Planning Commission Work Session Meeting   12/13/2022

I'm going to open up this meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission for December 13, 2012.

The opportunities for the public to access and participate in this hybrid meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website, on the Planning Commission homepage, and on the Albemarle County calendar.

Carolyn, would you call the roll, please?

Yes, ma'am.

Here.

Ms.

Firehock?

Here.

And Mr. Murray?

Here.

All right, we have established quorum.

So I'll move on with the regular work session.

We just have one item that we're going to work on ZTA sections 31, 32, and 33.

We're going to talk about

and over all of our ordinances.

So we'll have the staff report.

Or not the staff report, yeah.

It's the staff.

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Leah Brumfield.

We are here today for a work session on zoning modernization update project.

It is numbered ZTA-2020-2-02.

I'll give a very brief intro to the project and then hand it over to Rebecca Cobb with the Berkeley Group.

the consultants that we have been working with on this project.

So as a very brief recap, the purpose of the project is to, as the title suggests, modernize the zoning ordinance.

The ordinance has not undergone a complete overhaul since it was adopted in 1980.

We have made a number of amendments to the ordinance in those intervening 40 years, but the ordinance is in need an overall reorganization and an overall cleaning up.

So by doing a complete evaluation, building back up the ordinance from the ground up, we intend to make it clearer, more user-friendly, and bring in ways that speak to the modern comprehensive plan goals, address the current needs of our residents, and update any outstanding code changes from the Code of Virginia.

When this project was originally launched in early 2022, work began by attempting to create new setback regulations, streamlined land uses chart, but following two work sessions in April and June, we did come to the realization that the project needed to be restarted from the ground up.

So that brings us to today.

Our goals today will be receiving the presentation from the Berkeley group for the overall evaluation of the ordinance, which is the daunting 98-page document the commission received in their packets.

I know the length of the document is a bit overwhelming to just look at the numbers, but the majority of it is actually detailed notes on the diagnostic, each section of the ordinance given

comments on what could be changed and what needs to be changed and why.

The other section that takes up a lot of space in that document is the crosswalk where each section of our current ordinance is proposed to be ending up in a new reorganized layout.

So since it is a lot of information to cover, the Berkeley group will be presenting their findings in two parts, discussion after each part.

So Rebecca will be presenting first the overall evaluation priorities and findings, and then the ordinance structure direction.

While I am very certain the commissioners have specific detailed input on individual sections, rest assured we will be able to delve deeply into those sections later on in the project.

Right now we're focusing on the evaluation priorities and findings and the ordinance structure.

The real work will begin with our drafted materials at our next session.

All right, good to be here.

Rebecca Cahn with the Berkeley Group.

Thank you for having me this evening.

As Leah mentioned, we are going to, I'll talk a little bit about kind of where we are in this phase of the project.

We'll talk about the ordinance evaluation that you received, and then we'll also talk about the ordinance structure and then some next steps.

So phase one, this little diagram, as Leah mentioned, we started back in August with this phase one, and we've had some investigation time.

And now we're at the December work session, the first work session for phase one.

And then you'll see we're going to proceed through two more work sessions where we are drafting and looking at drafted material.

And then we will again kind of investigate, make final revisions in June and then also present what we have drafted to the board prior to moving to phase two.

So project overview, I've mentioned before, we've kind of got three buckets.

We're going to do investigations, we're going to develop content, and then there will be adoption.

And so for this phase one, we've done most of the investigation and you all participated in some of that and thank you for your time.

in that respect.

And then content development, we're kind of starting with these first two items, ordinance diagnostic and table of contents is what we'll be talking about today.

And then we'll move through the other items, some in this phase and some in future phases.

And then adoption is a long ways down the road, but we will get there.

So first the engagement summary, and this is appendix C of the report that you received.

The engagement summary is summarizing the different groups that we spoke to through this phase one.

And so that was community development staff, you all who we spoke to in groups of two, and then the Charlottesville area development roundtable or CADRE as most people are probably more familiar with.

So these are some things that we heard as kind of a common thread among these groups.

So just kind of some key items were that the ordinance is complex and that's why we're here, right, or part of why we're here.

And then the application submissions is inconsistent.

So we heard from staff that, you know, sometimes there's need for additional materials.

Same thing from you all.

Need for additional materials sometimes.

And even from cadre, we heard, you know, not certain on what to always submit with different applications.

lengthy approval processes.

And this is related to different reasons, some of it that you're just seeing a lot of cases.

And so it's hard to get on your agenda and on the board's agenda.

Also some just kind of internally the steps that it takes to get through processes.

and then a desire for more buy right uses.

And so this isn't necessarily new, completely new uses, but this was more in terms of there are currently special permits, but maybe we could make those buy right with some use standards.

There was also common thread about increasing density and building height in specific areas.

And I think that's important to emphasize there.

So not everywhere, but looking at specific areas and considering increasing density and building height and then reevaluating the neighborhood model.

There were across all three groups, some concerns and some thoughts about neighborhood model that it's good, but what about the future for that district?

So then just diving a little bit into what each group had to say.

And you'll notice here the items kind of in the yellow gold are things that we can address in this phase.

And the things that are in like the teal aqua color are things that we would address in future phases.

So less important at this point, we can revisit those items later, but just kind of wanted to note them right now.

The community development staff said that we need a complete list of application requirements that should be provided in the ordinance as well as explaining the permit processes for each type of permit, creating a more efficient site plan process.

They felt like that was a long process and there's some efficiencies that can happen there.

Some of that may be internal workings with staff, but also there's some things in the ordinance too that could be improved there.

And then things for future phases, reducing administrative burden of that neighborhood model district, addressing minor disturbances within critical slopes, changing uses to buy right with use standards, as I mentioned previously, and then clarify and refine existing use standards.

Some highlights from you all require additional detail in applications, streamline the application processes, consider adding a work session prior to public hearings.

One thing that I would note about that is I think we would want to make that trigger-based because that is something that can be very useful for you all, but it also could lengthen some projects that might be fairly simple.

So I think we would want to have a trigger there based on number of acreage or number of dwelling units, those types of things.

And then that work session could be very beneficial prior to a public hearing.

Then the other items here for future phases, modernize industrial uses, consider incentives for low impact development, add maximum parking limits.

And that is something that we've heard in multiple groups, actually, and is something that I would say nationwide is kind of changing about parking, and then address or remove height and step back standards.

From the focus group cadre, we heard about clarifying permitting processes, reducing the details required on concept plans.

And that is a little bit different than you all saying you want to have some additional details.

So that's where we kind of need to find some best fits there.

I think one interesting thing to consider is that as we are

updating this ordinance.

We're going to be putting in the standards and the requirements vetted by you all, approved by the board.

And so that might be a reason that concept plans can have some less details in terms of sidewalks or parking, because if those standards are there in your ordinance and you're comfortable with them, then you don't have to see them with every application.

creating a desktop process for site plan discrepancies.

This was, I think, a great idea in terms of, you know, when things come up with site plans and different departments, one is requiring something that might conflict with another.

And it kind of bogs down the process, having to go between different ones.

And so just being able to all sit down together, work out some solutions.

And so having that in your ordinance as a process would be helpful.

Allowing building permit process to start prior to final site plan approval is something else that can be considered during these revisions.

And then future items incorporate maximum setbacks instead of minimum.

Update recreational amenity requirements.

I hear that that comes before you a lot for decision making.

And there is definitely more details.

Those were just the highlights.

And so at your leisure, feel free to read through that appendix C for any additional details you're interested in.

In terms of the evaluation report, there's also the appendix A, which is the matrix, which is a lot of pages.

That matrix is where we looked at the Code of Virginia in comparison to your ordinance.

We were looking at

Title 15.2 Chapter 22, each section.

And so we've provided the section number, a little description of what that section is about.

And then we classify and make judgments in terms of if you're in compliance, if you're only partially in compliant or not in compliance with that item.

And when we think there's room for improvement in the compliance department, we have made recommendations and those are in bold.

So it's a little easier for you to

Just kind of skip through those pages to get to those bolded items.

So, but in the report, we also did this little synopsis of that.

So chart one shows the things that are, or the number of things that are applicable to Albemarle.

So about 85% of those are applicable to Albemarle.

16% or not and then chart two takes away not considering those things that are not applicable and just looks at okay so what are you in compliance with or partially compliant or not in compliance with

And we would say this is a passing grade.

You fared fairly well.

And now we have identified the places where we can strengthen.

And so we're going to be looking to those items throughout this drafting process to make sure we pick those things up so that at the end of this you're much more compliant with the Code of Virginia.

The bottom chart, chart three bottom right there on the screen is the optional provisions.

And so state code has several optional provisions.

Not all of them are going to be suitable to Albemarle County.

You're utilizing about half of them.

And so the other half, you know, it's just something to consider and think about if it would be suitable to implement for Albemarle.

So further in the report, I'm just going to go over a few of the highlights in the pages.

Everything in the report is guided by what we heard from you all and staff and cadre as well as us looking at your ordinance and our experience with other localities as well as best practices.

And then also the Code of Virginia items.

So we've kind of meshed all of those things together and made this report of basic recommendations.

So page nine, we talk about the permitting process.

And so two things here to help applicants would just be simplifying the permit structure, supporting that with good definitions, clear definitions about what are these specific permits and what do they achieve, as well as having clear application requirements.

That's going to help those processes a lot.

And then streamlining with more administrative approvals.

This would take burdens off of you, free up your agendas, and also help things move along a little quicker when you do that.

site plans, clearing the submission requirements, again, making sure there's a clear list for everyone to follow, and then being clear about the limits on resubmission and the ability to deny applications, reducing the length and complexity of the process as well.

Page 10, districts and district standards, reducing waiver requests, allow more low impact uses in the RA district, and reevaluating that neighborhood model district were also items highlighted in this report.

Going to page 11 uses and definitions, incorporating Code of Virginia uses and definitions.

This is one way to make sure you're getting that check mark for compliance with Code of Virginia, just making sure all of those uses that are applicable to Albemarle are incorporated.

And then broaden and consolidating terms, as well as adding modern uses.

You're very well that that's needed and that's actually where this process kind of started and we will get there and implement those things.

Page 12 is talking about a use matrix and there is an example of one on the screen.

This is not Albemarle districts or uses.

This is just an example.

Very clean, easy to use matrix and something that we would like to include in your ordinance.

Staff uses a matrix currently, but it would be helpful to have it in the in the ordinance itself.

And then use standards on page 12, adding new buy-write uses and having use standards when those have impacts, amending to address those frequent modification requests.

So there are use standards now that are currently being asked for modifications on a regular basis.

So we can, again, take some things off of your docket and answer that need that's obviously there in those standards.

And then integrate past zoning determination.

So staff makes zoning determinations.

This is the perfect time to have those in the ordinance and become regulations instead of in the minds and in the documents floating around the office.

Then page 14 gets into some of the community design standards, streets and landscaping, aligning those with VDOT, considering native species and mature sizes.

Parking include maximum parking limits, clarifying surface requirements.

This is something staff mentioned that there's, you know, hard surface, but it doesn't talk about, well, what does that mean?

So being more clear about those types of things.

Critical slopes is something that has a lot of confusion around it because there's lots of different types of slopes in your ordinance.

And so we want to clarify the differences there and allow some minor disturbances.

And then signs reduce the burden of the BZA.

And so that is kind of my summary of the engagement summary and the report.

So I think we can take some time for some questions and comments.

I do want to talk next about the table of contents and that's where I'm really looking to get your feedback and kind of your buy off.

I would ask for your questions and comments to kind of be prioritized and so if I can have things first that are relevant to permits and processes because I think those are most important that's where we're going to start in drafting and then if there are things that you have read that

you feel like are incorrect from the ordinance, then we need to know those things.

We're still getting comfortable in learning your ordinance.

And so if we've missed something, please let us know.

And then if there's anything that's in the report that you've read that you really disagree with, and if they draft something like this, I'm going to be really upset, then let us know those things as well.

But I'm happy to answer questions for a bit.

Okay, well, I know I have a few but we'll just go left to right for comments on my left.

Sure, thanks.

Thanks for all that helpful information.

I just had a few questions and maybe a couple of comments mixed in.

One is at the beginning you talked about

the sources of input, right?

This group, Cadre, et cetera.

And then you had a slide that had like tan color on the top and then different colors in the bottom.

And I think you said that you were prioritizing the top ones, right?

How did that decision, how was that decision made to, for example, not prioritize disturbance of critical slopes?

So it's not about not prioritizing at all.

It's about the phasing.

So the gold items are things that we can address in this current phase.

The other items are things that we will address and revisit in other phases.

So we've got a while.

That's good to know.

I just wasn't sure if it was part of this process or not.

That's great.

At the beginning, you also mentioned there'd be an open house.

Who will be part of that open?

It was on your racetrack diagram.

So we will be giving the open house with staff.

The date has not been set yet, but probably this week soon, because we do want to hold that in January.

Okay, so just a comment on that.

I'm sure you'll do this.

But you know, we've talked about public engagement, community engagement, just making sure that that's robust as robust as possible.

So reaching out to

groups that are applicant groups, right?

Yes, we will.

Great, awesome.

And then last comment is one of your main themes was to help simplify the site planning process expedited.

And I know there are some things that the county can control and others that you can can't control.

So you've got VDOT, you've got RWSA and others.

Yes.

And we do want to consider those other departments.

They are a big part of those approvals.

Got it.

And do you anticipate any of them might change some of their processes as part of this?

All right.

That's great.

Hi there.

So if I could just ask for before I use my time, if I could ask for a word insert on page, the sentences that aren't page numbers.

It's under zoning analysis.

It's under district and district standards.

At the end of the first paragraph,

It goes, border processes include challenges with step backs for building heights, encroaching setbacks for parking and accessory uses, and rigid transitional lines between high and... It doesn't go anywhere.

High and something.

So if you could just give us what the high and something is, that would be very helpful.

I like the whole idea that we would go from 90 to 100 days and using that as a leverage to talk about what I sort of saw here and two things that I'm asked about flexibility under the permitting and the process piece.

One of the things that I've been concerned with or I've been not concerned, that's too big a word, that I've been sort of puzzling over.

and particularly, and you lay it out here, is when you say that we're going to tie things to be reflective of VDOT's processes, and then we're going to try and enhance our connection to state code.

One of the things that I wondered about is how do we create our code, our ordinances, so that they're nimble enough to change when those things change.

Or, sort of backing up a piece, so that when our supervisors are engaging with their legislative, when they have those legislative conversations, that staff under

Cody, have an opportunity to say, while this may not be a big ticket item, this would really be helpful as we think about the planning and the build out of our particular community.

Because the thing that I've wondered over, and particularly if you notice the gentleman who happens to be the governor right now, he's speaking a lot about accessory units.

And he's actually speaking a lot about blowing up

the sort of the density codes at a state level.

Now some of that is

I don't know if it'll pass in a bifurcated legislature but you know he's talking about it and he's got a bunch of people who are aligning themselves with him and there's also some I would say some headway on that on looking at accessory units and what's the density and what's sort of the setbacks on the side and things like that and so if something that radical occurs

what would be sort of the flow through for our ordinances to make sure that in fact we weren't finding ourselves not necessarily out of sync with the guy in Richmond because that's not my concern right now but in sync with the people in our community who will see that as a signal for being able to do something else so that we're not out of sync with the reality of builders and developers are saying well in Richmond they said we could do this how is the local economy how's the local building market going to reflect on that

And so that's really my concern.

If we were in the city, it'd be a different kind of thing because they have a bit of more freedom.

But here, we really do need to have things that tie into the legislature.

And how are we going to do that?

And you're mentioning that's a key piece here.

How are we going to do that in a way that allows us to be nimble and also have something that's predictable?

That's really the predictability of the code because that's really what we're signaling, all kinds of things with the code.

Well, that's not a complaint, but that is a pondering like, okay, you say you're gonna be connected to the legislature and you say, we're gonna be connected to VDOT, which is another state agency.

So in terms of things like density or other state code things, you want to be in compliance with the state code.

Sometimes that means when they amend things, you have to amend things.

And so it won't be permanent.

Your ordinance is not meant to sit for another 40 years, right?

So it is going to continue to change.

Now there are things, though,

that state code says you can utilize this and you can decide and set those parameters.

And so there's room there in those terms.

Yeah, I mean, I find that, I mean, I think that's a great, I think that's a workable solution.

I'm also noticing, and when you went to the development community, the development community wants predictability.

And we also know that the development community wants to sort of bring projects to fruition that, how do I say this?

I'll just say that they want to bring projects to completion and they want to do it in a way that is cost effective for them and that also works with the community's needs.

But yet there is this third element in here that it's where we take our code creation as sort of a downstream reality of what happens in Richmond.

And I'm trying to figure out

Right, and fortunately in terms of specific code and requirements that have to be met,

those are a little bit further down the road in our drafting.

Okay, so I have a question before I ask a question.

So I've actually read this whole thing, even the appendix A, and I had like just three things on there that I had questions about, but I don't know that I need to ask that.

Like they were more nitpicky like,

If you want to send those in an email, that's fine.

One of my comments was, wow, this would be really, really political.

Do you know what happened last time?

And the other one is more like, what would be the mechanics of this?

Because this is the situation in the county.

So they're not necessarily work session topics.

Because you're not drafting anything yet.

Right.

OK.

All right.

So I'll just probably send those separately and copy the commission.

So then the only question I really have, so I like the process and everything.

It all sounds reasonable and I appreciate your work.

This is a question on whether this, I'm going to bring up something that's something I have concerns about and I don't know if it's part of this, would or could be part of this.

So there is a

Part of our code that allows people to, through an SUP process, to have special event permits under SP 10.2.2.50.

And so we basically, just sort of layman's terms,

If I had an old barn in the rural area and I wanted to start using it for weddings, I could just come to the county and say, hey, I've got a barn and I want to use it for weddings and it's an existing structure.

And all of a sudden I can have a wedding venue just because I have a barn.

And, you know, we've already run into the

you know, all of the rigamarole around when we had wineries and then they could have events and farm distilleries and farm breweries and all that.

And I know that- Karen, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

No.

Okay.

Four score and no.

So essentially, that's my concern is that to me, that piece of our code that people can apply for, it sort of means that like in the entire rural area, we can just turn it into a commercial event venue.

Yeah, like I said, you move to a rural area and you see that there's a bunch of cows and there's people cutting hay and there's goats and whatever's going on there, you kind of know what the rural uses are.

And then all of a sudden, there could be 200 person weddings occurring next to your house.

So I just think that this is like a good intentioned piece of code with the potential to go terribly wrong.

And it's already, there's already been some controversial places in my district.

with this particular code.

So it is not just something that could happen.

It probably would.

All right, so that really was really the only piece that, and I have a long email on this.

If you can send me your email, I could send it to you directly.

I don't know that I have your direct email, I just have Leah's.

Okay.

So that was it.

The other pieces that I had were really more minor questions for when you actually get to writing the code.

So I'll just, I'll send those separate.

I just want a question.

Thank you for the presentation.

Could you talk a little bit about how engagement is defined and

How do we know if we're successful in those exercises?

I mean, theoretically, 10 people could engage and we could say, we did it, right?

So in this first phase, we wanted to, because it's permits and processes, we wanted to touch base with those people who are most familiar with that topic.

So that was kind of our

guide in this process.

As I mentioned earlier, we are putting together a full engagement plan for this and we do plan on having some metrics and kind of monitoring and seeing, you know,

Are people visiting the webpage?

How many people responded to the survey?

And I think the end result, too, of knowing how successful is if we're getting information and answers that we can really utilize and make changes in the ordinance.

It shows that people are understanding what we're talking about and

We are answering needs through those changes.

So I think that's one piece of that puzzle.

But there will be additional metrics.

So this is more just about tone.

As I go through here, I see a lot of things about expedite or about

various policies being barriers to development or barriers to this or that.

And I think it's just worth noting that a lot of our policies come about because we explicitly were trying to stop things from happening in certain areas or certain natural resources being affected.

So the fact that it is difficult to build on a critical slope or to build on a floodplain or to do those things, those are not

Those aren't done to be barriers, they're done to protect a resource.

And so that tone I think could use a little bit more balance.

And I think particularly given some of the things that we had with the Montclair situation, I think that there's different ways to expedite.

I'm all about clarity.

Absolutely.

So I think we're in agreement there.

A lot of the things, you know, when we talk about, for example, making uses by right, I would say make those by right with use standards so that you are still addressing those impacts and making sure, you know, that process is easier.

I'd like to tag onto that because

That, you know, like I said, I wasn't going to go through all these.

Like one of the things I circled in the document was you made an example of FEMA.

You know, our standards are more stringent than FEMA.

And that's an example of like, yes, that's a good thing.

You know, Charlottesville doesn't mind if you build in the 100 year floodplain.

Part of our strategy has to do with

you know the aftermath of Hurricane Camille and loss of lives and it's really actually a really bad idea to build in the 100-year floodplain.

You know I'm talking about I'm not talking about canoe liveries I'm talking about people living in a danger zone so you know many of our houses are in that floodplain I understand that from because we have a historic county but you know you flagged that but I would say like I'm very proud of Albemarle's more stringent standards I hold them up as an example.

to other counties.

So I guess that's an example of something where knowing the backstory might be helpful.

Another one was on

on a mountain ridge line protection.

That was a fiery battle that went down in a big ball of flames.

So it doesn't mean that we can't make another run at it, but there's a whole story behind that.

And so I think that being aware of why we have some of the things that we have to Lonnie's point that it's not, cause we don't know, or we didn't, you know, it's very, very intentional.

In other cases, it's because we failed at something we tried to do.

And we need to really think that through before we just say, let's fix that.

And then the other thing about the expediting I wanted to tag onto, Lonnie just got me all excited over here, is that there's a lot of talk about what people would like, but I think that somehow, and I'm not saying this belongs in our zoning code, but we're really short staffed right now.

And we can write all kinds of things about how we're going to speed this up, or we can be more efficient, or the website can be easier to navigate.

But at the end of the day, and this is across the Commonwealth, people are having, across the South even, people are having trouble hiring planners.

So, you know, I just somehow, maybe it's in your narrative of your report, you just give some nod to that fact because we get a lot of pushback to why are things taking so long?

Right.

But and I think by strengthening your ordinance, it will help with some of the manpower issues that, you know, someone doesn't have to receive the same application three times.

It comes in once it's clear.

And I agree with you, there's definitely, we definitely are, I would say, dare I say, wasting some time with things that could have been done in one round versus two or three.

But also, to my fellow commissioners point there, there have been times where that slowdown has helped to reveal a major problem with a development site that needed to be addressed and not sped through.

So,

I'm all for speed, I'm all for efficiency, I'm all for less and shorter meetings, but just to be aware.

And thank you for the report.

I wanted to take some time to, I think most of my comments are probably beyond what you're specifically asking for right now.

So I think there is one that I, some questions and comments, and it's around the concept plan details.

There's, I think you heard in your,

inquiry session.

I think you heard probably some conflicting comments, right?

At least that's what you alluded to in your intro.

And so I will, I would like to understand what is the burdensome elements that you're hearing in the concept plan, because from what we're seeing here, there's probably are a few that have probably come through as like, well, probably more detail than they needed to present.

But I think that's,

uncommon, more than likely we're feeling like we don't have enough information for what they're asking for.

And I think that's an important thing.

If they're asking us for, you know, changing a setback or a step back, and they're not providing us, in some cases, they don't provide us the height of the building.

And so having the pertinent information for what they're asking for is important.

and we don't always get that.

So we didn't talk about specifics.

We didn't go create a list of that.

What I would like to do is when I'm drafting this section, I'm going to make some comparisons, look at some other localities and see where those are and make some decisions.

Well, actually, Mr. McDermott might be able to help because I believe staff was working on some revisions, right?

We were told at one point that Charles Rapp was pondering things, but I don't know whether he ever got there.

Okay.

Well, we do know that during the last economic downturn, the county relaxed what was required to be included.

And it could be as simple, easy for me to say, a matter of going back to what we used to require and pulling that forward and saying, would we like to go back to that?

Yeah, and I think the balance here is, you know, we could be asking for things that are completely above and beyond what the specific request is that they're asking for.

and so that could be burdensome.

It's like, well, why do I have to provide all this detail when I'm only asking about this one thing and everything else is by right.

Let me come alongside.

So there've been a couple of times that projects have come

or have mentioned to us that they'd already been before the ARB, which led me to wonder, why are you going to the ARB before you're coming here?

And there had been a note on the, well, this is past the ARB as if that was the,

as if passing the ARB was by default, we should sort of bow to what the ARB said.

Now I realize, so you're not, you're no longer that, okay?

So just be careful.

No, I mean, he isn't, so I have to, I'm trying to be respectful.

But the point on that was, and I had some conversations with Charles at one point at least, is the process backwards.

Should it not come here first before it ever goes to the ARB?

and because or should a package that comes out of this process, should it be ready to be seen by the ARB once it comes for us?

And I'm not supporting, I'm not sort of trying to lay that out, but I'm just trying to figure out that at some point I was feeling as if certain projects, and these were big projects, this wasn't sort of, you know,

and this wasn't the slew of vet projects that we got for a while.

But these were sort of significant corner lots and sort of on the entrance corridor to the point that I asked Charles at a point, should the ARB and the planning committee at least have a work session so we understand what we're looking at?

Because I had a feeling as if they were stressing things which were then being agreed to,

that not only was changing the form of the building or the project that was coming before us, and therefore we weren't ever in a position to have a robust conversation with the applicant about that.

So that's my one piece that I think sort of comes alongside of my colleague here.

Alongside of that is the idea that moving more items to administrative determination, which I'm fine with.

However, I'm not fine with that if there isn't an opportunity for both the supervisors and the Planning Commission to have some idea about how's that going.

So I think I would be resistant to saying yes to as much as you want to do by administrative process.

without having an opportunity at some pre-described moment to reevaluate that and to be updated in a significant manner about what's taking place in the administration.

So it's just not like sort of letting it go without having an opportunity or having the possibility of pulling it back or I don't want to do this push-pull business, but being able to reinsert the planning commission in that process.

I think that goes to some of the things you're talking about, how do we speed the process up?

Well, I just, yeah, I just wanted to, my final point on this whole topic, which actually gets dovetails very well into, so thank you for coming alongside.

So there is this conflict that you heard, I'm feeling between the development,

industry and some of the things that we were saying in terms of the concept plans and other details.

So I have to rinse the conversation on the process on how we resolve those conflicts.

And we can hopefully come up with something that makes sense for, you know, we can get the details that we need and the board ultimately.

And that if there is some way that to simplify the process, you know, I don't know whether that's expedite the process, simplify the process, whatever it be, make it less burdensome.

Have you thought about that?

So we're not there yet.

We've got a couple other articles we will draft first.

I'd add one thing too.

You came alongside your right.

I'm coming alongside your left here.

A couple of things that were mentioned.

One is on the ARB side.

I thought that was a really helpful insight.

And having worked on the ARB in the past, what we put through the filter was, for the most part, aesthetic, right?

And not so much land use related.

And we were very careful to try to stay within those boundaries.

But I say that and also realize that your comment about

in reverse, it does seem like it's sort of backwards, right?

Because we, you know, as an ARB member in the past,

we sort of took what we were given as, okay, now we need to just make sure that it meets and then the applicant.

So thinking of all of this from the applicant's perspective, we then come to the planning commission and be like, oh, what do you mean it's not?

We've already been through this process and the density is fine because that's what the ARB said.

So I think it's a perception really that's really important.

The other thing is coming along from an applicant standpoint or the development community,

The fact about, you know, aligning the request with the detail is hugely helpful to an applicant.

And I'm preaching to the choir here, I'm sure.

But you know, if you are making a relatively simple request, you should know as the applicant, you don't have to spend all this time and money to do X, Y, and Z. And I don't know how to exactly do that.

But aligning that is really, I think, is really important and critical.

That because it was a staff level.

And I think one of those things that would be in this is, yes, staff reviewing applications, having those pre-application meetings and letting them know, yes, this is simple.

We don't need, strike this from your list.

And that's, I agree with you.

I would just say that, and there's different perception among different staff members.

And so putting something in writing that is a checklist of some kind or

I don't know how to clarify that in a way that makes it more objective would be important, I think.

And then the last thing I'll just mention is I don't see maybe I missed it.

And I'm not sure if these comments are all aligned with

in this current phase, but hopefully it is.

Economic development and thinking about how that's woven into this process.

There's no, as far as I know, ability for a developer to come in and create a ready site that allows for future economic development to come in and be ready to go.

OK, Lonnie wanted to make a point.

Yes.

And so there's a lot of talk also in here, more things being done administratively, as opposed to coming for us.

Often, the fact that something comes before the planning commission is the only way the public is to hear about or really to provide input on something.

As more things are being done administratively, the need for transparency increases.

Okay.

I'll make a quick last comment along those lines and then if anyone else wants to comment so we can respect your desire to have us move on.

But I also noted one of your just comments in the document was it'd be nice to have a graphic of the development process and you had a kind of simple version there.

The county does have a graphic of the development process.

I find the graphic very complicated.

I was handed it like I could hand these to my planning students.

And I looked and I was like, oh, no.

And I just drew my own diagram, but I might have been wrong.

But so, you know, we need something better than what we have.

But just let you know we have something.

Just something to think about.

I don't know that our county has the staff for this, probably doesn't.

But some localities have engaged in a different kind of expediting, which is greenlighting.

We've lost a lot of our ability to acquire things like on-site water quality treatment, for example.

But if you do enough of the green things in your application, you actually can get in a different pile to be reviewed faster.

So I guess I would just say not just to speed things up, but think there could be, even if we don't have the capacity for it now down the road, I would love to have a developer say, wow, if I do permeable pavements and a green rooftop and blah, blah, blah, I can go in the fast pile.

That would almost be worth it when you consider time is money.

Yeah, I mean, just to back you up on that, I mean, one of the things on the National Heritage Committee when we saw that, you know, we had a concern about a salamander migration from these vernal pool systems up on 29.

Yeah, I know that.

And to see a developer come forward and say, hey, listen, we recognize there's a problem.

We'll actually build tunnels for these salamanders to migrate so they don't get hit by cars and help protect this important habitat in Amar County.

I think that helps move their project through the approval process faster because everyone recognized the good things they were doing.

But wouldn't it be awesome if we could formalize that?

Another Virginia locale.

Let me just sort of pause something else.

So we see a lot of,

and the daycare centers here that come back for five more students.

Yeah, I'm not talking about as I love salamander tasty and all that stuff.

But, but my gift is that we spend a lot of time saying well, we have 20, could I have 10.

And we're looking at each other like, really?

I was a chair of a child care center for a long, long time, so I love child care centers.

But I don't think staff or this body, and I can't dare to speak for the board of supervisors, but if I could, need to have to deal with the whole idea.

May I have five more seats in my daycare center?

that seems like everything that it took to get that to us could have been could have said yes over there and so there's a whole host of things I would never dare to say the higher self towers because I know I probably get roasted on one well you talk about the offset the six inches of additional cell tower that's 75 feet tall

Thank you.

But there's a whole host of things that I think it would be actually fine to say, please do it so that you can get it can be done and deal with some of the more serious things.

What are we doing for the environment?

Like things like that.

So there's a bunch of stuff like this.

And we will address those things.

A lot of those things that that you're mentioning.

are in the engagement summary and have been mentioned while we talk to you all and to others.

And so those are on our radar and will be part of the process when we get to uses and use standards and those types of things.

But I would like to move into the proposed table of contents for a bit.

If we've got time at the end, we can certainly revisit and have additional conversation.

But in the proposed table of contents, and this is appendix

I think of what you were of the report that you were given and it has two parts to that appendix B. There's the proposed table of contents and then there's also a crosswalk and I will talk about both of those for just a bit.

So Article 1 and Article 2 are things that we're actually getting ready to start drafting.

So these are the first two articles to be drafted and the first two articles that are proposed in your ordinance.

And so Article 1 is kind of a lot of state code items as well as Article 2 follows state code but it establishes your authority to have a zoning ordinance and

a zoning map, but we've also included things about the interpretation of the regulations as well as the transition from your current ordinance to the new ordinance, how that will mesh and take effect.

And then Article 2 is just the administration, so all of the people who have their hands on the zoning ordinance the most, the zoning administrator, you all, BZA, ARB,

are all addressed in terms of powers and duties, so addressing what state code says you can do and the timeframes that you have to do it in.

And then also in this article it's going to be enforcement fees, making sure taxes and expenses are paid, you know, prior to making applications and improving property.

And so then article three is proposed to be permits and applications that will also be part of this phase, but not in this next work session.

So that would be work session three with you all.

We will talk about the permits.

What is required?

We'll talk about the concept plans and you know what's required to be on those as well as timeframes.

And then what about appeals and what about hearings and notifications?

Making sure all of that is in compliance with state code there.

So these three are kind of in this phase one.

The next two are not in phase one, but they are article four, which is primary zoning districts.

So it's going to establish the primary zoning districts as well as have some of the basic standards.

So your lot size, your setback, building height, some of those

and then article five is going to be overlay.

So establishing the overlay districts and the standards related to those.

followed then by two articles related to uses.

So article six would be use matrix.

You saw previously got an example of that.

So that would be for your primary districts, as well as we would address overlay districts because overlay districts sometimes say, yes, but you know, you're limited to this size or you can't do it here.

So we want to capture those things and then article seven is going to be the use performance standards and we would organize that by types of uses as well as the use matrix would also be organized and follow that same format.

Article 8 is community design standards.

And so this is lighting, landscaping, walls, fences, streets, parking, loading, signs, your open space.

All of those things would be in Article 8.

Article 9, we are proposing to be kind of your form-based item.

So right now you have your Rio form-based code.

but that might in the future be expanded or applied to other areas or there might be additional form-based things that you want to add.

So we feel like there's having a separate article for that makes it easier to amend and add things as time continues on.

And then article 10 is non-conforming uses, lots and structures heavily dictated by state code.

We would follow that.

And then article 11 would be definitions.

So in terms of the crosswalk that is provided for you, so the crosswalk shows you your existing sections and kind of a title of what's in that section, and then lets you know where we are proposing that information would be located.

So it does two things.

One, it lets you know if there's a particular topic or something that you're interested in, whether it's because you love it or because you hate it and want it to change, then you can know, okay, this is where that's going to be addressed.

It's going to be addressed in that article.

And it's important to note that when we are proposing this location, it does not mean that that specific text is going to be

It could be that we are changing standards based on comprehensive plan policy.

But it gives you a guide of where we're planning that to go.

There could be some shifts in that as we get into drafting.

Sometimes we do realize, oh, this is talking about something a little bit different than we first realized, or this would be better served, better organized in a different area.

So I would say it's not written in stone, but it does give you an idea.

It also serves for us as a guide when we're drafting to make sure we're not missing

items of your text because we get to the ends of projects and someone you know says well what about this section right here where is it and so this is a way for us to track that when we're drafting those sections making sure we're capturing everything that should be there and then making obvious decisions about you know and informed decisions about do we change it edit it completely take it out maybe it's not relevant anymore those types of things

So a couple of other highlights related to the proposed ordinance and the crosswalk is you'll notice the format is a bit different.

Your ordinance currently has articles and sections, and we are proposing articles, divisions, and sections.

We just feel like this makes it a little bit easier to find what you're looking for as well as do amendments later on, add things in later on.

Your definitions right now are kind of at the top, Article 1, Section 3.

We're proposing to put that at the end.

Let your meat be up there.

Everybody find exactly what they're looking for.

And then if they have a question about a term, they can go to the end of the ordinance and find that.

District regulations, your article three, we're actually gonna be splitting up and parsing up a bit.

So article four, as I mentioned earlier, is kind of establishing those districts, establishing kind of the main district regulations, and then those community design standards, the sidewalks, parking, landscaping, those things are gonna be in article eight, and then article nine is that form-based code item.

procedures, your Article 4.

We are splitting into the Article 2 and Article 3.

So the Article 2 is about the procedures of you all and the zoning administrator and how you act, your duties.

And then Article 3 is all about the permit processing.

So that's just kind of some highlights and now time for more discussion.

I would like to kind of go from this discussion is to get a sense if you all are okay with this layout, realizing that yes, we haven't even built out the sections yet, you know, that's gonna be determined as we draft, some divisions might change around titles or things like that.

But generally speaking, do you think this table of contents

make sense.

Mr. Church, does anyone have any?

So a while ago, I think it was Leah took us to this exhibition.

There's this exercise of redoing definitions.

I'm looking at, I need to put my glasses on to make sure I can see.

You did have us do that.

OK, fine.

So I would hope that we're not going to redo that work, because

Probably close to done.

There may be some things that we realize need tweaking as we change things.

And so we do want to have those in mind.

But good to know.

Thank you for letting me know that because we certainly don't want to spend more time and bring it to you.

We did a lot, yeah.

I still want to know where all the dance halls are now.

Oh, you haven't been to them?

All right, do tell.

Anyway, Lonnie, did you have a comment or are you just looking wise?

OK.

I mean, I do think it's important to sort of set up first.

And then and then from that authority, these sort of these things spread from that, you know, I think this sort of

Here's what you can do and if you want to do this, do this.

There's a tremendous amount of confusion in the public, like what does the Planning Commission do?

What is our authority?

They think we are the planning staff.

There was this woman from Utah who called me repeatedly, and I was like, I'm not the planning staff.

But for some reason, they go to the website, they find the planning commission, and we've worked on this and the website's been changed, but now it's actually harder to find the planning commission, which could be a good thing.

Maybe that's why she doesn't call me anymore.

Yeah, there is a lot of confusion on kind of what people's roles are and

I mean, even just like I got thanked from some applicants or for some public members by working on a Sunday, just a couple of days ago.

And I was like, well, I'm an appointed official.

So I always work on Sunday.

I didn't want them to give me credit for being a full-time staff member, putting in Sunday hour.

So people don't understand what the different bodies are and who do you actually contact?

and how much authority we don't have, which is why I'm very clear when I say we are a body of recommendation.

There's a few things we have complete authority over.

And when people write to us, as they have just recently, with a long list of things they want us to take care of with the particular applications,

and they sent us eight things, but we only are in charge of recommending about two of them.

I tried to write, OK, we don't do that.

We don't do this.

This is what we do.

This is state code.

Definitely.

We'll do that.

So I'm not hearing any move this.

I don't like this here.

Well, I did have a question.

I did see that.

So you have that diagram at the beginning that says,

These things were good.

These things weren't good.

These, you know, that page.

Oh, I can't see the pages because the pages got flipped off.

But it's the one that says state called compliance analysis.

So I was trying to figure out sort of when you when I was looking at the cross when I was looking at the

but it's this thing called the yellow page, whatever that's called, the yellow stuff on the side, the index.

I'm thinking, well, wonder which ones here, what are they talking about?

Because if we're 85%, no, that's not where we were.

If we're 39% in compliance,

So that should hopefully take a bunch, hopefully, you know, as I'm trying to get through things here.

If we're 39% in compliance, that hopefully will just mean we can just move you from here to over here.

But I'd like to know what those 39% in compliance are so that I have a sense whether or not

I need to focus on that or I don't need to focus on that or, or in my colleagues say, I'm going to look at that deeply, more deeply, we seem to be in compliance.

That would be helpful in trying to sort of figure this out.

Okay.

I would say, don't worry about that.

That's my job to make sure that's my job to make sure that what is drafted and presented to you meets the state code and whether that is

because we're taking what's existing in your ordinance and just pulling it over.

Or if we are adding, you know, some additional texts there to make it.

And so we will notate and say, you know, it'll be obvious.

Well, there's just along those lines, I mean, there's at least one, if not more instances where we're not in compliance in a sense with the state code.

but we are grandfathered in and we're purposefully not updating that code because the take code was crafted by people with, shall we say, other intentions or against the best interests of this county.

And so I think I know what that item is, but

Okay and this is based on conversations with staff it's not my surmising the reason why we don't get in compliance.

Right.

All right.

So next steps is we will meet February and we will be looking at Article 1 and Article 2.

So that's the in general and the administration articles.

They will be drafted for you to review and then we'll talk about and tweak those articles based on our discussion in February.

and then January we are proposing that open house so stay tuned that date and time and location will be forthcoming very soon and then I do just reminders here our next meeting will be in the conference room instead of this room so we can kind of

have a little better discussion and kind of hash things out in terms of what's drafted.

And just a reminder, you know, do your homework, read the materials, come ready to discuss those things.

We will, our kind of objectives at the end of that meeting is to have a draft that you all say

Yes, we are comfortable with Article 1 and we are comfortable with Article 2 with this list of tweaks and edits.

Because then the next time, we will be meeting on a different article.

So we do need to make consensus, make some judgments there, and then move on to the next item.

So if you've got questions too, as you're reviewing things, reach out to staff so that they can answer those.

So I'm going to take my planning commissioner hat off for a moment and put on my professor hat, which is my other job.

When you give us our homework, if you could be very explicit on what you need us to review and to what level of detail, because, for example, I went through all through Appendix A and made scribbles on it.

But like, I don't really need to do that at this stage.

So just to tell us, like, I do want you to do this and just really instead of just say like review and come with comments.

So when we draft articles what you will receive will be a memo that's going to highlight any of the, I won't say any, some of the major changes that we do want you to kind of flip to and consider and come ready to give feedback and say

I realize it's a major change, but it's necessary.

Or no, this is not an appropriate major change for us.

We will also in the drafted text have editor's notes at the bottom of the page where we are highlighting specific items that this is a change or this is based on state code.

Even if you don't like it, I'm sorry.

So things like that, I think, will help you as you review and to know where to look and go, oh, I really am not comfortable with this.

No, is this good?

You will not need that for your homework.

It would be good to refer as like we get into other phases so that you know those items that weren't about this phase but we can be reminded of in a subsequent phase.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Do we have more?

Oh, okay.

So as far as I know, we are done with this portion.

We are?

Well, this is the only thing that we eat.

We could take public comment on any of this, but this is just a work session and we're not adopting anything.