Planning Commission Work Session   8/27/2024

We have two.

It's been a while since we've had one of these, but we have a number scheduled to come up and we've got a lot of really

They haven't been able to fill something out here if they would like to make sure that folks are able to provide us with written comments as they need, but we're not going to have a verbal public comment session on in this meeting.

And the kind of data by Rory and I believe one, what happened before this consideration came in from Mr. Emery.

And after you guys have the opportunity to work through it, we'll, we can polish it up for you guys.

I like what you all do, you guys, Dan, you guys lead us in the conversation. Since you guys wrote the document. Okay. Sure. Thank you.

I mean, it's, it's not even, it's not even in paper.

It's just, it's just.

So I guess it's not.

Yeah, I thought that was a thing already.

I'm not, that's a good question.

My opinion is contractual and no state interest or involvement.

Second, vote A. Now, in attendance tonight, if there's a dispute and there's

If you have to bond over what's owed, if there's a decision that's made, you have to bond over when you're appealing, you have to bond the amount.

Yes.

But what the heck?

The B now.

This is the real top of the map.

Let's convince you.

It's going to be a referendum anyway, so I feel like it doesn't like it, but against it.

Number two on the second page.

Well, sort of a new-ish business.

Oh, I'm sorry.

OK.

Thank you.

What is the, they saw an optimization, they don't use it.

What would we value?

We have options that we can do, right now we can do tax evapements to kind of get at that, but it's clunky.

So this is just an undeveloped plan, not separating, there's a 100 year old home that hasn't been touched in years from

But businesses would pay quite a bit more just because of the giant parking lots.

So we can't currently do that?

Where we have a buck in sometimes.

It gives tax break to residences, which is it

One of the reasons it's holding costs.

So, for example, if you have a land bank or a land treasury, and you've got a land that's taxed, the tax is paid by habitat, and the house is on top of how the land will be paid by the owner.

Early, which is a 20% tree canopy, which is the current myth about the vaccine that we're permitted to request, and then giving us additional powers to inflate planes that are authoritarian.

So how does this differ from what Bill wants to do?

Bill wants to provide more of an incentive by letting you plant trees to lower your stock.

We have the trees in the public right of way.

Are you saying that we would now have to reserve 20% of land on a downtown lot to not be built on?

It allows up to 20%.

Well, it allows us to require.

So we would, that would be us making that requirement.

Yes.

Yes, that's just an important alternative.

So it could get sticky.

And who knows what second order

Where would I put picture tree canopy seems, I don't know.

But with the approach you guys want to take, and the approach Bill wants to take.

I think we can vote for them.

That was my practice.

It's not fully baked.

Would that be allowed under the turn statute?

It already has a box to go in.

Okay.

So, and his team seemed very excited about it, just, you know, just tested to come to fruition in a way that they can quantify it so they need all the regulations.

Oh, guys, you're talking about politics.

So we can take it off the table for tonight.

So that's a good tip.

and 20% versus 10%.

We were about to make them.

I would say that there's been some dispute around the nature of that authority.

of Tree Canopy.

Is that the requirement of a greater person?

Before I, yeah.

One of us is a lawyer, but what about our lawyer?

I just feel like we might, I want to worry to give you your, you know, yes.

Yeah.

Both of them are probably going to be watered down when they come out, but they will be something along these lines, accessories along units and

I mean, we can already do accessory going.

The formalizing on church line.

Who is?

Oh.

So teachers can't afford to live in the communities

Well, VML would say that.

It could also tax, you know, create issues with the tax system if you have huge volumes of that occurring.

Yeah, I mean, I guess some of this is the discussion with the Council subcommittee, the legislative committee and our legislators on what's within the realm of the possible, probable and the fantastical.

It's like asking for the state to create a rule for the whole state, which could then maybe negatively impact our own voting.

But you guys just supported that brain use?

Well, I mean, I'm not going to mix it.

And the ADU bill is going to come back from the housing commission as every locality should adopt some sort of policy on ADUs.

We introduce it, we introduce it again, it gets in, you know, that's how pretty much everything gets through the day.

So if we've got that one,

We don't.

Well, are there some?

Does we get a date, including 80?

Yeah, takes the edge off.

So that was easier to be like, oh, okay, we're supporting that.

Yeah.

So that's, I guess that's why I was wondering, do we just say affordable housing, ABCD, tree canopy or, I don't know, it just seems like

So just like, hey, these are the things we think are great.

I mean, I guess it just seems like it's very vague in terms of not tying to past bills.

But I think that's about, or I think that's about.

So what do we add?

Collective support for different strategies to tackle.

What more are we going to have to make sure we all agree with?

So I noted the time on the tape to go back and combine.

You know, when I start to like correct myself, I get a push back, so we can kind of say that should be the point.

So some, their combination of those things.

It helps.

We have a video.

They managed to scrape together an ill-married maneuver 59 days.

Well, but again, what does, uh, recommend increasing compensation?

Yeah.

I think it's reasonable to ask.

It's like, you're the rules.

Yeah.

Number nine, we recommend adjusting the state building code to treat six units and below as residential code, same as single family and duplex and continue to treat buildings with seven units and above as commercial, similar to the Memphis, Tennessee example.

He's from the residential code that we are specifically trying to get around.

Yes.

Now, the thing about the Tennessee one is I went on the city's website and I could find no, like I found the ordinance that they passed in 2021, but you go on their planning website and it specifically says, actually the screenshot of it, the construction of new one or two family buildings or townhouses is a new single family home.

Maybe that isn't what multi-family is using because there are different definitions of multi-family depending on where you are and you're talking to.

I don't think it's actually in the building code that says whether something is permitted under a residential code or in the provincial code.

Well, so the state adopts the foreign state building code out of the IRC and the IVC, right?

Yeah.

What exactly, how exactly make the IRC apply so much as say, do you support studying, making the IRC apply?

There are parts of it that I think are still important, but I think it's, you know, there's some accessibility requirements.

They're not full accessibility.

What else?

I mean, just apply after four units.

And FHA, I believe, is six units, but the building code calls for four, which is interesting.

I'm sorry, we said it again.

FHA, I believe they start applying to everything six units or above, but our building code says that four units or above has to deal with type B units, which is the FHA.

There are exceptions, but it's only if there's not enough water supply.

I feel like the people who would most benefit from this would also be the people who would be most likely to get hurt from it as far as accessibility fires.

I think it refers to four more units.

There's somebody already baked some things into the residential code that links back to the commercial code if you get more than some of the units.

And then if you delete the period, then it has links to their codes.

I was not having a fun time with that city's website.

We're doing great.

Last one on the paper.

Basically, we're talking about all the things that we're running into because we've been trained for so many years.

Move to this one.

I'm not sure if this is... Because if the goal is to try and...

Yeah, sorry, much like a few days ago.

Yeah, I don't know if I maybe just, everyone, unless, so you guys I emailed through Planning Commission at and last time I tried to send it out, I got rejected.

So what do you want?

And the planning commissioner would say, please ask the city attorney's office to ask if we have any changes we'd like to make to state law based on what we've learned from our expensive consultations with Sam Sanderson.

That last part?

The part about asking the city attorney's office?

What do you like to see us do?

So basically you're trying to communicate clarity that this means a specific rezoning which could have parameters like X number of parcels, X acreage, X

Not a full locality comprehensive review.

That last bit is not actually in the state code.

In the VDOT regulation.

Absolutely true.

It may be a timing issue.

Yeah.

Maybe along the lines of what you just said, we can end the discussion and talk about it in a month or so after we get the ruling on the case through Spinal Breasts for vital on Friday.

There are a couple out there who've reached out because we've just been through it there on the front end.

They may pull the brakes.

It's progressive, it's not as

I don't know that we have legislative needs on that topic yet, but think about it.

Yeah, always.

Yeah, it's crazy.

Do we have any other business?

I mean, we talked earlier about getting this into a nice document, then our start and, you know, letting eyes take a look at that, make sure we captured it, and then sending it onwards to- So you'll shoot some happy with it, one quick look at this, and then you'll send it to the legislative committee.

Good job.

Thank you.

I think we're wrapped.

Okay.

That's it.

We're wrapped.

Yeah, you heard it.

Thanks.