Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, July 12, 2022 at 5:30 P.M. Hybrid Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) i. Minutes – Work Session – August 24, 2022 ii. Entrance Corridor - 920 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. 415 and 415-B 10th Street NW (TMP 040046000) A. ZT-22-00001 - An ordinance to amend and reordain Section 34-273(b) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended (Zoning Ordinance) relating to Individually Protected properties by creating an “overlay” zoning restriction without affecting the underlying zoning district designation. This ordinance would create minor design control district status for the following: The structures and property at 415 and 415-B 10th Street NW (TMP 040046000). (This is a request to provide a historic overlay which would require additional review prior to changes taking place to the building and site and add the property to the language in the zoning code.) B. ZM-22-00001 - An ordinance to amend and reordain the Zoning District Map incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, by adding minor Architectural Design Control District for the following: The property located at 415 and 415-B 10th Street NW, further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 040046000 having approximately 110 feet of frontage on Grady Avenue, approximately 75 feet of frontage on 10th Street NW, and containing approximately 8,190 square feet of land (0.188 acres). The general uses called for in the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan are for General Residential which recommends up to 2.5 stories in height, up to 3 units per lot (or 4 units if the existing structure remains) and additional unit allowance depending on zoning allowances. The current underlying zoning is R-1S. Report prepared by Jeff Werner, Preservation and Design Planner. (This is a request to update the zoning map document to show a historic marking on the property noted in A. above.) C. ZM22-00001 – 415 10th Street NW (Old Trinity Church) – Landowner Dairy Holdings, LLC (the “Owner”) has submitted an application seeking a Rezoning for approximately 0.188 acres of land identified within the 2022 City real estate records by Real Estate Parcel Identification Number 040046000 ( “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue. The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1S (Residential Single-Family) to B-2 (Commercial) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”). The Proffers include: (1) All non- residential uses allowed under B-2 zoning, other than Art Gallery, Auditorium, Houses of Worship, Club (private), Music Hall, Educational Facilities, Technology Based Business, and Offices, shall not be permitted on the subject property, (2) No additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property, and (3)The maximum number of residential units permitted on the property shall be no more than one (1). The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for General Residential which recommends up to 2.5 stories in height, up to 3 units per lot (or 4 units if the existing structure remains) and additional unit allowance depending on zoning allowances. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Rezoning application may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3186). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday August 9, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday August 9, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - September 14, 2021, Meeting October 11, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Middle Density zoning and Affordable Dwelling Unit , 12th and Rosser/CH Brown Historic Conservation District (six properties) Rezoning and SUP – 0 Carlton Road Major Subdivision – Preston Commons (Robinson Place) Rezoning – Mount View PUD Critical Slopes Waiver – Belmont Condominiums, Azalea Springs Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 1223 Harris, Lyndhall Apartments Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass, 901 Seminole Trail Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Manufactured Housing Future Entrance Corridor • 1815 JPA - New apartment building (Wassenaar+Winkler Architects) • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) Transportation Prioritization Presentation – November 2022 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom . You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 6/1/2022 TO 6/30/2022 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. UVA Contemplative Commons ROW – May 6, 2022 b. Aspen Dental – 1252 Emmet Street North – May 23, 2022 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Nassau St – Sidewalk, utility – May 16, 2022 b. Great Outdoors – Barracks Road Shopping Center – June 1, 2022 c. 1805 Emmet St North - Raising Canes dumpster pad – June 13, 2022 d. Greenleaf Center (amend #2) – June 17, 2022 e. Riverview Park Restrooms - June 22, 2022 f. UVA Ivy Corridor project (amend #2) – June 29, 2022 4. Subdivision a. 513 Rugby Road (BLA & Easement) – June 2, 2022 August 24, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes are included as the last documents in this packet. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT Entrance Corridor Review Board review of proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 E. High Street PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 12, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Zoning: Downtown North Corridor Entrance Corridor Overlay District: Section 34-307(a)(10) East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street, Sub-area C Tax Parcels: 530273000. Site Acreage: 1.228 acres Current Usage: Multi--story, medical office building (under construction). Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation & Design Planner, and Read Brodhead, Zoning Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Section 34-309(a)(3). Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts (EC). Section 34-1045. Applicants for a development that is subject to Site Plan review and design review may request approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan (CSP). The ERB reviews such requests and makes a recommendation to City Council to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the CSP. Council may approve a comprehensive signage plan, upon a determination there is good cause for deviating from the sign ordinance and the CSP will serve the public purposes and objectives at least as well, or better, than signage allowed by-right. Background On June 12, 2018, the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a three-story medical office building and a two-story rear parking deck. Application Request for approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan for the medical office facility at 920 E. High Street. The requested CSP is necessary to permit the installation of three monument signs (N01, N05, and N06): • Three monument signs exceed the maximum one allowed. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 1 • The area of each monument sign exceeds the maximum 24 square feet allowed per sign: o N01 will be 70.07 square feet. o N05 and N06 will each be 28 square feet. • The aggregate signage area [of the monument signs] of 126.07 square feet exceeds the maximum 75 square feet allowed. • Two of the monument signs (N05 and N06) will be 7’-0” in height, exceeding the maximum 6’-0” allowed. Note: The area of a monument sign is measured on one side only, regardless if there is signage on both sides. This medical office facility is located at a corner lot with access from both East High Street and 10th Street NE. The primary and largest monument sign (N01) is located at this corner and prominently identifies the facility. The two, smaller monument signs (N05 and N06)—one on East High and one on 10th Street—each provide direction at the two entrances to the facility’s parking structure. Information submitted (attached): Comprehensive Signage Plan for [Sentara] 920 E. High Street: • Sign Application and Permit forms for signs N01, N05, and N06 (3 sheets, signed by applicant only) • City GIS zoning map of parcel and immediate area (1 sheet), dated 11/21/2020 • Narrative (3 pages), dated June 17, 2022 • AGI drawings and renderings, dated 5/27/2020 revised 2/16/2022: o Cover sheet o Page 2: Rendering of locations for signs N01, N02, N03, N04, N05, and N06. o Page 3: Rendering for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 4: Details for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 5: Location for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 6: Location and details for signs N02. (building address*) o Page 7: Location and details for sign N03. (building address*) o Page 8: Location and details for sign N04. (building address*) o Page 9: Rendering and details for signs N05 and N06. (small monuments) o Page 10: Location for signs N05 and N06. (small monuments) o Page 11: Lighting cut sheet • Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan Amendment #3 o Sheet 3 – Site Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 7 – Landscaping Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 17 – Sign Details, revised April 19, 2022 Note: Location of signs N01, N05 and N06 will be located as shown on the numbered, referenced, and dated sheets of the Collins Engineering Final Site Plan noted above. These four site plan sheets are referenced/attached to this CSP only to memorialize the locations of signs N01, N05 and N06 and the landscaping proximate to those signs and to provide construction details for sign N01 (Sheet 17). Any later amendments or changes to these CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 2 sheets are irrelevant to this CSP, unless the changes alter the referenced sign locations and landscaping, in which case amendment of the CSP may be required. * Re: N02, N03, and N04. Address numbers are not regulated by ordinance; however, because they are components of a building subject to design review, inclusion in the CSP will serve as design review approval. Proposed Signage • N01: Monument sign, externally illuminated (from ground level). Located at corner of East High Street and 10th Street NE. • N02, N03, and N04: Wall signs, non-illuminated channel letters (building address). • N05 and N06: Monument signs, externally illuminated (from ground level). Located at the East High Street and 10th Street NE entrances to the parking. Review of the signage types proposed by the CSP Note: Except for what is permitted under Section 34-1027, the following will apply to this CSP. Signage types as currently defined by City Code Division 4, Section 34-1038 (a) through (i). (a) Awning or canopy. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (b) Freestanding signs. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (c) Marquee signs. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (d) Monument signs. Three (3) monument signs in proposed CSP: N01, N05, and N06 CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 3 N01: • Monument sign, black letters on white, non-illuminated • 4’-2” h x 14’-5” w • Height to top of sign: 4’-2” above grade. • Area: 70.07 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Height is within the maximum 6’-0” allowed. ▪ Individual sign area exceeds the 24 square foot maximum. N05 and N06: • Monument sign, black letters on white, non-illuminated • 7’-0” h x 4’-0” w • Height to top of sign: 7’-0” above grade, excluding the 6” concrete base and 6” extension of the decorative post. (Top of monument structure will be 8’-0” above including the base and post extension.) • Area per sign: 28 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Height exceeds maximum 6’-0” allowed. ▪ Individual sign area exceeds the 24 square foot maximum. (g) Sandwich board signs.* • Not included in CSP, therefore not permitted. (* Defined in the EC Design Guidelines as Temporary Signs, which differs from the Code definition; however, neither are permitted by the CSP.) (h) Temporary signs. • Not included in proposed CSP; however, they may be permitted by reference as currently defined in Section 34-1038(h) of the City Code. (i) Wall signs. • Not included in CSP, therefore not permitted. Review of the aggregate signage area proposed by the CSP Per Section 34-1032 - Maximum sign area and Section 34-1044 - Entrance corridor districts— Special regulations. N01, N05 and N06: • Aggregate area: 126.07 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Aggregate area exceeds the maximum 75 square feet allowed. (Within an Entrance Corridor, the aggregate area of all signs allowed on a parcel shall not exceed 75 square feet, unless as otherwise approved within a CSP.) Note: N02, N03, and N04 are not included in the aggregate signage area. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 4 Review of the EC Design Guidelines for Signs (from Chapter III. Guidelines for Sites) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_ERB.pdf 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. Staff Comment: CSP complies. (See photos of nearby signage.) 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. Staff Comment: Applicant has proposed a CSP. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs (rather than freestanding signs) with accent landscaping at the base along corridors. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters are lit. Staff Comment: CSP complies. Signs are not internally lit. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 5 Staff Comment: CSP complies. Review of the requirements for a comprehensive signage plan Per City Code Section 34-1045(e) (1) A written narrative description of the overall plan, including, without limitation: a tally of the total number of signs included within the coverage of the plan, and a summary of how the applicant believes the comprehensive signage plan will serve the objectives set forth within Section 34-1021; Staff Comment: Information submitted. From applicant’s narrative: ▪ Adequate signs promote the general health, safety and welfare and help to create an attractive and harmonious environment. The property has two street frontages with a partially elevated parking lot and a below ground parking lot. Signs are necessary to identify the citizens searching for parking and entrances. Signs are necessary for this medical facility to be identifiable on both street frontages. ▪ Patients and citizens traveling here need to be able to identify their destination and adequate signs help to protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets, highways and other public areas by eliminating motorist confusion. The signs provided are the minimum necessary for this location to be visible from all lanes of travel under existing treescapes etc. ▪ The signs proposed will help to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision that could otherwise result if signs were not regulated as provided herein. There are three wall mounted signs that are appropriately sized for the façade and visible to motorists and pedestrians from their patterns of approach. The signs will not produce clutter and are aesthetically appealing. ▪ There are two street frontages and three parking lot entries that need to be identified. It's important to protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to residents, tourists and other visitors as sources of economic development. The signs here will provide for adequate notice of this destination to prevent stacking of cars on the street while informing motorists when approaching of their destination. ▪ This is the minimum necessary to accomplish the above objectives. (2) A color illustration or photograph of each sign included within the plan. For signs with multiple faces, an illustration or photograph shall be provided for each face. For monument and pole signs, an illustration or photograph of proposed landscaping shall be provided; Staff Comment: Color illustrations provided. Installation of the monument signs will conform to the landscape plan. (3) A written description of the type, size (dimensions), materials, and proposed location of each sign; CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 6 Staff Comment: Information submitted. (4) A map or other written identification and description of all existing signs on the property comprising the proposed development; Staff Comment: New project. No existing signs. (5) Color illustrations or photographs of signage existing on adjacent properties; Staff Comment: Staff reviewed adjacent signage. (6) A written description (and illustration or photograph) of proposed lighting (for illuminated signs). Staff Comment: The three (3) monument signs will be externally lit. Applicant provided fixture and lamping spec. Staff Recommendation Relative to the installation height and area of the three wall signs monument signs (N01, N05 and N06) staff finds the proposed CSP to be consistent with the EC Design Guidelines and the vision for the East High Street Entrance Corridor. Staff recommends the ERB find this CSP appropriate and recommend that Council approve the request. Should the ERB consider a recommendation for approval, staff suggests the following conditions: • Signs N01, N05, and N06. (Monuments) Externally lit. Lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature (CT) not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index (CRI) not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • Signs N02, N03 and N04. (Building address numbers) Not illuminated. Holes for anchors will be within the mortar joints. No holes will be made into the brick and/or stone. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received relative to the design. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street, satisfies the ERB’s criteria and is compatible with this Entrance Corridor and that the ERB recommends City Council approve this Comprehensive Signage Plan as submitted. … as submitted and with the following modification/conditions: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 7 Alternate Motion Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street, does not satisfy the ERB’s criteria and is not compatible with this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reasons the ERB recommends City Council deny this Comprehensive Signage Plan. Attachments: • Attachment 1: Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street o Summarized in Information submitted on page 2, above • Attachment 2: East High Street Entrance Corridor (from EC Design Guidelines) • Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 8 for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO1) for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO5) for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO6) Sentara CSP TMP 530273000 June 17, 2022 - 1 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative June 17, 2022 - 2 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative Jun 17, 2022 3 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  )HEUXDU\ 5(9,6,21  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 1 N05 N06 1 1 1 1 Note: Locations are approximate. Specific locations per pages 5 and 10. 1 1RVLJQVZLOOEHDGGHGWRWKHEXLOGLQJFDQRSLHV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ (;,67,1* ¶´  ´´ ´ ¶´ ´´ ´ ´ ´   352326(' ¶´ 14'-5" ¶´  ¶´ 13'-11" ¶´  ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´   ¶´ ¶´ There will be no signage on the canopy 1&8672002180(17 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ ¶¶ ¶´ 7KHPRQXPHQWVLJQGHVLJQZLOOFRQIRUP JHQHUDOO\WRWKHVFKHPDWLFVKRZQEHORZ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ´ 0RQXPHQWVLJQERG\ZLOOQRWH[FHHGDKHLJKW RI¶LQFOXGLQJWKH´EDVHDZLGWKRI¶DQG ´ ´ DGHSWKRI´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ´ ´ $OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVDSSOLHGWRWKHVLJQERG\ PXVWEHLQGLYLGXDOO\FXWOHWWHUV$FU\OLFSDQHOV DQGDOXPLQXPRYHUOD\VDUHQRWSHUPLWWHG ,QWHUQDOLOOXPLQDWLRQLVQRWSHUPLWWHG$OOOHWWHULQJ ¶´ ¶´ DQGORJRVPXVWPDLQWDLQDPLQLPXP´FOHDU VSDFHDURXQGWKHHGJHVRIWKHVLJQERG\ ¶ 14'-5" ¶´ $3DLQWHGDOXPLQXPVLJQFDELQHWSUH¿QLVKHGFRORUWR PDWFK$OSROLF%*<*UH\3DQHOVRQEXLOGLQJ %3UHFDVWFRQFUHWHFDSVVPRRWK¿QLVKQRFRORUDGGHG &6WRQHYHQHHUSLHUVXVLQJ³%RUDO&RXQWU\ ¶´ 1'-4" /HGJHVWRQ$VSHQ´WRPDWFKWKHEXLOGLQJ '´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUVPRXQWHGWR´ DOXPLQXPEDFNHUSDLQWHGWRPDWFKVLJQERG\UHFHVVHG LQWRVWRQHYHQHHUDQGJURXWHGLQWRSODFH (/RJRLV´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUV VWXGPRXQWHGWRVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGWRPDWFK306& ¶´ 14'-5" DQG:KLWH)RQWLV3DODWLQR )/RJRLV´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUV VWXGPRXQWHGWRVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGWRPDWFK306& $ ¶´ ´  ¶´ 13'-11" ¶´ ¶  DQG:KLWH)RQWLV*REROG ´ ¶´ ´ 0RQXPHQWZLOOEHH[WHUQDOO\LOOXPLQDWHGXVLQJ'HOWD % $UFKLWHFWXUDO'LUHFWLRQDO/('8S/LJKWV VHHVSHFL¿FDWLRQ VKHHWDWWKHHQGRIWKLVGRFXPHQW  ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ & ¶´ ¶´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ¶´   ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ) ' ( 1&8672002180(17'(7$,/6 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ Note: Referenced Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan, revised April 19, 2022: Sheet 3 - Site Plan; Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan; Sheet 7 - Landscaping Plan; and Sheet 17 - Sign Details. $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ (;,67,1* ´ ´ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ (;,67,1* ´ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ (;,67,1* ¶ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV N04 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 7KHWUDIILFGLUHFWLRQDOVLJQVZLOOFRQIRUPJHQHUDOO\WRWKH VFKHPDWLFVKRZQEHORZ0RQXPHQWVLJQERG\ZLOOQRW H[FHHGDKHLJKWRI¶LQFOXGLQJWKH´EDVHDZLGWKRI¶ DQGDGHSWKRI´ $OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVDSSOLHGWRWKHVLJQERG\PXVWEH LQGLYLGXDOO\FXWOHWWHUV$FU\OLFSDQHOVDQGDOXPLQXP RYHUOD\VDUHQRWSHUPLWWHG,QWHUQDOLOOXPLQDWLRQLVQRW SHUPLWWHG$OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVPXVWIROORZWKHOD\RXW UXOHVVKRZQEHORZZLWKDPLQLPXP´FOHDUDURXQGWKH SHULPHWHU 1 1 ' 0HGLFDO2IÀFHV 0HGLFDO2IÀFHV ( $GYDQFHG,PDJLQJ $GYDQFHG,PDJLQJ Note: Locations are approximate. Specific locations per pages 5 and 10. /DE6HUYLFHV /DE6HUYLFHV ) &RIIHH6KRS &RIIHH6KRS $)DEULFDWHGDOXPLQXPVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGZKLWHRQDOOH[SRVHGVXUIDFHV $ %)DEULFDWHGDFFHQWXVLQJ5,0(;µ&DPEULGJH¶VDWLQVWDLQOHVVVWHHO % &´5DLVHGFRQFUHWHIRXQGDWLRQ¿QLVKHGVPRRWKXQFRORUHG (DVW+LJK (DVW+LJK '/RJRLV0WUDQVOXFHQWYLQ\Oµ0DULJROG¶2YHUODLGRQZKLWHRSDTXHYLQ\O DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHWRFDELQHW 6WUHHW 6WUHHW * :RUGPDUNLV$YHU\RSDTXHYLQ\O$%ODFN¶DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHRIFDELQHW)RQWLV3DODWLQR & ($UURZLVDSSOLHGWRYLQ\OWRPDWFK306&µ5R\DO9LROHW¶ )&RS\LV$YHU\RSDTXHYLQ\O$µ%ODFN¶DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHRIFDELQHW)RQWLV)XWXUD&RQGHQVHG%ROG *&RS\LVVXUIDFHDSSOLHGYLQ\OWRPDWFK306&µ5R\DO9LROHW¶)RQWLV$ULDO5HJXODU 7UDIILF'LUHFWLRQDO6LJQVZLOOEHH[WHUQDOO\LOOXPLQDWHGXVLQJ'HOWD$UFKLWHFWXUDO'LUHFWLRQDO/('8S/LJKWV 352326(' 1 167'6 VHHVSHFL¿FDWLRQVKHHWDWWKHHQGRIWKLVGRFXPHQW  $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ Note: Referenced Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan, revised April 19, 2022: Sheet 3 - Site Plan; Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan; Sheet 7 - Landscaping Plan; and Sheet 17 - Sign Details. N05 N06 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ Attachment 2: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report July 12, 2022 East High Street Entrance Corridor (from EC Design Guidelines) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps%20of%20Corridors_ERB.pdf Overall Description High Street is the traditional downtown entry corridor from I-64 and Route 250 east and the growth areas of the eastern part of Albemarle County. Its character changes as one goes up the hill west towards downtown. The lower parts of the corridor have older, small retail and auto-oriented service establishments with no streetscape improvements. Small scale dwellings begin at Gillespie Street and continue up the hill. Older, larger and more historic residences dominate the closer one gets to the downtown. Newer medical office infill structures are mixed in with residences along much of this section of the corridor due to the proximity of Martha Jefferson Hospital. Positive Aspects • Hillside corridor provides views and vistas • Proximity of Rivanna River offers opportunities for new, more intense uses • Older residential sections provide transition to downtown historic districts Vision The southeast side of High Street from Long Street to the light at Meade Avenue shares similar characteristics with the Long Street corridor. Properties here have potential to be redeveloped at an urban scale with shallow setbacks, higher density, and mixed uses. The natural character of the river should be preserved, and riverfront properties may incorporate the river as a site amenity. Future infill and redevelopment on the northwest side of High Street from Riverdale Drive to Locust Avenue and on the southeast side of High Street from Meade Avenue to 10th Street should complement the smaller scale of the abutting residential neighborhoods on either side. The retail areas of this part of the corridor will continue to provide basic service-business functions until redeveloped into a mix of uses including residential. This area may be considered for nearby offsite or shared parking in the future, due to the small parcel sizes and convenience to transit and the downtown area. From Locust Avenue to Market Street there will be opportunities for denser development. The area surrounding Martha Jefferson Hospital is a potential historic district. A pedestrian environment should be encouraged along the entire corridor with sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. Sub-Area C: 9th Street from High to Market Street Description Ninth Street between High and Market Streets delineates the northern edge of the central downtown area. Gas stations are located at both ends of the corridor. Early-twentieth-century residences converted to professional use for either the adjacent court complex or Martha Jefferson Hospital are intermingled with offices and banks of more recent construction. • Streetscape: Mixed-use, mixed-scale, mixed-setback, concrete median, 4 lanes, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights, concrete sidewalks. • Site: Parking in front of several structures, large trees on private sites, some edge landscaping, mixed private site lighting. Tree planting and consistent sidewalks in this area have started to create a more pedestrian-oriented environment. • Buildings: 1-3 stories, several older residences, 2 gas stations. Attachment 2: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report July 12, 2022 Recommended General Guidelines • Provide streetscape improvements to give this section of corridor better definition as it meets the downtown • Improve edge conditions of site with plantings • Relate new infill architectural design more to existing character of older buildings Guidelines Specific to the Zoning North Downtown Corridor: The Downtown North Corridor district is the historic center of the City of Charlottesville and contains many historic structures. In more recent years, this area has also developed as the heart of the city’s legal community, including court buildings and related law and professional offices, and commercial and retail uses supporting those services. Within this area, residential uses have been established both in single-use and in mixed-use structures. Many former single-family dwellings have been converted to office use. The regulations for this district are intended to continue and protect the nature and scale of these existing patterns of development. Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 1 of 4) 10 7 4 5 1 3 8 9 6 2 920 East High Street 1 2 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 2 of 4) 3 4 5 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 3 of 4) 6 7 8 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 4 of 4) 9 10 City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report Joint City Council And Planning Commission Public Hearing Application for Designation of Property as an Individually Protected Property Application Number: ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22-00001 Date of Hearing: July 12, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Staff Report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner Date of Staff Report: June 29, 2022 Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Joe Wregge Current Property Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 415/415-B 10th Street NW Tax Map & Parcel: 004046000 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.19 acres (8,450 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas) Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Residential Single-Family Small Lot) Proposed Zoning Classification: B-2 Commercial Overlay District: None (IPP designation requested) Applicant’s Request: Dairy Holdings, LLC requests rezoning to designate as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) an approximately 0.19-acre parcel with three existing structures—referred to as church, parish hall, and rectory--at the NE corner of 10th Street, NW and Grady Avenue. This request would amend City Code Section 34-273(b), designating the parcel an IPP, and City Code Section 34-1, adding to the parcel the overlay of a Minor Architectural Design Control District. Designation of an IPP follows the process for an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map, including a public hearing and notification. In reviewing the requested designation, City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) regarding criteria found in City Code Section 34-274. The church, parish hall, and rectory were originally constructed elsewhere and relocated to this site in--or soon after--1939 by the congregation of Trinity Episcopal Church. The church, built in 1910 in Palmyra (Fluvanna County), was disassembled and moved to 10th Street in 1939. According 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 1 to church history, either in 1939 or very soon after, the parish hall and rectory were either moved to 10th Street from other locations or constructed new; however, their origins and dates of construction are uncertain. (Between 1919 and 1939, Trinity was located at what is now a pocket park at intersection of West High Street and Preston Avenue. The acquisition of land for Lane High School and McIntire Road forced the congregation’s move to 10 th Street, leaving behind a church and, possibly, a separate dwelling, which were razed. In 1974, the congregation moved from 10th Street to its present location at 1118 Preston Avenue.) Vicinity Map: Context Map 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 2 Standard of Review – IPP Designation Sec. 34-274. - Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. a) City council may, by ordinance, from time to time, designate additional properties and areas for inclusion within a major design control district; remove properties from a major design control district; designate individual buildings, structures or landmarks as protected properties; or remove individual buildings, structure or landmarks from the city's list of protected properties. Any such action shall be undertaken following the rules and procedures applicable to the adoption of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map. b) Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the city council shall consider the recommendations of the planning commission and the board of architectural review ("BAR") as to the proposed addition, removal or designation. The commission and BAR shall address the following criteria in making their recommendations: [listed below with staff comments inserted] (1) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR); Staff Comment: The property is not currently listed on the NRHP or the VLR. In 2020, the City completed an architectural and historical survey of 434 properties within the 10th and Page Neighborhood, which included 415/415-B 10th Street NW and the three structures on the property. The review board of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources recommended the 10th and Page Neighborhood Historic District be eligible for listing on the VLR and NRHP, with Trinity’s former church, parish hall, and rectory identified as contributing resources; however, the buildings were not recommended for individual listing at that time. The church and parish hall are significant for their wood- frame vernacular Gothic architecture as well as for the role Trinity Episcopal Church’s members played in the Charlottesville community in the twentieth century, especially during the City’s local civil rights movement. (2) The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman; 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 3 Staff Comment: The property contains three structures, but only the history of the church building is clearly known. The building was built in 1910 in Palmyra, Fluvanna County, and was designed by C. Chastain Cocke. Preliminary research identifies Cocke as a contractor and bridge builder in Fluvanna County, but neither his architecture or other buildings are renowned or prominent. The property is associated with those twentieth-century leaders of the City’s African- American community who attended Trinity Episcopal Church and the church itself made significant strides to unite and empower Black Charlottesville residents during the City’s era of segregation. Rev. Cornelius Dawson, Rev. Henry Mitchell, and George Ferguson were part of the Trinity Church community and all distinguished leaders in Charlottesville’s civil rights movement. Rev. Dawson led Trinity Episcopal Church between 1936 and 1946 and assisted local nurse Daisy Green in founding the Janie Porter Barrett Nursery School, a preschool that first served African-American families and remains Virginia’s longest-operating daycare. Rev. Mitchell helmed the church between 1958 and 1977 and launched the Trinity Program in 1964, which provided Black children with summer camp activities as well as year-round preschool services. Rev. Mitchell was also the first Black president of the Charlottesville school board. George Ferguson was an active congregant at the church and a prominent Black undertaker in Charlottesville. Ferguson led the Charlottesville NAACP as president and campaigned to integrate the University of Virginia hospital. Given Trinity Church’s ties with these three significant leaders and the services that the church itself sponsored, like the Trinity Program, to serve Charlottesville’s Black community during the twentieth century, the three buildings are significant for their association with historic people and events. (3) The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is or would be an integral part of an existing design control district; Staff Comment: The three buildings are striking and attractive framed structures that are significantly visible at the busy intersection of 10th Street NW and Preston and Grady avenues. The church building is the most prominent of the three buildings. The wood-frame vernacular Gothic building is articulated with a steep front-end gable roof and inset pointed-arch bargeboard that creates a recess framing a circular window and the front entrance beneath. The building is further complemented by pointed-arch windows that illuminate the sanctuary. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 4 The former parish hall and rectory, are architecturally simpler than the church building. The parish hall is a one-story gable-roofed wood building with two-over-two sash windows and asbestos siding. The rectory resembles many other early twentieth- century dwellings in Charlottesville: it is a two-story wood house with a front-facing gable roof, one-over-one sash windows, and a gable-roofed front porch. Even though the church possesses more striking visual qualities than the parish hall or rectory, all three buildings complement each other and together are still clearly legible as a mid-twentieth-century church campus. The property is not within an existing City-designated Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. It is ¼-mile east of the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District; 1/3-mile north of the Wertland Street and West Main ADC Districts; and within a few blocks of three IPPs. (4) The age and condition of a building or structure; Staff Comment: Only construction date of the church is confidently known: 1910 in Palmyra, VA, then disassembled and moved in 1939. The parish hall and rectory were reportedly relocated from other sites, though possibly constructed as new buildings at 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 5 the present site. A 1937 aerial image (below) of the site suggests that neither building was present at least two years prior to the church being relocated here in in 1939. All three buildings have existed at the present site for 83 years. The present owner recently conducted exterior repairs to the church and parish hall. The buildings are in good to fair condition. (During the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the owner’s representative commented that in 2020 the following had been completed on the church and parish hall: misc. repairs and panting of exterior; reglaze the windows; update the MEP systems and equipment; alterations for ADA accessibility; repairs to a foundation wall; and expose the rafters within the parish hall.) 1937 aerial image of site. Parcel highlighted in orange. No buildings present. (https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/) (5) Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed on the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. This vernacular Gothic style is conveyed through the pointed-arch bargeboard in the front gable, the circular window on its façade, and the pointed-arch windows on all elevations. Its wood construction is also uncommon for church buildings in the city. (6) The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building, structure or site have been retained; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed at the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 6 The completeness of the church campus is also a distinguishing quality of the site; together, the church building, parish hall, and rectory all served essential purposes for a functioning church in the twentieth century. All three buildings were critical to Trinity Episcopal Church operations and together, still contribute to the site’s historic character. (7) Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city; Staff Comment: The church and parish hall are rare surviving examples of wood church buildings within Charlottesville city limits. Most of the City’s surviving churches built before 1960 are masonry (brick or concrete block). Of the City’s landmark church buildings that are historically associated with Charlottesville’s African-American community, most are masonry: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, constructed 1947). Within the City, staff identified only two other surviving wood churches built before 1960: the Woolen Mills Chapel (1819 E. Market Street, constructed 1887) and the former Bethel Baptist Church building (501 Commerce Street, constructed 1920). Given the rarity of wood churches in Charlottesville, the church and parish hall at 415 10th Street merit protection. From the 2020 survey: This site has been the location of a neighborhood religious organization for over fifty years. The architecture of both the dwelling and the church building complex is one of the few intact examples of a mid-20th century African American religious landscape in Charlottesville. While, some of the original fabric has been altered on the parish house and the church annex, the chapel remains intact. The value of Trinity Episcopal lies in its role as a community gathering place and house of worship serving the 10th and Page neighborhood and the larger city of Charlottesville. (8) Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history. Staff Comment: The buildings lie at the NE corner of the historically working-class, predominately African American neighborhood known as 10th and Page. The church was culturally and historically an integral part of that neighborhood, more so than representing an aesthetic or architectural relationship to the neighborhood. The property is also linked to other landmark church buildings historically associated with Charlottesville’s Black community. Of these, three are within City-designated Architectural 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 7 Design Control Districts and one is designated an Individually Protected Property: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, IPP, constructed 1947). Standard of Review – Rezoning The Planning Commission must make an advisory recommendation to the City Council. Council may amend the zoning district classification of this property upon finding that the proposed amendment would serve the interests of “public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice.” To advise Council, the Planning should evaluate: 1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The IPP designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. From Chapter 4 - Land Use, Urban Form, And Historic & Cultural Preservation: • Goal 3. Balance Conservation and Preservation With Change: Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community. • Goal 6. Design Excellence: Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining traditional urban design features and valuing historic resources while encouraging creative, context-sensitive, contemporary planning and design that supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. • Goal 8. Expand Understanding and Recognition Of Community History And Culture: Identify ways to expand the understanding, presentation, and interpretation of the varied histories, cultures, and experiences of the city’s residents and neighborhoods. • Goal 11. Historic Resource Protection: Provide effective protection of Charlottesville’s historic resources, including through recognition and incentives. o Strategy 11.1 Preserve historic resources through education and collaboration focused on maintaining our neighborhoods’ core historic fabric (while encouraging reuse of structures), our major routes of tourism, and our public spaces. o Strategy 11.2 When appropriate, consider neighborhoods or areas for designation as local historic districts (either Architectural Design Control Districts or Historic Conservation Districts), and consider Individually Protected Property designations, based on architectural and historic survey results. 2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 8 Staff Comment: No longer used by an active congregation—though that is permitted by the requested B-2 zoning—the former Trinity Episcopal Church is an important cultural and historical landmark for the City and especially for the surrounding neighborhoods. During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, Trinity’s clergy and congregation were leaders in the City’s Civil Rights movement. Historically, this parcel anchored the NE corner of the 10th and Page Neighborhood, where the residential character transitioned to commercial/industrial employment center along Preston Avenue, such as the City Laundry, Monticello Dairy, and several automobile service businesses. 3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and Staff Comment: IPP designation is an overlay and will not impact the underlying zoning or the uses allowed by it. BAR approval is required for certain demolition, new construction, and alterations associated with an IPP, thus the designation is reasonable and appropriate as a method to further protect the character and integrity of this property. 4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. Staff Comment: IPP designation is an overlay and will not impact the underlying zoning or the uses allowed by it. Public Comments Received: Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) and the Community Engagement meeting Requirements during the COVID -19 Emergency approved by City Council on July 20, 2020 On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00 pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 10, 2022 the City’s Historic Resources Committee sent to the Planning Commission and City Council a letter requesting they “initiate the process necessary to establish 415 10th Street, NW, as a locally designated historic property, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures.” Note: At its July 19, 2022 meeting the City’s Board of Architectural review will the proposed IPP and make a recommendation to Council, per Sec. 34-274. Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 9 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should recommend, based on the criteria found in Section 34-274, that it is appropriate for Council to amend Code Sec. 34-273 the add this parcel to the list of IPPs and to amend the Zoning Map to designate this parcel as an IPP, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures. Suggested Motions: 1. “I move to recommend that City Council approve ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22-00001 amending and reenacting the Zoning Map incorporated within Section 34-1 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, by the rezoning of 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) to add a historic overlay district designation to the property, and also amending and reenacting Section 34-273 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990 as amended, to add this property to the City’s list of Individually Protected Properties. Or 2. “I move to recommend that City Council deny the petitions (ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22- 00001) to rezone this property as an Individually Protected Property.” Attachments: 1. Zoning text amendment ZT22-00001 – Proposed language 2. City’s 1981 Historical Survey of 415 10th Street NW. 3. VDHR VCRIS documentation from the 2020 survey. 4. Photos and maps. Other citations for additional reference: • Trinity Episcopal Church: Our History. https://trinityepiscopalcville.org/about-us/our-history/ • 106 Group, April 2020. [VDHR] Preliminary Information Form for 10th and Page Historic District. • 106 Group, June 2020. Reconnaissance Architectural History Survey Of The 10th And Page Neighborhood: Charlottesville, Virginia. • Brennan, Eryn, 2012. Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 10 Attachment 1 Sec. 34-273. - Individually protected properties. […] (b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city's major design control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or architectural value (each, individually, a "Protected Property"). Each parcel containing a protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district. […] 71.1 414/415-B Tenth [10th] Street, NW Tax Map 4 Parcel 46 Note: The number 71.1 is used to maintain the alphabetical order of the IPP list. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 11 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 1 of 5 1920 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street City GIS 1920 Sanborn Map Note: This is the location of the congregation in 1920. This building was reportedly razed after the congregation relocated to 10th Street. Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 2 of 5 c1937 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ City GIS Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 5 1957 former location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Images not at same scale 1957 location of Trinity Episcopal Church on 10th Street, NW 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 4 of 5 1920 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave 1920 Sanborn Map 10th St NW Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 5 of 5 c1960 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave c1960 Sanborn Map 10th St NW CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM22-00001 DATE OF HEARING: July 12, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 26, 2022 (Revised June 24, 2022) Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group Current Property Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 415 10th Street NW Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 004046000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.19 acres (8,450 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas) Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Residential Single Family Small Lot) Proposed Zoning Classification: B-2 Commercial Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Dairy Holdings, LLC (owner) has submitted a Rezoning Application pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-41 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classification of the above parcel of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from the existing R-1S (Residential Small Lot) to B-2 (Commercial) with proffers. The Subject Property has road frontage on 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for General Residential (Sensitive Community Area). The applicant has also requested an overlay zoning of Individually Protected Property. Page 1 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications KEY - Pink: Central City Corridor, Yellow: R-1S Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY: Yellow: General Residential, Purple: Urban Mixed Use Corridor, Dashed Blue line: Sensitive Community Areas Page 3 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-42(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. For applicant’s analysis of their application per Sec 34-42 & Sec. 34-41(d) see Attachment X Sec. 34-42(a)(1): Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request is in compliance: a. Land Use i. Strategy 3.3 1. “Encourage adaptive re-use and potential increases in intensity of use for existing buildings, including historic structures…” Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The 2022 Comprehensive Plan stresses the preservation of historic resources and encouraging the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. The site contains a church that according to the City’s tax records was constructed in 1939. The proposal would permit a broader number of uses for the structure. The accompanying request for Individually Protected Property would require the applicant seek permission for any demolition of the structures currently on the property. Page 4 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan labels 10th Street NW as “Neighborhood A” and Grady Avenue as “Neighborhood B”. Neighborhood A streets are intended to serve low to medium- density development, and put a high priority on sidewalks and bike facilities. Neighborhood B streets are similar, but do not put a priority on bike facilities. In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan calls out both Grady Avenue and 10th Street NW for recommended bicycle improvements. Sec. 34-42(a)(2): Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds that changing the zoning from R-1S to B-2 would have no impact in a positive or negative direction to the general welfare of the entire community, provided the existing building is maintained on the site. The applicant has indicated their intention to keep the building as it is, and has requested an Individually Protected Property overlay that would require the owner of the property seek Board of Architectural Review permission for any proposed demolition in the future. Sec. 34-42(a)(3): Whether there is a need and justification for the change. According to the City’s 2022 Comprehensive Plan, the City should encourage the adaptive re-use of existing structures. The current building has very limited uses available as a result of its zoning designation as R-1S. The amended zoning would encourage the re-use of the building, and is thus justification for the proposed change. Sec. 34-42(a)(4): When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The proposed rezoning would have the effect of increasing the number of permitted uses in the existing structure. Currently, the property is essentially limited to use as a residential structure or a house of worship. Page 5 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church The proposed application would permit the following additional uses of the property: • Art Gallery • Auditorium • Private Club • Music Hall • Educational Facility • Technology Based Business • Office While other uses are permitted under B-2 zoning, the applicant has proposed a proffer that would prohibit uses other than those listed above. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a proffer that would prohibit any additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property, and limiting the number of residential units on the property to one (1). The applicant is proposing to rezone the Subject Property from R-1S to B-2 with no development plan. Although no development plan is part of the application, the applicant’s stated intention is to use the property as is and not redevelop the property. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1930 A-1 Residence 1949 A-1 Residence 1958 R-2 Residential 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-1A Residential 2003 R-1S Residential Page 6 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Use Zoning North Residential R-1S South Residential R-1S East Mixed Use Development (Dairy Central) CC West Residential R-1S Staff finds a rezoning of the Subject Property would be an acceptable transition between the existing single-family dwellings to the south and west and the mixed-use development to the east. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) and the Community Engagement meeting Requirements during the COVID -19 Emergency approved by City Council on July 20, 2020 On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on this matter. Members of the public spoke on the topic, and expressed concern for the lack of benefit to the adjacent community that the change in use would provide. Other Comments As of the date of this report staff has not received any comments from the public. Should any comments come in after the report posted, those comments will be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation This application raises a known issue with the City’s current zoning ordinance – the permitted use of non-residential structures in residential zones. Staff finds the proposed zoning change could contribute to goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan encouraging the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Page 7 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the Subject Property from R-1S, to B-2, with proffers, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone the Subject Property from R- 1S to B-2, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application dated December 22, 2021 B. Narrative dated January 10, 2022 Page 8 of 8 City of Charlottesville 3Ut6» Application for Rezoning u ^ ^ Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation Address of Property: ^(^,i^C Address: 2^<^ ^/l^^rr ^7: 5^/T^' 0, c^A^6TT£^tU.€ i//? 2-2 ^^Y pffi^T ?^<4A? . C(ZAt^ F^7A?S^(.r^^\ Planner: ^(A.t^ ^L-US/^A Other City Officials in Attendance: The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package; 2. 3. 4. 5. Planner Signature: 2 iMS£§^ ^ City of Charlottesville a? w^» r* t^ w Application Checklist u ^ t(t c^ ^ fjjy^Q/ project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation r^!NlK^ I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: v1 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan k^1 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts ^ 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) v^f Completed proffer statement All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Print chris Henry Date 12/22/2021 Signature. By Its: President (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 Q^£^ ^ City of Charlottesville s L@J<" ^ ^ w Cominunity Meeting u < (t ^i to Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation ^JNI"^ Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015) requires appli- cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi- ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC „ Chris Henry Print Chris Henry Date 12/22/2021 Signature_ President (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) Its: 4 /^i^ City of Charlottesville y'—sss^ Personal Interest Stateinent )tl ^ <^ to Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation ^SJNS-^' ^ A. I swear under oath before a notary public that: A member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Planning Commissioner(s): Or No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. And A member of the City of Charlottesville City Council (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. CityCouncilor(s): Or No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC By: Chris Henry Signature^ Print Ckr3 , tiri I 3& , 2-OZ2. 5 ^1I£^ ^ City of Charlottesville S3 mi aaa ^ r* ^ B Owner's Authorizations y ^ t(l ^ (Not Required) <0 "^ZNIA.^^ Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation Right of Entry- Property Owner Permission 1, the undersigned, hereby grant the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject of this application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review of this rezoning application. Owner: 'PAt^-Y ((oi.\>\^^ , l^Ld Date 12/22/2021 Date By (sign name) :(/J^3 Print Name: Chris Henry Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): President Other (specific): Owner's Agent I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have authorized the following named individual or entity to serve as my lawful agent, for the purpose of making application for this rezoning, and for all related purposes, including, without limitation: to make decisions and representations that will be binding upon my proper- ty and upon me, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent: Craig Kotarski Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serve as agent: 12/22/2021 Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Date: By (sign name): (^Y^/ Print Name: Chris Henry Circle one: Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporat^Bfficer (spedTvl: President Other (specific): 6 City of Charlottesville (^ 'tel u' W ^F r4 n Fee Schedule -s t(t C\) ^ <0 ^efNi? \ ^ Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Rezoning Application Fee $2000 Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL Office Use Only Amount Received: Date Paid_ Received By: June 21, 2022 Brian Haluska Principal Planner Department of Neighborhood Development Service City of Charlottesville ZMZ22-00001- 415 10TH Street NW (Old Trinity Church) Rezoning Application Greetings, I am writing you today to inform you of our intent to amend our Application for Rezoning for our 415 10th St NW property originally dated 12/22/2021. Our initial proposal was to rezone the property from R-1S to B-2 with the following proffers: 1. All non-residential uses allowed under B-2 zoning, other than Art Gallery, Auditorium, Houses of Worship, Club (private), Music Hall, Educational Facilities, Technology Based Business, and Offices, shall not be permitted on the subject property. 2. No additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property. We would like to keep these proffers and include the following zoning amendments and proffers: 1. Update this properties designation as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) 2. The maximum number of residential dwelling units located on the property shall be one (1) We are aware that these changes will result in an additional advertisement as well as a public hearing. We are committed to working with the Department of Neighborhood Development Services to ensure that these updates can be made. Sincerely, Chris Henry President Dairy Holding, LLC Stony Point Development Group, LLC Planning Commission Work Session August 24, 2021 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Habbab, Commissioner Stolzenberg Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Habbab Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Lachen Parks, Dannan O’Connell, Alex Ikefuna, Brennen Duncan, Lisa Robertson The Chairman called the work session to order at 5:00 PM. 1. Preliminary Discussion Park Street Christian Church PUD Commissioner Habbab Statement – I have a statement to make regarding my participation in the Planning Commission’s consideration of the MACAA site PUD application and Park Street Christian Church PUD application. I am employed by BRW Architects. As a result of the annual salary that I receive from BRW Architects, I am required to disqualify myself from participating in the transactions. If anyone would like to review the detailed written disclosure statement that I have filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission Council, that statement is available upon request. I am involved on the periphery of these projects. Commissioner Habbab left the meeting following the reading of the above statement. Dannan O’Connell, City Planner – Piedmont Housing Alliance, in partnership with BRW Architects, Timmons Group and Park Street Christian Church, are proposing to develop the property at 1200 Park Street (Parcel ID# 470002120) outside the current by-right land use designation. 1200 Park Street is approximately 7.43 acres with road frontage on Park Street and Cutler Lane and is currently developed with existing church and childcare uses. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential. The applicants are proposing a rezoning to PUD to accommodate a plan for two new buildings containing 50 apartments for age-restricted senior housing, along with landscaping, a new vehicular access point and 54 new parking spaces. Applicant Presentation Bruce Wardell, BRW Architects – The materials that we are presenting to you tonight have some slight differences from what were responses to a series of community meetings. This project is a collaboration between the Piedmont Housing Alliance (Non-Profit Developer), Timmons Group (Architectural Firm), and the Congregation of Park Street Christian Church. A couple of years ago, they really began to focus on their commitment to contributing to the need for affordable housing in our community and began to understand the resources that they have with the land that they own surrounding their property. Their desire to contribute in some significant way to senior affordable housing was the genesis of this project. Over the past couple of months, we have had a number of meetings. The first meeting was really an informal invitation to the community surrounding Park Street Christian Church. The purpose of the meeting 1 was to introduce the community to the project. It will provide 50 affordable housing units on the property that Park Street Christian Church owns. Following that meeting, we followed that up with the required entitlement community meeting at Charlottesville High School in the library on August 10th. We’re now at the Planning Commission Work Session. What you will see tonight has some feedback, some response to the information and the questions, and the issues that were brought up in both community meetings. What is driving the schedule forward for this is a target that you see on the schedule for March 2022, which is the deadline for the low income housing tax credit application. That happens once a year. It’s a competitive application. We have to reverse engineer our schedule to meet that deadline. That deadline will require a rezoning prior to submitting the application. (Next Slide) This is an overview of the site. You can see that it goes along Park Street. Park Street goes down and parallels the John Warner Parkway. It is the old major way to access downtown. It is on the edge of the Lochlyn Hills Neighborhood. (Next Slide) This is a diagram of the overall site. You can see the main church sanctuary. There is also an operating preschool that is adjacent to the sanctuary with parking along Cutler Lane. There’s a heavily wooded section of the site that goes west down to Park Street and north to a heavily wooded and primarily critical slope that has walking trails that connect to the Rivanna Trail. That’s a walking trail already used. (Next Slide) Some of the characteristics of this site are that there is a parking lot right off Cutler Lane that has been there since the buildings were built in the 1960s. The rear yards of the church and preschool are outdoor education areas and play areas. Below that is this heavily wooded slope that goes down to Park Street. Park Street goes around to the north and becomes Rio Road. Cutler Lane is on the lower right hand side. You can see the beginning of the neighborhood and the texture of the neighborhood there. (Next Slide) This is the zoning map. The site is currently zoned R-1. It is adjacent to an R-2 site to the west and a good amount of open park space that surrounds that area. In the current proposed land use map, you can see that the density of this area has been upgraded on the proposed land use map. It is that kind of strategic upgrading of the density of the site that we have looked at as we thought about developing the 50 affordable housing units on this site. (Next Slide) This shows some photographic images of the road as it passes Cutler Lane. One of the things we are requesting in the site is for waiver of the sidewalk along this road. You can see the topography that comes down to the very edge of the pavement in this area. That is part of the critical slopes that go up towards the main, level part of the property where we are proposing to do our development. You can see why the physical condition that begins to effect the ability to any kind of reasonable way to introduce a sidewalk on this side of the road. There is a sidewalk on the west side of Park Street along this area. (Next Slide) 2 This is a depiction of our proposal. It is two buildings that will comprise of 50 housing units. The tan areas are the critical slopes. The solid green lines are proposed connections to the Rivanna Trail. For those 50 units, we are providing 54 parking spaces. We have placed the buildings on the opposite side of the site from the neighborhood. There is a significant slope on this side of the property. These buildings will be screened from Park Street and, to a larger extent, screened from the neighborhood. (Next Slide) In building 1, there are 27 proposed units. In building 2, there are 23 proposed units. One of the other concepts that is fundamental to the church is to provide an inter-generational community with the preschool, with the church, the fellowship of the church, and the facilities. They imagine developing a series of relationships with the people that live in these units. The children from the preschool and the residents of the units can begin to building relationships with each other and make this an inter-generational community that is fostered and shepherded by the congregation of the church. (Next Slide) This is a basic conceptual section. The buildings are three story buildings. They are set down the hill from the existing building. Cutler Lane is on the right, Park Street is on the left, and the proposed parking is in between the church facilities and the proposed building locations. (Next Slide) This is a conceptual idea of the two buildings. Piedmont Housing Alliance will put solar panels on all of their buildings. The buildings are built to passive house standards. These two buildings will be built to a quality that is well above what you would normally expect for affordable housing. You can see how the parking is tucked between the new housing and the church facilities. You can also see how the existing tree coverage between the buildings and Park Street will continue to provide the screening on Park Street along this site. (Next Slide) This is a conceptual sketch of the new buildings from the entrance to the parking area. You can see the slope up the hill to the preschool on the right. You can see the two buildings related to each other on the left. You can see how the site continues to slope down to the left where we can get some lower level units on one level below. All of these units are affordable. All of them will be accessible with elevators in each of the buildings. (Next Slide) The precedent we thought about for this project is the development that has happened at McGuffey Hill. You have a fairly intense development of apartment buildings on the side of a hill overlooking the intersection of High Street and McIntire. You can see the tree cover provides a pretty significant visual buffer between the housing on the side of the slope and the public sphere. (Next Slides) These are some visual images of the site. This is the view of the church building from Cutler Lane. There is a model of the volume of the proposed building beyond that. You can see that volume where the roof of the proposed building is below the roof of both the preschool and the church. 3 This is a view from Cutler Lane looking up towards the church at where we’re proposing to bring the drive in. This is the volume that you would see from Cutler Lane and the neighborhood side of the property. You can see the sidewalk going up Cutler Lane on the west side of Cutler Lane. You can see the two church buildings and the proposed structures to the left. From Park Street, the picture on the left is the summer view of the buildings. The picture on the right is where those buildings actually are up the hill from Park Street behind the vegetation. Scott Dunn, BRW Architects – At the request of the city, a traffic impact study was required as part of this PUD process. The traffic study looked at this site and the MACAA site as one project. Both developments are included as one traffic study. Specific to this site, we looked primarily at the Cutler Lane and North Avenue intersections. The North Avenue intersection is signalized. The Cutler Lane intersection is not signalized. At the signalized intersection at North Avenue, with the development in place, we see a level of service A in the morning and a level of service B in the afternoon on North Avenue. At Cutler Lane, we see level of service C in the morning and level of service D in the afternoon. Based on the traffic volumes we were looking at, the proposed apartments generate about 350 trips per day with 25 trips in the morning and 35 trips in the afternoon. This amount of traffic doesn’t warrant any geometric improvements at either location. There have been some concerns expressed regarding traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. Jonathan Showalter, BRW Architects – We had two community meetings. Some things we heard in those meetings were concerns about increased traffic in the neighborhood. Whenever there is development, there is concern about how it is going to impact the traffic. One of their concerns is traffic on Wilder Drive. It is fairly narrow. People leaving this development using Wilder Drive will lead to increasing traffic on Wilder Drive. We looked at decreasing traffic or keeping it from increasing here. One option we’re looking at is a right turn only out of this site onto Cutler Lane and down to Park Street to exit. Another item that the neighbors mentioned as an existing issue was the sight distance looking right onto Park Street. We have been looking at that. It appears that we can fix that through clearing brush. Those are two initial concerns that we addressed there. Mr. Wardell – What you see here are the top issues that were expressed by the community in the first two community meetings. The interaction at Park Street and Cutler Lane was a concern. The cut-through traffic at Wilder Lane was another concern. There were also issues about the loss of trees and the scale of the project. Kurt Keesecker, BRW Architects – Before we were done with our presentation, we were asked to call out any differences between the packets you received from August 3rd and what was recently uploaded. Generally, the content is the same. There were no changes in the update that we just sent over. The changes are as follows. • We shifted the parking areas to avoid some critical slopes and be able to add a dumpster at the end. • We changed the driveway pattern to avoid a couple of trees that neighbors were concerned about losing (big specimen trees) in the big amenity green space on Cutler. • We added a few more trees in our parking area. We’re trying to make that more like a landscape parking area instead of a typical parking zone. • We have included hand-sketched perspectives. We did not include the matrix and comp plan comments. They’re the same. We haven’t changed any of that content. • The August 3rd presentation had a dashed line running beside the parking lot that inferred some kind of easement there that would allow the trail to move through in front of the buildings. In talking with the Rivanna Trail Foundation, they prefer that run around behind the buildings. We have started to 4 talk more about those formal connections to the Rivanna Trail running through the woods and not the parking lot. Public Comments Vikki Bravo – I am with Congregation Beth Israel and part of IMPACT with 27 congregations committed to solving community problems. I am here to voice my and IMPACT’s support for the Park Street Christian Church proposal. Having a safe and stable place to come home to is the foundation for our wellbeing and mental health. We are in a housing crisis. Over 4,000 families in our community pay more than half their income towards housing. Over 1,000 of those are senior households. We have senior citizens who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. We have seniors cutting back on their medication. We have seniors who are isolated because they can’t afford to live near their churches, community centers, and other sources of companionship. Many of these seniors have lived in this community most of their lives. Shouldn’t senior members have safety and security in their golden years? Shouldn’t they be able to pay their rent and have enough money for other necessities? Safe shelter is a basic human need. Together we can create a place where seniors can live well, stay involved, and continue to contribute to our community. Phillip Schmidt – What nobody has said a word about is the community you’re putting this into. This is a stable fully integrated middle-class community. It is the sort of community where people are investing in their homes. It is the sort of community zoning is trying to protect. It is the sort of community that most cities would be proud to have. This project was revealed to the neighborhood four weeks ago. This is bad timing. The area is changing. Park Street has 320 residences that are going to go in on Rio and John Warner Parkway. In Downtown, we have 250,000 square feet of office space that is opening up. What is going to be the impact? What is the zoning actually going to look like? There are lots of controversial proposals. We’re looking at 130 units into an owner occupied neighborhood. That’s a radical change. We don’t need to do it now. Those low income housing credits are going to be around. There is no hurry on doing this. This church has been sitting there for 60 years as a good neighbor. Why we have to do this with four weeks notice? The purpose of zoning is to protect property owners. Constance Johnson – I was involved in the MACAA proposal a couple of years ago. My concern is about the neighborhood. I am for affordable housing. The project looks like the MACAA project a few years ago. They told us that a retired school teacher can live there. My sister is a retired teacher. She couldn’t have afforded to live there with those numbers. Who is the target for this affordable housing? Cecilia Mills – This is a heavily wooded section of town. My concern is for the trees. I just want to harken to speak for the trees. This is an unspoiled wilderness that we treasure. It is an affordable neighborhood. My neighbor didn’t believe the traffic numbers. She sat at the intersection of Cutler and North on Monday from 4:45 to 5:30 and counted 750 cars. That’s a better way to judge what level of service. That included cars turning to or from North and Cutler as well. Since the preschool traffic had already gone at that point, that wasn’t part of her count. This plan feels a little ‘pushy’ in a time of crisis. If you put a parking lot in, I would like for it to be smaller. It could be smaller and not cause runoff down to the stream. Meadow Creek is at the bottom of this. I do have concerns about that. This is a neighborhood with no commercial services around it. The massing and scale is not in keeping with what currently exists there. Planning Commission Feedback/Discussion Commissioner Russell – I would be interested in knowing more about the residents’ concern about the four week notice. Can you tell me more about that? 5 Mr. Wardell – On July 27th, we had an initial community meeting with Park Street Christian Church. The conversations have been very informal with the Church for a long time. They were beginning to understand what was involved. The congregation is not familiar with how project development happens. There were some conversations that they were having internally about how to go about this. The plans really began to crystalize in May and June of this year. As soon as we began to have more crystallized plans, we could communicate what could happen on the site. The Church called a neighborhood meeting. It wasn’t required. It was an informational meeting. The first required meeting was on August 10th. Chairman Mitchell – We are probably 4 or 5 months away from making a recommendation. The public has 4 or 5 months to advise us. Council will probably vote on this in February. There is still lots of time for public input. Mr. Wardell – The 3000 hours that Habitat spent with the neighbors was not the 3000 hours that they spent with the neighborhoods around Southwood. It was 3000 hours that they spent with the residents of Southwood developing and designing their own neighborhood. The precedent of spending that amount of time with the surrounding neighborhood is not a one for one comparison. We called a meeting as soon as we felt like we had information that was dependable and where we could give specific information about what kind of development could happen. Sunshine Mathon, Piedmont Housing Alliance – As Mr. Wardell mentioned, the timeline is driven by a March Low Income Tax Application Process and having to work backwards from that timing. On the front end, we started having conversations with Mr. Wardell and his team and Park Street Christian Church 4 or 5 months ago. It takes a great deal of time to work through what the possibilities are on the site. We did not finalize a partnership in the last couple of months. It has been a very compressed process from our side. We went out to the community as quickly as possible to show them drawings and ideas to respond to as soon as we possibly could. Commissioner Stolzenbeg – With parking, there are 54 spaces for 50 units. That is the amount required by code. In your application narrative, you were going to provide parking to meet the amount that you have seen in actual use at other PHA properties. Are you saying that you are exceeding that amount? Are you putting more parking than what you need here? Mr. Mathon – Our informal assessment of the parking needs at other similar senior communities amongst the properties we own and operate is around three quarters of a parking spot per apartment. Because we are in a neighborhood where there is some on street parking but not a lot, we also have to allow for visitors, JAUNT, and other types of parking. We don’t have a lot of overflow capacity without impacting the neighborhoods significantly. We went through a process of evaluating the right number of parking spots. There is no magic rule way to predict it absolutely. We felt this was the right balance point between keeping parking at a minimum and not overburdening the neighborhood with a potential peak time with visitors. Commissioner Stolzenberg – For Friendship Court, you submitted some parking data a few years ago to City Council to ask for an addition of a parking modified zone. In that study, the peak usage was a little under .75 spaces per unit. The on street parking was not being utilized by residents. That .75 included visitors. The numbers of cars registered onsite was significantly lower than that. Is it the case that senior housing requires more parking than generally available housing? My inclination would be the opposite. Mr. Mathon – There are some differences with Friendship Court. Friendship Court is family housing, not senior focused. There are some seniors living onsite. I think Friendship Court is unique amongst the other properties we operate because of its core location (heart of the city) and the proximity to the central bus zone. Even though people may not have a choice about where they live based on their income, I think 6 there’s a little bit of a soft selection process that happens there in Friendship Court that’s different than our senior communities. I would agree with you in principle. If you look at other family properties that we have, we don’t necessarily have the same parking counts as we do at Friendship Court in an informal count level. I think Friendship Court is a mis-comparison. If you compare our other family properties to our senior properties, I think you’ll see the senior properties are a lower count as a comparison. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In looking at the unit mix, it is about half two bedroom, a few three bedroom, and a little under half one bedroom. What made you come to that unit mix? I would expect, for senior housing, it would primarily be people without kids in the house. It would tend to skew towards one bedroom. Is the intent to be co-living situations where you put multiple seniors in a unit? Is that driven by the parking requirement? If you add more units, you would have to add more parking. Mr. Mathon – It is proclivity of the low income tax program. The way the state of Virginia structures the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LI HTC), they do not differentiate between a senior community and a family community in their guidelines. It is a very competitive process to get funding. You have to check every possible box you can in terms of getting points to be competitive. They have an artificial cap at the percentage of one bedroom apartments in any given property to be able to check a certain number of points. If we had our druthers, we probably would have had a higher preponderance of one bedrooms compared to two. If we want to get this project funded, we have to check the boxes where we can. In some ways, we have control over that. In some ways, we have to go with the way the funding is structured. Chairman Mitchell – There are a lot of grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. We need extra bedrooms for that. Mr. Mathon – We certainly have that condition in many of our properties. We also have some seniors with live-in caretakers where a second bedroom is necessary as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What is the age requirement? Does there have to be a member of the household that is above that threshold? Does it mean kids are banned? Mr. Mathon – It means that the primary leaseholder has to meet the senior threshold. They could have grandchildren living with them. They could be living with a partner who is younger than the senior age. They could have their adult child living with them if they’re both in the lease. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Do you feel that this proposal is the boldest, most community serving proposal that you could make either financially viable or practically viable? Is this a cautious proposal because you are worried about getting it passed or in a different scenario, you might be able to house more families in need? Mr. Mathon – Every time we look at a project like this, you have to balance a wide variety of priorities and feasibilities. Some of the site challenges are critical slopes, available land, and the existing tree cover. We want to be responsible and responsive to that and the potential for how much surface parking we’re going to be building, the fundability, and the number of units we need to have to pass the critical funding threshold. At the same time, keep height in place that is neighborhood sensitive and make sure we have elevator accessible buildings. There are many factors that can come to bear in terms of that decision making process. Is this the only solution we could have come forward with? Probably not. If you looked at pure and raw numbers of how many units could go on this site, it probably would be more than what we’re showing. As a developer that wants to be context sensitive and sensitive to what the church wants to see, that was part of the negotiation process (the impact on their land as it currently exists), what the neighborhood wants to see, and what is achievable from a funding perspective. The larger number of units we propose, the bigger the 7 funding gap. Construction costs are continuing to skyrocket in unprecedented ways. We’re trying to balance all of those pieces together. There’s no perfect answer. This proposal is the one we want to build. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Can you clarify the significance of LI HTC funding? Is that important to the success of this project? Mr. Mathon – The project will not happen without low income tax credits. Ninety-five percent of the affordable housing across the nation gets built on an annual basis utilizing the LI HTC program. It is the largest public/private enterprise nationwide. Its singular purpose is to build affordable rental housing. You cannot build affordable rental housing without LI HTC funding. It probably covers 50 to 55 percent of the construction costs. You build on top of that 5 to 10 additional layers of funding in order to make a project meet the depth of affordability that we want to achieve and make the project viable over the long term. The baseline, critical funding source is LI HTC. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I understand a little bit about the parking story. There is an existing very large surface lot there with relatively little tree cover. Is there a possibility of using that as a resource to meet parking requirements and different uses and possibly introduce some trees into that existing, impermeable surface? Mr. Wardell – Using that parking for any kind of resourcing for parking for the housing units would create an unusable connection between the two because of the topography, the distance, and the remoteness. That parking lot was built when the church was built and before many of the zoning and planning standards were established. That part of the property is not intended to be part of the scope of this project. As the church decides how it may want to improve their property over time, I am certain that the kind of landscape and sustainability of anything they would do would be part of their consideration. It is not part of the scope of what we’re looking at right here. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I understand the motor vehicle story of the site. Increasingly, people are talking to me about bicycles. Senior communities are increasingly bicycle communities. How does that story work? Mr. Mathon – There are many details with bike parking being one of them. That has not been determined. This is not the site planning phase. This is the zoning phase. With every project that we look at moving forward, sufficient bike parking is a critical part of necessary transportation infrastructure. It will be part of the story when the site planning process gets underway. Chairman Mitchell – If we do vote to approve this PUD, are we able to restrict the demographics into perpetuity so that the demographics would be for senior housing? Lisa Robertson, City Attorney – When a proposed PUD is submitted, that is a rezoning application. The applicant is describing for you the specific project that they’re proposing to build. That project will have the characteristics described in the PUD development plan, including the narrative that comes with that and proffers that are submitted. You do have the ability to recommend approval of the specific project that’s been described to you. This is not like a Special Use Permit where you have the ability to come up with conditions of approval yourself. Chairman Mitchell – We cannot restrict this into perpetuity to senior demographics? Ms. Robertson – Not unless the applicant PUD development plan says “this specific project is for a senior living community for people who have these characteristics.” 8 Chairman Mitchell – Applicant, you have been given guidance from counsel. I suggest that you take guidance from counsel into consideration when you submit your application. Questions about the traffic. Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer – I have met with the applicant and Timmons to go over what we would expect from a traffic impact analysis. We agreed that doing both of these projects in one study did make sense. They did send over their preliminary traffic study. I don’t yet have a final version of it. As far as the numbers go, they had contacted me. With a lot of the traffic studies, there was concern from the neighbors about volumes now versus pre-COVID and what they’re going to look like post-COVID. We did do an adjustment. I am comfortable with the numbers in the study. We took the existing numbers and inflated them to pre-COVID numbers and inflated that to regular traffic. As far as the raw numbers go, I am happy with the traffic report. I know the applicant, with the church site in particular, they had noted they’re cutting back some of the foliage at the corner of Cutler. I did have conversations with them about maybe even possibly cutting into the critical slopes there to get better sight distance. That’s currently a manmade critical slope on that hill. I believe that we have it in our code. If critical slope disturbance is to support a roadway, there is a waiver for that. That’s something I would be in favor of if we can get as much sight distance in there. I believe they did note in their traffic study that it is below the recommended sight distance for an intersection as it is currently today. It’s really nothing to do with this project. If we can improve that that would definitely be better. In our bicycle and pedestrian masterplan, that sidewalk they’re asking to waive is one of the priorities of the neighborhood in getting down to the intersection with the Rivanna Trail. They also note in the traffic study about using the bus stop. The only bus stop that currently runs is north to south. The bus stop is on the west side, opposite side of Park Street from this development. There’s currently no way to get across that. I would probably recommend that, as part of this development, we look at some sort of crossing at Cutler or somewhere around there. If this is going to be an elderly development, it is unrealistic to expect them to walk to get to the signal at North Street. There’s no sidewalk on that stretch between Cutler and North. There’s really no way to get to that signal and get across to the other side. Chairman Mitchell – One of the reasons they wanted to avoid doing the sidewalks is because of the critical slope issues. There’s a creek to the north of Park Street. Is this far enough away from the creek not to impact the creek? If it is, are we going to be able to get our engineering engaged to develop this so that it will have a limited impact on the creek? Mr. Duncan – The other issue here is they don’t want to cut into that bank. The existing pavement width there is around 35 feet. With our current standards and design manual, you only need 11 feet for each lane. There should be enough room there. A climbing lane is another thing in the bike and pedestrian masterplan: a climbing lane coming from Melbourne up the hill. There should be enough room there to install a 5 foot sidewalk and a 5 foot climbing lane and still have room for two travel lanes with very little impact to the slopes. Chairman Mitchell – In general, they’re trending towards asking for a waiver for other reasons. Should I be worried about the creek as it relates to this project? Ms. Creasy – We’re still in the early phases of evaluation. I don’t know if we received any comments specific to that. We are noting that tonight. Chairman Mitchell – My objective was to flag the applicant. That will be something I will be watching very carefully. 9 Commissioner Lahendro – For the part of the presentation that I saw and the preliminary review, I am pleased with how the concept plan minimizes significant importance to most of the trees. We preserved the trees on the hillside, critical slope. It still remains a wooded site. With the concept plan, I am fine with what is being proposed. Commissioner Russell – You have me thinking about the importance of transit and ability to access that. I am not sure I appreciate where someone can/can’t get to. Be thinking about that. Be thinking about the accessibility of the site for those without vehicles. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to applaud the church and everyone involved with this project. This seems like a great proposal. It is exactly the sort of need we have in the community. It’s great to see you guys come together to use your land to make this happen. I would like to see a crosswalk there if you’re going to ask for a waiver. If you can build the sidewalk without impacting the bend, that would be great. That might require a beacon given the curve to make it safe to cross the street. I would also urge you to look to see if you can be a little bolder with this plan; to add more units potentially without increasing the footprint or the pervious surface of the proposal. Whether that be adding a floor because your height is beneath that. The visual impact is roughly nothing. I don’t think affordable senior housing is something that we need to be ashamed of and hide in the woods. It’s Ok if people can see it. To the extent we can house more seniors in need, I would encourage you to do so. Commissioner Solla-Yates – This is a project, in concept, the community can have some civic pride in. I am seeing solar panels and affordable housing for seniors. Many people have a very negative view of affordable housing, negative for the community. This, in concept, strikes me as a different story. I think it is a more positive one and more relevant to the future. We can elevate it. Commissioner Lahendro –This is a great conceptual start to the project. It is very skillful in its design of minimizing the impact of multi-unit, larger buildings within a residential district. It very nicely preserves the critical slopes and trees. It works well with the church becoming an ancillary use behind the church, keeping the frontage from the road. I think this is a fantastic start to the project. It’s a process. We have many months to go. I am very excited about this project. Chairman Mitchell – I like what you are attempting to do. I only ask that you do something to guarantee that it will be senior housing and not morph into something else. I also ask that you work with the engineers to make sure you protect the stream and do a good job of presenting something to the engineers that will help them become comfortable with the protection of the critical slopes. Ms. Creasy – The applicant had a number of questions that were part of their application. It might be a good idea to make sure that those have been addressed. Mr. Wardell – Mr. Mathon has a good, concise summary of PHA’s strategy towards long-term affordable housing. If you would like to hear that summary, that might help you frame your expectations over this process. Chairman Mitchell – Let’s go through the list. There are a couple of technical questions we didn’t attempt to answer. Mr. Keesecker – The first question was to make sure we were on the same page that the PUD was the correct approach to this site. There are other rezoning options that would help us achieve this density. The PUD allows us to be transparent and provide the expectations for the community and makes some promises in a more direct way. That’s why we chose the PUD. We wanted to make those promises. We don’t have a 10 mix of housing types. We have clustered our housing here. We just wanted to make sure there won’t be any surprises about approaching this as a PUD. Commissioner Stolzenberg – You could proffer those rather than submitting them as a PUD site plan. If we can reduce the ad hoc zoning we have around the city, it is going to reduce the workload with the staff over the long run. Mr. Keesecker – We felt the proffer process is a little less transparent to the neighborhood and those that are trying to understand what we’re trying to do. As a team, we decided a PUD was more revealing and easier to ‘digest.’ You didn’t have to make as many proffers. We will have some proffers to guarantee some of those things that we want to have included. It gives that better guarantee in the future as well. Any change to this would require a change to the PUD. Ms. Creasy – They have asked one question concerning what the church would have to do if they had development ideas that they wanted to do later. If this is rezoned to a PUD, any change to the site would have to go through a PUD process. They would have to come forward through this process again for any changes that they make to their site. It’s a good awareness item at this front part of the discussion. Mr. Keesecker – There’s a question we will end up asking if we can have a dialogue after this meeting with staff. The church’s plans will probably not come together fast enough to be included in the final PUD package. We generally know what their parameters are programmatically. We wanted to try to define a future church area without getting too specific about the exact footprint. We can most likely make some promises about how tall or how much expansion the church would do within some limits. We’re working with the church on this as a separate issue. We may have to get some guidance from you on how we can include that possibility without being so specific that it is limiting to the church. They’re not expected to or plan to expand their sanctuary, which drives the parking load. They’re generally going to expand the preschool and provide a fellowship hall proper. They have to move their chairs out of the way to have a fellowship hall and move the chairs back to have worship service. They want to have a separate room for fellowship. We may ask for help to build that into our application. Commissioner Lahendro – In fairness to the community, they should know as much as possible about what the church is planning to do now and in the future. Mr. Keesecker – We mentioned it in the community meetings. We highlighted the area where the church is likely going to expand a few years from now. Their plans are far away. They’re dependent on their own funding. If that ends up being a footprint we need to put down, we will try to do that as best as we can. We definitely want them to know what the plans are. We can ask the rest of our questions at a different time. These other questions related to the formality of how to register the easements for the trail crossings and how to make those connections are questions the staff can help us with. 2. Preliminary Discussion MACAA Site PUD Dannan O’Connell, City Planner – Piedmont Housing Alliance, in partnership with BRW Architects, Timmons Group, MACAA and Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, are proposing to develop the properties at 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street (Parcel IDs# 470008000, 470011000, and 47000710) outside the current by-right land use designation. The three parcels consist of approximately 9.3 acres with road frontage on Park Street and Route 250. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential. The applicants are proposing a rezoning to PUD to accommodate a plan for a mix of apartments, townhomes and duplexes, non-residential childcare space, and 147 parking spaces. Prior to 11 submitting an application to the City, PHA and partners are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and surrounding neighborhood. On August 12, 2021 the applicants held a community meeting with adjacent property owners to receive feedback on the proposed development on this site. Concerns raised by the public included increased traffic, questions over allowed non-commercial uses, and preservation of existing landscaping and trails on-site. Commissioner Dowell Statement read by Ms. Creasy – I am required to disqualify myself from participating in this transaction of the Commission. The nature of my conflict of interest is the annual salary that I receive as a MACAA employee. If anybody would like to review the more detailed written disclosure statement, that has been filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Ms. Dowell can participate in the Park Street application. Chairman Mitchell – There are 2 or 3 questions that I would defer to staff to answer. Bruce Wardell, Applicant Presentation – The process for this proposal is very similar to the one we just reviewed. The project is significantly different. The collaboration is between Piedmont Housing Alliance, BRW Architects, Timmons Group, MACAA, and Habitat for Humanity. (Next Slide) We have the same driving schedule. This project depends on a successful application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which is the same March submission deadline. The scheduled is generated by the reverse engineering of the entitlement process to meet that March deadline. (Next Slide) This project is the current MACAA site, which is entered off of Park Street just north of the 250 bypass. It currently has some aged buildings along the crest of the slope. There’s a relatively level area in the central part of the site. The slope breaks rather sharply to the west just below where the existing buildings are. There is a gentler, more manageable slope that comes down to the south towards 250.There is a long, stone wall on the north side adjacent to a residential property. The two buildings that front on Park Street are a part of this proposal. (Next Slide) You can see the two houses along Park Street, MACAA Drive, and the existing conditions. There is also this old, wonderful drive and drop off path that was part of the original estate on the property and some beautiful terraced landscape gardens that go down to the southwest of the property. You can see how we have sought to incorporate those elements of the historic landscape into the proposal. (Next Slide) You can see the photographs of the terraced gardens, the open greenspace, and that trail access. (Next Slide) The zoning is R-1. In the proposed land use map, it is proposed to be a neighborhood mixed use node. (Next Slide) 12 This is a generic diagram of the layout. The two houses along Park Street are preserved. We are proposing to relocate MACAA Drive directly across from Davis Avenue to clean up that intersection. Right now, it is misaligned. It creates a whole series of difficult interactions along Park Street. Along the proposed new MACAA Drive, we are proposing market rate townhouses, a number of Habitat townhouses and duplexes, and two multi-family buildings that are towards the center of the site/land. You can see how they are framed around the old, historic stonewalls that are there. There’s a community green in the middle of the property. (Next Slide) The summary of this is that we are proposing 65 apartment units, 20 townhouses, 8 duplex units, and two existing homes. In addition to that, MACAA will continue to operate an early childhood learning center that will be no more than 7500 square feet on the property. We’re proposing 147 parking spaces. You can see the mixed housing that is a mix of market rate, affordable Habitat units that are homeownership, and the rental apartment buildings that are buildings one and two. (Next Slide) There are currently 85 proposed affordable units. Those are the Habitat units and the PHA units. There are 8 market rate units. That includes the two homes that face onto Park Street, which will continue to be residential homes. (Next Slide) This is a conceptual section with Park Street on the right. You can see how there is a level area in the middle of the site. You can also see where the landscape transitions to the steeper slope that goes down to the Rivanna Trail and the John Warner Parkway. We have organized the site to have the single-family homes along MACAA Drive, which relates more to the scale of the existing neighborhood. The multi-family homes are planned deeper into the site where we can take advantage of the topography. We are proposing to use that break in the topography to minimize the volume of these buildings towards the neighborhood and take advantage of an extra story going down the slope. (Next Slide) This is the basic layout of the proposal. (Next Slide) This is a conceptual view of the duplex units and the townhomes that would be along MACAA Drive on either side. The street would be laid out with a planting strip and the sidewalk separated from the drive with front porches on all of the units. The planting strip will allow us to plant trees along MACAA Drive coming off Park Street. As you enter this site, you will see views to the Blue Ridge Mountains. (Next Slide) This is an early conceptual view of that central park or central green with the townhouses on the left and on the right is the scale of 3 story buildings facing the green. That’s also where the landscape and topography breaks to the west. If this drawing was a little bit wider, you would see that the slope goes down to the right. You would get a lower 4th story on these buildings facing west. Beyond the townhouses on the left, you can see the other multi-family building further down on the green. 13 (Next Slide) When we talk about building affordable housing, there are a lot of images that we have based on what was built in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. This is affordable housing in Charlottesville. These are at Wickham Pond in Crozet. These are Habitat affordable homes. These are the kinds of homes we are proposing to introduce along MACAA Drive as you enter the property from Park Street. (Next Slide) The apartment buildings will be similar to what are the proposed PHA apartment buildings that are currently under development for the entry to the Southwood community along Hickory Road. You can see that the amenities around the buildings and the buildings themselves. Eighty-five percent of the exterior of these buildings will be brick. That’s just part of the LI HTC application. This is not what we imagine as our grandparents’ affordable housing. (Next Slide) Here are the views of the volume of the proposed development. This is the 3-3.5 story building along the west side of the property from the bypass. (Next Slide) Scott Dunn, BRW Architects – We focused on the intersection of MACAA Drive, Davis Avenue, and Park Street. The through volumes on Park Street showed a level of service A upward. The side streets operated at a level C or D in the AM and PM peaks. We anticipate that traffic coming from the MACAA side to get a little worse with the development of this site. The volumes we counted out there were fairly low. The traffic generated by this site does warrant a northbound turn lane on Park Street. From an operational perspective, it is not required. When we look at the operations of this intersection, a northbound left turn would be a benefit. The corridor is constrained based on the limited right of way, the existing sidewalks, and rock walls on the area. That is something to consider when looking at improvements for this intersection. (Next Slide) Jonathan Showalter. BRW Architects – We’re constrained by the existing right of way and the geometry of the road and what we’re able to do on the parcels. Looking at this and hearing community input and looking at ways we can make this intersection as best as possible for this project, we’re looking at re- aligning MACAA Drive, in the red dashed line down below the gray shaded line. You can see that it is offset from Davis Drive. It creates a lot of conflict. We’re going realign MACAA Drive up to the north, directly across from Davis Drive. We’re also going to eliminate a driveway to the north to reduce conflict points there. We’re looking at removing some brush, fencing, and some other obstacles to increase the sight distance on Park Street. That’s a major improvement there. There’s not a lot of sight distance out of MACAA Drive. We’re also looking at preserving the no left turn out of MACAA. It will basically only be a right turn out of MACAA. That will also help improve safety at the intersection and maintain that current condition. (Next Slide) 14 Here is a little more about sight distance currently looking north. If making a right hand turn, you can see there are a number of obstacles there to visibility. It shows the current view on the left and the potential improvements to increase that sight distance. (Next Slide) This is a map showing the proposed site and showing what potentially could be public right of way versus what would be private area or private roads and parking lots. One thing we are looking at here is having a loop where cars can come into the site and circulate around the parking lot. We’re also trying to minimize the amount of pavement. We didn’t want to have both a public loop, reduce the green space, and a private parking lot there. One thing we’re looking at there is the potential to having a right of way or access easement to the city. We can have a public loop through the site but minimize the asphalt and pavement. (Next Slide) This is in response to what we heard in the public meeting. We talked about traffic, intersection improvements. Mr. Wardell – One of the things we heard in our community meetings was the access to the Rivanna Trail and the bike and pedestrian trail that parallels the Parkway. Currently, you walk or ride your bike along Park Street to the entrance ramp onto the highway. You walk and bike along the edge of 250 until you connect to the trail. One of the things we thought could be a real benefit to this kind of connectivity to the larger neighborhood is providing an ability to walk along that tree lined street (MACAA Drive) and down along and through the green and find a path through that terraced landscape or back through that historic drive with the stone gate. You can see we’re trying to make a connection down at the western edge that would allow you to connect to the trail and bypass that treacherous pedestrian way along Park Street and along the entrance ramp onto 250. When we do something like this, we want to do the best for the people who are going to be living in the proposal but also offer something back to the community. The other thing you will notice is that we’re developing a screen landscape buffer along the north edge on our side of the stone wall. There is a nice stone wall along most of that edge of the property. We have configured the parking in a way that would give us a slope that we could plant a buffer to the property, which is uphill from our property, along the north side of that property. We can talk about affordability. We have addressed the non-residential uses being an early learning center. All of the property will be maintained through some kind of arrangement between MACAA and some kind of community homeowners association. The other issue was the views into the site. The development of a tree lined street from Park Street into the site is a part of that transition from the neighborhood into the property. Public Comments Diane Dale – I would like to speak in support of this project. It’s a great example of the type of infill housing we hope will be in consideration across the community. The scale and texture of the proposal fits well with the adjacent neighborhood. It’s respectful of the environmental restrictions, the cultural pieces on the property, and is making an effort to address the issue of affordable housing. This is an example of the public process working. The initial applicant for this site came forward with something that was not a good fit. They have returned with a site plan of appropriate scale and texture. They have also brought in a local partner in Habitat for Humanity. They have demonstrated success and knowledge in the provision of affordable housing. I hope the Planning Commission will keep in mind the value of constructive public dialogue. 15 Vikki Bravo – I am speaking on behalf of IMPACT in support of this project. Neighborhoods succeed when housing is affordable. When elderly residents have a safe place to live, young people can find that first apartment, and parents and children can put down roots in a community with confidence, our whole community benefits. Today, our neighborhoods in Charlottesville and Albemarle are under pressure with over 4,000 families struggling to go month to month with their rent or mortgage. Lack of affordable housing is putting older neighbors at risk and causing families to frequently move, disrupting their lives, hurting their ability to make a living, and threatening their children success in school. Let’s make more housing more affordable and our neighborhoods more successful. Jason Haag – I am commenting on zoning protecting the existing properties. I caution against this a little bit. I just heard about this. It sounds like a ‘smoke in the dark and ram it through’ project. This time it was a letter. It took us some time to find access to this meeting here. I am worried about what is happening here. We do need more affordable housing in Charlottesville. I want to make sure, with multiple projects happening along Park Street, about the impact to the traffic and the environment. Tim Mohr – This a big improvement from what we looked at a few years ago. The city can maybe reinstate the grid and I know there are problems with that. The pressure on the Davis intersection would be different. That whole Park Street connection and 250 bypass is a mess. It would be nice if there was some way to address that. It is just compounding. Some of the benefits of the Parkway are pretty watered down because we have those exits from the bypass and the very strange condition with houses entering onto those ramps. It is a legacy of some really bad planning. This is an opportunity to create more of a center for that part of town that is walkable. Constance Johnson – We did participate in the last proposal. We were caught off guard. We did participate in the public meeting a couple of weeks ago. There were a lot of questions raised. We do not feel that everything is out on the table. We are not against more diverse housing in the neighborhood. This project needs to be looked at with the zoning changes that are going to be made. This whole neighborhood is being changed to Neighborhood Mixed Use Node. We’re concerned. This part of Park Street is going to be turned into a corridor leading to commercial districts. We’re talking about an R-1 single-family. That’s a huge change. This is a green and historic area. The amount of parking between the buildings is more than the last proposal. We want to be good neighbors. We are for this project at the opposite end of our street. I do applaud MACAA for reaching out to the community and to the city. There are still some issues. The big issue is the traffic. It seems that they are realigning that drive with Davis because they want traffic to go down Davis Avenue. The only other way in and out of there is Watson Avenue. The outlet for that is to go up the bypass ramp going to Locust. That’s the other exit. I do have a question about what MACAA’s footprint is going to be on the property. They have been a good neighbor. I want to know how that is going to effect the future of the commercial properties they’re going to add there. I am concerned about the building that they’re going to be building. Sarah Hanks – I am the Executive Director of MACAA. To the neighbors, we’re hopeful to partner with you moving forward and appreciate your participation in this process. When I joined MACAA, City Council had already voted against the prior proposal. I was responsible for what was next with our property. I believe this is a positive step forward for our community. We have an opportunity to blend our mission serving those who are experiencing low income and poverty, breaking cycles of generational poverty, providing opportunity for housing in an area where it does not currently exist for those who do not have financial resources and to do so in a manner that allows us to continue operating our organization and providing the critical services we do across the five localities. Planning Commission Feedback/Discussion 16 Chairman Mitchell – Maybe the public didn’t understand the configuration of the partnership. There might be value for taking people through who is going to be there and what the mixed use configuration is going to be. Mr. Mathon – The majority of the site will be residential. As you enter along the updated MACAA Drive, you will have the neighborhood scaled residential like you would see in any other part of the neighborhood. As you move to the back of the site, you would have the residential multi-family buildings. Currently in the plans, there would be a preschool center run by MACAA on the ground floor. That is the proposed commercial use. The funding that we (Piedmont Housing Alliance and Habitat for Humanity) have pulled together only covers residential uses. There is still work to be done on the funding stack that would support an early childhood learning center to be run by MACAA. Whether they own that space or lease that space, it is still to be determined. There are a number of financial hurtles that we have to go through before we have clarity on that. I can’t speak where MACAA’s permanent offices will be. Assuming this project moves forward, the permanent offices will not be on this site. The only presence they would have is the preschool center. They would be moving their office function to a different location. That is a work in progress. Commissioner Russell – Did I hear that there would be no right turn onto Park Street out of the development? Mr. Wardell – There would be no left turn. Commissioner Russell – People would have to make a right turn as opposed to going across to Davis. Mr. Wardell – There had been a concern expressed that by lining up that intersection, it makes it easier to cut through. There is a fairly robust traffic pattern that goes through between Park Street and Locust through the neighborhood. Given the current situation at that intersection, that is a very awkward intersection. Given the circumstances, the kind of scale of improvement that we can make is to align it so it becomes a more manageable and more familiar intersection. The intent is not to create a through street through Davis Avenue. The intent is to make the kind of interactions around that intersection more typical of any other 4 way intersection. Chairman Mitchell – Mr. Duncan, what do you think of the new configuration? Mr. Duncan – This was prepared upon my request. This was a request I made of the previous application. Any time you have that kind of offset intersection, it does create a conflict. When you have a traditional intersection, you see vehicle across from you. You know who has to go first. When you have that offset, it is in the periphery of your vision. Realigning it is more of a safety concern. That was my reasoning for it. Commissioner Russell – You aren’t asking the same question about whether a PUD is appropriate. It sounds like some of the office uses might be leaving this site. Why the PUD? Mr. Keescker – It is the same logic that we wanted to be transparent and have a more developed plan as we presented it holds true. This site does have a mix of uses. It does cluster the homes in a way that provides for amenity and preserves a lot of the reasons that PUDs exist in the city. If it were to rezone to something different, it would be very spotty. Some could argue that a PUD is inherently spotty anyway. It is so laden with process that the tradeoffs are there. There is nothing around this site that would limit itself to be another zone. On Park Street, there are some other zones. That other zone is close. In this case, it would be on an island. That’s why we decided to go with a PUD. 17 Chairman Mitchell – Ms. Russell, I would ask you to have conversations with Jody, Kurt, and Jim. That’s a great question. I am not sure we have much PUD expertise on our board. Please continue to ask those questions. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We have a 9.3 acre site. You’re looking to build about ten units per acre, which is within the low density designation in the currently adopted comp plan. There is a lot of open surface parking on this site. Do you feel that you have maximized the use of this site? With this kind of rare mostly green filled opportunity, there aren’t too many more of these left in the city. Are we missing out on potential for affordable housing by building it in this configuration? Mr. Mathon – The first versions of our sketches around the site plan included 20 to 30 more units to see what we could fit with some of the same core principles. As we got into the fine mesh, balancing open space, preserving some of the existing cultural infrastructure, and parking, this is where we landed. We ended up having to trim back the number of homes. This is a site where it really does have to manage all of the parking load on the interior. There is no neighborhood parking nearby. It is also a family site. You’re talking about some homeownership and some rental. With the homeownership parking, we had a very lengthy discussion around what Habitat buyers typically expect and need. When you include those and you look at the requirements that we expect for our residents, when they need to have visitors, this is the tightest we felt with the parking ratio. We did look at adding ten to twenty more units. It never worked. It hit critical slopes that pushed the buildings in ways that didn’t function properly. We were also doing our best to distribute and scatter the parking around the buildings as opposed to one large parking area in the middle. It is as tight and close as we could make it. We intentionally made the decision at the outset to include some homeownership. It is not just units that matter. It’s the range of affordable typologies that matter. When you blend those two together, this is the site that emerges. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Can you tell me about this historic driveway loop that you’re protecting as the centerpiece of this site? I haven’t been up to the site. When I look at it on Google Maps, it looks like a little bit of broken asphalt that doesn’t close the loop. Is that designated by the BAR as having to be protected? Mr. Wardell – When you go out to the site, the broken asphalt isn’t the nicest portion of all of that. The stonewalls that parallel those paths are the historic/cultural resource that is there. It is also a reminder of the pattern that existed along the old historic 250 when it was a two lane highway. We also gave it a fairly important component in our planning. In the previous application, one of the parts of the discussion was that the previous application did not preserve it. It actually eliminated a good portion of that. Our thought was that, given the idea of trying to develop a community in there, to have that kind of linkage to a historic landscape. It is quite an extraordinary landscape in there. We felt it was important enough to become the edge of this property towards the bypass. We would keep our planning on either side of it. Commissioner Russell – It was Rock Hill? Mr. Wardell – It was Rock Hill Academy. Before that, it was an estate. The original home is gone. Commissioner Russell – There was a section 106 review done of this area with the construction of the bypass. I found discussion about the historic landscape. Mr. Wardell – There is an irony in terms of one of the schools that occupied this property was one of the schools that was developed when the integration was ordered for the public schools. To have that property reclaimed is nice historic justice. 18 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is the loop in the center that isn’t critical slopes between the two buildings? Is that of the same caliber? Mr. Wardell – It is all part of the same system. Mr. Keesecker – It has the potential to be an outdoor room. It is a little bit of a contrast of the more open gardens. It has potential. It is going to take a little work. The other thing we were trying to do is set up a series of different kinds of experiences that people might be able to enjoy as they pass through the neighborhood. MACAA Drive is going to be different from the community green which is different from this space which is different from the gardens. It ultimately leads down to the John Warner Parkway. As we invite people to travel through (pedestrian or bike), they would be able to experience different outdoor spaces that will have different purposes and makes it more robust. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I had a design question. I have admired that drive many times. I am a regular on that greenway there. It could have been possible to use that as a regulating line in the design to make that an area that the buildings form around. That’s not the case now. Can you talk about that? PUDs are weird. A part of them is about aesthetics and innovation in design. One story I could see is that it is an interesting vista. It is something you could organize buildings around. As far as I can tell, there’s no relationship between the buildings and that line. It is ‘floating.’ Is that intentional? Mr. Wardell – We placed the multi-family buildings on either side of what was historically a carriage drop off area. We imagined taking up the asphalt out of that area and making it a green space. It becomes this green between those two buildings. That’s the kind of relationship between those historic walls and the new buildings. That drop off area is actually centered on the village green. That’s as much of a relationship as we have. There were a number of different layouts we did. This kind of framing on either side of that space was a fairly effective way to integrate it into the daily life of the community there. Mr. Mathon – One of the organizing principles of the layout is the entry along MACAA Drive. If you drive in now, you see building and trees in a way that obscures the long range view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. As you’re driving in, the multi-family buildings are set as slightly to the south to have that view. One of the multi-family buildings has stunning views off the backside out beyond that. In some ways, that was the more driving organizing principle of how the site was laid out. Commissioner Solla-Yates – With bicycles, this is the best greenway resource we have in the region. You’re doing a conventional parking strategy. You’re right on this incredible resource. Is there a way to better leverage that/better tell that story? Mr. Keesecker – The trouble we’re having is a little bit of the technical aspect of being able to connect down at the western end of the site to get through that existing stonewall that was built as part of the bypass. There are some logistics we’re going to have to work out in terms of engineering and make that feasible for bike access. The easiest bike access will be down the old driveway. We have been told that’s the part of the off-ramp everybody wants to avoid. We’re definitely thinking about it. What is hard to tell from some of these diagrams is that the lower part of building 2 and the T shape on building 1 has that basement level. There is almost four stories facing 250. That bottom level is the one that we anticipate animating with some of the community spaces and the amenity spaces that will open out onto the gardens. It will be a perfect place for bicycle infrastructure of the kind that I imagine you have in mind. Because of that split level, we have some spaces that are going to be in the footprint of the building and along its edges that will make that access easy for support. 19 Mr. Showalter – It’s definitely something we’re looking into there. This is still a very initial plan. We haven’t even gotten to the PUD planning items. We are looking at ways to connect from this site with a shared use path. It’s a great opportunity there. Chairman Mitchell – Mr. Lahendro had to join another Zoom call. He wanted to pass along his comments. His comments are no different from the comments he made when we met with you (Sunshine). He has fussed about this. He wants to see something spelled out. The only question I have is for Mr. Duncan. There is only one place to enter and exit. With increased density, is there a requirement that we have more than one place to enter and exit? Mr. Duncan – In this particular instance, I don’t see how that is possible. There is limited access to 250. We can’t access through that whole side of the property. The rest of the frontage of this property is bordered by single-family residences. What they have is what they have. Ideally, yes I prefer to have another access point for a development of this size. Realistically, I don’t see how that would be able to work in this situation. Chairman Mitchell – What is going to be the reaction from the public safety officials (fire and police) when there is only one way to get in and out? With the telephone pole, we’re moving closer to the telephone pole. Do we have to worry about that? Is that a problem to take that out? Mr. Showalter – We’re realigning the entrance towards the telephone pole. That would have to be relocated. That’s an item we have talked about. It would have to be coordinated on the site plan. It probably wouldn’t be removed. It would be realigned with the other poles. Commissioner Russell – I really support the concept. I am really happy to see that affordable housing can be well designed and be beautiful, connected to the landscape, and thoughtful within the historic context of the site. I would love to see those historic features if we could get a site visit. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It is good to see this project with badly needed affordable housing. MACAA serves such an important purpose. Early childhood education is possibly the most valuable investment we can make. Anything we can do to keep furthering that mission is very important. In terms of this plan, I would like to see more. If we can’t increase the footprint here, consider more buildings over this surface parking area. Some of those townhomes could potentially be stacked townhomes, which is a new housing format. I think there is a good opportunity for it. The parking near the townhomes and duplexes is a little strange and almost institutional. It’s a like parking lot. Given that these are single-family homes, I wonder if a driveway, where you fit in two spaces, makes more sense and fit more apartment spaces outside of that. That could be more effectively flexible. If we can make it more flexible, that’s going to work better. This is over-parked. You’re over 1.5 parking spaces per unit. It’s a lot of parking, especially for one close to downtown. You can get downtown without a car. You need to get that southwestern bicycle and pedestrian connection punched through that stonewall. A playground is something you need to show in your final plans. I would assume MACAA needs one. They have one now. With that central green space in the middle of the parking lot, I would like to see that programmed in a way that makes it an inviting place to use. Are you expecting funding from the city for this? Mr. Mathon – The short answer is yes. Fundamentally, building for affordable housing requires some level of support locally. The cost of construction is so high. MACAA is looking at recouping the value of their 20 land to be able to support their programs. We have the land cost we have to account for. There is going to be a need for support. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If you’re able to squeeze more units in there, I would encourage you to phase it into two separate parts to get even more LI HTC funding. Chairman Mitchell – It looks like Schenks Branch may be impacted by this. This is important to me. You have put together a good plan to protect it when you disturb the critical slopes. Please work with the engineers to make sure you’re doing a good job of doing that. You need to clearly articulate your plan to do that. I am pretty excited about this. I was the chair of MACAA board a few years ago when we began thinking about this process. We were in the wrong location. We needed to move into someplace like Friendship Court to provide services there. We needed to sell that land and live off the annuity. I am excited about getting out of there and putting up the affordable housing. I love the idea of partnering with Habitat. Their plan is to build wealth. There are all kinds of great things. Make certain you’re protecting those slopes and make sure to work with Mr. Duncan to work through the totality that you are thinking about building with Park Street Christian Church and the impact of traffic. Commissioner Solla-Yates – One thing I would urge you to consider is unbundling. Instead of giving every unit the same fixed amount of parking, offer it as a separate service. It is a hassle. The scale you are working on may make operational sense. When people have to choose space to store vehicles, they often choose less. They have to make the decisions. Once that space is no longer used for storage of vehicles, it becomes available for many other things. Mr. Mathon – Under LI HTC, that’s extraordinarily difficult to do. It is in the market rate sector. It’s not common. Under LI HTC, we have to provide the same amenities to everybody. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In your PUD use matrices, I think you’re going a little bit too hard in removing things and making some changes. If something is an SUP, it doesn’t make sense to add more yellow when it is going to require a Special Use Permit. If you can tone that down to what is being removed, that makes more sense. 3. Planning Commission Final Thoughts/Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 PM. 21