Everybody plugged in and ready? >> Ready. >> All right. Well, welcome to tonight's uh planning commission meeting. Um we're going to start with uh commissioner's reports.
I I have one. Yeah, I can kick us off. So, I have replaced Rory on the MOO tech committee and I had my first meeting um last week and a few things to report from that. So, um since I'm new to that
committee and I I know I feel like we use a lot of acronyms, I'll just give a little bit of background to that committee. So, the Metropolitan Planning Organization or MO is the federally designated body that uh coordinates primarily transportation planning for
the region. Um, and it has a staff obviously. Then there's a policy committee which is made up of elected representatives of kind of Almoro County, city of Charlottesville, uh, etc. And then there is a tech committee, the technical committee,
which is what, uh, a member from the planning commission serves on, which the the technical committee, um, kind of votes on things to recommend to the policy committee, which then actually adopts them. So, a lot like the planning commission, the the real power is one level above, but we recommend stuff to
the people with the power. Um, so we heard a couple of updates from uh the MO and VOTE. It's the transportation bodies attend. So, Department of Rail and Public Transportation, VOTE, um FHWA, FTA, etc. Um Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration. And um a lot of the conversation was on smart scale, which is the state's performance-based process for allocating funding to transportation projects. So most of these projects start out as a study, which then results
in a smart scale application. Um and the city, the county, and the NO are allowed to submit a certain number of smart scale applications. And then there's a formula that the state uses to basically rank these applications and
decide what gets funded. The current formula weighs congestion mitigation and roadway capacity fairly heavily. So it's difficult to win funding for smart scale projects if you're building a bike trail unless you can show that you're increasing roadway capacity somehow. Uh
so the current strategy since I think the city's uh goals and in many ways the county and the NPO's goals are to manage highway capacity while shifting trips to other modes like transit, biking and walking.
Um a lot of what they're focused on in these smart scale applications is finding a project that scores well with smart scale so it'll get funded. So it means it has roadway capacity but also has multimmoal elements like a path or something like that or a transit
improvement. Um so for example the ridge and McIntyre west main intersection is currently a study that VAT is leading uh kind of on behalf of the city which will likely result in a smart scale application and then um make its way
through this process. So um the tech committee and then the policy uh board are going to basically vote on what um on advancing certain projects to the smart scale application phase. So the the the ones the so the city is probably
going to recommend Ridge McIntyre West Main um which I we had a public meeting for that a couple weeks ago. Al Marl County has four and then there are five under consideration for the no which is um Route 29 and Barracks Road that um has some kind of sidewalk trail
improvements there off the offramps. Um the I64 and Fifth Street uh divergent diverging diamond interchange um which may or may not have multimmodal improvements. Uh the current status is that um VOTE doesn't think that they can
basically have a path crossing over the existing bridge there. Uh US29 and I64 is really more of a kind of highway safety and capacity project. And then there are two uh on the bypass uh US 29
250 off-ramp extension and on-ramp extension at Old Ivy Road which really is just a a sheer capacity project. has no multimodal benefits whatsoever. So, I think the plan is next month uh for the tech committee and policy board to kind
of vote on what should be recommended. Um, three quick updates. Um, the MO is going to resubmit a build grant application for the Roana River bike ped, which build is a federal uh grant program. They've submitted it multiple
times in the in the past. It hasn't been approved, but apparently the feds come back and say, "We think you should resubmit this as a great project." So, they're going to do it again. Um, the no is updating its travel demand model. Um, and it's where the I think the the the
future year it's planning for is 2050. And their modeling consultant presented um the demographic estimates for 2050 for approval. And just as an FYI, they're projecting that the city's population will grow by 13% to 57,000 by
2050. And this is based on Welden Cooper projections. Uh however, this is the lowest uh population growth of any of the jurisdictions in the region. So Alrello County, all the other counties are experiencing uh at least according to these future projections much higher
rates of growth, which I think is interesting um for us to to think about. And then the final thing from that meeting, uh, they presented the the unified, uh, planning work program, UPWP, which is essentially the NOS's, uh, budget. Um, and so just as an FYI,
it's 80% funded by the federal government. So, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, 20% from local. Uh, and that was that was that meeting. So, I went on for a while, but I think I'm done.
Mr. Sakes, >> I'm so sorry. Uh, I have two updates. Uh, one from uh, the school's capital improvement uh, planning meeting today. It is fresh on my mind. Uh, and also a legislative update. I will try to be brief. Uh, we talked about the, uh,
zoning update on field lighting uh, which is on our agenda today. Uh, that is not time-sensitive. Uh, although it is good to fix. Um, Oaklan PreK, uh, currently in legal limbo. We may see a year or more of unplanned delay. Uh, our
legal team is working hard on this with the university. Um, we will see. Uh, scholar solar on school roofs, which we've talked about for many years, appears to be on track, especially for the high school and the middle school. Uh, we have power purchasing agreements lined up for both. Uh, and then the
smaller schools. We're still figuring out a way forward. Uh the facilities plan is on track for about June uh which is related to HB334 sales tax for schools which passed the House and moves to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass a local referendum
here and it would generate $15 million a year in needed schools revenue that could be used for meaningful improvements, especially at Charlottesville High School. I see that uh Miss Kim Powell, the city schools uh chief operations officer, is attending this meeting uh and will be attending future meetings to better coordinate
between our two bodies, which I I personally appreciate. Legislative subcommittee already gave you a taste. Uh HP 1279, Faith and Housing, has passed the House with a one-year delay uh with LITC uh uh processes. Well, that's an additional year. So, we're talking about a two-year
total delay. Uh that goes to the Senate Local Government Committee. Um HB282, real property tax for Charlottesville, Falls Church, Fredericksburg, and Newport News uh from Delegate Coulson has passed the House and moves to the Senate Finance Committee. Uh that does
not include the county if we want to fund regional transit. That would have to go another year. HB88 zoning uh minimum off- streetet parking requirements has passed the House. That goes to the Senate Local Government Committee, very similar to what we've done here. uh SB454 housing near jobs
has passed the House and Senate also similar to what we've done here much more but I believe that's the the key stuff. >> Thank you. >> I would just report today that I attended the car foundation which is the local association of realtors
foundation. They held a they held a um lunch and learn for realtors where they hosted former commissioner Rory Sultzenberg and developer and land use attorney Nicole Scro to talk about the city zoning code.
Um there's a good discussion about how all this sort of impacts realtors and how they can think about it when working with land owners and property owners in the city. And there was a good discussion between the uh presenters and the crowd and I was
there to sort of listen and hear what people's concerns were. Um I got to go to BPAC last week. Um I I'll get this wrong, but I think BPAC either is advisory to PC or believes they're advisory to PC um or aspires to
but I'll describe the meeting some highlights for us. Um highlights to me at least. Uh there is now a publicly available um city portal on the uh paving schedule. So, if you want to know when we'll have a road uh reservice will be paved, that's information is we don't
think it's complete or fully correct, but it's there. Follow-up questions are going to public works. Um there's some emissions there like Rose Hill and Main Street that we'll look into, but it's it's a place to start. Um there is as PC
discussed I think last year um hope and also uncertainty about bike pad improvements to follow along with utility work on Main Street and Sharian Elliot. Uh a topic that that needs to be I think followed up here and elsewhere. um similarly
uh hope but also uncertainty and questions about um the future of the city's quick build program which I think before the two of us joined last year um PC discussed more money for quick builds in the CIP um I think there is at least
uh within BPAC not much clarity on how that program will continue in the medium and long term so things for us to think about as well um and yeah that's that's my highlights from meeting. >> No report
>> report. Um, uh, Commissioner Joy is not here, so there's no, uh, UVA report. Um, I went to the, um, V meeting last month. Um, we didn't have any agenda items. So, we reviewed our bylaws um and we reviewed
what con uh constitutes a major minor historic review and kind of the various levels of minor reviews um stuff that goes on behind the scenes um that we don't see on the BA. Um we do have a um uh landscape architect vacancy. Just
wanted to put that out there for the public. Um uh we also um briefly discussed um or maybe I brought it up but um in our there were when the zoning code was um redone certain things got moved out of
the ordinance into procedure procedures manual um and vice versa. And one of those items is um we um the BA only has 30 days to review a historic conservation district application. Um I had thought that was in our ordinance. It's actually in the procedures manual.
Um, this was something that was done by council when they uh created the um uh Wool and Mills Historic District. Um, the idea was that it would make um make things move along faster for homeowners. Um, the unintended consequence is that
if the BA for some reason can't form a quorum, items that are on um that are in a historic or fish that are part of a historic conservation district's review are automatically approved. So, we did have that happen last year where an item just got automatically approved. Um,
this seems like something that would be good to fix. Um, so I'm just, you know, bringing that up. But, um, anyways, um, all right. So, um, uh, the Department of NDS, do you guys have anything you'd like to report? I have two items from
the NDS director. One is that um the ADU manual and student housing study that you were given um you were presented with last meeting in January uh that's been published and the city is seeking feedback on it. It's published on
connectsharesville which is the city's new public engagement website that is connect.sharlottzville.gov and that's available for feedback through February 28th. Uh second item is that city council will hold a work session on the tax abatement study which was also presented to you in January and
that will be next Tuesday uh February 17th. All right. Um All right. So now um we move on to matters that presented by the public not on the formal agenda. Um because we have no public hearings tonight. Um you guys
can speak to anything planning commission related. Um does anybody like to speak? See nobody in the audience. Is anybody online that would like to speak? >> Sure. Anyone online would like to speak and raise their hand and I can announce
them for the commission. >> Mr. Sure. I see no raise hands. >> All right. Um we have no consent agenda. So um we're going to now move into a a work session um
to review the uh draft planning commission dates for 20 um our um work session dates for 2026 um and um talk about the next round of development code amendments. Um, do you guys want to introduce or
>> Certainly, Chair, I can. >> Okay. >> I'm going to try to take a bunch of notes. That's why I'm sitting over here, not going to come down and as long as y'all can hear me. >> So, tonight you're going to start first with uh reviewing the dates as part of your packet. There were was included just the uh planning commission regular
dates and work sessions. Uh, as noted, this is very draft. And because it's draft, there's actually been some changes that I would like to read into. So you can take notes on your sheet, but you just so you have the most up-to-date information, but that information I didn't want to provide it after the
packet had been posted. Um, so under work sessions for March 24th, you'll have the homeay short-term rental work session. Uh, in quarter 2 at your regular April 14th meeting will be the housing uh,
student housing in lie of fee and ADU manual. um work session. That'll be a combined regular meeting and work session. No work session, no no item listed for April 28th. For your regular meeting on
May 12th, uh there will be a presentation on the downtown mall uh action plan. At the May 26 work session will be your citywide mobility plan scope at your June. Uh currently there's no
items at the June regular meeting. June 23rd is a uh tenative bar guidelines or sometime in the third quarter. Uh so that's very general. And then also in for quarter number two, but no date has
been set is a work session for the NDS 20262027 department work plan that the director puts together each year. No firm date, but she would like to bring that forward sometime in quarter two. No items so far in your quarter three
work sessions. And for quarter 4, your October 27th meeting uh is open, but you'll have in November 24th your CIP. And typically the December 22nd work session is canceled. So those are are the general layouts.
this is an opportunity um for you to just kind of digest that if there's any, you know, specific things you're looking at at specific, you know, specific date or just in general quarters, you know, if there's something you'd like to you'd like to look at, uh this would be good time to to have that conversation. But
you could also work this in as you discuss the next two items on your >> So the uh the June 23rd meeting, the bar guidelines, what are we what are we actually trying to get done in that meeting? the preservation planner um has been
wanting for years to re-evaluate the V's guidelines and I think this would just be an opportunity to bring those thoughts forward to the planning commission. >> Okay. >> Do you have any general idea of what what's broken, what what we need to fix or
>> I don't know the ask yet other um the chair might >> um what items be there's The guidelines do need to be combed through for some updates. Um the uh there's a it has not been fully defined
yet. We need to actually >> I guess what what is our role? What is the planning commission's problems to updating the bars guidelines? >> I don't know exactly what our role would be for this work session. So I will confirm with Jeff what um what he's
thinking and make sure that this is a productive work session. Um I I did ask him about the June 23rd and he said he was um it right now it's just a date to make sure that there's a placeholder. >> Um >> didn't the doesn't the didn't the CIP
this year include money for a bar a bar guidelines update? >> Is there are there like a consultant is there a consultant study or something happening? >> I think step one and what we've been working on is making sure the scope is defined. >> And then hire a consultant to do that. Um we've we did do some discussion on
that. Um yeah, it's an item that definitely needs to be pushed forward. Um and it is dragging. So that may be part of why this is on our work session uh list. Um
all right. All right. And I guess as I mentioned the premeating, if we could, we'll try and coordinate with the county and hopefully use one of these work sessions for a city county um cooperative meeting. Um and um
yeah, I guess um well, any any other questions from you guys on this? >> I do. >> Okay. Uh the May 26 meeting says the citywide mobility plan scope. Is that to define the scope at that meeting or are
you taking suggestions from scope prior to that? >> Commissioner, I'm not uh sure. I don't have much information on this, but we can get you that information definitely prior to this meeting. Uh when we sent the request out, it was more just are there certain meetings you're wanting to
come forward to planning commission for a work session? They weren't providing much detail other than trying to find some holding dates. >> Okay. >> So we can get you that information. >> Sure. Um on the if if it's part of the mobility plan, I don't know that it needs to be a separate plan, but I would like to see a discussion on transit and
CAT on what the status of those are. Um there's some vision planning that has been done in the past and looking for updates on that front. And then um I would like to see and I don't I'm new to these work sessions. I'm not sure exactly what
defines a work session, but I would like to have us have a discussion on the neighborhood commercial ideas. Um I believe that's a big part of the comprehensive plan that for one reason or another isn't totally defined within the development code. So, I would like to
see a discussion there. And then based on some comments from previous work sessions that I've been paying attention to, maybe it's part of our discussion today or more related to the zoning text amendments, but there's been some suggestions about having larger
discussions about storm water and critical slope and how those may play a part or play together or separately. And that definitely the the last one could definitely be maybe an update that the uh NDS could provide as far as with
the environmental study where that is in the process. >> Sure. >> That's because that's one of the larger uh NDS work plan items that's that is ongoing. >> Sure. So yeah, if there's other places for those suggestions to go, that definitely makes sense.
I think I have a a similar question. Um I also don't I think it's not yet known it sounds like what the scope of the mobility plan scope work session will be. Um but unless this is explicitly going to be covered there and this could be combined with transit possibly. Um
there was a joint PC council work session I think in 2022 about ongoing transportation projects. Uh it's been it's been a while and I would like to have another one of those if possible. Um my my experience trying to track a given project or a network of projects
is you have to ask utilities about this and then about that and then guess about a third thing and I find it really challenging even putting a lot of time into it to figure out what what's on track, what's not, what's being built in a given year. Um, so I
would, if it's not too redundant with other things already planned, like to have a work session much like the one in 2022 about um ongoing transportation projects if we have time. Mhm.
>> Oh, yeah. >> I have four. >> Let's let >> go. You can go. >> Oh, you go. Okay. >> Let Matt finish writing. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Going to the transportation. I mean, we definitely, again, that could be uh you
could have um our transportation planner or and representatives from PWE give an update on funded and currently bidded out projects. >> If I can be a little bit picky, um tell
me if this is too much. Um I would I would specifically like to have representation from multiple departments at such a work session. Um because in my experience I I've been finding that um the different departments don't always
aren't always well coordinated and one thing I want to try to accomplish is to um make sure that that the that the plans from NDS public works utilities and anybody else that I'm forgetting about are are lining up. Um, so I I think for
example the experience at BPAC is that we can ask NDS staff about a project and often the answer is that's a question for utilities or public works and if you ask them they might say a different thing. So I I would like sort of a a joint high level overview of what's happening across those departments if if
possible. >> I think I uh commissioner I think that's fair. I would say um it would maybe be a good opportunity to have Ben Chambers speak. that position is fairly new which is integrated in both NDS and uh public
works just for that to make sure there's coordination and understanding across departments. So I think I think a work session is a good idea but I maybe would want to frame it more through Ben to make sure we're getting it uh the correct people in the room. >> Yeah, I I would love to have Ben be the point of contact but I do not I think it
wouldn't be a useful work session if half of our questions are answered by I'll check with a different department. I guess what I'm getting at is prior to a work session having a presentation from Ben so that maybe a work session could be >> Oh yeah. >> more tailored.
>> Yeah. Great. That sounds great. >> Uh go for Ly or who you go for. >> Thank you. >> You already told >> I think I'm singing the same song a lot of us are. Uh my first one is Transit with Cat. Uh it's a huge priority uh to
get a lot of our housing and and parking stuff done. We need functional transit. We just we're just not there. Um and I'm I'm not clear on why that is or or how we get there, but that that's crucial. Uh so this is something that we had in the legislative uh packet. Um and I'
I've talked with uh public work staff about it and they're supportive of the idea and I've talked with schools folks. Uh school streets. The idea is that some schools really matter to the function of our school system and some, you know, some streets aren't aren't as essential. Um, it it very much comes to mind with
the, you know, the ICE, like some areas when it's icy, the kids can't get to school. Um, we could map those, manage those, fund those, uh, and get that done. Uh, Paris is working on this. Uh, Canada started a program. Um, this is one of those things where if Charlott
doesn't do it, nobody's going to do it. So, we could do it. Are you talking about lower speed limits around schools or >> it could be speed limits, could be plantings? Yeah, it could be filters. Yeah, there's a million things. Or just intentionally managing things such that we can shovel it that you know that there's a a way a way to make it work.
Um play equipment. There's there's a million things you can do. Uh the World Heritage Trail. So, this is actually a class I taught last semester and I'm going to try and teach it again. Uh and the idea is a safe educational trail uh between the University of Virginia and
Montichello. We could bring in Pedmont Virginia Community College in there. We could bring in the middle school. Um there's a lot of you know downtown mall uh Jefferson school. There's a lot of potential ways to to make it work uh so that it is safe educational multimodal uh and of global interest uh and could
potentially draw, you know, national or or state funding. Um a lot of people excited about it but we should talk about it. uh corner safety and accessibility improvements. Uh this was another one that popped in the class. Um the corner
is of tremend you know there's tremendous pedestrian use uh limited bicycle use because of of safety issues uh and not functional as a a transportation corridor for transit or um uh private vehicles just because it it is so congested during rush hour. It
doesn't work. Uh the the 14th Street Bridge is very funny. Um, we could talk about that. Last one. I sat down with the uh head archaeologist of Alexandria. Uh, the entire city of Alexandria is an
archaeology zone as defined by state code. Um, which creates some problems. Um, but man is it good for archaeology. Just great. Um, we do have some areas of archaeological interest in the city. And I'm thinking of uh Swans Tavern. I'm
thinking of Stone Tavern. um cemeteries. Uh we're bringing that you muscle maybe of value. Uh I know um uh city staff have been interested in this topic. Uh we could talk about it. That's what I have. >> I will say um Jeff her has been very
good about anytime there's a demolition downtown or in any sensitive area, making sure there's a um uh archaeology component to that. But good topic. I just have one question um on the
dates. So if if we you know are approaching one of these work sessions and our regular session, there's like nothing on the agenda, do you think there might be opportunity to pull some of those work sessions up and use the use our main
meeting date for the work session so we have fewer meetings in the year? >> In theory, yes. I think because just how this the state has kind of changed some of its authority. I we anticipate actually planning commission having less regular meetings to handle the things it
used to handle in the past. Special use permits resonings. >> Um it just it would need to be thought out just because of the preparation and just the timing. I think we can use >> just as we are tonight we can use regular dates >> for work sessions. you just run the risk
of if suddenly there's a influx of applications and >> so it it can be just we just have to be flexible. >> Okay. >> All right. Last call for comments on uh our
schedule. All right. The development code. >> All right. I'm going to kind of combine these two uh and so that gives y'all more time to have discussion and I and we can take notes. But what I just wanted to give an update on the 2025
uh development code amendments, the tier one and tier 2. You held your public hearing last month that will be going to city council next Tuesday. Monday's a holiday, so it'll be at city council on Tuesday. Um staff has prepared the material to
actually go into effect at the end of March. that allows time for other act actions that are going on related to the anticipated code amendments that are connected to development review. We need time to make sure that that's coordinating with our workflows are our
and um changes we're making to the development manual. Uh but hopefully this will be the conclusion of the 2025 cycle. Um, and we are starting the 2026 cycle. In your packet is a very draft
2026 sheet, but this will be an opportunity not only to, as in the the the next item in the list, go over and prioritize the tier three items so that the director of NDS has a better idea of what's a priority to planning commission as she
puts together the 2026 2027 department work plan. But this is also an opportunity to give some feedback on the 2025 what we went through maybe what you would like to see as you notice in your um in the the memo it talks about uh
maybe having a subcommittee of one or two commissioners that is championing the 2026 amendments. Um so we'd love to get feedback on that uh as we scope out the 2026 amendments. It uh the idea being very similar. We're going to have
tier one, tier two, tier three. We're always collecting data, uh, collecting this information, but we would be moving through, uh, another batch of tier one and tier twos. Hopefully, not as many tier ones and keeping the tier two more focused, but this will give an
opportunity for y'all to help us shape that. And then, like I said, going into your tier three and providing some prioritization. So, with that, I'll turn it over to you, chair, so that we can um take notes, but I'm here to assist as needed.
>> All right. Um, so I think as we discussed during our premitting, we're going to try and go quickly item by item. Um, I do have a quick question um about the 2025 code amendments. Um, how is um
how is that being advertised to developers and the community that there's a new code to download? So, there'll be an email going out tomorrow just keeping um stakeholders involved that is going to another public hearing >> and then we'll be using that time between the public hearing and when it's
in acting to do some education, >> but then we're really going to be ratcheting up the education portion of this. We've been doing that at our pre-lication meetings, letting the developers we do deal with a lot know that there are changes. Here are the general changes >> um that are going on based on the
development code amendments and our process. It's it's an ongoing education process. >> Okay. All right. Um well, all right, let's uh get started. So, we've got um tier one uh the um item
A1 is uh I assume that's just you guys are going to try and that's just going to be adopted next year. Yes, it's it's not it wasn't something that is was super pressing, but it's something we hope we can fix. It's an annoyance.
>> Um all right, so B1 um talked about sight distance triangles um on the 2026 list. Any questions, comments? >> What are we um are we uh we going uh
item by item, page by page? And if we are, what page are we starting on? Oh, we're starting on page um 23. So, in the 26 I I I did this myself last night. Make sure you're looking at the 2026 table, which is in the second half of our packet. Okay.
Um so, yeah, page where I every one of my Yeah, page 23. Here we are. Of the PDF. >> Put it up on the screen. You >> could. That'd be great. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um B2. Uh were you raising your hand or were you just Sorry, I thought I saw I see confusion on your face. >> Yeah. >> Um do we want discussion on B1?
>> I Is there any discussion? I'm fine with letting staff do what they're doing. >> That's my perspective. Well, I'd like to see what staff come up with. >> Okay. Um B2 was uh B10 on the list. Um and it's graphics. Um, sounds like that's just
going to get fixed. Um, I want to note that, um, I don't believe B15 from 2025 was resolved. So, that's not, um, not listed in this list anymore. And that had to do with how height bonuses
are um are achieved for the RC district. I think we we had a B15 item, but that wasn't part of it. and that was or that was supposed to be part of it and I think we ended up resolving something else in the process. Um so in
the RC district um there is a height bonus allowed but it's um based on I think the rules that go with all the other districts and not based on like RB and RA. If you have more than one unit you're allowed a height bonus.
So, I don't know if that got forgotten or if we did resolve it someplace. So, uh, chair, we did have a B15. Was it a one pager that went through in the >> Yeah, but I think we we we did resolve
something to do with the height bonuses there, but I don't think we resolve the fact that the RC district, it still doesn't define how you get that bonus. >> We added in, >> and maybe I misread. So we added in a
under under proposed language for section 344.2.2 C.3. We added a new 3.D which says projects in the residential district. So it didn't call out each district just R. So it covered the RC.
>> Okay. >> Um or residential neighborhood core are in district. >> Sorry you did. Thank you. Okay. Yes. What was I looking? Oh, there's two pages. Okay, I'm sorry. >> No worries.
>> Um, thank you. Okay, that clarified that. Sorry about that. Um, all right. Um, B3 was B20 on the list. Um, linking requirements. Um, okay. So, 2026 list. Um,
any comments? Keep moving. Um B21 I think was another one that maybe I missed it but I don't think we fully resolved it. And that was you've got a um a sentence there that says um calls for a fence type X. And I think that was
just a typo that I don't know if we picked that up or not. Um, so B21 is let me scroll out of that. Um, B7 actually it's not in our packet from
last month. Um, it was supposed to be include. So, we had a whole bunch of changes that we did to the fences um and how we define fences, but they're still under the um um accessory was it uh yeah, under
accessory uses for outdoor storage, um there's a requirement for a fence type X and I think that was supposed to be included as far as the fence updates and it it didn't get included in that. Let me do some digging to see if that got I see it on the 2025 list crossed
out. >> Yeah, >> I'm trying to figure out why. >> Um I'm Well, let that go into the minutes for I think that's an easy fix. Um or it's you maybe you already caught it. >> If we didn't catch it, we will >> Okay.
>> catch it for tier one. >> Uh B4 was B22 finish grade. Um do you guys think that you're going to be able to include that in 2026. It sounds like that one needs some
some thinking. >> That's fine. >> Sorry, I'm making it do some PDF gymnastics. It's all right. Uh, chair, can you give me that number again? >> Um, it was uh B22 on the 2025 list and
it's B4 on um 2026 had to do with um how finish grade is defined. >> Yes, this was c there's a graphic that doesn't line up with the uh actual language. Um, so we're not sure. We It's just we we haven't investigated enough
to know if it's an easy fix or >> Okay. >> So, can I just ask a clarifying question? So, this means item B4 is on the 2026 2026 tier 2 list of item of things to work
on. >> So, it's not tier three or anything. >> No, we'll use B4 as an example. So, on the 2025 list, it appeared as B22. I just wanted to keep the numbers >> so for when we were doing the the history, >> okay, >> to be able to connect it. >> All right.
>> And I think we got some comments via email after that one session where builders and developers gave feedback on finished grade. I don't know if it's if this is just like a graphics fix, but I I remember hearing from a couple of architects, I think, just about some
difficulty around how where do you define the the grade or finish grade? Um, so is is this just a graphics fix or is this a bigger question about how do we define
the the grade or I think I don't know if that's the right word. Well, and I think that's why it was basically labeled as it is, like we need to do more studying. Okay. It it's brought up as an issue, but we have not fleshed out the exact issue. We know there is a graphics issue where the the graphic talks about um
finish floor elevation. It's in the the actual code language says finish grade. >> Okay. >> So, there's a disconnect. We know that's a disconnect, but we haven't studied to see if there's other issues going on with this. I believe there were comments at maybe that meeting or a different one also as
well about just the code doesn't really match with the topography of the city. We have very rolling and like think about Belmont or >> other areas of the town that have some rolling topography and how the code doesn't really match with that. Is that part of this discussion or is that a separate one? I think that's more of a
broader discussion as far as um because that's tied into, >> you know, the the way that if you have a steep site, it forces you to break a project down into multiple pieces, >> right? >> Um and I feel like that's leading more into more of a philosophical is that what we want type question, which is
fair game for this. Um >> but that >> I'm going to assume that's going to be a tier three sometime. But is that but is that currently on the like is that philosophical question on the list somewhere? >> I that's a good I don't think it's on our it's on the list of development questions but I don't think it's in the
tier three list that we've currently got. And yeah, if we want to add that that would be something to >> why don't we make I don't um let's make note to make sure that if we can talk about whether we want that in the tier three or not. So um
topography and uh height definition and whatnot. Okay. Um yeah, I guess I my thought on the on the finish grade is just I don't know how much of a problem that is for you guys,
but I guess you guys as you're reviewing these projects would would know if it's holding things up or not. Um B5 was B23. Um, and it has to do with um
um I guess this language for um the special except exception process and I'm it sounds like you guys are on top of that. So um >> I have some things on B5. >> Okay. Uh so broadly um the old uh um I'm
moving free what it's called um this thing that that is covered by B5. Oh critical slopes here we are um it it is older than current state code. Uh it is it was was terribly innovative but it's just it's just old. Um so quite a
bit of it is duplicative with state code now which does does exist which is great. Um the rest of it we have sort of standard language that we apply to every project which is good that we've developed that um but in in terms of process since we always say the same
thing we we aren't really adding any value. It's we we're just you know copy paste every time. Um could we move this standard process to a non-discretionary administrative process where the same thing we say every time is applied without a public hearing. Just it just
happens. let the staff do their job. >> I I would agree if there's more things that we could make administrative, I think that would be better. Um, and I'd be I mean, if staff has time, I'd love to
see what they think would be appropriate items to move to full administrative review versus um a special exception. Any other thoughts on that? Isn't there not even Isn't there not even tier three about making some special exceptions less exceptional? Is
that related or are they distinct? >> I think that's somewhat related maybe. Um you said that is in tier three. >> Yeah. >> All right. So let's get to that. I think that makes sense to to look at. Um
trying to think. Um no that is covered there. Uh I was going to say B 33. I thought we left off. It looks like it got moved to tier three. Um B6 was B37. Um yeah uh allowing more things to go
straight to um building permit review. Um, Lyle, is that what you were just talking about or is this this is a little different? >> Do we have thoughts on that or we just let staff do what they they think is best? >> Okay.
>> Um, B7, what does Back up real quick? >> Yeah. >> In the comments here, staff says they're looking at two options. keeping the current policy or basically the current policy which is allowing one and two units to go straight there versus allowing anything in the R
district to go there. Do we want to opine on a preference for their two options? >> I think because it's how it has to do with how staff reviews things. Well, I guess yeah, I don't know.
>> So, a little background on this. So staff wanted to be as ambitious as possible. When you look at uh zoning compliance, zoning compliance can happen uh under the code changes that we hope go in effect at the end of March would
be codifying the one and two family going which is our current policy going straight to building code. But there is a zoning compliance that happens at building code. So on the zoning compliance side, we could do that at different levels. It doesn't have to be
its own process and so that there are communities around the country that do they allow more things to go straight to building permit. Um and they do their zoning compliance as part of the building permit review. Uh we would love to get there. We don't think we're quite there uh as an organization yet to make
that work, but it's it's something we would we're going to keep trying to work at to break down barriers. Uh some of the problems just we're running into just you know as as uh we explored this was just some of the uh going anything
more than two units is commercial from a building code standpoint. So that creates some challenges just on staffing side and doing it at the building permit side. So that is would be the goal is to how could we get more things through the
process faster that are that are creating more housing units in the city. Uh but we just don't think we're really the maybe at the place yet where we could say all all our districts. Um so that's why we kind of scale back but it's still a conversation we want to keep having
>> and at the end of the day whichever thing happens the same stuff will be reviewed. Correct. Correct. Correct. >> So it's not like we're having a lighter review for >> the our districts. It's just a different faster process. >> Correct. It's just instead of going through a development review pro review process then a building
>> permit process, we roll in the zoning compliance with building review. >> Okay, makes sense >> because the the distinction between a minor and a major development review is also at the two to three unit barrier.
Correct. So the um code amendments that are going forward next week, one of them is to actually go to a uh strict development plan which is just a zoning compliance uh which you'll get more more people get
value out of it. Larger developments where you're trying to get a plan vested for a large development so you can go to a bank and say the city can't change the zoning on me while I'm exploring making sure this is constructible. Um, and then doing major and minor site plans. And
minor site plans would be additions or anything that does not require a vemp plan. It's would be able to go through the process quicker and be cheaper. Um, the the review times have not changed yet. That's going to be one of our next
steps in our process as we evaluate this. But it would be cheaper than doing a um final site plan, like a major final site plan. Sure. >> So, it sounds like staff is working on several fronts on trying to get this faster. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And doesn't necessarily need our feedback, I don't think. >> Exactly. >> Um, uh, B7 was B39. It's just how individually protected properties are represented. This sounds like housekeeping. Um, any concerns? Nope.
Okay. Uh, B8 was B41. Uh, required bicycle parking. Um, so whether we are requiring too many bike spots for hotels or not. Um, do we have opinions on this? I don't feel like I know enough to
>> I mean this is also a tier three discussion I believe. Uh, not specifically to hotels but bicycle parking above four units more generally. >> Um, yes. Yes. >> I think it's I think they're >> I think they're distinct, right? This is
about hotels and the other is about sort of the opposite about exceptions for smaller develop small residential developments. So is staff considering those items together or separately? >> Separate. So there is how you calculate what you need is very much just residential commercial and hotels are
considered commercial. There's not there's no nuance. Um the other question on the tier three is just we exempt requiring bike parking for you know got any residential development less than four units. And is that it's something we want to continue doing?
>> So it is two kind of distinct questions. >> Okay. >> I >> I mean it makes sense to me how many people are riding bicycles to hotels. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Like from a practicality standpoint.
>> So basically, yes, staff were saying move ahead with figuring this out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and uh B9 is the new one on food trucks. Um, and I mean, do we have concerns or
thoughts on um I I was a little confused about somebody said that only one food Well, yeah. Does our code really say that only one food truck is permitted per lot? Yes, it's a temporary use. And so this is more about >> food courts where food like so the how
the Oregon ordinance is written right now. It's about I'm going to go park on a street >> or for a you know and sell out of a truck, not what we have basically like at at at um high and the bypass where
they're continuous parking there. And so it's just a do we as a city do we need to explore that? We need to explore a different model than currently what's in our code. Our code is just it's a temporary use. You're supposed to be leaving in the evening. It's per one food truck per lot. >> Uhhuh.
>> So, it it's it's more of just it's a use we're not capturing. Is it something are we are we fine with our current code and we move on or is it something we should explore where this this type of use is different really than what's currently
in our code? So, just to be clear, if somebody if my neighborhood had a block party on private property, we could only have one food truck on that property. Is that what this is saying? >> That that is what our current code says. It says that is you get one permit per
truck per lot. >> Could you not permit the entire food truck lot and then have various number of food trucks in that one lot that's permitted? It has to be permit per truck. >> That's how it's written out. permit per per truck because it's a temporary use
and it's just how the tempor it's how the temporary use section is set up. It's not it's not necessarily calling out per truck. It's when you go to the temporary uses, it's talking about temporary uses are per lot >> per the one use. Um >> it gets it gets a little complicated, but breaking it down is just yes. Our
our temporary use for when we talk about food trucks is supposed to be one permit per one truck per one lot. Interesting. So this means that we can't have a food truck court >> currently right now. No, that is not permitted. Okay, >> that's a problem. >> Or just a private event or wedding or
something where somebody wants to have food trucks. >> Yeah, >> I mean it's a problem. >> The uh comment here has the idea of breaking it into an alternative form. This feels like an alternative form specific to a specific use.
I think I would prefer to avoid that designation. Is that how I'm reading this correct? >> I I I will say this is very new. Staff has not done a lot. They were just >> trying to capture it and trying to capture at least where you know how it could maybe be resolved. But
>> again, we feedback from planning commission can be not an issue. We like how our code is or we we staff has come across this several times where um an applicant has come forward and wanted to do basically a a food court. Yeah. Um and we basically
>> so an example a practical example would be the uh court at the base of High Street and and Long Street. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Would that be a violation based on our code today? >> Correct. >> Yeah. I mean food truck courts are to me
amazing temporary uses of vacant lands to try to revitalize or bring some community into areas that have a little bit of vacant land. I would hate to restrict it to one trail. Is there anybody here who agrees with the current restriction? >> No. Okay. So, that's that's some
direction. Um is >> um I'm most familiar with the example at the university where there's there's an area where you can go and there's a lot of food trucks there and it's lovely, very very popular. The um
could this be an option on public property? I'm thinking of parks specifically. I mean, I think it could be an option. It's just a m What we're really getting at is staff resources to dig into it to solve it. You know, is that is this high enough priority?
>> Um or or not. Uh yeah, I >> feels we can come to a solution. I just don't know how much uh time and energy would would take. >> Ly >> uh has economic development waited on
this? This sounds like their kind of thing. >> They'd like to see them. I mean, they uh economic development is part of our pre-application meetings. They were part of this where this one kind of came up where someone had an idea and we had to kind of say it's not permitted in the
code. >> Mr. Chair, I think this is worthy of a deep dive to things that need a deep dive. >> Deep dive. And um do we well do we consider it a priority or uh >> I think it's worth it. >> I think it's worth it.
All right. So, B9, make sure it Okay. Um, outdoor amenity space. Uh, it's currently just a flat percentage and doesn't take into account the quality of the space.
This sounds like important but not a priority to me. I don't know about you guys. >> There's a lot of things I would do before it. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, no disagreement. >> I mean, are we getting a lot of outdoor
amenity space? That's just blank space. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. What we're getting a lot of is this grass area right here. I'm counting towards my amenity space. >> Don't love it, but I don't hate it. >> Yeah. I I kind of, to be honest, think the whole outdoor amenity space is a
weird requirement. We have public parks and to require someone to have a a little tiny playground that probably won't get used on their property is silly, but that's that's just me. >> Deep dive. >> Yeah. >> What what we're getting under the code right now is you're you're required to
have a percentage. >> Sure. And it it it really I won't say it's an afterthought, but but developers are looking for what space they're not using >> and then just carving that and calling this shape their outdoor amenity space.
And just it was staff's thought, would we get better amenity space if we were able to tier them that um if you were providing, you know, an amenity space at X level, you only need to do 2%. If it's at a less level, you're providing more because it's not,
>> you know, necessarily active. But that was kind of the thought behind it. >> I think it's a nice idea to I just think we have other things that Well, unless anybody else agreed is okay, I know I'm I don't mean to be,
you know, I feel like I'm pushing all my opinions. Um someone reading through all these uh >> before uh >> chair before you jump on I will say that this is a living document and we did have add one more and that's why it's not packet but I can just read it to you. Please do
>> because you'll see it in future things. It'll just be on the list. Like I said, we're capturing all this stuff. And but one thing that's come up is so under our current code, uh you can be on a private street or a public street. And under our old code, all our private streets were connected to town home developments. So,
we didn't get a lot of private streets. >> But under this new code now that you can have private streets, nothing in the code though speaks to a private street being a dedicated parcel. So, it could be technically a dedicated easement over
a private parcel, which creates a whole bunch of issues. We haven't run into it. This is one we're trying to get up in front of. >> We haven't seen it yet, but we could see issues because our code speaks to not only in some areas it speaks to property lines, but other areas it speaks to edge of a road, a street,
>> which if that road is a private street only within an easement on a piece of property, it creates a lot of frontage, build issues. And so staff is suggesting some lang basically language in the definition of street about a private a street being either a
public rideway or private dedicated parcel not an easement. >> Okay. >> I think that makes sense. It it's one I feel like we actually probably could do at tier one, but and it's >> can be looked at in the future by
planning commission, but it's a new one added recently. >> Okay. Um, and that doesn't uh I'm thinking to some of um uh I know Habitat was always trying to do private streets and there were some issues with them being
taken over by the city as public streets. That this is a different issue. >> This is more of an issue of imagine you have a um one lot. >> Yeah. >> And you run a private easement right down the middle. >> Mhm. And our code speaks to things about
the property line, but edge of street. So now if somebody wanted to put a building, how are you trying to measure uh your bill too, which speaks to property line if that's bisected and it it'd be better if it we didn't allow >> p e, you know, access easements to be
streets, not preventing you to do an access easement, but we just wouldn't count that as a private street. It needs to be a standalone parcel. >> Okay. >> Uh and this kind of came out too in speaking to the attorney's office. So, I think we we have language. I'd feel comfortable putting it in tier one, but
um I just threw it on tier two to be a placeholder. >> Okay, I think that makes sense. All right, tier three. Um All right, so we got C1. Um
what was this? Uh oh, height based on unit count. So, am I right? C1 and C2 are kind of com connected. um somewhat >> they are but it appears that staff please sees two has been resolved.
>> Yeah. Um all right so we'll see one um so building heights for the yeah we did have this discussion whether it's um a single building with multiple units or multiple buildings on a single parcel
whether they can uh qualify for the um uh height bonus. Um do we have thoughts or concerns? Yeah. My recollection was our intention was for the height bonus to apply regardless
of how they're sliced up in terms of lot that if you are building them in a way that benefits the public there should be a height bonus. >> I that's I believe that's how I remember that as well. So this is basically saying if you have
a current building with one unit and you put a second one that second one can get the question is whether or not the second one gets the height bonus. >> Um yeah or it's let's say in even if ignoring whether there's an existing building or not. You've got something in
the RA or RB zone that you've got >> um two houses on a piece of property. Um, is it one or more that we get the bonus or is it Well, whatever triggers the bonus. You got three houses on a piece of property. Um, and they're all
separate. There's space between them. Do they all qualify for extra height or is it only if they're combined together into a single building? Does that get extra height? >> And I think what we were leaning towards was it doesn't matter whether it's a single building or three separate
buildings, it you got three units on that parcel. They should have the extra height. >> Yeah. My recollection is that council when they were deliberating over this, this was almost like how do we not have mc the mansions like McMansions. It's
like if you build one unit, you can't build a massive tall building, but if you build m if it's multi-unit housing, you can get the height. And so, and I I agree with with what others are saying about like the idea here is is to not
allow you to build one big mansion, but you can build multif family housing that has a bigger size. And so, who cares how many buildings you do it in on that lot >> because they're probably going to have smaller footprints, >> right? Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, so I um I don't know if that's a super big priority, but it seems like it would be nice to get fixed and seems simple. >> I I will I uh we actually were talking about this the other day. I was trying to pull it up before I spoke. I think
this actually got fixed accidentally through B5 too because we added when you look at B5, we added the definition of building primary and it says the building or buildings occupied or designated for the primary principal use
on a lot or site. So it kind of covers that you have multiple build you know if you have multiple buildings on a site then it would be mult be multiple buildings. So well I guess the other question that came with this was also with like
maximum length of buildings. Um, so if you have a string of town houses that are part of a single site but span multiple parcels, are they one building? In which case they um, you know, in an RA district
they're limited to 40 ft, which is basically just a duplex. >> So by adding the and site, so now we would consider the site for the multiple buildings. um for that primary use. So,
let me let me gather because this is this weird thing because you can either you can either have one or the other. You can't we've had some developers try to argue one and then back to the other. M >> um so if you had a townhouse development
>> Mhm. which is the site and you're going across multiple lots because that townhouse development, you know, six a row of six. >> Um, you'd get the height bonus now because that's the site where that was where the
problem was where you were looking at that that was an apartment, we would have given you the height because it was one building on one lot. Um, but if it's town homes, you weren't getting the height because you were one building per each lot, but you could have been that 60 foot width. Uh, I think with the
update where it would allow now that's a site instead of just a lot. So that's multiple buildings on a site. So they get the extra height for for town homes, but the width is still measured by lot.
episode under let me pull up an actual >> interesting I don't know that I don't know that I like the idea that just because you spread projects out on a single site over multiple lots that they would get the bonus height. That
seems backwards to what we're thinking. >> Did I say that correct? Well, I think but again, I think the council discussion on this was like pretty focused on preventing mansions. I'm just going to say it that way. >> And so, if you've got town houses across
multiple lots, you're not building mansions. >> No, you're not. But they don't necessarily have to be town houses for it to be a single site, right? >> Yeah. You could do the >> just a multi >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. It's a hard thing to to kind of fix. And we this this is where that
>> I feel like that went backwards to what our intention might have been. >> But like who's is someone really going to use this as a loophole to build a mansion? Like they'd have to build multiple mansions. >> Yeah. Like the you just said the cool tower. >> That's true.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, the example you look at is you have a single you have a lot, one lot, >> and you have a single family home on it, and you want to build a single family home in the in the back. Mhm. >> So where where we're struggling is yeah, you probably going to get that larger house because now they could build it
higher because it's >> it's multiple buildings on a site and not just one building. >> But the trade-off is the whole kind of conversation with with the the town homes versus an apartment where physically it doesn't look any difference. If you looked at a row of
town homes, that wouldn't look any different if there's property lines running between them to >> break it up or it's, you know, to be town homes or not. So, it is it it is difficult. And I I remember from the work session we had at city works, >> you know, this this was a hard thing to
answer, but one of the things I think I was hearing from the commission was the trade-off is units are units. Even though, yes, you might get that larger house in the back, >> it's still a unit. Mhm. >> But it's still But it's also they're
sharing a single lot. Where I'm getting a little worried is now it sounds like they don't have to share a lot to get the hype bonus. And I think that's what you just told me. >> Well, if you were doing a develop I mean the the site would be the six >> Yeah.
>> lots of town homes. That's >> And we have a minimum lot width in the RA and RB districts. Correct. So if you did a townhouse that was is it 40 feet or is it what's the minimum lot width >> is the minimum or the max
>> minimum minimum. >> So in the R it's a percentage you know it's 65%. >> Not the build to width but the minimum the lot width >> the minimum lot width
>> is uh 40 is your front access and 25 is your side or rear. Okay. So, theoretically what we're saying is we could have a string of six town houses that are each one is 40 feet wide and gets a net gets the height bonus as
well. Um >> well the maximum width is 60 ft. >> So we are saying that you're limited to the maximum width building width. >> Yeah. >> Well then that also seems silly because in RA that means you can only have
duplexes, you can't have town houses. And we've just made this whole attached dwelling unit thing to allow town houses. >> No, the sickness. So that that that you're massing your building width is per lot.
>> Okay. So all right then. Yes. So you've got your lot is 40 ft wide. You have a string of 40 foot wide lots. Each townhouse, someone decides they want to build these massive town houses that are 40 feet wide and they can go on indefinitely
and they get the hype bonus. Is that what we're doing? That is what we'd be doing because it would be >> okay. >> That's I guess that's where we would need to figure out did we not want because it's it's making those two work is going
to be very difficult without getting kind of this trade-off for the height. But it seems like if someone were to actually do this and build a bunch of 40 foot town houses that are extra tall, like I seems like that seems okay to me because you're not building you're not
building I I don't know. I just think I also am like I I think it's a strange thing to try to do with a zoning code to make it impossible to build mansions but possible to build big apartment buildings. Like a building is a building. So, I think airing on the side
of allowing you to build stuff seems like a seems like the priority here. And I I think I see a difference between a string of 40 foot wide town houses than than like mansions that are huge single family homes. >> But I mean, you could also just your
site is a you know, single development that's built all at once. Correct. So could you do could a site consist of six parcels and each one has a single dwelling unit on it that gets the height bonus? >> Yeah, but like how many how many part how many how much land in the city is
there where you could build like six mansions? >> It's fair. That's fair if I mean so >> and I will say if someone staff would not if someone said I'm going to do in a subdivision. >> Yeah. >> We wouldn't consider that a site with single family homes.
>> Okay. on that we would say no that is per lot. We wouldn't say you get that bonus height because you just came in and built six single family homes on individual lots. >> Um it's but it is different for a townhouse because it's being built at you know at once.
>> Are we we okay with this? >> I'm all right with the trade-off. >> Okay. Well then we may have just actually killed one of these items. >> Is there agreement down the board? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I will say that item C13 has to do with the definition
of a site being only the land and not what's on it. We were just using site to incorporate the building. >> Well, and because um lot and what staff had added to that language for 2025,
primary building being a lot or or site. Um so trying to add that in what 13 13 is about a site modification >> that is let me let me go to the code some of this have to do some
I think this has to do with what triggers a certain type of review. >> I think >> it does, but I just want to make sure we're using site when we're talking about this town home example with tall town homes
>> that according to this that site is only the dirt under the town homes. So on 78 which is about the different type of activity site modification any modification of an existing site that affects less than 50% of the
existing site area up to commentary was Yes. I mean, and staff's recommendation is change the definition of site to a single lot or group of connected lots or improvements.
There was just concern that um for site modific language could be not as strong as it could be. >> I guess I'm just asking when you guys review this just to make sure that those two things are working together.
>> All right. So hopefully C1 and C2 have now been knocked off the list. Um we'll see if the site thing changes that. Um looks like C3 has already been taken care of. Um C4
um you guys say it could be a tier one change then let's let's make it a tier one change. um seems simple enough so that a deck is not considered um
part of a primary building. Um C5 um lots having vehicular access from a street other than a primary street or not having vehicular access at all unless meet the minimum width required for lots of other vehicle with other
vehicular access specified by the zoning district. I'm confused by this one. Is this an issue? Or is this just some someone thinks there's a clear way to write it >> if it's
>> Yeah, it says from any street other than a primary street >> or having no vehicular access at all. That leaves a pretty broad set of access points that that covers >> which
is side or rear access, right? >> I think I wonder think it maybe is just adding that side or rear. I this seems like a if it does need clarification, it seems like it's a pretty simple,
but we might need more more information, but could move to tier one maybe. >> Okay. Um C6, uh looks like it was resolved. Um C7, midblock pedestrian pathways. Seems
to me I mean I appreciate the devils in a detail but seems like this could be a tier two. I mean because it's based um we arrived at this based on an erroneous assumption. The assumption being that you know there's only one primary uh street
frontage and around town there are many with more than one primary street frontage. is the fact that it needs study just that it >> I wonder what what are you gonna study? I mean why why isn't this again devils in details maybe missing something but
>> not a whole lot to study. We can just smooth this to tier two and move on. >> I mean I agree unless there's a the there's something in the code that it's tangled up in some other language. That's what I'm wondering. >> Uh I can't think of any. I mean we can move it to tier two if it starts to
unravel. We can always >> okay >> kick it to tier three. It seems great. Seems simple enough. Um C8 already resolved. Um C9 that seems super easy. Um without any
discussion required is Can we move that one up? I mean that looks like just housekeeping again. >> Um okay. Okay, so here we go with the projects with um so C C10 projects with 1 to four dwelling units are not
required to provide short-term or long-term bicycle parking. Um do we have an opinion? >> My opinion is that things with one to four dwelling units are going to be primarily in the residential districts
and building anything is already difficult without layering on more requirements. I think if this is a If we were to expand this to the discussion that we sort of alluded to earlier is with the hotel
with the larger buildings are those bicycle requirements um working well >> and one of the other questions is whether it's um is this applied per lot or per project. Um,
and I'm leaning towards per lot, which means less bicycle parking, but it does mean more flexibility for um I imagine if someone is building a a project that has one to four units on it, um there's going to be kind of
default bicycle parking as part of that. Um, but maybe I'm being too presumptuous. >> I'm just thinking if some of this reform that L's going into about single point access >> Mhm.
>> ends up being a reality. The vestibule is in other parts of the country sort of used as bicycle storage. >> Mhm. So, I don't know that
forcing people to have a designated area, I'm all for a designated area. I'm not saying I don't want that, but forcing that is a different discussion. I would say >> not requiring these to have bicycle
parking. just have a question about how bicycle parking works in the code because a pattern I've seen is you know I think most residences can fit a bicycle you know somewhere
it's just a qu I think I think sometimes the bigger problem is getting the bicycle inside uh we've been talking about the topography of the city it's hilly sometimes the sidewalk is a few steps up or down from the home and you have to get especially we're talking
about a cargo bike for carrying children or other stuff. Uh I'm not carrying my 85 lb cargo bike upstairs uh regularly or wherever. But I I'm guessing that's orthogonal to
bike parking requirements. You can have a required bike room in in a structure that's also up some stairs and it's not useful. So if that's unless bicycle parking means bike parking that you can easily get in and out of, then I think
it's fine to expand the exemption and make it lots and lots. I just wouldn't want to see I live next to a townhouse row and you can't get a bike into any of them because they're all four stairs up from the sidewalk.
>> But I don't think we can solve that problem here. >> Is that right? I I mean, if we require that they have um bicycle parking, I Yeah, I don't know what the I don't know what the requirements are for the bicycle parking. I don't remember, but it sounds
like um I don't >> Do we require that it's good? Because if we just say there must be a place to stash a bike that happens to be up a flight of stairs, I don't care about that. That's not very useful. It
>> I don't know. Do we um >> so just to for to help shape it in current I mean we have a we have bicycle regulations they're pretty prescriptive they they very much speak to when you provide uh short-term and long-term where it's provided how it's provided but it it it's very prescriptive but
right now uh up to four units are exempt and there was just conversation um coming from different places should we is that do we want to keep that exemption or should it be uh bike parking should be provided but it would either be bike parking per what we already have in the regulations as far
as if you say you know quadplex have to do bike parking there are standards those standards are but they are pretty prescriptive >> I I kind of feel like if someone's doing a smaller development um like one to
four units chances are they probably are not providing sufficient vehicular parking um so they would see sound a little backwards but I feel like it would it's the developer would be they would probably want to provide some
sort of bike parking anyways. Um, now that might be putting too much confidence in the developer, but um, >> it's going to from your perspective, it's going to end up being a is the market calling for it or not? >> Yeah.
>> I don't know. I I lived in a duplex when I first moved to Charlottesville and there was no bike parking and I it was really frustrating to me. But I also don't want to like map on my experience to the zoning code. So, but like I think tonight the purpose of tonight is to
discuss what tier it should be in and whether it should be prioritized, right? And this this strikes me as a tier 2 item, like something to do more research and more thinking about this year, but maybe not like a whole study that takes a year and a half.
>> I was hoping there would be a quick easy consensus from the plan commission. And if there's not, then it doesn't sound like it's a priority to figure out or what. >> I would suggest this is not a priority at this time.
>> Okay. So, we'll move on. Um C11 um let's see oh allowing um uh both physical dimensional and numerical um changes um by special exception and also um I think
attached to this is the allowing parking location uh to be modified under a special exception process. Is that correct? I believe so. I know that this actually not on purpose, but this is tied to the bikes because again >> how the special exceptions is written,
you could change you could change the the dimensions and all those requirements, but you can't change the actual numbers you need. So, if the code says you need 20 spaces, >> there's no relief from that required to do 20 spaces. you could maybe shrink the
the stalls to being almost ridiculous. But um so that that's where this comes from. The the parking uh chair I would need to look in more. It's not ringing a bell. But >> I think somewhere there was um and it might have been on another list was um whether um the location of parking could
be modified by a special exception. Um uh maybe it's another number down. Um but that was somewhere might have been from 2025. Um I this if everyone on the commission agrees
that numerical standards should be included in special exceptions. Um I think we could push this one forward. >> Is this something we're running up against in current reviews? Yeah, it was the bike parking at a hotel because of how hotels are considered
just commercial and again how you calculated is just it's just residential commercial that's not nuanced. >> It came up with like 80 spa 80 spaces needed for a hotel. >> So instead of carving out a hotel, can we instead do the special exception? that that's what this is kind of to say
is what we ended up having to tell the applicant is we don't have an avenue of relief >> unless you wanted to go to city council and say I want to change the I'm still going to provide 80 spaces but the spaces are going to be >> 2 feet by two feet >> um type thing
>> okay so yes do push forward on okay >> let's push forward on this one um I want to figure out where I got my note from the somewhere there had been a question about whether parking location could be allowed under a special exception process. Um maybe that's not an issue.
Um >> because that's stemming from people not being able to put parking in the front yard >> probably, I'm guessing. Or um it may have had to do with um it was a workaround for um active depth
possibly. Um, we'll come back to it if it shows up someplace. Uh, C12. >> Not an issue. >> Not an issue. Okay. Yeah, I thought it got updated. Um,
all right. C13. Uh, I Yeah, we we sort of I think we we did talk about this. This seems kind of important for your ability to review projects. Is there any reason this one needs to wait?
>> Sorry. >> C13. >> Yeah. This is >> It sounds like you guys have already figured it out. >> Yeah, I think I mean I think what we're the staff has a suggestion that we think would clarify. >> Okay.
Um 14 you guys have determined that's not an issue. Uh 15. Um, I'm not sure why this one needs to be a tier three as well
for sublot access. Does anybody have any concerns with um access easements coming through um other zoning lots? >> I agree it's probably would move to tier two. >> Okay. Let Matt finish typing.
Next one's juicy. Oh, it is. All right. Um, so yeah, active depth. Um, we have issues one with parking, but
we also there's other issues with how we want to define active depth and active spaces. Um, and I need to keep reminding myself that active depth is measured from um, only the required active width
of a building. And you've got a 20% allowance for inactive spaces. Am I summarizing that correctly? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it's not as super severe as I have made it out to be, but it still seems um
I was a little troubled that I think we have some buildings or some lots in town that are um you have to get a special exception to actually build anything. >> Mhm. Um, and well, going back to our special
exception question, um, we can I assume you can ask for a exception to the depth. Can you ask for an exception to the percentage? Um,
>> look at that code section. >> Okay. Like can you change the percentage of inactive spaces from 20 to 50 if you had to 20 20% to 50%. >> I would like to propose that dwelling
units should be exempt. >> I I would agree. There's also the question of applying this to the entire all every story of a building which seems kind of >> doesn't I don't know why we want to do
that. Um I think what I'm going to suggest is let's see if we can maybe get some general philosophical consensus on this one. And maybe this is one of the ones that we could have a subcommittee do, but I'd really like to have this one
taken care of sooner than later because it it just bothers me that you have to get a special special exception. >> Um, is that fair for >> Yeah. So, are you suggesting it kind of moves into tier two and then >> Yeah, it becomes a priority, but it also
becomes one that I think if we do form this subcommittee, maybe the subcommittee could really work out the language. I definitely agree. It should be prioritized. This sounds impactful >> as far as philosophy of how this goes.
Um or the the general concept of it. Um so we have you know one idea exclude dwelling units um thoughts? >> Yeah, I'm open to it. I mean, I don't I don't know enough to say like definitely yes, but
>> I think thinking back to when I had this discussion back when we were working on this in the um years ago, um I had brought that up and James had said something about he didn't you could have a house that they put all their bathrooms and their everything on the on the street side >> and so that would be one of the
drawbacks. Um, my thought was I don't personally care, but that I think it is it's counter to what we were originally trying to do with the code. >> So, any further thoughts on dwelling
units? >> No. >> Is this also a discussion of the length of the active depth? >> I think that's included. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, how deep it it is. I think um DX we've got 30 ft >> right accepted by area.
>> If if you if you only apply to active depth requirements to the ground floor then the question about exempting dwelling units would kind of be moved right because >> well there's still active depth for um like in our districts as well. Oh, I
thought it didn't apply to like under a certain unit count. Like if you build a single family home, am I misremembering that then? >> In this section, I believe there is an exception. >> Okay, I could be misremembering as well. >> Yeah, I don't know if it's ground floor
or first two floors or first three floors, but for it being every floor of the building seems a little >> Yeah, because the reading the intent, I'm not going to quote it exactly, but it's like bringing the activities that are happening, the
bullying to the street basically. >> But how high up does that impact the experience of the public realm? >> Yeah. >> So the current regulations lot with one one dwelling unit does not have to meet active debt. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> So maybe along the lines of dwelling unit exempt residential. I got to think through the implications of that. >> Um,
look at depth. >> The thing the thing that we're trying to prevent, right, is like you put a big utility room in the pit like in the facing the street or or a hallway and so you've got like no windows for some
reason. Um, blank wall. >> That's protected from the transparency requirement. >> That's right. That's true. Yeah. >> I'm also thinking of the the West Main examples where you've got a window into a utility room. >> Oh,
yeah. >> That's on the ground floor. >> Yeah. >> I mean, some of that you would hope would be taken care of by just the the developer wouldn't want to waste exterior wall space in most cases.
I mean, I know they sometimes are forced to, but I feel like in that case, they literally are forced to. Um, okay. Um, well, so ideas that we're looking at excluding dwelling units, uh, looking at how deep the active depth is,
looking at whether it applies to all the different stories. Um, I I think we should look at the definition. I don't I don't think a hallway should be defined as an inactive space.
Um Kelly had brought up the idea of uh single- loaded corridor um fronting on a building and I guess we have a couple examples of that. There's one on um McIntyre um one of those older apartment
buildings. Um, I think we've had uh what was it? The is it Cavalere Court? The hotel that was at Ivy and Imit used to be like that. Am I right in thinking that? Um, is that a concern?
Um, parking in active depth. I think that was one of the main reasons that we had active depth. Um or or do we again if we ex if it only is the ground floor does that is it still a problem?
>> We we talked about some parking variations like a dingbat seemed to be be a concern where it's just it's just parking the first first story. >> Yeah. >> Uh we talked about the the Japanese model where it's uh there is parking but it's recessed down so it's less of a an impact on pedestrians or just Yeah. Put
it in the back or stick it up top. >> Okay. But generally, are we okay with the idea of second level parking? >> I mean, like I don't love it, but I also think it's um >> I think I could be okay with it just because like what's is it the draftsman
or what's the place over on Maine that basically has this? >> The draftsman. Um >> it's fine. >> The Water Street parking garage. The Market Street parking garage. >> Yeah, I mean the Yeah, exactly. I what we were going to do for the Guadalajara site. >> Yeah. No, I think I mean I think I'm okay with it, but
>> Okay. >> And I will just throw out here just just to consider uh planning commission >> because it is a nice juicy topic. Is this something you feel comfortable with as the commission again being the only public engagement would be the public hearing for any changes?
>> I I don't know. >> Should stay steered tier three. I guess what I'm hoping is maybe whatever subcommittee we form we could work on this sooner than later and get something to you guys to then dissect and decide
if it needs to go needs to get more public input. But to push it ahead so it doesn't >> if there's any way we could get it done in a year that would be fantastic. Um, >> it seems like such a technical issue that like for me I'm not totally sure
this is like something that requires an extensive public engagement process. Are we changing the philosophy behind the code? I don't know that it is. I think it's almost just like saying do we really intend to make it this strict or can we achieve the same
outcomes by making it more lenient? I I mean I I want to agree, but I I guess I'm I feel like staff is going to end up telling us whether it's it's it'll be um
>> Mrs. Brown's gut check. >> Uh and the public might tell you at a meeting. >> Okay. That too. I I could be very wrong, but I have a hard time imagining that if there were a public event for feedback on this topic that people would
show up. Uh maybe we'll have the event and I'll have egg on my face. But uh who's who's coming to this event if we have one? >> It depends how well advertised it gets. There might be development community might show up. >> Yeah. >> Um
okay. Um, I don't understand what C17 was. >> So, what did we just decide to do? >> I I I think we decided and All right. Maybe I
decided um so you guys tell me if that this one we'd like to push ahead as if if we can and we're going to try and form that subcommittee and dissect it further. But we've got some general ideas which are excluding dwelling units, looking at how deep the active depth is in each of the zones, um
looking at whether um it's just the first story or every story on primary facades and um looking at the actual definition of active space. >> Okay. Um what was I don't understand what
we're doing for what is C17 all about >> the chair I believe this was we've we there was a lot of discussion on entry entry feature >> oh >> and we staff had made a kind of some determinations when we reviewed plans and it just was
>> does this need to be reexplored it it seemed like it caused some >> some issues and constrnation >> is this related to is this like um a special exception ion request we got for was like kindlewood. I forget which
phase of kindle wood it is but we that was one of the special exceptions was um they didn't have enough entrances. Is is that related to this? >> I think I think it is more it's more general high level. wasn't necessarily getting into like the specific details,
but yes, just entrances and entry features are a requirement of the code and a newer kind of a very design ccentric requirement of this code and I think it's more do we want that is it is it you know is it is it giving us what we want or should we
>> so reexamine it >> if I may the current maximum distance between doors is about 40 ft >> depending on the unit but on the district. >> Yeah, I did a little bit of quick checking using the GIS site and based on
current built environment, average doors are over 50 ft apart. >> Just like looking at what's built out there today, >> um so and I think the intent is from this
is to provide flexibility for future space. you kind of have a door already there so that if somebody comes in and wants to have the space of two doors as one restaurant, that's possible. But if they want a smaller restaurant, they can
have just one of the doors. But I struggle with this one because like doors aren't that hard to retrofit into a building. >> It can be difficult, but >> I think the doors actually have to be usable. forcing them to put a door in
today for possible flexibility use. I struggle with >> I think it's isn't it primarily about act it's like eyes on the street activating the pedestrian realm like we want people going in and out of doors >> on the street so that there is like
activity there but I I don't think I don't think that the entrance requirement really works because like you know I just always think of Tenth and Derry the building on 10th Street they've got all those doors I've never seen one person go in and out of And is
it doing anything for us? I mean, I know that wasn't built under this code, but I just And because we got that special exception permit, it's just like, you know, I don't I don't feel like it's it's like a proxy for pedestrian activization that isn't actually necessarily doing anything.
>> I feel like this code is going to end make us end up with a bunch of doors that aren't used. >> Yeah, >> I think those doors actually have to be used. >> Well, they have to. Yeah, like you know on tent and dairy they go into someone's apartment I assume but I've never seen anyone come in and out of
>> and commissioners as you had your discussion too that and I will just point out because I do like this about our code versus our old code. These sections do have an intent section. So when you're when you're kind of having these conversations and you're wanting to see where we're coming from and if it's meeting what we're trying to do like entrances has a has an intent
section. So it it >> it's just a tool um to think about as you're having your discussion. Sounds like this one is we're leaving it on tier three and we need to think more about it. I mean, I agree. I I haven't really liked the entrance feature thing since before we approved the code, but
um I Okay. Um >> I I would just note that looser requirements makes some sense to me. >> Yeah. Okay, I agree. Um, all right. So, we sort of talked about the garage and active depth, so I'm
going to lump that in with the uh C16. Um, a C19. We've got the um athletic field lighting. Um, you talked about that briefly already. >> Not time sensitive. >> Okay. I I tend to I think it can stay as
a special exception probably. Um and uh the city can um go through its own process. Um C20 um let's see. I'm confused by this one
because the section that's quoted is about ribbon driveways. So I >> So it this one intrigued me so I dug into it quite a bit. >> The ribbon >> Oh yeah. maximum or minimum width is 2
feet for the tire to go across. Yeah. >> But if you also want to use that ribbon as pedestrian access, it has to be three feet. >> But then another part of the code says you can't mix pedestrian access and vehicular travel.
>> Interesting. >> And the the part of the code about not mixing pedestrian and vehicular travel is, from what I could see, more focused on parking lots. You basically want to separate vehicular movement from pedestrian movement. >> So public versus private.
>> I think it could even be on a private parking lot. >> Okay. I >> Is a ribbon driveway pedestrian access? >> It could be. >> Wouldn't there be cars parked there a
lot of the time? Well, like if the graphic in the code shows a home with a ribbon driveway and right here it's three feet, but after you get past the front porch of the house, it's then two feet because the garage is actually
behind the house. So, it's like using one of the ribbons as the connector from the sidewalk to the front porch >> past where the car goes or the whole >> No, the car goes further than the pedestrian walkway. What if another car goes to the house?
>> Sure, that's absolutely plausible. But the question is is do we want to allow the mixing of pedestrian and vehicular travel? >> Or at least for small scale residential projects.
>> I mean, I think you see this in >> it's not the greatest thing, but you see it in subdivisions all the time where people use their driveway as as part of their walkway up to the house. >> That's right. doesn't >> to me this >> seem that bad >> to me this is not
this needs to staff could come up with a way to >> I >> is it >> square this circle >> yeah it does seem like a sort of easy fix that >> yeah I don't I don't want to have to care about this >> agree
>> that was just the example in there I'm sure there's other examples where this could be applied to. I generally don't have an issue with mixing pedestrian and vehicular access. >> Does for smallcale residential development, does anybody on this commission have a
concern with mixing um vehicular and pedestrian access? >> No. So using your driveway as your walkway up to your house. >> My only concern would be a situation where there is no possible way to have a safe access because there's just not
enough parking. So one would assume that that will be used for parking. That would be my only concern. >> All right. Well, let I think this one's going to sit here for a while on C3. Okay. Um,
Matt, do you kind of get our concerns at least? >> Yes, I get the concerns and I I do mean it's >> it hasn't really come up as a big issue, but it is a contradiction in the code. >> Yeah. >> Thrown on the list if it >> it's on the list for a little while. >> Okay.
>> Um, C-21 is critical slope regulations. Uh, I I don't It sounds like you guys have a solution already. >> I don't know if there's a solution, but there's a study. >> Okay. All right.
>> Cool. Um, >> this is one that we're redundant with the state. Is that true? >> Not exactly. I was the one who put this into the spreadsheet a while ago. um based on the research James Freeze did a
couple years ago where he showed that the original purpose of our critical slope regulations was to protect against erosion and storm water in the old days when we didn't have strong rules for that. And so it was just my thought to
try and since we have a 6,000 foot limit and we have requirements for erosion and storm water management planning that anything that doesn't go through those plans should come to you guys but anything that doesn't doesn't necessarily need to. We did actually
talk about this uh this afternoon people and there was a little bit of push back. So this kind of language may change in the near future when we do more research. All right. But you guys are on top of it. Okay. Um All right. Uh now for my
favorite um setbacks and build two zones. Um so um I guess one idea that um has been floated is whether there's uh exemptions um further exemptions to this. I think we currently have an exemption for the
um uh if you're using the uh or if you're able to take advantage of the existing building uh in the Rzzones. Is that correct? >> That is correct. That we hopefully that'll pass next, you know, week and we uh carved out an exemption if you're
eligible to use the existing structure bonus. Your existing structure would be deemed meeting the bill two and setback. >> Okay. >> Just just to clarify. So if you're eligible for the existing structure bonus, so that means even if you're not
taking advantage of that bonus, just if you're eligible, you don't have to meet the build two. >> Correct. So it would cover things like you're doing things that maybe uh would require you to bring it up to current regulations. >> Okay.
So that does resolve a lot of issues in the R zones. Mhm. >> Um, one of my concerns is that we have historic structures um, and even not historic structures that are worth preserving outside of the um, the Rzones. And so question one is, is that
of concern to anybody else that um if you I think currently you're allowed to build onto the back of an existing building without bringing it up to the um the build two zone, but if you add a separate building on a site, that building or all the the construction
needs to be within the build two zone. >> And that's because the the non zones do not have the existing structure bonus like system, right? And so like there's no way we can say if you qualify for this bonus or like couldn't we apply the same logic
to the nonzones and say if you're not building if if the if the old building remains you don't have to comply with build two. >> I would suggest that's a possible option. Um and define existing building the way
that we're defining it for the zones. Um, but I mean just to make sure I is this a is this a shared concern? >> I mean the intent with this built to requirement is to bring buildings closer
to the public realm. >> Yes. >> But I can see how in a brownfield environment or built environment like we are here in the city for existing lots and structures that that's quite difficult.
So, I can understand the exemption for the residential areas. Um, even though I think that that's one of the areas that buildings are most far away from the street. So, I really struggle with this one. I
fully understand the the current code in a green field environment, but in a city that's built like ours is here today, I really struggle with with this. I think that in the the sort of X zones, so the non-residential
zones, those are really the spots that I believe that moving buildings closer to the street makes sense with the intent of that purpose. >> But how much building or growth or
development is that going to inhibit if we keep it that way is my question that I don't have an answer to. And I think where this where I got interested in this was our we had a special exception last year for um Element Construction
has a house on High Street that's in a commercial zone, but it's it's an old house and they wanted to put a workshop building in their backyard. Um and I forget if that was determined as an accessory use or not. Um but had that been a primary use um it would have had
to go in front of this house. >> Sure. Um now that would have started the process of I guess eventually we would like to see High Street have you know commercial construction up fronting on it. Um but as it exists now it's a mix of small commercial projects and houses
that are set further back and um whether are we do we want a code that encourages those buildings to be demolished so that or to have something built in front of them if there's enough room. um or um in
order to achieve that streetscape >> or does it is it more important to maintain to allow the maintenance of what exists um just for you know character sake and for also I guess sustainability sake um you know it's better not to tear something down build new if you don't have to
>> right >> it's kind of the >> those are the two >> to the point that Danny Danny keeps bringing us back to is prioritizing or moving into a different tier. I think that this is one to prioritize. >> I sorry.
>> Something I've been thinking about is uses. >> Mhm. >> For residential uses, I'm I'm less concerned about this as as as the public realm. Residential uses is not really the public realm in the same way. Uh for commercial uses kind of is. >> Mhm. >> That that may be a useful distinction.
>> Um Okay. So you're saying if it's a commercial use um you would be in favor of uh maintaining the current code. So even in the case of like elements um building >> with the special exception process
>> with a special exception process. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> so, um, I mean, I I think like I always I always thought of this build to requirement and this this goal of moving
things closer to the street as a like if you're going to build a new building, put it there. And um, so I would tend to come down like commercial or residential. I don't think it makes sense to say,
"Oh, you want to build onto the back? Sorry, you can't. you have to build onto the front like that. To me, I think like we're I don't think what we're going to do is induce people tearing down buildings. I think we're just going to induce the the property like being um of less use to them because they are
just not going to do the thing that they want to do, which seems like not what we not a place not what we want to do with our zoning code in my opinion. But um in terms of priority, like are Carl, are you thinking like tier two?
>> This is one of the ones that I think I'd like to um work out in a subcommittee and try and try and get it done in the next year if we can. >> My concern is for one for um preservation and the architectural design control districts and we could
one of the suggestions is I mean we could tie this to whether a building is a contributing structure in a design district, whether it can have a an exemption. Um I one of the thing I find it a little funny that you can add onto the back of a building but you can't build behind a building.
>> So um and I with some of our older buildings, you know, if you attach a building to the back of it, you're going to end up having to do sprinklers and other, you know, things that change the cost of the project. So to me, the those two things don't change the
how things feel on the street. So, I'm not sure that distinction that we have currently in the code makes no sense to me. Um, I figure if you're building behind, whatever. Just keep building behind. Once you build something in front, then yes, it's got to start meeting our code. Um, but that's that's kind of where I'm
landing on this. And I I would like to have a general exception that just says, you know, um if you have an existing use um existing primary use that um you know meets the definition of an existing building um
you're allowed to build behind it. You just can't, you know, once you build in front of it, you have to start meeting our our build two requirements. But I don't know if that doesn't distinguish between commercial and residential.
>> Um, and it doesn't um it doesn't encourage that building up front um as much as the code currently does. >> Maybe from a different perspective, how does this requirement to build to the street inhibit the point of the new
zoning code of getting more housing built? Does it limit potential new units, forcing people to build to the street? >> I think if somebody has um if somebody's not in one of the R zones, but they have a house that they, you know, they're
they've got their residential units in a, you know, a C-zone or whatever. Um they can't build a backyard ADU. They can build an attached thing on the back of their house, but they can't build a, you know, a backyard dwelling unit. So from that perspective, you're
limiting units with current zone current code. >> That would be an example of where that would be limiting. >> Yeah. >> Is that in the R zones or or >> No, that's outside the R zones. >> What about the the simpler idea of saying do the same exemption for
existing structures for all zones? That was raised earlier, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that would be I think that would be one of the things that we want. >> Does that miss important cases? exempting building exempting parcels that have an existing structure. I don't
think it would miss any. I think it that that captures everything. >> The only issue I would worry about would be like shed on a primarily empty lot. >> But we're talking sorry the exemption is for preserving primary structure.
>> Right. Right. But if if the shed is the primary structure, >> but doesn't it have to have like a primary >> Don't didn't we have make some distinction already between sheds and primary uses? Like can you can you have >> you you have to establish first a
primary structure and then you could have accessory structures, but there has to be a primary structure on a lot. >> So if there's a existing lot that has just an existing shed on it, that doesn't count as a primary structure. >> Or does it?
it it gets a little tricky and it would get into whether that's a non-conforming lot when the shred was built on the lot. Uh so it could happen, but it'd be very it'd be very rare. It'd be a handful. I can think of maybe one or two where
>> there was a double lot and the house is on one lot, the sheds on the other, and now someone's thinking about doing something with it. So they would need to get a zoning ter determination letter to figure out the circumstance for that other lot. >> Could that kind of weird situation be handled administratively
>> for an exemption? >> Mhm. >> I it it would be very I think staff would have a hard time with it. I think we could do it. The what I would just caution with is this is a foundation one of the foundation principles of the code,
>> right? And so it would take if this is the direction we wanted to go as a community, it could be done. But it would take a lot to update the code to reflect it because this was one of the pillars of how I think the code was built.
So it could be done, but it would there would have to be a lot of digging and making sure we're not messing other things up um based on this. >> Okay. If we were to form a subcommittee and to work on this, um, is there any concerns
with anything we've been saying? Um, will there be any concerns with the idea of any addition behind an existing building being exempted from build twos? That's all we're talking about is build two zones. Okay. All right. So, I think um
we'll try and prioritize this and um hash it out on a subcommittee. Um I don't know if we need to go through all the D's. Are there any that people have issues with or want to discuss?
These are our own comments which I think already made it up into the C's. Are we making it our way through this whole document or just >> um I'm trying to now abbreviate it because we are it's 7:40 and I'm pretty sure >> staff's going to get mad at me.
>> I've pulled some G's. I'm sorry. >> Okay. You said you had some some G one. >> I do. >> Okay. That's uh what do you have? Uh the G's that I looked up uh G9 uh the and that goes to the uh strawwater uh area
6,000 to 10,000. Um the uh G6 uh max coverage regs max heights uh just give some some mercy to allow more kinds of uh uh buildings without a special exception.
>> Yeah. Just just so I can track we have skipped the D's. We're cool with that. Everything because those are all our comments, right? So, we're just we're good with that. We're moving on to the the G's at all. Okay. Got it. >> Uh I pulled G14 uh build to width, which
we've talked about quite a bit here. U Mercy on that. Uh G18 ground story definition. Clean this up. Um, one sec. Wow. Can you You had um You said G6, >> G6, G9, G14.
>> All right. Can you uh can you go through them individually, please? I can. >> Okay. >> G6. >> Uh G6 is uh max coverage regulations. Uh let's see if I can pull it. Uh and max heights are an issue. I think this was
coming from can't remember who this was coming from. October 14th. Uh then they talk about oh this was Habitat. Um basically just physically they couldn't get a Habitat house on a standard Charlottville lot just because the the restrictions are
too tight. Um we should allow Habitat houses >> and we did. So this is the one where we um we got rid of stories and just went with a larger overall height I believe for the our zones. >> So So it's just max coverage that left
>> max coverage. Okay, that is >> and it has to do with having parking in the front. >> They can do alley and corner, but it's not great. They they really their standard design is front parking for for for ADA,
>> but that doesn't really work with all the other intents of what we're doing with code. So what is your >> what are you asking with G6? >> My current thinking is mercy on max coverage.
>> So just the max coverage, not necessarily the other points. >> Yes. >> Okay, >> cool. >> Uh G9. Uh this is uh up the amount of disturbed area for
storm water from 6,000 to 10,000. That's just maxing matching state code. >> Um which should I think make sense. >> Yep. Thanks. >> Uh G14 built to width
creating a lot of issues. It's true. Uh utility requirements just physically can't be done. Um also slope issues um just giving more mercy or administrative relief uh without requiring special exe exemption or exception.
Um all right so these are two different issues. Um what would what's the proposition for build with that? It's the the minimum percentage is um is too much.
>> Yeah. for weird sites and we mostly get weird sites. Rory talked about this a lot. >> Okay. >> He had a lot of mathematical examples. I >> I mean I agree. I think that what the intention would have been is that the um if you can't build a a building wide enough, you split the lot up or you
resubdivide. Um but that's I guess not not always possible. Is that what we're getting at? >> Right. >> These are um now these are all things that been done by special exception. Is that correct? Okay. But you're still saying uh minimum percentage is uh too
high. Um what do you want to what is your when you're highlighting these? What do we want to do with them? >> My suggestion would be that staff look at what kind of uh relief could be offered to reduce the number of uh
special exception problems. >> Okay. So we're thinking of shifting these up to like a tier three um and Okay. I'm agreeing with you on all these, but I just want to make sure I know what we're doing.
>> Uh G18 ground story definition. And this is another super in the weeds one, but it's an important one. Um how we're defining uh the ground story. Um, and this is frankly beyond my mathematical understanding,
but broadly I think we should be able to make this possible without requiring a special exception. >> Yeah, this is the one that I understand that the land around here is just too steep to fit the code or the code is not steep
enough to fit the land depending on which way you want to look at it. So, >> and and our code is not allowing them to have one gigantic ground floor where a lot of it is below grade. >> We're saying you must break it up
because you can't have all that below grade. And I think what this comment is saying is like that's that just makes it more expensive for us to break it up like that. Let us have go back to the old definition where 50% above grade. >> Well, the current code is about six feet and six feet in some areas of town
>> Yeah. happened very quickly. >> Yeah. >> So then you end up with a building with very small sections. >> Yeah. >> So I don't know if it's going to 50% or if it's expanding the six feet or >> what makes sense on a rewrite of that
section, but that's what it's about. >> Is this one that can be dealt with through special exception? Uh it could be because you can ask for additional height. Not stories a special exception, but if you needed >> additional height because now >> um you decid you didn't want to modular
the build. The point was to modular the building. >> And so if you didn't want to do that um for whatever reason your plates wouldn't match, you could ask for a special exception for more height on there. Now I think you probably have to ask for a lot of series of special exceptions
because now that exposure you have a lot of things that apply to first story transparency blah blah blah. So >> there's a path. It's probably just not a very convenient path. >> That's kind of where I was getting at because I feel like where I've seen this on the bar is for example the hotel
that's going to go on the um uh Artful Lodger site um just over next to the Omni. Um it um because Market Street slope so much, they ran into some issues with where their ground floor is. Um so they've got, you know, one high ground floor and then there's a lower level
that ended up having to be treated like a ground floor. Their floor tofloor heights weren't appropriate for that because it was a garage level. Because it was a garage level, it didn't it wasn't going to have windows or anything. But at the same time, it was um I think it would be the type of thing
that it said be error review. so we could make sure it looked okay. But it's the type of thing I think we do want to look at because just as Matt said there you could have a big facade that doesn't have windows on it, um doesn't have entrances or just has a big garage door
and that's so that that's the trade-off. >> Well, there are requirements for a facade like that to have a mural or I think one of the options is a living living wall. So there are already ways to mitigate just having a giant blank wall.
Yes. Yeah. But it it um I guess it just ended up being something that was helpful to look at um from a discretionary point of view rather than um like a formulaic put this stuff here. They it wasn't
going to meet the code whatever they did. Um that's just a counterpoint. I don't know if >> Sure. Um I I tend to agree we've got some issues with the the midmaxes causing some problems throughout town. >> Yeah. So I appreciate the special exemption process and what can and can't
be done through those. >> But I because of the topology of Charlottesville, I feel like >> there could be a lot of special exemptions for this. >> So not only that, but also finding >> dimensional code language that more
supports what we've got here in town. Okay. >> Were there problems under the old code in this regard? >> I don't think so. >> The issue and I think it I'm thinking of West Main specifically was that you get like one giant building that's sort of
like teetering above the rest the rest of the uh of of the street. So, you get sort of odd like this there's a sidewalk and that just looks odd, but it's really an aesthetic issue. I don't know if there's a health and safety component. The standard was just a really big
engineering screw up. They built the building a foot too high. Um, sorry that just that that Yeah, that was unfortunate. Any others, Lyall? I have two that I didn't couldn't find a G4, but I'd like
to note them. Uh, grocery stores near schools. It's a it's a big one. We talked in the comp plan. We just haven't done it in the zoning code. um allowing grocery stores near schools. The uh the big push back was that uh there would be tobacco products sold in those grocery stores near schools and we don't want
tobacco products sold near schools, which I'm very sensitive of. It is now legal in Virginia for council if they're concerned about this issue to say ah no tobacco products near schools or whatever. Um that is now legal in Virginia as of I think two years ago.
>> The IGA that used to be So what are we going to do about that? Cuz how far is Johnson from that from uh the school's pretty close, right? >> Other one, right? >> Yeah.
>> It's right next to us, next to a park. >> So, we council could say, "Well, we're concerned about tobacco products being sold next to a park. We will not allow them by ordinance if desired." >> Yeah. I mean the kids will definitely
>> get tobacco product. >> I mean the community is expected to have a grocery store there. >> Do we would do we already have regulations that say you can't have a they're preventing a grocery store from popping up near schools?
>> Not in the land use. >> So what's stopping it? >> A we killed neighborhood commercial. >> Well that's why we're having a work session on it. There was another one, Lyall. >> Uh, accessory dwelling unit dimminimous exception exemption for aesthetic and
sidewalk requirements. Uh, just a homeowner who was very upset about trying to build an ADU. He looked at all the numbers for all the costs of actually building an accessory dwelling unit behind an existing home. This not, you know, possible to see. I think they
were trying to build it in Belmont. uh and it would have forced um substantial uh changes to the facade uh to meet to to get the lot into uh conformance uh when there you know the ADU was not you know would not have been visual so he
wasn't able to do it just because the the cost of of getting the the fac you know sort of a large facade uh didn't make sense for the uh the the ADU revenue >> but we've we've fixed that just now. Yes.
Isn't there aren't there exceptions to in the R zones that you could build access like a second dueling unit and not have to update the original house to
meet all the zoning code requirements? I mean hasn't got to do affect but yeah I mean if it's it's about building that second unit in back but the first the unit front doesn't is non-conforming to build two and setbacks. >> Yeah >> because that'll be fixed. >> Yeah I thought we were working that was
part of next week's >> Yeah >> correct. >> So that would be for sidewalk and that would be for tree planting and all that stuff >> for as far as bringing the site up to compliance. >> Yes. Um, no. Typically we wouldn't. We just It's
the area you're disturbing. U, if you were tearing the house down and redoing the lot, yes, you would come up to conformity, but if you had an existing structure and you want to build behind it, staff only looks at what's being proposed, not what's outside of what's
being proposed. >> Okay. So that's >> un again unless it's very specific which the code we're running into with you couldn't build that second unit until your first unit met two and setbacks and that's what we're trying to correct next
week. >> Thank you. Um, any others? >> Can we add um adding to Lyall's point, neighborhood commercial is not listed on tier three? And I kind of thought I thought that was sort of like the poster child for tier three needs further
review, some community engagement, uh, longer study. Is that in the work plan? >> Yes, I believe that's why it's not here. It's actually on the >> Oh, right. It's a separate thing on the work plan. Okay. I always forget that. Okay.
Um uh one sec. Sorry, I had one. Um, >> oh, uh, just going to note two things from the the D sections. Um, D2, this just feels like an easy fix. Maybe
it's not important at all, but um, it seems like somewhere we can add in the zoning code that doors shouldn't swing over the required walking zone in the public rightway. Um, it's we've had a couple instances where on West Main Street where this happens
and you've got this narrow sidewalk and doors from restaurants that just open onto the sidewalk. Um, it's technically prohibited in the building code, but um, the code official is allowed to make exceptions to that. Um, and I feel like
we should just in our zoning code say the required um is it I forget what the zone's called. The pedestrian zone, walking zone. Um, whatever the required sidewalk width is, it can't swing into that. So, if you have a 7 foot required
sidewalk width and you've got a 10 foot wide sidewalk, then no big deal, but just don't swing into the sevent. Um >> is doesn't that force the building to be pushed back by the width of the door? >> No, it forces you to have a recessed entryway if you build a new building.
>> Okay. >> Um which is one of our entry features that we allow. >> So there's that option or there's the option of having wire sidewalk. >> Yes. Or sliding doors, which is what the Marriott on West Main does.
>> Um Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, there's a lot of outs that aren't forcing the moving of the building footprint. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's my concern with that. >> I So, where this does where this has happened
is when existing buildings have added new entrances um or filled in their their recessed entryway. Um so, that would be the what would be prevented. And um I don't know. I if you guys agree, yay. If not, it's it
maybe it's not a big deal. But >> how long is a door open versus closed? >> I I don't >> I feel like having a preventing somebody from holding a door open over the sidewalk is one thing versus not allowing it to open over the sidewalk at all. >> I'm thinking of getting smacked in the
face with a door. >> This is a a >> I hear the concern. >> Okay, so we'll put it away. Um, unless Yeah, I guess. Okay, we'll put that away. Um, >> I had to try. Um, the sidewalk on West
Main Street has been uh it drives me nuts because I do get >> Well, when we when we update West Main, >> 20 years ago, um, uh, D5, um, and I saw this was one of the
developer, uh, comments as well. Um when you have a building width exception um you're required to have a um a 30 foot deep al cove and um if you build a building over a parking garage 30 ft puts it
it's a dimension that's not workable. So, parking garages are 60 feet wide and if you have a um apartment building sitting on top of that with a double loaded corridor, your units are, you know, 26 feet wide. Um 20 or 26 ft deep and you got your quarter that's in the
middle and then, you know, another unit. Um having a 30ft recess puts the recess in the middle of the corridor doesn't work. Like it would make more sense if it was 25 ft. Um I don't know
>> some resist D5. >> Yeah. And another one of the developers pulled that um mentioned that as well. So I wasn't sure if that was worth bringing up as a something to move into one of these tiers.
Seems like a really easy fix with minimal disruption to the code. >> Is this tied to active death? >> It is tied to if your building is too wide. um you need to build a um your the way around that is to build like a a
recessed courtyard >> to make it appear as >> more than one building. >> And um that depth is determined by the width of the building, but it it maxes out at 30 ft. And um >> so if you had a corridor going through it, this breakout of the building cuts
into the corridor. That's a concern. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, that seems like it should be fixed. >> Okay. Matt, I don't know if that made any sense to you. >> I I heard movement went to one or two to one or two. Okay.
>> Um yeah, if we could shift that one up just to look at. Um it seems like an easy fix for a silly problem. >> It would be changing the number 30 to the number 25. >> Something like that. >> It's pretty good.
>> Um all right. To wrap this up quickly, unless there's any other items, I was going to go to the the last page and just make sure that we can hit the summary. >> I'm sorry. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Uh minimum lot sizes. Uh we the hope was that sublotss would make it so that we
wouldn't we would have a relief valve for minimum lot sizes. Um for existing non-conforming lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size, we're running into problems. Uh I I happen to live in
an area that is full of them. >> Um we do want a way to use our existing lots. Um so I I would like to flag that as an issue. >> Um is that a problem with the size of
the lot or the fact that you the percentage that you're allowed to fill the lot is too low? >> Yeah, basically all the calculations are based on a larger lot than what we have. >> All right. So that's more of a Yes. Okay.
Um, Matt, did that make sense to you? >> Uh, I would need to look into it more because we have the non-conforming lot section which states you're allowed to use your lot for any use. >> I think is just the >> like your percentage coverage is what
60% in RA. So like I'll use my lot as an example. I can't add anything into my lot because my house is already, it's a tiny house and already there's no room to like, you know, if I added a garage or something, I would go over my percentage allowed. >> Um,
>> so more exploring what? >> Exploring more to the non-conforming lot. >> Yeah. >> Section basically. >> Yeah. I mean, it's something we can look at it. And I think it I won't say complicated quickly, but yeah, I mean
when we when we talk about when a house is too small, house small is too small. Like >> Well, yeah. No, I don't mean Sorry, I didn't mean to say my house was too small, but I'm saying >> but but when you talk about a non-conforming lot, it doesn't it
doesn't categorize non-conforming lots as like >> teeny non-conforming lots small. It's just non-conforming lots. And yeah, how would you say you have the right to build on it, but doesn't mean I have the right to build a 25,000 foot house? Yes, I can build
>> a 800 square foot square foot house. So, >> it gets into just that that can be a little bit tricky of >> when we say the rules should should change for a non-conforming lot, what do we mean by that? Well, that sounds like a a good tier three
discussion, >> but not prioritize. >> I mean, I would love to solve it, but yeah, I think it's a that needs some that needs some research. >> Okay.
>> I mean, is the is the initial research how many non-conforming lots are there in the city? >> Thousands. like as a percentage of total lots. >> Yeah, probably. I think we did do an analysis during the the zoning code update. I'm forgetting the exact number,
but it was the majority are non-conforming. Sounds like that sounds like our minimum lot sizes are then don't fit with the city instead of having a non-conforming section. >> I was just say I'm not even sure if it's
the problem. I don't think the problem is the minimum lot size. I think the problem is just existing lots are not developable because they they're bound by the same rules as your brand new lot that you're creating in a subdivision.
So I don't know how we categorize that or >> Yeah. Is that fair to say? >> Yes, that's my understanding. Is it are we missing a concept then of reasons for nonconformity? Do we want to say if a lot's
non-conforming due to its size being small, we consider some exemptions? This is what I'm hearing. >> I I think that's Yeah, I think that's what we want to study. >> Okay. So, not not all nonforming lots, but particular category. Okay.
>> Yeah. are the fraction of the wrong is that the most common reason for lot being non-conforming. Okay. But are are you not you Josh, but are like is it being suggested that um we not apply like some of the basic
requirements to existing lots like lot coverage and things like that? Is that what I'm hearing? see if there's some sort of relief or lessening of stand like I guess studying
whether that even makes sense. >> Okay. Yeah. It just seems like if it applies to small old lots, why not apply it to new lots as well? But >> yeah, >> and then that's that's like a major
major change, right? So like that's just yeah >> that was sort of my erroneous point about minimum lot sizes is instead of >> carving it out for non-conforming just change it >> and the minimum lot size did go down
quite a bit from the old code to the new code a lot of it is 2,000 square feet used to be 6,000 now there are still 6,000 square feet >> in the R districts but it u it did go down quite a bit and I don't really I think this has to do with the lot size
though. >> Sure. But my point is is >> instead of carving it out for non-conformity, whatever the actual issue is, just adjusting the metric. >> Yeah. So are is the maximum percentage of building coverage in the RAS, is that
the right number? Is that kind? >> Yeah, >> I think that makes sense for a something to look at. Um, all right. Is it do we need to look at this final page or did it make sense what we were trying to prioritize from
our previous discussion? >> Did anybody take note about the ones we wanted to prioritize? We sort of did >> rep prioritize the prioritization. Um, so it looks like building height and massing. Um, clarify bonus height applies to a lot of
building with multiple unit. So we talked about that. We're we're good with number one. That's we can take that off the list. >> Correct. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> Um, build two setback requirements. Um, this is one of the ones that we we want to prioritize, but we're going to try
and do a subcommittee to move it along. Um, active depth, same thing. um special exception permits. Um I think we agreed that this is a one that we want
to push forward and prioritize change color on that one. Um uh street typology map. I Yeah, I think we decided this was housekeeping and we're hoping that you guys can just >> a non-tier three item.
>> Yeah. All right. um definitions and site modification rules. Um I forget which ones those were. I I I I think the others are we agreed are not huge priorities.
>> What about the um storm water? So we added that >> 6,000 >> that's being studied as part of the environmental. I think you'll get more information as that moves along is >> okay being considered.
>> All right. See if we missed any big ones in here. We did active depth. um special exceptions. Yeah, I think those are the ones that we we pushed to be a high priority. >> We didn't talk about the EV charging. Is
that something worth uh further deliberation? >> Yeah. Do we need to discuss that? Is that something I thought you guys were working through a way to make that work? There's a currently a study um uh that's going on. You'll hear more information
out of this. Came out of the kind of some preliminary internals and we wanted to make sure it was on the list so that when y'all got more information on the actual report whenever that comes out >> that you're prepared for it. >> Okay. >> Are the fire folks working on that? >> Excuse me. >> Are the fire folks working on that?
>> Uh I believe fire is involved along with environmental. >> Thank you. Awesome. >> And that's a the EV thing is a discussion about uh level one and level two chargers being
allowed in parking lots and parking structures. That and also um you know on the public side like where could public charters be uh but the level one level two chargers. Yes.
and just how how could we incorporate, you know, is it is it something that should be um in public available space areas in the city and where would those be trying to identify those?
>> So, what do you mean by public charger? Like >> I can imagine having one, okay, at a park or on the the side of West Main Street that somebody could plug into >> or more like in a park or public publicly controlled garage or if is it
feasible to have in right ofways or not? Um I think there's a lot of discussion going on with it. >> Is that study going to be come before this group? >> Um I'm not sure. It's not run. It's I think it's run out of environmental, but we can get you more information. I know that uh
I haven't heard on it in a while. Um they had these kind of preliminary findings was a while back when I put it in this paper. >> So we can follow up on that. I just feel like EV charging is just a such an intense infrastructure upgrade
that we really need to be considerate about where we want that to be potentially in the public rideway or on public structures, publicly controlled things >> just because it's really is so
permanent. That's my question. >> All right. >> Um, in did that study include um or I don't know if it's even an issue, but I guess in residential neighborhoods um people being able to plug in their
own cars if they live across the street from their parking space. Uh, I mean, it's it's come up more from a um public service standpoint and right-of-way access and ADA >> uh than um a private uh land use kind of
issue. >> Okay. uh not blocking your ADA accessible routes in a public rideway kind of the real big issue >> for for that I forget what level charger that is. But for your small residential, there wasn't necessarily a building code or fire concern, but the concerns were
more around um uh crossing into public rightway and ADA issues. >> Okay. All right. Um well, thank you guys for humoring us on this. Did
are are you feeling like you got our understanding where um what we tried to get through tonight? I think I got good good feedback where if you I would say where just maybe a few minutes >> um because the steps I would be taking is kind of preparing the 2026 work plan
for this >> and I know we kind of in general in the premeating talked about a subcommittee um and talked about in the report but it' be you know hearing from planning commission on how you all want to be involved in this would help me kind of
flush out the plan to bring back to you to say here's our our plan for 2026. um here as we're going to go. You know, what I'm hearing right now is you'd like to have a subcommittee. Um so, if there's any other kind of just information along that that we especially learn from 2025
>> that maybe be helpful to hear as we prepare the 2026 path. >> Um like are you are you asking like I mean if you should report back to us
periodically or is um >> yeah I mean so what I'm you know what I'm hearing is there there are a few of these uh items that could be tier two or your tier three that you'd like to discuss in a subcommittee. >> Yeah. >> So a subcommittee is definitely you know
I think a part of >> how you would like the 2026 to go. Mhm. >> Um I would imagine we envision one or two larger work sessions. >> Uh but you know I wanted to hear if that's what what you all are think. So
how we did 2025 is we we came forward with a list. >> We had several work sessions. We you know we had a listening session with the uh local builders um and developers. Then we had a public hearing. So, you
know, the thoughts being there probably would be a subcommittee that would meet maybe two or three times a probably one or two work sessions to to discuss what came out of that subcommittee and then, you know, having the public
hearing to make recommendations. Uh, just saying that out loud is probably eight months >> um in general. So just wanted to get some feedback on just you know what y'all not put you on the spot for what y'all felt about the 2025 but you know just going into 2026 how we
>> lessons learned and what we could do if there are anything we can do if that sounds what I just said sounds good we can >> roll with that >> I think it sounds good I mean it's yeah I think as you guys dig into some of these things and if you run into roadblocks to let us know that these are
all the things that are complicating what you want to achieve we've you know we you know think of something else or whatever. I mean it's kind of giving us feedback if we've asked for something that's impossible to achieve um through but also yeah these um you know work
sessions as necessary to um anytime you guys need feedback from us. Uh and as far as the subcommittee is concerned can we form that tonight? >> Sure. >> So it's two of us. Um I would love to be on that unless anybody else if you guys want to fight me for it. Not fight me
but you know argue for it. >> There's more than one, right? >> We could have two two people. >> I mean, there's more than one subcommittee >> uh >> for each of the topics. Or is there >> We could do it that way for both topics. >> Well, we could we could do it either way. I thought it was going to be one that does,
you know, anything zoning code related. But if you want >> recommend that you just go with one so that u better coordination. >> Would anybody like to join me? >> I'd be happy to join. >> Okay. we good with this? Works.
>> Okay. So, >> um I will say I wasn't terribly involved with the 2025 stuff, but my thought is is that as the the 25 items were the first round that I would imagine that
going into future rounds, these work sessions may not be as long in involved as they were. So maybe that helps with some of the uh time commitment and work involved in doing it. So maybe just from that perspective
itself, it won't be so cumbersome. Um, but I do think that since we're going through these first round of tweaks, it would potentially be nice to get the people that do the work in real in out in the field to give us feedback on if we're
hitting the mark or if we're off. >> I thought the developer and builder listening session >> was informative. >> Okay. So going to the developers and Okay. Yeah. Um
let's figure out how to set that up. Other thoughts or um should be close. >> I would uh move to try. >> Okay. >> Um >> second. >> All right. Uh let's adjourn. Thank you
guys.