WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=Rntv64oGOmg

Part: 1

1
00:03:11.920 --> 00:03:27.680
I was saying that >> We're in the middle of this. >> So we're on so um Yeah, welcome everyone uh tonight to our uh zoning code listening session. Um we're going to give everybody 3 minutes to make their comments about the zoning code. Um

2
00:03:27.680 --> 00:03:44.160
Matt's going to introduce uh do an introduction for uh the process and what we're expecting to hear. But if um if you can't get your comments in in 3 minutes, please do email us. Uh it's planning commission@charlescounty.gov. Um and uh we're going to save um

3
00:03:44.160 --> 00:04:00.480
So after everybody has their comments, um I'm going to let um staff respond uh if they if they want to. Um And then uh the planning commission, if anybody has anything they want to add at the end, you're welcome to. You don't have to. So, let's let's go.

4
00:04:00.480 --> 00:04:17.400
>> All right, thank you, chair. I'm Matt Afflerbach, the development planning manager, and this is the uh planning commission work session, um our our listening session for our local builders and developers. And next slide. So, as you are aware,

5
00:04:17.400 --> 00:04:33.080
um this is the 2026 code cleanup cycle. And just to recap, we our inaugural year was the 2025 cycle where we completed 83 amendments to the development code. They were um small technical corrections and

6
00:04:33.080 --> 00:04:47.480
um just some small refinements to the code. It was in a three-tiered system where we were focusing on tier one and tier two, and tier three were policy issues that we as a group were gathering. Um and

7
00:04:47.480 --> 00:05:04.600
those issues are worked into the larger NDS work plan to be focused on for community engagement with our long-range planning team. So, we are approaching this as the development planning team, so we are focused just on the development code. Um

8
00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:20.560
you know, our long-range planning team is focused more on policy and community engagement. These these amendments that were approved, they were adopted um in March of this year. And to keep consistency, we are aiming

9
00:05:20.560 --> 00:05:36.760
for a year-to-year, March-to-March uh code adoption. So, we are looking to do this each year and have a public hearing with planning commission toward the end of the year, early the following year have a public hearing with city

10
00:05:36.760 --> 00:05:51.840
council, and then have an effective date of March. And we're really doing this just to be consistent. Um the way our code is formatted, It is uh not as user-friendly and it becomes

11
00:05:51.840 --> 00:06:07.880
we are worried about kind of just um version control. So, having a March to March version control is one way we're addressing this. We're looking into other options of making the code better, more accessible for current versions. That is That is one of the paths we're

12
00:06:07.880 --> 00:06:27.760
on. Um we had our We have a subcommittee that is working with this. We had our kickoff meeting with that, I believe, a month and a half ago. The next subcommittee meeting is going to be July Let me pull it up.

13
00:06:27.760 --> 00:06:44.720
It's going to be July 9th and that subcommittee is going to be focusing on That meeting will be focused on the build-to setback and active depth um issues. And I'm sure that'll that'll continue into a future planning commission work

14
00:06:44.720 --> 00:07:00.760
session and what comes out of that meeting. Next slide. For this year's cycle, we are not doing the tiered approach that it that did cause I think a lot of confusion um with in the community, especially because there are a lot of policy issues

15
00:07:00.760 --> 00:07:15.760
I think a lot of people want to talk about and with because we are in very close communication with our developers and the community, we felt we are in a good position to hear those larger policy issues and to gather them so that the NDS director can work those into a

16
00:07:15.760 --> 00:07:32.000
larger work plan. But the tiered I think created a little more confusion, so we've we're going away from the tier this year and really focusing on this being a code cleanup and really focusing kind of on the terms of clarification, technical fixes, and refinements. That's really what this is

17
00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:49.080
this is about. Again, we're still can collect these larger policy issues. They will still be tracked on our our tracking log and they will hopefully, you know, be worked into future NDS larger work plans. Um next slide.

18
00:07:49.880 --> 00:08:05.080
So, tonight's purpose is we want to hear directly from our local builders, developers, and the public uh and how they interact with the code. Want to help identify any unclear inconse- inconsistencies in the code. Um gather

19
00:08:05.080 --> 00:08:20.520
technical feedback that we can use in this 2026 code cycle. And again, we'll hear from larger issues, but it's more about documentation on the larger issues. Next slide. These are the three questions we're kind

20
00:08:20.520 --> 00:08:36.760
of looking forward uh to be addressed this evening. You have one by sharing how you use the development code, you know, what what relationship do you have to What parts of the code are creating confusion? And then uh also as last year, I think it's very important to hear what parts of the code are working

21
00:08:36.760 --> 00:08:53.560
so we make sure we don't inadvertently mess up those parts of the code that we actually think are doing well cuz a lot of times things that are doing well we don't hear about and they get We don't want to make sure that those things don't get changed. The other thing I want to add, go to the next slide. We're going to go back. We'll leave this up. We'll go to the

22
00:08:53.560 --> 00:09:10.200
public's turn to speak. So, and then can you click on the link right here? So, one of the other things I wanted to share is uh we do have a public-facing page for this. What are you doing? But we have on the city's website under

23
00:09:10.200 --> 00:09:27.440
NDS under um development review, there is a code cleanup website that lays out what this process is, the general time frame. Um you can scroll down, you'll kind of Uh it's there to the left. You're right. Yeah, you're on it. So,

24
00:09:27.440 --> 00:09:43.680
and then the other important thing is we have a uh Connect Charlotte Go page that you can reach from this. If you click on that, Patrick. And this is where the public can follow the process. This is where documents will be stored, where there can be feedback.

25
00:09:43.680 --> 00:09:59.240
So we encourage the public to use this along with any um planning commissioners or city council if they would like. But this is going to be kind of our home page um for this process. And with that, you can kind of go back to the slide and pull up those three

26
00:09:59.240 --> 00:10:28.240
questions. All right. And with that, Chair, I'll turn it over to you to hear from the public, but I'm here to answer any questions or provide any um feedback. >> Thank you. Um and just as a reminder to anybody who trickled in after we started, um everyone's going to get 3 minutes to talk. Um I'm going to try and prevent I would I'd like to not have any

27
00:10:28.240 --> 00:10:44.560
back and forth. So as well get to talk. If somebody has a state something that's blatantly misunderstood about the code, um I'm going to let staff respond to that, but um generally we'll just sort of let everyone give their their comments in uh in 3 minutes. And um after that, I'm

28
00:10:44.560 --> 00:11:00.160
going to give staff a chance to respond. Um and then the planning commission gets a chance to weigh in if if they would like. >> And Chair, we do have a sign-in sheet, but we definitely have an audience I think small enough if you know you're welcome just to call on and um Dan will control the online version.

29
00:11:00.160 --> 00:11:20.480
>> Um well, Ben, do you have the sign-in sheet? >> Yeah, nobody Everybody came in late. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Is that all right? >> Yeah, I didn't want to surprise you when I when we at the start and maybe have anyone came in late. >> Just go around the room. >> All right. Are there any names on it? >> No, no one's going to be able to >> Um well, yeah, um

30
00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:36.360
do we have anyone online just out of curiosity? >> We have two attendees. Um I'll just say that if anyone would like to speak and they are viewing online, they can just click the raise hand icon at any time and keep it raised. Um and I'll introduce them and then they can be unmuted to speak. >> Okay.

31
00:11:36.360 --> 00:11:55.240
Um, anybody in the room who'd like to go first? This could be a really good >> [laughter] >> Sure. I will. >> All right. Um, do we Do the speakers pick her up there or does she need to go to the podium? >> It microphones are working all the entire room, so she can speak she can speak from there.

32
00:11:55.240 --> 00:12:09.560
>> have a rule that they would stand though? They would vary would stand. >> Sure. We might not hear. >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, maybe I'll do it this way. >> [laughter] >> We can hear you. >> Um, Rebecca Kwan, downtown,

33
00:12:09.560 --> 00:12:26.360
on the phone resident. Um, so I did come in late. When you say the development code, um, are there particular chapters that we can pull up like on Muni Code to know which ones you're talking about? Or is it I mean, when I pull up chapter

34
00:12:26.360 --> 00:12:45.640
34, I won't get much. Um, I I Which chapters? Which sections? I was not part of the previous uh engagement. Um, that's my question. >> I'll take that, Joe.

35
00:12:45.640 --> 00:13:01.600
>> Yeah, this is So, um, on the city's website it's chapter 34, which is our development code. And this process is the code clean up, so it is about changing any sort of technical or small refinements to that. It's not about major policy changes. The best

36
00:13:01.600 --> 00:13:16.760
example I'll give is a policy change would be if we felt uh, you know, there needed to be another engagement with the community about the allowable max height in say the RA district. Um, that would not fall in this. That would be something that would need to be a larger

37
00:13:16.760 --> 00:13:31.560
community led community engagement. >> I got that. Now I see that Muni Code links to the city webpage. So, you're not touching subdivision, streets or sidewalks, just chapter 34. >> Chapter 34, I will say there probably

38
00:13:31.560 --> 00:13:46.640
will be some spillover because there are some parts of the other code sections that reference things like the NDS director when engineering used to be in that department. And so we're going to try to get those cleaned up too so it no longer

39
00:13:46.640 --> 00:14:08.840
is so it's more consistent. >> Uh Yes, sir. And uh Dan or Patrick, do you guys have control of the clock? >> Yes. >> Or Remy does. >> Oh, Remy does. Okay. >> Hi. Um I'm Eric Swart and I work for

40
00:14:08.840 --> 00:14:24.680
Evergreen Home Builders and um I was very involved with the uh ill-fated Oberman Road project. Uh that was one of the first ones to try to get implemented under the new building code. Um And I will say before my comments that

41
00:14:24.680 --> 00:14:41.560
uh I have not gone through the new revised rewritten uh edited code so some of what I'm about to say may have already been covered. Um the first two issues which are actually interrelated have to do with uh building width.

42
00:14:41.560 --> 00:14:57.800
Um there are two what are in my opinion conflicting requirements. The build two width minimum of 65% and and uh this is in reference to uh residential B specifically and it may

43
00:14:57.800 --> 00:15:13.480
cover and uh some of the other zonings as well but that was what we were working under. Um so the uh build two width minimum requirement of 65% of road frontage and then the building width maximum of 60

44
00:15:13.480 --> 00:15:30.640
ft. Our property was 95 ft wide and it must fail one of those two requirements. Um that seems like an oversight. Seems like maybe just a or max width type of

45
00:15:30.640 --> 00:15:46.440
language could be added to clear that up. Um and then the second issue related to what qualifies as a building. Uh we were proposing three townhouses to front on Alderman.

46
00:15:46.440 --> 00:16:01.600
We were told that they must be considered a single building, which is what led to the max width issue because it wasn't three townhomes, it was one building. However, if you read the massing section

47
00:16:01.600 --> 00:16:21.040
massing 2.10.10.8.3.b reads, "Two buildings may abut one another provided that they have no shared components and are structurally independent from one another." It's our belief that townhomes qualify

48
00:16:21.040 --> 00:16:38.040
under that. Um we were told that it they don't. Um so just some clarification on that um would be helpful. Um and I will say as a side Oh, actually I'm almost out of time. The last thing I will say is uh

49
00:16:38.040 --> 00:16:53.200
we were also threatened lawsuit by the neighbors. So something in the code to say this supersedes all existing neighborhood covenants or to say it explicitly does not supersede existing covenants

50
00:16:53.200 --> 00:17:08.240
because uh otherwise we're just in for a string of lawsuits out into the future. Uh last thing I'll mention is that threshold for major development needs to be raised if at all possible because basically you have to go through all the steps to create an entire

51
00:17:08.240 --> 00:17:27.560
neighborhood just to develop one parcel. That's what we found out. Thank you. >> Are there any hands raised online? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Um anybody else in the room? Okay.

52
00:17:30.040 --> 00:17:45.400
>> This won't take 3 minutes. Addison Parker, I live in Fayetteville and I'm the house manager of the McGuffey Art Center. Um I have a relatively unbridled passion for standardized business process models.

53
00:17:45.400 --> 00:17:59.920
Uh so if you're Yeah, they're wonderful, right? Like they're they're a great thing. So if you were looking for small technical innovations, uh that would be a feature that could be useful. Uh because if you standardize them, then then they can be interoperable with

54
00:17:59.920 --> 00:18:16.920
other models and can be kind of a visual uh like for people to like that sort of thing. Done. Oh, and Swift work flow, actually, this is worth noting that uh we do have like global experts in the region in Stanton, uh which is kind of a wild thing to

55
00:18:16.920 --> 00:18:32.680
have. Like globally recognized business process model notation experts live in Stanton. Uh so just something to consider and yeah, lastly I guess uh I think there is some citizen input that would be like interested in that. Uh we're working over at the Code for Civic

56
00:18:32.680 --> 00:19:01.600
and Center for Civic Innovation on this stuff. So in case anybody else is interested there. Again. >> Thank you. >> Um Jenny? >> Hello, everyone. It seems unusual, but the Planning Commission's still my happy spot. So it's really good to see all of

57
00:19:01.600 --> 00:19:17.840
you and thank you for what you do. Um I'm really here to remind you that historic preservation is part of development. Some people don't think so, but when you are adapting a historic building or an older building and when you're adding on to it and when you're infilling on a historic property or in a

58
00:19:17.840 --> 00:19:33.680
historic district, that's part of historic preservation. We don't want to be left out of the development process. We're part of all Preservation is as much a part of planning as transportation and housing and economic development. We're just part of the whole ball of wax. So, please remember that when you review things.

59
00:19:33.680 --> 00:19:51.960
Um Some of the things that Matt talked about, I I very much agree with the setback and active depth and the build two. Uh Tim and I came in and uh had a session to talk about what some of these things meant for our property and it was very positive thanks to to Carrie and

60
00:19:51.960 --> 00:20:07.120
the whole myriad of staff that were were there. It's a kind of daunting process, but it but it went very well and um and I was very pleased with that. But still Tim and I professionals in this stuff and this code is really hard for people to understand. We had to spend a whole afternoon and we had to have our own

61
00:20:07.120 --> 00:20:22.960
work sessions like what does this mean what do you think? So, I think that as well as having this listening session, you need to have some things that explain this to neighborhoods. I would happen to be at the First Baptist Church last night and people really had no understanding or preparation for this

62
00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:38.760
code. And so, it might not be new to you anymore, but it's still very new. And Jose and I are colleagues on uh on the board of zoning appeals and we've had people come neighbors who are very concerned about RB. They did not understand that this was possible in their neighborhoods and they did not see

63
00:20:38.760 --> 00:20:53.720
it as an opportunity. And I would say personally those RB sites are kind of scattered around. They don't really make a lot of sense. A lot of those were just because of the width of the lot on a primary street. No concern for the depth if you might be on an at an

64
00:20:53.720 --> 00:21:10.560
intersection. Just that width and I sort of feel victimized by that myself because my neighbors across the street are RB and the rest of my block is RA. So, a lot of that didn't make sense. And I never thought that that the consultant spent enough time on the ground proving our city and understanding what

65
00:21:10.560 --> 00:21:25.760
makes Charlottesville Charlottesville. They really There was a concern about low-wealth neighborhoods, calling them core neighborhoods or sensitive or RNA. But other than that, there was no concern for natural environmental resources, cultural resources, historic

66
00:21:25.760 --> 00:21:42.040
resources. So, I think that's still that's still really a deficit in this in this uh in in this in this ordinance. Um Let's see. I had a couple of other things. And and then beyond that, uh this whole

67
00:21:42.040 --> 00:21:58.080
thing of student housing. It's It's confusing and it's to the detriment of traditional and historic neighborhoods, which by definition are within a half mile of Central Grounds. So, my preference would be, and I know there's been some discussion I think at

68
00:21:58.080 --> 00:22:15.080
the council level of of doing away with that category. And and that would be my first choice, and my second one would be to define that in city terms, not University of Virginia terms, so that it is keyed to a map just like everything else is on a map, so that there's no confusion and

69
00:22:15.080 --> 00:22:45.040
people have predictability. Thank you. >> Thank you, everyone. Anybody else? Good evening. Uh Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum. Uh I'm here to talk about what we're not supposed to talk about. Um it is uh back when the code was approved and we

70
00:22:45.040 --> 00:23:00.640
were uh adamantly uh in favor of it with reservations, we were told point-blank by the current NDS director at that time, "This is not the last zoning code Charlottesville's going to have." So, then we went through the cleanup

71
00:23:00.640 --> 00:23:16.200
phases of tier one and tier two, which somehow [clears throat] got people upset because we didn't deal with tier three last year. And so now we're going to get rid of the tier program, but we're not going to deal with tier three. We're just going to ignore it. It's going to be something we're going to talk about in the work plan, which will come out

72
00:23:16.200 --> 00:23:33.400
when the NDS director is hired, when they get their feet wet, when things get going. I think it's incumbent upon the planning commission to talk about the things that are big policy issues that should be talked about. Um I've talked to many people with regard to the affordable housing provisions and the

73
00:23:33.400 --> 00:23:49.080
inclusionary zoning requirements and adjusting those numbers based upon the very same data that was used, data points that was used in original numbers, but we're 5 years later than the original numbers. We believe those numbers have changed. In addition

74
00:23:49.080 --> 00:24:05.400
addition, we continue to have concerns with 99 years being the term. We prefer the federal term of 30 years. Um the the other issue that I think needs to be talked about and I'm not sure where it is uh with the impending departure of our NDS director, I understood that Ms.

75
00:24:05.400 --> 00:24:20.720
Brown was working on um examining the stormwater regulations that in Charlottesville require 6,000 square feet of disturbance and the the entire state of Virginia likes 10,000. That makes a big difference for small

76
00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:36.000
projects, small infill projects that could be providing housing, which is really the goal I thought of the zoning ordinance. And I'm hopeful that that exercise that I'm certain Ms. Brown was efforting and she briefed you on it about 3 months ago

77
00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:57.800
will continue to move forward. I'm just asking you to have some urgency with these policy issues because they do matter. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> Thank you. >> Still no one online? >> Go ahead, Tim.

78
00:24:57.800 --> 00:25:24.160
>> Did I? >> I'd like to echo and say thanks to >> Is your name? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh yeah. Start at the beginning. Lakshmi, l a k s h m i Fjord, f j o r d

79
00:25:24.160 --> 00:25:39.560
Um I'm a resident of Fife Hill and I would like to echo and add to what um Jenny said about the confusions about UVA housing. So, I think the whole city is completely

80
00:25:39.560 --> 00:25:57.200
confused about UVA housing because then we find out actually, let's say the Mark is not UVA housing. It's possible UVA housing for third and fourth years, but it's also kind of a boarding house that anyone could have a bed and paid for a

81
00:25:57.200 --> 00:26:14.560
bed and so how can that be marketed how can we be told this is UVA housing? I don't know what it says in the code about UVA housing, so forgive me. I will try to read up, but I I don't think it serves anyone to be saying that this is

82
00:26:14.560 --> 00:26:30.440
about UVA housing. It creates a lot of anger and upset. Is UVA taking over every single piece of ground when UVA for the Mark is not involved, but UVA housing is being termed what that project is.

83
00:26:30.440 --> 00:26:45.800
I also am very concerned that that project has not once or anyone mentioned the storm water and flooding that already occurs from that site that exact site because of its elevation. There is

84
00:26:45.800 --> 00:27:02.200
massive flooding already from runoff because it's a hill and it's got forest on it now, but there is a river basically not but a flood going on behind the 7th Street houses on the east

85
00:27:02.200 --> 00:27:17.640
side, and then it is going down into Dice, and then it's going down into the the stream and the wetlands that's behind Dice Street if it's on the on the south side, and then 7 and 1/2 Street on

86
00:27:17.640 --> 00:27:36.240
their east side. I like cardinal directions. I hope that that's helpful. But why could you possibly expect to build something near that takes away all the forest and never once have any reason or the city even looking at this

87
00:27:36.240 --> 00:27:52.920
issue which will be all hardscape. So, it will be a huge increase of runoff. So, those are just two of the issues that I think are are very important. I don't know if that is strictly the code, please correct me, but I think that

88
00:27:52.920 --> 00:28:16.600
they're just so important and they're actually really causing a lot of harm. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Feels much better. Cool. >> Hey, my name is Nicole Scro. I'm a real estate developer and a land use attorney. Um

89
00:28:16.600 --> 00:28:33.800
I interact with the code in two hats. I do consulting for sometimes random homeowners who want to know what the value of their property is with the new ordinances. And then also as an applicant. Um Got one approved, one in the process,

90
00:28:33.800 --> 00:28:49.880
and I'm five that I'm analyzing that we own. Okay, so um I think there's a lot that's working actually. Um I will say I mostly deal with small scale infill. The larger buildings is kind of a little

91
00:28:49.880 --> 00:29:04.760
bit I defer to the architects. I think they've mentioned active depth as something that matters, but for my role it's more small scale. Um, the most important thing is just process is moving along. I have to be able to tell people this can get done in X amount of

92
00:29:04.760 --> 00:29:20.960
time with some amount of confidence and that's been hard recently. Um, people need to plan and financially plan and but that's changing and getting better. So, that's really cool to see. Um, okay, the the three like detail oriented ones are

93
00:29:20.960 --> 00:29:36.800
sublots in X zones. Please, please, please do that. Um, they're not there aren't there are projects in X zones or properties in X zones that are small parcels that are not going to be big uh larger um projects and you could it would be beneficial to utilize

94
00:29:36.800 --> 00:29:52.480
sublots. So, sublots in X zones, please, please, please. Utilities. Um, we've been able to have a 20 ft access way for fire, but it's 30 ft for uh if an extension of a sewer main. That's a lot. Um, I know there are reasons for it, but

95
00:29:52.480 --> 00:30:09.400
the tension between utilities and building on these small lots is something to explore. Front yards and parking in front yards. You guys kind of banned it. I get why, but maybe revisiting some relaxation of that would help. Um,

96
00:30:09.400 --> 00:30:24.120
uh that's about it for the details. I want to say please keep working. This is hard. Um, but you guys are doing a good job as best you can and uh I don't know. Thank you.

97
00:30:24.120 --> 00:30:43.880
>> Thank you. Nicole, if you've got a specific example of where those the parking is for the small properties, if you want to email us >> Okay. >> um that might be might be useful just to see where technically it's not working out. >> Okay. Okay. >> Thank you.

98
00:30:49.760 --> 00:31:06.560
>> I'm Bobby Williams. I live on off JPA. And as everybody probably knows, we do have some developments that have been initiated and are being com- completed.

99
00:31:06.560 --> 00:31:23.520
Uh everything that we objected to was sort of pushed aside. There was no traffic uh assessment before it was started. They did say they did one, but it was in

100
00:31:23.520 --> 00:31:42.000
August. But it still does don't exist. So, the pedestrian traffic and the regular traffic we questioned those findings. Um >> [sighs] >> we

101
00:31:42.000 --> 00:31:57.240
heard that there was a setback said in the code. So far that setback has not been uh reached with one of the properties. Uh one of the other ones is.

102
00:31:57.240 --> 00:32:14.640
We were told that this was to be uh initially affordable housing within the the set set of the codes. Both of these are student housing properties now.

103
00:32:14.640 --> 00:32:31.240
So, there is no affordable housing within it. We asked to have some maybe student affordable housing units put in them. I don't believe that's happened. We have to ask about whether there is

104
00:32:31.240 --> 00:32:48.040
anything for impaired uh uh students for of ADA parts of it. I haven't seen that any of those have any ADA setups. Um we >> [clears throat]

105
00:32:48.040 --> 00:33:04.840
>> we have uh been essentially, and we feel like we are a small community of occupied as far as owner-occupied housing in the area. We admit that. But we don't see how this is solving

106
00:33:04.840 --> 00:33:23.240
the student leaving the other properties and coming into this. How will a $600 a night or my bedroom in a four-three bedroom house?

107
00:33:23.240 --> 00:33:39.080
Why would they move to a $1,500 a month unit in a new building? We don't feel like that that is going to help our local community. So,

108
00:33:39.080 --> 00:33:57.480
just to let you know, we aren't happy. Um and I don't know if there's going to be any any anything we can do about it. But I did get to say my thing. I raised my voice. >> Thank you.

109
00:34:00.640 --> 00:34:18.600
>> Any speakers? >> We have a few more things. >> You're going to have to go. The room My name is Rosia Parker. I am one of those people that was at FBC last night with no understanding as to what the zoning code is. I've watched the zoning

110
00:34:18.600 --> 00:34:35.840
code change over the years where before it was things couldn't be put into core neighborhoods as to where the core neighborhoods aren't um really important anymore. The historic places aren't uh important anymore. Like the market's coming right up behind First Baptist. None of these developers

111
00:34:35.840 --> 00:34:51.280
have come into our community and have spoken to us. Like the LV Collective, West Haven, we've watched the Standards come in, we've watched all of those luxury apartments for the students come around us, and we're underneath, we're 20 ft under.

112
00:34:51.280 --> 00:35:08.000
So, it's like where do the black neighborhoods or the people of color or low-income neighborhoods, what is there ordinance or where is it a place for us to be able to live and not be displaced?

113
00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:23.920
You know, it's like every year it's something different. And these people are have already come in and have studied these places, they have studied us for years. And then the developers just come in and it's like we that have been living here as residents for years

114
00:35:23.920 --> 00:35:40.040
trying to make a living, just trying to make somewhere to live, and we don't really have nowhere to live. So, it's like with that ordinance, could y'all please, you know, take the accountability of looking at the people that are really

115
00:35:40.040 --> 00:35:56.040
struggling, you know, that are really living here, because there's nothing really here for Charlottesville. It's like basically we're being pushed out. We're being pushed out into the county or other places. I mean, I know everybody say affordable housing, I mean, I understand that the people that work here, but look at some of the black

116
00:35:56.040 --> 00:36:12.040
and brown people that has been working here for years and still don't have nowhere to live. >> Right. >> But we're definitely looking at constantly luxury, luxury, luxury. >> Right. >> We got that hotel that's getting ready to come down on Preston Avenue. We got Chris getting ready to put in another

117
00:36:12.040 --> 00:36:27.280
another housing development. That core neighborhood of Tenth and Page in West Haven, we're being blocked in. We're boxed in. >> Right. >> But don't nobody really understand us as common people. We're right at the bottom of Union.

118
00:36:27.280 --> 00:36:49.480
We've been at the bottom of UVA and we have never been a community with UVA. So, please just listen to the people and understand where we're coming from. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Exactly. >> Anybody else like to speak?

119
00:36:49.480 --> 00:37:12.200
>> No. >> Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Um I am Valerie Line, I'm a real estate land use attorney with Williams Mullen. We help applicants through the process. Um I first want to say that one of the best things since working with this new code is how responsive your staff is to

120
00:37:12.200 --> 00:37:28.800
questions, how willing they have been to sit down and have meetings on pretty short notice, and help answer questions and provide guidance. Even though I've been working with the code for 2 and 1/2 years, I learn something new every day. Usually I learn it from them. It's a lot to get used to,

121
00:37:28.800 --> 00:37:45.120
and they just made a lot of time for applicants with questions and helping really work through solutions as much as possible. Um and I appreciate all the technical changes that were made with phase one and phase two, with one exception that's created quite a challenge for a lot of projects, and

122
00:37:45.120 --> 00:38:01.080
I'm not sure that many people are aware of it. And that change is now under the sort of rearrangements that were approved in March, a requirement for development plan approval, the first step before final site plan,

123
00:38:01.080 --> 00:38:18.520
all design approvals were moved up to the front end. They are now a requirement of development plan. And the explanation for that is, well, it's a zoning requirement and everything in the development plan is supposed to be zoning ordinance requirements as

124
00:38:18.520 --> 00:38:32.920
opposed to basically everything but utilities and engineering. I agree with that concept of structuring it, but I would say I don't think design review is part of zoning, unlike the dimensional requirements in

125
00:38:32.920 --> 00:38:48.960
the development code height, transparency, active depths, building lengths, you know, lot coverage, all those dimensional objective criteria, very different from design review. Regardless, you all may disagree with me

126
00:38:48.960 --> 00:39:04.000
on that, but regardless, as I'm sure in particular designers will appreciate, moving that requirement to the front end of development plan, the changes that were put in place with tier one and tier two were intended as described to help make it easier and

127
00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:19.200
faster for applicants to obtain development plan approval, ideally within one or two submissions, which is would be amazing. But all the good things that were in those tier one and tier two amendments, in my opinion, were kind of

128
00:39:19.200 --> 00:39:33.440
for nothing by moving the design approvals to the front end for for projects that are re- you know, subject to those approvals. Six-figure plus investment for applicants, um

129
00:39:33.440 --> 00:39:50.800
that before they even can determine whether, you know, work through all of the many, many, many challenges of otherwise getting development approval, trying to match all the different regulations. So, I would ask for your consideration and thought about that. And then finally, just

130
00:39:50.800 --> 00:40:07.720
in general, the challenges of yeah, all the regulations kind of often overlap with each other. In order to comply with this requirement, I end up violating this one. So, if I try to fix that, well, then I might violate this other one, and it's pretty much impossible, um we've found so far, to

131
00:40:07.720 --> 00:40:31.560
comply with every single regulation without requiring a special exception. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, may I reclaim a minute of my time? >> Let me share. >> I'm going to go with Karen this time. >> Rebecca Quinn, um, downtown resident.

132
00:40:31.560 --> 00:40:47.320
Uh, I've heard several people, including professional developers and attorneys talk about um, how much they learn from staff. They get something done, they come in, they have questions, they get answers. Um, I've worked with uh, regulations at

133
00:40:47.320 --> 00:41:03.880
the state and local level, flood plain and building code for 35 years. I always advise local officials when you come up with an interpretation, document it because maybe it leads to a code change or regulation change or a manual or something to share. My

134
00:41:03.880 --> 00:41:18.800
question is, are y'all doing that with all of these informal in informative meetings and will examination of those answers that you end up resolving with people, will those be examined as part

135
00:41:18.800 --> 00:41:59.640
of this process? Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any speakers? Anybody online? >> No, I'm not ready. >> Yes, ma'am. >> No, she's not here. >> Um, good evening. Uh, my name is Sharon Deal. I worked at City of Promise

136
00:41:59.640 --> 00:42:16.000
a couple couple of years back when they started their Dream Builders program. And what I was most concerned about in reading all the information available I could find is

137
00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:31.680
um you know, one time we wiped out the black middle class here with Vinegar Hill. And what it feels like is redux. >> Yes. >> And so if everyone in the room agrees we

138
00:42:31.680 --> 00:42:48.440
just want to knock it out, okay, but don't kid yourself. And you know, many people here probably know people that live and work in the city of promise.

139
00:42:48.440 --> 00:43:13.280
That's a great place. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I thank you. My name is Frank Beck. I live in Fife Hill. I'm going to see if I can formulate this. I've thought about it many times. Uh in terms of

140
00:43:13.280 --> 00:43:29.360
having a code that is simple, not confusing, not difficult. I understand it can be that way. But that's what my comment has to do with. Um and I'll point out kind of an absurdity to start with.

141
00:43:29.360 --> 00:43:45.600
Uh we of course have individually protected properties, protected districts. So, in the case of Fife Hill and the mark proposal, uh it went to the Board of Architectural Review because two individually protected properties there

142
00:43:45.600 --> 00:44:03.720
were protected. And what was new to me as an outsider who doesn't know about these kinds of things is that it was those buildings' exterior exterior form and that kind of thing that was being

143
00:44:03.720 --> 00:44:21.360
that we were taking care to preserve. And of course many community members show up and say, "What about our neighborhood?" And the board said, "Well, we can't do that. We can't do." So, what I want to talk about here is there is no status or not a very easy one

144
00:44:21.360 --> 00:44:37.720
for protecting a neighborhood or protecting a community. Although, that makes a lot of sense to people. You say, "Well, do you value this core neighborhood? How are you going to protect it?" I understand zoning dealt with that kind of questions.

145
00:44:37.720 --> 00:44:55.480
But, the absurdity I want to point out is what ended up happening to perhaps influence a decision to overturn the Board of Architectural Review was that well, we need to save these two

146
00:44:55.480 --> 00:45:11.920
old brick cottages, that I want to save, too. I'd love them to be affordable housing and things like that. But, we need to save those cottages. And the logic put forward by the developer, which I thought was quite shrewd,

147
00:45:11.920 --> 00:45:30.600
is look, only we, a multi-billion dollar company that can build an enormous building, we have an enormous amounts of capital, only we can save those two multi-decade boarded up

148
00:45:30.600 --> 00:45:45.640
cottages. I'd love to see them unboarded up. They're a lot like my house. They could be remade. I don't believe for a second that they would cost $2 million to rehab, which was stated to council members

149
00:45:45.640 --> 00:46:03.480
and even quoted in the press. But, in any case, the complaint that neighborhood members have and others is, "Hey, what about us? What about this neighborhood?" And the logic that is

150
00:46:03.480 --> 00:46:18.720
being pursued by council saying this case is we have to impact your neighborhood. We have to do things that the neighborhood doesn't want in order to save these two cottages which are

151
00:46:18.720 --> 00:46:34.560
and were workers cottages by the way in a working class neighborhood in a black neighborhood. So it's quite strange the way that has played out. And if we had a status that could

152
00:46:34.560 --> 00:46:50.480
openly say I don't know how Dylan rule impacts this kind of thing. If there were a status that could say we want to protect this neighborhood. We don't want to protect its shingles, its tiles, its windows. We want to protect the whole

153
00:46:50.480 --> 00:47:17.760
place against being destroyed. >> It's amazing to see. >> Thank you. Any other speakers? All right. Staff, you guys have anything you want to add or respond to or >> You have to respond. >> Oh, I do. Oh, yeah.

154
00:47:25.200 --> 00:47:42.320
>> I'm Jean Hyatt and I'm a active civic minded resident, not a developer. And I did follow all along the zoning ordinance and that our group Preservation Piedmont read through the whole thing and

155
00:47:42.320 --> 00:48:00.440
provided a lot of off recommendations for modification, some of which were listened to and some not. And um what at the end our zoning ordinance at the time it was uh passed, which was

156
00:48:00.440 --> 00:48:17.200
rushed the end of 2023, um it was considered by many to be the most extreme zoning ordinance in the country for a small city. I think I'm not sure if it's that's it

157
00:48:17.200 --> 00:48:34.360
may still be the case. Anyway, so I have some suggestions to consider cuz now I know there's some planning commissioners and city councils city councilors and other members of community see that there's changes need to be made. There's a lot of uh

158
00:48:34.360 --> 00:48:51.560
unintended consequences because of some of the decisions that were made in the ordinance. I think we should get rid of uh the student housing designation which uh really impacts the historically African-American neighborhoods which are

159
00:48:51.560 --> 00:49:07.480
all probably within a half mile of of uh I don't know if it's the central grounds of UVA. And I think um we should consider at some point looking at uh

160
00:49:07.480 --> 00:49:23.720
the whole um whole district and and the maximum heights. I know you can't change one building, but you can look at a whole district and reconsider the heights. Um and I think we should look back again

161
00:49:23.720 --> 00:49:42.080
at uh instituting a special use permit for large developments. I think that would really help city council have some control of what's going on. And um And there's one other thing and I'm not sure what it was. I'll think of it and write to you about

162
00:49:42.080 --> 00:49:58.080
it. Thanks. >> Yes. Yeah, and if anyone has any other uh things to do, please leave it unless it's a >> Yeah, I will. Something else comes up. >> Thanks. >> All right. Beverly Dana, did you get want add anything or respond to anything? >> Uh no

163
00:49:58.080 --> 00:50:16.320
chair, I think you've heard a lot of good feedback. Uh you know, you have an opportunity to this is a work session. If you want to discuss any of the points brought up or Is there anything else that we can do? We are capturing this and this information I will point back to the

164
00:50:16.320 --> 00:50:33.440
connect Charlottesville page on the code cleanup. We have a working log. Now the problem with the working log is it's not 100% up to date when you see it online, but we are freezing it periodically and putting it on the connect Charlottesville page. So everyone has the ability to see

165
00:50:33.440 --> 00:50:49.240
the issues that are brought and brought up. And then they're at least logged and it shows us the process for these technical changes or or a >> transitions. >> So this is the uh code cleanup page and you'll see the documents there on the left hand side. So

166
00:50:49.240 --> 00:51:04.360
that's where these documents will be. So we encourage people Again, we encourage people to sign up this page. You can follow it. Um you can interact with it. Um this is fairly new. Different different divisions within the city are using this for different things. The e-bike

167
00:51:04.360 --> 00:51:19.600
e-voucher bike e-bike voucher has been utilizing um the connect Charlottesville page. So hopefully more departments and divisions will be using it. We have for the code cleanup. Yeah. >> Um I'm going to go back to you, chair. >> And I don't mean to push you guys on the

168
00:51:19.600 --> 00:51:35.840
spot, but can you remind us where things stand with the council was looking at the fee in lieu stuff? Uh housing in lieu definition and all that at some point. Is Are they still looking at that? >> I would need to ask our I don't have an update to give from our director or our

169
00:51:35.840 --> 00:51:53.080
housing coordinator. >> Um I need to ask her. So this is really been helpful. My My only disappointment is that there weren't more developers here to give us some more feedback cuz I I I'm certain we missed a lot of lot of stuff.

170
00:51:53.080 --> 00:52:10.920
I think there's nothing that we talked about that was talked about that I disagree with. I mean, I appreciate a lot of lot of the mad tweeting that you guys uh suggested that we need to bring to bear. But I am very sympathetic to um Ms. Ms. Jen, Ms. Luxmiere, Ms. Parker, and Jean

171
00:52:10.920 --> 00:52:27.520
as relates to our need to figure out what student housing in the area looks like. And we need to um we need to clean that up and and either figure either either there's not going to be student housing or we need to tighten it up a little bit. Uh Jen and I sit on the BZA and we

172
00:52:27.520 --> 00:52:43.040
wrestle mightily with uh the market and and and the location of the market and wasn't student housing or not. So, we we we really need to a lot of work there to clean that up. I think that would help a lot. The only other suggestion I've got is

173
00:52:43.040 --> 00:53:00.640
again I'll go back to Jen, Ms. Luxmiere, Ms. Parker, um Jean. We really ought to do something like this with the neighborhoods. Um this is complicated. I I helped write this thing and I understand about this much of it. It

174
00:53:00.640 --> 00:53:16.160
would be helpful if we could once sit down with the neighborhoods again and walk them through what it is and then get this kind of feedback from, you know, Mike Bill and uh and and and all the other uh Timber Ridge and and and and all the other neighborhoods. I think a session

175
00:53:16.160 --> 00:53:32.640
like this or a couple of sessions like this would be good as we iterate through this uh because this is an iterative document. It will continue to to be revised. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Any other And you guys don't have to

176
00:53:32.640 --> 00:53:47.840
talk. Don't you know, any other comments from the Planning Commission or thoughts? >> I'll just say that I appreciate everybody, both the developers and the residents come out and speak to us Uh sometimes. This

177
00:53:47.840 --> 00:54:04.080
especially on our regular meetings when one or two people show up. It's nice to have a an audience like this and it's nice to hear exactly what's going on and what people have thoughts about on the community. So I appreciate you taking time out of your evening to come and speak with us.

178
00:54:04.080 --> 00:54:19.640
And like Jose, I tend to agree with a lot of the comments that are being made. I think it's going to be tough uh needle to thread on how to sort of find a common ground or something that works for many of the

179
00:54:19.640 --> 00:54:35.680
residents that are seeing some of these complaints that you all have and specifically to the developers and attorneys in the room. Thank you for continuing to work with us and provide comments on things that are and aren't working. But I expected a lot more to show up honestly tonight and I think

180
00:54:35.680 --> 00:54:53.040
that means to me that from the professional perspective we seem to be doing things or the code seems to be working quite well. Um obviously there's always going to be things that we can tweak and improve or change based on what we're trying to accomplish with the code, but it

181
00:54:53.040 --> 00:55:09.800
um I'm glad that we are moving in the right direction. >> I think that we as we iterate through this though I it it is pretty complicated and as we iterate through it be it'd be really helpful if we could uh at least for me and I'll use the word I

182
00:55:09.800 --> 00:55:31.520
don't usually use for me if we could dumb it down a little bit so that I can understand a little better and again I wrote it. >> [laughter] >> I have problems with it. So if we could as we iterate through this if we just simplify it a bit that'd be great. >> I mean I'm not your best person.

183
00:55:31.520 --> 00:55:46.640
Okay. I'll I'll I guess I'll go. I guess so I'm just going to summarize a couple things I heard that I hope that we This is a work session, so I think I think it's like the idea that we can discuss um some key things, but you know, I think we've all noticed

184
00:55:46.640 --> 00:56:03.000
places where there are conflicts in the zone in the code where and the build to width and building with max is a great example of this where you have certain properties and it's like you can't adhere to both. And I just wonder if there is a

185
00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:18.280
a uh I don't know faster fix to that that wouldn't require a long kind of policy development exercise. Like are there other are there precedents from other cities where they have something like when these two things conflict, you go

186
00:56:18.280 --> 00:56:33.920
with this? Because we don't want people to have to go through the special exception process when it's like the code is clearly not designed for their their property. Like that should be on the city like codes to address. So that's one one thought.

187
00:56:33.920 --> 00:56:50.680
Um second one was was covenants. Um I don't know enough about real estate law to like actually know what covenants what powers they actually still have in 2026. Um there many covenants in the city that are, you know,

188
00:56:50.680 --> 00:57:06.840
that are racist covenants and there are many other kinds of covenants and I believe that they are not enforceable, but um it sounds like it's an issue with with um you know, the development process. So maybe getting some more clarity on what exactly they can still

189
00:57:06.840 --> 00:57:22.920
do today. Um sublots in the X zones. I guess I'd be curious if there's a reason why when the code was written we only did them in the R zones. Um and if there's not a reason, you know, it seems like if if we think they're a good

190
00:57:22.920 --> 00:57:39.160
option to provide I guess I would know why we shouldn't offer them in the X zone. Um and then I thought Valerie's comments were interesting about the um development plan, this kind of first in

191
00:57:39.160 --> 00:57:55.080
the process, then site plan approval, and the design approvals in the in the and the and the first step in the development plan. So, I guess like I'd be curious to learn more about that. And again, like I'm not a real estate professional, so I I don't, you know,

192
00:57:55.080 --> 00:58:11.640
design and build buildings. I I don't I don't know exactly how that process works, but I am sympathetic to the argument that does something comply with zoning is a different question than the kind of design review. Um and then yeah, I know we we heard a

193
00:58:11.640 --> 00:58:27.280
presentation from NDS about the kind of looking at student housing. Is it helpful to does to have that designation cuz we do have it in the code? Um uh for like something that's defined as student housing, or should we not have it? And

194
00:58:27.280 --> 00:58:43.920
um I know Matt that you don't have an update for us, but that's something that I I hope NDS will continue to work through and work with council to to hopefully address. So, that's it. Thanks everybody for coming and for for your comments. >> And Commissioner, I can

195
00:58:43.920 --> 00:58:58.880
since this is a work session, I mean I can I can touch on a few things. Um a few things I don't have the answer to, the covenants, answer to, you know, whether the the the student housing um update. Um the uh development code I'll kind of touch on.

196
00:58:58.880 --> 00:59:15.920
So, when we we did the sys uh the process, you have to have a final site plan to build. And so, a final site plan has all your zoning components, your development plan components, and your building components, your storm water,

197
00:59:15.920 --> 00:59:32.360
all those elements. The development what um what is the changes that went into effect is you can go development plan plan route, or you can go final site plan route. It's up to the applicant choose. A development plan was intended to be

198
00:59:32.360 --> 00:59:47.800
again quick. That would vest your zoning. You can't build with it. You can't do anything with it because you have not done your e- Hopefully the developer's done engineering, but that's not what we're checking. We're checking that it meets the zoning. And then if you get that approved, it's

199
00:59:47.800 --> 01:00:04.160
valid for 5 years. Within that 5 years you would come back and submit a sub final site plan. Um So it's up to the to the the applicant to decide. They can go straight to final site plan, which a development plan is part of that. So it's just in there. So it's up really to the applicant to

200
01:00:04.160 --> 01:00:20.800
decide which path they want to take. Um but there are uh As Valerie mentioned, there are concerns with when things are in an overlay district that can impact the zoning. And one of it being height. Um

201
01:00:20.800 --> 01:00:37.680
so if you did a development only plan, you went through all of that, and then you go to site plan, and you go to BAR to speak, and that is going to be two stories less than what you thought due to those provisions in the code that allows reduction by two stories.

202
01:00:37.680 --> 01:00:55.200
That that was our concern on staff side, you know, trying to be as hopeful that you're not taking something forward that could be an issue cuz it can you know, but but there are some very valid concerns that yes, it's very expensive if you have to start thinking about the uh development plan when you're thinking boxes and

203
01:00:55.200 --> 01:01:10.800
you're needing administration and finishing so you can really do it. The um the first one is talking about the um percentage and the width. That that is an issue, but it's not an oversight.

204
01:01:10.800 --> 01:01:26.520
The code is actually trying to get you to subdivide your properties. Um so whether whether we that's a just you know, a discussion to have. It is definitely worth having, but it's not it's not viewed as a conflict. It's actually intentional to to create smaller lots to break up a large

205
01:01:26.520 --> 01:01:42.920
building. But we are running into issues with especially in our very established neighborhoods and a very large lots, but that's what what it's trying to do. >> Thanks. And I think some of that comes from when

206
01:01:42.920 --> 01:02:03.320
I read this, it feels like a code that envisions a greenfield site and not a city that has established lots and established areas of this of the city cuz you take a

207
01:02:03.320 --> 01:02:17.560
several acre plot and you try to break it up, it makes sense to have the build to width and the build and the building max and the setback to the front to try to bring it to the street to the public. That all makes sense, but when you put it on a city like Charlottesville that

208
01:02:17.560 --> 01:02:35.240
started to develop in the 1700s or maybe even earlier, there's a lot of conflict that comes from that. >> Well, I think this is where I think it'd be helpful if if >> [clears throat] >> you know when the solution is to split the lot in half, if that presents another technical

209
01:02:35.240 --> 01:02:51.120
problem, it would be useful to get email to us that says this is what's happening and this is why we can't split the lot in half cuz maybe the lot size becomes too small at that point or something like that. Um so we can see these technicalities where it's got the intention of the code and

210
01:02:51.120 --> 01:03:07.680
yeah, where it's not working. Seeing the actual examples I think is helpful. Um and I to comment on the um sublots in the X zones, is my understanding the reason is because we don't have a minimum lot size. And we're saying X zone, I mean anything but R um doesn't have a minimum lot size. If that

211
01:03:07.680 --> 01:03:23.800
still presents a technical problem, it would be useful to know why that's a problem. But I think the the thought is cuz you don't have a minimum lot size, what's the point of having a sublot? >> So >> you would just subdivide it instead of use sub lots. >> I I think so. So, if there's some reason that that doesn't work, I think it would

212
01:03:23.800 --> 01:03:39.560
be useful to understand. Did I misspeak on that, Matt? >> Uh I don't know. We'd have to look into it more. I know it it could be creating landlocked parcels could be an issue or or but it it's definitely worth

213
01:03:39.560 --> 01:03:56.560
you know, >> discussion. >> Yeah, I'd be curious to know the downstream effects. >> That would be interesting cuz that was my understanding as well as because you have no minimum lot size on this. >> No, nobody can hear you in this. >> It's not just lot size. There's also rules regarding perimeter and

214
01:03:56.560 --> 01:04:15.640
>> Mhm. >> Well, again, I think this is where if if you guys have specific examples where it's not working out and it creates a really stupid condition, it would be useful to see that. Um other thoughts from public question.

215
01:04:15.640 --> 01:04:31.960
Josh, who do you want to talk? >> Well, I always want to talk. I was Yeah. Um I think a a general comment, um I I think Danny's list of things to go over is basically my list and more, but I want to make sure process-wise that we do

216
01:04:31.960 --> 01:04:47.440
Is that all these properties in some form? Like like Carl said, some of these we could really use follow-ups from who all spoke here so that we can make sure that we run these things down. So, these two on um on on last question in next zones, we

217
01:04:47.440 --> 01:05:03.520
can see some of the zones of automatic and why talk about it more. I don't want to add that. Um I think similarly on I I think I'm hearing somewhat different things from commenters tonight and from staff about the impact of the sequencing or different forking paths and how you

218
01:05:03.520 --> 01:05:19.360
get your approvals. It's over my head, but I want to make sure that we write it down to everyone's satisfaction. So, again, email about that that we can figure out that we can call it satisfactory at the end would be be There are things here that I want to make sure don't get dropped and those and more.

219
01:05:19.360 --> 01:05:36.040
Um, question for staff to respond to a question from the audience. The storm water reg study is is done is being done by the long long long range planner, is that right? Who's Who's doing >> Correct. That's part of the environmental study um to look at all of the environmental

220
01:05:36.040 --> 01:05:52.880
policies, not just things that like river slopes and storm water but all the all the policies as a whole. And out of that is looking at how would we handle if we went from our current 6,000 back up to 10,000, what would be make what

221
01:05:52.880 --> 01:06:07.000
what would that entail? >> So there was a question I think about whether that was ongoing and it is ongoing. >> My understanding is yes, it is continued, it is ongoing. >> Um, is that Okay, great. Um See. Oh, and then

222
01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:22.720
final point about both the um in Lufkin's student housing and it wasn't mentioned but I'll mention that um that there's there's consideration about um IZ and um tax abatements.

223
01:06:22.720 --> 01:06:40.080
These topics are not tweaks. These are big and important policy conversations that we need to have and they are interrelated. And then the commission and or staff got mail about this a few months ago about maybe some oversights or gaps in the calculations.

224
01:06:40.080 --> 01:06:55.160
The formulas feeding both of those topics I would love to I guess once we have a new NDS director resume talking about that collection of topics, not one but all of them together because they are interrelated. Um I I think there's a lot of interest in

225
01:06:55.160 --> 01:07:11.040
um changing or no longer having this student housing category. It's fairly confusing um but that might need to happen alongside changes to how we do IZ and in particular how we subsidize IZ or IZ

226
01:07:11.040 --> 01:07:30.560
required units. So, I know you all are short-staffed, but once that resolves, I would love to hear more about those topics together. Um, I think that's all I got. >> [clears throat] >> Um, thank you all for coming and speaking. Um,

227
01:07:30.560 --> 01:07:46.160
it was interesting to hear to me I thought we would get more builders and developers talking about like nit not nitpicking, but really difficult like really difficult like oh, we have an existing house and it's not the built-to width and we want to preserve

228
01:07:46.160 --> 01:08:02.640
it and, you know, um, and there are more people coming in I think about the recent zoning the new student housing projects going up that aren't necessarily little tweaks to the code, but a much

229
01:08:02.640 --> 01:08:17.480
larger, you know, kind of three-dimensional model that was kind of placed onto those onto the city. Um, anyway, so maybe there's something to be

230
01:08:17.480 --> 01:08:32.520
said about I know in the new zoning code these developers don't have to have a public hearing because they can do whatever the code allows. I mean, maybe there is something there to be discussed in some of these threshold like all of these projects are like exactly on the

231
01:08:32.520 --> 01:08:49.799
line between, you know, the West Main much taller buildings and the historic neighborhood. So, maybe there's something that can be discussed there. Um, cuz I know I've been in a lot of meetings where a lot of people are very upset and, you know, maybe it's just

232
01:08:49.799 --> 01:09:06.440
talking about like having them adjust some of their building to step back or some of the things I think that Elvit LV has ended up doing, you know, could have been um through the neighborhood discussion. I I

233
01:09:06.440 --> 01:09:23.400
don't really know the answer, but I know it's a big problem. Um The Oh, I had a couple other things just on my own, like things that I've heard. Um I would reiterate the um transparency

234
01:09:23.400 --> 01:09:40.160
um requirement and maybe looking at that um or at least maybe there's some way so it doesn't have to be a special exemption just to either reduce it or or say there's a discussion with staff about what I don't know, give staff some better direction so that you don't have to like

235
01:09:40.160 --> 01:09:56.040
individually talk to each, you know, person about it, but be like, "Hey, this is the range we're looking for." Or I don't something to open it up a bit um in terms of what's allowed to be the program that's allowed to be back there. Um

236
01:09:56.040 --> 01:10:11.440
>> You're talking about the active depth. >> Sorry, yes, the active depth. That's what I meant. Um The other thing um I had heard um in terms of uh funding affordable housing

237
01:10:11.440 --> 01:10:27.360
um and I don't think we've had many of these from private developers yet, so um that the LIHTC funding um would like all those units to be together instead of spread out, and there's discrepancy

238
01:10:27.360 --> 01:10:43.800
about that apparently, and so looking at um specific rules that are for affordable housing and making sure that those can move through because all of this density is supposed to lead to affordable housing, so making sure there's not any

239
01:10:43.800 --> 01:11:01.680
kind of um conflict there. Um And then I think lastly, this is beyond necessarily, you know, all the code cleanup, where I do think I I have heard little things from builders and developers, It would be great if we could get more of those like just easy

240
01:11:01.680 --> 01:11:18.920
fixes, not, you know, we have all these big policy changes. Um But but I love the neighborhood by neighborhood suggestion, and maybe there are other things that aren't necessarily written in code. Um for example, you

241
01:11:18.920 --> 01:11:34.440
know, between going down to West Haven in the LV, the discussion of that walkway that's going to connect West Main and LV. Maybe there are things in Fife, wherever there are more bridges, more connections, other things that neighborhoods are looking for that could

242
01:11:34.440 --> 01:11:51.480
be built in when a developer comes, rather than waiting for everyone to get angry and then trying to figure something out, but like proactive meetings with neighborhoods, not necessarily full-on plans, but going to each neighborhood and trying to hear what they want so

243
01:11:51.480 --> 01:12:07.240
that when they when developers come, there's some kind of um written document or list of things that people care about that they can see before they start making their plans. Um

244
01:12:07.240 --> 01:12:25.680
I think that's all starting now. >> Thanks. >> So, I think it was Ms. Parker that suggested that the communications between UVA and the UVA Medical Center and these

245
01:12:25.680 --> 01:12:40.960
surrounding neighborhoods is not what we want it to be. Um [clears throat] several years ago, when we were just beginning to think about redevelopment of our public housing properties, uh George Johnson and I went down to Greenville. Uh Greenville was just beginning to do

246
01:12:40.960 --> 01:12:57.640
redevelopment. And there was a hospital right smack dab in the middle of a um of an area like Fife, you know, an area like Tipton Page. Uh it was a Bon Secours, uh, owned hospital. And they were very, very involved in the

247
01:12:57.640 --> 01:13:13.560
redevelopment. In fact, they actually dedicated an office to support the redevelopment in in in Greenville. We, um, there is a doctor at UVA now. He's Dr. Tracy Downs. He's a urologist. But he's also their community outreach person.

248
01:13:13.560 --> 01:13:30.640
Um, I think Lloyd and I had, uh, uh, lunch or dinner with with him and, uh, when they when they what? Remember that? >> I remember that. >> Anyway, we had a conversation with, uh, with with them. And I think we really need to reengage them. And we need, uh, Ms. Parker and all the folks in Little

249
01:13:30.640 --> 01:13:47.480
High Hill to reach out to Dr. Downs as well. And I'll be happy to put you in touch with Dr. Downs, uh, too. To you begin a conversation. Um, he's interested in doing something like Bon Secours would do down in Greenville and and engaging UVA and the medical center and the the work that at least the

250
01:13:47.480 --> 01:14:03.360
housing authority is doing. Well, why not extend that to the rest of the, uh, uh, the neighborhoods like the 10th and Page and, uh, and Fife Ville. So, I just wanted to kind of throw that out there. And I thought I I'm sure Lloyd remembers it cuz it was a long evening. And, uh,

251
01:14:03.360 --> 01:14:18.800
interesting evening. >> Interesting evening. A few years ago, though. >> Yeah, yeah. I think you were the mayor still. >> A lot I don't know what one of the problems is with all the leadership changes at UVA. We need to reestablish some relationships.

252
01:14:18.800 --> 01:14:35.000
>> Yeah, we got to >> [laughter] >> right away. >> Final comments from any other planning commissioners? >> I'll just add to that. Um, and I think this goes back to the neighborhoods, the housing authority,

253
01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:52.240
um, also the sort of preservation Piedmont. Having those neighborhoods speak up. I know it I feel like all this it's like too late on the last two projects. So, It feels very I am just talking now, but but um in

254
01:14:52.240 --> 01:15:07.240
terms of UVA, um I know they're working on a they're going to have a nursing clinic at built into the new West Haven. There was uh some discussion of them helping to fund um

255
01:15:07.240 --> 01:15:24.160
healthy groceries in Fifeville if and when that PHA grocery store might sounds like it may not happen, but if it did. So, if neighbor, you know, like making that list and trying to really get those partnerships partnerships set up before a developer

256
01:15:24.160 --> 01:15:41.200
comes cuz then feel like it's too late. These things move through and um you know, and it's very hard to to stop that. Um so, to really like come with come at the beginning with these partnerships and find these people and

257
01:15:41.200 --> 01:16:01.400
have them ready to work with the neighborhoods. I think um somehow we could I don't know if it's us, but Beth, you know, starting to go out and have more of these neighborhoods would be helpful. >> I'm just going to add to Chairman or Commissioner Mitchell's

258
01:16:01.400 --> 01:16:16.440
comments um about the UVA health ones in particular. So, that people are aware, uh you're aware of it, but there is sort of an update to their integrate space plan for UVA health at K-Town earlier in the spring, so um I believe it's roughly a year-long

259
01:16:16.440 --> 01:16:33.120
process. They do have public members on that um uh some of that effort, um but as that develops, I don't have specific updates on it, but it's something um uh you know, I can look into to get more specific uh feedback to get out to the

260
01:16:33.120 --> 01:16:48.480
public, but I know they're in the process of trying to figure out exactly what the road map is and it's you know, directly tied to the fact they've had a change of leadership, so I think they're now going back and revisiting to see what the priorities are, um, and particularly how it impacts that immediate environment around

261
01:16:48.480 --> 01:17:09.000
the health system. I'm I'm happy to communicate those comments back and some of my colleagues to make sure that yeah, I know that the public outreach is a big component of it, so just again, I'll reiterate these words with >> All right, well, uh, thank you Oh, yep,

262
01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:25.520
one thing briefly. Um, I I've mentioned before, but I I I'd like to reiterate uh, value in reducing the need for special exceptions. We imagined this is being something fairly painless and affordable and fast, and boy, is it not. Um, so any any tweaks to make that less

263
01:17:25.520 --> 01:17:41.080
painful would be good for everyone, I think. Um, the uh, value in um, a positive vision for our uh, main corridors. I'm I'm thinking about Preston, I'm thinking about West Main.

264
01:17:41.080 --> 01:17:56.920
Um, we It's been a long time since we did a corridor study. I think it's been like 25 years. Um, these corridors seem important. These corridors seem to be something that brings us together. We have a lot of feelings about, um, that we have a lot of needs for, and there seems to be some money interested in investing in them.

265
01:17:56.920 --> 01:18:14.760
Um, so I I I'm beginning to see a value in corridor studies. Again, >> corridor study. >> The idea of preserving the neighborhood, uh, the the the Dillon rule was was mentioned, which is always a scary thing to say. Um, we have very limited options

266
01:18:14.760 --> 01:18:30.920
to offer preservation. Um, we can preserve individual buildings, yes. We can think bigger. >> We could do neighborhoods if we choose to. Historically, in our more diverse areas, our more affordable areas, we've chosen not to. It's hard, it's scary.

267
01:18:30.920 --> 01:18:46.080
Um, there aren't a lot of good examples to draw from. We would be building the good example. Expensive, difficult, take a long time, but not impossible. A question of resources, but not a bad idea. This is what I have. Thank you.

268
01:18:46.080 --> 01:19:03.480
>> All right. I guess I'll just say um Matt, I imagine you don't have an answer. This has turned into a policy question discussion here former tier three and with Osei having moved to a different department

269
01:19:03.480 --> 01:19:20.040
who or what is being done with those larger tier three items? >> So, they're still with the NDS director. We are still going to have a director. James Freeze is the acting director when Kelly leaves us this week.

270
01:19:20.040 --> 01:19:35.400
And we have a long range planning department division which is right now it's Dory Kanellopoulos is running that division. So, it's it is um these kind of policy things that with

271
01:19:35.400 --> 01:19:51.440
with with in that division with with housing and And again as I stated kind of in the beginning we're we're definitely here to collect. We're interacting with a lot of these different these different aspects. But our team is really on the on the the

272
01:19:51.440 --> 01:20:10.360
technical side. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you everyone for for coming. And again if any more thoughts come to your minds, just send us an email. >> Okay. >> All right.

273
01:20:10.360 --> 01:20:13.720
>> I have a quick question.