Planning Commission Meeting   10/10/2023

All right, this body will be in order.

And why don't we begin with the commissioner reports.

Where's Bill?

Oh, Bill's not where he used to be.

Oh, you started with me.

Um, I don't really have a report this month.

Okay.

I had three meetings between this meeting and last.

First was the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee.

We met September 20th and had a presentation on some community outreach results from the moving towards 2050.

The public input from the outreach is also being analyzed and compiled with other

Outreach efforts such as the Albemarle County Comp Plan and information from the civil plans together to get a more comprehensive approach.

We will be getting a report when this analysis completes, but big picture takeaway is that there's a strong preference on prioritizing multimodal projects rather than traffic congestion reduction and roadway improvements with no preference between work or non-work destinations.

And we also received a presentation on the SmartKill program.

Somebody on the MPO committee might know more, but it's just, as we've said before, not looking favorable towards the kinds of projects we want to look at funding, like multimodal bike-ped smaller projects.

next meeting was the neighborhood leaders meeting met September 21st and it was just very specific questions that Sam Sanders and deputy interim deputy city manager Steven Hicks just went through back and forth with the community leaders and neighborhood leaders then the tree commission met October 3rd

We have great news that we got awarded $300,000 through the Inflation Reduction Act that'll help us do another canopy study with on-the-ground analysis and inventory of both public and private properties.

So that'll help us get another, you know, very, very good look at our urban forest and see which direction we're headed.

Work on the downtown mall tree replacement plan will start soon.

Contract

was selected and the contract's going to be awarded and it'll start 30 days after that.

Invasives work, work was done at, actually work will supposedly start at Fry Springs tomorrow with Goat Busters, the goat companies.

RX Fire will be mulching, which is the other contractor, and doing some chemical treatment.

at Forest Hills, Azalea, Rivanna River, Rivanna Trail from Jordan Park to Fifth Street Station.

Actually, I believe most of the work is now complete since that meeting.

And then an RFP for invasive control containment contractors out to bed.

And that would be for a prescribed fire at Ragged Mountain.

And we think it might also go to RX Fire.

They seem to be qualified.

We'll see what happens.

And just as a recap, I mentioned this previously, we have an RFQ out for tree planting with a deadline for having trees planted by December 15th.

It'll be about 180 trees at schools and parks and some vacancies around town.

Then Relief is going to be doing some planting in the Roseville neighborhood of about 75 trees.

And the Cats, Charlottesville area tree stewards will be planting about 20 trees at Reeves Park.

Very busy with zoning.

Otherwise, no report.

Yes, sir.

So the HAC met on the 13th of last month, the 20th of last month.

The

4th of this month.

All of it

All of those meetings heavily focused on exactly what you'd expect which would be zoning, anti-displacement and the like.

We have produced some work product that's been shoved towards the Planning Commission and some interim stuff that we are working on that depending on when if we move forward with this may come to us or may go directly to Council depending on how that shakes out.

The TJPD Commission met on Thursday, Thomas Jefferson Planning District, met on Thursday for their monthly meeting.

Not much to report there, a lot of interim updates from things, approval of financials and an agreement to accept and look at a proposal for universal broadband in the counties.

We had one meeting of the MPO Technical Committee.

We mostly discussed the public engagement so far for the moving towards 2040, 2050 long-range transportation plan.

The online survey received a fair number of responses but of a fairly unrepresentative sample of the community and so they did a bunch of outreach at events to try to improve that a little bit and they are

going to present a full report on public engagement in the near future.

We also discussed the VDOT pipeline projects on Ivy Road and on Barracks Road.

The hope is to, you know, make those have better facilities, including, especially for Bikeped, though Barracks Road will be a problem, especially at the interchange.

But

Yeah.

Mr. Schwartz.

OK.

All right.

We've got a couple of committee changes.

I think you've already heard about one.

Phil is replacing Lyle on TJPDC.

and Rory is replacing me on LUPEC.

There are a couple of other openings, but I think we're going to hold off on those couple of other openings until we get a new Planning Commissioner, unless you guys have chomped at the bit for more to do.

I'm just excited for LUPEC.

I'm looking forward to your

Parks and Rec.

Parks and Rec did meet.

We are beginning our work on the capital improvement budget.

When I talked to you guys about this last month, well, since then, our ask has gone up about 1.3 million bucks.

So we've gone up a little bit.

And the instructions that we're getting from city manager's office for us at Parks and Rec and all other departments

is that the request should be based on a legal need or a safety requirement.

So that's what we in Parks and Rec have been focusing on.

We've got a new deputy director for recreation, a gentleman by the name of Avery Watkins.

Good to have them on board.

But again, we're still down 12 FTEs, still got those vacancies.

We've been chomping at the, I mean, we've been chomping away at it and getting a bill, but they're still out there.

The other interesting thing is we're still looking to outsource the operations of our public golf course.

And there are about four different companies that are looking to, interested in doing that.

We're still working through the applications of the companies that are willing to do that.

And we are beginning work on the master plan.

And I believe there's a presentation from the consultant at the next Parks and Rec meeting, which is later in the month.

Nothing that's out of the ordinary.

At this point, we do not have another meeting scheduled for October.

However, that could change as time goes on.

We'll see how that goes.

But otherwise, we have been deep in putting together materials to continue you all's discussion over the last number of weeks.

All right, I think we are ready to open up the public hearing.

And this is an opportunity for the public to speak to us about anything, all the work that we do that is not already on the formal agenda.

That would be Cavill.

and that would be a verb.

So if there's anything that we do beyond cavil and verb that the public would like to speak with us about, this would be an opportunity to do that.

And I believe, Ms.

I will be doing that, yes.

All right, we will begin with our

in-person speakers.

What we will do is we will rotate between in-person and our virtual speakers.

And so if there's anyone virtually who is interested in attending or speaking during matters from the public, just a reminder, these are items that, sorry.

items that are not for public hearing this evening, then you may raise your hand in the application.

If you are on a phone line, then you may hit star 9 and that will raise your hand in the application.

And so we will call on you from there.

So I'll look out to our in-person audience.

Do we have anyone interested in speaking during matters from the public?

All right.

I don't see a hand in the audience right now.

There is a hand virtually.

John Hosek.

I can hear you.

Yes, sir.

You have three minutes.

I would like to discuss the matter of Commissioner Stolzenberg and the cash purchase of 1115 Park Street in August of $899,000.

The purchase was completed by an anonymous LLC, but multiple private parties have indicated that Commissioner Stolzenberg is the new owner.

He has confirmed this.

There are a few scenarios of concern.

He has been telling by extension of the drafting of the zoning ordinance the people in the vicinity of this house that their standard city plots of 0.1 to 0.3 acres as examples are not appropriate and ought to be by right upzoned to as much as six units per 2,500 square feet which equates to about 0.01 acres.

Now, we find the Commissioner has bought a two-acre lot purportedly for a single-family housing situation.

Really, is it possible to conceive about something more hypocritical?

And I'd like to just take a pause while I'll think about that.

Alternatively, the house is demolished and replaced with multiple RB-compatible apartments.

This would obviously add high value to the property and yield a significant personal profit.

Why did the Commissioner think it acceptable to purchase this property confidentially during the course of the up-zoning discussion and before any critical final vote that may create an immediate spike in valuation?

The purchase was made by an anonymous LLC

We were not intended to find out until months later when a regular disclosure would be filed, presumably long after the code had passed out of the Commission's hands.

All right.

You're going to need to monitor the time as well.

Okay.

I believe communications was trying to make something work, but it's not working.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

So we will move back to our in-person audience to see if we have any additional speakers in person for matters from the public.

All right, we'll look at our virtual audience.

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

If you would like to speak during matters from the public, this is the opportunity to raise your hand in the application.

All right, we have a hand raised.

Kimber Hockey.

Yes, thank you.

I wasn't planning on speaking then.

I just heard Mr. Hossack.

This really appears to be a serious conflict of interest, especially for Commissioner Stolzenberg, who's been such a radical proponent of the up-zoning program.

It's just very upsetting to hear, especially given that he was one of the ones who was publishing the GIS facts for

residents who dared to speak out against the flum on social media trying to shame people.

So it's mind-blowing.

Thank you.

All right.

In person, I don't see anyone else who has arrived.

All right.

Our virtual audience, do we have any additional speakers?

With that, we will close the public hearing and move on to the consent agenda.

Two items in that.

That would be meeting from August 8th

Is anyone awake?

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Any?

Oh, we're actually approving the minutes.

I thought he was moving to separate them.

All right.

I thought he moved to do number one.

Okay.

Well, number one, I will second with my usual caveat in spelling my name, amending my second.

All right.

Just so.

Yeah.

Second.

Is there a second?

Okay.

And then we've got one abstention.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

You have two abstentions.

And we have an abstention from Mr. D'Oronzio and Mr. Schwartz, Ms.

Creasy.

Ms.

Creasy, I do believe we have three counselors.

Hi, this is counsel in order, Mr. Mayor.

We are indeed.

We are indeed.

All right, we are going to begin.

Before we begin the actual review of the applications, I want to thank the member of the public who brought the potential conflict of interest to our attention.

Yes, thank you to the members of the public for expressing their concern.

It is true, after five years of being on this commission, being told by certain members of the public that my opinion should hold lesser weight as a renter, I have become a homeowner.

And at Mr. Hosek's request,

The city attorney has rendered a legal opinion on my conflict of interest and he writes, it is my legal opinion that no conflict of interest exists which would require Mr. Stolzenberg to accuse himself from a vote on the new zoning ordinance nor is he required to make a disclosure prior to voting on the proposed new zoning ordinance.

I have concluded that Mr. Stolzenberg does not have an interest in the transaction within the meaning of Code of Virginia 2.23112.

Again, I am a homeowner like four of the rest of you now.

The first application is a rezoning application, ZM23-00005-3630, Cabell Avenue.

And Mr. Alplea, no, Mr. O'Connor.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Dan O'Connell, planner with NDS, and tonight I am introducing an application from Mitchell Matthews on behalf of Neighborhood Investments, CA, LLC, or a zoning map amendment for 630 Cabell Avenue.

This property was recently expanded via a boundary line adjustment to incorporate 1,200 additional square feet from a neighboring property that is zoned university to family residential.

The applicant is proposing to rezone this additional area from R2U to multifamily residential which is R3 and so that would make the entire subject property a uniform R3 zoning.

Multifamily residential density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre

is allowable in the R3 district by right and density higher than that is allowable with an approved special use permit.

However, multifamily development is not allowed within the R2U district.

So because it is not allowed, the 1,200 square foot portion of the subject property cannot be used to calculate allowable residential density.

The maximum number of units permitted by right in the R3 zoned portion of the property would be 12.

but rezoning the R2U zoned portion would increase the loss acreage enough to permit one additional multifamily unit buy rate on the subject property.

So the applicant is proposing to construct a five unit multifamily building on the subject property adjacent to the existing eight unit apartment complex which is already there and that would give the subject property a total of 13 units which would equal a residential entity of 21.

The comprehensive plans future land use map designates 630 Cabell Avenue as higher intensity residential.

The intent of this designation is to provide opportunities for higher density multifamily focused development.

The proposed use does conform to this category.

An additional five unit multifamily building would increase the number of dwelling units on the property to 13, which is the minimum target of the higher intensity residential designation.

And the new building has a proposed height of five stories, which is acceptable under this designation given the height of the surrounding structures and the change in grade from the street level to the rear of the parcel.

Overall, staff finds a rezoning of the subject property would be consistent with existing patterns of development to the south, east, and west, and an acceptable transition to the existing single-family dwellings to the north.

That's all for my presentation.

Mr. Palmer.

No questions on this one.

Mr. D'Oronzio.

No questions.

Well, we had a preliminary discussion on this.

There was talk of a setback waiver potentially being needed.

I believe that the sidewalk waiver couldn't be granted because it was rezoning, but I think the applicant at this time is not considering a waiver.

Mr. Schwartz.

No questions.

Council, any questions for the NDS?

No, no, no.

Okay.

All right, I think we're ready to begin the public hearing, Ms.

Okay.

I know the applicant.

I know the applicant.

Good evening, members of the Commission and Council.

I'm Kevin Riddle with Mitchell Matthews Architects.

We're presenting this application on behalf of Neighborhood Investments.

And I think most of you probably recall our discussion, our preliminary discussion from a few months ago.

I'm happy to walk through the slides.

What would you, what would the body like?

I mean, I think we've reviewed the slides.

Remember, we said, all right, you want to do questions?

I wouldn't mind if you could just do a very brief.

Yeah, sure.

Okay, so we go to the next slide and the next one.

Here we just sort of lay out the reasons for the application.

I think as Dana mentioned, it's fairly straightforward.

There's a pretty small portion of the site at the northeast that is zoned R2U.

It's about 1,200 square feet.

And if that goes to an R3 designation, it will just allow the density to increase slightly so that by right the owner can have five additional dwellings on the property instead of just four.

and because of the grades on the property the site descends pretty rapidly from the street down.

The foundations necessary for the kind of the conjoined townhouses up above, the foundations below would just be effectively retaining walls or enclosing storage space.

We thought it would be a better use if an apartment could be found down there.

So to the next slide.

Here's just an aerial of the site and next.

Here it is with its current zoning designations.

You can see just that sliver up at the top is R2U.

And to the next slide.

Here is the

draft ordinance.

And so you can see that the vision for this neighborhood is that much of this street and in particular along this side of the street would all go to RX3, which is basically the counterpart to the current R3.

So we think rezoning this little sliver makes sense in light of future considerations.

Next slide.

Here's the survey.

And the next slide.

Here you can see that R2U portion.

Next slide.

And there we just kind of highlighted it in red so that you can see what part we're proposing to be rezoned.

And the next slide.

And you can see here the outline to the left.

That would be to the south of the existing building.

That's the outline we're proposing now.

The existing parking behind the existing building would extend also to the south so that the new parking we're introducing to support the new housing would all be accessed from the same existing location.

No new curb cuts are necessary.

No new interruptions to the sidewalk.

And the next slide.

Here are the conditions on site.

The larger photo on the lower right is where we would propose the new building be located.

The smaller photos just give you different perspectives of the existing apartment building.

And the next slide.

Here are surrounding buildings.

And the next slide.

This is the level at the parking level.

So residents who were living in this apartment could step out of their cars, walk up a walk into a courtyard that would be to the south of the apartment or just go inside of it.

We think it could comfortably accommodate three residents as we have it designed now.

And the next slide.

This is the level at Cabell Avenue.

So we're up actually a couple of stories.

There would be some steps down that would access the townhouses that are the lower townhouses and then there are steps that climb up to the upper level townhouses.

The next slide.

This is just a sort of overall site plan.

It gives you a roof view.

You can see more clearly here some of the proposed plantings and trees that would eventually be there.

And the next slide.

Here's a building section.

So that helps you appreciate the difference in grade we have.

Cabell Avenue is to the left and the parking level is to the right.

And the next slide.

Here are some elevations to show you what we have in mind at the moment.

This is the Cavill Avenue elevation.

I think you can see that the entries, while modest, they're fairly easy to identify.

The ones to kind of the left of each of the townhouses and up above would have a kind of canopy wrapping them on two sides, making them legible.

And then there would be the doors that are there to kind of the lower right of each volume that would access the townhouses below.

And the next slide.

This is a side elevation.

Next slide.

The rear.

Next slide.

And this is the other side elevation.

You can see down below where there would be that small courtyard that would allow those in the lower apartment to not feel quite as subterranean.

Next slide.

Here's the site as it exists now.

And the next slide.

Here it is with the proposed building.

So we think this would, you know, this is going to help in its modest way, the civic realm, create better street engagement.

We plant trees, providing shade and comfort.

The entries, as I've said before, are reasonably legible and there will be walkways leading to them.

And the next slide.

Again, the site from a slightly different vantage looking at it kind of front on from across Cabell Avenue.

And here is the proposed project again.

That's the presentation.

So at this point, thanks for listening.

I guess I'll ask a question.

So looking at these elevations, they seem a little short on windows, particularly that front elevation I think maybe wouldn't even meet our new transparency requirements.

Maybe we could go back to the front elevation if you could, Patrick.

Honestly, I haven't checked it against what the opening or transparency regulations are in the coming draft.

It hadn't occurred to me that it seemed to have too little in the way of windows.

I suppose we could reevaluate.

As I stated in the application, there is not going to be any design review of this building.

It's not in a BAR district.

It's not in an entrance corridor.

But I'll definitely check those regulations.

So you, of course, won't be subject to those regulations if you're doing this, if this is approved under the current ordinance.

Yeah, yeah.

Thanks.

Five.

No.

Thank you.

I'm just curious about why, because I understand the part that's being rezoned is on the opposite side of the lot from where the work is going to be done.

Yes.

Well, it's just, it's one entire parcel.

It had been two, but the owner had them consolidated.

And once they were consolidated,

It's to get the acreage to the point where another dwelling can be included.

Is that piece that is about 1,200 square feet, is that being, is there a dividing line between lots that is being adjusted or is it simply

Yeah, it's all a single parcel, the one that we've been looking at on the slides, but it's just a small portion of it at the northeast is zoned differently.

Well, the zoning boundary.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

Thank you.

We're not going to go back to having a split zoning in the new map, are we?

Any more questions from Council?

All right.

Ms.

Sure.

So we'll open the public hearing will be open for 630 Cabell.

We will alternate between our in-person audience and our virtual audience.

If you are interested in speaking on this item and you are virtual, please raise your hand in the application if you're on a

Phone line, then you can hit star nine, which will raise your hand in the application.

I'll begin by asking if we have anyone in our in-person audience who would like to speak to this matter.

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

All right, the public hearing on 630 Cattle is now closed.

Let's begin chatting about it.

Makes sense.

Let me make sure that there is no other of our colleagues that may have no way in.

Mrs. Solla-Yates?

All right, we have a motion.

Any proper second?

Ms.

Sure.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Congratulations.

So there are four things that we need to do with this.

One of the things is the amendment to the Woodrow

right away.

Is that going to be consistent with the comprehensive plan?

The other is do we want to recommend the removal of 104 Stadium from the IPP?

The other is a rezoning of the PUD, from current zoning to PUD.

And the last would be a critical slope.

What we'll do is we'll take the NDS report, we'll take the applicant presentation, and we'll take public comments all together.

Sounds good, Chair.

Planning Commission, City Council, Matt Alpley, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

Please bear with me.

This is kind of complicated, so let me get through this.

Probably the longest you'll ever hear me talk up here.

So Planning Commission, tonight you'll be holding a joint public hearing and making a series of recommendations to City Council as it relates to a proposed redevelopment on parcels located at the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue, Image Street, Stadium Road, and Montebello Circle.

Although the general concept of the development being proposed is no more complicated than other multifamily developments presented to this body, the actions that need to take place by Planning Commission and City Council are more intricate than other discretionary procedures brought forward in recent memory.

The applicant Subtech Acquisition LLC on behalf of the owners Woodrow Apartments LLC, Woodrow II LLC, and 1709 LLC is requesting a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment pursuant to section 34-41 and 34-90 through 34-519 of the city's zoning code.

for properties located at 1705 Jefferson Park Avenue, 106 through 114 Stadium Road, 100 Stadium Road, 102 Stadium Road, 104 Stadium Road, and 409 Stadium Road, referred to now as the subject property.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from multifamily residential R3 to planned unit development with a development plan and the removal of the individually protected property, the IPP designation, from 104 Stadium Road.

The applicant

The application and development plan includes a commitment to affordable housing, parking, a use matrix including a maximum dwelling units per acre, yard and height regulations, open space, and landscaping.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property to replace the existing 62 residential units, which are spread between nine different buildings, with one building containing between 524 and 550 residential units having multiple towers.

The proposed building will have a range in height from 75 feet to 135 feet and stories that range from five stories to 12 stories.

In addition, the proposed PUD includes improvement to pedestrian and bicycle circulation along Stadium Road, Emmett Street, and Jefferson Park Avenue, and road improvements to Montebello Circle.

In order for the applicant to implement the PUD development plan, they will need additional approvals from City Council.

These approvals include application P230055, a critical slope waiver,

The applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 34112B of the City Critical Slope Ordinance as part of the plan to redevelop the subject property.

The proposed development plan proposes critical slopes to be impacted by built structures, footprint of a building, and structured parking.

Existing critical slopes area located on the property include .47 acres or 14% of the site that will be 100% disturbed.

They also need approval of application P23-0058, a sidewalk waiver.

The applicant's development plan calls for fire access improvements to Montebello Circle, but due to site constraints, it is requiring a waiver from the sidewalk requirement for approximately 300 feet along the northern edge of Montebello Circle.

The applicant is also before you tonight.

You also have an amendment to an ordinance authorizing the sale of certain city owned property located at 409 Stadium Road.

Excuse me.

This isn't before you tonight, but City Council needs to act on this for the development to go forward.

This amendment to that sale of property at 409 Stadium Road, the applicant is proposing to amend the ordinance authorizing the sale of city owned property located at 409 Stadium Road to allow for development.

The May 2, 2011 ordinance contains the following three conditions that the applicant is petitioning City Council to remove.

Condition one, the property shall be landscaped and maintained as a green space.

Condition 2, the purchaser shall consent to the adjoining property, which is Tax Map Parcel 1600-2000 being designated as an individually protected property under the City Code Section 34274.

And Condition 3, there shall be no further development or permanent structure placed upon the property, including parking facilities.

There's also a – tonight you'll actually be – there will be a review of Code of Virginia 15.2-2232 review.

The applicant is requesting an amendment to the November 4, 1996 vacation of Woodrow Street right-of-way along with a request to zone the closed portion to planned unit development.

Woodrow Street is an unimproved paper street that bisects the subject property and is used mainly for off-street parking for the existing residential units.

Several public utility lines such as sanitary, water, and gas run through Woodrow Street and will need to be relocated as part of the proposed development.

The November 4, 1996 ordinance contains the following conditions that the applicant is petitioning City Council to remove.

The adjoining property owners, excluding the city of Charlottesville, shall provide for stormwater connections to Jefferson Park Avenue from the east side of Woodrow Street as part of the Jefferson Park Avenue sidewalk construction.

2.

All adjoining property owners, excluding the city, shall enter into a joint access and maintenance agreement with respect to the vacated area.

Such agreement shall preclude the building of additional units on the vacated area.

In addition to the actions that are being requested, City Council and BAR have already taken the following actions.

On June 5, 2023, City Council passed a resolution granting approval of a COA to demolish the stone house and gardens at 104 Stadium Road with the following conditions.

One, building and gardens to be documented thoroughly through photographs and measured drawings according to the historic

American Building Standards.

Information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville's Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

Two, approval of a design review COA for new construction on the parcel as

as an element of the proposed multi-lot development to ensure that the building is not demolished without an appropriate and city-approved redevelopment in the issue of a site plan and building permit for construction of such replacement.

And number three,

After the foregoing conclusions are accomplished, if the IPP designation has not previously been removed by the appropriate actions of council, whether before or after demolition, but no later than 30 days after demolition, the applicant requests city council indicate a zoning ordinance amendment per city code 34274 to delete the property from the protected property list by zoning text and map amendment.

On September 19, 2023, Barr held a meeting related to removal of the IPP designation from 104 Stadium Road.

At that meeting, they recommended City Council deny the request to remove the IPP.

They also recommended two conditions should the rezoning move forward, but I would like to note with rezonings, unlike SUPs, they cannot be conditioned.

It's basically a take or leave during a rezoning.

I'm finishing up my report, I promise.

But prior to turning it over to the applicant and their team for the presentation, I just wanted to add that when Planning Commission completes the public hearing aspect and deliberates of the proposed development, they consider the following motions in this order.

The Chair actually kind of mentioned this too, but I'll just kind of reiterate because I want to mention one more thing.

Action 1, the Comprehensive Plan Compliance for Woodrow Street, CP 230002.

Discussed in the pre-meeting, the proposed resolution for that section was left blank in case Planning Commission wanted to enter their own findings.

Staff has created a new resolution that fills in a finding when you get to that.

I want to come up to the dais and give you all these now, but we can talk about it as you get to that point of your discussion.

There's two motions, one basically finding a favor and one not.

I would also like to note at this point too that it came out of an earlier conversation.

Staff did not provide a recommendation but making a recommendation now on this portion.

So per the Code of Virginia 15.2-2232 review of the applicant's request to amend the November 4, 1996 ordinance vacating Woodrow Street right of way which was requested as part of a zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment application

ZM 23-00004 and ZT 23-09-02, staff finds it is not in substantial accord with the city of Charlottesville's comprehensive plan.

That is staff's recommendation just for the record.

You'll be making your own deliberation and own recommendation as you move forward.

That was action one.

Action 2 would be the zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from R3 multifamily residential to planned unit development with a development plan.

Action 3 would be zoning text amendment to remove the 104 Stadium Road as an individually protected property from the city of Charlottesville zoning code.

And action 4 would be the critical slope waiver recommendation.

This concludes my overview of the application.

After I take a break.

What do you got?

Any questions?

Any questions?

I can't think of any questions.

I can ask a question.

So the applicant has a COA to demolish the house, but there are the conditions based on those.

Okay.

We don't know that.

I'm quickly catching up on email from the public.

I've gotten some concerns that we could add additional requirements as part of the IPP requiring mitigation and salvage.

I don't think you can write any conditions.

Thank you.

Oh, no, go ahead.

From City Council, I mean, there was conditions

I would believe yes.

Again, very good issue to bring up.

There are a number, as we've talked about, there are a number of actions that you all take and there are a number of actions that Council takes and coming up with all the different questions and permutations is very helpful as we move forward.

The Planning Commission did initiate the zoning text amendment.

You skipped that one.

Oh, okay.

It is my turn.

All right.

So, I mean, I guess on that question, like,

It just seems like a, I mean, I think everyone realized that at this point, just a flaw in the way that we handle demolitions of IPPs in that we give them a COA to approve them, attach conditions, and then say, well, we need to remove it as an IPP because it won't be, the property, the house won't be there anymore.

And like...

I guess what is staff thinking if there is any in approving this IPP now in conjunction with the PUD rather than later after there's a site plan submitted?

Is it to avoid all the headaches in the meantime in that site plan review like P.A.R.

It is opening a path of clarity for the applicant.

And is there a way to sort of write the IPP resolution passed by Council to say this will take effect at, I mean, we can't say a zoning amendment takes effect at x date, right?

But can you do it to say it takes effect when it's demolished, which then can only happen when it's demolished in accord with the conditions, which means as I once proved.

Yeah, I don't know if I have a good answer.

Well, I mean, I'll leave it up to you guys to figure that out by the time it gets to council because we're just giving a recommendation, so whatever.

I did have a question about the lack of a proffer statement.

While there are essentially implicit proffers in the PUD development plan, this may be a legal question for legal counsel.

I don't want to speak to the legal effect or not.

I will speak to the role when planners are looking at site plans and related to a development plan, which also is sometimes referred to as a proffered development plan.

So the applicant has chosen not to provide a proper statement but they are still putting forward a PUD plan of development.

That plan of development includes layout of buildings, general landscape plan, a use matrix, setbacks, height restrictions, all the things that you would find in a development plan.

They have included a commitment to affordable housing at the

3412 requirement is about $2 million.

They are put on their development plan a commitment to provide cash in lieu of $4 million.

I would kind of defer to legal but I don't have a good answer as far as how that statement on a development plan differs from that statement being provided in a proper statement.

So is anyone from legal?

Okay.

And then

Assuming, you know, that they stick to the offer one way or the other, it's for two times the amount that would be required by 3412, right?

And it seems to me that, you know, looking at the use matrix here, there are allowed uses besides residential that would be then

not their intent, but they could develop it as an office building with this form or even a 12-story parking garage with this form.

if there's not a residential component.

So the 3412 talks about the residential component of a mixed-use development or residential development in just itself.

I see the path you're going down.

That is a risk.

I think it's a small risk.

There are other things within the development plan that speak to it being a residential development.

A lot of times, not to get too bogged down in the history of this, but PUD development plans that used to come before

that have been adopted were very, very loose on information.

They were basically just a site plan proffered as a development plan.

And there's been a switch to try to get applicants to think of it more of you're creating your own zoning district.

You are creating these rules that when a site plan is submitted we are using that development plan as the zoning instrument for the private property

to make sure it meets those things.

I have one more question, if I may.

I remember reading the report there was a discrepancy with the unit counts.

Yes, and I meant to read this a few minutes ago.

When staff produced the report there were some inconsistencies of some minor what I would call minor tweak concerns that staff had.

Density was one.

As far as density for this location has not been a concern even on the high end.

We have districts that allow 200 DUA.

They put that in their use matrix but they were maxing out their density, that 550.

The applicant has said they are willing to make some of these changes to have that match their max density of 550 to put in

House of Worship in their use matrix to make sure they don't run afoul of uses that you can't proffer out in Virginia.

Clarifying the setbacks so that would be clear.

And again these are kind of things that we as staff want to make sure they're clear so when we get a site plan we're not having to come before this body again to go we're not sure what this means.

So the applicant has stated they are willing to make those changes before this goes to City Council.

And in staff's mind, these changes that they're proposing, these minor tweaks, would not elevate it to requiring another public hearing, but they would be to be made in between.

Some of the more substantive things you need to talk about tonight, you know, the height, the massing might go beyond that.

It is and they are not asking to be removed from the entrance corridor so it is still any site plan would need a COA certificate of appropriateness from the ERB.

So there's a reference in the packet or in the application or something and we had a meeting a while ago to discuss about street improvement or intersection improvements to Stadium and Emmett and Stadium and GPA that the applicant is in discussion with staff about.

Can you give us an update about those discussions and how they pertain to this application?

I think the applicant is willing to continue those conversations but

They have separated it from this application just because tying it to the application would probably push them way out because it would take some very intense discussions and some finding finances to do what they were proposing to improve those intersections.

I don't think they are opposed to it, but it just wouldn't go time-wise.

A really minor question, I guess, but somewhere in their materials it mentioned that the modifications they're making to the slip lane between Emmett and JPA would not allow tractor trailers.

Only thing I can really say is the city traffic engineer did review it.

He didn't really have any concerns along that line.

Okay.

Anything else?

Council, questions for NDS?

No.

I can't see Ms.

Bernier, but I'm guessing she said no.

I said no.

Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, and Mr. Mayor and members of council.

I'm Valerie Long with the law firm of Williams Mullen.

We're representing the applicant subtext acquisitions.

We have our whole team here tonight.

We have several representatives from subtext.

They're the contract purchasers or tenants of the property.

We also have Timmins Engineering, our civil engineer.

If you have specific questions beyond my capabilities on the critical slope waiver or things like that, let's have Fred Wolf, who's our local architect with Wolf Ackerman Architects, and Neil Reardon, who is with ESG Architects, the lead architects, and he'll be covering more of the design issues tonight.

And I think that's everyone.

Also, Megan Nadastup, our firm's land use planner.

So thank you.

We were here, you may remember, in June for a work session.

You gave us a lot of really helpful feedback.

We realize we've been working on this now for about a year with staff extensively.

We really appreciate all the time and guidance that Mr. Fries and Mr. Affle and all of the staff in NDS and Public Works and Traffic and all of the various departments have been providing.

As noted, this is a large project.

Obviously it's complex.

lots of elements and we have been very appreciative of the feedback and guidance we've received from staff over the past year.

Since the work session we had in June you gave us some really good feedback on the design issues and we're excited to be here tonight and share those with you and in just a moment I'm going to ask Neil Reardon to come up and walk through those issues with you so we can

show you how we've attempted to incorporate your feedback.

I thought I'd briefly touch on some of the high points of the public benefits of the project before we get started.

One is obviously the tremendous increase in the number of new homes that would be provided primarily for students in this location that is I think all would agree is a prime location immediately adjacent to grounds.

for high-density student housing.

Our affordable housing commitment, as has been mentioned, is just over $4 million or whatever the ultimate site plan would require under the existing affordable housing ordinance.

The applicant is committing to pay twice that amount.

Just so I don't forget, our goal with putting that commitment on the plan set instead of in a separate proffer statement, keep it all in one place so it's very clear

You don't have to make sure you remember to track down where the proffer statement is that goes with the project.

It's right on the face of the plans and our understanding and my interpretation certainly if Council were to adopt the PUD plan and the rezoning that that statement would be binding just like all of the other binding statements on that plan.

I believe that the $4 million cash proffer is easily the largest from any private developer.

It may even be in the range of twice or three times what others.

Obviously, this is a substantially larger project as well.

The project would also propose to make significant improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure around the property, including improvements in additions of sidewalks, bike lanes, bike racks, an indoor bicycle storage room, an enhanced transit stock.

and the bike lanes are actually raised bike lanes and there's also still room for street trees around it which help a lot with the quality of the bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

We're proposing improvements to Montebello Avenue including a sidewalk along a portion of it to provide safe pedestrian access to and from the project and to Stadium Road, making some improvements to the road itself.

to accommodate the fire and rescue apparatus.

That was some feedback we received from fire and rescue staff that is necessary to be able to serve the building, but also will help improve

access for the fire and rescue equipment to other properties along Montebello.

We're also adding curb and gutter along Montebello that will help capture a lot of the runoff from the properties to the south of Montebello that currently kind of just run right over the edge of the street, run down the critical slopes, down into that intersection.

And finally, improvements to the public realm.

And Mr. Reardon will talk more about those, but we are planning to have an on-site coffee shop or a deli, that type of thing that would be open

to both the public as well as residents of the building.

That will provide a lot of engagement of the streetscape.

Mr. Reardon will also talk about how the project includes walk-up units right from the street, so along JPA, along Emmett Street, and along Stadium.

People would walk right into their units from the sidewalk there, which really helps a lot with activating that streetscape and making it a very lively area.

So with that, I think I will hand it over to Neil Reardon.

He can talk more about it.

And we may have additional.

Happy to respond to questions if you have them about the sidewalk waiver, the critical slopes waiver, and the public benefits associated with that, and obviously any other questions.

All right.

Do you guys have any questions yet or do you want to wait?

Rory?

We'll answer as many questions as you all have.

Chair, Commissioners, Council, Mayor, thank you.

Neil Reardon from ESG Architecture and Design.

I'm ready for the presentation if you haven't.

I'll be quick, we have a number of slides here to go through, but I'll do them quickly and you've seen the project before.

As Valerie mentioned, thank you for giving us the feedback you did at our working session back on June 13th.

We've come quite a ways since then and that feedback was very meaningful and fruitful for us.

You can go to the next.

This slide here summarizes a number of things that Valerie already covered, particularly the project proposals and height as well as the affordable housing component that she outlined before.

Next.

Future land use map, just noting here that it's the urban mixed use corridor and highlighted there are the parcels that are part of this project's assembly.

I have a few more.

Next.

The site, as already noted, is just an amazing site located in this nook here surrounded on the north and the west by the UVA grounds.

Next.

Here it is a little closer.

I think you're familiar with this from before and from all the other times we've spoke with various groups here in Charlottesville.

This is assemblage of a number of parcels.

Woodrow Street in the middle was already mentioned.

Next.

The site sits kind of down in a bowl.

So here it is from the northeast in kind of a bird's eye.

You can see it with parts of campus there on the right hand side of that bird's eye view.

Next.

Here it is again with a little more context from the northwest.

Again, it's down in this bowl surrounded by a number of buildings on the north and the west that are above it and up on a hill.

Next.

A little bit more in feedback just to summarize what we heard and the really meaningful pieces of input that you gave us back in June.

We heard built to the edges of the site.

The prior proposal we had at that time had greater setbacks, more of the density concentrated towards the middle of the site with two courtyards.

You said build less parking.

That's a change we've made, and you'll see that.

You said this was an ideal location for high density housing.

We thought that was great.

That's the main component of the project.

Lastly, you know, there's a spot for the density.

There's an ideal spot for the density and what we heard then and what we brought back to you is that's at the north and west of the site.

And lastly, as Valerie touched on it, focus on the public realm, the streetscape improvements and building to the edge, to go back to the top of the list, is one of the ways we do that in a really good way.

Next.

So just kind of a diagram here about kind of the site in that depressed bowl, kind of low grade.

And then how do we shape that site?

And so your feedback was really helpful for us in shaping those forces.

On the lower left, then you see that diagram we had before you back in June.

And then on the lower right-hand side, how we've shaped that to the current project proposal.

Next.

So here was that diagram again, where we started, there was a couple of large courtyards, one on the north and one on the south, but then generally we weren't building to the edges the way we are in the current proposal.

Next.

So there you can see we've pushed things out to the edges.

This really helps us define that street, that streetscape design on all three sides of the project.

And when I say the three sides, on the right hand side, the Western perimeter of basically Stadium Road,

the one in the foreground Emmett Street on the north and then JPA on the east which is on your left hand side of this image.

So we built to those edges and then what that allowed us to do is concentrate more open space on the southern and central parts of the site and I think that was really fruitful feedback as I mentioned back in June.

So then with respect to height, it's a varied approach.

As I mentioned, we've concentrated the density at the northwest part of the site.

And then there's several points of modulation where we step back the massing to what would be considered 10 stories if measured from Stadium Road on the west.

And then really a shorter component on the east where we are five stories above our parking podium.

As you know there's lots of site changes there's lots of grade changes with respect to the site so this varied approach comes from you know at the northeast corner a two and three-story building to an eight-story building to a five-story building to 12 at points and then really on the back side facing Montebello because the grade is so high there it really ends up being about a three-story volume at the southern central part of the site that faces Montebello.

We have some more imagery in this presentation that'll

Outline that.

Next.

And so just going through the plan here building to the edges and minimizing the setbacks you can see at all sides how we're doing that at each perimeter.

Next.

And then again we're allowing for this open space in this zone in the south central part of the site and so that's where we have a greater setbacks which I'll outline in a moment as well.

Next.

concentrating that density and those two leaders there are pointing to the parts of the projects that are the tallest at the 12 stories.

Next.

As already mentioned by Valerie, there's unit entry walk-ups on all sides.

In addition to the four points that this is pointing toward, there are also unit terraces kind of on the southern side of the property too.

Now those don't face the street, but these other ones do, and we think that's really important for the public realm in addition to having several main building entries as well, which you can go to next.

But that street edge design is really important.

So as mentioned, kind of starting from each street and working our way towards the building, we have a raised bike lane.

We have a perimeter planting zone next, which is really the furnishing zone.

There could be bike racks in there.

There could be other components of the street design, but mainly it's a green zone with boulevard trees.

Then the sidewalk and then the interface with the building, which usually, as I said, involves a unit walk-up entry.

Next.

We are attempting, as best practices, minimize the number of curb cuts.

We have identified the best opportunities for this.

You can see those four locations.

Some of them have to do with parking access.

Some of them have to do with service.

But we've concentrated those where they most make sense, which, as you can see, is not at the corners or at Emmett.

Next.

As I already mentioned, the component here with it that is a semi-retail use is a coffee shop kind of at the main entry here.

The main entry is at that northwest corner and then our drop-off, vehicular drop-off and point of entry is just kind of on the west central side of the site there.

and then we do have a secondary entry along JPA.

Again, this is about three levels down now at JPA, but that would be where the major, that curb cut down there is where the major point of ingress for vehicles to the parking.

Next.

It's a big project.

You need a lot of bike racks.

You need a lot of good public realm interface.

So not only are we planning for bike racks out in the boulevard for visitors, there's bike racks in the building as well.

We are looking at like a specific entry point for residents there where they can enter and exit with their bicycles.

And lastly, the transit shelter location.

This is currently a bus stop and this would be in that location where the bus currently stops but upgraded.

Here's that zoomed in in that JPA southeastern portion of the site there where you can start to see how that transit shelter looks with bike racks adjacent, the sidewalk behind it, also the bike lane behind it, which is important to eliminate conflicts, best practices for how that's being done in modern street design.

One of the things we were asked to do by staff, which was already outlined by Valerie, was increase the width of Montebello for proper fire access width.

And so it's just shy of 20 feet.

So if you look closely, there's a yellow sliver in there and that is the area where we're expanding that ever so slightly.

I'll get into this a little bit more in future slides.

Next.

But major areas of open space concentration, the center courtyard, the western courtyard, and then the what I would call the southern setback here along Montebello.

Next.

Landscaping and tree coverage.

We are required to replant and we're meeting those standards with these zones here that are pointed out.

Next.

So again, coming back to the diagram, what we started with with the site, the opportunities for the massing within that site, where we were in June, and then where we're at today.

Next.

There you see it again, the mass they're in.

And I want to set the context for these next renderings.

So next sheet, please.

So we have several renderings here to show you.

These were in the packets but I'll just breeze through these and talk a little bit more about the design.

So this is looking kind of at a bird's eye view from the northwest really from the campus angle if you were above Emmett from the northwest of the site.

So there you see the main entry down there kind of in the lower left of the screen.

That would be a major point of entry for really everyone but mainly the primary route for anyone coming from the

from UVA grounds.

Next.

Zooming in a little bit on that approach, here's kind of what it would look like with that median area, that triangular zone of green that's near where the slip lanes happen at the northwest part of the site.

So here you're starting to see some peeling on the side of the building.

It's a lot of building.

So you can see what we're doing architecturally here to start with, where we're tapering back every so often, creating massing and scale that breaks down this

this major facade that faces our, you know, the approach to the building.

Next.

Here's kind of really what I want to focus on getting down to the most important part of the experience in the building is that interface right at the ground level.

That's what people really feel and

take away from when they're in the public ground when they're experiencing a building.

So this is that major entry at the northwest part of the site where we'd have that active kind of coffee shop retail use as well as a plaza that cascades down to the left to the east with a major canopy announcing entry.

Next.

Here it is again.

You can kind of see it a little bit better where we have an overhang there.

There's a little bit of a promenade between there and where the vehicular drop-off is to the south.

And you can see the street design there of the raised bike lane, the median of trees, and the ample sidewalk.

Next.

Now we're looking westward on Emmett.

You can start to see the walk-ups on the left as well as that cascading terrace coming down from that major entry point where there would be that coffee shop retail use.

Next.

even further coming east now, looking back west on Emmett.

And you can kind of see this is heavily wooded and hilled to the right across the street.

And then we're building right to that edge, holding that urban line on it, which creates, I believe, a really pleasant urban condition of sidewalk Boulevard that really defines the space.

And I think it's kind of cool with the hill across the street.

Next.

Moving over to the corner, this is the northeast corner of the site where JPA meets Emmett.

This is where the slip lane comes by and you can see there we are at the curb continuing the raised bike lane and we're having kind of a bicycle entry at this point in the building.

There's also walk-ups coming as we come around this corner.

We switch down in scale at this point.

So next slide.

and this really illustrates the undulation and the massing and material that happened from this particular vantage point where there's just a lot of different volumes and this is the area where we were able to really modulate the massing of the building stepping down creating different volumes in the architecture.

Next.

A view straight on from across the street on JPA where again you see that two to three story volume kind of behind the trees there and a major entry point in the black part of the facade there and then the major point of parking entry to the left of that.

Next.

So lastly, I want to focus a little bit on Montebello.

This is where most of the questions were from staff and a few of our clarifications that Valerie has already outlined, so I'll be quick.

All right, so kind of the condition here at the southwest corner of the site, we wanted to provide an existing photograph kind of just to illustrate the grade change coming down here.

This is at the corner of Montebello and Stadium.

Next.

And then another shot kind of of the existing conditions just to set the framework for this Montebello.

This is looking west on Montebello from where that circle starts.

Right now it's just a vegetation and to the right of this there's a vehicle barrier.

Stormwater is coming right over the top.

It's heavily overgrown as you can see.

There are even vines growing on power lines.

This area needs a lot of cleanup and so the next slides kind of talk about what we're going to do here.

All right, so the sidewalk waiver.

We are proposing sidewalk from an egress point of the southern courtyard there to the west to stadium.

The area to the east of there we are not proposing sidewalk and the reason for that is that has become a very steep slope.

We are widening Montebello, as mentioned, by just a little bit and providing curb and gutter there in this yellow sliver on the top side, on the north side of Montebello.

to widen that further with a sidewalk is very difficult due to needing to modify grading a whole lot to do that.

So next slide.

Additionally, in addition to the request for the 20 foot, excuse me, the 20 foot width increase to meet that request and adding the curb and gutter, the third component here that was asked for was a zone to access the side of the building for fire access.

And so we are specifically not going to plant that with higher vegetation with trees in order to keep that zone open per that request.

and again just noting that that entire curve and then the north side of Montebello is getting that new curving gutter to handle stormwater not only from the public right-of-way but from the properties to the south that could be headed downhill into the north onto this project's property.

Next.

Lastly, there was a pinch point identified on Montebello where staff was not sure that there would be a 20-foot clear zone if the fire truck proceeded south on Montebello, so it would be serving our property to the north, but this is really south of this proposed property.

It does maintain a 20-foot clear zone and that's what this diagram is illustrating.

Next.

With respect to the critical slope, there is an area here where we are mostly not modifying grading and that's pointed to there.

Again, that's that open zone that was requested for fire access.

And then there's an area over to the right, which we are really not modifying grade really at all, but replanting.

So both areas worth saying are being replanted, some with low level plantings, some with trees.

Next.

Clarifying some setbacks coming out of the staff report.

There are points here.

It varies.

There's no continuous setback.

It's a definitive number at each location.

So this is saying it's 18 here, it's 45 here, 71, 75.

Next.

And this next slide is just getting into more nuance about exact, if you have questions on these, we can come back to these.

Next.

Next.

Lastly we want to talk about what does this look like and feel like with respect to the grade changes on Montebello.

So you can see here where the 12 story volume is on the right.

intermediate courtyard and then really the five story volume there you see an orange in the middle.

What that ends up being is really about three or four stories with respect to Montebello.

So there's a downhill zone in between it where the grade changes again.

We're very slightly modifying grade there.

But then you can see there's about 100 feet between the face of the building.

The public right-of-way is about 25 feet.

But you can kind of get a picture here of the modulation in massing and height through this sectional diagram, including, for instance, the buildings to the west that would be in the background.

Happy to go back to that if there's questions.

Next.

Again really just a zoomed in version of this.

Again this illustrates that 25 foot right away that has 20 feet of pavement within it and then the setbacks on each side of those creating a situation where there's about 100 feet between buildings.

Next.

Here's a before shot looking eastward on Montebello and then next slide please.

This would be the proposed from that very same vantage point.

Montebello is a one-way going that way.

We have a bicyclist going the other way.

And you can see the low-level plantings on the left and some of the higher trees proposed elsewhere.

Next.

Lastly, I just want to end on a couple renderings here to come back to the ones I've already shown.

Again, this is the view from the northwest.

Next.

A view from the northeast as well.

And then the view from the east.

I think, next please.

I think that is all.

We have other exhibits available with questions.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Questions?

Comment?

Questions.

I was wondering how wide was the area dedicated to the street trees?

Yes, certainly.

Commissioner, happy to answer that.

It is not consistent.

Part of that is due to the undulating nature of the perimeter property line.

it curves and it juts in and out.

What we've tried to do is work with a module of seven to eight feet for the sidewalk, five to six feet for that planted intermediate zone between the raised bike lane and the sidewalk, and then the raised bike lane itself, about six feet.

It does change.

We'd love for that to be more consistent, but in a site plan like this, we really

worked with those modules, but they do diminish and expand from those dimensions I just mentioned.

Hello.

I have so many questions.

I hope the Chair will indulge me.

The staff report notes 3.3 acres with no commercial usage whatsoever.

Can you help me with that?

Sorry, that is an issue we're happy to clarify.

There are plans for a coffee shop and or a deli type establishment inside the building.

So we're happy.

In the lobby, kind of, that would be accessible from the street as well, open to the public, et cetera.

So yes, we'll clarify that.

I just have the word trees question mark written down.

In what sense?

There'll be, I mean, street trees around the perimeter as we showed.

There'll be the area where the critical slopes are now that will be replanted.

We can put that slide back up if it would be helpful sort of that was on the right side of the slide.

and the area is sort of more in the middle right behind that five-story wing of the building.

That's the area that Neil was saying would be left with just lower plantings at the request of the Fire and Rescue Department.

Is there any wiggle room on the Montebello side that's part of a good transition to a lower scale area?

Certainly.

I mean, we would do as much as we can in that area that's outside of the kind of no tree planting area that Fire and Rescue has asked that we set aside for no trees.

But other areas, we're happy to work on details of additional plantings along that area.

It is a steep grade.

Yeah, happy to elaborate on that, Commissioner.

We wanted to plant significant, first of all, we're meeting the requirements, the replanting requirements with the trees that are planted, call it Boulevard side, and the trees that are not planted Boulevard side, AKA those on Montebello.

So it's a mix between those two.

We didn't want to overplant the backside as proposed just at this moment because we did think it was really important for Good Urban Design to have that shade canopy on the boulevard on the east, north, and west of the property.

So first and foremost, we're getting our tree count up using that first and then planting the slopes appropriately with a mix of ground cover, low-level plantings and

Okay.

This is really a design question, but to my understanding, many of the concerns from the public and from what I'm hearing from staff are really about design.

Options to break up the vertical mass and emphasize width and not height on Montebello.

Yeah, Commissioner, just to clarification, when you say width on Montebello?

Yeah.

Are you meeting a setback width or a?

Horizontal lines instead of vertical lines.

A horizontal line rather than a vertical line?

With pertaining to that image that's up right now in the architectural design?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

To be quite honest, we have more shaping to do of that portion of the building.

Yes, there's a strong horizontal line there.

Are you suggesting that it could be something like, this is Montebello, and it could be more like that?

Yes, so that would be the reason we started with the massing of the materiality change on a horizontal basis here at this time.

As to where exactly that happens, I don't think we'd be fully committed to exactly how it's showing today.

There is some shaping there that could be done.

As you can see, it's a three to four-story volume at this point.

One of the things we like to do is go to architectural design and maybe don't divide that just in half.

So that's why you're seeing that kind of base condition right now with the tan color and a

a wider volume above it to try to make that recede at the moment.

That's the design thinking.

Does that answer your question?

All right, I've got a few questions.

First off, the bike lane, the raised bike lane.

I love the idea of raised bike lanes.

It looks like it's about six feet in width, five to six feet.

NACTO guidelines for two-way bike lanes are 12 feet with eight at constraint points.

Commissioner, yeah, that's correct.

What we are doing on, call it our side of the boulevard is redoing that one-way bike lane.

So, important clarification, we didn't mention that yet, but this would serve the one-way traffic on our side of the street, if you will, and rebuild

been involved in a lot of projects where where it's done piecemeal by project by project and that's one of the ways to achieve a greater goal of having safer bike lanes is to just build it as a part of the project rather than try to build both sides of the street at the same time so yeah six foot width for one-way traffic

Yep.

Okay.

That makes sense.

So it's also like right next to the curb.

What's the thought about putting the landscape buffer on the not road side of it?

Sure.

Commissioner, excellent comment.

They're done both ways.

One, as a person who rides a bike to work every day, I have experienced both conditions.

So I think about it quite a bit.

One way to think about this is it does

severely enhanced the pedestrian condition when separated.

Just the very fact that it's more than a stripe that delineates the walking zone from the biking zone is, in my view, a strong reason for arranging it the way we are.

It also provides an opportunity for greater shade canopy of both and actually better tree health.

for those trees in the boulevard.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It almost seems like the ideal would be landscape covers between both, but in some places maybe you have the room to put that in and not others.

design decision.

You mentioned a few curb cuts.

I appreciate the limiting of them.

Are you planning on designing those as just kind of standard curb cuts?

We saw just a block or two parcels away from you, I think.

a few weeks ago that they're talking about level curb cuts so you don't have that cross slope as you try to navigate where the cars are coming through.

Right, and it's an ample, Commissioner, it's an excellent question because there's so much grade change on this site that it's like, how does that feel?

They are at relatively flat zones pertaining to how you enter the building.

So the JPA one, for example, is a standard two-way curb cut, 24 feet with the proper radii for entry points, and the cross slope is minimal in these locations.

It's worth noting that the service ones are less than 24 feet in width, so they're kind of a one-way exit or enter.

Great.

And then, let's see, on the sidewalks,

I sort of see what you're saying about there's a giant cliff there and you don't want to build all the way around the curve.

It's interesting though that you're kind of building it to the stairs to get into your courtyard.

On the opposite side of the street there's a sidewalk, but it doesn't start until another few dozen feet past that.

Well, excellent question.

There's a bunch of existing context there.

In addition to that, it's a one-way street going east and then south.

There is parking on street on the south side of Montebello for a portion until you get to the curb and then again after the curb.

That sidewalk is really what I would call a door zone for that parking.

It's very minimal in width.

I suspect it's not very safe as a pedestrian, but it's there as a buffer between the wall more so than anything for a crash zone.

Yes, it's strange how that happens.

Really, the limitation is adding an additional sidewalk all the way around the corner would really get us nowhere.

Eventually, there's a sight wall as you come around the corner with the property to the south where I described the pinch point zone, and so that would interrupt

Yeah, it seems like you'd want to kind of push people across the street to that existing sidewalk.

Your edge is too thin, but it's better than nothing.

Better than nothing.

You know, I wonder if you could work with a property owner across the street who may be closer than you think.

Well, I actually left the room.

Yeah, so a pedestrian coming north on Montebello's circle proceeding and then eventually west

on their way to campus potentially.

Yeah, right now it just ends in there in the middle of the street.

Soon they'll be in the middle of the street for a little bit and then they'll cross over to your side.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

All right, next up, we got your use matrix.

So I've been on this commission since 2018.

Our old chair used to be Lisa Green, who would really hammer these home on PUDs.

You've got some questionable stuff in there.

You've got parking garages as a buy right rather than accessory use.

You've got surface parking lot is buy right rather than accessory use.

To me, while I doubt you will do this, that tells me you could build a 12-story parking garage.

One, I guess I would say I thought Mr. Offaly answered that question well.

That was consistent.

We certainly don't have any intentions to build anything other than what is proposed.

That's what the PUD plan says.

But again, as we understand, the PUD ordinance is to be like a zoning ordinance.

And so we even showed all the same uses and tried to keep anything that was relatively consistent, remove things that aren't.

That being said, if it would provide

the Commission with more comfort to remove a number of those uses.

We're happy to do so.

There's very little interest in any office buildings these days, as you I know are aware.

And likewise, you know, a deck there would be extraordinarily expensive without the accompanying revenue from the units.

Yeah, I would say that, you know, for things like offices, I don't know that I feel strongly about removing those entirely.

I could see, I mean, you're going to have a leasing office there, right?

Potentially leasing offices will become virtual in the future.

It should be a medical office.

I don't know.

That's what that means, yeah.

Got it.

And then you have a few things that are statutorily required that are missing as mentioned, but there's a few others besides those, or besides the one in the staff report.

Would be great to see like a mini-mart kind of thing in addition to a rather than that coffee shop.

There's a coffee shop across the street.

seems like you probably don't support it.

Obviously that's not.

It's allowed in your use matrix.

I think that's most of what I've got for you.

Great.

Well, Rory beat me to the sidewalk question, but I have another kind of picky question that goes along with that is there's a note about moving the power lines.

I imagine those power lines have to be moved for the fire department.

Commissioner, I believe you're talking about probably the power lines on Montebello up in that image, yes.

Those are the ones that are overgrown right now.

Yes, those would be part of a relocation plan that we would obviously work with the utility provider upon.

And here there may not be an opportunity on either side of the street potentially.

Okay.

Sorry, I forgot one.

Sorry, I asked this of Mr. Alflay, but I probably should have asked of you.

Can you speak to the intersection improvements that we discussed?

I mean, I get that the timing doesn't really line up right, but what are your intentions in terms of pursuing that?

You know, are you going to get those terms of T intersections to make life better for your tenants, no matter what?

Are you only going to do it if the city pays for it?

Thank you for that question and the ability to clarify that.

At this point, we are interested in that conversation, probably first with city staff and whatever the proper process is for it.

There is a plan that was initially discussed about how to do that and just the improvements to both intersections, in other words.

Those triangular zones that are created by the slip lanes could be very much improved.

Our goal would be to go through the PUD right now and then on a parallel path pursue a conversation with city staff first and then other necessary parties if that were to be a project.

Obviously the components of

So Montebello is the piece that gives me the greatest amount of heartburn, and I think that's the piece that gave NDS the greatest amount of heartburn.

What we're looking at here, how many stories is that?

Is that three stories?

Yeah, there are, Commissioner Chair, to answer your question, there are five stories that are exposed.

So it's kind of, I would describe the first level as a garden level, fully below what is Montebello.

Actually, it goes downhill as it goes towards stadium.

So it's lower down there.

But with what we're looking at right here, it is about a three and a half stories from say where that gray car is from that Montebello vantage point.

Yeah, what would the height be at that point?

So if you can go to a different diagram potentially for helpfulness.

Let's see.

Maybe there's a site plan, a plan view.

At that corner, the grade, yes.

This one works actually, yeah.

So I think your question is kind of where I note these setbacks of 30, 18, and 24.

What is the height at that point?

That's about 11 stories from that.

The UVA to the west, yep.

Yeah, there's a different volume.

If you see in the upper right-hand part of this image, that is the five-story or three-and-a-half-story volume to the right of the courtyard.

Was it a design issue?

Was it a function issue?

Pertaining to where there's height?

Okay, yeah.

Well, it's far better.

We felt, after studying it a variety of ways, that it was far better at those northwestern points than at the east side of the site, for example.

Because?

Because, yes.

Well, it's most efficient to build a portion of the building at a greater height and a portion at a lesser height.

They're kind of two different construction types.

Yep.

And so concentrating the volume one place or the other was a necessary part of the project, is what we concluded.

Well the site is lower on the east side actually really and that what more so drove it it's about 30 to 40 feet lower over there and so that in addition to the context of greater height on the hill to the west and hill to the south and then the taller buildings on the UVA grounds to the west contextually we made the decision

that was a better location for height and density.

Chair, can I ask a related question?

I had a question I didn't ask earlier about this specific thing.

And what was the logic of the 12 stories?

Like, why 12?

Does it work?

Is it finances or construction type?

Yep.

It works with the construction type in a good way.

That's a sweet spot for density on a Type 1 construction type.

You know, the five stories is a sweet spot for a different construction type and that and the different components and massing.

Sure, just one other thing pertaining to height I guess that I maybe didn't mention just in response to the gentleman's questions.

Really it's about the primary thing I didn't mention is we want that open space there

in the southern courtyard and putting more density on the perimeter of the project as the Planning Commission guided us towards was wise in order to create that open space on the south.

So hopefully that further elaborates on what I mentioned earlier.

Can I ask on the utility question, like, can you at least say that any sidewalks you put in won't, like, will have a wide enough ADA compliant path without utility poles blocking it?

Or is that not something you can say at this point?

Because that's the big problem in the city with sidewalks and utility poles, honestly.

You just have it smack in the middle.

There's two feet in either side.

Yeah.

I guess at this point, there are lots of utility poles on the site.

And so I think your question's apt in that we're reconstructing all these boulevards.

Where will all that go, right?

And so I wish I could definitively say, like, you know, we're not going to have a utility pole in any of these boulevards.

There may well have to be a negotiation or a plan, an approach where that's figured out.

That's a pretty detailed, further down the line process.

But our goal would be that the boulevard is clean of those things.

So your goal is to put them underground?

Yeah, the goal would be to put them on the ground with the public realm improvements and investment in doing the public realm in a really meaningful way here.

Mr. Pinkston.

Yeah, you answered one of my questions right there about the intention as much as possible to locate these utilities underground is good.

The other question I had, and this may have been discussed a while back, and maybe if I'd read the packet, I wouldn't know the answer to this.

In terms of parking, are you providing some parking?

And if so, what is your sort of rationale or basis?

Is it rooms?

I think it's units.

Yeah, units.

500 units.

That new number was right on units.

And then the parking is about 400.

And that's noted in the staff report as well.

I'm not certain you got you.

Certainly.

Yeah, and we feel like that's a...

I think we had some feedback earlier about parking and potentially providing less the last time we met.

So we're down, brought that down from somewhere around 50% per bed to 25% to where we are now.

The concern, I guess, question I have is looking at the staff analysis, they have identified a couple of things in particular that relate to the overall density of the development and the scale of the project.

And I guess I'm wondering whether since that report was generated almost a month ago, three weeks ago, whether there have been any further discussions or any effort to

to deal with that concern.

I'm particularly interested in, as we look at a number of the different regulations that this particular set of buildings would violate, why a certain number and why not something that comports with the various numbers that are already in existence?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'll take a stab at addressing your question, but I may ask Mr. Corte from Subtext to weigh in.

One, the existing zoning is R3, which has a very low, the biorite density,

is I believe 21 units per acre and there's an option to go up to 87 units per acre with a special use permit.

Given the comprehensive plan designation for the property for urban mixed use in that location obviously contemplates much higher density.

We think the location adjacent to grounds and how walkable it is to almost everything

that it really can support a much more significantly higher density.

So we did try to, and again I'll defer to the designers, I know they were trying to maximize the number of units and bedrooms to accommodate as many homes in the property as possible, but also ensuring that there is

I'm just as a general proposition

I guess I like the idea of having a more dense development there, but the question is how much more dense, and if we're looking at 12 stories versus

10 stories or 550 units versus 400 units.

I don't know where the tradeoffs come in terms of costs and so on, but I think that I may be able to figure out to some extent where the tradeoffs are perceived by the neighborhood.

and to say a 12-story building, you know, necessarily is going to be 20, what, 25, 30 feet higher than a 10-story building and therefore more of an impact on the neighbors.

And I guess the, or for that matter, why 12 and not 14 stories?

I'm going to let Mr. Korte speak to the specific issue about 10 versus 12 versus 14.

But maybe if I could ask if we could go back to one of the slides earlier that has kind of the entire concept plan on the screen, that would be wonderful.

We may need to go back towards the very beginning.

Part of what I wanted to show is sorry, maybe back a little bit more.

Right there is fine, one of those.

So I wanted to just point out

I don't have a cursor on me.

But again, what we've tried to do is concentrate the massing away from where there are neighbors.

So the original massing diagram had much taller buildings on JPA, for example.

And when we had a community meeting, the residents who live along JPA and behind, like the Oakhurst Inn and the Gildersleeve neighborhood, had some concerns about the height of the building on that side.

And their comment was, please move the density away.

We heard the same thing from the Planning Commission work session is try to concentrate the density away from the neighbors.

So even along Montebello, the building that is the closest to it horizontally, again, is a five-story building at that location.

So we tried to have the 12 stories as far away, particularly from the, there's two owner-occupied homes on Montebello, one on the corner

towards the sort of bend in the road and then another one just to the south.

There's student rentals on the side of Montebello closest to Stadium.

Not that those aren't also important to be sensitive to, but we are trying to really provide the lowest building height adjacent towards the owner-occupied homes on Montebello and then, again, push the taller

areas of massing towards the University where away from neighbors, residential neighbors to the extent possible.

Obviously there's a lot of challenges as Mr. Reardon indicated with the changes in grade.

But again on the JPA side I think that's six or eight stories on that side?

Eight stories.

Eight stories.

It shifts as the grade moves.

But again, up at the very corner, there's actually a two-story building.

It's three, but one story is below grade.

So we really try to be sensitive as much as possible to the height of the buildings near the actual residents who live there and make it taller towards the university side, where it would presumably have less of an impact on any residents.

But I would ask Mr. Corte to speak to your question about

Before he speaks to that question, what did the residents on Montebello share with you?

You told us what the residents on the Oakhurst side said.

They had similar concerns.

The original version of the massing

So you're saying that's why you lowered it because of their concerns?

That's right.

We had the community meeting before we made that change but that was a large

But you haven't met with them since?

But I believe they may be here tonight, so they'll probably have some feedback on that.

But we'd be happy to do so.

We really have tried to be sensitive to the feedback that we receive.

I think you should.

Yeah, I think you should.

I know you're happy to do it, but I think you should.

Okay.

Because their homes are being impacted.

And I think if this development moves forward, you and your

firm and the architects need to feel that you're doing the best thing by the current residents.

I looked at the information that we just saw about parking and I don't know how you came up with those numbers but if you're looking at units that are two and three bedrooms you're going to have at least two cars and you are saying that those units are going to only have one car and I mean it's just that's not even realistic so I think

As much as you want Charlottesville to be a walkable city, as much as people are concerned about the carbon footprint, we need to be realistic.

I'm one person in a house with one car, but when there were more than one of us in that home, we had more than one car.

Yes, we have a driveway, but if you're looking at apartments and condos, most people have two cars.

So to say that this unit is only going to have one car and you're going to have 500 and some units in this building with 400 cars, that's not realistic.

So I understand your intent, but I think that when we're building and when we're considering about what we're doing moving forward,

We need to be realistic as to what is happening now and what is happening by the time this building is finished.

This building isn't going to be finished in 2050 when everybody wants to be carbon neutral.

It's going to be finished much before then.

Again, first of all, thank you for the feedback and your comments.

It's very helpful.

And we understand it is

almost on every project that we work on a balance between ensuring that there is enough parking to accommodate all of the residents or employees, whatever the use is, but not more than is needed, particularly with structure parking.

The cost of each space is so significant it is challenging.

You don't want to build more than you need.

With this particular location, given its proximity,

The hope is that it will be very attractive to students who either do not have a car or do not want to have a car or can't afford to have a car because they could live there and walk to their classes.

They can walk to the grocery, to the hospital, to lots of other places.

It'll be on the bus lane, accommodate bicycles, scooters, all those things.

I don't think I even mentioned that there'd be space for scooter parking as well.

So the goal is to create a project where

Despite your comments, maybe the current standard, and I get it.

We have multiple cars in my family, too, with teenagers.

But at this location, the hope is that it's students who don't want to have to deal with a car, pay for a car.

This will be a particularly attractive location as a result.

But we know there will be students who have cars, regardless, even if they just put them in the garage and leave them there and only use them on the weekends.

I understand.

And that's a good hope.

But we need to deal in practicality and reality.

Chair, Councillor Payne is watching virtually and he has his hand raised.

No problem.

I had asked a series of questions, some of which we worked on answers for and some of which were supposed to be forthcoming.

Just how we looked at laying out the site from a massing standpoint and what we were considering, you know, after our first neighborhood meeting, the feedback from the neighbors on JPA, so looking at that and bringing that scale down, I think that was nine or ten stories previously.

Talking to the people on Montebello, bringing that down to five stories, which is a wood structure, and also pushing it back.

I think we're somewhere around 70 feet off our own property line and then another 50 feet or so to those houses, so making sure we're respecting both of the neighbors on those sides.

Then the next step is how are we creating what the Planning Commission asked for in terms of an urban, pedestrian, walkable, active space that's really pushed up to the street and is exciting for the residents and the people.

To me, this is the gateway to the grounds and we want that to be exciting.

That's why we have the coffee shop up here.

We want a ton of activity at the public plaza.

How do you achieve that while still respecting the neighbors to the east, to the south?

What we did was take that density and push it up to where we want the activity.

Part of that is 12 stories gives us the density that we sacrifice on bringing it down to eight stories on the east and five stories on the south.

The other part of that is how are we building a cost-effective building?

That eight stories is a wood building now.

So it's hard for me to say I can take the 12 story and knock two stories off of it and add it to JPA.

Now the building on JPA is a type one construction and that gets significantly more expensive.

So that's the balancing act.

And we feel like between respecting the neighbors on JPA, bringing that down, that allows us to have a wood building, which is much more cost effective and push the density up where the feedback has always been.

So you're expecting to have wood construction on Montebello and wood construction on the JPA side?

That's right.

And steel and concrete construction on the university?

Exactly.

I have to say that when I looked at some of the pictures that you were showing,

The pictures from the, I guess it would be the northwest side, coming around on Emmett Street, I found that image to be jarring.

This is, I guess, a look that Charlottesville as a whole we're expecting to have to get used to to a greater extent than we are now.

but I'll say this not only in relation to this project but to what has been proposed for other areas as well where we're talking about having eight and ten story buildings at a number of places as sort of the entrance ways to the city I'm not sure that I find that a very inviting look for the city and so one of the things that concerns me even though that particular angle isn't facing any residents

I've got this overall question in my mind about whether that's really a good idea.

I haven't thought about it in enough detail to have an opinion.

I'm more seeking feedback from you all as to where your tradeoff points have come so that we can begin to figure out if and when it gets to council what we think about it.

Do we want to get them in pain?

It looks like the Clerk of Council provided some feedback that there would need to be some certification for Mr. Payne to participate and so I've asked the question back to her concerning how that would take place.

I can tell you the way it would take place.

We need to meet a motion from one of the councilors.

All right.

Okay.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

He may now participate remotely.

Thank you and sorry for the bothering me to do that.

My question was with all the references to the future land use map and future zoning and those documents and the inclusionary zoning, there's a per unit calculation for payment in lieu.

Yeah, so first off, I just want to say we understand there is an affordable housing issue, and we want to do everything that we can to try to help resolve that.

From our perspective, affordable housing units located in a student housing project is not the most ideal situation.

Based on the unit calculation that is in the current ordinance, I believe it came out to about the $2 million number of what would be required.

We believe that doubling that kind of helps the city and helps us do our part to contributing to resolve the issue.

It wasn't based on a calculation.

It was just based on the fact that we understand that this is a real issue and we've talked to a number of different people about it.

We don't feel like it's the right solution to put the units in the building.

So we feel like the fee in lieu could be a much more impactful way.

And I don't know exactly what the financing situation is with the city, but in talking to other municipalities,

With the fee-and-lose situation, you can actually leverage that.

So you can leverage that five, maybe ten times.

So the $4 million that we're contributing could actually be $20 or $40 million of actual development.

So if you look at that, we would be providing maybe 50 or 55 units in the building.

If you lever that $4 million, that gets you to $20 or $40.

And if it's $150,000 or so a unit,

Now you're looking at 130 to 250 affordable units that you could potentially build with that fee in lieu.

Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not asking about why affordable units wouldn't be built in the development, but rather the calculation for what the payment in lieu is, which again, even under the most conservative assumptions, is below.

It's in those draft documents.

So, Council, any more questions?

We have a question.

no I don't if I could if this is appropriate if it's not tell me to be quiet I'm just wondering so in terms of this this parking piece the number of spots that are being provided it sounds like there was a conversation that happened in an earlier planning commission meeting and maybe speak if you all would mind sharing a little bit about your thought process I mean I see the rationale I

I'm not going to comment on my views about this because that's not really what we're supposed to be doing here as planning, as commissioner, I mean, councilors, whatever we are.

Yeah, I think I could give it a stab.

the earlier proposal had a really a staggering amount of parking and I think what you find especially with students is that the amount of cars it's sort of like a gas it will grow to fit the available space for it the more cars you have you know the more trips you have the more impact on traffic at that intersection and of course the more you know impact on climate and carbon emissions

This is a really prime spot.

It's, you know, steps away from engineers row, where all the engineers work.

It's, you know, right up the hill from central grounds.

It is very possible to live there without a car.

And so I think our feeling, certainly my feeling, is that minimizing the amount of spots would reduce that impact to the city, to everyone else, to the neighbors, to everyone who has to drive along there.

And it won't really lead to overflow parking impacting anyone either.

All of the neighborhoods around there, Montebello, Oakhurst, they're all permit parking that these students won't be eligible for.

And often you'll find students, you know, where they do have cars, they tend to have like one per household because they all pile into that roommate's car when they need to go to the grocery store.

Though there are a lot of grocery options here.

And then lastly I'd add that UVA does have

sort of far-flung parking options for the sort of students who like to have a car on hand to go home over breaks.

So they can, you know, rent a spot from them up at JPJ or, yeah, JPJ and, like, take a bus right there.

Okay.

Yeah, that makes sense.

That's it.

Thank you.

All right.

I think the public is dying to chat with us.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'd like to give a little bit more of an answer to Commissioner Solzenberg's question.

Sure.

So it seems like what is being presented is a cash-in-lieu under the affordable

There's been in the application from the staff report there's been no proper statement which is generally customary that one's presented in applications before you.

I know that Ms.

Long suggested that you treat this as if there actually were a proper statement here, but I would just recommend there is some confusion in terms of what she is relaying and what's actually presented before you for review.

So I would recommend the City of Finance Officer

So I guess what's happening here is they're promising to double the cash-in-lieu that would be required.

And I trust you guys will clean that up.

I have no idea what he just said.

The proper is that if they go by the calculations, it's going to be 2.8 million bucks.

Or no, a number like that.

If you go by what's in their development document, it is 1.8 million.

which is a lot more.

That was our intention.

Certainly if it would resolve any

We are happy to coordinate with City Attorney's Office and NDS on a specific separate proffer statement that would state exactly the same thing if that would resolve the question.

Our intent was trying to just make it more simple and have it all in one place.

The zoning ordinance provides that when the PUT is approved that becomes the zoning regulations and things are binding and so our intent was to

put that right on the cover page of the plan set to demonstrate that commitment.

But if that creates concerns, we're happy to put in a separate proper statement.

We certainly want it to be binding.

Yeah, it just seems there from the cover sheet, this is all going towards the cash in lieu under the Affordable Dwelling 3412, not necessarily as the separate.

Oh, sorry.

I misunderstood your comment.

Forgive me.

The reason for specifically referencing Section 3412 of the ordinance is because that is based on the final site plan in terms of it's based on the size of the building and there's a formula in 3412 that's, again, based on the final plan.

So right now we are able to estimate using the Office of Community Solutions worksheet

for what that would be based on what they plan to build.

That could shift slightly as the project goes through design review, entrance corridor, site plan, et cetera.

So we wanted to say whatever it ends up being, whatever the final size of the building is, we then run the worksheet again for 3412 and whatever that final number is in terms of the cash in lieu that would be owed, they pay twice that.

So, again, we were trying to do that so we didn't commit to a figure, a hard figure, that might change, that, you know, we'd end up paying less than we should if the building were slightly different.

Well, I think we are comfortable with that flexibility if you are comfortable with that flexibility.

Are you?

.

Yes.

Public hearing.

All right.

So we are getting ready to begin our public hearing.

We will have in-person speakers as well as virtual speakers.

For those who are virtual, if you're interested in speaking, please raise your hand in the application if there's anyone who is on a phone line.

If you were to hit star 9 on your phone, that will raise your hand in the application.

We'll begin with our in-person audience.

Do we have any speakers for this public hearing?

Okay, we have a couple around the room, many around the room.

Did we lose our council forum?

Did Mr. Princeton just step out for a moment?

He just stepped out.

We will wait for our speaker to begin until we're back to three councilors in the room.

So it might be a minute or so.

Oh, Mr. Payne is virtual.

We had been given guidance in the past that virtual members wouldn't be able to count from that perspective.

He left his stuff.

So I see a couple folks screaming.

Why don't we take a five-minute break while we wait for Mr. Pinkston to come back.

Good idea.

That's a good idea.

She's a really nice person.

Everyone complains about it.

It depends on their tummy.

be in order again.

Council looks like they're in order as well.

And I think we had somebody ready to begin speaking.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello.

I'm Ellen Contini Morava from 225 Montebello Circle.

City Code Section 34490 defines the following objectives of the PUD district.

One, to encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern.

Current zoning district regulations, especially the lenient allowances of NSUP, give developers lots of leeway.

This project is not of equal or higher quality than other student high-rises that have already been approved through the SUP process.

Its huge scale, excessive height, and unattractive appearance make it lower in quality.

Objective two, to encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible, and environmentally sensitive design.

We concur with a statement on page 23 of the City Staff Report.

Quote, staff does not find the proposed development to be designed in a particularly innovative arrangement with regard to building placement, open space, or environmentally sensitive design, unquote.

Objective six, to ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property and or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to each adjacent property.

As pointed out by the City Staff Report, page 24, this project is quote, not harmonious with the residential patterns of development along Montebello Circle, unquote.

Although some properties on Montebello Circle are rented to students, others are single family homes and none of them is taller than three stories.

Objective seven, to ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography.

This project will drastically reduce existing mature tree canopy, already insufficient in our neighborhood.

Trees newly planted will take at least 10 years to provide meaningful shade.

The tree commission is very concerned about the loss of tree canopy in the city.

Objective eight, to provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development, as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development.

The proposed architectural style is not only inconsistent with that of the neighborhood, but with Charlottesville in general.

Objective nine, to provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses and external connections at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods.

The scale of this project is vastly different from even the largest developments in the adjacent neighborhood.

All right, we will move to our virtual speaker and we will continue to alternate.

Our first speaker would be Matthew Gilliken.

Matthew, can you hear us?

Yes.

Good evening, planning commissioners and city councilors.

This is Matthew Gilliken.

I'm here to speak on behalf of Livable Seville.

and we wholeheartedly support this development.

This is an exciting opportunity for the city.

This is exactly where student housing should go in this corridor in general and this particular parcel might be the perfect spot on that corridor for this.

I want to remind you all that this is primarily about housing for people.

This isn't about parking.

This isn't about architecture.

this isn't about massing this is about people people having homes and this would provide probably about a thousand more UVA students homes than the site currently allows that will in turn allow

people in other communities in Charlottesville to have homes.

And the funding that's being offered wherever it settles out will help pay for something like 501 Cherry by the Affordable Housing Fund contribution.

So there's people here at this location, people elsewhere in the city, and people who

need homes that are income restricted.

All of those groups will benefit from this development.

Additionally, it's very important to keep in mind that this is a location and a corridor that students themselves have said this is where they want to live.

And I think that's worth listening to.

And they've said they want to live here in part because it will reduce displacement in places like Tent and Page and Fightville.

This is also by adding this much housing at this spot is a part of the many tools needed to help address the homelessness issues in Charlottesville.

More housing will help reduce or improve our vacancy rate.

It'll help stabilize rents and provide opportunities for people to be rehoused elsewhere in the city as more units become available elsewhere.

So I hope that you all will support this.

Planning commissioners recommend support and counselors.

I hope that when it comes to you, you also will vote in favor.

All right.

Hello, I'm Bobbie Williams from 108 Oakhurst Circle.

I would like to add to what Ellen Cantina Moreva was saying.

The 100 Stadium Road project is not compatible with the comprehensive plan.

Goal three, objectives for mixed-use areas protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city's neighborhoods and places.

Please note these statements on the city staff report on page 9, quote, staff is concerned with the scale of the project and how it transitions to the established lower density residential neighborhood along Montebello Circle.

And further on page 22, quote, staff believes the scale of the development could have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood, more specifically the south of the subject property, end quote.

Especially problematic is the proposed height of this project.

City staff report page 10, quote, the city's comprehensive plan envisions a maximum height of eight stories along Stadium Road and Emmett Street that transitions down to five stories within the high density residential area along Montevideo Circle.

Staff finds the proposed height would not conform to the city's comprehensive plan.

On page 16, the proposed rezoning does not align with the 2021 future land use map as it relates to height.

And on page 23, the proposed budget would allow a height that is 34 feet higher than the maximum height allowed, which is 101 feet within any of the city's zoning districts.

Comprehensive Plan Goal 7, Entrance Corridors.

ensure that the quality of development in Charlottesville's designated entrance corridor overlay district is compatible with the city's requirements and standards and with the adjacent neighborhood's historic, architectural, and cultural resources.

The position of this project where the Fontaine Avenue entrance corridor meets the major access route from 29 North and right across the street from UVA, a World Heritage Site, makes it even more of an eyesore.

It will also degrade the environment of nearby Montebello House, built in 1820 and appearing on the natural

National Register of Historic Places.

And last but not least, this is yet another example of high density high rise that will not add any affordable housing.

Please reject this application as stated in the staff report.

The staff cannot recommend approval.

The proposed scale of the development does not allow with the future land use map of the comprehensive plan.

Our next virtual speaker is Brandon Collins.

Yes, I can.

Good evening, Planning Commission and City Council.

My name is Brandon Collins.

I'm a lifelong resident of Charlottesville.

I have raised three children here, and I am just chiming in to encourage you all to support this project.

I think it makes a ton of sense.

As a previous speaker said, it is the right project for the perfect location.

close to UVA with high density as Charlottesville continues to grow.

I think it rises to the challenge of providing density in appropriate areas.

This project will reduce student housing pressure on

other neighborhoods close to UVA, such as Tennant and Page, Rose Hill, Fifeville, and allow for affordable housing development and reducing displacement in those neighborhoods.

Overall, I think this fits the goals of what I think the goals of the comprehensive plan are, which is to allow

appropriate development for students near UVA in areas that haven't shared any of the burden of that growth over the past 100, 200 years.

So I really think this is a great project.

I think the parking strategy actually makes a ton of sense.

It balances kind of the future need to reduce carbon emissions and nobody really wants a ton of UVA kids bringing a ton of cars and if we build more parking they're going to fill it up and I think UVA students

are capable of living in this prime location to access a major university that is a working-use university.

It's not just an historical site, but it's a place where people come to learn and many, many, many, many thousands of people are joining our community and they should live close to their university.

Good evening.

My name is Bonnie Riley.

I live on 116 Oakhurst Circle.

My home shares a property line with University of Virginia.

Thomas Jefferson was a gifted architect and was inspired by the Greek and Roman classical principles in designing UVA.

a symbol of democracy, learning, and permanence.

UVA, as mentioned previously, is one of 25 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United States visited by people from around the world.

Across the street from UVA is the site of Verve, a proposed colossal, charmless apartment complex that will tower over everything around it.

UVA's strategic plan includes housing all second year students by 2030.

Because of this, 5,000 UVA students will not need off ground housing in the not too distant future.

Universities and colleges in the U.S.

are bracing themselves for a big decline in admissions starting in 2025.

That has been named the enrollment cliff.

The cause is

the significant drop in birth rate that began with the Great Recession of 2008.

Separately, many colleges and universities are already seeing a decline in college applications due to fewer young people wishing to start their lives with massive student debt.

Now the VRV project plans to house 1,500 students.

Other recently approved projects on JPA plan to house another 500 students, plus or minus,

the UVA Brandon Avenue apartments will house 900 students by next fall.

I understand that a housing complex will be built at this site.

The question is how big does this complex truly need to be?

Please carefully consider this and reduce the size of this project to be more harmonious and in keeping with the surroundings of this significant location in Charlottesville.

All right, our next virtual speaker, Natalie Ostron.

Natalie, can you hear us?

Can you hear me?

Okay, great, thanks.