1

Minutes

                             PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
                                    September 9, 2020 – 5:30 P.M.
                                          Virtual Meeting



   I.        COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s))
         Beginning: 5:00 PM
         Location: Virtual/Electronic
         Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Stolzenberg,
         Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Green, Commissioner Palmer,
         Commissioner Heaton
         Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Joey Winter, Missy Creasy, Joe Rice, Craig Fabio, Lisa Robertson,
         Brennen Duncan, Jack Dawson, Matt Alfele, Paul Oberdorfer, Read Brodhead, Jeff Werner, Alex
         Ikefuna

Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and began review of the agenda. He asked if there
were any questions on the consent agenda. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked about the lighting condition
noted for the ERB application requiring that the fixture be dimmable. Missy Creasy and Jeff Werner
provided background. Commission Stolzenberg noted that he was okay with 3000k but was concerned
about requiring it to be dimmable. Mr. Werner provided background on the dimmable fixture request.
Commissioner Stolzenberg noted that the diagram on page 93 of the packet did not provide a dimmable
fixture and Mr. Werner noted that one was available. It was determined that Mr. Werner would gather
additional information and share it in the meeting.
Commissioner Solla Yates noted that on pages 16 and 19 of the minutes his wording needs to change to
“in all zones” rather than “any zones.” It was noted that he would request that change that as part of the
motion he provides for approval of the consent agenda.
Ms. Creasy provided background on the family day home item.

   II.      COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order at 5:30 PM by Ms. Creasy
         Beginning: 5:30 PM
         Location: Virtual/Electronic


A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Commissioner Green – I did attend a TJPDC meeting at the end of August. There was a required vote
for the funding for rent relief and mortgage relief. There is money there from the CARES Act. If you need
rent and mortgage relief, please go to the TJPDC website. There is a popup for more information. There is
still money left at the state. The more money we need, the more money we get. If we need it and use it,
there is more money for us to get. I attended the Rivanna Steering Committee about the next plans for a
bike/pedestrian crossing. After being on that committee and watching these potential improvements
                                                                                                            2

happening, I was elated at what we saw and how the TJPDC is moving us along. They are going to be
doing some more public outreach. Make sure you are providing your input.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I attended the PLACE Design Task Force. We discussed the 10th and
Grady smart scale application plans. There are a lot of concerns that by doing this as a smart scale
application rather than a small area plan, it’s going to be automobile focused or road centered on that
intersection. The alternative is to do a bunch of community engagement in advance, which is not funded
until we get funding from the state for smart scale. We considered a motion to recommend that a small
area plan be pursued for the corridor instead. We actually recommended that as the consultants for the
comp plan do their outreach to the people in that area, they put out a few questions about what their vision
for that intersection and corridor are. Instead of a small area plan, where we are looking at results in the
future, we can combine our two efforts, keep the smart scale rolling, and start to get some good
preliminary input before the full scale smart scale engagement comes through in a few years. The Chair
and Vice-Chair of PLACE have resigned. We have a meeting tomorrow to discuss the future of the
PLACE Design Task Force; whether it is useful in its current form, whether the Planning Commission
and Council are listening to its recommendations, whether it is actively making recommendations, and
how it should look going forward. Once that is decided, we will elect new officers to replace the old
officers. There will be an MPO Tech meeting next Tuesday.

Commissioner Heaton – No Report

Commissioner Dowell – I attended the CIP meeting last Thursday. We are now meeting quarterly instead
of annually to try to stay ahead of some of the projects that we have been discussing. A couple of the big
topics that were on the agenda were the Walker/Buford reconfiguration. We are still deliberating about the
configuration and moving forward on it. We voted, as a body, to table it. We are not tabling it completely.
This is a project that has been talked about for the last 10 years. At this time, we came to a consensus that
we did not feel comfortable spending $350,000 on a plan that may not work, especially during the times
that we are currently in. We feel that it would be important to get public input again because people may
not feel the same pre-coronavirus as they do post-coronavirus. We don’t want to people to think that we
don’t want to move forward. It is tabled for the next 3 to 6 months. Another thing that was a hot topic was
the facilities maintenance update for the schools. They have been using Survey 123 to streamline their
work orders and the flow of the process. We also went over different definitions of what CCS wants to
clarify We have three new categories. They have sectioned them in facilities maintenance, capital
improvement projects, and facilities services. Facilities services is something we voted on as more of
smaller projects, where they don’t necessarily need to go through facilities maintenance to get those
things done and it can be done quicker.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – No Report

Commissioner Lahendro – The Board of Architectural Review did meet August 18th. There were four
Certificates of Appropriateness issued. One was deferred. We approved a letter of support for placing the
Jackson Burley School on the state and national registers of historic places. That will be going to the state
in two weeks. The Tree Commission met on August 26th. This was the first time we have met since last
March. We spent a lot of time remembering what it is that we do. We welcomed four new members to the
Commission and reviewed the mission and the committee structure. Paul Josey did run through a draft of
a presentation that will be made to the City Council: The Annual State of the Forest presentation. Some of
                                                                                                                3

the highlights from that include a correlation between low income neighborhoods and city areas with the
fewest trees and the fact that the lack of trees increases the heat effect to those areas and creates more
health issues as a result of the greater heat. Recent new developments are not providing the opportunities
to provide large street trees in the planting beds along the street. There has been a lack of city regulatory
oversight of new development construction that has resulted in the destruction of large, mature street
trees. All of these things have resulted in a loss of 5% percent of the tree canopy in a recent 10 year
period. That 5% is 400 acres of trees.

B. UNIVERSITY REPORT

Commissioner Palmer – 85% of the students have returned to Grounds in some form or another. There is
information on the website regarding the testing that is occurring. There is a Board of Visitors meeting on
Thursday and Friday with Buildings and Grounds Committee meeting at 8:00 AM on Friday. They are
going to have on their action items the School of Data Sciences and Hotel & Conference Center on the
Ivy Corridor as well as renovation of a building at the Darden Schools.


C. CHAIR’S REPORT
     1. Annual Meeting
        A. Election of Officers

               Commissioner Dowell – Nominated Mr. Mitchell as Chair and Mr. Solla-Yates as Vice-
               Chair.

               Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Solla-Yates were elected to the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair.

Chairman Mitchell – The Rivanna meeting was the first meeting that I had a chance to go to. It was a
very interesting meeting. There is likely to be some additional development along the Rivanna. The group
is very focused on making certain that we protect the environment and make certain that environment
remains a serene place to go and to enjoy the outdoors. The group is focused on protecting that waterway
and making it a nice and serene place to be. The UVA Master Plan Committee did not meet. I am not
certain when we are going to meet again. The reasons for not meeting are the virus and to cut back on
costs wherever UVA can. Most of the new planning studies that they have been working on have been
reviewed by us. I went to the UVA, Albemarle County, and Charlottesville Land Use group meeting. We
are working on getting our first bi-annual report out to you. That document is more of a visioning
document. The document talks about what we want to be engaged in, what we are going to focus on.
There is a laundry list of things that we thinking about focusing on. We haven’t really landed on what
exactly they are going to be. We are talking about things like the environment, climate, night skies, and
capital plans. We are actually talking about landfills. The document that we are working on will be a good
visioning document and what we want to focus on by the end of the year. We are having a kickoff
meeting about the Capital Budget on Friday.

D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS

Ms. Creasy – Our chair is going to be looking at the committee appointments to see if those need to be
shifted. I will send out the last version of that. If you have interest in something, you can share that
interest with Chairman Mitchell. We have a new member, who will be coming on board. Liz Russell was
                                                                                                             4

appointed by Council last night to the Planning Commission for Commissioner Green’s position. She
brings a preservation background. That will be a wonderful skillset to have with us as well as being very
involved in our current community. I have worked to update the roster. I am going to send you a draft and
have you provide any updates so that we can get an up to date roster. There was a message that we
received from the Clerk of Council concerning the boards and commissions meeting that Council is
holding on October 6th. All boards and commissions members have been invited to listen to that
discussion. There will be opportunity for interaction. They wanted to schedule the time to really focus on
something that they have been talking about for a while. Staff continues to work remotely. We have had
our first remote site plan conference this week. We have a number that are scheduled to occur. We have
had virtual community meetings for applications that are working through the process. We have a path to
get every application through the department at this time. It is a little bit slower on some aspects. It does
provide the best opportunity that we can for public input. We have found, with the applications that we
have been working with, that we have received a good amount of input from people.


E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA

Julie Convisser – There is a segment of road that has concerned the neighborhood. We are concerned
about the public hazards of the cut thru to Morgan Court from Stribling Avenue. There are already
dangers that currently exist on Stribling. Stribling is very dangerous for pedestrians, bikes, and traffic.
The new development will multiply those hazards. We would like the city and developers to make a
commitment to improvements for public safety. The city should take our concerns seriously. We want the
neighbors to feel safe on Stribling Avenue.

Tom Cogill – I know that Morgan Court is not equipped to handle any kind of traffic. Stribling Avenue
has a huge number of walkers, joggers, and bikers. I have lived on Stribling for 20 years. It’s a very
diverse community. It has a little bit of everything. I am for affordable housing. It would be reckless to
over develop the site. It would endanger people. It would be disrespectful to the neighbors and
neighborhood building out to the street. I hope that you take this into account with your planning.

Paul Josey – I am a representative of the Tree Commission. This site has 11 acres of mature canopy trees.
It is one of the few sites directly on Moores Creek. It is a site with a lot of steep slopes. There is
significant concern regarding this development. The roads are graded at 14.5%. This is a steep
development in a sensitive area near Moores Creek. It is removing a significant amount of canopy. This is
not a close walk situation. This is a very dense development.

Jason Halbert – I am speaking as the President of the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association. We are
working on a letter to the developer and the Planning Commission. We would like to arrange a walk down
Stribling Avenue for the Planning Commission and City Council. We have been advocating for safety
improvements on Stribling Avenue. We want density and affordable housing. Council and Planning
Commission need to marry these goals with a proper safe street. A letter will come this week.

Derrick Stone – Stribling Avenue is at capacity. You’re going to make the problem worse. I do support
the addition of low cost housing. The end of Stribling Avenue Extended is one lane and you can’t fit two
cars on it. It would be difficult to add more cars to the end of Stribling Avenue Extended. Adding 180
units would be triple the number of cars on Stribling. I think you should come and take a look.
                                                                                                               5


Martin Quarles – I was part of the community meeting last week. There was fairly unanimous consensus
regarding the site with regards to safety. There is a strong sentiment in this part of town that this project is
in the wrong part of the city.

Catherine Bruce – This community does support affordable housing. $500,000 seems to be their lip
service for making money off of housing. That’s what they proposed for Breezy Hill development in
eastern Albemarle. Walking on Stribling is scary. I would hope that we put the resources behind this
commitment for access. We will continue to have this conversation as a community and we will continue
to bring this to you with the hope that you will listen to us.

John Marshall – The entire community disapproves of this proposed development. We are appalled that
the neighborhood association is saying that the community is for this development. The developer had a
community meeting last week and members of the community spoke out against this development. The
community is against changing the land use from low density to high density.

Kevin Flynn – I want to bring up concerns already brought up by others on this project. Stribling Avenue
has no sidewalks. If this is going to move forward, there needs to be safety facilities available on Stribling
Avenue. There are cyclists and pedestrians dodging cars and cars dodging cyclists and pedestrians. I am
also concerned about the intersection of Stribling Avenue and JPA. I am concerned about the level of
density for a dead end road. There is going to be one primary access point.

Margo Smith – I will re-iterate what others have said about this location not being suitable for high
density and the distance for services. I want to speak about the steep slopes and the runoff into Moores
Creek. You can look at the back end of the Huntley subdivision. There was a beaver meadow. It has
become a swamp because of the runoff. Moores Creek gets swamped after heavy rains combined with the
runoff from these two developments.

William Abrahamson – I would like to thank you. Policy meets common sense with the Planning
Commission sometimes to frustrating effect. The traffic reports make the assertion that the traffic will not
be impacted directly. The traffic reports make no accounting for the pedestrian traffic at that stop sign and
intersection. That should be a prerequisite for further progress of this application. The Planning
Commission does have a comprehensive plan. Density has been projected in some areas.

Sarah Radcliffe – There are two things that I wanted to highlight. I feel the density is like putting the cart
before the horse. There is a lot of evidence of how poorly areas have been developed when there is no
infrastructure to support the density. This has been a long term problem. I would like to encourage you to
come and look at the area.

Marilyn Swinford – I concur about the statements made about Stribling Avenue. Morgan Court is very
narrow and goes uphill. We have a substandard intersection. Our street is not suitable to put more traffic
more on it. Morgan Court is under-designed for its current uses. We have no business taking any more
traffic on our street. We have no capacity to take on additional traffic. There needs to be an update on the
comprehensive plan. The city has not prepared itself for this development.
                                                                                                           6

Ryan Yauger – I would like to speak about the Chick-Fil-A at the Barracks Road Shopping Center on the
Consent Agenda. I would like to ask for flexibility. I believe the staff has the best intention in mind. We
have provided a plan that meets all city code. We hold the safety of the workers, patrons, and public at the
most importance. We have concerns with agreeing to a formal condition adhering to public complaint
without a definition or standard as to what that complaint is. We’re not trying to be unreasonable in the
future. The standard, currently in place, is the zoning ordinance. We do meet all of the standards.

Erica Williams – A neighbor indicated that Southern Development was interested in 240 Stribling
Avenue for low density. The Planning Commission encouraged high density. I know that question was
deferred. When will that question be addressed? It’s a very important question. I didn’t want it to be
bypassed.

After discussion with staff, the question will be addressed when the item appears in a public hearing in
front of the Planning Commission. There will be an opportunity for more dialogue between the Planning
Commission and the public at that time.

Cabel Marshall – The street is not able to handle that additional traffic. There was not a full picture of
the street scape included in the packet that was sent out. It shows a setback from Stribling of around 10 to
15 feet. On the plat, it requests a 0 setback from Stribling. I would imagine that they would give us a
sidewalk. If that is approved, they could build their building right up to the sidewalks, which would be out
of keeping with the architectural character of the neighborhood. I highly recommend that you go with the
existing setbacks. I hope that this is noticed, stopped, and built with the current setbacks.

Michael McCann – You can’t go up or down Stribling Avenue with the current volume of cars. I can’t
imagine adding more cars, especially with the blind hill. It is inherently unsafe currently. Adding any
more volume without any improvements would be possibly catastrophic.

F. CONSENT AGENDA

(Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda)
       1. Minutes – July 14, 2020 – Pre-meeting and Regular meeting
       2. Site Plan - Kappa Kappa Gamma (503 Rugby Rd)
       3. Site Plan - Chick-fil-A Barracks Rd

Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to approve the consent agenda with a small change to the minutes
from the July meeting. (Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro)

After a brief discussion, the ERB for Chick-fil-A was removed from the consent agenda and added
to the end of the meeting agenda.

G. PRESENTATION – JAUNT

Brad Sheffield, Executive Director of JAUNT – I wanted to update you on a new initiative that JAUNT
is moving forward with that will affect the city and the county, especially in the urban fringe area. It’s a
pretty exciting initiative. Anybody that pays attention to public transportation is familiar with how this
has evolved in the US. We see it as an evolution on what JAUNT already provides.
                                                                                                             7


We are making our rounds about presenting to the various entities. The goal is to really start the
conversation going on this concept. As we are starting to form it, we want to make sure we are gathering
the type of input and direction that is needed to make it work all across the spectrum that we can see it
being applied. The Planning Commission actually has a pretty important role. We are trying to make sure
people are aware. You may hear from other sources. Our number one goal is to try to get ahead of any
misinformation or incorrect information that could present the wrong idea of what we’re looking to do.
We wanted to get you to understand the concept of on demand. In the US, we already have something
called Demand Response. JAUNT is recognized as that type of entity that provides Demand Response
services. On Demand is very similar. It takes on a whole new approach to serving the community. It
remains customer focused rather than fix route. It is more generalized. It looks at volume versus
specialization. With On Demand, we focus on three different areas. One is connecting people to places.
That means not limiting ourselves to certain areas or certain times of day but being able adapt and change
the types of services that are offered based on the feedback we’re getting real time. Another aspect is the
cost. Right now, both JAUNT and CAT services are running fare free. This is one of those question marks
going forward. Something like On Demand would take on a cost-scaled approach that is really dependent
on where people are going, what time of day, distance, congestion, and a lot of different factors. This was
a fairly easy thing to discuss. As we move through this fare-free approach to services during COVID, I am
getting some questions I don’t quite have some answers to. It’s a dynamic structure that allows us to be
responsive to where and how things get paid. On Demand is the immediate availability. This really
changes the approach. With our typical On Demand services, people are asked to call a day ahead of time.
With a fixed route, it’s dependent on the schedule that is published. With On Demand, there is that
immediate exchange of a request, whether it is through an app or a phone call. That immediate availability
and immediate request will feed into some of the other information to help us to continue to shape and
repurpose what we are offering to the public. We’re doing all of this in context of some guiding principles
we created. We did that because as we move forward with implementing this, you can lose sight of why
you’re implementing something. We put this acronym together. It was not by coincidence that it came
together. One is being responsive, and not just responsive in terms of an immediate request. Being
responsive to the dynamic needs of the community. One of the more impactful examples of that is during
the pandemic, we are facing an unprecedented issue of food insecurity. A lot of the food banks and food
sources have the resources to provide a transportation connectivity to those sources. This type of platform
would allow for us to immediately respond to creating something that those people can use to access food
security. That type of responsiveness doesn’t exist in transit. That’s where this platform really does make
a difference. We have always looked at things as being inclusive. Whether it’s through race or disability.
We understand the importance to make sure whatever we are offering, we’re taking into account the
different factors that make it accessible and inclusive. From the dynamic standpoint, it looks at how
different applications of this platform can be used to achieve outcomes for the community that haven’t
really been able to achieve before. It does offer us a whole new approach to offering transit. The one that I
love the most is the empowering approach. One of the reasons why Uber has been successful and
disruptive in the transit industry has been its way of offering that immediate empowerment to the users.
They are able to make a request and they know Uber is responding. That’s what we are looking to do. We
are looking to put that power in the hands of the users to let them feel like they have communicated with
transit about their needs. The last piece is being safe. Transit is held to fairly high standards of safety. We
will continue to convey that to passengers, even during the pandemic, when safety and people’s wellbeing
is paramount.
                                                                                                              8

In the transit world, we tend to come across issues, concerns, or challenges. We go off and look for a
service or a platform to help solve our issue. As I started to explore this On Demand concept, I started to
realize that the platforms that are offered actually open up opportunities that we may not have even
considered. We’re looking at it with the fact that we have this versatile piece of software that allows us to
address a range of opportunities that have not been addressed in a more complete way. There are a variety
of things that we have already come up with. There are those undiscovered opportunities that will start to
crop up as we continue to have these public conversations. We want people to start understanding what
we could do and start connecting the dots to how we get it done.

When we look to implementing this service in certain parts of the city, it is important that it is reflected in
the planning documents of the city. We need to find way to make sure that those we seek funding from
understand the city does embrace the concept. We don’t have any exact recommendations right now to
change any of the plans for the city. As the Planning Commission, you’re in place to help figure out
where this concept might best fit in those land use and transportation planning documents.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I am still confused about what JAUNT On Demand is. Is it just the change
to being able to request a JAUNT bus in real time by an app or phone call?

Mr. Sheffield – The reason we continue to refine the presentation is because of the desire to best
communicate it in the most clear way. That is a challenge for us because it’s a new concept in general for
transit. What JAUNT already performs is very similar to it. In the Charlottesville community, we provide
a service that we have yet to find a peer in other communities that they provide. The leap to On Demand
is just a skip for JAUNT. It’s a slight evolution. For a place like Richmond, it would be a big change in
what they already offer. The difference would be more profound in that kind of setting than here in
Charlottesville. It’s just an evolution in how people can access the services. The new aspect of it is that it
would be opening up this kind of service to anybody in any type of partnership that we can form. The
services that JAUNT offers is limited to either somebody certified as ADA eligible because of their
disability or because of a partnership with a human service agency. Those are the only two types of trips
that we would perform in the city. With this platform, we would expand that to more types of partnerships
and opportunities for any type of resident. In my opinion, it is fairly significant when it comes to any gaps
that exist in any other services or needs that have been discussed in the past.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – How long?

Mr. Sheffield – It is coming. We are looking to have the right staffing to help move initiative forward.

Chairman Mitchell – What feedback have you gotten from CAT and UTS?

Mr. Sheffield – Both see the opportunity to create a bridge for connection to those gaps that exist. With
UTS, they see it as feeding in from the ancillary areas of their services and maybe meet some needs that
don’t get addressed on the off peak times. With CAT, there has been conversations about how CAT
extends resources dipping into neighborhoods in parts of the city that make the services become less
efficient than what they could be. Something like On Demand can help feed into hubs of CAT services
that then help create that better connectivity. That’s the general response that we have received. They can
see how it complements the services and not compete. We have no desire to create another competing
option. We have a desire of creating these complementing options. The concept of On Demand actually
                                                                                                              9

goes hand in hand with this concept of unifying all the different modes under one platform. As a resident,
you can go from A to B and you would use an app that gives you five different solutions that might be
chain linked together. Those platforms go hand in hand. In Europe, they are referred to as mobility as a
service. In the states, we seem to be going through different variations of the terms. The feds are calling it
Complete Trip. That’s where CAT and UTS see the opportunity to make that Complete Trip concept
happen.

Commissioner Palmer – Thanks for mentioning UTS and how it can feed into that transit.

Commissioner Dowell – I want to know how the presentation differs from the services already offered by
JAUNT. I also want to know if you have this information available. Do you have in mind any other
partnerships right now that would be able to plug into this use?

Mr. Sheffield – We went after a federal grant with Loaves and Fishes to seek that very specific food
security concept and to seek funding. For the feds, they are trying to figure out how to measure the
performance of this type of concept. For us, we went after the grant to help get that type of initiative up
and going. We have been having a lot of conversations with some other food banks of how this kind of
platform can help expand the reach and offering of their services.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Once you’re able to request ride via an app or phone call, what do you
expect the turnaround time will be to get that ride? Will there be immediate feedback?

Mr. Sheffield – One of the mistakes that I made was saying that this was “Uber like.” That was
interpreted as we were partnering with Uber. We are not partnering with Uber, except to maybe include
them in some sort of Complete Trip concept. We are looking to do it ourselves. Under the thought of
“Uber like,” is that we would offer the same type of user interface or engagement that they do. There are
platforms that we are talking to that have gone beyond just a concept of transit and looked at the human
side of this. There is one vendor that has a “dignity rating” built into the platform. When the trip is done,
they’re able to actually provide feedback on how the trip met those expectations of providing them that
mobility. It is actually how well it did meeting more of that human side of the equation. That’s fascinating
to know how well a driver treated a passenger in the process of providing a service. It’s very similar to
those type of platforms. The difference is that it is going to be more behind the scenes and how some of
these opportunities are going to be layered on top of each other. The users don’t know until they go to
access a certain destination that that type of service is presented. Somebody using this to go to work may
have to pay out of pocket. Somebody using the platform to go to Loaves and Fishes may have it paid for
by Loaves and Fishes. That’s not a typical ride sharing type of platform. That’s the power behind this
kind of platform. We’re able to build those partnerships. When people go to use it, they come across the
opportunities on how to access the service or the destination that they are looking for. You take that
complication of the mobility or the transportation out of the equation, it improves that opportunity to
access the service.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – In times where a lot of people might requesting a ride for the near future,
how do you deal with that situation?

Mr. Sheffield – We are going to have a few resources vehicles that are going to be dedicated for this
purpose. That should help manage the expectations that would come from the request. We actually expect
                                                                                                             10

that some of the ADA passengers will abandon using JAUNT for paratransit ADA services and gravitate
to using this platform because they don’t have to call a day ahead of time. We have a lot of people, who
call up to two weeks ahead to schedule a trip to go to the grocery store. I would go back to that work of
empower. I would rather empower that individual to have that choice and not be bound by this para-transit
ADA structure and be able to have the same opportunities to call up at that time to go to the grocery store
and make that request. We will be able to see that those clients are typical ADA clients. We can’t give
preferential treatment. We can see how it may relax the need for the resources on the ADA side. It will be
an effort on my staff’s side to continuously monitor how this evolves over the short period of time We do
know that the resources that we have can meet the needs that emerge from the sheer nature of how we
schedule and maximize our resources on any given day.


   III.    JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL
           No hearings scheduled


   IV.     COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS

H. Family Day Home – Discussion

   Ms. Creasy – The Planning Commission, at the July meeting, provided a request for a zoning text
   amendment related to family day homes. We have taken this in a couple of different directions. One is
   that there is an opportunity to provide information from a legislative standpoint. The City Attorney
   provided some information to the legislative committee for the city and some information that went on
   to our Delegates for the state. Some of the potential changes that might need to occur would be things
   that would have to have state support. The City Attorney put together some informational background
   and submitted that to the Planning Commission back in July. We also included those materials here.
   The City Attorney may have some feedback on this, as we go through this discussion. I am not sure
   we have heard anything from that. The other direction, locally, is that our current ordinance that is on
   the books needs updating. It is antiquated. Many changes have occurred at the state level. We took the
   opportunity to provide updates to the code that would adhere to those state regulations. If someone
   were to come forward, we would work with them through the current state regulations. What is
   allowable by the state would be what we would be enforcing from a city standpoint. What this would
   do is provide the opportunity for an update to our code language. That would provide additional
   clarity to the community from that perspective. What we have brought forward is a clarification to the
   occupancy residential definition within the code. We have also put forth proposals on how to update
   the use matrices in order to reflect this. One to four children is considered to be single family. That is
   something we want to move forward and clear up in the matrix. Any area that allows single family
   residential would allow for that use. Five to twelve children requires a state license. Categories for that
   would allow for it to continue to be by right in the areas it that currently is, which include the business
   districts and. allow for it by provisional use in all the other districts that allow for residential use. The
   zoning staff spent a good amount of time working through potential requirements for a provisional use
   permit. With a provisional use permit, an applicant would apply for this and if they can adhere to each
   of the regulations that are put forth in the permit, we would be able to move forward with approval.
   The most significant item with that is the state licensure requirements. It would be a very straight
   forward process for the applicant to move forward. Once they get through the state process, that is a
   lot more rigorous, ours is just ‘checking the box’ at that point in time. We’re hoping that you will
                                                                                                        11

provide us some guidance on whether this is the direction that you would like for this to go. We have
a few questions for feedback. Are there variations needed to areas where family day home for 5 to 12
children is allowable by right or by provisional use? Is there any update to the provisional use permit
regulations, as we have proposed them?
Read Brodhead, Zoning Administrator – My understanding is that the Planning Commission
wanted to find a way to ease the restrictions that we had in place. I was looking at some of the
provisional use permits that we already have in place, such as the home occupation form and the
homestay. I tried to mirror this closely to that. I also looked at Special Use Permits that were granted
in the past for family day homes in excess of five children. That’s why we required that a traffic safety
plan be included. That’s something that the Planning Commission has asked for in the past. That’s
where we came up with the hours of operation. That would be consistent with one of the approvals in
the past. We’re proposing that this be an annual permit. That gives us the ability to reset and make
sure that this family day home isn’t causing issues with the neighborhood. That’s consistent with the
homestay permit. It gives us a chance to re-evaluate it. The signage clause and the revocation clause
are similar to what we have in the homestay ordinance. It is important to have a strong revocation
clause to make sure that we find any problems that might exist. It is pretty harsh too. If you lose your
permit, then you can’t apply in the subsequent years. It is pretty strict and important for preserving
neighborhoods and preventing problems from occurring. The one problem that I ran into was this 30
day window. I would be required to notify all adjacent property owners of the proposed use. This
slows expediting this process. We wanted to create this permit to not require them to go to the
Planning Commission and allow people to get through the process quickly. Number 8 is in reaction to
a state code that states that adjacent property owners should be notified. It’s a win for the adjacent
property owners. It’s an opportunity for them to voice their concerns. It does slow the process. I think
that was the intent of looking at this ordinance to speed up the process. It’s going to be faster than
getting a Special Use Permit. It’s still going to take 30 days after they receive their licensure and
submit all information.
Commissioner Lahendro – Is the 30 day a state requirement?

Mr. Brodhead – It is a state requirement that was discovered through doing some research.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is there any way for that 30 days to run concurrently with getting the
application materials in order so that you can send the letter at the very beginning of the process?

Mr. Brodhead – I don’t see why that would be an issue. If a person came and got an application and
they pay the application fee, I can send out a notice for all of the adjacent property owners. If the state
licensure isn’t approved, I would have to notify the neighbors. That would be a good idea to have it run
concurrently. If the state process takes 30 days, they are done after one month.

Commissioner Lahendro – I have a question about the traffic safety plan. Does that have to be done
by a certified engineer or can the applicant propose a traffic safety plan?

Mr. Brodhead – I don’t know what document was submitted with that SUP. I have a feeling that the
homeowner submitted a sketch showing how they propose drop off and pick up happen to make sure
that the kids get safely to the residence. I wouldn’t want them to have to get a traffic engineer and go to
that expense to provide some safety measures. I would have our traffic engineer review the plan and
                                                                                                       12

propose comments or ways they might improve it.

Ms. Creasy – That’s what happened with one of our SUP requests. The applicant put a proposal
together. We ran it by our traffic engineer for feedback. We were trying to make sure that drop off and
pick up are as safe as possible.

Mr. Brodhead – The places that are going to be a problem are places where there isn’t a driveway or a
sidewalk. We need to look at that. It’s important to have that, especially if issues arise. We can go back
and see if they are in compliance.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – Is it possible to share the old one so that people, who are not traffic
engineers can drive that?

Mr. Brodhead – I wasn’t involved in that Special Use Permit. I read the conditions. I didn’t actually
look at the plan. That would certainly be helpful to provide that information to eventual applicants.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is there some mechanism, if needed for traffic safety that an on street
parking space could be reserved during the hours of operation for drop off and pick up?

Mr. Brodhead – That would have to be something special. As far as I know, if you want to reserve a
parking space in front of your property, they have to pay $20 per day to have a space reserved for
themselves. That’s cost prohibitive for a family van to have $100 a week for drop off. We would have
to come up with something else to reserve a space. That will really come in with the really dense areas
of the city. I can reach out to the traffic engineer. He might want to weigh in.

Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer – What we would probably do in that instance is a petition to
change any public parking to something else. It could be a loading zone between certain hours. That
just needs a 14 day comment period of the public. As long as there wasn’t massive opposition from all
of the neighbors on the street, that could be something that could be done. That would be the route that
I would start with.

Commissioner Green – This was a road that barely had a shoulder with this SUP. The sidewalk was
non-existent. That was where that problem was.

Commissioner Dowell – I noticed that you said that the hours were from 7 to 6 for operation. I was
wondering if that was the only limit for being able to function as a day home. If they wanted to operate
after 6 PM, would that be under a different definition?

Mr. Brodhead – This is just a proposed hours of operation. If you feel that it should be extended in any
way, then that would be up to the Planning Commission to make that proposal.

Ms. Creasy – That is one of the main items in the Special Use Permit discussions that occurs is the
hours of operation and considerations pertaining to that. We looked at what we had in house and
provided a range. That was one where we thought there may be some discussion. It’s a tough one.

Commissioner Dowell – I am just thinking of a healthcare worker or job where you can’t work from
                                                                                                         13

home, those shifts are not only 7 to 3. I was just wondering if someone would be able to capitalize on
that underserved market as well with this provisional use permit.

Mr. Brodhead – This is just thinking about business hours. 6 PM tends to be the limit. If you feel that
it could be changed, it’s certainly up to the Planning Commission to mandate it or put comments in
there.

Commissioner Dowell – I just wanted to see if it was an option to leave it open if someone wanted to
serve the market. I didn’t know if they fell under this day home provision or if it was under a different
term or definition.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – Could there be some component where staff could use some discretion?

Ms. Creasy – The discretion would be the regulations in the provisional use permit. Whatever the
provisions are in that permit are what we would be able to enforce. It has to have some parameters.
There are different ways that people could work through that. If it’s a situation where it’s a 5 to 12
during daytime hours, but they have individual that they care for in the 1 to 4 range. That goes into the
by right category in those situations. What we’re thinking about here is the situations where someone
might have 5 to 12 children outside of the normal working hour range and how to think about how they
might function.

Mr. Brodhead – The home occupation talks about customers coming onto the premises between 8 AM
and 9 PM. People need to get their kids dropped off early so they can get to work. Remember, this is
just a proposal. I think it’s important to keep some sort of hours there. If you want to open it up a little
more, then that’s what we will do.

Commissioner Green – That eliminates some of the neighborhood concerns when this goes out to those
people for that 30 day period. If you start getting a lot of neighborhood concerns based off this
application, that’s going to slow things down as well. Things that have come out lately have been 7:30
to 5:30. This does open it up to 6.

Commissioner Dowell – I don’t think that we need to change the hours. I would just like for there to
be a clause. If somebody needs to amend those hours to suit their clients, they could.

Ms. Creasy – I think the only way we would be able to do that for the 5 to 12 range of children would
be to have some sort of additional zoning function. If a care facility that was going to function within a
certain time range and after those hours, they could convert to a 1 to 4 children range, we wouldn’t have
any regulation over the timeframe for that smaller grouping. It sounds like from this discussion, trying
to see if there is any way to accommodate a family day home that would allow for 5 to 12 children after
standard working hour range is what we would be trying to figure out. If there is a demand, it would
have to be an allowance through special permit to do something like that. It’s a very good point.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – I think what is here makes sense. I think that it will create more
opportunities if we can get something finalized.

The meeting was recessed for five minutes by the Chairman.
                                                                                                            14


I. 240 Stribling Avenue – Work Session

   Matt Alfele, City Planner – This project has been in the works. You held a work session back in
   February. That’s where you saw the initial design from Southern Development, who is the contract
   purchaser for 240 Stribling. At that meeting, the Planning Commission had a positive reaction to the
   design with a mix of housing types, central greens, and street layouts. There was a positive reaction to
   the density. The Planning Commission was looking to see greater affordability, especially below the
   80% AMI, more protection from Moores Creek, and the effect on Stribling Avenue and Morgan
   Court. The applicant took that information from the work session on February 26th, and they did some
   updates to it. They submitted an actual application in August. As part of their application, they also
   held a community meeting on September 3rd. This was held through Zoom. This was done, as outlined
   in the new community meeting procedure. It was attended pretty well. There were about 40
   participants. The meeting was taped and it is available for anyone to watch. The meeting is technically
   open for 45 days. When they held the meeting, the notice, the invitation, self-addressed stamped
   envelopes with return addresses, and portions of the plan were mailed out. The meeting is open for 45
   days from September 3rd for people to send back comments, who could not attend the meeting in
   person by Zoom. The plan has changed slightly from what you saw at your work session in February.
   The applicant will be giving a presentation and go into that a little bit more. Some of the changes that
   you are seeing include a change to 181 units. The design has stayed the same. They have proffered a
   contribution for offsite improvements to Stribling. They have proffered 50% of the units as designated
   for affordable with the AMI between 25% and 60%. After the applicant gives the presentation, we can
   open it up to discussion. The city engineer and traffic engineer can speak to the higher level material.
   They have not reviewed the plan in the detail that you would get with a site plan. We can talk about
   the conceptual things.

   Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development – We have been in the listening mode for this project.
   This is the third work session with the Planning Commission. I want to address some of the earlier
   comments that I heard from the neighbors. We absolutely agree that Stribling needs bike and
   pedestrian improvements. As part of this proposal, we want to help with that. I am not sure that we
   can do everything that everybody wants. We want to help to the greatest extent that we can. The
   architecture that we are showing here is just a concept. We have not designed all of the buildings at
   this early stage. It gives you an idea of the pedestrian feeling and place that we are going for. This is a
   view of the central linear green that runs down to Moores Creek at the bottom. This is a zoomed out
   slide to give you the larger context. We showed you a general massing illustration at the last work
   session. This shows the context to what is nearby. Huntley is at the bottom right. Eagles Landing
   Apartments, on the other side of Moores Creek, is at the bottom left. The Fontaine Research Park is at
   the top. It shows context in relation to other green spaces. Many are preserved. This is the overall lot
   and building layout. Stribling Avenue is to the left and is the primary entrance onto the site. Morgan
   Court and Huntley are at the top. This is a secondary entrance. Moores Creek is to the right. The
   Albemarle County line and the Knob Hill subdivision are at the bottom of the image. The next two
   slides are more detail on the conceptual landscape screening with street trees shown. We will be
   engaging with a professional landscape architect at some point in the process before a final site plan is
   submitted. The large green area shown is proposed to be permanent tree preservation along the creek
   and along the western edge of the property. The teal colored areas are proposed stormwater
   management facilities. Being this close to Moores Creek, that certainly is very important. These are
   proposed use matrices showing what uses would be allowed in this proposed PUD and what is
                                                                                                           15

currently allowed. The current zoning of the property is R1 and R2. These are the proffers. I would
like to discuss these with you tonight. They are $500,000 toward bike and pedestrian improvements
on Stribling Avenue. The bike and pedestrian master sidewalk improvement list in the bike and
pedestrian master plan shows the assumed cost at $598,000 for the sidewalk. That’s worth looking
into more detail. The city has not done extensive study on that yet. That does not include drainage
improvements, which the street also needs all the way down to JPA. That’s the cost that has been
estimated. The other proffer is affordable housing. We are proffering in 15% of the units dedicated as
affordable for households earning less than 60% AMI. We’re trying really hard to hit a lower
affordability threshold than what is city standard in city ordinances. Staff proposed five discussion
points. I would ask to add a sixth discussion point to discuss. That is some feedback on the use matrix
that we are proposing. Whether the uses to allow and disallow give any concern to commissioners.
Are they too restrictive? Are they not restrictive enough?

Commissioner Heaton – In some of the public comments, it was mentioned that the community
organization voiced their support of the project. I heard from a lot of residents that said that was not
the case. Do you know how that miscommunication happened?

Mr. Armstrong – I only know what I heard at the neighborhood meeting we recently had. That was
support from the neighborhood association. What was voted on was conditioned on a number of
things. Maybe that’s where the details are. I haven’t seen the letter because it is not yet ready. I am
sure that is what it is. I also know that not everybody in the neighborhood goes to the neighborhood
association meetings.

Commissioner Green – We met on this at the TJPDC building. There was some robust discussion
about improvements that need to happen. Have you been in discussion with the city based on the
conversation we had regarding the road improvements that need to happen in that area?

Mr. Armstrong – We have. We have had a number of different conversations. We have walked the
entire length of Stribling with the city engineer, the city traffic engineer, and the city bike and
pedestrian as well. We have looked at a number of issues. Drainage is the hardest to solve. Right of
way seems to be there in most places to be able to add a sidewalk, not necessarily for any grading that
would need to be done. There is very little information on any existing drainage easements that may or
may not exist. The city engineer is pretty certain that, even if there are easements, they are sufficient
for adding things like storm sewer pipes to get water to where it needs to go. The right of way may be
there for the replacement of sidewalk and is likely there.

Chairman Mitchell – Last year, you had a concept that was not a PUD. We thought that what you
were attempting to do would work well if you morphed this into a PUD. We did encourage you to
give some thought to putting together a proposal that embraced the idea of a PUD. You would have to
significantly improve the road and drainage infrastructure to make that happen. I want to make sure
people knew that we suggested that much better infrastructure would be needed to support that.

Commissioner Green – I do remember that. We had looked to increase the density. You can’t
increase density without increasing the infrastructure. We had a conversation that you will have to get
together with the city to increase infrastructure in this area for water, drainage, and transportation. We
did talk about a PUD at that point. You will want to pay attention to that comprehensive plan. When
                                                                                                         16

we were going with the comprehensive plan, it is a very dense area in that neighborhood and in that
area on the Albemarle County border.

Commissioner Russell did join the meeting during the 240 Stribling Avenue Work Session but only to
  listen.

Commissioner Lahendro – The PUD was something that appealed to me. This is a really special site.
It has some really challenging topography and a lot of assets to it from Moores Creek to the woods. It
seemed appropriate to look at a PUD. That would allow the clustering of buildings together. It would
preserve some of the special features of this site. That’s what we haven’t seen in PUDs in the past.
This looked like a good opportunity for what the PUD would allow.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – As I recall, it was already past the time where we had finished the new
draft of the comp plan. We were specifically talking about the current adopted 2013 comprehensive
plan. It calls for density in this area and defines low density as up to 15 units per acre. This plan does
fall within that amount. It does make sense to put additional density beyond the by right amount in
this area and keep that open space and the mature forest around the perimeter. This is in compliance
with the 2013 comprehensive plan and is contributing towards our larger goals as a city to build more
densely and to stop pushing out into sprawl. Of these 12 acres of forest, we might be losing 8 or 9
within the city. They don’t do city residents that good for enjoyment of nature as private wooded areas
where you are not allowed to go. They are not adjacent to things like streets and sidewalks. When the
alternative to building townhomes here is building townhomes in Crozet and clear cutting some old
growth forest and having the residents drive in for 25 minutes. The choice for the environment is
fairly clear.

Commissioner Green – Going back to that meeting a year ago, we discussed a more robust
affordable housing plan. Our wishes and desires would be there. I thought that we had discussed that
this would be the perfect opportunity in this area for that to occur.

Commissioner Dowell – A thing that they did take into account is that they did increase the options
of the AMI affordability. I do want to point and agree with one of the residents that spoke during the
public comment. 15% is still a little bit small for me. 15% out of 181 units is roughly about 27 or 28
units. When you do 28 out of 181, it seems like a very small drop in the bucket. I am concerned about
connectivity issues that go along with this plan. To get to the closest CAT bus stop, you might as well
call a cab. This is an instance where the new JAUNT plan would be effective. We need to talk that out
a little bit as well.

Commissioner Lahendro – Where in the development were you planning to have the affordable
housing occur? Has that been decided?

Mr. Armstrong – We have not decided. What we have done in the proffer is that at least 30% of it
shall be for rent units. At least 30% of it shall be for sale with a guarantee of affordability of 30 years.
We have proposed some multi-family units in here as well as townhomes, which are technically
single-family attached. Because of how the proffer is structured, it would almost mean that the density
spread in those two types of buildings on the site. We don’t like to cluster the affordable units. We
                                                                                                            17

have a track record of having them integrated and central to the communities that we have built. We
would aim for something similar here. We haven’t identified specific lots or buildings.

Commissioner Lahendro – I have read some public comment about the fact that they believe it was
targeted for the last of the phasing. There was a good chance that it would never happen.

Mr. Armstrong – We have a proffer such that five affordable units would be under construction prior
to the issuance of every 30th certificate of occupancy for market rate units. It stipulates that cannot
happen. It has to come along simultaneously.

Chairman Mitchell – The PUD idea will help protect Moores Creek. It allows you a little more
creativity. Can you talk about your thinking with Moores Creek? What are you thinking to help
protect Moores Creek? Are you going to do any development on the slopes?

Mr. Armstrong – We are requesting a critical slopes waiver for some of the fringes of the slopes.
They “creep” into the middle of the site in a lot of places. They are really hard to avoid, except in a
cul-de-sac arrangement. The green areas on the slide are proposals for permanent tree preservation.
There are essentially two drainage areas on this site. One is Moores Creek and the other one is along
the Albemarle County line. That one is a smaller drainage area. It still has some of the biggest, mature
trees on the site. Those would be permanently preserved in open space. It provides a buffer against
Moores Creek. We have a couple hundred feet from Moores Creek to the nearest building. It
completely stays out of the stream buffer that is on Moores Creek, any wetlands, and floodplain that
are down there. There is a main sewer line that runs along Moores Creek. They do mow it. Even
though it is along the creek, we have another agency that does keep it clear. What we are proposing to
do there is put in a multiuse trail, which is part of the trails masterplan for the city. It’s actually a well-
traveled path. That would be a permanent trail. It would eventually come directly to Stribling. We
would connect it to our internal road system via a paved path. It is accessible to bikes, pedestrians, and
strollers on a hard surface from Stribling to the Moores Creek trail.

Chairman Mitchell – Will you engage the engineers regarding the steep slope? What feedback are
you getting?

Mr. Armstrong – They are engaged. I don’t know if we have gotten any feedback from engineering
from the city. We have submitted a critical slope detail that would come to the Planning Commission.
I don’t recall any specific feedback on that from them at this point.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – I looked at your parking calculations. I was expected a story of every
single truck onsite, not effecting the neighboring areas. There is so much parking. What is going on?

Mr. Armstrong – The only surface parking is parallel on street parking. That limits the street scape
and the pedestrian feel and more traditional neighborhood feel. There are no parking lots or designated
parking surface areas. It’s not parallel parking on the street, it is under the buildings. There is parking
proposed under the multi-family buildings. There is parking proposed under the townhouse buildings
as well. Whether people use those for cars, I don’t know. That’s where it is. We have found that it is
pretty hard to sell or rent a unit without parking. The way those spaces are right now, I would hope
that they could be converted to some other use.
                                                                                                         18


Commissioner Solla-Yates – Do you have a sense about when those trails might come online for
more public use?

Mr. Armstrong – I haven’t thought about the timing for that. If there are any sewer improvements
that need to be made there, that would have to be done first. There is no reason to do anything in those
protected areas. It could potentially be early on. The only spot that would be tricky would where it
connects to the existing roads. There is a building that is very close to that trail. The park along
Moores Creek would be early. The connection up to Stribling and through our new roadways and
sidewalks might need to wait until the building construction was complete.

Chairman Mitchell – Will the roads meet the city’s standards?

Mr. Armstrong – We’re proposing something a little different. If you look at the overall plan in the
packet, the main roads coming in off of Stribling, going past the multi-family areas, are shown as full
city standard streets with sidewalks on both sides and parking on the street. With the smaller roads
that look like alleyways, we want to propose something that would be an innovative street concept.
It’s something that is not currently in the city standards but would be thoroughly vetted by the traffic
engineering staff to make sure it does meet every standard. It’s important for the street. They are
shown as 22 foot wide pavement width, with buildings really close on that. It functions and looks like
an alley. The homes that back to those alleyways would front on the green spaces. It’s a bit of an
engineering challenge for us. Nobody has looked at this part of the Standards and Design Manual
before because it’s brand new. We want to try it. We want to do something a little unique that would
serve to create place rather than being focused on streets first. This is place first, streets second.

Mr. Alfele – That’s how the Standards and Design Manual is set up. It really puts the onus on the
developer to convince Public Works, the city engineer, and the traffic engineer that the innovative
streets meet that section. That section really talks a lot about the meeting of ADA compliance. There
was a meeting with Public Works and some other staff with the applicant. They provided this
information. Public Works and Fire are really going to be important aspects of how the streets work.
Public Works gave Mr. Armstrong some direction to look into on what they would want to see before
they would consider taking ownership of these roads. That information was provided to the applicant.
They’re going to need to see a lot more information before they sign off.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – What part of the new Standards and Design Manual is this using?

Mr. Alfele – Shared Streets is one. I don’t know if Mr. Duncan (Traffic Engineer) or Mr. Dawson
(City Engineer) can say the exact section numbers. They are very much called out.

Mr. Duncan – There are two sections. There is one that speaks to the innovative design. I think it’s
somewhere in chapter 3. There is one that says “any engineering be innovative design.” There are
some specific sections that speak to street innovative designs. It does give 3 or 4 suggestions. There
are four or five of them there. There are specific criteria that has to be met for those. That doesn’t
mean that those are the only ones the city would look at. If they wanted to do something different,
then it is in 4.7. They would have to give us a lot of information. The ones that are in 4.7 have been
vetted and have certain criteria. It’s up to the applicant to decide which one of those they want to
                                                                                                         19

move forward with. If they want to do something completely different, they have to do a little more
‘legwork’ on their own.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Regardless of what we decide, every street design is going to have to
be cleared by staff and the fire department?

Mr. Duncan – We have the normal city standards that need to get the rubber stamp. We still have to
look at it to make sure that it’s going to work where they want to put it. We will review it further if
it’s in that section.

Jack Dawson, City Engineer – Mr. Alfele can speak on some of the complications when we would
have to approve that with the PUD. I would have concerns about them moving forward with that
without having all of the technical details. The issues are in section 4.4: Alleys are supposed to be
private streets. There is not very much engineering information provided in this packet. We haven’t
fully reviewed it. There are concerns about how storm drains, water services, and sewer services are
going to fit in a vehicular way. The 4.1 through 4.7 section discusses alternative roads. Most of those
rely heavily on ADA compliance. There are some more ADA concerns as well. As soon as you get
away from the public right of way, the ADA access concerns get a lot more onerous on the design.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would that be PUD time approval or would that be final site plan?

Mr. Alfele – It really needs to be PUD. One of the standards, when doing a PUD, is meeting the road
standards. That’s not a standard you can adjust through a PUD process. City Council doesn’t have that
authority. To take advantage of the Standards and Design section, they are going to have to get sign
off from Public Works before this can be moved to a public hearing.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – It sounds like the neighborhood is comparing this to Huntley. It looks
like the neighborhood was against it. The city had some problems with it. There were some
compliance issues. The result had some problems. What are the differences between that and this?

Mr. Armstrong – We didn’t do Huntley. It was done in the mid-2000s. The PUD ordinance was not
well defined at that point. We did another PUD at around the same time. It was a really “wild, wild,
west” create your own PUD as long as City Council approved it. It was also developed under different
stormwater standards. Those have changed dramatically in 2004, 2009, and again in 2014. The
requirements for water quality and quantity control were really different. They had no drainage and
outflow. Storm drainage from Huntley was a major issue all during construction and probably even
today. When you look at Huntley, it’s a suburban design. The lots are small. It’s a winding road
through topography to get from the top to the bottom of a hill. It’s not comparable to a design like
this. We’re really focused on the place as a whole. For the stormwater, the differences here do way
more quantity and quality control by state and city laws that are now more stringent than with
Huntley. The PUD process, as an entitlement process, has gotten a lot more structure over the years. I
think that is thanks to the city staff and city attorney’s office. They were finding a lot of enforceability
issues with the previous PUD process from the early 2000s and wanted to make it a little more
predictable. The process is a lot more robust including look at things like analyzing streets to make
sure that the streets will meet city code. That’s not something that happened in the past. In the Huntley
                                                                                                        20

days of PUD approval, you could have drawn it in pencil and submitted it for approval. The
differences you see now are pretty stark.

Commissioner Green – The critical slopes ordinance wasn’t in place at that point. The EPA
standards for TMDLs were not in place. That made a huge change in how the stormwater was
captured and how it was handled.

Commissioner Lahendro – I wanted to ask about the placement of Morgan Court and especially that
cul de sac at the end. It’s not designed with lots around the cul de sac. It looks like it was designed as
if it was envisioned to go through to development farther to the west.

Mr. Armstrong – I don’t know the history of that. It does essentially go to the edge of the property. It
was not designed as a suburban cul de sac where you see lots ringing all the way around including a
through road. Looking at it today, it looks that way.

I would like to hear more feedback from the Planning Commission on that connection. We are hearing
loud and clear from neighbors, who live in Huntley and Morgan Court that they don’t want a
connection there of any kind to new development. We had originally envisioned this as access only. It
would include daily traffic. Since then, city traffic and fire have let us know that it would be strongly
encouraged with any review that they did. That would be full vehicle access so that there is a second
point of access in and out on a daily basis. I agree with the condition on Morgan Court. It is not up to
city standards. It’s not a city street yet. The developer is still building and working on that. I don’t
know the exact status of that either. One thing that we discussed was the concept of making some of
our internal shared streets one way. They would be oriented on a one way traffic flow. It would
discourage daily use just by the orientation of the street flow of traffic to and from Morgan Court. I
think most people coming and going from the site would want to get out to Stribling directly rather
than going through Huntley to get there. We could potentially look at adding some one-way
directional flow. That’s an option that we would like to look at.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to hear more from the public about this. What I have heard
loud and clear is that people on Morgan Court don’t like the idea of a vehicular connection there.
What do people on Stribling think about the possibility of some traffic going up Morgan instead of
along Stribling? They are the ones, who would be benefitting from it. I would like to hear from people
along Stribling. The traffic engineer’s opinion of how much traffic would actually go along Morgan,
given that it is out of the way. I think it’s important that a bike and pedestrian connection exists there.
A compromise between full access and no access is either encouraging or allowing exit only traffic.
The only traffic would go up the hill at Morgan Court, where people are less likely to speed. They’re
not going downhill. There will be more of it in the morning, when kids aren’t playing in the street. I
would also like to see a curb cut at Morgan and Huntley and a crosswalk there.

Mr. Duncan – To speak to the distribution of trips. I would only anticipate that maybe 15% or 20%
would use Morgan Court. I think we had somewhere around 70% going north towards the city and
30% heading south on JPA or heading down Cleveland towards the hospital that way. The majority of
the traffic is going towards the city. If 30% of the people are heading that way, two thirds of those
people are using Morgan Court and going around to Sunset Avenue and coming out at Cleveland. A
third of the people are staying. It’s going to depend on where you’re living in the complex as well. If
                                                                                                        21

you’re the first house off Stribling Avenue, you’re not going to drive all the way through to go out to
JPA. That’s how we have that set up.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – What does go up Morgan would end up on Sunset and not end up on
Stribling further down?

Mr. Duncan – The majority of people, who use Morgan, are going to end up heading south, either
further out and down JPA or down Cleveland. I don’t see much of the benefit to going down Morgan
Court just to end up on Stribling again.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – You’re asking for up to 181 units. Your site plan shows 169 units.
What is the difference there?

Mr. Armstrong – It’s a difference between what we have drawn on the concept and setting in the use
matrix a threshold. What we did with the use matrix was have a line at 15 DUA max. That’s how we
set that max. We haven’t done the calculations to know that 181 is met. 169 is what we are showing
here. It is conceivable somebody might want to have an accessory apartment in one of these homes.
It’s nice to have that as an option. Without coming back to the city for a rezoning, I think it is silly
that those even count. That does allow that possibility.

Chairman Mitchell – I have a question for staff. It would be difficult to move forward with a PUD
with this level of density unless we know what needs to be done with these streets. What is the
thinking regarding sidewalks, backways, and drainage? Have we thought about that?

Ms. Creasy – Those are all elements that are typically part of the development plan. The next step
would be for them to figure out how they’re going to engineer this plan and receive feedback from
engineering in order to move forward. They may find that there are some hiccups along the way. It
might be a good opportunity to do some additional outreach so that people understand what is going
on. It’s hard to answer those questions because they are still in the process of putting those plans
together.

Chairman Mitchell – It seems that there is going to be a lot of work that needs to get done. It’s
probably going to be more than $500,000 is going to do for us. It seems that they are going to need
help from us to make these streets what they need to be to do this development. Do we have any
thinking about that? Is it somewhere in the Capital Improvement plan?

Mr. Duncan – We have submitted the last couple of years in the CIP for this sidewalk down Stribling
Avenue. One option, if this project was to move forward, would be to take that $500,000 and use it as
a match to get more funds. It doesn’t solve the issue the first day that this is open. It does give us some
money to try to get matching funds from the state and move forward that way. If you’re looking for
same day as Huntley gets approved and built, that funding is not identified. The plans haven’t been
drawn up. There has been no formal engineering study as to what exactly has to be done for drainage
or anything like that. The costs that we have in this CIP are approximate costs right now. We’re still
several years away from actually doing any improvements on Stribling even if we had the funding
today.
                                                                                                           22

Chairman Mitchell – We wouldn’t be thinking about breaking ground on this until we knew that we
had the funding and a plan to make the improvements that we need to make.

Mr. Duncan – The way that Stribling is set up right now, it is substandard from a pavement width
standpoint. It varies, but it holds about 19 feet down the majority of Stribling. The standard is 20. It’s
only slightly substandard. It is substandard. There is no sidewalk. There are portions of sidewalks that
don’t connect to each other down Stribling right now. There is no continuous sidewalk. Where there is
available right of way to put sidewalk, it flips from one side of the street to the other based on how the
roadway weaves within the narrow right of way that is there. The current right of way varies some.
The majority of Stribling is about a 30 foot right of way. Standard right of way would be 45 feet now.
Even the right of way that we have is very limited. There is usually a hill or a drop off on one side of
the road or the other. It’s not an easy sidewalk to put in. There are going to be retaining walls, grading
of driveways going back onto people’s properties, and a lot of engineering that has to happen to get
that done.

Chairman Mitchell – I have a question for the City Attorney. Are we going to have to invoke
eminent domain to build the drainage systems and sidewalks that we are going to need to build those
sidewalks?

Lisa Robertson, City Attorney – We will have to see. How you manage a project like that is you
develop your plan and your specifications for that plan. You then talk to people about it. If there is a
need for additional right of way, that right of way would have to be acquired. People donate it. The
city would value it and offer compensation. If a person simply did not desire to sell it through the
compensation offered, something like eminent domain would be a last resort.

Mr. Dawson – There is a larger concern other than just adding a sidewalk. There are probably 3 or 4
low points or sags along Stribling as you go that way. Each one of those drains to either side. It’s not
always clear where it drains. Before you curve that, there are existing drainage problems there. As
soon as you throw a curve on one of those sides, it’s not only if you can fit those 5 foot sidewalks in
the right of way with a given road that varies, you will need to chase that water that was just put into a
storm drainage system. You have compounded that. There is a huge unknown. It’s not a perfect
drainage situation. There is a lot to be uncovered in the survey and design phase.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – This is something that the neighborhood has been asking for a very
long time. We have some cost estimates from the CIP. $1.45 million was the request from last year. Is
that the actual estimate? Or is that assuming revenue sharing and the actual estimate would be about
$3 million? Are we confident that we could get revenue sharing from the state? Have we engaged the
neighborhood association or neighbors to ask them to dedicate that revenue in advance?

Mr. Dawson – I believe the estimate from a decade ago was $2.2 million. The way that estimates are
put together is that is a guess more than it is an estimate. There has been ongoing conversation with
the neighborhood, mostly around the neighborhood CIP request. Revenue sharing with VDOT is up in
the air right now with all projects. Because it doesn’t rank very high in the V-Tran score, it’s probably
not a winner for revenue sharing or smart scale. I am not comfortable with making that guess. The
other issue is whether we do it or the developer does it. It needs to get done before the developer
develops it.
                                                                                                          23


Commissioner Lahendro – Can you comment on the traffic count that was done and the public’s
criticism of when it was done and the necessity of a traffic light at the intersection of Stribling and
JPA?

Mr. Duncan – The traffic counts that were done were scheduled before the COVID stay at home
order happened. Once it happened, we realized what was going on. We worked with EPR, the traffic
engineer for the applicant to extrapolate what counts they did have. We had more recent VDOT
counts on JPA from last year around this time. We had them take counts there as well and compare
those counts with counts at other places. We had a good idea of how much traffic had dropped
because of COVID. We had seen 50% in other places. The numbers that they got on JPA were about
60%. I think they did some estimates based on the Institute for Transportation engineer estimates
based on households. They did a count of the area and how many vehicles should be expected on
Stribling. They were about 60% there as well. We had them double those, which would put us at
120% of the estimate. We were confident the numbers we were getting were a conservative estimate
for what should have been there. As far as a signal, it’s not going to come close to meeting the criteria
for a signalized intersection, even with this development going in there. It would probably be too
close to the intersection at JPA and Maury for it to act very effectively.

Chairman Mitchell – I did take the opportunity to go over there. I didn’t see as much traffic as I
expected to see. I did get an appreciation for the environment. The street is very narrow. People were
walking up and down the street. I can see when that is busy how difficult it would be to walk and have
people driving by. It’s a very automobile dense area. There is a lot of off street parking but not on
street parking. There are a lot of automobiles over there. Unless we can improve the infrastructure, it’s
going to be difficult to put the kind of density that we’re talking about on that site. There are only
partial sidewalks. Where there are parts of sidewalks, they are on one side of the street.

Commissioner Palmer – It’s a lot like East Market Street without the street parking.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I think it’s already a dangerous situation. There are a lot of people
walking and biking down that street. We have heard it in public comments. We know that street is
80% renters. We have also heard how far it is from amenities and transit. You can’t have both of
those. The fact that we have so many people walking and biking shows how well connected it is. It is
a 12 minute walk to the bus stop at JPA. That’s the best served bus stop in the entire city. It has 5 UTS
lines and the free trolley on it. On the other side, we have the Fontaine Research Park going through a
big expansion. Its way past due for these sidewalks to have happened. I think we should have funded
them a long time ago. This project is the way to make it happen. If you put in 169 units, and they are
conservatively assessed at $200,000 each. We’re going to get $320,000 a year in tax revenue. 40% of
that will go to the schools per the agreement. That amount of tax revenue can finance $2.9 million
worth of bonds. Every $10 million worth of bonds at 1.6% is going to cost $660,000 a year in debt
service for 20 years. That’s money in addition to this proffer of cash lump sum, which comes at the
very beginning. We can finance these sidewalk improvements and stormwater improvements and still
have money left over after financing the schools. That can look like a 10% increase in the entire
CSRAP. They can be any Council priority on top of giving this neighborhood the infrastructure
improvements it has needed for a really long time. That’s not a guaranteed outcome. Council has to
agree to put it into the CIP and stop leaving it on the unfunded list. If we let this go through, it is
                                                                                                           24

incumbent on us to review the CIP and the Council decides what goes in to make it happen. It pays for
itself and more. It could be a win-win combination. It could also create this onerous burden and make
the problem worse if we do nothing. I don’t think the infrastructure needs to be done at the time they
break ground here but certainly by the time we are a few years in.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – Transportation demand management is something everyone wants to
talk about. I am seeing a lot of space to store trucks. I worry that if you build it, they will come. How
do you make this nightmare not come true?

Mr. Armstrong – I might have to give that some thought and get you a more comprehensive answer
at a later date. We could certainly include bicycle storage facilities. That fits well with the goals here.
We need to consider whether these are marketable today without as much parking. We can’t build
something today for a buyer that currently doesn’t exist. I would like to give that some thought and
see what we can figure out on that question.

Commissioner Lahendro – I am looking at the site plan. I understand that you haven’t had a
landscape architect involved. It concerns me to not see a development integrated with its neighbors
and the site around. Instead I am seeing walls of wax magnolias around a perimeter property line
creating barriers between this development and whatever else is around it. Is that intent of what you
are doing instead of looking to integrate it with the surrounding?

Mr. Armstrong – That’s what happens when your engineer takes a stab at a landscape plan for the
purposes of demonstration. I wouldn’t pay any attention to species or specific buffer designs there.
The intent was to provide some sort of visual buffer to the neighbor to the east. The neighbor asked
for that and wanted to have some separation. That’s the origin of that particular buffer on that side. I
prefer a more varied buffer style that does create some visual separation and privacy.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – I didn’t see anything about the housing. You have been really
responsive on the comments about housing. Our housing situation is worse now than what it was the
last time we talked about this. More important to see it now.

Commissioner Green – I will leave you some final comments. For you, the task is going to be taking
a look at this vacant land in the city and deciding whether we can work with city CIP, get funding
somewhere to be able to develop this in a dense enough place where housing is a definite shortfall in
the city. Or it is just decided that this is a by right use. Your task, as you go forward, is going to be to
take a look at this. Land is at a premium in this landlocked city. Is the by right development better
than time to come up with solutions? The city has to be a partner with you on this. Clearly, there is
infrastructure that has to be in place. We want housing in this city. You need to take a look at this.
Maybe the city partners with you enough so that there is more affordable housing in this project. To
have a piece of land this large that continues to go undeveloped. This can be developed by right. Will
this be developed better with a PUD than it is by right? As a PUD, we get to look at a lot of things like
stormwater, streets, preserving critical slopes, and making sure there are enough trees in the area.
With a by right development, the Planning Commission doesn’t get to weigh in on that. I would also
take a look at that matrix. Make sure what is in that matrix is a by right use is actually what you want
to see there.
                                                                                                         25

Mr. Armstrong – I would love to have any feedback on the matrix. If there is anything that people
saw as undesirable, included or not included. That can be now or any time along the way as we
continue through the process.

Commissioner Solla-Yates – I looked through it briefly. I didn’t see any issues. It looked
conservative to me, given these comments.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – It looked fairly similar to our R1 and R2, except that libraries are gone.
Surface parking lot as an accessory use concerns me. I am not sure how it would be valid given the
PUD. You have to fundamentally change the proffer development plan. It shows underground/podium
parking.

Commissioner Green – I would say to take a look at the homestays when you’re talking about the
impact on the neighbor. You’re already impacting the neighbors with this amount of new homes in the
area with an infrastructure issue that you already have transportation wise and traffic wise. When you
add homestays when you have constant in and out, that might be something you want to take a look at.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I don’t see a need to make it more restrictive than general R1 on
homestays. The use matrix on Municode that says it’s by right is not right. It should be a P for
provisional use permit. Even though it says B, you still need to have a provisional use permit. As that
is true, I am fine with it.

Commissioner Dowell – Do we want just a by right development that doesn’t satisfy the needs or the
wants of the community? It does not give us a desirable affordable housing that we seek for. Are we
going to try to figure this out to make it beneficial for everyone? I am hoping that we choose the latter.

Commissioner Palmer – I think that density is commendable. It’s interesting when you look at the
aerial perspective. It feels like this is a remote part of the city. You go across the city line and there’s
this big apartment complex there. It’s not like there is not a precedent. It is close to Fontaine and the
rest of the university through the bus line. That’s not too far away. I have noticed, with being home a
lot, all of the delivery vehicles that tend to come with development with this tight road network. There
may need to be some thought put into how you safely efficiently accommodate that large amount of
delivery volume throughout the day that has become ubiquitous. I thought Commissioner Green’s
comments were really good. There is a fair amount of leverage that the city might have in achieving
some of its goals with a project like this. It would be nice if this were right in the middle of the city.

Commissioner Heaton – I concur with Commissioner Palmer about the density and the direction that
the city needs to go to mitigate our housing issues. It seems to me from public comment that you
might have some creative thought into what Commissioner Lahendro referred to as the perimeter
feeling of this development. Your creativity could be put into how this development interacts with its
neighbors. It seems like an opportunity to engage with the existing community that’s there that will
not want more density. Go ahead and put some energy into what it looks like to the neighbors. What
are these people going to be friends about? I think that would go a long way toward helping the city
embrace its need for density, but also the relational connections between existing subdivisions and
new subdivisions.
                                                                                                           26

   Commissioner Lahendro – It would be unconscionable to approve this PUD development, as much
   as it appeals to me, because of its traditional layout, design, thoughtfulness, and how it takes
   advantage of the PUDs. Unless we knew that Stribling was going to be improved, I don’t know how
   we could approve this as an island and not take into consideration the neighbors and the people
   affected by it along Stribling. A partnership needs to be worked out with the city to ensure the fact that
   Stribling is improved when this development starts to go in.

   Commissioner Stolzenberg – I agree with Commissioner Lahendro. The infrastructure does need to
   get in there at some point. Even if this development was not to happen, it needs to happen. I hope that
   the city can take this chance to really pursue the goals that we have set for ourselves in the past and to
   give back to the neighborhood as part of it and create these much needed improvements.

   Chairman Mitchell – I would rather see a PUD than a by right development. We can’t do the PUD
   unless we work with the city to improve the infrastructure. We need to do all the things to protect the
   slopes and Moores Creek.

   With the upcoming vote with the Entrance Corridor, the City Attorney asked the Chairman
   whether Commissioner Green (outgoing commissioner) or Commissioner Russell (new
   commissioner) would be voting on the Entrance Corridor. Consensus was reached that
   Commissioner Green would be the commissioner voting on the Entrance Corridor, given that
   Commissioner Green had been in the meeting from the beginning.

J. Entrance Corridor - Chick-fil-A Barracks Rd

   The chairman gaveled the Planning Commission into the ERB Meeting.

   Jeff Werner, Staff Report – The decision is yours. In my planning and professional opinion, light
   glare is a significant issue in this town. What we have asked is that these lights at this new building
   have the ability to be dimmed if requested. They meet the color temperature criteria that we have laid
   out. If the applicant doesn’t think that can be done, that is your decision to make. As a community,
   these are the design and aesthetic criteria we want to work towards. This is what we want to see for
   this new business in this new location.

   Commissioner Dowell – We had a recent project where we had this issue with lighting. We required
   that they use a dimmer. What are we going to put in place so that it’s not up in the air? We need to
   have some clear procedure in how we determine what a light nuisance is.

   Mr. Werner – We get phone calls and emails about West Main Street with the building on the west
   side of the bridge. We ask that if the lights can’t be dimmed, then turn them off. What are our
   capabilities via the zoning officials enforcing certain things? It gives us a tool to use. With the
   information that has been submitted, I would want to see a cut sheet for that fixture that meets that
   criteria. Absent that, this condition would cover it. I know how we have responded to complaints.
   There is an honest assessment and evaluation.

   Ms. Creasy – What typically happens with a lighting violation request is that someone contacts staff
   and lets staff know they have a concern. We investigate it. Craig Fabio, the Zoning Administrator,
   does lots of those. He has been doing quite a few during the state of emergency. They go out with a
                                                                                                            27

light monitor. They determine if it is within the criteria. If there is a concern, the first step is reaching
out to the property owner to try and work with them. If that goes to no avail, then it goes through a
zoning violation process.

Commissioner Green – When you go out to do a measurement, this is dark sky compliance. If there
is a glare and it doesn’t meet the lumins at the property, then is that a matter of being dimmable or
does it have a shield installed?

Ms. Creasy – There are different ways it can be addressed. Staff will work with the individual to
make it work. If it is a larger business, they have experience with that. Some of the smaller places
don’t. It depends on what their capability is. The idea is to get it into compliance. It’s either in
compliance or it’s not in compliance. If it’s not in compliance, people know and they let us know.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – That distinction seems different from what we are talking about in this
ERB condition? If it’s clearly not in compliance with the lighting ordinance, staff can enforce that? It
sounds like their issue is that beyond the lighting ordinance and the objective measure of 3000K, its
well that if you get any reasonable public complaint, then you must take action. Reasonable public
complaint seems like a nebulous and subjective concept.

Commissioner Green – If staff has a complaint, they investigate. If it is not in compliance, then they
have the options.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – It can be an unreasonable complaint if it is in compliance with the
lighting ordinance. Without the condition, you could still investigate to see if it is in compliance?

Ms. Creasy – We investigate either way. There are a number of lighting investigations we do where it
is not a violation. There is also the good neighbor aspect of things. We have found that a lot of
businesses want to be good neighbors. They work with the staff and they make adjustments. There
may be some wording arrangement to that condition that can get it to something that will allow people
to move forward with that. We have definitely found that providing this language has been very
helpful when all of the lighting gets out there. If there are any problems with it, it is a lot easier to hit a
dimmer button than it is to have to retrofit.

Commissioner Green – We have an ordinance that talks about spillover, which is light that spills
over the property line. When a lighting engineer looks at it, they are looking at it on flat ground. The
lighting engineers don’t look at the overall topography. When you are doing a lighting plan, it is going
to comply because it is on flat ground and flat paper. Where problems come in the community, this
particular establishment is at one grade. Where you’re going to have residential concerns is at the
higher grade. It would be on the same plane as the lights. You’re not talking about being able to
control or engineer a plan for the surrounding grades. It’s easier to add these things at the beginning
than it is to have a lot of neighbors on the street. We have an opportunity to make it right at the
beginning.

Mr. Werner – Technology is running ahead of the ordinances. The ordinance was written for light
bulbs. My understanding is that the 3000K max and dimmable provides that extra if needed. With
those two provisions, you’re there. I understand the situation with trying to have a very clear answer.
                                                                                                        28

Given that it is in Barracks Road Shopping Center, there are lights all over that place that are issues. I
encourage you to come up with any language that you prefer for the second piece of that. The key
condition is the 3000K and dimmable fixture.

Commissioner Green – The other part is that Barracks Road is an established place, and I don’t think
they have switched everything over to LED yet. Whatever you have there is there and you add a new
establishment with new fixtures and new lighting, it may meet the ordinance. You are going to get
calls when people change out the fixtures to LED.

Chairman Mitchell – What are we trying to achieve with this application?

Ms. Creasy – You had the single condition that was of concern. The applicant is here and can provide
some background. If you needed a staff report for this, we can provide that information. It is in your
court as to how you would like to move forward with the discussion.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – Can we recognize the applicant for no more than two minutes to say
what their problem is?

Ryan Yauger, Bohler Engineering – I agree with a lot of the things that have been said. There is
different nomenclature that we have concerns with. The first one being the dimmable aspect of it. The
city doesn’t necessarily have the ordinance caught up with technology to govern by. We are meeting
the city ordinance. We are in compliance to the city standards for the zoning ordinance and in
compliance to the shopping center standards. We feel that we are trying to be good neighbors. We are
not trying to submit an application that is not in compliance. However, the dimmable aspect of it
would be at a detriment in isolating to our single pad single tenant use here rather than a standardized
approach for the whole city. We are willing to accommodate any city regulations in place. We feel
this is above and beyond. With the back and forth with staff, we were really discussing a dimmable
aspect of a fixture with a more interior fixture of a recessed bulb as part of the canopy ordering system
and the canopy lighting that would be blocked by the roof of the canopy. You would not have any of
the issues of the adjacent neighboring properties because it is underneath that canopy. You did not
mention dimming the light pole fixtures for the parking areas. In the motion, there was a universal
dimming of all lights on the property. We can certainly look into dimming the canopy. As far as the
parking lots, that’s our concern. By agreeing to the motion, as written, it leaves the end users operator
to future subjectivity of the opinion of an individual or the opinion of the individual, even if it is a
member of the public or city staff member. We are going to get a site plan approved, build that site
plan, and adhere to it. For some reason at post construction it does not adhere, we are happy to oblige
and revise that. It is going based on a quantifiable city standard rather than the ambiguous. The two
things we are isolating are the dimming features for the canopy and leaning on the zoning ordinance
for the standard of fixing in the future rather than arbitrary.

Commissioner Stolzenberg – I feel that there is disconnect there. I would think that it is the ones not
within the canopy that we care about. All of the non-canopy bulbs have fixtures available that are
dimmable. They can buy those off the shelf.

Mr. Werner – By looking at the information that was available, all of the fixtures had a type available
that came with the 3000K lamp and a dimming control. What is being dimmed and how it is dimmed,
                                                                                                      29

I am relying on the experts from the BAR. I looked at what the light fixtures listed, it was the only one
that didn’t meet the canopy lights at the drive thru. My intent was all of the fixtures would have the
3000K and dimmable as it seemed they were available that way.

Motion - Commissioner Lahendro - Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for the Chick-Fil-
A at 1000 Emmet Street North is consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of
this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness
application as submitted with the following conditions:

   The four (4) existing magnolia trees along Emmet Street shall be maintained and protected
    from damage during construction.
•   Requirement that all door and window glass be clear (not less than 70% VLT);
•   Prohibition of signage on the outdoor umbrellas and requiring they be of a uniform color.
•   Exterior light fixtures shall have lamping that is dimmable and have a Color Temperature
    not to exceed 3000K. Additionally, the owner will address any reasonable public complaints
    about light glare by either dimming the lamp or replacing the lamps/fixtures.

    (Second by Commissioner Heaton). Motion passed 7-0.

The chairman gaveled the Planning Commission out of the ERB Meeting.

The chairman gaveled the Planning Commission back into the regular meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 PM until the second Tuesday of October.