--------- I called the Charlottesville, regular business meeting to order. We did not have a closed session, so we'll just roll right into a regular business meeting. And we'll begin with a moment, silence. I think we all had a little bit of anxiety as to, earlier today about what we thought was happening. You've been gladly, nothing did. But this is kind of a moment of silence. Thank you all so much. The next item on the agenda is an announcement. Yeah. Is that is that even? Thank you.
Just read on. Okay. Really good sound on the phone. Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was. Are there any announcements? Yes. I have two. The first is that the November neighborhood walk will be this Sunday in the Venable District, meeting at Trailblazer Elementary School at 01:00 on Sunday. So it's an easy, like, two ish mile walk around the neighborhood. If you live there, please come join. If you don't live there, please come join and maybe explore a neighborhood you're not quite as familiar with. The other announcement is that tomorrow is election day. So if you haven't yet voted, please make sure you go get your voice heard.
They're, the polling places are open from 6AM to 7PM. So, check if you don't know what your precinct is, you can go on to the registrar's website and double check that. And they will even if you go to the wrong one, they'll let you know, you know, where you need to go. So please just get out and and vote. Yeah. Other announcements? If not, we don't we don't have any proclamations this meeting. So you know what? We're right at community matters. And there's, opportunity for, 16 slots.
Eight were preregistered. I mean, opportunity for eight, but only three signed up. And we'll get right into it if you could come up with your name and your address or or your residence. And the first one is Kevin Cox. Yes. Hello, Kevin. Hello. Hello. My name is Kevin Cox, and I belong Fairway Avenue. Three years ago, four of you that are here tonight, miss Ochrein was not here, discussed the speed limit on Elliot Cherry. Two names, one street. Okay? Many people walk, bike, ride, use scooters, cross the street in wheelchairs. It's a busy street with one of Charlottesville's busiest playgrounds on it.
And three of you gave good reasons for setting the speed limit at 25. But in the end, you voted to accept a recommendation of 30 on Cherry and 35 on part of Elliott. Here's the best reason to limit the speed limit. If you get hit by a car doing 30 miles an hour, you are 55% more likely your chances are 55% greater that you will suffer serious injury or death than if the car is going just five miles an hour less at 25.
And also, since 2020, six years, six years, there have been six accidents involving pedestrians on Cherry Elliott with five injuries and one fatality. Here's some of your good reasons you gave three years ago. Mister Snook said, the crosswalks at the bottom of the hill by Tomsler Park are some of the most dangerous crosswalks we've got in the city right now. And maybe it would be easier on the driver to say we're gonna be 25 all the way until Ridge Street. I agree with that.
And finally, well, my preference is also for 25 the whole way. Mister Pinkston said, yeah, if it were up to me, I would have 25 miles an hour the entire length of Cherry to Ridge and then maybe that's just emotion on my part, thinking that five miles an hour less would be better. But people in the neighborhood have asked for it. It seems like a small thing to do. It's a big thing if you get hit. Mister Payne added, I would say my instinct is that 25 the whole would be the best. Two years later, a dramatic change in federal guidance proved that your emotions and instincts
were right. The guidance went from primarily considering how fast drivers were likely to go to considering everybody's safety. What a change. The nature of the street was in to be considered, whether it was urban or rural, development on the street, and much more that was never considered as primarily before. The change in guidance reflects a big shift and calls into question the results of previous traffic engineering studies. The introduction to the twenty twenty five Federal Handbook on Setting Speed Limits says, the Federal Highway Administration is prioritizing safety and traveling at safe speeds over focusing exclusively on
the throughput of motor vehicles. Please work with the city manager traffic engineering study on Elliot And Cherry and JPA while you're at it. I think new studies will then prove that you were right. Trust your judgment. Please make the city safer for everybody who uses the streets. When I drive on Charles Hill Streets, I drive 25 and so does everybody behind me and I hope you do too.
Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. The next speaker is Megan Mitchum. This is my first time, so forgive me. My heart is pumping. My name is Megan Mitchum. I am an Albemarle County resident, but I am also an MSW student at VCU, and I have spent this semester doing a field placement with the city's anchor team. I've lived in this community for over twenty years and have been involved with local nonprofits for the last eight years. The time I've spent working with and learning from the anchor team has been one of the most meaningful professional and educational experiences of my life, and the city should
be proud of the work this team is doing. Sorry, Mike. No. You're doing fine. It's the venue, not the content. In particular, officer Tammy Shiflett, who the city is incredibly lucky to have. Officer Shiflett demonstrates true compassion and curiosity and is one of the hardest working humans I've ever encountered. She is the heart and soul of the anchor team, and her energy makes working across disciplines with very different philosophical orientations possible. During my time in field placement with the team, I've come to believe that the community would best be served if the anchor team had a mental health clinician like
an LPC or an LCSW embedded with the team and responding to calls. While the team benefits from the experience and expertise of the QMHP and peer recovery specialist, having a licensed clinician who can oversee and evaluate the effectiveness of the team's work is essential for meeting the goals established by the Marcus Peters Act. Often, the anchor team is called to respond in cases where an individual is experiencing active psychosis related to bipolar disorders or schizophrenia spectrum disorders. An experienced clinician who is skilled in assessment and intervention with serious mental illnesses can
make the difference in setting the individual up for the support they need to prevent further engagement with anchor and local law enforcement and to ensure that the individual is connected with the holistic services they need. Further, there's a tendency in the team to default to the expertise of law enforcement rather than mental health specialists in assessing the situation. And the purpose of the co response team is to ensure people with mental health crises are being engaged by mental health professionals. A licensed clinician who is able to independently assert judgment in the field could prevent situations like what our colleagues in the county experienced this year in Crozet.
Thank you. Thank you. Alicia. Good evening. My name is Alicia Lenahan. I'm a resident of the county. Since April, you have been reminded that stripping constitutional rights from our immigrant and refugee neighbors threatens all our rights. Since April, you have been reminded that far from targeting violent criminals, the administration will sweep up anyone it wants to, including American citizens. Since April, the community has raised alarms about data collection and surveillance. The administration has access to personal information for all Medicaid recipients. ICE has a data sharing agreement with the IRS.
The links between Palantir, Peregrine, and the federal government are well documented. The administration is actively seeking voter rolls from every state. Most recently, it has sanctioned the use of Pegasus, a software developed social media surveillance capabilities and has plans to develop a round the clock social media monitoring team to identify leads for immigration enforcers.
Recently, DHS issued a procurement for bounty hunters with the intent of arming them with this arsenal of surveillance data. In July, we were presented with a resolution that requires ICE agents to be unmasked, identify themselves, present warrants, and drive marked vehicles. Given all that's happening, our request seems quaint by comparison. You have said no because taking a principled stand would be too dangerous for our immigrant and refugee neighbors. You've said no because you're not allowed to under Dylan's rule.
Apparently, defending the constitutional rights of our community isn't your job. At the same time, you acquired a subscription for Peregrine using federal grant money. Although that contract is on hold, it's worth noting that federal grants require, among other things, cooperation with ICE. At the same time, you acquired a subscription to FLOC and have run a pilot program with 10 cameras. According to data collected by law enforcement, this tool has been instrumental in solving 257 crimes, perhaps less than 1% of the crimes committed in Charlottesville.
Is that return on investment worth the risk? You have patted yourselves on the back for limiting retention rates to seven days and blocking blocked and certainly not discussed openly the clause in the contract that gives Flock the right to access and share Charlottesville data in the event of an emergency. Are you naive enough to think that Flock or any surveillance company for that matter will act in good faith? Are you reckless enough to take the chance, or are you complicit?
Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak with, please? My name is Isis Newman, and I live in the Belmont area. Since the last time I spoke on the issue of flock at last city council, a news article came out about a woman in Denver who was accused of accused of package theft using circumstantial evidence from flock cameras. The summons was dropped only after she emailed the police with extensive evidence of her innocence. Despite no other evidence against her, she was accused based on flock showing she was briefly in the general area. What about the people who don't have piles of evidence to support their innocence?
Police claim that flop cameras are a game changer in solving crime, but it seems to me that the way it changes the game is by making it easier to charge and convict people regardless of actual guilt. It seems like it changes the game by creating an overreliance on flop cameras instead of doing actual investigative work. Reliance on flop cameras instead of doing actual investigative work. Recently, I was looking at the flop transparency portal for Charlottesville, and at the bottom, there are five stories that they call success stories. What struck me was one story in particular that was about us giving another jurisdiction the information we got from our flock cameras to catch someone. The reason I think this is noteworthy is because it shows that the fact other
jurisdictions can't personally search our data only does so much to protect our information. The police can decide to hand over our data to any jurisdiction. They can give information to police forces that collaborate with ICE or prosecute women for seeking abortions. We are told that we used to share our data with other jurisdictions within the Commonwealth, but that we stopped when they started collaborating with ICE. But that is misleading. We really just started searching the database for them and then giving them the data. We must stop collecting this data so that it can't be given out. I think it's also noteworthy that our information is no longer accessible under the Freedom
of Information Act as of this spring. A company known for lack of ethics is given our information, and we aren't even allowed to know what information they have on us. When the vote for FLOC comes up next month, I urge city council to vote not to renew the contract with FLOC for the safety of our immigrant neighbors, the safety of people who come here for abortion access, and the safety of our whole community. Thank you. Do you want to say something else? Yes. Mhmm. Good evening, counselors. Sarah Malpass, 626 Bailey, Bifield Neighborhood Association. So I'm here to talk on on zoning and the proposed developments in Feifeld, Tenth
And Page West Haven, West Main Street. But I did wanna say since mister Cox was here, that should council re want to revisit the 25 mile an hour proposed speed limit that our residents support on Cherry Avenue, our residents would be delighted. I also wanted to say thank you for those of you who, interacted with our residents this week on a slew of emails that I believe many of you received around some traffic concerns, in other parts of our neighborhood and we're very grateful for your time and energy on that. Just here to remind council that, from the Fifeville Neighborhoods perspective, as far as the
zoning, that is currently facilitating the proposal for Seventh Street, our residents don't feel that they were adequately engaged. We feel like we did have a lot of great community engagement around the pros and cons and the trade offs of height, density, etcetera, up and down the Cherry Avenue corridor, but we were all quite surprised to find, that there were some changes that happened in other parts of the neighborhood where we had not been necessarily flagged, at least from my perspective, it hadn't been flagged for the neighborhood association that it
was something that we needed to have a conversation about. So I would appreciate if there is be an opportunity for residents to revisit, the zoning in that area and have those conversations, around height density, the trade offs thereof, especially relative to affordable housing. And we also are interested in talking about, what the city can do at three levels around building a culture of collaboration and proactive communication between residents, the neighborhood associations, NDS, and the development community. We've had a really successful relationship with a developer in Fightful as you all know
in part facilitated by the city's collaboration on that process with 501 Cherry and that has extended far beyond the site itself. Collaborations around the trail, and collaborations throughout the neighborhood. So we really believe that that proactive relationship between developers is possible and it's something we'd like to see extended, to other parts of the city through thinking about what can we change in the zoning, the floor for what community engagement looks like, what can we do, with NDS in terms of, protocols for when neighborhood associations are engaged
about the potential for development, and then what's the proactive culture. So three levels, the zoning protocols at NDS, and then the proactive culture that we can all develop through relationships with each other in a development space. We would also like to see the student housing, is removed. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Anyone else like Wendy? Wendy Gao Farr. A January work session on zoning is not soon enough. Between now and then, both could be well into construction by then. Residents are tired of Charlottesville prioritizing housing for UVA students, but even that narrative is
false. See friends afar. There is a sentiment that keeps coming up that if we keep building luxury student housing, it'll free up multifamily homes, as evidenced by some recent increased enrollment at Trailblazer Elementary after the construction of the flats in the standard. But we have a couple of things to say back to that. One, a community member named Jeremy Kaplan has been renovating and rehabbing 70 homes in Tenth And Page to rent out to families at an affordable price. So the credit for for housing more families should probably be going to him, not luxury student housing that actively fuels displacement from core black neighborhoods. Second, it's important to note that in 2022, West Haven was rezoned from Sunrise to
Trailblazer. So West Haven kids are probably largely accounting for that increase. And third, the Welder Cooper Center pres gave a presentation in 2022 that said a few student addresses remain in single family homes. So additional opening ups of single family homes for families from new student apartments shouldn't be expected. But lastly, I think we all need to remember that UVA is a profit driven entity. They are literally sitting on a $15,500,000,000 endo endowment. There's literally nothing stopping UVA from just admitting more students because if they admit more students, they make more money. In 2012, UVA's enrollment was 24,181.
This year in 2025, their enrollment was 26,685. That's an increase of 2,500 students. We keep getting this argument that there is too many students to house, so we need to keep building luxury student housing. But the fact of the matter is that there will always be more students to house because Charlottesville keeps enabling the profit driven genocidal gentrifying complex that is UVA by giving them more luxury student housing. I just wanted to close by sharing what keeps me coming back to to city council every meeting so animated. Because we've been talking a lot about this technical zoning stuff. And I just wanted to share that one of my favorite parts of my job
as an organizer is door knocking in West Haven around three or four on a weekday when the kids come home from school. In the eight thirty block of West Haven closest to Run Street, there's a group of kids that always, always without fail, run to meet me and they give me hugs and they show me their outfits for picture day. And I know all of their pets and they love to follow me around. They bounce around and and they help me flyer, and they help me door knock, and they make it into a competition. But then when we look up, there is a giant wall of shade from the standard, and we can feel the literal temperature drop when we are in the shade
versus when we are in the sun, and they all deserve so much more sunlight than that. Every single one of them deserves the entire sun. Every West Haven resident does. And that is what keeps me coming back, every city council. So don't say that community members are negative and that we say no and we oppose everything because that is exactly what we are fighting for. Last last thing that I will say, please do not renew the flock contract. Y'all are already trying to build these buildings above core block neighborhoods. Please don't set up block and brown communities to have their data collected like that. Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak? I love me some jade. Yeah. Everyone loves jade. Good evening. My name is Joy Johnson, and I'm the chair of FAR. Couple of things. For the folks who know me, they know that if if there is something that you wanna ask me, it's a way you have to ask me. Whether you're doing it in person or whether you're doing it through emails. I had a friend who taught me how to read email and how to pause before I send that email. So just won't put that out there.
Next time somebody only send me an email, be very careful how you draft it and send it to me because I would take it in a negative way or a positive way. When I was here the last time, so I wanna say first, I wanna correct a statistic that was quoted at the last city council meeting. UVA Hospital met patient service revenue for the physical year to 03/31/2025 was 3,000,000,000. We had previously mistakenly said $33,000,000,000,000.
That was a typo. To reiterate statistic of UVA, UVA endowment is worth 15,500,000,000.0, 532,000,000 in real estate holding, and 3,000,000,000 in hospital collection, and and $0 in taxes. I was at the National Legal Aid Defenders Association conference last week, and I've been thinking about how cost for housing has increased in the city of Charlottesville. The average price for rent as of September 2025 is $2,073 a month.
In 2018, the average rent price was $1,325 a month. That's a 56% increase since 2018. In '20 in in 2011, rent was 931 a month. That's a 122.6% increase since twenty twenty twenty eleven. Rent keep going up, but people wages are not. The lowest paid worker at UVA get paid 35,000 a year, but it costs 52,000
to live in the city of Charlottesville. We need to change the zoning around the edge of low income communities. So those building like LV Collective and the 7 And A Half Street doesn't marginalize our West Haven community. West Haven and Fifele are standing together at the BAR meeting. A Fifele resident talked about the lovely student building. But what was so interesting about it, they said, when that building go up on Sunday mornings, I hear the singing coming from the church. And when that building go up, I would not be able to hear that on
Sunday morning. And that really and truly impact me that night. And I think you all should think about things like that, of why we should go back or why city council should go back and do something. Don't wait until January. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Robin? Hello. Hello, Marty. I'm Robin Hoffman. And, I just wanna say that I campaign for all of you. And so Thank you. We have well, no. Thank you for doing the work, and you are our agents. You know, our voice agents, you do what you ever can.
But here, we have a panel of people and in our government, and we can have even better agency if we elect Spamberg or and that's not just me saying that. I've actually filmed, Abigail, at different events. So you can watch that on my YouTube, which thank you for our agent in Charlottesville Public Access TV, which today, in less than an hour, I was able to,
post on Facebook and, YouTube my new episode because I was invited through a bunch of other agencies to video, which I use my phone now, which is really cool. Even people who are videographers are just using their phone. So what does that mean? That means like from tapes in 2009 to a whole bunch of editing, I actually just put it right there with my phone.
And what did I film? I filmed the, Monroe, Highland descendants, meet up. Oh my gosh. So the students, from Michelle's class are doing the social work, work actually on the ground community effort building thing. I so that's what it was all about. They had the William and Monroe students, and this was really, like, went through my
heart. And I'm sure if you watch my video, you'll you'll understand. But, so the students found out who was alive, who were enslaved. And then finally at the end of the video, I actually talked with the people who cooked for the event. And we agreed, my my my relatives never talked about my Russian immigration. And it wasn't until I went to college and I was doing a a tape or or an interview with my grandfather that Marissa and my family knew that we
were, chased out of Russia, as family. Okay? So but that's what they came to the conclusion of in our conversation with my phone. So I'm I'm I'm telling you all, Charlottesville Public Access TV, I've been saying this for fifteen years now, is a really good agent for your voice. Thank you. Thank you. Opportunity for a few more speakers. Anyone like to speak now? We have another opportunity at the end. Yes, sir. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, mayor.
My name is Frank Bector. I am a Fife Field resident. I live at the end of 6 And A Half Street very near Dice. And, my comments today, I'm not very prepared, but I just have two things I wanna sort of highlight. One is about democracy, but as it's very relevant. You know, how how is ideal democracy supposed to work? I'm sure that's of great concern to all of you and, and hopefully to everyone. So I've I've spoken before about wanting the, proposed, large apartment complex to not be
put where it's gonna be put if it actually does get put there in Fifeld. And the question, is about, well, you know, what's the process that's gone into the zoning that's been put there? How how well have people been informed? It's been spoken of earlier. So there was a bar meeting, board of architectural review meeting, a couple weeks ago, which I was at. It was very much a pleasure to be there, a very great learning experience. And, it was interesting because this proposal requires a certificate of Charlottesville resident.
Anyone in a democracy thinking, oh, well, there's a proposed architectural structure, there's a board of architectural review, and at this board meeting, became very interesting, it was highlighted by the board there who talked about it as the meeting went on, that essentially the certificate of appropriateness has nothing whatsoever to do with whether, more or less, whether such
a building, such a proposed structure is appropriate for the neighborhood, whether it has anything to do with the neighborhood as it exists. So for example, well, I said, you know, there's a related word, a certificate perhaps of appropriation. That's really what this very, very large, absolutely huge structure will turn out to be, a certificate of appropriation if it were granted. That that city block will no longer be Fifehill. It might be technically called that it's in Fifeville, but it won't have anything to
do with the the Fifeville residence or anything like that. A little metaphor to continue, to complete this with. There's two houses there, two old houses not inhabited now, haven't been for a long time, and the developer has noted that. Well, it's the, the historical status of those two old, small, brick houses that bring up to the board meeting. What I want to say is those two houses, if you'll let me just go for a few seconds, are like a string we wrap around our finger and it says, remember.
Remember. And the developer says, we're gonna save that string for you. We'll rebuild it just the way that string was, cotton if you want. But what is that really trying to remind us of? It's trying to remind us of the Fifeville neighborhood, which is a poor neighborhood, and that did formally include that space. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak now? It'd be another opportunity at the end of the meeting. Thank you very much. Appreciate your your comments. We'll now have the consent agenda. Madam clerk. Consent agenda number three. Resolution to appropriate funds from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Grant, in the amount of $150,000 second reading. Four, resolution to allocate $650,000 of capital improvement program contingency funds for an infrastructure study and model. Second reading. Five, resolution accepting Bama Works special event funding of $51,950. Six, a resolution to accept Penn Park Lane in the Laughlin Hill Phase 2 And 3 subdivision into the City Street system for maintenance. Is that motion to approve the consent agenda?
So moved. Second. Second. Okay. If we can vote. Just a moment. Okay. I've initiated the vote. The motion passes for the consent agenda. I think five zero. Yes. Thank you all. Mister Sanders on the city manager's report on public art. Yeah. Deputy Friess, has a presentation. Or comment. I don't know if there's a presentation. Alright. Good evening, Mayor Wade, members of council. James Friess, deputy city manager. So, as noted tonight, I'm here to provide an update on the public art program,
which we've spoken about off and on, I think, for for several months. I don't know. I remember exactly how long. Maybe about a year. Mhmm. I think all of you know, and it goes without saying, the promotion of the arts in Charlottesville has been a long standing, priority for the city and is reflected in your strategic outcomes and within the comprehensive plan. In the past, the city has invested in public art mostly through partnerships with public or with arts organizations of various types. And we have a, a collection, if you will, of public art throughout the city
made up of primarily of statues and other pieces of art, that, can be found on streets, in public places, and in neighborhoods. We are right now we are working on a new public art program which will have an accompanying, art ordinance that would go with it. There are three primary recommendations that are coming out of this art program at this point in time. One is that public art should be managed and maintained by the city rather than through through a separate entity. So again, in the past, we've partnered with other organizations and they've had maintenance responsibility.
Those other organizations have, for a variety of reasons, ceased to exist. And, so our recommendation at this point in time is that going forward, the city would actually own and maintain the public art that it makes up the city's collection. And that also would ensure that maintenance of public art is carried out consistently with our city objectives and carried out that the the materials and the makeup of the of this art is within the capacity of the city to to do so when we when we choose new art pieces. Second recommendation is to establish a public art committee.
That committee would be responsible for developing criteria for the management of the city's public art collection, including the solicitation or acquisition of new pieces of public art as well as de ascension or removal of public art. It's a really important piece of the public art process is making sure that we actually go through the correct processes for removing a piece from the city's inventory. What was the word you used? De De deascension. That's a new word for me. That is that's it's a it's a term of art within within within the, within the art world.
And again, the the the idea here with this would be that, we're making sure that as we are bringing, new art into the collection or for that matter removing art from the collection that we're doing so consistent with the city's overall goals and objectives. So that public art committee would be responsible for setting a set of criteria that guide those to that decision making process. They'd be making recommendations to the city council on those issues. They would also be responsible for recommending to council a public art plan. And then the last recommendation is that we include the creation and management of memorials
as a specific type of public art within the, purview of that, committee. That committee would work with other organizations such or other entities within the city such as the historic resource committee, but would specifically be charged with, the, recommendations to council around memorials. So as I noted, staff has actually completed a draft ordinance, and we would bringing be bringing that to council early in the new year, along with, the opportunity for discussion around the potential staffing and other associated program costs that might come with establishing
this public art program. So at this point in time, I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have. Yeah. This is something we've been talking about for quite a while, so it's good to hear this. Lloyd, do you have any comments? The only the only thing that we've had that sort of feels like a public art program over the last twenty years or so has been the Art in Place program, which isn't really a city program as I understand it. Sure. I my understanding was it was a form of partnership of some kind. The the the pieces are all on city land and the city they are those
pieces are now considered part of the city's art collection. Okay. But that entity the entity that was responsible for those pieces no longer exist. Right. And so default, they fall to us. Okay. I guess my question is, one of the reasons why that sort of dichotomy was created is out partly back looking back twenty, thirty years, was out of a sort of constitutional concern about public speech Yes. So to speak, and the extent to which the decision about which artworks get placed
being vested in some public body poses some some potential risks. Talk to me a little bit about that balancing act that were how is that gonna work under this new scheme? So it's something actually that, mister Maddox and I have had a number of conversations about as we've been talking about this is is particularly that that first amendment issue. The the bottom line is is in those criteria, that the art that we accept is is tied to, clearly stated criteria around how the city makes decisions about the acquisition, of public art and that those criteria are are tied to a set of
publicly identified goals and objectives. And maybe, John, if there's anything you want to add on top of that, it would be helpful. I'd I'd be certainly happy to provide more, information on this going forward. I didn't come tonight prepared to speak on the constitutionality of, of our public art program. However, I can tell you that, essentially what when the government speaks how it chooses to speak, we're not getting into a matter, really of First Amendment rights. The government council wants to speak. And, it can put up art that speaks to that. It can if somebody wants to put up art, the council can choose to reject
it. If we have, if we've laid the groundwork properly for this kind of program. It's a little bit more nuanced than that. It's a little bit more complex than that, and I'd be happy to provide briefing on that at appropriate time. But, we're not unaware of the constitutional concerns with it. Well, it is noted. We we intend to have a work session on this topic Okay. With the ordinance, for for y'all's review. So that would be an appropriate time to have that conversation. As it happens about forty five years ago, I wrote an article on the topic. So Excellent. Good. I will add that there was action that council took, and I can't remember exactly
which year. It escapes me, but it it hasn't been terribly long, where an ordinance was passed that required a committee that council had to be a part of. It was in response to one of the, anniversaries of August 12, and it was, in association with the request that you all received to hang pictures in the trees, on the mall that as a Amos has put together. And there was a process that we implemented at that time under the city attorney
that is the process of today. And I think what we're suggesting is that that's gonna be further informed by setting up a a true program to go along with a more robust ordinance for how you would proceed. So that in the reference that John made about the government speaking, you would do so in a way that is pretty clear as to what your priorities are. Thank you. Anything else, Paulie? No. Brian? No. Just a quick question. This is a committee that would only oversee things that the city is managing. It's not like if someone wants to paint a mural, they have to come to
the committee to get it approved on their own. Only only city projects, therefore, on on public land. So if somebody is doing a mural on the side of their building, that's entirely a private matter, and would be handled, privately Okay. Unless it triggers something related to zoning. Or the signage. Sign ordinance. And there's there's all kinds of material out there on the on differentiating between art and signs that we don't need to get into now. Okay. So just for city stuff. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Would this have to do with, street art?
Like, if we had colorful crosswalks or one bounce Yeah. Fall under that purview. It would. Yep. So again, anything on public property including we we would look at street art through this as well. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Michael. Yeah. Well, I think, you know, this is obviously a positive step forward. The city, you know, could obviously do a lot, lot more to support our arts community. I think even cities like Buena Vista seem to be more proactive about having city supported murals than we have been in recent years. And it seems like a small thing, but I think it builds community and public
art as a real public good that regardless everyone can enjoy, especially when it's not, you know, corporate AI generated slop art. But regardless, what would it look like to operationalize this given that the nonprofits we used to rely on are now defunct? Once we pass this ordinance and the committee makes decisions, what will it look like for it to be staffed and help support investment to get a piece of public art displayed or finished or commissioned? Are you anticipating a new staff position, an existing staff position that's, you know, given
oversight of this? Kinda what Yeah. Those are actually exactly the kinds of questions that we are talking about in preparation for a work session early in the year. I do anticipate staff time. We've talked with, other communities that have kind of a similar program at a similar scale, and we believe it comes in at around once you're up and running as as something that would be handled within the a part time type position, whether that's a new position or something we're able to incorporate into an existing job description is
something that we're gonna be looking at. There is there's a big difference though between managing a program that's kind of up and running, if you will, and getting it up and running. And so we're looking at we're looking kind of that that question separately. What's it gonna take to get this up and running? And and by that, I mean, facilitate a conversation with this committee to, establish criteria, establish a set of processes and procedures. How are we accepting solicitations for the donation or otherwise of art?
How are we, how are we soliciting out into the community, into the art community for specific pieces? Stuff like that. There's a there's a whole set of processes and procedures that have to be established and criteria as I said. That kind of build up period of time is going to be completely different than kind of running the program in the future, where it's really gonna be more of an administrative, task. So those are the things we're looking at, and we intend to carry that conversation forward with you all in a work session upcoming. And presumably on the committee, you have a lot of people in the arts community,
you know, helping to develop it. Idea. Yeah. Absolutely. And then maybe it's to be determined as part of that process. You know, what do we expect? Some pool of money that's in the budget for commissioning, maintaining, you know, public art going forward. Yeah. I would anticipate that. Yes. Thank you. I think this is great. We we needed this. Looking forward to the work session as I get out more and more to understanding the art world. Visiting second street gallery, of course, Lab Arts, McGuffey.
The arts is a big part of what makes this city tick and I'm glad we can lean in in this manner to assist, you know, to make it stronger because I think it's a big thing that draws people to the community. So thank you. Do we have a work session already scheduled for this or something to make sure we're gonna, get Wanted to make sure we had other conversations starts before it started. Yeah. Sounds great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any other, items, mister? No. That is the report. Thank you. We're now on to our action items. The first item is a public hearing in ordinance to vacate Clark Court, a city
maintained street. Matt. City council mayor, Matt Aufley, development planning manager, NDS. It's been a while before since one of these has been in front of you. Just a little bit of background before I jump into this. Prior to 2019, when someone was looking to close, typically an alley, it would be the property owners would come together, come to and if they agreed to it, they basically come to this body almost ministerially to close it.
There was a push previous council to to recognize the value in our one, our paper streets and our, of course, city maintained streets. So policy was drafted that actually put more guidelines and a rubric in place when someone wanted to close a city maintained street. Really cut down on the map the number of ones y'all have seen, in front of you. You probably have not seen hardly any in several years. And so that that really is kind of the background of why that request has
kinda slowed down. So, typically, people who come to, the city and wanna close, they go through a process. They and they score on a rubric, and that score at a certain level doesn't even get to the to in front of y'all. One of the elements of the rubric that will push it in front of y'all is when it's connected to a proposed development. And so what you have tonight is the Jefferson Scholars. They've been working actually on this for quite a long time, just a a slow
pace. But they have Clark Court, which, is surrounded by all Jefferson Scholar property. They put forth a proposed preliminary site plan plan under the old code. This is back in 2023 that would vacate Clark Court, turn it from a cul de sac into a new private maintained street. So as part of that, there was some issues with some of the lots that were kind of would have been landlocked if they had gone through with that. So they went through a process, took them quite a bit to consolidate the properties
so that if city council did grant the closure, you wouldn't create a landlocked parcel. So having said that, I'll quickly go through kind of, presentation. The Jefferson Scholars Foundation is requesting the vacation of Clark Court as part of, their long range strategic plan. This request is part of a preliminary site plan submitted in July 2023. The plan involves vacating Clark Court, consolidating parcels of land, and, realigning the the vehicular travel way as a private driveway that would extend to the existing apartment building located
at 109 Clark Court. No new buildings are being proposed, but the consolidation of the parcels was pursued to prevent the creation of any landlocked lots should the vacation be granted. Vacation request was reviewed by staff in accordance with the city's current street vacation policy. The main proposal within the preliminary site plan is the realignment of Clark Court as a private vehicular driveway. The existing water, gas, and sewer mains are located in Clark Court, and any proposed ex, expansion may significantly impact utilities configuration.
The plan also involves the loss of five public parking spaces, which could adversely affect traffic circulation for nearby businesses. The city's utility department has reviewed the vacation request and determined that any proposed expansion by the applicant may have significant impacts on the utilities configuration. The extent of this impact cannot be determined until the applicant provides a more detailed plan for future development of the site. Staff recommends denial of the vacation request based on several factors. First, there's insignificant development details to ensure long term impacts on utilities, access, and circulation.
Existing water, gas, and sewer infrastructure within Clark Court would be compromised or require complex reconfiguration requiring engineering plans for securing and or securing easements, all of which would need to be submitted for review. Additionally, the loss of five public parking spaces is a potential adverse impact to traffic and circulation for nearby businesses. The full analysis can be found in your materials. In conclusion, staff recommends denial of the court court vacation due to insignificant development details.
With that, you're going to hold a public hearing. Staff is available to answer questions, and the applicant is also here and has requested a presentation. They would like after you have clarifying questions, but prior to the public hearing. One question. Were you saying that there was insignificant? Insufficient. Insufficient. That's what I thought you meant. I think you you said, insignificant. Okay. Insufficient. Say the we would like to see what their longer term plans are for the site before really exploring vacating, Clark Court.
Is there a reason why a decision I mean, if we were to say, in theory, yes, but not yet, is that a a sufficient answer at this point? It would be so. This is the public hearing, and so you there's a draft ordinance, but you could enter in negotiation with the applicant for what the value of Clark Court is. That would take, you know, time. Conditions could be put in the ordinance that both the city and the applicant agreed to that if, one of the things outlined in the policy is that, you know,
that the vacation would only happen if certain things happened in the future. So you're not giving up rights to, let's say, maintain the road. So there is leeway for city council when they if they if they decided this is something they wanted to pursue, the next phase would be entering into negotiation. And the other question I had with the the fives parking spots, are those internal to the the Clark Court there or is it out on the road or what? No. These are the five spaces are on Clark Court, which Okay. Is internal. And the and doing what they're doing I mean, the I guess, on the one
hand, five spaces internal to Clark Court, I'm I'm not sure I understand why that's a public issue. Is it more an issue for them? There are spaces that the public could use to access businesses across the street. I mean, they're public spaces, so they're not dedicated to the Jefferson Scholars that are for anyone to use to, to shop or go around, the that area. So what should I have for right now? Thank you. Thank you. Brian, you have So I I guess maybe this is more appropriate to ask them.
But at this point, you don't really have any sense of what they're gonna do or, I guess, is staff's sense that this is premature? That that is kind of staff's, standpoint is that what they're proposing in their preliminary is is really just a reconfiguration of Clark Court into private al basically, access way. And staff would like to see more of what they're actually planning to do with the property in the future that requires the closing of Clark Court, why it couldn't
may be maintained currently as a city maintainer. And in terms of the utilities that are under the underground, would we obtain easements for those to keep keep access to them? Or They would either need to be so there are mains running through Clark Court, and they would either need to be abandoned because they're only serving those those properties to be treated as laterals, or they would need maintenance easements over them. So there there's a path forward with utilities, but that path has not been defined.
I see. And are they, offering to to pay for this land at all? That would be the neck the next phase. The policy just kind of opens up the public hearing, and then you would enter into negotiation. What is the value of Clark Court? So there would be that would be the next step if if city council would like to pursue the vacation. Alright. Thank you. Is that is that if and now, sir? Yeah. Natalie? So looking at the preliminary site plan, it it looks just kind of like they
wanna make the street look a little nicer. Is that something that they could do without vacating it? Like, could we just say, yeah. Go do that construction project, but it's still City Street. You just paid for it. I would say yes and no. I mean, we have our standards and design manual. So depending on what they would want to do to it to make it'd be making public improvements. Mhmm. Those public improvements would need to be in line with our our standards. I I can't speak to necessarily what they're proposing would meet the standard. But if it did, that's theoretically an avenue ordinance.
Yes. If they wanted to improve our street and yes. But it still belongs to us. Can you talk a little bit about more about the utility situation, about who pays for what in the different scenarios? I I don't have as enough background to speak too in-depth in that. Just that there are mains in Clark Court that serve. So your main would come through Clark Court. Court. You have laterals that come off and serve like the apartment or the, Jefferson Scholars Building or the home.
And you can't have, a lateral coming off a lateral. So this would in essence, if you close Clark Court, it makes that main a lateral because it's on the private property. And in in utilities review, they didn't have they they felt there was a way to overcome this this issue. It wasn't a huge issue, but they wanted more information kind of along that lines. What what does Jefferson Scholars wanna do? Do they wanna abandon the line and put in new laterals? Or do they wanna keep the line, but that would require easements?
So that was not clear, at least the stage we're in now. Okay. This feels kind of out of order. Like, we don't have the information on costs and that sort of thing yet. Well and they they would still have to get a an approved site plan for what they're doing, which would then trigger these additional comments and requirements from utilities. Okay. But by then, we would have approved the vacation already without knowing the potential funding. It well, I mean, it can be the vacation be can be conditioned on getting
the food site plan. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for now. Mike? Yeah. As I said, you know, I'm not too hung up on the five parking spaces so much as the, utility issues. So just to cover you, it's accurate, the vacation would affect access to an existing apartment building. Correct? That's been resolved. That was one of the things hanging this up from from this coming several years ago was it could've, but the Jefferson Scholars did go through a boundary line adjustment
to combine lots. It required some changes on their end that they that took them a while. But if you did vacate, you would not that would not, under the configuration, would not create a landlocked parcel. So that has been resolved. That was one of staff's early concerns, and that was something Jefferson Scholars worked through and resolved. Right. And, you know, the other question, which I know is broad, you know, adjacent parcels are zoned c x eight, some of them.
Per our earlier conversation, you know, unanimous agreement that it makes sense for larger denser student housing to go without any, you know, displacement risks. Point being, you know, know, if we were to just vacate the street where things are today and they have control over access points and utility infrastructure, in theory, they would have the ability to control whether an adjacent parcel at CX 8 is practically
developable or not. Correct? When you say adjacent as far as, let me pull the maybe the picture back up. Maybe I'm not quite following. Just looking on GIS, adjacent parcels our CX 8. And just, you know, I'm just wondering the extent of if you if we vacate because in the staff memo, it says there's critical utility infrastructure and provides access points to adjacent business or adjacent properties. It wouldn't impact any that aren't owned by Jefferson Scholars. The the impacted parcels are the ones owned by, Jefferson Scholars.
Okay. So when the staff member was saying adjacent properties is just there. Adjacent is to Clark Court, but are all owned by the same entity. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Before we have comments from the applicant. So, as far as the use of the, spaces by local businesses, are they using it now? The the spaces now, do you know? Bernardino. City our city engineer. Yes. Mayor, councilors, Brennan Duncan. I'm the city engineer. We haven't done it, like, an in-depth parking study per se.
I mean, anecdotally, I know that people in the community after hours use that. I think, you know, during normal business hours, the the the people right there, use it. But, you know, there's dirty Nellies and and the other things right there that, you know, if there's an open parking space on the weekend or after hours, they're using that. So just hasn't been as far as, you know, issue of, you know, towing or anything like that they've been open. Not that I know of. No. So, is part of conditions, can it be something like what we have with Hill
and Wood on downtown, like, you know, if they're not using it or something. Again, during the negotiations, I think all that could be put on the table. Yeah. To to Matt's point, you know, a lot of this is we just don't know what what is being proposed right now. We don't know if it's a office building, if it's a, you know, 17 story, you know, apartment complex or something. So, you know, we we just don't know, to be able to really speak to that. So Thank thank you. Can we hear from the applicant now? Thank you. Hi. Good evening. Hello.
My name is Helen Dwyer, and I am representing the Jefferson Scholars Foundation located in the city of Charlottesville. And on behalf of the foundation, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration and for allowing us the opportunity to present our application for the city of Charlottesville to vacate Clark Court. First, the Jefferson Scholars Foundation is an independent five zero one c three, a non profit organization located in the City of Charlottesville. We operate separately from the University of Virginia and manage our own finances and governance
and unlike UVA, the Jefferson Scholars Foundation is a taxable entity. The last calendar year, the Jefferson Scholars Foundation paid $433,000 in property taxes to the city of Charlottesville with cumulative payments totaling 2,697,000.000 over the past ten years. And if City Council chooses to vote tonight to approve our application to vacate Clark Court, the Jefferson Scholars Foundation's payment to the city of Charlottesville would increase by the purchase amount of Clark Court and by the additional property taxes from not only Clark
Court itself, but also the the increased property taxes based on the improved value of the land from the Jefferson Scholars Foundation's future building enhancements and the redevelopment of the site around Clark Court. It would also decrease the city's maintenance expenses related to Clark Court. The Jefferson Scholars Foundation is situated one block from the intersection of Fontaine Avenue, JPA, and Maury Avenue, off of Maury Avenue and Clark Court.
And in 2009, we moved into our facility off of Clark Court that houses research, study, and office space for our funded professors and our undergraduate and graduate students and our administrative offices. But before we moved into the neighborhood, we reached out and connected with the JPA Neighborhood Association to establish a strong and collaborative relationship, now a sixteen year plus ongoing partnership. The JPA Neighborhood Association has utilized our facilities for meetings, gatherings, events, and parking and
we will continue to work with the Association to foster a sense of community as good neighbors. Also, in 2009, upon moving into the neighborhood, we connected with our local restaurants and retail establishments and we learned that parking for the public and customers was limited, so we offered our parking lot and parking spaces to the public and customers for the past sixteen years outside of business hours and on weekends, easing the parking constraints for city businesses and neighbors. And we intend to continue to support our neighbors with the use of our lot
for parking and customer for public and customer parking should we own Clark Court. Over the subsequent years our community grew, more professors, more graduate students, and more undergraduate students joined our community and when we were presented with the opportunity to own contiguous space around Clark Court our board of directors advised us to do so for the purpose of having space to accommodate our growing community. And by 2021, the two parcels that completely surround the cul de sac Clark Court were both owned by the Jefferson Scholars Foundation, and that's when we started working with
the city staff to talk about the feasibility of purchasing Clark Court. And our interest in owning Clark Court is to create a more efficient entryway and exit for our community to visit our property and improve the traffic flow on and off our property. What we did is paused our work on the development of any future planning around Clark Court until we had assurance from the city that we were approved to take the next step forward and advance. For the last four years, we've been working with the city staff to understand and
comply with the application process and we as Matt mentioned we submitted our first application to the city in the 2023, worked with the city staff and city attorney on the boundary line adjustment and then once that was approved we submitted our final addressed those concerns or clarified. First regarding the impact on the utilities as we've as Matt explained, the utilities are all going to support the Jefferson Scholars Foundation's property around Clark Court and we would
of course provide an update easements to the city to all existing public utilities. Regarding traffic, there will be no negative impact on traffic as we mentioned we're seeking to reconfigure the court, to the shape of an ellipse from the shape of a circle to improve the efficiency of our land and the entrance and exit from our property. The loss of the five non permanent public spaces as we mentioned we will continue to offer our parking lot to the public and restaurant customers during working hours and
on weekends. So we are applying for the city to vacate Clerk Court so that we can improve the land usage efficiency including continuing to enhance landscape and opportunities in the advancement of our development, our strategic plan around Clark Court that would not only accommodate our growing community but also mutually benefit the public and the city.
City of Charlottesville would benefit from our potential purchase of Clark Court from the proceeds from the sale, the additional tax revenue from Clark Court, and the Jefferson Scholars building improvements around Clark Court increasing the value of the land, adding to the millions of financial support that the Jefferson Scholar Foundation has paid to the performance of the public utilities, we are committed to complying with the joint planning reviews and the city staff
and residents as our plans develop, sharing those along the way. So, on behalf of the Jefferson Scholars Foundation, asking city council to vote in favor to approve our application to vacate Clark Court so that we may take the next steps and work with the city staff to explore the terms of the transaction and for us to be able to provide an advanced idea of what our future space may look like, a solution that benefits the scholar Jefferson Scholars Foundation's growing community and benefits the public and the city as well. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this request.
Answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, or or staff before we open up the public hearing? Natalie, you have any questions now? So if I'm understanding you correctly, staff and Jefferson Scholars Foundation have gone back and forth over this for several several years and city staff still have questions about what's gonna happen on this property. And then on the other side, UVA or Jefferson Scholars Foundation, excuse me, is saying,
we can't tell you what's going on with this property yet until we know we can build the road differently. That's correct. The Jefferson Scholars Foundation standpoint. Yes. I would say that is correct. So what how do we bridge that gap? Who who who moves? Who what you know, staff, how much do you need to know? Jefferson Scholars, how much are you willing to share? And this is what we it's been many years like this. This is a chicken and egg situation. I'm gonna ask my colleague here to to answer our questions.
Hi. I'm Jake Kessler, and, I've worked with Jefferson Scholars for quite a while now as an owner's representative because and consultant in the use of their property and development. And have been on this since we first talked to Brennan and Matt for '21. It's a it is a chicken and egg or a catch 22. As you all know, applicants are, property owners take on a significant expense to develop a site plan and, advance their their, their development goals through the city.
And so really what Jefferson Scholars is asking is, which mister Snookle alluded to is a a yes, but that, I think the policy says that if you do it, vote to advance us during the the first hearing as the city attorney's office reaches out, to negotiate the terms of the sale, we would expect in there, a requirement that we advance the site plan, at which point we will engage Timmons, who's working with us, to develop it. During this time, Jefferson Scholars has been working on, you know, their, long range planning,
but using their land, it looks like one thing. If it stays within the current configuration, it looks a little different and a little more efficient for them. If they know that that developing that site plan showing car court as, vacated, not approved until the second, hearing of the ordinance, looks differently. And so they have not drawn that plan because they don't know there's even a yes, but on the table. So I'm I'm comfortable in saying if if they receive a yes, but today, they
will negotiate with the city staff both on terms of sale as well as advancing the site plan to answer the questions about utility, land use, future development, and and all the things that have been talked about as well as parking. Could could, mister Addis, could you help me understand is are we voting on if we vote, we vote on an item tonight, not two weeks from now. There's not a second reading. That's correct. So tonight, if we were to vote for this, we basically would be the ordinance
closing, vacate, and discontinuing the public road, and then there would be another step of the actual transaction of the property. Is that what would be the next step? You would be opening it up for negotiation on Okay. Between, staff and the, And it sounds like what I'm hearing is if if this is approved, then y'all would feel comfortable taking the next steps in terms of, like, showing us what you're or investing in the engineering costs to to take to to
flesh out your vision for this? Yes. That's direct. Yes. If we get to the next step, we will be willing to invest into what it takes to redevelop develop the site with more detail. Simplistic about it, if we say yes and then for some reason a deal doesn't get done, we have we will not be vacating the street. Is that correct? Absolute agreement between the parties. That's correct. We know. Yeah. And so, you know, the ordinance that's in our packet tonight and the deed of vacation is vacating that public street for $10.
So is that accurate that what's in our packet tonight is there wouldn't be anything to negotiate. They'd be getting this piece of public infrastructure for essentially nothing. Was that like a whole, you know It says now, therefore, for and in consideration of $10 cash and hand paid, the city does hereby close and vacate the public street known as Clark Court. I would imagine that's included as a example of what the agreement could look like, but it would not include these specific terms to be negotiated. Yeah. I mean, it's just under the ordinance.
So Yeah. It says the draft deeds. Okay. I I but that's not the ordinance proper. The ordinance proper doesn't include that. So we would you know, if we were to move forward, that would be definitely something that staff would have to So is the city attorney and city manager or their designees are authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out? So how far away from the information that you need is it? Like, I I know staff has said it's got a point four on the rubric, so it is acceptable within the limits, but there's still material that you need.
Are we, like, 80% of the way there? Are we 10% of the way there? Is that a question that is even answerable? Not not really with the the rubric is just whether it gets in front of y'all. It's just kind of a pass fail. It's it's not Got it. It's not judging the project itself. It's just it's meeting certain milestones to even be considered. Okay. And so then for the amount of information that you still need in order to feel good about this or definitely bad about this, how how much more info is
that question answerable? Council members, before we start getting too far into maybe what your ultimate decision is going to be on this, I might suggest opening up the, public hearing Good point. First to, take that, take that input before you start reaching decisions. Good point. Okay. I mean, I think the applicant understands that there that the city has legitimate questions. We replied to the preliminary site plan review and and said, really, we don't take any objection to or, to the questions or the open items. Items. Yale may pass the yes, but this evening, and then, city and Jefferson Scholars can't
even reach agreement on price of land. Said he wants $10,000,000 and we're not, you know, Jefferson Scholars doesn't want to pay that for the land. And so therefore, you know, until we can at least start the negotiations, then Jefferson Scholars is fully, prepared to move forward with the site plan, which, as you all know, any site plan working with the city works out all those details about, utilities, everything, what the use is that is conforming with the current development code Okay.
And the uses. So, you know, with all that is to be determined, and we're prepared for that. And I've got a quick follow-up before you open it up. If does that amount come back to us, or is that done at staff level to figure out the the cost of purchase? Would that be something we would need to come back and approve? Or I think that, we said that the city manager and the city attorney, I think that We're working. Let them work it out. I mean, in my mind, you would wanna see it.
Well, I don't I don't know. I'm asking what is the rule. So it how the ordinance or how the policy is written, it would be with first determining a value. So it is staff level to determine the value of the land for negotiation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna open up up the public here. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? Now, would anyone Oh, okay. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I was just doing my best to just speak as a public, you know, citizen. The most important office we're told in in our democracy.
Yeah. And, so I know nothing about this, but I would just like to speak as someone who's sitting there listening to what I just heard. And I would like, transparency as much as possible. And I know I've had various ideas of developing certain things, and I can see various if thens in them. And I'm I'm not and I personally would like to see any important organization whose whose work I might be very much in favor of. I would like them to be as transparent as possible want the council to be
very strongly on the side of that transparency. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak? If not, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to council with will go back around one more time to see, your thoughts as to, how to move forward with this. Lord, I'll start with you. My first question, I guess, is I understand that you've got a lot of decisions that, you're not in a position to to make or talk about in much detail right now. But can you at least give us some general idea of whether I mean, are are is what you're talking about doing more in the nature of what you've already
got, or are you gonna change the use in some significant way? That's a great question. Yes. To clarify, our community has grown significantly since we moved into the area, and we are realizing that we're going to need to expand our space to accommodate our community, which involves professors and undergraduate and graduate students. So as we haven't spent the time and the resources and the money to go deep into the strategic planning of what that would look like in the terms of physical space and buildings, we have thought some around how we would need to expand
to accommodate their needs for the office space, the study space, and the research space. So, I mean, I guess, if the answer is what you're planning, it would be some, greater degree of office and classroom space and things like that, and you're not thinking you're going to make it into a commercial space or you're not going to make it into a banquet facility for the public or a hotel or or some other things like that. Frankly, that's all I care about.
Yeah. I mean, I the how you are gonna organize it on the site is your issue. It's not mine. Although, it may be the city's issue if you've got utilities and easements that have to be out. But I think that to I mean, are are we thinking perhaps as much as double the size of of what you're what you got there now? Or We do we're not at that point where we could decide because we had paused our strategic planning, but it is to accommodate the increased size of our community for their office study and research space, and, to help with, fostering and and what
we're about is, teaching citizenship and leadership to our, scholars and students. So Well, obviously, there would be constraints on the size of the building for parking requirements and all the rest of that stuff. So it's not like you're gonna There's no parking. 10 story building or something. There are no parking requirements. Yeah. I support this. So Michael. Yeah. I would, I mean, one, just, you know, the broader principle of the matter. You know, I don't support this.
You know, I fully understand that the Jefferson Scholars Foundation is is not UVA and is, you know, legally separate. Obviously, they are very closely connected and part of the UVA community and part of, you know, expanding the prestige of of UVA. And, you know, this street is, public property of public value into, give it away without any rubric for what we consider the value of the property to be as well as seemingly giving up a significant part of our leverage in any negotiation with
a lot of uncertainty when it doesn't meet staff's rubric, neighborhood development services is recommended denial. I just don't understand why we wouldn't be tough but fair and follow our own processes and not, you know, treat differently, you know, a member of the broader UVA community. And I thought this whole thing ringed a bell and this may be completely irrelevant, but, you know, I thought it was just my memory was jogged is that this site was originally planned for 64 units and the Jefferson Scholars Foundation, spent 253 percent
above the 2022 assessment to buy those properties. And, I know the, president of the Jefferson Scholars Foundation was involved in a lawsuit about nearby, student apartments as well. So I wanna be clear. I'm not I don't know if that may be completely irrelevant to this, but my memory was jogged and looked it up in information Charlottesville and some interesting history there. But regardless, I think, in terms of following our own internal processes, to me, it seems like a pretty straightforward no to me. No. No. The the comment period is is over.
Thank you. I am, at this time, inclined to agree with staff. If the staff get what they need and come up with a different recommendation later, I'd be happy to revisit. My my are are you done now? I'm sorry. Okay. Thanks. My thought on it is that there are a couple of thoughts. First of all, though the draft deed says in consideration of $10 cash in hand pays and for other good and valuable consideration, that's a legalism that we use all the time to say we're not specifying in the deed what the amount was that
was being paid. So it's not like we're gonna give it away for $10. I don't know what the process would be to figure out what the value of the of the the the property would be, but it would surely be, more than $10. And there there are ways objective criteria for figuring out what the what the value of of the transfer would be. It is also clear as it that they are a tax paying entity, and that if they were to significantly increase the value of their investment there, they would significantly
increase the value of the money that the amount of money they would be paying to us. I would I wonder because the the ordinance as drafted doesn't have anything in it that suggests any conditionality about it. It simply says, boom. We're doing it. I I would be in favor of the ordinance provided that we had, language either in the ordinance or appended to the ordinance in some way that made clear that
it's all subject to an agreement with Jefferson Scholars Foundation as to both, the amount of money involved and the placement, handling of easements and utilities and and whatever all else. You know, that that site there, yes, in theory, we could say, well, gee, you ought to tear down what you got, and let's go go build 64 units of housing. That's not gonna happen. I think the question is given what the property owners want to do with the property, what they want to do with the property doesn't sound like it's it's anything
we object to. And the only question I'm I I don't see it. The the the questions that the staff has are involving basically, five parking spaces. I don't frankly see that as a huge issue and dealing with the easements. So if we deal with the easements to the satisfaction of the staff, then then fine. So I just I would be in favor of a motion, that would attach that requirement that that the condition be expressly stated that it has to be worked out
with staffs and on money and easements. Can I ask one quick question? It says within the 20 Foot Oak Street platted right of way. What what is that? That's in the second paragraph. I think that might be some language from another bandwidth. That's interesting. Sorry. You're looking to the draft deed or the, ordinance. I'm looking at the ordinance. Second paragraph of the ordinance. It says there's no known record of city council ever having formally accepted the area
within the 20 Foot E Oak Street right of way into the city streets. Is that something this may have slipped in there? Because I didn't think Oak Street was in that area. It's not. It is. Yeah. It is. Like so anyway, you just wanna clean that up if it's Well, I I should note that for the policy that mister Ophelia handed me this moment ago, this is a essentially a first reading and then in between, we work out the details and then you vote on the second reading kind of, of process that's laid out in our policy here.
It says, if counsel has indicated a desire for the area to be purchased by adjoining land owners, then the City Attorney's Office shall contact the applicant to negotiate sales price prior to any second reading of the ordinance. And then, If counsel has indicated a desire to condition vacation upon commencement of a development within a specified period of time, and prior to any second reading the ordinance, staff shall confer with the applicant as to what amount of time is anticipated prior to commencement of the development activity. Where are you reading from? I'm reading from, this is the policy that was, passed via resolution back in 2019. Vacation. And it further says that prior to scheduling an ordinance for final action, the Clerk
of Council shall verify the City Attorney's Office that all matters contemplated be set forth within a final ordinance have been incorporated into a final proposed ordinance for Council consideration. So I believe what you can do is consider this a a first draft. What this might look at look like once you have indicated desire to move forward with this, we would work out the details and that would be incorporated into the final ordinance, which you would vote on. So, I just wanted to chime in about my position support it as well because they they're paying, taxes, on the space. They are, allowing businesses to use the space.
And if we have to create an, you know, you know, to to formalize that, we can do that. And also just as a side, I've been working with many of the students over the last year to do many volunteer things in communities. Matter of fact, this Saturday, we're doing, habitat lunch. So been a great asset to the community. So I'm going to support, this not because of that, because I think it's a, you know, that it's, it'll be a, you know, a plus for the city. I just wanted to correct myself just for the factual record to be correct that
the six properties that the Jefferson Scholars Foundation bought were not the ones tonight, but directly across the street. Six properties, I think five of them undeveloped. So essentially Oh. Turning that, significant part of that street not into housing, but the Jefferson Scholars. Personal street. Okay. Can I get a a motion for consideration? So we're moving this. Alright. Help me out here. Yeah. I moved the ordinance as layout in the packet here, knowing that this is the
first essentially of two readings. So I understand the process. This would be the the first two rings. Things. I think what I'm looking for is a a motion, indicating the council's desire to vacate the property if, if, suitable terms can be reached. I move what you just said, sir. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Okay. I think I need some clarification on what that that I I can't imagine why. So if it's a public hearing I think by the adjoining land owners by the
Jefferson Foundation. And asking further asking staff to, enter negotiations for the, purchase of that land the city would be vacating. That sounds like a fair statement. I'll second that. Is that is that what she made what she meant? Yeah. I second it. Are you okay, miss Thomas? We'll we'll clarify it. Okay. So is it up to vote? Yeah. As she's working on it now. The motion Waiting on Lloyd's boat. Going both boys boat?
No. I'm, waiting on Lloyd's boat to show up. Oh, I see. The motion passes three to two. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is, an endorsement of the 2026 p j TJPDC regional legislative program. David, you made it back in time. Thank you, sir. Yes, indeed. Thank you, mister mayor. Mister mayor, members of council, David Blind, director of legislative services for Thomas Jefferson Planning District. And I'm here this evening to present to you the, regional legislative program, for 2026
for your approval. And as I had noted in the memo that is in your packet, the draft program list top prior three top priorities, which are a continuation of the priorities that are in the current 2025 program. Those are public education, budgets and funding, and land use and growth management. If I could just, briefly run down, those priority items. The public education funding is a perennial, priority position that endorses realistic levels of state funding for k 12 education.
The budgets and funding position also is a long standing priority. It's kind of a catch all that supports enhanced state aid for local programs. It it states our opposition to unfunded mandates, and to the elimination or restriction of local revenue, authorities and sources. Pair those two together, in terms of, some of the changes that are included in the draft before you, both to recognize that the federal government's, fundamental change, it's it's
relationship with the states in terms of funding, is changing. And also then, you know, some specific new language to say that, the state, should not shift costs to localities, of those programs that are previously have been funded with federal dollars in the event that those dollars are no longer there. The third priority position, is on land use and growth management. Localities, as you know, the past several years have seen, any number of bills that have been introduced in the general assembly that would have usurped or restricted local land
use authority. Again, we've seen that many times the past couple of years. I would expect we will continue to see those bills show up in the coming session. We strengthened this position last year, as a result of those concerns, so there are no changes to that position that are being proposed at this time. The second part of the program is, legislative position section, which really focuses on the most critical recommendations, and positions in other areas of concern to local governments outside of the, priorities. And to highlight a few of the proposed changes, which are included in your materials,
actually, first, I wanna highlight one that is, a carryover because it is a priority for council, and that is endorsement, and support for the one cent sales tax for, school facilities, and that's in the education section of that, of that section of the program. Otherwise, there's, some new language in the Children's Services Act section on page three, opposing caps on straight, state reimbursement under the Children's Services Act. In the health and human services section, some new language, again, kind of following, the previous language, services section, some new language, again, kind of following, the previous line with
regard to the federal situation, calling for investment in our local social services departments, for, administering revised SNAP and Medicaid programs and the changes that we've seen with those. There's also, some language endorsing additional funding to local communities, to assist low income working families with child care costs. And then, finally, in the transportation section, there's some new language that supports additional state investment, for our transportation infrastructure. I also wanted to point out, the last, several years, there have been two areas
in the legislative positions, section those are both on page five, one in the general government section related to, maintaining sovereign immunity for localities. That's in the first, actually in the third bullet. And then in, also on page five, at the top of the page, in the environmental section, I believe it's in the first bullet having to do with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The position, stated, in the program is to oppose any mandated expansion, of the act.
And again, those are two positions in which the, city council has expressed a difference of opinion on. If you continue to do that, choose to do that tonight, we certainly will continue to make note of that in the program, as it's finalized. So those are, the remarks I wanted to present to you this evening. Glad to take any questions that you may have. And, again, I'm looking for your approval of the program tonight. Okay. Michael, any questions, comments? I'm I'm good to approve it with the, note that Charlottesville doesn't agree on the
Chesapeake Bay and qualified immunity issues. No. Can you explain on page two, third to last bullet? We believe accessory dwelling units should not be mandated and that local government should retain the authority to regulate them. Yeah. We've had bills the last several years that would require, you know, I think this goes along, you know, with the, position, you know, for maintaining local authority that local governments make those decisions about accessory dwelling units or other things related to land use, housing, as opposed to being told by the state that it'd be a requirement.
I believe in in our our city's legislative priority list, there was a bullet point of, accessory dwelling use accessory dwelling units should be allowed by law across the state. Does is that a I don't think that would be a conflict. You said allowed. So Well, right. So I'm the mandated here seems They're currently allowed, and you all can make that decision. Right. So And a community could choose not to. Correct? Right. And I think that the what we supported on our city legislative packet was they
should be you the city's localities have to allow them. I don't think it's I don't remember that. Statewide. I don't know that it the have to is the part. I think that's that would speak to it being more of a mandate. Now I don't think we were saying that. Hang on. Let me pull this up to confirm. If you give me a second, team. Support statewide permitting of accessory dwelling units. Yeah. Just making it possible. Permitting. Yeah. Yep. Yep. And it's making it a local decision. That's that's still part of it. It's still a decision that any local community gets to make.
Whereas this is mandating it, so it's been saying that it has to happen. Yeah. So I support mandating it. I don't I mean, it not mandating it like everyone has to put in one, but may mandating it that every locality should make sure that they are allowed should someone choose to do that. Well, I mean, I think it's just like we wouldn't want, you know, Page County to mandate that we, you know, to pass something that we should do that we don't want. This is a good policy. So I don't know. I'm Yeah.
That feels like that bullet point goes counter to what we're trying to achieve statewide, which is an increase in housing supply, especially focused on missing middle. So I don't I'd I mean, I'd be happy to second including that in our list of things we don't agree with. Because I think that's it's obviously the housing type, assuming it's not an Airbnb that's actually most affordable. So and I think California and many other states have done what you're talking about. So it's not I think I think your interpretation of our legislative agenda, I think, is correct. Like, the lowest requiring the lowest zoning category to allow ADUs.
So I didn't think that's what she read. I think that's the state legislation terrified. I didn't hear her read anything that had us mandating anything to anybody. Well, regard I know So my interpretation of supporting statewide permitting of accessory dwelling units, it means that there's a statewide law permitting accessory dwelling units. So that Which they're they which this doesn't contradict. This to me says that a locality could say, nope.
They're not allowed here. Yeah. I think I think that the way if I if I'm if I heard you correctly, what we have said is that, there can be no state mandate that says no to ADUs Alright. Which isn't what this is talking about either. I I I don't see the the disagreement between what we've said and what this says. I guess I'm see okay. So this to me and the TJPDC legislation legislative agenda, the way it's phrased sounds
like it's well, that it's giving the local governments the ability to say, we don't want that if we don't want that. But I think all local governments shouldn't have that ability. I think accessory dwelling units should be should be forced to be allowed in any locality. Recognize that that is not what we counsel said. It's what maybe what you think you meant, but it is not Be that as it may, that independently means I still can disagree with this point Okay. On the because it's in conflict with what we've said.
That's It's not. That's fine. Okay. But I think this is not something I support. Okay. So everything is up to that that that bullet? Because we, you know, we don't have to spend all the years on that one bullet. Yeah. This is just what were the two that you said, the Chesapeake Bay and then the Qualified Immunity? Correct. And I'm happy to send your suggestion. And I will just note for the record that the legislation introduced in the state senate is, to require localities to permit accessory use in residential zones.
So councilor Osher, your interpretation was correct. Okay. So that does seem to be in conflict with this proposed bill that does exist that we're theoretically supporting. Brian, what are your I I I have nothing to add. Yeah. Wait. I I'm not gonna fight over that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm in support of it. The Chesapeake Bay issue that you brought up, Michael. I'm supportive of that as as well. So And really, it's only the first line of that paragraph, the first sentence of
that paragraph that we have a problem with. That that would be correct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So how do we want to move forward with this as far as, voting? I I would move approval of the TJPDC legislative program, noting our two exceptions, of that we disagree with the the first sentence of the first bulleted paragraph on page five, and we disagree with the last bulleted paragraph on page five. Is that I would also like to disagree. Do we have a third vote for disagreeing with the ADU bullet point as well?
Okay. If you wanna add that, that's fine. Okay. Great. Yeah. Let's see. I I that's fine. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, with the addition of that So the motion is being made with the third? With the third. That's fine. Oh, yeah. Okay. Second. So it's been moved by Lloyd, second by Brian. Is that Yep. And, he was preparing preparing the vote. Okay. The motion passes, five to zero.
Thank you, David. Thank you all. Have a good evening. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is, ordinance, creating, new Nuno's Networks Inc. Franchise. Seguer franchise agreement. Good evening, mayor, councilors. Brenda Duncan. Again, I'm the the city engineer. So whereas before you, I think roughly a month ago, a month and a half ago, sometime in that, with a very similar, ordinance. So we're gonna go through this again, but, maybe get a little bit more in-depth
as as to some of the rationale here. So this is for for Lumos Networks, doing business with Segre. They've requested approval of an ordinance granting the renewal of their franchise agreement with the city of Charlottesville. The company's prior agreement has expired. Renewal is required to maintain authorization for Lumos telecommunications facility located within the city of Charlottesville public right of way. This renewal also highlights ongoing challenges related to our double poles and delayed transfer of telecommunications lines, which continue to affect ADA compliance, pedestrian safety throughout the city.
And, really, that's that's kind of where I wanna go with a lot of this, is is this is our continued effort to, you know, do as as you and our city manager as kinda directed staff here. We've been working with Dominion, you know, and Brightspeed. There there are two kind of poll owners in town. All the other ones are through these attachment agreements and franchise agreements. So these these types of franchise modifications that we've made recently really just give us a lot more teeth. You know, a lot of the delays that we've had in dealing with Dominion, they're
the first ones off the pole. Normally, when they they put in a new pole, they come in. They cut off the top after they've transferred their lines. And the delay is in getting these third party attackers off of the old pole and onto the new pole. So these these really, you know, it gives us, again, a much more defined, you know, we we might have had some, authority to to have them come off the pole, but it didn't have the same kind of teeth. We didn't have, you know, a specified number of days.
We didn't have the penalty per day. You know, some of those kind of language that were in the old ordinance, that we're we're now putting into this new one that, you know, really just allows us more flexibility and and authority to deal with them on a day to day basis as far as getting, all these addressed. And I just wanna say too, this is only one aspect, one prong of our approach. Dealing with them. You know, a lot of our ADA concerns, some of them, you know, can be dealt with just by moving the old pole.
A lot of them, you know, are gonna have to be worked with Dominion about, you know, where where does the even sometimes the new pole is in the wrong spot. So, you know, this this is not a a magic bullet, but, it is another arrow in our quiver as we, you know, try and attack this from from all angles. Yeah. Any questions or when this seems So as these renewals come up, we're adding the language to That's correct. Yeah. Every every time that we get another franchise renewal, we're adding this language in, you
know, and kinda saying, hey. If you you wanna do business in Charlesville, this is this is the cost to do that business. Is there pushback or people like, yeah. Okay. That makes sense. There's there's been a little, but for the most part, they they understand that, you know, we kinda hold the cards here. So they've gotta deal with us. Okay. Great. Enforcement is everything. Yep. Yeah. And I was just straightforward and and just for those at home, I mean, I know this is technical, but, you know, it's important because it's about people who are in a wheelchair or any assistance. They get easier for them to walk our sidewalk. So Yep.
You know, it definitely positive the the work to improve this. Can I get a motion motion? I would I would move approval with one catch, and that is that the third line of paragraph two zero six point one is missing the word days after 45. Third line. Could be And two zero six is also missing the e and the on the table of contents. K. It's really sour. Within forty five, forty five needs days. And the gotcha. The e and the. I'm not sure how that dropped off, but we can make that.
Yeah. Amendment. Subject to those typos, move it to approval. Alright. Second. Okay. Motion to be prepared. It just motion passes five zero. Thank you, sir. And, Chris Yeah. Counsel, this is also given that this is a general ordinance as well, if you buy a four fifths motion, we can waive the second reading. I believe that's four. By by motion. By What a good idea. Of the city council. We can waive the second reading of this.
This is the Lumos one? Yes. Is there a reason why a couple of extra weeks doesn't matter? No. I'm just saying I'm just giving you the option if you would like to. It's one reading Is it not automatic if there's a four fifths? If there's a four fifth. No. No. We need a motion by counsel. So all we were doing was passing it to a second reading? We weren't actually voting on it? Correct. General ordinance. That's correct. No. It's one reading in the packet. Yeah. But should we just remake the motion to Waive the second reading?
You you can or you can do it by separate motion. But I mean, we move that we pass out with the intent of with the four fifths vote passing it on one reading. Second. Okay. K. I'll make sure that's clear on the next one. I need Well, it sounds like we're we're doing it tonight. Is that what you're you're are you re moving Yes. Michael? Yes. Correct. Okay. Yeah. So I guess we need to vote again. So I have motion by Payne and second by Ashra. Yes, please. And I think it passes again five five to zero.
Thanks. The next item is, Chris. It's an ordinance to authorize the abandonment of a portion of existing trail easement with load, Locust Meadows Owners Association and and allows the recording with an updated, easement and plat. Alright. Good evening, mister mayor and council, and everybody here. This is a trail easement, which is typically done at a staff level when we acquire new trail easements. We do it all the time. Mhmm. This one we got five years ago, six years ago.
We have an easement with this HOA. We did engineering, and somebody pointed out that if we move the trail 10 feet to the left, we would have a better crossing of of a little wetland outfall thing. So because that means we have to abandon 50 feet of an easement to move that last 50 feet over a little bit. Technically, that's an abandonment of a city interest in real property, which requires council to approve the abandonment. They had already signed the new easement and somebody pointed out because we're vacating, we had to come to council to clear this technicality. And I believe to the last question, if this is a two reading, you have
the same opportunity in front of you for making a point if this is general ordinance. It's a general ordinance. And if I'm I'm not trying to throw, any, anything into the wheels here. But generally, if you, want to waive a second reading, it should be just either part of the motion Yes. Or it should be a separate motion to waive the second reading. And this is the trail that you gave us the funding for the designs and about to be approved through neighborhood development. We hope to actually improve this to a stone dust ADA trail starting in the spring. We needed to get these cleared up to be able to go to bed when
the plans are wrapped up. Great. And I have a nice PowerPoint that was put together just to show you. This is between Holmes Avenue, and Penn Park as you get at the very low end of Meadow Creek near the Ravana River. Yep. Yeah. So any questions? If not, can I get a motion if this is to, to have one reading? May please make it part of your, motion. I would move approval of the ordinance to authorize the abandonment of a portion of the existing trail easement with the Locust Meadows Owners Association, allow recording of an updated
easement plat, and to do so by waiving the second reading with a four fifths vote. Second. Okay. There's no other comment to avoid this. The motion, passes. Five to five to zero. Thank you, Chris. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. The next item on the agenda is, an ordinance, amending the city code for the Police Civilian Oversight Board. Mister Walker.
I just wanted you to be able to say it if that was accurate. That's all. Good evening, mayor and members of council. My name is James Walker. I am the moving side. I am, the acting executive director of the Police Civilian Oversight Board Office. And tonight, we just have, a set of amendments to the existing ordinance council and the members of the board back in September on September 11, I believe today it was. And since that time, there haven't been any other changes other than some slight language
changes after review from the city attorney's office. So the language that, I had presented that evening in that presentation is the same that you see in front of you. The the purpose of these changes is fourfold. Number one, it it clarifies the role of the office and establishes the office as a separate entity, clearly defined the Office of Police Civilian Oversight, and just provides a little bit more clarity in the independence of that office to conduct the work on behalf of the board. Part of the reason for that is the change and and lack of quorum at
times over the history of the board. The second main piece is related to just cleaning up some of the redundancy in the language as well as reordering some of the sections of the ordinance, not removing content, but placing it in sections that make, more meaningful sense. The third section is more related to alignment with policies and other applicable, procedures in the city. So an example of that one was, making it clear that the office staff are the one that would enter into a contract with legal services, rather than one of
the volunteer members of the board. And then finally, just reducing some of the, level of requirements that are placed on the volunteer board members. Some of those training requirements doesn't remove them. It just reduces some of the hours and commitment needed because that often is cited as a reason that it's hard to fill to staff the board with volunteers at times. So, I I'm just recommending that, those changes be made to, the PCOV ordinance. Any questions? Okay. Natalie, I'll start with you. As long as this is the well, thank you for providing clean copy.
I know that was something we had requested at the joint meeting just to be able to see it clearly. As long as there's been no adjustments, since then other than you said the small couple things from legal. And none of those were content related. They were just more wording choice of to make it more clear. That's all. I appreciate that. I don't have any questions at this time. Okay. Brian? I'm good. Thank you for your work on this. I know it was a lot, and you've Yeah. You've done a good job Thank you. Just explaining it in in straightforward terms. So thank you. Lloyd? I as I said last time, I I think these are good changes.
The the draft we or the version we've been working with was written at a time when we didn't have a city manager. We didn't have a city attorney. We didn't have a city police chief, and both the council and the and the PCOB were themselves in turmoil. It was essentially written by our acting city attorney and by the PCOB attorney. And we we're just glad it got done in 2021, before some other folks went off the board, but went off the council.
And so, anyway, point simply being that it has been recognized for some time, and there are some issues associated with it. And I'm glad we're getting them resolved. Michael, did you have any commentaries? No. I mean, I'm I'm good with these. I'm happy to move these to the consent agenda for next meeting and would just note for the community that this is not an overhaul of the Police Civilian Oversight Board. There's no in this, what we're discussing tonight, there's no change of the overall oversight model or powers or functionality.
This is really cleaning things up in any larger policy changes. You know, if they do happen, will happen with work sessions of city council. I just wanna note that for the the the community. I know, I've gotten a couple emails, you know, inquiring whether this was an overhaul of the PCOB or not, which it's not. But it is it is cleaning things up. So it is important, but it's not, you know, a fundamental change. Correct. And thank you for stating that. I I meant to also state that this does not change in any way the powers, duties, or authorized abilities of the board itself.
I believe this could also be done in the same way, or is that not the case? I'm sorry. That is correct. This could be one where you could waive the second reading if if, the council so desires by four fist vote. I mean I'm happy to I mean, I guess, I'm just confused because what was in our packet is one reading. We've waived this one is one of two. So I we've listed as one of two. I So I would tell you that it's not been entirely consistent on items, when we're putting together the agenda. And I'm hoping that this is something we're gonna clarify and work on at a
council retreat, in January. Working on what items need to first and second readings and get some additional clarity for staff on that. But I'd tell you right now from my reading of the city's ordinances, council has the authority to waive second reading on this item. That's that's fair. And, again, it's not that big a deal. The ones earlier that were listed as one reading, I was happy to pass this one. I mean, this one's listed as one of two. I just always like to give the public if it's listed as public if it's listed as that that opportunity. But, I mean, if if it goes to consent agenda, that's not the end of the world, is it? Nope. That's fine. Yeah.
So consent agenda for next meeting? We change business cards in a couple weeks. That's all. Think you need it? No. I'm just teasing. I wasn't supposed to You you know our you know our public. You know all that. I'm not I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree. That's fine. I just want to give it another two weeks to That's an excellent point about it being listed that way. We don't wanna mislead. So I'm just giving you the option if you want. Yeah. Sure. Okay. So, it looks like did we want this on a consent agenda item for the mixed meeting? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Appreciate it. So this, we're now at the opportunity for the second community matters. Will anyone from the public like to speak? Right. Hello? Ralph Brown. I live in Whitehall. I I just wanna comment. I got here a little too late for the public comment on the public hearing on the the, ordinance to vacate Clark Court. But first, I need to ask the city attorney. I didn't see anything in the agenda say what reading that was. But my understanding is all of you thought you just voted on a first reading
and that's not that ordinance is not final? That is correct. For the, court court, I think we You initiated negotiation. Yeah. Yes. You that's right. Yeah. So I I didn't see anything saying that in the agenda items, so I I don't know what you need to do to clarify that. I think there are big problems with this particular vacation if you look at the overall context around surrounding the Jefferson Scholars, not the Jefferson School, Jefferson Scholars Foundation and their land use in that area. First, did you all know that, James Wright, the president, he personally sued four of you three years ago to stop a zoning change, who were on city council at
the time? That was that was apparently a different property, but the behavior of of mister Wright and the Scholars Foundation consolidating all the properties in that area by the way, there were originally three properties surrounding Clark Court. There were originally more than that, but they've had deed changes made. As a result of this vacation, they will probably have more deed changes made. As a result of this vacation, they will probably have more deed changes made, consolidating to one property. Now it's possible that in the future, the foundation might fall on hard times and they might decide, well, we want to sell some of our property, only keep what we need. And that property then could be used for badly needed student housing.
The idea that it's a done deal, that they that there's never gonna be housing built there is kind of a fiction that they've built through legal moves, such as consolidating different parcels of property into one. And by vacating the court, the city puts its rubber stamp now on that and prevents future development. And this isn't the university. This is a private foundation you're dealing with. It should be like Joe Schmo Foundation to benefit Joe Schmo wants you to vacate
the street. So you should look at whether there's a public benefit to this. And I don't really see one. I don't even see a public benefit to what the Jefferson Scholars Foundation does. They endow a bunch of chairs that seem to, in some departments, for example, that seem to have special interests. And people assume that's liberal. They're conservative special interests that want to endow chairs at the university. They're a conduit for doing that. One of the few liberals I can find they endow as a professor in the law school whose proposals always seem to reduce at the end of the day to, I want to repeal section two thirty and censor the entire Internet.
I don't think they've done any public good at all And I don't think that this proposal does much public good or that you should show them any more favor than Joe Schmo who owns two parcels. So I think you should vote against the second reading of this ordinance because of the just how this whole thing was set up, the lawsuit, everything about it. It it stinks. Thank you. Thank you. And you and would else like to speak? Yes, Rob. So I thought that oh, I'm sorry. I thought the public art thing was gonna have a place for somebody to comment,
but it didn't. So here I am. I have experience with city murals in New York City and Park Slope, Brooklyn, and there was a whole board of architecture. Anyway, I emailed you Natalie and Michael and Lloyd about process. But here in Richmond, Hamilton Glass organized after the statue take down in, August August 12.
A mural, application, 30, I think they are. It's called, Mending Walls. Hence, the name mending so that, people would look at the murals and have voice. And it was a voice of expression, but he used tuck tucks. Do you know what tuck tucks are? Am I saying that right? Okay. There's little foam bills that are electric. And so people from the center, I'm a member of the center, we got in the tuck tucks. We got bused there, and then we got in the tuck tucks, and they took
us to all the murals. Why am I telling you this? Because I think that Hamilton Glass should be on your board to begin with. Let him tell you, first of all, he got the monies from the grants. He was able to do all that. He's an architect. That's that's where I'm coming from also in New York City. We had a board of architecture was, like, the head of it. It still is for, like, if you wanna put up, you know, the Katz Delicatessen guy got put as a, tile mural in the, subway, you know, to honor did
everybody go to no. You know, the deli okay. It's a big thing. So but anyway, you know, that sort of thing. It takes three years in New York City because the environmental, like, if you're building a building and you put a mural there and how the environmental impact of that is, like, if you're the people out the building, how what they're looking at all the time, maybe they're just gonna see an eyeball. Mhmm. So how the scale has to be?
That's what the architecture anyway, Hamilton Glass. Okay. Thanks. Okay. He was here and he did the, bridge mural project or the Charlottesville project. He was, a part of that foundation. But he if he's still available, he should lead this. That's why that's why I'm thinking. Bye. Thank you. Joy, will you? Good evening again. My name is Joy Johnson, and I'm the chair of Farr. I know there has been some questions about, or some statements about, housing low income
housing that students may be living in in our neighborhood. And when things get built, such as Healthy Collective or whatever, the the students were moving in there. And, and that, there was some questions about that, Jeff I mean, Vanderbilt School, enrollment has gone up. Well, part of the reason why, that went up, West Haven Residence when I'm when
when I came to Charlottesville, half of West Haven residence children would go to Vanderbilt and half would go to Vera Moran. And then they changed it, and then all the kids was going to Colorado Moran. About five years about four to five years ago, they changed it again where all our students from the affordable housing, why that has went up.
So I just wanna clarify that. What has happened is Jeremy Kaplan, who should be given an award for what he does, take those houses or buy those houses, and he redo them, and then he rent them for affordable. And so people are staying in the neighborhood. Other than that, they will become it, these the Airbnb or the people would flip them and they will become, $500,000 home. So I just wanted to make sure I put that out here to say that
is not why that is not the the main reason why the enrollment available went up is because now all of our students are going to, available. But the the thing about it is that the housing that are in the ten ten page neighborhood, is either being bought up, turn into half a million dollar homes, and Airbnb, and, you know, land they're just vacant landlords who or lots that are
just, sitting there. So I just wanted to say that. And then the last thing I would like to read from my statement is that, we need UVA to house students on campus away from other neighborhood. Love for student home home housing will not get UVA student out of our residential neighborhood. There is the argument that after the flats and the standards were built, student enrolled increase at the trailblazer. Now just explain that. And also about Jeremy. I I just think that, I don't I'm not gonna read it again because I'd be re reiterating what I'm saying.
But I just think that tonight was an opportunity for council when the the city manager asked you, let me be clear. What is it you want me to do? You all could have started this process of talking about it, even before the new council come on about going back and changing, changing whatever. Appreciate your time. That's why I said, yeah, I wanted to finish saying what I had to say. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, I, is that motion to it?
Mister mayor, could I just comment briefly on what miss Johnson just said. Miss Johnson, I I I don't know that anybody up here on council thinks that the argument for the LV collective has been made that it's gonna free up affordable housing. That was made ten years ago, and there actually was some evidence right away that that happened. But I've we heard from Hamilton Lombard a couple years a year or two ago, I guess, when he said that there doesn't seem to that doesn't seem to be
a likely outcome this time around. So I don't think anybody up here is is thinking that the LV Collective is somehow gonna help the the affordable housing situation down in Tenth and page. Okay. But thank you. Now that we agree with you, in other words. I appreciate that. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Thank you. Part: 2
Sam, you're ready? Yes. I called the Charlottesville City Council meeting of no 11/03/2025 to order. Before we begin, I know that it's a very fluid situation what's happening over at the University of Virginia. We, may be getting information as the meeting goes goes goes on. So we will carry on with this meeting with heavy hearts and, uncertainty, but, prayers and thoughts with, the first responders and the families. So, so we we will go on with our business best we can.
The Charlottesville, meeting will come to order. Miss Thomas, will you please call the roll? Counselor Ochsran? Here. Counselor Payne isn't here yet. Mhmm. Vice mayor Pinkston? Here. Counselor Snook? Here. Mayor Wade? Here. We we thought we may have to make an adjustment to the, agenda, for the regular business meeting, but we believe that, David Blunt, which had an item on number eight, will be, here on time. So we're gonna continue with the regular agenda.
Is there a motion to approve the agenda and second? So moved. Second. All in favor, please say yes. Yes. All opposed, please say no. Thank you. The meeting will be divided into three sections. The first one will be a work session, where we will talk and not, take a vote. In a second, we will go into closed session or recess, and then we will have our regular business meeting at 06:30. We have two reports today. One is from Kayepp, and then, discussion on the zoning regulation and current planning and
zoning work plan priorities. So is, Kayeep, miss miss Ragland, are you presenting? Yes. Thank you. Gotta bring this all the way down. Can everybody hear me okay? Yes. Alright. Good afternoon, Mayor Wade, city council members. Thank you all for this opportunity. My name is Latara Radland, and I have the fortunate opportunity to serve as the KAAP program coordinator. And let me just say I am a little nervous because, I'm used to watching from home. And let me just be honest about that. But through and through, very thrilled and fortunate to be in this role here at
the city of Charlottesville, department of human services through community attention, community based services. And tonight, I'm gonna do my best to present to you the great impacts that you all already know that, KAYEPS serves here in our community. For our youth, I work as a department, and personally and professionally, this program just really pulls on my heartstrings, each and every session that we have and youth after youth. And so tonight, I'll be spending some time just presenting about, summer twenty twenty five.
And do I just click this to go to the next? Mhmm. Yay. I did it. Okay. Mhmm. So one of the tasks that our counselors get to do is take pictures of our interns while they are on-site and in session. You all already have a report, and this was the cover of that. And so I just wanted to share that for everybody as well. Again, these are interns that gets to, have an opportunity to be on-site working hands on, with our site partners, that we cultivate as a staff. And so as we go through the presentation, I'll talk a little about a little
bit about how we get to that part. So, again, this is a community attention youth internship program with the city of Charlottesville, department human services. And we'd like to say empowered youth engaged community as our thought process around the work. So there's four main goals that, KF has hold true to since 2007. We are almost at twenty years doing this show. So that is celebratory in all itself. So goal number one is really to workplace readiness, getting our young people, 14 to 21 into career paths, working hands on, here in our community, and working towards resiliency,
helping them identify and magnify their own skills, that they already have. And so, you know, we do that by the point of interviewing them. We do that by, interest inventories and celebrating their resiliency when they get to graduation and saying, look, you did this, and holding up their resume to highlight the things that they're already doing and things that they get to add to their resume. Goal number three is networking and mentorship. Again, we are partnering them with people here in our community already, and sites and,
with their camp counselors connecting them to positive adults and resources in the community, and their community engagement. Some of our youth do not realize that we have all of these rich resources here in our community, so they get connected to a site that they may not even know exists. So that is a great opportunity, not only for that young person, but also that, site supervisor to engage with them. And so those are the main four goals that have been in existence and that we we keep just pressing, pressing, pressing. And then also just wanna share some data around where our summer twenty twenty five,
started. So we had 265 total applications received. And every one of those applications, interns received, an interview. No. I did not do those by myself. I, this wonderful human services staff, we all come together and help do those interviews. But every single one of those intern applicants get an an interview because that's part of the process. Really just giving them that opportunity to know what it feels like to be interviewed, the application process. And then a 150 interns were accepted.
73 of those were city scholarships, and then 93 site placements. 93, sites were cultivated for the summer, and we were able to place those a 150, youth into those 93 sites. And so what that really looks like is that there are sites that are taking multiple interns. And that's really what we're striving for this coming summer is having more of those placements because what we're finding out is that our youth are learning from each other. Our youth are wanting to be with each other.
And sites are also, able to do that easier with, you know, more of a group setting than it is one on one. When you we end up with a ninety eight percent success rate, and that's been relatively the case over the last few years. I think when we, set ourselves up in the beginning when we're like, alright. This is a commitment from you, intern, from you, parents, from you, site supervisor, we're looking at the end result being, like, you know, they're ensuring that they have the time, that they have the commitment, that they're serious about seeing it through. And we were able to see that 11 of the interns were able to be
offered employment in there. And we, as KF, do not have anything to do with that. We just like to hear about it and celebrate with our interns when that happens. But it is a beautiful thing when our sites are like, we wanna hold on to this person, and we wanna offer them a job. And they still some sites will keep on posting interns. But, we also learned that in this summer that they are also interns that are earning certificates, and, we wanna hone in on that. So that looks like the ServSafe certificates. They're earning CPR first aid. They're earning Python.
You know, all these things that could have been happening in the past that we just really haven't been magnifying. So that's one of the things that we really wanna go into in these next sessions, in the summer session, just really looking at taking a closer look into. And I talk fast. Sorry. Can I ask you a quick question? Yes. When you say ninety percent success rate, that means, like, people completing their internships? Ninety eight percent of them have done the whole thing? Okay. Thanks. And that's six weeks in the summer. Six weeks, twenty hours a week, one week vacation. So they are saying, I'm only gonna miss five days.
And we do give them two days, that they can, you know, play around with, get some earned money, but really is sacrifice in. And that's for them and their family. So thinking about the demographic data for the summer. It's very similar to last year. Just kind of like comparing, still very similar to what we where we were. And just to kinda give a background, we are still only actively recruiting in the
city schools. That's Charlottesville High School and Charlottesville Middle. I did that right. And so, you know, if you're wondering about, you know, the makeup, we are partnering with Star Health Pathways. So some of that demographics will come from that, group, but solely our, our, recruitment is in the Charlottesville City Schools. So we don't you know, we do the job there, there, we do the lunches, and that is leading up to summer. And then also, as far as demographics, we obviously will, share information with Boys and
Girls Club and Big Brothers Big Sisters, like a lot of the nonprofit agencies and, like Region ten and our DSS, like all of those partners get the information as well. I just wanna pause here. I've been thinking a lot about our site partners, and the reason for this is 93 site partners is not easy work, and mainly because of the maintenance. So they are volunteer, so none of them get paid to host an intern. And the sacrifice that they make to say that they're gonna mentor a young person,
provide meaningful task, that's big. Not just come and, like, sit and, you know, wipe down a few tables. Like, all all those things are important for some of the work. Right? But meaningful meaningful task, like, that's a big commitment. And for where we are right now, you know, it's hard when we have to say goodbye to a business or when we have to say or even when a business has to say, like, I just don't have the time right now. Can you ask me in the spring, or can you ask me next summer? So I really just wanna give space and honor the fact that these businesses, some
of them keep showing up every session. So we offer four school year sessions in the summer. Some of them say yes every session, and some of them are just like, I can only do it during the summer. And that in itself is still just a beautiful thing. So this is is 93 sites, and our City Of Charlottesville sites keep growing. So whatever y'all are doing, keep doing that because we need it. We need it. I feel like this is why we have a program. Right? We don't have our sites.
We don't have our interns. We don't have a program. So really and truly, it is giving them that honor and I try. It's hard. We don't have money to pay them. But the fact that they keep showing up anyway, is just amazing. So just giving them that that space to you know? And some of them have dual roles. Some of them are parents and a site supervisor. Some of them are like, wait. I need to give back because you all gave my child a space in the program. So, yes, I have a space here as a site supervisor to do that.
So we get to hold on to that too. Alright. For those of you who know me, I get a little emotional. I'm trying not to do that right now. Alright. Let me keep going. So the camp experience. For those of you who got to spend time with us, raise your hand this summer. Yes. Yes. Yes. I love it. Pinky, did you yes. Yes. Raise your hands. It was awesome. Right? Sometimes we get violent to all to do things. No. I'm joking. A little bit. It just gets put on your calendar. But, no, the cave experience is one that if you have not yet been a
part of, we welcome it. We will find a spot for you. And it is really because our youth deserve it. And one thing that we challenge them to think about is just showing up with the growth mindset and with their gifts and their talents. So we all have them. And so starting at, the application process, like, we start asking questions right away about who they are, what they wanna do, their identity, their skills. Like, what have you been doing? Share it all the way through, orientation and academy and just building that up.
One of the things that we did for the first time ever was a family night. And so the family night was really to tackle paperwork selfishly on our end. As a department, we were like, wait. We gotta get this done ahead of time because our payroll people are like, this is a lot. But Mhmm. It was fun. And, one thing that I forgot to mention is, like, PVC Bolic Center and Carver Rec Center. They always give us space for these wonderful things.
But the family night was a great opportunity for families to come. This is before we even did academy. They came, had dinner with us, and they were able to meet the counselor, meet staff, talk about what exactly was gonna happen, and get all their paperwork done. And so just a great opportunity to connect with everybody before they sent their child off on the first day for academy. And so it just really reinforced the fact that Caleb is a village effort, and that is really what we're trying to do. And that led to that ninety eight percent success rate. As far as, I talked about academy.
I'm trying to pick points here. Paychecks are always fun. So paychecks is also a opportunity where we get to celebrate with them. For some interns, this is their very first job. And if you know how we do paychecks here in the city for interns, they get a paper check. And so they get to come pick their paper check up from us, and they learn about how to actually apply the financial literacy part that they learned in academy. Like, what does this really mean now that I have all this money? What do I do with all this money? And so we talked through the with them about opening a bank account.
They did get banking bonuses this summer if they open an account. They talked about just saving and, like, making sure they don't spend it all on the one thing. So, yep. And so graduation, you know, just having everybody come together for academy and graduation was just really nice to just round to open us and round us out. And our counselor role, like, is so critical. Like, I cannot emphasize this enough about how much they pour into our young people. And, you know, they serve as the mentor, the motivator, the guides, like, just making
sure everybody stays together. They're talking to the parent. They're talking to the, site supervisor. They're talking to the intern, just making sure that all the pieces are running together. And then meet and greet, that's also a nice spot where the site supervisor and the interns meet for the first time, coordinating schedules, making sure that everything is going smoothly. So so why does KG matter now more than ever? I told you I watched city council, and there were few council meetings ago where
there were two young men that came up and talked about wanting to start an entrepreneurship club. Yes. And, yes, those young men, like, just are amazing. And I was just like, yeah. Because that's pretty much what they've been doing with Troy at OrderUp. But also, this weekend, I was washing my car and one of the kids came up to me and was like, when is the next session? And I'm like, I'm upset because I can't find a towel to dry my car. And I'm like, oh, hey. Like, I was expecting him to actually apply the last session. So it was like those moments where it's like, you know, they want this, this
audience of young people that want to work, that want the skill, that want to just be ignited with give me what I need for the future. And so we are in a unique position here in the city of Charlottesville where we just can, like, build around these protective factors, the resilience, the belonging, the purpose, and just we already know all the all the challenges and the barriers that they're facing. And so I just looked that up for us, and know that they have this program here in our city, and these people that want to, like, pour into them.
Like I said, even for academy, nobody gets paid. Everybody comes to speak. We had a beautiful program of people that just wanted support into them. And so, you know, we just start there and, like, give them, you know, opportunities to glean from people. And so I'm here. If you have questions about what all the takes, I'm not gonna bore y'all with all the things you have. Like I said, you have a report in front of you. But one thing so my oh, look. My call to action. Here we go. And that's us being silly as a staff. We have fun. This was our family night.
We had to have fun because listen, there was a lot of people in that space, and we learned a lot of things afterwards. But my call to action, and I say this, at every k a presentation. The one thing is to tell a young person that they are good enough and that they are worthy worthy enough for this program and any program that they want to do. And even though it's a no, it's not a never, and really and truly just keep going and that's keep asking. I have interns that ask all the time, like, every session. What about this time?
What about the and I'm just like, keep it. Let's why not? And there are so many ways to be a part of the work y'all. So many ways. Not just you all, but anybody that's listening. So whether that's, you know, in kind donation, sharing about the work, whether that's the site supervisor or just encouraging someone to be a site partner. But that's all I have. Those are my call to actions. Thank you all for all that you you do with the city council, like, just continuously pouring into this program and all of our youth programs here in the city.
Miss Ragland, you did a great job. Thank you. So thank you so much, and I understand how you can get passionate about this. Just a quick side, those young men that, came, I made sure that I followed up with them, and they have been connected with the superintendent, the principal, and, school board to get what they need. So, you know, that is what this community does. We step up our our young people. And, I think that this before I, have other counselors to comment on this, this is one of the most powerful things I think we can do as, council, is
to pour into our young people, to to give them. And before I got on city council and got this crazy schedule, I hosted, youth, from the KAYA program. And they were amazing, and I could see why it's 98%. Because you interviewed me to see what I needed. Yep. And you, you know To see whether you were good or not. Yes. Yeah. That was definitely. But, the people, the young ladies, that you assigned to me, they came prepared. They knew what to expect. And every week, you all touch base with me and also with the, the student
to make sure is this working out? Anything needs to be improved upon. Powerful connections and relationship, many of them I'm still connected with as they go into college and they'll matriculating in the community. So I'm glad that we can put we can we can do this. The money that we put towards that, we get back tenfold, you know. In a lot of ways, we never see down the road. I forgot all about the the paycheck, just kinda getting that at the end of the week or two weeks that I work for this, I earn this. That that is so powerful.
So thank you. I appreciate you. And and and I know it's a lot of work. It's really grown. And I can only imagine if you, you know, each week you reach out to each person, I mean, each organization, that that's 93 is a is a lot. I did have a a question about, Well, what can I say something real quick? I wasn't gonna say this in the beginning, but, a fresh 19, 20 year old 20 year old attire actually stepped into the Elmer County, office where Mayor Wade worked. And I was like, they told me to come here Yeah.
Because you were gonna help me find a job. Yeah. And it happens. Yes. Yes. It happens. Well, you you were But ODU. Right? Yes. Yes. You know, you're ready to go. You're ready. Like it's a full circle moment. Yes. So it's good to see you in this position. I've seen you grow over the years, and, I'm glad that you're you're leading this up. I can't think of a better person to do it. Oh, thank you. But, I'm glad that we have a lot of it's my a few years ago, it was my understanding that the growth, you know, for the businesses were in a lot of the county places because they have more space.
So is that still the case? You know, I'm thinking of retail type of places. Yeah. So it's been interesting. Most of our, sites are actually in the city. And we're working to get county just because of, you know Mhmm. The youth are sprinkle kind of all over the place. Mhmm. But, yeah, most are in the city. If not all at this point. So, Lord, I'll start with you. Did you have any question? I don't have any questions. I think it's a cool program. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. No questions, but, yeah, thank you for your really excellent work. Thank you. I have a leading question.
If someone were to, wanna join the list of site partners, what's the best way for them to go about doing that? Please, please reach out. My information is actually on the website. And, yes, they can email me directly. And as Mary Rae said, we'll sit down, however they wanna do it, have some coffee, lunch. We'll just talk it through. But, yes. So they can reach out to me directly. Okay. And there's also a form on the website that they're doing. Yep. There's a site perspective form. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Michael? Yes. I was at the event and it was a, fantastic event.
I think really hit home. You know, we end up having a lot of conversation about the youth in Charlottesville. And what you are all doing is actually, like, on the groundwork to address the conversations that we sometimes have and to do it, you know, with the youth in our community, not just talking at them, but, you know, having them involved as partners. You know, as the where where the program is right now, are there any kind of resource constraints that you see that could help grow and expand the program, you know, even further? And, second question, I know the, you know, the the wages for the youth that
participate were set before inflation and a number of other things. Do you hear a lot of feedback, you know, desire for higher wages for those participating in the program? Yeah. So I'll answer the second question first. We do feedback surveys, from our youth, after each session. And they are relatively positive and happy about the wages. Now that's not to say, you know, always more money, whatever. But I do think that right now, they are happy, especially compared to what other
places would ask for. And I think that is where we started. Right? Like, why we ask for the $15 an hour. And especially without tax is being taken out, you know, all that good stuff. As far as resource constraints, definitely. I mean, I think we are starting to see where as, you know, obviously, the participation, the competitive of the program, you know, wanting to increase those numbers, and then we're gonna look at space, like, all those things. Right? So, like, obviously, we were talking about, like, the youth wanting to make sure that
we are, you know, reaching everybody as much as possible. So and we're always talking about that. Like, I don't think I can talk enough about how wonderful my team is, the support. Like, look at them y'all. They they always showing up, always helping out, and just really just rallying behind. So, like, you know, we're we figure it out, but we will never say no to whatever resources we can have. Right? Right. And as we're about to formally enter our annual budget process for city council, are
there kind of, high impact investments that you've identified that city council could make or consider as part of our, you know, upcoming budget process? Yes. There have been conversations. I know that for next year, we're looking at, 255 total youth that we want to serve. So And that's a budget increase of about a 150,000 including staff. That was the staff have to work and most of the cost goes back up
to the Okay. Thank you. And so for that was a $150,000 for how many more people? 50 youth. An additional 50 youth. Okay. Thanks. And that came in in the form of a budget request that they provided last week. Got it. Any other questions or comments? Before you close, Mayor, I'll just say to Littara, as well as the DHS team, thank you all for the good work that you're doing. This is equity work. This is about opportunity and access. It's very important for us to find ways to invest in our young people.
So, we'll figure out how to honor the request that they've made for additional funds. Miss Ragland made sure that she put my arm behind my back in front of all the students and their parents at the close out meeting. So I feel obligated now to do something. I got that. She's good. Thank you all so much. You rock. Good job. Yeah. So, now we're gonna have discussion on the zoning regulation and planning. And I think oh, Matt, will you be talking about that? And so, we will, get, a presentation.
This is, just for discussion to give staff some guidance. And as we are, discussing this, we're not getting project or case specific. We're just talking in in general now, so as we move forward. Thank you, mayor. So, Matt Aufley, development planning manager with NDS. I'm joined this evening by, director Kelly Brown, who should be virtual, who provide I think she's virtual. Yeah. If not, I'll step in for her for her portion.
But tonight, today's presentation will provide an overview of the 2024 development code, which guides our residential and mixed use development. I'll also walk through the zoning framework and key regulatory tools we use to implement the comprehensive plan. As I said, director Brown will follow-up with a deeper dive into the current work plan priorities. The 2024 development code is the foundation for how we regulate and you and use for regular use in development within the city. It includes zoning districts, overlay districts, and development standards that reflect the goals of the
conference of plans. Our focus is to align zoning with community priorities like housing, sustainability, and historic preservation. Residential districts include the RA, RNA, RB, and RC districts, each with different density and form standards. Lot of these got a little mixed up, so I'll rearrange them. But the mixed use district categories are are mixed use nodes, which is the n x three, n x five, n x eight, n x 10, and the d x. Our residential mixed use nodes, which is the r x three, r x, and r
x five. And our corridor mixed use, which is the CX three, CX five, and CX eight. Other districts include the industrial Flex, which is the IX, and special districts such as the Centimeters and CV. Overlay districts add additional layer review, especially for design, historic preservation, and flood protection. Design review is required for several overlay district areas, including entrance corridor and historic districts. The residential projects with 10 or more, units must provide 10% of the units at
or below 60% AMI per pay fee, pay in lieu fee. Bonus height is available for deeper affordability at 50% AMI or an equivalent fee. In loose fees are based on the average cost of the development developing a unit in the Charlottesville market. For student housing within a half mile grounds, there is, no on-site affordable units, but they, do have to follow design constraints. However, an in lieu fee is still required based on the value gap between the
market and affordable unit. A certificate of appropriateness is required for new construction in our design overlay districts. These are the architectural design control districts, historic historic districts, entrance corridors, and individually protected properties. The review types include a minor historic review, major historic review, and corridor review. The board of architectural review, the BAR, requires upper story set backs to to step backs to 25 feet and height reductions along the downtown mall and in other districts.
Considerations include compatibility with the district's character, cost for compliance, and alignment with the comprehensive plan goals. Appeal of the BAR and ERB decisions must be filed within ten business days. If no appeal is filed, the COA is issued after that period. And that appeal can be both from the applicant or from the public. Development may apply for special exception permits to in these dis in our, excuse me, in our, sensitive neighborhoods may, may apply for a special exception permit to exceed the
base height up to seven stories. Applicants must include a community meeting and and show how there is additional public benefit or amenities. Current applicable areas like Preston Avenue and Cherry Cherry Avenue are zone c x three. This, concludes the zoning and regulatory framework portion of the presentation. These tools are actively used to implement the comprehensive plan and guide development in a way that reflects the community's values. I'll now turn it over to director Brown who will walk through the current planning and zoning work plan priorities in more detail.
Hello. Can y'all hear me? Yes. Yes. Good afternoon. Okay. Great. So thank you, Matt. I, will speak a little bit about our current planning and zoning work plan priorities. We are currently focusing on a zoning study looking at short term rentals. The goal is to improve enforcement by investing in software, along in partnership with the commissioner of the revenue that will enable better tracking of home stays and conducting a zoning study as well to refine existing regulations to make enforcement easier. We anticipate that these amendments will come forward in, January, February of next year.
We are also conducting a study of our environmental policies and regulations that intersect with, our goals for housing. The goal is to develop new policy frameworks, recommendations for regulatory changes, and other investments to better align the city's regulations for natural resources with the comprehensive plan. There's a work session, with city council scheduled for November 17 to share proposed priorities and get feedback for next steps. Next slide. Other current priorities, in the work plan for this fiscal year are the tenth and
page and Rose Hill planning efforts. These efforts were identified, and and prioritized during the adoption of the 2024 development code. This plan will serve the needs of the Tenth And Page And Rosehill neighborhoods by building on adopted, the adopted land use vision for this area and the zoning regulations already in place and identify investment priorities for the next five years. We are anticipating a kickoff for that effort, in the winter of, this coming year. We are also focused right now on our development code monitoring and evaluation as well
as bringing forward targeted amendments, to, support technical corrections and clarifications that are needed to support the intent of regulations that have already been adopted. This process will also identify, potential policy based amendments, as tier three amendments that could be, added to future year work plans. There is a work session with the planning commission scheduled for, this this month, and we anticipate that recommendations for these, targeted amendments will be brought forward, in winter of
the following year. And then finally, there is a new priority that, we have added to our work plan with the, inclusion of the housing program as part of neighborhood development services. Our team is, conducting a study of the affordable housing in lieu fees, as part of the, annual amendments to an update to the accessory dwelling unit manual that's required. So this study will evaluate the in lieu fee structure for student housing, non student housing, and bonus height for greater alignment with comp plan goals, including both affordable housing
production and expanded housing options. And so with that, we can move to the next slide, and staff is available for any questions that you might have. Thank you. K. Is that so, do we have questions? So, Sam, if you can kinda help as we, you know, for comments and input, are you looking for us to comment on, like, first on the zoning regulations and then the priority work plan, or how would you like We're looking to see other
questions. Are you in need of anything to help you, in in recognizing what the steps forward are? This work plan was presented to you some months back by miss Brown. The goal was for us to give you an update as to what that schedule is to look like because those work sessions are now about to start. She mentioned the environmental regulations conversation is coming along with short term rentals. Both of those will happen before this year is up. So we just wanted to make sure that you had a chance to check-in because there's so many moving parts to all these different conversations.
And if there was a need to reprioritize or reorder them, that's really what we were looking for. Got it. And if not, then we feel like this is, again, reminding you all what the order of steps are. Right. And so that would include, counsel like, to changing of the work plan to look at the zoning ordinance again, that would have to be. And so that's what we would like to kind of first, first of all, get your input on on that. So I'll start with you, Michael.
Do you have any thoughts on, the work plan or changing of that work plan? It's great that we're gonna be getting some information on the air, homestays before the end of the year. That's, I didn't, that's great. But, Michael. Yeah. Just to, go back to the affordable housing requirements and that split between non student housing and student housing. If that it could just be pulled back up. If not, that's fine. But Sorry.
Because I just think this is an important point. I think Mhmm. Maybe, you know, many people in the community weren't familiar with the history of this. So there's two types of fees, construction cost and value gap. And it's a little hard to read on the screen, but, you know, the difference in those two formulas is, double the amount of affordable housing payments. So student housing pays half as much in the payment in lieu formula as non
student housing. The history of that is at the time the theory was for non student housing, the goal was to incentivize building it on-site to have a higher payment in lieu fees that are incentivized to build it on-site. Student housing, the theory was, there's less value for building the affordable housing payment or building the affordable housing on-site. So I have a lower payment. But I think that's an important point that for student housing, the payment in lieu fee is half of what it is for non student housing. And that's determined by a point five mile radius from campus grounds, where that formula
where, again, they're required to pay half as much in affordable housing payments. Could you just remind us again where that point five miles is set from? Sure. So the the, the point five mile radius is, based on basically a single a buffer around, the definition of campus grounds. And campus grounds has been identified as all of the prop the contiguous property owned by the university on grounds. There's a there's a map that's available.
We didn't provide it with these materials, but there is a map available, on our web page, and through the GIS viewer if anybody is interested in looking at it. And then you can just imagine, or or use that tool, the JS tool to understand if you extend that line a half mile in any direction, what what areas would be included. So if if that's the metric that would include UVA hospital system buildings. Correct? The so the the grounds is not defined to include any of the UVA hospital system, but it does, when you extend the half mile beyond, yes, it does end
up including, part of the hospital system as the area where this this, this in lieu fee would be required. In that where that area that the point five miles starts to apply, that was, a determination made by zoning administrator that wasn't legislative action by city council? The the, determine the the decision that this student housing in Lufe should, apply within a half mile of campus grounds was established when the development code was adopted.
The zoning administrator makes a determination with every application essentially that comes in if that property is located within a half mile of the campus grounds. Yeah. Because my my concern is from, where I've seen it set at least, in the recent decisions is a location that is not contiguous Central Grounds Grounds has been chosen, which is putting a very significant portion of both Fifeville and Tenth And Page in that point five mile radius where in this framework, the city has decided student housing
is the priority for what goes there, which at least for me was not the legislative intent of this and has gone, too expansive, especially when you look at, in our own inclusionary housing analysis, student housing is the most profitable housing type, along with senior care facilities. So that mean there's a very significant amount of, potential payment in lieu funds for affordable housing that we're foregoing in addition to targeting far too much of Fifeville and Tenth and Page for student housing construction.
But I just think that is a very important point, for the community to pay attention to. Another question. So for the tier three amendments in the in the work plan, those are really anything that is a substantive policy change. So any changes to overlays or zoning districts. Correct? Yes. That's correct. Anything that would, essentially change the land use vision that's been adopted already through the
comprehensive plan, would would be considered a, a tier three amendment and would require, a separate effort to to look at, you know, what are the problems that we're trying to solve, what, would be the potential impacts in terms of benefits and burdens, you know, who would we need to make sure we're including in any consideration of policy changes from a community engagement perspective. The time for significantly longer than any of the other tier one or tier two
amendments where we are essentially seeking to make, clarifications to policies that are already well understood. And we're just simply seeking to clarify that. We're just And we're just simply seeking to clarify what was intended. Right. So, essentially, tier one and tier two are kind of a mix of fixing typos and kind of pretty small administrative things. Tier three is substantive policy things that, you know, the community cares about. And that for that tier so tier three changes, what is your current timeline for
the earliest under your current framework you would anticipate adopting any changes? Well, we can consider the, the short term rental study essentially a a tier three, zoning study where we are, you know, doing a lot of detailed staff analysis. We are doing community engagement. We are putting together staff recommendations for, planning commission and council considerations. So that's something that's already on our work plan. If we conclude our environmental policy review and ordinance, review, that might also include some,
recommendations for development code changes that essentially represent, tier three amendments. So those are on those are underway. When we, initiate, the, review of the in lieu fees for for student housing and and the, essentially, the framework for essentially, the framework for for how we consider, affordable housing relative to to student housing. That is a tier three zoning awards amendment. So we, have all of those on our work work plan. We're seeking to complete those. And when we put together a new work plan for fiscal year twenty seven, we
would, seek to evaluate what sort of capacity we have to add additional tier three amendments, and we would look for feedback and guidance from planning commission and council in terms of how to prioritize additional work plan items. So in the, you know, the current framework, it would be easily a year plus for additional That's that's that's fair to say, I guess. And last question. So in recognizing this this is a matter of, you know, policy decisions city council
has made. But for the tenth and Page and Rose Hill, small area plans, what is the planned mechanism for being able to turn those plans into reality? Well, the the the that's grounded in the, I guess, the approach to these planning processes that, the, the the city will will collaborate with the community to understand what additional needs are, in areas such as, mobility or, financial tools for, wealth creation, affordable
housing tools, for example. Those are kind of the, focus areas of these planning efforts. And so it would be, grounded in trying to understand what the community needs and then what are the, city investments or partnerships with, other stakeholders, other, other service providers to make those the to make those recommendations a reality. Right. And if Go sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. I was just gonna say just, I guess, one other thought there. If if there are, recommendations that come from that plan that are, related to the
land use vision in the community, for example, we staff would seek to document that and understand how those sort of, concerns, considerations could be, addressed in future studies. So really trying to, come up with a plan for what can be accomplished within five years and what might need then some longer term study as well. So just, a few thoughts. I mean, one on the Tenth And Page in Rose Hill small area plans. You know, one of my concerns is, you know, from conversations I've had over the
years, I think one of the things that's hoped for from Tenth And Page and Rose Hill neighborhoods is through those small area plans being able to do things like the 501 Cherry Avenue project where there's a community benefits agreement that's getting a catalyst project that's involving the neighborhood from a ground up level. And we don't have a zoning in Tenth And most of Tenth And Page and Rose Hill that would allow that to become reality, because 501 Cherry you know, you only have a community benefits agreement if you have a special use permit or some
sort of discretionary process to require that. And I think another thing people, you know, look for is the ability to have catalyst projects where the economic development authority or some entity could be involved in purchasing a piece of land and developing businesses that the community wants to see that are leading to community wealth building. And that requires a level of intentionality in our land use that I just don't I don't think we have except in the core neighborhood overlay. So we're gonna be creating a plan that can't be implemented to meet what I
ever heard is a lot of those neighborhoods' expectations. And that's a major concern to me. The second is obviously the question of student housing in Tenth And Page in Fifeville. Not speaking about specific projects tonight. I know I know for tonight. But, you know, that's a broader policy question. You know, we touched on when we were developing the new zoning ordinance that, you know, in our own economic analysis we had done, the only housing type of six, seven stories and above that makes financial sense in Charlottesville's market is student housing because
it is the most profitable housing type. And we in extensive areas of Tenth And Page and Fifeville and Rose Hill as well are essentially allowing, student housing by right at seven to 11 stories, which is not just a change for the neighborhoods at the aesthetic level, but has an economic impact in terms of changing the businesses there, changing the demographic makeup of the neighborhoods, can fuel gentrification depending on the project, where I think we would be far better
off to have a much more intentional strategy around student housing that's not And don't build very large projects like the Verve, but target them in Barracks, Ivy Road, JPA, and not push that change into Tenth and Page and Fifeville because of the gentrification and displacement risks. And our zoning, I don't think, is accomplishing that goal right now. And I do think we have to move to rectify that issue on a much faster timeline than, a year before we get an at best, an initial study done.
And, you know, I just think that's a very important change we have to take up tackle. And I think the community whatever decision, you know, the majority of city council comes to, I think the community very clearly expects us to at least have that conversation and make known, you know, what our rationales are for making or not making any changes. And I just think that has to happen on, you know, a faster timeline than, than, one, not being in the work plan at all right now. And then two, if it was added to the work plan, it has to happen faster than just, a year before study is is commissioned.
And I think part of that comes down to city council too. I mean, I think there are changes we can make to, you know, alter the area of core neighborhood overlays or other changes that don't necessarily require, you know, an outside consultant to, you know, spend 6 months to a year studying. Just comes down as a change that, you know, city council is comfortable making. And we have done zoning text amendments in the past on I think it was done in a period of one to two months when we made a zoning text amendment to allow, the 2117 Ivy Road project for student housing to get done.
So there's clearly a precedent to do it. May I just make a a couple comments based on a few of the, comments that you made Sure. Mister Payne? No. I I think that was that was helpful feedback. And, a number of the concerns that you raised, I think are items that could be looked at through the tenth and page in Rosehill plan and also the affordable housing in lieu fee study and ADU man ADU manual updates, you know, the the questions of, the areas where the student housing policy applies, and also the question of
how you, well, I guess just starting with that, you know, the question of of where those, where that policy applies, could certainly be looked at through the affordable housing in lieu fee study and, ADU manual update process. And then I think that the question of, you know, once we identify what the community needs are in 10 of the page and Rosehill plan, you identified a number of them that you've heard, through your engagement. We can use this planning process to, develop recommendations for various implementation strategies that can
achieve those goals. Incentive based zoning is one approach. We we use our CIP as well in Charlottesville for small area plan implementation. So there's a number of different, I think, strategies that we can look at to to understand how to meet community needs. So I just wanted to flag that, that I do think there's some opportunities in our existing work plan to look at some of those issues. Alright. And I would I I appreciate that. I I would just say again, and I know this is, you know, not the consequence of decision staff has made. This is city council decisions. But my concern, again, is just if as I expect, you know, a large hope
in those neighborhoods is for community benefits agreements, the ability to do catalyst affordable housing projects or catalyst, community wealth building projects. We're We're gonna have a process that is gonna empower those communities to set goals, but without empowering them to have the leverage to turn those goals into reality. And I think that's gonna create a lot of disillusionment disillusionment and cynicism. And it feels like we got the order of operations backwards where we would have to start with what would give these communities the leverage to turn their vision into
reality. Again, you know, five zero one cherry is something we want more of. That requires special use permits and discretionary decision making, requires partnerships, with economic development authority, other things to purchase lands land in partnership with nonprofits. And we've kind of foreclosed a lot of that possibility, as as I see it. So we just offer that. Okay. You've you done? Yes. K. Natalie, you have the one to come in? A couple questions. The short term rental study, the, just to clarify, the reason why we involve the
director of revenue in that is because we get lodging taxes from short term rentals. But if we don't know the accurate amount of rentals we have more. Oh. Sorry. This is didn't hear. Sorry. So just clarify that the reason why the director of revenue is included in the short term rental study is because of the the lodging taxes that we get from short term rentals. And if we are only relying on Airbnb or VRBO to tell us, yeah. Yeah. This is definitely how many rooms were rent room nights were rented in the last
year, so here's your tax funding. We have no way of double checking that. And so am I correct in saying that the software we're looking for is a way to, make sure that what we're getting from these companies is accurate? Yes. The software, is basically a a it is a tool that, surveys the the Internet, you know, to make sure that all of the listings, that that we that that are licensed, in the city are are accurately are are actually exist.
So, yes, that's a short answer to your question. Okay. And then it catches any that we are not licensed. Right? Right. And then the process moving forward would be to, you know, contact those that, have not received their zoning permit and make sure that they come into compliance. Okay. Great. That sounds like it's gonna be useful. Mhmm. Backing up a couple of slides, if you don't mind, Matt. Please. I'll say when. That one. Yeah. Perfect. Sorry. Sorry. And this might be in the zoning code. I didn't have a chance to look it up, ahead of time.
Is there a timeline for when that community meeting has to take place in the requirement? I don't have the direct add I'd need to look too, but it would need to happen, I can say, prior to, getting site plan approval. Mhmm. I just don't know if it could happen after between in the development plan or site plan process, but definitely before any sort of approvals are granted. Okay. One of the the pieces of feedback that I've been hearing is having that meeting earlier or more than one. So the community, not necessarily, you know, has the architectural expertise to offer input, but
just they're aware of what's going on. They can ask questions and and, feel a little more in tune with with what potentially could be coming their way. So I don't know what the timeline is for that, but, just something to consider as we talk about it in the future is either moving that earlier or requiring a really early one. And then when the site plan is kind of more presentable, here's what we've got so far sort of thing, could be useful. Thank you. And then, can you explain some of the rationale behind the student half mile radius?
Wouldn't student developers kind of build close to the school anyway? So why would we need the extra incentive? And or did we have a problem with student housing developers building that far outside of that half mile radius before? I know, like, the end of Madison Avenue is just over half a mile away. But has there been were there concerns about that? Or just kind of wondering where that underlying reasoning might have come from. So I can take a stab at it. I don't know if mister Friess might be able to, add in a little bit more, since he was, involved at the more more so involved in the time.
But I think that the the idea was actually not so much to incentivize the student housing. Housing. I've come to learn, but more so, it was simply a recognition that it was a very different product type that student housing, that large scale student housing, can't actually be built in a way that could also include, affordable units. Those developers simply wouldn't, wouldn't wouldn't build the student housing if that requirement existed. And so the thought was that, we couldn't require the same sort of we needed
to we needed to, create an affordable housing contribution expectation that was different than the affordable housing contribution for, non student housing. And so then it was really a question of, well, how do you then figure out where you want the student housing requirement to apply? And, there was a recognition that, yes, we do think that the developers would want to build that housing closer to the university. So a half mile, radius around campus ground seemed reasonable.
And, that's that's essentially the background for how we are where we are today. Yeah. I don't really have much to add to that. That's that's that's pretty spot on. Okay. Thank you for that. That that definitely is helpful. So that kind of brings me to a larger issue that, you know, I I think we're, you know, I I think we're let me pull up the slides. The this might be part of the in lieu fee study or the something else that we're looking at. I feel like we've talked about it before, but studying the, the impact of inclusionary
zoning in general and or the tax abatement programs that we want to, think about for large scale development. Because when you do inclusionary zoning of this type where you're requiring an additional fee building and it's only on these larger scale buildings and not on every building, you it has a incentive and disincentive program for the developers where, you know, if they build a hotel or they build a commercial building, that's not going to have that same fee required, so their overall costs are gonna be lower. And the people who are providing the apartment buildings are providing the thing that we
desperately need, but then we're slapping on an additional payment required. And one of my concerns is that a couple of my concerns are that what that does is since it drives up the overall cost of construction, it naturally drives up the rents that are going to be charged in that building. The developers aren't just paying that and then, it's coming out of their overall profit margins or their savings account. They're passing that payment onto the, people who are going to be living in that space. So it naturally drives up the, the market rate apartments in in those spaces.
So that's a problem because then it's just being passed down to the tenants. It's potentially also handicapping the overall size of the developments that we want. And so, yes, we get that one time payment, which is great. Having an affordable housing fund is great. But if that overall building is smaller than what it could have been if they hadn't had to pay that extra several million dollars, then we are missing out on potentially regular long term, year over year tax revenue opportunities. In seeing what the potential tax abatement program looks like, to help lower initial construction
costs to drive up that, the construction of volume for the larger scale projects, throughout the city, because I don't want to be having short term gains at the expense of long term viability and revenue. So I did not actually include the tax abatement study on that list of projects, that I shared earlier, and I I should have, because we are, also that that is another new item to the overall NDS work plan is the tax abatement study.
We are going to be bringing forward our our findings from that study Great. In the beginning of next year. A lot is happening in the beginning of next year. And I might have misspoken, by the way, earlier, the the the short term rental study. We will likely have findings and initial recommendations in the first part of next year, but we haven't scheduled a date to actually bring that, to planning commissioner council. So just to clarify that. So I I don't know, councilor Ochsner, if you had a specific question, but I did just wanna acknowledge that the tax abatement study is also something, that, yes, we
are also looking at. Okay. I appreciate that. Because I feel like I've read that somewhere, and then I didn't see you here. So I just wanted to make sure that that's Yeah. Sue Winsel did it. Yeah. Okay. I know I'm not seeing things then. Thank you. Okay. That's it. Brian? Nope. Lloyd, do you have your name? Yeah. Well, I I think it's important to remember, and I I frankly don't remember all of the details. But I remember as we were getting down to the sort of the finish line in 2023, we were grappling with a number of issues.
And one of the issues was the question really is presented by the the issues that are in front of of council right now, or actually not in front of council, in front of the city right now. It was a question about how to balance on one hand, the need to get decisions made more promptly by, by the city of for for anything to go forward, complaints about the fact that it's taking two years or more for projects to work
through the pipeline. And, one of the reasons it was argued was that there were so many steps along the way where, there was there were discretionary choices by various city boards and and board of architectural review or the planning commission or council or whoever. And one of the one of the points that was made to us was that if we want to have things done more quickly, quickly, the trade off is we have less public input, we have less opportunities for the public to stand up and
squawk. And one of the one of the specific places where this came up, I remember one meeting where at least one of the proposals was that we allow up to five stories by right, but anything over five stories had to be by special use permit. And I had advanced that suggestion, and I don't think I got any interest from anybody in support of that. And so we wound up going opting in favor of of approving more density really
by rights so that people in theory could know when they applied with some greater degree of certainty than they did than they had at the time, what what they could plan for, how they could kind of organize their thoughts. The result of that, of course, is and around the same time, we're also having discussions about whether we wanted to have different rules that would apply to what we were calling at one point sensitive different definitions at different times.
And the and that sort of got shotted to the side, and we were gonna confront that later through the small area plans or something. The point being that we made some affirmative decisions in 2023 that we were going to make it easier to build higher and to build more. And there are some legitimate reasons, in principle for why that's a good idea. But The the question that Charlottesville has never gotten right, in my view, is the
balance of how to, how to, on the one hand, provide more student housing close to the university, on the other hand, recognizing that the neighborhoods closest to the university tend tend to be what we would call sensitive neighborhoods or core neighborhoods or, well, as we want, African American neighborhoods to a large extent, Fife Hill, Tenth, and Page. And that's that's a trade off that we we tried to confront. I remember back in the nineteen eighties, and that got all screwed up. And then we didn't do do anything with it until about 2000, and then that's
when the zoning ordinance was amended to allow ultimately for the building for projects like the standard and so on. And we, on the one hand, thought, well, gee. That's that's not really a very good idea. We don't like more buildings like that. Buildings like that. On the other hand, then we had this question of, well, if we if we make it a two or three year process, then we're making building more housing just impractical. Anyway, I I say that all just to emphasize that for better or for worse, council made some affirmative decisions at the 2023 that have left us in a situation
where counsel doesn't overtly have much control over some of what's happening now. And the issue that I raised at the last meeting, in part because of the comments that folks had been making to us for a couple of months, was whether we wanted to try to revisit that and whether we could revisit that as a practical matter at this point. I'm not gonna get into the legal issues associated with all of that, but suffice it to say that, there there are some important basic issues of, you know, what's
sometimes called urbanism, urban economics about whether we we want to increase, student well, not student housing, housing period. And if so, are there ways that we can balance that against, the the community inputs, that on on the one hand take time, on the other hand, they sometimes end up killing projects. And I I don't know what the answer right now is except to say that I think we, a, we don't currently have the power under the zoning ordinance to
do some of the things that folks want us to be able to do, b, that we affirmatively chose not to have that power two years ago. And I'm not quite sure see is I'm not quite sure where we end up going forward, if we're if we're gonna go forward at all. So that's that's sort of the the history behind all of this. I I as I said, we've we've never really gotten the balance of density, the buy right versus SUP, and all that kind of thing. We've never really gotten that right, and I'm not sure we've got it right now,
but I'm also not sure what we can do right now. Yeah. So, I just wanted to chime in some. I know that, Kelly, you had mentioned something when Michael was coming about the tenth and page in Roseville that you may be doing that. You may be able to, look at the the the, affordable housing. If you can comment on that again. Sure. So we know that one of the, the needs throughout the city, is additional affordable
housing, and there's also interest in property owners, creating greater affordability on, you know, the properties that they already live through potentially the creation of, an, an accessory dwelling unit. So not an affordable dwelling unit, but an accessory dwelling unit or, converting an existing house into a duplex. But there are, challenges to, small developers or, individual property owners, homeowners, pursuing that sort
of, investment, which really allows for wealth creation. And so one of of the things that I think would be interesting to look at are, opportunities for, you know, additional, tools in our toolbox, whether that's, loan programs or, there's grant programs. There's a lot of different, programs that localities around the country are looking at as strategies to help facilitate the smaller scale development. And, we're also, we actually just, got word, that, in partnership with UVA, we received
a grant to, create, kind of a a design library of, of designs that, could help, these smaller scale developers and individual homeowners, bring forward concepts for, for new for for investment in their properties. We're interested in looking at a lot of these different strategies to to help with wealth creation and the creation of affordability in our existing neighborhoods. Right. So as I recall, you know, when we were, it was about, it was two
years ago about now when we were there's a lot of meetings and discussions about, you know, as we wanted to approve this plan by the December meeting. So we had a lot of this discussion in many of those that we said we wanna get into later, like specific neighborhoods and dive into some things a little bit deeper. And that is when we came up with the work plan. We had all these to do things list to do. And when we came up with the work plan earlier this year, it included a
lot of that, the you know, based on the priorities. We have, you know, you know, things change. And I know that, if I'm not sure if there's a lot of discussion during that time. UVA is planning to build some second year dorms. They're planning to lean into that a little bit more that and that will have an an impact on it. You know, some of the things that we're planning to do. But, as far as the the work plan, I think that if we can chime
in some of the things that you talked about, Kelly with that, but, you know, with the, you know, I think that if we're gonna do a major overhaul of the the work plan, we we just have to have, like, a lot more discussion on on that. And, because we have, you know, this that we're I think that we're getting some of the projects that that that we anticipated kind of the, density that we want and but it's not it may not be looking like what, we, you know, we
want. So, so, Sam, are you do you have what you you need? Can I ask one more question? Yes. Yes. This might be on a work plan we've gotten previously and not on this part, but one of those things that we were gonna review was, mixed use commercial throughout the city. And if that if is that still on the to do list? There's a long list of to do items. And, yes, that is on the to do list. It is not on this, fiscal year's work plan, but it is still on the list. Great. Thank you. And just in in response to a few points, on the inclusionary zoning, payment in
lieu requirements, the Housing Advisory Committee got a first look at the draft of the tax abatement program, and it was just their first look. So it's not the final word, but it was interesting. They looked at projects that pencil out with inclusionary zoning, affordable housing requirements, without any inclusionary zoning, housing, affordable housing requirements, and then had a tool to play around with different abatement levels. And what they found is even with no inclusionary zoning affordable housing requirements, most projects,
except for student housing, don't pencil out under current market conditions, because it's just not an attractive asset class for investors when they look at the alternative non housing assets they could invest in. In their draft tool, found that the tax abatement for inclusionary zoning would not make more pencil projects pencil out unless the program started subsidizing market rate units, which is an entirely different question. And some of the developers on the hack, said that the assumptions were actually too
optimistic in terms of the, rents that Charlottesville's market can bear versus the cost. Now they didn't break down and look at student housing specifically, which is the most profitable housing type. So I suspect that will be very different, student housing specifically. And I do think the inclusionary zoning is incredibly important because if what I worry about is if we look at a time period of five to ten years, new market rate supply is, a 100% necessary. But what it will do is, again, over that five, ten year time horizon, will
lower the annual rate at which rents increase, but it won't collapse rents. So people who are already shut out of the market won't gain access to affordable housing, at least for twenty or thirty years until filtering may reach them. And I worry that we would have an outcome where housing options for young professionals are expanded, but housing options for, say, a single parent making 15 or $20 an hour aren't without inclusionary zoning.
Inclusionary zoning is is a trade off of prioritizing working class people, over just housing options for young professionals, which I think is really, we all know the statistics. I think the the average household income for black families in Charlottesville is about 50% of area median income. It's more than double that for white families. So the distributional impacts of these policies looks very different depending on, you know, who you are in our community. To Lord to Lloyd's point, I guess one of the questions for counsel is I
would agree with you, Lloyd, in that I don't think we've gotten the mix in tenth and Page and Fifeville and Rosehill right in terms of where student housing should go. And what I worry about is capitalism in terms of our own economic analysis found this that six, seven stories and above, you're moving to different construction materials, which double the cost per square foot, which means much higher rents, which means, and there's research on this looking at Chicago and other cities that if you double triple height to
these more expensive housing types and working class areas, you can have a diffuse small regional benefit on reducing the rate at when which rents increase, but have a very localized impact in terms of strongly increasing land values, speculative investment pressure, and the induced demand to bring businesses in that are catering towards a wealthier new population that's moving in, which doesn't mean we don't want to build more density. We just have to be very intentional about where it goes and looking at the trade offs. And I worry that we're not getting that balance right because we're pushing a tremendous
amount of change in the most expensive housing type of seven eleven story student apartment buildings into Tenth And Page 5 Phil Rosehill. That's what we're gonna see at those heights because it's the only thing that pencils out financially. So we are gonna transform these neighborhoods into areas of buying for students and fuel gentrification displacement pressures. When I do think we have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time of still getting that student housing, but targeting it in Barracks Road, JPA, Ivy Road. And I think there are some very simple mechanisms to do that through.
It could be expanding the core neighborhood overlay. It could be expanding the use of special use permits, which don't stop how I mean, the largest student housing apartments in Charlottesville were approved with special use permits and rezonings. They don't need to block, change. And the final point I would make just for a foundational kind of value levels, the other thing I worry about is, you know, these neighborhoods, Tenth And Page, Fifeville, Rosehill, have a long history of changes imposed on them by government, where you have
the newest idea from the, you know, the planning profession is imposed on them. And it was not, a bottom up process where they're empowered to make the decisions. I think what we've heard over the past few months is clearly that the residents in these neighborhoods and in West Haven feel this is a change that was imposed on them, and they don't feel that they are empowered to have a voice that matters that's not just superficial. And so just kind of that because of that history, I do think it's also just for me kind of a foundational value that the city should prioritize of giving
these neighborhoods more autonomy. Because of that history of planners who every time they imposed a change, they thought they were doing the right thing. Sometimes it was. Sometimes it wasn't. But, that core approach, I think, was a mistake. All of which say I I agree with you, Lloyd, that we haven't gotten that balance right. And I guess the question for other counselors is, is there any other agreement to, you know, hold work sessions or discussions to discuss zoning changes or changes to special
exception permits or BAR purview in those neighborhoods to address that concern? Or is that some, because I think be for the reasons I outlined, I think it's an important thing for us to at least discuss and have the community understand where we're coming from, whatever decision we come to, or, you know, is there any agreement on that point among other counselors? Is that part of the work plan with that last item on this page? No. As as I see it, it it it is not on the work plan currently as I as I interpret it. I I think an I I think practically speaking, I mean, I would be happy
to have that because I think one thing is clear. We have a divergence of world maybe worldviews too strong a term, but we have a divergence of philosophy about this topic on council. I'm only gonna be here for two more months, so I'm happy to participate in that. I certainly have some, views I could share, but I I think it would be, the timing is not great from that perspective, but I think it might be better to do once a new council is seated after the first of the year.
That would be my that said, if y'all wanna have such a session, I'd be happy to do that. We could incorporate the feedback from the the new counselor coming on. I'd be happy to be the voice for that, whatever you think would be. I do think that it is a significant cleavage in perspective, that's worth talking about at a values level. And I don't think everything's gonna be solved.
I don't know if there's gonna come down to, like, a clear decision. This is the right way or the wrong way. I think it's gonna come down to, alright, we have these values. We see this one way versus the other. And I think just a call is gonna have to be made. I also feel like there has been enough, feedback from the community on this topic that, we owe it to people to have such a, a more direct response. Lloyd, do you have any thoughts on, you know, work a work session on on
this? Well I mean, essentially, this is Not so good thoughts. You say this was basically, like, the big placeholder we put two years ago about this topic. And now we're like we said, okay. At some point, we're gonna get down to where the rubber meets the road, and we're gonna have to have some hard conversations about particularly these these areas. So So, That's who we are. Yeah. I don't think it's like, I think you said something, Brian. It's one way or another.
I'd say it more so as, staff capacity to do it and we need to, you know, we had already said that these are based on that time. These are our priorities. This is what we want staff to work on. And so, I think that if we can schedule a work session to discuss this at the beginning of the year, well, you know, that is when budget, is gonna be meetings are really gonna be, you know, starting to kick in. So we have to work with, Sam and Keena to, get a time when and
we'll probably have to start that networking with Jen to get a time now to begin, you know, probably the first couple of weeks of the year to, schedule this work session so that, you know, we can maybe reorientate ourself to it, but also the public to let them know where we're coming from with this. And because we've been hearing their their feedback. Natalie, I don't know if you had a chance to to chime in. As someone who watched the zoning code get passed the very last meeting before I
was able to be up here and have any substantive comment on it, I can appreciate wanting to save it for the newly seated council as well. That would have been, nice. So the first thing I'll say is I'd like to back up to, what I'm hearing is a desire for a work session in early January. Tell me again specifically on what topic so that I can make sure that we are prepared to bring that forward, because I've heard a lot. And I was about to respond to the mayor asking, did I get what we
needed? I got a lot. But I I wanna at least start with the work session. A work session to look at what specifically I think is what we need clarity on at this moment. I I personally would say looking at the how student housing is approached in in our zoning ordinance in a subsets of that topic, core neighborhood overlay, use of special exception permits, and BAR purview as kind of three topics that kind of fall under
that umbrella of how we treat student housing. Student housing. Say that again. Just to make sure I've got them all. The extent of the core neighborhood overlay, use of special exception permits or the past special use permits, and then the board of architectural reviews purview. Again, with the overlying overarching topic being how student housing is approached in my mind in Tenth And Page, Fifeville, and and and Rose Hill, specifically. K. And I think some conversations about the In Lufy, I don't know if that's would
be part of what was just talked about, but the, like, the difference between Yep. It's a little bit different. That's a big work session. So there won't be anything else scheduled for that one. I can tell you that now. Alright. And that that, sorry. That, calculator you mentioned that hack got to play with, I think that would be useful for people to have and also see the resources that went into creating it. Definitely. And and it it definitely will be that consultants are kinda refining feedback from, developers.
So Yeah. I don't I think that's pretty inclusive. Lloyd, did you have any other topics to to add to it? An additional comment I'd like to just make, because I too get, questions, and requests from the public. And I just wanna make sure that in what we just heard is clearly, a lot of differing opinions as to what the right next steps are, how to go about doing it. My job is to synthesize as much of this as I possibly can and keep
us moving, and make sure that I'm not missing what it is that you're asking for. So the work session is something that we can absolutely accommodate at the start of the year once our new council member is, seated. So we'll make sure that I'm again working with the team on this beginning tomorrow and make sure we can pull that off. As it relates to the questions that are circling circling at this moment, what I'm hearing is that there is not a majority action that you are ready to commit
to as a body to do anything other than where we are with what was presented tonight as your work plan that was previously provided, and now we're just committing to moving forward with this schedule. If that should change, I would need to hear that from a majority of you in order for that to steer us differently because that is how we move at your request. So I'm just offering that, because I do not have this internal purview that I get to decide what we're gonna do and how we're gonna do it. I look to you to tell me that. So I'm making that much known as well.
I think what we should also I I don't wanna miss the moment of just helping residents of Tenth And Page and Rose Hill appreciate that. While, yes, there are challenges with implementing plans that are produced, the evidence of where we are today is that we are definitely trying to be more conscious of the idea that we're not doing a plan for it to sit on the shelf. We're doing a plan so we can implement that plan. And and I share that with you all as my priority for this fiscal year
in our approach to how we're doing the work. Just using the same five zero one cherry idea of a catalytic project in the Fifefield neighborhood. While the zoning may not be supportive of making that project happen, the cash and tax abatement are things that are making that happen. And I think we don't wanna lose sight of what other tools we have in our toolbox that we can continue to make available as we move into the next neighborhood and the next neighborhood to study from a planning perspective. And while we're going you're going zoning debate and conversation, maybe we will get around
to adding more of the tools to that box. But I don't want any neighborhood resident to feel discouraged by the idea that we are going to take them through an exercise. And I know know Osei appreciates me saying this because she's the one leading that work, but we wanna make sure that people will appreciate that. And we will continue to use what tools we have available to move forward for implementation because it's not worth it to do a plan without some ability for us to implement. I do appreciate the comment. I just wanna make sure that we don't miss that. Yeah. So, I, I, I think that you summarize where we are right now that we're
gonna wait to the work session for guidance. Right now, the work plan will stay as it is, and, we will wait to, you know, the work session to see if anything changes from that. And I'll also be reaching out to miss, Fletcher to see if she has any additional comments to add to that, what that work plan will will look like. Any other comments or clarifications that seem like we have direction.
Do we have closed session today, Sam? Any items? We do not. K. So, this inside, if there's no other business, this will close out our, this is a work session. We'll come back at 06:30 for a regular, business meeting. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Don't forget to vote tomorrow.