[0:04] And someday. You Good evening.

[0:05] I would like to call the

[0:08] regular meeting of JULY 28th,

[0:09] 2026 to order if you are able

[0:11] and so choose, please rise for

[0:15] the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:17] Pledge allegiance to the flag

[0:19] of the United States of America

[0:20] and to the Republic for which

[0:21] it Republic Republic for which

[0:22] Republic it Republic stands,

[0:24] one nation under GOD,

[0:25] indivisible with liberty and

[0:29] justice abroad. I would now

[0:30] like to invite the Parks and

[0:32] Recreation Department to come

[0:33] down for the proclamation

[0:34] acknowledging JULY as Parks and

[0:55] Recreation Month. Everybody

[1:00] looks wonderful. Yes ok. All

[1:05] right then. Whereas The city of

[1:06] Fairfax Parks and Recreation

[1:09] Department is dedicated to

[1:09] developing and maintaining

[1:12] beautiful, safe, and

[1:13] environmentally friendly open

[1:16] spaces for the public to use

[1:19] and enjoy affordable,

[1:19] comprehensive and amazing

[1:21] experiences, a sense of

[1:23] community that enriches

[1:23] people

[1:24] s lives, contributing to

[1:25] the well-being of the

[1:27] individual, family, and

[1:29] visitors to our city. And

[1:31] whereas a strategic master plan

[1:32] for parks and recreation was

[1:34] passed unanimously by the

[1:37] Fairfax City Council in 2014,

[1:39] committing city resources to

[1:41] ongoing investment in our 25

[1:44] public parks, walking trails,

[1:46] open space, recreational

[1:47] programming, cultural arts, and

[1:50] events. And whereas programming

[1:51] is offered to serve children

[1:53] through camps, older adults

[1:54] through the senior center at

[1:57] Green Acres and classes for all

[1:58] ages held year-round at

[2:00] locations across the city,

[2:02] offering opportunities for

[2:03] educational enrichment, skill

[2:06] building, and recreation. And

[2:07] whereas Fairfax City events

[2:09] draw people from all over the

[2:11] region for our chocolate lovers

[2:12] festival, our independence Day

[2:14] parade, most years, Fall

[2:15] Festival, and other

[2:17] celebrations, including Rock

[2:19] the Block from MAY to OCTOBER,

[2:21] all made possible by Parks and

[2:23] Recreation staff and their

[2:25] collaborative partnerships with

[2:26] other Fairfax City departments,

[2:27] and whereas cultural arts

[2:29] events such as the spotlight on

[2:32] the arts, City of Fairfax band

[2:33] performances and other theater

[2:34] and dance performances held at

[2:38] venue. Throughout Fairfax City

[2:39] are facilitated and supported

[2:40] by the work of our parks and

[2:44] recreation staff. And whereas

[2:45] environmental sustainability

[2:46] and stewardship is central to

[2:49] our parks, trails, and open

[2:51] spaces, prioritizing a healthy

[2:52] tree canopy and working to

[2:53] implement best practices

[2:55] regarding the planting and care

[2:56] of the city

[2:58] s green spaces, and

[2:59] whereas a vibrant community

[3:01] with events and parks is

[3:03] central to sustaining and

[3:04] growing our economic

[3:05] development, drawing visitors

[3:07] to our city and attracting new

[3:08] residents who choose to make

[3:11] their home here. And whereas

[3:12] playgrounds, ball fields,

[3:15] practice fields, and pavilions

[3:16] within our city provide

[3:17] children and their families a

[3:19] safe, accessible, and

[3:21] well-located area in which to

[3:24] enjoy outdoor play, sports, and

[3:27] celebrations. And whereas the

[3:29] us House of Representatives

[3:31] representatives have, has

[3:32] designated JULY as Parks and

[3:34] Recreation Month, now therefore

[3:36] I, Catherine s. Reed, mayor of

[3:38] the city of Fairfax, on behalf

[3:39] of all residents of the city of

[3:43] Fairfax. Declare the month of

[3:44] JULY with celebrations

[3:45] extending through AUGUST as

[3:47] Parks and Recreation Month in

[3:49] the city of Fairfax, and i

[3:50] encourage residents and

[3:51] visitors to enjoy, enjoy all

[3:53] that our city has to offer

[3:55] through our investments made in

[3:58] parks, trails, programs,

[3:59] cultural arts, and special

[3:59] events. Let

[4:00] s give it up for

[4:05] Parks and Rec. Thank you, uh,

[4:07] we just want to thank Mayor and

[4:08] council for acknowledging us

[4:09] through this proclamation, and

[4:11] we, we are also lucky to work

[4:12] in a community that is so

[4:14] supportive of Parks and

[4:16] Recreation and our parks

[4:17] facilities, trails, and

[4:18] programs are so amazing because

[4:21] we have an incredible team, so

[4:22] thank you, and now a photograph.

[4:30] All right, sir, squinch in.

[4:37] Sure, people in the back. Ok.

[4:42] All right, and big smiles.

[4:54] Couple more. But not you, Katie

[4:58] McCammon. I need you back here,

[4:58] who, who

[5:01] s taking this? We

[5:02] ll

[5:07] see. Hurt you. So Catherine

[5:11] McCammon. Also known

[5:12] affectionately throughout the

[5:15] city, is Katie Mack. We have

[5:16] something special for you. And

[5:18] let me just start by saying for

[5:20] people who do not know, Katie

[5:22] Mack, she has been with us for

[5:23] almost 15 years. She started

[5:29] out here. 14 years ago for sure

[5:31] Is a camp counselor was hired

[5:33] as an intern and was hired in

[5:35] cultural arts events management,

[5:36] have worked your way all the

[5:39] way up to recreation manager.

[5:42] And in that time. She has

[5:43] committed herself to so many

[5:44] things in this city that are

[5:45] not even part of her job

[5:49] description, which is why Today,

[5:51] we are going to honor Katie for

[5:54] this right here, the beautiful

[5:56] design you saw all over this

[5:59] city for the 250th anniversary

[6:00] the celebration celebration was

[6:01] designed by Katie Mack because

[6:03] she is talented, because she is

[6:04] talented and she is generous

[6:06] and she does things for the

[6:08] city because after almost 15

[6:10] years, everything she does.

[6:12] Reflects how much she cares

[6:14] about all of us. So in light,

[6:14] and I

[6:15] m gonna show you this

[6:16] right here because it has, it

[6:19] has the, has the logo on it.

[6:25] Katie McCammon. For your

[6:26] Exceptional talent, creativity

[6:27] and dedication in designing the

[6:31] official logo of the city of

[6:32] Fairfax commemorating the 250th

[6:34] anniversary of the United

[6:35] States Declaration of

[6:36] Independence, your contribution

[6:38] will serve as a source of

[6:39] community pride and a

[6:41] meaningful emblem of this

[6:43] historic milestone, helping to

[6:45] unite residents in the

[6:47] celebration of 250 years of

[6:48] history, achievement, and

[6:49] progress, thank you, Katie, for

[6:51] all you do for us every single

[6:52] day, but particularly for your

[6:54] gift and your talent. Talent

[6:57] that really set us apart in

[6:58] this national celebration,

[6:59] would you like to say a few

[7:03] words? Thank you, I guess, um,

[7:05] did not know this was happening,

[7:08] so, um, I appreciate it and I

[7:09] love working here, so thank you

[7:11] all for everything that you do

[7:12] to support our department and

[7:13] allow us to make all these

[7:14] things happen. Ok, now a

[7:27] picture and a picture. Yes. Big

[7:55] smile. Yes. Yes, hang on to it,

[7:56] for those of you who got a yard

[7:58] sign, and for those of you who

[7:59] have t-shirts, you know, the

[8:00] emblems on the t-shirts. Hang

[8:02] on to those things, really, we

[8:04] have the best looking logo in

[8:07] the entire nation. I, I feel

[8:08] firmly confident about that. We

[8:10] will now move on to, um, the

[8:12] agenda a Adoption. Is there a

[8:13] motion to approve the agenda. I

[8:15] move to adopt the agenda as

[8:19] presented. Second. Ok, a motion

[8:20] has been made in, uh, seconded

[8:23] a roll call vote. Council

[8:25] member Amos Council Member Hall

[8:26] Council member Hardy Hardy

[8:27] Hardy Chandler Hardy Council

[8:30] member Peterson Council member

[8:31] Bates Councilor McClellan,

[8:32] motion passed unanimously. We

[8:34] will go on to initial general

[8:35] public comment. I had 3 people

[8:36] sign up by 5 o

[8:37] clock P.M. Today,

[8:37] and I

[8:38] m gonna call the first

[8:39] speaker up, which is Stacy

[9:09] Langton. 3. Good evening, um.

[9:13] In the fall of 2020, this city

[9:14] council apparently went along

[9:17] with the Fairfax County Board

[9:19] of Supervisors to remove

[9:20] so-called offensive monuments

[9:22] and landmarks. They voted on

[9:25] SEPTEMBER 15th of that year to

[9:28] remove 2 us Navy Civil War era

[9:29] howitzer cannons, which stood

[9:31] on the lawn of the historic

[9:33] Fairfax County Courthouse here

[9:35] in Fairfax City, along with a

[9:36] large stone monument that

[9:38] marked this place as one of the

[9:39] locations of the first battles

[9:42] of the Civil War, and it marked

[9:43] the death of John Quincy

[9:47] Meagher on JUNE 1st of 1861,

[9:48] the very first Confederate

[9:49] soldier to die at the hands of

[9:51] a Union soldier in the Civil

[9:54] War. That summer, 2020 was the

[9:57] summer of woke when political

[9:59] correctness ran amok nationwide

[10:01] along with all of the looters

[10:03] and protesters of Antifa and

[10:05] other leftist groups who burned

[10:06] the downtown areas of several

[10:08] cities across our land, the

[10:09] idea of political correctness

[10:11] is a distinctly communist

[10:14] phenomenon, it was created by

[10:15] the Bolsheviks in 1918 when

[10:17] they murdered the czar and the

[10:18] royal family in Russia and took

[10:20] over the government. Karl Marx

[10:22] and Vladimir Lenin emphasized

[10:23] that strong adherence to the

[10:25] ideology of their new regime

[10:27] was an essential requirement of

[10:29] citizens if you deviated from

[10:30] their political correctness,

[10:31] you would be severely punished.

[10:32] You would lose the ability to

[10:34] buy or sell, and you might even

[10:37] lose your life. The bulls, the

[10:38] Bolsheviks promulgation of Karl

[10:38] Marx

[10:40] s communist Manifesto

[10:41] Destroyed their society for the

[10:43] next 70 years and starved 60

[10:45] million people to death. Now

[10:47] here we are 100 years later,

[10:49] and our country, the one that

[10:50] was founded upon the ideals and

[10:52] the bedrock of personal freedom

[10:54] and liberty is doing exactly

[10:56] what the communists did, Lenin

[10:58] had an agenda he called the

[11:00] plan for monumental propaganda,

[11:01] his monuments policy called for

[11:03] the removal of all monuments

[11:05] and statues dedicated to the

[11:08] czars as they were of no

[11:08] historic or artistic interest.

[11:11] Sound familiar? I believe that

[11:13] was the exact excuse given in

[11:15] 2020 to remove the cannons.

[11:15] Here

[11:17] s a photo of them being

[11:19] taken out under the cover of

[11:19] darkness in the middle of the

[11:23] night. PRESIDENT Trump

[11:23] s March

[11:26] 27th, 2025, executive order

[11:28] restoration of truth in

[11:30] American History executive

[11:32] order number 14253, uh, states,

[11:35] we must take action to

[11:36] reinstate preexisting monuments,

[11:38] more memorials, statues, or

[11:39] markers that have been removed

[11:41] to perpetuate a false

[11:42] reconstruction of American

[11:44] history, I submit to you the

[11:46] general public is now sick of

[11:49] wokeness in society. It is

[11:50] communist in origin, and it is

[11:53] fundamental. Ally un-American,

[11:55] and it is time to put the

[11:56] cannons and the monument back,

[12:01] thank you. Our next speaker is

[12:15] Melody Bentley. Good evening. I

[12:17] am PRESIDENT Of the u, excuse

[12:19] me, Old Fairfax Muses Home

[12:21] Owners Association, and I would

[12:23] like to address the combined

[12:25] properties proposal for the

[12:25] redevelopment of Courthouse

[12:30] Plaza. Our community of 74 town

[12:32] homes is situated diagonally

[12:32] across University Drive from

[12:36] Courthouse Plaza. Everyone who

[12:38] lives there appreciates the

[12:40] proximity of this plaza, which

[12:42] provides us walkable access to

[12:44] retail, especially the

[12:45] desirable convenience of a

[12:48] nearby grocery store. We have a

[12:50] keen interest, um. And any

[12:53] changes to this plaza. We

[12:55] appreciate several things about

[12:57] this new proposal, the combined

[12:57] prob uh properties has

[12:59] submitted. There will be

[13:02] additional retail. The mixed

[13:04] use will provide much-needed

[13:06] housing in our area and a park

[13:08] is included in the plan.

[13:10] However, we have the same

[13:12] concerns now as with the first

[13:14] proposal that combined

[13:15] properties submitted and which

[13:17] was detailed in a petition we

[13:18] sent to city council last

[13:21] SEPTEMBER. The building

[13:25] proposal is still 6 stories. It

[13:27] is 2 stories taller than the

[13:29] small area plan allows, it will

[13:30] dwarf and overshadow the rest

[13:34] of Old Town. A further reason,

[13:36] uh, to respect the 4-story

[13:38] limitation concerns traffic.

[13:39] University Drive will soon be

[13:41] reduced to 1 lane in each

[13:43] direction in the vicinity of

[13:44] the plaza to accommodate bike

[13:47] paths. It will be quite enough

[13:49] to ask this road to handle the

[13:51] additional vehicles of 3

[13:52] stories of apartment dwellers

[13:55] and retail. 5 stories of

[13:56] apartment dwellers will

[13:57] introduce too much traffic

[13:58] congestion to this neighborhood.

[14:02] Finally, there is the proposed

[14:03] architecture which has barely

[14:04] changed from the first proposal.

[14:10] It is modern. Busy, stark. And

[14:11] depressing with its large

[14:15] swaths of black facing. It is a

[14:17] jarring contrast to Old Town

[14:19] and can hardly be considered

[14:22] transitional architecture. I

[14:23] think combined properties is

[14:25] missing a huge opportunity.

[14:27] Their site, with its proximity

[14:30] to Old Town, if designed well,

[14:31] could become a locus of

[14:34] downtown activity. Imagine, for

[14:37] example, a public square

[14:39] surrounded on 3 sides with a

[14:41] retail below and apartments

[14:43] above, with restaurants and

[14:45] outdoor seating, a public

[14:47] square, which commu uh where

[14:48] community gatherings and events

[14:51] could happen. Then Courthouse

[14:51] Plaza could really live up to

[14:54] its name. Thank you so much for

[14:54] your attention. I appreciate it.

[14:58] Our last speaker under this

[15:11] item is Katie Johnson. Katie

[15:13] Johnson and the clerk has my

[15:15] address. Um, this is a quote

[15:17] from MR. Cunningham from one of

[15:18] the previous, um, planning

[15:20] commissions. It says from a

[15:21] perspective of zero residential

[15:23] units, we are now essentially

[15:25] at 2000 bedrooms in this space

[15:26] with the possibility of adding

[15:29] more. Smart growth is just a

[15:31] euphemism for density. Back in

[15:32] and I

[15:33] m saying, please, please,

[15:35] please, when you are discussing

[15:37] this afternoon or at the later

[15:39] this evening, um, the major

[15:41] density projects. I ask that

[15:43] your decisions be made to put

[15:45] everything on hold until the

[15:47] citywide level of service, um,

[15:48] study comes back, it

[15:48] s not

[15:51] prudent to Put commitment to

[15:51] things that we don

[15:52] t know how

[15:57] much they cost. We shouldn

[15:57] t be

[15:57] committing our city without

[15:57] fully understanding the true

[15:58] cost and the impacts of them.

[16:01] So Also, a month

[16:02] s subscription

[16:04] to Capital Bike Share and a

[16:06] prepaid MetroCard is not

[16:08] adequate traffic mitigation. So,

[16:12] of those 2000, if just 15

[16:14] percent of those 2000 bedrooms

[16:18] are school-age children, that

[16:21] would add $7,159,200 per year

[16:23] to our budget, and that

[16:23] s only

[16:26] going to go up, so please do

[16:28] not sacrifice our, our little

[16:28] city

[16:29] s cherished community

[16:30] character for the sake of

[16:33] density, so thank you. We can

[16:38] move to the consent agenda. Are

[16:40] there any questions on any of

[16:41] the items on the consent agenda.

[16:47] Are there any items canceled

[16:48] like pulled from the consent

[16:53] agenda. Is there a motion to

[16:56] approve the consent agenda. I

[16:58] moved to approve the consent

[17:00] agenda item 6a throughc as

[17:03] presented, uh, JULY 28th, 2026,

[17:04] accompanying motions in the

[17:05] staff reports and the

[17:05] accompanying motions in the

[17:08] staff reports. Second. A motion

[17:10] has been made by a council

[17:11] member Hardy Chandler and

[17:12] seconded by Council member

[17:14] Peterson, a roll call vote.

[17:17] COUNCILMAN McQuillan, Council

[17:18] Member Bates Council member

[17:20] Peterson Council member Hardy

[17:23] Chandler, Council member Hall,

[17:24] Council member Amos motion

[17:25] passed unanimously. We will go

[17:26] on to consideration of

[17:27] appointments to boards,

[17:28] commissions, and advisory

[17:29] committees. Is there a motion

[17:30] to approve the appointments to

[17:32] boards, commissions, and

[17:33] advisory committees. I move to

[17:36] appoint the, uh, the following

[17:37] applicants Board of

[17:40] Architecture Review reappoint.

[17:42] Kemsuwan as the architect and

[17:44] business representative for a

[17:46] 3-year term extending through

[17:50] JUNE 13th, 2029. Commission for

[17:51] Women reappoint Amini Bonani

[17:53] for a 3-year term extending

[17:56] through JULY 1st, 2029,

[17:58] reappoint Brenda Coleman for a

[18:01] 3-year term extending through

[18:03] JUNE 30th, 2029, Commission on

[18:06] the Arts, appoint Kirknoll for

[18:07] a remainder of a 3-year term

[18:11] extending Though DECEMBER 11th,

[18:13] 2026 with an extension of a

[18:15] 3-year term extending through

[18:19] JULY 2020, JULY 28th, 2029.

[18:23] Fairfax Commission on Aging

[18:24] reappoint v Meesha Maskey for a

[18:27] 2-year term extending through

[18:29] JULY 9th, 2028, Fairfax County

[18:32] Public Library Board of

[18:33] Trustees reappoint Suzanne Levy

[18:35] for a 4-year term extending

[18:39] through JUNE 10th, 2030. Second,

[18:40] the motion has been made and

[18:44] seconded a roll call vote.

[18:45] Council member Amos Council

[18:47] Member Hall, Council member

[18:48] Hardy Chandler, Council member

[18:52] Peterson, Council member Bates,

[18:53] Councilor McQuillan motion

[18:53] passed unanimously, we

[18:54] ll go on

[18:56] to public hearings. The only

[18:57] public hearing tonight is a

[18:59] public hearing and council

[19:00] action on proposed amendments

[19:03] to the code of the city of

[19:06] Fairfax chapter 110 and parent

[19:08] zoning to amend portions of the

[19:10] articles and sections contained

[19:11] therein, including introductory

[19:15] provisions, zoning Districts

[19:16] and regulations and definitions

[19:17] relating to detached accessory

[19:18] dwelling units, I

[19:19] m gonna

[19:20] recognize Eric Forman, our city

[19:21] planner for the staff

[19:25] presentation. Well, thank you

[19:27] very much, good evening. Uh,

[19:29] this agenda item is a public

[19:30] hearing. It

[19:31] s for a series of

[19:34] zoning text amendments that

[19:35] would permit detached accessory

[19:38] dwelling units or ADUs. In

[19:41] Fairfax City, if you recall,

[19:42] city council held a work

[19:45] session in MAY to discuss this

[19:47] topic and at that work session,

[19:49] council requested that a public

[19:51] hearing be scheduled to

[19:53] consider these amendments and

[19:55] counsel also asked for analysis

[19:57] of certain data requests, so

[19:58] tonight

[19:58] s presentation is

[20:00] really in 2 parts, you know,

[20:02] the first part is an overview

[20:04] of the amendment itself, and

[20:05] thi this is largely similar to

[20:08] what we had reviewed at the a

[20:10] work session. The second part

[20:13] looks at the specific data

[20:14] requests that council had asked

[20:17] for in MAY. We

[20:18] ve held quite a

[20:20] few meetings on the topic of

[20:23] ADUs with various amounts of

[20:26] detail, we held some high-level

[20:29] work sessions and a community

[20:31] meeting in 2024. Last year we

[20:33] held work sessions with

[20:34] planning commission and with

[20:37] city council where we reviewed

[20:39] options to potentially

[20:39] accommodate detached accessory

[20:43] dwelling units. In the fall,

[20:47] council asks staff to draft

[20:49] potential amendments to modify

[20:51] our existing adu standards in

[20:54] order to permit detached units,

[20:54] and that

[20:55] s what we discussed

[20:59] back in MAY, focusing on uh

[21:01] potential amendment details for

[21:02] detached accessory dwelling

[21:05] units. I, I should mention as

[21:06] well that the planning

[21:08] commission held a public

[21:10] hearing on these amendments

[21:12] last month, the commission

[21:13] recommended approval and I

[21:13] ll

[21:14] discuss the planning commission

[21:16] meeting, uh, a bit more in a

[21:20] few slides from now. And as you

[21:22] likely know, accessory dwelling

[21:24] units are currently allowed in

[21:27] the city under certain

[21:28] conditions are specifically

[21:30] EDUs are currently need to be

[21:33] within the home itself or

[21:35] attached rather than detached.

[21:39] 8 ADUs were first permitted in

[21:41] 2003 in Fairfax City, they were

[21:43] at that time considered a

[21:44] special use, meaning that

[21:46] homeowners needed to come to

[21:48] city council and ask for

[21:52] approval, uh, that lasted until

[21:53] 2016 when ADUs became a

[21:55] permitted use, meaning that

[21:55] they

[21:57] re permitted with, uh,

[21:59] subject to conditions. They

[22:04] also used to be an occupancy

[22:05] limitation limiting adu

[22:07] residents to seniors or to

[22:09] disabled people, city council

[22:10] removed that provision last

[22:14] year. Now detached accessory

[22:14] dwelling units didn

[22:15] t just pop

[22:17] up out of last year

[22:18] s work

[22:19] sessions, the comprehensive

[22:21] plan recommends this, uh,

[22:23] recommends to look at expanding

[22:27] ADUs and, and this is important,

[22:30] uh, while ensuring that they do

[22:31] not negatively impact

[22:33] surrounding neighborhoods. And

[22:35] like we talked about at our

[22:37] work sessions, this is, is

[22:38] really the critical element

[22:40] when it comes to creating

[22:44] standards for ADUs. Now the,

[22:46] the main characteristics of any

[22:47] amendment to allow detached Aid

[22:51] to use would really be physical

[22:52] standards for the structures

[22:53] themselves, and there are other

[22:55] elements as well, but these

[22:56] physical standards, these are

[22:58] really key to making this work,

[23:01] and to re reducing any kinds of

[23:03] negative externalities that the

[23:05] comprehensive plan mentions. Uh,

[23:07] like we had talked about in MAY,

[23:10] the, the subtlety from a policy

[23:11] perspective is that this is a

[23:14] balancing act, so trying to

[23:16] juggle that flexibility,

[23:17] flexibility for property owners

[23:19] juggling that with the

[23:20] neighborhood impact that that

[23:22] flexibility might bring. So

[23:23] most of the standards that you

[23:25] see here today are similar to

[23:27] those that we discussed in MAY,

[23:27] and I

[23:27] ll point out where they

[23:32] differ. The first of these that

[23:32] we

[23:35] ll talk about is setbacks,

[23:38] and in our single family zoning

[23:40] districts, the required rear

[23:42] yard setback for most houses is

[23:46] 25 ft. The required side yard

[23:47] varies by zoning district, it

[23:48] s

[23:49] 1012, or 15 ft, depending on

[23:52] where it is. Now we had

[23:53] mentioned in our last work

[23:56] session that there are

[23:58] provisions in our zoning

[23:59] ordinance for affordable

[24:00] dwelling units. This was added

[24:02] as part of the Affordable

[24:05] dwelling unit ordinance back in

[24:08] 2020, and those affordable

[24:09] dwelling provisions include

[24:10] slightly reduced setbacks from

[24:13] what we call the general or

[24:13] standard setbacks and the

[24:16] rationale is to provide some

[24:18] extra flexibility, but provide

[24:19] that flexibility without over

[24:20] overly impacting the

[24:21] surrounding ing neighborhood

[24:26] and As we talked about in MAY,

[24:29] these accessory dwelling unit

[24:30] amendments recommend setbacks

[24:33] really that correspond to those

[24:34] affordable dwelling provisions,

[24:36] and for the same reason, this

[24:39] is a way to balance that

[24:41] flexibility to give some

[24:42] preference to accessory

[24:44] dwelling units, but at the same

[24:46] time keeping the guardrails in

[24:49] place to reduce those negative

[24:49] effects on neighbors

[24:51] properties. So like it shows

[24:53] here, those recommended

[24:55] setbacks, and this is what

[24:55] s in

[24:58] the amendment before you, uh,

[24:59] the recommended setbacks are 20

[25:00] ft in the rear, so that

[25:01] s as

[25:04] opposed to 25 ft. And about a

[25:06] 20% reduction or about a 2 to 3

[25:08] ft reduction on the side lock

[25:10] line, so 8 ft in most zoning

[25:12] districts, 12 ft in the rl

[25:15] district. And, uh, as we can

[25:17] see on the screen, uh, you

[25:20] could see what it means to adu

[25:22] placements in, in this kind of

[25:24] hypothetical scenario, an adu

[25:26] could go anywhere in the

[25:28] unshaded areas so we can go

[25:31] here or here or here and so on.

[25:33] Uh, so like it says here that

[25:36] this looks to balance again

[25:37] that property owner flexibility,

[25:39] balance it with potential

[25:42] neighborhood impact. Now

[25:43] planning commission did have a

[25:45] recommendation at one of their

[25:47] work sessions that

[25:47] s been

[25:50] incorporated into this proposed

[25:51] amendment that involves ADUs

[25:54] that might be located on the

[25:55] side of houses where there

[25:55] s

[25:58] enough space to do that. The

[25:59] commission was concerned about

[26:02] the aesthetic effects of having

[26:03] a detached accessory dwelling

[26:06] unit in a side yard and

[26:08] recommended standards to ensure

[26:09] that any side yard ADUs would

[26:11] be located near. The rear of

[26:14] the house and that, again, has

[26:15] been incorporated in into these

[26:19] Uh, recommended amendments. And

[26:20] now for setbacks in, in general,

[26:24] I think it helps to show how

[26:25] the proposed adu setbacks

[26:27] compare with setbacks for other

[26:28] structures. So this shows a

[26:32] sample lot. This is in the rh

[26:34] district, shows 3 examples of

[26:37] behind the house setbacks. On

[26:40] the left here, this is the

[26:41] setback for main dwellings

[26:43] themselves, so if this house

[26:43] s

[26:45] owners were to build an

[26:46] addition, or if the house

[26:48] itself were torn down and

[26:50] replaced, the house could not

[26:52] extend into that green shaded

[26:52] area, so that

[26:54] s the setback,

[26:54] that

[26:56] s the required yard. Again,

[26:59] 4 dwellings, 4 houses. In the

[27:01] middle here, these are the side

[27:03] and rear setbacks for accessory

[27:04] structures, so things like

[27:06] garages, and like it says at

[27:08] the bottom here, these are less

[27:09] inte intense uses than a

[27:11] dwelling, than a house, and the

[27:12] reason is because no one lives

[27:14] in a garage, no one lives in a

[27:16] gazebo, and, and so on. So

[27:18] these are permitted to be

[27:20] closer to the lot lines than

[27:21] the dwellings themselves, and,

[27:24] and in this case, a minimum of

[27:26] 5 ft from the rear lot line or

[27:29] the side lot line. Now, on the

[27:31] right here, this is what

[27:32] s in

[27:34] the proposed amendment for

[27:35] detached accessory dwelling

[27:38] units, and again, this mirrors

[27:39] the ordinance

[27:40] s existing

[27:42] standards for affordable

[27:44] dwelling setbacks and this

[27:46] recognizes that an accessory

[27:47] dwelling units have similar

[27:49] levels of intensity as other

[27:51] dwellings, but it provides more

[27:53] flexibility, it provides

[27:54] flexibility by permitting these

[27:56] structures to be a little

[27:57] closer to the lot line than the

[28:02] main house can can be. Just 1

[28:04] more slide on, on setbacks here

[28:07] at our fall work session, uh,

[28:09] city council mentioned that

[28:11] detached ADUs can be thought of

[28:14] as an alternative to building a

[28:16] very large houses, and that

[28:17] that alternative might be able

[28:20] to fit more appropriately into

[28:21] our neighborhoods, and that

[28:22] s a

[28:24] significant guiding principle

[28:26] because these standards view

[28:29] ADUs as that kind of

[28:30] alternative, and importantly,

[28:30] the setback standard that

[28:33] s In

[28:35] these amendments would avoid

[28:38] cases of property owners

[28:40] maximizing both house size and

[28:42] having an adu on, having a

[28:44] detached adu on the same lot.

[28:46] Again, part of that balancing

[28:48] act, this, this slide shows an

[28:49] example of that. These are 2

[28:52] houses side by side on

[28:53] identically sized lots, uh, the

[28:56] house on the left is a newer

[28:57] house. It doesn

[28:58] t completely

[28:58] maximize the buildable area,

[28:59] but you can see it comes

[29:02] somewhat close. Uh, the house

[29:05] on the right has a smaller

[29:06] overall footprint for the house

[29:07] itself, it has a more open lot.

[29:11] Mhm These amendment standards

[29:13] would enable that house on the

[29:14] right to build an adu. Now that

[29:16] house on the right could also

[29:17] build in addition, it could be

[29:19] replaced by another house and,

[29:20] and so on, uh, but as it is now,

[29:22] that house could build an adu

[29:25] in, in the yard for the house

[29:28] on the left. These standards

[29:30] basically say that the square

[29:31] footage that could have been

[29:34] used for an adu has already

[29:36] been used for the house itself.

[29:38] So again, avoids the instance

[29:41] of having a maximum sized house

[29:42] with a detached adu on the same

[29:50] lot. Now the other significant

[29:51] physical standard is height,

[29:53] there is a good amount of

[29:54] discussion on height standards

[29:56] at the work sessions. The main

[29:57] issue being implications for

[30:00] neighboring properties. These

[30:02] amendment standards set a limit

[30:05] of 20 ft. Or the measured

[30:07] height of the main house and

[30:10] whichever is less. Now 20 ft,

[30:13] this is roughly 1.5 stories.

[30:15] The intent here is to ensure

[30:17] the detached ADUs don

[30:17] t

[30:19] overwhelm the lots that they

[30:19] re

[30:19] on don

[30:21] t overwhelm the main

[30:24] house or neighboring properties,

[30:26] uh, and 1.5 stories would still

[30:28] provide for design flexibility,

[30:28] uh, provides for the

[30:29] structure

[30:30] s placement on the

[30:34] lot and layout and, and so on.

[30:36] This gives kind of a quick

[30:37] visual representation of what

[30:37] we

[30:39] re talking about, so for a

[30:40] multi-storey house like the one

[30:43] on the left. A detached adu

[30:45] would have a maximum height of

[30:46] 20 ft. So again, that

[30:47] s about

[30:50] 1.5 stories. For houses like

[30:52] the house on the right here,

[30:53] houses that are themselves less

[30:57] than 20 ft, the maximum adu

[30:58] height would be equivalent to

[30:59] the house

[31:01] s height, so again,

[31:03] uh, the recommendation in these

[31:05] amendments is that adu height

[31:07] MAY not exceed 20 ft. Or the

[31:10] height of the house, and again,

[31:14] whichever is less. There are

[31:16] some other, uh, physical

[31:18] standards that are currently in

[31:20] place, these amendments, uh,

[31:21] recommend keeping those

[31:21] standards. I won

[31:22] t spend too

[31:24] much time on these right now

[31:25] since we talked about these

[31:26] standards of previous meetings,

[31:28] but these standards are all

[31:30] proposed to remain the same as

[31:32] they are now, uh, you can see

[31:34] here there are standards for

[31:37] accessory structure, footprint,

[31:38] uh, also standards for adu

[31:40] square footage, and again these

[31:42] are recommended to be kept, uh,

[31:44] like it says at, at the bottom.

[31:45] Here are these standards really

[31:47] can work together to account

[31:49] for different sized lots,

[31:50] different house sizes, multiple

[31:56] stories, and so on. The zoning

[31:58] ordinance also has standards on

[31:59] lot and building coverage, so

[32:01] both for lots in general and

[32:04] also for lots with accessory

[32:05] structures, uh, so these

[32:06] likewise are proposed to remain

[32:09] the same. And you can tell

[32:11] these are all interrelated, and

[32:13] again, each of these addresses

[32:15] a specific issue. Uh, the

[32:16] amendments again propose

[32:22] keeping these standards intact.

[32:24] Moving on to parking, uh, as

[32:26] you MAY recall, our zoning

[32:29] ordinance right now does have a

[32:31] standard for adu parking, uh,

[32:33] but that standard is based on

[32:35] vehicles that are used by adu

[32:36] residents, it

[32:36] s just not

[32:39] effective, it

[32:40] s not enforceable

[32:42] in our work sessions, uh, both

[32:43] planning commission and city

[32:45] council were interested in

[32:46] exploring a different approach

[32:50] to adu parking. So the standard

[32:51] proposed here takes a different

[32:54] approach, so like it says here,

[32:57] uh, it says that a lot, a

[33:00] property with an adu must

[33:02] provide no less than the

[33:03] minimum number of parking

[33:05] spaces, uh, that are specified

[33:06] in the off-street parking

[33:08] section of the ordinance, which

[33:12] is Section 4.2. Uh, so that

[33:13] standard for detached houses

[33:15] and for duplex houses, uh, that

[33:18] standard, like it says at the

[33:22] bottom here is a minimum of 2

[33:23] off-street parking spaces for a

[33:26] house, and that that means 2

[33:28] driveway spaces effectively, uh,

[33:31] so what that means is that if a

[33:33] house already has at least 2

[33:35] driveway spaces than that house

[33:36] would comply with this standard.

[33:39] Now some houses don

[33:39] t have a

[33:41] driveway or like in the house

[33:42] that

[33:43] s shown here, I have just

[33:46] a small driveway that just fits

[33:49] 1 car, so in those cases, uh,

[33:50] the house would need to be

[33:52] brought up to the city

[33:53] s

[33:54] regular parking standards in

[34:00] order to have an adu. So this

[34:00] house that

[34:01] s shown here, if, if

[34:04] the owners were to add an adu.

[34:06] They would need to enlarge the

[34:08] driveway so that it could fit

[34:10] another vehicle before getting,

[34:11] before the city would issue an

[34:14] adu permit. The reason for this

[34:16] standard is to not

[34:18] automatically trigger a parking

[34:20] shortage with the addition of

[34:22] an accessory dwelling unit, but

[34:24] still to guard against parking

[34:25] shortfalls where they might be

[34:26] more uh for particularly

[34:30] problematic. Uh, now, planning

[34:31] commission did express some

[34:33] concern about parking at their

[34:34] public hearing, the concern was

[34:35] that this standard MAY not go

[34:38] far enough. Our planning

[34:39] commission

[34:40] s hesitation seem to

[34:41] be that some neighborhoods

[34:43] already have not enough parking,

[34:47] and that adding the possibility

[34:48] of more ADUs might make that

[34:50] kind of situation worse. Uh,

[34:52] now the, the flip side, and

[34:53] this was discussed at the

[34:54] planning commission meeting as,

[34:56] as well, is that it

[34:56] s tough to

[35:00] make the case that an adu would

[35:02] generate more parking demand

[35:05] than an addition to a house. So,

[35:06] for example, uh, right down the

[35:07] road from City Hall, we have a

[35:09] house that has 10 bedrooms, for

[35:11] instance, uh, that kind of

[35:14] addition can be built. Without

[35:16] having any parking requirement,

[35:17] uh, so it, it

[35:18] s, uh, a

[35:19] difficult leap to make to say

[35:21] that that kind of thing can be

[35:22] built without a parking

[35:24] requirement, but adding a. 500

[35:26] sq ft cottage in the backyard

[35:27] triggers parking requirement.

[35:27] So there

[35:29] s a lot going on with

[35:33] the parking, uh Discussion, a

[35:34] few planning commissioners felt

[35:37] uneasy about this. Now, not

[35:38] enough to suggest changes to

[35:40] the amendments, but just a

[35:41] feeling that there

[35:42] s an

[35:43] existing problem that might be

[35:45] made worse, might be made more

[35:48] problematic, I guess, by

[35:48] allowing detached accessory

[35:53] dwelling units. Uh, now, one

[35:54] more topic here, and then we

[35:54] ll

[35:55] move on to some of the analysis

[35:58] that city council had asked for.

[36:01] We had talked before about how

[36:04] to best deal with the potential

[36:05] conversion of existing

[36:08] structures to ADUs, and

[36:09] specifically existing

[36:11] structures that do not meet

[36:13] whatever standards are in place

[36:14] for ADUs themselves, meaning

[36:15] that they would be considered

[36:18] nonconforming. So under these

[36:20] proposed amendments if a

[36:23] property owner, uh, would wish

[36:25] to convert an existing

[36:27] nonconforming structure to an

[36:28] accessory dwelling unit that

[36:29] property owner would go through

[36:30] the board of zoning appeals,

[36:32] and this is the same as we had

[36:34] discussed in MAY. I, I bring it

[36:36] up because one of, uh, the city

[36:36] council

[36:38] s request has to do

[36:38] with city with accessory

[36:42] structures. Bza is set up

[36:44] really to handle exactly that,

[36:45] this kind of situation, special

[36:47] exceptions that can be dealt

[36:48] with on a case by case basis,

[36:50] and, and this is really the

[36:52] default set up with our zoning

[36:55] ordinance, and there are just

[36:57] so many potential variations of

[36:58] nonconformities like this, uh,

[36:59] that it

[37:00] s a issue that

[37:01] s best

[37:02] addressed outside of rigid type

[37:07] of standards. So those are the

[37:08] main standards for what

[37:08] s

[37:10] proposed here in the detached

[37:11] adu amendment that you have

[37:13] before you, the full amendment

[37:15] text is in, in your packets.

[37:16] Like I said, I went through

[37:18] kind of quickly. I can always

[37:20] go back and and explain some,

[37:22] some more of this, but. As I

[37:25] had mentioned, counsel

[37:26] requested additional analysis

[37:28] on certain topics and staff has

[37:30] done that analysis, and the

[37:31] next few slides will summarize

[37:35] the results. City council, then

[37:38] again, this is back in MAY, had

[37:42] asked a few questions regarding

[37:43] potential impacts that detached

[37:45] ADUs MAY have on real estate

[37:48] assessments, so both on the

[37:48] adu

[37:50] s property itself and also

[37:52] in general or citywide. Uh,

[37:54] like it says up here under

[37:59] direct impacts, When a detached

[38:02] adu is built, that adu would be

[38:03] assessed similar to other

[38:04] structures or similar to other

[38:05] additions, and what that means

[38:08] is on a per square foot basis,

[38:08] uh, so there

[38:10] s no set amount

[38:11] for valuation, it would vary,

[38:13] like it says here would vary

[38:15] based on the details of the adu

[38:21] itself. Now counsel also asked

[38:23] if a jurisdiction allows

[38:26] detached ADUs. Would that

[38:28] permissiveness result in

[38:29] increased property values

[38:31] citywide, so not just for the

[38:33] properties that have ADUs but a

[38:35] general increase in property

[38:38] values, the concern here was

[38:40] whether that by enabling

[38:42] property owners to build these

[38:44] kind of structures with

[38:45] property values increase in

[38:46] general and really since there

[38:49] would be a new Option for

[38:50] essentially monetizing

[38:52] properties to a greater extent

[38:53] would that raise property

[38:55] values, raise property taxes,

[38:59] and harm affordability. Our

[39:00] real estate staff examined this

[39:02] question, uh, determined that

[39:05] across the board, property

[39:08] value impacts due to a detached

[39:10] adu ordinance is not something

[39:13] that we would expect. Now to

[39:16] reach that determination, our

[39:16] assessor

[39:17] s office reviewed

[39:19] existing studies on ADUs did

[39:20] not find evidence of this kind

[39:23] of effect. Uh, they also

[39:25] conducted their own local

[39:27] analysis, so based on Arlington

[39:29] County, Arlington is the

[39:31] jurisdiction around here that

[39:31] s

[39:32] had detached ADUs for the

[39:35] longest. Uh, like it says here,

[39:38] uh, our staff, again, the real

[39:40] estate staff analyzed

[39:42] neighborhoods in Arlington that

[39:44] have had detached adu property

[39:46] sales, so properties that have

[39:49] detached ADUs and have sold,

[39:50] analyze these neighborhoods

[39:53] over a 5-year period, and, uh,

[39:55] the finding was that the

[39:58] general property appreciation

[39:59] in those neighborhoods tracked

[40:01] extremely close to the

[40:02] countywide average for

[40:04] appreciation and counting. Wide

[40:04] is Arlington County because

[40:04] that

[40:05] s what, what this is

[40:08] looking at, so by extremely

[40:11] close, uh, I, I mean within 11

[40:13] of 1% of the countywide average.

[40:15] So the, these neighborhoods

[40:18] actually went down by 0.11%,

[40:18] but really, that

[40:19] s so close to

[40:20] the baseline that we would

[40:22] consider it, uh, like it says

[40:25] down here, just not indicative

[40:27] of adu influence. Uh, just to

[40:30] put it in a dollar amount that

[40:32] 0.11%, uh, which we would

[40:34] consider really a plus or minus

[40:37] is about $10 in property, uh,

[40:43] tax payments. Another request

[40:46] from city council was to see

[40:47] for other Northern Virginia

[40:50] jurisdictions, or jurisdictions

[40:53] that have already approved

[40:54] detached adu ordinances, uh,

[40:56] how many of these units have

[40:57] actually been approved within

[41:01] those jurisdictions. The most

[41:02] instructive localities around

[41:03] here are Arlington and

[41:05] Alexandria, uh, both of those

[41:07] have had permitted detached

[41:10] ADUs now for 5 or 7 years. Uh,

[41:11] you see the numbers up here,

[41:15] this is the number of permits

[41:15] issued, what

[41:17] s perhaps most

[41:19] instructive here is the uh

[41:20] average annual number of

[41:21] permits issued, and you see

[41:23] that here it

[41:23] s 11 in Arlington

[41:26] County, and this goes back a

[41:31] 5-year period of 2021 to 202025,

[41:32] uh, 14 annual average in

[41:35] Alexandria. And uh you see it

[41:39] at the bottom, how that

[41:40] translates into annual permits

[41:42] per 1000 homes, so that

[41:42] s

[41:43] helpful because it accounts for

[41:45] the difference in, in size

[41:48] between the jurisdictions. Oh.

[41:50] Our counsel also asked for

[41:52] information on Falls Church in

[41:56] Fairfax County, uh, Fairfax

[41:58] County allows detached ADUs, uh,

[41:59] right now on properties that

[42:02] are larger than 2 acres, the

[42:03] county has issued 10 permits

[42:06] for these types of ADUs since

[42:11] 2021. Falls Church is the most

[42:12] recent jurisdiction locally to

[42:13] allow detached ADUs, they have

[42:18] issued 1 permit. So far, uh.

[42:20] Now that that number per 1000

[42:23] houses. If you take these 2

[42:25] numbers that are on the screen

[42:27] for Arlington and Alexandria,

[42:30] if you combine those two with

[42:31] Fairfax County, uh, so again, 2

[42:33] plus acres, but Fairfax County

[42:35] has 7000 homes over 2 plus

[42:35] acres, so that

[42:37] s a pretty big

[42:40] data set. I if you take the, uh,

[42:43] houses, the ADUs per 1000

[42:45] houses, apply that to the city

[42:47] of Fairfax, uh, you know, I, I

[42:49] hate to make direct comparisons

[42:50] because each jurisdiction is

[42:51] different, uh, but that would.

[42:56] Get us in the area of about 50

[42:58] detached ADUs over a decade. Uh,

[42:59] now I, I, I said I

[43:00] m a little

[43:00] bit uncomfortable saying that,

[43:02] but of course, I just said it.

[43:02] I

[43:02] d, I

[43:04] d give it a, a bigger

[43:04] window, I

[43:07] d say a few dozen, uh,

[43:08] over a decade, uh, make, make

[43:10] that a, a pretty big plus or

[43:12] minus, but, uh, hopefully that

[43:14] gives some kind of indication

[43:17] of the prevalence of detached

[43:18] ADUs locally in Northern

[43:20] Virginia, uh, in, in places

[43:20] where, where they

[43:26] re allowed.

[43:27] And another question, uh, like

[43:29] I had mentioned before,

[43:30] involved existing structures,

[43:31] uh, council wanted to know just

[43:33] as a frame of reference, uh,

[43:35] how many of these kinds of

[43:37] structures are in the city

[43:39] right now. So for this, we, we

[43:41] looked at property records, we

[43:43] looked at all existing

[43:44] residential structures so of

[43:46] all types, not just garages,

[43:50] but any res any structure that,

[43:52] uh, but with a minimum of 350

[43:53] square feet in size, which are

[43:55] more likely to be converted to.

[43:59] ADUs. Uh, in total, there

[43:59] s

[44:01] slightly under 400 of such

[44:03] structures in the city right

[44:05] now on residential lots, about

[44:06] a quarter of those, or like it

[44:10] says up here, 104. Are within

[44:12] what we would call the

[44:14] buildable setback area for

[44:15] detached ADUs, so if you think

[44:17] back to the previous slide with

[44:19] the green area that would be,

[44:22] uh, outside of the green area.

[44:25] So 104 are within that

[44:26] buildable setback area. The

[44:28] remainder are, like it says

[44:30] here, outside of that buildable

[44:31] area, uh, so that gives some

[44:33] kind of an idea of the number

[44:36] of these structures in the city,

[44:37] it is very important, though,

[44:38] the point that

[44:38] s at, at the

[44:39] bottom, we can examine the

[44:41] number, we can examine the size

[44:43] and the placement of these

[44:44] structures, but like it says at

[44:46] the bottom here, not all of

[44:48] these are really convertible to

[44:49] some place where people would,

[44:52] would want to live, so he

[44:54] Either from the standpoint of

[44:55] the type of construction, the

[44:57] foundation, uh, the cost of

[44:58] modifying the structure and,

[45:00] and so on, so, uh, just an

[45:03] important thing to keep in mind,

[45:03] that

[45:03] s something that

[45:03] s

[45:04] non-quantifiable, uh, but we,

[45:06] we gave you here the, uh,

[45:07] information that can be

[45:08] quantified on the number of

[45:13] existing structures. And now

[45:15] finally, there were some

[45:17] questions about the permitting

[45:19] process and, uh, specifically

[45:21] whether the city, uh, the main

[45:22] question that came up in MAY

[45:22] s

[45:25] meeting was whether the city

[45:28] would verify that properties

[45:30] containing detached ADUs are in

[45:32] fact owner-occupied, it is

[45:32] required, it

[45:33] s required in the

[45:35] zoning standards, its current

[45:35] requirement that we

[45:36] re

[45:39] recommending to keep in place,

[45:40] uh, that the property owner

[45:41] live in either the main house

[45:44] or the Accessory dwelling unit.

[45:46] Uh, now, first of all, city

[45:49] staff will update the permit

[45:51] procedures if detached ad ADUs

[45:53] are allowed by city council, so

[45:56] this will be updated, uh, and

[45:59] one area where detached ADUs

[46:02] would differ from attached ADUs

[46:03] is that they would be subject

[46:05] to the city

[46:06] s rental occupancy

[46:07] permit program. So this is a

[46:08] program, uh, it

[46:09] s an existing

[46:11] program in the city where

[46:12] rental houses are registered

[46:16] and are periodically inspected.

[46:20] Uh, because detached ADUs are

[46:21] separate structures, they would

[46:24] be made part of this program,

[46:27] and those periodic inspections

[46:28] would include a verification

[46:30] that the property is

[46:32] owner-occupied. Uh, so thi this

[46:34] is, is not a verification that

[46:37] would happen on a an annual

[46:37] basis, uh, it

[46:38] s a verification

[46:40] that would happen when the

[46:43] property is inspected, uh, but

[46:46] that is one, additional level

[46:48] of check that would not

[46:50] ordinarily be there. Uh, and

[46:52] aside from that city staff

[46:54] would still be able to respond

[46:56] to complaints about potential

[46:58] zoning violations and that

[47:00] includes uh occupancy,

[47:01] potential occupancy violations

[47:02] as well, uh, as is currently

[47:08] the case. So that concludes

[47:08] staff

[47:09] s presentation for

[47:11] tonight. I had mentioned that

[47:13] the planning commission held a

[47:14] public hearing on these

[47:16] amendments in JUNE, the

[47:17] commission recommended approval.

[47:18] It was a unanimous

[47:20] recommendation. The planning

[47:22] commission did express some

[47:23] concerns about parking, like I

[47:25] had mentioned, planning

[47:27] commission also expressed some

[47:28] concerns about overcrowding and

[47:32] occupancy enforcement. Uh, so

[47:33] regarding overcrowding and

[47:36] occupancies, some, some of that

[47:38] discussion pertained to whether,

[47:40] uh, you know, really similar to

[47:42] the parking issue, uh, whether

[47:44] the option of having detached

[47:47] accessory dwelling units would

[47:49] make existing overcrowding

[47:51] issues worse, and whether the

[47:51] city

[47:52] s enforcement mechanisms

[47:55] for all rentals were sufficient

[47:58] to be on guard for overcrowding,

[48:00] uh, types of situations. Some

[48:01] of the discussion really

[48:04] drifted into a more general

[48:06] overcrowding and inspection

[48:08] type of discussion, uh,

[48:09] planning commissioners did

[48:09] realize that that

[48:10] s somewhat

[48:12] outside of the boundary of

[48:12] what

[48:13] s being discussed here,

[48:15] you know, with a specific focus

[48:19] on detached ADUs. So outside of

[48:21] the, the boundary of these

[48:22] amendments, but it was

[48:23] identified as a concern by

[48:24] several planning commissioners,

[48:26] and there was a bit of a

[48:28] discussion on this topic at the

[48:29] public hearing, so, uh, with

[48:30] that, we

[48:32] d be glad to answer

[48:33] any questions that you all MAY

[48:36] have. Thank you so much for the

[48:37] presentation, uh, Council

[48:40] member McQuillan. Thank you,

[48:42] thank you so much. That

[48:44] presentation was fantastic. Um,

[48:48] I am looking at slide 5, about

[48:50] the setbacks. Can you explain

[48:52] why 8 ft versus 10 ft was

[48:55] chosen for the ADUs. Uh, so we,

[48:57] we did want to align it with

[49:02] the Uh, existing affordable

[49:04] dwelling unit setbacks, uh, you

[49:05] know, the affordable dwelling

[49:07] unit setbacks were put in place

[49:09] again to give a little bit more

[49:11] flexibility to something that

[49:12] was considered desirable, but

[49:14] to still maintain neighborhood

[49:16] character and maintain a decent

[49:18] amount of separation between 1

[49:20] property and, and the other, uh,

[49:22] 8 8 8 ft was considered to be

[49:24] appropriate for the affordable

[49:25] dwelling unit ordinance it

[49:26] achieves the same type of goal

[49:27] that we

[49:28] re looking at with, uh,

[49:31] accessory. Ok, so the, for the

[49:34] flexibility, just the extra

[49:34] flexibility additional

[49:36] flexibility while keeping those

[49:37] kind of guardrails, not letting

[49:38] these dwellings and the

[49:42] dwellings have a higher. Bit of

[49:43] intensity than other structures,

[49:44] not letting those dwellings

[49:45] being too close to the property

[49:47] line. Thank you, I was just

[49:49] curious as to why they didn

[49:49] t

[49:50] choose the 10 ft like they do

[49:51] with the, um, but it sounds

[49:54] like they need more flexibility,

[49:57] um, is there considerate, was

[49:57] there consideration regarding

[50:02] topography? Of the Lock and we

[50:02] we

[50:03] re discussing the height,

[50:03] and I

[50:04] m thinking about the

[50:05] height and how you mentioned

[50:05] you didn

[50:08] t want it looking over

[50:09] or looming onto the permanent

[50:10] dwelling, um, that

[50:11] s there

[50:13] already, so was that already

[50:14] taken in as far as height, yes,

[50:15] and that

[50:18] s part of the reason

[50:20] why the recommendation was 20

[50:22] ft was basically 1.5 stories

[50:23] instead of 2 stories, uh,

[50:25] because if it is built on a

[50:26] hill that 1.5 stories would

[50:29] look more. Would look bigger

[50:33] than 1.5 stories. Uh we didn

[50:33] t

[50:36] want anything too large.

[50:37] 2-story accessory dwelling

[50:38] built in that situation on a

[50:40] hill, uh, would, would just be

[50:42] too looming, so 1.5 felt that

[50:44] was perfect. Ok, good. So you

[50:45] did consider that as far as far

[50:47] as that kind of topography, yes,

[50:50] the kind of topography that we

[50:50] just can

[50:51] t consider is if if a

[50:55] certain uh Portion of a yard is

[50:57] sloping to the point where it

[50:58] makes construction difficult.

[51:00] On a map like this, it might

[51:01] seem like there

[51:01] s plenty of

[51:03] room to build an adu, but there

[51:05] MAY not be. Same kind of thing

[51:06] with trees in in in the way and

[51:07] that there are cer certain

[51:08] types of things that we just

[51:08] can

[51:12] t. Account for typography

[51:14] and trees are 2 of those. Thank

[51:17] you. I just want to make sure

[51:17] that that was considered

[51:18] exactly what you said with, you

[51:20] know, if the lot was increasing

[51:24] in height. In the back, um, is

[51:26] there a financial cost for the

[51:28] applicant to convert the

[51:29] existing structure to an adu

[51:33] conversion. There, there is a

[51:37] zoning permit cost which i

[51:42] believe is $70 or or so. Uh,

[51:44] now the, any, you know, there

[51:46] are, depending on what is

[51:48] required, there would be

[51:49] inspections from Code

[51:50] Administration as well. Uh,

[51:52] these things would really pale

[51:53] in comparison to the actual

[51:55] cost of construction or the

[51:56] cost of providing utilities and,

[51:57] and whatnot. They

[51:58] re, there, it

[52:00] is a minimal city cost uh to to

[52:01] some of this, but it

[52:01] s, it

[52:02] s

[52:03] very small in the overall

[52:04] picture. Ok, good to know, and

[52:07] then, um, of the, the local

[52:09] cities that you use to, um,

[52:13] make a comparison. Um, which

[52:15] one most closely aligns with

[52:16] the ordinance that we

[52:16] re

[52:17] currently being presented this

[52:19] evening. I, I would say

[52:21] Arlington and Falls Church

[52:23] would most closely align at

[52:24] Alexandria is much more

[52:26] permissive in terms of setbacks,

[52:27] and I think that has to do with

[52:29] the types of houses and the

[52:31] types of neighborhoods they

[52:33] have in Alexandria and a lot of

[52:34] existing structures that were

[52:37] built. Long, long ago, uh, and,

[52:39] and are already there, but

[52:40] Arlington and Falls Church are

[52:41] excellent, thank you, that

[52:41] s

[52:42] all my questions. I appreciate

[52:46] it. Council member Amos. Thank

[52:49] you, uh, excellent presentation,

[52:50] the more comment than question,

[52:52] the only thing I would flag, I,

[52:54] I do echo the planning

[52:54] commission

[52:54] s concerns with

[52:55] parking, and I know that came

[52:58] up in our one on ones as well,

[52:59] and I imagine that

[52:59] s a concern

[53:03] that many of us share the main

[53:04] thing I would recommend, uh,

[53:04] just because it

[53:06] s very And I do

[53:06] appreciate the language you

[53:07] added to make it more

[53:09] enforceable. I think that does

[53:11] a good job. I, I would just

[53:13] recommend tracking, uh, code

[53:15] violations over a certain

[53:16] period of time, and similar to

[53:17] that tracking the number of

[53:18] permits that are applied for

[53:20] and comparing the two. We also

[53:20] don

[53:21] t want it to be a case

[53:24] where We have a certain number

[53:25] of, uh, violations, but they

[53:26] re

[53:27] all attributed to similar

[53:30] properties or 1 or 2 outliers.

[53:31] By by code violations, what

[53:32] kind of code violations do you

[53:33] have rather than code

[53:35] violations, just violations,

[53:37] for example, uh, for not

[53:38] providing adequate parking or

[53:42] overparking in certain areas.

[53:44] So applications that, that tri

[53:45] trigger that need for an

[53:45] additional parking space, ok,

[53:48] yes, got you. Council member

[53:50] Hall. Thank you and thank you

[53:52] for the extra time and energy

[53:54] that went into asking or

[53:55] answering the questions that we

[53:57] had posed previously and, and

[53:59] the other concerns, um, so I

[53:59] ll

[54:00] be honest, I thought you were

[54:01] making a mistake when you

[54:03] called them affordable dwelling

[54:04] units, but then you made a

[54:06] reference between 8 ft and 10

[54:08] ft for affordable dwelling unit

[54:09] versus accessory, detached

[54:10] accessory dwelling unit. So,

[54:10] i

[54:12] ve been over here trying to

[54:13] do some additional research,

[54:17] but can you, there, there is an

[54:18] affordable dwelling unit

[54:18] ordinance folks aren

[54:19] t very

[54:21] familiar with it as a Pertains

[54:22] to single-family houses because

[54:22] we haven

[54:23] t had anything like

[54:25] that since 2020 when it was

[54:27] approved, but the affordable

[54:29] dwelling ordinance that you all

[54:30] are more familiar with

[54:33] requiring a certain percentage

[54:34] of 6% of multi-family

[54:37] residences be affordable. There

[54:39] is an equivalent for detached

[54:42] homes as well, uh, and just

[54:44] like the, uh, building

[54:45] standards were relaxed a bit

[54:47] for the affordable dwelling

[54:48] unit or affordable dwelling

[54:49] units in multi-family. They

[54:53] were Relaxed a little bit for.

[54:56] Single family as well, and that

[54:59] was increasing the. Setbacks or

[55:00] decreasing the setbacks, so

[55:01] that, that

[55:01] s, that

[55:02] s, that

[55:02] s

[55:03] where that comes from, thank

[55:05] you, yes, yeah, I feel like we

[55:07] need new acronyms that are Not

[55:13] identical. Excuse me. Um, page

[55:15] 7 with regard to the parking, I,

[55:16] I do, I, I know we like to

[55:17] think that people are going to

[55:19] bike everywhere and walk

[55:20] everywhere and take shuttles,

[55:22] but I, I really have concerns

[55:24] about the parking, especially

[55:25] in neighborhoods that already

[55:28] have Um, you know, parking

[55:29] issues, I don

[55:29] t think it

[55:30] s too

[55:32] much to ask to move this to 3

[55:34] spots as opposed to 2 spots. Um,

[55:35] i think the picture that

[55:36] s on

[55:37] slide 11 is kind of a prime

[55:38] example, as you were saying,

[55:39] you know, there

[55:39] s a requirement

[55:41] to do this for the 2 required

[55:42] spots. I was thinking to some

[55:44] of the neighborhoods that are

[55:45] in the city where they don

[55:45] t

[55:47] have a driveway at all, or they

[55:48] have a short driveway just like

[55:49] that, and I was like, well,

[55:49] those don

[55:51] t That

[55:51] s not how

[55:52] things are right now. So I

[55:53] recognize that it would need to

[55:54] be brought up to code in order

[55:58] to do that, but I, I don

[55:58] t

[55:58] think it

[55:59] ll hurt in most cases

[56:02] to add a third spot, uh,

[56:05] instead of just 2. Um, and then

[56:07] page 11. Think, oh, sorry, that

[56:08] was the same thing. Yeah, uh,

[56:10] bring up the code for 2 spots.

[56:14] Um And I

[56:14] m so ok, so I

[56:14] m

[56:16] flipping back and forth a

[56:18] little bit between the staff

[56:19] report and the presentation. So

[56:22] on page 8 of the presentation.

[56:25] Uh, it talks about the height

[56:28] of, of the, um, the houses here.

[56:30] So I think, you know, in the

[56:32] city, we have a lot of houses

[56:34] that might not be Cookie cutter

[56:36] in some ways or they might have

[56:37] like my house specifically, we

[56:39] have, you know, we put in like

[56:40] 16-foot ceilings, which you

[56:40] don

[56:41] t see from the outside

[56:42] because it looks like the same

[56:44] height, but then in the front,

[56:45] when we did our garage, we did

[56:48] a Peak, I guess, whatever, I

[56:48] don

[56:49] t know what it

[56:49] s called,

[56:50] like the one roof goes this way

[56:51] and the other one goes that way,

[56:52] hipped, I think, yes, thank you,

[56:57] the hip, yes. How, how do those

[56:58] hips get decided, like what

[56:58] s

[56:59] the height that you

[56:59] re looking

[57:00] at when you see a tall portion

[57:02] of a house versus the majority

[57:03] of the roof is another height.

[57:05] How does that work? So a hip

[57:07] roof and a regular peaked roof

[57:09] are measured the same way that

[57:12] the height is measured halfway

[57:13] between the eve and the peak.

[57:16] Ok. So, uh, in, in this case,

[57:20] 20, so a house can be 35 ft

[57:21] tall, that 35 ft is not

[57:22] measured to the peak, it

[57:22] s

[57:23] measured at the halfway point

[57:25] between the eve and the. Peak.

[57:27] Same thing with the 20 ft here,

[57:28] uh, it, it

[57:31] s measured halfway,

[57:32] uh, between the, um, between

[57:34] the eve and the peak and also

[57:36] halfway between the slope of

[57:37] the ground, if, if the ground

[57:40] slopes, it, it is a complicated

[57:41] procedure. We don

[57:42] t feel that

[57:42] it

[57:43] s something that we

[57:43] re

[57:44] dumping on residents as much

[57:45] because if you have one of

[57:47] these built, you have an

[57:49] architect who has to take those

[57:51] measurements in all cases, uh,

[57:52] so the same architect can take

[57:53] measurements of, of the house

[57:55] as well. Well, it

[57:56] s not a bit

[57:57] of information the property

[57:59] owners would tend to have at

[57:59] the ready for their own

[58:00] property, but it

[58:00] s something

[58:02] that in the course of

[58:04] construction is, is routine. Ok,

[58:05] and so then let

[58:07] s picture that

[58:10] you have a lot where the back

[58:11] is significantly higher or

[58:13] lower, how does that factor

[58:16] into the roof of that space. So,

[58:18] so the measurement is taken if,

[58:19] if the ground slopes like this,

[58:21] the measurement is taken from

[58:22] the halfway point, uh, of the

[58:24] high point and the low point.

[58:25] Of, of the structure, so the

[58:27] halfway point of the ground to

[58:29] the halfway point of the roof.

[58:30] Ok, so that

[58:31] s your 35 ft or

[58:32] your 20 ft, ok, so let

[58:33] s say my

[58:34] house out front is normal when

[58:37] it comes to my neighbors, but

[58:39] then my yard significantly goes

[58:40] up, am I going to be able to

[58:42] build a house that is as tall

[58:44] as my house, which means now

[58:46] this house in behind is

[58:48] significantly taller, or am I

[58:50] limited to the height, even

[58:52] with the additional Hill in the

[58:54] back, so if your house is on a

[58:57] slope, and if the measurement

[58:58] for your house come comes out

[59:01] that your house is 25 ft. Tall,

[59:04] for instance, uh The maximum

[59:07] height of the adu would be 20

[59:07] ft because that

[59:08] s the tallest

[59:11] that it could possibly go. Ok,

[59:12] so I, I understand you

[59:12] re

[59:13] explaining the same thing to me

[59:14] multiple times in different

[59:15] ways. I

[59:16] m still not visually

[59:17] height measurement is not easy

[59:19] to understand. No, it

[59:20] s not the,

[59:22] the, the 2 structures would be

[59:22] measured independently of each

[59:26] other. So if, if, if, if your

[59:28] house. Is measured at over 20

[59:33] ft. Your adu could be a maximum

[59:34] of 20 ft regardless of what the

[59:37] topography is. Ok, so it is

[59:38] possible then if you have a

[59:41] very large hill in the back

[59:44] that your secondary. Adu could

[59:45] be significantly taller than

[59:49] your front house. That, that,

[59:50] that would be extremely

[59:51] unlikely. I

[59:51] m, I

[59:52] m, I, I, I

[59:52] don

[59:53] t want to say it can

[59:53] t

[59:58] happen. Ok. I, I, I, I feel. I

[59:59] feel it would be very unlikely.

[1:00:01] It it would be a, you know,

[1:00:03] like if you had this house on

[1:00:06] the right, and then you had the

[1:00:07] property slope down a lot in

[1:00:13] the back. Uh, then. You MAY

[1:00:14] have a situation where that

[1:00:15] looks the case, but it would

[1:00:17] still have to keep to 16 ft.

[1:00:19] And, and the, and the reason

[1:00:22] that we have It as The, the

[1:00:24] reason we have it is that is to

[1:00:26] build in some additional

[1:00:29] flexibility, uh, because we, we

[1:00:29] didn

[1:00:30] t want houses, we didn

[1:00:30] t

[1:00:32] want a situation where a house

[1:00:34] where an adu would have to be

[1:00:37] an unreasonably small. Number.

[1:00:38] Right, and, but on the flip

[1:00:39] side, we also don

[1:00:40] t now that

[1:00:42] this house is going to be

[1:00:43] significantly closer to a side

[1:00:44] yard. We also don

[1:00:46] t want it to

[1:00:48] be towering over where the

[1:00:48] front house wasn

[1:00:49] t already just

[1:00:50] because of a topography thing,

[1:00:53] so just trying to understand

[1:00:59] that those nuances. Ok. Um, On,

[1:01:01] uh, in the staff report, I

[1:01:06] think this is on page 6, Item l,

[1:01:06] it

[1:01:09] s on page 7, it talks about

[1:01:10] the zoning administrator MAY

[1:01:12] inspect the property if If

[1:01:13] there is a complaint registered

[1:01:14] with the city or if the

[1:01:15] official has other reason to

[1:01:17] believe that the owner or

[1:01:18] occupants are in violation of

[1:01:19] the accessory dwelling unit

[1:01:22] approval. From what I

[1:01:26] understand of our. Enforcement

[1:01:26] abilities, there

[1:01:27] s not a lot of

[1:01:31] teeth to them. And I totally

[1:01:31] support people

[1:01:32] s right to do

[1:01:32] what they want with their own

[1:01:34] houses, but I also don

[1:01:35] t want

[1:01:37] to see that right impede upon

[1:01:39] their neighbors. And so I, I, I

[1:01:39] know we

[1:01:40] ve had issues in the

[1:01:42] past where we as a council have

[1:01:43] been notified that, you know,

[1:01:44] there might be x number of

[1:01:45] people living in a house and

[1:01:46] they

[1:01:47] re like, no, it

[1:01:47] s

[1:01:48] boyfriends, girlfriends, but

[1:01:48] they

[1:01:49] re really there all the

[1:01:49] time, but they don

[1:01:51] t Qualify as

[1:01:53] as house residents, but there

[1:01:54] s

[1:01:54] a parking situation that comes

[1:01:56] or other things that come with

[1:02:00] that. So I I would like to see

[1:02:02] a little bit more enforcement

[1:02:05] ability, whether or not we have

[1:02:06] enforcement power or enough

[1:02:08] staff members to do that. I

[1:02:09] think that

[1:02:09] s likely not going

[1:02:11] to be something that we need to

[1:02:13] add in order to manage this,

[1:02:13] but that

[1:02:15] s, those are part of

[1:02:16] my concerns. Um, the next one

[1:02:19] also goes then to item, um, n

[1:02:21] as in Nancy, where it talks

[1:02:22] about, um, if there

[1:02:22] s a change,

[1:02:25] sorry, they took that out. If

[1:02:27] an accessory dwelling unit no

[1:02:27] longer complies with the

[1:02:31] conditions, then The, uh, use

[1:02:33] of the space as a separate

[1:02:34] dwelling unit shall cease the

[1:02:35] physical arrangement of the

[1:02:36] space that created an

[1:02:37] independent housekeeping unit

[1:02:39] shall be integrated into the

[1:02:40] primary dwelling unit and the

[1:02:42] space shall not be

[1:02:42] independently leased as a

[1:02:44] separate dwelling unit. Again,

[1:02:46] I feel like that

[1:02:46] s something

[1:02:47] where we tell someone they

[1:02:47] can

[1:02:48] t do something because they

[1:02:50] violated a rule or, you know,

[1:02:51] an ordinance, but again, we

[1:02:52] don

[1:02:53] t have a lot of ability to

[1:02:55] go back and actually follow up

[1:02:56] on it. So I just think there

[1:02:57] needs to be something in there

[1:02:57] that

[1:02:59] s a little bit stronger

[1:03:00] because from what I understand,

[1:03:01] if we go and we knock on the

[1:03:03] door and no one answers, well,

[1:03:04] we might go back another day

[1:03:07] and no one answers again.

[1:03:08] Legally, and we shouldn

[1:03:09] t have

[1:03:10] the ability to enter their yard

[1:03:13] to do things, but If they

[1:03:13] re

[1:03:14] not complying with something,

[1:03:15] it, it seems like there needs

[1:03:18] to be some other way to have

[1:03:19] some additional enforcement. So

[1:03:20] I, I

[1:03:22] m not suggesting You know,

[1:03:23] I mean, tax levies, like

[1:03:23] there

[1:03:24] s all these different

[1:03:25] things that people can do, like

[1:03:26] they boot your car, right? Like

[1:03:27] all those things that they do

[1:03:28] when you don

[1:03:29] t pay your parking

[1:03:30] tickets. I just think that

[1:03:32] there needs to be some other

[1:03:33] conversation that is in place

[1:03:34] to be able to move forward with

[1:03:36] this. And, and that

[1:03:37] s not

[1:03:38] dissimilar to the conversation

[1:03:40] the planning commission had

[1:03:41] last month, uh, it, it just and,

[1:03:43] and, you know, we reminded

[1:03:45] planning commission of, of this

[1:03:47] as well, and, uh, occupancy

[1:03:49] enforcement is awfully tricky

[1:03:49] from the city

[1:03:50] s perspective

[1:03:51] because there

[1:03:52] s no way to check

[1:03:54] on the occupancy of a dwelling

[1:03:56] without having city staff go

[1:03:57] into that dwelling and look at

[1:03:58] the beds and look at the

[1:04:00] bedrooms, and that

[1:04:00] s something

[1:04:00] obviously that

[1:04:01] s not taken

[1:04:03] lightly by the city, there

[1:04:04] s

[1:04:06] just no other way of, of doing

[1:04:08] it, so. Yeah, well, it does

[1:04:10] kind of, you know, wander into

[1:04:11] another discussion on, on

[1:04:14] occupancy and General, but it

[1:04:14] s

[1:04:15] a pertinent discussion. Yeah,

[1:04:16] well, I know like with the

[1:04:17] noise ordinance, right? If, if

[1:04:17] you

[1:04:18] re not getting the response

[1:04:20] you need and the neighbor is

[1:04:22] still continuing to do things,

[1:04:22] there

[1:04:24] s an option now to go to

[1:04:25] the courthouse and swear out a

[1:04:27] warrant and, and go that legal

[1:04:28] route, obviously a, a

[1:04:29] disgruntled neighbor is not

[1:04:30] gonna be able to go and swear

[1:04:32] out a warrant against their

[1:04:33] neighbor for not having the

[1:04:34] right number of people in their

[1:04:35] house or whatever it is. So I

[1:04:37] just think some of these things

[1:04:38] are just a slippery slope, and

[1:04:41] I think The, the more we can be

[1:04:44] on top of them and try to have

[1:04:45] stronger language where needed.

[1:04:48] Again, just gives us a little

[1:04:49] bit more opportunity to have

[1:04:50] that conversation rather than

[1:04:51] realizing it was too soft and

[1:04:52] then we can

[1:04:52] t go back and do

[1:04:56] anything about it. Um, My also

[1:04:57] my other question about that

[1:04:59] section and it, it, um, talks

[1:05:00] about like when the, I

[1:05:00] m sorry,

[1:05:02] it was, uh, section k talks

[1:05:04] about the, they do an initial

[1:05:06] inspection of the accessory

[1:05:08] dwelling unit, um, and then in

[1:05:10] addition to any renewal of the

[1:05:13] accessory dwelling unit, use or

[1:05:15] transfer of ownership, so. When

[1:05:17] would a renewal apply? Are

[1:05:21] people applying for an adu? For

[1:05:23] 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or

[1:05:23] it

[1:05:25] s for the life of their

[1:05:26] property in which they live,

[1:05:27] and then it transfers to the

[1:05:30] new owner. Uh, I, I think the

[1:05:31] renewal applies to the transfer

[1:05:32] of ownership. I

[1:05:33] m not sure why

[1:05:33] it

[1:05:35] s wri written as an or

[1:05:37] situation, the, the, the zoning

[1:05:40] permit, uh, the applicant signs

[1:05:41] an affidavit acknowledging that,

[1:05:44] uh, it has to be renewed when

[1:05:45] the property transfers, ok, I,

[1:05:48] I will say the, the wording of

[1:05:49] this made me think, and I guess

[1:05:50] similar with the planning

[1:05:51] commission was saying, and I

[1:05:53] also You know, I think people

[1:05:54] are landlords for a very long

[1:05:56] time and People don

[1:05:56] t always

[1:05:57] check up on the house or make

[1:05:58] sure that it

[1:05:58] s being maintained

[1:06:00] in the way that it should be,

[1:06:01] especially when you might have

[1:06:02] college kids renting and

[1:06:02] there

[1:06:03] s a lot of transiency and

[1:06:05] things like that, but maybe we

[1:06:06] do as a separate conversation

[1:06:11] need a little bit more of a

[1:06:11] stronger conversation around

[1:06:13] making sure that when a tenant

[1:06:14] takes possession of the home

[1:06:17] that it really is truly in a

[1:06:19] good, safe rentable smoke

[1:06:20] detectors are working, all of

[1:06:21] that kind of thing. Um, you

[1:06:23] know, I know that they pay an

[1:06:24] annual fee to have a rental

[1:06:28] unit, but I, I think we could

[1:06:29] potentially be doing our

[1:06:31] renters as a disservice by not

[1:06:32] making sure that things are up

[1:06:33] to date, um, I know they used

[1:06:34] to do it in, you know, college

[1:06:35] and all that, so it

[1:06:35] s just a

[1:06:45] thought. Um, Page 17. I guess I

[1:06:46] already asked this was how do

[1:06:47] we respond to a violation if

[1:06:47] there

[1:06:49] s no one answers the door,

[1:06:55] um, ok. And then, um, my last

[1:06:55] question, and i

[1:06:56] ve been asking

[1:06:57] this since I think the

[1:06:58] beginning is why are we so

[1:07:00] afraid of doing this by special

[1:07:03] use permit. I recognize that we

[1:07:04] think there

[1:07:04] s only gonna be a

[1:07:06] handful. You said that there

[1:07:09] might be Did you say 50/10

[1:07:11] years? Right. Ok, so We

[1:07:12] re

[1:07:13] doing special use permits for

[1:07:13] chickens. We

[1:07:15] re doing them for

[1:07:16] daycares. This this to me is

[1:07:20] something that It impacts you

[1:07:21] as a homeowner that lives there,

[1:07:23] but it also impacts every

[1:07:23] neighbor that

[1:07:24] s around you, and

[1:07:26] I know that when we were doing

[1:07:28] our renovation and we wanted to

[1:07:30] get an exception to the, which

[1:07:31] is now, it

[1:07:31] s even smaller than

[1:07:32] what we asked for, but for the,

[1:07:34] the side yard, I mean, we had

[1:07:36] to send out certified postcards

[1:07:37] and have all of our neighbors

[1:07:37] not really have a problem with

[1:07:39] it and, and have that

[1:07:42] conversation to me this is a

[1:07:43] really big decision that you

[1:07:45] are making as a homeowner that

[1:07:47] is impacting all of those

[1:07:49] around you, and. I, I just, I,

[1:07:54] I, I would have a much easier

[1:07:55] Ability to accept this if it

[1:07:58] was a spy special use, but just

[1:07:59] willy-nilly by right, I, I

[1:08:01] think. I

[1:08:01] m hopeful that there

[1:08:01] s

[1:08:02] not going to be an

[1:08:03] extraordinary amount of these,

[1:08:04] but I, I don

[1:08:05] t think it hurts

[1:08:06] to do the special use. I think

[1:08:08] it makes sure that we just have

[1:08:10] that extra layer of You know,

[1:08:11] rubber stamping it essentially

[1:08:12] to make sure that it, it is

[1:08:14] what it is. And I think it

[1:08:15] gives, like I said, the

[1:08:17] neighbors around them a real

[1:08:18] opportunity to understand

[1:08:18] what

[1:08:19] s gonna be happening next

[1:08:19] to them and what they

[1:08:20] re gonna

[1:08:22] be living next to. So I, I

[1:08:23] would really, really like to

[1:08:26] see that added in here. I, I

[1:08:29] think the aversion to having

[1:08:31] ADUs be a special use permit,

[1:08:33] uh, just drawing back to 2016

[1:08:35] when that was discussed because,

[1:08:37] uh, ADUs used to be a special

[1:08:39] use permit. I, I think council

[1:08:42] felt uncomfortable about having

[1:08:43] individual homeowners come, uh,

[1:08:46] to a meeting like this at city

[1:08:46] council to explain improvements

[1:08:50] that they wanted to do in in

[1:08:51] their home while other, uh, you

[1:08:54] know. A brand new home could be

[1:08:57] built 3-story, 35 ft high, 5000

[1:08:58] sq ft home could be built

[1:09:01] without coming to city council,

[1:09:02] uh, but adding an accessory

[1:09:03] dwelling unit brings people to

[1:09:06] city council to a meeting like

[1:09:08] this, uh, the, the Chicken.

[1:09:12] This this was before chickens.

[1:09:13] Before the chicken I think I, I

[1:09:16] think the, uh, you know, the,

[1:09:20] the thought is that counsel

[1:09:20] doesn

[1:09:22] t necessarily want more

[1:09:22] individual property cases

[1:09:24] coming to public hearings like

[1:09:26] chickens. I think this council

[1:09:27] member does, to be totally

[1:09:31] honest. Um, and I You said back

[1:09:34] in 2016 when they did this, but

[1:09:35] we didn

[1:09:35] t have detached

[1:09:37] accessory dwelling units. We

[1:09:38] had attached accessory dwelling

[1:09:39] units, so you

[1:09:39] re saying that

[1:09:43] that Um, requirement was

[1:09:45] removed in 2016 for attached

[1:09:47] dwelling units. Correct, ok,

[1:09:48] and, and I understand what

[1:09:48] you

[1:09:50] re saying about tear down

[1:09:51] and build a 35-foot house. I

[1:09:52] mean, I think we

[1:09:52] ve all seen

[1:09:54] the one on Warwick, um, but

[1:09:56] again, I think you have very

[1:09:58] angry neighbors that are really

[1:09:59] unhappy with what happened

[1:10:02] there. So I, I think if we

[1:10:03] re

[1:10:04] really only expecting 50 over a

[1:10:07] 10-year period to me. Check the

[1:10:09] box. Special permit, special

[1:10:10] use permit, easy breezy and we

[1:10:12] get it going. So I, I

[1:10:12] m not

[1:10:13] sure that I can support this

[1:10:17] without that. Thank you.

[1:10:23] Council member Bates. So, uh,

[1:10:25] with regard to height, um, well,

[1:10:26] uh, well actually both height

[1:10:29] and setbacks, uh. The

[1:10:31] requirements that are proposed

[1:10:34] here actually more strict than,

[1:10:34] uh, the existing requirements

[1:10:37] for, uh, non-dwelling unit

[1:10:38] accessory structures, is that

[1:10:40] right? Correct, yeah, um, and

[1:10:43] then, uh, Um, which, you know,

[1:10:43] also certainly don

[1:10:44] t require

[1:10:45] any additional parking, granted,

[1:10:45] they don

[1:10:46] t have anybody living

[1:10:49] there, but, um You know, and

[1:10:52] additionally. Residents are

[1:10:54] able to, as you mentioned,

[1:10:55] build additions onto their

[1:10:57] house, add additional bedrooms,

[1:10:58] um, and then, of course, we

[1:11:02] have Uh, attached accessory

[1:11:06] dwelling units allowed. Um, and

[1:11:08] so really, to my mind, this is

[1:11:10] taking what is already allowed

[1:11:11] and providing some simply

[1:11:12] additional flexibility in terms

[1:11:14] of where it can be located. Um,

[1:11:16] and perhaps even additional

[1:11:19] flexibility to allow for it to

[1:11:21] be even less overwhelming to

[1:11:22] the existing structure since it

[1:11:23] can be separated a bit from the

[1:11:27] existing house. Um, and, uh,

[1:11:28] you know, additionally, as you

[1:11:31] mentioned, Someone can, um, can

[1:11:33] build a, you know, a house, uh,

[1:11:36] without a permit. And of course,

[1:11:36] we

[1:11:39] ve seen Uh, additional

[1:11:44] houses built on, um, uh, lots.

[1:11:45] That have been subdivided and

[1:11:48] sold off. And so this, to my

[1:11:50] mind, also provides an

[1:11:51] alternative to that, you know,

[1:11:53] that is perhaps a bit less, uh,

[1:11:55] disruptive, you know, or less

[1:11:58] impactful. To the, um, you know,

[1:12:00] the streetscape, the, uh,

[1:12:01] existing, uh, aesthetic of the

[1:12:05] property. And, uh, with regard

[1:12:09] to, um The question of

[1:12:13] requiring a special use permit,

[1:12:15] would that require the

[1:12:17] applicant to pay the special

[1:12:19] use permit fee as well, correct?

[1:12:22] Yeah, yeah, so I have concerns

[1:12:23] about that, um, given that, you

[1:12:25] know, for chickens, for daycare,

[1:12:27] you know, that kind of thing,

[1:12:29] um, you know, certainly you can

[1:12:33] say that, uh Um, you know,

[1:12:35] hands produce eggs, uh. Daycare

[1:12:37] provides an income stream, but

[1:12:37] it

[1:12:40] s not something that is, uh,

[1:12:43] directly Uh, necessity for the,

[1:12:45] you know, the people living

[1:12:47] there, necessarily, but of

[1:12:48] course, housing is for the, you

[1:12:50] know, the people who live in

[1:12:51] the accessible dwelling unit

[1:12:56] itself. And so from a housing

[1:12:59] availability perspective, I

[1:13:01] would have concerns about, um,

[1:13:02] the burden that that fee might

[1:13:03] place on people who want to do

[1:13:06] this. And also I would imagine

[1:13:08] that the process for that would

[1:13:11] be a lot more, um. Labor

[1:13:12] intensive, uh, right then, you

[1:13:14] know, for, for chickens or

[1:13:15] daycare because it

[1:13:16] s a matter

[1:13:17] of building an additional

[1:13:20] structure on the lot. Um, so

[1:13:23] there would be a You know, the

[1:13:25] process involved for that. So,

[1:13:28] um Yeah, and then again, you

[1:13:31] know, parking. Um, We can, you

[1:13:33] know, of course, an additional

[1:13:35] house on, you know, subdivided

[1:13:36] lot does require additional

[1:13:38] parking, but other than that,

[1:13:40] um, you know, additions. Or, uh,

[1:13:43] attached dwelling units, I

[1:13:44] believe are under similar

[1:13:46] conditions, they have to

[1:13:46] fulfill the parking

[1:13:47] requirements for, you know, the

[1:13:49] house. Um, but don

[1:13:51] t have to

[1:13:52] add additional spots for those,

[1:13:54] is that right? Yeah, so. Um,

[1:13:57] from that perspective, I see

[1:13:57] what

[1:13:58] s proposed as really only

[1:13:59] fair to the homeowners in the

[1:14:02] city. Council member Hardy

[1:14:05] Chandler. So I wanna thank you

[1:14:07] for the report, and I also want

[1:14:10] to, um, thank you for certainly

[1:14:12] following up on the wide array

[1:14:14] of questions that we had, I

[1:14:16] know I was particularly

[1:14:17] interested in looking at our

[1:14:18] neighbors and what

[1:14:19] s happening

[1:14:21] around there, um, I was

[1:14:24] surprised that the low numbers,

[1:14:26] um, that are pretty consistent

[1:14:28] across this region, um, so

[1:14:28] we

[1:14:30] re talking about 50 pos

[1:14:31] possibly 50 over the course of

[1:14:33] 10 years when we go back to the

[1:14:36] parking, is there any

[1:14:37] Indication that, uh, the

[1:14:41] existing Uh, Dwelling units

[1:14:42] that are attached, are they

[1:14:44] clustered in our city in any

[1:14:46] way, or are they spread

[1:14:47] dispersed throughout our city.

[1:14:49] They, they are, they are spread

[1:14:50] out. There

[1:14:51] s about 2 dozen or,

[1:14:54] or so, and, and there

[1:14:54] s no

[1:14:55] neighborhood pattern, no

[1:14:56] geographic pattern to where

[1:14:58] they are. And and there

[1:14:58] s the

[1:14:59] expectation that this would

[1:15:01] follow that same pattern or

[1:15:01] there

[1:15:02] s no information to

[1:15:04] indicate that these might be

[1:15:05] just clustered in one

[1:15:08] neighborhood, causing some kind

[1:15:09] of parking problem for at 5 a

[1:15:11] year. Right, there

[1:15:12] s no,

[1:15:12] there

[1:15:13] s not a unique enough

[1:15:17] element, uh, to, to say that

[1:15:18] certain neighborhoods would

[1:15:19] only, you know, be suitable for

[1:15:21] these or, or not, yeah, and I

[1:15:24] go back to just sort of our

[1:15:27] general desire to have a wide

[1:15:29] variety of housing options, um,

[1:15:30] and our policy of, or our

[1:15:32] desired policy, or aspiration

[1:15:34] of wanting to have people who

[1:15:35] are single family owners,

[1:15:38] accommodate, uh, renters, those

[1:15:40] kinds of things, I see this as

[1:15:42] another viable option it is.

[1:15:42] Isn

[1:15:44] t a huge option, clearly

[1:15:46] the data, um, that we requested

[1:15:47] looking at the region shows

[1:15:49] that this is a possibility for

[1:15:52] some, um, but it opens up an

[1:15:53] opportunity for some families.

[1:15:56] i know of a neighbor who has an

[1:15:58] attached dwelling unit and the

[1:16:00] prior owner of the house is

[1:16:01] living in that and her children

[1:16:03] are living in the main house,

[1:16:03] it

[1:16:05] s a wonderful arrangement,

[1:16:07] these kinds of opportunities

[1:16:10] for homeowners, um, are ones

[1:16:13] that I Absolutely support.

[1:16:13] We

[1:16:15] re not talking about large

[1:16:15] volumes, we

[1:16:16] re not talking

[1:16:20] about, um, you know, ah. Every

[1:16:21] household having a hill that

[1:16:21] s

[1:16:22] gonna distort, uh, the height,

[1:16:23] but I do think we

[1:16:24] re talking

[1:16:25] about an opportunity that

[1:16:25] s

[1:16:27] going to make a major

[1:16:29] difference, uh, for families

[1:16:30] that choose this option, so

[1:16:32] thank you for your report, I

[1:16:34] appreciate all of the, um,

[1:16:35] information that you gathered

[1:16:37] to answer our questions.

[1:16:42] Council member Peterson. So

[1:16:47] what is the list of different

[1:16:50] Permits that um the homeowner

[1:16:51] would have to obtain to

[1:16:53] actually put in place Detached

[1:16:57] adu. From a zoning perspective,

[1:16:59] there would be a zoning permit,

[1:17:02] and then there would be code

[1:17:03] administration building permits

[1:17:04] as needed, so just, just like

[1:17:05] any, any other construction

[1:17:07] project. And that is the

[1:17:08] equivalent of a construction

[1:17:12] permit. Correct. Ok, so those

[1:17:15] are 2, all right, um. And just,

[1:17:17] I think one quick note on the

[1:17:18] special use permit question.

[1:17:20] One thing that seems a little

[1:17:22] bit different here is a

[1:17:25] detached uh adu. Has proximity

[1:17:26] implications for neighbors that

[1:17:29] are different than an attached

[1:17:31] adu and that MAY raise the bar

[1:17:33] a little bit in terms of

[1:17:35] reactions that people have in

[1:17:36] terms of something being

[1:17:38] proposed and built, so it

[1:17:38] s

[1:17:39] probably worth considering as

[1:17:41] we think about whether or not a

[1:17:42] special use permit is something

[1:17:45] that we should do. I, I would

[1:17:46] like to go back to the parking

[1:17:47] issue and I know we

[1:17:47] ve said a

[1:17:49] lot about it, but, uh, and I

[1:17:51] just want to say also I

[1:17:53] appreciate very much, um, we

[1:17:54] had an opportunity to have some

[1:17:57] staff. Briefings on this and

[1:17:58] had some conversation around

[1:18:00] street parking. And I

[1:18:00] d like to

[1:18:02] go back and just understand

[1:18:03] there, there

[1:18:04] s a potential, at

[1:18:06] least in some places. That

[1:18:07] there

[1:18:09] s a risk that the amount

[1:18:10] of street parking would

[1:18:12] increase in certain locations.

[1:18:14] It could be for a couple of

[1:18:16] different reasons, there just

[1:18:16] isn

[1:18:16] t sufficient expansion

[1:18:19] capacity on the lot, whatever,

[1:18:19] what

[1:18:20] s the remedy if that does

[1:18:24] appear to be the case. So a, a

[1:18:25] remedy from a neighborhood

[1:18:26] perspective would be to

[1:18:27] petition the city for a parking

[1:18:31] district. Uh, so that, that

[1:18:33] would be if, if a neighborhood

[1:18:37] has. A parking problem that is

[1:18:40] the remedy that the city has

[1:18:44] established, is, is that the?

[1:18:44] Answer that you

[1:18:47] re Looking for.

[1:18:48] Well, I

[1:18:48] m not sure what the

[1:18:49] answer is, I

[1:18:50] m just needing to,

[1:18:52] you know, understand for those

[1:18:54] situations where that could be

[1:18:55] a problem, where that goes in

[1:18:58] terms of being able to address

[1:18:59] it, um, I

[1:18:59] m not sure what

[1:18:59] s

[1:19:01] involved in becoming a parking

[1:19:04] district, but I just wonder, um,

[1:19:05] maybe this gets back also to

[1:19:07] the question mark. About a

[1:19:10] special use permit. Is that a

[1:19:12] way in which that kind of a

[1:19:14] situation would be caught and

[1:19:15] addressed if it is that one of

[1:19:19] the options for that or no? I,

[1:19:20] I suppose that

[1:19:21] s a

[1:19:21] consideration that counsel

[1:19:25] could Use in a special use

[1:19:27] permit situation if, if, if it

[1:19:30] was a special use permit. Ok,

[1:19:32] and the issue is not that there

[1:19:36] would be So many detached ADUs

[1:19:37] in one place that it would

[1:19:39] contribute to volume. The issue

[1:19:40] is more site-specific where

[1:19:40] you

[1:19:41] d have a circumstance where

[1:19:43] there just isn

[1:19:44] t a

[1:19:45] configuration for off-street

[1:19:45] parking sufficient, so you

[1:19:46] re

[1:19:47] forcing it on street where you

[1:19:49] already MAY have it, so it

[1:19:50] stretches that, yeah, so, so

[1:19:51] the the special use permit

[1:19:53] being at the discretion of

[1:19:54] counsel, counsel can pick and

[1:19:54] choose, and that

[1:19:55] s the plus and

[1:19:56] that

[1:19:57] s the minus of the special

[1:19:58] use permit, you know, the plus

[1:20:00] side, it is the council can

[1:20:03] make that. Spot determination,

[1:20:07] you know, the downside from a

[1:20:07] homeowner

[1:20:08] s perspective is the

[1:20:09] unknown that that they have to

[1:20:11] go to city council and petition

[1:20:16] for this to be done. Right. If

[1:20:18] I could just switch gears to

[1:20:19] the numbers game a little bit,

[1:20:24] I think the Thank you for doing

[1:20:25] the assessments there are 2 of

[1:20:27] them that I think we asked for

[1:20:31] that, uh, very helpful. One is.

[1:20:34] The effect on property

[1:20:35] assessments for uh people who

[1:20:36] choose not to build just

[1:20:37] because the legal option is

[1:20:39] created and it looks like

[1:20:39] that

[1:20:41] s a non-issue. Uh, but

[1:20:42] there

[1:20:43] s a little bit of a

[1:20:46] caveat in that I think are.

[1:20:50] Comparative data on this. Is

[1:20:51] coming from places that are

[1:20:52] inside the Beltway,

[1:20:54] predominantly the outside the

[1:20:54] Beltway with Fairfax County is

[1:20:55] a little bit different because

[1:20:58] those are 2 acre lot minimums,

[1:20:58] so we

[1:21:00] re a little bit different

[1:21:02] territory. Sounds like it

[1:21:02] doesn

[1:21:03] t look like there would

[1:21:05] be an issue here, but I just

[1:21:05] want to note there

[1:21:06] s a little

[1:21:09] bit of um. Variation in the

[1:21:12] data sources here. The other

[1:21:13] thing is the numbers and if I

[1:21:15] understand at the end of the

[1:21:17] day, our best estimate again

[1:21:19] with some of the same

[1:21:21] Uncertainty. Because of apples

[1:21:22] and oranges here, we

[1:21:22] re looking

[1:21:25] at like maybe 5 a year. Is that

[1:21:29] where this landed, right? Ok.

[1:21:30] Helpful to know for a couple of

[1:21:32] different reasons, it doesn

[1:21:32] t

[1:21:36] look like there is likely to be

[1:21:38] a land rush, um, but it also

[1:21:41] looks like 5 a year. Is a

[1:21:42] manageable number if it was

[1:21:44] determined that we did need to

[1:21:45] do a special use permit, so it

[1:21:45] wouldn

[1:21:46] t be an overwhelming

[1:21:47] surge. I

[1:21:47] m not arguing for or

[1:21:51] against at this stage, except

[1:21:51] I

[1:21:54] m sympathetic to the concerns

[1:21:56] that arise and lead to the need

[1:21:57] possibly for a special use

[1:21:59] permit here. I think the other

[1:22:01] thing that when we discuss this,

[1:22:04] it was just helpful, um. Know

[1:22:06] is this, uh, while we do have

[1:22:08] attached ADUs. We have a lot of

[1:22:09] experience with that. The

[1:22:11] detached AUs are a little bit

[1:22:13] different ballgame, not exactly

[1:22:14] the same, and it sounds like

[1:22:16] there is some merit in taking

[1:22:17] it a step at a time in terms of

[1:22:21] how we implement a new policy

[1:22:23] so that we are going through a

[1:22:24] process of discovery in terms

[1:22:25] of how this works and being

[1:22:27] cautious at the early stages

[1:22:28] until we get a better feel for

[1:22:30] what we are really in for in

[1:22:32] terms of the volume, the

[1:22:32] complexity, the impacts, and

[1:22:34] all that. I don

[1:22:34] t want to

[1:22:36] overplay it because at 5 a year

[1:22:36] it doesn

[1:22:37] t sound like a big

[1:22:41] deal. On the other hand, that,

[1:22:42] um, it does sound like it would

[1:22:44] be prudent to Approach this in

[1:22:45] a way that is a little bit step

[1:22:47] at a time and helps us get the

[1:22:48] feedback we need to determine

[1:22:50] whether or not and at what

[1:22:52] point, um, this can be a more

[1:22:53] automated, if you will,

[1:22:55] approach to this that would

[1:22:58] argue again back for at least

[1:22:59] considering the possibility of

[1:23:00] special use permit in the early

[1:23:02] stages to see how this goes,

[1:23:03] but I didn

[1:23:05] t want to just bring

[1:23:06] that conversation forward

[1:23:07] because I appreciate the fact

[1:23:09] that we talked about that and

[1:23:11] that from a policy

[1:23:12] implementation perspective that

[1:23:12] it

[1:23:13] s almost like treating this

[1:23:16] as a pile. And taking some

[1:23:16] special care in its early

[1:23:21] stages. Uh, otherwise, uh, do

[1:23:24] wanna thank you for. All of the

[1:23:24] work that you

[1:23:24] ve done here,

[1:23:24] there

[1:23:25] s been a lot of

[1:23:28] assessment, it

[1:23:28] s been

[1:23:29] responsive and, uh, there

[1:23:29] s

[1:23:32] been a lot of work done on both

[1:23:33] the design and the assessment

[1:23:34] side of this that I think has

[1:23:36] been very helpful, so much

[1:23:40] appreciated. Thank you. Council

[1:23:41] member Hall, thank you. Excuse

[1:23:43] me, thank you. I just had one

[1:23:44] follow-up question, um, I just

[1:23:46] did a quick search and it looks

[1:23:47] like the special use permit is

[1:23:50] $600. Does that sound ok, that

[1:23:51] might might be correct. I

[1:23:52] m,

[1:23:52] I

[1:23:53] m not certain offhand. Ok,

[1:23:54] yeah, no, I just wanted to see

[1:23:56] what it was, um, and I also did

[1:23:57] some additional research and it

[1:23:59] looks like to build a 400

[1:24:00] square foot house, you

[1:24:00] re

[1:24:04] looking between 1 and 75,000

[1:24:05] and $275,000 and to build an

[1:24:09] 800 to 1000 sq ft adu looking

[1:24:12] at 300,000 to 450,000, so I do

[1:24:13] recognize that 600 is an extra

[1:24:17] fee. But I feel like for people

[1:24:18] that are likely going to be

[1:24:20] doing this, $600 is kind of a

[1:24:21] drop in the bucket with all of

[1:24:23] the other costs. So I still

[1:24:25] strongly support, uh, special

[1:24:28] use permit. Thank you. Thank

[1:24:30] you for the presentation. I do,

[1:24:31] uh, agree it was thorough and

[1:24:33] you did answer questions that

[1:24:35] previously came up in the work

[1:24:36] session. As far as the parking

[1:24:37] goes, there is a parking

[1:24:39] problem. We have a lot of

[1:24:41] rentals in the city that have

[1:24:43] college students in them. And

[1:24:43] there

[1:24:45] s no mechanism for

[1:24:48] enforcing limitations on how

[1:24:50] many vehicles a rental can have.

[1:24:50] So what we

[1:24:51] re basically saying

[1:24:52] is, if there

[1:24:52] s a parking

[1:24:53] problem in a neighborhood

[1:24:55] because we have a rental with

[1:24:56] no mechanism for limiting the

[1:24:56] number of vehicles, whether

[1:24:57] it

[1:24:59] s 345 or 6. Instead, we

[1:25:00] re

[1:25:04] going to The burden on an adu

[1:25:06] to meet these requirements. We

[1:25:07] have a parking issue. I grant

[1:25:11] you. But, but giving a free

[1:25:13] pass to renters in this city

[1:25:16] and putting the burden on

[1:25:17] renters of an adu or even not

[1:25:18] even renters because I think

[1:25:18] we

[1:25:19] re overlooking the fact that

[1:25:21] a lot of these ADUs MAY be for

[1:25:23] family use and they

[1:25:23] re not

[1:25:25] rental properties at all. I

[1:25:25] don

[1:25:26] t think there should be a

[1:25:28] greater burden on properties

[1:25:30] with an adu, then we are

[1:25:32] placing on lots of rental

[1:25:33] properties that have lots of

[1:25:34] vehicles. So that would be my

[1:25:38] feedback. On that, um, and as

[1:25:40] far as as the buy right use of

[1:25:44] a of building an adu, the city

[1:25:46] is full of yards that have

[1:25:47] sheds and garages and lots of

[1:25:48] external uses that are the

[1:25:50] basic footprint. Not maybe not

[1:25:52] the height of the square foot,

[1:25:52] basic footprint of we

[1:25:53] re talk,

[1:25:54] what we

[1:25:55] re talking about with

[1:25:56] an accessory dwelling unit. And

[1:25:58] while there might not be people

[1:25:59] Living in there, the fact of

[1:26:01] the matter is, the city is full

[1:26:03] of yards that have sheds and

[1:26:04] garages in them, and, and no

[1:26:06] one came to us to ask if we

[1:26:08] like the design or the location

[1:26:09] or anything else. We can do it

[1:26:11] by right. We can do it by right

[1:26:12] because we own the property.

[1:26:14] And so I do have an issue with,

[1:26:16] with thinking that that this

[1:26:19] dias, or any dias or every dias

[1:26:19] that

[1:26:20] s elected every other year,

[1:26:22] should have an up or down vote

[1:26:24] on what people want to build in

[1:26:25] their yard because we don

[1:26:25] t do

[1:26:27] that for the other structures

[1:26:27] they

[1:26:27] re currently building in

[1:26:30] their yard. So I fully support

[1:26:32] the fact that 2 parking spaces

[1:26:34] is adequate, understanding that

[1:26:36] parking is, is not an

[1:26:37] insignificant issue for

[1:26:37] neighborhoods, but we

[1:26:37] ve

[1:26:40] already got a problem with

[1:26:41] vehicles for rental properties

[1:26:43] anyway. And the fact that it

[1:26:45] should be by right because at

[1:26:46] $300,000 we are not going to

[1:26:48] have a lot of people who invest

[1:26:51] in that. Think to yourself, if

[1:26:53] you build something for

[1:26:54] $300,000 how many renters you

[1:26:54] d

[1:26:56] have to have over what period

[1:26:57] of time to make your investment

[1:27:00] back. My feeling is probably

[1:27:02] that people are going to choose

[1:27:06] this because they have

[1:27:07] Significantly greater reasons

[1:27:10] having to do with their family

[1:27:12] to invest $300,000 and that it

[1:27:13] is not a money-making

[1:27:15] enterprise because that kind of

[1:27:16] money-making enterprise makes

[1:27:19] no sense financially. So just

[1:27:20] putting that out there. And

[1:27:22] with that, I will ask if there

[1:27:27] is a motion. Oh, sorry, public

[1:27:29] hearing, hearing. Skipped a

[1:27:31] step, sorry. Ok, I will open

[1:27:32] the public hearing, MISS

[1:27:33] Shenenbury has this public

[1:27:34] hearing been properly

[1:27:36] advertised? Yes it has. Someone

[1:27:37] has signed up prior to the

[1:27:38] meeting to speak, and then

[1:27:39] after that person speaks, we

[1:27:39] ll

[1:27:40] open the floor if there

[1:27:40] s

[1:27:42] anybody else in the room, so

[1:27:44] the one person that spoke is

[1:27:44] Katie Johnson, or we

[1:27:45] ll be

[1:27:56] speaking with Katie Johnson.

[1:27:57] Katie Johnson and the clerk has

[1:27:59] my address. I came tonight to

[1:28:02] ask that ADOs be approved by

[1:28:04] special use permit. I, I

[1:28:04] m

[1:28:07] happy to hear, um, council

[1:28:07] member Hall

[1:28:08] s concern, I share

[1:28:11] those concerns. I generally

[1:28:12] support ADUs but only with very

[1:28:14] strong guardrails. I asked the

[1:28:17] city to retain the ability to

[1:28:18] ensure appropriateness and

[1:28:20] ensure no negative impacts on

[1:28:21] neighbors or neighborhoods,

[1:28:22] parking is absolutely a concern

[1:28:24] and should have a plan for

[1:28:25] enforcement. Cities should also

[1:28:27] have In place of process much

[1:28:30] like the city retains the right

[1:28:31] to inspect chicken coops. The

[1:28:33] city must have the ability to

[1:28:35] enforce the ordinances. The

[1:28:37] shed on my at my house, I,

[1:28:38] there are places that I cannot

[1:28:39] put my

[1:28:41] . I cannot put my

[1:28:43] in the rpa. I cannot put my

[1:28:45] shed. I had to get special

[1:28:46] exception to put my shed where

[1:28:49] it is. So there are rules about

[1:28:51] where sheds belong, but my

[1:28:53] concern also is we have the

[1:28:55] ability to inspect chicken

[1:28:56] coops to ensure that the

[1:28:58] chickens are safe. Why do we

[1:29:00] not have the same ability. Why

[1:29:00] can

[1:29:02] t the city retain the same

[1:29:03] ability to make sure and ensure

[1:29:06] that the people living in the

[1:29:07] small places are safe as well.

[1:29:11] Thank you. Ok, is there anybody

[1:29:12] else in the room that would

[1:29:13] like to speak on this agenda

[1:29:26] item? Good evening, Mayor Reed,

[1:29:27] members of council. I

[1:29:27] m Jim

[1:29:30] Gillespie. I live at 3604

[1:29:31] Colony Road. Uh, I

[1:29:32] m speaking,

[1:29:35] uh, tonight on behalf, on

[1:29:37] behalf of the adu ordinance

[1:29:39] amendment, um, as we all know,

[1:29:40] there

[1:29:41] s a regional shortage of

[1:29:44] housing, um, housing at all

[1:29:44] price points. There

[1:29:45] s a

[1:29:47] shortage of housing for young

[1:29:47] adults. There

[1:29:49] s a shortage of

[1:29:50] housing for seniors, there

[1:29:51] s a

[1:29:52] shortage of housing for

[1:29:53] everybody in between, and the

[1:29:57] ad eu unit, uh, ordinance would

[1:30:00] be a modest but meaningful, uh,

[1:30:02] step in the direction of

[1:30:03] providing housing for some

[1:30:07] people who need it. Now you MAY

[1:30:10] think 50 housing units over a

[1:30:12] decade or so, uh, well, does

[1:30:13] that really do anything? Well,

[1:30:15] it does a lot for those 50

[1:30:16] people. They are, they are

[1:30:17] getting a home when they did

[1:30:20] not have it before. And I think

[1:30:22] a little bit about, uh, a

[1:30:23] situation in my own extended

[1:30:26] family. Uh, I have a close

[1:30:28] relative who is roughly my age,

[1:30:30] uh, who is disabled, and at

[1:30:33] this point is, uh, living in a

[1:30:35] senior living residence and

[1:30:38] barely affording it, and, um,

[1:30:39] and I think about what it would

[1:30:41] be like to have that person

[1:30:44] come and live in my home, and

[1:30:47] we could make it work, but it

[1:30:48] would be difficult, it would be

[1:30:51] a sacrifice for us. It would be

[1:30:54] a um a real sacrifice to the

[1:30:55] dignity of this person to be a,

[1:30:59] a borderer in my home, uh, and

[1:31:01] an adu kind of arrangement

[1:31:03] would provide that person with

[1:31:05] more autonomy, the, uh, uh,

[1:31:07] feeling of living independently,

[1:31:08] of having more responsibility

[1:31:10] for their own life. So, I thank

[1:31:12] you for all of the work, uh,

[1:31:13] the staff has done for all the

[1:31:16] many efforts that you have done

[1:31:17] to study this issue, to assess

[1:31:18] it, and I hope you will vote

[1:31:24] yes. Thank you. Is there

[1:31:25] anybody else in the room that

[1:31:29] would like to speak? Is their

[1:31:33] emotion. I move to approve an

[1:31:35] ordinance amending chapter 110,

[1:31:37] zoning, to amend portions of

[1:31:39] the article of articles and

[1:31:41] sections contained therein,

[1:31:42] including introductory

[1:31:44] provisions, zoning districts,

[1:31:45] and regulations and definitions.

[1:31:49] Is there a second. Uh, motion

[1:31:50] has been made by council member

[1:31:51] Hardy Chandler and seconded by

[1:31:52] council member Peterson, a roll

[1:31:54] call vote. Hang on, are we

[1:31:56] gonna have discussion? Oh, is

[1:31:56] there a discussion on the

[1:31:59] motion? Council member Peterson,

[1:32:00] yes, is this something that we

[1:32:02] need to do tonight, or is it

[1:32:04] possible that this could be

[1:32:07] allowed some further public

[1:32:08] review of what we just saw

[1:32:09] tonight before we make a

[1:32:13] decision here. Counsel always

[1:32:14] has the discretion to defer

[1:32:15] action on an item with an

[1:32:19] appropriate motion. And I would

[1:32:20] be interested in the sense of

[1:32:22] the body here, whether that

[1:32:22] s

[1:32:23] something that would be

[1:32:26] acceptable. It does seem that

[1:32:26] We

[1:32:27] re voting on something we

[1:32:28] just saw, I know it

[1:32:28] s been

[1:32:29] around for a while, on the

[1:32:30] other hand, we

[1:32:30] ve seen some new

[1:32:31] information. Do you want to

[1:32:33] make a substitute motion? Is

[1:32:35] that how we would proceed, uh,

[1:32:39] MR. Lubkeman. That would be the

[1:32:41] mechanism do you want to make a

[1:32:42] substitute motion? Yes, and I

[1:32:43] will need help from MR.

[1:32:45] Lubkeman to get the exact

[1:32:47] wording correct, so if I MAY, I

[1:32:48] assume you

[1:32:49] ll just be asking to

[1:32:53] defer. Action. On this item to

[1:32:55] a date certain of blank. It, it,

[1:32:57] the next time we get together

[1:32:59] next earliest time we get

[1:33:01] together, I think SEPTEMBER, I

[1:33:01] believe that

[1:33:02] d be SEPTEMBER the

[1:33:04] 8th. That would be fine from my

[1:33:05] standpoint, but I

[1:33:06] m Need to

[1:33:09] make a motion. Let

[1:33:10] s defer

[1:33:11] consideration until SEPTEMBER

[1:33:16] 8th. Is there a second? Second,

[1:33:16] a motion

[1:33:17] s been made by council

[1:33:18] member Peterson and seconded by

[1:33:20] council member Hall, a roll

[1:33:22] call vote. Is there a comment

[1:33:24] available at this time? Do you

[1:33:25] want to, yes, discussion on the

[1:33:26] motion. Yeah, I just, I, I

[1:33:29] really, I, I think that we give

[1:33:31] a lot of time for the noise

[1:33:32] ordinance and then the city of

[1:33:33] Fairfax government put out a

[1:33:35] post and people are all up in

[1:33:38] arms about it, um, and I, I

[1:33:39] just think that something of

[1:33:40] this magnitude, while it very

[1:33:41] well MAY pass and people might

[1:33:42] be very, very supportive of it

[1:33:45] I think that the timing of the

[1:33:46] more finalized versions of this

[1:33:47] came out in JUNE. Now we

[1:33:48] re

[1:33:51] doing this in JULY. These are

[1:33:52] historically vacation months.

[1:33:52] People are not here, so I just

[1:33:54] think that We need a little bit

[1:33:55] more time to be able to give

[1:33:57] people to. Understand this, I

[1:33:58] d

[1:34:00] love to see the city put out

[1:34:01] something about this so that we

[1:34:02] can, you know, share it all

[1:34:04] around and, and really garner

[1:34:05] some additional support,

[1:34:06] whether in favor or against,

[1:34:08] just so we know that we

[1:34:08] re

[1:34:09] making a decision with more

[1:34:10] information. Thank you. Council

[1:34:13] member Amos. Uh, just 2 quick

[1:34:15] comments, the, the first being,

[1:34:17] you know, part of it is, we

[1:34:18] re

[1:34:18] we

[1:34:19] re not gonna know what needs

[1:34:20] to be fixed until it

[1:34:20] s

[1:34:21] implemented, unfortunately,

[1:34:22] especially when it comes to

[1:34:24] parking, to the actual number

[1:34:26] of ADUs and we gauge interest

[1:34:29] on where this is popping up and

[1:34:29] if we

[1:34:30] re gonna hit that 50

[1:34:32] target in the next 10 years or

[1:34:33] maybe lower, if it

[1:34:33] s higher,

[1:34:34] that

[1:34:34] s something we

[1:34:35] ll need to

[1:34:38] track. The other I

[1:34:38] m very

[1:34:42] hesitant on The special use

[1:34:43] permit particularly because I

[1:34:44] just feel like that people have

[1:34:47] a right to their property, and

[1:34:48] they should be allowed to

[1:34:49] develop it within reason. I do

[1:34:50] feel like the Board of Zoning

[1:34:52] Appeals is capable of assessing

[1:34:55] that. The point about deferral

[1:34:55] and the discussion on the

[1:34:58] motion. I guess my question

[1:34:59] would be, why wouldn

[1:35:00] t we defer

[1:35:01] more actions that happen over

[1:35:03] summer and in general when

[1:35:04] people are traveling, uh.

[1:35:06] Unfortunately, you know,

[1:35:06] business has to get, has to get

[1:35:08] done. It

[1:35:09] s my personal feeling

[1:35:10] on that. Council member

[1:35:16] McQuillan. I would like a defer

[1:35:17] because I would like to ask a

[1:35:19] little bit more information,

[1:35:20] gather more information

[1:35:22] regarding the special use

[1:35:23] permit process, my

[1:35:24] understanding that is that it

[1:35:25] can take quite a long time for

[1:35:28] some people, so I, I want to

[1:35:29] better understand that process

[1:35:30] more, um, this is something

[1:35:32] that just came up this evening.

[1:35:32] This isn

[1:35:33] t something that we

[1:35:35] really discussed in detail

[1:35:36] prior, so deferring this to the

[1:35:37] next meeting would allow me

[1:35:40] that ability. Thank you.

[1:35:43] Council member Bates. Um, so

[1:35:45] first off, uh, this is

[1:35:46] something that as I recall, has

[1:35:47] been in the works since at

[1:35:49] least last year, is, is that

[1:35:52] right? Um, if not earlier, um,

[1:35:53] and so it

[1:35:54] s not something that

[1:35:56] was introduced. You know, just

[1:35:58] a, a month or two ago, um, you

[1:35:58] know, it

[1:36:00] s been on public

[1:36:01] agendas, um, we

[1:36:01] ve received

[1:36:04] feedback about it. Um, with

[1:36:06] regard to the special use

[1:36:10] permit, um, first off, a, uh,

[1:36:12] is a resident required to pay

[1:36:13] that fee, uh, regardless of

[1:36:15] whether or not the city council

[1:36:17] ultimately votes it up or down.

[1:36:18] Yes, that

[1:36:19] s correct, um, so

[1:36:22] again. You know, we don

[1:36:23] t know

[1:36:25] what the financial means of the

[1:36:26] applicant, you know, every

[1:36:29] single applicant is going to be,

[1:36:30] um, they MAY have an agreement

[1:36:32] with someone who MAY be the,

[1:36:34] the very first occupant of that

[1:36:35] unit where, you know, they pay

[1:36:37] to build it, what have you, um,

[1:36:37] and then they

[1:36:38] re in a situation

[1:36:39] where they

[1:36:41] re out almost $1000

[1:36:44] and plus the, you know,

[1:36:45] whatever additional costs they

[1:36:47] MAY have incurred through

[1:36:48] having somebody help prepare

[1:36:49] whatever documentation they

[1:36:50] might need or what have you,

[1:36:50] you don

[1:36:50] t know what goes into

[1:36:53] that. Um, and, you know,

[1:36:54] without anything to really show

[1:36:57] for it. Um, and, uh,

[1:37:02] additionally, The, um Uh, you

[1:37:04] know, the, I recall from

[1:37:06] reviewing the language of the

[1:37:09] ordinance. That, um, and I

[1:37:10] believe is also actually

[1:37:13] mentioned here tonight. If, um

[1:37:16] The, uh, the property is, you

[1:37:19] know, due to whatever

[1:37:20] circumstances, um, it gets to a

[1:37:20] point where it

[1:37:22] s no longer in

[1:37:23] conformance with the

[1:37:25] requirements set forth there,

[1:37:25] they

[1:37:27] re no longer allowed to,

[1:37:29] um, use that adu, is that right?

[1:37:32] Yes, um, and that exists

[1:37:33] regardless of whether or not

[1:37:33] there

[1:37:35] s a special use permit

[1:37:39] process. And, um, would there

[1:37:40] be any difference in

[1:37:42] enforcement of that if there is

[1:37:43] a special use permit process or

[1:37:46] not. Uh, well, that, that

[1:37:47] s up

[1:37:48] to council, the, the bare

[1:37:49] minimum for a special use

[1:37:51] permit, what, what the changes

[1:37:53] would be in the zoning

[1:37:54] ordinance, there

[1:37:55] s a table in

[1:37:57] the zoning ordinance called the

[1:38:00] Accessory use table, uh,

[1:38:02] accessory dwelling units are

[1:38:04] listed in there, uh, accessory

[1:38:06] dwelling units are listed as

[1:38:09] permitted uses in the rhrl and

[1:38:11] rm zones, uh, that could be

[1:38:13] changed to a special use permit

[1:38:17] to cover all ADUs. Or it could

[1:38:19] be split into in accessory

[1:38:21] dwelling units attached and

[1:38:22] accessory unit, accessory

[1:38:25] dwelling units detached. One

[1:38:27] would be special, one would be

[1:38:28] permitted, in that case we

[1:38:30] would need a definition of each

[1:38:32] in the definition section, uh,

[1:38:32] but that

[1:38:36] s the bare minimum, uh,

[1:38:37] and the standards that we

[1:38:38] reviewed today could stay the

[1:38:41] same. If, if that

[1:38:41] s council

[1:38:41] s

[1:38:44] wishes, if council wishes to

[1:38:45] add other standards you all

[1:38:47] could do that as well, yeah,

[1:38:50] yeah, but with, so with regard

[1:38:52] to the enforcement mechanism,

[1:38:54] um, would that be any different

[1:38:55] in terms of, you know, there,

[1:38:55] there

[1:38:56] s, there

[1:38:58] s similar

[1:38:59] enforcement mechanisms to SUPs

[1:39:01] that the sup is permitted. You

[1:39:02] know, for whatever is applied

[1:39:03] for, and if that changes, then,

[1:39:05] uh, that would be out of

[1:39:06] conformity and the property

[1:39:07] owner would have to come back

[1:39:10] for a, a new sup if that

[1:39:14] changes. Mhm. But, um, in terms

[1:39:14] of how that

[1:39:15] s enforced with

[1:39:17] regard to, you know, what

[1:39:17] s

[1:39:19] proposed, um. It

[1:39:20] s, would you

[1:39:21] say that it

[1:39:22] s similar to, um,

[1:39:23] you know, that provision that

[1:39:24] s

[1:39:24] currently in there, you know,

[1:39:25] and it

[1:39:26] s not in conformance and

[1:39:28] it no longer functions, correct,

[1:39:29] that, that would be similar,

[1:39:32] the difference would be if

[1:39:33] counsel imposes additional

[1:39:35] requirements as part of the sup

[1:39:36] process that that that would be

[1:39:36] something that

[1:39:37] s above and

[1:39:37] beyond what

[1:39:38] s in the zoning

[1:39:40] ordinance, right, right, but we

[1:39:42] could also, um, if we wanted to

[1:39:44] amend, um, or, you know, set

[1:39:47] the Uh, requirements as is, you

[1:39:48] know, regardless of whether

[1:39:49] there

[1:39:50] s an, an sup or not,

[1:39:52] correct, yeah, yeah, and so

[1:39:52] we

[1:39:54] ve already discussed those,

[1:39:54] uh, requirements previously.

[1:39:55] Anyway, so just, you know, some

[1:39:56] clarification, uh, that

[1:39:56] s very

[1:39:59] helpful. Thank you. Council

[1:40:00] member Hardy Chandler. I think,

[1:40:03] uh. Put simply, what concerns

[1:40:06] me is adding a burden to people

[1:40:07] who MAY want to pursue this

[1:40:10] option, um, and a burden that

[1:40:11] Wouldn

[1:40:13] t it be in place if they

[1:40:14] were doing something else like

[1:40:16] simply improving their property

[1:40:18] in a different way, um, so the,

[1:40:19] the added burden that does not

[1:40:22] feel fair to me is not

[1:40:23] something that I

[1:40:23] m wanting to

[1:40:25] consider, I wanted to be an

[1:40:26] encouragement for people to

[1:40:27] consider this when it

[1:40:27] s right

[1:40:29] for their family and right for

[1:40:31] their for their financial

[1:40:33] circumstances rather than sort

[1:40:35] of punishing them and adding

[1:40:36] extra hoops for them to jump

[1:40:38] through in order to have this

[1:40:39] happen, um, so I

[1:40:39] m in support

[1:40:41] of con Continuing with the vote

[1:40:46] today. Council member Peterson,

[1:40:48] just to clarify my interest

[1:40:51] here was actually not to

[1:40:53] address the special use permit

[1:40:55] issue which Sounds like there

[1:40:55] s

[1:40:57] still some conversation around,

[1:40:59] but really to give residents a

[1:41:00] chance to digest this a little

[1:41:01] bit, sometimes it seems like

[1:41:01] it

[1:41:04] s a little bit much for us

[1:41:05] to receive new information,

[1:41:07] people are giving invite people

[1:41:09] to do a public hearing the same

[1:41:09] night, and they

[1:41:10] ve just seen it,

[1:41:12] and in some cases have not even

[1:41:14] yet seen it. It

[1:41:14] s difficult for

[1:41:16] people to be able to access

[1:41:17] some of this information ahead

[1:41:19] of time and digest it, we

[1:41:19] re

[1:41:20] actually getting explanations

[1:41:21] here that help them do that,

[1:41:22] and then we turn right around

[1:41:24] and we vote, and if there

[1:41:24] s no

[1:41:26] harm in giving a little bit

[1:41:27] more time for people to digest

[1:41:29] this in case there is something

[1:41:30] out of that that

[1:41:31] s meaningful.

[1:41:31] I, I don

[1:41:33] t see why we wouldn

[1:41:33] t

[1:41:35] delay, and I, in terms of the

[1:41:36] JULY time frame, I mean, people

[1:41:38] are Busy all the time, I will

[1:41:41] say, however, I have received

[1:41:43] some comments from residents

[1:41:45] who have expressed the concern

[1:41:45] that they

[1:41:47] ve been out of pocket

[1:41:48] pretty badly in JULY and are

[1:41:50] having a hard time keeping up

[1:41:50] with what

[1:41:51] s going on in terms

[1:41:53] of city business, so this is a

[1:41:53] time when it

[1:41:55] s been a little

[1:41:56] bit tougher probably than

[1:41:59] normal to do that, and I would

[1:42:00] think because of significant

[1:42:02] new information. That we

[1:42:02] re

[1:42:04] having in front of us tonight

[1:42:05] on the lack of the opportunity

[1:42:07] for people to really have time

[1:42:09] to digest it and for us to be

[1:42:10] able to hear from them, and

[1:42:12] again, there MAY be no feedback

[1:42:14] whatsoever, but as in the case

[1:42:15] of the noise ordinance there

[1:42:17] MAY be quite a bit of feedback

[1:42:19] in any case, it would be great

[1:42:21] to give us that opportunity if

[1:42:22] possible, and I, I don

[1:42:23] t think

[1:42:23] it

[1:42:24] s a major burden in terms of

[1:42:26] a postponement here for another

[1:42:27] decision. I also don

[1:42:29] t think it

[1:42:30] would require a particularly

[1:42:33] large amount of time. To, uh,

[1:42:34] act on this when it does come

[1:42:36] back, so that was really the

[1:42:37] intention that I had here.

[1:42:40] Thank you. House member hall.

[1:42:42] Thank you. I do also want to

[1:42:43] remind everyone that this was

[1:42:48] the body earlier this month who

[1:42:50] delayed the implementation of

[1:42:52] an otherwise agreed upon

[1:42:56] council, um. Uh, code of ethics

[1:42:58] to allow our boards and

[1:42:59] commissions time to review it

[1:43:00] when it wasn

[1:43:01] t even decided

[1:43:03] that they were going to be

[1:43:04] subject to it, so I just have a

[1:43:07] hard time. Not allowing

[1:43:09] additional time for our 24,000

[1:43:10] residents to make sure that

[1:43:11] they

[1:43:13] ve wrapped their heads

[1:43:16] around this potential change to

[1:43:18] their neighborhoods. Amos. And

[1:43:19] just for clarification on that

[1:43:21] in that meeting, uh, I asked MR.

[1:43:22] Lubcomman if the timeline was

[1:43:24] affected if we did that action,

[1:43:27] and he said no. So the timeline

[1:43:28] was not changed because of that.

[1:43:30] So if there

[1:43:31] s no further

[1:43:32] discussion on this motion to

[1:43:33] defer, can we take a roll call

[1:43:38] vote. Nashinabury. Council

[1:43:42] member Amos. No. Council Member

[1:43:43] Hall, Council member Hardy

[1:43:45] Chandler. Council member

[1:43:49] Peterson. Council Member Bates

[1:43:51] Councilor McClellan, yes,

[1:43:57] motion failed 3 to 3. So The

[1:43:58] original motion which was made

[1:44:00] by Council member Hardy

[1:44:02] Chandler and seconded by

[1:44:03] Council member Peterson. Is

[1:44:04] there discussion on the

[1:44:05] original motion before we take

[1:44:06] a roll call vote, Council

[1:44:07] Member Hall. I

[1:44:09] d like to make

[1:44:10] it very clear that I think that

[1:44:12] this could be an excellent

[1:44:14] opportunity for our community,

[1:44:18] for our residents, I simply do

[1:44:19] not feel that those that are

[1:44:20] away and that have spent the

[1:44:21] summer since their kids have

[1:44:24] been out of school have

[1:44:25] sufficient time to truly

[1:44:27] understand and digest what is

[1:44:29] included here, which is why I

[1:44:30] strongly supported and was

[1:44:32] going to ask for a delay myself.

[1:44:35] So my vote tonight is not a no

[1:44:36] against ADUs. It

[1:44:36] s a no against

[1:44:40] the process. That is not

[1:44:41] allowing our residents

[1:44:42] sufficient time to absorb this

[1:44:46] information, thank you. Any

[1:44:47] other discussion on the motion,

[1:44:48] and I will simply say we

[1:44:48] ve

[1:44:50] been working on this adu

[1:44:52] amendment, I believe, since I

[1:44:54] was elected mayor. So it is not

[1:44:55] something new. We have had work

[1:44:57] sessions on it, there MAY not

[1:44:59] have been work sessions you saw

[1:45:00] previous to being on this

[1:45:02] council, but we have been

[1:45:04] talking about this adu

[1:45:07] ordinance since at least 2024.

[1:45:09] They have not 2023. So, with

[1:45:15] that, a roll call vote. Ok,

[1:45:17] council member McQuillan. I too

[1:45:19] wanted to state on the record

[1:45:21] that I, um, will be voting no

[1:45:24] on this because I too in our

[1:45:28] last meeting was, um, convinced

[1:45:29] and in being collaborative and

[1:45:30] trying to ensure that everyone

[1:45:32] and my colleagues had enough

[1:45:34] time to speak with their

[1:45:36] constituents and do their due

[1:45:37] diligence, I decided to go

[1:45:39] ahead and agree with the rest

[1:45:41] of council that we would delay,

[1:45:44] um, adopting our code of ethics

[1:45:45] and this evening I was also

[1:45:47] kind of in the same Boat here

[1:45:49] where I was going, ok, a

[1:45:50] special use permit for $600

[1:45:51] that

[1:45:52] s a lot of money. I know

[1:45:53] some of the, the timing, the

[1:45:55] process can take a long time,

[1:45:56] however, I

[1:45:57] m not even given

[1:45:58] enough time to to speak with

[1:46:00] constituents and talk to them

[1:46:03] about this, um, to ensure that

[1:46:04] they understand that this is

[1:46:04] what

[1:46:05] s going to happen when

[1:46:08] this is approved this evening,

[1:46:09] um, so I just want to let

[1:46:09] everyone know that I

[1:46:10] m not

[1:46:12] saying no to ADUs because I

[1:46:13] actually support them fully.

[1:46:13] i

[1:46:15] m very frustrated that the

[1:46:16] process tonight that we

[1:46:16] re

[1:46:17] saying. Saying that we don

[1:46:18] t

[1:46:19] care about what our

[1:46:20] constituents think about this.

[1:46:23] We have all of this set out

[1:46:24] really nicely now. We know

[1:46:26] exactly what it entails and our

[1:46:28] constituents can look it over

[1:46:29] and give us really good

[1:46:30] accurate feedback. They

[1:46:31] re all

[1:46:32] on vacation. Everybody is gone

[1:46:33] this summer. We know this.

[1:46:33] They

[1:46:35] re going to return next

[1:46:36] month because school starts in

[1:46:38] AUGUST. Can we really wait for

[1:46:39] 1 month? Yes, we could, but

[1:46:39] we

[1:46:41] re not going to tonight. So

[1:46:43] my vote will be a no, but it

[1:46:43] s

[1:46:44] not against ADUs because I do

[1:46:45] want affordability and I want

[1:46:48] housing here. However, However,

[1:46:48] I

[1:46:49] m very frustrated that we

[1:46:49] feel like it

[1:46:51] s ok to just push

[1:46:53] things along and not give a

[1:46:58] deferment. Thank you. Well

[1:47:01] Council member Peterson. Yeah,

[1:47:03] it is, uh, I think a little bit

[1:47:04] frustrating for everybody to be

[1:47:08] in this position. I, I, I

[1:47:09] support the detached adu

[1:47:10] approach, I do think there

[1:47:11] s a

[1:47:12] little bit of unfinished

[1:47:13] business here, and if we

[1:47:13] re not

[1:47:16] going to be able to give

[1:47:17] ourselves some breathing room

[1:47:18] to let people give us feedback

[1:47:19] and tie this up with a nice bow

[1:47:21] when we get back the way we

[1:47:24] really ought to, I would just

[1:47:27] say that I would hope Uh, that

[1:47:29] our city manager and city staff

[1:47:33] would move forward in a manner

[1:47:36] that would retain flexibility.

[1:47:38] As needed to address needs that

[1:47:41] MAY come up as a consequence of

[1:47:43] public feedback that we receive

[1:47:45] after, uh, this evening

[1:47:46] s vote,

[1:47:49] and that we stay flexible and

[1:47:50] responsive every step of the

[1:47:52] way, and that could be special

[1:47:55] use permit, but it could be any

[1:47:56] number of other things as I

[1:47:57] mentioned earlier, this is

[1:48:00] going to go into an early

[1:48:01] implementation phase, it will

[1:48:03] be an early period of discovery.

[1:48:06] It will be much like a pilot.

[1:48:07] And I will support this, but it

[1:48:10] will be based on the assumption

[1:48:12] that we will take seriously

[1:48:13] feedback that we receive and

[1:48:16] that we will act on that

[1:48:18] feedback without hesitation as

[1:48:19] necessary and retain the

[1:48:20] flexibility we need to do that,

[1:48:22] and so I will be supporting

[1:48:25] this, but I must say I have

[1:48:26] real reservations about, um,

[1:48:27] the way in which we

[1:48:27] re doing

[1:48:28] this and we

[1:48:29] re not giving

[1:48:30] people a chance to have a last

[1:48:31] look at something that has some

[1:48:36] new elements to it. Thank you.

[1:48:38] Any other comments, seeing none

[1:48:39] a roll call vote. Council

[1:48:42] member Amos. Council member

[1:48:43] Hall, Council member Hardy

[1:48:47] Chandler. Council Member

[1:48:48] Peterson Council Member Bates

[1:48:52] COUNCILMAN McClellan. No. Ok,

[1:48:55] motion passed 4 to 2. Ok, we

[1:48:58] will go on to the second

[1:48:59] general public comment, is

[1:48:59] there anybody in the room that

[1:49:01] would like to make a general

[1:49:06] public comment tonight. Ok. All

[1:49:08] right, seeing none, we will now

[1:49:08] recess the regular meeting to

[1:49:09] go into a work session. We

[1:49:10] ll

[1:49:11] take a 5-minute recession

[1:49:13] recess to move it to the work

[1:56:59] session room. Mhm. I. And

[1:57:01] welcome to our work session.

[1:57:02] Before we begin the work

[1:57:03] session, I want to give a

[1:57:06] background on the development

[1:57:07] review process for applications.

[1:57:10] The development review process

[1:57:10] was established through a

[1:57:12] series of mayor and city

[1:57:15] council retreats to ensure

[1:57:15] development concepts are

[1:57:17] presented to the mayor and

[1:57:19] counts city council as a whole,

[1:57:20] rather than through individual

[1:57:22] meetings. This approach

[1:57:23] promotes transparency by

[1:57:25] ensuring all elected officials

[1:57:26] receive the same information at

[1:57:29] the same time. Pre-application

[1:57:32] briefings occur before a formal

[1:57:33] application is submitted at

[1:57:36] this stage, city staff provides

[1:57:38] a high level overview of a

[1:57:39] proposed concept and the

[1:57:41] potential applicant is

[1:57:43] available to answer questions.

[1:57:44] The plans are conceptual and

[1:57:46] the mayor and city council MAY

[1:57:48] offer general observations as

[1:57:51] guidance. Once a formal

[1:57:53] application is submitted and

[1:57:55] accepted city staff conducts a

[1:57:56] detailed review for compliance

[1:57:59] with applicable codes. And

[1:58:01] policies, post submission work

[1:58:03] sessions include an in-depth

[1:58:05] staff analysis and typically

[1:58:07] occur after the applicant has

[1:58:08] addressed initial staff

[1:58:10] comments and before the

[1:58:11] application proceeds to public

[1:58:14] hearings. The process has been

[1:58:16] reviewed and refined over time

[1:58:18] by successive mayor and city

[1:58:21] councils. Changes have included

[1:58:22] clarifying materials to

[1:58:23] distinguish pre-application

[1:58:26] briefings from post submission

[1:58:27] work sessions and allowing

[1:58:30] potential applicants to answer

[1:58:31] questions during

[1:58:32] pre-application briefings to

[1:58:34] provide additional context for

[1:58:35] conceptual proposals. So we are

[1:58:37] just setting the stage for

[1:58:39] where we are with this work

[1:58:41] session, MS. Shniberry, what

[1:58:45] here. Our first item is a

[1:58:47] pre-application briefing on a

[1:58:49] request by Network Realty

[1:58:51] Partners for the redevelopment

[1:58:52] of 3541 Chambridge Road. I

[1:58:53] m

[1:58:54] gonna recognize Clara Schweiger,

[1:58:55] our city planner for the staff

[1:58:57] presentation. Good evening,

[1:59:00] Mayor and Council, first up

[1:59:01] tonight for work sessions is a

[1:59:04] discussion on a potential

[1:59:04] redevelopment at 3541

[1:59:08] Chainbridge Road. We are

[1:59:09] currently in the

[1:59:10] pre-application stage of the

[1:59:12] development review process, so

[1:59:13] a formal land use application

[1:59:15] has not yet been submitted.

[1:59:16] City staff have met with the

[1:59:18] potential applicant and

[1:59:19] provided initial feedback on

[1:59:24] the potential proposal. So the

[1:59:25] top left image here is an

[1:59:28] aerial of the site. The site is

[1:59:29] located at the southeast corner

[1:59:32] of Chambridge Road and Eaton

[1:59:33] Place, west of University Drive

[1:59:36] and north of Fairfax Boulevard.

[1:59:38] The Future land use designation

[1:59:40] for this site is the activity

[1:59:41] center place type and the site

[1:59:44] is located in the Northfas

[1:59:46] Activity Center and a subject

[1:59:47] to the North Facts Small area

[1:59:51] plan. The site is currently

[1:59:53] zoned cr Commercial Retail and

[1:59:55] the potential applicant

[1:59:56] proposes to rezone to cu

[2:00:02] commercial urban. This slide

[2:00:03] shows proposed residential

[2:00:05] development in the Northfax

[2:00:06] Activity Center. This table is

[2:00:08] also provided in your briefing

[2:00:11] packet, but just to give a

[2:00:13] quick summary in Northfas, the

[2:00:15] small area plan estimates 1400

[2:00:17] new residential units in the

[2:00:20] near term. To date, there are

[2:00:21] 1,088 units currently in some

[2:00:22] phase of the land use process

[2:00:23] in the North Facts Activity

[2:00:26] Center. And all activity

[2:00:30] centers, the small area plans

[2:00:31] estimate 4700 new units in the

[2:00:35] near term. To date, 2,753 units

[2:00:37] are in some phase of the land

[2:00:38] use process in all activity

[2:00:42] centers. Outside of the

[2:00:43] activity centers, 3,022 units

[2:00:45] are in the land use pipeline.

[2:00:47] And then the table on the

[2:00:49] bottom here shows each project

[2:00:50] in Northfax with the status and

[2:00:56] the number of units proposed.

[2:00:58] Now, going back to the

[2:00:59] potential project for tonight

[2:00:59] s

[2:01:02] discussion, existing on the

[2:01:04] development site are 2 2-story

[2:01:07] office buildings and 124

[2:01:08] parking spaces on approximately

[2:01:12] 2.09 acres. This is the concept

[2:01:16] plan. The potential applicant

[2:01:18] proposes 29 townhouses and 8

[2:01:19] 2/2 units with the proposed

[2:01:25] height maximum of 4 stories.

[2:01:26] They proposed 2750 square feet

[2:01:29] of retail on University Drive,

[2:01:31] a new private street, a widened

[2:01:32] 10-foot sidewalk on Eaton Place

[2:01:33] and an 8 ft sidewalk on

[2:01:37] University Drive. And an

[2:01:38] internal 6 ft sidewalk leading

[2:01:42] to units. The potential appro

[2:01:46] applicant proposes a 4200 sq ft

[2:01:48] linear park 8300 square feet of

[2:01:50] open space and an interpersonal

[2:01:53] connection to the south. Here

[2:01:55] are renderings of the potential

[2:02:00] proposal. So these are looking

[2:02:01] at the stacked townhouses, so

[2:02:05] the 2 of 2s. And hear more

[2:02:08] renderings on the left is, um,

[2:02:09] a retail building, and then on

[2:02:10] the right you

[2:02:10] re seeing the

[2:02:16] townhouses. So city staff met

[2:02:18] with the applicant, um, the

[2:02:20] potential applicant and has

[2:02:23] provided preliminary feedback

[2:02:26] on the potential proposal, um,

[2:02:27] this list was included in your

[2:02:32] briefing packet. And on JUNE

[2:02:36] 22nd, the planning commission

[2:02:37] held a pre-application briefing

[2:02:39] with the applicant, and gave

[2:02:42] the applicant feedback. Um, a

[2:02:44] summary of this, um, feedback

[2:02:45] has also been included in your

[2:02:50] briefing packet. Potential land

[2:02:52] use requests for the proposal

[2:02:54] would be a rezoning from cr

[2:02:55] Commercial retail to see you

[2:02:58] commercial urban and the

[2:02:58] architectural control overlay

[2:03:02] district, a special use permit

[2:03:03] for townhouses and multi-family,

[2:03:04] a general development plan and

[2:03:06] a major certificate of

[2:03:06] appropriateness for

[2:03:10] architecture and landscaping.

[2:03:12] So the next steps are a land

[2:03:14] use application submission.

[2:03:16] Staff review, work sessions

[2:03:17] with the planning commission,

[2:03:19] the bar and city council, and

[2:03:23] then public hearings. And that

[2:03:24] concludes my presentation. I

[2:03:24] m

[2:03:25] here to answer any questions

[2:03:28] that you have, the potential

[2:03:28] applicant is also standing by

[2:03:31] for questions. But Thank you

[2:03:32] for the presentation, Council

[2:03:34] Member Amos. Thank you very

[2:03:36] much, uh, for the very, uh,

[2:03:38] brief presentation, uh, just to

[2:03:40] quickly go over what I

[2:03:41] d liked

[2:03:42] that I saw the Sidewalk widths,

[2:03:44] I think are appropriate. I

[2:03:46] think 1010 ft on Eaton, 8 ft on

[2:03:47] university, I think that makes

[2:03:50] a lot of sense. Uh, I do like

[2:03:51] the university connection and

[2:03:53] access from Cambridge. I

[2:03:54] actually, my understanding

[2:03:55] based off of what I saw on the

[2:03:57] plan, the access point to the

[2:03:58] property from Eden is removed,

[2:04:00] correct? I, I do like that

[2:04:02] element of it as well, uh,

[2:04:04] taking that off. I also really,

[2:04:07] yes, right there, thank you. I

[2:04:08] also like the linear park and

[2:04:10] green space concepts, so I, I

[2:04:11] do like to see that you have a,

[2:04:14] a good amount of green space

[2:04:14] proposed from this initial

[2:04:17] application, uh, just a few

[2:04:18] questions, um, it might be a

[2:04:19] little too early, but I imagine

[2:04:21] in terms of stormwater, if I

[2:04:22] recall correctly, this is kind

[2:04:24] of on a slope, uh, in terms of

[2:04:24] storm water, we

[2:04:25] re looking at

[2:04:26] an underground tank is what

[2:04:27] s

[2:04:28] there sufficient or what would

[2:04:30] be, uh, implemented for that, I

[2:04:30] guess that would be to the

[2:04:40] applicant. Just early thoughts.

[2:04:41] Thank you, uh, MADAM Mayor,

[2:04:42] members of City Council, Bob

[2:04:44] Brandt with the law firm of

[2:04:45] Walsh Colucci on behalf of the

[2:04:45] applicant this evening, I

[2:04:46] m,

[2:04:46] I

[2:04:48] m joined by Greg Trimmer from

[2:04:49] Network Realty Partners and

[2:04:50] appreciate the opportunity to

[2:04:52] come before council and get

[2:04:54] feedback, answer questions, and

[2:04:55] hopefully begin this process.

[2:04:57] Um, Council member Amos, you

[2:04:58] asked about stormwater

[2:04:59] management, um, we have not yet

[2:05:00] fully designed it. We

[2:05:00] re still

[2:05:01] very early. This is the concept

[2:05:03] plan. This is really the extent

[2:05:06] of what we designed so far, um,

[2:05:07] but make no mistake about it,

[2:05:08] there will be stormwater

[2:05:09] management facilities provided

[2:05:12] on site. Um, what we

[2:05:12] re

[2:05:13] anticipating is exactly what

[2:05:14] you, what you described,

[2:05:15] underground facilities,

[2:05:17] detention, stormwater quantity,

[2:05:18] quality controls, things like

[2:05:21] that, um, it will be a

[2:05:22] significant benefit over what

[2:05:22] s

[2:05:23] there today. This this property

[2:05:26] was developed in the early

[2:05:27] 1970s and, um, I think it

[2:05:27] s

[2:05:29] safe to say is probably

[2:05:30] entirely lacking in terms of

[2:05:31] stormwater controls. So that

[2:05:31] s

[2:05:33] one of the several benefits

[2:05:35] that the redevelopment of this

[2:05:36] property will just inherently

[2:05:38] bring forward. Thank you. Uh,

[2:05:40] my next question in terms of

[2:05:41] height, so the, what

[2:05:41] s

[2:05:42] currently there, I think I saw

[2:05:45] on the plane, it was 28 ft if

[2:05:45] I

[2:05:47] m correct, and then you have

[2:05:48] proposed 4 stories. What

[2:05:48] s the,

[2:05:49] the gap there? What

[2:05:49] s the

[2:05:50] difference? That

[2:05:50] s, that

[2:05:50] s

[2:05:51] correct, the 2-story buildings,

[2:05:52] I think you

[2:05:52] re, you

[2:05:53] re, you

[2:05:53] re

[2:05:55] correct or Route 25 28 30 ft

[2:05:58] story, uh, excuse me, feet high,

[2:05:59] uh, what we are proposing at

[2:06:00] this point is a maximum height

[2:06:04] of 4 stories or 60 ft. The 60

[2:06:06] ft would be the, uh, 2/2 units,

[2:06:08] the Stack townhouse units. On

[2:06:09] the left side of your screen,

[2:06:11] the west side of the site

[2:06:12] fronting on Chambridge Road, um,

[2:06:13] those will be a little bit

[2:06:14] taller than the, the

[2:06:16] single-family attached, the

[2:06:17] townhouse units, one of the

[2:06:19] reasons we did that was to kind

[2:06:20] of establish that frontage,

[2:06:21] establish that book end of the

[2:06:22] site, create kind of a gateway

[2:06:23] as you

[2:06:24] re coming into the city

[2:06:25] by concentrating that mass

[2:06:27] there, but that 4-story,

[2:06:30] 60-foot height would be the

[2:06:30] maximum the townhouses would

[2:06:31] likely be a bit shorter than

[2:06:32] that, but again, we

[2:06:34] re early in

[2:06:35] the process and so all of that

[2:06:36] information will be provided if

[2:06:37] and when this moves forward.

[2:06:38] Absolutely, I, and I know it

[2:06:39] s

[2:06:40] early in the process, so for

[2:06:41] example, you know, I, I

[2:06:41] d be

[2:06:43] curious, our economic

[2:06:43] development director

[2:06:44] s thoughts,

[2:06:46] what exactly is driving this?

[2:06:47] Is it vacancy rates, is it, I

[2:06:48] mean, what are we, what are we

[2:06:49] looking at for this? Yeah, and

[2:06:49] I

[2:06:50] ll ask Greg to chime in with

[2:06:52] a little bit more detail, but,

[2:06:54] um, the reality is these, these

[2:06:55] buildings are really

[2:06:56] approaching or at the end of

[2:06:59] their useful life, um, they

[2:06:59] re

[2:07:00] about 50 years old at this

[2:07:02] point, and, um, they

[2:07:02] re

[2:07:03] deteriorating and frankly, the

[2:07:05] costs of, um, getting them back

[2:07:06] to where they need to be to

[2:07:08] release these, the these.

[2:07:08] Spaces are, it

[2:07:08] s, it

[2:07:09] s, it

[2:07:09] s

[2:07:10] approaching to the point where

[2:07:10] it

[2:07:11] s cost prohibitive, and so

[2:07:11] that

[2:07:12] s why the property owner

[2:07:14] is in the position now where

[2:07:14] they

[2:07:15] re looking to the next

[2:07:17] phase, the next step for this

[2:07:18] property, and so, um, what

[2:07:18] we

[2:07:19] ve come forward with is what

[2:07:21] we think and what we hope

[2:07:22] council agrees is a step in the

[2:07:24] right direction, something

[2:07:24] that

[2:07:25] s consistent with the

[2:07:26] small area plan and continuing

[2:07:28] the, the, the, the progress of

[2:07:29] development here in Northfax,

[2:07:30] Greg, do you wanna add to that?

[2:07:31] That, that

[2:07:31] s exactly right in

[2:07:32] terms of the condition of the

[2:07:33] buildings and in, in terms of

[2:07:35] the product mix and the

[2:07:36] direction of the plan, um, we

[2:07:36] looked kind of holistically in

[2:07:39] this. Broader market, and we

[2:07:39] re

[2:07:40] really excited about kind of

[2:07:40] the canvas that

[2:07:41] s been painted

[2:07:42] already. We have a senior

[2:07:44] housing building, we have a, uh,

[2:07:44] a rental apartment building

[2:07:46] coming out of the ground, uh,

[2:07:46] what we don

[2:07:49] t have is, um, home,

[2:07:50] homeownership opportunities.

[2:07:51] And in this small little plan,

[2:07:53] um, we fit a lot of, we think

[2:07:54] great things. There

[2:07:55] s, uh, the

[2:07:56] 2/2 units, which will be the

[2:07:57] smaller of the smallest of the

[2:07:59] units, and then a mixture of 16

[2:08:01] ft wide and 20 ft wide towns.

[2:08:02] So in this plan, you have 3

[2:08:04] different types of home

[2:08:04] ownership opportunities that

[2:08:05] will be the first kind of this

[2:08:07] broader, uh, area. And we think

[2:08:09] think that all of that, uh,

[2:08:10] residential activity, in

[2:08:11] addition to the 2 hotels that

[2:08:13] already exist, brings a kind of

[2:08:14] a nice diversity of, of, of

[2:08:15] pedestrian activity and we

[2:08:15] ll

[2:08:16] kind of start to activate it as

[2:08:17] a whole. So we

[2:08:17] re really

[2:08:20] excited about that. Thank you,

[2:08:21] my last question is related to

[2:08:22] the retail portion, uh, and

[2:08:23] there

[2:08:24] s kind of 2 things built

[2:08:26] into that. 1 for the retail, I

[2:08:28] mean, when, when you say retail,

[2:08:30] do you mean more commercial

[2:08:31] office space, or do you more so

[2:08:32] mean, for example, restaurant

[2:08:35] usage or something like that.

[2:08:36] Just for clarification, so our

[2:08:37] hope is that it

[2:08:38] s neighborhood

[2:08:39] serving retail, uh, we

[2:08:40] intentionally had it in front

[2:08:41] on the linear Park, uh, because

[2:08:44] we like that interface between

[2:08:46] that activity, um, uh, in the

[2:08:48] park, interacting with, uh, uh,

[2:08:49] with the retail. It

[2:08:50] s very,

[2:08:51] very early to, uh, uh, to try

[2:08:52] and determine what will lease

[2:08:54] in that space, our hope would

[2:08:55] be though, it would be

[2:08:56] neighborhood serving retail

[2:08:58] rather than commercial uses,

[2:08:59] understood, and part of the

[2:09:00] reason I asked that is because

[2:09:02] it just felt a little odd to

[2:09:03] have that retail space fronting,

[2:09:06] well, not fronting, Technically,

[2:09:07] but closer to the Chambridge

[2:09:08] roadside, I would think.

[2:09:10] Considering you have an

[2:09:11] adjacent shopping center on the

[2:09:13] University Drive portion, you

[2:09:13] might get more consistency

[2:09:15] putting that on the university

[2:09:16] drive side. I wasn

[2:09:17] t sure what

[2:09:18] went through your thought

[2:09:20] process on that. Yeah, so, uh,

[2:09:21] the, the retail actually is on

[2:09:23] the right side, east side of

[2:09:24] the site on University Drive,

[2:09:25] correct, and, and the reason

[2:09:26] for that, just, just so you

[2:09:27] re

[2:09:28] aware, um, and, you know, when

[2:09:30] we first met with, with staff

[2:09:31] about this, they, they

[2:09:32] emphasize the importance of

[2:09:33] having that retail frontage

[2:09:33] there because that

[2:09:34] s what the

[2:09:35] small area plan recommends. If

[2:09:37] you look at this site, um, this

[2:09:38] site, the hotel site to the

[2:09:40] south, And even points to the

[2:09:41] north across Eaton Place it

[2:09:41] s

[2:09:42] envisioned in the small area

[2:09:44] plan that, that Linear Park has

[2:09:46] a retail frontage, and so, um,

[2:09:48] what you see here is the

[2:09:48] product of several

[2:09:50] conversations we had with staff

[2:09:51] early on to advance that design.

[2:09:53] I am very happy to hear I was

[2:09:55] wrong about that, so thank you.

[2:09:55] Uh, so I didn

[2:09:57] t say you were

[2:09:57] wrong per se. I

[2:09:59] ll say it to

[2:09:59] myself, uh, no, that

[2:10:00] s good to

[2:10:01] know, um, and that was it for

[2:10:04] my questions. Thank you. Thank

[2:10:08] you. Uh, COUNCILMAN McQuillan.

[2:10:10] Thank you, um, how much

[2:10:12] commercial will be preserved,

[2:10:14] uh, so the, the existing office

[2:10:14] buildings are about 16,000

[2:10:17] square feet, a little over that,

[2:10:18] uh, council member McQuillan,

[2:10:19] those will be, those will be

[2:10:20] removed and replaced with the

[2:10:21] proposed retail that we have

[2:10:23] here, which is just over 2700

[2:10:27] square feet. 100. Ok, and then,

[2:10:32] um, how much How How much room

[2:10:33] is there for, I

[2:10:35] m looking at

[2:10:37] the renderings and they I like,

[2:10:38] I actually really like this

[2:10:39] plan a lot. I

[2:10:39] ll be honest with

[2:10:41] you. I, I really like this plan

[2:10:43] a lot. I like the retail on the

[2:10:45] side, um, but the renderings,

[2:10:49] is there a lot of room for

[2:10:51] Changing the look to look less

[2:10:52] square and modern and like

[2:10:54] everything else I see in

[2:10:55] everybody else

[2:10:56] s city that

[2:10:56] s

[2:10:57] being built absolutely, um,

[2:10:59] when, and this is probably my

[2:11:00] first opportunity to work

[2:11:01] together and, and he said, you

[2:11:01] know, you don

[2:11:03] t really need, uh,

[2:11:04] renderings at this point. It

[2:11:04] s

[2:11:05] just conceptual. I said, let

[2:11:05] s

[2:11:06] put something in there and

[2:11:07] facilitate a conversation, so

[2:11:08] the answer is absolutely, and

[2:11:10] we want that feedback and we,

[2:11:11] and we want this whole project

[2:11:12] to feel like it

[2:11:12] s part of the

[2:11:14] fabric of the city of Fairfax,

[2:11:16] I really, I do like the setup.

[2:11:17] I like the green space. I like

[2:11:19] where You have the retail, I

[2:11:19] d

[2:11:21] like to see a little or the

[2:11:21] commercial, I

[2:11:22] d like to see a

[2:11:23] little bit more preservation

[2:11:26] for commercial, but, um, I, I,

[2:11:28] the renderings and the look of,

[2:11:29] of the appearance, I think you

[2:11:31] could go a long way if it

[2:11:32] really matches our community

[2:11:34] well and keeps to the character.

[2:11:36] So thank you. Thank you.

[2:11:39] Council member Peterson. Yeah,

[2:11:39] I

[2:11:41] ve got it for staff, a couple

[2:11:42] of questions here just on page

[2:11:46] 1. And uh, just a couple of

[2:11:48] quick math questions for you on

[2:11:51] the far right bottom activity

[2:11:52] centers plus outside of number

[2:11:54] of units. And there

[2:11:54] s, you drop

[2:11:57] down, you go to a total of

[2:11:58] 3,022, what does is that number?

[2:12:02] Ok, sorry, can you repeat your

[2:12:04] question? I was looking at my

[2:12:05] presentation at the staff

[2:12:07] report. So I

[2:12:09] m going to the

[2:12:11] staff report. Yes, and I

[2:12:11] m

[2:12:15] going down to. Uh, bottom right

[2:12:17] corner of page 1. Ok, so you

[2:12:17] ve

[2:12:21] got a couple tables here. Uh,

[2:12:24] that give you the tally. Of

[2:12:26] what are known what you

[2:12:27] re

[2:12:27] benchmark estimates, but I

[2:12:28] ll

[2:12:29] circle back to the very far

[2:12:30] right, and they have numbers

[2:12:32] for the 1st 2 for North Facts

[2:12:33] and then Activity Centers plus

[2:12:36] combined. The last one is

[2:12:37] activity centers plus outside

[2:12:38] of, and it

[2:12:40] s blank. But if you

[2:12:41] drop down to the very bottom,

[2:12:42] it

[2:12:44] s 3,022. What does that mean?

[2:12:45] Yeah, that

[2:12:47] s all like 1 table,

[2:12:51] so that means The projects that

[2:12:55] are in a land use process right

[2:12:56] now, including activity

[2:12:57] including including activity

[2:12:58] including centers and those

[2:13:01] outside of activity centers.

[2:13:03] Those are in a land use process,

[2:13:06] how do you reconcile that with

[2:13:07] the 1st 2 boxes, 1 for North

[2:13:09] Facts and 1 for Activity

[2:13:11] centers combined. The Norfax

[2:13:14] one has 1400 and the, uh,

[2:13:15] smaller plan benchmark estimate

[2:13:17] for activity centers is 4700

[2:13:19] and, and MS. Schweiger, if you

[2:13:21] could pull up that slide as

[2:13:23] well. I think that might be

[2:13:27] helpful. So the 1400 units

[2:13:29] council member Peterson is the

[2:13:30] benchmark estimate for the

[2:13:34] North facts. Small area plan

[2:13:35] and so that

[2:13:35] s what identified

[2:13:38] in the plan in terms of a

[2:13:40] benchmark estimate over the, uh,

[2:13:42] near term development. In

[2:13:47] Northfaxs. Um, so there is not

[2:13:49] a benchmark estimate for areas

[2:13:51] outside of activity centers, so

[2:13:54] in that final table on the far

[2:13:56] right of this slide, you don

[2:13:56] t

[2:13:58] see a benchmark estimate, so

[2:13:59] what

[2:14:01] s included there is in

[2:14:03] total number of residential

[2:14:05] units at some place within the

[2:14:08] development review process.

[2:14:09] That could be considered by

[2:14:11] city council at some point in

[2:14:15] time if those, uh, proposals or

[2:14:17] projects proceed, those are the

[2:14:20] figures associated with that.

[2:14:23] So under construction approved.

[2:14:25] Under review and in a

[2:14:26] pre-application phase, and so

[2:14:29] those are the units that are

[2:14:30] somewhere in the development

[2:14:34] review process with the city.

[2:14:34] That

[2:14:36] s the 3022. Yes sir.

[2:14:38] Alright, so just. Checked my

[2:14:41] math. So if you look at Current

[2:14:42] Population in the city of

[2:14:45] Fairfax, which is 26,340 or

[2:14:48] something like that. And you

[2:14:50] add 47 to it, that

[2:14:51] s 4700,

[2:14:51] that

[2:14:52] s knocking the door at an

[2:14:54] 18% increase. You had another,

[2:14:57] um. 3000 to it, it

[2:14:58] s like a 29%

[2:15:03] increase over base. So, just

[2:15:04] adding the numbers up again,

[2:15:05] just a math thing trying to

[2:15:07] where you, we have a current

[2:15:07] population. I

[2:15:09] m trying to get a

[2:15:12] sense of how much that current

[2:15:12] population expands I

[2:15:12] ll take

[2:15:14] your word for it, council

[2:15:15] member Peterson, blame it on

[2:15:16] the iPhone if it

[2:15:17] s wrong, ok,

[2:15:19] and my thumbs, which I have too

[2:15:21] many of right now. All right,

[2:15:22] so, so, so there

[2:15:23] s that just,

[2:15:27] uh Then I you said near term,

[2:15:31] what does that mean? The small

[2:15:34] area plans identify a 10 to 15

[2:15:37] year near term. Development

[2:15:39] window, and so as, as shown in

[2:15:41] those plans, there There

[2:15:41] s a

[2:15:43] full illustrative build out of

[2:15:45] what redevelopment in those

[2:15:47] areas which are designated

[2:15:49] redevelopment areas in the city

[2:15:51] might look like as those plans

[2:15:54] were being developed based upon

[2:15:56] market conditions, what is

[2:16:00] included is what, um, is

[2:16:00] estimated redevelopment

[2:16:03] activity could, um, result in.

[2:16:06] Over that 10 to 15-year period.

[2:16:09] So for Northfas, uh, it was

[2:16:11] 1400 units. Great, but so, and

[2:16:12] we

[2:16:13] ve talked about this, so

[2:16:13] you

[2:16:15] ll correct me if I don

[2:16:15] t

[2:16:17] exactly get it right, but those

[2:16:22] benchmark estimates are What

[2:16:23] market conditions could result

[2:16:25] in, that is not, however, a

[2:16:26] public policy goal that

[2:16:26] s been

[2:16:28] adopted by the city. That is

[2:16:29] correct, and that

[2:16:30] s a very

[2:16:31] critical point for everybody to

[2:16:33] recognize. So I, I think we

[2:16:35] need to be cautious about, um,

[2:16:37] any presentation, and I

[2:16:37] m not

[2:16:38] pointing fingers at this one

[2:16:40] that might suggest that we are

[2:16:42] trying to attain this

[2:16:43] particular goals, that is not

[2:16:44] the case. We

[2:16:45] re simply tracking

[2:16:46] metrics, but I

[2:16:47] m curious also,

[2:16:47] I don

[2:16:48] t see our economic

[2:16:49] development director here,

[2:16:49] although maybe she

[2:16:52] s hiding

[2:16:56] somewhere, uh, but we have a

[2:16:58] metric here, which is housing

[2:17:01] units, um, are we also. Uh,

[2:17:05] estimating Commercial, uh,

[2:17:06] expansion, uh, market potential,

[2:17:08] and for that matter, retail.

[2:17:08] And I don

[2:17:09] t even talk about

[2:17:10] industrial, but let

[2:17:11] s just talk

[2:17:12] about commercial and retail

[2:17:13] over the same period. I don

[2:17:13] t

[2:17:15] see those benchmarks here. Uh,

[2:17:17] we are, um, and, and that

[2:17:18] s

[2:17:18] information that we can provide.

[2:17:22] To city council moving forward,

[2:17:23] I think this table is put

[2:17:24] together in response to a

[2:17:26] previous request, so we

[2:17:27] included it in this

[2:17:30] presentation, but we can add

[2:17:30] additional information

[2:17:32] regarding commercial square

[2:17:33] footage is as well. Well, I

[2:17:35] mean, it gets to a strategic

[2:17:36] question, I think, for the

[2:17:39] council in the city as it is

[2:17:39] trying to address public

[2:17:43] interest, and that is the, um

[2:17:46] Goal that Either we have or

[2:17:46] we

[2:17:47] ve certainly discussed of

[2:17:53] expanding. Um, the presence of

[2:17:55] commercial redevelopment and or

[2:17:58] development in the city, and we

[2:17:58] don

[2:17:59] t have parallel numbers

[2:18:01] here to tell us what those

[2:18:03] numbers look like next to

[2:18:05] residential numbers, so the

[2:18:06] conversation a little bit

[2:18:06] one-sided. We

[2:18:07] re just talking

[2:18:08] residential. We

[2:18:08] re not talking

[2:18:12] commercial here. This is a case

[2:18:12] where we

[2:18:13] re reducing the and so

[2:18:16] there is certainly an interest

[2:18:16] in expanding commercial and,

[2:18:17] and in this case, we

[2:18:17] re

[2:18:19] actually reducing it. From

[2:18:22] 16,000 to 2700 square feet. I

[2:18:23] think that

[2:18:24] s a really big hit

[2:18:26] on a commercial, uh, square

[2:18:29] footage. And again, our

[2:18:30] economic development director

[2:18:31] is not here, but she will, I

[2:18:31] m

[2:18:33] sure, be listening in on this.

[2:18:33] It

[2:18:34] s my understanding that just

[2:18:36] across the street, At Bright

[2:18:38] View, one of the objectives

[2:18:40] there, uh, to address this very

[2:18:44] problem. Is to add 7000 square

[2:18:45] feet at least of commercial

[2:18:48] there. So I, I guess my

[2:18:51] question is if, if we are

[2:18:53] trying to expand commercial in

[2:18:56] this area, um, why aren

[2:18:56] t we

[2:18:58] focusing the approach on this

[2:19:00] particular site in a manner

[2:19:00] that

[2:19:01] s consistent with that

[2:19:03] because that would seem to be

[2:19:03] consistent with the city

[2:19:03] s

[2:19:07] goals. Mhm. I

[2:19:08] ll, I

[2:19:09] ll defer to

[2:19:11] the applicant or the potential

[2:19:11] applicant regarding this

[2:19:13] potential site. Sure thing,

[2:19:14] thanks, thanks, MR. Hart, and

[2:19:15] thanks, Council Member Peterson

[2:19:16] for the question. I think it

[2:19:16] s

[2:19:18] a good one, right, um, you know,

[2:19:20] this site has been a commercial

[2:19:23] use for the last 50 or so years,

[2:19:24] um, for the reasons I described

[2:19:25] the, the existing facilities on

[2:19:28] the site, the, the buildings

[2:19:28] themselves are just, they, you

[2:19:29] know, they

[2:19:29] re, they

[2:19:29] re,

[2:19:29] they

[2:19:30] re at the end of their,

[2:19:32] their lifespan, and so the

[2:19:33] question then becomes, what

[2:19:33] s

[2:19:35] next, and so, uh, when we

[2:19:36] looked at this property and

[2:19:38] working with the owner, um,

[2:19:39] trying to figure out what made

[2:19:40] the best sense for Northfas,

[2:19:41] what made the best sense for

[2:19:42] the city as Greg was mentioning.

[2:19:45] Earlier, we thought that

[2:19:46] introducing opportunities for

[2:19:47] homeownership here where

[2:19:49] appropriate. Now, I, I

[2:19:50] acknowledge that there will be

[2:19:52] a reduction in the amount of

[2:19:52] commercial space, certainly

[2:19:53] compared to what

[2:19:54] s there today,

[2:19:55] we are bringing forward what

[2:19:56] what I do believe is a

[2:19:58] meaningful number, 2700 square

[2:20:00] feet. But I think looking at

[2:20:02] the bigger picture here, what

[2:20:04] these these future residents

[2:20:05] will do is support the existing

[2:20:06] commercial uses that are

[2:20:08] already in the area, the

[2:20:08] shopping centers down the

[2:20:10] street, the future growth yet

[2:20:11] to come in Northfax, and so I

[2:20:14] do think that This application,

[2:20:16] this proposal, which is a

[2:20:18] relatively small piece of North

[2:20:20] Facts and the bigger picture

[2:20:22] does have a role to play. Um,

[2:20:22] you

[2:20:23] ve got the botanist coming

[2:20:24] online right now, um, it

[2:20:24] s

[2:20:25] under construction. I think

[2:20:26] that

[2:20:26] s bringing about 5000

[2:20:27] square feet. I forget if you

[2:20:29] mentioned that or not, Council

[2:20:31] member Peterson, but, um,

[2:20:32] looking at this site and, and,

[2:20:34] and, and working through this

[2:20:35] development program, we felt

[2:20:36] that this was the highest and

[2:20:38] the best use for it, and

[2:20:39] certainly something that can be

[2:20:40] a valuable part of the overall

[2:20:44] Northfax community. So I think

[2:20:47] it would be great to maybe, um,

[2:20:48] have an expanded conversation

[2:20:49] that I would like, um, if

[2:20:51] possible, to have the benefit

[2:20:52] of our economic development

[2:20:56] director to be a part of to

[2:20:59] understand the commercial, um,

[2:21:00] status mix and potential goals

[2:21:01] in that area because right

[2:21:04] across the street, there is, of

[2:21:06] course, quite substantial, uh,

[2:21:07] commercial redevelopment going

[2:21:07] on, and I don

[2:21:08] t think the issue

[2:21:10] here is trying to make use of

[2:21:11] the 50-year-old building, so I

[2:21:12] think it

[2:21:12] s pretty clear that

[2:21:14] this is a redevelopment

[2:21:15] scenario under any scenario

[2:21:16] here that

[2:21:17] s taking place, but I

[2:21:19] think the question is whether

[2:21:19] it

[2:21:20] s really the right time and

[2:21:21] place to be knocking out so

[2:21:24] much commercial given these

[2:21:25] circumstances, and I

[2:21:26] d, I

[2:21:26] d

[2:21:28] certainly like to understand

[2:21:29] that more clearly. Uh, the

[2:21:31] other thing that factors into

[2:21:37] that in is um In terms of the

[2:21:38] type of commercial development

[2:21:43] that Is consistent with future

[2:21:44] market conditions and could

[2:21:45] actually, uh, those conditions

[2:21:48] could be shaped a bit by

[2:21:50] proactive things that we might

[2:21:53] do here. Uh, my understanding,

[2:21:54] uh, from our economic

[2:21:57] development director is that uh

[2:21:59] Where the city shines and could

[2:22:03] shine is smaller scale, uh.

[2:22:04] Commercial sites that would be

[2:22:06] of interest to firms. That

[2:22:06] don

[2:22:07] t want to go into the

[2:22:10] really big, um, office building

[2:22:11] developments that are outside

[2:22:13] of the city, but are looking

[2:22:17] for, um Smaller scale, more and

[2:22:19] by definition, uh, more

[2:22:20] affordable also that are

[2:22:23] monetized and it creates a set

[2:22:24] of conditions that those firms

[2:22:27] are looking for, and we have

[2:22:27] some competitive advantages

[2:22:29] there, and this would be a case

[2:22:30] where, you know, this is a site

[2:22:31] that could potentially be

[2:22:32] acting on them. I

[2:22:33] m not sure

[2:22:36] how much of the formulation of

[2:22:38] this proposal has involved

[2:22:39] conversations around economic

[2:22:40] development and commercial

[2:22:41] development in the city, but to

[2:22:41] me that

[2:22:44] s kind of the, uh The

[2:22:46] white elephant here, um, I

[2:22:47] appreciate what you brought

[2:22:49] forward, but I, I do want to

[2:22:50] acknowledge that we have kind

[2:22:52] of a big picture issue here, uh,

[2:22:54] for the city in this particular,

[2:22:57] uh, location that I, I would

[2:22:59] feel more comfortable if we had

[2:23:00] a chance to unpack that a

[2:23:02] little bit here as we decide

[2:23:03] what, what works best here.

[2:23:06] Thank you. Thank you, Council

[2:23:12] member Hardy Chandler. Uh,

[2:23:18] thank you, um. I really

[2:23:19] appreciate slide 4 because I

[2:23:20] think as I mentioned in a

[2:23:22] previous meeting, sometimes we

[2:23:23] look at projects individually

[2:23:24] and we don

[2:23:24] t consider what else

[2:23:27] is going on in the area. So I

[2:23:30] think that we did ask for, uh,

[2:23:31] particularly on the residential

[2:23:32] side, what else is going on and

[2:23:35] where this falls, so in

[2:23:37] Northfax is this proposal

[2:23:38] included in the pre-application

[2:23:39] number that

[2:23:40] s in the upper left

[2:23:44] side. Ok. Thank you. Um, the

[2:23:48] other question that I had was

[2:23:50] for retail you mentioned

[2:23:52] neighborhood serving. What does

[2:23:52] that mean specifically? Can you

[2:23:54] break down what that means for

[2:23:57] me? Sure, sure, and I think

[2:23:57] might shop there

[2:23:58] s things like

[2:23:59] small, small boutiques, perhaps

[2:24:02] a coffee shop, a cafe, a small

[2:24:04] restaurant, things that could,

[2:24:05] as I was mentioning before, you

[2:24:06] know, be used by the, the

[2:24:08] future residents here. And so,

[2:24:09] um, I

[2:24:09] m sure Greg would agree

[2:24:09] with me. It

[2:24:11] s still, again,

[2:24:11] we

[2:24:13] re on step 1 of 1. 100 of

[2:24:15] this process, um, it

[2:24:15] s still

[2:24:17] relatively early. I think as we

[2:24:18] move forward, hopefully that

[2:24:19] vision gets fleshed out a

[2:24:20] little bit more at this point

[2:24:21] anyway, we

[2:24:21] re hoping to

[2:24:23] maintain as much flexibility as

[2:24:25] we can to expand the, the

[2:24:26] universe of potential uses, but

[2:24:26] what we

[2:24:27] re thinking is most

[2:24:29] likely is something like I

[2:24:30] described a small restaurant

[2:24:31] cafe, store, something like

[2:24:33] that you, I just wanted to

[2:24:34] understand the category, um, I

[2:24:35] did read in the report where

[2:24:36] you were talking about the

[2:24:37] buildings being at the end of

[2:24:38] their life. So can you talk a

[2:24:41] little bit about the current

[2:24:41] tenants and so it

[2:24:42] s at the of

[2:24:43] its life, something is going to

[2:24:46] have to happen, right? These

[2:24:47] buildings are not sustainable

[2:24:50] at all. Some choices gonna have

[2:24:52] to be made, um, so for the

[2:24:56] current Tenants, I guess a

[2:24:59] couple of questions there, um,

[2:25:00] any very early thoughts about

[2:25:01] what might happen with them in

[2:25:04] terms of a plan and also what

[2:25:06] is the current vacancy of those

[2:25:08] buildings, the, the current

[2:25:11] vacancy is about 40%, um, and

[2:25:11] that

[2:25:12] s going to grow, um, to

[2:25:13] the, the buildings are set to

[2:25:15] go entirely vacant over the

[2:25:18] next 18 months, um, the, the

[2:25:18] buildings are structurally, you

[2:25:19] know, I don

[2:25:20] t wanna say unsound,

[2:25:22] but in poor condition and it no

[2:25:24] longer makes sense to continue.

[2:25:25] Invest them. So, in any

[2:25:26] scenario, those buildings will

[2:25:27] be closed here in the next 18

[2:25:30] to 24 months. Ok, and you

[2:25:34] mentioned If I heard you

[2:25:35] correctly and another response,

[2:25:36] you mentioned this as being

[2:25:38] different from some of the

[2:25:39] other projects that you

[2:25:39] re

[2:25:41] involved in, is that what went

[2:25:43] into the decision for this

[2:25:47] particular kind of Proposal

[2:25:49] because I think there was a

[2:25:50] mention of rental properties

[2:25:52] and other properties, so was

[2:25:55] this to diversify? Well, in

[2:25:57] terms of this particular plan,

[2:25:59] it was diversifying the housing

[2:26:00] opportunities in this submarket

[2:26:01] right now, right now there

[2:26:02] s a

[2:26:03] rental product coming up and

[2:26:03] there

[2:26:04] s a senior housing and so

[2:26:06] forth and so we saw a distinct

[2:26:08] opportunity, um, specifically

[2:26:10] in townhouses that are smaller,

[2:26:12] more attainable, uh, the 2 over

[2:26:13] 2s will be even a lower price

[2:26:14] point, so we felt like that hit

[2:26:15] a real sweet spot that wasn

[2:26:16] t

[2:26:17] an opportunity there. So having

[2:26:18] differentiated product was, was

[2:26:20] very interesting. The other

[2:26:20] thing that

[2:26:21] s about the site

[2:26:22] that, uh, is important to note

[2:26:23] is it

[2:26:23] s a small site, um, it

[2:26:25] s

[2:26:27] Just over 2 acres, um, with the

[2:26:28] hotel to the south, there

[2:26:29] s no

[2:26:30] real opportunity to grow that

[2:26:32] to do a more substantial

[2:26:34] project, um, and so this was an

[2:26:35] opportunity to kind of pack a

[2:26:38] lot into a small bag, so, um,

[2:26:39] if, if checked a lot of boxes.

[2:26:40] Thank you, I appreciate that

[2:26:41] it

[2:26:41] s my questions for now.

[2:26:45] Thank you. COUNCILMAN Hall.

[2:26:47] Sorry, can you give me another

[2:26:48] minute, please? Thanks. Council

[2:26:52] member Bates. Um, I certainly

[2:26:57] do. Overall, um. Like some

[2:26:59] aspects of this project, the,

[2:27:02] uh, the layout of, um, overall

[2:27:03] the sidewalks and, uh, side

[2:27:07] access. Um, I will say that the

[2:27:09] smaller area plan envisions

[2:27:12] this site being all commercial,

[2:27:13] um, understanding that, you

[2:27:16] know, there might be room for

[2:27:17] compromise here, but, um, I

[2:27:19] would like to see, ideally, at

[2:27:21] least half the commercial space

[2:27:21] that

[2:27:23] s there, um, replaced, and,

[2:27:25] uh, you know, there are things

[2:27:27] that could be done in terms of

[2:27:28] perhaps structured parking, um,

[2:27:28] you know, we

[2:27:29] ve seen other

[2:27:30] sites in the city where there

[2:27:31] s,

[2:27:32] uh, you know, a small office

[2:27:33] building with a small, uh,

[2:27:33] parking garage or something

[2:27:38] like that. That, um, and in

[2:27:41] addition to, you know, the

[2:27:43] retail frontage is certainly um

[2:27:46] Uh, needed there, you know, at

[2:27:47] an absolute minimum. But the

[2:27:49] smaller area plan envisions

[2:27:51] that fronting onto the linear

[2:27:52] park, um, which I think is

[2:27:55] perhaps maybe just a matter of

[2:27:56] moving that sidewalk around to

[2:27:57] the other side and, you know,

[2:27:58] having it front onto that

[2:28:01] sidewalk on that side, um, but

[2:28:03] yeah, again, more commercial

[2:28:07] space, uh, office and or retail,

[2:28:08] um, but still certainly, you

[2:28:10] know, I think that having some

[2:28:11] for sale units here, add some

[2:28:14] diversity to The, the housing

[2:28:15] stock in this part of Northfaxs.

[2:28:20] Thank you. Council Member Hall,

[2:28:21] thank you. Sorry, I forgot my

[2:28:21] reading glasses so I

[2:28:22] m having

[2:28:24] to like zoom in or go over to

[2:28:26] the screen, sucks getting old.

[2:28:27] Um, I have a couple, I don

[2:28:28] t

[2:28:29] know if they

[2:28:30] re Clara questions

[2:28:32] or not, but back to slide 4. I

[2:28:32] know we

[2:28:33] re spending a lot of

[2:28:37] time on that, um, the, the

[2:28:38] benchmark estimates of 1400 for

[2:28:41] North Facts and 4700 for the

[2:28:44] activity centers combined. That

[2:28:46] equates to 6100 units, correct?

[2:28:47] If you, you

[2:28:48] re adding those two

[2:28:50] together, or is the 4700

[2:28:55] inclusive of the 4? Inclusive,

[2:28:57] 4700 total among all of the

[2:28:58] activities centers, so sorry,

[2:28:58] we

[2:28:59] re gonna have to do math

[2:29:03] real quick. Because I did it

[2:29:06] the other way so what I found,

[2:29:17] uh, sorry, wrong buttons. 41.

[2:29:23] Ok, so 4700. 45, ok, so what I

[2:29:26] found, um, with a quick search

[2:29:29] was that in 2024, the total

[2:29:32] dwelling units in the city was

[2:29:39] 10,467. So these proposed

[2:29:41] residential development plans

[2:29:47] to add 4700 units. Which is 45%

[2:29:49] of what we currently have

[2:29:50] available for dwelling units.

[2:29:54] So we are Adding and an

[2:29:56] extraordinary amount. Um, in

[2:29:59] this. Overall proposal, not

[2:30:00] your specific proposal. We

[2:30:01] ll

[2:30:05] be clear on that. Um. And then

[2:30:07] of the 914 units that are

[2:30:09] currently under construction.

[2:30:11] Or am I doing that wrong? It

[2:30:12] should be 4:30 under

[2:30:14] construction or is it 484 total

[2:30:19] under construction. 484 total

[2:30:21] under construction among all 4

[2:30:24] of the activity centers, yeah,

[2:30:28] so then 484 divided by 467 gets

[2:30:29] me to, let

[2:30:34] s call it about 5%.

[2:30:36] So there is 5% of the total

[2:30:38] dwelling units in 2024 that is

[2:30:39] currently under construction in

[2:30:43] the city. I trust your math. I

[2:30:44] didn

[2:30:44] t at first, but then I

[2:30:46] went back and did it the right

[2:30:48] way, um, ok, so what I

[2:30:48] m

[2:30:49] hearing is that we

[2:30:50] re going to

[2:30:53] be adding based upon this slide,

[2:30:55] 45% of our existing housing

[2:30:55] stock, we

[2:30:56] re going to be adding

[2:30:59] an additional 45% of that total

[2:31:00] based on what we have on this

[2:31:03] slide. I think those are really

[2:31:06] important numbers. Um Now, to

[2:31:07] your specific proposal, and

[2:31:09] this might be, again, a clarity

[2:31:13] question first, but on page 6,

[2:31:15] the residents in that is right

[2:31:17] near this, I believe that is a

[2:31:20] 4-story building. Which is

[2:31:23] roughly 48 ft tall. I believe

[2:31:24] it

[2:31:24] s 5. I

[2:31:25] m going by memory. I

[2:31:28] googled it, but it said 4, but

[2:31:30] is it 5? I think so. I believe

[2:31:33] so. Ok, so 5 ft would be

[2:31:35] roughly 60 ft tall. Ok, so

[2:31:35] you

[2:31:37] re building then. Where

[2:31:39] that frontage there is going to

[2:31:41] be similar to the residents in,

[2:31:43] ok, I will say that makes me

[2:31:44] feel a little better, but still

[2:31:46] not great, so I actually live

[2:31:47] across the street on Eaton

[2:31:49] Place. If you go across and

[2:31:49] down, I

[2:31:50] m in that neighborhood

[2:31:51] there. So this is, this is very,

[2:31:54] very close to home for me. Um,

[2:31:56] you might be surprised based

[2:31:57] upon my other comments along

[2:31:59] the way that I actually do like

[2:32:02] this, um, I do have some

[2:32:04] suggestions though. Um, I do

[2:32:05] feel even though the residents

[2:32:07] in apparently is taller Than I

[2:32:10] thought, I do feel personally

[2:32:11] that townhouses where the

[2:32:13] stackable units are would make

[2:32:14] more sense. I think it would

[2:32:15] keep the height a little bit

[2:32:16] lower there as you

[2:32:17] re driving

[2:32:18] along Chambridge Road, and then

[2:32:20] maybe you could potentially

[2:32:22] repurpose some of the Interior

[2:32:24] town homes to be the stackable

[2:32:25] units, that way you have that

[2:32:26] extra height, but it

[2:32:27] s not

[2:32:28] looming over the street there.

[2:32:30] Um, I know across the street

[2:32:31] from there is the Assembly

[2:32:33] Townhomes, I believe, again,

[2:32:35] someone can correct me, I think

[2:32:37] they are 3 stories tall, so

[2:32:39] might give a little bit more

[2:32:40] balance to what

[2:32:41] s there, um, I

[2:32:44] like the green space. I cannot

[2:32:46] wait until those connections on

[2:32:47] that service road are closed

[2:32:49] off, so this gets us there a

[2:32:50] little bit faster, um, very

[2:32:52] happy to see the 10. Foot

[2:32:54] sidewalk uneaten, the 8 ft

[2:32:58] sidewalk on university, um. The

[2:32:59] parking that is available, the

[2:33:03] 88 parking spaces. Uh, again,

[2:33:04] my old eyes are failing me

[2:33:06] today, but it looks like there

[2:33:08] are some, um, guest parking

[2:33:10] spots, Amazon drop off

[2:33:11] deliveries, though kind of

[2:33:12] spots available in addition to

[2:33:12] what

[2:33:14] s at the residences

[2:33:16] themselves. Correct. So, so the

[2:33:16] surface parking spaces are

[2:33:18] really, they could be used for

[2:33:19] both. So the ones on the left

[2:33:21] side, so the west side of the

[2:33:23] site adjacent to the townhouses,

[2:33:23] there

[2:33:23] s, I think there

[2:33:25] s 8 or 9

[2:33:26] spaces there, but some of those

[2:33:28] would be kind of dedicated to

[2:33:30] the, to the stack townhouses,

[2:33:30] the stack townhouses will have

[2:33:32] 1 car garages. And so the rest

[2:33:34] of the parking would be

[2:33:34] provided in that surface

[2:33:37] parking area on the left, um,

[2:33:38] the surface parking area on the

[2:33:39] right primarily would be

[2:33:41] devoted to the, the retail, the

[2:33:42] commercial uses, but, you know,

[2:33:44] after hours in the evenings on

[2:33:45] weekends when that space is

[2:33:46] maybe not, maybe not

[2:33:48] functioning. Um, those would be

[2:33:49] theoretically available for

[2:33:51] guests, visitors, things like

[2:33:53] that. Ok. While I, while I have

[2:33:54] the opportunity to speak with

[2:33:56] you, Council Member Hall, just

[2:33:57] real briefly, one of the

[2:33:59] reasons we provided that open

[2:34:01] space area on the south part of

[2:34:02] the screen here was to serve as

[2:34:04] a buffer between those units

[2:34:06] and the residents and, um, it

[2:34:06] s

[2:34:07] about 8000 square feet, give or

[2:34:08] take, and we thought it was the

[2:34:09] right move to provide a little

[2:34:12] bit of a buffer there, but I, I

[2:34:13] appreciate your suggestions

[2:34:14] about potentially looking at

[2:34:14] shifting things around a little

[2:34:15] bit. We

[2:34:15] ll look at that. I just

[2:34:16] didn

[2:34:17] t want to MISS That. Ok,

[2:34:18] no, I appreciate that, uh, and

[2:34:19] I do also appreciate the buffer,

[2:34:19] and I

[2:34:21] m sure people that live

[2:34:22] there will also appreciate it.

[2:34:24] Um, the, these are all going to

[2:34:28] be for sale units, correct? Ok,

[2:34:30] and based upon the number that

[2:34:30] you

[2:34:32] re putting in 6% of them

[2:34:34] will be affordable? Uh, I

[2:34:35] believe for the townhouses,

[2:34:35] it

[2:34:36] s 10%. MR. Harden

[2:34:36] s nodding

[2:34:38] his head, correct? 6% would

[2:34:40] apply to multi-family. Ok, I

[2:34:40] wasn

[2:34:42] t sure if the combination

[2:34:43] of the townhouses and the and

[2:34:46] it would be split. So 10% on

[2:34:48] the, the townhouse and on the,

[2:34:51] the 2/2 is a stack to those

[2:34:52] would be multi-family per

[2:34:55] zoning, and so that would be 6%

[2:34:56] on this. So I think it

[2:34:58] s 3 or

[2:35:02] 43 or 43 or 4, I think. Ok, uh,

[2:35:03] and I don

[2:35:04] t mean to be naive

[2:35:05] about the 2/2 units, but when

[2:35:08] it says 82/2, does that mean 16

[2:35:10] units total, or that means 8

[2:35:12] units, like 4 of 8 total. Ok,

[2:35:16] correct. Ok, um, I

[2:35:17] m happy to

[2:35:19] see the dwelling units per acre

[2:35:20] at a reasonable 17.7 in my

[2:35:23] opinion. Um The private street

[2:35:23] you

[2:35:25] re referring to, is this,

[2:35:26] this, the trash and all of

[2:35:28] those things would be handled

[2:35:30] entirely by the complex itself.

[2:35:30] Because they

[2:35:31] re townhouses,

[2:35:32] right? So they don

[2:35:33] t, oh, so

[2:35:36] they do get city services the

[2:35:38] townhouses would get city

[2:35:41] services, yes. Stacked units

[2:35:41] would not. That

[2:35:42] s correct. I

[2:35:42] don

[2:35:45] t know how that

[2:35:45] s gonna

[2:35:48] work. Um, similar situation in

[2:35:49] Mount Vineyard at the corner of

[2:35:52] Oak and Main Street has similar

[2:35:53] setup townhouses and 2 of her

[2:35:55] tubs and, and condominiums in

[2:35:57] that development, so it is

[2:36:00] split. Ok, different colored

[2:36:02] trash cans on different units,

[2:36:03] I think I was gonna say I was

[2:36:04] gonna fighting over some

[2:36:06] dumpster, but maybe not, um,

[2:36:08] and again, I know this is step

[2:36:11] 1 of 100. Um, I do think, again,

[2:36:13] I, I live right near here, what

[2:36:15] I think we are lacking is, like

[2:36:18] you said, a cafe style place, a

[2:36:19] place that does sandwiches, a

[2:36:21] place that does a nice lunch,

[2:36:23] you can get some stuff for

[2:36:25] dinner, takeout, um, I love

[2:36:27] coffee shops, but when they

[2:36:27] don

[2:36:28] t serve sufficient food

[2:36:28] like we have enough coffee

[2:36:30] shops right now. So again, I

[2:36:31] know that that

[2:36:32] s in the weeds,

[2:36:33] but I live here, I have a

[2:36:35] vested interest in, in seeing

[2:36:38] something like that succeed, um,

[2:36:40] but I, I have to say I, I am

[2:36:40] pleasantly surprised and I

[2:36:41] m

[2:36:41] sure those that are watching at

[2:36:43] home are like, wow, she

[2:36:43] s

[2:36:44] actually supporting something,

[2:36:45] right? Um, and, and I am, I, I

[2:36:47] again, I would like to see

[2:36:49] maybe the, the shift of the

[2:36:51] stackable over to the back, but,

[2:36:51] um, I, I think there

[2:36:52] s a lot of

[2:36:54] really good things here, um,

[2:36:57] you did mention that the

[2:36:59] current tenants were 40%. 40%

[2:37:00] vacant right now and expected

[2:37:02] to transition out in the next

[2:37:04] 18 months is that simply

[2:37:05] because the owner of the

[2:37:06] building knows he wants to do,

[2:37:08] he or she wants to do something

[2:37:12] and is not renewing leases. The,

[2:37:14] uh, the value of the leases are

[2:37:16] far below the, the cost of, uh,

[2:37:17] fix the building up to the

[2:37:18] state where we remain leasable,

[2:37:19] so it doesn

[2:37:20] t make any economic

[2:37:24] sense any any longer. And what

[2:37:26] is currently in space it

[2:37:26] s

[2:37:29] about and about 2/3 office, so

[2:37:31] they kind of local small office

[2:37:34] kind of users. Ok, do, do we

[2:37:35] know if we anticipate the

[2:37:37] people that are there currently

[2:37:38] wanting to remain in the city,

[2:37:40] are there options for them, or

[2:37:41] is that just they

[2:37:42] re likely

[2:37:43] gone. Yeah, I think, and you

[2:37:44] know, the owner

[2:37:44] s not with us

[2:37:46] this evening, but, you know,

[2:37:46] we

[2:37:46] ve had conversations with

[2:37:48] them. I think we would be

[2:37:50] absolutely very open to working

[2:37:52] with economic development and

[2:37:53] facilitating relocation in the

[2:37:54] city if that, if that is a

[2:37:56] possibility. Um, the, the

[2:37:57] ownership group that owns this,

[2:37:58] this, these buildings today

[2:37:59] have owned for quite a long

[2:38:00] time. And so, um, you know,

[2:38:01] they have, they, they, they

[2:38:03] very much want to do. Do right

[2:38:04] by their attendants as, as they,

[2:38:05] as they move on, as they move

[2:38:06] out, and so that

[2:38:07] s something

[2:38:07] that

[2:38:08] ll be working through

[2:38:09] throughout this process and,

[2:38:11] and beyond, um, one more thing

[2:38:12] while I have the microphone and

[2:38:12] I, I

[2:38:14] d be remis with that at

[2:38:15] the risk of snatching defeat

[2:38:17] from the jaws of victory here.

[2:38:18] Um, green space you mentioned

[2:38:20] on, on Chambridge Road here,

[2:38:22] just to be very clear, what we

[2:38:24] did there is we, we took, um,

[2:38:24] what

[2:38:24] s in the city

[2:38:25] s plans

[2:38:27] right now for the intersection

[2:38:28] improvements at Eaton Place in

[2:38:29] University, and we kind of

[2:38:30] overlaid that, what that

[2:38:30] s

[2:38:31] going to look like in the

[2:38:33] future. Just to be very clear,

[2:38:35] ok, so not a pocket park there.

[2:38:37] Correct. This, this, that

[2:38:37] s

[2:38:38] really for illustrative

[2:38:38] purposes, that

[2:38:39] s going to be

[2:38:41] done in the future when the

[2:38:41] intersection improvement

[2:38:42] project goes forward. And so

[2:38:45] what we did is we just simply

[2:38:46] overlaid the city

[2:38:47] s plans onto

[2:38:48] these drawings to show what it

[2:38:49] will look like in the future

[2:38:49] when it

[2:38:50] s all said and done, I

[2:38:52] appreciate your honesty and

[2:38:53] transparency on that one the

[2:38:54] other spaces on the site, we

[2:38:54] ll

[2:38:56] take care of those. Ok, great.

[2:39:00] Thank you very much. Council

[2:39:01] member Peterson. Yeah, I was

[2:39:05] wrong on my math. And council

[2:39:07] member Hall was kind enough to

[2:39:09] recut the numbers, and I just

[2:39:14] wanted to, um, reinforce that,

[2:39:16] uh, the 45% growth in

[2:39:17] households over 1015 years, but

[2:39:18] let

[2:39:21] s call it 10 years, um, is

[2:39:22] more than 4 times, it

[2:39:23] s 4.5

[2:39:24] times the rate of household

[2:39:25] growth that occurred in the

[2:39:27] last in the period of 2020 to

[2:39:31] 2025 in the city. So this just,

[2:39:34] again, this is not an issue

[2:39:35] with this particular proposal,

[2:39:39] but it is a general question

[2:39:40] and concern about the overall

[2:39:43] volume and rate of growth for

[2:39:44] residential units because it

[2:39:45] far surpasses both in rate and

[2:39:46] volume, what we

[2:39:47] ve seen in the

[2:39:49] last 5 years. Of of course, the

[2:39:50] backdrop is we

[2:39:52] re down economic

[2:39:53] and population growth, so it

[2:39:54] s,

[2:39:54] it

[2:39:56] s even more reason to be

[2:39:57] wondering, um, how best to

[2:39:59] approach these things. I think

[2:40:01] it underscores the need to have

[2:40:02] this conversation about the

[2:40:05] commercial. Strategy for this

[2:40:06] area and what that looks like

[2:40:08] and whether there are yet

[2:40:08] opportunities that you all

[2:40:09] haven

[2:40:10] t been able to capture

[2:40:12] yet that might tap into that.

[2:40:14] Um, and I think it also, uh,

[2:40:16] makes us think a little bit

[2:40:18] twice about, um, how we

[2:40:18] re

[2:40:19] approaching the residential

[2:40:21] unit additions, um, across the

[2:40:23] board in small area plans. I

[2:40:24] appreciate what you all have

[2:40:26] done and I appreciate your

[2:40:27] flexibility and openness here,

[2:40:29] and this is a first swing, what

[2:40:29] you

[2:40:31] ve done, but I, I think it

[2:40:32] is good and fair to give you

[2:40:34] sort of some feedback. In terms

[2:40:36] of this whole commercial issue

[2:40:38] and hope that we maybe can look

[2:40:39] into that a little bit more

[2:40:40] clearly as we go forward. Thank

[2:40:46] you. Councilmember Bates. Just

[2:40:50] an additional comment, um In,

[2:40:51] uh, the interest of perhaps

[2:40:54] having some give and take here,

[2:40:55] um, I could see, and um, you

[2:40:56] know, maybe this is something

[2:40:58] that you might not necessarily

[2:41:00] even want to do, given, uh,

[2:41:03] marking conditions, but I could

[2:41:05] see in exchange for, uh, more

[2:41:06] significant amount of

[2:41:07] commercial space, uh, going to

[2:41:09] all 2 over 2s, for example, to

[2:41:11] maintain, you know, the number

[2:41:11] of units roughly that you

[2:41:12] ve

[2:41:16] proposed. Um, in exchange for

[2:41:17] providing additional commercial

[2:41:19] space here. Um, again, ideally,

[2:41:21] at least half what

[2:41:22] s there. But,

[2:41:23] um, also just want to point out

[2:41:26] that in addition to the 5-story

[2:41:26] hotel that

[2:41:28] s, um, directly to

[2:41:31] the south, the office building

[2:41:33] next to the assembly on the

[2:41:35] west side of Chambridge Road,

[2:41:35] uh, that basically backs right

[2:41:37] up to the community. There is

[2:41:39] also 4 stories, so very in

[2:41:41] keeping with the current

[2:41:43] character of that area. Um, and

[2:41:44] additionally, the small area

[2:41:46] planner recommends a maximum of

[2:41:48] 7 stories here. So you even

[2:41:48] have some additional

[2:41:50] flexibility, but I think that 4

[2:41:52] stories throughout the site, um,

[2:41:58] would certainly be reasonable.

[2:42:01] Other questions or comments? Ok,

[2:42:03] so, um. I think this is a good

[2:42:07] project, I like it, I think.

[2:42:08] Townhouses and 202s in this

[2:42:09] location is going to be very

[2:42:11] appealing because of its

[2:42:13] proximity to I-66. I predict

[2:42:15] they will be sold before

[2:42:15] they

[2:42:17] re completed. Uh, it also

[2:42:18] backs, it, it

[2:42:19] s gives access to

[2:42:22] the I-66 trail. A very

[2:42:24] significant, and they

[2:42:25] re just

[2:42:26] additions and implementation

[2:42:28] for the I-66 trail, and this

[2:42:31] housing is right there. As far

[2:42:33] as the retail, when I see, I

[2:42:35] see what you see, which is

[2:42:35] you

[2:42:37] ve got 2 hotels, you

[2:42:38] ve got,

[2:42:39] uh, the botanist over here, and

[2:42:41] the re the the retail is

[2:42:42] probably going to be the

[2:42:43] services those people want to

[2:42:45] walk to. And that just makes

[2:42:46] sense that that

[2:42:47] s the kind of

[2:42:48] commercial retail that

[2:42:48] s gonna

[2:42:49] be there is the kind that

[2:42:50] serves that community. I like

[2:42:52] the fact that it

[2:42:53] s so few units

[2:42:56] because the smaller units on

[2:42:57] these small parcels give, um, a

[2:42:59] better opportunity to create a

[2:43:00] closer community. I mean, you

[2:43:02] look at some places in Northern

[2:43:03] Virginia that have townhouses,

[2:43:05] communities that are just

[2:43:06] hundreds and hundreds of

[2:43:08] townhouses, and I think with

[2:43:12] the number, we have other small

[2:43:12] townhouse developments. It just

[2:43:13] gives a greater sense of

[2:43:16] community. I I think, but the

[2:43:18] proximity to I-66 and I-66

[2:43:20] trail are gonna make them

[2:43:22] highly, highly desirable, I

[2:43:24] believe. And so I really liked

[2:43:25] the project. I know you

[2:43:25] ve gone

[2:43:26] above and beyond on the green

[2:43:29] space in the Linear Park and

[2:43:29] you

[2:43:30] re paying attention not

[2:43:31] only to what the small area

[2:43:32] plan calls for, you

[2:43:32] re paying

[2:43:34] attention to what you

[2:43:34] ve

[2:43:36] historically heard the feedback

[2:43:39] from this council on other

[2:43:40] projects, dpi adaptive fitness

[2:43:41] is in this complex. They

[2:43:42] re on

[2:43:43] the first floor. Um, I don

[2:43:43] t

[2:43:45] know what other business are

[2:43:47] there, we have vacancy in the

[2:43:49] city for like accountants and

[2:43:50] medical space and things like

[2:43:52] that. But dpi adaptive fitness

[2:43:56] is a very unique Space that has

[2:43:58] been configured in a, in a

[2:44:00] specific way. And so I think I

[2:44:01] haven

[2:44:02] t spoken with Devon or

[2:44:05] anyone else over there, but the

[2:44:06] city obviously has plenty of

[2:44:09] time to work with them to find

[2:44:10] another location in the city,

[2:44:11] but, you know, so it

[2:44:11] s

[2:44:12] important that we know who our

[2:44:14] businesses are. I believe that

[2:44:14] they

[2:44:15] ll want to stay here in

[2:44:16] the city, but we

[2:44:18] re the first

[2:44:20] step of 100, people are now on

[2:44:22] notice that we need, and I

[2:44:23] think our economic development

[2:44:25] team will in fact find Spaces

[2:44:26] for the businesses that want to

[2:44:27] stay here, and I hope they all

[2:44:30] want to stay here, but I think

[2:44:30] the fitness definitely will

[2:44:32] want to stay here. So I have

[2:44:34] confidence. I really have

[2:44:36] confidence in this project and

[2:44:36] look forward to seeing you come

[2:44:39] back. Um, based on the feedback

[2:44:39] you

[2:44:41] ve gotten. So thank you

[2:44:43] very much. Thank you I

[2:44:47] appreciate the feedback. MISS

[2:44:48] Shenterbury before I announce

[2:44:48] the next item, and it was a

[2:44:49] little early, but I

[2:44:50] m just

[2:44:54] doing a time check, a 9:45. Ok,

[2:44:56] so our last work session item

[2:45:02] is a discussion of a request by

[2:45:03] combined courthouse llcc/o

[2:45:07] combined Columbia Glade llc.

[2:45:12] 20049 for the redevelopment of

[2:45:19] 10,300 Willard Way in Pris

[2:45:25] 57220004d and 3922 Blenheim

[2:45:26] Boulevard in Perez 57220003a.

[2:45:26] I

[2:45:27] m gonna recognize Claire

[2:45:28] Schweiger, our city planner for

[2:45:30] the staff presentation. Ok,

[2:45:32] moving right along to

[2:45:33] Courthouse Plaza. This is a

[2:45:36] work session to discuss a

[2:45:38] redevelopment proposal at

[2:45:39] 10,300 Willard Way and 3922

[2:45:42] Blenheim Boulevard. We are

[2:45:44] currently in the post

[2:45:45] submission phase of the

[2:45:47] development review process. So

[2:45:48] the applicant has made 2

[2:45:49] submissions of the plan and

[2:45:52] staff have given the applicant

[2:45:53] comments on their application,

[2:45:55] a work session was held with

[2:45:57] the Board of architectural

[2:46:00] Review on JUNE 3rd, and with

[2:46:01] the planning commission on JUNE

[2:46:07] 22nd. On the right here is an

[2:46:10] aerial of the site, the site is

[2:46:11] bounded by Blenheim Boulevard

[2:46:13] on the east and University

[2:46:15] Drive on the West to the north

[2:46:17] is Democracy Lane and Plaza

[2:46:19] Drive, and to the south is the

[2:46:23] library. The site is located in

[2:46:25] the activity center place type

[2:46:27] and is subject to the old town

[2:46:29] Fair Fairfax small area plan.

[2:46:33] The site is currently zoned cr

[2:46:34] Commercial retail and cg

[2:46:36] commercial general and the

[2:46:38] transition overlay district and

[2:46:40] the applicant proposes a zoning

[2:46:41] change to pdm plan development

[2:46:46] mixed use. The applicant

[2:46:48] proposes a phased development

[2:46:51] with phase 1 including 315

[2:46:53] residential units, a 72 ft

[2:46:55] height maximum, which does

[2:46:57] require a special exception,

[2:46:59] the applicant has submitted a

[2:47:00] special exception request to

[2:47:02] exceed the 48 ft height maximum

[2:47:05] and the transition overlay

[2:47:09] district and the small area

[2:47:10] plan recommends a six-story

[2:47:14] height maximum on this site.

[2:47:16] Phase 1 also includes 12,500

[2:47:19] square feet of first floor

[2:47:21] retail, roughly 30,000 square

[2:47:24] feet of open space, a plaza to

[2:47:27] the east of the existing retail

[2:47:27] new landscaping and 2 new

[2:47:31] streets. It also includes new

[2:47:33] and widened sidewalks, the

[2:47:35] applicant is also requesting a

[2:47:37] special exception for sidewalks

[2:47:38] to allow some sidewalks to be

[2:47:43] narrower than 10 ft. The plan

[2:47:45] also shows 741 parking spaces

[2:47:46] and service and structured

[2:47:48] parking. The applicant is also

[2:47:49] requesting a special exception

[2:47:52] to reduce the minimum parking

[2:47:55] ratio from 1.5 to 1.25 parking

[2:47:58] spaces per residential unit.

[2:47:59] The plans also include facade

[2:48:02] updates to the courthouse Plaza

[2:48:04] Shopping Center and public are

[2:48:04] along the proposed Street 1

[2:48:10] facade. Phase 2 would require a

[2:48:11] future amendment to the master

[2:48:14] development plan, so if this

[2:48:15] application is approved, phase

[2:48:17] 2 would need to come back to

[2:48:19] this body at a future time for

[2:48:23] approval. In phase 2, the

[2:48:24] applicant proposes 315

[2:48:26] residential units, a new North

[2:48:28] to South Street, 50,000 square

[2:48:32] feet of first floor retail. Um,

[2:48:35] in addition to one of the, the

[2:48:37] pa buildings, 90,000 square

[2:48:39] feet of open space and 980

[2:48:40] parking spaces across surface

[2:48:44] and Structure parking. Here are

[2:48:46] some renderings of the proposed

[2:48:51] building for phase 1. These are

[2:48:58] more renderings. These are

[2:49:01] renderings of the center that

[2:49:03] would be re-faced, and then, um,

[2:49:05] on the right image you can see

[2:49:07] a proposed plaza to the east of

[2:49:12] the existing retail. And then

[2:49:14] next steps for this application

[2:49:16] are planned resubmission and

[2:49:17] staff review, public hearings

[2:49:19] with the planning commission,

[2:49:21] city council, and the Board of

[2:49:23] architectural Review, and that

[2:49:24] concludes my presentation, and

[2:49:25] the applicant is here to

[2:49:30] present next. Mhm. Yeah, do you

[2:49:32] want to switch or do you wanna,

[2:49:38] yeah. Sorry, one moment. There

[2:49:52] you go. Good evening. My name

[2:49:53] is Molly Navotny. I

[2:49:54] m an urban

[2:49:54] planner with Curatea Partners,

[2:49:55] and I

[2:49:56] m pleased to be here

[2:49:57] before you tonight, uh, with

[2:49:58] the combined properties team, I

[2:49:59] have Ayesha Hill at the table

[2:50:02] with me. Um, significantly to

[2:50:04] this, this body, combined

[2:50:05] properties owns 4 properties in

[2:50:07] the city, Scout on the circle

[2:50:08] in the upper, in, in the upper

[2:50:10] portion of this image, picket

[2:50:11] and turnpike shopping centers,

[2:50:12] and then Courthouse, which is

[2:50:12] what we

[2:50:13] re talking with you

[2:50:16] about tonight. This image, um,

[2:50:17] you saw when I was here before.

[2:50:19] It shows the area in magenta,

[2:50:21] which will be removed. That is

[2:50:22] the only portion of the

[2:50:23] building that would be removed

[2:50:25] with this first phase, and then

[2:50:27] rebuilt with a mixed-use

[2:50:28] building. Everything in green

[2:50:30] is existing retail that would

[2:50:33] be renovated with this project.

[2:50:35] We have made significant,

[2:50:36] significant revisions to this

[2:50:37] application before this body

[2:50:39] saw it since this body has seen

[2:50:42] it in 2025. Additionally, we

[2:50:42] ve

[2:50:42] made significant revisions

[2:50:44] since the images that Clara

[2:50:45] presented in her presentation,

[2:50:45] so you

[2:50:47] re going to see

[2:50:48] different architecture in my

[2:50:48] presentation, you

[2:50:49] re going to

[2:50:50] see additional commitments that

[2:50:50] we

[2:50:52] ve made, because we have

[2:50:53] been working with staff, the

[2:50:54] planning commission and bar

[2:50:56] over the last 6 weeks to be

[2:50:59] able to address their comments.

[2:51:00] So significantly with this

[2:51:00] application, we

[2:51:01] re now rezoning

[2:51:04] the entire property. Um, to the

[2:51:05] pdm district. We

[2:51:06] ve also

[2:51:07] proposed that second phase,

[2:51:09] which was something staff had

[2:51:10] requested before. We

[2:51:10] ve removed

[2:51:12] some, several of our special

[2:51:14] exception requests, including

[2:51:16] the request for parking, um, we

[2:51:17] have upgraded our architecture,

[2:51:18] so you

[2:51:19] re going to see a lot of

[2:51:20] red brick integrated into the

[2:51:21] buildings, you

[2:51:22] re going to see

[2:51:24] the commitment that the Safeway

[2:51:26] gets re-faced with this phase 1.

[2:51:26] We

[2:51:27] ve also reduced the height

[2:51:29] of the building at the corner

[2:51:31] of University and Democracy, um,

[2:51:32] some additional things with

[2:51:33] landscape. We

[2:51:34] ve added a

[2:51:35] Central Park in phase 2, we

[2:51:36] ve

[2:51:37] added a linear park along

[2:51:38] Blenheim. We

[2:51:40] ve really created

[2:51:42] an established new open spaces

[2:51:43] and also added interim open

[2:51:46] space at phase 2 gets delayed.

[2:51:47] And then for sight conditions,

[2:51:48] we have removed the pinch point

[2:51:50] at the sidewalk, so our pub

[2:51:51] sidewalks facing public roads

[2:51:53] are all 10 ft, and we have

[2:51:54] widened some streets to, for

[2:52:00] vehicular traffic. But to set

[2:52:01] the stage, this application is

[2:52:02] here before you because you

[2:52:02] re

[2:52:05] a small area plan in 2020 asked

[2:52:06] for this application. It

[2:52:09] identified this site to be

[2:52:11] redeveloped to include

[2:52:11] multi-family apartment

[2:52:12] buildings up to 6 stories in

[2:52:14] height and to be grocery

[2:52:15] anchored. The area in this

[2:52:18] image in this part of Old Town,

[2:52:20] had 0% residential in 2020, and

[2:52:22] that plan called for a 58% mix

[2:52:23] of residential, and that

[2:52:23] s

[2:52:24] again from your small area plan.

[2:52:27] And so what we

[2:52:28] ve done with

[2:52:29] phase 1 is we

[2:52:30] ve, um, focused

[2:52:31] on the left portion of the

[2:52:32] project. We

[2:52:33] ve got the parking

[2:52:34] garage, the interior courtyard,

[2:52:35] and a mixed-use building. That

[2:52:37] building will have 12,500

[2:52:39] square feet of new retail, and

[2:52:41] all of this green space will be

[2:52:44] all, uh, open space available

[2:52:45] in phase 1 with new pocket

[2:52:47] parks throughout. And then when

[2:52:48] we come to phase 2, what we

[2:52:49] ve

[2:52:49] done is we

[2:52:50] ve established the

[2:52:51] street network. We

[2:52:51] ve

[2:52:52] established the street trees,

[2:52:53] we

[2:52:53] ve established the building

[2:52:55] envelope. We hadn

[2:52:55] t had these

[2:52:57] details before you when we were

[2:52:59] here in 2025, but we have now

[2:53:01] committed to this as a phase 2

[2:53:03] plan to start to show you how

[2:53:05] the full site could redevelop

[2:53:06] and this entire site would be

[2:53:08] rezoned. Additionally, we

[2:53:08] ve

[2:53:09] shown an additional building on

[2:53:11] the pad site, that building

[2:53:12] could locate in different areas

[2:53:13] along that path site. We could

[2:53:15] put it along street 2 or along

[2:53:16] Blenheim as we

[2:53:18] ve shown.

[2:53:19] Architecture, this is the image

[2:53:21] that was in Clara

[2:53:21] s

[2:53:22] presentation and is what was

[2:53:23] included in our second

[2:53:25] submission to staff back in MAY.

[2:53:26] Since that time, we

[2:53:26] ve heard

[2:53:28] from your, uh, bar and staff,

[2:53:30] they would like more red brick.

[2:53:30] So what you

[2:53:32] re going to see is

[2:53:33] a significantly revised

[2:53:35] building, what this building

[2:53:38] does is it removes the white

[2:53:39] brick and it converts any black

[2:53:41] brick to be an accent material

[2:53:43] and it integrates red brick

[2:53:46] throughout. These facades, um,

[2:53:46] democracy, university, and

[2:53:49] street 1. Are primarily brick,

[2:53:51] the only element on these

[2:53:52] buildings besides accents that

[2:53:52] isn

[2:53:54] t brick is that champagne

[2:53:56] colored fiber cement. So we

[2:53:56] ve

[2:53:57] really done a significant

[2:53:58] overhaul with the materials and

[2:54:00] the color palette. This is a

[2:54:01] corner of democracy and

[2:54:02] university. You can see how

[2:54:02] we

[2:54:03] ve lowered that building

[2:54:04] height to help with that

[2:54:07] transition at that corner. And

[2:54:08] then again, just looking up

[2:54:11] democracy. This is the Safeway,

[2:54:12] the top image is what it looks

[2:54:13] like today. The bottom would

[2:54:16] show a reef face Safeway, which

[2:54:17] would occur prior to

[2:54:19] residential occupancy, and then

[2:54:22] the overall center being a

[2:54:23] completely renovated and

[2:54:25] integrated development.

[2:54:27] Existing tenants, yes, we will

[2:54:28] be relocating existing tenants

[2:54:30] that are there. We have

[2:54:32] commitments in our application

[2:54:34] that commit to rent subsidies

[2:54:36] for tenants in good standings

[2:54:38] to help them relocate to find

[2:54:39] other properties in the city,

[2:54:40] we also have a commitment that

[2:54:40] we

[2:54:42] re going to reserve some

[2:54:44] smaller space in our building

[2:54:45] for startup customers and to

[2:54:46] continue to work with your

[2:54:48] economic development, we think

[2:54:49] those are important commitments,

[2:54:49] and we

[2:54:49] re proud to have made

[2:54:52] them. Terms of connectivity,

[2:54:54] the site is incredibly porous,

[2:54:55] this image shows in orange all

[2:54:56] the vehicular routes through

[2:54:58] the site, and then all of the

[2:55:00] pedestrian routes through the

[2:55:02] site really interlinking all

[2:55:03] components of the project,

[2:55:04] these are just gonna show some

[2:55:06] images of these sidewalks

[2:55:06] around the site. We

[2:55:07] ve got at

[2:55:11] least 7 ft of walking area on

[2:55:13] Street 1, and then it enlarges

[2:55:15] to at least 10 ft of walking

[2:55:17] area everywhere else, um, if

[2:55:18] not 12 ft or wider, you

[2:55:18] ve got

[2:55:20] lots of room for outdoor space,

[2:55:24] lots of room. For tables, um.

[2:55:25] And then we

[2:55:25] ve got significant

[2:55:27] open space. Today, the site

[2:55:29] only has 4.3% open space. It

[2:55:29] s

[2:55:29] ridiculous. There

[2:55:30] s there, it

[2:55:30] s

[2:55:31] a surface parking lot at the

[2:55:33] end of phase 1, we will have

[2:55:35] increased that open space to

[2:55:37] 12.3%, and then we

[2:55:37] ve added

[2:55:40] interim open space if by 2035

[2:55:40] we haven

[2:55:41] t moved forward with

[2:55:43] the next phase that um bolsters

[2:55:45] that open space to 13.4% before

[2:55:47] bringing it to the 20% with the

[2:55:49] full build out of phase 2, just

[2:55:50] some images to show you and

[2:55:52] give you that feel of how we

[2:55:52] ve

[2:55:53] articulated and really

[2:55:56] activated the open. Space.

[2:55:58] Retail park along Safeway,

[2:55:59] proposed linear Park along

[2:56:01] Blenheim. And then again, a

[2:56:02] reminder of the significant

[2:56:03] revisions that we

[2:56:04] ve made to

[2:56:05] this application since 2025,

[2:56:05] and I

[2:56:06] m happy to answer any

[2:56:11] questions. Council member Amos.

[2:56:14] Thank you. Uh, this was a great

[2:56:15] presentation, um, just to go

[2:56:17] into some of the likes, the,

[2:56:19] the, the open space plus the

[2:56:20] linear park, that

[2:56:20] s pretty

[2:56:21] impressive, so I appreciate

[2:56:22] that. I

[2:56:24] ll come back to the

[2:56:25] tenant relocation plan shortly.

[2:56:26] My understanding is also you

[2:56:26] ve

[2:56:27] been in communication with our

[2:56:28] economic development team, and

[2:56:29] I see that

[2:56:30] s included in here,

[2:56:32] that makes me very happy to see,

[2:56:33] and I, I think you

[2:56:34] ll probably

[2:56:35] hear from my colleagues as well

[2:56:37] with the color scheme is a

[2:56:39] significant improvement, so, uh,

[2:56:40] I really like to see that for

[2:56:43] the tenant relocation plan.

[2:56:44] Just for clarification, and

[2:56:46] this is more just interest

[2:56:47] rather than anything

[2:56:48] substantial for the graduated

[2:56:50] rent for smaller scale tenants.

[2:56:52] So, in terms, where did that

[2:56:53] idea come from and what

[2:56:53] s your

[2:56:54] ultimate goal with, with

[2:56:57] accomplishing that? Good

[2:56:59] evening. So the idea originally

[2:57:01] came from, the current

[2:57:03] situation at Courthouse Plaza.

[2:57:05] Because we do that, we wanted

[2:57:08] the opportunity to redevelop it.

[2:57:11] We were left with, uh, below

[2:57:13] market lease terms, um, so

[2:57:15] ultimately for less than market

[2:57:16] rent, you could lease our space

[2:57:18] and instead of 10 years, you

[2:57:20] might get 3 or 5 or 7 depending

[2:57:22] on the timing. And so there are

[2:57:24] some tenants that have this gap

[2:57:25] between what

[2:57:25] s technically

[2:57:27] market rent and what they

[2:57:27] re

[2:57:29] paying today. And so

[2:57:30] recognizing that difference, we

[2:57:32] wanted to be able to, you know,

[2:57:33] help people along the way and

[2:57:35] our tenants along the way in

[2:57:36] the event there isn

[2:57:37] t another

[2:57:39] below market space available

[2:57:41] for them, um, that we can help

[2:57:43] them get there. So over a

[2:57:44] 3-year period, you know, the

[2:57:45] details still need to be worked

[2:57:47] out how it would work with the

[2:57:48] other landlord, and, um, that

[2:57:50] sort of thing, but that we

[2:57:52] would, we would, um, fill that

[2:57:54] gap for them. Um, and then on

[2:57:55] the other side of that, that

[2:57:57] there could also be an

[2:57:59] opportunity for new small

[2:58:00] businesses coming in, or

[2:58:01] businesses that are currently

[2:58:02] there today that want to come

[2:58:05] back. That might also need, you

[2:58:07] know, similar assistance as

[2:58:08] they get started and, you know,

[2:58:09] are early in their business

[2:58:11] that this could be a place they

[2:58:13] could come and start and grow.

[2:58:14] And would this be just for 3

[2:58:15] years, or are you saying this

[2:58:17] is kind of like a process you

[2:58:19] want to implement moving

[2:58:22] forward over the long term. So

[2:58:23] far existing tenants, it would

[2:58:25] be for 3 years, um, it

[2:58:25] s not

[2:58:27] something that we could

[2:58:29] financially handle, um, you

[2:58:31] know, into infinity, um, we

[2:58:34] could give it a little bit more

[2:58:36] thought on the new small

[2:58:36] businesses, our original

[2:58:38] thought that it would be a

[2:58:40] similar 3-year period, um, and

[2:58:40] they could choose to stay

[2:58:43] though in the space, but that

[2:58:44] their rent would gradually

[2:58:45] increase over time and if they

[2:58:46] chose to stay, they could.

[2:58:47] Sorry, I asked my question

[2:58:48] poorly and that

[2:58:49] s why there

[2:58:49] s

[2:58:50] confusion. Uh, what I mean is,

[2:58:52] for example, you have. A

[2:58:53] business that moves in there

[2:58:53] and they

[2:58:54] re there for 10 years

[2:58:56] and they had to relocate to the

[2:58:57] new business coming in get a

[2:58:59] similar program, or would they

[2:58:59] just go, I

[2:59:01] m assuming at the

[2:59:01] rate that

[2:59:03] s existing at that

[2:59:05] time. So, after 10 years, it

[2:59:07] would be that new market rate.

[2:59:11] Ok, thank you. Other questions,

[2:59:13] comments? On this Council

[2:59:17] member Bates. Uh, thank you. So,

[2:59:19] um, certainly, you know, I

[2:59:23] think that there have been, uh

[2:59:25] Some improvements here that are

[2:59:29] much appreciated. Um As well as

[2:59:30] perhaps some lingering minor

[2:59:32] questions and, and issues, uh,

[2:59:32] to be addressed and understand

[2:59:34] that you all, you know, have

[2:59:35] another submission coming up,

[2:59:38] um. And but I mainly just want

[2:59:42] to ask, do we have the, uh,

[2:59:44] current, um, tree canopy

[2:59:47] percentage as well on the site.

[2:59:50] Under current conditions. We

[2:59:51] are working on getting you the

[2:59:53] current tree canopy on the site

[2:59:54] today. It

[2:59:57] s, um. The way tree

[3:00:00] canopy is calculated, doesn

[3:00:01] t

[3:00:02] necessarily measure the

[3:00:03] survivability or the quality of

[3:00:05] that tree and so rather it

[3:00:06] takes it into account the

[3:00:07] canopy of the tree, but if you

[3:00:09] go out to look at that tree,

[3:00:12] the health of the tree, um, is

[3:00:13] not always the at the standard

[3:00:15] you would want, and so we

[3:00:15] re,

[3:00:17] we want to be able to paint an

[3:00:18] accurate picture for you. And

[3:00:22] so we will be providing That

[3:00:23] calculation, but at any rate, I

[3:00:26] think that, um, the significant

[3:00:29] increase in open space, um. You

[3:00:31] know, particularly where, uh,

[3:00:32] there was simply pavement

[3:00:34] before and, uh, in a lot of

[3:00:38] cases. Represents a significant

[3:00:39] opportunity to reduce

[3:00:40] impervious surface on the site,

[3:00:42] um, in addition to, I believe

[3:00:44] that there are additional

[3:00:45] stormwater management

[3:00:46] improvements proposed as well.

[3:00:47] So I think that

[3:00:49] s, uh, really

[3:00:51] important for environmental

[3:00:52] sustainability going forward,

[3:00:55] um, as well as, um, you know,

[3:00:57] stormwater management. Thanks.

[3:01:00] Council member Hall. Thank you,

[3:01:03] uh. So I, I want to start with

[3:01:05] saying this is, in my opinion,

[3:01:06] very, very much improved. I

[3:01:06] m

[3:01:08] really happy to see the changes

[3:01:10] to the brick. I feel like

[3:01:10] you

[3:01:11] re incorporating a lot more

[3:01:13] of what is our historic old

[3:01:15] town and so many areas

[3:01:17] throughout the city. Sorry, my

[3:01:20] voice is going away. I, I, I

[3:01:20] m

[3:01:21] having some trouble visualizing

[3:01:21] some things and I

[3:01:22] m hoping you

[3:01:23] could maybe help me a little

[3:01:24] bit. Um, I

[3:01:25] m also curious, did

[3:01:26] you side note, did you happen

[3:01:28] to meet with the old Fairfax

[3:01:32] muse, hoa. We did. A while ago

[3:01:34] or recently? 2 weeks ago, 3

[3:01:36] weeks ago? Ok, because the, but

[3:01:38] did they see this updated? No,

[3:01:39] so when this is a work in

[3:01:41] progress and this is part of

[3:01:41] what happens in this cycle,

[3:01:44] right? So we had been to the

[3:01:45] planning commission and the bar

[3:01:47] before we met with the Fair old

[3:01:49] Fairfax Muse. We told them that

[3:01:52] those bodies had asked us to

[3:01:54] revise the architecture. We had

[3:01:55] shown them an interim option

[3:01:57] that we had shared with the

[3:01:58] planning commission, but said

[3:01:59] we are still working on this.

[3:02:01] So they have not seen These

[3:02:02] latest ones, you guys are the

[3:02:04] first to see them. Ok, I, I

[3:02:05] appreciate that and, and

[3:02:08] knowing that I think Some of

[3:02:10] the concerns that the, the hoa,

[3:02:10] I

[3:02:12] m sure you heard them. Yeah,

[3:02:12] I

[3:02:13] m hopeful some of those have,

[3:02:16] have, have been, I think,

[3:02:16] moderately addressed in here,

[3:02:18] um. And this is where I

[3:02:19] m going

[3:02:20] to need a little bit more of a

[3:02:22] visual. So Looking at this

[3:02:25] picture. Democracy Lane looking

[3:02:29] east. So this, the flats are on

[3:02:31] the left. Is that the flats on

[3:02:31] the left there, I

[3:02:33] m at, I

[3:02:34] m

[3:02:36] standing at university, ok,

[3:02:38] looking up democracy lane here.

[3:02:41] Ok. Ok. It

[3:02:44] s not showing. Ok,

[3:02:46] so right now we

[3:02:47] re at 5 stories

[3:02:49] on the front side as opposed to

[3:02:53] the 6 that had been previously

[3:02:53] Yes, so let

[3:02:54] s Let me go back up.

[3:03:03] So this image now, I

[3:03:03] ve moved

[3:03:05] down a street, so sorry for the

[3:03:05] confusion. I

[3:03:06] ve moved down a

[3:03:09] street. This is look, um, to

[3:03:10] the left is university and the

[3:03:12] flats are in the background

[3:03:15] behind that ghosted out tree.

[3:03:18] Street, our new street 1 is to

[3:03:19] the right here. And so this is

[3:03:20] kind of our front entrance. I

[3:03:21] m

[3:03:23] looking, um, the old Fairfax

[3:03:24] Muse is going to be up into the

[3:03:26] left. Ok, so I

[3:03:27] m on university

[3:03:30] now on university now, and so

[3:03:32] you have here 6 story, a

[3:03:33] 6-story building along

[3:03:35] University, it drops to 5

[3:03:37] stories at that corner. Of

[3:03:40] democracy. On the left side, it

[3:03:45] drops to 5, ok, is it? So I, I

[3:03:45] appreciate that the land, I

[3:03:46] m

[3:03:47] sorry, not the landscaping, the,

[3:03:51] the These your words. The way

[3:03:52] that the, the darker brick, I

[3:03:54] guess is there and in the

[3:03:55] forefront and then the wider is

[3:03:58] in the back. I feel like that

[3:04:00] visually helps a lot with the

[3:04:03] height feeling, um, I do still

[3:04:04] feel like that one section

[3:04:05] there where it says retail and

[3:04:07] the apartments is still a

[3:04:08] little tall. I would love to

[3:04:09] see that knocked down by 1

[3:04:11] story, if at all possible, but

[3:04:13] I do understand that, you know,

[3:04:14] you need to make a profit and

[3:04:15] all of that. I still think it

[3:04:15] s

[3:04:18] a lot of units, but visually, I

[3:04:20] think this is much more appeal.

[3:04:23] Willing and in line with What

[3:04:25] our residents had, have been

[3:04:29] asking for there, um. This is

[3:04:31] going to be a Clara question or

[3:04:34] maybe a Dan question, but I

[3:04:34] don

[3:04:35] t think I realized that

[3:04:36] University Drive is going to be

[3:04:38] going down to 1 lane to

[3:04:41] accommodate bike. Lanes. I

[3:04:43] thought we were Putting bike

[3:04:44] lanes on there, but we were

[3:04:45] still keeping 2 lanes of

[3:04:50] traffic. Sorry, I

[3:04:50] m making it,

[3:04:51] we

[3:04:51] re making you get up a lot

[3:04:55] tonight. Um And, and quite

[3:04:55] honestly, I

[3:04:56] m not sure I should

[3:04:58] be answering this. I believe, I

[3:04:58] believe it

[3:04:59] s 4, it

[3:05:00] s a 4-lane

[3:05:02] section as you get toward North

[3:05:05] Street, and then as you come

[3:05:08] back, headed north, going by

[3:05:09] this property down the hill and

[3:05:13] so forth, it transitions to a 3

[3:05:16] lane section where you have a

[3:05:18] center turning lane and 2.

[3:05:20] Travel lanes, but We

[3:05:20] ll check

[3:05:23] that. Our traffic engineers

[3:05:24] here and they

[3:05:24] re nodding their

[3:05:26] head. That

[3:05:26] s correct in

[3:05:28] agreement. Ok, for the city

[3:05:28] s

[3:05:29] plans, not our plans. We

[3:05:30] ve

[3:05:31] just shown them, but they

[3:05:31] re

[3:05:33] the city plans. Yeah, I, I,

[3:05:36] what I will say for the city as

[3:05:36] large, whether it

[3:05:37] s you guys or

[3:05:40] the city, but we have these

[3:05:41] nice 10-foot wide sidewalks,

[3:05:42] which could also be called a

[3:05:44] shared use path. To me, that

[3:05:45] could be a great place for a

[3:05:47] bike to go without taking out a

[3:05:49] total lane on university,

[3:05:49] recognizing not your situation,

[3:05:51] but, um, I think we

[3:05:51] re going to

[3:05:52] get a lot of pushback when that

[3:05:53] Starts to come out a little bit

[3:05:54] more. I don

[3:05:54] t know who I

[3:05:54] m

[3:05:58] looking at, but all of you. Um

[3:06:03] So I, I, I think this is not

[3:06:04] depressing looking anymore to,

[3:06:05] to quote the woman that came

[3:06:06] earlier, and I, I have to agree

[3:06:07] with her. I mean, I think

[3:06:08] before it was very, it

[3:06:09] s just

[3:06:10] too new. It

[3:06:11] s too fancy. It was

[3:06:13] too all of the things that I

[3:06:13] don

[3:06:15] t think were great. Um, I

[3:06:15] still think it

[3:06:16] s a lot of units,

[3:06:16] and I know I

[3:06:17] ve said that a

[3:06:18] couple offf different times and

[3:06:18] I

[3:06:20] m not going to change my mind

[3:06:22] on that. Um, but I, I really do

[3:06:24] want to give you credit for

[3:06:26] adding in as much of the open

[3:06:28] space that you have adding in

[3:06:30] the green space, um, I don

[3:06:30] t

[3:06:32] know what your plans are. For

[3:06:33] like the parking, but if

[3:06:33] there

[3:06:36] s any way to do some

[3:06:38] Impervious, no, pervious

[3:06:39] parking spots in some of those

[3:06:42] areas with, you know, the fancy

[3:06:43] things as opposed to concrete

[3:06:45] or asphalt or whatever. I think

[3:06:46] that

[3:06:46] s another opportunity to

[3:06:47] take what is still a pretty

[3:06:49] large parking lot out in the

[3:06:52] open, um. I appreciate your,

[3:06:52] I

[3:06:52] m sorry, I

[3:06:53] m trying to find

[3:06:55] the pages here, but I

[3:06:56] appreciate your efforts to do

[3:06:58] the, um, kind of the pocket

[3:06:59] park along Blenheim and some of

[3:07:02] the other things. Um, I Is this?

[3:07:04] Yeah, sorry, there

[3:07:05] s a lot of

[3:07:08] pages. Thank you. Um, But there

[3:07:09] was another, there was another

[3:07:10] spot where you were kind of

[3:07:11] doing a little bit more of a

[3:07:12] park feature. There we go.

[3:07:16] Thank you. Um, so we have, this

[3:07:18] is our phase 1 commitment that

[3:07:21] when the multi-family opens,

[3:07:22] and then the darker green on

[3:07:24] the Blenheim side here would be

[3:07:26] an interim park space, if for

[3:07:27] some reason, we don

[3:07:28] t move

[3:07:30] forward with phase 2, so right

[3:07:33] now, if you MAY, if you recall

[3:07:33] Safeway controls the entire

[3:07:35] parking field with its lease.

[3:07:35] So we can

[3:07:36] t affect those

[3:07:37] parking spaces any more than

[3:07:37] what we

[3:07:38] ve already done, but

[3:07:40] when that lease expires at the

[3:07:41] end of 2034, we can control

[3:07:42] that space and so we can commit

[3:07:45] to turn that Into additional

[3:07:47] open space at that time, if we

[3:07:47] haven

[3:07:49] t filed a phase 2 plan.

[3:07:54] Ok. And Does any interior

[3:07:55] Safeway work get done in any of

[3:08:01] these proposals? So, uh, that

[3:08:01] s

[3:08:02] Safeway

[3:08:03] s decision, it is our

[3:08:04] hope that they will do work on

[3:08:06] the inside of the building, but

[3:08:07] they are completely in control

[3:08:10] of that, um, and not combined,

[3:08:10] unfortunately. Ok, I figured

[3:08:11] that was going to be your

[3:08:13] answer. Um, I do like the brick.

[3:08:15] I, I like all the things that

[3:08:17] you have proposed there. Um,

[3:08:18] remind me again because it

[3:08:18] s a

[3:08:20] lot of pages here. How many

[3:08:22] units total are we talking in

[3:08:24] phase 1 and phase 2? It

[3:08:25] s a

[3:08:27] total of 315 units per building.

[3:08:29] And so phase 1 would be 315,

[3:08:30] and then if we come forward

[3:08:33] with phase 2, it would be 315.

[3:08:34] Um, it

[3:08:35] s important to, yes,

[3:08:38] over. A significant time period,

[3:08:39] right, and we

[3:08:40] re not, we

[3:08:41] re not

[3:08:42] asking for the approval of

[3:08:44] phase 2 of those details now.

[3:08:46] We we are merely committing to

[3:08:47] the buildable envelope, the

[3:08:49] street network, the street

[3:08:50] trees, the open space

[3:08:52] commitments, but we want the

[3:08:53] market, we want the city

[3:08:54] s

[3:08:55] growth to be able to be

[3:08:58] absorbed into to really give us

[3:09:00] guidance on that phase 2. Ok,

[3:09:02] um, and I, I think. Again, it

[3:09:02] s

[3:09:06] a lot of units, but I do think

[3:09:06] it

[3:09:08] s reasonable in, in the, the

[3:09:09] layout and the things that have,

[3:09:12] have come out of this newer, um,

[3:09:15] design with it, do you know

[3:09:15] roughly what your breakdown is

[3:09:16] going to be for 1 versus 2

[3:09:21] versus 3? Units, bedroom units.

[3:09:23] We can get you the specific

[3:09:24] breakdown for now, um, I don

[3:09:25] t

[3:09:27] have that in front of me, but

[3:09:29] we will have the majority 1

[3:09:32] bedroom unit bedroom. Yes. Ok.

[3:09:36] Ok. And will there be any like

[3:09:37] amenities on site? Can you

[3:09:38] remind me for the residents

[3:09:41] that live here? Yes, so, um,

[3:09:41] there

[3:09:42] s a structured parking

[3:09:44] garage fills the, um, upper

[3:09:45] part of the interior building

[3:09:46] and then it

[3:09:47] s an interior green

[3:09:48] courtyard that would have a

[3:09:48] pool. We

[3:09:50] ve committed to a pool

[3:09:52] indoor or outdoor pool outdoor

[3:09:52] pool, um, but it

[3:09:55] s an Uh,

[3:09:56] courtyard that is internal to

[3:09:57] the building, right? So it

[3:09:58] s

[3:09:59] really creates that priva

[3:10:00] privacy for those future

[3:10:02] residents. Ok, uh, and I was

[3:10:03] happy there would, there will

[3:10:05] also be a fitness center and

[3:10:06] kind of co-working space in a

[3:10:08] lobby and your traditional, you

[3:10:09] know, pet spa bike room,

[3:10:11] traditional, um, Class a

[3:10:11] apartment amenities. I

[3:10:12] m sorry,

[3:10:14] was that pet spa? Yeah, so a

[3:10:15] spot to wash your dog. All

[3:10:16] right, that

[3:10:17] s called my shower

[3:10:22] right now, but I know. Ok, um.

[3:10:23] Sorry, question just left my

[3:10:25] head. Oh, I did want to thank

[3:10:26] you also for reaching out to

[3:10:27] every single tenant that

[3:10:27] s in

[3:10:28] there. I, I

[3:10:28] ve actually heard

[3:10:29] from a couple of tenants, um,

[3:10:30] this week. I haven

[3:10:30] t had a

[3:10:32] chance to respond yet, but I

[3:10:33] think that the outreach was

[3:10:34] appreciated. I

[3:10:35] m happy to see

[3:10:35] the plan that you

[3:10:36] ve put in

[3:10:40] place and just to make sure I

[3:10:42] understand what that is. It

[3:10:42] s a

[3:10:46] commitment of Low for up to 3

[3:10:48] years with pre-negotiated

[3:10:51] increases of 3% per year. So

[3:10:53] after those, so this would

[3:10:55] allow them to Temporarily

[3:10:59] relocate. Come back into your

[3:11:01] new space for 3 years with a 3%

[3:11:06] increase. Is that correct? So

[3:11:06] whether the relocation would be

[3:11:09] up to the tenant, so we

[3:11:10] ve

[3:11:12] committed to, um, helping them

[3:11:14] find a new space if they would

[3:11:16] like, um, or if they do want to

[3:11:18] come back into the space, then

[3:11:20] we could help them in that

[3:11:22] situation as well, but it is

[3:11:23] challenging for tenants to move

[3:11:25] twice, um, so there probably

[3:11:26] wouldn

[3:11:27] t be very many that do

[3:11:29] that, but we are open to them

[3:11:30] coming back if they would like

[3:11:32] to do that. Ok. And is there

[3:11:35] any Anyway, with the

[3:11:36] construction and my, the answer

[3:11:38] might be no, but is there any

[3:11:41] way that these businesses could

[3:11:43] stay in place during some

[3:11:44] portion of the construction,

[3:11:44] like when you

[3:11:45] re working on the,

[3:11:45] I

[3:11:47] m going to use the word left

[3:11:47] because i

[3:11:48] m not good with east

[3:11:49] and west, with the left portion

[3:11:51] and those kind of things, or is

[3:11:53] it once you start, you start

[3:11:53] and everything to the left of

[3:11:55] the Safeway is, is kind of

[3:12:00] instantly gone. Oops, it

[3:12:01] s more

[3:12:02] than likely everyone will have

[3:12:03] to vacate for safety reasons.

[3:12:05] We usually have to cut off gas,

[3:12:07] power, water, and make sure

[3:12:11] things are safe. Ok. Ok, well,

[3:12:11] it

[3:12:11] s never perfect for

[3:12:13] everybody, right? But I do

[3:12:14] appreciate what you are doing,

[3:12:15] and I, I think it

[3:12:15] s clear that

[3:12:17] you have gone above and beyond,

[3:12:19] I know phase 2 was not

[3:12:20] something that you initially

[3:12:21] wanted to kind of commit to at

[3:12:23] this point. I know there was a

[3:12:24] lot of pushback on that from

[3:12:25] city staff, from, you know,

[3:12:26] members of council as well. So,

[3:12:28] I do want to acknowledge that I,

[3:12:29] I can tell a lot of extra work

[3:12:30] has gone into this. So thank

[3:12:34] you very much. Thank you.

[3:12:39] Council member McQuillan. Thank

[3:12:41] you. This is much, a much

[3:12:43] better fit than previous

[3:12:44] submissions. I really

[3:12:46] appreciate, um, the work that

[3:12:49] you all did on changing the

[3:12:49] colors and the architecture

[3:12:52] look to it. It looks much more

[3:12:55] like it fits in this area of

[3:12:56] our community. Um, I also like

[3:12:58] the reduced height at the

[3:12:59] corner of University and

[3:13:01] Democracy, I think that, that

[3:13:03] really does make a huge

[3:13:04] difference. The 10-foot

[3:13:06] sidewalks, thank you, really

[3:13:07] appreciate that and the green

[3:13:09] spaces, I like that as well. Um,

[3:13:13] The only concern I have, oh, I,

[3:13:14] i do like your explanation

[3:13:16] about your approach and your

[3:13:18] strategy for phase 2, and the

[3:13:20] Safeway, if you could do that,

[3:13:21] that would look great. Um, the

[3:13:23] only concern I have is density

[3:13:24] still. It

[3:13:24] s still pretty, it

[3:13:24] s

[3:13:26] still a lot of units there for

[3:13:29] me. Um, however, It looks like

[3:13:29] there

[3:13:30] s, I guess the only

[3:13:33] question I have then is what,

[3:13:35] what community benefit beyond

[3:13:35] just housing, do you see this

[3:13:41] offering? So we have a

[3:13:42] commitment statement within

[3:13:42] that statement we

[3:13:44] ve, you know,

[3:13:47] made commitments to, um,

[3:13:50] financially fund the schools.

[3:13:51] Financially fund Parks and Rec.

[3:13:53] Trying to get to the right page.

[3:13:58] We

[3:13:59] ve made our tenant

[3:14:02] relocation, sorry. I skipped

[3:14:03] right by it. So the city school

[3:14:04] fund, we

[3:14:04] ve committed to $1600

[3:14:06] a unit, which is more than

[3:14:07] other applicants have committed

[3:14:09] to and we studied this last

[3:14:09] time, we

[3:14:12] ve got, um, $367 a

[3:14:14] unit for city recreational

[3:14:14] amenities. We

[3:14:15] ve committed to

[3:14:18] up to $305,000 toward

[3:14:19] undergrounding utilities, um,

[3:14:20] we

[3:14:21] ve added $10,000 for

[3:14:22] commemorative signage on the

[3:14:23] site and a variety of things

[3:14:25] like that. Thank you so much,

[3:14:27] and then, um, my last question

[3:14:30] was that the small area plan in

[3:14:32] this area, what is the top

[3:14:33] amount of stories that you can

[3:14:34] go for this spot. It calls for

[3:14:35] 6 stories. It

[3:14:36] s 6, and that

[3:14:36] s

[3:14:37] what this says, right? And

[3:14:37] that

[3:14:38] s what we proposed. Thank

[3:14:43] you, I appreciate that. Council

[3:14:45] member Peterson, just a couple

[3:14:45] of clarifying questions I MAY

[3:14:48] need a little help from staff

[3:14:51] on this. I got the presentation

[3:14:53] this morning at 9 and really

[3:14:53] didn

[3:14:54] t have a chance to go

[3:14:58] through this and Details, so,

[3:14:59] uh, pardon me if I have not

[3:15:02] been able to Uh, capture

[3:15:03] everything in here and that I

[3:15:03] m

[3:15:04] not able to capture everything

[3:15:06] with the questions right now.

[3:15:10] Um, But just a couple of

[3:15:13] clarifications here. You said

[3:15:13] there

[3:15:15] s 0 residential. Density,

[3:15:17] or 0 residential. What were you

[3:15:19] referring to again? So in the

[3:15:21] small area plan when that was

[3:15:22] adopted in 2020, it identified

[3:15:24] that there was no residential.

[3:15:26] I can pull up the page number.

[3:15:28] No residential in this portion

[3:15:31] of, um, the small area plan, so

[3:15:31] it

[3:15:32] s page 25 of the small area

[3:15:35] plan, it has pie graphs on it

[3:15:37] and it noted existing mix of

[3:15:40] uses and proposed mix of uses

[3:15:42] this portion, are you talking

[3:15:43] about the old town Fairfax

[3:15:44] property, Old Town Fairfax

[3:15:46] Small. Are plan, and there

[3:15:46] s no

[3:15:48] residential in that area, that

[3:15:51] is what the small area plan

[3:15:52] document identified on page 25

[3:15:55] with a pie chart. So when the

[3:15:58] plan was completed in 2020.

[3:15:59] There wasn

[3:16:00] t any, but now on

[3:16:02] page 8 of my staff report I

[3:16:04] have the same table that you

[3:16:06] saw in my last presentation, so

[3:16:09] there, there has been plans

[3:16:11] approved, um, since then. Yeah,

[3:16:14] I think the planning commission

[3:16:16] commented on 2000 bedrooms, uh,

[3:16:17] in that area, so some such

[3:16:18] figure, but I, I was just a

[3:16:20] little surprised to hear that

[3:16:20] it

[3:16:22] s my neighborhood, so, you

[3:16:23] know, I

[3:16:25] m familiar with, uh, a

[3:16:28] lot of residences there. Um,

[3:16:29] the, maybe to go back just,

[3:16:33] just to be a little clear. Um,

[3:16:34] And again, I got the

[3:16:36] presentation and I, I noticed

[3:16:38] something in it that said, The

[3:16:43] smaller plan. I think it was

[3:16:45] calls for 1250 units and it

[3:16:46] s

[3:16:46] my understanding that this sort

[3:16:48] of goes back to the earlier

[3:16:50] discussion this evening that

[3:16:53] that 1250 is, uh, potential

[3:16:54] under market conditions, but

[3:16:55] it

[3:16:57] s not a goal, right, yep,

[3:16:57] that

[3:16:58] s just an estimate from

[3:17:01] the small area plan. Ok, so

[3:17:01] it

[3:17:01] s not really calling for

[3:17:02] that, it

[3:17:03] s just saying that

[3:17:04] s a

[3:17:05] possibility under market

[3:17:07] conditions. It also is not

[3:17:08] requiring 6 stories. It is

[3:17:11] permitting up to 16. Stories,

[3:17:12] so there

[3:17:12] s flexibility around

[3:17:17] that. Um, ok, so then the other

[3:17:18] thing, and not to be totally

[3:17:21] nitpicky here, but the guiding

[3:17:22] principles for redevelopment, I

[3:17:24] think are really focused on The

[3:17:28] kinds of, um, Design

[3:17:29] considerations that you

[3:17:29] ve

[3:17:31] brought to the site and I, I

[3:17:32] think you

[3:17:32] ve been working

[3:17:34] really hard on that. Uh, it

[3:17:34] s

[3:17:35] clear, but I

[3:17:36] m just wondering,

[3:17:37] I mean, we

[3:17:38] re acting, uh, as a

[3:17:41] body here to make a public

[3:17:42] policy decision and are driven

[3:17:43] by community interest and

[3:17:45] public. Interest in this, and

[3:17:45] I

[3:17:47] m wondering, are there,

[3:17:49] perhaps this is, uh, for staff,

[3:17:50] but there ought to be another

[3:17:52] set of principles here or a

[3:17:54] principle anyway. Related to

[3:17:55] the public interest, and how

[3:17:56] would you express that in terms

[3:17:59] of how this meets. As a matter

[3:18:01] of principle, public interest

[3:18:03] to put this particular Uh,

[3:18:04] proposal in place, and I

[3:18:04] m

[3:18:06] particularly noting. There

[3:18:06] s

[3:18:07] been a lot of concern about

[3:18:08] height and density. There

[3:18:08] s

[3:18:10] also been a lot of concern

[3:18:11] about the shift here towards

[3:18:13] residential, uh, versus

[3:18:15] commercial, and the city

[3:18:15] s

[3:18:16] overall need for expanding

[3:18:17] commercial in light of that,

[3:18:19] what, what is the principle

[3:18:20] here in terms of, of the public

[3:18:25] interest for this. So this

[3:18:28] shopping center has been, um.

[3:18:28] Not the city

[3:18:29] s crown jewel for

[3:18:32] decades, and so we think the

[3:18:34] public interest will be

[3:18:35] represented by redoing the

[3:18:36] shopping center and creating it

[3:18:39] to be an active and vibrant

[3:18:41] community with strong

[3:18:41] pedestrian vehicular

[3:18:43] connections through it, lots of

[3:18:47] new open spaces and wider and

[3:18:48] improved street presence along

[3:18:49] to central drives to the city,

[3:18:52] university, and Blenheim. So we,

[3:18:53] we certainly hear a lot,

[3:18:53] there

[3:18:55] s been a lot of comment

[3:18:59] on this, um. I, you know,

[3:19:00] people love the grocery store,

[3:19:03] etc. I think the thing that is

[3:19:06] being raised that, uh, perhaps

[3:19:07] raises inconsistency with

[3:19:08] public interest is the

[3:19:09] heightened density here and,

[3:19:10] and the athletics have come a

[3:19:13] long way, but still, this is a

[3:19:14] lot in this particular spot,

[3:19:15] there is a lot of development

[3:19:17] here already, a lot of

[3:19:18] residential development. So I,

[3:19:20] I just want to acknowledge that

[3:19:20] I think we

[3:19:21] ve all heard that

[3:19:22] there is a lot of concern about

[3:19:24] that, and it

[3:19:24] s really been

[3:19:25] raising the question of whether

[3:19:26] there

[3:19:27] s some modification that

[3:19:28] Could address the concerns that

[3:19:30] have been raised about that. I,

[3:19:32] I recognize there have been

[3:19:32] some changes here. Y

[3:19:33] all have

[3:19:34] worked very hard on it, but the

[3:19:36] first blush, it looks very

[3:19:40] similar. And scale, uh, to the

[3:19:40] proposal we

[3:19:40] ve been seeing for

[3:19:42] a while, so, and I

[3:19:43] m hearing

[3:19:44] that from others in the

[3:19:45] community who are seeing this

[3:19:47] and the general reaction is

[3:19:48] essentially the same while

[3:19:52] there have been some, um,

[3:19:53] modifications involved in this

[3:19:54] and improvements. It is

[3:19:57] essentially the same proposal

[3:19:58] as was originally presented and

[3:19:59] that, you know, is a concern to

[3:20:02] a lot of people. Uh, I look

[3:20:03] forward to spending more time

[3:20:05] with us and getting a chance to,

[3:20:06] uh, digest this a little bit

[3:20:08] more, but I, I would hope that

[3:20:09] there would be a way for us to

[3:20:12] address some of those concerns.

[3:20:13] I also think that the phase 2

[3:20:18] thing It is very helpful to

[3:20:19] have made additional

[3:20:21] commitments around phase 2, but

[3:20:21] they

[3:20:22] re certainly not

[3:20:22] guarantees, and I

[3:20:23] m not sure

[3:20:23] we

[3:20:24] re yet at the stage where

[3:20:25] we

[3:20:26] ve seen a layout for what

[3:20:28] this area would look like under

[3:20:29] a fully developed approach here.

[3:20:31] I know that was a

[3:20:33] recommendation slash concern of

[3:20:34] staff, um, I

[3:20:34] m interested in

[3:20:35] looking further to see what, to

[3:20:36] what extent that

[3:20:37] s actually

[3:20:38] been addressed, but it would

[3:20:39] seem to me it

[3:20:41] s a valid, um

[3:20:44] Request, um, to have a closer

[3:20:45] understanding of what a full

[3:20:46] buildout would this look like

[3:20:47] with, uh, of this place would

[3:20:50] look like, uh, as a

[3:20:51] particularly, um, pays

[3:20:52] attention to commercial and

[3:20:54] restate retail development.

[3:20:56] Thank you. Council member Hardy

[3:21:02] Chandler. So there is a great

[3:21:04] deal of evidence that you have

[3:21:05] been listening and integrating

[3:21:06] what you

[3:21:07] ve been hearing into

[3:21:09] this next iteration of your

[3:21:13] proposal, um, I want to Um,

[3:21:16] echo some of the positives that

[3:21:17] people have been talking about

[3:21:19] the green spaces and those

[3:21:20] kinds of things and add to that

[3:21:22] list that you also listened in

[3:21:26] terms of, um, concerns about

[3:21:27] connectivity and that the

[3:21:31] roadway spaces as well as the

[3:21:33] pedestrian spaces, um, I do

[3:21:34] think that, and I don

[3:21:35] t have a

[3:21:36] question, my questions have

[3:21:40] been answered. I do think that,

[3:21:42] um, you are making an attempt

[3:21:42] to balance what

[3:21:45] s Needed in

[3:21:46] terms of development against

[3:21:47] what would happen if you did

[3:21:49] nothing, right? And I want to

[3:21:50] highlight what you were

[3:21:52] starting to say about that

[3:21:53] being the public policy of it

[3:21:57] not being the crown jewel and,

[3:21:59] um, really looking at how we

[3:22:00] re

[3:22:01] uplifting the whole activity

[3:22:04] area. I get the concerns about,

[3:22:07] um, about, uh, density, those

[3:22:09] are definitely an ongoing

[3:22:11] balancing act, and yet as has

[3:22:12] been mentioned, I think by the

[3:22:13] mayor several times, you know.

[3:22:16] Just in terms of having people

[3:22:19] near the spaces to support the

[3:22:21] retail aspects, I think is an

[3:22:22] important contribution, um,

[3:22:25] something has to be done there,

[3:22:26] um, and I think that every

[3:22:29] attempt has been made by your

[3:22:31] organization which has Invested

[3:22:34] in the city. Which that is

[3:22:35] another point I want to

[3:22:36] highlight that you have made

[3:22:38] other investments in the city,

[3:22:40] um, this is, I try not to look

[3:22:42] at things in isolation. This is

[3:22:43] yet another investment that

[3:22:44] you

[3:22:47] re making in our city to,

[3:22:49] um, kind of collectively, uh,

[3:22:51] elevate our sys our city, so I

[3:22:53] appreciate the work that you

[3:22:53] ve

[3:22:56] done. I appreciate listening,

[3:22:56] that

[3:22:58] s evident to me, um, doing

[3:23:00] nothing is not an option, and I

[3:23:01] think, uh, I supported this

[3:23:05] project in its prior iteration.

[3:23:06] Uh, so with the advancements

[3:23:06] that you

[3:23:07] ve made and showing

[3:23:09] once again that you

[3:23:09] re willing

[3:23:12] to listen to the feedback, um,

[3:23:13] I appreciate the changes that

[3:23:13] you

[3:23:14] ve made and I just want to

[3:23:17] highlight that, and again, uh,

[3:23:20] for me, no development on that

[3:23:22] very central spot in our city

[3:23:24] is is an option that I think

[3:23:26] goes against, um, public policy

[3:23:31] for our city, thank you. Uh,

[3:23:32] other comments, Council member

[3:23:34] Peterson, just to underscore, I

[3:23:34] don

[3:23:35] t think I

[3:23:37] m hearing from

[3:23:37] anybody, there

[3:23:38] s a preference

[3:23:42] for 0, redevelopment here. I

[3:23:43] think everybody, like many

[3:23:45] other spots in the city,

[3:23:46] virtually everybody is

[3:23:47] interested in that. The

[3:23:49] question is how. And that

[3:23:49] s

[3:23:51] really where the feedback has

[3:23:54] been, so, uh, again, I would

[3:23:55] hope that we would be able to

[3:23:59] focus a little bit more on the

[3:24:01] fundamentals of what that, um,

[3:24:03] question really, um, involves

[3:24:04] from the community in terms of

[3:24:07] what happens here. Thanks.

[3:24:09] Council member Amos? Last

[3:24:10] comment i

[3:24:11] ll make, uh, and it

[3:24:11] s

[3:24:14] a quick one just because I, I

[3:24:16] see some similarities to it and

[3:24:18] a lot of it depended on phase 1

[3:24:19] getting approved and then phase

[3:24:21] 2 ideally happening, but that

[3:24:23] phase 2 location does give me

[3:24:24] elements of Fairfax Quarter in

[3:24:28] it, and I do appreciate that.

[3:24:30] Other questions or comments? I

[3:24:33] like the the project, um. I

[3:24:33] ve

[3:24:34] been looking at the Safeway now

[3:24:38] for, you know, since 1981. And

[3:24:39] it is right in the center of

[3:24:41] our city, and when we talk

[3:24:42] about getting feedback from the

[3:24:44] public, that is the point of

[3:24:46] having a public hearing, and I

[3:24:48] do expect that we will hear

[3:24:49] from residents who have a

[3:24:50] vested interest, including the

[3:24:52] people across the street who

[3:24:54] are residents, but I hope we

[3:24:56] have a robust feedback from our

[3:24:58] businesses. I hope our

[3:24:59] businesses step up to say what

[3:25:03] it means to have 30,060 units

[3:25:05] right next door or right behind

[3:25:06] their buildings. The flats at

[3:25:09] university was our first foray

[3:25:10] into having housing in the

[3:25:12] downtown, which is great, but

[3:25:13] those students aren

[3:25:13] t there 12

[3:25:16] months out of the year. So our

[3:25:16] summertime doesn

[3:25:17] t look nearly

[3:25:20] as active as our fall and our

[3:25:21] spring, and so I hope our

[3:25:23] businesses will come out to

[3:25:26] talk about the, the economic

[3:25:29] impact of having housing in

[3:25:30] this location, we need to hear

[3:25:31] from everyone, and I do think

[3:25:33] that is why we have a public

[3:25:35] hearing, and I do want to

[3:25:36] acknowledge the fact that you

[3:25:36] didn

[3:25:38] t have to come back and

[3:25:39] Give us another chance, but,

[3:25:40] but you did and you

[3:25:42] incorporated so much of what

[3:25:44] you heard, including the people

[3:25:46] from the the muse who said, I

[3:25:46] don

[3:25:48] t like the color. I, I

[3:25:51] think you have, you have done

[3:25:52] your best to negotiate what

[3:25:57] works. Financially and from a

[3:25:59] property ownership standpoint,

[3:26:00] what works for combined

[3:26:02] properties, again, I agree with

[3:26:03] council member Hardy Chandler,

[3:26:04] you

[3:26:05] ve been deeply invested in

[3:26:08] our city for 6 decades, and we

[3:26:09] appreciate the fact that you

[3:26:10] keep improving the properties

[3:26:11] that you own here. It

[3:26:13] s a long

[3:26:14] term relationship, and I want

[3:26:15] to acknowledge that we

[3:26:16] appreciate all the work that

[3:26:16] s

[3:26:19] gone into this, and I do think

[3:26:20] there is an opportunity through

[3:26:21] public hearing for people to

[3:26:22] come and give us more

[3:26:25] information on this Project,

[3:26:27] but I do like the project, I do,

[3:26:29] I, I believe it is in the best

[3:26:32] interest long term of the city

[3:26:34] to redevelop this piece of

[3:26:35] property so close to our

[3:26:38] downtown. It is just It

[3:26:38] s

[3:26:39] something, something has to

[3:26:40] happen there, so thank you so

[3:26:42] much for the presentation and

[3:26:43] we look forward to seeing you

[3:26:52] again. MISS Shniberry? Ok, I

[3:26:54] will now reconvene the regular

[3:26:55] meeting and kick it over to our

[3:26:58] city manager, MR. Alexander.

[3:27:00] Thank you, Mayor and Council,

[3:27:02] uh, as you know, uh, after this

[3:27:03] meeting, he

[3:27:03] ll take us into a

[3:27:06] break. For a month and then we

[3:27:10] will be back for a robust work

[3:27:11] session on SEPTEMBER 1st

[3:27:13] reminder that is scheduled to

[3:27:13] start at 4 o

[3:27:15] clock, you will

[3:27:17] see a number of items on that

[3:27:21] work session. Um, for a reason,

[3:27:23] and we certainly wanted to try

[3:27:26] to do as much Workshopping as

[3:27:29] we can on those sessions, so

[3:27:29] you

[3:27:30] ll see pre-application

[3:27:34] briefings, um. Listed there for,

[3:27:38] uh, 3250 Blenheim. 10, 560 Main

[3:27:42] Street. And 3570 Chain Bridge

[3:27:46] Road. Uh, we will also bring

[3:27:50] back citywide level of service,

[3:27:51] uh, and dynamic capital impact

[3:27:54] modeling for discussion. We

[3:27:58] will, um, make a foray into our

[3:27:58] legislative program, and then

[3:28:01] we will have a discussion,

[3:28:01] which you

[3:28:04] ll see on consent

[3:28:05] later regarding the

[3:28:06] reappropriation of general

[3:28:08] operating capital and

[3:28:10] enterprise funds carrying over

[3:28:13] to 2027 from 2026. So again,

[3:28:13] that

[3:28:16] ll be, uh, pretty Um,

[3:28:20] robust work session on the 1st.

[3:28:23] Looking ahead to the 8th. Uh,

[3:28:27] on consent, you will see, uh,

[3:28:27] construction contract for

[3:28:30] University Drive bike lanes.

[3:28:32] And the consideration of

[3:28:33] resolution to cancel the vdot

[3:28:37] project. Uh, listed there. And

[3:28:38] then, um, as I mentioned,

[3:28:39] you

[3:28:40] ll see the introduction or

[3:28:41] consideration of the resolution

[3:28:43] for the reappropriation. That

[3:28:44] would have been workshopped on

[3:28:47] the meeting prior. Also items

[3:28:49] not requiring a public hearing

[3:28:50] will be the consideration of

[3:28:53] adopting the code of ethics. On

[3:28:56] the 8th. Looking ahead to

[3:29:00] finishing out SEPTEMBER. Um,

[3:29:01] public hearing and council

[3:29:03] action on a redevelopment of

[3:29:09] existing office. In 14

[3:29:10] townhouses at Mantua 9495,

[3:29:12] Silver King Court. And then if

[3:29:15] needed, a public hearing. In

[3:29:16] council action on the

[3:29:18] resolution for reappropriation.

[3:29:21] On that night, and that would

[3:29:22] wrap up SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER

[3:29:25] would be our second. Uh, work

[3:29:25] session starting at 4 o

[3:29:28] clock.

[3:29:29] Happy dancer, any other

[3:29:31] questions on items that we

[3:29:31] ve

[3:29:31] discussed or otherwise are

[3:29:34] ahead of us. All right.

[3:29:36] Questions on future? Uh,

[3:29:40] COUNCILMAN Hall. Just 2

[3:29:43] questions, I think, um. The

[3:29:45] University Drive bike lanes.

[3:29:45] That

[3:29:46] s the same conversation we

[3:29:48] just had a few minutes ago. Can

[3:29:51] we get a refresher on that? Did

[3:29:52] we see that as this counselor

[3:29:54] or was that a previous council?

[3:29:56] Am I just totally forgetting

[3:29:56] that we

[3:29:58] ve talked about it for

[3:29:59] a while, I know, but did we do

[3:30:00] a recent public hearing and all

[3:30:01] those things. I mean, I

[3:30:01] m sure

[3:30:03] that was closed out a while ago

[3:30:04] since we

[3:30:05] re at the

[3:30:07] consideration phase, but I

[3:30:07] m

[3:30:09] just really wondering and in

[3:30:11] light of the 10-foot sidewalks

[3:30:11] that they

[3:30:12] re considering is

[3:30:14] there maybe a better solution

[3:30:15] to a shared-use path there.

[3:30:16] Well, we

[3:30:16] ll, what we

[3:30:17] ll do is

[3:30:19] come back with Information

[3:30:22] generally about our plan. And

[3:30:23] more information specifically

[3:30:24] about this ahead of this

[3:30:25] meeting, well ahead of this

[3:30:26] meeting, so you have that

[3:30:27] information, yeah, I mean, we

[3:30:27] don

[3:30:28] t really have a lot of time

[3:30:29] because I know we have the

[3:30:29] AUGUST recess. I

[3:30:30] m certainly

[3:30:32] open to receiving information

[3:30:35] in AUGUST, um, but, ok, uh, and

[3:30:36] I, I will also do my due

[3:30:38] diligence and go back, um, and

[3:30:42] try to check that out. Um My

[3:30:43] second question and it

[3:30:44] s just a

[3:30:45] logistical one, is that we have

[3:30:46] a meeting on OCTOBER 13th,

[3:30:50] which I think is the final day

[3:30:52] of the vml conference. Are we?

[3:30:54] Is it, is there any actual

[3:30:56] conference that day and then

[3:30:56] we

[3:30:57] re coming home or it

[3:30:57] s only

[3:31:00] half day, so they wrap up about

[3:31:01] noon that day, so we should be

[3:31:03] home in time for a meeting, ok,

[3:31:08] perfect, thank you. Council

[3:31:09] member Amos follow-up question

[3:31:11] for SEPTEMBER 22nd, the

[3:31:12] Highlands of Mentua Project. If

[3:31:12] I

[3:31:13] m remembering that cor that

[3:31:15] correctly, I remember, oh gosh,

[3:31:15] I don

[3:31:17] t know if that was a

[3:31:19] pre-application that we did or

[3:31:21] was it a post submission, I

[3:31:22] mean, I think that was last

[3:31:23] year if I recall correctly, and

[3:31:24] that

[3:31:26] s the one where we had the

[3:31:27] conversation about whether to

[3:31:28] keep the tree landscaping there

[3:31:29] or they wanted to put in a park,

[3:31:34] if I recall. Yes, I believe you

[3:31:37] are correct, um, that, uh,

[3:31:39] application has now gone to the

[3:31:42] planning commission, um. There

[3:31:44] will be a communication to each

[3:31:46] of the members of council and

[3:31:48] the mayor for individual

[3:31:50] meetings to give you an update

[3:31:52] on that project from the

[3:31:54] development team and then any

[3:31:55] questions you MAY have. Thank

[3:31:57] you, just because it feels like

[3:31:57] it

[3:31:58] s been a pretty significant

[3:32:00] gap in time between when we

[3:32:01] spoke with them. I, again, I

[3:32:02] think it was last year, uh,

[3:32:04] versus, uh, this coming up in

[3:32:05] SEPTEMBER. So thank you. Yes,

[3:32:09] sir. Other questions, Council

[3:32:12] memberer Hall? So, are we gonna

[3:32:14] talk about the buck slip at

[3:32:15] another time or is this the

[3:32:17] right time? We can, I had it on

[3:32:18] the report out so I can kill

[3:32:19] birds we can talk about it then,

[3:32:19] that

[3:32:20] s fine. Thank you. That

[3:32:20] s

[3:32:25] fine. Council member Peterson.

[3:32:28] Can you, uh, clarify this the

[3:32:30] purpose and scope of the

[3:32:33] citywide level of service and

[3:32:37] dynamic capital impact model. I

[3:32:38] want to set expectations for

[3:32:40] what we will be receiving, what

[3:32:44] is the actual purpose and

[3:32:45] Substantive application of that

[3:32:47] we previously, I think,

[3:32:49] presented in a work session to

[3:32:49] counsel, but I

[3:32:50] ll go to the

[3:32:51] bullpen and ask Brooke to come

[3:32:57] up again. And this would be an

[3:33:00] update to that previous work

[3:33:00] session that council held,

[3:33:03] which was more of an

[3:33:07] introduction to the project and,

[3:33:10] um, a review of what the effort

[3:33:11] would be undertaking and, and

[3:33:13] what factors will be analyzed

[3:33:14] as part of, part of the project.

[3:33:19] This is to come back and share

[3:33:22] results of that analysis, um.

[3:33:23] It would not be a moment where

[3:33:26] we would ask for counsel

[3:33:32] approval, um, in terms of, um,

[3:33:33] considering proffer, uh, policy

[3:33:35] or anything of that nature, we

[3:33:36] would anticipate that based

[3:33:39] upon this discussion. The

[3:33:41] council would give staff

[3:33:43] feedback on those results and

[3:33:43] whether there

[3:33:45] s a desire to, to

[3:33:46] move forward with considering

[3:33:49] policies in terms of level of

[3:33:52] impact to various, um, um, uh,

[3:33:54] city infrastructure. And so

[3:33:56] that would be a future

[3:33:57] discussion, and so this will be

[3:33:59] to share the results to give a

[3:34:01] sense of what those impacts are,

[3:34:04] how those numbers calculate. Um,

[3:34:04] and whether there

[3:34:05] s a desire to

[3:34:07] continue to move forward to

[3:34:09] look at policies that would be

[3:34:10] part of the city

[3:34:10] s development

[3:34:14] review process. Let me

[3:34:17] understand if I might, um, a

[3:34:19] little bit more clearly, it is

[3:34:22] this, um, providing Guidance

[3:34:24] and benchmarks, uh, related to

[3:34:29] proffers. Potentially. Ok. So

[3:34:33] potentially that is this.

[3:34:37] Designed to be a Regulatory

[3:34:39] impact or public policy impact,

[3:34:45] um, assessment tool. It is a

[3:34:46] development impact assessment

[3:34:49] tool, and so the team has

[3:34:52] analyzed what, um, expenditures

[3:34:55] are associated with, um,

[3:34:56] development proposals, what

[3:34:58] that means in terms of the city

[3:35:01] infrastructure, um, and Whether

[3:35:04] or not there are, um, you know,

[3:35:06] what those financial impacts

[3:35:08] are, and so a level of service

[3:35:10] study would, would provide to

[3:35:17] the city, um, on a, um, per, uh,

[3:35:18] project basis what those

[3:35:21] impacts would be to things like

[3:35:23] Parks and Recreation facilities,

[3:35:26] school facilities, um,

[3:35:28] transportation infrastructure,

[3:35:29] public safety, infrastructure,

[3:35:31] and that analysis Good guide

[3:35:35] the city toward. A proffer

[3:35:37] policy for all of those items,

[3:35:40] you know, what, what the

[3:35:41] approach has been to this point

[3:35:42] has been those have been

[3:35:45] negotiated on a case by case

[3:35:47] basis, um, and not to get too

[3:35:48] deep into the proffer thing, I

[3:35:48] think we

[3:35:49] ve talked a little bit

[3:35:51] about that before, but the

[3:35:53] Commonwealth of Virginia in

[3:35:55] 2016 rewrote the rules in the

[3:35:58] state for proffers, which

[3:35:59] severely limited localities

[3:36:01] ability to negotiate for

[3:36:02] proffers since that time, we

[3:36:02] ve

[3:36:05] instituted some measures that

[3:36:07] have given us a little bit more

[3:36:10] flexibility to do that, and so

[3:36:10] we

[3:36:12] ve seen, um, the potential

[3:36:14] for for proffers to be offered,

[3:36:16] particularly in our activity

[3:36:18] centers because the code of

[3:36:20] Virginia carves out special

[3:36:21] provisions for areas covered by

[3:36:23] small area plans, and so that

[3:36:25] gives us some more ability to

[3:36:27] negotiate these things, what we

[3:36:30] would like to do is be a little

[3:36:31] bit more systematic in how we

[3:36:32] do that, um, and so it

[3:36:34] s Not an

[3:36:35] unknown to the council, it

[3:36:36] s

[3:36:39] not an unknown to a property

[3:36:40] owner or developer coming in as

[3:36:42] to what those expectations are,

[3:36:44] but that will be totally at the

[3:36:46] discretion of the council. This

[3:36:49] first discussion is to merely

[3:36:51] share the results of that

[3:36:52] analysis if the direction from

[3:36:53] the council from that point

[3:36:55] forward is yes, staff, we would

[3:36:58] like you to, to look at

[3:36:59] creating some policies that

[3:37:00] again could come back to the

[3:37:02] council and we consider whether

[3:37:02] that

[3:37:02] s something that the

[3:37:04] council wants. To adopt. That

[3:37:04] s

[3:37:05] what we

[3:37:07] ll do. Is this an

[3:37:10] accounting tool? So that we

[3:37:10] know when we

[3:37:11] re looking at a

[3:37:13] project, uh, from an accounting

[3:37:17] standpoint. What the outlays Uh,

[3:37:19] outlays and expenditures are

[3:37:20] for a particular decision we

[3:37:23] make, is that Correct

[3:37:24] Accounting on who

[3:37:25] s on whose

[3:37:26] books I mean, services and

[3:37:28] infrastructure from an

[3:37:29] accounting standpoint, the

[3:37:31] public accounting standpoint,

[3:37:32] what are we spending as a

[3:37:33] consequence of a decision on

[3:37:34] the development. Is that the

[3:37:36] question this is answering? Not,

[3:37:37] not necessarily. That

[3:37:37] s

[3:37:40] something that. So the city

[3:37:42] does a fiscal impact analysis

[3:37:44] analysis for each one of the

[3:37:45] significant projects that come

[3:37:47] forward to the council, and

[3:37:47] that

[3:37:48] s part of your staff

[3:37:50] report that you see at a, at a

[3:37:53] public hearing that accounts

[3:37:56] For anticipated revenues and

[3:37:57] expenditures for any

[3:37:59] development, um, and looking at

[3:37:59] the city

[3:38:00] s budget and what

[3:38:02] those costs are to the city and

[3:38:04] then in terms of the

[3:38:05] development proposal, what

[3:38:07] revenues that, that we

[3:38:07] anticipate coming in. So that

[3:38:08] s

[3:38:13] a part of what we do today, um,

[3:38:16] and that looks at city costs

[3:38:19] kind of across, um, you know,

[3:38:20] across the entirety of the

[3:38:24] budget, the Level of service

[3:38:26] would look at physical impacts,

[3:38:27] we look at infrastructure

[3:38:30] impacts, things that the city

[3:38:31] can potentially get proffers

[3:38:32] for so they can

[3:38:32] t get proffers

[3:38:35] for operational. Costs the

[3:38:38] localities can get proffers for

[3:38:40] physical infrastructure and

[3:38:41] expansion of capacity of

[3:38:43] physical infrastructure. That

[3:38:44] s

[3:38:46] associated with the development

[3:38:46] that

[3:38:47] s being proposed, and so

[3:38:48] the level of services looks

[3:38:51] more at the, at the

[3:38:52] infrastructure side of the

[3:38:54] equation, not, not so much the

[3:38:55] overall fiscal impact, but that

[3:38:57] is part of what the council

[3:38:59] receives as well. Is this

[3:39:01] somewhere where it already is

[3:39:04] scoped and we can look at its

[3:39:06] current status in terms of what

[3:39:07] it

[3:39:08] s covering is there

[3:39:08] something that you know I could

[3:39:10] read, for instance, or anybody

[3:39:12] else could read about the, the

[3:39:17] scope of this, we Uh, the, the

[3:39:20] materials that, that we brought

[3:39:22] forward previously. Uh, we

[3:39:22] don

[3:39:23] t have necessarily have the

[3:39:25] materials that will be

[3:39:27] presented in SEPTEMBER ready to,

[3:39:28] to bring forward yet, but we

[3:39:28] ll

[3:39:29] share, we

[3:39:29] ll share those as

[3:39:30] soon as they

[3:39:31] re available. As

[3:39:32] well, well, that

[3:39:33] d be real

[3:39:34] helpful. I mean, I think the

[3:39:36] general thing is on, uh,

[3:39:38] FEBRUARY 14th, I think, uh, we

[3:39:40] had a discussion about

[3:39:40] development land use

[3:39:42] applications and the city

[3:39:43] manager listed out a whole

[3:39:51] series of Um, impacts. That

[3:39:53] could and typically are

[3:39:56] included in assessments of the,

[3:39:57] um, full suite of impacts

[3:40:00] associated with the development

[3:40:01] or land use application, safety,

[3:40:02] crime risk, you name it, right

[3:40:06] down the list here. And that

[3:40:08] sounds like that, um, you know,

[3:40:08] it

[3:40:10] s a set of socioeconomic

[3:40:15] impacts. Public, public impacts

[3:40:15] here, that

[3:40:16] s this would provide.

[3:40:21] Only the fiscal dimensions of

[3:40:23] that with respect to services

[3:40:24] and infrastructure, but it

[3:40:24] s

[3:40:26] not, this is really not what

[3:40:29] impact um. Are we able to

[3:40:31] determine in terms of the

[3:40:33] effect of these decisions on

[3:40:34] elevated crime risk and the

[3:40:36] response that we will have to,

[3:40:38] you know, uh, engineer in terms

[3:40:41] of that, things like that. Is

[3:40:42] that a fair understanding? Ok,

[3:40:43] so there

[3:40:44] s a broader piece of

[3:40:46] this that this really is not

[3:40:48] looking at, um, I, I would like

[3:40:51] to see if I might, and I

[3:40:51] m sure

[3:40:52] everybody would, what that is

[3:40:54] because I think there is a

[3:40:56] broader question mark about how

[3:40:59] we assess, um, from a public.

[3:41:01] Inter standpoint, um, the

[3:41:02] impacts and the opportunities

[3:41:04] associated with these decisions

[3:41:05] we make and it would be great

[3:41:08] for that to be as inclusive as

[3:41:09] possible, so I think we send

[3:41:11] you what we have up to this

[3:41:13] point that also say at this

[3:41:15] point also that will offer each

[3:41:16] of you an opportunity to have a

[3:41:17] conversation with the head of

[3:41:19] the work session, which will

[3:41:21] benefit the conversation at the

[3:41:22] morgue session that, that would

[3:41:24] be great, and it would be great

[3:41:26] if there could be with respect

[3:41:27] to the fiscal impact analysis

[3:41:29] that we do now. Um, a little

[3:41:31] bit of transparency in terms of

[3:41:31] what

[3:41:32] s actually in that. I

[3:41:37] would love to see that. Thanks.

[3:41:40] Any other questions or comments

[3:41:43] on the future meeting topics.

[3:41:45] Saying none, we will go to the,

[3:41:46] the manager

[3:41:47] s report out. Thank

[3:41:50] you, Mayor and Council, um, as

[3:41:51] was mentioned earlier, we did

[3:41:56] send you This morning a, what

[3:41:57] s

[3:41:58] called in buckslip,

[3:41:59] Informational item Buck because

[3:41:59] it

[3:42:02] s the size of a dollar that

[3:42:04] we would like to maybe include

[3:42:05] in the personal property tax

[3:42:07] bills that will be mailed out

[3:42:08] in SEPTEMBER, the idea is to

[3:42:11] give us some more transparency

[3:42:13] and information on how our

[3:42:15] general fund dollars are spent

[3:42:17] and investments are made both

[3:42:18] in operating and capital, uh,

[3:42:21] we provided you an example in

[3:42:22] the the timeliness issue really

[3:42:24] is one of I know the

[3:42:25] treasurer

[3:42:25] s office wanted to

[3:42:28] know we had consensus from

[3:42:29] council before we coordinated

[3:42:31] with them, um, in order to, to

[3:42:33] push that out, and so this is

[3:42:35] an opportunity to get some

[3:42:36] feedback from you on that item

[3:42:38] so that we can quickly turn it

[3:42:40] around, um, and, and again

[3:42:42] coordinate, uh, the process of

[3:42:45] getting that out to, um, our

[3:42:47] residents, so happy to take any

[3:42:48] feedback from you on what you

[3:42:49] saw and what you might want to

[3:42:50] see out of that understanding,

[3:42:51] it

[3:42:51] s, it

[3:42:54] s just big, so.

[3:42:55] Council member Hall and then

[3:42:57] council member Hardy Chandler.

[3:42:58] Thank you, I know I

[3:42:58] ve been

[3:43:00] asking for this for a while and

[3:43:01] I think actually with the

[3:43:01] interim, so I

[3:43:02] m really, really

[3:43:04] happy to see that this is

[3:43:06] moving forward. Um, I really

[3:43:08] just have 2 suggestions. 1 is

[3:43:09] maybe just add a thank you for

[3:43:13] paying your taxes. Um, and also

[3:43:14] on the backside of it, there

[3:43:15] s

[3:43:16] an area on the bottom right

[3:43:20] where It had a, the percentages

[3:43:20] of certain things and there was

[3:43:24] a, a bit of a Are available.

[3:43:24] I

[3:43:26] m wondering if maybe we could

[3:43:28] add a qr code that would direct

[3:43:31] people to the fiscal year 2027

[3:43:32] budget and just say, you know,

[3:43:32] here

[3:43:33] s Here

[3:43:34] s a link to this,

[3:43:36] um. Hopefully that won

[3:43:36] t add

[3:43:38] too much. Extra effort, but

[3:43:40] that was just my suggestion to,

[3:43:42] you know, kind of, here

[3:43:42] s the

[3:43:43] basic information, and then if

[3:43:44] you want more information, here

[3:43:45] it is. Nice, easy e, ready to

[3:43:50] go. Thank you. Council member

[3:43:52] Hardy Chandler, I think I

[3:43:53] responded that I absolutely

[3:43:56] support this. I think, um, the

[3:43:57] visual helps people understand

[3:43:57] that it

[3:43:58] s not going into a

[3:44:00] black hole, it really is going

[3:44:01] to services and how those

[3:44:03] services are divided. So I

[3:44:03] d

[3:44:05] absolutely support that. Is

[3:44:07] there any question of the cost

[3:44:09] of adding that to the mailing

[3:44:11] of the bills, just minuscule

[3:44:13] that we got consensus from

[3:44:14] counsel before you approach the

[3:44:16] treasurer again on, on this

[3:44:17] process. Well, I, I think it

[3:44:17] ll

[3:44:19] be very beneficial. To all of

[3:44:20] the residents of the city. So

[3:44:23] thank you very much. Council

[3:44:27] member McQuillan. Yeah, I love

[3:44:28] this idea ever since, uh,

[3:44:29] COUNCILMAN Hall brought it

[3:44:30] forth. I think this is great.

[3:44:34] Thank you so much. Any other

[3:44:35] feedback, Council member

[3:44:38] Peterson? Well, I think this a

[3:44:40] separate thing that it kind of

[3:44:41] gets to the last conversation,

[3:44:41] but it

[3:44:42] d be great to kind of

[3:44:44] boil this down to a

[3:44:45] communications format is every

[3:44:47] time we make a decision here,

[3:44:49] it has, well, not every time,

[3:44:53] but very often it has, uh, out

[3:44:55] of pocket expense implications

[3:44:56] on residents and I like to use

[3:44:57] the term neighborhood math,

[3:44:58] people need to understand if

[3:44:58] you do this, what

[3:44:59] s coming out

[3:45:02] of my back pocket next year.

[3:45:04] And, um, it would be great to

[3:45:10] be Regular about lifting that

[3:45:11] information out of the

[3:45:13] decisions we make so that

[3:45:15] people who are tuning in, uh,

[3:45:16] can know and we need to invite

[3:45:17] other people to tune into that,

[3:45:18] so I, I don

[3:45:19] t think this is

[3:45:20] exactly the same thing, but I

[3:45:21] think they

[3:45:22] re related. I would

[3:45:22] say also it

[3:45:23] s not just a matter

[3:45:26] when we make decisions of the

[3:45:27] out of pocket expenses that,

[3:45:29] you know, people are facing as

[3:45:31] a consequence of it, but just a

[3:45:32] reminder, we

[3:45:33] re also helping

[3:45:34] people save, reduce those out

[3:45:37] of pocket expenses we we On

[3:45:38] energy, you know, clean energy

[3:45:41] things that are actually cost

[3:45:42] savings things, um, and then

[3:45:42] we

[3:45:43] ve done things that

[3:45:45] proactively are designed to

[3:45:46] increase revenues, commercial,

[3:45:48] economic, household, etc. It

[3:45:50] just would be good from a

[3:45:52] communication standpoint for a

[3:45:53] resident to know when we make

[3:45:54] decisions, what

[3:45:54] s the plus and

[3:45:55] the minus, you know, that

[3:45:55] s

[3:45:57] going on here, and I, and again,

[3:46:00] that has to be in terms they

[3:46:01] can understand and what they

[3:46:02] typically understand very well.

[3:46:02] It

[3:46:02] s what

[3:46:04] s coming out of my

[3:46:06] back pocket this year. So I

[3:46:07] know we don

[3:46:08] t have that exactly,

[3:46:10] and that MAY be, um, ground for

[3:46:11] further creative thinking, but

[3:46:12] I just wanted to suggest it.

[3:46:17] Yep. Any other comments? I

[3:46:20] think, I think that we have

[3:46:22] consensus that the idea is good,

[3:46:24] it is helpful for people to

[3:46:25] visualize where their dollar

[3:46:28] goes, so I think you

[3:46:29] ve gotten

[3:46:30] feedback and other than that, I,

[3:46:31] I, I think we

[3:46:32] re all nodding in

[3:46:33] agreement that this is a go.

[3:46:37] Thank you. Anything else, MR.

[3:46:38] City Manager? That

[3:46:39] s it, thank

[3:46:39] you. That

[3:46:40] s it for you. Ok,

[3:46:42] then we will do the councils,

[3:46:47] council member Amos. Thank you,

[3:46:48] uh, so looking over to Melissa,

[3:46:49] she wanted to quickly go over

[3:46:51] the, the BACs and setting up

[3:46:52] that for AUGUST, I believe.

[3:46:56] Thank you, Council Member Amos.

[3:46:58] So each of you have a printout

[3:47:00] of, um, the 1st 2 pages are

[3:47:00] vacancies that

[3:47:01] s gonna be

[3:47:03] advertised in the AUGUST city

[3:47:05] scene, as you see on the second

[3:47:06] page, it

[3:47:08] s the h cab 17

[3:47:11] positions that are coming up.

[3:47:11] For reappointment or

[3:47:15] appointments. Uh, on the third

[3:47:17] page is the applicants I have

[3:47:19] on deck that would be ready to

[3:47:21] be interviewed, there are 20

[3:47:23] people listed on here. And I

[3:47:24] m

[3:47:25] bringing this forward because a

[3:47:26] council member had brought this

[3:47:29] up last week about maybe doing

[3:47:30] an AUGUST interview night, so I

[3:47:32] wanted to get feedback if there

[3:47:34] be a consensus or at least 4

[3:47:36] council members that would be

[3:47:39] available in AUGUST. And I

[3:47:40] would say either the, we keep

[3:47:41] it on a Tuesday, either the

[3:47:44] 11th, 18th, or the 25th.

[3:47:44] Because next week

[3:47:44] s national

[3:47:49] night out. Ok, so feedback and

[3:47:49] we

[3:47:50] ll just start with Council

[3:47:54] Member Amos. Uh, AUGUST is a

[3:47:56] bit of a rough month for me, so

[3:47:56] it

[3:47:57] s unlikely I

[3:47:58] ll be able to,

[3:47:59] however, if I were to be able

[3:48:01] to finesse it, it would need to

[3:48:01] be towards the end of the month,

[3:48:05] so the 18th or the 25th. If we

[3:48:08] stick with Tuesday. Ok, council

[3:48:10] member Hall, I would prefer not

[3:48:11] the 25th as our kids go back to

[3:48:15] school the day before. So I am

[3:48:16] otherwise, um, the 11th or the

[3:48:19] 18th work fine for me. Ok,

[3:48:22] Council member Hardy Chandler.

[3:48:27] I believe I can do the 18th.

[3:48:27] Council member Peterson, I

[3:48:28] m

[3:48:31] flexible. Ok, Council member

[3:48:32] Bates, any of those work for me?

[3:48:38] Mhm. Oh, sorry, Oh, sorry the

[3:48:39] 11th or the 18th, please. Ok,

[3:48:41] it looks like the 18th is the

[3:48:43] winner, ok, and this next

[3:48:44] question, like I said, I have

[3:48:47] 20 people on deck, is there a

[3:48:48] certain amount you wanna bring

[3:48:51] that night? We do 4 an hour, so.

[3:48:53] That

[3:48:58] s a long time. I can.

[3:49:01] Council member Peterson. So I

[3:49:02] m

[3:49:03] looking at the list and if I

[3:49:03] ve

[3:49:07] got it right, 123456789, 1011,

[3:49:10] 12, like 12 or 13 are housing

[3:49:10] and healthing Communities

[3:49:12] advisory Board, did I get that

[3:49:14] right? So some of them have

[3:49:16] long titles because they

[3:49:17] represent a certain position on

[3:49:18] there, so really on there,

[3:49:18] there

[3:49:19] s, let me get my glasses

[3:49:21] on. Ok, yeah, my eyes are not,

[3:49:22] my eyes are not working there

[3:49:22] s

[3:49:24] like 6 right now. Ok, yeah,

[3:49:26] thank you. Gosh, that was hard

[3:49:27] to figure out. Well, there

[3:49:27] s, I

[3:49:27] didn

[3:49:28] t wanna, you know, just

[3:49:30] put names on there. I at least

[3:49:33] You know, show like what

[3:49:34] position they represent, but I

[3:49:35] wonder whether that

[3:49:36] s sort of a

[3:49:38] stack that we might set aside

[3:49:38] and do that, that

[3:49:39] s a bunch of

[3:49:40] folks and that if we split it

[3:49:42] so that somehow or another we

[3:49:42] weren

[3:49:44] t doing them all at once,

[3:49:45] that would be an option for

[3:49:49] that being set aside. So their

[3:49:52] terms are not open till JANUARY,

[3:49:54] yes. So on the last page, I

[3:49:57] have a list of all of the

[3:49:57] applicants would be

[3:49:59] reappointments for the rest of

[3:50:01] the year, they vary some terms

[3:50:04] end in SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER,

[3:50:09] NOVEMBER, or DECEMBER. Ok, ok.

[3:50:11] I think my suggestion would be.

[3:50:12] Pull out the health and housing,

[3:50:13] I

[3:50:15] m sorry, housing and Healthy

[3:50:16] Communities Advisory Board and

[3:50:17] do them separately and then we

[3:50:18] could probably get everybody

[3:50:21] else in one night. I agree with

[3:50:22] that for everybody else agrees

[3:50:25] with that. Yeah. All right,

[3:50:26] that

[3:50:26] s all I need, I

[3:50:27] ll get

[3:50:29] back on the date, or we can

[3:50:30] just see, well, we

[3:50:31] ll see, ok,

[3:50:33] we can do the 18th since

[3:50:33] everybody

[3:50:33] s pretty much on the

[3:50:37] 18th. Ok. We could start at 7

[3:50:39] or we could start at 6, your

[3:50:45] preference? Ok. 6, ok. Yeah, I

[3:50:47] was like. Don

[3:50:48] t chime in unless

[3:50:48] you

[3:50:49] re definitely gonna come

[3:50:51] right, right, right, right, I

[3:50:51] forgot it

[3:50:53] s still on me. Ok,

[3:50:55] thank you. All good. So

[3:50:57] pivoting back real quick, um,

[3:50:59] another, I guess, calendar

[3:50:59] clarification doesn

[3:51:00] t need to

[3:51:02] be during council comments. I

[3:51:02] know Brian Lubcomman responded

[3:51:04] to us about the pickets reserve

[3:51:07] visit on Saturday. So if folks

[3:51:08] wanna message on how we want to

[3:51:09] go about that, we can handle

[3:51:12] that separately. So I

[3:51:13] ll just

[3:51:15] mention that, um, last 2 items,

[3:51:17] uh, National Night Out, just

[3:51:18] want to celebrate our police

[3:51:19] and thank the communities who

[3:51:21] are hosting for them next week

[3:51:23] and, uh, shout out to Courtside

[3:51:25] Tie on your 20 years of of

[3:51:28] activity and, uh, serving the

[3:51:28] great citizens of Fairfax City,

[3:51:31] so thank you. Council member

[3:51:34] Hall. Uh, I want to thank

[3:51:36] Ornery for many, many years of

[3:51:38] service to our city very, very

[3:51:40] sad to see them close. It seems

[3:51:43] to be a tough spot there, um,

[3:51:45] and I loved you when you were

[3:51:46] upstairs, I loved you when you

[3:51:48] were downstairs, and I just sad

[3:51:52] to see you go. Um, and I don

[3:51:52] t

[3:51:55] really have much else prepared.

[3:51:57] I wish everyone a quiet month

[3:51:59] in AUGUST while we don

[3:51:59] t have

[3:51:59] council meetings. I

[3:52:01] m sure

[3:52:01] staff will appreciate the

[3:52:04] somewhat Hiatus of dealing with

[3:52:06] all of us on a weekly basis,

[3:52:06] we

[3:52:08] ll make sure to check in, I

[3:52:09] promise, um, and as I said

[3:52:10] earlier to my colleagues, I

[3:52:12] just want to thank you all for

[3:52:14] your flexibility for our remote

[3:52:15] participation policy with the

[3:52:16] things that were going on with

[3:52:18] my dad, um. Things are

[3:52:19] definitely looking up. He went

[3:52:21] on as a first solo walks and

[3:52:23] things are good. Um, and if I

[3:52:24] owe you an email, it will be

[3:52:29] coming this week, I promise. Um,

[3:52:32] and, uh, I know we had

[3:52:34] difficult conversations tonight

[3:52:36] with regard to the adu

[3:52:38] conversation, but I do want to

[3:52:40] say that I think we had

[3:52:42] respectful conversation, I

[3:52:43] think we were all able to share

[3:52:44] our thoughts and feelings in a

[3:52:46] way that, you know, is, is what

[3:52:47] we should be doing on council

[3:52:48] here, whether we Disagree or

[3:52:50] agree at the end of the evening

[3:52:51] about it, um, you know, we

[3:52:51] re

[3:52:53] all able to still get together

[3:52:54] and laugh and do the other

[3:52:55] things, which makes me think, I

[3:52:55] think we

[3:52:56] re also due for a

[3:52:58] night out. To our planner over

[3:53:06] here on the right. I got you.

[3:53:08] Council member Hardy Chandler,

[3:53:10] I hope everyone enjoys a

[3:53:11] restful break except for

[3:53:13] breaking the brake for other

[3:53:14] tasks. Looking forward to

[3:53:15] National Night Out. I

[3:53:15] ll look

[3:53:17] forward to trivia night day if

[3:53:19] we do get together, um, happy

[3:53:23] summer. Councilor Peterson.

[3:53:24] Well, likewise, so I think

[3:53:25] everybody deserves a good break,

[3:53:27] and I hope they take advantage

[3:53:30] of it. So I, believe it or not,

[3:53:31] was the last customer to leave

[3:53:33] winery, uh, on its last night

[3:53:38] on Sunday. Yeah, very, um Yeah,

[3:53:41] sad, but I had, um, a long

[3:53:42] conversation with the owner,

[3:53:43] and as it turns out, it

[3:53:43] s been

[3:53:46] a little bit of a busy week

[3:53:50] because um it just happenstance

[3:53:52] had long conversations with

[3:53:53] other restaurant owners in Old

[3:53:58] Town, some Past recent and some

[3:54:00] current, uh, and I think they

[3:54:01] kind of sense that came out of

[3:54:04] all those conversations is that

[3:54:07] there is a conversation that

[3:54:07] hasn

[3:54:10] t exactly happened yet, um,

[3:54:12] with that community about, um,

[3:54:12] what their needs are and how

[3:54:15] they might be met, and I think

[3:54:17] in their view, um, ain

[3:54:19] t so

[3:54:21] easy. There are multiple

[3:54:23] factors at play here, um, and I

[3:54:25] just wanted to, um, suggests

[3:54:28] that we find a way somehow or

[3:54:29] another to have that

[3:54:30] conversation that is perhaps

[3:54:31] something our economic

[3:54:32] development director could help

[3:54:33] with. I

[3:54:35] m not sure, but I think

[3:54:36] my sense from talking, uh, with

[3:54:39] all of them, and these are

[3:54:43] people who are, um, pretty

[3:54:44] capable business analysts as

[3:54:47] well as being entrepreneurs,

[3:54:50] they, they had, um, kind of an

[3:54:52] advanced sense of the challenge

[3:54:52] that they

[3:54:53] re facing and they

[3:54:53] re

[3:54:55] looking for a way to kind of

[3:54:56] Unpack that in some meaningful

[3:54:57] way, so I

[3:54:57] d, I

[3:54:57] d like to

[3:54:58] encourage us to find a way to

[3:54:59] do that because it

[3:55:00] s, you know,

[3:55:00] it

[3:55:02] s tough, uh, people put

[3:55:04] their lives into these

[3:55:06] businesses, um, it

[3:55:06] s

[3:55:07] interesting the the one thing

[3:55:09] that small business people have

[3:55:10] in common, according to

[3:55:11] McKinsey, is that they work all

[3:55:14] the time and they go to the gym

[3:55:15] regularly, and this is a set of

[3:55:16] people who

[3:55:17] s an example of

[3:55:20] folks who work all the time and

[3:55:22] to see this, uh, cycle kind of

[3:55:23] happened where people have to

[3:55:25] check out because, uh, they Not

[3:55:27] able to keep up is a hard thing,

[3:55:29] so I just want to shout out for

[3:55:31] them. I certainly, uh, feel,

[3:55:32] feel their pain and want to do

[3:55:33] everything we can here to be

[3:55:36] helpful for them. Thanks

[3:55:39] Council Member Bates. I just

[3:55:42] want to wish everyone a happy

[3:55:43] national night out, um, and

[3:55:44] echo Council member Amos

[3:55:44] s

[3:55:47] comments, uh, thanking our, uh,

[3:55:49] local police. Thank you.

[3:55:51] Council Member McQuillan. I too

[3:55:53] am looking forward to National

[3:55:56] Night Out, and I also was able

[3:55:57] to visit Ornery before they

[3:55:59] closed their doors this weekend

[3:55:59] and we

[3:56:01] ll be sad to see them go,

[3:56:03] um, wishing all of our staff a

[3:56:09] great month off. Thank you. Ok,

[3:56:10] and I want to remind everybody

[3:56:13] that Frozen, the City of

[3:56:14] Fairfax Theater Company

[3:56:14] s

[3:56:15] production is currently playing

[3:56:16] and we

[3:56:17] ll be going with the

[3:56:18] grandchildren to see that on

[3:56:20] Saturday the 1st, so I

[3:56:21] encourage everybody to go see

[3:56:22] Frozen. I know you know all the

[3:56:25] words to the songs. We also

[3:56:26] have Restaurant Week from

[3:56:29] AUGUST 20th to 30th, so please,

[3:56:30] please support our local

[3:56:31] restaurants. Speaking of our

[3:56:32] local restaurants, get out

[3:56:34] there, try some new ones, take

[3:56:37] friends and family. We did that

[3:56:38] in this particular time period

[3:56:39] because the George Mason

[3:56:41] students are returning to the

[3:56:43] campus on AUGUST the 26th, and

[3:56:44] please always keep in mind that

[3:56:47] Fairfax City is in fact George

[3:56:48] Mason University

[3:56:48] s hometown, so

[3:56:50] we need to kind of represent

[3:56:52] out there, welcome the students

[3:56:52] and their parents back when we

[3:56:55] see them around town. And with

[3:56:55] that, I

[3:56:58] m going to adjourn the

[3:56:59] meeting at 10:57 P.M. On

City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript