Planning Commission Meeting   8/9/2022

I believe we are ready to start the public meeting for August 9, 2022.

That's it for me.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Would you be willing to share that list of cities with the list?

Share what?

Russell.

No reports.

No reports.

I wish him success in his future endeavors.

Although I have to make a correction, I've never been chairman.

Oh.

Do I get to give this out?

Fantastic.

My honor, believe me, and privilege.

Thank you.

Are you putting me on the spot?

That's a huge job.

If you were to say a few words, you would be most welcome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Judy.

All right, but it's been a pleasure and a privilege, and it's my honor to serve with all of you, and I wish you all the best.

Dell?

I think she might be watching something.

We have no public hearings, so please.

Mr. Emory, would you want Ms.

Keller to speak?

Keller come up and speak.

It's a pleasure.

Do we have anyone from online?

Mr. Emory.

you know it's really important to make this a place that's worth caring about and part of that is to be able to walk on the street from like the Woolen Mills to downtown and not be in the sun the whole time we actually had a plan for that in 1975 and where are the networks where's the green ring where's the biophilic city that supports the residents thank you

All right, seeing no one at this time, are there other members of our in-person public that would be interested in speaking at this time?

Russell, do you have thoughts on that?

Yes, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

I see thumbs.

Mr. Chair, did we miss the NDS report or are we just folding that into the general zoning of the discussion?

Jody will have be moving on so I know that Mr. Stolzenberg noted that at one point that you might be available for that if not I'm sure we can find a commissioner that will be able to support that meeting so do you not want me there then oh you could go no I just assumed I

had till the 31st of August.

Okay.

I'll be there.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Hello.

I will note spring runs all the way through June 21st.

In the afternoon.

But why don't I start with questions from that?

Questions for staff on this?

you know I would hope that we would make those additions the water protection ordinance at the same time right we would need to do that simultaneously right right and then like sadm stuff would that be in scope or is that separate

I think that's something we should look into, yeah.

Yeah, we would need to.

Additional questions on this?

Please proceed.

So why don't I pause there and see if there's any.

It looks like you are attempting to remove some of the discretion that the ECRP would have on these and it would be a more technical review.

It would be more of a yes or no, consistent or not.

I mean, Jody, you and Karim can probably be more articulate than I am, but I think that's what I heard you guys say after I suggested a revision.

Who wants to go first?

Kareem, how'd I do?

Sorry, the B.A.R., the Board of Architecture Review.

Well, I just, I don't have to say this, you guys are the E.R.B.

I said A.R.B.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow.

And one of the comments that has been made to that effect is the BAR works with different guidelines and so it would be a shift in mindset which the Commission already has to do to go from ERB to Planning Commission back and forth but it's a similar concern.

Again, above and beyond technical, but more cultural and more aesthetic.

I'm assuming that something as extremely just aesthetic as red versus black would be either set in advance and you never vary or you discard that choice entirely.

Right.

potentially allowed colors or whatever.

If we got to do that, and then you guys would hear to the guidelines that we recommend, then I could easily get comfortable with that.

I don't think that's a huge hang-up.

We're in the middle of making significant changes anyway, so why not add this to the list of changes?

So I see that as a strong possibility.

I think they're capable of putting on different hats just as much as we're capable of putting on different hats, but they're definitely more capable of evaluating aesthetic concerns, because as we know, nobody likes my aesthetic opinions.

So you might lose out on all these kind of intricacies by making it this just technical yes, no, black or white process.

Yeah, materials change, techniques change, the architectural principles change over time.

And if you've got a set of guidelines, you're stuck in one place that doesn't allow any gray areas.

completely aesthetic reasons say, no, I don't like that, or no, I do like that, or change this and change that, and it can create this very long feedback cycle of how many times does the BAR defer something on average, right, until they come to an agreement?

It's not black and white like Hosea says, but the BAR is used to working with that and it has to be a defensible position that has some basis in the guidelines.

And so that's the issue that this is raising.

And that at least has some amount of public support.

and then of course there's always the appeal process after that even to add to the BAR's decision.

Yeah, so it doesn't really make the whole thing less, you know, less ambiguous, like less likely to result in a whole cycle.

And there's transparency, which is what I've been fighting for.

Russell, what are your thoughts?

whether it's on the consent agenda or not it's kind of like the same I don't know that it saves staff any time because they're still doing the reports they're still making the you know staff recommendations but I think like you both have said there there's subjectivity that should be discussed Mayor Sniff do you have thoughts on this issue?

And that's one of the reasons why I value the opinions of at least many of you.

So I'm not anxious to have more things come to council.

It's only at the discretion of the ECRB.

That's it.

It comes to us, and our decision is the decision.

That part doesn't have an appeal, whereas a BAR application does have appeal.

But again, we can just transfer the rules as they exist for us over to the BAR as someone has suggested.

Any final questions or thoughts on this item?

Probably less likely to, you know, be hung up on a lot of those sorts of things.

I mean, yeah.

and so I think if you had something like that step from that staff to BAR I think that would make me feel like we are still streamlining the process while still allowing for that that kind of like subjective aesthetic judgment where it's needed.

Additional questions or thoughts on this?

So just kind of disclosure, that's where my thinking is right now, and I'd welcome other thoughts and comments.

at the storm water management decision.

Maybe it's just a values judgment.

So if we do that, then how do we protect these slopes and how do we protect these streams at the base of the slopes?

protection that you're speaking of, and so now maybe what we're really talking about is stepping back the critical slopes decision to one that's more balancing values.

Right, because you could have a project meet all the stormwater requirements, but like Jenny said, if it has massive retaining walls that make the streetscape uninviting and it's just not a place that you want to be, I don't think that's a decision that's fair to put on engineering staff, for example.

And we just review the critical slopes based on that give and take between what it takes away and what the project provides.

So essentially, you're suggesting that we do more or less the same review we do now, except skipping the part where we add conditions and say, Jack, add whatever additional conditions you need to make it good for the environment?

I'm really kind of going on something that I just started thinking about.

And I wonder if that needs to be addressed in just some other kind of guideline development rule.

And I know we do have, well right now above a certain height of a retaining wall triggers a building permit, but could there be additional zoning regulations just strictly speaking about retaining walls, yeah.

No.

To what degree do steep slopes also protect, like, our tree cover as well, you know, and if that's not part of a discretionary review, is that kind of at risk?

Sorry.

A comment with a raising voice at the end.

Yeah.

I mean, definitely another one of those standard conditions.

It'd be part of that value statement.

That's always a part of this question.

And we always require three to one tree replacement on the slope.

Right.

Is the value of this hill culturally important?

Does the need outweigh the damage?

So I don't know what that looks like in the regulation, though.

Was Beacon on 5th, the critical slope?

I hope so, but I don't recall Fair, I mean, that definitely seems like one that's It's pretty slopey Yeah It may have been before I don't want to speculate too far Yep Yeah, I mean, I guess it sort of seems like

What we're looking for is or what we seem to be talking about is like aesthetic review and like you need to be late enough to like have a rendering at that point and then somehow hold them to it.

Well, there's also the environmental values that you're going to be balancing against as well.

Separate from stormwater.

I mean, what we're stripping out is just that technical analysis of stormwater flow and how you're going to capture, treat, and so on.

Just engineering.

Mayor Sniff, do you have thoughts on this topic?

who knows what they're doing be the arbiter of these kinds of things, but I have yet to see one that said to me that city council needed to be the arbiter.

Any additional comments or questions on the side?

So I would be hesitant to call it that.

environmental protection that are more than just aesthetic, that encompass more than just aesthetic review.

Additional questions and comments on this?

I assume when we first did this, we did some sort of topographic analysis to make sure, and I wonder if that's

That would certainly need to be part of looking at critical slopes again because there's the other place where there's a lot of time spent is in contesting whether or not something is a critical slope.

So there could be some assistance there as well.

Next, please.

But this is about creating essentially an automated, if you will, mechanism within the zoning ordinance that addresses contextual consistency with the surrounding context.

Mr. Bob?

Like if the neighborhood builds up, then you can just go back and build up more?

But it regulates the pace of evolution.

I just don't know what that would do to that.

I think that's a helpful tool because I think sometimes we are looking at a project going well this does really seem kind of too high for this neighborhood but the zoning allows for it so I guess it's okay I could I think that idea makes a lot of sense Mr. Lander

I'm glad you all are working this out.

Mr. Stolzenberg?

I like the concept of bullet points in general, but again, depending on how you implement it can be really problematic.

So really this contextual rule would be kind of within zoning districts.

Okay.

but everything you said about bulk planes potentially applies in that conversation about what those rules look like that manage transitions.

and that seems like an issue.

Mayor Snook, do you have thoughts on this one?

that the pros in this draft and ordinance that is sufficiently flexible that gets us there.

Any additional ideas on this item?

Ooh, good question.

Give me height.

What are we doing there?

You're not required to build 14-foot.

you should be allowed to have three or three and a half stories which would fit three and a half stories would fit with ten foot ceiling heights and you know in the text it says oh well the building code lets you go down to seven foot eight

And so that's just another step to that that has to be taken into account.

because I don't get who benefits.

You could choose to do a four-story building within something less than whatever the height requirement is in that section.

You see what I mean?

Can I go ahead and convert it over to residential?

But your point about the ground floor in commercial areas, I think, is very well taken.

I feel like I had another point, but I've lost it.

We've got parking coming.

So we may not want to throw that one out if we're getting rid of dwelling units per acre.

I'm recalling that in the 2018 process, a big part of why we started talking about heights aggressively was inspired by the bonus height assessment, which found that the first three stories, very affordable, fourth story, pretty affordable, fifth story, eh, anything above that concrete expense.

At least that's how it's always been explained to me.

It's happened here in Charlottesville.

Yeah.

It's like everything else, like these things that we play on.

Right.

We want to allow that fourth story or whatever that you can still do with wood because, you know, fewer means more expensive.

Parking, please.

So why don't I close there and see what you guys have to say about parking.

Mr. Mitchell, parking?

So as you're thinking about that, I'd ask you to think about along with the residential parking, just parking management so that we can keep people coming in from outside the city.

So I was about to go into an anecdote, but I'll leave it aside.

Mr. Obama, please, parking.

I don't have anything.

Truly?

Do we know?

Oh, for downtown?

Yeah.

I don't know it off the top of my head, though.

The only thing I would say is, yeah, what Commissioner Hosea said is just realizing the impact on our parking, and if that works, then I'm all for it.

Mr. Landrum I don't have anything to add either no I'm all for reducing parking but I think the market will take care of it Ms.

I can't think of any offhand.

Mayor Snook, thoughts on parking?

It doesn't have anything to do with the definitions.

We have real revenue problems.

the parking benefit district part of that is the money that people pay for that residential district for that I'm sorry for that residential parking pass is rolled back into the district it doesn't go in the general fund it's used to pay for sidewalk improvements street trees the things that make for a nice walking environment within the neighborhood so you're you're you're taking that money and you're rolling it back into the neighborhood to support the walkability of the neighborhood questions or comments on parking

Is that idea of rethinking those in scope here?

I think this becomes one of those questions of if we feel like the only way to move forward in what we're proposing is if we also address this, then yeah, right?

And we got to square that circle somehow, I think, as part of this.

And that is demonstrable over and over again, because we don't actually control where people go.

Let's call on the parking.

But that's a paid lot though.

I know but I've never paid there.

That's the secret but I mean that would cause anyone that didn't know that to go and park somewhere else.

What's that?

It'll be the first time you're very unhappy you said that.

Luckily there's only 10 people watching.

We didn't actually know what your question was on frontages.

Oh, no.

What's that?

I was asking about allowing homes behind homes.

And yeah, that's actually a kind of important idea because it creates more opportunities for more types of ownership.

Next, please

I think that's an idea most of you all are familiar with.

the frontage of your lot I mean maybe part of the problem with that is we already have these large lots so we if put it in subdivision ordinance it doesn't really help because they're already assembled but um is that something you thought about at all uh not in the context of this ordinance but it's something I've worked on in previous ordinances so we can we can bring that into play we can take a look at that cool did you need a place

All right.

We propose that over four units.

But I think if it's amenities that are private and directed at people who live there, I feel like that should be up to the market to provide how much people want those on-site amenities versus that dog washing station and gym that no one ends up using versus using public amenities.

Other questions or comments on public amenities?

Residential testing, please.

Okay, hold on.

All right.

We're almost there.

I guess what I need to hear from this commission is whether it would be helpful to you to see some example on a curvilinear street.

That's my concern.

I guess how onerous would that be for you guys to add?

I'm not going to do it.

What are we missing?

We'll see where we end up.

A type that jumps to mind that's especially different is cul-de-sacs.

And that's a very different site condition because of the potential narrowness of the frontage.

Would you like anything else from us?

Any other questions generally that weren't covered so far?

Is there a way to encourage that?

Missy, do you have anything on that topic?

Meaning increasing the tree requirements?

What can we do to kind of, instead of keep it where it is, start to build back up to where we were?

I think that's more than a zoning issue.

Right?

But then also outside of zoning is what investments do we have the capacity to make on planting street trees or otherwise planting more trees on public land where we can control the fate of the tree.

If we know where they are, can't we just buy them?

Also outside zoning, but yes, absolutely right.

But if the zoning is just trying to preserve these things that we say we want, why don't we just buy them?

not love the idea of having to pay for the bulb out but be very happy to save that land within their parcel and then the tree gets dedicated to us and we get to keep it and maintain it and it actually provides shade on the sidewalk if it's on the north sidewalk since it's on the street side.

So many questions and comments?

They're looking for the best financial return for developing that lot to 73%.

Because we know people take down trees all the time, irrespective, regardless of development.

I don't know how you measure something like that, how you test something like that.

Because one of the things you end up, you know, you need to be able to, in order to protect an existing tree on a site, you need to protect the space all the way out to the drip line, right?

Yeah.

and say, okay, we can go a couple feet this way and get out of the drip line of this tree.

I'd love to see something like that.

I'm still ambivalent towards these but like parking maximums or at least like tree cover requirements that like you know are superior to and above any parking requirements that we keep where we say you can't just cover your whole lot with asphalt because there needs to be some trees or at the very least you need to like put a canopy tree in the middle of it and shade the parking something like that

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Actually, I'm sorry.

Please.

I appreciate being up here.

Do we have anyone online?

Medcalf?

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Emory is our next in-person speaker.

Thank you.

Do we have someone online?

Mr. Heller, are you able to hear us?

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Thanks.

Commissioner D'Oronzio, looking at you.

Do we have anyone from our virtual audience?

We don't have any additional hands raised.

I'd like to include public comments.

Kay Bishop.

That's my question.

Any additional public comment?

Can we suggest someone to email or an email address or to get that?

Thank you.

Bishop can reach out to me after they address the question?

Can you please reach out to NDS staff on this?

You cannot have your email off the dome, sorry.

Is there no additional questions?

We don't have any additional hands raised at this time.

I would be interested in a motion.

Move to adjourn.

Thank you.