Joint Planning Commission and City Council Work Session   7/13/2023

Sure, I think we can give you a second to get settled, Lyle.

We have all the counselors present.

So as soon as we compile those from tonight, we'll send those both to City Council and Planning Commission so you all have all of those comments as well.

Nothing?

All right, turn it over to you guys.

Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.

Oh, Christy, we can't hear you quite yet.

It's lighting up.

It's not that they're muted.

Yeah, I think it's here.

It gives us any sound options.

Test.

Click on the up arrow, not the mute button.

Would you like to try it?

There we go, and I think any screens that are open in the room should be muted so that we don't get feedback.

I got a thumbs up.

Can you guys not hear us?

We can hear you.

All right, so let's mute our screen.

Seems like it's working pretty well.

Oh, I hear you now.

Do you guys have more than one Zoom window open?

No.

I can, yes.

Yes, Lyle.

Okay.

I'm going to keep going then.

Okay.

I know that's a little weird, but we'll wave at you if we want you to.

Thumbs down.

Can I get a thumbs up if you can see this screen?

So the requirements to get those tree canopy would pare back the size of the building, getting your stormwater requirements, pairing back the size of the building, taking into account topography, all of those things would make the suitable area of the lot shrink.

Put it in the chat.

I'll turn my speaker off.

Okay.

Talk again.

Is this better?

That's our microphone, so that's our... All right.

Talk again.

Any better now?

That's where it wasn't working, right?

Yes, we can hear you.

Audio settings.

Audio settings.

There's a number of meetings going on, that's why we don't have people here.

So I think the strategy of having Code Studio dial in with their phones seems like a good one to me.

We'll call in.

Yeah, switch off computer audio and then... Okay.

I think it's... I'm moving around the agenda a little bit until we can get this nailed down.

Do you want to start calling in really quickly?

There...

And we defeated Remy.

Oh, Remy's coming.

Yeah, but Brian eventually descended and spent 20 minutes beating his head against

I feel like the Zoom is probably the better version.

They just popped up sugar greens.

We're having audio troubles.

Gotcha.

Why don't you hand this in your seat?

It may be physically shut off.

Well, can you promote her with her hand raised?

Is this any better?

Can you hear us now?

Still echoey.

Any better?

Keep going.

Is that better?

Can you try it now?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Any better?

No.

Can you hear us?

I know you, would it work better if you just tried to speak to the slides and we could chime in if needed?

This is not connected.

There's no connection.

Do you want us to keep talking occasionally?

Just test?

We can do that.

And were you pointing out the news that seems to be coming from the back two speakers?

I did hear a sound coming with you.

Is there just a speaker associated with that television without these four speakers?

Turn off the TV speaker.

Don't worry, my charge is a very reasonable rate.

That's interesting.

Is that sounding any better?

How is this sounding?

I'm going to try one other thing.

Just keep talking.

Nobody breathe.

Can we close that?

OK.

So I'll set the stage really quickly.

But it lets us see you a bit better when I can turn the screen share off.

Is it either or or all of where?

So you can build something that is a house scale business, a shop front house or a corner store that is all possible under the current standards that are being proposed for the shop front house alternative form.

And when you say it's limited to corner lots, do you mean all three of these forms or just the corner store?

All of them.

All of the uses that would go into these forms.

Part of that use standard, we'll say, has to be located on a corner lot in the R districts.

So does that mean that you could not have a business use one of these three alternative forms in the middle of a block?

Does that make sense?

Can you clarify that?

So each of those use categories are defined separately and allowances given to them according to their general impact.

Oh, so do we generally kind of think that the proprietors of these businesses would live on that same lot?

It's not a requirement.

phase up where it creates the opportunity to expand out a more overtly commercial space.

Lyle here, can you talk about gas stations and alleyways?

I'm not sure the question about alleyways specifically.

Do alleyways form a corner or are they treated as a separate entity?

An alley is not considered a street.

Thank you.

Fueling stations are a separate use that is not allowed under this at all.

Can you just go over the differences between what's permitted in RB and RC versus RA in terms of having less limitations in those zones?

The biggest difference is food and beverage and what requires a special use permit and what does not.

Have we already agreed to get rid of that?

Everyone is out of RA completely and by special permit in the RV and the RC, and that is topped out at 10 rooms.

It's like a bed and breakfast, but only a special use permit.

A bed and breakfast, that's right.

So general medical is allowed in the RA, and that's, you're thinking, well, like a dentist office or like a... That's right, physical therapy.

very small scale, you know, kind of doctor.

It's huge.

how that comes into the city, how it's evaluated, approved or not?

and then either approved or disapproved.

And then the only other thing added there is debate on the level of actual construction activity, whether it triggers site plans.

The special use permit, we're looking at just whether it be a nuisance or not, what type of, how discretionary can we be with that, or subjective, I guess.

Do you want me to answer that, James?

Because I can't see you, I don't know if you're about to talk.

You can go ahead, James.

A special use permit defines a set of criteria against which you guys are making a call as to whether it meets or does not meet those criteria.

So you can just say any other adverse impact is raised in an eye for that condition.

There's some reduction.

There was some, the attorney reviewed.

All right, yeah.

She did some, we had the attorney look at that criteria specifically because it is so integral to state law and she recommended some reduction just based on her review of that.

This is appropriate.

The special use process is set up to mitigate or ameliorate or prevent nuisance.

Does the SUP process permit us to say there are already two others like this on the block and you don't get one because you're third in line and you weren't one of the first two?

and therefore the special use is a way to talk with the applicant to maybe find out where they have other similar businesses if they do, some of those kinds of things that would really help you make the decision.

We identify that as a criteria.

Those criteria still have to be met.

So it's not like we have to figure out every possible adverse impact and put it in the list now, or we can't deny that.

I'm simply saying that if there are things we know now, the extent that we can share that information in advance makes it better for everybody.

You know, externality when you get four dentists on a block.

We don't have to foresee everything.

Which category do they fall in?

That's a home-based business.

But there might be a scale at which it becomes something more like this.

Thanks, Luke.

What was the rationale in terms of like the use of SUPs being much more extensive in RA, whereas way more uses are by right in RB and RC?

So it seemed to make more sense because those naturally tended to be on either slightly larger streets or closer to amenities, places that were starting to feel like neighborhood centers that could accommodate those a bit more readily.

I'm getting a lot of questions about vape shops.

Any specific questions or issues about them?

How would they be regulated or considered?

But yes, there are certain uses that have those kinds of standards and you could have that use more restricted, I believe, but I don't know Virginia law well enough to be able to really opine on that.

Pandak about that issue, please.

Happy to.

Thank you.

And I presume you could also take those subcategories of retail and just exclude them from certain districts.

Yes.

Would it not reach a point if we're getting into that level of specificity where it almost makes more sense to be making more expansive use of

And as you bring it back, you should probably be a little bit careful about it for sure.

Is that because the current code says 4,000 or

want something that could be divided into maybe two smaller 2,000 square foot storefronts, but that's really the maximum they need and it keeps it small and local without tipping into the more corporate.

as one 4,000 square foot retail use or two

You'd be better off putting residential on the other portion.

I guess one of the things that I'm grappling with here is that I can't decide whether I would want one of these stores to succeed or to fail.

It seems to me that the neighbors would probably rather

And therefore, is it not most likely that despite our expression of we want it to not be auto-oriented, that people are going

So people definitely do drive there and stop by for a moment.

As the success grows of a given site and neighborhood, what I would anticipate is that property owner now, as the success of their business grows, they're going to change locations.

Unless they don't want to take on a mortgage.

Unless they don't want to take on a mortgage.

They want to stay there and be busy.

where somebody theoretically then is moving on to more established commercial corridors where their business will get better and better as their success grows.

I don't know if the special use permit process is a way to kind of navigate it, but I would be uncomfortable just a blanket saying like it is just illegal and absolutely not possible to have like some commercial uses mixed in with residential because we see there is a real desire for that in areas of the community.

I assume they weren't on a corner and they're not going to move to a corner to make that happen because they already have their house.

You've got to start somewhere.

I understand the point that was offered about special use permits, and I'm not saying everything should be, but I'm open to expanding that use to a greater extent in RB and RC, just in recognition that I think it is fair that there are some unpredictable uses that could come in that may not be wanted or don't fit in a particular context that are allowed basically by right at this point, which then there's unpredictability to it.

Or is there another class of special use permits?

Okay.

Because what we have now, the draft of the draft, doesn't say you just have to view quarters.

But if they did, it is possible that we might get more tax revenue if there was a legal place for them.

Yes.

If they didn't have to hide it.

Well, if we handled that with a little elegance instead of beating up on freelance writers in the county, for example.

They might even, you know, mean health codes instead of selling burgers out of their apartment.

What was it that generated...

So we're trying to address concerns about commercial use as a residential.

4,000 does seem pretty well.

We know that medical and places like that, they have certain peaks, you know, and, you know, anyway, so that would be the lens that I look through, the impact and probably the use.

You can't have a small brewery, which that's unfortunate.

So take it out of your basement for now.

So I...

But we don't know what the use standards are at this point.

I think a lot of conversation today has been around that square footage number, knocking it down.

666 that are allowed by use in residential.

The entire neighborhood is RB.

and I would argue that food beverage fits just as well in RA and its best UP anyway, so why are we blocking it?

I guess one of the questions, if you think about this notion of having commercial uses in residential zones as the lower barrier to entry, doesn't that sort of assume that the person is still living there?

The other question, I guess, is also...

as sort of a mixed use kind of a thing, commercial and residential on the same site, or how are we looking at this?

if, for example, if the standard was attached to it, that it has to be owner-occupied, which basically means if I start out and I grow my business at home, I also can't move out.

I would probably make it, you know, it's buy right if it's owner-occupied, an SEP if it's not, something like that.

Lee, I'm going to ask if you or Christy have any comments on this issue.

And receiving rent also helps you climb the ladder to wealth, just to be clear.

But if lower barrier to entry is one of those reasons, let's focus on what really is going to lower the barrier.

What lowers the barrier is the rent cost because this space will rent for far less than any formerly commercial corridor would rent because the land cost that underlies it is lower.

And because there would be no requirement for parking and various other things that a commercial landlord would be required to bring up the standard?

Yes.

Like if you had a food truck and wanted to try opening a small business,

Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, L

That's still going to open the door for all sorts of problems.

But it would be a challenge to some of the kinds of things that we've been imagining based on these pictures.

I guess to me when I look at the corner store, like that example is it's a store with offices above, that's why we have Rx.

The commercial use might not be larger in scale, but the total building would be larger in scale.

It seems a little ridiculous to me that we would go all out of our way to legalize these neighborhood markets and then leave this one non-conforming.

Is there a difference in the corners in that regard that's important?

Because the difference for impacts doesn't seem to be the same, unless it's a street, you know, maybe with no on-site parking on that side of the street or something, or on-site parking.

If not, I think we should move on or decide what we're going to do.

I kind of wonder how much further we can profitably go down this road today.

Well, I don't have

I mean, I guess there's a lot of information that you're trying to like manage for us.

But yes, we are at a stage where we're making changes in this based on the feedback we've already gotten from all of you and from the public because we have to be at that stage.

He wants to know how you feel about those alternatives and whether you are for corner lots, if you want to SUP for

Okay.

I might be saying and have an idea of where you stand.

I think I answered the SCP for the first point.

Because again, even the distinction between RA, RB, and RC, there are some areas where, I mean, that's just still going to look extremely different, like street by street.

I don't hate owner occupancy in theory, but I know how hard Reed's life is chasing down all these homestay owners and trying to figure out where they live.

It's not like you can have a skate ring or something.

I'm a little dubious about mid-lots, and I think that there should be an SQP requirement for all of these iterations.

I know there are no illegal mid-block businesses in Charlottesville, but if there were, and we legalized them, suddenly they would magically appear in pay taxes, which I see value in.

that's sort of a non-answer answer, but if we had a way of finding criteria for SUP grant or denial that were not so intensive on engineering and all the rest of that stuff, and therefore not so expensive, that might be a lower barrier to entry than what we're thinking now.

Would a mixed-use requirement alleviate your concern about, you know, we want more density in your schools, why are we allowing commercial?

I mean, I haven't thought about it.

But I understand we want to try to make the best decision that we can initially.

Otherwise, we expand on the SUP.

I mean, you know, maybe you're not going to go full blown with the scale, but have an idea of what the individual wants to do before you say yes, you just can't.

The SUP, generally as we have it listed in the use matrix that you've given to us already, I think makes sense.

yeah that's my my thoughts absolutely we want to close that item very much so there was not a whole lot of questions or comments on the first part of the presentation that we kind of went yesterday I do have a question on that where did the 35 feet come from was there a

And I guess that's fine if there's a good reason for the 35 feet because it's just the right matching standard.

That's a question for you, the 35 feet on the building wet end of what we're talking about.

but it's one of those dials that you know some communities will want to turn down to more like 30 if they're more bungalow style houses and some communities want to turn up to maybe like a 40 or 45 if they do see more of those either four square or colonial style houses.

It just enhances the options for getting to other portions of the land.

Thank you.

I do feel like we have a lot of houses, a lot, a lot of houses that are

But I would imagine that 35 feet is not, like the median house is wider than 35 feet.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure what is the right answer to that.

I mean, go deep.

And I feel a little weird about forcing people into smaller typologies and saying, no, you can't have that, you know, sprawling ranch house, but it's just me.

everything near the high school would be.

Yeah, I mean, and even, you know, in Rose Hill and GPA, it's not just Greenbrier.

Any other issues about RA, RB, and RC that we want to discuss tonight?

So I guess I'm trying to get at the frustration that you just advanced.

Well, the frustration was that when we tried to talk about it two years ago, everybody said, oh, we'll fix it later.

So I think one thing that is,

But if you can only turn the ratchet one way, it seems like any map changes are just kind of, you know, all we're doing is eviscerating the middle intensity and removing all those opportunities for those sort of denser and more affordable and family-sized housing forms that you're not going to get in those mid-rise corridors.

If we turn up from the land use map, then we have to amend the comprehensive plan.

I think that's what we said we were going to do in 2021.

It's not that it's not doable, but I'm saying that that opens up the door for a lot of possibilities of things to go wrong, to be challenged, to be whatever.

It complicates your process.

It's where we're dialing up past what was contemplated on the adopted comprehensive plan.

It's not a long list now.

33.

That's my recollection.

We can only say, let's remove it from here.

Here are the changes that we've decided on, and we're going to make those changes all at once.

And then on the...

other side of that, if we're dealing with a limited number of properties, and I just don't want to be too clever by half, but okay, well, we know what they are, and if you show up with an SUP or you want to rezone that particular parcel, there's going to be an enormous amount of sympathy for doing that.

Is there an alternative to go back after a month and say, CJ?

There's a lot of options.

What makes sense?

And so the main law that I'm concerned about in this context, and in many contexts,

Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, L

It started in 17 and we finished in 2021.

And then the further blending of that or feathering or whatever you want to call it happened as part of the

we were comfortable with the medium intensity as it was presented.

With six to eight?

In particular, then if you look at the mapping logic document, the RC was placed at the intersection of more significant roads, according to streets that work, and the RB was the remainder of the medium intensity as identified on the way of this map.

I don't know if Planning Commission had a different expectation or understanding when you passed on your end.

In gross, yes, we talked about it, but not in detail as to any particular lot.

No, I don't want to...

That the future land use map was a product primarily of the Planning Commission's work over multiple years and set a very broad longer term goal.

Yes, that's what we are, correct?

But right now, all we can do is turn that dial down.

So is the six to eight dialing down?

But what they're saying is we can only remove RB and RC.

You just said that the land of Mount Pellusset was viewed as an upper bounds of where we are.

And again, I'm not even trying to opine on what would be the right policy, but the factual record is that was our conversation.

Brian and I were not here two years ago.

If that's the case, the medium-intensity residential, what was the maximum?

and you went to eight for this category and six for the other category.

Correct.

Because staff did do a lot by lot, general analysis.

We did a review of the map, a consultant set a review of the map.

And I think we are based off what our attorney's telling us.

Yeah.

I think we have to move forward.

If we're going to be removing, you know, blocks and blocks of RB and RC, you're effectively undermining the entire purpose.

Is your concern that we'd have to go to every particular area to decide that, or?

And maybe the answer is, let's have a category of residential, if you want to have somewhere between RA and RB, I don't know, that basically says, we're not going to have commercial here.

And what's in the draft anyway, we don't know what's in the draft.

And to add on to that, Lloyd.

I mean, what we're saying.

And if we say we're going to allow certain things in those zones because that's the way we've defined RB, but the real characteristic of RB is greater housing density, not greater commercial application, then we're trying to do one thing and creating unintended consequences on the other side.

Question to kind of what you had raised is, one, is your primary concern with RB and RC down to the height of buildings, the density in terms of number of units, the overall building footprint?

I think the number, if we're looking at trying to maximize the number of units of housing created, there are ways to do that that don't end up with 9,000 square foot buildings.

modified within RB or RC?

Would your proposal

Am I?

Yeah, and it's not a fully thought out.

I didn't say it was fully thought out, but in general, the overarching thing.

I guess your point would be that you could still get most of that in the NX and the CX and the

My thought is that if we end up with three units on lots, we're going to have missing middle.

Or you make it illegal.

So if I'm looking here in the draft, the draft to the draft for RC, and I'm looking at the build two areas and the percentages, but part of this too is the height, the massing, the ground story, the transparency, the entrances, the walls and fences, all of those various components are what's supposed to make it not perhaps house

sense of consistency within the place.

And I'm not convinced that just because you can increase by 50%, I guess, the amount of lots on a house in units on a house in RA, that that's really going to do it for you.

the ideal mechanism in terms of metering the rate of change each year.

There are a lot more things you can do with having two sides available to the streets.

Everybody else is missing out.

Do you feel the part, go ahead.

Well, possibly.

And I...

I just, if it was feasible, I still, in my mind, I can see how the Arlington model squares the circle a little bit in terms of meeting some of the concerns that you would raise while still not meeting.

Correct.

I think that would give people

One question, I'm interested in what Mr. Wade, how are you feeling about this missing middle piece and the MIR and at least the RB and RC that we're

I'm just kind of taking it all in and kind of figuring out when it comes to us, the five of us, I guess.

Yeah.

And that still confuses me some.

and therefore I don't know whether I would recognize it when it happened.

Is the idea... Is this the question about sublots?

And so a lot of the places where we would love to be able to take a 10,000 square foot lot in Greenbrier and subdivide it will not be subdividable.

And sublots doesn't change that because sublot is a subdivision.

Okay.

So on those lots, they would also not be able to use the sublot.

So I mean, I've asked people a couple times what the sublot discussion adds.

Townhouses is the main play there, but if we can create this opportunity for ownable cottages in that environment, that's what we're aiming for.

Is the idea that then those wouldn't have to have road fronted?

They have to achieve fire access, but they can do so in other ways.

or is preventing that or what does that look like in practice under the current draft?

Lee, do you want to tackle that one or do you want me to tackle that one?

And it's totally intentional and I believe successfully discussed at the time in just the way I've put it to you today.

You want to also mention, so you just described the R.A.,

Yes.

I think specifically about the RB and the RC.

But the lot size is the same.

No, in the RB, the lot size, the subdivision is 25.

Yeah, that's brought down to create more townhouses and other kinds of models that would be for sale models.

And then another I think is,

is really like... I have not suggested 3,000 square feet.

And if so, do we think there are fundamental flaws with this zoning ordinance that needs to be fixed to get us there?

Specifically in those, yeah.

Does someone want to answer that question?

and I wonder if there is a way that we can eliminate or mitigate the likelihood of a result that we know we're not going to like.

Philip dOronzio, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg, Rory Stolzenberg,

and others have outlined that it doesn't fit every definition of missing middle, but it's clearly increasing density in a way that is somewhere between single family and 20 unit apartment complexes.

And I mean, maybe I'm wrong.

Right.

But just because there are a group of people out there who are arguing for it doesn't make it right.