Good afternoon. Um, welcome everyone. We're going to call the meeting of the advisory council to order. Um, first order of business, we'll start with a roll call. Um Wayne Credle, Benny Gates, Philip Park >> here, >> Jana James, >> Dave Johannes, >> Preston Lloyd >> here, >> Eric Mai >> here, >> Charles Menes >> here, >> Kendra Norl >> here, >> Casey Overton, Michelle Parish, Marita Pichin >> here, >> Damen Pit, Councilwoman Robertson, Brian White, here, >> Charlie Wilson and Jennifer Mullen. Over Jennifer. >> All right. So, we we do have a quorum. Um, so I just want to welcome everyone today and just remind those that the advisory council is a subcommittee of the city's planning commission. We're charged with advising the planning commission, the department of planning and development review, and the consultant team and the zoning ordinance revision. The public will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. Um, as a reminder to members of the zoning advisory committee. Um, when you're offering comments, please speak up so those watch listening online can hear us and please announce your name um at the beginning of your comments. So again, those that are listening online know who they're hearing from. Um, the next order of business is to approve the July meeting notes. Did everyone have a chance to review the notes that were sent by email? Do we have any comments, changes? Do we have a motion? >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> All right. So, we'll move into the public comment period. Um, we have 30 minutes reserved for the public comment and really excited about all the folks that are engaging and want to come to the podium and and speak, but I want to be mindful of the committee's um agenda and try to keep us on time. So, we are going to hold that public comment period to to 30 minutes. Not everyone gets to offer their comments today. certainly um come back next month, but we also have an email address um that you can submit comments to um and staff will share those comments with the advisory committee. That email is richmond300 rva.gov and you're welcome to send comments at any time. So with that, we'll go ahead and move to the public comment period. And keep in mind, this is time for you to comment on items that are not currently on today's agenda. So we'll start with those that are in the room. um if you could come forward to the podium and offer your name and uh we welcome you. >> Hi, good afternoon. >> Hey, good afternoon. I'm Will Wilson. I'm a resident here in the on Marshall Street in the second district. Uh thank you for continuing to take your take time out of your Wednesday afternoons uh to move us through this process. Um it's good to see the first draft out. Hopefully, we're more than halfway through this process. I want to hone in on um one item specifically um looking at the city's affordable housing action plan. This was passed in 2022. So after our master plan, similar exercise in that we're referring to some larger policy goals of the master plan. Um but trying to distill some more specific policy options. That 2022 plan outlined 13 policy changes. Most of it was uh kind of demand side prescriptive. How do we go in and uh uh prioritize funding around uh affordable housing funds? It did provide some supply side land use provisions as well. Specific specifically policies 8 and nine. Policy 8 is something we've talked about before in the city. It's ad use allowing ADUs across the city by right. You know, check there. I'm glad we're continuing that uh through this current through this current exercise as far as I can tell in the district text. Policy 9 though is different. I'm going to read it. Policy 9 aimed for to amend the zoning ordinance to allow two and three family dwelling units in all residential districts. So looking at this code that's this draft that's come out now uh with the goals of the affordable housing plan, we are falling short in this first draft. Um so I'd like not that not to go unressed. I think if we're falling short of that goal, I'd like to see some conversation around that. I'd like to I'd like you all to press our planning commission why we're not taking this opportunity to meet that policy goal. Um seems like an ideal time. Um couple options. So this is in alignment with recent changes in cities like Austin, Minneapolis, Oregon allows uh cities over 25,000 people three units by right. So this is in alignment with what progressive cities are doing across the country. Um, if we can't get to three units by right, so what I'm asking specifically is those RD and those RAA district take it from two to three units by right. If we can't do that, I'd like you to play with that. I don't I'm not the expert. You all have some ideas as well. The planning staff might have some ideas. If we can't do that by right in all the districts, let's do let's focus on RAA first. That's a residential attached district. Uh, let's start there. Um, it allows buildings up to three stories. Uh that's Virginia state code allows single stair buildings at the three stories. It's a great opportunity to allow three-story triplexes, split level triplexes. Um there's a lot of existing stock that's within those RAA zones. Currently um u already have three primary units on the properties. Let's take another look at that RA district specifically. We do want to emphasize that we are I'm calling for three units across the residential districts, but RA the most priority. It's it's in a lot of the urban context. Uh the next jump there is I think RAB up to six to eight units. I think there's a little room to grow that RAA a little bit. If we again if we can't do that some other options, some ideas to allow that three unit and to meet that goal are the allow that third unit as a conditional use in that RD. Allow it through the board of zoning appeals perhaps. Okay. Y um or create a new RAA district suitable for future mapping. If we can't do it, we're not bold enough to do it now, let's do it in a future zoning exercise. Thank you. that failed to mention the start of the comment period. We're gonna have three minutes for each speaker. >> Welcome, sir. >> My name is Harry Sherva. I live in Gner Park. I just wanted to mention um and everyone talks about infrastructure as far as what the city is dealing with. You know, we just had a water pump issue or whatever. We had water, but uh the bigger issue is you guys are adding density under affordable high housing, however you want to do it. But Richmond itself it has a lead water problem public as well as private that they have to address address and they have to 2037 to get that done as well as the combination nation sewer overflow problem and the entire north side still dumps into the Ptoic River and other things when we get too much rain as well as some lowlying areas the uh sewage just backs up right into the house you know based on it being part of the storm form system as far as the public uh you know the public sewage system. I'm just and and and the city of Richmond I think has to 2035 to get that done. I don't understand why this is being pushed so quickly when Richmond has some infrastructure problems. I know infrastructure is mentioned but it doesn't really talk about you know the EPA is kind of really on Richmond about getting they've been getting on this. They've been kicking the can down the road for several years, several decades regarding this. And adding density is just going to, you know, make that problem worse. So these things should be taken care of from an infrastructure perspective before we start, you know, bringing more people in under the guise of affordability, uh, density, more tax dollars. Richmond just has to have his house in order. That's all I want to say today. My name is Patty Merrill and I speak today as the owner and resident of the same home in the first district for 24 years. Richmond has a housing affordability crisis and some of the proposals in code refresh may give us additional tools to address that problem. I support the concept that Richmond needs to revise its 50-year-old zoning code to reflect today's urban environment. However, I've also wanted to better understand what the research on upzoning shows. I recently came across an article from the Boston New England Urban Land Institute entitled, "Upzoning is necessary, but is it sufficient?" The article highlights that despite the promise of upzoning, the evidence of its success in addressing affordable housing, particularly missing middle housing, is minimal. However, the biggest surprise in the article was its citation of a Virginia Housing Commission report that concluded upzoning, while effective, does not necessarily produce housing at the desired pace or scale. and zoning reform only creates improvements in housing stock and affordability in limited settings, is only a partial solution to affordable housing issues, has the greatest effect on moderating the costs of higherend rental units, and may not produce additional affordable rental housing for low to m moderate income households. This of course led me to both the report and presentation made to the Virginia Housing Commission. I'll highlight only one of many findings. Research shows that areas that have relaxed land use regulations to allow for greater density may not necessarily experience more housing construction in the short term, but are eventually likely to see growth. However, there is no consensus in the research as to whether these zoning changes produce changes in the housing stock and affordability that are statistically significant. If affordable housing for low to moderate income households in Richmond is our northstar, let's be strategic and bold about making changes that will actually move Richmond in the right direction. A duplex plus an ADU by right in every residential zone will not have a statistically significant impact on the availability of affordable housing. However, the fight over this issue will leave everyone in Richmond battered and bruised and will likely result in the same litigation that Rono, Charlottesville, Alexandria, Arlington have experienced to no successful end as they when they tried to mandate the same thing. I have copies of the materials for um Maryanne and I thank you. >> Good evening everyone. My name is um I'm here to Hello Committee. My name is Omega. I am a member of the Richmond chapter of New Virginia Majority, a tenant on Chamberlain Avenue and a bus rider. I am here today to share with you about why we need to carefully think about zoning requirement and transit oriented development for my neighborhood. The route route one bus has the highest riding of all GTC local lines which is why we are in need of a new BR line in this area. In addition, Chamberlain is one of the largest area of market rate affordable housing in in the city. It is a special part of this neighborhood and makes it at a particular risk for for gen for gentrification. Like many of uh my like many of my neighbors, Bloom apartment was an affordable option when I become a tenant here 10 years ago with a voucher which I don't have now anyway. Since then the rent has increased significantly but it is time much more affordable than most other market rate housing in the city. The fear we have is that our homes will be on the chopping block and be knocked down. This area is special to many of us who had no other option for affordable housing and also access to the bus. Please ensure that our zoning updates will not take away our homes. Please also make sure that the north south B line brings the bus to us and the necessary safety features but we don't need development created for attracting new people to the vulnerable committee. Thank you. Thank you sir. Yeah. Hello everyone. My name is Rachel Hefner and I am an organizer with New Virginia Majority. Um I'd also um love to make a suggestion to the group um to have this meeting maybe a little bit later if possible sometimes. Um 4 p.m. is very difficult for a lot of us who have jobs to be able to get here and contribute especially tenants or folks who are working 9 to5. Um, so even moving it to 5:30 I think would have a dramatic impact in some of the people who were able to make it to this meeting. Um, so um, I'll continue and talk today um, about a few key priorities when we're considering zoning. Um, especially when we're considering zoning one of the most unique parts of Richmond, which is the north side along Chamberlain. Um, first we need to make sure that any and all development has zero displacement impact. Um, second, when we're discussing transit oriented development and the creation of the north south BRT line, we need to focus on one thing, a safe and timely bus, not gentrifying this part of the community. Chamberlain Avenue is one of the most unique places in our city for many reasons. One major reality is that many of the apartments on this road are among the only semi-affordable housing that is not income-based. We all know that some of the first things that will happen with increased development is the demolition of these apartments. Even if you replace the units one for one with what you all consider as affordable housing at 60% AMI, that rent is still several hundred over what those tenants are currently paying. Um, and we all know one woman replacement isn't going to happen anyways. So, this is going to displace Richmonders at a mass scale if we don't take this um into great consideration. As a transit organizer and former housing organizer, I'm asking you to simply give us the bus, the necessary crosswalks and bus infrastructure to access the bus safely. Additionally, there must be a strict set of rules for developers in this area that ensure relocation services for tenants in a dem um demolition review and after inclusionary zoning that's passed in this upcoming general assembly because we will get that a mandatory affordability component must be made for all development. Also, I'm asking you to consider that development in this area is really scary because we know what development really means. It means developments to attract new and wealthy people and not to make sure the people who already live here can stay and have an improved quality of life. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hey, good afternoon. My name is Amorei. I'm a community organizer with New Virginia Majority. Um, and I'm also here to just uh speak to um the need for zero displacement of our communities when we're thinking about reszoning and upzoning um especially in some of these neighborhoods that already have um some of the last affordable units in the city. um and continue to center anti-displacement in the Richmond 300 new zoning code as well as um on top of anti-displacement um insured relocation that is affordable at the the people who are already paying for they may or may not get displaced. So yes, please think about that. Thank you all. >> Thank you. I can ask the audience to hold the applause, please. >> Hello everybody. I'm Frank Damasio, resident of Rosedale at Third District. Um, I have watched over the past several years as my assessed value of my property goes up. So does my mortgage payment because I got to pay that extra tax. Um, it's not fun. It's never fun. Those of us that work with our hands for a living, don't sit under fluorescent lights, find it hard to survive in this city. Um, I'm not in an affordable home. I'm in a home that I had to fight to get because I bought it post 2008 crash. I've worked all over Richmond and I've seen many neighborhoods where there is multi-generational families occupying a home and you can tell from the outside it's as much a struggle for them. house probably need painted five years ago. Maybe that deck on the front of the house is sagging a little bit. They're just trying to make it trying to feed their families and all that. What I fear with the code refresh is that upon unleashing it, we will all see immediate rises in our assessed value because now our property can hold three times as many homes. And that kind of increase based on three homes on one property, that could potentially wipe out families who now if they're on a mortgage, their mortgage payment is going to increase. If they're out of a mortgage, but they make their payments directly to the city, their property tax is going to increase. This is going to put more people in a financial bind, which makes them more susceptible to people that call me two to three times a day wanting to buy my property. They're giving me offers. I'm almost two times the assessed value that they're offering me. Now, I'm not selling, but there's a lot of people with choice pieces of property, especially east of me down uh Leurnham, that will give in at a much smaller number because they can see relief from their immediate financial burden. But they will be displaced. They will not be able to find a home to purchase because they've already got other problems, health bills, everything that most of us regular people deal with on a regular basis. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Ross Crawford, resident in the city of Richmond. Um, first time coming to one of these, so it's it's cool to get get engaged. Um, something I'm passionate about is actual affordable housing. Um, so as we look at reszoning, I I really encourage you and everybody to think about luxury and and what what affordable housing is. Um, you know, we have a luxury apartment complexes going up left and right. A lot of them sit vacant. There's one right by my house, so they just put up probably 20% capacity. Um, I think we have enough of them. I recognize they serve a point in the city. I don't say get rid of them. They they they need to exist, but we have enough. And I think we should look at how do we build places and homes that that folks can build equity in the city and actually own, not just rent. Something that they can own, pass down to their kids and build that generational wealth. Um, something that just kind of thought in my head is can the city use some of the grants, some of the money, some of the millions of dollars and take abandoned properties like what they have over there or downtown and build a condo complex and sell the units either at cost or at a discount. Um, and you can put parameters on there, first-time home buyers, low-inccome, you know, all kinds of things like that. But just really look at ways that that we as a city can can can build new neighbors, new new stakeholders in our community who who who pay taxes, you know? I mean, that hurts a lot of taxes and and and and I feel it and I want to I don't know. I want more people to to to experience Richmond and and be a citizen here and have a vested interest outside of just a they work here. So, thank you. Hi, my name is Meg Lawrence. I live in the third district in Skinner Park. And first, I want to say how much I appreciate your expanding the comment time. I think that's really necessary and I hope it continues. Um, so what I want to talk about is how I read in the newspaper or the Richmonder or someplace else about all the good things that the city wants for the city. They want more trees. They want more green space. Um, they want things to be pedestrian friendly. They want vibrant neighborhoods. And every time, oh, they want to get rid of Heat Islands. And every time I read about this, it's like someone's taking a hammer and hitting because the current plan for Chamberlain Avenue does not take any of those things into consideration. Chamberlain Avenue is currently a residential street. I'm not sure everybody realizes that. Yes, there is a part of Chamberlain south of Brooklyn Park Boulevard that is business, but north up to Aelia is zoned entirely residential, a few special use permits um for group homes and so on, except for the last two parcels right south of Aelia. And um it seems that the vision the city came up with going back to uh the Richmond 300 plan was to turn this residential street into um West Broad Street. I mean that's what that's what we got right now with zero setback or five foot setback. That's not the setback on Chamberlain Avenue. Chamberlain Avenue is not a heat island. Just a few weeks ago, there was an article in the paper about heat islands in the city of Richmond. And if you go into the company or the organization that was talking about this, you can see the heat island map and you see that going up Chamberlain. There's a bit of a heat island over um off of it. But it is not a heat island. It's one of the few not heat islands for poor people because the housing on Chamberlain is very mixed. It's residential. It's single family duplex, small apartments, large apartments, but it's residential. And a lot of the people who live there need this affordable housing. And what is currently in play is between the pulse adding a lane and MX and RX having zero setback or 5 foot setback. We are creating a heat island and it was really hard going to the transportation. It was 100° when we left the transportation panel and 95 degrees when we got to Chamberlain Avenue and drove That's the difference. >> Um, >> hi, I'm Chris. Uh, I'm a Getter Park president as well and also talking about the Lombardi to Aelia stretch. Uh, specifically the um extra two lanes that the pulse wants to allocate. Um, I've lived lived in G Park for 25 years on both sides of Chamberlain Avenue. As it stands now, Ger Park is fairly walkable. I regularly see kids crossing Chamberlain to get to school, to go to the pool at LGRA, elderly folks um walking to get to the food pantry at St. Thomas, joggers, dog walkers, parents with strollers. I I cross Chamberlain probably twice a day at least, sometimes many more. Uh certain times of the day the road can be challenging. Um there are aggressive drivers, there's traffic. Um, the current wide median allows a place to kind of get halfway across, wait for the traffic to abate, and get the rest of the way across. Uh, the current plan would eliminate nearly all of that along with the tree canopy. Uh, and this is going to create basically a highway through the neighborhood. Um, no one's going to want to cross anything like that on foot. I certainly wouldn't let my kids cross a road like that. It's going to destroy the walkability of the neighborhood. um is per particularly unsettled unsettling two days after pedestrian was killed on Hol Street Road. Um and I feel like that's this is just where we're headed with that. Um also just widening the road um are going to make people uh aggressive drivers more aggressive. They're going to swerve into the to the pulse lane and swerve out. We've seen that happen on Broad Street or I have at least. Um and so it's just going to make things more dangerous. Um, so I'm here to to talk about that. I appreciate you guys listening to me. Thanks so much. >> Um, hi, I'm Copeland Casady and I'm on Grace Street. And like many of my neighbors and men here, I'm concerned about our existing affordable rentals and home ownership. Any small home that goes on the market will now compete with developers who will outbid possible new homeowners, demolish the home, and jam in multi-units with an ADU on any lot that used to be affordable housing rentals or starter homes. Goodbye homes with a within a dream of reaching. They will now all be luxury multi-unit permanent rentals. Lot by lot, no longer owned, but investor rentals. Look around. Density does not lower rents. As I watch each new apartment tower go up, I see the neighboring blocks of previously affordable rentals jump accordingly. Just look at Zillow and it will show you previously affordable housing rentals increase in proportion with each new apartment tower and illegal Airbnbs opened on the block. On my own street, rents have jumped from under a thousand to 2,700 to $3,000. Don't believe Zillow? Ask a planner. As his wife attests, ending their long-term affordable leases to then illegally short-term rent their Jackson Ward house brought them immediate multiffold profits. I quote, "My husband and I started renting our finished basement to guests through Airbnb. Later, we invested in a duplex in downtown Jackson Ward and converted the long-term rental to a short-term rental. We saw a threetime return in revenues. So, as Tyra Bank says, who stays and who goes? A new Stanford study shows that new market rate housing production increases displacement for lowerincome people in their Bay Area study. This directly contradicts the often cited Eric Mass finding that new construction reduces displacement pressure. Who benefits moves in and doesn't move out? Highincome migrants. I quote, "The highest socioeconomic groups move in at higher rates than other groups and move out at lower rates." In other words, the highest socioeconomic groups experience disproportional disproportionate benefits of new market rate housing production. By the way, if you're an enthusiast about p public transit, I wrote the pulse in LA. Gentrifications raised rents are killing buses. Where affordable rentals once stood, higher income renters now settled into their new apartments, towers, and concrete. amenity spaces and the users of public transit disappeared, displaced with buses now empty. Richmond is not sustainable nor resilient when we create choking density, concrete over soil yards, and allow carbonheavy demolitions of existing affordable housing and communities. Richmond neighborhoods matter. >> We have about 10 minutes left. Um, please, I'm asking for you to hold your applause to the audience. Um, we have about 10 minutes left. We'll get this comment and then I want to move to make sure we get folks online. >> Good afternoon, commissioners. Um, my name is Maria Dster and I'm a policy manager at the community climate collaborative or C3. We're a local climate advocacy organization working here in Richmond. I'm also a resident um and a renter in the city. Um I'm here to talk a bit about climate uh today. Um thinking about climate smart zoning and also energy efficiency and affordability and how that relates to zoning. Um for the past six months um our organization, myself in particular, has been researching um energy burden enrichment. So that's the percent of your income that you spend on your energy bills. Um given that the city has recently announced it will raise utility rates or it's already raised utility rates for customers of Richmond Gas Works and increasing Dominion rates. Um energy bills is a is a really pressing issue in our city and has a direct relationship to housing costs. Usually rent or mortgage and utility bills are grouped together when we look at things like cost burden which is how much of someone's income they pay towards their housing costs. Um I wanted to just share some key findings from our research that I would urge you to consider um throughout this process. The first is that housing density does have an impact on energy burden and it in fact um lowers um energy burden. We found that energy burden tends to decrease as density increases. Um and the highest energy burdens in this city including for the lowest income residents in this city are single family detached homes. Um and um this is because housing type and density impact energy costs. Um so attached single family homes, for example, have significantly less annual energy costs than detached single family homes. We found about $800 less per year. Um but I think the most striking finding is that households living in multi-unit buildings have significantly lower energy costs than single family homes. This is partly due to a difference in square footage. Right? Apartments are usually smaller um than a 2,000 square foot single family home, but also they're better insulated. Um they're usually surrounded by other units above them or below them. All of which uh lower costs. Um so the the the argument maybe that's been expressed today that density is is raising people's costs is actually untrue and that's that's based on local research that we have done here. Um many people in Richmond do not have access to safe, affordable or energy efficient homes. We have an incredibly long or sorry, an incredibly old housing stock. Um 30% of the city's housing was built before 1940. Um and increased density allows for um more efficient land use and decrease energy consumption, which re which reduces overall emissions, which is good for our environment and creates a more sustainable community. Um, I realize energy might seem like a really small part of this larger conversation, but it does speak to the fact that the types of buildings that we make easier or harder to build in this city do have a direct impact on people's lives um on their financial stability and ability to pay their um bills and their vulnerability to climate change and pollution. The last thing I just want to say really quick is when we were doing this research, something that was important to us was looking at this with an equity lens. Um and so we do urge um y'all to reconsider the proposed zoning map to upzone in wealthier predominantly white areas such as the west end. The installation of white, wealthy, and predominantly single family areas in the city perpetuates the racial and economic segregation um that is very pervasive to today um including access to community resources, amenities, green space, lower uh all of it. Um thank you. Thank you. >> Um, do we have anybody online? >> Okay, Kevin, >> you can hear us. You're >> Hi. Can y'all hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Awesome. I'll be brief. Uh good afternoon members of the zoning advisory council. My name is Kevin Sanfini. I'm a co-lead with climate change makers RVA and a resident of Fulton Hill. Uh this zoning update is probably the best opportunity we've had in decades to reduce car dependency in the city and with it pollution. The pulse has been a massive success in Richmond and we should lean into that success while planning the upcoming north south pulse line. What's currently proposed along our transit-rich corridors in the city is a step in the right direction, but we should shoot higher. Um, particularly, we should consider higher densities that will allow more people to live, shop, and commute along both pulse lines. There's also some chatter about free on street parking becoming more scarce as a result of higher density zoning. Uh, in my opinion, this is a feature and not a bug of our zoning rewrite. Abundantly available free street parking is a luxury incompatible with a growing city and a warming climate. We must prioritize housing, pedestrians, active transport, and public transportation over personal vehicles. Finally, the first and fourth city council districts show a concerning lack of upzoning compared to other areas of the city. Aside from the obvious equity issues that the previous speaker so uh you know, eloquently outlined, uh I'd like to highlight that these districts contain some of the most car dependent neighborhoods in the city. We must upzone these uh areas to increase walkability, transit access, and reduce car dependency. With excuse me, with upzoning, we can limit suburban sprawl, we can reduce highway expansion, we can preserve untouched forest, and we can diminish fossil fuel demand. I'm broadly encouraged by what's being proposed in the zoning code, but I think the city should address some of its glaring equity issues. There are many reasons to zone for people and not cars, and the climate is one of them. Thank you. >> Thank you. unmute them. >> Tyler, you you can unmute. >> Yep. Hey everyone. Uh I'm Tyler Missek. I'm 24. I live in district 2 and uh I'm calling to voice my support for the direction that the zoning code refresh is heading in. Um because a prominent issue for me and for many people my age is uh the cost of living and housing availability because most people my age are either renters or aspiring homeowners. Um, I think the first iteration of the refresh map that's out does a good job of providing more housing opportunities for young people like myself because Richmond is a growing city and if the housing supply stays stagnant, um, it pushes young people out of home ownership opportunities and the cost of existing uh, homes on the market continue to rise because it's not increasing proportional to the amount of jobs and opportunities moving to Richmond. Um, I agree with first speaker about increasing uh certain zoning districts to three units to provide more housing opportunities. Um, and uh, yeah, that's that's all I really have to say. So, thank you all for all the work you do. >> Thank you, Tyler. should be able to unmute now. Okay, Sleeves. >> Oh, did it work? Oh, hello. >> Okay, you can offer your comment, please. >> Oh, hey. How's it going? I'm Sleeves. Oh, my camera doesn't work. That's okay. I'm Sleeves Barnes and Funks. I'm up here in the museum. I'm here to say legalize the fan, baby. The zoning code from 50 years ago saying that the houses and neighborhoods from a hundred years ago is good enough today, tomorrow, and in another 50 years when we do this thing again is wild. Y'all whiling. You got to legalize the fan. We got to let the fan be built in every residential area of the city. And we probably got to upzone the fan unfortunately into like big old apartments and stuff cuz these rich Nova kids are coming. Let me tell you, the New Yorkers, too. And they're going to keep buying stuff and messing it up no matter what. and they either going to tear them down and build McMansions and all this weird stuff like everywhere else or we could build more fan. So, please legalize the fan. Help us out. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I've asked repeatedly to please hold the clapping. If we continue that, we're going to ask you to leave. >> Um, we're gonna have Jeremy as our last speaker. >> Jeremy should be able to unmute. Thanks very much. Hello everyone. My name is Jeremy Hoffman. I'm a climate scientist who has lived in Richmond since 2016. I live in Scots Addition. And um I've seen firsthand the benefits of increasing density as well as the benefits of new housing supply on my rent specifically. um as Scott's edition has has absorbed nearly all of the new um building uh especially of large multifamily complexes that has pushed downward pressure on my rent uh in the cookie factory. um the increased competition for new tenants um especially those uh kind of wealthy out oftowners um that are moving here uh are absorbed by those uh luxury apartments offsetting their pressure in other parts of the city. Um and what's interesting is that even um with all of the building I've heard a couple of folks comment about density does not mean affordability. Well, we've still we're Richmond was in the top 15 cities with the highest rent growth um just yesterday, 2 days ago, uh from a new report. Um so we're not making enough room for new housing for the people that want to live here. We're a great city and we need to make that extra room. Now, I wanted to also just uh share two weeks ago, uh Pew Research came out with a study showing that new housing slows rent growth the most for older, more affordable units and that it's limited supply that is associated with the greatest rent rent increases specifically in lowincome neighborhoods. So what this means is that the housing shortage has driven up rents more in lowincome neighborhoods. Uh but when we add more housing that actually reduces the pressure on those low lower inome neighborhoods and older buildings. So, it's just it's uh important to recognize that making room for new housing will improve and has already improved affordability in the city of Richmond. And I applaud the um the the first few drafts of this, but I feel like it needs to be more ambitious to make more room for more housing options even in neighborhoods of opportunity. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we're going to close the public comment period. you wanted to offer comment, didn't get the opportunity, please submit your comments to richmond 300 rba.gov and staff will make sure that they are shared with the advisory council. Um so at this time I'm going to turn it over to Maryann Pittz who's going to provide a council recap and introduction of today's meeting. >> Thank you. >> Hi everyone. Um last month that we I gave an update on the working group. So shared all the topics that they're discussing at the working group meetings. Now we are starting to get new material for this module too. The development standards I'll be reaching back out to the co-leads of those working groups and trying to figure out new dates and new questions that we want to work through with the working groups September October time frame. So I'll be in touch if you're a co-lead of one of the working groups. We also had Latoya shared some initial feedback from our June open houses online right now. We have the maps and the the draft regulations that are available for public feedback. We are extending the feedback period to September 28th. So was the 10th. It's to the 28th um to provide more opportunities for comment and also we're um crafting and we I think it's done a u a webinar that people can click on to get a better understanding of material and how to comment online. So that should be going live the end of this week. So we wanted to give people additional time and we've heard the desire for that. So an email went out today. So if you didn't know about that, it's because the email went out probably three hours ago. So you might have been doing other things. Um so after that feedback, we also started that conversation on some of the goals of the development standards. Today we are going to continue that conversation. We're going to end with again discussing some of finishing off that conversation about our development standard goals. We're going to begin with though the um consultant team is going to bring a few of the items that we heard a lot about during the public open houses through the engagement through us going to some civic association community meetings talking with community members that we wanted to discuss with the council for some of the potential changes to the regulations on the map. So they're going to begin with about four things that we heard um that we wanted to just bring to your attention and then we'll be going into the development standards. You all should have a copy of those development standards. They'll be posted online. It's for members of the audience um as you file and have an opportunity to discuss it. >> Anyone have questions for Maryanne? Okay. Well, we'll move into our first presentation with um Renee Beaverstein um who's gonna discuss the potential district and mapping changes based on the public comment that was received. Rene, can you hear us? >> Uh, yes. Can you hear me? You >> can. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Um, let me just share my screen. A sec. Uh, can you see my screen right now? >> You can. >> Okay, great. Um, so, uh, thanks very much. Um, again, just uh I think this was just said, but I'll just say, yeah, briefly, we're going to take you over some potential changes to the district's mapping based on public feedback. We're going to be doing this probably over the next few Zach meetings as well as we work through all the comments that we've received and that we're still receiving on the the draft um module uh one materials um including the districts and the mapping. So, what we show you today isn't going to be comprehensive at all. just as you know a few big issues that we kind of wanted to bring back to you and get your your input on. Um we're not bringing all the sort of small comments bought to you. There's a lot of little comments particularly when it comes to the map that we're going to have to work out just by ourselves or with staff. Um we don't necessarily need your input on all those. But these were a few really big kind of more uh fundamental or kind of philosophical issues that we thought we we bring back to the big group again um and have a discussion about. And like I said, there'll be a few more of those that we bring forward over the next um few Zach meetings as well. Um the development standards piece. Um so Colin will present not all but a a kind of partial draft of the development standards uh that you have the copy of. And so he's going to be kind of just taking you through it and just pointing out um some highlights of it. We're going to have a kind of a follow-up discussion on that content in September. So this is really just kind of getting you familiar with it so you could take a look over it. Um and we'll we'll get back there next month. And then we're going to finish that that conversation we had from last month um on the kind of initial development standards goals. Um there's the last couple ones particular signs uh we didn't really get enough time to to have a full discussion of. So we'll go back and and discuss that. Unfortunately on the affordable housing piece, we're still waiting to hear back from the city's legal team. So I don't have any um news for you on that, but it's it's still out there. We're still um going to be working on it once we hear back from them. Um uh so that's let's pause for the moment but we'll we'll circle back. So um on the first piece um so potential major changes based on public feedback. Um starting here with um I guess probably the the biggest one which is about achieving better equity in RD districts. Um and I'll get into a little bit more um when I take you through what we have. Um then uh reviewing some of the building coverage, maximum building coverage requirements in RD and RA. Um front setbacks in some RX districts and then Chamberlain and Avenue is kind of a separate topic here. Um so um let's let's talk through them. First one here about achieving better equity. This is sort of the one that was maybe the the biggest and most difficult for us and we've we've thought about it a lot. Uh these were some comments that I think I think we originally heard here from Council Robinson, but also I think we've heard similar comments from uh members of the public. Um so some concerns about the way that certain RD districts are mapped or defined and mapped. Um and specifically, does it place too much intensification on lower income neighborhoods and might that en encourage displacement if wider lots there could be subdivided um and additional units added? Um, so you know, we're both allowing you to go down to a minimum lot size and we're also adding allowing you to do two units plus an ADU as you know. Um, and so our higher income neighborhoods not bearing their fair share of intensification compared to these areas. Um, and then the like I said the fear of of um potential displacement if we're allowing lots to be subdivided below the size they are right now in some cases. And so there's two ways essentially this could be addressed in terms of you know going back and making changes to to try and resolve some of this. One of them is just adjusting the mapping and then the other one is maybe adjusting some of the actual district standards. So let me just take you through a couple slides here and then I'll I'll put these questions out to you and we can we can discuss. So just as an example here I'm going all the way back to some work that was done in the pattern book. Um this is Oak Grove which we've used as kind of a test case in a bunch of a bunch of times before. Um so just taking a look at this neighborhood again as an example because it's probably a good example of this uh problem. So um the pattern book showed that a lot of oakrobes currently R5 zone lots are non-conforming. They're less than 50 ft wide which is the minimum width for R5 meaning they require special special use permits to develop on. Um however there's also a lot of lots that are over 50 feet wide in our conforming. You can see here that it's a whole mix together. So the the blue lots here, this may be hard for you to read on your screen, but just to see the big picture, the um the blue lots are are ones that are that are conforming to R5, so they're above 50 ft wide, and the red ones are less than 50 ft wide, so those are narrower ones. So it's it's a kind of a it's a pretty even mix. And so based on on this, this is one of the neighborhoods that we applied the new RDC zone to, which went down to a minimum of 25 ft. And that was really designed to again capture a lot of those non-conforming lots. So all these these blocks that are outlined here um um in black uh were given the RDC zone which allowed you to go down to 25 ft. Uh so that brings most of this neighborhood uh if not all of it into conformity. However, um uh because a lot of those lots are are are over 50 ft wide, it would also allow some of those to be split. So all the lots that are hatched in this picture here are more than 50 ft wide. So technically those all those lots could be split in half um to achieve a minimum of 25 ft. Not that that's likely to happen, you know, overnight for sure, but there is that potential if we zone it like this. And then if we add these additional corner lots here, because we talked about allowing corner lots to be split up, um, and applying that minimum lot width to the side street instead of the the main street. Um, so that again adds a bunch more lots um, that could potentially be subdivided. Um, as a sort of a potential solution here, we kind of toolled around with, well, what if we change the definition of RDC to being 30 feet instead of 25? And and we could try something else. else we could say 35 ft or something but um this does sort of reduce the number of lots that could be subdivided if that's the concern here. Um so from previously to same 30 ft but there's still quite a few that could be subdivided and there also will be some that will be non-conforming that will be lots that are less than 30 feet wide. So it's it's a it's maybe a partial solution. So trying to figure out what to do with a situation like this um um it's it's a tough one to solve on the map. So the options that that we could you know look at here with Oakrove were would be to number one leave it as RDC and allow the for the possibility of there might be some lot splits. Maybe that's okay. Um you know maybe uh we want to have some intensification here over time. Um we don't know exactly how much uptake there's going to be on that. Um, we could reszone this whole neighborhood to RDB, which is more like the current R5 zone. So, that would prevent most lots from being split in half. Uh, except perhaps for corner lots if we're going to allow that option. U, but it would leave a lot of non-conforming lots. And so, it would mean that, you know, those those narrower lots that exist today, you know, couldn't be replicated in the future. Um, or we could attempt to kind of split it up on the map and zone some parts of it as RDB and some parts of it as RDC, understanding that it might lead to a spotty condition. And, you know, if you look back at this, it probably would be very spotty. If you're trying to, you know, capture as many red ones into one area and blue ones into another, it's it's they're pretty evenly mixed. Um, and then, you know, finally, we could try to redefine what RDC means. Um, but as I showed you before, um, it still leaves open the possibility of a certain number of splits if that's a concern that we have. And it also may result in some non-conformities on the other end of the spectrum. Um, so I kind of want to just put this out to you and um, uh, kind of get your feedback on it and see what you thought. Uh, and obviously this applies to other neighborhoods as well. So we're just kind of looking at Oak as kind of a test case here. So, we'll open it up to the Zach, but just remember, speak loudly, announce your name. Eric, >> uh, this is Eric. Um, I was just wondering if you've actually quantified, you know, how many additional uh, lots would be created um, by going to the 25. So, how many how many housing units uh, new housing units would be created by doing that? >> Um, I haven't actually added it up here or across the city, but we could go and do that. Um, again, because of the kind of the rate of change, uh, I don't expect this is going to happen overnight by any means, you know, across this neighborhood or the whole city. It'll be, you know, very slow changes. >> Um, but, um, interest, you're curious to know how many how many new units could be created. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And I guess to add on to that, you know, I I certainly support the 25 um, minimum width. You know, I think that it is also a matter of um providing current homeowners um that might have large yards or large lots um that way they can uh split their lot. They can actually potentially still stay in their home um and sell their um I guess surplus property um to a developer um to build additional units. Um so I have seen um this happen. I have seen um some community partners interested in in working with seniors um and other uh lowincome residents on on things like that. >> You have other thoughts from the council? >> Yeah, I don't know where to begin because I have a different perspective than a lot of people here. um starting aggressively in the 1990s, 1992, 1993 and prior to that um in the starting 1980, I had been tracking different neighborhoods in different cities across uh mostly the Northeast, but also some central areas of Chicago, Denver, uh San Francisco from the 90s, uh Boston, Philadelphia, Adelphia. Philadelphia. Very interesting because during the recession there was a huge influx of people and the whole population changed in Philadelphia and a different track happened. Uh during I think the recession of the 8081 there was a big crowd of people from LA that moved into Denver. And uh what everybody's saying is they're worried that the house is going to be taken over and developers are going to come in and that's what's going to happen and everybody who has a house is going to be overtaken and they're not going to have a house. Well, back in ' 81, what the wealthy people from LA did is they just bought houses, popped the tops, tore the backs off, uh and change the entire neighborhood because they had lots of money. And if we start looking around the city, I'd like everybody who's here and paying attention to what's going on. I'd like them to take a look at different neighborhoods and when they go into those neighborhoods. I'd like them to see the slow changes that you don't notice too much because it's just one house and then all of a sudden there's three new houses and the little Cape Cods have maybe 2400 foot houses going in or little modernist houses or little uh classic revival houses. And so I I want you to see that because what does happen is people are going to with more money are going to buy houses that are cheaper and there's going to be more people with that and they are not going to stop people from going into neighborhoods and affecting them by saying we just won't let them have an extra lot. There's always going to be people with more money moving here and there a lot of them are going to be moving from bigger cities and they think nothing of it. So, I want you to take a look at that and I really want you to look around the neighborhoods. I want you to look at the wealthier neighborhoods and how extravagant some of the houses are getting, especially now that we're getting to see the new guilded age. You know, we have no idea what's going to happen in terms of that sort of development. So from my perspective, I still believe in supply and demand and we have an extraordinary rigid supply and demand and we're not producing housing here and it goes by basic law of supply and demand that everything's going to be getting more expensive unless we provide for more housing. The biggest group I think that are going to be affected is the the really high level group is the people who want smaller homes. When you talk about middle housing, uh the biggest hit is probably going to be the agent. Those people are not going to have houses to move into or place to move to. And you're going to prevent families that maybe have opportunity to build houses for their their additional families. You're going to prevent them from the opportunity of doing that. Um so we need to have that opportunity. and some people may just build housing and be part of the city and try and rectify the problem if they have that opportunity. Um, so I'm sticking with the plan. I'm sticking with the idea that we need to be developing more density and I'm also sticking with the plan that we need to be putting in decent transit so that people do not have to have cars because cars are consuming 30 40% of their monthly costs when it comes to rentability. So all those things have to play in this. And so I looking for how to do it and I'm looking for every neighborhood how to do it, but I'm not looking for every neighborhood to sit there and go we don't want this happening in our neighborhood. So on the pipeline question I'm going to say which one did you think? So I think that the that Bernay and his team are looking for obviously feedback which they're getting but or we I I have a suspect feeling we're not going to come to consensus because this is very touchy subject but it's one we we've talked about a lot in this group and whileing heard from the community is that the way the map looks now you're seeing more density and areas other than the west end. Um, so we've been prevented or presented, excuse me, a potential solution that while Uber was just the example, it would apply to all of the RDC districts. So like the chance to hear what the the council thinks so that the consultants can walk away with a general feeling of what amendments if if necessary to this section should occur. >> Anybody else have >> This is uh Wayne Cradle. I think I'm I'm uncomfortable with any of the solutions if it's not going to take into consideration. Um I don't know if there's a a factor or a formula that we can predict displacement. Probably not. Um, but attaching a one-sizefitit all to an Oak Grove neighborhood that would impact a a different neighborhood to me would make the problem worse. Um, I definitely disagree with um number three to resume some parts because I'm I'm curious as to what does some look like? Um, and and and who gets to predict uh or or who gets to name what does RBD and RDB and RDC look like? Um and so I am personally in between either keeping it to 25 or leaving um the RDC but increasing it to about 30. >> Um I think 25 seems okay given fabric and it's not like you're going to be able to go smaller than that. That's good. Um I would just curious on it's not on here but I'm looking at the descriptions. the 75% building coverage max. Like maybe that is perhaps a little bit too high. Kind of going to like wanting to continue to have some trees. >> Yeah, we're we're going to get there in a sec. We're going to talk about building coverage next. >> Okay, great. Um and then we going to talk about blank walls or should I save that for another time? >> Um didn't have that right now, but go for it. Um, just wanting to look at that a little bit more because sometimes people need a blank wall for like trash or double like large um garage or something like that. And so that that can be a little bit difficult to meet in all situations. >> You're talking about the the transparency requirements and maximum blank wall widths. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, this is Casey. I am generally pro density and I'm here for flexibility and I'm very concerned about displacement. Um, and so I don't see preventing lot splits as the answer for this. Um, because there's inequity concern for me that you've already mentioned. Um, historically there's a connection between race and density that is nefarious and density often refers to race diversity um, historically speaking and I think that's going to be the case now that we see where um, there is less in density. We know these are going to largely be white and more affluent areas of the city. Um, I don't think that those areas are doing their fair share. That said, um to your point, Wayne, I think like we do have metrics and we do have ways to like predict where displacement is most likely. We have ways we know what the most vulnerable communities are going to be. So, I appreciate your hesitation around like blanket rules that are supposed to cover everything for everybody. I don't think that's effective. But if we do know what communities are going to be vulnerable, I would be very supportive of some kind of overlay that protects people, something that can be some other tool that we can apply that can be used to make sure that the communities that are most vulnerable can be protected even as there may be um more flexibility allowed in the new zoning code for developers to split their lots. Um, and yeah, I think I would be more in favor of adding in protections specifically for the folks that we're concerned about versus shifting the entire zoning code away from the density that we know we need in order to create housing um and meet the demand um that we know is is coming um for everybody. So, I'm I'm interested in an ongoing conversation around like what protections can look like, what overlays and what rules, nodes, I don't care what it is, as long as it works. Um, so that vulnerable populations, we know who they are, we know how to identify them, we know where they are, can be protected even if we build in the flexibility, which I think we'll need with protections. Um Preston Burman here. >> Um I'm just going to weigh in on the displacement issue and it's been raised in some of the public comments too. Um because our role obviously is looking at the zoning ordinance. I'm looking at this from a legal perspective. Um the city of Richmond only has the authority to regulate land use through its zoning ordinance in the ways that the general assembly has specifically enabled us to do so. And the general assembly, I don't believe, and I could be mistaken. And I'd be happy to be proved incorrect on this, but I'm reasonably confident that there has been no authorization of us specifically including provisions that would regulate displacement. And so if that's the case, that means that we don't have that lever that we can pull as part of the drafting exercise that we're going through. But that doesn't mean that we can't focus on it and we can't evaluate the impacts as has been described. But in my opinion, one of the things that perhaps may be more fruitful in trying to really look at the economic impacts that cause displacement is trying to encourage the city to stand up the programs that would provide the financial resources for those who own property and who are about to be hit with increasing tax burdens due to changes within their neighborhoods to then make sure that they have the financial resources to not be pushed out of the neighborhood. because no one can force an individual who owns property to sell if they don't want to. The reason that they leave a neighborhood is because they can no longer afford to be there due to the the tax impact and burden that is posed from from growing uh affluence within that vicinity that community. So, um, there may be other tools that we can look at. I'm not saying that it is in the lens to think about in the context of the zoning ordinance, but the two takeaways are we have things outside of the zending ordinance that I think should be considered, and we also have to make sure that we're operating within the lane the general assembly has given us for now. [Music] Uh, Eric, uh, yeah, I guess I would just to kind of piggyback off what President says, um, you know, really stress the fact that yes, we're talking a lot about displacement, about affordable housing, and solving a lot of, um, Richmond's problems. Zoning is not a silver bullet to all of these, um, problems that we face. There are other programs, mechanisms, policies um, that address these things. And so as we continue to talk about affordable housing or displacement, do not put it all on zoning to solve those issues. Um second, um Renee, I know you didn't work on the Charlottesville um rewrite, but I know that they did some things um specifically around um I guess gentrification or um displacement. Um, you know, I think it would probably be helpful for this committee to see what Charlottesville did just to kind of see that as an example. Um, and maybe just kind of, you know, get that out of the way. Um, if that's possible. >> Sure. We we can we can share it later on. There was a sort of a special overlay that was created there that essentially kind of limited the um development potential in certain areas where there was you know a thought of there being a risk of displacement. Um the flip side of all that is that of course when you limit development potential you also suppress the value of those properties. So um you know it's a it's a it's a bit of a kind of impossible bargain. Um so um but we can we can share that with you in more detail if you want. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Just a bad comment on what they've just talked about. Mrs. Marine said the increase in assessment will probably happen regardless even if there is no zoning change, right? So like the zoning change is about creating more supply for the people who are moving here like and so that that idea of having council do something with assessments for long-term residents or whatever that pro that needs to happen. Um I would think so. But like we also need to have more supply. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And to like faster >> Yeah. to to that end. Yes, there currently isn't enough supply here in Richmond and so yeah, everyone wants to move here still >> and so that's why you're seeing such rapid increases in your property values and the home prices by adding more supply. Obviously supply and demand, right? You can slow that rate of growth. It won't happen over time, but it will happen. >> Okay. Um, so, >> so I think that >> I think and I know we have a lot to get through and um, but I think what I'm hearing is that overall we want to leave the RDC because we want the possibility for split lots. Maybe we need to look the minimum lot width whether it's 25 or 30 but definitely need to be mindful of displacement gentrifications. That is something as that we're hearing from the committee and the public. Um Renee, if you could please give us a report back on what you learned from Charlottesville. I will say that I have been in conversation with Maryanne about having the city's housing director come and speak to this group. >> So we can take a little get a little bit of a deeper dive of what the city can do, what they can't legally. As as you know, we are a Dylan rural state. There's only been so much can be done without general assembly approval, but what we can do and what tools the city has and how we're making sure that we are looking through the lens and making sure we're taking displacement into consideration. So Dave, last comment bring this up. It just occurred to me, but you know, when I think about kind of a 30 foot wide lot versus 25 foot lot, uh 30 foot wide lot is really easy to build on. It's really easy to add stuff to. it's really easy to put more stuff on it. A 25 foot lot gets very very tight. You know, you put three feet on each side for setbacks and that three feet leaves you 19 feet. Having to the the idea of how that gets developed is much more difficult to add on to. Uh unless you have at least things like that, it can be done, but it's it's just harder. So, I'm just throwing that in the mix. 30 feet easy to add to step stuff to 25 feet much more difficult. >> Yeah, thanks Dave. I think that in most cases the RDC's do have alleys. Um um but I think yeah it's part of the whole reason for this whole challenge here is that there is right now your your minimum lot size for R5 is 50 feet but still there's all these you know sub50t lots in the city that we're trying to capture with this new district of RDC. Um, and so trying to figure out, you know, how you map that when you got these mix of different lot sizes together is is a is is the challenge here. Um, so but appreciate the feedback from everybody. >> There anything else before we let Rene go to the next one? Did I miss characterize anything? Great. Go for it, Rene. >> Okay. Thanks. Um, okay. So, next one is building coverage, which was just mentioned here. So, we had some concern from members of the public that some of the building coverages in the draft of any districts look like they were too high and they might lead to a loss of green space or overly bulky buildings. Um, and so the question here and I'll I'll just take you through a few slides after this is, you know, should the mil maximum building coverage be reduced or kept the same or made dependent. It could be it could be also a more dynamic number that was maybe dependent on the number of units per lot. So maybe if you had one unit per lot it would be a certain percentage and if you had two units and ADU it would be maybe a different number. Um so that's all things we could think about. Um let me just take you through a few slides here. Um so we went back this this analysis was kind of Carlos and the people who worked on the pattern book um had sort of looked at some of this stuff but they hadn't actually produced these these graphs. So we went we went back and did these calculations for the new zone area. So this is for RDA and we just wanted to figure out what the coverage was for RDA and we'll for and for all these other zones um within RD and RA. Um so this is a kind of a a bell curve graph that shows looking over the whole city what percentage of different RDA zones have different coverages. And I know the numbers in the bottom are really tiny and hard to read, but I'll I'll just explain it to you. Um the median right now for building coverage on on RDA zoned areas at least according to this draft is 12% coverage. Um but you can see under this bell curve here um that you know there's at least a good number of buildings you know going all the way up to you know 20 25 30% coverage. Um and then there's some that go you know all the way up to the far end of the tail here. um in our June draft that we put in front of the public, we said up to 40% coverage for RDA, um probably pretty high. Um uh the existing R1 and R2 districts, which are, you know, sort of the uh in some ways kind of the ancestor of of RDA, I guess, um they have 25 20% and 25% maximum coverages each. But keep in mind that today, you know, you're not able to build two units in an ADU. you're only able to build one unit uh plus NDU. Um and just to kind of do a kind of illustration, these are some graphics that we've done and shared to you guys for a different purpose way back a few months ago. I just went back and calculated these just so you could see as an example. This little drawing here, which is like a a lot that meets the minimum 90 foot width of RDA. So this is sort of in you know an RDA lot um with two units and ADU. This is showing 15% coverage. Um, however, you know, there's other circumstances you could imagine where, you know, these were, you know, big wide one-story units that might be, you know, they might have higher coverage than this. These are like ranch houses or something like that. Um, so there's a range of possibilities here. I think that there's, you know, a case for maybe taking down the maximum coverage here a little bit. Um, but we need to figure out where we're going to land on it. Um, for RDB, median today is 17%. Um the um R3, R4, and R5 were 25%, 30, 30%, and 35% maximums. And the June draft we had out there was 60%. So again, you know, pretty far up the tail. We don't necessarily have to capture every single existing lot, but there are some that are, you know, beyond 60%. And this illustration of RDB here, which is again sort of a duplex and an ADU, that's showing 35% coverage. um RDC U median is 24%. Um R5 which again doesn't capture you know these really narrow lots they're part of the purpose of creating RDC but maximum was 35% we' said up to 75% coverage here is an illustrated version of 50% coverage with you know a vertical duplex and a uh an ADU behind it. Um so again you know the question is kind of similar to the discussions that we had with Carlos way back. we talked about with the pattern book. How much of this, you know, tail of distribution do we want to capture here? Um, at what point do we do we think it's not, you know, that things beyond this point should be non-conforming essentially. Um, and then finally, RA, we didn't do the rest of the RAS, the multi-units, but RAA, uh, median today 34%, R six and R seven maximum 55% and the June draft that we had out there was saying 80%. in this illustration here, which is like a somewhat typical um RAA lot, 55% coverage being shown here. But again, you know, if this was a unusually narrow or unusually shallow lot, um you know, if it was half as long, you you'd have a coverage quite a bit higher than that. And if you look at the distribution today, you you've got, you know, though the median is 34%, you've got some going all the way up to, you know, close to 100% coverage uh today. So, um, any thoughts from you guys about this? We haven't proposed any new numbers yet, but um, just wanted to kind of put this out there and tell you that we're looking at it and maybe get your feedback. >> Initial thoughts here. Um, Zerk. Um, well, I guess my this is just kind of a general question, but you know, it is given that opportunity to go to the max building coverage, um, you know, say you were to make it 100%. You know, is a builder or developer really going to take up 100% of that um, parcel to to develop a building? And so my consideration would be no because to have a house um that you would want to sell, you'd probably want some kind of space, yard or green space. Um and so, you know, I certainly support the max and letting you know, the market, you know, deliver, you know, whatever um gets built and also allowing property owners the ability to do what they want with their property. Yeah, this is Elizabeth Greenfield. I can't say I disagree with that. I live in a neighborhood in the first district where a number of houses have additions and they have built all the way to their back fence and they have the backyard and that was the homeowner's choice. Um, so I'm I'm I'm of the opinion of of the market and the property owner make that decision, but I realize that we are also taking into consideration vacant lots infill um or you know scenarios where someone may sell their small cape and then it gets redeveloped. So I want to be mindful that it's not all existing homeowners. Um, some of these lot coverages are pretty pretty steep in Greece. >> Won't they, Mrs. Marine? So, won't they have to like comply with storm water litigation, too? So, I mean, like >> family, >> single family, not really. >> It depends if you're in an RMA or RPA. >> Um, I don't do a lot of single family. So, >> just to give um some references, um I don't know how many people have been on the West Avenue Garden Tour every year, but if you go through the West Avenue Garden tour, you'll see houses that I think have um site coverages. Well, they have little front yards uh maybe 65 70%, you know, they have a garage and you walk in, you got a three foot space to go by the garage, get to the backyard, and they got maybe 10 feet back there. So just in terms of reference of what we have in the city and then um there's lots of really tiny lots that you see people developing right now. We're working on a um I think it's probably an 800 square foot lot triangular shaped in uh B park and we're putting a little three-story building there and uh that's probably got 80% lot coverage. uh putting that whole thing in there. We're setting it back to the adjacent house in the front and just goes back and I think that's that's it. Maybe it's more like 70%. But uh when you get into the more dense neighborhoods, I think there's more opportunity to be much tighter than in the further spreads out. So the residential attached housing in the more dense attached zoning districts should have be able to have higher um plot coverage. >> The the other possibility um Dave that I mentioned the sort of a gradation of coverages maybe based on number of units. There could also be a gradation of coverages based on lots actual existing lot size. So you could within you know a particular zone let's say RDA you could sort of say you know have three different ranges of lots or something like that. So if your if your lot is between X and Y you get a certain amount of coverage and if it's between you know something else um you get a different coverage. There are some codes that do that apparently. >> I think that's a great idea because there are lots of little tiny places that can be built on but people be perfectly happy to have a house. Another option is, you know, not to regulate building coverage at all. >> Yeah, we discussed it internally. I mean, that was a possibility as well if we just think that it's, you know, not realistic. People are going to max it out and I don't know. Um, it's it's probably going to scare people though. So, >> we have we've set the building coverage numbers currently at like for worst case scenarios, right? So um and and not wanting to like artificially restrict someone from you know developing on a small lot or or doing something that's single story uh and and not trying to force you know two stories everywhere for example. >> Um this is Elizabeth for folks in the audience and listening at home that is our other consultant Colin that just chimed in. You haven't you don't have everyone's voices memorized. Just want to make sure for the record if you know who was speaking. Sorry. >> No, thanks. >> I can just offer one anecdote. When I was living in the pan for a long time, I had a one of the typical fan pan row houses, very narrow, long lot, and it had a detached garage that you could sometimes fit two very small cars into. And our next door neighbor said exactly the same thing. They wanted to put a big addition on the house to reflect their growing family without having to move. And they ran into the lot coverage maximum. So they took down the garage because that opened up more space for them to then be able to cover the lot and they then put their two cars on the street in the fan so that they had more room for their family behind the house. And so again, I I tend to see this very much as a homeowner choice issue um because not every not one size is going to fit every family's preference. And so I'd certainly be in favor of greater flexibility for that reason. >> Rene, it's Elizabeth again. I think the greater flexibility seems to be, you know, seen here. Maybe if you could present some options of what that may look like in terms of >> different percentages. Um, >> y >> that'd be I think that does anyone disagree with that? >> I'm not hearing anything. >> Okay, thanks Elizabeth. Okay, I'll move on to the next topic then if that's okay. >> Anybody have any questions before Renee keeps going? >> Right. Go Renee. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. So, next one is is uh this is maybe a little bit more straightforward. Front setbacks in RX districts. This is the the uh multif family districts. Um there were concerns from some people about loss of green space along the street in certain RX uh districts. Um because we're essentially under the current draft allowing those buildings to come uh up close to the street. Um both RX districts um currently require a front setback of between 5 to 15 ft. Um, do you think that there should be instead of this something that's more contextual um, sort of similar to the way that we've dealt with setbacks in RD and RA districts um, um, or not? And there's not a huge number of examples of the these sort of buildings that have, you know, big green spaces out front of them in Richmond. Um, we're going to talk about Chamberlain Avenue again in a second. That's that's probably the biggest concentration, but you find some other ones around the city. This was an example um, that we looked at. any thoughts about whether or not there should be that flexibility around setting front setbacks or no? And just just to piggy back on that, Renee, when um we were participating in the recent round of public open houses, this is something we heard um from quite a few people uh in some of the existing neighborhoods where we had mapped RX and um just generally people were comfortable with the height and intensity associated with the RX districts. They just didn't want to lose that kind of um kind of character green setback that might be prevalent in some of those neighborhoods today. >> Comments, Mr. Mr. Credle. I think he was Did you have a >> Oh, yeah. I just have a general >> Oh, this is Wayne. I have a general question. Um when you say setback to be contextual, can you define that a bit more for me? >> Sure. So the way that the way that it works right now in the the draft that we have for the RD districts is that your your setback is defined by what your neighbors are. So um it's essentially calculated from the neighboring properties around you. So if you're replacing a house in the middle of a block, you align to um to the adjacent properties. And so it varies based on where you are. And I guess in this particular case it might be a little trickier because we're talking about um larger projects where you might be redeveloping entire block for example. Um so you might have to look somewhere else in that neighborhood for that context. maybe you know what was there originally tries to set the context or if you're looking across the street um to the the setbacks that might exist across the street from your project. >> Well, what uh Philart um Wayne asked my question exact same question. What does that really mean contextual? And thank you for the um for the description and you know that that makes sense to me. um in a lot of context as we look at a lot of these issues is is the context the present context um as opposed to sort of a one-sizefits-all. So, I know it's more work and it's more subjective, but that seems to be to me I think that's going to be a better product at the at the end of the day if we adopt that really in in other other features as well, but here particularly in subs. >> This is Marita. I guess what happens when it's not a really big parcel and it's a more narrow long one like you do see on Chamberlain a lot and then you're you have to set it back so then you actually can't like I don't know build as as much as you could have otherwise. That's just question I have >> if it's like if it's like a house property but it's zoned RX. >> Yes. because there's a lot of those that are group homes um or single family homes, but mainly group homes on Chamberlain. >> Yeah, probably. Go ahead. Go. >> I mean, you would look at the the the lots next door or lots within 100 ft um as you do today, some of your residential districts. >> We'll get Eric and Dave. >> Uh this is Eric. Uh yeah, I guess I'm just looking at this in the context of the example photo that you shared here. Um you know, if it is in this context, I would be against um this kind of front setback. Um you're essentially creating a a lawn that no one is using. It's an inactive space. Um and for what purpose, right, that is private property. Um and so I would be against um kind of forcing this upon developments. >> Yes. I think my biggest concerns um I'm not as concerned about the context overruling depth of the front yard when the front yards get really extensive because then we're losing a lot of territory such as in the single family situation. What I am concerned about is when we start closing in and we have less and less room. If we do not have enough room to provide for trees or provide for protection for the pedestrians, then I feel that there should be some requirement for landscaping which requires trees to meet the need to compensate for the lack of front yard. So you might have to reduce the front yard in those areas. And if that falls within the prescribed 10 to 15 or 10 feet of area, that's fine. And then also, you know, this probably going a little overboard. There should be setbacks occasionally or some sort of uh reduction in the massing of massive building going into smaller neighborhoods. They should be broken up occasionally with recesses or something. Uh Zer just kind of circling back. I think if it's an RX and you know there are residential units on the ground floor then I would be a little bit more supportive of um front step backs that are um provide that space or privacy. Um but if it is a commercial space um you know more publicly activated space I would you know certainly support um a lower front setback. Yeah, that seems like a good alternative suggestion. I think this is Elizabeth. If I remember correctly, part of the reason we got into this conversation was, you know, limited amount of land, knowing we needed more housing and trying to maximize what we had available. Um, but we are hearing concerns about loss of green space, tree canopy. Um so that I think that need to find a way to maximize but ensure that we are leaving some space. Um because I I do know the office of sustainability is going to be coming forward with tree canopy, you know, requirements. There's there's going to be things that we have to consider as Davis pointed out. Um that'll leave room for some of that and aesthetically I think it's what clear the community wants. So if there's some balance where maybe it's contextual some of what Eric has offered about how we can bridge it between commercial and residential. Does that give you something to work with, Renee? >> Um, yeah, I think that's that's helpful. >> I I think it's an interesting idea to have um maybe a different front step back if it's a residential ground story versus a commercial. So, we'll explore that option maybe. So I think next one here is is again sort of going to relate to that the Chamberlain Avenue discussion and I think just back to this last one for a sec. I think I can't remember when this was maybe six months ago when we were doing the conceptual districts. Um we we suggested the possibility of a special different multif family district that would be applied on places like Chamberlain and would have that front setback requirement. We ended up hearing from you not to do that and we we didn't do it. Um, but you know, it could be that this uh is a is a good compromise of having a kind of contextual requirement to Chamberlain Avenue. Again, um, so Chamberlain Avenue is kind of a I think as you've heard from members of the public, it's an unusual place in Richmond. Um, quite quite different than a lot of the other parts of the city. Um, it's characterized by a lot of these large low apartment buildings, you know, set back between behind a lot of green space. Um it's designated as a Mixie's corridor in Richmond 300 and it's a planned BRT route. Um and um but it's it's characterized by mostly residential buildings and that are relatively low density and and a lot of green space. And so trying to resolve this issue here. This is a bit more of a planning issue than it is a zoning issue. So it's a little bit challenging for us to deal with here. Um it's a bit different than all the other topics we've brought to you so far today. But there was push back from the public when we put this out there. Uh and again, I think you heard this tonight as well uh against some of the proposed MX6 and RX4 zoning that was put along Chamberlain in terms of allowed uses, setbacks, and heights. Um the way it was mapped out in the draft was um MX6. So multi-use uh mixed use six along the at the major intersections and where the BRT stops are and then going down to RX4 multif family in between those. Um but as we said before, there's the issue of the setbacks for the RX4. There's also the the range of uses, whether you're allowing the full range of mixed use into here. And then there's the heights that are associated with these, you know, for example, going up to six stories. I'm just putting this back out in front of you guys. Do you think these designations make sense as shown or if not, you know, how do you think we should change them as we move forward to the next draft? >> I'll just kick off. This is Elizabeth. I will say that whether or not the BRT route comes on Chamberlain is not up to this body or to the planning commission that we made a subcommittee of. I will say that um if it does come as soon as that comes final you're you're going to see development on this corridor. That's what we saw on Broad Street and and development came before the zoning and it was one special use permit at a time. So I think we need to be mind I understand the concern of turning this into a more mixeduse dense corridor but again if BRT comes and it's like it's going to that out of our control and I think we need to be forward thinking of what that street that community is going to look like knowing that it's highly likely that BRT is coming. Just my thoughts on that. >> Go ahead President. Thank you, Preston Lloyd. Um I I find myself really conflicted about this and I listen carefully to some of the public comments and it reminds me a little bit of some of the similar conversations that happened when the city went through a master planning exercise in connection with what became the BRT plan that then was folded into the Richmond 300 and and the similar concerns were raised by residents of Grace and the fan in sort of thinking about is density appropriate along Broad Street and yet from my perspective it's really important for us to have high frequency transit in as many quarters as we can sustain as a city. And you want to be very intentional about ensuring that there's the density to then support the high frequency transit. And so I think Elizabeth made a great point about how we can either do it by one-off SCPs or we can do it by a comprehensive resoning. Um I I tend to find myself persuaded that that's a laudable policy goal to try to focus on transit oriented development in key orders such as this. And yet I also hear very clearly the concern about what that density is going to mean and changing the character of those existing neighborhoods. And so I don't know quite how to necessarily solve that apparent conflict. Um but I just wanted to sort of say I tend to find my way through it by really focusing on the transit and making sure that it's viable. >> Dave. >> Yes. Uh Dave Johannes. Um, so I've been remissed because I do not have a copy of the BRT plan and I think it's really from what I've heard and listened to, um, I think it's really essential for me to understand the BRT plan and uh, my concerns would be mostly um, I'm definitely pro BRT plan, but I also believe there's a way to create a BRT going down that street that still produces a nice boulevard. And there's a way to develop this boulevard that does not separate the districts but provides opportunities for people to have places away from their homes and services to their homes that are neighborhoodly. And so I don't know what I'm actually leading to, but I would like to see what the BRT plan is. And I'd like to understand what it's doing. And I'd like to understand what the traffic flow doesn't necessarily have to be through that. >> The plans are on GRTC's website. Pardon >> there. The plans are on this is Marita. The plans are on DORTC's website um as recent as March of this year where they updated them. Um and so you should definitely look at them. It looks like they plan on narrowing the lanes and introducing a BRT only lane and then keeping a median, but it it looks like from my quick glance that they're probably narrower uh medians, but keeping the medians, keeping the trees that are there and then adding some more trees into it. >> The trees are much better. They're not kept the trees aren't >> kept. We can't have commentary of the public at this time period's closed. There's a lot of trees on the plant. >> Lots of >> nothing that we do here can affect the public realm because that's that's really beyond the scope of zoning. >> Um so again, we're just trying to think about >> narrowly here how we zone these these private properties. What's the trees are being replaced? But I can get we can get whatever is the most up-to-date information available to the council. >> That would be helpful. >> I I feel the same kind of conflict as that Preston described. Um wanting to invest in making sure that there's destinations and places to go and shop at these BRT stops is kind of important. um and kind of allowing that to happen on a corridor that the city would be investing in would be good. But I do also understand the naturally occurring affordable housing and kind of made a note of like talking to people like Eric and others who know more about how to encourage that to stay as much as possible um and what policies outside of zoning um can be implemented by the city to encourage that to stay. >> This is Elizabeth and Preston I'll get you next. I think maybe when we have the direct housing director or his or her design speak that maybe that could be something we could address with that department of how they are thinking about housing affordability and corridors like this that could see changes as a result of BRT um what what policies they have in place just as said I think that's part of a bigger conversation with that department um Preston >> I'm Sorry, Preston Lloyd. Observation that came to me in looking at the exhibit here and seeing all the blue. Um I I do know that not just in this quarter but elsewhere they're former um structures that would have been originally constructed as a place of worship that whether through SUP or otherwise have transferred ownership and are no longer being used as places of worship but they've been designated on the future land use plan as institutional which is problematic because obviously they're not being treated similarly to the other properties in the vicinity that may be designated as you know an MX category. Um, and so I I have some concern about the broad institutional use being assigned to anything that may have at some point in its life been the place of worship. Um, and so I don't necessarily have a specific solution other than to note the concern and and ask um the team if perhaps there can be some options on how we take a different approach because I think ultimately that's going to have a negative impact on housing availability. >> Elizabeth again and then we'll get Eric. think maybe we again hearing from the housing director get the BRT plan out to to the the zoning advisory council. Um Renee unless you need an answer today. I feel like there needs to be a little bit more discussion on this particular corridor specifically because of the potential for BRT and we as a group it sounds like we might need some more information before the group is comfortable or there's consensus on making any additional recommendations on the proposed zoning categories and the heights and setbacks etc. So, Eric, did you want to offer a comment? And >> uh sure. Uh this is Eric. Uh yeah, I was just going to say that yeah, if you leave this um as is and allow just for one by one SUPs, you know, you will not see affordable housing because of the cost of going through that process. Um and so by allowing for this kind of density by right there are better opportunities for um more affordable housing um and more options but also leaving things the way they are. Um you will not see property owners or landlords or those bad bad actors take care of their properties because competition is not being introduced into this market. Um and so those properties will continue to deteriorate and see deferred maintenance. So I I support uh the the direction that we're already going in with this. >> Want to try to keep us on time and I know we need to get into more to develop the standard. Rene, can we pause this one for a bit until we >> have some additional information and we can have a follow-up discussion? >> For sure. Uh, and I'll just say just as a sidebar on the institutional um zone question, I think we'll probably bring some thoughts on this to you before November as well. Um, just to um to share what we're thinking because it's it's been another issue of concern trying to define what exactly that means. Um, so with that, I'm going to turn this over to Colin to go through um the drafted development standards for further discussion afterwards in September. Thanks Rene. Um so you should have in front of you um a print out uh PDF print out of this material. So this is um part one of uh module two um of uh article 4 for the development standards or the site development standards. So, we've split it into two parts um as much as anything to give you guys a little bit more time to review it and discuss the material as well as giving us a little bit more time to prepare the material ourselves and uh react to some of the feedback that we've got got are getting from you or have got from you during during the last meeting uh and uh this meeting as well. Um so this is this is building on module one which is the the district standards themselves and the zoning map. And um although it may not be as necessarily as compelling as the districts themselves, this is still a very important component of the work. Um so this is going to set um new standards or enhanced standards for um the site itself. So that you know once you've you figured out what the dimensions are or the requirements are for your building uh this uh module will set the requirements for the site around that building. So things like um pedestrian and bike bicycle access, bicycle parking, uh vehicle access, uh parking lot dimensions. There is no required parking but uh there are standards for those people that choose to build parking. uh parking lots um drive-thru standards, loading area standards, um and then um very importantly the transitions and screenings. So how are um how what are the transitions look like? What are the screening requirements look like uh for when one district uh abuts another district? So, I'm not going to go necessarily through this entire draft. Um, but I'm just going to kind of hit on some of the key highlights of some of the key places that you should be looking at um when you begin to review. So, um, the hope is is you can take this draft away with you today, uh, and spend the next 30 days or so looking at the draft, um, and then we can come back to the next meeting, uh, and discuss, um, any of these issues, uh, at that at the next, uh, Zach meeting. Um, next slide, please, Renee. So, um, I don't want to skip past the applicability table because it is, um, really important. Um so um this is going to set the the standards of when a particular standard applies to your project. So you saw a little bit of this uh in the first module. And so, um, whether you're doing a brand new new construction or where you're adding to an existing building or whether you're, um, adding to an existing site or modifying that site, whether you're modifying a facade of a building or completely changing a use or completely renovating a building or just doing um, kind of maintenance and repair to a site or a building uh, will impact when these standards may or may not uh, apply. So, um, if you the the first module that we sent out has the definitions for the project activities on that top row. So, if you need those resent to you, please let us know and we'll get those back out to you. Um, so that you'll have a sense of of what those means. But basically, you know, if you're um if you are doing new construction, you'll see that a lot of these development standards if if not all of these development standards are going to apply. Um, and so this can become important when we're looking at redeveloping existing sites or redeveloping existing buildings. How difficult or how easy do we want to make to redevelop uh in certain situations? So, you'll see that um if you're adding to a build to an existing building, in this particular instance, uh we're proposing that only the bicycle parking requirements would apply. Um so, you wouldn't have to meet the parking lot dimensions or or the parking lot landscaping. So there are certain parameters associated with an addition and so once you exceed those parameters associated with an addition then you are considered new construction and if you exceed those parameters then you would have to bring the whole building uh and meet the standards for the entire building or site. So um if you look at like parking lot dimensions for example uh they apply to new construction and then they apply to if you're modifying an existing site or you're expanding existing site uh then the parking lot dimensions would apply to the area that you're adding or modifying to. It wouldn't apply to your whole site. uh once you exceed the parameters of a site modification um that would be considered new construction and you have to bring your whole site to meet the code. So I'm just going to spin you through some some of the basic um development standards here, some of the highlights. Next slide, please. So, pedestrian access, I think, you know, Renee shared some of this material with you to kind of give you a preview of it um last month, but just this idea that um when we are requiring street facing building entrances, um there should be a requirement that you connect those street facing building entrances to the public realm or to the street. So, we have three various types of kind of pedestrian connectivity here. Type one being the most pedestrian friendly if you like, type two being kind of in the middle, and then type three being kind of a more auto oriented, auto centric. Um, and so depending on what district you're in right now, you would have to meet the requirements for that particular type. So, um, we're suggesting the MX districts are the most pedestrian friendly. So, therefore, you would have to meet the most ped pedestrian friendly, um, type one. So if you look in the draft, you'll see the particular standards associated with each type. Um and so you know clearly we'd love your input on this table. You know maybe we should be making RX type one should apply an RX for example. So we'd be very curious to hear your feedback on this particular table. >> Next slide. >> Do you want comments? Can you pick them now side by side or >> next month? No other mind. >> This is as much as anything. This is just to give you kind of a quick introduction of the material >> and then you guys can spend the whole um of next month looking at this material and you can ask questions or you can reach back out to us and we can provide additional guidance. But the idea is yeah we would be talking about this next month. So uh uh bike parking um you do have a bike parking requirement today. Um, so this isn't necessarily brand new, but we just wanted to expand the bike parking requirement that you have today. So today it only applies to um residential development. I believe you do have a requirement for um parking structures that I think we need to carry over. So if you if you are building a parking structure and you provide a certain amount of parking spaces, then you have to have a certain amount of bike parking spaces as well. But this is um basically moving the requirement up so that not only do um residential users have to provide bike parking but non-residential uses as well would have to provide bike parking. And again this is split up by short-term uh and long-term. So short-term spaces being for, you know, quick access, um, you know, the the bike rack that you might see outside of a building, um, being available versus long-term bike parking, which would be for, you know, people storing their bikes for a longer period of time, maybe people working in the place all day, looking for somewhere secure to leave their bike for, you know, several hours at a time. Next slide. uh vehicle access. Um so pedestrian access is important, but we al also want to make sure that we have appropriate uh vehicle access requirements. Um so um right now we've proposed a very simple model and so we probably need to work through this with the city folks just to make sure uh we're headed in the right direction. Um but right now we're proposing a minimum spaceway spacing between driveways on the same site could be no less than 100 feet and then driveways on a budding lot should be no closer together than 50 ft apart. Um so just just a kind of a public safety thing. Um and then you know trying to limit the number of drive driveways and then not only do we care about the number of driveways but we do care from a pedestrian perspective uh how wide those driveways are. So there's a table here um based on the size of your parking area would limit um the width of your driveway and the number of driveway lanes. Right? So in a in a kind of a typical uh single family setting, so a driveway serving up to five parking spaces, uh we was we're suggesting that um driveways can be um no wider than uh no less than 8 ft and no wider than 10 ft. Um and you'll see that that kind of scales up um as the intensity of the parking area increases. Next slide. And so, as I mentioned earlier, there is no requirement necessarily to um put in parking. Uh we're carrying that over your existing no parking requirement, but there are places that um would choose to put in parking. So, we just want to make sure that those standards are as clear as they can be. Um you currently regulate this today in the zoning ordinance. Um it's a little tough and a little difficult to understand. Um so we're just proposing as much as anything to kind of simplify the standards down um to kind of um parallel parking, 60° angled parking, and then 90° uh parking, which is like the mo these are like the most prevalent uh parking angles that you might see uh today. Um, and we're kind of removing that kind of interlocking requirement that you have or or kind of taking it out as an option, which I think is kind of making it harder to understand that section. We you do have um very small parking space dimensional standards, I will suggest. Um, so we we've carried those over. Didn't necessarily want to increase the size if we didn't have to. And then making sure that there is the ability um to continue to allow for compact parking spaces. Um but making sure we don't get too many park compact parking spaces in any one parking lot or any one parking area. Um they really are designed um um for unique settings within a larger parking lot and not intended for the entire parking lot itself. Next slide. um parking lot landscaping. Um so this again is something that you have in your current zoning ordinance today that we are cleaning up and enhancing. Um so um for example, parking lot landscaping would only be required for parking lots serving um more than six parking spaces. Uh so in theory slightly larger parking areas. Um, and then interior landscaping requirements would only be uh would only apply to parking lots serving 20 or more parking spaces. Um, and so just this idea of making sure we're getting interior islands and media and islands. I know there was a discussion last month about trying to make these uh spaces in parking lot a little more usable. So, we'll be interested in kind of hearing your thoughts and continuing that conversation. Um but the idea here is that you know no more than 10 parking spaces uh could be provided without a landscape interior island. Um there's we just want to make sure that they're evenly distributed throughout the parking area really to in uh preserve existing trees. Um an interior island um has to be 150 ft in area and has to be planted with one canopy tree. um an interior island serving a double row of parking spaces. So we get two two rows of parking spaces together. Um it would have to be 300 square feet in area and would have to have two canopy trees planted in that area. And then this idea that you would have to have a median island uh in between every four single parking rows. Um that has to be at least 6 ft wide. Um, if you decide to put a pedestrian walkway through that median island, then you would need to increase the width of that um, median island to 12 ft to accommodate uh, the pedestrian sidewalk. Next slide. Um, so this is something we heard a fair amount about during the recent open houses. just this idea that um making sure that um districts with higher intensities are transitioning appropriately to districts with lower intensities. So we put this matrix together. Um so the the zoning of the above abuing property goes along the top row. Uh and then the the zoning of the subject property, so the the zoning of the project that you're developing um is on the very left hand side column. And then right now we've just proposed three um transition types uh for for simplicity um A, B and C. Uh and each one offers various uh levels of uh landscaping and um height transition stepbacks. Um so if you just take um I don't know a common example um an MX6 district um so that would allow a sixstory mixeduse building um and let's just say that's next to an RD district. So you would have to follow the requirements for a type C transition. So if you if you go to the next page, Renee um and look at the transition requirements for type C. So depending on what district you are, so in this particular case, you're an MX district. Um you would have a 15 ft set back uh from the lot line, right? So the district itself might not have a setback in it if you remember looking back at module one. But because you're adjacent to an RD district, we're now suggesting that you have to have a minimum setback of 15 ft. And not only do you have to have a setback, but in this particular case, you've got to place some landscaping in that area as well. So, if you look at the B transition screen for an MX district, you have to provide a moderate um transition screen. And so, we'll look at that in a minute. But then from a height perspective, um the district allows six stories, right? So we've proposing a kind of a a step back uh system that steps back the building um the taller it is, right? So um it's not a 45° angle that you might have today in the TOD district, but it's more of a stepped uh example here. So you can go up three stories which is the height of the abuing district in this particular case. In an RD district you can do a threetory building. So we're setting that first step back at three stories. So once you get to three stories or 35 ft whichever comes soon then you would have to step your building back uh a minimum of 15 ft before you go up on the next story. So four and five uh could then go up. And because you're doing a six-story building in this particular case, you would then have to step that top story back another 15 ft. Um, all of this to try and reduce the the impact of taller buildings on the adjacent RD development for example. So if you look at the the screening, the transition screening requirement can be moderate or heavy. Um, in this particular case it's moderate. If you go to the the next slide, um you'll you'll have what we're calling these transition screens. Um and depending on whether it's light, moderate, or heavy, uh there's diff different depths associated with that landscapecape screen. And then there's different planting requirements. Um and there's two to a page in the document that you're looking at. And so we've tried to set these up so they're a choice. So if you if you're required to do a light transition screen, um you can choose from either one in this particular case. So there's one version with a wall or a fence, which means you have um it's it's narrower, so it uses less land because you're providing a wall or a fence um and there's less landscaping requirement. So you have to provide as many trees or shrubs in this particular instance. So if you look at the light transition screen, only has to be 6 ft wide. Um, and then you have to plant two canopy trees and five shrubs. But if you decided that, you know, putting in a fence, um, is something you didn't want to do, um, you have more land area, then you can provide a 10-ft wide screening area. Um, and you can provide two canopy trees, one understory trees, and, um, 10 shrubs, for example. So that's kind of the the general approach to transitions and screening uh between uh abuing districts. Next slide. And so we want to make sure that we're capturing um appropriate screening uh from the public realm or the street as well. So there's a little table here um that sets the screening requirement uh for the particular use or land use that we're trying to screen. So, there's a screening requirement if you're doing outdoor storage uh for loading or serving area service areas, drive-thru facilities, parking lots, vehicular sales or vehicular service areas, and utility areas. And so, um, basically, so, you know, if you're doing a a surface parking lot that abuts the street, we're going to make sure that that parking lot is screened, uh, from the from the public realm. So, again, in this particular instance, you get a choice, right? So, you can either do a 6ft landscape area with a with a low wall or fence um or you can do a 10-ft wide screening area and provide more landscaping within that area. And so you can go to the next slide. And so as the same with the kind of the district screening requirements, there's multiple versions. There's a moderate version and there's a heavy version. So um for kind of the heaviest outdoor uh storage activity, uh the heavy frontage screen might be the requirement for that particular use. >> Paul, can you pause for just a second? We have a question. when the transition area if like in type A the depth is 15 >> is how long how wide it has to be and then the transition screen >> is smaller >> small like in six to 10 so it can happen within the screen or is that in addition to the 15 >> yeah so the the the screen is also acting like a I mean the transition area is also acting like a bit of a setback in itself so that you can't put things within that >> so the screening the screening can occur within in the transition area. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And there might not be a onetoone match, but it the screening area will never be larger than the transition area, if that makes sense. >> It's not additive. And it's not additive. >> No, it's not additive. >> Next slide. And then lastly, um just making sure that we're we're screening all the other kind of related things that we don't necessarily want to be looking at like waste and recycling areas on sites, making sure those are effectively screened. Making sure equipment on the top of roofs is effectively screened. Equipment on walls and then um equipment, ground mounted equipment is screened from the public right away. So I think next slide. I think that's kind of a a broad overview of what you've got in front of you. Um just want to let you know that we're continuing or will work on on part two. Um so I think we have a few questions for you about signs that we didn't get to at the last meeting, but um this just gives you a sense of of what you might expect in part two. So kind of the general general planting or landscaping requirements. So um when you have to put in those trees or the shrubs, what are the basic minimum parameters for those trees when we plant them? Um fence and wall standards, how tall can they be and in yards? Kind of basic things like that. The sign piece, um I think we're going to get into that uh in a minute is is um kind of a big piece um of part two. second time. We do have another question. >> Thank you. Sorry to interrupt the flood. Preston Wood and I might have missed it as part of your um I was trying to follow along as you uh did your outline, but in terms of projects that would need to meet compliance because of the applicability as identified on 4.1.1 and I'm thinking more in the context of like an addition or a change of use or renovation any other context than new construction. Is there a process for seeking relief upon good caution or is your only option to go through the typical variance? >> Say that. Say that again. >> I'm sorry. Let me I'm going to say it one more time. Um, if if any of these development standards apply to any other project activity other than new construction, >> there a process identified by which an applicant can seek relief um by showing good cause, meaning, you know, they can't meet one of the development standards or is there only option to go through the variance process that's identified elsewhere in the the code? I I think we would like to have a process that didn't force you through the variance process. So, um that's something we should think about. >> Thank you. >> Were you allowed to ask questions about any what was reviewed now? Yeah. >> Um >> yeah, I think we're done. I mean, >> hold on. You want to keep the the real discussion of what we're comments on what we're seeing for the next meeting. If you have a process or something you need clarity on so that you can be prepared for next time, go for it. Uh, no, that's fine. >> I do. Um, is it possible for us to receive a list of guiding questions or concerns that you all may have so that when we come back, we're able to use those to discern >> information? >> Yeah, >> this is Wayne. >> Yes. >> Uh, just uh my question is related about uh the EV um parking standards. I'm just wondering if that's six um six or more and providing electrical conduit. Is that an arbitrary number or is that based on something? >> It's more arbitrary than based on anything. Yes. >> Okay. And so I would just want to investigate that and potentially push that up >> more. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Beyond six. six seems like a small amount of parking to provide EV for. Um, and then just wondering if within these development standards, uh, is is the ordinance able to regulate maintenance of vegetation over time. >> Yes. Yes. >> Maybe. >> Yeah. Okay. Um there are some limits to that as you were alluding to and so but it's I will say that other jurisdictions our neighbor Henriiko have found ways to do that. They require any plan of development that's approved when property is transferred to be reapproved by the planning commission which is their opportunity to then dive back in and make sure that everybody's replanted all of the landscaping that hasn't been maintained. So the short answer is you can get there but it's a little more complicated than just saying um now shout in the zoning because you won't have an ongoing opportunity to to ensure compliance. >> Um >> so Preston if you if you require somebody to plant landscaping as part of a transition and that landscaping dies or something there's no enforcement mechanism. Um I will say that in and I'm just speak I haven't researched the issue specifically so I need to offer that caveat but typically I have not seen jurisdictions issued notices violations for failure to have plantings um because our our process is typically a complaint based process or a building permit triggered process where you see folks get hit is when they spin a building permit for something that isn't compliant ient with what's required and that's then when the city says you got to replant your stuff before we process your building permit. Um I don't know if it could be an ongoing process. That's something you may want to confirm with legal understand parameters. >> Yeah, it' be a good one to chat with the legal folks about internally. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to get on that rabbit hole. Any other questions from members of the commission? Okay. Um Colin, we'll hand it back to you to highlight some of the time requirements. >> Do you want to speak to this caller or do you want me to? >> Yeah, go for it. >> Yeah. So, I think this this is a discussion that these are some slides we actually put in front of you last time. We just kind of were in a rush and we we got kind of cut off at the end of the last discussion. So, all the the the development standards that Colin has kind of put in front of you so far are ones that we felt like we had enough direction to go ahead and at least take a stab at drafting and get your feedback on. Um, and this is one of the ones where we kind of want to just have a bit more of an open-ended conversation quickly first before we went and drafted something. Um, so this is just again, you've seen these slides before. This is just talking about what science what science standards are, what their goals are. It's it's that, you know, it's about trying to um we want to kind of allow signs to to be constructed to promote businesses. Um but we want to make sure that they're they're designed in a way that's um respective of their context. Um and u you know isn't offensive to uh to the streetscapes that they're located on. Um Paul, you added this line here this uh you want to speak to? Um, as you you know, as you may know, your current science standards are a little bit all over the place. Um, and as much as anything, just need some organization and structure. Um, so we hope to get to a place where we can put a table together that's very similar to this. Um, this is just an example from one we prepared uh in Greenville. um where it gives you a sense of what sign type is allowed uh in what particular district. And so one kind of question I think as much as anything that we have for you guys tonight, you'll see uh in Greenville they're fairly intentional about not allowing um larger freestanding signs. Um, so like a pole sign. Um, so you know a 20 or 30 foot high sign um, like you might see in that image, right? So they're intentionally not allowed, right? So most people would consider that more a more auto centric sign type, right? And so as we're moving towards a more walkable community um a more pedestrian friendly community, there's the desire in some places to reduce the size uh and emphasis of certain sign types. So what this system does, it gives you the ability to allow certain sign types in certain districts or not allow them. So if you look at the the next table um this is the one in Charlottesville um you know where they've made um uh intentional um to keep larger poll signs right so um in their community or the corridor mixuse districts they're continuing to allow poll signs moving forward. So, um, when we get to the end of the section, there's just one question, uh, we had for you about, you know, how strict or how stringent do we want to be, um, when it comes to kind of, um, allowing continuing to allow new new autooriented signs moving forward. >> Um, and then, so I'll just go through these couple ones quickly. These were just the s the slides that we showed you last time about illustrating what different types of signs could be. This is taken from the the Durham code that we worked on. Um, so projecting signs that stick out perpendicularly from the wall, wall signs that are attached to the wall, uh, monument signs that are smaller freestanding signs, um, bracket signs like the one on the right that are that are hanging, roof signs that appear on top of buildings, >> suspended signs on the right hand side. And again, we could define these differently. This is just an example of how it was defined. Um, and then, you know, there's the possibility of those, you know, larger freestanding signs as well that, uh, you know, we see back here. Now, you've got, you know, a lot of the stuff today along some of your outlying arterial streets. We are through the zoning process, we're we're taking a lot of this zoning and putting it into the we had a discussion before about being like a lot of MX zoning in these areas. There's a little bit of CG that'll be more audio oriented, but probably, you know, it's fair to say less than there is right now in terms of audio oriented stuff. >> Um, so part of the question, >> nothing's going to make you take down your existing sign, right? This would just be new sign. So you if you have an existing pole sign like the one Renee showed, um, that can continue on. I don't know the the full specifics legally in Virginia, but in most most places, um, that sign gets to stay there for a long time until you choose to take it down. >> I guess the question is just broadly to you. I'll just I'll just read these and put it out to you. You know, what are your priorities for signs? Are there there certain types of signs that you have that you've seen around Richmond that you really don't like that you feel like we should be cracking down on moving forward? Um, and how do you feel specifically about those more autooriented signs? Should they be allowed? And if so, you know, what sort of should they be limited in height? And um because they're currently allowed in in certain districts um um you know, should they be limited uh should they be subject to sign limits? So um just put that out to you guys and get your feedback on that generally. >> I don't know if if Brian's there, but I think today B3 you're allowed to do a 35 foot high pole sign. >> Um announced. >> Do we do we want to, you know, continue to allow that moving forward for new signs? >> So, this is Elizabeth. I know that we're going to discuss this more at the next meeting. Um, right Colin, you anticipating discussion at the next meeting. >> So, the next meeting you might see a draft of the sign regulations to react to, >> right? >> So, the question from for us is like, are you going to see pol signs in there or not? Okay. So, this is the time to give feedback, but I just want to remind folks that the zoning ordinance can regulate size placement, but we can't regulate sign content, what that sign may or may not say. So, I see one attorney shaking his head. I consulted with another one before I made that comment because I know the planning commission has gotten requests to regulate signed content. We can't legally do that. So, keep that in mind. Um, >> and we are not proposing to mess with like off-site signs versus on-site signs. Like we're really focused specifically on on-site signs, meaning, you know, not advertising signs. >> Okay. Um, I see Kendra. >> Yeah, I have a question. This is Kendra. Um, are we able to regulate the illumination of the signs? Like just how bright they are within that context? I believe we can regulate illumination and how bright it is, but we just can't regulate what that illumination may or may not say. >> Yes. >> Have there been some uh things where you can't backlight or you can't have light projecting out, you know, >> flashing lights or something like that? Um lights are function. >> I think pole lights are probably okay in some parts of the city. Um, so I think like you guys should use your discretion on where you decide that makes sense. You're thinking about like I don't know places that are more visible like >> you want to see where the Exxon sign is or whatever as a >> person moving around um on a highway. >> Um so I think that might be something that you may want to consider where that is allowed. Yeah, you're going to have the general commercial district, right, which is really intended to be your kind of auto oriented district moving forward. So maybe they're appropriate there. >> I mean, it could Yeah, it could be played. Yeah. So Brian, did you have a comment? Yeah, I I I I think and some people here might know the answer to this, but it would be important for us to know what are the grandfathering regulations on existing signs for if there's a change in ownership or a change in business, change in use, because if we and I I hate all the big auto oriented signs, but if we were to tell every new business on Broad Street or Midlo theian turnpike or something like that for example that uh they can't have what everybody you know on both sides of them and across the street has puts them at competitive disadvantage and I don't know what the answer is to that but we ought to know >> I would agree with that I think you know with uh we make we try and clean up the streets and have a better system for signs slowly but surely the old one will fade away and we just wait for that to happen if that's what we have to do. But it's just >> I I tend to agree with you, but I think it's important to know the answer to that so that we can understand the effect it's going to have >> if the structure is there and it's like a a lit sign like the one that he showed on the image. Um but then you change the content of it like are you allowed to do that or would you be like that would be changing the sign so that you hear that? >> Got it. You buy an old Pizza Hut that has a big sign and you put it and you put an office in there. Yeah. You put the relax in there. >> Dave Dave's architecture on it. Like do you get to keep the sign >> Ryan's saying yes? >> You can replace it or make it smaller. You just can't >> make it bigger. >> Structurally alter. >> So you can change the >> knock it down and say oh I want to rebuild the same thing. you can replace it or make it more compliant where you just can't make it or not. >> It's a common scenario to see a whole site cleared except for the sign because they, you know, they want to keep that sign because once they take it down, they'll lose it. So um this was Elizabeth because of initial Kendra kind of putting you on the spot conversation on illumination and I know or question I should say about illumination and and I know that's come up in the planning commission. Is there consensus from the group that we would like to see some consideration for illumination standards? >> Colin, there's a yes and nodding heads. like to see some >> Yeah, >> I think there's places where illumination should be encouraged like the city center area, you know, where they want to do a hotel. >> Yeah. >> Um and then maybe and discouraged, >> right? >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> This is Wayne. I just want to point of clarification auto oriented signs. Can you define what those mean for us? those >> just the tall the tall signs that you can see, you know, when you're driving by at >> 40 miles an hour. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. These are I mean, they're clearly meant to be seen by cars. They're they're beyond the scale of a pedestrian, right? >> Yeah. You know, and a lot of places are going to like a monument sign, for lack of a better term. So, it's like a smaller ground sign, you know, 10 ft 8 ft high. So, it's kind of like a it it is for cars, but you know, it's not like a 35 foot high sign. >> Yeah. I feel like you see a lot of those in front of like office parks or like institutional uses like hospitals and things like that. Mhm. >> Any other feedback on signs of things that you'd like to see um for Colin Rene to be thinking of as they present a draft next meeting? >> I I think we'll keep the poll sign or whatever we're going to end up calling that in the commercial heavy district and maybe that shows up in industrial as well. Uh and then I think we heard um illumination requirements that might vary uh in different places uh where we want some places we might be more comfortable with lighting lit signs or illuminate illumination on signs than others places. Colin, I think there was some debate on the pole signage because I heard they be like maybe we should regulate it to be monumental and like what we want it to be. And so I don't know if >> and um maybe maybe we can we can offer this as a question too. I think as we send some questions out, I think, you know, as long as we hear back from you, it's it's not an easy thing. It's not a hard thing to add. Um, like the pulse sign for example, as we work through the signs. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess just like like anything else, is it a sort of thing that you even though it will continue to exist, will you want it to kind of gradually fade away or or do we allow new ones to be constructed in certain limited areas? This is Elizabeth. I don't think we're ever going to get rid of signs. I think particularly businesses and companies that are advertising and using them for direction. Um, despite GPS, like people still look for signage. >> Um, I don't think away from them, but I think we can >> maybe be more thoughtful about what's placed where and its size and as I said, illumination. So, um, I know that you're looking for some more specific feedback, but I suspect until we get a draft in front of us, >> this might be what you're going to get today. >> Okay, we can work with that. Thanks. >> We just have about five minutes left. Um, any other burning issues from the group, particularly on signs, Colin or Renee, anything you need to leave us with? Nope. Let's have that just to remind folks of the upcoming schedule. >> So we we'll have you know we'll have two more meetings to discuss development standards. During the next meeting, we'll also present sort of some of the high level questions we have about putting together the administrative stuff and then we'll we'll present you with that draft um for administrative provisions in uh in October and we'll be able to discuss it in November and then we'll be on to the very final review process after that. >> Okay. Any questions from the advisory council? >> Yes, I have one. Go >> ahead. On the agenda next meeting, are we going to hear from the staff about the findings or conclusions from the public comment period which is now be being extended till the end of September? >> I'm going to defer to Mary on that likely during this >> we can bring um I have been receiving a lot of emails and that we're also we're inputting we're inputting some of the emails if they're playbased comments into the map. So you might see like email from citizen from this near neighborhood and you'll also we've inputed the comments that were made at the open houses on the maps as well. So you'll see that we had an intern this summer that was able to help us with that process. So um if you're interested in bringing in those emails before we can start sharing some of that. I will say if you have time go through and look at the map and see the comments that have been submitted. There are a lot. Um, I would ask that if we received comments that aren't map specific, um, as as I made the announcement earlier that maybe people didn't get to comment during the public comment period, we can make sure advisory council sees in advance of our meeting so that we're hearing everything the public has to say. Um, have we could be meeting all day um, and but I want to make sure everyone's hearing public. We do also have the regulations out there where you can go in and put the comments in. We're just hoping people are respectful and following process and um we've had some bad actors. So if they're bad actors out there and um we are paying attention and trying to move some of the comments that might not be honest out there. No, >> I appreciate that. That's that's not helpful. Stop. So, we have a lot to discuss in the next meeting and as I said, we're talking staff about bringing in someone from our housing department so that we can make sure that we're taking the proper time to talk about affordable housing displacement and how that's going how the zoning ordinance and not fine. Um, so we may you may see some schedule adjustments, but Maryanne will keep us posted. Mary will get you documents now. All right. So, if there's no other questions, just remind uh folks that our next meeting um at the advisory council is September 10th um at 4 pm in the fifth floor conference room here in city hall. And as we've already mentioned, there is the interactive um zoning map that's online that you can comment on um at www.rva.govcode. And as Marian mentioned earlier, the comment period's been extended to September 28th and Phillips um will probably get summary of those comments in the October meeting. Um so again for the advisory folks, take some time, go through there and see what folks are commenting on. It's very enlightening and hopefully we will stick to professional and uh comments going forward um comments. But that's all I have. Guess no other issues. We'll journ. Thank you.