Planning Commission Joint Work Session with City Council   5/23/2023

No.

Okay.

I haven't been there in a while.

But you get my dress now, right?

Yeah.

Okay, good job.

Welcome to all.

I see quite a few people here.

Thank you for that.

I would like to get started on the agenda.

We said two hours.

Is it going to be two hours?

We've got really a lot to talk about.

I had a suggestion from one commissioner that we approach everything backwards, which I thought was funny.

So that is my suggestion, lest I see some concern.

We'll start with the least complex things and get more complex as we go.

We'll start with sitting in chairs.

Oh my god.

What are you trying to say with that?

That he was fed up and it was just too much.

So my proposal is that we sort of on every issue we kind of do a round robin and if you want to talk on each issue you're welcome to if you don't that's completely okay.

I know you will.

Mr. Freese, do you have information for us on Module 3?

I do.

I was actually going to kick that to the end so we get right to the mapping.

So I'll just say for right now, we can come back to Module 3.

But we are releasing, we anticipate releasing Module 3 tomorrow.

And as we've done in the past, that'll include a video presentation, an executive summary, and then the Module 3 document itself.

Yeah, so that's an update.

Great.

Starting from the bottom, I believe our first item is transition issues.

Sure, so this was recognizing on our part as we looked at a lot of the comments we were receiving around mapping issues.

We're dealing with transitions between higher intensity areas and lower intensity areas.

This is an issue that we had committed to addressing early on.

And our existing transition language really is intended to address where lots kind of back up or side to side, where lot lines meet.

And wasn't really addressing across streets, for example.

We got comments on that issue and some of the comments we received during one of the open houses as well kind of spoke to the issue of elevations.

So right now our consultant team is doing a deeper dive into addressing transitions across streets.

We're going to look at that in two ways.

One is potentially looking at it from the perspective of rules as we've done

similar to the rules we've already adopted into or already proposed in the second module.

But the only one would be actually looking at do we actually make changes to some of these zoning districts to lessen the degree of difference between districts facing each other across the street.

So as an example, in the north end of the Greenbrier neighborhood right on Ryo Road, there is an example of a, I believe a CX-5, that's really intended to orient towards Ryo, but then you have a transition across Tarleton Street on the back side to a residential district.

And so we're looking at making a zoning district change on the Tarleton side of the Grove lots.

So then the other example is looking at very, very steep slopes where we might have a scenario where I'll use the CX-5 as an example.

CX-5 is a perfectly appropriate on the street below the grade, but at the top of the grade you have a different adjacent zoning district and you wouldn't necessarily want a CX-5, a five-story building at the top of the grade, both because of the

houses or neighborhood across the street, but also the scale of building you're now putting at the top of a high grade.

And in those scenarios, we're actually looking at the potential of doing split zoning, which typically we would avoid, but it might be appropriate in these scenarios.

So those are the strategies that we're looking at and doing kind of a review of the entire zoning ordinance on those, zoning map on those ideas.

Sure.

Well, so generally you want one lot to have the same zoning district, right?

You don't want a single lot to be subject to different set of rules.

But this steep slope scenario might be a place where we actually would consider from a policy perspective that a split zoning makes sense.

Anything more than that?

Yeah.

Yes, all right.

So in this category there were two things that we were looking at, both of these responsive to comments we received.

I think the more expansive one was looking at our historic districts.

and well generally because the BAR has review responsibilities over those districts and can with the support of the guidelines that they have.

So in implementing the guidelines for each historic district they can specify a lower height or other design or massing characteristics relative to new construction to make it consistent with the historic context.

But we also recognize that it didn't strike us as good policy to have extreme differentiation between that historic context that we've identified by policy, by adopted ordinance that we want to preserve and the zoning ordinance, the proposed zoning ordinance, having that be a much substantially greater height or density.

So we did a review to see how many of those places might exist.

And we only really identified the downtown and the north downtown as places where that might exist.

The north downtown, we're suggesting that in the area along High Street, that zone CX5, that it might be more appropriate to zone that for CX3.

In downtown we think there's text changes that we should be considering that are similar to the text changes we have in the existing zoning ordinance requiring step backs so that's where the building at a certain height steps back away from the street and using those tools plus the existing BAR review to regulate that historic context.

I think I understand, but I'd like to go around.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Mr. Habab, are you with us?

No.

Ms.

I don't know.

I'm not really caught up to speed, honestly.

So it seems like it's throwing a lot at us.

The south side is still CX-8, right?

I think that's what showed up on the map.

I believe so, yes.

So then are we going to have an issue with, personally, my opinion is just let the BAR do their thing.

We've got no problem telling people that, you know, they can't put a five-story building on a site if there's a historic house on it.

And I think in most cases the BAR has actually reversed that if, you know, if someone asks for an SUP to change that.

It also, you know, the BAR could determine the historic chunk of the building that we want to preserve extends so far back and if you give us a regimented, like it must be 25 feet back, it kind of negates our process

Do you want to respond to that?

No, Mr. Stolzenberg.

So I think what you're saying about historic districts and the PIR seems reasonable.

My qualms are more about the High Street proposal.

Okay, yeah, that's pretty much all of it.

Yeah.

So, I mean, I guess if you listen to Carl and say, don't change it, and the BAR controls, that's fine.

But if you're going to change it, I would say, you know, this area of CX-5 on the west side of High Street makes more sense to reduce to CX-3.

This area here, it's like, you know, adjacent to...

detached homes, lower scale neighborhood area, the ones on like this blob over here, not so much.

Those are more commercial structures, surface parking lots.

I think it's fine to change these.

For me, I did a walk around High to kind of get a sense of this.

I'm concerned because we're allowing some very tall buildings on the south side of High.

Yeah.

And I'm worried about the light-facing light element there.

Sure.

I think it's all still controlled by the BAR.

That's the point.

And on the south side, I'm sorry, I'm trying to remember now from a conversation that was a while ago.

I think there are a number of institutional buildings and such on that side, and so we were less concerned.

Yeah, I mean, I guess it's kind of hard for me to provide feedback because I'm unsure what specific

text changes would result in accomplishing this, but I guess at a higher level policy goal it would make sense to me to be thinking about the context of historic districts in terms of the scaling of it.

As others already mentioned, I don't know exactly what to make of it because there's some instances where I think around the downtown mall, for example, that step backs could

be useful.

There's other instances where it's almost if you had a taller structure like the Altamont Circle apartment.

It's just a random example where if you just had a simple brick building material, like no setbacks actually make it look more in character with the area.

And you're really kind of reinforcing Carl's point here, which is the BAR can handle this issue in some respects.

Speaking for you.

Is that true?

Yeah, so I guess just very high-level policy.

I'm okay leaving level of discretion to the BAR, and I do think it makes sense to be thinking about the context of historic districts in terms of massing scale and also building material.

Mr. Pinkston.

Yeah, I don't have more to add than what's been said.

I'm still thinking through what I've heard.

Ms.

I can agree with what Mr. Payne said and Mr. Schwartz.

I'm

I'm curious, because I'm not quite sure I know where you were talking about when you were talking about south side versus north side of High Street.

Are we talking about going down the hill?

Are we talking about still up in the Court Square area?

Well, Court Square, but really it is down more west side of High Street.

Yeah, we're going to zoom in here on the map.

from Barnes Treaties.

Yeah.

Well, tell me.

So this lighter color is the CX-5, right?

So it's these guys, and then it's those guys.

Queen Charlotte.

Thank you.

But if you come down, let's come down back to High Street again.

CX-5 there on Park Street.

If you picture that in your head, that's a row of single-family style houses that are now occupied by offices.

and then as we go east up High Street, it's the same.

Go west.

I'm sorry, west.

I apologize.

I was saying east.

Go west and then go west.

There we go.

Therein is the confusion.

Those are both the two-story.

Well, I don't think there's a lot of likelihood that that office building is going to get torn down and suddenly eight stories are going to go there.

Right.

Right.

And a little...

I guess connected maybe a little broader one of the things we've obviously gotten a lot of feedback on is even outside of some of the areas you've identified right now the concern that the experience of being on the downtown mall the size of structures getting a different visual impression when you're on the downtown mall directly and kind of crowding things out beyond even just the idea is you've identified what is the approach to kind of

evaluating that with anything particularly in like the pedestrian viewshed of being on the downtown mall.

Yeah, so the BAR is charged with enforcing their guidelines, and their guidelines are speaking to consistency and compatibility with the historic context, generally.

I don't know, Carl, you can add anything to what I add in.

Now, I think one of the charges that we have is we need to update all of the BAR guidelines.

I guess a question for Commissioner Schwartz.

Do you feel like the BIR at this point has the tools and guidelines that you feel are sufficient to accomplish that goal for areas adjacent to the downtown Mall?

I guess I'm a little confused when you say areas adjacent.

So we're talking like between the downtown mall and High Street.

Is that what you're saying?

Sort of.

I guess I don't know the best way to clearly define it, but just any area where if you're on the downtown mall, a development within that world could impact when you're on the downtown mall as a pedestrian what the area around you kind of looks like.

Yeah.

I mean, I believe we do.

There is always the pressure.

You know, we're going to get pressure that if someone can put a 10-story building up, they're going to make a really strong argument to be able to do that.

And we're going to hope that if we shoot them down or we tell them, no, you have to step back 30 feet because that's the historic building that's there and then you can build behind it, we're going to hope that we have your support.

And the other question I have, I guess, one of the things I've heard from people sometimes is that the step back requirements as well as the requirements in terms of different building materials result in buildings that almost look even more out of character with the historic district than if you just had a simpler brick building material, simpler design, I guess.

So the different materials, I think you're talking about the standard.

That could be one, or the building where McGuire Woods will now move into.

I don't know.

323, yeah.

Garrett is not in our purview.

So I think we, yeah, we do, the stripey building aspect, I think we know that that's not a good idea.

And step backs, you know, it's all dependent on the location.

For example, the Artful Lodger site.

I believe that we just saw an SUP that should be coming to the Planning Commission.

And so in the current zoning, separate from what the BAR does, in the current zoning we have step back requirements on Main Street,

Old Preston, for some reason, and Market Street, and then not on Water Street, right?

So that's kind of where that comes from and not the BAR.

To me, Main Street probably makes sense.

The BAR might have better ability to do that because of discretion, because sometimes it could look better without it.

Market, to me, always seemed weird.

And it's an arbitrary number.

I mean, that's part of it, because it's just kind of, it doesn't

One of the concerns I've had about the downtown mall, and I have not tried to sort of visualize this, but as a

I don't want a whole lot of additional height on the south side of the downtown mall because then the sun will never hit the downtown mall.

And I don't know how you regulate that and I don't know what the regulation needs to say, but I'm almost prepared to say, you know, five stories on the north side of the mall is fine, but three stories on the south side of the mall would make more sense because we're not going to get any sun out of the north.

We do have, I think Water Street seems to be a very good place for height, so that is a little bit of a conflict in my mind.

Yeah, I'm thinking all the way to the west end.

Yeah, that's what I headed.

Looking at the code building?

To the west of Park Street?

To the west.

Yeah, and I mean back to the kind of like is the policy conflicting with the BAR.

I just don't really understand why we would make such disparity

and then sort of put BAR in a position where they're constantly having to, you know, kind of wasting people's time, right?

Part of the reason we want to make sure that the BAR guidelines are also very clear so that we are broadcasting these

This may actually be a, I mean, you could lower it down to CX-3.

To be honest, I don't think we would allow demolition to a single one of these buildings.

Anything north of High Street.

I mean, the one right on 2nd Street northeast, the L-shaped building is a pretty big surface parking lot in the back.

That is very true.

I am interested in hearing more about the downtown mall itself.

Right now, the zoning is calling for

I think it is useful to talk about or to think about the downtown mall mostly in a in a historic resource way you know most of the downtown mall I wouldn't like to see kind of demolished and built into a new building because we don't know how to build buildings like that anymore but if say this building were torn down and built into

100-story tower, I couldn't care less.

You know, downtown is, I think, the best place to put a lot of, like, you know, disregarding how the buildings would look.

This is where we want people to be able to be, right?

It's where you can live without a car.

It's where all the stuff is.

I think there is kind of a tension between we want people downtown and

Also we don't want to demolish the historic buildings downtown because we can't make any new ones.

And so to me that makes sense to be in BAR's purview.

I have conflicting ideas on this topic.

One angel on my shoulder says, step back is terribly expensive, probably the most burdensome regulatory tool we can use.

So the more judicious, the lighter touch, the better.

The other angel says, well, you're going to use it.

Downtown Mall is probably the place to use it.

And there, I would think, something more context sensitive, not just a flat cap across the entire area, but a regulatory tool that sees

MR. This is just throwing out a wild idea that I'm sure many people will not

will have reactions and I don't fully know how I feel about it myself.

But in some of these areas where you've got these particularly difficult tensions, could it make any sense to have a more limited discretionary process that something like an SUP process in the new zoning just because you've got

like in this case you've got as others have mentioned this really unique tension that is going to be extremely building and site specific in terms of I mean even Halpern's original vision was for it to be where people live and most of it was going to be housing and not just retail but primarily what got built but it's also true it's an enormous historic resource that you don't want to

make a mistake where without discretion you get something that blocks sunlight or completely changes your view as a pedestrian in the area.

I second that.

I think it's very hard to put together a regulatory framework that can apply to every parcel in a consistent way.

At some point it's people staring at it and making practical aesthetic and economic judgments all at the same time and it's not neat and clean.

I don't think we can clean it up so far.

Yeah, well, and I don't know if we juice that somehow or what, but I think that we try to

If we try to write to this, we're going to end up with something that's either A, incomprehensible and not applicable, or B, so complicated, no one's going to be afraid to do anything.

And nobody understands it on the regulatory side of it.

You're going to be open up to discretion anyway.

I think the complexity is going to get out of control, I think.

Yeah, I mean, that's kind of what I'm getting at, but I haven't given much thought to what that specific process would be exactly or what it would look like.

And I've also been struck the last couple of months when we've had some BAR reviews coming up in Council that a couple of reviews have really been based around the idea of the ordinance seems to limit

VAR's discretion or the factors there to consider, and therefore people are appealing to council so that we can basically give relief from what seem to be inappropriate regulations or maybe not universally applicable regulations that way.

In a sense, we're almost like the BZA is supposed to be for the VAR.

Is it possible in this zoning, you're right, to do a really quick insert into the BAR guidelines?

It just says on the downtown mall.

Yeah, I, that's, it was one of the tensions I've been thinking about is the need to rewrite our BAR and ERB, yeah, guidelines, and then the time factor that, and wondered if, is there kind of an amendment that could be kind of a quick hit of things that we know now?

To me, that seems like a really good idea.

I don't know what everyone else is going to say, but if there's a couple of easy, quick fixes, I think we should do them sooner rather than, I mean, we've been waiting to do our guidelines for this comp plan to finish up.

And then once the comp plan was done, it was, well, now we've got to wait for the zoning rewrite.

Is it better to have a...

base zoning that BAR has to look at and their discretion is to not allow that height versus a base zoning where BAR can look at it, have the discretion to

allow for extra height in certain cases, right?

Doesn't that sort of turn the BAR more into Dr. No, so then you show up to want to develop on it, and they're like, well, yeah, base zoning says X, but we're not going to let that for X or Y.

I think there's more to be said for going for a lower height universally and make somebody argue that they need their extra two floors.

One of the things that we're wrestling with is the PAR may not have the authority to expand the envelope.

They clearly have the authority to

Maybe a really basic, simple question is, I mean, how do people feel about the idea of another 10-story building being somewhere downtown?

I mean, if there are people who think, no, there should never be another 10-story building, then that makes that real easy.

I think it's...

In my mind it's very site context specific including the building materials and design.

So could I ever envision it?

And we're talking directly on the downtown mall, right?

Yes, on the downtown mall, and I'm thinking we've got the bank building.

Is it still Wells Fargo?

What was it?

Okay.

So that actually is 10 stories on the mall.

And then we've got the Dewberry, which is 10 or 11 stories, but pushed back quite a bit.

101 feet, but only on the watershed side.

Yeah, I think it's eight stories.

They did some magic with the way the stories are calculated.

We had a paid emergency.

There was some funny math involved in that one.

We all kind of, we imagine any, since there aren't any vacant parcels on the mall, that anything is going to happen kind of behind the facade.

Maybe not this one, right?

Well, yeah, so actually some examples, yeah, that's a brand new building from the 80s or 90s.

So that probably, we could be argued to allow demolition of that.

First in Maine would be another interesting example.

In like 07, where the old Met is, there was a nine-story building proposed there.

and that I think you would probably want to preserve that facade but you know I don't see a huge problem with that building necessarily being tall and there's a large service parking lot behind it that I think incorporated I think the building was going on the surface parking lot if I remember correctly I thought there was a mall facing component I could be very wrong I just remember Woodard wanted to put a car elevator in there yes that's why I remember it too a car elevator

2000s housing boom.

Do we have anything more on this side?

Sure.

Nothing else on the downtown wall?

Gave us something to wrestle with.

A lot of tape to review.

So Friendship Court is a different kind of policy and consistency but one where we can recognize the city now has made a significant investment in the idea of there being affordable housing in this location and there wasn't an inconsistency at the time we were looking at it from the perspective of the land use map but once we got zoning and really put some definition into what does the node zoning mean so the node zoning calls for building

buildings that are commercial ground floor commercial ready right 14 foot ground floor higher transparency requirement and those two requirements which seem relatively simple on their face are inconsistent basically with the design the existing design for this project and the cost associated with those the changes that they would need to make might lead to a reduction in number of units

could lead to a variety of challenges for that project if it were to have to go forward in its final two phases with that node zoning requirement.

So ultimately, just having reviewed the project, we're suggesting that the appropriate zoning is the CXA2.

For simplicity's sake, we were going with all, recognizing the fourth phase does have the notion of a ground floor commercial element, but that's not precluded by the proposed, the CX-8 allows for that.

Mr. Mitchell, do you have thoughts on that?

I think that's fine.

It does make me question if maybe the NX zones are too regimented in that sense, but yeah, I'll let that be.

Mr. Palmer?

That is brief and answer.

Way to draw it out.

I posted about this issue online, and I got some interesting feedback from an attorney that I want to share.

I understand, but

Yeah, I just, I get a little concerned about what the, how we end up writing that up, how we define it, and... Can you just go for a rezoning if it's that appealing?

It can be rezoned if it's an issue.

Yeah, yeah, but what I'm...

I don't think it's necessarily a universal issue.

I think one of the things we're dealing with is that we have a project that's already partially designed as well.

Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

No problem with it, and we'll probably get into it with transitions, but just while we're on Friendship Court, I think one of the other tricky policy questions that I don't know the answer to

is the Friendship Court Resident Steering Committee.

I mean, one of their big concerns has always been with the immediate transition in terms of the scale and design of their neighborhood versus everything around it and not wanting to feel like they're sitting in a bowl.

And I just want to highlight that for the Resident Steering Committee from the beginning, that has been a constant topic of conversation that they have brought up.

Mr. Breyer?

I'm fine.

I believe we have resolved the easy things.

Let's switch to harder things.

I think we are in zoning map errors now.

So in some respects I contemplated that we would go item by item through this, as painful as that might be.

And so I can start at the top.

So for context, so these are the items where we're identifying an error in the sense of the mapping logic document which governed basically how we applied the zoning districts on the zoning map, right?

It was basically a set of rules that took us from the starting point of the land use map to a zoning map with a set of districts.

And one of our

The primary task was just to review the zoning map to make sure that there weren't any errors made in transcribing that set of rules into a zoning map.

And this is one of the sites that came up because the rules, strictly speaking, would have said that Wright's scrapyard should have been an annex 3 rather than the annex 5 that it was actually designated on the zoning map.

Yeah, and because, so then we, I went ahead and identified this one also because this was the site that was also recommended for a land use map change into one of the higher intensity districts.

not remembering off the top of my head, I think it was NX8 it was proposed, suggested it ought to be done in NX8.

When I look at the land use map, I see that those higher intensity urban districts were directed towards basically our large kind of job areas, downtown, 29 north, adjacent to the university for that higher intensity kind of urban context, eight, ten stories.

I think this one, in terms of the pattern presented by the land use map, is more appropriate towards that neighborhood center scale.

So, we talked about this a little bit over coffee earlier today, and I'd like maybe to give you guys a little bit as well.

like actually top-notch bike facilities is along the new East Water Street, right?

And so you've got this kind of direct path from the site to downtown, totally off street.

extremely safe feeling compared to everywhere else.

And I would almost suggest that rather than think about this as a flum change, we think about a change to the mapping logic so that things like current or very near-term, very good bike-ped facilities count effectively like a Streets That Work framework street, which would put this at the intersection of the Mead framework street

and this shared use path here.

Future shared use paths will be like Emmet multimodal.

I think that's really all we actually have in the pipeline, but Hillsdale might be another example.

That's fair.

Yeah, just to be clear, so right now on the future land use map, this is a neighborhood mixed use node and what is being

contemplated as an urban mixed-use node.

We're not there yet.

So you expressed some terms months ago about the paucity of industrial park and stuff.

In the abstract?

Sure.

with the grade differences.

There's some interesting both challenges and opportunities.

If that were an area where it's not a...

What do people think about the height?

There's no problem with height there, particularly considering the surrounding.

You've got that grade going up to the railroad tracks.

Who cares what the people in Amtrak see?

And then across the street, I mean, you're still way below grade on Meet Carleton, whatever we're calling it at that point.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Yeah.

Okay, there's an IX5.

I do see that at Bainbridge and Monticello.

I referenced

if you look at the land use map, not the zoning, the land use map identifies a set of neighborhood centers.

And while this parcel that we're talking about now is effectively vacant for what we're talking about, I saw it as more akin to a neighborhood center than as an urban center.

No, I think it makes total sense to, you know, definitely shouldn't be an X3, at least an X5, if it wants to be something else.

Yeah, I don't see a problem with HIER.

I also, I mean, my own personal opinion is that we've got transitions in the code.

Thank you.

For me, yeah, I definitely think five makes more sense than three with the transitions, especially to Market and Burgess.

Mr. Paxton, you'd be quiet on this one.

Five is what it is now.

What?

Five is what it is now.

What do you think about?

The future.

We'll get that.

Ms.

It makes sense.

Mr. Snow?

I got nothing else.

I'm sorry, Ms.

I think that's high for that area.

I don't think 10 stories, except on like maybe like in that hole would be appropriate.

I think we were suggesting transitions as we move away from the whole.

Correct.

So the whole could be, you know, ten, but as we transition, we could stand up to five and then three.

That's what you said.

You did say that.

In the context that they're describing, we would actually use differentiated zoning districts to accomplish what is being described.

Okay.

Yeah, I could get behind that.

For the record, I was not saying go down with a reboot.

I think that's just me.

Yes.

Barrick's rude.

I mean, I will say even the, you know, required transition, if it were to be Annex 8, that type C transition seems like a pretty substantial

step back to me that seems probably about, I don't know, I mean, I haven't measured both distances, but it's, you know, a 60-foot step back after three stories, and then another 40-foot step back after seven stories, which seems like a pretty substantial step back.

Yeah.

Right, so Barracks Road is an example of a misdesignation on the zoning map.

The property shows up on the land use map as an urban mixed use node.

So why not make it Annex 10, which is consistent with the future land use map, right?

Well, the rules say that Annex 10 is reserved for downtown streets.

So streets identified in the streets that work as a downtown street.

So we've basically said 10 story is a downtown feature.

So just to summarize, it is currently designated five-story, and the guidelines say it should be eight-story, am I correct?

Yes.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell, thoughts on this item?

Go ahead.

Ms.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

You know, that one parcel that's like Federal Executive Institute, is that even in play or anything, or is that, should that be like specific?

I was about to ask that, yeah, I don't know.

Just keep it moving.

Just keep it moving.

As for me, I think I agree that eight makes more sense.

So, I mean, to the point that Rory raised, are you guys suggesting that, I mean, again, the mapping logic suggested that 10 stories is really reserved for downtown Charlottesville.

Are you guys suggesting that we shouldn't reserve 10 stories for downtown Charlottesville and in other areas should go higher?

I heard that at 29, I know, so that was a rather random height to pick, but now I hear what you're saying.

I don't have a ton of appetite for making changes to our mapping logic at this point in the process.

I feel like what we need to do is focus on what's in front of us and not constantly be pushing particularly height and density.

I think that's going to undermine

in regards to some of the concerns that the public has around height and drastic change.

And we just came to constantly be pushing and pushing and pushing.

I think 29 in particular, and kind of also the strapped heart to a lesser extent, are areas of rare public consensus that I heard.

And actually a lot of this list of those changes I made in November came from Citizens for Responsible Planning put out a list of kind of vacant parcels that they said we should more heavily utilize.

I think almost everyone agrees that you know 29 Seminole Square

Well, you do have some apartments, I believe, behind barracks.

The student housing?

The student housing, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I see the logic for NX8.

Maybe there's, I don't know what anything to do about it.

Just a thought that comes to mind is,

UVA has now transformed the Ivy Emmett corridor, and does that expand over time down into barracks?

Right, so that is kind of the starting point.

But then the additional question is, we said, in this body of rules, we kind of posed the idea that 10-story buildings are really reserved for the areas close to downtown.

and that all other outlying areas are maxing out at 8.

And the conversation here at the table is, should we be considering 10 stories in areas like on Route 29?

And that's the follow-up question.

It's not a change to the land use map because the land use map did contemplate 8 or 10 stories.

The land use map did contemplate?

Yes.

So this would not be inconsistent with the land use map.

It's simply a question of, you know, and really this document was put together by our team, right?

To Ms.

Russell's point, though, I guess there would be some concern in the community that we're continuing to push the envelope.

Yes, it's just inconsistency with this body of rules that we said, these are the rules we followed to take that land use map and turn it into zoning map.

And one of the things we said is 10 story is reserved for areas adjacent to downtown.

With what we put out.

That you've produced.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

The land use map said 8 to 10, but your document says 8.

Yes.

It's possible you'd make a project more viable.

From wood frame to steel frame.

And you're really probably never going to get eight, right?

Because seven you could do and five stories could be wood, and then eight, everything has to be concrete and steel.

So it's a huge increase in cost for all of your units for just a few more units.

And to really make that worthwhile, you've got to have more stories to average it over.

So it catches on fire, how are you going to put the fire out?

I mean, you know, what do you have?

I hear the density, I hear easier to build, but you also have to think about infrastructure, too.

I mean, do you have firetrucks that will go 12 and 15 feet?

No, I don't know how high the ladder trucks will go.

I mean, I think any of that would have to be during site plan review.

Under 100 feet.

I don't know, it's 10 stories, 100 feet?

But I mean, I think when you have, in a lot of cities, you don't expect the fire truck, the ladder won't make it all the way up.

So, I mean, we've had some bad examples in the history of, like, what was the high-rise tower in the U.K.

Oh, yeah.

And also, we're saying we're going to allow it somewhere else, right?

And so the question is just whether to also do it on 29th?

As we profess we want downtown to be.

Yeah.

On the flip side, you know, we have the Hillsdale shared use path.

We have the whole hydraulic reconstruction is happening.

Yeah, that's the project.

The interesting thing is when their planning commission took it up, they looked at our land use map and said...

They're going to allow ten stories here.

They did.

I hear all your points about those parts, points along 29.

I think I'm more frustrated with what I sense that we're not getting to...

a place where we're finding where we're going to get into resolution.

Kind of based off of Mayor Snook's comments a few months ago around all the concerns he's hearing from the public, and I'm worried about this going to public hearing and it being a very difficult plan to pass.

What's the process, I think, is like, why at this juncture do we, yeah, change our mapping logic?

I mean, I'm a little up to minds because I'm understanding the arguments now, but my initial, my reaction is always kind of like, why are we always pushing for more?

We're already changing a lot in this plan, right?

It's going to change and we're going to be out ahead of lots of other cities and that's great in a lot of ways.

We're doing a lot of really good things.

I support a lot of the things that we're doing in allowing for more density.

Well, we're kind of giving it all away, you know, and we're not really having a lot of... Metaphorically, yes, yeah, 11, right, on the dial.

No, but he's referring to a couple weeks ago when we were talking about the double density provision, and we walked that back, right?

I mean, I respect your point and agree with it, because I think we need to be careful, but...

For me, the piece about this specific one is if it was agreed in the future land use map that you could go up to 11, I'm not quite sure how these mapping logic rules worked.

But that was like, y'all did a lot of work to pull that across the line, so I feel more comfortable with that.

If that weren't the case, I would say no.

Yeah, I'm happy.

to say, oh, I'm completely happy with eight stories on Nomad, but by God, don't go to nine.

I mean, considering what's there.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not.

In the specifics, I understand.

I agree with your general view, though.

Generally,

I have not heard anybody who has expressed horror about the notion that Barracks Road Shopping Center might be too developed.

And most of the comments that I've gotten from people are basically along the lines of, go ahead and put as many people as you want on Seminole Square, on Barracks Road, just don't put them in my neighborhood.

And to a certain extent, this is one of...

in that direction, not the other way.

My concern is a little bit different, and that is that I'm looking at the designation of NX-5 that includes not only North Barracks Road Shopping Center, but also Cedar Court, for example.

But I'm not sure that I would say that that's an area that we ought to be saying, let's make that NX8 or NX10 or whatever.

I'm a little less concerned about the main body of the Barracks Road Shopping Center, although it's an expensive enough property at this point that I have a hard time figuring out how it's likely to get redeveloped any time soon.

So we may be sort of arguing about how many acres go under this pin.

NX-8 is fine with me.

I suspect NX-10 would be

feel real strongly either way.

I also, however, understand Mr. Russell's point about even just the appearances of sort of changing the rules at the end of the game.

Powerful.

That's helpful.

Next up I see Allied Street.

So this is an interesting one.

Again, the land use map identified this area as the neighborhood mixed use node.

We suggested a zoning district of NX3.

The mapping logic said where you have four-story buildings, you should consider NX5.

But this is one of those places where they're interspersed, right?

And we have, you know, I don't know how many four-story buildings are interspersed in that space.

We're not going to go down that street parcel by parcel, NX3, NX5.

So again, we went with NX3.

I'm kind of looking to you guys if you believe that we should instead have leaned in the other direction.

There's quite an elevation change between there and Bergwood.

How is that going to look for them?

This is the bottom.

I mean, I know it is.

Oh, it's more like 25-30 on the eastern half.

There's that staircase that goes up.

Sometimes you can even see Starting with Mr. Mitchell Nothing of value to add

Mr. Dronzio.

Utterly agnostic on this issue.

Russell.

Yeah, so if you have, so at this point, there's two parcels that are four and seven stories, right?

But we wouldn't want to necessarily just zone those to Annex 5 and the rest of it at Annex 3.

We would want to have one consistent zoning district for this area.

We, since the preponderance of the area is lower in height, we suggested NX3.

But it was raised as a possibility to consider for NX5.

The rule here, the rule in our mapping logic was where you have four-story buildings, you go NX5, otherwise the base zoning is NX3.

Well, there aren't, in the transitions, in the transitions.

Five's fine.

I think five makes sense with transitions to Birdwood.

I lean to NX3.

The one with the parking lot, the parking lot does seem to slope all the way up.

And that's a two-story parking lot there.

So that parking lot is already, it's part of the Allied Street thing, it's not part of Birdwood?

That is, as Chairman mentioned, the step-backs are kind of expensive.

so you likely would end up being 50 feet back.

Okay.

Or either three stories or 50 feet back.

Right.

So it would have to go back to three.

Okay.

Turning two.

Allied street.

Still.

Are we good on this one?

Yeah, still exactly.

Let's turn to Preston Avenue.

Okay, so the question that was raised here, this is at Preston.

Will we bring this up on the screen?

Thank you, guys.

So, again, in these corridors, we have CX-5 as kind of the base zoning, and then at key intersections, it goes up to 8.

Yeah.

Yes, one of them.

I think it is the little corner that's, well, I don't know.

Yeah, that's right.

Oh, okay.

So all of that could be CX-5.

That was the suggestion.

already developed, except for, or like redeveloped into Dairy Market.

Like this is Dairy Market and this is Tendendary.

They have new apartments, which are not going to be torn down.

These are city, I thought those were right-of-way.

And then yeah, there's Martin Hardware, right?

And it's really this big parking lot where I think you would want to put anything, right?

As long as you can make the transition across West Street good with your new cross-street transition rules.

That seems like where you want to put density and not on Martin's hardware or on the things that were just built.

Yeah, I guess.

Right.

I agree with Simon.

Are those mapping like anomalies, the little wedges?

My neighbors are going to kill me.

I really think Preston is a missed opportunity if we don't try to take advantage of more density along it.

I see the logic in five.

I'm not going to fight you guys on it, but I do think personally I'd rather see a little more hate around there and just deal with transitions.

Because again, it's a street that

It's going to be a missed opportunity if we don't develop it.

Are we doing a smaller plan?

Is this what you said was going to be the first one?

I hope so.

I think it's fine to kick it to that and drop it to 5A because these parcels don't really matter, right?

The ones next to them are the ones that are going to get developed and not these.

I do also think, though, one maybe relevant point is that when we eventually redo that intersection, there's going to be like an acre of land created out of thin air that is going to be city-owned that probably should be intensely developed into as much housing as we can fit on it.

I sympathize with Mr. Stolzenberg and Mr. Friese's points.

This is an important intersection and I want to see intensity and thought in this area because I want the intersection fixed among other things.

But a lot of the development opportunities are actually east of this area, which is confusing.

So I'm okay with five for now, but I think this is an important issue that should be taken up in the smaller area point.

Yeah, I would support it going down.

And again, I have a bigger question around these mixed-use corridors, again, really around if you're giving away all the height and intensity, if we're looking to do small area plans in these areas and kind of structure the growth there, do you de facto lose all your leverage to actually guide it?

but that's bigger than this.

So this one gets talked about in two places here.

I'll just make the comment here, and then we can move to the section where I talk about this in very depth.

But the comment here is simply that when we were producing the draft map, it was intended for CAX-8 to be

Now I'm really nervous of getting my directions wrong.

Thank you.

That doesn't help.

It was intended to be 6A, CX-8 to the west of the bridge, and CX-5 to the east of the bridge was consistent with prior zoning decisions.

There was a miscommunication.

There was an error on the map.

It was miscommunicated how to fix it, and it ended up being shown in the entirety at CX-8.

So our initial proposal is that we would, our proposal is that on the east side it should come back to CX5.

Now, if you want to move to the next section, we can hit the bottom on the next section.

There is an argument to be made that the train station site itself could, because it sits so low, could accommodate a CX-8 designation similar to the other side of the bridge.

Oh, train eight.

Agreed with Commissioner Mitchell.

Not particularly.

Again, I'm going to come back to the same thought I have about these mixed-use corridors.

Mr. Springsteen.

Mr. Brady.

When we were talking about paving it, we were concerned that it would mean that it would stay paved for years.

Turning to... Let's go to item number seven.

How would you describe this?

Now I'm regretting the thing.

Let's go to item number seven.

So Patrick, you're going to bring us to East High and Meade.

All right, so this is actually the same issue that we were just touching on with Preston as well.

We've got an intersection that was identified as a key intersection and therefore popped up to the eight-story height, but we received a comment that suggested that this should be five stories like the remainder of the corridor.

So it's really just a question of eight or five.

We, staff doesn't have the perspective.

It was one of the comments that we received is that that should be dropped down to five.

He wants to be tarred and feathered.

I think another point I've heard from Mr. Payne is that that whole intersection is weird and terrible.

Yes.

To generate a project enough scale to then pay for that.

Yeah.

I mean, I think you'd need, oh, for them to reconfigure it for us.

I think there's more, could we have them reserve the right of way in the future via the site plan review process?

Weird.

Let's get back to the border.

Lyle So I'm kind of Commissioner Mitchell's mind that I'm not I mean bluntly that intersection is so damned awful that it's sort of like I had this really old Mercedes-Benz once

the radiator because it was composed entirely of rust and it worked perfectly but it should have been broken and with this I'm sort of of the opinion that I'm scared to touch it just because it seems to be so precarious if that makes any sense that any change we make there I think the chances that things are just going to be bloody awful no matter how we

No, no, CX, he's proposing to change it to the CX-5.

So you were going CX-10 to 8.

No, no, it's 8.

It's at 8.

The magic, mapping logic took us to 8.

We're suggesting, the comment we received was that it should be 5.

Okay.

Based on the factors.

I'm also sort of confused to see what an eight story could get through the net there considering everything that's there.

Mayor Snook's opinion on that.

The Barracks Road applies here, too.

And so how does that change the character of that intersection?

That allows them to build up to what in what?

And is there no logic around key intersections, too?

Well, I mean, need is a relatively major street.

It's not key in that it's functioning like a key intersection.

That's a fair point, yeah.

I think it's problematic, and that would exacerbate the problem.

I actually don't think eight or five would make a difference with the traffic or whether the houses are preserved or any of that.

I guess depending on what side.

Yeah, you're right.

There's some that, yeah.

But the transitions are going to make it.

Right.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

I agree.

It doesn't matter.

all the way down the Long Street.

I mean, that makes sense to me.

I mean, I would agree.

That's the place that makes sense.

We solved the problem, guys.

I agree.

I think Stewart makes more sense, and that should be basically closed on the one end.

Not a zoning solution, but that would create a zoning solution.

CX-5.

As I've said, more than anything, the infrastructure there, it just stuck out to me as something that doesn't seem to make much sense.

And this isn't the displacement question.

It's not unique to here.

It's not the number one factor, as I saw.

Again, I just don't see the infrastructure making sense there.

I'll come back to it again.

I don't know the answer, but on these mixed-use corridors,

We've got another one that's even a more on point example

Mr. Maxton?

Five.

Mr. McGregor?

Mr. Maxton?

Five.

I don't know that I was clear.

I think five and I think Stuart makes more sense.

So putting eight at Stewart?

Yeah.

So we can skip through these because we've done them.

Okay, good.

So it kicks us to gallery court.

This was a proposal that was, again, so the mapping logic suggests this site should be the CX-5.

The Burndown Motel, yeah.

I should have just named the item Burndown Motel.

I think I was saying to put it to CX-8 instead of CX-5.

It's adjacent to kind of nothing.

Mr. Mitchell, thoughts on this one?

What is the recommendation being made?

It's shown right now.

I'm saying 8 because if they build them under the SEP, it's going to be basically a CX8 building anyway, and so that it matches.

But the SCP's already approved, correct?

Yeah, they can do it regardless.

Mr. Schwartz.

It sounds great.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Mr. Palmer.

This is very much in your backyard.

This is sort of in your yard.

I mean the SCP's already approved so CX-8 to match that makes sense to me.

Mr. Payne?

Where's the data center going here?

Data science center.

Data science center.

Remind me again, Bill, why CS5 works.

Because it's on the map already.

Where's that?

Eight.

All right, this one is the old Martha Jefferson Hospital site.

So this one shows up on the map as NX8.

Again, this is one where it was suggested that it should be NX10.

Mr. D'Oronzio.

Me too.

Yeah, it's this.

Well, technically it's two parcels here, but this is a big parking lot.

This is the CFA Institute.

This is where I work.

Thank you.

This is a garage.

You work in the garage or in the apartment?

So our matching logic that we've

expanded from downtown to now 29, and now we're saying that this should also abandon that mapping logic.

Mr. Schwartz.

We've got NX10 almost catty-corner to it, so it's not really extending it out that far.

It does make me wonder if those other parcels that are between Maple and Lexington should also be NX10 if we make this NX10.

Tarleton Oak.

Yeah, exactly, which actually I think that maybe should all be the same zoning.

Ms.

Well, I proposed it, so yes, but I'd also make a mapping logic argument that our streets.work plan is, what, like 10 years old now?

Not the great neighborhood.

I'm thinking about what's likely to happen.

I don't think they're likely to tear down the CFA.

They're likely to build on the parking lot.

It's up on the southwest corner.

My initial thought was why would we want to make an NX10 for the neighbors up to the north, but they're not the ones who are going to see it.

Would that be split zoning then?

Or am I missing?

You can't really see the line, but it was kind of where the cursor is.

Get real close.

I can make it out now.

As for me, some really excellent points here.

I agree with Mr. Schwartz's points about consistency in the intersection, and I agree with Mr. Stolzenberg's point that the two parcels have different dynamics.

It makes more sense 10 lower and more sense 8 upper.

What does the Flums call it?

Brader I go with the split

I think we're at, where are we?

Wait, what are you?

The identified parcels, where are those?

Oh, that's Charlottesville, right?

Oh, that one.

Oh, this guy.

The Beck-Cohen building.

It is just a weird little island there.

All it is, it's a weird little island because of the strict application of logic.

It's a little too short.

But I get it.

So again, it's the same issue.

The

The logic rules designated these parcels in the eight.

Yeah.

Oh, but that street won't exist anymore, Sam.

Why?

It's getting removed as part of the Belmont Bridge.

So he interrupted you, what were you saying?

Sorry.

So strict application.

Here's a picture of it in 1917.

That's cool.

But it does have a big parking lot thing in the back.

Yeah, it's contributing.

If it's not an IPP already, it's contributing.

Mr. Schwartz.

10 seems appropriate.

Yeah, I changed my argument from it's a weird island to there is no more Old Avon.

and if they can't sell it at a market rate to someone who will preserve it or if the city doesn't buy it, they can tear things down.

And that's irrelevant whether it's eight or ten.

Mr. Palmer, a bit of a ways.

Mr. Payne.

I really don't have strong thoughts.

I mean, again, I think the most relevant policy question is if that level of intensity means that kind of business, something like Burgos Burritos, Champion, is the writing's on the wall in terms of that never existing again.

Mr. Pinkston.

No strong feelings.

I mean, if it makes it more consistent to have it as 10, I'm fine with that.

Ms.

So number 135, this is at the intersection of Stadium, JPA, and Emmett.

So again, key intersection, it was identified as CXH.

Can you zoom in a little bit for us?

So the CX-8 was, so we're looking at the parcel, if you can see Woodrow Street on there.

CX-8 was designated between basically Stadium or Emmet and Woodrow, right?

So Woodrow Street doesn't exist.

And the argument being made by the individual making this request is basically suggesting that because all of these parcels are in common ownership and have been

quite some time that the entirety of this area should go into the CX-8 designation.

Is this the Stone House?

You do.

So like right here is just a giant hill?

Yes.

There's a sign at each end?

It has a sign.

If the land is traversable, we put signs at each end, it's a street.

It's also in public ownership.

Mr. Dronzio.

8.

I've heard enough about this opine, but it seems like if it's not a street, the zoning should be contiguous.

And it goes back to the point that you made earlier, James, about like basement like as well, right?

I don't know if that's the case here.

I mean, if the street did exist.

There is a street.

Right there.

You can't see it.

In the 104?

Yes.

Where did you guys land on that?

Ms.

I don't know if it's a question of the technicality of the street.

I think I had brought this one up as well.

I think CX-8 across Woodrow Strait makes sense.

I think it also makes sense extending down JPA.

I guess my question or concern is I feel like the drawings that we've gotten recently for buildings along JPA work in the sense that you have a very tall building on JPA and it ends up being two or three stories when it reaches Montebello.

And if CX-8 creates that, that makes sense to me.

And I think that makes sense if we can do that all along JPA.

Well, no, I actually, I think in this favor, I'm in favor of split zoning on the parcel itself.

So I think the CX8 should happen, but when you get close to that hillside, I think we need to do something so there isn't an eight-story building on Montebello.

Because I think the way you can fuss with the code in a way that it lets you step the building with the topography

So yeah, you could get an eight-story building on Montebello and it steps down and it's eight stories on JPA and I don't think that's good.

We were looking at something just in the last month on that, where the discussion, there's a building that we were looking at that the proposal was to have like five stories on JPA and like two stories on Montbello.

And that project is one that we've spent a lot of time understanding.

It seems to me that that ought to be sort of de facto for everybody one.

I mean, I think I agree with that, right, is you don't want to have an A-story building fronting on a velo.

At the same time, I think all of this, given the topography change, makes sense for a lot of height, like we were talking about with that 1709 or whatever proposal.

The other

So, I mean, I think if you did something like that, like with that RX3 over here, and then that much more intense zoning facing JPA, I think that's a good idea.

You know, I'd also,

I mean I don't know I think it does kind of matter right in terms of like where homeowners live versus where students live pretty much all the other parcels along there are occupied by renters by student renters presumably except for you know these two that happen to be right next to the one we're talking about and at least one of which is owned by some somewhat litigious people but you know I think over here it makes plenty of sense to have

All that height as well.

And, you know, we want to fit the students in there so that they stop sprawling out into all the other neighborhoods.

Mr. Pollard.

I agree with Carl.

We want height there.

I did want to ask questions.

I agree with what is being said.

Mr. Payne.

A vote for Carl I did something right Well done, sir

We're trying to redeem you from your neighbor.

I think I'm irredeemable.

I think we're back to West Main.

I think we've covered West Main.

Let's jump again.

All right, so this takes us then to the question really at the top of the problem with doing these out of order is my page is only in the battle border.

Yes, so these are the zoning map changes requiring an amendment to the future land use map.

Broadly, these came to us in two types.

The first of these, and if you guys have all looked at the spreadsheet we gave you, there's a number of requests around reducing the zoning designations that are the medium intensity zoning designations, the RB and the RC being reduced down to RA.

Now when we come back to when we were creating the map, we dug into this issue.

We looked at what is the recommendation of the medium intensity.

If you remember, the future land use map said the medium intensity should allow up to 12 units on a lot.

Part of our conversation was really looking at this question of with our objective of incorporating into these districts, in these land use areas, house-scale buildings.

You can do a house-scale building in 12 units.

It's not a question of whether you can or can't do that.

You can do that.

But it is certainly much more of a design challenge.

And with the feedback of what we had heard from the community,

We made the call to establish the zoning districts at the RB and the RC, the two zoning districts identified to implement the medium intensity at six units in the RB and eight units in the RC.

We felt that was a reasonable compromise.

went through and looked at that issue and had our conversations with our various colleagues around infrastructure.

We didn't arrive at any areas that were identified for medium intensity that necessarily needed to be walked back from that medium intensity designation to a general residential.

So that's our conclusion on that point.

Let's go around.

I'm sorry?

On the double density?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Well, if we're going back to six, that's... No, this is where we are right now, right?

I'm not thinking about that in terms of the base zoning district, not the bonuses attributed to affordable housing.

Russell?

This makes me remember a comment from a member of the public, Jean Hyatt, she's with Preservation Piedmont and she was specifically concerned with some RX3 zoning, RX3, R3.

Upper part of Preston Avenue, a historically African American community with small block of areas, small affordable homes on the east side and further along the west, two important African American communities.

I haven't looked at this.

I'm just like, this is prompting that.

Mr. Short.

I guess I'm not really sure I understand the question as far as the whether how we're defining RB and RC I'm fine with that as far as mapping questions I do have kind of Are there areas yeah are there areas that you've either based on the comments we received or otherwise your look where you feel like we need to be re-looking at that and some indications to the basis for that would be helpful Well and that's so I'm trying to understand the basis of

So we've got RB extending up Park Street and then it stops and it becomes RA and then we hit the 250 bypass and it goes up to RB again and I don't understand the logic for the break there and why we're pushing density north of the bypass versus south.

Similarly, we have RB extending along Lexington which doesn't go anywhere

that just kind of dead ends into, not dead end, but it goes into RA neighborhoods.

Why are we not putting the RB on Locust?

And again, north of the bypass, we've got,

RB starts up again.

So yeah, all of this is based on the land use map.

So I would be going back to what the designations were and why they were designated the way they were on the land use map itself.

I can go back and find that out.

I will say that part of what is driving the designations of the medium intensity

I get that and that feels a little bit more arbitrary than

It just seems very odd to me.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah so well I guess one very limited point is that I'm still a little confused about how within the mapping logic that we do use we ended up with this and maybe the one by CHS that we have intersecting framework streets and we didn't follow the you know x hundred feet from the intersection rule

That isn't square and could be square.

Those are the only things I have within the FLUM, without changing the FLUM, right?

And then on the question of where would you put the medium intensity zoning districts if I were a dictator, I might have a couple tweaks, but I'm very sympathetic to the points that staff made in the memo about how we had a whole

a whole thing in 2017 through 2021 and had this whole public process with community engagement.

And I don't know that reopening that can of worms is the right move.

If you guys want to reopen the can of worms, I'd be happy to make some suggestions.

When the future land use map was adopted two years ago, council spent maybe 30 seconds discussing it.

We were told we were not going to discuss it.

And I think, and correct me if your understanding was different, but I think the understanding in passing it was that the future land use map was a long-term maximum build-out.

I don't even know whether you all sweated bullets over it two years ago.

I don't remember being at any meetings where you all spent more than a little bit of time on it.

I hate to say this, well, I don't know, it's got to be done, but there are numerous sort of individual, I mean, there's a parcel by parcel run that still needs to be done on a lot of this.

And I can give an example of that that's actually, there's a comment for comment number four, which is the first or second one listed in the ones for changing the flum that's bang on target.

If we can take a look at that.

Can we go to,

Can we go to the shops at Stonefield in hydraulic?

Yep.

Cool.

So, this is sort of as an entry corridor and it isn't anymore.

And I'll explain what you mean by that.

Okay, if you go down, just bring us down just a little bit.

A little more.

Other way.

Cedar Hill put this, this is what I'm talking about here.

So this is sort of designated to be a neighborhood primary road.

It isn't.

So 20 years ago at North Berkshire, it wasn't even a through street.

It dead-ended here and you could not get

and then when the shops went in at this point here on city property we have a triangular island and that was done very sensibly because there's a light here to stop

period.

If you want to get onto Cedar Hill, you've got to be coming from the west to get in.

So this really is no longer a through street, number one.

Number two, all of these parcels here, if we zoom in on this, those are all single-family affordable residences now.

They're single-family residences.

that were zoned B1, but people live in them.

Right there is what used to be Tom Jackson's State Farm, which is a house.

These are houses and duplexes.

These are houses and duplexes.

They're all in the affordable.

This is all in the sensitive area here.

I don't think anything involving sort of the streets at work is outdated for this.

This isn't a through street anymore.

And if we put these as, what have we got, these fives now?

Right, well, I guess my point here is that the initial logic used for this was to follow the prior land use map.

Thank you.

Medium intensity broadly, yes, yes, yes.

Oh, yeah.

And we were at Mr. Pinkston, please.

A lot of this is Lyle.

listening to what's being discussed because I wasn't following this that closely two years ago.

Just, James, if you could help me.

So 12 had been mentioned and now you guys are saying eight and six?

Yeah.

Okay.

And the whole notion about the bonus density or whatever, we're just kind of setting that aside right now.

Yeah.

Okay.

I feel like those are good numbers.

I'm glad we're coming down from 12.

Okay.

Ms.

I too saw something that Ms.

Hyatt had written regarding the area on Rose Hill, Amherst, Concord, and Piana.

And I too am concerned about how designations from A to B to C or C to B to A will impact these homeowners.

Thank you.

Well, as I said before, I think the... Well, I'll just go back to what I said two years ago where I thought it would be

And so if this is now the first opportunity that we have to the first opportunity council will have had to have discussed any of this My initial thought is and I think we have to keep in mind that

what we are already doing in RA by, in essence, tripling the number of units that are possible to be built there is already going to put us in one of the most liberal, most growth-oriented, most highest density zoning plans in the country.

And personally, I want to go very slowly in deciding where we would put RVs

and say that for a couple of reasons.

The first is,

freaking out over the fact that their street is now designated, the entire street is RV, and they're all thinking, gee, I'm going to have six units on each one of these places on my street, and suddenly they're going from 10 units to 80 units to 60 units on their street.

and although we can tell them until we're blue in the face, oh, don't worry, it's not going to happen, or at least it's not going to happen all that fast.

That's not a very reassuring thought to many people.

And one of my thoughts was that if there were some way to ration the number of

My thought was perhaps we could say we would have higher density available on corner lots.