Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Tue, July 28, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Planning Commission — July 28, 2026
This was a work session on the 2026 Development Code Cleanup, following up on a June work session and a July 9 subcommittee meeting. No public comment was taken; the session was entirely internal discussion among commissioners and staff. No binding votes were held.
Active Depth Standards
Active depth rules require that building facades along certain streets contain "active" uses (retail, office, residential, etc.) to a specified depth, prohibiting things like parking, bathrooms, closets, hallways, and storage within that zone. Currently, in the city's node (NX) and downtown (DX) zoning districts, active depth requirements apply to the entire height of a building's primary street facade at a depth of 30 feet — a standard commissioners agreed is too restrictive and in some cases makes compliant buildings nearly impossible to build.
Commissioners used the Apex office building on the Downtown Mall as a concrete example: its offices are only 8–10 feet deep with a corridor behind them, meaning it would not comply with current active depth rules. They also discussed the Water Street parking garage, the proposed Main Street development with structured parking, and the Violet Crown theater site, where a taller mixed-use building was previously unworkable partly because of active depth constraints.
After extended discussion, the commission reached the following consensus direction for staff:
Limit active depth to the first two floors on primary street facades, rather than the full building height. The current rule — requiring active uses on every floor within the build-to zone — was described as "draconian" with no clear public benefit above the second floor.
Exempt anything within a residential unit from active depth requirements. Commissioners reasoned that requiring specific room arrangements inside apartments (e.g., no bathroom near the street) is unenforceable, awkward, and of unclear benefit, as transparency requirements already ensure windows face the street. Parking within residential units was noted as effectively prevented by other code provisions.
Remove "halls" from the list of non-active spaces, so that corridors and circulation areas can count toward satisfying active depth. This would allow buildings like the Apex — with office suites ringing a central corridor — to comply without a variance.
Leave depth dimensions unchanged for now (30 feet in NX/DX zones, 15 feet in others). Commissioners acknowledged the 30-foot requirement may still be large, and one commissioner noted Richmond uses 15 feet on primary streets, but agreed that researching and justifying a dimensional change would be a heavier staff lift and could be addressed in a future cycle.
Staff clarified that a developer needing a dimensional exception already has a path to request one from City Council.
Built-To and Setbacks (Non-Conforming Structures)
This discussion focused on a practical problem: much of Charlottesville's existing housing stock sits on lots in RX, CX, and DX zones where buildings are already non-conforming relative to current build-to and setback requirements. Under the current code, property owners with a house set back from the street who want to add a second dwelling unit or a separate primary building are effectively forced to place it in the front yard — up at the street — rather than behind or beside the existing house. Several commissioners noted informal reports of homeowners in neighborhoods like Fontaine, JPA, Wertland, and Venable giving up on adding units because of this constraint.
The commission worked through several options and reached the following consensus direction:
Allow new separate primary buildings to be built behind or to the side of an existing non-conforming building, as long as no part of the new structure extends forward of the existing building's front facade line. This would, for example, permit a homeowner to add a standalone rental unit in their backyard without triggering a requirement to first build up to the street.
If a new primary structure is placed in the front yard (forward of the existing building's facade), it must still meet build-to zone requirements — preserving the code's intent to bring new development to the street when development does occur at the front.
Side additions of any size would be allowed, subject to other applicable regulations, as long as they comply with remaining code rules (maximum building width, lot coverage, etc.). Currently, side additions are capped at 20% of the existing building's footprint.
Front additions generated more debate. Some commissioners were concerned that large front additions could compromise historic character, obscure the original structure, and reduce the incentive to ever build a proper street-facing building. Others saw no harm. The commission ultimately set this aside as lower priority, with no consensus direction.
Staff noted some concern that removing the requirement to fill the front yard first represents a significant policy shift from the code's core intent, and suggested that allowing a limited number of units behind an existing structure before requiring street-facing development might be a middle path worth exploring. However, the majority view was that if someone is keeping an existing structure and adding to the side or rear, the public interest in forcing street-facing development is outweighed by the benefit of enabling more housing.
Upcoming Business
Staff noted the next regular meeting (August 11) will likely include a comp plan amendment from the long-range planner related to utilities, and possibly a special exception request regarding rooftop electrical equipment screening. The next work session on the code cleanup will likely not occur until October, when the focus will shift to food trucks and food truck courts. Commissioner Ross Bockelie raised that the commission should schedule a work session on the recently updated mobility plan (presented to City Council the prior week) and on neighborhood commercial uses — staff indicated those would depend on long-range planning staffing capacity.
Key Takeaways
Active depth will be proposed to apply only to the first two floors of primary street facades, not the entire building height — a significant loosening that could make buildings like the Apex office block compliant by right.
Residential units will be exempted from active depth requirements, and hallways/circulation will be allowed within the active depth zone, giving developers more flexibility in how they design building interiors.
Property owners with non-conforming structures will be able to add separate primary buildings behind or to the side of their existing home without first building up to the street — a change aimed at enabling backyard and side-yard housing in established neighborhoods like Fontaine, Wertland, and JPA.
The 30-foot active depth dimension in downtown and node zones was not changed in this cycle; commissioners acknowledged it may warrant future attention but deferred it as too complex for the current cleanup.
No votes were taken; these are staff directions for draft code language to be developed ahead of a formal public process, with a Planning Commission vote not expected until December.
AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.
What happened at this meeting
Development Code Cleanup Discussion
# Development Code Cleanup Discussion Summary
Staff presented a follow-up work session on the 2026 Development Code Cleanup, focusing on active depth requirements, setbacks, and provisions for non-conforming structures. Key discussion centered on active depth standards on primary streets, with commissioners raising concerns that current requirements (extending 30 feet deep and prohibiting hallways, bathrooms, and parking) are impractical for many buildings like the Apex building, where office spaces are only 8-10 feet deep. The Commission reached consensus to limit active depth to the first and second floors only on primary facades, reduce the depth dimension from 30 feet to 15 feet (aligning with peer jurisdictions like Richmond), exempt contents within residential units and circulation spaces like hallways, and maintain the prohibition on parking in active depth zones. Regarding non-conforming structures and setbacks, commissioners agreed to allow new primary buildings in the interior/rear of lots behind existing structures and permit side additions of any size, while requiring any front additions to extend to the full build-to zone line to preserve street presence and prevent encapsulation of existing buildings. Staff and commissioners acknowledged that these modifications aim to address the tension between existing non-conforming structures and development standards while allowing incremental infill housing on already-developed lots.
Staff presented a follow-up work session on the 2026 Development Code Cleanup, focusing on active depth requirements, setbacks, and provisions for non-conforming structures. Key discussion centered on active depth standards on primary streets, with commissioners raising concerns that current requirements (extending 30 feet deep and prohibiting hallways, bathrooms, and parking) are impractical for many buildings like the Apex building, where office spaces are only 8-10 feet deep. The Commission reached consensus to limit active depth to the first and second floors only on primary facades, reduce the depth dimension from 30 feet to 15 feet (aligning with peer jurisdictions like Richmond), exempt contents within residential units and circulation spaces like hallways, and maintain the prohibition on parking in active depth zones. Regarding non-conforming structures and setbacks, commissioners agreed to allow new primary buildings in the interior/rear of lots behind existing structures and permit side additions of any size, while requiring any front additions to extend to the full build-to zone line to preserve street presence and prevent encapsulation of existing buildings. Staff and commissioners acknowledged that these modifications aim to address the tension between existing non-conforming structures and development standards while allowing incremental infill housing on already-developed lots.
Agenda items (1)
Procedural (1)
1ProceduralDevelopment Code Cleanup Discussion
The city will discuss updates to its development code—the rules that guide how buildings and projects can be built in Charlottesville—to fix outdated language, clarify confusing rules, or remove contradictions. This is a discussion item to gather input before any formal changes are made.
What happened
# Development Code Cleanup Discussion SummaryStaff presented a follow-up work session on the 2026 Development Code Cleanup, focusing on active depth requirements, setbacks, and provisions for non-conforming structures. Key discussion centered on active depth standards on primary streets, with commissioners raising concerns that current requirements (extending 30 feet deep and prohibiting hallways, bathrooms, and parking) are impractical for many buildings like the Apex building, where office spaces are only 8-10 feet deep. The Commission reached consensus to limit active depth to the first and second floors only on primary facades, reduce the depth dimension from 30 feet to 15 feet (aligning with peer jurisdictions like Richmond), exempt contents within residential units and circulation spaces like hallways, and maintain the prohibition on parking in active depth zones. Regarding non-conforming structures and setbacks, commissioners agreed to allow new primary buildings in the interior/rear of lots behind existing structures and permit side additions of any size, while requiring any front additions to extend to the full build-to zone line to preserve street presence and prevent encapsulation of existing buildings. Staff and commissioners acknowledged that these modifications aim to address the tension between existing non-conforming structures and development standards while allowing incremental infill housing on already-developed lots.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Adjourn the meeting
aye 1
voice voteaye
Verbatim transcript available
346 transcript segments indexed
Are we all ready? No. All right. So yeah. We've got a work session tonight on a couple of items on the zoning code. I don't know if we have any public listening, but we will not be taking public comment tonight.
You can always email us. Matt, do you want to introduce or... Sure. So, commission, this is a follow-up. This is your working on the 2026 development code cleanup. You had a work session back in June, and then there was a subcommittee meeting on July 9th, where we talked about active depth, setbacks, and Bill 2.
In your one-page memo, there's a kind of synopsis from that meeting, but we had two commissioners at that meeting that can expand upon that conversation. And so tonight, this work session is focused on those three areas but as a larger group.
Staff has put together three areas you might want to look at when you're looking at these three. These came out of that subcommittee meeting, in this kind of terminology and wording. And Chair, with that, I will turn it over to you.
Unless you want to give a recap from that subcommittee meeting? I think the memo captures it pretty well, but if there's something, a thing to capture that you wanted to let the rest of your commissioners know about- No ...
I'm going to jump into it. I think, Mr. Chair, I think a recap from you guys would be of great value. Okay. I was going to say, I thought the memo was- It was good ... it was pretty good. It was. But that's because you were there.
We weren't. Fair point. So we've got... All right. Let me think fast on this one. So we're trying to limit our discussion tonight just to these three topics, the active depth, setbacks, and Bill 2. And that's kind of what came out of our work session, but we're trying to get back into the larger items that are going to require more thought and more staff time.
So, the goal is to find some things that we can actually get done this year. Active depth, I think we talked about this as a group before, where currently the active depth standards on primary streets extend from ground floor all the way up to the top of the building.
For some of our districts, it's really deep, it's 30 feet, and it prohibits hallways, bathrooms, closets, any of that stuff. Also parking. So, I guess one of the bigger questions for active depth would be, if we want to change it, what are our thoughts on parking on the front facade of a building, let's say on the upper levels?
What else did you have looking for? Because I read that and I didn't see where you guys left the discussion with any recommendations for us. We left with questions, because we didn't want to... I've got recommendations.
Okay. And you guys studied it more than we have, and you're probably better suited to make recommendations than I am. Mm-hmm. So, I'd love to hear the recommendations from the subcommittee. And Russ, if you want to weigh in at any point if I'm mis-speaking.
You're doing good so far. Active depth, my recommendations would be we exclude anything that's within a residential unit. So if you have an apartment unit on the second floor above or whatever, or actually, that would be a question, first floor as well.
Any bathrooms, closets, whatever, that are in an apartment, we don't count. It's within a residential unit. I think that would go a long way to fixing some of these things. I think we need to look at the depth that's required, because we've got, 30 feet is...
It doesn't make sense. An office, for example, the Apex building is, I think it's NX, so it requires a 30 foot active depth on the front facade. They've got offices that ring the outside of the building, and then there's a corridor.
So the building would not comply. The offices are probably 8 to 10 feet deep. So, yeah, we need to look at those depths. I will say that there's sort of two- Mm-hmm ... two big discussions we had at subcommittee on active depth, is, one, what do we want to include or prohibit explicitly- Yeah ...
in the definition of active depth? And two, how deep it is. Mm-hmm. And I guess the third is, how high do we want active depth to go? Because on the side streets, it's either just the first floor- I think just the first floor ...
and then, like you said, on the primary street, it could be the entire- Yeah ... top of the building. And it was like, going back to, what are we trying to encourage or prohibit- Mm-hmm ... through these active depth rules, and it's really those three pieces of what makes up active depth we want to potentially adjust to get the end result that we're intending to achieve.
And what do you think? Like I said, we didn't really come up with recommendations at the subcommittee meeting. It was more of a discussion about what are the things that could be adjusted, which I just laid out, and if staff had any concern or about trying to keep it narrowed down to more of these dimensional changes or numerical changes, while trying to keep it within the intent of what we're doing with the code and active depth Is it your objective to answer those questions today?
I think it would be really good to have some idea of what we want. Maybe we don't have a specific answer, but at least we know what we're trying to get out of active depth, or out of built-to and setbacks, or the...
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So then on the built-to and setbacks, there's this tension between what is out there today and what the code is trying to do. And in many areas of the city, the parcels that may want to be developed in the future is pretty hard to do based on the built-to and setback requirements.
So, what it really turned into was a conversation about do we want to adjust what a parcel with a non-conforming structure today is allowed to do. Because if you have a parcel that's technically too wide for maximum building width, but also meeting the built-to width, the code is trying to get you to subdivide that parcel.
But if you have a home already on it that's sort of in the middle of the parcel, you can't split the house in two to be able to achieve that goal. But if somebody's living in that home, are we wanting to prevent them from building additions or allow them to do additional units in their yard?
And if we do, do we want to force them to put it at the sidewalk or can they put it behind their house? Those are the sort of discussions we were having. And the subcommittee, it really just became a discussion about for greenfield parcels that don't have anything on it, the intent and what the code is doing today, we believe is working or will work when those things come up.
But in the many, many parts of town that has a home already built on it and it's not working, what do we allow those property owners or residents to do? One of the options I saw in the packet that I really liked is giving sort of an alternate condition for existing buildings.
Mm-hmm. So you just go, "Oh, I have an existing building. I will go to this section," and then go from there. That's very clear to me. I love that idea. So we do have currently in the code, non-conforming structures have a section.
And you are allowed to add on to the non-conforming structure. To the side, I think you can go, it's 20%. You can do a 10% addition to the front, or you can add on to the back as much as you want. For me, the concern is if you don't want to add on, but you want to put a separate building, another primary building, not an accessory structure, but a primary building, which could be a single apartment unit.
If you want to put that in the backyard, you can't. You have to put it in the front yard up at the street. So, yeah. My recommendation is to tweak the non-conforming structure section to also allow additions, or not, new primary buildings behind an existing building.
But that's part of our discussion. I don't think we need to adjust and get rid of built-to and setback at the moment. Keep it simple. That's my thoughts. Can I ask a question about it? Yeah. It helps me to think concretely about particular buildings that we might think are good or not good.
Mm-hmm. We mentioned the Apex building earlier. I don't know it was there before. It doesn't matter. But imagine that- It was a parking lot ... Okay. So greenfield, sort of. Sort of. Mm-hmm. There wasn't a structure there, right?
Mm-hmm. Do we think the Apex office building today is bad? Because if we're talking about adjustments for non-conforming structures, that wouldn't have let that building through because there wasn't a structure there in the first place.
Right. So if we think that building is good or not offensive- Mm-hmm ... we would want to have rules that would allow it to be built in the future, right? That's right. So it would seem to me as that just more allowances for existing non-conforming structures wouldn't get us far enough.
So the Apex building, its issue, if it had to follow our current code, would be the active depth, not the built-to or setback. That's still in scope for tonight, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, and would it be easier just to start with active depth and- Yeah.
Yeah. And yes, I think I listed some of the reasons that active depth is, to me, seems problematic in some of it's the depth. And I think a big question for us is should on primary streets, should active depth be just the ground floor or should it be the whole façade as is currently written in our code?
One of the things that would happen if we did not do the full façade is a building like this building could be built or like the Water Street parking garage. So where they have retail on the ground floor and then parking up above.
Are we okay with that? One of the arguments against that was eyes on the street. I think there's a preference for having residential units or some use on the second floors or above, so that when the retail on the first floor is closed, you got people looking down on the street.
But then we have buildings that there was the attempt at putting a taller building where the Violet Crown currently is. And that was not going to work unless they were allowed to have parking up above on the exterior walls of the building.
So, a big question for us is what are our thoughts on first floor all the way up? Yeah, first floor or the entire facade. Well, also it could be a middle. It could be the first two floors. Mm-hmm. The first three floors require active depth.
Mm-hmm. It doesn't have to be the first floor, the totality of it. Right. Do we think city space should not exist in its current form? Is this a bad building? Well, it's a parking garage. I mean, it- Sure, but should it not...
If this building vanished and we wanted to build it from scratch just as it is today, should we say no? I don't know. I would think about it from the other street. How does that work? It's- Market Street is just concrete panels all the way up.
So parking garage, and then on this side, we have the two floors that have human- Yeah. So how do the rules work if the building is different heights on different sides of the block? So you would have a ground story on each street.
And so that's where how it would work from a theory standpoint is you're modular, so you get the same height, but it needs to be stepped down. How that works internally probably would not work. You probably couldn't do the garage like that with this shallow of a depth.
Does active depth, does it only apply to one facade? It applies to your street facades. So on the primary facade, it's every story. Every story that's within the build to. So if you were to step back at some level, you could do whatever you want.
Whatever you want. On the secondary streets- Mm-hmm ... it would be just the first level. And I guess, I think you can have two primary streets. So if you had a- Two buildings ... a lot that was front and back.
That's what I was wondering. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'll use this chance to chime in and say I generally support not requiring active depth of the entire height of a building. I get a little squeamish around first and second floor because I'm sure the- Yes ...
result will be parking garage on the second floor over the street. Mm-hmm. And, on the one hand, maybe you would walk right by it and not even notice it. On the other hand, it would be better to have people living there or whatever office is there.
But then on the other hand, there's going to be parking and it's a trade-off, right? Mm-hmm. I don't think we can make the zoning code force what we think is the perfectly designed building without any of those externalities of cars parked right above you.
If we were to adjust the actual depth to make it not as deep- Mm-hmm ... so narrower, that would also give developers more flexibility. So let's say that we kept active depth for upper floors, but we made it 20 feet or something.
I don't know what the right dimension is. And then, would that then make it more possible to build buildings that have parking on the second floor, but then you're wrapping it in a Texas donut kind of thing- Mm-hmm ...
where you're wrapping it with something else, with residences? Yes and no. Yes, it would allow that, but I think you've also just architecturally and structurally and as far as complications are concerned, it does become a little more...
I think it just becomes more complicated. Yeah. So obviously they do that with big apartment buildings- Yeah ... where there's enough depth for a full apartment and a hallway and whatever. And I don't know if the depth of an office plus the hallway, is that worthwhile?
One of the things with construction is it's nice to have the, where you have the garage, you've got a concrete construction. Yes. And you switch up when you switch- Oh, I see. Yes. But obviously they're not doing that with the standard on West Main- Mm-hmm ...
that's wrapped with apartments. Yeah. Yes. Concrete core. So what you said could work. So I like Josh's thing of having a building in mind that we can apply this to. And so I could imagine that if we allowed this, like the new building that's being proposed on Main Street, it has structured parking obviously in the proposal, but none of it is actually exposed to Main Street, right?
Right. Correct. So in theory, if we were to make this change and say, "Only apply active depth to the first floor," they could come back and, I'm not saying they would in this case, but a similar kind of building would have parking hanging over Main Street.
The draftsman does this. Yes. Yeah. Yes. So that's an example. Yes. Now that benefited from BAR review. Yeah. So our zoning code does require garages have to have a deputy screened. Okay. Which is why the ERB thing you guys got was a little weird because that was from a previous zoning code that didn't have the requirement.
Yeah. But it doesn't say the screening has to have a certain porosity- Uh-huh ... or a certain amount of opacity, I guess. Mm-hmm. But it doesn't say what it has to look like. So we could get some, just like the garage above us that's got a bunch of concrete- Yeah ...
vertical slats that, super attractive. Right. I will interject and just say when you're thinking about if you wanted to alter numbers and you're not sure what the numbers would be, there's already a path in the code to do that.
If a developer knows a way they could do it, and they could wrap it, and they need it 10 feet instead of 30 feet, they can ask city council for that reduction. In the active depth? Yes. I guess my last thing on this for now is, I think I'm generally in favor of limiting active depth to one floor, the first floor, and then also I think allowing residential uses and commercial, including hallways, to occupy the active depth area.
So I don't know if it makes more sense to state what we exclude, what is not allowed, or to state what is allowed. I definitely wouldn't want parking in that active depth area. I think stating what we're going to exclude would be nice.
Makes more sense. Until someone invents a new thing that we don't want in the active depth. I don't know if that'll happen. Well, I think-- Sorry, I'm going to stop- Go ahead ... while you guys talk. I've got lines I want to say.
Is there other? Do we have to-- I agree that this needs to be changed. I'm wondering, do we have to come to a conclusion tonight? I think it would be good to have some direction, maybe not a full conclusion, but at least a- Yeah.
I'm just thinking of looking at the dimensions a little bit more of what that depth would be, and can a bedroom fit in that? Just to kind of test it out. If we want to look at changing the dimension, I think that-- Matt, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that would be okay to say, like, "Yes, we want a reasonable dimension, but we haven't quite figured out what that is yet." Is that fair, or would you like to get a dimension from us tonight?
No, I think that's fair. It'd be interesting to see where that number would come down. Yeah. In trying to put together the one-pagers for the justification for the analysis, going from 30 feet to 15 feet.
Okay, why? Can I add a suggestion to that? Just quickly, kind of cursory search to see some of our neighbors. It appears Richmond may have 15 feet on the primary and nine feet on the secondary for active depth.
And so part of what I was wondering is, any of the form-based zoning that's been adopted in the Commonwealth, is there a benefit to trying to get alignment so that from a development standpoint, there's a common language, so that if I've done the successful project in Richmond, I could be successful in Charlottesville, or if I did something in Arlington, the same project would apply here?
I think so. So just to be clear, though, we do have zones where it is 15 and nine. It's just we've got our index and our DX zones where it ends up being about 30 feet there. Mm-hmm. And the other thing I was going to say, too, about how many stories, maybe the side street, you only have to require one story of active depth.
And on the primary street, maybe it's two. So that would allow something like the Violet Crown parking to maybe have worked, where they could have got the parking up on the cross street, but maybe not on the downtown mall.
The example up on screen right now is the downtown where you see on the side street, it is only the two stories. Yeah. The primary is the full facade. Is it two stories inside or one? It looks like it's one.
No, I think it should just be one. Just one. Well, yeah. One story. Yeah, and again, I agree with others. I don't know what we get from having the entire facade. That just feels Draconian, and it's burden in the call.
And again, I can't think of a project I've worked on where the entire primary facade had no-- It's fully active, but... Looks like Richmond hired the same consultant. It does, dude. It's the same project.
Oh. I noticed that, too. That doesn't give me a lot of faith. Sorry. You brought that up. I saw the same thing. I was like, "Oh, that's the same." It's the same. They just copy/paste. It's the same font.
Well, that probably added into having more active depth on our more pedestrian-friendly street- Yeah ... instead of just over 15 feet, doing a deeper active depth because it is our pedestrian area. And the 30 might make sense on the ground floor.
I don't know how deep our restaurants are on the downtown mall. I should just go inside one with a ruler or my laser thing and tell them what I'm doing. Don't mind me. Like, "Excuse me." See how deep a restaurant is.
"Excuse me. If you could just double-check some numbers." It probably varies, some of them. Yeah. Well, I will say, in the 2025 cycle, we did loosen up the definition of active depth, because actually, that active depth was pretty strict and would have prevented things like CVS- Mm ...
and some of these retail things in the old definition. So we actually were able to loosen that up. I struggle with the second floor. Mm-hmm. Because I'm trying to reconcile what we're doing here as being a minimum, versus having something other than parking garage or other inactive use on the second floor.
We're trying to create a public environment that sort of at least visually extends into the buildings or the private property and vice versa. So for me, it's like, I know, Danny, you said one floor. Be curious to hear from people what they think about the second floor.
Does having the definition of active use be forward to the primary street on the second floor bring benefits to the public experience? I think so. Given the proportion that you can build. If it was a two-story building, that would seem...
But if people are going up. Most cities, they just have the larger ground floor. But I feel like bigger cities, the section of the street, if it's a wider street, you want to be up higher with your ground level to create that space in the street- Mm-hmm ...
to make it feel like a good space. So we do have our ground story height is set for non-commercial uses in almost all the districts. Yeah. Is that what you're saying? Or you're- Oh, I'm just saying, I think two stories would be great.
Okay. As a minimum. Yeah. On the primary. Especially if the active depth is down to 15, or something where you could have a bedroom or reasonable apartment size, that makes sense, too, because you would encourage potentially more offices or residential to be lower and close to the street.
So I think I'm hearing two people for at least two stories on the primary facade. Other thoughts? See, I have no objection to two stories. Okay. Versus the entire height. Yeah. Okay. So seems like we're leaning towards two stories.
What are the thoughts on just exempting anything that's within a residential unit? So what that could mean is that we could have apartments where people put the bathroom in the... They'd still have their transparency requirements.
There'd still be windows, but it could be bathrooms in, I don't know, someone have a window in their closet or something. I think the example that James was trying to avoid, and I don't think this applies in the R districts, but I think it would apply if someone built a townhouse or something in the RX districts, maybe, would be houses where they do put all the bathrooms and everything end up facing the street, so they can get the bedroom windows face a backyard.
Mm-hmm. And he was thinking that would void the eyes on the street thing. So that's the drawback. To me, I feel like we would solve a whole lot of issues by just allowing residential uses and then- Explain to me why we care.
Why do we care? I don't think we do. Yeah. So we agree. We don't care. So let the market do what the market does. The other thing is that single family, even though that's not a definition, but one unit is exempted from active depth anyways, is my understanding, right?
Yes. That was a discussion we were having in the subcommittee. Mm-hmm. So if somebody builds one unit on a lot that is up to the street, even in today's world, they can still put a bathroom- Yeah ... and a closet up against the street.
I think it's where you get, if someone's doing multiple units on a smaller lot- Yeah ... where I think it would get a little- Yeah ... I think it'd get awkward no matter what, trying to dictate what goes into a residential unit, get that percentage and all that just right.
So, seems funny to... And I'm not sure we'd ever get a number that works out well anyways, because you can do bedrooms that are 10 feet deep and, yeah, it just feels funny to me. So there's some newish housing in Belmont.
I'll get it wrong just where it is, but I was canvassing there years ago, and it's townhouses-ish, and what you see walking down them is garages. Would that kind of building be exempt? Because they're single family residences, but I don't know if they're considered...
I haven't looked into what they are, especially when we're looking at them from the street. Yeah. And then I didn't like them, but then I don't know that we have a public interest in saying, "You can't build ugly buildings." Are you talking about snap houses, where there's the garage at the first story and then people live above the garage?
I think that's what it is, yeah. I believe those are banned by our- Transitional ... vehicular access restriction banning front facade apartments. Okay, so- Well, it's the garage door that really triggers it.
I think where actually the code is written it, we don't mind if you park it in front, but we'll see the car but not the garage. You can turn the garage, and that's fine, but then there is that vehicular use issue.
And we've worked with applicants on that, trying to address that when you're turning the building, so you're still having your entry feature. You're not seeing the garage because you're pulling in like this, but then not using those first nine feet of your garage for parking.
You're using it for something. Pool table is there or here. Is there a way to do a percentage of the primary facade active, or the 80%- Currently it's- ... of the two stories? I think it currently is 80%.
Is there that... I think it's 20% is the number that you're allowed. 20% can be inactive uses. Yeah. Yeah. It is depending on district, there's percentages, and then- And we can also just say everything is fine within a residential unit except for parking.
We could exclude that if we wanted to. Or I think currently it seems that it's an apartment building you're not going to get- Yeah, in-unit parking. And I guess code is otherwise dealing with it in the smaller zones, less dense zones.
When you say exempt everything that is within a residential unit, does it have to be designed and used as a residential unit for it to be exempted, or could you have a random pantry that's not in... A closet that somebody claims is a pantry that could be in a residential unit doesn't count for active depth?
No, I think it has to be within. The residential unit is what's exempt. So stuff that's actually in a- By fact, it being a residential unit- Someone lives in it. Yeah ... exempts it. Yeah. Okay. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Yeah. Another thing that was brought up at subcommittee is you have, I think there's an example in town, but I don't remember what it is. It's that you could have basically just a wall of perpetually curtained windows on the first floor.
Yeah. Yes. That was, yeah. Norcross. So even though we've got active depth, people, even the apartment buildings higher up, you're still going to have blinds probably. So I'm not sure exactly- Or we can require us to view it.
Yeah. Must be able to look in everybody's bedrooms. No. I'm in favor of exempting anything in a residential unit. I think as long as we're clear that parking is not allowed in the active depth zone, then I'd be okay, because we also have transparency requirements.
That transparency requirement is going to prevent them from just loading up the bathrooms on the front facade, unless you really want windows in your bathroom, so. Are there any objections to that line of thought?
Yeah. Okay, so what I've got so far is, on the primary facade, we'd like to limit active depth to the first and second floor. And then we're also looking at active depth does not apply to anything that's within a residential unit, and we are still forbidding parking from active depth.
Did I misspeak on anything on that? So, let's see if that actually achieves what we want to achieve. Do we still need to look at how deep active depth is? So, for example, if we're keeping the second floor as well, if it's 30 feet, if it's apartments, we're fine.
Doesn't matter. If it's offices, that might get a little weird on the second floor. Do we want to pick a better note? The current zones that it's really going to matter are the 30-foot requirements in the node and the downtown zones.
Yes. Once you get into the C, CX, and RX, you get down to 15 feet. Mm-hmm. And then the residential zone is only nine feet. So, the 30 feet is really the node districts and downtown. Do we feel like there's a noticeable benefit going from 15 to 30?
I think there's probably some downtown businesses- ... that are less than 30. I think of the ones that are at the code building, the pharmacy, and the witch lab. Those are not 30 feet deep, yet they're still active, great additions to the pedestrian community.
Whereas, I think a lot of the more narrow ones are much deeper than 30, the retail ones. I think the concern that drove this was examples like in the Water Street parking garage, that some of those units, they're not well used.
Yeah. It's not great retail space. It's hard to fill. But yeah, again, I'm with you. Do we care a whole lot? Do we assume that the developer is going to, because they have to provide space, they're going to make sure that space is usable?
Yeah. Or do we think that they're just going to line a building with unused space and just let it be because it's a sacrificial space because the rest of the building will work? I don't know. I feel like the mixed use component's the more critical aspect.
We want an active ground floor. It's less about qualifying what makes activity. This feels fairly arbitrary. I don't know. Did you guys talk about exempting commercial space, certain types of commercial space in the same way as residential?
Because my thought is if we're allowing a lot more stuff to happen inside of the active depth zone, maybe we can just leave the dimensions as they are because we're already making it way more flexible.
If we can find a way to write that, I personally think that'd be great, if we could find a way to say that. Yeah. If we say everything that's within an office use or a commercial use is exempt, but then are we concerned about someone putting up big storage space and claiming it as office?
Patrick? But we still have transparency requirements. Yes. I'm hoping that they can pull up the definition of active space. Yes. Okay, because- I think it covers- The way I read it, it's actually pretty broad.
I'll read it out to you while they're pulling it up, but it's just, "Any occupiable space designed and intended for human activity, such as living, working, commerce, sleeping, eating, or cooking, as determined by the administrator." And then it calls out some things that are not active space, such as restrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage, or utility spaces.
So, we're already doing it. From my read- Yeah ... it's relatively flexible- Yeah, that's good ... per the administrator. But it still causes some issues here. Maybe this incremental reduction to just the two stories instead of the entire facade could be impactful enough that maybe not changing the depths, because it sounds like we'd have to justify the depth change anyway.
Yeah. If we could... It's the circulation space that I'd like to remove from the- Same ... what is not allowed. So hallways, stairs, I think we need to... I'd like to allow those with an active depth.
And then I think I would be much more comfortable with- Yeah. With transparency, with some kind of connection to the street. I agree with that. Agreed. Okay. So that's- So out of this definition, you're just striking halls?
Why do I feel like I saw staircases somewhere in there? But I guess not. Yeah, just striking halls. So you would allow circulation space? I mean, halls are really as active as everywhere else is. Humans occupy them.
Right? Like... Yeah, there's lots of great precedent projects where there's circulation expressed on the facades. Yeah. The, I think Matt brought up in subcommittee, the thing to run into is, I don't know if you guys see like storage buildings, like- Oh, yeah ...
public storage. They'll have the hall on the outside of the windows. Oh, yeah. But that's the counterpoint with when we restrict storage units to specific areas. But that's just an example of where- Mm-hmm ...
someone could put a hall up against the very front of the building. Yeah. Oh, don't worry, people will argue with us over what a hall is. So do we need to define hall? No, not if we're removing it. I mean, right now they would argue that this isn't a hallway, this is a- ...
active living space in progression. Well, it does make me wonder like if it was on, like where a lobby would fall in like that, but if we're striking hall, I think that that does- Because then the apex would be- ...
mix things up quite a bit ... would be doable, don't you think? Yes. Yeah. All front-loaded apartment buildings become possible. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Is there... Are you wanting to move on? Well, I'm wondering if...
I'm about to summarize again- Okay ... just to make sure that did we achieve everything we want to achieve? Um- I was just gonna ask the inverse. If we're cutting halls, is there anything we want to add to non-active space?
It's elsewhere where it mentions that parking cannot be an active space. Yeah, it's its own section. Yeah. Okay. Did we finish this? I think we finished part one. Possibly. Are we all... Oh gee, it was cute.
So we came to summarize it. We're gonna, on the primary facade, active depth will only go up to the second floor. We are going to exempt anything that's contained within a residential unit. We're gonna remove hall from the definition of active space, so that halls are allowed within an active space.
And we're gonna leave the depths as is for now. Cool. So in downtown, you can't have restrooms, toilet rooms, closets, storage or utility spaces and similar areas within 30 feet of the street. Of the primary facade.
Yeah. Correct. Unless they're- Part of the- So again, that's the percentage, so 20% of your square footage, you could have- Could ... so they could finagle something in there. Sure. Yeah. As an architect, it still drives me a little bit nuts, but I think it's a lot better.
Well, with this fairly narrow definition of not active space- Mm-hmm ... I don't mean to reopen the worm, can of worms here. But what is that actually doing to the second floor? Preventing parking, right?
Well, it's preventing parking, it's also meaning that, unless it's an apartment unit, if you have an office, it's gonna be a- A den ... in the DX zone, in the NX zone, it would be a very deep office. They can have a hallway, but they're gonna have to relegate their non-active spaces to less than 20% of that floor plate.
You mean like a leasing office or an office inside an apartment? Like if it's a business use, like if it's not a- Gotcha ... if it ends up being an office building instead of an apartment building. Gotcha.
Understood. It could be an apartment building. It could be like a shared amenity or something. I mean, but then again, the apartment, they're all excluded anyway, so you can have those. I think if the idea is to try to encourage people in our primary facades and not stuff, and not cars, I think this seems to cover it.
I don't know. It makes me a lot happier, what we've just done. But that's me. Are we feeling content? There's no- Bethany, you're into design work, right? Mm-hmm. I think I agree that the 30 is a lot, but like you're saying, if there's the backup of the percentage where you can finagle things around.
I mean, only... But it all depends on the lot. Mm-hmm. You know, for a big building, 30 feet isn't much. Mm-hmm. For a big, like a restaurant or, you know. I'm just sitting here looking at the map and stuff.
For a small site, that's a lot. Yeah. I'm happy to discuss steps if we wanna discuss steps. Okay, I saw you on 25. Again, I just wonder if there's any alignments that are beneficial from our peer form base zoning towns in the Commonwealth.
I just wonder if there's... That could be the only thing I would think of instead of trying to blaze something that's- Mm ... yet another new number, you know. Is there something- Yeah ... that's consistent?
Yeah, if we- I didn't do any research on that, but if we want to... The only thought that I might have is, structurally, you get about 18 to 20 feet for apartment space depth. So if somebody was to build a- Oh, that might be- ...
a garage behind useful space, 20 feet might make more sense than 30, but that's only for a... That leaves us with the Water Street example, where is that enough space for- Me too ... something usable?
Yeah. I like 25 just because it gives a little bit more wiggle room. That's my only concern with it. I'm for reducing it, for sure. I just- But I don't know if it's hard enough ... just feel I'd know too little about that to make it feel not arbitrary.
Yeah. Try and look at what Europe does, and they don't mess with this active depth. They just do mixed use sort of guidelines on the lower floors. Mm-hmm. I would say from staff's perspective, just with the amount of amendments that are on this that we're working on, this seems like a good intermediate step.
It would be a lot of digging and researching, and could have impacts throughout the code that we're not aware of, that this would probably be a little bit heavier lift figuring out these numbers, getting it...
If we were starting over from scratch and doing this, I probably would've steered more in a percentage based on depth of your lot, but- Yeah. I'd be a little leery to go down that rabbit hole of trying to fix the numbers in this process.
What's nice about that is that that rewards smaller lots, which is good. Well? We can also consider this an improvement and if we want to adjust the depths at a later point, do that as well. Or if in the meantime, if anybody manages to figure out what other people are doing that seems to be working.
Mm-hmm. I don't think we're voting on this until much later, right? Correct. Not till December, but I'm hoping to have- Oh ... we get into... Fall's closer than you think. I know. And getting us in a position like we were last year, having these one-pagers, sort of position for review and public engagement.
Are you clear on the other direction that we've provided for this one? Yes, but if you want to give it one more time. The active depth only applies to the first two floors on the apartment design. Anything contained within a residential unit would be excluded.
And then, remove hall from the definition of active space. The definition of non-active space. Yeah. And the only thing I would say is what the staff will probably want to look at is that residential, just to make sure it's capturing unit, not your residential building, your mixed-use building with the residents in it.
Right. So there might just be some nuance we get. Okay. I think I would like it to include if someone does two houses on a lot, those are residential units, or a duplex or even the smaller stuff, not just apartments.
Well, I think it's making sure the wording is talking, just, it's excluding the residential unit, not the building. Correct. So if you do a row of residential units, great, but if you did, on that second story, you did three residential units, but then the rest was something else.
No. Yeah, I think we'll be able to- Okay ... work through it. Instead of the percent, could we look at an alternate for small sites where it's just 20% off or something like that? Just a cleaner way forward for small sites.
That alternate form is such a... It's in there. I know there was desire to come back to 15 to 20. That's a thought. I ask a clarification question. Just on what you just said, that exception for residential units, would that apply to, say, a small apartment building that is trying to put in ground floor parking?
The parking is not contained within a residential unit itself, so that would still be, I think, it's going to be exempt. So anything like parking or utility spaces, anything like that, that would still have to meet the active depth requirement?
Yes. So if someone has a water heater closet in their unit, that's part of the unit, that's exempt. If there's a generator closet for the whole building, that would have to comply with active depth. Okay.
Yeah. This is where we, yeah, we have to think there. And not to try to throw a wrench, but if there is a hole, someone's going to find it and park their Bugatti in their living room. We'll have to figure that out when they're saying, "This is not a parking garage, this is my..." As long as they're sitting in it.
Things are going to slip. Architects, that's what we do. That's our job. Yes. Things will slip and just- That seems like a pro for most of you. People are going to be looking in, seeing what's going on.
It's interesting, the depths you do see. Arlington looks like it's 15 to 20, just on the ground floor. Buffalo is 30. There's not a whole bunch of form-based precedents across the country. So, I think we can revisit that at a future adjustment.
I think maybe next year when the whole topic should just be small lots, and we look at that as a- We'll switch paths ... percentage. They just pick people, either someone with good vision or someone with bad vision like me, and how far they could see into a building.
The thought that keeps coming to mind is about public restrooms. Since this 30 feet applies to the downtown area. Mm-hmm. Understand that public restrooms are a public need- Mm-hmm ... but maybe aren't active space, even though they're kind of active.
You don't want to look into it. So you're suggesting this would be a new development that would have public restrooms as a facade element? Or thinking about adding public restrooms to the downtown mall as it sits today.
I will say- With this active depth, active space stuff. It would be active. Parcels that are on the zone for civic or, I forget what those uses were, but the institutional and civic uses that end up being city-owned properties.
Yeah. Those are exempt from active space. But like the- The team. You're thinking of those bathrooms. Yeah, I'm thinking about the transit center. Mm-hmm. If that was privately owned, could you... Not that I'm saying that private developers and entities are really going to want private restrooms, but it is a discussion that I hear being had about restrooms on the downtown mall.
Mm-hmm. And is this provision preventing- I know I hate this excuse, but I think this is where we get the special exemption process. Yep. So yeah, if we don't want to leave that to a special exemption process, then we should discuss it further.
If it ends up being something that's so one-off- Sure ... then I think we could leave it to something that comes back to the planning commission. Is it currently special exemptionable? Yes. So there is a path to get there?
Yes. If someone retrofitted to a grant, like an existing historic property, does that still have to conform to the active depth if it's just an adaptive reuse of something? Or does it have to be a ground-up new development?
There's something in there about if it's a building that's under BAR review, you don't have to change the existing building to make it compliant. Mm. But I don't think you can make it less compliant. I was just thinking, this building, the city owns it.
There's these facades down here that used to have a restaurant that are now offices. If those became public restrooms- That's a great idea ... could that, would this be under a different set of criteria than the brand-new active depth?
There would be a path forward. I'm not even sure if the path would be through special exemption or the zoning, but there's at least a path. Fred, I appreciate the discussion. We don't need to... Okay.
All right. This goes back to bathrooms. Parking. Parking and bathrooms. Build to and setbacks. So just my thought on this was looking mostly at non-conforming structures, and how you add on to properties that have non-conforming structures.
If we want to expand that discussion further, we certainly can, but that seemed like the simplest thing to do. And, so I did a quick look of where we've got places where there might be issues. And I think within the R zones, if you keep the existing structure, the existing house, you don't have to comply with setback requirements.
The problems are we've got a lot of existing buildings, existing houses that are outside of the R zones. So the RX zones don't have that ability. Similar with the CX and the DX and all that. So some of the areas that we have conflicts, we've got High Street, North Downtown.
That's CX-3. So those are some pretty old houses. They are under the BAR review. And I think it'd only be a couple of lots where it might apply where someone could add a primary use as a separate building in the backyard, but it is one location.
JPA and Fontaine is mostly CX-5. And the zoning extends far into the residential neighborhoods on either side. There's also RX zoning that extends further out. So the whole JPA Fontaine area, we currently are prohibiting people from putting separate apartment or separate dwelling units in their backyards.
They'd have to actually add on to the back of the houses. Venable, almost all of Venable is RX5. Creston Place is RX-3. Wertland is RX5. So these are streets and places where if someone wanted to build a separate primary use, they would have to build through the setback area.
And, we currently allow you to add on to buildings. Where the complication comes in is if you have an old building and you want to add onto it and you want to add a separate unit, you end up with firewalls, and at some point you end up with sprinklers, which may kill some projects.
So it might be easier to actually put a 10-foot separation between them and just build in the backyard. So that was my argument for changing this section to... Well, these are my proposals. I'd like to modify the 533 C2B, which I think is about site additions, and allow site additions of any size.
And then also ... revise it so that primary new buildings, you can add whatever you want as a new primary building behind an existing building without any main issue. One thing I'm wondering is, if you're doing a side addition, is there a tipping point where, say you have a building that's got front yard parking, existing building with front yard parking.
When you're starting to add onto it, is there a tipping point where they have to remove that parking? Is that something we need to consider? And maybe it's currently you're allowed a 20% side yard addition.
If you go over that 20%, they have to then make the rest of their site comply. Just a thought. I'm throwing out a bunch of random stuff. I'm sorry. Let's also talk about the intent of what- Yeah ... Dakota's trying to achieve today.
Mm-hmm. My understanding is you're trying to bring things to the street. And if in these illustrations, that white building is your primary home, you want to try to provide somebody a home on your property.
You want to-- Right now, you're forced to put it sort of front of your front door. Yeah. So that's got pros and cons to it. I would think would probably limit the number of units that get put in front of people's front doors.
So, the whole idea is trying to bring it to the street, but is that ideal limiting what we're actually getting from the community? I've just heard, this is just kind of informal chatter, but at least a couple different people talking about how I think probably in the Fontaine neighborhood, wanting to build, but not wanting to add onto their house, wanting to build in the back, and then just putting their hands up and being like, "Well, we'll just wait and see-" Mm-hmm ...
"if they change that or..." Because they didn't want to build in front of their house. Sure. So that did seem odd that if someone wasn't wanting to add on to make their existing house the build to with or whatever it was, that it's asking, it seemed reasonable to move it to the back.
They seem like good projects, putting a couple units in the backyard, especially in an area around students. So anyway, that's just anecdotes. I've heard a couple of those frustrations from people. Sure.
So that's why I was kind of interested in this one. Part of it is also, like you're mentioning side additions. Mm-hmm. I think in the subcommittee, we're talking about not allowing additions on the front.
Mm-hmm. But the more I've thought about it and have some time to stew about it, if the goal is to move stuff to the street, then why are we disallowing additions to the front, which would, by definition, bring the building closer to the street?
That's true. And then you could actually get more space to get people in the back if you're building more units in the back. Just... It's a good point. Currently, I think you're allowed 10% in the front before you start making it be within the built-in zone.
That's 10% of the floor plate of the building? Yeah. Actually, that's not very much. No, it's not. What does that get you? A bay window. Four by ... That's even smaller than what I was going to say. There you go.
10 by 10 stoop or something. Right. No, it's- And if it's about eyes on the street, like if you build a 10 by 10 stoop, nobody's going to be hanging out on the stoop with eyes on the street. But if somebody could build something bigger than that, it would add to that ideal without having to force people to bring their entire building to the street.
There you go. I generally think that allowing incremental change and growth is a very good kind of change in growth. And so, I would be in favor of just allowing more incremental stuff to happen. So, if you're keeping the structure, then I'm okay saying you don't have to bring it up all the way to where it should be close to the street.
If you're tearing it down and redeveloping, yes, we want you to build it like this. Yep. But if you're additions, additional structures, I'm okay just allowing a lot of that non-conforming stuff to remain.
But, and this was handled for the R districts last round, where we were able to say, "If you qualify for the preservation, your house is considered conforming." Yeah. So you could, but some of these mixed use in corridor districts- Okay ...
it's not. Yeah. And also in other meetings and other discussions, it's like the shape of our parcels and the- Mm-hmm ... depth of our parcels creates so much difficulties in itself, so should we be restricting if you're keeping both the original Restricting people from where they can put additional uses.
I'm curious about the first, second, third. Does it matter what order they come in? No, it's currently. And if I'm just saying it, it's just for conversation. Is the idea... If we're okay with the third building looking like that, does it really matter how you got there?
Well, it's less about how many buildings, it's just saying that you have to fill the build tube with first, and then you can start putting something else in the back. So it's not necessarily what could be the first and second building, could just be the first building, and then what you're seeing third could be the second building.
Well, I'm hearing this question. If you look at the third new building graphic- Yeah ... the graphic is saying the two in the front happened first, and then the- Yes ... third one happened last. Yeah.
If we are okay with that formation, does it matter- Yeah, how you get there ... which order the things get built in? That's just a question. I agree with you, but I think what it's trying to do is force you to fill the build tube first.
Because you don't know if that third building's going to happen. Yeah. The other challenge with these diagrams, so these are existing neighborhoods where historically setbacks were what was argued for to make things more garden-like.
Mm-hmm. And to think of this going incrementally in that neighborhood where houses in front of houses in the neighborhood where houses are all set back, like that condition would be awkward. Mm-hmm. Whereas having higher density, respecting...
I feel like there's sort of a local context where maybe it's an easier way to approach higher density, is not suddenly building right on the sidewalk in these established neighborhoods and letting things kind of infill where you have width further back.
And that may be a way to get more housing options for people before you suddenly start to say, "Hey, this setback, neighborhood built in the '60s, we actually really want it to be brownstones." And so I feel like it just feels like one of those ones that's sort of pushing them.
It's not sort of creating pathways for more housing options, it's sort of pushing maybe a whole new experience than what was- Mm-hmm ... previously established. Is anyone here steadfastly want to keep it how it is?
All right. Are we okay with the idea of you can have a new addition behind, or a new separate primary building behind the original one? Is there any objection to that? Okay. So, that would be changing, yeah, new primary buildings and interior a lot, be changing this one to just get rid of it.
I think we just lose that. Yeah. I don't know what to do with the corner lot. I think we leave it as it is, but- Well, it's a roll ... that's another thought. I think that's the next page. Yeah, scroll down.
I think the corner lots are a different condition. They are. Yeah. Well, in each neighborhood, like you were saying, or I feel like there's a context to where the house is- Yes ... to the street. The little one, the corner one happening right next to Trailblazer right now.
They basically doubled the house. No, I know that one. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's hard to-- Each neighborhood's going to be different in where it naturally would seem appropriate to build in the front versus the back.
This is saying on the corner you have to build in the build tube that matches both the primary and the secondary street. Yeah. I will say, not trying to split the baby, because staff does have a little bit of a heartburn, just because this code is built around this bringing things up in the street- Yeah ...
is a very big policy part of this code. And not trying to split the baby, but I don't know, without thinking about it more and collaborating with staff, there's more of an appetite to permitting a certain number of units in the back before you bring up.
Hmm. Got that? Won't just site constraints force you to? I think they would. I think if you wanted to really maximize the site, you'd tear down the existing building, and you have maximized the site. But I feel like if somebody's got room in the back to put more stuff- Put more stuff in the rear ...
I don't know what the- Yeah, what's the public benefit of capping the ones you can put behind is just to- To still keep that- Keep the- ... that incentive to at some point you've got to come forward ...
come forward to the street. Is the only thing I was kind of just thinking out loud. I guess the thing that's getting me is just the fact that you can put an unlimited rear addition on a building. Yeah.
But it's if you turn it into two buildings, you can't. Yes, and I get that. From the street, you might not even be able to tell- Right. Yeah ... if it was one building or two. Yeah. But I think we still...
So it sounds like with the corner lots, you still have to bring up to the street. And if you tear down the existing building, you've... Which I think that is one thing, we need to make sure that our definition of an existing building still works for this.
So would we use the same definition for the preservation bonus, which I think is keeping the front 20 feet of the building, or do we need to look more closely at that? Is the concern someone would build and then tear down?
The concern is would someone try and say, "Well, I'm keeping a small portion of the existing building," and yeah, then tear down or- Yeah. That was a good thing. I don't know if- They would- I don't know what they would do.
I'm just kind of wondering out loud if there's a stupid loophole that we're not seeing. But I would guess, kind of following the same track that the Planning Commission's been following, would there be any difference if I had a 2,000 square foot building, I took it down to 1,000 square foot and built a 3,000 square foot behind it?
Yeah, I guess not. I don't know. I like this draft. I probably should pass that. I like this one for the corners just because it just says, "Hey, if you want to go to the front, this is it. If you want to go to the side, this is it." It doesn't say, "You've got to do this step in order to unlock this step or do this." It just gives guidelines on how one could tackle whatever there.
Because this would allow whoever the developer is that doesn't know the neighbors, know what the street condition is, and prioritize where the work goes. What is the thought on maintaining the build two for the first additional new building on a site on a corner block?
I like it more. I think it's better. I guess that my head can't get around where the backyard is in that situation. Right. I'm trying to figure it out in my head, and it seems like a- But in an interior lot, we don't care what the backyard is either.
No. So why do we all of a sudden care on the corner what's the backyard versus side yard? That diagram's not great because it has the building at the back corner. Yeah, both of them are at the back corner.
Mm-hmm. In theory, you could shift that building up and have a backyard. What's the rule for additions on a corner lot? On the next page. That's what I was going to go to. Okay. Scroll down. There you go.
That 20% does feel small to me. What's the general footprint home in? 700 square feet? 800 square feet? That's it. 20% of that is less than 200 square feet? Positive. You should see if an ADU can fit in.
A very small in-law apartment, an attached little apartment can fit within that percentage. I just- I think it could, but- I really struggle with... I understand the ideal, I understand what we're trying to do, I understand why it's there, but we live in a city that started to develop in the 1700s.
How do you thread the needle between all of that? Some parts of our code incentivize keeping existing buildings, right? So our code says that there's a public benefit to keeping existing buildings. But then with this part of the code, we're saying, "No, we want you to really change the built character of your lot to match this kind of pedestrian-centric design." So there is a little bit of tension there, I think.
And generally, if you're going to keep your building, why not let people do what they want with it? If you're tearing down your building, no, now you have to comply with this form-based code that we have.
And on that front, and right now, the residential, your setback can be or existing setback. Mm-hmm. So, in today's world, even if you did tear it down, you could still build a new building at the same setback that was basically there previously.
Yeah. So in a world where we're going sort of down Danny's path, if you are tearing down and building something completely new, do you want to then force them to the street and remove the existing setback provision?
So just to be clear, though, that's just the R zones. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Once you get into RX, there's no more existing. Mm-hmm. And the R zones are already exempt from this, because if you keep the primary building, you can do almost whatever you want.
Mm-hmm. So it's more like it's the RFs- ... and the CXs and all that, the Fonte and Venable, where we've still got a lot of what look like single-family homes that someone might want to put an addition or a unit in the backyard.
Got you. It's complicated, because there already are a lot of exceptions, but it's the parts of the city where the exceptions are not helping us. That's the issue. I think I'm landing where Danny landed.
Danny, you want to summarize where you landed? I think, are we essentially talking about taking what we've done in the R zones and applying it to the other zones as well? So basically, if you keep the existing structure, and that's defined by the bonus that's defined, then you don't have to comply to build to width.
Even if you're building an addition or an additional building on your lot. I'm sorry. I don't know how we have a phrase for the R zones, but- That's one way to look at it. The other way would be to modify these non-conforming sections.
Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. Is there a meaningful difference between those two? So the development bonus one, I think, is the one where it says you have to keep the first... There's 25 feet- Just scroll down the page to the picture.
Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know which one would be better. I was leaning towards just modifying some of the non-conforming portions. That isn't it. Staff struggles with this, too, because this is such an integral part of the code.
But that path forward could be just extending the preservation bonus, even though it doesn't give you anything because your ultimate unlimited density by putting the preservation, because then that would make you conforming over some of the standards, like setback and all, too.
Well, I mean- Did you say RX and CX? If you maintain the building, you receive the preservation bonus. And then all of the benefits you get with the preservation bonus, you get in those zones. Which presumably they will use.
Right. Or are meaningless because they don't have density requirements. Right. Are there any of the non-conforming portions that we would want to keep? If everybody doesn't like the you can only add 10% to the front of the building- I don't like that ...
you don't like that. So if we all don't like that, that's one chunk of it. There's the side additions that you need, I think, 20% to the side. If you don't like that. Okay. Expanding existing buildings preserves those buildings.
And we're- It's also a good incremental step toward something. Yeah, it's confusing that you're right. You hit it very right from the get-go. It's like- ... you want to build an entire separate house in the front yard, but you can't push here because it just seems...
Same to the sides, you can build a whole separate house next to your house, but you can only do 20%. Yeah, think about multi-generational living, which is- Yeah, that's coming around ... having sort of a resurgence again in the country, or at least in the Commonwealth.
And we've got some small buildings around here. Make more sense for a family to build a big addition than- But if you're adding in the preservation bonus, those no longer are non-conforming, so they can go above the 20% or 10% because they're conformed.
It's only for the non-conforming, which I'm having a hard time figuring out if there's anything, if that happened, that would be non-conforming for these kind of standards. It invalidates the non-conforming building structure.
So these standards that are required, does that make sense for just any building? Because this may not just be houses. Someone could use this to keep... I don't know. We've got little industrial buildings all over town.
There's a parking lot in front, and there's a little office building or whatever behind it. Are we- That is probably one of the unintended consequences, which we probably would not get rid of these front yard parking lots.
Mm-hmm. Well, that's what I'm wondering, if there's some sort of you've expanded a certain amount, then you have to make the site comply. I'm kind of wondering if that makes any sense, or is that too complicated?
You mean if you're choosing on where- If you add- If you're doing a huge addition, it needs to come to the street more than- Or say you've got a parcel that's got a parking lot, and then a commercial building or a residence, whatever, and they want to put something in the back or on the side, and they expand their current footprint by so much, do they have to then get rid of the parking lot and turn it to yard or something?
Or get rid of any parking that's within the building zone? It's kind of why I would lean a little more toward keeping the non-conformity and allowing X number of primary before you have to. Because if you allow additional two units or two additional primary uses, and if you want to do more, that's when you need to come up, build in that parking lot.
It's complicated. Yeah. They would not be allowed to expand an existing parking lot, correct? In any case? Allowed to maintain it. But they couldn't add parking spaces? Probably couldn't expand it because the yard, that's the other thing that takes away, so that your yard is from the property line to the facade of your building.
So if you have a building set 60 feet back, that's your front yard. Now, let's say you put a building between up and front- Mm-hmm ... and you kept the parking in the middle, that parking now conforms because it's out of the front yard, because now your front yard's just that five feet from the property line to the new building.
But otherwise, they couldn't make it any worse. Correct. Well. We can- Any less conforming, I guess. I thought this was going to be a simpler one. I know. They're all- Yeah. So I guess our options are to pick away at the non-conforming or to see if there's a way to write this section into the rest of the city.
I know my primary goal is just to allow new structures behind it. Whatever we do, that's what I want to get out of this. But if we want to get a lot more, this is... And you have other things controlling maximum building footprint, maximum lot covers.
There's other things controlling this too. Probably the impermeable cap. Would that be an incentive for removing parking? Because maybe you buy roof by removing parking. What? I follow. I didn't. My recollection is that we control how much impermeable space is on a parcel, and parking counts against that.
Lot coverage. Lot thing. Yes. So in that sense, by getting more roof, at a certain level, you would have to reduce pavement just to buy that roof. I'd have to look into it. I can't think off the top of my head.
But do parking lots count as lot coverage? That's what I'm sure- I don't know that they do ... they should. I think they do. Patrick, can you go to 210.4? Just mechanically, I like the idea of replacing parking with roofs.
Roofs for zoning districts. 210.4, coverage. What's percentage? It's page 2-106. It is section 2... It's 2-6. 2-106. That's another- Just awful way you could... Just proving another one of my points, but- Just click on the note, district's fine.
Yeah. Scroll. Then hit code, Massey. Or no, go up. Then you click on that. So 2- There you go. No, that's a section. There. See where it says coverage? Oh, we're treating as building coverage. Yeah, so that would exclude surface parking.
Yeah. It's this right here. It's not live. And that's one that's not live. From a stormwater perspective, what you describe is- That's how I think of it, for sure. It doesn't care if it's a parking lot or a building, it's the same.
There. How about that? Sorry, guys. Okay. It's just for building percentage. Covered by building and then building footprint. Okay. That may be a larger can of worms for this conversation then, but thank you.
Is it the case that we're just trying to agree on... I think conceptually, everybody seems to agree, telling me I'm not, that we're okay with building new buildings behind the building that exists. Is the question just how to phrase that for direction for staff?
Yeah. Where we're kind of at is, this is such a big part of the code is trying to bring things up to the street, and I would be very concerned just taking a whole section. By allowing it, we'd almost be taking a whole section out of the code, and that worries me a little, getting into policy without a much more robust engagement with the public and hearing from the public.
Well, would it still be just a modification to this if we just adjusted the new primary buildings on an interior lot? I mean, it's a gray area. We have some things we've talked about are very clear clarifications, modifications.
There are some gray areas where, yeah, it's maybe not a policy shift, even though it's taking out a bunch of the code. I'm struggling with that. It fits in with the ideals of preservation. It fits in with the ideals of more dwelling units for people to live in.
The only thing it's not really doing is pulling buildings out to the street. And does that outweigh some of the other pieces of it? That's kind of why. Again, it needs more thought, but that's kind of why I keep falling back to allowing it, but having a stop where you can do some things, but you do have to, once you run out of that, if you want to do anything more, you do have to bring yours up to the street.
Just practically, are there lots where somebody, that are in the relevant zones with existing structure, where somebody wants to build three new primary buildings behind that existing structure? Is that a thing that needs to be solved for?
I think in Fontaine and that area- That's what I'm thinking about specifically ... and JPA, there would be some lots that someone could try to do that. There's a lot of lots. I think Wertland is another example where we definitely don't want to put something in front of those houses.
There's no space behind for three or more structures. I think those... Yeah. I just can't be offended by... Nothing gets worse from the perspective of the street, right? You've got a structure, and somebody builds new buildings that you can't see.
I just can't see any public harm to it. Even if it's three structures that I still can't see. I think, yeah. Do you have a sense that trying to force people to bring stuff to the street is working? Is that an effective strategy?
Honestly, I think it's still too early. I think there's still elements in this code that are still percolating through. It's kind of that conversation. We don't know. It's not been submitted. We've had conversations where people, like the examples of people talking about wanting to do something, but then never showing up to submit, and I don't know if it's because of some of this non-conformity.
We feel we've corrected a lot last year. We're seeing some movement on that where some of the people are having to get special exceptions because they had an existing structure, and they wanted to build something behind, and they had to go through the special exception to be considered conforming in the R districts.
And I feel we solved that, and that's moving forward. I don't know, in these other districts, how much of a barrier this has been, but it sounds like there have been some examples of people thinking about doing it and just saying no.
The only one that we definitely have seen, again, is the element. Which one? These height- Drives me nuts, but yeah. That specific one, I think this would have been fixed with the not being primary means, supportive of the existing primary use.
But if they had a apartment back there, it wouldn't have been allowed. So, yeah, again, it just seems funny to me that we... Well. My simple recommendation is to allow new primary buildings on an interior lot behind an existing non-conforming one, and then to also allow side additions of any size.
No front additions? We can definitely go into that. But that's- What does that mean, of any size? Look up. Yeah. How do we really feel about that? Well, that means respect to other rules that we already have, right?
It doesn't mean any size. It means- Yeah, that's what it means. There's still a maximum building width that's allowed. Yeah. It's still plus. And it's different width in all zones. Right now, it's capped at 20% of your current building footprint.
Now, this is where these rules really start to tie together. That's only for the certain area from your lot line. And if this structure's further back than that, they can go wider. They can go wider. Just because it's speaking to the front.
It's speaking to your facade, and then it's defining facade as an area between the street front and a canopy. Yeah. 50 feet or 75 feet back. But there's a point once you get further back, a lot of these things that are tied to your facade don't go into effect.
But I think with entry features- But for non-conforming structures where the existing structure's already too far back, your section for additions on an interior lot just says side additions, having a floor area less than 20% of the existing building footprint are allowed And then once you've met the build to with standards, then you can do any size.
Yeah, I was just getting to the fact that some of these where you have the facade of the buildings really far back, some of the other things that would govern your facade don't come into play. Okay. Because you're so far back.
So, this addition, if it was a side addition, wouldn't have the transparency requirements and wouldn't have the entry features and all the other things that go along. Correct, because it's so far away, it doesn't fall.
It is not considered a facade per the code. Is that a problem? That's a good question for all of us. Is that a problem? When you ask the question about what? That- I just didn't, I didn't have any boundaries.
I didn't know what the side addition would look like a base. I just didn't know the constraints. I like the direction that you're going in, Carl, by basically saying, "Okay, we're not just saying you keep the building, do anything you want." We're saying, "Go to the back.
Great. Go to the side. Great." But once you start going to the front, no, you have to bring that up to the street. So that, I think that keeps us closer to what the code is trying to do, maybe, than what I was advocating for before by saying, "Do whatever you want if you're going to keep the building." So I think that's kind of-- I like that approach.
Thoughts or objections? But Danny, was that only about additions, or was that about- No, anything ... any building? Anything. As long as it's behind the front of the current existing structure. You're fine with behind or side.
Yeah, behind or side, but if you want to... You brought up front additions, which I'm okay with, but if you're building a separate structure in the front, it should be in the build too. So. Yeah, so let me summarize.
Mm-hmm. If you're doing something attached to a current structure, you could go and do the addition anywhere on the structure. Mm-hmm. If you're doing a separate structure that's behind the front wall, you can do wherever, but if any part of that building is in front of the front wall, it's got to be to the build to.
Is that what you were saying? Yes. For a new building. Yeah. Yeah, new primary structure. Okay. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think that's what Carl was saying, or maybe similar to what Carl was saying. It is similar.
I agree with this. Yeah, I think- So we keep the intent of the code- Mm-hmm ... if there are to be new buildings in a front yard. But not that you have to build, that you must build- Yeah ... in the front yard.
You have to start in the front yard. You have to start- And this gets to your point about why does the order matter. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. At least this sets up if people do choose to start adopting these front yard build-outs in a specific neighborhood that has certain lots that you could see over the course of 10, 20 years that there's a new consistency to it.
Whereas if we just let people kind of have too much leeway in the front yard, then it's just kind of a mess. And I guess, again, I think this is another thing that's probably allowed to be adjusted by special exception.
Mm-hmm. But just I didn't want to prevent anybody from... I really didn't want to prevent the single family homeowner from putting a separate dwelling in their backyard, which I think is what we're doing.
But, if we can make it easier otherwise, I'm definitely for that. All right. So I heard new primary structure is okay if it's behind the front of an existing building. So it can be off to the side, but it can't be forward of the building if it's off to the side, or in the order behind that front facade line.
Is that what we're all hearing? For a new structure. Yes. Detached structure. Yeah. So, additions. Are we okay with side additions as long as they're not forward of that existing front facade line? I'm okay with additions front of or facade line.
Yeah, in the front would be okay. Because it's getting, again, it's moving the building closer to the street. Yes, an addition, it's not a separate structure. No. So it might be a smaller step in that direction.
Okay, so I'm hearing okay for additions anywhere. You can put an addition anywhere, basically. Is what you're telling me here. Yeah. Subject to the other restrictions. Okay. And are we concerned about the fact that these additions may not have to follow transparency requirements?
Or- No, they wouldn't ... if they're way back there. They're back. If they're behind the build to zone, they're no longer subject to transparency elements- Well, it's 50 feet back, so it's a pretty big distance.
Okay. So, it's considered... The code is really wonky and to follow it, it talks about street-facing facades- Mm-hmm ... and then it talks about a street-facing facade is only between the building line and 50 feet back, but then there's a 50%, but it- Yes.
Okay. Keeping it more generally relative, just think about a street. Facades are the area between a lot line and 50 feet back. Okay. So it's not the building itself. Once you go beyond that, there's a percentage, but, yeah.
Wow, I missed that part. Okay. All right. So I've heard new primary structures okay if behind the front facade of the existing building. So it could be off to the side or to the back. And I'm hearing additions of any sort are okay as long as they follow the other regulations.
And then new primaries that meet the build to. If there's a separate structure in the front, it can- Okay, new primary buildings in the front need to meet the build to. Yes. So we're not getting rid of that.
Can I get some clarification on this addition? When you talk about additions or on, so like front or side addition, regard like not that percentage, just if you have a zero foot setback, are you saying though you were doing a front addition, you wouldn't want them to build all the way up to the zero foot?
No. I mean, they could. I guess what we're saying is they wouldn't- I think what people are saying is that- Right. So what would be the mechanism? The general idea is trying to allow incremental development of already built structures.
Especially on the addition. I was just thinking if you, say you have four parcels. Three of the four parcels opt to build separate primary structures up to the build to, they do it to the zero setback.
And then the third person's like, "Well, I don't really wanna get renters, but if I can have a bigger house, I wanna push out there." And so you still end up with a cohesive neighborhood where the facades are all kind of in communication with each other, but it's just not requiring you to have to walk outside into this primary structure to get space.
Like... Well, you could-- Currently as the code is written, you can expand to the front, but you have to expand all the way up to the build to zone. Right. So if your house is 50 feet to the street- This is for saying that you have a huge addition ...
you have a huge addition. Right. And I think what I'm hearing is we're saying like, you could put a 20 foot addition in the front of your house. Got it. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I get it. It gets you closer but doesn't get you all the way there.
I'll admit, I'm actually a little more hesitant about the addition in the front. I don't know why, but that's- Yeah. I get that ... kind of, because it feels like you're, at that point- You're neither here nor there ...
any sort of historic thing we're trying to use as an argument for this goes out the window because we're encapsulating the existing structure at that point. Well, it is nice looking as whatever. Yeah.
But that is, I'm not gonna hold myself to that. Flesh that out a little more. Um- What is it about the historic-ness? Well, I feel like that was one of my arguments for why it's important to have this exception to allow new primary buildings that are not attached, is that it, in some of our historic districts, you- So you're thinking like in Woodland.
Mm-hmm. Someone could peel off a beautiful porch, stick a bunch of additional units that are not separate primary structures- Mm-hmm ... and just wrap that thing with like bare minimum fenestration. Yeah.
Um- Is it about the character of feeling historic or about the preservation of the original building? I'm just trying to figure out, it just bothers me on principle. Okay. Well, I'm trying to figure out- Yeah.
I think it's the uncertainty. It's the unintended consequence of saying that, because it could, you know, you could basically strip the character of neighborhoods unintentionally. Well, I think, I wonder, Carl- Yeah ...
what I'm sensing here is, so like if you build onto the back, you build onto the side, your front is totally undisturbed. The development potential of that land exists. If you build 50% of your front yard into a house, you've eliminated 50% development potential.
Yes. So it's less likely that anyone will ever put a house in the front. Mm-hmm. And so it's also less likely that at any point in the future, anyone will build up to the build to zone. But whereas if we're saying build any separate structure you want on the side and the back, we're leaving the development potential intact for the front yard.
Yeah. That makes sense to me. I think it's still, we're at least leaving some incentive there that we are gonna try and get some development up at the street at some point in the future. Right. I mean, would you just keep it as it's written, that if you do an addition you have to go to the build to?
For the front. The front. That's something, just keep that for the front. That's my intuition on this. So just give some flexibility around the sides and the back. Yeah. Keep the- And people could still request exceptions for like the really gigantic ones.
Yeah. Makes sense. It's like, I just, well, with the front, I wonder if we end up just getting like mansions, you know? Yeah. It's like you build a 30 foot extension on the front and it's like, well, I'd rather just have a $2 million house than build additional units around here.
And also, I guess, just for the ability to not police this, but to enforce it, once you encapsulate a building, we don't know what's going on in the building there anymore. So we don't know if the existing building is still there.
So I guess if you start doing unlimited additions on the front of a building, it's not- Like the existing portion doesn't-- You may as well just say that they tore it down. And if they were to tear it down, we're going to make them build to the front anyway, to the build to zone anyways.
That makes sense- But what are you preventing? ... by logic. I guess what I'm trying to prevent is- Arlington ... it just is trying to maintain some portion of this code that still encourages you to build to the street.
And, if we're basing this off of non-conformities and keeping an existing structure, once you totally wrap the structure, you haven't kept it. Mm. I mean, once it's inside the building, we don't know what's going on in there.
I mean, the developer could tear it down and whatever. So you don't think 100% of the front facade should be cancellable? I think if you start doing that, you do need to actually come to the street. Hmm.
Move that. So we'd be leaving that section in the non-conforming section of the code. Again, if this is an incremental update process, I feel like this would be a good... Just like the previous one we did, where you keep some of it, modify some other portions to make it more adaptable.
Yeah. And then if this is just me, and again, if you guys would rather push hard and say additions anywhere, I'm not going to stop anyone. I- That was my only... I just have a little, something feels funny about that.
I just struggle with if the ideal is to bring things to the street- Mm ... why are we preventing people from bringing their existing- Right ... building to the street? I think the issue is when they don't take...
I don't think there's any... If we want to bring it to the street, then we keep it, it's in the code. If they want to come to the fore and bring it to the street, do that. If you want to go 50% of the distance with a really crappy facade, that's- ...
I think there's a concern, unintended consequence, that you could potentially alter the character of some of our important neighborhoods inadvertently by just sort of- You can still build a new structure at the build-to line with a crappy facade.
You could. You can. Nothing we're talking about would prevent you from building something that grows- I think it's the in between. It's the concern that it'll be halfway there. It'll be bad in both categories.
It's not going to be the street wall, and it's not going to be of a character. And so I think what we're trying to say is, if you go to the street wall, that's fine. Or you go to the side or the back, and there's no halfway to go through the front.
So... It does seem like there's more controversy about the front, and maybe- Yeah ... less value to be gotten out of it. Yeah. I'm happy to agree with that. So I'm happy to not talk about it, and focus on the back and the side, but- I agree with that ...
the front doesn't bother me, it just seems like there's less value in talking about it. Um- It's also only a small number of sites that really have this issue. If it's small enough, and I don't know if people are coming to staff or PC or council complaining about the problem of front additions in these zones.
If they are, we should talk about it. But if it's a small number of sites and no one's complaining, it sounds like a good thing to talk about in future cycles. Not that I... Ross, I agree with you, I just don't know.
It needs to affect more sites for us to spend more time on it, possibly. It is complicated. Okay. So are we tabling that part, or... I- Okay. So Matt, I think where we've landed is additions, not... Sorry, I keep saying additions.
New primary structures can be built behind the front facade line of an existing building. So I think that also would end up affecting corner lots. So that would allow you to build to the side of a structure on the corner lot.
Secondary. And then, I think we're allowing side additions of any size, as long as they still have to meet the rest of the code. I think those are the changes we made. Back additions of any size already exists.
Yeah. We might, just as staff, as we're looking at this, might have to re-examine some of the- Mm ... wording, because I don't know if facade would be the best word- Yeah, sure ... to use there. But we can get that- Some technical words missing Can we finish this?
I mean- ... I think so. South Mexico two-family combination set. So, yeah, I guess, I think that what we've described also gave some guiding principles. Did it... Or is there any questions about the intent behind any of these changes?
Respects what you mentioned, Matt, about the kind of spirit of the code. Yeah. I think so. Well, people will let us know if it doesn't. I mean, if there... And not to be flippant, but if there is a one-pager and there's a lot of speakers at the public hearing, it can be bold and say, "Oh, we realize this needs more dedicated public engagement.
We don't have capacity to recommend it at this time." Like the First Amendment, this is generally loosening. It's allowing for more development opportunity than being more restricted, so hopefully there's less.
Yeah. Well, I think that is... I think we did it. Okay. Do we know what's on our agenda for next month? There is a comp plan amendment from our long range planner for a- The utilities, to add that to the comp plan.
There might be a special exception for not providing screening for some electrical equipment on top of the building. Okay. I'm not sure on that. There'll be a meeting on the 11th. I've got to look and see to set up a future subcommittee meeting.
I have one coming up in the next couple of months, but I don't believe the next work session probably won't be on this topic until October, and it'll most likely be on food trucks and food truck courts.
Is it specific to that, or does that include other general neighborhood commercial related activity? It's right now specific to just the food truck court and food trucks, and not the more overarching community base, what kind of uses do we want to allow in residentials.
I have an unrelated request. On Monday of last week, council got an update on the mobility plan. I emailed you about it. It's riveting, worth your time. I strongly suggest that we should have a work session on the mobility plan.
It was deferred because of reasons, but we were meant to have one, right? Yeah, we should have one. But before we miss it, to your point, Ross, about neighborhood commercial, it's in the comp plan that we should discuss it.
When should we discuss it? Would you like us to discuss it at a future Planning Commission meeting? I'm ready to discuss it once that one's ready. Yeah. Could be method. I will defer to the director of NDS and our long-range planning team.
Oh. Person. So, yeah, I guess whenever you guys are prepared for that. If there's more overarching... There are several long-range planning discussions that this group would like to have, that don't know the answers.
With the turnover and staffing going on, I don't know when we will get those. Stuck with me and current planning for now. Glad to have you, Matt. I move to adjourn from motion. Mm-hmm. I move to adjourn.