Planning Commission Special Meeting   2/25/2025

We are, let me... We're turning that off, here.

All right.

Welcome, everyone, to this special meeting of the Pine Commission to make up for our snow day from two weeks ago.

I think this is going to be a somewhat abbreviated meeting tonight, so we'll start with... Are there some announcements from... Oh, shoot.

Yeah.

Not this evening.

All right, then we are going to jump right into matters in the public.

So there will be an opportunity for applicants to speak to their items.

So if you're here in that role, you'll have that opportunity.

But this is an opportunity matters for the public.

It can be any item.

Any item this evening, actually, that you would want to address to the Planning Commission.

There's a limitation of three minutes, and we will alternate between our in-person audience as well as our virtual audience.

And we'll call on going back and forth from that perspective.

So I wanted to check in with our in-person audience.

Do we have anyone who would like to speak during matters from the public?

All right, seeing no one in person, we'll move to our attendees online virtually.

If you're interested in speaking and you're online, you can raise your hand in the application.

If you were to be on a phone, you would hit star nine, which would allow you to raise your hand in the application.

Any virtual participants?

All right, in person, checking one more time.

Okay, virtual.

All right, great.

So I guess we're going to move under our first item, which is a special exception for a critical slope at 1115 St.

Charles Court.

Good evening.

Dan O'Connell, NDS Planner.

I do not have a detailed presentation for this, but I can just kind of introduce it.

So this is a pretty small request to disturb around 500 square foot of critical slopes around the back of an existing residential parcel to permit some backyard improvements, a patio, retaining wall, shed and that sort.

Staff didn't have any conditions attached to this and did recommend approval.

The only thing that came up in review was from city utilities as there is a private drainage easement in the rear yard.

I have nothing directly on the application.

I just wanted to throw in that I remember maybe a time when a super basic kind of no-brainer, pretty old slope exception like this would be on our consent agenda.

I don't know if we had a policy change to not do that anymore, or if this is just a special meeting so we didn't have a consent agenda, but I think this one definitely merits consent agenda.

This is the first wager on our new code, so, yeah, that might have had something to do with it.

Yeah, that definitely makes sense for the, I figured that was part of the reason for the next one, for sure.

I would have a comment, but I can't get the internet to work.

Oh no!

For some reason it's messing up, so I can't find, get the packet up.

Are you just not getting the log in screen?

It usually takes, it just takes a while.

Anyway, my point was, I can't remember what the foundation for the shed was, but I would vote that this would be okay, maybe in future times, looking at how it attaches to the ground on a small case like this would make a difference.

But this one,

I don't know, if the roads are something so water could go under it?

Or, you know, the things that we're worried about with critical slips?

That's a good point.

Actually, could you come to the microphone?

Yeah, not too much to add, but just that it's very steep in the back of our house.

And not only, you know, did we want to create just like a small flat area for us to use, but we also have a safety concern of, you know, somebody falling back there.

I've actually almost fallen when it was really icy earlier.

So that's also part of the request.

I move to recommend approval of the critical slope, special exception for tax map

and parcel 48a041b08 as requested with no reservations or conditions based on a finding that due to the unusual size, topography shape, location and other unusual physical conditions or existing development of a property, the requirements of section 34-4.10-0.1 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrictive the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property would result in a significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties.

Go ahead and call the mayor.

Miss Roker.

Yes.

All right.

Oh, so that is approved.

I'm sorry, that's right.

I've spent too long in the world with the Board of Architecture Review.

Sorry.

Good evening, Carrie Rainey, City Planner with NDS.

We've got a brief slide if we could pull that up.

Thank you.

Again, Kerry Arrani, city planner with NDS, here today for a special exception permit to allow fencing at 818-820 East Jefferson Street, which is a cafe Cumbray on the corner.

Next slide.

So this property is located in our NX node mixed use district as well as being within our entrance corridor.

Just a brief description of our, the intent of our mixed use node districts up here on the left as well as our urban mixed use core which is our land designation and our future land map which defines the district as supporting community housing employment and commercial development.

Next slide.

So the code lays out criteria for city council and for the planning commission to consider while making a decision and recommendation.

These are listed here for you on the left.

Regarding this criteria, specifically criteria one which focuses on proposed modifications being harmonious with our existing and improved patterns of development.

The properties and the vicinity of this subject property vary in buildings set back in front yard use.

Those can include parking lot, landscaping, other entrance ways.

The staff has found that the proposed improvements on this lot to add the deck and fencing would be appropriate for this area.

And in addition, the entrance corridor board through the preservation planner has issued the certificate of appropriateness for the entrance corridor for this project.

So they've also confirmed compliance with the general area.

Regarding criteria two, support of the comprehensive planning goals and objectives, excuse me, the proposed fencing allows creation of outdoor seating area that is adjacent to and visible from both Ninth Street, Northeast and East Jefferson Street.

on which increase activation and pedestrian interest in line with our mixed-use area goals and objectives, particularly goal three of the land use chapter.

Now, in addition, the new seating area supports commercial development by increasing the capacity of the existing restaurant and therefore staff fines that the proposed improvements would support the goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan.

And then finally, regarding criteria three, whether the permit is consistent with public necessity, convenience, general welfare,

and Good Zoning Practices.

As the application aligns with the comprehensive plan, provides outdoor space and street activation

within the 9th Street Northeast and East Jefferson Street areas.

Staff finds that granting this a special exception permit would be consistent with good zoning practice in general public welfare.

Staff is not recommending any conditions be placed on the special exception permit at this time.

Any proposed modifications that would come forward would need to be reviewed for compliance with the entrance corridor certificate of appropriateness.

Does the applicant have anything that they'd like to add?

My understanding is it is on the list for consideration.

Questions?

Would you entertain a motion?

I guess, well, just a clarification.

So you did say that Jeff Warner is reviewing this.

Correct.

I mean, if you apply no conditions today, would still any changes would need to get that further review by Jeff Warner?

Yeah.

Anybody want to make a motion?

I'll move.

I will second.

Yeah, it says the approval of this application, so presumably all the supporting materials.

Like, could they then just build a whole fence around the property?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to amend my motion.

I move to recommend approval of this application for special exception permit in the NX10 node mixed use zone at 818-820 East Jefferson Street.

to permit the installation of the fences consistent with the packet drawing and presentation provided.

OK, with your second.

I'll second.

Sure.

All right.

All right, while you're organizing, I'll go out and... She's coming.

Let's have another presentation.

Again, Carrie Rainey with NDS, Planner with NDS, here for a special exception permit to alter street-facing injury spacing requirements for the Friendship Court or Kindlewood Phase 3 project, which is at 400-2426 Garrett Street.

Next slide.

On our maps here, we're showing our properties in the CX-8 category, which has a similar intent to our node mixed use district, if you read on our previous sheet.

So it's really encouraging a mix of uses and activities and vitality.

Same land use designation in our future land use map, the Urban Mixed Use Node, which again, seeks to support that by our community housing employment and community development.

Next slide.

So this is just some information to help you zero in on where we're talking about today.

The Friendship Court project is broken into four phases.

We're focused on phase three, which is shown on your left hand side in the red outline.

And most specifically within that phase, if you'll look at the right hand image, you'll see that we're talking about building 12 in the frontages along Second Street Southeast in Hinton Avenue extended as the subject of the special exception permit.

Next slide.

We're looking through our criteria for review and decision by the council and the commission.

So we'll go through these items again.

So, regarding criteria one, proposed modifications, whether proposed modifications or harmonious with existing patterns of development, the entire eastern block of the second street southeast block is part of the friendship port property and is being developed as part of this phase three and as part of a future phase four.

The western side of the block is comprised of two large buildings which generally vary from 12 to 30 feet and set back and have approximately two to three entries on each face.

However, staff believe some of these entries do not actually meet our requirements for street-facing entries due to their lack of entry feature.

The proposed building 12 will provide a similar setback of approximately 12 feet in line with the western side of the block and as well as proposing to provide two entrances along that second street frontage.

So, sorry, lost my spot.

While these entries are faced further apart than the existing entries within the block, staff still believes the street activation generated by these entries, which will otherwise meet the requirements in terms of entry features and other intents, would be harmonious with existing patterns of development.

Regarding the Hinton Avenue side of the block, this is a new public street that's proposed as a part of the phase three project.

This would be fronted by two buildings, building 12, which is the subject of today's request, as well as building 10, which is to the east.

And a new public park that would be along the southern side of Hinton Avenue.

The northern side of the block is proposed to be redeveloped as future phase four.

Therefore, staff finds that removal of street-facing entries on Hinton Avenue would be harmonious with the patterns of development.

Regarding criteria two, the compliance with our comprehensive plan.

Several goals in the comprehensive plan speak to a desire for appropriately scaled redevelopment and compact street networks that contribute to placemaking and improving the pedestrian experience and connecting residents with amenities and destinations.

This project creates a new public street network within development, breaking down the large block into several smaller blocks

and providing access to the No Public Park as part of the project.

The applicant's narrative states the Second Street Southeast Frontage will have additional elements to promote street activation and contribute to placemaking, including seating nodes set back from the sidewalk with foundation plantings.

The comprehensive plan also prioritizes the preservation and consideration of streetscape trees and urban tree canopy.

The proposed reduction in the street-facing entries will also limit impacts to the root zones

of the White Oak Streetscape Trees that exist today along the 2nd Street Southeast Frontage, which provide mature canopy and improve the pedestrian experience.

The width of Building 12 along Hinton Avenue is approximately 66.5 feet, which is slightly wider than the 60-foot minimum requirement in order to have the side street entries.

However, this building is still at a pedestrian scale that is well below the 275 feet building width allowance.

In addition, there are entries provided along the 2nd Street Southeast entrance as well as the rear side of the building within 40 feet of the Hinton Avenue facade, which will be generally visible from Hinton Avenue and provide additional activation for that street.

Therefore, staff finds that the planned modifications support the goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan.

Regarding criteria three, consistency with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice.

As the application aligns with the comprehensive plan, provides amenities such as outdoor spaces to otherwise activate the street and meet the intent of the street facing injury requirements per section 34-21013A1.

as well as protects existing mature streetscapes which contribute to urban canopy and improve the pedestrian experience.

Staff finds granting the special exception permit is consistent with good zoning practice in general public welfare.

Staff does recommend approval to modify their entry requirements to be that no entry, street-facing entry requirements maximums are applied to the 2nd Street Southeast in Hinton Avenue Extended Building Facades of Building 12.

with the following condition that at least two street-facing entries with entry features meeting the requirements of section 34-21013B are required on the 2nd Street southeast building facade of proposed building 12.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I'm a little bummed we missed the first special exception permit title of about five minutes.

We do not have extensive presentation because the staff presentation covered all the bases that we wanted to hit tonight.

We have had extensive conversations with NDS staff about this location and how to meet the best needs for the building program of this building and the site as a whole.

And one thing that I wanted to call attention to at the end that's actually really important is the preservation of the street trees.

It is a tight site.

We have a lot of layers there with the build to depth and that we're trying to manage and keep

A healthy root system, starting with construction, but all the way through.

And we're trying to sit very lightly within that space between the trees and the building.

So I guess I was just trying to get a better sense of whether this is a nice to have or a half to have.

No, that's not entirely correct.

The Virginia Housing, which is funding this project, they fund walk-ups units all the time, but the issue is that they want all the units of a certain type and income band to be equitable.

So whether you consider it a feature or a bug, whether it's a second access or a security risk,

To have one or two units having this element and the other's not is inequitable in their interpretation.

No, it makes the scenario.

I would not say that.

No, that is not what we're resting on.

That is a part of our discussion with Virginia Housing and the making the diverse, fully supported community that we want to have here.

Not entirely.

Many of the residents have had conflicting

and so on.

have family members who need additional care or observation, whether they be small children or adults with special needs, where access control from the interior is a real issue.

And limiting the number of routes outside of a unit is really important.

At the same time, balancing location of those units across distribution in terms of floors for accessibility and windows.

Again, we're trying to just make sure everybody has access to the same kinds of spaces throughout the building and the site.

And on phase one, where we have the two over twos, the residents that chose to move into those and elected to move into those, that fits their needs.

Even though it would be two units that would have a door to meet the requirement out of 87?

So recognizing that the hurdles within this building to meet this is not a code issue.

It's an issue of the building program.

I can understand that just from property management.

From working with the housing development, the CRHA, the difference between Crescent Halls and the townhomes and the different needs there are, but also whoever is managing the property, it's probably easier to have one type of building versus another type of building.

And I think if there's reasonable

You know, attention to breaking up that face with the trees, benches, whatever else can make it feel more pedestrian.

Also, I'm thinking it probably saves some money, and we want this to get done.

So that's just fine.

I mean, I wouldn't want to make those arguments for every project, but in this case with the two units, it does seem

Well, I mean, the, I mean,

Any alteration to the present conditions, well not any, but there would be many alterations to the present conditions that would improve that.

That site is actually very visible because it's at the corner of the Tolstoy light.

The cycle is longer than a Russian novel.

Is that any pedestrian we'll tell you?

I've seen people do their taxes while waiting for that light to change.

Yeah, I mean, I have a similar comment in that, you know, I mean, I walk by the dairy market building a lot, and it's on 10th Street, they have the ground floor units have doors, and I've never seen anyone use it.

And so just the presence of a door doesn't necessarily activate the space, I think.

And for this site, having that kind of glass lobby

entrance on the corner there will be a big improvement over what's there now.

I think I'm more interested in, you know, having a lot of windows and so that you're not walking by a blank wall along Second Street.

But I mean, I caught the same thing Rory did.

I was concerned about if something in the zoning code is problematic for affordable housing, you know, if

The zoning code is requiring you to do something that then runs afoul of affordable housing funding because of inequitable units.

That's maybe something else to look at in the zoning code review, although it sounds like it's not really a definite deal breaker.

In this case, it's just a combat.

It's best efforts, but a little more of the best efforts as far as the funding goes because it is competitive.

And then we want, that is something that they're looking for in scoring these projects.

If you have 30 different unit types of all different shapes and sizes, that might all technically have the same square footage, but are they equitable?

Do people know what they're getting into when they come into a community?

You're saying it directly factors into scoring?

I was looking at the score sheet, and I couldn't see anything that specifically spoke to this, that you'd be docked points on, but maybe you could point me to it.

I have a question concerning the

You've mentioned the streetscape along Second Street and how you're going to promote visual interest.

And nothing seems to be defined at the moment.

And I'm wondering how that process will work out between you and staff.

I guess staff will make the determination.

But I'm wondering where we're going to get it.

It feels like there needs to be some sort of trade off.

There are fewer entrances, so how do we make this sidewalk more active and inviting?

And I'm a little concerned about the fact that we're

Sure.

That's definitely why we're here tonight, is to have that conversation.

We've had the conversation with staff, and we have a toolbox full of things that can go there.

It's still very early in terms of, I shouldn't say early, we have the site plans going in, but depending on the comments that we received tonight, we would gauge what the extent the

and many of these and how heavily we want to come out into that streetscape there.

Again, if there's a range of things from the decorative grills that we're already putting into the podium ventilation to, again, plantings or if there's a hardscape sitting area that starts to activate that space.

Are you looking for feedback from us tonight on that?

I think we have a good understanding of what staff is looking for.

And we kind of built off conversations around the blank wall portion of the code.

So we have a number of strategies we've discussed with them.

So is there anything in this packet

that shows where these bench nooks you're talking about are.

Is that something that you guys might be able to better define before this goes to council?

So I think packet gets finalized tonight.

I think potentially we can have discussions about items that could be verbally discussed with councils as opposed to updating our formal materials in the packet.

I do recognize what Commissioner Schwarz is saying.

When staff was reviewing, we considered conditions to those streets.

Street scape activation items, but since we had not yet had drawings finalized it and also being aware that, you know, trying to leave some flexibility so that when the details, when we get into the actual root areas and where things need to go that that could be accounted for.

We didn't recommend any conditions.

It certainly would be open to conditions.

I would just suggest if the commission's able to provide any flexibility, you know, in terms of that, so we're not

I get the imperative to see this project built, and I don't want to put roadblocks in front of it, but if we think back to the reasons why this portion of the code exists, it's about pedestrian activation, it's about eyes on the street,

It's about defensible space.

And if there's anywhere in the city where those principles must apply, be applied, it seems like Southeast is the place, right?

Very high pedestrian flow.

If we're gonna say that those things aren't important and we should remove this from the code because it's annoying for apartment building, people building apartment buildings to put in, you know, I think that would be one conversation.

If we're, it's hard to see, you know, based on this site, you know, what a good reasoning for saying that this site in particular should be accepted.

You know, I get the trees, but

Trees are on the street side of the sidewalk.

I don't know if I fully buy it.

I get the Virginia housing, you know, might have some qualms, but I don't know if I completely buy that either.

I think, you know, if we're saying that there's alternative methods to meet those needs, I guess I could be open to that.

Well, we don't see any here.

I'm not hard to handle.

I don't want to play designer.

So I mean, I think there is

Because this is a majority affordable housing project, I think there is room for some leeway, as opposed to just a plain developer or broad end project.

I think we have some, as part of the comp plan, we have some reasons to allow some more flexibility.

But yeah, I feel a little stuck on this one.

Personally, I feel like maybe we're

I'm inclined to approve it and trust staff to figure out something that's, you know, to work with the applicant to figure out an appropriate streetscape.

But maybe future applications like this, it might be useful to get a little more information as to what that streetscape might be, even at a flexible level, but just a... Did we put the rendering back up?

There's more info in the packet.

There's a proposed present image, but to me, that's kind of hostile.

Yes, there was a variance request.

I need to confirm.

So there was two variances approved for 10-10, Wirtland.

And I believe one of them was for street-facing injuries.

But I would need to go back and check because they also have two administrative modification requests in.

And I don't want to mistake which one was which.

Yeah.

I'm inclined to.

make a gentle contrast to Commissioner Stolzenberg's concerns referencing the trees and such.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that one does not know, and one does not know.

There are some huge trees along there.

And if I could add a point to that, not to jump in, but the applicants have met with myself and other folks, including our urban forester out on site to talk specifically about these routes.

And so there's been a lot of discussion about particular root pruning that needs to happen at correct time.

There's just a there's been a lot of work by the applicant team to ensure that these trees can continue to thrive regardless of what they're doing there.

And do we know if the urban foresters heard about this request that one additional stoop would?

So I haven't spoken with him directly about it yet until we got some more definite plans about locations where we could really get into those details.

But he would be, you know, and certainly as the plans continue, he is one of the reviewers on those plansets as well.

One of the things that we looked into with that is the floor elevation for the apartment units is several feet above the sidewalk grade.

And so to get into those units, you'd be stairs to go up to them, which would either require

Great, and just fill on top of the roots, which isn't great for retaining walls to hold up a sort of stew situation.

I'm picturing, what is the building that is on West Main and Roosevelt, where you come up and they have the big- Mark, Mark, Mark.

Yeah, they have the like quartet, the big balls and the ramps.

And that's probably at least two stories, right?

And this is, yeah, to hide their parking.

And so you do see people up, once in a while, sitting towards the train tracks.

Oh, is that their pool deck?

I'm just picturing where, like, there's other ways of, you know, maybe there's a, I don't know, without looking into it.

But, you know, it could be, like, maybe there's a small trellis with a bench placed somewhere.

Or, you know, some place where humans might gather that would give more, you know, kind of interaction to the streetscape.

So again, I don't know what particular condition, you know, I don't want to say what would that be, but I'm trying to think of other examples and that one I'm not saying is the best, but like where there have been, because Charlottesville has such a great difference kind of strategies to break up that length of the building when it's

Not so much like if we were walking on a flat streetscape in New York City and we would want to see a street like storefront, storefront, storefront, but thinking about our topography a little bit, sometimes that's a hard strategy.

It's just hard to get around all the ramping and stairs.

I would just like to, when people occupy a space, especially if it's sloped, that takes interventions.

Very few people want to occupy money's slope.

We plant it, there's ways to do it, but it's just levels of intervention.

Again, we're just trying to, this is one spot on the site where we really want to sit lightly.

And we can creep up, maybe we can expand by the, a little bit, up where the, at our sitting, seating, down near the entry, because we're already in the ground there, we're already doing work.

And then there's, you know, on the other end, you know, we can

It is also hard because the other corners are not particularly adding a lot currently to that intersection.

So maybe there's, you know, future room-to-room improvement on the other side of Monticello, if that ever happens.

Yeah, I mean, to me, it's not even so much at the corner where there is this entrance.

It's really walking up that block.

And on the opposite side, you have quite a lot of entryways.

I'd say most of the pedestrian traffic is probably on the east side, though.

I would say, you know, I get the idea of having flexibility for staff.

I would feel better if there were at least a vague condition that would allow staff to have some authority over this, some teeth.

You know, we could reference what do you guys propose?

It sounds like if it's not going to create hardscape, which would hurt the trees, you know, benches.

I mean, maybe I feel like it's more up to what?

Well, that's true.

Well, yeah.

Yeah.

Or other interventions to serve the purpose.

So something like condition B that the, I mean, what verb does one use then?

Especially mindful to take into consideration, I mean, all of these things, I mean,

that aren't direct orders you must get fuzzy pretty fast.

And to my way of thinking, I don't think we're quite there to start making decisions about how that's going to look.

It's just, are we OK with two doors?

And I think the rest of it is really another conversation.

I think we could quote the applicants

They've got a paragraph in here on their proposed solution, starting with building 12 streetscape design.

I'm almost, I mean, we could put a condition that quotes that, but then says, they're saying they would design to the principles of the zoning ordinance, particularly Section 21012b3, blank wall treatments.

And I think the only difference would be they need to go a little beyond just the blank wall treatment requirements.

Yeah.

I move to recommend approval of this application for a special exception permit in the CX-8 corridor mixed use zone at 400 to 426 Garrett Street to modify street-facing entry requirements for building 12, identifying the application materials dated January 28, 2025, to require no street-facing entry-spacing maximums on the 2nd Street Southeast and Hinton Avenue extended building facades with the following conditions.

at least two street-facing entries with entry features meeting the requirements of section 34-210-13B are required in the second Street Southeast Building Facade of proposed Building 12 and Condition B.

The applicants shall include features to promote visual interest in the public realm and maintain walkability and public safety.

Can I offer a friendly amendment?

These features may include but are not limited to.

Sure.

Thank you all for your consideration in the great comments.

I think that might be our agenda.

Yes.

Chair, I'd like to point out that today, or at least February 25th, old school calendar, or old style calendar, today would mark the 302nd anniversary of the death of Sir Christopher Wren.