Planning Commission Meeting   1/14/2020

Green.

It was a quiet holiday.

Mr. Lehindra.

Mr. Stolzenberg, Reverend Heaton, Ms.

Dowell

Today I'm just reporting that the next school CIP committee meeting will be at Public Works on Thursday, January the 20th from 1.30 to 3 p.m.

So we're looking at two years before we actually are ready to say we've got a revised comprehensive plan in Inc.

Chair, does that 24 months include just the comprehensive plan or the zoning rewrite?

I will now cede the floor to Miss Creasy and our director.

We will be in touch as we get that solidified, but we're hoping that date will work so that it's already on your calendars.

And do we get a little more detail on the consulting engagement?

Any other question?

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

I so move.

Creasy, is there anything we can cover in the next 15 minutes that we don't need council for?

The only items that you all have pertain to the hearing that's starting at 6.

Alright, we will be in recess until 6.

Again, we're in recess until 6.

you

I've been waiting all night long for you

Michael Stolzenberg

Mr. Holuska, I think you have a report.

Questions?

So this in no way affects the already proposed plan that's already been approved for Friendship Corps.

They obviously easily meet the affordable housing criteria for bonuses, but I don't think they're pursuing that bonus height anyway because of just their construction methods they want to do.

So you got no feedback from them on this?

But we're not aware of any objections they have to this draft of the code.

I was a little curious about the affordable housing bonus process where if someone were to apply for the additional height, is that spelled out in a way that can be calculated prior to actually submitting a site plan?

Once that site plan is approved, they would have to enter into this binding commitment prior to starting construction.

Okay, so the bonus calculation for the developer is right there for them to look at prior to submitting a site plan.

Yes.

And what is the public value of its presence?

I would be kind of surprised if something were to happen along those lines.

Correct.

That's in effect right now.

And we also get, if this works the way we envision it, we get affordable housing.

There is no setback required, so that comes right up to the line.

And again, selfishly, we can get more affordable housing.

Because I think the word flexibility might mean something.

With T4, you're going to get three and one.

While you're talking about flexibility, there's more flexibility in a buy-write use because there's many options to make a parcel-by-parcel change.

Gary, you look like you have one.

It's not like that process.

We notify them that it's out there.

And that will happen with the form-based code as well.

All site plans, we're not deviating from that process.

So there's a little more in my mind, and please tell me if I'm speaking out of turn, there's a little more in my mind of consistency with knowing what's going to happen as opposed to having all the other things at play.

somewhere between 40 and 70 or 101, depending on what you do.

With no affordable housing guarantee.

And we've also added these bonus factors to try to get some of that to be affordable.

Council, are there any questions from council?

You can't compel a landowner to have the affordable housing as part of the buy-write development.

Not in the city of Charlottesville, I believe is the correct answer there.

That's something that hopefully the General Assembly will consider changing for us soon, but tonight we can't say that.

Can you help me understand the change?

So I think that's where some of that comes from in trying to incentivize getting Second Street going and thriving.

Thank you.

Liz Roskold.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Implementation of both

I hope that the Planning Commission and the City Council will reconsider the current and the proposed zoning changes, allow for setbacks and transitions, stepped back buildings, whatever mitigating

Thank you.

Neil, Neil Williamson.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh, Kimber... Kimber... Oh, Hanky maybe?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you again for your consideration, and we urge you to include these items in your recommendation to council.

Louisa Breadford.

Thank you.

I need to live, and we need life to continue for those who go on worth.

And thank you very much, David.

Thanks so much.

Thank you all for holding this meeting and giving us an opportunity.

Frank.

And pronounce and spell your last name for me.

Thanks.

Johnson.

It's being done right, and so I just wanted to point that out to say, you know, sometimes it's just you just need to back up and slow down, and we do want input, and I don't feel like, and I do want to know how it's going to impact CRAK, but that's another time.

Hey, come on up.

Would anyone else like to please

Thank you very much and I appreciate your time.

Thank you for your efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Please, come on up.

Thank you.

Please.

Thanks.

Anyone else want to jump in before I start calling on people?

Thank you.

Just because it's on topic I might have missed this sorry I was late my car broke down so I get for not driving for six months We talked at the work session about more t6 areas Why didn't they make it into this map?

Maybe we are all weren't in agreement

It sounded like we haven't really even discussed it since then.

what you're speaking to the way the zoning map is going to look at the impact on Hebrew cemetery the impact on the public housing stuff the location of the t6 maybe on Avon or wherever so just keep in mind that there are two things that we need to need to recommend and we can deliberate all we want to but at the end of the day we need recommendations on the audits and recommendations on the zoning map sorry so Mr. Green you're about to jump in

Maybe we weren't all in agreement on that.

Is that all you want to say?

And when it was first presented to us, we had this long, beautiful linear park all the way from the downtown area all the way to, oh, Meadow Creek?

No.

Rory.

I'll probably hit you with some more later.

We identify those for our council and let them find the ways that they can respond to the public's concerns.

I think we had talked a lot about the T6 zone right there and noticed that it's all mostly just still T5.

I think it'll be an interesting conversation.

But beyond that, I think the form-based code is needed and we need to move ahead.

So I give it back to you guys.

So if we deferred this

We can't defer.

I don't know.

So it's not two twenty-four months, is it not?

Yeah, so 12 to 18 months.

The concept should include an adopted comp plan, from my understanding, from place last week.

Housing Strategy, The Comp Plan, and Zoning Rewrite

And then around January or February 2021, they begin the process of writing the zoning ordinance, if you will.

Is there a schedule?

I'm talking about the schedule provided by the consultants.

Okay well the Planning Commission had a schedule to get a comp plan done four years ago too and we saw where that went.

They're gonna reach out for public engagement?

Okay.

When will that start?

I think they are creating a very robust public community engagement process.

Yeah, they were looking at a mid-March for their first... Probably, yeah.

So...

Jody, was your implication that it'll probably stretch out longer or that we could compress that timeline?

My implication is that there is no guarantee.

So let's focus on getting council recommendation on those two items.

Which one, the map or the narrative?

Gary?

I move recommendation approval of the zoning text amendment to Article 6 of the Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville 1990 as amended on the basis that changes would be served in the interest of the public necessity, convenience, general public welfare, and good zoning practices with the following additions and modifications that, number one, the Grave Street area be

Again, you're speaking to the text.

Yes, the text.

So I would recommend that we get to the mapping issues in the next review.

I thought that was a zoning text amendment.

It's a zoning text amendment.

So I thought there were some other things like contextual, some

But take out the Graham Street reference.

Move to recommend the approval of the zoning text amendment Article 6 Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville on the basis that changes would serve the interests of the public necessity, convenience, general public welfare, and good zoning practices.

Is there an alternative motion?

Is that an accurate assessment?

So there are shades here, but our office fundamentally disagrees that the change in height per se is a down zone.

First off, do we have contract provisions for this comp plan and zoning RFP that we will get the document in an editable, portable format with proper revision control?

I want a Word document that at whatever point the consultants are gone and we're going through this process again, we can help you follow that document through to completion.

No, no, no.

Okay.

Edible?

You mentioned lot size restrictions are gone on this, but aren't those governed by Chapter 29 subdivision?

That's one of them.

Okay.

So we're getting rid of that.

Did we take that out?

I think so.

What this would still require is in a location where the regulating plan says you have to have retail, you have to have retail, but that does not mean you can't have retail in other places.

And were there any uses that were in that matrix we previously reviewed that are not allowed in downtown extending?

If it's currently allowed within the downtown extended zoning district, it will be allowed in any of these colors of purple.

I mean in the previous, before we did that, when we had that the new use matrix, was anything in there allowed that isn't in the downtown extended?

No, those were condensed version of the parts.

No, but within what that was doing was taking the three transects and there were instances in which it would have been currently allowed in downtown extended and maybe it would have been allowed in T4 and 5 but not 3, so we got rid of that.

Okay, and then in B2, since we do have one parcel that is currently B2, are there any uses that are allowed there that aren't

Everybody just needs to understand that if you're only looking at height, 35 feet of height are allowed in the R2 district which is that line of light purple color there.

I know we've talked about how there is at least one use there, amateur radio antennas, that's illegal to ban under state code but is banned in the use matrix.

This is a starting point.

It's called T4.

the comments that people have brought about identifying the specific categories of open space that should be available for that area if that is to be sort of the implementation of what the original SIA plan called for, which was a green park.

So that particular mandatory open space is not listed in this chart on page 11.

Let's see what page that's on.

So the specified spaces are

We need to reconcile the reference to open space with the T6 regulations reference to frontage yard types and make sure that everybody will understand what specifically that space can be.

So the square plaza are the open space types that would satisfy the requirement that you see in that framework plan.

Say that one more time?

And then when you go to the type of design that they have to use for that space, over on page 11 you've got the square and the plaza as the two options.

But that's only a 0.2 acre minimum.

But the framework plan says you've got this area.

OK.

But if you can't meet that two acre minimum, you're not doing a square.

OK.

I can't find it.

I believe it's in the in the specifications for the

There are charts, one for each of T4, 5, and 6, and those are on, I just had them a second ago.

But we have to get a recommendation to counsel tonight, one way or the other, on both applications.

I believe I have a motion.

Okay, let me let them do what they're going to do.

It gives the maximum heights for each of the stories.

Let's jot that section reference change down on whatever resolution we make.

Someone's already asked to make a motion.

Oh, sorry.

I move to recommend denial of the zoning text amendment to Article 6 of Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended.

Is there a second?

Just to clarify,

But the obligations are recommendations within a report.

And how would we format that?

So what I think I'd like to do is what we did with the CIP.

So, Lyle's made a motion to deny and I think what we maybe then want to do is make amendments to the motion saying these are the deficiencies that need to be corrected before it can be moved forward.

He doesn't have a second.

So before we have a motion, and maybe this one's dead since it's been so long, but before we have a motion

What we're either happy with or not happy with.

The motion has died.

Okay, so I have a question too.

And then if we could poll those questions, then that may help speed up as well.

We'll go one by one through all the commissioners and get consensus on the other issues that we've got concerned.

I got a new pad.

Dowell.

And I feel like we didn't address like those direct, I mean a few of them, the public did, but we as a body did not address the answers to those questions.

Well, I think it's helpful for the council to know what the staff recommends, and that's what we were operating on.

Green, would you like to begin?

So I do, I would think... And let's take them one by one.

So once you get it out, we'll chat about it.

and there are some other contributing structures along East, South Street and Levy that are a part of the historic and how would we address those?

I think does that address the issue you had Jody?

The only issue I had with historic preservation is the north side of Grave Street.

But not around the cemetery.

Well, yes, the cemetery also.

Creasy, do you have that?

Y'all don't want to add in Ridge?

No, Ridge is protected still by the BAR and normal reviews.

The process is protected by the Belmont ABC, right?

No.

I don't know why we have Ridge Street in there, but the west side of Ridge Street, and that's what I was going to address with the map.

What's next?

It's a national historic district.

So let's take this two at a time.

Would you like to help me with the wording?

My recommendation is to remove the north side of Grave Street, the light purple, from the map.

I don't know this historic protection language.

And doesn't it just ensure that the process that is currently in place is followed?

There is no process currently in place for the north side of Graves Street.

There is no process.

Delete from the mat.

And then remove Gray Street from map and that's a map.

No.

How do you protect the cemetery?

I think that that's something.

They can figure that out.

I just thought if we're done with the first recommendation, the other recommendation is that the portable housing bonus matrix and algorithms are made crystal clear so that

If you're going to plan to do something, you need to know what's going to cost you.

I think it means you should make 10,000 square foot.

Robertson.

OK.

So we can clarify that, but we absolutely intended to say that they're not going to be the same exact size and they're not, you can't, it's not the penthouse equivalent.

But I'm not sure I can calculate that.

And I don't know how we do this.

Can we add that statement in there?

They're both 100% affordable housing or mostly affordable housing.

And I understand the code part.

but I just want everyone to understand that no displacement is not a zoning regulation that can be enforced through this ordinance but we can state in the ordinance that together with other measures that the city may have at its disposal such as providing funding for specific things that we will make sure that that promise gets implemented.

So fleshing out that purpose section with reference to those goals, I think would make sense.

But in relation to the reference to implementing the SIPA plan, we can accommodate that.

It was on page two.

Yes.

I know that it's not standard code language, but I think it's important.

That will have references to purposes and that sort of thing.

You need a reference page number?

I've got a review purpose section of foreign-based code to address principles of SIA as applicable.

It was adopted in 2013.

So that rather than setting these strict limits that are lower than our existing allowed amount, we instead ramp up the requirements so that we get more for these supposed impacts of height.

So you're talking about changing the percentage provided by the consultants in this chart?

Then I'm saying instead of that hard cap at six stories, we allow a seventh or an eighth story up to a ninth story, maybe even more, but with stricter requirements than these, perhaps double what we have here.

So why doesn't a T5 then just become T6?

That was we get more out of it in order to give you that bonus.

So you want a developer to put another story, we don't want to cap it, seven stories and the developer is going to give us even more affordable units.

of that seventh story, yeah.

Of just the seventh story.

And then for the seventh floor above, then it's stricter.

I think those affordable housing units could only be on the seventh floor.

All of that extra bonus, so say you get an extra 10,000 square feet to put on a seventh floor, then the requirement will be more than the 10 or 15 depending on AMI that we require here.

Yes, that's what we should say.

But then if you really, really thought that a seventh story was going to make you that much extra money, then you could give us even more extra than we're mandating here.

But it's going to cost them more to build that 7th story and they have to put in additional parking, which costs them more.

But if it's a million dollar condos up there and it's worth it regardless, then, you know, if we're going to get a bunch of extra affordable units out of it, that seems like it makes sense.

I think you are complexifying this and I think it's complexified to the point that it just doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to support it.

I'm not in favor of that.

Greater Heights in T6.

You're going to get 10 stories.

That's the point is putting restrictions as opposed to formulas that meet our goals in exchange for

But we're trying to meet all the housing goals in this tiny little spot, and we've got to use this as one tool, not the whole shebang.

And prohibition is not the best tool.

And this is not prohibition.

I'm just saying that if there is more square footage that is economically viable at a higher floor that we would be prohibiting, then maybe we should allow it if we get even more benefits than currently allowed.

Hence as to why we only have our highest height level is the T6 zone.

We need to offer suggestions.