City Council Meeting   7/20/2015

Mr. Fenwick?

Here.

Mr. Huja?

Yes.

Ms. Szakos?

Here.

Here.

We have a number of announcements today.

Sure.

And it's an announcement about Streets That Work.

And the Streets That Work is a project to develop a comprehensive street design guide for all users, including people who walk, bike, drive, or use transit.

This plan seeks to improve the transportation network for all kinds of users,

and create a vibrant, sustainable public space along our city streets.

The idea of a street being a public space is something that we've tended to lose over the years as we've been kind of dominated by the car.

The city is partnering with two local events to host the Streets That Work booths.

The first one is the African American Cultural Arts Festival.

That's Saturday, July 25th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. with information on the Streets That Work Plan progress to date with games and more.

And the West Haven Community Day.

That's Saturday, August 1 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. And that too will have information about the Streets That Work Plan.

There will also be an opportunity for everyone to join your neighbors and friends in creating a temporary street mural

at Hardy Drive to celebrate community identity and have some fun.

So please come out to that event.

If you have any questions, please call 434-970-3182.

First of all, I'd like to offer congratulations to the seven folks who are graduating tomorrow from the city's first cohort of Go Electric.

They've been getting training in work skills and electric

electrician sort of job skills, and they have all been hired by Design Electric, so they'll all be working, so we're very excited about that.

I also want to announce, as Galvin alluded to it a little bit, but CHIHAMBA's 26th Annual African American Cultural Arts Festival.

There are three main events.

The first is on Thursday, A Taste of Ghana,

will be from 6.15 to 9.15 p.m. at the George Washington Carver Recreation Center at the Jefferson School.

I, unfortunately, will be out of town, but I gotta say it's the, I think the best food in town on Thursday.

So I urge you to go, it's great.

And there'll also be a dance performance by the BCBA dance team.

On Friday, from 6.15 to 9.15, also at the Carver Center, it'll be Ladies Night with Sizzle, featuring guest speaker Dr. Tiffany Dennis,

with health updates and community connections, fashions from the motherland by Condici Fashions, an art or model and talent agency, and healthy, soulful refreshments by Chef Ralph Brown.

And then on Saturday from 10 30 a.m. until 7 30 p.m. at Washington Park, Booker T. Washington Park on Preston Avenue is the festival itself as well as a community health fair.

There's a whole list here of sponsors, but I hope to see you there.

Oh, I do have one more announcement.

On Monday, August 3rd, when City Council is not in this chamber for our summer break, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Levar Stoney, will be coming to Charlottesville to give a progress report on re-entry and hold a public discussion on restoration of voting rights for former felons, celebrate the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and talk about recent measures to eliminate

the question from employment applications about prior convictions called Ban the Box.

And as a second chance city committed to re-entry, we're very proud to have him here.

Yes, I have three.

First one's very short.

Our next meeting that would ordinarily be on August 3rd is canceled per tradition and per our calendar that we voted on at the beginning of the year.

Secondly, our Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program.

This is really exciting and this actually has changed a little bit in response to a citizen's concern that was Raymond Mason who brought it to us about availability of swimming for all of our city children.

So, Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program is available to eligible city of Charlottesville residents and provides for discounts

off of resident rates for programs and facilities.

Scholarships awards are based upon household size and annual income determined by a sliding scale.

And discounts are awarded at 25, 50, 75, and 90% discounts.

Scholarship application forms are available at the Parks and Recreation and Administrative Office, which is on the downtown mall right below city space.

and at Carver Recreation Center, also at Smith Aquatic and Fitness Center, also at Washington Park Pool and the Honesty Family Aquatic Center on Meade.

And you can get them online.

Benefits of the scholarship program include discounted rates for the recreation access passes that provides unlimited access to Carver Recreation, Smith and Open Gym Times at Key Rec.

Summer Pool passes, that's the one that spurred this notice, providing unlimited admissions to both the Washington Park and Honesty Pool, then over in Meade Park, classes, programs, and camps, and provides discounted registration fees for youth and adult programs year round.

So it's a really great opportunity, so pass the word around.

and you can call Parks and Recreation at 970-3260.

And lastly, the annual Back to School Bash is coming up on Saturday, August 15th from 1 to 3 at the Intellos Wireless Pavilion.

Peter Metta is in the

Audience here, he is organizing this.

If you know how to get in touch with Pete, go ahead.

Otherwise, go on Facebook, Back to School Bash.

They are looking for volunteers, and you can pre-register for it, which would be a good idea.

Again, Saturday, August 15th, from one to three in the pavilion.

Smith, pools close through August 28th.

The indoor pools at the Smith Aquatic and Fitness Center closed for repairs beginning Monday, July 13th, a week ago and running until Friday, August 28th, 2015.

The work that will be performed within the facility is intended to address ongoing concerns regarding air quality, staff and visitor health and corrosion.

The primary improvements will be the installation of units that will remove chloramines from the air in the natatorium.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have such smart people in this town.

I wouldn't want to turn that around.

This closure only affects the indoor pools and the locker rooms on the lower level.

The fitness area and group exercise studio will operate as normal.

During the time the pools at Smith are closed, Crow Pool, located at 1700 Rose Hill Drive, will be available with a modified schedule for lap swimming and drop-in water aerobics programs.

A detailed schedule for swimming at Crow Pool can be found on the Maine Parks and Recreation webpage at charlottesville.org

forward slash Parks and Rec.

And Maurice, we had that thing in the last couple weeks about the 7 a.m. swimmers.

Will this profile cover them?

Are there any other announcements?

If not, we'll go to our next item, session by comments by public.

We welcome public comments.

It is an important part of our meeting.

There are some rules that you need to follow which are listed outside in front.

As you come, please give your name and address and limit yourself to three minutes.

Hi, it feels like old home week here.

I haven't been here in a while.

Joni Freeman, Ecovillage, Charlottesville, 480 Rio Road East.

So we have moved right on the city county line.

I'm here to talk about an initiative that Transition Charlottesville Albemarle is rolling out in our community.

Transition was started about four years ago with the idea of bringing the community together, residents in the community, to work together to address issues that will come up because of climate change, economic instability and resource depletion.

in our community, around the state, around the world.

And we have worked very hard to try to bring community together and through skill shares and all kinds of events.

movies, pulling the environmental groups together.

But internationally, they came out with Transition Streets.

And we were very fortunate to be one of the 13 pilot programs in the United States to have one of the pilots.

And what this is, is to bring together your neighbors.

and to work in a workbook that will take you first meeting your neighbors, then work through energy, through water use, through waste, through transportation, through, I've got what the fifth one is.

eating local.

So what it does is it helps even every household potentially reduce their utility bills by $950 a year.

But during the pilot project, everyone in every community that was on teleconference calls said the most important thing that came out of this was community building, that people got together

They got to know their neighbors.

They got to know what resources were in their neighborhood, who were the shut-ins, what could be done, how people could have potlucks together, and what then occurred was a continuation.

So we're bringing Transition Streets to Charlottesville.

It's rolling out.

We're working with the Sustainability Office,

on Energize Charlottesville so we can build that repertoire that we need to to get the $5 million grant.

So we're going to come back and ask for a resolution from our city councilors to be able to bring this into a better focus for the community.

I'm Julia Weissman, 1208 East Jefferson Street.

I was part of the pilot for Transition Streets and it was a group of I think about seven households on our street and other neighboring streets and it was a fantastic experience.

Just as Joni said, we got together, we shared meals, we talked about the various topics from the groups.

Every week we talked about a different subject and what we already do, what we could do, and we developed action lists and in subsequent meetings we held each other accountable about did they do it, could we go in together to do group purchases, to

increase our savings.

We shared tools in terms of we had one neighbor who had a gadget you plug it in the wall and then you plug like your refrigerator into it to see how efficient so that we could see what in our house needs to be improved.

It was just a fantastic way to get together

share ideas and food.

We had a guideline so it was really structured and since then we have gotten together for pet sitting, for potlucks, to share tools just to say hi, gardening, all kinds of things that have covered all the ideas that were started with the transition streets.

it has certainly made our neighborhood stronger and it has expanded from just knowing a neighbor to the right and left to knowing neighbors numerous streets away and connecting all of us in a number of different ways so that when one neighbor can't pet sit they know one of their neighbors who can so it's been tremendous and we're really excited to roll it out across the city so that across Charlottesville we can all benefit from

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rochelle Clark Alexander and I am based out of 800 Preston Avenue,

I'm coming to you as a veteran peer specialist with the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program.

I'm here as invitation from Bob Fenwick from our recent function together.

What we do basically as a veteran peer specialist for the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program is to assist and aid our veterans, our veterans' families through the VA healthcare system, the VA disability system,

I am on the ground and I just kind of wanted the council to know that I am in the Charlottesville area here to support and aid our veterans and our veterans families regardless of their discharge from the service.

All services, I receive them all.

So I am here on the ground available to the council to facilitate veterans that come your way or I will take them on myself.

Yes, I'm going to leave you a package that has my contact information on it as well as a name change will be coming forth from the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program.

Could you give your phone number?

If you can listen to that.

Exactly.

You can reach me at 434-962.

Good evening, Mouse Hammer is the name, and I live at 200 Garrett Street.

I just would like to speak, Mouse Hammer, my first name is Jean, Jeannie.

I'd like to speak very briefly about the proposal that you're going to look at, a resolution for increasing the density at 201 Garrett Street.

And I have a couple of questions to ask the council to consider beforehand.

And that is, looking at the resolution that you've proposed, it looks like you're overriding the code

of the City about a number of parking spaces necessary to be provided in a building of this structure.

I believe there are 261 spaces needed according to your resolution, it's 142.

Second, I'd like to ask you to talk about whether or not

Mr. Kudner is going to be able to provide housing at $1,000 a month, as he said.

We've had no evidence that I can see that he'll be able to do this, nor how he would be able to do it.

Third, I'd like to know if we have had a chance to consider the number of houses that are needed.

are happy to have the micro units, as he is now calling it, the smaller units.

That's fine.

That's not a problem.

But what do we do?

We really need 233 in this very small, tight space.

Nobody has done any proposals that I can see that would indicate how many are actually needed.

And with that, I'm thinking that within a block of where he's building,

Market Plaza, which will have housing, and there's also an approval at the corner of 1st and Garrett Street, which will provide housing and another commercial development.

Those two are already approved, so this would be a third one within a very small square area.

Last, I'd just like to say please don't visit us with a landmark hotel skeleton.

We look at that every single day.

Mr. Kudner has indicated that he will build this as he obtains the money to build each unit once he gets tower by tower.

And what I'd like to say is that he started a building in November 2013 immediately on the corner of Garrett and Second Street.

To this day it is

Hello, my name is Bob Malsamer.

I live at 201 Garrett Street.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I'm speaking only for myself, but I know that many residents and business owners at 200 Garrett Street, where I live, have serious reservations about the proposal and that many have communicated their thoughts to the Planning Commission.

Some have actually sent messages to the City Council too.

The Planning staff report is generally accurate about community concerns and the views of the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission certainly did recommend disapproval of the proposal, but one major concern that the staff report does not reflect was that the Planning Commission thought the proposal was vague and internally inconsistent.

The proposal that the Planning Commission found inadequate on that and other counts is the same one before you today.

In addition, the resolution that you are asked to approve has basic flaws.

First, the resolution would approve the project with only 199 parking spaces,

that's 142 inside parking garages and 57 on an adjacent space.

Whereas the city code requires 62 more parking spaces.

Nothing is said in the resolution about how the shortfall will be met, about how the need to assure 25 year availability of the offsite parking will be met, and nothing about adjusting the proposal to fit what is actually being proposed in terms of parking.

By being silent on this matter, does the resolution

implicitly override the code.

The code allows several ways of meeting the parking requirements, but the resolution does not discuss any of these.

Second, the resolution does not deal with the city's affordable housing requirements.

By its being silent on this matter, does the resolution implicitly override the code on this matter as well?

Third, the resolution by its text would allow only one vehicular exit and entrance to the development on Garrett Street.

whereas the staff report was orally amended at the Planning Commission meeting to allow an additional entrance and exit from 4th Street.

The resolution should be changed before approval, in fact, before any action is taken on it.

Finally, I question why the City Council would ever consider approving a density much higher than that that can be supported by the SUP application.

If only 199 parking spaces are provided,

The proposal would support a maximum of only 99 dwelling units, not the 233.

If retail space were cut in half, i.e.

one of the two buildings proposed were cut out, then the proposal would support more, but still only 134 dwelling units.

Either way, it is far from the 233 units proposed.

Does the City Council want to know what the developer intends before it votes?

Developers know the rules and should abide by them, like everybody else.

If someone wants to change the rule, the rezoning would be appropriate.

I urge you to approve this proposal as given.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Huja, members of council, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown.

My name is Morgan Butler and I'm with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Thank you for the chance to speak tonight.

We sent an email prior to your July 6th meeting about the Garrett Street proposal

that was originally scheduled for your meeting that evening and we wanted to take a few minutes tonight to reiterate some of the key points.

As part of our Charlottesville Albemarle project at SELC, we generally support expanding housing options and encouraging density downtown.

But as we've seen with the strong pushback from recent approvals on West Main, these goals have to be accomplished with proposals and buildings that respect the character of the surrounding area and that don't overwhelm nearby buildings, neighborhoods, and pedestrian activity.

and they need to be done in a way that's consistent with the vision set out in the comprehensive plan.

The comp plan vision for this area is described in the strategic investment plan.

That plan aims to strike a balance between increasing housing and economic opportunities on the one hand and on the other creating a sense of place, promoting cohesive and attractive environments and improving the quality of life for the people who live there.

Notably,

The plan recommends building heights at a maximum of four to five and a half stories in this location, not the nine stories and 101 feet shown in this proposal that would dwarf the two story apartments currently across the street of Friendship Court and that would still tower over the four to five story buildings that are recommended as part of any future Friendship Court redevelopment.

We recognize that the zoning for this parcel has not yet been updated to reflect the SIA plan.

That's a growing problem and one we urge you to address as soon as possible.

as the pace of development is likely to continue to increase in this area.

But in the meantime, when City Council has a say with individual proposals, as you do with this special use permit request, we need to be ensuring the projects reflect the plan and the cohesion it tries to promote.

And to grant this request in its current form would send the opposite message and set an unfortunate precedent.

And before ultimately voting on this project, the Planning Commission showed a clear willingness and desire to work with the applicant

to achieve a more compatible design and they suggested a number of reasonable solutions.

These included bringing the overall height down to be more in line with the SIA plan and pulling some of the height back off of Garrett Street with more meaningful step backs.

But the applicant chose instead to bring it straight to you in its current form.

We agree with the Planning Commission that this project should not be approved as currently proposed.

We clearly have a creative applicant with many interesting ideas and this proposal has a lot of potential.

Hello.

Good evening city councilors.

My name is Julia Bray.

I live at 708 St. Charles Avenue, and I'm here today to talk about the William Taylor Plaza development.

When I heard plans of a low-grade Marriott hotel on Cherry Avenue, I must say I was surprised and disappointed that such a central plot in town was granted to a corporate project with little community benefit or accessibility.

As a multinational corporation,

We can be assured that most of the profits from this franchise will disappear from our community far from our city.

Aside from the fact that this is a project dedicated to corporate interests, a cheap motel and a large parking lot are hardly going to add much value to our community and the surrounding neighborhood.

With a petition of over 500 people in the neighborhood and a unanimous decision against this plan from the Planning Commission, I think it's safe to say that the community does not want it in their neighborhood.

and do you blame them?

Would you want a Marriott in your backyard?

So as a democratic system, I think the leaders should uphold the sentiments of the people and public outcries should be seriously heard and respected.

Development is inevitable in our town and growth is good, but sustainable, internal, community-driven projects should take precedent over short-sighted corporate interests.

So I hope the city council will continue to uphold

Good evening, my name is Lena Savelle, I live at 808 Alta Vista Avenue and I'm also here to talk about some of the development that's on tonight's agenda, both the William Teller Plaza PUD and the Garrett Street Special Use Permit.

I think the Garrett Street project shows a lot of creativity and it's interesting as compared to some of the things that we've been getting that people haven't been liking, the very long

uninteresting streetscapes.

As for the parking and the small square footage, it's an interesting way of approaching environmentally friendly building.

Not only are small square footage apartments, they use less energy, but there's also less stuff involved.

And it's really what people want.

As for the limited parking, there's a few different ways you can look at that.

Not only does it encourage bicycle, walking, and transit, but also we find that oftentimes people low income don't have cars, so when they're paying for a parking space they're not using, it makes it unaffordable.

Not only that, but if you're worried about downtown parking, the applicant could easily put in five zip cars, which are shared cars.

universities do these all the time.

If some people live downtown and barely use their cars, a few apartments could actually share one car and one parking space very easily.

Put five zip cars in there and you don't need nearly as many parking spaces.

And it's interesting.

What we're getting there is actually very interesting and it's up to date compared to what we're seeing at the William Taylor Plaza.

You've already heard how the community is against it.

and with good reason.

The big box is not pedestrian or walkable friendly.

It's a multinational corporation that's coming in and we know that local businesses return money to our local economy.

The money stays here.

And with these large corporations, the money goes to stockholders outside of town, outside of the state, sometimes even outside of the country.

and people are paid better wages when they work for people in their communities because the people who are deciding their wages know their living conditions as opposed to it being somebody far away who has no connection to that person and the people are just interchangeable, cogs in the machine.

So the original plan was more amenable to smaller and local businesses.

And this plan, it is about a hotel.

I mean, this particular hotel chain is requiring this change.

Antoinette Rhodes, 406 Oak Street.

I'm here tonight to correct an error made by Counselor Szakos at your last meeting.

The subject was Hawkins Graves on the Ridge Cherry site.

And she said the developer has done everything to locate Graves there.

That is not true, so to rehash the history yet again.

In 1999, five parcels were purchased at that corner by Dr. Charles Hurt, the maker and mentor of Southern Development, as confirmed by Dr. Hurt's longtime associate, Jim Hill.

Shortly after that purchase, a massive C.W.

Hurt construction company, Earthmover, crashed through parcel 157.

It toppled mature trees 50, 60 feet.

After they crashed to the ground, they were pushed into piles.

There was no permit for any such activity.

A stop work order came out from the city, but the damage had been done.

Before the damage was done, a high continuous canopy kept the floor of the woodland clear.

And that is why people who were definitely not looking for graves, not looking for tombstones, found them there in earlier years.

Once that damage had been done, there was not the slightest chance that even the most expert searcher could find

where graves do or do not lie simply by examining the surface.

The only way to find out the truth is to conduct an archeological survey.

The only moral way to do that is in advance of any further disturbance on the site.

This information has been relayed to counsel by experts multiple times.

Archeologist Ben Ford wrote on behalf of Preservation Piedmont.

Archeologist and compliance officer

Joanna Wilson wrote on behalf of Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

Archaeologist and graveyard specialist, Lene Redville, excuse me, Rainville, wrote on behalf of her own concern.

And Monticello's senior historian, Cinder Stanton, wrote on behalf of Central Virginia Historical Researchers.

But the developer has not conducted an archaeological survey and has instead resisted the idea

Therefore, it is not only incorrect to say, the developer has done everything.

It is quite correct to say, the developer has done nothing.

Good evening.

My name is Mary Carey.

I live at 100 Reed Street, which is Midway Manor.

Saturday was a very hectic day for us on South Street.

We had a beer block party that blocked off most of the street, which is a residential throughway.

We have rescue squads and fire trucks and everything going up and down that street.

Mr. Jones, you know that.

And some kind of way, these people still had a beer block party.

I had a family reunion to go to, and we left my apartment, which is on 100 Red Street, Midway Manor, going down South Street, trying to find a way to get out of there, Mr. Huja.

And we had to take a left turn on a one-way street that cars come in, because the people that's having the beer party

was telling us we couldn't go this way, we had to go that way.

And then when we got down to the end of that street, which is Water Street, they had blocked that off so no one could come in.

Then the guy had to move the petition so we could get out.

This was about, I'd say about 1230, one o'clock.

So between 1030 and 1230, it was a mess.

You had cars going up and down South Street like this, almost bumping into each other.

I mean, it was very confusing to the residents.

It was confusing to their families that were coming to pick them up because they had no idea that this was going on.

And they had no idea that when they go out, they're going to be sitting in what you call one-way traffic for 10, 15 minutes.

I mean, it was understood to me that when we try to have a block party years ago, they were saying that you either had to have

A dead-end street or a cul-de-sac or whatever.

You couldn't have a three-way street.

So I guess Charlottesville just changes its mind anytime you get ready.

But anyway, I'm also here for the William Taylor Plaza.

Now I know they put some new designs out, which is like a, what you call it?

These people call it a mob call it?

A screen.

They, as long as you approve the first draft that they gave you, which the Planning Commission has said no to, and then they come to y'all, y'all thinking about doing it, I don't know what y'all gonna do, I never know what y'all gonna do, but this guy is a con guy, all developers are, and as soon as you live long as I have, you'll figure it out.

The first proposal he gave y'all, he stood up in here and he lied through his teeth.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Brown, the community loved you at the last meeting.

You made your money.

Yes, you did.

Sitting over there saying nothing all the time.

You talk the truth and everybody in town been talking about it.

I mean, hey, thank you, Mr. Bram.

But if you'll prove this, the first draft they gave y'all is what they gonna do.

They gonna put that hotel up anyway, regardless of what you say.

And it makes the city feel, I've been walking around here for two weeks and people say, anybody on that council taking money?

Anybody getting paid?

I don't know.

I don't know.

But it seems like the city is wondering that.

And Ms. Galvin, you kept on saying, if not a hotel, then what?

If not a hotel, then what?

If not a hotel, then what?

You said it four times.

Don't you know?

If not a hotel, it's nothing.

It's not a hotel.

Put some houses up there.

Put some up there that people can use.

You got people running around here.

You're talking about them laying on the mall.

don't have nowhere to go till at night they're going into shelters.

You got folks out there starving half to death and you don't even have a grocery store.

You keep telling me that they gotta ask y'all to come to town.

Anybody on this council got any ideas about anything in the common sense?

I mean, you gotta look at it and see that a hotel is not the final option.

Now if these developers want a hotel, let them go to another city or go up in the university and put them up, because that's where they're going up.

You got three hotels in three blocks up there in the university.

Then you're building one down here on McIntyre and Red Street.

You got a piece of junk down there on the Mall.

What you gonna do with that?

Where is that going?

When you gonna turn that down?

When the wind was blowing last year, what happened?

People ducking and dodging, the parts of the building coming down?

Now you want to put a hotel in a residential section, a historical residential section.

Hold on, Mr. Huja.

All right.

Because I'm going to tell you right now, if it go up, it can come down.

Hi, Walt Heinecky, 1521 Amherst Street.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Members of council, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown.

I bet you think I'm coming down here to talk about the Human Rights Commission and enforcement.

That'll be later.

I'm going to hold off on that.

Tonight I want to just talk a little bit about the Taylor Plaza and the Ridge McIntyre development or the Ridge Cherry Street development.

And I don't really want to talk about the mechanics of it because I think you'll have that in the mechanics of the

of the request from the developer and those things.

I think you have those in hands.

What I do want to talk about is what I think watching this unfold says about the state of our democracy and citizen engagement in our community, which I think is in a sad state of affairs at this point.

And I don't mean democracy and citizen engagement in the Jeffersonian sense, where we have a theoretical university-based decision about what democracy means.

I mean what it means in this particular decision that you're making tonight.

I see some pretty significant symptoms that really concern me about democracy and citizen engagement in this particular case and in general.

First, the amount of money that was spent on the last election really troubles me.

It seems like we're buying elections now in Charlottesville, which is a national problem come home to roost.

I think that being said, it would behoove you and I would ask you to disclose how much money each one of you has received from Southern Development Corporation or

or it's PAC, which is the Monticello Business Alliance or whatever it's called.

But I think it would be transparent for you to state how much money you have accepted from those folks in the past several years.

Another symptom which I find troubling is a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission that's being sort of tossed out and not really considered about the Plaza Project.

Another symptom that I find troubling is a petition by over 500 citizens that doesn't seem to be getting any traction with the council.

Another symptom I find troubling is one that was discussed by Mr. Jones last week at the last meeting of council, which was

the problems with the lack of public notification on the project and it seems that there was a significant lack of effort to get the public notified about certain meetings related to the project.

I think Mr. Jones actually talked about that at the last council meeting.

I am also starting to wonder as a result of these sort of lapses in democracy and citizen engagement about the public process that the city went through

when it sold its two right-of-way parcels years ago to the developer.

And I'm not sure that that ever went through a public hearing, and I'd like you to look into that.

I also recall Ms. Galvin's comments around election time about the problems with the FLATS development and how there was a lack of public engagement and there were problems with the PUD process on that process.

And I'm wondering, is this not an opportunity to right that wrong and to not do it again?

So I just want to say in closing, I think democracy and citizen engagement are not theoretical.

They're about this particular issue.

And you can vote no tonight, not because you're against developers.

Thanks.

My name is Lewis Schultz.

I live at 1809 East Market Street.

This is the 42nd time since October 3rd, 2013 that I've 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 by unlawfully taking my private property for a public use and by denying me my lawful rights to it have violated Charlottesville Code, the city's charter and the code of Virginia and in doing so have violated federal civil rights statutes.

That property is on Steep Hill Street, a private street in the Woolen Mills neighborhood.

For 21 months now, I have repeatedly told council that my rights as a U.S. citizen were illegally taken from me by force with no due process and no compensation by people acting in their official capacities as employees of the city of Charlottesville and under the direct supervision of the city manager.

I've made serious, credible accusations of wrongdoing on the part of three and possibly more high-ranking city officials.

I have named those involved the time, the place, and the laws which were broken.

I provided council documentary evidence to prove my assertions and I have repeatedly asked for a hearing into the matter where I might give sworn testimony and present any additional evidence council might request of me so that justice may be served and those who have broken the law might be held accountable.

City Attorney Craig Brown, whose own office has spent more than a decade trying to cover up facts about what the city has done on Steep Hill Street, has apparently advised council not to investigate.

That is not surprising since he is by law required to defend the city manager who has the power to fire him.

The conflict of interest is glaringly obvious even without considering the role Mr. Brown has personally played in creating this nightmare for my neighbors and me.

It isn't only friends like top city officials who council seems to believe can break the law with no consequences, they clearly believe they are also above the law.

I spoke at the August 18th, 2014 meeting to say that council had violated Charlottesville code

by canceling the previous meeting and Virginia's open meeting laws by doing so in an unrecorded vote taken through email.

The only response from council was from Kristin Szakos, who according to the minutes of that meeting said, quote, that most councils take a meeting off in summer.

Charlottesville's charter, section 35, says that councils shall fix by ordinance the time for holding their stated meetings.

Chapter two, article two, section two dash 41 is the ordinance required by that charter section.

It says the city council shall hold its regular meetings

beginning at 7 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of each month unless such day is a legal holiday.

That ordinance does not allow for canceling meetings for any reason and what other councils do or do not do is of no consequences.

Item P in the consent agenda for the January 5, 2015 meeting of Charlottesville City Council was a resolution authorizing a proposed City Council regular meeting scheduled for 2015.

The background offered for the resolution claims that local municipalities may approve

The background cited no code references, and no portion of Virginia Code seems to actually exist to give the city that authority.

Even if such a section of Virginia Code were to exist, it would have to explicitly state that it takes precedence over the city's charter in order for it to have any effect on the city council's meeting schedule.

A resolution by law can neither amend nor repeal an existing ordinance.

August 3rd, 2015 is the first Monday of the month of August.

Thank you.

Response by city council members?

You can start.

Joni and Julia, I appreciate your efforts.

This is just super.

It's just a great way to get community going and the best of luck to you.

Alexander, Michelle Alexander is no longer here, I don't think, about the Wounded Warriors thing, but we'll be putting out the information on where people across the city or even the county can get her information.

Well, once again, we're hearing from the citizens about William Taylor Plaza and Garrett Street.

We'll see what happens later on when we have that discussion.

The feeling across the city is pretty obvious and pretty strong.

We'll just see what happens there.

Mary Carey, I appreciate your coming here and speaking the truth.

That's just very refreshing.

OK, I'll go next.

Thank you all for being here.

Yeah, love the transition streets.

ideas and that you're coordinating with the city and our Georgetown University Energy Prize, it all fits in so well.

So thank you, thank you for doing that.

We can talk more about, obviously we will be talking more about both the Garrett and the William Taylor Plaza.

I think it's a great idea to disclose, I will disclose, actually I'll disclose that I did not take any money from the Montreal Business Alliance,

But we can talk about that at that time, too.

And we'll definitely talk about the cemetery.

We got to talk about that.

And the land sale, so I promise that that will come back up at that time.

And just wanted to tell you, the zipcars I think is a really cool idea.

and I actually tried to get one in my neighborhood, not that that's the same concentration of population, but it's a little hard to do, but it's a great idea.

I know the university has zipcars and I don't know if downtown does.

It would make so much sense, but would be worth looking into.

And Ms. Carey, if there's an answer for Ms. Carey as to kind of what happened on Saturday and how it happened, at the same time as the city market seems a little

It would be a good thing to know what our policy is for that.

And I understand that in some places where there have been street closures, all the neighbors had to be notified.

And you apparently weren't.

So how far does that go?

And we can make sure that anybody who's affected by it wouldn't be able to go.

I'm not going to talk about either of the two developments, because we will be talking about those before.

And Mr. Fenwick talked about the transitions, which I think is very cool.

But I do want to just address a little bit of what Mr. Heinecke was talking about, a democracy.

For one, I did not accept any money from Southern Development or any PACs at all.

And I think one of the things about spending on elections, I, too, am troubled with the glasses so I can read and I can't see.

The city Democratic Party has gone through a process in the last few years where they've gone from having

the primary be a room where a couple of hundred Democrats sat and picked who they wanted to be the nominees.

And then those usually were the people who were elected, which I would argue is less Democratic.

And so what we have now is a real primary where you have to reach 20,000 people.

And I knocked 2,000 doors when I was running for reelection, but I think a lot of people when they're running in that sort of environment realize that it's really hard to reach 20,000 people.

And so I think

There is that impulse to raise more money to reach more people.

I am troubled by it as well, but I think that's part of what's triggered it.

It's not just that it's happened, it's happened for that reason.

Yeah, I just would like to know what is going on on South Street as well.

That was kind of, I'm sure we've got policies in place for getting street closures.

We will be talking about Garrett Street and we will be talking about the William Taylor Plaza project.

And I want to say that it really has become quite troubling that when there's a difference of opinion about policy, a difference of opinion about strategy for the city,

that individuals in groups proceed to attempt to do character assassinations, smear reputations, insinuate that people can be bought and sold.

That is really, really frightening.

And I don't think that is a boding well for anybody in this community.

If you disagree with someone,

you're gonna wind up seeing yourself lambasted in Facebook.

So I think let's really try to be civil and courteous and stick to the facts.

The misinformation that has been spun about the William Taylor Plaza Project is breathtaking.

Probably the same level of misinformation that has been spun around about me because

I am someone who understands the importance of managing growth well.

I am an architect.

I do work with building.

And even for that I feel at times I have been maligned.

So I would just like to say that I think this is just unfortunate

that it has gotten to that point where people and their reputations are being smeared because they have a particular orientation to policy.

Now, to the question about whether or not I am personally bought and sold, people support me because of the positions I have said, supported myself in the last four years.

Yes, I received contributions from the Monticello Business Association.

$500 out of raising $17,000.

You do the math, it's less than 2%.

So I'm not going to be ashamed.

It's public record.

It's been published.

It is part of the public record.

So again, the insinuation that I have something to hide because I have been supported by a group that supports the free enterprise system, that supports businesses, supports job creation, is really quite breathtaking.

Thank you.

I want to compliment Ms. Freeman and Ms. Weissman for the Delicious Seed program.

I think it's a great program and keep up the good work.

Mr. Mayor, can I clarify a couple of points?

Mr. Heineke had raised a couple of issues.

One, the comments that I made to Mr. Heineke at the last meeting were about the town hall meeting.

That's the discussion that Mr. Armetta and I had.

It wasn't about William Taylor Plaza, about the notification for that.

Just wanted to clarify that.

And then secondly, there was a public hearing held on the sale of those two pieces of property.

It was on February 22nd of 2011.

A.

Minutes for July 6th.

B. Appropriation funding for Thomas Jefferson Area Crisis Intervention Team Coordinator, $53,700.

Second of two readings.

C, Appropriation, Funding, Restoration of Saturday Operating Hours at Smith Aquatic Center, $3,098, second of two readings D, Appropriation, Additional Funding for Department of Social Services Benefits Programs, $16,075, second of two readings E, Funding, Appropriation, Funding for Medicaid, FAMAS, Renewal, Application Processing, $10,045, second of two readings

Appropriation Homelessness Solutions Grant, $459,941, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Grant, $190,612, first of two readings.

Appropriation Check and Connect Student Engagement Grant,

$147,000, first of two readings.

Resolution amendment to local government support agreement for recycling programs, first of one reading.

Ordinance, Laughlin Hill PUD amendment, second of two readings.

Ordinance, amend city code relating to enforcement of trespass violations, second of two readings.

Ordinance, amendments to floodplain management regulations, second of two readings.

Ordinance tree designation 1604 East Market Street, second of two readings.

Ordinance lowering speed limit on Emmett Street from Ivy Road to Arlington Boulevard, first of two readings.

Ordinance route 250 bypass speed limit adjustment, first of two readings.

Ordinance quick claim gas easements to VDOT in Boulders Road, first of two readings.

Ordinance quick claim gas easement to VDOT in Briarwood Drive, first of two readings.

I just have a question on H. What is the cost to

the annual cost of the McIntire Recycling Center.

I believe it's $62,000 or so.

Can somebody just find out for me how many times we, I feel like we keep passing this because we're waiting for the county to do something.

Can we get some sense for what's going on?

I've been following the process at the county level, and they've just recently submitted their final report, so I assume that that will be coming soon.

Is there another item you would like to remove?

I'll make a motion that we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

Mayor and Councillors, in 1991 the C grant was granted a permanent easement for installation of natural gas lines across property adjacent to 10th Street Northeast and Water Street extended in anticipation of future development in that area.

No gas line was ever installed in that easement and recently it was discovered that the building at 110th Street Northeast encroaches into the gas easement and it's created a title issue for the property owner.

The owner of the property has requested the city abandon the portion of the easement where the encroachment exists in order to clear that title issue.

Public Utilities has confirmed that the easement is no longer needed.

and it will not affect any gas service in the area.

A public hearing is required by law to give the public an opportunity to comment on a proposed property conveyance and I'm available for any questions and a representative from the property owner is also available.

As a simple question is, did we either pay for the easement originally or will we be

Actually, I don't know if we paid for the easement initially.

Usually, we do not.

And we will not need another easement instead of this.

I welcome public hearing.

Anybody like to speak on this topic?

I'm going to close the public hearing.

Discussion and motion?

I move to approve.

Discussion?

Can I vote?

First reading.

Thank you.

Third is Ordinance, William Taylor Plaza, PUD Amendment.

Mayor, Council, before each night is an amendment to the William Taylor Plaza PUD that was approved in 2009.

On May 12th, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial.

During the City Council meeting on July 6th, there was confusion over the required residential component and how the proffered use matrix would be incorporated and Council deferred action.

The applicant has reorganized information into a more comprehensive development plan document

Additional restrictive changes have been added as outlined in your city action memo that do not add to the intensity of the development.

To address the first point of confusion from the July 6, 2009 plan, the proposed amendment requires a residential component.

Sheet 1, note 2 of the 2009 plan states, the PUD shall be a mixed-use development with residential and commercial use.

Sheet 3, note 2 of the amended plan before you tonight states, the PUD shall be a mixed-use development with residential and commercial use.

Sheet 1, note 3 of the 2009 plan states, within the residential portion of the development, a variety of housing sizes shall be provided, including studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units.

Sheet 3, Note 3 of the amended plan before you tonight states within the residential portion of the development a variety of housing shall be provided including studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units.

Under the approved 2009 plan, no minimum residential units are required outside the provision of Note 3.

This means the developer would only be required to build one studio, one one bedroom, and one two bedroom unit for a total of three units to fulfill the residential requirement.

Under the amended plan, the applicant has increased the residential requirement to a minimum of 10 units.

The use matrix proposed with the amendment is intended to work with the requirement of the development plan.

The development plan calls for a range of residential units between 10 and 50.

A minimum of 20% of the development must be commercial.

The total development can be 100,000 square feet or fewer.

This configuration makes it possible that developer could satisfy all requirements of the development plan and still have additional square footage that could be developed.

I have just one question, clarification.

The original 2009 plan was not phased, which left it up to the discretion of, it was not even addressed in any way.

So that left it up to the discretion of the developer, which building would be built.

The amendment here tonight does phase development.

It's in both phases.

It's a requirement of the entire PUD and on sheet.

Sheet 4 of the development plan does give the option for residential on Cherry from 0 to 40 residential units.

And on the Ridge Street phase, phase 2, the requirement is between 10 and 50.

So the minimum 10, there has to be at least 10 on the Ridge Street parcel?

OK, that's my question.

Yes.

Well that's actually an interesting piece of information that I misunderstood then because I thought in the original 2009 because it wasn't phased and because if you do phase you have to enumerate that in the

In the 2009, since they didn't address it, it could be done how they wanted to develop it.

There probably would be some feedback from staff when they submitted a site plan, but they would have the choice of how they're going to develop it since phasing was not issued.

The underlying zoning, which is William Taylor PUD,

So why would you put a phasing in if you can phase anyway?

Because to actually add phasing means that you're drawing boundaries.

The phasing, I mean, it's better zoning.

It's how we would like to see beauties done, where you know the phase and what's going on.

So they could still not build, because in the current phasing, that's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that since there's no time associated with each phase,

that one phase, like the Ridge Street could never be built.

I mean, just because there's no time limitation.

Okay, so now in the phased program, it could be 100% commercial if they never get around to building

If they don't get a, they have that 0 to 40 on the Phase 1, so they could, technically they could build 0 and then not decide to ever build Ridge Street.

Okay, and you're saying in 2009 that was the same situation.

I think it's a little more nuanced because they would have submitted a site plan.

There probably would have been a lot of back and forth as why are you not showing what's on this PUD.

I don't want to speculate, but there would have been that kind of push back and forth between the city and the developer that you have a 2009 PUD with these requirements.

You're only showing this portion of it, why you're doing that and why you're not showing all of it.

And then the developer maybe would have come back and said, well, I'm not required to.

This was not phased.

I'm just building this one building on this plan.

Other questions from staff?

OK, so we'll see.

Can we just review some of the changes?

Actually, I'm going to back up for a minute.

So now we have a seven page new development plan and according to code, this development plan is

what they have to follow.

Is that right, Mr. Brown?

It says in the code, it refers to the development plan as only those uses shown on approved PUD development plans shall be permitted uses.

And so in the 2009, it's this top one.

But that's all we had?

I don't know whether there are any more drawings on it.

So all of the minutes we have from planning commissions about the conversation and you know where things were on when they're looking at the development plan if they weren't written down on that

Correct.

Okay.

But now we have a seven page development plan.

And it has been raised.

It was raised by a planning commissioner that the planning commission didn't see this.

And we didn't see it during our first reading.

Unfortunately, I was not here that night when you had your first reading, so I don't know what was before a council meeting.

It is.

So what is the implication of that?

Is it one of the options to have it the first reading?

Excuse me.

Is there a point at which you say, well, we need to now have a new first reading?

I don't think so.

It may be helpful to have staff review the changes that have been proposed, because there have been some.

Right.

When the Planning Commission denied this proposal, one of the issues that they had was that they got a lot of information, or some information, some kind of information at the last minute.

and that was dismissed as just information.

Can I just offer just kind of a perspective on that?

I think one thing is that from what I understand from the code is that if it doesn't make it more

Permissive if it doesn't make it less restrictive.

It's not the same as if it does.

So what we have here are things that we requested from the applicant when they came to us.

And so I think it's certainly part of the process that we instituted.

And so for us to now say, well, because you responded, we've got to start over, I'm not sure is really quite what the law is there for.

But I also just

Well actually I'll just stop right there because I think that this was very responsive.

But still this is a legal document.

It is and it's very clear.

But I do want again to get a real clear response to Ms. Szakos' comment that because this document that we're looking at tonight is more restrictive than we had at the first reading, that this does not then need to go back to the Planning Commission because this was something that the Council's comments produced.

We could choose to, but it's not required.

If there is a change that results in a more intensive development, in other words, if, and I'll choose zoning classifications that are not at issue here, but if there's a mixed-use proposal that includes R2 and it goes to the Planning Commission and the developer comes to you and says,

I've decided I want R3 multifamily instead of R2.

In that scenario, I would tell you that you would have to go back to the Planning Commission for a joint public hearing.

There's another situation, setting aside the more intensive, less intensive metric, where if you look at a plan and it has so radically changed

or I shouldn't say so radically, but if there are substantial changes that you feel you would benefit from either comment by the Planning Commission or another public hearing, you have the discretion to do that.

And from what I understand, everything that is in these seven pages that's changed since the last time would have been allowed in what we had in our original amendment.

But that said, I don't recall the Planning Commission them talking about the use matrix.

Did they have the use matrix?

That wasn't one of the things that came.

What came to them at the last minute?

Remember?

Some illustrations came at the last minute of parking.

The permeable surfaces.

You're gonna have to do this.

Certainly.

You talked about the six changes were made,

Maybe go page by page.

But I mean, going through what is page one.

Okay.

You know, it's because Ms. Smith has been talking about the numbers of pages as being problematic, and if Mr. Athlee can talk about what the content of those pages are, I think we then would discover whether or not the substantive changes or not were merely changes that were produced to clarify

Certainly I can do that and then if I miss any of the changes I will refer back to because I have them numbered out so I might not catch them going through page by page.

The cover sheet lists the PUD requirements required for every PUD development plan and then corresponds with where they're located on the plan.

So did the planning commission have this?

Did they have the PUD requirements?

The picture, I don't know.

I know they had some elevations.

I don't know if it was this particular one.

But they did provide some illustrative elevations, but not as part of the development plan as supporting documents.

So, but essentially, page one, the table of contents, certainly, the Planning Commission had that because that's part of their review.

But I mean, it's just, again, to make sure we cover every question.

It says development plan at the top.

I think this is the Board of the Planning Commission more than once.

What I have is the agenda materials for May 12th.

This isn't the site plan.

This drawing was included.

No, I'm talking, I'm sorry Mr. Brown, I'm talking about this.

This is page one, it's the one that's actually labeled PUD Development Plan, whereas the one you're holding is the one that's labeled PUD Development Plan that the Planning Commission considered.

Yeah, and this is labeled PUD Development.

This here is, I pulled up the staff report from that Planning Commission meeting.

This is the drawing that was presented as part of that.

That is my concern in this.

I just want to clarify a little bit.

So on page one of the development plan that we've received, July 13th,

that has a picture of a few buildings.

No, because it would need to go through BAR.

I know.

I was just flipping through this while we were talking and it does appear the existing conditions at least at the last Planning Commission were not part of the packet to see the existing conditions.

Okay and in the pictures one thing and the words are another one because that's where we got I'm just following what we got you know all tied up about two weeks ago

were the words that were on the development plan.

So I think we have to be very cognizant of what is written down here.

Regardless of what we've heard, regardless of what we've talked about, this is what matters.

Can we finish or leave?

Page 3 would be what I would consider the meat of the development plan.

And that document outside of notes 8 and 9 was viewed by the Planning Commission.

A note was added to sheet 3 note 9 stating the PUD shall conform to the guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan in general and embodied in the strategic investment area plan appended to the

Comprehensive Plan, February 2014.

Those include, but are not limited to, the following as per SIA Plan Section 6.

What are those?

I know.

They are the transect zones that they fall in.

P4 is urban neighborhood zone consistent of mixed use but primary residential urban fabric.

It may be with a wide range of building types, single family and town home setbacks and landscaping are variable.

The T5 is a mixed used

Thank you, I appreciate that.

So what is the implication of this?

and because that's actually really interesting.

It says he will follow them, yeah.

It wouldn't if we weren't doing this amendment because they would have something that was pre-2014.

Oh, okay.

It sounds like it does.

And then another note, a note was added to sheet three, note eight, stating the entire William Taylor Plaza plan unit development, all phases shall be subject to the Board of Architectural Review as it

And that's something I think we assumed from before but wasn't written down, so we wanted to clarify that.

And can I confirm that, and I should have checked this out, but since Mr. Armstrong's right here, that the prohibition against turning left out of this

or into this development is the same 2009 to... Can you finish first one?

Oh, it's on this page.

It's just on this page.

Yeah, I can.

Charlie Armstrong, it's on the development.

of the 2009 period.

And you can only turn left out of here in midday.

So you can get there from 64, and you can get back to 64,

There's a phrase in the note four that says greater flexibility is determined to be allowable by the city traffic engineer following turning movement restrictions will be placed on site driveways, et cetera.

Did the Planning Commission discuss this?

Right, you couldn't go down Fifth Street anymore.

OK, but what's different here, and maybe you can discuss this, because we didn't discuss this.

So here, with the parking, here's the new parking, right?

Right.

Right.

And so it's not here.

So this is gone, right?

So this building is gone here.

And then there's a building up here, and that one's gone.

From 2009.

Yeah.

Yes.

OK. And then this is the Thru Street, right?

And now the Thru Street is through the parking lot.

Now I asked you this, again, I wonder if this is a change, because it wasn't described.

And I asked you this on Saturday, and I was very confused with the answer.

Here, in the phase, in the Ridge Street phase, there are no cars, right?

You don't drive in the Ridge Street phase.

And I asked you, how do you get in and out of the Ridge Street phase?

There's parking here.

It's shared parking.

It could be for either use.

This has not been determined precisely.

OK.

But would this be required to have dedicated parking under our code?

So it might be gone.

I mean, it might not.

That's a change.

To here.

Because if this is built always one, I would imagine you could put the underground all in one piece.

It's not a separate development.

Not likely.

So we still don't know, so there still really isn't any dedicated parking for the Ridge Street in this development plan.

This is what, according to code, this is what.

So,

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant to a land use decision.

Well, the reason it's relevant is it's new, because you see that parking isn't up here.

Right, and just as a clarification, I just want to make sure that the change from 2009 to 2015 with regards to parking was the percentages of the, which was structured and which was surfaced.

Not the number.

Not the number.

The number was never, never discussed.

It was all about percentages and it went from sixty percent, it went from ninety percent structured

Right, but the point being that this is the development plan.

So this is, according to code, this is, no, but this is the development plan, and we learned two weeks ago that that's an incredibly important

legal document.

It doesn't exactly, but you gotta follow it.

So the fact that there's parking here now and it's not up here is actually a pretty big change.

And thank you for bringing that up, Ms. Galvin, because I was thinking exactly the same thing.

We've talked and we talked two weeks ago about 22 spaces, but it may be 22 spaces, it may be

20 spaces, it might be 40 spaces because it's 40%.

Right.

I believe staff would tell you that it has to be generally in conformance with that plan that's on the sheet of paper there.

So I think it's locked down.

Unless it's over 40%.

Are you done with that page?

Well, let me, one quick thing.

From 2009.

Yeah.

but the Planning Commission saw it, which is what that is.

Can I just ask a technical, where's the, oh, I was going to ask about that picture.

Page four of the seven page development plan is the phasing plan

and the phasing plan was also in the Planning Commission's packet.

Please back up a little bit.

Certainly.

The phasing has the language in here that talks about what will be built in each phase and what are the options to be built.

It gives the approximate area.

It talks about shall be commercial or mixed use with the zero to 40 residential units.

I'm talking about the Cherry Avenue phase.

And 10,000 to 90,000 square feet of commercial, which is approximately 1.1

and then 1.1 acres of the open space, which is the Arboretum.

And then the Ridge Street phase has the size of the area, the shall be residential or mixed use, and this has the minimum 10, maximum 50 units and zero to 40,000 square feet of commercial.

And the, talks about the phase two shall total 45% of the site coverage.

Open Space Compliance.

And I'd just like to point out, though, that phase one also includes the entrances as well as the open space, and so that there was

I could see that there's a logic to that to get the infrastructure for this.

The next two pages are the use matrix, which in what Planning Commission did see the use matrix, but they saw them as proffered language.

Thank you, yes I just wanted to find my writing.

They were the

I don't recall why Health Clinic was among some of the other options was the concern.

I'm just curious because Criminal Justice Facility is still in there.

There was some weird square footage language where there was it limited the size.

Let me get the right page here.

The original use or the use matrix that Planning Commission saw had a health clinic for with no

GFA limit was approved by Wright but not one up to 10,000 so there's some kind of this weird language that you could not you could have one with no gross floor area be allowed by Wright but you couldn't have one up to 10,000 so there was some cleaning up in that language and then the music halls just did both of them.

And in the last sheet which is the narrative and that was

Planning Commission at their last meeting did not see this.

There was, I believe, an error in getting that in the packet.

The packet before that Planning Commission did see a narrative.

A narrative, not this narrative.

It wasn't this narrative, it was a different narrative.

This narrative is comparing more the 2015 amendment to the 2009.

I think I'm done with the changes.

Let me look at my list just to make sure I'm not missing something that might be important.

Talk about the notes, the two notes about the VAR and the SIA.

The note on the phasing was added that sheet four stating the required residential units per phase, phase one, Cherry Avenue.

Phase will be 0 to 40, and the Ridge Street Phase will be 10 to 50 residential units.

Then the two, the health clinic and music hall, and then the narrative.

Those are all the six units.

Any questions?

Should I have a seat, please?

Discussion?

Oh, can I ask a couple other questions?

But as far as I, following up on that, my understanding is that our lighting ordinance does restrict spillover lighting at the property line.

Oh, and visibility of parking is still in there.

Correct.

The car is not being visible behind the building is still part of this.

I'd like to look at the exact proffer before I answer that.

Right, so legally we can assume that would be whether or not Ridge Street is developed.

And the proffer on that is clear.

So, I mean, it would be possible that if you could, they might put up a big fence or something, is that too?

Correct, correct.

What's the square footage of the motel?

There's, we don't have that information since we don't have a site plan.

We have an estimate?

I mean, is there a range that it would probably be?

You're proving a concept of limits.

That's what we can say right now.

I gave a really long statement last time, I'm not going to repeat it, but I would like to just say that I was struck by the thing that the folks who were here from Transition Streets were talking about, that they had come together about

climate change and about saving money on their electric bills and in the process had built community because they'd talked to their neighbors in ways that they hadn't talked to their neighbors before and that they really felt that that was something that had kind of transcended the purpose of their coming together and although I do plan to support this and I really do think you know I've heard from a lot of neighbors on both sides of this issue

more for it toward the Cherry Avenue side and more against on the Ridge side, but a fair number on both sides, especially on Ridge Street.

But I really think that this public scrutiny, although it is kind of hard to hear sometimes when we're getting yelled at and when we disagree, and people who I love and respect, I find myself on this particular issue disagreeing with the outcome, I do think that this public scrutiny has been healthy.

I think perhaps some of the actual

organizations, maybe not so healthy, but I think that the energy behind this has been very healthy and I think people want what's best for their community and have opinions and our opinions are not always the same and so I don't mean my position at all to say that I think that what the folks who have opposed this have done is in any way less valuable

I am elected to make decisions and this is a decision that I'm trying to make to the best of my conscience and the best of my knowledge, the best of my understanding of this project.

Yeah, again, I just want to reiterate the reason why we revisited this is because of the public's demand for scrutiny.

And so that has been excellent.

And I do want to just briefly go through some things to clarify for the public what was meant by certain things.

And I'll just go down the list, just so that everyone understands.

The phasing and the selling of properties subsequent to an approved rezoning is perfectly legal, and it is done often.

And I just, that somehow was getting confused in a lot of the discussion, that somehow there was some impropriety there.

That is what is done often.

You phase a project because you can time it.

You can study it better.

It is, as Mr. Althley said, it's good planning practice.

A property owner sells property all the time.

It's just not something unusual.

There's been a lot of concern about why this council didn't follow the majority of the Planning Commission.

That's not something that happens frequently, but it does happen.

Throughout the last few years, I've disagreed with the Planning Commission and voted against them, and sometimes all of us have.

But I think it's important to note that the Planning Commission is an advisory group to the council.

It's not quasi-judicial.

It's an advisory group.

I was a bit concerned by how little was in the first staff memos about what was said.

and I, moving forward, I really would like us to have much more complete transmission of comments from the Planning Commission.

Because of that, I reached out to two commissioners that voted against it to really understand what was wrong, what was

not clear to them.

And that, in my view, prompted me to really make sure we get on these documents the references to the Ridge Street Architectural Control Design District and that we get the reference to the Strategic Investment Area on there.

Those give us a lot, a lot of building envelope guidelines as well as public space guidelines that can be used by the Board of Architectural Review

to see.

came from the pressure that we needed to make sure was absolutely clear what was governing this application.

And just to give you a little example of what that means, okay, the Rich Street Architectural Control District guidelines say that street level facades of all building types should not have blank walls.

They should provide visual interest to the pedestrian.

Any parking structures facing

Important streets or pedestrian routes must have storefronts, display windows, or other forms of visual relief on the first floor of the elevations.

The SIA, again, talks at length about these buildings need to be oriented to the street, so to activate that street.

Low to mid-rise buildings, this fits under that height requirement of the zones that were mentioned, which is T5.

Gray level parking has to be concealed from the street.

Again, it was mentioned that we haven't learned anything from the flats.

This is telling us we've learned a lot from the flats, that it has to be expressed in very overt ways what are the guidelines to follow when this project is being reviewed.

Because ultimately, the BAR is that quasi-judicial group, it does issue the final certificates that allows this to move forward.

We don't see it again.

and I think there were proffers about to Tauncelor Park and the streetscape.

I think it's important to mention that about $15,000 were profit for street improvements, pedestrian street improvements or crossings and also if you look at the site plan, if they can coordinate with the city in partnership to move the gas lines, there will be

of a joint funding of a median in Ridge Street.

When we had our town hall meeting, 90% of the concern expressed to us from the public was about the speeding on Ridge Street.

When you combine those improvements on that intersection with improvements that were recommended by the strategic investment area at the intersection of Ridge Street and Monticello, you will see Ridge Street turn into a pedestrian-friendly street.

So then, moving on, I think it's also important to think about, well, where does the community vision come from?

What implements that vision?

And then how do you change the vision and change the tools to implement that vision if you don't like what's happening?

Number one, the comprehensive plan is the vision of this community.

It gets changed every five years.

As was mentioned before, the strategic investment area is part of that comprehensive plan now.

That was attended in 2014.

So if there's a, and the tool to implement that vision is zoning.

And this PUD was approved in 2009.

It is now the law.

The 2009 PUD is by law what governs the use on that property.

until that's amended to this 2015, that is the law of the land.

Now, I want to say that only an owner can initiate a rezoning.

It can't come from a neighborhood association.

It can't come from another individual.

We kind of went through that discussion when the Fry's Spring neighborhood wanted to down zone its neighborhood.

By the same token, an owner cannot arbitrarily change their zoning without a process.

That's what this is all about as well.

So I just want to underline, the council is not ignoring what the neighborhood wants, but it can't indulge a request of one group of citizens to change the legal zoning of another citizen's property.

Again, it can't happen that way.

When you want to change zoning, there has got to be a legal process.

There's two ways to do that.

You do a comprehensive rezoning that has to be done city-wide.

That's why we initiated a zoning audit in 2014, to begin that process.

The other way to do it is the small area plan.

That's what the strategic investment area is all about.

But right now, the strategic investment area

implementation phase is stalled out.

It's only gotten to the point where it's the vision.

And you can use that only in instances of rezonings like SUPs or in instances where you're doing the PUD amendment.

But it can't change by right.

It can't change fundamental zoning of the land use.

So the two ways that Cherry Avenue could change its zoning is

to become a small area plan, go through an overlay district and get its own zoning, kind of the process of the strategic investment area, or the whole city gets audited and rezoned.

But individuals and groups of individuals cannot coerce, compel a property owner to change their zoning.

There's got to be a legal process.

And I just relate the two ways.

And I'm thinking that I would like our council to seriously consider that we push forward with the next small area plan being Cherry Avenue.

Get that process going.

This community is energized.

This community wants to participate.

It's the way to get all the stakeholders to the table.

Just like the SIA, do it for the Cherry Avenue.

SIA, though, has got to get to the next level.

It's got to get new zoning, period.

but we're not there yet.

I know I've been told that by some folks that we really shouldn't be looking at the economics of this, the economic development potential of this.

But I can't help but notice the number of vacant lots on Cherry Avenue.

I can't help but notice that there are restaurants on Cherry Avenue that would benefit quite a bit by having more people on that street.

I've also heard people not wanting what they're calling a cheap motel.

And I did a review.

I mean, because Charlottesville also wants to be a community that's welcoming of all of its citizens that's diverse.

So, Charlottesville needs moderately priced accommodations.

for people visiting UVA hospital, UVA the university, downtown mall, otherwise we're saying that only extremely wealthy people can come here.

And not all people needing medical care or sending their kids to UVA are wealthy.

So when you look at the price tag, the Omni charges $213 a night, okay,

The Marriott Courtyard, 199 and a Marriott Fairfield that's on 29 charges 139.

It's moderately priced.

And while land values are low in that part of the city, that's when you can start building affordable options.

When you start redeveloping an area, land values go up and all of a sudden everybody is upset because, oh, it's all boutique restaurants and all boutique hotels and nobody

who live there today can continue to live there tomorrow.

So again, this is all about trying to keep a balance.

And I finally, I've said a lot already about in the past about employers and people have been maligning this as being a corporation.

I just want to point out that about 14% of our workforce has less than a high school diploma.

That's over 3,000 people.

About 19% has a GED.

That's about 19%.

So to say that we don't need employment for folks that don't have a high school diploma is not looking at the full spectrum of people in our community.

And to think about getting good paying jobs, you can be a person with a high school diploma and if you are a lodging manager,

you can make about $47,000 a year.

That's $22 an hour.

That compares to, everyone says, well manufacturing would be better.

Well somebody on an assembly line makes about $28,000 a year.

So when you look at the idea of the hospitality industry in Charlottesville and Marriott has different tiers, you could be someone in one Marriott moving to the next and moving up in a career ladder.

So to conclude, I think we've clarified that this is a mixed-use project.

It's residential and commercial.

That has been clarified.

The multiple layers of design give us assurances that this is going to be in the context of the community.

Council can't ignore what the citizens want, but it cannot ignore that there is a proper way to rezone.

Well, I'm going to have a little different take on this.

This is the William Taylor Plaza Board of Architectural Review recommended denial 4 to 2.

Planning Commission recommended denial five to zero.

These, the board and the commission, are everyday citizens volunteering to spend up to eight hours in a public meeting more than once, digging deeper into the pros and cons of this development as you have probably seen tonight and two weeks ago than we could ever do.

Taking into account all the quality of life issues, issues that have given Charlottesville the special character

that has attracted young families, seniors, good businesses, issues such as bikes and peds and public transit, ease of movement for businesses, we've all heard that.

And the board and the commission said, this is not good enough.

The board and commission have never said no development there.

Neither have the over 500 citizens who have spoken out against us.

So now the City Council has this.

And as a justification for an override of both the Bar and the Planning Commission, we have heard a little tonight and more two weeks ago.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

We hear about a potential flood of additional real estate tax revenue.

Where have we heard that before?

Where are the jobs from the landmarks?

Where are the jobs from the flats?

Housekeeping jobs?

Are these the jobs we were promised?

And where is the additional tax revenue?

If we are getting such a flood of new money, why are we running a deficit and having to raise our taxes?

These new student dorms and hotels are being sold to the community like the goose that laid the golden egg.

How lucky we are.

Well, we can see the goose, but where is the golden egg?

So I will repeat what both the Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Commission and over 500 citizens have said over and over and over.

This motel is not the appropriate development for this site.

Now my job is to represent

and I believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Well, it won't surprise you to, you know, I won't support it.

Think about, think about what happened at Vinegar Hill, which happened before Garrett Square Urban Renewal.

Vinegar Hill was raised

waited a while, then a bunch of fast food restaurants and chain commercial went in.

Garrett Street was the second urban renewal.

It's been a while, and now we're gonna put in a, thank you Miss Bray, low grade motel in here.

It's the same thing.

What we know right now is that a

Again, bottom line, Motel from Marriott is interested in this site.

And watch what's going to happen.

They'll buy the whole site.

And phasing, which we're going to now approve, will allow them not to build anything but their motel.

Nothing else has to go in there ever.

There is no time frame on phasing.

which would totally explain why it doesn't matter if you can get in and out of the residential, at the Ridge Street phase.

It doesn't matter if there's parking because they're not gonna need any parking.

Unless of course we put a fast food restaurant which we will approve as part of the use matrix.

Which apparently we heard at the last meeting, there's interest in.

So it's pretty clear to me and

that we've got an owner who bought it in 1999, we heard today, owned it for a long time, tried to find a development which actually people actually kind of liked.

Couldn't sell it, couldn't sell the development.

What the owner's done is bought a piece of land that has, people have known for literally centuries is undevelopable in any kind of economic way.

It's not that it's physically undevelopable,

in order to get their money back.

You're going to need to find somebody who will build on here and this is what we get.

I think the choice is pretty simple.

Who are we beholden to?

Are we beholden to the neighbors, our constituents, or to

a developer who is trying desperately to find someone to buy this land.

So I think it's pretty clear and we can, like the flats, we heard lots about the flats recently, we can just say no.

That's exactly what I'm going to do.

This is the third time I've been voting on this project since I've been in council and before that.

So I'm familiar with the site.

I'm familiar with the development.

I think, mostly, I think that it is in the best interest of the community as a whole.

It will be good development.

Actually, I disagree with some of the neighbors.

I think it will be good for the neighborhood in terms of development as well as job opportunities.

Is there a second?

To reflect the seven-page development plan.

For clarity, there's a revised ordinance that is a final proffer statement dated July 13, 2015.

We only voted on a picture.

It's not a site plan, and the zoning is not comprehensively different.

So it is your legal opinion that this is really dramatically different than what we voted on at First Street.

But it's not so dramatically different that it's not an amendment.

There's a motion on the table.

Yes.

Is there a further discussion or motion?

Should I vote?

And do we need to do, do we need to, could we go straight to a second reading with this amended motion?

Oh, we've already got it on the table, okay.

right now.

And it reads, whereas multiple organizations including Preservation Piedmont and Virginia Department of Historic Resources have informed city officials that the family graveyard reserved by 1883 deed to heirs Allen Hawkins may lie on parcel 157, City Tax Map 29, that any construction related activity on that parcel could result in disturbance of human remains in violation of state law, that the only way to assure that such disturbance does not occur

is to conduct a thorough archeological survey of the parcel.

What is required by

Is an archeological study required?

If the motion passes, you will be requiring that.

It's not required right now?

If you really want it to pass, I would suggest waiting for another meeting so you can have that brought to us in a legal format.

Before we leave this topic, and I know we'll take a break,

I know, but on this topic, I'd just like to request Mr. Brown, can I get a written opinion on the legality of the sale of the city land?

It's been requested of me.

From 2011?

No, last year, the 2014 sale of the city land after the contract had expired in 2011.

I just want a written opinion.

I know you've given an opinion.

I'd like a written opinion.

We did it for five minutes.

?

?

Dede Smith

you

I don't know what to say.

Dede Smith

Dede Smith

There you go.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, this is a special use permit request for property located at 211 Garrett Street, also known as the Glass House.

The request is for residential density in excess of the 43 dwelling units per acre by right, allowed in the downtown extended zone.

The applicant's request is for 171 dwelling units per acre, which equates to 233 new multi-family residential units on the site, a maximum of 233 units on the site.

The applicant proposes a mixed-use development, the details of which are outlined in the resolution before you.

The Planning Commission considered this matter on their June 9th meeting.

In discussions, they really spoke about the building's relationship to Garrett Street, really had some concerns about that and how the building related to Garrett Street, particularly the parking deck that is shown in the plans.

they mentioned the strategic area investment the strategic investment area plan and how well the building conforms to that plan the building does exceed the height contemplated in the SIA along that the height massing of the building and then the impact of the parking garage on the project overall and they

voted by a vote of 4 to 2 to recommend that the application be denied.

I do want to catch Mr. Mausammer's comments in the front, and I do want to make one correction under the conditions that are in the resolution that you are showing.

If passed, the, let me make sure I get the right one, condition three relates to the parking garage and says there shall be no more than one vehicle entrance for the development.

staff and I think the planning commission went along well staff planning commission recommended denial so they didn't really talk about the conditions but staff has recommended that that first sentence in condition three after development we add on from Garrett Street

The applicants are required to submit an application

Typically a narrative is accompanying that.

And just to clarify, just in case anybody's wondering, I think

When I first came on Council, this was always a little confusing, the difference between a PUD and an SUP.

What we were discussing before was a PUD, which is about the zoning and kind of the rules that should govern a particular property, not the particular buildings in it.

That's right.

The PUD is a type of zoning under our code.

So when people are applying for a plan unit development, they're asking to rezone their property and rezone their property means whatever they've proposed, they can't build under the current zoning of that property.

Special use permits are delineated in the code.

They are things that are permitted in these zones.

So one way of looking at it, in this case we're talking about residential density, city council in reviewing the downtown extended code the last time they did this, I believe it was 2008 or 2007, elected to say that somebody

seeking up to 43 dwelling units per acre would not need to go through a special use permit process.

But if in the event that they wanted to go higher, anywhere up to 240 dwelling units per acre, that that is permissible provided the impacts of that can be mitigated via conditions.

So it is something where there is a pathway created in the code to obtain that.

I'm Oliver Kuttner.

I live 815 St. Clair Avenue.

Sorry.

So the first thing I'd like to, well, I do want to explain that the density I'm asking for does fit within that special use party.

And that's really the only thing I'm asking to have changed.

And the reason I ask for it to be changed is because essentially it's an amendment to the zoning

and I need to know what I'm allowed to build before I can actually invest in seriously doing it.

Now I also have been accused of not having worked on this.

There are seven versions that we've drawn on this.

We've been at the Planning Commission three times and I also would like to say that the Planning Commission and I have a good relationship.

They have introduced a number of things that made sense.

The one entrance on Garrett makes sense.

Having the second entrance on 4th Street makes sense because it is a full 12 feet lower.

And what that does, it creates a parking garage that is not ramped, which is a more efficient parking garage.

So they have a lot, and the other thing that they like is they like that the streetscape becomes something other than a wall.

The very first drawing I submitted, it was a wall, and it had two doors.

On the next drawing, that was gone.

Now some people want it to be retail and I know retail is going to be very difficult to sell on Garrett Street.

It simply won't survive.

So it needs to be something else and the way I see it is an office that interacts with the community.

Something like if you think about the office of the magazine Seville or something like that or an architecture office or something like that.

Now I did not spend a fortune designing a building right down to the final design because I don't even know if I'm allowed to build it.

This is about getting the permission to build the use I'm proposing.

I'm going to go back, now I'm going to go to you.

It is my personal opinion, based on the fact that I own 160 rental units and I see what Lee says, that there's an extreme shortage of small rental units.

The cost of construction is a function of the materials you put into the building.

So a square foot of space costs a certain amount of money to build.

So it is reasonable that a larger apartment has a higher rent than a smaller one.

But I want to point out there's really a hole in the way we create what gets built.

What gets built comes from the zoning code.

And I was actually part of the original zoning code, which is still kind of alive here, and I didn't see this.

It's very easy to miss these things.

So I personally believe that there's a shift in how we want to live.

We want to live smaller today.

We want to live more efficient.

as a younger generation that wants to do this.

When you live downtown, you are less likely to use a car a lot.

In the very first submission, the one with the walls, I suggested the ZipCars, but I was told there's no provision for it.

Now, when I'm finished, I'm going to make a proposal of something that I would like to have approved, and I'm happy to throw in three ZipCar parking lots.

I'll make it five for downtown, because it makes sense.

I am part of another little company called Edison II which works on very efficient cars.

As part of that I found myself in some very secret places on the West Coast and I can assure you that within five years driverless cars exist and within ten they are the dominant influencing factor on our society.

Parking garages are going to be obsolete structures.

It is the economic

Force that is behind this is the biggest force that I've seen in my lifetime and it's there.

So it's just a reality.

I want to talk a little bit more about, I talked about a square foot of concrete and steel structure costs a certain amount of money.

It's reasonable to assume that an office costs about the same as an empty shell of a building, because an office for the most part is an empty shell with maybe a bathroom and a core to get to.

When you create an apartment, you have to do a little more.

You have to build more walls, you have to put more separate power supplies, more HVAC units that are separately controlled, more bathrooms, more kitchens, and it's more management.

In Charlottesville, we have now reached a market

where the market will pay $24 to $30 per year per square foot in rent.

That's more than the rent on an apartment.

If you want to know why the only apartments being built are large ones that cost a lot of money, there's your answer.

In your zoning code, you require one parking space for one bedroom or two bedroom apartment.

What I'm proposing to build are small studios.

So what happens if you have a two bedroom apartment, you have two people, they're required to have one parking space.

I'm proposing to build something for some people who may not even want a parking at all.

So you're actually doubling the burden of parking on micro units.

The reality is this, it's nobody's fault.

But micro units simply weren't on the horizon when the zoning code was written.

But they are the hottest thing in the big cities.

And we are one of those cities that follows the big cities.

Maybe even leads it in some aspects.

This is something that exists as a need.

And last I will say, I'm always allowed to do less.

The zoning that's approved is my maximum, my ceiling.

So I just want those who question whether or not some people want to live in four or five hundred square foot or even three hundred square foot dwelling units, which IKEA does great examples of.

If you go to IKEA, they build these small things where you see them.

For those of you who are concerned that if I build some hundred of those and I can't rent them,

I'm the first guy to simply not put two kitchens but just one and put a door connecting them and have fewer units I can always have fewer units what I'm asking for is the ceiling where I can go so I was asking for a ceiling of what I think I can put on this property and it's a ceiling of a product that simply doesn't get built in Charlottesville for economic reasons and in a way I'm actually somewhat indifferent to the whole matter

because in a way if you deny me to build this density you actually save me from myself because I will make less money than if I build the Buy Right office building that can be up to nine stories with no limitation whatsoever I wouldn't do that it's not who I am anybody who knows me knows I'm creative and I change things and so on and some people criticize me for changing but I have found that when you tweak it and change it becomes better so I'm the guy that built

did a lot of the design and built the terraces building which up until recently was the largest building downtown and it doesn't overpower the street.

And I would like to point out that the other side of the tracks, Garrett Street, was begun by somebody buying Cavalier beverage which was on the market for a full decade and no one wanted to go across the tracks.

It was me who went across the tracks with my partner and then one of my best friends bought the Gleason's lawnmower building

and the Gleason Condo probably exists because of this, as does ACAC, et cetera, et cetera.

So maybe my prime can be that I'm a little ahead of the market.

So now having explained that the market simply will not support the apartments because the office is better, I want to point out this unique opportunity.

I also want to point out that there are 300 parking spaces next door that are empty every day.

There's a massive parking garage.

Now I do believe it's going to fill up in the next few years.

And then I believe it will become a big white elephant.

Because these were a lot of units, I did have a market study done.

The market study came back and said that's about the best product I've ever seen.

And

I want to point out one other thing.

If you build an office downtown, you have to provide one parking space per 1,000 square feet.

I'll point it out again.

If we build an apartment, it's one parking space for up to two bedrooms.

So if I build 500 square foot apartments, I'm required to provide double the parking for the apartments, which are probably going to use less parking than the offices, which is part of the problem that Gleason's has, because part of why they're up in arms

My opinion is that the Planning Commission made some good feedback.

Unfortunately, I wasn't at the last meeting.

There were some changes in what they wanted.

They did want less height and I was willing to give them a floor.

I wasn't willing to do much more at that time because I don't want to reduce the value of my property that I've been paying property tax based on a nine-story-by-right property and I was not at the meeting.

I was on my way back from the airport, but I just wasn't there.

But generally speaking, I think that the whole idea here should not be a design requirement.

It should more of a massing and use question.

So I think generally the planning commission and I are not that far apart but there is a reality that happens when you spend seven months from the first submission to this point at some point stuff happens.

So as I sit here today the reality is I don't want 233 units because I wouldn't build them because I have other things to do.

What's really happening now is we have to decide if we want to salvage some micro units or not.

Because realistically I'm spending roughly half the space already on buy-write users.

And at the rate at which I'm going I'll be spending the entire space on buy-write users shortly.

So I'd like to ask for something really, really simple.

I'd like to ask that you give me half the units, half the density I'm asking for, which is still substantially more density than the buy-write,

I'd like to have half of the parking by the current use code required at the site and I am willing to give you the height reduction for half for the frontage on Garrett Street because that's what they were really concerned with they didn't want a street wall on Garrett and I tell you I'm the first guy who doesn't want a street wall but I just saw a street wall going up on the city market property and I'm sorry Garrett is

a more suitable place for it.

So I would be willing to volunteer to give up half of the height.

So okay, there's one other thing I have to explain, architecturally and cost wise.

There are heights that work.

65 feet is a height limit by the building code that allows you to build a cheaper type of construction.

So a lot of people like to build five floors, 65 feet.

The reason we have 101 is because

The moment you go from 65 to 66 feet, every single floor below that has to have a different construction type and the cost goes up significantly.

Some people say about 40%.

So what happens is nobody who knows anything about cost will build a six story or a seven story.

It just won't.

You need to get to the 101 to justify the other construction type.

So this was how it was.

In the 2010 code, there's a change.

They allow you to build a podium and then a stick-built building above it, which is what the flats is.

The flats is the expensive building on bottom and the cheap building on top.

But I do want to explain that this is why your code goes to 101 and it didn't go to six floors or seven floors, because nobody would do that.

So what I would like to do is I'd like to propose that, now understand, I'm asking you for maximum.

So the maximum I'm asking you for is half of the 171 by acre, units by acre.

I am asking you for half of the parking for the residential component and I'm willing to say I'll build half the street front to not exceed 65 feet because it's a sensible thing and the other half to be allowed to go up to 101, which I'll probably never do.

The proposals that I have in front of me actually have nothing going above 65 on guarantee, mainly for cost reasons.

And the last thing I will say is it's extremely difficult to finance a project these days.

It's also why people phasing and financing have a lot to do with each other.

And it's not clear to most people how difficult it is because we've seen a fair amount of construction recently.

but let's not forget that almost all this construction was planned before 2008 so these are things that people had heavily invested in and they salvaged their money then we have a couple of larger things that are happening because this is the face of new construction now it's hedge funds, it's large companies that build large apartment dwellings which remind me a little bit of the old Soviet style maybe with a lot of lipstick on them so we've changed, the world has changed the kind of guy who builds like me

is a dying breed.

So just keep that in mind.

There's nobody who counts the money first who would build these micro units.

It wouldn't happen.

So anyway, I'm trying to make it simple.

So I'm proposing let's go half, half, half.

And if not, I'm fine with it too.

I like the location.

I'm building something now.

I enjoy the fact that I have some freedom of design.

Thank you.

Let me just say, you do good stuff, there's no question about it.

Thank you.