Planning Commission Regular Meeting and Joint Public Hearing with City Council   1/9/2024

We'd like to begin with our reports from the Dias.

We have a new member on the Dias, Michael Cox, and you are... Michael Joy.

I wrote Michael Kochs, but he is Michael Joy.

You are representing the university, so tell us a little bit about yourself, Michael Joy.

My name is Michael Joy.

I'm a seventh year of being a resident in Charlottesville City.

I am the associate university architect at the University of Virginia and their office of the architect

and proud father of two, a son and a daughter and my wife is owner and operator Valica Zamtoys here on the downtown mall.

Welcome aboard.

We're looking forward to getting to know you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Happy New Year, everyone.

There was one meeting that I was not able to attend last week.

It was the tree commission meeting on the second.

But from that meeting, they were working on the state of the urban forest report, as well as elected a new chair and vice chair or president and vice president.

And there are three openings on the tree commission right now.

So encouraging people to apply.

You can find that form online on the city's website.

Right, thank you.

So usually when I'm in the midst of media, I end up getting to have to be chair, vice chair.

So how did you avoid that?

By skipping you.

I've been appointed by somebody doing that.

Last one in the room, dude, you're stuck with it.

Yes, sir.

Let's see.

TJ PDC had their final meeting of the year.

That was a wrap up.

Nothing of terrible substance there.

A closed session described to the public as a personnel matter and a security issue.

And this week they've got their regional safety summit tomorrow.

and on Thursday, under their ages, is the regional housing partnership luncheon.

Other news, the hack did not meet in December.

It is meeting this next Wednesday to take up, amongst other things, the ADU manual.

CAF is getting underway now.

Applications in.

There are 22 applications for CAF money.

16 of them are for sticks and bricks, which is $835,000 available with 2.2 in asks.

So, you know, sort of pre-standard stuff there.

Similarly, on the hop side, there are six applications for $635,000 and

$85,000 and we're only short about $1.1 million there.

There are five meetings scheduled for the CAF starting on Thursday and five meetings in January.

The drop dead date is sometime at the beginning of the second week of February when we have to have recommendations out.

CDBG has just poked its head up.

They are starting their process for that, including on the 24th their sort of how to do this seminar.

I don't know, meeting schedule or timing on that, on the rest of it yet.

And does that cover my remit?

All right.

Well, happy New Year, everyone.

It's great to see everyone, see our new faces.

That's always great.

We have been very diligently over the holiday since Council has now approved our development code.

We have been spending the holiday doing a lot of behind the scenes admin, getting ready for when things will be

Coming effective in February.

So we're working up the fee schedule, a development review manual, which you all will see soon.

A couple of adjustments.

So it's been very hectic trying to make sure that we are as informed as we can be.

A number of public have asked questions concerning the updated code because there were a few changes that council made from the draft that we currently have online.

The consultants had some holiday time and so they're back from holiday and they are working through the updates and we expect to have them within days.

So we should have those available for folks who don't want to review the tape to look at all of the individual things.

But yes, lots of things going on.

We will have our work session on the 23rd, 4th Tuesday as normal and we'll talk about the development manual and we'll talk about the changes that were between the Planning Commission and City Council there and probably another topic or two.

I will note that James Thrice is remote tonight and so he may chime in here and there as needed and he'll let me know if there's something else that he needs to share.

So that's it.

No.

A little semantics difference, but yeah.

Yeah, those words.

So this is your opportunity to, for the public, an opportunity to speak to us about the work that we do.

But we'll ask you not to speak about

Where's the CIP?

Yeah, and CIP as well.

You always keep them.

We do.

That's a good sign to listen.

Also, if you want to make a comment about Langford, this is an opportunity to talk about Langford as well, because there will not be a public hearing on Langford at the end of the meeting.

So, Ms.

Sure.

All right, it's been a while since we've done this, but just a reminder to everyone, we will start with our in-person audience and we will see if anyone is interested in speaking and we'll have them come forward.

We also have a virtual audience this evening, so we will hear from potentially our virtual

attendees.

If you are interested in speaking and you are virtual, please raise your hand in the application.

I don't see anyone on a phone, but if you were on a phone, you would hit star nine and that would raise your hand in the application.

So is there anyone interested in speaking during matters from the public in person?

All right, how about our virtual audience?

I would move that we approve the consent agenda with the edits to the October 18th meeting as described previously, substituting province for provenance and the understanding that, even though I've made this motion, I'm recusing myself with all matters to the May 10th, 2020, 22 minutes.

One abstention.

Any objections?

Two abstentions.

Any objections?

OK, one abstention.

One abstention.

No, it would be Mr. D'Oronzio.

Rainey, may not be... Individuals here.

Well, we don't have a public hearing for that item.

I understand Mr. Corey has her talking points.

And I don't know that we yet have all of the applicant team.

Do we?

We do?

Okay.

So that is something you all could consider.

prior to the six o'clock.

If not, it would fall later.

If there is no objection from my colleagues, I think I'd like to do is, one, give Ms.

Laney a misraining chance to get home and get online.

And two, just because of what people are expecting, just wait until later in the meeting to address them.

I think I can burn the leader.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I think we're ready to continue our deliberations.

All right, very good.

Thanks, Chair.

So I have a statement to make regarding my participation in the Planning Commission's consideration of the affordable housing items included as part of the Capital Improvement Program.

We vote on the recommendations to City Council for the Charlottesville

Capital Improvement Program, physical year 2025 to 2029, expressly excludes items under the heading of affordable housing and further outlined on slide 5 and 11 of the Capital Improvement Program report contained in the January 9th, 2024 Planning Commission packet.

I am employed by BRW Architects and as a result of the annual salary that I receive from BRW Architects, I am required to disqualify myself from participating in the transactions.

I have conferred with the city attorney's office and it is their legal opinion that my voluntary disqualification is consistent with the State and Local Conflict of Interests Act.

The first item on the docket is the capital improvement for Ukraine.

And I think we have representatives from the city manager's office and the budget office.

I am.

Good evening.

I believe we have a PowerPoint as well, just very briefly.

This is your night, so I'll be very brief and then you guys can deliberate and ask questions if you'd like.

Much of this you saw with our work session back in November, so if we could go to the next slide please.

Again, what is the planning commission's role in terms of the CIP?

It is to review and revise or make recommendations as you see fit and how well the projects do or don't fit in with the comprehensive plan.

Next slide, please.

Or do I have a clicker?

I guess not.

So what we did here for you was we took a look at all of the projects to see all the project managers assigned a chapter of the comprehensive plan to the projects.

And we took a stab at creating sort of a pie chart to show you where those projects were landing in terms of the plan.

If there were projects that landed in multiple chapters, we pro-rated

basically just evenly because there was no way to know to give a value judgment dollar wise but this will give you some indication of sort of where the projects in this plan in the five-year plan fall within your comprehensive plan.

So next slide please.

As you know with the CIP, everything that we intend to spend needs to balance with any available revenues, and that the CIP is funded largely through bonds, but also through city cash dollars, as well as funding from the schools, peg fees, and, you know, state and federal dollars that are passed through some of our larger VDOT projects, etc.

So next slide, please.

So over the five-year plan, we're planning on spending just a little over $136 million.

Just a little over $81 million of that is intended to be funded with bonds.

If we were to look in terms of the dollar, the value of the dollars, in terms of where the spending is happening, you would see that it's... Sorry, my glasses are not...

In terms of priorities, if you were to look at that, just on the dollars, you have affordable housing and coming in first, transportation and access coming in second, and then education coming in third.

And again, that's just with this five years, as you recall last year, we put in a large dollar amount for the Buford renovation, and so last year those priorities were the same three, but they were skewed a little bit differently.

So next slide, please.

So we're just going to take a brief minute again.

This is the same plan that you saw back in November.

We've not made any changes at this point.

So we'll just take a brief stroll through each of the groups.

We're looking at 5.8 million and 25 for education and 26.2 million over the five year total.

and you'll see that the projects that are listed there, a couple new things that we added.

We have added in a few dollars for roof replacements.

We're trying to get that program in as if there are a lot of those are aging roofs that need to be replaced.

So that is something that got added in this plan.

Next slide, please.

Facilities Capital Projects, we have 4.6 million in 25 and 14.8 million over the five years.

Some of those things are recurring, such as the lump sum to facilities, which we use for city facilities.

We have some additional dollars that were added to enhance the general district court project.

and we are partnering with Rivanna on their bailer and the bailing facility as well as a new ad this year.

Last year was the first time we added money for the climate action initiatives and we've carried that forward through the five years in this plan.

Next slide.

Public Safety, we have just a little over 700,000 in 25 and 6.1 million over the five years.

Many of these are recurring and they're intended to set up to sort of savings accounts for things that are cyclical replacement, but large replacement dollars when we need those.

And then also there were a few extra dollars that needed to be added for the bypass fire station, which hopefully will be breaking ground soon.

Next slide.

Transportation and access is a big section.

That's 9.7 million in 25 and 29.3 million over the five years.

Many of these are projects that are occurring in the CIP.

Next slide, please.

Parks and Recreation, $5 million over in 25, $9.4 million over the five years.

A couple of things to note there.

Last year we added some dollars for the invasive plant removal and also for the downtown mall, trees, life cycle management.

In addition for this year, the Dogwood Memorial Foundation received some state dollars, $600,000.

that is put in, it's coming to the city as a pass-through, that thing gets passed through to the foundation and those dollars are here as an expenditure but also there's an offsetting revenue for that as well from the state.

And then the Lower Metacreek Trail is new this year as well.

Next slide, please.

Affordable housing, 8.9 million in, oops, there's typo, in 25, not 23, apologize.

And 48.3 million over the five years.

New ad there, a couple things.

West Hamon was added at $15 million, that's $5 million a piece in 26, 27, 28.

In addition, 501 Cherry was added, which is a project in partnership with PHA.

And there were some changes to the Friendship Court redevelopment, not in terms of total, but the way the dollars were staggered amongst the years.

Technology infrastructure, this is a small group, just a little over half a million in 25 and 1.9 million over the five years.

The two new things on this, we are due to replace our voting equipment in 27, so we're starting that funding a little bit at a time so that we'll be there when it's time for replacement in 27.

And then the circuit court case management system will also be an upgrade for the circuit court.

Next slide.

So as I mentioned in the previous slide, revenues are an important part of this.

We need to make sure we have the money to pay for these projects.

Specifically for $25, the general fund will be transferring in a little bit over $7 million in cash or what we call PAYGO for capital projects.

The $78,000 is an estimated, that's the CAFE fees that we collect for them all.

They come to the CIP and those get allocated for

Upfit and Upgrades to the Mall.

And then if you recall last year, we changed with the Vibrant Community Fund.

Anything that is a housing related program is now coming to the CIP and is considered through those competitive processes.

So that's that 575.

In addition, the schools through the conversation about Buford, last year we had some conversation about their expected gainshare because of federal dollars that they are receiving.

In addition, we were using some contingency that we have that was set aside as a result of COVID that we did not need.

And so that and then the Stribbling Agreement is popping in here as well as some of that work will begin and that is in partnership with the developer on that one.

So all of that totals just a little over $35 million for World 25.

So next slide.

If you recall, some of these I've already hit through here.

So I'll just let you look at these real quickly.

But these are the things that were specifically new that were added to this five-year plan that were not in the plan last year.

Next slide on the page of those.

One note that I do want to bring up is the Metacree golf course irrigation.

That is a big dollar amount.

However, what will happen with that is revenues from the golf course will be used to pay the debt service on this project since it is an enterprise fund.

And then the final.

So there are some things that are not currently in this draft that are up for discussion from School Board Council Planning Commission.

As you know, our city manager has been talking about homelessness and housing insecurities and a strategy for that.

There's still work being done on that, but there's nothing in the CIP yet to address that.

The Pre-K Center for Walker is a request that has been discussed but is currently not in the plan.

And additional climate action initiatives.

There's, you know, the million dollars that we put in which is a new ad, but there are other opportunities that perhaps at some point we may want to take advantage of.

And then there are some regional projects that we're aware of that are of considerable amounts.

The ECC potentially will be looking to renovate or to build a new place.

I think they're still talking about that.

The Central Library of Renovation, the city, that would be a city county project as well and the city share of that would be seven to eight million dollars.

And then the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial, there is a question as to whether the 600,000 they received from the state does not seem sufficient for the work that they have done and so there could be a potential

additional asks from the city to fund the difference in that construction.

And so with that, just the remaining slides are just a reminder.

There's a lot of resources on our budget webpage, the budget book is out there, the comprehensive plan.

You know, if there's information you need, please take a look.

If you have questions, you're welcome to contact our office.

And then sort of what's next tonight is public hearing.

This is your opportunity to weigh in on what you see to make a recommendation to the city manager.

And then the city manager takes those recommendations and finally a proposed budget will be presented to council in March.

Mr. Stolzenberg, you have any questions?

Mr. Solitz.

Significant improvement this year.

I think every year we get a little bit better at this.

Thank you.

I see it.

Delighted.

So last time we talked about this, we talked about the $1 million a year in climate spending.

So they do have a plan.

They have a lot of things that they're working on.

There's some grant applications and some other things for spending the money.

I think because it is a new program, we're still working through a lot of those details.

Good evening, Stephen Hicks, I'm the Interim Deputy City Manager and Public Works Director.

Crystal Herkimer and her team, they are finalizing the climate change plan.

And as you know, council has already established certain goals that we need to meet and we're identifying certain facilities that help us meet those goals with carbon footprint reduction.

So we do have, there are a lot of potential grants coming out there through the federal and state grants.

And so we need to make sure we have funds available.

Should there be an opportunity for us to go after those grants or potentially match those grants?

So I do know that Chris was working, finalizing her climate change.

I have a guess if I can guess at you.

I see a lot of rooftops in the CIP.

We are either proposed into that or prepped them so whenever we do do a roof replacement, should there be more grants to come along, they're available.

I had a question on the things up for discussion.

Just try not to come up here and talk to you.

There is no specific strategy in the way of cost yet.

There's still a lot of work to be done not to get ahead of council.

I'm sharing something with them this week for action that we might be able to take to move this particular initiative forward.

But there's a lot to be determined in what is the right approach.

We're still having conversations with the county as well as with some of the local providers, trying to figure out really what the scope of our issue is, our problem that is homelessness.

To figure out how big of a shelter facility we need, that's what I have identified as the priority that I have right now.

to them that we prioritize.

It's not the only priority in that space because the shelter alone is not solving the problem.

It is the beginning of really doing something about the problem.

There are additional permanent supportive housing units that we need, which is the item that I brought to council

at their last meeting that they will hopefully pass on Monday or Tuesday that ensures that Premier Circle continues to move because there was some issue with their budget.

And I'm still looking at other projects that are in that space that support homelessness.

So I don't have concrete details for you yet, but I'm still working on it.

And the goal is to try to bring more of that to you.

May I ask a follow-up question to that?

Sure.

So are we talking bricks and mortar?

Are we talking social services?

Are we talking consulting fees?

Yes, all of that.

My question was on the library renovation.

I know in our last year's meeting when we talked about it, I just wanted to clarify and get it out there that this is not something we can look at right now in the CIP.

This is going kind of beyond the scope and there's still some discussions with the counties.

Yeah, I mean, we know for sure that we have not proposed it in the FY25 CIP because we don't have that commitment from the county that they too can do it.

I'm not convinced that we would able to, we could actually afford it in our CIP for 25.

So in the conversations with Mr. Plunkett, I've kind of shared with him that I think I said 27 since you're right here.

But we had opened the conversation with the county to say that councils indicated support for the notion of prioritizing this in a future year for the CIP and then the question was would they be able to see the same thing.

So the county executive is committed to have the conversation with the board of supervisors.

I believe that is active.

I expect that they probably will be able to figure something out as to which out year they might be able to do something, but not speaking for them.

We know that it is something that both bodies are interested in making happen.

That would be amazing to get that done.

Moving down my list, the Walker campus.

with Beerford School renovation and our capacity for projects of the scale.

What timeline are we looking at?

What can we know more about that project, I guess?

It's a combination of things.

Where we are, and I'll just state it from my perspective, that I've not been given the directive to make Walker fit into the CIP, so that is where we are in this regard.

because the directive that I received was to ensure that we got Buford into the CIP, which we did.

It was given as a directive with the attachment that the grant is how we were going to go about doing that.

We got the grant.

It happened to be bigger than what we had anticipated and how we packaged it.

So there is still, in my opinion, follow-up action

by this body to give us another directive if there is one.

Thank you.

To switch gears a little bit, Chair Mitchell, I think you mentioned this in our last year meeting, the restrooms at the parks.

Yes.

He did say that.

Thank you for the discussion points from the last meeting.

I know you mentioned vandalism was a big cause of just expenditure.

I haven't heard one that works yet.

We've been talking about this for a while.

We've opted to not really keep throwing good money after a problem that we haven't been able to really solve for.

So we did not prioritize spending a lot of money.

Anything that we have in there now is really about new or adding better than what we had, but not to just go and directly respond to vandalism because it just continues to happen right now.

Seems like there's about $60,000 that we've got available in the Parks and Rec budget, too.

At least keep things flat.

As mentioned here, we may run out near the end of the year, but that'll be at the end of the year when we run out of money.

And there's the other ask for the Riverview Park restaurants for $300,000.

And that's just cost overrun in the estimating of what the project was going to cost.

That making it to the CIP?

That's what we're looking at.

We're looking at it for year-end allocation to be able to close the gap that we know that exists now.

What does it mean?

That we don't have enough money right now for what the project came in.

You're looking at a year in allocation.

Yes.

What is a year in allocation?

Because council has a year in surplus that they have to give me permission to spend.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Joy.

I know comment.

Okay.

I think we're ready to have council input from council, Mr. Schock.

Any questions?

We're looking for questions.

I have some of the same questions that have already been asked.

I'm not going to press for further answers, but the issue of Walker and how we begin to budget that.

I remember we didn't budget Buford until we finally said, we don't really know what it involves, but we're going to put a marker of $30 million in the budget.

And between now and the next year, we're going to figure out what that means.

And I wonder whether it might not be useful to do that at some point, just so we can focus everybody's attention on it.

Yes, and I'll tag on to that because we're meeting with them actually tomorrow night, but it won't be a budget meeting that we have with the school board.

It's more kind of up to the budget.

We'll be having a budget meeting later, so it'll be interesting to see what the school board says.

Day one is their priority.

I mean, we can talk this, but they make that decision to be interested and see what they say.

It's a lot of changes take place over the last year, year and a half on the school side.

So their priorities may have changed.

So we'll be scheduling that soon.

But so I don't have any questions at this point either.

And I'll just say in response to that council will have an opportunity to weigh in because we will have to come to you with a memo for your appropriation of the school construction grant.

So at the time last year when we were having these discussions, we were talking about a potential grant opportunity for six to seven million.

It actually came in at a little over 17 million.

So you all will need to appropriate that and part of that discussion will be, of course, those grant dollars have to go to the Buford School Project, but those are bonds we don't have to sell that we can help preserve capacity and bond capacity for future projects in future years.

She's reading my mind.

Yes.

So thank you.

Excellent as always.

I do for the Walker project, I would just suggest we go ahead and put numbers like Lloyd mentioned, something in two or three years out in the same sort of way that we did with Buford to force conversations.

Because again, we'll talk with the school board.

We need to hear from them, I understand that, but I'm pretty confident that when the people there, they're going to want this.

And so I think the sooner we start just being realistic about the fact that this needs to happen within five years, I would think.

The other piece is the library.

I feel like there's been some really good conversations with folks, Mr. Plunkett and others not too long ago.

But again, this is one that I would like to see within the next five years.

The next couple of years, at least get the design done and realize that it will take a number of years and trying to get everything online to the county.

I think we definitely need to work towards that.

At the same time, I don't want us to

I'll be completely hamstrung by their decisions.

I don't think that will happen.

I think there is alignment that we can get, but the library, in addition to being full of books, which I love, is also an important social component of the city.

Yeah, that's all I had.

Thank you.

And Councilor Aspen, welcome.

Hi.

Okay, thanks so much.

I'm still learning things around here.

So some of my questions are things that I'm catching up on, but some of them I think are reviewing some things.

So the Riverview Park restroom, I think it's a great idea to have one there.

There's not tons of detail in this particular report about it and why it would cost $687,000.

There is, and we can get that to you.

This has been, I don't know how long it's been on the books.

It's been on the books for quite some time.

It's the floodplain, so that complicates it.

And that's part of why it has escalated in price, is to try to find the right kind of restroom facility that can withstand

the riverbanks overtopping and then what that can do to a restroom facility and what that might do to nearby neighbors and all.

So we've gone back and made a couple of changes.

There was a redesign, a small redesign, I want to say, almost two years ago that escalated the price.

So that's the reason why it's gone up each time.

And then just time from when we first got an estimate on it, it's increased because everything costs more to build tomorrow.

And then for, thank you for that.

Yes, I can safely say that, I don't have it, but I can make sure we get that to you.

Is there part of this budget that goes to getting him help?

Getting them help, no, because that was not an ask.

I think some of that work is contracted, but we can find out for you.

And also, I think I'm right about this.

I believe that there is a website that's part of the Parks and Rec Department webpage that has information about the tree planning and the progress of that as well.

But we can send you links and get information to both those questions.

And then for the bailer and the bailer facility for the Solid Waste Authority,

Ferry, because it's at the end of its functional life.

So I think we probably have gone a little longer than we should have at this point unresolved.

OK, yeah, I wasn't sure if we were ahead or behind.

And we're a regional partner in that.

So that's just the city share.

Glad to have partners.

For the climate action initiatives, I know we got kind of a little bit just now about that, but would I'm not quite sure what the grants that we're looking at are, but would like e-bike subsidies be able to fall into that category or you know sidewalk and protected bike lanes since those are

That would be considered more infrastructure, sidewalk and bike lanes, so no, it would not be used for that.

The initiatives funds are intended to be grant match dollars so that we can bring down even more, or specific projects that are within the work plan that is pulled out of the climate action plan.

So the question, and I think we probably just need to get you some more information as to where things are.

This is an update for everybody at this point of the choice of mine to elevate the office of sustainability by pulling environmental out of public works was to give them more time and attention to then spell out what it is they're going to be able to accomplish over the course of any year, like all the other departments and offices.

But because they overlap all

and other departments and offices, they got to work better with everybody.

I extended their work plan from a 12-month plan to make it go through the end of the fiscal year so that they then can follow a fiscal year work plan like everyone else.

I should be getting that update soon and I'll be sharing that with everyone so that you can see what the work plan is.

and Commissioner Solla-Yates.

That'll probably answer your question about what specific are the projects that they're intending to work on.

We're going to do a better job of putting that information out front more consistently.

I'm striving to get where are we building, where are we planting trees, where are we building sidewalks, where are we doing these different things on our website so that everybody can see it all the time and update as we go.

Great, thank you.

And then, this is probably somewhere also, the YMCA trail, what's going on with that?

It may be.

If it's a VDOT project, that just means we have three trail projects that are in the VDOT portfolio.

Stephen has been a considerable amount of time, and before him I spent a considerable amount of time just trying to get things back on track.

Yeah, thank you.

Emergency Communication Center.

I don't know if the street milling and paving is probably like a general fund, but is that where

Which is redoing roads.

with our transportation planner as well as our traffic engineering.

So should there be opportunities for us to maximize payment?

Would it include some type of things?

She's already warned me on that.

And I'll just say too, since I can, there'll be more discussion coming.

He loves it.

I just pointed him out.

Our transportation planner, Ben, is going to be coming back to council.

He did a great job earlier in last year to kind of bring council up to date as to what we were trying to accomplish by bringing him into the space and then coordinating.

We have some good work that's underway right now, sidewalk specifically.

I know you're coming for me.

So we have some work that we're doing in that space that we'll be able to roll out exactly what I said.

We're going to put on the website which sidewalks are we going to get done on this schedule so that you can hold me to it.

And then we'll keep adding to that going forward.

This is an accounting question.

Not my strong suits, so I just wanted to clarify.

For the Stribbling Agreement, that $2.9 million, that's technically a loan, right?

It is.

Well, it's, so it is a revenue that will come in to the CIP.

Okay.

Thank you.

And one follow-up, I had a friend phone about the YMCA trail.

I should have remembered that.

Yes, that's it.

Yes, so far.

So far.

Okay.

Well, you only got CIP.

That's just only one section of the budget.

So, yes.

Very good.

And thank you very much.

Ms.

Sure.

Alright, we'll provide the instructions again.

Let everyone know that we'll take in-person comments first, and then we'll rotate with our online audience.

If you are on our online audience,

You are advised to go ahead and raise your hand within the application if you're interested in speaking this evening.

We don't have any phone calls in, but if you were to be on a phone call, star nine, and we would be able to recognize you from there.

In-person audience, do we have any speakers?

We'll start here.

Hello, my name is David Plunkett and I'm a lifelong Charlottesville resident and I'm here today in my role as the director of Jefferson Madison Regional Library serving Charlottesville Albemarle, Green, Louisa and Nelson.

First of all, I want to thank council and city staff for working very closely with the library board on a central library renovation.

This has been many, many years in the works and they co-own that building with Albemarle County.

and I appreciate the work that council and staff have done to open conversations with Albemarle about the need for this project.

I'm here today to ask that the city consider including central library renovation in the upcoming five-year capital improvement program and that means working closely with Albemarle County to fund a two-part project.

One year would be architecture and engineering and then the construction itself could begin hopefully immediately following.

The Central Library has served as the main branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library since 1981, buildings co-owned by Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and it is the most public building in Charlottesville, I guarantee.

It serves as a community with doors wide open, 68 hours a week.

Actually, the doors aren't physically wide open because of the vestigal there, but hopefully a renovation will fix that.

They are metaphorically wide open, 68 hours a week.

Central also serves as the administrative headquarters of the regional library system.

The Central Library is in need of renovation.

The last major upgrade was over 40 years ago.

The city has managed this 100-year-old building plus more than 100 years.

Remarkably well, renovating restrooms, adding a new chiller, performing day-to-day maintenance needed to keep serving the community.

In fact, this afternoon staff was over there plugging holes as water was coming into the building.

So it is a labor of love for city staff that needs more love.

There are issues that need to be addressed.

In order to continue to provide the quality service that the people of Charlottesville expect and deserve, library use is a high priority for this community.

J.M.

Morrell was named the Virginia Library Associations Library of the Year in 2022 largely because of the support of the people of Charlottesville Albemarle, Brie and Louisa Nelson.

The changing face of library service though means that facilities need to keep pace with changing community needs for their information seeking needs.

In 2015, the Friends of the Library commissioned a design study for the renovation of Central and are prepared to support this project with extensive fundraising.

The estimated cost in 2015 was $8.74 million and the most recent CIP submission that J.M.

Morrell sent to the city and the county

Accounting for Inflation was $15.82 million.

So the price continues to rise every year.

The project is delayed.

Currently, the city share would be between $7 and $8 million.

So the goals of the renovation aligns with strategic planning and missions and values of the cities, including caring for an aging capital asset, providing equitable service, ensuring accessibility, modernization of library services, and taking advantage of the values of a shared facility and the fundraising that the Friends of the Library are prepared to bring.

Thanks.

All right, we'll move to our virtual audience and our first speaker is Elizabeth Stark.

Ms.

Stark, can you hear me?

Ms.

Stark?

All right.

Her hand went, no, no, it's still up.

Mr. Oh, hi, we can barely hear.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

You can begin.

Hi, planning commission and counselors and city manager Sanders.

Thank you so much for having this public hearing today.

and I just want to say I'm so impressed with the capital improvement plan budget.

I'm so glad to see funding for things like rent relief in there as well as so much funding for affordable housing.

As we're looking to the future of Charlottesville,

I really hope that we can examine ways that we can take more control of our affordable housing future and one of those options I would really like to see explored is for the city to form a land bank and that would be an entity that would be able to purchase land when it becomes available sort of akin to the purchase of the floodplain or the circus grounds

made recently, land that then could be developed into something else in the future.

But specifically for housing, we know that the market for housing is really going to heat up with the new zoning and I would just love for the city to be empowered.

with the ability to purchase housing without having to have an entire development plan in place.

And then once the city has a land bank, I'd love to see that established with the 500,000 that was set aside for affordable housing at the end of fiscal year 23.

And then hopefully even match because I think a million obviously is a drop in the bucket of what we need if we really want to be able to meaningfully

Hosea Mitchell,

You know, especially deeply sustainable land trust housing has incredible benefits for the community, for wealth building, for a bridge to home ownership for folks who might not otherwise be able to own homes.

And I think it gets a tool in our toolkit that we need to get that.

We need to have that available to us.

So as you're looking at the CIP and the ways that we're using affordable housing and working with nonprofit partners,

I really hope that you can prioritize land bank and land trust housing.

Good evening, Planning Commission Council and members of the public.

I'm Peter Krebs from the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Charlottesville resident.

First congratulations on completing the long journey to update the housing policy, the comp plan, and the zoning code.

This will result in a city that is more sustainable, more livable, and more equitable.

It will also require much better walk bike infrastructure and park access than what we currently have today.

I would like to highlight a current set of interconnected projects that will accomplish both of these things and would dramatically change the way people experience and get around the community.

There is a long term vision for a four mile loop that will tie the core of the region together.

It is centered around McIntyre Park, the Meadow Creek Valley, and the John Warner Parkway.

This vision is now within reach.

Staff has requested funding in the CIP for a crucial segment of Greenway between McIntyre Park and an existing but hidden shared use path behind the Lyme CA, CHS, and the fire station, the so-called Lyme CA connector.

This, plus a tiny remaining segment, will link to a second project the city has already funded and is set to build this year.

that will connect Mickey Drive, Greenboro Park Hillstale, and the 29 Corridor.

There is also a feasibility study for a tunnel under the railroad tracks connecting Greenboro Park to the John Warner Parkway Trail.

The possibilities are unlimited.

Here's what has to happen next.

Please support the staff's request for funding for this trail and others like them.

Commit flexible funds for any shortfalls.

Those do arise sometimes.

Please expedite the missing Eastman acquisition along 250.

It's small and it's in reach.

Also, please prioritize the Greenbriar tunnel.

That's going to be a crucial link for both the city and the county.

Feasibility study is almost done.

It's time to move to the next stage and get it in the regional transportation priority list.

This is also just a piece of the overall work to eliminate the small but debilitating gaps that exist all over the community.

On a related note, not exactly CIP, but definitely CIP adjacent, I hope the city manager's proposed program budget will include funding for dedicated trail maintenance.

This will free existing staff for needed planning, project management, and fundraising.

It's also my experience working with the community that elders, women, people of color, and the young are far more likely to use trails that are well maintained.

So proper maintenance extends the life, but it extends the equitable reach of our trails and connections.

Thank you.

My name is Perry Meldon and I'm a renter living at 210 Meade Avenue.

My congratulations again to City Council and the city manager for approving the new zoning code.

And as we all know, the zoning rewrite is only one step toward creating equitable, affordable housing opportunities.

So as you all move forward with deliberating the city budget for 2025, I call on City Council to commit to establishing a land bank using at least $1 million of budgetary funds

including the 500,000 allocated for housing from earlier year surpluses.

A land bank has the power to purchase distressed properties and then hold them for future management by a nonprofit land trust entity like Piedmont Community Land Trust.

Now, by allocating budgetary funds to both a land bank and a land trust, the city has the opportunity to plan creatively for permanently affordable climate, resilient and multifamily housing with affordable housing, a top priority for the five year plan.

It is no better time than now to expand on land trust projects.

And we've already got great examples like those in Fifeville and Kindlewood.

By investing in a land trust land bank initiative, the city commits to creating the low market rate housing, which will in turn ensure opportunities for generational wealth building.

Alright, do we have any additional speakers in person?

Alright, do we have any additional virtual speakers?

If you are interested in speaking, you need to raise your hand in the application.

All right.

The public hearing is now closed and we may begin our deliberations.

Sure.

Let's talk about sidewalks.

That's actually the main thing I'd like to talk about this year.

The budget explorer, the website that just explored the CIP, which is excellent, by the way, describes the sidewalk fund as, quote, inadequate to implement sidewalk construction at a meaningful scale.

So, you know, as part of the comprehensive plan and during Arizona Green Road process, I think we made a promise, we, the city, made a promise to the city that we would invest in the infrastructure to make the city a more walkable place to help people get out of their cars.

And $100,000 a year is just not an investment in that.

And so I've gone back through prior year's budgets.

They're all listed back to 2007 on the city website.

to look at what we put into the sidewalk fund pre-pandemic.

So FY 2020, for example, we had 400,000, 2019, 380, 206 before that, 200, 200, 285 in FY 2015, 285 before that, 285 before that.

300 in FY 2012, 300.

We zeroed it out, actually, in FY 10.

That was the big recession.

But the prior year, we actually budgeted 1.05 million for sidewalks.

And then I had to go all the way back to the very first budget, FY

O7 to find the last time prior to the pandemic where we put as low as $100,000 into the sidewalk fund.

And I think, you know, nowadays you get a little less sidewalk for $100,000 than you did back in O7.

And so, you know, I understand that we have difficulty

actually building sidewalks now.

But all the money we have in the fund is now committed to projects that exist.

And it seems to me if we are making an honest commitment to building sidewalks, as we've promised, we need to both fix that operational problem

and work through the supply chain shortages and contractor shortages that we have at the moment, but also be putting money into that pot so that when we're able, we have the money there to build sidewalks.

And so I would suggest a minimum of $500,000 per year in new sidewalk funding with the aim of eventually getting up to $1 million per year in new sidewalks.

Those are levels where we can actually start to make a meaningful impact on our sidewalk backlog.

Granted, we don't know.

We don't have our list of sidewalk priorities, but we know that we're going to have a list of sidewalk priorities.

And we know that at $100,000 a year, we're not going to be able to tackle even that very first priority.

So by putting a meaningful amount into the fund, we know that when we get that list, we can say, all right,

Let's take a look at this and start to work our way down.

Thank you.

I would like to thank Commissioner Stolzenberg for stealing my thunder.

It's all committed to existing projects.

Yeah, OK.

This was a hobby horse.

I was going to ride, but I'm not going to force everyone to sit through my version of this.

But I would generally concur with Commissioner Stolzenberg.

Persistent perennial and uninterrupted drum beats from the public and the people of the city about getting the sidewalk sorted.

And I know it's difficult and finding the resources in terms of the human capital to do it and the companies to do it and the timing to do it.

You know, the very least we can do is make sure we've got the money while we struggle with the rest of it and make it clear that we're playing down a marker.

And I don't know what that number is, 500,000, yeah, at least a million.

Oh, I have a great deal of thoughts on the land bank.

Well, it's not going to.

Land bank.

And I think we do need to establish one.

We have a draft that has got, is a little long in the tooth and we're actively, I mean, we're actively working, Mr. Solla-Yates and I are actively working on that with city staff to develop a land bank and that can function, that has all the functionality that the public has sort of comment on tonight and more.

So that's in the works.

There's so many things I want to spend money on.

My problem is not great things to spend money on, though I'm going to list them anyway.

Sidewalks, trails funding, getting design and engineering for the library in the budget to move that forward.

Those jump out as priorities, and I think those make a lot of sense.

I can't find any fat to cut in this budget, which is a compliment and also a frustration.

I looked, I really looked.

We have more needs than we have resources in the CIP at this time, which is troubling.

I'm uncomfortable voting for increased spending at this time unless we can figure out a way to fund it.

I think Lyle is spot on.

I don't.

Looking at it, there was nothing to take out, unless we can add more bonds, which maybe we could do.

But would you, I guess, talking to Commissioner Lyle and Phil,

Would you want to see a mine item in the CIP for land-backed funding?

Is that something in the out years similar to potentially a library design?

Yeah, I'm not sure that that's the avenue for it necessarily.

And I think at this point, we kind of don't know what we don't know as far as how there are funding mechanisms for a land bank that we need to look at and sort of balance that and anything that we put in the year out now.

I mean, sure, let's put $5 million a year

$1 a year into the land bank for the next five years out.

I'm in favor of that if we could find $5 million.

But I just don't know at this moment how much money from the city we're actually going to need.

We need to have a nonsense number in there.

I agree with you on the borrowing from more bonds.

I mean, I'm looking back fondly on the days where they were giving money away for free in the bond market.

And, you know, hindsight is 20-20.

We probably should have borrowed every dime we possibly could.

You know, 1% that's free money.

Is correct.

Question on our funding, the CIP, on looking at that slide, on the planned revenues.

and must equal planned expenses.

It's slide number four, I think.

We saw a decrease over the years between now and 2029.

Is that because we just don't have projects planned?

It is.

We basically are just balancing the revenues to the expenditures that are planned at this point.

And as we've talked about, you know, many years we've come to you and we've talked about bond capacity being an issue.

You know, with every ad, we'll have to rerun the projections.

I will say that right now in our CIP, Buford was planned with a much higher bond sale than what we know we need now because of the grant that's been awarded.

Of course, if you look at what's not in the plan, there's as much or more that could be added on the expenditure side as well.

So could we add it?

Yes.

How much do we want to add?

And, you know,

What can we give up or not?

We'd have to work the puzzle pieces.

But could we?

On that, could we?

What do design services or engineering drawings for library innovation?

Typically we do.

That would be included in a bondable expense because it is part of the project.

The interesting thing with the library is that we really have to move lockstep with the county because it is a joint project.

And so even if the city were to put in money, if the county is not able to do the same step, then it becomes a little bit interesting in how we move forward.

So we are, you know, as Mr. Sanders indicated, he is in close contact with the county executive and our budget office.

We are communicating as they're moving through their process as well.

Thank you.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank city staff and the city manager for the work and the clarity of the CIP proposal.

I think this is the seventh one of these I've done.

And this is the easiest to follow in the most logical process that I've seen in seven years I've done this.

So thank you very much for that.

Hosea Mitchell,

So one thing that we've done in these meetings and years gone by is not necessarily lend and amount to what we're asking for, but to ask counsel as they begin deliberating to give thoughts to finding money for things like sidewalks and finding money for the library and finding money or thinking about finding money for land making and land trust.

recommend that when we make our motions and we ask for those things, we don't do the $500,000 every year, but we just ask counsel to consider it.

And if you can come up with something that they might offset that with in your motion, that'd be great.

But you're not able to.

And you have gone by with nothing able to do that either.

And the council has worked with the city manager's office to find ways to make it work.

And or use what Mr. Sand has called, I think it was the end of your money, the surplus money to do things like funding sidewalks, land banks, land trusts, and library.

So, with that, is there a motion that people would like to structure that we can begin emitting?

Well, true.

Still thinking.

We don't have any language in the packet recommending a motion, do we?

So we'll stop the scrolling.

So, well, in past years I've spent a fair amount of effort finding things to cut, actually, from these CIPs.

I don't actually have anything in this one, though there are some items with pending balances that I still think are worth questioning.

One that comes to mind is the SIA immediate implementation account, which we're still funding, I guess, with $200,000 per year.

And I get that we're expanding that to a small area plan implementation, but it already has over $1.6 million going in here.

I'm not going to put that in

in an amendment that I'll propose.

But I would like to recommend at least a minimum dollar amount for sidewalks each year.

Or at least say something like exceeding pre-pandemic funding amounts for new sidewalks.

So really convey that the $100,000 that we're talking about now is not nearly adequate for what we're talking about.

Sure.

So I would propose an amendment to change the new sidewalk fund.

Ms.

How about we see if we have a long list?

Because we're in kind of weird land here.

We've got a motion and a second, but the motion is on items that you all haven't talked about specifically yet.

So it is a little wonky.

Yeah, the only sort of substantive dollar change that I'm in the headspace to jump on board and do is the sidewalk piece I would sort of

I am endorsing his, well, it's not an amendment.

It's the suggestions that are coming on the dais.

I agree with what's been discussed at this time.

I agree with everything.

So...

We can do what we've done in past years is you all have moved forward the CIP, our recommended approval with the consideration of the following items.

And so what we've done with that each year is we put that into an MMO format.

We verify that that was the language.

And then that is included as part of the budget packet, pretty high on the top of the packet so that Council is reminded

So I think maybe if, well, I don't know if everyone is going to agree with the two items.

Is it appropriate to sort of add the, looking at the sort of capital counts of de minimis to find money for these things, or are we just going to move that to staff to try to spend it?

Sure.

Yeah, we'll just leave staff to scramble for that.

How do we perceive the development?

What do you want to kind of walk us through?

Maybe Mr. Solla-Yates can restate his motion, which was very brief, and I can read to him.

And he can add the two items that you all specifically wanted consideration for.

I think the staff will be looking at the

The third, I thought Mr. D'Oronzio was... Okay, all right, then we have the two.

All right, so Mr. Solla-Yates provided a motion to approve the CIP, which recommended the CIP as discussed.

with the following recommendations to provide to Council.

Okay.

All right, we have a motion.

Are we ready to vote?

Ms.

Sure.

Okay.

And Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

All right.

All right.

On to Council.

It goes.

Thank you very much.

Council, your work here is done.

You're welcome to spend the rest of the evening with us, but we're going to go into the verb in Ivy Road.

But we won't need your input on that on those.

All right, the next item on the docket is the verb Charlottesville.

It is a PUDZM 23-0004.

This is the second time that we've talked about this.

The first time we talked about this, there was an anomaly in our mailing.

And we did not mail all the folks that needed to be aware of this project.

We have fixed that.

And as a result, we've notified more people.

And we want to give those additional people that have been notified an opportunity to offer their input.

So we're going to have another public hearing to allow for their input.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, not too much more I'll add.

I will just give briefly on this project.

You have seen this project several times.

On December 18th, City Council held a meeting for this.

They voted on all the supplemental applications that came along with this, if you remember there was

A critical slope waiver, a sidewalk waiver.

There was amending the closing of Woodrow Street.

There was amending the sale of the property to allow development.

Those passed during that meeting, the applicant did verbally change their proffers to include more money as a contribution to the City's Affordable Housing Fund.

Due to that, this is going back next week to City Council to address that proffer change.

There was time between that, between city council's meeting and their meeting next week to address this anomaly with the mailing.

So staff thought it was prudent to hold a additional public hearing outside of this public hearing with city council, just with planning commission to allow anyone that did not receive notice a chance to speak.

With that, the applicant is here, but unless there's a need to hear from the applicant,

Any questions for the staff?

Any questions for the applicant?

Right, we will then move on to the public hearing.

Ms.

Sure.

The public hearing is now opened.

We'll look to our in-person audience first, and then we'll move to our virtual audience.

Do we have any members of our in-person audience who would like to speak?

All right, seeing none.

Our virtual audience, if you are interested in speaking on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom application.

All right, checking one more time to see if we have any speakers.

All right, the public hearing is now closed.

We should begin our deliberations.

Do we require an action by the Commission at this time?

Again, yes.

Mr. Chair, I have a motion.

Yes.

I've moved to recommend that City Council should approve ZM23-0004 on the basis that approval of the proposed PUD development is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice.

Is there any further discussion?

Second.

Any further discussion?

No.

Ms.

Sure.

And Mr. Mitchell?

Great.

That concludes our discussion of verb.

And now we're going on to 2117 Ivy Road, ZM 23-0000.

So, Mitchell said, this is the same reason as Verve.

This is the same PUD application you saw back in November.

City Council last considered it on their December 18th session.

And at that meeting, they may requested verbally changes to the applicant's proffer statement, which the applicants agreed to.

At the conclusion of that meeting, after they had voted to approve, they voted to have a new public hearing or a new hearing or a new consideration of their application in January.

to make those changes to the proffer statement legally binding.

And that'll be what's happening next week on the 16th.

Meanwhile, we did notice the discrepancy in our mailings.

And so we elected to have a new public hearing for the Planning Commission, which is tonight to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligation to advertise to adjacent residents.

Any questions for the applicant?

Ms.

Creasy, public hearing is now open.

No, I got it.

Checking our in-person audience.

Do we have any speakers?

All right.

Looking to our virtual audience in Zoom, if you're interested in speaking on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom application.

All right, one last call.

All right, the public hearing has ended.

There is, sir.

I have a motion.

Please.

Chair Mitchell, I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM 23-ot-ot-ot-ot

I second.

All right, we got a motion and a second, Ms.

Mr. Habab.

Aye.

And Mr. Mitchell.

Right.

The next item on the docket is a rezoning application, ZM-23-0002, and a special use permit application, SP-23-0003, located at 108 Lankford Avenue.

What we will do is we will get the staff report for both and we'll get the

And we'll have the applicant do their presentation for both.

And we'll do the public hearing for both.

But when we vote, we have to vote on the rezoning application.

And then we have to vote on the SGP.

So I forget.

Oh, Ms.

She is.

Excellent, thank you.

So sorry for the delay, I just got into the door, blown up the application.

It's quite the drive home.

Thank you, Carrie Rainey, City Planner with Neighborhood Development Services.

As our Chair has mentioned, Green Retro Salvage Holding LLC has submitted a rezoning application in a special use permit application for development at 108, 110, and 112 length for admin.

The Planning Commission in the City Council did hold a joint public hearing on these applications on November 14th of 2023.

After the hearing, the Planning Commission granted the applicant's request to defer the application in order to make modifications.

The applicant has also chosen to defer waiver application until a later date.

And the modifications to the rezoning in special use applications

reducing the potential residential units, which were previously proposed to be 49 units with a density of 51 dwelling units per acre to be now 46 residential units, which would be a density of 49 dwelling units per acre.

In addition, they would retain two of the three existing structures on the site at Frontlingford Avenue.

They provided a modification to their proffer statements, which now provide 10% of units as affordable for 99 years from the first certificate of occupancy.

And it provided additional landscaping within the proposed parking lot.

The rezoning application requests a change from the existing R1S small lot residential zoning to R3 multifamily residential zoning.

And the special use permit would allow the residential density up to 49 volunteers per acre, as well as proposed modifications to the front and side setbacks of the property.

2021 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map designates the subject property and adjacent properties as general residential properties across Lankford Avenue are designated as general residential sensitive community areas.

The land use description for general residential states that this area allows for additional housing choice within existing residential neighborhoods with forms compatible to the existing context, including house size structures with similar ground floor footprint areas and setbacks as the surrounding residential structures.

Up to two and a half stories of height is recommended and three residential units per lot with four residential units permitted if an existing structure is maintained.

is there before the applicant is currently proposing 46 residential units through the special use permit and would be permitted to have 19 residential units should the rezoning application be approved without the special use permit.

The revision to show retention of two of the three existing structures along the front of the property is consistent with the neighborhood pattern and scale.

However, staff has concerned the three remaining proposed buildings will be taller and have a larger footprint than typical patterns of the neighborhood.

In addition, the proposed development density does not align with the neighborhood's patterns of development.

While the proposed zoning may contribute to some aspects of the city's comprehensive plan such as diversifying housing options and supportive goals, two of the housing chapter staff funds that the rezoning would not be consistent with the future land use map land use description categories and several goals and objectives of the land use chapter focused on context sensitive infill and respecting existing neighborhoods and patterns of scale.

In addition, while the subject property is not within the historic districts, we will note that the western adjacent property is an individually protected property and the eastern adjacent property contains the Gowings Family Cemetery.

The City Preservation Planner has noted the applicant must be careful to not disturb any known burial sites and recommends the applicant retain a licensed archaeologist to determine if unknown graves are present on the subject property and if found, ensure that construction continues until notice is provided to the city.

Preservation Planner.

The city traffic engineer has confirmed the proposed development will not create a significant impact to the city's street network.

The existing conditions of Lankford Avenue generally align with the recommendations of the streets that work plan.

The narrow travel lanes and on-street parking limit potential improvements in the right-of-way.

The proposed development would meet on-site requirements which would minimize impacts to the availability of on-street parking for other residents in the area.

as previously described for the rezoning application staff remains concerned with the use and scale of the proposed development in relation to the proposed density.

I'm sure the commission recommend approvals.

Staff has provided a series of potential conditions within the special use permit staff report for the commission consideration.

Ms.

Raney, good evening.

Thank you for your safely traveling this evening.

I've seen a lot of the issues that came up last time addressed, but I don't see the safety issues that the public spoke about.

extreme speeding down the hill, people just distracted drivers using the street as a cut-through way to get through quickly, which I don't believe is the result of this proposal.

I think that's a pre-existing condition.

But checking previously, there was no plan to address the sidewalk discontinuities or the safety issues.

Is that still true?

as a part of this application specifically or generally speaking for sitting improvements.

Okay, so right now there's nothing proposed in application to improve Langford Avenue.

Certainly that's something that could be provided to the applicant.

So choose.

I do know that subsequent to the City Council meeting,

I believe in early November where several members of the public spoke about traffic concerns on Lakeford Avenue that city staff has been connected with those folks in order to provide some information on our traffic calming program, which has potentials to improve neighborhood streets.

Exciting.

I had a question on the rezoning and the proffer or just generally the process.

So nothing in the rezoning application, if that was approved, locks into, locks it.

It's kind of like a condition or something like that as part of the rezoning, saving the two homes or the layout that we're looking at.

Is that correct?

That's kind of separate.

Sorry, yes.

Sorry, that would be correct regarding the rezoning.

Thank you.

Can you walk it through?

Yes, there are.

Let me make sure I've got the right document in front of me.

So there's first of there is a request to reduce the current, the 25 foot front yard setback, which is both for the R1S as an aside in the R3 district to be 10 feet.

And then regarding the side setbacks,

There's two pieces in play.

There's a requirement for any time a development is adjacent to low density residential districts.

So if this parcel was rezoned R3, but the remaining parcels around it would continue to be R1S that there is a

75-foot buffer required adjacent to that R3 property.

So there's been a request to reduce that to be shown in the exhibit.

And then also there is a requirement to have a 20-foot landscape buffer provided between those multifamily R3 developments in a lower density residential and the applicant has proposed

a six-foot opaque screening fence instead of that 20-foot landscape buffer.

Thank you.

Real quick, unrelated topic.

The documents that you needed me to sign for, Friendship Court, did you leave them with Ms.

Creasy?

You did, thank you.

Okay, where are we?

Good evening, Chair Mitchell, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Kelsey Schlein.

I'm a planner with Shimp Engineering, and I'm here tonight representing green retro salvage holdings to LLC, the property owner and applicant for this application before you tonight.

I do want to thank you all for the conversation that was had back at the November 14th Planning Commission public hearing.

I think what we had before you tonight is a direct response to concerns that we saw in the staff report that was released before that meeting.

And I just really appreciate the conversation that was had that evening that has allowed us to come back before you tonight with what I think is a much better project.

So next slide, please.

So one item that I wanted to address is the project history and timeline.

And I know that you all discussed this briefly at the November 14th meeting, but given the recent adoption of the zoning ordinance rewrite on December 18th and the impending enactment of that on February 19th,

We are up against a deadline with this project.

This really is the last night for a vote on this.

And then it will go forward to City Council prior to their 19th meeting.

And what I wanted to demonstrate for you is that we have been working on this application for a very long time.

And the timelines just happened to coincide with the recent adoption of the zoning ordinance rewrite.

So you'll see in April 2022, we had the pre-application meeting.

After the pre-application meeting, we received some comments from staff that there was the potential that the goings family cemetery was located on the property.

And so therefore they wanted us to do additional research as to the location of that cemetery.

We did a bunch of courthouse research and tried to find what we could.

Some of these plots are very old.

And so then we needed to bring on a specialist with ground penetrating radar, which took, that is not a commonly advertised service.

And so it took a while to get scheduled.

It took a while for the report to be completed.

And so there was a large gap between the pre-application meeting and our first submission.

working through finding the location of that cemetery, which ultimately was not found to be on the property.

It's believed to be on the property to the east.

So then just running through the timeline here in August 2023, that's when we received some initial comments from Office of Community Solutions and Traffic.

and responded to those kind of the best that we could by the November 2023 public hearing.

After we had a good discussion back in November, we are here before you tonight.

Next slide please.

And I just want to kind of draw attention to the context of this property.

So this is nearly a one acre site on Linkford Avenue.

And so we kind of just, you know, put the 20 minute walking shed diameter on there to just kind of call out how connected this would be.

This is a bird's eye diameter.

I think you can get to quite a few places from this site within 20 minutes.

It is also, you'll see the buildings that are the white buildings.

You'll see just southeast of the site is the South First Street development.

Recently, 64 units were completed there, and they have a planned 175 units for that development.

We are directly across the street from the church.

And so this, although we are on Langford Avenue, this kind of

getting towards this intersection between Langford and South First Street.

We really are much kind of in a more mixed housing type, mixed use type of neighborhood on this portion of the street.

Next slide, please.

And then this is just calling out some additional, closer in view of the context of this one-acre site.

Next slide, please.

So I wanted to go over the revisions from the last time.

And so this is an item that we presented to you at the prior public hearing.

It involved the removal of one multifamily structure towards the front of the site and the preservation of two of the three existing houses along Linkford Avenue to preserve the streetscape as best as possible.

You'll also note, if you look closely at the grading plan, there is a good grade drop across the property.

and to kind of speaking to Mr. Habab's questions, just about setback reduction.

So there is the, as Carrie mentioned, an R3 district adjacent to a low family residential district requires a 75 foot separation from the face of the multi-family building to

the adjacent low-family residential district.

So that's clearly difficult to achieve.

But if you look at the map here, you'll see that our greater intensity of form, which is still only a building footprint that's about 25,000 square feet, is stepping down the hillside.

And it's not directly adjacent to any adjacent single-family dwellings.

If you look at the map there, all the buildings are up towards the street.

And we're utilizing the entirety of this one-acre property, stepping down

which also diminishes the view from the streetscape.

Next slide please.

And so I know this was something discussed in pre-meeting, so I'll spend a little bit of time talking about the proffer statement.

The November proffer committed to 12.5% of units designated as affordable at 60% AMI from year 10 to 99.

So an 89-year affordability.

And the reason for that is just that it's most difficult to get a project off the ground.

That's when the most dollars go into a project.

That's when it's most difficult to finance.

And so after year 10, you can refinance.

It becomes a little more feasible.

So that was the thought behind that proffer.

After the conversation we had at the meeting, the comments from OCS, which I will note, did not change between our two proffer statements.

They're exactly the same word for word, despite the fact that the proffer was changed.

And so we changed the January proffer to be reflective of the requirements that are now included in the zoning ordinance, which is 10% of units designated at affordable

are designated as affordable at 60% AMI for 99 years.

Some of the OCS comments how I understand them is just noting that because specific floor plans for each building was not presented as part of the rezoning and special use permit application, they could not confirm the exact square footage for section 3412 calculation.

And so what their comments say to me is that if at

site plan.

We are in excess of 1.0 floor area ratio.

We will trigger 3412.

I don't believe we will we will get there.

If we do get there, obviously we will comply with 3412.

In addition to our proffer statement, we will have to meet kind of, you know, both requirements is kind of my understanding of the comments that they that they put forth.

Next slide, please.

And so then, again, just you'll see that the front, the retention of the two residential structures and elimination of one multifamily structures, the main change to this proposal.

We also had a discussion about trees and some green space on the property.

And so we, in our recent middle, proposed an SUP condition, which is now incorporated into your packet, which basically doubles the tree canopy requirement within the parking area.

What we're trying to balance here with the amount of parking that we've provided, well first of all complying with the ordinance as it stands today, but second of all kind of balancing it with concerns that we heard at the community meeting just about the availability of on-street parking in that area.

And so I think that by increasing the tree canopy while maintaining the required amount of parking we responded well to those concerns.

Next slide please.

And then this is the revised site section, so you can kind of see how the grade steps down and the retention of, so, yeah, I mean, we're clearly maintaining the existing streetscape there.

I think that's much more familiar to residents along that roadway.

Next slide.

And so this was something that we talked about previously as well, but it's kind of just various development scenarios that might be likely to take place.

I know that you all kind of went into this in a little more detail, but you know the point here is there's an acre lot that's very proximate to a lot of two employment centers amenities in this area and

We just really feel that a multi-family development utilizing the grade, maintaining the existing streetscape is just a really creative way to realize some infill development on this property, given its unique location.

Next slide, please.

And then I just wanted to call out a few consistency with the comprehensive plan.

It was really Chapter 4, Goal 2, Strategy 2.3, when we saw that and how it was analyzed in the staff report that really pushed us to revise this application.

So prioritizing the preservation of existing structures while encouraging a greater intensity of use, encourage infill development and reuse of or additions to structures rather than demolition of existing buildings.

So that really pushed us to the project that we have before you tonight and I hope that

We'll be able to get your support of it, and I'm available for any questions.

I guess one question regarding your proffer, just for clarification.

It seems that, you know, it triggers, the 99 years begins when the first CO is issued.

And I don't know if you're planning on phasing this, but if you were to do that, then in the later phases, that 99 years would have already started elapsing before the affordable units are provided.

No, I mean, I think it was intentional to start the trigger for just establishing the trigger for when the affordability will start and also just, I think, from a tracking standpoint for staff rather than having tracking tied to each additional building.

I think regarding the phasing question, although it is a one-acre site, we would probably, you know, which is large for

Another question.

It seems that your number of units per building has increased since the previous one to compensate for losing the front building.

It doesn't seem like the building's got any bigger, though.

The same height and the footprints look pretty much the same.

It would either be for going to a smaller unit, you know, I think previously we had accounted for someone bedrooms and so maybe incorporating entirely studios, relatively small units, you know, similar to the size of a project that's going up in Belmont right now, but

I think alternatively it gives us the flexibility in the future that when the tenants move out of the front two structures that they could potentially be converted into a duplex.

Right now one of those structures is being rented out by room.

I guess the last question

Yeah, the estate asked us to keep pushing on this.

So that's why we're here.

There was an awful tragedy that happened to our client, and the estate wanted us to bring this forward.

So yes, I think there's every intention of

Right.

But she has always owned the LLC.

At one point, he was a manager of that LLC.

Yes.

That is correct.

Yes.

OK.

And then so to follow up on Commissioner Stolzenberg's question, so it sounds to me like you are pushing this closer to, as you said, sort of studio type apartments, which

sort of, because we are a strange straddling of the two plans here, that makes me look at the parking lot and say, okay, do we really, okay, we are where we are.

So, and then commissioners, staff, somebody correct me, generally speaking under the

New zoning, the setback issues are sort of static anyway, right?

Yeah, well, correct.

I'm just trying to talk about the physical change, the physical landscape that we're actually, we're

In terms of the actual pragmatics setbacks, we're consistent with the modifications you're requesting.

You follow me?

That's my understanding.

I think they would be the 10 foot that we would be required.

That's what I was driving at that we're not.

OK.

Yeah, the view from the street, I mean, I think we've got it descending and you're essentially one story behind the original structures.

And just as an editorialization, yes, every single comment about this project to city council is about the death-race 2000 that the neighbors think that Langford has become.

But that has nothing to do with this application in terms of pragmatics.

Yeah, okay, I don't really have anything beyond that.

And to accept it, I don't care if the affordability period works out to 99 years or 92 years of that or whatever.

I mean, it is what it is.

I don't think it's your fault.

I don't think that was your idea.

I believe that it's happening.

I spent some time.

And yeah, the hill is steep.

The sidewalks are uneven.

And there are kids playing on the street, which is a good thing in a city.

That's, I think, what we want.

Yes, certainly.

So I mean, I think with transportation planning and traffic planning, it's always a compromise between kind of utility of the road and how many cars can travel on it.

But also, narrow streets tend to indicate to people to slow down.

And so I think, you know, Linkford is a relatively narrow street.

I think it's the grade change that is maybe encouraging people to drive faster than they should.

In this case, I think all I can say is typically when people live in the neighborhood, they don't want to speed through their neighborhood.

And so as far as these residents living here,

I imagine that they will not be bad actors as far as driving on the road.

I imagine they will comply with the laws just because they will be living there among their neighbors if they're speeding, their neighbors see that.

It's something that's brought up to you when you're walking down the street.

I'm glad to hear that the city is now looking at this and that the residents showed up and expressed their concerns because that's how

get the city to focus on these type of issues.

If it's not voice, they don't know.

Thanks again for, you know, I appreciate the willingness to modify the plan based on our last conversation and bring this back to us.

I had a question on the proffer we had in the pre-meeting, we're just wondering, looking at the, you know, 10% of the units are affordable.

When you're rounding, if you're at like 46 units, are you doing four units or five units?

Yeah, I mean, I think that is something that has been clarified in the current ordinance.

I think previously it was my understanding, I'll spread it away in, that it was always interpreted that if you trigger more than the whole number, that you would have to provide the additional unit.

That's my understanding of it.

That's my understanding.

Okay, yeah.

So now the new ordinance has clarified that, but under like, you know, what we are proposing and under the R3 is it's currently interpreted.

If you hit point one,

That was just a clarification.

Thanks.

And it's not really in the proffer, but I'm assuming the unit size slash amenities and distribution around the development would be

Yeah, I mean, I think that would be, that's the intent.

I think there was a good conversation about displacement.

And so by preserving two of the three existing houses,

The lease is already in place.

You already have tenants vetted and approved to live in your unit.

So yeah, I can't imagine the owner has any intention of moving them out.

I think it would really just be more of a nuisance issue and just how to navigate that.

That's good to hear.

I had a question on building height.

It looks like you're a three and a half stories-ish, which to me feels compatible with the neighborhood.

And let's see.

There was nothing in the conditions that you suggested in the SUP to retain the two homes.

May I ask, why is that?

Or is there maybe like, you know, you don't want to lock it in for forever?

Sure.

And I'll ask Kerry to weigh in on this if I'm off on this.

But, you know, my my understanding of special use permits is that it's a very specific request that we're putting forward with a special use permit.

We have submitted a very specific plan for a specific number of units with a with a concept plan that guides development on on the property.

And so, you know, if the existing front units were not to be retained,

And I do agree with that statement.

I will note, you can, as the commission also recommend adding in any conditions that are shown in the plan that, you know, you feel particularly important and that you want to call out specifically in a recommended condition to council.

So, but it would, we do generally, you know, the plan covers it, but as you'll note, the

But just to be clear on that, that would only apply for the special use permit for density and setbacks.

But if they were to pursue a by-right R3 development, I don't know if that's possible, setbacks, but they could potentially do that without any conditions since it isn't proffered.

If it is

in the conditions or proffered, whatever the case may be.

This is more of a question of procedure.

Could these homes ever be demolished?

Even in development, couldn't we argue?

Didn't we have on stribbling a consolidation of one building to another?

Didn't we have that position?

Yeah, the general, sorry, what's the term we normally use?

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, so it sends me, I mean, I don't know where that line is.

I think that's partly the planning commission makes that decision whether you're out of line on this S.U.P.

So it's not a condition of you can never do this.

I don't want to make it harder.

They're acting on good faith to save them.

I just didn't want to make them save them for a million years.

Both of those properties have been somewhat internally renovated.

Other than that, it's great.

I mean, traffic, there's nothing you could do about that.

And I was looking at even, at first, I had a concern about the parking lot and how it fits.

But across the street, there's the church parking lot and one property over.

It's a similar layout.

And it's also, I think, a nine-unit

Building, this is kind of the mailboxes.

Michael, any questions?

I just have one follow-up thing.

2003 R1S.

Yeah, it was R3, yeah.

Yeah, so I don't think the sort of

Particular Zoning District here, if you could give me two over to the church and one over to the apartment complex.

Yeah, I think we're consistent with the neighborhood and the history of the neighborhood, I think.

I just wanted to add appreciation for the revised design.

I was not a part of the commission when the first design came through, but I appreciate the sentiment and the acknowledgement of comprehensive plans and the goals of maintaining the two existing structures.

Thank you.

If I may have a question.

Oh, please.

Ms.

Well, they would have to do it either way, because the rezoning has proffers, the SUP has conditions

That's a pretty significant condition.

That's not an administrative kind of situation.

So they would have to come back and ask.

Second.

Is there any further discussion?

Correct.

And Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

All right.

I move to recommend approval of this application for specialist permit in the R3 zone at TMP 2600 1200 and an address of 108 Winkford Avenue permit additional desks with the following conditions.

The conditions recommended by staff

So, before you second it, somebody seconds it.

So, your thoughts about, as the application is presented, is what you're intent to protect the two pluses.

Yeah, yeah, that's the main thing.

Is there a second?

Let's specify a drawing and a date.

Could I request for council's consideration just to, and I'm sorry, there's a motion on the table I'm speaking, but if the general form provided that, and I don't know whether it's prudent to put in there, if there's some type of

Natural Disaster Act of God, we can take the structure out without coming before you all, or whether general form covers that.

I guess the question is, general form, which includes preservation of existing structures, as shown as the concept plan dated so and so date, provided that.

This may be a question for Council, but I think that's baked into the cake anyway, right?

So let me revise that.

Provided that the development be consistent with the general layout as shown in the concept plan on page 140 of the packet submitted December 4th, 2023.

Mr. Bob seconds.

Any more chatting about this?

All right, Ms.

And Mr. Mitchell.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

All right, that wraps up our regular business for the evening.

Is there any thing else you guys would like to discuss?

Oh, four weeks a day.

23rd, OK.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I will note that January 9th is National Play God Day.

which, you know, some of us may or may not observe that on other days of the year or more consistently.

But today is that day and I regret not mentioning this before the meeting got underway because we went through an entire meeting without making any capricious arbitrary and fiat decisions that upended a bunch of people's lives.

Is there a second?

Second.

We are adjourners.