Planning Commission Meeting   10/8/2019

We looked at a draft of an annual report by the Tree Commission on the state of the urban forest that goes to City Council.

This report will go to them in November.

The Planting Committee reported that 167 trees will be planted this fiscal year.

And then lastly, the Data Committee has completed this work to develop metrics for tracking the activities of the Tree Commission.

and now that committee will be replaced with an education committee to tackle the mission of the tree commission to educate public on importance of urban trees.

The housing advisory committee full meeting met on the 18th of last month.

The two important issues I believe for this body, the policy group developed a legislative agenda asking permission to do some affordable housing policies.

I'd like to name briefly an affordable housing overlay district allowing by-right increases in density in exchange for affordable home construction.

something called a property tax circuit breaker.

Apparently they've got that in Maryland.

And also allowing separate taxation of land and improvements similar to Fairfax, Roanoke and Pecosin.

There was also a presentation by Susan Elliott about a new city climate protection tool that can guide the housing advisory committee and could be useful to this body as well.

Let's see, last month we had a meeting of the Police Design Task Force, which was ostensibly supposed to be about the mall crossings, but mostly talked about trees and this upcoming historic landscape study.

that will be RFP'd shortly.

That's a combination of a tree study that council allocated for and a historic cultural landscape study and those are going to be combined into one RFP together.

Turns out there's a tension between the way Lawrence Halperin originally designed the mall so that the stands of trees would be close together

It turns out these tree monocultures can't really grow that close together, so there's tension between maintaining the historic integrity of the mall, which is about 40 years old, and planting those trees in a way where they can be healthy.

Let's see, our MPO tech meeting was canceled this month and we all went out to go see the self-driving cars over at Perone Robotics, except I couldn't make it so I didn't get to see the fun stuff.

And then just for fun, I went to the PAC meeting, which is the coordination council, planning and coordination council, sorry, between UVA, Charlottesville, and Albemarle, part of implementing the three-party agreement signed about 33 years ago.

That's the spirit of transparency that I love to see.

They recommended dissolution, but that will be going back to each of the bodies to decide if they want to actually do that.

Okay, I went to the, did not go to the TJPDC meeting this month.

I missed that unfortunately.

However, two Sundays ago I went, I was invited to come to see some of the work that's being done at the South First Street Project.

I cannot wait for us to get that and have them come before us.

It was just exciting.

I left there energized.

That community has come together and they are working on the plan for phase two and they're engaged and they're active and it has just been something that's been wonderful to see, especially when we are doing all our community engagement.

trying to say you know hey you folks you live here tell us what you want to see how can you know how can we help how would we make this a better place and so I was I was energized and excited and and I know that that's going to come before us pretty soon for a presentation or a work session yes so I encourage you all to listen

because it's amazing.

So there's that.

And just on an affordable housing note, I got wind yesterday that the Supreme Court may be checking out or taking a case from California on affordable housing and inclusionary zoning.

And so I'm not sure what that's going to mean, but it's something that's going on and we should pay close attention because it would be, you know, obviously with the Supreme Court, a nationwide impact.

Sure.

I just have one thing.

Just wanted to give a plug for the Community Bridges 5K Run-Walk that is on Saturday, October 12th, so this Saturday.

It's at 8 o'clock.

It starts at the Amphitheater at UVA.

And it's a pretty big race.

It's only its second year, but it was really well attended last year.

And all the money goes to a community

Organization, or set of organizations.

And this year, all the money raised will be going to, along the lines of affordable housing, it'll be going to AHIP, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Habitat for Humanity, and the Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Residents, FAR, as well as the Piedmont Housing Alliance.

So the Parks and Rec group is a juggernaut of activity.

The amount of work that they report on it every month is just like you're getting hit with a fire hose.

We are very lucky to have had Brian Dealy run that organization all these years.

I've got pages and pages of notes and don't even know what to share with you so a couple things have taught me.

The first thing is the Greenbrier trail system.

That has had storm water issues for a while now, right at the Three Ways Top.

We don't have a fix for that, but we are working on getting that addressed.

The Needler Bridge, we are developing a ramp design and putting together a permit for a

a local flood plan approval and we will put that out for bid and that should be out for bid in the next couple of months and work should be underway to develop a good solid ramp design and flood plan for that area January 1.

You guys have seen all the work that we're doing over there by hydraulic, the trail by hydraulic.

That's been a little delayed just because of the excavation that we've got to do on the slope there, but that should be moving along and hopefully get that done by next couple, three months.

The McIntire Park, the Botanical Garden Committee, they're having a meeting Thursday in city space and as you may know they're working to build a little botanical garden at the base of McIntire Park near John Warner.

And they're going to be walking you through their conceptual designs and just walking you through how the project is moving along and what the funding for that looks like.

So that should be pretty interesting to sit through.

The Fontaines streetscape met with them on the 17th of September.

The presentation that they provided was pretty much what they gave us when we met with them I think maybe a week before that.

A couple of things to remember, three things to remember.

The public is asking for three things.

They're looking for better bike lanes.

They're looking to be certain that the emergency vehicles can get in and out of that and that their throughput will be good.

And they're looking for wider sidewalks.

to the bike lanes.

What they're recommending is buffered bike lanes up and down the entire streetscape.

What that means is all the parking on Fontaine will go away.

But there's only parking right now between Lewis and Piedmont, so it's not a lot of parking that we will lose, but the parking between Lewis and Piedmont will be lost.

If you remember when they presented to us, again, about a month ago, we thought that they were doing a really good job of getting automobiles up and down the streetscape.

But we didn't think that they'd really been able to think through how people were going to get across the streetscape.

They have given that some thought now.

And there are going to be three crosswalks up and down the streetscape.

And those crosswalks will have beacons that will help people get across them.

The crosswalks will be at mimosa.

Piedmont, and Ed Lewis.

So that was one of the biggest issues that we had when we met with them and looks like they're thinking through that.

I do.

A couple of things.

First of all, I wanted to introduce Patrick Corey.

For those of you who didn't meet him, he's our new assistant to boards and commissions.

He joins us on week two here, three, actually.

And so we're getting him up to speed on all of the different aspects of working with boards and commissions and the other things in neighborhood development.

So we welcome him to our staff.

We have two work sessions coming up, and these aren't on our regular work session days, so I did want to detail those for you guys now.

So on October 15th, which is next Tuesday, so that's the third Tuesday, we have a work session at the Water Street Center.

That's a busy night.

BAR's meeting that night also.

And this is with the consultants concerning the form-based code.

So there are some questions that are going to be posed as part of those materials for you all to provide some input on.

And that is going to be scheduled for a hearing on November 12th.

So we have a really super quick turnaround there.

But yes, we need as many folks as can come.

I have a pretty good attendance from you guys able to attend that.

And also South First Street.

Ms. Green gave us some insight to some of the citizen meetings on that.

Well, they are going to try and while they're

They're going to be moving forward at lightning speed.

And so we have a time frame that gets materials through and it's very accelerated.

The first one being a work session that they requested to have with you guys so that they can share their proposals.

And I've got a quorum for October 29th.

which is our fifth Tuesday.

So there shouldn't be any other meeting conflicts because we rarely have fifth Tuesdays like on the calendar at all.

So we'll have that workshop then and then they will be coming back for hearings on discretionary reviews in December and doing site plans right away.

And it's going to be all about South First Street phase two for our

Where will the deliverable be?

There won't be a vote at the work session.

It'll be more of them presenting what is projected to come forward.

It'll give you all a first look, an opportunity to ask some questions.

They'll have a very short window to include any sort of

adjustments that they may want prior to turning it in for the hearing.

But the development that they're moving forward with has a special use permit, critical slope waiver, site plan and subdivision.

And all of that has to be done and signed off on before they can turn in their funding application in March.

And this is incredibly accelerated.

So

Can you give us a date and time place?

Sorry.

October 29th, which is the Tuesday, will be in the NDS conference room five to seven.

Thank you.

That's it.

No, we're having the 15th and the 29th.

Alright, we can open this up for public comment.

Good evening, my name is Nancy Carpenter and I thank you for allowing me to come up and speak before you this evening.

I want to share some comments regarding form-based code that the city has been grappling with over the last, I don't know how many months, seems like forever, but maybe not quite that much, but I think that the city is not ready to adopt

After about 18 months, it looks like we're finally going to get an affordable housing strategy consultant hired and actually do some really deep dives in what affordable housing and what a strategy looks like, of which form-based code may end up being a part of that.

We also need to have a comprehensive plan update with a zoning code update.

And it seems like if you put forward that we should adopt a form-based code now, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Your own consultants that have been here in the city talking about form-based code has said that the height density bonuses that certain developers ask for are not enough to take care of this crisis in affordable housing.

It's just not.

And that's from a consultant and these are folks who study these issues, are well-versed in these issues, and are certainly hired to give their

professional opinions on these issues.

So I think that form-based code might be a little bit premature.

I think that form-based code should be a part of an overall comprehensive strategy about housing and anti-displacement.

Because as we see right now, here we are 50 years, 60 years later, grappling with

policies that were thought to be forward thinking and were thought to be cutting edge and we're now finding out not so much and we're trying to play catch up and I think that if we do put that form-based code to council and council adopts it, they're being a little bit short-sighted on what it takes to make Charlottesville a 22nd century

City, because right now, when you really think about it, you all may have children or grandchildren that will see the next century.

And so what we're doing now, we don't want them to come back in 60 years and say, you know what, these so and so, who, who, who, who, name, name, name.

screwed us up and we don't want to do that so let's do it right if we're going to try and make some sense out of what's been going on the last 60 years and especially the intensity of the last two years let's do it right so that we don't have to have people like me or anybody else coming back here and saying you know what y'all screwed up.

Hi, I'm Walt Eineke.

I'm a city resident.

I just wanted to reiterate and support some of the things that Ms. Carpenter just said.

We're in the midst of an incredible affordable housing crisis in this town.

I mean, the plane has crashed into the mountain here.

People are being displaced rapidly in this town and you can see from the discussion last night on Monday night at

at council that things are not getting any better along the Main Street corridor.

So I wanted to reiterate and ask that you hold off on moving forward with form-based code changes here.

And it just seems to me that this city always does things in a willy-nilly piecemeal fashion.

And I don't understand why it does that.

And I think with form-based code we're up against that again.

So it seems to be to make sense to wait until we have the equity strategy housing plan in place and the zoning audit done to see exactly how form-based code is going to fit with the goals of equity that the city is trying to promote.

So I think we're pretty clear on the fact that foreign-based code by itself won't make a dent in the affordable housing crisis of 3300 to 4000 units by 2040 that we're going to need.

So my interpretation of the consultant's report on FBC is that it may actually exacerbate gentrification and displacement in the strategic initiative area.

So that area too is an extremely vulnerable area that's been subject to a lot of racist zoning in the past and a lot of displacement.

So we should be incredibly careful when we start thinking about dabbling with changes in that community.

It looks like to me that on its own and left up to its own that form-based code will benefit certainly developers in town and at best it will have a positive impact perhaps on those residents at the 80% AMI or higher.

And we know that to solve this affordable housing crisis in this town we're going to have to pay much more attention to zoning and strategies that lead to building and homes as well as rental units for folks at the 30% AMI and those below 50% AMI.

So we need to have some assurances that building in the SIA is going to attend to those at 30% below AMI and 50% below 50% AMI.

We know that at least 40% of the development that should go on in the SIA should be targeted at those two levels of income, right?

So again, I just want to reiterate, I think it's really important to take a moment here and to ask why this is being pushed so quickly through when we have an equity strategy coming with the comprehensive plan and we have a zoning audit coming.

Why is this being pushed through before those kinds of things?

And why can't we take a moment and see how those things fit together in a rational and reasonable and equitable way going forward?

Anyone else like to speak?

Right, we will close the public hearing and move on to the consent agenda.

There are three items on the consent agenda.

Three.

Two minutes from one meeting and one minute from another meeting.

But there is an amendment to the second meeting.

that we need to review.

Sure.

So this is a clarification to the motion that was specific to the West Main project.

And I wanted to make sure I had you all on the correct page of the minutes.

It's page 10 of the September 10th minutes.

So item 1B

should read the building shall not exceed a height of 52 feet rather than the four stories that's listed in there currently and then if you go to section 4A

B, that the first sentence should read as follows.

The landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the baseline survey to prepare a protective plan to be followed by all persons performing within the development site

that shall include seismic monitoring or other monitoring measures of the adjacent property as recommended by the engineer.

And then the wording continues.

So it was replacing a may with a shall and if

with an as.

And for those of you following this item, this went forward to City Council last evening, and those corrections were placed in the verbiage that was put in the resolution last night.

Is there a motion to accept and approve the revised minutes?

I so move.

Second.

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

All right, I think we are ready to engage in the second session of our little conversation.

Madam Mayor, is council in order?

Right.

So we've got two very closely related applications in front of us.

So closely that I'd like to kind of do them together.

So what we'll do is Matt will come up and give us a staff report on both.

We will ask questions from the dais, and council will ask questions if they have any.

Then the applicant will come up and give us a presentation.

Again, we will ask on both.

We will ask questions from the dais, council will ask questions.

And then we will deliberate our recommendation.

And then we will vote on each application individually.

But our deliberations and conversations will be in conjunction since they're very tightly bound.

The subject property of the application is located at 209 Murray Avenue.

It covers about 1.6 acres and is on six lots.

CP-1900-01 is a land use amendment and it seeks to increase the allowable intensity of use in the density of residential units.

The current land use map designates it as a low density area.

You can get about 15 units per acre based on the current land use map.

The question that we on the dais have to address is

Is it appropriate to change the designation to higher density or higher intensity based on the existing conditions in the area?

The existing patterns of development and probable patterns of development.

So that's the question we need to ask as we're deliberating this.

The second application is ZM190000.

And this is a rezoning application.

It seeks to change the zoning from R2U, that's Two Family University, to R3 Multifamily.

Under R3 Multifamily, you can do 21 units by right and I think 87 units by SUP.

The rezoning application has four proffers.

These four proffers are an attempt by the applicant to give us a better idea of what the actual development is going to look like.

Proffer number one actually limits the number and location of the structures that will be built on the site.

It also limits the entrance and exit on the site.

And this is based on the application plan that is in the actual packet.

The second proffer

suggests that the space between the Manor House and Murray Avenue will be green space, just designated green space.

The third proffer speaks to landscaping and in the case that they're going to engage a landscape architect to work up a very detailed

Detailed outline of what the landscaping is going to look like.

Speaking of green spaces, speaking to shrubs, trees, and a number of the shrubs, trees, and green spaces.

And the last proverb suggests that the manor house will be maintained in good repair into perpetuity.

Oh, but wait.

Late Breaking News, there's a fifth proffer, and the fifth proffer is an affordable housing proffer that staff and the applicant will be speaking to a little later.

Thank you, Chair.

Matt Alfele, City Planner and Neighborhood Development Services.

Commissioners, tonight you'll be holding a public hearing and making a recommendation on amending the 2013 Comprehensive General Land Use Plan and a rezoning request.

The two hearings are related to 209 Maury Avenue and the five unaddressed surrounding parcels.

On June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission provided a recommendation to City Council to rezone the subject property from R2U Residential Two-Family University to R3 Multifamily with a vote of 4-2 without proffers or a development plan.

At this meeting, the Commission also initiated amending the 2013 Comprehensive General Land Use Plan in accordance to Section 3427 of the City Code.

One of the things that came up during that was why the Planning Commission was putting that forward.

One of the things in the code is planning commission or city council can ask to amend the comprehensive plan.

An applicant can only ask in November and December each year to amend the comprehensive plan.

There's actually a time frame and so the applicant could not initiate that comprehensive plan amendment.

It had to come from either planning commission or city council.

So then on July 9, 2019, the Planning Commission provided a recommendation to City Council to amend the 2013 Comprehensive General Land Use Plan on the subject property from low-density residential to high-density residential with a vote of 5-2.

At the August 5, 2019 City Council meeting, the applicant presented new materials, a proffer statement, and a conceptual layout that affected the rezoning application.

City Council moved to send the rezoning request and comprehensive plan amendment back to Planning Commission to review the updated material.

The updated material you're reviewing tonight includes the proffer statement that the chair mentioned the high points of.

There is a one page general layout that is referenced in the proffer material.

That is one thing should be marked in your packet.

There's some other renderings in there, but the one thing Planning Commission really needs to consider is the proffer

only references the one-page conceptual layout.

So the other materials, you can look at it as beneficial, but this is the only thing that is proffered, is the one-page layout that shows the number of buildings, general location, and where the ingress, egress points are.

The proffer also talks about the majority of land in front of the existing manor house shall be landscaped or used for BMP but should remain vegetative.

The landscape will be designed by a landscape architect and the historic manor house barring natural disasters would be kept in good repair and

No changes, minor changes.

And as the chair said, the applicant has proposed a fifth proffer, which is an affordable housing proffer.

When he gives his presentation, he'll be handing out the updated proffers for a chance for the commission to look at.

I'm sure you all have questions once you see the wording of the proffer.

It is written in a way to stay very close to the city's affordable language that we currently have in our code.

More detailed information can be found in staff report, but in relation to the comp plan amendment and the rezoning, staff finds the proposed zoning change with proffers will contribute to the goals of the city's comprehensive plan, such as increasing the city's housing stock, good urban design, and preservation of historic structures.

Staff finds that the by-right uses within the R3 district are similar to the by-right uses in an R2U district.

The biggest difference are related to density, dwelling type,

The addition of health clinic and education facility staff finds that 33 dwelling units split between two buildings is appropriate in this location.

No, there was an SUP several years ago for an education facility.

Correct.

From a, from the city standpoint, it is the underlying zoning R2U.

The applicant has placed a deed restriction on the house, a covenant, but that's a private

Covenant and the city would not get involved with that.

The the proffer language that the applicant is proposing would give more leverage to the city because that would then be included as part of the zoning if the rezoning went through with the proffer language.

So it would have another layer of it's not to the same level as an IPP individually protected property, but it would be a zoning requirement of the property.

really just to ensure that there's clarity.

As I understand it, proffers, we can accept them, but we can't negotiate them.

Correct.

The applicant has put together a proffer statement that you are reviewing as the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council.

It's not a negotiation.

It's not a give and take.

This is what they are putting forward.

The applicant during his presentation, during discussion, might hear

Always thinking about something.

I'll skip for now.

Right.

Thanks.

Good evening.

Thank you for having me again.

You have heard this before.

I'm Charlie Armstrong with Southern Development, and I have Kevin Riddle here tonight with us, also from Mitchell Matthews Architects.

They are the designer for the site.

I'll pass this out.

This is what Matt mentioned at the front.

I'll pass it down.

What I'm passing around has that new proffer number five that was mentioned and hopefully it gives you enough time to take a look at it.

So you've seen this application before.

I'll try to stick to the highlights.

Refresher about the property itself.

It's R2 zoning right now.

There should be some extra copies there.

It has R3 Zone student apartments across Maury Avenue to the east.

It has UVA dorms across Stadium Road to the north.

Scott Stadium is diagonally across the street, across the intersection.

And behind and to the south of the property is a residential neighborhood.

In that neighborhood, 90% of that existing houses, which are single-family, detached and duplexed predominantly, have been converted to student rentals at this point.

Only two appear to be owner-occupied of the 20 some that are in that block.

The current arrangement of the lots on this property allows for about 12 duplex units and a buy-write use.

Building permits could be filed for those tomorrow, but we feel strongly that isn't the best thing for this location.

It's not the right thing for this location.

One of the primary goals here for us is to build something that helps keep students from overtaking existing neighborhoods, expanding out into existing neighborhoods like Fry's Spring, 10th and Page, Venable, JPA has been happening.

So putting student housing close to where students go at the university is a priority.

It helps keep other housing options available for city residents.

We feel pretty strong if we're serious about adding density in appropriate places, especially where students are.

This is a great place for it.

Since we have been, we've got a total of three neighborhood meetings on this since we've seen you, we've had two additional neighborhood meetings.

one with the Fry's Spring neighborhood, one with the JPA neighborhood.

A total of about 25 people attended those meetings.

Generally, the neighborhood is supportive of this multifamily housing in this location.

In one meeting, a show of hands indicated about 17 people supportive, three people opposed, and one who was neutral.

In June, you all voted four to two to recommend approval of the rezoning and five to two

in favor of the Cop Plan Amendment.

At the time we were proposing a simple rezoning, there were no proffers and we didn't have a plan for what we would do with the property yet.

And those were the concerns that the two people who voted no on it expressed to us at the time.

Miss Dowell, who's not here tonight, but she expressed those concerns and Mr. Lahendro also had concerns with not knowing what the plan was.

So,

Council agreed with Mr. Lahendro and Ms. Dowell.

And so we are here with proffers and a plan.

We spent the last few months developing what we could do on the property and making sure it's something that works so that we can proffer it and promise that that's what we will do.

It seemed like everyone on the Planning Commission and Council or almost everyone, in my opinion, seemed to agree that higher density at this location was appropriate.

They wanted details.

To the proffers, I won't describe the first four.

You've had a chance to see those and staff reviewed them.

Number five is additional as of tonight.

It's to provide 15% affordable housing or contribute equivalent cash to the housing fund.

I know that you all prefer not to get new information at meetings and considering you already voted to approve this once I hope that you will accept this additional offer tonight with my apologies that it's just being offered tonight and not earlier so it would be in your full packet but it is above and beyond what we originally had planned to do and the City Attorney's Office has reviewed it and confirmed it that legally it works and can be offered tonight

and it also works for us and we'd like to offer that.

Hi, my name is Kevin Riddle.

I'm at Mitchell Matthews Architects.

We're helping working with Charlie to imagine what a good development here might be.

And I just want to give you a quick summary of some of our strategies.

You can see two new buildings in which there would be most of the new apartments and those are located on the property inside the setbacks and the front yard that would be required by zoning and we've also sought to leave the

Original House, which really makes the property special, leave it space, give it as much room as possible.

You heard already that part of this project would require that the front yard be kind of reestablished where it's quite overgrown now, and that in addition to that, the existing house would be rehabilitated in this effort and restored.

We've also sought to locate the parking out of the way as possible, relegated to the sides and the rear of the property.

About a third of the parking is under the building that is number two, and the rest is on surface parking, but it would be screened and landscaped in a way that it wouldn't be prominent, wouldn't confront.

If you guys can think about some of the other apartment buildings that are across Maury Avenue or are further east on Stadium Road, many of those don't make any effort at all to really acknowledge the street or the neighborhood.

and so our effort has been to create an alternative.

The plan and in addition the illustrations, the perspectives we provide at the end we hope is our way of showing you that these buildings could have something like front doors on the street, pathways that would be inviting to pedestrians and that the scale of the buildings, the fenestration would give them a residential character more in keeping with the neighborhood.

We've sought to some extent to take cues from the existing house and the architecture we show and the perspectives, but it's still very much a work in progress.

One other thing I'll add in closing is we had an earlier version of this layout that connected the two parking areas through the space between buildings two and three and some of the feedback that we heard early on was that it really would feel better if that was a plaza arrangement.

Actually, just a terminology question.

Something like front doors on the street.

That's a good question.

I guess if you look at the plan, for example, with building one on Stadium Road, we would have a pedestrian path leading to an entry point.

to the apartment building there as well off of Maury Avenue.

We have paths and landscape stairs that would lead up to an entry to Building 1 and then further behind Building 3 to Building 2.

I haven't actually.

Here we go.

And housing and density.

So that's and I'm going to pull out my old planning commissioner hat because I've heard this before somewhere along Cherry Avenue 5th Street where we had this wonderful proposal for a lot of affordable housing and market rate housing.

And when we rezoned that, we as a planning commission did not do our due diligence in looking at the buy right chart to see what other things might be

allowed in the R3.

And so I'm asking you if for density and housing and affordable and things like that, why wouldn't you change the chart to take out things like bed and breakfast, home stays, residential treatment facilities, commercial health clinics, public health clinics, daycare facility, elementary schools, high schools, indoor health clubs, spas, because I don't see that that's helping any of our

Yeah, I think that's a legitimate question.

The main reason was that we didn't feel like those were necessarily inappropriate uses.

That's not what we're planning for the site.

That's not what our proffers promise you.

I mean, this plan, this is an apartment residential complex.

It doesn't work like this as a lot of those commercial uses, but having say a daycare or a preschool in the existing house wouldn't be a bad thing in our opinion.

That I think would be a good use if we mixed a use like that in.

We don't know exactly how that house will be programmed yet.

So then why homestay, I mean hotel, playground, ballpark,

If it was in place of some of the residential square footage, say in the existing house, I think it could take up some opportunity for residential housing, but it wouldn't take up all of it.

These two other buildings, buildings one and two, which are where the

The majority of the units save for what, maybe two units is what we were looking at in building three out of 33.

in the name of housing, which is what we're asking for this rezoning.

And we know that's the buzzword and we know we need units if ACAC or Gold's Gym were to come in based off of this.

And what we heard before is the market was calling for it.

It's not going to be one of those, but if it were something small enough that could fit in that flexible space,

I suppose.

But we're really taking cues from the R3 district itself.

And if one of those gives particular heartburn to the commission, we'd certainly consider removing it because we know what we want to do here.

but in all due respect you were here before when we had affordable housing on Cherry Avenue and that's why we rezoned that and had a planned unit development and that caused us heartburn then and we were like no no this is what it's going to be we need this and then we got a hotel that does not give us housing and I think four hundred and some thousand dollars of contribution to the housing fund true but it doesn't give us units

I hope it did.

I don't know what that money went to, but I sure hope it.

Okay.

It gives me heartburn.

Understand.

Do you know what your plan is for the Manor House building?

Right now the plan is either

apartment units or a community space.

There's a provision in the R3 code requiring a certain amount of community space for multifamily developments.

So that would be a good place to put on the first floor, for example, a community room or, you know, fitness probably doesn't make sense since the university's quad fitness center is down the road.

But that sort of community amenity would be a good use for the ground floor and the upstairs could be a unit or two.

Thanks.

In your new prop for the formula you used for cash contributions, $2 per square foot of inhabitable area to be constructed, does that include the manor house which is already constructed?

Is that, are those square footage included in your contribution?

I guess there's some.

What it needs to be.

But if you use it for something other than residential space, then it doesn't, it doesn't.

Correct.

Okay.

Jumping back in, the discussion about possible childcare preschool does not conform with my ideas of typical student housing.

We're not, but I don't think that that necessarily sees far enough down the road for what the future could hold.

We're not planning for those right now.

It's been suggested to us by some interested members of the community that that might be a good use.

We don't have that in our plans right now.

Mr. Armstrong, are there deed restrictions on the existing house that provide for its preservation?

Yeah, they're in your packet and they're reiterated substantially in the proffer that we are now offering, but between private parties anyway, the deed restriction requires that the house be maintained in good condition

accepting natural disaster, fire, earthquake, something.

And that any additions or changes be architecturally consistent with the existing house itself.

So that the city

could not enforce because that's a private matter.

We talked about this last time we were here.

Questions from council.

I have a question for staff on this.

We have some new language including in five, just like to check on if it means what I think it means.

Would you repeat that?

In proper 5, section A2 or II, there's a sentence in accordance with the timing requirement specified in 3BI above.

Yeah, that looks like a typo.

If you look, the introductory sentence in proffer five states that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any new building within the subject property, the landowner will demonstrate the following.

And so

A1, 2 and 3 are the three options that the developer is reserving and so regardless of which of those options the developer has to make that choice prior to getting a building permit and then within each one of them

So under little i or A1, if he chooses the rental option, the four rent ADUs have to be constructed as part of the development, so they would be constructed simultaneously with the new units going on site.

If he chooses A2, the

Basically, he just has to notify the city of that election by the time the building permit is under construction and the for sale ADUs have to be, prior to the issuance of that building permit, actually under construction someplace else.

Now I do have one concern on the use matrix and I mentioned the tennis club sports thing.

It looks like that use matrix is only for city-owned land and it's still not allowed on private property.

But what is allowed by right is college and university use in a place pretty near to a college or university.

and in a form that wouldn't be terribly implausible to be a sort of university office building.

And daycare, I don't have any concerns about.

Duly noted.

Are there any other comments from the Commission?

From Council?

All right.

Why don't we open this up to a public hearing?

So if there is anyone who would like to speak about this application?

A couple of sign ups.

Oh, well, we have sign ups.

Great.

And Jen, your email came in very late, so you may want to come up and chat with us as well.

Not putting you on the spot, but.

Good evening.

So my comments were prepared not knowing about the fifth proffer and I have to express some frustration.

Can you state your name for us?

My name is Adrienne Dent and I live in Fry's Spring.

So my comments are not taking into consideration the fifth proffer, and I am frustrated that I am not able to comment to that.

I urge you to deny the application for rezoning for 209 Morey Avenue.

Does the community, out of necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, support a rezoning of this nature?

As a privileged few, how do you give voice to represent the community?

An informed housing strategy and updated comprehensive plan are key mechanisms for determining general welfare needs and desires of the community.

Without this information, without the comprehensive picture, there is little ground to substantiate spot rezoning.

Staff speaks only to the enforceable aspect of the applicant's concept plan and not to quality.

With staff commenting only on enforceability, you are charged with determining necessity, convenience and good zoning practice.

You may feel drawn to the renderings offered by the applicant, but behind the suggestion of information, there is little enforceable substance.

Outside of the proffered conditions, this concept plan is as good as speculation.

Additionally, I feel concern that according to the applicant at the community meeting, advice was taken from the city that a licensed landscape architect be written into the proffered conditions.

Are the only enforceable aspects, the proffered conditions, compelling enough to influence piecemeal exceptions and rezoning?

Does the city aim to provide increased university student housing off campus?

Without a housing strategy and an updated comprehensive plan, do you clearly understand what forms higher density best serve the community's needs?

What forms of, sorry, higher density?

A systems approach acknowledges that we each see only part of a complex whole.

Despite intentions, an exception made here may have an unexpected outcome there.

As Ms. Green mentioned, the property on Cherry Avenue, I would take that as an example.

It takes a larger community and the continuous feedback conversations to map and serve all parts of the system.

This is the value of adopting housing strategy and prioritizing comprehensive planning process.

Piecemeal exceptions to the existing comprehensive plan may not represent public interest and may fail to address systemic problems like housing shortage and a lack of affordable housing.

I ask you to deny this application.

The likely reality of dragging update to the comprehensive plan is an increase in applications of this nature.

For this reason, I urge Planning Commission and City Council to shape a policy toward piecemeal requests, a policy based on common understanding and shared definitions.

And I'd also like to add that the meeting to which Mr. Armstrong referred was a meeting actually referencing a rezoning application on Stribling Avenue.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Ward, also from Charlottesville.

I would like to speak to the fact that this neighborhood, the block that that property is on, it's a large block, and some blocks to the west of it, are a very stable neighborhood.

They have been like that for at least 80 years.

I know that.

I've lived there.

I grew up in the Manor House.

And my parents continued to live there.

I moved out.

They continued to live there until the 1990s.

So I know the neighborhood has been very stable for 80 years.

It's been a neighborhood of residential houses.

Granted, there are students in a lot of these houses now, and I'm sure that is the case.

It's still a home-like atmosphere, the whole area is, it's a home-like block, residential, quiet.

The idea of spot rezoning one little area in order to cram it full of students, 100 students and their cars, just seems like an improper use of zoning laws.

It would change the whole atmosphere of the neighborhood.

It's a residential neighborhood now.

Having a hundred students there on the corner would totally change a stable neighborhood.

It's near the university, that's true.

I don't think that's a reason to say, oh, okay, let's put a hundred students there because it's near the university.

It's a residential area, home-like,

home-like homes, even though there are students in it, but they're home-like students.

Thank you.

So Michael, you would not like to come in.

My name is Bill Atwood.

I'm an architect in town.

I actually sold Charlie the house and worked with him throughout the process of all the lots.

I come here tonight actually more discouraged than the last visit only in the fact that if you have a site plan, you have a site plan.

The critical part of having a site plan, as we've had on this property in an effort to get an SUP, you see the staff and the staff reviews the site plan.

Traffic was a big problem on our site plan for our SUP.

and it seems to me that the, kind of the, why I think the side plan looks good, a couple of questions about it specifically, I think there's like 30, 33 units, one in the house, at least what 32, maybe 16, I look at this drawing,

Maybe when I step back in, it's because these guys can't see me.

In that elevation right there, there's four levels, seems to be four units, two exits.

for all of us, but I think this building should be carrying more units.

Yeah.

It's pretty simple math.

One, two, three, four.

It's just in the back.

That's half the goal.

And there's two goals.

So it's a lot of units.

I've always been concerned that if you're an apartment developer, building developer, you really start at 80 units.

And this is, the 33 doesn't seem to be in that scope.

I appreciate Charlie's efforts to work with us.

I think we all do.

We all wish Charlie the best of luck.

But quite frankly, another proffer today with proffers that actually are so soft, they're kind of promises,

against the concept plan in an environment where we are kind of spot zoning because fundamentally this neighborhood was stable for 50 years including the apartment across the street and now you're going to place this boat in this neighborhood where actually the boat probably should be on the other side of the street not in the neighborhood.

If you study that neighborhood it's very close to transitional zoning in its own right

and we need transitional zoning.

I don't fault Charlie for that at all, but to move this in there with no transitional zoning could grow 80 units an acre next to people that are two units an acre.

It just isn't fair.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Genevieve Keller, Chair Mitchell, Commissioners.

And I'm also sorry that I made a mistake.

Thanks to Mr. Lahendro, I know that the SUP has expired, so I'm saying I was wrong.

I only wish that my spouse, Tim Keller, wasn't otherwise occupied and was at home watching this that he could hear me say I'm wrong and I'm not

I'm wrong in public, but the spirit of what I read you about I think still is valid and that is that the SUP language did specifically address the architecture of the existing house.

The reason that language went in there was because it is significant architecture for Charlottesville associated with local architect and I think it speaks to what some of the neighbors and previous owners have talked about.

The only reason really to save that house is because it is architecturally significant.

I know you can't alter the proffer language and I hope that I can influence the applicant developer of this that the language in the proffer could be a little more specific.

The previous SUP did say alterations and modifications of the existing building designed by Eugene Bradbury shall preserve the exterior features

and character of the existing building and shall be designed and performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation, rehabilitation, alterations or removal of architecturally significant interior features shall be photographically documented by the owner in advance of such alteration or removal and be offered to the University of Virginia Special Collections Library.

for its Eugene Bradbury files.

I think that is not onerous, and that kind of rehabilitation would allow for additions of this building.

I would hope that it wouldn't happen, but I could see that an architect at some date would say, oh, to unify this, we'd just love to have a Greek revival or an Italianate complex here.

And the architectural character that we admire in that building today could be lost.

So just like something there, and then just

Having shared the same previous experiences, Commissioner Green, I would ask you to heed her warnings.

I could certainly imagine a hotel a block from Scott Stadium being a very attractive thing and you wouldn't meet your goals of housing.

So I would look at these.

Thank you.

So you would like to just cut and paste the SCP proffer into, I mean, if you were queen, that's what you would have done?

I'm not too democratic to be a queen.

But I would like to see some sort of protective language for the existing historic features.

And I'm sure that staff or Mr. Lahendro or others would be able to work with the applicant.

But I think the motivation for saving the building is because of its architecture, and that would be good if the proffer addressed that.

Anyone else like to speak?

Can I get some clarification, Chair, on this first motion?

I think it would be appropriate to, if we're going to do anything, we need to update the comprehensive plan before we do the rezoning.

Would it be, is there a way to amend the comp plan without amending the rezoning?

You can vote, we'll have to vote on both and I can see one going up and one going down.

I can see one going, the other one going up, the other one going down.

I can see them both going up.

That gives council something to work with when it comes to that.

Well I'll go first.

Oh please.

So I won't support the rezoning because I do think

that housing is what we need.

This does not give me any comfort to think that this will end up being housing.

I have seen it before.

We have had a plan much like this in a rezoning application with a nice rendering and a box that said this right here and all of the things.

And we did not as a commission do our due diligence looking at this land use matrix when we

said yes in the name of affordable housing.

The bill of goods that was sold to us was a mixture of types of housing, a mixture of incomes of housing in a location, and I don't know, you've probably heard this as you read this, in a location with transportation and where we need homes.

When it came back before us,

as we heard in pre-meeting tonight where it didn't quite substantially meet what we thought because it was just a box we were told we didn't have much choice because it was in the matrix and so we got a hotel hands down we did not get housing we might have got some money in the affordable housing but let's be clear

This proffer says, and it's very clear, this is not gray, a landowner shall make a cash contribution to the city's affordable housing fund, which contribution shall be calculated as follows, $2 per square foot of the habitable residential floor area

to be constructed.

That is not the house.

That is not remodel of the house.

It is to be constructed.

And it is habitable residential floor space.

A hotel is not habitable residential floor space.

A daycare is not habitable residential floor space.

So let's not be

Naive to what we've got in front of us.

And we've seen it.

Anything can happen.

So a question for Ms. Robertson or Ms. Creasy.

The matrix is associated with the R3, not the proffer, right?

Correct.

So is it possible to in the

So I will say that the applicant represented during his presentation that there will be a residential development on this site, but the fact that one person already is reading the words in a way that is not clear suggests that

I don't see any ambiguity in this.

Any other comments?

No, I'm just starting.

And I'm sorry, but a B&B would rent out like crazy in this location.

I can walk to the football stadium.

Ms. Solligates, revenue.

One more question.

Let's be clear.

I support an increase in density.

I'm sorry.

I think that this is a location we could increase density.

It's a it's a location that we're looking at this.

And I know we've heard spot zoning and it is across the street.

But I don't feel comfortable what will the actual outcome will be.

If it would be housing,

and we get the affordable, whether it be onsite or not.

Just a real quick other thing.

I says also for rent ADUs be constructed as a part of the land owners development gross square footage so we wouldn't get that.

There's also a I call it a win in there.

When is that done?

So how many units is that?

And so if we're building 33, do we get an affordable unit after the fifth one, after the 10th one?

So there's too many questions for that for me.

I'm not suggesting anything.

I'm just saying these are the questions in my mind as I read that.

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify on changes to the use matrix.

I remember the last rezoning we did on Hinton Avenue, there were changes to the use matrix, right?

So, I think...

Looking at these proffers, looking at proffer number five in particular, I think we should commend the applicant for going well beyond what the city code, like 3412, which is admittedly not nearly as stringent as it should be, but going well beyond that in that it only applies to floor area above 1.0.

So like we don't get, none of it applies to anything on any of the floor area until it's larger than the size of the lot.

So one and two here in particular are

Good.

Also, it's 5% in 34-12 and not 15%.

And then three is the same as we see in 34-12.

And I do kind of have to wonder if the intent here is to just go for three.

I am concerned about the wording you two raised.

But I think it's clear here that we very much need as many homes as possible in this site because it's a great location, because there's tons of transit, because it's right there next to the university.

And I think it does matter if we cram a hundred

Students in near there because those hundred students are going to be spreading all over the city If not, you know We're always hearing from the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association that our students are going further and further into their neighborhood and renting up all the houses there And it's because UVA keeps growing by thousands of undergrads every decade and There's nowhere for them to go and they're gonna go somewhere so

My initial recommendation coming in would be that we recommend that council reject the location of buildings part of proper number one.

And that was an interesting comment.

I didn't really consider that from the architect about giving the historic building space.

But at the same time, you know, we also think about

addressing the street more.

And there's been some discussion lately about fixing the insane setback and essentially surface parking requirements of R3.

And I think that if we were to make those changes in the Nazi distant future, it doesn't make sense to constrain them, to force them to put that one building in the back or number three building or whatever it is, number two building.

Other than that, I think it's a good plan.

I've got a question for staff.

I'm trying to live in Ms. Green's nightmare.

A four-story, 33-unit bed and breakfast, is that contemplated in R3 zoning?

Bed and Breakfast is I believe allowed in R3.

There are some restrictions in the building code about how

and the need for everybody agrees with that.

By right this could be redeveloped in another way that would increase density but it wouldn't provide the type of density that Rory often envisions.

But it is by right it can be more dense than it is now.

I guess because it's fairly obvious to me by the timing of

I am fine with increased density in this location.

I think it's inevitable.

I am fine with the site plan even, and I think it should be broken down into at least a couple of buildings to help with the scale of

of whatever happens on this site and the neighborhood.

Why I can't support this particular application, at least for the rezoning, is that I find the protections of the historic house, and it is a historic house, to be inadequate.

to say just keep it in good repair, well that could mean just putting vinyl siding on it.

To make reasonable and architecturally consistent additions, that's in the eye of the beholder.

Let me just be certain that I'm understanding the objections so that the applicant understands the objections.

There are three basic objections, and that's the first is what's in the matrix.

The second is the protections regarding the manor house.

And the third is proper number one.

Those are the three things that we need to work through to get to move this forward.

Well, can I ask you one second, so we're clear.

In my mind, it's not just the language in proper one.

Thank you for allowing me another moment.

The intent that we have, which I represented to you in my presentation, is our intent.

And if

If some of these uses cause concerns, we're willing to proffer them out.

We have not heard this concern prior to tonight, and that's why they're here and why we just stuck with R3 as a guide.

And I don't know what the permissibility of modifying a proffer and process for doing that is.

tell you what we're going to do tonight and with council here to witness it to make sure it happens.

I don't know if that's possible, but if B&Bs and colleges and universities and health clinics are viewed by the commission as not advisable here, that's not what we're planning to do.

So we will proffer those out.

The language on

Let me make sure I read it right.

To be constructed that's in that proffer is also not the intent.

The intent is for it to be all residential square footage that triggers that proffer.

So if we remove those words to be constructed, I think that gets it to what we intend and makes that language match what we intend.

And we are willing to do that as well, either tonight or in the future with counsel.

The house protections, I disagree, frankly.

And those were crafted by the previous owner with the express intent of preserving the character of the house that they know and want to stay the same.

It's been looked at by some other folks who are on historic preservation committees in town and they liked it fine.

I think it does what it's supposed to do and I think you could massage it in a number of ways to make it be language that matches better what people might have seen in other applications but I think this does it and the intent is for the house to stay there and be renovated so that it gets back to the quality that it used to be.

It's seen better days and needs TLC.

But it will also be the centerpiece of a new development and it needs to act as that centerpiece for this project to be successful.

So just know that.

So if those things help, that is our intent and we're happy to do that.

We want to make sure the application matches our intent.

It sounds like

Your objections are not with what we plan to do, but just with the way it is captured in the application.

So removing those health clinic colleges, universities, and B&B uses, we would do and remove the to be constructed qualifier from the proffer, we will also do.

Yeah, so we can also add to proffer number five, and this reflects the intent too, an additional statement affirmatively saying that there will be residential development on the property.

That's the intent.

And I think we're doing that by taking out the commercial uses that I mentioned there.

There's nothing else left except residential.

But that can be expressly said too.

That definitely matches the intent of what we've always wanted to do.

Regarding your objection to proffer number one, I do believe that proffer is in there because counsel is uncomfortable with a little more specifics.

I'm fine with the number.

points vingress and I mean I don't I'm not gonna like make this a sticking point I was just gonna say if you could move that back building to the side I wouldn't have a problem with that so I don't I don't know what the point of proffering does but you know if it were there instead of there

It doesn't matter to me.

I think that's a setback issue.

Oh, yeah.

Well, right.

That was the point where I don't know that we ever actually were going to change our three, even though we everyone kind of agreed that it was terrible.

But I don't know.

So just to be clear, can we like spell out what the the proper number five a three is now?

Is it

Landowner shall make a cash contribution to the city's affordable housing fund, which contribution shall be calculated as follows.

I'd rather us not craft a proffer language.

I'd rather the applicant come up and give us that actual language.

Thank you for trying to do my job, but that is correct.

That's removing the to be constructed clause would say landowner shall make a cash contribution to the city's affordable housing fund, which contribution shall be calculated as follows.

I think that gets that minor detail completed and worked out.

We still have the issue that

Again, folks, Charlie's a great guy.

I like him.

I'm gonna have a beer with him.

However, he might sell this, and then we've got another person, so we've gotta get the language, and the intent by this developer may not be, because they're gonna read the words on the page, if these guys were to go away tomorrow, we've got a rezoning and proffer statements that go with the new owner.

That's right.

But we would need to see that in writing.

We would need to see that in writing so that we have this so that if somebody else takes over this, this is what we've got.

So under our city code 34-64B, we're at the point where

Mr. Armstrong is on the record.

The code allows the proffers to be modified orally.

So what can be done consistent with the representations he made about withdrawing certain uses or the other things he said is

He can submit a revised final statement at a later date before council and it would have to be consistent with the representations that he made.

Those are his choices.

Are we going to meet the law then?

If he's said orally, he's willing to modify.

So during a joint public hearing, preliminary proffers may be modified by an applicant orally or in writing.

It's totally his choice.

And if he changes his mind before he gets to counsel, so be it.

But

Are we able to do that?

Well you're not, you shouldn't be doing that.

You should just be saying what uses you don't particularly like in R3 at this location.

I don't mind doing that.

I'm not shy.

I'm trying to go high-tech and paperless.

And let me just note, Mr. Alfele has pointed out, the bed and breakfast is a regular bed and breakfast, not a bed and breakfast inn.

So that's...

Yeah.

And home stays, because that takes us away from units that could be used for residential use.

Okay, so

I mean, we should keep, in my opinion, the buy right uses for the R2 clearly are fine, but you'd want to keep, add in the residential density 1 through 21 dwelling units because we need that for the townhouse for whatever reason.

I mean, I would say at some point if the townhouse was what they designed, in my opinion, now this is something, but give the options,

But it is the bed and breakfast homestay and the bed and breakfast B&B that I think find the face of what we're trying to accomplish.

Health clinic, public health clinics, I mean if daycare, I could see that.

And do your ticks on this paper mean that that's what you said earlier?

I will not add to that as if I didn't want to suggest.

So I'd also like to say that R3 is not a zoning district in which hotels are allowed.

So in order for a homestay to be permitted, someone does have to live in the unit.

They need to own the unit.

whatever the regulations are.

But that's not R3, which is what we're talking about.

I think that would be a great value.

Okay.

For the record, we will proffer out bed and breakfast homestay

Bed and Breakfast, B&B, and also for the record, I have no idea what those involve.

Health clinic, public health clinic, elementary, high school, and colleges and universities.

Elementary and high school are two that are in addition to what I said earlier, but they are the same for us.

They're not our intent.

So with regard to the condition of the Mentor House and the public's ability to appreciate its architectural character, I used to live on Alderman Road, which is the same road, but it's named something else past stadium for some reason.

And I have to say, though I've walked past it many, many times, I have never actually seen the house until last week when I got in the trolley to pack and I got barely a glimpse of it from the street.

You know, like it had the giant

Thank you to bamboo, which I think at one point I had to like saw a bunch of that down for a hut, but you know I think the conditions that they say here and in the deed, I don't see a way where this doesn't end up being a lot better than encased in a forest of bamboo.

You know the bamboo was probably planted there when it was a residence and they were trying to get some separation from all the traffic and you students going by on Alderman Road walking by and the parties and all.

So but now that it's becoming you know a part of a complex or proposed to be part of a complex so they want to see it.

My concern is the

accountability of protecting the historic resource and keeping it in good repair is not the same thing as preserving the historic resource.

Period.

Keeping it in good repair, that means tearing off all the siding and putting on vinyl siding.

It could be any number of things.

And reasonable and architecturally consistent additions.

I have a motion.

Please.

Miss Creasy, would you poll the board?

No, no, no.

We're voting only on the amendment, not the rezoning.

What is it?

That's the motion that was just made.

Okay.

The comprehensive plan.

Just the comp plan.

Oh, to the amendment to the comprehensive plan.

Yes, we're voting on the land use map.

I'm thinking the fifth thing.

So I will be voting for both of these because the same language for the inadequate protection of the house is in both of these

You just said you were going to be voting for both of them.

Ms. Green?

Yes.

And Mr. Mitchell?

So we will be recommending to council an amendment to the land use map.

What do you got to say?

So when we were talking about this last time, in the context of all the housing conversations and increased density and what they can do by right and what this development represents, it hit a lot of the concerns.

I think the process has resulted in some good work being done on making it a better application.

I don't think so.

I think the process has been perfecting.

Because it seems like you're ready to make a motion.

Well, as I said, I mean, I voted for that increase in density.

I'm sorry to the neighborhood.

I know and I see other even the R2.

But I think with this, especially with the rezoning and the things that we have in place, it does make some it does some preservation for some of the things that are there that we want to keep.

And otherwise, that might not be available.

I would like to share.

I believe that preservation happens from public interest and public view.

I've never seen the building either.

I've lived here 20 years.

I'd like to see the building.

It sounds great.

Putting apartments here is a great idea.

The only thing that would make this better is for it not to be surrounded by a sea of parking and putting more apartment buildings there.

I don't really understand why the parking modified zone exists like, you know, all the way from like West Main and like North Downtown and not right here that we saw from the census last time is 90% students who don't need to drive.

But we're not litigating that issue today, so I'd like to make a motion.

Oh wait, I don't have it pulled up.

I had one question.

Besides the historic preservation, on the density issue, is that really your only concern, is the historic preservation?

I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject property from R2U to R3 on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice.

Anything about proffers in there?

We have to put that into motion.

With

given the amended oral proffers that we heard here tonight.

And we're comfortable with the proper five or did they admit the proper five as well, didn't they?

Yes.

You got one last shot, Charlie.

And Mr. Mitchell?

I think that completes everything that's on the agenda for tonight.

No other business?