Planning Commission Meeting   5/8/2018

Ooh

I'd like to welcome everyone and start off this evening with our Commissioner's Reports.

Good evening.

Out of town that week, but I did get the minutes.

The minutes indicated that there were three particular items presented.

The University of Virginia Athletics Master Plan update was discussed as well as a draft phasing of the different athletic projects.

The county presented an update on the three notch trail planning and then lastly there were project updates by each of the agency representatives.

Okay.

I would recommend looking at that three notch trail proposal.

It's really cool.

So if you have a chance to look at something that the county's doing, it's a really nice project.

Good.

Did you want to mention the full PAC meeting?

Oh, your turn.

Okay.

Secondly, the HAC, Housing Advisory Committee Allocations Committee met on April 26.

We're reviewing the Affordable Housing Fund application process.

Essentially, we're working to simplify the application process, provide greater flexibility, and implement a committee selection process that includes affordable housing representatives.

And then lastly, the tree commission met May 1st.

I had to miss that because we gave our comp plan public presentation that night.

Ms. Kelt, I'm not reporting this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have three meetings to report on to our hydraulic and 29 steering committee meeting.

Hold on, I'm just going back to my draft because I just typed them up and sent them to Carol in like three seconds ago.

So we met on the 12th of April.

to talk about some details related to the hydraulic and 29 plan this is after the day that the planning commission had endorsed the small area plan in general so obviously that the foundation of that plan is consistent in moving through but with the consultants continue to try to refine some of the details at the pinch points on the edges of the work area

For instance, they're trying to improve right hand northbound lane from hydraulic to 29 They considered an option for taking two lanes westbound under hydraulic under 29 to improve that flow

there was some discussion about the interface of hydraulic and brandywine at that kind of stretch that kind of moves around that curve and improvements to 250 and hydraulic in general and then they gave us some options to review for back lane options and connectivity at the hydraulic and 29 intersection proper in the end the committee

recommended that consultants look further at an option that connected all four quadrants at that intersection for bike ped.

And so I think they're continuing to look at that as we go on.

The other meeting I attended was April 18th Emmett Streetscape meeting.

That was the initial kickoff meeting where the consultants told us their observations of the existing conditions.

They did a brief overview of the study process timeline and goals based on the smart scale application provisions.

They imagine a visioning process that will have three principles at its heart.

One is a complete street, one is safety, and one is beautification of the corridor.

This study basically runs from Ivy Road to Arlington on Emmett Street.

and then there was a group discussion about how to resolve one of the major questions the team will have to address which is how to provide a multi-modal trail on that stretch of Emmett particularly at the pinch point where the train trestle is there's an existing very narrow area there and so some discussion of a tunnel and different things to move through that pinch point where

The last meeting I'll report on is another hydraulic and 29 steering committee meeting on the 26th.

of April.

I couldn't attend it, but that discussion, as I understand it, related basically to how to package the different projects within the work area into an application for SmartScale.

You'll remember there were eight projects that are kind of all interrelated ultimately, but not all can be funded at once, and so there's some discussion about what combination of those would be put forward and when.

And this isn't in my notes, Carolyn, but I just make a funny aside that we got an email from Mr. Emery lately that talked about the pleasure it was to kind of see how quickly the hydraulic and 29 plan came together and how it might have benefited other parts in the city if those had been undertaken at different times.

But it hasn't been that quick.

They've met for about

Just a couple of things.

Next week is the PAC meeting, and at that meeting, the UVA Foundation will be presenting their plans for demolishing the capillary and beginning clearing the Ivy Corridor site.

and my colleague Michael Joy will present an update on the athletics master plan, the same presentation that was presented to CATEC a couple of weeks ago.

At the June Board of Visitors meeting, which is in early June,

There will be several items on the Buildings and Grounds Committee agenda.

The Ivy Mountain Mosculoskeletal Center will be presented for final approval.

That's just over the city line in the county.

It will be replacing the Kluge Children's Health Center.

I think demolition may have begun on that building already.

and then the designs of the proposed addition and renovation of Alderman Library of the new softball complex and of the new Student Health building will be presented to the Buildings and Grounds Committee for review.

Student Health is the next building that's planned for Brandon Avenue.

Thank you.

I did not attend any meetings as I didn't have any this month with the exception of our comprehensive plan meetings.

But I am on several steering committees who I wanted to discuss.

At this time we don't have another meeting for the Rivanna Steering Committee set yet.

The Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee will meet on the 16th of May at 7 p.m. at the Water Street Center.

The East High Streetscapes Project does not have another meeting set as of yet, but I highly encourage you to go to easthighstreetscape.org and take the survey and let your voice be heard there.

This is an add-on to the Belmont Bridge as part of SmartScale funding to have the project extend all the way to 10th Street.

to pass the bridge.

The Emmett Street Skate Project, as Mr. Keesecker was just discussing, their next meeting is actually May 12th at the Cavalier Inn from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

This is a citizen information meeting.

And then there's a walking tour that begins at 11.

Well, yeah, we'll all be at that, but for any citizens who doesn't want to participate in the comp plan or wants to participate in this, and then at this time I did not see any further future meetings scheduled for the industry, and that is what I have.

I do.

We have two comprehensive plan meetings this week.

We've got one Thursday from noon to two at City Space, and then we have one on Saturday from 10 to 12, and that's at the Central Library in the McIntyre Room on the third floor.

and these are two of the four that we have scheduled for the month of May.

Citizen participation for the comprehensive plan to gather feedback on the different chapters as well as to gather feedback on the draft map that the planning commission has put together.

Following these meetings, the next one is May 29th and that is in the Belmont neighborhood in the evening.

And we can get you more details on that if someone hears this and would like more information.

After that, the commission will be working with the comments that have been received and providing any sort of updates to materials and working forward through the comprehensive plan process.

The commission also has a work session on May 22 on the calendar.

It doesn't have a specific topic to it, so I wanted to bring that to you all's attention to see if...

If you had a topic and or you wanted to take a break that night since we've got four meetings this month already, it's kind of up to you all.

I'll second.

Well, I'm going to a meeting.

It was a self-serving motion.

Well, I'm certain that you all have spent more than enough of the time this month on Planning Commission duties.

So we'll get geared up for many things in the summer, I'm sure.

Okay, so our next item on the agenda is matters to be presented by the public, not on the formal agenda.

So we do have two public hearings this evening, one for 227 Brookwood Drive and the second one for 1335-1337 Carlton Avenue.

If there's anything other than those things on the agenda,

that you'd like to speak about, now is your time to do so.

So if there's anything other than 227 Brookwood Drive or 1335-1337 Carlton Avenue, now's your time to speak.

Please come forward.

You have three minutes.

And I open the matters by the public.

Ms.

Chair, I'd like to pull the entrance corridor so that we can have a presentation on that.

So we'll have a, ask the applicant to come in.

Okay.

All right.

and I had a few questions on the minutes that we discussed in pre-meeting.

So what we'll do is move the entrance corridor review of 1000 East High Street Ready Kids.

So we have a few minutes until 6 where we are waiting on our quorum of council.

We can do that now.

We can go ahead and handle a few more things of business this evening.

This evening we have two of our commission members with their last, maybe ever, planning commission meeting and it is going to be really sad to see them go.

I was going to wait but I wanted to thank you all for doing that.

Because you all know how just excited I get every time we have a PUD on the agenda.

I didn't plan it, but I wish I had.

So I wanted to thank you all very much for your service and for your dedication and going through two comprehensive plan meetings, I mean updates, almost at the end of the second one.

Not quite yet, but there's been a lot of hard work and you will definitely be missed.

And we have a couple of things that we're going to present to you.

So hang tight and come down there.

Wait a minute.

You're in the front.

It's okay.

Should I do it last?

Yeah.

Okay.

In case he shows up.

I'll follow Lisa.

I guess so.

Because we have a reservation for him.

Tell me when to hit it.

Hit it.

Whereas Mr. Kurt Keesecker served on the Charlottesville Planning Commission from August 2009 to May 2018 serving as chair from September 2016 to September 2017 and vice chair from September 2013 to September 2016.

And whereas Mr. Keesecker served as the Planning Commission representative to the Board of Architectural Review, the MPO Technical Committee, the PAC Technical Committee,

the UVA Master Planning Council, the Federation of Neighborhoods, the 250 Interchange Committee, the Small Area Plans Committee, the Hydraulic Planning Advisory Council, and the Streets That Work Code Audit Steering Committee, but not all at the same time.

And whereas Mr. Keesecker used his professional experience as an architect to encourage high quality design within the Charlottesville community, and whereas Mr. Keesecker provided many years of service and leadership to the Planning Commission

in preparation for an active participation in commission meetings.

And whereas Mr. Keesecker has been a key participant in the updating of two city comprehensive plans, often providing thoughtful and creative input along with accompanying visual materials, whereas Mr. Keesecker has routinely gone above and beyond the typical duties of a planning commissioner to help draft a variety of planning documents and has served as a valuable resource for staff.

Now, therefore, we the City Council of the City of Charlottesville do hereby thank Mr. Kurt Keesecker for his years of dedicated service on the Charlottesville Planning Commission and wish him success in his future endeavors.

Signed and sealed the eighth day of May 2018.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a little something extra that I think you all appreciate.

Since we've had this comprehensive plan,

and we've met many many Friday mornings at 7 a.m. and colored maps and that is what we did.

I could not let you all go.

because I know that the withdrawals that you'll be having from that process.

I have found these adult coloring books and it is city maps across the world.

You all can plan your little heart's desire.

You can continue planning the world land use wise and I thought you'd enjoy that.

Whereas Mr. John Santoski served on the Charlottesville Planning Commission from August 2009 to May 2018, serving as chair from September 2015 to September 2016.

And whereas Mr. Santoski served as the Planning Commission representative to the MPO Technical Committee, the School Board CIP Committee, the PAC Technical Committee, the Federation of Neighborhoods, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee,

the Budget Development Committee, the CIP Ranking Committee, the Belmont Bridge Committee, and the Free Bridge Area Congestion Relief Project.

And whereas Mr. Santoski turned his concerns as president of the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association into responsible action by joining and leading the Planning Commission, and whereas Mr. Santoski provided many years of service to the Planning Commission in thoughtful consideration of the items presented to the Commission for review, as well as a forceful advocate for fully considered development proposals,

and whereas Mr. Santoski has continuously been mindful of the impact of development decisions on underserved populations within the Charlottesville community and whereas Mr. Santoski has been an advocate for existing neighborhoods within the city and has consistently encouraged his fellow commissioners to consider the impact on areas adjacent to new development.

Now, therefore, we, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, do hereby thank Mr. John Santoski for his years of dedicated service on the Charlottesville Planning Commission and wish him success in his future endeavors, signed and sealed the eighth day of May, 2018.

And we have one more.

Mr. Corey Claiborne is not present at this time, but we would

We would like to honor him as well with these words and we'll make a presentation when we're with him at another time.

Whereas Mr. Corey Claiborne served on the Charlottesville Planning Commission from March 2016 to March 2018, serving as vice chair from September 2017 to March 2018.

and whereas Mr. Claiborne served as a Planning Commission representative to the Board of Architectural Review and whereas Mr. Claiborne utilized his professional expertise in design upon joining the Commission to thoughtfully evaluate development proposals within the city and whereas Mr. Claiborne provided years of service to both the BAR and Planning Commission

and preparation meeting attendance and sharing his professional expertise and whereas Mr. Claiborne has shown commitment to conveying the work of the Planning Commission to the public by representing the Commission in public meetings on numerous occasions and whereas Mr. Claiborne has been and continues to be a leading advocate for public service in the field of architecture both in his time on the Planning Commission and as a resident of the Charlottesville community and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Now, therefore, we the City Council of the City of Charlottesville do hereby thank Mr. Corey Claiborne for his dedicated service on the Charlottesville Planning Commission and wish him success in his future endeavors.

Well, with all of that, we still have an agenda for this evening, and it seems as if we have two council members.

I hesitate to let you all take a five-minute break so that you do not wander off and get to talking, but we will take a break, and I'll round up council.

I recuse myself from the thing that just got pulled.

So when it comes time for a little break, yeah, that already gets.

One, two, three.

And so the first item on the agenda for public hearing is SP0006227 Brookwood Drive.

Landowner Diane Anderson has submitted an application pursuant to city code 34-420 seeking approval of a special use permit for this property to authorize a family day home for up to eight children on the subject property.

The subject property is further identified as tax map 25A parcel 27.

The subject property has an area of approximately 0.28 acres and has a zoning designation of R1S, low density residential small lot.

The subject property contains a single family dwelling used for residential occupancy by the applicant.

The city's comprehensive plan and land use map for both call for the area to be used for developed

Matt Alfele, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

Chair, I think you actually gave the report.

There's not much to add beyond that other than the applicant is here tonight to spoke to them.

She can answer questions she doesn't want to present.

which I can understand.

And so she's looking to do, she's run a family day home there.

She's looking to increase up to eight children.

Okay.

So you don't wish to make a presentation?

Okay.

So we'll ask questions at this time and then we'll open the public hearing before we deliberate.

Mr. Alfele, did you observe any particular

or unique traffic considerations for drop-off and pickup of children at this location.

I'm prepared to make a motion for approval with conditions.

I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit for the subject property in the R1S zone to permit a family date

Home with the following listed conditions, recommended by staff, limiting the number of children to a maximum of eight, limiting the operation hours from 7 to 5.30 p.m., and I'm adding a condition that there be on file with the city a plan for

I might like to add a friendly amendment which we discussed in pre-meeting.

This takes this to another level and while I know that this applicant has a state license, if, since the special use permit goes with the land and not the applicant,

If this were to ever change hands for any reason, this special use permit would still be active.

That we add a condition that when applicable, there's a... You noted that there would be a requirement for state licensure as required.

Yes, sorry.

Required from the state.

From the state.

Can you repeat that?

The daycare will be licensed as may be required by a state law.

Or could we amend that further to say by state or other applicable law?

It's only going to be state.

Then that just covers it all.

No?

You could say by applicable laws.

Yeah.

Okay.

Would you accept that friendly amendment as wordy as it is?

by acclamation.

We have a motion and a second.

So by voice acclamation, approve the friendly amendment.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay so we have a motion, a second, and an amendment to add terminology about applicable requirement of a license.

So any further discussion?

Miss Keller?

Aye.

Mr. Keesecker?

Aye.

Aye.

I will say, Madam Chair, that one thing I have heard recently is that there is a lack of

Second up today, ZM18-0002.

1335 and 1337 Carlton Avenue, Carlton Views PUD, Hydro Falls LLC, Carlton Views 1 LLC, Carlton Views 2 LLC, and ADC4 Seville LLC landowners have submitted an application pursuant to city code 34-490

seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the following four parcels of land.

1335 Carlton Avenue, tax map 56 parcel 430, 1337 Carlton Avenue, tax map 56 parcel 431, tax map 56 parcel 432, and tax map 56 parcel 433.

together the subject property.

The subject property has frontage on both Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street and are further identified on city real property tax map 56 parcels 430, 431, 432 and 433.

The entire development contains approximately 4.855 acres or 211,483 square feet.

The application proposes to change the zoning classification

of the subject property from M1 Industrial to PUD, Planned Unit Development, subject to proffered development conditions.

The proffered development conditions include affordable housing, providing affordable and accessible housing for no less than 20 years

and the following ratios.

Minimum 30% affordable units for residents earning 60% AMI.

Minimum 15% of all affordable units for residents earning under 40% AMI.

Two, building design elements.

Minimum 50% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility.

and minimum 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design.

Entrance feature on all buildings fronting Carlton Avenue.

And three, maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 65 feet.

Four, parking, no additional parking over required seating minimums.

Outdoor lighting shall be full cut off.

Bus stop or shelter if deemed feasible by CAT.

and five environmental site design retaining tree canopy on east side of property adjacent to Franklin Street and pedestrian linkages between buildings and open space and the neighborhood.

The PUD development plan for this proposed development includes the following key components, approximate location of existing buildings and building envelope for future buildings.

A phasing sequence of the development.

Phase 1, the PACE Center completed.

Phase 2, Carlton Views Apartments completed.

Phase 3, Carlton Views 2 Apartments.

Phase 4, Carlton Views Apartments.

According to the PUD development plan, the total proposed density of the projects, all phases, will not exceed 32 DUA, dwelling units per acre, for a total of 154 dwelling units.

The PUD development plan contains details required by city code, including a use matrix for each phase.

setback slash yard requirements for each phase, parking calculations for residential uses, open space, landscaping, architectural elements and signage.

The city's comprehensive plan and land use map calls for the area to be used and developed for business and technology uses.

The comprehensive plan contains no residential density range for the subject property.

Matt Alfele, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services.

So bear with me through this.

If you can't hear me, please let me know.

Commissioners, tonight you are reviewing an application for rezoning of four parcels near the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street from the existing MI to Planned Unit Development PUD.

The rezoning request is part of a larger development that started back in 2012.

The first phase of the development was the completion of the Bywright Blue Ridge PACE Center located at 1335 Carlton Avenue.

Completed in the summer of 2014, the PACE Center, which is Program

of all inclusive care of the elderly offers health care and health-related services designed to keep individuals living in their homes and communities for as long as possible.

The center is run as a partnership between Riverside Health System, the University of Virginia Medical Center, and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, serving seniors

who live in the Charlottesville and surrounding counties.

Services offered by PACE include medical care, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, which I have to give a shout out, my wife's an occupational therapist, nutritional services, medical, social work services, and home health care.

Over the last four years, the PACE center has provided a much needed service to the community.

In 2013, Phase 2 was started in order to create the residential aspect of the development.

In May of that year, City Council passed a special use permit allowing the maximum residential density of 21 dwelling units per acre for the MI zone parcels.

This laid the groundwork for a 54-unit apartment at 1337 Carlton Avenue, known as Carlton View 1.

In July 2015, the final site plan for Carlton View 1 was approved and construction was completed in early 2017.

At the time of this public hearing, all 54 units are rented out to residents making under 60% AMI.

Phase 3 of the development started in the summer of 2017.

and a preliminary site plan for a 48-unit apartment building known as Carlton View 2 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10th, 2018.

In early 2018, City Council awarded the developer $1.44 million for acquisition of the site for affordable units.

Once completed, all 48 units will be rented out to residents making under 60% AMI.

Currently, the final site plan for Carlton View 2 is awaiting the posting of bonds before construction begins.

At the completion of Phase 3, Carlton View 2, the development will have exhausted all available density under the SUP.

As the zoning ordinance only allows 21 dwelling units per acre for the MI district, the developer needs to rezone all four parcels to increase density if they want a residential building for Phase 4.

The developer does not have the option of only rezoning the last remaining parcels.

That would remove acreage from the existing parcels, making them nonconforming.

In order to fulfill phase four of the development, the applicant is pursuing a rezoning of all four parcels to PUD.

The MI district was established to allow areas for light industrial uses that have a minimum of environmental pollution in the form of traffic, noise, odors, smoke and fumes, fire and explosive hazards, glare and heat and vibration.

Most uses allowed within the zoning district are commercial and industrial by nature with limited residential uses allowed.

The 2013 Conference of Plan land use map indicates the subject properties remain business and technology.

Business and technology is described as properties that would permit small-scale offices that cater to startup businesses and technological development, as well as commercial activities that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer-oriented commercial areas.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the subject properties to PUD to accommodate a higher density development than the current 21 dwelling units per acre allows.

The 2013 comprehensive land use plan does not designate areas that would neatly conform to a PUD type development as they are special zoning designation.

The closest land use description from the 2013 plan would be mixed use.

Mixed use in the 2013 land use plan is described as areas intended to be zoned.

to be zones where the city encourages development of moderate or high intensity and where a large variety of uses will be permitted including many commercial uses, residential uses and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.

According to the development plan's use matrix, uses permitted within the PUD would be consistent with most of the current MI uses, with some exclusions and additions.

All the non-residential industrial uses have been removed as allowable uses, such as construction storage yards, kennels, and self-storage companies.

The main use proposed in the development plan are multi-family and non-residential.

indicates the total allowable unit count for the development to be 154 units and a total non-residential build-out of 50,000 square feet.

Currently the site is utilizing 20,000 square feet for the Pace Center and 102 residential units.

That leaves a total of 30,000 square feet for non-residential and 52 residential units remaining for development.

Residential units could be spread throughout the site, but the nonresidential uses will be limited to Phase 1, 30,000 square feet maximum, Phase 2, 7,500 square feet maximum, Phase 3, 5,000 square feet maximum, and Phase 4, 7,500 square feet maximum.

The use matrix provided in the development plan indicates nonresidential uses as commercial, retail, and general.

Although the plan, the PUD use matrix, and the MI use matrix

correspond in many areas relating to a lot of the commercial and residential uses.

They do differ in a few key ways.

The PUD use matrix removes all industrial uses currently allowed in the MI districts.

While the residential aspect of the site, this is a reasonable alteration to make, but one planning commission should focus on.

The city has limited industrial areas and a rezoning of the size would remove close to five acres of potential industrial development.

Residential treatment facilities, bank financial institutions and private clubs are uses within the PUD matrix that are not permitted but are permitted in the MI use matrix.

Planning Commission should give some thought to the uses to ensure they are appropriate for this location.

Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will increase from the SUP maximum 21 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 32 dwelling units per acre.

Under the future land use map definition, the density is considered high density residential.

It should be noted that regardless of the zoning, the subject properties are already high density residential based on the 21 dwelling units per acre and the type of existing housing on site.

I might have one or two.

And I want to thank Matt for bringing this PUD to me.

I had to look back, and I think the first PUD that I had a chance to look at was the William Taylor Plaza, which these many, many years later still bothers me, along with some of the other PUDs.

And I thought, well, maybe tonight I'll just not ask any questions and improve a PUD right off the starting block, but I can't do that.

So I have a couple of questions and maybe you can help.

I guess we're going from 50 to 65 feet in height because of the increased density.

So that, near the end of the staff report, there's a chart.

And that chart, so how the city defines height changed after this SUP was approved.

So there is kind of a new definition, and that's in that chart.

So that's sort of the explanation for why the SUP condition

Okay.

The other thing is I think I saw in your notes, and I know we saw this in at least one of the comments, is that there were certain assurances and there was even something about three bedrooms being the maximum, but there was no proffer.

But my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong and we could get some help here, is that

So in the SUP, that was condition three.

But what I'm saying is that do we have to have it proffered or can we say it can't exceed three bedrooms?

I understand, but I think we can still, we can modify those as we approve a PUD.

So the world has changed.

And we have the proposal from the applicant for the PUD with proffers that they have provided to us.

And two, I think there's, if you look at, there's attachment F, which is kind of the comparative use matrixes.

You kind of get a feeling of what could be allowed or what would definitely not be allowed.

And under dwellings, they have not only the multifamily, but within all the phases, single-family, attached, single-family, detached, townhome, and two-family.

Yeah, the other thing that I had a question on was that in the original SUP there's some mention of assurances that were given during the Carleton one or the Carleton two, whatever.

There was nothing in the SCP.

Well, I think it was a conversation that was... Or a conversation, or perhaps it was something...

I'm not sure how it was relayed, but the information appeared to be that there were some assurances given to neighbors and things like that, so that it wasn't a totally low income neighborhood that was gonna either stress the neighborhood, stress the schools, or stress the community at large, that we're really looking at that mixed market

low income, affordable housing mix that we were looking for in a lot of other places.

Well, it never existed in what was documented.

There could have been conversations, but any

Stafford Planner that would have came across these documents.

You would not have seen that?

Okay.

Would not have seen it.

Do we know what their intentions are for the other phases if we approve the PUD?

So what's being proposed would be just like Carlton View 1 and 2, so it would be affordable units.

And I can let Stacey speak to this.

It has more to do with scale of how the funding works.

I mean, that's really what prompted this development was they wanted to do another Carleton View.

And to do it at that scale for funding, they had to do the whole unit.

But they can't do the density because they've run out of density.

Now, they're not precluded from doing market rate.

If this was to go into place and their funding fell through, they couldn't do Carleton View 3.

And the reason that they – I know you said that they can't – once they build out the SUP no longer allows for the increased density and so it becomes non-conforming.

It's not allowed.

I mean, so the biggest problem they're running into is the lots.

It's because of the dwelling units per acre and how you do the calculation.

If you try to rezone even just one parcel, you suddenly made the other two, three parcels nonconforming because they're suddenly now above the 21 dwelling unit per acre, probably closer to that lots of fairly big lots, so they're probably closer to 40.

Okay.

Matt, with the application and the narrative of PROFERS, there's a development PUD application plan that is graphic and it has a lot of information that's important to me as an architect.

So the attachment B, which is the development plan, which would be part of the Crawford development plan.

So this would be if, and again five years, someone came in with an application to do something here, the staff would go to this document.

They would go to

This document, which is attachment C, their development narrative, and this document to see if it was allowed.

What you have now is you have the footprint for phase one and two.

So if someone wanted to build, tear down the pace center, build it closer to the road, they could not without amending their PUD.

Same goes for phase two, the apartments.

Phase three and phase four have more of an envelope.

if you'll notice they have where they could build within.

And so those two phases are a little more where you look at the use matrix, look at the document.

An example would be if phase four they wanted to do townhomes and they could do townhomes within that building envelope and it's allowed within the use matrix and they can park it per the development plan, that would be allowed.

But if they

wanted to do anything that would be outside that envelope, they would need to amend the PUD.

Not to bring up William Taylor Plaza, but very similar development plan where they had buildings and they had a use matrix and they could do the uses within those buildings, but the footprint couldn't change.

It does definitely for Phase 1 and Phase 2.

If you touch any of that, you're going to have to amend it.

There is a little room to work out some of the details for Phase 3 and 4 in that regard, but they would still need to reach how they're going to do residential, how they're doing the residential parking.

If they were going to do commercial, it's noted in the report, their parking would have to meet

City Standard Parking.

I have several questions unless Mr. Keesecker?

So a couple of things.

This is built.

I live close by.

I can see it.

It's approved.

And I understand the PUD is to enable this Carlton 3 to happen.

That is correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And the 65 feet, due to our change in how we measure building height, would mean that due to the terrain on that site, that 65 feet would actually not be taller than the 50 foot building that's already there at Carlton 1?

If I read this application correct, is this accurate?

I mean, I know it's a very slim, but I did go out and look on site.

Okay.

Right.

Yeah, I didn't see any.

I mean, so you would measure how our definition is now is from grade to the highest point of the building.

Right, right.

And that's why I was looking at, okay, I'll ask the applicant.

And so could you define low income versus affordable because I don't know that I necessarily read low income.

No, I cannot.

I will turn that over to Stacey.

Stacey Pathe, a Housing Program Coordinator for the City of Charlottesville.

There was a question about all of this being low income, but I guess as I read it, I did not see this as low income and maybe I read it as affordable, 60 percent AMI.

Correct.

So when it comes to federal

affordable housing definitions.

They really base it on income.

And so extremely low income would be any family earning with household incomes of 30% of area median income or less, which at the moment I believe the area median income for Charlottesville is about 86,000.

It's average, $86,000.

For a family of four.

That's just straight across.

They do adjust it this way because it becomes difficult without my chart.

They adjust the income levels by household size.

So for a single person household, extremely low income is about $17,000 household income.

Low income would put you at the 50% area median income.

And this would then serve, that's very low income, and this would be low income, which is 60% area median income.

So 60% and 40% is what's on this project, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

And one quick other question, with all of the proffers that are listed here as well as this matrix,

in the packet.

So not just this plan, which is listed as the concept plan, which is part of the proffer attachment B, right?

Is this matrix attachment F, would that be also a part of the proffer?

Yes, but not attachment F. F is for y'all to see a comparative.

There's a matrix in attachment C, which is the development document, has a matrix in it.

This is just to help y'all understand what changes.

So when you mentioned

Through the development plan use matrix, correct.

One last question, I'm sorry.

With the zoning, this is as it is now, and it does back up across the tracks, and that would be business and technology, what it's currently zoned, if this PUD were to pass as it is, would it be considered

So, from my understanding, it would still be business and technology.

It would have to be changed in the land use map.

Matt, one question to follow up on what Lisa had to say about the use matrix.

So just kind of curious in general what goes into that PUD document that will follow the PUD for the future use.

And I guess the reason I talk about the zoning matrix is that if in the future the zoning matrix changes

It is.

I guess I just want to make sure so that because we've had it happen in the past where when we've looked for PUD documents, most recently thinking about the one out on Fifth Street, there was a lack of documentation

within the public files about what exactly what that PUD document was.

Yes and that's and staff is well aware of that frustration where you go and so I will say in your deliberations

There's the component of the land use of the zoning.

There's also the component, which I do think I commend the applicant on, is they provided a really good document.

As far as if someone in 10 years comes along, they're going to have this document, and you would really know what you can and cannot do on this parcel.

And that has not always been the case.

The proffers for the affordable units mentions that 30% will be affordable to under 60% AMI and 15% will be affordable to under 40% AMI, but those two numbers aren't cumulative.

It's basically the proffers 30% affordable units.

Correct.

It could be.

And then the use matrix allows for other uses that are not residential.

We've already talked about there's commercial uses and medical, which obviously makes sense for PACE, but the parking reduction to 35%.

So I'm trying to get a handle on how much affordable housing is really on the table because it's possible, not probable, but possible some other use besides affordable housing could be built.

Of a commercial nature, and this is a percentage of units affordable.

It's not an absolute number.

Yes.

I mean, so it is a percentage.

If they build 154 units, but they may not.

There is a little bit of, so how open space in the PUD ordinance is written, it talks about things you have to preclude, which is impervious, the parking areas, and then it lists things that you can include, picnic areas, and then things for scenic value.

So I think there is kind of a calculation you can do, I think ideally you want to set aside

Okay.

And I think that's all my questions.

The rest will be for the applicant.

So at this time we'll have the applicant.

Go ahead.

I saw

A lot of language about the frail, elderly, and disabled.

And I found the percentages of income.

But I didn't see a proffer.

Maybe it was, and I missed it.

And maybe you could clarify that about whether these units or what percentage of units will be universally accessible.

Yes.

It is?

I just wanted to verify that.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

22 of 24.

It spells out the current versus the proposed and it's included with the AMI.

Okay, so that seems like a really important characteristic that we would want some surety about.

Thank you.

I had one more question and also sort of pick up on Jody's earlier question.

Correct.

No, other than just the applicant wanting to keep the architectural style similar to what was built.

But that's kind of left to interpretation at the time that this comes in.

And how would that determination be made?

Well, I think if they, because there's nothing very specific in here, and it talks about we're going to use X style, I think there would be room to interpret.

Now, of course, defer to the department and legal, whether, I probably couldn't give you a great answer.

If we got that, we probably would have to talk to legal department and know, does this fit within what was approved?

Again, we'll use that 10 years from now, someone submits an application.

Does this application fit within the requirements of this PUD document?

And if not, what would they need to do?

Would they need to amend it?

So it's really just these footprints that you mentioned earlier.

Correct.

And I just want to be sure I'm clear, following up a little bit on Kurt.

Yes, because it is a percentage.

Well, I guess my question was, so then if they didn't want to provide any more affordable housing, they could make it all market rate housing?

Other than, and again the applicant can probably speak to this, other than the funding for how they have to do these units, which is not being able to do one or two units.

But if some other group, if there were to be a delay and if some other group did it in the future, they wouldn't be held to that.

Yes.

Now, I will say on that, they didn't have a use matrix.

When that first went through, it was just called commercial.

And it is possible that the applicant could decide that they've done as much as they want, they can't do any more, they want to sell it to someone else.

Correct.

And I'm stepping out a little bit on a limb, but I'll just ask you to tell me if I don't know them.

For Carlton View 2, yes, City Council, there was 1.44 million for land acquisition for Phase 2, which is the far western section to build Carlton View 2.

And so the applicant, again, the applicant can speak more to this, but they've gone through this process now twice, and they feel very confident.

So for the phase that we funded this fiscal year that's in the process of going through the planning phases, the funding was contingent upon the fact that all units in that building would be affordable.

So that will put them at – once that is complete, I think they'll be at 66% of affordable units for the entire 150 years.

And they have reached out to me recently and are looking to apply for or request another $1.44 million for that third building.

And is that document part of the PUD document then too?

No, that wouldn't be attached because right now they don't have the zoning or the density to allow for that.

So the first two residential buildings were financed with low-income housing tax credits, which are received through Virginia Housing Development Authority, and they have already signed agreements that those units will be affordable for 30 years.

through the end of that term.

The Housing Fund, would that then become part of the PUD application?

No.

Because the PUD would have to be in place first for them to receive any funding because right now they can't do any more density on the site.

I guess I'm saying if we approve this as a PUD and everything went through and they were still negotiating that, would that

And the grants that come from the housing fund are subject to written grant agreements.

Matt, so we have four parcels, two of them represent about two-thirds of the area of the site already built on or planned out to be built on and the plans are decided upon.

We are left with a third of the site that is disjointed.

Unless legal wants to step in, we couldn't think of any there.

You can't really, I believe on purpose, make something nonconforming.

So the rezoning would have to affect all these parcels.

because any drop in that calculation, you suddenly are way above 21, which is the max.

There's not even another SUP above that.

That's the max density for MI.

But you see my point is that we're not getting the real benefit of a PUD when two-thirds of the site's already been decided upon.

And I think that's a valid thing to have a discussion.

I do think the flip side of that, though, is, too, the applicant kind of backed into a PUD.

Even though they didn't request it at first, they started developing this kind of together with the pay center and the housing.

Maybe this is a question for the applicant or perhaps for Stacey.

I'm still sort of hung up on the universal design and accessibility features.

I don't know if Stacey knows that.

Okay.

I also think some of the elevation concerns with the site lead into that, but we'll let the applicants spend some time on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Commissioner, members of the Planning Commission.

Appreciate it.

My name is Scott Collins.

I'm representing the applicants on this project, and thank you very much.

As far as staff report and everything, Matt did an incredible job on this.

He's been great to work with on this project and very, very helpful and the staff report was awesome.

So really, I'm just going to hit a couple highlights and talk about this a little bit and really just hear the answers from additional questions that you guys might have.

Well, don't stop doing it when he's gone.

Fair enough.

But to get back to, you know, PED, I think this is kind of like, you know, so many times I know PED is coming from y'all and everybody's kind of concerned about what they're actually going to get.

This is kind of the reverse.

We're actually building on a very, very successful project and it looks great and it's been a wide received in the community and it's really providing something to community that Charlottesville doesn't have and that's what this project is providing.

It's providing sort of this campus style

Campus-style development that provides accessible and affordable housing next to an amenity that's set up to provide amenities for the residents within a walkable area.

And so much of it is accessible.

Yes, there are elevators in all of the units.

As far as accessibility, there's walkable, there's everything between all the buildings, we're making sure we have accessible routes.

That's all important because that's kind of creating this campus style

Overall Development.

Maybe I wasn't the original intent or thought of back five years ago when we first did the Pace Center, but because of the success of the Pace Center and because of the success of these first couple apartment buildings, it's really kind of metamorphosed into this really cool development.

And we're just trying to continue that success and add to that by adding on to this last building.

And I think there's some great discussions about the height of that last building.

Really, the whole idea is that it's going to be about the same height as the current Carlton Views building that you see.

It's really just because of the change in the ordinance, that's why we changed that.

But really, that streetscape is very true as far as what that height is going to be.

It's just sitting down lower.

By the time you put the four-story building up there, you're going to have about the same height as the current Carlton Views.

You know, as far as architectural aspects, there was no architectural aspects on this project at all.

So the Pace Center was built to very high standards.

There was nobody out there saying they had to use those materials or it had to be that type of style.

It was built that way because the developers wanted to put together a quality building, quality development.

Same thing with Carleton Views.

No architectural reviews associated with that project.

but yet they built a quality building.

They're going to continue that on because they're not going to want to put something that's inferior next to all these awesome buildings they've already created out there.

So I think that's really a lot of where you're, the unknown of a PUD, I get that, you know, it doesn't spell down there but they already have, you have what you, what's already out there really gives you an example of what their commitment is and that's, that is special and I think that goes a long way.

That shows a huge excess of how this project's gone.

Let's see, a couple other things.

The open space.

There is more open space other than just the building and the parking footprint and everything.

We've really tried to make sure we had 15% open space of what really counts as open space for the PUD.

And that's really like the plazas, the courtyards, the little pocket parks, and the little passive

recreational areas, things that actually provide some type of, you know, amenity or some type of feature of open space, not just there's a patch of grass in between an island of parking, does that count open space?

We'll certainly have some of that too, but we really made sure that we had 15% of usable open space that's of quality to the development as well.

A couple of other things, let's see, bedrooms.

You know, a lot of these units are really kind of geared toward accessible units for the elderly and so you're not going to have three and four bedrooms that you're going to see somewhere more of a PUD of an apartment building downtown where

You know, that seems to be the trend right now.

That's just not the case.

It's really more your one and two bedrooms.

None of these buildings are really set up to have three and four bedrooms, and you're not going to see it.

You're not going to have it.

It wasn't part of our overall proffers, but we can certainly now talk to staff about what we can do between now and city council if there's any way to make that change.

But, I mean, it's just not what's

The plan is for this overall development.

It's not what the target market is.

The market is not leading toward three bedrooms for elderly.

It's really just one and two bedrooms.

That's really what you have.

Those are my main thoughts and considerations.

I'm really here to answer any other questions.

I think there's a lot of good dialogue about the uses, and I think that really kind of

kind of spells out and I think the dialogue was good about being specific to what we profited.

We tried to take out uses of the matrix that didn't really make sense, that wouldn't really fit in with the overall development and what's there in the surrounding neighborhoods.

So we didn't want to see like a gas station.

Even though you could do it under MI, we took that out.

I don't really have a question, but I wanted to thank Scott for his kind words.

And I will say that I've had a chance to go through the Carlton Hughes apartments.

It's a nice apartment building.

The pay center does some really neat things.

And this probably is the most detailed PUD that we've seen, or I've seen.

So I don't want to be critical because I think we need more affordable housing, we need more housing for the elderly and the disabled.

All of that's very important.

I guess it's those other nagging questions that come up as to what happens in those future pieces and I think that's what everybody else is kind of poking around at.

What I want to remind us is we only have council until 730 so I want to make sure we get our questions answered so that we can have our public hearing and then let them stick around and have fun with this or whatever they go to the concert or whatever they need to do.

Well, I wonder if you could just address a little more about making all or most of the units accessible, given the location, the profile.

We've seen other instances where people need to move apartments.

And so at one point, I think we had a policy of really trying to encourage this.

It's kind of gone to the side.

Definitely.

And I think you can probably see some of it from the Carleton Views building.

You know, all the units themselves are accessible.

You can get to them via an elevator or from outside with ramps and everything else like that.

Those are all accessible.

So then it comes down to the actual build out of the units.

From my understanding, pretty much most of the units, or if not all of the units, are set up to where they can be.

ultimately accessible units as the market as the as the as the need is rise so that therefore you know you can come in and do a couple of modifications you know the countertops to in some bathrooms and what-have-you as long as the overall build of the unit is correct which it is you know as far as turning rate so that's really

So can you address what the additional cost would be to just have everything accessible within a unit, particularly things like the zero-grade showers, grab bars, elongated toilets, whatever is current in that world.

I'm a little out of date in it.

Those things seem like they would be great to have from the beginning and then there wouldn't be a time lag if one tenant moved out, another needed to move in, you wouldn't be holding up on that.

Right.

I don't know what the costs are right away, but the type of funding they're going for with the VHDA, all that's kind of spelled out with their guidelines and with their criteria.

It's about how those units are rented out and how they're built.

So a lot of that is kind of, I guess, resolved as they are working with the different lenders, mainly BHDA because that's the type of funding they're going after for all these buildings, which, like they talked about, they're close to getting the funding for Carleton Views, too.

and then for the third building, or I guess the last building on the project, they're working on the same type of funding.

Two moderately quick questions.

I'm still confused about the open space thing.

You don't have a plan in front of you, but maybe you can do one.

So that existing Carlton 154 unit apartment building completed 2017 has a plaza area to the Page North that says 0.19 acres, kind of map there.

That's right.

And I scaled it.

It looks like it's 40 by 60, maybe 40 by 70.

So I tried to show the open space that counts sort of in the green in that area.

Okay.

That doesn't count.

That's not part of that.

The buffer, the landscape buffer is an addition to that 15% open space and so is that tree preservation area along Franklin Street that's being preserved.

Okay.

Okay.

And then I didn't count them, but the text mentions 161 spaces, which I think includes 30 on the street.

Am I doing that right?

That's right.

And I don't know if the plan shows 130 on the property and 30 in the street, but I assume it probably does roughly within a few.

Does that number

The PACE Center was kind of treated by itself because they do have so many people coming first thing in the morning.

We kind of took that part out of it.

So it's really just sort of a 35% reduction on the residential aspect of the property.

But knowing that there is open, there is parking on Carlton Avenue and certainly, you know, in the evenings, you know, when people might be having guests, there is still that ability, you know, to park in the parking lot that's over that PACE Center.

I was having trouble thinking through on a site plan that looks constrained as it relates to open space.

I mean, you kind of tucked it in where you could get it, but there's a preponderance of parking.

I was trying to understand how

The Pace Center parking load would come out of that 160, and then the one or two bedrooms require one car a piece, so are we looking at a plan that's over-parked for residential, I guess is the question?

Well, it's one per unit at 152, then you take 35% of that, so it's more like, what,

And the PACE Center requires, what's its parking?

For the PACE Center, that's their own, and they use that.

If you go by it during the daytime, a lot of that parking is used up for the PACE Center.

So really that PACE, that 61 spaces you see for the PACE Center itself is pretty,

It's pretty true to what they need and what they require especially with all the all the staff I mean staff shows up at 738 o'clock and you know 25 of those parking spaces are pretty much taken up So I'm taking it that you'd say that the the plan as shown doesn't have it's not over parked for the residential It's pretty close within five or ten percent of what's required even after the reduction in everything.

Can I ask a quick question?

Would parking be, Mr. Alfele, parking be part of the site plan?

Or do we need, is this something we need to cover with PUD?

Okay, okay.

I have a question.

Carleton 2, the conceptual layout, appears to cut off a corner of the site and potentially could turn its back on the rest of it.

That area has significant grade considerations.

And we did have several conversations about that when the Blue Ridge Pace Center came forward and the Carlton One when that whole thing was being looked at originally.

It was a lot of discussion about that.

Yeah.

Any more questions for the applicant?

You addressed my height, so I appreciate that.

Thanks for being patient with us as we have

I do want to open up for public hearing and if we do have some questions we'll come back to that since we are pressed for time.

A little bit outside of our norm.

So...

In about 30 seconds, hopefully, I'm going to open this up for public hearing when our counselor comes back.

So at this time, I want to open this up for the public hearing.

And at this time, I have two people signed up.

But if anyone would like to speak after these two people, please come forward.

You have three minutes.

Please state your name and speak into the microphone so we can hear you.

First, let me say that I'm very much in favor of seeing more affordable housing done if it really is affordable housing.

Until last week, I was employed at-pace, so I know the area and the property extremely well have been following this matter for quite some time.

I had been told really not to discuss much and keep my mouth shut, but now I don't have to worry about that.

PACE is currently, my main concerns is parking, the sight line from the street with cars going back and forth as well as entering and exiting the street.

The parking area by PACE, that entire lot is used 100% by PACE.

PACE is also now using the street parking in addition in front of the building and a little bit up the hill.

So I saw a plan sometime back.

initial plan on the parking area and it made it look like that it was over where the trash dumpsters are and that's totally not true they're using that entire space and they're still growing they're gonna be using needing more space and more street space and there's about 25 truck buses that come in in the mornings about 25 that go out at night and so you have these vehicles coming in and out bringing the people in

Site aspect.

I've experienced this personally myself many, many times.

I almost had a few accidents where when you've got cars parked on the street, you're not able to see the site distance with those cars parked if you've got a hill coming down one way and a hill coming down the other way.

So it makes it really difficult at times when you have those cars parked here to see further up enough to get by.

You also have Carter Bridge a few blocks away and they have big trucks and sometimes it's difficult to see those vehicles.

Again, I wanted to say that if it's truly a

for affordable housing and affordable housing from what I found out from talking to some of the people that are living in Carlton 1, they're paying anywhere from $800 to $1200 a month.

A lot of the people that are at PACE cannot afford that.

We actually do have four spaces that are subsidized by PACE.

We had people that come all the way from Livingston, Lake Monticello, Buckingham, travel an hour's distance because they cannot find anything affordable in town.

We really could use something that was designed for seniors.

Most of the people that are living in Carlton, one, are working.

A few of them are disabled.

I know of only three people that actually need a disabled bathtub and kitchen.

And some of them, from what I can see, most of them do appear to be working.

if we're not sometimes subsidizing people to have these affordable houses and live there.

I heard about the quality of the building.

Pace had a tremendous amount of problems with the building when it first opened up that had to be corrected.

So I do hope the quality will really beat a quality building that's done.

I would question whether or not Carlton 4 would ever be done or it's just to make the number of units that they have be able to be more

I could probably stay here for a long time talking about some of this and some of the things I've seen, but don't have time for everything.

But just be careful that you don't have the snow being – I mean the roll being pulled over your eyes.

I think there needs to be a little bit more research done on this project.

Thank you.

Bill Emery, 1604 East Market Street.

This development, as initially designed, spread out across the 4.8 acres at 21 DUA, which allowed for focusing on the well-being of the residents vis-a-vis recreation and open space.

Pumping up the density will come at the residents' expense.

The PC understands, but the general public might not understand, that there is no different zoning for rich and poor.

There is no special Hogwarts lens that changes the scope of review in this matter.

This is good enough for where it's going.

This is good enough for who it's for.

I have faith that the 10 PUD objectives and the zoning map amendment requirements will be evaluated here as exactly as you would evaluate them.

if this rezoning was in a higher income portion of the city.

The meaning of not complying with the land use map is as significant here as it would be on Derry Road.

I wish you all had been given the opportunity for work session as you often do with PUD applicants.

There are questions and concerns that could have been addressed with the developer in such a format.

These include the former SUP conditions regarding maximum number of bedrooms and the 50-foot height limit which haven't been carried forward.

the lack of innovative arrangement of buildings in open space, the lack of higher quality which is possible through PUD zoning.

Is this a cohesive unified project?

What percentage of the current residents are working for PACE or are PACE clients?

Will the pedestrian linkage between Building A, Carlton Views 2, and the Pace Center actually come to pass instead of having to walk out in the street or take the jaunt bus?

Can it be required?

Where is the Carlton Views 2 open space, Parcel A?

Generally, the quality of the open space is minimal.

It's not usable for recreation.

Much of it is not accessible to the elderly.

Where's the variety of housing types?

Where's the mix of incomes?

What employment or stores exist near this proposed residential density?

Why would we locate economically vulnerable people in an area with no services within walking distance?

West Haven is walkable.

South First Street is walkable.

This neighborhood is not.

What has improved by changing from M1 with an SUP to a PUD?

What has improved by changing out?

Staff finds the only substantial and realistic change the resulting to PUD will achieve is an increase in residential density.

The code, the PUD objectives should lead to quality like Timberlake Place rather than quantity.

people warehouses floating on asphalt like this.

The PUD ordinance allows a developer to build a neighborhood.

This doesn't make the cut.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Nancy Carpenter, a resident of the city.

I recently started following this request, went down to physically look at the location.

Historically, when the Pace Center came forward to be decided on and built, and it's a lovely facility, it addresses a lot of things, I remember there was a lot of conversation that the great thing about the apartments is that it would have people working there.

and could live there as well as some of the elderly.

It doesn't seem like that has happened.

We do need low income housing.

I do have a lot of calls for people who are interested in getting assistance in order to move into the existing apartment building.

But I do look at the open space and I don't think a bicycle rack

Green Space should count as open space.

I really don't see a place where someone can take their shoes off and feel the ground and really, you know, get that environmental component of what a green space is.

I mean, if you didn't know that it was an apartment building, you really wouldn't have any idea that real people live there, okay?

There's no exterior structures that seem to indicate that come out, this is green space, have a sit.

take your blanket out, come out with your children if it's a two bedroom and you have a child.

By the way, I do think there is a need for three bedroom apartments in this community for sure.

But there was also another thing that I noticed.

It is a desert.

It's a food desert.

It's a service desert.

It's an area that the comprehensive plan model draft map calls for some density down there, but there's no attendant density for services, meaning

You don't want to have car-centric.

I hear a lot of you on this Planning Commission talk about car-centric developments and trying to decrease the reliance on personal automobiles.

Well, this is an area where you want to bring in more people like Mr. Crabbett was talking about with employees and more needs for food, for dry cleaning, for pharmacy, for hardware stores, because you might want to stop and you have a project you're doing at home when you have to drive.

to Buckingham or you're driving to Fluvanna or wherever you happen to live and you might want to stop at a hardware store to pick up some nails, some glue, some something, you know.

So there's a need for those types of services in that community as well as I think that CAT right now is looking at changing some of the routes that serve some of these parts of the

and decreasing the number of stops.

And we want to talk about putting a bus shelter in.

Yeah, absolutely there should be a bus shelter and absolutely there should be a wealth of bus stops.

You shouldn't have to walk a half a mile or a mile to get to a bus stop, which is another component of this PUD.

You're talking about an impact of life.

You should look at all the impacts of life and that's another thing that I think

the Planning Commission needs is a tool from the Human Rights Commission, their housing subcommittee, on a strong impact tool to take a lot of this into play.

Thank you.

I'm Rachel Vigor.

I'm sorry.

All right.

I live at Carlton Youth Apartments.

My name is Rachel.

And I would say that some of the things stated here do not accurately reflect the general experience of the people living there.

I've spoken with all of my neighbors every opportunity I could for the last three months.

I would say in general they're not considered desirable apartments.

People consider them to be too expensive.

Many of the folks there do live with some Section 8 or some

other support for the cost.

But many people are paying full price.

I pay together with a required payment of $30 a month for a rented washing machine, $880 a month for one apartment, one room apartment.

And that was after qualifying for this place, which is more than 50% of what the income I've had when I came in.

So there's general frustration with the apartment.

People experience it as having been hastily built and not built right.

And things such as broken dishwashers, the sliding doors for balconies being too heavy to move, doors closing on people as they enter and exit their apartments, management

not answering for repair service calls, management not being on property ever and people being told many times please go over to Greenstone to talk to a manager but that there is literally no person in the apartment most of the time.

Let's see.

I think that the quality of the apartment building was kind of misrepresented.

There was a lot of enthusiasm, but I'm not believing on that.

There's been frustration that the elevator has broken.

When the power's out, there's not a backup generator, and there are people on the second, third, fourth stories who are disabled and really need to have backup support for the elevator.

Very few people are actually using PACE who live in the Carleton views, even who are qualified for it.

People are, it may well be just something that someone could walk them over and make them introduce, but there's actually some interest for certain families.

I took a bunch of notes that are not in order, but the issue with affordable really is difference between low income versus affordable is serious.

There's a perception that people were moved from another low-income affordable place to this apartment to fill it quickly so that it could be said that it was full.

That is a really common perception over there that I heard from many different people.

There's a really serious problem about the green space, which is the perception is that there's dog poop on it, and there's not a place for people to walk dogs that specified for that.

So the green space that's between the road and the building is a place to jump over, otherwise you'll step in dog poop is just a general perception, and likewise on the green grass in front of the building.

There's no smoking area that is actually within the code for what the requirements are according to the leases.

The leases say we must be 45 feet away from the building, but actually the smokers are right by the building and the people who live on that first floor, many of them are oxygen.

and complaining that there are people smoking right outside their window and they can't go in or out.

Tuesdays and Thursdays there's a mop cleaning process that happens that puts fumes in the whole building and there's very poor ventilation and some of them were oxygen deprived persons who use oxygen support.

Do not go in and out on Saturdays or on Tuesdays.

Parking is already tight.

The parking sizes are not standard.

The parking spaces are very cramped and people are very concerned that they will hit each other's cars.

Also, many, many of the places are labeled compact car.

A normal-sized car, even a compact car, my car is very small.

It's an old Plymouth Breeze.

It's a very small car.

Even side-by-side, if I'm in any of the spaces, much less the ones labeled compact, you can't open the door and get in and out, and I don't have a disability, I'm able to squeeze and bend, but not everybody can.

The balcony doors, I said, are too heavy to slide on many of the places.

They're not put on right, and the answers haven't been called.

I'm sorry, I'm probably going over your time.

There has been a cry out from the people who live there to me for a playground within walking distance.

There's a trailer park neighborhood across with lots of kids.

There are many people who would like to have families in the Carlton views apartments, but the perception is it's not a place to have kids because there's no place for them to play at all.

They could walk down to Reeves Park.

They could walk down to the park that's on Chesapeake on Meade Street, meet Carlton down the road.

You've got a couple more minutes.

You see, I wrote everything out of order.

The fridge is right against the wall in my apartment in most of them, and it doesn't open all the way.

It just wasn't planned to be used.

is the experience that some of us have had.

The sidewalk ends right in front of Pace and so many times people are walking across diagonally across the road jaywalking or whatever you call that on the Carlton Avenue hill and it's a very dangerous place and there are people coming downhill quickly.

I am concerned someone will get hurt.

It actually is a good distance to bicycle to downtown Charlottesville for those of us who are able to do things like that.

I love the location.

I'm not convinced that this project is for the people though and I did attend the affordable housing summit part of the Tom Tom Festival and it was emphasized by many different groups that there would be a desire to include more input from people who live in these neighborhoods.

I would love to see more housing in Charlottesville that is affordable.

I can't afford my apartment and I will be moving out soon, probably.

But, and yeah, I appreciate all you probably letting me talk this long.

Thank you.

Would there be a possibility for smoker areas that are covered so that if it's rainy or hot for smokers not to be right by the door?

I mean, I know these are more detailed things, but I have heard from many people

that they were told to go to Greenstone to tell complaints that there's not a person in the office usually, almost ever.

And until I see some kind of responsible management of the place that's there, of the people who do live there now, I just don't believe that additional

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this project?

Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Well, I think that was a very informative set of comments, and I wondered if any of them would be covered under the SUP requirements.

I'm going to ask you to talk with staff about that.

I'm sorry.

I don't want to derail us, and I know that many of these were about the interior layouts and they'd be beyond our purview, but some of them did perhaps fall into the site plan, and I just wondered if, since this resident did take the time to come here and explicitly state some of those, if there could be some follow up.

I know we're not the council and we don't necessarily respond in the same way that they do,

Well, you know, I was wondering, you know, the question about, like, playgrounds, because I think there's somewhere in the document that talks about families and children and things like that.

And Reeves Park is a bit of a distance away, especially if you have a family, if anybody has a disability, a mobility issue or something else, because

The bus, when it comes down Carlton, goes down Reeve Street.

It doesn't come all the way down Carlton to, whatever that is down there, to Franklin.

Is that it?

Yeah, Franklin.

So actually, the bus never comes past Carlton Views and the Pay Center, and then swinging down onto Franklin to get you to Reeve.

So somebody would have to walk up to Carlton and Reeve's to catch the bus.

rather than being able to catch it in front of them.

And again, if you're talking about a community where, one, you're looking at under parking it a bit, and then two, with a number of people with disabilities, that can be kind of worrisome that the bus does.

Now, there may be discussions going on and all like that, but it seems to me that that would really, as this project grows, would really be two of the things.

You'd want to have a playground on site.

You want to have a place for children to play.

Would the Commission mind if I ask the applicant another question?

No.

I said we can open back up.

Would you be willing to answer?

Questions.

Based off of the information attached, there are, and based off of the application plan, it's a conceptual plan, and based off of what we've heard, we understand that there's apartments for Carlton too.

Your Matrix showed some commercial.

It even showed a grocery store.

It showed those different things.

Any ideas?

It's still conceptual and they're still trying to obtain funds to go build the Carlton III through VHDA and that's what we're working on right now this summer.

They're trying to

There is talk about providing some type of maybe small commercial area within that building that could offer those services.

But keep in mind as this project comes along, things are developed and built out over time.

Pieces of property that's in the comp plan that's even in y'all's new comp plan discussions is not even a quarter mile away.

It's the junkyard.

The junkyard's not going to stay there forever.

I mean, that's going to be your next hub.

And that's not even, what, a quarter mile from this site?

Although there's not services right now, there will be.

Absolutely.

But right now, what you guys are looking at is something through VHDA, which would be more housing.

It's hard to say.

As far as take this piece of property as it sits now, it's a very challenging site from many aspects, mainly terrain.

And what it backs up to is the railroad tracks and where it's located.

No, I don't actually.

I think what's unique about this project is that every single building, every single apartment building that's being built, as far as the Carlton Views and the second one and even the third one that's proposed,

is very site specific and site unique.

You don't have a case of apartment complex builder coming in and say, I got my prototypical building.

I'm going to put it right here.

I'm going to make it work.

I'm going to take this site.

I'm going to grade it.

I'm going to fill it.

The architects are actually looking at the site, studying it, figuring out how to make it work for these uses.

There was a lot of conversation back when we were looking at this when the Pace Center.

Have you been able to assess and look at that?

Because part of that conversation, and I remember this now, was the accessibility on that sidewalk from the existing Blue Ridge Pace Center up to Carlton too.

With this site and the design, is that accessible for someone?

Yeah, they made some changes.

You can kind of see it on this plan.

They've actually set it up to where they've taken out a small portion of that wall and

and they're going to have a lower level, the elevator goes all the way down to that level so you can come out of that building on the backside and then come across, we're installing an ADA accessible walk across the parking lot over to the Pace Center so that will be all ADA accessible.

Any other questions?

It seems like a pretty long list of maintenance issues.

being on-site all the time.

I get it.

I'm just asking.

Alrighty, open up discussion or more questions?

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Awesome, thank you.

Alright.

For all the specificity of this, there still are a good number of details and questions that remain unanswered.

I think Mr. Emery enumerated a number in his correspondence with us that seemed to point to some potential impacts of this.

It's hard to know exactly about the types.

of units, numbers of bedrooms.

Given the conversation we've had tonight, I'd almost like to see a diagram of how people would circulate and use the site.

There's a lot of language about it, but we've had some critiques of the open space and the parking and building arrangement.

Those are all the things that contribute to a successful PUD.

Of the ten standards of review for PUDs, number two is to encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design.

Number four, to encourage the clustering of buildings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space.

Number five, to provide for developments designed to function as cohesive unified projects.

Number nine, to provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses and external connections at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods.

I look at the site plan and I see a scattering of four buildings.

that is surrounded by parking driveways and parking.

The green space is the leftover places around the buildings with some little pocket areas that are just leftover spaces that can't be used for anything else.

You know, it's interesting because I know that there's a real lack of what we consider affordable housing.

In a lot of ways, the first apartment building that went up did help to meet a large need of that, and I think that the rest of it will probably help along those ways.

You know, I do have to agree that I think that there's just probably some unanswered questions as to additional green space and circulation, and it does bother me that we don't have nailed down yet that there's actually going to be a transit stop in front of the building.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

I think maybe the staff report kind of indicated that both CAT and John stopped there, but a jaunt, of course, but I'm not sure about CAT.

And just, you know, if we're encouraging a community, are we

Let's not build another community in isolation, you know.

And I think Scott's right.

I mean, we know just from our own comp plan use that we expect a lot of changes to be happening over the next 10 or 15 or 20 years in the city, but that doesn't solve what may or may not happen with this space there.

Yeah, I would like to see more green space.

I don't know if it's possible to reduce the size of some of these buildings to perhaps provide more of that.

You know, there's more height on it, but do they need to be quite as big?

I guess it's, you know, when you go down to both corners, it looks like there's really not easily accessible green space that's in there.

And, you know, if it is supposed to be, you know, multifamily and encouraging that,

I think it's going to be a difficult thing.

Some of the property management issues, I mean, that's property management.

I think we have to be careful to separate the two out.

As Mr. Lahendro was reading,

Standards for review on plan unit developments.

I kept on waiting for him to get to the one that says and you know providing a lot of affordable housing but that's not one of the standards of review and that seems to be the primary appeal of what we have before us and what's built already meets the promise in the proffer.

So, while everybody's best intentions are to see more affordable housing, the proffer says 30% of 150, it's 45 units, and I think there are 50 there now, so it's just not one of the

Review criteria and when we look at the criteria the plan itself because it has come at the end of a build-out generally it can't achieve the provisions of the review given it's kind of backed itself into a corner and so while I appreciate Mr. Collins explanation that you know part of our trepidation on PUDs in the past is not knowing what we were going to see

In this case we can see three quarters of it and I don't know that it rises to the level of what PUDs aspire to be for the city as a development tool that allows for more innovative work.

That being said, I don't think all is lost given the parcels that, you know, there are two very strategically unbuilt parcels still remaining on the land and so I'm not exactly sure what the answer could be but programmatic-wise it sounds like the desire is to deliver a product that is needed in the community

They've left the door open through their proffers with some amount of support services, you know, kind of neighborhood services that could be present and so it's a difficult site that requires a creative solution and I think it could happen.

I'd like to see more time spent trying to wrestle it down to be more definitive in how to address the unique character of the site and leave the door open to be able to understand more about what the limitations are without an exhaustive package of design documents which aren't required by the PUD submission process but could be helpful

for us to understand the

I'd like to see it again.

I guess I won't see it again.

I'd like to watch it again from the sidelines, but I think it's a strategically important piece of land in the city that can provide for needs that our community has, and it can be done well.

And I think with a little more time, it could probably be done well.

That's what I was, I keep looking at this going oh but we talk about affordable housing and the need and of all price points and then I go back to the 4700 meetings we've had where we talk about the complete

picture, our pinwheel, and we're leaving a lot out.

And then kind of the reality of you crunching the numbers, and I'm going to miss that, of going, well, wait a second, they're already there, so they don't have to have any more affordable units in this.

Yeah, I think we all acknowledge that we need housing and that this is a place where that could happen.

And I appreciate that applicants and staff work together to try to use the tools that we have in our existing land development regulations.

But it constantly amazes me that we can have a PUD come and have the applicant and staff tell us that it meets these 10 objectives.

when they often don't, because it isn't innovative.

Maybe the idea is innovative, but the arrangement is not innovative.

It's not giving you the cluster, the variety.

All of those kinds of features and I think that low income, frail elderly populations deserve quality environments and we need to figure out a way to deliver those and I think it's our responsibility as a community to help applicants realize that vision not just in the minimum way but in the best way possible and if maybe that happened in the 1960s and the 1970s when

Affordable units were provided to our community.

Maybe we wouldn't have some of the issues we have today if that extra effort had gone into some of them.

So I don't want us to stop this project.

I don't want us to deny it.

I do want to make sure that you all see that the report in front of you was a very fair review of each of those sections.

It did not provide an unfair analysis one way or the other.

The report weighed the facts and provided you all with information in order to make a decision.

Nor does any PUD need to meet all of these objectives, but I think it needs to meet.

a substantial number of them and I think this can with some more work and I think someone made the point of a work session and maybe a preliminary coming to us would have been helpful or a work session would have been helpful and maybe tonight could serve that purpose as serving as a preliminary because there's a lot of, there are a lot of moving parts to this and I feel confident that

I did highlight several things from the staff report, not the applicants, because those are different.

And it reminds me of the CIP criteria, when things come forth and we try to force the square peg in the round hole and make that project work for the CIP.

But there are several things on the staff report that I highlighted saying, oh, this doesn't necessarily meet that.

Do we have a motion?

Yeah, I'm not sure where we are within those days either.

I would assume we had one more potential meeting, but we'll see if we can confer.

Oh, we're good.

What does it mean we're good?

I think one of the reasons why a deferral might make more sense is that some further explanation of what would occur in the two buildings as proposed could begin to address some of those concerns related to open space and or

Innovation related to how the uses are configured, you know, we only have footprints and a potential, not even a footprint, we just have a potential building area that's kind of outside of where the parking is, but more information related to at least a Phase 4 building, Carlton 3, would I think have the potential to answer some of the questions.

For all we know, there's rooftop gardens.

Would that answer all the questions that we've just talked about?

I mean, let me kind of weigh out the concerns I heard.

Open space, parking, services, building arrangement, type of units, number of bedrooms, pedestrian connectivity, and the bus service.

Transit.

Right, I mean it would provide

More specificity if this project for some reason is delayed and not done now and it needs to be picked up in the future.

Yeah, I guess I'm looking at like, you know, three and four, you know, that area that's down in that far corner and I guess what we're hearing is we don't know what that will really be in the future.

and so there could be a lot more green space or there could be better connectivity.

We just don't know.

Right.

No, no.

But I guess what I'm saying is that looking at that, that could be anything.

It could all be built out just the way

They're showing it here or it could be built out much differently.

And I guess that's, if I'm hearing you folks right down the other end there is, what is the intent of that with some of the questions that Lisa's brought up and with all of that, it's just hard to know because when we approve the PUD, in essence, we're saying, you're rolling the dice with it, hoping that it'll work out.

And I really do want to see the housing piece of it

really work out but you're right you want to have services and amenities and you don't want to just be you don't want it to turn out that you're warehousing you know people with disabilities because the folks who are non-disabled are going to get out and do whatever they need to do but if you put the elderly and the disabled in there all of a sudden you're you know and you're running into problems with property management and all then all of a sudden it looks like crescent halls all over again you know maybe not today but maybe five years down the road or ten years down the road and

Exactly.

And I started out with a question about how is this serving a vulnerable population?

And one of the reasons to do this is that we have the PACE center there kind of as an anchor, you know, if it were a shopping center, it would be your anchor tenant, right?

And now we have more information, anecdotal, but I believe reliable from a resident and from a former

employee on site that very few people are living and working there so that that quality of the community that we sort of counted on when we considered the SUP seems not to have been realized so perhaps something that would address what percentage

or numbers of units would be devoted to the frail elderly and disabled populations might give us some sense of how this could become a community that would make use of the PACE center being there.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask Stacy if she could come back up?

I had a question or two that maybe she could answer for us, or answer for me.

Stacy, I'm just kind of curious, does the housing authority have any

Have they looked at this and do they feel comfortable with this or did you look at it?

No, so it would be difficult unless they classify the building as elderly disabled housing, it would be difficult for them to

prevent anybody else from moving in because that would violate fair housing laws.

As far as I know, the Housing Authority has not looked at it.

No, no.

The Housing Authority, I do know there are some families that have CRHA housing choice vouchers that have moved into those units.

Okay.

Was there a community meeting on this project?

Am I hearing that someone wanted to ask for a deferral?

to possibly have the concerns addressed that we listed and maybe the applicant got a list of those concerns or could get a list of those concerns at some point.

Well, I think collectively we have enough concerns that it's not really appropriate for us to vote to approve it this evening.

I certainly don't want to vote to deny it, and so I'm sort of between whether the applicant would want to offer a deferral or whether we should vote on a deferral.

And because it is this profile of project, I don't understand whatever concerns there might be in terms of financing and that sort of thing that would be time sensitive and sometimes it makes sense to vote a project up or down and send it to council because of the clock.

As a practical matter, and I'm sure you all are weighing this as well, at your next meeting, if there is full attendance, there will be four different people here who aren't here tonight.

That's right.

And so, taking into consideration that unless the applicant

You know, would consider it beneficial to make some changes to the proposed application that can't be required of them.

So just because we defer doesn't mean they would have to address any of our concerns?

That's correct.

They could if they choose to, but if that's not desirable for them financially or if the concerns that you've expressed would have a substantial impact on their pro formas or whatever, it could come back for another hearing with

You might consider asking the applicant if they have something briefly to add.

Would you like to add something?

Absolutely.

No, I appreciate this.

And certainly up until this afternoon, I think the deferral was actually even out of the picture because of the type of funding they're trying to get.

They have to qualify with that shows that they actually have a zoning in order to apply for the type of this year, this current year.

It makes it really, really complex.

But I know it centers a lot of like, especially everybody's talking about, you know, Carlton III, open space and what have you.

There's a couple of things that I'm not sure if you've

If you picked up in the PUD, I just want to point out real quick.

One, keep in mind, there is a note on this application plan that there's a minimum of additional 0.25 acres of green space to be incorporated into the Carlton III.

Now, that could definitely be going to, from what we heard tonight, playgrounds and what have you.

Another thing we've also noted in the PUD, because we're

As they're working on the design for this building, there's probably going to be some tuck under parking.

There's probably going to be some parking underneath that building footprint, and the PUD allows for that.

So it's something we didn't want to come out of the box and commit to because it's still working through all the things, but there's going to be some parking underneath that building in order to make it all work, which means that there's some areas also above that was in that building and that parking footprint that can be used for some additional green space to

Thank you so much for having me.

You try to put it together to where the project can kind of evolve and meet the needs.

But if you do it so specific, an application plan that's very down to the very inch part of the building, we have to come back to you guys in six months saying, oh, the building's shifted four feet.

So we try to create envelopes and try to create the ability to incorporate green space, incorporate what the market wants as far as the need for a playground and all that stuff.

That's there.

It's in the code right now.

It's just the ability, you've got to go ahead and do it.

And I understand from Planning Commission, absolutely, the assurance that it's going to be there.

Let me just start.

So you came up and what we needed to hear from you is you are not willing to defer.

You're not going to ask for deferral.

I'm giving you additional information because I think what you guys want is there.

And if I defer and come back to you, I guess I get really confused because on one part, I've come from the planning commission so many times with

with applications and we had these discussions.

We're like, no, we don't want to design your project for you.

We're either going to deny it or we're going to move forward.

Sort of, you know, having the assurance, making sure you guys have the assurance that it's going to be there, but then all of a sudden if something changes, then we have to come back.

I'm sorry about the confusion, but we've just had a list of things that we're concerned about.

But the question is, when you said you want to come up, I think we were having a discussion about deferral.

You're not willing to defer?

OK. One thing, and I can say, you know,

having had some discussions around, you know, even Carlton views many, many, many months ago because the Department of Mental Health, or let's not call that Department of Behavioral Health these days, has instituted some new funding options for people with disabilities.

And I know that these kind of projects, in fact, I heard from the Faison group last week, these things are so complicated and pull in so many different pieces of funding,

And it's not the developer or the agency's fault.

It's just that it's so hard to grab that federal money and other local monies and things like that to make these things work that it becomes very complicated.

And I'm not saying that's a reason to approve or deny.

I just understand the complexity of trying to piece these things together.

And the least little thing just knocks the whole thing out of orbit.

It's just, you know, it's one of those things that I'm weighing myself in terms of this.

I don't think I heard the applicant say he is offering a deferral.

He said it was preferable to denial, so maybe you need to poll the commission.

Well, I'm going to make a motion, but it's not to be denied.

We have a motion.

So what I'm going to do is, so I would take that as you would vote for denial.

Yes.

Or to recommend denial.

I mean let me make sure I've got the wording correctly.

Miss Keller, right now if we voted would your recommended be denial or approval?

Well I. I know what you want.

Right.

If we voted now.

I'll tell you, this is probably going to be a first, but I'll tell you, if I had a vote for denial or approval, I probably would say I would extremely reluctantly approve it, which would probably put me in the minority.

I would probably prefer to deny it or see a deferral happen.

Really, I'd like to see a deferral, but somebody's going to have to deal with this.

I just think it's a, yeah, right.

I'm having trouble separating the affordable housing out from everything else.

I am too.

You would vote for denial.

That means I don't have a tie break.

We have a motion for deferral.

He said he wanted a motion to accept the applicant's deferral, but I did not hear the applicant ask for deferral.

So, is that on the table?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

A motion for accepting the applicant's deferral for Mr. Keesecker and a second for Ms. Keller.

Do we have any more discussion on this?

Well, you all noted, just to clarify, very broad topics here.

So I'm not sure that staff would be able to necessarily provide detailed guidance on some of these things.

Could I ask you in all fairness to the applicant?

I'm so sick of the word innovation.

What the heck does that mean?

Does he may ever know what that means?

There you go.

Can't speak better than else.

I do know that there's an open meeting for CAT.

And I'm well aware that two-thirds of the site's already built up.

You know I will say that just a kind of a comment and this kind of is similar in certain ways just that it started out as one project and it comes back to us as a PUD.

I think we had the same thing happen elsewhere in Belmont where the developers started under a certain type of development and then came back to us after all the trees were down and everything and basically asked for a PUD.

And I think that that's one of the problems I've always had with the PUD is that

you know you can still back into a PUD even after you've started it as another project and all of a sudden things have changed and that doesn't mean that they're not trying to do the right thing and all but it's just so difficult when we allow that to happen which is some of the discussion we had over getting rid of the PUD

completely though quite honestly I think if we did some really innovative things with the PUD regulations we could make it work much better for what we want it to be creatively but I really do have a problem when we allowed folks to back into the PUD project after it started out under an SUP or something else just because it doesn't work any longer under that previous zoning that was requested.

That's a conversation you guys can have in the future.

I'll probably come back and remind you about those things.

Well, I don't know.

We didn't even know.

Right, right.

Well, but I think it's the kind of thing where

Well, I mean, I'm not sure if we're backing into a PUD.

I mean, I think at this point, this is the only other option.

Well, they already are.

They're coming forward with this request for additional density.

Otherwise they couldn't do any more density and so that is what they are requesting to do and we're through stage one and we'll see what occurs but they were very limited in what the mechanism might be and just to note this site is crazy.

And that goes back to when the project was first being rezoned.

Well, they didn't know how it would evolve.

Let's not digress on this.

We have a motion and a second.

I do want to – I guess the question would be

I mean, I don't know if the applicant wants to do a work session at this point or if this is enough.

But yes, I mean, for all intents and purposes, we did have a pretty good packet, pretty detailed.

So we appreciate the work on that for certain.

The other thing that I'm not sure is on your list, I think it was a good point about the food desert.

And while we can't

You know, guarantee the success of a grocery store or a convenience store.

Perhaps that is a place where there could be some kind of innovation that provides a

Some response beyond physically putting a store there and I would like to see something address that because you have a vulnerable population at the edge of the city and no place even for those people who are very mobile to find affordable and good food.

And maybe talk to the people who are already living there to see what would be helpful.

for them already as residents before you expand, a potential maybe already problem.

And that is still in that matrix, if y'all remember that.

We have a motion and a second.

Thank you all for all of your patience.

And this is a motion to accept the deferral by the applicant.

Mr. Lahendro?

Aye.

Ms. Keller?

Aye.

Mr. Santoski?

Aye.

Mr. Keesecker?

Aye.

And Ms. Green?

I think it's really important for us to articulate that this was not

I'm going to recommend we take a 10 minute break because we still have two entrance corridor things to review and a couple of other things on the agenda.

not to mention a preliminary discussion.

you

Thanks for watching

for this application and the one to follow.

Whichever order you take them in.

Don't fall asleep.

We'll need you in a minute.

Okay.

Okay, fantastic.

Any preferred... No?