Joint Planning Commission and City Council Work Session   7/5/2023

It is, you know.

Rory Stolzenberg

Thank you.

Michael .

Stolzenberg

I always knew, I always knew research, you know, yeah, we had a

Thank you.

Absolutely, completely, totally, I think that's a good thing to consider.

Yeah, we went actually to Borset.

Stolzenberg

Yeah, I don't know.

Thank you.

So this is a continuation of the meeting we had, I think, back in May that was the zoning map.

is still consistent with the land use map and the comprehensive plan.

I want to note something.

Thank you.

That's right.

So the last time we met, we went through tab one.

We started at the end and worked on our way to the beginning.

So Mr. Cronzio, could you start us off?

Here's my, they are presently this area over here.

Over here, a little more.

There you go.

All right, so what we have here is Dorian, everybody, that's shops at Sermonfield, obviously, plus the hydraulic, these are, this set of phones here are currently being known.

Comment number four speaks to the, this sort of block here, that will be to Swanson, to Cedar Hill.

So having said that, this road was not originally approved streets here at North Berkshire, and then with the water feature that's here along the road, and then it resumed again, and I'm not sure exactly when this was opened up, but it was, so having said that,

And they're sort of organic, affordable housing.

Yeah, I'll just mention for people's situational awareness, that intersection at Cedar Hill and hydraulic is

It's highly like, well, anything with VDOT and SmartScale, I shouldn't say highly likely.

It seems reasonable.

So I think that that speaks to the point that it lines up with your point, Phil, that this is going to be an area that's going to be more and more attractive for people to move into.

And if we move to a more thoroughfare-type street, that is also a

And I also think that to build that roundabout, some of the adjacent housing is going to have to be taken by eminent domain.

There are at least two houses there that will be gone.

So I think you're going to have less of that organic housing left after they're finished with this roundabout.

So these were not exactly right.

These four here, and they're never going to be demolished.

But you're not with Oregon, if you don't want to, if you don't want to, if you don't want to,

If you don't change like you indicated?

If you don't make some effort to keep it resonant.

In making that suggestion with the potential down the road of a roundabout, what would that mean?

So what that means,

It would be, if you were to be going north on Cedar Hill, it would be, if you could, you know, turn to that corner there.

Right.

But if you change, but if you change to, but if you change, then they would be,

protected.

Is that what I hear you saying?

Thank you.

Is there any advantage to leaving the lots that front on hydraulic under this commercial designation, but the lots that do not front on hydraulic, leaving them as residential?

Or changing them to residential.

We're changing the resident.

It has commercial uses, you know, commercial driveways getting in.

So he's protecting the residential with his performance.

So I just don't want to end up getting into a situation where our blind commitment to more housing completely forgets the other purposes of zoning.

Well, actually, I mean, that's not, that's sort of what I was proposing.

Go back in your roundabout.

Thank you.

So what would happen to those lots?

I got you.

So would you net that out?

All right.

So here on the west side, the bottom two, I mean, this guy is only three.

So the red dots would go R.A.

Correct.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

And so it's the rugby to 14th south of Dravy area that I think the teams could not figure out what I was talking about because I said north of Dravy.

So we've got a little bit.

The borders aren't exactly where, they don't line up exactly with the

So we just make it more compact and they couldn't go this way.

Exactly.

Okay.

Has anybody thought about what that looks like in terms of either this student-heavy neighborhood in the Venable area or, for that matter, for the JPA area?

You mean like quantifying?

And so although Phil's comment was a little snarky, it's not far wrong because thought, I mean, I am not aware of having heard anybody think out loud at least about what this means when we talk about putting more students in the student neighborhoods.

I think that's an interesting model and something that clearly can be done.

Okay, so from a similar occasion, Mr. Mayor, you're talking about literally what does it look like, which was his response.

Perhaps.

I'm aware of two owner-occupied houses south of Georgia.

At least, very few owner-occupied So I think we are, if we do this, we're kind of accepting that this neighborhood is going to change.

concerned about north of Grady and west of Cabell, so what Preston place is, because that does seem to be more owner-occupied still.

You know what RX3 would look like in the wild.

And Rx5 would be about what's allowed now.

And how many would that be?

stories and or units five stories just kind of control no specific unit count okay but not to exceed five yeah okay so you're saying Rory that right now yeah why wasn't this like flagged during the flown conversations well because in the flown it is high intensity residential which could be either three or five

But you don't immediately jump to the full build-out until there's actual market demand for it.

And so it may well be that by doing so, we are able to minimize the sort of the sprawl, as we would say, and that would be positive in any event.

Because the students are not only shrinking geographically into these neighborhoods, but also into those purpose-built student rentals, allowing even some of those to be reclaimed by UVA faculty or whatever.

Can you share your thoughts on this time?

Whoever mentioned Preston Place, that was one area that kind of gives me pause because those are really kind of nice single family homes that I get the feeling they're going to remain that way as long as they can.

I was with you, but then I'm

Which direction?

Like outside of the student area?

But I'm talking about the owner-occupied ones.

So even with that, on that side of the block, and north of the Venable Elementary,

Yeah.

So that whole like four block area on Brady is not in

needed to know.

Yeah, I guess if the point is that what's there now essentially is RX-5 and there was some weirdness in the translation from the FLUM to the zoning map, okay, if we feel like that's a credible, reasonable, fair statement to make, then I could support RX-5.

Why are you asking me to just... We have 31 items remaining.

And that was my biggest thing when we landed that a couple of weeks ago.

I'm sorry, what was the issue?

And my objective is to make it more urban-centered so that we can get, again, light industry, commercial, and residential in there.

So the land use models.

neighborhood center, which was more similar to a Belmont scale center.

And so the proposal last time we talked was to characterize it more as an urban center, more of an extension of... So what would the numbers be, the tag?

stepping down as you get closer to Calhoun.

I'll start with these.

Basically, 99 maybe Mount Zion Baptist.

Yes.

I don't know if they have any plans to do anything with it, but why not give them the option if they wanted to put housing there?

The lot next to the church?

The parking lot, Mount Zion.

The lot next to Mount Zion, you're saying?

Bill of that housing or whatever.

Yes.

I'm going to note in this one, conceptually, I don't disagree.

It's not possible, but it creates another step in our process as we move through adoption.

And once we've gotten this thing through council, we come back and then do the amendments.

So can you explain kind of what complication that had?

There's a whole lot of things that come with that.

We can take an area that's designated as RC and make it RB, right?

Again, as I understand the process, it's still consistent with the comprehensive plan because it's less intense than what the comprehensive plan shows.

it's a parallel process that we would have to carry simultaneously through planning commission and council.

So, Mr. Mitchell, make sure that they hear what you suggested, okay?

I think Mr. Freeze gets it.

Mr. Mitchell, make sure that

The other point, just along the same, he was 26.

On this item, any further

He's talking about searches.

And I think right now it's medium intensity.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah.

I mean, it just gives them the option to.

They don't have to do anything with it.

What is the map currently says?

Right now it's RA, which is single time what used

Are you saying something like RX3?

Yeah, and then not only, it would make sense to be RX3 to match the other side of the road.

I understand where it is, but you're saying RX3 for that one as well?

Not sure what I'm saying exactly, but more than RA, because it's just like RC maybe?

There you go.

Mine are also land use map adjustments.

I don't know who wrote this, but it does.

Were the city in the position to move forward on that one, and I don't know a time frame for that, but were that to happen, it's a relatively simple matter for the city to pursue a complaint amendment or rezoning.

Any further discussion on the side?

Mr. Pauly, it's right there.

Would there be a process to fold it into the campus pre-zoning, or would it just be kind of a moot point?

You guys are at zones.

You can do whatever you want to do anyway.

Right, but I mean...

I just didn't know if there was any, because, you know, previously we didn't have that like specific campus designation.

We know that any zoning ordinance, if we can go into one we have today, there are little cleanup actions that have never been addressed.

Annually, we want to take things that we've identified over the course of the year and say, yeah, this needs to be cleaned up, typo, two conflicting sections, whatever it be, and that would be a perfect opportunity where if the university has been on a buying spree, we can address that as well.

Thanks.

Mr. Peterson, can I

Clever enough to find that right now.

I currently use designated RB and RC.

Yeah, the bridge there.

Okay.

If you need to move the number, I can find it.

I'm at number 46.

There's another one specifically about the Walker side of the road, and there's like four or five roads that come in together, dairy and

I think, and they mentioned dairy.

Are you talking about going over the bridge?

If someone were to come and add an RC level development at those three lots, or one of those lots for that matter, what's going to happen to that node?

Not a ton of those with that good infrastructure in the city.

That's how it's assessed as part of the site plan review process is to understand what are the potential traffic impacts.

and so would you count this or could you expect the site plan review group at some point to count this if someone were to make these pencil which is unlikely I understand three RC developments at that point I mean does that even make sense so and we're able to maximize in that location and this is where we're one of the

So we don't know what exactly the site constraints themselves are that are on that site.

And as part of the site plan review, we'd also be looking at where the entrance is located and all those types of things in order to make sure that we are optimizing how traffic and people and all the different modes are going to have to interact in that space or are working through that space.

The number of units doesn't really rise to the level of creative concern at this location.

The bigger issue, if this were to happen, is we would be looking at how do we design the site and the site access and entrances to ensure that we're not creating an issue.

particularly with all the students that are there.

Generously, we talked about this as a 20-year plan, 20-year zoning ordinance, but the reality is this is probably even more than that in terms of timeframe for when stuff actually happens, right?

Things are going to happen right now.

But when we think about our overall transportation planning efforts, I think one of the areas we should be thinking about is, and we do think about, right, we have a whole section focused on Safe Routes to School because we want to move people out of private automobiles and go into our schools and into alternative modes.

or is that something we should be looking to address?

So I'll stop there.

It seems like that would be pretty feasible.

Do you have that address?

And that's, that's the one problem area that if we're really going to be serious about that, we have to also be serious about how are we going to confront it.

In that, I agree with you, but that is an instance where we really need to work with that transportation truck.

And until we deal with that, or until we affirmatively decide we're not going to deal with it, which is kind of what we've done since we annexed that place 65 years ago, we need to make some affirmative decision and not just continue to have it be the accident.

It's fairly narrowly.

and retaining walls and all kinds of other things.

It's an accident waiting to happen that hasn't happened yet.

In some cases, it has.

So do you mean kind of taking those four lots of the corner out?

That's Phil's suggestion.

Really,

The reality is most folks in that area cut over on King Mountain or Essex to get to Brandywine because it turns out it's about two tenths of a mile shorter than going around the loop-de-loop of Yorktown as one who's lived in that neighborhood for almost 40 years.

If you do what?

Yes.

They're not going to turn the left on the 10th or particularly right on the 10th.

They're going to be down in general because if you live here, there's nothing up here unless you do this on the track.

Unless you want to get to Raya Road.

Which you do by going up to

Mr. Priest, do you want to address the structures?

But, I mean, I don't really have Trump and YouTube to take off.

Drive over there, check it out.

Drive over there.

Mr. Mitchell.

There are a few comments that are about projects that are in the works or around that theme and

number six, the EVACM to CX5.

We'll keep on Portland.

No problem.

What's the, what's, I did see that in the list.

It's on Stacey Hall, so it's West Main.

So all of them are from one.

He's already told you he's had a little issue today.

Okay.

So, I mean, CM essentially is five-story, so I'm not sure there's... Isn't it a really weird setback situation?

of different setbacks and all that kind of stuff.

Unless they applied for like a rezoning.

Yeah.

If that makes it

And so it needs some clarification of what the project's actually going to be in order to determine where the zoning line would make sense.

Because right now you'd be doing a split zoning on the parcel.

A, I'm not sure that that's

and I know what you're saying.

Yeah.

And so we should make it whatever matters for that, which I think is yes.

The line isn't clear.

You know, they don't have a line, like a lot line figured out yet.

Yeah, we have a rough idea for that lot line.

And that way it's a process that doesn't block the affordable housing stuff.

There, but.

Yes, I'm a little confused as to why we're extending.

And actually I have a map.

I would propose.

Yeah.

The discussion was that?

I think you consider those are two separate things, right?

Like you're saying, why don't they connect?

And I don't have any argument against the point on the other one.

Was it like a, it's supposed to be connected to a certain type of street or?

I remember having a conversation with the team and the drafting of the film around why there was a break at Mark and why

But there are already multiple residential uses, Coleman Hall and things like that, along that part of Park Street, whereas that's not really true for the lower part of Locust, more than adaptation to what's there.

I don't want to take any more time.

And that's another one of those places where I say, if we're going to increase density there, we, the city, need to be prepared to do something about that.

And then, yeah, once you get past onto Lake,

you know park lane and evergreen that's where it gets real narrow and bad.

I will say when I walk down Locust, I walk down Lexington, I'll walk in the middle of the street on Lexington, I'm always going to sidewalk on Locust and that might have a lot to do with traffic, but also I know it's continuous on Lexington, it's narrow.

it just, and I just with the,

last block of Lockham Hill high intensity and then the others just matching what they are.

They are coming forward with an apartment.

Okay, that's good.

Yeah, well, you just do it.

Mr. Plummer.

I would like to raise one.

Last time, let's run over here.

want to understand what we're doing and perhaps figure out a way to not do some of the worst kinds of things that I can see happening.

I'm interested in that question as well.

Thank you.

Or regulate.

or regulating, that's what the use standard, that's what that idea of subject to use standards can mean, right?

So with greater specificity, we can pull out uses that we see as not being appropriate in that space.

So in any of the modules we've gotten so far, have use standards been proposed?

Sort of.

That's what I thought, sort of.

I don't, you know, I don't think we should be ruining the size of the beauty shops and houses for telling people that they're partying with them, particularly since these are extremely low entry home-based businesses that

are very useful moving people.

Are we reading those into what would be trotted out here?

This is a step above.

It can be visible, but therefore has another set of standards that apply to it in terms of scale and all things that we can add further onto that as well.

Why are we even bothering with the charade of calling this a residential neighborhood?

If you're coming in as a commercial use, the most you're going to be able to do is incorporate a storefront onto an otherwise residential building.

Where is that made clear in what we've got so far?

In your module one, the more race code and how they're supposed to fit, where the driveways go.

In module two, they can't have, you know, we can't have like a 7-Eleven, like all these cars drive in a certain way, and it has to look like a house in the neighborhood scale.

But, you know,

And I'm just concerned that we're going to create possibilities that we might come to that have very, very little upside, a lot of downside.

There was one comment that I read, I think it was number 39 about the fifth street in Y, kind of down zone from CX 8 to CX 5, kind of like that area, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too long, too

Sounds familiar.

That wasn't here last time.

They want RX3, then they want RX3 from RC, which is three fours, so it's not much difference except on the density.

They have a preliminary cyclone of 48 units.

I think they said in their email that they were working that out or something.

It would be a really challenging thing to work out given the external circumstances of that.

But I mean, obviously, they still have to resolve those complicated access issues.

But that's a separate problem.

Instead of having to subdivide their giant lot to be able to build them there.

Michael Koch- Additional thoughts on this one.

So currently it's the zoning is shown as R3 right now and it's shown as RC and they wanted, they're requesting it to be RX3.

So this would be an upside in the example.

Yes.

To change?

That makes sense to me.

Thank you very much.

Well,

Yeah, or BRC.

I think 415 McIntyreson is something.

I can my 2021 proposal, all of those will require one changes so.

It makes sense in that it's so close to that out and everything else looking down is higher intensity.

Final statements.

Before you do that, please.

I don't bore you with where we are and what more needs to be done on this.

So if there's no other areas that we- Well, that's what I'm worried about.

I'm not certain we've gotten them all.

Yeah, that's where I'm going.

We're meeting again on the 13th.

And then we're also going to talk about Module 3 and some of the highlights in there.

One lingering issue

I mean, there's limited to what the entrance corridor regulation process will bring to us once we've legitimized that use.

But I think all things can look good as long as they have harnesses.

It just sort of feels like what we're creating are towers that you have to come through to be admitted to our city.

I mean, they're up against the highway.

We're only offending Charlottesville people on one side.

On the other side, you have magnets.

These are areas that are not inherently walkable right now.

I do a second.

Thank you very much.

All in favor, please stand.

Wow.