commissioners reports. >> Uh yeah, >> so just a a fairly brief report. Uh if you guys recall, last meeting we had was days before the the buildings and grounds committee meeting with the BOB. So I just wanted to quickly run through and just do some confirmations of uh I
went through the agenda but I didn't have clarity on how things were going to go. And so um the first was a concept site and design guidelines approval for the school of data science and entreprene entrepreneurship building. So that's basically the follow-up project. It's immediately adjacent to the existing school of data science along
Ivy Road. Um that project is going to begin design. Um it's kicking off its design process uh later this month and so uh more to report on that as that takes shape. Um the schematic design approval came through for the 220,000
square foot center for the arch arts which includes a 1200 seat Richard and Tessa Ader performing arts center and uh I can also add that project received design approval from the state at their most recent meeting of the art architecture review board uh schematic design review of the Fontaine uh
research data center. that project will now go back for a final design approval at a future buildings and grounds committee meeting. They um the BNG approved the renaming of the Federal Executive Institute property, the FEI, to Sycamore Hill. And the final one of
note was they um they approved a two-step process to transfer the ownership of the 5acre Oaklan property in the Fville neighborhood from the university to the city of Charlottesville. And so that's the historic residential property that UVA Health purchased back in 2023 for $3.5
million. Um the idea is that the the initial arrangement is to lease the property for a dollar a year uh as they work out a way to ultimately hand over ownership from uh the state to the city. Uh UVA had a recently completed a
planning study exploring um how the site can be redeveloped to include community amenities, child care, and child development. Um, and so that those materials are in the process of being shared with the city uh to give them sort of a their planning team a head start uh as they begin to look in
opportunities uh to address education on that property. So that's all I have. >> Um I went to I'm taking over Chairman Mitchell's spot on the city parks and rag books. Um I was on it several years
ago and so I just noticed some changes. Um mainly this this month was a lot of talk about bylaws and the inner workings of the actual commission. Um so not a lot of meat yet, but the budget um has
yet to be approved and I think that is on par for next time. Um I did miss my tree commission meeting. Um they are amazing. Um but I know that they are working on um well first of all the arborist the city is always working on
planting more trees and you doing great things. Um they have the new chip which I can't remember what it stands for but they are teaching people going neighborhood to neighborhood looking at invasive vines. So the the big push is to save what we have in terms of the
older trees that are providing um so much uh green infrastructure for us. Um and then they're working on um kind of more uh systematically looking at also the zoning code and the planning
site approval process for ways to have more education about saving trees or you know how much it would take to um protect some of our older trees in the development process. Ly Solates. Friday, October 3rd was the
second general stakeholder workg groupoup meeting uh on the building code update statewide. I proposed allowing single stair apartments at the fourth story and smaller and more affordable elevators in R2 residential multif family six stories and below. So not towers.
Uh single stair apartments moved forward with a consensus recommendation and elevators went forward with a recommendation of non-consensus. I am hopeful that the board will adopt the changes and that we will start seeing safer, more affordable, and more accessible homes along these lines built starting with the 2027 building code
statewide. City schools capital improvement planning committee met on September 25th. I am pleased to report that a school's facility planning effort is planned under staff effort to coordinate how we spend money on capital maintenance and investment to match
current and long-term needs. Now precedes a series of things we're paying for. Uh, I've cut most of them. CHS roof replacement is done. It It will be solar ready. $6 million of work. Took three years. CHS turf field replacement, $1 million budget. Looking for an
installation this fall. Uh, early childhood learning center on the Walker campus. That will be prek, $30 million budget. It's going to cost more. It's going to bid in fall 2026. They're in schematic design phase now. Uh, it is a beautiful terrace design which will
provide play space right outside the classroom. And that beautiful design does add $10 million more. The K-tech solar installation, uh, $800,000 budget. The roof was not solar ready, so it was harder and more expensive. It is $262 kW. It is the biggest system that we
have ever done on a on a public building, and we are pursuing an income tax credit. And the Green Brier restrooms, a matter of much discussion for many years. I I have here written, the worst restroom in the city, $600,000. It will be ADA accessible, and it's happening next summer.
So, worst bathroom in the city. I mean, is that is that a challenge? >> I've clearly never been to Christians on the corner at 3:00 a.m. >> All right. Um, so, uh, I'll, uh, hopefully have a
brief intermetzo here between these two. Um, hack met, uh, September. Most of that meeting was taken up with the first round of data and the attempt to
uh generate a template for this um feasibility of the possible tax abatement program that we've talked about a couple of times. Um it's uh interesting work. I think and uh councelor Payne and I were both sort of
this opinion that the more we look at this, the more likely it is it's going to have a bigger effect on smaller developments because there is actually going to be some bang for the developers buck. But jury's still out. We're still gathering
data at the beginning. It's just sort of what our mutual gut feel is. Um there's that uh Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Um most of that meeting was not particularly derain to the city of Charlottesville. There was some uh
discussion of uh commuter and uh commuter and movement of people and where they are and the efficacy of the park and ride. Um some of that data is a little clouded because it's difficult to tell. uh the data set we think conflated
parts of Almor Charlottesville and uh we are dissolving the regional transportation partnership in favor of the new Charlottesville album transit authority uh which is taking over those duties. Uh
so that was that. Um all right I had uh two meetings this month to report back on. Uh first we had the uh now annual uh SAW MO and Charlottesville MO uh joint meeting. Uh SAW MO is the Stanton Augusta Wesboro uh
MO. Um so we're talking about issues about transportation crossing the mountain. Uh we got a great update on Aton Express uh which is expanding currently proposing additional frequencies and a new schedule um including reverse commutes. Uh various uh VOT projects been completed. Um, if
you're in a runaway truck going down the mountain now, uh, you can get caught with a fancy new system. Um, and they've already got one already. Um, also, uh, the statewide regional or the statewide rail plan, uh, effort will be beginning next year. Um, and so there
should be interesting things from DRPT on that to report uh, for a future planning commissioner. Um later uh last week uh we had the Charlottesville Almeral MO uh technical committee meeting. Uh the two big
updates uh first the 29 stars studies uh to figure out new smart scale projects. Um both so there's sort of combined technically two studies. Uh one is the 250 29 intersection and the other is
just 29 going north of there. Um the goal was to have it on kind of a very compressed schedule to get it done in time to have smart scale projects to submit in the next round next year. Um but unfortunately it will not um be
ready in time. Uh so there was a discussion about potential projects uh for the no to submit um in round seven for smart scale. Um and unfortunately with the changes that the CTB made last round uh for no projects uh it's pretty
constrained in what they can do. Um effectively it has to be something that comes out of a uh pipeline study um or star study or it has to be related to a highway or highway interchange. Uh so last time uh we submitted the project to
build two roundabouts on Barracks Road by the 29 interchange. Um that ended up pricing out at like 90 million for the small scale project. Um way more than any project that got funded. Uh so
uh they are not going to resubmit that. Um, currently they are looking at uh two versions of simply widening uh the off-ramp going northbound on 29 to Barracks, either extending it um or
adding a second left turn lane at Barracks. The second one of those, the turn lane, uh would include a sidewalk under the bridge and connecting to the city sidewalk um a little bit west of Milmont. uh but the extension would not
include any uh pedestrian improvements or anything other than the extension. Uh we had a lengthy discussion about how the MO is not uh simply submitting a highway expansion is not in line with the NOS's priorities. Um and we would like to see at the very least in
exchange for highway widening getting some improvements um for bison and pedestrians. Uh and the tricky part is making that happen, working with the uh requirements for it to be effectively an interchange project as the primary
improvement. Um so they will be coming back to us uh with more ideas. Uh they're also talking about submitting uh old IV and 29 interchange uh expansions as well. Um, lastly, uh, I'd like to read an email
that was forwarded to me, um, about an incident on West Main, uh, about a week ago. Um, it it reads, "Yesterday, around 5:10 p.m., I was on my cargo ebike heading east on West Main after picking my 8-year-old son up from his tutor session in the education school. I was
traveling in the bike lane by the Amtrak parking lot when a driver opened their car door into the bike lane. I wasn't able to stop in time and tried to swerve around the door, but it struck my handlebars, broke off my brake lever, and forced us to the ground. Luckily, I have a protective cage around the cargo area meant to protect the child
occupant, so he was unheard other than a minor scrape on his knee. If it weren't for that, he could have been gravely injured. Also, fortunately, there's a doctor in traffic and she looked him over. What is particularly frustrating is that last November, within 100 ft of the accident yesterday, I was hit by a car that crossed the bike lane to grab a
parking spot. I'll also note that I've been a bike commuter for 20 years, have a motorcycle endorsement, wear fluorescent and reflective gear. I've now had three incidents with cars in total, two in the last year, and all three on West Main and Charlottesville. Over thousands of miles of riding, all
of my incidences have happened within blocks of each other. This is an infrastructure problem, not a cyclist problem. Um now as you all remember uh there was a proposal uh to do effectively a quick build restriping project on West Main uh to create
protected bike lanes or protected bikeway um with simple paint um sort of a lowcost uh improvement after the West Main Streetscape was canceled. Um that effort uh was put on hold or cancelled uh because it turns out uh the utilities
department is doing major work on West Main over the next couple years. Um and we were told BPAC was told uh that when they finish that work uh they will have to mill and repave the street and that would be potentially be a time uh to add
that sort of bike improvement. Um, so unfortunately I'm hearing this week uh that the MDS work plan does not include any money or staff time for even investigating this new striping plan. Um, all we need to do is plan it out. We
already have to pave and stripe the street anyway. Um, but apparently we are not intending to do that. Um, now as somebody personally who has suffered permanent injuries from the mediocre infrastructure on West Main, um, I think
it would be unconscionable to squander this opportunity. Um, and my hope is that NDS will rethink its plans and have a striping plan ready for utilities in 2028. >> Nothing to report, Mr. Chair. No report. >> Okay.
Um and the uh board of architecture review did not reach a quorum um last month so nothing to report from there. Um does the department of NDS have anything to report? >> Yes. Um and what before I get started
with that, we had a number of people come in since I gave the announcement. We have a couple of signup sheets for this evening. Um, we have a signup sheet for matters from the public and this is for um, uh, anyone who's speaking that is not going to be within the listening session, meaning on the zoning code that
we're doing later this evening. If you're here and want to speak on our critical slope item that's on the agenda, that is a good place to sign up as well. If you're uh planning to speak during the listening session, we ask that you sign up on that sheet so that
we can call folks um in an orderly fashion to make that happen. So, please take the opportunity to do that in the next little bit here. Um chair asked me to uh provide an update um that we had provided before on uh what's called a
Meadow Creek interchange project. Um, and this is uh up on in the Hillrest Lane area. There's been some community interest in there. Um, the last update that we had um was, let me confirm, that
was in August. Um, and this is uh the the only change that we've had since August for those who are are engaged in this is that we've provided comments on the major development plan to the applicant um in
this case. Um, and so uh there are a number of pro of of items that are part of this project. Um, and uh, there's a lot of detailed information here that might lose traction um, if I if I speak
all the words here, but um, if one out there is interested in the details of the Met Creek Interchange project, um, please go ahead and send me an email or give a call. Uh, email casmshsville.gov um, and I can give you the details of
this. But if you've been following this for a while, um we have sent out the third round of comment submission. Um our portal has all of this information if you're interested in that as well. So is is that enough of an update? >> I I have a question. Uh I've spoken with
several members of the public on this item. Uh the main item that I've heard is is concerns about safety. Is uh safety addressed in in these uh staff comments? >> I don't have the staff comments with me. So >> unable to answer that at this moment,
but um if if you've got a contact um we can provide uh the comments for them. >> Okay. Also, um we have a work session on the 28th of October. It's been a little while since we've had a formal work
session. Um and this is going to be on the environmental review project. Um for those in the audience, um we um one of the commitments that came from the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance review was to um spend additional time
uh digging deeper into environmental related ordinances and codes. Um and so that process has been going on for for quite a while on the staff end of things and they're beginning to move into the uh work session and next uh steps of
that. So, the commission has that work session on the 28th. Um, also our next meeting will be November 12th. That is a Wednesday. Um, so just as a reminder, I did check in with you guys. You might not remember because it's been a few months ago. Uh, Veterans Day is on the
11th, which is the Tuesday, and so the building will be closed. So, we will have the meeting on the 12th. And at that point, we are not going to be in this room. We are going to be over in city space. Again, we'll have all of this online. Um, but we'll have um
whatever regular items on the agenda that come up for that meeting and then we will have a work session on the code amendments. So, tonight we have the listening session to pro to gather comment from the community on this item and then you all will have an
opportunity for a more focused work session at that point in time. And that's what we have for now. All right. Um, our next item is uh matters to presented by the public not on the formal agenda. Um, and this would include um if you want to talk on the uh
steep slope um waiver. Um now would be the time. Um Missy, do you want to moderate or uh >> um sure I can do that. And I guess I um I will be in charge of uh you have three minutes to talk and I will let you know
when your three minutes is up. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um so we will work this how we work most of our public comment sessions where we take the opportunity to um have one of our in-person speakers uh go first. You have
three minutes to provide your comments to the commission. Um that'll be timed and uh then we will alternate to our virtual audience. And so we'll check in with our virtual audience. If we have um anyone in the virtual audience now who is interested in speaking, please raise
your hand in the application. This is for the matters from the public. Um again the listening session will come later. Um but you'll raise your hand. We don't have anyone on the phone line but if we did then we would provide the instructions for raising your hand that method. We'll go back and forth until
everyone who um has or wants to take the opportunity to speak has that opportunity. And uh that's pretty much what we do. So um we'll start out. Our first speaker signed up is uh Max Chambers.
Um so Mr. Chambers, if you want to come up and give your name and address and um begin um speaking. >> Uh hello, my name is Max Chambers. I live at 40010th Street Northwest, uh the Dair Apartments. Uh I recently moved to
Charlottesville over the summer and so far I quite enjoy living here for the outdoor space. Uh the walkability and the bikability in many parts of the city is great. Um but there are a few areas uh where I think it's lacking. And it sounds like the commission has uh been investigating these issues already. Uh I
try to bike as much as I can around town. Uh but uh on Rio Road, for example, and other areas in the city, the bike lane will just suddenly disappear. Um you know, people on online forums have complained about bikers ending up on Highway 29 or Highway 250.
There are no signs indicating to bikers that they should not enter those spaces. There's no indication that there are other alternative routes for bikes. And so again on Ryo Road um in a lot of parts of the city uh on barracks for example coming uh into Preston Avenue uh the bike lane is is on again off again
and it makes it really difficult uh to be able to ride safely uh around cars. I think it also contributes to a lot of the traffic that ends up uh building in those areas. Uh in addition to that I think uh the sidewalks uh could certainly be more continuous in certain
places around the city. I don't know the city well enough yet to uh give too many specific examples of that. Um, and it's interesting, you know, with the the somewhat uh lacking infrastructure in terms of uh pedestrian friendly and cycling friendly uh lanes, um there
still seems to be quite a bit of uh traffic that builds up in the city. Um I think that uh roundabouts are a really good way to solve this. It sounds like the commission has already uh been focusing on this. I know there have been several improvements around the Whole Foods and Highway 29. I know that roundabouts can be expensive, but um
they are a really good investment if it means avoiding expensive uh improvements in traffic signals and just trying to maintain a system that really uh doesn't work. So, I think that roundabouts uh at Preston and uh I think it's 10th Avenue
uh right near my apartment would be a great improvement. Uh Ridge Street and Preston uh Ridge and Main Street. All of these areas uh seem to be really uh you know problematic areas for people making left turns, right turns, and interacting with pedestrians. So, I think that
roundabouts and other intersection improvements could be a great way uh to improve the traffic flow and make it easier for people to get around the city during rush hour uh in addition to making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists to get around. Uh thank you so much.
>> Thank you. All right, I'll check in on our virtual audience. I don't see anyone with hands raised at this time. Uh we will come back to you um in a moment. Um please raise your hand in the application if you are interested in speaking from your online. Um our next
speaker is Joe Lang. >> Hi. Um hello planning commissioners. Uh my name is Joe Leang and I live in Lambeath field course for uh 474 um in a student housing. Um I'm a third year undergrad urban planning student at
UVA and I'm want to share my thoughts on the zoning code and the student apartments developments that are recently um coming out. And as a student, we represent obviously a very transient population. And many of the proposed developments under new zoning ordinance appear to be targeted towards
just students. And while increasing housing supply generally helps reduce costs assuming demand remains st rather stable the nature of these byite projects has like understandably raised concerns among long-term residents as
there were several I think last month who spoke on it and express expressed concerns because these developments are permitted by right there are obviously very limited opportunities for negotiation and I think these developments that rapidly like increase
supply for students is generally just very helpful for students but not perhaps very helpful and probably contributes to gentrification for local residents. So while benefiting as a student I think there definitely needs to be um significant steps that needs to
be taken in first communicating towards um local residents about the just these zoning policies. uh as um residents seem quite confused or like surprised about this um by right uh these uh developments being by right and seem
rather stressed about it. So, one solution I have to suggest is to create perhaps a GIS map or some kind of interactive map where you can look at the um areas within Charlottesville and then simply click on the uh area that
you are located in and then you can and not only do you see the district zoning district that you are located in, but you also will see the the exact definition of that like CX5 or some kind of district the exact definition. So you want to know the exact height limit and
the density that's required for district uh rather than I know the city already has taken steps to create um a GIS searcher where you can find the definition of your um zoning district but I think a a simpler interface and a
interface where it directly tells you the definition will be very beneficial for lay people just trying to understand the zoning ordinance. Thank you. And I just want to remind people um thank you for that. Um we will have a listening session for the zoning code coming up a later on in the evening. Um so right now
this is things not related to zoning code or um uh if you want to speak on the steep slope uh waiver. Um but you you were great. Apologies. >> Great. It's fine. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Just to be clear, uh I think we had
build this as a development community listening session like architects and builders problems. Are we expecting everyone who wants to talk about the zoning code to talk later and not now? >> I >> think it makes more sense to do that. >> Okay. At least for staff to collect
comments that way. >> All right. Just going to check in with our online audience to see if anyone's interested in speaking during Madison in public. All right. I don't see any hands raised there. Do we have any additional in-person uh speakers for matters from
the public? Okay, I'll check virtual check in person one more time. All right, chair. I think we are >> all right. >> Onward to the next item. So
um yeah, our next item is a special exception for critical slope consent >> agenda. Oh, excuse me. >> Consent agenda. >> Oh my. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. Um our next item is the consent agenda which includes the minutes from August 26, 2025 and September 9th, 2025. Uh
chair, I move that we accept the consent agenda subject to the uh corrections of the scrier's errors described during the premium. >> Second. >> Um is all in favor? >> I >> I >> Any opposed?
>> Nope. Okay. All right. So, yeah. Now, our next item is the uh special exception, which is a critical slope um at 102nd Street Southeast. uh staff, whenever you're ready. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um
get those slides up. I'll be happy to begin. Um project number PL25-000066 is for 102nd Street Southeast for critical slope special exception waiver. Um this project is uh right next to XR
Park, right off of Second Street. Um it is a sublot that is zoned RA. Um the future land use designation of that is that of just general residential within the sensitive community areas. Um and this is for a critical slope special exception for the purpose of future
residential use. Uh you go to the next slide. Uh critical slope regulations are as follows. That if there is a slope with a grade of 25% or greater uh whether or not a portion of the slope has a horizontal run greater than 20 feet and
the area of and an area of 6,000 square ft or greater and that a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of any waterway protected by the standards and design manual of the chapter 10 of the Charlottesville code of ordinances. Um so in those areas devel development is
regulated and controlled. Um however there is an option for relief to pursue this critical slope special exception permit uh to allow and looking over to the right hand side under section 5216D. Uh criteria for review and decision of the critical slope special exception
waiver. uh city council may grant this special exception if it finds that you know there due to unusual topography uh shape location or other unique or unusual physical conditions uh whether or not development would be unreasonably restricted um as a part of these
regulations and that there is a public benefit of the proposed encroachment and that would outweigh the potential issues created by allowing for development within it. Uh, city council are supposed to review the criteria to the following standards. That the amount of impact is
limited to the greatest extent possible and that whether sufficient mitigations have been proposed to limit impact of the proposed encroachment and whether steps have been taken to prevent those impacts and whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the zoning district and comprehensive plan. You go
to the next slide, Patrick. So, this is the location here. Here's our critical slope map. You can see the large, you know, development X right across the street. So, this is a sublot, meaning that the property or the parcel south of this and this parcel are sort of tied together with their development
rights. So, there is one existing residential unit already existing. So, this sublot area could, you know, propose to construct one to five additional units. If they are proposing three or above, then um affordable units are required or are required to reach
those density calculations. So this development could be be between 1 to five with the possibility of affordable housing units being provided. Pat, you can go on to the next one. Um, right. Yeah. So the applicant has
expressed the their willingness to, you know, obviously meet the minimum engineering requirements and exceed them. uh as a part of their application they have um stated that they are willing to produce advanced erosion and sediment control measures. Actually on
Patrick can you go to the next slide please? Here's the build building envelope shown and that the entirety of the sublot is to be disturbed. You can go to the next one. And finally, they have, you know, are willing to provide uh advanced erosion
and sediment control measures to be in place before, during, and after construction. Uh that there are engineered retaining walls designed to blend with the natural landscape. And that a a detailed landscaping and reveation plan using native species to permanently stabilize the disturbed areas upon completion of the project. So
considering all these you know the benefits of the added density allowed if this were to be approved and these contingencies in place uh we are recommending our staff recommend approval of the critical slope special exception with these conditions attached to it that when they go to develop um
their uh engineering documents be reviewed to meet these criteria um as they go forward. Uh so yes we are recommending approval with those conditions. You guys have any questions? So looking at your report on page eight
of your report, you suggest that if once the uh devel development review process is uh completed and it's not quite what you were expecting, there's an opportunity to do an amendment to the critical slope waiver approval. What is that process? How do you do that? if
they were to well I mean so let's say you know if they do go through this and you know it's determined that they're not meeting these criteria they would have to either re-engineer it to meet these criteria or they would be required to get their special exception permit modified. Um,
and that process is to pretty much treat it as if it were a brand new special exception in which it would come back before this commission. And then obviously this is all assuming it's approved by city council after this, they would have to go back to city council for reapproval with >> Right. We we've got the we've got the
ability to treat this as a >> if it's not what we expect it to be. We've got the ability to uh revisit the exception that we printed >> in what way in what way they develop it or in like these engineering criteria. >> All of the above.
>> All the above. >> Well, I mean the the criteria or the conditions that I've recommended don't really have to do with the built form of it. uh it is strictly tied to the engineering components but you guys do this commission would have the ability to add stipulations on sort of the build
form if you feel that's appropriate. Uh so you could add those conditions and if any modifications are required we'd have to go through this process again down the road. >> What is the uh what what what what's what's generating the difficulty in putting together a uh a development plan? Is it just because of the nature
of the uh the nature of the slope or is it because they haven't had an opportunity to develop a a plan yet or >> um it's well I mean the applicant is here so I'm sure they could speak to that as well but you know from the discussions and you can probably stand
up >> if you'd like. >> It's up to the chair. >> Sure. Yes please. I mean to answer your question directly just due to the subject subjective nature I'm a small scale builder and allocate resources
prior to approval to to have a a construction set to appease your desire to see the final form would cost frankly would cost me an enormous amount. and to enter a subjective process
paying an enormous amount before I gain approval is uh prohibitive to me. Uh but I understand your concern completely. One of the one of the difficulties I've I've got is uh if in fact I elect to
support and recommend the uh waiver. The reason I'll do that is because what we're going to get by granting the waiver is to for the better to for the betterment of the community. we're going to get more housing for example and I can't tell how many more houses we're
going to get yet and I can't tell exactly how many if we're going to get any affordable housing. >> So you would be I mean within the application it's between one and four and in terms of >> but that's in the application but that's
in the actual development plan that you're going to submit and that's >> that is in the application. Yes, the potential to get six total units on the on that lot is there, >> but the we haven't seen the development plan.
>> My understanding is I'm limited to limited to the scope that this body approves. So, I would be limited to what the application suggests. So, regardless of whether or not I have a plan, is that accurate or
>> only explicit conditions that we include in the approval. Um, so we could add a condition that says we'll approve this if you build four or more units. >> I see. >> Um, but unless we put something like that in there, you can I mean you could turn this into an urban farm, which would be allowed an RA and that
>> I see. My application I I suggest I'm I'm a builder of homes. I'm not a farmer. So I will build homes. Um, if it's one home, the economics are not such that I can build a technically affordable home. It's not going to happen on this lot. I mean, it cost
roughly between4 to $50,000 to put in sewer and water. So, I mean, you can do the math. It's It's just not going to be a $250,000 house. I would have to I would have to pay for that and I'm not in a position to do that. So, you know,
I'm just limited I'm limited by the realities of the costs of building and I'm, you know, I this is more of a personal note, but I've grown up here. My family's here. my friends are here. I'm not trying to,
you know, I want to do well by the community. And I don't think the community necessarily needs another million-dollar home because you can look on Zillow currently and see that there's an abundance of of $1.2 million homes. It's not what the community needs. It's not what I want. It's not what inspires
me to build. So, I want to place as many units as possible. And at this point in time, I cannot look you in the eyes and say, "This is absolutely what I will do. because of many different factors, but I'm going to attempt to do the best that I think I can on this trigger lot within
the within my ability. Um, and that's as much as I can guarantee right now. >> Thank you. Um, were there any other questions for staff? Did you have anything else you wanted to add to staff's report?
>> Not necessarily, unless there's another question. >> Okay. Um well then are there um I keep forgetting to look down this way. Any questions for you guys? >> No comments for me, Jeff. >> Okay. Um and I guess we're just let's start with just questions right now if that's all right. All right. Ly
>> Mr. Barbara, thank you for speaking. Yeah. >> Uh you've looked at the uh proposed conditions from staff. Do you have any concerns with uh what is written? >> I actually wasn't given the I wasn't given the staff report. So >> can we put that on the screen? It's on the screen.
>> Would be best to address it page by page or how would >> uh the conditions proposed are a comprehensive mitigation plan that goes beyond standard requirements for site stability and downstream protection which will include an advanced erosion sediment control measures to be in place before, during, and after construction
as approved by the ASMP administrator. engineered retaining structures designed to blend with the natural landscape and a detailed landscaping and revitation plan using native species to permanently stabilize all disturbed areas upon completion of the project. >> Anything I build has native species
replanted. So I do that just by um by philosophical alignment. Um so yeah, that's not a a problem. The and then all the rest I would have to have an engineered structure. I mean all
the I mean the site honestly it was it was graded when the adjacent homes were built. So it's really just it's if you look at the site there's a couple humps. It it's really the from my perspective it's not a complicated build
topographically be because it's just not. So um you know uh I I to answer your question directly I don't think any of these uh criteria are asking a lot. And I will note that these these criteria come from
your request letter. So I imag Yeah, they I imagine they do sound familiar because I did pull them from what you wrote. So >> Oh, sure. >> Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. I I I was talking about a whole report, not necessarily.
>> I understand what was on my application, but I didn't know. >> And this reflects what's in your application. >> Oh, cool. Well, I do know that. >> Perfect. Are there any more questions? All right. Uh I guess um go with
comments. Okay. Keep picking on you or is >> sorry to keep starting. >> Yeah. >> Nope. >> Um I my my comment is just that this seem it's this is an odd little piece of
I mean just that it's under critical slope, but it's not really critical slope like you're talking about. I mean it is but I'm all for adding more housing um with the conditions. So I think >> yeah um
>> I mean as written >> uh Commissioner Solates anything >> uh this is not the first time this uh parcel has come before me on the commission. >> Interesting. >> Uh no the one next to it came before >> was the next one. Excuse me. Um this is this is relatively fresh on my mind. Uh
yes, it's it's a challenging site. Um given the existing uses and the planning history of this area, I foresee development on this site. Uh in terms of environmental uh value, I would argue this is probably not the most valuable site in the city. Um but a potentially
very exciting place for housing. Excited to see this. >> Yes, me too. Thank you. >> Um I second that from Yates. Um I would say that uh and again as we've discussed
it's a critical slope but really it's how critical is it considering the rest of the topography and where you got to go to get to the water. Um having said that uh I do uh speaking to Commissioner Mitchell's point on
what we might get. It would seem to me that um you know this is not a cheap lot to build on because of what we're doing anyway. Uh we can't um in terms of I mean I could see putting
forward a density requirement of say fine make it two units at least. Um but in terms of an affordability requirement on this lot I just don't see the math mathing in any way that would really work. Uh so but other than that I'm other than a possible condition to
insist on a minimum of two bill units I'm not really sure I've got any other questions on it. Um couple quick comments. Uh first just for reference uh if it ever did come up this is maybe not the most
suitable parcel for it. Uh but there is a reduced tap fee available from the city uh for affordable housing. um that cuts at least eight grand off that cost. Um I uh for this lot I I think it's interesting as I recall from last time. I don't know that it's fresh in my mind
because it was like 2018, but uh this is like you said all man-made um slope from when they graded this for the X property and then uh these surrounding worker cottages. Um, it's what the county would call a managed slope, uh, rather than a
natural preserve slope. Um, which might be something to think about as we go into the as you go into the environmental review. Um, personally, I think it's a great place to put housing. It's a very little parcel, which will be interesting to build on. Um, I don't know how much
attention you pay to the stat the uh commissioner's reports there. Um but uh as of 2027, it's overwhelmingly likely uh that uh single stair will be allowed for apartment buildings up to four stories. Um and so you might want to consider given that this is adjacent to
NX8 anyway, uh applying for a reasonzoning um and squeezing a four-story building in there. >> Actually, Ben and I discussed that. >> Cool. Um this is the perfect site for what Lyall was proposing uh to the building officials uh a couple weeks
ago. Um, so I'll be voting to approve. >> So once again, not happy not knowing exactly what we're going to get. Uh, I would love to get at least three units on the lot, but the the um mitigation
recommendations that have been outlined by have given me some comfort that you you're going to at least protect the environment with the with the sediment uh and erosion control with the retaining structures and do like that you're going working on the landscaping
reitation. So, I probably will be able to support this. Um yeah, I think that um this application meets uh both reasons that council can grant a critical slope exception. Um both the um public benefit
and the fact that it's um the slopes make the site pretty much unbuildable. Um so do we have a motion? >> Is there any traction at all for a unit minimum unit here amongst the
>> otherum unit? I don't know if it's necessary. >> I would like I would like to see three, but I think three is a stretch for some of you guys. >> Well, I'd love to see three. Uh I just don't know if it's going to be feasible to build. >> I think in fairness, we probably should
first consider the application as as given to us without any sort of requirements on it >> other than staff's conditions. >> A requirement we might add from this application is that it be a residential project. Um there's not a lot else that's allowed in RA, but I guess it could be a daycare center which I don't
know. >> Just I would like to avoid that president, Mr. Chair, of um not adding additional uh requirements that aren't presented by staff because they're going to be applications that are going to come for us and we're going
to brainstorm and find a reason to add additional uh requirements. So I I I'll back off on my minimum request, but I would just like to avoid that president. >> Okay. And I'm not married. >> Maybe just an exhortation. Please stuff in as many units as you can fit. It's a
great location for housing. >> Just just so I I think I misunder I have to you say what you said again. You want to What precedent was I setting? I'm sorry. the um the first thing I think you were saying was that we we we we rule on the application as it's
presented and uh bring the mitigating uh activity into the into the recommendation that has been provided by staff. I would like the flexibility on future applications to had additional
>> Oh, yeah. But it seemed like we were unsure of if it was >> it seemed like we needed to take a vote first on whether we would be willing to approve without adding additional stuff to it. >> I got you. >> We could put a motion on the floor and then we could have about adding in. I'm
not going to I'm not going to fight for the additional units. Uh I move to recommend approval of the critical slope special exception for tax map and parcel 27005001 as requested with the conditions that the applicant provides a comprehensive mitigation plan that goes beyond standard requirements for site stability
and downstream protection which will include an ad advanced erosion and sediment control measures to be in place before during and after construction as approved by the ACMP administrator. engineered retaining structures designed to blend with the natural landscape and a detailed landscaping and reveation
plan using native species to permanently stabilize all disturbed areas upon completion of the project. >> Second. >> Second. >> Did we need to state what um >> uh >> reason we give? >> Yeah, typically we do. That's true. Uh
for reason B, it's not in suggested motion, but I think we typically do do that. We typically do, but I thought the mitigation uh items allowed uh it doesn't matter. It would be B for me. >> I'll say uh for the reason uh to find
that the public benefit the proposed encroachment outweighs the public benefit of protecting the area of slope proposed to be impacted. >> Is there a second? >> Yep. Um Missy, can you call the the vote? >> Sure. Mr. Mitchell?
>> Yes. >> All right. Mr. Stolenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Deronio, >> yes. >> Mr. Sully, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Schwarz, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> All right. So, now we are moving into our um our listening session. Evening, city planning commission chair. Um, uh, tonight you'll be holding a listening session with our local builders and developers to get a better
understanding of the opportunities and issues they are facing navigating the development code. Next slide. The format tonight will include a brief refreshing refresh refresher related to proposed amendments to the development code and the development review process.
As you may recall, we were preparing to hold this listening session back in July, but actions outside of our control required us to pause um that effort and here we are tonight after that has been temporarily resolved. And uh following that we will
open it up to the listening session to the uh parties that have signed up and then anyone online we'll do it the same format that we did the matters by the public where we'll take in people signed up go to our online go back to in our in public. Next slide.
As you remember as part of uh staff's effort to improve the development uh code and the development review process um we have proposed amendments placed into three tiers. Tier one covers minor grammatical errors uh small adjustments
uh that ensure comp um and additions that ensure compliance with state code. Tier two is making modifications to address any oversightes from the original drafting of the code and to clarif and provide clarifications where needed and to ensure that there's a
common understanding of the code. These are small changes that will that will add to the intent sections but not necessarily alter the intent sections. And then tier three are the larger issues that we are gathering that require more staff time and a robust
community engagement process. Next slide. Uh this is just um is outlining kind of the general purpose and scope of the tier one examples. You saw this during your work session back in May.
And then uh next slide. And this outlines again the tier 2 that these are the uh the tier two are more of the meat of these. These are planning to be something we do yearly where we're gathering these small changes. And again, I want to emphasize these are
small small edits to better clarify the code, take away confusion, not alter the intent or the policies in place, but to just add uh clarifying changes and that the engagement process is the public
hearing that would be held at planning commission and city council. Next slide. Here we have examples. To date, staff has prepared 26 of the tier 2 amendments to move forward. Um, here are just some of the examples trying to address the
allowing attached units across property lines in the R district, creating a path um to allow accessory buildings without making the main building come up to current standards and uh updating the development review pro process to remove
hurdles for smaller type developments. Next slide. The tier three are the more complex issues. Uh the takeaway from the tier three is that uh they could impact policy and they need that again that more dedicated staff time, more robust
community engagement so that we are making sure we are getting uh what the community wants. Um and so we are definitely gathering these but these are basically heav heavier lifts. These are things that need to be put on the NDS
work plan uh moving forward so they can get the resources, time and engagement they deserve. Next slide. Example of these includes the uh conversation around height, um the
re-evaluation of our R our RNA districts and to re-examine allowing things like some level of commercial in neighborhoods. Next slide. So here you see the updated outline of the steps moving forward. You see where
we were back in May and June. Tonight um is the listening session and what we are anticipating is in on November 12th again which is a Wednesday um over in city space will be a work session to go through the 206 plus amendments the tier
2 amendments we'll also be initiating the zoning text amendment at that meeting and then following in coming out of that meeting this what we're planning to do is in December hold the public hearing with city council or excuse me with planning commission and then in January hold public hearing with city
council. Next slide. This just to prep you for that meeting next month. This is an example of how the work session would go. The amendments are are broken down into the section, the page, the working document
reference number. Then you have in black you have the existing code language and then in red staff's recommended change and then the analysis and the reason for the change. How I anticipate that meeting going is we will just go through each sheet have a conversation. We'll
try to move through them as quickly as possible um at that meeting next month. Next slide. So now we're going to turn it over to the public to speak. Again, each member of the public will have three minutes trying to frame the conversation. We put
we have these two questions. Basically, we do have a new code. And so, as part of that code, we know there are some good things. And so, it'd be night, you know, we want to hear a little bit about that mainly just so that we don't mess them up in any kind of change and find ways to maybe enhance them. And then also what what are our local builders
and developers running into issue-wise? And so, how can we address that? Again, we have um probably members of the public online or watching uh could not come tonight. If you want to provide comments, you can always reach out, send your comments directly the planning
commission or to myself. Uh and with that, I will turn it over to the listening session. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, so I'm going to reiterate a few of the things that Matt noted
because uh it's always good to to hear things more than once. Um, it's very similar to um how we handle all of our public comment um sessions where we alternate between our in-person audience and our virtual audience. If you are in
our virtual audience, this is your opportunity to raise your hand in the application. I believe that everyone virtually is on the computer. So you would you would raise your hand. Um if we had the phone
again, we would provide those instructions. Um what we will do is alternate between uh in person and online. Um each speaker has three minutes. And again, as Matt noted, um, if you have passion for saying and
communicating more than the three minutes will allow, we encourage you to put that in writing and communicate that to us. Um, we have the contacts up there and we can reiterate that throughout the opportunity here. Um, so we'll go ahead
and get started. our first speaker. Um again, if you are um online and you plan to speak, I do encourage you to raise your hand now. Um we do plan to alternate, but if I don't have see hands in the virtual audience, we're going to
continue to move forward with our in-person audience because they have signed up. So, um just keeping that in mind as we go. Um, okay. So, our first speaker will be Anna Bernstein.
Anna, >> thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Anna Bernstein. I live at 538 Lachland Hill Drive, Charlottesville. Um, one of the opportunities I want to note that's been great and we've I work
at a civil engineering firm. Um, getting rid of the parking requirements, parking minimums. we've been able to have a lot less land disturbance as we're not grading out so much area to provide these parking minimums. So would love to see that continued. Um and then going on
with the parking theme, one of the challenges we've encountered is with the bike parking requirements. Um for residential units or apartments with more than four units, you have to have um one to one long-term bike parking
spaces. And I think this is great for many areas in Charlottesville, but um we were working on a site on Route 29 and it's very unbikable and we have to provide close to 200 long-term bike
parking spaces and those are going inside. So, it's taking away a lot of space for additional units. Um and Route 29 is not the most bikable area. In fact, it's pretty unsafe and I wouldn't want to bike there. Um, so either having
more investment in bike ped infrastructure along that area or having um zones where if you're along Route 29 or in that corridor, you don't have um as harsh requirements. But yep, thank you.
All right, we'll move to our online audience and um our first speaker is Jeffrey Lavine. Mr. Lavine, can you hear us? >> I can. Oh, look at that. Is that my picture I'm going to use? I can't use
that. Um, yes. Hi. And I'm very passionate, so I will submit something in writing that has more detail and refers to actual sections. Um, I will say that for the opportunities, >> there are so-called opportunities because a lot of land owners feel that
their land is worth a lot of money under this new zoning. And so, there's a lot on the market, okay? >> Which is different for Charlottesville. The problem is there's really no way to underwrite anything under the current zoning. Um, because and and and I guess
I break it down. First of all, anything in a BAR zone is is basically not a zoning because it's not as of right as long as the BAR under a section has the right to reduce height massing and require stepback. So, um and as I went
through with Violet Crown, there's no way for uh BAR to actually approve a massing. They have to go put it a condition at the end of like a year plus process. And so a developer can't go down the whole road not knowing what um
you can build. So this form based code concept and what's as of right is completely out the window with the B last right to look at something and and modify it. Um there are also a lot of things in there that are not uh certain that are not really applicable to an
urban setting and so all properties are not created equal. Obviously, uh the woman before me mentioned parking, and it's great that there's no parking requirement, but the market is demanding parking. And so, on a lot of larger developments, you need to provide
parking above grade. And with the active depth requirement, it's impossible in a lot of these sites to have 30 ft cut off your um building line um and be able to have parking behind it. That's a very suburban Texas donut type type concept.
So you really need you can't just swipe with a broad bush brush and think everything works for each site. And to that end, the code does allow for some administrative review. Uh but it's really not broad enough. There's like a 10 or 15% waiver right and anything that
has to go back to city council or frankly to you to your group just makes the approval process uncertain, too long and stalls everything. this business is hard enough and long and takes years and years to get done. So my overarching
theme is you got to try to make if you want housing built and I'm not talking about student housing or hotels or anything that's being if you want market rate housing and affordable housing to go along with it, you you've got to make this as easy as possible for the
develop. You've got to invite us. You can't look to frustrate us and to take second bites of apples and see how much money we're making and determine um we need real estate tax abatements which is not in your field but if you're going to have a formbased code and you're going to as of right have as of right and the
the last thing I'll mention is you have these heights of 184t or whatever it is and you can fit a lot more than the stories but somehow um I don't know if it's arbitrary or not but you've got like in certain zones 180 24 ft but only 13 stories and you can
fit probably 17 stories in that. So if you've agreed to the height, just fill the box with as much as you can. Let the developer decide what can fit in that box. Um we're not going to the height of all these projects is where we can make
up for affordable housing or the the construction cost. So um there's a lot of So my my summation I can't see the clock by the way. >> You're just out of time now. So my summary. >> Yeah. Okay. I'll I'll write something.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> All right. Our next speaker, Ashley Davies. Good evening. I'm Ashley Davies with Riverbend Development and current chair of Cadre. Um, I think the code that we've written is really aspirational and
um, I appreciate what we are trying to accomplish. I think in reality um, it's too complicated and we're finding that as developers um, we really can't work with it at all. Um, Mr. Schwarz hosted
an amazing event as we were writing the code called the break the code event. And at that time I thought it was very um it was well attended. It was enlightening and there were a lot of great suggestions that came out of that. I don't think that any of those
suggestions were incorporated into the code. So, I would recommend that we either rehost that event or go back to what came out of that because um it was very detailed. Um I think that the
formbbased code as it's written gets too far into the weeds. I think we can have a form-based code, but the layers of complexity really do not um address um the sites that are left in Charlottesville and the topographical
issues that we face. Um so therefore every project is um forced into u multiple waivers and the way the code is working now you can't even get a waiver in advance. So you have to totally design your project your building and
all of that before even knowing whether the waiverss associated with the project will be will be granted. So that's a huge problem. Um I think on our smallcale sites um I'm really kind of a tier three woman. I want to dig into
those issues sooner rather than later. I hope they don't take till the end of 2026. So, um I think on the smaller sites we do um really need to look at the storm water regulations and how we can have a storm water light for those
areas because there is no way I mean we heard from um the previous application tonight. There's just no way that these smallcale projects can afford afford the large underground um retention tanks and stuff of that nature. So, let's find a
solution that actually gets the infill off the ground on those smaller sites and storm water's a big piece of that. And then finally, um the affordability requirements. Um we need to keep looking at those and getting those right. I think they have to be adapted regularly
based on what's happening with the market. the market as of now. Um, we have projects that are barely feasible to be constructed and um, when you add on the affordability requirements, it knocks it into the realm of not being
feasible anymore. So, that's why we're not seeing a lot coming forward at this time. So, um really getting the developer incentives packages right and just making sure that all comes together um for a complete package that actually makes it so developers can bring forth
um new projects in the city. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um I do not see any hands raised in our virtual audience. So, we'll go to our next in-person audience person. Um, and that would be David Schmidt.
>> Hi there. Thank you. Uh, my name is David Schmidt. I live at 1204 Agny Street and I work for Habitat for Humanity. Um, and as an affordable uh, housing provider in the city. Uh, things that we have appreciated um, is the
added density allowance for affordable housing. um the affordability terms, length of affordability has been very much appreciated and is in alignment with what we're providing already. Um so that's been great for us. Uh we have run
into some challenges though when it comes to making for an affordable project that works um on these smaller parcels that come up. Um it is um hard to jump at it if we aren't sure that the
finances will work. Um and it has been a challenge as some others have already spoken towards. Uh while there isn't a requirement for onlot parking um we are mainly providing home ownership opportunities and parking is a need. Um,
and so one example, we have been working on a project on 6 and a half street, which is a tight one-way street. Um, that if we could have uh allowed for some more on lot parking, um, that would have lessened the impact that it will have on
the neighbors. And so we're trying to work within the context of the neighborhood, but it is RNA. Um, and as such, we were limited to two and a half stories. Uh if we could have gone three stories, um potentially we could have gotten some additional off- streetet
parking. Also, if there was an allowance uh for affordability um to allow for garage front-loaded parking. Um I know you've given me plenty of time. I appreciate it. >> You got a minute and a half. >> Um we
>> too many things. Um the the requirement or the desire to have relegated parking once you get above two units um does make for a challenging um requirement for both providing parking
that we desire to have for families but also maximizing the density on the lot. So, we just keep kind of coming up against the max coverage on lots. Um, in addition to the height restrictions in some of these neighborhoods, I
understand trying to fit within the context and provide additional protections in some of these neighborhood districts. Um, but it is providing uh some complexity for someone who's trying to provide all affordable housing. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right, we still don't have anyone in our virtual audience with hands raised. So, we will continue with our in-person audience. And we have Dan Bradley, the next individual. I'm Dan Bracie, uh, city resident from
Berth and a partner with Two Street Studio, an architecture firm based in Charlottesville and Richmond. primarily focus on mid to large scale multif family developments, generally projects of 100 100 units or more across Virginia. Um Ashley just mentioned this,
but before the new code was adopted, several local developers I work with asked me to conduct a comparative study of the large sites that they control for multif family development. The study showed that in many cases the previous code produced um stronger development
metrics than the new one. Um, as a result, we rush to submit site plans for vesting before the new code took effect, which I'm certain was not what you guys wanted. Um, the details were presented in the break the code session and um, we currently do have two multif family
sites under review under the new code together providing about 240 units in a central Charlottesville location. I mentioned that background for a couple of reasons. Um the points that I have to make aren't hypothetical and they arise
directly from the context of large scale multif family buildings um which is you know what the city needs and what the new code was intended to support. Um given my time limit I don't think I'll make it through the full list of 15 items but um
I've got specific code sections and proposed solutions and I'm I'll share that after this meeting um and in the November 12th session. Um the summary, Ashley hit on this and previous speaker hit on it and David hit on it too. Um
section of the new code make it more difficult than the previous code and comparable city codes to develop large scale multif family projects on the remaining large sites in Charlottesville. Um, the challenges generally stem from a blanket application of a form-based code that
doesn't really adapt well to a city of this size with complex topography, waterways, and complex street and block layouts. They're made worse by a misalignment between the code and the realities of multif family construction, standard building types, financing
models, today's construction costs, and interest rates. Um, and I've got a little time left and can jump into some of the higher level points, but one of the really sort of I don't know if this is tier one or two,
but there's a number of like functional dimensional requirements in the code that when you start like layering multiple segments of the code on onto like the build to width is the easiest one to point to. There's like I could probably
identify 50 plus sites in Charlottesville that aren't developable under the new code in any meaningful way. Um the easiest example of that would be um like an NX lot. I mean 85% primary
street minimum build to width. And so then you have a type B transition that's 15 feet that overlaps with that. you can't develop a lot that has a shorter primary street frontage than 100 feet. >> Like that's a problem and that's a real problem we've run into and there's just
there's a lot of examples of that both with hitting some of those widths but also just with topographic issues. So >> thank you. We'll we'll look forward to your email. >> Yeah. >> All right. Our virtual audience doesn't have any hands raised, so we'll continue with our in person. And we have Genevie
Keller next. >> Uh good evening uh Mr. Chair, commissioners, former colleagues. We're all clustered down here. Uh it's nice to be here this evening. Uh I am a city resident and I'm also president of preservation Pedmont. Um and we
participated in the process. Uh not to the extent that we would have liked to, but we know the constraints of of that era. Uh, and I would like to remind you that historic preservation is part of the development process. Every time that a building is rehabilitated, every time
that one has an adaptive use or is converted to add more units and there's infill adjacent to nearby historic buildings, that is historic preservation and it's also part of development. So, I'm saying don't forget about us. Make
us part of this to a greater extent than we were perhaps before. When you ask about opportunities, there are more opportunities for a large historic properties. Some can now have expansion that they might not have been able to have before with the sublot process.
They might be able to have an addition or an auxiliary uh dwelling unit in a way that they couldn't previously. So those are opportunities, but at the end of the day, this is still a tear down ordinance, and we're very concerned about that because we all know that existing buildings are more affordable
and more sustainable than most new buildings. So I ask you to keep that in mind when you look at some of these projects on small parcels with small buildings um that might still be affordable. At the end, you got a little slap happy with your map, but I guess you do that at another time, not right
now. Um, but some of the some of the properties that you added and changed at the last minute in historically African-American neighborhoods with greater density than they have now were definitely concerning to us. So, that's probably something for another day. So,
I I'd also like to say to you, we did not oppose this process. We just tried to to work within it. And that's why last year we asked the city to sponsor with us bringing Sarah Bronin to Charlottesville to give her extraordinary talk. And I'd like to remind you that this major proponent of
density and of zoning reform in the United States began her remarks by saying, "I am a preservationist." So, it means we can have both. And that's what we would like to ask you to do. One of the only real uh suggestion I'm going to make tonight, I'm probably more of a
tier three person, too. And those of you that know me know that's the case. I I'd like you to consider exempting existing buildings in historic districts from some elements of the formbbased code. Uh particularly in terms of fenistration,
it may be more expensive and become a more cumbersome process. They're already subject to BAR review and so the BAR is probably uh better equipped to make those suggestions because they're already looking at the rhythm of the street. Uh and sometimes it's needless
to go to the foreignbased code. it makes it a little more cumbersome. So, we look forward to continuing in this process with you and it was great to see you all tonight. Thank you. >> All right. Again, uh no virtual speakers. Uh we will continue on our
inperson list and Wendy Ga is our next speaker. My name is Wendy Ga and I'm an organizer at FAR. As you may know or have heard or witnessed, far 10th and Paige residents, including West Haven, have been making noise about the 11-story luxury student housing building proposed by LD
Collective on West Main Street. Far and Tenth and Paige are joined by the neighborhood associations in Fville and Rose Hill and calling for immediate fasttrack changes to the zoning code, specifically in regulating the height of buildings built in commercial district on the edges of core historically black residential neighborhoods and corridors.
This LB Collective building is significant because it will join the standard in overshadowing West Haven, the most political site in Charlottesville, the first and largest public housing site born out of urban renewal in the raising of Vinegar Hill. It is significant because if built, it will set a precedent for future luxury
developments under this code. It's significant, but it's also deeply unexceptional because it is not the first luxury building to encroach in these communities and it is not the last. The mark by the owners of the standard on Seventh Street and Fville is just a few steps behind and in a few years Tenth and Page and Preston Avenue
will see the dairy market expansion, bring a hotel, and more outsiders into the neighborhood. These are gross oversightes made possible and allowed by the current zoning code that must be amended and addressed immediately. as the body that is responsible for passing the current iteration of the zoning code. This commission as a whole and
each of you individually have a moral obligation and responsibility to fix it not in a slow bureaucratic tiered approach but an expedited fast-tracked timeline that is responsive to the looming literally deadline that is the two buildings proposed on West Main right now. It is incredibly telling. I think that the first listening session
you're hosting is specifically for builders and developers rather than the neighborhoods and the actual human beings who live in them who have to bear and live out the consequences of the actions and mistakes of this commission. You all should rather be listening to how residents are struggling to live and survive and pay rent to have shelter and
make me ends me under the code, not how builders and developers are struggling to build and develop and make money. Instead of making it easier for developers to build and make gross stomach turning profits at the cost of the lives of human beings, we should be making it easier for people to live and survive in the city. At ends with
developers, black and brown low-income working-class residents need more community oversight over developments. The bar is the literal only thing standing in the way of the two developments on West Main Street. Residents need more participatory discretionary opportunities to give input on these developments and they
need you to they need this body to pass these changes on a fast track outside of the tiered system. Um, Miss Joy Johnson, the FAR board chair, couldn't be here today, but I wanted to say a few words on her behalf. I'm here today because the planning commission needs to immediately correct the mistakes in the zoning code that allow 11story buildings
to be built by right on the edges of low-income black communities. Communities need more in opportunities to provide input on buildings and the buildings need to be smaller. This was an oversight and mistake in the zoning code and the commission needs to fix it. You will have the power to do it. Please listen to the concerns of Tenth and Page
West Haven by Phil Roseill residents and correct the zoning code on a fasttrack outside of the tiered system. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next speaker, Jacqueline Kim. Hi, my name is Jaclyn Kim. I'm a resident in Pantops and I work in the
city and I'm a former UVA student. Um, I'm here to support um FAR West Haven and 10th and Page residents and really would just like to echo all the comments that Wendy just made. Um, but the the bulk of my time actually I'd like to spend sharing some comments from Sher
Lewis. Um I'm not sure if y'all have received a report from bar from their August meeting or watched that meeting or you know received any feedback from them but um if you haven't like I would encourage you to watch that recording where there's literally 4 hours of testimony from community members who are
going to be impacted by this um massive development that Wendy was talking about. Um and at the end of that session when Sher Lewis was providing Sherry Lewis who's a former member of this commission and also a member of bar now um was providing comments to this developer um you can see her get visibly
emotional and I want to read an abridged version of her comments because I don't have time to share all of it but um you know I tried to be faithful to what she said during her time. So she said it's the fault of our city for having adopted this ordinance because now we're realizing that it's not what we really
wanted. I believe it was sold to us by outside pressure from professional planners from the beginning who told us that it would be our path to get affordable housing in Charlottesville and it just is not that. We're going to see this over and over again. Our board, which has very little purview, is being
asked to be the backs stop against something that none of us stood up and stopped. I was on the steering committee for this zoning ordinance and I checked out because I didn't think that I could oppose it. And she goes on to list other folks who were on this planning commission did not oppose at that time
and also city council members who who voted for this. She said, "I really regret that now. This is my fault. This is Carl's fault." Also, as he said, he voted in favor favor of it. Everybody had reservations, but in the end, we adopted this. So, it's all of our faults
that we're sitting here and everybody from West Haven and advocates from West Haven have sat here for four and a half hours to tell us what's wrong with our zoning ordinance. We should have known that. This is our fault. It's my fault. And I'm so sorry because we shouldn't even be in a place where we're looking
at something that is 15 stories above your house. It's not right. Sherry's right. This situation where development company wants to build housing that is very much not affordable on land from which black and brown people have been displaced is going to
reoccur under this zoning code. And also the community push back that you and other city bodies have observed over the past couple of months thanks to the organizing efforts of far and other committee members will also continue to happen unless there are some significant changes made to the zoning code to
protect vulnerable neighborhoods from gentrification and displacement. I also like to say that I'm getting emotional because I see these developers here like shaking their heads like during Wendy's testimony and like not taking this feedback seriously from community members when this is actually impacting people's lives and you'd probably feel
differently if a 15story building was getting built in your neighborhood and I don't think you'd want that. So, um, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, our next speaker is Sophia Moreno. Hi, my name is Sophia Morero and I'm a
community organizer um at the Public Housing Association of Residents. I really want to echo what the two comments, especially the last uh speech that was just given um because it really gets into the fact that these are people's lives that we're talking about.
Um this is not just some foreign concept or some abstract concept that we can just pretend is not important or doesn't directly impact people's lives. Um, I'm
here to ask for the following zoning changes. Um, first of all, proposing uh changing the zoning along West Main Street. Um, and potentially parts of FIL to CX3. Um, this zoning allows three stories by right and up to five stories
by right with the affordable housing bonus appropriate given the proximity to core neighborhoods. um encourage affordable housing in the area um by removing the ordinance language that currently excludes onsite
affordable housing within a half mile of UVA. Many low-income students and university staff would benefit from access to housing near campus if the rents were within reach. Um advocate for stronger, more consistent community input for any development proposals over five stories or including
more than eight within core neighborhoods and corridors. Community engagement should be early, ongoing, and meaningful. Uh build a proactive community oriented culture at NDS. Um to encourage people to actually come and give their opinions and not just have
people make decisions for them. Um so I'll end by saying that I am a former former UVA student. Um and I'm not from Charlottesville. I'm from Florida. Um but I moved to this town because I thought it was really pretty, honestly.
Um, and I wanted to go to school at a really pretty school. Um, in my time here, I have had the privilege of meeting people who have absolutely changed my outlook on a lot of different matters, but specifically in my position as a community organizer. Now,
I have been impacted by the work and the words of people who do every day what they have to do to survive. Um, and that should not go unrecognized because no one in this
country should have to fight to survive every day, fight to have a place to live, a place to call home. Um, so yeah, again, just want to echo the last two comments and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> All right, our next speaker is Neil
Williams. Good evening uh Neil Williamson and to members of the planning commission. It's been a minute. I spent about five years with you all dating back to 2016 in meetings in the basement um you know on Saturday
mornings talking about a comp plan that you were going to develop. So, I um I will take forward some umbrage that this board and the city council did not listen or care when they took care developing this code. That being said,
when the code came forward, the free enterprise forum, which I represent, said this is not a perfect code, and we listed a number of problems with it. You're not going to be surprised by the three things that I think that needs to be changed, but it's not because of a
lack of effort on your part, but this listening session itself is a fulfillment of a promise, and I'm appreciative of that. Um, first and foremost, these three very attainable changes. Number one, which has been mentioned, and some of this is policy in
some of its zoning code, increase the amount of disturbed area that triggers a storm water plan from the current 6,000 square ft to the state mandated 10,000 square ft. That will make a huge difference. And people a whole lot smarter than me can tell you why. Um,
also redefine what a major subdivision is. four units is not a major subdivision and it changes the way it's goes through the process. Now, I've heard people tell me that's a state code issue. Let's go to the state and change the code. I mean, I do this I go to
Richmond every winter. So, I'm happy to bring bring with this request. Finally, and this is the one you were waiting for, fix your flawed inclusionary housing policy. The current requirement of 10% of all new housing
product being affordable to 60% median income for 99 years is untenable. Can you imagine this economic restriction on any other industry? To encourage development, the AMI must
increase and the term should match as was discussed at this commission actually federal housing affordability regulations of about 30 years. I'm very very appreciative of the work you guys do. I'm appreciative of this work, this listening session, and I do
hope that we can continue to make this zoning ordinance what it was meant to be, which is more housing everywhere for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right, our next speaker, Nicole Scrub.
Hey. Um, God, so much to say, but um, so my name is Nicole Scrow. Um, I'm an at land use attorney and I'm also a real estate developer and builder. Um, I work for myself. Um, so I'm small. Um, it's
just me. And I just um gosh, I think back onto where we were when we first started this process. And this was the comp plan, comprehensive plan that kind of led the guiding vision for the zoning
ordinance. And we were nowhere near where we are now where we have this um more um allowable code that allows more density in housing. And the trigger for what changed was 2017. And that's what cultivated in this zoning ordinance
actually happening. It had nothing to do with the um cries of the developers. They cry all the time. We cry all the time. It's very hard to do what we do, honestly. Truly. But it was not them. It was the social activists that really made this order happen. It was, you
know, Jayen Smith, Emily Drifus, Joe uh Joy Johnson. Those were the people. U Matt Gilligan, like endlessly a number of people. Those were the people who got this zoning wars pass. And it was because it wasn't about the developers or builders. Who cares about them? They're going to do exactly what you
think they're going to do. They're going to maximize profit. We live in a capitalist society for now. That's what they're going to do. It's not about them. It is about the people living in those homes. And right now, we don't have enough housing. And it's it we have so little housing that landlords have so
much power. They have so much power. And they have that power because we don't have enough housing. So, um, I would please, please, please listen to people like the social activists that got this Zonie Martin's pass. Not we should not be quoting Sher Le Lewis. We should be
quoting Jayen and Emily and the other Emily and Molly and that's who should be quoted, please. Um, but that being said, so what works with the zoning ordinance? What doesn't? Um, so I I think of the zoning ordinance in two separate ways. We have RA or RB or
C. totally different world than RXCX. Um, and what's being served right now are we get we're getting student housing and we're getting luxury housing. So, it's not doing what we want to do. And that's um clearly because it's so hard to build in CXRX. The design requirements do not allow you to do what
you want to do. Um, people much smarter than me who are professionals and architects in this field will give you the what you need to know to change and get people to build more housing in the CX world. Um there are some I I will say we have we have been able to make it
work at 80% AMI in the um RB RA and RC and we've got a few coming online. That's really exciting. Um having town houses that even are $600,000 or actually affordable crazily enough um given what's else is available. Not that it hits on the true affordable by no
means but it is better than what we have currently and we're continuing to make improvements. Um I I will send I'm out of time so I can send my more detailed list to you all. But um yeah, focus should be on the people in the homes, not the developers. They're going to do exactly what they're going to do for all
of time. And um yeah, I discretionary housing gives voice and power to the people who already have that, not to the voiceless. Um >> thank you, Miss Gro. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, next speaker, Valerie
Long. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Valerie Long. I I too want to just reiterate my appreciation for you hosting this session and for um considering the input and um experience that those of us who work with the
ordinance every day are struggling with. I want to echo in particular some of the comments that you've already heard. I won't repeat them, but those from Jeff Lavine, Ashley Davies, Nicole, um those are the same comments I would add with
emphasis. In general, what and and actually this is similar to what Jenny was saying. I'd never she phrased it as this is a tear down ordinance. I personally wouldn't use it quite that way, but it does in a sense articulate a challenge we've encountered, which is that the ordinance seems to contemplate
or be structured as if the city is all green field sites, which there might be three or four in the city, or complete tearown sites. And it's and I know that's not what was intended or envisioned, but it's very challenging to
make small changes to existing sites without and then have to come into compliance with all the development standards. I don't think the ordinance is clear enough that you don't have to comply with all development standards
that are not applicable or related to the change you're making. And that's been a real challenge. And just saying, "Oh, don't worry. You can get a special exception for anything that you can't meet," isn't practical either. That's effectively a special use permit. It'll take six months. There's only been a
couple of them so far. Um, it's discretionary. It's time consuming. There's significant uncertainty. Um, I would suggest that you consider streamlining that process substantially and just have it go straight to council. Ideally, it wouldn't have to go to
council at all, but I think there's case law that requires it. If staff reviews it and supports it, it should go to council within 30 days. That would be the one situation where it could possibly work. But I think there's some minor clarifications that you can make
to the ordinance to make it more clear about what's a site modification, what's renovation, what's maintenance, um what's a change of use, and what that means in terms of development standards that you have to bring into compliance.
Um, candidly, I know you all are not uh you you all want the litigation to be resolved perhaps as much as we do, but the existence of the ongoing litigation continues to be a real challenge for everyone. I don't I would ask that if
there are any mechanisms for the city to um adopt some inter interim rules or processes that might give applicants some some comfort that their investments will pay off if the ordin if the litigation does not go the way we hope
it will. Um just something to consider. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, that is the end of uh folks who have signed up, but I'm sure we have others who uh would like the opportunity to speak. Again, I'm going to communicate to our virtual audience. If
you would like to speak, this is the opportunity to raise your hand in the application. Um I will uh check in with our Okay, we have a virtual audience person. Then we'll go to our in person again. Um, so our virtual audience
member, uh, Bob Pineo. >> Bob, can you hear us? >> Yes, I can. Thank you. Uh, outside a, uh, swim team meeting here. So, I'll keep this brief. Uh, one of the things that I do want to, uh, talk about is especially when we're talking about
missing middle development and, uh, and the zoning code. One of the things that we're doing a project right now trying to get a four family into an RA which we're keeping an existing building. >> One of the complexities that I guess is dawning on me is
>> uh when it comes to doing more of these kind of units we're into the uh into the uh into the Virginia building code which is not the residential code when you do more than two units >> and uh in this case four. So the idea
the things that need to happen uh because of the of the building code and and and stepping up to this higher use class uh we have firewalls, we have sprinkler systems, we have egress paths. The complexity of all of these things is
is another inhibitor to this idea of populating the city you especially RA or C uh uh a you know u units. So, one of the things that kind of struck me was the zoning code is great in that it
gives you more capacity of more number of units, but the the resident or the the the complexity of the building code applied to that and with the storm water rags and all these other uh zoning regulations. Uh it's almost like the
idea that was born from the zoning code was more density. But what we think we all forgot was how complex it gets the complexity of actually doing these things. So in an ideal world it would have been hey here's the add the density
and we'll leave we'll leave you alone. Uh and there isn't that much more that we would ask of you. uh because simply doing these more complex building types takes a lot of energy and the building code doesn't distinguish between a
4-unit apartment building and a 100 unitit apartment building. It's the exact same code. There are things within that code height, you know, number of floors above grade and all these other things, but there is no designation. There's no uh uh simplicity that's
that's allowed. Um, so, uh, as far as missing middle goes, these sites are very complex. The storm water is very complex. The build code is very complex. All of these things are leading to a difficulty in in activating these these
spaces. And this is from somebody who I think I've been doing this long enough. I'm actually really surprised at how difficult and and I'm I'm on board for trying to get as many of these units uh online as possible. But I think I think we all need to take a a a deeper breath
and understand and really understand what the development community is saying. These are very very very very very challenging uh things to do. Uh and why you're seeing I had a developer tell me this one time a 100 unitit apartment
building is about as as as easy or the same amount of effort as a fourbedroom or a fourunit apartment or a six unit apartment. And I kind of thought that was uh bluster, but trying to do it myself, uh I'm realizing that there's a lot of truth in that. Uh the the
complexities of site, building code, and zoning ordinance uh are going to naturally uh uh dampen. >> You're out of time. Any last thought? Is that it? >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Bob, you've got till the end of the
month to submit building code changes for 2027. All right. Um, we'll move to in person. Um, do we have an another interested party, sir, in the back? >> Yes. >> Yes. Come forward. Provide your three minutes.
Name first, though. My name is James Snider. My wife and I have a cottage at 206B Fifth Street Southwest. This is in the Oak Lawn Condominium project. It's across the street from the Oak Grove condominium project. Also, six
units on a third of an acre. That's 18 units an acre, by the way. And next door to the Fifth Street flats, which were built around 20 uh about 20 years ago, another 13 units uh by a local architect and local builder. That's missing middle
and you've reszoned us to seven stories. Let me tell you, that's bad. That needs to get fixed. We uh put in a proposal uh back in June to this group. I think I had a bad I was trying to talk to you remotely. It didn't go very well, but we
asked to be looked at. We we could end up with 100 foot buildings next door to us, but you should be looking at how these projects were built because that's what you're struggling to do here today. And this was done by this council and planning commission 20ome years ago.
These projects are great. They're what other people are trying to do around the country, but you've reszoned us. So, it's it's really negative. plus historic houses. The W house um on Fifth Street, which was built in 1850, has been zoned
to seven stories. If you want to keep historic neighborhoods, if you want to keep missing middle, don't zone them wrong. Some big mistakes have been made and they need to be fixed. We've suggested an emergency resolution to cover the Fville, West Haven,
Tenth and Page neighborhoods and the areas in between. for two years so that you can take a look and do some real community planning. October is community planning month in the USA. It's community planning month
in Virginia. There are number of communities that are doing that kind of planning right now. You should take time to take a pause and take this controversial area and relook at it. Do some real community planning.
No one knew this was happening. By background, maybe this is just planning karma. I've spent the last 14 years as director of community planning and economic development services in the city of Falls Church. We achieved a lot. We got a lot of development. We got a lot of grocery stores. We got a lot of
affordable housing and we cut the tax rate 14 cents and we built a new high school. There are better ways to do development. Wish you luck on the other parts, but please don't ruin Fville, West Haven, Tenth and Paige. They need help and they need your help
and leadership to do that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um I don't have any hands raised in our virtual audience, but that is still an opportunity. Are there any other in person? Yes, sir.
My name's Jim Duberry and I work at Mitchell Matthews Architects. Um, I've worked closely with this new zoning ordinance on probably six or seven projects in our office. Um, so I've run
into a number of items that um, could be looked at. Um and some of them uh again somebody mentioned this is not a flat site. It's not green field sites. Um almost every project that I've looked at of the six projects I've dealt with a
steep grade. Um I've also dealt with um the issue of entrances. So, you've required 40 feet every 40 feet to have an entrance, which is nice if it were on
Main Street, downtown mall, but at 40 feet, that's a lot of doors in a in a larger project. Um, and I think the real intent is that you want to have a facade that is flexible because that's what
historically buildings, larger buildings are flexible so that they can add a door, remove a door depending on tenant use and need. Um, so I think that's one thing that could be looked at is requiring a physical door or allowing a
facade to have some flexibility in future as it grows over time. I think that's one element. Um, so the doors are are I think a real problem that's being very specific about dimensions.
Um, in a bill requirement, uh, there's no provision for a full block building design. They're always a partial block. So, we ran I ran into issues of the open
space and one I think it's just a maybe a word change that could occur that would allow you to have a facade that's 280 ft and have a break. You're required at 275 ft to have a break in that building
facade to create some uh undulation to that. Um, but it only applies to one side of the building or one street face where I working on a project where we had four faces that were on four streets. I couldn't figure how to get
two open spaces when the code only says I can only do it one per building. I think it should be one per building face. So, I think that's a a word change. Um, I think that's about it for this list. I
think I'll submit the rest of them to Thank you. >> All right. Um, still no hands raised virtually. Any additional in-person speakers? Okay. Hey, good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. My name is
Kelsey Schline. I'm a uh land planner and development consultant. I'm also a city resident. Um, thank you all so much for um taking the time to hear from us this evening. Um, it was a it was a big thing you all did with the zoning code. Um, and we still have a lot of work
ahead of us. So, I'm um glad that you guys are are are listening um because uh I think we can we can certainly make this code um much better than it is. Um I wanted to start with the kind of in the format that was given the
opportunities. Um I think in uh some of the largest opportunities that I've seen uh with this development code is specifically in the RA, RB RC districts. Um the sublot opportunity is huge. removing road frontage requirements
significantly reduces the cost um for subdividing land. Uh that was huge. That's a that's a big plus. Um and so um one I guess uh additional area where we could look at for that uh that we've run into or that I've run into on a few
projects um is also looking at how the standards and design manual works with the zoning ordinance. So, and I know this is on your radar, um, especially with the storm water rags, but also for utility requirements. So, for example, for sublot requirements, um, if we're
sublotting lots one behind another, you know, away from the street frontage where water mains and sewer mains are located, um, is there opportunities to extend laterals or service lines through other lots rather than extending the main? Is there the opportunity to
install water manifold systems rather than cutting up the street in 10 different locations to tie in those service lines um for homes? I I think that these are those are somewhat um simple and uh uh I think conversations
that we can be having across departments to try to figure out how to make this work. Um especially in those RA or BRC districts. Um I think uh so going through um some other specifics and items is uh removing the 4 foot side
setback in the RABRC district um for zoning lots. Uh that would permit town home development on zoning lots um not uh only on sublotss. There's been a lot of talk tonight also about the build towith on some lots. There's there's
definitely um I think all the points that have been brought up were excellent that the build towith has caused quite uh quite a few issues on quite a few projects um especially where um you have a lot where uh you can't meet the minimum build to width uh without
exceeding the maximum building size. Um so there are uh definitely quite a few examples of that. Um and in my last few seconds here I do also just want to echo the comments made about the break the code session. That was a really really excellent and I think infrulful
conversation that we've had now that um you know a bunch of engineers and architects and developers have had the opportunity to really look at this and how it uh how the code kind of uh you know takes shape on certain sites. I would love to have an additional um
conversation similar to that because I think a lot of us have some really good feedback from all the sites we've looked at. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Um, again, no additional hands are raised in the virtual audience. This will be probably close to
your last opportunity. So, if you're out there looking to speak, please raise your hand. Um, do we have any additional in-person speakers? Hello. Thank you for the time and uh thank you also for your service. I appreciate it. Uh my name is Andrew
Baxter. I work for uh Chris Leblanc and N Building Design here in the city. Uh I'm a county resident. Uh but my wife and I I'm sorry. My wife and I uh a year ago purchased a home in the city for our adult son with uh autism and an
intellectual disability. So we have a a keen interest in in affordable housing for that community in particular uh in the city. Uh I don't think anyone would disagree that the code is complex, layers and layers of complexity in fact.
Um and I don't have a particular comment about the code. What I did want to point out was, I think, an opportunity that I would hate to see missed, which as the city enters its FY27 budget planning cycle, I think a voice needs to be heard
about the resourcing of NDS and making sure that NDS is resourced and aimed from a leadership perspective um in a manner that is equivalent to the goals that we now have as a community uh for housing, in particular for affordable
housing. housing uh the number of folks and the the the complexity of the work that they're required to do now um the slope of those curves need to need to be the same right and I don't know that we've seen that and I'm hopeful that uh that you as a commission um find it uh
an appropriate use of your voice uh to encourage council and then the city manager to consider that uh during the budget planning process. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, any additional in-person
speakers? >> Okay, I'll check with our virtual audience. This will be the last opportunity unless we have hands raised now. Okay. Um, anyone else in our inerson audience?
All right. Chair, it appears all who are interested in speaking have had an opportunity. >> All right. Thank you. Um yeah, and again, if you guys have more comments, please email them to us um so we can look at them at our uh at our work session. Uh and just to clarify, the
work session that we have coming up is not a back and forth work session with the public. Correct. >> That's Yeah, not the way it's necessarily set up. It's it's you all are going to be going page by page through the um the review items and so
that would be very challenging to to do that. >> I thought one of the audience members seemed to imply that. I just want to make sure that was clear. That's it. It's it's going to be more of a like our typical meetings. >> Yes. Well, and we'll make sure that the instructions that are included with
those materials are as clear as they can be about that. >> All right. Um, I think we had talked about if we wanted to have a discussion up here from what we've heard or do we want to move to to adjourn? >> There um there are there are a couple
things that I that I heard tonight that I think we ought to talk a little bit more about. >> Okay. >> The um the one thing is the break the code. I that was brilliant. Uh congratulations for think coming up with that and managing that. But I think we're going to do it again. >> We're going to do it again. I I because
I >> we could have been invited. >> All right. But but I think I think we'll do that again with an idea, an eye towards uh helping the developers develop, but also an eye towards helping develop develop in a way that's people
oriented. Um because I do worry about um I I worry a lot about uh uh West Haven and the new development there. I I actually voted against the standard uh probably before most of you guys were born and Jen and I dealt with it. We voted against the uh the standard
because we knew that would create a cavernous effect over West Haven. So I I think I again the um that idea is a great idea but I think we just need to make certain that we we we we we're people centric when we when we
when we think about that the um the other idea Mr. Baxter. I Yes, I agree. We um we're asking the NDS uh folks to do a heck of a lot of very complex work and frankly I think they're way
underresourced and I think we ought to we ought to go back to counseling and uh and get um get that get that team a little more resourced so that they can be uh a little more effective and a little quicker um and deal with the complexity. >> Wor, you were about to jump in. Um,
yeah, I was going to say the same thing about the brief code. I'd love to do something like that again and really dig into the technical details of how these problems arise on specific sites. Um, you know, I
would like for it to happen at an open meeting where other planning commissioners besides Carl could be there. I know it was tough because we were doing it with like developers specific projects is what they were bringing and trying to trying to bring the new code to that. Um and so maybe we
do something where we tweak the format and just like throw a dart at a map and pick some random sites across the city. Um and make all the development community do a bunch of extra work to think through these sites that they don't own and uh that way they'd be comfortable having these discussions in
public. Um but uh it does seem like you know where the rubber meets the road is actually applying this to specific sites and ideas of projects. Um and and doing that uh kind of makes it clear where the pain
points are. Um so um I I get why the last one was private and we weren't invited. Uh but we I keep hearing about how great it was and how productive it was and how many problems it brought up and then I didn't learn
about any of those problems because I wasn't there. Uh so of course I won't be here for the next one anyway. But uh yeah um on the NDS resourcing issue um I think those are all good points. I'd also just throw out there that NDS made a giant pile of
money this year uh from the Verve and Bloom uh inspection fees. Um and maybe >> goes into the general fund. >> Council would consider that uh in choosing to uh throw a little bit of that money back towards NDS even though
they don't have to. So um just a couple of of comments not to address u all of the facets here but uh I want to sort of look at the ones that were driven towards uh the smaller
development and rabb that does dovetail very nicely with being people centric. These are individual lots, uh, opportunities to develop in small areas for relatively, I'm not going to say modest, that's not
the right word, for for less than exorbitant and outrageous pricing, uh, in all circumstances. Uh, and I think we need to look at that. Uh, you know, there's some efforts that Lyall and I were working on in terms of the financing of those arrangements, but also, uh, the building code. Uh, I am
hearing screaming from every small developer about, "Look, I just want to build a triplex on this thing. It's got a 60-year-old ranch and you're, you know, I've lost the will to live essentially to get to get that built." Um, I can't but see, we have to look at
that and go revisit um the idea that we're we need to build with what we've got. And if we're going to persist on having a broad formbbased code style, we need to look at the dirt we're building all of the stuff on. Uh I think that that's going to be an interesting
uh development. Um I and to Valerie's point about uh special exception permits, we've actually asked the or we're asking the city and the planning district to ask the general assembly to allow council to delegate such authority
to commissions because that would be even faster. And if you don't like the answer, then you can appeal it. Um and that would probably get a higher quality result. So, there are some things that we're already kind of responding to, but um and don't even get me started on how
we need to revisit RNA. >> Blame Professor Sinclair for the uh having to go to council thing, right? >> So, that's just sort of a mismash of of uh interest that I'm showing here. But I mean, we've got 3,000 lots in this city
we can sublot. And that seemed to me if we can get that worked out and streamline that process and get the building code in line, we can make some things happen uh a lot more rapidly. I'm of course interested in the uh
technical tweaks to make things work better. That that's something that I've been saying for a long time. the the people problem. I'm sensitive to the people problem. Uh we have people here who are not uh developers, who are not architects, who are not engineers. Um and we need those people to be
comfortable and safe in our community. Um I'm very interested in an event that we could do that speaks to that problem. Um and I I don't have ideas, but if we could do a listening session for that problem, I think that would be productive. Um well, thank you all for speaking up
and coming that I think as much of this as we can do would um hurry things along and just improve um discussions. Um I don't know, you know, the tier one and tier two sounds like we're going to
vote on those soon. the tier three maybe if as everyone's sending in their comments and if staff and if we can look through them maybe there's some tier three that look like they're more burning issues um so that we can set a
timetable and rank the priorities of those um which we haven't even gotten to I think how that's going to happen yet um yeah I appreciate both um developers and neighborhood. Um, people being here
for kind of different reasons, but also the same. Everyone wants everyone to be able to live here comfortably. Um, and I do wonder about this, what was it called? The emergency the 10th and pa
the tenth and page in Fville emergency resolution. Has that been drafted and submitted to the city at all or is that >> I think it's been sent to you all in terms of emails. >> It came to us. Okay. Sorry. Sometimes these emails don't always go in the
inbox. They go >> Did you all get it? >> It came over at four o'clock today. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, I just haven't seen it yet. Anyway, so obviously we need to plan something to discuss that. Um, as Lyall has mentioned. Um, but I really
like all the creativity and everyone sharing your thoughts about all of the little pieces that are getting in the way of getting um more housing built. So, thank you for coming. >> Well, as UVA's appointed uh non- voting member of the board, I'm I don't have
any sort of formal comments in my capacity on this um on this commission. uh as a resident um of of Charlottesville City, I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and appreciating the diversity of voices and um kind of the sort of holistic sort of
take we we've uh witnessed tonight. I think that community engagement is a promising start as we start conversation about refining this ordinance. Um and again, just as me as a resident here, I'm echoing sort of this tier three
theme that came up. I I understand it takes time. It takes resources. I think some type of way to get clarity about those elements, you know, in light of some of the sort of sensitive developments that are happening concurrently with this tier three conversation. I I just think as a
resident, it would be great to to figure out how we can move forward as a collective on how we're going to address those larger issues that seem to be most impactful. >> I Yeah. Um I agree. I Mo most of my
frustration seems to be that the tier three stuff is the stuff that I really really want to get at right now, but I understand that it's going to take a long time. Um, you know, the we've had this code out for a while and I guess the um, you know, I ideally applications coming in and being
reviewed is the break the code process, but I don't know how much of that is actually getting I don't know if I if staff has the bandwidth to collect all these issues as they appear, but you know, there may be issues that
pop up that just get resolved because the applicant goes ahead and either finds a way to just work around them or um and comes up with a project that may not be as good as it could have been. Um or the project just doesn't happen. I I
don't know if all these little pieces end up making it into some depository that staff can has that they they see all these issues that could make for a better code. I again I don't I don't know if you guys even have the bandwidth for that. Um it would be great if there was some way that um as as developers
are looking at projects and um instead of trying to squeeze something on there that works with the formbbased code and works with the building code um if they see things like this could be a better project you know if we did it you know this way instead um if there's some way
to collect that feedback and I don't know if that would be possible um but it would be I think it would be helpful for this process. Um, I mean, some stuff is not going to fly. I mean, just just because a developer can't get every
single unit they want on that property, that may not be a good example, but again, there are plenty of examples where, you know, the topography doesn't work or it's just stupid to have a door every 40t or, you know, things like that. Um, so anyway, I now I'm rambling,
but um, yeah, I don't I'm I would hope that there'd be a way that now that the code is in action that we don't have to redo a whole workshop and theoretically we should be getting this feedback or at least maybe we need a better way of collecting it as it's the code is being
used um, uh, in real time. >> Yeah. And I I think we really thought about that special exception process as that outlet, that release valve uh to make things still work and then to figure out that those are issues cuz they keep coming up for special exceptions. Certainly that is made built
too with uh get on our radar. Um but um it's interesting to hear that everyone sees it as a very ownorous and lengthy process. Um I I do feel like if we could speed it up especially for small items
and give some certainty on the timeline um staffing allowing of course uh that would be a significant improvement. >> Well to to really jump in on that one small piece that might be helpful is one
of the special exception being uh to move to from May to shall that unless there's a a really strong reason not to grant this special except exception. The assumption is it's going to be made and that still gives a a stop gap, but
it gives a little more certainty. Unless there's a really good reason for this to stop, the planning commission is going to be inclined. You know, the planning commission having reviewed this shall instead of may. And that may not be that deliberate in just in terms of word tours. It may be an attitude throughout
the entire thing. Yes, this is going to require a special exception, but it's a common sense thing. breathe the pla the planning commission's going to grant it and frankly we have I mean to the ones that have come we've been very sort of straightforward yep this makes perfect sense let's move on I mean I would
rather get to a point where zoning code wasn't requiring common sense things to be not allowed um I know that's going to be an iterative process but >> um I think you know speeding it up
potentially even only referring it to the planning commission if council feels the need or if it's complex or if staff recommends against it uh does seem like one way to do that um while reducing the burden on staff. Um but
>> are are we legally allowed to expand how much stuff is administratively approved? >> Not not super easily because of Sinclair Singular. >> Okay. So, a number of the um of the concerns
or things that have been coming for special exception that seem a bit challenging or not challenging just strange that they're coming forward or some of the tweaks that are in kind of the earlier phases. Um I would say
fencing is one of the the the biggest ones there. um where I mean many that have come forward are dealing with that and um we didn't even know that was on the radar until it was on the radar. So,
>> um the last thing I'd add on a on a different note if we're done talking about that topic, um so I probably won't be here for the tier three things. Um I expect I'll probably be here for next month's work session. Um if not, I guess I'll send in some comments. as a member
of the public. Um but um I I would like everybody to keep in mind that the goal here is to provide more homes for people to live in. Um the idea of uh just broadstroke
slashing the amount of homes allowed in broad swats of the city uh is deeply concerning to me. Um particularly on greenfield sites uh where there is no displacement occurring. Um, I would uh recommend that we first instead uh
look at how uh the affordable housing requirements changed late in the process as a result of discussions at council and how those apply and work with uh the affordable housing manual uh that was approved by hack and council but never
referred to the planning commission. Um, it seems to me that many of the concerns that people have with specific developments are coming out of the manual in my view misapplying how the code was written. Um, as it pertains to
inloo bonuses. I do think it's probably a good idea to explore why we're banning on-site affordable housing development for student housing. Um but uh I I do think when you talk about reducing all homes to or all buildings
to four stories or five stories, um you're talking about removing hundreds of potential homes that people would live in. Um and yes, some of those people might be students who won't live here in the long term. Um but ultimately, an apartment is apartment. Um and I think you should do that with
extreme caution. Um, and I might add that the draft resolution that was sent to us uh would prohibit the West Haven redevelopment site plan that has already been submitted. Um, and our goal here is to
redevelop uh these housing sites with the funding that we have dedicated and our commitment to residentled redevelopment. Um, and we certainly should not be making changes. Uh, that would throw a huge wrench in that process. Any
further comments or um turn over to Phil. >> All right. Well, Mr. Chair, there's a lot I could have gone with today. Battle of Hastings for one. Uh but uh I think is apppropo. Today is the 78th anniversary of Chuck Joerger's smashing of the sound barrier. And in honor of
that, we should uh adjourn and get out of here to honor him as swiftly as possible. >> Second. All right. All in favor? >> I West Virginia.