Planning Commission Deliberations on Zoning Map and Ordinance (if needed)   9/26/2023

What's that?

The two and three.

Creasy's document?

And Mr. Habab of course noted that he wouldn't be with us this evening.

I know that there was a recognition of a quorum that perhaps calling the meeting to order.

I said, we are now in order because we have a quorum.

Thank you.

Just going down the document and presenting.

I did have some suggestions, I think, that did not make it into this document.

Ah, okay.

You got one minute.

and I just don't have any and that's my issue there I think it makes more sense to be uniform at 2,500 that there are circumstances we're going to have smaller than 6,000 square foot lots and it's a convenient place to start and let's begin with Mr. Freeze to see if there any is there any logic behind that

You might have to help me out here.

And they kind of had a divergent and then convergent evolution that brought them to different standards.

but 6,000 is the current and I think it's largely consistent with a lot of neighborhoods as they exist today and I think there was a sense that my sense is that it was a preference for maintaining that standard.

other than the fact that we decided to be 6,000.

Ultimately, it's a policy decision.

All right.

We're trying to introduce density into the neighborhoods of the city, but do so in a way that's sensitive to that existing context, and I think the 6,000 played into that decision.

In my recollection, this was a bit of a nod to Council, because we saw Council wanting to lean more towards the larger size and the smaller size.

I mean I think the same obtains and if we're using sublots the whole 6,000 as a starting point doesn't I mean you can abrogate it there right and chop that 6,000 into three into sublots within that 6,000 yeah but the lot itself defines the density right so the sublot

So the lot defines the density at up to three units, right?

Right.

You can still only put three units on that 6,000 square foot lot, even if you sub them out.

Right.

The difference is if you reduce the minimum lot size, now you can put those three units on each of those 2,500 square foot lots.

if you can at two and a half step at two and a half floors and to me I to me it just seems simpler to make it 2500 and if I don't there are going to be very few circumstances where the setbacks etc is going to work for a three unit building on a 2500 square feet lot right unless you've got teeny tiny units

So what exactly are you wanting to do?

And the reason we have why not is that, well, we're not doing it.

And so I think it makes sense there to incentivize those things in order to kind of reduce the impact of that density by relegating vehicles and other things to the rear.

I mean, those are kind of silly.

The other one.

6,000.

Is there a compromise available?

Chair, I would like to chop the baby in half.

2,500 times two.

I'm for keeping it as staff has had it at 6,000 and 2,525.

Carl wants to keep it as it is.

I like the idea of 5,000 as a nice round number, but I don't feel strongly about changing it.

Can you live with Gordon Staff's recommendation?

5,000 makes some sense to me, and 6,000 just seems like a random number.

I think the vote is 3-2 because I'd like to leave it where staff has got it.

So where are we at here?

6,000.

I'll point out that my Belmont lot, which is a quote standard size lot, is not 6,000 square feet, it's a little less, and there are a whole bunch of them that are just a little less than 6,000 square feet.

I mean, still compliant.

Well, yes, but your point is, oh, they're all 6,000, no, a lot of them are between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet.

And to whom does that one belong?

It seems like a pretty easy and simple thing to do to disincentivize demolitions.

Probably.

I don't see any problem with allowing people to be set back further from the street if things already are.

I mean, if there's an existing house on the site, you don't want to fully develop the whole site, but just add an A to you in the back, you're not forced to put something up front.

And I believe this addresses that issue.

We are now on to 2.2.4.B1.

Maybe a full thing?

So my thinking is allow it for affordable.

Yes.

this would just be NERC so this would be generally near parks or schools say like near like up top of my head can I name a school oh my god Johnson Village that's a very good school right right next to Johnson it would allow affordable home ownership right there right next to it let's see what our colleagues in India think

But I wanted to note the issue and make sure it was part of the discussion.

But I have a feeling I'm not going to win that one.

Or if the topography permits, potentially a 2 over 2 like Flint Hill did.

You're cool with our colleagues in NDS crafting some language to prevent

My concern is to have ownership.

That seems weird and complicated.

So I would...

kneecapping ourselves for 80 percent and lower where some of these things these units will be right these two over twos may not be 60 and lower AMI but a lot of them may be 80 and lower and in terms of just their I call it natural state market state yeah and that we may be we may be acting against our interests if we're going to make it purely based on affordability at 60 percent

But you can attain sort of natural affordability and good market conditions with that sort of unit.

I understand the intention of the affordability to boost it, but I think that our definition of affordability for that purpose is act against our interest.

All right, so Phil, what is our recommendation on this item?

It's fine, and I'd like to call it four stories, in other words.

That isn't quite your recommendation, Mr. Solla-Yates.

You're just saying remove the affordability, but it's just a lot for it.

So if not, we may be generating a more natural and the possibility of 80%, particularly with the land trust model and such.

No, it doesn't make sense.

Then you don't have two, yes.

That allows Stocktown Homes specifically.

What is our recommendation regarding this item?

Mr. Schwartz, you seem to have a little heartburn.

The three and a half stories makes me feel a lot better.

If they want to punt it back, they can push it back.

And this just seems like it's just making it that much, going to make them that much less happy.

And the only reason I want to do that is if I get some affordable housing.

I mean, you can do it, but you're housing burdened.

So in your proposal, how would we restrict it to two over twos versus doing an eight plex?

Well, the problem with that is that we would get into the design and building code to do it to say, well,

I get that we're trying to constrain it in a way to produce a particular outcome, but from a public policy perspective, what's my argument?

They're not going to appear house scaled.

Four units?

Two units?

It's four units all the time.

It's two floors over two floors and two total units.

If you're going to 40 feet and four floors, it's a four unit.

I think four floors is just too much for others that aren't me who isn't worried about it to swallow.

even if we mandated it was four units in that building?

Three and a half stories is kind of implicit.

and although we must consider the public comment and we can't be enslaved by it, particularly when we are encountering things that might be not factually wrong, for example, we're not privileging those comments.

I mean, that seems like a pretty good compromise to me.

In all three zones?

In all three.

Well, I think we're getting there with what's coming up.

With weather, are you comfortable?

Making three and a half stories and 35 feet in all three zones?

That's what you're recommending?

40 feet or 45 feet?

45 seems high to me.

It is better than what we've got.

Well, they're suggesting that this would be an RA, B, and C. Are you cool with that?

That allows more sites, which makes it physically possible in more places.

Let's get some advice from the experts.

What's the question?

R.A., R.B., R.C., 35, 3 1⁄2 stories can go to four stories for the affordability.

And probably in the 40.

And we can give the nonprofits flexibility while keeping the market rate housing within that height envelope that we specified.

No, wait a minute, Carl has a point.

I don't know where we are.

So maybe, Rory, if you could sum up where you think we are.

If you're affordable, you get 40 feet.

And the basis for the affordable at 40 feet is literally just to carve out for certain people greater flexibility.

Right.

Yeah, I get that.

I'm looking for the connection between affordability and 40 feet.

Do we have to get a four?

Do affordable units typically appear taller?

Where you might have sites where it's not feasible at 35.

Yeah, it might encourage somebody to go to affordability to be able to build it.

I mean, I think if that's overly complicated, it's not strictly necessary.

40 is much less tight, so put some affordability in there and build.

I think I actually succeeded and now you guys are... You can go backwards on that.

One of the most egregious things we're doing here is we're saying we want to allow a little bit more in a house-scale building, and then we're saying a whole bunch of the actual houses that we have are illegal and not house-scaled, except that they are as long as they have really tall ceilings and not inhabitable attic.

It's the height of the land that, you know.

Because if I am, we should move on.

I'm not struggling, but I think we ought to at least hear you out.

We have a pretty straightforward building height up to two units, building height more than two units, and now that's adding a third variable into that equation.

at the end of the day is meant to identify districts and then have uniform standards within those districts so let's have districts and uniform standards within those districts uniform standards that's applying to the same type of thing but we're not really supposed to be getting into ownership

So maybe we do up to 3 1⁄2 or even 4 in RC, but I am struggling with RA and RB because I do think we're going to push back on that.

What if we made it 3 1⁄2 in RA and RB and then gave that extra height flexibility in RC?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

So you can fit that with nine foot ceiling.

So it's about 18 inches for your floor system.

I mean, that's not unlivable conditions there.

What were we saying?

Three and a half.

So that's 40 feet.

So the way that half story is measured, though, you're taking the midpoint of your angled roof.

The geometry of that doesn't give you much habitable space in there at 35 feet.

So if you were, Mr. Schwartz, if you were the king of zoning in Charlottesville, what compromise would you be able to articulate?

To focus on RC at the moment and go up to three and a half or four stories with a proportionate increase in height.

Why don't we take this on and get to this?

and tie that to affordability as well.

That's a great idea.

And I think that trying to have a compromise based on people's impressions and idea, I mean, what's the math tell us what we can do and what we can't to get 2 over 2?

Yeah, I think I'm precluding it from RA and RB, and I don't know if that's the right answer, but at the point that's, I think, .

Yeah, again, that is what Mr. Yates was attempting to do as well.

Although I think that if we, if he could find consensus to do it in RA and RB, he'd be all over it, although I don't want to put words in his mouth.

I mean, at the end of the day, you get three units.

So that sort of solves that problem.

If you do a two over two, it's got to be... You have to keep the existing structure to get four in RA.

Or do an affordable unit.

It's conceivably possible in R.A.

Right.

Which should be allowed anyway.

But I mean, that's also probably a...

That might solve this.

I certainly wouldn't oppose increasing it in RC, but I don't know that that's going to fly by council.

I think I see three votes that would support it.

Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure I know you've got a heartburn, but

You don't think it'll fly.

Never mind.

Right, 12.

so you can use most of the first floor for parking.

I think we're planning to go on this only being in RC and the area highlighted in red.

Because the next one is basically offering the afford stories without the affordability.

Well, we've discussed, I mean, I feel like this is discussed.

I think we've discussed both of these.

So this is increasing from the existing 2.5 to up to three.

This is just the base, right.

Oh, right, the current is tying it to the affordability, which is kind of the next item, right, where we had it.

The current is tying it to the number of units.

Yeah, sorry.

So we have the second item on page two now.

Do we leave it like it is, or do we allow duplexes and higher to have that third story?

I'm not...

He's officially agnostic.

Theory that, you know, this encourages smaller, more affordable houses and less teardowns in McMansion.

Could you, could you mind letting it out in a way that staff can... Yeah, so basically the proposal in red here.

James, James got it, yeah, got it.

Yeah.

Yep.

All right, next one.

Yeah.

Could you propose the first one?

It just seems like we're constraining ourselves and I'd like a little more wiggle room in that sidewall height if we could get it.

Wouldn't that be the height of encouragement, vertical appurtenance, vertical circulation appurtenance?

Again, I don't want to drag this out, but it does seem like it's, I don't know, as an architect, it frustrates me.

Roof plane, I think is what they call it.

Would you guys typically happen?

Sometimes.

And the fact that, like, that side wall was still going to be too much.

Yeah, and I think in the response to that email, there was a suggestion of increasing it.

I mean, a couple of feet I think would help.

Yeah.

I remember she offered potentially decreasing the transparency.

She said we could go to 35 overall height and 28 side wall height and still keep two and a half stories.

I would like to see that for the flexibility because we're restraining it to two and a half stories so we're technically not allowing anything that's massive but it does give you some more flexibility for weird topography and it seems like the residential districts we have are where all the weird topography is.

Right, so the suggestion that came from a, from a, with me being the go-between, an exchange between Carl and Christy suggested 35 feet for two and a half stories and 28 on the side wall.

I defer to the architect.

Who's with that?

But if it's just one dwelling, it just feels like there should be some more freedom to set the house further back if you wanted to.

Okay.

Well, I guess the active depth requirement disappears.

Yeah.

So, that's a good point because the active depth requirement is tied back to the build 2.

Charles houses very much do not satisfy the active death requirement.

You've got garages right there.

Some of these, I mean, are we chasing, do we have solutions here that are running around in search of problems?

It just seemed like it was, it's something that bothered me.

I think James has a thought, so let's hear it.

I'll back down.

Yeah, I think regardless of density, these form standards are creating a more walkable environment even if they are detached housing slots.

Right, increase the allowed height for 2.5 stories to XXX.

So if you know.

Ask Christy if that's enough to put a sloped roof on a three-story building.

I'm just going to have to write that down.

We currently measure at the midway point.

I'm kind of wondering how closely that measurement gets checked in the permit office.

Well, more closely now.

There were some townhouses in Crozet that were built three feet over spec and this whole thing.

We try not to regulate Crozet.

It was just that it's, you know, you've got a two-story house or a three-story building and it's got a sloped roof and they, I would imagine that there's more important things to look at than where the midpoint of the roof is.

So, I mean, for the purposes of... So, I don't know, you've got the language in front of you in terms of how the medical is taken?

That would be a 20-foot roof if you have 10-foot floors.

Well, I guess I see how that would do it, yeah.

Sorry.

32 to 35.

Alright, so... Should three stories be 43?

Otherwise, I don't see what the problem is.

Sounds like you.

It does sound like me.

So if we increase two and a half stories from 32 to 35, I think it would make sense to just add the extra three feet to anything that's three stories, so up to 43.

The proposal is to increase from three stories to 40.

Yeah, okay.

Sure, yeah.

Yeah, right.

That still seems excessive to me, and I don't see the need to go above the current limits, but I guess I'm in the minority here, the minority I very much did not expect to be in.

All right, the next one reads, like, Bill, I'm pretty sure that you, this is me.

An opaque front door can count towards your transparency requirements.

We also threw out the number of 20%.

That actually makes me feel a lot better as well.

That sounds good to me.

Passive House.

That's a really good question.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, the fact that my house was 11% really surprised me.

I mean, I haven't read the standards.

But also, anyone doing a single family with Passive House is probably already paying.

And you're saving on electricity bills.

Let's see if that becomes an issue.

They can ask for a special exception.

If we do that later.

30%.

Objection rescinded.

That sounds like either Rory or Lyle.

Height limits, but it's unclear to me whether they can go up or down.

They can only go down.

They can only go down.

So we...

Yeah.

Well, when we get to that, we can talk about it.

But the bigger question is, and

I don't we don't really have an issue with with the affordable hospital yeah I mean I'd say match nx10 yes they're a place on the downtown mall maybe it won't work the AR can argue about that or we can discuss how to deal with those big parking lots that aren't on the mall lots of places that aren't on the mall that are in DX should probably have more density even than nx10 places have it seems crazy to me a lot less it seems like a no-brainer

Affordable housing bonus.

All right, 2.8.5.

So if there was a way to add some flexibility in there if you're going to have a 14-foot minimum ceiling in the, or floor-to-floor on the ground floor, but then keep it at 25 feet just seems.

I think we're.

I'm good with that.

Okay.

So I had staff's recommendation.

Mrs. Stolzenberg.

What's staff recognition?

The text, the red text.

Yeah.

There was some, every district had a different way of describing what's contributing and what's not.

I mean, it is ridiculous, but.

It's been fixed.

Okay.

The maps need to be updated, but that's a different thing.

I don't understand.

That's where I was coming from.

And remember, if the calculation comes in under 400 square feet, like if the calculation for the amount of required amenity space comes in at 400 or less, it's waived.

That's like the clock shop, the water bird distillery.

Well, it depends on the percentage, right?

And if it's just breathing room for residents, I don't know why we're encouraging them to.

So your requirement is halved.

Because Violet Crown could not do this, right?

So in saying that, what I'm saying is that also is a dent for a tool for flexibility, right?

Yeah.

All right.

So like an arcade or a portico would count.

It's a percentage, yeah, that can be roofed.

I think it's like 50%.

We can come back to this.

Let's move on once we have resolved this.

So I'm thinking of the old Albemarle Hotel over by Higher Education on West Main, that nice pedestrian space they have out front, that would qualify under those rules, under the new consulting draft, right?

That's saying it has to have a ceiling at 15 feet.

That's true, which it probably doesn't, but.

I mean, it might.

I think the one I actually read through this, I was okay with the change, so it's fine.

The next one, staff's recommendation, if the administrator can approve tree grates, then I have no problem.

My read of the language was that that's within the realm of what the administrator can approve.

And now onto this wonderful table.

So I recommended reducing everything to zero.

And it's still requiring a minimum of two to one and a half feet just to make sure there's a little bit of space for something coming down the alley.

If that's the best practice, then okay.

Kind of sounds like you two.

It looks like this has been fixed, so I just needed, just because I'm OCD.

It's you two, isn't it?

That is me, and it looks like they have fixed it.

What it's basically saying that something an exception we created for residential districts would apply to all districts.

It wouldn't work for the Quirk Hotel where it should be presenting a reasonable frontage on Commerce Street.

And I'm thinking mostly Salvation Army.

That's not a good one, yeah.

Okay.

This just lets you save trees instead of tearing them down to build a building close to it.

I would actually make that match what our actual measurement standard is for trees, but I just threw this in.

Diameter at breast height.

Yeah, DBA, yeah.

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant.

Where is the conflict in the next one?

We were talking about this before the meeting.

Want to add a new section?

So I'm guessing this is Carl's, but I had a similar one that, or maybe it is mine because I had a similar one.

What did you order it?

My view is that townhouses, three townhouses together, side-by-side triplex, should count as one building for that purpose.

I think it does, yeah.

So you think it does because that's your interpretation of it or because the text is clear?

I mean what I understand is the exception that's being granted if you've got more units you can go you can get a greater height basically right yeah is clearly in my mind is clearly not intended to apply to a group of cottages on sublots right right but then conversely for footprint I would suggest that townhouses should count separately because the idea is to make smaller scaled

So it fits the intent of the footprint section, but it's unclear what that would be.

I didn't look at footprint sections.

So you're saying townhouses should not be allowed to have the additional height?

They should be allowed to have the additional height.

Okay.

So what's your argument that townhouses shouldn't gain access to that greater footprint if they meet the minimum?

It's a footprint limit.

Right, understood.

Yeah, so would a whole townhouse block be subject to the max or would an individual townhouse be subject to the max?

I don't understand.

Also, do you have the section?

I just opened to a random page that happened to have the issue.

Which page?

Okay.

I didn't go to the rules for zoning districts There we go, yeah, coverage So Each building or covered structure in a lot cannot have an area in excess of the maximum building footprint allowed by the zoning district Right Building footprint is measured for each individual building or structure Yes The townhouse one building or multiple set of houses

For zoning purposes, I believe I would interpret it as one bill.

All right.

But I can also check.

And so then we would be saying.

I'll double check that interpretation.

20 feet wide, 50 feet deep.

60 by 50, the whole thing.

I guess that's not fully unreasonable.

I'll raise the question.

Okay.

Now, I understand that you could also just make the building shorter and then that encroachment can extend as high as it needs to, but I'm going to throw that out there in case anybody feels strongly that we should allow someone to maximize their height plus have an elevator overrun.

Is this something anyone would be able to see?

Any tall building around town that has an elevator, there'll be a little pop-up.

So elevators don't fit in 10 feet, is that the issue?

If they have to access the roof, they do not.

Yep.

All right, this one looks like you as well, Mr.

It just, again, eight feet's not enough for an enclosed structure.

Like a pergola on your roof?

I think you had suggested 10 feet.

Yeah.

Does that work for you, Mr.

Okay, so 10 feet.

Really tall people have to bash their head on their rooftop percolate.

I'm sure there's a few.

The next one, I think, is also me.

Okay.

So, and staffs recommended, not recommended staffs.

Call the art.

This is my, you know, how I'm satisfying my blank wall environments.

So they'll have to paint it a different color than the rest of the wall.

It doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Delete planter option.

And one of the options for masking that blank wall is a planter.

No, so the planter, the way it was done was the planter has to be four feet high or more, I think.

Four feet was max.

So that seemed to me like you're making a blank wall again that's already... So the planter is four feet or the plantings are four feet?

to, you know.

So what would you like to do?

Well, I'm wondering, is that even necessary when we have the planted foundation planting?

Call a low planter a foundation planting and it's a low planter.

As long as it's not more than four feet tall, I think you're okay.

Maybe?

It doesn't specify.

Yeah?

What would you like to do with it?

Yeah, just keep it, I mean fewer things seems simpler to me.

Street facing entrances, it sounds like.

You could have a house that, you know, the front door is off to the side, even though it's got a front porch.

We have many.

Or the facing the street.

Okay.

2, 10, 13, me.

Yes, so looking through the entry feature standards, and James, please correct me if I misread this, but it seemed like they all could just be covered under the section that says covered entry.

I apologize, it was a long time

What is this?

So looking at the descriptions of each of these entry features, it looks like you could break all the rules of them as long as you just had a covering over entry.

I refer to you to many, many houses, particularly through the 90s and early 2000s, were built with what I call decorative front porches.

I understand that.

Now I leave it to you as to whether you guys want to keep it or not.

Is how I'm reading the code.

All right.

It just seems like a big old loophole where it just, you're kind of, we're not really giving any regulation.

Yeah, I mean, it's supposed to be a wide set of, it's supposed to be, the words here are intentionally very flexible.

Well, you definitely, you need to fix the finished floor elevation if we keep these, which I think you put in your notes.

Yep, I did.

Yeah.

It kind of defeats the purpose of the whole section.

Where are we?

Which I think you described, I think it's described in the code for, yeah.

For what, a covered entry?

I think somewhere I mentioned it has to extend out beyond the edge of the door and has to stick out a certain amount.

Right, but some of the examples provided are like a recessed vestibule.

I don't want to take up a lot of time with this.

Why don't we just land that?

As long as we fix the floor elevation, that's the big thing to fix.

Okay.

All right.

What are we talking about?

Just pointed to the wrong section.

Did we talk about that?

Oh, it's in the maps.

But Rory, was there anything else in Article 2?

There may be a few things, yeah.

So I'm fine with clarifying it if it clarifies things.

Like the rules don't change because it's not mentioned in one section and it is mentioned somewhere else.

I'm sure I'm going to get a text from Jenny in just a second here.

She can text me as well because I agree with you.

There's clarity necessary?

So if the BAR is per view, they have per view, and we don't need to write it into the code.

And the more you force a side setback, you're squeezing the buildings the other way, and you get, yes, less of a usable backyard.

Can you just tell us what it is you want to do?

You probably want to get rid of it altogether or make it bigger.

40 feet, they have their own, it's not the sum of the two of them that's 40 feet, like I could have a 25 foot wide duplex, a 25 foot wide duplex next to each other, right?

Yes, that's for a specific goal.

Because there is some language about if they're structurally independent, but like a duplex shares a roof surface, even though they've got the prior wall.

Wait, you mean the two sides of a duplex?

So you could have a duplex, two units touching each other that are 50 feet wide, I'm assuming.

On a single parcel?

It's enough for a habitat duplex, but that's a very, very small duplex.

So your question was, does this allow for a side-by-side duplex that shows a roof surface but is structurally independent?

Two buildings may have but one another.

Okay.

Provided they have no shared components and are structurally independent is the rule.

They do share a roof surface, but it sounds like your answer is that's okay.

Well, in that case, they wouldn't if you're extending the firewall.

Collapse and leave the other one standing.

Yeah.

And it sounds like they're talking about the ones where the firewall goes higher than the roof.

They are agreeing with what he is saying.

Oh, okay.

So what is our recommendation?

So I'm happy with the 40 feet.

So if I have a 60 foot lot and there's five foot side setbacks, we're saying you have to have a 40 foot max building width, therefore it's a 10 foot side setback just because my lot is 60 feet.

And then the rules around footprint, building width, are defining size.

That it's just...

Yeah, I mean, this change was introduced by, it came out of one of the conversations here at this table.

Oh, interesting.

So we can, if you guys want to go in a different direction, I think you have to state so.

10 feet wide if you're really squeezing it in.

The 40 feet, what zones does that apply to?

We're talking about the R zones here.

Is it all R or is it just RA?

And then it's 70 feet and 100.

I agree that 40 feet isn't sufficient for RB if we're going to have a small little apartment building.

What is 60?

All right, put it in a statement for us so we can... Yeah, just building massing, RA and RB, maximum width of 60 feet across the board.

I am cool with that, yes.

It allows for a walkable, pedestrian-friendly, more affordable, more engaging.

Single-detached building.

Multiple.

So I think it's enough.

We've got three guys who say 60 feet is the right way to go across the board.

I'm agnostic on this, on Lyle's point.

I just don't want to complicate this code.

Yeah, I mean, that's the one, that's the one, that's the one issue.

Mayor Snook, do you think your house is too wide?

Well, I was thinking about it because if you count my screen porch, I'm more than 60 feet wide.

I think it's fine.

It's also a one-story rancher with a basement, so it's not exactly luxurious.

That is a lot less of an incentive in the places where we presumably are like the most desirable, where we want more people to be in general and ideally to provide actual affordable units, and in big buildings where we would be getting a lot of units out of that bonus.

Would you like to tackle this now or wait until we get to Article 4?

I did lump this in with Article 4.

Speaking on the lumping in, this may be under development standards as well, but the shop front house issue and the residential requirement?

So it's a question you guys can debate.

We need to go back and edit for that.

Did you repeat that?

Section 284B I'm sorry, the document that I put together?

No, in the draft So this is 253 page number to help you get there, 2-53

What does it say?

I take it back.

He's led us astray.

I apologize.

So, yes, you made the horizontal vertical.

Yeah, well, look, there are other sins that have been committed by architects at this table, I'm sure.

The policy question was requiring a residential.

Because that's in 2.8.5.

Yeah, in three.

What you got?

I think that's all I got for two.

What do you got?

Let me see if there's any of these others.

Yeah.

There isn't.

That's the base standard now.

Yeah.

Carl, you raised a question around architectural elements and the level of vertical encroachment.

I don't know, it seems like just getting a little more height.

All right, so do you have a number?

We've got to make a recommendation

Or I forgot about it.

Some of them I put over here because there wasn't a specific recommendation and I didn't know what to do with it.

IPC says 30 inches.

Is what a parapet height is, the safety, yeah.

But what's allowed in our code is, I forget, is it six feet?

Sorry, architectural elements or parapets?

I don't, I can't, what section?

Are they in there?

Six feet, okay, so architectural elements, 10 feet.

And your item being the spire or a... Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure what you're going to get out of that.

Or a little... It's not habitable.

An onion top.

Like if someone has a... I don't know, you see some of the houses on Park Street that have little turrets and whatnot.

They can always put up a 75-foot amateur radio antenna.

Right, gotcha.

Unless is everyone okay with an architectural element having a pertinent type of 10 feet?

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

Well, then I'm okay with it.

Wait, 10 feet or six parapets, towers, how many of our castle builders are going to be?

They're just making boring boxes with colors.

That's a damn shame.

It's simply allowing for the notion that you can include it.

It just seems like it would be great to require vegetation that doesn't need irrigation, but maybe that is wishful thinking.

I've seen some great examples of living walls that are all dead.

When the living wall is elevated and not actually touching the ground, you've got to get something.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

All right, that's it for Oracle 3.

Shouldn't be as complicated, I don't think, but... Famous last words.

Mobile food units, we just wanted to specify that the code is regulating on private property, so this is not affecting what happens in the street or on the street.

Yep, parking on the street.

Okay.

Or hope the zoning enforcement officer doesn't come by while you have it parked in the driveway.

Don't invite the podium to the podium.

Take care.

Oh, that was me, actually, but I was channeling my inner Lyle.

I think I've said this before.

I do have one change for the homestay one.

Did we all agree on the daycare center?

Oh, yeah, I mean, it's fine.

Yeah, fine.

That seems like a very simple change that might make Reid and Craig's job a little bit easier that no one is going to hopefully send us 40 emails about.

I don't know the laws, but that sounds good if that's true.

It's supposed to be there for a majority of the year, not yet.

That's reasonable.

So it's 184 days?

Yeah, I don't want to deal with that headache.

He just said it's... I understand the bakery question.

What are you asking there?

That's not me.

What is, what is, I don't understand God, I hope that wasn't me What is what?

Customer serving bakery Oh, that's me So I wanted to note that that, the definition of general food and beverage It's already there Specifically mentions bakeries, right?

Thank you very much Sean Tubbs said it, they were banned in the zoning, I got all freaked out Okay There is something in there about wholesale bakeries, right?

This one was me based on a public comment.

Well, I do love outdoor entertainment.

Why not?

Yeah, I can imagine.

Why with that?

Yeah.

Cool.

Buy a special use permit, yeah.

So another way to phrase this, I guess, would be making it so that parking lots count as floor area for that purpose.

I think this is the easier way to do it.

I think that's fine, yeah.

So just to clarify, on the record, in the Rx District, commercial uses must not exceed 25% of the floor area on the lot.

Or like an off-site stormwater facility.

Well,

Right.

Yeah.

So I think it's probably fine.

Yeah.

All right.

And I think that Mayor Snook's proposal of allowing them on corners, NRC, by right, is the best possible solution.

Does that – I mean, how does that really address your – It allows us to have some in existence and then we can judge.

You're supposedly right in the middle of the lot.

No, I'm saying just RC, but RC as opposed to everywhere else, too.

So you mean all corner lots or all lots?

I'm starting with corners.

All residence lots in the corner.

Yeah, that's what I'm driving at.

So give me an example of a building that could pop up in RE District.

Commercial uses otherwise allowed by special use are allowed by ride on corner lots.

All commercial uses in our zones, if you're not, I guess, are limited to 2,500 square feet per lot.

I could certainly get comfortable with that in R, C. I've got to think about R, A, and B. I think R, B, and R, C might make sense.

I think either way they're very limited and I'd still be surprised if any of them happen.

So you would like to do R, B, R, N, C for this?

Yeah.