Planning Commission Meeting   12/11/2018

Thank you.

Thank you

Good evening and thank you for your patience.

We'll call to order tonight's Planning Commission meeting.

Sorry, we're running a few minutes behind.

We welcome you all and we'll start this evening with our commissioner's reports.

Certainly.

Since we last met, there have been two committee meetings that I was to attend.

The first one, the Board of Architectural Review on November 20th, I could not attend because it conflicted with

our own work session that night.

But the tree commission I was able to go to on December the 4th.

Three main points from that meeting or in that meeting.

In reviewing the replacement of a tree in the mall area next to the Seville Technology Center that's coming.

The tree commission became aware that the city really should be looking at doing a new design for the mall hardscape and landscape in that area next to this new technology center because the current landscape hardscape does not really relate to the new project.

So the tree commission will make that suggestion to city council.

On the 17th of November, there were 40 volunteers from the Charlottesville area tree stewards group, as well as the tree commission and Belmont neighborhood residents who planted 21 trees in Belmont.

and these were trees that were requested by the residents.

This is the result of the end of a, this culminates a eight month educational outreach effort between the Tree Commission, CATS and the neighborhood and it was a huge success and a really wonderful day.

Then lastly there is a discussion by Parks and Rec

about how parks and rec and neighborhood development services have some confusion on the city council's approval of a CIP for cultural landscape report for the downtown mall.

The agencies don't seem to be sure about the objectives and scope of the study or haven't been able to agree on that.

and which agency takes the lead for this effort.

So this is going to require coordination between the agencies and clarification by the city council possibly or probably.

Until then, there is nothing happening about this cultural landscape report and thus decisions can't be made about the mall and trees and hardscape.

There were two meetings of the Housing Advisory Committee, the main meeting and the Policy Subcommittee.

And the main meeting, the main highlights were I've been named the Vice Chair of the HAC.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

I will be occasionally running some of those meetings and contributing in a little bit of a larger role.

A lot of discussion about the timeframe for the housing strategy.

Getting into the details, it's looking like it will take time.

It could be as long as not this December, but next December until we have a product.

The land bank ordinance language has been revised and it should be seeing city council, I'm guessing Monday, but this month was the information we had.

Land Bank has been discussed about a year as an affordable housing solution.

The policy group met with Councillor Galvin to discuss the details of her multi-page memo on affordable housing solutions.

She talked over a few key ideas.

Most relevant to this group is the small area plan, which she emphasized produces housing.

Good evening.

Thank you.

No report.

I don't have much since the last time I was here.

I missed the last month's meeting.

So in early November the Master Planning Committee did meet and we had Hosea Mitchell from this board as well as Alex attended that meeting, Ikefuna.

And those meeting notes and presentations are online on our website if anybody cares to review them.

and then just a quick note just so as we've all been seeing the e-scooters and e-bikes on the ground now I just wanted to make everybody aware that UVA has been in close coordination with the city on that and we and with the provider the vendors as well and you know that

Our agreements are evolving, but we've been kind of in the loop on all of that and feel comfortable with where things are at.

Thank you.

I've attended several meetings, mostly about the Capital Improvements Program project with

That preliminary discussion went to City Council last Thursday, and then we will be getting a report on that next week.

went Tuesday, Tuesday the 18th.

Correct.

And then I'm not sure where that's going to go.

And I was not able to attend today's meeting to find out what changes were made.

But it's an interesting time with the SIP program to see what dollars will go and what's being moved around.

So stay tuned for that next Tuesday.

Last week I met with CLIC.

They asked me to come and talk to them about the draft land use plan that's going forward to Council next Monday, just to see what the colors meant and give them some idea about where we were.

I told them what I thought I knew based off of the many meetings and that we'd be presenting to Council on Monday the 17th.

I'm not sure if that's a public hearing or not.

It's just mostly a presentation about where we are, where we've gotten to, and what we still have left to do because we do still have work left to do on that.

So we sat and chatted for about an hour or so on that.

They are putting together or working with and working on a housing strategy, which seems to be something that's needed for certain.

based off of the conversation, and I think we've had this conversation multiple times, it would help us in guiding the land use, but I'm not sure we can wait a year or so.

So, that being said, we may have to come back and do an amendment.

But we're going to present something on Monday.

I don't know who else is planning on being here for that on Monday.

I do not.

They haven't posted it yet.

Last I saw, preliminarily, it was early.

And then, it was past Thursday, I attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission meeting.

There's several conversations, one specifically about Go Virginia.

It's an economic development grant program throughout Virginia for businesses and localities who want to do some startup things.

So, that's govirginia.com.

It's got some very good information if you

to bring economic development to certain localities.

They're working on some projects now in Livingston.

So that was interesting and that presentation.

The other thing that was a report from that was their regional housing partnership that Thomas Jefferson Planning District is putting together.

So based off of the city's housing assessment, TJPDC,

and I think I reported some on this last week but that's still moving forward.

TJPDC is also going to do some housing assessment regionally.

which it'll also be broken down by locality so we'll have some information from Albemarle.

The thing that I think is going to be interesting with this housing strategy that they are also planning on coming up with is that it will be a regional strategy as opposed to just a locality strategy.

They are still in the process of putting together the board for that, an advisory board, and putting together a meeting schedule.

Their first meeting they will elect an executive committee.

I can't remember when they said that first meeting would be, but stay tuned for that because that is coming up.

Their housing strategy won't be anytime soon either.

So, that's where we are.

But we may have to make changes as that happens.

But I hope that in the spirit of just good planning that we maybe all get together to see where these overlap and we, you know,

Instead of working against each other, we work with each other on these.

And I do think with the conversations that we've had with the county and we've had these conversations in our commission, we need to make sure we work together with the county with some of this affordable housing.

Let's see, was that all?

It was a long meeting.

That is all I had on that.

So, next week is a busy week before the holidays and then our next marathon meeting is going to be January 5th.

Okay, so January 5th, right after the new year, we are back at the marathon work session here and we'll be posting those times soon.

And that's all I have.

Any questions on that?

First I'd like to introduce Carrie Spitler who is our new assistant to boards and commissions Please welcome her.

She'll be with us for Taking care of our meetings and minutes and logistics and we're glad to have her on staff So I want to make sure to do that introduction We have the COP plan on the December 17th agenda and

So Lisa will be presenting that.

I'll be right beside her and sounds like Mr. Solie-Yates and maybe someone else will be here from the commission.

I think it'll be helpful to have as many commissioners to assist with questions because you all have been at the table and that definitely will help the presentation.

So we have a work session scheduled for next Tuesday.

Part of it is on the CIP, and those materials are being worked on as we're speaking, and we'll be getting the materials posted tomorrow morning, as well as a preliminary discussion on the Emmett Street Streetscape Project.

It'll be very similar to what we did with the East High Street, the process.

for that.

So that will come to us next Tuesday with packets going out likely tomorrow.

We now have a clarification for the January 5th, so we'll work on getting logistics taken care of for that.

And as we get into the new year, for whatever reason we weren't busy enough, we're going to add to the fun.

We have a lot of things already coming forward for the January meeting, and then our January work session, we have two work session requests for projects.

So we are going to start the new year off even more busy than we currently are.

Thank you.

At this time we will have matters to be presented by the public, not on the formal agenda.

Tonight we do have four public hearings that you'll have an opportunity to speak on.

One is Nassau Street, the zoning map amendment, as well as the special use permit.

We'll be having the public hearing in conjunction with those two.

The second and third item are two zoning text amendments, actually fourth item, three zoning text amendments this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry.

My name is Steven Kinningham.

I live at 1310 Chesapeake Street, and I'm here on behalf of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, just seeking some clarification regarding the November 28th draft of the general land use map.

This draft specifically includes designation of high intensity for a formerly low intensity 20 acre parcel of undeveloped green space along the Rivanna River in the Woolen Mills.

A significant portion of the parcel is FEMA floodway, and it also includes a trail easement used by the Rivanna Trail.

This change in designation is questionable because the floodway restriction makes it unlikely that the parcel could support high intensity development.

Additionally, the gradient of intensity from this parcel extends into a formerly low intensity residential area along Fairway Avenue and the gradient itself is unnecessary if the high intensity core is not able to be developed.

Was this change intentional?

It's the only high intensity parcel in the city that's not currently developed.

And if it was, then how do you anticipate it would be used for high intensity development?

Thank you.

Good evening.

I am Jess Winger at 13 Mobile Lane.

Many residents of Fry's Spring have significant concerns about the proposed special use permit for a sanitary sewer pump station in our neighborhood, about which you will be having a preliminary discussion later this evening.

I'm representing an organized group of more than 30 concerned households.

We are concerned about the impact to the surrounding neighborhood, including noise, smell, and operation.

We are also concerned about the long-term maintenance requirements for a sanitary pump station and the possibility of the new neighborhood's homeowners association failing.

A raw sewage release from an inadequately maintained sewer pump station would have negative impacts on the existing downstream properties and may require the city to take over operation

of the pump station to prevent human health hazards.

The project engineer is holding a community meeting in our neighborhood tomorrow to discuss the details of this project.

So we don't have all of the information to thoroughly analyze the ramifications this project could have on the neighborhood yet.

As you begin your preliminary discussions later this evening on the special use permit, please consider the potential impacts of a privately owned sanitary sewer pump station and those impacts that they may have on the existing character of the Fry's Springs neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Mark Cabot, 400 Altomont Street.

I was really hoping that the city council members would be here by now, but they're not, so I'm going to drop off a lot of stuff that I was going to say, but what I will say is this.

Last month, the commission made a political decision, not a land use on the PUD for Carlton

The property did not meet the requirements for APU due, notably the amenities.

You all were really in a position to get the developer to come forth with some of the things that need to be done to make that a more pleasant place to be.

And last, I guess it was a week ago today, city council pretty much did the same thing.

So just remember that there are times where you can get things that you're trying to get from the

Developers that they may not want to give but can push to show I think they'll come through and give you what you want I also want to mention that I noticed that on the block that I live on as well as some other blocks I was a little concerned about the new map on zoning and the high-density areas I noticed that my block was which is a ADC district and

Thank you.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Joan Alveston and I'm the owner of a property at 301 Azalea Drive and I am seconding what Jess Winger was saying earlier and that is that you consider carefully the implications of the addition of a private sewer pump for the proposed Bellevue development between Azalea Drive and Monte Vista that will be introduced to you later this evening.

A private sewer pump will impact the woodland in which it is proposed and surrounding homeowners, many of whom have been living there for many years, and it may negatively impact the value of their homes.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak on items that aren't on the formal agenda?

I will close matters by the public and we'll move to the consent agenda.

We have one item on the consent agenda this evening, which is a zoning text initiation for our dwelling units clarification.

This initiation is, if we move forward with this consent agenda, is actually on the agenda for later.

And we had some very vibrant discussions regarding this.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda and move forward with the zoning text initiation.

We'll vote by voice acclamation.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So that will move forward for further discussion later.

Tonight we will not have a council quorum, so we will be having these public hearings and then at the time that this goes to council you'll have a secondary public hearing for these four items.

And first on the agenda is 918 Nassau Street.

There are two applications.

One is a rezoning.

The second is a special use permit.

I'm going to read both of these and we're going to have the public hearing together for both items.

So if you want to speak to the rezoning or the special use permit, please do so at that time.

We'll have, so Mr. Shimp, please do your presentation for both items at once.

and then we'll take questions on both items at the same time but it when it gets time to make a motion and vote we separate those out and we'll need to do the rezoning vote first correct Lisa yes yeah and then we'll vote on the special use permit okay so

First item is ZM-18-00001918, Nassau Street.

Justin Schimp, Engineering, on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher, landowners, have submitted a reasoning petition for tax map 61, parcels 79.17, 79.18, and 79.19, 918 Nassau Street, and a portion of tax map 61, parcel 79, subject properties.

The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R2 two-family residential to HW highway corridor with proffered development conditions.

The proffered conditions include one, maximum height of buildings.

any structures located on the property shall not exceed 35 feet in height where height is the vertical distance measured perpendicularly from grade from the highest point on such building or structure to future land uses

Gross floor area of any singular commercial use shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.

This shall not prohibit the gross floor area of multiple commercial uses from exceeding 4,000 square feet.

B.

The land uses permitted on subject properties are found in the HW corridor section 34-796 use matrix, but prohibits the following.

Adult assisted living greater than eight residents, bed and breakfast home stays, B&Bs, ends

convents or monasteries, nursing homes, residential treatment facility, over eight residents, shelter care facilities, amusement centers, animal boarding slash grooming slash kennels without outside run or pins,

Art Galleries, auditoriums, amphitheaters, automobile services, banks slash financial institutions, bowling alleys, car washes, catering business, health clinics, veterinary clinics, private clubs, data centers, dry cleaning, establishments, elementary schools, high schools, artistic instruction up to 4,000 square feet, electronic gaming cafes, hotels, motels, laundromats, libraries, small breweries,

movie theaters, municipal buildings, museums, music halls, offices, outdoor storage, public recreation facilities, fast food restaurants, full service restaurants, taxi stands, transit facilities, consumer service businesses over 4,001 square feet,

Home improvement centers, pharmacies, shopping centers, shopping malls, retail stores over 4,001 square feet, laboratories, and printing published facilities.

3.

Affordable housing contingent upon approval of residential density on-site the owner shall reserve 10% of the units built on the property for on-site for rent affordable dwelling units as defined herein.

The units will remain affordable for a period of 12 years from issuance of certificate of occupancy.

For rent, affordable dwelling units shall rent at a rate making the units affordable to households with incomes at not more than 50% of the area median income for the Charlottesville metropolitan area published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The subject properties are further identified on city real property tax map

61 parcel 79, 79.18, 79.19 and 79.201.

The subject property is approximately 0.8 acres.

The land use plan calls for low density residential.

The comprehensive plans specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre.

And B, special use permit 18-0004,

918 Nassau Street, Justin Shemp, Shemp Engineering, on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher, landowners have submitted an application seeking approval of a special use permit for a portion of the tax map properties, just read, also subject properties.

The special use permit application proposes a density of 32 dwelling units.

per acre, per city code section 34-740.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the request right above, split between two two three-story buildings.

For a total of 30 dwelling units, the development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and a 600 square foot retail farm store.

Additional parking, farm sheds not to exceed 600 square feet, and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel.

These subject properties are approximately 0.94 acres and has road frontage on Nassau Street.

The land use plan calls for low density residential.

The comprehensive plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre.

Yeah, you go.

Can I just say one thing?

Specifically, we've heard this now four times, right?

Once, two, three.

One is in a work session.

Correct, Chair.

Now, when I read this, I'm going to, of course, during your deliberation, if you all have questions about previous meetings, I have that information, but I'll try to stick to.

I want to give just a little bit of background just to get it in the record, and then I'll jump into some of these changes.

Commissioners, tonight you have a rezoning and SEPU application for development located at 918 Nassau Street.

Planning Commission originally held the public hearing for this item on April 10th, 2018.

Concerns expressed by the Commission at that meeting related to the county portion of the development in Albemarle County.

The Commission asked the applicant to hold off till the county made a decision.

The county did

rezone their portion and that happened on September 12th.

The Albemarle Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to rezone the 7.52 acres from light industrial to rural areas.

That rezoning had some proffer language which is in your application that dealt with the

Riperian buffer, having a 100-foot riparian buffer to Moore's Creek in signage and structures within the flood hazard overlay district shall not exceed 600 square feet.

On October 9th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item.

Additional concerns related to stormwater environmental issues came up and it was requested that a work session would be held.

On October 30th, the Planning Commission held a work session with the applicant to discuss the following.

concerns with the name of the development.

Human Rights Commission was contacted regarding the name of the development as being derogatory.

Staff was informed that this matter would be discussed on November 15th hearing of the Human Rights Commission.

And I forwarded this so those of you who have email up here may have this in front of you, but here are the recommendations from them.

The Planning Commission members should engage the residents of the Hogwaller neighborhood to see what they think about the development name.

If the Planning Commission feels strongly about using the name that it would be called Waller Farms and not Hogwaller,

Concern with the size of future buy-write commercial or retail development.

The applicant has updated their proffer statement to reflect a 4,000 square foot gross floor maximum for any single commercial use on the site.

Concern with the convenience store use and what that could be.

Staff recommended to the applicant to get a zoning determination letter from the zoning administrator on what a convenience store is.

No action was taken by the applicant.

Concern over special uses that remain in the proffered matrix.

Staff consulted with the city attorney's office and it was determined that SUPs could be removed from the proffered use matrix.

The applicant updated the proffered statement to remove all SUPs with the exception of utility facilities, farmers markets and outdoor parks.

Concern that not enough affordable units would be provided within the development.

The applicant updated the proffered statement related to affordable housing.

and concerned with how stormwater would be handled on site.

Staff has updated the analysis and that analysis is on page 11 of both the SUP report and the rezoning report.

In addition to the staff report and comments you will be hearing tonight, the Commission may wish to keep the following density in mind when you're doing your discussion.

Under current R2 zoning, the subject property could accommodate four to five detached single-family homes, each up to four unrelated in each

for three to four single attached single family homes.

Each unit with an attached single family could have up to four unrelated.

If the zoning has changed a highway,

Corridor, no single family homes would be allowed in the by right density.

The highway corridor is zero.

The special use at the subject property are rezoned and an SUP is approved.

The density would be 32 DUA, which would give you 30 units.

So the current zoning is four to eight units rezoned, no special use unit count would be zero.

Rezoned with a special use unit count would be 30.

With that, I will turn it over to the applicant.

And I don't think I introduced myself.

I just, for the record, wanted to do that when I started.

So I'm Matt Alfele.

Thank you.

Mr. Offaly, actually I am the ghost of Hosea Mitchell.

I can't tell.

Mr. Mitchell was concerned that as much as possible the stormwater be treated on-site, which includes the county portion of on-site, rather than through off-site stormwater credits.

Is that possible?

So that came up.

After the work session, staff met with environmental engineering to redo their analysis.

The concern was just that making sure that, that's why you'll see one of the conditions staff is recommending is that onsite stormwater to the best of the ability to be handled, but there's just some unknown factors with it being in the floodplain, what kind of onsite.

Environmental Office Engineering, they didn't want to tie their hands by saying all stormwater on site and then find out that's not feasible as you get deep down into the engineering of it.

So they wanted to leave a little wiggle room in that condition.

So that if you look at the conditions, at least staff's proposing, number 13, at a minimum, stormwater management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP.

There's a preference for onsite quality treatment, understanding that the site is limited by the fact that certain best practice BMPs, which is best practice management practice, are precluded from installation in the 100-year floodplain.

So there might be different practices that staff can work with the engineer to keep it onsite.

At the end of the day, that might not be the best thing.

One of the other conditions being proposed in here is actually to have, right now, the city would look at the city portion, the county would look at the county portion.

There is state code that would allow DEQ to review the whole site as a cross-jurisdictional development, and that is the preference of the city.

We have that as a condition that we will work toward that, but we need the county to agree, too, and that just is going to need some coordination.

So I'll let the applicant might be able better to speak to that because that's a profferees offering.

They do not trip the required affordable units that you would through a rezoning when you reach the one FAR.

So they're going to have to have somebody manage that and I wish we had our housing coordinator still with us because I think she would have been able to answer that more but I think the applicant can address that as far as what we would enforce is what he's proffering.

Right now they're proffering that percentage.

over time.

Good evening.

Justin Schimp, engineer and the fellow with this project.

I will also keep my point sort of on what's changed, not go back to the beginning.

We've talked about this a lot.

I do have a handout to give you just to look at as we talk a couple key points I want to be able to bring up.

Just the first question fresh in my mind about the enforcement of the affordable housing.

So back when, I guess Stacey is gone, when she was here, we talked about that in great depth.

And basically, we can operate it.

We'll have to turn into the housing office every year, a report basically showing that we've complied.

Monter the income of the folks who we were renting those restricted units to, make sure they comply with the city's regulation the same as anything, and then report that to the city every year.

So that's the procedure that was outlined to us and that seems reasonable and agreeable.

As far as the vouchers.

fully tend to accept those.

I don't know if it crosses the zoning line to make that a condition of a special use permit.

It doesn't bother me if you do.

We would do that regardless.

So if that can be done, fine by me.

And then I'll go into, I guess this handout has a couple things.

It has the first page, basically a discussion of some of the questions and comments that have come up.

and just some clarifications and responses to those.

And then I'll go over those briefly and we'll go over a couple of them in more detail.

One of which is the floodplain construction.

It's been a topic of a lot of emails and things.

And one thing that should be clarified here is that that's actually not part of your vote here.

The floodplain development is permitted by right.

They've already got FEMA approval for it, already have a fill permit from the city for it.

So it's not a question of like,

Will this be built there or not?

It's a matter of what it'll be.

Because we can just build single-family houses there now.

Don't want to do that.

But effectively, that's what it's allowed, and so we already have the permits do that.

We've just been waiting, trying to get this better project approved.

So I know folks are concerned about that, but just so everyone's aware, how this housing gets built doesn't really have a bearing on what gets built.

It doesn't have a bearing on what gets disturbed basically.

We did some soil testing.

Some of the neighbors were concerned about that in context to if we're going to have a farm, we need to have soils that support that.

So we did that and it came back better than I expected actually.

So there's very small amounts of mitigation to do.

We always were planning on that.

So we worked through that.

County Process.

We have increased our affordable housing, clarified that, and reduced it to 50% AMI.

We have, as far as the mass and scale of 35 feet remains the buy right allowed now, so we're not increasing that, no matter what's buy right.

We have some thoughts on the

Special use permit conditions that I'll share.

We had our meeting back a month or so ago about the uses.

We went through the use matrix.

We've tried to eliminate anything of concern.

We did the convenience store.

I thought that, you know, I didn't want to spot the situation of the future far out where somebody wanted to say, hey, I want to expand this to be more like a little community market.

I think those are really positive.

and I didn't want to preclude that.

It's a very small scale, right?

A little 4,000 square feet.

So it can't be CVS, something like that there.

Those are pharmacies not.

and convenience stores, but I think that could be a good use for that and I don't think it would really be detrimental to the neighborhood.

So we kept that.

One thing to clarify, I know people were sitting, I think you were reading off all the uses off the proffer for everyone out there, all those uses you heard, hotels and everything else, those are not allowed.

I know you all know that, but make sure everyone out there is aware that those are the things we cannot do, not the things we can do.

The name, I'll talk about that a little bit as well.

I have not heard from this human rights, and I'm not sure I understand the difference there, but we can talk about that.

The stormwater runoff, I'm supportive of the city's position.

It's, I think, treating it as a development as a whole probably makes some sense.

We can use, like we will have some

BMPs of sorts anyway to treat the water that comes off the city, not our property, but off the rest of the city.

This is part of our own project, so we may be able to roll those into one, do all our treatment that way.

So we're agreeable to that, and we can talk about the onsite versus offsite more if you would like to.

Next page, floodplain map, just for some clarification.

On the far left is the GIS map, which you see now.

And then the middle map is the actual floodplain.

So you'll see that most of the property is out of the floodplain, not in it.

So we'll be placing a little bit of fill in the very back of the lot and that will enable the development as proposed.

So it's a very minimal amount of impact in the floodplain.

As again, we already have a permit for it.

The city's already reviewed the technical details of that back several years ago.

And the picture on the far right just gives you some context of where the size of the building is relative to the floodplain.

One of the emails that was circulated around, if you had a chance to see that, was about building the floodplain in general.

Again, it makes a point that that's sort of a different set of ordinances, a different decision, but interesting relative points.

That 1971 document has some cool information in it, one of those being the high watermark from the Camino flood in 1969, which that's the old livestock market, which is right next door.

So we looked at the elevations of those.

And just for reference, that point with the fellow standing there is about 10 feet below our project.

So it has flooded there in the past, but it was 10 feet to go before you got to our area.

So there's a considerable cushion.

We are near water.

There's a risk, a very small risk of flooding, but we're not in a spot that's going to flood every time.

Our buildings are not going to be submerged by the slightest rain.

It would take catastrophic events.

Hurricane Camille killed.

130 people or something along those lines so I mean not in Charlottesville but in its path that was a very severe storm so we hope we don't have one again for a long time.

Next page, I want to just highlight a couple conditions of special use permit that I would like you to consider some revision to.

One is condition number two, which just basically says, you know, we shall have 18 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom units.

I just worry, like, whatever, for some reason, we need to go with 18 one-bedroom units.

14, or I need to go with 20 in one bedroom because I need to make a unit different for ADA compliance, something like that.

I just don't want to be in a spot where we can't change that unit mix a little bit.

I'm happy to say the maximum number of bedrooms would be 42, so that's proposed, but I'd like to have a little flexibility to go different numbers than exactly 18 and 12.

and I'd like to also have an eight-foot setback so that we can address the articulation on the street a little better.

That's the exhibit on the right side of that page.

What we propose rather than the step back, which is what the current condition has, which is say the third floor, we'd step back five feet.

That's challenging because our units are small, and five feet is going to make it even tighter.

And so rather than that, we prefer to actually be required to shift the plane of the building within a 50 foot length.

And so if you look at this drawing, those boxes are about a 24 by 24 square.

and the hallways will be open.

So you've got basically a 25-foot distance, an open hallway, a step forward and then a 48-foot length of a plane and then another step.

So we think that condition will achieve, require some articulation on the street without potentially costing us units on the third floor.

the last one is related to the condition number nine just says that we'll develop a comprehensive traffic plan that's fine but then it implies to keep the residential and farm traffic separate I think really we need to use that same road I think as you guys have heard in the past this is not commercial farming operation we're limited to a 600-foot structure it's not delivery trucks coming in and out here it's people in pickup trucks the same kind of traffic that would come into the

the units themselves.

So I would like that to be adjusted just to provide a little more flexibility.

I guess the last thing about the staff recommendation I find very interesting.

I turned to the last corner there.

Number one says it doesn't meet the land use map.

I contend that if you treat the whole thing as a development, three acres, it does.

You count the whole county parcel, it's way beyond that.

But then the next line down, number two, says, will the proposed amendment will further the purpose of this chapter?

And staff finds that it would further the purpose of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community.

Kind of interesting that, you know, the map says this is wrong, but the project would benefit the general welfare of the entire community.

I think that's why you've had it.

You know, the changes you've looked at in your comp plan, to me, push towards developments more like this than the single family that we've seen otherwise.

So, and if I could have one more moment just to talk about the name.

Okay.

Thank you.

You were, but he told me you weren't making a presentation at all.

I tried to say so little.

There's just so much that's going on in it.

I saw the one person who was repeatedly saying, oh, his name is racist, it's white supremacy, and I've seen that.

I haven't agreed with that logic.

I'm open.

If I hear anything that says that, I won't use a name.

But what I will say is that to me, as someone who's from more of a rural background who grew up, I live in the town of Amherst.

We rode goats around our yard.

That was us.

So like when I think about, when I think of the hog wall and I read the stories at the Hookster in 2007, I feel good about that.

That's to me like a place I would live.

And I think that discussion about, you know, people who knew everybody reflects back to like, you know, where I grew up, we lived next door to the wealthiest guy in town, Amherst.

And yet, he had no qualms with our chickens running loose, our goats ate his tulips.

And I think that that, you know, to me, that's what that reminds me of.

So to me, as a sort of a, I'm not offended by hogs or living by hogs.

And so the suggestion of that hog waller is for hogs, not for people.

Maybe some people like that sort of thing.

And I think there are people who do.

And I think it's a, I think it's a lot here.

Something more concrete.

I think it's a good name.

I think it pays honor to the history there.

I'd like to keep that going.

That said, I will take any questions you have.

Thank you.

I'd like some more clarification on this new floodplain you gave us.

It looks like the topography of it matches with GIS.

You're saying that the level of the floodplain is 324 feet as opposed to there's like 331 on GIS.

It's from a flood study that was done years ago for the Willam Mills project.

So the FEMA, they don't update their map, they update the technical criteria.

And so if you go to FEMA's website and you click this parcel, it'll say, see Lomar and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And within that is a revised set of maps that shows this elevation, as you see on our proposed plan.

So it was approved several years ago.

It was a technical revision.

I can see why you wouldn't, somebody out in the audience would not know that, right?

It's hidden away.

So I fully intend to build that mix, but I know from experience that let's say I'm going to have a lot of ADA requirements, those bathrooms have to be larger.

What I would not want to come to a situation is where to meet those requirements and do the right thing with that, I'd like to have to come back to you and say I can't build these two bedroom units.

I need to make them one bedroom for some technical reason like that.

So that's the flexibility.

I'll probably be able to deal with it, but I just imagine a situation where I have to come back to ask that amendment because of something along those lines.

Maybe a wheelchair accessible ramp or something like that.

Excuse me.

So Mr. Schiff, let me be clear.

The edits in the handout that you just gave us on page three in red, are these new

No, I suppose they have not.

These would be our reading of the proposed conditions and our suggestion to you, our request of you to consider some amendments.

You guys get to make those ultimately.

Staff has a recommendation.

I have my opinions.

And to the public?

Yes.

You said that you have a FEMA permit?

We have both.

We have a CLOMAR, conditional letter of map revision, which says you can place the fill as we've shown on the plan.

This the current permit if that were to change We probably have to revise it depends so that because the the LOMAR was just approved in 2016 most likely they'll revalidate that same one right so if that's what happened is they would say this this data is still valid this location and

They may update other data because there'll be lots of other data that's not current.

But that's what would happen, most likely.

Well, but the reevaluation will be done based on presumably higher 100-year precipitation totals, right?

Well, I have an email for that that I can share momentarily if you want to, but that's my understanding.

I have the opportunity to get both county and city email, so yes, the county is working with FEMA to update the county floodplain maps, which I don't know how that would have addressed the city portion of that at all.

And I don't know how to say it.

I don't think that it seems steady, typically, so they would look at both.

Yeah.

That's why I was wondering, how will that affect the permit you have?

Those processes usually take multiple years, like three years too.

Okay.

What was your thinking in changing to 50% AMI versus 80%?

And when you say a level affordable at 50% AMI, are you taking the HUD AMI numbers, multiplying by 50, and then taking 30% of income?

We interpret that as the HUD low limits.

So there's a table HUD high is 80, HUD low is 50.

And we've just generally heard that there's not, I don't think anyone's done 50%.

And so I thought, well, if we can squeeze it in, I mean, we'll try to do it.

It's more cost to us, but I heard that was a concern, increased level of affordability.

How many are you anticipating?

Potentially three affordable units on site?

Okay.

And what is your take on how you will enforce that?

I mean, since this is not part of

It doesn't trip our calculations, which would be mandated and regulated by the city, potentially.

How is this going to be regulated?

So when Stace was here, we talked about a process where every year I have to turn in a report to her, saying, here's the people who are renting, here's their incomes, they meet this threshold, and they can live there, basically.

Technically, it's a zoning issue, right?

I think it'd be if somebody suspected I wasn't, then I guess you could do a zoning complaint, somebody could, and if I found to not be in compliance,

I think you could find me and make me perform for the proffer.

That's a little extra work for zoning folks, but I think that would be in any case when we have these proffered or special use permit affordable housing, that's probably the ultimate enforcement mechanism is that mechanism, not necessarily the housing office.

But if there's some language that anyone wants to insert in special use permit about that, I'm not opposed to that.

Thank you.

We didn't say.

It could be either.

We would probably do them on the ground floor so they'd be accessible.

And then it's just a matter of what mix.

If there's a preference, that could be a condition too.

Any questions?

We can move to public hearing on these and then we can go into discussion after that.

I will ask, if y'all don't mind, one question for Miss Robertson.

A proffer is a zoning regulation the same as anything that's in your zoning ordinance.

So if City Council accepts a proffer, that proffer becomes a new zoning requirement.

In order to pursue a violation, zoning staff has to develop evidence that there is a violation.

Part of the problem that we've had over the years is that when

A proffer promises something but doesn't have specific requirements about how it's supposed to be done, then it's very difficult to enforce.

Under our zoning ordinance in section 3412, we have a program and we have regulations associated with that program and it's through that combination of things that

Our housing coordinator has been monitoring developments that have to provide a number of units under that regulation.

Thank you.

Okay.

Questions?

Then I will open the public hearing.

So please come up, state your name.

You have three minutes for your comments.

Your comments will be about the rezoning and the special use permit.

Good evening, Ms. Green and members of the Planning Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the proposed project at 918 Nassau Street.

David, my name is David Katz.

I think that building new homes on a floodplain is a bad idea, and I suggest that the Planning Commission should vote against the project.

The project will be in the 100-year floodplain.

This means that every year there is a 1 percent chance of there being a flood.

This may sound small, but it means that during the lifetime of a 30-year mortgage, for example, there's a 26 percent chance of that site being flooded, one in four chance.

I suggest that none of us would really want to risk our mortgage on a one in four chance.

This area is prone to flooding.

Based on the 1972 Army Corps of Engineers report that Mr. Shimp had referenced, in the 47 year period from 1924 to 1971, there were five 100 year floods.

1947, 1 in 100 year flood.

You do the math.

These floods were in 1924, 1937, 1942, 1955, and then Hurricane Camille in 1969.

During the 1969 flood, people were seen rowing down Nassau Street.

That's the whole extent of Nassau Street, the low side by the Barnes and the high side by Linden.

There have probably been other floods in the almost 50 years since the date of the report, including this past year.

In the presentation, I did not see mention of a U.S.

Corps of Engineers and a Section 404 permit application for building in or near a navigable waterway

or an EPA or Virginia DCNR NPDES permit for the stormwater discharge for the proposed site.

Are they in process or are we jumping the gun here?

There are other environmental issues that others will address later on tonight.

But this is marshland.

It's a natural filter for silt and other pollutants, keeping them out of Moore's Creek, which is already an impacted stream, and then the Rivanna River, which, per the comp plan, is a natural resource that the city should protect.

Disappearing marshland is a known environmental concern here and around the country.

As noted before, this is a project that would be on both Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville land.

The county is not allowing any development on their side of the boundary.

Do the land features change just because we've drawn an invisible line in the sand that divides the city from the county?

Shouldn't we consult the county partners more about the proposed land use before approving the project?

I request that the Planning Commission deny the application for both rezoning and the special use permit for this project.

Hi.

My name is Karen Katz.

I also live in the city of Charlottesville.

And thank you very much for the opportunity to talk with you about a development plan for an I-18, Nassau Street, commonly referred to as Hogwarts.

It's ironic, I think, that the name may have more significance than we thought, as it appears that what we are wrestling with now is how to respond to a pig in a poke.

A pig in a poke is commonly, is defined as an offer or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first.

We have faith that you were earnestly engaged in an effort to act as responsible agents of our community in examining the rights and propriety of accepting this application to build on land that was purchased in 1997 for $5,000, now valued at $33,700 monetary values that accurately reflect the land's limited use for future development.

Now that our community finds ourselves threatened by the effects of unprecedented

Severe weather offense, this land has increased in value exponentially as a marshland, as a sponge and a filter to manage stormwater that flows from upstream.

This land has been and continues to be recognized as unsuitable for building.

If Charlottesville were not plumb out of land that is suitable for development, this application would not have been submitted.

The proposal before you details extraordinary methods proposed by talented and well-meaning engineers to make the land into something that it is not intended to be.

Yours is an advisory role.

As such, you've been empowered by the City Council to base your decisions on best building practices and the preponderance of current thinking.

which advises against building residential housing in a floodplain, one that is also situated within a stone's throw from a floodway where construction is specifically forbidden by national flood insurance regulations.

You're faced with the unenviable task of deciding whether to rezone this site, a site that for as long as we have records has acted as a natural sponge and filter, absorbing storm water runoff from the city and filtering it before it enters Moore's Creek and eventually the Rivanna River.

Moore's Creek, officially designated as an impaired waterway, is in close proximity to communities located south of the CSX tracks.

It has not benefited from the kind of rehabilitation that has been so beneficial to the communities north of the CSX tracks.

The geographic disparity has, this geographic disparity has troubling implications and offers us an opportunity to engage in better planning and development.

I'm sorry, that's three minutes for both.

Okay.

Mark Kavett.

Definitely wish I had more than three minutes because I've heard some things earlier that seem to be contradictory, not being against being... What's the word I want to use?

Not with what we found out in some of the research that we've been doing.

but I did want to point out that DEQ has not heard about this plan as of yesterday.

and we go on to my prepared statement.

Tonight, the Planning Commission is tasked with an important decision on land use, not a political decision on land use.

City Council makes political decisions.

We all want more land to build on.

We want more apartments and affordable housing.

However, we must stress the following points that are key to this decision.

We should not be putting people and property at risk, nor should we be putting development profits before our ability to ensure the safety of people and property.

We should not be building in a floodplain where there have been five 100 flood floods since 1936.

Let's not forget the flooding in the past, this past spring.

These floods have been documented by the Daily Progress and the Army Corps of Engineers.

This is not best practice.

The Army Corps of Engineers did a report at the request of the city and county.

In the report, they noted the area around Moore's Creek and the Rivanna are rural.

For this reason, major floods were almost unnoticed because almost all the land was undeveloped.

So it wasn't a big deal if some woods got flooded or a new steel bridge got taken out.

It's only inconvenience.

Most time is hardly even noticed.

However, the Corps predicted that with development and the increase in non-porous surfaces, flooding would increase and cause much more damage.

During the last major storm in 1969, the flooding was so extreme that the residents of Nassau Street were forced to get around by boat on Nassau Street.

Charlottesville needs to be proud of what we create 100 years from now.

We don't want to build the slums of tomorrow.

Most of the world is moving away from building floodplains.

Why is Charlottesville even thinking about it?

We cannot ignore the science to fit our needs.

We cannot build on floodplains and then expect those homes and people to be safe from flooding.

They are in a floodplain.

And I was even told by a member of city staff that the entire area was in the floodplain.

Changing the zoning or awarding new zoning for this development is simply not best building practices.

Finally, we need to follow the comprehensive plan and those developments on Nassau Street will encounter to that plan.

It is incumbent on you, the Planning Commission, the stewards of our land, to engage in due diligence and foster the highest and best use of this property.

I ask that you say no to this request.

Since I got a little bit of extra time, I'm going to make a few other comments.

City Council is on record that they want to change zoning away from highway corridor for this area in Avon.

So why are we even entering this idea of expanding?

In fact, I've even spoken about this before this meeting.

Commission about the need to make that change and get that forward, which the city council said they wanted to do.

Lower affordability housing units.

We're not going to solve affordable housing units by just putting in one or two places, one or two units or three units at a location and doing it only for 10 or 12 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Fran Joseph, I live in Charlottesville and I just have a concern I want to say before I cede my time.

I just want to say what Mark said, add on to what Mark said at the end, that I worry about this carrot of affordable housing being placed out front in order to get an SUP or rezoning when it's for 12 years.

I don't think we're going to need less affordable housing in 12 years.

I think we need a plan that's going to give us affordable housing long term.

This seems like a terrible way to get an SUP by saying

here.

This is attractive.

Let's go for it.

We don't see time at the Planning Commission.

Okay.

Okay.

If you've got something else, you've got a few more minutes.

My name is Kimber Hawkey.

I'm a Belmont-Carlton resident.

So for me, this is an issue of who we say we are in the comp plan versus what we do.

In the comp plan, we say we want a green city, clean, healthy air, natural areas, a healthy ecosystem, improving the streams and ensuring permanent protections of streamside lands, et cetera, et cetera.

However, here we are considering rezoning to build a high density in a natural floodplain and destroying a natural habitat that serves as a filter for Moore's Creek and the Rivanna.

In Goal 2, we say we want a robust urban forest.

We want to protect and expand the urban tree canopy, et cetera, et cetera, versus this again, this development is completely opposite to having this.

We must maintain this area as it is.

We plant more trees there.

Trees help during flooding.

and houses and impervious surfaces make flooding worse.

In our housing vision, we say we want quality housing, viable neighborhoods and to ensure the environmental sustainability of these areas.

However, building on a floodplain is not a viable solution, will not make a viable neighborhood with quality housing.

Given the frequency of flooding in the area, the city cannot ensure the environmental sustainability of these projects in this neighborhood.

In Goal 5, we say that we value the Rivanna.

We want to promote the Riverine system, etc., etc.

However, here we are losing a natural wetland filter and there will be negative effects on Moore's Creek.

The environmental dangers of farm runoff are known.

Farm runoff will cause further pollution of Moore's Creek and ultimately affect the Rivanna.

In Goal 6, we talk about proper stormwater management.

This seems to be, there are a lot of questions remain.

I've talked to Keith Fowler of the DEQ.

He knows nothing of this project, neither does the Army Corps of Engineers as of today.

A lot of questions remain.

And he specifically stated to me that there could be absolutely no fill allowed on a wetland area.

So there's a lot of unknowns there.

In Goal 9, we say that we want a resilient local food system, increase the resiliency and opportunities of local food systems.

So the urban farm seems like a good idea.

I'm a gardener.

Sounds like a good idea.

However, the natural wetlands area is not the right place for such a farm for multiple reasons.

The questions remain regarding bringing in the fill, which cannot be done on the wetland area according to the DEQ.

So, finally, isn't it a safer and easier option to create a resilient local food system for residents in Nassau by simply promoting community gardens as well as maybe a farmer's market at Reeves Park?

Residents would have more food independence that way and we wouldn't have to destroy a current wetland forest or build risky floodplain developments.

You did it.

I did it.

Thank you so much.

That is all that's on our list, but if there's anyone else that would like to speak about this rezoning or special use permit, please come up, state your name, and keep in mind a three-minute time limit.

Michael Payne, Belmont resident.

I would just sort of reiterate what people have already said.

I just think Planning Commission should really take seriously the environmental impact, extensive floodplains.

To my knowledge, several years ago, there was a nonprofit that explored this site for building housing and ultimately decided that it was not feasible and that in order for them to do it, they would have to build the housing on stilts.

And I just want to touch on, I think this touches on a broader issue for the planning commission in the city is that we have to figure out a way to incorporate climate change into planning commission decisions and into city development decisions.

Across the country, floodplain maps are outdated.

What used to be 100-year floodplains are now more accurately 10-year floodplains.

That's only going to accelerate.

We know that there's going to be more frequent and more severe storms in the area.

and that's just going to require us to think to take that into account when we're making any decisions and figure, you know, how are floodplains outdated, how is this going to impact regions beyond just one immediate development project because of that.

That's it.

Hey, thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to these applications?

I will close the public hearing and I will open this up for discussion and or motion.

Chair Green, we have some new information here.

Actually, I wouldn't mind that.

I don't know how much comment I can give the floodplain information provided in Mr. Shint's package.

As far as staff looked at GIS, we do have a floodplain administrator, Tony Edwards.

So I mean, I really can't speak to that.

Can I ask you a question and maybe help you?

So when the GIS map, where does that information come from?

That's where I would assume it would come from.

Now, the floodplain administrator might have different maps.

But if I pull up FEMA, I should be able to get their maps like this, which matches the city, not the thing that's called the accurate maps in this packet.

I'll share this with you all.

This is the FEMA map and the LOMAR permit number.

Lisa, can we get that up so that they can zoom in?

I can push in.

Madam Chair.

Sir.

Why are we...

Why is there a question about this?

Okay.

And they felt like, I'm sorry for my ignorance, I forget what I read.

They reviewed it, but the city is very limited on what they can do.

We have in our ordinance we have an overlay zoning district called a flood hazard overlay and in that zoning district there are certain things listed as being permitted or not within a floodplain and so if

The items proposed to be constructed within a floodplain are allowed by our ordinance.

They will have to be flood proofed or treated in accordance with standards required by federal regulations or federal laws.

But it's really more of a

It's more of a verification of use from a zoning perspective to make sure the use is allowed within our overlay district and after that it's a building permit issue to make sure that the structures being constructed are compliant with the requirements for

Waterproofing or that sort of thing.

But we do have standards of review.

So we have standards of review for the zoning text amendment or zoning map amendment and different standards of review for the special use permit.

and it says there's four standards of review for the proposed amendments.

Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan.

Whether the proposed amendment will further the purpose of this chapter and general welfare of the entire community.

Whether there's a need and justification for the change.

and when pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of a property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property and on public services and facilities.

So it seems to me the question of where the floodplain is does fall within those standards of review because for one the comprehensive plan addresses floodplains.

I think that the final determination of specifically where the floodplain is in relation to specific structures to be constructed is something that happens at a later date.

So for this stage, a general idea of where the floodplain is, is appropriate and it's appropriate to note

And the floodplain administrator is already part of this.

In fact, he spent some lengthy time on the phone with some of our citizens just yesterday.

So he's well in the mix of this specific development.

And it can also get complicated because there are certain areas that don't ever get necessarily specifically delineated that there are certain areas which you actually use approximated locations for even in determining whether or not a building permit should issue or what

Floodproofing requirements would be.

Matt, do you have any initial thoughts or comments on the edits that have been recommended by the applicant in this handout?

I know this is pretty quick and came

was unexpected and you may not be the appropriate staff person to be reviewing these.

Yeah, and I can just provide some clarification.

So there would be a little concern with changing when you have your kind of preliminary site plan that came along with the SCP portion because we're talking about just the SCP with the conditions.

So the material that was submitted was very specific in these number two and A, B, C, and D. So that's why that information was conditioned because that was what the applicant brought forward in their application.

So those, I would have a little hesitation with some change because it wasn't reflected in the application.

Number four,

The City Urban Designer did the review for the conditions.

I can tell you the intent that staff was trying to give to Planning Commission and City Council would be if this proposal did move forward, what are some things that could help mitigate the impact, and a street wall was a concern.

You're transitioning from the Linden Lofts, even though they're

They are turned, but you're still, you know, you have a wall going into single family homes.

So how can you try to break that up?

So the street wall regulation that the city urban designer came up with on that condition.

So I don't want to speak to the way that change would work or not.

Commission, if you could, you know, you can look at the two and see.

you know what you think but that's a little background on that for number nine the traffic engineer was involved with crafting this condition so again I wouldn't want to say one way or the other but again the background the concern was if you're

Something operating as a farm and something operating as a residential, but you only have one entrance.

There's going to be some conflicts.

Is there a way to resolve it?

Traffic, I think, felt that working at the final cycling level was a way to resolve it.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with new

edits new changes being made by the applicant at our meeting, not giving the staff the opportunity to review them ahead of time and not giving the public the opportunity to review them so that they can be part of their comments.

and these are significant changes.

Number four to me is very different than what's being proposed, is very different than what was the staff's original recommendation.

Mr. LaHondro, hold on one second.

I want us to go back to

Are we out of question period?

Are we done with this?

Oh, sorry.

So I'll make it a question.

I think we've had that conversation now.

So what you have before you is you have staff's recommendations in this SUP report.

So that usually goes out about a week.

Prior.

You have an applicant who looked at that, came up with kind of his counter.

He's offering that to y'all.

Y'all, this body will make recommendations on conditions.

We're still in questions.

One last question.

That condition for if imposed, the establishing a step back

after the second story.

That's what I think the applicant is putting across.

He's saying this condition could impact the number of units.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

So my comment would be, and it's not something that I haven't made before, and it's not just to Mr. Shimp, it's to any developer or person coming to present to this body.

It is not fair to the Planning Commission, staff, or our city residents that people come the night of a

of their presentation with new information or with handouts if they want us to review something it should be sent to us prior to so that not only we can review it but our citizens can also have the time to review it and make comments on it as needed

I feel like at this point, whether it's a resident or developer, if you're coming to speak, do not hand us handouts.

It is not fair to you.

It's not fair to us.

It's not fair all the way around for us to make a decision about our city moving forward in three minutes.

That's the reason why we get packets.

That's why we have at least a week to review them.

If we did not need that time to properly plan, which we are the Planning Commission, then we would not have that in place.

So I feel like from this point forward, I don't want a resident or developer handing me anything that's going to supposedly sway my

Thank you Ms. Dell I think I think we've already had that conversation which is why it's a little frustrating.

Oh, I completely agree with Taneia and I have the same opinion about this.

The changes recommended are not minor.

So I agree with Taneia in a general sense for sure that we should be getting this sort of thing in advance.

However, to me, the substantive

The fact that we got from this packet is this change in the floodplain, which I agree it would have been great for staff and the floodplain administrator to have reviewed.

But I think I would separate that from these condition edits.

Since, I mean, essentially these red lines are just what developers normally just tell us at the podium.

They say, oh, you were going to impose this condition, but that's hard or creates a hardship on me for this or that reason.

so please don't impose that condition or please change it and you know half the time we're imposing conditions that weren't recommended by staff and we're just kind of making up on the spot so I don't think that this set of changes and conditions would trigger my frustration over not having had information in the past however this whole floodplain issue is I mean I think it's pretty relevant it makes a difference

Just to clarify the process, the rezoning, a motion on that would need to come forward first.

There would need to be a motion on the SUP as well.

Well, it was a couple of 19s.

Yeah.

Madam Chair, I have a motion.

I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from R2 to Highway on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice.

We have a motion and a second.

I think given the housing crisis the city is in, particularly if it is true that this property is barely in the floodplain by barely a foot or two, and the fact that we're getting three affordable units at 50% AMI, it would be a real shame to deny this project.

I guess for me, three units is not really gonna make a big difference, even though I'm glad that he is coming forward with the 50% AMI that is something different, so I do appreciate that.

The three units is not really going to move the needle on the affordable housing crisis.

My second issue is that even though I know the city has already granted him permits to build in the floodplain, but are we looking at the long-term consequences of building in that floodplain?

So I just want to put that out there.

I think on the affordable unit front, I think you're right, like three is obviously only a very small part of 3,300.

I mean, even before I joined this commission, so many times I see three here and four there get shot down, and all of those do add up.

And I think I agree on the impact on Morse Creek.

I'd be sympathetic.

And can I get a clarification?

What application are we voting on?

So I'll make a comment then since we're still in comment phase.

I'm looking at the actual 16-03-1207P, the edit for the permit, and I don't see a change from FEMA on this application.

that is shown on this floodplain map that was given to us today that says the city was wrong.

This is the floodplain map.

So I don't see the same thing on whatever FEMA is showing on this map.

I see the floodplain map looking more like what was done from the city.

I do recall the applicant said that the change wouldn't have been reflected on the map and only in the elevation of the flood.

Well, you've got this floodplain map coming, showing you very, very conveniently dipping down for this permit and only showing a very few.

But I'm telling you, on the permit that's on the FEMA website that was issued, it's showing it looking like this.

You can request.

What is the rest of the commission?

I mean, here's the thing.

This is not a debate.

The applicant has been before us three times, even in a work session.

So I have a question for you all.

Okay.

FEMA issues the LOMAR.

It affects the elevations, the zone AE.

I've got to download it.

And you look at the floodplain study.

There's tables in there that have the floodplain elevation for different cross sections.

In those, it outlines the new elevations.

Those elevations match with the field survey, which we've done, to find the floodplain in the zone AE.

There will be steps after construction to map and sort of permanently, on this property, establish some meets and bounds, what's known to insurance companies, saying the floodplain does not affect these buildings.

Floodplain is six feet or so lower than the buildings proposed.

No.

Because this is the last spot at this applicant.

Is that rear building raised six feet, more than six feet?

Yes, there would be approximately six feet of fill placed under that building.

I would just like to say moving forward it would be very helpful and I guess city staff has their hands tied too.

But we keep getting these applications where the first part is it does not match our comprehensive plan.

And we are basing this decision on the comprehensive plan that has been adopted in 2013.

It was adopted.

Not the comprehensive plan that's being worked on.

So I want us to make sure we're clear about that.

So we have a motion and a second.

I'm still looking for clarification from those who made the motion and seconded it.

The application, not what we've received today.

Oh.

Yes.

Okay.

Ms. Dowell?

No.

No.

The motion fails through two.

Do we have to get to a motion that does pass?

I have a motion.

Sure.

A motion and a second.

Any further discussion on this motion?

Miss Creasy, will you call roll?

And Ms. Green?

Aye.

Motion for denial passes.

The second thing we must discuss is and have a motion and a vote on is the special use permit.

That motion with the...

I do have a question.

At what point

and this is for legal counsel.

Okay.

The vote that you take on it with the recommendation cannot be in the affirmative because it wouldn't be applicable but you all would be sending forth recommendations to city council and they could choose a different route on the rezoning so any information that you would want to share with them if they choose to do that

So further discussion or further or motion?

And I am just going to for the record, in my tenure of doing zoning,

You have to have 47 conditions, and I'm sorry there's only 13, but we have room for more.

I just feel like it's not the appropriate place to try to make something fit a square peg in a round hole.

A few comments on conditions 11, 12, and 13.

Yes, ma'am.

More format comments.

Eleven is intended to deal with identification, I assume, of wetlands that may be on the property.

The way you normally reference that is to seek a delineation of wetlands, which might be on a particular property, and then provide documentation of the results of that delineation

as part of a site plan process or as part of any application for an erosion and sediment control plan.

On item 12, normally a SUP condition wouldn't impose requirements on two local governments, so I would say that this probably just could be tweaked a little bit to say that the applicant

shall cooperate with any joint or cross jurisdictional implementation of the VESCP or VSMP regulations.

And then on number 13,

This is just a statement of what the law requires.

Stormwater management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP.

I'd say that that's a given and that I'm not quite sure, other than to point out to the applicant that there are state technical criteria that apply.

I'm not sure this adds anything in addition to requirements that normally comply but if the intention is to say that on-site water quality treatment will be provided during the development it would be better to clarify that in complying with state regulations

I think they could just be nailed down.

What I am hearing you potentially suggest is in the event, and Miss Creasy, in the event that City Council overturns our decision, which has been known to happen, and the special use permit goes through, we should make a comment based off of the recommendations whether if we approve or deny how that goes.

So if there's a comment that yes, these conditions if overturned is what should move forward with some specific language on 11, 12 and 13.

Is that what I'm understanding?

I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit for subject properties in the R2 application ZM18-00001 under review to rezone from R2 to Highway Zone to permit residential development.

Of course there are.

Well I mean you could still vote no on the denial of motion.

With the motion, you note that it would need to be for denial.

So based off of the, so we're going to need to take a vote.

We're going to need to deny and take a vote on that.

Maybe that passes, maybe that doesn't.

I don't know how this works, but we have to make a comment that if Council chooses to approve, but we still have to take a vote.

We recommend the conditions on 18 and 19 with the changes as recommended by legal counsel.

Yes or no?

I don't know.

So you have a motion, so your motion was recommend denial of the rezoning.

So the SUP cannot happen based on that denial.

So you would make a motion to deny the SUP, but you can make recommendations that go in the memo to City Council.

Planning Commission took these actions, they recommended denial, but should Council choose to approve the rezoning and approve the SUP, here are Planning Commission's thoughts on the conditions.

Well, it's not a motion.

Your motion's separate.

This is just information that will be included in the report.

When staff sends a memo to City Council, they take the public hearing, what happened at the public hearing, public comment, the discussion from Planning Commission, and they mention the motions that were passed.

It wouldn't be in the motion, it would just be should City Council choose to approve the SUP, here's Planning Commission's thoughts on the conditions.

And they can be the conditions staff recommended, additional conditions, strikethroughs.

Otherwise, without that, technically, we're the technicality that looks at this.

So otherwise, without that, then they're left with no conditions.

But we have to say, in the event you choose to overturn our decision.

It just sounds really contradictory.

And a second.

Why don't you vote on that motion first.

And then someone can make a motion to offer some recommendations for conditions in the event City Council should approve the rezoning in SUP.

Mr. Lahendro?

Aye.

Ms. Dowell?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion for denial passes so I will make a motion that we send to City Council in the event that these motions are these votes are overturned

I'd like to make an amendment.

I'd like to add a condition.

At a minimum, stormwater management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP, or sorry, edit the condition about the VSMP.

Yeah, and it's changing that last sentence from preference to stronger, greatest possible extent.

What do I ask?

Approve that motion?

Approve that amendment?

And then who did the second?

Okay.

We have a motion.

An acceptance of an amendment.

So it's cleaner if after motion's been made and seconded, if there's an amendment approved,

It should be proposed, it should be seconded, and the amendment voted on each time.

I was going to say, if you could just give us all those at one time, that would be fantastic.

And I guess we need to vote on those each individually, though.

Just to comment on that other thing, if they decide that the all on-site quality treatment of the water

treatment of the water damages the river because it's all on site and it can't be treated properly, I'm not so sure that's the best motion.

Does that make sense?

So you now have an amendment that's been made and seconded.

I'd suggest you vote on that one.

13.

At a minimum, stormwater management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP.

Can I ask a question?

That is the staff recommendation, right?

I do.

We can vote on this.

That's fine.

It makes sense.

It's just so much extra because we just made a point.

I feel like we go back and forth and it's not just this all the time.

It's way, we make stuff way more complicated than it needs to be.

So I can't, just leave it like it is.

That's fair.

We have a motion and a second on the table for them as is and we have an amendment.

We need to vote on that amendment to 13.

The motion has been made and accepted and seconded.

Mr. Lahendro?

Aye.

Ms. Dowell?

No.

No.

I know we got to get through, it's got to be through this process, I know, I know.

I'm sorry I made the motion.

I thought we were there.

So that is my apologies to the Commission as a whole.

Mr. Stolzenberg, can you read the list of things you want to add to this recommendations and then we'll have to look at those in a form of an amendment and maybe discuss them first.

I don't, okay.

If this is to be built,

After this morning, the developer, and I'm just making sure that I'm clear, that the developer needed that.

Remove the specific numbers from 2A.

So let me get this straight.

No.

So for 2A, I'd like the first two edits and not the third, the addition.

So let me, alright let's just, so if y'all go to the, Claire we're gonna go back to the, but I thought we just voted on not using this.

Is that what we?

That was the rezoning.

There's a rezoning.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So let's just get a kind of the will the commission on to a striking those first two to match the developers comments.

Do we have?

Is there?

Is there favorable comments to doing that before we go through this whole process?

How about that?

So right now we have a list of things that could become proposed amendments.

They are striking condition 4, accepting the developers proposed changes to 2A,

accepting the developers proposed changes to 2B.

2C.

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.

So my proposed amendment to 2A is to accept the first two edits the developer proposed but not the third.

2C I guess is a potential one.

Okay, hold on.

So I don't have a copy of the proposal.

So there were four proposed edits to 2A.

Is that correct?

So your proposal is to

So that's 2A.

So what's the temperature on that?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, first off, four, if we keep it as is, conflicts with that, because if it's going to remove units, then the whole thing becomes invalid.

The developer suggested they need the flexibility.

I don't really care so much about that.

Personally, I'd love it for them to be 32 bedrooms.

32 or 42?

I don't see why we should be limiting it to 12 two bedrooms.

He took that out.

Because you want it to have the potential to go to 60.

Or whatever.

Okay.

That's different than what they requested.

Just putting that out there.

Right.

I'm just going to tell you, Rory, I'm going to say this and then we can save my vote for

In the interest of us taking this to council, because if they're going to change something, they're going to change it, I'm going to stick with my recommended conditions that I put in the motion.

If there's will for all that, then please let me know and I'll accept the amendment.

That's why I want to go through this.

For the simple fact that we made a big deal about this coming for us at the end of the night.

Okay, but that's the main motion on the table.

2A, what's the will of the commission on adding that as an amendment?

Is that something you'll vote for or no, yes, no?

Poll.

I will rescind my initial, yeah.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I thought we weren't even supporting the project.

So the fact that we're taking all of this time to go through all of these edits is quite frustrating to me.

It's very frustrating.

People are making amendments that they don't even know the amendments that they're making.

This is wasting not only my time, your time, but the city's time, our residents' time.

So I think at this point we need to figure out are we going to accept what was given to us today or what was on the paper in the packet.

No, no, no, no.

Okay.

I do think it's important because when was the last time council didn't just take our recommendations and say hey we're just gonna impose all these conditions.

Okay.

Council's not here.

So how about this?

If you all don't want to do this, don't do it.

Council's not here.

They have to have their own public hearing.

Staff will and the applicant can present their recommendations to council separately and if they approve the rezoning and decide to approve the SUP, they can craft the conditions without your input.

We were somewhat divided on these.

Second.

Thank you.

Well there wasn't a motion yet.

We did make a motion for the conditions.

I made a motion for the conditions as outlined for staff on page 18 and 19.

But there's been no motion as of yet to amend the main motion.

Okay.

So.

It was the motion.

It was denied.

My motion on four is on the table waiting for a second.

Right.

A motion for striking out four altogether.

No second.

Okay, so that one dies on the vine.

It's been a lot said.

It's been a lot going back and forth.

Sure.

You all are back to putting forth information to council in the event that they choose to move forward with an approval of the rezoning and the special use permit.

that attached to the special use permit that there's a number of conditions that they can consider in their deliberation and those are listed on page 18 and 19 of the special use permit staff report.

Numbers 11, 12 and 13 are going to be clarified further by legal and we had that discussion a little bit further so we'd backtrack the tape and help them.

through that but it had to do with the specifics of delineation of wetlands permit and how that's stated in there for that the applicant would cooperate in any sort of joint governmental initiative to do review for number 12.

Let's just take the, let's just call, let's see what happens.

Miss Dowell?

Aye.

Aye.

The motion passes for

Council to look at these conditions with potential clarification.

So, if they go against our recommendation, yes, for sure.

Couple things, I was going to give you guys some information on, I want to say one thing about the Hogwarts thing, and I'm sorry, but I will.

The hot water name, I think, should really listen to the Human Rights Commission, if this were to pass.

Because it's not really about how it makes you feel.

It's about how it makes other people feel.

So while it makes you feel great, that's part of what we're talking about about white supremacy.

It's not about how it makes you feel.

It makes other people feel.

So I'd have to say that.

I'm sorry.

Second thing is FEMA is in the process of updating county floodplain maps.

and has asked the community to provide input.

So if you don't know this, but this is coming from the county and this is on county property, not on, I guess, I mean it does adjacent.

Are there locations in the county you'd like a detailed study?

Are there areas of the flooding where you know or think area maps are wrong?

There is a meeting about this, Thursday morning, two days from now, 9 a.m., county office building,

Chris Green, Conference Room 246.

Okay.

Thank you all and that does conclude this public hearing for these two items.

We do have three other items to be heard.

All three are zoning text amendments.

I'd like to propose we maybe take ten minutes and then come back.

Is there any objection to a 10-minute recess?

Thank you.

Do I just ask you for a link?

So I'll write to you and say, hey, is this going to be online?

Well, you've got mine.

Can I ask you guys a question?

So, there's all this stuff about putting in fill instead of plug laying or building up the soil and putting on stilts.

And that meeting that I was in the other day, Blake, I believe he said, and this is something else that someone else said at the T.Q.

that you can,

You can't put, fill, or disturb waterways or creeks or whatever so that you push water onto your neighbors.

So if this is a floodplain and you fill the floodplain, won't that push water when it comes onto neighbors?

I know that they all had Tony's ear part of it yesterday.

Well, I didn't have it the other side.

I ran out of time where I thought I did tonight, so I didn't say it.

If they're filling in the floodplain, that's going to push water.

You can't have any freeze.

Who should I ask again?

Tony Edwards has a web site, Tube Lake can provide that.

So they couldn't be able to get into this site yet, because we don't have a site plan at this point, because they have to put one together.

Okay, so BMEs are called best plans.

I don't know if Mike talked to the chief of people at home.

He felt that he's, for example, with the wetland area.

Well, it is considered a wetland.

They're not, I don't know.

It's a floodplain.

Well, the county side is not supposed to be considered a floodplain.

Yeah, I will thank you.

All right.

I knew we couldn't do this in 10 minutes, but maybe we're refreshed and rejuvenated and ready to go.

Miss Dowell is going to hand sanitize.

So she won't infect us and that's fantastic as far as I'm concerned.

But I think we can go ahead and at least read the next item on the agenda for

Public Hearing, and that is ZT 18-11-05, do I need the gavels back?

Sorry about that.

ZT 18-11-05, Amusement Centers, the proposed amendment to the text of the city's zoning ordinance, City Code Section 34-480,

34-796 and 34-1200 to revise the definition of amusement center and identify the zoning classifications where this use is allowed.

Madam Chairwoman, members of the commission, it's been a while since I've been up here.

This is a proposed zoning text amendment to the definition to amusement center regulations.

In the initiation for this, we discussed looking at the definition as well as the use matrices where these particular uses are permitted.

And I do want to, I guess I'll touch on the definition.

The definition of amusement center is essentially three electronic games for which you have to pay to activate in some fashion, whether it's dropping a coin in them or paying someone to turn them on.

or more than one billiard table, which you have to pay to use.

So that's an amusement center under our code.

As we show it, it's allowed by right in one district in the city, the highway corridor.

It's allowed by special use in a bunch of other corridors that are listed in the staff report and then not permitted in some other corridors.

So in evaluating this, and I had a really good discussion with our

I'm Assistant Zoning Administrator about this.

We kind of identified, as I showed in the staff report, got three applications of this definition.

And one is sort of your typical restaurant that might have three or four games in the corner and you have your golf game, your hunting game, and I don't know, some of your classic games.

I don't want to use any names for brands or anything, give anybody free advertising here on Channel 10.

and you know people use them while waiting or something like that and we all know what that was like growing up.

Secondly, this definition also would cover what we would classically know as an arcade, which is just rows and rows of electronic machines of some sort that are standing by themselves.

That's this lone purpose of the business.

They don't engage in anything else.

There's just the games.

And then we come up with a third option, which is a hybrid between the two.

Then you've seen the ads for these types of establishments where

They're sort of oriented more towards adults.

There's food.

There's seating.

There's also a large number of probably more modern games that maybe cost a little more, and they're advertising the back and forth between them.

And in all of those cases when discussing this, we're kind of trying to go back and forth.

Do we do buy right?

Do we do special use permit?

Finally, we just kind of came to the conclusion that

the games themselves really aren't causing any problems in any one of these types of businesses what could potentially be causing problems is just a poorly managed business so we did you know these types of businesses were regulated a lot more in you know 30 years ago when they were sort of social gathering spots Missy might have remembered the arcade at Greenbrier Mall but yeah see we both were there those places are

Chesapeake Ridge, Missy and I went to the same high school down in Chesapeake.

So we both remember, yes, the den of iniquity that was the arcade on the food court at the Greenbrier Mall doesn't exist anymore, so I'm not slandering them.

and so they were kind of a social gathering space for teens, young adults that you know didn't have video games.

Video gaming industry being what it is, these places are largely nostalgic in nature.

We do have one in the city if you don't know where it is I can tell you but it's so they've kind of not because they're no longer this kind of concern around the

the the problems that arise when you have these types of institutions and really staff's opinion is that they not be highly regulated as they are so we are suggesting that we move this to a provisional use permit which a provisional use permit you might be familiar with that for music halls that where essentially you can walk in

Fill out a form.

You have permission to use this as long as you agree to the conditions that are listed in the code.

And the conditions we're proposing are the same conditions that we use for music calls, which is if you have a certain number of calls for service, we can revoke your permit.

I think it's four in the calendar year.

So once you go beyond four, if you become a problem because you're not managing your business very well, we can go in and say take out all your machines.

So that's kind of an incentive to run your business the right way.

but other than that so if you look through the code there we advise making it a provisional use permit in most conditions the one places where we would change that we would keep special use permit is the corner district that's just I think partly because of traffic concerns and I

Coroner has some interesting things going on with you know just the pedestrian access along there so I think you know you know a really intense use that had this gaming component in the wrong spot could potentially cause some issues so I think we'd want to do that at a level of review especially use permit just to see how you'd manage in the crowds what are your hours of operation things like that we are proposing to strike it from the South Street corridor and the South Street corridor being

Kind of a residential area that's not really, it just doesn't seem like we'd ever grant one, even by special use permit in that zone, so I think we just remove the possibility of ever doing it, given the character of that district, which is a fairly small mixed-use district.

So that's our recommendation and then adding in the regulations for provisional use permit.

Commissioner Stolzenberg mentioned another section of the code that does deal with provisional use permits, section 34-181B.

I just reviewed that today I don't see anything in there while we didn't include that here we don't propose any amendments I think we probably do just for clarity sake need to go back and do revise section 181 at some point to include an up-to-date list of provisional use permits but I think all of those rules still apply to any provisional use permit in the city so I don't think we're we're kind of

making it so you can't enforce these rules by not updating that section.

But I do, it's a good catch and we probably should update it just so that, you know, anyone perusing gets the cross reference.

And I'll be happy to take any questions you may have on this matter.

So it'll impact two existing businesses that are operating right now that are not in compliance with the zoning ordinance.