City Council Work Session   10/25/2023

Absolutely.

The main thing to think about is if there's an idea or an ordinance provision that you want to be able to deliberate on, it has to show up in the ordinance for the purpose of the advertisement.

You want to start us off on that?

And because this district decreases intensity.

an advertising and a not having to go back standpoint.

Perfect.

So with regards to this district, whatever we map, if we then wanted to go back and say, you know what, this area, we don't want to include it, we would have to re-advertise and do any public loan.

Or am I getting it back?

One for you, one for you.

That's all that I got.

I probably should have one.

You probably should, yes.

I'll email it.

Are you good?

Because this is the least intense, this becomes the least intense district that we have.

But if we...

But once you go with the Planning Commission recommendation, you're kind of stuck with this.

But Mr. Freese, just to emphasize, the maximum flexibility would be to simply advertise the text and not advertise a map at all with respect to this new district That's what I needed to know, but the text needs to be

as broad as it can be, so that if you need to do this, you can, because if you do this, you have to re-advertise to do this.

Correct.

No map.

So you re-advertise this, let's say the text, it would have this new sheet in the... It would advertise with this in here, but not map it.

Forget the map.

So maybe I didn't understand the text.

It's proposed on Preston and Cherry Avenue.

That's what I thought.

that is applied to in the test, and we don't know.

Okay.

How does that allow us, you as staff and us as decision makers to approve, not approve, whatever developments until that study, those studies are done?

So let me clarify the process going forward because we did talk about this before you came.

There was one thing we can do.

When we come back after the public hearing, you guys will then, this body will need to decide where does this get mapped and where does it get applied and then it will be in effect at that point.

Is that discussion just for the advertisement?

We'll still at that time have the recommendations to the Planning Commission and any other considerations, plus the benefit of the public hearings.

Public input, yeah.

And along with that, this other text, jumping ahead, the rest of this text, that was basically... Oh yeah, that was the next one.

It's in the back of your... Did you not get a whole packet?

It's okay.

Don't worry about it.

This is the other one that we're talking about.

Mr. Fraser, with respect to the corridors, is the suggestion or recommendation to have some showing of where corridors?

Yes.

Would we contemplate asking council if they wish to have a discussion regarding perhaps the areas of the corridors that would be part of the advertisement?

It identifies two corridors.

So bear that in mind.

That would help to address the more intensive, less intensive questions.

So, lots of options.

C1A and C1B.

mapping as the Planning Commission did, for example, on this RNA, particular parcels.

So it's all right to identify, but to have maximum flexibility, we don't need to talk about this in text.

And then you should look to James to tell you what, from a planning perspective, that means.

C1AB, alright, yeah.

or something else along those lines.

They're saying it's okay to advertise this.

So again, if you guys want to maximize your flexibility, we take this out.

He's saying keep that but take this out.

That's what she said.

the detail in paragraph B, but remove it in paragraph C. Paragraph B is essentially the function that maps this district.

Does that make sense?

Sharon, you had mentioned that, and you stopped, or maybe I stopped paying attention, I should say, but you were saying that what type of message that will give, and I miss what

I have to watch if I do planning.

the decision on what ordinance we pass, but I'm not terribly concerned about sending the message that we're still thinking about it over the next 30 days.

Well said.

And so in terms of maximum flexibility, deleting the specific text but adopting the broadest bonus density, which would be four stories.

So you would actually delete the words Preston Avenue and Cherry Avenue in that whole document?

And then section B would be, we'd delete the sections, the

Are we good with that?

What do we need to think about next?

The question really is, are there any of those, I can take this either way, but are there any of those that you would like to not include within the advertisement for whatever reason?

changes to the development code, but I didn't remember seeing a list of specific parcels or areas on the map.

One is a list of?

Yeah.

It's the document titled resolution at the end of it outlined all the specific parcel changes with GIS mapping on them.

It's a question of what you would choose to want to be able to deliberate on amongst these.

So do you want further discussion as we move forward, or are you just kind of Some of them I had no problem with, some of them I wasn't sure, and some of them really, those two in particular, really jumped out at me, so I would definitely want, I think we need to discuss them more, but I guess all that is to say I'm comfortable still having them advertised, but I anticipate more conversation Bless you

Me too.

If there is some area that had been proposed to be RB that I would like to make RA, would I be able to make that motion if we had advertised it as an RB use?

That is correct.

Okay.

Yes.

So at this point, only if there was something on the map that collectively there was no interest in discussing, would you not want to include it as part of the advertisement?

Well, since we haven't had that discussion yet, I mean, I guess we could go through the specific changes, but I'm not sure that... And the same for Plymouth Road situation.

If it's currently at an RB or RC and you would like to consider it at RA, then you would want to advertise it at RB or RC.

Okay.

But if you wanted to consider RX3, for that, you would need to, that decision had to be made.

We've got it.

The Planning Commission, certainly.

Yeah, so, I mean, this might be not the best term, but the Planning Commission kind of looked at the worst case scenario as far as density, and at least my position is that we can discuss it down the road over the next 60 days or so, but we should advertise their proposed changes.

Is that okay?

So if you start at that point, you're in a good place.

Okay.

It would be advertised as the August published map shows, which is CX5 and CX8, understanding that that would be discussed further in the context of the overlay district.

Okay.

If that's where everybody else is, then we can kind of move on from there.

I'm comfortable with that.

Realistically, I'm comfortable with that.

Yes, sir.

It's a discretionary review process for the purposes of changing fiscal dimensional standards.

But we need to give them different numbers.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Got you.

Yeah, I mean, I read through all of these and didn't see, they seemed like reasonable choices, reasonable changes.

Like, what if any implications are there for advertising what's there in terms of what we could or couldn't adjust?

I'm not sure that it comes into play, right?

If it's a new concept that's being proposed, you need to advertise it much like the new concept of RNA or corridor districts, but it's not really an issue at all on the historic districts.

Having read through it, I just couldn't figure out exactly what all the implications are, to be quite honest.

either the proposal from the Planning Commission is either kind of neutral on the question of intensity or represents an increase in intensity from what you guys would then be able to discuss and come down from if you so decided.

The Planning Commission do it, would we need to, us as council need to add it before it is advertised, if let's say there was some small change related to environmental regulations or something like that?

or change something about it, then the question is going to be, is the change more intense or less than intense than what's advertised?

So I'm assuming in that scenario that would be less intensive than you would need it in there.

I don't think that's getting us into, or we don't think that's getting us into more intense, less intense, so I think we'd be all right.

We need to add that as a concept so that the concept can be considered in the app.

I don't think it's going to be an issue with advertising, but I think we told you before we want to air as much as possible on giving full public notice as to the concepts that are involved.

We just don't want to give them any little hanging fruit.

What was it specifically you wanted to change?

That's kind of the basic concept of it.

Exactly.

Those are existing regulations.

The floodplain stuff is all are existing.

And for that reason, I would just err on the side of inserting a discretionary decision point until we get there.

The main thing is that we get a concept in there and then we can modify it in deliberations post-advertisement.

To me, that seems sufficient.

That would work well from a legal standpoint.

Then that's what we'll do.

Okay.

Can we reach a decision on the text changes from the Planning Commission?

Certainly, I don't.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, so is that, so that is saying that we are going to advertise the proposal, the text changes from the Planning Commission, the recommendation of the Planning Commission on text is what we're going to advertise.

The neighborhood, the RNA core.

And we're going to advertise that text, but not the map.

Well, except that you're not advertising the text to the extent that the text includes those specific descriptions.

Are there any other additional types of regulation, ideas, or anything else that we want to include within this draft for the purposes of you all being able to talk about it later?

Nothing strikes me.

It would, yes.

You remove that use from a district, you can do that.

And we can do that without having to re-advertise?

Yeah.

Okay.

Give me a second to read through my notes, please.

And just to double check, with the historic preservation rules, we feel comfortable because it's already in there, changes could be made in a variety of different ways.

To modify it, yeah, that's fine.

In that case, I'm comfortable with that.

Michael, you made a point at one point about only exceeding five stories by SUP.

And then there's language even more broadly about special exception permits, which I think we were to...

And then clarifying and strengthening the IZ rules, a fraction of a unit going into a fund versus, is that something we still have?

Those are changes we can make within the context of the ad because the advertisement already carries the ADU ordinance as a concept is there and so then that's it.

affordability, not just for renters, but also for homeowners.

That was included in the text that came from the Planning Commission, yes.

I, yeah, okay.

Adding Stories is a dimensional standard.

So to help me understand it, there's SEPs as we use them now, and basically the current draft special exception would cover part of how we use it now, and then there will be an additional SEP process that is strictly use-based?

Okay.

Okay.

So they would have to get both a special use permit and a special exception permit?

So in the verbs case, leaving aside the many aspects of that that are not consistent with this, but from a strictly use perspective, it would be by rightly use, but if they wanted to vary a dimensional standard, they would need to seek a special exception.

But under this new ordinance, are we still dealing with that?

It's a dimensional standard and it would be a special exception process.

And it would still require going to planning commission, going to city council, same as before.

it's that otherwise we would want to do that through a rezoning process because our zoning districts are height based right CX3, CX5 outside of the corridor if you want to that proposed corridor overlay if you wanted to increase your height from three stories to five stories you would need to seek a rezoning but if you want to

That you would handle essentially administratively?

Administratively through the, and those bonuses are structured through the Affordable Law Unit ordinance.

I mean, if somebody, like if a neighbor said, I don't want this five story building to go to seven stories next door to me, and they, you know, but you go ahead and you approve it anyway, is that going to be appealable to Planning Commissioner Council?

That is not an appealable decision.

Okay.

if the zoning administrator has not properly applied the ordinance by granting the additional stories, then the neighbor could conceivably, if they can demonstrate they're a brief party, appeal it to the board of zoning appeals.

And who did they, do they make that, have to convince of that, BZA?

BZA.

Council, is there anything else that do?

Yep.

Good.

We just wanted to capture those lists of topics, see if there's anything else so that we can start to structure these into meetings and preparing materials for sub-meetings.

How's it all our waste time?

I'm happy to discuss it further tonight or dedicate some time to it.

Just like a quick synopsis of what it is as well as the core districts.

That's fine.

Core corridors.

Core neighborhood districts.

There's a core neighborhood

Again, that's targeted towards the notion of still allowing accessory units to be on these proposals.

To prevent teardowns.

We did also reduce the building width in this district.

So that's essentially the Planning Commission's response to the whole sensitive areas conversation is going on for 18 bucks.

The biggest difference is in the mapped area that those mapped areas have been further refined.

units if you keep the first word existing.

How does this version of things get around that or meet that objection?

I don't think it gets around that.

Okay.

Yeah, it's an increase above the current density allowances, but there's no way around that tension, like, completely.

Which doesn't exist in the straight-up RA district.

I think we can't have certainty how it would even play out.

I think that is a real challenge and it's why, I mean if I'm fully frank it's why we did not at the end of the day propose this district initially and it's come back into the conversation because of that uncertainty and because of the concerns about how it would, how it comparatively plays out with other neighborhoods.

So we know from the RKG analysis that if we don't do something like that it's all going to be turned over.

I agree, and in terms of in a situation of uncertainty where we fall, you know, I side on the line of this kind of proposal just because of that data about rate of change and the number of parcels increasing in value by over 50 percent, but I just do acknowledge we're operating in an environment of true uncertainty.

the uncertainty until we got the RKG study where essentially the way I saw that presentation is that they are looking at this through the view, through the lens of a developer, like what, you know, how would they look at it?

As opposed to when you limit the area that is effectively upzoned, you essentially introduce a monopoly type characteristics to that land area.

Although if you look even just geographically, even still the vast majority of the city is introducing that thing.

Right.

Yeah.

The main point I want to make is that that's the max offer and still have a feasible project as opposed to the number that people are going to offer.

Absolutely right.

No, no, no.

That's why you're a developer.

Well, absolutely.

It's a range of neighborhoods that are identified for inclusion in this.

If you would get it perfect, that narrowly narrowly narrowly.

Michael might add to that too.

so on and so forth, job training was on that list, community gathering spaces, whether those are indoors or outdoors, so it was a range of community benefits, all things that have been contemplated in various conversations that have happened around individual projects.

There's a level of discretion on that part about whether this counts or not as a... There is, yeah, I mean, it's built, I mean,

The idea that we can't force people to talk to the neighborhood, but we can at least force them to have a community meeting from which they can glean a list of what are the benefits that the neighborhood might want to see.

But I acknowledge there's a trade-off there.

Do you feel that that helps in that concern at all, or am I misreading the situation?

Okay.

Sherry from Roosevelt Brown Boulevard to Fifth Street.

greatly increasing the chance that if there's a local business there that does not own the land, that business will be no more in a period of a couple of years.

It's trade-off.

I mean, you can make the argument maybe the business is going to go away anyway.

See, that's the whole thing, uncertainty.

Yeah.

We can discuss that later on.

Or at least the railroads burn.

But it is kind of a slowing down of that process.

It wouldn't be like they're not even there.

at least, you know, over the next two years until we review or complement again, I can kind of live with that trade-off and I feel like they feel that impact less than, you know, a small or mid-sized developer.

Retail Development and offerings that we get, wasn't it $123,000 with the median income that it was?

The area median income has increased to $123,000.

That's fine.

So one of the things I had specifically asked was talk us through how these sort of scary scenarios aren't really going to happen.

That's my, that's, if I'm proposing a cottage court type of development.

Tiny house development.

But I still can't do more than six and I still can't increase the lot coverage on that lot by anything further than what's allowed.

I don't understand why you can't increase the lot coverage.

So the district allows a certain, you know, allows the buildings to cover a certain amount of lot.

Sixty percent.

So what you explained to me the other day, so say you've got a 7,500 square foot, RA is 2,500?

No, it's 6,000.

I don't know if some of these ones are on Rugby Avenue, how big are they?

At least that.

Or create new frontage.

You know, if it's not connecting up to anything and doesn't have the potential to connect up to anything, at the end of it, it's got to have a big cul-de-sac.

from here to here, you can only really build on this front part.

You wouldn't be able to further subdivide it because you wouldn't have sufficient frontage.

And I could, subject to, I could build six units or whatever here, here, and here, potentially.

Right.

So practically speaking, it's going to be limited in terms of how much housing can be back there.

Right.

You're basically taking that and you're turning it into like a little mini community is what you're having to do by adding a road and

And so I assume the cul-de-sac is so that fire apparatus and things like that.

Unless there's an opportunity to connect through and then you can do a Stub Street or something.

Anyway, so I don't know if that helps.

Does that equal a memo?

because it really comes down to looking at it on a piece of board.

The other point that we've sort of come back around to occasionally is that there are a number of places in the city of Charlottesville where zoning, where deed restrictions prohibit further subdivisions.

Correct.

and in that case you would not be able to create any additional ownership opportunities on those lots whether you're talking subdivision or sub-lot or whatever all else there is going to be one owner or one condos yeah you could do condos I guess so in practicality excuse me in practicality what it's going to mean there's a lot of places that are really worried about this

It ain't going to happen because of the deed restrictions.

I have tried to tell folks that, but I want to have somebody else other than me say that to make clear.

Okay, so what is seeding, affordable housing in residential districts?

And so I want to make sure that whatever we're coming up with is going to work.

But that's my perspective.

Not that we shouldn't do this because that one or two here and there, that's going to add up, but... What's the risk in keeping it?

Which I'm not dismissing of people that are upset.

and I'd really like to know more and maybe I'll have to have that discussion with them but I was hoping maybe staff here had some specific suggestions.

So we can do that.

Is this the same item D?

No, item D deals with the question, I know it's been discussed a little bit about how the density bonus to go to seven stories doesn't help because nobody's going to want to suddenly break into steel and concrete construction.

Except for luxury apartments, except for student housing where there's a higher degree of revenue.

And I just wanted to have that discussion as a discussion, as a unit, you know,

We want to know exactly what we're implementing before we finalize it.

So just for my clarification, is ADU affordable or accessory?

Affordable dwelling units.

Not to be confused with accessory dwelling units.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

In this book, it's affordable.

Yes.

The state calls it affordable dwelling units, so we call it affordable dwelling units.

Have due, not act due.

What was that change that addressed it?

Okay.

Thank you.

distinctly residential as opposed to some other commercial application.

Exactly.

Okay.

Okay.

So those three things we'll talk about more systematically.

Okay.

So are you talking

Yes.

I'm talking specifically right now about the commercial piece.

I think what you're trying to say is to minimize the divisiveness that's already present in our community because of it.

Right.

I've spoken to enough people, and I feel like we're pushing this hard enough with the medium intensity and everything else we're doing, that if we delayed the commercial, you know, say we needed more time to think about it, come back in a year or two in the comp plan, I would be willing to do that, and if that would be something that would just immediately kind of lower the temperature and let us focus on, like you said, the density side of things, I think that would be a wise way forward.

We can hear from it, but that's kind of where I am right now.

So it sounds like you're thinking similar to me in terms of you'd be willing to trade that in for getting the medium intensity actual housing.

There's no process by which to do that.

I know that every neighborhood would not be the downtown mall, but it is supposed to be for kind of the community, not for a tourism draw, and that's what the downtown mall is now.

Yeah, well, that's the whole thing.

But the mall?

The issue of the special use permit is it's going to be very hard legally to come up with rules that say, I mean, you can't say, well, we've got two on a block, we can't have three.

You can vote based on adverse neighborhood impacts, and one of those would be concerns about traffic and how that relates to safety.

That'd be impossible, because they're supposed to always be on the corner.

Not that many corners.

of what is already there, but it's a bit of a sticky wicket, but those two principles are correct.

So it would not be permissible for us to say, you want to put a store there, we don't think there's enough density there, and therefore we don't think you're going to be able to do it by walk-up trade alone?

It's a fine line there and you have to be careful with it, but

is perfectly acceptable picking economic winners and losers such a challenge with a significant risk.

Any thoughts, Madam Counselor?

So how do we do this so that we don't run into the health and safety issues, but still allowing people to have a source of income?

Isn't that person allowed to bake her cakes or her pies or whatever in her basement and then sell them at the market?

Yes.

And so what we would be doing now is saying she can sell them from her basement.

Okay.

So that's, I don't have a problem.

I guess that's the stuff we're going to have to deal with.

Yeah.

and then parking.

I mean going through the map and identifying are these places where the proposed zoning is this and we prefer it is this.

You mean this?

Yeah, the overall zoning map.

and I want to have a special, I want to have a meeting where we can say to every property owner whose property has been zoned or put in RC or something else or whose neighbor's property is being put there that we have looked at it and thought about it individually and not just sort of washed our hands of it and let it go.

Are you contemplating in this meeting that's going around?

That turns out to have been logistically too difficult.

In the meeting, are you talking about, okay, we're going to go this quadrant, this quadrant, this, or is it more like bringing to the meeting things that you have concerns about?

So the last thing on this list is parking.

that governs street parking.

Would that happen after this is adopted, practically speaking?

Practically speaking, it would be completed after this is adopted, but happy to bring forward the concepts and outline of where that's going.

And so the people who are actually affected by the problem have no ability under our present ordinance to ask for the city's help.

you know, blocks away impacting other neighborhoods because they have parking.

And that's what we want to talk about.

And that's not going to go away.

So we've already seen that benefit within our downtown, but we haven't actually seen any projects that have come in and not proposed parking downtown, unless reflective of our market.

So did Buffalo abolish the parking requirement in, let's say, in the surrounding neighborhoods?

No, they did it citywide.

And did they see any change in behaviors in the outlying neighborhoods?

And so if I can moderate, if I can reduce or in some cases even eliminate that parking requirement in an affordable housing project, I might get a project where I otherwise would not get a project.

So we need to, I think, part of our job is to say, we've heard you, here's how we're planning to mitigate the risk.

There may be young professionals who have certain transportation preferences or abilities, but an acknowledgement that if you've got kids or you're a shift worker, a lot of that with our current transit system is just, that ain't going to happen.

need that access to a vehicle are going to choose the place that offers them the easiest means of storing that vehicle, which is why it's the most valuable amenity.

It will have impacts, this policy will have impacts on people that are less well off.

I think that's a really valid point.

So what the market may do for the people moving in doesn't help them one bit.

What I hear the most is areas where UVA workers come in and swap it during the day.

you have to have a car because you've got to get there and some people can you know maybe walk to work or maybe take the bus to work but the bus doesn't go everywhere where the people are working or if the bus goes everywhere where the people are working the times as Michael is saying to get there some places you can't be late I mean one strike and you're out

So the notion with this section was trying to identify how many discussion work sessions we need.

Is that what you're saying?

Which of these other ones are still in further discussion?

Are you going to get us more on the core neighborhood?

We can absolutely do that.

Climb up Iwo Jima to talk about medium intensity residential, or is that something that would be beforehand?

That's my question.

Let's have it when we have a map conversation.

Oh, it's not going to be that bad.

We can change it next time anyway.

Where would the extent of RNA for the next one?

Isn't that what I said?

Unless we can come on.

So separate from the overall zoning map conversation.

I'm trying to.

But we'll figure that out.

Do we need to pick the date for the public hearing?

December 5 or 7.

Wait.

Right.

That's what I wanted to be clear.

And so I think what we will need to do is sit down and take this guidance, turn it into a proposal, and probably come back in a conversation with yourself and the mayor.

I just wanted to make sure I had that straight as to how many meetings and when.

Before the public hearing.

That's what I'm talking about.

I'm suggesting some may be more appropriately done after the public hearing.

Oh, I think you could do it.

Yeah.

We'll huddle up and talk this earlier.

That's the only thing.

until?

Are we talking about November the 5th or December?

Tuesday or Thursday?

So I don't want us to just rush for the sake of rushing.

But if we can't push through, I'm not going to adopt this stupid ordinance just because we'd set a time schedule.

I heard that.

Just pick it up.

Well, that's just matter on the 4th.

I think, I think, yes, I think, I agree.

No, I think we should.

That would be a proposed public hearing date.

for Council to consider a motion to direct the Director of Neighborhood Services to advertise for a public hearing on the zoning ordinance with the changes that Council has suggested at this meeting.

What he's saying.

Anything else?

It's going to be set.

Jake will send that motion to you.

No panic.

Let me just clarify for myself.

Yes, sir.

Yes, November 1st and November 9th is what's on the calendar right now.

Do I have to commit right now to that?

No, you can commit to the 1st.

Let's just, can we?

Or you want to figure that out?

I don't want to rush, I don't want to schedule the 1st and then not be prepared for it.

I've always said that the worst reason to have a meeting is because we've said we're going to have a meeting.

It might be two pretty extensive nights in a row.

We're tough.

Says Leah.

That's right.

That's right.

We're adjourned.

I think we need to do it sooner.