Planning Commission Special Meeting   8/26/2025

Give them another minute or two.

That sounds ominous.

So the big deal we're working on right now will be the capital improvement budget.

And so what we saw last week was, yes,

Bobby and Allison, they were dating, but now they're not dating, because Allison's now started growing out of a job.

Alrighty, I think we are ready to begin our deliberations for the evening.

The Planning Commission will be in order.

Now before we get into the meat of our meeting, I think Ms.

Hello.

Hi.

I just wanted to make a quick statement.

I spoke at the public hearing at the BAR last Tuesday about something having to do with zoning adjacent to the West Haven neighborhood, and I said it was the city's fault.

And I saw that come back in an article, and I was like, I don't hopefully know one that works at the city.

I think everyone does an amazing job.

It was more of the whole umbrella of the systems and how maybe we need to protect certain corridors and places where people need to travel.

So I just want to apologize.

I didn't mean anyone at the city personally who were very grateful get to work there.

Thank you for the clarification.

He's at NDS.

The next thing we're going to talk about is the special exception.

It looks like this special exception is going to be managed tonight by

Hi, Mr. Alfie.

And there are three things that we are looking at.

One is the front set pack, the other is the screening, and then the other are the large trees that are in question.

So, Mr. Alfie, would you lead us through the special exception permit request?

Alright, hopefully that's better.

Tonight you're going to be asked to review a special exception permit located at 1114 East High Street to make a recommendation to City Council.

The applicant, Mr. Mike Ball of Element Constructions, is proposing to construct a small workshop behind the primary business structure that's on East High.

This workshop will be used for cabinet fabrication and related activities in support of the design-build business.

On March 11, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the original application, which requested relief from the build to requirements due to the nonconforming nature of the existing structure that's on East High Street.

At that time, the Commission recommended approval and City Council granted the special exception on April 7, 2025.

Next slide.

During the development review process, it was determined that the proposed location of the workshop does not comply with the transition screening requirements outlined in Section 34471C of the zoning ordinance.

Specifically, when a CX-5 zoning property abuts an R1 zone district, a Type C transition screen is required.

This includes a 20-foot building setback and moderate screening.

Next slide.

In addition to the previously approved relief from the build 2 requirements, the applicant is now requesting modifications to the transition screening standards.

These include reducing the required building setback from 20 feet to 5 feet, decreasing the screening depth from 8 feet to 5 feet, and requesting exemption from the planting requirements within that 5 feet.

The applicant

proposes to utilize the existing fence between the CX-5 and the RA properties to satisfy screening requirements.

Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions outlined on page 10 of the staff report.

Next slide.

However, staff and the applicant would

However, staff and the applicant would like commission to consider one modification to condition D, which has currently stated that the workshop shall not exceed a height of 14 feet 5 inches.

Based on refinements to the construction drawings, we recommend this be amended to allow maximum height of 16 feet.

Next slide.

And next slide.

All right, this concludes staff's presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great, go ahead.

Okay, any other questions for Matt?

Would the applicant like to speak?

Any questions for the applicant?

Well, it's not in an ADC.

No, I mean, we already looked at the front setback, so I think we can ignore that.

And as far as the neighbor seems to be OK with this, a 16-foot blank wall is kind of a lot, but it's not in the room.

So it seems to me there's two things that trigger the transition requirements, right?

There's use and there's size.

It seems to me that these conditions are pretty focused on the size, which isn't really what's causing the actual transition requirement to hit here, right?

The height limitation I don't see as necessary because the height is not what is triggering

That said, I guess the application sort of took a tone of it's absurd that this requirement exists and it's really not clear to me at all that a transition requirement to separate an industrial use from your

Low density residential use is all that ridiculous that there are potentially real externalities associated with an industrial use.

And, you know, I think I would have questions for the applicant on what those impacts might be, you know, in particular for carpentry use, I'd imagine there's some noise generated.

And I wonder, yeah, I just feel like, you know,

The report here and the application were very focused on, well, it doesn't make sense to have a 50-foot setback on a 50-foot line.

I totally agree with that.

Thank you.

I think the absurdity was mostly coming from zoning not knowing about this requirement and having spoken to zoning prior to purchasing the property, purchasing the property based on zoning's feedback.

Talking to zoning about it, saying, hey, apparently there's a 20-foot setback that I didn't see.

Can you clarify for me?

And they said, no, there's no 20-foot setback here.

And then we had to kind of look into it together.

The zoning is not written well.

The transition type on there, it's hard to follow.

It brings you to a link.

It brings you to another page.

brings it to a chart that if you look at it the wrong way, which is very easy to do, it tells you that there is no setback.

So the whole thing needs to be clarified.

It's very confusing.

Most properties in Charlottesville seem to be non-conforming right now.

There's just a lot of work that still needs to be done, and we're in a very confusing state of zoning.

So I mean, sure, most properties are non-conforming as to build two requirements.

But I guess that didn't really address.

My question is, what do you feel that the external impacts of the use you're proposing here are?

Is there going to be noise audible from the property line on the RA side as a result of your use?

Yes, there will be noise.

That noise wouldn't be any different with the 20-foot setback versus the 5-foot setback.

I mean, 15 feet.

Running a saw from here to right there doesn't really make a difference in decibels.

Five foot off versus 20 foot off.

Without a barrier, the sound is going to travel just as much in that distance.

We are going to have the block wall.

It's going to be well insulated.

We don't have a lot of fenestration on it on purpose for this reason.

We have windows out the front side.

Those are the only ones out the shop side and those are going to our parking lot.

we own the building next door so we own the whole parking lot so that only affects us but coming out the backside I don't think there's gonna be any difference so that's my honest answer there

but we would be using this it's I mean we're going through the whole major development plan for a building that's basically a large shed it's going to have some tool use every once in a while it's a lot of it's just going to be storage we're going to have a few people in it a few times a month we're not doing like daily

No, we're not doing major cabinetry.

For example, I've had two guys in my shop one and a half days this week building a specialty gate.

So they've run a band saw maybe for five minutes of that.

They've used a chop saw a few times.

A lot of it's just screwing, measuring, cutting by hand, specialty cuts.

So that's the type of work we're doing.

I don't have anything sort of specifically for the applicant.

Do you have some points?

Well, I eyeballed this today.

I think the difference in height of the building doesn't really come into play because the real, the neighbor on which one is impinging is 1119 Merriweather.

which is on a very steep lot.

The house itself is down the hill.

Yeah, it looked like a six foot fence to me.

A six foot privacy fence there.

I don't think from a window in the back of that house that you're going to be able to see this building at all just because of the geometry.

So I'm not really concerned about that.

And then, so I'm, and in this case because we have an extant privacy fence which has been incorporated, sort of what we need in the buffer there to me becomes a much sort of

a fuzzier question to answer because I'm not sure what additional benefit in terms of the fence is opaque, any shrubbery is going to have a negligible sound barrier which you're really sort of glad for is that six foot fence.

uh so my inclination is this is exactly what we have exceptions for because if you look at it you eyeball it you say this doesn't need a typical transition at all it's very apt it's an appropriate use of the of the uh the feedback from the neighbor is he's just glad it's not a five-story building

Well, like the one on the one side of him, which is the apartment building, which is, yes.

That's right.

That's the other thing.

We already have a looming building right there.

It's not the height of the building, again, that's triggering the transition requirement, right?

He could build a five-story building with, well, that's not true.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, but to me, the transition really is being driven by that fence right now.

Is that yours or does it belong to the neighbor?

Mr. Solla-Yates, what would we like to do with this?

I stated I believe I have a motion.

where the distinction is at one story however tall the story is or however tall the roof is

So how would you modify a D?

Mr. Scholl-Yates?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. D'Oronzio?

Yes.

Ms.

Roker?

Yes.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

The next item on our docket is our recommendation to council regarding some legislations we like.

Mr. d'Oronzio and Mr. Stolzenberg have put effort into this.

If you take a look at it, they've got about fourteen things that they'd like to chat with us about.

The last six, I believe, are all old stuff.

So we can go through those again if you like, but we probably ought to begin with spending a lot of time on items one through five, which are new recommendations.

And with that, I'm going to toss the ball to the folks who put this together.

And at the end of that, we'd also like to defer to Mr. d'Oronzio to talk about one other item that he'd like us to consider.

I think I can take it if you don't mind.

Well, particularly for the first one.

Right, go ahead.

The more recent content was inspired by the work of the last year, so I hope you will recognize the origin of all of this.

Number one was regarding an issue about having to submit every rezoning proposal for review by the Virginia Department of Transportation, even though they do not manage city streets.

We believe it would be helpful to have a clear exemption for cities.

I pick some issue with the phrasing.

We do not have to submit every rezoning proposal under the law as written, as you may have seen in the news.

Was it?

That was very confusing to me.

At present, VDOT promulgates regulations that say the standard for whether it substantially affects transportation on state-controlled highways for a city that maintains its own roads is generating more than 5,000 trips per day for lots within four

for proposals with the nearest lot line within 3,000 feet of a state-controlled highway measured along local roads.

Wait, let me back up.

I came tonight because this is actually something that, as you can imagine, is under consideration by us, legislative change being one of the pathways we're taking to resolve some of the issues we've had around our rezoning.

So there's a number of different tasks that we can take.

I've drafted some language that ultimately will be up to the city council to decide which path they want to take, but also possibly some of our other partners in this kind of effort around the state and with some of the various organizations.

Kicking around in my head right now is the idea to actually remove if any locality failure to comply with this statute or failure to comply with in any or partially comply with it will not serve as grounds to void a rezoning or a comprehensive rezoning or any action taken by the local government.

Basically saying this is a directory type of regulation or law.

rather than a mandatory thing.

So there's a couple different considerations.

We're on it.

So for the record, last year we kind of deferred on this item because we did not want to step in and provide any

I think that still applies now that if we're going to do something obviously you're going to have to drive that bus to make sure it's the least

I think the last year we were revised by council to, not council, but council to stay out of it.

Right.

I would say maybe not clarify, because we're not, I understand what it means.

I would say to actually

Okay, I got it.

Sorry, I was getting the last part which y'all might get rid of anyway.

Do you want to take number two, Phil, or shall I?

No, I think it's self-explanatory.

I'll do it recommended in order to expedite development review 15.2.22.86.3 be amended to give the governing body the power to delegate the power to approve special exceptions to the Planning Commission.

This on the grounds that if we're going to have as arcane as it has been admitted some matters in the zoning code that the expertise that resides in the Planning Commission

So would this basically mean that a special exception works similar to, you know, a BAR

Finding of a COA in that we grant or we deny a special exception, then they can appeal to counsel.

It would be an appellate instead of counsel making the decision on every one just to, yeah.

Yeah.

I think that makes sense.

Do you happen to know if counsel is interested in delegating this to us?

We're asking them to.

OK.

I can say that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors used to be interested in delegating slope authority to their planning commission, which led to the famous case Sinclair v. Singular, which basically threw out all of that delegation and said it was not in accord with the Dillon Rule.

I think my comment would be that there's probably

that this would be a very significant change that overturns a decade and a half of a fair amount of stuff.

Well, I mean, we'll leave it to counsel to say yes or no.

Sure.

Right.

Number three, we recommend that in order to expedite development review, this is a similar concept, 15.2.22.86.4, this is just the next section, be amended to allow the given, quote, hardship standard to be replaced by guidelines approved by the local governing body to set parameters for modifications of the zoning ordinance as required.

If council wants to set a standard, they are permitted to it.

I'm fine with it concept.

I think my comment is probably the same as last year which is

Council's already going to ask for this, and why is this us asking Council to do this?

Six through 14 are repeats.

I don't know that I

I don't necessarily feel the need to be asking on behalf of our partner localities.

That said, it's just authorization, and they have no obligation to do anything with that authority.

So I don't care.

Any objections to number six?

All right, do we want to talk about 789, 1091, 1213, 14?

Or again?

I had Ms.

Creasy help me understand the

We don't fully understand the implications of that, but I'm sure I'll be outvoted on that.

My other comment would be on 13, I would use the North Carolina example, that North Carolina passed a bill like the one we're asking for.

I meant to ask about that.

Well, no, North Carolina, they passed a bill instructing that

you know, DHCD equivalent or whatever.

It doesn't mean anything.

Engage to be engaged.

Well, they're directed to do it.

I guess I mean I'm okay with somebody studying this but I still think there are

This has a lot of implications that may be negative.

For example, I don't want to put you on the spot.

Council didn't do anything with this last year.

Why?

Is it because of the confusion we're having today?

What do you guys want?

I'm OK with this being in there, but again, it's the idea that I'm assuming somebody is going to study it.

It's not going to be like a state legislator changed the code for us.

The other side to that is, of course, even if we say adjusting or not, they're going to study.

Would you repeat it so that Ms.

The only other one that was in question that I think were alright with it was number seven.

Rory had some heartburn.

Requiring, doubling the tree canopy requirement on parcels, even on dense urban lots, even on say the downtown mall where you would expect the trees to be in the right of way.

But this is, of course, only authority to do that.

Are we leaving that in as is?

Yes.

It's okay.

Yes.

Right.

So, yeah.

And I apologize for 11th hour-ing this.

uh... subordinate mortgages and the subordination of mortgages and this is applicable and I'll sort of back this up so let's say you have a mortgage on your house and you get a home equity line of credit

and at some point it becomes clear that refinancing your first mortgage is, since you bought your house in the last three years, rates have dropped and it makes a great deal of sense to refinance.

when you pay off a mortgage even for one second any subordinate lien takes priority so the second you pay off that mortgage your HELOC is now the primary mortgage the problem with that is that the new mortgage company is not going to like that and permit that so in many circumstances you have to go to the bank that gave you the HELOC and say

Pretty please, will you allow me to refinance my house?

And this opens the door for that entity to relitigate, re-underwrite you, and start making decisions about your original mortgage.

And it takes forever.

and there's no way to tell whether you're dealing with a great actor as the subordinating body or a terrible one until you realize it's taking you three weeks to find the right person on the phone to do it.

So this law was put in place to make that easier and what it said was is that if your new mortgage is no more than five thousand dollars greater in principal balance than at the moment you refinance and it's a lower rate

and your single family residence and the deed of trust is recorded with the old notes information and originally your balance is no more than $50,000, it will automatically happen.

A few years ago I went to the state and got them to clean up a couple of things and we pushed through jumping that to $150,000.

The changes that I'm proposing to make are designed to make it easier, particularly in a denser housing environment, to get this automatic subordination.

So the idea would be we would make it apply to any primary residence, because it specifically says single-family residence.

That has caused problems with things with accessories.

All right.

If we've got four units on a lot, we're going to have a lot of situations, presumably, in the future of duplexes that are owner-occupied.

I'm already seeing that up-ticking in my activities, for example.

So one, we want to include everybody.

Secondly, we need to adjust the amount of the principal

increase from $5,000 to $10,000 because that was designed to roll in your closing costs and they're up.

And secondly, move the thing to $250,000 or $300,000 because in places like Northern Virginia and Charlottesville, getting larger HELOCs with larger equity pieces is very common.

So the idea here particularly is if you bought a house in the last

There are a whole bunch of people who bought houses five years ago and got HELOCs, and they're never going to refinance their first mortgage because their rate's at 2.875.

So, you know, you're going to have to drag them out of there in a box.

They're not selling that house, they're not refinancing that house.

But in the last two or three years, you've got people at 7% who bought houses, and if you wanted to fix your house up or put an accessory in it with a HELOC, now's the opportunity to refinance.

So I'm trying to modernize it and put a cast on it of this is good for people who are doing good with their HELOCs.

It is not exactly in our wheelhouse.

I intend, my colleague and I who did this 15 years ago, we'll scrap together some language for it.

Can we just say modernize and expand to allow accessory units or accessory units and duplexes and then you can give language to a legislator or the Realtors Association or the Community Bankers Association or the Mortgage Bankers Association

The Central Virginia Mortgage Professionals did that, of which I was the president.

Yeah, I mean, I'd point out that in 2011, $150,000 is when I was last raised.

That's $216,000 now, just by regular inflation.

Right, so I said $250,000.

Yeah, not even housing.

$250,000 to $300,000, exactly.

And that's a good place to stop, too, because most HELOCs

They start being... So are we interested in making this recommendation?

I think we are.

So in a soundbite that Ms.

Creasy can capture, and you can come back and clean it up later, could you walk Ms.

Creasy through?

Yes, so let's say I recommend the revision of 55.2-319 to expand its applicability in primary residences and update process and figures to

Let me give Ms.

Something like that.

I have and figures to meet real world conditions.

And there is one technical problem that needs to be changed too that no matter what I'm going to convince somebody to change it because it's just dumb but that has nothing to do with us.

55.1, yeah.

It used to be 66.2 dash chapter 16 something, which is when I originally did it.

These things change.

Right.

Recommend revision of the code section to expand its applicability for primary residents and update figures to meet current time frames.

And processes, okay.

We'll end up passing this on by the end of this week.

I don't think that I'll find out when that group is meeting.

But right now I'll get I'll mark it up and get it to you.

It's not okay.

I gotcha.

Is there any other business or any other announcements?

The reminder that the annual meeting is in September and Mr. Stolzenberg and Ms.

Redker are managing the nominations.

So if you have any interest in anything, let them know.

Ms.

You know, there's a lot I could have done.

The certification of the 19th Amendment, Krakatoa made its major detonation in 1883, destroying the entire built environment of that island.

But I'd rather say that, just point out that every dog has its day, and today is that day.

Today is National Dog Day.