City Council Meeting   1/22/2014

Thank you.

First of all, I want to introduce Miriam.

Yes.

Councillor Szakos?

Here.

here.

Thank you.

We have a few announcements we'd like to share with you.

Sure.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainable School Funding Report.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainable School Funding will discuss their final report with city council and the school board on Tuesday, January 28, from 4 to 6 p.m.

The meeting location is to be determined.

Where would they be able to find that out?

My first one is about these cookies down here.

It's Girl Scout cookie season.

It's a little early this year.

Usually, they wait till Lent when everyone has given up chocolate or sweets.

Now, it's in January, which is resolution season.

So in any case, it's rough.

But they are available.

If you know a Girl Scout, ask her for cookies.

The new downtown transit station hours.

The downtown transit station is now open from 7 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Saturday, for full service activities.

The center will be open for passenger waiting and for all pass and ticket sales.

Previously, the center did not open until 8 and pass sales didn't start until 8.30.

The new hours will give our customers more opportunity to access our CAT services and escape the early morning elements on bad weather days.

Yes, I'd like to announce an open house to review the design for the new McIntyre pedestrian bridge that will go into, will bridge our two parts of McIntyre Park.

Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department will hold an open house to review design plans for the planned trail bridge over the railroad tracks.

The bridge will connect the two sides of McIntyre Park

and also support the 250 bypass multi-use trail from downtown to Hydraulic Road.

This public open house to review the design will be at Charlottesville High School in the cafeteria on Tuesday, January 28th from 6 to 730 p.m. and the engineering firm RK&K who has nearly completed the design will be there with graphics in a 3D animation.

to show the bridge in an open house form.

Citizens are encouraged to drop in anytime.

Mr. Fenwick.

We have some board and commission openings.

The city council is currently accepting applications for the following openings on city boards and commissions.

The building code of appeals, the CDBG task force,

10th and Page neighborhood position is available.

A housing advisory committee, HAC, banker position, and citizen at large position available.

The Human Rights Commission, the Regional Disability Service Board, and the Youth Council.

Applications for these positions are due Thursday, January 30th, 2014.

and more information and an application are available online at www.charlottesville.org slash boards.

And I'd also like to mention I had an opportunity to date a medium lady from LEAP and with the weather as it is, a lot of us are going to get whacked with huge heating bills and LEAP L E A P is there

to show you how you can lower your heating bills.

There you go.

I have one announcement.

This is about budget survey.

CIDI holds a budget survey every year.

They are going to be holding for the year 2015.

Your views as to how your dollars should be spent are very important.

If you want to have an impact on the budget, you ought to take the survey.

You can go to www.sharlettsville.org.

slash budget survey.

Or you can contact City Manager's Office, 9703031, 9703031, or the website.

It's important, because you're doing a new budget for coming here, and your survey will help us guide where the money should be going.

So please take the survey.

Are there any other announcements?

Next item on the agenda is Maris Bell Public.

Please come forward and announce your name and address and make your comments in the next three minutes.

Lena Seville, 808 Alta Vista Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia.

In case I run out of time, I'd just like to say how much we appreciate that the CAT Center is going to be open earlier in the morning so that it's available for people who need it during peak service times.

It's great.

So I'm here to talk about the downtown mall work groups.

I attended the sessions in the summer of this year and I didn't speak much at the meeting, the larger meeting.

I was still sort of taking in a few things.

But I've been looking at a few things and I'll start out with what I would like to see and then I'll explain my reasoning why.

One thing is that I think the Ambassador's Program and the kiosks should be part of the Visitor's Center and not part of the police.

I'm not sure that really should have been part of a law enforcement group.

And separately, I would like to see more officers on the mall at night.

That's what I would have wanted when I was spending more time at the downtown mall at night.

A pair of officers from midnight to 2.30.

would be five extra hours a night.

That would be 35 hours a week.

That would amount to one officer's time to make sure that both patrons and employees of the downtown mall can get safely to their vehicles and home.

And I've been told that they that the police have been given some more work hours to spend, and I thought that would be a good place to put them.

For the ambassadors, I'll probably send you an email on this, but just briefly, I'm not crazy about them sitting in a vehicle labeled police.

Their identification badges say police department on them.

and having this in just sort of sitting around doesn't look good to me.

I wouldn't go to the police to ask the kinds of questions I might ask of somebody who's an ambassador, visitor information.

I think of the police as being busy with larger and more serious things and so

I'm not thrilled with that.

I also think that they, the ones that we have, um, could make more of an effort to walk slowly and make eye contact and really interact with the citizenry.

Thank you, ma'am.

Mayor Huja, members of the city council.

I'm James D. Schisler, Jim Schisler and

For the last 48 years my residence has been 901 Rugby Road in the university community and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about 1000 West Main and the West Main Street corridor.

As an eight decade resident of the city of Charlottesville, the West Main corridor has been very much a part of my life.

First as a child and a resident of the little-known Oakdale Farm situated south of Fifeville between the Fife Estate and Orange Dale.

And prior to, during and attending Venable Elementary School and Lane High School, and later as a young adult in the city of Charlottesville, West Main was my through-fare, my community.

It was a vibrant business area and such.

It was my family and neighborhood shopping area.

West Main provided, among other attractions, three grocery stores, one being a specialty store, one even delivered.

A fine men's store, a Sears Roebuck, and Virginia Electric and Power headquarters.

We had two dry cleaners, a laundry, a drugstore, a photography studio, an appliance store, and of course many varying restaurants.

Charlottesville's West Main had the first pizza and the first deli in Charlottesville.

We even had a Harley-Davidson sales and service.

We had much more, much more.

West Main was a very nearly old community.

Starting now, and right now, it can be that again.

With the granting of the requested and allowed special use permits, 1,000 West Main will be beneficial to the community and the city.

Traffic will be reduced throughout the area because the residents will live where they go to school, where they work, where they shop, where they dine, and where they spend their leisure time.

Very soon existing businesses will expand, new businesses will come to serve the area, bringing new customers and clients, resulting in a viable economy.

The open green space of 1000 West Main will be inviting, serving as a small neighborhood parks, enjoyed by all, by the residents, the workers, the passers-by, creating new friendships, loyalty and trust, and bring a feeling of security.

and the existence of security enhancing the whole area.

For me and others like me, the residents of the university community, benefits will come.

We will get our neighborhoods back.

1000 with its convenient modern housing, state of the art technology will draw students from the many housing units in the well established neighborhoods to where they want to be, to the university.

The results, less parking on our streets, less vehicle trips on our streets, less vehicles traveling the primary roads like Rugby, Grady, and Gordon Avenue, 14th and 10th, Emmett Street, and University Avenue.

Finally, I urge you to grant the special use permits and put West Main Street one step closer to where it should be.

Good evening, Mayor, Council folks.

My name is Randy Page.

I live at 1401 Wellford Street.

I'm concerned about non-native invasive plants, mostly vines in our city.

Currently, we have no funding in the budget for herbicides.

I'm not talking about just spraying them around.

I'm talking about direct application to stumps at this point.

The Division of Forestry

The United States puts out this book on non-invasive plants and they suggest 15 minutes after cutting is most effective.

We have volunteers in the park that are doing this, but they're losing a lot of ground.

Some of these plants are unbelievably damaging to our trees and it probably creates a liability if we've got a dead tree that falls on somebody on public property.

This is bittersweet.

It starts off like this.

And it's good for another 10 feet.

And then it gets mature.

These two were cut from a tree months ago.

They weigh 15 pounds.

If you got a 70 foot tree, these have no water weight in them.

If you get a 70 foot tree with water weight, you get an ice storm, it's gonna just rip the limbs off of them.

It's impossible to keep up with them in the park unless we have an herbicide.

I've talked with John Mann and I've suggested to him that maybe we could get volunteers to follow ahead of commercial applicators that come through.

But take a look at

Melbourne Road, when you go near Charlottesville High School.

If you're going towards Charlottesville, before you get to John Warner Parkway, look to your right.

The vines are just way up in the sycamores, they're breaking off the branches.

When you cross John Warner Parkway, look to your left.

The bittersweet is up in the canopy of the tree.

What it does is it goes up to the top of the trees, it spreads over the top so it blocks out all the light, it winds itself around the tree so it strangles the tree, and then it produces its berries.

We're going to put a botanical garden in there.

That's something we're going to have to deal with in some form at some time.

So I'd really like to say that this is something that really

We haven't attended to and benign neglect is going to ruin one of the great features of our city, I think.

Some of these plants even put out chemicals that prohibit microbes in our native plants from growing near them.

OK, is my time up?

It is.

All right.

Thank you very much for listening.

I'll be happy to leave these with you, if you like.

I think we know where to find more.

I will leave this with you.

Stuart Lesser.

Mr. Mayor, Councilmen and Women, Stuart Kessler, 1625 Garth Road.

As you consider the resolution for a special use permit for 1000 West Main Street, I'd like to offer a few comments, particularly about some of the conditions that were raised and urge you to think about them.

I am an architect, urban planner, and have no interest other than having been a student here, not quite when Mr. Shisler was here, but all those wonderful things he talked about were gone, and it was like a wasteland.

and I really would like to see that come back.

This building is almost an anchor and it has features that others don't, which is the commercial aspects, which means people are going to be walking from other locations and coming up the road and we'll have it alive as a pedestrian, effectively a pedestrian mall.

The conditions I wanted to mention, the biggest one is

the four bedroom unit question and having a son who lived in or does now four students to one apartment his rent is affordable it wouldn't be if he were two to an apartment so I think they should be allowed plus it's the economic viability of the project

Second, there was some talk from the university about the relationship between the building and the Health Sciences Center.

I was fortunate enough to work in New York on Kips Bay, which had 1,200 apartments and a hospital five times bigger than ours, and they worked it out.

All they have to do is sit down and work it out.

Nobody wants the hospital not to function, and nobody wants to make a bigger deal out of it than it should be.

they can make it work and safety is paramount for everybody.

One thing that I'm sort of hesitant to raise but I feel I have to.

At the meeting, I think it was the Planning Board meeting, Commissioner, I think it was said perhaps with good intentions there should be a course in civility given to the residents at which point

The person who said that, probably, hopefully without thinking, said, everybody here who's speaking on behalf of this project is paid by the developer.

I think that sort of defeats the spirit of what these meetings are all about.

I have no financial interest.

I never met the developer until tonight I shook his hand.

I'm here because I want to see improvement and change.

and I think civility could be taught to a lot of people.

Trying to legislate it is not appropriate for zoning.

On the whole, I thank you for all your consideration.

Good evening Mayor and Council.

I'm Steve Buss with Campus Acquisition Student Living, 161 North Clark, Chicago, Illinois.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak again.

We've been working with BAR, Plan Commission, and City Council and staff in the neighborhoods to kind of make this project better through the process.

Tonight what we want to do is make sure we answer two key questions when we

When we look at this, what's the experience that we want people to have when they're walking down West Main and Roosevelt Brown?

The second is, what is it going to take to get from where it stands today as a vacant piece of land to deliver that experience?

And I guess the answer to the first question rests in, from a qualitative perspective, from a quality of life perspective, rests in the perspectives and the views that you see from the street level.

How does it make you feel?

The answers to the second question rest in the site plan.

They rest in the additional height and the density with regard to the special use permit.

And how many units?

What kind of units?

How are these units oriented within the building?

How much commercial?

How is it parked?

Is it over parked?

Is it under parked?

Is it parked just right?

What's the balance we're trying to strike between parking and traffic?

So we're available to answer those questions.

Many on the PC Planning Commission and the BAR and other interested citizens have said that this is the best of the three projects on West Main Street and it's a fine compliment.

It's one we're thankful to get.

But we want to deliver more than that.

We're really trying to deliver an experience here for

the residents, for the customers, for people there's pedestrians and passersby because it's an important thing that this becomes a real place because when a place is a you know attracts people it's you know it's catchy it's where people will want to be you know whether

If you're an artist, whether you're a musician, whether you're a student, whether you're a resident, you're passing through.

Neat places attract attention and create social interaction that wouldn't really otherwise occur.

We think that 1000 West Main is a signature development on a gateway site and we want to give it that respect that it deserves for this location.

Today the site is just a vacant parking lot

you know, that's used for construction, storage of materials.

You know, tomorrow can become a place, you know, a destination where all walks of life can gather.

It's a site that takes a pretty impervious, a site that's impervious to rainfall and formerly contaminated, had a post office on it, and turns it into a beautiful building with clean lines that meet you at the street level on all sides and above.

You know, it blends into the medical district, you know, the medical district in the West Main South zoning district.

Part of the delivering that experience is also dealing with some realities as we've talked about, you know, specifically we'd like to look at modifying two of the conditions and removing a third condition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council.

I'm Valerie Long.

I own business at 321 East Main Street on the Mall.

I will just echo what I wanted to reiterate.

We do have some requested provisions to the conditions of approval that the Planning Commission recommended for the 1000 West Main.

Mr. Buss touched on them briefly.

I mostly just wanted to let you all know to the extent you weren't aware that we did have those requests and we'd be happy to elaborate on those during your consideration.

But I won't take up any more time right now.

Rebecca Quinn Rebecca Quinn, 1044th Street here in the city.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, Mr. Fenwick, Bob, Councillor Fenwick.

I wish I had been here on your first session.

Unfortunately, I was out of town, but welcome.

to the fruition of your many years of endeavor to get here.

When I saw notice of this meeting, I tend to be sort of an open government kind of person, so when I saw notice I thought, okay, is there a special provision that allows for meetings to simply be shifted because of weather?

I didn't research that, but I'd like to know if indeed there is.

But a couple of years ago I did research the statutory requirements for council going into closed session.

and I learned that there are 47 specific reasons, provisions why council can go into closed session.

Charlottesville meets the minimum requirements for public notice for closed session.

I don't think the minimum is necessarily a good thing in this instance.

There are a number of jurisdictions in the state that go beyond those minimums.

Just for those who might be watching, the city's required to put a notice that says they are going into closed session, and that's it.

It's only when they open in public session and immediately read a notice they're going into closed session

that they actually identify the specific reason.

We, the public, unless you're there, and you can be there, 47,000 people, but unless you're there, you don't know why a public session is being held until the minutes are published.

Well, the minutes are published somewhere, usually about a month later.

And by the way, your last session before today's, you went into session for three specific reasons.

So the real public doesn't know until those meetings, minutes are published.

What I, some of you know the city goes into a lot of closed sessions, more than many jurisdictions do.

So what I'd like to ask is that you do what some jurisdictions do.

When you put the agenda out, do more than just cite the statute.

Go ahead and give us the specific reason.

There's no reason to hide it.

You're going to make it public anyway.

You have to have a specific reason when you notice the public that you're going into private session, closed session.

So just let us know.

Put it on the agenda rather than make us wait at least a month.

My name is Louis Schultz.

I live at 1809 East Market Street.

This is the eighth time since October 3rd that I have come to Council to say that I have evidence that City Manager Maurice Jones, Director of Public Works Judith Mueller, and Utilities Director Lauren Hildebrand have violated Charlottesville Code and the Code of Virginia and in doing so have violated federal civil rights statutes.

I have to apologize to those of you who aren't up to speed on what I'm talking about.

Council knows very well, but I only have three minutes.

From our background, simply search Google for Steeple Street along with Seville Weekly or Schilling Show.

I'd recommend both for a fuller explanation.

Each time I've spoken to Council, I've made it very clear that I can prove that the allegations I've made are true and that I'm willing to present evidence and offer sworn testimony in a hearing if Council would simply schedule one.

Council so far refuses.

At the last council meeting, the seventh time I brought this matter before council, there wasn't much of substance said in response to the matters brought forward by the public.

That's typical.

Council ignores any difficult issues in place of being responsive by focusing on the fluff.

I'll comment by our newest councilor, Mr. Fenwick really stood out to me though.

Mr. Fenwick encouraged citizens to come to meetings and to speak up about things that are important.

He said what council needs are ideas.

Well, I've been coming to council on a regular basis for more than three months with some very simple ideas.

They're ideas that I would think would be non-controversial.

I want the city to obey the law, and I want council to hold people who work for the city responsible when they don't obey the law.

I want council to show that their commitment to civil rights is more than just talk, that their oaths to support the Constitution were made in good faith.

Those ideas seem to be very much in keeping with Council's vision and priority areas, among them a desire to build a world-class city by recognizing the rights of citizens and their hope that Charlottesville will become a leader in best practices for local governments, but for some reason I haven't had a very positive reception.

Kathy Galvin has yet to summon the courage to say a single word in response.

Counselor Smith, Szakos and Huja have misled the public by making false statements.

As a justification for rejecting my calls for a hearing, they've claimed to have seen the evidence that I have, the implication being that it has no merit and therefore no hearing is justified.

In accordance with Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, I requested of each counselor that they provide me with copies of any evidence that they have viewed that supports or contradicts my allegations.

Mr. Huja's, Ms. Szakos's and Mrs. Smith's admissions that they have not seen any evidence and therefore have not told the truth are now a matter of public record.

It remains to be seen whether exposure of their misstatements will prod them into finally doing the right thing by opening an investigation.

So back to Mr. Fenwick's comment.

I've spent about 24 minutes over the last three months talking to counsel, bringing ideas, asking for simple justice, yet I have nothing at all to show for it because counsel always finds some way to dismiss things it doesn't want to hear.

That won't discourage me because I'm fed up and determined to make the truth known.

I know that every time counsel ignores me, it loses credibility with the public.

But what if anyone else was something to say who thinks coming here is a waste of time?

Mr. Fenwick, what are you going to do to send the message that someone who heeds your call isn't wasting time and breath?

Will you distance yourself and the rest of council by speaking up about something you know is wrong?

You've been given a position of responsibility by people who wanted you on council to do just that.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Nancy Carpenter.

I'm an Albemarle County resident, but I came out tonight to talk about economic engine, something that I guess will come up in a discussion with the downtown mall.

When I think of an economic engine, I think of people that need to feed that engine, and I feel like there's a marginalization

of people in this community when it comes to the economic engine, although there are a lot of strategies that are being investigated.

I do have a strategy that I'd like to challenge the city council with, and also now that there's a representative from campus acquisitions, as well as the, I think the Flats is on board with this, the section three provision in the council code, talking about

use the developing and economic engine of our people by creating employment opportunities for low income and homeless individuals.

Now I've not heard or seen any outreach from your section 3 coordinator to the homeless community and I would invite city council to maybe

asked Ms. Howard if that would be something that she would be comfortable in doing because there certainly are individuals within that marginalized community that would certainly be an asset I think to any construction project either on West Main Street or anywhere in this city or without because you have approximately 25 to 27 percent of our city residents that aren't viably involved in that economic engine.

And I think the economic engine has to be for all income levels and for all communities, not just for someone who can afford some of the prices.

I hear comments all the time from different people or enjoy that area in the downtown mall or other areas of the city or the county.

So that's my challenge tonight is to see if there cannot be some outreach to the homeless community when it comes to Section 3 and also to perhaps request campus acquisitions or whoever the contractor will be to come to the city and look about becoming a Section 3 business.

Hello, my name is Scott Tumpery.

I live at 1800 Jefferson Park Avenue.

I happen to be the president of the Condo Association, but I'm not here because of that.

I'm just a, that's what I am.

A couple questions about this 1000 West Main Street.

Concerns I have, you know, number one, talking about traffic study.

Well, you know, I think we all know how that's going to turn out.

It's not going to impact the

the hospital significantly.

Well, down the road when someone takes an extra minute getting the hospital and someone's wife has to give birth in their car as opposed to the hospital or who knows what, then it's going to matter to that one individual even though statistically it may not matter all the time.

Someone just mentioned about affordable housing.

Well, I was a student here.

I took all three of my degrees from the university.

I currently live on Jefferson Park Avenue.

I could never afford to live in the corner.

It's more expensive to live on 14th Street because people want to be able to walk to the corner and walk to the bars.

Well, you know, I lived University Heights, I lived on JPA because that's where the less expensive housing is right now.

There are plenty of places on JPA that are in the $500 range as opposed to the $800 range.

I mean, that's the general idea.

You want to live in the corner, people are going to pay more.

We don't know the flats on West Main.

I've read in the paper roughly 9% filled right now.

Of course, it'll be higher when school opens.

But I would urge council to consider, well, let's find out what the impact of that, when it gets open, and when more people are living there to the traffic study.

We know Grand Mark, a lot of people know the problems it's had.

It had significant settling problems.

Some of the floors were settling more than other floors.

I understand there was a drug operation going on inside it.

That's no one's fault, but it happened a few years ago.

My biggest concern is the number of units per acre is not the same question as the number of bedrooms per acre.

It's not just 193 units per acre for whatever the number turns out to be.

It's 600 or so beds in this unit of 1.2 acres.

So it's 500 beds per acre, 500 people per acre.

The population density of Manhattan is around 110 people per acre.

So we're talking about this one tiny little area, obviously there's Central Park and it averages out, so obviously that's what brings it down, but still we have 500 people per acre, 1800 Jefferson Park Avenue, we have 200 units, most of them are two bedrooms, so on average we have 400 people give or take on five acres.

So 80 or 90 people living per acre is a reasonable amount to me.

I don't think this project should be stopped.

I think it should be pared back.

I think a shorter building, not whatever the height the development wants to be, but I think the overall number of people living there is more of an issue because if you look on the Flats of West Village website, the number three amenity

in addition to pool and whatever, number three amenities, near the corner.

That's what they're doing.

These developers, and I'm not trying to cast this person on them in general, but the developers say, near the corner, live near the corner, pay this higher rent, and I think that's a problem.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who did not sign or would like to speak?

Thank you very much for your comments about CAT.

I just want you to know that when we were designing the system, my priorities would have been for seniors and disabled.

Design it for the seniors and disabled.

I can walk five blocks to a bus stop.

Many of them can't.

So please keep up your good work.

Randy Page.

I don't know.

Okay.

And Rebecca Quinn, I agree totally about that comment.

There's no reason why it cannot be posted on there.

And we had another comment because of the snow postponement of this meeting.

When people go to the city website, it would be a fairly simple thing to put on a flash program.

Meeting canceled, meeting postponed.

So it hits them immediately.

And they don't have to scroll their way through the city website to find out about this stuff.

And lastly, Lewis Schultz, thank you for reminding me what I said two weeks ago.

And it was, we do need the ideas in this city.

We have a lot of talent in this city.

And I was specifically talking in reference to the city budget.

because that is under a great deal of stress.

And I do believe that we have people in the city who can give us good ideas on how to raise more revenue without raising taxes or fees or anything of that nature.

So thank you.

Sure.

I'll start with Ms. Quinn's request.

Is there any reason we can't put the reasons for our closed sessions on the agenda?

Okay, let's start doing that and see how that goes.

And I did ask the same question as to whether it was legal for us to, and was assured it was.

We were in an awkward position, obviously.

Apparently this is the first Wednesday ever

that council has met on a Wednesday.

And actually Randy brings up a really, really very serious problem and it's becoming more serious actually.

It's always been, vines have always been a problem for trees but because of our, perhaps our climate change issues, that's one of the theories as to why vines are taking off.

There's water issues, there's sun issues,

but this is actually known nationally that vines are becoming a really serious problem and just go down.

For me, my horror ride is along the 250 bypass.

I mean, those trees are so inundated with what is probably bittersweet.

Bittersweet's the worst of them.

It girdles.

It grows differently than other vines.

Of course, Kudzu is awful.

We don't have a serious problem.

It's like Nelson County has a really serious problem along 29 with Kudzu.

I would like to note that our native vines, while they can

exhibit some of the same stresses in terms of weight do have a credible benefit to our native wildlife and so we do have to always be you know kind of weighing our actions in that way.

I'm not a big fan of herbicides but I would like to have perhaps a report from Parks and Rec and see how

You know, what their thoughts are about their use of, you know, whether they're interested in herbicides.

We do, of course, have to be extremely careful around our water.

Excuse me, our water.

But there are laws about this as well.

You know, there are tons of volunteers out there through the Master Naturalists, through the Master Gardeners, who do this kind of tree stewards, who do this kind of volunteer work, but we do need a professional applicator to

to go with them if we were going to use herbicides.

And really interesting comments about 1000 West Main, particularly at the end there with Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Tapari, information I hadn't heard before.

Let's see.

Actually, we'll be talking about the mall work group stuff later.

But I do want to say that

One of the things that I hope we will discuss is sort of the difference between ambassadors and law enforcement because I think that they've sort of been morphed in a way that is not certainly what I had had in mind originally.

To Mr.

Page, I agree, I'd like to see the Parks Department come back with a recommendation about that.

I'd also, if the tree committee or whatever they're called, tree commission are meeting between now and when that report comes, I'd like them to be kind of brought into that loop as well because these are things that affect trees

and I too am very leery of putting chemicals into the ground and into the water but I think sometimes it can be a good thing so I think we need to just make sure that we're checking everything before we go willy-nilly one way or the other.

I actually agree about the closed sessions especially if we make it clear that this is not the definitive final version because we are allowed to continue to change the agenda up until the time but I think

that the more people know the better it is generally, so I'm for that.

Let's see, one thing I wanted to clarify that Mr. Schultz said in a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request, the idea that you can FOIA something that people have viewed is a little misleading because it's really, you can only FOIA something that we have in our possession.

and so I think that that's what was responded to and I think that everybody did that as far as, you know, everything that they had in their possession, I know I did.

And the final one is Nancy Carpenter's idea about Section 3.

You know, Section 3 is a specific section of, I think it's HUD regulations, specifically for buildings that are part of HUD projects over a certain amount and so technically it isn't Section 3 because

Section 3 is only for that, but I think that we do have a section 3 coordinator who works with local residents

and make sure that people are trained and available to do that kind of work and certainly I would love to see that kind of the principles of Section 3 be applied to local construction projects and I know that the last one did put in a policy of hiring local folks and I'd like to hear what the current developer has to say about that as well because I think that it's hugely important that we not just bring in teams of folks from Baltimore to work, not that people in Baltimore don't need jobs, but they don't need our jobs and people here do.

I'd be interested to see the TJAC folks as they're working on the homeless issues, maybe have a sit down with Tierra Howard to see how she can be a resource to them.

Yes, I agree with just about everything my other colleagues have said, so I won't repeat it.

I just want to

Underline Miss Carpenter's comments.

I have it in my notes that I wanted to bring up how we could expand employment for the homeless on the mall as well as expand the construction job opportunities to our low income residents that live all over the cities, but especially flanking the construction sites themselves.

So we'll be talking about that a lot more later on.

But thank you for bringing that up.

I agree with most of the comments from the members of the council.

I want to highlight three items.

One, I would like to get a report from Parks Department on investment plans.

I think there's a concern which we should follow up on.

As to the closed session, I agree that we are to give more information.

The understanding that we add many items to the agenda at a late time.

We need to be aware of that.

And as to Mr. Schulz's comments, I did have information which I did see and passed on, but at this time I did not have any information which to disclose.

And his comment, three times you have made, in this public meeting comments, three councilors have made false statements.

The only thing which is false is what you're saying.

We have not made any false statements, and making such acquisitions doesn't serve any purpose in my mind.

You had your chance to comment.

No, I'm not asking you a comment.

I'm making a statement.

Mr. Mayor, can I respond to the issue of the vines in Kudzu?

Okay.

Thank you.

Item A, minutes for January 6th.

Item B, appropriation, 2013 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, $27,039, second of two readings.

Item C, appropriation, Thomas Jefferson Crisis Interview Team Asset Forfeiture Transfer Program,

$111,726, second of two readings.

Item D, appropriation, 2014 Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia Highway Safety Grant for alcohol enforcement, $13,950, second of two readings.

Item E, Appropriation, 2014 Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia Highway Safety Grant for Speed Enforcement, $6,720, second of two readings.

Item F, Appropriation, Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Home CHDO Funds, $89,902, second of two readings.

Item G, Appropriation, BamaWorks Fund Check and Connect Grant, $10,000, first of two readings.

Item H, Appropriation, Fiscal Year 2014 Aid and Localities Fire Disbursement Fund, $122,138, first of two readings.

Item I, Appropriation of Fiscal Year 2014 Transit Grants, $213,693, first of two readings.

Item J, Appropriation, Safe Routes to School Grant, Clark Pedestrian Improvements, $174,800, first of two readings.

No, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a statement after the vote.

Okay.

I have a couple questions.

One is actually one concern, the transit grants, I don't know if it makes any difference, but I think the route numbers are outdated.

It refers to 23 and more, which I don't think we have anymore.

But the Safe Routes to School

Grant.

I just wondered if there, you know, I remember when we talked about this and had public meetings with the neighborhood and we discussed it at council and basically gave the go-ahead to apply for the grant.

I wonder if some projects were chosen over others and if there was any outreach to the neighborhood again or to the community.

I ask that because I actually was called by somebody.

I don't know off the top of my head what type of outreach was done after we talked about it before.

And there was just concern about what would happen specifically for these chosen projects, particularly if there was any

resemblance to what happened on Hinton Avenue, which some people are quite upset about.

There's bulb outs and things.

I don't know if there's been any discussion about whether or not those were successful.

We can certainly follow up on the Hidden Avenue issues and find out what was driving that discussion and concern.

One of the specific issues that was brought up is that the Rialto in Monticello Avenue, there's crosswalks and various changes to enable children to walk to school but the point was why would a child cross that street because there's a crossing guard

There's sidewalks on both sides of the streets and there's a crossing guard at the school.

So why would you cross where there isn't a crossing guard?

and so we should be really careful about making sure the community knows

This is one of them, thank you for giving me the opportunity, this is one of them that the money has actually been received and there's a process to go through that is very community engagement specific.

The plan for this was actually driven by the Clark School PTO working with the neighborhood and so they actually worked to put the plan together and help put the grant application together so there's been

Well, it probably was a year and a half to two years ago when it started, so I think that's a great idea to follow up and just say, hey, we got the grant, it's been approved.

Thank you.

Sure.

I'll move the appropriation.

The consent agenda.

Any discussion?

Thank you.

Next item is a- Mr. Mayor, please can I, one comment.

There were nine appropriations on the consent agenda and it's about $700,000.

I'm curious, and I've given the city manager about three minutes warning on this, if he could give us maybe a minute or two on what the point of the consent agenda is.

And some people would say, well, have these been vetted?

Sure.

Thank you, Councillor.

I mean, primarily the consent agenda is made

to address issues that we feel as though don't need further comment based on the fact that they're, for instance, many of the items on the consent agenda tonight are grant pass-throughs that have already been vetted and submitted and so these are just funds that are being passed along to

the different departments or a specific project and so we don't believe that there needs to be a full continued vetting of that because more often than not we've already had a discussion about it.

Many times we'll have first readings on issues that will be on the regular agenda and once we have kind of worked through that and we'll put it on the consent agenda if you don't believe that further discussion needs to occur.

Thank you.

Sure.

So the second item on the agenda is the resolution.

Special use permit for 1000 West Main Street.

Staff here to make a brief presentation.

Thank you Mr. Mayor, Members of Council.

This is a special use permit for additional height and density at 1000 West Main Street.

The Planning Commission took this item up at their January 14th meeting and recommended by a vote of 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the project with additional conditions that are listed in your action taken memo as indicated by the applicant through a letter to you and some comments made tonight.

they do have some issue with a few of these conditions specifically and probably most importantly item number seven but they didn't mention three conditions that they'd like to have discussed and even suggested some changes to them a condition seven was added specifically by the Commission it was not something that was recommended in the staff report

Additionally, from staff's perspective, one thing that wasn't really discussed heavily at the Planning Commission but was in a part of the application package and was a part of the design presented to the BAR was a modification of the setback along Roosevelt Brown Boulevard.

And while it's contained in the design, it is a part of the design that's the special use permit.

It is, it is, and that's the one that BAR reviewed, so it's been, all the drawings you've seen have had that setback, the recent drawings have had that setback.

True.

And I think the applicant has made some changes that were presented to the BAR.

They're not with me tonight.

I haven't seen them.

One question, Mr. Mayor.

The appurtenance.

Appurtenances, to have a broader explanation of what an appurtenance is, it's something that's additional on a building.

That's very, very simplifying the term.

Our code deals specifically with these.

A lot of times they are mechanical equipment that are put in somewhere along the building.

Rooftop appurtenances are very specifically dealt with in our code.

The previous code previous to 2005 contemplated mechanical equipment on a rooftop that exceeded the maximum height of the building.

The council approved a change to the code in 2005 to allow for habitable space to be used in that appurtenance should the applicant be able, the developer be able to accommodate that mechanical equipment elsewhere in the building.

and so our interpretation of our code is that you can exceed what is the maximum height by 16 feet but it can take up no more than 25% of the rooftop area.

Typically, I don't know of many places that have used it as habitable space.

Right after that change was made a lot of the larger buildings that really maximize their footprint didn't come to fruition because of the economic downturn.

There are a few

It's something that's taken care of in the site plan process and really in the building code process, but I think there's examples of both.

One of the major reasons it was discussed was the Landmark Hotel, which is the example I brought up for the Planning Commission where you can see HVAC equipment, but there was also, in the original plan for that hotel many years ago, there was talk of a rooftop restaurant that would have been using the impertinence area

as a part of their building.

I don't think the plans now have that, but it was an idea and it was part of the reason for the code change.

And that would be part of the site plan, correct?

It's in the site plan, but the actual area, the actual makeup of the uses on each floor and the layout of those are a function of the building permit.

The site plan deals with the limits of the site, the total use in the building,

and the parking and how that parking is going to be served.

The appurtenance is in the zoning ordinance, it's permitted everywhere.

What you're dealing with here is the maximum height of that building, the maximum height of the last full floor.

But the 11th story, are there, and maybe this is more appropriate for the developer to ask if they are independent units that are not associated with the 10th story.

The applicant can certainly confirm this.

I believe their answer to that question is that they are connected to the units below them.

There's not individual units that are accessed.

I guess the question is are the doorways on the 11th floor or on the 10th floor with a staircase up to that space?

They can talk about that.

One question has just been raised.

You can address that.

The question was asked to show updates to the Roosevelt Brown.

We'd be happy to share that.

Yeah, I believe I have just a few visuals to kind of explain some of these questions.

But just let me address some of the non-drawing things, I think, that came up from some of the public comment in the packets that were sent out on around December 12th.

There was a local community contracting and hiring standards that were sent out.

And one of the things I think we would add to it, you know, in section two of that document, we had, you know, as part of the outreach, it was reaching out to City of Charlottesville, Department of Economic Development, Chamber of Commerce, Charlottesville Works Initiative, to kind of get the word out to local subcontractors as to who are the general contractors that are bidding on the project.

And then, you know, getting that outreach out.

to which I think we will just add coordination and notification to Tier Howard, the city section three coordinator, if that's the correct designation.

Something reasonable to add in.

In general, the impertinence units are going to be the nicest units in the building.

They are loft units, so effectively it's a four bedroom unit, two bedrooms up, two bedrooms down.

Is it on the 10th story in other words?

Yes.

Correct.

The mechanical equipment is also at that level.

The cooling tower is also at that level just in a separate part near the elevator core.

The elevator overrun comes up to that impertinence level to the height of that.

It's above that highest floor.

And then the cooling towers are nestled in within the area of that impertinence.

And then there's a

So there is no, is there any part of that that is above the 10th story that would make up more than 25%?

Is that all contained within 25%?

One other question, Mr. Mayor, on the apartments.

So would it be two bedrooms that are up in the loft?

It's a loft, we're calling it a loft unit, but it's two bedrooms stacked over another two bedrooms and there's an internal stair.

It's one unit.

No, no, it's one entire unit.

Correct.

There's one kitchen within it.

I don't know if this is the right time.

And it's with regards to the four bedroom issue.

Would it be possible to either even further isolate four bedrooms on specific floors

make it so that there isn't that perception or for some people the reality of the problem of not being able to market to non-students if there's a floor with a lot of four bedrooms on it?

I know that I can see your floor plans, you've really tried to put most of them on the leg facing the Hampton Inn, but is there any possibility to further isolate the four bedrooms?

Yes, what we've done, and we're going to continue to refine, but what we have on the inward face of the L, we have these vertical projections on the building, and what we've done is we've removed sort of that volume in specific places, which reduces the number of the four bedroom units on those floors, because in a building such as this,

to order to segregate different types of units, it's much more successful to do it horizontally because then the people that come off that elevator then are on that same floor.

So in some of these, I can show you a picture.

So for instance here, so for instance here, where you see these areas here, these projections that we have, you see how, sorry, there are your pointers, Steve.

They do.

So you see on the areas, I'm going to try to point without going again.

So these areas here, this projected area where we're using a terracotta, that sort of happens on that inside face of the building.

So what happens is when those are removed, it reduces the number of four bedroom units.

So what we're looking at right now is aligning those in such ways that we will have floors which have a reduced number of four bedroom units on them so that that would become more amenable to probably professional, young professionals like that.

Well, while we're on the four bedroom units, I have a question.

Just one of my main concerns is affordability, not only in the neighborhood, which I think this does address by bringing folks out of the neighborhood kind of into this building, but also just affordability for students and young professionals or any age professionals who might be looking to rent a place here.

I know my daughter was recently a college student and

I rented a bedroom in a four bedroom apartment and it was relatively cheap and when there were fewer bedrooms they were more expensive.

I think if you look at the project data sheet, you'll see that there's six different types of four-bed units in there.

There's different types of four-twos, which is four bedrooms, two baths, there's four bedroom, four baths.

And then again, there's different variations within all those.

So that your four bedroom unit is really, it's your entry price unit for somebody that wants to have it be at an affordable price point with all these amenities, with all the furnishings that go within the unit, within the building,

A lot of the residents don't have to show up with a U-Haul truck.

They're showing up more or less with suitcases because you're already providing furniture, televisions, all within the unit so that they don't have to haul those in, in and out every year.

So again, those 400 units really are your economical units.

Guys will tend to prefer, like to go with 4-2's to share a bathroom.

Your females tend to prefer a 4-4, they want their own bath.

And it's just a matter of personal preference as to what they select eventually, but we're providing

a kind of a pretty diverse mix so that there isn't just this homogenous group of four-bedroom units.

I had one more question.

I personally think that we should not be having this condition at all.

because they have analyzed the market.

They have good mix.

I'm inclined to agree, but one concern I did hear voiced at the Planning Commission was the concern that four bedroom units

because they are so heavily likely to be students.

And I think that in some neighborhoods in the city, we've had trouble with parties and that kind of stuff.

I guess it starts with having an on-site presence, so you'll see at that main terrace level, the main terrace level at the leg of the L is where the, to the left here, to the left you'll see that's a cutaway view of the lobby.

The retail areas are off to the right, extending off of West Main, going down Roosevelt Brown, and then we'll get into obviously the engagement on Roosevelt Brown here in a second, but let's address the question at hand.

You've got an on-site lobby presence where every resident that goes up into this building has to pass through the lobby to get up into the elevator course, so it's a controlled environment as to who's there.

They're not just random strangers coming into the building and

you know, causing whatever mischief.

The second, the second item is really also there was another condition, I believe condition.

The Civility Condition?

Condition six, you know, with and I think it's a well-intentioned condition condition with regards to safety and civil living information.

It's well-intentioned.

I think it's it's vague, a little subjective, and I don't know exactly how it would be.

Why it would be enforced with the zoning, but we're more than willing to do something, you know, to incorporate the rules and regulations, which I think went out.

You can see what our standard rules and regulations are that really provide for, you know, here's the standard of living in this building.

And we've got no problem, you know, enforcing that.

So if people are having a lot of parties, they don't live there anymore?

There are also spaces within the building meant for the students to get together and have get-togethers, parties within the building and social gatherings, whereas when you get four or more students living together in a neighborhood, they're oftentimes renting a house that displays the family, and there's no sort of control on that, and that tends to spill outside into the front yard, the backyard,

and all of that and what this will do is by drawing some of those larger groups of students that want to live together into a building like this it will not only free up those residents that have been converted to multi-bedroom student living and put them in a place that's a more controlled condition.

I know that campus student living they have a lot of programs that engage students in social activities within the building which is a more positive way to make that as opposed to just having a

Ms. Gavin, we appreciate the input that you gave us in asking the right questions about how the building could engage Roosevelt Brown better.

The Planning Commission has made very helpful comments as well as the Board of Architectural Review.

And so we as a design team, including the developer, are very pleased with this process.

And we think that through the community input, the building has actually gotten much better.

So it has been a positive thing for us.

What I'll point out here is, did you get the word?

So what we have here is, this is a drawing that shows basically a cutaway.

So it shows the terrace level and then Roosevelt Brown is across the bottom, Main Street is on the right.

And so what we've done is we've sort of tried to really take Roosevelt Brown and engage it on multiple levels.

So we initially through, actually we came up with the idea

through meeting with community groups when we could not schedule a meeting because they had no place to meet.

So that gave us an idea to create a community room that would be open and available to the community.

It would be managed by the building owners so they could actually help people schedule things like that.

So that becomes a level of engagement that you see on the street.

And then we've added, based on some very good comments, this retail space, which is then mid-block, and that allows about 800, 900 square feet, which would be an ideal coffee shop, it's on the east side of the building, the sun comes up, and that will add engagement to the street.

and then we've moved our bicycle storage which will have a lot of students going in and out with the bicycles and that is on that facade as well.

In addition to that it's a multi-tiered relationship where the orange lines represent paths or avenues of engagement with that plaza with Roosevelt Brown.

Now as you know Roosevelt Brown is on this pretty steep hill which is not really

integral to the landscape there was cut down to get below the rail line and so basically you have this dip in the street which is you know it's very difficult to get a lot of different things happening because you lose you know sort of flat ground but what we've managed to do here is starting with the left-hand side is we've created a terrace seating here so that allows

students and the public to sit there but not only for that reason but it also folds down that elevation so you actually see the lobby from the street so you're not looking up over an edge it really opens that up and then there's a stairway that's just adjacent to the community room which allows access up on that and that actually has transformed itself maybe from the earlier things that you've seen we faced it towards the Fifeville neighborhood where that came out of the kind of a community process and then we've actually

By pulling that out, the five-foot setback that Brian mentioned earlier allows that retail at the street level to be closer engaged with the street.

So the area This we've got really good response on on widening out the terrace.

That's right Sorry, I apologize That's right there.

You know initially when we had a split at a split level it was about

you know eight feet and about nine feet wide and then now it's like about 16, 17 feet wide in total so they've got kind of a beefier balcony there or terrace there.

That's an outdoor space, publicly accessible.

The way you describe it

So seniors can rent in there?

Absolutely.

Chris Murray from Java was saying that he thought that it would be perfect for seniors to be in some of those one bedroom apartments.

Yes, Java is involved through a generous gift of a prior citizen of Charlottesville.

Sale of the property?

Correct.

Will they benefit at all?

The land.

We've already submitted the FAA notice, but it's an issue, obviously, Scott and Dave McHenry and I have gone through extensively with the University of Virginia.

We have that slide kind of buried deep in this presentation.

We wanted to keep this short.

but we can locate that if you want.

The way we approached the issues with the University of Virginia were twofold.

There was issues that were related to the special use permit request now before you and that had to do with the building height and the FAA issue, both with respect to the existing helipad that's up on top of the hospital building and then the existing ground helipad.

that existing helipad on top of the hospital building.

When you draw out the what's called flight cone, our building falls below that flight cone.

And so then the subsequent permitting will obviously bear that out for both the building and the tower crane to construct the building.

With respect to then the ground helipad that you see where the university is eventually intending to build another building, that ground helipad has been decommissioned.

And so we've kind of been discussing with the university to kind of, I think completing their decommissioning paperwork for that with the FAA and it's been done.

Are you awaiting any

Or whatever their operations are?

With respect to the university's position about the helipad, no.

Generally, they are fine with that issue on the helipad.

We have to still comply with FAA and get the notices, but that's something that happens as part of your permitting process.

It's something we definitely want to know as part of zoning if it's an issue.

We need to know now.

It's not that we checked out a long time ago.

Now the university has recused themselves both at the

you know special use permit issues and again the other special use permit issue with related with respect to this proposal is the traffic and that is addressed within a condition so that's handled.

Yes.

What I believe is that the university's council advised them to, we've met with them that they advised that they didn't want any comments to be perceived to be out of line given that they're an adjacent property owner.

But it doesn't really, for us it doesn't really change the fact that hey, we're adjoining property owners, we've got a big project, we're gonna have an effect on them, they're gonna have an effect on us and we need to work these things out.

But it's,

And exhaust.

That's more a condition of occupancy, isn't it?

Well, the exhaust is an adjacent and that's why we want to have the condition as it was drafted in your packets modified so that it is more impartially, so it's drafted more impartially.

The way I perceive that condition as it was drafted is it imposes a negative condemnation on us

with the way it's negative accommodation on us as a condition of our zoning when it's an adjoining property owner issue.

If we were to build a buy right building, this same issue would exist.

So it's not something that needs to be a burden on us.

And as we've discussed with the university, if there is

bio-hazardous agents or toxic agents coming out of those exhausts, that doesn't impose this obligation on us to have to deal with the bad impacts of that.

they have a public obligation to deal with that as well.

But our building, and as we'll get into with the university, our building will likely have an effect on, from a wind-wake perspective, on those lab exhausts.

So we will discuss that with them as a private property owner.

But we would like to have that condition number three modified

to say something the applicant and the University of Virginia will collaborate on an airflow study.

The results of this airflow study will inform UVA of any needed re-engineering required to maintain core labs critical operations while not adversely impacting the development of the Thousand West main site.

That way the condition is drafted in an impartial manner between two property owners and not drafted in a manner that

Well, the university, from our discussions, has had to modify those exhausts numerous times to get them where they are.

And so they're rightfully sensitive to the issue.

They're rightfully sensitive to that issue, I think.

And we want to make sure that they don't have an issue, because the hospital is an important thing.

It's partly why we're here.

the medical residents, medical students, nurses.

That's an important part of the market that we want to serve.

And we want to be a good neighbor.

And so we met yesterday again with the university to kind of go through these adjoining property issues.

Well, Mr. Mayor, do you want to go through this presentation first?

We're not going through presentation.

I'm sorry.

I do have just one question about this.

And that's the only about this image.

OK. And it's regarding the streetscape.

Is there any mention or discussion with the BAR that you would be working with Roadside Harwell to make sure that your streetscape detailing and

Because I understand that you have 11 foot width sidewalk combined with a potential planning strip, which is an ample pedestrian pathway, which is great.

Mr. Smith brought up the recusal of the UVA rep. Now usually somebody recuses themselves when they have an interest in the decision at hand.

Does UVA or anybody connected with UVA, the foundation, anything else have any right of first refusal or any kind of legal encumbrance?

No, no, so that

No purchase rate.

No.

The conflict is purely due to the university architect's position as a non-voting member of the Planning Commission and not wanting to be perceived as

And you're the developer.

You're going to hire a contractor.

Yes.

Are you going to require that contractor to be bonded?

Yes.

Completion bond, performance bond, whatever.

Yes.

Your lenders generally.

Yeah.

And I ask that because we have a problem in the city now with a property that was not bonded.

that did not have a completion bond or a performance bond.

And I don't want this city to be unprotected when it comes to these things.

We got one building coming out of the ground.

We got two coming up probably.

And then on the other side of the street from your property, there's probably going to be three more within 10 years.

And I would like the council to consider having some kind of bonding requirement

so that the city is not stuck with one of these buildings half built again.

It's going to cost us millions to take care of that landmark.

They've already done it.

Well, it's not a

If we have any public improvements, those could be bonded.

Accidents happen, but my concern is for the city of Charlottesville.

and for the taxpayers.

And I told you that when I met with you.

That's what I want to make sure is protected, that we don't have another situation where the taxpayers have to bail somebody out and we have no recourse.

We require bonding of any public improvements or any improvements that are to be dedicated to the public.

We require bonding for any erosion and sediment control measures that are required on the site.

That's the extent of the enabling legislation in the Code of Virginia that we have to require bonding on a private development.

There is simply no authority.

There was none when the hotel was being planned.

There is none now for us to say, all right, you can build that hotel on the mall, but you have to give the city a performance bond guaranteeing its completion.

Okay, are there questions for the applicant?

Wait, no, wait.

So, I feel like I never have seen a presentation that gives me any sense.

Every time I see this, it looks completely different to me.

But, you know, I'm not going to ask you to go through the presentation because I'm not thrilled with it.

There's two.

which is on the opposite side.

Correct.

Has there been concern about cars trying to turn left into there?

This must be where the traffic study came in.

Yes.

This is an incredibly, at certain times of day, incredibly heavily traveled road.

The traffic volumes, we have our traffic engineer here tonight, and he can further attest to this, but the traffic volumes due to a

Yeah, well, I get that, but that's the question.

That's a city property.

There's a left turn lane.

I had the other question I had and I asked you this and I just would like to sort of ask it in this group so maybe we can get some feedback is I was really really hoping between the battle building and this building that those utility poles were coming down or going underground.

There are no, in front of this property, there are no utility poles along the West Main frontage, and no utility poles along the Roosevelt Brown frontage.

At the 11th Street frontage, there's a communications line that spans the property, but that communications line is outside of any easement, but we're working with the university to fix the, you know, come to a solution.

I would love to be able to tell you today and say hey yes we can do that but do I think it would look better yes I do

do I've heard of a cost of 10, $11 million.

Do I have that in the budget to do it?

So it's ridiculous.

Although I thought we had talked about those polls going away as that block got developed by both UVA and private.

Well, again, the Roadside Harwell team is looking at that as well and coming up with an estimate of what it would cost to do it for the entire corridor.

and then coming up with solutions or some recommendations on how that could be funded.

I mean, it just seems like an incredible lost opportunity.

I mean, but the question is that what can we relate to the special permit in question?

Any other questions from the applicant?

Thank you.

Now we need to discuss ourselves as to what actually we are going to take on this request.

I have made two suggestions.

First of all, let me acknowledge, and I did that last time also, so I want to acknowledge it again.

I am on the Java board, representing the city council.

Like you, every council person is on different boards, like you're on LEAP board, and I don't get any paid.

As a matter of fact, I have to pay Java board.

As members, they ask you to donate money.

It's the other way around.

I have no financial interest, so I have no conflict of interest in my money.

So with that said,

I wanted to like to see the seventh condition eliminated totally and in place of it we place what Mr. Halaska mentioned five feet setback on Roseville Boulevard be added to that so it's quite clear.

Is there any opportunity to require the developer to require the contractor to provide parking for their

Oh good question.

We'll be working through the plan with the contractor when they're selected.

We're actually in that process right now, hopefully hope to finalize it.

It is the contractors to deal with, necessarily, but from obviously dealing with the university yesterday and the conversation came up,

What do we do?

Because it is going to be an issue and it will need to be dealt with so let's figure out how to manage the solution to it.

And so we're going to be talking with the university about how to manage that construction traffic and where to store it.

You know, whether it's got to be, you know, whether some contractors will park in a remote area, bus the guys in, you know, if there's a solution to be worked out with the university, so be it.

The university, the current landowner, you know, granted the university, a contractor working for the university, the right to park.

on this property through a lease.

So potentially the reciprocal might be available.

So it needs to be worked out, but that's obviously part of the construction planning process.

And as part of our final permitting, we'll obviously have a maintenance of traffic

It didn't appear to have been part of the plan with that other one, and we had to then backtrack, so there could be an assurance that there's part of the plan.

I think those were the conditions I wanted to change.

And I still want to leave.

I think that there is some responsibility in part of the applicant to deal with the relocations required because of this development.

The air flow?

I think you need to do more than study.

You need to do something about it.

I would actually, if we just eliminated the second sentence, I'm comfortable with the first sentence, so take out from additionally.

I want to put forth an idea, just because I do

I do respect the Planning Commission's concerns about some of the four-bedroom units.

I don't believe that they should be deleted, but I was wondering if, instead of the item 7 as written, it would read, the number of four-bedroom units referenced in the application will be situated on floors in a manner that isolates them from zeros, ones and two-bedroom units as practical.

As practical.

We are not agreeing with what you said.

As practical.

But that takes into account what you said was your intention, that you would try to do that.

Okay.

So I would like to add that as the item 7.

And I don't have any problem with the receiving civility information.

I think, you know, I can't imagine, you know, teams having trainings, but I think a sheet that you get when you check in just has kind of general rules of the building.

What you saw was a, what gets attached, it's in the lease.

Right.

Well, they go to the University of Virginia so I'm pretty sure they can.

We'd be happy to rephrase that to provide that we would

I think the way it was phrased in the condition of approval for the FLATS project says that they would submit the rules and regulations to the staff for staff approval.

We could do it that way.

We can confirm, you know, whatever's easiest.

We just wanted it to not be

anything that was above and beyond what was required of the other projects so they would add an undue burden, not to mention enforcement.

And we did, if we could be permitted, speak on the airflow condition issue.

We have concerns with that phrase that was in there that I think Mayor Huja is suggesting remain.

We did have a proposed alternative to

We certainly appreciate and respect the intent of the condition and what was intended.

The way it's phrased though, we're just concerned about how that would be implemented.

It's a study that the university has specifically said they want to control and they have all the data, which we're fine with and we are already collaborating with them on

resolving those issues as recently as yesterday in a detailed meeting with them.

The concern is that the way it's written, it obligates the applicant to a certain outcome when we're not able to control the outcome.

So ideally, we would ask that the condition just be phrased that we would collaborate on the airflow study.

That was how we understood the Planning Commission's condition to be worded.

It needed to go further.

Our airflow expert, who's actually our engineer who's here tonight, had suggested an alternative that Mr. Buss actually recited, saying that the results of the study will inform UVA of any needed re-engineering required to maintain the core labs operations while not adversely impacting the development

No, it's mutual.

It puts the... Mutual onus.

Say it again.

Sorry, I'll rephrase it, or restate it, excuse me.

The results of the airflow study will inform

So what's to say that if there is engineering needed

There are a lot of issues that they have been meeting with the university on over the past few months.

that relate to the fact that they're building a large building right next to the core lab.

There are construction easements that will eventually be granted.

There are easements for access, for grading, for relocating utilities.

So we know that there's going to be some cost sharing between the university on all of those issues.

So we see it

Correct.

Another way to state this, and I don't know if this is too generic to be acceptable to anyone, but it could say

I'd be comfortable with that because it doesn't push it either way.

It's a two-way street and I believe that that's still drafted as a one-way street.

Can you read it again?

It wasn't intended to be a one-way street.

Just say what you said again because it was fast.

Well, I guess what I just want to be, you know, assured of is that we're not creating something where there's an implied

I'm confused.

So, you know, does the University of Virginia have to do this anyway?

My name is Joseph DeLou.

I represent RMF Engineering here in Charlottesville.

Strangely, we actually do quite a bit of engineering for the university, so we're familiar with the condition.

The team has met with David Newman and representatives of the health system and as I'm sure you know the core lab building is a critical facility for the healthcare center, operates on an intense schedule and of course in the original temporary nature of that building the university treated the building in a very proper way with regard to the exhaust and its effluent but there was never a neighbor or never a concern

You know now of course that the neighboring property is being developed.

We've had a long conversation with them about the use of CoreLab.

They understand the importance of being a good neighbor.

Nobody wants its effluent to be in any concentration.

It can be harmful.

And the conversations we've had so far in my presence seem to be a very understanding neighbor in the form of UVA.

They understand that

the systems they have for exhaust of laboratory, exhaust of diesel generator exhaust are those that could impact harmfully upon 1000 West Main and all the conversations have been about a mutual solution to these problems and Steve had mentioned

We offered to share in a wind-wake analysis with them but I think they understand there's some more complex issues related to their buildings beyond just this Thousand West main site and they've offered to simply keep the control and management of that study themselves.

I believe they'll investigate with the aid of this wind-wake testing agency.

They'll understand the results and the most proper solutions for this exhaust and

So do they, is UVA, maybe this is an improper question and ignore me if it is, but

Do they want you to pay for this?

I don't believe that topic's been broached.

And I am somewhat concerned in the implication that we are requiring that that cost share be done.

And it does strike me that there are missions from the university building that are there, whether without this building, that would need to be corrected when there's a neighbor.

is this too weird a situation?

A couple fold, actually.

The university is very interested in improving energy efficiency of this building.

It's burned a lot of university dollars, so there's a recognition that they might want to do something anyway.

I don't mean to speak for them, David's not here, nor is Tom Harkins tonight, but this is my understanding of the conversation.

Beyond that, I think the question becomes,

Whatever was developed on the Thousand West main site, if it was a by right development, the early indications from the testing agency that UVA will employ, and they've delivered this message to both sides of the conversation, is that they think there's probably an exhaustive entrainment issue present in a by right development or the development as it's designed.

If we could just add to the very end, Mr. Brown, of your suggested language where you said to address the continued operation of the existing buildings.

So their rights trump the UVA's?

No, they're mutual.

I don't think our role or the city's role is to be the arbiter of how this issue is resolved.

I think what it sounds like Council is striving for

Thank you.

Have a seat, sir.

Just one more second.

Should I come up now?

Just because this last discussion we had was just a little strange, I'm going to ask you the same question that I asked Steve.

I can assure you I am aware of no, nor do I have any reason to believe there is any interest on the part of the university in any way, shape, or form other than the fact that they're an adjacent owner and are working closely with us to resolve these types of construction issues we've been discussing.

Thank you.

So where we are now as we change number three as Mr. Brown mentioned

changed last edition.

We changed number seven as Mr. Kilman has mentioned.

Yes.

And just in regards to number seven, I'd really like to just express my appreciation to the developer who did come once before, was asked to reduce the number of large units and make more possible units for neighbors or for young people in the community and did do that the first round.

Was there any modification to number six?

There was.

There was a number six.

Yeah, there was.

That it was supposed to be in conformance with precedent set by a previous project.

I happen to have what we had proposed

Number 6 is the language that's identical to what was approved for the flats at West Village, now called the flats at West Village, which is submission and staff review of the rules and regulations for the development.

In the prior project, the reference was to the handbook.

but in our case we've used the rules and regulations since it's already in the lease.

We propose to take that even further and have a condition that says that those rules and regulations shall be incorporated into the body of the residential leases.

So we'd be comfortable with that or some phrasing of it.

I do have the conditions of approval that were approved for the flats at West Village.

and it's condition number six that says coincidentally same condition number submission and staff review of the rules and regulations handbook for the development.

So again we're happy with that and if the council prefers we're happy to

including an obligation to include it in the leases.

We thought that demonstrated even more diligence.

Mr. Mayor, is it possible to make a couple more comments because this has been a very big project for the community and I welcome any more comments as well.

I do want to say that, and I do think this is relative to the SUP because this has become a better project because the SUP allowed us to change the yard regulations.

I really need to stress that.

The yard regulations are the setbacks.

The reason that we can go to a five foot side setback now instead of the 15 that was required with a buffer that would have been heavily vegetated, now we really do have a very activated street frontage.

And I would hope that we move to the point where we don't have to rely on SUPs to get the kind of building form that we all say we want.

I do need to make that point.

The reason why we got this better building was because we could work on the regulations.

and get them in a manner that was really in keeping with what our aspirations say they are.

The existing zoning regulations are essentially what you would get on the Hampton Inn side.

It's a very suburban orientation.

Second, the SUP process is so fraught with so much discretionary review that it has gotten to the point where only

well-capitalized developers can enter in on this market.

Our land values are very high.

This was a comment that was made by the Roadside Harwell team that if we do want to get to the point where we have more local developers or more different variety, then we really need to streamline our process and get our regulations very clear and to the point.

Again, I appreciate the fact that this team has gone through what it's gone through.

The horse designed by committee is usually a camel and this one is a thoroughbred horse.

I do think it's well designed.

So, and then finally, the value that, and this has been an agonizing moment for this community because of the number of units, the number of bedrooms.

When you look at the number of households that the three projects combined put together, that's 670 households, that's 1,854 bedrooms.

When you look at real estate marketing data, and I've been consulting a person, Robert Gibbs, that barely gives us the rooftops we need to sustain the small retail grocery store that they're providing.

This is not out of line in terms of what

retail food retailers need.

And over and over again, we've heard from the community, we want more grocery stores.

We want more grocery stores.

We used to have three.

What happened to them?

The marketing of grocery stores today demand an awful high count of rooftops.

And they're providing it finally in an environment that is designed to be walkable, bikeable.

They've been able to reduce their parking spaces because they've already identified that as the fact that the buildings are going to be pushing towards a mode shift.

to enhance and increase that kind of travel.

So I just wanted to get that out there because I know this has been a very hard process.

We did get a couple of our outside consultants to confirm that your methodology and your market methodology was sound.

And I feel good that we've tightened it up.

And also just kind of for the public's sake I think one of the other things as we look at these three projects kind of in unison because although they're designed by three different developers and you know it's been really a course of almost ten years but they're just all happening right at the same time.

that what my real hope is is that the neighborhoods both in Fifeville and in 10th and Page that have had extreme pressure from the university to break up houses into small apartments rented nine months a year to students which is more profitable sometimes than keeping it as a household is that pressure is going to ease by giving folks a place to live where they want to be and hopefully increase the amount of affordable family units that we have in the adjacent neighborhoods so I think that

It really is a win-win.

I think that students are going to get what they want, which is something shiny and new, and that congregants get living without having to be the ones who kind of take care of the yard, because as we know, they often don't.

I will make that my motion.

There's a second.

Okay.

I just like to say that, you know, I beg to differ with my fellow councilors, but I, you know, I think there's no evidence that any of that is even going to benefit us.

Um, I'm a bit offended by, uh, being, seeing in the materials that this aligns with our city council's vision.

of quality housing opportunity where our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities, none of which this does.

And so I think it's too dense, it's too high, I'm offended that the appurtenance

is used to put another story on the building.

I'm just offended by a lot of the twists and turns that have enabled this project to come into our historic Main Street.

But I felt that way about the other ones, too.

I think this is a kind of development we've been looking for, and it would be a good addition to our community, meet our needs, and is well designed.

Mayor Huja, comments?

I too have heard comments out in the community about this.

This is number three on West Main.

I've been in construction all my life.

I have been through probably six or seven recessions, and every single one of them, except one maybe, has been prompted by a speculative bubble.

We have these three on West Main, we got Walker Square, we got the one on Arlington Boulevard, we got the one, some of it slipping over behind Trader Joe's, and it's too much too quickly.

And it's not going to end very well for some people.

We don't need it right now.

This community, and this is relevant because of the extra density on the SUP.

Several times I've heard speakers comment about pulling people out of the neighborhood.

When you say that, what you're saying is there are many senior citizens in this community who will not have a tenant, and they depend on this money.

Whether it's their upstairs or their downstairs, it's going to suck the life out of all those auxiliary apartments.

I have a big problem with what I consider UVA annexing Charlottesville, and that's what it appears to me that this is doing.

and as far as a special use permit, these have not become special use permits.

These are ordinary use permits.

If the zoning is that bad that every single project has to have a special use permit, then we have the zoning wrong and we should attack that.

So I just have serious concerns about the size, the number,

The city is putting a lot of time and effort and money into these projects.

And yet we can't find money to send 80 children in our community to pre-K education.

Now to me, that sounds like we have our priorities mixed up.

A building can wait one year, five years, 10 years.

A child cannot wait.

And that's where my priorities would be.

So, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I must say something.

Please.

I'm afraid.

Because to the point about rent levels, it's kind of a pretty basic marketing 101 or economics 101 that when you increase supply, prices go down.

And we're starting to see that.

That we are finally building again after the recession,

and the Daily Progress actually this morning, I believe.

It demonstrated that the flats that originally was expecting a $700 to $800 a month rent for their one bedrooms is now, that's dropped down to about 589.

So the idea being that it's getting competitive.

That's a good thing.

Second, the idea of being able to draw

the students out of the neighborhoods when the units are becoming competitively priced does mean that we have a stock of housing left in our neighborhoods that could quite honestly possibly revert back to single-family detached homes.

That provides more housing for the workforce.

It provides greater stability in neighborhoods when they're not subject to so much high rental rates.

And in fact, when we got some of the data from NDS, some of our neighborhoods had 80% of their blocks had over 50% of their blocks committed to rentals.

Two of them had 70% of their blocks, over 50% of their blocks were committed to rentals.

So this is an opportunity to try to bring

some stability into our neighborhoods.

I would welcome working with fellow councils on kind of the policies that we might need in order to reinforce that.

But right now, getting that increased supply of quality housing for students is part of the solution, not the problem.

To the point about not having money, I have to point out that

This project is giving us about $548,000 in annual property tax revenue.

The 855 West Main, 529, 900 West Main, 515, 301 West Main, 648, all total $2.24 million with the recent redevelopment of our corridor.

You have resources now to put into your schools to

to put into buying 20 acre parks that we're going to be talking about tonight.

There's no way we can afford those kinds of amenities, those kinds of important institutions without high quality redevelopment.

And I really do think it's an important debate that we're having.

I'll only add that I agree with everything except one point which I have to throw in as a person who grew up never living in a bought-in house that often rental housing can be very stabilizing as well.

Student housing not so much.

But when families are living in rental housing it is very stable.

I qualify that with student housing.

A quick comment.

If the rents have dropped 25%, then that puts the market studies in jeopardy.

Okay.

I hope everybody had enough time to talk and express views and ideas.

This is the time to take action.

Shall we?

We won't.

Thank you.

It was a healthy discussion and I think we're going to have a good development.

Next item on the agenda is the training easement.

It's for the same project.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, the third item on your agenda tonight is a public hearing and a proposed resolution on the release of a drainage easement at the site where you just approved the SUP.

When the

Roosevelt has become Roosevelt Brown Boulevard was improved back around 2002.

There was a permanent drainage easement placed on a portion of this site by VDOT and subsequently transferred to the city.

This is a request from the current owner.

for the city to release that drainage easement.

And of course, under the city's zoning ordinance and code, stormwater drainage will be addressed through the new site plan and SUP.

So this is a request for a lease of the existing drainage easement.

Is there infrastructure in there now or is it just an easement?

We claim easements that aren't being used.

There was a drainage structure in part of the easement, but the easement was primarily intended as a grading and slope easement when the roadway went under the embankment.

Now the building really will be occupying that and basically obviating the need for the easement.

Just nothing.

Well I know but I'm just wondering is there sort of an in-between if we quick claim the easement and you start building what's going to happen to the stormwater that is... Well the stormwater for the new site when developed.

It's only abandoning the legal right to the easement, the function of the drop inlet that is still there will stay in place and then as the site plan is developed, they'll develop a new stormwater management plan as required by city code that would be then implemented as the new project.

Yeah, there's an existing drop in it that was put in when the Roosevelt Brown Boulevard was constructed years ago.

That drop in it basically takes in the surface flow from the lower parcel and also from the old post office parcel.

With the construction of the new building, all of that water would be piped into a storm drain system

So actually it's a major improvement because the post office was built prior to current storm water regulations.

So the idea would be that we would take UVA's water from the core lab.

It would bypass under our building.

So this doesn't have any implications for the city having to redirect anything?

Have a seat, please.

You will have public hearing.

Is anybody here to speak on this issue?

Please come forward.

My name is Scott Tompery, 1800 Jefferson Park Avenue, and I just have a question maybe I didn't understand what the engineer just said.

I'm also an engineer myself.

Currently, the water that leaves the entire property leaves via the storm drain system in Roosevelt Brown Boulevard.

and that system will continue as it's currently established.

Well then my question is, I'm sure the engineers have done all this, but my concern would be, what was the design?

We've had some significant rainfalls that are more than, you know, the hundred year flood stage and the thousand year flood, you know, it happened more often than 100 or 1000 years.

Currently, we have this, I understand, I have a diagram here that I can understand there's a drain, but there is still some, you know, surface percolation of some of the rain that falls on this property.

So,

In addition to what's currently in this drain, the question is was it originally designed large enough, or could someone please explain whether or not it was designed large enough to handle not only the water coming from the adjacent properties, but also the rain that is currently going to fall on this surface that's no longer going to go into the ground.

Those are very good questions.

The post office site is 100% impervious and has been for probably 50 or 60 years.

The lower parcel had been used as a gravel parking lot for a period of time.

We met with the city engineers and conferred on site.

What we're proposing to do is to put in a stormwater management system for these two properties, and it will be composed of a series of bioretention facilities.

Have a seat, please.

Any further questions, comments?

No.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak on this topic?

If not, I close the public hearing.

Any other questions?

Any discussion on the motion?

If not vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You actually have a couple of things here in this item before you.

The cafe and vendor fees and regulations, and they would require two actions and two motions.

What we're suggesting tonight is

A couple of changes in the CAFE regulations that would first change the permit season that we have to a year-round season.

The cafe season runs from March 1st to November 20th.

At that time, the cafes, November 20th, the cafes have to come in and, or they have the option of paying 50% of their current fee to be open the rest of the year until the new season starts on March 1st.

What we found in a number of

years is that after November 20th we have warm weather and the cafes would really like to stay out and take advantage.

This year we made a decision and when we sent the letters out reminding them that they had to come in or pay us we told them you could stay open one more weekend because it was Virginia Tech football weekend and we wanted them to be able to take full advantage of that.

You never know what's going to happen so in conversations we

We feel that it would be appropriate to allow the cafes, if they want to, to stay out year round.

One of the other changes that we're proposing is to change, not this next year, but by the following year, that there be a stable detectable bottom on the restaurants around the cafes.

I didn't quite understand what that meant.

It's a bottom.

ADA requirements say that you have to have what is called a detectable system that is no more, I believe it's six inches above the ground, so that a blind person with a cane

We had a real problem a few years ago before ADA rules changed and we required it that our blind population might be walking down the mall and they'd hit one of the waist-high chains and fall into the cafes.

and so now we require the bottom.

But what happened is some of the cafes said, well, all we got to do is put a chain between and another chain down there.

Well, they look bad.

The cafes move.

And we've had the suggestion that, as several have done, that that be a firm, stable bottom that would anchor the locations.

It's something firmer and more stable when if the blind person hits it, they know it's there.

So when the poles go away, it's not there for people to trip over.

No, it's an integral part of the system.

It's an integral part of the system.

So, by requiring those, it's more difficult to move, depending on how they build them, it's more difficult to move the cafes, so it just makes sense to leave them there.

One of the reasons that we

We used to have the rule that no cafes could be out during the winter was during snow you know is being able to plow around them but the reality now is that snow gets piled up in them

If the operator wants to use their cafe, they remove the snow and that's not a problem anymore.

So we've coordinated that with Parks and Rec.

They don't have a problem.

The next change is we would like to formalize allowing the zone administrator to work out a payment system with the restaurants.

These are small businesses and we find that it's difficult a lot of times for them to come up with all the money at the beginning of the year and to be able to have a payment plan

if somebody gets in trouble or has difficulty has really helped.

We've done this a time or two, we've come to you a time or two and gotten permission and in a time or two we just had to make field adjustments and work with folks.

And then we've had requests to allow heaters within cafes and we'd like to just say that with our administrator's approval that they could put cafes as long as they've met VAR regulations, heaters in the cafes as long as they met VAR regulations.

With the vendors, we would like to remove the prohibition on the use of the city electrical outlets.

Currently our regulations allow the cafes to use the outlets for point of sale, but the vendors cannot and we've had some requests by vendors to actually use them and we'd like to change that.

We also are looking at some changes that might be part of the design guidelines for vendors, but those would go to the BAR first.

And then on the fees, we're recommending, we haven't changed our vendor fees in several years.

And so what we're recommending, it's about five years since we've adjusted them, that we

increased the assigned spaces from $800 a year to $1,000 a year which is just $50 per quarter and for unassigned spaces from $600 to $800 annually.

We have spaces on the mall that the smallest number are assigned spaces and those are ones that they can pay a little more for and they are able to, they don't have to worry about first come first serve, they pay a little more so that if they don't want to show up till noon

on a given day, they don't have to worry about somebody taking the space and that's worked out really well.

We also are suggesting that there be a fee of $25 per year for non-profits.

We get a lot of people that are non-profits that they come in and just the time it takes, the meeting's time, just to say the nominal fee to pay to make sure they understand the rules, that they're there and that they've got a permit.

And then we're suggesting that the cafe space rental go from $3 a square foot to $5 a square foot per year.

And again, this would be per year.

Currently it's $3 a square foot for that period of March 1st to November 20th.

So, and if you want to stay the rest of the year, you pay another dollar and a half.

So for the majority of the restaurants, the cafes, it's only a fifty cent increase.

For those that don't stay out year round, it would be a two dollar increase.

Right, that's what we're saying, we would increase it, but what we find out from a lot of the CAFE operators is they're having to store that equipment somewhere and so I think that a lot of them will say it's worth it just to keep it out there now.

And then we're suggesting that we charge $100 per quarter.

We've never had a charge, if they want to use our electricity.

If they want to plug in the city electricity, that there be a charge for it.

I'm sorry, we've got a fee in there for vendors.

The $100 for electricity?

I'm sorry?

So for three months it's $100.

For the cafes it is, yes.

Because they would draw more electricity.

They can do point of sale and they can plug in a few other things than point of sale.

For vendors it's less than that.

I was looking to see real quick.

For vendors we were saying for

Yes, that was a recommendation for how much electricity that they would use if they are fully drawing.

And are the cafes

We delivered the memo with the proposals two and a half weeks ago to every cafe, every vendor operating on the mall and advised them of the public hearing tonight.

So, in general, what would, what is the increase?

Probably 700 square feet is about the the average size so that would be an increase if they haven't been staying out all year $1,400 a year And and that compares the the rent most of them are paying in the $20 range and

as we understand for the inside space.

That's per square foot.

Per square foot, right.

I have a couple of questions.