City Council Special Meeting - Draft Zoning Ordinance Deliberations   12/14/2023

Okay, so it looks like we've got everybody here.

Sure.

Okay.

So I'll call this meeting of the City Council of Work Session to order.

I'll note for the record that all five councillors are present.

And so we can get back to the council deliberations on the draft zoning ordinance.

Absolutely.

So I sent you all by email a list of what I saw as the remaining topics to discuss.

I thought I'd start us off with a new one.

Sorry, I apologize for that.

But over the course of some discussions with staff today, we were looking at the ordinance and

As you may recall early on we made a commitment to going back and retaining the existing allowances with regard to the homestay provisions where that homestay accessory use is allowed within the city.

Our intention was to keep that the same as it is today under the existing ordinance and we realized in order to do so we do actually have to add two more districts where that use would be allowed, the RX3 and the RX5.

because both of those districts cover areas that are currently allowed that use, but those districts, as they're set up today, do not allow that use.

Is that something we can just say yes to and move on?

Yes.

I don't see an issue at this point.

Michael?

And we've got one done in less than five minutes.

Less than three.

All right.

So the second item on the list was we had begun a discussion at the last meeting about the affordable dwelling unit provisions.

So that's our next topic.

So as you recall from the memo, we had proposed some alternative language relative to the issues

of differentiation of renter and ownership in terms of affordability and the level of AMI allowed.

So you sent us today.

Okay.

Never mind.

Yes.

Sorry.

I believe you are correct.

So I suppose this would be as good a time as any for me to raise the issue that I raised by email today, and that is that

as I've told councilors that I will be voting against any inclusion of RNA at this time and the reason for it is that I don't believe that it will work.

There are a number of reasons that I've advanced for that position but basically what it comes down to is that I don't know of any expert opinion any place and I have asked a number of folks

who basically when I ask what will stop gentrification, what will stop displacement, the only zoning answer that has ever been given to me is to aggressively build middle income housing and correspondingly to prohibit large scale luxury development in at risk neighborhoods.

That the main tools that we've got are things like property tax relief,

protecting senior homeowners and perhaps through property tax relief, home repair programs.

There's a suggestion from one source to create a stabilization voucher, a new type of housing voucher to be awarded the long-time residents of low-income communities to help them stay when gentrification poses a risk.

Basically what happened many months ago when I raised this, I did a Google search and asked Google how to stop gentrification.

And what I found was basically, the first place I found was an article in Shelter Force from 2014 which listed seven tools.

The only, and as I've mentioned, the only ones they found that were zoning related were to aggressively build middle income housing.

and to prohibit large-scale luxury development in at-risk neighborhoods.

Another source I went to was the CDC, their Healthy Places gentrification strategies and they had four measures suggested to stop gentrification.

Build more housing and three other non-zoning responses.

Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies also deals with build more housing and suggests really nothing else.

And finally, the one source that is tongue-in-cheek

response from a group called Market Urbanism said there are only two ways to prevent gentrification, build more housing and kill the rich people.

Presumably we don't want to do the latter, but everybody agrees that building more housing, more middle income housing is one of the most effective tools and maybe the only effective tool that zoning can offer for us.

By, as I understand the effect of RA and RNA in this situation,

The practical effect of RNA zoning would be to hold down the supply of units in the RNA neighborhood and therefore necessarily drive the price of those units up which is likely to create more gentrification pressures than fewer gentrification pressures.

And so I look at it

as it's simply not going to have the desired effect.

I add to that I've said this before that I've talked to a number of people who own homes in like in Tenth and Page, clients of mine that I've represented over the years and the situation where, you know,

Mama is living down on 11th Street and she dies and the kids want to realize the generational wealth that their family has now accumulated because Mom's house is worth $300,000 instead of the $75,000 that she bought it for many years ago.

and those folks are pretty much uniformly saying let us sell our property for the most that we can sell it for just as people in other neighborhoods can sell their property for the most they can sell for and when we heard from some folks over in the Meadows who were also facing the question of whether the Meadows would be included in the RNA zone

What we heard there was the owners were uniformly saying, don't limit my ability to convert this wealth into, you know, to realize the generational wealth that my family has.

So that's another reason why I don't think it's a wise idea.

In addition, I just think there are a lot of problems, some legal issues that I'm not going to get into here, but the most important issues that I think are practical issues that they're not going to have the desired effect.

They will probably have exactly the opposite effect.

and they would be unfair to the property owners in that area and in their ability to realize their wealth.

Well, it's not that simple.

You obviously made some good points.

I would be interested in the email exchange I saw today.

Well, yeah, I mean, I disagree.

As I laid out, there's a number of different reasons.

One, we saw in, I think, RKG's analysis.

There are areas of the city where turnover will be greater.

RB and RC is the biggest difference in that, but still in RA, there'll be an increase in the price and a developer is willing to pay for a lot, which will have implications for maintenance of affordable housing.

I think including some of the research that the mayor cited, there's certainly a dynamic where upzoning and increased supply can have a marginal diffuse regional benefit but within a low income neighborhood may accelerate the loss of affordable housing as well as have an impact on kind of the harmony of the history of a neighborhood like Tenth and Page or Rose Hill.

I think particularly in the context of as we discussed the fact that

into the future if we make changes that we, it's far easier to up zone rather than down zone.

I think it's appropriate in neighborhoods like Tenth and Page, Rose Hill, et cetera, to maintain that RNA approach recognizing that speculative

investment will be a dynamic that has impacts as part of this.

Well, I remember you saying this has been several months ago.

We were in a meeting down in the basement, that lovely conference room down there.

I think this is where you brought it up, where you felt like if we

I think there would definitely be a risk of that.

I mean from the very beginning of this process it was part of the framework.

What used to be called the sensitive communities overlay was part of this process from the very beginning and had a more extensive geographic area than RNA currently does.

And there are a variety of public policy reasons for that that I think still apply.

I do think the largest risk would be RB, RC in areas where you could see construction of say seven stories or more adjacent to low-income neighborhoods.

Those are definitely the largest pressures for accelerating the loss of affordable housing in some neighborhoods.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, Lloyd, you know, I read your email and the conversations we've had over the past two years, in particular the last couple of months, it's, you know, it's just one of those things that we just don't know exactly, you know,

You know, we can't tell the future, but I do believe that keeping it as the RNA zoning will be the best, you know, approach.

And in particular, you know, you know, I was kind of on the fence, but once I heard from some community leaders in Fifield, like I'm thinking about, I think I heard from James Bryant, you know, and Tenth and Page said, you know, community leaders are saying that they support this.

I guess my final thought is I think it will clearly be important to have small area plan processes in these areas that will lay the foundation for really going door to door in those communities, going to residents as opposed to expecting them to come to us and having that inform future changes.

and I think that will be an important approach and the final is just in everything in this process what is the distinction between homeowners and renters?

I think that was just a minute, though, right?

Well, there was a period of time where we were not recommending moving forward with that because

Our recommendation was based actually on the notion that making this kind of a move we felt was necessary to get deeper into the community with a conversation and frankly to have a level of conversation and dialogue with these communities that we couldn't do at the level of this citywide zoning process.

and also recognizing that as the comprehensive plan acknowledges there is a wide range of tools available to us in addressing this issue and I think I've said pretty consistently throughout this process that zoning is the bluntest of those tools.

It's kind of least effective in this space and there's many other things that are more effective.

So we did

We did arrive at a point where our recommendation was to proceed forward and come back to this issue of how to address our sense of community.

I remember that now.

Well, that's a three to one.

I haven't heard from Ms.

Anything that we can do to allow families in certain communities regardless of what you title them.

Whatever the new term is, every day it changes.

But the long story short is it's very clear after the gentleman from the Meadows spoke how he as a resident felt

with remaining RNA.

It is very clear that you can up zone at any time but you can't down zone and if the residents of the neighborhoods are saying they would like for things to remain RNA then I think we need to follow what the residents are requesting.

but the residents of these communities are saying we would like to stay the way they are and who are we as city council to deny the residents who have voted for four of you

I was appointed but have voted for four of you to say you voted for me but now I know better for you than you know.

I have a problem with that.

I'm sorry.

Well, I won't argue the point more except to say that that same logic

That's true, but right now we're talking about one particular neighborhood.

I can't talk about every neighborhood.

Right now we're talking about a particular group of individuals that have come and have stated why they would like to remain the way they are.

If in eight months, 12 years, 20 years,

a decision is made to upzone you can upzone but if you upzone today and the bottom falls out you can't go back and redo it.

And I say it makes sense to me to err on the side of caution based on the people that are currently living there.

I have nothing further to say.

So the remaining issue on this topic is where to map these two districts, the RNA district and the corridor overlay district.

I'm going to begin with the RNA.

All of you received in your packets.

Again, the map that the Planning Commission produced showing the RNA.

Yep.

So there's a map of it's a it's a citywide map showing those areas of RNA broadly speaking that's Tenth and Page, Rose Hill, Fifeville and Ridge Street but there's the borders are more fine-grained and we've showed some small expansions to reflect some of the changes that you all made to the base map at your prior meeting

And those are the subsequent images on the back page.

Okay, this is what we had from yesterday.

Yep, those are they.

Not what you sent today.

No, today was in the packet.

Okay, all right.

I just want to make sure I'm at the right spot.

Okay, I'm ready.

I didn't even think to go look at the...

Okay.

Yeah, I saw this.

One of the sets of maps in here is the places that we've changed the zoning.

Yes.

I don't have the right document.

I'm sorry.

Are you talking about these?

Yeah, I, for some reason, I'm not able to find that.

Do you want me to forward it to you?

Give me just two seconds.

The third map down, there's essentially a Salmon color on Rosser Street and on, in Rose Hill, I believe it's Forest Street.

All right.

So you're adding those.

And the Planning Commission recommendations, which you guys have on the previous page, page five.

So the, as I recall, there was some discussion about the, particularly the parcels off Forest Street and Concord and Cynthiana and so on, as whether

The existing zoning versus the proposed zoning, yeah.

Okay.

The map on top is the current proposed zoning map.

The second map down is that area of the Planning Commission's recommendation.

And then the third map down is what we're proposing to add to the Planning Commission's recommendation.

Sorry, I should have oriented you all to the maps at the beginning.

I apologize.

Can you go to the top of the document?

I just sent it to you.

Excuse me.

So the RNA additional zone would be those few lots on Cynthiana on the east side of Forest and also on Concord on the east side of Forest.

as well as one lot on Henry on the east side of Forest.

Those are the ones that you're proposing to change to RNA?

And also the one on Rosser?

Yes.

I remember one of the concerns, one of the questions was,

Right.

Well, the main issue we were trying to make sure we were sensitive to is those parcels that are under the current zoning or in zone manufacturing, and that's what we've stayed away from in that.

Yeah, for whatever reason, it won't download on my computer.

Okay.

Yes, there's not color consistency.

And so what the proposal would be that the

Okay.

And so the change there would be simply on the triangular piece that is sort of at the end there.

Yes.

Okay.

You changed what it was.

And those are labeled additional RNA?

And so we've got kind of two decisions.

The one that just came in the memo.

Okay, so you have an RNA area in Planning Commission map, October 23rd, which is the one, 2023, which is the one in the center.

Invalid format.

Right.

Okay, we're on this one now.

Okay.

So we'll take this and put it here.

You got it.

Okay.

We can do that.

I'm good with that.

I don't know how anybody else feels with that.

Can you pass that down real quick?

Three out of five.

I'm good with it.

You okay with that?

Yes.

Yes, for that specific change.

I think we have an agreement there.

All right.

I think the only other thing to discuss is in the future land use map, the additional areas that were designated again at that time as sensitive community

I might be with more discussion and thought.

I had, and I'll say this from folks I know in the Meadows, homeowners, sort of the flip side of what we've heard from Tenth and Page, that they thought that that was off the table and then it somehow came back on the table.

and you know I don't I feel like that we've had a robust conversation around the areas around Fifeville and so on.

I don't feel like we've been able to have that around the Meadows so I would not support including the Meadows or this other location at this time.

Yeah, yeah that's an area that I to be honest I need to get to know better.

I don't have a lot of contacts in that community and

and when trusted residents of the area came and said, you know, we don't want this now, I would have to trust their judgment on it.

Yeah, certainly for the Meadows, we heard from three individuals who are homeowners, not renters, but I definitely acknowledge it's difficult for all of these without having gone through a full small area plan process.

Divining what the majority opinion is, is probably impossible to fully do.

And then the other one is that area in Belmont that was originally the future land use map.

Yeah, I mean, again, I would be certainly willing to entertain that at some point.

I just don't feel like I've had enough time to think about those two areas.

With respect to the other pieces, there's been pretty steady

Lobbying is not the word I want to look for.

Pretty steady representation from groups like CLIC and FAR and People's Coalition for the core neighborhoods that we're showing now on the map.

Understand would just say it would be reflective of the future land use map and the discussions that happened at that time.

Okay.

So the second map issue is to confirm on the corridors.

There was a prior discussion amongst council.

I just want to confirm that we talked about two corridors previously, Cherry Avenue and Preston.

On Preston in particular, the Planning Commission had recommended bringing that corridor overlay up to not include the stretch between effectively I think it was the railroad tracks and

McIntyre.

Thank you McIntyre.

But the Council believed that we should include that entire stretch and so that's what we've presented for you all.

Yeah, that made sense to me because of Reed being there.

I don't know, Michael, if you have any other thoughts about this particular edition.

We were looking at there's a NX-5 designation on Rose Hill.

We proposed and actually I remember producing the map but I'm realizing now I'm not sure that we actually I don't recall seeing it but I've seen so much I could have forgotten.

And so this, and I support that, but we also, I thought we had some discussion also about doing something at the intersection of Worcester and Bodo's, is that Harris Street?

Okay.

We weren't proposing to go down Harris Street on IX.

I mean, leave that to your discussion, but what we're trying to

The intent statement, the purpose statement behind these corridors is to preserve access to those services that are kind of neighborhood oriented.

It doesn't feel like that's what is happening on Harris Street.

Harris Street is transitioning, but it's largely an industrial space.

It's not served in that role of providing services and amenities to those neighboring communities.

If anything, it's been

is challenging to those neighboring communities and has divided an offset by the railroad tracks today.

I remember having the extended discussion in the basement conference room and coming away from the discussion feeling like we had a good discussion.

I'm not sure I could recreate all of my mental processes from then, but I thought it was a good result that we came out with.

I would be inclined to leave it as is.

The changes from that meeting.

The changes we talked about on that day was basically the entire length of Preston.

I mean, I'm sorry, from Grady to McIntyre.

I think we're okay with that.

Okay.

I think so.

Great.

Yes, I would just add I think

It's an argument I can see both sides of, but I think there's at least an argument for the IX8 inclusion, but I do see both sides of it.

I think it's an area that's service, not longer, but corner stores and other amenities, but those are since gone.

So let's if we can if we're ready to go on to another topic the affordable dwelling unit provisions.

We have begun a discussion here yesterday around again bringing the rental and the ownership provision making those again the same.

You'll recall that the draft as advertised has different AMI requirements and different

Length of affordability requirements depending on whether you're looking at ownership or rental.

And the proposal was made to make those the same but differentiate based on the district.

So we have for that base affordable housing requirement, the inclusionary zoning requirement, it would be 60% of AMI for 99 years, citywide for both rental and ownership.

for in the residential districts A, B, and C where you have the bonus unit provisions applicable it would be 80% of AMI for 30 years.

The

I mean just fundamentally the concern as has been discussed is that zoning does not as a general rule differentiate between rental and ownership.

In fact zoning is supposed to deal with buildings and land use it's not supposed to deal with ownership or who's in the building or who lives there, who owns it, their status of ownership.

And so in particular where you're doing that you need to identify a strong zoning public purpose.

in order to differentiate between rental and ownership.

Okay.

I know that this is challenging to sort out.

Yeah, in terms of, I guess, the HACC and Planning Commission's original, their original proposal.

Sure.

The proposal was that rental would be that we were required to provide 10% of units at 60% of AMI for 99 years.

But if a project is ownership, they would provide 10% of units at 80% of AMI

for the first owner with a right of first refusal to the city and a nonprofit builder.

And so basically when you've tried to operationalize this in terms of the actual code we have to work with,

It's become difficult to figure out how to essentially how to do that, I guess.

Right.

The issue was raised as a concern.

The concern.

The concern being that zoning does not typically deal with the issue of ownership versus rental.

Zoning does not typically deal with those issues.

It deals with issues of land use and buildings and those types of things, not who lives in the building and what their status is in that building.

Yeah, by differentiating at the zoning district level and basically making the argument that within the zoning district, as stated in the memo, within the residential zoning district, we are necessarily dealing with very small projects.

Smaller projects are going to have more difficulty being able to finance an affordable housing project to begin with, and so we're proposing in those instances a higher AMI standard, a lower length of, lower term.

I would just add that to Mr. Pinkston's point, consistent with good zoning policy but also does offer some advantages in terms of being more legally defensible.

Being what?

Yes.

That's correct.

10% of the units at 60% of AMI for 99 years, both rental and ownership.

Okay.

I remember that one of the reasons that was being proposed was a concern that at this point probably the major way that we're getting affordable units for ownership is through Habitat and Habitat was expressing concerns that this would interfere with their model.

I'll say again, as I did last night, I think we ended up with a worse overall policy by taking a large geographic area that was 60% of AMI for 99 years and then converting that to 80% of area mean income for 30 years.

Certainly to the extent that finances are a piece of it, the length of affordability does not significantly impact a developer.

AMI obviously has a significant impact.

My concern is just an overall weakening of that as well as creating a dynamic across a larger geographic area where 30 years is certainly longer than our current standard but we've encountered a lot of something was designated affordable for 10, 15 years and we basically phased out that once affordable housing stock and we're kind of setting up that dynamic again and I think there was a clear

Correct.

That's what I've been at.

Last night there were three options on the table.

Leave it where it is, go with the proposal here in the memo, or I believe it was presented, make it uniform citywide at 10% at 60% of AMI for 99 years.

Correct.

So there are really only two proposals on the table then, right?

Yeah, I'm literally having to crank the old brain right now.

Yeah, so, yeah.

Yeah, I'm just, you know, I am confused.

So if you could just clarify for me what...

What you have now is what Hack recommended.

That's what's in the advertised draft of the zoning.

The advertised draft of the zoning ordinance has the Planning Commission's recommendation, which reflects the recommendations of the Hack.

So, I mean, I think the issue is I think what the HAC and the Planning Commission proposed, you know, that makes sense.

But I think it makes sense, you know, as Michael would put it, from a policy perspective.

We've included language within the ordinance that gives discretion for projects to make proposals that are consistent with the intent and objectives of the comprehensive plan and for those to be considered that differentiate from these rules.

And then the other point to always remember is that the city does have the ability to essentially buy down the AMI or buy

So you're saying even if we go with what you all are proposing right now, there's still the option on a case-by-case basis to work out with a habitat or whomever?

Yeah.

I'll say if that's the approach the majority goes to add on to the kind of small list of additional things to consider once a new zoning ordinance takes effect.

Mr. Mayor, if I might, in response to Councillor Pinkston's question maybe a little bit more clearly than Mr. Frias has stated, from our standpoint that the ordinance is far more defensible if you're not making a distinction based on who owns the property and that's the fundamental problem with the HACC proposal.

So I guess I wonder how many of those are going to result.

Well, I guess you could get additional ownership from duplexes and that kind of thing.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go along with your suggestion here for the reasons that were just brought up by our council.

I think that what the proposal was from the Hack and the Planning Commission, I get it, but at the same time, I think...

I'm inclined to agree with that.

I would add that this is probably more so than just about any other provision we've talked about, something that we could easily reevaluate in five years if we see that nothing's happening, for example.

and then we can make a decision at that point based on whatever the state of the law may be at that point as to whether that kind of distinction could be valid.

But if we stick with it, if we do things right now in the most legally defensible position, let's try that and see whether it works.

I think it'll be

Weaker compared to what?

Sorry, in my mind, still both the original staff proposal, I think this is also weaker in terms of just pure policy outcome than the hacks, both of those.

although I've stated my preference for uniformity across the city.

Yep.

Budget issue.

Yep.

Okay.

Did the Vice Mayor weigh in?

Oh.

The 10% of units at 60% of AMI for 99 years.

Yeah.

Okay.

You mean that outside of the residential districts?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought it was just applying to the residential districts.

The recommendation in the memo is the 10%

Sorry, 60% of AMI for 99 years applies to all districts except the residential districts.

The residential districts, the bonus unit provisions is 80% of AMI at 30 years.

Council Payne has recommended based on the original proposal that in all districts residential, whether it's the bonus unit program or the base inclusionary zoning program, that it all be

that it all be 10% at 60% of AMI for 99 years.

So I'm just clarifying.

OK.

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you for clarifying, because I frankly wasn't sure I understood what the staff position was.

Sorry.

OK.

And then RA, RB, RC, and RNA would have 80% of AMI for 30 years.

Is that...?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm fine with that.

You fine with that?

Yes.

I'm with HACC.

I'm a member.

Okay.

Okay.

I believe at the last meeting on the RNA you guys confirmed a prior decision with regard to the bonus for retaining the existing structure, but let me confirm that.

A prior decision was to take that from three to two units.

Yeah, we confirmed that yesterday.

Yeah.

So that's everything on

Item number two on page five, is that a decision point that we need to make or has that already been made?

I just wanted to make sure that you've got a couple of questions at the end.

I want to make sure we've addressed them all.

Give me two seconds, please, to catch up with you.

In the meantime, the

This is from last night, but it's connected to the ADU.

So student, this is true.

Student housing would be subject to a fee in lieu only and not have the option to build affordable units targeting students.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Right.

And that was a prior decision.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, and again, I'm not quite sure where the votes are on this and I may be outvoted.

I wanted to raise again the question of having some gross floor area limit at least in RA and noting that

at the last meeting when we talked about this at least three of you said something to the effect of well I wasn't on council when that was discussed

and I'm simply reminding folks that it doesn't really matter because frankly you're down by the comp plan and the comp plan says that we want to have house sized units in general residential and the question is whether that means 3,000 square foot footprint times three stories or whether it means some gross floor area limitation and I have suggested gross floor area limitation

of 4,500 square feet.

So I went and looked at the comp plan language, and I understand why someone would have used the word, quote, house-sized, and they actually put it in quotes.

They used that phrase without any elucidation under the

the general residential I guess it is but under the medium intensity residential which is what RB and RC are they specifically say house sized in parentheses up to 12 units so that's on the same page so I can understand why

From the very beginning, people have assumed, well, house size under this dispensation means something that can have up to 12 units.

So I don't see the, you know, I guess I would just disagree, Lloyd.

Well, I had originally talked about it having some limits in other places as well simply because the size would be so much greater than, the original discussion had been house sized for general residential and mansion sized for the medium intensity.

I'm less concerned, frankly, about the medium intensity than I am about the RA zone, which is what we're calling general residential now.

It's easier for me to understand what a house-sized building is than it is necessarily to understand what a mansion-sized

building would be.

And mansion-sized is not a phrase that is used in the comp plan, but house-sized is.

So for me, at this point, I'm mainly concerned about RA and wanting to fix some limit that is less than 9,000 square feet, because that's effectively the gross floor area that would be permitted.

And you could have 9,000 square feet with three units, for example.

So the language in the text, medium intensity residential, allows small, comma, house-sized in parentheses, multi-unit buildings up to 12-unit dwellings, and so on.

The same phrase is not in parentheses, not in quotation marks,

under general residential compatible with existing context including house size structures and similar ground floor footprint area setbacks surrounding residential structures.

This isn't something I really want to spend personally a lot of time fighting about.

How much housing are we leaving on the table if we adopt a lower?

I think it would be probably most helpful if I defer to Christy to speak about, again, what

So for me, I'm concerned that we keep RB and RC.

I think that's an argument that we've had a discussion, and the mayor disagreed, but I think that's one he's been willing to let go.

In RA, I recognize that this is something that is important to him, and I'd like to understand what are we perhaps leaving on the table, or what are we missing?

Because you can still have bonus units.

You can, and I'll give you a bit of context for how we thought about that, and then hopefully that will help guide your discussion in understanding where some of the flexibility may be in where that building footprint could calibrate down some and still not

risk as much the flexibility.

So I want to go through a couple things.

First, just how we arrived at that number.

When we were considering how sized

I've mentioned this a couple times.

We were really concerned with that feel from the street because that's a bit of our ethos of how we regulate things and that is how character and how size is generally perceived in the neighborhood.

So that building width was really important.

Another way we thought about this is how are the different types of housing that you might see, how would those fit into that footprint?

and in general on infill lots something you see quite often is something that is about a 40 foot wide building but is deep enough to get three or four units.

So we really went off of four.

So that 3,000 square feet with a 40 foot wide building got you about

19 foot wide units if you sort of went back into the property.

And that is something that is generally about a family sized unit.

And so that felt about right for providing the maximum amount of flexibility.

And the reason we went with building footprint is because growth square footage tends to be very challenging for staff to calculate.

It's something that a lot of communities have tried in the past.

Austin is kind of the, Austin, Texas is kind of the example.

They went with and they called it their anti-McMansion policy and they regulated based on FAR and that is inherently a gross square footage calculation.

They have found over time that staff has found it extraordinarily challenging to understand what is and what isn't included in that gross square footage calculation and developers have gotten quite

Creative on how they do and don't count the square footage.

So from a predictability perspective, footprint is the easiest way to administer that and it gets you the most predictable outcomes.

So that sort of 40 by 20-ish

unit about four back is how we arrived at the 3,000 square foot footprint.

So I think if you're thinking about as a policy what do you want to set to maintain some of that flexibility, I think the most critical piece here is to maintain that it is measured as a building footprint because it's

is by far the easiest to administer for staff and it gives you the most predictable outcomes.

Whether that number is 3,000, whether it comes down to 2,500, that's more of a policy discussion that you all can have knowing that as you calibrate it down it does reduce some of that flexibility because the most common for sale housing type you'll see sort of is that 40-ish wide building with the units sort of going back into the property.

So that really is setting a policy for you all of what you are comfortable with that footprint being.

But I do want to encourage you to think about building footprint is the most predictable and easiest to administer way to do it.

And I will say, as I've said on other occasions, that one of the things that is sticking in my mind as I think about this is 624 Booker Street.

It's a 7,000 square foot gross floor area building in what we would now be calling an RA zone.

It is absolutely much too large for the site.

It looks horrendous.

Of course, the fact that it was poorly designed and there are various other problems with it too and now not being maintained because it's basically had to stop work on it.

But if you drive onto Booker Street, the one thing you get smacked in the face with this

Well, you know, the, I'm just sort of thinking about my What's the address of that place again?

624 Booker.

You won't find it on there.

It's the tall, unfinished house on Hooker Street.

You can see it from Preston.

It's all boarded up.

You can see it from Rose Hill.

You can find it on Google Maps, just can't find it on the city website because it didn't get finished.

Anyway, so

One of the things that I was thinking about in terms of this is if we have a limit of 4,500 square feet, and I say it could be 5,000, that doesn't offend me greatly either way, with a possibility of six affordable units on it.

One of the things that that necessarily means is that the affordable units in that building might be smaller than some of the units that are currently on the market.

On the other hand, as I said,

a couple meetings ago I went through and did a search on mycar.com and found that most of the two bedroom units that are out there for rent in Charlottesville right now are about 750 to 800 square feet and you could easily put six

such units into a 4,500 square foot house.

And so what I want to do is to figure out a way that doesn't, and I'll also add that a 750 square foot apartment is much more likely to be affordable to build than an 1,100 square foot apartment.

Well, in terms of trying to figure out what a constraint would be, you could have six units at 4,500 square feet, and that would be 750 square feet per unit.

So how many units would it be in that building?

Six.

I'm really thinking in that sense I'm really thinking about in terms of construction costs.

Okay.

Well and that really primarily probably meeting the market of

Or with one kid or something.

So what if it's a 9,000 square foot and someone wants to live in part of its market rate and it's 2,500 and they divide up the rest for affordable units?

Because I think part of this whole process is to create not only

More housing opportunities, but different types.

So that's what I'm looking at.

Well, my point is, if the answer is we're just ditching house-sized, then let's be honest about it.

Because 9,000 square feet is not house-sized.

If we're going to do that, let's say so clearly and move on.

And if I'm outvoted 4 to 1 on that, so be it.

But when the comp plan talks about house size, I think we are obligated to at least try to comply with the comp plan in that way.

And if we're going to have a 9,000 square foot building in an RA zone that says you're going to have six 1,500 square foot apartments,

You know, that would certainly be permissible, but that's not going to be house-sized.

So what you're saying is, Lloyd, before that you answer, what you're saying is if, if, this is if, if it's 9,000 square feet and each unit in there becomes

1,500 square feet.

Your concern is the 9,000 square feet that everything is fitting into.

Not considering that if you had something that was 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, you might be able to get a family, like a family with two

maybe three children in 1,200 square feet versus one person in 750 square feet.

Okay.

So if we go with what you are suggesting,

the units within that building would be smaller so you may or may not, well you probably, you may or may not get the same number of people in the building, correct?

Okay.

No, I didn't say that was.

What I'm trying to do is understand your concept.

So now I understand your concept.

Okay, I hear what you're saying.

Yeah, so I guess if you look at what's in the draft zoning ordinance, page 2-8, where they lay out the criteria for

physical dimensions for what's sort of possible to do.

They've got 3,000 square foot building max footprint max.

And as we're being told, it's very challenging apparently to try to track this whole thing in terms of overall gross square footage, actual gross square footage.

Other parameters around building coverage, 55 for two, 60% for three to four, 65% for the overall lot size.

The minimum is 6,000 square feet.

Those are all minimums.

Yeah, I'm not really

Yeah.

It sounds like we're just going to have to put our finger in the air and say if we sort of agree with the direction you're going, just kind of pick a number.

And I guess the only way I can think about the building volume is in terms of gross floor area.

And that doesn't fit with what we're being told makes the most sense in terms of

I think a relatively easy way to at least gut check what that may be is to just multiply the footprint by your allowable height.

So as a base, your allowable height would be 2.5.

So that building footprint does include some coverage for things like porches or different things like that.

So that would be included in that coverage.

So know that it's an estimate, but that could at least help you gut check that number.

So if that number were to be 2,500, to say that would be 7,500 square feet at a three-story building.

So right now we're saying if we had 3,000 square feet as a footprint and we could build up to three stories with the bonus, I guess, right?

Right, so we have just the maximum cube you could build.

So I guess if we feel like that is going to end up being something egregious, then we could change the footprint to 2,500.

about a little larger than 624 Booker.

Yeah, that's a, you know, I think we talked about this before, kind of the lowest common denominator.

Well, it's true, but I think if we get a chance to design a zoning ordinance that permits something like that,

But they may not.

But that's allowed now and people are just not doing it willy-nilly now.

Well, one of the issues with this is that if we did reduce the building footprint max, say, to 2,500, if you had someone who just wanted to build a single story unit that was, you know, it doesn't sound like a 3,000 square foot single story would be an issue.

So we would be foreclosing that possibility if we went down because of the footprint.

Well, yeah, yeah, the more and more I think about it, you know, because, of course, now they could, you know, build, I don't, actually, I don't know what the largest they can build a house now is, but, you know, they, it's not a lot of abandoned houses and things like that in the city.

So,

I understand what you're saying.

Maybe someone will come along and do something with.

So, Lord, would you suggest just having like an asterisk here that says no total square footage north of X?

And I don't have experience with it.

I am told by other folks that it's not that insurmountable a problem, but I don't know.

But if we're determined that we're not going to count gross floor area, then this is the only thing, I guess, that we can do.

And I don't know of a good way to deal with it other than what's here.

I mean well the whole idea of zoning is you cap

uses at some level.

And if you're not willing to cap it to house size, then there's no point in kidding ourselves that it's a house size zoning ordinance.

It's not.

Or zoning district.

So the 6,000 square feet area you're not comfortable with on the lot size here?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, three times three is nine.

And I have suggested

So because it says maximum, it could be less than $3,000, but your concern is if they go to the max.

You're not concerned about if

Lloyd Developer comes in and does it at 2,500 square feet.

Well, to be fair, what I'm concerned about is

Certainly.

And what I've suggested is 4,500.

The issue, Leah, is that the way this thing is structured is in terms of

building footprint, not in terms of square footage of the house.

Right.

Yeah, the footprint thing has thrown me off because I look at apartments and townhouses and condominiums.

and homes in square feet.

Yep.

That's what Chrissy just said.

In particular, some of the ways that the building size gets inflated

are in things like how garage square footage, it's particularly unoccupiable space.

So things like garages, they can really swell the size of a house but may or may not be calculated in that gross square footage requirement.

Attics, they may be unoccupiable at the time but could very easily be built out to become a unit as buildings evolve.

Rooms under stairs,

making that carved out elevator cores, thicknesses of walls.

Hmm.

Similar terms, house scale, house sized and we generally take the approach of again being very careful about the building width and the building height in particular and then sort of letting the depth of the building be controlled by things like building coverage and

I would say most people are actually moving away from things like footprint or floor area, gross square footage, anything like that, and just letting that building width, height, and any building or lot coverage, some places do lot coverage, letting those be the controlling factors.

These sizes in particular?

I would say it varies because things like building width and the height allowed vary and those sort of articulate the box differently.

Some places that we have proposed or have adopted ordinances that may have something similar, Greenville, South Carolina has sort of a missing middle set of districts.

and they controlled theirs by building width and building depth which ultimately results in a building footprint.

So they just called it something a bit different but fundamentally that's how they chose to regulate it and those measurements would result in quite similar footprints but they calibrated theirs a bit differently in that

Their building widths that are allowed are calibrated based on your lot width.

So as you get more narrow lots, you're only allowed a certain amount of building width.

And then as you get wider lots, you can have wider buildings.

So that's just as an example to show, if you go look at their code, there's something close-ish, but there's always a bit of nuance.

I think that's the issue.

I think that the ship kind of sailed a long time ago in terms of the methodology, for better or worse.

And

If you start cranking down on the footprint max to say 2500 then there could be smaller things that people want to build.

So I guess the initial decision point is if there is not majority support for getting into the gross floor area business at all, then we'll move on.

Well, can I have just a couple of minutes to think about it?

And you're looking at gross floor area from a house-sized perspective.

And most houses in RA neighborhoods as they exist right now are probably in the roughly 2,500 to 3,000 square foot range.

Is there a way to include, what would you say is too big?

Well, you know, I'd suggested 4,500 simply because, and again, a very gross

Look at the statistics on this.

I don't know of a lot of houses in Charlottesville that are up more than 4,500 square feet in terms of gross flow area, though there's some.

I'll say I don't know of any in our neighborhood.

that are, but I know that there are some particularly along Rugby Road and places like that.

So I was picking 4,500.

Once we get to the difference between 4,500 and 5,000, part of what I was thinking was if people felt it was important to get to 5,000 because that allows six units of 800 square feet.

versus six units of 750 square feet.

If that would help people feel a little bit better about it, then I'm not going to fight about 500 more square feet.

So I'm not wedded to 4,500.

How burdensome would you find it if this is we still have this framework which is in terms of footprint but we had some sort of note for RA neighborhoods that

Or however we want to phrase it.

Yeah.

So it's not impossible to do.

We've laid out the challenges.

It's impossible.

There's an administrative challenge associated with it.

There's some outcomes associated with it that we have concerns about.

The immediate concern for me right now is drafting what the rules are going to be.

Before Monday?

For the gross floor area.

We're putting the packet out tomorrow, but we can figure that part out, right?

So, I mean, what I need right now is kind of the parameters.

What are we including within the gross square footage and what are we excluding?

So garages is a classic one.

Whether those are included or excluded is a big deal.

And obviously, when you include garages, you know, there's

Builders tend to push back on that because they want to maximize their square footage.

They want to include the garage.

Right, so garage included, habitable area, what's that?

Addicts.

Why don't we just exclude those and say it's basically

Occupiable square footage of the house plus connected structures such as a garage that are unoccupiable.

Well, it'll be the new construction where you'll see that.

Let me make sure before we go down this route that other people agree with it.

Basically, we're saying this is sort of the philosophy that we've been following, but we're going to put a big asterisk and say something along the lines of what I just described.

How do others feel about it?

I mean, I know there are plenty of people online right now who think we're losing our mind.

But I do respect the mayor's perspective on this.

And I don't think we're going to be sacrificing a lot in terms of housing that we're going to be able to get out of this.

Because you still have the bonus units.

So you're saying with your proposal you could build a house on a lot or you could build something that would have more than one unit on that lot which would give you quote unquote density?

Yes.

So I'm trying to, you know, trying to visualize this.

Well, you could still have up to six units if you've got affordable housing in an RA lot.

So base would be three.

You could have up to six with affordable dwelling units.

So Lloyd, if we followed this, we'd have to add up.

You'd have to take whatever this number is and divide it by whatever the total number of units you might get.

Right.

So I think one of Lloyd's concerns was preventing 624 Booker Street.

How would your proposal

It basically would say you couldn't build anything bigger than 5,000 square feet total on that lot.

If you added up all the various buildings that you built there, the most square footage that you could have if you summed all those up,

For all three of the buildings or per building?

All three.

All three total.

So where did we get 5,000 square feet from?

He took 7,500 square foot for a unit times 8?

750 times 6 is 4,500 square feet.

So let me just, so again, as I said the other night, I worked in a prior community that had this type of role.

Obviously, it's doable.

It raises all, it raises administrative issues.

We have to be able to verify the existing square footage.

Any time someone's doing an addition, which is your most common type of activity, you have to measure their existing square footage.

So they have to submit to you their existing square footage as it fits within all the rules.

I then turned to our consultants and said, unbiased, what is your experience with this rule set?

And they repeated back to me the exact same things I had said had been my experience in a prior community.

I'll note during the public hearing the example was provided of Austin and that they implemented this and it was no problem.

Our consultant team is based in Austin.

They're very familiar with their ordinance and the challenges that they have enforcing that ordinance and the experiences they're having with that ordinance.

But I appreciate there's a desire to address this issue.

Obviously, on staff side, we will deal with what we get.

But I've now noted the issues and we'll put it to rest.

So the issues are noted.

Let me ask one last question.

So what Brian proposes, we accept.

Hypothetically, America.

And I want to do an addition to my house.

and that addition will not be able to exceed a total of 4,500 square feet because I already got, I don't know, 2,500.

That's the solution, right?

We have to treat everybody the same, all lots equal.

So if the cap is 5,000,

You've got 4,700 today.

Righto.

And so that's where the building footprint max

And again, if we're talking, if the conversation is strictly RA and you're talking that many units, you're talking about

likely in affordable housing development and not a significant amount of them.

It's just something to consider.

I mean, if either of you are able to, you talked about the administrative implications in terms of moving in that approach.

Well, the classic example from my experience is my community also excluded basements.

So the go-to move then is to build up the land around the house to sink as much of that square footage below grade, right?

Because the community where I was before was hilly.

Right?

And if you're excluding basements, the way that plays out is what's below grade, right?

The desire would be to bury as much as possible.

Now, I readily admit that was a different market.

I understand.

In my case, that's the Boston market.

You're building

I understand.

I got it.

The other side that Christy was alluding to, and I think is what they're dealing with more in Austin, I suspect, is the attic thing, right?

We exclude non-habitable space, which under the building code is anything below 7 feet.

So then you build the attic space to be 6 foot 8, 6 foot 10.

It's not habitable.

Most people are going to walk around in there and they're not going to bump their heads and they won't know the difference.

No.

No.

Sorry.

Oh, it's the building code.

Right.

And they build it just below that.

Yes.

Thank you.

But they could refinish.

So then you get in a situation where you've got a house that's sort of on the margin of these rules we're coming up with, and someone says, I want to just renovate an attic.

And then that triggers these rules and says, no, you're not supposed to do that.

I don't know.

I don't know how to make it work.

I mean, the place where citizens run into this issue is when they're putting additions on their houses and they're touching that line.

They're somewhere, they're in a house that's already close to that line.

Those are operational details.

But those are not issues if you just had a vacant lot and did what Brian said.

My perception is that those are operational details that at some point you write an ordinance and you don't agonize.

Okay, so somebody games the system.

They put on a mansard roof so that they can have a larger attic space that is habitable.

I don't know that that seriously destroys the character of the neighborhood, but I don't want to get all worked up about the fact that somebody might be able to game it a little bit.

Anyway,

I would like to see something along the lines of what Brian has suggested and as I said I'm willing to accept 5,000 feet as the limitation if that will help it make it easier to have more units that could be built.

I don't think that the difference between 4,500 and 5,000 is going to be that serious.

I'm trying to avoid the really

And that gross floor area would have to be distributed among all the units on the property.

Yeah.

So that's, yeah, that's a question.

And I'll just say I can't support that because

One, concern over restriction of supply and then two, maybe the larger is I have a hard time gaming out what the implications are in terms of

what will likely get built, what can get built, as well as trouble figuring out what the implications are from the administrative side.

And this is a very substantial change to a large zoning district, RA.

and to make a decision of that consequence without understanding or having thought through what the implications are.

I just don't feel comfortable doing that myself.

Yeah, I mean, I could support a reduction, but not, you know, like almost half.

I was thinking 7,500 or so, but I can't support 5,000.

I think that working with the county planning for many years, I've just kind of been on part of the other end, not really doing this, but being in enough staff meetings and things that it's going to be hard to and

And I don't think the difference between 9,000 and 7,500 is significant.

Once you're at 7,500, you're way beyond where we ought to be anyway.

Go through the pockets for loose chains.

We could have three buildings, but the three buildings on total have to be five, right?

In other words, say we pick 5,000 gross square feet or whatever.

And again, that would be, yeah.

And then we come back a year from now and people say, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

We could just remove that, right?

Yeah, I would say yes.

Yeah.

Yep.

Yes.

I just, even just

I worry even not in terms of what's allowed but what is a wise best practice just even in terms of process to make a change of the scale with no opportunity for input from any parties involved just doesn't strike me as a good way to do public policy.

Yeah, I'm torn.

On the one hand, I can appreciate Lloyd's concern.

I'm not sure I like it, though.

But you wonder about... I like your compromise, but you wonder about...

Yeah.

Well, I guess what I would say

But if it's 5,000 for the whole lot that means

Correct.

No, Brian just gave that as an example.

Right.

That's what I'm saying.

I mean, the other

The other piece of it is that I will say again that I think the odds of getting any actual bonus units built in an RA zone are pretty slim anyway.

Okay, so yeah, so I would say what I would propose is 5,000 square feet gross floor area for the sum total of all of the units on the lot where what is to be included is

Okay.

And let me say,

I apologize for not having made more of a fuss about it.

I did first raise the issue by my count back in August before the issue ever came to City Council.

No, I certainly appreciate your point.

And I feel like we reached compromise on the medium intensity residential districts.

The more intense zoning is going forward there.

Yeah, for most staying for the buck, sort of.

OK.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, I'll just raise it one last time.

I mean, again, not in terms of what's allowed, but I mean, kind of in terms of what we think is good deliberation in public policy, at what point do we draw the line in terms of

substantial changes that the public hasn't been able to see, a change that in a matter of a couple days there's not really any input on.

At what point is that wise decision making on our part as council?

I know that's not a fun thing at all, but just being completely honest it kind of reaches the point where if someone comes to me with that concern it's kind of hard for me to provide a

a counter argument.

Again, not in terms of what's allowed, but you really took your time to carefully consider this as a council.

I hear your point.

I think it's the, we call it the nature of the process or, yeah, I'll just second what the mayor just said.

I don't feel like

Well, on each of these things we've needed a chance to hash it out and I guess some of it may look maybe hard at the end but I don't know what else to do if there's something that we disagree about.

There's been other things that we've made calls on like the other day with the zoning along East High.

Yeah, it's not a change to a residential district, certainly.

No, I hear you.

Not necessarily, but...

That is the next item.

And you sent us an email earlier today.

I did.

And the topic was disposition of pending projects.

And you discussed the reason for the three options.

You also included what staff

Thank you, staff.

Felt was the best option and I hadn't even seen that when I read it initially and lo and behold, I picked the best option and I didn't even see that at the bottom.

So we need to have discussion on that and a decision on that so that Mr. Freeze and company can go forth and do what they need to do.

Fire away.

Go.

Yep.

That is correct.

So right, this is with regard to site plans.

They're currently under review with the city.

Those are not vested under state law.

So you have the option of passing a resolution at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance that would essentially give certain site plans the equivalent of vested rights.

Key decision to make is with regard to what the cutoff is for the submission date of those site plans.

Presented three options on those.

The first one ties to the date of first advertisement for the Planning Commission's public hearing, which was August 31st.

The second option is tied to the date of the first advertisement of the City Council's public hearing, which was November 21st.

And then the final option would be the date of adoption of the ordinance itself.

Obviously, these earlier dates are more generous, if you will, to projects in the pipeline, but they create a larger administrative burden for staff as means we are reviewing more projects contemporaneously within two ordinances.

The resolution is also proposed to include language with regard to continued diligent pursuit of those projects.

In other words, if you'd abandoned the project or don't continue to diligently pursue completion of the project, then it would no longer continue its vesting.

And we put an absolute limit of July 1st of 2025.

to achieve site plan approval overall.

And we're also suggesting that the new rule in the ordinance that basically says you get three comment rounds and then at the end of those three comment rounds you have to resubmit your site plan with all the attendant requirements that come with a new submission.

That would also represent an end point for investing if you get to that point.

So we have, under the various options, there are approximately 15 site plans total that are in some stage of review.

It's roughly 50-50 if you take the August date as to where those are.

Okay.

So if we take

Me too.

I don't know that there's a moral reason behind anything.

It just has to work.

And I think that's sort of grossly fair.

I didn't submit a site plan.

So I have to wait.

That's okay.

Okay.

So we have that one dealt with.

Yes.

MR. Fair enough.

You will receive at your next meeting scheduled for the 18th two resolutions, one resolution for the adoption of the Charlottesville Development Code and the accompanying zoning map, and then the second resolution dealing with this disposition of pending projects.

and with that resolution will come a document detailing all of the text and map amendments that we've discussed.

One other question, I guess, you know, we continue to get emails from people who say, ah, one more thing.

I think, I mean, I do think some that I think are at least worthy of

minimal discussion that came in were some specific recommendations from the Tree Commission.

There were some last recommendations from Preservation Piedmont.

I know we've gotten some input in terms of RB designation of lots on Chesapeake and the appropriateness of that.

Well, that's right.

And they were recommendations or opinions offered to us by

folks that we know and have some respect for.

That's fine.

I feel like with Preservation Piedmont I've really appreciated their input.

They've been very good partners along the way.

I also feel like, you know, every email from them I've gotten I've tried to be responsive to and thoughtful about and

I feel like the concerns of that constituency I personally am comfortable with.

I feel like last night we had a good conversation about DX and the BAR and all those things.

I thought that we landed in a good place.

Relative to Chesapeake and the B, I had a chat with a neighbor who lives there and I understand the concern.

To me, the streets that work typology, that's what it puts there.

I don't think it's

any more onerous than another place that's affected by that.

What was the third thing you mentioned?

The tree.

The tree commission had submitted that.

Yeah, I thought we were doing all we could at this point because when they developed at the time Friendship Court and you took down a lot of trees, I thought we gave a...

You know, I apologize.

I thought I had seen every single one that you guys have gotten, but I don't remember the tree commission ones.

There are a couple that came.

Can I just stop on that one?

So I've spoken with the Urban Forester and I believe the Tree Commission, or at least members of the Tree Commission,

that is something that we would support, but it's not a zoning issue.

Helpful.

Do you want me to just go through the five points?

The second, insisting on use and submission of the environmental checklist for development projects.

I know that that checklist exists.

I believe I've seen it.

I don't know the exact level you've used today.

I would have to talk with staff about the origins of that list and why it exists.

Okay.

Keep going.

Item 1.

So the zoning ordinance calls for consistency with the, what's the name of the document that speaks to that?

Something like, it's listed in the zoning ordinance as

And the final one, and I imagine it's similar, but helpful to just have a response.

That is a zoning issue.

My recommendation is that, as you call, we have said we would like to come back and look at the full range of our environmental regulations, zoning, but all the ancillary ones, stormwater, that interrelate, and have a discussion about those altogether, including any form of incentive program for environmental benefits.

to be inclusive of trees.

Okay.

There was one other email that we got from Planning Commissioner Stolzenberg back on Tuesday about suggesting some tweaks for JPA side streets.

Is that something that makes sense to you?

Yeah, I mean, it's a decision.

I think he was I think the approach that you guys have taken makes sense.

I think the approach he's taken makes sense.

I apologize.

Or a strong preference, apparently.

No, I feel like we listened to folks and we down zoned in areas.

We changed the proposed zoning designation.

Yeah, sorry.

So that takes care of that.

There was one thing from the Preservation Piedmont about the 10th and Page.

I know it was something that it was, they mentioned four parcels, 1011 Preston, 110 Rosser, 100 Rosser.

I just want to make sure.

We went through that when we talked the other day.

The ones that you guys already did and those are on the list that we did.

All right.

Okay.

And they're reserving them all.

With the exception of the Stone House property, which our recommendation was in that case to change the proposed zoning on that one to a lower zoning designation would constitute a down zoning from their current existing zoning.

Correct.

That was the only one that we didn't

Yes.

I really feel like we've tweaked the map.

Anybody else feel inclined to dabble with this?

In terms of?

Well, his proposal, as I understand it,

Yeah.

It's a little confusing because the two maps don't exactly drive.

Yeah, I believe that email is responding to your decisions from the 29th.

Yeah.

So for the red outlined area, on the 29th, based on feedback from Preservation Piedmont, you had looked at taking this whole area and making it RA.

Oh, okay.

I had it backwards then.

Okay.

It sounds like maybe there was another interest.

I did think the engagement we got in terms of the streets on Chesapeake, I think, were reasonable.

And the only other one I could think of, which is our

to mobile home parks within city limits.

I know compared to current zoning versus their draft designation, I believe they're similar, the same height.

But I think there's an increased buy right density as well as use types.

And if it would be more appropriate to have a designation that's as close as possible to what the current allowances on both those sites are.

But I'll admit I don't know if what they are within our designations is as close as

it can get.

I'm sorry.

density under the current zoning as it exists today.

So I'm looking, I'm trying to remember is it, oh, one of them is a 1606th Street, right?

Yeah.

No.

So if I'm looking at it correctly, it's RA right now.

Is that right?

Proposed to be RA.

I don't believe that's correct.

It's currently R1S, I think.

Correct.

All right.

Okay.

Yeah.

for Mountain View.

I've got RB for that.

So that one is R3.

Rx3.

No, I'm sorry.

The existing is R3.

Okay, so you said what, Michael?

Sunshine Court LLC.

And I can follow up as well, but in the new zoning, that it would be as close as possible to the allowances under the current zoning.

And I'll admit, so for R3 to RX3, there's an increase in the buy right

density, but I don't know what the closest sewing designation may be to R3.

Well, my concern is that I don't know any way to have as many different units on one lot.

I mean, if they wanted to subdivide it into a bunch of different lots, you could then make it RC or RB or something like that, but

Right.

It's more like 65 or 70 units.

But as Ms.

Pandek points out, there's still

Right.

Yeah, I guess, Michael, I don't know, you know, in terms of financial incentives.

Yeah, we know that, I mean, we had someone come here, I don't know, a year, year and a half ago talking about the condition of, you know, I believe it was one of these locations.

It was not one of those locations.

It's one on Franklin, I think, Franklin or Nassau.

I guess that's a different problem entirely.

That's not part of the mobile home park.

That's it.

I'm sorry, how is it unlimited if it's RB?

It's a 100 block?

The Carlton one right now is R, it would suggest for Rx3.

Correct.

The property owner wouldn't be.

I'm just going to say that I'm not sure that the incentive to flip doesn't exist in any of these, I mean, without doing a model, but

Yeah.

My suspicion is that even at the lowest one, you've got a great incentive to flip.

And so I tend to look at the other side of the equation, which option gets us more units, which we're ultimately seeking to do in the area, and therefore more inclusionary units, which then serves the need.

But in the moment, you know,

We don't know what the status of the property or the property owner is in terms of what their intentions are.

But I'm not sure there's much we can do to take away the incentive to flip.

I guess that's where I'm coming from because they're large contiguous parcels.

Large contiguous parcels are going to be of increasing value in the city.

Correct.

I mean, it's easy to say unlimited density.

Yeah.

So what's your proposal?

I would support that.

Is there a reason why it wouldn't be allowed?

You okay with that, Ms.

Brewer?

Chesapeake?

Yeah, what was that, can you remind me of Chesapeake?

Is there something about the folks or the types of units?

So this is Chesapeake from Meade up by the pool area, I guess Meade Park, going east up to

Fairway Avenue.

Is there something about that?

I mean, from a streets that work typology, it seems consistent.

Yeah, I mean, I think the argument, similar to other changes we had made at our one work session in several areas throughout the city, is there's a street that work typology.

I believe both the intersection and the adjacency to Meade Park play a role in the RB designation, but just the present conditions of the street are kind of just more consistent with RA.

Yeah.

Correct.

That was the.

Yeah.

The entire length are just down to 16th.

We've beaten him into submission.

I can only speak to our intention was to include areas in the RV that create the opportunities for greater housing.

You spoke to the street conditions.

This is not a change that I would support.

If others do, then I'll go along with it, but I don't.

In other places that we made changes, there was something specific brought up about.

Yeah, no, I think that the proposal was for RB from 6

16th to Meade, and then Meade to Fairway, R8.

What we received was Meade to Fairway.

Right.

Well, I'm supporting it.

Mr. Payne?

Likewise, but I respect where you're coming from because this is part of the other conversation.

Could I make a friendly amendment that between Meade Avenue and 16th Street would be left as RB?

And then east of 16th Street, you go to RA.

We would also probably want to keep the parcel that if you're looking on Chesapeake Street, there's one parcel that's west of 16th Street northeast but north of Chesapeake.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

And so if you the part that would be okay so from that westernmost parcel on the north side all along the north side to Fairway and then this on the south side of Chesapeake from 16th to Fairway would go to RA.

Yes.

Okay, so north of Chesapeake, all of the parcels that are currently suggested for RB would become RA.