City Council Work Session - Special Deliberations on Zoning Map   11/29/2023

and your neighbor to your right made it back.

National Carb Day, you can officially eat carbs without guilt.

After six, shall we get started?

Mr. Friese, you want to start us off?

We have with us tonight myself, Missy Creasy in my office as well as online virtually we have Jenny Koch from RHI and Christy Dotson and Lee Einsweller from Code Studio all available to answer your questions and help you guys work through the conversation.

Okay.

Otherwise, I'll kick it back to you.

But that's essentially what we would be doing if we adopted the ordinance as it's proposed, the zoning map as it's proposed.

coming from the county to the city.

Yeah, I think it's going to be a lot more pressure on the county to build up with their development areas like only what four or five percent of the county and there's pressure on them as well so I think they're going to see a lot more development there as well so and it's mainly around I guess it's Crozet along the urban ring and along 29 North Court is kind of generally speaking their growth areas so.

If we look at Barracks Road, does anybody seriously think that folks on the other side of the bypass, that those residential neighborhoods are suddenly going to give weight eight and ten eleven-story buildings?

Do you have any ideas to address?

My sense of things is that almost any building that would be able to be built in a CX-8 zone would end up or could end up being a 10-story building.

If they sought the affordable housing bonus?

It's not really an eight story building at that point.

Then if you go down to 50% of AMI, that's where you get the bonus.

Do we have a sense of what the cost is to the developer of a 60% AMI unit as opposed to a 50% AMI unit?

Now, our consultants identify that as readily achievable.

And RKG had numbers?

Yeah, yeah.

I looked them up.

It's probably readily achievable.

What is readily achievable?

To get that bonus, to go down to 50% of AMI if the numbers work out.

What do you mean if the numbers work out?

if the project is financially feasible.

But what I hear Lloyd saying, and maybe I'm missing it, but you are concerned about the aesthetics of entering the city at the various entrance corridors with a 10 or 12 story building versus

That's what it's going to look like and feel like.

Okay, so it's the aesthetics.

Yeah, in a sense, but also the urban design kind of a concern.

To review certain heights or what would make you?

and that sidewalk is obviously eight or ten feet at most from the edge of the street and if that's done on the other side of the street and if that is done on other parcels in that area.

Yeah.

We do it, I guess, Monticello Avenue is the only entrance that isn't going to be treated that way, but every other entrance to the city is going to get treated that way.

We have other places that are as dense under the new zoning, right?

Just as we're now saying to West Main Street why did City Council approve that?

you know reduced the number of steps for approval and things but maybe for certain locations or certain heights that maybe it does necessitate review from the BAR or something particularly if it's a concern I really hadn't thought about it you know BAR or the yeah can I note on the on the entrance corridors so each of these for the most part are entrance corridors they're reviewed by the entrance corridor review board which is the Planning Commission

those design guidelines would need to reflect more urban scale buildings.

The entrance corridors, I think they go, there's the area where you technically enter the city, but they go much deeper than just that technically, correct?

Yeah.

So is your concern with Lloyd just about those direct entrances around the city county border, or are you thinking about the broader entrance corridor, for example, like Monticello or East High go along that whole road?

We've gone so far in one direction that we are not allowing really the countervailing impulse.

the A school and the engineering school and its location.

It is not simply how many people can we cram into a box.

If we have some say, even if they're tall, but they're nice looking or, you know, they can be designed, you're just concerned with the height itself?

I just have the sense that for every entrance corridor save one, save Monticello Avenue, we are going to basically take away the power of the Entrance Corridor Review Board to say very much at all about the massing of a building.

Okay, and I understand that.

I'm trying to end up with an ugly entrance to the city every time except on Monticello Avenue.

So, I mean, I'm

So the ERB would be able to consider massing and so would be able to impose step backs and those types of things?

That really is the topic of this discussion.

Isn't that right, Mr. Peter?

So you have a policy issue, you have a legal issue, but basically your legal issue is one in which it would be helpful to us to have greater clarity from council as to those things that you absolutely want, those things that we should articulate better the discretion of the ARB, and then you have waiting out there once you finish this effort, the guidelines.

And so I believe what is being said is that we could clarify the exact same point for the ERB.

Yes, that's correct.

And so in those instances within these districts where we have a special public interest, we would be aiming to address that issue of predictability within the guidelines.

In other words, with the current ERB, the current Planning Commission that we have.

The guidelines are adopted by the council.

Okay.

Because they go through the process, they go through the Planning Commission, then they're adopted by Council.

You know, when this was conceived with the Planning Commission and the consultants, they evidently wanted it to be packed as tight as possible because they didn't make any I guess there's the permissiveness to be as expansive as possible, but if we get the guidelines right, maybe that will help mitigate some of the concerns.

But does expanse mean?

The way this is drawn, the way this is right now, Leah, is it's, I mean, the dials are pretty far up.

Right, absolutely.

And to me, if that, you know, that philosophical point seems like it was conceded a long time ago.

But does expansive have to be obtrusive?

But that sounds like that could be a lot of effort to pull that off and would be something that's going to happen tomorrow.

Is that right?

I mean, that is a large task to try to pull off.

but that we don't start by giving them authority that we're then going to have to take away from them.

and if in the meantime you sort of get this thing over the finish line we want to reduce you know some of these places like you've got NX10 like going up 29 for example so I don't know cut it in half for the time being I'm not sure but

But if we're simply saying NX10 for the entire Barracks Road Shopping Center to where it could be built right at 10 stories or 13 stories to high right on Barracks Road separated only by the sidewalk, it seems to me that that's probably not a result that we would like.

Yeah, and that would go up all the way to past hydraulic.

One consequence of eliminating all setbacks and eliminating step backs and eliminating all these other things is The NX-10 goes all the way north up past Seminole Court and Hillsdale Drive and all of that.

I just want to clarify one point on this is we do have the streetscape requirement which would require both the greenscape with street trees and sidewalk and on the street of that scale I think that comes up to about 15 feet or something from the edge of street pavement before you get to building.

Yeah.

I just don't remember what it is off the top of my head.

And I would like to see, I don't want to be the arbiter of what constitutes beauty, but I would like to give architects perhaps a freer rein to do something beautiful than simply how many people can we cram in here?

The only other alternative is to have some sort of discretionary process and having somebody be an arbiter of deciding is this aesthetically good enough or not.

The entrance corridors is a discretionary design review process that looks at materials and step backs and articulations on the building and the size and style of windows and other openings and those types of things to arrive at an aesthetic hole at the end.

At least that's my understanding.

Well, again, that purview is one of the things we just discussed we can define within the ordinance.

I mean, do you have any sense of what those design review parameters would even be?

Our legal experts.

Can you remind me why it came out?

My recommendation again is that you set that framework fairly clearly in the ordinance and then the guidelines would flow from those.

and at the same time Council would have a relatively high degree of certainty that its wishes will be met and would also minimize the situation where you're hearing a lot of appeals perhaps as you would in the BAR context.

So step backs now in the current draft look like they're more geared forward and you have transitions.

And that was ultimately the point that Commissioner Schwartz in that instance was referring to.

I think you need to step back here versus there, or would the guidelines?

So they're going to be guided by the guidelines, the intent of that historic district, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Decent.

Welcome to Charlottesville.

Oh, no, absolutely.

Yeah.

So, yeah.

How about that?

My particular issue that I was thinking about and raising it on was the entrance corridors, but I think that the same logic would apply in a lot of other places where we've got CX-8 and I guess really CX-8 is the only category that crops up with any frequency.

I'm just trying to figure out what can we do now to address if we can't address his concerns now.

Well, to that end, I'm having a difficult time remembering what I said a month ago.

So could you say that again?

And we got some feedback by email about why that's a bad idea.

you know having by right heights that are going to eight ten stories is totally reasonable especially if you had design controls that are looking at just very basic you know setbacks or something like that to address the concern you raised and that's an area where there's not really displacement or gentrification pressure so that's my that's where I was coming from that's my understanding of where we were at but maybe that was all that's helpful thank you that was pre-turkey so

So whatever we need to do to preserve that to the best of our ability is where I am.

some of these issues that, you know, and then we can go back and say, all right, given the powers we've given to them, we're willing to allow for more height than we were willing to say without those controls.

Is that something that can happen legally, Jay?

Okay.

What I would say is We're going to cut it in half or some number in terms of the stories.

to figure out what they can do to make something look prettier.

What about NX-10?

Yeah, and it goes... ...thing that we now know as Barracksboro Shopping Center.

Well, and it also goes all the way up by the bypass, past hydraulic, you know, on up to the old giant, I guess it was a giant shopping... Yeah, but I mean, that's...

It's where we want dense commercial development, isn't it?

Give it a little more room on the edge.

Right, and I understand.

But we don't have that in the ordinance now.

2024, you know.

So I wouldn't commit to six months, but I think we would have to identify a reasonable amount of time in which we do that.

And you're saying take CX8 down to CX5.

Pandek.

So I just pass that along to sort of frame up how you would.

I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.

Yes, sir, thank you.

So yeah, anyway.

And so I just, it seems too draconian a response.

You're saying if we do that we should include the flexibility of an SUP?

If you actually had a residential built there, I don't think we would want to cap it at five stories and say there's not even a way you could go above five stories.

in many cases no setback requirement and in fact not allowed to have more than say 10 feet in setback and we end up in essence forcing people to build to the margins.

or if we have an opportunity to dig into that, I'd have a lot to say about going beyond that.

We are requiring a system, requiring a design that has everything built to the edge.

Would you support special use permit until we can come up with those guidelines?

I don't know that it matters a whole heck of a lot, but if you're worried about, gee, if we put it in with CX-5 and somehow we never get around to touching it again, maybe the SUP process is the way out.

We've been moving on projects.

I'm assuming that I'm not too far away from where you're thinking.

No, you're not.

Because of other things that we know that you all want to take a look at, short-term rentals is going to require some time and effort, as well as we just have our regular things that we're also trying to get done to.

And just the challenge of implementation of what you do pass.

And I just think it's going to be, I don't want to use the word messy, but it's going to be complicated in terms of how we roll this out in ways that minimize harm and maximize the good effects, which is what we want here.

I don't know whether anybody else agrees with me.

What do you think, Juan?

Yes, I agree with that.

Well, that's exactly what I was going to say.

But the SUP option gives us some wiggle room.

There we go.

So, Lloyd, are you talking specifically if we did this, it would only be in the areas designated formally as entrance corridors?

Anyway.

Does that make sense to expand into other areas?

It's still a concern, but as a short-term thing until we figure out more what we want to do, I guess .

So, yeah, yeah.

So basically we're saying CX-8, NX-8, and NX-10 we're not going to do except with a special use permit until we get more clarity on the rules?

If we say we'll make everything CX5 or NX5 until we solve these other problems, I think that would keep us legal.

But if a project wanted to go above that, they could use the SUP process to do that.

We can't just say anything and everything comes in by SUP, 20 stories or whatever.

The default position would be that by an SUP they could get access to what's already in the document here.

So that's how it would be implemented.

I would think that would work.

I think that, okay.

So I would add that

SUPs also allow you to consider issues like massing and harmoniousness, which would also give you a bit of flexibility.

Do we have sort of a tentative consensus here?

As I've said, I think there's areas that make sense, but I still think it's too draconian to apply it either to the whole city or every entrance corridor.

Less of a just sort of hack.

have a specific aesthetic concern around rather than all of them blanket.

So if there were five entrance corridors and everyone felt three of them would not be as draconian as all five of them, then they would need to be delineated out in your line.

County City Line, you know, they're going in some cases like from that County City Line like to downtown and have a mix currently of like CX-5, CX-8 and CBA all the way in basically.

I failed to mention this at the beginning but we do have the interactive zoning map available to bring up on the screen if that would be helpful and it shows things like the entrance corridors and historic districts and stuff like that.

I've got to hear my computer.

That would be wonderful.

I can send you the link.

We would, a member of the consultant team would just share their screen and show it.

Yeah, I'm the visual lady.

So if we could just turn on the entrance corridor layer.

There you go.

and our desire to put more density there.

Okay.

So it wouldn't affect much.

Could you go up to 29 north?

But you've still got the CX-8s?

Yeah, at the intersections of Stadium and Chevrolet.

So all of that is NX-10 going up?

Yes.

And honestly, Lloyd, I think at the tip top up there, I don't think anyone's going to notice an NX-10 building and be bothered by it at all.

Thank you.

except for the entrance corridors where we would do the five-story limit.

Our goal ought to be.

It's also obviously Rose Hill would fall within the intent of that district.

Sure.

something would be protected with the overlay, right?

Pretend, I mean, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

I am still concerned about the fact that we have eliminated and in fact are seemingly requiring building close to the edge and maybe it's 15 feet, maybe it's 10 feet, I don't know what it is but that just strikes me as being something that makes sense up there.

Christy, could you tell us, at the larger scale, what is the streetscape requirement for the sidewalk and the greenscape zone?

Give me two.

Yes.

And where is that found in the book?

So 15 feet in the most intense areas.

So that would be 15 feet from edge of pavement, from edge of the road pavement, and then your setback picks up from that point, wherever that point happens to lie.

So it's not like you're going to have a six-foot sidewalk or four-foot sidewalk with a building coming right up the side.

The intention here is to not let that happen in the future.

As to the way it fronts on Main Street.

You have essentially a narrow sidewalk with no green zone.

The problem that we hear more about from there is the absolute height next to West Haven.

And what the research shows, what urban design principles show, is that you do want your building fronting the sidewalk.

You want eyes on the street type of thing.

are designed to create basically an interesting and engaging pedestrian environment which then promotes walking which is one of our primary goals here.

how those principles apply to a parcel fronting on 29 North?

But if either Lee or Christy have thoughts on Route 29 in particular.

There could be a Route 29 line added to that table that has a specific streetscape for that particular road because it is so specific.

I'm not sure what the right answer would be, but it just seems like 15 feet is not enough.

It would be both a wider sidewalk and a wider greenscape zone.

Entrance corridors.

I would still like to have the other entrance corridors be essentially capped for now with a commitment that we're going to try to revisit that and get the entrance corridor requirements figured out to make sure we've got the authority to do what we want to do.

So that would be at a height of five stories.

And through the SUP process, we could insist on some setback requirements and some other things that aren't presently in the ordinance.

And then, but not roll that out to the rest of the city.

I understand.

But I think that what you're proposing for these relatively few number of areas to minimize the risk in the short term I think is reasonable.

And then the areas that do have historic development or an area like Rose Hill.

But we're doing this whole other thing that we came up with to address that.

Well, I mean, the extent of that currently is limited.

Well, we haven't mapped it at all as of yet.

So my understanding of what Council's consensus was up to this point, maybe that understanding is wrong.

Well, say what you think it is.

A section of Preston and Cherry, and that's the extent of it.

that would happen there.

That's the modified corridor.

That's why I thought we were agreeing that there was going to be a reduction.

So you see areas outside of that with particularly the commercial corridors where it's, I guess, is East High the one that concerns you most, Michael?

in the entrance corridors do not face displacement pressure from capital investment and then the areas that did.

But you've got a different lens, I think, than what Lloyd is bringing to it where he's focused more on as you drive into the city, what are you going to see?

I mean, I actually joined Michael's Concerns, but I didn't have a sense that that was where the rest of the council was heading.

the finish line that keeps being moved every time we get there, which is that I know this is a big decision, but we need to kind of try to figure out what we want to do here.

Core neighborhood corridor.

Core neighborhood corridors.

And maybe we could take that model, Michael, of the core neighborhood.

We'll just call it that.

The special corridors.

Those are all within the ambit of the intent.

there's key intersections of JPA and I understand the concern along barracks but I mean it's just it's not likewise with Fontaine it's not exactly a garden spot yeah of a of an entrance into the city already but I've I've said that so so you still feel the same Lloyd

Yeah.

Okay.

The question is do we have any sense of consensus?

Yeah, up to five and then with a special use to eight.

Yeah, 5 up to 10.

go to 10 stories because those particular spots I don't have a problem with except for these setbacks.

You're saying you're okay with it?

And then Barracks Road.

Barracks Road is inclusive.

Barracks Road Shopping Center, I believe all of it is NX10, isn't that right?

Well, it's not.

I don't know exactly.

Step down.

I mean, that entrance corridor goes all the way down to Ivy Road.

Thank you, Jenny.

Green space requirements?

Is that what that is?

There you go.

NX5.

Well, I can't tell between NX5 and NX8 at this point.

Can you click on one of those parcels so we can see what the box pops up as?

Which specific parcel are we looking at?

Five.

Okay.

Yes, you're correct.

Do we have a consensus then?

Okay.

It's only taking us two hours to get there.

more and better guidelines.

I feel good about that.

I think it's a good compromise.

All of the streets that are listed in the memo, starting with Plymouth Road, page 2.

Is that still the thinking?

I think, Michael, you're not.

That's another one we looked at, you know, for special use permit.

I think it would be prudent to delay commercial in residential spaces until further study or until things move a little further down the road.

And so the only way those as commercial establishments will work is if people are driving there, and that's not what we want to have happen at the moment.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You said I could.

Okay, okay.

There are conflicting numbers that appear in different places, but 2,500 is the operative limit.

It is in this case.

pick up with the next revision to the comp plan or the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

I know I'm in the minority there.

So I guess we have a general majority.

I think that's the most prudent course right now in my view.

Either one is still significantly larger than the average house in Charlottesville, but it's not going to look so much larger that it would be inconsistent with what we were talking about two years ago as RA being house-sized.

Do you remember this email?

I'm sure.

if you're looking at like Zillow or something what they would consider to be part of the usable or net floor area versus what you know the gross of if you included all the garages or whatever so his point and help us here I think that it yeah I agree with him it makes more sense to talk about building footprint

So that makes total sense.

I mean, what are you saying?

Measuring footprint.

So do you agree that we should allow a 9,000 square foot house or 9,000 square foot building in an RA zone?

allows for the flexibility to design different types of buildings that meet the particular needs of a lot.

You do think we should allow 9,000 square foot buildings in RA?

With the footprint, the more you constrain that footprint, the more you're now cutting off options as to how a building is configured, how someone might be able to lay out the building.

The question is, is that going to be house-sized at 9,000 square feet?

Chair Jerry Cook, So I'm going to ask Christy or Lee to speak to this issue as our team that put together these rules in the first place.

footprint, and building coverage.

Am I missing something?

Look at 2-12.

and then building width I believe is under?

How is that a limitation of 3,000 square feet?

What are you seeing, 40 and 70?

Okay, I'm looking at the massing requirements on page 2-7.

Okay.

It's not a limitation, is it?

And so that 60 feet width in concert with the building footprint gets you a maximum building envelope essentially.

But 60 feet times 50 feet is 3,000 square feet.

What she's saying is that the most you would get is like 60 by 60.

I'm just not seeing anything in RA that constrains it to keep you under 9,000 square feet as a gross floor area.

I know but what I'm hearing also is that that size allows flexibility to provide because one of the things that we want to address is an impact in housing cost is that there's not enough stock and this will increase not only quantity but the type of housing and it gives us flexibility maybe that unit, the bottom unit may be affordable.

because that's clearly not a house-sized building.

Right.

I am not prepared to say that.

Well, three of us weren't here two years ago, so I guess we can't say it either, huh?

constraint or a definition or if you want to put it another way a promise to the electorate that we were going to have house sized buildings in these kinds of neighborhoods then we're clearly changing that.

regular-sized home, or, you know, what would you be comfortable with?

That just strikes me as being a very poorly thought out plan.

We're just giving them the permission to do it.

How often has that happened so far?

If they can't get the subsidy from us or from, you know, I don't know.

A state agency or something.

We're not tying our hands to do it.

We approve an SUP so that people can do this nice affordable housing project and we know at the time we do so that we are effectively committing ourselves to a $3 million contribution down the road even though we don't discuss that at the time we pass the SUP.

I mean, this is just giving people the option to.

That's why I'm comfortable with leaving it at, this is one way, one vote with 9,000 square feet.

So that's where I'm at.

Of course, if we're looking at ownership at that point, I don't know exactly what affordable dwelling units constitute for affordability at that point, whether they could even build more than three or perhaps at most four units.

Which is why they won't build them.

So we're creating something that we don't expect to be built?

that does not exceed X. Yeah, that's the edge of the envelope.

And the reason we're doing that is because we think you're going to do good things, but we reasonably don't expect you to do good things.

What harm is it to give the possibility that some... But just because the option is there doesn't mean they're going to take it.

Because we get people who do things like the house or the whatever you call that building on Booker Street.

I know that's kind of the lowest common denominator.

And if we don't plan for it, we're fools.

So, I mean, can we hear from the others so we can, you know, decide on this?

This is for RA.

I mean, the same principle applies to RB and RC, but not the same limits.

I'm basically on board with medium intensity residential in terms of the area in the city and what's being proposed in terms of the parameters.

It was always suggested for general residential.

I'm in favor of RA plus medium intensity residential.

With no limit.

With the limits that are here.

Yeah.

Is it possible?

that are not constrained by the economics.

I know, but we can't hold back development for the whole city because of some media acts.

One in two persons want to do something, yeah.

I've said enough.

to date in Charlottesville what they can do on their property.

Okay.

So the chances of that are slim.

Well, I mean, it could happen.

And whether you exercise the option or not is completely different.

Is there a way you could help us think through that a little more?

It has been calibrated over time as we've worked in communities and even in our previous experience with infill development.

Thank you.

And Christy, could you note, was not our proposal initially for the RA district in particular for a building width of 40 feet and then it was increased to 60 feet?

I will emphasize over and over again, building width is really critical to this house scale concept.

You went from what to what?

It had been 40 feet in the first draft.

Yep, it went to 60 feet during the Planning Commission review.

It was at two and a half stories, if I recall correctly, in the initial draft.

That's true as well, yeah.

So it had a string form and a smaller width.

So you have the residential 2.2.2 that dictates the building sort of envelope, but the streetscape component is in a different location, correct?

So that streetscape component is determined by the street type that that particular parcel is on.

Okay.

So that local street on 4-17 will tell you what that street sidewalk and landscape requirement would be.

So in an RA type lot, what is, just like we talked about earlier, James, with the, you know, we were talking about up at Barracks Road and north.

I believe what it was was five feet of green zone and six of walking, pedestrian sidewalk.

So on a street like Rugby Avenue, would it be bigger than that?

I don't know what street type Rugby Avenue is.

Okay, but basically you're saying from the curb.

I mean, neighborhood A, neighborhood B, local are all 11 feet.

All 11 feet, yep.

And then from that.

It's basically from the curb and then what you need to get to 11 feet total.

But there's also a setback.

And then the setback starts from the edge of your streetscape zone, wherever that.

From the curb, from edge of pavement.

We got a bunch of them.

Right.

Yeah.

and just remember in these districts the option exists and I understand it's presented as an option but the option exists to be either at that 20 feet or in line with the existing setbacks.

All right.

So do folks have other issues associated with the definition of RA and then RB and RC, and then we can look to specific applications?

I think that this is, I understand why it's upsetting to people, but I think it's going to make a big difference in terms of workforce housing.

I don't have a concern with the definitions.

Okay.

The first one on the memo is Plymouth Road.

So I agree with those folks and would vote to have that RA.

Which specific lots?

It's basically here, back around here.

As mentioned in the memo?

Yeah.

And is Sherwood to the upside on this of Oxford or Sherwood all the way down here?

No, I think just Oxford.

Just to like.

Yeah.

Well that.

I think, yeah, these, these lines here as well.

Yeah.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

Okay.

Differ color, too.

Folks agree with that?

I agree with what's in the memo, yeah.

In the minority, but it feels arbitrary.

Yes, as do other things.

While we're in the neighborhood, do you want to talk about Rugby Avenue?

No, let's just go down the list.

Davis Avenue and it's Parallel Street, Watson Avenue.

We're putting MACA there, we're putting Park Street Church, and we're putting Mount View on the other side of Locust Grove.

Yeah.

And so I'm inclined to support the request.

Of course, Davis doesn't connect to the Mount View.

It's in the same general vicinity.

It's within a half a mile.

Which still doesn't implicate Davis.

Well, but you could, but depending on where you hang a left or a right, you could hang a right on Davis or

There's no earthly reason you would hang a left on Davis to be able to then make a right on Marshall and another left on Watson to be able to join up with St.

Their point is that this little corner, this between Park and John Water Parkway and Locust and Longstreet and where all that dumps out of by the river, people are using all of that as a cut through.

Yes, they do.

So I don't know if that's

you know impacts of when they close down the the bridges for a while when they was doing those improvements people realized oh this is a cut it's a it's a way to go around and and people do you know people use that to use Bellevue to River Road and things to to skirt 250 yeah so anyway I support the recommendation the changes to RA

It's more, as a street, it is better able to handle more traffic than some other places where we're putting RP.

The fact that people are coming all the way over here to get here as opposed to taking 250.

Right.

It's the connection to park.

So I guess it would be everything within that block and maybe south of Watson and north of Davis as well.

and I using Davis as a cut through to hang a right on Park Street to avoid all of those little streets over there they they don't want to be on 250 so they get off at 250 to go over there to Park Street or wherever else they want to go because you know this movement here is tight because of the traffic signal here

You get a little bit better.

I drive to and from my house on that street at least once or twice and sometimes four times a day.

Which one, Davis?

It forces you to take three times as many turns, two of which are left.

You miss a lot of traffic.

Yep.

You do.

Well, you take Park Street home.

Sometimes.

Sometimes.

Frankly, Park Street even, I mean, John Warner Parkway between 530 and 6, Park Street's faster.

Of course it is.

Really all three of those, Locust, Park, and John Warner.

Yes, we do.

Michael, how do you feel about this?

I say that without begrudging anybody involved, but it seems arbitrary.

OK, let's talk about JPA.

What is being requested because we're putting so much development in that zone, I think that that is a small kindness we could do for those folks.

So you are in support of what's happening at the top of page three, am I correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Brian, are you suggesting both?

If that gives them some peace of mind, then I would be... I think he...

Michael, how do you feel about the JPA changes?

It gets arbitrary.

I do think even if we were to keep those as RX3, I probably agree with them that the Shamrock JPA intersection should be reduced to a CX5.

I think the proposal that Mr. Freeze and his team came up with to preserve the feel of individual homes and buildings, et cetera, so going from RX3 to RC is fine, and I'm also fine with reducing to CX5.

What is, what's driving that?

Just that those are, those are, those are, so Stadium Road is directly across from the University.

Then right there.

Right there.

Yeah, that's right there.

So those are the basis of those recommendations.

It sounds like you're okay with RC and some of that, but you want to preserve RX.

Well, not he, but your group.

Along all of Stadium and along all of Shamrock?

Yes.

So not just the intersection of Stadium and Shamrock.

My point would be from where it's CX5 to Stadium on Shamrock retaining that at RX3.

I don't see Shamrock over there.

Let me try my little thing.

Harmon is there in big letters.

I see Harmon.

Look one to the right.

I see it now.

Why is it important to keep that RX3?

My, just simply the fact that Shamrock is the through street and stadium is directly abutting the university.

Mm-hmm.

So you're making RC the interior kind of neighborhood streets and the outside streets are remaining at RX.

I'm good with that.

I was sitting back listening with Keena, so I heard most of it.

Sorry, are you okay with the staff recommendation or suggestions?

So you think they'll be, so the people will be okay, the neighbors, the neighborhood?

Okay, sounds like we have a majority on that.

We'll be okay.

Rugby Avenue.

All right, I see it.

And we want to So there's basically a cross of Rugby Avenue and Rose Hill Drive that is RC The neighbors would like it to be RB or RA Okay, wait So at Rugby and Rose Hill

Okay, there's a key connecting, okay.

Was there also a request to have this come back here maybe?

I know we got at least one request to do that.

And this is RB?

And the beige is RA.

And so their request is to make this all RB?

Yes.

The 600 feet, where is that?

So according to the streets that work typology, this would be an RC and then I guess it's 600 feet in each.

In either direction.

From the intersection.

Brian, can you show me?

So it would mean, for example, instead of this, we'd maybe scrunch it down to here.

Scrunch this into here.

Something like that.

You know, the four-way stop.

The neck downs at that intersection.

But the four-way stop would still be there.

Or traffic light or whatever.

Right now it's a four-way stop.

Right, right there.

One thing that I think we have to And there are four houses on those corners.

Each corner.

Yep.

If we're looking for places to do that, that's certainly one place.

And in this case, I concur that this is an area that makes particular sense.

this notion of encouraging 20 years from now a higher concentration that's a spot that makes sense.

I'm fine with keeping it.

on that.

Did that get dropped somewhere?

I didn't have that on the list that I received.

Anyway.

But it wasn't one of the streets that was submitted to James.

Remember, he asked everybody by the Well, it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

These are things that we all submitted to him by the deadline, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Let's talk about Orange Street.

Yeah, I can't quite see what the What is it that's motivating the person?

And I think I can only presume that the concern was about the loss of those parcels.

But we did something similar on Gillespie and on Grove.

Yeah, and I want to be clear, I wasn't recommending, I was only recommending that if Council believes that there's an issue here that needs to be addressed, my recommendation essentially is don't change the proposal for the property that's actually at the corner of Orange and East High, but fundamentally I'm not recommending, I wouldn't say that I'm recommending a change.

Right.

I'm not really sure what the argument would be here besides that the person just doesn't like it.

It doesn't mean that we ignore other realities for when that person decides to sell or move on or whatever.

And it doesn't mean necessary that they're going to be bought up.

So I'm inclined to leave it as is.

Me too.

Okay, Preston, Michael, are you okay with leaving a CX-5?

Seems like a marginal change, I mean.

So we can leave it.

Yeah.

Okay, so now we're on Preston.

Preston Avenue, between 10th Street and Rugby Road, we've gotten a lot of comment on that.

Preservation Piedmont sent out, I believe so.

Of course, Gene is associated with Preservation Piedmont.

But the latest one that Jenny Keller sent was from Preservation Piedmont.

She and Gene sent the same one.

It had a table and everything else.

Yeah, I think I forwarded that.

Yeah, it was Monday, I think.

Yeah, I was inclined to just adopt it outright, but I don't know the implications of that.