Name: Charlottesville Planning Commission meeting, Aug 25, 2026
Start: 2026-08-25
End: 2026-08-25
Location: City of Charlottesville

Planning Commission

Tue, August 25, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Planning Commission — August 25, 2026

This was an informal work session of the Planning Commission's Legislative Subcommittee, convening to finalize a list of state legislative priorities to send to City Council before Council forwards them to local legislators (Delegate Colson and Senator Deeds). No binding votes were taken. Commissioner Lyle led the discussion, joined by Commissioner Ross and planning staff member Steph.

Background: The Legislative Subcommittee Process

Commissioner Lyle explained that the Planning Commission began making formal legislative recommendations to City Council roughly two years ago, modeled on a similar effort by the Human Rights Commission. Last year's effort was notably successful: of roughly a dozen recommendations, most were enacted into Virginia law. Highlights included mobile home resident purchase reform (HB 375), statewide ADU permitting (SB 531), split-rate taxation authority for Charlottesville (HB 282), greater tree canopy zoning powers (HB 549), locality right of first refusal for expiring affordable housing (HB 4), and nonprofit affordable housing support (HB 1279). Items that did not pass — including planning commission authority to hear special exceptions, locally defined hardship standards, and single-stair building code reform — are being carried forward this year.

Legislative Priorities for 2026–2027 Session

The commission worked through each proposed item. The goal is to have Council act at a Thursday work session so recommendations reach legislators early enough to avoid the timing problems of last year.

Planning commission delegation for special exceptions — Currently the Board of Zoning Appeals handles special exceptions. This bill would allow the state to delegate that authority to planning commissions. Delegate Colson was supportive last year but received it too late. The commission expects her to carry it again.

Locally defined hardship standard for zoning relief — State law currently requires an extremely high burden of proof (near-total economic hardship) before localities can grant administrative modifications to dimensional zoning standards such as setbacks. The commission supports allowing localities to set their own, more contextually appropriate threshold. Staff clarified this applies primarily to administrative modifications (e.g., small setback adjustments), not BZA variances.

Noticing relief for areas without a daily newspaper — Virginia law requires public hearing notices be published in a daily newspaper on a fixed schedule. Charlottesville no longer has a daily paper, making scheduling inflexible and expensive. The commission supports legislation giving localities more flexibility on notice timing, with commissioners noting the city already supplements notices with online outreach.

Relief on rezoning VDOT study requirements — This would clarify or reduce the burden of traffic studies required during rezonings, particularly for urban localities that manage their own right-of-way. Details would be worked out through the legislative drafting process.

Support housing near jobs — statewide zoning reform — This bill, which would require localities to allow housing near employment centers (similar to transit-oriented development bills), passed both chambers last year unanimously but then died in committee under unexplained circumstances. The commission expressed surprise and continued support.

Improve city authority to address blighted properties — State law narrowly defines blight and limits municipal tools to act on blighted properties. The commission supports expanding that authority, with a specific note to include equity-focused language given the history of urban renewal abuses.

Tax increment financing (TIF) enabling legislation — Currently illegal in Virginia, TIF would allow a defined portion of new property tax revenues generated by development in a geographic area to be reinvested in that same area — for infrastructure, transit, or community benefits — rather than flowing to the general fund. Commissioners noted this could be especially relevant in Preston and Cherry neighborhoods, where new development is creating displacement anxiety. Arlington has used a "synthetic TIF" workaround because a real TIF is currently prohibited.

Legislative relief for protected bike lanes and bus shelters on state right-of-way — VDOT jurisdiction over state roads in urban areas makes it legally burdensome to install bike lanes or bus shelters. Some workarounds have been developed with Virginia Public Transit, but the commission supports explicit state permission for localities to make these improvements.

Funding to design and begin construction on a World Heritage Trail connecting UVA and Monticello — The commission expressed broad enthusiasm for this trail concept, noting UVA and Monticello are supportive and that the investment value lies especially in connecting the intermediate segments between the two anchor sites.

Study permitting less costly elevator dimensional standards in residential construction — The discussion was lively. Commissioner Jose raised reliability concerns based on personal experience managing elevators at Belmont Lofts. After debate, the commission agreed the intent is specifically about reducing minimum dimensional (size) requirements — not safety standards — so that more residential buildings can economically include elevators, increasing accessibility. Language will be refined to say "elevator dimensional standards."

Study impacts of state daycare licensing on urban daycare centers — State licensing requires minimum per-pupil indoor and outdoor square footage that reflects suburban development patterns, making it difficult or impossible to license daycare centers in dense urban settings. The commission also noted that proximity to a public park cannot substitute for on-site outdoor space under current rules. The word "scale" will be replaced with "context" to clarify the urban infill framing.

Study impacts of Smart Scale transportation funding on urban contexts — The commission supports examining whether the Smart Scale program — Virginia's major transportation funding formula — adequately rewards urban transportation projects. A related idea, adding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction as a scoring metric within Smart Scale, was folded in as a sub-item rather than a separate bullet.

New item: Relief on deed restrictions on the Oak Lawn property — Commissioner Lyle introduced this late addition based on staff input. The city owns (or is acquiring) the Oak Lawn property, a historic site that includes a small cemetery and house. State-enforced deed restrictions tied to DHR (Department of Historic Resources) make it nearly impossible to use the remainder of the property for any public purpose. The commission endorsed seeking legislative relief specifically for uses outside the building and burial area. A broader suggestion to make deed restrictions generally unenforceable against local governments was noted but set aside given unintended consequences (e.g., affordable housing deed restrictions).

Other Business

Bylaws amendment — earlier public hearing start time: Staff noted that current Planning Commission bylaws require public hearings to begin at 6:00 PM. The commission expressed interest in changing this to allow earlier starts. A bylaw amendment will be placed on a future agenda; five days' notice to commissioners is required before a vote.

Carlton Avenue mobile home site: A member of the public raised the Carlton Avenue mobile home community, suggesting the city replace trailers with affordable high-rise housing. Commissioners noted the city purchased the site to protect current residents, with Habitat for Humanity now serving as property manager, but acknowledged they lacked current details. Staff will seek an update for a future meeting.

Next meeting: Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 5:00 PM (shifted from the usual Tuesday due to Labor Day).

Key Takeaways

The commission approved a slate of roughly a dozen state legislative priorities to forward to City Council, building on last year's remarkably successful effort that resulted in six new Virginia laws.

The most notable new item is tax increment financing enabling legislation, which would give Charlottesville a tool to direct development-generated tax revenue back into neighborhoods like Preston and Cherry facing displacement pressure.

Daycare licensing reform and elevator dimensional standards emerged as items with strong personal resonance for commissioners and clear local need, though both will require more precise language before going to legislators.

The Oak Lawn deed restriction item was added at the last minute based on staff input; it could unlock meaningful public use of a city-owned property currently rendered largely unusable by state historic restrictions.

The commission intends to recommend a bylaws change to allow public hearings to begin before 6:00 PM, which would be voted on at a future meeting.

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

Legislative Subcommittee Agenda Discussion

# Legislative Subcommittee Agenda Discussion Summary

Lyle presented the Planning Commission's Legislative Subcommittee agenda, which has been making recommendations to city council similar to the Human Rights Commission's efforts. The subcommittee, including Lyle and Ross, met with city staff (James Fries and Dan O'Connell) to validate recommendations, and noted seven bills successfully passed into Virginia law last year while several others are being reconsidered for the current session. Key agenda items include planning commission delegation of special exceptions (152-2286), which Delegate Colson supports and the subcommittee hopes to get council approval for this week to meet legislative deadlines, along with statewide zoning reform near jobs (15-2-2286), blighted property authority (36.3-49) with added equity focus, and tax increment financing enabling legislation. Commissioners discussed whether they should develop actual legislative text or simply validate council's ideas, and made several agenda revisions including adding equity focus to the blight item, changing "Elevator standards" to "Elevator dimensional standards," and making vehicle miles traveled a sub-item under smart scale. Public comment from Bill Emery regarding tree canopy and impervious surfaces was noted but commissioners acknowledged difficulty incorporating it as a clean bullet point, while also requesting a future status update on the Carlton Avenue project.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

1ProceduralLegislative Subcommittee Agenda Discussion

The Legislative Subcommittee will discuss and plan the agenda for its upcoming meeting, deciding which topics and issues to address.

What happened

Verbatim transcript available

160 transcript segments indexed

Get started, but I think we're still missing a couple people. That's Betsy and Jose. We'll wait for them to come. Yeah. Hmm. Hello. Welcome. Just lovely. All right. I think this is everyone who's going to make it today, so why don't we go ahead and begin the meeting?

So this is just a work session, so I don't need to officially convene us. We're just going to begin the conversation with our main agenda item, the legislative subcommittee agenda discussion. Am I going to kick this over to Lyle to walk us through?

Yes, I can do my best. All right. You might want to just explain what- Yes ... y'all are working on and how it fits into your bigger, larger role as the planning commission. The Human Rights Commission initiated a process to make recommendations on legislation to the city council, I think two years ago.

And we heard about it and gotten jealous, so we started doing it as well. We really got our act together on this last year, though we were a bit late. But we made a number of recommendations to council.

I was on that committee. Mr. Durancia was also on that committee. And recommendations were made to council. I think they adopted all of them. I made a list, but many of them have now been made into Virginia state law, which feels nice.

Historically, that's not something this commission does, but this is a powerful effort That we've started moving on. So I'm excited to continue it. The subcommittee has met. Ross has joined me, and we've made a number of recommendations.

We've spoken with a number of city employees about this matter. James Fries and Dan O'Connell were at the subcommittee meeting to ground truth some of our ideas and make sure they were realistic even any further.

And we think that these are going to be useful for you. But we have time to discuss them. I actually have an additional idea that's come to me from talking with city staff that I'd like to raise, and of course we can add others as well.

Okay. Can I ask a question? So I was looking up all the bills and trying to figure out where we were with some of these. And some of them are harder than others because I couldn't find, I guess if there were past bills that didn't get through.

So any- Spreadsheet for- ... context would be appreciated. The ones with the numbers, I'm good, but some of them, I didn't know quite how to prepare in terms of the sort of seeing what was on the docket last year or this year.

And it seems like they don't even set the date for their legislative session yet. Correct. It's going to be not a short one. I did not know that. It's challenging to work with. Yeah. Okay. This is- Anyway.

Sorry. I was trying to be all up on everything. No. And I have to say- We removed that one. Oh, that is a very good idea. A bit out of scope, but the legislative session does seem difficult to manage, doesn't it?

I can briefly go through last year's legislative asks and what came through. Mobile home resident purchase reform, just to make it easier to buy a mobile home based on our work here. That turned into HB 375, approved by the governor, law.

Accessory dwelling units permitted statewide turned into SB 531, approved by the governor, law. Split rate taxation permission for Charlottesville, three other localities joined, HB 282, approved by the governor, law.

Greater tree canopy zoning powers. We had a little back and forth about this one. HB 549, approved by the governor, law. Locality right of first refusal for expiring below market rate housing, HB 4, approved by the governor, law.

Support for non-profit affordable housing development, HB 1279, approved by governor, law. That's just in urban areas, but, in my opinion, mostly we got there. Legal standing reform for zoning litigation, HB 447, that was continued.

There's a reason for that one. We had a bit about single stair building code reform. That is now incorporated into the 2027 building code by consensus for the fourth story. Five and six remain a question mark.

Planning commission can be delegated special exceptions, nothing. Though you may notice it in this packet as well. Hardship standard for zoning relief to be defined locally, nothing, but it's in this packet.

School Streets program creation, no action. Restrictive covenant study, no action, but I think it's in our packet. Study moving three to six unit residential buildings under residential code, no action, but I think it's in this packet.

Study street standards of fire access, no action, in this packet. And update 55.1 to 319 just for inflation. There was no action on that. That's about mortgages. That's everything we did last year. Okay.

Unbelievably successful, in my opinion. That's good. All right. So it's the packet more than the list? Just the list. When you were saying packet, I was thinking- It was packets. Yeah, a short packet.

One-page packet. Yeah. Just making sure. All right. Do you want to just walk through each item on the list, and then should we discuss as we go or? Yeah, let's just take each one. Let's do item by item.

Yeah. First one I see listed is 152-2286, planning commission can be delegated special exceptions. This was in our last year. I think it's especially attractive and has a good chance of passing this year.

What's the reason that they didn't get adopted this year? Um- They didn't get to it or? I spoke with Delegate Colson about this. She was very supportive of it, but we got it too or too late. Okay. She couldn't scramble on it.

But my understanding is that she wants to carry it. So, to carry it to, pulling that thread a little bit further, we're trying to do this now so that council can get to it in their Thursday work session?

Yes. Okay. So that then it gets in front of them sooner to try to mitigate the issue of us getting- To them ... the Delegate Colson and then Senator Deeds- Makes sense ... too late. Okay. Anything additional on this one?

Looks good. 15-222-86, hardship standard for zoning relief to be defined locally. So just similar, very deep in the weeds, zoning wonk stuff. I think it could easily be paired with the previous one, and could succeed.

Could you just maybe expand on that a little bit? Is there a case for this or a situation where this was a problem recently? Many. Right now, this is determined by the state level, and they're as conservative as possible.

You basically have to prove that your property, you can't do anything with the land. It's a severe economic hardship Which was not what we were thinking when we wrote the zoning code. We were thinking that it could be a problem that was worth public discussion.

So, a meaningful hardship, but not sort of existential risk. So, our recommendation's that if the locality can define that, it can be more appropriate for the needs of the locality. So this plays a part, I believe, when somebody's trying to do something to their property, comes to the city and says, "We want to adjust this dimensional figure." They can do that, but then a neighbor can sue and say, "No, we don't want that," because they have to prove a hardship, which is a very conservative standard, and we're trying to be able to potentially change that level of standard.

Basically, to make the special exceptions more possible. In the body that would review these, would it be the planning commission or would it be the BZA? I believe that goes to planning commission. But I- No, the BZA does review hardships ...

see y'all shaking heads. I see you shaking heads. Well, what you're putting forward would just give the municipality the ability to write something. It currently, you have to something that goes to BZA for a variance, the level is a hardship.

That probably would not change with this. You would still have the hardship for a variance that goes through BZA. I think this is more tailored for administrative modifications, which have a number related to it where staff could alter a standard to a certain percentage.

But the threshold is a hardship right now. So, it is very hard to build yourself into a hardship. So, we are very conservative on, we don't have a lot of ability to grant a lot of administrative modifications due to the hardship.

Cool. Great. Anything more on this one? It's good. Just a quick. So when people come and they're building a shed on a critical slope- Mm-hmm ... and it's very small, and we've said, "Okay." How is that different, or is it different, than what we're trying to do here?

We've gone too far for me. Can Steph answer that? Yeah. So that building something on a critical slope- Right ... is a special exception permit. Oh, okay. So that falls under the special exception rules.

Administrative modification is- Okay ... more I have a fence, or my setback is 10 to 20, but I need to set back 21 feet. And we have a percentage we could do it, but the standard when we review that request is a hardship standard, and when you're building something new, it's very hard to reach that level of hardship to allow that.

So it allows these small shifts locally if- Right now we've provided the administrative means for up to 15% change, right? Correct. From the standard. But that's- But while that's on the books, it's very hard to actually do in practice, because they have to prove a hardship.

Okay. New things. Right. 15-2 to 204, relief on noticing requirements for areas without a daily paper. Give me an example of a county or a little city that doesn't have a daily paper. I know one. Or a daily press.

I know a city just like that. Okay. I do too. Where are you dealing? Okay. This has been a direct request. It's coming, probably more. Increasingly an issue. Sadly. I'm looking to Steph for details on that.

So, this has been one that gets brought up pretty frequently, because our types of ads are likely what are keeping print newspapers in business. We have to print the ads. Fewer people are reviewing paper advertisements without the daily paper.

When we had the daily paper, we had flexibility about when we could hold meetings and make the timing work, because you have to schedule the ads at certain intervals. And when you don't have the daily paper, it is a little bit challenging if something comes up.

We've been able to make it work, but advertisements in the newspaper are a very costly part of hearings, and so I'm guessing that's where it's coming from. It tends to be something that we've evolved to a different place with newspaper and advertising, and I'm guessing that this would be something that would...

Well, the newspaper folks I'm sure will have a lot to say. So what do we do today to notice? What do we do? Depending on what it is, there will be an advertisement put in the newspaper, and if it's something that affects individual properties, then there'll be mailings that are sent out.

Since we don't have a daily paper, do we just put it in the C-Ville or the- We use The Progress, but we have to time it such that it meets the state guidelines The tail is wagging the dog. I'm just worried about less communication in a problem, but I see the other problem as well.

But the specific fix I had in mind was just to give us more flexibility on when it is posted, so that we have a little bit more leeway on either end. I guess this is sort of the City Connect website. It seems like the city's already trying to look at new ways for public engagement and- Mm-hmm.

And again, we utilize online aspects all the time. Yeah. So, we do the old forms that we've always done, and then we add new ones as appropriate. Right. See an old TikTok coming soon. Anything more on this one?

Do we want to vote on these as we go or how do we- Yes, unless we have significant dissent, probably not, but I'm not willing to fight you on it, so. 15-2-222.1, relief on rezoning VDOT study requirements.

Again, based on a real story. I'm not sure I need to explain this one. Would this legislation prescribe the study that should be done? What does it actually do to the study requirement that's currently in the law?

We don't have that detail right now. Mm-hmm. My broad idea for this is to offer more clarity, ease, reduce the certain burden, especially for localities that manage their own right of way, and certainly collaborate with VDOT, but don't have that sort of intimate relationship that our counties do.

Okay. So it would be worked out in the process, I guess, is like we have a general idea, and then the legislators would write something. Right. Okay. Anything more on this one? I got a question on this one from the realtors.

It was very pointed. Yeah. Yes. 15-2-2286, support housing near jobs, statewide zoning reform. This is a little bit more stick your neck out kind of a thing. This is largely the kind of thing we've already done with the Charlottesville plans together.

But other localities are in various states in this process. One side, our friends at Virginia Association of Counties would say that, "Well, this is an overreach. This is the state telling localities what to do, reducing local control." The other side, which I personally am more sympathetic with, would say, "Well, there's a housing crisis.

We need to do something." Charlottesville has already made our step. So it's kind of an encouragement of more integrated planning efforts, state, local. Well, this is a specific bill that passed both houses last year unanimously, but then died in committee, which is- What?

Hmm ... surprising. It happened, but that's what happened. Okay. It was then referred back to committee after session. It surprised it passed unanimously- Yes ... but then died in committee. Something must have been brought to light.

Yeah. Yeah. Something happened there. Yeah. So it is popular. Wow, must be devils in the details. Yeah. Is this kind of like, California has been introducing various statewide laws that say if you have a transit stop that receives quality service, you must allow at least, I don't know, duplexes or triplexes or something like that.

It overrides local zoning near transit. Is that the idea? I think that bill passed last year. It was, I think, transit-oriented development. Oh, okay. I think that one passed. This one is near jobs, and I believe it's more the same idea but targeted toward commercial only.

Oh, okay. There it is. Got you. I'm sorry. We should make an announcement today. Anything else on this item? No, I found that one. It looked fine. I think it was... Thank you. Yeah. 36.3-49, if you've been reading the news today, improve the city's authority to remove or address blighted properties.

Takeover. Yeah. Thoughts on this one? You know what it would do? How it would do this? Unclear at this time. Basically, right now, the city's very constrained on what we can declare to be a blighted property and then give us those tools, and thus far, we have not been able to use those tools for our urgent public problems.

Hmm. Can I ask a question, and also, can you all hear me? Hello. Yeah. Am I large? I don't want to be large. Keep it visible. Okay. So- That's it ... aside for this one because it's topical, but also really for any of these, what is the level of detail and guidance that PC gives to council and the council gives to our representatives?

Are we giving them a sentence? Do we have the intention of working with staff more to provide actual legislative text, somewhere in the middle? I think this is a good item, but I don't know what it means in detail.

Maybe that's okay I can tell you that this was taken from the council packet. Okay. So we're just agreeing with their idea or... Sure. I'm just curious. Maybe it's beyond our scope, but the thing we're forming is what council sends to Kosten and Deeds.

Yes. Does that document say more than this document, once it's written? No. Okay. That would be great, though. Yes. Other localities have a paid person who does this work, which is wonderful and very helpful.

We don't. I guess the interesting slippery slope with that one is it could be, potentially, I think of urban renewal in the '60s. That could be contorted to give maybe some more nefarious efforts. But I don't know.

I guess the language, I guess it'll be in the detailing of the language. Agreed. Yep. Cool. Maybe an explicit thing like calling out equity concerns. Yeah. I think being upfront about it and just clear definitions of what blighted means.

There's a statewide legal definition from those days that needs an update. Yes. Yeah. So I'm hearing approval on that one- Yeah ... but very clear. Clarify the equity focus there. Next one. This would be a new item.

Tax increment financing enabling legislation. I have no idea what that means. They're words. I could wish. Sure, so- I mean- Please. From what I understand, might, may not be correct, I think the... You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong.

It would mean that, let's say a developer is building a large student housing project, and the taxes can be put towards the adjacent neighborhood or some kind of boundary that's drawn around this large new project so that it benefits the local neighborhood instead of going in the general city pot.

Is that? Yeah. Okay. Because that's consistent with something you and I had a conversation with Charlie Armstrong. Which is illegal. Okay, got it. But yes. Yeah. This would make it legal, and this is very common in other states.

I'm most familiar with the Pennsylvania program, which is, in my opinion, amazing. Pittsburgh did this a lot, and it's great. Mm-hmm. I mean, some of our current things that are happening, it's going to be too late for, but assuming something like that happens, there's still some possibility in some neighborhoods where this could be a pretty big project.

The two areas where I'm really thinking about is Preston and Cherry. Got it. Yeah. Where there's some anxiety about money coming in and people getting pushed out. Yeah. Making a clear tie could be, I think, beneficial.

It says it uses future gains in property tax revenues to pay for infrastructure redevelopment projects in a specific geographic area, so... Yeah, it sounds like what you're describing-- Well, I don't know, maybe it is the same as-- Because I'm more familiar with it in the transportation context, where it's like we're going to build this transportation link.

It's going to create more demand for the land, so we're going to shave off X percent of the new value and pay for the transportation infrastructure. It's like a way to finance infrastructure. Yes. Yep, Arlington did this a few years ago with a synthetic TIF because, of course, a real TIF would be illegal.

So basically, it's a guideline that then the legislators have to look at every year and- Mm-hmm ... honor it or not. Yeah. It might be helpful to the discussion of the... What is it? The sensitive, what was the sensitive communities because they have a particular boundary and right now, I think are feeling pressured.

So I think in that case, here, we've already identified these neighborhoods. So I think maybe that would be another tool to offer since we haven't had that much to offer them to date in terms of support for what's happening around them.

Is part of the timing of this with the one cent for schools is the idea that because there could be new funding sources to maintain the school system, it takes some of the pressure that these resources could be allocated to...

Because I imagine historically, when you do something like this, you could be diverting funds away from a future school project or something else, but... I hadn't made that connection, but I think that's an interesting one.

Sort of working on multiple fronts, I guess. Yes, transit was one thing that jumped up to my mind as an exciting use. Yeah. Any more on this one? Okay. Legislative relief for providing protected bike lanes and bus shelters on state property.

Again, this was based on staff concerns. Those are VDOT roads. Can you say more? I'm curious. Hmm. I am told there are some challenges working with VDOT on VDOT right of way. Albemarle County has figured out workarounds.

To place these sort of public goods on private property as a way to avoid challenges working with VDOT, which is pretty smart. But it's not a perfect solution in all cases. I'm told that there have been some workarounds developed in combination with the Department of-- Can I get it?

Transit. The- Virginia Public Transit ... Virginia Public Transit, thank you. Recently to make it less burdensome, but it is still very burdensome. Making clear relief available to localities like the state of Charlottesville and Albemarle County would be very valuable, is my understanding.

Josh. Sorry, I just don't think I follow. Is it relief for building these things or relief from building them? Explicit permission to allow them from the state. Okay, great. Public right of way. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Next, funding to design and begin construction on a world heritage trail connecting the University of Virginia and Monticello. Note the project here. Yay. Yes. Since I know a little bit about it, with supporting everything in between, not just the two main events, but the idea that the trail would bring in interest and economic activity all along the trail.

I think that's the bulk of where the investment is needed is in the in between. Yeah. And there's a lot of connector pieces basically already completed- Yeah ... connecting the short segments that are already there to make-- What's the big one?

Is it 64? What's, 64 is the trail. Yeah, is there a problem? But it has future development benefit. You've imagined it, so it's good connection. And there's support from UVA on this? Yeah. In Monticello.

It's been a studio project. It's been presented. I know it's presented to our office, and everyone's favorable for it. And I believe Monticello is on board. You guys worked with them, right? Monticello is extremely supportive of this project.

Yeah. Cool. Study permitting less costly elevator standards in residential construction. So I live in Belmont Lofts. We are a self-management managed association. That means we have volunteers that do different things, like someone manages the money, someone manages the roof.

Oh, okay. And me, the elevator manager. During the short draw. So we replaced both elevators in Belmont Lofts at the beginning of the year. Cool. The elevators have been down at least every two weeks since we replaced them, so I'm particularly sensitive to people getting stuck on elevators in residential properties like Belmont Lofts or that bank of apartment, bank of condominium or townhouses across from the Wooded Tower, where they all have elevators.

You start messing around with elevators, you're messing around with a lot of stuff, so the devil's definitely in the details there because you become less strict about the way they're put together. They're going to fail more often.

And there are lots of elderly people that live in condominiums and those townhouses across the street from Wooded Tower, so be careful with that one. Yeah. Jose's got an interesting point. Just anecdotally from the university, the UVA has an elevator standard, and the foundation doesn't adhere to that, or neither does the health system.

And I think the health system does now. And, well, commercial products and the reliability can become a problem. Yeah. So I think, yeah. Yeah, I- I get the idea of trying to lessen the cost of it ... oh, yeah.

Well, our town's appointed that one, so we had to vote on that. I probably would duke it out with you on that. One of the counterintuitive things is that weirdly, the easier to maintain cheaper ones cost more upfront because you're buying non-proprietary parts.

So what happens is they subsidize proprietary elevator parts- Oh, you front-load the cost ... and then they get you into a service contract forever. Ah. And so just think about that when you go in, that maybe moving away from prior sort of unique parts, sort of vendor specific, and I imagine Jose's dealing with that with probably a specific vendor.

And so a lot of the elevators you hear are like Franken-elevators, where anything breaks, they can pull it off the shelf and replace it. Nothing is unique to a singular company. And when you're talking about residential properties, yeah, the problem exacerbates itself because there's so many different vendors out there that are out there supporting so many people with different types of controllers and things like that, and there's so much criteria you need, so be careful with that one.

I recognize and agree with your concern. We could probably expand on the language a bit more before it goes to council, but it's more less about safety standards and more about dimensional standards. The thing right now is that, it's my understanding that United States elevator standards are quite large.

Trying to make sure that a ambulance stretcher can fit fully with somebody pushing or driving that stretcher in an elevator. The thing is, is that when you go that big, you actually end up with fewer elevators in buildings.

So you actually have less accessible buildings because they're too expensive to put in- ... buildings, therefore you have fewer of them- Mm-hmm ... across the area. So it's less about safety and maintenance- Mm ...

and that sort of stuff, and more about reducing potentially the size, the minimum standards of size. Not that you can't have the larger ones in the right settings- Yeah ... so that you can actually put them in more buildings.

If we want to go that way, I think we need to be a little more specific then. I agree. Yeah. Yeah, the safety features cannot be compromised, and- I've got elevator- Yeah. I've had people, again, stuck on elevators for a while, and the typical elevator service person will take you 30 minutes to an hour to get here.

So I've actually called the fire department to get people out. Yeah. Everyone loves you in your building. Thank you very much. Or not. It's a cool building. I can't say this comes out of AARP policy. But that is the concern.

Mm-hmm. "Study impact of state-level daycare licensing requirements on urban-scale daycare centers." That's one close to my heart. It's close to my heart too. To your whisper, my daughter is three weeks old.

Mm-hmm. And- She's on a wait list somewhere. Exactly. So as my wife and I have been figuring out daycares around here, wait lists are a year long, potentially, and daycare is quite expensive. And I started looking into it, and can't say I dug super deep and actually intend to when we finally go visit these places, find somebody who can have a more detailed conversation with me about them from the operator standpoint.

But the city has done a pretty good job of allowing daycare centers, larger ones, sort of, in the RX zones and more dense and smaller operations in residential areas. But the state level licensing requirements have per pupil square footage requirements both- Mm ...

inside and outside. Mm. So they require quite a bit of space per kid to even be able to get a license. Yeah. And so that's basically, it's probably not the only thing or may not even be the thing, but that's why we're having a study, asking for a study to see how those state level requirements make it difficult or infeasible to have more private daycare centers in a city like ours.

Yeah. One item we did discuss was permitting offsite recreational options. Yeah, like you could have a daycare center across from a public park and you can't count that public park towards your outdoor space.

You have to have it on your- On your property ... on your property. Mm. Is an urban scale daycare center, is that a specific term? It is not. Or does that just mean a big daycare center? It just, in my mind, the current licensing requirement is more of a suburban-style place.

Oh, okay. I got you. So somewhere that's- Oh, I see ... more dense in the direction the city is going. I see. And able to allow that. Yeah. Okay. I didn't get that. Yeah, maybe- But now it makes sense.

Maybe take scale off. Maybe it's more just like an urban- Urban ... daycare center. Yeah. So it's almost like a infill need, right? Exactly. Like if you're building a greenfield, you can build whatever you want, but not- Exactly ...

your... Yeah. If we remove urban, then it says, "Requirements on scale daycare centers." No, it can remain scale. Oh, on urban daycare centers. Okay, got it. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion on this?

"Study the impacts of the state level transportation funding programs. For example, Smart Scale, to produce better outcomes in the urban context." Looking at you, Danny. Yeah. Let's do it. Yeah. They've had a rocky road to Smart Scale, so it's good to do.

So to go back up, do we like the phrase urban context here? It should replace the language in the daycare line as urban context too. Yeah. That's a good idea. Yeah. Urban context. I like that. Last one.

We're so fast. "Funding for transportation projects that improve safety and reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled." And this was also discussed with staff. Yeah, I could see this kind of nesting under the previous bullet, too.

It's like Smart Scale has various metrics for things that they want to change, congestion metrics. So they have person hour of delay measures, but I don't know that you get points in Smart Scale for reducing vehicle miles traveled.

Which if you could, then that would suddenly make a lot of the more urban transportation projects much more fundable. Yeah. Is it valuable as a separate item, or would it be more valuable to combine? Good question.

Is that a reform Smart Scale versus have a new line of funding for the second bullet point sort of question? I think it might be stronger if it's just a sub-bullet of the previous one. I don't know. I would imagine that council and whomever is talking to elected officials, it's like you want to go with a manageable list of requests.

And so if there are two similar ones, maybe it muddies the waters a bit. Is it typically easier to refine an existing program or to get something off the ground? Neither is easy. Yeah. That's a good point.

Smart Scale is a behemoth. It's got a technical manual. There's so much stuff already done. My personal opinion would be that it'd be easier to reform it and add a new measure that's VMT reduction. And Smart Scale itself could work well with measures like that.

You wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. I have one... Well, I had language for an additional item that I wanted to raise, because we've gotten through everything in the packet. This is, again, based on staff input.

Relief for the city of Charlottesville on deed restrictions on the historic Oak Lawn property outside of the building and burial area. This might be based on city schools feedback. What did you just say?

I'll say it again. No, no. Say it a different way, please. So the City of Charlottesville has a property, Oak Lawn. Uh-huh. I think we have it fee simple now. Is that... Maybe we don't. I'm not sure. There's some process to get it to the City of Charlottesville.

It is burdened by state historic restrictions, which I believe are well-intentioned, but make it very difficult for the City of Charlottesville to use in any way. So we've got a cemetery that we own, but we are not using.

Or isn't that pretty filled up? The cemetery is relatively small, and isn't that valuable for educational use. So that one is- Historical value, but yeah. Yeah. The educational value is limited. The house is also relatively small for the site.

And there are ways to use the house for public purpose. The rest of the property is burdened by restrictions to protect the aesthetics of the property, which depending on your reading, means it's impossible to use it for anything.

Which is tough. So what's an example of a use that you'd like to see there? A classroom. Daycare. Yeah, it's proximate. Daycare. It's proximate to- A daycare in a cemetery? Yeah, it's the- No, it's like- It's CMS, Boys and Girls Club ...

the city has three only, like in the east ... like they're all there, yeah. So I think the idea is it's one big city block, and so it could be some future development parcel to expand those services. I had a student who did that property for a thesis when it was first being discussed.

Have you ever read that thesis? And they were doing, what was it? It was senior housing, affordable housing for seniors, but it had the ground floors were related to the middle school in terms of afterschool activities.

But they were looking more at you'd leave the historic pieces alone and create a whole new entrance and face to the street potentially. So it sounds like this is more how do you redraw some lines around what should be protected and what can be actually built on.

Yeah, there's an approved manual of what can be done through DHR on this site, and it's incredibly restrictive as to... There's really nothing that can be done but maintain it with what's currently there from a paperwork and historic standpoint.

And so, sounds like there's interest in trying to open that up a little bit. In this case, is this a deed restriction- Yes ... from a previous owner? So it's not a matter of it has historical protections.

I assume it also has that, but the issue is not that it's individually protected property, the issue is that there is a- I think it is ... deed restriction. I assume it's also individually protected. It is, yeah.

But the problem the city has with using the property is the deed restriction. Correct. Enforced by the state. Okay. I wonder, this could be a bad idea, but I'm just going to throw it out there, but since we've discussed in the past the question of deed restrictions, would it be smart to broaden this a little bit so it's not about one specific property?

It seems pretty far from ideal if even the local government has to adhere to a deed restriction when in theory it's got democratic legitimacy for doing what the public wants with a certain property. Is there a way for cities and counties to eliminate deed restrictions when it needs to?

I'd be in favor of just getting rid of, making deed restrictions unenforceable on a matter of principle, but that's just me. I would be open to a broader interpretation. Yeah. I will just add our affordable housing is tied to deed restrictions.

Yeah, that's right. I was going to say, there's probably things that are deed restrictions that we're not going to think of right now- Yeah ... at this table sort of off the cuff that- Conservation easements.

Yeah. Has there been a precedent with DHR to do something like this to lessen? It is my understanding, I'm a former DHR intern. I have nothing but to say but DHR. They do their best to work with localities, but it is a time-consuming, unpredictable process.

It's not impossible that some agreement could be made sometime in the future, but not today. I like the language as is. The changes that I have. People writing things down. Do you know what we've agreed to, or would it be helpful for me to say it again?

It would be helpful if you say it again. The additional item was relief for the city of Charlottesville on deed restrictions on the historic Oak Lawn property outside of the building and burial area. Someone was writing that down.

Do you have it in? Thank you. Hold on, let me pull it up. You have to say it again. All right. Say that again. Relief for the city of Charlottesville on deed restrictions on the historic Oak Lawn property outside of the building and burial area.

Okay. The changes that I noted down, on the blight item, to add, with a focus on equity concerns. For the elevator item, to change it to read, "Elevator dimensional standards," not just, "Elevator standards." On the daycare item, to remove the word scale.

And to make the last item about vehicle miles traveled a sub-bullet of the previous item. Those are all the changes I have noted. I think for the-- This is minor. But for the daycare one, we were saying use the words urban context, because that matches- That's right ...

what we were saying before with the smart scale. So replace the word scale with context? Mm-hmm. Because that's what we are. Anything more on this item? It's tough. Good work. Could I bring up, I don't know if you all got...

Sorry, this is a public comment thing that I just printed the email- Yeah ... to bring into this. Did you all get Bill Emery's? Yes. Which I think would take some time to digest, so- How did you receive it?

What? How did you receive it? It came through planning commission. It came through our emails. It's already up on the screen if you guys want. That's a Lyle, I thought you were in the thread. Yeah. Lyle, I thought you responded to it actually.

Okay, maybe you did. I just brought it because it's an interesting topic. It sounds like a lot to add right now as a bullet point, because it would- Was this in February? No. This is like- Yesterday ...

Monday. Yesterday. Check your spam. That's where all my planning commission emails go, unfortunately. That's it. Oh, no. I'm sorry, Bill. Unless you want me to put it up on the screen, or... Yeah. I think there's a larger- The text is pretty dense.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the issue about the tree canopy, storm water, impervious surfaces, that might be a lot to get into a clean bullet point here. So I just wanted to throw out that it sounds like this is something, since I'm on the tree commission, they're also looking at how to have more pervious surfaces and tree canopy.

So I just wanted to make sure that we saw the comments at least. Lyle, I thought your comments, that you sent out about from Ms. Firehawk, were responding to Mr. Emery's message, so perhaps those are two separate things.

Possible. Okay. Are there any other items that anyone else would like to add to the discussion of items for council to consider for legislative requests? What about Carlton Avenue? I think it's kind of a waste of money to invest in the trailers.

I think we should just take it out completely, the whole area, and build highrises, like the apartments for the low-income people instead of trailers. Okay. But I don't know where we would get the funding for that.

Mm-hmm. Well, I don't know where the project stands. Okay. I think the idea is- Projects ... to, I think the idea is to do what you're saying, but they don't really have a plan or financing, but they've purchased the site to protect the people who live there now.

And I believe Habitat is now the property manager. Yeah. One of the trailers is vacant. Okay. And I don't know about the other ones. Oh. There's a lot. So maybe we all need an update on this project. Mm-hmm.

I haven't heard about it lately. No. But the city was involved in purchasing it, so... Right. Mm-hmm. That was what inspired our legislative ask last year. Yeah. Because it was a challenge. Yeah. Okay.

Would it be possible to get an update at a future meeting on the status of that project? I don't know which department is involved in it. We can inquire and we will respond, report back with what we get.

Okay. Cool. Okay. I ask a clarification question on the notes you gave me. So for the last item, the vehicle miles traveled item. Yes. What did you mean by making that a sub of the previous one? So instead of making a separate vehicle miles traveled study, the idea would be include it as a study of smart scale.

Okay. So incorporate it into the previous, the smart scale bullet. Yes. Okay. All right. Are there any other items before we close out the meeting? Not here. Um... One related to the legislature, but something I guess related to the bylaws.

So at the last meeting, Chairman Schwartz mentioned maybe changing the meeting procedure so that public hearings can begin earlier, so you don't have to wait until 6:00. Yeah. Mm. We looked at the bylaws, and apparently it is in the bylaws that public meetings have to begin, or public hearings have to begin at 6:00.

That being said- Yeah ... bylaws can be changed, provided that you vote on it and are given, I think it's five days notice to yourselves. Okay. So would you like to consider changing the bylaws in August?

I think I would be happy to do that. Okay. Put it on the agenda. All right. Also, about the high-rise, the building, the high-rise in Carlson or on Carlson Avenue, you'd have to invest in an elevator.

Sure. Because that was the issue all along, until today, so... Okay. All right, to note. Okay, well, our next scheduled meeting is, it says here Tuesday, September 8th, but it's actually going to be Wednesday, September 9th at 5:00 PM, to accommodate for Labor Day.