[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:08] We're glad to see you all. Please give the electronic notice.
[0:15] This meeting is being recorded and held in person in the 5th floor conference room of city hall.
[0:20] While staff and department planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person.
[0:23] Members of the public make shoes to participate in the meeting virtually.
[0:26] All written comments that were received by email prior to 12 PM today have been provided to the
[0:31] planning commissioners in advance of the meeting. During the public comment period,
[0:35] speakers will be asked to limit their comments to three minutes for an individual or five minutes
[0:38] of representing a group. In addition to verbally stating your name, we don't need the individuals
[0:43] attending in person or ask to utilize the sheet of the podium to accurately document your name for the public.
[0:50] There are much purposes and establishing a form, please call them open.
[0:55] Mr. Paul.
[0:56] Here.
[0:57] It's Greenville.
[0:59] Here.
[1:00] It's night.
[1:01] Mr. Penet.
[1:02] Here.
[1:02] Mr. White.
[1:05] Here.
[1:06] And Mr. McKinsey.
[1:07] We have a forum.
[1:09] Thank you.
[1:10] Thank you.
[1:11] There you go.
[1:12] We have minutes from August 18th to 2026.
[1:15] Is there a motion?
[1:26] Please call the roll.
[1:28] Mr. Paul.
[1:30] Ms. Greenfield.
[1:31] Ms. Stip.
[1:33] Ms. Knight.
[1:36] Ms.
[1:37] Ms. Brown.
[1:40] Mr. White.
[1:41] Mr. McKenzie.
[1:44] Mr. White.
[1:45] is in the minutes of your approach?
[1:49] Mr. Director, I'm going to defer your report for the end of this project.
[1:56] Are there opinions or conclusions or conclusions from the agenda?
[2:00] Me too.
[2:01] We have two over-quest for continuences.
[2:04] The first is item three, ordinance 2026-093,
[2:08] to authorize the special use of the property, known as 3317
[2:10] Rear Monument Avenue, for the purpose of up to four single family and touch
[2:14] in terms of conditions.
[2:16] And this is a request to continue to the November 2nd meeting.
[2:21] There are a motion to continue item number three to November 2nd, 2021.
[2:25] Second.
[2:26] You need to discuss.
[2:28] Hearing none, I'll call the question.
[2:29] We're voting on continuing item number three,
[2:32] 33, 17. We're a monument out there.
[2:35] And to November 2nd, 2021,
[2:36] please call the roll.
[2:38] It's your poll.
[2:39] It's green so.
[2:40] All right.
[2:41] This night.
[2:42] All right.
[2:43] Mr. Benick.
[2:44] Mr. Rao.
[2:46] Mr. White.
[2:48] And Mr. McKenzie.
[2:49] Oh.
[2:49] That motion passes.
[2:50] You guys will see that I am again in November.
[2:55] Yes.
[2:56] We have a second.
[2:57] We have a second request.
[2:58] It's item four ordinance 2026-189.
[3:01] To authorize the special use of the property.
[3:03] Notice 5706 York Road for the purpose of up to eight single family attached
[3:07] dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.
[3:09] And this is a request to continue to the September 15 meeting to be
[3:13] Anthony M bits.
[3:15] Is there a motion to continue item number four, 57.06 York road to summer 15 2018's, so.
[3:24] You didn't ask.
[3:26] Hearing you recall the question about it on a continuous item number four, if you seven oz.
[3:32] Sir, it's your road to summer 15.26. Please call the room.
[3:37] Thanks for a bold.
[3:38] Screen film Ha.
[3:39] This night.
[3:40] Mr. Peneck.
[3:41] All right.
[3:42] That's right.
[3:43] Mr. White.
[3:44] All right.
[3:45] And Mr. McKinsey.
[3:46] All right.
[3:46] That motion passes and you guys will see that again in two weeks.
[3:50] Very much.
[3:50] Thank you.
[3:52] Thank you.
[3:52] So you have one item on the consent agenda.
[3:55] Item 5, UDC-2026-13.
[3:58] This is the conceptual location character and accept review of a proposed renovation at
[4:02] Little John Park located at 1401.
[4:04] Little John Road.
[4:05] So we're fest to be referred to the September 10th Urban Design Committee meeting.
[4:12] That's the consent agenda.
[4:14] Questions from members of the commission on the consent agenda?
[4:19] We're not open to public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public.
[4:23] We should speak on the item that's on the consent agenda.
[4:27] Anyone online?
[4:29] Seeing you on online.
[4:31] I'm close to public hearing.
[4:32] Bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda.
[4:37] So, you need to discuss, you're not going to call the question we're voting on, we're
[4:42] able to send the agenda as presented, please call the world.
[4:46] Mr. Paul, is Greenville?
[4:50] I say aye.
[4:51] Mr. Bennett?
[4:52] Aye.
[4:53] Mr. Brown?
[4:54] Mr. White?
[4:55] Aye.
[4:56] Mr. McKenzie?
[4:57] Motion passes, and that I don't know.
[5:00] We refer to the September 10th FDC meeting and you will see it back.
[5:03] And we have no regular agenda.
[5:05] There is no regular agenda items.
[5:08] Mr. Director.
[5:11] Do you like to give us a report on code written?
[5:14] Sure.
[5:15] Thank you very much.
[5:17] Give me a comment.
[5:17] Director.
[5:18] Provisions update.
[5:21] Commissioner.
[5:22] And I've page 3-12.
[5:25] There are points 3.24, you know, all these in a single building located and missing the word.
[5:35] So, there's your title.
[5:39] Let's see.
[5:41] We're able to share.
[5:50] So, purpose of today is to be able to provide an update where we are with draft three to provide.
[5:59] I'll say a high level overview, no links to all the significant changes.
[6:04] I'll write an opportunity for commissioners, if you have any questions, ask questions, or clarifying things.
[6:11] I think we discussed that last meeting, talked about this maybe two parts, and that is today providing an overview of the leave at our next meeting to have another session.
[6:23] maybe consider bringing forward the resolution of intent to officially adopt an amendment with
[6:30] a zoning ordinance. But I think first thing is to get through today and if the share wants to
[6:35] have some discussion or ask questions available to do that, there's a whole more community or
[6:39] we want to take a deeper dive. We can work on that at our next meeting. So let's
[6:46] Okay, sure,
[6:50] I'm sharing this.
[6:52] All right, so don't have to go through this superfoil
[6:56] because you are very well-versed,
[6:58] but just context, great developing as a city.
[7:01] We are following Richmond 300,
[7:03] which is for guide for growth, right?
[7:05] Who would be aspired to be as a city?
[7:07] And within that, the citywide vision
[7:09] and talks in terms of how we move forward.
[7:12] So a few different maps from nodes,
[7:14] priority neighborhoods, future land use, future connections,
[7:16] on our five topic visions that we're trying to achieve.
[7:20] Very important and there in terms of implementation
[7:21] is six big moves if we want to be this city
[7:25] that we say we want to be.
[7:28] We've got to do these six big things.
[7:30] And top one is rewrite the zoning ordinance.
[7:32] So that is something we've been heavily working on
[7:36] over the past few years.
[7:38] So why code refresh our zoning ordinance
[7:42] that's on the books today?
[7:43] Can I get us there?
[7:44] Doesn't align with our master plan,
[7:45] especially when we talk about housing choice,
[7:47] and road viability, economic vitality, climate resilience.
[7:51] So we need a zoning code that lets us follow a few things,
[7:55] more homes from more people, complete neighborhoods
[7:58] in a diverse economy, beautiful communities,
[8:02] and a sustainable setting.
[8:04] And again, pulling from the master plan,
[8:07] our goal has been to see at what points
[8:10] that it's set up looking at these as competing options.
[8:13] I'll give you again to a yes amp made it in balancing all of these
[8:18] important objectives that are laid out in Richmond 3F.
[8:22] And so, craft the draft code.
[8:24] We've got Richmond 3100.
[8:26] Somehow I've got to boil that down into a zoning ordinance.
[8:32] And this planning commission has collected to have our department of
[8:37] planning and development review.
[8:38] Put this code together.
[8:41] And so we've been working on it from some time and it's really important to kind of look at right all the cases that go on to make this code.
[8:48] Most importantly, Code of Virginia saying what we can and can't do.
[8:53] You know, there's a lot of things I think we would like to do with the public and like us to do.
[8:58] But state has not allowed for that yet.
[9:01] And so the combination of again research from our consultants in terms of our panoramic analysis, the economic analysis,
[9:08] to our Zoning Advisory Committee,
[9:11] they're working groups, public comment,
[9:13] internally, working with our partners,
[9:15] and then externally,
[9:16] a whole different stakeholders,
[9:20] from very big formal public presentations
[9:22] to very small informal communications,
[9:25] and then a lot of online presence.
[9:28] So we've been doing this again
[9:29] over the last few years,
[9:31] working through these iterations
[9:32] to get us where we are today and draft through.
[9:35] So, I think it's also important to kind of recognize the context of doing all of this and also like what is happening in Richmond and I think just three things for, you know, framing this contextually, you know, one is talking about, you know, housing affordability and the supply issues we have in this city. This is from Mayor Kronenberg.
[10:00] Ministers, architect, he's a developer and he done a lot of research in terms of looking at housing across larger cities. And so this is for all cities over 100,000 people. And looking at different household incomes, right as it's a household of a certain income level like what could you afford and how much housing is out there for you. And he found right across the spectrum, there's a housing of shorting, there's a shortage of housing units for every income bracket.
[10:30] that is out there and right not just like tens of thousands but like hundreds of thousands of
[10:35] units that we are short in cities over 100,000 people. And so how this place out in terms of
[10:41] and I think we've really seen, you know, demand can increase pretty quickly, but our housing
[10:48] supply is really canalastic, right? It takes a long time to kind of get more housing to fill up and
[10:54] And if you want to satiate that demand and it's simply like right when we don't have enough homes, everybody could feed for once available.
[11:02] And so, you know, we've seen it and there's a gone through a community is like right, and there's a surprise like, wow, I never thought like a house of my neighborhood would sell 400,000 dollars, 500,000 dollars.
[11:13] But what's happened is in an era of shrinking supply, we have households who come in who can afford it.
[11:20] And maybe those who are living there couldn't afford it,
[11:23] but from the outside, people are coming in
[11:25] and outbitting and driving up prices and areas
[11:28] where that market and the supply is tight.
[11:31] And so in terms of one of them,
[11:33] I'll say, pieces of context, we have technologies,
[11:37] what is happening here in our city
[11:38] and in saying enrichment in particular,
[11:41] especially post 2020, that demand has a significantly increase.
[11:46] It's not as like pretty max and it's going to put things in data shows that we're 3.7 million units short across the country and it's because we have not caught up with 2.7 million session.
[11:58] That's across the country.
[11:59] Yeah.
[11:59] We've not reached you in that Virginia.
[12:01] Yeah.
[12:01] 3.7 million units short.
[12:03] And across all.
[12:05] Yes.
[12:07] Yeah.
[12:07] I think.
[12:09] You know, there's good data out there and again, if you show.
[12:15] just over time right in the US like how many housing units we've produced per year.
[12:21] Bottom kind of fell out in 2008 that really never has come back.
[12:25] And I think right for those of you who work in that industry, you know, like a lot of people just left that industry.
[12:31] You know, with the economics they've shifted and got other jobs and then did not go back in to the whole million industry.
[12:39] And I say not just like in terms of like direct construction, but like yes direct construction,
[12:43] but then all the other things associated with it in terms of financing and real estate,
[12:48] there's big gaps where we were prior to that time. And so I'll say we were already kind
[12:54] of a little behind starting then, but yes, that's that point that's just been even tougher.
[12:59] So thank you for that information.
[13:03] Second piece of context.
[13:06] Richmond is a much different place in 2026 that it was 1976. So this looks at going back to our
[13:16] census, 1970 is the top bar and 2020 is the bottom bar. So these are the most recent census
[13:25] prior to a zoning effort. And he looked in 1970, our population was just under turn 50,000.
[13:32] in 2020 to 126,000, we're getting a little bit closer.
[13:38] So, late assessments have us about 239, 241, in 2025,
[13:44] which you'll like, wait a minute, the bottom bar is bigger,
[13:47] but a population is smaller, well that's because the bars
[13:49] are measuring the number of households we have in the city.
[13:53] And so, in 1970, we had just over 8,000 households.
[13:58] Today, we are over 100,000 households.
[14:01] So, 20,000 more households with fewer people, why is that?
[14:06] Because smaller households had been taken up more space.
[14:09] 73% of households in Richmond are households of one or two people.
[14:15] And so, when you think about what that means from, again, offering housing
[14:20] and what types of products that we have in our city,
[14:23] how does that manage up with our household sizes?
[14:26] And so, you think about how much space
[14:30] as a household need, the zoning can't dictate that or mandate that, but looking at what
[14:38] we have across the city, right, we have a lot of single family detached homes, multiple bedrooms,
[14:43] that may only have one or two persons living in them. And so I think you look at this twofold,
[14:49] one is a combination of newer households that are moving here, but also households who have been
[14:55] a long time of people who are aging in place.
[15:00] So they've elected this day here. And so it's just I think it's important again to consider when we talk about, so we're not going to be talking about regulating housing and we talk about, right, providing enough housing to house all those households. It's important to look at this difference.
[15:16] And then a third piece we talked a lot about here is like, why do we make it so difficult?
[15:22] And I think one of the things, you know, I'll say each piece of advice from Rich Silver,
[15:29] he's a great public servant, he's been involved in both the different communities.
[15:33] If you're lucky enough to see him, I think it was what two years ago.
[15:36] I'm certain that this came to Richmond and there were the things he said,
[15:39] like when you talk about your zoning code, you should make it easy to do the things that you want
[15:45] and difficult to do the things that you don't want. And our code, I'll say, is a little bit backwards
[15:51] in terms of some of those things. And so you look at this neighborhood, the house on the left,
[15:57] required a special use permit to build. Even though it's a house, that again, kind of fits the character,
[16:03] the style, the temperament of this whole neighborhood and you're like, right zoom out,
[16:08] look at this whole neighborhood, well, just because it was the last one to arrive on the
[16:12] blog and could beat whatever our conventional requirements, it needed especially use
[16:15] a particle.
[16:16] I think right do like at our document.
[16:19] We did one of three last fiscal year trying to think count.
[16:26] So it's a long time.
[16:27] I'm going to be bent over a hundred since I've been here.
[16:30] I think we're out of the five years of not five and six years.
[16:33] Right?
[16:33] We've been close to a hundred especially use permits.
[16:38] Many of those being just for one or two family doing it, and so, you know, we're making it really difficult, we say we need housing, and we want to build housing, and even when we talk about single family detached housing, sometimes they'll make it difficult to do just like the simplest things in terms of development.
[16:57] So I think putting these things in context about how we put together a new code, it's important to think about, right?
[17:05] So supply, household size, and then like the rules to get actually where we want to go.
[17:10] So I want to go through and just talk about some changes from two to three.
[17:15] These are based around some of the big questions that we discussed.
[17:18] We discussed them directly here, some of them.
[17:21] What we heard, allowing up to three doing units and a lot.
[17:24] Maybe two rapid change for some of residential neighborhoods.
[17:27] So, we reduced the maximum of going units and residential districts to one primary dwelling in it and one accessory dwelling in it under 1200 square feet.
[17:37] If you're a to use detached, it's got to be smaller than the primary dwelling.
[17:42] So, if you look at how many dwelling units on a lot, this is what our current code allows.
[17:49] So just a quick way to interpret this,
[17:53] below means it's an existing building.
[17:55] Red means it's new construction.
[17:57] He means it's the principal.
[17:58] Hey, means it's accessory.
[18:00] And so today, we have, we've had three years ago,
[18:04] an ordinance that allows accessory dwelling units by right.
[18:08] On units that have one dwelling unit,
[18:10] you're allowed to add another accessory dwelling unit
[18:12] up to a third of the size of the principal dwelling unit.
[18:17] or there's a base of funder and square feet if you have something smaller.
[18:20] And so the proposed code increases the maximum allowable
[18:28] to 1200 square feet.
[18:30] But then it also contains some provisions in terms of, again,
[18:33] allowing for an development that's contextual to the neighborhoods
[18:36] and much that exist.
[18:38] So, 500 square feet, and I'll say adding to that
[18:41] here is it cannot be larger than the principal dwelling in it.
[18:45] And it's also the lesser of 20 feet or the primary dwelling in it.
[18:50] So if you only have one story dwelling, you're ADU will only be able to be one story.
[18:55] And then the footprint of all your accessory buildings shall not exceed the footprint of the primary building.
[18:59] So if you have garage or shed or some other things in there, those all count against the coverage and those kinetic seed,
[19:06] what your principal dwelling unit is.
[19:08] And again, thought is like, if it's accessory, it should be de minimized to what the principal or primary
[19:14] structure isn't on that one.
[19:18] How do people in a household? What we heard,
[19:21] and the threat to it, we said allowing individuals, unrelated individuals,
[19:26] related individuals, related to over-crowding. We came out that day based on some
[19:29] things in code of Virginia that allowed for group living up to eight individuals.
[19:33] And so what we changed, and again, this is separate from code of Virginia
[19:36] requirements. There's certain stipulations for, by right,
[19:40] for living for individuals with disabilities. We changed the definition of household
[19:44] to include not more than five adults.
[19:49] And so I'll say some of the guidance we got
[19:52] because we needed a number, so we're coming back with a number.
[20:00] Or sustainable. What we heard is, hey, these new developments are coming in. Payering in the whole lot, the contributing increased stormwater runoff in urban heat.
[20:10] And so what we changed is we added minimum vegetation space, which requires actual real vegetation to every new development and almost every district. I have almost there, because we don't have minimum requirement in open space and are cemetery districts.
[20:27] But I'll just say whether nature you can't really build much there anyway, in two of them can't reinforce it.
[20:36] But there's now a minimum standard for having something right, permeable, and alive, and a rezoning district.
[20:43] This is an addition to minimum tree canopy requirements that are as high as code of Virginia allows.
[20:50] I think also part of clarifying this is,
[20:53] when we talk about making development more sustainable,
[20:56] today, I noticed you use our water in an example,
[20:59] right? It says, maximum lot coverage in that district,
[21:02] show that exceed 20% of the area of a lot.
[21:05] But it's really important to remember when you look at
[21:07] lot coverage in our definitions.
[21:08] It means the portion of a lot that's covered by buildings.
[21:12] What did it does not say? It says nothing about the minimum mode
[21:16] educated space or tree canopy on a lot and there's nothing about the maximum amount of space and a lot that they'd be covered by impervious services.
[21:26] Yeah, a lot coverage.
[21:28] And I don't have personal opinion to this and really just trying to understand, I know many houses in my neighborhood, the building covered exceeds 20% of the area for a lot.
[21:38] the personal billing and the amount of additions that have been put on. So don't even have any
[21:44] backyards, it's just a tiny little front guard. How does so obviously what's done is done,
[21:51] but now we're saying going forward, we're trying to match the character of the neighborhood,
[21:55] someone could do that theme edition or where they have to go through the SGK. Sure. So I will say
[22:01] than the new districts. Some of the percentages did come up a little bit to allow for
[22:09] and I'll say when we did our testing of like looking at what coverage was
[22:15] or the RD for the detached zoning districts. I'll say about 90, at least 90% of lots would be
[22:24] conforming when it came to coverage. So we looked at like and I think this is a reason if you
[22:28] remember to draft one coverage, a lot of coverage is really high, and we got some push back on it saying,
[22:35] well, that's a lot of coverage. And then we went back and it's more analysis.
[22:40] And I
[22:40] was, I'll probably make an exact one, but one of the techniques we talked about right, we showed
[22:43] the bell curves. Yes. And so we tried to get it where we'd at least get 90% in there. So there may
[22:49] be a few cases where they might exceed and so they may need especially use permit or again,
[22:54] like we're talking about pathways that may be through the board of zoning appeals for certain
[22:58] types of exceptions, but essentially we're trying to and will capture most development as being
[23:06] conforming. The other thing is if you look at each of the districts has a call like a two page
[23:13] panel right that talks about like form and building requirements, you'll see that lot coverage
[23:18] is increased if you have a second building. And so that is the goal was to say look if you're rather
[23:26] then building one huge unit, the incentive is to build two units, and then maybe not quite
[23:33] as large.
[23:34] You get a little bonus if you have a second unit instead of just one.
[23:38] And so that analysis on coverage is also kind of based on where we're at with one unit
[23:42] today.
[23:43] Just the last thing is there are some exceptions that don't come for coverage, for like
[23:47] porches and dex and things that are covered, but like unconditioned.
[23:52] So that's why maybe some can see them a little bit larger than that.
[23:55] I'm not sure if you've listened to the information.
[23:58] So they clearly take us back to Aaron.
[23:59] It's just that.
[24:01] They're having.
[24:06] All right.
[24:07] Minimizing impacts of new development.
[24:09] We heard.
[24:10] We hear a lot, right?
[24:12] Greater assurance about what those impacts may be.
[24:16] And say probably top of the line is talking about traffic, right?
[24:19] The increased traffic that this development over.
[24:23] And so what we've changed is requiring users that generate substantial amounts of
[24:28] traffic, so things like doing stations, drive-throughs, car washers, service and repair shop,
[24:34] vehicle sales, rental businesses, things that are literally designed to
[24:39] generate auto traffic and generate people going in and out. Most of them has been removed
[24:45] as permitted uses and the non-industrial districts. We also eliminated the seat district,
[24:51] CG District, which allowed many of these uses five, right.
[24:56] And so they will most likely require a special use permit.
[25:00] This gives, you know, this body, the opportunity to make recommendations to council, to figure out the great, depending how big it is, like how do you mitigate those negative impacts.
[25:12] Also talking about minimizing impacts is, I think one of the things is important is a scale of what uses may be.
[25:22] And so you'll see in some of the use tables that in categories, there's different sizes or different parameters, depending on how big that uses.
[25:35] So for example, food and beverage, if it's only going to be 1500 square feet or less, it's permitted in a few areas.
[25:44] Again, with some stipulations of a piece of our means, it's permitted with some special conditions, then would be something 3000 square feet.
[25:52] or bigger than 3,000 square feet.
[25:54] So trying to, again, kind of calibrate
[25:56] that smaller things look, it could be found in the right places
[25:59] and in some of the residential districts,
[26:01] but larger, there would be more for the mixed use districts.
[26:05] And so looking at how we balance those,
[26:09] you will also see there's a lot more seas in this chart.
[26:13] And so an emphasis being on our ability
[26:16] to use more conditional use permits.
[26:20] And I think we will still have and we'll always have, especially use permit and especially use permit process, which is I think really good when it talks about coming up with particular conditions for form of structures, but it's really tough when it comes to use and I think one of the challenges we have, right, is that the special use permit runs with the length.
[26:43] And so you start out with a really great user and then, you know, a decade down the line,
[26:51] they sell it to like not so great user, and maybe 10 years later, and they sell it
[26:55] to like a really terrible user who is entitled with that use.
[27:00] And things don't go the way, I'll say they're intended to.
[27:03] So I think in our ability to have a conditional use permit process, where we can have
[27:09] relations that are more temporal, but I think you've seen our recommendations for
[27:14] nightclubs recently, right? They go for 18 months and so, right? Let's see how it goes
[27:19] and then when they come back, you can see how they've been operating and I'd recommend
[27:22] nations based on that. So I think the ability to be able to like have some of that
[27:28] differentiation gives, you know, this body and then counsel a lot more,
[27:39] you know, I'll just
[27:39] based sooner than that later.
[27:45] The only place is worship, and draft two,
[27:47] we took places of worship on the MNX-3.
[27:52] It's pretty much across the board, across the city.
[27:55] And that was based on some discussion about,
[27:57] all right, furthering different types of housing,
[28:00] products and development, and neighborhoods,
[28:03] and also being able to introduce
[28:05] commercial in the places that might not have had it,
[28:07] or people said, hey, I wanna be able to walk
[28:09] to something in my neighborhood,
[28:10] And we also understood, like just MX-3 as a stand-alone,
[28:14] mainly to some small or large-scale commercial uses that really didn't fit in those.
[28:20] So we changed places of worship to variety of RM districts based on where they are located.
[28:29] So in RMA, which now I was up to four units, RMA is 12 units, RMA is kind of a low rise.
[28:37] There's women on the units, but it's limited to four stories.
[28:41] Right, RMAs, like if it's deep in the neighborhood,
[28:44] or a smaller street, RMAs love a busier,
[28:47] and then RMA sees some of the more urban areas,
[28:49] or even, again, major corridors, maybe one of the MXs.
[28:52] But this was to balance, allowing for different types of housing products.
[28:56] But then, also, again, you remember that chart,
[28:59] like smaller scale commercial, maybe 1500 square feet,
[29:02] depending where they're located.
[29:05] I've read the C-transit corridors, zoning, high frequency chains at corridors, and again,
[29:14] part of Richmond 300 focused on density, development, growth in nodes and along corridors.
[29:23] And so one of the challenges is taking those that have a pretty extensive and historic built
[29:29] environment.
[29:30] So we have a lot of transit corridors that have two story buildings where we had to own
[29:35] I'm excited.
[29:36] There is some concern that they encourage demolition,
[29:39] displacing local business tenants.
[29:42] I think if you've read through some of the RKG studies,
[29:45] I think you'll see that overall throughout the city,
[29:49] there's just not a lot of demolition happening
[29:50] because it's very expensive to double a building,
[29:54] and then put something at its place
[29:55] that you'll be able to recoup your costs.
[29:58] Unless we changed.
[29:59] .
[30:00] Several of these transit corridors that have mostly two-story to MX-3, so it's like MX-5 on corners or vacant lots.
[30:11] everyone mixed use areas concern that in draft two RMA was six units and so those
[30:19] buildings and it's not a ton but that at three units will be able to go from three
[30:23] to six might be to wrap it up change and and so we reduce the maximum number of
[30:29] building units for RMA from six to four and apply that in the map I'll say just
[30:35] overall, maybe have a lot of, I'll say, 2 units, 3 units, 4 units.
[30:39] We don't have a lot of 5s to 6s.
[30:42] It's kind of like a weird spot.
[30:45] So those then that would be 5 and up would move to the R&B,
[30:49] which allows up to 12 units.
[30:54] We heard too many parcels, so in an RDC,
[30:57] where it'd be eligible for a 5-rate lot of subdivision.
[31:00] This is a tough one, in terms of its kind of the most
[31:05] dense sea-fetched areas, and so there's a lot of variation in lots with. But we felt that when
[31:13] we looked through again that, yes, you could buy rights, split a lot of the lots. Again, from a
[31:19] practical standpoint, you also have to consider where that house is, and the house is right in the
[31:23] middle, you can't split it. Nonetheless, moving from 25 to 30 feet, I think, made as a lot better in
[31:29] of conforming where our RDA and RDB standards were in terms of like how many lots you could
[31:36] split by right, which gets it down. I think each of those is somewhere around like two to
[31:42] three percent and so RDC was a lot higher than it was like eight or nine percent so to get that
[31:47] closer to those percentages.
[31:52] And then, oh, we heard a metal wrong. People always said it like that
[31:56] to us. And so what we changed is, again, this is based on some of the
[32:03] changes on the code, but changing some of the RAA and RMA lots to
[32:07] reflect existing conditions. So I'm again trying to match what's on on the
[32:10] ground there today. We added RMS to better reflect Garden style low-rise
[32:16] apartment complexes. So RMC, again, is a low-rise up to four stories and allows
[32:23] for a limited number of units, it's meant for an urban context, the RMS is meant for a
[32:29] little bit more suburban context, so there is still some push towards urban form, right about
[32:33] buildings fronting the street, but it's not as intensive as the RMC and in more urban areas.
[32:41] And then adding CMP, which is our campus district, to better reflect nuances in their institutionally
[32:47] So, big institutional users, BCU, University of Richmond, VUU, that have lots of buildings, right, organized around courtyards, or a green spaces, multiple buildings.
[33:03] Those kind of campus designation versus institutional.
[33:07] It's still used on, I'll say, single structures.
[33:10] They don't only take up a parcel or a block.
[33:12] So schools, libraries, other government facilities that are just kind of in one spot.
[33:18] Receporated those outland.
[33:21] So that is a overview of the major changes.
[33:26] And no, or the chair.
[33:28] I want to end the question of their discussion.
[33:30] I'm sure we have a multiple number.
[33:34] I think we just like to, let's go ahead, I'll start off.
[33:40] I think this third draft is the best I've seen in this process.
[33:47] And I'm hopeful that we can move towards adoption.
[33:51] I think I love the growth, the conditionally use controls.
[33:57] and some of the, I think it was politically necessary to get us back to having some single
[34:08] family zoning. But I do still have some real concerns about some of the building standards
[34:16] that just kind of put this out there and I will speak in terms of multi-family because that's the
[34:27] You know, for most buildings like that, you would need 10% of your building to be open space,
[34:37] which means you got to build it and you got to maintain it, but you don't get any rent.
[34:41] You got to have bicycle storage for one out of every three or one out of every four units.
[34:48] It's a lot.
[34:49] You got to have an expensive tree canopy and then you got to wire for 10% of your parking spaces
[34:56] with Plyring and...
[35:00] Conduant for electrical vehicles. Doing all that stuff together, coupled with the reality that the city is eager to adopt the recently authorized inclusionary zoning, I'm at a loss to understand how this isn't going to bring some multifamily residential development to a stop.
[35:24] But that's my concern, most of the rest of it, I'm happy and comfortable with, but wanted to put that out there.
[35:34] What's your wish that I agree, and I've just trying to figure out what problem we're trying to solve to do for multi family buildings, because there are already going to respond to the market and put in a many spaces, particularly whether it's a pool or a club or they're putting in something.
[35:51] So I'm not sure what the complaint is that we're trying to solve for about making this
[35:59] kind of mandated percentage that could really challenge projects for penciling out, but I think it'll be
[36:05] an absolute deal killer, smaller, in-fill projects where they will not be able to pencil out with a 10%
[36:14] um, particularly on the the amenity space. I understand tree canopy, vegetative. I heard that loud
[36:21] clear throughout the stack. That is very important. And I think the amenity space discussion
[36:29] is projects specific and, you know, just assigning a percentage to it is is going to be
[36:36] deal breaker for some projects. And you need to be something that's discussed project by project
[36:41] maybe in words of policy that it's an impermanence?
[36:46] Sure.
[36:48] I think maybe just in context of rational or raising for so many standards, I think in terms of
[37:00] you know, community space, vegetation space, I think a concern in terms of trying to address
[37:08] is the amenity space is right being able to talks about chartered code, access to like pressure,
[37:15] light, those types of moons. And so the thought is, okay, can you provide that in some of these
[37:22] denser projects? I think one of the things also in there is from draft 2 to draft 3
[37:29] We scraped a lot of, I'll say, like for the picky, detailed requirements in there.
[37:36] I think you can trap two of those.
[37:38] There's a lot of things about specificity about like seeding and coverage and things like that.
[37:43] I think this is more focused on just the percentage.
[37:47] Still in there, though, is a reduction in percentage if that is accessible to the public.
[37:52] And I think that was given from the desire to be able to introduce more, I'll say,
[37:58] some of my public spaces in areas where like we just don't have them.
[38:02] And so there's a benefit for the public, if you're opening up that or my space to them
[38:08] and there's a benefit for the developer and that is you only have to do half as much if it's
[38:12] open to the public.
[38:13] Good, real quick.
[38:14] Who maintains that?
[38:16] So we can developers obviously going to pay some sort of property management firm that's
[38:20] constantly building to the tenants' rent.
[38:24] So then it's a force sale and we can be simple products for we require each of these.
[38:28] because otherwise, that's an out of cost
[38:31] or you're basically telling people the HOA
[38:34] or a private management company
[38:36] is gonna maintain the space,
[38:37] they pay the rent and mortgage for and everyone can use it.
[38:41] Seems a little plot to me.
[38:43] Yeah, yeah.
[38:43] I mean, look, I think in terms of,
[38:46] we talk about balancing objectives.
[38:48] I mean, some of the things that we've heard through this process
[38:53] is like, okay, I'm good and with like density
[38:57] I'm good with development, but I want some equality that goes along with it.
[39:01] This is a way to, I'll say indirectly, what's the things in there?
[39:07] I think the addition of vegetation space, that it also tries to make clear in terms of, again,
[39:13] just the challenges like we have with urban soil water and heat, that vegetation coming in there.
[39:19] But I also want to make sure that it's understood that I'll say it in part of the
[39:22] like some of these things can be overlapped, it's that separate.
[39:26] And so if that amenities phase is like a lot in the Revegetated Area
[39:30] like in Double Count, and I think trying to be flexible with the vegetation
[39:36] space, you know, in terms of like, the amenities phase, right, there's
[39:40] minimums for like right dimensional things, and the vegetation
[39:42] space can be cumulative or like added up and like the next
[39:45] crannies across the course of, you know, and so I think just in terms of where we landed with
[39:54] some of those, I think some of those percentages have come down.
[40:00] Where we were at, and it tried to make them, I'll say, like, as least intrusive as possible. And I'll say, this is, yeah, where we'll start at pinch points of, like, trade-offs in terms of, like, the cost of things versus the, I'll say, amenities or equality that this vote is asking for in some of those new projects.
[40:22] So, the MX-13 is an example, proposed once to build to the property line, right, you don't want things set back, right, in the next 13th.
[40:36] So, if you've got 12 at 13th story building there, really you're only option for open spaces on the roof.
[40:48] You can get 10% on the roof if you've got a 12-story building.
[40:57] Yeah, I mean, I guess it could be on the ground because your building coverage is so limited to 90%.
[41:03] You can't cover the whole lot with the building.
[41:08] And so that's, I guess we're trying to make it over and above.
[41:11] So the math worked and so yeah, and I would say then if it,
[41:16] to get the challenge like there's a cause,
[41:18] but if it's open to the public, then it's down to five percent.
[41:21] They're still five percent.
[41:22] The workbook.
[41:24] I would just point out that my experience with the Department of Residences,
[41:32] they've got security, they don't want anybody in the city to be able to come on to where they live and do as they please.
[41:43] I don't disagree and I would say it's a fee simple project.
[41:46] I'm not going to pay my HOA videos to let just anybody come in.
[41:52] And it's the area that I'm paying to maintain.
[41:55] I know the position.
[41:57] But so he is in.
[41:59] But this, I mean, that's right.
[42:01] There's privacy issues.
[42:02] There's cost and in the back to making some of these projects work.
[42:06] You're going to end up, Brian said,
[42:07] possibly was a penalty space on the roof for people who are going to be looking
[42:10] to cut our key, which is not required,
[42:13] but it comes to finding anything that's required,
[42:15] and it may not be required in the code,
[42:19] but it's still very much required to get cases fast.
[42:22] Does there a definition of a menu space?
[42:25] Yes.
[42:26] You're good, isn't it?
[42:27] Hold on.
[42:31] So, actually, because you want to help us enter it's.
[42:37] And there.
[42:38] section.
[42:41] .
[42:42] .
[42:42] .
[42:42] .
[42:44] So I just had to scroll on a little bit.
[43:40] So then specific moment tackles.
[43:44] Two, six, nine, really.
[43:46] I'm going to come that out directly.
[43:47] These things.
[43:48] I'm going to go.
[44:14] Okay.
[44:18] Just to point out my other point again about.
[44:22] 12 story building.
[44:23] You're going to have some air conditioning.
[44:25] You know, it's up there.
[44:26] You can try to.
[44:28] Ram on as much as you want.
[44:30] But if you're covering 90% of a lot, and you can use a third of the route for your outdoor space,
[44:37] because you got air conditioning units, so the other two thirds, I just don't see how
[44:41] anybody could be able to do that.
[44:46] I'd love to see somebody show me on a piece of paper how that could work.
[44:53] Please do your leave for a minute,
[44:58] space of is more of a...
[45:00] Projects specific, because every project is going to be different based on the size, the space, the, the long, the availability, and I think I can guarantee you will lose units and drive reds on
[45:16] us.
[45:17] All guarantee there is crack bill confident and I've seen three case studies flying it projects.
[45:31] Other questions, Mr. Wood?
[45:35] So
[45:37] let's say one more thing I think just in terms of again, I think there's a
[45:41] kind of balance a lot of computer parts of this is that like I acknowledge like there is going to be right there is a cost with doing some of these things that impacts the cost of housing.
[45:52] I think the trade-off that we have looked at through the code is the trade-off is the savings that you will get.
[45:59] I hopefully us moving more things from requiring a special use to a bike ride.
[46:05] And so taking away the holding cause, the risk cause that goes in with having something
[46:11] for nine months a year or more. Again, it's exactly the one for one in the rest of the
[46:17] case, but I think that was some of the balance that we were looking at in terms of like if we're
[46:20] going to make things more by right.
[46:25] If you're one of the points you made it to the beginning and that is the goal for the zoning it's encouraged those things that you want and disparage things that you don't.
[46:38] It sounds to me like if you're making it more expensive.
[46:42] It feels.
[46:44] You're discouraging that.
[46:47] Yeah, and I'll say right this is the yes and of like we have heard I think pretty clear from the public that we want this zoning order.
[46:54] to bring more green, to bring more vegetation, to bring more amenities to projects.
[47:00] And so we're trying to figure out how to do that, but balancing the costings, you know,
[47:06] and so I think that's, is a balancing things that we're stuck with.
[47:14] Well, I appreciate the knowledge about moving things through the group because of the
[47:19] to P, but, you know, what's in these chapters is going to make the site plan, probably double.
[47:29] And so it's great.
[47:31] And it's going to look good.
[47:31] We're going to have green or actual trees.
[47:33] But it's going to come in a cost and I think it's going to be a real challenge to the site plan.
[47:38] Which, it's not followed.
[47:40] That's not a issue in P.R.
[47:42] Just put that up.
[47:45] I have a question.
[47:46] That's more in relation to the conversation about the housing shortage that we have nationwide.
[47:52] And you mentioned that, essentially, the fallout of housing in O.A. and how everyone just stopped building,
[47:58] to be know what the shortage was of households in O.A. compared to now.
[48:03] There's that data point that we can find out.
[48:06] Let me go back, because I know there's some things I want to make sure I align some of the numbers that our housing and community development has been at.
[48:14] I know it's in, say, tens of thousands of range, but I just, I want to be able to come back with you for, like, the exact numbers of what they feel will be you are missing.
[48:24] In the city of Richmond.
[48:25] In the city of Richmond.
[48:25] It was a nation water at the city.
[48:28] So the city.
[48:29] I think that's a number of specific to the city.
[48:32] So I know we've talked about it before.
[48:34] I feel in terms of one of the things that we feel the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
[48:40] What we're at in terms of like housing production, so like last, even putting, say, online,
[48:47] where between, I'll say on average about 2,500 units per year, this past fiscal year, we just finished up,
[48:55] but actually put 3,000 so at the higher end of things.
[48:59] But in terms of, again, that's just a sake kind of keeping up.
[49:02] It's not addressing like some of the deficit that's been out there, so I will, for the 15th
[49:06] sure to get some most data points to show like how far I might need to catch up.
[49:11] Do you have been also data points between single family and multi family? Yes.
[49:18] So the housing, the way that it's set up with the primary and the accessory, do you think
[49:24] that we're going to see? I know we're trying to solve for a problem, but I can see it's having an
[49:27] books of SUVPs, for subdividing a lot to try and accommodate for adding more units.
[49:36] So are we solving a problem? Are we creating more work?
[49:42] Sure.
[49:45] So I think, again, a goal is to be working on solving it.
[49:51] So let me just come back up to like one of the residential detached areas.
[49:57] So I'll just pull out of my card AFV.
[50:00] So, when you look at, you know, massing and the billings,
[50:12] sorry, coverage, is that in most of the districts, like if you're going to do an
[50:19] and it gets greater alignment of a lot of coverage.
[50:24] So that you're able, right?
[50:25] Whether you're adding on,
[50:27] just do it inside your house, right?
[50:28] It doesn't make a difference.
[50:29] But if you're adding on or building a separate detached units,
[50:34] there's an increase in all of his own districts
[50:35] or allow a lot of coverage.
[50:38] Then in terms of, like,
[50:39] if you were to be in a space where you wanted to sell that,
[50:44] instead of rent it,
[50:46] there are provisions for doing sublining where you
[50:49] could, after creation of the drawing unit, create a sub-lot. So the zoning conditions like
[50:56] all the coverage still apply to all say the master a lot, but you could create a feast and
[51:01] sub-lot to sell off as an administrative process. You would not have to go through
[51:09] especially use permit to sell, I'll say now if you wanted to create a whole new fee symbol
[51:16] lot with subject to like all these new requirements and you didn't be close to requirements.
[51:22] You'd have to go through especially used to create that. But the intent was like, hey,
[51:27] honest, lot if you're building an accessory unit, you shouldn't have to go through that process.
[51:31] So that's why the sublock provision isn't that good.
[51:36] Convertec or us is somewhat covered, Sarah. In your accounting for the square footage.
[51:42] It doesn't matter that it's now converted because I would increase the allowable square footage for the EU.
[51:49] Or are you saying it does not?
[51:54] So let's say you have an existing house in a garage.
[51:58] I'm going to use this garage right now.
[52:00] I want to convert the garage to the EU.
[52:03] There's on a convert the garage, right?
[52:04] Which then increases the footprint of the house.
[52:06] Which then increases the potential footprint of the EU.
[52:11] of an understanding in that role.
[52:13] So like that is a garage attached to detached from out attached to
[52:17] attached. So if you're attaching it, so the increase in
[52:23] a lot of coverage is for whether that ADU is attached or detached.
[52:29] So it doesn't matter so you're still allowed to increase a lot of coverage because you added
[52:33] that second unit to it.
[52:35] So so you have a house that has a
[52:37] to have a garage that is attached or you are right now.
[52:41] And then I just convert that garage into usable space.
[52:43] It's not native, okay.
[52:45] And then I add an ADU to the property.
[52:48] I'm now increased the footprint,
[52:50] which then increases the allowable ADU correct.
[52:53] So it print as well.
[52:54] Yeah, okay.
[52:58] Yeah, so part of it would be like,
[53:02] if you're in a garage right now
[53:03] if it's conditioned and conditioned space,
[53:06] counts in terms of coverage,
[53:07] But like once you do, let's assume that wasn't.
[53:10] And it does move to a fully conditioned space.
[53:13] And yes, it would be increasing the area of your principle
[53:18] to all you get it.
[53:19] So that, yes, therefore, you would be able to build a larger ADU.
[53:23] Again, still subject to the 1200 cap, the high cap,
[53:26] the space coverage cap.
[53:28] But yes, there would be some proportionality there.
[53:31] That I'll answer.
[53:33] your
[53:46] residential detached districts where you made the limit of one plus one correct.
[53:54] The detached, does that allow two principles to write?
[53:59] It does.
[54:01] I hope we understand the locking.
[54:07] So that's going to have particularly,
[54:11] Intentionally, the facts and the man, museum, district, Churchill, things of that notion.
[54:20] Maybe.
[54:22] And I'll say maybe probably not.
[54:26] I guess potential and maybe you're off this.
[54:28] Okay.
[54:29] Well, so.
[54:36] Just crash.
[54:39] So if you talk about the residential.
[54:42] No.
[54:44] That's it.
[55:20] The residential attach allows for two primary dwellings at this, but it's still also only allows for two dwelling units on a lot.
[55:32] So what I'm saying by that is if you have a building, you can have two principal units, but then that's same built.
[55:41] If you build a second building, a detached building, it has to be an excess rate dwelling in it.
[55:48] You can not build a principle. You can not have two principal buildings on that one.
[55:57] They have to be two principal units in one block.
[56:01] So you could have, right, a 4,000 square foot building split into 2,000 square foot units.
[56:07] If you do plus, you do plus, all right, you cannot have a 2,000 square foot building and then build another 2,000 square foot building.
[56:17] It still have to apply to the stipulations for the accessory dwelling.
[56:23] So it's still only two units.
[56:26] The duplex can only happen again if they're both in the same building.
[56:30] So you cannot, if you have that duplex, you can also not add and natively, so you can't get to three.
[56:34] So it's still two.
[56:37] Part of, again, the thread is that most of the areas
[56:40] that are going into RA, are the R6, R7, R8, which
[56:47] allow for two units by right.
[56:50] Again, there's the technicalities
[56:51] and the weirdness about the lot coverage,
[56:54] especially for attached units.
[56:55] But most of those do have, as a start right now,
[56:59] the ability to do a duplex, so we're
[57:00] continuing that with the RA.
[57:03] I'm guessing, but in the fan, probably 60% of the houses in the fan don't meet the
[57:12] R6 requirements.
[57:15] In the fan, so if you take a look at the core of the fan or the museum district, it's closer
[57:21] to 80%.
[57:24] So if you make that distinction between the attached and the detached,
[57:33] you're allowing more
[57:34] lectures whereas on the detached year allowing a principal and an ADU strikes me that you're,
[57:44] I don't understand why the difference. And why, that's why I think there's a potential
[57:50] for a major effect in those districts like the fan museum, Churchill, maybe, Oregon, maybe.
[57:59] Yeah. I think if you look, and again, part of the code is putting together, you know, what the current zoning is, but it's also looking like what exists on the ground.
[58:12] And if you look at the fabric, a lot of the areas that have RA, you'll see that there's been, that there are a lot of units that I'll say are like legally non-conforming doplexes.
[58:23] But prior to, like I'll say, the added of 76 code, and even before that, like you've had,
[58:32] I'll just say it's common for those buildings to go from one unit to two units or two units back to one unit.
[58:39] And so in terms of the fabric that's there, the ability for somebody to, you know,
[58:47] to two units. I think maybe just pre-establish the historic context of how those neighborhoods were, don't.
[58:58] I would suggest that many of the non-conforming uses in those areas that were built prior to World War II became non-conforming during World War II, because of the need for additional housing.
[59:14] Do you see this doing the same thing?
[59:20] I would say potentially, I think it's, you know, no secret in terms of like when I showed in terms of household sizes, like 73% are one and two people.
[59:31] And so if somebody has an opportunity that will look at a dwelling that has, you know, four bedrooms,
[59:40] in one unit and be able to convert it into something that can house two households.
[59:47] I think there may be a market section to do it.
[59:52] And again at the end of the day, like it's going to be up to every individual property owner.
[59:56] All they want is their property and so whether they do or not.
[1:00:00] But I think in terms of that's one of the things that we were looking at when we look at the size of housing stock compared to the size of households.
[1:00:11] I don't have a number for you, but there's a lot of unused bedrooms out there in terms of, like, how we efficiently use our space.
[1:00:17] And so I think the ability to look at either, and again, whether it's carving out a second unit.
[1:00:23] I'll say, accessory dwelling unit in size, which they could buy right right to up to 1200 in the inside or today, they could do up to a third to just move that. So you could have two equal units.
[1:00:37] I think, yeah, I mean, fits in in terms of like recognizing post road more or two right there is a definite demand for a lot of housing very quickly. And I think part of this is is responding to that.
[1:00:49] And the same aspect, I think what you will see is, you know, still at the end of the day, like preservation of the existing housing stuff, again,
[1:01:01] more of things that people get at the RKG analysis when it looked at demolitions.
[1:01:05] And while they now see that they did, you know, as back when you can actually have three units,
[1:01:09] like they just weren't a lot of demolitions in the sit.
[1:01:12] And so they found like it didn't make financial sense to do some of that.
[1:01:16] And so I think you'll see the creation of housing units but not through like the demolition of existing ones today.
[1:01:28] I'm moving on to ability to take church property in residential areas and have a specific example in line.
[1:01:48] There's a church there that owns six different lots, basically from Wilmington to Luburm,
[1:01:57] pretty much half of the block.
[1:02:02] And then they have another lot across the street.
[1:02:07] Where are they going to be able to technically, with where you got the Zionist established
[1:02:14] or proposed. What will they be able to do there? Sure.
[1:02:24] So, there's a matter of fact, just to be clear,
[1:02:28] I don't think that church is going anywhere. They're going gangbusters, but they bought it from
[1:02:47] and I like the self-side of, is it?
[1:02:50] And what's the value?
[1:02:52] These parcels right here?
[1:02:54] Yep.
[1:02:55] And I can give up.
[1:02:58] Commissioner Ford's question is specifically to what
[1:03:01] there's a lot of the city that stretches.
[1:03:03] They're going to have a whole different by right
[1:03:05] to enabling the authority state.
[1:03:09] Sounds.
[1:03:10] All right.
[1:03:12] This does not address that legislation.
[1:03:16] and there may be forthcoming legislation
[1:03:20] that city or a code of Virginia,
[1:03:22] that city has an option to produce a local ordinance
[1:03:25] that would be the attempt of it.
[1:03:27] I'll just say we've discussed it internally,
[1:03:29] but there's not in this.
[1:03:32] So I'm just making sure for the public listening
[1:03:33] that, you know, we'll be opened up for more opportunity.
[1:03:38] Without a doubt.
[1:03:39] Without cover brush.
[1:03:40] Without a bit.
[1:03:40] That is correct.
[1:03:42] So this right now, there are two parcels.
[1:03:45] And just so I'm absolutely clear right like all the RM districts do allow places of worship and assembly uses like to continue.
[1:03:53] So we're not zoning any of those uses out.
[1:03:56] They have two parcels.
[1:03:58] Each of those parcels is owned RMA.
[1:04:00] So on this parcel, they could have up to 4 billion units and on this parcel, they could have up to 4 billion.
[1:04:07] That's what we're going to be allowed.
[1:04:08] One of the changes also from draft to his red line.
[1:04:12] it's on the south side of Wilmington. This one, the on this one too. Yeah. The same
[1:04:17] things are M.A. Some of those are more about the altitude on the north side. Right now I have
[1:04:24] three parcels for them. One, two, three.
[1:04:30] I think quite soon. Okay. Two, I'm a north side of Wilmington.
[1:04:37] One, two, south side of Wilmington. So three parcels. As it rates now, each of those parcels
[1:04:42] What'll allow up to four draw units?
[1:04:45] They own the ones on LeBarnham, too.
[1:04:49] Don't hear?
[1:04:51] Oh, let us up on.
[1:04:52] Oh, going up, that's LeBarnham.
[1:04:53] LeBarnham, how go north?
[1:04:56] Up here?
[1:04:56] Yeah, LeBarnham.
[1:04:57] Yes, those three there.
[1:04:59] Sure.
[1:05:00] Is our D.V., just a still-a-tached one plus one, unit plus and eighty?
[1:05:10] I'm just trying to do anything other than basically understand.
[1:05:15] Sure. What you've goal is in putting specific rules with respect to that.
[1:05:23] Yeah. I will say, just for clarity, one of the games.
[1:05:27] multiple churches around the city that are having trouble survive.
[1:05:33] Yeah. So again, I think the thought back again in the next three was to like look, provide
[1:05:41] back up. One of the reasons we looked at places of worship was really from all
[1:05:46] safetyography and that they are some of the largest land owners in some neighborhoods and
[1:05:52] or there's sometimes, like, at strategic corners, or as your corners.
[1:05:56] So if you were to introduce any type of like housing product,
[1:06:01] I'll say that's denser than what exists in the community,
[1:06:04] or you weren't introduced any type of commercial,
[1:06:07] like these would probably be more appropriate places to do.
[1:06:11] So, again, that next story probably went too far.
[1:06:14] And so with the RMB, it allows for units for a lot of change
[1:06:21] from 2 to 3 is in the RMs and draft 2.
[1:06:26] It's said number of units per building.
[1:06:30] In draft 3, it's number of units per building and number of units per locked.
[1:06:35] And that is to be much more clear about like,
[1:06:38] ultimately, like how many units could you see here.
[1:06:41] So for, you know, the one that's on Brook itself,
[1:06:44] like the sanctuary building,
[1:06:47] I can house four units.
[1:06:49] You can build a four plex outside.
[1:06:50] It could build four row homes, again,
[1:06:52] like meeting some of the other requirements,
[1:06:54] like there's two duplexes, but a max of four
[1:06:57] dwelling units on that plot.
[1:07:00] If it's a larger lot, and say you wanted to do more
[1:07:03] than that, well, then you have to go through a subdivision process.
[1:07:07] Some subdivision process, again,
[1:07:08] in most cases, under 50, right, is administrative,
[1:07:12] but then I'll say like the check and balance on that is,
[1:07:16] that's a review by city agencies to make sure there's
[1:07:19] That's an infrastructure about like creating new lots and being able to to serve us all of those.
[1:07:24] So I think this was a way to try and balance the ability to write, do more survive or, again,
[1:07:33] I was in products that didn't others exist in a way that, again, stayed with some context and the neighborhoods.
[1:07:39] And that's why we're going back to the RMs, which I think you can see right in some of the neighborhoods like how they
[1:07:46] show up generally right places of worship and up being of Zara's.
[1:07:55] Thank you.
[1:07:57] One of the major factor of our penance of Richmond 300 was preservation of existing
[1:08:05] paper. Both residential and commercial.
[1:08:10] You feel the buffers that are currently proposed along broad, main,
[1:08:16] carry in a poultry or sufficient to protect the existing building, the existing businesses
[1:08:24] in the existing residential.
[1:08:28] You define what you mean by buffers?
[1:08:32] Well, setbacks.
[1:08:34] Sure.
[1:08:37] Yes.
[1:08:38] If you look at
[1:08:46] what the section year
[1:08:58] in section,
[1:09:01] section 4.4 if you look at
[1:09:07] this.
[1:09:20] So this talks about transitions and screening and
[1:09:25] in short the chart shows how much transition and how much screening you need between
[1:09:33] two different zoning districts and premise is like the greater part they are the more
[1:09:42] there are like the more transitions stuff unique, the more space, the more trees, or in some cases,
[1:09:49] the more setback, setback you need on buildings. And so in cases where you have, I'll say,
[1:09:56] right, Mx5 and out.
[1:10:00] Right? Because most residential districts, right, still have a three story, high limit. Again, contextual standards, but like, there's nothing else there are three stories. So I'm x3.
[1:10:13] Mixed match with those, it's just an A standard, which I'll show is just generally just like some spacing or screening.
[1:10:18] A B standard is like really like deep separation, and then the C standard is both, but also has some context on the building.
[1:10:26] If you look at, right, so A is just, hey, like a little separation, but your buildings are going to kind of be generally the same height.
[1:10:33] B is like a little more space and a little thicker screen in there, and then C is where you get into actually stepping back buildings.
[1:10:42] And so this is very requires, and again,
[1:10:45] difference is whether or not there's an alley or not,
[1:10:47] so you'll come for alley width, but it's set back.
[1:10:52] And then as the building goes up, once you get,
[1:10:55] you have to have that first set back
[1:10:58] and in terms of what can, I'll say, be right at the line
[1:11:01] is only three stories.
[1:11:03] And there has to be 15 feet before you can go up to five stories.
[1:11:07] And another 15 feet before you can get the rest,
[1:11:10] which is 7.30 or 7.30, and so this, I think, helps to have some of that spacing.
[1:11:18] It's very similar to what's in the TOD1 right now.
[1:11:22] It tries to make the math easier than it's set of it in quite plain, but just having some
[1:11:27] straight numbers, which have been difficult right when the lot is not exactly straight.
[1:11:32] But this conversation is a one on broad and grace, as far as what the separation was between
[1:11:44] broads, POD and the residential on grade.
[1:11:49] Do you feel like this is better?
[1:11:52] Or just easier to do the math?
[1:11:55] It's both.
[1:11:57] So I think it's better.
[1:11:58] And as easier to know the math, I think the other thing, if you look particularly at broad street itself and the angle, we did do some preliminary shadow modeling,
[1:12:13] I think there was concerns about shadows, and actually the majority of shadows get cast because of the orientation of the street and the way to say like can't change the sun's orbit, please not yet.
[1:12:27] Most of the shadows get cast to the west, not to the south, and I would say the extreme
[1:12:33] test, right?
[1:12:34] When the sun is on the furthest north at the Solstice and June very early on, like tested
[1:12:42] that, the shadows are going west, maybe a little bit into the alley, but they're not casting
[1:12:47] degrees.
[1:12:48] two
[1:12:52] more questions. As you know, I'm not represented from the borders on appeals. I was trying to find
[1:13:04] are all of the current special exceptions that exist today, including in that section of
[1:13:14] Yes. So all the ones are in there today. We have discussed in this very going through
[1:13:25] to go to 6 to 0.8. As we start talking about some of that
[1:13:45] raises and exceptions.
[1:13:50] And so
[1:13:50] talking about things in terms of both the perspective of the zoning atmosphere, but also the
[1:13:59] board of zoning appeals, all of the ones that we're in that we do currently have all over.
[1:14:06] Talked about potentially going, there might be, I think there might be,
[1:14:13] do you know might be messing in from the,
[1:14:21] so it goes to charter as
[1:14:29] as some variance rules and also some specific rules for city owned properties.
[1:14:37] I just couldn't find where that was.
[1:14:40] But you're comfortable that all of that's included.
[1:14:43] Yes, and I will say part of our review at the city of Ternayas,
[1:14:48] for diving into some of the sections about parents' exceptions to make sure we go to the
[1:14:54] and also those charter provisions so that all those things that we can do will be there.
[1:15:00] I just want to make sure they're there because, as you know, I feel like that, that forward.
[1:15:08] Going pretty tight shift and I don't want to lose what they're able to do there.
[1:15:15] I think you made mentioned earlier in one of your comments that you might be looking for the BGA to be able to help make this easier.
[1:15:24] Right. And so that's one of the things in terms of where you've discussed some sections where, again,
[1:15:33] regular city attorneys office to determine what those the eligible to be either what,
[1:15:38] some type of variance or exception. To see if there's paths forward to that right.
[1:15:46] And you think you've got to have to go through a special use permit case to do some things.
[1:15:50] And so, yes, that is something that I'll say between this and the final version for introduction.
[1:15:58] Well, I'm going to make sure that this is code of Virginia compliance and as all the things that we need.
[1:16:03] But that is one of the administrative perspective.
[1:16:05] I want to make sure that, again, as we talk about some of these challenges,
[1:16:08] like ours are ways to get exceptions without having to go through that, that BDA process.
[1:16:15] In form-based regulations apply to the old and historic districts?
[1:16:23] Yes, and so in terms of, like, right, the things that talk about, like, forms of the building.
[1:16:29] Yes, to...
[1:16:30] I just couldn't find the distinction on that.
[1:16:34] Yeah, I mean, yes, to the extent that's common.
[1:16:39] I'll say, they don't get in the way of car rules.
[1:16:44] I think we're trying to make that more explicit.
[1:16:47] And again, in the verbiage that the language for,
[1:16:55] say, won't historic districts,
[1:16:57] and actually has like the teeth, and then is to have to make sure
[1:17:02] that that board can, you know,
[1:17:09] and historic district. So I'll say in terms of like being able to, if there's a conflict between
[1:17:18] like the base form regulations and car that car would be able to prove it. As far as I'm
[1:17:24] going as like I think the way we've looked at it, like a lot of the form regulations are
[1:17:29] just like basic urban form regulations that are not going to be really out of sync with like things
[1:17:35] that like cars looking for in historic homes,
[1:17:38] like they're, I'll say for the most part,
[1:17:39] historic urban principles over time,
[1:17:41] but just like doors windows it's facing,
[1:17:45] that I don't think in a way, again, like,
[1:17:48] maybe I don't think we have,
[1:17:50] but just say we'd have some less districts,
[1:17:53] that like has no windows anything.
[1:17:56] Maybe it's helpful in there,
[1:17:57] but like right for the most part,
[1:18:00] are districts, you know, are in line
[1:18:02] with just those basic form requirements.
[1:18:05] One last thing, you made mention of the conditional use permits, you perceive them as providing more flexibility and encouraging more
[1:18:22] So rather than they ask you this special instrument.
[1:18:28] I'm going to say yes.
[1:18:30] I think in terms of the ability to condition that oral limits
[1:18:36] is a huge advantage or a special use permit.
[1:18:41] And I think it's in some cases,
[1:18:43] but some of the difficult special use permits
[1:18:45] be wrestled with here.
[1:18:47] If there were a conditional use permit option,
[1:18:49] maybe it would have moved forward, but there wasn't.
[1:18:52] and so we can't make one up and then so I think that it will be something that provides
[1:18:59] you know just better flexibility and better appliance and better I'll say recourse if things
[1:19:06] don't go well in terms of courting of one. Yes there's recourse with especially use
[1:19:11] permit. I'll say like the process has a left versus you know initially use permit that has
[1:19:22] that early, but like at the end of the day, like council would be under no obligation to do
[1:19:28] a no one.
[1:19:32] The question? Yeah, the hot pandemic. Then you just touch on on that a little bit more,
[1:19:40] what do you envision swapping out the conditionals with SUVs? Like what is an example of a case
[1:19:48] And by the way, should you now let's move to the condition?
[1:19:56] I think SUP is our good.
[1:20:00] We're like getting over form requirements and getting over things that like really aren't going to change much, right?
[1:20:07] So when you talk about like the placement of the envelope of a building, like generally right, you all book a new building is going to last 50, 75, 100 years.
[1:20:17] There it is, right? When we talk about uses of like saying, okay, this is a restaurant use or like, I mean, I can bring up the case in terms of.
[1:20:29] You know, blabbering or help, right, where we talked about, like, what is this, and it's
[1:20:34] event space, and so like, how do you define some of those things? And again,
[1:20:38] try to think about it long term that if you allow for this use to be codified through a
[1:20:45] NSUP, like it's going to remain in perpetuity. And so regardless of operator, right, they're going
[1:20:50] to pass on those rights to somebody in the future. I think what you can do, or
[1:20:56] With a conditional use permit is like, again, the biggest thing I think is in terms of like the temporal piece of it, but then additional conditions that either one you can have some pre-baked in the ordinance, which some of these do for example for small retail commercial in residential areas right there already starts out saying your condition is you know, it's limiting your hours between.
[1:21:20] And so there's some expectation of like I kind of know what I'm getting into within the ability.
[1:21:26] Again, based on, I'll say, a warrant, add more conditions to make sure like that thing does what it's supposed to do.
[1:21:33] And so I just think the condition I use and you see it right now.
[1:21:38] I'll say for a handful of uses right that are current code.
[1:21:42] It tells us like our, my clubs, some adult uses, right?
[1:21:47] Like it's a, it's a tighter, I'll say, you know,
[1:21:53] all that creating case, something else happens to it.
[1:21:55] And so it's like, as we discussed, why couldn't we use that process,
[1:22:01] or that tool to do more uses where like the black and more notes are potential
[1:22:05] to like have something that great.
[1:22:08] haven't. Thank you. Looking back at a few previous drafts, I noticed some corridors have been
[1:22:15] absolved, you know, the next three to the next four in such. Was that based entirely off of
[1:22:21] public feedback or staff decision based off of some, have a metric? Yeah. So I will say, if we look at
[1:22:31] I'm going to put up
[1:22:37] the biggest thing I think was really looking at,
[1:22:53] maybe I'm going to pull it up, but really starting with like Richmond 300, that look at, okay, these corridors, these corridors generally had one of the more intense just categories.
[1:23:05] So they had either a community mixed use or a corridor mixed use.
[1:23:12] And so again, right then we're saying,
[1:23:15] very quickly if I get these wrong,
[1:23:16] but community mixed use,
[1:23:17] so I think it was like up to six stories and corridor mixed use
[1:23:21] was up to ten stories,
[1:23:24] saying like look,
[1:23:24] the future land use,
[1:23:25] like we're good with kind of like this intensity
[1:23:28] and density of development along these corridors.
[1:23:32] Now the zoning that gets us there
[1:23:34] doesn't have to go to the VAX and every situation.
[1:23:38] And areas where maybe there is more vacancy
[1:23:41] or more parking lots or more things that are,
[1:23:45] say, more of a blank slate, and I'll say,
[1:23:49] also have the infrastructure that's ready,
[1:23:50] then maybe you do so, something like more appropriately,
[1:23:54] like MX-7 or MX-13, or an areas,
[1:23:59] and I think this is what some of the conversation
[1:24:00] around like corridors like Maine or Kerry or parts of Jefferson, and it's like, yes, there's
[1:24:06] high transit activity there, but existing stock is like two stories. And so we're going to
[1:24:13] start with an MX3. I kind of like, again, I think it lies as what is there. Maybe if you have
[1:24:20] X5 on big and parcels to kind of fill in there, but that's not necessarily at a place where we want
[1:24:28] It's kind of say, hey, we're ready for that level of development.
[1:24:32] Now with that, that's where I'll say the SUP process still comes in, and on these corridors,
[1:24:36] like, sure, as plants, as you can put a six-story building there, or a 10-story building there,
[1:24:40] but if we're going to do it, then we're going to have a little bit more nuanced conversation
[1:24:45] about how that works.
[1:24:46] So that was the balance with, I'll say, some of those corridors is trying to figure out,
[1:24:51] Yeah, looking at the master, looking at the land use plan and the master plan is kind of the ceiling, like how far it is.
[1:25:00] The zone of zoning bring us there in terms of, like, buy right development.
[1:25:04] Thank you. May you talk a little bit earlier about the transit corridor, I don't even quite, as
[1:25:10] what you mentioned as far as protections from them being demolished. You were touching a little bit on that.
[1:25:18] Um, separate protections, or I couldn't quite agree. Yeah. So what I was saying in terms of I was referring to
[1:25:26] to some of the analyses that are sub-consultant did,
[1:25:30] when it looked at like, okay, if we zoom in this way
[1:25:35] and looking at the zoning districts
[1:25:36] and how we applied them across the city,
[1:25:39] like what's going to happen in terms of
[1:25:42] lots splitting, housing production and demolitions.
[1:25:46] And what I'll say is like the analysis found
[1:25:50] that there just wasn't a lot of demolition happening
[1:25:53] in the city. In terms of, I think a few things, one demolition is expensive. And so, you know,
[1:26:00] if you're going to demolish something, you need to be able to recoup those costs and what you
[1:26:04] build back. And so, you know, if you're spending now kind of like twice that amount,
[1:26:08] could you get twice that amount out of it, either in sales or rent in the future, in
[1:26:12] most cases like hand, and so I'll say what it showed in that analysis was like, yeah,
[1:26:20] there'll be still some demolitions in the city, but the number that they were looking at,
[1:26:25] like isn't really any higher than the demolitions that we see today, like last fiscal year,
[1:26:30] we did, I think, Haiti, some demolitions across the city, and this was pretty, I think,
[1:26:36] I don't know that's a signature.
[1:26:40] In previous draft, there was an attempt
[1:26:42] to address displacement with the preservation bonus.
[1:26:47] So what type of tools are in this draft, too?
[1:26:52] Sure.
[1:26:54] Preservation bonus is gone.
[1:26:57] And that's really because it was intended, right, as a incentive
[1:27:01] if you wanted to go from two to three,
[1:27:03] you need to keep the two in mind to get that there.
[1:27:07] So now since we're basically at one plus one for most districts,
[1:27:13] it's essentially where we're at today.
[1:27:16] And so that I'll say tool wasn't made it.
[1:27:19] I think really what helps is a few things.
[1:27:23] One is zoning appropriately.
[1:27:25] So trying to look at again, what is on the ground,
[1:27:28] especially in residential neighborhoods,
[1:27:29] it being able to legalize what's there.
[1:27:32] But when you add in something like contextual height, I think if you look at areas that might have, right, smaller homes that are only, you know, rancher one and a half stories that if contextual height now says, okay, if I come into this neighborhood and I say, why don't you hear this house down like all I could build is like two stories or two and a half stories like I can't get much more than what's there. So I think there's a balance in terms of allowing for development.
[1:28:00] But again, like there's not incentive to like, oh, I can go in and build like, you know, a big house or like multiple units, right, I can only kind of get what's there.
[1:28:10] And again, going back to like mapping correctly, I think that is one of the things we like at some of the corridors and one of them is Chamberlain is that in a lot of other transit corridors, I get provided some up zoning the north part of Chamberlain north, like broken part boulevard is basically zone the kind of capture once there and allow what's there.
[1:28:29] As we talk about bus traffic transit coming up in this area, there's some different entities that are looking at, you know, from a housing perspective, like how do we make sure we have a lot of naturally occurring affordable housing there like we don't set the table to push a lot of developments and potentially displacement.
[1:28:48] And I'll just say like the last thing is, thinking about those kind of talk about,
[1:28:55] I'll say like, physical displacement, like somebody actually coming in and like tear it down something and pushing you out.
[1:29:00] I think the other thing in terms of like economic displacement or something that's indirect is, right?
[1:29:06] I get to a space because like the prices in my neighborhood keep going up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and it's really tough to like live here now.
[1:29:15] There's a whole set of tools I think like city council spend discussing in terms of like what it can use but I think from a zoning perspective is in what ways from a supply side can we bring the ability to do housing units in some of those areas to soak up some of that demand that's coming there so if you look along like the corridors like can we build a lot more housing here in these areas.
[1:29:36] or in other parts of the city or nearby that like soak up that demand for that neighborhood
[1:29:41] and new housing units instead of pushing in on to some of the existing ones and so I'll say
[1:29:46] you think synthetic can like it's working to bring supply to help balance of
[1:29:51] as long as economic challenges.
[1:30:00] Do you want to? I don't have a question. Well, first I have one question and one, I don't know, praise. I really appreciate the contextual peace that's in us and the world that hopefully that will play in preventing certain demolitions.
[1:30:23] My question isn't so much about the code
[1:30:29] about what's in the document right now,
[1:30:31] but what are the next steps after this?
[1:30:36] Sure.
[1:30:38] So what we need to do is,
[1:30:41] I think in terms of where this third draft is,
[1:30:45] is having,
[1:30:49] feeling like this is probably,
[1:30:50] I'll say, from a staff perspective, I think we've really,
[1:30:55] And that's why we take a long time, right, as to really trying
[1:30:57] to get to this compromise document, the way this is a document that we would
[1:31:02] like to be able to bring forward through a formal adaption process with that.
[1:31:08] There's still maybe some tweaks to it.
[1:31:10] So like stuff we've talked about today, in terms of like the development standards
[1:31:14] or obviously like clinical errors or things, maybe on the map that we might
[1:31:18] have missed.
[1:31:20] But for that process, this body and I think what we're looking at potentially
[1:31:24] for the next meeting is a resolution of intent that planning commission needs to have a resolution
[1:31:29] to say we're going to amend the zoning ordinance.
[1:31:33] In this case, we are going to amend human replace the zoning ordinance, what's something to do?
[1:31:38] Is that our next meeting?
[1:31:40] I was likely, and so what that does is it formally authorizes a process to do so.
[1:31:47] And so that could, I mean, I mean, I could have been done and I'll say like at any time or
[1:31:51] but it just needs to be done before anything is formally considered.
[1:31:57] And once that is done, then that turns on a green light for us to prepare a final
[1:32:04] for events or introduction that council would introduce it and they would send it to this body
[1:32:12] and this body would deliberate and make a recommendation to city council and then city council
[1:32:17] with DelMora, Bray, and Vodafi?
[1:32:22] Is there time built into the rest of that process for any more public engagement?
[1:32:32] Yeah.
[1:32:33] I would say our engagement shifted a little bit in terms of, I think, our role is educating
[1:32:42] on what is in this draft, but if this is going to be somewhat of the product that moves through
[1:32:49] the process, it's working with our colleagues on council and council members to like get them
[1:32:55] in the process and really I'll say for those who do watch changes and sorry if it's going to
[1:33:03] start over your email inboxes but to like to be directing them towards planning commission and
[1:33:09] in terms of, like, we love it, we don't love it, we don't want to see these changes, and so
[1:33:17] Tulsaid, the shift is moving from, I'll say, us and PDR, towards those bodies that are
[1:33:25] ultimately going to make a recommendation and approval of it. So I think it's really important that
[1:33:30] I think, you know, both, you have to be a pencil myself and some of our staff are like,
[1:33:35] We are making the rounds, but civic associations are making the rounds, but that console
[1:33:41] district meetings to really kind of, you know, importantly, I think go through and like
[1:33:45] right talk about what is and what isn't in here, because there's a lot of this information
[1:33:49] that's going around and so to just cut through and answer questions, right?
[1:33:53] To go through, make it so mental, for like just walk through hypothetical, like if I have this
[1:33:57] going to do this.
[1:33:58] And so in terms of some of that engagement, I'll say it's shifting towards now having those responses
[1:34:04] go to this body and council.
[1:34:08] Thank you.
[1:34:12] I should have opened earlier with thank you and Marianne and
[1:34:16] Augusta for all the work that you've been doing on this note's going to go back and this song always
[1:34:19] been fun and I appreciate that you're continuing to do particularly because of how much misinformation
[1:34:26] and false information that's out there and attempt to scare people so I know that you don't have
[1:34:32] an easy task in front of you. I do have a question and if it's in this document then I've ever
[1:34:37] looked at and kept it asleep the exact. But what is the process for implementation?
[1:34:43] It's one of this has passed on console. There's obviously you're going to have SCPs and
[1:34:47] applications that have been introduced prior to passage, staff, and all departments. It's going to
[1:35:00] Board, but applications up to a certain date were under the old ordinance and then after a date, they went under the new. That's something that you've discussed.
[1:35:08] We have discussed. We have not decided. I will say there will be likely some delayed implementation to allow us to, like, internally, right calibrate and get all of our systems in place. So we know how to do that, but also in fairness, right?
[1:35:26] for the public, or property owners, like right under what's
[1:35:30] auspices they're working.
[1:35:32] So it will not be effective upon adoption.
[1:35:35] But also, like, not be a year out that it takes us into it.
[1:35:40] And so we're just like, you know, like with that, right,
[1:35:42] the time frame period is, I'm just going to say,
[1:35:45] like ballpark, it's probably in the range of, like,
[1:35:49] I'll just say 90 days.
[1:35:51] Just in terms of right enough time to, like,
[1:35:53] be able to get there, but also not so much time
[1:35:55] that it's like, why are we still operating for the old system?
[1:35:59] I appreciate that.
[1:36:00] And I think it might be helpful for applicants to know,
[1:36:03] if I have filed or if I file by this date,
[1:36:06] I'm under this work that's after this date,
[1:36:09] I'm under the new ordinance, because there needs to be someone
[1:36:12] who'll have certainty in where it's what you're going to be weighed against.
[1:36:14] So if there's just a 90-day delay,
[1:36:16] it's like an annual one of my filed three months ago.
[1:36:21] It seems to have worked in other localities
[1:36:23] have adopted ordinances, although I've not been an applicant, but I can seem to work
[1:36:29] working group discussions.
[1:36:34] Yes. That's it. The other just wanted to follow up. You
[1:36:38] outbound outline the process. But ideally, the best case scenario, when would this come back
[1:36:46] or the final after the council introduces it? They're sending council introduced it. I'm
[1:36:52] been done, more working than you would probably see it sometime this calendar year.
[1:37:02] Lots of a long meeting in front of pizza.
[1:37:09] Yep.
[1:37:11] Yeah.
[1:37:12] And I think that part of it in terms of like the discussion.
[1:37:15] Can I talk about process and then you and all those things all in that?
[1:37:23] Anything else?
[1:37:25] Council action up to.
[1:37:28] So don't have a council action update. They meet on the 14th right before our 15th meeting. So far on September 15th, we've had York road continued this evening.
[1:37:39] There's also a problem on an overbrook road. This is where the hospital is that is slated for the 15th. It was continued then.
[1:37:46] And then I'm hearing now potentially we'll see a resolution intended for code refresh.
[1:37:51] and then council will meet the day before that, and so you guys will have lots of information
[1:37:56] at the next meeting, and then just as a reminder, because it is in the roles of procedure,
[1:38:02] please either email me or give me a call back. I'm not doing it to be annoying. I'm required
[1:38:06] to call you in the day of the meeting, so please just try to, so email or give me a call back
[1:38:12] to you confirm attendants if you're.
[1:38:15] Those are my updates.
[1:38:19] I will be sure to leave a voice now.
[1:38:23] Do you think further than anyone wants to bring up?
[1:38:28] I think I'll be very much.