City Council Meeting   12/2/2019

Ms. Thomas, roll call please.

Dr. Bellamy.

Present.

Ms. Hill.

Here.

Ms. Walker.

Present.

Mr. Signer.

Here.

Ms. Galvin.

Yes, the city of Charlottesville and UVA Community Credit Union will present Charlottesville's 22nd annual Grand Illumination this Friday, December 6th at its new location at Sprint Pavilion with festivities starting at 4.30 p.m.

Enjoy a holiday concert with bands and choirs, kids crafts at Santa's Workshop, fun activities at Reindeer Games, and food and beverage options from over 25 holiday market vendors along with the Charlottesville Ale Trail.

Afterwards, join the countdown and watch over 20,000 LED lights transform City Hall Plaza into a glowing renderland.

The city is offering complimentary event parking at both Market and Water Street garages.

Thank you, Ms. Hill.

I have a couple Mayor Walker.

Two announcements, but also a shout out to Ms. Tanisha Hudson in the front row.

She premiered her documentary, Reclaiming Charlottesville, a Legacy Unbroken, which was absolutely phenomenal, so kudos to her and everyone else who got a chance to come out to that.

Snap, snap.

Also, thank you to everybody who volunteered and helped out and assisted with the turkey giveaway.

Last Sunday we were able to give away about 250 turkeys to everybody in the community for the day of thanks.

Really appreciate you all.

Now it is time for the annual coat drive and giveaway.

So, if you have a coat that is mildly or gently used, or a new coat for that matter, you can donate them at Royalty Eats, which is located in the Cherry Avenue Shopping Center.

There's a box there.

Please feel free again to bring your gently used coat or your new coat, and we'll be providing them to everyone who is in need.

The actual coat giveaway will take place on Sunday, November 22nd.

at Tonsler Park at 2pm.

So anybody who needs a coat in this cold weather, please again feel free to come out and get one.

And if you have an extra one in your closet, you can again donate your coat or drop your coat off at Royalty Eats, which is again located in the Cherry Avenue Shopping Center.

They'll be there basically all day.

You'll see the box.

And starting next week, we will have the box at Virginia Organizing at 703 Concord Avenue.

It's cold out, so again, if you have an extra coat, please feel free to donate it.

Any other announcements?

Mayor Walker, I have a proclamation.

There's no others.

University of Virginia's lighting of the lawn, whereas the City of Charlottesville is a community that celebrates inclusivity and recognizes the importance of every citizen, and whereas the City Council of the City of Charlottesville stands fully committed to equal rights for all Americans and opposes...

Whereas since 2001, the University of Virginia's lighting of the lawn has been held annually in Charlottesville as an activity with the intention of bringing the University of Virginia and Charlottesville communities together in a night of hope, celebration, and unity following 9-11, and whereas the city of Charlottesville recognizes that it has a vital role in identifying, protecting, and responding to threats that may have a significant impact on the diversity and prosperity of the Charlottesville community,

and whereas the mission of the University of Virginia's Lighting of the Lawn is to benefit the community as a space for reflection and provide an opportunity for celebration of the hope that fills our community, be it resolved that Mayor Nikkiah Walker and the Charlottesville City Council urge all citizens to support Charlottesville by establishing a safe environment where everyone is free of fear and hereby recognize lighting of the lawn as they look to illuminate Charlottesville and be it further resolved that this

that the council proclaims December 5th, 2019 to be celebrated as lighting of the lawn in the city of Charlottesville signed and sealed the second day of December 2019 by Mayor Nikuyah Walker.

There's no one here to accept it.

We still can give it a little round of applause.

And Vice Mayor Walker reminded me that I have one more.

So just FYI, we have one week until the closing of the applications for the Civilian Review Board.

Excuse me, Friday, December 6th, the applications for the Civilian Review Board will be closed.

You can look on the City of Charlottesville website to fill out your application.

Currently we have only a handful of applications and this has been a severely hot topic item in which a lot of people had a lot of vested interest within it.

So now it's time for us to put the time in to actually do the work.

We need people to apply.

We need people to serve.

If this

This is a topic that is of interest to you.

Please, please, please apply to serve on the Civilian Review Board.

Again, the application is closed this Friday, December 6th.

And in order to apply, you can do so or find the application on the City of Charlottesville website.

Thank you.

All right.

Ms. Thomas, could you please read the consent agenda?

Item A, minutes, October 7, 2019 regular meeting, October 21, 2019 special meeting.

B, appropriation, re-appropriate funds from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Economic Development for the Home to Hope program, $321,103.35, first of two readings.

C, appropriation, victim witness assistance program grant,

$265,024, first of two readings.

D, Appropriation, Virginia Outdoors Foundation Grant, Land Acquisition, $50,000, second reading.

E, Appropriation, Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, $35,000, second reading.

F, Appropriation, Virginia Department of Social Services, Employment Advancement,

For Temporary Aid to Needy Families Participants Grant, $130,259.83 Second Reading G. Appropriation Fire Apparatus Payment Reimbursement, $642,609 Second Reading H. Resolution Transfer of Funds from Small Area Plan, Penn Park Study for African American Cemetery, $9,319.00 One Reading

Aye resolution, request for support of refugee resettlement, one reading.

J.

Resolution, acceptance of new public streets within the Burnett Commons 3 development, one reading.

K. Resolution, acceptance of 11th Street as a residential permit parking block, one reading.

L. Resolution, ethnic studies course by African American Heritage Center, $15,000, one reading.

M. Resolution, capital funding transfer, electronic poll books, $24,618, one reading.

N, Ordinance, adding Section 2-159 to Chapter 2, Administration, Article 3, City Manager of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, first of two readings.

O, Ordinance, Bicycle and e-Scooter Sharing Program, Sharing System, AKA, Dockless Mobility Ordinance and Permit Program, second reading.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Bill Atwood.

I'm representing the former owners of 209 Maury.

Somewhat distressed that it was voted and moved forward four to one.

Given that fact, personally I see this as really one to one.

This is the mayor and the vice mayor.

I think the other councilors who

Look now to a new series of counselors within 30 days have the benefit of a consultant to actually do what should have been done for years and years and years.

A new comprehensive plan, a new zoning ordinance, and new strategies for how you define housing and zoning in itself.

But for all these years, we never received that.

And we still believe that the appropriate thing to do is for these three to defer.

and let this matter move forward to the next group because they're armed with consultants who actually have the knowledge to define what's going to happen in the future, which quite frankly no one tonight can actually explain it other than my belief is it'll be a reinvention of the way we look at zoning in this town, long overdue.

What we have here is residue of a lot of frustration

and really 1955 language in our zoning.

It's unfortunate it didn't get changed, but it didn't.

Thank you.

Item that was on the consent agenda that was just read.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on item on the consent agenda?

Mayor Walker, on item B, there should be a correction to the record.

The discussion section of that memorandum says on Friday, November 15, 2019, Mayor Nikuyah Walker, who spearheaded the Home to Hope Initiative, made the final decision to move the program and four full-time peer navigators from the department

of Human Services to the Office of Economic Development Downtown Job Center.

wanted to make that correction

of moving funds and staff without there being a vote among the body.

And that's very important in our system of government, particularly with the discussion we're having about the city manager, a new city manager.

The former government we have is a council manager for government.

And I still think that the land, I want the public not to be confused.

Confused about this, and it still says in the next line, as a result of this decision.

As I understand, no decision has been made.

We are being asked, and then it says the funds originally allocated to the Department of Human Services now need to be reappropriated.

And the way that that is written is it makes it seem as if a decision was made by an elected official, and then council must then vote to allocate funds, and that can't be the right

That's not right under the law or under a charter.

And so can I just interject here?

So Dr. Richardson has been a part of every meeting that we've had or aware of every meeting and the outputs of every meeting regarding Home to Hope.

As the counselor who is spearheading the initiative, my question was, based on your feedback,

My involvement was questioned and for me and looking at previous initiatives that councilors have been involved in, if you spearheaded something, you remained involved in it and I gave several

examples.

One, the initiative with the innovator hub with you, Kathy and SIA form-based code.

Wes has a whole list of initiatives that he has been a part in from start to finish.

Kristen, City of Promise, which I was one of the first people hired so I know how involved she was in that program and so what I thought was being questioned earlier was my involvement.

I cannot make a decision solely by myself and I am very aware of the city manager's

The city manager's decision making abilities here, but we have had meetings with him.

He has been in the room with Holly, Chris Engle, Khaki, Roxanne Jones.

Everyone has been at the table, so this wasn't a me decision, my decision.

We have been having this discussion for what, two months?

Could I respond?

Madam Mayor, I never questioned your involvement in any respect.

What I questioned was the language here, which, and this was not about you as a person or anything you've done, you're right, there are many other examples of individual counselors, but it's very important for the public to know what it read was

Mayor Nakai Walker made the final decision to move the program and the four full-time peer navigators from the Department of Human Services to the Office of Economic Development Downtown Job Center.

As a result of this decision, the funds originally allocated the Department of Human Services.

Well, no because this became a public agenda item and we're asked to vote on the consent agenda so raising with Dr. Richardson wouldn't fix that.

If you had a conversation with him

And you had questions about an item that was on the agenda, which you pointed out it was my job to reach out to you, right?

That's not true.

Okay.

So Mike, this is personal instead.

Okay, so the public would not have seen it, would not have heard about it.

I think based on the Mayor and Councillor Signer's dialogue, it's probably appropriate to also, as the Mayor stated, she spoke with Dr. Richardson for two months about this.

I think

And Madam Mayor, I would like to pull item N and vote that separately.

And I only have one comment about item H. It's very brief.

And it's about the appropriation of the funds for the Penn Park study about the African American Cemetery and the transfer of funds from the small area plan.

I've asked questions earlier today and I got answers at the end of the day.

I understand there's a sense of urgency, there's a need to find funds right away.

I firmly believe and accept that this is the right thing to do.

In my conversations with Dr. Richardson I'm led to believe that as soon as possible and practical the small area plan funds would be replenished once other funds are found.

But right now there was an urgency to have the monies and that was the one most available.

I just wanted to say that for the public because it

All right, is there a motion?

Any further questions or comments?

All right, please vote.

Oh, four to one, sorry.

Is there a motion?

So I still have one question around item N, which Councilor Galvin has to be pulled separately.

It says advice and consent of the city council, Mr. Blair.

Yes.

So to me, that feels like we're approving

I just there's a subtlety in my head around like I want awareness around this role but in terms of just a formal approval by council.

Is that exactly the same and you and I talked about this but is that exact language what has been used for when we do the police chief selection?

Let me just pull that up for you right now in

City Code Section 20-2 says the City Manager shall appoint a Chief of Police such appointment to be approved by the City Council.

It is in effect

Either permutation of the language, the city manager would make a selection for the deputy city manager chief operating officer and then he or she would present that choice to the council and they would have an opportunity to vote to confirm or the chief of police it says approve but there's not a legal distinction so to speak.

Well, they often be considered second in command.

Right.

But this one is deputy city manager COO.

Now, you can change it to all deputy city managers.

And so the conversations around N also

Counselor Hill.

We talked about it in the, our last session.

And again, the, um, premise here was that the person who could be in control of the city, that we would, um, meet those applicants like we have done with the, um, chief of police position and we would do the same, um,

Thank you for having me.

And that was the discussion.

Are we talking about that now, Mayor?

Is this the time we're talking about it?

I think so.

Or are we going to talk about it again?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you wanted to pull it for a separate vote.

Well, I pulled it for a discussion later and possibly a separate vote.

I mean, the idea of...

I apologize.

We'll discuss it at the end of the agenda.

Right, I think the practice is if it's for a separate vote, you all just immediately vote after the consent agenda.

Okay.

All right, so I move to adopt ordinance bicycle and e-scooter sharing system, aka deathless mobility ordinance and permit program.

OK, so I'm a little confused again.

Oh, OK.

So that's not discussion.

It's just separate vote.

OK, sorry.

Second.

Any further questions or comments?

So I don't know what's the difference.

All right.

Stop this.

OK.

Please vote.

Oh, no.

I need to change that.

I pressed the wrong button.

Thank you.

Sorry.

All right.

and Pete.

Then we're down last to adopting the ordinance for the 209 Maury Avenue rezoning request.

I move to adopt the ordinance.

I second that.

I'd like to make a brief statement.

At the last time we discussed this, I had some reservations because the

The perspective drawings that were included were not part of the proffer statement.

After closer review of the site plan that was included, or the site schematic that was included in the proffer statement, I am assured that there is going to be really adequate, clear circulation in and around this site, that the existing home will be given enough breathing room to protect it.

And even though the point is well taken that was mentioned earlier tonight, I've been one of the chief advocates of changing our zoning from day one.

I do believe that this is an opportunity to do something that does clarify

the importance of having increased density in the area but in a way that respects the physical context of the area.

It's not going to exceed a certain height.

It's going to be broken up into different massing.

And as time moves on, when the University of Virginia does start building on-site housing for its students, these buildings could potentially provide workforce housing, something that is desperately needed in this area within walking distance.

and Viking Distance of UVA.

All right, any further comments or questions?

All right, please vote.

All right, carries four to one.

Mayor, members of the City Council, and the public, I only have one announcement tonight pertaining to the disproportionate minority contact report.

We're aiming for late December to have that completed, and then we'll place on the second meeting agenda for January.

Okay.

Two.

I just want to say it was a misunderstanding on my part as it relates to the information communicated to me about the deployment of cameras in our city.

I want everyone to know that there is not a resident driven camera program.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have community matters.

Um, first we have William Atwood, I'm assuming.

I'm concerned about

The amount of parking that's being planned for the new 218 West Market.

I noticed that in any available discussion of the building the word shared parking is mentioned and I don't understand what that means.

How many parking spaces will be necessary for what will now be 130 apartments?

Will there be 150 spaces allowing for multiple persons per apartment?

It's said that the building is for people working downtown, but many, if not most, will want cars.

I live at 500 Court Square and we have seven spaces behind our apartment for 30 apartments.

Most of us park at Market Street.

We have contracts with Market Street.

There's not enough parking in the area for 130 apartments.

Market Street and Water Street cannot handle that.

And so our downtown is not equipped to handle all these cars.

So how has this building moved to the point where it is now without any diagrams or designs being shown in newspapers or anywhere at all?

So I urge that you rethink this building, the possibility of it's going from 70 to 134.

and then figure out where parking is going to be.

It's really at a critical place.

Good evening.

Richard Tremblay, 479 Worthington Drive, Charlottesville.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville as a board member, asking you to consider four changes to the design and construction standards manual recommended by the Charlottesville area development roundtable that haven't yet been addressed.

These changes, these four changes would allow for more affordable housing development and better urban scale communities.

Habitat and CADRA support the city's effort to update the manual.

It's a big improvement and the process, the collaborative process involving stakeholders and considering their input is much appreciated.

There's four specific changes.

The first is regarding utility easement widths.

The current draft, or the final draft, requires that easements for any pipes greater than 12 inches in size, which is pretty typical that pipes are larger than that, be 30 to 50 feet in width.

And what this does is pushes the houses back unnecessarily far from the street and affects street tree planting.

What's recommended is that, except for excessively deep utilities, that the easement width be 20 feet, limited to 20 feet.

Secondly, regarding street paving, the final draft would require that during the construction phase of a subdivision, a sacrificial layer of asphalt be placed on the top and that be ground off and replaced before the streets are accepted.

that's expensive, it's wasteful of resources and it's not something that VDOT requires.

So it's recommended that this provision for a sacrificial layer of asphalt be eliminated.

And typically what happens is the final asphalt is just put on right before acceptance.

Thirdly, the Fire Apparatus Road provision in section 4.1.4.

There's other sections of the code that allow narrower streets of the manual rather that allow narrower streets.

with approval by the fire department, but this provision which requires that all streets be, fire apparatus road seems to conflict with that and would prohibit the implementation of low volume residential streets that the new manual is encouraging.

and finally section 5.3.1.34 which is the provision for storm sewer pipe.

The current, the final draft manual only allows concrete pipe, reinforced concrete pipe.

The manual should be revised to allow HDPE pipe, which is a plastic pipe.

It's about half the cost of concrete pipe and VDOT has approved it for decades now, so it's been approved for residential subdivisions for decades by VDOT.

And it's recommended that this HDPE pipe be included in the manual.

Thank you for considering these final four changes prior to adoption of this much improved amendment.

Thank you.

members of council and city manager.

Um, I got a couple of things to discuss.

First off, parks and recs.

Can we change the policy so that more than two events can happen in the same day?

Oh, and y'all going to discuss the park and garage tonight.

You guys should really consider that that is one of the cheapest spots on the downtown mall to eat at that you're about to get rid of.

Why don't y'all get rid of this old building that looks like a jail, build a new one, and make this a parking garage, and leave guards across the street.

You need a new, I mean, look, this is old anyway.

You need to do something with this chambers.

And last but not least, well, I got two more things.

The bus stop shelters.

You can't want to be a green place and you don't have nothing covering people at these bus stops when it rain.

I can't even catch the bus if I wanted to because I'm too cute to get wet.

I'm just letting y'all know that.

I'm not going to be standing in the rain for Charlottesville.

I'm not going to do it.

Last but not least, that Whoville tree y'all got outside.

You picked that tree out.

And why couldn't y'all get one of them big, pretty, tall trees like they got at Shorepump or something?

That tree looks like it is from the Grinch.

And my mind, Mike laughing.

Y'all know that tree look like it is, um, what's the lady name?

Mayor Augusta's wife tree.

Y'all could've got a better tree, especially if you're gonna move it near the pavilion and have something near the pavilion to make it look big and pretty.

If you expected all these people to come down for this movie, that tree just ain't a hit.

You could've got an artificial tree to look better than that tree.

And I know they probably donated the tree or whatever, but yo, the tree ain't gotta look like the state of the city.

We gotta do better, for real.

And Mike, stop coming for Nikuyah, please.

That tree for moving, I don't care for something.

Good afternoon, or evening.

Good evening.

Afternoon, evening.

You must know I'm coming for you, Mr. Richardson.

Did you not know that those cameras was in those areas when I first asked you about those cameras?

I did not.

All right.

That's why I asked to come.

All right.

I'm going to let you slide this time, because you know I was coming for you.

But I'm still going to come for you a little bit with the CRB.

See, I had trust in you.

I'm still going to try to have faith in you.

But you came like the chief did a little bit.

Because you talked to the People's Coalition, and you talked to us, and you agreed with us on some things, and then come to find out that those things aren't true.

You're not in agreement with the CRB.

So I'm asking you.

We was told that you wasn't in agreement

Well, I'm talking about the conversation we had with the PC's, so that's what I'm saying.

You agreed then, so that's what I'm asking you.

Okay, so that's what I'm asking.

What is your outlook?

So it has to be the council and the chief of police.

Do you see any difference where it should be?

What has been agreed upon?

Rose Hill, we talk a lot.

and what we talked about, the People's Coalition, that's what we talked about, right?

Just in general, just in general, period.

Because, you know, we're trying to figure out as when the chief came to us, she's, you know, agreed on some things with, you know, with the coalition period, you know, just in the conversation and then it wasn't done.

So we're just trying to see where you are filling in on the CRB with the people

Right.

So, now that it's been decided,

and then we'll have that conversation as I mentioned offline where we can talk about the things that you're specifically asking.

Yeah, well I'm saying this is not about me personally.

I understand that.

No, we didn't say that the People's Coalition said that.

Max, quick question.

Either or in general.

Just carrying out what the council vote.

Yeah, either or, you know, like do you really support like, you know, far as the people.

You know, the public.

What is just your feeling about the CRB in general?

Alright.

And I understand, but you know and I know that we have conversations about different things and I'll answer all your questions.

I understand that, but when it comes to the public and my people,

I got to ask the correct question to the right correct source.

So that's why I'm asking you.

Okay.

But before that part was covered, are those cameras only in the black community?

I don't know that.

Well is there a way that we can find out?

David Rhodes, I'm a county resident.

And back to cameras, I was hoping I'd be allowed to ask a question tonight, specifically of Dr. Richardson, since he was, from what I understand, turned down free cameras to watch the monuments.

What happened today, cleaning them up certainly wasn't free.

And I was just wondering as far as the question goes, have you had a change of heart about that?

Well, over the years, I've left emails to all you guys.

I never got a response.

But while I still got the floor, I would like to say that I came up with a reward fund through Crime Stoppers.

to try to find information on the vandals and money sometimes talks.

So whoever is watching this would like to chip in with me.

They need to contact Crime Stoppers and say when they send in their money, it's specifically for this case.

I'll send you an email, sir.

I hope I'll get a response.

Thanks.

Hey Mayor Walker, Councillors, Dr. Richardson.

My name is Rory Stolzenberg, I live in Water Street between 1st and 2nd, speaking for myself as always.

So tonight, number four on your agenda is an item to purchase the 50% stake that the county owns in the service lot at 7th and Market.

That's a good purchase.

You should do it.

Fulfill the court's agreement and keep them here.

However, the third resolution in the resolution is to direct city staff to immediately proceed with the plan as envisioned in the draft presented in tonight's agenda.

That plan involves a $14 million, $130,000,

Outlay in cash for a 300 spot parking garage and 12,000 square feet of retail to replace the existing 107 spots and 5,000 square feet of retail currently there in order to give the county 90 spaces as agreed to in the agreement.

An all-in expenditure of $15,410,000 or $51,367 per space.

That is a poor use of this city's scarce funds at this time.

It is not necessary to fulfill the agreement.

And it would result in the tearing down of two local businesses, including our only 24-hour convenience store and one of the most affordable places to eat downtown, and close 8th Street on our historic street grid.

So I urge you to strike the third resolution clause in tonight's item four.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

All right, so closing public comment.

All right.

Do we want to continue or take a break now?

Madam Mayor, I spoke with Mr. Lopez before the meeting and he is the developer of Laughlin Hill subdivision.

Want to take our main break right now?

Okay, thank you.

That's good.

There were a couple citizens who didn't understand that they could speak on one of the eight items

or items two through eight during the community matters.

So we're going to open community matters back up.

Um, and any other public comment?

We had some slots.

Um, if you would like to speak.

I want to thank you so much for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Elizabeth Turner.

I live at 630 Preston Place in Charlottesville, Virginia, and I am here to speak against the

Number 8 Board of Architectural Review appeal.

I'm asking that the City Council respect the ruling of the Board of Architectural Review which offers the protections of the historical overlay and the historically protected property and that the appeal is

asking for an exception to the regulations which says that parking lots can be behind historic structures.

They're asking for a parking lot in the side yard and the only remaining face and terrace and doorway of this historic property.

And we're asking that this is against the regulations

Thank you.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Lisa Kendrick and I live at 622 Preston Place and I would ask that you uphold

The Board of Architectural Review's decision, their position.

We've been in discussions with them over a long period of time.

This is a historical home that has a front yard and a side yard.

It's grassy.

And it has been said that it's an expansion of a parking lot.

That parking lot never existed on the front or on the side of the yard.

On the east side of this historical home there were probably room enough for four cars.

And the reason that it looks like a parking lot now is because they've used it as a construction site, as I can understand.

But this property could be returned to its grassy side yard and grassy front yard.

if the city council recognizes the Board of Architectural Review's position.

It's a historical neighborhood.

The city of Charlottesville has determined that they want to have this neighborhood held as a historical neighborhood.

And if we keep chipping away, we're not going to have our historical, beautiful neighborhoods.

Everybody in our community

takes care of their yard.

We would have to go in front of the board if we wanted to make changes to our front yards or

And so it's all these pieces that we are upholding to make a beautiful whole historical neighborhood, to maintain that for people who come after us.

We're not going to be in our homes forever.

And we want to pass on something that is beautiful.

And the city of Charlottesville has decided that they want to maintain this historical neighborhood.

So again, I ask you to uphold the research, the powerful thought that the Board of Architectural Review has given their decision.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Community matters?

Thanks mayor and councilors.

I wanted to speak mostly echoing things the commissioner already said about the parking garage tree built for court parking.

I want to direct your attention to the parking report commissioned a few years ago in 2015 that concluded that parking resources in the area downtown are adequate.

So we don't need to build more parking than is required by the agreement with the county.

I think we're building triple the number of spaces that the agreement requires.

I also think, having read the report laboriously over the weekend, there's a lot of things that we could do to manage parking demand downtown that haven't been done about transit, bike parking, other demand management strategies that we should put more thought into and actually try out before we build parking that we don't need.

Also, looking over the proposed capital improvements plan, we're going to spend, what, 12, 15 million dollars on this parking structure at the same time that we're cutting money from affordable housing to sidewalks to bicycle infrastructure and it seems like

The community needs, and all of you on council have expressed, and I agree, the city needs affordable housing, it needs better non-car transit, and so to cut money for those services and use it to pay for a huge parking structure doesn't seem like what you all want.

And then this vote tonight is happening for some of you at the end of your term on council.

and it seems appropriate to give the incoming Councillors and the Planning Commission their chance to read over the proposal and weigh in.

And so again, echoing the Commissioner, I would urge you to strike the item about building the 300 spot parking garage for the courthouse parking.

No objection to buying the land.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

All right, closing community matters.

What we do have before you and which was sent to you earlier this afternoon is I had the discussion with

Most of you was pertaining to the two cost proposals.

One is the first one, as I mentioned before, dealing with the advisory committee, which contains two recommendations.

One was pertaining to having three staff members within the equity office, which was a total of $197,000 for the remaining of the fiscal year.

We're estimating that it'll be $463,000 in the next fiscal year and will need to be considered in the proposed budget for FY21.

The second is a recommendation which I got from our Human Resources Director in which I said I wanted to basically have someone in place in-house to be able to give us another recommendation also, but as I mentioned

The $197,000 as which was originally presented is still there.

We do have that priced out.

But the second is recommended, basically it proposes a narrow scope of work within the first six months.

to allow for a subject matter expert to design a plan specific to our organization.

The estimated cost for that is $113,000.

The cost for FY21 will be adjusted based upon recommendation developed from the equity and inclusion officer from a post-organizational assessment.

So like I said, it just gives you, the council, another option in terms of if you wanted to look at it from hiring a director as well as staffing right away or looking at it from having a manager to begin the program.

to be able to look at and give us the necessary recommendations to move that forward.

But I do also have our Human Resources Director here that can answer any questions you may have pertaining to that.

Good evening, Mayor Walker, Vice Mayor Hill, Honorable Members of Council,

Thank you for allowing me to be here.

I'm part of this very important and exciting work for the city.

As Dr. Richardson outlined, I did not have the privilege of working with the advisory committee.

I did, however, review the recommendations.

My assessment is that I made a recommendation to the city manager that we hire a subject matter expert in equity and inclusion that can come back to us and really tell us what resources are going to be needed.

I think that the scope of work outlined by the advisory committee was very ambitious, very good plans, very exciting things.

I'm afraid that we may be already lining up activities and events that could take away from what needs to be done, customized for our organization.

I think having someone come in and do the climate assessment and really determining where is the city of Charlottesville in terms of readiness for this action and making the changes intentional and strategic.

So after this assessment, I see that you obviously recognize that there might be an opportunity to then elevate that position.

Certainly, certainly.

I understand that the committee's original recommendation was to have an independent office with a director and staff.

My only concern is from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, asking for that money and it not really being utilized those first six months, it would just be too soon.

The objectives were very aggressive, training for over 300 members of staff.

This isn't a one and done shot.

This is a culture change and we have to make it sustainable.

and we have to make sure that we do it in tandem with human resources efforts.

So again, if the person comes back, the subject matter expert, says these are the resources I need, I need the ear of the city manager, I don't need to report to anyone else, then that's time to consider those changes.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

So my thoughts are, you know, the

Initiative that was started by Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager Mike Murphy at the request of the work that we had been seeing as a priority for us.

Someone that has been with the city for over 23 years, I think that

The group that they put together, which consisted of Andrea Douglas, who is at the Heritage Center, Kelly Palmer, who is doing one of our biggest companies, Equity and Diversity Work, right now, and Jordan Yeager, we just received a mapping report from him, people who have been in this area for a long time and understand

I don't think that we need someone else to come in and do that again.

I also don't understand why we would not hire a director level, not an individual that reports

a director but a person who comes in understanding that they are equal to and that the power that this position is going to require not just for the internal equity work that is needed but also the community level and the regional work that is

that is needed.

So I didn't think that we were going to hire just as I said with the CRB.

I don't think that it is up to us to hire everyone that's going to be involved with the program.

You want the leader in place, whoever that's going to be, and for the leader to build their team and for us to commit to supporting.

So my recommendation for additional hires wouldn't be any differently than it was for the CRB to get the first person on board and move forward.

There, I don't think this kind of decision you make based on

fiscal responsibility.

Even though fiscal responsibility is very important, there's a lot of money that we spend in the city.

And if we're not, um, committed to making sure that equity is a top priority, um, and making sure that the funding for those kind of initiatives are there.

I just have a kind of a question and

It only occurred to me after listening to some of this discussion.

The proposal provided to us by our HR director, is that predicated on reviewing and building on the work of the task force?

How are those two efforts related?

Again, I think the recommendations from the advisory council are very honorable.

They're right on point with what we need to do.

The most important thing, I think, is that we're just stepping over the factor of change.

We have a big ship here, and we're turning that ship around.

And if we want this change to be sustainable, it has to be incremental and intentional.

I did review the members of the people that were on the committee.

Frankly, there was no one on there from an HR standpoint.

So again, it's not that I'm removing those recommendations or trying to substitute them.

I just want a subject matter expert to be on board and assess this organization's stance, where we are, what we're ready for.

So it won't be one more thing that's happening to employees here.

But this isn't just about the employees.

This is about the entire city.

And in the report, there was, and so in terms of incremental and process, there are some shifts that have to occur sooner rather than later.

And we have been having those conversations based on just that initial reporting from that group.

and that did not include the narratives from your department directors that were very troubling.

There is reason for alarm and we know already that the staff may not necessarily be ready for this kind of shift.

It is our job to make sure that they are.

As an HR director and then the work that this other director would do in alignment with your work would fix that internal piece.

Correct.

Correct, ma'am.

I understand, mayor.

I understand.

What I'm asking for is to allow time for the expert to come in and build time to build an understanding of the internal landscape of our organization, including the policies, the cultural climate,

Like I said before, all we did was give another proposal.

That's it.

Like I said, the funding is already here for that.

We're okay with that.

All we were just giving another look at in terms of proposal.

Yeah, so I'm actually in agreement with Mayor Walker in regards to, and I appreciate your perspective, but I do think when we look at bringing in another expert when we've had individuals or the team that's been comprised, and I think your point is well taken, there wasn't someone quite specifically with the HR background, although some

could argue that some of those individuals who are on that team have an extensive background with doing human resources work.

But I think that they're the quote unquote subject matter experts from a local perspective and in how we currently operate as a city and I think to bring in

Yes, I think we just need to hire.

I'm in favor of hiring a director now and allowing that individual to build out their team.

We've done the research and the background work and in my opinion I think we should move forward with hiring this individual and then moving forward with developing this equity piece for the organization and the community.

As a whole, because I think that's the other piece.

And I'm less concerned about the structure, because I think regardless they're going to be working hand in hand with you on the internal functions and then with others.

But I do see that there is a step process here that we do hire someone, whether we call it a manager, director, whatever that title is, that it's going to take some time to just get the groundwork laid, kind of like we discussed with the CRB, and then from there build out their team.

But I think to have the expectation that day one we're going to have a team of four people ready to go, I think is not something that I would be in support of.

But I'm less concerned about.

And I just from the recommendations that that we receive from the team

I don't think anyone, staff to ensure capacity, there were three positions, director who reports to the city manager, data analyst and community engagement coordinator.

I don't think anyone would, or at least just how my mind works, would have thought that you would start hiring all of those positions without the leader of the team being on board.

So even with them saying this, no.

I just think that it's a very subtle difference between whether that's a manager, who I understand

for a short period of time report into HR versus someone who is working independently.

The draft description would just give day-to-day supervision to the HR director rather than the city manager.

And I think that a director level position that is reporting to the city manager that is equal to every other department head is what we need.

Mayor Walker, may I contribute something?

And again, I really love your emphasis on getting subject matter expert as this entity, as this driver of this new office.

I think what the difference is that we also, and Mayor Walker saying this,

It's not only internal to this organization that we need to do the deep kind of tilling of the soil and the working of the ground to get at the equity issues.

It's the community at large.

And so that's why I'm inclined to see that there would be sooner versus later more than one position because we need that corollary in the community doing that kind of deep work

Methodically, professionally, hand in glove with the new director.

So I want to make sure that you understand that I completely respect what you're saying about the essential nature of that HR oriented position.

It's critical.

but it's also I want to just underscore what I've been hearing for many months now that we need that facilitator in the community to help us have these challenging conversations also.

And so that's where I'm inclined to be somewhere in the middle, provide a budget but not assuming that it's not going to be ramped up immediately

The 113 is just for the manager.

The other portion of that is the 197, which is the hiring of the staff.

Am I correct, Michelle?

Yes.

So that is I think what they are proposing, that you initially hire this person as a manager and then they become a director, which if we look at even the county's creation of their office, there's been one person working in that office, Siri Russell, since they started it.

So the notion that a director who doesn't oversee staff yet would have to be a manager and under someone, I haven't been able to understand that throughout the conversations that we've been having.

I think the person applying for this position, understanding that the direction that

I think there's two points right here is basically prepare staff in context for cultural change, which was around 42,000.

And then we had to create the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the remainder of fiscal year 20.

So the total would be 197,181.

Just looking at the two proposals, what I think we need to decide on is whether this person initially, whether we are asking that this individual be hired as a director to look at the overall recommendations that were made by the group convened by the Deputy City Manager and that we agreed

on moving forward within August and May or whether we're changing that and going with a manager level position that reports directly to the HR director.

So that's the discussion.

Madam Mayor, I'll just say that my general approach on these is going to be consistent through a couple different times this meeting where similar questions are coming up, which is to defer to the city manager and his staff.

We worked for a very long time to get

a city manager with a strong city manager approach coming from city manager background which we did not have before who was committed to equity that came up exhaustively through the very public interview process with Dr. Richardson and I just would be inclined on this as in a couple of the other matters that are going to come up to basically defer to his judgment and to avoid any

So Mike, this is policy, which is what we do.

It's not policy.

So Dr. Richardson, just to be clear, with your proposal and the resolution that's before us,

and 113,000.

Yes, that is correct in establishing the program and moving into the position of director once staff is hired.

There's just one.

What up?

So the only difference here is whether this is a manager who's working for HR directly for the first six months or if it's someone we bring in who is a director on their own reporting directly to the city manager but partnering with HR for the next six months.

Right?

So I'm less concerned about that subtlety difference than I am about just taking the time to have that person, subject matter expert, come in, take the recommendations from that group, and really start to develop the robust plans and identify what support they're going to need moving forward.

And I can respect that position, but I think it's important for us to understand that the subtleties matter.

I'm just saying I'm willing to compromise on that.

I'm just elaborating in that regard.

And again, I appreciate your perspective.

I think it's well taken, but I do think it's important for us to notate that the subtleties matter.

When you think about someone's title, specifically to the job responsibilities and the duties, and then how they're seen in the community, we want to ensure

This position from the onset is seen as one of the utmost importance, which is why we want to give it the higher title.

So for me, I think it really does matter that we provide this position or provide this individual, she or he, with the proper title of director.

And that's kind of where I am.

That's when you go to your original recommendation.

The salary for the director is about $10,000 more with another $5,000 more in benefits.

Correct.

Oh.

Yeah.

Oh, versus 113.

No, I just wanted to bring both of them to you so that you could see it.

If you wanted to go in either direction, if you wanted to have a manager, you wanted to have a director, you would have that opportunity.

But as I said before, you know, what came as far as a recommendation from the committee was to have a director.

Or could we provide direction to staff to come to us on consent?

I don't understand why we would need to do that.

We're seeing multiple numbers in front of us.

So we're just saying the director only is 118-9.

But as you can, you know, it's six months.

It's reflecting six months is basically how we got to estimate it.

With the 59,000, which is basically half of the 118.

and then you know to start the hiring of the staff you know once they get on and how many months that would be if it's three months in in terms of the data analyst human services planner you know once the director gets in and being able to hire those folks so we just price those out based upon the amount of months that that person would be working within that fiscal year.

I'm sorry, I'm coming.

This is for the remainder of fiscal year 20, is a total of $155,000.

If you look at page number 2, it talks about all the preliminary stuff that is going to be going on with the $42,000, talking about the staff and city staff and context for cultural change is $42,000.

Okay, so the community engagement coordinator is something that will come later based on this 197,000 budget.

That is correct, but as you can recall, you do have a community engagement coordinator already as a position in the city.

But that's what we talked about in terms of whether we have to create what was getting, which was the intention behind those extra positions was kind of the sub government or whether we were all a team and the person worked for the city manager and council is able to ask questions and ask them to do things as a result of being counsel, which is,

you know part of the discussion that's been up here you know today so consistently with that position I thought that was a position that should be under the city manager and not directly under council and if council needed community engagement done

that that person as an employee of the city should be able to do it.

But if I may, I still see this as a logistical question.

There needs to then be a discussion about number one, discontinuing that position as a council position and then freeing up that money instead of just simply taking that money

with that position still in place and putting it into another one.

They're two different discussions going on here.

But I also think with that position that just voting on the director position and allowing that person to shape the team that it needs to do the work that they deem is necessary to do is a next step and isn't something that we are voting on tonight but I do understand

Well that's going to be also your council retreat in January whenever you have that.

What I did was just, literally, if we're just talking about the director position for the rest of the fiscal year, it's $80,811.

That doesn't include this $50,000 operating budget for office staff development, et cetera, because I'm not sure that that's in the scope for what we're doing in the immediate term.

Or is it?

I'm just asking.

If you put in there, let me just say this, if you put in there the $197,000 for the budget, right, and you don't spend it all, we could make adjustments based upon that.

So it's nothing new.

You can always do that in terms of the dollars that are not being used.

But that person's salary shouldn't be $80,000.

It's for half the year.

So maybe is the fix on this one simply to use the resolution language that we have, but instead of 113,596, you put in 197,181?

That's it.

And that's all you need to change because there's nothing else in here that talks about titles or positions.

So I just have a clarifying question in terms of, you said based on the discussion that we've had, with the understanding that that is not going with the recommendation that was attached to?

This is the original.

This is the original.

I think, well, the language that Councilor Galvin talked about, just changing the number, I think it probably

You know, that's just purely a fiscal number.

Now, again, this is more a question of if you wanted to tighten that up, you could say, and I believe it's, you know, I would say the August 19, 2019 report and recommendation.

Because that has 42,000 allocated for city staff and contacts for cultural change in this current fiscal year.

Are you saying we're ready for that work to be done?

I'm sorry, there's so many numbers on this page.

There's 42,000 for preparing city staff and context for cultural change, 155 for creating the Office of Equity, and I'm assuming those add up to be 197, but it is both parts.

Whereas earlier I thought I heard us saying that we were going to focus on getting the director on board.

to set up the office.

And other things would follow once we have.

That is what we said.

OK.

But he said that he can adjust the number based on the hire.

So we are all saying right now, I think, that we would just be hiring the director position for the Office of Equity.

And that once that person is on board, we will move forward with other recommendations as

Right.

No, we couldn't do that because you have all those other things that they're planning to do within that in establishing the equity advisory team to shepherd the work.

So you're going to have folks in there.

Well, could it be another clarification that we cite as per the recommendation number two in the memo to council dated December 2nd, 2019 from

Councilwoman, let me just say this for a minute.

I would rather right now where we're at in terms of everyone talking about a directorship position and think that the council's on board with that.

And that makes it clean.

And that's what you're talking about, Dr. Richardson?

Exactly.

So, again, I move that we adopt a resolution implementing recommendations as per the August 19, 2019 report from the City Manager to address organizational equity at 197,181.

Exactly.

OK.

Good evening Mayor, Members of Council.

My name is Chris Engle, Director of Economic Development.

I'm joined tonight by Rick Siebert, our Parking Manager, and Crystal Rittervold with the Facilities Development Department with the city.

We're here to provide a quick update on two separate but related projects.

The first is the General District Court, which is being done in conjunction with Albemarle County.

and the second is the parking structure that supports that as well as other needs in the downtown area.

So just a little bit of history, you all will remember last year, December 17, 2018, the memorandum of agreement between the city and county was agreed upon and announced officially

I guess obligating the city and county to work together on a general district court that would be located at Court Square, 350 Park Street.

Just to add a little bit of context to that and demonstrate that the city and county have been working on some semblance of this project for over a decade.

and I'll just hit a couple of those highlights for the benefit of the public as well as yourself to refresh yourselves on this.

2004, the city and county jointly purchased what was known as the hedgerow properties which consisted of the Levy Building, the historic Levy Opera House, the Jessup House and the associated parking around that as well as the surface lot at 701 East Market Street which we're considering tonight.

Those three properties were purchased jointly 50-50 split between the city and county and that was the earliest conception of a joint project around a courts complex back in 2004.

In 2009, the city and county jointly funded a planning analysis.

Assessing the current needs of both courts and looking at what a physical structure might cost.

In 2015, there was a little bit of a bump in the road.

The county decided to look at a potential standalone court project outside of the downtown, outside of the city at a couple of locations.

So they engaged the consultant to look at that during 2015.

At that same time, the city council at the time passed a resolution.

Committing some assistance in terms of providing parking for a court project and basically passed a resolution that indicated their support to the current County Board of Supervisors to get them to consider continuing the conversation about doing a co-located court in the downtown area.

Also in that year, in the capital improvement plan for the city, a six and a half million dollar allocation was put in place for the court complex.

And that's for the city's piece of the court complex.

In 2016, the city purchased a property that's adjacent to 701 East Market Street.

It's at 801-805 East Market Street.

and that property was purchased on the open market at that time for the purposes of having more options to create a solution to parking challenges related to the courts but also to the downtown in general.

In FY18, a CIP allocation was put in place for a parking garage.

It was a $10 million allocation put in place in FY18.

With $0 in FY18 and 19 and 20, but starting in 21 and 22 is when the $10 million was split between those two years.

And as we're moving along, we're approaching FY21.

So those dollars have been contemplated and are in place in the current CIP today.

Also in 2018 the memorandum of agreement between the city and county was formalized and announced.

The MOA also contributes, requires the city to make the contribution for the court complex that I referenced earlier, that's $6.5 million, as well as a commitment to building a parking structure to serve the court.

In 2019, both the city and county pursued legislative changes at the General Assembly to allow a county courthouse to actually be outside of its current location within the city.

That was on both legislative agendas.

That was also referenced in the MOA as one of the stipulations or criteria to continue moving forward with the agreement.

Those changes were passed by the General Assembly and signed into law following the 2019 season.

General Assembly session, excuse me.

Also, in 2019, the county formulated a team to start working on the general district court complex.

The county is going to be the lead on that actual building.

The city will be the lead on the parking structure.

Both will have interaction from both parties, but the way the project is designated right now, the county will be the lead on the actual court building and the city being the lead on the parking structure.

So at that same time, the team that I mentioned that's here today started looking at what we needed to do to get prepared once the CIP dollars are available in FY21, which is not too far away from us now.

And so we commenced our efforts by following what's fairly prescriptive items in the MOA, which required the city to engage in appraiser to appraise the ownership, appraise the value of the property that's jointly owned between the city and county.

So we did that.

We agreed upon an appraiser.

We commissioned the appraisal that came in at a total of $2.56 million for the total value of the four tenths of an acre.

The MOA states that 50% of that is the county's portion and that would then be the agreed upon price for the parcel.

So that happened.

We also engaged Kimley Horn which is a nationally recognized transportation consultant to do a conceptual feasibility study of the properties to figure out what would work best given the dimensions of the site, the zoning of the site, the traffic volumes in the area.

They came up with a number of designs that we talked through as a team.

And these are all conceptual, mind you.

None of this has been designed in terms of what it might actually look like.

That's farther down the process.

But they basically did a fit for the site to see what could work there with respect to a parking facility.

We also gave them some parameters to activate the street frontage so that it wouldn't be a single wall across the blocks.

and ask them to incorporate some type of commercial spaces along the Market Street frontage.

Several concepts, the concept that we ultimately agreed upon

is included in your documents here today as well as a survey which was also done that shows both properties in proximity to one another.

The survey was also completed very recently this year.

We also got a estimate on the cost which came in at $8.5 million for a roughly 300 space deck that would span the two properties, the 701 property, the 801 property, and a small portion of 8th Street would be impacted by that as well.

That's not a decision we're asking you to make tonight.

Obviously, a future city council would certainly have to agree to close a portion of a street.

In this case, it is a one-way street that has minimal traffic for reasons

efficiency reasons with the design of a building, it seems to make sense in this particular case.

So the study was done, the appraisal was done, the survey was done, the funds are allocated in the FY21 CIP which starts in July.

We're now at the point where the MOA requires the city and county to formally transact the property in which we would become the 100% owner.

The MOA gives a six month window for that to happen and one of the items that the resolution asks you all to move forward tonight is directing the funds for that, moving them from the CIP contingency to the project fund to allow the purchase actually to happen.

So that basically sums up the overview of where we are right now.

I did want to mention that we did have the consultants look at a number of different options, including using one lot.

or the other lot, both lots.

They ultimately arrived at the solution that we've recommended here which is item C, concept C which is the 306 space deck that spans the two lots and they basically did that for efficiency purposes in terms of construction costs and

The zoning also played into that.

There's 45 feet is the by right permitted height in this location after which you could seek a special use permit but a special use permit would bring into play some uncertainty for one and typically there's a step back requirement that happens above that 45 foot level that

as you can imagine with a lot that has three corners if you're stepping back from three streets you're minimizing your buildable area pretty significantly and when you're dealing with a parking structure that's even more significant than any other type of structure in which you can have a little more flexibility with the spaces.

I did want to also mention that in 2016 when the property was purchased at 801-805 East Market Street

The council at the time was very concerned about the existing businesses on the property and what would happen to them.

At the time of the purchase, which was now three years ago, they had just renewed their leases with the current landowner for a five year period.

And the commitment was to allow those leases to remain in place for the full five year term.

Those terms run out in 2021, October 30th, 31st, 2021, and they coincide with the overall plan for construction of both the court project as well as parking structure.

So that hasn't been determined.

No conversations have happened of any significance with them about that as of yet.

It's a little early.

It's certainly possible that one or both of the entities that are on the property now could be tenants of a new facility.

There's 12,000 square feet of retail

planned across that street frontage, which is certainly more than is what is on those properties today.

There are certain considerations that have to be made fairly well in advance with respect to planning for a restaurant versus an office space or a convenience store versus something else with delivery access and whatnot.

But that certainly has not been precluded.

So that is certainly a possibility.

Of course, if you do that, you have the interim period where you're doing construction and they obviously can't be there even if they intend to come back as a later term tenant.

So that certainly has to be dealt with.

Yes.

And one of the questions I asked just for the benefit of the public, because a lot of the emails that were coming were really focused on this 90 spaces.

Correct.

So the current surface lot at 701 East Market Street has 63 spaces on it now, which are some are leased to private citizens, some are leased to city employees, but it is full and it stays full.

So in an effort to not lose parking capacity, you would certainly want to replace those spaces as well as the 90 that are required by the MOA.

And in this scenario, if you're adding some retail space, you're creating demand and that's going to create a necessity for a certain number of retail spaces dedicated to that use.

We've estimated that at 30 for the time being.

At a 306 space deck, once you net out those requirements, you would have 123 net new spaces.

Because there's a certain balance that you try to achieve.

I think what confuses people is they see there are spaces available, but we want to have a certain number for transient use for people who are just coming to visit on a short term basis can use.

That means there may be some spaces, and at times those are actually been full, and I've experienced that firsthand.

Yes, there's a balance at both garages and the balance is different at each garage.

Market Street certainly gets the majority of the use and has most of the court-related traffic as well as downtown transient traffic.

And so we allow a little bit more room at Market Street, but Market Street has the most demand and is most prone to occasional closings.

as some have experienced typically due to high court case days and other busy times but typically midday for short periods of time.

And the Belmont Bridge is one of many developments underway that is going to remove some of our inventory.

I know a lot of city staff.

Yes, the new bridge is actually a shorter bridge, which means that it has some different structural elements that are actually going to remove some free spaces that are currently available on the south side of the bridge.

Some of those spaces will come back, but about half of them will not.

And I just have one more quick point that I think is important for us to hear from the counselors who were a part of the negotiations with the county over the court's agreement.

But just by the time I had my meeting with regarding this, the last meeting regarding this project, there was already

conversations surrounding the potential of affordable housing or other housing mixed use at this site.

Sure, so in 2016 that affordable housing was not part of the discussion in my recollection in terms of the desire to purchase this property.

No, but I'm just saying our meeting.

Yes, in terms of what we asked the consultant to consider and to look at, we did ask them about potential error rights, so additional development above a structure of this size, and we asked them to give some opinions about costs and challenges associated with that, and there are many as you can imagine.

When you're trying to accommodate building something above an active parking structure, that is one set of challenges.

Not knowing exactly what you're going to build and when you might build it is another set of challenges.

You add about 25 to 30 percent to the base cost of the project just to

prepare for the possibility of doing anything above the structure.

So if you envisioned the 300 space deck and then you decided to put 20 units on top at a future date, you would incur the 30 percent

Surcharge at this point to prepare for that, which is a risk not knowing if you're going to do it or who's going to do it and what it's going to look like.

So ultimately as a staff it's our opinion that that is probably a risk that is

Madam Mayor, thank you.

Just a couple of

Point slash questions on this.

One is that when I, and Councilor Galvin and I were part of this team that helped develop this whole approach which was really exhaustive to come up with this agreement and it involved

I mean lots of difficult politics and legal issues and the whole threat that this whole complex and hundreds of jobs and people dealing with court dates were going to be moved out of the county and this was integral to it.

So, but when I had my meeting with you guys, there were a couple questions that came up and I just wanted to make sure the public heard them.

One was that this is linked to the future of the Market Street garage, which is an aging structure, as I understood it.

That was something I didn't know, but that is, as you all are thinking about the infrastructure of the city, they are

Linked.

And I was hoping that you could maybe talk about that, but I wanted to make the second question.

And one of the things that I wanted to ask you was from some conferences that I'd been to with other elected officials.

There is some academic literature out there about how we should be designing new parking garages to try and accommodate all of the changes or anticipate all the changes that are going to come with

Automation and with driverless cars and all this stuff that could happen, some of which we may not even know.

The scooter revolution wasn't even being talked about four years ago.

And I was very concerned to ask you to make sure that we could address the public's concerns if it came up that we had done that research and had thought about should we be designing this garage so that it is

And then,

Actually, that is very academic.

It's not proven.

It's extremely expensive.

One of the things that's bearing down on us here are just the logistical aspects of the agreement and the money that's been allocated and the property we have.

And I said, well, you had reassured my concerns.

Hi, my name is Rick Siebert.

I'm the Parking Manager for the City of Charlottesville.

I'm a member of the

International Parking and Mobility Institute.

It's an industry organization, the largest one in the United States, and it is now international and has been for a number of years.

The discussion of what's going to happen to parking because of autonomous vehicles has been very much on the minds of people within the industry for at least the last five years.

So it's been discussed in all sorts of different contexts.

One of the things is that there are some thoughts that perhaps if you were going to build a garage today, you ought to take into account the revolution of autonomous vehicles coming and that that might

reduce parking demands significantly and cause a garage being built today not to be necessary 10, 15 years into the future.

So how are you going to accommodate that?

One of the thoughts was that you build a garage that you can convert to another use when that parking demand drops.

The issues with that are that you're going to have to pay a premium when you build that garage today to make it capable of being converted in any kind of efficient way.

Then on the second part of that is you're gonna have to pay to a degree a premium to build on top of an existing garage or convert an existing garage into another use.

People have tried to run the numbers on this and I went out to the IPMI forum and got a lot of opinions, not one.

I got a variety of opinions from people within the industry who had explored this issue.

and the idea was that came back is that's a very difficult problem.

It is generally thought today to be cheaper to tear down what you build and build a purpose-built

Building that meets the highest and best use of the property that 10 or 15 years later, that that's cheaper than that cost of building some special garage now that can be converted and may not even be able to be converted to the exact highest and best use that 15 years later.

Well that was the other part.

A lot of cities have looked at this and the thought has been normally cities have multiple facilities that have a variety of ages.

Again, if you have a sharp drop in demand and you want to reduce your parking supply, it's again cheaper to tear down your oldest facility.

The one in the poorest condition and then use that property to build whatever is the highest and best use on that property once demand changes.

For us, that's going to be the Market Street Garage.

In the early 70s, it certainly is not going to last forever.

Great.

So, Mayor Walker, are you done?

I could add a few more things, if I may.

And thank you very much because that does give us an idea of how we could be recycling not only our public parking garages but the sites themselves.

And this actually has been going on, as Mr.

Angle was talking about, for many years.

And I remember it when Jane Dittmar was the chair of the board of supervisors and Sacha Ndrahuja was the mayor of the city council.

So that goes back quite a ways.

And then it moved on forward.

Parking was always an issue.

but then around 2016 it got to the point where there was talk in the county of actually pulling out and building and repurposing one of their older developed areas in the growth area with the idea that it could also be an economic driver for them.

And they also saw that because their land was cheaper, they could have surface parking, they could have a lot less cost involved with a structured parking facility,

and they were really, the provision of parking downtown became a deal breaker.

They were going to go.

And that was when the legal community was mobilized and quite frankly led by Legal Aid in many ways, members of the bar, that said, no, we have got to make sure that we keep our city and county courts co-located in one place

so that our low wealth community has unlimited access to justice.

And so this whole discussion about the parking garage is a critical step to operationalize an agreement to keep those courts downtown to preserve access to justice for all people of all income levels.

But it also will be critically important for us to keep in mind

that it's a fundamental component of the trust between the city and county governments.

We cannot break that trust.

It is something that we've agreed to and identified and we signed off on it December 2018.

And now we're moving forward and I say that we just move forward with this resolution tonight.

It's a critical piece to operationalize this agreement.

and staff has done an awful lot of good work and it does sound like we have the possibility in 10 years to revisit tearing down a parking garage at East Market and building something entirely new.

And the beauty of a compact vertical storage of cars is that it does free up the limited land area in our city for better use.

exactly what the Housing Authority wants to do with the Levy Street site.

You can't keep these properties in surface parking lots anymore.

And the parking, when 80% of our city employees still can't afford to live in the city that they work, they're driving in.

And I would like to also posit for the next council that we can possibly bring back the parking meters.

Because two years ago, that was a cause celeb in this community.

Don't charge for on-street parking because our employees can't afford it.

And I just have a quick point that I would like to make about just reiterating, and you can go back and look at news accounts and the daily progress.

At one point, the county was considering putting the court out at Seminole Square, and that is when the legal community mobilized on how

Court attorneys and other court officials could be in two places at the same time.

And just as someone who had worked in the field and knew that it would be very difficult to, let's say, have a drug court program in Albemarle County and Charlottesville and have to be at two courts or even that travel distance, that was

That is one factor in my decision.

Sitting in the rooms with the other counselors and hearing and talking to the county.

Counselor Hill even sat in on several hours of court discussions trying to

come up with this agreement.

And while I often hear us talk about that we are this kind of carless society, I know that even now I'm trying to get through my day and as close as I live in Belmont and working two jobs and trying to get to places and get my

Kid picked up and it just doesn't work.

I'm not not driving yet.

Even though I live close enough if I had the flexibility that I could walk with no issues.

That I just don't have the time in my life that permits it.

And also one more point is the idea because several people brought it up that you could purchase the land, that the land would be for sale from the county even if we were not agreeing to this MOU.

And that has been our understanding throughout this process.

And so, is there any other, those were just the points that I have at this time.

Any other discussion?

All right, please vote.

It's a lot getting done.

That's great.

I don't want us to just glance over that because that's very significant in terms of the parking piece and a lot of the work in which went into it.

And there's a great community benefit from it.

So I didn't want to say much because I didn't want to jinx it, but it's here now.

And I think also about our relationship, we have so many difficult conversations with the county.

And this wasn't just about county or city, there were a lot of citizens who discussed.

I wasn't necessarily the conversation about communities having access to justice, because I think our DMC report is going to highlight

Just some conflicting information there, but as staff members working within the court system, I think that would present a major challenge as someone who has worked for five years within that system and it is quite challenging to

All right.

Could I add one short thing, Madam Mayor?

We obviously have disagreements among us all, but I think that this shows that very different people who have different opinions on lots of different things can still join on matters of

And I do appreciate the fact that we had that vote.

I also wanted to say about the county, it was very difficult.

I mean we had a lot of conflict with them and it required kind of hearing them from their perspective because parking to them, coming into the city, they had all kinds of different feelings about this.

And they also have a real problem in the county with these parking lots, with these shopping centers that are kind of emptying out.

I mean this is a big problem and they thought that they could have this kind of

And for them to

foreclosed that, and it would have exacted a great cost on us, but it required a lot of working together, enlisting them, Mr. Blair was with the county at the time, so I want to appreciate them, and we did have to hear them, and it was hard because we wanted to argue against them a lot of times, because it didn't seem to make, but they did, and then they needed something from us, and we gave them something, but I really appreciate what the mayor is saying, because I think the primary beneficiary of all, it is an equity lens, I think that was really what

solidified the whole thing, was really thinking about the people who would have been hurt the absolute most by this.

All right.

So next we have a resolution 218 West Market Street, special use permit, one reading.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Brian Haloska, I'm the principal planner for the Department of Neighborhood Development Services presenting the special use permit request for a mixed-use building at 218 West Market Street, property also known as the Artful Lodger building.

The request in front of you today is for additional height and residential density at the site.

This is not my presentation, so the applicant is presenting that.

So it's not going to move while I'm up here.

It'll move when they do.

The request is for an additional 31 feet in height.

The maximum height by right on the site is 70 feet.

My special use permit is 101, so they are asking for the maximum on that.

Additionally, the maximum residential density allowed by right is 43 dwelling units per acre.

They're asking for the maximum allowed under the code by special use permit of 240 dwelling units per acre, which equates to about 134 units on the site.

The site is about 0.56 acres.

The application was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting in November.

They had, I think, a robust discussion about the impacts of the increased density of parking on the site and traffic.

Additionally, there were some concerns made about the residential units and what the character of them is and how they would be utilized.

There were some concerns raised, I know, about the lack of detail in the application in terms of

The look of the building, which would typically be handled by the Board of Architectural Review, as well as the affordable housing component of this, which is a requirement of Section 3412 and is required to be dealt with in the final site plan.

But the Planning Commission ultimately voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the application be approved.

You do have a proposed

Thank you for having me.

Seismic monitoring of that, which this applicant is extremely well aware of.

So that condition is also included in here.

It should look very familiar.

And I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the staff.

Just one question.

So the Artful Lodger building itself is going to be torn down?

Yes.

I don't know the date off the top of my head.

But it was approved for demolition?

Mayor Walker, Mr.

Manager, Members of Council, good evening.

Thank you all for your time this evening.

I know it's late.

Thank you, man.

So as Brian alluded to, this is a SUP application for additional height and density at 218 West Market.

There is approval by the BAR for demolition of the existing structure that is contingent on site plan approval and building permit.

So that is not a carte blanche approval of that demolition.

So just for clarity, since that came up, that is already in place and does exist.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, Jeff Levine, unfortunately cannot be here, so you are stuck with his project team, myself, L.J.

Lopez with Milestone Partners, and Jeff Dreyfus with Bushman Dreyfus Architects.

Jeff is going to present here in just a minute on some of the design components.

So, as we've gone through this process, this process is an SEP application.

We had appeared before the BAR twice.

We went to a Planning Commission work session, and then we attended most recently the joint public hearing at the Planning Commission.

Throughout that process the request has remained the same but the details, the specifics have become more clear and hopefully tonight and this evening I can provide more clarity and commitment.

It is not in our practice to present this to you.

Ideally this has the option and opportunity for staff to review and comment and come to you in your package.

The holiday and timing did not allow and additionally this piece of property and project is contract purchase and there are deadlines that we are up against so we took this opportunity to present to you this evening.

the two which Brian alluded to earlier where there was conversation, concern, anxiety around design.

We're here tonight and Jeff will present on more design clarity and then as he wraps up I will be able to address some of the affordable dwelling commitment and have more to share on that in just a minute.

Thanks, LJ.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for the time.

Yes, if you like, it would probably be much more beneficial for people to be able to thumb through it because what you'll be seeing up here is exactly what is being handed out.

I'm Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects here in Charlottesville.

We have been working on this project having just recently completed 600 West Main Street, better known as the Blue Moon Diner, and also have gone through the process for special use permit on 612 West Main Street.

As LJ said, we've been talking with the Board of Architectural Review and have had two meetings with them and then presented with the Planning Commission in the joint session with some of you present.

In those conversations, concerns have been voiced specifically about

the height of the building as it would be perceived from West Market Street and also how it may be perceived from afar when viewed from, for instance, Preston.

So as we have been listening to the Neighbors Planning Commission Board of Architectural Review, we've continued to develop the ideas that we'll talk about tonight.

What I'd like to say is that

We have a long way to go in the design process with the Board of Architectural Review, but they were able to help us.

in terms of providing guidelines for when we come to them with the design, how they're going to judge and discuss a project.

And the conditions that they noted that they would like addressed in the process, design process, the building's massing being broken down to provide compatibility with the character defining features of the historic district.

provide adequate protection of adjacent historic structures, which LJ has already discussed, provide a plan to replace the street trees on the street, improve pedestrian character of Old Preston and East Market Street, and also provide pedestrian access between East Market Street and Old Preston Avenue.

Those are the design guidelines that they've outlined for us as we move forward.

What I'd like to talk with you this evening about are some additional guidelines that we suggest might be up for consideration as we move forward beyond here, as we begin the detailed design of the building.

You've seen this page before, simply the site.

If anyone needs clarification about anything that's up here, please don't hesitate to stop me.

As we move forward, what we wanted to demonstrate here was what the by right zoning allows, which is the top left of the image there, and that is the six stories and you see the step backs that are required at 25 feet, 45 feet above street level and that's a 25 foot step back that is required by the zoning ordinance.

You'll see that on the top right, with the additional height, the existing zoning ordinance would allow a box to begin with the shape that you see there, simply extruding the upper floors.

To be clear, no one wants to see that building.

None of us want to see that building.

It's simply here to illustrate where we begin to be able to start to sculpt the structure.

If you move to the bottom right, you can see some additional setbacks, step backs, that we would recommend for consideration as we move forward.

You can see that above the sixth floor level, we're recommending an additional step back of 20 feet on the East Market Street side.

You'll see in some sketches in a few minutes that that begins to help

alleviate the concern of this building coming too close to East Market Street.

You'll also see that we are recommending 10-foot step-backs above the third floor so that the building steps away from Vinegar Hill down on the downhill side and the Browns Lock and Key building on the east side.

The sketch on the far left, bottom left, is how we might begin to sculpt within the guidelines I had just described with those additional step backs.

This isn't a proposed design, we've got a long way to go, but it does start to suggest how this building might be sculpted to address concerns that the BAR has already begun to lay out and how we may be able to alleviate some of the concerns relative to the adjacent buildings.

In this instance, you can start to see how and where the building will have a presence on West Market Street.

This is a view, you can see Vinegar Hill on the bottom, closest to us there on the right, the Omni Hotel in the distance, and you begin to see the step backs that are being suggested, not just the required step back, above 45 feet, but also an additional step back for floors seven through nine, 20 feet beyond that.

You can also see just for clarity's sake that

Should development take place on the Browns Lock and Key site, you can see dashed in here what the by right volume would be there.

So that a structure on the Browns site would be approximately the same height as this lower level and also would have to step back at least the second level there.

So that this building is going to be at some point in the future part of a larger development of this whole area.

And if I go back one page, you can see that that potential development, there's certainly nothing in place at this point, potential development on the Browns Lock and Key site is ghosted in there just for reference as to what could come later.

We'll also see common houses next to that.

If we go back, continue on, there's concern about what will be seen from the downtown mall with the structure of this height.

So if we go on the far left and we start more or less at the entry to Violet Crown and the downtown grill on our right, you can begin to see the code building just peeking up in purple over the Violet Crown building.

You can see, I should say, one small corner of this structure here.

If you go further down the mall toward the Omni, here on the right side, the code building comes into clear view here.

This building actually disappears behind the building because you're that much closer, much more intimate.

And then as you continue further down toward the Omni and look down Old Preston, then that is when you do start to see the height of this structure.

But this structure is also required to keep the street level height along here.

Again, 45 feet and then you're required to have a step back to a structure beyond.

This is also beginning to hint at how and where a connection might be made, pedestrian connection, through the block from Old Preston up to East Market Street.

So as we go further into this, some aerial views of what the type of structure we're talking about.

Again, this isn't a specific proposal, but how this building might get to be sculpted.

You start to see windows and terraces on these volumes now.

And one of the suggestions we would make, an additional suggestion we would make as a guideline, is that there are windows on all elevations of this building.

Often times in urban environments, perhaps a party wall, such as that between this structure and the Vinegar Hill building, or between this structure and the Browns Lock and Key building, will have few, if any, windows on it for fire safety reasons.

Windows are possible.

If the building steps back, it's easier, it's less expensive to do than if the building is on the party wall because of fire glass cost.

But the more we step back, the more likely it is that this building will always have light coming into these upper level apartments.

One of my biggest concerns, quite frankly, urbanistically, is to look at this building from down the hill near the Commonwealth building and simply see a wall with no windows in it, because perhaps someday, many years from now, a building might be built where Vinegar Hill is.

That's not something that we want to necessarily anticipate, and we would recommend perhaps the guideline be that all elevations have glass on them.

So you can begin to see this building in the context of the larger buildings that already exist downtown.

The Omni Hotel on page 6, the top left, you can see the Omni Hotel, which is one story shorter than this building would be at its highest.

You can see the Code building off in the distance, which is considerably higher, and also West 2nd.

The structure also, there's been a lot of concern about this structure relative to McGuffey School and the McGuffey Condos.

You can see it in context here.

We've done shadow studies, previous shadow studies without the step backs that we're even suggesting here, the additional step backs here.

The sun on the shortest day of the year when the shadow will be the longest might block light from one unit in the McGuffey Condos for about an hour in the late afternoon than otherwise would be the case with a biorite structure.

There's also concern that this structure would block views from McGuffey that already exist.

The reality is that a by-right structure, six-story by-right structure, would do that regardless.

What we were trying to suggest here on these bottom sketches were some of these additional guidelines that we would recommend.

In red are the requirements of the city zoning ordinance as well as what the BAR has already requested.

You can see the required step back at 25 feet from stories 4 and above in red.

on both sides of the building, and you see the arrow for the pedestrian access connecting the streets.

In blue, we show the additional voluntary setbacks that we would suggest.

on both the east property line and the west property line adjacent to Vinegar Hill in the west and Browns Lock and Key and the Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah Whistah

That remains a possibility, but quite frankly, urbanistically, that's not a great idea.

And we can have those discussions with the BAR.

But cutting a slice straight through the block with no buildings is not necessarily the best solution.

So we wouldn't want to commit to doing that at this point.

On the far right you can see again, further up, this is just the, we call it the development concept.

It's the block that we were showing earlier and how this would fit within the guidelines that we show on the left.

So, to recap, we would suggest the following voluntary design considerations.

with increased height on the site.

Windows on all elevations of the building to avoid tall blank walls in the cityscape.

Step back 20 feet from East Market Street at floors 7 through 9 to step the building up incrementally toward the mall side of the property and toward the Omni Hotel.

Step back 10 feet from the west property line at floors 4 to 9, in deference to the lower scale of the Vinegar Hill Theater and the structures at 110-114 Old Preston Avenue.

And step back 10 feet from the east property line at floors 4 to 6, in deference to the lower scale of the Browns Lock and Key and Whiskey Jar Buildings.

stepped back an additional 10 feet from the east property line at floors 7 to 9 to further defer to the structures on the Browns lock and key and whiskey jar sites.

And then, as some of the sketches have suggested, some of the perspective sketches that we include greenery on all terrace levels.

This is something that the BAR really responded positively to.

They didn't codify it as a guideline, but we all believe that it's a very good thing to have.

Thank you, Mr. Dreyfus.

This extra height is often compared to the Monticello Hotel as being a building that works in the downtown area.

However, when you compare the ground floor

of this structure to the Monticello Hotel.

It's about twice the ground floor area.

It's a very big block.

So the Monticello Hotel in a way works because it's tall and slender.

It's not an oppressive box.

What you've been demonstrating is much improved from what we first saw on November 12th at the public hearing and the planning commission.

I do want you to explain to me a little bit more carefully and closely why

I can't say why one is better than the other yet.

I'm not ruling it out at all.

The design guideline from the BAR states that the building's massing will be broken up to provide compatibility with the character-defining features of the historic district.

That's a summation of a conversation we've been having with them, which is that this building does need to be segmented so that it doesn't read as a single block.

Now whether or not the pedestrian path through the middle of that, on the side of that, overhead buildings, I honestly don't know enough at this point as to how to do that.

and rightfully so because they had to deal with the flats and the standard on West Main Street which gave rise to the zoning changes on West Main Street which preclude any special use permits for extra height which I know you've had to live with.

And the other thing that the BAR did very successfully on West Main Street is that they preserved original older buildings and had the new structures work around them so that they were even chiseled out more.

But in this case, the opera-lodger building itself is gone.

It is still a pretty big, massive piece on the ground level.

and that was one of the big, big problems with the flats and the standard is that they were just monolithic pieces at the street level and yeah, the standard had pedestrian access through it but it never really felt like it was doing anything to diminish the bulk of that structure.

So that's why I know those words about breaking down massing and I know how the VAR struggles but when the underlying zoning is leading to an already massive building

It's a very challenging process.

So that's clarity on the design.

What I'd like to do is talk about commitment on the affordable housing and we had a lot of discussion and there was a lot of, I think, anxiety and consternation about lack of commitment and

that being inherent in the process in how large a building and what is the final mass and the final building envelope and the final gross square footage after we finish a BAR process and get a certificate of appropriateness because that yields a calculation of gross square footage and total number of units which yields the affordable housing formula in the current zoning ordinance.

And so to that end we've gone through, excuse me,

We've gone through, we've done some calculations, we've established some ceilings and we've taken at least the mass of the development concept that you see here in gross square footage and applied.

If it were that, what would that be and what would that yield?

I'm sorry, that is the 182.

So I've got a exhibit if I could pass that around to everybody which will help to clarify that.

So what's being shown is a lot of information.

I'll try and walk that through with you.

On the top establishes our ceilings.

It establishes the maximum volume, understanding that that can't be built.

The BAR wouldn't allow it.

It's the vibrate and the SUP zoning box per the setbacks.

It's not an articulated building.

It's just a large volume mass.

And so that's a gross square footage in total, again on the top left in blue of 208,000 square feet.

That's at 101 feet.

You're on the right, you're by right 70 foot, gross square footage is 155,000 square feet.

Again we can't achieve that, the BAR wouldn't allow it, but that establishes the ceiling of what the zoning would allow.

The resulting net calculations based on an applicable core factor and an average unit square footage for a two bedroom, 1,000 square foot unit is going to yield in your upper left, your blue, 24 affordable dwelling units.

That's what that calculation per the zoning ordinance would result in with a total density of 134.

Again on the right, your 70 foot by right height without the additional height per the SUP.

Utilizing that gross square footage, the calculation and applying an average unit of a thousand square feet, two bedroom, roughly a thousand square feet would yield total residential units of 89 or 11 affordable units.

So those are kind of your ceilings and your maximums of what you could get if total build out of those.

So on the bottom two on that sheet show the development concept and there's a nuance between the two development concepts.

So on the left, the development concept shown in tan is a building height of 101 feet.

The development concept that we've seen, the articulated, the sculpted, that sketched building,

is 161,000 gross square feet.

If you apply your core factor to your net residential square footage, you'd yield 99,000 square feet at an average thousand square foot per unit.

That would be 99 total units with 13 affordable in that calculation.

And that's how that would yield in that proposed development concept and that building that's there today.

So again you can see and draw the comparison conclusion between your maximums at your buy right and your 101 feet.

In the green on the right it takes a bit more aggressive approach and says what would

For 134 total density, what would the average unit square footage be?

And that would be 742 square feet.

So roughly your average one bedroom unit at 742 square feet.

Maybe that's a little bit larger one bedroom unit, but for discussion purposes, let's call that a one bedroom.

That would yield you 134 total units, of which the formula and the calculation would be 17 affordable units and 117 market rate.

in an effort to highlight how the formula based on total number of units and gross square footage fluctuates in that calculation and without a final design it is difficult to confirm and commit.

That said, we've established some ceilings and what I have is a proposed condition for the affordable housing which I'd like to walk through with you that commits to based within those ceilings.

So the proposal is to satisfy the affordable housing requirement with both conditions A and B as outlined on this sheet.

Condition A being on site, the ABU, the affordable dwelling unit resulting from the additional height granted from 71 to 101 feet would be satisfied on site.

That's a firm commitment of not less than four units on site.

Units would be rented at or below 60% AMI.

Units would be scattered throughout the lower floors, not concentrated or isolated to one floor.

Units will remain affordable at a minimum compliance period of 10 years.

Condition B is the flexible component.

The balance of that, so 4 doesn't satisfy, 4 at 60% AMI onsite doesn't satisfy the entire requirement.

We know that there is a delta there.

As the formulas would indicate, it would be anywhere from 11 to

Excuse me, 13 to 17 units.

So the balance of that would be satisfied through Section 3412D, either onsite, offsite, or payment into the housing fund.

The conditions being if those units are built onsite or offsite, they're rented at or below 80% AMI.

The units, if built onsite, will be scattered throughout the lower floors, not concentrated or isolated to one floor,

and units if built onsite or offsite remain affordable for a minimum of 10 years.

So that is commitment around the affordable housing to which previously there was complicated formula to be determined at the site plan which is what the zoning ordinance allows and provides for but this

tries to quantify that, bring some minimums and maximums to it and understand what a commitment on affordable housing would be for this project within what future

Design and the BAR is going to have as far as gross square footage and how that impacts the formulas as you see as we outlined on that sheet.

So that's a lot to take in.

I understand that.

Do you have a sense of what your market rate rentals are going to be?

And I'm only going from what was going on at the 600 West Main Street.

And what I was able to figure out was that the studio apartments at 600 West Main went for 1,500 to 1,600 a month.

and the three-bedroom apartments went at $3,000 and $4,000 a month.

So by my calculation, if you've got a three-bedroom at $4,000 a month, you'd need to have a household income of about $160,000 a year.

Do you all have any

There are no commitments.

We have not evaluated offsite options to build or construct offsite.

I think we would look to partner in building offsite units, but there are currently no

And I think I don't know if this is a question that we could ask but what and this is a question I've been asking since meeting with West Second Street is I know construction cost and cost to build overall increase as a result of the

adding the additional units but this is being done not only because you can if approved but because it's a financial benefit to the company to build as many units and be able to sell or rent them and I think when we see

Sheet, like the development scenario comparison that it would be helpful to also see the overall benefit to the company that we are approving, which I don't know if that's something we can ask, but just... No, we cannot ask.

understood.

I wish a development pro forma were able to be provided and shared, but I understand the complications around that.

One of the other benefits is a real estate tax, so that is a value increase, and current property taxes, this is shown on this sheet and that calculation is there.

Current property taxes are roughly $30,000 and the estimated annual real estate taxes are shown at the bottom of each of those scenarios and with estimates of

for the development concept in square footage, because that yields your value, roughly $295,000 of annual real estate tax.

I guess this is a question for Mr. Blair.

None of the images that we saw tonight and that have been discussed and presented to the BAR are in a proffer agreement, correct?

Well, to answer your question, this is an SUP, so there would not be proffers associated.

conditions placed by the city on the SUP.

Certainly, in terms of Mr. Lopez tonight offering up this language, I mean, if he is

voluntarily saying, sure, I don't mind the city making this a condition of the SUP, which is my interpretation.

For the ADU?

For the ADU.

Correct.

Yes.

But I didn't hear such a, you know, anything and I'm not sure you could based on the architectural design elements that Mr. Dreyfus presented.

But he did identify very specific things.

Are those something we can include?

I would suggest that you include them as additional guidelines for consideration by the BAR saying that you find them to be, you the council find them to be valuable and worthwhile considering while not tying the BAR's hands.

It's the conditions that I had read that they

They had voted upon ORD guidelines.

They were not requirements.

As we continue discussions and further the design, the guidelines would be things that we have to address at every meeting and every step of the way.

I have two more questions.

I think we're open to that at this stage as far as commitment and I think you know with some of the condition came through and clarity and language came through conversation with the housing coordinator in guidance of the need for not studio but one and two bedroom and so those are ongoing discussions that we'd like to have an understanding of the units to be provided

in what composition should they be, what is the need so that they are met.

So parking requirements are a ratio in which I didn't provide an analysis.

It will yield through the final site plan total number of units and the calculation and what those are.

We will have to take advantage of off-site spaces to yield the upper end of the density because we can't provide all of those spaces on site.

And so there are options within the parking ordinance and guidelines for that provision and we will have to take advantage of it.

That would be determined at site plan and the

Site plan would go to the Planning Commission for approval.

Correct.

That was a design criteria guideline that came out of the BAR review.

Counselor Galvin, as you alluded to, I think our preference is for the specific in blue voluntary design guidelines that helped craft and articulate the sculpted building on the right that was further detailed in sketch form.

They are relatively specific.

We would request that there's latitude for those, and those carry forward as a recommendation for the BAR.

However, I do have those in condition form written.

And my only other question was, you said there would be greenery on each level.

Is that to

I think it carried forward from several different kind of design guideline, design perspective, urban planning.

There's existing tree canopy on West Market Street through construction that tree canopy is going to be impacted.

It's one, a replacement of that, and two, how can greenery be introduced

not only at the lower level at the pedestrian streetscape but also to mitigate upper level sightline view and add a different texture element to the building so from a design perspective it was kind of twofold and that carried forward as a design guideline greenery on all terrace levels is one which we have written we would

OK.

So let's see where we are.

Do we need any additional questions answered from staff?

I don't know.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, discussion.

I asked for it.

Sure, let's talk procedure for a moment.

There's a resolution in your packet to approve the SUP.

Mr. Lopez tonight provided the affordable housing condition, so I think

As far as that goes, there would need to be an amendment to add the affordable housing condition to the resolution, if that's the council's desire.

As to the design guidelines, I think, again, if the council has an interest in this, I would just sketch up some language that resolves

that the council recommends the following design guidelines to the BAR in its consideration of this project.

So in terms of the even amending to add the affordable housing provisions, there were still questions that they couldn't answer tonight.

Um,

So if we added it and there were still questions, when would we get the answers?

Right.

The offer itself

It is how they plan to comply with their, and I'll feel free for Mr. Holosko or Mr. Lopez, but the condition tonight, they have to satisfy 34-12 to begin with.

But what this condition that has been offered tonight by Mr. Lopez says that regardless of

Heights 0 through 70 feet in terms of if they're granted this 100 and this extension to 101 feet in height that four ADUs will be located on site at or below 60% AMI.

And, you know, what's a challenge for me is the same night that this was discussed, we were discussing the form-based code that had conditioned building height on the provision of onsite affordable housing for a period of 30 years.

And I don't know how to calculate how much that would have been, but there would have been more than four units in these additional stories.

for 30 years.

And again, that was held to a different scrutiny and it was deferred.

It wasn't, but I'm just like, you know, I've been doing this for eight years, making these jigsaw puzzles fit without the cover.

And I have seen repeatedly the BAR being given a building that is quite frankly too big and massing and being given the task of having to break down that massing.

And I can see them trying to do that with you right now.

But it also, the other thing that's been added to this dynamic has been the increased amount of Class A office space, incubator space, incredible engines of

economic growth, yes, but high powered jobs that demand and give high powered incomes and we are manufacturing, in my view now, the market rate need for very high end housing.

And this ain't solving the need for workforce or affordable housing.

And I'm really torn now because

You know, we have in our grasp some solutions, but they're not ready yet.

And I'm concerned that we're just going to be building more and more.

I don't understand the logic of building more and more high-end market rate housing is somehow going to cut

and diminish the per unit cost, which is what we keep hearing from the Planning Commission.

You've got to get more supply.

You've got to get more supply.

But if the demand for that luxury housing is being manufactured by our increasing numbers of Class A office space, then we're not running out of demand for that kind of unit.

And so I don't see how this is really

substantially solving the problem of and addressing the standards of review.

A special use permit should be granted if it provides substantial benefit to the community.

That is what I was looking at.

And I'm looking at the scale and massing.

You're getting there, but there's no guarantee we're going to get it.

I'm looking at the conference of plan.

The conference of plan says we're supposed to be

compatible with the historic neighborhood.

I still don't quite see that yet.

And it says on the standard 4, you're supposed to be providing affordable housing.

It's still minuscule.

And then when I look at, again, the scale and massing of the project, I'm struck by how we're giving so much of the authority to the BAR to chisel this down.

when we don't really have any guarantee that it's going to come out okay.

And I'm sorry, I've lived through the flats and I lived through the standard.

And this is such an echo of that time to just be given, oh, the BAR is going to take care of it.

So I'm just voicing my concern right now.

I don't

and you've got already the by right zoning is in a way already our transitional zoning because it goes no greater than six stories which is what you see at the Glee Center.

The form-based code was grappling with the idea of transition zones from very high, nine-story to medium grade to low grade as it transitions to your legacy neighborhoods.

In this case, we're taking that transition zone that's already there and chipping away at it and creating, again, more opportunities for very tall, nine-story luxury apartment buildings.

So we're removing the transition zone that we already have from a form-based level, and we're not

We're not conditioning height on affordable units like Anita Morrison kept saying we need to do.

We give our height away over and over again.

Our existing zoning is hamstringing us.

Yes, eight years I've been trying to get this changed and it's not there yet.

It's just not there yet.

So I guess we're just discussing before there's not even a motion.

I guess that's okay.

Well, I guess I'll say a couple things.

So I voted for a lot of density on the four years I've been on, and it's been very difficult.

I mean, like the 10th and Jefferson, I've come back to a lot.

In part, it's been because the housing study we have pretty clearly dictates this.

I mean, it's very interesting what Councilor Galvin said about creating demand through

It's very interesting.

I mean, the study said we should generally create more supply at all levels because that's what's causing the cascade where richer people take bungalows and so on.

And I could see weighing that there's a lot of pros and cons in this.

And some of it is there's tax revenue that's coming in here.

There is density.

There's the affordable dwelling units.

But I just, I mean,

I think this particular area is very sensitive for something this big.

I appreciate what you guys have done.

I really do.

I appreciate the setbacks.

I think it's beautifully drawn.

But when I look at this picture, this to me changes the character of that part of the

of like the center or a very valuable center of a lot of community and social and aesthetic life is the Downtown Mall.

And I wasn't on the, I couldn't vote on the code decision because I was, had a conflict.

I was precluded from voting on it.

I don't even know how I would have voted on it.

But I think that that is a different part of the Downtown Mall ecosystem because it's so much taller over there on Water Street and there's already the Water Street and I believe it's zoned differently, I think.

And this will change the character of the downtown mall.

It will feel very big and tall.

And it will be a different character.

And I have misgivings about that being a legacy decision that I will make.

And not having been a victim of what happened on the mall, we did make the decision to cut

the Heights on this side of West Main Street in part for these very concerns and that was because the neighborhoods right around there and it was like it is very aesthetic and it's very social you think about what will it feel what has it taken to make the downtown mall feel like it feels right now and a lot of that intimacy and that restraint and the fact you don't have a lot of

chains on the downtown mall, and that it has been kept at this more village level intentionally as part of what we have created here.

And I am concerned about creating, and I don't really see the argument for why we would need to do this as a public entity.

I understand the financial argument, absolutely.

It's going to improve the bottom line for the developer without a question, but I don't really see the argument

about why we should extend this.

With 10th and Jefferson, I did.

You and I were on different sides of that, but I did.

I thought that was going to create a substantial number of market rate rentals, which we really needed within a couple blocks of the downtown mall.

And I was willing to make an exception for that.

But with this, I don't, at least right now, I don't.

I look at the pictures of the six story, and that feels right.

That feels to me like the zoning is appropriate.

I think my biggest thing is just really just, and Kathy and I talked about this, how I view one side of the mall versus the other in terms of just the scale that really we see as appropriate and I totally agree and Councillor Signer's kind of echoed those points.

I will say I really appreciate because we did sit down and talk and there's certainly, the concerns I had was just how do we guarantee more of that sculpted scale because

I understand all the words that you've been through, Councilor Galvin, and I was trying to say how can we ensure there's some assurances, also recognizing that developers are going through this churn with other bodies that are making decisions, including BAR on multiple occasions, and also really just putting forward just some real clarity around how they would be

fulfilling the affordable housing requirement but I mean I can sense that there so far doesn't sound like there's tremendous support for it as is and so my biggest concern continues to be just the sheer massing of it in this in this property in this location and what benefit is it really providing given this is a special use permit.

Did you have any thoughts?

All right.

So is there a motion?

If there's no motion, then it just... Well, I think, no, I think if council doesn't desire to go forward, there should be a motion to not approve the special use permit.

I mean, I don't want to.

I'll make the motion to deny the...

With the intro you led with is what I wanted to interject.

One, to offer and ask Mr. Blair if there's opportunity to bifurcate.

There's two, an SUP for height and an SUP for density.

Can they be entertained exclusively?

And if height is the concern and consideration, can all of the factors remain constant?

And the request for density.

Well, I think if that were the case, I would refer it back to the Planning Commission at that point.

In terms of that's I think they made their recommendation specifically considering both the height and the density and I think if you wanted to bifurcate that proposal would need to go back to the Planning Commission.

So then the request for deferral comes from the applicant?

Okay.

Okay.

Because if they're deferring it to, um,

Right.

Deferral would be to modify the proposal in some fashion, whether I couldn't defer and come back to you with the exact same.

Then it would go back to the Planning Commission with that new

instead of conditions or whatever it is that you come up with.

If it's materially different, then it would go back to the Planning Commission.

I support that.

No.

There's nothing.

It's just a deferral.

OK.

I agree.

OK.

So then it could essentially come back to us with the height and density.