Planning Commission Meeting   1/12/2021

At any rate, I do believe we are at the 6 o'clock, I mean the 5.30 hour.

So why don't we begin at liberation.

The commission is now in order.

Yeah, Happy New Year everyone again.

Not too many updates to report.

I think everybody probably knows UVA is going to go back in session for spring semester at the beginning of February.

And it'll look a lot like it did in the fall.

And hopefully, it will go more or less this smoothly.

Beyond that, I just wanted to let everybody know there is a what used to be the PAC tech, or PAC, and now has been reiterated as the Lou PAC, which

Don't make me say what that acronym is, because I don't remember exactly.

But that's kind of the coordination committee for the city, county, and university to talk about planning issues and stuff.

And this year, UVA is hosting that.

And I just wanted to let everybody know that meeting's on Friday.

All right, so I had two meetings in December.

The first one was place where, unfortunately, we didn't have a quorum, so we weren't able to make any actual decisions.

But we're, you know, kind of coming close to getting some idea of what that committee should sort of morph into.

As you probably recall, for most of the second half of 2019, after the chair and vice chair resigned, they've been kind of

debating what our role should be in the future.

So at this point, you know, the kind of general idea is to kind of reform as a general sort of think tank or, you know, body of experts that the city can draw from in order to create ad hoc, you know, task force, task forces for any, you know, problem it wants to face, things like lighting plans or whatever.

rather than having just sort of the same group of a dozen and a half experts that are then asked to approach various problems that they may or may not necessarily have expertise in.

that may include kind of moving it out from under the offices of the city where it's now no longer a council advisory body and now a staff advisory body and maybe moving it on under something like the Center for Civic Innovation or another private group so that it can kind of operate more independently and with less kind of demand on staff time.

But in the meantime, you know, one sort of sooner term

One thing it might work on is since council is debating the future of the West Main streetscape, which is a very expensive budget item and we don't have a lot of room in the budget, one thing that we're trying to brainstorm is potentially kind of tactical urbanist improvements that we could make to the street at very low cost

in order to, you know, make it a safer, better experience in the near term without expending, you know, 50 plus million dollars.

But that kind of depends on council and I guess ultimately us when the CIP comes up making some decisions on what the West Main Shrewdscape will look like.

And I think BAR and BPAC have also expressed some interest in that effort and it'll probably at some point become like, you know, coordinated walks along West Main once it's legal to gather again.

The other meeting was a climate action plan task force or working group.

where they're now working on that climate action plan to help meet our goals of reducing emissions, you know, 45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

And so that planning is underway and a big part of it is going to be land use and building efficiency.

So, something to keep an eye on in the months ahead.

Other than trying to check in with the C-bill plans to gather progress and seeing the events that they're scheduling, I have had no meetings.

But I did want to say to everybody how encouraging it is to show up to a civic meeting at a time when there's a lot of conversation about what government is.

And here it is right here on the computer screen.

Thank you.

Ms.

Good evening and happy new year.

Mr. Solliot.

The housing advisory committee met on December 16th to discuss the letter that was sent to the consultants and planning commission, I think, council.

on the draft housing strategy, you may remember.

The HAC members wanted a clear connection between the soft density strategy and affordable housing, and they were not against allowing market rate homes in the city.

Chair, I attended two meetings since the last time we met.

The Board of Architecture Review met on December 15th.

At that meeting, we approved three certificates of appropriateness.

We deferred one certificate of appropriateness for 612 West Main.

and even though the architect is making good progress on developing a design that complies with the guidelines.

And then lastly, there was preliminary discussion of the court's parking structure, which has also come through us.

The BAR, of course, is within an ADC district, but also approval has to be gotten from the BAR because the two buildings that are there are designated contributing to the historic district.

And so there was a discussion about that and also design issues for the new structure really focused on how to break up that long mass along Market Street.

The tree commission met on January 5th, just last week.

We elected the officers, Brian Menard as chair and Peggy Banyaris as vice chair.

And then we reviewed our annual goals and objectives for the commission and the committees, which took up most of the meeting.

We did end up talking about the plan to plant 23 trees on January 21st, coming up.

And the CIP funding that was provided for new tree planting this year actually didn't end up covering those 23 trees.

So we had to, our staff found funds in a

a fund source of public donations that was available to this so that we're making up that difference that way.

Thank you.

I was going to mention that I didn't have any meetings, but I just remembered, and I don't have any notes in front of me about this, but we did have a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

And in that meeting, there was a report

There was a request not to allow an accessory ramp on a property.

And based on feedback that we get from stat and from legal, we felt that we could not allow that.

So we did allow the ramp.

And there was a request on one of the wooded properties, the one on Harris Street, the one that's being developed on the Harris Street, to allow a little more height in that building.

Not much, but a little more height.

And we agreed to allow the additional height because it's not visible from anywhere that a pedestrian might be walking or an automobile might be walking.

And I wish I had my notes.

If I find them, I'll type them up and email them out to everybody on that.

That was the Board of Uploading Appeals.

And again, we've got Lou Peck, which will be meeting on Friday, as Mr. Paul Merz suggested.

So Ms.

Sure, we've got a couple of things going on.

We've talked a little bit about our staffing changes and so we will be working on adjusting to make sure that all of our day-to-day work is covered and work on things the best that we're able to.

We're planning to recruit for those positions and we'll

Hope to fill them as soon as possibly we possibly can in this current environment.

Did want you all to keep penciled in the work session that we scheduled for January 26.

If you all remember, we scheduled that as a joint session with the county concerning housing initiatives.

And the county asked for some additional time because they're still working through parts of their program.

And so we'll be corresponding with them along the way to try and get that rescheduled in the future.

But in the meantime, our consultants are working through some programming for some

discussions that need to occur with the commission concerning next steps in the COP plan process.

And so Jenny may provide some feedback to us on that this evening, but I know they have a few meetings this week to try and solidify their programming for that.

So keep it penciled in and if something changes, we'll let you know as soon as possible.

We scheduled that one from 5.30 to 7.30.

But since we're not meeting with the county anymore, we could move that back to 5 to 7.

It's at the group's prerogative as to what you would prefer.

So if there's any preferences on that, let me know.

And another reminder, you all received a message from the clerk concerning real estate forms for the year.

So just a reminder to

address those.

If you've asked any questions of legal on that, there have been a lot of initiatives going on right now.

And so they, they have your request, and we'll be back with you in a manner so you can get them in on time.

But if you do have any additional questions on those forums, you can let myself or

Lisa Robertson, no, and we will assist you with those.

But you can send them directly back to the clerk and she will take care of that for you.

Usually we, you all bring them to me, I hand them to the clerk.

We're in a little different world right now.

But yeah, just wanted to remind you that that's something that you need to take care of.

So those are the main things that we have at this point.

We are still continuing to process applications through Neighborhood Development Services.

We're staying the course.

We've got all of our current staff working mostly from home.

We have a few that work in the building at different periods of time.

Most of the staff that works with you all from a planning perspective goes in at least once a week to drop off and pick up and then there's certain things we just have to get done in the office.

But we are continuing to process applications.

continuing to help the public with the things that we need to assist them with.

Development continues, construction continues, and so, you know, we're just hopeful that 2021 brings us a little bit brighter spots than 2020 did overall.

All right, Mr. Rice, we are now ready for matters to be presented by the public that are not on the formal agenda.

So to the public, this is an opportunity to talk about Monticello Road, if you'd like to, or an opportunity to talk about the zoning checks amendment that's being sponsored by Mr. Stolzenberg, or anything else that you'd like to talk about that relates to the work we do, with the exception of the Jerry Avenue small area plan.

Thank you, Chair Mitchell.

Sure.

For any of our 22 attendees joining us this evening, if you'd like to address the commission during this first public comment opportunity, please click the raise hand icon and you'll be called upon in the order of hands raised.

Once you are activated to speak, please unmute your mic and you'll have three minutes for comment.

And Chair Mitchell, we currently have about four, now five hands raised.

And our first speaker is Kimber N. Hawke.

Welcome, Kimber.

Hi, how are you?

Thank you for listening.

Can everybody hear me?

Yes.

Hi, this is Kimber Hawke.

I live at 709 Belmont Avenue and I'm speaking as a private citizen.

I just there's a few more concerns in addition to the ones that we already raised concerning the Monticello Road project.

The most important one was that the topic of trees did not really come up in the last meeting except to say that the trees that were there were going to block the view of the height of the building.

First of all,

There's a first line of evergreen trees, which may or may not block the height because it's on an incline.

I'm not sure if they will.

And then the other line of trees that's closer to the project, besides the fact that their deciduation will lose their leaves, appear really to be at risk from the construction itself.

So it's not clear at all that any of those 10 odd trees are going to survive the project.

And so I just

I would really like to request that more of a study be done on the situation with those trees that appear not to be properly represented, perhaps on the renderings that y'all have.

And I've sent along some pictures.

I'm not sure if you've seen them or not.

And just to point out that the center, Belmont Center, has already suffered a huge loss of trees because of the way that they did the junction restaurant.

There was about six old growth trees and some fewer like dogwood trees and smaller trees that were destroyed without really much knowledge that this was going to happen by the neighborhood.

So a block away, there's already been the destruction of a huge amount of trees right there.

Second to that, I didn't know that this was going to come up this time.

when it was deferred.

And of course I have responsibility in keeping on top of that, but I guess I wish there were a better way that we could communicate, especially with people who do comment when something's going to come up again when it gets deferred.

And I'm not really sure how we could be doing that.

And then finally, you know, there used to be a way on the main website, there was a listing of emails and such to contact

planning commissioners directly.

And it appears now that we have to move through NDS to send emails and comments to y'all.

I really would prefer, and many others have asked me about why they can't email or where the emails go, contacting commissioners directly.

There's a,

Well, I'll just speak for myself as a lack of faith in some of the things that NDS has done.

And so I would prefer not to have to be filtered through them and be able to communicate with commissioners directly.

Chair Mitchell, our next speaker is Laura Goldblatt.

Laura, you are on with the commission.

You have three minutes.

Hi, thank you so much for taking my comments today.

My name is Laura Goldblatt.

I live in Belmont and I am a CRHA commissioner.

And so thank you for your service.

Speaking of democracy, I know that it's a lot of work, a lot of meetings, but it's really important.

And so I wanted to speak today to encourage you to deny the special use permit for 1000 Monticello Road.

because I believe as the permit currently stands, it will cause adverse effects to the neighborhood.

And so this is because I think it's going to cause displacement, or at least there's nothing in the current application that would lead us to believe that it's not going to cause displacement and drive gentrification.

So in a recent CRHA training,

Delphine Carnes, who is one of our lawyers, was asked about whether the construction of market rate housing helps to address the lack of affordable housing.

She responded with an emphatic no, and she said, quote, trickle down, housing simply doesn't work.

It just means you're growing towards

You're going toward gentrification in the worst meaning of the term.

She also said that creating affordable housing is not easy and it requires a commitment, as many of us have seen with CRHA's commitment to expanding affordable housing in ways that do not adversely impact public housing residents' quality of life.

Ms.

Carr is an attorney and affordable housing technical assistance provider working in over eight localities in Virginia.

and I can provide the link to the training in the chat.

But it's for this reason that I think as it's currently written with only five affordable units and not at the rate that where there's the most need, I don't think that this is going to prevent displacement.

And I think especially in the midst of a pandemic where people need to shelter in place and where we're seeing perhaps an increased need for stable housing on the public health front, I think this is the wrong direction for us to be moving as a community.

I think it will cause additional harm.

Chair, our next speaker is Nancy Carpenter.

Good evening and thank you for having this time together this evening.

I am here to make a comment about the Belmont Heights Special Use Permit by Piedmont Holdings.

I don't believe this SUP meets the goals that this commission has verbalized for months and months and months regarding affordable housing.

Also, this request does not seem to mesh with the comprehensive plan because of my concern regarding adverse impact to those individuals that are living there that are of moderate income being replaced by upper income residents.

and we know who a lot of people are that are displaced from the city.

You've seen public comment about this in many, many threads on social media, so I don't need to go into that.

This is also an issue of adverse impact.

I have a lot of unanswered questions about this SUP and how would adversely impact the residents.

Is Mr. Holtzworth going to raise the rents on current residents to finance his dream of an SUP and their displacement?

Now, one of my questions was answered regarding these precious few units that they're only going to be around for 10 years, while Ms.

Cole, who lived in the prior apartment complex, lived in her unit for 47 years.

There is no clarity right now on whether Mr. Holzwarth will accept vouchers.

He could or he could not.

I know it's up to him, but if he really wants to grow his brand of Piedmont Holdings as perhaps a developer of quote-unquote affordable housing,

this SUP request ain't it, okay?

That's what I'm saying.

I think he needs to provide a deeper affordability to negate any adverse impacts that can result in displacement.

And then I'm gonna leave you with this.

I talked about Ms.

Cole, Ms.

Helen Cole, who was displaced when Piedmont Holdings took ownership of that property a year ago.

And she did live in her unit for 47 years.

So she was quite older and had been in her home longer than some of you have been alive on this commission.

She was also blind and she knew where everything was in her apartment, every last thing.

So, you know, if you want to close your eyes and imagine you're back in council chambers, do you know where the light switch is?

Do you know how many steps from your seat to the steps down from the dice?

Do you know how many steps up the aisle to the council chamber's entrance?

She knew all of that.

She's passed away some months ago.

She was displaced.

I'm not saying the displacement had anything to do with her passing.

However, the trauma on her body and brain to relearn all that logistical data, I am sure, took a toll.

This is what I'm talking about, commissioners, adverse impact.

It's not only about displacement, but it's also about diversion, equity and inclusion focus and everything else.

So I am asking that you deny this request this evening at this time.

Our next speaker is Brandon Collins.

Brandon, you are on with commission.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Brandon Collins.

I work for the Public Housing Association of Residents, FAR, the duly recognized Resident Council and Resident Advisory Board for Public Housing in Charlottesville.

But more importantly, I am also a lifelong resident of Charlottesville.

I have three children who live here.

And this community means a lot to me.

And I am here to speak against the request for 1000 Monticello Road.

And I do that for a number of reasons.

One is that the owner, Mr. Holsworth, has shown through past actions that his use of the property has caused an extreme adverse impact

on the people who were living there in the neighborhood.

There was mass displacement at the property for which there is no recovery.

There were folks there who moved out of state.

There are folks there who live in significantly higher rents and a woman who has died quite recently after the displacement.

So I think Mr. Holdsworth has shown to not be a partner when it comes to affordability and has certainly shown through past actions that the impacts that he's caused with the use of property have been severe.

The current application

really only does the bare minimum and I think it's a real shame because I think under a new comp plan and under a new housing strategy this whole process might not even be allowed and I think that that should factor into your decision making.

I don't know if that's legal or not but on principle this is not a healthful

a helpful way of moving forward on affordability.

Current application, even for the meager amount of units that are being proposed as being, quote, affordable, even at 6% AMI, you're still talking about $1,000 for a one bedroom apartment, which suggests that the other apartments that aren't deemed affordable will be much higher in rent.

And that's not affordable by any human measure.

and certainly is going to do very little to help anybody during this pandemic and even more importantly the recovery from this pandemic when the entire nation is going to be faced with an eviction crisis and certainly Charlottesville's affordable housing crisis is going to be exacerbated and so we need every unit, every unit counts

in this city.

And so the inability to address that causes yet another adverse impact on the entire city as regards affordability.

I have questions about the existing apartments and whether rents are going to be raised there in order to finance additional building.

And I have big questions about the extent of community engagement by Mr. Holdsworth on this issue.

I think Mr. Holdsworth has proven not to be a good community partner and that needs to change and I think the Planning Commission certainly has a stake in that and has every means to compel that.

Charlottesville needs better development and I think you all know that.

The crippling housing crisis... I'm going to need you to begin wrapping up.

Okay, well I was just going to mention COVID and the recovery again, the impact

of losing more units to market rate right now is not good for this community.

And I encourage you all to deny the permit.

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Our next speaker is Alexandra McGee.

Alexandra, you're on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Hi, everybody.

Thanks so much for spending your time serving our community.

My name is Alex.

I'm a private homeowner in Belmont for the last seven years.

I've lived in the Charlottesville area for 16 of the last 20 years.

And before that, I lived in Louisa for six years.

Today I was trying to bring myself up to date on some activities in the city.

I commend you on the Seville Plans Together page for the graphic that lays out the process.

I am going to ask you to clarify some things on that website.

The word we is used a lot without explaining who the word we refers to.

There's consultants referred to without naming them or saying how to get in touch with them.

One concern that I have, and I did write an email today to the contact person on that website asking for help, but I'm going to communicate it to you also.

On either side of Monticello Avenue, as it comes up from the interstate heading towards downtown,

That area in the 2018 proposed comprehensive plan would increase intensity.

And if I understand right, it would allow businesses in a current residential area.

I don't think that's a good idea.

And to me, it kind of feels unfair.

And then a second thing that I'd like to name to you all is that in that 2018 comprehensive plan, there's a big

patch of purple in the area called Moore's Creek, which is down below Reeves Park.

That is currently all natural area.

And if I understand from a meeting that I went to last year in the neighborhood association, the engineer who did the environmental review on that is also the owner of the property that is asking to develop there.

So I'm asking you to please not allow a conflict of interest.

and

I don't think that making those roads there more commercial is good for the people who've lived there long term, who often have not had a voice in their community.

And then finally, as I was trying to bring myself up to speed on what you all do, I noticed your mission is orderly development.

And I wonder if your mission might be changed to just an equitable and inclusive development.

So thank you so much for opening up to the public comments.

And again, thank you for all your work.

Chair, our next speaker is Emily Dreyfus.

Emily, you're all with commission.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, my name is Emily Dreyfus and I work for the Legal Aid Justice Center at 1000 Preston Avenue.

I agree with many of the prior speakers that the special use permit for 1000 Monticello Road should not be approved.

There are many unanswered questions and a very real potential for this development to put further pressure on the housing market, ultimately contributing to a significant worsening of the shortage of affordable housing.

These adverse impacts are particularly concerning when you consider this developer's actions in 2019.

I'd like to share some information about two residents who received notices to leave their very affordable homes in the Belmont apartments, now called Belmont Heights.

One prefers to remain anonymous.

This mom paid under $1,000 in rent each month for a two-bedroom apartment.

She and her family relocated after receiving the notice to leave.

The best option they could find was over $1,500 a month plus electric.

She told me that she struggles to pay the rent every month.

Their unwanted relocation took them out of the city into a new school district, and she also told me they really missed the convenience of living at 1000 Monticello Road.

Most importantly, she told me, quote, when everybody was there together, it was a strong little community.

We helped each other, unquote.

The other resident also benefited from the community the neighbors built.

This is Helen Coles, who you heard about from Ms.

Carpenter earlier.

She was blind and she was in her 80s when she received the notice to move out.

She had lived in her home for 47 years and this was so important for her because she was very proud of her independence.

She lived alone, she stayed nimble and engaged in large part because she enjoyed the little community that they had formed.

She appreciated her neighbor's support and she cared deeply about their wellbeing.

Ms.

Coles told me that she cried for two days straight when her neighbor read the eviction letter to her.

The thought of fighting for her right to stay in her home was alien to her, but she did speak openly in a TV interview about how the notice to leave caused her a lot of pain.

I stayed in touch with Ms.

Kohls after she moved out.

Every time I called her visited, she told me about feeling lonesome and disconnected from other people.

She could not reconcile what had happened to her and her neighbors.

She told me that she had no money left after paying her rent and said it was over two times more than she had paid in Belmont.

Her health gradually declined and she passed away a little over a year after moving out of her former home.

As I think you're aware, there were several other residents who had very involved disabilities or were elderly.

I'm aware of two who moved to other states when they couldn't find feasible housing locally.

I am not aware of any resident who was told to move out, left, and then was offered an opportunity to return.

This developer has a thoroughly demonstrated lack of commitment to affordable housing.

He has refused offers of partnership from nonprofits.

His prior actions and this proposed addition to the building, which is out of character with the broader neighborhood, increased pressure on the housing market.

I urge you to deny this application because of the potential for adverse effects on our community.

Chair Mitchell, the next speaker is Maddie Green.

Maddie, you're on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Hi there.

Thank you for having me.

I'm a resident of Charlottesville.

I live close to Belmont in Woollen Mills, and I have lived in Charlottesville for 10 years.

And after reviewing the packet that the developer has submitted for 1000 Monticello Road, I would like to suggest the planning commissioners deny this SUP.

I think it's quite clear from the public comment last time that the affordable housing commitment is really not affordable at all, especially to those who are earning minimum wage at this time.

I would also like to point out that I don't think this is even providing workforce housing.

If you look at 80% of the AMI in Charlottesville right now, I know

My husband and myself, who both have UVA degrees, have certainly never been offered a job that meets the 80% AMI threshold.

We've worked for nonprofits as home health care aides, child care providers, and now I'm training as a social worker.

And I think these are important jobs that our city wants to maintain.

I certainly don't think they're the greatest need of affordable housing in this community, but they are certainly community jobs that it's really important to maintain.

And this proposal doesn't provide those.

And I don't think the wording on the proposal is really strong enough to convince us that they're providing workforce housing that is meaningful for this community.

Additionally, I just want to point out how eviction is such a problem in the COVID-19 pandemic.

and would like to point out really how frightening it is to get a notice or that your lease is not being renewed.

And from what I've seen in eviction prevention, especially during COVID, is that most residents who receive this, just as Emily had previously mentioned, people leave.

People don't have a right to counsel here in Charlottesville, so they're not going to fight a legal eviction.

I think it's really misleading when

Our next speaker is Carmelita Wood.

Carmelita, you're on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Don't think I was on.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay, our final speaker is Walt Heinecke.

Walt, you're on with commission.

Welcome, Walt.

Thank you, and Happy New Year to all the commissioners, and thank you for your service to our community.

I speak tonight in opposition to the SUP at Belmont Heights.

Just to review, in 2017, we had an onslaught of racism and fascism in this community, and that woke us up to our own

historical issues with racism in this community specifically.

And that has led to a lot of introspection about how racism is institutionalized in our community and how it pervades our community in areas such as education and policing and especially in housing.

And

I think what happens is we've done a pretty good job, I think, in Charlottesville of dealing with the public side of this.

In other words, the commitment to public housing by city council and the planning commission has been stellar and should continue.

It's the market side of the equation of how we get to the solutions that is problematic.

and it remains problematic.

It's not really clear to me how these market-based solutions are ever going to make a dent in the 4,000-unit affordable housing crisis if every time these SUPs come up, they just contribute to the problem.

and if we're allowed to take a bureaucratic perspective on this and basically just continue to approve SUPs for projects that don't

abate or ameliorate the housing crisis that we're under, then that part of the equation just keeps going on and on and on.

So I think it's been clear in the other speakers tonight that there are significant adverse effects to our community and to affordable housing based on this particular project.

So at what point

do you all stand up and say, we're going to object to these adverse effects and start thinking about how the market approach is not ameliorating the significant crisis in affordable housing which is part of the racism that's going on in this community.

So I encourage you to think out of the box tonight and to deny this SUP and to think about

How we can do a better job at, you know, the market approaches to addressing affordable housing in this community.

Okay, Chair, we do have an additional speaker, Mr. Donald Gathers.

Don, you're on with commission.

Good afternoon.

Good evening, everyone.

And Happy New Year to everyone.

Thank you all for your service and your continued commitment to sit here in opposition to the SUP and the threat that it will pose to achieving our goals of where we as a community would like to find ourselves, where we would like to head ourselves towards affordable housing.

And as simplistically as I can put it, I ask that as commissioners, you all deny this request.

and this particular instance that you choose morality and mortality over money.

That's really all that I have to say in addition to what all the other speakers have, the issues that they've raised.

And I just ask that you would indeed please consider what has been presented before you today.

Chair, that appears to be our final speaker.

Right, I will gavel us out of the public comment and move on to the consent agenda.

And I do not believe that there is anything in the consent agenda.

I'm getting to know there is not from

Ms.

Creasy, so we will then move on to the consultants, the comp plan consultants.

I do.

Let me check.

Good evening, everyone.

By the way, we do have three councils on board.

Great.

I just wanted to give a brief update and let you know a little status of where we're at with Siebel plans together.

Before I do that, I want to note I appreciated the comments made about the website, the use of we on the website.

We, the consultant team, will work to clarify that and make it more clear.

There's also an about page under the FAQ where you can see a list of the consultant team members.

So just wanted to make a note about that.

So when we met with you about a month ago, we gave you a brief overview of the sort of numbers results of the November community engagement process, which was centered on sharing the draft affordable housing plan and the draft initial revisions to the comprehensive plan, which included the guiding principles and chapter vision statements for that.

So we have prepared a draft summary of all activities and input received as we did with the first phase and we'll be sharing that on the website in the next couple of days and that includes everything from the survey data as well as email comments and letters, webinar Q&A, etc.

So we'll send an email to our email list when that's ready and we'll obviously make sure you all know about that as well.

As far as the next steps for the affordable housing plan, we spoke with you, as I mentioned, in December, and we heard that you all would like to have a chance to review the housing plan and a meeting with us prior to a discussion with council.

And so I believe that's been scheduled for February 9th.

I'll let Missy or others correct me on that.

Thank you.

And we'll provide an updated plan as part of the packet for that meeting.

On the comprehensive plan side of things, now that we've compiled the input we've gotten, we've reviewed it, we're continuing to work on incorporating that input into the comprehensive plan.

And so first there'll be a revision to the guiding principles and vision statements that we shared in November to reflect the input we got.

And then we'll be revising the goals and strategies that are in the plan, both the draft chapters from 2018, where they exist, and then we'll be adding those into the new chapters, which are public engagement, the update to the land use chapter.

So we'll be looking at new chapters for those two sections.

Let's see here.

As part of that comp plan update, I should mention the housing chapter of the comprehensive plan is where we'll be pulling in a lot of the pieces of the affordable housing plan.

You'll see, as you know, in the affordable housing plan, there's specific actions and timeframes.

So those actions will be pulled into the housing chapter and the sort of timeframes and implementation responsibility for those actions will be pulled into the implementation chapter of the comprehensive plan.

As we discussed last time, obviously a big piece of the comp plan is the future land use map.

And so, as Missy mentioned, we currently have a work session scheduled with you for that January 26 date, since your other meeting was

And so as she mentioned, we're convening several times as a consultant team this week to determine that we have the right set of sort of the program, as she said, for that meeting to have a really productive and effective discussion.

So we will let you know as soon as possible this week if we think we need to delay that a little bit.

But right now I'm looking forward to speaking with you more about land use on the 26th.

And just a couple more things to mention.

We'll be making some adjustments to the schedule that's on the website.

Most notably, the zoning rewrite will not be kicking off this month as currently shown.

Obviously, we need to advance the land use discussion more before the zoning analysis can be really fully effective.

Obviously, we've already discussed a lot about what might need to be addressed in the zoning, but a big piece of that will come out of the affordable housing plan and the other elements that we've been talking about.

So just to wrap this up in summary, and then I'm happy to take any of your questions, but we'll send you a link to the input summary in the next couple days, and then we'll likely see you twice in the next month.

Bill, do you have any questions for Jenny?

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Ms.

Russell?

Ms.

Rafferty?

No question.

Ms.

Not necessarily a question.

Well, I guess it is a question.

Can you speak to how you guys are addressing that for me, please?

Yes, thank you.

I meant to mention that, so I appreciate that you mentioned that.

All of the small area plans that have been completed recently, I'm going to say recently just since the last, you know, the land use map has been updated, we're going to be looking at all those and looking at how they can best be incorporated into the future land use map.

So we did see the previous version of the Cherry Avenue Ousmane plan, and we're looking forward to reviewing the version that was in the packet for this meeting and seeing how that's changed.

But we're waiting to see how discussions go, how this moves forward.

But we do plan to incorporate whatever comes out of it into the comp plan process.

Mr. Solly-Yates.

Hello, thank you.

No questions.

Any questions from counsel?

I have none.

And I think Lloyd's on here someplace, but he didn't say anything.

All right, I think we are ready to move into the public hearing.

Yes, I'm here.

I'm on.

We are.

There's only one item in the public hearing session.

And that item is CP.

CP 21-00001.

And that is an amendment to the comp plan.

It is the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan.

The proposed amendment was put together by the residents of Fightville with support from the Thomas Gibson Planning District Commission.

It details a vision for the Cherry Avenue corridor, or Cherry Avenue, excuse, corridor in Fightville.

We're being asked to recommend one of four possible options.

We can recommend that council approve the plan as it has been written.

We can make a couple of amendments to the plan and recommend it be approved with amendments.

We can recommend that it be deferred and that the applicant go back and do a little bit more work.

or we can recommend a rejection of the amendment.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

So, Commissioner of City Council, tonight you'll be holding a public hearing on the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan.

This is a long time in the making and at points I didn't know if we were ever going to get here.

It's taken five years, but here we are.

I know one of the driving principles of our community is engagement and on letting the neighborhood drive the planning process.

This is very true with the plan before you tonight.

And before I turn things over to the planning district for the presentation, I would like to thank the Fifield community with a special thanks to Carmelita Wood, president of the Fifield Neighborhood Association and members of the Cherry Avenue Think Tank, especially Sarah Malpass, for all their hard work on this process over the years.

They have worked tirelessly over the past five-plus years, and I know many of them are here tonight and will be speaking during the public hearing.

This is truly their plan, and I would also like to give thanks to Nick Morrison and staff with the TJPDC for their work on crafting the community's vision.

We all know that one of the hardest parts in creating a plan like this is community engagement and feedback.

I don't know what the budget was, and the directors of NDS and the PDC can speak to that, but whatever it was does not cover the amount of work that Nick's put in.

To gain the community's trust, Nick was embedded in the community, and for two years, he was part of every front porch conversation, walking tour, door knocking effort, cookout, open house, neighborhood meeting, and work session.

It is through these efforts and the hard work from the members of the communities that this planning process was a success.

In a moment, the PDC will be giving their presentation and you will hear from the public.

You will also have a chance to ask questions and hold the discussion prior to voting on the resolution found in the staff report.

One aspect I would like to point out is how this ties into the other major planning processes going on in the city at this time, mainly the update to the comprehensive plan housing strategy and the zoning rewrite.

The Cherry Avenue small area plan, if adopted, is a high level policy document that will help with the

The small area plan is a vision document with actionable items for the neighborhood and by the neighborhood but it is not an ordinance.

One area where the plan will have an immediate impact is how the zoning code is rewritten.

If the small area plan is adopted into the city's comprehensive plan

Thanks, Matt.

I appreciate that introduction.

I do have a quick presentation.

share my screen if I'm able to.

If not, I can talk through.

Perfect.

So yes, like Matt said, I'm Nick Morrison.

I am a planner on staff with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

Chip Boyles, our executive director, and Sandy Shackleford, our director of planning, are also here in attendance and may jump on to answer any questions or assist in the discussion later on.

But with that, if we can go to the next slide.

So why now?

What was kind of the impetus behind doing this planning effort?

Residents of Fifeville had noted this pressure of displacement, specifically of long-time residents and the need for additional affordable housing, stresses on the neighborhood from traffic, particularly along the commercial corridor of Cherry Avenue,

Development that was underway on both east and west ends of the commercial corridor and what the impacts could be to residents and the large number of vacant lots with potential for development.

And finally, the ability to utilize the groundwork laid by the Fyfeville Neighborhood Association that Matt touched on.

This process came about through their work of identifying kind of a framework for a small area plan, which they presented back in I think 2016.

So that work was then kind of led the way for what we have before you today.

Next slide, please.

So the study area originally started as kind of a core focus area of just the Cherry Avenue commercial corridor.

As we started holding meetings with the neighborhood, it became apparent that we really needed to think, you know, greater and incorporate the entire Fifeville neighborhood, which is the study area you see in front of you.

So how all of those various aspects of the neighborhood fit into the planning process.

Next slide.

So setting out the plan intent was to develop a clear vision for Cherry Avenue and the surrounding Y Phil neighborhood.

So to create a vision for this study area, provide recommendations that were actionable to achieve that vision that was developed by the neighborhood.

and to help guide actions of city officials and community stakeholders.

Next slide.

To that end, we did extensive community engagement.

It certainly took probably more time than initially thought.

I think when we scoped this project, we

had a really formulaic kind of, you know, three public meetings.

And, you know, we quickly found out that that was not going to be sufficient.

And throughout the course of this project, with the help of the Cherry Avenue Think Tank, which was the guiding steering group made up of residents of the Fifeville neighborhood,

We developed kind of a sort of a different approach than the PDC had done in the past.

So we did do large scale open houses.

We held four of those between March of 2018 and December of 2019.

We also did these smaller focus groups with stakeholders within these certain groups.

So transportation providers, education providers within FIFIL, business owners, youth in the community.

And these were certain topical areas that members of the FIFIL neighborhood association, particularly the think tank, wanted more direct conversations with to try and build kind of a better

insight into what those specific needs were.

But what really, I think, proved to be successful were these front porch discussions.

And this was an idea that was developed by a member of the think tank, Willow Gale, who I don't know if is present tonight or not, but she had said, well, why don't we just gather people

You know, come over to my house.

I've got a number of people that live on the block.

We can come together and hold a just an informal discussion.

And that kind of paved the way for this more formalized version of that by doing these front porch discussions where we would have members of the think tank identify a date and time, whether that was a Sunday morning or a Thursday evening, whatever it may be, so that way our staff could be present to help facilitate just these really informal discussions.

And over the course of the summer of 2018, we held six of those meetings.

And then we did attend the back to school cookout events for the Greenstone on Fifth, which is a housing provider there in Feistville.

And then we did also attend one of the local groups.

They have a big kickoff event each year and we attended that and tabled there.

So trying to go where the people are again to get out of this kind of aspect of you know we're from the government we're here to help to really put the plan in the people's hands and really have them drive the effort.

Next slide please.

So with all that community engagement, the neighborhood built this vision that the Cherry Avenue will be a vibrant mixed-use area that supports a diverse, thriving Fifeville community.

New development and investment on Cherry Avenue and throughout the neighborhood will build a sense of community between long-term time and newer residents and be accessible to residents at the most vulnerable end of the socioeconomic scale.

Next slide, please.

So to build on that vision the neighborhood develops a set of 10 goals.

One to rebuild and strengthen that sense of belonging and inclusion in community.

To lift up and preserve FIFFL's legacy of African American leadership and highlight its unique sense of place as a culturally diverse neighborhood.

to ensure that local land use laws encourage vibrant mixed-use corridor along Cherry Avenue while also respecting the lower density historical housing forms.

Ensuring that low-income residents, people of color, and generational residents are able to remain in Fifeville and benefit from any neighborhood investments.

Invest in empowerment and upward mobility for neighborhood residents, particularly at the most vulnerable end of the socioeconomic scale.

Next slide, please.

to foster an inclusive and welcoming community through place-keeping, place-making, and beautification, encouraging new development that advances equity, is financial and socially accessible to residents and represents FIFIL, providing a safe and more connected community that creates access and opportunities for residents, providing a transportation network that prioritizes safety and mobility, and finally increasing health and well-being for all neighborhood residents.

a set of 10 goals that really speak to that vision of FIFIL.

Next slide please.

So again, to achieve those goals, achieve that vision, we came up with a set of recommendations.

They were divided into six main categories based on the feedback that we had received throughout the process, the first being placekeeping and community building, the second being economic development, followed by housing, land use, transportation, and parks and recreation.

The recommendations that were developed were vetted through two technical committee meetings made up of staff and community stakeholders.

And then we held a final draft recommendation presentation to the public at a venue on Cherry Avenue in December of 2019 for the public to review those recommendations, the full plan, the executive summary, everything, and provide feedback from there.

We then had a presentation to the Planning Commission in February of 2020 and then COVID hit and kind of derailed sort of the momentum that had been built, you know, over the winter of 2019 and then to 2020.

We got feedback from staff and we decided, you know, based on their feedback that those recommendations need

and some sort of prioritization attached to them.

So through the summer and early fall, our staff worked to develop kind of a schema for prioritizing the recommendations in the plan.

Next slide, please.

So to that end, we developed sort of this tiered system.

So tier one being recommendations that were ranked high by the neighborhood, and then also attaching two sets of timeframes to implementation and realization.

And I'll define those as we move on in the presentation.

The tier two recommendations tended to rank as high priority by the neighborhood but maybe had a longer term realization timeframe attached to it.

And then the final tier, tier three, were recommendations that were ranked lower in priority by the neighborhood.

and had a longer time frame for either implementation, realization or both.

Next slide.

So to that end, we included this definition matrix of what all of those different things are.

So the reference number being just an easy way to reference that recommendation, the recommendation itself.

The neighborhood priority ranking was developed by the neighborhood.

So based on feedback from them, they identified each recommendation as high, medium, or low priority.

This implementation timeframe was a rough estimate of time for the responsible entity to execute the identified recommendation.

So, you know, those that would fall into the short-term category, excuse me, it would take less than one year to three years to execute and those that fall into that long-term category would be three or more years for implementation.

The realization time frame is also another rough estimate for the implementation of that goal.

So once that goal has been implemented, say it's a policy change, what would it take for it to be realized and that can impact felt in the community in the long term.

So a long-term realization time frame would have been five or more years.

It's different from that long-term implementation time frame, just knowing that things take a little bit longer to be felt as impacts in the community.

The responsible entity is the party primarily responsible for implementation of the recommendation.

and then the easy win category is sort of that low hanging fruit.

So the community helped to identify sort of these easy wins that there is either existing momentum such as the trail connection to Tonsler Park and Greenstone on 5th or would require maybe not as much effort to implement and those easy win designations were vetted by city staff to make sure that those actually were accurate.

Next slide please.

So this is an example of the placekeeping recommendation list.

So you can see the different color coding of tiers and then how those recommendations are then broken out.

And the intent of this was to provide staff and stakeholders with a manageable list of recommendations.

I think some of our recommendations categories had

quite a lot of recommendations in them, and that can be a bit tough to digest, but I think this provides sort of a simplified way for people to kind of work through these recommendations, highlight what priorities the neighborhood has identified, and then attach some sort of kind of schema to that prioritization effort, which is what you see here.

Next slide, please.

So that's what I had to provide as an update on where we are with the plan.

All right, just a couple things.

First of all, I really commend you on this plan.

It's a great document.

And not only a great document, but the website that you set up, I thought did a really good job of compiling a lot of really interesting information.

I mean, planning studies going all the way back to the 60s are available there.

And that's really just a huge trove of information on this neighborhood.

Beyond that, my only real comment is, it has to do, it was just something we were thinking about.

Cherry Avenue is obviously, it has times where it's really congested.

And I know one of the recommendations is, revolves around the Cherry Avenue and 5th Street, Ridge Street intersection.

and it talks about widening.

I think it's T3.

If you go also to the 5th or McIntyre 5th or McIntyre Ridge 5th corridor study that the city also recently completed, there's a little more context in there and there's a little more detail in what might be a recommended redesign of that intersection.

So I just kind of wanted to point that out that

I don't know if it needs to be changed or anything like that.

I'm not really saying that.

I just wanted to point that out that that is a critical turn movement, right turn Cherry Avenue onto Fifth Street.

And the city has obviously here and in the corridor plan addressed it or has ways of addressing it.

Beyond that, those were my main comments.

I apologize.

I actually lost my connection and rejoined, Bill, as you were finishing your statement.

But for the last part, the intersection, but I didn't get that the first.

Yeah, I know.

I was just pointing out that there's the McIntire Ridge Fifth Street Corridor plan as well.

And I don't know.

You know, I know that you were developing your plan, and that was kind of developing either before or after you did the plan.

But there's some, a little more detail on, on, you know, what to do with that intersection in the future.

Just kind of want to, you know, specifically that right turn movement from Cherry onto 5th Street, which is a huge area of congestion at certain times in the afternoon.

Oh, thank you.

I was just going to say, Bill, yeah, I think that process kicked off after we started kind of in full with this.

But I know that city staff, especially transportation engineering,

You know, reviewed some of those recommendations that came out in the transportation section of our plan and did highlight, you know, the pending changes that were coming to that intersection and then the work that would come out of that study.

I don't know if there's any specific reference in the small, the chariot plan to that.

Ms.

Stolzenberg.

Um, I think commissioner Russell technically sits to the left of me, um, except that we've never actually sat there together.

Uh, but I'll get off.

Yeah.

I mean, um, I definitely have some concerns with some of the technical errors, uh, in particular in analyzing existing conditions, um, from TJPDC's analysis.

I know it was a staffer that wasn't there.

If you have anything to say on that, I think that would be okay.

But, you know, otherwise, I think we can just get those fixed.

The big question I have is about University Manor, the property to the west and to the south of Tonsler.

I think it's about 16 acres plus the whole strip along Fish Street, which is about half again as large as the beacon on Fifth Development.

just outside of the neighborhood.

I see that it's one of the top mentioned phrases from the community engagement.

It's listed as one of the most likely to redevelop in the financial analysis there.

Yeah, that's a good point, Rory.

And I'll speak first to the data analysis.

And I think it's a valid point that you made, specifically looking at kind of that land use analysis and what the

the shortcomings are and I think you know we can work you know with with city staff to make sure that you know that process as it evolves is correct and the data sources that we're using are correct again without you know being the staff person that

developed that methodology and who is no longer at the PDC.

It's a little hard to go back and re-engineer it, looking at data without source information, but I think just based on the importance of making sure that we get that right, we can certainly do that.

For the University Manor parcel, I don't know if that was included in that kind of development scenario, which I think just looked at parcels that were just adjacent on the Cherry Avenue corridor.

And I don't think there was any specific information for what the feasibility of any parcel could be other than just kind of developing based on existing

Underlining zoning, what could be built and that's what was visualized in that section.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I don't really care so much about the zoning capacity of it so much as the neighborhood's vision for what it should be.

I know there's like the one page that points to examples of the kind of housing people would like along Cherry.

I think that could be the thought.

I'm not sure if I

have an answer for you right now.

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea.

And to engage the property owner, who I think will be here later tonight.

Well, I don't know if he'll be here.

Revenue heating.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions per se.

I think it's worth probably stating that, of course, this document talks about lots of things.

And as a commission and as a city, the thing we're looking at with such

review is housing and in that, you know, maybe this plan can't do it all, but it will be interesting to, you know, I guess what I can note are some things where goals in the Cherry Avenue plan align with our draft affordable housing plan and then places where conflict

particularly maybe around zoning and density and neighborhood character desires.

Yes, I've appreciated some of the detail in this plan.

The only thing I was really curious about is the connectivity of the Toffler Park and the Forest Hill Park.

And are you referring to like a sidewalk or is this a combination of bike lane path paved?

And the reason I'm asking all this is in thinking about future sustainability, access to groceries and

You know, just community life.

Yeah, I don't think we have a clear idea as to what the final look, feel, the alignment could be.

I think more so as a response to kind of that community desire for just increasing connectivity, particularly between the two parks, as there was a lot of reference to.

you know kids biking between them and then having to go on to Cherry Avenue and you know maybe that not being the safest route for you know for young kids to get between those two parks so I could see it being kind of a combination like you said of you know whether that's you know a hard surface or not trail

and then increasing either sidewalk width or something like that.

But I don't think there's a specific scope for what that could be at this point.

Yeah, my preference would definitely be the increasing of sidewalk width because that has a whole lot of benefits, especially as people find more and more creative ways to be ambulatory in an urban setting.

Let's keep that wide enough for future inventedness.

Ms.

I don't have any questions per se at this time, but I would like to say that this is the type of planning that I enjoy hearing and participating in where it comes from our citizens.

This is what it reminds me of South First Street a little bit even though I know this plan was definitely in progress way before that.

But I encourage more of our citizens to start taking part of this type of plan.

And this is how we prevent gentrification.

And this is how we create a city that we are proud of and that we want to be in.

Thank you.

I mean, we were lucky to have such great involvement, particularly from the think tank.

A lot of good in this plan.

Not focusing on that right now, sorry.

When we talked about this in 2020, I was thinking about it in terms of, oh, don't worry, we have money to prevent displacement.

We have money to provide affordable housing.

We don't have money.

The money's all gone.

So we're stuck with what's in the plan, not the future.

And what's in the plan, especially pages 67 and 108, there is some responsiveness to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, which was wonderful.

That was very helpful, the SWOT analysis, but that's very focused on threats.

specifically aesthetic concerns and concerns about walkability.

But don't get to concerns about displacement, affordable housing, loss of community that I see elsewhere in the plan and I feel, I hear from residents.

Yeah, and that's a great point.

I mean, I think operating under the assumption we were a year ago, obviously, has certainly changed, you know, with the thought being that some of those maybe more in-depth conversations, particularly around land use and zoning, would occur through some of those existing processes.

Now, to answer how it could be

kind of formulated within the plan, that's a good question.

I don't know that I have an idea as to what that could be.

I think if we were to develop some sort of way to address that.

and make sure that there's that consistency throughout the plan that could be done.

And that just may be setting up a meeting with staff and stakeholders to figure out what that best approach would be and what it would look like and then making sure that that's reflective, particularly in those pages that you mentioned.

And then seeing if there's any other areas within the plan that may need some of that addressed as well.

So I know that doesn't really answer your question, but

Dow and

and just congratulate the community and let them know how much I respect and admire them for recognizing the development vulnerability that they have and taking responsibility for creating a neighborhood association that mobilized themselves

their neighbors to come up with the

ideas and the needs for a visioning plan in 2016 that then took it all the way to the end with help from our own city staff and with the PVC staff and persevered and I just can't say enough about the community.

This is to me a model example of a small area plan how it should be done.

So I don't know how this is going to go when we begin deliberating.

My guess is that this is going to be an iterative process.

We may have to go back and think of this a little bit more.

I don't want to dwell on that.

I just want to echo what Bill and Jody and Taniya said.

This is an excellent piece of work, and the engagement of the community has been ideal.

So I want to congratulate you guys for that.

I want to open it up to counsel to see if counsel has any input, any advice, any guidance, thoughts.

And keep in mind, we do have a public stream that we're about to have as well.

I have, I guess, two questions.

The first is that there was a reference in the consultant's comments half an hour or so ago, an hour ago, however long ago it was now.

That leads me to think that perhaps there had been some changes made in this plan, perhaps between the first draft and what we've got most recently.

Not definitively, no.

So we, I guess the last draft that Planning Commission would have viewed was in February of 2020.

This draft has the prioritized recommendation tricks.

So the recommendations prior were essentially in a matrix form, but not prioritized based on staff review.

Those, you know, that has now been reflected in this current draft.

There were other smaller changes like editing legends within some of the maps in the plan that were updated, some pictures that were grainy, so replacing those with updated imagery, small text adjustments.

I'm happy to send a copy of the draft from 2020.

And if anyone wants to compare it to this one, we'd be happy to provide those drafts.

We don't have a marked up

Well I have the old copy in fact I read that old copy when it came out a year ago and I guess part of my question was

I didn't think that I might need to go back and read this most recent version terribly carefully.

And if you're telling me there really are no substantive changes, then I'll relax.

It's, again, small text adjustments, pictures, map legends, and then the main point of that being the recommendation prioritization.

Okay, and the second point that I wanted to address is something that Ms.

Russell referred to a few minutes ago.

I don't know whether she was referring to the specific that I have in mind, but it struck me reading the report that the report was calling for basically less density of housing, whereas city policy at this point is looking for probably greater density and more housing.

I noted in one of the chat comments that the neighborhood was told we could not address affordable housing policy and displacement in this plan, that we would have to do this through the current affordable housing and zoning rewrite processes.

We expressed these as values we would like to advance.

And I guess what I'm kind of reflecting on is that there is a

A school of thought in some of the planning and housing discussions we've been having in the recent years that basically says, yes, we need to increase housing density, but not in areas where there is already some density, not in areas where typically communities of color, for example.

There's another school of thought that basically says, hey, we got a building, we got a problem, we need more units, build where we can build.

Competing schools of thought in some ways, perhaps competing visions of racial equity.

Yeah, and I think that was the largest challenge that we faced in this process.

It's that there is a desire specifically for affordability and making sure that residents who want to stay in the neighborhood have the ability to do that and afford to stay in their neighborhood.

But one of the tools to do that is through zoning or through increased density to allow for more of those opportunities.

you know hearing just based on the community feedback the fear was that you know developments like what has occurred along West Main Street could then be built on Cherry Avenue and then what does that sort of create within that corridor and does that start driving gentrification and I think the approach was to try and look at through

You know, not down zoning or anything like that.

I don't know if the language gets to that as specifically as we should.

I think in the, in the recommendations there, you know, specifically around land use, there's, you know, providing that, you know, new development is contextualized to some of those, those lower density forms.

So how do you, um,

If you were to have a commercial or mixed-use development along Cherry Avenue, how would that interact with some of the single-family homes on 6th and whatnot?

So it's a challenge.

I don't know that

This level of plan got to how do you address that specifically.

I think the hope was that through some of these more in-depth processes like the comp plan, the zoning rewrite, that some of those issues could be teased out.

The comment, at least the comment in the chat, suggests that that maybe what you might have been hearing from the neighbors may have been colored by or affected by

a direction or a thought that they were being directed to not try to address broader issues but to work within the framework of the current zoning ordinance.

So I'm just conscious of the fact that in the next year when we're gonna be having an affordable housing plan, a comp plan, a zoning code rewrite, we're going to have to confront sort of the second order issue here

A lot of my questions have been addressed and I also just wanted to echo I was able to attend some of those community-led events and it was just really impactful just to kind of see firsthand some of those really engaging exercises that were available and also just what Lloyd was bringing up just to kind of hear that tug that we're having in terms of people wanting to preserve their neighborhoods and be able to have that residential feel while also recognizing that there is affordability and there is a lack of housing in the community.

And I don't have anything else to add except for thank you.

I've met with community leaders on this as well and have been incredibly impressed by both the city staff, the planning commission staff and the Fifeville neighborhood in general and how wonderful a plan this has been.

So before we open it up to the public, is there any follow-up questions from the commission?

Yeah, one thing I'd like to add is I would love to see an appendix be added to this with some of the raw information that we got from the community.

It's referenced a lot in the document, but it's hard to

split what came from the community and what is kind of added by CJPDC.

And the other comment I'd say is I did see in there some concern, especially in one of the front porch discussions about house flippers taking historically reasonably priced single family homes and flipping them into high-end ones.

And I didn't really see any real discussion about that beyond just the concern expressed.

So, you know, is there policy that could be used for that?

We can certainly include that raw data, Rory, that you're speaking to.

We have an inventory of all of the comments and where they were received.

I think the first iteration of the plan, we did include appendices and we can do that moving forward too.

The question on house flipping, I think would probably require a little bit more thought as to what may be a specific recommendation to address that could be, but we can certainly look into that.

Any others?

All right, Mr. Rice, let's open it up for public comment.

OK.

This hearing is now open to public comment.

If you'd like to address the commission during this public hearing, which is specific to the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan, please click the Raise Hand icon, and you'll be called upon in the order of hands raised.

Once you're activated to speak, please unmute your mic and you'll have three minutes for comment.

We currently have one person.

This is Sarah Malpass.

Sarah, you're on with council.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

Hey, this is Sarah Malpass.

I live at 626 Bailey Road in Fifeville.

and I am the secretary of the Fifeville Neighborhood Association and I'm here to speak in support of the adoption of the small area plan into the city's comprehensive plan.

As has been noted a couple of times in the discussion already, and as you can see from the timeline on page two of the executive summary, the Cherry Avenue small area plan is the culmination of over five years of planning efforts, which were led by the Fifeville Neighborhood Association and the Cherry Avenue Think Tank.

When we received funding from the city for this effort, the Fifeville Neighborhood Association worked closely with city staff and staff from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to design a scope of work and a planning process which focused on community engagement as a key deliverable of the TJPDC's work.

and focused on delivering a small area plan that has action items which can be led by a diverse set of community stakeholders, including the city, the TJPDC, the Fifeville Neighborhood Association, community residents, community property owners and community business owners.

I'm really proud of the work that my neighbors have done in front porch meetings, public planning sessions, cookouts and community workshops and through the Cherry Avenue Think Tank.

to debate the issues facing our community and offer their collective wisdom about how to ensure a healthy, welcoming, and inclusive community in Fifeville moving forward.

Fifeville is a very special place in our community with a proud history of Black leadership in Charlottesville, as well as a present-day multicultural community that we want to preserve.

The Terry Avenue Small Area Plan sets forward a vision for placekeeping through preserving the history and culture of the Fife Hill community and ensuring that future investments in our community benefit current residents and that the neighborhood remains accessible both financially and culturally to residents who are at the most vulnerable end of the socioeconomic scale.

The vision and goals that the neighborhood developed which are summarized on page three of the executive summary represent the hopes, the values, and the dreams of our residents for the future of our community.

These are the principles that we would expect to drive future development, including on properties like the one Mr. Stolzenberg highlighted in his comments.

In the time since passing the draft recommendations off to the TJPDC and the city staff at the end of 2018, the Fifeville Neighborhood Association has continued to move forward on implementation of many of the goals from the plan.

This has included applying for grants to implement many of the connectivity and historic preservation goals of the plan, as well as working with a major property owner, specifically the property that Mr. Stolzenberger highlighted,

and the Rivanna Trails Foundation to restore a multi-use path between the Tonsler Park and Greenstone on 5th.

Very excited to share that the Trails Foundation recently established a lease with that property owner that will allow for implementation of the trail and the Fifeville Neighborhood Association has secured funding from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation to pay our own residents to install the trail.

We believe that it is equitable partnerships like these that with city support will make a real difference in the future of our community.

And we hope that the planning commission will help to continue the momentum for investments like these that have been prioritized by the Fifeville community residents by voting to adopt the Cherry Avenue small area plan into the comprehensive plan.

It has been a very long road to get this plan in front of you today.

And while we know that there are ways in which it could certainly be improved, we hope that you will help us move it forward to adoption quickly so that we can move on from the plan development phase of this work, which has taken five years.

We want to move on from the plan development to actually being able to advocate for plan implementation during the next city budgeting cycle.

We look forward to continue our partnership with the city through the adoption and implementation of the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan.

And I ask that you recommend this amendment for adoption into the comprehensive plan.

Chair, our next speaker is Carmelita Wood.

Carmelita, you're on with the commission.

Thank you.

I'm sorry about earlier.

I put my paper down and it hit the button.

My name's Carmelita Wood and I am current president of Fife Field Neighborhood Association.

Just briefly to touch on some of the things that were said.

First of all, let me read this to you.

On behalf of the Fife Field Neighborhood Association and its residents, there's high hopes that you consider adopting the Terry Avenue small area plan.

We realized that over the years, changes are going to come.

Some are for the better and some are not.

For residents of Fife Field, some of the changes around us that others thought were for the better have proven to increase the negativity of the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods in the city.

We would not like to see the structures that surround us left.

high buildings, structures that don't really coincide with what the neighborhood looks like.

We realized that a lot of valuable property is in Fifield and it can be used to address some of the issues in the plan, talking about affordable housing issues for one.

When we started this process, we wanted to do,

I wanted to make sure that Cherry Avenue would not succumb to the large, huge overpowering structures that could contribute the unnecessary destruction of valuable land use that the neighborhood could not use.

We believe that it is vital to adopt a small area plan and you will be providing the surrounding neighbors and residents of Fifield with the ability to ensure the safety and security

of knowing that Cherry Avenue would thrive and become a model community in the city and not be reviewed as an in and out strip of congestion for communities as it has somewhat come.

Welcomeness, any new development should be built and may have sense of welcomeness and friendliness to long-term and newer residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

and not be looked at as a piece of structure blocking the beauty of the mountains or the sun.

Extensive work has been done on this by the TJPDC and the Think Tank and members of the neighborhood association, along with residents and neighbors who believe that it is vital to have this plan put into place.

This will ensure longevity of long-time residents and businesses, accessibility, home ownership, business transportation,

Business and transportation issues are all in this plan that we feel need to be addressed.

And this plan will help steer these issues.

We're asking you to please help by filling its residence to keep and to have some pride in this community by adopting the plan and giving us an opportunity to move forward on things like accessibility to Cherry Avenue.

As Sarah had mentioned, we've been in talks with RTF and Mr. Woodard about the property and

All of, from what I can understand from an email from Mr. Woodard, all of the legalities have been put into place and we are ready to move forward with this trail, which is one of the things that was put into this project, Accessibility Chair Avenue, which hopefully we can start working on within the coming months.

And I think that's all I have to say.

And as far as someone mentioned earlier about the university manner, I do believe that is also in conjunction with Mr. Woodett's property.

And as far as I know, everything is a go with that.

That's my understanding.

And I thank you very much for listening.

And it looks like there's no one else.

Brooks, you're on with commission.

Thanks, everyone.

My name is Brooks Hefner.

I live on 414 Oak Street in Fifeville.

I've been a resident of the neighborhood for almost 11 years now, so that actually makes me a relative newcomer.

and I was also a member of the think tank and I think that both Sarah and Carmelita have said it far better than I can.

We feel this is a very important thing for our community.

Having witnessed around us hotels and rental property for students who aren't going to spend very many years here, it's important that our community has

some say in its own future and that it's not identified as a space purely for extraction or purely for people who move through the city and then move out of the city quickly.

So it's been a really long and arduous process to get here, as Sarah outlined.

Many, many people have been involved closely with this project.

And I would just like to urge the commission and council to move on this plan as soon as they can.

Next up, we have Anthony Woodard.

Anthony, you are on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Hey, thank you all for taking the time to hear this.

You have to hear us all this evening.

I just want to piggyback on Miss Malpas and Miss Woods' comments about the trail connection.

along Fifth Street there between Tonsler and the Greenstone.

We're excited for the community for that trail.

And as far as any future development there, we're definitely going to work towards maintaining a connection through the neighborhood, through the community there.

And we'll continue to work with the community and the neighborhood association to try to figure out a development that works and fits in the area.

We're part of the fabric of this community.

as well.

My dad started this business 40 some years ago and we want to be an asset to the community, not a hindrance, not just a structure in the neighborhood like Ms.

Wood referenced.

Next speaker is Jean Gratz.

Jean, you're on with the commission.

Hi, I live on Cherry Avenue for 30 years, and I'd like to thank very much all of the residents who participated in this plan.

I think it's an excellent plan.

I also hope that things that can be actionable, our action is taken because as noted in the plan, it is possible to get

participation fatigue when things are brought up year after year and nothing much happens.

A lot of this is a vision and that's good, but also the things that can take action, I think we should pursue this.

I was able to buy my house on Cherry Avenue 30 years ago, my 750 square foot house on R2 lot for $35,000.

which even at the time was extremely affordable and I'm grateful for that.

Otherwise I wouldn't be living in the city and I wouldn't be living in the city being able to be car free.

So I hope other residents have that opportunity and have that opportunity in Cherry Avenue and Fifeville because it is a neighborhood.

It's not just a commuter area or a parking strip.

It is a

neighborhood with neighbors.

And it's a great place to live.

And I hope more people can join me in the appropriate way.

I think a lot of people in Charlottesville got really turned off to the idea of density when they saw the flats at West Main go up.

It's just a unwelcoming horrid building that I know was apparently built by Wright.

But when people hear density, that's the kind of thing they're thinking about.

So if we can educate

on quality density like six plexes or eight plexes that fit in and look nice.

I think people will be more open to hearing about that.

If anyone else would like to speak during this public hearing, please click the raise hand icon.

And we have Nancy O'Brien.

Nancy, you're on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Nancy, you just went into mute.

You need to unmute.

You're back.

Am I open?

OK.

Thank you all for listening.

I remember long evenings of listening to comprehensive plans.

And it takes a lot of time and thinking.

And people are tired at the end.

but one thing I wanted to just say about FIFIL is it has one of those things that people can't build and it has a sense of community and a sense of identity and this plan doesn't solve all the problems like the tensions in different kinds of housing and how to get there from here but it does give a good community-driven basis of values that we want taken into consideration

as the future evolves.

Because we can't predict everything we're going to have to think about, but our values are probably not going to change that much.

And so that really is what we've developed with as many people in the community as participated is a sense of values which give a context for future decisions which have to be made.

This has been fun to work on.

I've gotten to know more people and appreciate the sense of

living in a place that thinks it's a community.

So I'm urging you to approve this tonight, if possible, if not in the near future, because we have been working a long time and we'd like to be implementing some things like the trail and the other things that we had to implement because we're ready to implement.

Our next speaker is Matthew Gilliken.

Matthew, you're on with commission.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

This is Matthew Gilkin.

I live at 726 Orange Dale Avenue and have been really fortunate to attend some of the sessions for helping to put this plan together and get community feedback.

And I think that this small area plan, though it's had its kind of fits and starts and ups and down, has really set a really nice example for what planning can be in Charlottesville.

by going the extra step time and time again to get as many people involved as many voices involved and I hope that whether it's at tonight's meeting or at an upcoming meeting that the Planning Commission and Council can approve the small area plan

I think there probably might be a few things that need to be ironed out and that's where I would rely on the expertise and knowledge of the Planning Commission to help make sure that this is a document that not only reflects the values of the Fayetteville community but also provides tangible solutions and tangible things that can be accomplished.

And I think that one of my favorite things about the small area plan is there's literally

List of lots and lots of things that the community has said that we'd like to see happen here and I think some of those things are really easy low-hanging fruit that I'd love to see the city organize some of its budget priorities around and some of our more complex long-term situations that I think can help orient the city as we think about what our growth and what our future will be.

So I think in particular, Carmelita Wood and Sarah Malpass for spending so many hours and years working on this.

I'm greatly appreciative of their leadership and everything they've done to help support and strengthen our community.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak during this public hearing, please click the raise hand icon.

Then I will virtually gavel out of the public hearing.

So commissioners, what do we think?

What would we like to do with this?

I'm not going to go left to right.

I guess I'll chime in.

So well, first off, I want to say, it's kind of easy in these reviews to focus on critiques.

But, you know, I'd really like to say that, you know, it's been a really impressive job done by the community and by Nick and outreach.

This really seems like the best community engagement I've ever seen really for any plan.

That's kind of a low bar, but it's better than that.

It's an exemplar of

You know, what community engagement should look like in the city.

So great work on that.

You know, I will say, you know, I have some critiques of some of the kind of technical expertise side that was added to the plan by TGA PDC.

You know, things like the page that says that, you know, 75% of poems are single family detached in the city.

It's just an error, a mistake that should be corrected.

I don't think that fixing it is going to change anyone's, or really change the general gist of it.

You're not going to suddenly discover there's huge buildings in the middle.

If I fail, we're just going to discover that there's a lot of attached homes and duplexes and that sort of thing throughout the neighborhood, in particular on Orange State on Prospect.

And I do think that needs to be

This is fixed before it gets into the comp plan, along with maybe some other issues and maybe even a little bit more detail flushing out.

But I definitely am mindful of the fact that this thing has been going for a really long time and people don't really want to see it get drawn out a lot more.

But I think even in the plan itself, on page

It really talks about how part of making this plan work and be successful is about making sure that it really is a high quality plan with accurate information and clear actions and a clear vision.

Given that we've put five years into it already, it might be worth taking the

a little bit of extra time as soon as possible to get that fix.

In terms of what action that means for the planning commission today, I don't know if that means just deferring it and having it come back after hammering out some details offline or giving some specific things we would like to see addressed or kind of saying that the general gist of it is good so we can kind of move it forward and fix those issues out by the time it gets to council.

I don't have strong opinions there.

Yeah, forgive me for jumping the line, but I'll echo me again.

Good and perfect, enemies, bad thing.

So I think it would be, I would like, Rory and Lyle, I think you had some ideas as well.

I would like to push us towards making some recommendations that they need to amend and approving the proposal with those recommendations.

I'll defer to you guys.

I don't want to say we drag along till February.

Chair, I'd like to second your sentiments on that.

I do think maybe if we want to make some amendments, that is fine.

Those guys have recommendations.

It seems like we have general consensus on lots of heads nodding.

So maybe as a point of clarification there, is it better to make a motion tonight that sort of says the general things to improve and then hammer out or lay out exactly the details offline?

Or do we need to like put every little fix in

I'm going to defer to Ms.

Sorry, I needed to unmute.

I don't think we need to get into all of the details, but I think we need to be specific enough to provide good direction to the Planning District Commission.

So it would be good to reiterate

those comments in such a way that we have them all in one place and those can be looked at.

I think one other thing to think about is whether is the timing of those corrections or updates and whether we

And I would again like to urge us to move this to council with the high level things we want to address.

In the lower level things that, or the more specific things there as Rory has already pointed out,

Forgive me, Gary, I stepped on you.

Oh, I was asking about emotion.

Is that a way?

Yeah, that can be done.

What I would like to do, and again, forgive me for driving this, but I just don't want to see another comp plan thing happen again.

What I would like to do is make a motion to move it to council.

with these recommended amendments being made by the playing district.

I move to recommend approval of the attached resolution with amendments to amend the city's 2013 comprehensive plan to include the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan dated December 2020.

You know, I think Rory may have a friendly amendment as well, but there were a couple of data points you wanted fixed as well.

Lyle, what document are you working off of?

Because I'm failing to see that reference on 76 and 108.

While they're working through that, Rory, if you would be thinking about what you want.

Well, let's roll that.

All right, well, let's work on Lyle and Liz's thing.

I got it now.

I'm sorry, 67.

So would you restate your amendment?

Yes, should be updated to reflect the need to address affordable housing and prevent displacement and rezoning.

Yeah, I would say fix the data analyses of existing conditions on page 60 in the charts, as well as references to detached housing as the dominant housing form on pages 34 and 41 at least.

I didn't, but I am now.

So does Lyle agree with the friendly amendment?

Yes.

Thank you.

I keep trying to unmute and my video keeps going off.

Yes, we're good.

The other thing I'd add is that there are some pieces that need to be updated to, they're just out of date, like the timeline says it's going to be adopted in 2020, probably need to

Make that 2021 now.

Things like not having a coffee shop or other sit-down restaurants on Cherry Avenue.

Royalty eats exist now, so that's no longer accurate.

How achievable is that one?

I'll send over a list of some of the ones I noticed that will help.

Maybe it won't help with everything.

I'm still unclear on the revising the sections around Lyle, your points.

And I just want to make sure I'm on the right pages still, because page 108 is specifically talking about a style guideline or the style guideline section.

So I'm unclear how that

The way that 108 characterizes FIFO as a residential community about the heading is single-family residential residents hope to maintain and serve the residential character of single-family residential homes in the community and then it talks about aesthetic aesthetics of

Well, I mean, I think in order for it to serve as a reflection of what the community is saying, it's under Section 8 style guide talking about a whole bunch of things

the community would like to see and sees itself as.

And I don't see it, I see it fitting in maybe another section.

It's under the section called style guide.

It says it on the bar, kind of a bar going down the right hand side of the page.

I understand you now.

67.

Numbers are hard.

And 108 goes away.

Yes, fine.

Yeah, so I mean, this is a little bit more substantive, but do you guys think it makes sense to have something address specifically university manner in either its future development or its complaints about existing conditions and standing water and mosquitoes and that given that it's one of the largest developed parcels?

I'm gonna ask Missy for her professional opinion.

The items that you just noted, Rory, are property maintenance related.

Oh, yeah, that one is on, I'll find the page.

But, you know, I'm thinking also more in the

I'm a prospect for what it will eventually look like.

Page 19 is what those issues are talked about on.

But yeah, I mean more, what is the future of that?

What's the community's vision for it, given that it's not directly on charity and maybe not addressed by the other stuff?

Like we talked about earlier.

And then maybe while we think about that, the other substantive issue I would raise is whether we should talk specifically about the role of house flipping in

the gentrification of the neighborhood.

A quick data analysis I just ran says that 41 single-family detached homes out of 520, so about 8%, have more than doubled in value of their improvements by assessment since 2010.

Anecdotally, I have noticed a lot of

either tear downs and rebuilds or renovations.

You got two airplanes circling the airport.

Let's land one and then come back and land the other.

Let's talk about university matter because I don't have strong opinions on which way that goes.

Comment in the chat about speaking to that.

Yeah, that's a good point that the guiding principle kind of addresses it without specifically addressing built form.

I think the conversation around house flipping is just part of a broader conversation around gentrification and threats to us.

There's no one thing that we can say is going to solve that.

It is interesting to note that one of the implementation strategies or recommendations, I can't remember how it was worded,

So maybe a specific suggestion that I would personally like to see in it, rather than necessarily thinking about policy prescriptions or anything, just to

I know there isn't a data analysis guide or person at TJPDC anymore.

Maybe there's a new one.

Just an analysis of what has happened on that front, because certainly renovations in particular are a little bit invisible.

But if it's doubling or tripling the value of the house, that certainly seems to affect the concerns that the neighbors are talking about.

And just being able to say 42 or 41 houses have

You know, undergone this process might be helpful.

There's a minute on the floor.

Add an assessment of recent history of

renovation and teardown.

Since 2010, since 22,000.

Those are, I think, the two timescales that other things are done on in the plan.

I mean, I think if we if we have some sort of scope and, you know,

Data that we can pull, that's certainly something that we have the capacity and the capability to do.

I don't want to speak on behalf of CHIP in terms of budget and staff for that, but assuming that those data sets are readily available and can be thrown in GIS,

I captured that comment as add in data information for the history of renovation and teardowns between 2010 and 2020.

I want to change that date range to generally between because 2020 data is probably still in flux.

So to generally between that time frame.

Are we ready to vote?

Ms.

Sure.

Ms.

Dowell.

Aye.

We need an aye from you.

The answer is aye.

Aye.

Ms.

Russell.

Aye.

Aye.

Right.

Would you guys like to take a five minute break?

Is that a yes?

Okay.

We've got Brian, we've got Nissi, we've got Jody, Lao, we need Tania, Liz, Gary, Alan, Rory.

There's Rory.

There's Tania, there's Lao, we're back.

Yeah, sure.

So this is a continuation of an item from your meeting last month, which is the special use permit request for additional density at 1000 Monticello Road.

The applicant asked for a deferral at your previous meeting.

They have come back with some changes to the proposal.

It's the same building essentially, but they did modify the elevations in response to some of the input

given them at the previous meeting.

And they also worked with staff, particularly the city attorney's office to clarify the management of the units as proposed in the application.

So you are familiar, as you're familiar with the applicant previously indicated that they were willing to offer nine of the 11 units that they want to build in the new building on the site as affordable units based on a definition that they had arrived at.

Staff's concern with that was one, the administration of that condition and also the definition of that if it matched or did not match the city's definition of an affordable unit.

So the applicant has come back with a modified

There's an appendix added to that report that has a 10-page list of conditions and

regulations that would govern those units.

And that appendix was kind of suggested by the city attorney, although the applicant has made that is their proposal and what they've put forward.

So those are the major changes.

I know the applicant is anxious to discuss their thought process behind that.

A couple items that came up

in the lead up to the meeting that I know some commissioners would like me to address.

One, obviously trees, the applicant did indicate that there are none of the trees that you would typically show on a preliminary site plan, which are six-inch caliper trees on this site.

However, there is the tree directly adjacent to the site that would be potentially heavily impacted by this building.

That's kind of a tough situation with any tree that's going over a property line.

Obviously any property owner has the right to limb a tree up along the property line and it can negatively impact a tree that's not necessarily on their property.

But it is just that one in the front.

They feel fairly confident that the second one that is along the property line is far enough

from the construction site that it would not be adversely impacted.

Additionally, I know one commissioner asked me to kind of chat about some of the input related to the applicant and that may be applicant specifically.

As I think all of you are aware, who the applicant is and their past history regarding things that they may have done, that really doesn't factor into your review of a special use permit.

The request that you have in front of you stands on its own merits.

And ideally, if somebody else were presenting this, regardless of who's asking or making this request, they ought to receive the same treatment

from the Commission and the Council, regardless of what they've done in the past.

So that's just a note out there that's kind of an equal protection rule that's out there that really, Lisa Robertson can jump in, but it derives from the US Constitution, actually, the 14th Amendment.

So that's a note that one commissioner wanted me to make.

So I'm happy to do that.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

All right, let's real quick follow the board.

Bill, any questions?

And Ms.

Russell, any questions?

And Mr. Stolzenberg, I'm trying to get the order right.

Nope.

May I get a rep?

No questions.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dowell, are you frozen or are you speaking?

She looks like she's frozen.

We'll come back to Ms.

Dowell.

No question.

Yes, we had quite a lot of public comment on this.

I'm going to let Ms.

Robertson speak to that.

I think there's some restrictions on asking for proper changes.

So Ms.

Good evening.

No, we are not allowed to make changes to this in terms of numbers of affordable units or sort of the structure of the levels of affordability.

So as we discussed a little bit earlier this evening,

At least one, I believe there'll be a minimal number of units, one or two perhaps, that are required by your city ordinance.

So whatever that number is calculated to be under city code 34-12, that'll be the number.

And whatever that required number of units are will have to adhere strictly to existing zoning requirements and regulations.

What we asked previously for the applicant to do was to look at what they were offering and how they were defining affordability when they were saying a certain number of units are affordable.

We asked them to look at the city's standards that are applied to units that are required under 3412, take a look at those definitions and parameters,

and tell us how many units in their development could be affordable under those parameters.

So what we're trying to do is not have 10 different units all subject to different structures and regulations.

So that is what the applicant did.

But as a practical matter, anything above the minimum required by 3412

is solely at their option to be offered.

And I'm sorry, I have a question.

My computer died right in the middle of I'm sure the chair calling on me.

So I do apologize about that.

And I totally hear you where each applicant

should be based on the application.

But Lisa, I have a question.

As a citizen, how do we continue to say that we want change and we wanna see things done differently, but then we're not able to use or properly plan based on evidence and data that we already know when we have these special use applicants come before us?

I mean, it seems almost like a catch-22.

It's almost like we know that you're not doing right, but we're gonna still keep granting you leniency.

So that is why

Getting this housing strategy completed and turning right around and coming back to work on an updated zoning ordinance is so important.

What you've had for a couple of decades is a policy that's primarily based on funding units that are not really sort of development driven units.

So you focus primarily on units being constructed by nonprofits.

including some nonprofit units where the nonprofits are partnering with development, but that's a different iteration.

But long story short, only when we get through this housing strategy and calculate your goals and objectives to what's actually in your zoning ordinance and what we're allowed to do under zoning laws, will you hopefully start seeing much more consistency

under definitions that you put forth and you say what your definition of affordability is you say when you need to see affordable units you need you'll say when that period of affordability is and you will say if we want deeper you know affordability we have

funding for private developments or we have incentives or whatever those tools are you decide to use to incentivize deeper affordability, you'll be able to use them.

But until you get that strategy done and you get your zoning ordinance updated, we're going to continue to see this because you really just don't have any tools right now.

You have

People bringing applications in and this applicant agreed to use the city's existing definition in the limited program that we have and agreed to sort of administer all the units consistently with the requirements that for the most part would apply to the required units.

Yes, got a lot of public comment on this.

A lot of concern about off-site displacement effects, especially to the existing units already on the property.

Can we do anything with that?

I didn't quite understand that concern.

I didn't think we could ask Mr. Shipp and his colleague, his partner, but I don't think anyone's going, Brian, you look like you want to chime in.

It is.

Well, I do think that there's some concern that you see, and this is citywide, where a pattern of new construction with new rental rates leads to a rise in overall rents in the area.

And that's the nature of a housing market in some cases when your supply is lower than the demand that you're trying to meet.

And so,

I don't think you can actively tie and say that these specific 11 units are going to do something to the surrounding area but it's more the overall pattern in Belmont and the city of people seeing new construction happen and seeing the prices and rents still continue to climb despite there being

new residential units.

But that's, I don't know that that's in the purview of a special use permit to be able to kind of, you know, craft a condition related to that.

It's more, you know, that's a housing policy, housing strategy question.

You really can't deal with that other than the commitment the applicant is making for a specific number of units and saying, you know, articulating that he's going to use our

The definition of affordability for those particular units, you're at least not at this time.

Again, we have to look at all the tools we may have available under the new zoning ordinance, but under the provisions you have now, the special use permit and the condition process isn't one you can use to impose any particular number of

units which aren't currently required under our enabling legislation and ordinance in 3412.

Mr. Landrieu.

Mr. Halesco, would you remind us what is allowable by right

Sure.

So this site is in neighborhood commercial corridor.

Neighborhood commercial corridor allows a maximum height of 45 feet by right, subject to street wall regulations, which there is no minimum primary street frontage setback required.

With regards to residential density, the residential density is the by right residential density is capped at 21 dwelling units per acre.

And obviously the request before you is within the purview of 34-700 where somebody is allowed to go to 43 dwelling units per acre.

I know there was some confusion around the fact that the staff report mentions that this property is already above 21 dwelling units per acre.

It was built under a different zoning.

It was built in the 70s and I believe it was R3 at the time.

I'd have to look back at the 54 zoning map to see what it was.

Right.

If you were to envision that this building were completely taken down and if the site were cleared and a new residential structure would go in, they wouldn't be able to get the number of units they have now.

The proposal is adding a third, basically a third or fourth building to the site.

So the overall site is where the density is being calculated off of.

If they were trying to subdivide this off,

They wouldn't be able to get the number of units that they're talking about, if that helps.

Yeah, so if they were going to maintain the existing units as they are, they could not add any additional residential units.

They can do commercial.

This is a mixed-use zone.

So they could do a commercial building on the site.

So that 45-foot height requirement and the setbacks that I'm talking about, somebody could build that under a buy-write plan as long as they did commercial in office in the building.

Good.

That's what I was wanting.

Okay.

Any follow-up questions?

Yes, please.

Thank you all for your time this evening.

Justin Schimp, engineer for Project Kelsey Schline who's my associate with this as well.

She really worked hard on the affordable housing piece of this and coming up with

a better mechanism.

So I'll let her jump in on that where we need to.

But I want to just talk about the basics of the proposal, what changed.

I have a little slide presentation, just a couple slides I can show you all.

I'll start by answering off with some questions that came up at the last meeting that I wanted to answer.

And I want to talk a little bit about some of the public comments.

And I'll be brief.

I know you all had a long evening already.

But these are important issues.

So if we could get the presentation up.

Thank you.

To start out with, there was a question about, yes, we keep coming back and I know I'm commonly back, well, not as common as maybe I feel like I should be, but I'm back sort of frequently dealing with, you know, especially use permits that involve affordable housing.

And I feel like we always have this conversation.

I wish we would get a uniform ordinance to address this.

It would make everyone's life simpler, quite frankly.

And I know that's in progress, but at the same time,

That doesn't mean that the codes we have should be, you know, tossed out to them.

It doesn't change the fact that people need housing.

And so that needs to find a way to move forward in this sort of in between stage.

And that's what we're trying to do.

So if we could just go to the next, the first page.

Here's a summary and we

In the past, the affordability components when they're not required have been done different ways.

We had assumed on our first submittal that the staff would be able to attach essentially a condition of special use permit, talking about what we had before, which was non-units at 80% AMI.

A few problems with that.

One, there wasn't enough clarity to enforcement, right?

Like, how does that get carried out?

Good question.

And then there was not also

Special use conditions are not the right mechanism for that.

So we revised our proposal to make the full appendix the application and attached all the protocols and procedures to that so that looking back from now, there's no confusion as to what everyone's agreed to.

And I think that's very important here because I know there's discussion about who the developer was, what's happened in the past and all these things.

But the reality is it's about the project.

and moving it forward and giving people a place to live in a spot that's close to work, close to schools.

You know, this site is, it's a parking lot right now.

It's not accomplishing much of anything for anybody, this little area we're going to develop.

And we can talk about putting 11 households in this building.

The revisions that would be the 11 households, five of those would be affordable at the fair market, which is about the 65% AMI level.

And we put

The rents up here, just for context, they'd most likely be one bedrooms.

The building is almost all one bedrooms.

We'll work with whatever the housing policy rules are for that, but that shows you there the rent with utilities with this proposal.

Like I said, if you had a chance to read through the appendix, there are some details of how that will be enforced.

We took the standard operating procedure and crafted it to be specific to this property.

That standard operating procedure includes things like cash contributions and things along that nature, which we were not ever planning on doing, but we felt it was better to clean that up to give folks a clear sense of what we were agreeing to.

It's very important.

If we go to the next slide, please.

The other change was architecture.

We had a previously sort of modern building that had window design that I think was said

brought to light the height of it.

It's not a particularly tall building in the scheme of buildings, but some of the design highlighted that function of that comparison.

And we thought that was a very reasonable suggestion.

So we've changed that to what you see below.

I also have some images looking up and down the street rendered this building.

I think it will be helpful to answer some of the questions related to the view and how this fits in.

I do want to point out, though, that this is not an architectural control district.

And to my knowledge, what we presented here, unless you condition it as a requirement of approval, will not be binding.

So we certainly don't have a problem with a condition about the architecture being related to the new proposed design, but we did want to make sure that's cleared out.

I don't want to present this.

I don't want to think it's okay and then not actually not have any teeth.

It's the same issue with the affordable housing.

and we didn't want that to go by without having a clear understanding of the forest.

I think that the architecture is a lot simpler.

You could have a condition related to the architecture that could be easily enforced.

If you don't mind, I'm going to break the rules a little bit and interrupt you.

I didn't quite get that.

You just said that the architectural design

What we have fixed with this submittal is the affordable housing now proved will be attached to the resolution and is effectively part of the application.

I think it's simple enough for planning commission to add a condition if you feel it's appropriate.

The architecture is not, I think, explicitly conditioned that same way.

So we're open to that.

Not a problem.

That's what we intend to build, but I wanted to make sure that was clear to everyone.

Next slide, please.

Some details.

Let's skip this.

We can go back to the architectural details if folks feel they want to discuss that.

So go on the next slide.

I do know the architect should be on the call, by the way, if there's questions, we can go back to that.

So this is the view of the property looking down Montcello Road.

You'll see it off in the distance there.

Next slide, please.

You're driving closer to it.

There's the building, Moss on the left.

Next slide, please.

Here you're approaching the curve of the building is that building is sitting in what is the little, you know,

paved parking area now that Actis is off Monticello Road.

That is the scale building relative to everything else in the site.

And if I can go one more slide.

And you've gone past it and turned around and looked back.

I think this gives you a pretty good sense of the scale relative to the existing building.

And again, this is a by right height in this particular instance.

We're not asking for any height items, setback items,

The building itself is relatively small.

It's not a large building.

A larger commercial building could be built by right here, but that's not what we're here to talk about.

So I think that those are the key.

The key things that I heard were, let's nail down the affordability, make sure we understand that if we save or giving affordable units that they'll be provided.

The architecture being a little more consistent and compatible with the neighborhood.

And there was some question about what these views looked like.

And then there's a lot of other discussion about the housing and what happened.

And I, Bronn Haleska, I think, you know, played out that really that doesn't have anything to do with what this project is.

But there's some things I think worth talking about.

Let's talk about for a minute.

I can answer questions about it.

But I do already reiterate before that, that the people who are not being heard from here are the folks

that live here, right?

We've heard a lot of talk about displacement, right?

I've heard a lot of comments about that.

There's no displacement happening here.

This is an empty piece of asphalt.

There will be, if it's approved and built, 11 units, five affordable to tune of probably $5,000 a year thereabouts off someone's rent.

So five households for 10 years are benefiting to $5,000 a year.

which is significant to a lot of people.

So those folks I think are important to think about here.

There's a great benefit to those families who get to live here where if this is not built, there's not an option.

So there was a, the history of this project, and I wanna make sure this is clear to everyone, the current owner Drew Halsworth did not buy it from the original folks who were the Cosners who they owned it for many years.

There was an individual in between.

Another developer bought it, had it for about a year.

To my understanding, about 10, 11 people during that time were moved out for renovations.

They were left then 11 or 12 with the current owner.

Of those, I know there are five folks back in.

And again, this is not silly relative to the project, the vote we're asking for, but I think it's just so you know,

There are five folks back in there.

I have the rent roll on it.

Some of them are paying, a couple of them are paying as little as $600 a month that's being subsidized by the owner directly.

Others are paying $700, $850.

So there is the folks, not all, the stories of folks who were not able to get back in.

I don't know the details enough to speak.

from all those.

But I do know there are folks back in there that are benefiting from that.

And the new project stands on its own.

There's no need to kick them out or raise rents to build it.

The project works on its own, and we want to build these additional 11 units so that additional 11 households of whatever size they are, singles, couples, have a place to live that is

More affordable, more available, close to schools and work.

And I think that's a good thing.

This doesn't happen.

Those units simply don't get built.

What you heard earlier is folks who couldn't find the housing had to leave the state, go out into the county, couldn't find anything, nearly the rent.

What you heard was evidence of lack of housing.

That is the issue.

And for many years, there's just not been enough housing built in the city.

And it led to what happened when the original owners, the Cosners, sold it.

That dynamic of not enough units led to somebody come along and say, oh, well, this could be rented for more.

We can buy it, fix it up.

Because the demand was there to pay more because those folks had nowhere else to go.

So I think this project, while it's not going to take a, you know, it's not going to solve all the affordability challenge of Charlottesville,

It puts up a nice building that fits into the neighborhood.

It provides housing for 11 households and displaces nobody and just takes some asphalt that's accomplishing nothing and makes it useful.

So I think all those things are very positive.

I'm happy to answer any questions you all have about the application or anything related to the history that I can answer that I know.

Thank you for your time.

I look forward to what you have to say about this.

Ms.

Russell.

Ms.

That's only because Rory reminded where you actually sit on the diets.

That we keep talking about that.

It definitely exists somewhere.

You know,

I appreciate that the building, as modified, better fits into the neighborhood context.

And I know that's not a condition, and this isn't in an ADC, but it is in a National Register Historic District, and I'm going to keep bringing that up when it's not recognized.

I have some issue with the

way that you're presenting the sort of argument to our emotions about people not having a home.

And I don't think it's

What happened in the narrative of this property cannot just be wiped clean, even if we can't rule on it.

But we also don't have to grant it based on just it being presented to us.

And I think to Tenia's point, to Commissioner Dao's point earlier, when does it start to change?

It starts to change when we

stop accepting SUPs just because they're in front of the commission.

And, you know, I don't like the idea of kind of throwing your hands up and saying, well, you know, this will just keep happening until we have that affordable housing plan, but it doesn't have to happen.

And I think we had a lot of really

Good points from our community.

The one in particular that stood out was the point about the market not ameliorating this housing crisis.

And if these projects presented for SUP don't meet our goals of affordability, why should we

I don't know that I have a question coming out of this.

Yeah, well, just say I don't think it is in the historic district.

I think it's in the National Register District.

So I guess I have sort of two questions.

One's for the applicant and the other is a little both.

So then for the

For the people living in the old building with these rent debatements you're talking about, is there any assurance that those rent debatements will stick around and won't reset to market rate as soon as this SVP is approved?

Well, I suppose.

It could maybe, I don't know, that's a question for staff.

I kind of thought that the new, really the SP being for new units, we needed to tie the affordable into that.

You're right, there's no zoning restriction or other guarantee about what happens to the existing units.

They're not tied to any kind of special use permit.

The owner has, since he acquired the property and those folks moved back in, chosen to do that.

And I really only bring that up because it was sort of a discussion last time.

I didn't have the exact figures and I have the rent roll, so I wanted to just clarify what that was, but it's not, we were not, I was tying those two, they're not tied to a new building.

Okay, and so since you have the rent roll on you, last time we heard that five tenants of the existing building have these special arrangements, is that right?

Yes.

Okay, and I note that in the standard operating procedures that were adopted in 2015, which don't

technically apply here, but are what you're using.

They do provide a mechanism that requirements can be met through the preservation of existed supporting affordable housing units, where it can be demonstrated these units are at risk of losing the existing support mechanism.

The caveat there is supported affordable housing unit.

I'm not sure that this sort of like informal private arrangement necessarily applies, but yeah.

So,

Jeez, what was the other question?

I think it was, oh, right.

It was in the standard operating procedures as well as your kind of forked copy of them, you're of course required to consider applicants using vouchers.

And I think it's the most important part of this change to me, going from 80%, which is effectively market rate really,

you know you're talking about with market or with 80% you're talking about like 1500 bucks for a two bedroom and now for a one bedroom and I were talking about 1077 but the biggest most important thing is that it gets under the limit for vouchers to be applied so that we can reach those deeper levels of affordability by layering you know federal funding for vouchers

which, as it happens, thanks to new efficiencies and new leadership at CRHA, we have 75 opened up and people often have difficulty attaching those vouchers, even despite the General Assembly saying you're not allowed to discriminate against them anymore.

However, part of the standard operating procedures, and this isn't necessarily on you because it's in the city adopted ones, is that

You can't discriminate against them, but you don't have to give preference or priority to tenants with vouchers.

So I guess the question is, for staff, why is that in the regulations?

Why wouldn't we want preference to be given to people with vouchers, given the difficulty of attaching them?

I guess I'll start first with that.

Yeah, we did use the city code.

I think they're probably, just think about it, there's sort of a fairness issue there of if somebody comes to you in sort of a, you know, equal situation or, you know, doesn't have a voucher because they weren't able to get one.

I mean, I know historically they've been very hard to get.

I know that maybe there'd be better now, but I know like in

Other counties in Nelson where we know folks who try to get them, they're just non-existent.

So we would, I guess we wouldn't want, it feels a little unfair to prioritize somebody or the other, I think was the point of that code.

And that's why we left it that way.

I'm not sure why it was.

put it that way.

However, I think we are currently working with the City Attorney's Office to update some of our policies.

And as soon as we get a new housing coordinator, there are several things we need to update.

Okay.

One thing I would recommend if this is approved and you get this, when you submit your marketing plan to the city for how do you market these affordable units, which I know has been a struggle, 600 West Main had theirs open vacant for at least a year, forward that plan or the city should forward that plan to CRHA so that at the very least,

People who are getting off the voucher wait list and looking for attachments, which there's a limited time to do, have the opportunity and know that the opportunity is available to apply.

Because in terms of fairness, I think the city in recent years has made very clear that we see it as more important to reach deeper levels of affordability and families with the most need with affordable units.

Are you done?

Okay, Reverend Heaton.

Reverend Heaton, are you there?

You a loose carry?

Okay, Ms.

I have a question.

I'm concerned of what is the average square footage of your unit?

I don't think we brought that up.

I'm trying to think of what it is off the top of my head.

They are relatively small.

Kelsey might just step in and get the exact figure.

I think there's something like 400 to 500 square feet for the one bedrooms.

Great.

I was also going to say we can, architects are on as well.

Good afternoon, everybody.

This is Kevin Schaffer with Design Develop.

Yes, thank you everybody for your thoughtful comments and insight, both this hearing and last.

To answer the question, yes, they are relatively small apartments.

It's a relatively small building with a small footprint.

The one bedrooms range from 375 to 400 square feet, and the two bedrooms are about 750 square feet.

I guess I'll hop back on to answer that.

I know the owner uses a local management company to do that.

I don't know if they have a

I think the question is who are these units targeted towards?

Because with small square footage, that sounds like student housing to me.

That does not sound like a family, even if it's a single parent with one kid.

Kim is going to be able to be comfortable in one of those units.

And not that that is the only targeted demographic that the city is concerned about, but I have a real heart problem when every time we're on either in city council chambers or on this platform, we are always screaming affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing, small square footage with high rents.

does not equate affordable housing to me personally.

And that's just in my opinion.

I'm not saying that anybody else has to agree with me, but I am here to represent my opinion.

And so I have a hard time when we keep saying we need affordable housing.

And every time we get a project, it's like, oh, we'll give you one or two affordable units, but they're teeny and they're not really that affordable.

So

I know that we it's like oh we have a blank parking lot here or by right we could have a building but that doesn't also equate to me that we have to do something because at this point I would almost rather see a blank parking lot than to see another unaffordable unit go up in this city.

That's my personal opinion.

If you do not agree, that is fine as well.

But I cannot wholeheartedly say that I am fighting for affordable housing and that is my cry when every time these special use permits come before us, they're not really moving the needle.

We just had a conversation that stated, even if the thought was that we're putting more units on the market, which would relieve the pressure,

for other housing to become available, that is not the actual reality.

Well, I was certainly not targeted towards students.

Like you heard,

One of the callers earlier talked about trying to get a $1,000 a month unit around for, I think it was two folks who worked at Kemberberg, they went to UVA, they worked around town.

That's where the target audience for those folks.

And there certainly would be, because the housing affordability level strikes the FMR, folks with vouchers are eligible.

you could be at 25% AMI, have a voucher and live in this unit.

So that is available to those folks.

Is it producing a hundred units at 35% AMI, which is needed?

No, that doesn't mean that there aren't some folks who will be benefit from it.

So I understand the concerns.

I do want to clarify, it's definitely not targeted towards students.

It would be more at the folks who historically lived in that area, singles, young couples, young and old,

So Gary, you stepped away for a moment.

We skipped you.

Yeah, Ms.

Dowell kind of articulated the concerns that I have in the larger picture of moving Charlottesville closer to our goal of more affordable housing.

I'm not sure that every special use permit that comes before the

Planning Commission has got to be the be all and end all, but we definitely need to be able to speak to how it moves us toward the goal.

I don't know if we put that in a requirement for approval for a project of this size.

That's my big

It's funny because in many ways, the story of this is like, oh, well, it's a parking lot in downtown Belmont, high demand, near jobs, five affordable units that meet city requirements.

It's a beautiful story.

But I have gotten a lot of contacts on this project saying that there is a need for greater affordability in this area, which

I'm trying to think of a way to solve this problem and I don't see it currently.

And I wonder if I can borrow your brain, Mr. Shimp.

One idea that was thrown out at the last time we had this conversation was partnering with the nonprofit to bring in some external resources to change the numbers.

I don't know where you stand on that.

That's the only thing that I don't think we've really talked about today.

Sure.

I know that I've sent an email from

from Drew Halsworth saying he was open to that idea.

But we have, from what I understand, and you would know this better than I would, is that

A lot of the affordable housing money that was going to be out there has sort of dried up or may not be available as it was thought.

I particularly like the idea of those partnerships for small projects.

I think there is a good opportunity for a land trust model or some other type of public investment essentially in a small project to get affordable housing to increase that.

But I don't know that we can guarantee that's going to be available for this project.

or that's necessarily the best place that public money to go at this month.

Those funds are limited then maybe there's another project that you know the funds can be leveraged more via tax credits and like that a larger project to cover more affordability.

I do think that's a good path for the future.

I think you could have a program where you a small you know developer builds a quadplex with some help from

A land trust type entity and it's got affordable units in it and that's a good solution to small scale projects with affordability.

I have no doubt that will work.

But again, we're in this moment in time and we don't know if that's going to be available and what we know we can offer is again that essentially

$50,000 a year off the rent for five units for, I'm sorry, $5,000, excuse me, for five years, for 10 years.

So it's a quarter million dollars basically in rent reduction for the folks who would benefit, who are living there essentially.

So that's what we know we can offer and we're prepared to do it.

If other mechanisms come along that

We can do differently.

We're totally open to that.

Mr. Leandro, do you have any thoughts?

I have thoughts, but I thought this was questions for the applicant.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah.