Planning Commission Meeting   2/12/2019

Thank you.

Somebody told you that they were going to take your house?

Yeah.

Oh, really?

But this letter here, I didn't understand at all.

Yeah, these are kind of very... Yeah, it's kind of very hard.

Unfortunately, they don't put enough information out.

Yeah.

It should be like that.

No, no.

It's all going to be up in that black area where the ball fields are.

When I went and came here the other night I drove down, hmm, what's the street behind us?

That's where it started from?

There's another development going on.

So you're probably just getting contacted by people that are trying to assemble properties over there to get more development moving on.

It's totally separate from that.

He drives a BMW, blue BMW M7s.

I want to be known because I think he's in some restaurants as well.

Where's our plug in?

There's at least one other company in the restaurant tech space in town though.

So, Mr. Lahendro, would you please begin?

Thanks.

Yeah, exactly.

We hold hands and go around it and sing.

Okay.

Ms. Dowell.

Good evening.

I don't have anything to report at this time.

That's all I have to report.

What were the sticky dots in reference to?

But that was how they engaged.

Any specific projects you could choose?

You were given four.

I know, but what were the projects?

There were probably 20 around the room.

But transportation projects?

Great.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

And we also discussed the rezoning in Minneapolis to legalize duplexes and triplexes in all zones.

Thank you.

The grand opening continues to iterate, and I think now we're looking at the grand opening in April now.

So, if you are a member of the public, and I think we still have a vacancy that we need to fill from the city of Charlottesville, correct?

I'm not sure, but we can check on that.

I love being right.

So for clarity, I just want to make sure also this is not a new position, this is a position that just changed kind of the title.

it was already in the budget as funded as an assistant city manager so it's not going to be that it'll just be converted over to long-range planner but still be under the direction of city manager so that it is a focused

Is there any additional information about who this person might be or what planning model that they implement?

We don't know who the person is going to be because we have to advertise.

Anything about the process of selection?

We're going to use perhaps a steering committee for which the Planning Commission plays and HAC and the public and the business community and the development committee and staff will be part of that particular group to oversee the preparation of those documents.

And I don't know when that is right now.

And is the plan for the long-range planner, once they're hired, to draft the RFP to issue and then hire the consultant, or for that to be drafted beforehand?

That's happening simultaneously.

But on a related note, we already have a draft affordable housing strategy that was pending in the procurement department, so we have to pull that back and extract the content of that as part of this consolidated RFP.

I don't think it's gonna, it won't be the, from my understanding, there's some work being done on that right now simultaneously.

Then tell us what the process is.

What the process would be?

Primarily as well, from my understanding, again, this housing strategy and this land use planner will also still do some outreach as well to make sure that we are

Do we even have an estimation of when this person will be onboarded?

Thank you.

Do you have a report by the Department of NDS?

to be ready so that will be what our agenda is on the 26th and so we'll have materials out late next week and Miss Green's given us some direction on a few extra things to have in there to help explain that so we will be working towards doing that as part of the review and that's all we have right now.

Please limit your comments to three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So do I have any motions regarding the consent agenda?

They sent us on February 7th.

I don't have to read that long novel before each one.

I believe the applicant is also prepared to give a presentation.

So do you have any questions for Miss Rainey or Miss Frisbee?

Does that help during construction to help with the disturbances from construction vehicles or is that intended for down the line or does it just improve the overall situation of the slope?

Basically permanent stabilization methods are more substantial than our temporary stabilization methods that would normally be applied so that there would be less risk of impact to Pollock's branch from potential failures of those measures in place.

The drive has exemptions but parking does not have exemptions in this case?

Driveways are exempt under our ordinance but the areas of parking would not be.

More questions?

I was hearing something from staff in the pre-meeting that there's not, that not enough material has been submitted to fully understand the impacts of the project on the environment.

That is correct and I'm sure the applicant can expand further however at this time our engineering department does not feel confident that they understand the potential construction activities through the site and the potential limits per that area based on construction of buildings next to steep slopes which has additional requirements from the building code side in addition to the zoning ordinance and are able to say with certainty which trees would be

Is that what these conditions are intended to address, which is how to protect that sensitive area from damage during construction?

I would have to defer to the Department of Engineering for what specific information they may need in order to assess that impact.

Thank you.

The four conditions that you named, has the applicant been made aware of those concerns prior to tonight?

They were finalized not long ago, so I can provide copies.

Well, there's two.

Both memos are in there and those have been resubmitted and are under review based on and will be reviewed based on this set of comments.

But secondly, on a site plan, are we making sure that all of the comments are addressed before we assign a site plan?

But all comments would need to be resolved prior to the approval of those documents.

So do you see any?

The subdivision plat has shown does include pedestrian access easements.

Anyone else have any questions before we hear from the applicant?

Just back to the permanent versus temporary, is, to get it more specific, is a permanent stabilization measure like a retaining wall?

I think retaining wall would be a bit beyond that in terms of stabilization.

Okay, thanks.

Would the applicant like to come forward?

So I want him to at least kind of speak to his initial thoughts on those as well as any conversations with the building official about the building techniques and how we can stay off those critical slopes and preserve them in the back.

Increasing stormwater management on the ground, no, not for this one.

Yes, ma'am.

And this is the first time I saw these two.

That was the time to speak on this.

Miss Rainey, could you get with the public and see if there's something?

I want to make sure you're heard, so hang tight with us.

Would you walk us through what you're going into instead, but I didn't quite follow you.

Basically, I'm supporting comments number, condition number one and three and four.

I think- Yeah, but you mentioned that there was something else you were doing instead

where they come in and put the parking lot in first and they can work on the upper two buildings but effectively they stabilize the upland areas and that substantially decreases the amount of drainage that comes to the critical slopes during construction.

Will that do that to the identical degree as implementing recommendation number two or does it just reduce it a bit?

I wonder what the architects in the room think.

We're going to hear from the city engineer.

We are going to hear from the city engineer and, yeah, I think this is.

By creating those systems in the detention, you're protecting those slopes and the alcohol is down below.

So it's a little bit more than what's shown on here.

That's anywhere between six and a half feet to, I think the thing is like 15, 20 feet at the farthest part of that building.

So you're suggesting that with the critical slopes being surveyed, the best plan to look at would be the, not the one with the red.

But the gray.

Any more questions on this?

Is that a problem with you guys, that three day part of 1B?

Sill Fence away with wire reinforcing protection and everything else that were in the virgin berms that were it's basically it's the Sill Fence then the virgin berm cutting off all the drainage taken into those traps before you remove any of those measures you go in and sod and stabilize the whole area then you take out the measures and everything ties in and it's stable that's that's the way it should be done and that's what we're that's that's our

Do you think this one was put into place not without the basic knowledge of building the northern two most buildings as opposed to that southern building first?

That was the feedback from our meeting.

Is there any advantage at all of using those permanent stabilization methods as your temporary stabilization in the beginning or is that not worth it because the Saad won't take root?

That's where you spend your money.

So you're saying that before that you would have matting down over top of the recently graded area to stabilize it?

That's right.

Because you've also got that play area between the two.

You just come in, you put in the grade, you mat it, you seed and straw and mat it, and that locks it in.

I'm talking about when you complete.

Oh, yeah, yeah, certainly.

So you've got that play area or passive.

That's where you spend money, yes.

So does that make sense?

Yes, to stabilize those areas.

And then what you're saying is this automatically takes care of that erosion from this, plus you've already got it sodded.

That's perfect.

Does that make sense to anybody?

How firm is this?

We've actually, the survey went out between December and January and field located every single tree in that whole area along those slopes.

Be sure that we're not benching into their root systems to the trunk of the tree because that would only destroy those trees that are shown to be left, but the construction methods would be killing them.

So we felt very confident that we made sure anything that was close to that slope area, that we made sure that we were showing that as being impacted so that we could be very accurate with what we did.

And would you be opposed to a condition that requires a non-movable screen to protect those existing trees, the root zones of those existing trees to be kept in place during construction?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And everybody else, does that sound doable?

And that's reflected in our site plan.

So I think why this is coming up is that there seems, there's a fear that there's so much unknown because we don't have that, that we want to make sure.

It's totally fine.

That's true, day and night.

So it's a really rare resource that we want to make sure we protect during this construction process and by this project.

That is great.

Good.

And then do you have some things to us that we need to take into consideration from the public?

Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you for doing that.

Thank you.

Okay, you were listening in.

What was the intent there by adding that condition?

So that to me is a possible reason for expanding the size of that, but I would defer to our engineers as to what they were thinking on that one, because they were the ones that put that one in.

But by doing this development and increasing the impervious area, there's already detention devices being put in to offset that increased impervious runoff.

So this would be making it bigger than that in order to have it be able to handle more water than what is actually required.

So my question is do you feel like the alternative that the applicant presented is sufficient?

I don't know which alternative would that have been.

So instead of, and if I'm understanding correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, instead of having to, it was almost like B was an unnecessary expense, and by doing the first two buildings first, that that should take care of that.

So perhaps crafting language to that intent might be more helpful.

I know they come in different sizes.

Well, there will be specific regulations per...

So we're not going to have to decide what that is.

No, the regulations are already put in place what will be required.

We would require something in excess of the minimum that is required.

Well, that's one thing you all have here to talk about and are talking about.

without being more specific about how much in excess.

I understand you don't know the volume of the system, so you don't know how much additional capacity that is?

What I'm really getting at is the cost of some of these things.

Yeah, it's a big, I think it's a 10 foot or so diameter pipe, something in that neighborhood.

And it's designed already for the 100 year storm, so it's handling major storm events.

I need you to come up so she can, no, no, come on up so she can make sure she gets it, because I want her to not be able to, or not miss any minutes.

So holding it, making it bigger, you're just, you're creating more detention but it's unusable because unless we have like maybe a 500 year storm but that's unnecessary at this point.

You want to comment on the additional impervious service?

Equivalently at the equivalent rate or less than what it the conditions as it it stands today And that's already being achieved with our current design That's why additional storage of the underground systems not necessary for this design and

No.

Scott, are there any other issues with any of the other conditions?

No, ma'am.

How do you like it?

No, I think that all the other conditions seemed reasonable and a lot of them have been addressed or currently addressed with what we've resubmitted for review and with a little bit of tweaking to what's been submitted we can address the rest of those conditions.

And we can go down these and kind of get a poll really quick to see where we are on this.

Well I was just going to start it off by saying I for one would be okay with eliminating 1B and 2 and then adding a condition about putting in non-movable protection for the root zones of the existing trees to be left.

Would those words to that be something like prior to disturbance at site installation of a fixed immovable barrier to protect root zones of trees identified to be preserved at the drip line and remain throughout the completion of the construction?

That sounds beautiful.

Does it?

It's poetic.

Is it?

It's poetry.

I'm on fire today.

Can you record that and I can listen to it before I go to sleep?

Did I capture what you were thinking?

Yes.

I would like to add one more condition if I might, and I've got some more wording to that that I just... Wow.

I can give you a full piece of paper for the next one.

parenthesis first to adjacent to the first street first to be constructed first in order to stabilize site and create a more efficient erosion measure.

Should I add?

I kept getting confused about all the other things.

Okay.

Does that sound like something that we would be

In favor of that one?

I might have a modification to... We can do that right now without a motion on the table.

So maybe we can fold permanent into four where final stabilization of the areas with critical slopes disturbed shall be permanent and include replanting of native tree and shrubs.

So you're saying take some of that 1B to put it in 4?

Yeah, just the permanent part.

Final stabilization of these areas of critical slopes disturbed shall include?

Or shall include permanent stabilization measures?

B. I'm changing it up, you're right.

Either.

Isn't that implied by final stabilization?

And B only talks about replanting of native trees shrubs and not necessarily sodding, the permanent stabilization.

It's like a fine point.

All right, hold on.

Final stabilization of the areas of critical slopes.

So we started out by going slopes disturbed shall be permanent including, so what you have here is where you started.

Do you have that written down or is that all in your head?

So we're just putting be permanent measures and then including.

Are we good with the rest of the condition?

I concur.

Would you like me to hand you the motion?

Do I have to read all the numbers too?

I suggest in motion and then you can add this.

You can pick one of these or say both of them and then you say the motion includes the following conditions.

As stated prior.

Do you have them all or do we need to reread them?

We have to construct this tomorrow morning, so it will be very quick.

We're moving to and adding the conditions previously discussed by the commissioners.

Miss Creasy, we call roll.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

Aye.

And Ms. Green?

Would we like a five minute break, and I do mean five minutes?

No.

Lisa, before we move forward, can I just make one comment?

So this is very important but I think you also need to keep in mind of the, I'm sure that's why the other lady was here, the residents and homeowners that are already in the area.

I think this is an awesome but very sensitive project, so thanks.

I believe it's at 530 on the 28th.

There is a public meeting with the residents about this project with final plan designs?

Okay.

Can you send that to us, please?

I'll send an email.

And first on the agenda is the Galleria Hotel.

That I forget to write a report on, but it's that other memo.

Good question.

All right.

We had... Did they provide a presentation through... And I gave it to Joseph... Let's see if...

Otherwise, the applicant is here as soon as we.

It was a helpful reading.

So I'll take a seat.

Questions?

Yeah, I have just one quick on the condition for the roof screening.

Does that imply like 360?

So thank you.

Does anybody want to go down and watch the presentation?

Sure Let's see Something's happening Did I just move this back and forth?

There's a switch over there too that controls these lights, the washers.

Do you guys have the thumb drive with the presentation?

I'm going to go to Planning Commission agenda.

They're having difficulty projecting here, but they'll be able to project there.

It doesn't have internet access otherwise I'd simply go to the agenda and scroll through.

but Lisa's not back yet.

What are we going to be looking at that's substantially different than what we saw last time?

Yeah, you've got the show.

No different.

I think we're fine.

We've got this in our packet.

This is Neil and a scene with MBJ.

I'll remind you, you've got a 10 minute presentation.

Along jumping up to the northwest corner along the railroad embutment, we'll have the mechanical yard, which will be screened to meet the ERB requirements with the building material that's sympathetic to the rest of the building, which I'm going to let Neil jump in and talk about.

I'll have Jake come back and talk about landscaping.

Thanks.

I have a question.

I guess the additional seating, was that intentional?

Are you talking about above the cafe?

The next one shows how they grow.

I'm not so much, I guess I was under the impression from the presentation that the additional seating above the cafe was to help to activate the street level, but if the trees are going to block it, is that necessarily activating it?

We have some additional seating.

Because as the trees grow, you're not going to be able to really see the activation on that terrace because it's going to be blocked.

OK.

Sure.

The only time we've had any discussions about interior lighting

So there's no issue.

Part of what we're supposed to do is does it fit into the – downtown, some buildings when they're lit at night are just – they jump right out at you and others do not.

to add to your notes when we get to the skyline discussion.

They might even be stairwells that are very bright.

For this application, with the guidelines we have today, any further questions?

What is for the hotel's occupants?

How's that for a legal explanation?

I got you.

And so that's kind of how I said, all right, not just for those, but also for the uses of the facilities being built.

Are there times where we would dim them?

So it's not beyond the realm of technology.

Any discussion?

So the color scheme still gives me a little heartburn.

I could not disagree more with staff's analysis of this proposal as it complies with our entrance corridor guidelines.

And it wouldn't surprise me that we don't, I don't know, but I just...

I can't imagine that UVA is going to build something that complements that color scheme when they start building across the street.

But I think the way they've, I think that what they've done with taking down the massing, and I think with, and that's my opinion, but a lot of this is, you know, these EC guidelines are opinion based.

It's just the color scheme that

That's why we have an EC board.

Sure.

I guess we certainly were not designing for UVA, so we didn't want to

designed for UVA's Red Brick building.

None of them are red brick buildings.

The Draftsman is.

I don't think so.

Man, it's not an entrance corridor leading into the University of Virginia.

It's a historic district.

Well, it's into the city.

So how far you wish to go, it's up to you.

I just wanted to put that out there.

You've got that new thing on 9th Street, one of those, and it's got yellow panels.

Right.

I think Lisa was talking about the Home 2 up at Montreal.

I don't understand, yeah.

I do feel like their original design that had the red brick in it, where the black is now, was nice, but I don't feel like we should be hung up over red brick.

that parking garage which is sort of brick trimmed on like the tower in the corner but the vast majority of it is just kind of bare concrete and I can't really look much worse than a bare concrete parking garage.

I think it's a welcoming change.

Well, what was there.

As I'm sitting here, though, I'm part of the Entrance Corridor Committee, and I am charged to look at the guidelines, and the guidelines I read tell me that it needs to be more compatible with the materials that this entrance corridor is part of.

And we have a professional staff that is paid by this city that tells us that this is compatible with what's on that entrance score.

And I respectfully disagree with that.

So we have a, there's a suggested motion and an alternate motion.

I mean, I was kind of waiting until the end, so I think if there's no other comments, can I go?

Sure, go ahead.

Let the applicant know that, that there may be down the road some issues there as the city progresses with that design of the streetscape project.

Was that looked at for compatibility?

So it's probably time to resolve that.

It has to be in the motion?

If you want to add it.

Those are just the recommendations.

Is now the time that we have to be put in there to address something?

Are guidelines, or does it allow us to add that even though it's not in our guidelines?

Is that a part of your recommendation, that it's adequate and or been considered?

Right, we don't now.

But in your recommendation, there's nothing in what?

What's going on inside is going on inside.

From the architect, I mean, is that something that is best practices right now in terms of designing buildings and the light pollution from internal lights to the outside?

When I go and stay at a hotel, my wife won't allow me to open the curtains.

And my question was, best case for you, every room is full every night.

We don't really think that that's a concern for light pollution on a hotel project from internal lights to the outside.

What does that, right.

And that is something that if we get to it tonight, we're going to.

But yeah, I appreciate you bringing that up.

or would it be LED either way?

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I think the technology has come quite a ways.

I think LEDs can be dimmable from my understanding.

Yeah, I know a lot of, like, especially big campuses and things, they'll dim them a certain number of percent at night, especially in parking lots and things that aren't being used.

You'll just spring for the more expensive LEDs.

It's, you know, we have a conceptual plan that will engage a electrical engineer to fine-tune whatever that material and system is.

But to not have it in a condition doesn't mean that suddenly the city's rags and exterior lighting don't apply.

I feel that we are going down a rabbit hole because nobody wants to make a motion so we can again make this meeting that should not last this long go until well in the morning or we've got a set of guidelines which we may or may not all agree with and we have a recommendation.

I'd like to make a motion.

Make a motion that will carry, will you?

So would it be impossible, and I'm not saying that I'm going either way, I'm just asking so we have all of the information available, with the new design, instead of it being black in the center, could it be red brick or be red?

Just to do a happy compromise?

You make it red, you get five, six votes.

Not saying that I was wondering could that be an option, because I think that's what we're hung up.

We may not find the brick which looks gray.

Because in the original design, this was red brick.

Not that that's the only option we have.

Okay, thank you.

Can we issue them a COA that allows them to switch to red if they want?

I would have already presented it to us if they wanted it.

Second.

So we have a motion and a second.

What made you add the second part to part one?

Ecologically speaking, because you can reuse the other LEDs that just take the risk of having to swap out all the LEDs if people don't like them with a dimmer one.

Is that part of our review?

Can you just say it?

All right.

I mean, if it's not allowed, I can.

And I think in the long run LEDs save money and they're more efficient.

Oh, no, I really want them to be LEDs.

Yeah.

I think the applicant and the architect need to hear that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission as we move forward as a city has to do with the new technology of lighting and what it does to our perception of our city.

So then why would we give them the option?

The word dimmer is more confining than just switching out.

Your decision has to be based on the guidelines.

And staff said there aren't any provisions.

That's right.

There's a whole chapter on street scaping.

So why are we making this extra when it doesn't need to be?

I got the impression they didn't want it at all, preferably.

But are the dimmable lights on the inside?

But you added a second part.

To switch out of another light if needed to be, or I don't know.

But they could just opt to make them dimmable if they want that option.

And I'll just say, I understand what staff's doing with the recommendation, but we just need to make sure everything's very close to the guidelines.

Are you going to go on a complaint basis?

So it's prominently site plan.

It's in the condition, you all know it's in the condition, it'll be whatever it is, unless there's a complaint.

If you struck that, I think we would be fine.