people where they are, show them compassion.

So with the encouragement of me and my staff and the guidance, she was in the shelter for a year and a half.

She moved to her own apartment.

Two weeks before Thanksgiving, think about that.

Two weeks before Thanksgiving, her and her children moved into their own place where she was able to have Thanksgiving with her family.

Today, she is a homeowner.

This is the people that we really need to help and there's so many more.

So this project is needed and it's needed badly.

Thank you.

Thank you again for allowing me to speak.

In 1934, the general of the Salvation Army was Evangeline Booth and she said these words, there is no reward equal to that of doing the most good to the most people in the most need.

Last year, the Salvation Army provided over 15,000 nights of lodging in our shelter.

The Salvation Army is one of those agencies that you wish you could work out of business.

I've been in executive management 30 years, 15 years with the Salvation Army and unfortunately I've not seen much of a dent in that.

Homelessness is part of our society, it is part of our population and so it is one that we want to deal with with integrity and bring them just to the opportunity to better their lives.

I have only been here three weeks, but I see a staff, I see a facility that have been working hard with what they have.

Last year we served over 60,000 meals out of our soup kitchen, 60,000 meals, and those are substantial numbers.

During a pandemic such as you brought up, sir, the Salvation Army is built on pivoting.

We know how to pivot.

When it comes to natural disasters, when it comes to communicable diseases, when it comes to these type of events, we have just learned how to pivot and work and do what we do.

In my last community, we were serving approximately 200 people, 200 cases per month.

During the height of COVID, we served over 2,000.

those numbers transfer to a community like Charlottesville as well we don't close our doors we can't close our doors where do the homeless go where people go for their meals for lodging so we remained open here in this community as well and I have known for a short while that we were coming to Charlottesville and so I started looking at videos and pictures and things I've been very very impressed with the staff with the facility with the work that the Salvation Army has done in this community

All right, just checking in our virtual audience.

I don't see any speakers.

Our in-person audience, do we have any additional speakers?

Thank you very much.

I'd like to close public comment at this time.

And let's consider the issue.

Sure, it'll be brief.

I actually walked the site yesterday, I think, and they've got a beautiful playground over there right now, absolutely beautiful.

Hopefully they'll be able to expand or at least keep what they've got down the road.

4th Street is a challenge.

It's very narrow, and I think sidewalk's only on the...

It may be the West End.

Parking is on the West End, I believe.

So parking will be an issue that we're going to have to deal with.

And hopefully at least pieces of recommendation number four in Matt's staff report will help us to work on that and keep the city engaged with the applicant as we develop it.

But we need to do this.

The work that's being done there is important and it's important to expand the work that's being done there.

So I'm just hoping that we can also work out the parking issue.

Mr. Dronzio?

Thanks.

I don't see any need to parrot Commissioner Mitchell's concerns about parking.

I've got them, too.

But the traffic issue, in particular with that narrow street, is what it is.

Mr. Hibab.

Likewise.

I hear everyone on the parking.

I hope that there's a way to work that out with the site plan and all that kind of stuff and just figure that out.

But this project is much needed, and it's a great project, and I feel like to approve it.

Thank you.

I agreed on all of that.

I actually have one tiny little thing which is going to drive Aaron nuts because I mentioned it at the PAR meeting as well.

We do have, well we're proposing some streetscape standards in our new zoning code and I recognize that they are going to a huge effort to save this large tree but

I believe if they were to try to meet what our future zoning code is going to be, there would be a requirement for some additional trees on Ridge Street.

So that's not like a deal killer for me, but I did want to bring that up for the rest of the commission in case it seems like it's a missed opportunity if we don't catch it now, especially since that large oak tree may not be there forever, so it would be

Well, I actually don't agree with the parking issue based on those parking counts.

And, you know, if you look at Street View and all the historical aerials, it's almost always practically empty.

It sounds like if there's any parking issue at all, it's an event parking issue, which I think needs a different sort of solution.

But

you know you can't just throw a giant parking lot at it for a couple days a year rather you know shared parking that sort of thing is more effective one I think maybe technical point that I think came out of one of the public comments I think might be useful to everybody if if it

could be done with the fire department without disrupting vehicles to get an access easement during construction so that construction vehicles could cut through that parking lot instead of going all the way down 4th Street.

It seems like that would be a lot more convenient for everybody.

I don't know who you have to talk to at CFD to make that happen, but

maybe someone if they're listening on council or city staff in the city manager's office could help that along.

Jason, make sure you get that bit about donations being welcome in your article.

But other than that, I'd like to commend you all on doing this project.

You're doing the Lord's work, maybe literally, and it's very badly needed in the city.

Personally, I would love for you all to be out of business and find something else to apply your talents and hard work to.

That is the world I want to be in, but it's going to be a while.

For now, I'm excited to see this project come forward.

I see tremendous value in it, tremendous need for it.

I'm encouraged about the parking analysis.

It's mixed use.

It's the dream of the zoning code to mix the uses, to mix the parking demand and the parking issues.

So that's exciting to see, the theory.

going into practice a little bit.

The tree issues, I'm hopeful about the parking lot or possibly the playground area.

I don't think it's necessary to be part of the streetscape, although I certainly see value in that.

Those are my big thoughts at the moment.

yeah I mean just a few thoughts in terms of the parking I don't know if this is what the neighborhood would want or if it would be a solution but I wonder if permit parking for residents could play any role in terms of being a solution to the that concern there I would agree with the point that if more tree canopy could be

there, that would be a positive thing.

And I would just reiterate again, I think the screening along 4th Street Southwest, if it's done intentionally, could make a real positive difference long term versus if it's just the bare minimum.

But other than that, this is obviously a project that it's critical we find a way to get done and not become an obstacle to.

I essentially agree with what Michael just said.

I think it's a great project.

I am sympathetic to the concerns about parking.

I do think this is something we're going to face throughout the city in terms of with the new zoning work we're trying to do, being thoughtful about how we manage parking, permit parking or other options like that.

Hopefully there'll be some creativity around how we address that.

That said, I think it's a really good project.

We certainly need it, as I've mentioned before, and I'm grateful to see that this is moving forward.

Ms.

I appreciate the concerns of the residents and their willingness to be supportive of the effort but I am concerned about their concerns as it relates to parking so hopefully there's a way that the residents and the people doing the construction

can come up with a solution and if the city needs to assist in helping them with a solution that we can do that.

I'm glad to know that the playground is to Mr. Mitchell's standards but working with children as I have done, don't ask, don't tell, there's always something new and great

on the playground scene and I feel that the residents of the Salvation Army deserve what everyone else has.

Mayor Snook.

Maybe I wasn't listening at the right time.

I'm looking at condition four suggested by the staff, which deals with parking, and I don't understand how that's expected to work in practice.

It says no minimum parking is required on the subject property, but should the number drop below 32 spaces, applicant will work with the traffic engineer to develop master parking plan.

that if by the time the site plan is actually brought forward there are fewer than 32 spaces shown on the site plan that somebody will do something?

Mayor, yes, I can kind of address that.

During their application, so the different departments looked at this, city traffic engineer was one of them.

He didn't have an issue with 32 spaces, but they're requesting to have zero.

So the condition is to be, you're showing 32, but you're asking for zero, so during your site plan configuration,

Kind of correct in both.

So, I mean, we haven't gotten to site plan review.

So between, say, City Council adopts this and grants them, it could grant them what they're asking for, which is zero.

And between that and the first time we look at it, which would be a preliminary final site plan review, they're showing 28.

That drops below 32, so there needs to be some sort of

So as part of their site plan, if council says zero, and as part of their site plan they show 32 spaces, we wouldn't require this basically written document showing how they're going to manage parking, but once they drop below

That 32, that's where we would require it.

It's really to leave that room so they can adjust.

Okay, so I guess I think I understand how you all are going to handle the issue, and it sounds like that

If we adopt it with Condition 4, then, well, actually, I'm still not sure I understand.

But by doing the plan with the city engineer, it could come up with something different.

It could come up with cooperative parking, could come up with off-site parking that would count toward it.

Correct.

I'm curious, and maybe somebody from the applicant can address this,

I understood, and again, I was listening through the part where you're talking about 32 and different overlapping uses in different times and so on.

So I would say the argument for zero is because two reasons.

It gives the site more flexibility in the future.

What we understand is that when the new zoning ordinance is adopted, this site with its current SUP, and Matt can jump in if I'm wrong, will become a non-conforming, well, the SUP will ride, and the new zoning ordinance will not be

the rules in effect if we go in to develop something else.

Right.

But if you know you're going to have your own staff anyway, it's unrealistic to think you would not have at least 10 parking spaces needed, don't you think?

Possibly.

Yeah, we identified that we think there's 30 spaces needed.

That's why we're asking for the 32 to drop to 30 in that language.

And we don't have a problem with recommended condition number four.

triggering that we just like a little bit more flexibility so that between now and when we submit the site plan if we lose two spaces because we get into other requirements on site like increased trash requirements after we go through full analysis of that with the trash hauler or we find that they want to place a donation box there

I guess what I'm wondering is why don't we say we know even if it's only to provide for your own staff and nobody else coming into the property, you're going to need at least 10 spaces.

So instead of saying no minimum parking required, we're going to require at least 10.

And if you want to go below to 32 and go through that whole process of the site plan process, I really don't understand why you would have a situation like that where you would ever want to have no parking spaces.

We can have it listed that way.

We don't have an issue with that.

True, true.

Okay.

But that's usually when we come to these we get asked how does whatever way

To be clear, what you're referring to is what consultants have proposed, not the Planning Commission and not City Council.

I understand.

So one question maybe for Matt based on that is like, so they're saying they're going to zero during construction, right?

Like is that going to violate even this ordinance or this as phrased?

Yeah.

Because the requirement applies all the time, right?

Like couldn't even like

Are we speaking for current saying if they did not receive the reduction to zero?

Yeah.

It would probably need to come up during their site plan.

So if there's a 10 requirement, they'd have to have 10 on site during construction.

Yeah, but I mean, it depends on what they're serving in the building.

So that requirement might dip, you know, if your staff was originally six and you needed eight spaces.

We would have to- Based on staff, right?

So let's say they close everything but the shelter, which required eight or something, right?

It would be eight.

Well, that's what I mean, right, is that if you don't go to zero, then during construction, you're violating it, or like you can't meet it.

It would be a little more nuanced when we, and it would be looked at site plan phase, like you...

they would need to provide parking to match whatever they're doing on site so typically yes we're looking at construction where you're there's nothing going on site so we don't think about it yeah but for this we would as staff be looking at it you're you're gonna still be doing X on site how are you parking X now X might be smaller during that so there might be a way there's also there are the code does have temporary construction parking

And again, it depends on if we're looking at saying we're following current code for parking requirements, or are we using this, going to zero, but having a parking, basically a parking demand.

Something worked out with the traffic engineer.

It would be a lot more strict under just current code.

You would have to follow current code, whatever that lays out to be.

I believe it's 25 or 30% is the maximum you can reduce parking through stuff like cooperative parking or bike racks or being close to a bus thing.

You can never reduce that 100% under current code.

So parking would be reduced

regardless.

So if you have 30 spaces there now and we've got all these trucks and all of this doing this, that, and a third, you can't have 30 spaces there for people to park because you've got your construction crews there.

So what do we do to have space for the people that have to work in that building or people that are coming to volunteer in that building?

Everything that happens in that building is not remote.

And that will be, that is definitely something that we have to be worked out, and it's something we look at at site plan review.

We don't typically look at it at SUP level.

Yes, if this was to move, kind of the next steps, if they were to get to the SUP, there is a, when they submit a site plan, there is a site plan conference that is open to the public.

Correct.

If we just look at it as they have to follow the code for parking.

If they are going to be doing activities that are allowed in the zoning code that has parking requirements, they're going to have to meet those parking requirements.

It just might not be

The number might just fluctuate depending on what they are doing on site at the time.

I think that's a reasonable condition Planning Commission could suggest because, again, they're trying to keep their services going.

But if you see zero and you have an activity with 15 parking spaces needed, then what do you do?

And I will, and I'll just, before I let the applicant speak in, I will just reiterate, you know, planning commission that they are asking for zero, planning commission does not have to recommend zero, planning commission can.

for whatever occasion, and I'm not talking about holidays, they do meals 365 days a year.

You're gonna have the people that are coming to serve the meals be over here in Jablip somewhere and you're gonna bus them in to do the meals?

Yeah.

Ms.

I want to clarify the uses that are in the emergency shelter at the rear of the site that's being maintained during construction.

That building only has the emergency shelter in it.

The soup kitchen is in one of the other buildings that's more central to the site.

So meal service will not occur on that site during construction.

It'll only be the shelter use.

There are some social service offices

So what I'm gonna say, the shelter only currently has

the kitchen staff, the administrative staff will all have to be moved offsite.

So, you know, it's really just the shelter staff.

So when we talk about having people park at our thrift store building and bringing them up, we're talking about a minivan could do that.

We're not talking about our bus, you know, transport people.

Thank you.

I think we did this after the meeting.

After, yeah.

Thank you.

It's only a seven-minute walk from where they're talking about putting people.

But I have a motion, I think.

Let's take a motion.

Maybe my screen will stop freezing.

I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit in the West Main East Zone at 2900-29000, 207 and 211 Ridge Street to permit a shelter care facility with alterations to street wall and parking regulations as indicated in the application with the following conditions.

Condition 4 will be modified to per section 34-162.

No minimum parking shall be required on the subject property during construction.

However, the applicant will work with the city's traffic engineer to develop a parking plan for the subject property for uses during construction.

In addition,

say no minimum parking is required on the subject property, but should the number drop below 30 spaces, the applicant will work with the city's traffic engineer to develop a master parking plan for the subject property.

This plan will be kept on file with the city and may be updated or altered from time to time with authorization of the city's traffic engineer.

The plan, the rest is as it is in the packet.

So I think everyone got it.

Just to say what I'm doing there is saying for during construction, they don't have a minimum, but they have to make a plan.

And then after construction, I'm saying they don't have a minimum, but you guys can change it to 10 if you guys want to later.

There's a different clause.

It'll be easy.

And they have to make a plan if it goes under 30.

I hear a second from Mr. D'Oronzio.

The only thing I had was ten and then

they can change it after if they'd like to, whatever number they want.

I mean, I guess.

Well, I mean, that is roughly what the, like, common among all uses is.

I guess what I'd say is I think it makes sense to give them maximum flexibility.

As you said, you know, for their own uses they're probably going to need some, but, you know, they can figure that out, I think.

and obviously they figured it out to the extent that they're putting in 30, 32 even, they're increasing the amount of parking.

Yeah.

Any additional discussion on this motion?

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Havab?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Aye.

Apparently so, and I'll call on our city attorney to tell us what we're doing here.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I would simply offer, pursuant to the discussion and the very short memo, Council to consider a motion pursuant to the 2023 amendments to the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2008.

Can we have a motion to that effect?

So moved.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

Okay, the motion carries.

I guess we've solved that problem, and we're going to have to institutionalize that, I think, from here on out.

Thank you very much.

At this time, do we have any additional business that we would like to consider?

I believe this public hearing is at a close.

Thank you all very much.

Additional business?

Yeah, so this is in light of a conversation at the very beginning of this meeting between Commissioner Schwartz and Mr. Freeze, where they were sort of ruminating on how complicated it is to comply with this, but keep careful of this second say.

We've got an overlay of this instruction, these appeals, and all the moving parts involved, particularly with the zoning.

And I would point out that July 11th, to that end,

is National Free Slurpee Day, it is National Mojito Day, and it is National Blueberry Muffin Day.

And these are, I'm sure these are all worthy, and we can get behind at least two out of the three, most of us, not necessarily the same two out of three.

But, you know, someone, unthinking, put all three of these into July, which is National Horseradish Month.

and I cannot see where you might be able to persuade me to try a horseradish mojito at best, but the other two not so much.

So my point there being that what we consider when we come back to our work session on Thursday in the zoning that we not trip ourselves up by imposing one set of rules that are going to be subjected to another set that we didn't think about.

Do I hear a second?

Thank you all.