like you know it's like I don't think I've ever >> Are we ready? >> All right. Welcome everyone uh to tonight's planning commission meeting November 12th uh 2025. Yes, we're going to start with
commissioner's reports >> or I can start with you >> or who would like to start. >> Can I start? >> Yes, please. >> Report. >> Great. That's I like that. >> The uh news report. >> The report. Okay. >> Same here.
>> Wow. >> I have a report. >> Okay. >> Let's hear your >> a lot to No, I'm just kidding. Um, so yesterday, uh, I went to the pre-commission right downstairs in the parks and wreck and something, uh, well,
a they're always working really hard. Lots of really smart people, you know, hard to, as anything figure out how to make things move forward. Um, but a couple things in terms of intersections with planning commission.
Um, one was a discussion on vulnerable sites and looking around to find sites that probably have critical slopes or tree canopy or whatever and just sort of trying to be more creative about how
they might get developed. I think this was in relationship to the project next to Aelia Park. Like it could be developed but maybe not with as much asphalt and parking. I don't know. But anyway, there was this kind of mapping idea. Um they're working on their state
of forest report and oh, and the other thing I saw cuz it came up on our um in the uh zoning documents, um the tree canopy, the
change from the tree canopy cover from 20% to 10% was brought to everyone's attention. Um, and so I just said I would ask more about that. It sounds like it's a state code thing that you have to abide by,
but everyone was disappointed being the tree commission. So when that comes up, just maybe hearing a couple sentences about that. Yes, >> that's in our legislative packet. >> But we have it on our like it's like a
done deal. >> Okay. Well, we can talk when we get to that point. Maybe a question about that. Um, but I think that's it. >> Oh, no. Sorry. There was one. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to remember. I thought I wrote it down. Um they're also creating
a pack like a pamphlet for developers because um after meeting with um Kelly Brown um they were looking for any little place to encourage keeping trees like within the process of the site plan
development. And so the thought is to make a pamphlet to encourage developers like here's um kind of the longer term cost of taking down a mature tree. here are ways that you can protect it. You know, kind of like a technical
um pamphlet that they're working on. So, they found menus to kind of push ahead within um >> uh yeah, turns out I have no report. I was confused, but I couldn't remember anything, but Lubec was canceled and MOT
was the morning of last meeting, so >> nothing. >> All right. Um well the BAR um looked at um well one thing we looked at that we may end up seeing was a fence um at the lawyer's office across the mall. Um very strange place to put a fence. They
wanted a 4ft tall fence on top of their site walls that they already have. Um and the reason is um there is um I people are trespassing um and um yeah so it's unfortunate that that's the
solution and I would hope that maybe we could find a different solution but anyways I don't know if we're going to end up seeing that as a special exception request. Um and then um we looked at the uh seventory apartment building on 7th Street Southwest which I
think we've heard about from the public. Um it is a student apartment building that will be wrapping two individually protected properties and the only reason the BR is looking at it is because part of the project overlaps the uh protected properties. Um it was still a
preliminary discussion. It was not a formal application at that point. Um but the BA the five people that were there um the majority were saying that they were not ready to support it. They needed to have a change in massing. Um and um
yeah, there was a significant amount of public outcry. So um I know the applicant has been meeting with um various B members to try and figure out how to get the project approved. Um so we'll see what happens when it comes back to us. Um the only other thing I
have to report is um I did meet with the um uh city manager and the city's kind uh the budget department um sent you all an email about that that um so we will be getting our preview in two weeks of the
CIP. Um and I guess if you have anything that you want them to consider ahead of time um send it to me. Lyall, did you you're the one who sent me one? Okay. Um so I have something from Lyall. Um yeah, if there's anything else otherwise we'll we'll get to look at it in uh two weeks
and make our comments then that is my report. Is there anything from NDS? >> Um sure. Just uh again a reminder we have the work session on the 25th, Tuesday the 25th. Uh that's our regular CIP
discussion prior to the holiday. Um and uh for anyone in our viewing audience who's interested in uh becoming a member of the planning commission, Mr. Stolesenberg will be leaving us and the application process is open through November 17th. Um so if you're
interested, uh that is an option. I know there was another press release that went out today about boards and commissions. Um but if anyone has any questions, they can definitely reach out to me. I can assist them with getting to that application process.
Um, was there any more clarity that you guys received about the timing of West Main and Cherry? Um, like from utilities about when when that construction will actually happen. Uh we're meeting with them later this
week to try to get some more information that we should be able to provide. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. >> Uh Betsy, is the tree commission following that in case there's any attempt to put trees back on West Bank? Um,
>> that was wishful thinking, but it was to make that probably too late to add to the project scope and maybe wouldn't be worth anyway, but just a reminder cuz I think people often forget about authorized but not issued CIP things, but there is a
Oh, no. I take that back. We spent 4.4 million on undergrounding utilities this year. where that went. Uh, I was going to say there's a 5.5 million or $5 million item in the CIP for undergrounding utilities that was intended for West Main
originally, but now there's only four. >> Is that a question that you could type up that we could send to staff so maybe it could be answered during our CIP work session? >> Where the money went, >> if that's a if it's important to know. >> Sure. I was just giving a heads up that
existed, but now I'm curious. >> All right. Um, so now we're at uh matters presented by the public uh for any item not on the formal agenda. So we do not have a public hearing tonight. So basically anything is fair game. Um if there's any public that wants to speak.
>> I'm not sure how best to set that up. I think if anyone's interested, we'll have them come forward here so the microphones can pick them up. >> Okay. Mic is also working. >> Which one? >> The podium mic is also working. >> Oh, okay. Oh, okay. I don't know if I want to do that, but
that is an opportunity. >> All right. Um, so, uh, for matters from the public, uh, we will, uh, address this as we typically do, we, um, invite our in-person audience. Um, if anyone's
interested first and then we will move to our hi, our hybrid, um, online audience. Um, if you're online and you're interested in speaking, please raise your hand in the application. Uh, we don't have anyone on the phone right now. There's instructions that we would
provide if there was somebody on a phone right now. So, is there anybody in our in-person audience? All right, we have one person to to begin there. And you'll have three minute.
>> Should I just like stay here? I'm good here. Um, hi everyone. Um, my name is Sophia Morero. I'm a community organizer at the Public Housing Association of Residents. I'm just here to speak about the zoning code. Um, and just once again, as we've been showing up to a lot of these
meetings, you've probably seen me. Um, but we just really want to push uh the changes to this zoning code. Um, especially because they overlook historically black and brown communities. Um, so I'm just here to advocate for that. Um, and yeah,
continue pushing against LV Collectives um, building luxury student housing building they're trying to build. Um, and yeah, so that's it. >> Thank you. >> You knew I was going to pass this up.
>> Check with our our virtual audience. >> Sorry. Well, we're going to Yeah, you'll get an opportunity and and I don't I don't have any hands raised in the virtual audience. So, Neil, it's okay. >> Just going to make you stay up and sit down again. >> Uh, good evening, Neil Williams of the
Free Enterprise Forum. Um, as you look through the NZO, uh, and I don't know if we can still call it the Enzo because now it's just the ZO, but um, I I ask you to consider the property owners and how this moves forward and what your
goals are. Um, when we were going through the SEO plans together process, the goal was to make development easier and get the kind of development that the community wanted.
that created the new zoning ordinance. Um, now their discussion of changes to a living document, which we love because we have tier three changes, but I know that's not why you're here today, but
you have folks that are now applicants or to be applicants preparing based upon the code as it exists. This is a challenge for big and projects big and small. So I I encourage you to
think about that when you think about implementation date recommendations um and how that change might impact and have a cascading effect on a project. But other than that, you got a lot of details to look at and I appreciate your
work. Thank you. Um, thank you. All right, we'll check in our virtual audience. No hands raised. Back to our in person. Yes, sir. Come on forward. >> Hi, I'm Joe Leon, a thirdyear UVA student and I'm a part of the Friends of
Public Housing Association of Residents at the UVA is a new student organization that's been speaking at the city council meetings. I would like to echo the previous organizers's point about uh how students are also concerned about this
new uh development and how will perhaps uh gentrify the neighborhood and that encroach upon the 5 mil community. And thank you for your work on looking at the zoning uh ordinance amendments tonight. And uh yeah, thank you.
Still no takers in the virtual audience. That appears to be our entire audience in person right now. Um, one last chance for either group. All right, chair. >> All right. Thank you. Um,
so now we're going to move on to the consent agenda, which is um initiating the uh um minor limits development code text. >> Mr. Chair, I have a motion. I move to approve the consent agenda as written. We have a second. Um, do we need to do a vote or can we
just do a all in favor? >> The acclamation would be. >> Everyone in favor? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> I opposed. Great. All right. The consent agenda pass. Um, so now we can move on to looking at our zoning text amendments.
>> Um, do you want to just introduce the whole >> Yeah, I've got a presentation that's >> right. system of getting it up on the monitor. >> Got the second tier here. And I got
Right. So, commissioners Matt Alf planning manager. Um, tonight you are going to be holding a work session. Um, this is to review the 23 proposed tier 2 zoning text amendments and any of the tier one
that you maybe want to bring up has been initiated. Um this is basically is to focus on clarification, process improvements, legal compliance. Um your action is going to be um advance. You'll look at each amendment. You can advance as
presented, advance with edits, defer for further study. Uh we are aiming for a public hearing in December, but based on the work tonight, we will reevaluate. Staff will reevaluate to see if that maybe needs to be pushed out to January.
But that is kind of the intent. Next slide. So it'll be just a brief overview of the tier 2 amendments, a recap from our October listening session, and then we will work through as planning commission will work through each amendment. Staff will be here to answer questions and
clarifications as you work through each amendment. Next slide. So the tier 2 amendments uh deal with development standards such as set setbacks build to active depth accessory structures process improvements um as
there's a proposed development related to development review threshold legal compliance. This speaks to things like the critical slope tree canopy um updates and clarifications definition built for building structures and graphical formatting. Next slide.
At your last work session, we had a a listening session with local builders. There was a lot of discussion. Basically fell into um design conflict with active depth versus internal parking, build to width transition setbacks and um
unbuildable lots, clarity in the code, and process and policy. Next slide. As I stated, uh you'll review each of the 23 tier 2 amendments and and you'll uh look at them. Advance as presented by
staff, advance with suggested edits, or you do not have to advance if this is something that uh creates a lot of uh back and forth. It can be either put on tier three or as I've mentioned this body before, this is going to be a yearly process. So, as we get used to
this, you'll be seeing basically hopefully not as many tier ones, you know, just few minor little scrier things, but you know, a few just a handful of tier twos as we move through over the future. So, and I think one as before we get
into as I before I turn it over to the chair to get into the actual work on each of these amendments, what I would just keep in mind, um, the best analogy I can give, I know it's not the greatest analogy, the best analogy is the is to think of the code as a car. The tier one amendments is washing it, doing just the
stuff you would normally do. Tier two is changing the oils, changing the oil in it when you need to. Tier three is we're hearing something funny. we need to look into this deeper. So this is just a maintenance you know these tier two are really maintenance of the code that we should be doing really yearly. So with
that again staff is here to answer questions. Um I know y'all were having questions prior to this meeting. We compile them to a document. Um staff didn't want to answer those questions until we were in an open setting. But with that I'll turn it over to the chair and staff is here to assist.
>> Thank you. Um, so I guess we're going to start with um we have one item that somebody mentioned from the um tier one uh section. Does anybody else have any tier one comments before we go there? All right. So A70 um which is the cut
off date for the uh existing structures. Um give everyone a second to find that in the end of our packet. While you're looking at that, I will say we don't have that one, but we can pull up Missy can pull up the tier like if you want to have the proposed amendments on the screen as you're discussing, we can do
that, too. Page 52 of the packet. That's helpful. Um, I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward. We we had talked about needing to set a uh like a cut off time for the existing structure preservation bonus. So, you can't just put up a structure and then immediately say, "Oh,
I have an existing structure. I get the bonus for my next unit." Um we uh I guess the sort of the consensus when we had previously discussed it of most of the commission was that we should just set it at a hard moment in time of the
date of adoption. Um I caution against that um because if you look at the old code uh there there are several places where they have specific dates. Um, one of them was like 1964, uh, which was when in structure that
code was originally, uh, instituted. Um, I think, you know, and you set a specific date, uh, it's easy to think, oh, well, this makes sense for the next like 10, 15 years, and then there will be a new code or something. In practice, zoning codes last a really long time.
And to say that a 50-year-old structure in 50 years isn't eligible for the existing structure preservation bonus um I think would be overly rigid um and not achieve the goals that we want with the preservation bonus. Um so I would just
say uh something like 5 years before uh was I says eight uh before the submission of the development plan is when that structure got its certificate of occupancy would be plenty to make sure that no one's gaming the system but
still let new structures as of today become old structures as of many years in the future. Um obviously not uh are there is there any disagreement with or yeah any disagreement
the uh the question we've got ask is how many years I mean it's 5 years right it's 8 years five it's 10 years right I said eight because it's a compromise >> I knew I should have suggested like three and eventually >> u I mean it seems like five years is
long enough that like I don't see anyone like doing a development and then like the second phase of that development is intentionally 5 years out. Um I guess when I saw this section of the code I was thinking that we were talking
about things that maybe not necessarily had historic sign significance but at least had kind of some sort of this is how the city used to be type feel to it. So I I it seems a little weird to me that in 5 years buildings built today would
be considered existing um in this context but I guess it's it I see where you're coming from. I'm leaning towards 10 years. Um just seems to make more sense that at least is not. >> So remember memory from 2023 this came
out of like preservation pedmont and and a big discussion was embodied carbon that we don't want to demolish buildings and so we want to create incentive to preserve it. >> Yeah. Um >> I mean I think most cases you're
probably not demolishing a building. that's less, >> you know, five years or 10 years old. Um, but I mean, I think anywhere in there is probably fine as long as we're not saying in 50 years we're still sticking with this date. I think eight
is a compromise. It's also fine. Uh, everyone who's what number makes you happy? >> I mean, I don't have a strong opinion on the number. I agree with the with the concept that it should be a a a not a
fixed date, but I don't know what the right number is. I don't have a strong feeling. Any thoughts from over there? >> Same sentiment. Maybe it's something we should ask. I don't know if there if there's builders in town that would have input
on uh trying to prevent someone from gaming but yet keeping it open. Um but f five seems safe. I mean I think >> but I don't know like you know I'm not a
developer so I maybe we asked someone to that number. The problem is that they're gaming the system and they're incentivized to >> give us all the number. >> Yeah. But I guess the question is like would anybody would is five like a time where gaming still make sense,
>> right? Like to to build one unit and then sit on a property for x amount for eight years or for five years and then use that to make it worthwhile. I mean, I think when someone does a master plan of a property, it can be 10,
15 years out when they're they're thinking um depending on how they're developing it. If they're doing, you know, if they're have a financing for one building at a time, yeah, they can stretch it out for for a while. >> Yeah. I mean, we're talking about, you know, single lots in our zones here,
right? So, >> which out to eight units at most, right? or >> I don't feel strongly. I I'm I don't know if there's some unintended consequence that's going to come out of this. >> I think so. Yeah.
>> I mean, I think I think it is low stakes also in that like the worst cases here you get an extra unit because you kept the >> house that was also sort of you. >> I mean, we want more units. >> Yeah. You okay with?
>> I'm for 10. If you guys are ambivalent, does that mean five is okay? In which case, >> we got a couple just an eight. >> Maybe seven and a half. >> Is everybody are is anybody opposed to eight?
>> Nope. Okay. So, that's her suggestion is >> Well, what else is cos are only kept on file for so long? um they're not kept on file definitely. So enforcement is would be >> challenging once you get past you know
having I I understand the commission's you know idea of rolling but um that does become difficult on the enforcement side having a set date even having that set date creates a little bit of an issue because you could have stuff built around that time but at least it's a very concrete time you're not you're not
constantly taking that issue and rolling it forward. How long are they kept? >> Three or four years. No, >> sounds like four years. Then uh there's no Cong file then. It's old enough. >> I mean there there are also visual clues um aerial but that's not
>> we do have like the assessors year your your build field which is not great for older buildings but I assume is better for newer buildings. I don't know when they update it if they update it when you get a co or how they choose that though.
Uh that's a good question. I'm not sure on the assessor side, but um not not to not under radiate. I mean, we can make whatever. >> Well, I mean, another option is it's a couple years now before this will become
a problem. Um we could hunt it to next year, but leave it if it could be somehow on your list of this is something we need to kind of figure out in the future. >> You can definitely take it off tier one and put it for future tier. two for next year. I will just say it was suggested
because it currently there is nothing. So it is we are in the real realm of you built it, you got your CEO, you come in the next day and ask for the bonus. >> So it could become a problem next year with current loophole. >> Well, but we can push it to five years and then we can punt that we get five
years of time to rethink how long it is. >> I've been thinking um we could fork this problem. We could fork it to one say the one is patch it now. We could fork it to two and say let's think about it and get a good solution when we have that >> or you can you could go with your
original thought your work session back in the spring and tying it to adoption of the code. >> Yeah, >> I'm hopeful that this yearly process will continue even here and this could be you know if five years there is a need to reassess that
date um that could always be looked at. My recommendation would be to patch it now and then fix it later. Absolutely. >> My fear is that anytime you put the spec as soon as you put the specific date in, we're going to never forget it. Remember it again. >> You You're still going to be there. Are
you moving? >> Not going to be here. I mean, I'll be here, but I won't. >> Well, you'll be here. >> We know we're I don't care enough about this issue that I'm going to email you in two years either. Um even if I were
emailing you in general. Um, I just feel like it will just get stuck and then never change. Sort of like 1964 or 1982. >> You guys need to basically process whatever we talk about tonight and put it into whatever is going to get approved. So, our recommendation would be 8 years, but if that's not feasible
due to how stuff works behind the scenes and the the recommendation to patch it and have it be May 27, 20 25, no, at to be the code adoption. Sorry, read this. Um,
then we go with that. Does that sound good to everyone? There. I'm sorry. So, yeah. >> Our recommendation is if staff can figure out a way to make eight years work, that's the recommendation. If they can't, then the recommendation the
council uh for what council would approve would be to patch it at um uh setting a set date of when the code was adopted. >> Yeah. And from an enforcement perspective, you know, I would think if it's in question, we could just say you need to give us proof that the to was issued right
>> prior to that date. >> Is it the burden of proof on the applicant to bring evidence that it's an existing structure? So, they have to prove that. >> Yes. I mean, I would I would say again, we could we can make it work just pointing out the
>> what we run into on our >> Yeah. Also, there is a title on the packet. It does say 2025 December 18, 2025 as the date. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, um, moving on to B1.
>> Do you do you feel you've got a good recommendation for this? >> Yes, we we are taking Barry's taking notes. >> Um, all right. All right. So, we do have a number of comments and questions that came in already. Um, do you guys want to
address any of those now or should we read our comments first? >> I mean, I can give kind of a synopsis of what I think of Stafford and then how we respond and then I'll open up too. >> Sounds great. >> So, B1 is the uh one of the big issues
we have faced on staff side. This is preventing duplexes and town homes based on one of the key changes in the code was we went away from a code that called out develop housing style type. Now we are on just units. It is just unit count. It is not about single family
attached, single family detached. So it was just units and that created the issue of not being able to do duplexes and town homes on lots. It was a workaround with sublotss but we were trying to patch that. We are suggesting staff suggesting the alternate form um
which some of the questions that kind of came out of that were um I won't kind of go into the the story then we can fix that if with the the stores but u the side basically talking about the side lot lines um there was questions about should it be we're staff
suggesting 8 ft should it be 4 feet would uh what we're proposing allow town homes um and So, kind of address that one first. Yes. So, how it's set up is you're it's it's giving the alternate
form is giving you either attached side or not attached side. So, if you're attaching both sides, it's zero. It's going to run out. I mean, somebody has to do the the setback eventually, but you you could have a town home set up of a row of town homes where your your side setbacks on a parent lot are zero
>> by both sides >> on both sides because you're you're saying it's it's attached so it's zero, but but you do run out of that at some point. Somebody has to do the 4 foot or 8 foot. Uh staff suggesting 8 foot because you're losing 4 foot. Uh we tie this kind of into the kind of the state
requirement for our tree canopy. We thought this is a way to soften that blow, give a little more space for trees. Um the other thought was, you know, are we getting should we just be zero? I know there was questions of could it just be zero? Are we gaining anything from our side setbacks? Uh
staff's concern is that there's a fire component. There is a 10-ft building separation when you do uh buildings. So you you have setbacks from a zillion standpoint, you have setbacks from fire. uh your fire setbacks can be closer if you do higher rated material, but they
do want to want to set back between buildings. And so it's that we run into this already, but it's it's a little bit of sharing the burden with two properties because if you did a zero and somebody went right up to the property line and built their house, the person next to them, if they decide to come
develop, they have to be 10 ft off or they have to incur more cost to be closer to the property line uh because of the fire separation. So it staff would actually be more inclined to if we wanted to even talk about changing setbacks, side setbacks, line it up with
fire and having them be five because right now with a four there's a little bit of a one foot set, but that's a little, you know, if you're if you build a 4T side setback and your neighbor wanted to build, you know, they're four feet, so they're already at 8 ft. So they could do a little fire protection
or they could move 2 feet, which is different than having to move 10 feet weren't expecting. So, um, that was kind of staff's responses on the setback. See what else?
Um, can I ask a question on that? Certainly. Don't we want people to use higher rated fire uh material for uh preventing fires? >> It also limits um the agility to have openings. >> Yeah. you have one windows, doors,
>> combination of things. >> So, yeah, I was wondering about that and I I check it in the code. Um, the building code. So, if someone does build four feet from the property line, the next person over is burdened and they have to build six feet over.
>> No, because it's a it's you can go closer. It's just as you go closer, you might have to do I'm not sure what some of the fire rating includes. >> I couldn't remember if it was 10 feet to the >> distance to your lot line.
>> It's two regular it's distance between a distance between lot line but a distance between structures and that structures is regardless of lot. >> Yeah. And actually um though we have the four feet in many circumstances um when somebody consults with the
building official he is communicating to them that if you go to the five ft and you have these opportunities if you stay in the four feet you have these other things that you have to do and the majority of people are choosing the five feet but they do have the flexibility.
Yeah, I think when we went with four over five, we discussed that and basically just said four like we gave an extra foot for like I any sort of like enroachment things you might want to like have flexibility for. >> I mean you can still have eaves and whatnot overhang the four um and get
closer. >> True. There are some like specific encroachments to go to. So, um I think you know my preference here while I
maybe would be okay with zero foot side setbacks in general um I would argue maybe that's a tier three issue and sort of separate from this attached lot within a development issue. And then I think my my stance on the side setback
that does exist should be that like the opposite sides like the point of a side setback is to give you distance from your neighbor on that side and they're not helped by the people on the opposite side getting extra. Um, and so it should
just be more than the same. And I I get the tree thing, but like the space for trees, but my impression is that most people are not planting trees in a four to five foot side setback and or even an 8ft side set back. And by having zero
lot lines, that allows buildings to be less deep and gives more backyard maybe front yard space for trees. Yeah, I I I think it was your suggestion, Rory, to just leave the
not even set the the new like side the the detached setback side setback um in the alternative form, just like let the let the districts control that. Um and I I think that has like a simplicity that I like.
I'm in agreement. Um I'm almost wondering though if we've by making a new height we've complicated things if it just if it would be easier just to say if you have an attached building you have to build both sides of the attached like you you can't build up to a
property line without building on the other side at the same time. >> Well this is still about the opposite side like the side that is attached. >> Well I'm no I get that. So yeah, there's the setback thing which I'm agreeing with you guys that just leave it set by zone. But I'm saying like for the attached side, I think it's a problem
that the code what this amendment does is it doesn't say that you have to build both halves at the same time. >> And I think you should be required to so that someone doesn't build up to their property line and who knows what happens in the future with the next lot over. So, and I think I had a similar comment
and my my thought was more that or maybe that was only my first or my new comment or I don't know but um I think it should be part of the same development plan, right? So, you're not just building up to some random neighbor and saying, "Oh, they'll have an attached unit in the future." Um but the phasing doesn't
matter to me as much. Yes, you have a a party wall without windows potentially, but I would argue, you know, exposed party walls that maybe get covered up in the future and, you know, maybe get a mural or something in the meantime are sort of historically like big
contributors, potentially contributors to neighborhood character and not necessarily something to be afraid of. >> But then what's the side? There's no side setback at that point. Well, there is unless the development plan unless you also own that that other lot that
would be the future attached part, right? Otherwise, it can't be part of the same development. >> Yeah. From from staff standpoint, if you're saying attached lot has to be attached like we now the timing of it we get into that that is a we don't see that with attached. You don't necessarily see someone build h you know
submit a development plan or submit a building plan with the attached and then only build one >> side of it. So we would not we wouldn't approve a plan that said future attach like attached means it's it's got to be
there but there is that where you know landmarking you can't we we can't force someone to say you have to build something with a certain period of time um it it just would be I think it would be a very rare situation where someone said I'm building either you know a row
of town homes they have the approved plan to build the row of town homes and they stopped at >> I I mean, I I've I've designed a project like that where that was the plan. The developer didn't have the money to do the other town houses at the moment. So, he was going to build one and sell off
the other pe the other parcels and they would be um you know, built over time and for a while you'd just have a a firewall right there. Um so, I just want to make sure that that doesn't what we're proposing doesn't allow that. It sounds like you're saying
>> it it it doesn't allow it in the sense of zoning. has to be attached. But where we run into an issue is we run into it anywhere is we can't tell a builder once you get an approved plan you have to build this within an x amount of time. It's the most >> I mean I guess to get the CO for one of
the units you'd have to have the other one complete at the same like could you just hold up the CO and say you know if you want to occupy this half the other half has to be finished. That sounds like a pretty good incentive
to finish it. >> Cos are a little tricky um when you get into kind of life safety and when we would I'm not as worried about it for any larger like development where you're spelling out everything on development. But where I can see the concern is
submitted just for a duplex straight to building permit. Um, >> so you mentioned that the simplicity the simple thing to do would be just to line the single fire. Why wouldn't we just line the simple fire that
>> uh well I mean that's a that's a discussion we had during the original thing and >> what do we decide? We decided that basically everyone's going to build it to five anyway, so they don't trigger the extra requirements, but that the flexibility might be useful to some eventually and didn't feel like a big
deal to allow it. Um, so I mean, it seems to me like there's kind of two scenarios here. One is like the the stick built townhouse where it's all one structure, like it's all, you know, sort of mutually holds
each other up. And the other is like the zero lot line building like you see like on downtown mall or like in like Baltimore or something as row homes where there are distinct lots with firewalls and in theory you can knock one down and the rest still stands up. Uh
>> and I will say this this is only the district. We already have the zero lot lines in our other districts. This has not been an issue with that. Um so it was it was but again just trying to focus on giving a path. We we know we want this type this form and trying to get a path for that form. I I think the
chair brings up good questions. I don't have necessarily answers to at this moment. >> The other thing that got me was the the diagrams provided were um seemed to be saying something different than what the what you're trying to accomplish. Uh the
setbacks looked like they were going through sublot lines instead of actual lot lines. So, um I don't know if there's a way to just clear up that diagram that whatever we decide. >> Yeah, I feel like it makes a little more sense >> is like for the side lot line attached side to get another letter like F or
something and then for the middle line to be drawn as get that letter in there. >> We we can definitely clean that up. We we were >> Does that make sense what I said though about the how it's a little confusing? It looks like it's measuring the sub lots and lot lines.
I don't I don't know why you say that. >> Well, because the first diagram shows two lots and the second diagram shows four and >> well, it's a solid line and here it's a dotted line. >> Yeah, whatever. It's I think we could take the dotted lines out even >> or maybe maybe show a string of you know
one of them's uh >> you know >> I think got one dwelling that's uh you know on one side of this lot line and you got a string of town houses on the other or something that's trying to show that it's not just a duplex driving along the lot line.
I think if we clear up that the first graph is just to match the the issue we run into is there's not a symbol for sublines, you know, it's the same. So >> I think we can just clear that up so that it looks like >> making these drives out of curiosity. >> Is it code studio?
>> No, it's us. >> It's we're we're >> very nice. It's been a very uh >> the original. >> I like how there's bump outs intersections, too. I've got a question. Yeah,
>> maybe a slightly um not related to one of the other ones, but um so with this alternative form, is there any limit on the number of like could cuz on lots you could assemble to build attached housing? Like I know in some codes and
maybe it's building code it's like once you hit six you have to like have a separate building but in theory could you do like a Baltimore or DC style job here and just like have an entire block of attached row homes. Uh, you probably would run into
I would need to look at the building code when they would I think if they're all still fe simple single ownership town houses. I think they're still considered um residential code.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> And and know the fire marshall sitting in the back and if if you ever want to pipe up, you're more than welcome. So, is the concern that someone would decide to do like >> I I actually I'm not concerned that I'm
not saying we should not allow that. I'm just curious if if this if this is controlled by the building code, not the zoning code. That seems like a fine outcome to me. I just was more curious. >> I think it is. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I I agree that that's not something to really worry about and that that's kind of a great built board for
industrial. It's a historic uh historical uh building form that you know many cities have in our wonder bowl districts. And >> we got some very expensive houses over there that pretend to be that. >> Yeah. setbacks. >> So I I guess I just have a related
thought of thinking about RC related to this that there there are some parts of the city where it would make a lot of sense to have um townhouse to be permissible by right without strangess. I think that would be RC. >> Mhm. >> Which is kind of under current code, but something to consider.
>> Well, I think the idea here is that it could be RA too, right? And >> that's what we're saying. I mean you they you wouldn't get to build on the back. You'd have to have open space back there because the lot covered stuff in your unit wouldn't. But you could fit three side by side if you would have
60ft lot or 4ft lot. >> So I guess to summarize is it general agreement that we're okay with the setbacks being set by the district and not being artificially inflated to 8 ft. >> Okay. Um,
I I still have my concern that we don't have a building that's built up to its property line with no plans for future buildings or just future buildings don't end up attached to that. Um, but I guess that's something that >> well there has to be
>> I guess yeah um >> it has to go to NDS >> and the development plan has got to be attached on that side >> to be something there that's attached. >> Sounds like we don't have much make them build it necessarily. >> We would have I get the chairs to we would have a plan that says this is
going to be attached but they just walked away after building the first half. They built one half and not half of two halves. >> Yeah. I just feel bad for I mean if somebody ends up if that block gets sold and then it's some other you know
somebody builds on that property their neighbor is extra close to them and that seems unfair. >> Yeah. But it would be sold after that was the case. So >> yeah. So I think >> making it unfair to like some random
neighbor. So >> couldn't you in theory sell that lot and you could basically say like here's an approved development plan. Like build this, you know, it's already approved. You don't have to go through any of this process. I mean that seems like not a terrible outcome.
>> If Yes. If we're good with that, then I I'll back down from it. That sounds like staff hears the concern. Um, so is there anything else we need to change besides this besides the um setback? I guess the the the height we're going to let the um
by district. >> Uh correct. We would adjust that if if the uh going getting rid of story is going just to peep. We're we would match that. >> And I do see actually we've it looks like you've got 60ft building with max.
So, is that the maximum that we're setting for a string of these? >> Where is it? >> On the first page of this. >> So, that gets into V33 or whatever where >> Well, it's for the building and so it's
this this gets into that weird where property lines are. You could be looking at something and not know building or for, >> okay, >> and it's 60 ft for the building. So if there weren't property lines, you know, it's the whole thing. But for property,
which would be very rare, I just only want to build a 60 foot >> town row of town houses that's 60 60. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But and just to be clear, um it's property lines and not sublot lines or is it?
>> It's so that's that's so it is and there's an amendment in here to talk kind of about that. um where you could have because it gets into that whole extra bonus hike where um it was really benefiting single
family and not the multif family that I think the intent of the code was >> and so it was clarifying that that is jumping around. So I think that's B33 Sorry guys, this big difficult faster just keeps
so we we had this thing so like if you built town houses and they were sublotted, they could only be two and a half stories, but if they weren't sublotted, they could be three stories. Um, and I think the original intent, >> but we're fixing that later on. That's what >> Yeah. If the way we're fixing it is through a change in the definition of
building saying that a building can span like if a building spans multiple lots or sublotss, >> it's still considered one considerable >> which instead of the building code which says once you through property line
that's what makes it separable. things. But now I see this 60ft building with max and that means that if we put property lines in there, it's still one building. Like we're going to we're going to cap these things at 60 ft long. It sounds like >> Yeah, but I think even worse than that,
well, I think it's I think this might create a bunch of problems. This is something I noticed earlier today. to my new comments that I just emailed you guys, but uh it's like yeah, I I think it might create
>> we want to get rid of the 60 foot limit. Is that what we're saying? Is that the problem you're getting at or is there >> I think that will be one of the issues. Okay. >> Um it also says for the purpose of setbacks, right? Um, and in this case,
if you have an attached like if you're considering the building setback, but the setback of zero is in the middle of the building, what does it mean to consider that for setbacks? Um,
>> chair, was your concern the 60 because it's set by district. Was it just the concern? Well, it says so this >> set by district. It says 60 foot building width max. >> Um, am I missing something on that?
>> It's a little tiny screenshot which I guess is is that going to show up on the second page? Building height by district. Oh. Oh. So, uh, >> it's going to be the >> Never mind. It's not even there on the >> Are you looking at the street facing
Massie? I'm looking at the first page of the amendment which there's a little tiny screenshot there which probably doesn't even apply anymore. >> So that's the first set of B that's about density um coverage all that set by district >> and that's where it says two and a half
stories um or 35 ft height and says 60 foot width max but then if you look down the next two more pages in um there's nothing there for that. So I guess >> you just need to look at the because it's it's everything should be
set by district and that would go under mass and >> yeah I guess the issue is with the alternate forms there's like those earlier sections of summary of the district and applicability and in that there's a table that says that
>> oh I see I see where your >> yes I guess that little screenshot on page three doesn't just we ignore that >> I mean I I would say it shouldn't be should set by district. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. And I would say both of those last two, in fact, all of those things should be set by district, right? >> We really were trying to get >> Yeah. It was really set by district with the only changes really being attack side. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> If we can just replace those setbacks
that array. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. The other comment I I had which is pretty minor is that like we do have a bunch of numbers on that that last page in this um you know ground for transparency entrance spacing all that all of those are the same as all of the
residential districts and so maybe they should just all say set by district doesn't really matter unless one of the district changes later and then they'll still be this >> um like yeah >> so Yeah,
which begs the question is do we even >> well I will say the the distinction >> well that's the philosophy is again we don't have ways to talk about duplexes tri triplexes townhouse we only talk
about units and so without actually introducing those terms >> into the code the alternate form was a way to get that form without calling out something that would only be called out in one section. >> Yeah. >> I think
I think Lory's comment is like I think you're trying to make it easier to update the code in the future. It's like instead of >> Yeah. Or like if we say that RA should have like way more transparency than we previously required because there's not enough windows in the buildings that are going up. But RB and RC we don't care as
much. Then all of a sudden the three are out of sync. Yeah. And then this section will stay as they are now. >> That makes sense. >> Um which actually almost So then like the only thing that really is different here is the side lot line attached is
allowed. >> Yeah. >> In which case maybe all the zone should just get a side lot line attached >> if it's attached. >> That's what I was trying to say. >> Like line. Yeah. >> Instead of having form at all. Unless we think that there's stuff in the district
summary and applicability that matter. Um I mean the applicability churches to any allowed residential uses and so I guess there are technically some non-residential uses in residential zones that would not qualify for this
like a church. Um, other than that, it seems like it would be the same as just adding that line to the other four residential zones. >> Well, I guess we'll let Steph figure
that out, but we're are we basically in agreement that everything should be by district. Okay. and the um including the um unattached uh side lock line um setback. >> Yeah.
>> And um just I guess take a look at the diagrams on page four. And I guess that's it. >> Yeah. I mean I guess the flip side would be if we think that because it's attached there should be more transparency or different but we don't currently have any of that.
I think the commission if there you know like doesn't sound like the 8 foot is something that is supportive. I mean there may be an opportunity for staff to look at just adding now this gets beyond necessary what y'all would need to cons be concerned about
but you know I don't we could add you know a G one or something because once we start adding >> an H we're starting to move every >> everything in this code. Um I I think we'll let you guys figure out the how
this works out best. Um but they just so yeah it was just those um make everything by district and I think that's our our recommendation >> be fair for the that concern. There are other pieces where we have multiple
things under a letter bullet thing. So that would be consistent, but you that would >> uh B3 um had to deal with uh some changes to the um steep slope section. >> I was a little confused by that.
>> This is bring this is to bring the code into a little more state compliance. Um so there were some questions about a lot of record which a lot of record uh is any lot that was created before the uh critical slope ordinance was created and
so if you created a lot um you have the right so you you get into a lot of the land use you don't want to do a taking so everyone has a right of a lot of record to build a single family home and so if you have a lot of record prior to
us introducing the slope ordinance you get to build a house. So we were trying to reintroduce that language. Um there was the uh you know basically if you have you have the right to build
homes and Supreme Court case I don't feel interested in Louis v South Carolina. Yes. >> They could work the word. Yeah. And so we at least need to put an exemption for that. There was in the
notes y'all provide there was maybe even providing more because we allow city. Um staff was just trying to correct this if y'all as a group would want to up that perfectly to to do that. Uh but that was staff was
just trying to put that back in that it wasn't it was in our old ordinance and it just wasn't working. So my question on that was uh your language says that any structure that was already there could be expanded, enlarged or extended. Um which implies that like I get it that
like the first dwelling that's on there should be allowed to be expanded and enlarged and extended. But what if there's four buildings on the property? Do all of them have that right? >> They you do get rights with your existing um improvements to your
property. you know, we have what's supposed to control that is your non-conforming section that says you can only improve things by certain percentage. So, they're they're kind of tied together. Whatever we're allowing improvements to be made to non-conforming can be made to
existing structures that are non-conforming. >> So, we can't limit those differently than what we would non-conforming because of that, >> right? The language proposed seems to imply that we're they're exempt They're exempt from the critical slope.
>> Yeah. >> Is that like again I understand how like the first dwelling unit has to be exempt if there's multiple dwelling like if someone has a a large shed or a garage or something like that like is that also exempt and allowed to they could add
another stall to their garage if they wanted to? um only if it's non-conforming or you're only following the non-conforming regulations, it would be exempt from critical slope. >> Okay. Because it's only a certain I
think it was cleaner under the old code because we had that 25%. Um somehow I'm still confused, but I'm not confused enough to suggest a change or I'm too confused to suggest a change.
Does anybody else have anything they want to change on this? There were a bunch of questions. Uh yeah, the six Yeah, up to 61 units >> and that's just to allow affordable housing, >> which you were saying that if you have a
lot that has critical slopes on it, we want to allow up to six dwelling units without reviewing it for critical slopes. >> Yeah. If we can build a mansion, why not a sixlex with the exact same dimensions? >> Yeah. >> I I feel like I mean, we've got these
critical slope regulations which I think we're trying to streamline, but I mean it's to, you know, protect storm water and whatnot. Um, and I feel a little worried that we're just kind of
throwing that out because I mean that means that you get parking for six units and you get um all the other stuff that goes along with that. I'm not in favor of that. I don't know discussion.
>> I get I in theory I I get I agree in theory that like if legally you can build one house, you should be able to build that house and split it into multiple units. like you're building the structure, you're having the impact on
storm water. I guess like I just don't know quite how we do that in a way that doesn't just make it a loophole to just ignore critical slope. >> Yeah, it seems like the distinction is a city would rather not allow these things
and enforce the critical slopes rules uh even for the mansion and the states making us let the mansion happen. Yeah. >> So >> I am against the loophole. >> I do get the idea. Yeah, I agree that in general we should not treat
multif family more strictly than single family for things that have the exact same impacts. Um that is pretty unfair. Uh I hope that we're going to fix all these vertical slopes regulations. part of the environmental study anyway and then we can move away from it and move
to VSB. I guess I I would be inclined to just um accept what the current proposed change knowing that the critical slope that like there's a bigger effort to look at critical slopes in general and
streamline that >> any anyone disagree okay so B3 is uh good as is uh B4 this is the Um,
oh, street facing entry requirements. >> Yes, there was there was questions on this. I will say what what staff was aiming for is just flaration. >> Mhm. >> Uh the the how it is currently written which just says uh lots with one rolling
unit do not have survived street facing entries. Um staff is just this is more on a staff side not policy side. This is just it's very vague to us. This is this talking about if I have one dwelling unit in a in a mixed use development and
the rest of my commercial uses don't need a front facing entry. Um and so we were just trying to clear this up. Uh I can and then with the accessory structures, this was kind of a second catch because we we feel with the
changes to uh prime creating a primary in accessory structure and not preventing accessory structures in the front yard, this would this wouldn't come up, but it was just um kind of a catch. But um
>> is accessory structure that's not a residential unit, right? >> No. So that's the one thing that we kind of have to train ourselves to get away from is we we used to have accessory dwelling units, >> right? So I saw that and >> think, wait a minute, that's not talking
about. >> Yeah. If you have a house and you want to put a a mother-in-law suite or something in the back, that's no longer it's just and so accessory is really just >> So this isn't talking about residential structures. This is just talking about sheds and
>> Mhm. >> what it specifically says no units in an accessory building. >> Yeah, >> that's what Yeah, that's why I was getting confused with the accessory building or whatever, but was the traditional
building something. Um, but it made sense that um Do you have only one primary fund? >> And there was a question. One of the questions that came out of this y'all were asking was, you know, if somebody
has an existing house and they add another unit, let's say upstairs or let's say to the they're expanding it to the right. Uh the existing structure would not. So we have always how the code is written is what you're proposing
is what's being under review not this the you know unless you're redeveloping the whole site removing the house building a new house we look at the site but if you are doing an addition just the addition is being looked at it the code actually does a pretty good job of
laying out the applicability sections for the different types of construction. So if if someone were to have an existing house and they built behind it, it wouldn't necessarily need a >> it wouldn't be a street facing >> or if they instead of adding on but they
they took their second story and they divided it became a duplex um would they have to update the existing structure to meet the entry facing requirements? No, but they might have to do the the great um active depth for that section depending on the district uh
>> which that Yeah, I know that comes up later. Oh, this is odd to >> So, but if you were doing new construction and you had one unit in the front that was in the build two zone and satisfied the build two zone and that had the entries and then you built another unit in the back, that one still has
but it's street facing. I guess maybe it still has to have the meet the entry requirements. >> No, it's not. It's it's not within that facade depth from a um >> so but also are so when I was looking at what an accessory structure is tell me
if I got this wrong but it's it seemed like it was anything that shelters people or property. So like you have a small shed that might be off to the side of your house but still you know within that you know front area um within your
build zone or like a trash corral or a dog house. I mean are I I know that we're not going to require a front porch on those but the code is kind of technically reading like we would. >> So and that's this code. Yes. Yes. I mean, I will I will say the code is set up to be about creating a one is what
some of the big things of this code is pulling things to the street. >> Yeah. >> And creating a uh urban feel for those things that are within the facade zone. So, yes, if if that little garden shed or something is in a position where
being in the front facing facade, yes, it would need, you know, need to look more like the street. Now that that is a definitely more of a policy velocity question. >> Yeah. Well, and also with one of your diagrams, I think the diagram that shows
a um oh pedestrian what is that zone? Um where someone cuts a corner out of their building um and makes a um I forget what that zone amenity. >> Thank you. Amenity space. And there were like little pavilions drawn on the
diagram of that and I think they were labeled as accessory structures. So what does that mean for those like or they're you know like a little tent canopy or yeah some little shade structure or something. Does it have a a
front door at that point or um I mean I guess the building's going to have a front door so then you'd have the number of required entrances but I just want to make sure we're not And and what I'll say is is staff would be more focused on D if the planning
commission feels that >> D makes more sense. >> If D is not an issue, we can leave not strike it out. >> I'm in favor of leaving D and and um not striking out C. Uh so one question I had on D is no
additional uses if you have an accessory use like a home occupation or whatever. I don't know. Uh or are you going to run into problems here? Um and should we say no additional primary uses or non-acessory uses? I don't remember
primary uses is a thing we define. See, I I think no like no additional primary use is trying to cover >> because it just was trying to cover primary use somewhere else. So a bund of primary use >> and it is clear elsewhere in the code
that existing buildings are exempt from being required to be updated. Like if someone adds a something in their backyard that's another primary use.
>> Yes. I mean it is Yeah, we're we No one is updating something they're not proposing to update. >> So other thoughts? Any disagreements? Anything anyone's hearing? So the this one we're not striking out C
and we're um otherwise accepting the the amendments. >> A little clarification to be the same. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um moving on to B5. Yeah. So, one of the questions came up
and then this is we've been struggling with this. This is this is a media one. >> Um staff has been struggling with it. Y'all have seen several special exceptions come before your body trying to deal with this. What one of one of the questions that came out in your body this body was you know talking about
does even something like a 250 six square foot shed need development review as the code is currently written. Yes, everything needs development review. Um and so uh that we're trying to address with a a different addition
or a different amendment um related to development review to give a clear path to some of the smaller stuff and we'll get to that when we get to it. >> Um but yes, as the code is currently written, any any activity needs development review, any new construction
addition uh goes through development review. Uh but what what this was trying to you know I don't want to label this the the boto amendment but um but this is this is this is what um
you know you know it talks about >> that's a historic Roy Rogers trash compactor the again as I was saying earlier the code is the code is written to bring things to the street and So,
um, what staff was trying to do was keep that intent, not change that intent, which is still trying to bring your primary uses closer, but to allow someone to do that shed, to do that um, small workspace or something that's not
your primary, so you're not forcing someone to bring something to the street, but allowing that in the backyard before you meet the current regulations. Um, I think that would be a larger conversation if we're talking about primary uses not having to meet the current codes because then you lose
a lot of what this code is trying to do, which is it is trying to force people to bring things up um closer to the street. Yeah. So staff was not trying to to address that, not trying to address these primary uses like if you have, you know,
your primary house is set further back, >> it's still trying to encourage the that coming closer in certain situations, but if you wanted to do the garden shed or you wanted to do something in the back, we would be permitted to do it. So, I I I don't have
just the answer to that more higher higher philosophy question because the code is not set up, you know, it is set up to to put some burden on people to bring things closer. I don't know if you all saw my comments on the bill two zone, so you know where
I stand on this. >> I think there were a couple small things maybe we could tackle first. Uh, someone brought up who's brown. Someone brought up a double lot situation where you put your shed in the lot next door.
>> Does seem like a reasonable use of a accessory structure that wouldn't have a primary structure on the same lot. I don't know how we fix it. >> Yeah. I mean that that is we we've run into that and that's that it's more of
an issue. you know, under the old code there was you had to definitely designate something that was primary. And so, um, I can't remember where it was, but there was a lot that just had a shed way in the back. And that became by default became the primary,
uh, structure. Um, and so I I don't know, as as the chair mentioned in one of his earlier emails, some of these are band-aids. Um they they're not uh complete fixes but trying to address
some of what we have seen come across in our desk that have been issues that didn't come across issues or special exceptions. I don't know how. So this one seems like one we're
introducing with this three this 3.51 B3 no accessory uses permitted in the lot till after the principal use is established. So I guess the question maybe is what's driving us to add that
like is there another problem we're fixing that's needs a band-aid more even if we're creating that new problem. Well, I think it was more tied to that example I was giving where you had now that was an existing condition. So, I think it was more just anticipating someone actually trying to put the shed
on the lot and that not necessarily want that because we're trying to establish a primary >> building first and then uh these accessory buildings. I guess they could always
consolidate lots investment. >> Yeah. Tricky. Um I don't know how you fix that. Unless it's in a development plan with an
adjacent lot in that has a primary use established. Uh >> are we is there an exception process? Like we must be talking about a tiny tiny number of edge cases here, right? >> Yeah, you can get a special exception. >> Is there an outlet for them? They can get a special exception and
>> Yeah, just cost 2,000 and change, which is a lot for a shed. >> Yeah, it is. >> Probably just put up a shed and not worry about it until someone reports it to >> read. Yeah, I mean there there is a relief
path for it, but it is not a >> I wonder if we need to have a minor special exception that just like has a lower fee or something for silly cases where it's like obvious that it should be granted. But
um the other small one was one I brought up maybe in my new comments with accessory buildings may not occupy a front yard. Um, you can imagine a shed in the front yard built to area next to the house.
That's kind of fine. Um, and maybe it should be allowed if it still satisfies the form requirements for a primary structure. Well, we just just uncrossed out that which would have
>> Yeah. I I mean, again, you know, accessory structures are it's very very vague what they are. >> Yeah. >> And I mean, as something as small as a dog house or um it just has to shelter people or property. Um,
so or like if you have a little cover over like your wood pile or which you probably don't want wood piles people's front yards, but um I don't know. It just seems like it's or you you cover your trash cans with something. >> Mhm. >> Um that's an accessory structure and I feel like that actually would be a welcome thing in a front yard rather
than just trash cans sitting in the front yard. >> Um so yeah, I'm I'm kind of I don't know. I feel like we're we're getting so overly prescriptive and picky about every little thing that's in these that could possibly be built. And it's um I
Yeah, I'd like to see some stuff lightened up in this code. Loosened up. >> Yeah. >> What are we literally bike shedding right now? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I don't know. See three go away. I think we could live without wait sorry
which three the front yard >> build infrastructure maybe located within the front yard lot into the required yard which is street >> I think we need to get rid of that because again we've got um >> I think of it
>> yeah I mean like in the the diagram you had with the pedestrian amenity space showing accessory structures shade structures in a front yard and shade the same as shelter. >> Depends. >> I mean, the perforated.
>> Yeah, I mean, that's fair. Yeah, I'm fine with getting rid of it. I don't I don't know what we're getting with it. I mean, I get You don't want a big faceless shed in the front yard, but I think probably blocking more things than it's
that are fine than it's stopping or allowing that or whatever. I don't know. >> I I think probably all of these are edge cases that go >> I would suggest that we move it for now and kick it to tier three. If there's a good option that we can do that's a little bit lighter and works well,
>> right? >> But I don't know what that is today. >> All right. So, we're not adding C3. We're going to we'll consider it later. >> It's your turn or just that piece? >> Just C3, right? I mean that piece I
would say kick it to whenever someone builds something in front yard that we don't like and then we can react. Um >> I think there would also we also need to change then 5A >> 5 buildings may occupy any rear side yard
provided all developments they just might need this you could say any yard. Um, now I guess going back to the what I thought was a bigger issue was um I I
still would prefer that we say um any new construction that is behind an existing building is exempt from the builder requirements because I I feel like we're again the element construction um workshop that they're trying to build um
I feel like we would have lost more if they had to tear down the house or build in front of it. Um similarly, it was, you know, we've got a lot of historic districts that are um I think I feel like it would be problematic to suggest that you have to build in front
of these these structures um just to comply. >> Yeah. Well, so you can as long as you've already met the build two requirement, right? >> And a lot of these don't >> The problem is when you have an existing structure, you can't, right? And then later in a different a different section
or a different amendment we have if you use the existing structure bonus you are deemed to comply with the build requirement. And I I made the suggestion of like maybe we should make that broader and say when you have an
existing structure maybe that's too broad but like or that would maybe when you have an existing structure that's eligible for the bonus then that's still only our zones. >> Yeah. >> Um
and I guess the problem also is in our zones that would be fine. your existing charger qualifies because you have the uh the existing range in the build to in the in the setback. It's the other zones where
if you might have an existing setback range that's different from the setback ranges that are now prescribed, but then there's also width. So, >> well, >> and I'm thinking like along Park Street, there are houses that are set very far back from the street um that have very
big backyards that can hold more housing. >> Mhm. >> Um and they would be prohibited from providing that housing without, you know, someone building in the front yard. >> Yeah. >> Um so, >> but then they're set back existing range
they're in. Right. >> I think it's I mean some of them are I think beyond that. some of the early the older ones >> by nature of where they are. They are in the existing range. >> Well, if their neighbors are up by the street, they're not. >> But I think the existing range is defined as the full range of the closest
on two two to the side of you or something. The closest and the furthest is the range. The problem though is you could be in the range but not have hit the built width, right? If you're not already 50% of the width of your lot.
Well, stepping back, I want to just touch on chairs like with elements thing. Yeah. The the the amendment staff's proposing would fix that. What we're doing is saying because what they were proposing now would have been their accessory. The primary, >> right? But that's again, it's kind of a
fuzzy definition of what's accessory and if that was a another office or if it was a um a dwelling unit. >> But the dwelling unit, I guess that's what the code is. We were trying to balance where when do you have to come up because again the code wants you to come
up and um so we are at least trying to get it so that accessory which we did view their off their office being the one on high street as the primary building and so this mechanism would allow would have allowed the the shop
which would have been accessory to the primary to be built without making changes to the primary. Right. But again, I feel like we're if they had any other use in there, it would have been would have been a
problem. Um, and I guess I don't see the benefit in making a property like that making them come up to the street. um if they're preserving the existing house. >> I guess the question is how do you how do you define it so that it doesn't
apply where you have an existing built form like that and you're building behind versus you're just not having a build to that's drawing things to the street at all. >> I mean I think if you this if there's any new construction behind an existing building
it it should be exempt from the um building requirements. So in the non-conforming build two requirement of new buildings and interior lot all new construction buildings or structures must occupy the build two zone until the build
requirements met until it's met. New buildings must occupy the build two zone for their entire building width. It's I mean yeah it is a pretty big cornerstone. So I mean I don't necessarily disagree
but I think it's going to be a philosophy shift. >> I I feel like our zoning code philosophy to begin with was a little bit based on new city built from scratch. Mhm. >> Um and we're we're struggling with it
left and right >> where a structure existed before December 18th, 2023. Then you can build behind it. Yeah. Is would it make sense to um go forward with what's written but then make this kind of bigger question about
building stuff behind existing structures like a >> I mean I hate to you know build up the tier three plate but or you know a longer term thing. >> Yeah. >> I mean I would argue that built too broadly should be discussed again in tier three now given all the problems
it's raised. Um, which I did also throw this into my additional comments of like if you guys read that half-written memo that I wrote in 2023, I got rid of it because I on later reading when I read
it sort of yet again um in 5.3. C.1 uh where it says new primary buildings on interior lot say all new buildings must occupy the bill 2 zone until the bill 2 requirement has been met. Does
that mean with your first building you have to fill up the thing or that if you build one that's 50% of the width you just have to keep putting new new buildings after that into the build two zone until it's met? Um, I think we've been interpreting it as the very first
building has to fill up the build two zone and that makes the build two requirement as a whole much stricter than it would be otherwise. Uh, >> yeah. >> And so you have these like 120 foot lots
in our zones where your maximum building width is 60 ft and your build to minimum is 65 ft or whatever. And you literally can't build anything without breaking one of those and getting a special exception or subdividing the lot. And I don't know, we should be making people subdivide those.
>> Yeah, that well that that was again another tenant of the code was to actually make people break up their larger lots into smaller lots. That that is one of the goals of the of the code. >> That doesn't that conflict with with Lucas v. South Carolina where it says
you have to be able to build something on your existing lot. You like we can encourage people to subdivide without forcing people to subdivide. And in this case, we literally can't build anything without a
special exception or subdivision. Yeah, that's there are definitely concerns on the code, but the code we have, I'm just giving you what the code what what it's was trying to what it's trying to do and to have those
conversations on on should the code be more about preservation or and less about bringing things up to a different urban form. Those are community discussions. >> So, I guess to Danny's point, I think we should have two or three discussion. you
guys should have a tier three discussion on bill two agenda. >> I I'm if that's what everyone agrees with. I just I'm worried that we're going to cause more potentially cause more damage in the near term by doing that than by um
allowing an exemption for um buildings behind existing structures. And I'm thinking again of B I looked at properties in the ADC districts. Um I'm, you know, I'm kind of worried what this our code is encouraging um in our
historic districts, >> but this does this change make that problem worse in the near term or does it just >> it leaves it the same, but I think I think it's a problem. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, >> and I think it's a significant problem,
>> but if if the rest of you guys are ready to move on, then we'll move on. >> I mean, I I agree it's fairly urgent. I think it's out of scope of B5. >> Okay. >> And that's the tricky part, right? So, we don't have a venue to discuss it yet. >> Maybe it should be the top of the tier three list.
>> We had a little thing in here on B on uh B5 to change though, right? Um the no accessory building would be located within the front yard. We're striking that. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I think yes. >> Any disagreements? Were there any other
small changes to D5? We didn't have a fixed double lot situation. So, I guess that was the other one. >> I'm not sure to solve that. >> Okay. All right, Matt, that makes sense.
>> All right, moving on to the next um uh B7. Uh, looks like everyone's happy or anyone have any issue with B7? Nope. B11. Uh, I guess that I think my comment was to just make sure it uh works withever
whatever language was chosen for B1. Um the 12 is uh comments 15. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Okay, that's all right.
>> On B12. I just wanted to make sure that the the through. So it seems like the distance between entrances works. I was trying to understand the
pedestrian access way spacing and I guess that works too. They just work in you have an open path and you have an entrance path. So that's all. I just wanted to make sure that was still you're still able to make the cutthroughs
count. >> I think through access is a different section than what's talked about here. There's um >> improve mobility improve connectivity through large sites that I was just
making >> and the proposed actually it's in the existing language. So then the proposed So there's a under blocks, if your block is too large,
uh you can get a block perimeter or length bonus via having a midblock pedestrian passageway. >> This is something different. This is just the like getting to the entrance. It does say through in the intent, but that doesn't >> it does, but yeah, that's what I would
>> at least not through to the opposite side. I guess you're sort of walking through the site. >> Okay. >> I don't know. >> So, are we good? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Uh B15. >> B15. I've got a problem with
>> All right. Um so we had a discussion in in the original work session whenever that was uh saying that in RC staff's interpretation was that the height bonus
in RC for affordable housing like that you get up to four stories if it's affordable should be at 50% AMI like the height bonus of extra stories in
uh in the zone subject to IC um instead of the 60% requirement. And I thought we decided that our intent at the time was not to do that. It was to allow things like uh stack town
houses um in our zones with the regular affordable housing bonus in our zones. And um struck me when I reread this
today that are we changing this to when permitted by the zoning district in order to say that it counts for RC and and that therefore the RC requirement is 50% AMI. See here got lost a little. So does this change
apply the 50% AMI? So if you look at if you look at RC right 2.2 2 5 section B1. Um the base height is 3.5 stories
or 40 ft. The bonus height if you have affordable dwelling units is four stories 52 ft. The idea was you get a four story so that you can accommodate a stack town home. We had a long discussions about how stack town homes were the most naturally affordable housing type in our zones that allow
ownership, all that. Um, my interpretation was always that that should be the the same way that you get the extra affordable units in RC and not be this much stricter standard of 50%
AMI. which is what applies to the X zones RX and CS NX you get the bonus. >> So your proposal is that it should be 16 instead of 50. >> No. Um it's just that this first part of
when permitted by the zoning district rather than in any zoning district other than the R zones should not be changed cuz uh the the bottom part like the analysis says the
the thing we're trying to solve here is that it's not clear that the 50% AMI bonus replaces the 60% AMI requirement. I guess. And we had that other thing in the table about RC zones. And it seems like we maybe matched them together
here. I'm trying to get clarity on whether that was intentional or whether it actually does RC. I think it was speaking to when you go to your bonus provisions versus the affordability.
>> It does say hype bonus in all other district standards already. So that does I mean the section before that is unit oh no the section before that is unit post bonus in residential district
standards because we have added that height bonus later for RC. So should we also be changing the name of three to just bonus in residential districts? >> Well there's other types of bonus.
There's the bonus for the >> That's true. Should we say >> I think that's what we were struggling with. It was the bonuses were kind of lumped together, but then affordable was a little different. >> Yeah. Although this is all under the
affordable dwelling units bonus section up the >> No. Remember we talked about this little >> Yeah. I mean I think so you know to Rory's to the Commissioner Senbo's point that um under this the subsection three
that's above this is where we're explicitly discussing the R districts. So that's where we see that our C district still living and then clarifying the text under four that you see before you guys today would live under that you know height bonus for all other districts. So RC is written
wouldn't explicitly get lumped into that by that rewriting. Um and I believe the um part of the reason to consolidate at the beginning was just to account for that as future changes happen and other districts might come in you kind of you don't get stuck in that oh well these
now we need to go back and update text um that may not align with future changes. >> Okay. So the intent was not to make that a thing. So I guess then to make it clear it is a little weird, right? It says unit bonus in residential district standards and then it's height bonus in
all other district standards. So maybe we just change three to height and unit bonuses. Or and that makes it clear that other districts does not apply to residential. Or if we're just concerned that there might be new residential districts, we
could say in any zoning district other than the residential districts or something. But to be clear, staff's understanding is not that that first clause makes it apply to any different districts. It
dust. That makes me feel better. I do feel like it makes a little ambiguous, but I think maybe you guys can handle cleaning it up and I'm not too worried about it. At least we have it on the record now.
>> I'll see you at the BZA in 15 years pulling up the transcript. >> It was definitely intended to be a cleanup to make sense, not a change to any interpretation or intent. >> Okay, cool. I think we could probably
just take the word for that one. Um B17 issues. Uh my only issue is that like uh the conditions under the next section that the zoning administrator may
consider doesn't explicitly have there's already an existing streetscape in good condition as a criteria to consider. Um and I I agree that it seems sort of redundant. There are very big criteria like does it comply with comprehensive
plan or help the goals of the comprehensive plan which the zoning administrator could use to say sure why not but I think it might be helpful to say uh could we uh we change to it >> yes >> to just add that
where existing streetscapes are determined to be in good condition to the list of criteria in 4.4.5 4.5e those list of standards. >> Mhm. Cuz right now it's mostly like
is it good if they don't build the sidewalk at all? Like is it okay if it's not concrete? If it's okay if it's only on one side of the street for is there no way for it to connect anywhere. But in this case, it's not that there won't be a streetscape. It's just that it's going to be different because there is
already one and it would be silly to rip it all up and lay new concrete, >> right? But that wouldn't be I just want to make sure that we're not saying that just because there's an existing sidewalk and it's in good shape, but it happens to be 3 ft wide
that it's still okay. because I think part of that um I know BPAC had looked at this at one point and there was concern that you know there may be sidewalks but they're just not it doesn't provide the full streetscape that we want. So there would be benefit to tearing up the
existing sidewalk even if it's good in order to get the street trees in in order to get a wider sidewalk. >> Yeah. So I mean it is uh up to the administrator's discretion right? Um, >> just making sure that the change you propose doesn't say, well, just because it's a good sidewalk, the administrator
should look at that and say it's fine. >> Well, the change I'm suggesting is just that the administrator can consider or should consider whether there's an existing streetscape determined to be in good condition. >> Okay. Um, honestly, arguably right now,
if you consider it 3 ft good condition, which might not be, but like I think this was less is it substandard but okay, and more like is the sidewalk next to the street and not like can you plant the trees on this side instead of on that side or should we rip up all the
concrete so we can move it over here for 150 ft? Well, >> and staff views this as kind of redundant because it talks about basically we view this section as you have to meet all the standards of this section. So then why even have this,
>> right? >> No, it makes sense to delete it here. I would argue that as it is now, if it's in good condition, it sort of says you can use the existing streetscape to comply without
without adhering to breast standards, right? >> No, it says you have to comply with all the standing position provided they comply with all. Yeah, that's true. >> Oh, yeah. That >> so it kind of made it >> that doesn't really make any sense. I'm
sorry. Yeah, our suggestion. >> Yeah. Well, still I don't know. I I still think it might be helpful to add it to the criteria of maybe sometimes there's a case where the administrator says, "Okay, there's 110 ft of perfectly good sidewalk here that's 6 ft wide, but
the trees would have to be on that side, so we don't have to rip it all up." Still in the administrator's discretion. So um B24 like we do have some comments here.
>> Oh face. >> Yeah. So basically planning commission has a good definition of active >> de we would love to hear it because it's been and I will say there was a question about motor vehicle that is not called out as a definition but it's called out
in section. So it's actually called out in um in 210B3C actually calls out that like motor vehicle things cannot be used for you know so it doesn't call the definition
but it calls it out section I you want to start or should I or anyone else >> I go ahead >> I'm just worried that all these things that we've called out happen in dwelling units and you know we've got like the DX
zone has a 30ft active depth on the primary facade and primary active depths have to go to the full height of the primary facade all levels. So also saying that like apartment units can't have bathrooms or you know utility or storage and I feel like we've just dug
ourselves in a really deep complicated hole and I kind of feel like just let's prohibit motor vehicle parking and then let everything else just be. I the more I think about it like I I I honestly don't hate the idea back to death in
general like don't allow a closet or big storage closet next to the street that doesn't have doors you can't see makes plate treats what I don't understand the more I think about it I do not get at all why act of death would apply to upper stories the whole thing is for the
pedestrian experience right and the pedestrian isn't looking at the four stories saying oh wait a second there's a bathroom up there Like I don't get it at all. >> Um to be fair, it's only all stories on primary streets. >> Yeah.
>> But that's still I don't I would say make act of death apply to the first level. Otherwise, leave it basically as is. This is a small tweak here, but I mean I I agree with that. Um but I also think we've got
an issue with like um just where it has to apply to a dwelling unit. I mean, it's it's I don't know. It's stupid to assume that no one's going to have a bathroom on the outside wall. Some people like windows in their their bathrooms. >> Doesn't have to be all of Well, so it'll
only be in your ground floor. Then it wouldn't have like It's not that you can't have it at all, but you can have a certain amount of width that can't have it. >> Yeah. >> To be fair, I think so. Many buildings are only barely meeting the build two width. I think also part of the problem
is the way we're defining build to width includes a bunch of area that it's not buildable, right? Like your side setbacks and so like you're immediately knocking all that off the table and I'm effectively making the denominator way bigger than it should be.
So I don't know. Um, well, my two cents is just either I think the simplest thing is just prohibit motor vehicle parking with an active depth, which I sound like we're already doing,
and then um be done with it. Um or you know a more complicated thing would be setting maximum square footages. So you can't have like a storage unit that's more than you know 100 square feet within the active depth or something like that but still allows people to have you know maybe your
office has a closet in it. Um, but I'm also thinking of offices, you know, and depending on how deep these active depths are, like the 30- foot one's pretty extreme, but that's, you know, even with offices, offices are 8 feet deep and then you have a corridor, then you have bathrooms, and that's,
yeah, this is just one more of those things in this code that is so overly prescribed um that I think it's just it doesn't make any sense. >> Yeah. I mean, I definitely think we're we're overkilling all the requirements, right? 30 feet upper floors make no
sense. 30 ft is deeper than you can probably see into a building from the street in most cases. As long as there's some stuff going on that you can see into, isn't that the whole point? Also, if you have a ground floor office or bathroom or living room maybe, uh, and
it's pedestrians are right there looking into it, you're probably going to put your shades up down and, uh, not let them look what you're doing. >> And this is another one might be advantage. You know, adding in giving more authority to the administrator because the current, you know, definition is very prescriptive, but
staff's at least proposing gives a little more flexibility on the term. Well, okay. I still feel like it's >> you're just adding >> it's so many spaces that are just part of normal
office and dwelling unit conditions that um I mean or the other option would be to ex um exclude any spaces that are within a dwelling unit. Um so if you have apartments, you don't look at their
closets or bathrooms or anything like that. Um Yeah, I still think we need to look at the other the active depths. >> We need to look at each zone and determine whether those are extreme depths. >> Mhm. And with some of these like halls like think about like you know you walk
by code base across from the omni that's a hallway, right? Um the hallway where then you have like glass partitions to conference rooms, that hallway would not be allowed. Um I don't feel like that hallway is detracting from the the
pedestrian experience. There's a I think there's a fire stair that has glazing on one side that you can see up and that's kind of cool. >> I like that actually. >> Yeah. >> Like concrete wall. No, I would not say that that was active. >> But parking storage transparency
requirements, right? So then take care of it. >> Y >> and I think we're also I mean you mentioned it. I mean, we're ignoring the fact that most of the time people have blinds and most offices, most dwelling units, doesn't matter what's behind there, they're going to have their blind
strong. Um, so it's I don't know. I mean, yeah, I think there's less extreme things than getting rid of it. I kind of I do see where you're coming from totally. I could see saying, well, and what's funny, right, is you
can meet your transparency requirement and have these spaces not have windows at all and you're still not allowed to have them be these non-active uses even though there are no windows and you're still meeting your drug, >> right? >> Um, but
I I would say we could drop the explicit prohibition of halls and maybe also restrooms. uh closet, storage, utility, parking. I get it.
At least I'm not meeting your your minimum width. There are probably times where you do need to have them on the exterior wall. >> You could shorten the just any occupiable space designed and intended for human activity. >> So that would include >> Yeah, that would
>> some would argue that anything is human activity. I guess >> basically that's even as determined by the administr I mean to give a little more >> yeah that's a lot of flexibility but that's that would make me happier >> that would include hallways right like that's humans >> that's human activity >> we're in hallways >> yeah I
>> mean humans used closets >> I guess if it's not a walk-in closet human might not be inside >> well it's like so our the residential zones the RAS zones and all that I think the active depth is like 9 ft and I don't know if I think that's right so I mean again that's like you Now, if you
read this explicitly, it's saying like your coat closet can't go next to the front door. >> Yeah. Um, again, if like if you have a narrow lot and you've already met your build or you're barely meeting your, you know, build two width, it's you're it just it's really actually to be fair, we
do have a thing that says no more than basically up to 20% of your floor area of your required active depth may be used for inactive spaces such as storage, hallways, stairwells, elevators, >> the active depth section has a lot of other things that do it. It was just the
definition is very >> so this is just >> we were having to space within the active >> flexibility. >> We were concerned under the current definition there were things basically on the law you wouldn't >> be allowed to do that are currently
>> uh permitted. >> Um it doesn't speak anything to to retail uh >> which was concern to staff. So that was >> that was our concern in viewing why we were wanting to at least give more
flexibility on the definition. >> Is it 20% in all all zones? >> Yep. No more than 20% of the floor area required active depth may be used for inactive spaces. >> I still think we have an issue with like the
>> every level on the primary facade and like 30 ft >> upper levels. I I would be willing to say right now, even though we don't have it on the table, that we should get rid of levels. That's That makes no sense to me. I do not understand it. >> Think I'm saying with that?
>> Yeah. I guess my only question is um let's take uh like some some newer buildings have um the ground floor is retail and then the parking comes all the way up to the second floor is facade. >> It's like the the drafts like >> Yeah. So like and I'm just looking at
this diagram in the code and it shows like three you know the first three floors where the parking is tucked behind. >> So like do we do we need to make it >> say you know not get rid of active depth above the first floor but above the third floor I
>> but at the same time that's prohibiting people from building park grounds that are effective in hardening. I would say that's a larger conver like I think I wouldn't necessarily go down that rabbit hole on it like >> that to me would be a larger conversation with the communities
>> is where we would want that cut off would feel comfortable yeah throwing out a number >> I I agree and I also and like but just to dwell for a second on this like you wouldn't want someone I mean right something like that but um do we want
that like our code currently prohibits that And I think I kind of agree that I don't we don't do we want parking like do we want cars on the second and third floor right up the facade? >> Wouldn't say it beats having it on the
first floor by a lot. And uh I'm not looking at the second floor. It's pedestrian, right? If we talk about the public realm, does that really hurt? >> Yeah. >> Um and when your building footprint is really driven by having parking, right?
And you're basically saying unless you can fit an extra 30 feet in front of the parking that's like a weirdly accessed space because now you have a 30 your whole like habitable floor area is 30 ft deep. Um then
>> and we have many lots on our commercial corridors that that won't fit at all. Right. >> Yeah. >> I I had no parking. >> Yeah. Honestly, >> yeah. I would say screening performance totally makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Above that,
>> which I guess we don't maybe necessarily have >> thought there was something. Oh, I think lighting has to be screened. >> Yeah, >> definitely. You can't have lighting go off. Yeah, >> you can't have lights,
>> which should end up if parking lots are so brightly lit. Um, that should screen the interior. Oh, okay. So, >> there's a garage design. >> We've been saying active depth should
only apply to the first floor. Um, and um, we're okay with the language that has been changed here. >> Um, that was it. >> Oh, parking instruction park
zone. The entire visible portion must be screened with a permanent structure of the following standards opacity of 60% or more openings 4 in or less one dimension basically require screens for so >> are are you suggesting that we
uh include the change uh to change active depth to only the first floor in in in like what we're what we're putting forth in tier 2 right now or are you saying >> Mhm. We're going to do what the language says and come back and do the one floor thing.
>> I mean, I' I'd like making changes earlier than later, but >> I might recommend that it be a different amendment and not be 24. Uh, but I mean, unless anyone can explain to me why it was on upper floors. I don't see any reason not to. >> I mean, I think the purpose was just
what you know, >> you've been describing is that we have Yeah. this condition or the water street garage or draftsman >> um or what was going to be the parking garage where the lucky seven is. >> Yeah, we wanted to prohibit that. The lucky seven would have been completely
impossible. Now, I will say there is this is something a special exception could be. I mean, I'd be a little concerned making a big change or semester big change when there is a at least this is kind of a mandate and there is a way to if someone wanted to
have that act of depth change at upper stories to go through changed or eliminated. >> Uh, look at the language. I don't see why you couldn't eliminate it off hand, but I mean I think we often say, okay,
you can do a special exception, but exceptions are pretty ownorous. Um, and it's one thing when it's parking and another if it's I mean, I guess we're making it so vague as to be basically any human activity, then maybe we're only really applying to parking. But if you're saying on the on
the eighth floor of your building, you can't have too much storage space on the street side, like that's it makes no sense. >> I I agree. I guess like I just I I I do think though it does seem like a fairly
major departure to do in without much discussion. Um yeah, I don't know. Like imagine like if someone tried to build a draftman's I know that there's a lot of reasons why this wouldn't be possible exactly but a bu a draftsman style building like on
the downtown mall where floors two to four are screened parking. >> We're sitting in it. >> I mean we are sitting in it like it's it's a really it's a not a thing you want to encourage on the downtown mall like brutalist architecture doesn't help much.
>> Yeah. But would we really want people building this building in on the downtown mall? >> I mean, this is one of the things that um the developer of what was going going to be at the Violet Crowd, that was what he was running into. Um, one of the
things um >> I mean, you could say prohibit parking in any building adjacent to downtown mall, and I wouldn't completely disagree, but tear this thing down yesterday for sure, this building. Uh but
you know I I think saying you can't have that upper level thing is basically the practically the same thing. Right. So so going back to special exceptions what it is city council may grant a modification to any physical dimensional
standards of this development code by special exception and 210 falls within that. I just think we're like throwing around ideas. It doesn't I don't think it makes sense for us to like put a number in the >> this amendment. >> It is a fairly large change. I I agree.
It doesn't really fit within this relatively minor amendment. Um that said, you know, I think in 2023 we would have, if we' thought about it, probably made that change in a shorter discussion at a work session. And I don't know that we
like if it's going to be a living document. I don't know that we really need to agonize over every change. Um and tier 3 implies like a whole bunch of public input like like soliciting public input, not just like having a hearing which we all do. Um and I don't know
whether that's necessary. >> So >> we're leaving B24 as staff has proposed. >> Thank you. >> Uh my only change that I'd like to suggest is removing the word halls. uh from this list. I think there are halls that can be active and cannot be active.
Um I don't think this list >> Yeah. go that way. Yeah. Yeah. I'd be good with that. >> Yeah. >> Circulate. I mean circulation can be >> Did we earlier say we we're making a change to make this even broader than was proposed here? I was making the
suggestion if you wanted to even make a broader say any occupiable space designated and intended for human activity >> as determined by the administrator >> the eating and cooking >> but there are specifics within that section though that it calls out
hallways closet so there's other places too that outside the definition >> it's prohibited like it it falls in that 20% >> okay uh yeah I mean as long as it's some develop veler can look at it and have some general idea when they're laying
out their floor plan schematically that like where stuff can go. Um, so if it shows up in a later section, I guess that's fine. Um, although I do agree circulation space to me is a an active space. >> Yeah, I would agree things halls and
honestly probably restrooms and toilet rooms I would say too. I I'd like to well I'd like to listen >> even pull yeah even pulling that out of the definition when you go into um active the active depth section under
the standard it talks about no more than 20% of floor area of the required may be used for inactive spaces storage hallways stairwells elevators and equipment rooms so it's calling out some specific things even outside of the >> death right what can we
strike hallway on that portion. Not sure how everyone else feels from both. >> I always could be nice. I think we're picturing the worst case scenario. >> We are, but even just at the 4ft corridor, I mean, it's >> So, for clarification, you're sticking with staff's recommendation, but the
only change being strikeout hallway and strikeout hallway within >> the deck. So, >> yes. And put this on the list for next year. >> So, sorry, just jumping. So, does that mean like a hallway that runs the length
of like like you see in some um some like uh storage facilities? Like a hallway that runs the length of your ground floor where you'd have the transparency and see that hallway running the length okay with that? >> So, >> is that what this would allow? >> I guess if you had storage facilities,
those storage facilities would probably still be within that active depth and therefore out. But I could see a case where you've got like a hallway and then a bunch of offices that all have glass doors or something. Um or a case where you have offices that are only 8 ft deep
and then you have a hallway that runs the whole length. >> I don't know. I mean uh >> I just I was just wondering if that's something that would then >> be okay. >> The example I'm thinking of of a hallway that runs along the frontage is the
codebase side frontage and I think it's fine. Uh >> I mean with the I think I'm understanding your example of like if it was a hallway with storage on the other side that would still be prohibited in most cases instead of >> or even if it's just a hallway
and you can see the hallway because it runs the length of the frontage and then maybe there's doors to apartments or anything, right? You would see that. That would be your >> But would the depth that would be what you would see if you're walking down West Main Street.
You would just see kind of like a hallway with doors inside to apartments or there's actually a building in Richmond that's like that. It's a student housing project where just the the whole facade of the building, you just see the hallways with students like
walking on the hallways. And >> like we would allow that if it were open and not enclosed, right? Like if it were a a single loaded corridor building like um uh McIntyre 500 McIntyre, what's the name of that building? Uh not important.
The white one over there. like it's like an open like a motel style outdoor hallway that wouldn't count as that wouldn't count as portions of a building. It's more of like a balcony and so that would be allowed as long as
I was just suggesting that that might be something that that would be allowed if you were to remove that restriction off. >> Those hallways would cuz the facade would start. Maybe it's not something that would actually ever get built, but just throw
it out there >> and it's a concern about just unintended consequences >> more broadly. >> Um, so sorry to inter but I think it is a good question to ask in making additional changes to the definition right now beyond what we've covered. >> The inside of the units in that case
would like if it's 30 ft active depth, the inside of the units would count, but if it's all a wall on that side, you wouldn't be able to see it and so it wouldn't help. Um, but we have transparency requirements, but technically they'd only apply to the hallway. So, you could
have a solid wall to the units, >> but if the transparency requirement or if there were windows in those units, I I could see that being inoffensive, right? >> But if it's all a wall, then for sure >> probably just the term hallway, like if you said circulation or place for move, I mean, that's different. You're not
imagining a three foot like walls on either side. So I think maybe it's just the term hall that seems to be difficult. >> I guess it doesn't >> I think what we're trying to say is you could you should be allowed to move along the facade.
It's more about what's >> well and I would go back to the intent >> behind it, you know, like is there a blank wall behind it? U I harp on this on our code. I will say I do like this about our code when we have these conversations. We have an intent
section for everything. So you go back to the intent >> and that helps refocus >> what we're looking at and and refocus the conversation because it talks about in the intent section talks about to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and
harmonious community by minimizing the impact of inactive space on the public realm and to promote a comfortable, safe, engaging and attractive built environment. since there's a 20% exception, right? Like
I don't know, I'm like losing my train of thought, but if we if we think our end state like a year from now is active depth applies to only first floor, only for a certain number of floors, and then the rest we don't care, put a hallway, whatever. um like maybe we maybe we
don't touch the hallway language because there's still a 20% exception and we think we're going to come back and you know get rid of active depth for higher force. >> Yeah. I mean I would almost say that like hallways should have their own
special like requirement that then the transparency applies if the hallway is against the frontage. the transparency requirements apply on the opposite side of the hallway. And that gets to what the intent is here. Um, also speaking of
intent, got a new tier one item for you that should say built environment and not build environment. >> I wanted to save something for 2026. >> Well, I guess so. All right. Are we just saying go with staff's recommendation on this? >> It sounds like we're we're kicking
hallways to tier three. >> Sounds like an important active depth seems like a very important conversation commission that should be in the future. >> B26. >> Well, I think this was you. >> This was me. Um, so I I don't like it
when zoning drives designs. um like I don't like when building code um and I'm concerned that and this is I I appreciate this is best practice to to have the most restrictive standard apply that it's not an unusual
approach but I have seen that therefore force development but uh build to the zoning and not to what benefits the public or what is good architecture practice. Um so my proposal was instead instead of
getting you know very precise percentages just do half. Um I think to echo something staff had said at one point is that I think the the code intention was to actually try to
split properties up where you could make smaller parcels. Oh, >> the intent of the whole mapping process was that we don't have any split zone lots anyway. >> Oopsie. >> But, uh, I guess this case, well, when we get to
B33, we'll talk about the definition of of a building across lots. But, uh, yeah, I must agree with Ly. >> Disagree.
Um, I would almost say that the average of the two is maybe also wrong. And maybe it should be the amount of the frontage or the width that is in each district is how much weight that district's maximum gets. Because if you're one foot into the
>> that's true >> less restrictive district, you shouldn't get half the less restrictive district, you know, halfway to the less, but then you're getting really complicated just >> some sort something about in proportion
to the amount. >> I'm not sure if this if it's all straightforward to calculate like that. All right, see you guys. >> I just hope that we don't have too many uh buildings spanning multiple zoning districts.
>> It it comes it doesn't come up a lot, but it comes up more when you're consolidating lots um to for a project for like a larger project. Consolidate. >> So someone would look at this before they would >> Yes. hopeful >> consolidate >> and that seems I mean I could see
someone taking a you know look at FIFO we've got what R A next to RX5 and if someone snatched up an RA lot and then decided that they wanted to you know combine both of them I could see
that being kind of problematic. Um, >> I I want to keep staff's recommendation as it is cuz I support breaking up lots, but >> I don't know if you need anything.
>> Do in general, I support breaking up laws. >> Yeah. >> Except where it makes sense to go violence. It seems like this applies a little bit more to the R zones. Um the building widths are pretty large in the other zones. Like the other way you do this I
guess is that like for the portion of the building that is in each zone there width applies to that portion. that can be >> because in in any X zones you have no side setback and so you're you could
build a right up the lot line and then build another building on the other side. >> Yeah. >> Also subject to the building width but you know I don't know I I guess there's still advantages to having less wide buildings.
uh just break up asking >> and nothing precludes again an applicant from pursuing a reasoning to >> that is >> address the issue. >> Yeah. My hope is that this isn't common enough that it's worth us overthinking it.
>> Okay. >> So, we're good with leaving this one as is. >> Okay. >> Um B27. Uh anybody having issues? >> Yes. Uh this isn't really an issue actually.
Um so I'm we have this like tree list that tells uh developers what the copy cover is for each type of tree. >> Yes. >> Uh we talked about it last month as we got a new tree list when we adopted this code.
>> Uh I don't think we ever heard about that actually till last month. Um, can we just be like, I don't know, send in an email with us. I assume this is going to trigger a new one of those because of the 10year versus 20-year thing
>> and then can you tell us what the new percentage cost? >> Uh, I mean, so our city arbur keeps the list >> um does update it periodically based on best practices. Uh we are kind of hoping that the um with coming into conformity
with state regulations list will actually make a little more sense because right now it's a little bit over planted and this might actually help with that list uh being re
I don't want to get in because I'm not the expert on it but the our city arbors has a process for creating the list. It's not a random it's all best practice. >> Um >> not really asking to be like involved or flip commission be involved in it. Um actually this is probably even broader
than the list but like all of these like code adjacent documents like the ADU manual and whatever a lot of them can be sort of adjusted by staff as needed. And maybe I'm just saying like when any of them change like upload it on the next agenda as anformational item, not
discuss just like hey there's a new one of these so that the world knows rather than like replacing a PDF on the website and no one knows it. >> Very good. Very good. >> That did come up in question. They're working on it anyway. >> And apparently there was an ADU medical
change in September. Uh, >> it wasn't a huge difference there, but it it was discussed. >> Yes. >> Okay. B28. Uh, Finet used for a second.
>> I'm going to take a break. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Um, it's 7:47 right now. Um, 7:55. >> Yeah. >> Start again. Sure. >> What's wrong with you? Um, I think it gets easier as we go. It does.
>> This is going to be a tough one though. >> Two years ago. Yeah. You remember the incident? The goldfish incident? There were some dens that miss your arms the goldfish instead. >> Yeah, don't do that again. >> Yeah, I'm not touching them. >> You choke. No, they just sort of went
everywhere. >> Really sounds much better than it was. >> Yeah. >> Not that exciting, >> but it will stop me from making goldfish right now. You mean the expiration date of the bag doesn't stop doing that?
>> Never. But it's not. behavior support. >> It is not making progress quickly. reinforcement. >> What's that do? I heard door closed back there. So
I would not these things fire. That's Oopsie. Follow that. I was just here for
that, >> right? She doesn't really Never said that. I feel so guilty. >> This is great. >> I had to turn my head off.
>> Yeah. Maybe boy would be like 68 being on fire. I'm not sure. I'm wearing it tonight. >> All right. >> It is nice.
>> Might be nice. But >> go to some lodge with a fire and just >> for a week. >> I mean, >> it's true. >> It's so hard to untangle
>> any change with >> very last day. Hard to do the band-aids without picking up the bigger things. >> To be fair, we were in a state of emergency this entire Oh yeah. Expire the beer.
>> I don't get that. >> The final one. >> Little chewy. Little weird. Let me try this. >> I think it should. >> Well, I heard Carl say nothing. >> Oh, it was.
>> This one is only barely expired. This is one off. >> What was kind of impressive that they can put out snacks and no one eats them until they expire? Like there's a lot of very uh
people with a lot of self-control building. >> I think those are only here for us. >> They better. >> Oh, really? >> Bring them back to NDS every week. >> Oh, they do. >> Right. Little perks. >> Okay. All right.
>> I'm going to I'm going have to >> You don't know what you're missing. Days of pizza and Chinese food and >> stuff. Oh, man. >> Sticks. That's why I joined. You get pizza? >> Of course you do. >> Act too,
>> but we also get paid. So, it's a little surprising. >> I guess we get to like take turns bringing pizza. >> That's what we were doing. Jeff been buying it recently and a little guilty about it.
>> I don't know. I think likely >> where that $100,000 historic uh policy review CIP item is going. I think >> it's going to be started. It actually really is going to be done. >> So there was a big controversy in Ann
Arbor. uh they've been having a big uh you know zoning rewrite and they had like very lengthy public hearings like we had in length 1.3 and uh people in the community started bringing pizza for people to eat out in the hallway and a bunch of people were like ah it's
ridiculous you shouldn't be allowed to and plane commissioners are eating the pizza it's bribery it was a whole thing >> oh my god doing that >> better be good I think it was Domino's like pathetically.
>> Depending on the time of night, I could probably be bribed with some pizza. >> I'm not impressed with Midwestern pizza. At least close to the cheese sources. They might have it together, but All right. So, we're all back. Is Steph all
back? >> Yeah, I think you gave up a long time ago. >> You know, you might not have feelings. >> I I hope not. All right. Um, let's get started then. So, V28 in.
>> Yes. So this is definitely one that staff has thoughts on. Uh this is this has been
fences take a lot of staff fortunately even stuff that doesn't even make it through special exceptions. We are dealing with fences. uh staff is under the opinion that and this might be a discussion on the commission that fences were not a
concern and and when I'm talking fences I'm not talking about in the architectural control districts uh where there's a lot more policies and and procedures in place for that this is we did not see fences especially staff
that has been here for a while has not seen fences as a concern in fact and so we were spending a lot of our time with so we were trying to find a way to look at it. Um, fences and walls are very intertwined in
this curve. This is not something I I thought when we first brought this up, it's something we could maybe have went through easily. You cannot. And it is it is how fences and wall because fences and walls are tied together. When you look at the different sections, it's not like fences
and walls and there's and there's things for each one. It is fences and walls combined. And so um after a lot of actually time and effort went into this on staff end and what we
kind of came up with was this mandate of redefining fence because we didn't want to uh the alternative is to really rewrite a couple whole sections. The fence and wall section would really need to be rewritten along with some of the
district standards for it. uh staff believes that basically this is kind of a way to work through that without rewriting another um without rewriting the standard. So it is basically allow allowing fences to be
not a fence until it's six feet. So the wall regulations stay because that's what it talks to. That that was kind of the big split is because it's it's there's regulations that's not calling out like the the 4 foot. It's calling out for both fences and walls. And so this would keep those regulations for
your your constructed materials that are going to be there permanently, but allows more flexibility in these um basically private the six foots is the privacy fence is what we're really talking about. Those that's the sections you get. They're six foot tall sections. Um and so
with that, I know there's there's a lot of thought, so I'm turn it back over to the chair uh to dig into that. That is where staff was coming from is how the inter how fences and walls are really tied together in this code and we cannot start pulling when you start pulling that string you're a lot of things start
coming undone it's really so this was our our suggested solution. >> So um what exactly what's the reasoning that it's causing so much staff time being sucking up so much staff staff time? Is it because handrail or guardrails are
considered as fences? is because >> something else. >> Yeah. Becoming any anytime you're enclosing a space that is uh not, you know, that is enclosed with just rail railings around things is a fence. >> Um so there's a lot of conversation just
with applicants leading up. I mean that's where a lot of the time sync has been is just working with applicants through this understanding what is even permitted not permitted what are their options to go through a special exception or not. um you know a lot of them just either die off or the ones
we've do been moved to the next step staff's you know doing a lot of mouse preparations for that to move forward. So um >> is it fair to say that your concerns are are limited to opaque fences?
>> My concern with the sixoot fence is yeah no it's any a sixoot fence in a front yard in a residential district seems um inappropriate. Well, less >> anywhere or within active bed. >> Um,
within a front yard. So, um, again like the we've got the existing ones on West Street and then we have the new one on West Street. Um, I know there was a corner of Rugby and Roseill Drive um, where somebody put a six foot high private f privacy fence up and
eventually they angled it so I guess it would meet the um, view angles at the intersection. But that that seems something that we want to avoid. Um I could follow my sword over this one, but it does seem like it's a
I would prefer to keep if we're going to set a maximum height, I'd put it at like 4T, but I'd also try to find a way to exempt we shouldn't be regulating guard rails. So um and we shouldn't be regulating ABC barriers. Um, so
I mean a guardrail is measured from the the uppermost walking surface. So if somebody has a 4ft tall guard rail on their deck, I that should not be a fixed. Now, if it's a 6ft tall barrier up there, then I guess I don't know how we deal with
that. That's a little different. Um, and I I don't I don't want to deal with it. They're going to feel like it's not on the ground, so it shouldn't be considered a fence. But I know we've been regulating these as fences. I So I without understanding all the
implications, it just seemed easier to me to lower that height to 4T and then um exempt anything that is um a guardrail or an ABC barrier.
And when I say guardrail, a guardrail that's required by code, >> but I don't know what the implications of that are as you triple it back down. >> GZ would have always be shorter then >> it'd be 42 regions. >> Yeah. >> Or in a residential condition, it's 36.
So I was saying four to just kind of give you some fluff. 4T 48. The posts I guess might be taller. >> Yeah. >> Which would that trigger it if they're more than six inches over the highest rail?
>> I don't know. Potentially. Do they have to be? >> I don't know. I like to not think about fences ever again. I I I don't either. That's why I feel like there's got to be some easy way to I wish there was an easy way to do this that it just was, you know, anybody can build a 4ft tall
fence. And then um we also just ignore it if it's a photo card guard car rail or if it's um an agency. I'm trying to think what other examples I don't know what other examples I've come up with from staff that might be other than that.
I mean I'm still kind of you know special exception we had over the the deck with the fence or the you know guardrails. That was that was kind of stupid. Mhm. Can I talk to you just to slightly?
>> Um, I mean, if the rest of the commission's happy with that, you can talk me up to anything. But I >> I mean, no point that we do in our zones limit front yard fences to 4 ft. So we will have to change all that if we
>> or get rid of that hope that won't be defenseless until they're higher than that. It doesn't make a lot of sense, I guess, but does say fences and walls
and I guess wall would still be limited to four. >> Correct. That was what staff's intent was not to change the wall requirements. It was just I know it sounds silly to not call a fence a fence until >> Yeah.
>> 6 ft. >> I I mean, am I the only one? Anyone else have issue with this? >> I want I also I'm on board with your like no six foot fences in front yards idea. Um, so under this under this
definition of fence, what happens if I come in and say I'm going to build a six foot privacy fence in my front yard? >> And I guess that's where staff has kind of taken the position we know conversation, but staff's position is that would have been allowed up until
2023. We didn't feel it was >> was a historic issue. >> Yeah. Um, what happens 2023? You could have as few windows as you want on your facade and you could put hallways and storage rooms and >> very very true point. >> Sorry.
It's it's a it's a true point and that's I mean if we staff would actually probably be in the position if if this is still kind of very sticky, we there is a a path is a special exception. It's not great, but we could continue with that. we could add in and just exempt
something like, you know, guardrails as the chair suggested. >> Yeah. I mean, again, I I'd be much happier with saying, "Oh, well, there's special exceptions if it wasn't 2,300 bucks in 6 months and like a weird like
for a random homeowner, that's like extremely intimidating and a lot of money." >> Yes. Um, but you're for some small business owner who wants to have a bar with a tech. >> Yeah. >> I mean, to the extent that we have fence
rules, uh, I feel like I really don't care about fences that are not opaque, right? like it's about letting you see into the yard and then into the active depth to see what people are doing in their houses or whatever. Uh
why and we already don't allow chain link, right? >> No, we we fixed that. >> Oh, we do allow chain. >> Yeah. >> And so >> because there's existing chain link want >> six foot chain fence, but we're finding four foot chain. >> I'm sure I want like the the fences that
we have on the railroad. I mean, as nice as those are, not going to see those all town either. >> Yeah. Well, your options are go to the UVA kids with the pickup truck, keep pulling them off, or uh I mean, they're not in a zoned lot, so
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Do the transparency requirements apply to fences as well? >> Like, just the facade? >> Just the facade. So, yeah. I like >> so you could have a sixoot fence that you can't see through and we're
requiring that you have windows behind it that you can see into. >> Exactly. >> And is the reason why we don't want to define a fence as 4 feet or taller because that would then include a bunch of things we don't want
to regulate as fences >> which doesn't solve the problem. >> It more stack was more thinking about the go Um there are some some trans uh transition
uh requirements and they speak to six feet. And so we were tying that kind of to those where you where you can put in a a fence a six ft fence instead of a um get that section H.
>> But that wouldn't be all the way up the front. That would be further back. But technically the transition has to be the whole edge, right? So, would we now be requiring a lot line fence that you're not allowed to have in your front yard? >> Well, there's already that conflict
>> right now. >> Yeah. I mean, you wouldn't have a transition in a front yard. Um, it would only be sign back. >> Oh, right. >> Well, but it's in your sidey yard. >> In your front yard, >> right? >> All right. On the side yard, but all the
way up to the to the front lot. >> Yeah. I need to look at our definitions, I guess. >> But that one one of the thoughts with staff is it was kind of fixing two things too is kind of addressing that kind of
disconnect on where it calls for a six foot fence as a transition requirement and not permitted in yards where it's called. have to do the weird loop-de-loop to get
every transitions because it's in juice. >> If only this was on We >> Sorry. I know. I know. Sorry. You're going to be gross at a mending the >> Okay. So, your your sideyard does not
include your front yard. >> It does not go up. Okay. Okay. That seems that's good. >> So it is relevant. >> I know transition definitions. A required transition must be located
along the entire length of the common alley or street lot line shared with the abundant district. So, I guess your fence would have to go up to the front lot line where you would not be allowed to have that fence. >> So, we can put another exception for fences required at transitions.
>> Or could we? >> Or don't have it go up to the lot line because that's a little ridiculous. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The arts transition where it talks about fences. I guess just so >> right Dan you agree with me on the six
foot's too much >> for a front yard. Yes. >> Oh yeah. >> I am comfortable with six foot but okay. >> Okay. Two foot. >> I got a big 130 lb dog and I'm like, can my dog leap
over? >> That fixes a higher fence a little bit further back. Put this on. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Hopefully you have a backyard or a >> Yeah, I mean I definitely know at least one person that does not or their backyard is critical slope, so they
fence in their front yard. And >> is this Bridge Street? >> It's only four feet. I think it's not. >> There's a someone else on Bridge Street put up a fence for their dog, >> but they got it approved by the B. >> Okay, let's focus.
Yeah, where staff was kind of getting drawn at line is when you look at fronts like the frontage screen uh regulations uh most of them will say like when you go to fencing walls
minimum height six problem is the front screens are not really imagining any of those are on the side lot line. They're imagining street or rear.
Interestingly, all of these uh rappers have it on the street side. But um if we go with a six feet um and someone has a deck that is 3 ft up in the air and they put a 4ft guard
rail on it, is that a 7ft fence or is that a a 4ft fence? It would be not front grade. It would be front. Okay. >> Should be measured from grade. But >> you you got votes in the paper.
So >> I got three. >> You said six. >> I said six and six. >> You're saying you got >> Well, no, but I'm just trying to make sure that we're not going to >> I have no pain. Yes. thinking of is
walking down the sidewalk and as a shorter person >> you can >> see over a 4 foot fence >> six feet to me it's like >> yeah why reser not very fair >> but I mean you there's also people who
put bushes shrubs all sorts of things you can't see through >> but it feels safer if you can see >> I guess over and light come through >> if we limit it to four or what
unintended consequences are we still leaving you guys with? >> I think just the the biggest one would just be if there was a situation where someone had to do a transition and it's saying you had to do a six foot fence and the code says you're not allowed to
have six foot fence in that yard. >> Is there can we add some language to those transition zones to fix that? But yeah, I would say the transition fences. It feels weird for them to have to extend to the front lot more. >> It's like I feel like they should go to
>> It's the front of the building, right? >> Just along Yeah, exactly. So along the side yard. >> I mean, I think I think four would probably it'd be better than nothing. It would clear up some. I think we would still have something you'd have to look at, but it would be
>> it would help with some because it would help, I think, with a lot of what y'all have seen >> through special exceptions. I mean, it would it would, you know, it then maybe would just limit the special exceptions that come forward if somebody wants a big privacy, >> you know, six foot fence.
>> Well, I mean, the other place it sort of would apply though is the places where we don't allow a fence at all, right? which is like that York property one uh across from monsoon that we reviewed where you're not allowed to have a fence over there. They want to create that like patio area.
>> So if we allow up to four feet that should allow it there. Correct. >> Is that less than four feet? >> It is 4T. >> Yes, it's less than four. >> I think it was anformational question. My read of the sixoot language you proposed was that it was banning six
foot not allowing six foot. Can you clarify that? It's saying it's not a fence until you hit six feet. And so that would mean if you want to put a five, you know, or how is it word? >> It's 5 foot 11.
>> So, yeah, it wouldn't be a fence. It' just be a feature, right? >> So, what if we what if we did the sixoot fence thing and just said no fences in the front yard of of our districts? You
can put a feature or a wall >> and you have 5' 11 you could. >> But yeah, right now we're banning anything near 4T fences. >> What you would run into is then having to re That's what you'd have to rewrite all because it's not saying fences. It's fences and like it it is it has tied the
two together to its heights and everything. >> So like four. >> Yeah. So I think well so my proposal will be 4 feet and then um
um making sure that in each zooming district if there's any number in there that we verify that it corresponds. So we'd be allowing up to four feet within downtown or wherever else. Um
yeah. Um, and then the um I'm still wondering if maybe just in case we exempt um Sorry, did I >> No, sorry. I found another ridiculous thing that I could
>> Well, okay. Um I would still exempt uh guard rails as required by code. >> Yeah, >> just in case because who knows? Guard rails and handrails. Um >> Yeah. and uh
and ABC barriers. >> I think no, the ABC barrier shouldn't be more than 4 ft. Anyways, >> what's an ABC barrier >> for like uh making a patio for drinking? Oh, >> okay. Gotcha. >> Um take that back in. ABC barrier probably shouldn't be over four feet.
>> What was the crazy thing you found? So in transition screens 472 C1F says all walls and fences provided must meet the wall and fence design installation standards. C210.14 fence and walls. I was like well if we
don't allow it in the front yard does that mean if it's meeting the standard? It's not in the front yard. Anyway, I clicked on 21014 fences and walls which is a section that just says for requirements see 450.1 fences and walls. I think I'm behind
this one. >> Is so does this make sense? >> See, one thumbs up. >> That's fine. >> Yeah, I like it. >> Staff Matt, you think this is okay? >> Could you kind of repeat? >> Yeah. So, um, change that definition to four feet. And then I think we just in case we should put an exemption in for
um guard rails and handrails as required by code. >> I think what we would do is probably change that to 4 ft and then back in the fence and walls we could put under applicability uh guardrails and that that are required
by building code or for ABC districts are exempt or do not do not are not somewhere. We do except guard rails on top of retaining walls. Nowhere else. >> Yeah, it >> which again I thought should have applied to decks but I guess not
retain wall. Also for my sanity we make a tier one item to change that link in we control seven and it's >> it would have been even better if it was a clickable link.
Oh, it's >> Yeah. And then nextable too. >> Um, all right. So, B30, uh, you have some comments. >> Oh, lighting. Lighting trespass. >> Yes. So, it was brought up about why we
was not, um, why we're protecting public right away and sidewalks from lighting. Uh, basically, we've always had a zero spillover. um point five at the property lines. Um and there's a couple policy
reasons for this. One is lighting is almost treated public lighting is treated as infrastructure and so wants to be controlled by the city but not controlled by spill over what still might have
properties is the biggest thing. Th this was basically trying to clarify, you know, that it uh it wasn't allowing you to spill over like if you it wasn't take this wasn't taking into consideration you have multiple parcels in your development. And this this this is what staff was
just trying to clear up like if you have multiple parcels, you're allowed to spill over and not stop the property line within your own >> within your private property. >> Right. Yes. specific example of the development that my house is in uh included some very nice lamps on private
property but that light the public right away and it feels safe and nice. It's good. Definitely don't disagree. Uh but I don't know. Um I think that would be a larger conversation of what we would
want lighting the right way to be and and how we control it. Well, does are those lights on your property or those? >> Uh, they are on the private property adjacent to the sidewalks uh spilling
light into the public. >> I guess as a counter argument, you've got like the any of the vaping stores have um >> Yeah. I mean, do we have a process over a development putting in street lights as distinct from interior lighting?
>> Uh process. >> It's a thing that happens sometimes. And the most recent what was the one where we had to get the easements for those private lights on public >> project was that >> so we don't accept that
>> I'm not sure if it's because I know at Kindle where we've got some examples of um they're actually putting it in this right public and easement on >> I had an office because of location placement so it had to even though the the light is on private property they had to put an
easement to allow us to take over as a public with light to control it to Matt's point. >> But those wouldn't be subject to the no spillover requirement. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. Because they're public lights even private private land with a public easement. >> Yeah. >> And then we still run into the fact that
the majority of our light our public lighting is still dim. >> Yeah. And half them are broken. >> Apparently apparently there's a plan to fix them, >> but I heard that a while ago. I think VIP for like two years out
somehow or something. >> Well, that's the replace them all with LEDs, right? >> Is there a different >> We have one goes on. It goes on and off every like four or five seconds. >> I love the fact that the light across the street from my house is out. >> My neighbors have been asking. I'm like,
sh out loud. Um, >> filing my civil request right now. Um >> uh B31 that was one of my okay with >> yeah I think we should have some way to
solve this problem but I think that's not a tier two issue >> B31 um is I think also you critical slopes >> yeah this so this kind of ties back in unfortunately the way we were tracking these they don't necessarily fall in order you know keep keeping them group
but there is a reason for that matt greens from the madness um to keep the work do working document number is the same. But this falls back into under our old code, we actually had two critical slopes. You had a critical slope for
zoning and a critical slope for subdivision. Critical slope for zoning had the list of what made it a critical slope. The slope, distance from waterway, the run of the slope. In the subdivision ordinance, a critical slope is any slope over 25%. And so this we
believe when they they because we have a consolidated code now which is both subdivision and development code this got pulled over um and so we are trying to to clarify because really that just any slope over 25% went away as a critical slope
and so that was what staff's trying to do here is that we think that this was I think this was brought over intentionally not being is brought over from the subdivision ordinance and not meant to be brought over as a standalone
regulation. So this will be replaced by the update soon or well whatever comes out of the environmental I think will reshape our critical slopes entirely. But this is to get away from calling just any slope
over 25% a critical slope. It needs to follow the guidelines of what a critical slope is. You happy? >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh B32. Um this is juicy one. >> Yeah. The analysis portion is on page 35
if that helps anyone. >> I will give so as part of not only the this code clear up staff is also working to try to improve our development review processes. So the as I was speaking several hours ago
when we started this code everything has to go through development review. Um and uh under our old code single family and two family single family attached single
family detached or two family were all exempt from from site family review. That doesn't mean they're exempt from following the zoning. You still have that zoning compliance and there's a zoning compliance check done at building permit. Uh under this code everything goes through development review. Staff
has been basically doing a workaround to for those things to still go. The development community is very used to single those type of developments going straight to building permit and not going through development review which adds a lot of time. So we we we have a
internal policy that conforms with the development code that allows that to happen. So this is to codify it. As staff was looking at this, staff really was interested in finding ways to get more things straight to building permit that didn't have to go through development review to cut down on time.
Um because again very confident staff can do its development review check at building permit. The problem we ran into is there's some just um internal mechanisms not set up. This is going to be I think once we get through this
round of review there's going to be a dedicated steps going to be shifting some dedicated resources to looking at missing middle and how to speed that up. But um the the biggest hurdle we run into utilities had some concerns about
when they would see things that were where we actually were going to want to place the the the cuto off line is is going to was going to be all residential districts to go straight to building permit. The problem we ran into is and
the ma the max you could get would be 12 units but you're getting six affordable. And so our thought is let's let's try to speed that up. But the issue we're running into is there's just not some infrastructure built into our systems through utilities, engineering, fire to
do that yet. Um they're very used to those things. You know, unfortunately we as a society are very we're a lot to single family homes and that's how a lot of things are set up. Our building codes are set up. And so we run into a big issue when you get into
the residential building code and the commercial building code and the cut off is after two units. And so trying to take something like a triplex where we're we want to get there. Our goal is actually to get more straight to
building permit. We're not in a place to do that yet is is kind of the frank answer. And so this is would at least codify our current practice and allow some other things to go straight to building permit that we are built for and then work on okay how can we get our
things that are in the residential district straight to building permit and not go through a lengthy development review process. Um and it's going to take getting some people we don't have the table quite yet which is going to be engineering what comes out of the um environmental review hopefully on the
storm water uh utilities and we know there's a lot of concerns with some of the utilities and how those are treated in the development. So long- winded explanation to where this this portion of our suggested
>> couple questions. Yes. um one I mean wouldn't like town homes like three town homes be uh residential code or any even three detached homes are possible right >> yes it so finding that cutoff was just the hard thing because if you do three but now you have because we don't have
type and I think >> quite candidly you know I think where we're going to go and we look at this as a group is we're probably going to have to bring certain types back into the code like town home which would help with this but we don't have that now so we just have units so if we said three units That's yeah, it might be somebody
who does three single family homes is great, but they could do a triplex now that that's commercial zone or commercial building sprinkler. So, it just became a very difficult to do in that when you're only talking unit count and not
>> could you say up to two units per lot or sublot? >> Because on on town home it has to be a sublot for it to count as IRC and not jump to building code, right? Uh because if you
have three town homes and they are not on separate lots, they don't qualify for residential code. >> Correct. >> Correct. This would commercial sprinkle. >> So if you said up to two per sublot or lot, then that would allow town homes without bringing technically types in.
>> Well, that's we're we're saying this is what it is saying. It's what you propose. It's not what's there. So we're saying up to two units, >> right? but per lot or per up to two new units even if they're like so three units wouldn't be allowed even if
they're each on a different subplot whereas but if they're on a different subplot they would qualify for residential code >> well it it the the the friction point is more some
of our internal things in the review so >> what we're saying is it's not how many end You could have four on a property. If you're proposing a duplex or two units, you go straight to building permit. You don't go through development. >> So, it's not the total number we're saying is what's being proposed. So,
there still is the possibility. Someone could have two units and they're proposing two units attached. Now, it becomes four units. They have to sprinkle. But, we have the um we at least have the organizational skill that that could work.
>> Okay. And so it's it's more on what's being proposed and not to where where we have traction internally. Uh we just don't have traction yet for what we're hoping to get to um in the future which would
be ideally if it's in the residential there's a mechanism set up to catch some of the other departments reviews and we can do our review at >> Okay, couple more questions. Does this mean minor development plans go away? >> Yes. So, what we're going um so you're
not seeing here, we're as part of the development updates, we're getting rid of major and minor development plans. We're just going to have one development plan that will be open to anyone if they want to do it. It'll be an NDS only document, just a zoning check. So, it's it's envisioned to be something that
gets approved in maybe one or two rounds at the most. And it would get you vested in the zoning. Maybe you take that to a bank so you can do your engineering. And we're going to go to major and minor um uh site plans so that if it's for small stuff we can try to get through quicker
lower fee and major stuff but the yes major and minor development plans are going away. It'll be only a development plan will be major and minor site. >> So that kind of got to my last question which is like it's not required but if you have a two-unit project and you want to get some sort of approval from the
city to bring to your bank you can go through development. Anyone could get a development plan for well single family home if they wanted to. We don't anticipate it but >> but uh before we said the minor development plan you could basically do on a napkin and it's supposed to be really quick and simple right but now
we're saying it's going to be just the development plan there will be the requirement of it has to be or will it have to be the same like has to be an engineer architecture surveyor >> for the development plan. So for the development plan u it needs to be we
need to be able to review it against the code. So >> it needs to have the details but it's not necessarily licensing of the submitter. >> Correct. We're not to that level yet to determine but we we we want to make it as easy as possible but we want to be able to review it. So it needs to be to scale something like that.
>> Yep. But the um but the uh how the code is set up is even in this everything needs you know that final cycle. So we're trying to exempt things from needing that but things that need a final cycle like even minor final cycle we're going to try to lower that
threshold so it's gets through very quickly. >> Okay cool thanks. >> Can you talk talk about town homes again? So town homes would or would not qualify this. So this has been it's very difficult
because we can't really speak in those terms. It's just unit. And so if you had two units and you wanted to add two units you're going to attach to them to make four units in a row with you know yes that would work. But if you were
going to say, I'm going to do four town homes, four four units, we would say you have to go through development review because we're not set up yet to to really handle it. That that's what I I think when we dive into it to see how we can break down some barriers, I feel
we're going to have to reintroduce the term town home to the code is what I don't want to jump ahead of myself, but that's >> just in what we've experienced over the last 18 months because there is such a differential such a difference in the building code
where they use that terminology. I think to get bring down the barriers, we're going to have to pull that back in. how that looks, I'm not sure, but that's what I anticipate. But that's it's not necessarily tier three. It's it's um
kind of the next focus of develop, not necessarily code, but development. As part of development review, what barriers can we break down to get more of the missing middle type? And I think out that that exercise is going to turn into, hey, we need to introduce town
homes as a term in the code that would help break down some barrier. >> Yeah. I mean, personally, I feel like if you were to introduce it for the parts that are like, you know, the the process parts, that seems fine to me versus like
where I think we what we were think were intending with just saying units was like the, you know, zoning requirements part. and and that might be where it comes from as we look at the the actual development review process. And maybe maybe it does, >> but I I just know where we are as an
organization. Um we're we can't take that big a bite of the apple quite yet to allow something like a 12 unit apartment to go straight to building permit. We'd love it because again that was six supported units and that's the the
direction we're heading but we're just not there as an organization yet to do it. This is kind of where we're at to be able to handle as an organization. I mean but also like is there a sense that a developer with 12 unit apartment building would need to bring something
to their bank before they could get to building permit? Like I would think that that's probably they would maybe I don't know >> if they want to live. >> Yeah. >> They didn't empty deep pockets I guess. >> But we would we at least I think as a as
a city would love to break down these and recognize there's a you know the type of housing we would like to get. >> Yeah. going through a six-month development review process is a barrier. And how can we >> how can we really break that down? And
like I said, from our standpoint on the zoning planning side, we know we can do our check. We can do our check at development review. We can do our check of building permit. We can do a zoning compliance check at either place, but there's other other people at the table that aren't aren't there yet to be able to do that building permit and they need
this process to kind of do the review. >> Wait, one more thing. Sorry. But so if development review is now not that engineering review, >> there's utilities and stuff. Development review speaks to just development review. Development plan speaks to the
document. Okay. So, but when I say development review, I'm talking about just >> getting from pencil. >> I see. I think that's the distinction I was missing. Okay. Cool. That makes sense. >> All right. Uh 33.
Any comments? Definition of a building. So this is one sort of the 34 and that earlier one that we were kind of which was what V1 that we started talking about this. Um I feel like there might be unintended consequences of doing it
this way. I guess where staff comes from is we need we need a good definition of building because we tie things to bonuses. We tie things you know what we call something a building and the current definition of a covered or enclosed structure either temporary or
permanent intended for deoccupation or shelter of now or property of any kind is not as robust as we would like as when we were looking at okay when do when do these bonuses apply? What um I know we've had some conversation in the
past. What we don't want to do is is uh incentivize single you know a single family own not multif family that gets the bonus height. >> So a structure is any constru constructed object more than 30 inches
in height. So a sh is a town home a structure or is is a row a town homes a structure now that we say or is it a building I guess now that we say a building can go across lot lines. So I mean where we were running where we
were running issuers was you know you have multiple disciplines when this from what build codes as a building is on one property when you have that property line becomes two buildings even if it looks like one building from the outside it's two buildings
>> and trying to line up at least a little bit with theirs but also to this really tied into the the bonus side where we where we were saying Okay. But that that was making an issue for us because the bonus section
>> specifically like the the more than one unit. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Then I wonder if maybe the answer is to change it to spans more than one sublot. >> Yeah. Um, but like so if you go back to like the example of the attached town
homes on different zoning lots, if you go to four, but we're saying it's one building for determination of unit count, even though you have four zoning lots, each of which is allowed to have three units. If it's
one building, even though only one unit is on that zoning lot, I >> I see the sublock used. >> I think I agree that yeah, this should be sublime and not block.
>> I can see. Yeah, because what we what we've always struggled with is that we have this is considered a building, but suddenly you put property lines
subot. >> Well, now we when we say subw we can from a planning zoning standpoint, we can understand what that means for the development code. It's not going to change sub lots building still going to consider it one building. They they they don't view sublots as anything different
than I >> when you say building you mean the building and uh administrator. >> Yes. >> Yeah. uh building utilities. They a lot's a lot whether it's a sub lot or
a lot. It's >> so change just remove what keep >> I think so I'm not sure I understand why it matters. So there's all these different things.
There's building footprint. There's building coverage. There's building setbacks to the building. All of those things are to the building or of the building. And then there's
building height, which is one unit and more than one unit. There's building width. All those things have the word building in it, right? Um, and so if you say you say footprint, right? Are you have two you have a duplex, right? Each of the
units is on its own sublot. Is each of those allowed to be 3,000 ft in footprint or is it cumulative? Um, and then similarly, are they allowed to be two and a half stories or three stories? Is it one unit or more than one
unit building height? Um, >> I will say things like the the footprint and that they do speak to cumulative that does a better job than the bonus height does. >> Yeah, I kind of feel like the problem is Yeah, it's really just that building
height one where we didn't specify exactly and I almost want to say I haven't tallied it up and I feel like some of these use different ones. Some say cumulative and some don't. Uh like for building width
is that need more screens. Um 10 building located on a lot maybe wider than the maximum building with 11 miles. >> I almost want to say we should just
specify for each one of these things. And I would argue footprint should probably be combined height. The the extra height for multiple units should probably be for the lot because the idea was if you're putting in multiple units, we'd rather you make it a little taller
and squeeze them in a little more rather than covering up more of the lot and uh you know reducing space for open space with trees and stuff >> was I think the thought. Um, and then >> why do you want footprint combined?
>> What's that? >> Why do you want footprint combined? >> Like why do you want to include that? Spending a lot for that. >> I think with footprint it was like I mean the idea was that buildings could get too big, right? Um, I guess it it
was sublot. It's I don't know. I guess that was really thinking about buildings that wouldn't be subplotted like 126 is but and then for width I would argue that town homes should be counted separately for width because width is about you're
walking along the street you want there to be a different building to get that like visual differentiation to make it a more interesting walking experience and that's the effect we want in the public realm speaks to like building footprint is
measured for each individual building or structure includes all enclosed recovery areas. >> I think the thought was that is that like that was thinking about detached buildings and not necessarily attached >> it's complicated. I almost feel like
it's different for each of these. And I feel like this change might be too big. I feel like we shouldn't I know we already talked about this earlier, but we shouldn't really be allowing a
building to span two lots. Like they should go through the effort of combining into one lot if they're going to do that. I don't know if I'm trying to think how the if the building code even allows that. I I don't know. Um
think of an example where that can >> I mean I guess where I've seen appeared actually has two lots, right? >> I think so. >> The garage area is kind of its own lot. I I think the um where the UVA's housing project was going to go on work on the
tiff I think was multiple lots >> even in the developed condition. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um but it seems to me that that just feels weird to have a building straddle two lots. >> Yeah.
Well, >> I guess I guess I would think about it through the town home analogy. If you had if you had a row of town homes um sitting on a parent lot, they did a sublot or it doesn't even matter. I mean, if they if you just had a row of,
you know, building that looks like um Water Street. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> Do you want that to be one building uh per individual lot so they don't get any bonus height or it's one building
because it's town home they get the bonus height or is it more just the you know envisioning that bonus height for being I have like a overunder duplex or you know three unit apartment.
I I think if there's sublotss, I'm okay with the higher height. If it's just one on a zoning lot, I don't know about more height. >> I think I I agree. And my worry more is where you said the building footprint is, you know, the you've got one building that spans two lots and then
it's we don't want that to be, you know, we've got a maximum building width or building length of what 200 feet or something in some districts or whatever it is. And yeah, we don't want that to be artificially elongated because it's two lots.
>> So that's where I'm I'm seeing that as a this being more complicated than >> Well, this is saying you'd consider it as one building no matter what. >> Right. I don't that's that seems like a problem to me. If >> No, it doesn't. That actually seems good. >> But it's different. >> If you had if you talk about the row of
town home, let's say you build a new shre, right? Payne's Mill was built five years ago as a bunch of single family homes. They built a row of town homes each on their own zoning lot there as the sort of Baltimorey row home built for. Should
each one until you get a side setback be subject to the 3,000 footprint? I don't think so. Should the whole thing be the building width or each individual town home? I think each individual town home. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's just a different building form.
Should they get the extra height if they're all on their own lots? Same problem. >> I guess look at it this way. If you had, I'll use the terminology. If you had a duplex, which under the old code, you know, you had a two family where it was
a two family unit on one lot. Under this, we would say you get extra height. But as soon as you put a property line down the middle of it, you don't get the extra height because you're one an individual building on each property. Unless somewhere else on your property
you also put another unit. >> Yeah. >> If it's a different zoning lot. >> But >> well, it speaks to build the number of units in the building, not number of buildings on the lot. >> Yeah. I I don't know that I fully buy I mean, it says building height as in the height of the building. I don't totally
buy that. That necessarily means that underneath building height, where it says one unit, more than one unit, also implies one unit in the building. I see where you're coming from. I do >> I don't know if that's what we were going for in 23. Yeah, I thought it was
just number of >> I think that's where staff would need some help clarifying what staff is viewing right now. >> I totally agree with you clarifying it >> because what that's how staff looks at this. They look at it as okay it's it is the number of units in a building to get the height not about number of buildings
on a site or >> I just think maybe we just narrowly fixed the building height thing to mean one unit is one unit per lot and more than one unit is more than one unit per per zoning lot and that and then call it a day
>> and we can come back to that >> but we just we just we know we're running into that this app and how we read the code and use it. And so we would love to have clarification, but it might not be something we can come to
now. Like it might be something we >> Yeah. >> an intermittent fix and then we have to >> I do know I mean there's like development plans being submitted in like Belmont where they're trying to do three towns in the back or something and unless they get the extra height, it's
like not really going to work. they'll be short and um maybe with the with the loosening of the R zone story thing, it won't be as big of an issue. But uh >> that seems like an easy change though that I mean cuz yeah, I I was under the impression that it was dwelling units
per lot and not per building. >> Yeah, I was under that impression until I started hearing people brag that they on the per portal that they said nope. >> Dia, do you guys have a thought on that part? I I share your >> okay >> idea of the unit for a lot.
>> Is that an easy fix, Matt? >> Uh I don't know. I don't want to say >> uh I mean there there might be some possibility without >> so like if we put somewhere in 2.10.9
10.9 where it talks about height like that's the section of height. Um if I can find it >> it would need to be something like one
unit per lot or more than one lot I think would need to be probably added in there is my reaction. >> Yeah, I'd be okay with that too. I'm trying to keep the specific example we were talking about when we were doing that was an existing building and then three town homes in the backyard. That
was our the the search. >> Now the the unintended consequence is you have a single family home and you put a single family home behind it. You get the extra height. >> Is that really what >> but at least you're squeezing in extra units on a zoning lot. So, and maybe
that single family home is a little smaller footprint because you can get the square footage vertically makes me okay with it. I just I do think there not saying it's bad. Maybe we do get a good bit of help, but there's the possibility of just getting larger
mother-in-law suites and >> yeah. Um, yeah, I was going to say it is a pressing issue because developments are being held up by this problem right now, but actually when you combine it with the getting rid of the stories,
you know, once you're at the heights, then it's not as big of a deal because once your top floor is above 30 feet above ground level, a bunch of extra fire code requirements kick in anyway, and no one's going to do those. So
maybe we can kick it even that other change. I mean, I think there's probably an opportunity to to explore more to to fine-tune this down the road to get more. I I cuz I think as a community we're probably wanting more
have a single family home in front and I want we want to instead buy something like a duplex in back or something that is a little more dense instead of just a like a little larger single family home. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I mean again at least you're adding an extra single family home and I feel like I'm okay with that. And and
maybe I take back what I just said before because the sidewall height is still is the same one unit more than one unit thing. that 28 feet sidewall, you're still going to have to that top story is not the full story. So, where have we landed with this or with
what are we what's the what's the proposed change? >> I think the proposed change is is changing it from one unit per lot, one unit to one unit per lot, more than one unit to more than one unit per lot under building height. And that's that's
the main thing driving this this change, right? >> Correct. The main thing was to get clarification on when that bonus is. So if the definition if if the current definition is not an issue, you know, we
can keep the current definition. We can explore. I I can't promise we can get that in with this round just but we could explore adding that language into the districts. And so we're gonna not do your well for
the purpose of this code including blah blah blah blah blah we're not going to do that part. >> Yeah, I do worry about the unintended consequences of of this definition change here. So I would >> scratch rather not do that.
>> Um next. >> All right. 34. >> Uh, we had the question about the attached town homes. >> That's Yeah. So, I changed that to now I realize that
33 was talking about that. Um, I did not originally realize. Uh, and then I did have a new thought based on that. Nope, that thought was drawing out 33.
Uh, so yes, never mind. >> Great. So, we're good with 34. >> Yeah. >> Yay. 35. >> Solve a lot of issues. >> Um, oh, this was me having a problem.
I I not going to get my sword on this one, but it seemed like um I it I'd like to expand it to two dwelling units because I could see someone having a Well, if you're telling me that you've got an existing residence
and they put a another dwelling unit in the back or on top or something like it's in the existing building, the existing building does or does not have to um meet the active depth requirements. >> The the one you're not changing does
not. Okay. >> Is only about what you're changing. If you were adding interior and not changing anything on the outside, you don't need to go through development because that is interior change that doesn't. So, >> no. If you add it all on the on back, attach it on the back. Does the front have to be
>> No, because it's only I mean if it's outside the active depth, >> okay, >> which is from the >> right. So, is all that like specified somewhere? Like there's that table that's like it's got the little dots, the clickability.
>> Yeah. But then it says like generally um I think the example someone was telling me about the other day was that hotel holiday in on 29 that's being proposed to be affordable housing where they were like they just want to change
the insides except they want to fill in the outdoor or the indoor pool and add an outdoor pool and that triggered the whole site plan which then triggered possibly was going to trigger >> transparency and all that. Uh I mean we
we had convers they they wanted to change the interior which didn't do anything but they wanted to add a pool >> outside. So yes, we said everything within >> where you're adding that pool >> only in the pool >> only the pool area needs to meet the code and there's some trans there's some
>> trans uh position elements because of the use >> that comes into play but no nothing >> it's only what you touch that >> okay >> uh needs to come up to me >> so that makes a lot of sense to me
I don't know that it's totally clear I may have to talk to them before they got like the final final word in this but um you know there's like addition in the applicability thing but it doesn't it says standards generally apply but it doesn't say standards generally apply
just to the addition part maybe >> I I can tell you has been our longstanding regardless of code has been the department's longstanding is your >> okay and that is a common practice anywhere you're not if I'm if I'm working on this I don't have to fix this
>> okay Now, um, where I think where that pro that project got a little squirrely is what they were trying to say is we're non-conforming and that means non-conforming means we never have to do anything that's meet the code.
>> They're trying to say no that's not then no one would have to do anything and we wouldn't we'd be sitting in our offices all day. It it was no you're not you know the the where where the confusion comes and I get the confusion but it we
we have legal backing on this when you look at like in the residential section and where it's broken down into lot on a page and building on a page. Mhm. >> Lot doesn't mean non when you're
non-conforming for your parcel doesn't mean you're then you can get away with all this stuff on the lot section. I get where it's confusing because we caught a lot, but those are still development standards. Non-conforming lot just means either you're non-conforming because you don't meet the street frontage or you don't meet the area. It's not you you're
not non-conforming for the subdivision because you don't have um uh a build to requirement. It's but I get their confusion because it says lot on that sheet. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> Uh the only other comment I had on this one Oh, wait. Are we on we're on B35, right? >> Uh it's just the no additional uses should probably be no additional primary uses. the same as we can. Yeah, it was again it was just trying to clarify that
D which we found to be just not probably written as well to >> Yep. >> Yeah. So same as that earlier one, same deal. >> All right. 36. Um you had another access in there that
I think you >> Yes, that's a good catch. Uh because what what this is what staff was getting at is the only exempt for your any of your stepbacks bill to the only exemptions or access easements and not hey I've got a sewer line running
through my front yard >> and we're we're like we don't have anything to give you an exception for that. So, uh, I guess it doesn't explicitly say it in the text, but like if you were putting in a new sewer line, which would create
an easement, should we also allow it to be modified based on that, or should we just say you can't put in the sewer line there because you're going to have to build in that area? >> You wouldn't have a hardship yet. You'd be creating your own. >> That's true. >> Yeah, we're we're anticipating this be
more like we fish Fish Street's a good example. There's a huge sewer line that runs along the west edge of this street that is is about a 40 I think it's a 40 foot easement. It's a huge easement. And so like when Harmony Ridge went in, you
you couldn't build up to this. It just was impossible because the infrastructure didn't give us a way to I guess the workaround I guess is you put an access easement up top with utilities, but that's not what we want.
And this is just me being annoying. Um, so I because I've had some discussions with BA BA applicants who say they can't provide their streetscape because their build to zone is not large enough to allow that and is as a practice is um
the city doing this and moving those those setbacks back. Uh on that one I think there is a little ability to set setbacks back. Um but I mean the right ofway and easement are totally different. >> Yes.
>> And there's way you that's one of the ways you can do your exemptions for your streetscape >> because I mean it says that um uh where there's not enough room in the public runway for the required streetscape. the clear walk zone and greenscape zone must be provided on site
as a permanent public access easement. Um so that's later on the code 445 A3. Um so I'm just wondering have we in practice been doing that and then moving the build to zone back proportionally
um behind that access easement. I'm not that has not come up for that one any projects >> other the only thing I can think of right now is the Kindlewood phase three um project where they're um you guys actually saw their special exception
permit for their street facing entry spacing um but a part of that facade was actually um they're putting an additional pedestrian easement that did result in their that building being set back further. So, I'm thinking of the proposed hotel um on um Market Street um
at the very end of the mall um where the Artful Lodge is. >> They were adamant that I'm pretty sure they were also >> full whatever, but um they were adamant that city had told them that they had to build up to their build to zone and there wasn't enough room for the trees.
Um, and we had a big discussion about, you know, there's no street trees here and you guys are, you know, you're too close to the sidewalk and they're like, well, there isn't room to do it all because the site's all bunny shaped. Um, so yeah, I have a feeling that that was the
applicant lying to us, but we get this has happened more than once on the bar. So, it's nice to know that if it is the policy of staff to um allow the movement of that easement, if there's or of the setback, if there's a
access easement, um then I think the BA can push a little harder um asking for street trees and things like that when we've been pretty consistent. We want we want a good green space. So, >> Okay. Thank you. That's
uh 38. Um I the same argument that I had before, which I guess is just we're going to wait till later, but it seems like we're we're not protecting um existing
buildings outside of the R zones or we're not allowing for you know construction behind them. And I will say I mean where staff came from this is we were and y'all have seen some of these come
forward where the existing structure is causing an issue with because they're not meeting either the the bill two or the percentage. Um, and so I I think chair will you bring up a good point, but I guess our staff was looking at we
were just there was an opportunity to at least tie it to something that was existing to give that um time to the preservation bonus to then say, "Yeah, you conform." I I do think it's worth again a bigger
conversation, but it's it'd be hard to tie this seemed easier to tie to something that already existed. So, uh, a tweak I proposed to this that's smaller, maybe more within what could be in scope tonight, is that a project
that's eligible for the bonus, um, could qualify? Cuz if you're building, if you have a house, you only have enough room in the back to add two more. Um, you're not actually using the in RA, let's say, you're not actually using the bonus because you're not going to four. But
you could put three back there. And now your front house is not qualifying. It's not filling up the bill to it. And so your uh you still have to go through a special exception process, but you're eligible for it as part of the project
project assess. You're just declining to use it or >> just change you utilize to >> modules that are eligible. >> Yeah, >> I like that. >> Okay. >> Meeting the eligibility standards.
40. >> Uh, I think that's for sure. >> I don't I need to I don't even remember what I'm commenting on. Look at this. Oh, I yeah, I think my comment really is more probably a tier three thing like
the the conflict between this is addressing the conflict between easements and build two width, but we still have the conflict between build to width and transition
transitions, right? So this kind of like elements issue with the transition needed between the shop and the low density. >> Yeah. I think that probably would be a deeper conversation.
>> Yeah. Um because there's there are in that case what really tripped it was the use and not >> the because the use would have been something that was allowed in both districts if it was just based on height and so it wouldn't have been an issue. >> Yeah. >> I think the code actually does a pretty
good job there where it gives it at least recognizes you could have two different districts but the same use so you don't need to trans you know you don't need to transition between them. >> Yeah. I I don't I don't have any issue with with it as it's written. It was
more just kind of a question. So, >> well, so um I think I've already exhausted my tier three comment. Um Daniel, do you want to describe any of yours? >> No, it's fine. >> You have it. It's in the writing.
>> Yeah. But I think um just to clarify, I mean on this commission, how many are would are thinking that these build two zones are probably something we'll really need to look at and potentially get rid of? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> At the very least like fix, but I may
get rid of this though. That's um I don't know something for staff to think about. >> Yeah, I know. Um, as like I said, I'm hoping as these become a yearly thing easier. I know a quick conversation with
the chair about we might bring this back up again maybe January or February about bringing a subcommittee >> one or two commissioners that just is focused on these these types of changes that we just had. Or could we also um if we have work
sessions maybe instead of saving them all for the end of the year kind of space it like >> that's what I that's what I'm hoping is this the first time we're learning a lot um from this first time around but yeah I'd love to have more something set regular where we know every
either twice a year of the year we're having a meeting on these again tier two I'm hoping it'll just be a handful so it can be a little more you know longer conversation but on just just few things. Uh and then that way I said the committee would be kind of champion when
we come back to the full movie but that's I mean that's just something we can we're exploring and moving forward. >> Yeah. >> Sorry that took so long. Thank you guys for grinding through it. >> Yeah. But thank you for sticking it out
with us. >> Wait till tier three. So, who wants to be Yes, you're Phil tonight. Phil would like to move to uh close. >> I was second