Refresh meeting.

This is a presentation made by the staff to the planning commission.

Planning commission will be able to ask questions and have dialogue with the director or any other member of his staff.

I will ask each of the commissioners who are present to ask any questions that they have.

And for purposes of trying to keep the timing correct, we have a regular meeting of this planning commission at six o'clock tonight.

Like for the at least for the initial set of questions of each commissioner.

We limit themselves to 10 minutes.

And once we get Ms.

Knight online, we'll start with Commissioner Pinnock.

I was not joking.

You know me.

See, I don't want you, Joe.

If uh the straight into questions, no, what well we're waiting for the presentation from the director, but we're waiting to see if we can get Ms.

Knight online.

Permit her to attend virtually.

And Chair Paul, just for the purpose of the record because the video, um, could we do a roll call so I can have everyone's would you please call the roll?

Mr.

Poole?

Here.

Screen filled, you're Ms.

Ebert, you, Mr.

Pennock?

Here.

Mr.

White?

Here.

And Mr.

McKinsey?

Yeah.

We will be waiting for Miss Knight.

Okay, y'all.

I'm going to say that.

She did say she's having trouble.

Yes.

I think she's on the phone.

Okay.

She's gonna try to call in while she continues to work.

I'm trying to get visuals.

That's just two days.

We're not just present.

Okay.

In August, or longest day.

You see the unveiling of the picture today?

No.

Our reaction was priceless.

I think we're going to log in.

Are you with us?

Maybe it's bottom right.

Oh, she's calling.

What's the money.

She isn't eating.

Oh.

Can you guys hear me in stuck here?

All right.

Mr.

Director.

Oh, Miss Knight, could you please state for the record um where you are participating from and why you you were requesting virtual participation?

Yeah, I'm participating in Washington, Washington, DC for uh work conference.

Voting on allowing Ms.

Robertson to participate, please call the role.

Mr.

Poole.

Ms.

Greenfield, hi.

Ms.

Ebert.

Hi.

Snight.

Mr.

Pennick.

Hi.

Mr.

White.

Hi.

And Mr.

McKenzie.

All right.

Motion passes.

And you are able to participate virtually now, Ms.

Knight.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Ms.

Knight.

Mr.

Durek.

Afternoon.

Thank you, Chair.

So I'm going to go through and appreciate you carving out this opportunity to toss it about, code refresh this week.

We are going through and discussing the work moving from the second draft into the third draft with the council, this body, zoning advisory committee.

And really what we're looking to do is, you know, interact directly with these bodies and then have these work sessions to be able to go through some of the key decisions we need to make, get some feedback to ask some questions, to bring up concerns.

And really also for us to be able to think about all right, what are some things that we need to do not only in um you know crafting draft three, but what are some of the pieces of evidence that you may need to help make a good decision on this when it comes before you in the future?

Um so today what I'm going to do is just kind of uh run through a brief presentation, and then as the chairs indicated, round robin turn for questions.

Um, I'm glad we got a backstap of six o'clock.

So we'll hopefully keep the conversation focused as we go along.

All right, so why code refresh?

Um, what do we been doing the last two years, right?

Um, so our 50-year-old zoning code does not align with our master plan vision.

It does not align with our master plan goals for housing choice, neighborhood walkability, economic vitality, climate resilience, right?

So we had and many of you participated in this uh great master plan that says this is who we want to be as a city.

In order to get there, we need to do some things, have some big moves.

The first big move was to rewrite the zoning ordinance, and so we need a code that allows more residents to build the types of housing units that fits their needs.

We need a code that allows for a greater mixing of uses at the proper scale at the proper places.

We need a new code that facilitates new development that complements our most significant cultural historic and natural assets.

Um and we need a new code that simplifies standards and procedures.

So framing, how does code refresh align with Richmond 300?

And there's a section in the master plan that talks about this big move and it talks about again aligning with the vision and it talks about three main tenants of that is that this code needs to think about equity in terms of how it expands opportunities for all Richmonders, especially when it comes to places to live, it needs to think about sustainability.

So when we talk about things like being able to write walk or bike or have transportation choices, but also like can I do, you know, I'll say um homemade energy production and things about things like green space, tree canopies.

Uh, and then it also talks about beauty and you know, Richmond is an awesome amazing city, and then so how do we not right ruin what we have?

How do we preserve those things um that are really important?

How do we repurpose those things that are really important?

And so equity, sustainability, and beauty.

It says all right, we need the zoning code to do this to help fulfill our master plan.

So, how do we craft a draft code?

We do this in the framework of Richmond 300.

So that is again, right?

How do we take Richmond 300 with a wide variety of goals and objectives?

And how do we focus that into a zoning code?

Well, this body, um, right, as per the charter, have directed Department of Planning and Development Review to come up with a code for them.

And so we've worked in engaging a consultant to help us on that process.

But it is our job and the department to be coming up with a draft code.

But as we do that, it is not just our department.

We have taken a lot of input into like what we are writing.

And so I think the first one is very important, Code of Virginia, right?

Mr.

Dillon, like can only permit us to do certain things.

There's many things we'd love to do, but like we can't.

We can only do what's permitted by Code of Virginia.

So there's a whole set of limitations in terms of like what this code can and cannot do.

We started very early on in terms of like acknowledging we are not starting from a blank slate.

We are not starting from a farm field.

And so one of the subconsultants, UTL, did a pattern book, right?

What's on the ground today?

Like what are the structures, what do they look like?

How many housing units?

What are the uses?

And so helping us right to zone, visualize what's there today.

Look through the report, you'll see many neighborhoods like have a vast majority of properties that are non-conforming.

Like you could not build those today.

Properties that like people love, abroads people love are non-conforming.

We've also looked, it'll say, you know, we looked back, but looking forward, um, RKG or another subconsultant to send different development scenarios.

All right, if we do this code, like what may happen?

What are some of the possibilities for change in the future?

Uh, we've had a very robust zoning advisory committee who's gone through and really taken a deep dive into some specific topics.

Uh, they've created working groups to look at it through different lenses of Richmond 300.

They've had public comment at their meetings to hear directly from residents.

Um, we on a team have you know looked to our colleagues in the city for things about how that impacts their departments, looking at other cities, um, and then you know, really engaging the public in a whole bunch of different ways, right?

The traditional open houses, the panel discussions, um, but we've also attended lots of civic association meetings.

Um, we've been to every single council district meeting, and then we've also done right meeting people where they're at, community pop-ups, uh, and then opening up all our online tools, map comments, text comments, office hours, direct emails, like there has been a wide variety, right?

Thousands of like data points, pieces of information that are being filtered in to this new code.

And so we're doing a substantial agreement.

And I just I really want to be careful in terms of like substantial agreement is not complete 100% alignment on every single thing.

What I'm saying by these is look, there's a lot in this code, but we've I think reached a place where at least in terms of like the diversity of opinions is narrower and gotten to a good point where we could propose something about moving ahead that again, while um maybe not everybody loves it, at least we could get a letter of no opposition in terms of like where we're moving with some of these things.

And so the number of zoning districts that we have in terms of right being able to um look at having enough districts to you know look at the disparity among you know different, there's right enough significant difference, but like not so many that that we're just dealing with like tons and tons of different districts, um, you know, moving things in terms of nuanced use permissions.

And I say that in terms of again, going back to scale.

All right, you allow for some retail, but it's not just retail, it's only maybe 1500 square feet of retail in certain places, and it's much larger in others.

Uh, an open space district, we've never zoned for open space before.

So, like really again, making that uh effort to protect conserve, especially like a lot of our natural areas.

Um, you know, we talked about uh when it comes to you know doing mapping the nuances between MX3, MX4, MX5, right?

We one of the first drafts, we just had six and eight, and we went back and said, no, three, four, and five are really important to get those right, and we're still working through some of the mapping on those.

Um, but you know, in terms of the districts feeling good about, uh, and then where we come to you know shaping form requirements.

This is a form heavy code, and and so right, making sure these new buildings fit into the urban context.

Um, and then things again, right, that make quality of life great in terms of for projects outdoor amenity space or tree canopy.

Um these are things that again, I think we're in substantial agreement, and maybe there's some tweaks in terms of like interpretations as we move forward but um a pretty good deal of like uh thought that we're heading in the right direction on these so still evaluating options three questions questions that hopefully um you know we can get some good feedback on today um though not restricted to this we want to talk about other things but one how many people in a household two how do we zone places worship and three how many dwelling units on a line these are the questions that have the broadest width of disparity in terms of answers in terms of right uh the the spectrum of possibilities is is quite wide uh and I think what we're looking for in conversing with these bodies is like there is not a right answer on this there's not a wrong answer on this we're looking to get to unanswered and and so um I think in terms of an unanswered means like something that we can say yep helps us implement Richmond 300 and is in line with that all right so I'm gonna go through these and I'll go through them all um so that way we don't have to be limited and stop for each one um and and talk about in each of these what's the question how do we use Richmond 300 like think about it and then where are we kind of like offering up where we feel today in this mix between two and three here's an option to consider so how many people in a household aligning with Richmond 300 it talks about ensuring homelessness is rare brief one time and so as we've talked with our housing providers they've shown that in certain cases congregant living is like part of the pathway of being able to get back to some form of housing and so how do you look and in a few years ago right we made some changes to um emergency housing um transitional housing permits supportive housing but like right being able to like live in in a group situation can help um with with housing journeys uh we talked about inclusionary and equitable housing options for our gentrifying neighborhoods to prevent involuntary displacement so like what are some of the products we have um in neighborhoods to allow people not to get displaced um and those households that are aging in place right where where do they go i mean we talk a lot about starter homes but like starter homes can also be I gotta find a better word for this but like right homes that we talked about when they're downsizing right we just need something smaller in it I want to stay in the neighborhood so thinking about these things how many people in a household so currently today we say not more than three unrelated persons combination of related and unrelated persons draft one we didn't define it um draft two we said eight or fewer unrelated individuals and that was pulled from some code of virginia provisions that we have currently reflected in our definition of family that allow eight um individuals in certain circumstances if uh you know disabilities or going rehabilitation to live together and so we said all right that's a um you know standard that we could uh support because of the thing that's effective we could follow their their standard where we've put out um potentially in draft three is to go back a little bit towards not using zoning to define occupancy and relying on our building code um and saying the occupancy standards are are set by building code which has certain square feet depending on the number of bedrooms and how many people are planning to be in those bedrooms um and that is when it comes to I'll say talking about crowding or overcrowding um it's based on building which I'll say has a higher standard of of safety than a zoning code um so that's uh proposal for how many people are in the house how do we zone places of worship and places of worship come up because um and they were talked about in Richmond 300 they are you know, one uses that I'll say have changed over the last 50 years in terms of how they're being used, but they're also like physically some of the largest landowners we have in the city.

And if you go into the neighborhoods, right?

They have the biggest parcels.

So it's important to get those zoning categories correct.

So thinking about Richmond 300 um again, rezoning the city in accordance with the future land use plan, right?

So that includes all the properties in there, no matter who owns them.

We want to make sure it's in accordance with those future land use categories.

Of like having some of the coolest, most beautiful buildings in the city.

And if the congregation decides like, hey, we can't afford this anymore or we're not going to use it anymore.

How could you potentially repurpose that structure?

And then we talk about a little bit about economic development and some of the things that places worship have talked about.

And we went through with some congregations, right?

Of how can I expand things that I'm doing in terms of like offering to the community?

And so I think we went through there was a phase, unfortunately, it's no longer there, but with um Tablespoons Bakery and on the like now the Westover Hills Boulevard.

Um they had a little say side use that that served the community.

And so it helped an entrepreneurs just thinking about these things again as we think about this question.

And so zoning places of worship today, they are basically zoned like the rest of the neighborhood is zoned.

So that can be from R1, which is like the least intense, to V4, which is a lot of our downtown area.

Draft one, we put them all institutional, which is how we've zoned a lot of larger scale institutions.

So, you know, things like the BCU, all the state properties, BU University of Richmond or schools, libraries, like big civic places, there's places of worship when in those uses.

We switched and then mixed use NX3.

And that allowed for residential.

Well, first of all, it still allowed churches and places of worship to continue, but it also allowed now for residential options, up to small multifamily and commercial options.

So some of the things we heard about like people saying, hey, I want somewhere to go in my neighborhood, like, but there's nowhere to like do commercial.

Where could that be?

All right, well, maybe it's on this larger piece of land that could support it.

Um with that, I think we got a lot of feedback and realized like, okay, getting there, maybe in terms of the intent, but like maybe some loopholes of like the intent is not to have a strip mall in the middle of a neighborhood.

And so um, I I think the shift for proposal in draft three is to look at um some more contextual RM zoning, RMA, RMB, RMC, and then an RC, potentially if requested.

And where this goes is um, all right.

Here's a way maybe to again allow places of worship to continue, but allow them to do housing if they desire.

So all right, starting with again, detached homes or row homes or an RMA up to a sixplex, RMB up to a 12plex, RMC, more units, uh, and then RC, the residential cottage of all right, multiple units, but like small units, no bigger than 1200 square feet.

And the look on the map would be all right, in the neighborhoods, RMA, as you get up streets, transit corridors, RMB, and then doors and growth nodes, RMC, again, kind of think more contextually with with the neighborhood.

Um, and then RC as I say as requested because this is such a different, I'll say like configuration of land use.

We're not doing a lot of proactive zoning on it, but I think we're responsive to, if requested, um, this might be an option to um allow a different type of housing stock in in parts of the city.

Last question how many dwelling units on a lot?

And so thinking about Richmond 300.

Um, we need to create and preserve high quality, distinctive and well-designed neighborhoods and nodes throughout the city.

So if we're talking about right, the number of dwelling units, like we need to make sure that hey, we're preserving, you know, the the design, the quality of neighborhood nodes, but at the same time, Richard Render also says increase awareness and the importance of integrating housing at all income levels into every residential neighborhood.

So in every residential neighborhood, there's choices.

And so a lot of things we talk about is like the mix of housing products that we have all across the city.

Um, and again, talking about encouraging more housing types throughout the city, and then greater density along transit corridors and nodes.

And so again, and then we can go in.

If there's questions, the the focus is still on nodes and corridors.

Like that's how we're zoning for it, that's what the market analysis is saying.

That's where the units are going to come.

But Russian 300 does talk about like more housing types throughout the.

And so these are again, trying to balance with that first objective of you know, um, you know, looking at keeping our neighborhoods beautiful.

So how many dwelling units on the lot today?

You can do a principal dwelling unit, and then you can add an ADU up to a third of the floor area of your principal dwelling unit or 500 square feet, whichever is greater.

So depending on the size, um, you can have your structure, you can do an ADU.

And that ADU can be I'll show you know inside or outside.

One moved to a two plus one.

So added one housing, saying, look, you could do two dwelling units plus an ADU, but the ADU couldn't be any bigger than a thousand square feet.

Concerns about displacement, demolition came up saying, hey, I'm gonna buy a cheap house and a uh nice area and take down that house and put right three units up and maximize my profit.

And so we said, all right, I can we can see in areas where that could be some concern about causing displacement.

So we instituted called the preservation bonus, saying, all right, you can still do two principal dwelling units in ADU.

Um, but you have to preserve the existing unit that's there.

If you take it down, all you get is what you get today, and that is a dwelling unit plus an ADU.

Um, and then when we talk about uh taking it down, we'll say an existing condition for five years.

So like if it's a vacant lot, as long as that lot's been vacant for five years, then you can go back to the the two plus one.

The tweak in track three is thinking about you know, hearing concerns about hey, that's just like a lot of buildings on the piece of property.

And so uh a twist is to say, all right, three dwelling units, but only two structures.

So your principal structure and then an accessory structure.

And again, only three units if you keep that existing structure.

If you take it down, you're back to where you're at today.

Principal dwelling unit and ADU.

We upped the size or recommending upping the size a little bit and talking to 1200 square square feet.

1200 square feet is the max and residential cottage, and it's also the max as we've talked to some of our housing advocates, that that's still um, I'll say a starter home in terms of like it can fit a family if needed.

Again, you don't have to build up to 1200 square feet, but that's a possibility for being able to do so.

So, how many dwelling units on a lot?

Current code allows this today.

So the blue, and I apologize to the architects in the room here, right?

Like this PowerPoint architecture, so sorry about that, but just to try and again illustrate this is not exhaustive.

It's meant to be illustrative in terms of hey, what are some of the options that could happen just today?

And so the blue represents the principal dwelling unit or something that exists.

Um, the light blue means I carved it out of it, and the red means new construction.

P means it's the principal, right?

It's big, the main unit, and A means accessory.

So here's all the things that you could do today.

Yep, single unit house, or you can access the unit within, attach it or add it in the back.

Draft three would add in terms of like the unit that you have existing, um, instead of just an accessory dwelling unit, you could split it into a half.

So, like write a side-by-side duplex or up and down duplex or front and back, but you could have two units that I'll say equal size.

Um, and then you can have a third unit and accessory unit, no more than 1200 square feet.

But at the end of the day, you can only have two structures on the property, and the ones uh in the bottom right, the new construction of three units only happens if that lot has been vacant for five years.

Some other tweaks I think we'll we'll make in terms of also um concerns about right out of scale and then like accessory should mean accessory and de minimis.

So things that we have in there about like we've talked about contextual heights and other districts, and in this case, hey, if you're building a second accessory dwelling, it should be smaller than the primary dwelling.

So those are three big questions.

Um, and then hoping to get, you know, again some feedback directly on on those today in terms of next step.

Um we have council entertained, we have mentioned today, we're going to advisory council tomorrow, get some feedback on these back to us, you know, whether or not today or you think of it later over the next few weeks to take in and hopefully then get a more complete draft three that we intend to put out right now.

We're thinking about bringing forward in July.

And then we can talk about like the timeline.

Not determined yet, but ultimately, right?

Council will have to introduce an ordinance that comes to this body for consideration.

And then council for final approval.

But our goal is to at least get uh, you know, a full draft three out in July.

So that's my presentation.

Chair, I'll turn it back to you to very much, Mr.

Corrector.

We're gonna take each individual commissioner product, limit your questions to 10 minutes at the outset, and then we finish collectively or individually.

Okay, 10 minutes.

You you have I wouldn't want to put that much more than that.

10 minutes each.

That way everybody gets a chance, and we're gonna go all the way, start around with Mr.

Pinnock and then Mr.

McKenzie, Mr.

White, Ms.

Knights online, is Robertson, Zieber, Ms.

Greenfield, and then finish up with me.

I know Mr.

Commissioner Pennick is a very short speaker, so can I borrow some of this?

Let's try to keep questions.

You're fine.

So um thank you for Ron.

Um, although not directly related, there was a note um vehicle parking location as one of the consensus items.

Yes, it's substantial agreement around vehicle parking location.

Can you elaborate a little bit on that?

So, there in terms of one, I want to be clear, like this code proposal is not bringing back minimum parking requirements.

Um what it is doing though is saying if you are providing parking on a lot, it's going to be, I'll say, like a de minimis of like the building, and that is it's going to be to the side, it's going to be to the rear.

If you do have it, there's going to be pathways.

I think kind of crossing over with the clear pedestrian width.

Like there's opportunities that like parking is still possible, but it's going to be located in a space that it doesn't interfere with pedestrian access.

And I think that goes back to like there's a very clear statement in the master plan when it talks about goals and vision that says pedestrians and bicyclists will be prioritized over vehicles.

And so I think just in terms of like how we set up the code, then that manifests itself through that by putting parking in places that are I'll say subservient to like pedestrian accommodations.

And so I think that comes with questions then when you talk about multiple dwellings on a lot, two or three or do you foresee where a developer or maybe commentate, you know, I need to now create a curb cut in a neighborhood where those things are don't exist or we don't have those.

And then to be able to accommodate vehicles for units and if so, how do we address that?

Yeah.

Um challenge, right?

But the zoning code and then certain districts laying down again a city, right?

That was built in in different stages and we'll say by different entities, right?

Like someone was built by Enrico and someone was built by Chesterfield.

So long way of saying um the zoning is going to set the table for allowing what's could potentially happen.

That doesn't excuse anyone from like going through the real development process of either a site plan and or when you get to building permits, being able to do that.

And there are some cases where like you may not be able to do that because um it is not possible for other rules or for other sections of our code to be able to do that.

And so curb cuts may be one example.

I think in terms of we talk about multiple dwelling units on a lot, there are probably more feasible options in historic areas that have alleys.

Alley access with that, not every alley is has general generous access.

Um not every alley has been improved to uh particular standards so there may be requirements saying look um if you're going to you know have your primary access off this paper alley like you're gonna have to help improve the alley um and in cases where there may not be um again logistically it may I think there's some allowance in places where there aren't alleys for curb cuts but it's gonna have to still meet um public work standards in terms of right spacing um and clustering and then distances and all those types of things and if it can't either can't be done or you maybe back here I think last year right we did a curb cut um for a project on Northside then you go through the special use process to ask for um that type of relief.

I'll take this my comment on the simple one which is how number of people uh in the household I think in your iteration where you're looking to the building code is spot on which is all about life safety the building code while adopted by Virginia is something that's developed at a national level with a lot of people so thinking about how many people can really have uh in a building or in a space without compromising quality of life or life safety I think that's spot on now number of kitchens and bathrooms and those kinds of things I think trickles down from that but I think you're spot on in that respect.

Um question um how much does form impact um the church property discussion so for example for uh foresthill presbyteria in my neighborhood just said we're done and and general concern about uh man are we going to see a six story multifamily housing unit on on this property while it's probably more on average the four squares that line forest hill in that community.

I would only look at that if someone came yes while it may be in this corridor for me to think about something that dense it would be out of character with the form that's in the corner.

Yeah so we've I'll say thought about two ways uh you know looking at the districts that are proposed right the RMA B and C like the rest of the districts are still very I'll say form forward.

They're also like urban form.

And I think we understand that there may be some places um again we want to lead with urban form but there may be some places where the urban form is not the right form um again because of like the layout or location and so we're thinking about ways in terms of again to try and keep that front but like in larger parcel particular maybe in Southside like you may not actually want to line the street or you may want to have a different configuration.

So thinking through how we would possibly um you know look at a a rule for that.

I think the other piece in terms of to what in what zones would we still have contextual height standards.

And I believe they're still in for all the way RMs right MX so that they're still in so there's maximum height.

So yeah for like R and B example it's four stories or contextual right so like depending on the context if it's a lot of single stories around properties um it might be limited to two stories.

And so I think that's part of you know these balances that we're having in terms of right building being able to build more, but something that like it sort of looks like it could be in in the neighborhood.

Um, and so I think those those things um are still there.

I think the the contextual piece though is something that I think helps that development blend better into the neighborhood, and that's why we thought about, you know, another advantage of RMs over the MX is because it has those.

And you talked about rewards for in the lot development for maintaining existing, I know sort of historically in church redevelopment, this is I think it's been most advantageous for folks like Robin Miller and others to look at historic tax credits when the property is appropriate to do so to convert into residential or or what have you.

Is there a mechanism to reward that kind of thinking in the conversion of church properties?

There probably is, I would say there's not one in this code as proposed.

Um I will put that in a pocket of things that we've talked about in terms of our objective with this code is to get our framework right, uh, with I'll say hopefully not going to wait 50 years till I've done it.

But if we can get the correct framework, that gives us a good base from which to build like other incentive-based um regulations.

And so things that have been discussed, right?

There's a whole slew of legislation that came across from the state in terms of like affordable housing and affordability, like how could we incentivize it?

Um, we've talked with our partners in sustainability about like, hey, like I'm building a really sustainable, you know, project here and doing all of these things over and above.

How could we reward that?

And the same thing for like historic preservation, I think that's another one to say, right, writing the rules to like incentivize you to do certain things should reward you with certain things.

And then the long way of saying, I think right now is like, look, if you can know where your base layers are, that if you do write certain things and check the boxes, then maybe you get to go from RMA to RMP by doing certain things.

Um we just haven't had like those full discussions yet, but I I want to say like that's what we've talked about in terms of also thinking, you know, not wanting to like over-zone so that there's still enough zoning to like incentivize something there, but also thinking about hey, how could you raise the bar and again get a public good or public benefit out of something that the private sector is doing?

Um, the number of dwelling units and a lot is say least concerning to me, but it's sort of it's more about how it's done, right?

The character of it.

I think we had the case on Randolph where we had 31 units or something proposed, you know, and while it didn't get vocalized, the adjacent block had I think uh 12 units fronting the street, and no one ever said, Well, really, what you're talking about is the character on on the street, which is about 15 units, which is not out of character in there, and so I think if if we continue to look at development in our residential neighborhoods from a form standpoint and not purely a numbers standpoint, figure that out.

I think we are doing the right thing.

I reserved the last minute and a half for you.

Can I do that?

No.

Because you went over.

Oh, it was timing.

Okay.

Sorry, you can't borrow anything.

No.

Good.

Yeah.

Okay.

So firstly, thank you for the presentation.

Uh, we talked really briefly about this, but hoping you can expand some more.

Uh when it comes to the dwelling units, you said the preservation requirements apply uniform.

Correct.

Okay.

So if a structure is existing, better the condition, yeah.

Yes.

So my next question is, well, what are the scenarios for uh existing structures that are sort of beyond repair um habitability to deteriorate it to preserve what are the next steps from there?

Yeah, um challenge we've talked about because I think um one hand, right?

For a structure that is beyond, I'll say like repair and not inhabitable and financially like unfeasible to rehab, um, it seems silly to write put money into like bringing something when it would just be easier to tip it over and put in units.

I think our concern is doing that in a way that doesn't incentivize any type of like demolition by neglect, and that is all right, I'm a property owner, my properties, right?

Just like barely kind of floating above building code, but like maybe if I let it get, you know, don't worry about the roof or something for a while, and I like it to the point where it has to be, you know, or the building commissioner declares it unsafe or like imminent, and I gotta tip it over, right?

I don't and so I think there's there's a challenge there in terms of the balance, and so we I'll say defaulted on like, yep, it's probably going to be harder in those cases.

I don't know if and and still maybe can explore into draft three if there's a zoning tool that could work on that.

Um, and I know like DCO Ever and I have been working on just things when it comes to bacon properties and dare like properties, there's been some shifts in like how we've administered some things, and I think we're looking to like shift again of like being able to make sure like we have um, you know, programs in place to like incentivize well, one not letting it get to that spot, but also like how do you get those back online?

And I think there's a uh opportunities in you know, our or in the building code of like there are like properties of having right rehab opportunities that sometimes tied financially, and that's that's also like a policy trade-off, right?

And that if you rehab a derelict building, you can get um some tax benefits out of it for a particular period of time.

And so, like, what's that cost to the city in terms of lost revenue?

But then you could also argue like, well, what's that cost to the neighborhood in terms of like I gotta make it building now being rehabbed?

And so um I I'll say that's just kind of the explanation for like where we defaulted.

Um maybe like one thing, and again, like turning, I don't want to say cover your ears, but like we haven't fully talked through is like is there is there an off ramp that could be easier perhaps with like maybe an appeal to like the board of zoning appeals or something where it's like hey, I didn't do this, I bought this, I'm trying to work on it.

Um, those are still things that I think we're looking for options in in uh draft three.

Okay, uh, do we have a general sense of how many vacant lots just citywide and that meet that five year threshold?

And how will the city actually verify that vacancy period?

Yeah, um I can we pull that?

Yes.

Yeah, give me a second.

I'm looking at Deputy Director Pitts.

So we we pulled how many um lots would be eligible, and and that's one of the things in terms of I think right for that question.

Like, where could you go straight by right to these?

And in all the residential detached districts, 2,337 parcels have been vacant for five years or more.

Okay.

And how are we telling or your client that they're vacant?

Is it through utility bills or um combination?

Yeah, or our assessor records, and then also we we have a vacant, um, well, these are vacant parcels with nothing on it, right?

So we primarily relying on assessor records because there's nothing showing that there's utility disconnections or things like that.

Bacon buildings, you know, we track and record, but like vacant parcels are primarily through assessor records that we can go back and pull from five years ago, I think, right?

So it's yeah, hold from five years ago.

Hey, here's what was vacant at that time five years.

Perfect.

Um, and I've I've heard some concerns that the preservation requirement just has written would allow um house to be torn down.

I mean, replaced with a large McMansion and a single family home, but not maybe a duplex that could offer some more affordability and entry points into the neighborhood.

Um how does draft three address that scenario?

Um, yes.

So we've toyed around or just you know, thinking through about um right maxing doling unit size, because that's that that has been a concern.

I think, you know, for an accessory dwelling unit, um, you know, again, and our suggestion is 1200 feet in terms of feeling like, hey, that's a potential starter home.

Um, whether or not alternative would be like, okay, both is the 1200 feet is for like the third unit for the accessory unit.

You could also say, well, maybe for the second unit, that can only be 1200 square feet.

So that you could have your principal unit, but then anything above that can only be 1200 square feet.

That would be a way to think about that.

Uh, I do think we are looking at um lot coverages, um, which has been an item of discussion on the detached districts, especially, and thinking about you know, concerns about you said McMansionization of taking out a small home and then building a home to cover the lot is potentially lowering the coverage if there's one unit on it and keeping it where it is or bumping it up if there's multiple units on it.

And so that is to like write discourage just like big housing and provide opportunities for for smaller housing.

So there may be some small tweaks in the the lot coverage, um, which I know from draft one to two, they came way back down based on like what's actually built on the ground.

And so I think you could have coverages that still again allow what's there to exist, have a modest like addition, but like um encourage multiple units over a single unit, if possible.

Yeah.

Time check, Mr.

Chair.

Say again, use the time check.

You are seven minutes into yours.

Oh, thank you.

So gracious.

Uh so you talked a little bit about this.

I thought I heard um when it comes to household size, um, something around permits for transitional homes, things along those lines.

Can you speak uh a little bit more to that?

Just want to about household size or are there going to be uh carve outs for transitional homes, recovery homes, things along those lines, sure, and going from three to eight, how do we currently enforce that?

And how would we enforce that?

Yeah, um, I'll say a few layers.

Uh one from a zoning perspective, it's difficult to enforce a provision that says unrelated individuals.

And so, right, if we get a complaint about like there's a lot of people living in the house next door, um, you know, we can go in and see.

Um, we can ask for a lease to see like who's on the lease and say, all right, three unrelated individuals.

Um, you know, if there's not a lease, you know, that's where it starts to get into like, and this is where I think about like having our zoning enforcement staff ask, like, right, can you show me papers that show like you're related?

Yeah, um, and then and just what does that mean, right?

Um, and especially in a I'll say atmosphere where like asking people for documentation, like that's it's tough thing, and again, I just don't feel as the role of like our zoning in terms of like thinking, um, right?

Putting people on and asking those questions.

So, with that, um, I I do think um there are some special provisions in Code of Virginia for allowing that group living.

Um, those are governed by code, but there's also like Americans with Disabilities Act that like even if maybe not licensed, if individuals have disabilities, like we can't discriminate on that from terms of who's living there together.

I think one of the the things, right?

Zoning can do and zoning can't do, zoning cannot legislate good management, because we have had zoning cases where we have eight individuals living in a group home and like we don't hear anything from them because they're well run and like everything operating smoothly versus like we get calls on a group home of like three individuals, that is a problem for the community because it's not well.

So this is where like it becomes I'll say difficult in terms of like what's the right number for people to be able to to live.

Um, and and that's why I think for the building code perspective, we said, look, so long as like there's enough space for those people in there.

Um, you know, and then something council talked about, like, hey, if we need a number, like I'm fine if we want to get to a number.

I just like to want to be open in terms of like the difficulty but forcing, especially if you talk about unrelated.

Yeah, one last one.

Just um generally, I believe I heard one of the goals is to cut down the GP process.

So do we have a a target or has there been any analysis run on if draft three was to go through what would that equate to uh and reduction of SUPs.

So we didn't we didn't take all of the SUPs and run them through the new code.

But I will and I'll give acknowledgement to the Richmonder again that analyzed SUPs over the last few years and I know um has also done a lot of this analysis a third of our SUPs over the last five years were for a single dwelling unit.

And in most of those it's because they don't meet a lot with a lot area or a setback.

Just like every other house in the neighborhood doesn't meet that as well.

And so I could see like those almost all of those going away.

There's a second category the second third is like housing units up to like six units.

I would say a good majority of those are also in the same way.

Something that I've I've seen is also because like you have to go through the SUP process sometimes a developer might ask for a little bit more knowing that like hey I've got something to negotiate with to like get back down to to that level.

But but I think in terms of then also for some by right projects um you know that I think we're still going to have SUPs right because something is going to be there.

And I'll say a case in point um the the case we had you know last week on Meadow um that would still be based on the proposed zoning that would still be an SUP based on like what they're looking to do because that would exceed the base zoning that we proposed.

So I will say like substantially in terms of like at least a third if not more than like half of our SUP um legislation would be no longer um with the proposed code.

Mr.

great job just I'll be well number 10 minutes.

A thought regarding Mr McKinsey's question about um the inability to do extra ADU if we have to demolish a building that is so badly deteriorated.

Any wisdom in considering uh being able to rebuild on the existing footprint of that foundation so that you're not talking about a bigger home you're talking about replacing a damaged home.

Yeah so in terms of right your incentive concern for a displacement right is like I'm buying a tiny home tearing it down to put in a big home right but if I tear down that tiny home and all I can put in as a tiny home like all right fine we could but I'm not big anything like bigger than what's there today.

Yeah I think that's definitely worth considering okay um my only other uh question is and maybe you're not prepared to answer because draft three isn't finished yet but uh most of the energy in the conversations in the uh zoning advisory council has been around what are you allowed to build where basically um but I it seems like there hasn't been as much conversation about the design standards and some of the recommendations that I've seen in the earlier drafts would add significant costs and perhaps make some investments uh not feasible some of you know some examples there was one in there about having to build a concrete pad and a cover for a bus stop on private property if the city decided to run a bus near there or the interior uh bicycle storage that had to be conditioned for a lot of bikes, depending on how uh what size of building it was um is there any any change in any of those uh coming down the bike?

Number three uh yes, there will be.

Okay.

Um I will say, in terms of we're probably going to recommend sticking with uh provisions when it comes to tree canopy minimums.

We may look at like when they kick in or how they kick in because I don't think the intent is like for a single family homeowner to like put in a small addition, all of a sudden be subject to particular right those regulations, but like for big enough projects, I think those are important in terms of like what we've heard from the community in terms of like long-term sustainability.

I think, you know, and maybe modifications for like amenity space, maybe all right, there's a certain amount of amenity space, but we may pull back on like the specific regulations of like right chairs and outline, you know, all those things look in terms of um more focused on just like one piece.

I think when you talked about things like bicycle parking, um, we're probably gonna move the way more of like um the vehicle parking minimums and and letting the market decide in terms of like what you feel is appropriate to do and probably some scaling back and changes to those.

Um, I think some changes in pieces on on landscaping, probably pulling back some of that because I'll say like landscaping is so I'll say temporary, maybe I shouldn't say pulling back, but a transition of like focusing on trees more than like plants and shrubs.

How's that in terms of like things that are going to be lasting longer?

And then I think in terms of some of the other design pieces of um, you know, how do you get to a good looking building, you know, with and we've talked about things like doors and windows and penetration and things like that, then also like blank walls and heights and just what are like the key elements that you need to get there without like overregulating it.

And the same thing for like um, you know, pedestrian access and things like that.

Like just trying to simplify of like you need pedestrian access from like A to the door, but like not necessarily dictating exactly where it has to go because again, we're an old city, we're a built-out city, and like one of the cases we went through was like there's a huge, beautiful tree in the way.

And like, so like you don't want to cut down that tree to like meet the pedestrian access standards or like let this site work like it needs to work.

So the there will be changes in some of those standards from two to three to I think try and simplify those while still holding on to like the intent of what they were meant to do.

Okay.

I mean, I I would argue that some of the things like the bicycle storage rooms, that kind of thing will add a degree of expense that's going to uh kill some number of investments that that could happen.

And as long as there is consensus that the trade-off on housing prices and things like that is worth it, I'll I'll I'll shut up, but I I'm not sure that that's been thought through.

And the public wants sure they want this and this and this and this, and they want low housing costs, but we there are gonna be trade-offs here.

That's it for me.

Very good.

Ms.

Night.

Good evening.

How are you?

I'm sorry.

Um, I have a couple questions.

So first, um, I know we've we talked about this um in the first draft, about safety, stability and infrastructure.

Um, and so if we're talking about adding these units, which we know we need the units on the ground, but have we really have we thought through how to address um safety emergency services and infrastructure to support the increase in density?

Yes.

So large picture question.

Um, and I'll say part of this also goes back to Richmond 300 and Richmond 300, acknowledging we are a growing city, and we're a growing city that's an old city and has a lot of um, you know, outdated infrastructure that has a lot of deferred maintenance and needs a decent amount of improvement.

And so with that, it you know, is recommending one nodes and corridors that say, hey, these are the areas where we want to see the most growth because we believe they can handle the growth but it also talks in the master plan like we also need to make like investments to make sure we're keeping up with again the deferred maintenance but also the ability to to handle um new housing and and so I think there's there's larger picture things again with us talking with our colleagues who participated in that process with public works and public utilities um that that they feel like yes there are things that we need to to have happen along the way but we also um you know need growth and development to help pay for those things if we stop growing today that infrastructure is still getting old and it's still going to need maintenance and it's still going to need improvements and so trying to find ways that we can help share the burden um you know among more property owners who can help pay in to facilitate that infrastructure um and again that that comes through things and then we've talked about here you know the role that the council and the planning commission has in capital improvements to make sure we're we're building things the places that we need it to support that growth.

The other piece is on a project by project basis like again the the zoning is setting the table for like allowing something but that does not mean it can happen in every place.

And we've had some instances us going through right like a building permit process or review process where um you know fire will say like nope that alley is not wide enough for us to run hose by or nope, there's not a fire hider nearby that I can connect to or public works like how are we going to get the trash from this area.

And so there's things that you know will still not happen because of of our code or will require like we've also done our projects improvements at I'll say the local scale to the infrastructure to be able to support that development.

And so um in terms of as these projects coming on also having them right when it comes to like water sewer or other pieces pavement doing those improvements on a project by project basis while at the same time citywide making improvements that we need to be able to sustain the growth that's coming.

Okay, thank you.

So I know that a lot of concern has been about tree coverage um and ensuring that we're not essentially not increasing heat and creating green space so I guess my question I know you did reference the the tree coverage what the code what the code is now and maintaining that but I guess my my question is if we are modifying the zoning and increasing density should also the tree canopy requirements change.

It's good question right because like how do you use space um so I I think one of one of the pieces is that um in most of the residential areas and all the way up through like the M RM areas and even that those um zoning districts still have a maximum lot coverage.

So like there's you still can't have buildings cover the whole lot and so with that extra space that buildings are not covering what do you do with it and so I think in terms of again the minimums that are prescribed to us by code of Virginia there is still like ample room to like have those trees in there providing that tree canopy coverage and still have room to do other things like driveways sidewalks or porches patios other things in there.

It does I'll say once we get into the more dense districts where that allow up greater lot coverage um may get a little tighter but I think that is one of the things that in terms of I'll say like the the trade-offs of um I'll say having that density at the same time that the space that you're not building on or having structures on um it may not be pavement, it may need to be trees.

There's also you know, I'll say a carve out or a pathway that we're, you know, I've looked at in terms of if you can't do it on site, paying in to have trees somewhere else.

I think if that is going to be an option, I think it's really important that we have rules in place that those trees like be in the vicinity of where the project is happening, because like that's probably where the heat island impacts are most severe.

Um, and so that's just it doesn't get lost.

And again, we have very disparate levels of tree canopy cover in the city right now, and we just want to make sure we don't exacerbate that.

So um, yeah, I mean, this is a real challenge, right?

In terms of like building on every square inch versus having trees and greenery that's like not livable or not usable in that space, and so it's it's weighing these benefits, and that's why we're having these discussions about like how we strike that that balance.

Um the preservation bonus, do we have do you or I guess do you guys have any type of case studies or any other cities where you can attribute that adding that preservation bonus adds value?

And when I say value, I mean that it didn't cause pressure on the neighborhoods and communities.

So because of the added density and just frustrating the neighbors.

I saw the rental one, but I just can't quite I'm still trying to understand the preservation bonus and how in the long run it benefits your average property owner.

Yeah, I I think um part of reason for looking at the preservation bonus came through questions initially about right what would happen.

Would you not intentionally or unintentionally incentivize teardowns in neighborhoods where you may have naturally occurring affordable housing and cause displacement of those residents because now somebody could build three units instead of one unit that's there, um I think if you look back at the RKG analysis that they did on the detached districts, they ran a scenario that looked at like, hey, what would potentially happen if you um I'll say just ran draft one or draft yeah, draft one that allowed two plus one by right.

How many demolitions would that lead to per year?

Um, and it found that numbers approximating it found there probably in a range of like 25 to maybe 30 demolitions that would happen in order like for somebody to take advantage of that 2.1 bonus.

So I think one of the important things though is those demolitions were primarily happening in area four, which maybe I can pull up the map, was like the west end of the city, um, and area three, just a little bit in area three, which is kind of the core Scott's edition downtown to Manchester, but primarily it was happening in the areas where the land values were already, I'll say significant, and that somebody could make money off of like moving from one to three units, it was not happening throughout the city.

And so one could argue that um a preservation bonus, um, you know, is is holding back some uh progress in terms of providing housing units, but I would say like it's it's specifically holding back housing units in the West.

Um, and in terms of that's where it showed the two plus one was penciling.

Um, but I think in terms of you know why it's remained in there, and it's partly because of again just thinking about this displacement question, but also back to like looking at how a neighborhood would evolve.

And that is working on trying to preserve um the existing structure that's there was of importance to a lot of neighbors.

Those are all of my questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Robin.

To everybody else first, I've heard this thing and handed over and over again.

So it's important for me to if I could come.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to understand.

You mentioned that ADUs could go up to 1,200 square feet, which is significant based on what they are right now.

What if the primary building is only a thousand square feet?

Is it still able to get bigger than the primary building?

So the way the rules are written now, I think that's one of the things that we would probably consider allows.

And the three is that if it's meant to be accessory, it should be the minimum.

I think one could make an argument of saying, like, look, it's a housing unit as a housing unit.

It should be 1200 square feet.

Or maybe that it could only be equal to, but I think that is something that could be discussed.

I think the the height is big for a lot of people in terms of like not being able to see it if it's especially behind.

I would say it could make sense for the square footage to be smaller, and that would be, I mean, I'll say open for warm conversation on the pros and cons of um, you know, is it always smaller or is it like a percent smaller, or is it, I think, right?

If it's a 600 square foot house and a 1200 square foot ADU, that probably looks out of place.

A thousand and twelve hundred, does it, doesn't it?

Um, I think yeah, that's it's worth considering.

And when you consider this, and this goes to um's comment on form and context.

To me, it's all about how the form and the context fits in.

The form of that building or that ADU fits in with a larger neighborhood context.

So I don't know how you would write that.

Um, but I just put that up there.

If you are going to consider, you know, whether you still it could go up to 1200 square feet, but can never be larger than the existing structure or can never be larger in square footage or height or whatever, but you know, think about those things when when you're thinking about it because I can see some plots in the city where there are smaller branches and little Cape Cods, which are barely a thousand square feet.

Um so the ADU would look much larger behind that building.

So just something to think about.

Okay.

Um in the same context, I worry about providing places of worship, the ability to have a higher zoning, um, then their context.

These are places of worship in the city that are in neighborhoods with single family pumps, and so I would be concerned that if you up zone and they've decided for whatever reason to sell the property and the new owner demolishes it, that the scale of what could be built there would be out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.

Um, so just something to think about when you're thinking about allowing it to go to a different, you know, if you're zoning it institutional, because it is an institutional use, my thinking is that you'd want it if they sold it that it could immediately go back, it could immediately be absorbed into the context in which it sits, whatever that zoning district is, but if they want to do something above and beyond the context of that neighborhood, I would recommend that they still have to come back to the city or an SUP or or rezoning.

Because I think as a neighborhood resident, I would be concerned that something would be way out of scale.

Or that's just my thoughts.

And lots of concern about if you want to buy a house, and this goes back to a couple of other comments.

Maybe it's not, you know, derelict.

But the house is not, you know, not worth saving.

Let's just put it that way for whatever reasons the buyer purchases the house.

I feel like we might be by default creating gliding influences.

Like nobody's gonna buy that house because nobody really wants it.

So it's gonna get worse.

Or I buy it knowing that I want to do something, but now my lot is gonna sit there and I demolish it.

Um and now my lot is going to be vacant for a whole five years.

And I'm gonna that's gonna be a blighting influence.

So I'm just not sure five years is an appropriate time frame for me without creating, yeah.

Without creating lighting influences in the neighborhood, something I just think to think about.

Um and then my last question is how much community input has there truly been in determining the new zoning map, transitioning from residential neighborhoods over to primary corridors, and how that transition works.

Um or also into activity notes because I think there's a zone of sensitivity from lower density neighborhoods to where you start to get greater height and greater density, and as we say, it's those transition areas around it that seem to be the most sensitive.

So I don't know how much community engagement and input, or is it mostly staff looking at it?

Yeah.

Um let me this map's good, right?

Correct.

I'm gonna bring up something since I think.

So this is on the on code refresh page under key information.

Um, I did it is on here.

There's also a working draft map.

Um, on here the layers is 2.8.

And I think I want to bring us up so I can kind of talk through two of your questions.

Um, that this is different than draft two.

This is not draft three.

This is a work in progress.

So we're showing you like how we're working on it in progress.

And part of this was to say, hey, you know, this is what we're thinking and changing towards to get some feedback from council planning commission to Zach, like a moving in the right direction on some base things.

For um, churches and places of worship.

So like these are some examples, right?

This is fourth district over in Stratford Hills.

Most of this zoning around here is R B A, right?

Which is at the beginning, it's the least dense.

And so when you zone these RMA, yep, that's a few steps up from what is in the existing context.

I think where we looked at as MX3 was like many levels above R R A or RDA.

This is back down, but yes, it is more dense than is their presence.

Um I think again what we've been having the discussion point of should we think of them more like um I'll say, you know, transit corridors where we went up a notch or two, you know, in some of these areas that maybe all right, but this is RA, then for RDA, then the church is RDB or RBC.

And then you put something there.

I think the other piece that we're wrestling with here is in terms of um, we've discussed about right things coming over from the state, one of the affordable housing provisions that allow these places along with other nonprofits, um, basically I'll say go to RMC by right in terms of like dropping a four-story multi-family building kind of anywhere.

Um, and so trying to think about if if they do affordable housing, um, and trying to think like largely about how that balances.

So this is one that I think, yeah, we're we're shifting around and trying to think thoughtfully about how do you allow on these parcels maybe a housing product that doesn't exist in the neighborhood, but also in the same way, like doesn't like so far out of character for the public, but they put like it doesn't make sense.

Um, as for the the corridors, I think you know, some of the areas where we've I'll say either directly engaged or indirectly engaged through some council members, um, are parts of um our current bus rapid transit along Broad Street.

Um I think in terms of like how broad transitions, especially on the south side into the neighborhood.

Um we've taken a lot of feedback and I'll say we've made some changes in terms of also looking at like right what's feasible.

So in terms of broad, even though parts of um you know the master plan say like hey, you know, do intensity and density here, some may not actually be feasible because like the lots aren't deep enough.

And so when you add in um, you know, a setback and stepbacks, like sure, architecturally, and I'll let the architect, I mean, you could you could build a building that's only like 15 feet deep for a few stories, but like I just don't know how that works or pensive.

So looking at all right, maybe the zoning comes back down to like what's kind of feasible on these areas.

So instead of like MX 13, it's MX7 or MX5, because I think that's all that's probably going to be built in that area.

Um, and so I would say West Broad, um, and along Chamberlain.

We've had a lot of discussion, um, and in parts of it's a smaller corridor, but I think um 25th and 26th.

We've had a lot of discussion about how we renewance that um we have not for um well yeah, I guess we have for parts of Richmond Highway if they're like we'll grow.

So yeah, I mean we we have talked about that in terms of um right and can see here like right kind of the stepping down of the zoning as it gets back in into the neighborhood.

And I think that's important, not just the zoning category, but how we position the transition standards that I'll say put the onus on the bigger structure to like reflect um the neighborhood.

And one other question.

So if I'm not doing affordable housing, but I'm a nonprofit and I'm an institutional use, and I want to change that use.

I sell the property, the new buyer would still be stuck with an institutional use that they would then have to rezone.

That's my understanding, yes, right.

I'm just because the zoning, yeah, would not change, even though yeah, the owner changing, yeah.

The new owner, like let's say right, a nonprofit sells to like private entity, a private entity would still be bound by the institutional uses there, right?

But if it's a church or place of worship, they are going to get preferential treatment.

I'm just asking.

Yeah.

Um I mean they will get the treatment, and that is the new owner would have to do whatever is zoned by whatever the zoning we have today.

I think that the question is, like, how we're zoning it today, and and I think part of it is also maybe a larger part is the fact that these are larger parcel.

It's less about the the ownership versus like as you look at the neighborhood, these are some of like the larger parcels like in the neighborhood that stand out.

Now, they're not always the largest, but generally, like they're some of the ones that are just different in the neighborhood, and so that's why we looked at them differently for zone.

Again, my concern would be you fall into a single family defect management, you know, that had an institutional use place of worship there.

You knew what was there and how often that was going to be used, and then we're gonna up zone that those parcels so that it could be something that's three or four stories in height and many more people.

Yeah, yeah, I'm done.

That's great.

Um, so I'm gonna echo the comments that Commissioner White made about the development standards.

That's something that I've raised a number of times in the ZAC, and I know that for ZAC meetings and talking to staff that we will see some edits and draft free.

Um I understand you haven't run the SUPs through the draft ordinance, and I wouldn't expect you to run all of those SUPs, but I would maybe run some larger, smaller cases and something in between to see how some of those regulations uh could impact projects, because I think that it's it's a lot, and I think it could be a lot, particularly in some smaller infill projects.

Um I will push back a little bit on the substantial agreement on minimum tree canopy.

We know that tree canopy is really important.

We've heard it a lot through the ZAC, two years of the ZAC from the residents.

Um, and I don't have a problem with tree canopy said on the record, I've planted multiple trees in my new home.

I don't want this to seem like I'm anti-tree, but what I put on my private property should be my decision.

And I know that you commented that you know maybe the intentions not to require homeowners to install trees for renovations or in addition additions, that type of stuff.

And I think we need to be mindful of that.

Um the residential cottage district.

Um, this again, I don't want to keep referring to the ZAC and speak for people that are on it because I know that we're gonna have this presentation tomorrow, but there has been some um discussions about you know the residential cottage district could help us get to maybe that starter home product.

And in the current draft, that district is not most properly properties that that's allowed for around mobile parks.

So I hope that we will see expansion of the residential cottage district in the next draft.

Um, I know you wanted us to focus on three specific questions.

Um, I agree with Commissioner Pennock on deferring to the building code.

Um, but for someone who does not do math, and maybe just to get this out there for the public to understand if if we're operating under the building code standards for 25 foot, 2500 square foot house, do you know off the top of your head how many occupants that could be?

Depending on the bedroom size.

Okay, that is what is driving in terms of like how many people could be in that bedroom.

So we're not gonna see in a 25 square foot home like 10 people correct living.

And so we actually took building codes kind of scale it down.

Correct.

And so um with that, you know, you have run some cases.

I'll say you by right cases that um back to part of your first question um test out, right?

Like cases or projects that people I'll say again, generally agree like or great projects are turned out well and seeing like a could they be done by right today?

They were done by right today, could they be done by right with the new code?

And if they can't, why can't they?

And so some of them can't, and so we're flagging like, all right, well, why is that coming up?

Is that really something that we need?

Uh, but also in terms of like simplicity, just for like our staff and also um, you know, somebody developing like how many things, how many boxes do we have to check?

And in some cases it was substantially more, and I don't think that's the intent in terms of like we want to get it right without creating more red tape.

And so just trying to figure out how we do those things.

Um we did run a few recent projects on um SUPs that came through and looking at bedrooms, and some of them said, all right, you would come up with a max occupancy of three and the largest one.

I'm looking at Mr.

Mercer, was the largest one?

Nine, nine.

So it was a range between three and nine based on the bedrooms and the size of those bedrooms, how many occupants they could have.

Well, I just want to get back to the questions that you posed the three.

I do agree, like I said, with Commissioner Pennick on following the building code.

I like the proposal you put forth for the churches and and I know that we also have to consider the state legislation that's been now passed on to allow those uh churches to be affordable housing by right.

So I know that's gonna impact some of what you're putting forward.

I guess my my biggest comments are around the um how many units are allowed on a single family lot.

I feel like that's been one of the most contentious pieces, at least sitting in the ZAC chair for the last two years.

And while there is support for it, I would say overwhelmingly, there's been a lot of opposition, and that's citywide.

And yes, some districts have been louder than others, but I've been also in community meetings across the city where it's just generally not supported.

And I have my personal feelings towards it, but I would say I don't want us to get lost in that discussion.

Well, really the bigger issue needs to be getting our zoning modern, so we're less relying on the SUPs, ensuring that we don't have so many units that are non-conforming and focus on the nodes and corridors like Richmond 300 says.

Um I think the RKG analysis has shown that the one or two Boeing units plus ADUs is not gonna result in an influx of you know duplexes and apartments and single family homes.

So I feel like it's rather well meaning through for the number of units that actually produce, not as scary as folks think it is, but um the fact that we've been spending so much time on it, I'm afraid we're overlooking some of the larger pieces of code refresh that really need to move forward.

Um plus this has been two years and at some point you've you've got to get back to your day job, which is probably not living and cleaning breathing code refresh every day.

Um, so I would just hope that we cannot lose sight of some of the bigger pieces of things that code refresh is trying to solve.

We're arguing over 20 30 units that might get put on the ground through this proposal.

Particularly one that's become so contagious.

Um just close with whatever we do with that um particular item, I think it has to be fair and consistent across the city, not treat some districts differently just because they've been louder.

So and that and that is the case.

So I would think that if we're going to allow those accessory units or an additional unit, it has to be fair in all residential districts.

We can't say only on one side of the city and not the other.

So that's more of a comment.

Hopefully, I answered some of your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for all the work you've done.

Sure.

With respect to the Richmond 300, one of the things that I thought was most beneficial for the city was the vast amount of engagement that went on with that.

And can you give us a perspective?

Uh, your report talks about approximately five thousand members of the public that you've engaged with in this process so far.

Do you have any concept of what the number was for Richmond 300?

Looking at Deputy Director Eds who is here through.

I just came in at the tale under Richmond 300 to help it through the council.

If I can find that well, yeah, haven't been fairly looking participant in the I can say that it was a great deal of engagement, but I wanted to try to see if there's a perspective for that because Richmond 300 generates this is the big move, and I'd like to get as much engagement because public seem to be very, very happy with the engagement from um Richmond 300.

Um, but more importantly, going forward when you get out third version of this.

What's your plan for increased engagement on that?

Sure.

Uh so I think and we had a request um from council yesterday about you know making sure that we are engaging with um groups of people that feel like haven't been engaged with before.

And so making sure that um, you know, bodies, and again, whether formal civic associations or just neighbors um feel like they're part of the process to continue to be able to hear from them working on draft three.

Um, I think, you know, one of the things that we want to look at is I think putting together our hope is that draft three um will become the final draft that makes its way through the process.

And so um as we work, and I'll say like draft three is not officially out there yet to make sure that we can um, you know, be in a place to say that yep, we feel confident that we've engaged, you know, I'll say Richmonders or a set of Richmonders that represent all of Richmonders, um, and then making sure that that we do that through these final steps.

I you know, I do think it's really important in terms of, and I'm glad you know you talked about engagement for Richmond 300.

Um, you know, just also to frame in terms of like Richmond 300 is like the who we want to be and like why we want to be that and the code is like how we can right, and there's different ways to get there, right?

There's different ways to do implementation, and so um it's a different type of engagement because I feel like zoning is it it is technical, right?

And it is moving into um things that do make a difference, like words and feet and you know, very specific items that that it's tough to digest.

And so making sure I think part of what um, you know, when it comes to engagement, it's it's it's talking about being able to talk about the specifics with those who are able, you know, or want to talk about specifics, but it's also being able, I think, to answer like the big questions that are out there in terms of one, you know, how does this follow or help implement Richmond 300?

And then two, like the the things that like um I'll say bringing bringing up evidence of like why we need to do this in terms of like we are Richmond of today is not Richmond of 1970, and that like we're capable of doing it.

Um, and and also I'll say like maybe put to rest some of the um false narratives that are out there in terms of like, you know, well, this is going to happen or that's going to happen, and like and just showing like here's what the data is saying, or here's what like our analyses are like predicting.

Um, it's not giving you voice.

Well, sorry.

I mean, I I wouldn't swim directly at an outfall, but like that's just but um so I think you know, really to tell the story in terms of like, hey, like this this is helping us achieve like what we said, and I'll say, you know, substantial agreement.

There's substantial agreement with Richmond 300.

It wasn't perfect alignment, but like substantial agreement.

And so to get to that place, I'll say, like engaging, um, and I'll say engaging more so uh making sure we do so collaboratively with like our council members.

I think that's really important.

Um, you know, as this shifts more from, you know, I'll say like us working on it to getting, you know, a final document done.

I think engaging doing that engagement and collaboration with our council members, it's gonna be really important.

Well you're correct in saying that the general public is having trouble with this because of the technical aspects of the rezone, and being able to answer questions like Ms.

Ebert asked and Ms.

Greenfield asked about specifics and conveying that to the public so that they understand exactly what it is that you're trying to get up across, you know.

How many people does that mean?

Because if you just looked at the 50 or the 70 square feet that's in the state code, and you took the 2,000 square foot house, you might come up with 40 for that, but that's not how it works.

You explained more precisely how that happened, and that that kind of engagement is important.

I think it would be helpful to understand in as an example, ADUs when passed by the city council three years ago.

500 limited pretty much to 500 square feet.

Now we're at 1200 square feet, but we also have a category for the cottages at 1200 square feet.

How did we go from 500 square feet on ADUs to 1200 square feet on ADUs?

I think one, it's a question I'm asking.

But number two, that's the kind of thing conveying it to the public and engaging with them and letting them know how the technical aspects of this process actually work is important.

Is it important?

Sure.

Uh so I think in terms of right now today for the ADU, it's 500 square feet or a third of the size of the dwelling.

So if it's right 1500 square feet or less, like it you're gonna be at 500, but like once you get up to, you know, how easy amazing good number here, right?

Like you have a 3600 square foot house, then you could get a 1200 square foot ADU.

Okay.

You kind of late in the day for doing math, right?

It's just but right, so so there's still some proportionality there.

And I think in terms of one of the things was initially when we did that, thinking like, all right, scaling it with the size of the unit may be appropriate, but I think a reason for looking at more of a hard number, just a hard number was to be like, all right, let's try and scale more towards like lots and dwelling sizes, and I'll say expectations in terms of like what could be there.

One of the um points that has come up for discussion is um right now as it reads, it just counts the square footage of the ADU.

Put that ADU on top of a garage.

Like that garage doesn't count, but like somebody may say, wow, that's a really big structure, but the threshold is you know, only counting the ADU.

So the thought may be all right, you look at limiting secondary structures to 1200 square feet, and then as an ADU in or out of that, like you decide how you want to use that.

Because I think the concern in terms of like coverage and and buildings on a lot was something that we did hear from the public.

So that I will say is for consideration.

I think moving in terms of why 1200 square feet is in talking with our um, you know, housing partners, they felt like 1200 square feet is a size that could house a family in terms of um the ability of not just a unit for a one or two person household, but actually for a family household would be an option in the same vein.

Um in terms of like providing options for one and two-person households, like that's the vast majority of our households right now.

So if it it came down, like I I think there's other options in terms of um, you know, our our feeling on that number was based on uh see some of these discussions.

But if if this buyer feels like that number should be different, and again, we've heard some of that should be larger or some that it should be smaller.

Um, that that's something that I think you know, we're talking through.

I think what I was really getting at is some of the point that Ms.

Ebert was making is you know, the proportionality to the existing dwelling or whatever is getting put there so that it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

That's uh, but also to convey to the public how those kinds of analyses occur to help them understand what we're doing.

Sure.

I think, and again, man, maybe this will help, and I think part of the engagement is to just show some examples of like what could happen today.

What could happen under the and I think in many cases and hopefully most cases, you will see like what could happen under a code refresh is actually a lot better than what could happen today.

And I would love to do one with um, you know, my favorite picture from Fairfax that gets circulated around with that crazy right three stories at the property line, like that could potentially happen today under our current code.

I don't think it will happen under code refresh in terms of like the way you look at the neighborhood in terms of contextual heights, like that could not happen.

And so to that point, I think with the ADU situation of saying, look, in terms of like 1200 square feet is the ceiling, but it may not happen in every neighborhood because you know you only have a single story home, and you already are at a ranch that's covering a lot of the lot.

So you may not be able to build that big.

Um, I I think just you know, being able to go through and show like some of those scenarios that I think what this code has or what code refresh is proposing, and I think is as a lot of things that talk about like contextual standards that we don't have today.

Like today, it's just like, yep, that's the height, how much you could build, and that's the coverage, and like there's no reference in terms of like it is what it is, like it's a brand new lot in the middle of a farm field.

And so I think the the places that we brought in, you know, limits that reference the context, I'll admit it's gonna be harder to administer because it's gonna require, right?

Like checking things out more closely, but overall, I think it's better for the neighborhood in terms of having more organic growth that fits with what's there today.

Some very specific questions.

I suppose as your BZA were up to the planning commission.

How will any of this affect the special exceptions that are provided for the zoning code with respect to the board of zoning appeals and the non-conforming use definitions?

Um, yes.

I don't see anything in there about that.

Um, probably that because you're gonna redo those after you do the code.

Well, you'll probably let's just say I think you're looking at potentially more pathways.

And again, this is a legal question, like what we're allowed to do in terms of could a special exception be a pathway instead of a special use permit.

It's still I'll say legislative um or quasi-judicial and it'll define here, but um that that it's still that process, but it's like shorter than going through a full legislative SUP process.

Are there other opportunities?

Correct.

They would not be able to rezone, but in what other places could they potentially have those exceptions that maybe don't exist today?

Um I would say cases that you make it when it comes to like nonconformance are some of the things um that give us probably more trouble today that um cases of uses that again you can't zone for management, but that have the potential to go sideways.

Um, when it comes to auto-oriented uses, and I'll just say like after dark uses, um, many more of those are going to be conditional in the future, conditional uses, and so like some may have to make case about whether or not they need to conform.

And I think, but but to me, that's a good thing of like, yeah, we should have a second look at at some of those things that um, you know, maybe we missed in this current code, and we're looking to have some more um input.

Um, right, moving forward.

Lastly, just to speak towards issues that many of the commissioners have already referred to.

Is the issue of the further discussion on your agreed upon categories?

I would suggest that there's some of those agreed upon categories that would probably still be debatable.

So just keep that in mind in a your engagement and b, what you might consider on your on your draft three.

And then also, how will all of this affect if you're changing these sorts of things?

How's that gonna affect the aspects of the assessment?

How is that gonna change the ability of the assessor to look at something that's rezoned or or changed in the zoning to a higher and better use?

Is there gonna be a massive amount of increase in the uh assessments of the properties?

I don't have the assessor here.

Um, my answer is no.

Um, and I think looking at, and again, I don't envy the job the assessor has to do.

Um, but but in terms of just right uh my understanding the way the rules are written, and uh there's a narrow scope of like right how he has to assess properties, and I think in terms of when you look at the ability to like potentially write do more things on your land, does that land become more valuable?

Um, and so one could argue like yes, it does, but also I could make a counter-argument that it doesn't, it's negligible.

Like if everybody else also has that same opportunity, like I'm not really that much more special.

I would say the assessments in our city, if you look, are much more driven by like location and markets of like where they are in the city than they are particular uses, right?

You could take the same use and look at it at five, six different spots in the city, and it would have differing assessed values based on on where it is in that land.

I wouldn't we ask that you check with the assessor on that point.

That's what I was gonna say.

Yeah, yeah.

No, no, no.

No, no, that's your question.

Uh bottom line is that would be a part of your presentation, particularly to the associations and also to some of the communities that are gonna be most affected by that to be able to answer that question.

And I've violated my own rule by going over, and it's Ms.

Robertson's turn, and I don't want to cut you short.

Can I just just finish your question?

Um, engagement, Richmond 300, 8500 attendees to community events meetings, uh just under 5,000 survey responses, 11 Richmond 300 meetings, 229 community meetings, 2,000 comments on the maps and 90 letters slash emails.

Perfect.

Is that for the master plan?

Master plan.

Okay, I'm just overwhelmed with information, I guess.

Um so let me ask this.

Um, we recently approved a preliminary plan for Lowsby.

Uh-huh.

One of the concerns that we have heard is we're talking about increased density.

And we look at locations where we already have this increased density based on just the land mass that is sitting on.

And so we just accrued the preliminary plan for most being this increase in the number of density significantly.

Um, there's some concern that where we already have that concentration that we um we zoning we will continue to allow that excessive increase in zoning in the areas.

How do how is that?

Sure.

Um, we are working through right now some like testing with the master plan in terms of master plan and the future land use maps, right?

The people land use maps set out of hey, here's different areas of the city and different future land uses represent different forms of intensity and density.

So starting with residential, neighborhood mixed use, community mixed use, corridor mixed use, destination mixed use, right?

All increasing in levels of intensity and density.

And in each of those categories, it talks about like, well, what does that mean?

So it talks about some numbers in terms of I think specifically um height, right?

How tall can those buildings be?

And some cases it talks about right types of products or housing products.

It also talks about like types of uses or what things you could expect there.

And so one of the things that I think a big deal in the public is height.

And so we are looking at future land use calls for heights of like right X to X, X to Z stories in this area, and so we see that.

I see that as a ceiling in terms of the master plan, says, okay, you can go up to this many stories in this area.

How we zone for it is should be in conformance with it and should be somewhere like up to it or below that.

And so we are seeing all right, in most cases in the city, like we are not zoning to the full potential that we've been 300 cents.

Now, some will say like, well, why not, right?

Like you said, this area can support 10 stories, everything should be like 10 stories.

And I think part of our argument is we are working to write master plan is a long-term vision.

The zoning helps get us there.

In some cases, like where we want development, yeah, we will zone it all the way up to that area because we do want to see push development.

We do want to see things changed.

In other areas, um, we're maybe looking for something more incremental, or um, you know, in the case, I think I talked about like North Chamberlain Avenue, like north of Wilken Park Boulevard, like there's a lot of natural affordable housing there.

And so a lot of that is three and four stories.

So we're like we're zoning basically for that to continue to exist and be legalized, but other transit corridors, right?

We've up zoned a little bit, not that one.

And so I think what we're trying to do is zone in a way that like again implements the master plan.

Like we set in that master plan, like where we're good with density, and so that zoning is reflecting what that master plan said.

So we have a challenge at Richmond, having industrial use business opportunity for the old businesses that provide more jobs.

Are we increasing the opportunity for more of that kind of area from?

Yeah, I would say primarily, I'm gonna bring I guess some indication.

The areas in purple shades of purple in here are primarily where industry is zone four.

So there's still on the north side, I'll say some remnants.

Um along the edges of Scots Edition and down around Chamberlain, but then especially along the outside along the port.

I would say we're not using any of the industrial areas that we have today.

Allows industrial to continue, but also allows for residential or other types of uses in, like as we've seen Scott's edition transfer and change, like that that has that mixing of uses in there.

Um the dark purple in terms of like the IL, the actual industrial areas, like those are primarily still going to be right, for the heavy industry users that that are there.

I think one of the challenges um, you know, for the city is I think, and especially with some of the industrial um lands of like big land users, like today in today's market, um, transportation like warehouses, data centers.

I don't have take up a lot of space, create a lot of construction jobs, but don't necessarily have a lot of like long-term jobs, and don't always have necessarily like a lot of like skill building jobs.

Um, and so I think what I'll say is that I don't think we're taking off opportunities for industry.

Um, and this is something that we probably, you know, we need to make sure we're still working with our partners here at the city and and office of uh community wealth building, but also like an RPS, right?

If they've worked in in terms of like um getting kids in the technical trades and the community colleges, like there's still opportunities for I'll say entrepreneurs to find a place to like start a business that like sometimes, you know, industry of the today is not as dirty or messy as noisy as industry in the past, but like sometimes it might be a little bit, and like so we may still find those opportunities in the city to like right start some of those things and start that journey that way.

So I don't think you know we are scaling back.

Um we're not adding more industrial land, but we're not taking um, so that a presentation um circles are like a really a city on land, uh that we're talking about certain scene, but some little other things, like the hospital, and pretty large tracts of land.

And we look at those opportunities, a lot of it's been looked at as opportunities for housing.

Most of those are the development planet and more units of time.

Um, we're looking at the end and surplus land and wherever we're doing, all of the zoning, especially recognizing the fact that one of the things that we want to do is take advantage of those opportunities to increase inventory.

Yeah.

Um I think we are working to make sure they are zoned properly.

And zoned properly.

I mean, like in accordance with the master plan in terms of like what you are able to uh do on those properties.

Yeah, I think one of the challenges we face here is like we have um, you know, the special use permit process, right?

We have affordable projects come through.

But like our view, even though we're like we know like they won't move forward unless they get right a financial package together with Light Tech and City funding programs.

Uh we have to look at those of like we can't think about like who's going to be in those units.

We have to look at it from a land use perspective.

And so that is what we are trying to do with all of our city properties is looking at, you know, from a land use perspective.

What is the right type of development that could go here?

And so I think, and then working with you know, DC Uber and Director Malone is that okay, based on that zoning, this is the type of like product that comes to housing, the housing product could go here.

And in some cases, yeah, it could be a big multi-family building.

In other cases, like nope, it might be townhomes, but at least there's the starting point of like this is what the product should be.

But then because it's under like city ownership or control, they're the ones who got all the leverage in terms of like if you want to do this, like it will be affordable and it will be affordable at like these particular levels.

Like there's a great advantage like right when the city has ownership of things in terms of negotiating.

Like, yes, we're getting more tools through zoning to incentivize or do some things, but like I'll just say like the city has some leverage of like you want to do this, like this is how it's going to end up.

And so I think for us it's just to come in with zoning that helps facilitate like those types of things and different housing products in different places.

Right.

Well, right at six o'clock.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, it's six o'clock and I like to start my meeting on time, but we'll take about a few minutes right from number because we've been here for a couple hours and we'll get our minutes going quickly.