Planning Commission

Tue, August 11, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Planning Commission — August 11, 2026

This was a regular Planning Commission meeting that moved briskly, completing two public hearing items and adjourning in under two hours. No members of the public submitted comments on any agenda item.

Commissioner's Reports

Commissioners offered several substantive updates from their board and committee assignments.

Tree Commission (Commissioner Betsy [last name unclear]): The tree species list has been updated, linking to city code to guide street tree planting. An urban forestry plan focused on private land canopy is forthcoming. Notably, residents of the new Azalea Hill subdivision attended in unusually large numbers after heavy rain caused significant sediment runoff from a nearby construction site. A related concern emerged: a "paper street" or alley strip between the development and existing homes contains trees whose root systems were damaged when the developer cleared up to the property line. Because the strip is ambiguous city-owned land, neither the developer nor the homeowners bear responsibility for the trees, which may now fall. The commissioner flagged this as a potential future policy discussion for the commission regarding alley and paper-street tree liability.

MPO Technical Committee (Chair Schwartz): The Metropolitan Planning Organization's upcoming Unified Planning Work Program includes two notable studies: a regional bicycle/pedestrian count program to identify locations and technology for counting across jurisdictions, and a travel demand management study aimed at shifting peak-hour commute trips to alternative modes or times. VDOT provided updates on corridor studies: the city has requested a study at Preston/McIntire/Market Street, and the city and county are jointly requesting a study of the Route 250 bypass over Free Bridge, extending all the way down East High Street to Locust Avenue — a corridor that commissioners noted has long been promised attention. VDOT also described a new "framework phase" for studies to improve stakeholder coordination upfront. On Smart Scale funding, cost estimates for several submitted projects changed significantly: the Fifth Street/I-64 diverging diamond dropped from $44M to $39M (unusual good news), while the Old Ivy Road northbound ramp jumped from $13M to $20M, and the Barracks Road/Route 250 off-ramp project more than doubled from $21M to $46M — cost increases that will hurt those projects' scoring.

Neighborhood Leaders Meeting & Subcommittees (Commissioner [unnamed]): At the June quarterly neighborhood leaders meeting, updates included a search for a new public works assistant city manager (75 applicants narrowed to 10), neighborhood walk programs by city staff, a push for resident-facing KPI dashboards, and updates to the MyCville app. The Missing Middle Housing subcommittee, which includes a working group of commissioners, city staff, and local developers and architects, has defined its scope as identifying technical barriers to missing middle housing (up to 12 units, including ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, and small apartment buildings), with a report to the commission and City Council expected in spring or summer 2027. The first deep-dive topic — utility conflicts — is scheduled later this month.

BAR Report: The Board of Architectural Review approved the LV Collective building on West Main Street, but only the building design — the site plan must return separately before a full building permit can issue. Upcoming BAR items include special exceptions for the LV Collective and a new apartment building proposed for the former Martha Jefferson Hospital parking lot.

Chair's Report

The Chair noted that the commission's annual meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2026. Per protocol, the secretary will moderate the annual meeting portion. The Chair and outgoing Vice Chair recommended re-electing incumbent officers, which the commission acknowledged.

NDS Department Report

Staff flagged two upcoming subcommittee meetings: another Missing Middle working group on August 20 (focused on utility conflicts) and a Development Code 2026 clarification/revision subcommittee meeting to be scheduled before the September 9 regular meeting.

Consent Agenda — Minutes (March 24 and April 14, 2026)

Minutes from the March 24 work session and April 14 regular session were approved, incorporating edits suggested by Commissioner Harness.

Vote: Approved unanimously.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Chapter 9: Community Facilities & Services and Appendix

Long-range planner Tori Kanelopoulos presented this amendment, joined by Jason McElwee (Director of Utilities) and Anthony Allard (Utilities Regulatory Compliance). Chapter 9 has not been updated since the comprehensive plan was adopted in November 2021, and state code requires the plan to reflect the general location and character of public facilities.

The amendment adds two new strategies: one to formally adopt relevant Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) plans by reference (a practice that was in the 2013 plan and is being restored), and one to add the future Shanks Branch Sewer Interceptor Upgrade as a named project. The appendix maps are also being updated — replacing outdated water and sanitary system maps and adding new maps for the city stormwater system and the RWSA Central Water Line project. Staff emphasized the amendment does not change the city's overall goals or policy direction; it is a housekeeping update to reflect current utility planning.

One commissioner asked what specifically prompted adding the Shanks Branch project by name; staff explained it is best practice to include known, specific projects in the plan text rather than leaving them implied. No public comment was received.

Vote: Commission unanimously recommended City Council approve Resolution R-CP-26-0001. (5–0; roll call: Harness yes, Yoder yes, Rooker yes, Mitchell yes, Chair Schwartz yes.)

Special Exception Request — 323 Second Street SE [PL-26-0084]

Staff presented a request for a special exception to reduce rooftop mechanical equipment screening requirements at 323 Second Street SE, a building zoned NX10 (urban mixed-use node). Two tenant upfit permits propose installing exhaust fans 64 inches tall on the roof. City code requires screening to six inches above the tallest equipment — which would require a roughly 70-inch screen — but the building's existing 48-inch parapet wall is the only screening available. The applicant seeks to use that existing parapet as sufficient screening. The special exception covers equipment on both the eighth and ninth floors under two related permits.

Staff recommended approval, noting that a site visit and photos from the Water Street Garage showed the mechanical equipment would not be visible given the parapet wall height, the modest height of the fans relative to the parapet angle, and surrounding building heights.

Discussion was substantive. One commissioner cautioned that equipment often visible from a few blocks away, not just street level — noting they could already see existing rooftop equipment from a medical office two blocks east, and likely from Belmont Bridge. The commissioner supported approving this specific request (an existing building, retrofit situation) but urged the commission not to treat the screening requirement as trivial just because visibility isn't obvious from immediately adjacent vantage points. Another commissioner raised a process question: this is the second special exception for screening issues (the other being a Health Department building on Rose Hill), and wondered whether minor retrofit situations might be better handled outside the full special exception process. Staff clarified the exception is specific to the listed equipment; any future rooftop additions would require a new application or full screening compliance.

Vote: Commission voted unanimously to approve application PL-26-0084, granting a modification to City Code Section 34-4.7.4.C.2 reducing required screening height to the existing 48-inch parapet wall, subject to conditions in the staff packet. (5–0; roll call: Harness yes, Uher yes, Rudder yes, Mitchell yes, Chair Schwartz yes.)

*(Note: commissioner names on this roll call were difficult to parse from the transcript and may be slightly inaccurate.)*

Key Takeaways

Comprehensive Plan utilities update approved. The commission unanimously recommended council adopt updated Chapter 9 maps and two new strategies, including formally naming the Shanks Branch Sewer Interceptor Upgrade — keeping the plan current with state code requirements.

Missing Middle subcommittee moving forward. A working group of commissioners, city staff, and developers is actively studying barriers to housing up to 12 units, with a report to the commission and City Council expected by spring/summer 2027; utility conflicts are the first topic.

Smart Scale cost escalations could jeopardize local projects. The Barracks Road/Route 250 off-ramp project more than doubled in estimated cost ($21M to $46M), which will significantly hurt its Smart Scale funding score.

Route 250/East High corridor study advancing. The city and county are jointly requesting a VDOT study of the entire corridor from the Free Bridge to Locust Avenue — a long-sought commitment commissioners welcomed.

Rooftop screening rules noted as meaningful. While approving the 323 Second Street SE exception, commissioners flagged that screening requirements serve a real purpose and that staff and future applicants should not assume equipment is invisible simply because it cannot be seen from street level directly below.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

Commissioner's Reports

# Commissioner's Reports Summary

Betsy reported on Parks and Recreation fee changes, the Tree Commission's updated species list and urban forestry plan, and an Azalea Hill subdivision construction project affected by heavy rain and sediment issues, while also raising concerns about responsibility gaps for damaged trees on paper streets and alleys. A commissioner highlighted upcoming MPO studies on regional bike-pedestrian counts and travel demand management, along with VDOT's framework approach for stakeholder coordination on requested intersection studies, with Smart Scale applications submitted and project cost estimates adjusted (notably the Fifth Street and I-64 bridge project decreased from $44 million to $39 million). The Chair provided updates from the June 17th neighborhood leaders meeting covering public works hiring, neighborhood walks by Tommy Stefranek, city dashboards and KPI tracking initiatives by Jen Hendrix, and noted that cost escalations for SMART Scale projects ($10M-$46M) will negatively impact funding likelihood due to scoring formula impacts. The Chair also reported on the July 28th Missing Middle subcommittee meeting defining missing middle housing as up to 12 units (including ADUs, duplexes, and cottage courts), with a technical issues report planned for spring/summer 2027. Staff presented Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution R-CP-26-0001 updating Chapter 9: Community Facilities & Services maps, which passed unanimously, and the Commission unanimously approved a Special Exception Request (PL-26-0084) for rooftop mechanical equipment at 323 2nd Street SE with modified screening requirements.

University of Virginia Report

Staff presented a special exception request (PL-26-0084) for roof-mounted mechanical equipment screening at 323 Second Street SE, an NX10-zoned property. The applicant requested to reduce required screening from 70 feet to 48 inches for exhaust fans. Staff recommended approval, noting that the existing parapet wall and relative height of the equipment would make it invisible from surrounding areas. Commissioner questioned that the special exception applies only to this specific request, and any future equipment would require a new permit or additional screening. Another commissioner noted that future development (Kendallwood) might change sightlines, and a third commissioner expressed concern about visibility from other vantage points like doctor's offices and Belmont Bridge, emphasizing the code requirement should not be easily dismissed, though this specific case seemed approvable given the existing building status.

Chair's Report

The Chair reported that the annual Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 9th, with the secretary moderating the annual meeting portion. The Chair and Lyle are recommending continuation of incumbent commissioners. The Chair also reported that in June, the BAR approved the LV Collective building design on West Main Street but the site plan requires separate approval; the site plan includes a memory walk connecting West Main Street to West Haven and other community connectivity features. Upcoming agenda items include special exceptions for LV Collective and an apartment building on the former Martha Jefferson Hospital parking lot.

Department of NDS Report

# Department of NDS Report Summary

NDS reported that another missing middle working group meeting is scheduled for the 20th to address utility conflicts. NDS staff also reported on an upcoming subcommittee meeting for the development code 2026 clarification revision round, scheduled before the September 9th Planning Commission meeting. When the Chair requested clarification on the timing of the subcommittee meeting relative to the next regular meeting, staff confirmed it would occur beforehand.

Matters to be Presented by the Public not on the Formal Agenda

The Chair opened the floor for matters to be presented by the public not on the formal agenda, specifically excluding items related to the comprehensive plan amendment. No public comments were raised either in-person or online.

Agenda items (6)

Procedural (6)

1ProceduralCommissioner's Reports

City commissioners will share updates and information about their areas of responsibility.

What happened

2ProceduralUniversity of Virginia Report

University of Virginia will present a report to the city on topics relevant to the university and community.

What happened

3ProceduralChair's Report

The meeting chair will deliver remarks and updates on city business.

What happened

4ProceduralDepartment of NDS Report

The Department of Neighborhood Development Services will report on their work and activities.

What happened

5ProceduralMatters to be Presented by the Public not on the Formal Agenda

Residents will have the opportunity to speak about topics not listed on the formal meeting agenda.

What happened

6ProceduralConsent Agenda a Minutes - March 24, 2026 Work Session b Minutes - April 14, 2026 Regular Session III. Planning Commission Public Hearing Items

The council will approve meeting minutes from the March 24, 2026 work session and April 14, 2026 regular session.

What happened

The Planning Commission voted to adopt the minutes from the March 24th, 2026 work session and April 14th, 2026 regular session, including changes recommended by Commissioner Harness. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions.

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Adopt minutes from March 24, 2026 and April 14, 2026

aye 1

voice voteaye

Recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment R-CP-26-0001 (Chapter 9, Community Facilities and Services)

aye 5

Chairman Schwartzaye

Commissioner Harnessaye

Commissioner Mitchellaye

Commissioner Rookeraye

Commissioner Yoderaye

Recommend approval of Special Exception PL-26-0084 for rooftop mechanical equipment screening at 323 Second Street Southeast

aye 5

Chairman Schwartzaye

Commissioner Harnessaye

Commissioner Mitchellaye

Commissioner Rudderaye

Commissioner Uheraye

Adjourn

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

94 transcript segments indexed

You can blame that one person who opened the wrong email. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And it's probably the president of the company. Exactly. All right. All right. It is 5:30. Welcome everyone to tonight's planning commission meeting.

We are going to start with commissioner's reports. Betsy, you want to- Yep ... want to start for us? Surely. Let's see. In parks and rec, I actually didn't go last night. I was at the CHS open house. But the previous week, and I think this meeting, they were going over changing fees to a lot of their programs and facility rentals, which all seemed fine to me.

It made sense. They were keeping up with the times, and also evaluating city versus county in all the different scenarios. At the tree commission, they've updated the tree species list, that links into the code for what you can choose from to plant where for street trees versus other trees on site.

An urban forestry plan is coming out soon, which has more emphasis on how to think about private land, since public land is pretty much the tree canopy- Mm-hmm ... we can work with that. And then the Azalea Hill residents from the new subdivision that's going in, where it had rained very heavily on the construction project, which then got shut down.

We had, gosh, I don't know, maybe 12, 15 community members come in, which is unusual for the tree commission. Mostly, they were just looking for advice on who to go to and how to work on that. But what I thought was interesting besides that the sediment was flying off the site which was unfortunate.

Some of the residents, there's a paper street or alley. So there's this whole strip of land where the developer isn't in charge of it, the homeowners aren't in charge of it, but there are several trees that because the land was stripped up until that line- Mm-hmm ...

the root balls have been damaged, and they're no longer with their other trees. And so they're probably going to fall. So that I thought was maybe interesting for us to think about in terms of just at some point delving into the alley situations a little bit more.

But they didn't really understand that why they were in charge, not the developer, and there's no onus on the developer because it's sort of city property, but the city's not going to do anything because it's not really...

These alleys are undetermined. Anyway, so this came up, and I thought it was interesting to think about for future. I think they've got some other strategies to work on their own trees, but Interesting That's all.

I think that's all I have. Thank you. All right. We had a meeting of the MPO Technical Committee last week, which I attended. There wasn't a whole lot of note, so just a couple things that I'll pull out here is the MPO staff talked a little bit about their upcoming UPWP, which is Unified Planning Work Program.

So it's essentially the MPO's budget for the next year and their work program. And the two things that I think are interesting there is they are going to be doing a study of essentially what it would take to stand up a regional bike ped count program that would not just be the city, not just be the county, but I think everything from what are locations that would be good, what are devices or technology that would be good for doing the counting, et cetera.

So they'll be working with, I think, city staff and then other jurisdictions as well on that. The second thing is they're going to be doing a travel demand management study or a TDM study, which is essentially looking at all of the trips that come into the city, typically commute trips, they're highly peaked to office hours, and coming up with strategies for shifting those trips to something else.

If you can shave off a tiny bit of the peak, you solve 80% of your traffic problem. So that'd be shifting to different modes, different times of day, et cetera. VDOT gave an update on stars and pipeline studies.

So the city has requested a study at the intersection of Preston and McIntire and Market Street, that whole intersection just down there, and the county and city are both going to be jointly, I think, requesting a study of 250, the bypass over the Free Bridge, and the intersections directly adjacent, as well as High Street to Locust, because that's a section of that corridor that hasn't been touched by any of these studies, so taking it up to the current streetscape project.

And then I think VDOT central office has to approve these locations, and then that goes into the study process. And I thought one thing that was interesting is that the VDOT rep discussed that they're going to begin these studies with a framework phase, kind of a pre-study phase where they get the stakeholders together, and they essentially determine the study's approach.

So like, what are the geographical boundaries? What kind of data are we going to collect? What kind of technical analysis are we going to do? And then who is the study working group or study work group?

So that to hopefully smooth the kind of interjurisdictional coordination on these studies that maybe wasn't there in some previous studies. The last thing is all the smart scale applications for the current round have been submitted, I think as of August 1st.

And so they're being evaluated by OIP, which is the state agency that manages that. So they had to do preliminary cost estimates at the pre-application stage, and then now they've done another cost estimate, which is based on more detailed design information, so costs have changed.

So I think one interesting thing is the Fifth Street and I64 bridge DDI, diverging diamond with some pads and sidewalk connections. The price estimate actually went down from $44 million to $39 million, which I was kind of shocked.

That almost never happens. The bypass ramp extension at Old Ivy Road, the northbound went from $13 million to $20 million, which is a pretty massive price escalation. The ramp on the other side in the southbound direction went from $10 million to $11 million.

And then the Barracks Road, the 250 off-ramp at Barracks Road, which is then going to have some kind of sidewalk and path improvements on Barracks Road, went from $21 million to $46 million. Mm. And because smart scale, the way the formula works is you take your technical score for all the benefits you're going to provide, and you divide it by the cost.

So the cost is really important for scoring well. And so I think these cost estimates, if you see the price going up, that just means the likelihood of it being funded is going down. So I thought that was the most interesting thing from that meeting, and that's all I have.

Quick question. So you said the project of the 250 bypass at Free Bridge, and you said it included the intersection of Locust and High Street. Does that mean they're going to be looking at the entire corridor from Locust all the way down?

Yes. Yeah. Wow, okay. They're going to go basically from the Free Bridge down East High all the way to Locust- All right ... is what I saw in the meeting last week. That's been promised for a very long time, so that's fantastic.

Okay. Thank you. I have a couple updates since we didn't have last month's meeting. June 17th was the quarterly neighborhood leaders meeting. Sam Sanders gave a little bit of an update on replacing the public works assistant city manager, used to be Evan Peluchowski.

They received 75 candidates and narrowed it to 10. This was over a month ago, so I don't know the status of it currently, but that seemed to be A pretty popular position that people were interested in.

Tommy Stefranek gave an update on his neighborhood walks that he's been doing across the city and how successful they've been. Jen Hendrix from the chief strategy officer discussed moving toward trying to get the city to have more dashboards for KPIs that residents and internal stakeholders can follow, so that we can make a little bit more data-centered decisions.

And also, updating the MyCville app, which people can use to submit things that are broken or need attention throughout the city, updating that service, and how the internal processes flow from actually getting the information from the app.

Abby Matthew Wade gave an update on economic mobility, and then Brendan Duncan gave an update on many upcoming construction projects around the city. There's going to be a lot of road and transportation-related construction projects coming up in the next couple of years.

And basically, bids or RFPs have been submitted in the last couple of months for several of them. It'll be interesting to see how those estimates come back and if those remain in budget, and how those projects progress forward.

July 9th was the development code cleanup subcommittee on active death bill two and setbacks. I won't go into detail into that because we had a work session on the same topic. On July 28th, we had the Missing Middle subcommittee.

Betsy and I met with city staff and several city developers and architects to align on what our goals and agendas are for the group. The goal that we came up with is to identify the technical challenges that are preventing us from seeing more missing middle housing in the community.

And as part of that, we defined missing middle as really anything up to 12 units. And that includes what are known as accessory dwelling units, but that's not what they're known in our code, but it's granny flat or a carriage house, duplexes, triplex, cottage courts, small apartment buildings.

And the primary objective of this group is really to develop a set of technical issues that then in a report that they will bring to the planning commission and city council to then determine any necessary future actions.

And that is scheduled to have a report in sometime in the spring or summer of next year, 2027. The first topic we're going to deep dive into next month, this month, later this month, is on utility issues.

Right. I've got nothing to report, but I will note that the annual meeting is September 9th. Mm-hmm. And the protocol for that is that the secretary will moderate the annual meeting part of that meeting, and then Lyle and I will make a recommendation as it relates to the nominees.

And I'm happy to share with the body who we're recommending, or I can wait until the 9th. Why don't you go ahead? We are recommending that we continue with the incumbents. Okay. All right. Thank you. I forgot that we didn't have planning commission meeting last month.

So, the BAR in June, we approved the LV Collective building on West Main Street, but we approved just the building. The site needs to come back to us for approval, so they technically don't have-- They still can't get a full building permit yet.

They have to get approval of the whole project. But the reason for this was so they could move ahead with the design of the building, and get their drawings done while also working with the neighborhood, to develop the site plan, which there's going to be some sort of memory walk, to connect West Main Street to West Haven, and further down to 10th and Page, and other aspects of the site to make it more connected with the rest of the community.

And then, as I already mentioned, next month, we've got some interesting projects coming up. Again, looking at the LV Collective for some special exceptions, and then looking at an apartment building on the parking lot site of the old Martha Jefferson Hospital.

And that is it for my updates. Does NDS have a report? Just a couple of things, Chair. There will be another missing middle working group that'll be coming up on the 20th, to address utilities conflicts.

And there will be an upcoming another subcommittee meeting with the development code 2026 clarification revision round. That'll be coming up prior to your next meeting, but the date and topic won't be set probably till tomorrow.

And those are the only two updates NDS has right now. So that subcommittee is going to happen before the September 9th meeting? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, so now we have matters to be presented by the public that are not on the formal agenda.

So that includes anything that is not dealing with our comprehensive plan amendment. Do we have any? I don't think we have any public. Do we have any public online? Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. Unless any of you guys want to talk.

Nope. Great. All right. So now we have the consent agenda, which is our minutes from March 24th, 2026, and April 14th, 2026. Do I have a motion or comments? I would move that we adopt the minutes, and we also embrace the changes that were recommended by Commissioner Harness.

I'll second. All right. I think we can just call a vote on that. All in favor? Yeah. Yes. Any opposed? Any abstained? Okay. I guess we will start our public hearing at 6:00, so we will be back in 13 minutes.

That was a lot hurried. I know, right? All right. We're back. All right, so our public hearing tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment on Chapter 9, Community Facilities and Services, and the appendix to that.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tori Kanelopoulos, and I'm a long-range planner in Neighborhood Development Services. I believe we're getting the presentation pulled up. So this is a public hearing for a comprehensive plan amendment for Chapter 9, Community Facilities and Services.

And I'm also joined this evening by Jason McElwee, Director of Utilities, and Anthony Allard, Utilities Regulatory Compliance and Operations Administrator, to assist with answering any questions that may come up.

So, next slide. Oop. Sorry about that. No, you're good. Uh-oh. Could make it really fun. So the agenda for this evening is reviewing the scope of this amendment, the purpose of the amendment, and then at the end, the suggested motions for the planning commission.

Next slide. In November 2021, City Council formerly adopted the city's comprehensive plan. Since then, there have been several amendments, including adopting both the Climate Action Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Comprehensive plan amendments require public hearings with both the Planning Commission and City Council. This amendment is for Chapter 9, Community Facilities and Services, and associated public utility maps in the comprehensive plan appendix.

This chapter and these maps have not been updated since the 2021 comprehensive plan adoption, and since then, there have been updates to city and partner agency public utility and facility planning maps and projects.

It is best practice to periodically update these maps and plans and include them in the comprehensive plan. So the scope of this amendment includes adding two new strategies, one to adopt relevant Ravenna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority plans by reference within the comprehensive plan, and one to add the future Shanks Branch Sewer Interceptor Upgrade project.

The updated appendix would replace the previous water and sanitary system maps with updated maps and would add two new maps, one for the city storm system and another for the RWSA Central Water Line project.

Next slide. This slide shows the full wording of those two new strategies. For 8.7, many of these RWSA and ACSA plans were adopted by reference in the 2013 comprehensive plan, so those are being carried forward again, adopted by reference.

And strategy 9.4 is similar to 9.3, which calls out a specific project that is known to be included in the text of the comprehensive plan. Next slide. Virginia State Code requires each locality to have a comprehensive plan, and each plan needs to include the general or approximate location, character, and extent of public facilities, and the designation of a system of community service facilities.

To be considered part of the comprehensive plan, public utilities and facilities can be included in the text of the plan, such as a plan strategy or as a reference document. They can also be included as separate attachments, such as maps in the comprehensive plan appendix.

The current comprehensive plan has strategies for several specific projects and studies in the community facilities and services chapter, along with water and sanitary system maps in the appendix. Also, per Virginia State Code, most public utilities and facilities must either be a feature shown in the comprehensive plan, such as a project shown on a map or specified in a strategy, or they need to be reviewed by the planning commission to find that the general or approximate location, character, and extent of public facilities are in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan.

And there are some exceptions to that, including normal service extensions of public utilities and regular repair work. Next slide. So to summarize the overall purpose of this amendment, it is since that chapter of the comprehensive plan has not been updated since 2021, updates were needed to incorporate the most up-to-date information for public water, sewer, and stormwater management facilities and utilities.

And this comprehensive plan amendment does not change the city's overall goals or approach. Next slide. So these are the suggested motions for the planning commission, and I'll turn it over to the commission for any questions and discussion, and would also note that the next step would be forwarding the commission's recommendation to council and for council to hold a public hearing.

So, thank you. Thank you. Do you guys have any questions? I have a motion if you'd like to. I think we need to check the public first, but just want to make sure. Do we have any... No questions? I've got a question.

All right. This is good. I understand the need to update these maps periodically. Five years is a long time. There's been a lot of work that's been done on some of these. I'm just curious to know what's the impetus or what's driving adding the Shanks Branch project specifically to the comp plan.

Yeah, I can let Jason and Anthony add if there's anything else. But I would say when we have a known specific project that could be included, it's best practice to add that in. So as we identify those periodically beyond just a typical replacement or upgrade.

Okay. All right. Do we have any public yet? If you're online, you can click the raise hand icon if you'd like to speak. This is technically a public hearing. Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. All right.

If you guys have any comments or does somebody want to make a motion? Would you like to- I'll- Please do ... happily make a motion. Okay. I move that we recommend the council approve or adopt resolution R-CP-26-0001.

Second it. Dennis, can you call the vote, please? Okay. Commissioner Harness? Yes. Commissioner Yoder? Yes. Commissioner Rooker? Yes. Commissioner Mitchell? Yes. Chairman Schwartz? Yes. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Our next item is a special exception request for 323 Second Street Southeast. Good evening, commissioners. We are here to discuss project item PL260084, which is a special exception permit for roof-mounted mechanical equipment screening at 323 Second Street Southeast.

Patrick can pull up those slides. Thank you. All right. Let's see if this will work for me. 323 Second Street is zoned NX10. Future land use designation of it is urban mixed use node, and ultimately it is a special exception for a proposal as a part of two tenant upfit permits.

There's a proposal to install mechanical equipment, which will be 64 inches in height, and any rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment must be screened to six inches above the highest point of any mechanical equipment on the rooftop.

They're requesting a special exception to reduce that, what would ultimately be a 70-foot-tall mechanical equipment screening, down to their 48-inch screen that they have as a part of their existing parapet wall up there.

You can go to the next slide for me, please. There's that code section, part of 4.7.4.2 shows that requirement. And you can go to the next slide, Patrick. Here is their roof equipment configuration in highlighted.

You can scroll onto the next one, Patrick. You can see where their mechanical equipment will be. It's just some exhaust fans pretty much. And if you can go to the next slide. While considering what's in the area, this photo I took on top of Water Street Garage, and you can see what would be that corner where the mechanical equipment will be.

I went out there, took a look, and I just don't think that with the height of that building and all of the buildings in the proximity, I don't think that mechanical equipment will be seen from anywhere given the existing parapet wall, the relative height of the mechanical equipment not exceeding that angle too greatly that I think it will be seen.

And just given the buildings in the area, I think it won't be visible. So therefore, I recommend approval on the special exception with no extra conditions. All right. Any questions? I've got one. Sure.

I think I know the answer to this, but- Mm-hmm ... the special exception is tied to the specific permit request for these exhaust fans. So if they were to come back two years from now and say, "We want to build more stuff above the parapet wall," that's utilities, this special exception permit only applies to this request, not to any future requests to do more stuff with utilities up there.

Right. Correct. Yeah. Any new mechanical equipment that is outside of the scope of what's being requested as a part of this special exception- Mm-hmm ... that would not be. We'd have to come back. Okay.

All right, cool. Or provide the screening. Yeah. Other questions? My only thought was think eventually Kendallwood will have something in that corner. We have to picture that there will be some higher buildings that might be able to see it at some point.

But given that even those windows probably would be looking up, so I think it probably would still block most of it. So that's all. I'm just reminding myself that because that height is probably going to be changing around that building at some point.

Mm-hmm. Right now it seems like it's the tallest building, but- Right ... eventually it will not be. Or things will- Yeah. It'll change a little bit out there, but I didn't anticipate- Yeah ... still similarly, just given the existing parapet wall, the relative height of the proposed equipment, I didn't see any concern, but I appreciate the note I guess we're moving into comments anyways, because there is no public hearing for this.

Okay, great. Are there other comments? I will say, I was at my doctor's office this morning over on two blocks to the east, and you can see this equipment, or at least the existing equipment, from that parking lot.

And I imagine you can probably see it from Belmont Bridge. Mm. And I know there's been buildings on West Main Street that have argued to the BAR that, "No, you can't see the equipment from the street," but you can see it really clearly from other spots on West Main Street, because it's just the way the topography works in the city.

So, I do think this is an important code requirement that we shouldn't trivialize and just dismiss really easily. It doesn't sound like we are doing that from some of the comments I'm hearing. I'm okay approving this one specifically, just because it's an existing building.

There's already stuff up on that roof. But I just want to make sure that we, as a commission, do recognize that just because you can't see it from right next door, move away a couple blocks, you can usually see this stuff a lot more easily.

But anyways, that's my two cents. Mm-hmm. So, I do pontificate sometimes. If I did- If I did have a comment, it would be this is sort of the second special exception request we've had for-- this isn't necessarily maintenance, but somebody could consider a retrofit for a tenant usage to be a sort of maintenance for a building.

And I would hate to just have maintenance issues continue to come before us in a special exemption. Because both this is a screening issue, and the other one on the health department on Rose Hill was a screening issue.

Yeah. So, it seems like small things that maybe we can find a way around planning commission for. If this were something bigger or messier-looking, I think I'd have more heartburn over it, and I wouldn't want it to just be automatically rubber-stamped.

But I don't know. That's just me. Sure. Other comments, or does anybody want to make a motion? I guess I'll move to recommend approval of application PL-26-0084 to allow the installation of the rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment by granting a modification, city code section 34-4.7.4.C.2, which reduces the required screening height from six inches above the tallest point of the equipment to the height of the existing 48-inch parapet wall subject to the condition A provided in the packet.

Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. I am going to ask some questions. We did say that it's specifically for this equipment- Mm-hmm ... and if they have other equipment, they need to come back to us. The plans seem to show that there's one, two, three, four, five pieces of new equipment, and then a new exhaust fan.

And then there's two future equipment, requires separate permit drawings for ninth floor. Those are part of this application? They are. These are part of two separate building permit applications- Okay ...

that I combined together. Got you. So, that was future reference equipment for the sequential building permit for the separate eighth floor and ninth floor- Okay ... building permit application. All right.

So, the motion that was just made will include- Yeah ... all of those items. Correct. Okay. It's for BEC260035 and 0037 for the eighth and ninth floors respectively. Sorry about that. No, it's a good question.

No, second. I second the motion. Okay. Damon, can you call the roll please? Okay. Commissioner Harness? Yes. Commissioner Uher? Yes. Commissioner Rudder? Yes. Commissioner Mitchell? Yep. Chairman Schwartz?