Planning Commission Meeting   8/8/2023

No, that would be a pretty cold room then.

Okay, awesome.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

And who is the... What was the issue of anything to fix?

Oh, because I'm trying to get convinced to be my condition.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr. Mitchell approaches.

I see quorum coming.

You are most welcome, sir.

We've been thinking about you a great deal.

apologies to the public who have been waiting with us.

We're a little bit short-handed, but we're working with it.

Welcome, sir.

At this time, I seek quorum, and I would like to open the Planning Commission pre-meeting for August 8, 2023.

Big night.

I'm expecting a late night.

Gird your loins.

Be ready.

Take care of yourself.

Water, bathroom breaks, et cetera.

Let me know.

This is a marathon meeting tonight, so let us be ready.

Starting actually up top would probably be reasonable.

We've received some privileged information from our legal team.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members.

I'm sorry.

I'll have a place at his desk, and I'll also be prepared to do maybe a 30-second or a one-minute or a something recap before we go on.

I've handed you a Privileged and Confidential Legal Memorandum.

I'm not going to discuss that memorandum directly because I don't wish to waive the privilege, but I do think it's appropriate to chat with y'all about your approach tonight on the Zero East High Street 15.2-2232 Comp Plan Review.

Now I should add that lots of folks have participated in this discussion, not least of which

the director, Mr. Freese who spent a lot of hours with us today as well as Ms.

Creasy and Ms.

Rainey and Mr. Franklin seated to my right who actually did a great deal of this legal research for which I am quite grateful.

So you will note that in your report there is a reference to a city ordinance 34-28, 24-28

speaks to a submission for an approval of a subdivision or a site plan which may be deemed a feature already shown on the adoptive comp plan and therefore accepted from the requirement for submittal to and approval by the commission.

So what we have encountered

is I think what's ultimately going to be a need for the commission to disregard the reference to that ordinance in the report that staff has prepared and staff is aware of how we're proceeding this evening and treat this as a full-blown 15.2-2232 comp plan review without any deeming of features that

that may be shown.

And the reason for that is as follows.

Yesterday, about mid-morning, we received a letter, a comment which raised a question as to the propriety of including that 3428 provision in the review.

we've undertaken some pretty extensive legal research and what we find is that this provision conflicts with the provision of state law both in 15.2 2232

which is the state statute that governs the review of the comp plan tonight.

But you'll notice that that also references 15.2 2286.

and specifically section A8.

See, I brought my lawyer with me so I have these important legal references.

A8.

And as we have reviewed that, not to put too fine a point on it, but we find a conflict between the state law and the local ordinance.

And not only is there a specific language that in that case the state law prevails,

but there's also something called the Supremacy Clause which means that the superior sovereign's laws always trump the inferior sovereign and in this case the sovereign is the state government, specifically the General Assembly and therefore it must prevail.

So what are the practicalities of where that leaves us tonight?

Eminently manageable,

because it simply means that instead of making assumptions for these various features that are outlined in the advertisement for tonight, instead of making any assumptions that they're automatically included, the commission is going to be tasked with...

doing a review led by staff as they move through the report and at the end of that you'll be asked obviously to make a recommendation either tonight or whenever you choose to do so as to whether or not the submission complies with the city's comprehensive plan so

This requires a little bit of nimbleness because of the late breaking nature of the issue.

But I think it's eminently manageable.

And when the public hearing commences, I think it would be appropriate to recognize the director

who will make some introductory remarks and I will chime in as necessary, but we wanna make sure that the record's clear that we are not going to take any guidance or make any assumptions based on 3428 C, but rather just do a comprehensive assessment

review of the plan.

So comprehensive comp plan review.

That's too many comprehensives.

So that's a bit of a lot in a short period of time.

So let me pause there and take some questions if you have.

Please.

Yeah.

I am lost.

what are we not allowed to do?

So you're going to, and I'm gonna, I think we'll make this clear on the record.

You are to disregard those portions of the staff report at pages two, two, five and nine, which make reference to the city ordinance 34-28C.

So let's just go ahead and pull up the reference to it on page two.

This is a lot easier than it sounds, Commissioner Mitchell.

I promise you.

There is a statement there invoking 3428C, the effect of which would be to deem a feature

Remember, you're reviewing features tonight as part of your comprehensive plan review to deem it as already shown on the comprehensive plan.

We're going to make the record clear tonight that that is not the case.

And so as staff lead you through the discussion on these various features, you're going to

make a determination ultimately as to whether or not the submission from Zero High Street complies with a comprehensive plan or it does not without this assumption in here.

So the easy part for the commission, Commissioner Mitchell, is we'll make sure that the record is clear when the public hearing commences that this reference to 3428C should be disregarded

and at that point you're just listening to staff having a discussion and making your own conclusions as to whether or not you believe that the submission that has been made by the applicant complies with the comp plan so it's it's it's more of a we're tidying up the record if you will yes Commissioner Habbat thanks so I guess just to follow up are we then open to anything in the comp plan or are we still sticking to

Well, you're open to anything in the comp plan that has been advertised for public hearing this evening.

I did not want to read it to us.

There would be

This is perhaps a

a distinction only a lawyer could love, but it revolves around the reference to a site plan as being deemed included, which is what our local ordinance says versus what is in the state statute.

which is 2286A8 which does not include the reference to the site plan.

It only includes the reference to the plan of development and the plan of development and the reason that we're making this

recommendation to you tonight is the city's own ordinance makes a distinction between site plans and plans of development.

So this is candidly the safer path to include that whatever decision

whatever recommendation you elect to make tonight sticks and also significantly reduces the possibility that somebody might raise an objection later and we'd have to redo the public hearing and I believe we anticipate a significant crowd tonight on all sorts of issues but this one as well and so this is I think just to

Thank you.

Additional questions on this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Turning to the agenda for tonight.

Big night.

Due to the number of people we're expecting who will want to comment, I'm suggesting a two-minute limit on public comment tonight, which I will, I hope, allow more people to share information during working, not working, but hours when people can speak.

Starting with the

Oh, my.

Consent agenda, which I think you have two minutes and quite a bit of other material.

Any concerns on that one?

Minor edits to the May 23rd.

Can you state this?

Yes.

First, any comment in referring to

Very good.

Any other, you got that, Ms.

The English language is bad.

Any other questions or concerns on this item?

Mr. Mitchell, could you have a motion on that?

I'm happy to.

Thank you.

I had a procedural suggestion for Mr. Duranza.

Thoughts on that?

I believe that seems reasonable.

Any concerns from staff on that?

Good, let it be so.

You're welcome.

Let's start with the agenda then with home slash ARP.

They think they're up.

You're not up yet.

You're not up yet.

Thank you.

But any questions on that item?

Home slash ARP.

I just have to recuse myself, and I have a statement to make.

Very good.

Thank you.

And also 501 chair.

That's fine.

No?

I mean, that's probably going to be fast, so I can.

Very good.

Okay, that's helpful.

We might want to note that matters from the public and we'll be back and then we'll get to the 530.

Very good.

We are expecting

We do have to stick to our agenda, so probably we'll be cutting around 6 p.m.

to proceed with the public hearings on time, and then we will resume matters from the public when we are through our three public hearings just due to scale.

Scale is the problem.

Does that seem reasonable?

moving out of home slash ARP to zero East High.

We've already spoken on it a little bit.

Questions on that item?

Maybe this is a question I can ask later again, but we found some comments on

Utilities, service connections, that kind of stuff.

Why is that not part of what we're looking at?

My question was on Zero East High.

We've received public comments on sewage lines, water lines.

So I'm not sure I can answer that.

But I think that my advice on the question is that the notice of public hearing identifies the features that you're to consider tonight.

And if that becomes an issue, there's possibility that we may have to come back and tend to it.

Additional questions on that one?

Hey, hey, I guess I'm feeling like we're a little, and I know we have to stick to what's been advertised.

We're not going to get into building infrastructure, I mean building housing infrastructure on flood plains, but

I'm saying yes.

I mean, I guess the only time that that wouldn't happen would be in the case where the council says, where the commission says, no, we find that this is not in keeping.

City council agrees, which then essentially kills the thing.

So we don't have to discuss it.

Well, I mean, my question is, at what point do we, I guess we don't do that until we get to the site plan.

Site plan.

Question that the commission is asking about.

Thank you.

I absolutely agree.

I absolutely agree with that.

And so if we end up having to do that, or excuse me, if the commission ends up going that route, you're dealing with just a single issue via focus probably of far fewer public comments matter that could be handled relatively quickly, relatively efficiently, as opposed to re-advertising and trying to do all that again.

Again, I think given the

given the fact that you've got a good advertisement on the issues that planning staff is going to cover tonight.

You've got a large number of folks signed up.

Getting this public hearing under your belt is progress, and I think you should consider proceeding on that route.

Thank you.

Other issues on...

and East High.

Let us talk about Cherry.

Questions on Cherry?

Just by clarification, this is a two-perm, right?

Plus a proper.

Plus a proper.

I forwarded an email from Chris from Economic Development about the economic efficiency of a grocery store at this location.

We've heard a lot of public concern about whether that's possible.

I think staff's recommendation was not to approve the rezoning without the SEP also.

We have a discussion about both.

We have a public hearing about both.

And the vote is separate.

Okay.

You can't do the SEP until you do the rezoning.

Other questions for concerns about cherry?

It's a complicated one.

I had a question for staff about whether a comprehensive plan future land use map update was needed if we do rezone the property.

Not this time?

That's helpful.

Chair, I had one more question right before we start.

There was the continuing items, an update on the zoning.

Yes.

Is that something we're going to have at the end of the meeting?

Oh, this is just a placeholder discussion item.

During the department report, we'll provide some feedback here.

We could discuss that, but that may be very late in the night.

Welcome all.

I would like to open the Charlottesville Planning Commission public meeting at this time.

The Lupeg group did meet.

I was not able to meet with them, but I covered you guys on a biannual report.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, a few items.

Let's see.

CDBG Home Task Force met to discuss one of the hearings this evening.

We've made those recommendations.

I may have something to say at that time, depending.

The CAF met on August 11th, having expanded its numbers from the initial sort of core group

that had been appointed and there was work done mostly having to do with the tools that the CAF is going to use and its methods of evaluation and trying to clean up some of the scoring models and also working towards a more flexible

sort of underlying template, and that is in process or has been largely completed.

HAC met on the 19th.

That was mostly an administrative meeting, but we did have a discussion of the land bank ordinance and

on fees and the challenges that the changes to the fee structure might provide to

for building permits, et cetera, that it might provide to nonprofit housing providers, and the policy subcommittee was tasked with digging into both of those.

So then, on August 3rd, the policy subcommittee of the HACC met, and we began to review the land bank ordinance with an idea of making recommendations and updating it.

I will pause for a cheer from our chair.

Also, at that time, staff asked for some nuts and bolts on the fee impact, and particularly for projects that are in the pipeline.

Big month.

Thank you very much.

The Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee met July 19th.

We looked at the long-range transportation plan again.

There was some preliminary feedback from the survey that is still ongoing until August 19th.

And some of the results right now as they stand,

The participants were asked to rank these categories in the survey as highest priority to lowest priority.

And at number one, we have safety.

Number two is our environmental.

Then multimodal, economic development, and then land use.

And the findings so far, they prioritize multimodal as opposed to automobile-centric roadways.

Access-wise, it's a balance between jobs and non-job destinations for transportation needs.

and there was a focus on improving public transportation rather than congestion reduction.

The majority of the respondents so far are drivers that drive alone and a majority-wide demographic.

On smart scale, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, CTB, is considering reevaluating some mechanisms in the smart scale funding program and project selection.

and we're preparing to send back some feedback to them mainly because their adjustments basically make it harder to fund smaller scale bike-ped public transportation projects in favor for highway improvements.

It seems like the opposite direction that we want to go.

I believe we were not awarded the RAISE grant for the Rivanna bike-ped bridge, unfortunately.

to complete the engineering study.

And in the VDOT project pipeline, we are looking at two areas, an area between barracks, at barracks between the ramps leading up to 250, and another area at Ivy Corridor between Ednam Drive up to Alderman, focusing on that 250 intersection and the traffic light by old Ivy and Ivy Road as areas to look for what could be improved, basically, early, early on.

and then RFP is out for the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.

So that's it for SeaTac.

Then Tree Commission met August 1st.

The contractors are continuing to water trees that were planted from last year.

and the city is hiring two separate consultants already hired I think to fight invasives.

One is goat busters.

They are using goats at Washington Park.

They had them there last week and they're going to be going to Fry Springs if they're not there right now in that wooded area behind the pool.

and then the other consultant is RX Fire.

They're ex-forest firefighters.

They'll be mulching and doing some chemical treatments at Forest Hills, Azalea, and the Rivanna Trail between Jordan Park and Fifth Street Station.

Then plantings for fall will occur mid-August, mostly in park areas in the city.

And then in talking to the urban forester, he's been surprised with a lot of dead trees, unfortunately.

that were seemingly fine last year.

And there are some by Clark Elementary, I think, and just all over the city.

And it happens to be something that's going on throughout the Southeast.

They think it's due to the climate conditions that we're facing.

That's it for me.

There was no BAR meeting last month, and I missed the Bike Pet Advisory Committee meeting because I was attending a Tenth and Page neighborhood meeting, which I think we're going to hear about tonight.

I did ask the chair of BPAC if he had anything to share with the Planning Commission and had not heard back, so basically no news.

I hope you're having a wonderful break, sir.

We will hear back from the University next month.

As for me, I've been very busy.

Mr. Stolzenberg, we miss you.

I hope you recover well.

You are most welcome at the next meeting.

We are currently short one Planning Commission member.

We are re-advertising.

If you find it in your heart the need to become a Planning Commissioner for the City of Charlottesville, you are most welcome.

Please apply.

We are in need of a new chair.

I can't just keep doing this.

I therefore nominate what Lyle Solla-Yates, and I've also asked Mr. Habab to serve on a nominating committee to find the next chair, which I expect will be, I think we'll figure something out.

I am not an option.

I've done this too much.

I know.

I am now serving on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

We did not meet this month.

Look forward to it next month.

At this time, I would like to hear from the Neighborhood Development Services.

Many things going on.

Excellent.

It's like a test.

Thank you.

Well, let me start by introducing the newest member of our staff who's here this evening.

Ben Coby is joining us from Shreveport, Louisiana.

Started on Monday, so that was yesterday.

So he's one day in.

So please if you have an opportunity if we're not here terribly late to welcome him to the city We are working very hard with our team to get the draft zoning ordinance our consolidated version of that complete

I don't have a firm date tonight to share with you.

We are still very much aiming for this week and trying to sort through the last set of final issues that need to be resolved in order to publish and disperse.

So that is where we are on that.

We have a joint work session scheduled for August 29th.

So that is different than our fourth Tuesday.

It's actually the fifth Tuesday.

And we are working through, as James noted,

Zoning ordinance items and time frames.

So the 29th you all should have on your calendar.

We talked about this a little while ago.

We don't have things firm yet, but we will be getting those out as soon as we possibly can, knowing that everyone's schedules are very packed to make sure that we can get the word out to everyone.

Beautiful.

And that was no work session on the fourth Tuesday?

Correct.

Amazing.

Correct.

So we're going to go over the process for adoption in detail jointly with Council.

Additional questions on that?

Thank you very much.

At this time, I would like to hear matters to be presented by the public not on the formal agenda.

Due to the large number of people who wish to speak tonight, please ask that you limit your comments to two minutes.

We will hit a hard break at 6 p.m., at which time we will have to switch gears to public hearings.

All right, thank you, Chair.

And we will be handling this the same way that we handle all of our items in virtual hybrid mode.

We will begin with a speaker from our in-house audience, and then we will move to a speaker from our virtual audience, and we will move back and forth as long as the time we have allotted.

which at this point is likely until about 6 o'clock when we receive a quorum of counsel to get started with public hearings and then we will proceed at the end of the public hearings back to that general matters from the public.

this is for any matter that is not on for public hearing this evening so if you're speaking about Zero East High or the Home Action Plan or 501 Cherry there will be other opportunities to speak so this is an opportunity for other topics besides those three so we'll start with our in-person audience we have someone who would like to raise their hand and begin

Do we have any speakers in our in-person audience?

All right, well, seeing none in our in-person audience right now, we'll move to our virtual audience.

Do we have anyone in our virtual audience who's interested in speaking during matters from the public?

Please raise your hand in the application, or if you're on the phone line, you can hit star nine, and that will raise your hand.

Okay, Chair, we have one person, Kimber Hockey.

Ms.

Yes, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Great, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, everyone.

I would have a short comment.

There was a statement that I had seen recently, I believe coming out of NDS, but

Talking about the fact that there has been extensive and widespread interactions with the public regarding the details of the plum and the rezoning process, etc.

And that's just not true.

There are still many people who have no idea what's going on who are confused about the details.

There has not been

a solid outreach to the neighborhood associations.

The list that you have for the contacts for many of the people who are on the boards of the neighborhood associations are not correct.

So you might be thinking you're sending information to them, but that's not getting through to them.

People are either no longer on the board.

Some people have passed away or moved away.

So I would just like to counter that narrative.

There has not been extensive outreach from the very beginning, and the public is still greatly ill-informed of what's going on.

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

I see a hand raised.

Hi, I don't have anything prepared.

My name is Anna.

I live in Belmont, and I'm here supporting the Respect the Neighbors campaign.

The campaign would just like to reiterate, as we said in the City Council meeting,

last night that we do not support the development proposed by dairy market developer Chris Henry for many reasons.

One, because there's been a lack of cultural competency.

There's no black residents involved in the development process at all.

Two, because of the economic financial affordability reasons.

If the proposed development is anything like dairy market, dairy market currently the lowest price for a one bedroom is about $2,200.

So that is not affordable for anybody.

I said last night it's not affordable for somebody who makes minimum wage.

$15 an hour, it's not even affordable for somebody who makes $40 an hour.

So if there is no cultural competency, if there's no consideration of the need for affordable housing, we've heard many numbers from him, but none of them are

are good numbers, to be quite frank.

The campaign is not going to support the development, and so we're asking for there to be a pause until we can work out something.

Thank you.

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

We have a hand raised, Mr. Kurt Bowers.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time, your service to our community.

And I appreciate all your work.

I'm speaking

from a personal point of view this evening.

I have longstanding in the community.

I've lived here for 35 years.

I've paid taxes for 35 years.

I have a lot invested in this community.

And over the years, what I've seen is a real lack of concern over

Community rights are one thing, and then we have just seen decimation of our culture and our communities, not only from the 1960s, but here recently.

West Main Street is a prime example of that.

So I'm here tonight to adamantly oppose the dairy market expansion project.

It does not fit within the community.

It's not compatible with the uses that are surrounding it.

The first project was really a mistake.

It already has eliminated some of the cultural value of that community.

And quite frankly, I think if this happens, it will continue on down Preston Street.

So I want to preserve this area.

It's a historic area.

It's a mixed-use Black community, African-American community.

We need to preserve it.

It's really important, not only for

for the community, but for our entire city.

Please, we want the development taken somewhere else.

It's a no.

Please do not support this project.

Thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

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

Yes.

Hello, I'm Emily Smith.

I'm a housing attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center and I also work with the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition.

We'd like to voice our support for the Respect the Neighbors campaign and then I'd also like to speak to zoning.

I know that there's been a lot of discussion about limiting density in the size of buildings in residential neighborhoods.

We'd strongly recommend against that.

We need more housing in historically exclusionary neighborhoods to address race equity and expand housing opportunity.

And the lack of density in exclusionary neighborhoods means even more displacement in historically black neighborhoods.

like the proposed dairy market expansion.

Limiting the number of units in building size and residential districts will detract from these goals and make the city increasingly unaffordable.

We'd also recommend even more height in the residential buildings where there are affordable units allowing the double density but without additional height makes those kinds of projects not as feasible.

We also support more affordability, including tax abatements, to reach deeper levels of affordability in more affordable units.

And we also would like to see anti-displacement policies in historically black neighborhoods by tax abatements and home maintenance programs for low-income homeowners and by limiting development in those neighborhoods.

Good afternoon, Planning Commission.

I'm here standing up for Respect the Neighbors.

I am part of Respect the Neighbors.

I live in West Haven.

As we already see that the standards are standing way above us, it makes us feel like we're in a penitentiary.

It makes us feel like we're the lowest of the lowest.

We already built so far down up under the hill so nobody know that West Haven exists.

But the only reason we exist now is because of drama, crime, whatever it is.

logistically in housing we are put under and we have them standards we work with the people that was building the standards they lied to us then another company took over so it left us no choice of having economics of diversity of having a job or being able to live there it's the same thing with

The Dairy Market, that's the modern day Vinegar Hill.

So we're going back to backwards because right now we know that they can build marketplace right now.

I mean the Dairy Market in the phases that they're trying to build.

But we don't want on West Street, we don't want that to over tower those people.

I mean it's already taken over, the apartment's already over towering the houses.

I mean people have worked years and generations to have those homes and they're very you know they're struggling now to even pay for those homes AHIP need to step in and help those homes but the laundromat definitely needs to stay in that community because that is something that we need not just for low income but for a historic landmark we need that laundromat and Chris Henry has lied to the

Okay, we'll check back in with our virtual audience.

We don't allow repeat speakers during matters from the public, so sorry about that.

Do we have anyone else?

We do.

Mr. Bryant.

Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

I just want to add my voice to the course.

of folks in the 10th and Page Street neighborhood in regards to this project expansion.

I have been a longtime resident of 10th and Page Street nearly 70 years.

This is where I grew up in this neighborhood, a neighborhood steeped in rich history.

Many of the folks that I can remember who lived here is a thriving neighborhood, close-knit community.

businesses, teachers, educators.

It was just one of those types of communities that you just love.

Everybody was one big family.

And my concern with this project expansion, it doesn't fit into the neighborhood.

Nobody will be able to afford to live in those apartments in this nearby neighborhood.

The elderly are already seeing their taxes.

Thank you, sir.

Our next in person, I know we had a number of hands.

Hello, audience.

I didn't know it was all these people.

I'm glad y'all here.

I'm Michelle Bryant Taylor, and I live on Riverside.

And I own a house on 13th Street.

and I own a house on Riverside.

I grew up on Dale Avenue.

So all of this is dear to me.

So I know the area.

And I think it would be wrong for it to be built, any of it to be built.

would be taken away from the community and no one of the blacks in the community can afford to rent.

anything in those units.

And so I think it would be wrong to build something like that.

And architect, whatever that word is, definitely towering over everything.

Because you ride up Main Street, that's all you see, towering over everything.

And like the lady said, you know, West Haven, so you

take that and fence everything in and tower over West Haven so it makes it like you know they're nothing which was wrong you know that's the way I feel box them in like they make them disappear

which is kind of what they did when if you read the history of even at the university, if you read the history of what they tried to do to the people that lived on the land at the university.

Thank you very much.

Over the hill.

Oh, so my minute is up?

You had two.

Oh, I get two.

But anyway, I don't think it should be built.

And I feel dearly it should not be built.

Nobody can afford it.

And with only two, I can't even afford it myself.

My taxes up at 523 13th Street have gone up tremendously.

and I'm a state worker and my money haven't gone up, but I'm certainly paying to keep this city going and paying for the employees.

Their money is going up, but my money is not going up.

They don't give state workers a raise, but they certainly give the city workers a raise.

that city workers get raises.

I see we are at 6 p.m.

At this time, I believe we need to put a pause on this comment and shift to a public hearing.

I have the matter of the consent agenda before we start.

I'm terribly sorry.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Very good.

I believe that passes.

We are indeed.

Very good.

We had a conversation before.

We wanted to switch gears a little bit and start with home ARP just to get that one out of the way.

I just respect people's time.

I hope that seems reasonable.

Very good.

Thanks.

Yes, I do.

I have a statement to make regarding my participation in the Planning Commission's consideration of the- Can you hear me now?

Okay.

Thank you.

Great.

I have a statement to make regarding my participation in the Planning Commission's consideration of the FY 2023 Home-ARP Action Plan.

I am employed by BRW Architects, and as a result of the annual salary that I receive from BRW Architects, I am required to

disqualify myself from participating in the transactions.

If anyone would like to review the more detailed written disclosure statement that I have filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, that statement is available upon request.

Just email me.

I'm terribly sorry.

We can't hear.

No one can hear.

We can't hear you.

Please.

Hi.

Good evening.

Barely?

Okay.

Speak loudly and very slowly and clearly right into the microphone.

Okay.

I will try to be very articulate.

My name is Anthony Warren.

I'm with the city's Office of Community Solutions.

I'm here to ask commissioners to consider funding recommendations made through the city's home ARP program, which is the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's implementation of the America Rescue Plan.

We were recently notified by HUD of an award of a little over $2 million We participate in a consortium with five surrounding counties through which each member of the consortium receives an equal share

The city of Charlottesville will receive an allocation of $347,404.92 This is similar to the existing home program, but a number of factors were waived because HUD wanted to try to get the money into projects as quickly as possible.

It was decided among the member jurisdictions to focus on trying to foster affordable rental housing opportunities.

We received four applications through a competitive grant program.

and these four applications were evaluated and reviewed by the citizen members of the CDBG Home Task Force and funding recommendations have been made to two community organizations based on task force members

Belief in these will help us maximize the impact of this limited amount of funding.

The members fully recognize the cost of housing in the community.

One recommended funding award goes to an organization called Community Services Housing Incorporated.

The program that they have submitted to us is called the Continued Rehabilitation and Repairs to Preserve CSH Affordable Rental Housing.

The request was for $67,361 which they will use to effect a number of critical repairs to units that they already are in possession of and control.

The use of the money would help to preserve these as affordable rental housing units and would extend the minimum required affordability period to 15 years.

and the second recommended program is for the Piedmont Housing Alliance to support their redevelopment of 1025 Park Street.

This money would go to help rehabilitate and

do other improvements to duplex on that site which would then again continue as affordable rental housing opportunities.

There would be a minimum 15 year affordability period through the use of this money

but PHA has committed to making these permanent affordable rental housing units to families at or below 50% of the local AMI.

There are no budgetary impacts anticipated by this because this is all money that would be coming into the city from HUD.

and there's typically a local match requirement from the city or for any participating jurisdiction but that too has been waived by HUD in order to help fund programs as quickly as possible.

Very good.

Yes, a very basic question.

What is an entitlement community?

That's a very good question.

I get that a lot.

So basically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has reviewed and evaluated all the municipal communities and rural communities throughout the country and have identified those because of their demographic

characteristics are eligible for programmatic funding through a variety of different programs.

Basically what that means is the funding comes through based on population rather than through a competitive grant program.

So there are a number of HUD programs that communities are eligible to apply for.

Very good.

Good evening, commissioners and the members of the city council, the city manager.

I just want to add... All right.

Good evening, planning commissioners and the city council and the city manager.

I just want to add a little clear definition to his explanation.

Usually,

The definition of entitlement communities.

This is a standard definition by the population of 50,000 or more.

They look at several factors in terms of poverty rate and what have you.

One of the thresholds is 50,000 population or more.

By the time that the city was designated, you know, Horde used another threshold, you know, what they call a primate city in a region which Charlottesville is some kind of a major employment center and a metropolitan area.

Thanks, sir.

Additional questions on this item?

Council questions on this item?

We still can't hear anything you're saying.

Can the speakers be turned up?

Are there speakers out there because you can't pass this wall?

I don't know.

Are there speakers back there?

Big turnout, so how come we didn't change venues or make something happen?

We knew there was going to be a big turnout.

We literally said it multiple times through city officials to different people.

The police chief knew, so I'm just not sure why.

Can we change venue at last minute?

I actually don't think we can legally.

I'm sorry.

We're very grateful for our city manager.

I'm sure we are.

Moving forward.

Thank you.

Maybe get some more speakers.

If you read the room, you'll notice that there are many, many people back here who care about their neighborhoods that would like to not only hear what you're saying but also speak about it.

But you've intentionally told them that they cannot be in this space and you won't make space for them up here.

Does that indicate how you also feel about respect

Everybody move up as part of that.

It's not a terrible idea.

Any issues with that operationally, moving everything?

They want to move everything, so more people can be in this space.

Everything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just going to keep it like this.

You want to step them up on the deck?

I don't want to.

Yeah, they don't want to.

Test, test, test.

Any better.

Do we have anything?

I'm hearing clapping.

I'm seeing happy people.

All right.

Return to the public hearing on whom slash ARP.

I believe we were in a public hearing.

Ms.

Yes, sir.

So for public hearing, this is public hearing specifically for the home ARP.

We will do the procedure that

Could you just clarify what order the agenda is going in because I think for most of us who are sitting in the back we could hear

Wait a minute.

I'm trying to answer the question.

The question she's asking is, what order are we going in?

We are about to do the home.

Once we do the home, we will then go to High Street.

All right, so those interested in speaking, do we have any hands raised in person for home ARP?

I am not seeing any hands from our in-person audience.

We'll turn to our virtual audience.

Is there anyone interested in speaking to the home

ARP Action Plan item.

If you're in our virtual audience, please raise your hand in the application.

If you're on the telephone, you can hit star nine, and that will raise your hand in the application.

All right, I do not see anyone in our virtual audience.

Do we have anyone at this point in our in-person audience?

Okay.

I don't see anyone in our in-person audience.

We'll check with our virtual audience.

Thank you very much.

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

This is pretty straightforward.

I've worked on the board that does this work.

There's a lot of work that goes into it.

A lot of work that goes into the applications.

Knowing the work that goes into making the recommendations, I'm not willing to second-guess the task force, so I would like to make a motion, if you don't mind.

I move that we approve the 2023-2024 Home ARP Action Plan as presented today, and again, recommend to Council that they also approve it.

I'll second.

I hear a second.

Ms.

Sure.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you very much.

That sounds fine.

How far did he go?

Oh, this is a good question.

We should have put a tractor on it.

Welcome, sir.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission, members of the City Council.

Can I be heard?

A little bit?

All right.

Test.

Hey, look at that.

All right.

And unfortunately, I'm only speaking for a moment, but make the most of it.

All right.

Our focus tonight is on the review of the identif- I'm sorry.

This is for the zeroes tie.

We are doing a 2232 review, which is a review for consistency with the comprehensive plan for the project proposal.

for the project proposed for zero-ease time.

Our focus tonight is on the review of the identified public features for their consistency with the comprehensive plan.

The Planning Commission, just for clarity, the Planning Commission is not reviewing for consistency with the SADM.

There is a note within the staff report referencing the standards and design manual, disregard those

notes and for the purposes of our review, look at, again, the consistency of those public features identified with the comprehensive plan.

Mr. Priest, could I just add one item, please?

Absolutely.

Pursuant to the discussion that we had at the pre-meeting with the Planning Commission, because of a legal issue that has been raised with respect to Charlottesville City Code Section 34-28C, we have suggested that those references in that staff report be disregarded.

and in addition that is a permissive rather than a mandatory provision anyway so we recommend that you exercise your discretion not to invoke 3428C to conduct your comp plan review in the normal course.

Thank you.

Ms.

Can everyone hear me?

Good evening.

Carrie Rainey, City Planner with Neighborhood Development Services.

15.2-2232, the Planning Commission may determine whether the general location, character, and .

and extent of the proposed public facilities and uses proposed as a part of the Zero East High project as being compliant or not compliant with the adopted comprehensive plan prior to authorization and construction of said facilities and uses.

The detailed design of the proposed public facilities is reviewed for compliance with all applicable codes and standards as part of the preliminary final site plan review processes.

This includes compliance... Sorry about that.

Can everyone hear me now?

You need to talk into it like this.

Can you hear my voice now?

Thank you.

My apologies.

I'll just start that section over.

The detailed design of the proposed public facilities is reviewed for compliance with all applicable codes and standards as a part of the preliminary and final site plan review processes.

This includes compliance review with our floodplain ordinance, our water protection ordinance, and our public facilities design requirements.

Other components of the proposed development, including the multifamily residential use,

serving the multifamily units in private amenity spaces are not components for which the Planning Commission may conduct a comprehensive plan compliance review.

The private development components are reviewed for compliance with all applicable codes and standards as part of the site plan review processes.

The Planning Commission, per Section 34-820 will review and approve the plenary site plan application at a future date.

The applicant proposes two new public streets labeled Public Road A and Public Road B in addition to widening our existing Caroline Avenue and Fairway Avenue.

Public Road A provides access to private property.

Sorry, am I still being heard?

Are we back?

Thank you.

Let's try again.

Public Road A provides access to private property and network of proposed trails, both on the private land under public easement and on land to be donated to the city, which connects to our Rivanna River Trail network.

Several goals of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan and 2022 Urban Rivanna River Corridor Plan speak to the importance of improving public access to the Rivanna River public spaces in our trail networks.

However, several polls also underscore the importance of preserving environmental resources such as floodplains and the importance of a complete street network to improve connectivity and distribute traffic.

Public Road A will provide additional public access to the Rivanna River Trail network but will not provide connectivity to the wider street network and community.

Public Road B will align with the existing Public Street Willow Drive and provides access to private property and proposed Lot B which provides public parking and a public trail connection to the Rivanna River Trail Network

Several goals of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan and 2022 Urban River River Corridor Plan speak to the importance of improving public access to the Rivanna River and trail networks.

However, again, several goals also underscore the importance of preserving environmental resources such as our floodplains and the importance of a complete street network to improve connectivity and distribute traffic.

Public Road B will provide additional public access to the Rivanna River Trail Network contingent on the establishment of the proposed trail network connecting through Lot B, but will not provide connectivity to the wider street network.

We are having some technical issues.

We lost the wheel.

Can everyone hear me?

Right.

Right, let's see.

Again, so Caroline Avenue is proposed to be widened so that a five-foot-wide sidewalk can be developed along the development's frontage.

The public sidewalk would continue around the corner at Fairway Avenue and connect to our existing sidewalk on Fairway Avenue.

The applicant would propose dedicating this portion of land to ensure that that sidewalk is completely within our public right-of-way.

Several goals of the 2021 comprehensive plan and 2022 urban Rivanna River corridor plan speak to the importance of improving public access to the Rivanna River and trail networks as well as transit stops.

The widening of Caroline Avenue and around the corner on Fairway Avenue will prevent a public sidewalk

connection to Caroline Avenue, which will connect pedestrians to both Public Road A and Lot A, which connects into the proposed trail system, as well as existing transit stops on Fairway Avenue and towards Mead Park.

However, this would not address the lack of sidewalks on the remainder of Caroline Avenue beyond the development frontage.

The applicant is also proposing the dedication of two new parcels, Lot A and Lot B. Lot A is proposed to include a new public trail and Lot B is proposed to include a new public trail parking lot in trail connection to the existing Rivanna River Trail.

Lot A is approximately 3.79 acres with frontage on Fairway Avenue.

In addition to the proposed public trail, Lot A also encompasses a portion of the existing Rivanna Trail as well as the riverbank and a portion of Mead Creek.

It includes stands of mature forests and critical slope areas.

The proposed trail on Lot A will connect to both Fairway Avenue and proposed Road A. The connection to proposed Road A is proposed to connect through a portion of the private land with a public access easement to ensure continued access by the public.

The proposed trail on lot A would also include a bridge structure over Mead Creek and adjacent critical slope areas.

Proposed disturbance of the lot is limited to the area of the proposed public trail.

Several goals of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan and 2022 Urban Rivanna River Corridor Plan speak to the importance of preserving and protecting tree canopy and habitats, particularly in areas within the Rivanna River Corridor and nearby local waterways.

The 2020 City Green Print 1.0 Plan

identifies the forested area on lot A as part of a larger tree canopy patch and note such patches can provide wildlife habitat infiltration of stormwater and other ecological benefits beyond those provided by individual tree plantings the donation of lot A will allow the city to preserve and protect the environmental resources on that lot

Several goals of the comprehensive plan and urban Rivanna River corridor plan also speak to the importance of increasing public access to the Rivanna River and the trail network.

The 2015 bicycle and pedestrian master plan recommends a new shared use path connection in the area of Lot A between the Rivanna River Trail and Fairway Avenue.

Therefore, the trail network proposed on Lot A would provide an additional connection through those areas.

Lot B is approximately 1.16 acres in area with frontage on the proposed public road B. In addition to the public trail network with access to the Rivanna Trail, Lot B would also provide

New public parking for the trail, excuse me.

Proposed disturbance on lot B would be limited to the parking lot in the new trail connection to the Rivanna River Trail.

Several goals of our comprehensive plan and urban Rivanna River corridor plan speak to the importance of increasing public access again.

And we would also note that Riverview Park, which is located approximately a mile south as measured along the Rivanna Trail, is the nearest public parking facility providing access to the Rivanna Trail.

The high utilization rate of the parking at Riverview Park indicates additional parking facilities would provide community access to the Rivanna Trail.

Therefore, the proposed public trail parking and associated trail connection would provide additional connections to the Rivanna Trail in a priority area.

Many members of the public have provided comments to staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council on the associated preliminary site plan since the application was first filed in August 2022.

While many comments focus on the associated private development, the following items have been noted by multiple members of the public regarding the facilities under review by the Planning Commission.

that public roads A and B do not provide connectivity nor adequately address traffic conditions and do not align with our comprehensive plan the importance of maintaining public access to the Rivanna River Trail the importance of preserving the floodplain and existing vegetation and wildlife habitat

The importance of the desire to see the property become a public park or natural area, and the concern that the construction of the public parking lot on B would negatively impact the Rivanna River.

Thank you.

Sure.

The first is just a clarification question.

It will be for our council and for our leaders, Mr. Solla-Yates and Mr. Fries.

We, tonight, we are not focusing on anything but the public roads, the trails, the parking facilities.

We are not focusing on sewers or water infrastructure.

whether those three things and the way the applicant is proposing to deal with those three things, whether they are consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

So I wanted to make certain that

The issuance, you talk a lot about the issuance of a floodplain permit.

At what point does that happen?

At what point does that happen?

And then, at what point does that happen, floodplain permit?

And who actually issues it?

So the floodplain permit is required prior to approval of the final site plan.

So we are currently under preliminary site plan review, so that would not be a component of the preliminary plan.

The floodplain manager is the one that approves our floodplain permit and must determine that the activity or use, including any public roads or other facilities, will not adversely affect the capacity of the channels, floodways,

Proposed to be donated to the city.

Are those lots or is any of us in a floodway?

Not plain, but a floodway.

I believe that we cannot build in a floodway.

Generally speaking, if anybody has the floodplain ordinance pulled up, I will certainly defer to them.

But there is a lot of limitations to what can be done in the floodway.

So there are some portions along the lower portions of the lot, which the final determinations of those lines is a part of that floodplain permit process.

And so generally speaking, not much happens in the floodway.

So the plan with lot A is to actually construct outside of the critical slope area so having the bridge touch down outside of that area and having no impacts to that lot there's provisions in our code that allow public facilities such as trails to be exempted from the critical slope waiver process so that would be our intended process forward Lot B will

Parking lot B, yeah.

So if a critical slope waiver is required based on the limits of work, it would be an application provided prior to the approval of the plenary site plan.

Okay, so they would have to

Very good.

Right.

So in our evaluation of the street sidewalks widths, et cetera, and access to the river,

Well, I mean, if we're going to evaluate pursuant to the comprehensive plan, we've adapted the urban Rivanna River plan as part of the comprehensive plan, and that involves the ecological protection of the

of the river itself.

So we have this limited view of the roads that are being built toward the river and into the floodplains.

Okay.

Hmm.

Very good.

I guess on that parking lot that Commissioner Mitchell mentioned, I don't remember the GIS exactly, but it seems like it was in the flood way itself, not even the flood plain that was going to be donated to the city.

And that's a point I'm making, I guess.

The question I have is, is there no impact to that?

Do we not, like, did staff review that?

So generally, as part of the comprehensive plan compliance review, we're not reviewing the details of design of those pieces, a part of which would have to be confirmation that the floodplain permit could be achieved and that the requirements were met per that floodplain and floodway section.

Thanks.

The other question I had is looking at the staff report.

It said that, let's see.

Some of the project means strategy 5.8, work to preserve, enhance wetlands, floodplains, and other features that provide natural resiliency against climate change.

But it's not an analysis of the whole development.

Correct.

That's it for me.

Thanks.

Thank you.

For me, I've read quite a bit of correspondence on this topic.

I saw some concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety with the proposed facilities.

Thank you.

Well, potentially there's other options where, you know, right now, Public Road A and Public Road B are two streets that dead end or stop instead of connecting to each other or connecting in some other public street network that could connect through to each other.

Burrier Thank you I'm concerned

about the compliance as it relates to the comprehensive plan with our walkways.

I think that was more a statement.

Very good.

Maybe I misheard with all the chaos about which mics were working and when, but are we or are we not looking at the question of the applicability of the standards and design manual at this point?

We are not, okay.

So a lot of the comments that we have that are sort of, you know, legal analysis, I guess it may be the wrong way to put it,

A lot of the comments go to that kind of thing.

And so I'm also, I have to say that I only saw the information about the potential legal issue and the conflict that was being pointed out about half an hour before this meeting, and I haven't had a chance to read all the different references.

Is there, as a consequence of any of this, are we going to be looking further

Mr. Mayor, I would need to do some research in response to that question.

Okay.

I know the whole issue came up, like I say, about a couple hours ago, so we'll have to sort it out.

Thanks, sir.

Mr. Witt.

Yes, right now I just really kind of have some really some comments because this is something that we've been receiving emails and input on for seems like several months now and so it's a really project that could change the character of that part of the city and

and I do have some concerns with it I was able to walk the area with the residents and ironically it was right after a bad storm or downpour and it just you know it just would take a lot I just see it as a lot of environmental impacts to try to address you know what was happening there and and it's one of those things that I could see that if it's not done right that we will get be getting a lot of complaints because the problem will come to City Council that if

if the basements or whatever, if the units are there get flooded and they're not right and we didn't do whatever right.

So I just see some concerns with that.

And we have a very productive and popular business there that will be impacted potentially or likely.

That's a concern of mine.

The impact access with kind of my old days as a transportation planner, the pedestrian

the obstacle impact.

Thank you, sir.

Can you address impacts to the business?

Additional questions for staff, please.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Justin Schimp, an engineer at this project.

I'm representing seven development and Selwyn properties for the developers.

I'm joined by Valerie Long, who is our real estate attorney.

She'll hop up in a moment and finish the presentation.

I want to take a minute and go over some details and pictures of these areas in question.

You've heard a lot of A's, B's, roads, et cetera.

I want to spell out for you all and for the folks watching what the proposal exactly is.

As we've discussed, we are only considering the public infrastructure proposed, not the apartments, not the fill, nothing else.

So we'll talk you through what those exactly are, how we got to those, and go from there.

So the project, the parcel area is about 22 acres total, and I think most folks are familiar with it, but it encompasses essentially all the way down from Fairway Avenue along the river up essentially to the back of the Cosner body shop that's up near the Route 250 bridge.

The area in white is the project area.

Next slide, please.

So a timeline, just for reference to everyone, as it was noted, we have been hearing about this for some time.

Our first submittal was about a year ago, August of 22.

There was a site plan conference in October of 22 that was well attended, probably 100 people were on that call, and I think maybe 35 or more spoke.

One of the things we heard often was,

the concern of the residents about losing access to the river, the property.

It is private property right now.

People have been traversing across it, but there is no easement or any right of the public to do so.

This project proposes creating those rights in perpetuity.

We made a site plan submittal to deal with some technical issues in the first submittal.

We then had a schedule of meeting with the Parks and Rec to talk about the trail connections they were interested in.

We heard from, I think, very reasonable comments from the public at the meeting that both our project and pedestrian connectivity could coexist on the site, and so we pursued that line of thinking.

We made a third submittal in February this year.

We had a follow-up meeting with parks in April of this year, and it's been about a month sending the designs you see on the site plan back and forth with the city traffic engineer and the parks and rec representatives to look at how these trail connections, the parking lot, for example, worked with what they had in mind.

The location of the parking lot is per a sketch given to us by the city parks folks.

That's what they wanted to have, an access point.

The interesting thing about this process is that we maybe have by virtue of engaging with the hearing what folks had to say and trying to work with parks to make these contributions we've actually in part triggered

this whole analysis right we did not envision a 2232 review when this project first started in fact I have my business now about 13 years I have looked back I have worked on a thousand over a thousand individual projects I have never public a private project called up for 22 to 32

We've dedicated right of ways, we've dedicated park space, never had this come up before.

Finally go through it, we're fine to outline what our proposal is.

If I go to the next slide.

So an overview within yellow, the new connections.

And this is a very important slide to look at.

You have green, we look at existing sidewalks on those streets we've highlighted now.

The ones on East High Street are debatably good sidewalks.

This project opens up a really valuable connection with the Fairway Avenue side because right now if you were on the other side of the bypass and you may go across the Greenway Trail and you want to go up to a downtown area to stay on that trail you have to go all the way down to review park

With this proposed connection, you could stay in the Greenway Trail, come down to the yellow at the bottom of the page there, and come up of trail to Fairway Avenue, up Fairway, over to Little High or East Jefferson, which take you straight to downtown, which are far better streets to traverse than East High streets.

So these connections close the loop and fix that pretty serious shortfall of infrastructure, particularly for pedestrians and bikes in between

Route 250 and really up to the top of East High and 10-3 approaches to the downtown area.

It's a very meaningful improvement as part of this project that's outlined there.

Let's go down to the next page.

We'll go item by item.

We'll start at the south side.

Here's a blow-up of some of the improvements.

We have a widening of Caroline Avenue.

Road is narrow.

We're widening that, putting a sidewalk to connect.

We are installing a public street that would have seven parking spaces, essentially a trailhead public parking for the trail that connects from our site down to the shaded area, which is lot A, land to be given to the city of Charlottesville as a park space.

and down to the trail.

So that land becomes forever city-owned property, and our connection allows a critical path to get on city property from the greenway to city infrastructure.

We're going to build a trail, and we're going to build two bridges, but that ownership of that land gives the city the ability to do more with it.

At some point in the future, that's deemed necessary.

Next slide, please.

schematic from the site plan.

This shows the two pedestrian bridges as a stream that flows through this area.

There's no disturbance of the stream proposed by any of the public facilities.

We would span over the stream slopes with a long bridge if that was required.

The total area of dedication is 3.79 acres of land.

Next slide, please.

North side of the property, the public road B gives access to lot B, which is the proposed trailhead parking.

That will be a public street cul-de-sac, which will actually serve a number of commercial lots as well, if you could scroll down a little bit.

Next page.

So there's a blow-up of this.

Now, this cul-de-sac for a number of purposes.

There are two remaining commercial out-parcels on either side of the cul-de-sac that could be support businesses to the river.

There's also a parcel reserved for the Rivanna River Company relocation.

They are currently about where the entrance to the parking lot is.

So we need to relocate them, get a site plan for them, and make them a long-term tenant of the property.

The current, just so everyone's aware, the current river company operation does not have a site plan.

No one from zoning has gone to give them any trouble, and I hope they don't.

But that is an issue that has to be dealt with anyway.

So our intention is to move this preliminary site plan forward and then submit a plan showing how the river company can relocate correctly and listen to the balance of the floodplain regulations on that parcel.

I don't know if their current operation actually meets all those requirements.

So we're prepared to help them get over that hump with this dedication and creating a trailhead parking for access.

Next slide, please.

This is an example, it's Riverview Park, and it's hard to see because it's blue, it covers up, that's the floodplain boundary.

You'll see the edge of the cars parked there in the driveway.

If you look at the bottom right-hand side, there is a kind of a bird's-eye view showing that, and you'll see that

the other park trailhead in the city is very similar it's a little dead-end road with a parking lot and the floodplain to have access to the river and practically speaking that's what has to happen this sort of access so I really can ask there was questions about well would they

Does public access have some kind of impact?

I suppose it's a development, but it's necessary to get that in the floodplain to have a reasonable proximity to the river.

So you'll see that in all, I think, circumstances.

Parkland, these trailheads are in the floodplain.

There's ways to mitigate those impacts as well.

And if we go to the next slide, we'll talk about that.

This is the location of the parking lot.

For example, here we have an excellent opportunity to sheet flow into a conserved open space.

So that tall grass used to the sheetflow areas are, that would remain between the parking lot and the river.

And so that is a natural buffer for stormwater runoff from our small parking lot into the river.

It's one of the highest runoff removal rates per DEQs.

When you do your stormwater analysis and look at these details, that condition gives you the highest treatment possible

for stormwater mitigation.

You would note that all the other infrastructure around the city drains directly to the river in some fashion with no stormwater management.

So my guy has the concern about

development adjacent to the river, but the reality is this new development will have stormwater management required by code, floodplain development permit regulations required by code that mitigate those factors.

In fact, at a higher degree than NC State West Carolina Avenue, there's no stormwater management there.

The water flows straight into the creek, straight into the river.

There is no protection of that before it hits the river.

Same with most of those neighborhoods.

What we are doing is a better outcome from a stormwater standpoint than what exists.

Last slide, and I'll invite Valerie up.

This is reminding us of this, you know, the benefit of these connections.

What we're talking about is public infrastructure being proposed at no cost.

and I heard earlier this discussion about a lot of things to balance here, right?

How are we gonna focus on what this is, the gymnastics of it?

It's pretty simple in my mind.

If you think of this as your city trails planner comes forward to you and says, hey, I have this project, these trails, these streets, these trailheads, public access, and guess what?

Somebody's gonna donate the money to us to build it.

If you were weighing that in the context of that decision, a comprehensive plan, I think you'd say, yeah, that's great.

That's a lot of things we're trying to get done with this particular set of improvements.

And you find that it doesn't make a comprehensive plan.

So I think if you can set aside, and I know it's difficult, there's a lot of correspondence, a lot of discussions about traffic and fill and things like that.

But we're discussing the value of this public infrastructure as it relates to the comprehensive plan.

I think the comprehensive plan provides a lot of support to these access points, public access, and ways for folks to get around.

I think the comment in the staff report talking about perhaps ways this doesn't, that road doesn't meet,

talks about connections and having land use and transportation in complementary ways, talks about travel choice in the city, and it says at the very end of that, the city will place an emphasis on enhancing networks and safety for walking, riding bicycles and public transportation.

This is definitively an improvement for walking and bicycling in this corridor.

So I think while there'll be questions of like why don't the streets connect,

We don't really find that to be a valuable public interest here, making the connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely navigate that corridor is of high public interest.

Cars can travel around this neighborhood.

It's very difficult.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the kitchen.

Valerie Long with Williams-Mulman, also representing the applicant.

I do see a green light.

I'll get as close as I can.

It's just not working very well.

I'll start over.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Members of the Commission, Valerie Long, I'm with Williams Mullen, also representing the applicant.

I do not have a lot to add in addition to what Mr. Schimp said other than to again ask that the Commission note the

various various numerous elements of the comprehensive plan that are cited in the stock report as being potentially consistent with the public facilities that are proposed noted but for applicants offer to donate construct and donate these public facilities to the city this 2232 review would not be required

They're not required as a part of a buy right site plan typically.

As I just want to point out that the applicable provisions of the state code and the relevant portions of the city ordinance do specifically talk about the general location or approximate location and the character and extent of those public facilities.

So just to reiterate the comments with regard to, for example,

Street connectivity, that is not necessarily an absolute goal.

As you all know, the comprehensive plan is a general guide to development of the city.

Not all streets are appropriate to connect to others if it means connecting through

critical slope areas or other sensitive areas.

I think in many cases it would be appropriate for those streets to not connect through, but as these do not officially, as since they are, but as noted, they do substantially improve the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, which is of course cited throughout the comprehensive plan and numerous

numerous components thereof.

Mr. Chair, I see outside intelligence that this is affecting the audience as well via Zoom, just so that it's not just the speakers.

Thank you.

I was just noting that the pedestrian and bicycle connections that are facilitated by these proposed trails and the public streets and the components thereof, including the parking lot, those all both individually and collectively substantially increase the bicycle and pedestrian connections and infrastructure in this particular area.

So I'd ask that you weigh the various components of the comprehensive plan, many that are directly on point in support, or that these public facilities support, particularly with regard to public access to the river and the park, and the stated need in staff report for public access and parking to access the trailheads.

So, finally I would note that the relevant provisions of the state code also speak to whether these facilities are substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof.

So it intentionally or expressly asks that you consider whether it's substantially in accord and with all provisions or components of a comprehensive plan.

It does not have to meet each and every goal and strategy of each and every component of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

When do you plan to begin the work on this?

The work on the trails?

It would be done concurrently with the construction of the whole project, basically.

Well, I think that, as we noted, we feel like a lot of the items that we're here for are things we volunteered.

If the Planning Commission does not find that the trails, parking lot on public access are in public benefit, I think they could be removed from the plan.

You could.

I think that would be your choice.

But if we don't approve it, you're not going to do it.

Well, that's not my call to make, but yeah, my intention would be to move forward, as we originally did.

If these public infrastructure items are a hang-up somehow,

Yes, sir.

Could you speak a little more to the improvements to Caroline Avenue?

Where you're stopping with that having a Pathological aversion to high street like get away with it and getting into the Jack Jill Parking lot part

Sure.

Let's go up a couple slides.

I had an exhibit of that.

Keep going.

Here is probably a good picture of it.

So we own the property up to the first house on the right as you go down Caroline Avenue from Fairway.

So the improvements are from the intersection of Fairway and Caroline down to essentially our property line, which becomes where that road is dedicated in.

Correct.

There'd be a sidewalk installed per the local street standard and the road wide to the local street standard.

Yeah, I think we're sort of maybe getting beyond like sort of general items at this point.

I mean, I'll tell you, it would probably be a mix of wood and steel.

construction with basically foundations anchored on the side of the stream spanning across.

It's how we build it.

There were not in discussions with the city parks folks.

That did not come up.

This is going to be their parking lot.

There is an excellent opportunity.

The sheet flow to conserved open space is the best way to treat stormwater.

And this parking lot sits in exactly the right spot to do that.

So seeing that in the location they wanted, I felt like that was an excellent mitigation as it was.

The problem with the pervious is that it becomes a maintenance problem.

down the line for the city.

Thanks.

I'll be out of order.

Question for our lawyer.

Let's say we approve this.

Let's say we vote to recommend to approve it and the council approves it.

But they end up not being able to get the floodplain permit.

And they end up not being able to get our technical leaders comfortable with the site plans.

approved the city infrastructure, the roads and the parking.

Is there any lingering issue with that?

Let me see if I understand your question.

of floodplain approvals, or they get frustrated with all the technical requirements that we put into the site plan, and they say, I don't want to do this anymore.

I mean, when you approve, for example, when you approve an upzoning or an SUP, that transfers no matter who owns property.

Excuse me.

The question is with regard to the requirements to implement it.

I use SUP as an example.

We've proven SUP to allow different setbacks and allow additional density.

But a year later, they walk away and they don't want to do it.

That SUP still exists for anybody else who can come in and do this.

That's right.

They were not on the first submittal, or probably the first three submittals, in fact.

We had discussions with the parks folks about that, but had not gotten

Frankly, a lot of them, as we discussed tonight, don't feel like they even aren't preliminary site plan items.

So it wasn't in your first three submittals.

It was comments by the parks folks who said that at the end, working with NDS staff, said basically we want to see these things on the plan and we again do not agree that they are site plan ordinance required items.

However, the developer made a decision to, yeah, if these are things that are wanted by the city, we don't

We need to fight them over good things for development overall.

Reality is, in this kind of project, people are going to try to come through, if the river, why not give them a space to do it?

So that's why it came about.

The city staff put it out in that context.

We don't necessarily agree with that.

There's lots of things that come up in site plan reviews that are not necessarily as black and white as you might like.

And so simply we said, hey,

This is a net improvement of the project overall.

We don't need to fight it.

I have another question, just a comment.

I mean, I still struggle to see how it's in line with our comprehensive plan, particularly Chapter 7 and the urban Rivanna River corridor.

And I just really struggle to see how you could make the argument that this is improving public access to the Rivanna River because...

It's kind of as if there's like this public space that the community loves to come to, and we're going to pave over that, therefore we've increased your access.

I mean, it's a bad analogy, but it's kind of like if you paved over the splash park in Mead Park and said, okay, we've improved access to Mead Park.

I mean, I don't see how that aligns with my reading or understanding of the comprehensive plan.

But that's it.

Thank you, sir.

May I just make a brief response to the last comments made?

This is not in the control of my clients.

They don't own this land kernel.

They're contrary to purchase it.

But I want to make it just clear, there is no public right of easement across this property right now.

None.

So when I say we're improving it, I do believe that to be the case.

Because somebody tomorrow could put up fences, no trespassing signs, and say, do not touch my land.

Don't think that's going to happen.

hasn't happened for the last 30 or 40 years does not mean it's not that property and it's right.

And should this be developed in something like a single family house, lots, I can tell you people are going to take that backyard right down to the river and they are not going to want to share that space.

So this form of development makes sense to come in and add these public connection points, but they do not exist today.

Thank you.

Ms.

Questions for the applicant?

I'm with Mr. Payne, and you're going to build something, and no one can talk about the implications of the floodplain.

And when it floods, it floods.

You had asked specifically for questions of the applicant.

If you wish to say something else, you may.

I can remember certainly within my lifetime many times when that area has been flooded.

and to say that for whatever reason it is somehow now something we ought to be encouraging people to build on just doesn't make a lot of sense to me quite frankly.

And to the extent that the Rivanna River plan is included in the comprehensive plan, and we did specifically incorporate it into the plan, the broad concept of the notion of putting 240 apartment units in the floodplain, I just don't think it fits with the comp plan.

What I'm understanding the limited inquiry today to be, I'm really not sure where we stand procedurally in this.

This is not a site plan review.

This is not a rezoning request.

And frankly, it's something that I don't know that council has a particular voice in.

when it comes to procedure, when we get to vote on what, I'm not sure.

So we don't have a vote tonight in any event, and I don't know whether this is one of those situations where, and I have gotten into trouble for saying this before, I'll say it again, sometimes there are things that are legal but not a very good idea.

and and if that's the case then I will as I said in another context once hold my nose and vote for it not because it's a good idea because it's if it's a legal question and if it comes down to being purely a legal question I'll look at it that way if it comes down to something that's truly discretionary

that's a different matter.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, I think that my fellow counselors have, you know, expressed my concern.

This is just another comment that, you know, as school has opened up again, that we had a lot of concerns with the traffic on High Street and, you know, with potentially another

A few thousand trips on it a day without, you know, the city doing any significant improvements to High Street.

I see that this will further extend the problem that we have there.

So anyway, a lot will happen before it gets to us, but right now I just have a whole lot of concerns with this project as it is currently presented.

or Ms.

No, that area, the floodway and floodplain line go kind of through that area.

So the buildings would need to be back further up towards High Street, essentially.

They could not be in that location of the parking lot.

They could be behind it, essentially.

There was two.

One is a zoning line, a site plan issue really, but the land in front of you here, the lot A, is zoned residential.

So that would not accommodate the multifamily development anyway.

And there are slopes and buffers over there.

It's good land for a trail, but it was not something we intended on building on.

Could I just ask a question of you, sir?

So the next steps are you all take a vote on this very narrowly defined application that's in front of us tonight, which is not the value or not of this project, but specifically on the things that have been shown here in terms of whether the pieces that they want to give us

fit within the various rules that the comp plan and so forth.

This is my understanding.

Actually, I'm not entirely clear on next steps.

I'm looking at our legal experts.

That doesn't work.

Sir, please, what is before the commission is whether or not the features that have been identified by planning staff are consistent with the comprehensive

the Planning Commission to decide by a reported vote whether in its opinion these features are consistent with the comprehensive plan or not.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Well, Council may take up the matter following the Planning Commission's determination.

Thank you.

At this time, I would like to hear from the public.

One second statement in closing, only that what we heard all about this, there's lots of concerns you're going to hear.

I go back to my statement.

If the Parks Department brought you this and said we want to make these trail connections, we're going to improve this bicycle safety, and we're going to build this trailhead parking lot to give folks access to the river, what would you think of that idea?

That's what we're talking about.

Let me provide instructions in the beginning here.

We have the opportunity for anyone who is interested to speak two minutes at least.

We will follow our procedure in our hybrid meetings where we call for a speaker in our

in audience area first and then we will alternate to our virtual audience and we'll continue alternating back and forth until everyone who has the desire to speak on this public hearing item has that opportunity.

So we will go ahead and begin.

We have lots of hands going in the audience.

We will get to everyone.

Just want to be clear about that.

How about the gentleman in the purple shirt to start?

And please just note your name and address for the record.

I want to pass along a request for people with kids to get to go first, and I'm one such person, so I appreciate that proposal somebody made.

My name is David Swanson.

My wife and I moved to Gillespie Avenue in 2005.

Our kids were born in 2006 and 2014.

In the almost two decades we've lived here, we have consistently used the river, constantly accessing it from behind the Jack and Jill restaurant.

Our kids have learned to walk, run, balance bike, and

We've used that route to access the Riverview Park and the Darden Tow Park, as well as the entire Rivanna Trail.

We acquired years ago and have made use of an inflatable boat and a paddleboard, which we carry to the river on foot.

We use the rope swings and the beaches and float down the river during the height of COVID as well as

Those times when the city's swimming pools should be open but are not, the river is very popular.

Our neighborhood is full of rafts, tubes, and of course, our neighborhood benefits, as no doubt does the almighty dollar home value therein, not only from the river and the easy access to it, but from the Ravana River Company renting tubes and hosting concerts, apparently with nobody's assistance needed, and from the field of wildflowers.

and pedestrian access exists right now in this moment.

And it would not be improved by sticking buildings in the way.

And if you want to add bike paths and pedestrian paths, add them.

Don't build streets and then advertise them as good for bikes.

In 2014, I read a book by Stephen Nash called Virginia Climate Fever.

data showed between 48 and 2006 extreme precipitation events had increased 25 percent in Virginia.

This is likely to increase or decrease dramatically and very likely to continue this trend of arriving in ever more intense bursts of storms interrupting

Droughts.

This will devastate agriculture and anything in floodplains.

While I think everything we've got should be going into preventing climate collapse or nuclear war, I can think of some good ideas for what could be done with the Rivanna

floodplain that wouldn't be certifiably insane.

For example, nothing.

It could be left just as it is.

Or it could be planted with fruit trees.

Or it could be allowed to go back to woods.

If construction projects are desired, sidewalks could be put along everybody's streets.

We could have a tunnel or a bridge to get

across High Street without waiting so long.

We could build that pedestrian bridge over the river that I voted for a particular version of a while back.

I am aware that there are people building like mad in portions of the world and of this country that are doomed to go underwater or become uninhabitably hot.

But locally, here in Charlottesville, and I do mean apart from that rally in support of Nazism, the single dumbest idea I've heard is to build in the Ravana floodplain.

Adding to the likely future floods to the damage of what now exists and creating brand new problems for the places getting built.

There are lots of other places to build, ways to improve this city.

Would it be appropriate for you all to use your discretion?

Unless you've got another planet hiding somewhere, yes, it would.

For our next speaker, we'll turn to our virtual audience, Mr. Bowers.

Yes, sir.

Thank you again.

I live here.

This is my neighborhood too.

And I really don't want this project.

And it gets me really perturbed when I see this type of project being proposed.

And let me add, I have been a licensed professional engineer since 1988.

This particular location is in flood zone, A.E., which is a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 100-year floodplain, so mandatory flood insurance is required.

There's a lot of other things we'd like to see done with this area.

I remember this area when it was a three-lane road across the river many years ago.

One other item I will let you know about is that the AutoZone on the other side of the bridge never had a FEMA permit when they put their retaining wall in, so there was no study done.

What needs to be done in this area, quite frankly, as a PE,

You need to require blood plain studies of this entire area, all the way up and down the area, including the auto's end, which is never done.

Then in addition,

There needs to be a traffic impact analysis done, a very thorough one with high street.

That's 2,400 projected daily trips from the proposed development.

That would overwhelm high street.

that's a major impact which really negates the argument that access to the trails is a great benefit to community when in reality we already have access to the trails in that location there's a parking lots of parking across the street so with those couple of comments and I can tell you right now the residents in my area really don't want it either

And knowing this particular developer, we people in the county have had a lot of problems with him.

So with that, that's all I was saying.

We really urge you not to prove this project.

It does not fit into the neighborhood.

It is not compatible with the surrounding usages.

Please.

Yes, sir.

Good evening My name is John McDonald and as I understand what I've been following we are debating whether or not you the Commission will act on a request for public facilities specifically as I understand it you will be deciding whether these public facilities are consistent with the comprehensive plan however

it appears that the high street plan has been amended to pay lip service to the city's goal but just a few of the basic facts are one

These facilities would ruin the High Street Riverfront as we know it.

Two, these facilities would eliminate a business that encourages a love of the river and a stewardship of the river.

Three, these facilities would eliminate a key pedestrian access to the riverfront on Caroline Avenue

and four, modify one that already exists.

They would do this by adding pavement, a traffic circle, a parking lot, and in the floodway.

These features are not consistent with the comprehensive plan which calls for the protection of the riverfront and avoiding floodplains in the planning of public roads.

I agree with the previous speaker.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Thank you for everything to do.

Our next speaker is Andrew Rogers.

Mr. Rogers, are you able to hear us?

Hi, yes, this is Rosemary Rogers.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, I'm Rosemary, owner of home on Caroline Avenue, an engineer, mom, researcher, cyclist.

We were drawn to this home due to its proximity and access to the river and the natural abundance around.

Once we learned about this plan,

We were really upset that there would be such a short sighted view of a wonderful ecological space and diverse natural habitat.

I'm curious about how a comprehensive review of a plan can take such a narrow view of these

singular appendages that access a very large body of housing.

I think that a comprehensive view must take a systems approach and asking people to review it in a siloed way of these

Gifts to the public by access I think is weaponizing those gifts and not really having the public and the city's best interests in mind.

I hope that the view taken today can truly be comprehensive with what this building would do to the area and how it would put a lot of nature at risk.

Lots of speakers.

We've been sinking in our community for 10 years.

We care about what's happening in the environment.

To protect the floodplain Down by the riverside Down by the riverside

Down by the riverside, we're gonna protect our floodplain Down by the riverside, down by the riverside We ain't gonna let them build on it Ain't gonna let them build on it Ain't more carpets on our river floodplain

We're going to iron the water shed Down by the riverside Down by the riverside

Down by the riverside, we're gonna honor nature's watershed Down by the riverside, down by the riverside We're gonna keep air pristine, we're gonna keep our rivers clean

Down by the riverside Let's make the land apart Let's make the land apart For the flowers, the birds, and bees We're gonna protect the wild plains

Please listen to the community.

All right.

Just barely.

Yeah.

Is this better?

I can barely hear you guys either.

I'm just going to go ahead and talk.

Mr. Schimp has been disingenuous in presenting this project and the public facilities.

He began back in 2005 changing

submitting a letter of map request for the FEMA floodway, which culminated in the ability to be able to build in this area at all.

His first submissions had no public facilities or public roads, but private roads over other parcels over which access roads to multifamily housing were not

allowed.

That's the only reason why he's got these public facilities in there.

It's not like this great gift.

It's what he feels like he has to get done in order to make this development go through.

The Planning Commission can't make a decision on

weigh the compatibility with the comprehensive plan without knowing the environmental impacts, which can't be known until the floodplain permit is applied for, according to what I've heard here this evening.

So I don't really see how this can be approved without more information.

All right.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Riley.

I live on the river side of Caroline Avenue.

So having lived there for seven and a half years, I have the unique experience of seeing the ways in which community members use this area of town, and I can speak to how this proposed site plan very clearly clashes with the comprehensive plan that was adopted by our city.

Something that's repeatedly used to suggest that this proposal is aligned with the comprehensive plan are the many goals stating that increased public access to the river is a priority.

While on the surface a donation of land and parking might appear to assist with these goals, it in fact does quite the opposite.

The donated land is undesirable and unusable as parking and the proposed public parking lot is located squarely in the middle of the Rivanna River Company's operation.

I have personally witnessed this company's growth from a small shed and a sandwich board sign to the thriving business that it is today.

River Fest, the Front Court Concert Series, Little Saturdays, a list of events and draws to the river goes on and on, and people come from near and far to enjoy the access to the river that their business has created.

They're doing exactly what the comprehensive plan envisioned with this land on the riverfront.

Losing that business would not only devastate the people working for the company, but also the many, many members of the community who have come to rely on them for affordable and accessible outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the riverfront.

Another goal that's mentioned repeatedly in the comprehensive plan is that of safe pedestrian and bike access to the river and throughout the city.

We all know that East High Street is already a major traffic concern, being especially dangerous for bikers and pedestrians.

Our local crossing guard and parents of students at Burnley Moran Elementary School have continually expressed massive concerns about their children getting to and from school safely each day, particularly since the recent loss of bus drivers, resulting in increased numbers of students walking to school each day.

Duke Street which is essentially a parking lot cut through from the end of Caroline Avenue to East High Street is used by many neighborhood children in addition to countless pedestrians and bikers every day.

We've already had since my arrival in this neighborhood one pedestrian who is hit and killed by a car using Duke Street as a cut through.

The idea that widening just a portion of Caroline Avenue would prevent residents of this new development from using the street in its entirety is illogical.

and anyone with knowledge of this area could predict the potential for increased traffic congestion and dangerous conditions.

The traffic that this development would bring is an obvious concern, but an additional piece to consider is the building that's drawn directly across the path that people use to access the river on foot or by bike.

If you stood in my front yard on Caroline for a morning, you would witness joggers using this path for their daily exercise.

New parents and nannies taking infants for a walk in their strollers.

Mr. Gibson, can you hear us?

Thank you.

My name is Bob Gibson and I live at 1803 Chesapeake Street in the Woollen Mills neighborhood where a family has lived for the past 40 plus years.

During that time, the traffic along East High and Caroline and Mead avenues has become much more congested, much less safe for pedestrians and people on bikes as well as in cars.

What

could be a great entrance corridor for the city has become less safe and less attractive.

Multi-story apartments are not more attractive than trees.

They're not really, quote, improvements, close quote.

Please do not contribute to this non-compliant degradation by accepting and opening more street access.

It does not need more traffic.

Rivanna River is a wonderful attribute to Charlottesville

It also floods.

It deserves better than paving and building along the floodplain and this project would bring.

I agree with my friend Kay Slaughter that a park, not pavement, is what's called for here.

Hello, my name is Lillia Fukin and I live just north of Dardentow Park.

What a special moment to be here with you all today, including you Mr. Schimp and your people.

This is an important moment for all of us.

I am a fellow ancestor in training.

The development proposed at Zero East High Street stands in clear noncompliance with the City of Charlottesville comprehensive plans, Rivanna River addendum.

Under the section heading development and redevelopment on page 72, the number one recommendation is, quote, to protect and enhance the natural beauty and ecological functions of the urban river corridor by maximizing the environmental sustainability and context sensitivity of new development, redevelopment, infrastructure, and other improvements.

The proposed development has already, prior to city permit approval, had FEMA remove, I'm sorry, move the existing floodway line at Zero East High Street under questionable ethics to suit the developer's desires.

The development plan calls for the construction of roads A and B, lots A

and B, a trail, two bridges, all of these paved impervious services will create significant deleterious changes in the local ecosystem, which is fragile and incredibly important for not only us, but those downstream of us in both space and time.

Also, there is something in the comprehensive plan that supports an argument for the city not approving a plan that would destroy the one outfitter in town.

The proposed road and parking lot

This is in direct conflict with the river corridor plan page 52 which stipulates that officials will ensure that the planning and development of parks and trails in and through the urban river corridor successfully support the operations of private recreation service providers and help to facilitate increased commercial recreational use of the river and trails.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is a telephone number beginning with 804.

Good evening, all commissioners.

My name is Bill Emery.

I wanted to speak about the circus grounds.

Installing

Public car parks and wider roads in proximity to the Rivanna River as a means to provide access to our river isn't good planning practice.

Now, like in the last 20 years, the city has taken positive steps towards recognizing and securing the benefits that the river provides to visitors and residents of Charlottesville.

The river and its urban tributaries provide important

ecological, recreational, and cultural value to our city.

NDS staff has done an excellent job of summarizing the horns of the dilemma on which commissioners find themselves when considering the changes proposed by the developers.

The city, of course, has been slow to adopt a river corridor plan.

We suffer secondary to this lack of inserted riverine planning and implementation.

But we do have a comprehensive plan, and the current comprehensive plan provides the foundation to evaluate and deny these proposed facilities.

The most positive development since the Clean Water Act influencing the Rivanna River has been the daily work done by the Rivanna River Company.

The company has introduced tens of thousands of people to the joys of recreation and contemplation in the Rivanna.

The other profoundly positive riparian feature benefiting Charlottesville's residents and visitors is the Rivanna Trail.

The auto-centric improvements proposed by the applicant would eradicate the river company and adversely affect the Rivanna Trail and the river.

Additionally, these proposed changes would make East High Street yet more of a barrier and a hazard to bicyclists, wheelchair users, and pedestrians.

Please recommend denial of the public facilities proposed as part of the Zero East High preliminary site plan as they are on balance, not in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan.

All right.

How about the gentleman in the green shirt in the back?

Had his hand up for a while.

We'll get to everyone.

Well, I'm back again.

Michelle Bryant Taylor.

Seemed like I got shadow following me.

Had to voice my opinion for the 13th Street address.

Now I'm back voicing my opinion for my Riverside, which is where I live.

Well,

I say no, too.

Because you never know what's going to happen.

I mean, traffic.

I mean, just the gambit.

I'm piggybacking off of what all the others said.

Traffic.

I've seen this river do a lot of different things.

I've seen that river come up.

Flood, big time.

So when you're talking about insurance and other things, I've seen that rip do some stuff that you wouldn't want to deal with.

I don't know what else to say, so I'm just going to be short.

If I had some prepared remarks, rather than just traffic, I would say more, but anyway.

Thank goodness.

I can hear probably three-quarters of what's going on there.

So I just want to make first a statement that it's really not good administrative practice to continue this meeting when people can't hear what's going on.

First of all, I couldn't hear the song that the ladies sang.

That was completely lost.

But it's equally wrong for developers to cherry pick how they believe their plan fits the comp plan in certain aspects, but then blatantly ask you to disregard how their plans also violate the same comp plan.

Very strange.

And then the developer seems to be showing his true colors by threatening to remove the public infrastructure and trails that are being offered if it's not approved.

Obviously, people already access that area.

I access it.

I've never not been able to park my car at Riverview.

So the issue is that, again, this is the floodplain.

People might have short memories, but in 2018 there was severe flooding there where the waters were up touching the bridge going over the river at 250 and people were missing and at least one person died.

I don't remember if the other person was found or not.

But, you know, we've seen this in Charlottesville.

We've seen it throughout the country.

So the floodwaters come up in that area.

It's just crazy to build in that area.

And then look at the other side of the river where Pantops is.

It's all concrete in buildings.

It just makes the flooding even worse as it flushes down.

Can't put more concrete there.

That's just crazy.

In addition, I've talked to you guys often about the problem of pushing floodwaters in other people.

if you're gonna start building there, that's just gonna make floodwaters worse onto neighbors.

And according to my research, that's against Virginia state law.

And we've sent those statutes previously to council.

So it's just be ludicrous for the planning commission to approve this plan on a narrow aspect about public access or something without considering the full impact of the development.

And once again, we saw this developer

changing floodplain lines on Nassau Street.

It seems to be happening again.

It's very strange how floodplain lines can get changed to suit a developer's purposes.

Thank you very much.

Can you hear me?

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Jeremy Herber.

I've been a Charlottesville resident for just over a year and already in the city and surroundings.

I believe that the public facility, notably the roads serving the proposed development, so High Street are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, particularly Strategy 7.1, which discusses, among other things, avoiding transportation projects in floodplains.

Even if the developers request to move the former floodway line to accommodate their development was approved responsibly and accurately, the proposed public roads, which would exist for no other reason than to access the proposed apartments, are still within the floodplain.

As I understand it, FEMA regulates the floodplain to represent the areas that they estimate would be impacted by a 100-year flood event.

We have all seen how often these supposed 100-year flood events have been happening in recent years, often multiple times in the same community, even within the same year.

Given this generally accepted reality, even by FEMA that flood events are getting more severe and more frequent, I believe that cities have the responsibility to restrict further development in flood prone areas.

Placing the public roads and buildings proposed in this project on

Fill dirt behind a retaining wall may protect these features for some time during floods, but when that happens, increased flooding and damage will occur up and downstream of this floodplain area that has now been reduced in size due to the retaining wall and fill.

Finally, the following quote from an article on floodplain development that I recently read raises a broader concern I have where the author says that, quote, when a developer successfully argues for the redesignation of flood prone to developable, this sets the precedent that strengthens future development proposals.

More developments create more risk, causing new flood control measures to be proposed, which are justified on the basis of encouraging more investment and development, and the cycle continues.