Yes. I mean, I'm going to Relax. Put your microphones down, guys. All right. Um, welcome everyone to tonight's planning commission meeting. Uh, we will start with commissioners reports. >> Sure. Okay. Well, I'll give a brief
update uh from the university. So, this uh last week we had the buildings and grounds uh convene and so I had given kind of a preview of it at a previous uh session, but I just wanted to kind of close the loop here and give the final action items. So, the first was it's a county building, but I thought it was
still helpful because it's it's sort of visible from the public way, but it's the approval to demolish the university police building on Ivy Road. And so, that's that uh white brick singlestory building at 2302 Ivy Road. It's kind of sort of notoriously served as like the
visitor center and the 911 dispatch call center at the same desk. So, um that is with UPD's recent relocation to Zeamer Hall and the Virginia Guest House having a welcome center and it's sort of um uh not currently occupied. So, that will be
uh demolished in the coming capital uh sort of effort. And then we have the the schematic design approval for the school of data science entrepreneurship building that is sort of phase two of data science at the end IV corridor. It's immediately west of the school of data science uh where there's currently
a service drive in the lawn. It's about 60,000 square feet across five stories. And so again classrooms, research, seminar spaces, offices and entrepreneurial engagement space. So um that building you can see the renderings are now on online if you want to Google them. they um and the design sort of
picks up on the tap the pallet of existing uh school of data science and has a couple references to the guest house and the future center for the arts. And then the last one I was going to uh there's actually two other ones um the main heat plant. So I mentioned the cold towers which are prominently
visible down at the corner that is going to go through a near-term fuel conversion and so the background on this is that that plant actually produces 90% of the university's heating. Uh it's used for sterilization, waste, uh decontamination, uh research at the hospital, dining and
the domestic hot water. So it's a real workhorse. And so currently it's coal and gas and some fuel oil. And the part of the challenge is uh is sourcing the coal and uh and the operational complexity associated with operating the coal plant and you clearly the
environmental compliance issues um around burning coal. So the great news is the benefits is that uh operational reliability for the hospital is going to improve. Um there's going to be efficiencies with staffing it and operating it. Uh it's going to have a fairly substantial operating savings by
getting off a coal and it has significant carbon emissions reduction and uh it's going to improve the viewshed from the corner. So that's quite visible from 14th Street and along University. Uh so just to give people a sense, there's going to be a threephase sequence. So the first one is to remove
some existing groundmounted equipment to make room for the new fuel oil tank and um there will then be the existing equipment that was associated with the coal plant to be then removed and then the final part will be the coal silos will come out. So I don't have specific
dates for those but um I can report more on as that project starts to move forward. Um, and then last one was there's a small there's a capital plan authorization for the athletics multi-purpose practice field. So, this uh was in the master plan. It's a site
east of Copley Road along the railway. Um, it is just going to take where the training grounds, the modular units were for the uh the Olympic sports locker rooms that is going to be replaced with a grass practice field. So, again, it's all sort of conforming with the uh athletics master plan. So, that's all I
have to share. Thank you. >> We had a NO technical committee meeting last week. Uh so just a couple highlights from that one is the smart scale applications from the city, county, and no are kind of in the
pre-application stage. They're they're being entered in the system. They it takes lots of supporting documentation and the deadline for submitting all of that is August 1. And then um OEP is the the state agency that will crunch the
numbers and rank the projects. And then um this the CTB, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has the opportunity to rearrange things. Um and that happens in the December to January timeline. So by early next year, we should find out a little bit more about how the projects
did, including the city's submission is the um West Main Ridge McIntyre intersection. Uh there's been some public meetings about that recently. So that one is that's kind of the city's application for this upcoming round. Couple other things. Um on a similar
note, um the localities and vot etc are starting up the next round of stars and pipeline studies. So pipeline is a program that is run by oipin and it kind of is specifically uh intended to kind
of produce uh smart scale eligible projects. It's not necessarily its only purpose uh but that's p uh that's pipeline and then stars is run by vot and that is uh for projects that are on uh corridors of statewide significance
and both types of studies are very similar to each other. They're kind of managed centrally at the state level with um project managers from V dots um our district office within the co pepper district uh and then local stakeholders obviously will be very important to
these and so um the city gets to submit one applic or one potential study location and uh at that meeting um staff are suggesting kind of two locations but then it needs to be whittleled down to one. So that's the uh sort of a short
corridor on Ridge Street between Cherry Elliot up to West Main and then the other is the intersection of Preston uh Ridge McIntyre and um I think they're both great locations for studies. They connect in well with other work the city
is doing, including our current smart scale application. Um so the policy board will be looking at at those locations at the next meeting. The county is submitting uh two locations on their own. Uh 29 and Airport Road has a lot of um injury crashes. They're going to look at that. They're going to look
at um or they're suggesting to look at the uh I64 exit at 29. I think it's like 118, which is, you know, the big big mess to take on. And they want to look at that. And then they're proposing a crossjurisdictional study location,
which is uh 250 at the free bridge. So kind of looking to the intersection with High Street River Road and then back across into the county uh there. So they have identified activity centers on pantops and they feel they can't achieve
these activity centers because of kind of mobility and access issues. Um, so I think this is a really great uh opportunity for collaboration across jurisdictions and um I I hope there'll be room for some creative thinking because you know um this would be really
hard and expensive to widen a bridge and I don't think you could really squeeze more cars into the city coming in from the county. So, uh, you know, it' be interesting to see what what the the stakeholders can come up with in terms of, uh, potential projects to evaluate how to move more people through the area
without necessarily adding more, uh, kind of vehicle capacity. We also got an update on the, uh, the US 29 star study, which has been ongoing for a while. Um the kind of highle summary uh from my mind is that kind of extending the
Hillsdale shared use path is no longer on the table um for various reasons. I'm a little bit new to this one. But um one reason is there isn't as much of a nexus between 29 and Hillsdale anymore because I think they were looking at some concepts of diverting some traffic to
Hillsdale and they're no longer looking at that. So a lot of what they're looking at is um new crosswalks on 29. So, one at Greenbryer, one up um by the the mall and a lot of kind of turn restrictions. So, you're inconveniencing
some drivers, but you're increasing throughput. And then also adding uh some pedestrian improvements and crosswalks. So, I think those are some exciting options that they're looking at. I think there's still a long way to go. And then on the southern part of the corridor
around um kind of hydraulic and EMTT street in the bypass there, you know, they've they've come up with a few concepts that are a little bit more unusual that uh will be interesting to track through the process. So, you know, a jug, if you ever driven around New
Jersey before, they they've got a jug handle they're looking at, which is really fascinating. So, um you know, we'll be paying attention to that as it continues. So, uh that's what I got. I have a question. >> Yes. >> Uh crossings on 64 uh near PBCC or
Montichello. Um any any thought consideration? >> Um I did not we haven't discussed that at recent meetings. Uh, I will say that the county did mention in talking about
the study of the 64 exit with 29, I think it's 118, that they are looking at a um kind of pedestrian maybe pedestrian bike crossing under the interstate at that location. That's something they want to study. So, I think that's, you know, something that to be encouraged
for sure. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Let him finish his thought. And you're next. >> Lol. >> The quarter 2 city schools capital improvement plan meeting was on May 13th and it was a doozy. The Walker prek cost
jumped from $35 million to $60 million. Time has passed. Things cost more. We know more. We're expecting a 2029 completion. The Charlottesville High School and Charlottesville Middle School solar install will be this year. Four city elementary schools will get a lighting update. Tall Oaks, Sunrise,
Trailblazer, and Summit. The sales tax powers we asked for are in state budgetary discussions. Fingers crossed. $475 million in funding needs over the next 16 years are projected just for schools. $240 million can come from the
new sales tax if it passes. We think the cost of a new high school if we don't expand the existing high school would be $200 million additionally or maybe $250 million additional just giant numbers. Jackson VIA is projected as the highest
cost elementary school of all of them because of larger needs, capacity issues, and there is land to build on. Trailblazer this summer is on track for breakout spaces and the green brier bathroom is expecting a summer 2026 completion.
Thank you, Lionel. >> That was not a Thank you. >> Worry about that later, I guess. December. >> I promise. >> Uh on May 19th, Chair Schwarz and I
attended the development code cleanup subcommittee kickoff meeting. That's a mouthful. Uh it's basically a crossf functional group of uh the chair and I and city staff to kick off the development code cleanup for the next
round of changes. This serves as sort of the next step in the what was previously the tier one, tier two, and three tier three items. I believe that Matt's wanting to move away from that structure, but that's what this is the second piece of. And the general
timeline is intended to get this sort of cleanup on a bit of a yearly cadence. Uh so next our next work session on June 23rd is the builder and developer listening session. We encourage you all to come out and let us know what
is still going well with the development code and what still needs tinkered with. uh then July and October planning commission work sessions we will be um deep diving deeper as a full group on the uh potential amendments. Then in
November, there's a presentation to city council and uh the end of 2026 into early 2027 is when planning commission and council will hold public hearings on these items with a goal of March 2027 as being the effective date as the new
amendments, which would be one year after the last set of amendments were completed. Um, separately, I attended the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transport statewide rail update last week. It was
basically an overview of U survey results from an April survey that they did. And overall, there's came off a strong preference for expanding rail access uh with the vast majority of respondents sporting service to more destinations and specifically favoring
that expansion within D uh Virginia and the DC area rather than more out ofstate connections. Then um I found it very interesting that many respondents were not today daily or even weekly riders but still showed very
strong demand for more uh rail connectivity and passenger rail capacity. And then I think the most useful data point for the city of Charlottesville and this body is that when asked about conditions at existing stations,
uh about half of respondents wanted dedicated public transit connections to other local destinations so that when they get to where they're going, they don't have to find rent a car or find other ride share ways to get around. they can continue to
use um some form of public transportation to get around. So overall pretty strong demand for increased uh connectivity and system growth statewide for passenger rail. >> Thank you.
>> Nothing to report. >> All right. Um at the uh board of architecture review meeting last uh last month um we actually had a number of interesting projects. We looked at the uh Red Street Fire Station which they're just doing a simple ADA upgrade um to their front
doors um and the pathway leading up to that and they're going to be tearing up the parking spaces in front of the building. Um, I noted that there's enough room behind those parking spaces to create a full drive aisle and still have enough um enough room for a 7 to 10 foot wide planting strip between that
drive aisle and the street. Um, so currently there's a curb cut that extends the full length of that property and they could chop about 50 ft off of that, but that would require the city coordinating with fire department on this project and it didn't seem like there was much appetite for that. But I
I tried to bring it up with a couple different people. I wasn't really sure. I think it's I don't know. It doesn't seem like it's going to go anywhere, but figured I'd mention it again just cuz it's a it would be a way to possibly save money that while they're tearing up some asphalt, they could tear up additional
asphalt and then get rid of this monster curb cut and add some trees on a street that has no street trees and um is has a lot of pedestrians and could use some additional safety improvements. Um, we looked at a house that's dating back to the 1700s on Keith Valley Road and um,
the interesting part about that is the house is too long for our zoning code. So, we will likely be seeing it for a special exception. Um they are uh there's a garage that's been added sometime in the middle of last century that they're going to tear down and replace. But um because they're filling
in a um a breezeway that connects to the garage, staff has determined that the house is now the length of the house plus the garage and it's longer than our zoning code allows. So um I just thought that was interesting. Um
we looked at uh 835 West Main, which is the LV Collective. Um the apartment building proposed adjacent to West Haven. Um they've lowered it to eight stories. Um they are providing space for memory walk that aligns with a um a
newly aligned pedestrian access that goes through West Haven. So, what's interesting is I guess West Haven changed their plan a little bit and um the LV Collective changed where they were putting this the space for the memory walk and now it all lines up so that you could actually have a a
straight shot from West Main Street into Tenth and Page um as a pedestrian which um I think seems pretty cool. Um there were still um there was still some angst from the public. Um uh overall the BA was generally supportive. um they still
have some work to do. Uh they did mention that they're caught in a little bit of a um a puzzle where they're they have to provide something to the BA to approve, but they also want to leave time and space for the the um community
to dict to help design the uh the memory walk and there's some public spaces along West Main Street that they're providing. So um uh it'll be interesting to see how that turns out. I believe that they want to come to our next B meeting. So, we'll see them again. Um, I don't know if that'll be a
final approval or if that'll continue to be another step in the process. Um, we also looked at an infill project on Valley Road, which is down by the UVA South Lawn. Um, it's a street that's full of uh brick Cape Cod houses that are, you know, one and a half stories
tall and they're insert inserting some three-story town houses. So that's a kind of interesting puzzle of trying to figure out how to make those fit in. Um generally the BAR is supportive. Um and yeah, that was uh that was it for
the BAR. Um so um do we have a report from NDS? Yes. I have a a couple things and then I'll turn it over to Director Kelly. Uh so chair um as planning commission is aware NDS is working on a missing middle
working group. Um this will comprise of cross departmental um members and some of our uh design professionals in that space of missing middle and we're requesting two commissioners to be on this working
group and if you can give me the name of those two commissioners I will include them on with the working group. I think we're um it'll be Commissioner Heares and Commissioner Redker. >> All right. Thank you, Chair. And we're aiming for kind of a kickoff meeting for this in July or August. Still
fine-tuning, but it should be this summer that we'll be kicking off the missing middle working group. Uh as stated earlier, we are moving forward with our uh 2026 2027 code cleanup. There will be a work session um on Tuesday the 23rd in City Space at 5:00
pm. This will be an opportunity for the public with a focus on our local builders and developers to work through what is work is currently working with the development code and what areas do need to be cleaned up in this cycle.
That'll be followed up by a July 28th work session with planning commission to get into a little more detail. And between the listening session on June 23rd and the July 28th work session, we'll be holding another subcommittee
meeting uh to get into a little bit more of the meet. And with that, I will turn it over to Director Brown. >> All right. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Um I'm just here to share a quick update with you, which I think um
you're probably all aware of. Um but I will be stepping down um at in my role as a director of neighborhood development services uh for personal reasons. Um this is coming with some mixed emotions. Um but my last day with the city will be uh Friday uh June 6th
26th and um just wanted to say thank you for all of your support. Um and yes play such a critical role in supporting the needs of the community and as do you in your role as planning commissioners. So, thank you for your service and thank you for your support and your partnership over the past few years. I wish you all
the best. Um, nothing will change in terms of uh your staff support uh from NDS. Dannon and Matt um will very capably continue to support you in your needs. Um, and James Freeze will be serving as acting director during this
transition time. So, thank you very much. Well, I just want to say thank you, Kelly, for um I mean, your service to the city and for um I mean, this was a you came in at really chaotic time for the city and I think you've kept us organized and you've kept us on a on a
good track for keeping things um making this be a really smooth process. Um and um yeah, I mean, if someone I'm terrible with words, but I mean I think we're we're all extremely appreciative of uh all that you've given to the city. >> Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Well, I look forward to seeing all the exciting things that you all continue to do and um good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Um all right. Uh I guess matters to pres uh be presented by the public not on the
formal agenda. Um neither of these are a public hearing. Correct. Okay. So, if there is anybody in the public uh guess maybe not here but online um that wants to speak on anything um pertaining to the planning
commission um including the two items that are um our two action items later on um now would be the time to do so. Please raise your hand on uh online. I'm assuming you both are city staff or applicants. Yeah, I know you already
exception for the health department. >> Gotcha. Okay, >> Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. >> All right. Um, so that is the end of matters uh to presented by the public. Um, do we uh uh the next is the consent agenda which includes the minutes from
January 13th and February 10th. Do we have a motion? >> Mr. Chair, have a motion to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Great. Um, let's call a vote. Um, Commissioner Giller. >> Yes. >> Yates.
>> Hi. >> Yes. >> Yes. And yes for me. >> Okay. Um, we got five minutes. We're Are we allowed to start right now?
>> No. It It's It was advertised at 6, so I wait five minutes. Thank you. 6:00, right? >> Yes. All right. So, we will begin. Um,
our first item on the agenda is a special exception request for 1138 Rose Hill Drive. Mr. Chair, Dan Okonnell, NDS Planner, and I'll be briefly presenting this special exception request for 1138 Rose Hill Drive, um, which is
for, um, expansion of mechanical equipment located in the front yard of the property. So the next slide is just a few maps. This is property is zoned NX3. It is owned by the city of Charlottesville and is occupied by the uh Blueidge Health
District. And um most of its neighbors to the north and south are zoned NX3. Across the street um is zoned CX3 and there's um an old PUD development that's zoned RA and Civic on the right. The area is um designated in the comp plan
as a neighborhood mixeduse node. So the next slide um is just the description of what site element screening is supposed to accomplish per our development code. And this are this is some excerpts um from a plan that was provided to us for the property that
shows a top- down view of the building. Um so this is located in the front yard and the red highlighted area is on the left is the current mechanical equipment area and on the right is the new expanded area. So there's not it's not
really more equipment coming in so much as the existing equipment is being replaced and shifted around a bit. So, the pad has to expand slightly. But this is in conflict with our regulations that state that mechanical equipment um ground mounted cannot be located within
the front yard of any building. Um but we ultimately um well I ultimately recommended um approval of the special exception permit um in that you can go um drive down Rose Hill Drive and see numerous examples of screened
and unscreened mechanical equipment located in the front yards of neighboring properties. So it's not really a detriment to existing uh structures there. So recommend approval and we did not recommend any conditions for the special exception permit.
Uh, does the applicant have anything you want to to add or >> No, the only reason everything's being rearranged is the the chimber is being replaced and it requires greater access to the sides than the old original
chimber did. So, we had to move things around. >> Okay. For those at home or on the recording, it's the reason for this is greater access to the equipment. Um, things had to be rearranged. Um,
okay. Uh, questions from the plan commission. I have a couple questions if no one else does, but you go first. >> I guess my more of a comment. >> Um, all right. Let me start with a question and then we can go to comments.
Um, so the current condition is um actually if you don't mind coming to the microphone just so I can get I'm sorry. make sure it gets all recorded. Um the existing conditions, um
there we didn't get any pictures, so I had to use Google Street View. Um am I understanding correctly, there's a it looks like maybe a 4ft tall little brick wall that um faces uh Rose Hill Drive and then the rest of it's enclosed by
like a a wooden fence of sorts. >> That's correct. The brick wall will stay. We'll be installing a a TX new and improved fence. >> TX. Okay. So, it won't be natural wood. It'll be something. >> It it it it could be, but we planned on
installing tracks is what our plan is. >> Um and um the Sorry, my comments all disappeared. Um here we go. So, um somewhere in here it said that
you um you were proposing to use the uh code sections um 4.7.4 C.4 BC and E. Um and I'm just curious. So B says uh
that if um screening isn't required if whatever is being hidden isn't visible above ground. C is um anything that's above ground to be screened on three sides of the wall minimum six feet tall. Uh D talks about access gates being
provided on the four side minimum 6 ft tall and E says it needs to be 90% opaque. Was the intention to be CD and E or was it I don't I'm being technical I just it's I said on the B so this is what we do as I recall the fence will be
six feet tall. >> It will be okay. Um, and it'll be I'm assuming it'll be opaque like you it won't be a have a bunch of holes in it. >> No. So, the fence is a double-sided
fence in that you have um the the the facade's going to be like 6 in boards half inch in between each one. >> And then on the back side, you'll have a board that intercedes with that >> open space. so that there's free air
flow through the fence so that the the chiller itself can operate properly. >> Okay. So, it sounds like the the um memo to staff should have been C, D, and E instead of B, C, and D. Um,
>> Carl, which code section do you >> I'm I'm looking at um so from the the memo um from SETI at the bottom of it, it says um code section 34-4.7.4.0.4. Yeah, I think the what you might have been quoting was the waste receptacles
screen reading which is 0.1 but this is ground equipment screening because it's a >> right but I thought okay well I was confused by that too so maybe I did read the wrong one but I thought it was um okay um well what do those sections say? >> Yeah, that's
>> what are we holding them to? >> Page 4-69. It's the last page of the section. Um but it has A, B, C, and D. A is can't put in the front yard. Okay. >> B is um equipment visible from a street must be fully screened by an opaque wall or faints at least 6 in higher than the
topmost part of the equipment. >> Okay. >> C is screening must be 75% opaque. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're just holding it to the wall needs to be 6 in taller than the tallest piece of equipment and it'll be 75% opaque. Okay. That's that makes
sense. Um, explains why I was confused because I Yeah, I didn't know why they would have picked that other section. Um, okay. And yeah. Um, can we can we hold you
guys to the the tracks as opposed to an unfinished wood? >> Absolutely. That's what we've planned though. >> Great. That was my questions. Sorry, guys. Um, >> I just had a quick question. And again, this is just I'm happen to be a neighbor
to this property and so I noticed there's an ADA parking spot um sort of adjacent to where the fence is expanding. Is that uh being relocated? >> So I not to my knowledge. So that entire there's memory service. There's like four or five parking spaces there and
every one of them is handicapped. So regardless of where you pull in there, it's going to be a handicap space. Um because our fence is coming out I'm going to say approximately 2 feet. It will um overlay that to the left hand
side of the first um handicap space. Um it will come out approximately 2 ft more than it is currently. So it will impact that. But that space you still have handicap access on either side of that space. All those spaces are handicapped.
Um, we didn't do anything to add any spaces, but I'm sure that handicap space is is still available. It It's not quite as available as it was. >> I just know there's strict definitions on what the approaches are on either
side, and you may just want to check that so it doesn't become an issue. >> Any comments? Uh my comment is just about there's a part of the public or the staff comment is about how there's many properties
that have a similar issue and I'm sure that there are other properties throughout the city that have similar issues and if there's a way that through the cleanup process either this year or next year if we can try to address this. So things in my mind that are relatively
straightforward, switching out chillers and stuff like that don't have to come before us. All right. Um, anybody want to make a motion? I'll move to recommend approval of the application for the special exception permit in the NX3 node mixed use
district at 1138 Rose Hill Drive to permit the construction of expanded medical equipment area in the front yard. >> Can I offer an amendment um just that we um state that the material will be um uh
a TX material and not um not natural wood. I will accept the amendment. Okay. >> Second. >> Do we have any? Oh, yeah. Okay. Um, uh, Dannon, can you call a vote, please? >> Sure.
>> Commissioner Solley Yates, >> I. >> Commissioner Harnesses, >> yes. >> Commissioner Yoder, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mitchell, >> yes. >> Chairman Schwarz, >> yes. >> So, that passes. Thank you. Um
all right and now our next item is the uh community development block grant and home investment partnership pro partnerships program revised citizen participation plan. I cannot speak tonight. I'm sorry to be very
quicker. I need this I need the slides. Anthony. Oh, >> I just say next slide. Okay. Oh, >> good evening, commissioners, chair Schwarz, members of the public. My name is Anthony Warren. I'm with the city's
office of budgets and grants management. We're a relatively new office. Um, we oversee, we don't oversee, we work with all the departments across the city and offices on multiple grants programs. And of these two are our HUDf funded
programs, community development block grants and home investment partnerships programs. As you have seen me before, part of the existing protocol is for us to bring plans that are eventually going to go to HUD for approval before the
planning commission to get recommendation to go on to city council. I'm here tonight to uh ask for your consideration and um review of proposed updates to the citizen participation plan. And I can go into a little bit of
background on why this is coming before you right now. Um next slide, please. So the citizen participation plan is a component of our consolidated plan with HUD, which is a five-year strategic plan that's updated on an annual basis.
citizen participation plan uh clarifies and spells out a lot of the rules that we um follow in order to facilitate active engagement by the public to make sure that the public is aware of what's going on to provide them multiple opportunities to get involved in this
work uh so that we can make sure that what we are doing is responsive as possible to community needs. Um it HUD recommends that these um citizen particip citizen participation plans are revisited every five years. Our current
CPP plan is uh was last updated and approved in 2016 which suggests that it might not be current in terms of HUD guidance uh and regulations but also city's practices and needs. Um
overall we are now part of the office of budget now with the budget and grants management and so we're trying to bring a more consolidated approach to all the city's many grant-f funed programs in part to streamline the process for staff and to reduce the amount of uh recurring
tasks that have to be done but also to clarify things for the public and to clarify things for the subreients that we work with that we um provide money and support to so that they can go out and do their good work. Um,
currently the way it stands now, CDBG and home are kind of an outlier in that process in that they happen to just kind of the way it it it's happened is that it the review the public review and recommendations and coming before planning commission and city council
occurs much later than all the other programs. And so we're trying to bring those uh at much more um in in much more of a close alignment. Um and so part of that is to revisit all
the different processes involved. So this is in in full transparency. Um this is to put before you part of the consideration to remove that hearing before planning commission before we go on to city
council. um CDBG gene home are the only two programs that I believe we do that for. There's no specific HUD regulation requiring that. There's no specific uh requirement for that in the code of federal regulations.
Doing so will help shut shorten the amount of time it takes to put forth all the different pieces involved and allow us to present city council with a much more more coherent consideration of the full grant funding portfolio. uh there was a lot of interest in making
sure that before any changes were made that you were involved in the process because this has gone on um this has been part of the practice for a long time. Don't want to do anything without your approval and say so. Um so as we revisited the citizen participation plan
we started with all the different HUD requirements and then we started to work on the things that are much more of a local purview. Um Okay. Uh, next slide, please. Sorry. So, highlights of what we've proposed are
to, of course, uh, update all the references to HUD guidance and implementing regulations. There have been a number of changes. Um, we've added new language to clarify the partnership that the city has between TJPDC, uh, who coordinate the home program for
us because it is a regional approach. Um there was not a lot of reference to uh TJPDC in the previous document. Uh we've tried to streamline the public hearing process like as I said to um maintain planning commission representation on
the CDBG home task force but to streamline the amount of time it takes to go through the application process, the review process, the formulation of funding recommendations, the 30-day public comment period, and then to get these before city council uh closer to
when all the other funding recommendations are uh presented to them. Um we preserve the number of seats available to all members. We want to keep it at nine. Uh but we have uh revisited the representation as those
are aligned. Um the original uh citywide members were divided between seats that were tied to specific neighborhoods and then there was one atlarge city resident seat. Then there was a seat for uh permanent seat for a member of the planning commission,
permanent seat for a member of the um school boards and one member who represents public service organizations kind of nonprofits that typically do the work or work with the populations we're trying to benefit. We have revisited that and the city has
moved away from and this is great news for the city and kind of the work we do. Um, our neighborhoods tend to be less economically segregated than they were before, largely because of mixeduse developments and different a lot of the progress that's happened over time.
Having representation tied to particular neighborhoods is a little problematic because sometimes you have two people from one neighborhood who would be great and active members of the task force. But if that one atlarge seat is um
filled, then there's no place for them to go. If they don't work for a public service nonprofit, um they're not on the school board or planning commission. Um so we've revisited that and tried to um so there what we recommend are five seats for people across city at large
with a preference that city council consider for people who are tied to particular populations that are at the heart of the work we do or particular areas. So there will be consideration for that. it just won't be tied geographically to a particular neighborhood, especially as that neighborhood may have changed
considerably over the last um at least 10 years since uh this was revisited. Um we we took that as an opportunity to expand the number of seats available to representatives of the public service organizations who do the kind of work that we're trying to
support. In the past, we have had people who are very interested to participate, but they didn't live in any one of the uh priority neighborhoods and they didn't belong to a public service group. So, um maintain the the planning commission representation, schoolboard
representation, expand representation by uh representatives of public service groups, and then have five other members at large. Um we have also updated the municipal code that is the implementing guidance for this uh just to reflect
these kind of changes. That's article 13 under uh section 2 administration that was again last revisited in 2016 and is um it it has very specific references to things that are no longer part of what
the city is doing or focusing on. So um those are the highlights. Uh next slide please. There's currently engaged in the 30day public hearing. Um we are open to hearing public comment before and after
that. Um it starts on Monday, June 15th and will run through July 15th. Um the dates changed a little bit before um they were going to be taking this before council. It the it was moved from the June 15th. the first public hearing,
first reading, uh was scheduled for June 15th, but it's now been pushed back to the July 20 meeting. Um so that is going to be reflected in the public notice and on the city website. Um and then the second reading would be on August 3rd.
So, those two dates have been updated on the um city CDBG home website and people can go to the CDBG and home public notices page uh right there to get copies of the proposed documents and to um find out there's additional
information provided there as well. Um next slide please. If people have uh like if if public wants to provide public comment, we are open to that at every there's opportunities to provide it in writing, by mailing it to us, providing written
comment by email, or showing up at any of the um public hearings that have been scheduled. And members of the public can also uh contact any of the people here, myself, my colleague Taylor Harvey Brian, our
colleague over at TJBDC who does a lot of great work for the city and the the regional um consortium, Lorie Gene Tuloon, and then if anybody hit I just include the accessibility assistance information because I find it to be very
helpful. Um next slide please. Thank you. And I make myself available for any questions. >> Questions. So this this basically removes this body from the review process. >> Not completely. >> We have one planning commission on the
board, but we don't get to see it. >> That is up for discussion and for consideration. If you I mean, if you guys would like to keep the keep us bringing the plans before you as as policy, more public hearings are a great approach. We were trying to get civic
engagement and um public awareness of what we're trying to do. But this process does streamline it, bring it alignment with um what we do for all the other programs which is we have our public uh comment period and then uh we take them before city council.
>> So Mr. Solates, how do we feel about that? Because you didn't do have a lot of input into this >> conflicted. So broadly um I'm looking at the uh community engagement uh chapter of the comprehensive plan. Uh we want people
involved. We want you know transparent effective processes. We want you know the people who are affected by these things to be involved in these things. I understand we have some Virginia law uh barring some best practices that otherwise we would do. um how are you
thinking about that that that conflict our our goals in the comprehensive plan and what we can actually do and and to what extent are we in harmony in what you're prop uh sharing with us >> we are o we share those um leave some values and priorities for civic
engagement um we are open to any considerations that you guys might have if if you feel strongly to keep this that you feel like it adds value then that is definitely um consideration. Um we have found that
we've always kind of struggled to kind of get awareness out there about these two programs. They've been involved in the city for a long time. Um, one of the approaches that we've been trying to have is maybe get somebody more involved again in the um, meetings of the
neighborhood associations and getting out there more and having discussions, especially focusing on the neighborhoods that we've traditionally operated in. Um, we're open to any suggestions. Again,
I'm conflicted. Um yeah, share the concern. >> I I'll ask a couple like kind of basic um I don't know process questions. So
the there's the engagement plan or is it CPP um has to be updated every year, right? or or or like what what's the process because I thought I saw you said like you have to have one every five years or something.
>> The the code of federal regulations requires that we have one and that we follow it and that it's publicly approved by the locally elected body, city council, and that it is uh approved by HUD. >> That was done in 2016. >> There's no specific language about how
often it needs to be renewed. HUD recommends every five years and we um are revisiting the the current annual action plans that we have um operate under the con the consolidated plan which is a five-year
plan and that and this is the last year of that five-year plan. So in 2728 we'll be revisiting the whole process again the consolidated plan which is a lot of public hearings a lot of discussions a lot of um community
outreach it's a very complicated process um >> is is the consolidated plan the CPP that is done every five years >> consolidated plan is in in federal regulation is required to be updated every five years um the consolidated
plan the CPP P is kind of a supporting document to that, >> okay? >> Which is HUD's attempt to ensure that localities are involving the community. It it spells out how we're going to make things publicly aware u available to the public, how we're going to operate our public hearings. A lot a lot of the
language is just what's already reflected in Virginia state law or traditional practice. Um >> and the current the current um public hearing or notice that's happening for public hearing that is that is to get eventually have council
um approve the CPP or that's the consolidated plan that they're considering. I think there was a >> before you now is for the consolidated or for the citizen participation plan. >> Okay. >> Um in a year we'll be revisiting that five-year plan as as well. Okay. Okay. I
think I understand now. Thanks. Um I mean I um I have not been that involved with the home and and um CDB CDBG programs, but I I don't really have like
a fundamental problem with um moving it to uh kind of removing a step in the process, especially since it has to be done every year. Um, I do think council, I mean, we don't have final say anyway. We're just kind of making
recommendations and I never know like what our recommendations really do sometimes, you know. Um, and and so I think if if as long as we have a commissioner who's like on who's who's involved in the process, um, I don't have an issue with giving up a little bit kind of having one less um,
step on the way to kind of final approval. But, but I haven't been that involved in it. So, I'm kind of open to, you know, other opinions, but that's just me. >> Did this did these set of updates go in front of the task force?
>> So, the update to the citizen participation plan did not necessarily go before them, but it grows out of a long-standing concern that they have about the timing that's involved. because the way things are right now, they're doing their reviews starting in
uh you know, so we we have the open application window. It's open to all the community groups from January to midFebruary. And then the that leaves the task force members starting their analysis, evaluation, discussions,
considerations uh into late February. And the goal is that we have this done uh 45 days prior to the start of the um the July one start of the new program year that we have this before HUD. And so basically having all these steps
really constrains things and it also kind of leaves people feeling sometimes like there's not a lot of opportunity to re revisit things because they're not going before the public boards with enough time to say, "Hey, let's revisit this in a week." because then the the
next hearing is contingent upon approval from this body to go before council. Um and so part of this concern grows out of long-standing concern among the task force members to try to streamline things. Why are we doing this if
nobody's requiring us? And there are other opportunities to get it before the public as well. Um, so that's that's um related to the potential of removing this commission from the process. What
about redesating the different seats out of the neighborhoods into an atlarge position? uh that kind of distinctly grew from the um members of the task force. Uh in the last like having people tied to those
neighborhoods has for a while now left other people from being involved and then in the last round we had a a very active member um of the community who was appointed to a seat within a particular neighborhood.
During the term of their service, they move they were forced to move. They they stayed within the city. They never left the city. Their lease was not renewed for for whatever reason. They moved out of the neighborhood to which they were
appointed and into another neighborhood. Never lost left the city. never wasn't a city resident but were prevented from being a active member of the task force that whole time because there as soon as they moved out of their appointed seat
you know their membership was null um and so that seat closed we didn't have time to bring anybody in from that neighborhood even though there were people who had been interested that person showed up at every meeting and was involved in every discussion and conversation and provided a lot valuable
input. They they even took minutes at some points um when uh we had some pretty interesting discussions and technological issues. Um but they were not allowed to be an active member simply because they were forced to move from one neighborhood to
another. So that's kind of why that jelled up as a very particular issue because it uh the members of task force uh felt very strongly that that was not fair to that person. Sure. So, yeah, the two big pieces of these updates other
than bringing it to current HUD guidelines from 2016 is those two pieces, removing this commission and changing the designations of the chairs. And it sounds like both of those came from comments and concerns from the actual task force. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh and then the last question I had was was there consideration it may have been in there but I didn't see it uh about I've only been in this discussion once and lot most of the discussion was about what to do in case we get excess funds
and how do you allocate those excess funds across the different parties. Was there consideration about codifying that or coming up with a solution about how to do that? Because that was a big part of this commission's discussion, right? And if you're removing us, then that
discussion goes to council or how do you think about dealing with those um overallocations? >> That so that's a great question that has long been a challenge for the task force and in ways to handle. um they have expressed interest in coming back
together after things kind of settle down to try to formulate some kind of a priority. Um if those because we we base our funding initial funding recommendations on the amount of money we got last year and then we wait for final notice from HUD of what the new
number is going to be. Um, if that were to happen, that opens up a lot of discussion often at the last minute because those happen in, you know, March, April, May. I sometimes
HUD notice comes in extremely late. Um, there has been discussion about how do we codify something like that? um the city council has expressed an interest in having a say as well um which
is is wonderful. How do we do that when there are two public hearings, two readings between one and the other? So one of the discussions was to make kind of a informal presentation maybe through um some informal process or during a
work meeting uh well ahead of time of what the recommendations are so that they have that in their in their minds as they're going along. And that's part of the interest in streamlining the process too is you know we we start the we've always started the application process in January.
We want to push that back to I believe November. I can confirm the dates for you later, but I think we're looking at November 7 into December, which then would allow the task force members time to review kind of before that and then come back
together in January so that then we can have a public hearing and may maybe space out the public hearings before the first reading and the second reading before council. Um there a lot of discussions Nobody's really figured out how to kind
of formulate a policy per se. >> Sure. >> And then the last thing is between now and the council public hearing, can you provide us a red line of the changes between the documents? I know you provided the current and the proposed of both the CPP and the ordinance. Is there
a way you can provide us a red line so we can more clearly see what language was changed? >> That question has come up before and I will get you whatever I can. the two the two documents that the the original document was so
out of date that we really started with a new document instead. >> Um we can try to highlight places where there were changes. Um I can kind of show you things. It it wasn't simply an update. It was a a ground level rewrite.
>> That's both the CPP and the ordinance. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, the ordinance less so. Um, but we can show you I the majority to go a little bit behind the scenes. The majority of the things that are included in in both plans are very
similar. One of the things when I when I joined in the the citizen participation plan is supposed to be a document that enables the public to become actively engaged. From the very early on, the first time I read it, it seemed like a very technical
document. And one of the pieces of feedback I've gotten from people is that when things are presented to them, it's very technical. So could we provide a translation? So, as we were working through all the discussion about these kind of changes,
the document that you have before you, the proposed update, hopefully reads more like a it it's still technical, but hopefully it reads as a more uh lay personfriendly document than the original. um more
about kind of the values that drive you know rather than a lot of the and that's what I noticed when I looked at other localities how they approach their CPPs some of them are very technical and basically what they've done is they've taken the HUD guidance and the the requirements in the code of federal regulations and put them in an
outline and put that out there um what we tried to do this time was to make it a more friendly public facing uh accessible document if you will it still has all of the technical requirements and and laying things out. So, I'd be
more than happy to to get you what I can to kind of show those, but it it wasn't just a simple up, you know, rewrite of the original like a red line version. >> Thank you. >> Is it too late to make changes? >> Yeah.
>> Just a a broad editorial recommendation. Pictures. Pictures are very engaging. They make a a document more lively, interesting to read. uh provide a break for the reader and can give ideas that are relevant to the content. >> Didn't even think about that. That is a
wonderful recommendation. And I find that including pictures and some of the thing other things I've done help show off the work that we've done which um like we've created a web page under the budget and grants management for celebrating our community partnerships and putting pictures on there so that
people can kind of go see. And that's the thing that has gotten me more people in the community saying, "Oh, I saw that." and you know some of the projects that we've done in the past. So definitely do that. I mean, I I will say I'm in favor of
removing the planning commission from the process if it streamlines it. And I'm assuming that it might give you a better chance at, you know, when the funding comes in late, you have more opportunity to make modifications um rather than dealing with us as a step in the process. Um, I always feel funny
about it because it's like the CDBG task force does all this work and it feels very weird to come in and second guess them. Um, especially when council is going to do that anyways. Um, or they they have their own opportunity to do it. Well, one of the things that we did discuss among the task force um was the
idea that in lie of a a kind of formal presentation before the commission that there's more of a like as soon as the initial funding recommendations are made, maybe that can be an opportunity for the whoever has that seat from the commission to make a more they can make
a more formal presentation kind of like what you guys do um with your updates. Um, and then that would give a little bit of time to for for you all to discuss and consider and then to provide feedback to the the member on the seat
and to kind of maybe more utilize that person. Um, you know, we definitely wanted to keep that representation in there. You know, it's important. So, that's an that's a possibility. >> Mr. Chair, I think I have a motion. >> Okay.
I move the the planning commission recommend approval to city council of the proposed amendments to the CDBG home citizen participation plan and associated amendments to chapter 2 article 13 of the Charlottesville city code with the recommendation that a more effective
community engagement plan for the people most affected by CDBG and home spending replaces the planning commission public hearing. I mean, >> isn't that what this whole thing is? Is a >> there's thoughts.
>> Would you would you read that again, please? >> Uh this language from the packet and I added this sentence. Yeah, I just I just wanted to hear again >> with the recommendation that a more effective community engagement plan for the people most affected by CDBG and home spending replaces the planning
commission public hearing. >> Isn't that what this the CPP is? >> Well, it's built into the document. Yes, but he's just being more explicit about it. If there's a question of like creating a new uh position, for example,
this document doesn't create that position. >> A new position. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. I'll second it. >> Are does does it make sense to you?
>> I Yes, I believe so. I mean part part of the part of the consideration in in in even pursuing this was the idea that there could we we could definitely benefit from a lot more discussion about what are the active ways what are the high impact ways of getting more
community engagement and activity and um so we're always open to that. I mean I'm I take variety of people out from the community for coffee periodically just to kind of like learn more about them but to kind of share kind of what we do.
So, and we're always open up to any suggestions. >> All right. Uh, Dannon, can you call a vote? >> All right. Commissioner Solates, >> hi. >> Commissioner Harnesses, >> yes. >> Commissioner Yoder, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mitchell, >> yes. >> Chairman Schwarz,
>> yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I think that is it. So, uh, we'll see everyone at our work session um on June 23rd.
Did I hear hear a confirmation that the work session next month is happening? >> Yes. Uh that'll Yeah. July 28th 7th. Some 28th. >> 28th. Yes. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Uh I'm going to move that we adjourn. >> Second. Okay. Thank you guys.