1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, October 9, 2018– 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell and Mr. Bill Palmer Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. and provided an overview of the agenda. She asked about the subdivision for Stonehenge, wanting to confirm that approval of this would not allow for blasting. It was noted that this request is not related. There are two separate permits that would be needed for that to occur. Chairman Green noted in the future for the site plan to be included in the package to allow for comparison. It was noted that could occur. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the slopes on the Nassau project site met the steep/critical slope criteria. Matt Alfele provided clarification. It was noted that Lisa Robertson would provide a memo on slopes which had been drafted previously to provide context. Commissioner Mitchell asked if he should worry about slopes now. He expressed concern about approving any application without knowing if they could build. It was noted that the questions would need to be asked of the developer. II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Mitchell: Met with Parks and Recreation on September 13 to discuss the skate park and hoping to have the grand opening before the end of the year. Parking is the only problem they are working through, because people would have to park at the ball parks and walk over the new bridge to the skate park since there is nowhere to park adjacent to the skate park. Commissioner Stolzenberg: No report. Commissioner Heaton: No report. Commissioner Dowell: Met with the CDBG task force on October 2 to go over the current CDBG application and form rubric. They discussed the questions on the application, and set clear guidelines and expectations for upcoming applications. They also discussed that applicants should meet with Tierra one-on-one as a requirement before applying for CDBG funds instead of holding one group mandated training, as it would be beneficial for both the task force and applicants. 2 B. CHAIR'S REPORT Lisa Green: Attended the MPO Technical Committee Meeting in September. The next MPO Technical Committee Meeting will be in November. We are gearing up for CIP decisions. We have had a great response to the survey, and the deadline was extended. Also attended the Buford Middle School Fall Festival, which was a wonderful event. C. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: UVA now owns The Cavalier Inn and its parking lot, The Villa, and the outdoor recreation facility. Demolition of those buildings has begun and should be complete in December 2018. There is a new President at UVA, James Ryan, and his inauguration is on Friday, October 19 on the Lawn. The Community Bridges 5k run/walk is on October 20 and proceeds benefit the Center for Nonprofit Excellence, which aides over 200 local nonprofit organizations. At UVA, the Master Planning Council meeting is happening on November 7. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: The Comprehensive Plan survey closes tonight and we have received a lot of paper copies to combine with the survey monkey data. Staff has been working to put together all of the survey responses. Bob will be working to analyze and visualize the data. We will send the analyzed data out by the end of this week so Commission has time to go over it before the work session. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Sean Tubbs, Piedmont Environmental Council: There will be an open house for the long range transportation plan held by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, known as Area B areas. There should be more coordination in the areas made up of University, City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Final Subdivision for Stonehenge PUD- staff has determined the changes do meet the site plan. Chairman Green moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion is approved 5-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. Hogwaller Farm a. ZM18-00001 – 918 Nassau Street, Hogwaller Farm Development – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (landowners) have submitted a rezoning petition for Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street, and a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79 (Subject Properties). The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R-2 Two-family Residential to HW Highway Corridor with proffered development conditions. The proffered conditions include: (i) maximum height of buildings: Any structures(s) located on the property shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, where height is the vertical distance measured perpendicularly from grad from the highest point on such building or structure; (ii) future land 3 uses: The land uses permitted on the Subject Properties are found in the HW Corridor Sec. 34-796 use matrix, but prohibits the following; Bed-and-breakfasts homestays, B&Bs, Inns, amusement centers, art galleries, auditoriums, automotive services, banks/financial institutions, health clinics, private clubs, data centers, dry cleaning establishments, elementary schools, high schools, hotels/motels, laundromats, libraries, movie theaters, municipal buildings, music halls, offices, outdoor storage, public recreational facilities, fast food restaurants, full service restaurants, taxi stands, transit facilities, home improvement centers, pharmacies, shopping centers, retail stores over 4,001 SF, and laboratories; (iii) affordable housing; contingent upon approval of residential density on site, 15% (fifteen percent) of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the residential square footage of the project will be available for rent on-site. For-rent affordable units shall rent at a rate making the units affordable to households with incomes at not more than 80% of the area median income for a period on not more than 15 (fifteen) years. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.201. The Subject Properties is approximately 0.8 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. b. SP18-00004 – (918 Nassau Street) (Hogwaller Farm Development) – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (landowners) have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use permit (SUP) for a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79, Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street (Subject Properties). The SUP application proposes a density of 32 Dwelling Units Acres (DUA) per City Code Sec. 34-740. The applicant is requesting a rezoning (see petition ZM-18-00001) and a SUP for the proposed development of eighteen (18) one-bedroom and twelve (12) two-bedroom units split between two (2) three- story buildings for a total of thirty (30) dwelling units. The development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and a 600 square foot retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds (not to exceed 600 square feet), and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.20. The Subject Properties are approximately 0.94 acres and has road frontage on Nassau Street. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Staff Report, Matt Alfele: On April 10 there was a public hearing for the rezoning request to increase density from the by- right 0 dwellings per acre to 32 dwellings per acre. The Commission expressed concerned with the County portion of the development and did not want to take any action until the county granted or denied a rezoning petition. The applicant requested and received a deferral by the Planning Commission. The Commission also wanted the county to be aware of the City’s concerns with the project and sent a letter to the Albermarle County Planning Commission stating that a) Both the City and County portion of the development will only be accessible by way of City streets. Increased traffic and the introduction of lager vehicles (large trucks and equipment for farming and tree transplanting) are a concern, b) The City would like to see access for all residents to Moores Creek and Rives Parks. The opportunity for public access easements and new trails needs consideration with this application. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan calls for a Shared Use Path along Moores Creek at this location, and c) The housing component of the development is very important to the City. Unintended consequences of rezoning the City portion of the development could lead to the loss of future housing stock that the current R-2 zoning allows. A rezoning on the City side to Highway Corridor currently requires a Special Use Permit for any density. Of concern is any future development that utilizes by-right commercial or retail uses without a housing component. On September 12, the Albemarle Board of Supervisors approved the application to rezoning 7.52 acres from LI Light Industrial to RA Rural Areas. The key positions of the approved ordinance include that the property will be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “TMP 07700- 00-00-02000: Hogwaller Farm” dated 01-16-2018 and last revised 06-27-18, A 100’ riparian buffer will be preserved from the top of Moore’s Creek bank and signed, uses on the site are restricted to the uses pursuant to Section 10.2 (3), (6), (7), (9), (21), (27), and (30), and that any structures within the Flood Hazard Overlay District shall not exceed six hundred square feet of aggregated improved space. The Commission may want to keep the following residential density in mind during discussion: under current R-2 zoning, the subject properties could accommodate approximately 4-5 detached single-family homes, each could have up to 4 unrelated, or 3-4 attached single-family homes (i.e. 4 a duplex) and each unit within the attached single family could have up to 4 unrelated. If the zoning is changed to Highway Corridor, no single family detached or attached homes would be permitted. The by-right density in the Highway Corridor is 0. If it is rezoned and the SUP is approved, the density would be roughly 30 dwellings per acre. Additional comments were received by staff after the report was finished and raised concerns with development in the floodplain, that the plan as presented would not be realistic as it relates to urban farming and producing food, the development would be out of character with the neighborhood, it does not match the existing Comprehensive Plan, the zoning in the area should not change until Belmont goes through a small area plan process, the affordable units being proposed are not significant, and concerns about wetlands and traffic. New motions have been given to Planning Commission after review from the Attorney’s office. During the pre-meeting, questions about the critical slope was raised and there are no critical slopes as defined in the zoning ordinance on this site. There are slopes over 25%, but they are related to subdivisions instead of public infrastructure. Commissioner Mitchell: On the SUP report, the only recommendation that was listed that was proffered was the fact that they would not exceed 35 feet and the other recommendations were not proffered. Is this correct? Mr. Alfele: If the SUP was granted, that would be the recommendations that staff would make. Commissioner Mitchell: The height of the greenhouse and height of the store weren’t proffered, right? Mr. Alfele: The height of the apartment building was proffered, but the height of the greenhouse and store were not proffered and they were SUP conditions for consideration. Applicant, Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering: The location of the development is an ideal place for integrating housing and agriculture with onsite affordable housing provisions that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent to this project are the Lindon Lofts and the Carlton Views apartments, both of which are larger in scale. There are 7.5 acres in the County for the community farming operation and 3 acres are proffered out in buffers for undisturbed areas. There are opportunities for trail connections that lead to the park, but it is not part of the action tonight. There are 18 one bedroom and 12 two bedroom apartments and the number of bedrooms in this development will be lower than that of the current zoning. There will be mixed housing- duplexes and apartments that are both owner occupied and rentals. The 8 duplex rentals are 3-4 bedrooms. To clarify the term “affordable units,” it is copied from how the City does their affordable housing special use conditions. For this, the floor area ratio is at 0.5 but there will be 15% affordable units. The housing and land use of this project comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Notes that the area was historically agriculture based and that the farming operation is not a commercial farm, but rather an educational farm. Because of this, it will not bring a lot of high traffic activity to the area. When looking at the map, there will be Habitat for Humanity, duplexes, and apartments across the street. The development is just about at 15 units per acre, with less people than if there were 15 single family houses built on the parcels. Hannah, Shimp Engineering: Speaks about the vision of the non-profit aspect of the urban farm and notes the goal is to be a demonstration space where backyard gardeners can take what they learn home. It is not a large production farm to produce large amounts of food, but rather it is an educational space. The mission would be to provide access to residents of the community and the county who may not have large plots of land. It welcomes different income and experience levels. The farm would be an experimental space where people can try new growing techniques and could meet the need to learn farming techniques in the community. COMMISSIONER/COUNCIL QUESTIONS Commissioner Mitchell: Would like to know more about what would happen in the greenhouse. 5 Justin Shimp: The greenhouse is for people to start their growing, but the parcel needs to be rezoned in order have the greenhouse. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Will the farm be run by a nonprofit or will you work with nonprofits? Mr. Shimp: It depends on the scale. There will be a nonprofit running the education piece and there is the potential for non- profits to lease parts of the farming space to grow crops. Commissioner Stolzenberg: There have been a number of complaints by local gardeners that the flood plain as fertile or a good place to grow. Are you planning to work with them or are they considered competition? Mr. Shimp: It is not a competition because we all have the same vision. Flood plains are great places for farming and the city runoff will be used to water landscape. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Will the farm store be open all year or only during the harvest? Mr. Shimp: The hope is to use the space for other small scale commercial uses while crops are not available, like an artist studio. Commissioner Mitchell: The affordable housing proffer reads not more than 15 years. Will you be making this 15 years? Mr. Shimp: Correct, it will be for 15 years. Chairman Green: Asks if the nonprofit has been established and if not, when will it be established? Mr. Shimp: It is in the process of being established now. If it does not get established, Mr. Shimp will run it. Chairman Green: The current structure of this is a nonprofit, so if the nonprofit isn’t there then how would you organize the structure of this business? Would people in the units be able use the agricultural space as their personal gardening space? Mr. Shimp: The agricultural space will be leased for almost nothing and residents can certainly use it as their personal gardening space. Chairman Green: Thinks conditioning of the trail is a good idea, as it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. However, there isn’t anything in the SUP indicating the trail connections will definitely be made. Can we put a guarantee of the trail connections into the SUP? Mr. Shimp: The trails in question are not on City property. The trails on property the applicant will be buying and can grant a guarantee the connections, given the housing requests are granted. Would be happy to accept that condition, but does not know if it would be enforceable under the jurisdiction. Chairman Green: There are elements in the provided matrix that do not have obvious connections to urban farming, such as bowling alleys, car washes and electronic cafés. Shouldn’t these be removed? Mr. Shimp: Those items can be taken out, but we wanted to leave room for future businesses. We did not take out the uses that would require a special use permit because some of them could be used in the future if the housing market wasn’t in as high of a demand. Chairman Green: Car washes in particular are a point of concern in this area because of the chemicals. 6 Mr. Shimp: Is okay with striking car washes out of the matrix. Commissioners Heaton: Asks what would happen if the urban farm grows larger than expected. Does the highway corridor provide for street parking? Mr. Shimp: There is on-street parking on Nassau Street for farm visitors and they can park in the county. Chairman Green: There will be 2 affordable units, will they be one bedroom or two bedrooms? Mr. Shimp: The unit types of the affordable units are still to be determined, but is opened to either option. Councilor Galvin: Given concerns about flooding contaminating community garden plots, has the applicant been testing the river water to ensure the urban farming plots will be viable? Mr. Shimp: There is a risk of contamination, but the position of this site on the flood plain decreases the risk significantly. Councilor Galvin: What are the unit counts in the duplexes? Mr. Shimp: That hasn’t been finalized yet, though they may range from one to four bedrooms. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The grading of the site looks flat on the plan, when in reality it has some steep hills. What is the plan to regrade that area? Mr. Shimp: It is currently at or a little below street level in the front, and the back will need to be filled in. The site will still slope down away from the road, but not as dramatically as it does now. Chairman Green: In May there was a flood on the site. Did that affect the area? Mr. Shimp: There was flooding on the site, but the flood did not affect the farm area. The farm area may be flooded every 20 or 30 years. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Will the farmland be 3.9 acres, given the “riparian” buffer is 3.5 acres? Mr. Shimp: The farmland will be over the 3.5 acre buffer, but the exact measurement has not been determined. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the trail will run along the creek once it goes down to the south. Mr. Shimp: It is up to the City to determine where the trail should run, either by the creek or away from it. PUBLIC HEARING Steve Brown: Opposes the project at 918 Nassau Street. The character of Nassau Street should be preserved, in accordance with the zoning of the comprehensive plan. The highway zoning is meant to attract commercial uses, but Nassau Street should continue to be a residential street. There is concern about the unintended consequences and the future character of the neighborhood. The City needs more affordable housing in the 20-60% AMI range not the 80% that is currently being proposed. 7 Virginia Grace Abraham: Is a resident near the Lindon Lofts and is in favor of the development. It will allow for local farming and horticulturalists to grow food. The farm stand can be used in the off season for dried produce like wreaths. The landlord is very aware of the need for affordable housing and the applicant willing to create some in the project. Mark Kavit: Would like to know what kinds of trees will be planted on the site. Notes that standing water on the site during the flood in May. There is standing water on the property more than 6 months out of the year and certain sections of the land may qualify as wetlands, meaning development cannot take place. There is also a pipe that dumps run-off water onto the property, which creates standing water. That may have effects on the crops grown on the site. The applicant used a slang word for marijuana in a Daily Progress article recently and would like the Commission to think about what the long-term future of this property might be. According to the New York Times and the Daily Progress, building on flood plains is dangerous for the country. Hopefully the Commission will take the time to research the flood plain and the effects that building on a flood plain have. Travis Pietila, Southern Environmental Law Center: Notes concerns regarding the location of this development and potential uses that could occur under the applicant’s current proposal. Almost all of this development is located within the flood plain and it sits near Moore’s Creek, one the most severely impaired stream segments in the region. Staff have stated that the development may not work toward the goals of the comprehensive plan in ensuring new development respects valuable natural resources or adequately protecting water quality. It is important to take great care in the effects of new developments on Moore’s Creek and the flood plain. This is not reflected in the current proposal. The applicant did not include low impact designs and staff reports indicate that they will be hashed out later. There is concern about making a decision without all of the information of the project. Recent approvals in the City have used proffers for low impact designs in order to protect water quality. The highway zoning could allow for many uses that have not been proffered out, but it would not be appropriate for this site in a low-density neighborhood. COMMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding the impact of density as compared to the 2013 comprehensive plan, staff noted that the density of units is higher than the current low density residential distinction. The total acreage of the development should be considered in determining impact of the site, which works out to 3.5 units per acre. Notes that the City portion alone is above the recommended density in the 2013 land use map, but the overall site project is within the density specified in the 2013 map. Commissioner Dowell: Is that allowable? Ms. Creasy: Notes that is a consideration, but it is not necessarily what is before the Commission today. You can look at the broader context of the site to consider it. Commissioner Mitchell: Would the site not require a rezoning if we look at it this way? Commissioner Stolzenberg: The site would still require a rezoning because the portion within the city would still be above the ratio. Chairman Green: We need to be careful in looking at the impact this way because there is no control over what the county does with its portion of the site. It would not be good zoning practice to look at the impact this way. We need to consider what impacts the project will have on City streets and neighborhoods. The County may rezone the flood plain, but the only access to the dwelling units is through the City. Commissioner Heaton: Pertaining to the design elements for the run-off and water quality of the creek nearby, not opposed to having development but I think the applicant should make it clear as to how they will deal with those issues. 8 Chairman Green: Reiterates that we are rezoning the property and in theory, the applicant before us may not always be the owner of the property. Commissioner Mitchell: The commission may need more information regarding this development in order to make an informed decision. In particular more information about the flood plain information and mitigating design elements is needed to make the decision. Ms. Robertson: Notes that the Commission is making recommendations to City Council and should first decide whether or not to recommend the rezoning, and then move on to the proposed SUP. The SUP should be considered as if the Council might approve the rezoning, that way conditions can be made to make the development appropriate at the site. Chairman Green: Does not think she could recommend approval of the rezoning because it seems to be pushing the highest density and most car-centric zone onto an area it does not belong in. Also shares concerns about the potential uses that would be allowed on the site in the future because of this rezoning, including car washes and grocery stores. Commissioner Heaton: Agrees, but asks if there another way to rezone it and make the development happen. Chairman Green: If Highway is the only option, she recommends taking a more comprehensive look at the matrix and continue to take out the things that are not compatible. These restrictions are so important because it is in a flood plain and our water and water quality is very important. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Shares concerns about the highway zoning because of similar rezoning in the past, but in this case the highway rezoning seems like a means to an end. They don’t plan on making it auto-oriented and it can develop more housing, which is a goal we have in the Comprehensive Plan. Notes concerns about the first condition that has a maximum of 32 dwelling units per acre because the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance is 43. Ms. Creasy: The applicant requested 32 units, so that is the maximum that can be allowed. Commissioner Mitchell: There are a lot of things about the project that he likes, but is worried about the environmental factors. Would like to have more information before a vote and recommends deferral and how the site plan might mitigate some of the potential problems. Commissioner Dowell: Does not like that it does not comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Appreciates that there are affordable units but would like to know how much they would be rented for, and would like to see more units available. Mr. Shimp: It would be $1179 for a two bedroom unit and $950 for a one bedroom, which includes the utility allowance. Would like to make it cheaper, but it is a difficult challenge. In regards to deferring the proposal because of the storm water, there is a 100-175 foot buffer between Moore’s Creek and it would stay naturally vegetated. The County could potentially remove that restriction but it is very unlikely. Notes that when more requirements are needed that are costly, it makes the housing costs increase and preservation of neighborhoods means that it becomes more expensive for everyone else. There needs to be a balance, but if an extra $200,000 is tacked on to the plan, there might be trouble keeping the affordable units affordable. Commissioner Dowell: Is aware that it must be profitable, but at some point developers will have to realize that it cannot always be about profit with the crisis that we have within the City. Chairman Green: Suggests possibly having a work session with the applicant, but the proffers have been advertised and a decision needs to be made tonight. 9 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks what the consequences would be for retracting the density proffer. Would the applicant have to go through the application process again? Mr. Alfele: That would be a change to the SUP, so the applicant would have to essentially start over because it is substantially different. Mr. Shimp: Notes he would be okay with deferring both applications until a work session can be held to discuss the concerns of the project. Commissioner Mitchell moves to accept the applicant’s request for deferral for the rezoning application, pending a work session. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 4-1. Commissioner Mitchell moves to accept the applicant’s request for deferral for the Special Use Permit, pending a work session. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 5-0. Chairman Green: A work session with the applicant will be tentatively planned for the end of November. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Long Range Transportation Plan Process Presentation Thomas Jefferson Planning District – Wood Hudson, Transportation Program Manager: MPO’s are transportation policymaking and planning bodies with representatives of local, state and federal government and transportation authorities. They are a federal requirement in urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000. One of the main responsibilities of the MPO is maintenance of the regional Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which are 25 year documents that are updated every 5 years. They focus on understanding future transportation needs and are a requirement for receiving federal transportation money and are a requirement for Smart Scale. Plans are required to use a performance-based approach and meet federal requirements for addressing performance measures (Map 21), such as safety, congestion, state of good repair, freight, access, and transit. The plan also includes a fiscally constrained list and an unconstrained visioning list. They are currently in the “evaluating projects in scenarios” step of the LRTP process. Based on an analysis provided by VDOT, the funding estimates for the region are $101.7 million for bridges, $126.9 million for roadways, $43.1 million for bike/ped and $82.3 million for intersections. The bike and pedestrian plan is a component of the LRTP and are using an Active Trans tool to do project prioritization for bike and pedestrian improvements. That process is being evaluated right now to help understand each of the projects in the context of the map. The goal is to have it completed by January. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Mr. Palmer: Would like to have heard more about the public process because it seems like it has been pretty extensive. Mr. Hudson: The project has been worked on for about a year and they’ve done extensive public outreach and public engagement. Specifically, for the LRTP they have hosted two public open houses and provided a space on their website to send direct comments. They also partnered with Piedmont Environmental Council for the bike and pedestrian plan and they’ve been able to do extensive public outreach on the bike and pedestrian plan through a joint grant that they received. This includes getting out into the neighborhood and attending public events engaging with people where they are at, rather than having them come to them. The WikiMap has also been used, which helps them identify things that might be impediments for their bike commutes. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The three scenarios seem to have an all-or-nothing approach. How do you evaluate the proposals within each scenario where the best 1/3 of each scenario would create the best outcome? 10 Mr. Hudson: That’s where the second round of scenarios comes in. The first round is just a base line and round two will be more of a mix of projects. Chairman Green: With the open house on October 17 coming up, will people be able to look at and weigh in on these scenarios? Mr. Hudson: Absolutely. 2. Comprehensive Plan – reserved time for continued discussion Chairman Green: In order to have a draft completed and ready to give to Council in December, there needs to be a critical mass at the work session meetings. The survey results will be ready on Friday and the Commission is encouraged to look at those prior to the work sessions. There will be a lot of preparation work on the Commission’s part in order to have conversations and if the chapters are looked at prior to the meeting, they can be finalized in an hour at the next work session. Housing and Land Use will be the next items on the agenda. The next work sessions will be on October 23 and 30 and the next critical mass will be on November 6. V. ADJORNMENT 8:35 p.m. – Commissioner Dowell moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in November 2018.