20 years. But concerns are good. >> Yeah. Good afternoon. >> We're going to call the um meeting of the zoning advisory council to order. Um we'll start with a roll call. >> Mr. Gates >> here. >> Mr. Hart >> here. >> Mr. Lloyd, Mr. M. Mr. Menes >> here. M >> Overton Miss Pichon here. >> Mr. Pit here. >> Mr. White here. Councilwoman Robertson, >> Mr. Lloyd >> here. >> Um, and we have a couple requests for um virtual participation from Dr. Credle, um, Charlie Wilson, and Kendra Noil, Noril, excuse me. Um so we'll need a we need each of them to announce why they are requesting to participate virtually and then we'll need a motion um an approval to partic for them to uh participate. So we'll start with um Kendra Noral first. Kendra if you could just um state why you're participating virtually please. >> Yes. I have a work commitment that interfered with my time to get there. >> Great. Thank you Kendra. Um, need a motion. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? >> Great. Um, welcome Kendra. Um, Dr. Creedle, are you on the line? Okay, we will uh Dr. Credle, if if you um do hop on, if you could somehow maybe raise your hand so we know to motion you in. >> Let me I have to >> Okay, is he on? >> He should be able to now. Okay, Dr. Credle, can you hear us? >> I can hear you. Good afternoon, everybody. >> Noon. Um, if you could just briefly state why you're requesting we participate virtually. >> Yes, we are undergoing some health renovations and so I'm currently not in the area. >> Great. Thank you. We'll need a motion to approve Dr. Credle's request. Second. >> All in favor? Any >> opposed? Welcome Dr. Fredle. And then the last one is from uh Charlie Wilson. Yes. Uh I am unfortunately unable to join you all uh today as I am a best man in a wedding. That's kind of a full-time job for the rest of the week. I'm in New Hampshire right now. >> Great. Well, hope you're having good weather and good wedding. Um we could get a motion to um accept Mr. Wilson's request. >> Second. All in favor? >> Any oppose? >> Great. All right, thanks Charlie. Um, so I want to thank you again for um, joining us today and just a reminder that the advisory council is a subcommittee of the city planning commission. We are charged with advising the planning commission, the department of planning and development review and the consultant team on the zoning ordinance revision process. Um, the public will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment period on items that are not on the agenda. Um, and as a reminder to the uh, council members, when you are speaking, um, please speak loudly and state your name at the beginning of your comments so the folks participating virtually can hear us and know who is speaking. Um, so the next order of business is to approve the August meeting notes which you all should have received over email. There any questions? Um if not >> motion to approve second. >> All in favor? >> Any oppose? >> Great. Um so with that we'll move over to the public comment period. And again this is the time for the public to offer comments on items that are not on the agenda. We'll have three minutes for individual speakers, five minutes for those representing a group or organization. I would ask that we uh be polite in our comments and for those in the audience hold applause or any commentary and be respectful to those that are at the podium. Um so we'll start with those that are at the room first. If you would come forward and please announce your name. Hello. Good afternoon. Um, my name is Rachel Hecner. I'm a lead organizer with New Virginia Majority and also a part of the Richmond Housing Justice Collective that's been working together to try to bring some community um, voices to this space. I'm here today to speak on the issue of displacement and this resoning process. At the last zoning advisory committee meeting in August, a member of this committee claimed that anti-displacement zoning overlays are not legal in Virginia and that the zoning codes cannot account for potential involuntary displacement in zoning decisions. This claim is blatantly false. Members of the public and press look to this committee for factually accurate information and expertise on the reasonzoning. So for those on this committee to use a platform to spread blatant misinformation is abuse of power. Especially when the members of the committee use a false front of inaccurate legal reasoning from their profession to express their feelings. Involuntary displacement by being priced out has lifealtering impacts on people and broader communities. The city needs to take the necessary time to ensure everyone on this committee and our committee know exactly what what can be done to combat displacement. We need transit and we need more housing. Period. What we do not need is for this body and others who are solely pushing development to see parts of our city as expendable to what we all know is coming our way as development that doesn't work for the people who currently live here. No, not only can the city do something about displacement in the zoning, but this city has the obligation to do something. Change is inevitable. Justice is not. You all must do everything in your power to ensure the zoning code is just and does not further um any kinds of displacement. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please come forward. Afternoon. I'm Meg Lawrence. Um, and I live in Gerard Park. And, um, what I wanted to, uh, mention today was the language in the Richmond 300 that, uh, talks about great streets. And, um, there's even a map and shows the great streets. And then it gives the example of a great beautiful street which is Ash Boulevard south of Broad Street which um is an entirely residential street except for the parcels right up at Broad Street. Um it talks about uh the trees uh the wide sidewalks um buildings that address the street and then goes on to say that when you travel north towards 95 and 64 the splendor is diminished. And what strikes me about that is that when I look at the current draft zoning map, which people keep telling me is a draft, and so I'm choosing to believe that. um for the blocks of Chamberlain that are in Gern Park. Um and I look at the allowed use table. Um I am wondering how the language of the master plan is being followed saying that the beauty of Ash Boulevard should be replicated because you know it Ash Boulevard when you cross Broad Street isn't beautiful. um sign shop, auto repair, gas stations, convenience stores, dry cleaners, fast foods, a gym, a car wash. Those are all uses that could go on that part of Chamberlain Avenue. So, we already have a boulevard with trees. We have street trees. We have sidewalks. It's very walkable. Schools and churches. I failed to see how the by right uses in uh your use plan, your use table support replicating the beauty of Ash Boulevard, a residential street on my residential street, Chamberlain Avenue. Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. Um, my name is Katherine Herald and I'm a resident in the fourth district and I've lived there for uh probably 25 years, I guess. Um, I appreciate the ability to come down here and speak before you guys. Um my comments are more directed at um some specific areas um in the fourth district and um this is these are two large parcels behind the Publix and Target um off of Forest Hill Avenue. It is almost landlocked currently by um Public Parkway on the south end uh Chippingham Parkway on the north side. the public's target, you know, um, development, the north side, and on the east side is, uh, a residential neighborhood. I think it's called Granite. And the the two parcels are divided by the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Um, they're owned by the same people, the um, this parcel, a developer. Um, the two parcels are bisected by um, environmentally sensitive areas. uh specifically an RPA which is a perennial stream and a forested wetland which is forested most of the year plus the 100 foot buffer on either side of that. So a fairly substantial RPA up through the center of this and then on either side of that and surrounding it is a 500 foot wide resource management area and there are um protective standards for both categories of sensitive areas. So nearly the entire site is a Ches Peek Bay protected area um to some extent. Um the city it's currently zoned as R2 and the city is planning to reszone it for multi-use housing RA- A. So I I don't think that's appropriate. This is um also on the National Wetland Inventory map and has been for decades. Um so um keeping it as R2 would still retain reasonable development rights if they put R2 in there. Um and then they would have access through the granite neighborhood on that side of the railroad. Um, but uh putting I just don't see how you would put multi- multi-ousing residential on there and all the associated paved surfaces that go along with that um on that property. So, I'm here just to ask you bring it to your attention and to ask you to abandon the idea of reszoning these parcels from residential to to RAA. And um I have copies of um the map show this. So you can see a dark darker green area here and then a lighter green area that's almost essentially the whole parcel. And then I have an MWY map attached as well. So this is your records. I'm going to give one to the city staff. Hello, Mr. Vonk and council. My name is Lauren Bose and I'm here on behalf of the Church Hill Crime Prevention Club and I'm also on many committees with the Church Hill Association. And I'm here to bring to your attention that the police precinct number one has been under the new zoning ordinance will be an MX3, the entire 3/4 of a city block at the entrance to Church Hill North. And we're extremely concerned about this because historically that neighborhood has been discriminated against for a 100red plus years. And in all of the investigations that I've done to try to combat crime and bring safety to my neighborhood and all the failures of the city through generations, now we're being faced with the police leaving our neighborhood and a 40 potentially 45 foot building being put where there used to be seven single family homes that reflect the entrance of Churchill North. Um, we're very concerned because that corner of the city has an insane amount of crime, overdoses. All the corner stores in that side of town have been proven to have um, generational drug dealing that has gone on. And one of the number one things that we've identified as a club, there's 60 members active right now in my Churchill Crime Prevention Club, is that there are not enough private single family home residences near 25th Street that can look out for each other because it is a dead man zone. There's nothing going on out there. And uh Churchill North doesn't even have a restaurant that you can sit has one, excuse me, that you can sit down to have a free cup of water with your lunch. So, all I ask is on um to reconsider some of the very aggressive commercial zoning on Q Street. Um the MX3 is just going to be absolutely devastating. I don't disagree with any um you know, bigger buildings on North 25th Street. We need more density obviously to try to combat the craziness that's going on up there, but please reconsider putting the single family homes back on the 2500 block of Q and also further down Q Street to put back in the single family residences that were lost through the erosion that was allowed by the city through generations in Churchill North. And also, I don't understand how we're going to have buildings with hundreds of residents in them if the infrastructure of the city is so dilapidated that we can't even sustain ourselves. Thank you. >> Hi. Um, my name is Copeland Casady and I'm on Grey Street and today I want to talk to you all about sustainability. Um, tall density is energy inefficient, antisolar and squaltches sustainability and resiliency goals. Recently, sustainability staff enthused tall density creates wind. Tall buildings intensify heat islands, trap pollution, and hurt community health while increasing utility costs. Wind tunnels create hazardous conditions not beneficial. Tall buildings use two and a half times more electricity than buildings with six stories or less. Each height equally increasing its greenhouse gas emissions in residential structures. Concerned about impacts, I reached out to Kevin Von. Homeowners are investing in solar where zoning will now blanket and shade. He acknowledged, "I agree that access to natural sunlight is an important consideration as we set the rules that shape our city." With that, it is not the only thing we need to consider. Taller buildings can help cast shade that mitigate impacts from urban heat islands. How are we going to be net zero if you shave neighbors? Isn't solar supposed to be for all? Tall towers block sunlight, threatening residents ability to benefit from solar. I feel like I'm stating the obvious. Concrete pillars do not aid sustainability, energy efficiency, or help. You know what provides shade, cools heat islands, and supports sustainabil sustainability goals? Residential yards. Yards provide more tree canopy than tree wells or parks, decreasing surface temperatures by as much as 41°. Yards grow food, absorb runoff, and provide wildlife habitat. Concrete pillars and amenity space do none of that. Only 4.3 square miles of Richmond are parks. Our residential yards are the backbone of sustainabil sustainability strategies, including cooling and air purification. Richmond must be true sustainability advocates and protect community solar access and soilbased yard percentages which benefit us unlike concrete. But staff ties tall concrete to our transportation needs. GRTC does not release its neighborhood data. Why? But I don't see Scots edition writing. I It is residents in existing affordable housing that ride the bus. Research shows luxury apartments don't bring bus ridership. They chase out residents who ride. That too is unsustainable. Richmond must protect our city's sustainability commitments. Concrete towers and amenity spaces are energy inefficient, antisolar, squelch affordable housing and our sustainability and residential resiliency goals. Thank you. >> Anybody else in person, sir? Yeah, >> welcome. >> Um, my concern is more about the >> Oh, Jonathan. My name's Jonathan. Um, my concern is more about public use and um, public bathrooms and the growth for the next 50 years. Doesn't really look into the use of public space as it happens. Growing cities will also have a homeless growth as well, unfortunately. And these homelessness is not going to stop. Um, and they will need, you know, public bathrooms that aren't currently available in anywhere in the city. People have to try and use restaurants to try and use a public bathroom. It doesn't add to the comfort of the city. As well, if you're a tourist and you go to a to a public park in the city, you're not going to be able to find a bathroom that's in a set location that you know that's going to be kept clean, secure, all of that. So, I just think it's something that needs to be added for the next zoning as well. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in the audience before we move to the online comments? >> Okay, Maryann, could you unmute? Holly Jason Young, you should be able to unmute and offer your comments. What's the trick, Marian? For >> I believe it's space bar plus. >> Hey, if you're having trouble unmuting, if you hit spacebar and alt together, I believe, uh, you should be able to offer your comments. Hey Holly, we're gonna pause for a moment um and unmute the next speaker and come back to you. So hang tight. Maryanne, do you want to try another speaker? >> Okay. Can Can you hear me now? >> Thank you. Go ahead, please. >> Okay. This is Holly. Can I still speak? >> Please. Thank you members of the advisory committee for allowing me to speak. I am Holly Chason Young and I live in the third district. I've lived here for the past 20 years. I support Richmond's need to expand housing and plan for growth. But I want to highlight why the zoning refresh as currently structured feels in incomplete and how we can make it more human- centered. We cannot build more density on broken systems. This past winter, our water system failed twice. That wasn't just an inconvenience. It is proof that our infrastructure is already at its breaking point. If we add thousands of new housing units without parallel upgrades to water, sewer, storm water, and energy systems, we're not building a stronger community. We're building fragility into our future. Infrastructure must come first. The refresh eliminates parking minimums citywide, or at least in this area. While the long-term vision of walkable transitoriented development is crucial, Richmond isn't there yet. Without realistic provisions for parking and loading, we'll see trucks blocking bike lanes, residents circling for curb space, and unsafe streets for pedestrians. Functionality is a human- centered value, too. I also urge us to think beyond housing. As a strategy consultant, the kinds of businesses our zoning encourages matters. In my own neighborhood, all around me, I see a boarded up bank, a Walmart that opened and closed within 5 years, an abandoned Walgreens, a cluster of pawn shops, vape shops, dollar stores, and massage parlors that are sketchy. Sorry. Around them are unhoused neighbors, some living in tents, many clearly struggling with addiction and trash that goes uncollected. This is the livedin reality of corridors without thoughtful planning. But Richmond deserves corridors with a different story. Maybe gourmet markets, smallowned coffee shops, ice cream shops, other local businesses that bring people together to spark real momentum. Zoning should encourage that kind of mix. A neighborhood with retail, food, small businesses, and services that meet people's needs and foster dignity. Otherwise, we risk doubling down on the cycle of blight. So, in closing, I urge this committee to ensure the zoning refresh ties density to increases directly to infrastructure upgrades, provides functional requirements for parking and loading, and plans with love and intentionality for business corridors that serve residents with vitality, not blight. A human- centered Richmond for all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Jacob should be able to unmute. Hey, Jacob, you can unmute. >> Hi there. My name is Jacob Sherid. Um, I have the dubious credential of being the author of Richmond series of or excuse me, I should say Wikipedia series of articles in the Richmond water crisis and our broader water system. Uh, 25,000 words in counting. Please go check it out. Um, so one of the things that I want to highlight is that yes, our water plant failed in January. Yes, we've had continuing issues. We've had issues before then, right? But the bigger issue is the pipes. Um and the pipes in the city are a fixed cost. So to an extent um by driving investment by increasing density and increasing the number of rateayers that we have um that'll increase the number of people that you can use our existing infrastructure and also thereby increasing the number of people um who can support that infrastructure financially. And one of the things to remember is that our water plant, it did not fail because of capacity issues, right? The pipes are not failing necessarily always because of capacity issues. They're failing because they're old, right? And they've we don't have that much money as a city. So to increase the amount of money that we have, we can't annex. That's illegal under the general assembly. To increase the amount of money we have, we do to at some point have to say, how can we get more money into the city that we already have? And the way to do that is by increasing density. So again, I think I think the steps that we're taking in the code refresh are going way in the right direction. Um but I just I would call upon us to go a little bit more um to not be afraid of density, right? Um and thank you for the opportunity to speak to that. >> Thank you Paul should be able to unmute. Hey, Brock Paul. >> Hi. Uh, this is Brock. Uh, I live in Manchester. Um, I want to talk about use restrictions. I think there's a sort of disconnect between what people think they do and what actually happens. Um, I'm going to focus mostly on parking because that's what I'm most familiar with, but the same principles would still apply with other uh other things like gyms, pools, nurseries, cuz I guess I don't understand that one, but cuz I guess plants are bad. I don't understand that. But, um, these things all still happen. So, you can still have parking spaces. is you could still have plants growing, gyms, you can have backyard barbecue, whatever. Um, but it does come with some significant problems. So, in the case of parking specifically, by banning the use of structured parking or flat parking or however you want to define these things, really you're just making it so people can't use it as far as a uh effect of these policies. So, for example, let's say I'm I'm a business. I close at 6. So, I have this empty parking lot. can't let anyone else use it as a matter of policy because that's what the city says. I I'm honestly not even sure if I could let people use it for free. I'm actually not sure on that, but I definitely couldn't use it. I couldn't put up meters and charge people. Um, and so you just have this empty parking lot, right? This is artificial scarcity which leads to a market failure. So, normally what would happen is I would rent those spaces out and since there are people who need parking, they would rent them and everyone's happy, right? People have a place to park. I don't have all this wasted land that's dedicated to parking. So on the So what happens because the only way um the only way to have more parking is to bundle it with an alternative use for that on premise use. So this raises directly raises the cost of tenency. So, if I rent, if I'm renting an apartment and I have an on-remise space, I'm paying for that space regardless of if I use it or not. And um this is true of gyms, this is true of pools, this is true of many other things. And parking is just enormously expensive. A flat space is like5 to $15,000, probably more now. Structured garage, we're talking 5060 $70,000 per space. And uh this is directly increases cost of living for no clear benefit to me whatsoever. Right? So you're just creating a lot of empty parking lots which people don't like and you're making it harder to park because from a driver's perspective the supply of parking spaces is zero, right? If if on street parking is occupied. Um, so this is how you end up with this seemingly contradictory situation of all these empty parking lots and yet somehow it's very difficult to find a parking space. So in general have a reason to not allow a use but also like if you have a parking space you should be able to rent or share a parking space. I really just I I struggle to see any purpose to these sorts of of use restrictions. So thank you. >> Thank you. Tyler should be able to unmute. Tyler Misnik. >> Yep. Are you all able to hear me? >> We can. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Hey everyone, my name's Tyler Misenchek. I'm 24 and I live in the second district. And I wanted to speak today on how the recent property assessments impact people like me who live in the city but don't own their own home because again this year's property assessment shows that home prices are drastically increasing across the city. And the average home in Richmond is now assessed more than 55% higher than what it was just five years ago. For first-time home buyers, the sharp rise in housing costs creates a major barrier for entry. Many people who live in the city and wish to stay in the city are being priced out and cannot establish permanent roots in Richmond. Prices for existing homes are skyrocketing across the city. And it's not developers that are raising the cost for these homes. It's scarcity. Firsttime home buyers can't compete in Richmond's housing market anymore. There aren't enough affordable entry-level homes and it's turning many people who live in Richmond to the surrounding counties in search of more abundant and less expensive housing. And when this happens, we lose members of our communities. We lose families and supporters of local businesses. Um, all that to be said, Richmond needs more housing, especially for people who don't already own their own home. I support the direction the code refresh is heading in and the option it provides for entry level housing. And I would even support more housing options that create more residences like triplexes and attached neighborhoods um because these opportunities expand um options for first-time home buyers and people who want to establish roots in Richmond. That's all I have to say. Thanks. >> Thank you. Marian, do we have others? Okay, Kevin. >> Hi. Can you all hear me? >> Can Thank you. >> Okay, perfect. Hello everybody. My name is Kevin Samirini. Uh, I'm a resident of the Fulton neighborhood. Um, and I just want to express that I think the zoning draft is headed in the right direction. However, I would like to see more housing density offered in the first and fourth city council districts. So, as it stands right now, allowing those portions of the city to remain largely sparse and exclusive areas further fuels housing demand in lower income areas of the city like where I am in Fulton. Um, these areas are also already the places shouldering most of the density increases that we're seeing in the draft map as proposed. The net result, if we don't craft this right, is displacement. So, I want to balance what I'm saying by saying that no neighborhood should be exempt from growth. We need to be fair while we're rewriting the zoning code and right now I'm worried that we're not being fair. We're hearing a lot of anti-density comments in the wealthier areas of those cities and those voices seem to be inherently louder because they have the financial wherewithal to attend public meetings in the middle of the workday. Most people in my neighborhood do not. The solution to this isn't to delay or downzone areas of the city. And the solution is to expose the wealthiest and most exclusive areas of the city to the same demand for growth that the rest of the city has been feeling for years. I want to implore the zoning advisory council to be more courageous and upzoning the first and fourth city council districts. It will help alleviate displacement elsewhere, particularly in areas that are already experiencing it today. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I know that Mr. Sherrod offered his comments. Maybe it's hand just hasn't come down or there. Is there anyone else that hasn't commented? Marian. >> Rachel. >> Hey, Rachel, you're unmuted. >> Okay, Rachel, you're able to unmute. Sorry. Thank you. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um, I'm in the fourth district and I would just want to know how the >> Could you offer your name for the record, please? >> Rachel. >> Okay, Rachel, thank you. >> Hi. Yes, no problem. I'm getting some feedback. Are you getting feedback from my >> Yes, we can hear that. Yes. You want to try? Can you try again? >> Is that better? >> Yes. >> Okay. Wonderful. Well, thank you for hosting an opportunity for citizens to express our concerns. I guess my concern I do have a concern with this code refresh as I'm exploring it most specifically because we have invited data centers into the city of Richmond recently and I believe we'll be getting more as well as some of the counties and it's been made aware to me the um excess use of water of these data centers and electricity. As someone who lives in a home, I've already been notified that our water bills will be going up next year as well as our power bills. And I just as far as concern about the infrastructure, as someone else had mentioned, we I don't feel like we have the infrastructure ready to be um inviting high density into the city at this time, especially since we have recently invited the data centers in. And I encourage you all to look at the very high use of energy and water that the data centers will be creating first. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you Maryanne. If there no others online, okay. Um, with nobody else online, we're going to go ahead and close the public comment period. Um, and we'll turn it over to Maryann Pittz to provide a council recap and meeting introduction for today. >> Good afternoon, Maryann Pitts with the planning department. At the last meeting, the consulting team brought some ideas um some initial proposals for modifications to the module one material based on comments we received and the council discussed that building coverage uh development along corridors and setbacks for some of the items that were raised during that last meeting and introduced the body to the development standards. At this meeting, you've received a set of questions that are going to be utilized in reviewing uh those development standards with you all. They're also going to be introducing the administrative provisions and discussing the goals today with you for that section of the document. So that module three information again the comment period has been extended to the 28th for online engagement. Uh staff has been going to a lot of community meetings to get it out in the community, get people understanding what the material is so people have the opportunity to comment as well. Uh today the consultant team's going to share some information about initial what's coming in through the online portal. I have emails for you all. I just have to redact some information and I'll get those to you uh probably tomorrow that we've been receiving as well. They fill in some of the gaps. We've been getting a lot Oh, I'm timing myself. >> Um so lots of comments in the fourth district that you might not be seeing on the map are coming in via email. some in 25th and Jefferson a cluster but we've received several emails and I'll be getting that together as a packet emailed to you. >> Does anyone have any any council members have questions for Marian? >> Um just to Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Just thank you to the staff who've been spending a lot of evenings making sure that knows about this important project. >> Thank you. And I failed to mention at the start of the meeting that after our August discussion where we had a number of comments around the proposed BRT route um and uh the city's role in addressing housing affordability and displacement staff has extended an invitation to the city's housing director to address the group and we're reaching out to GRTC so we can bring you some additional information and I apologize if they weren't here today but we are working on getting them scheduled. so that we can get some more information and continue um some of the consultants discussions along the Chamberlain consultants questions along the Chamberlain corridor from our um office meeting. The housing director will definitely be here at the October meeting. Great. Um GRTC has stated that they're willing to attend a meeting. So, >> excellent. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. I think at this point we'll turn it over to uh Renee Feverberstein to start the uh draft development standards discussion. And just remember for the council if you have questions, please state your name um and speak loudly for the benefit of those in the audience and online. So welcome Rene. >> Uh thank you very much uh Elizabeth and Marian. I'm actually if you don't mind I'm just going to give you a quick update on the comments on the website first and then we'll continue with the development standards. Let me share my screen. All right. Can you guys see my screen right now? >> Yes. >> Great. Um, okay. So, um, you should be should be seeing the slides change. Um, so just a quick update on the interactive map comments. Um, and before we get to that, a reminder for everybody who's in the room. There's a whole series of uh new um, uh, engagement sessions that are coming up over the next little while. Um, so, uh, a general session to call into, a bilingual Spanish, uh, these are all these are all office hours, so these are opportunities for members of the public to call in and, um, ask us questions about the zoning code update, um, and give comments. So, a general session, a a bilingual Spanish English session, um, one specific to the sixth and ninth districts, and then a renter session. Um so all this information should be out there but um these are links to uh to join these sessions when they come up. Um updating on the map comments here. Um so just a quick uh update here. The as was stated the mapping is the map comments are still open until September 28th uh at midnight. Um so there's still some more time to comment. We've gotten lots of comments so far. >> 1,084 comments, 943 replies. So lots and lots of comments. Um uh that includes comments that were uploaded from um openhouse postits that were made in person. Um 306 unique commenters. Um so that means that most people are leaving multiple comments. Uh but there's still a fair number of commenters. Um that doesn't capture all the individuals of course who left anonymous comments at the public open house. Um five different top the five top neighborhoods. We're getting comments from the fan shako bottom Belleview the museum district and Gantter Park. Um, and you can see on the map here, um, there there's a concentration of, uh, of comments in the the west end, in the north, and some of the kind of near south area. There's 36 other neighborhoods in the city that we've received no comments for, predominantly down in the the Broad Rock and Midloafian areas in the south. Um, so we'd love to see more comments um, particularly from those areas over the next little while just to get more representative feedback from across the city. Um top five comments, themes of the comments so far and obviously some of these are overlapping but just to give you a flavor of the direction so far. Um uh top comment is you know specific comments on sites asking either for increases or decreases in intensity in specific areas based on neighborhood context. So looking for less height or more height uh permissions or less or more numbers of units. So lots and lots of specifics that we've got to work through around specific uh blocks or or areas. Um general comment about promoting walkability along nodes and corridors with mixeduse development. We've heard a lot along those lines. Strengthening transit corridors both existing and planned by coordinating with new zoning. Expanding and protecting the tree canopy through preservation and planting. Um adding standards for that. Um ensuring uh building height transitions fit adjacent neighborhood characteristics andor maintain sunlight into those neighborhoods. So those are sort of the top themes. Um, and as I said, we've we've got a few more weeks to comment. I would I would invite anybody in the room who hasn't commented yet to uh to and who has comments to to go there and leave your thoughts. Um, or feel free to reach out to others who you know who might be interested. Um, we particularly like to hear from more people in the the less represented southern parts of the city if possible. Um, so that's just a quick update on the mapping. I'm now going to turn it over to Colin to talk about the um development standards and to lead discussion on the draft that was shared with you last time. And Colin, not sure if you want me to continue sharing my screen or if you'd like to share. >> Yeah, please share. >> Okay, >> Colin, take a pause for just a second. This is Do any council members have a question for Renee about um the mapping comments or >> Thanks. Sorry, guys. Yeah, thank you. Thanks Renee. Excuse me. So um I guess we're this is our opportunity to discuss the development standards um that we provided with you at the last meeting. Sorry, this is Colin Scarf from Code Studio. Um so last time we shared with you the pedestrian access requirements, bicycle parking proposed requirements, vehicle access, some of the parking lot landscaping requirements and miscellaneous vehicle use area requirements and then the transition and screening. Um and uh we're still working on the second piece of development standards. Um, so fences and walls, general kind of planting and landscaping um, requirements, signs and trees, and then the affordability piece. Um, we're still working on that stuff. We didn't quite have time to have that ready for this meeting, so I apologize for that. I think um, we didn't have enough time to work through the issues with staff um, and get them comfortable with the material before we presented it to you guys. So we'll have that um ready for your next meeting um as we work through that material with staff and get it ready for you guys. Uh so next slide please Renee. So um I was just hoping to walk through the different pieces um that we provided with you at the last meeting. Um so we kind of got some questions here. So, if you guys just want to jump in, um I think generally um do you guys have any kind of general comments or questions about the draft development standards in general that you wanted to share or if you have any general questions that you wanted to ask now is would be a good time. >> Yeah. Philip Hart, um, can you give us a quick definition of site modifications and then sort of a second, this is not general specific, I just wondered why um, site modifications don't require the bicycle parking and transit access. um what I'm not exactly sure how it's defined, but it it's something along the lines of if you modify more than let's say 15,000 square ft of site area, if you stay um with under that number um it would be considered a site modification. Anything more than that and it would be considered kind of new construction. And so, um, it's just kind of a threshold and we can we can play around with and modify that threshold to some number that makes sense for everybody. Um, and and really um we can turn things on and off as we need to, but from a bicycle parking perspective, it's really more of a a use based requirement um, which is more associated with the building itself. So just making modifications to your parking lot for example, we've kind of suggested that um you shouldn't have to provide bike parking. But if you're, you know, changing a use um from from one use to another or you're renovating a building significantly um and adding a different use, then you should meet the bike parking requirement. Um, and we've just we've kind of taken a a light touch on the transit access requirement in general. Um, we kind of need to work through that a little bit more. I think um exactly what that means, but I think the standards are fairly general in themselves and that you have to provide a um space for a bus stop on the edge of your site, I believe. Um, so right now the only thing that would trigger that is new construction. >> Thank you. We'll get to that later. >> Th this is Brian White. I'm sorry if I'm being uh ignorant here, but uh if these these are not nec these don't apply to single family properties, correct? They're just larger properties. >> Yes. You have to go to the >> for the most part um site development standards don't apply to single family. There are some pieces that apply to single family like driveway widths and things like that. Um, and and if you're doing a a large enough single family townhouse project, you know, things like bic bicycle parking would be required, but you're not going to have to landscape your parking lot or your driveway in a single family house. >> We had a question from Marissa and Damian. Um on this one two really just two few questions and it's on that page. Um it says standards may apply when it's a blue circle but then in letter D below it says that they must be met. So I just may or must and then second on that same D you know the applicable standards may be further modified by the applicability provisions for each and I'm like by whom who's the actor and then the third you don't have to answer all this now these are just comments and I can scan my my comments as well on change of use on the transition transition screens frontage screen and site elements I think some of that might not be like physically possible If a building like already exists and it's moving from one use to another, like what qualifies a change of use, if it's still within like commercial or is it like from one ch one commercial type to another? Because then you could think of like a hair salon becoming a restaurant and now they have to do screening that they have no room for another type. >> Those are my three comments. Mayor must who may further modify and then these change of use provisions. >> Yeah, there's a lot embedded in there. Um, did you suggest that you were you could scan them and provide them to us so that we can work through those? >> Yes. >> Okay. Hi, Damen Pittz. Um I have kind of a a question and then some general some observations about the um the uh required bicycle parking standards. First the question is um you know where are they coming from? Were they informed by are they consistent with any applicable best practices from the League of American Bicyclists or any organization like that? We're gonna talk about each one of those on a different >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. I I will uh wait until about parking. >> Okay. Sure. Just wait. Thank you. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Um I would have done the exact same thing. So I'm glad Damian went first. I I'll probably make an overarching comment which is and perhaps this has already been done and and um please jump in if that's the case but I do know that the department of planning and development review recently put in a lot of time in refining was previously the plan of development process to be a more straightforward site plan process that only applies in a very specific uh delineated list of circumstances. And so I would want to make sure that in as we review the applicability of these additional standards that it doesn't inadvertently draw out the scope of what now must go through a site plan process in order to ensure conformance for each of these um these development standards that are imposed by the code. So again, it's just sort of a consistency comment and don't expect a reply today other than just to flag that and say as you review these and go through that perhaps apply that lens and figure out whether any of these will have an unexpected impact on the current standards that are applied for how a site plan review would be conducted. >> Okay, >> this is Elizabeth. I suggest to following up on Press's point, taking a look at the site plan checklist. Um, uh, the ordinance is great, but the checklist is probably really where they meet. What question is getting at is the whole point. Yeah. Do we have any other questions at this point? Okay. So, this was the pedestrian access um provisions that we proposed. Um, I guess in general, do they do they make sense? Is this something we want to regulate? Um, do we have the correct access types attributed to the right districts? Um, you know, the district standards um require street facing entrances in certain instances. And so this is a requirement to help ensure that street facing entrances connect to kind of the public realm. And they they come in different types. Um kind of type one being like the most intensive from a kind of a pedestrian perspective, type two being kind of in the middle, and then type three being the the least pedestrian uh friendly, but still requiring a kind of a a connection from buildings across parking lots to the kind of public sidewalk system. So we we've got type one, two, and three. And then the idea is um these types would apply uh in certain districts where we were trying to get certain levels of pedestrian connections to uh the public sidewalk system. >> Uh thank you Preston Lloyd. Um two comments for food for thought. The first is that I I haven't seen a waiver process that would be identified here. I recently worked on a special use permit project for a multif family project that was on a um well- definfined public street but it was located substantially below grade in which case there was no ability to create pedestrian connections because of the third dimension. If it were two dimensions you would say yes they're right next to a public street. You should have a entrance that then faces that public street. But of course the topography was an unusual condition that justified a different design and the reviewers from PBR had no issue with that. Um as long as there was ultimately a pedestrian connection which was made to the council. So long story short I think there does need to be some sort of relief valve if you will a waiver process that would allow for unique conditions to be reviewed and approved by the director. So that's comment number one. Comment number two is that there are certain portions of this city, many of which were annexed from Chesterfield County at during parts in our uh periods in our history where there is no public sidewalk along public rights of way. >> Yeah. >> So, we wouldn't want to require residential developers build a sidewalk to nowhere if no current public infrastructure exists for them to connect to. So, just another condition that would justify a different approach. >> These are great points. Thank you. Do you do you think um in certain instances the variance process would work or >> No, I I don't think so because in Virginia you have to prove a hardship by a showing that is um a heightened level of standard that that effectively you cannot develop the property for any reason. Um and so we wouldn't be eligible to go to the BCIA and plead our case for for a variance um given the applicable standard of review. Instead, I think there just needs to be a more simple process where the director can weigh the evidence that's provided as just submitted as part of the PI or the site plans of B process and make a call that that the circumstances justified deviation. We wouldn't want to call it a variance because in Virginia that has very specific contradiction. >> Okay. >> Um, can everyone hear me? >> Yeah. Go ahead, Charlie. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. and to the to the extent and this is one of those intent good implementation you know would would take some to Preston's point would take some finesse um I do wonder particularly at the single family infill and two family infill level six feet wide sidewalks I mean not to not to get too picky but it six feet seems extremely generous >> um if that might to the extent this does get on the books if that number were three F feet. Um, that might be a little People might do more. They could do more, but I don't want to >> I don't want to suggest six feet is like the bare minimum if for instance a lot of our city sidewalks are three feet, four feet in some of our older neighborhoods. So, kind of picking nitpicking a little bit. Um, but just uh wanted to wanted to open that number out for discussion. >> Four feet better than three feet. >> Six feet just seems like a lot. I don't know. And maybe some houses would benefit from that. But maybe you've got a specific situation where your house fronts onto. This is all anecdotal, right? But >> maybe the maybe the street that your house actually fronts onto is, you know, 60 70 80 feet away maybe, right? >> Having like a six foot wide avenue uh all the way to that point if it is required. Um for the lowest hanging fruit of what we're doing, single family infill, I was just I just thought it was worth discussing. I I could frankly see it being appropriate for larger developments and no no personal issue there but implementation's key. >> To that same end, Charlie, this is Marita. Um I didn't quite understand external connectivity versus internal connectivity. Can you what what do you mean by those two different areas? And then I'll ask part of my next question is related to an answer to that. Well, the external connectivity is just making sure you connect to pedestrian connections that um exist or proposed um as part of your development generally. That makes sense. So that would be like there's a there's a sidewalk on your property or not on your property in the rightway in front of your property like you would butt to a public sidewalk and the external connectivity means that you are providing a pedestrian walkway from your building to that sidewalk. >> Yeah. And we probably need to like finesse this a little bit, but like yeah, if there's an existing trail on the back edge of your property, um you should try to connect to it. you should connect to it ideally. >> Okay. Um and Okay. So, it's not like a sidewalk, not a public sidewalk you're talking about. Okay. No. >> So, so then I would say that I I don't I don't know if we should regulate the minimum width of the pedestrian walkway. Maybe leave it to >> what's happening on that in that area because it may make sense that it >> should be should be three feet or something. Um, and or there might be like, yeah, you want to connect, but there's just not a lot of room due to some other condition. Um, and so I don't want to have someone have to go through like some sort of special used permit or something just for a because they can only do two feet. Um, similarly, like the walkways and just like the ADA compliance and having it be accessible, like that's going to be covered through your building code, I believe. So, like I don't know if we should like add that here as well. Um, like what if you are connecting to a trail and it's like stepping down or like there's steps or there's like you you want to have like slate pieces because that's like your garden style or something. >> Um, like I don't know if we want to regulate exact materials there. And then on the internal connectivity, would that is that like let's say you're building a a you're building a building that has like a internal courtyard to it that has walkways in it that's like exposed to the air. Are you talking about is that are those those walkways? >> Um good question. >> Okay. Well, if so, I don't think we should have a minimum width or like the materials specified. >> Yeah, I don't know what the minimum is for ADA, but I think is it three and a half feet? They might know. Um >> I've seen uh it dep I've seen five feet come up most frequently, but it it depends on the the existing conditions and stuff. So, I >> mean, I think it depends on the building. It's sort of like the those things are changing, too. So, I almost feel like I'd rather just have architects and civil engineers help determine that according to the code. >> Yeah. I guess we're just hoping the sidewalk is wide enough that two people can walk by heading in different directions without smacking into each other. >> I think that makes a lot of sense on like a regular sidewalk or like a bigger entrance to a building. But if you're thinking that this is going to apply to like the interior courtyard of a building which is still outside but could be considered an internal walkway, maybe the landscape architecture isn't doesn't make sense to have that that level of dictation from the zoning ordinance. >> Okay, >> this is Jennifer Mullen. Just to piggyback off of what everybody else has said, and this might fall in um Preston's category of having um some waiverss available, but the pedestrian walkway must be placed on both sides of the driveway, particularly as you're thinking about infill development on um tracks of land that are not on roads that have sidewalks fronting them. Most likely, you're only sidewalks on one side of your internal drive. Um, so I think just thinking about those types of developments as well as opposed to just adding cost to have it on both sides of the road. >> So you're just suggesting on one side of the driveway? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, this is Charlie. I mean, did I understand earlier, I think it was in response to Philip's question, that in single family residential neighborhoods, these standards do not apply. >> Um, they would >> they do. They do apply. >> They do apply for new construction. >> So that would be more of a subdivision requirement in a in a new subdivision single family neighborhood if that's what you're talking about or you're talking about like just an infill lot. >> Infill lot. >> Yeah. So, so for an infill lot, an existing residential, >> you you would have to provide a connection from your street facing entrance to the public sidewalk system for a single family house >> and then create the public sidewalk. >> Well, yeah, but what if there is no sidewalk? >> Yeah. Well, >> my my entire neighborhood in Glen Bernie doesn't have sidewalks. Someone was doing an infill project. I doubt they're going to want to extend sidewalks to the entire neighborhood or the entire street for that matter. >> Yeah. >> I mean, because then you get into like storm water management stuff, too. So, it's not just like, oh, you just put in a sidewalk. Sometimes that right ofway stuff. So, I mean, I think one of the things we could do is look at, you know, some kind of exemption for single family structures or duplexes if you think that makes sense. If there's no sidewalks, um I guess you know should there be a all surface weather connection from a required street facing entrance to the street in a single family setting even if there's not a sidewalk. I don't know. I mean, there might be a sidewalk there one day >> and they'd be ready to go. This is Jennifer Mullen. Again, I just I think it depends on the development and the the structure of how the internal road is coming in. And so, if you have just one versus 15, that obviously changes the dynamic of it. >> I mean, what most people would do in a single family setting is that, you know, they would have a driveway that they would basically use as a pedestrian connection. And you know, they might have a sidewalk coming off of that driveway to the front door of the house, for example, if the driveway is on the side. Um, I don't I don't think it's something very difficult to meet. >> But this is Elizabeth Greenfield. Not every neighborhood has a driveway, nor are they allowed to have driveways alley access. So, >> yeah. So then they should definitely have a sidewalk that connects a pedestrian walkway that connects to the sidewalk, shouldn't they? >> Or the street. >> Yes, Elizabeth. Again, I would love if every neighborhood had a driveway and a um excuse me, a sidewalk, not a driveway. Um, but we're talking about old established neighborhoods where particularly single family where someone could be doing an infill project that's one lot or two. And the expectation of extending sidewalk >> I think he's saying extending the walkway like having >> not the sidewalk just the pedestrian walkway on your site. >> Okay. >> But it's still supposed to be six feet. >> But it's still supposed to be six feet. if you wanted to like do like a slate path or something where you don't have to have ADA access to your single family home, you'd have to have it be like >> so I think that >> Yeah, I think that's putting I think it should be case by >> we'll look at reducing that number. >> Yeah. >> Or not or not even specifying a number I guess and and letting other folks figure that out what's the appropriate width. I will say chiming in really quick, even at the the single family and two family level for a lot of building permits that we've applied for uh with public works, you know, public work like public works reviews your building permit, right? Even just for a single family house or even just for an addition or they review it. Um I'm wondering if they this might be something that they can look at as an extension of their review. the their review is a little more um subjective than the zoning level review tends to be in my experience for better or worse. Um and uh they you know we'll apply for a single family building permit on a house that doesn't have sidewalk and if the request is reasonable they will they will ask you to put sidewalk on that frontage like we've seen it for a lot of our requests just for single family building permits. So it does come up. I'm wondering if this is something that can be folded into their purview perhaps, you know, maybe not even through the site plan because that's three dwelling units or more that triggers that right now. >> Instead, just DPW reviewers might have something to to say here and uh might be looser and more ambidextrous that way than a kind of rigid zoning requirement. Thinking out loud. I don't know what the answer is, but just wanted to throw that out there. >> Charlie, this is Preston. I'm going to chime in on what you just commented and make the observation that I think part of the reluctance that I have with the rigidity of what we have here even though it's very well-intentioned and I understand trying to promote connecting pedestrian connectivity which is laudable that to get relief from that your only option is to either get a zoning text amendment which requires a council process or get a special use permit which requires going through a council process. And if we're trying to increase the supply of housing that we're trying to deliver in the city, then that level of administrative burden, I think, is going to work against that objective. So the solution I would offer is one of two. Either you provide a very low impact administrative waiver process that can be freely granted if the circumstances allow it or you take it out of the code entirely. You say that pedestrian connectivity shall be promoted according to policies and procedures developed by the department of planning and development review and you let it happen as part of your site plan review process or whatever the building permit process would be that applies to the property. So I don't necessarily know that it has to be in the code because as soon as you put it in the code it again has those administrative burdens that are going to be imposed if there may be very justifiable reasons to have a different outcome. Elizabeth Greenfield again and to follow up with Preston um about acquiring an SUP. A lot of this is going to be talking about single family again infill. That's a lot of uh cost and time to put on, you know, one single family home potentially. Um I think we need to make this a little easier and less time consuming and costly for the potential applicant owner down the road. Um, and this is Jennifer Muller. Just one follow-up question on the connectivity. Again, back to the the greenways and trails um and bicycle lanes. I would just want to make sure that ties into the overall um greenways plans and bicycle plans because I don't I don't think that they want connections at every single property. You know, that mean I'm not a great bike rider, but I think that would be disruptive if you were riding fast going down those greenways. So, I think just making sure that it's all coordinated, that it is, you know, you have a connection that you can get to it, um, is encouraged, but that it ties into where they want those those actual physical connections. >> This is Charlie me, just want to make sure I understand the public policy reason for this connectivity. Going back to talking about individual infill um developments in residential neighborhoods. If somebody's building a house on a lot uh and they don't care about having a sidewalk that goes to the street or that goes to their driveway, are we trying to tell them, well, you got to have it anyway? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I mean, if somebody doesn't feel like they need it, that's fine. If if if we're talking about an area where there's there is already uh you know a sidewalk or whatever where there's bicycle traffic and so forth, you know, maybe that's a different matter, but it I mean, doesn't the property owner get to determine what he's going to build on his lot or not under these circumstances? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. >> I agree. >> A lot of really quick, a lot of this kind of does happen anyway. uh for I mean a lot of the single family houses I've dealt with and helped construct uh you know you're going to have host deliveries you're going to have people coming to your front door. It's pretty common that you know any anyone building a product uh that they're trying to sell they're going to have some semblance of a front stoop front door uh reasonable way to get there and it can be sight specific. can be pre preferred one way or the other, but um I don't know. Uh I can kind of see it both ways here. >> Well, I guess >> the the thing is is that we're you're you might be thinking about certain conditions and certain neighborhoods that are very dense and have big like sidewalk connectivity. other places where let's say there's an empty parcel like somewhere in Southside where it's a very large one or north side even there's like lots of big parcels where someone might build their house like somewhere on this like twoacre parcel and they don't want to they don't want a sidewalk all the way to the from their front door to the they'll use their driveway I guess is how you would respond. So, as long as there's a way that in some conditions people can use driveways, we obviously want people to have >> in the dense urban conditions, we obviously would want someone to have a they themselves would probably want a sidewalk up a walkway up to their front door. It's just that we need to figure out a way to have it allow for the the variability of our city. Elizabeth Greenfield here. I think what I'm hearing is that we we don't want to mandate a specific uh width. Um we need to stay away from materials. Um that should be more of a consumer choice and more flexibility from, you know, if we want a walkway, don't have a driveway, sidewalks are already there. Um I think that's what I'm taking away from this conversation and sending you guys back to work on. But Damian, do you have a comment? Yeah, I mean I'm generally agree with the general sentiment that I think I'm hearing that, you know, we don't understand why we need to mandate that a single family home have pedestrian connectivity from the street or the sidewalk to the home itself. But I guess I will ask if is the motivation for thinking of of mandating something like that the idea that we want to protect neighbors is the is the kind of underlying thinking from the part of the consultants or from whatever certain norms led to this recommendation that if a homeowner doesn't provide that walkway access from you know through their property from the street to their front door that the postman the the delivery person whoever else is showing up is going to use the neighbors property, walk on their walkway, and then cut over. Is that is that why we're talking about this? >> No. >> And and maybe maybe this doesn't apply in RD, for example, but it it really is intended to get at more higher intensity areas where you have buildings pulled up to the street with entrances and just making sure that pedestrians can get from the public sidewalk system to those building entrances conveniently and quickly, efficiently. Yeah, for any type of commercial building, I think obviously that should be required, but I agree with what a lot of people are saying. If the single family home context, if for some reason somebody wants to like walk through the mud to get to their house every day, then let them. >> Yeah, it's Elizabeth here. Um, folks, we have a number of development standards to get through and we have 40 minutes before we get to our next agenda item. So, I think it's it's safe to say that if you don't get all of our comments today, we can get them to consultants from Maryanne in. But, let's try to keep this moving because we just beat up sidewalks for a good 15 20 minutes. >> Where'd it go? >> Well, we've we've expanded the bike parking requirements so they apply more than just residential. So, we're trying to um have bike parking requirements for a variety of uses. Are they based on best practices from from an established entity? It's a it's a really good question. Again, you know, as with car parking ratios, they're not an exact science, right? So, um I would suggest for the most part these are not difficult to meet. One thing I would be concerned about though and um is making sure that we're not requiring too much from any one use. So we may need to add a cap so that a large hotel for example doesn't have to provide you know 200 bike parking spaces or something um which isn't ever going to get used potentially. Um but yeah, any thoughts on on the idea of expanding bike parking? Um we have this idea of short-term and long-term. So short-term would be for um you know employees or um no not employees for people visiting a store or a restaurant. they would have a short-term space to provide to leave their bike and then long-term would be for employees or people working at the restaurant uh for longer periods of time that they had a safer space to leave their bike. >> So, what is the I'm this is Brian White. What is the residential shortterm? How how does that work if uh if it is for somebody just coming to visit? Are you asking saying that for visitors and for residents you have to have >> Yeah, you'd have a bike rack somewhere. >> You got to do one per four plus one for 20. So it's really more like >> So it's more than one per four then if you got a larger property. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And you know that be like a bike room or a bike cage or something >> where let me um this is Damian. I'm going to jump in uh to the points I was about to make earlier. Um thank you for answering my question about you know whether this is pegged to some sort of standards. Um yeah I mean I think there's no way of doing this that's going to like entirely make sense. I don't think but um um I and a lot of it's contextual. You know, there are parts of the city that are dense and are bikable and where we should be and where there's like a bike culture, I guess, for lack of a better word, where we should be uh having more bike parking. Uh but the type but there's the same type of land use in another part of the city that's far more car oriented. applying those same level of bike requirements wouldn't make any sense. So I think the first thing is we got to figure out how to delineate that in some fashion. But for those places that are bikable, some of these uses, I think the required numbers are quite low. Um daycarees, if you're talking about if a nuke daycare was built in my neighborhood, every single person that went there would be on their bike nearly. You know, 75% of the people would be going on their bike. That's what I see at the elementary school that we go to. Um, so one per 5,000 square foot seems like not nearly enough. Um, the entertainment, office, retail, and particularly food and beverage. Uh again, in the denser, more bikeable parts of the city, if somebody builds a brewery in a bike part of the city, I would hope that they're building way more than one, >> you know, if four parking bike parking spots at a 10,000 square foot facility, you know, um and um on the long term, I largely don't really see the need for any of that other than for these large apartment complexes that we're talking about. Again, if we're talking about large parking pump bikes out on Midlotheian Turnpike, >> hopefully that area becomes bikable at some point. Yeah. Um but currently it's not right. But um but but the types of infill developments that we're encouraging in parts of the city via this zoning uh permanent long-term uh you know, protected long-term piking is a is a very important thing. You know, there's this development called the Trolley Barn something or other that that was built in the I guess fifth district eight years ago that has um massive glass enclosed long-term bike um you know units I guess uh spots >> Uhhuh. >> that are always full. And in a place like that, I suspect it's like a 1:1 ratio of people to bikes living in that type of, you know, dense urban area, young professional oriented multif family housing complex, right? So, I I would I would certainly hope that future developments that meet that description I just had are required to put in long-term bike parking like what we see at the trolley barns. Um, so I just think that it needs to be kind of refined and narrowed in scope, refined and kind of delineated between bikable areas and not somehow. >> I think Wayne uh has a question online. >> Yes. Yes. Um, I absolutely agree with Damian. I'm looking at um all of the spaces on the right side and each of them again they say one per whatever square foot of area so that that is a concern definitely for the medical um I think that that should be increased also when it comes to medical I'm curious as to is that a dentist office is that a hospital you know I think that maybe um clarifying that category maybe may be a good idea um but yeah those were my thoughts and then also looking at the right side each of them say one per the area and so I'm curious is there a particular rule of thumb or a figure that you all are using to calculate um those by chance I'm just curious >> what so it's one space one bicycle space per 5,000 square ft of floor area is what that is suggesting >> what Why? But like why 5,000 or why 10,000? Like what's the >> Yeah, I think that's what Wayne was asking. >> Um >> absolutely >> borrowed from another place honestly. It's it's not based on like and it and it is I would suggest on the lower end of things. So it's a conservative approach in the scheme of things. I would suggest uh other communities have stronger bike parking requirements, but this is a little bit of a of a baby step um in that direction and and maybe long-term doesn't make sense. You know, maybe that's something we don't need. Um, but I I do feel that like people that are using a bike to get to work and back um depending on the weather conditions might need a safe, dry place to store their bike during the day. >> Gotcha. Well, I I definitely agree with the influx of our biking population here in Richmond. I think that should definitely be looked at um and looking at each of those categories separately. I know I know that we borrowed from from a from a different um place, but definitely telling tailoring that to Richmond would be important. And then my other question is when it says shortterm and long-term, do we have clear definitions of what those mean? Is that shortterm like 3 to 6 months, a year? What does that mean by chance? >> It's just a type of parking that you have to provide. So, um >> Okay. to meet your short-term requirement. It could be like just a bicycle rack, right, with specific dimensions that you have to meet for that bicycle rack. But it's just that bicycle rack that you see, you know, in front of buildings in the sidewall. And then long-term just means you have to like put it in a bicycle room or a locked cage or facility or something that's covered and protected by the weather. So you you would have to have space allocated for that number of bikes on your site to meet those two requirements. >> Okay. So are you saying that long-term is when it is h is when those bikes are housed for a number of days >> or Yeah. or or the entire day or overnight versus like I'm just going to pop in and have have dinner or something and leave my bike. >> Okay, understand. Thank you so much. >> I see there's a lot of folks that have questions, so bear with me for just a second. >> Um, Councilwoman Robertson asked follow up to Dr. um, Credle's comment if we're talking single family residences. After that, we're going to get Charlie, then Preston, then Marissa, then Charles, >> and then Phil. >> Yes. >> Did you hear the question, Colin, about >> No. Uh, Councilwoman Robertson, uh, Councilwoman Robertson was asking as a followup to Dr. Credle's question if for the bike racks if we're referring to single family >> any >> anywhere. Single family not required. >> Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Charlie. >> Yeah, so uh, you know, I commute to work by bike like three times, four times a week, give or take. It's it's my preferred method of getting around the city. Um and uh and yeah, so this this approach is similar in a lot of ways to how we currently approach bike parking. Some of the numbers are a little more than what we uh we do as it stands. Shooting from the hip there. Um one thing that I've observed both as a user and in representing the development community, sorry. um is that the uh the long-term aotment of bike parking space is needed. Being able to actually provide bike parking um to that definition tends to produce these like kind of weird rooms and apartment buildings that are well-intentioned, of course they are, but they turn into like these graveyards of bikes. And I know that's not zoning's fault that people behave that way, >> but I do want I do wonder if there's like a softer approach to long-term. The key word that we currently use and is in this draft is uh you know, weatherproof or weather resistant to weather. >> I'm wondering if I mean really what I if I'm biking around if I can just see a a covered bike station >> like I'm happy and I would leave my bike there. uh you know more confidently anyway than just you know the short term outside of the restaurant let me just find the find the bike key and and lock it up there. Um I I wonder if we can look at maybe a more favorable longer term uh uh in level of bike infrastructure uh than assuming that people will like to Dr. Pitts Point that carry street station um uh or whatever it's called the former GRTC apartment complex. Um yeah, they've got these like glass cubes that are like chalk full of bikes and I'm like I'm not sure I would ever want to put my bike in there because it's just like too unwieldy and difficult. But if it were instead something easier to construct that is just as good, you know, lighter, cheaper, faster, etc. My thoughts there. So, >> thank you. Um, so my comment relates to the approach taken here, which is, you know, understandably a one-sizefits-all approach. And as has been shared, I think given the dispersion of bicycle utilization throughout different areas of the city, the availability of safe u bicycle pathways and infrastructure. Um, I'm I have concerns about that one-sizefits-all approach being realistic. And so I wonder as two potential alternatives, do you tie the the more aggressive uh requirements to areas that are within a certain distance of a protected bike lane or something like that? Or you create some sort of overlay again to try to get away from that one-sizefits-all approach and really recognize these are the areas that are best suited for bicycle utilization due to existing infrastructure. That's thought one. thought too would be do you instead let the market attempt to dictate some of that by providing incentives. If you provide sufficient long-term bicycle infrastructure at the ratio that we think is a best practice then you get something else. we don't have any parking restrictions so we can't reduce your parking count that would sort of be a natural alternative but um is there some if you're in the multif family context you get some benefit that's going to make it worth the while because ultimately multif family developer is putting bicycles in space that they're going to have to bear the cost to build rather than humans and so we have to sort of acknowledge that we're putting that burden and that cost we're making a policy choice for the developer and saying you must construct sufficient room within your project to house all these bicycles because we think that's important and we think it's going to benefit u multimodal accessibility within certain areas of the city. And so again, you know, how do you again allow the market to help respond given using a car approach rather than a stiff approach. >> Understood. >> So um this is Marita Pichin. Two comments. Um it says um regardless of size you have to have a minimum of two short-term and minimum long-term spaces. I think that might be a little ownorous for especially for like commercial uses under 2500 >> square feet. >> Yeah. >> So I I think I suggest striking that minimum. >> And um I think the second comment is on the description of the bicycle facilities. It's it's probably like five times longer than what's in our current zoning ordinance and there's a lot of musts in there and and I know that these technologies evolve and like how we do bike parking will probably change over time and I'm worried about having too much like dictated by the zoning ordinance related to the dimensions of things. Um and so those are the two and then I actually did have a third. Do you do you want to comment on say how do you have anything on that >> Colin? Okay. >> I Yeah, I agree. >> And then on the third is like kind of going through the number of spaces. It is a lot more than it's a little bit more than what is in the current zoning ordinance. I think it would be a good idea to have a cap. um as you suggested it's and maybe the hotel number is is too high right now but I think there should be a cap probably for some of these uses like multif family um and agree totally agreeing with Preston's point um because of these have to be on the ground floor for long-term parking you're like there's a lot of stuff that happens on a ground floor for a multif family building there's loading there's trash there's transformers there's retail space, there's a lobby, sometimes there's a dry aisle, and it's like it it gets very difficult to fit everything. Um, so when you have to then fit in like in a building that I'm looking at building would be 96 interior parking spots for bikes. I mean, that's a lot. And then if you're thinking about like garden style apartments where like the there's a bunch of different buildings, how would they do it? And it's like it could end up I just calculate it could end up taking like upwards to eight to nine parking spots and usually people are doing garden style the surface parked in areas that are less dense and where people are typically driving more. So that would be taking up like tons of parking spots with like these bike storage buildings that may not even be used. >> Yep. Again, it's a it's a definitely a balancing act for sure. And it's it's a more ownorous requirement for long-term clearly than it is for short term. Right. >> This is Preston. I think we had Charlie next. Is that right? And then Philip, is that right? Did Jennifer, >> right? And then if we could maybe put that down there and then we'll offer some space together next. Great. >> Right. It's Charlie. Maybe just a couple of questions kind of basic. Maybe I've missed it somehow, but um the number of required spaces, whether it short-term or long-term uh in commercial properties, um is are those based on uh the patrons, what their needs are or or take office properties too or the people that actually work there, the employees. How do they come up with with these numbers? Are there somebody done studies of you know >> no studies? No studies. Um they're just numbers based on another order. I mean you have to come up with a number from somewhere and it's not like parking ratios I would suggest where um if you really make a mistake with parking ratios there's a lot of land left over. Um maybe on the long term we may be a little bit more refined on that number, but like it's pretty easy to provide short-term bike parking spaces, right? It's just a bike rack. It doesn't take up a ton of space. >> Okay. Um and I'm going to skip over adult business. I have no idea how that was derived, but um a more fundamental question. We keep talking about bicycles, but you know, it's not just the ordinary bicycle. They're motorized bikes. Uh they're scooters. They're motorized scooters. And who knows what else may may come down the line. And and you know there's an article in the New York Times recently about how the bike lanes in Manhattan and this not directly related to what we're talking about except that bike lanes were designed for bicycles as we think of them you know but now you know all these other things are are filling those as well. So, and so you know, Richmond is not known for having scooters everywhere, but um it is this designed to to provide parking spaces for those types of vehicles, not just the traditional bicycle. I >> mean, if you can lock it up on a bike rack, then yeah. >> Yeah, they're geometrically quite similar, Mr. Mes. >> Okay. >> Anything further? >> Yeah. Um just Philip Hart I want to observe that this applies not only to new construction but to renovation. So I'm thinking of there are places in Richmond thinking of Kerry Town where if um a business owner were redeveloping maybe a gut and red development of a commercial um storefront, it'd be very difficult to put bike racks. the these these are are storefronts that are 15 feet from the street. There's there's no way you're going to be able to put bike racks in front of them. And they abut, you know, of other other businesses. There's just no room. There no convenient alleyways between the buildings to put them in the in the space in the back. And I bet some of these commercial properties don't even have, you know, sole access to the areas behind them just because they're old. So, I would hate to for this to to be an impediment to investment and and new business development. So, um, sorry to pose a problem without a solution, but >> it it's a practical I can think of a number of other neighborhoods in Richmond where this might be a problem for renovation and new business, >> thanks for that. >> And then perhaps move on to the next. >> Um, this is Jennifer Mullen. Um I think most of what I wanted to say has already been said, but I just would really encourage the location to um frankly go away. Um the distribution throughout the site. Um and then also to piggyback on what um Philip said is, you know, I do think that it is important to provide um bicycle parking for commercial spaces, but think about alternatives of if there are bike racks within the public rideway if you can use those on a block because you also don't want to have the sidewalk um >> you know, completely full of bike racks up and down. Maybe you do, but I think it just needs to be consistent with whatever our bicycle plan is. Um, and then, you know, you have some regulations that are already DPW regulations, so you probably don't need to put that in the zoning ordinance. >> Alan Robertson. Um, parking is parking. We don't seem to be too concerned about parking the car and we're willing to write that off. I think that we need to think how we talk. Let's be uniform with our demands of parking. I mean um certainly uh restrictions as it relates to where it's got to be located and all of those kinds of things create a problem. But I think, you know, in areas where we've got lots of bike lanes, um maybe we need to look at what's involved in that whole process from a public perspective when we add in bike lanes as to how we also uh would make recommendations for um opportunities for parking as it relates to where that infrastructure is in place. Um, I think right now we are moving to a more biking city, but I can tell you there are too many people in the city that still feel like we've got more bike lanes than we have bikes on lane. So, uh, to put another restriction in place that have an impact on the cost of development and businesses doing business in the city. uh that I would be in concern of a restricted requirement. >> Yeah, it it it's definitely a balance. Um and so all we're trying to try and help with is if if there are bike lanes and you do have the ability to ride safely that when you get to your destination, there is somewhere to to lock your bike up either for a short period of time or a longer period of time. because otherwise you might not use that bike lane if there's nowhere to lock your bike up when you get to the end. >> Okay. >> I wanted as we move on, I wanted to say something about >> how we move on. >> Okay. Yeah, because we we do need to move on. Um we have >> 15 minutes before we're supposed to get to the next agenda item. So, what's your comment? Well, just as far as the rest of this document goes, there's a lot of um you know, minutia that I think we could chew on for a long time and to maybe to uh but one thing that I find to be particularly important is the about the transitions section 4.4 poor that that um speaks to concerns we've been hearing from various members of the public throughout this process to the fact of like you know I'm hearing a lot of people saying uh you know I'm comfortable with the sewing designation applied upon my property but immediately next door there's this much greater density allowed and there's concerns about transition so I would advocate that we make time in our next meeting to focus on that in particular since I don't think that's something that we can really dig into it in 15 minutes. >> I think that's a reasonable request. Um I think there's a lot here that we could we need to dig into and spend and I'm sorry this is Elizabeth um spend a lot of time on and I don't want to rush it. So, Marian, can we make sure that >> I'm going to put our director on the spot because he happens to be here, but um many of the issues that have been identified and called out in the code or ones that come up as part of the typical site plan review process, building permit process. Um, I'd love to sort of hear from your perspective the value of having clear standards set in the code versus flexibility afforded by having policies and procedures that are defined hit the same topics but aren't necessarily codified or if that's an issue that you need to ponder and get back to I certainly respect that too. So I probably Kevin uh our director. So I I think you know as we implementing the new site plan process um like I said we'll probably revisit in about six months. So maybe as we move along in a few months have a better context in terms of like where we might have some sticking points. I think just in fairness it's important whether or not um codified or in policy that they're publicly available right like a developer shouldn't have to guess things in terms of right how much you need or where things are at so so long as there is something I'll say um to the best if you want to be really stringent and strict about it then codify it and so if you are saying something like I'll say bicycle parking right then say like shall be done in accordance either put the standards in here or if you feel like hey we don't know what we don't know with the standards published by PDR DPW or whoever and it's at least those are out there and have some form of um I'll say just administrative approval in terms of right where you have administrative discretion so I think there's room for for both in it um I think it's just you know in clear in terms of like what we're codifying is important to just you know for me that's a a policy direction you know from ultimately like right from council that's saying yep these things are priority and I don't see those changing too much fast uh but where there's maybe some room for interpretation sure maybe we could have that in some administrative guidance I appreciate that that is very correctly stated and I'll just conclude by saying my own personal perspective on that is that sections 4.2 two and 4.3 concerning multimodal access and nobility vehicle access and nobility. They're valuable. We should provide guidance to the development community on what our expectations are, but I think they could be sufficiently handled as a policy document rather than being codified in the code to allow the flexibility that we've talked about. And then perhaps to Damian's point, when it comes to transitions and screening, maybe that is a heightened level of of policy importance that that merits discussion in the code. >> Yeah, I I would just say Kevin one more time. I think maybe a good line is to say like what maybe this goes back right with sidewalks and connections if if the body feels and I say the body again ultimately like this is adapted by council council says right it's important to have bike parking and we say you know for commercial use it's five bike bike parking spaces but then there's some administrative discretion in terms of like where those are located or how those are located or maybe they're in the public right there's some way to like figure out right from particular properties the same thing with like sidewalks or access or connectivity like there should be right a connection from the door to the public rightway like not dictating exactly where that needs to be. understanding, right? Because of sight constraints and for a very old city with some very funky properties that you can say, hey, all right, administratively, we can decide what is acceptable to meet the spirit and intent of >> um so I'm going to ask and I know we we've already talked about this is Elizabeth talking about having a um dedicated time to talk about transitions and screenings at the next meeting. Colin, Renee, how would you like to spend the next 40 minutes of our agenda knowing that we're behind and um we still have a lot to cover. What would you like to accomplish between now and the end? >> What Renee? What's remaining on the agenda? >> Um I mean there's there's more >> yeah there's more development standards and then there's the admin piece. The admin piece at the end here. We haven't drafted anything yet. So, we're really just before we go and draft anything, we wanted to just talk to you about what the administrative provisions are going to cover um or what what they could cover and kind of get your high level feedback as to you know, concerns you have or goals you have about where we should be getting with that and some of that you've touched on already. I think with discussing uh you know talk about you know administrative flexibility and so forth and um a few other items that have been you know touched on in terms of how we interpret some of this you know with site plan and whatnot. Um, so we we can talk some more about that. Um, there's not a whole lot to put in front of you, though. It's more of just an open-ended conversation about where we go. >> Okay. Do we want to maybe wrap up with vehicle access and mobility and then jump into the administrative standards? >> That work for everyone. And Miriam, is the P is this on the online? >> That's if online looking at last month's meeting underneath the August meeting, you'll find it. >> Okay. And for the folks online, the development standards that we're reviewing is posted online. Um, so I recommend taking a look at that and getting comments quickly as we reserve more discussion next meeting on transition and screening. So Renee Colin, do you think we can wrap up the vehicle access and mobility and then get to administrative? >> Can I say one other just in terms of commenting on it? There's going to be a revised version that's going to come out in November taking in consideration your comments. Staff has additional comments as well. So there's going to be a revised version that the public be able to comment directly on. >> Great. >> So just quickly then, so we have pedestrian access, making sure pedestrians can connect to the public realm. Um, we want to make sure, um, we're doing the same with vehicles. Um, one of the things that we don't want is a whole bunch of driveways down a a street um, on the same property at least. Um, so we have a very basic requirement here that has a minimum spacing between driveways on the same site um, can be no less than 100 100 ft. So, you can't do um this would be a larger property. Um you couldn't have a driveway closer than 100 ft between another driveway. Um and then um what is the width of that driveway? Um so driveways can impact um a pedestrian's ability to cross to use the sidewalk and cross driveways. So, in general, we're trying to get um narrower driveways. Again, we want to balance this ability for vehicles to use the driveway um and lessen the impact of on pedestrians. So, we've proposed um a limit on the number of driveway lanes and then the widths of those driveways themselves. Um and this would apply to single family in this particular instance. So single family would be a driveway serving up to five parking spaces. Um the minimum width of that driveway on a primary street would be 8 ft, but it can be no wider than 10 ft. And then on a side street, um you can do a wider driveway. And so it is right now based on the number of parking spaces that that driveway serves. That's the width the mix minimum and maximum width the driveway can be. Any thoughts on that >> on the whip or on the whole thing? >> All of it. Like, you know, should there be a driveway spacing requirement? Should we again be referencing another policy and procedure for driveway spacing? You know, for driveway width, should we be referencing somewhere else? >> Well, this is Elizabeth. Pardon my ignorance because again I don't have a driveway I don't know that I ever have since I lived in the city. >> Um a driveway serving up to five parking spaces for single family. So you're expecting five cars to be able to get into. >> It's just um if you have a parking area that serves up to five parking spaces, that row would apply. I was just insinuating that single family for the most part would fit into that row. It doesn't necessarily mean single family has five parking spaces if you you get what I'm saying. >> Not really. >> Not really. >> What I heard what I heard him say is that >> think of the rose as applicability. >> Could be that there's a single family house that h that has a massive >> driveway have no cars and then it could be wider. So, a single family house would typically fall into that first row typically, right? Because it only has room for two parking spaces on site or three. So, if you were just trying to figure out, does this apply to my single family house, you would just look at how many parking spaces are accommodated on site? And if it's two, then it's the first row. If it's six, it's the second row. Just remove the land use piece from that. Sorry. Well, and it's Elizabeth Greenfield. I'm I'm sorry if I'm making this difficult. I tend to do that a lot. I'm I'm reading, you know, every platted lot is allowed at least one driveway. I know our current ordinance, which we're obviously amending, says that not everyone can have a driveway. So, now are we saying everyone can have a driveway even if they have functional accessible alleys? Because that could really change neighborhoods. And >> no, I guess if if you have an alley, you have to use the alley. There's there's conf there's conflict there with letter E on page 413. It says this is Marita. It says when you're adjacent to a primary street >> but no actually no. >> It is it is very confusing. >> We'll clarify that. But the intent is if you have an alley, you need to use the alley if it's improved and usable. But if you don't have an alley, um, then you get at least one driveway. That's what it's supposed to say. >> And that matches that matches generally what we have right now. >> I think Jennifer has a question and Brian. >> Yeah, this is Jennifer Mullen again on the design standards. Um, so for for C, for driveways serving parking lots or structures with more than six or more spaces, it must be spaced at least 50 feet apart. Um, what happens if you don't if you don't have that and you need to have access on your on your parcel and the next parcel over needs to have access and and you don't have that, you have to go get a special use permit. >> Yeah. Okay. does doesn't if you scroll down though, Jennifer, sorry, I wanted to catch that because if you scroll down, it looks like it says the city engineer may wave or vary the design standards as indicated in this section based on based on etc. So there is >> Yeah. Yeah. No, and I and I see that and that's sort of one of my comments sort of overall which we can talk about with the administration. I I would I would not have that in the zoning ordinance >> personally >> because I think that's setting it up particularly as you're developing um you know there there are different zoning regulations for the types of streets which I you know already currently on where you can have access. So, I think maybe you should think about it more in terms of those types of streets instead of artificially dictating a 50- foot um spacing requirement. >> Brian, >> uh yeah, the driveways serving up to five parking spaces. It's been my observation that most folks with driveways that leading lead to a garage use their garage for storage and park in the driveway. Um, and if you've got, say, three cars in a household, it's not going to fit in there. And I'm I know people can park from the street. I'm just suggesting that perhaps that language might lead to some um complaining that we would have to deal with. >> I know. Okay. So, on that I think it's good to try and limit the conflict between pedestrians and cars exiting from parcels. Totally agree. I think that sometimes it there are buildings of there are places where there's more vehicles exiting than others. So like there might be a a driveway access point that is needed in order to like empty a garbage uh container. And that might need to be on the same block face as where the the one for the car is going in is like the cars going to a parking lot. >> And so to say that like those are the same like that both if you have two curb cuts because they both would be considered driveways even if one of them's only going to access a dumpster. They're not the same because like one of them is like coming like once a day and the other one might be have like cars going in and out all day long. So like I don't know how to like manage that like that like but sometimes they're they're not used very much. Um and it might be okay to have another curb cut because it's not used that often. Yeah, Ellen Robertson. Um, I'll go back to what I said from the beginning. Um, we eliminate parking and now we're talking about putting all parking on private property. So, we still have issues with cars. Where do they park? And we still have issues with any other mode of transition. And so, now we want to put it on the private property of the business of the resident. And I I just think that that's if we be a state that don't require parking, then I don't think that we should put in the code. I mean, there's some standards perhaps that have to be met for a driveway if you want to put one in. Uh but I think this putting in the code certain things is really I think this should be subjected to the developer and the owner at time ad and if they want to put in a driveway there are certain stages that has to be met from the city but not in the code. >> Yeah, we're and yeah, we should talk this through with the city more. or I mean all we're trying to do is prevent somebody putting five driveways you know 10 ft apart on the same site which would be impactful to pedestrians and maybe they won't do that >> is the Marita P Jennifer and Preston who deal a lot with this like is this something that would even be possible what he described because doesn't DPW regulate whether or not you can have a curb cut um And they're pretty stringent, aren't they? >> They follow division zero guidelines which has as north star minimizing pedestrian vehicular conflicts. So the fewer connection points that you have, access points that you have, fewer conflicts you have go that presents itself and the site plan negotiation process is usually a comment to get rid of super >> but at the same time it's also to try to narrow things up. So you know we've got potentially conforming to VOTE standards which is just widening everything to make everybody go faster which is different than what we're trying to do I think with vision zero. So, I think I think having another conversation with um the city and DPW and that would be useful before we get too in the weeds with adding these components to the the zoning ordinance. >> Harley, you've been waiting patiently. You have a comment. Yeah, just uh wanted to reiterate this might be a little more self-governing than we realized in this conversation given that the site plan ordinance that just went into play. Um even goes as far as to make it a trigger if you're um altering entrances to property um regardless of what other things you might have going on in your property. So with that in the site plan process, DPW um especially on busier streets, it's the maybe the first thing they're thinking about. Um so yeah, just reiterating that. I I don't know if if this doesn't make it in the zoning ordinance, I don't think it's really that big of a blind spot in terms of how this is managed from a plan review standpoint. >> Are there any other comments from the council on vehicle access? because I think Colin, you noted probably need to have you, not me, more conversation with um with city staff and maybe look at other things like the site plan ordinance and vision zero, the other documents and policies that have been referenced before we continue to beat this up any further. >> Okay, thank you. Those are great comments. >> Any other council members? Um any Charlie, you still have your hand up. Are you good? Are other members online? Anybody that hasn't weighed in? >> All right, I think we're the administrative piece. >> All right, thank you. Um, just as I flip through these last few slides here about transition, we're going to get back to that later on. Just to note that for transition, this section laid out, you know, which combinations of districts require a transition. And in speaking with the community, we heard from people feeling strongly about the RA district u requiring transitions when it came up against the back of the back of it came up against MX um or other districts. So that's that's one topic we'll be revisiting for sure. Um but we'll talk more about this later on. Um so to the administrative provisions um just as a high as a kind of overview for for those who are not familiar and I would say probably some people in the Zachary are very familiar with this but um this is the the sort of the primarily text part of the zoning code that describes how it operates. And so administrative provisions in codes they establish the the authority in which the the zoning code is established and the bodies that oversee it. um the way the development applications are reviewed and approved. Um the process for amendments to the zoning codes text or map. Um the latter of which when you you change the map, it's also known as a reasonzoning. Um rules for granting exceptions. And so those could be variances. Those could be special use permits. There also could be room for minor discretionary modifications that could be granted by staff, which is something we've touched on a little bit today. Um and then how existing nonconformities are are dealt with. So what are the rules in which case they're allow they're allowed and when they cease to be allowed. Um and then also how the zoning code is enforced and the penalties for for violating it. So just some just a bit of a high level overview of some of the scope that this might cover. Um this is the last module here and I would say again this is probably of gets the least attention from members of the public um compared to other parts of zoning codes. Um although again I imagine some members of the Zach um have strong opinions about some of this. Um, so just before we get into drafting content, I think we just at a high level just wanted to kind of put this out in front of you to see uh for those who have dealt with the zoning code in your work or your life, are there administrative processes that you think could be made more efficient or effective? Um, and for everybody else, including those who haven't dealt with zoning code, you know, generally what sort of outcomes would you like to see in terms of goals with the uh the code's administrative processes in terms of, you know, is it about speeding up development? is about you know removing certain types of bottlenecks. Is it about um maybe the opposite giving people more more you know more restrictions or more opportunity for input? Um is and I think aligned to all this is is the topic of SUPs that we've talked about since the very beginning of this process. So I think we we hope very much that the number of SCPs are going to be reduced in the future just ipso facto by the fact that we've been changing some of the standards for the zones and allowing some of those you know traditional neighborhood conditions that were being prohibited in some of the traditional some of the existing uh zoning districts. Um but we also wonder whether there's you know um other ways that we might want to formally limit the scope of SUPs um or not. I think it just a question to put in front of you, you know, the role of SUPs going forward um with the code and then if you have any other suggestions related to administrative processes or or things you'd like to see. So just put this open to all of you guys. >> Thank you. Sean, >> I'll this is Brian White. I I would say the ability to uh build anything by right would be enormous improvement because other than a few single family areas, it's almost impossible to build anything by right city. Um, but I would also ask that we be conscious of the balance between uh cost of housing in the city and the number and scope of responsibilities that we are adding to a property owner's responsibility list of of things they have to do to develop a property. um because that it does that stuff isn't free. And I know if they don't do it, the city has to do it and there's a trade-off between taxes and cost of housing. But um we're adding some stuff that's going to materially impact the cost of developing housing. I think it's stuff we ought to keep in mind. >> Any other comments? Um, really? Yeah. I mean, just getting in the weeds, the Board of Zoning Appeals has special exceptions that currently specifically pertain to things that come up often and they're usually relative layups. You know, minimal sideyard relief in a historic, you know, part of the city where it's consistent. But, uh, hey city, I don't want to build a, uh, 9 foot wide house. So, I'd like to get a uh special exception to do a 12oot wide house, making it that much better, more compatible with the neighborhood. I'd like to see that same approach going forward with the new ordinances. It's hard to know what the special inceptions came about because it was based upon, you know, the bad zoning, right? And then the bad zoning created these situations that just kept coming to the board multiple times over and over. Um, so of course we can't really know what those are with an entirely new zoning ordinance, but it's going to be interesting once it's a get once this gets approved because it's going to be like maybe only variances at the BCA, right? Or it's hard to say what special exceptions currently on the books in section 1040 uh.3 whatever uh are going to be able to carry forward and what they're going to latch on to. Um, so it's like a big known unknown. Uh that process I would say is maybe one of the best administered processes in the city of Richmond. It's got a specific deadline. You go to the meeting six to eight weeks after that. It's the same time every month, same place every month, relative clockwork. Um so I like that. And on top of that, uh we have administrative variances which are even lower on the totem pulled in terms of threshold um of need. they're like just as obvious if not more obvious of approvals. Usually the adjacent owners are the ones who get notified on that versus uh um everyone within 150 ft. Um and if either of those neighbors uh voices opposition with a certain amount of time then it goes to the full BCA for that request. So, um, yeah, like the BZA, I think I think to the extent we can set this up structurally as a document to make that be like the next step as things come up versus just saying, "Oh, well, guess you need an SUP." Like, I think we need to be monitoring as a city what those requests tend to be and very quickly uh make those available as special exceptions to the extent we can. >> This is Preston Lloyd. I'll weigh in with an observation about other zening ordinances that have tried to be overly prescriptive with the administrative process to the degree of actually specifying all the different documents that must be submitted in order for an application to be deemed complete. Once again, that creates challenges in situations where there may be extenduating circumstances where a particular document may not be applicable, but because it's in the code, the planning department has no ability to wave that requirement. And so more detail about the process that we put in code, the less flexible it'll make PDR and the director and trying to make calls about expediting the process when appropriate. Um, and so again, I think we recognize that the administrative process comes at a cost. We want to make it as efficient as possible. There are also tools that have been created by enabling legislation in the code of Virginia that give localities the option but not the requirement to put incentives in their code related to providing affordable housing. So if you provide a certain amount of affordable housing then perhaps you go to the front of the line or you get a discount in your application fees etc. And so again that may be something for us to consider as we're prioritizing certain outcomes and policy decisions. how we administer the process can create alignment with those policy objectives. Um and and finally, I'll note on a completely different topic with regard to the SCPs and how we evaluate that, that's largely driven by the city's excuse me, charter, which has to be amended by the general assembly. And so any changes that we make in our code related to the SCP process and the authority of council to to authorize those SEPs is probably going to require going across the street and saying mother may I to the general assembly. So just something to be aware of um that that's an additional constraint regarding uh SCPs. Sorry, I did have one last observation. I I was chatting with a colleague getting a download on what are some of the things that haven't gone as smoothly as hoped with the Charlottesville ordinance that was adopted. And the observation that I got is one that I think is going to be really relevant to Richmond. some of the places where the the formbbased code that they adopted match jurisdiction um it didn't contemplate in the non-conforming use section situations where you have an adaptive reuse of a project for a completely different use but it's only being changed interior to the structure but it's a change in the use of the structure and so that's now requiring those applications to be reviewed under form standards that a non-comp nonconforming project doesn't currently And so it's basically forcing everything into what in the city of Richmond would be an SCP lane where they now have to take a project through that should have been by right simply because the nonconformity provisions didn't contemplate an adaptive reuse to a new use. And so um something that I'll flag just to be cognizant of as you're coming up with those administrative requirements. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? food for thought for that. >> Does this uh would this include any um affordable dwelling unit ordinances or does that or are we putting that under supplemental regulations? >> Um it's a good question. I mean I think that we had we had talked before about that actually being uh under development standards um possibly. Um so we're still >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So so we may come back to that again. We're still kind of waiting for some input from the city attorneys about what they think we can do. Um, so it could either go there or it could go it could be baked directly into districts, too. I mean, there there codes that have if you look up the district, it'll tell you, you know, the basic standard and the bonus. >> Okay. Yeah. The reason I ask is like if it's living here, it's probably worth discussing. We currently do have an affordable dwelling unit density bonus program. >> Yes. It's notoriously not really utilized ever for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons I do think could be tweaked uh that wouldn't Preston um affect the current permissions under 230 uh five I think the Virginia state code one that we're under. Um things like amount of time you have to uh stay in the program register with the city or or what have you. So just it um that's one that I think could be improved to the extent it can uh within the general assembly's enabling legislation for the city of Richmond's permissions um the affordable dwelling unit density bonus program purely from an administrative standpoint not from a what can it do standpoint >> sorry one last question that Charlie prompted will there be a a PUD district or process akin to what we currently have as the community unit land ordinance in the code >> to to be determined. I >> what what are your thoughts on that, Preston? >> I'm agnostic. If the answer is no, it's going to require some intentionality on the nonconformity piece because effectively you're going to have a body of regulation. It's an overlay district that allows you to write your own code and have your own zoning, >> but it's no longer going to be compliant with the underlying district regulations. And to amend that, you're going to have to basically go through a process. >> You're not going to be able to bring it into compliance. In other words, um, >> in making simple amendments. So, there's a lot of unintended consequences that could be there. That's hyper specific and I apologize for raising it cold, but there are a number of significant properties that the city has identified for redevelopment that are subject to a pud and um it's going to be really complicated if that C process no longer exists to try to figure out what you do in that scenario. Like how do you make changes? >> Well, it sounds like we need to circle back to discuss nonconformities a little bit more maybe with you. just I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on in Charlottesville. So, I would like to kind of at some point >> I I think I need to I'm the messenger in that regard, but we can connect you with the right person to share some lessons learned. >> Yeah, that would be really helpful. >> Yeah, we're trying to reach out to James Frius again from Charlottesville to talk about lessons learned since it's been implemented as well. been on vacation. >> Do any other council members have questions for Colin or Renee? >> Is there anything else? Colin Renee, any other um information that you have or that you want to present? >> Uh nothing further right now unless we want to go back and talk about any development standards again. that um no this is really just about collecting high level feedback before we start trying to put some of the other onestated processes. >> I think that considering our meeting ends at 6:30 and that the development standards tends to be a um a lengthy discussion topic, I don't know that we would have time to get into anything meaningful. So I'm going to say no. Right. >> Nodding in agreement with me here. So we will hold that until the next meeting. Great. There's nothing else. Um just want to remind folks that the next um council meeting is October 8th at 4 PM here in the fifth floor conference room of city hall and the draft zoning map and district regulations are available in the city's code refresh page and comments are due by September 28th. Anybody else before we adjourn? All right, we're done. Thanks, guys. >> Thanks,