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

[0:01] Good evening. I would like to call the regular meeting of July 28, 20262 order. If you are able and so choose, please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
[0:13] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[0:26] I would now like to invite the Parks and Recreation Department to come down for the Proclamation
[0:31] acknowledging July as Parks and Recreation Month.
[1:01] Bras.
[1:02] The City of Fairfax Parks and Recreation Department is dedicated to developing and maintaining
[1:07] beautiful, safe and environmentally friendly open spaces for the public to use an enjoy.
[1:14] Creating a affordable, comprehensive and amazing experiences, a sense of community that enriches
[1:20] people's lives contributing to the well-being of the individual, family, and visitors to our city.
[1:27] And whereas a strategic master plan for Parks and Recreation was passed unanimously by
[1:32] the Fairfax City Council in 2014, committing city resources to ongoing investment in our
[1:38] 25 public parks, walking trails, open space, recreational programming, cultural arts, and
[1:45] events. And whereas programming is offered to serve children through camps, older adults,
[1:52] through the senior center at Green Acres, and classes for all ages held year-round at
[1:56] locations across the city, offering opportunities for educational enrichment, skill building,
[2:02] and recreation. And whereas Fairfax City events drop people from all over the region,
[2:07] for our chocolate lovers festival, our independence day parade, most years, fall festival,
[2:13] and other celebrations, including Rock the Block, from May to October, all made possible by parks and recreation staff and their collaborative partnerships with other Fairfax City departments.
[2:25] And whereas cultural arts events such as the Spotlight on the Arts, City of Fairfax Band performances and other theater and dance performances held venues throughout Fairfax City are facilitated and supported by the work of our parks and recreation staff.
[2:40] And whereas environmental sustainability and stewardship is central to our parks, trails and open spaces,
[2:48] prioritizing a healthy tree canopy and working to implement best practices regarding the planting and care of the city's green spaces.
[2:56] And whereas a vibrant community with events and parks is central to sustaining and growing our economic development,
[3:03] drawing visitors to our city and attracting new residents who choose to make their home here.
[3:08] And whereas playgrounds, ball fields, practice fields, and pavilions within our city provide
[3:14] children and their families a safe, accessible, and well-located area in which to enjoy
[3:20] outdoor play, sports, and celebrations.
[3:23] And whereas the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as parks and recreation
[3:31] month, now therefore I, Catherine S. Reed, mayor of the City of Fairfax on behalf of all
[3:37] residents of the city of Fairfax, declare the month of July with celebrations extending through
[3:43] August as parks and recreation month in the city of Fairfax, and I encourage residents
[3:48] and visitors to enjoy all that our city has to offer through our investments made in parks,
[3:54] trails, programs, cultural arts, and special events. Let's give it up for parks and recreation.
[4:03] Thank you. We just want to thank Mayor and Council for acknowledging us through this
[4:07] And we are also lucky to work in a community that is so supportive of parks and recreation and our parks facilities trails and programs are so amazing because we have an incredible team.
[4:18] So thank you.
[4:20] And now a photograph.
[4:24] All right.
[4:24] All right, sir.
[4:25] Everybody's swam.
[4:53] Not you, Katie McCamon.
[4:55] I need you back here.
[4:57] Who's taking this?
[5:06] So, Catherine McCamman also known affectionately throughout the city as Katie Mack. We have something special for you.
[5:16] And let me just start by saying for people who do not know Katie Mack. She has been with us for almost 15 years. She started out here 14 years ago, for sure, as a camp counselor, was hired as an intern, was hired in cultural arts and events management,
[5:33] have worked your way all the way up to recreation manager, and in that time, she has committed
[5:41] herself to so many things in this city that are not even part of her job description, which
[5:46] is why, today, we are going to honor Katie for this right here. The beautiful design
[5:53] you saw all over this city for the 250th Anniversary celebration was designed by Katie Mac because
[6:01] She is talented because she is talented and she is generous and she does things for the city because after almost 15 years everything she does reflects how much she cares about all of us.
[6:13] So in light and I'm going to show you that right here because it has the look on it.
[6:18] Katie McCamman, for your exceptional talent,
[6:25] creativity, and dedication in designing the official logo of the City of Fairfax
[6:29] commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.
[6:35] Your contribution will serve as a source of community pride and a meaningful
[6:39] emblem of this historic milestone, helping to unite residents in the celebration of
[6:44] 250 years of history, achievement, and progress.
[6:48] Thank you, Katie, for all you do for us every single day.
[6:51] But particularly for your gift and your talent,
[6:54] that really set us apart in this national celebration.
[6:58] Would you like to say a few words?
[7:02] Thank you.
[7:02] I guess I don't know if this was happening, so.
[7:06] I appreciate it, and I'm love working here, so thank you all for everything
[7:10] needed to support our department, and it's a lot of us to make all these things happen.
[7:13] Okay, now picture. And a picture.
[7:48] Yes,
[7:54] hang on to it for those of you who got a yard sign.
[7:57] And for those of you who have t-shirts, you know, the emblems on the t-shirts,
[8:00] hang on to those things. Really, we have the best looking logo in the entire nation.
[8:05] I feel firmly confident about that.
[8:08] We will now move on to the agenda adoption.
[8:11] Is there a motion to approve the agenda?
[8:13] I moved to adopt the agenda as presented.
[8:16] second. Okay, a motion has been made in seconded a roll call vote.
[8:21] Council member Amos. Council member Hall. Council member Hardy Chandler.
[8:25] Council member Peterson. Council member Bates. Council member McCullan.
[8:30] I motion passed unanimously. We will go on to initial general public comment.
[8:34] I had three people signed up by five o'clock p.m. today and I'm going to call the first speaker up which is Stacey Lankton.
[9:09] In the fall of 2020, this city council, apparently, went along with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to remove so-called offensive monuments in landmarks.
[9:20] They voted on September 15 of that year to remove to U.S. Navy Civil War era, howitzer cannons, which stood on the lawn of the historic Fairfax County Courthouse here in Fairfax City,
[9:33] along with a large stone monument that marked this place as one of the locations of the first battles of the Civil War
[9:40] and it marked the death of John Quincy Mar on June 1st of 1861, the very first Confederate soldier to die at the hands of a Union Soldier in the Civil War.
[9:51] That summer 2020 was the summer of Woke when political correctness ran a muck nationwide along with all of the looters and
[10:00] In protestors of antifa and other leftist groups, who burned the downtown areas of several cities across
[10:06] our land.
[10:07] The idea of political correctness is a distinctly communist phenomenon.
[10:11] It was created by the Bolsheviks in 1918 when they murdered bizarre and the royal family
[10:16] in Russia and took over the government.
[10:18] Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin emphasized that strong adherence to the ideology of their new regime
[10:24] was an essential requirement of citizens.
[10:26] If you deviated from their political correctness, you would be severely punished.
[10:31] You would lose the ability to buy or sell and you might even lose your life.
[10:35] The Bolsheviks' promulgation of Karl Marx's Communist manifesto destroyed their society
[10:40] for the next 70 years and starved 60 million people to death.
[10:44] Now here we are, 100 years later, an hour country, the one that was founded upon the ideals
[10:50] and the bedrock of personal freedom and liberty, is doing exactly what the communist did.
[10:54] Lenin had an agenda he called the plan for monumental propaganda, his monuments policy called for the removal of all monuments and statues dedicated to the Zars, as they were of no historic or artistic interest, sound familiar.
[11:10] I believe that was the exact excuse given in 2020 to remove the cannons.
[11:14] Here's a photo of them being taken out under the cover of darkness in the middle of the night.
[11:20] President Trump's March 27, 2025, executive order, restoration of truth in American history,
[11:27] executive order number 14253 states.
[11:32] We must take action to reinstate pre-existing monuments, memorials, statues, or markers
[11:37] that have been removed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history.
[11:42] I submit to you the general public is now sick of wokeness in society.
[11:46] It is communist in origin and it is fundamentally unamerican and it is time to put the cannons and the monument back.
[11:56] Thank you.
[11:59] Our next speaker is Melody Bentley.
[12:13] Good evening.
[12:15] I am President of the Ulf, excuse me, Ulf Axe Muse, homeowner's association.
[12:20] And I would like to address the combined properties proposal for the redevelopment of courthouse plaza.
[12:25] Our community of 74 town homes is situated diagonally across university
[12:31] derived from courthouse plaza. Everyone who lives there appreciates the proximity of
[12:38] this plaza which provides us walkable access to retail, especially the
[12:43] desirable convenience of a nearby grocery store. We have a keen interest in
[12:49] any changes to this plaza. We appreciate several things about this new
[12:54] proposal that combined properties has submitted. There will be additional retail. The mixed
[13:01] use will provide much needed housing in our area and a park is included in the plan. However,
[13:08] we have the same concerns now as with the first proposal that combined properties submitted
[13:13] and which was detailed in a petition we sent to City Council last September. The building
[13:20] proposal is still six stories. It is two stories taller than the small area
[13:26] plan allows. It will dwarf an overshadow the rest of old town. A further
[13:32] reason to respect the four story limitation concerns traffic. University
[13:37] drive will soon be reduced to one lane in each direction in the vicinity of the
[13:42] plaza to accommodate bike paths. It will be quite enough to ask this road to
[13:50] stories of apartment dwellers and retail, five stories of apartment dwellers will introduce
[13:55] too much traffic congestion to this neighborhood. Finally, there is the proposed architecture
[14:01] which has barely changed from the first proposal. It is modern, busy, stark, and depressing
[14:09] with its large swans of black facing. It is a jarring contrast to old town and can hardly
[14:17] consider transitional architecture. I think combined properties is missing a huge opportunity.
[14:24] Their site with its proximity to Old Town, if designed well, could become a locus of downtown
[14:31] activity. Imagine, for example, a public square surrounded on three sides with a retail below
[14:38] and apartments above, with restaurants and outdoor seating, a public square, which community
[14:46] gatherings and events could happen.
[14:49] Then courthouse plaza could really live up to its name.
[14:52] Thank you so much for your attention.
[14:54] I appreciate it.
[14:57] Our last speaker on our design is Katie Johnson.
[15:10] Katie Johnson and the clerk has my address. This is a quote from Mr. Cunningham from one of the previous planning commissions. This is from a perspective of zero residential units.
[15:21] We are now essentially at 2,000 bedrooms in this space with a possibility of adding more.
[15:27] Smart growth is just a use of feminism for density and I'm saying please, please, please when you are discussing this afternoon or the later this evening, the major density projects.
[15:39] I ask that your decisions be made to put everything on hold until the city-wide level of service study comes back.
[15:47] It's not pertinent to commitments, to things that we don't know how much they cost.
[15:53] We shouldn't be committing our city without fully understanding the true cost and the impacts of them.
[15:59] So, also, a month's subscription to Capitol Bike Share and a prepaid metro card is not
[16:04] adequate traffic mitigation. So, of those two thousand, if just 15% of those two thousand
[16:14] That would add $7,159,200 per year to our budget, and that's only going to go up.
[16:24] So please do not sacrifice our little city's cherished community character for the sake of densities.
[16:30] Thank you.
[16:33] We can move to the consent agenda.
[16:36] Are there any questions on any of the items on the consent agenda?
[16:44] Are there any items Council would like pulled from the consent agenda?
[16:52] Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?
[16:55] I move to approve the consent agenda item six A through C as presented July 28, 2026,
[17:02] accompanying motions in the staff reports, and the accompanying motions in the staff
[17:05] reports.
[17:07] Second.
[17:08] Emotions that may by Councilmember Hardy Chandler is seconded by Councilmember Petersen
[17:12] or roll call vote.
[17:13] Councilmember McQuillin?
[17:14] Aye.
[17:15] Councilmember Bates?
[17:16] Aye.
[17:16] Council Member Peterson.
[17:18] Council Member Hardy Chandler.
[17:20] Council Member Hall.
[17:21] Council Member Amis.
[17:22] Motion passed unanimously.
[17:24] We will go on to consideration of appointments to Board's Commissions and Advisory Committees.
[17:28] Is there a motion to approve the Appointments to Board's Commissions and Advisory Committees?
[17:32] I move to a point of the following applicants.
[17:35] Board of Architecture Review.
[17:37] Re-appoint Sucha.
[17:38] Camp Suwon as the architect and business representative for three-year term extending through June 13th,
[17:46] 2029. Commission for Women, reappoint a mini-bonani for a three-year term extending through July 1st,
[17:53] 2029, reappoint Brenda Coleman for three-year term extending through June 30th, 2029. Commission on the Arts,
[18:02] A point, Kirk Null, for a remainder of a three-year term extending through December 11th,
[18:09] 2026, with an extension of a three-year term extending through July 2028, July 28, 29.
[18:18] Fairfax Commission on Aging, Reapoint, Manisha, Mass K.
[18:23] For a two-year term extending through July 9th, 2028, Fairfax County Public Library Board of Trustees,
[18:30] re-appoint Suzanne Levy for a four-year term extending through June 10, 20, 30.
[18:39] The motion has been made and seconded a roll call though.
[18:42] Councilmember Amis.
[18:44] Councilmember Hall.
[18:45] Councilmember Hardy Chandler.
[18:47] Councilmember Peterson.
[18:48] Councilmember Bates.
[18:50] I.
[18:51] Motion passed unanimously.
[18:53] We'll go on to public hearings.
[18:55] The only public hearing tonight is a public hearing and council action on proposed amendments to the code of the city of Fairfax.
[19:01] Chapter 1, 10, and print zoning to men, portions of the articles and sections contained
[19:08] therein, including introductory provisions, zoning districts, and regulations, and definitions.
[19:15] Relating to detach accessory dwelling units, I'm going to recognize Eric Foreman, our city planner
[19:20] for the staff presentation.
[19:24] Well, thank you very much.
[19:25] Good evening.
[19:26] Now, this agenda item is a public hearing, it's for a series of zoning text amendments
[19:31] that would permit detached accessory dwelling units or ADUs in Fairfax City.
[19:38] If you recall City Council held a work session in May to discuss this topic and at that
[19:45] work session, Council requested that a public hearing be scheduled to consider these amendments
[19:51] and Council also asked for analysis of certain data requests.
[19:55] So tonight's presentation is really in two parts, you know, the first part.
[20:00] Part is an overview of the amendment itself, and this is largely similar to what we had reviewed at the May work session.
[20:08] The second part looks at the specific data requests that council had asked for in May.
[20:16] We've held quite a few meetings on the topic of ADUs, with various amounts of detail. We held some high-level work sessions and a community meeting in 2024.
[20:28] Last year we held work sessions with Planning Commission and with City Council where we reviewed options to potentially accommodate detached accessory dwelling units.
[20:41] In the fall council asks staff to draft potential amendments to modify our existing ADU standards in order to permit detached units.
[20:52] And that's what we discussed back in May focusing on potential amendment details for detached
[21:00] accessory dwelling units.
[21:03] I should mention, as well, that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these amendments
[21:08] last month, the Commission recommended approval, and I'll discuss the Planning Commission meeting
[21:14] a bit more in a few slides from now.
[21:18] As you likely know, accessory dwelling units are currently allowed in the city under certain conditions.
[21:26] Specifically, ADUs currently need to be within the home itself or attached rather than detached.
[21:35] ADUs were first permitted in 2003 in Fairfax City.
[21:40] They were at that time considered a special use, meaning that homeowners needed to come to city council and ask
[21:46] For approval, that lasted until 2016 when ADUs became a permitted use meaning that they are permitted with subject to conditions.
[21:59] There also used to be an occupancy limitation limiting ADU residents to seniors or to disabled people,
[22:07] City Council removed that provision last year.
[22:11] Now, detached, accessory dwelling units didn't just pop up out of last year's work sessions,
[22:17] the comprehensive plan recommends this recommends to look at expanding ADUs, and this
[22:24] is important, while ensuring that they do not negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods.
[22:33] And like we talked about at our work sessions, this is really the critical element when it
[22:37] comes to creating standards for ADUs.
[22:42] Now the main characteristics of any amendment to allow detached ADUs would really be physical
[22:49] standards for the structures themselves, and there are other elements as well that these physical
[22:54] standards have these are really key to making this work, and reducing any kinds of negative
[23:00] externalities that the comprehensive plan mentions.
[23:04] Mike, we had talked about in May, the subtlety from a policy perspective is that this is a balancing act.
[23:12] So trying to juggle that flexibility, flexibility for property owners, juggling that with the neighborhood impact that that flexibility might bring.
[23:21] So most of the standards that you see here today are similar to those that we discussed in May, and I'll point out where they differ.
[23:29] The first of these that we'll talk about is setbacks, and in our single family zoning districts,
[23:37] the required rear yard setback for most houses is 25 feet.
[23:43] The required side yard varies by zoning districts, 10, 12, 15 feet depending on where it is.
[23:51] Now we had mentioned in our last work session that there are provisions in our zoning
[23:56] ordinance for affordable dwelling units. This was added as part of the affordable dwelling unit
[24:02] ordinance back in 2020. And those affordable dwelling provisions includes slightly reduced
[24:09] setbacks from what we call the general or standard setbacks. And the rationale is to provide
[24:14] some extra flexibility but provide that flexibility without overly impacting the surrounding
[24:20] neighborhood. And as we talked about in May, these accessory dwelling unit amendments recommend
[24:28] setbacks, really that correspond to those affordable dwelling provisions. And for the
[24:34] same reason, this is way to balance that flexibility to give some preference to accessory dwelling
[24:41] units, but at the same time keeping the guardrails in place to reduce those negative effects
[24:48] on neighbors' properties.
[24:50] So, like it shows here,
[24:52] those recommended setbacks,
[24:53] and this is what's in the amendment before you.
[24:56] The recommended setbacks are 20 feet in the rear, so that's-
[25:00] As opposed to 25 feet. And about a 20% reduction or about a two to three foot reduction on the side lock line. So eight feet in most zoning districts, 12 feet in the RL district.
[25:14] And as we could see on the screen, you could see what it means to aid to you placements in this kind of hypothetical scenario. And aid to you could go anywhere in the unshaded area. So it can go here or here or here and so on.
[25:29] So like it says here, this looks to balance again that property owner flexibility, balance it with potential neighborhood impact.
[25:40] Now, planning commission did have a recommendation at one of their work sessions that's been incorporated into this proposed amendment.
[25:49] That involves ADUs that might be located on the side of houses where there's enough space to do that.
[25:56] The commission was concerned about the aesthetic effects of having a detached accessory dwelling unit in the side yard and recommended standards to ensure that any side yard ADUs would be located near the rear of the house, and that, again, has been incorporated into these recommended amendments.
[26:17] Now, for setbacks, in general, I think it helps to show how the proposed ADU setbacks compare
[26:24] with setbacks for other structures.
[26:27] So this shows a sample.
[26:28] A lot, this is in the RH district, shows three examples of behind the house setbacks.
[26:36] On the left here, this is the setback for main dwellings themselves.
[26:41] So if this house is owners were to build an addition, or if the house itself were to
[26:46] end down and replace, the house could not extend into that green shaded areas.
[26:52] So that's the setback, that's the required yard, again, forward dwellings for houses.
[26:58] In the middle here, these are the side and rear setbacks for accessory structures,
[27:03] so things like grudges, and like it says at the bottom here, these are less intense uses
[27:08] than a dwelling than a house, and the reason is because no one lives in a garage, no one lives
[27:13] in a gazebo, and so on. So these are permitted to be closer to the lotlines than the dwellings
[27:19] themselves, and in this case a minimum of five feet from the rear lotline or the side lotline.
[27:28] Now on the right here, this is what's in the proposed amendment for detached accessory dwelling units.
[27:35] And again, this mirrors the ordinance is existing standards for affordable dwelling
[27:40] setbacks.
[27:42] And this recognizes that accessory dwelling units have similar levels of intensity as
[27:48] other dwellings, but it provides more flexibility.
[27:51] It provides flexibility by permitting these structures to be a little closer to the
[27:56] outline than the main house can be.
[28:00] Just one more slide on setbacks here at our fall work session, City Council mentioned that
[28:07] detached ADUs can be thought of as an alternative to building a very large houses.
[28:14] And that that alternative might be able to fit more appropriately into our neighborhoods.
[28:20] And that's a significant guiding principle because these standards view ADUs as that kind
[28:26] alternative. And importantly, the setback standard that's in these amendments would avoid cases
[28:34] of property owners maximizing both house size and having an ADU on having a detached ADU on the
[28:42] same lot. Again, part of that balancing act, this slide shows an example of that. These are
[28:48] two houses side by side on identically sized lots. The house on the left is a newer house.
[28:55] It doesn't completely maximize the buildable area, but you can see it comes somewhat close.
[29:01] The house on the right has a smaller overall footprint for the house itself.
[29:06] It has a more open lot.
[29:08] These amendment standards would enable that house on the right to build an ADU.
[29:14] Now, that house on the right could also build an addition.
[29:16] It could be replaced by another house and so on.
[29:19] But as it is now, that house could build an ADU in the yard.
[29:23] for the house on the left, these standards basically say that the square footage that could
[29:30] have been used for an ADU has already been used for the house itself.
[29:35] So again, avoids the instance of having a maximum size house with a detached ADU on the
[29:42] same body.
[29:46] Now the other significant physical standard is height.
[29:50] There is a good amount of discussion on height standards at the work sessions.
[29:54] the main issue being implications for neighboring properties.
[29:59] These amendments stand.
[30:00] Under its set a limit of 20 feet, or the measured height of the main house, and whichever is less.
[30:08] Now, 20 feet, this is roughly one and a half stories. The intent here is to ensure the detached
[30:14] ADUs don't overwhelm the lots that they're on, don't overwhelm the main house or neighboring properties.
[30:22] One and a half stories would still provide for design flexibility, provides for the structure's placement on the latin layout and so on.
[30:33] This gives kind of a quick, visual representation of what we're talking about, so for a multi-story house, like the one on the left, a detached ADU would have a maximum height of 20 feet, so again, that's about one and a half stories.
[30:48] For houses like the house on the right here, houses that are themselves less than 20 feet,
[30:54] the maximum ADU height would be equivalent to the houses.
[30:59] So again, the recommendation in these amendments is that ADU height may not exceed 20 feet,
[31:07] or the height of the house, and again, whichever is less.
[31:12] There are some other physical standards that are currently in place.
[31:17] These amendments recommend keeping those standards.
[31:21] I won't spend too much time on these right now, since we talked about these standards at previous meetings,
[31:26] but these standards are all proposed to remain the same as they are now.
[31:31] You can see here there are standards for accessory structure or footprint,
[31:35] also standards for ADU, square footage, and again, these are recommended to be kept.
[31:40] Like it says, at the bottom here, these standards really can work together to account for different sized lots, different house sizes, multiple stories, and so on.
[31:53] The zoning ordinance also has standards on lot and building coverage, so both for lots in general and also for lots with accessory structures.
[32:03] So these likewise are proposed to remain the same and you can tell these are all interrelated
[32:10] and again, each of these addresses a specific issue, the amendments again propose keeping
[32:15] these standards intact.
[32:21] Moving on to parking, as you may recall, our zoning ordinance right now does have a standard
[32:28] for ADU parking, but that standard is based on vehicles that are used by ADU residents.
[32:35] it's just not effective, it's not enforceable. In our work sessions, both planning commission
[32:42] and city council were interested in exploring a different approach to ADU parking. So the
[32:48] standard proposed here takes a different approach, so like it says here, it says that a lot,
[32:55] a property with an ADU must provide no less than the minimum number of parking spaces that are specified
[33:04] in the off-street parking section of the ordinance, which is section 4.2.
[33:09] So that standard for detached houses and for duplex houses, that standard, like it says at the bottom,
[33:16] here is a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for a house, and that means two drive-ways
[33:24] spaces effectively. So what that means is that if a house already has at least two drive-ways
[33:32] than that house would comply with this standard.
[33:37] Now, some houses don't have a driveway,
[33:40] or like at the house that's shown here,
[33:42] have just a small driveway that just fits one car.
[33:46] So, in those cases, the house would need to be brought up to
[33:51] the city's regular parking standards in order to have an ADU.
[33:57] So, this house that's shown here,
[34:00] If the owners were to add an ADU, they would need to enlarge the driveway so that it could fit another vehicle before getting before the city would issue an ADU permit.
[34:12] The reason for this standard is to not automatically trigger a parking shortage with the addition of an accessory dwelling unit, but still to guard against parking shortfalls where they might be more particularly problematic.
[34:27] Now, planning commission did express some concern about parking at their public hearing.
[34:33] The concern was that this standard may not go far enough.
[34:37] Planning commissions has a datation seemed to be that some neighborhoods already have
[34:41] not enough parking and that adding the possibility of more ADUs might make that kind of situation
[34:48] worse.
[34:50] Now, the flip side, and this was discussed at the planning commission meeting, as well, is that
[34:55] It's tough to make the case that an AGU would generate more parking.
[35:00] And then an addition to a house. So for example, right down the road from City Hall, we have a house that has ten bedrooms, for instance.
[35:10] That kind of addition can be built without having any parking requirement. So it's a difficult leap to make to say that that kind of thing can be built without a parking requirement, but adding a 500 square foot cottage in the backyard, triggers parking requirement.
[35:26] So there's a lot going on with the parking, discussion, a few planning commissioners felt uneasy about this now not enough to suggest changes to the amendments, but just to feeling that there's an existing problem that might be made more problematic by allowing detached accessory dwelling units.
[35:51] Now, one more topic here, and then we'll move on to some of the analysis that City Council
[35:56] had asked for, we had talked before about how to best deal with the potential conversion
[36:02] of existing structures to ADUs, and specifically existing structures that do not meet whatever
[36:10] standards are in place for ADUs themselves, meaning that they would be considered non-conforming.
[36:15] So, under these proposed amendments, if a property owner would wish to convert an existing non-conforming
[36:24] structure to an accessory dwelling unit, that property owner would go through the board
[36:29] of zoning appeals.
[36:30] And this is the same as we had discussed in May, I bring it up because one of City Council's
[36:35] requests has to do with accessory structures.
[36:40] BZA is set up really to handle exactly this kind of situation, special exceptions that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and this is really the default set up with our zoning ordinance, and there are just so many potential variations on conformities like this, that it's a issue that's best addressed outside of rigid type of standards.
[37:04] So, those are the main standards for what's proposed here in the detached ADU amendment that
[37:10] you have before you, the full amendment text is in your packets.
[37:15] Like I said, I went through kind of quickly, I can always go back and explain some more
[37:20] of this.
[37:21] But, as I had mentioned, Council requested additional analysis on certain topics and staff has
[37:27] done that analysis and the next few slides will summarize the results.
[37:33] City Council, then, again, this is back in May, had asked a few questions regarding potential
[37:40] impacts that detached ADUs may have on real estate assessments, so both on the ADUs property
[37:48] itself and also in general, or citywide.
[37:52] Like it says, up here, under direct impacts, when a detached ADU is built, that ADU would
[38:00] assessed similar to other structures or similar to other additions.
[38:04] And what that means is on a per-square-foot basis.
[38:07] So there's no set amount for valuation.
[38:10] It would vary, like it says, here would vary
[38:12] based on the details of the ADU itself.
[38:17] Now, Council also asked if a jurisdiction
[38:20] allows detached ADUs with that permissiveness
[38:25] result in increased property values, city-wide.
[38:29] not just for the properties that have ADUs, but a general increase in property values.
[38:35] The concern here was whether that by enabling property owners to build these kind of structures
[38:42] would property values increase in general, and really since there would be a new option
[38:47] for essentially monetizing properties to a greater extent with that raised property values,
[38:53] raised property taxes, and harm affordability.
[38:56] Our real estate staff examined this question, determined that across the board property value
[39:03] impacts due to a detached ADU ordinance is not something that we would expect.
[39:12] Now, to reach that determination, our assessor's office reviewed existing studies on ADUs
[39:17] did not find evidence of this kind of effect.
[39:20] They also conducted their own local analysis, so based on Arlington County, Arlington is the jurisdiction around here that's had detached ADUs for the longest.
[39:33] Like it says here, our staff again, the real estate staff analyzed neighborhoods in Arlington that have had detached ADUs property sales.
[39:43] properties that have detached A to use and have sold, analyze these neighborhoods over
[39:49] a five-year period, and the finding was that the general property appreciation in those
[39:56] neighborhoods tracked extremely close to the county.
[40:00] Average for appreciation, and countywide is Arlington County, because that's what it's looking at. So by extremely close, I mean, within one tenth of one percent of the countywide average. So these neighborhoods actually went down by one tenth of one percent, but really that's so close to the baseline that we would consider it, like it says down here, just not indicative of ADU influence.
[40:25] Just to put it in a dollar amount, that one tenth of one percent, which we would consider
[40:31] really a plus or minus is about ten dollars in property tax payments.
[40:41] Another request from City Council was to see for other Northern Virginia jurisdictions,
[40:47] the jurisdictions that have already approved detached ADU ordinances, how many of these units
[40:55] have actually been approved within those jurisdictions.
[40:58] The most instructive localities around here are Arlington and Alexandria.
[41:03] Both of those have had permitted detached aid to use now for five or seven years.
[41:09] You see the numbers up here.
[41:11] This is the number of permits issued.
[41:14] What's perhaps most instructive here is the average annual number of permits issued.
[41:20] And you see that here, it's 11 in Arlington County and this goes back five year period of
[41:26] 2021 to 25, 14 annual average in Alexandria.
[41:33] And you see that the bottom, how that translates into annual permits per 1,000 homes.
[41:41] So that's helpful because it accounts for the difference in size between the jurisdictions.
[41:47] Council, also asked for information on Falls, Church and Fairfax County, Fairfax County allows
[41:54] detached ADUs right now on properties that are larger than two acres.
[42:00] The county has issued 10 permits for these types of ADUs since 2021.
[42:08] Falls Church is the most recent jurisdiction locally to allow detached ADUs.
[42:12] they issued one permit so far, now that number per 1,000 houses, if you take these two numbers
[42:23] that are on the screen for Arlington and Alexandria, if you combine those two with Fairfax
[42:29] County, so again two plus acres, but Fairfax County has 7,000 homes over two plus acres,
[42:35] And that's a pretty big data set.
[42:37] If you take the ADUs per 1000 houses, apply that to the city of Fairfax, I hate to make direct
[42:47] comparisons because each jurisdiction is different.
[42:51] But that would get us in the area of about 50 detached ADUs over a decade.
[42:58] Now, I said I'm a little bit uncomfortable saying that, but of course, I just said it.
[43:02] I give it a bigger window, I'd say a few dozen over a decade, make that a pretty big plus or minus.
[43:11] But hopefully that gives some kind of indication of the prevalence of detached aid used locally in northern Virginia in places where they're allowed.
[43:24] Another question I'd like to mention before involved existing structures.
[43:29] Council wanted to know just as a frame of reference how many of these kinds of structures
[43:34] are in the city right now. So for this we looked at property records, we looked at all
[43:40] existing residential structures, so of all types, not just garages, but any structure
[43:47] of that. But with a minimum of 350 square feet in size, which are more likely to be converted
[43:54] to ADUs. In total, there's slightly under 400 such structures in the city right now on residential
[44:02] lots. About a quarter of those, like it says up here 104, are within what we would call the
[44:10] buildable setback area for detached ADUs. So if you think back to the previous slide with the green
[44:16] area, that would be outside of the green area. So 104, are within that buildable setback area,
[44:24] the remainder are like it says here outside of that buildable area. So that gives some kind of an
[44:31] idea of the number of these structures in the city. It is very important, though, the point that
[44:37] says at the bottom we can examine the number, we can examine the size and the placement of these structures.
[44:43] But like it says at the bottom here, not all of these are really convertible to some place where people
[44:49] would want to live.
[44:51] So either from the standpoint of the type of construction,
[44:54] the foundation, the cost of modifying the structure
[44:57] and so on, so just...
[45:00] It's an important thing to keep in mind that something that's non-quantifiable, but we gave you here the information that can be quantified on the number of existing structures.
[45:12] And now, finally, there were some questions about the permitting process, and specifically whether the city, the main question that came up in May's meeting was whether the city would verify that properties containing detached ADUs are, in fact, owner occupied.
[45:30] It is required. It's required in the zoning standards. It's current requirement that we're recommending to keep in place
[45:37] that the property owner live in either the main house or the accessory growing unit.
[45:44] Now, first of all, city staff will update the permit procedures if detached AD, ADUs are allowed by city councils, so this will be updated.
[45:53] And one area where detached ADUs would differ from attached ADUs is that they would be subject
[46:03] to the city's rental occupancy permit program.
[46:06] So this is program, it's an existing program in the city where rental houses are registered
[46:11] and are periodically inspected because detached ADUs are separate structures, they would
[46:20] we made part of this program, and those periodic inspections would include a verification
[46:27] that the property is owner occupied. So this is not a verification that would happen
[46:34] on a annual basis, it's a verification that would happen when the property is inspected,
[46:41] but that is one additional level of check that would not ordinarily be there.
[46:48] And aside from that, city staff would still be able to respond to complaints about potential
[46:55] zoning violations and that includes occupancy, potential occupancy violations as well as
[47:01] is currently the case.
[47:05] So that concludes staff's presentation for tonight.
[47:09] I had mentioned that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these amendments in
[47:14] June.
[47:14] The Commission recommended approval.
[47:16] It was a unanimous recommendation.
[47:19] The planning commission did express some concerns about parking, like I had mentioned.
[47:23] Planning commission also expressed some concerns about overcrowding and occupancy enforcement.
[47:30] So regarding overcrowding and occupancy, some of that discussion pertain to whether, you know,
[47:38] really similar to the parking issue, whether the option of having detached accessory dwelling units
[47:44] would make existing overcrowding issues worse.
[47:49] And whether the city's enforcement mechanisms for all rentals were sufficient to be on
[47:55] guard for overcrowding types of situations, some of the discussion really drifted into
[48:01] a more general overcrowding and inspection type of discussion.
[48:06] Planning commissioners did realize that that's somewhat outside of the boundary of what's
[48:11] discussed here, you know, with a specific focus on detached ADUs, so outside of the boundary
[48:20] of these amendments, but it was identified as a concern by several planning commissioners
[48:23] and there was a bit of a discussion on this topic at the public hearing.
[48:28] So with that, we would be glad to answer any questions that you all may have.
[48:34] Thank you so much for the presentation, Council Member McWillon.
[48:38] Thank you.
[48:40] Thank you so much.
[48:41] That presentation was fantastic.
[48:43] I am looking at slide five about the setbacks.
[48:48] Can you explain why eight feet versus ten feet was chosen for the eight
[48:52] use?
[48:54] So we did want to align it with the existing affordable dwelling unit setbacks.
[49:03] You know, the affordable dwelling unit setbacks were put in place again
[49:06] to give a little bit more flexibility to something that was considered desirable, but to still
[49:11] maintain neighborhood character and maintain a decent amount of separation between one property
[49:17] and the other eight feet was considered to be appropriate with the affordable dwelling unit
[49:23] ordinance that achieves the same type of goal that we're looking at with accessory dwelling units.
[49:29] Okay, so for the flexibility, just the extra flexibility.
[49:32] additional flexibility while keeping those kind of guardrails, not letting these dwellings and
[49:37] the dwellings have a higher bit of intensity than other structures, not letting those
[49:44] dwellings being too close to the property line.
[49:46] I think he always just curious as to why they didn't choose the ten foot, like they do with
[49:50] the, but it sounds like they need more flexibility.
[49:53] Is there consideration regarding topography of the...
[50:00] Lot. And we're discussing the height. I'm thinking about the height and how you'd mentioned you didn't want it looking over or looming onto the permanent dwelling that's there already. So was that already taken in?
[50:12] As far as height, yes. And that's part of the reason why the recommendation was 20 feet was basically one and a half stories.
[50:20] instead of two stories, because if it is built on a hill that wanted to have stories with
[50:26] the locomotive would look bigger than one and a half stories, we didn't want anything too
[50:33] large, two story accessories dwelling built in that situation on a hill would just be too
[50:40] looming. So one and a half felt that was perfect. Okay, good. So you did consider that a lot.
[50:44] So as far as that kind of typography, yes, the kind of typography that we just can't consider
[50:49] is if a certain portion of a yard is sloping to the point where it makes construction difficult
[50:57] on a map like this, it might seem like there's plenty of room to build an ADU, but there may not be.
[51:04] Same kind of thing with trees in the way in that there are certain types of things that we just can't account for
[51:10] topography and trees or two of those.
[51:13] Thank you. I just want to make sure that that was considered exactly what you said with, you know, if the lot was increasing in height in the back.
[51:23] Is there a financial cost for the applicant to convert the existing structure to an ADU conversion?
[51:31] There is a zoning permit cost, which I believe is
[51:35] is $70 or so now that the,
[51:42] any, depending on what is required,
[51:46] there would be inspections from code administration
[51:48] as well, these things would really pale
[51:51] in comparison to the actual cost of construction
[51:53] or the cost of providing utilities and whatnot.
[51:57] There, it is a minimal city cost to some of this,
[52:01] but it's very small in the overall picture.
[52:02] Okay, good to know. And then of the local cities that you use to make a comparison, which one
[52:11] most closely aligns with the ordinance that we're currently being presented this evening.
[52:17] I would say Arlington and Falls Church would most closely align.
[52:22] Alexandria is much more permissive in terms of setbacks, and I think that has to do with the types of houses and the types of neighborhoods.
[52:29] they have in Alexandria and a lot of existing structures that were built long, long ago, and are already there, but are
[52:38] early-intinent full-structured.
[52:40] Excellent.
[52:40] Thank you.
[52:41] That's all my questions.
[52:42] I appreciate it.
[52:43] Councilmember Amos.
[52:45] Thank you.
[52:46] Excellent presentation.
[52:48] The more comment than question.
[52:50] The only thing I would flag, I do echo the Planning Commission's concerns of parking.
[52:54] And I know that came up in our 101s as well.
[52:56] And I imagine that's a concern that many of us share.
[53:01] The main thing I would recommend just because it's very,
[53:05] and I do appreciate the language you added to make it more enforceable.
[53:08] I think that does a good job.
[53:09] I would just recommend tracking and code violations over a certain period of time,
[53:15] and similar to that tracking the number of permits that are applied for and comparing the two.
[53:19] We also don't want it to be a case where we have a certain number of violations,
[53:25] but they're all attributed to similar properties or one or two outliers.
[53:29] By code violations, what kind of code violations do you have?
[53:32] Rather than code violations, just violations, for example,
[53:35] for not providing adequate parking or over parking certain areas.
[53:41] So, applications that trigger that need for an additional parking space.
[53:45] Okay, yes.
[53:47] Council Member Hall.
[53:49] Thank you.
[53:50] And thank you for the extra time and energy that went into asking,
[53:52] are answering the questions that we put post previously and the other concerns.
[53:58] So I'll be honest, I thought you were making a mistake when you called them a affordable
[54:02] dwelling units.
[54:03] But then you made a reference between eight feet and ten feet for affordable dwelling unit
[54:06] versus accessory, detached accessory dwelling unit.
[54:10] So I've been over here trying to do some additional research.
[54:12] But can you...
[54:13] There is an affordable dwelling unit ordinance.
[54:17] Folks are in very familiar with it as it pertains to single family houses because we haven't
[54:22] had anything like that since 2020 when it was approved,
[54:25] but the affordable dwelling ordinance
[54:27] that you all are more familiar with,
[54:29] requiring a certain percentage of six percent
[54:32] of multi-family residences be affordable.
[54:35] There is an equivalent for detached homes as well.
[54:40] And just like the building standards
[54:43] were relaxed a bit for the affordable dwelling unit,
[54:46] affordable dwelling units in multi-family,
[54:49] they were relaxed a little bit for single family as well, and that was increasing the
[54:57] setbacks. We're decreasing the setbacks.
[55:01] That's where that comes from. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. I feel like we need new acronyms that are not identical.
[55:10] Excuse me. Page 7 with regard to the parking, I do, I know we like to think that people are going to bike everywhere and walk everywhere and take shuttles, but I really have concerns about the parking, especially in neighborhoods that already have, you know, parking issues.
[55:28] I don't think it's too much to ask to move this to three spots as opposed to two spots.
[55:33] I think the picture that's on slide 11 is kind of a prime example.
[55:37] As you were saying, you know, there's a requirement to do this for the two required spots.
[55:41] I was thinking to some of the neighbors that are in this city where they don't have a drive with it all,
[55:46] or they have a short drive with it just like that.
[55:48] And I was like, well, those don't, that's not how things are right now.
[55:52] So I recognize that it would need to be brought up to code in order to do that.
[55:54] but I don't think it'll hurt in most cases
[55:59] to add a third spot instead of just two.
[56:03] And then page 11, I was sorry, that was the same thing.
[56:08] Yeah, bring up to code for two spots.
[56:13] And I'm, okay, so I'm flipping back
[56:15] and forth a little bit between the staff report
[56:17] and the presentation.
[56:18] So on page eight of the presentation,
[56:22] It talks about the height of the houses here, so I think, you know, in the city, we have a lot of houses that might not be cookie cutter in some ways, or they might have, like my house specifically, we have, you know, we put in like 16 foot ceilings, which you don't see from the outside, because it looks like the same height, but then in the front, when we did our garage, we did a peak, I guess, whatever, I don't know what it's called, like the one roof goes this way, the other one goes that way.
[56:51] Yes, thank you. Yes. How how how do those hips get decided like what's the height that you're looking at when you see a tall portion of a house versus the majority of the roof is another height. How does that work?
[57:04] So a hip roof and a regular peak roof are measured the same way that the height is measured halfway between the eve and the peak.
[57:13] Okay. So in this case 20, so a house can be 35 feet tall, that 35 feet is not measured
[57:21] to the peak. It's measured to the halfway point between the even the peak. Same thing with the
[57:25] 20 feet here, it's measured halfway between the even the peak and also halfway between the slope
[57:35] of the ground, if the ground slopes. It is a complicated procedure. We don't feel that it's something
[57:41] that we're dumping on residences much because if you have one of these built, you have an
[57:45] architect who has to take those measurements in all cases, so the same architect can take
[57:51] measurements of the house as well. It's not a bit of information that property owners
[57:57] would tend to have at the ready for their own property, but it's something that in the course
[58:01] of construction is routine.
[58:04] Okay, and so then let's picture that you have a lot where the back is significantly higher
[58:10] or lower. How does that factor into the roof of that space?
[58:15] So the measurement is taken. If the ground slopes like this, the measurement is taken from the halfway point of the high point and the low point of the structure.
[58:25] So the halfway point of the ground to the halfway point of the roof.
[58:29] Okay.
[58:29] So that's your 35 feet or your 20 feet.
[58:31] Okay. So let's say my house out front is normal when it comes to my neighbors.
[58:35] But then my yard significantly goes up.
[58:39] Then my going to be able to build a house that is as tall as my house, which means now this house in behind is significantly taller.
[58:46] Or am I limited to the height even with the additional hill in the back?
[58:52] So if your house is on a slope and if the measurement for your house comes out that your house is 25 feet tall, for instance.
[59:03] The maximum height of the ADU would be 20 feet, because that's the tallest that it could possibly go.
[59:10] Okay, so I understand you're explaining the same thing to me multiple times in different ways.
[59:14] I'm still not visually.
[59:15] The height measurement is not easy to understand.
[59:17] No, it's not.
[59:19] The two structures would be measured independently of each other.
[59:23] So, if your house is measured at over 20 feet, your ADU could be a maximum of 20 feet,
[59:33] regardless of what the typography is.
[59:36] Okay, so it is possible that if you have a very large chill in the back, that your secondary
[59:42] ADU could be significantly taller than your front house.
[59:48] That would be extremely unlikely.
[59:51] I don't want to say it can't happen.
[59:53] Okay, I feel I feel it would be very unlikely it would be
[1:00:00] If you had this house on the right, and then you had the properties sloped down a lot in the back, then
[1:00:11] you may have a situation where that looks the case, but it would still have to keep to 16 feet.
[1:00:18] And the reason we have it is that is to build in some additional flexibility, because we
[1:00:27] In one house, we didn't want a situation where a house where an ADU would have to be an unreasonably small number.
[1:00:37] But on the flip side, we also don't know that this house is going to be significantly closer to a side yard.
[1:00:43] Right.
[1:00:43] We also don't want it to be towering over where the front house wasn't already just because of a topography thing.
[1:00:50] So just trying to understand those nuances.
[1:00:58] On in the staff report, I think this is on page 6, item L, it talks about the zoning administrator may inspect the property if there is a complaint registered with the city or if the official has other reason to believe that the owner or occupants are in violation of the accessory dwelling unit approval.
[1:01:20] So from what I understand of our enforcement abilities, there's not a lot of teeth to them.
[1:01:29] And I totally support people's right to do what they want with their own houses, but
[1:01:33] I also don't want to see that right and pee upon their neighbors.
[1:01:37] And so I know we've had issues in the past where we as a council have been notified that
[1:01:42] there might be X number of people living in a house, and they're like, no, it's boyfriend's
[1:01:47] But they're really there all the time, but they don't qualify as house residents, but there's a parking situation that comes or other things that come with that.
[1:01:57] So I would like to see a little bit more enforcement ability, whether or not we have enforcement power or enough staff members to do that.
[1:02:07] I think that's likely not going to be something that we need to add in order to manage this.
[1:02:12] but those are part of my concerns.
[1:02:15] The next one also goes then to item N as a Nancy,
[1:02:19] where it talks about if there's a change,
[1:02:22] sorry, they took that out.
[1:02:23] If an accessory dwelling unit no longer complies with the conditions,
[1:02:29] then the use of the space is a separate dwelling unit
[1:02:32] shall cease the physical arrangement of the space
[1:02:35] that created an independent housekeeping
[1:02:36] and it shall be integrated into the primary dwelling unit
[1:02:39] And the space shall not be independently least as a separate dwelling unit.
[1:02:44] Again, I feel like that's something where we tell someone they can't do something because they violated a rule or an ordinance.
[1:02:50] But again, we don't have a lot of ability to go back and actually follow up on it.
[1:02:55] So I just think there needs to be something in there that's a little bit stronger.
[1:02:59] Because from what I understand, if we go and we knock on the door and no one answers, well, we might go back another day and no one answers again.
[1:03:06] legally and we shouldn't have the ability to enter their yard to do things but if they're
[1:03:12] not complying with something it seems like there needs to be some other way to have some
[1:03:17] additional enforcement. So I'm not suggesting tax levies like there's all these different
[1:03:24] things that people can do like they boot your car right like all those things that they do
[1:03:27] when you don't pay your parking tickets I just think that there needs to be some other conversation
[1:03:31] and that is in place to be able to move forward with this.
[1:03:35] And that's not dissimilar to the conversation that Planning Commission had last month.
[1:03:40] It's just, and you know, we've reminded Planning Commission of this as well in occupancy
[1:03:46] enforcement is awfully tricky from the city's perspective because there's no way to check
[1:03:51] on the occupancy of a dwelling without having city staff go into that dwelling and look at
[1:03:57] the beds and look at the bedrooms, and that's something obviously that's not taken lightly
[1:04:01] by the city, there's just no other way of doing it.
[1:04:06] So it does kind of wander into another discussion
[1:04:10] on occupancy in general, but it's a pertinent discussion.
[1:04:15] Yeah, what I know, like with the noise ordinance, right?
[1:04:17] If you're not getting the response you need,
[1:04:19] and the neighbor is still continuing to do things,
[1:04:21] there's an option now to go to the courthouse
[1:04:24] and swear out of warrant and go that legal route.
[1:04:27] Obviously, a disgruntled neighbor is not going to be able to go
[1:04:30] square out of war and against their neighbor for not having the right number of people in their
[1:04:34] house or whatever it is. So I just think some of these things are just a slippery slope and I
[1:04:38] think the more we can be on top of them and try to have stronger language where needed.
[1:04:45] Again, just gives us a little bit more opportunity to have that conversation rather than realizing
[1:04:50] it was too soft and then we can't go back and do anything about it.
[1:04:56] Also, my other question about that section and it talks about, like, when the...
[1:05:00] I'm sorry, it's actually okay. Talks about the, they do an initial inspection of the accessory dwelling unit and then in addition to any renewal of the accessory dwelling unit use or transfer of ownership. So, when would a renewal apply or people applying for an ADU for one year, three years, five years or it's for the life of their property in which they live and then it transfers to the new owner?
[1:05:28] I think the renewal applies to the transfer of ownership.
[1:05:32] I'm not sure why it's written as an or situation.
[1:05:35] The zoning permit, the applicant signs an affidavit acknowledging that it has to be renewed when the property transfers.
[1:05:44] Okay.
[1:05:45] I will say the wording of this made me think, and I guess similar with the planning commission was saying, and I also, you know, I think people are landlords for a very long time and
[1:05:55] people don't always check up on the house or make sure that it's being maintained in the way
[1:05:58] that it should be especially when you might have college kids renting and there's a lot of
[1:06:02] transient things like that but maybe we do as a separate conversation need a little bit more of a
[1:06:07] stronger conversation around making sure that when a tenant takes possession of the home that it
[1:06:14] really is truly in a good safe rentable. Most sectors are working all of that kind of thing.
[1:06:21] You know, I know that they pay an annual fee to have a rental unit, but I think we could potentially be doing our renter as a disservice by not making sure that things were up to date.
[1:06:33] I know they used to do it in college and all that, so it's just a thought.
[1:06:39] Page 17.
[1:06:44] I guess I already guessed this was how do we respond to a violation if there's no one answers the door.
[1:06:49] Okay, and then my last question and I've been asking this since I think they beginning is why are we so afraid of doing this by special use permit?
[1:07:01] I recognize that we think there's only going to be a handful, you said that there might be, did you say 50 over 10 years?
[1:07:08] Right. Okay, so we're doing special use permits for chickens. We're doing them for daycares.
[1:07:15] This to me is something that it impacts you as a homeowner that lives there
[1:07:21] but it also impacts every neighbor that's around you. And I know that when we were doing our renovation
[1:07:26] and we wanted to get an exception to the, which is now it's even smaller than what we asked for
[1:07:32] but for the side yard, I mean we had to send out certified postcards and have all of our neighbors not really have a problem with it
[1:07:37] and have that conversation.
[1:07:39] To me, this is a really big decision that you
[1:07:43] are making as a homeowner that is impacting all
[1:07:45] of those around you.
[1:07:48] And I would have a much easier ability to accept this,
[1:07:54] if it was a spice special use.
[1:07:56] But just really, really by right, I think I'm hopeful
[1:08:01] that there's not going to be an extraordinary amount
[1:08:02] of these, but I don't think it hurts to do the special use.
[1:08:05] I think it makes sure that we just
[1:08:07] have that extra layer of rubber stamping,
[1:08:10] at essentially to make sure that it is what it is.
[1:08:13] And I think it gives, like I said, the neighbors around them,
[1:08:16] a real opportunity to understand what's
[1:08:18] going to be happening next to them
[1:08:19] and what they're going to be living next to.
[1:08:21] So I would really, really like to see that at it in here.
[1:08:25] I think the aversion to having ADUs be a special use permit,
[1:08:31] just drawing back to 2016 when that was discussed,
[1:08:34] because ADUs used to be a special use permit.
[1:08:36] I think Council felt uncomfortable about having individual homeowners come to a meeting like
[1:08:43] this at City Council to explain improvements that they wanted to do in their home while
[1:08:50] other, you know, a brand new home could be built, three story, 35 foot high, 5,000 square
[1:08:56] foot home could be built without coming to City Council, but adding an accessory, dwelling
[1:09:02] you and it brings people to City Council to a meeting like this.
[1:09:07] The check-in, this was before check-ins.
[1:09:10] Before the check-in?
[1:09:12] I think the thought is that council doesn't necessarily want more individual property cases coming to public hearings like chickens.
[1:09:24] I think this council member does to be totally honest.
[1:09:27] And I, you said back in 2016 when they did this, but we didn't have detached accessory dwelling units.
[1:09:36] We had attached accessory dwelling units.
[1:09:38] So, you're saying that that requirement was removed in 2016 for attached dwelling units?
[1:09:46] Correct.
[1:09:47] Okay.
[1:09:47] And I understand to what you're saying about tear down and build a 35 foot house.
[1:09:51] I mean, I think we've all seen the one on Warwick.
[1:09:53] But again, I think you have very angry neighbors that are really unhappy with what happened there.
[1:10:00] I think if we're really only expecting 50 over a 10-year period to me, check the box, special permit,
[1:10:07] special use permit, easy breezy, and we get it going. So I'm not sure that I can support this without that.
[1:10:14] Thank you.
[1:10:17] Councillor Member Bakes.
[1:10:20] So with regard to height, we'll actually both height and setbacks. The requirements are proposed to
[1:10:29] are actually more strict than the existing requirements for non-dwelling unit accessory structures.
[1:10:37] Correct.
[1:10:40] And then, which, you know, also certainly don't require any additional parking.
[1:10:44] Granted, they don't have anybody living there.
[1:10:48] But, you know, and additionally, residents are able to, as you mentioned, build the
[1:10:54] on to their house, add additional bed rooms, and then, of course, we have attached accessory
[1:11:01] dwelling units allowed.
[1:11:04] And so really to my mind, this is taking what is already allowed
[1:11:08] and providing some simply additional flexibility in terms of where it can be located and perhaps
[1:11:15] even digital flexibility to allow for it to be even less overwhelming to the existing structure
[1:11:21] since it can be separated a bit from the existing house.
[1:11:27] And additionally, as you mentioned,
[1:11:29] someone can build a house without permit.
[1:11:35] And of course, we've seen additional houses built on lots that have been subdivided and sold off.
[1:11:46] And so this, to my mind, also provides an alternative to that, you know, that is perhaps a bit less disruptive, you know, or less impactful to the, you know, the streetscape, the existing aesthetic of the property.
[1:12:02] And with regard to the question of according a special use permit, would that require the
[1:12:13] applicant to pay the special use permit fee as well?
[1:12:19] So, I have concerns about that given for chickens, for daycare, you know, that kind of thing.
[1:12:27] You know, certainly you can say that, you know, hands produce eggs, daycare provides an
[1:12:35] income stream, but it's not something that is directly necessity for the, you know, the
[1:12:43] people living there necessarily, but of course, housing is for the, you know, the people
[1:12:49] who live in the excess we're going unit itself.
[1:12:51] And so from a housing availability perspective, I would have concerns about the burden
[1:13:00] that that fee might place on people who want to do this.
[1:13:04] And also I would imagine that the process for that would be a lot more labor-intensive
[1:13:11] right than for chickens or daycare because it's a matter of building additional structure
[1:13:16] on the lot, so there would be, you know, the process involved for that. So, yeah, and then
[1:13:27] again, you know, parking,
[1:13:30] we can, you know, of course, an additional house on, you know,
[1:13:34] subdivided lot, does require additional parking, but other than that, you know, additions
[1:13:39] or attach, rolling units, I believe, or under similar conditions, they have to fulfill the
[1:13:46] department's for, you know, the House, but don't have to add additional spots for those.
[1:13:52] Is that right?
[1:13:52] Yeah.
[1:13:53] So, from that perspective, I see what's proposed as really only fair to the homeowners
[1:13:59] in the city.
[1:14:01] Councilmember Harder, Chandler.
[1:14:04] So I want to thank you for the report, and I also want to thank you for certainly following
[1:14:09] up on the wide array of questions that we had.
[1:14:12] I know I was particularly interested in looking at our neighbors and what's happening around
[1:14:18] there.
[1:14:19] I was surprised that the low numbers that are pretty consistent across this region.
[1:14:26] So we're talking about 50, possibly 50 over the course of 10 years.
[1:14:32] When we go back to the parking, is there any indication that the existing dwelling units that
[1:14:40] are attached?
[1:14:41] Are they clustered in our city in any way or are they spread this first throughout our city?
[1:14:47] Right, they are spread out. There's about
[1:14:49] 2,000 or so and and there's no
[1:14:54] Neighborhood pattern of geographic pattern where they are and and there's the expectation that this would follow that same pattern
[1:15:00] There's no information to indicate that these might be just clustered in one neighborhood, causing some kind of parking problem for at five a year.
[1:15:11] Right, there's no, there's not a unique enough element to say that certain neighborhoods would only be suitable for these or not.
[1:15:19] Yeah, and I go back to just sort of our general desire to have a wide variety of housing options
[1:15:27] and our policy or our desired policy or aspiration of wanting to have people who are single family owners,
[1:15:35] accommodate renters, those kinds of things.
[1:15:38] I see this as another viable option.
[1:15:40] It isn't a huge option.
[1:15:42] Clearly the data that we requested looking at the region shows that this is a possibility for some
[1:15:49] But it opens up an opportunity for some families.
[1:15:53] I know of a neighbor who has an attached dwelling unit
[1:15:56] and the prior owner of the house is living in that
[1:16:00] and her children are living in the main house.
[1:16:03] It's a wonderful arrangement.
[1:16:04] These kinds of opportunities for home owners
[1:16:08] are once that I absolutely support.
[1:16:12] We're not talking about large volumes.
[1:16:14] we're not talking about every household having a hill that's going to distort the height,
[1:16:22] but I do think we're talking about an opportunity that's going to make a major difference
[1:16:26] for families that choose this option. So thank you for your report. I appreciate all of the
[1:16:33] information that you gather to enter our questions. Councillor member Peterson.
[1:16:39] So, what is the list of different permits that a homeowner would have to obtain to actually put in place in attached ADU?
[1:16:55] From a zoning perspective, there would be a zoning permit, and then there would be coded administration building permits as needed.
[1:17:03] So, just like any other construction project.
[1:17:05] And that is the equivalent of a construction permit.
[1:17:09] Correct.
[1:17:11] Okay.
[1:17:11] So those are two.
[1:17:12] All right.
[1:17:14] Just I think one quick note on the special use permit question.
[1:17:18] One thing that seems a little bit different here is a detached ADU has proximity
[1:17:24] implications for neighbors that are different than an attached ADU.
[1:17:29] And that may raise the bar a little bit in terms of reactions that people have
[1:17:33] in terms of something being proposed and built,
[1:17:36] so it's probably worth considering.
[1:17:39] And as we think about whether or not
[1:17:40] a special use permit is something that we should do.
[1:17:44] I would like to go back to the parking issue,
[1:17:46] and I know we've set a lot about it,
[1:17:48] but I just want to say also, I appreciate very much.
[1:17:52] We have an opportunity to have some staff briefings
[1:17:56] on this and had some conversation around street parking.
[1:17:59] And I'd like to go back and just understand
[1:18:01] And there's a potential at least in some places that there's a risk that the amount of street parking would increase in certain locations.
[1:18:12] It could be for a couple different reasons.
[1:18:14] There just isn't sufficient expansion capacity on a lot, whatever.
[1:18:18] What's the remedy if that does appear to be the case?
[1:18:22] So remedy from a neighborhood perspective would be to petition the city for a parking district.
[1:18:29] So that would be, if a neighborhood has a parking problem that is the remedy that the city
[1:18:38] has established, is that the answer that you're looking for?
[1:18:47] Well, I'm not sure what the answer is, I'm just meeting to understand for those situations
[1:18:52] where that could be a problem, where that goes, in terms of being able to address it, I'm
[1:18:58] That's sure what's involved in becoming a parking district, but I just wonder maybe this
[1:19:03] gets back also to the question mark about a special use permit.
[1:19:08] Is that a way in which that kind of a situation would be caught in a dress if it is that
[1:19:14] one of the options for that or no?
[1:19:19] I suppose that's a consideration that Council could use in a special use permit situation if
[1:19:26] was a special use permit?
[1:19:30] Okay, and the issue is not that there would be so many detached
[1:19:35] aid to use in one place that it would contribute to volume. The issue is more site-specific
[1:19:39] where you would have a circumstance where there just isn't a configuration for off-street
[1:19:44] parking sufficient. So you're forcing it on-street, where you already may have it stretched
[1:19:48] as that. Yeah, so the special use permit being at the discretion of council, council can
[1:19:54] pick and choose and that's the plus and that's the minus of the special use permit, you know,
[1:19:57] the plus side is the council can make.
[1:20:00] That spot determination, you know, the downside from a homeowner's perspective is the unknown that they have to go to city council and petition for this to be done.
[1:20:13] Right.
[1:20:16] If I could just switch gears to the numbers, came a little bit. I think the thank you for doing the assessments.
[1:20:23] there are two of them that I think we asked for that very helpful.
[1:20:28] One is the effect on property assessments for people who choose not to build,
[1:20:35] just because the legal option is created.
[1:20:37] It looks like that's a non-issue,
[1:20:41] but there's a little bit of a caveat in that I think our comparative data on this
[1:20:48] is coming from places that are inside the Beltway predominantly.
[1:20:52] the outside of the belt, we have Fairfax County, it's a little bit different because there's
[1:20:55] a two-acre lot of minimums, so we're a little bit different territory. Sounds like it doesn't
[1:21:01] look like there would be an issue here, but I just wanted to note there's a little bit of
[1:21:08] variation in the data sources here. The other thing is the numbers and if I understand at the end of
[1:21:14] the day are best estimate, again with some of the same uncertainty because of apples and oranges here,
[1:21:22] we're looking at like maybe five a year.
[1:21:24] Is that where this landed?
[1:21:27] OK.
[1:21:28] Helpful to know for a couple of different reasons.
[1:21:31] It doesn't look like there is likely to be land rush.
[1:21:37] But it also looks like five a year is a manageable number
[1:21:41] if it was determined that we did need
[1:21:43] to do a special use permit.
[1:21:44] So it wouldn't be an overwhelming surge.
[1:21:46] I'm not arguing for against it.
[1:21:48] This stage except I'm sympathetic to the concerns
[1:21:52] that arise and lead to the need possibly for a special use permit here.
[1:21:57] I think the other thing that when we discuss this was just helpful to know is this, well,
[1:22:05] we do have attached A to use. We have a lot of experience with that. The detached A to use
[1:22:09] are a little bit different ball game. Not exactly the same and it sounds like there is some merit
[1:22:15] in taking it a step at a time in terms of how we implement a new policy so that we are going
[1:22:21] through a process of discovery, in terms of how this works and being cautious at the early stages
[1:22:26] until we get a better feel for what we are really in for, and in terms of the volume,
[1:22:31] the complexity of the impacts and all that, I don't want to overplay it because at
[1:22:35] five a year, it doesn't sound like a big deal, on the other hand, that it does sound like
[1:22:41] it would be prudent to approach this in a way that is a little bit step at a time and
[1:22:46] get the feedback we need to determine whether or not an at what point this can be a more
[1:22:52] automated if you will approach to this. That would argue again back for at least considering
[1:22:57] the possibility of special use permit in the early stages to see how this goes. But I didn't want
[1:23:02] to just bring that conversation forward because I appreciate the fact that we talked about that
[1:23:08] and that from a policy implementation perspective that it's almost like treating this as a pilot
[1:23:13] and taking some special care in its early stages.
[1:23:18] Otherwise, do want to thank you for all of the work that you've done here.
[1:23:24] There's been a lot of assessment and it's been responsive and there's been a lot of work
[1:23:30] on both the design and the assessment side of this that I think has been very helpful.
[1:23:35] So, much appreciated.
[1:23:36] Thank you.
[1:23:39] Council Member Paul.
[1:23:40] Thank you.
[1:23:41] Excuse me.
[1:23:41] Thank you.
[1:23:43] I just did a quick search and it looks like the special use permit is $600.
[1:23:49] Is that sound?
[1:23:49] Okay, that might be correct.
[1:23:50] I'm not.
[1:23:51] Okay, certain off-hand.
[1:23:53] Yeah, no.
[1:23:54] I just wanted to see what it was.
[1:23:55] And I also did some additional research and it looks like to build a 400 square foot house.
[1:23:59] You're looking between 175,000 and two hundred and seventy five thousand and two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars.
[1:24:04] And to build an 800 to a thousand square foot, eighty you.
[1:24:07] Looking at three hundred thousand and four hundred and fifty thousand.
[1:24:10] And so I do recognize that 600 is an extra fee, but I feel like for people that are likely
[1:24:17] going to be doing this, $600 is kind of a drop in the bucket with all of the other costs.
[1:24:22] So I still strongly support, especially his permit.
[1:24:25] Thank you.
[1:24:27] Thank you for the presentation.
[1:24:28] I do agree.
[1:24:30] It was thorough and you did answer questions that previously came up in the work session.
[1:24:35] As far as the parking goes, there is a parking problem.
[1:24:37] We have a lot of rentals in the city that have college students in them.
[1:24:42] And there's no mechanism for enforcing limitations on how many vehicles a rental can have.
[1:24:49] So what we're basically saying is if there's a parking problem in a neighborhood
[1:24:52] because we have a rental with no mechanism for limiting the number of vehicles
[1:24:56] where there's 3, 4, 5 or 6.
[1:24:59] Instead we're going to...
[1:25:00] To put the burden on an ADU to meet these requirements. We have a parking issue. I grant you. But giving a free pass to renters in the city and putting the burden on renters of an ADU, or even not even renters because I think we're overlooking the fact that a lot of these ADUs may be for family use and they're not rental properties at all.
[1:25:24] I don't think there should be a greater burden on properties with an ADU than we are placing
[1:25:29] on lots of rental properties that have lots of vehicles.
[1:25:33] So that would be my feedback on that.
[1:25:37] And as far as is the buy-right use of building an ADU, the city is full of yards that have
[1:25:44] sheds, angerages, and lots of external uses that are the basic footprint, maybe not the
[1:25:50] to the script, basic footprint of what we're talking about with an accessory dwelling unit.
[1:25:56] And while there might not be people living in there, the fact that matter is the city is full
[1:26:01] of yards that have sheds and garages in them. And no one came to us to ask if we like the design
[1:26:06] or the location or anything else. We can do it by right. We can boot by right because we own the property.
[1:26:12] And so I do have an issue with thinking that this dius or any dius or every dius that's elected every
[1:26:19] other year should have an upper-down vote on what people want to build in their yard, because
[1:26:24] we don't do that for the other structures they're currently building in their yard.
[1:26:28] So I fully support the fact that two parking spaces is adequate, understanding that parking
[1:26:33] is not an insignificant issue for neighborhoods, but we've already got a problem with vehicles
[1:26:38] for rental properties anyway.
[1:26:41] And the fact that it should be by right, because at $300,000, we are not going to have a
[1:26:47] and that think to yourself if you build something for $300,000, how many
[1:26:53] renters you'd have to have over what period of time to make your
[1:26:57] investment back? My feeling is probably that people are going to choose this
[1:27:01] because they have significantly greater reasons having to do with their
[1:27:08] family to invest $300,000 and that it is not a money-making enterprise because
[1:27:13] that kind of money making enterprise makes no sense financially.
[1:27:18] So just putting that out there.
[1:27:20] And with that, I will ask if there is a motion.
[1:27:26] Oh, sorry.
[1:27:26] Public hearing.
[1:27:28] Skip to steps.
[1:27:29] Sorry.
[1:27:30] Okay.
[1:27:30] I will open the public hearing.
[1:27:32] Missionary.
[1:27:32] Has this public hearing been properly advertised?
[1:27:34] Yes, it has.
[1:27:35] Someone has signed up prior to the meeting to speak.
[1:27:38] And then after that person speaks well, open the floor.
[1:27:40] There's anybody else in the room.
[1:27:41] So the one person that spoke is Katie Johnson.
[1:27:43] are we'll be speaking with K. Johnson.
[1:27:55] Katie Johnson and the clerk has my address. I came
[1:27:58] tonight to ask that ADUs be approved by special use permit. I'm happy to hear council members
[1:28:06] halls concern. I share those concerns. I generally support ADUs but only with very strong
[1:28:12] guard bills. I ask the city to retain the ability to ensure appropriateness and ensure no
[1:28:17] negative impacts on neighbors or neighborhoods. Parking is absolutely a concern and should have
[1:28:22] plan for enforcement. City should also have in place a process, much like the city
[1:28:27] retains the right to inspect chicken's cubes. The city must have the ability to
[1:28:32] enforce the ordinances. The shed on my house, there are places that I cannot put
[1:28:38] my shed. I cannot put my shed in the RPA. I cannot put my shed. I had to get
[1:28:43] special exception to put my shed where it is. So there are rules about where
[1:28:49] But my concern also is we have the ability to inspect chicken coops to ensure that the chickens are safe.
[1:28:57] Why do we not have the same ability? Why can't the city retain the same ability to make sure?
[1:29:02] And ensure that the people living in these small places are safe as well.
[1:29:07] Thank you.
[1:29:10] Okay. So anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item?
[1:29:24] Good evening Mayor Reed.
[1:29:25] members of Council. I'm Jim Gillespie. I live at 3604 Colony Road. I'm speaking tonight on
[1:29:32] behave on behalf of the ADU ordinance amendment. As we all know, there's a regional shortage
[1:29:40] of housing at all price points. There's a shortage of housing for young adults. There's a
[1:29:47] shortage of housing for seniors. There's a shortage of housing for everybody in between. And
[1:29:53] The A to U unit ordinance would be a modest, but meaningful.
[1:30:00] Step in the direction of providing housing for some people who need it. Now you may think 50 housing units over a decade or so, well, does that really do anything? Well, it does a lot for those 50 people. They are getting a home when they did not have it before. And I think a little bit about a situation in my own extended family. I have a close relative who is roughly my age, who is disabled. And at this point, I have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of
[1:30:29] is living in a senior living residence and barely affording it and I think about what it would
[1:30:38] be like to have that person come and live in my home and we could make it work but it would
[1:30:46] be difficult, it would be a sacrifice for us, it would be a real sacrifice to the dignity of
[1:30:53] person to be a border in my home, and an ADU kind of arrangement would provide that person with
[1:31:01] more autonomy, the feeling of living independently, of having more responsibility for their own
[1:31:08] life.
[1:31:09] So I thank you for all of the work that staff has done for all the many efforts that you have
[1:31:14] done to study this issue to assess it, and I hope you will vote yes.
[1:31:19] Thank you.
[1:31:23] Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak?
[1:31:29] Is there a motion?
[1:31:31] I move to approve an ordinance of
[1:31:32] Mending Chapter 110 zoning to amend portions of the
[1:31:36] Articles and sections contained there in including
[1:31:40] Introductory provisions zoning districts and regulations and definitions.
[1:31:45] Is there a second?
[1:31:48] Motion is made by council member,
[1:31:50] Hardie Chandler, seconded by council member,
[1:31:51] Peterson, a roll call vote.
[1:31:53] Hang on, are we going to have discussion?
[1:31:54] Is there a discussion on the motion?
[1:31:57] Council member Peterson?
[1:31:59] Yes, is this something that we need to do to
[1:32:01] the nighters that possible that this could be allowed
[1:32:03] some further public review of what we just saw tonight
[1:32:08] before we make a decision here?
[1:32:11] Council, always has a discretion to defer action
[1:32:14] on an item within appropriate motion.
[1:32:18] And I would be interested in the sense of the body here
[1:32:21] whether that's something that would be acceptable, it does seem that we're voting on something
[1:32:26] we just saw, I know it's been around for a while, on the other hand, we've seen some new
[1:32:30] information.
[1:32:30] Do you want to make a substitute motion?
[1:32:32] Is that how we would proceed against Mr. Lumperman?
[1:32:36] That would be the mechanism.
[1:32:38] The person, do you want to make a substitute motion?
[1:32:41] Yes, and I will need help from Mr. Lumperman to get the exact word and correct.
[1:32:45] So, if I may, I assume you'll just be asking to defer action on this item to a date certain of blank.
[1:32:54] The next time we get together, next early this time we get together.
[1:32:59] I believe that would be September the 8th.
[1:33:03] That would be fine for my standpoint, but I don't need to make a motion.
[1:33:08] Let's defer consideration until September 8th.
[1:33:11] Is there a second?
[1:33:14] Second.
[1:33:15] Emotions been made by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Hall or roll call vote.
[1:33:20] Is there a comment available at this time?
[1:33:23] Do you want to, yes, discussion on the motion?
[1:33:25] Yeah, I really, I think that we gave a lot of time for the noise ordinance.
[1:33:31] And then the city of Fairfax government put out a post and people are all up in arms about it.
[1:33:36] And I just think that something of this magnitude while it very well may pass and people might be very very supportive of it
[1:33:42] I think that the timing of the more finalized versions of this came out in June now we're doing this in July
[1:33:48] These are historically vacation months people are not here
[1:33:52] So I just think that we need a little bit more time to be able to give people to
[1:33:56] Understand this. I'd love to see this city put out something about this so that we can, you know, share it all around and really garnish a
[1:34:03] additional support, whether in favor or against just so we know that we're making a decision
[1:34:08] with more information.
[1:34:09] Thank you.
[1:34:10] Councilmember Amis?
[1:34:12] I just took my comment to the first being, you know, part of it is we're not going to know
[1:34:18] what needs to be fixed until it's implemented unfortunately, especially when it comes to
[1:34:22] parking to the actual number of ADUs and we gauge interest on where this is popping up.
[1:34:28] And if we're going to hit that 50 target in the next 10 years or maybe lower if it's
[1:34:33] that's something we'll need to track. The other, I'm very hesitant on the special use
[1:34:41] permit particularly because I just feel like that people have a right to their property
[1:34:46] and they should be allowed to develop it within a reason. I do feel like the board of zoning appeals
[1:34:50] is capable of assessing that. The point about deferral and the discussion on the motion, I guess my question
[1:34:58] would be why wouldn't we defer more?
[1:35:00] Or actions that happen over summer in general when people are traveling. Unfortunately, you know, business has to get, has to get done.
[1:35:08] This is my personal feeling on that.
[1:35:10] And some member of Koolham?
[1:35:14] I would like a differ, because I would like to ask a little bit more information, gather more information regarding the special use permit process.
[1:35:22] My understanding that is that it can take quite a long time for some people, so I want to better understand that process more.
[1:35:29] This is something that just came up this evening.
[1:35:31] This isn't something that we really discussed in detail prior.
[1:35:35] So deferring this to the next meeting would allow me that ability.
[1:35:37] Thank you.
[1:35:40] Councilmember Bades.
[1:35:42] So first off, this is something that as I recall has been in the work since we last years.
[1:35:48] Is that right?
[1:35:49] If not earlier.
[1:35:52] And so it's not something that was introduced, you know, just a month or two ago.
[1:35:57] You know, it's been on public agendas, we've received feedback about it.
[1:36:03] With regard to the special use permit, first off, is a resident required to pay that fee regardless of whether or not the city council ultimately votes it up or down.
[1:36:17] Yes, that's correct.
[1:36:18] So again, you know, we don't know what the financial means of the applicant, you know, every single applicant is going to be.
[1:36:28] They may have an agreement with someone who may be the verivorous occupant of that unit, where they
[1:36:34] paid a billed it, what have you, and then they're in a situation where they're out almost
[1:36:39] $1,000 plus the additional costs they may have incurred through having somebody help prepare
[1:36:47] whatever documentation they might need or what have you don't know what goes into that,
[1:36:56] and without
[1:36:57] Recently,
[1:37:00] I recall from reviewing the language of the ordinance that, and I believe, was also
[1:37:09] actually mentioned here tonight, if the property is due to whatever circumstances, guess
[1:37:20] to a point where it's no longer in conformance with the requirements that forth there, they're
[1:37:24] allowed to use that ADU? Is that right? Yes. And that exists regardless of whether or not
[1:37:32] there is a special use permit process and would there be any difference in enforcement of
[1:37:40] that if there is a special use permit process or not? Well, that's up to council. The bare minimum
[1:37:48] for a special use permit, what the changes would be in the zoning ordinance, there's a table
[1:37:54] In the zoning ordinance called the Accessory Use Table, Accessory Dwelling Units are listed in there,
[1:38:03] Accessory Dwelling Units are listed as permitted uses in the RHRL in our Amazon's.
[1:38:09] That could be changed to a special use permit to cover all ADUs or it could be split into Accessory Dwelling Units attached
[1:38:19] an accessory unit, accessory going units detached, one would be special, one would be permitted.
[1:38:27] In that case we would need a definition of each in the definition section, but that's
[1:38:32] the bare minimum and the standards that we reviewed today could stay the same if that's
[1:38:40] Council's wishes, if Council wishes to add other standards you all could do that as well.
[1:38:46] Yeah, but so with regard to the enforcement mechanism, would that be any different in terms of, you know,
[1:38:54] there's there's similar enforcement mechanisms to SUP's that the SUP is permitted, you know,
[1:39:00] for whatever is applied for and if that changes then that would be out of conformity in the property owner would have to come back for a new SUP if that changes.
[1:39:11] But in terms of how that's enforced with regard to, you know, what's proposed, it's, would you say that it's similar to, you know, that provision that's currently in there, you know, and it's not in conformance and in a longer function.
[1:39:27] Correct. That would be similar to the difference would be if Council imposes additional requirements as part of the SUP process.
[1:39:35] That would be something that's above and beyond what's in the zoning ordinance.
[1:39:38] We could also if we wanted to amend or set the requirements as is, you know, regardless of whether there's an SEP or not.
[1:39:50] Yeah.
[1:39:51] And so we've already discussed those requirements previously.
[1:39:53] Anyways, just some clarification.
[1:39:56] That's very helpful.
[1:39:57] Thank you.
[1:39:58] Can you remember harder, Chandler?
[1:40:00] I think put simply what concerns me is adding a burden to people who may want to pursue this option and a burden that wouldn't be in place if they were doing something else like simply improving their property in a different way.
[1:40:16] So the added burden that does not feel fair to me is not something that I'm wanting to consider.
[1:40:23] I wanted to be an encouragement for people to consider this when it's right for their family and the right for their financial circumstances rather than sort of punishing them and adding extra hoops for them to jump through in order to have this happen.
[1:40:38] So I'm in support of continuing with the vote today.
[1:40:42] Council member Pearson.
[1:40:44] And just to clarify, my interest here was actually not to address the special use permit issue,
[1:40:54] which sounds like there's still some conversation around,
[1:40:57] but really to give residents a chance to digest this a little bit.
[1:41:00] Sometimes it seems like it's a little bit much for us to receive new information.
[1:41:05] People are giving, I mean, bite people to do a public hearing the same night and they've just seen it.
[1:41:10] And in some cases, have not even yet seen it.
[1:41:13] It's difficult for people to be able to access
[1:41:15] some of this information ahead of time and digest it.
[1:41:18] We're actually getting explanations here that help them do that.
[1:41:21] And then we turn right around and we vote.
[1:41:23] And if there's no harm in giving a little bit more time
[1:41:26] for people to digest this, in case there is something
[1:41:29] out of that that's meaningful, I don't see why we wouldn't
[1:41:32] delay.
[1:41:33] And in terms of the July time frame,
[1:41:36] I mean, people are busy all the time.
[1:41:37] I will say, however, I have received some comments.
[1:41:39] from residents who have expressed the concern that they've been out of pocket pretty badly
[1:41:46] in July and are having a hard time keeping up with what's going on in terms of city business.
[1:41:52] So this is a time when it's been a little bit tougher probably than normal to do that.
[1:41:57] And I would think because of significant new information that we're having in front of us tonight
[1:42:03] on the lack of the opportunity for people to really have time to digest it and for us to be able to hear
[1:42:08] from them. And again, there may be no feedback whatsoever, but as in the case of the noise
[1:42:14] ordinance, there may be quite a bit of feedback. In any case, it would be great to give
[1:42:19] us that opportunity a possible. And I don't think it's a major burden in terms of the postponement
[1:42:24] here for another decision. I also don't think it would require a particularly large amount
[1:42:30] of time to act on this when it does come back. So that was really the intention that I
[1:42:36] here. Thank you. Councilmember Hall. Thank you. I do also want to remind everyone that this was
[1:42:42] the body earlier this month who delayed the implementation of and otherwise agreed upon council
[1:42:53] code of ethics to allow our boards and commissions time to review it when it wasn't even decided
[1:43:00] that they were going to be subject to it.
[1:43:03] So I just have a hard time not allowing additional time
[1:43:07] for our 24,000 residents to make sure that they've
[1:43:10] wrapped their heads around this potential change
[1:43:13] to their neighborhoods.
[1:43:15] Can we remember any of this?
[1:43:17] And just for clarification on that, in that meeting,
[1:43:20] I asked Mr. Lupkeman if the timeline was affected
[1:43:22] if we did that action, and he said no.
[1:43:25] So the timeline was not changed because of that.
[1:43:28] So, if there's no further discussion on this motion to defer, can we take a roll call vote?
[1:43:36] Missionaberry.
[1:43:38] Councilmember Amis.
[1:43:40] Councilmember Hall.
[1:43:42] Councilmember Hardy Chandler.
[1:43:43] No.
[1:43:44] Councilmember Peterson.
[1:43:45] Aye.
[1:43:46] Councilmember Bates.
[1:43:48] No.
[1:43:49] Councilmember McCulland.
[1:43:50] Yes.
[1:43:50] Motion failed 3-3.
[1:43:55] So, the original motion, which was made by Councilmember Hardy Chandler
[1:44:00] and seconded by Councilmember Peterson, is there discussion on the original motion before we take a roll call about Councilmember Hall?
[1:44:07] I'd like to make it very clear that I think that this could be an excellent opportunity for our community, for our residents.
[1:44:15] I simply do not feel that those that are away and that have spent the summer since their kids have been out of school have sufficient time to truly understand and digest what is included here,
[1:44:27] which is why I strongly supported him was going to ask for a delay myself.
[1:44:32] So my vote tonight is not a no against ADUs.
[1:44:35] It's a no against the process that is not allowing our residents
[1:44:39] efficient time to absorb this information. Thank you.
[1:44:45] Any other discussion on the motion?
[1:44:47] And I will simply say we've been working on this ADU amendment. I believe since I was elected mayor.
[1:44:52] So it is not something new. We have had work sessions on it.
[1:44:55] There may not have been work sessions you saw previous to being on this kind of
[1:45:00] Council, but we have been talking about this ADU ordinance since at least 20, 24. They have not 20, 23. So, with that, a roll call vote.
[1:45:13] Okay, council member, Macboan.
[1:45:16] I do want to just state on the record that I will be voting no on this because I too in our last meeting was convinced and in being collaborative and trying to ensure that everyone in my colleagues had enough time to speak with their consent.
[1:45:33] constituents and do their due diligence. I decided to go ahead and agree with the
[1:45:38] rest of Council that we would delay adopting our code of ethics. And this evening,
[1:45:44] I was also kind of in the same boat here where I was going, okay, especially his
[1:45:49] permit for $600. That's a lot of money. I know some of the timing, the process
[1:45:53] can take a long time. However, I'm not even given enough time to speak with constituents
[1:45:58] and talk to them about this to ensure that they understand that this is what's going to happen
[1:46:04] when this is approved this evening. So I just want to let everyone know that I'm not saying
[1:46:09] no to 80's because I actually support them fully. I'm very frustrated that the process
[1:46:15] tonight that we're saying that we don't care about what our constituents think about this. We have
[1:46:20] all of this set out really nicely now. We know exactly what it entails and our constituents can look
[1:46:27] get over and give us really good accurate feedback.
[1:46:30] They're all on vacation.
[1:46:31] Everybody is gone this summer.
[1:46:32] We know this.
[1:46:33] They're going to return next month
[1:46:34] because school starts in August.
[1:46:36] Can we really wait for one month?
[1:46:38] Yes, we could, but we're not going to tonight.
[1:46:40] So my vote will be a no, but it's not against ADUs
[1:46:43] because I do want affordability and I want housing here.
[1:46:46] However, I'm very frustrated that we feel like it's okay
[1:46:49] to just push things along and not give a deferment.
[1:46:53] Thank you.
[1:46:58] Councilmember Peterson?
[1:47:00] Yeah, it is. I think a little bit frustrating for everybody to be in this position. I support the detached ADU approach. I do think there's a little bit of unfinished business here and if we're not going to be able to give ourselves some breathing room to let people give us feedback and tie this up with a nice bow when we get back the way we really ought to.
[1:47:21] I would just say that I would hope that our city manager and city staff would move forward
[1:47:29] in a manner that would retain flexibility as needed to address needs that may come up
[1:47:38] as a consequence of public feedback that we receive after the evenings vote and that we
[1:47:46] stay flexible and responsive every step of the way, and that could be special use permit,
[1:47:53] but it could be any number of other things.
[1:47:55] As I mentioned earlier, this is going to go into an early implementation phase.
[1:48:00] It will be an early period of discovery.
[1:48:03] It will be much like a pilot, and I will support this, but it will be based on the assumption
[1:48:09] that we will take seriously feedback that we receive, and that we will act on that feedback
[1:48:15] without hesitation, as necessary, and retain the flexibility we need to do that.
[1:48:20] So I will be supporting this, but I must say I have real reservations about the way in
[1:48:26] which we're doing this, and we're not giving people a chance to have a last look at something
[1:48:30] that has some new elements to it.
[1:48:32] Thank you.
[1:48:35] Any other comments?
[1:48:37] Seeing none of what we'll call vote?
[1:48:38] Councilmember Amis?
[1:48:41] Councilmember Hall?
[1:48:42] Councilmember Hardy Chandler?
[1:48:44] Councilmember Peterson?
[1:48:45] Aye.
[1:48:45] Council Member Bates?
[1:48:47] Aye.
[1:48:48] Council Member McQueen?
[1:48:50] No.
[1:48:51] Okay.
[1:48:51] Most room pass for the two.
[1:48:54] Okay.
[1:48:55] We will go on to the second general public comment.
[1:48:58] Is there anybody that I would like to make a general public comment tonight?
[1:49:05] All right.
[1:49:06] Seeing none, we will now recess the regular meeting to go into a work session.
[1:49:09] We'll take a five minute recess to move into the work session room.
[1:56:58] Welcome to our work session. Before we begin the work session, I want to give a background on the development review process for applications.
[1:57:08] The development review process was established through a series of mayor and city council retreats to ensure development concepts or presented to the mayor and council as a whole, rather than through individual meetings. This approach promotes transparency by ensuring all elected officials receive the same information at the same time.
[1:57:26] Pre-application Briefings occur before a formal application is submitted.
[1:57:32] At this stage, City staff provides a high-level overview of a proposed concept.
[1:57:38] And the potential applicant is available to answer questions.
[1:57:42] The plans are conceptual, and the mayor and city council may offer general observations as guidance.
[1:57:48] Once a formal application is submitted and accepted, City staff conducts a detailed review for compliance
[1:57:55] with applicable codes and policies. Post-submission work sessions include an in-depth
[1:58:02] staff analysis and typically occur after the applicant has addressed initial staff comments
[1:58:07] and before the application proceeds to public hearings. The process has been reviewed and refined
[1:58:14] over time by successive mayor and city councils. Changes have included clarifying materials to
[1:58:20] which pre-application briefings from post-submission work sessions and allowing potential applicants to answer questions during pre-application briefings to provide additional context for conceptual proposals.
[1:58:34] So we are just setting the stage for where we are with this work session.
[1:58:39] Missionary, what is our first work session here?
[1:58:42] Our first item is a pre-application briefing on a request by Network Realty Partners for the
[1:58:48] redevelopment of 3, 5, 4, 1, chain bridge road, and we're going to recognize Clare Schweiger
[1:58:53] or city planner for the staff presentation.
[1:58:56] Good evening, Mayor and Council.
[1:58:58] First up, tonight for work sessions is a discussion on a potential redevelopment at 3541
[1:59:04] chain bridge road.
[1:59:06] We are currently in the pre-application stage of the Development Review process, so a formal
[1:59:11] land use application has not yet been submitted.
[1:59:14] City staff have met with the potential applicant
[1:59:16] and provided initial feedback on the potential proposal.
[1:59:22] So the top left image here is an aerial of the site.
[1:59:26] The site is located at the southeast corner
[1:59:29] of Chainbridge Road in Eaton Place,
[1:59:31] west of University Drive, and north of Fairfax Boulevard.
[1:59:35] The future land use designation for the site
[1:59:38] is the activities center of police type,
[1:59:40] and the site is located in the North Facts activity center and is subject to the North Facts
[1:59:46] Small Area Plan. The site is currently zoned CR Commercial Retail and the potential applicant
[1:59:53] proposes to reason to see you commercial urban.
[2:00:00] This slide shows proposed residential development in the North Facts Activity Center. This table is also provided in your briefing packet, but just to give a quick summary, and North Facts, the small area plan estimates 1,400 new residential units in the near term.
[2:00:16] Today, there are 1,088 units currently in some phase of the land use process in the north-fax activity center.
[2:00:24] In all activity centers, the small area plans estimate 4,759 units in the near-term.
[2:00:32] Today, 2,753 units are in some phase of the land use process in all activity centers.
[2:00:39] Outside of the activity centers, 3,22 units are in the land use pipeline.
[2:00:45] And then the table on the bottom here shows each project in North Facts with the status and the number of units proposed.
[2:00:56] Now, going back to the potential project for tonight's discussion, existing on the development site,
[2:01:02] are two two story office buildings and 124 parking spaces on approximately 2.09 acres.
[2:01:09] This is the concept plan.
[2:01:14] The potential applicant proposes 29 townhouses and eight to over two units with a proposed
[2:01:19] height maximum of four stories.
[2:01:22] They proposed 2,750 square feet of retail on university drive, a new private street, a
[2:01:29] wide-end 10-foot sidewalk on eating place, and an eight-foot sidewalk on university drive, and
[2:01:35] an internal six-foot sidewalk leading to units.
[2:01:38] The potential applicant proposes a 4,200 square foot linear park, 8,300 square feet of open space and an inner parcel connection to the south.
[2:01:52] Here are our renderings of the potential proposal, so these are looking at the stacked townhouses of the two over Tuesdays.
[2:02:02] And your more renderings on the left is a retail building and then on the right you're seeing the townhouses.
[2:02:14] So city staff met with the applicant, the potential applicant and has provided preliminary feedback on the potential proposal.
[2:02:23] This list was included in your briefing packet.
[2:02:30] And on June 22nd, the Planning Commission held a pre-application briefing with the applicant
[2:02:37] and gave the applicant feedback, a summary of this feedback has also been included in your
[2:02:45] briefing packet.
[2:02:49] Potential land use request for the proposal would be a rezoning from CR commercial retail to
[2:02:54] see you commercial urban in the architectural control, a really district, a special use permit
[2:02:59] for townhouses and multi-family, a general development plan and a major certificate of
[2:03:05] appropriateness for architecture and landscaping.
[2:03:09] So the next steps are a land use application submission, staff review, work sessions with
[2:03:16] the planning commission, the BAR and city council, and then public hearings.
[2:03:22] And that concludes my presentation.
[2:03:23] I'm here to answer any questions that you have.
[2:03:26] The potential applicant is also standing by for questions.
[2:03:30] Thank you for the presentation, Councilmember Amis.
[2:03:33] Thank you very much for the very brief presentation.
[2:03:37] Just to quickly go over what I liked that I saw.
[2:03:41] The sidewalk with I think are appropriate.
[2:03:43] I think ten feet on Eden, eight feet on University.
[2:03:46] I think that makes a lot of sense.
[2:03:48] I do like the University Connection and Access from Chainbridge.
[2:03:52] I actually, my understanding, based on what I saw on the plan,
[2:03:55] the access point to the property from Eden is removed.
[2:03:58] correct. I do like that element of it as well, taking that off. I also really, yes, right there.
[2:04:05] Thank you. I also like the linear park and green space concepts. So I do like to see that you have a
[2:04:11] good amount of green space proposed from this initial application. Just a few questions.
[2:04:17] It might be a little too early by imagine in terms of storm water. If I recall correctly, this is kind of on a slope.
[2:04:23] In terms of stormwater, are we looking at an underground tank as what's their sufficient or what would be
[2:04:28] implemented for me? I guess I would be to the applicant.
[2:04:33] Just early thoughts.
[2:04:40] Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, Bob Grant, with the law from a Walsh Colucci,
[2:04:44] all the half of the applicant this evening. I'm joined by Greg Tremer from Network Realty Partners
[2:04:48] and appreciate the opportunity to come before Council. And get feedback, answer questions, and hopefully
[2:04:53] begin this process. Council Member Amas, you asked about stormwater management. We have not yet fully
[2:04:59] designed at work.
[2:05:00] We're still very early. This is the concept plan. This is really the extent of what we designed so far. But make
[2:05:06] no mistake about it. There will be stormwater management facilities provided on site. What
[2:05:10] we're anticipating is exactly what you described underground facilities, detention, stormwater
[2:05:16] quantity, quality controls, things like that. It will be a significant benefit over what's
[2:05:21] there today. This property was developed in the early 1970s and I think it's safe to say is
[2:05:27] entirely lacking in terms of storm water controls. So that's one of the several benefits that the redevelopment of this property
[2:05:34] will just inherently bring forward.
[2:05:37] Thank you. My next question in terms of height, so what's currently there, I think I saw on the plan it was 28 feet if I'm correct.
[2:05:45] And then you have proposed four stories. What's the gap there? What's the difference?
[2:05:49] That's correct.
[2:05:50] The two story buildings.
[2:05:51] I think you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're about 25, 28,
[2:05:54] 30 feet.
[2:05:55] The story, excuse me, feet high.
[2:05:57] What we are proposing at this point is a maximum height of four stories or 60 feet.
[2:06:02] The 60 feet would be the, uh, two over two units, the stacked townhouse units on the left side
[2:06:08] of your screen, the west side of the site, fronting on chamberage road.
[2:06:12] Um, those will be a little bit taller than the, the single family attached the townhouse units.
[2:06:16] One of the reasons we did that was to kind of establish that frontage, establish that book
[2:06:20] end of the site, create kind of a gateway as we're coming into the city by concentrating
[2:06:24] that mass there, but that for story 60 foot height would be the maximum.
[2:06:29] The townhouses would likely be a bit shorter than that, but again, we're early in the process
[2:06:33] and so all of that information will be provided if and when it's missed forward.
[2:06:38] And I know it's early in the process, so for example, you know, I'd be curious our economic
[2:06:41] development director's thoughts, so what exactly is driving this as a vacancy rate, is it, I mean,
[2:06:47] what are we, what are we looking at for this?
[2:06:49] Yeah, and I'll ask great to chime in with a little bit more detail, but the reality is these buildings
[2:06:53] are really approaching or at the end of their useful life. They're about 50 years old at this point and
[2:07:01] they're deteriorating. And frankly, the costs of getting them back to where they need to be to
[2:07:06] release these spaces are, it's approaching to the point where it's cost prohibitive. And so that's why
[2:07:11] property owners in the position now, we're looking to the next phase, the next step for
[2:07:15] this property.
[2:07:17] And so what we've come forward with is what we think and what we hope council agrees
[2:07:20] is a step in the right direction, something that's consistent with the small area plan
[2:07:25] and continuing the progress of development here in Norfolk's.
[2:07:29] Greg, do you want to add to that?
[2:07:30] That's exactly right in terms of the condition of buildings.
[2:07:33] And in terms of the product mix and the direction of the plan, we looked kind of holistically
[2:07:36] in this broader market.
[2:07:38] And we're really excited about kind of the canvas that's been painted already.
[2:07:41] We have a senior housing building.
[2:07:42] We have a rental apartment building coming out of the ground.
[2:07:46] What we don't have is home ownership opportunities.
[2:07:49] And in this small little plan, we fit a lot of,
[2:07:52] we think great things.
[2:07:53] There's the two over two units,
[2:07:55] which will be the smaller, it's smaller so the units.
[2:07:57] And then a mixture of 16 foot wide and 24 wide downs.
[2:08:00] So in this plenty of three different types
[2:08:02] of home ownership opportunities,
[2:08:04] that will be the first kind of in this broader area.
[2:08:06] And we think that all of that,
[2:08:08] as an interactivity.
[2:08:09] In addition to the two hotels that already exist brings a kind of a nice diversity of
[2:08:14] a pedestrian activity and we'll kind of start to activate it as a whole, so we're really
[2:08:17] excited about that.
[2:08:18] Thank you.
[2:08:19] My last question is related to the retail portion, and there's kind of two things built
[2:08:23] into that.
[2:08:24] One for the retail.
[2:08:25] I mean, when you say retail, do you mean more commercial office space or do you more
[2:08:31] so mean, for example, restaurant use, hit or something like that?
[2:08:34] Just for clarification.
[2:08:35] So our hope is that it's neighborhood serving retail.
[2:08:37] We intentionally had it on the linear park because we like that interface between that activity in the park, interacting with the retail.
[2:08:49] It's very, very, really to try and determine what will release in that space.
[2:08:53] Our hope would be, though, it would be neighborhoods to every retail rather than commercial use.
[2:08:57] Understood. And part of the reason I asked that is because it just felt a little odd to have that retail space fronting.
[2:09:03] not fronting technically, but closer to the chain bridge roadside, I would think considering
[2:09:09] you have an adjacent shopping center on the university drive portion, you might get more
[2:09:13] consistency putting that on the university drive side. I wasn't sure what went to your
[2:09:17] thought process on that. Yeah, so the retail actually is on the right side, east side of this side,
[2:09:22] so that's the drive correct. And the reason for that, just so you're aware, and when we first
[2:09:28] met with staff about this, they emphasized the importance of having that retail frontage there,
[2:09:33] because that's what the small area of plant recommends. If you look at this site,
[2:09:36] this site, the hotel site to the south, and even points to the north across eaten place,
[2:09:41] it's envisioned in the small area of plant that that linear park has a retail frontage. And so
[2:09:45] what you see here is the product of several conversations we had with staff early on
[2:09:50] to advance that design. I am very happy to hear I was wrong about that, so thank you.
[2:09:55] So it didn't say you were wrong for saying. I'll say it to myself. No, that's good to know.
[2:10:00] And that was it for my questions. Thank you.
[2:10:03] Thank you.
[2:10:04] Council member Quillin.
[2:10:08] Thank you. How much commercial will be preserved?
[2:10:12] So the existing office buildings are about 16,000 square feet.
[2:10:15] A little over that council member Quillin. Those will be removed and replaced with the proposed retail that we have here, which is just over 2,700 square feet.
[2:10:27] And then, how much room is there for, I'm looking at the renderings and I actually really like this plan a lot, I'll be honest with you, I really like this plan a lot, I like the retail on the side, but the renderings, is there a lot of room for changing the look to look less square and modern and like everything else I see it in everybody else's city.
[2:10:54] that's being built?
[2:10:58] And this is Bob and my first opportunity to work together.
[2:11:00] And he said, you know, you don't really need
[2:11:02] renderings at this point, it's this conceptual.
[2:11:04] I said, let's put something in there
[2:11:05] and facilitate a conversation.
[2:11:07] So the answer is absolutely, and we want that feedback.
[2:11:09] And we want this whole project to feel
[2:11:11] like it's part of the fabric of the city Fairfax.
[2:11:14] Great.
[2:11:14] I really, I do like the set up, I like the green space.
[2:11:17] I like where you have the retail.
[2:11:19] I'd like to see a little, or the commercial.
[2:11:21] I'd like to see a little bit more preservation
[2:11:22] for commercial.
[2:11:23] but I, the renderings and the look of the appearance, I think you could go a long way if it
[2:11:30] really matches our community well and keeps to the character. So thank you, Greg. Thank you.
[2:11:36] Council member Peterson. Yeah, I've got a per staff. A couple of questions here. Just on page one
[2:11:44] and just a couple of quick math questions for you on the far right bottom activity centers plus
[2:11:50] side of number units and there's you drop down you go to a total of 3,000, 22. What is that number?
[2:12:01] Okay, sorry. Can you repeat your question? I was looking at my presentation out the staff before.
[2:12:05] That's okay. So I'm going to the staff report. Yes. And I'm going down to
[2:12:13] bottom right corner of page one. Okay. And so you've got a couple tables here.
[2:12:21] that give you the tally of what are known and what you're just benchmark estimates, but I'll
[2:12:27] circle back to them in the very far right, and they have numbers for the first two for
[2:12:31] north fax, then activity centers plus combined. The last one is activity centers plus outside
[2:12:37] of, and it's blank, but if you drop down to the very bottom, it's 3,022. What does that mean?
[2:12:43] Yeah, that's all like one table, so that means the projects that are in a land use process right now including activities out centers and those outside of activities centers.
[2:13:01] Those are in a land use process. How do you reconcile that with the first two boxes one for north fax and one for activity centers combined?
[2:13:09] And the north-axe one has 1,400, and the smaller airplane benchmark estimate for activity
[2:13:15] centers is 4,700.
[2:13:17] And Ms. Schwagger, if you could pull up that slide as well, I think that might be helpful.
[2:13:23] So the 1,400 units, Council Member Peterson, is the benchmark estimate for the north-faxe
[2:13:31] small area plan, and so that's what's identified in the plan in terms of benchmark
[2:13:37] estimate over the near-term development in north fax. So there is not a benchmark estimate
[2:13:46] for areas outside of activity centers. So in that final table on the far right of this slide,
[2:13:54] you don't see a benchmark estimate. So what's included there is in total number of residential units
[2:14:02] at some place within the development review process that could be considered by City Council.
[2:14:09] At some point in time, if those proposals or projects proceed, those are the figures associated with that.
[2:14:18] So under construction, approved under review and in a pre-application phase.
[2:14:25] And so those are the units that are somewhere in the development review process with the city.
[2:14:32] That's the 32,000 22. Yes, sir. All right, so just to check my math. So if you look at
[2:14:40] Current population and city of Fairfax, which is 26,000 340 or something like that
[2:14:46] In you add 47 to it. That's 4,700. That's not in the door to an 18% increase
[2:14:53] yet another
[2:14:55] 3,000 to it. It's like a 29% increase over base
[2:15:01] So, just adding the numbers up, again, just a math thing, we have a current population. I'm trying to get a sense of how much that current population expands.
[2:15:11] I'll take your word for it, council member, please.
[2:15:14] I blame it on the iPhone, wrong, okay, and my thumbs, which I have too many of right now.
[2:15:20] All right, so there's that, just then, you said near term, what does that mean?
[2:15:28] So the small area plans identify a 10 to 15 year near-term development window, and so as shown in those plans, there's a full illustrative buildout of what redevelopment in those areas, which are designated redevelopment areas in the city, might look like.
[2:15:49] as those plans were to be being developed based upon market conditions, what is included is what
[2:15:57] is estimated redevelopment activity could result in over that 10 to 15 year period, so for
[2:16:05] North Facts, it was 1400 units.
[2:16:09] Great, but so we've talked about this, so you'll correct me if I don't exactly get it right,
[2:16:15] But those benchmark estimates are what market conditions could result in.
[2:16:23] That is not however a public policy goal that's been adopted by the city.
[2:16:27] That is correct.
[2:16:28] And that's a very critical point for what a recognized site.
[2:16:31] I think we need to be cautious about any presentation.
[2:16:36] And I'm not pointing fingers at this one that might suggest that we are trying to attain
[2:16:40] these particular goals that is not the case.
[2:16:43] We're simply tracking metrics.
[2:16:44] But I'm curious also, I don't see our economic development director here although maybe she's hiding somewhere.
[2:16:53] But we have a metric here, which is housing units.
[2:16:58] Are we also estimating commercial expansion market potential in for that matter retail?
[2:17:08] And I don't even talk about industrial, but let's just talk about commercial and retail over the same period.
[2:17:12] But I don't see those benchmarks here.
[2:17:15] We are, and that's information that we can provide to City Council moving forward.
[2:17:21] I think this table is put together in response to a previous request so we inserted it in
[2:17:26] this presentation, but we can add additional information regarding commercial square footage
[2:17:31] as well.
[2:17:33] Well, I mean, it gets to a strategic question, I think, for the council in the city, as it
[2:17:37] is trying to address public interest and that is the goal that, um, either we have or we've
[2:17:46] certainly discussed of expanding, um, the presence of commercial redevelopment and or development
[2:17:54] in the city. And we don't have parallel numbers here to tell us what those numbers look like next
[2:18:01] to residential numbers. So the conversation is a little bit one-sided. We're just talking
[2:18:06] residential. We're not talking commercial here. This is a case where we're reducing the
[2:18:11] and so there is certainly an interest in expanding commercial. And in this case we're
[2:18:17] actually reducing it from 16,000 to 2700 square feet. I think that's a really big hit on a
[2:18:24] commercial square footage. And again our economic development director is not here but she will
[2:18:31] I'm sure be listening in on this. It's my understanding that just across the street. It
[2:18:36] Right view, one of the objectives there to address this very problem is to add 7,000 square
[2:18:43] feet at least of commercial there.
[2:18:46] So I guess my question is if we are trying to expand commercial in this area, why aren't
[2:18:54] we focusing the approach on this particular site in a manner that's consistent with that?
[2:19:01] Because that would seem to be consistent with the city's goals.
[2:19:07] I'll defer to the applicant or the potential applicant regarding this potential site.
[2:19:12] Sure.
[2:19:13] Thanks.
[2:19:13] Thanks.
[2:19:13] Thanks, Mr. Harden.
[2:19:14] Thanks, Council Member Petersen, for the question.
[2:19:16] I think it's a good one, right?
[2:19:18] This site has been a commercial use for the last 50 years, so years, for the reasons I described
[2:19:23] the existing facilities on the site, the buildings themselves are just, they're at the end of their
[2:19:30] life span and so the question that becomes what's next and so when we looked at this property
[2:19:35] working with the owner, I'm trying to figure out what made the best sense for North
[2:19:39] Fast, what made the best sense for the city as Greg was mentioning earlier, we thought
[2:19:43] that introducing opportunities for homeownership here were appropriate.
[2:19:48] Now I acknowledge that there will be a reduction in the amount of commercial space,
[2:19:52] certainly compared to what's there today. We are bringing forward what I do believe is a
[2:19:56] meaningful number 2700 square feet. But I think looking at the big-
[2:20:00] Speaker, picture here. What these future residents will do is support the existing commercial uses that are already in the area. Shopping centers down the street, the future growth, yet to come in north fax.
[2:20:11] And so I do think that this application is proposal which is a relatively small piece of north fax and the bigger picture does have a role to play.
[2:20:21] We've got a botanist coming online right now. It's under construction. I think that's bringing about 5000 square feet.
[2:20:27] I forget if you mentioned that or not Councilmember Petersen but looking at this site and working through this development program we felt that this was the highest in the best use for it and certainly something that can be a valuable part of the overall effects community.
[2:20:42] So I think it would be great to maybe have an expanded conversation that I would like it possible to have the benefit of our economic development director to be a part of to understand the commercial.
[2:20:57] status, mix, and potential goals in that area, because right across the street, there is, of course,
[2:21:03] quite substantial commercial redevelopment going on.
[2:21:07] And I don't think the issue here is trying to make use of the 50 year old buildings.
[2:21:10] I think it's pretty clear that this is a redevelopment scenario under any scenario.
[2:21:15] Here, this taking place, but I think the question is whether it's really the right
[2:21:18] to a time in place to be knock and out so much commercial, given these circumstances.
[2:21:23] And I certainly like to understand that more clearly.
[2:21:28] The other thing that factors into that is in terms of the type of commercial
[2:21:35] development that is consistent with future market conditions and could actually
[2:21:43] those conditions could be shaped a bit by proactive things that we might do here.
[2:21:50] My understanding for my economic development director is that
[2:21:55] where the city shines and could shine is smaller scale
[2:22:01] commercial sites that would be of interest to firms
[2:22:05] That don't want to go into the really big office building developments that are outside of the city
[2:22:11] but are looking for
[2:22:14] smaller scale more and by definition more affordable
[2:22:18] also that are monetized, and it creates a set of conditions that those firms are looking for.
[2:22:25] And we have some competitive advantages there, and this would be a case where, you know, this is a site that can potentially be acting on them.
[2:22:32] I'm not sure how much of the formulation of this proposal has involved conversations around economic development and commercial development in the city, but to me that's kind of the white elephant here.
[2:22:44] I appreciate what you've brought forward, but I do want to acknowledge that we have kind of a big picture issue here for the city and this particular location that I would feel
[2:22:57] more comfortable if we had a chance to unpack that a little bit here as we decide, but what works best here.
[2:23:04] Thank you.
[2:23:05] Thank you.
[2:23:06] Councillor member Hardie Chandler.
[2:23:11] Thank you.
[2:23:15] I really appreciate slide four because I think as I mentioned in a previous meeting sometimes we look at projects individually and we don't consider what else is going on in the area so I think that we did ask for particularly on the residential side what else is going on in where this fall so in north fax is this proposal included in the pre application number that's in the upper left side okay.
[2:23:41] Thank you. The other question that I had was, for retail you mentioned neighborhood serving.
[2:23:50] What does that mean specifically? Can you break down with that means for me?
[2:23:54] Sure, sure. I think my shop there, it's like small, small boutiques, perhaps a coffee shop, a cafe, a small restaurant.
[2:24:02] Things that could, as I was mentioning before, you know, be used by the future residents here.
[2:24:07] And so I'm sure Greg would agree with me.
[2:24:09] It's still, again, we're on step one of 100 of this process.
[2:24:14] It's still relatively early.
[2:24:16] And the guys we move forward hopefully that vision gets fleshed out a little bit more.
[2:24:19] At this point, anyway, we're hoping to maintain as much flexibility as we can to expand the
[2:24:24] universe of potential uses.
[2:24:25] But what we're thinking is most likely as something like I described as a small restaurant
[2:24:29] cafe store.
[2:24:31] Something like that.
[2:24:31] Thank you.
[2:24:31] I just wanted to understand the category.
[2:24:34] I did read in the report where you were talking about the buildings being at the
[2:24:37] of their life so can you talk a little bit about the current tenants and so it's at the end
[2:24:42] of this life something is going to have to happen right these buildings are not sustainable
[2:24:46] at all some choices going to have to be made so for the current tenants I guess a couple of
[2:24:59] out.
[2:25:00] What might happen with them in terms of a plan? And also what is the current vacancy of bills of buildings?
[2:25:06] Yeah, the current vacancies about 40% and that's going to grow. The buildings are set to go entirely vacant
[2:25:14] over the next 18 months. The buildings are structurally, you know, I don't want to say, unsound, but in poor condition,
[2:25:21] and no longer makes sense to continue reinvest them. So, in any scenario, those buildings will be closed here in the next 18 to 24 months.
[2:25:29] And you mentioned, if I heard you correctly in another response, you mentioned this as being
[2:25:36] different from some of the other projects that you're involved in, is that what went into
[2:25:41] the decision for this particular kind of proposal. Because I think there was a mention of rental
[2:25:49] properties and other properties. So was this to diversify?
[2:25:54] Well, in terms of this particular planning, it was diversifying the housing opportunities in
[2:25:59] this sub-market right now, right now there's a rental product coming up and there's the
[2:26:03] senior housing and so forth and so we saw a distinct opportunity specifically in town
[2:26:08] us is that are smaller, more attainable, the two are reduced will be even a lower price
[2:26:12] point.
[2:26:13] So we felt like that hit a real sweet spot that wasn't an opportunity there.
[2:26:16] So having a differentiated product was very interesting.
[2:26:18] The other thing that's about the site that is important to note is it's a small site.
[2:26:24] It's just over two acres.
[2:26:26] With the hotel to the south, there's no real opportunity to grow that to do a more substantial project.
[2:26:32] And so this was an opportunity to kind of pack a lot into a small bag.
[2:26:36] So we've checked a lot of boxes.
[2:26:39] Thank you.
[2:26:40] It's my question for now.
[2:26:41] Thank you.
[2:26:43] Council Member Hall.
[2:26:46] Sorry, can you give me another minute, please?
[2:26:47] Thanks.
[2:26:51] I certainly do overall like some aspects of this project, the layout of overall the sidewalks and side access.
[2:27:04] I will say that the smaller plant envisions this site being all commercial, understanding that there might be room for compromise here,
[2:27:15] But I would like to see ideally at least half the commercial space is there, replaced, and
[2:27:24] there are things that could be done in terms of perhaps structured parking.
[2:27:28] We see another sites in the city where there's a small office going with a small parking
[2:27:33] garage or something like that.
[2:27:36] And in addition to, you know, the retail front edge is certainly needed there, you know,
[2:27:44] at the absolute minimum.
[2:27:46] But the smaller airplane envisions that fronting onto the linear park, which I think is perhaps
[2:27:52] maybe just a matter of moving that sidewalk around to the other side and having it front
[2:27:57] onto that sidewalk on that side.
[2:27:59] But, yeah, again, more commercial space, office and or retail, but still certainly I think that having some for sale units here adds some diversity to the housing stock in this part of North Facts.
[2:28:17] Thank you.
[2:28:18] Councillor Member Hall?
[2:28:19] Thank you. Sorry. I forgot my reading glasses. I'm having a zoom in and go over to the screen.
[2:28:24] sucks getting old. I have a couple, I don't know if there are
[2:28:28] cleric questions or not, but back to slide for, I know we're spending a lot of time
[2:28:33] on that. The benchmark estimates of 1,400 for North Facts and 4,700 for the
[2:28:40] activity centers combined. That equates to 6,100 units, correct? If you're adding those two
[2:28:47] together or is the 4,700 inclusive of the 4?
[2:28:52] inclusive. Okay. 4700 total among all of the activities. Okay. So sorry we're going to have to
[2:28:58] do math real quick. Because I did it the other way. So what I found, sorry, wrong buttons.
[2:29:09] Okay.
[2:29:22] So what I found with a quick search was that in 2024, the total dwelling units in the city
[2:29:29] was 10,467.
[2:29:34] So, these proposed residential development plans to add 4700 units, which is 45% of what we currently have available for dwelling units.
[2:29:49] So we are adding an extraordinary amount in this overall proposal, not your specific proposal.
[2:30:00] We'd be clear on that. And then of the 914 units that are currently under construction, or am I doing that wrong?
[2:30:10] It should be 430 under construction, or is it 484 total under construction?
[2:30:16] 484 total under construction among all four of the activity centers.
[2:30:22] So then 484 divided by 467 gets me to let's call it about 5% so there is 5% of the total
[2:30:35] dwelling units in 2024 that is currently under construction in the city.
[2:30:41] I trust your math.
[2:30:43] I didn't at first but then I went back into the right way.
[2:30:47] Okay, so what I'm hearing is that we're going to be adding based upon this slide.
[2:30:51] 45% of our existing housing stock,
[2:30:55] we're going to be adding an additional 45% of that total
[2:30:58] based on what we have on this slide.
[2:31:01] So I think those are really important numbers.
[2:31:05] Now, to your specific proposal,
[2:31:06] and this might be again, a clearer question first.
[2:31:09] But on page 6,
[2:31:12] the residents in that is right near this,
[2:31:15] I believe that is a four-story building,
[2:31:18] which is roughly 48 feet tall.
[2:31:22] I believe it's five I'm going by man.
[2:31:24] Is I googled it, but it said four, but is it five?
[2:31:28] I think so.
[2:31:29] Okay, so five feet would be roughly 60 feet tall.
[2:31:34] Okay, so you're building them for that Frenchage there is going to be similar to the residents in.
[2:31:41] Okay, I will say that makes me feel a little better but still not great.
[2:31:44] So I actually live across the street and eat in place, if you go across and down, I'm in that neighborhood there.
[2:31:50] So this is very, very close to home for me. You might be surprised, based upon my other comments,
[2:31:56] along the way, that I actually do like this. I do have some suggestions, though.
[2:32:03] I do feel even though the residents in apparently is taller than I thought,
[2:32:07] I do feel personally that townhouses where these stackable units are would make more sense.
[2:32:13] I think it would keep the height a little bit lower there as you're driving a long chamberage road.
[2:32:17] And then maybe you could potentially repurpose some of the interior townhomes to be the stackable units,
[2:32:24] that way you have that extra height, but it's not looming over the street there.
[2:32:28] I know a cross the street from there is the assembly townhomes. I believe, again, someone can correct me.
[2:32:33] I think there are three stories tall. So, might give a little bit more balance to what's there.
[2:32:39] I like the green space, I cannot wait until those connections on that service rotor closed off.
[2:32:47] So this gets us there a little bit faster.
[2:32:50] I'm very happy to see the 10-foot sidewalk on Eaton, the 8-foot sidewalk on University.
[2:32:56] The parking, that is available, the 88 parking spaces.
[2:33:01] Again, my old eyes are filling me today, but it looks like there are some guest parking spots.
[2:33:08] Amazon drop off deliveries, so kind of spots available in addition to what's at the
[2:33:12] residences themselves.
[2:33:13] Correct.
[2:33:14] So the surface parking spaces are really that could be used for both.
[2:33:18] So the ones on the left side, so the west side of the site adjacent to the
[2:33:21] stacked townhouses.
[2:33:22] I think there's eight or nine spaces there, but some of those would be kind of dedicated
[2:33:27] to the stacked townhouses.
[2:33:29] The stacked townhouses will have one car garages.
[2:33:32] And so the rest of the parking would be provided in that surface parking area on the left.
[2:33:35] The surface parking area on the right, primarily would be devoted to the retail, the commercial
[2:33:40] uses, but after hours in the evenings and weekends when that space is maybe not functioning,
[2:33:47] those would be theoretically available for guests, visitors, things like that.
[2:33:52] While I have the opportunity to speak with the accounts member hall just real briefly,
[2:33:56] one of the reasons we provided that open space area on the south part of the screen here
[2:34:01] was to serve as a buffer between those units and the residents.
[2:34:03] and it's about 8,000 square feet give or take and we thought it was the right move to provide
[2:34:08] a little bit of a buffer there but I appreciate your suggestions about potentially looking at
[2:34:13] shifting things around a little bit. We'll look at that. I just didn't want to miss that.
[2:34:16] Okay, no, I appreciate that. And I do also appreciate the buffer and I'm sure people that live there
[2:34:20] will also appreciate it. These are all going to be for sale units, correct?
[2:34:26] Okay, and based upon the number that you're putting in 6% of them will be affordable?
[2:34:32] I believe for the townhouses, it's 10%, Mr. Harden's notting is head to 10%.
[2:34:37] 6% would apply to multi-family.
[2:34:40] Okay, I wasn't sure if the combination of the townhouses and the...
[2:34:42] And it would be split.
[2:34:44] So 10% on the townhouse and on the two over two is a stack to those would be multi-family per zoning
[2:34:52] and so that would be 6%.
[2:34:55] Okay.
[2:34:55] So I think it's three or four?
[2:34:58] Three or four?
[2:34:59] Three or four?
[2:35:00] Okay. And I don't mean to be naive about the two over two units, but when it says eight to over two, does that mean 16 units total, or that means eight units?
[2:35:10] Like four.
[2:35:11] Eight total.
[2:35:12] Okay.
[2:35:13] Okay.
[2:35:15] I'm happy to see the dwelling units per acre at a reasonable 17.7 in my opinion.
[2:35:22] The private street you're referring to is this, this, the trash and all of those things would be handled entirely by the complex itself.
[2:35:29] because their townhouses right so they don't, so they do get city services. Correct.
[2:35:36] The townhouses would get city services. Yeah. But the stacked units would not. That's
[2:35:41] correct. I don't know how that's going to work. Similar situation in Mt. Vineyard at
[2:35:48] the corner of Oak and Main Street has some are set up townhouses and two of her
[2:35:52] and condominiums, and that development, so it is split.
[2:35:57] Okay, different color trash cans on different, yeah, so I think it is.
[2:36:01] Okay, I was going to imagine fighting over some dumpsters, maybe not.
[2:36:06] And again, I know this is step one of 100.
[2:36:09] I do think, again, I live right near here, what I think we are lacking is, like you said, a cafe style,
[2:36:17] place, a place that does sandwiches, a place that does a nice lunch, you can get some
[2:36:22] for dinner take out. I love coffee shops, but when they don't serve sufficient food, we have
[2:36:28] enough coffee shops right now. So again, I know that that's in the weeds, but I live here.
[2:36:33] I have a vested interest in seeing something like that succeed. But I have to say I am pleasantly
[2:36:39] surprised, and I'm sure those that are watching at home are like, wow, she's actually supporting
[2:36:43] something, right? And I am, again, I would like to see maybe the shift of the stackable over to the
[2:36:49] back, but I think there's a lot of really good things here.
[2:36:53] You did mention that the current tenants were 40%, 40% vacant right now, and expected to transition
[2:37:00] out in the next 18 months, is that simply because the owner of the building knows he wants
[2:37:06] to do, he or she wants to do something and is not renewing leases?
[2:37:12] The value of the lease is far below the cost of fixed building up to the state where we
[2:37:17] to make an economic sense and any longer.
[2:37:21] Okay, and what is currently in there?
[2:37:22] Like medical space.
[2:37:24] It's about third medical and about two thirds of office.
[2:37:28] Okay.
[2:37:28] It kind of local, small office, kind of users.
[2:37:32] Okay.
[2:37:33] Do we know if we anticipate the people
[2:37:35] that are there currently wanting to remain in the city?
[2:37:38] Are there options for them?
[2:37:39] Or is that just they're likely gone?
[2:37:41] Yeah, I think, and the owners not with us this evening,
[2:37:44] but we've had conversations with them.
[2:37:46] I think we would be absolutely very open to working with economic development and facilitating
[2:37:51] relocation in the city of that, if that is a possibility.
[2:37:55] The ownership group that owns this, this these buildings say about it for quite a long time.
[2:37:59] And so, you know, they have, they very much want to do right by their attendance as they move on as they move out.
[2:38:05] And so, that's something that we're working through throughout this process and beyond.
[2:38:10] One more thing, while I have the microphone, and I'd be remit with the risk of snatching to feed from the jails of victory here.
[2:38:16] It's basically mentioned on chambered road here just to be very clear what we did there is we took
[2:38:23] What's in the city's plans right now for the intersection improvements at eating place in the university
[2:38:28] We kind of overlaid that what that's going to look like in the future just to be very clear
[2:38:33] Okay, so not a pocket park there correct this that's really for a luxury of purposes
[2:38:37] That's going to be done in the future when the intersection improvement project goes forward
[2:38:42] and so what we did is we just simply overlaid the city's plans onto these drawings to show
[2:38:47] what it will look like in the future when it's all said and done.
[2:38:50] I appreciate your honesty and transparency on that one.
[2:38:52] The other spaces on the site will take care of those.
[2:38:55] Okay, great.
[2:38:56] Thank you very much.
[2:38:58] Thank you.
[2:38:58] Councilmember Peterson?
[2:39:01] I was wrong on my math and Councilmember Hall was kind enough to recut the numbers and I just
[2:39:08] wanted to reinforce that the 45% growth in households over 10, 15 years, but let's call
[2:39:18] it 10 years, is more than four times, it's four and a half times the rate of household
[2:39:24] growth that occurred in the last, in the period of 20, 20, 20, 20, 25 in the city.
[2:39:29] So this just, again, this is not an issue with this particular proposal, but it is a general
[2:39:36] question and concern about the overall volume and rate of growth for residential units
[2:39:42] because it far surpasses both in rate and volume.
[2:39:45] What we've seen in the last five years, of course the backdrop is we're down economic
[2:39:50] and population growth, so it's even more reason to be wondering how best to approach these
[2:39:57] things.
[2:39:58] I think it underscores the need.
[2:40:00] We need to have this conversation about the commercial strategy for this area and what that looks like and whether there are yet opportunities that you all haven't been able to capture yet that might happen to that.
[2:40:12] And I think it also makes us think a little bit twice about how we're approaching the residential unit additions across the board and small area plans.
[2:40:23] I appreciate what you all have done and I appreciate your flexibility and openness here and this is a first swing
[2:40:28] What you've done but I think it is good and fair to give you sort of some feedback in terms of this whole commercial issue
[2:40:35] And hope that we may be can look into that a little bit more clearly as we go forward. Thank you.
[2:40:41] Can some member baits?
[2:40:44] Just an additional comment.
[2:40:48] In the interest of perhaps having some given take here,
[2:40:54] I could see, and maybe this is something
[2:40:56] that you might not necessarily even want to do,
[2:40:58] given marking conditions,
[2:41:00] but I could see an exchange for more significant amount
[2:41:05] of commercial space going to all two over Tuesdays,
[2:41:08] example to maintain, you know, the number of units roughly that you've proposed, in exchange
[2:41:13] for providing additional commercial space here. Again, ideally at least half what's there.
[2:41:21] But I also just want to point out that in addition to the five-story hotel that's directly to the
[2:41:27] south, the office building next to the assembly on the west side of Chambridge Road that basically
[2:41:34] back sort of the community. There is also forest stories. So very key thing with the current
[2:41:40] character of that area. And additionally, it's a small area. Plain recommends a maximum of seven
[2:41:45] stories here. So you even have some additional flexibility. But I think that forest stories throughout
[2:41:50] the site would certainly be a reasonable.
[2:41:57] Other questions or comments? Okay, so I think this is a
[2:42:03] project, I like it. I think townhouses and two over-tools in this location is going to be
[2:42:08] very appealing because of its proximity to I-66. I predict they will be sold before they're
[2:42:15] completed. It also backs, it gives access to the I-66 trail, a very significant and they're
[2:42:22] just additions and implementation for the I-66 trail and this housing is right there. As far as
[2:42:30] retail, when I see I see what you see, which is you've got two hotels, you've got the
[2:42:37] botanist over here, and the retail is probably going to be the services those people want
[2:42:42] to want to want to. At that just makes sense that that's the kind of commercial retail that's
[2:42:47] going to be there is the kind that serves that community. I like the fact that it's so few units
[2:42:52] because these smaller units on these small parcels give a better opportunity to create a closer
[2:42:58] community. I mean, you look at some places in Northern Virginia that have townhouses communities
[2:43:03] that are just hundreds and hundreds of townhouses. And I think with the number, we have
[2:43:09] other small townhouse developments, it just gives a greater sense of community, I think. But
[2:43:15] the proximity to I66 and I66 are going to make them highly, highly desirable, I believe. And so
[2:43:22] I really like the project. I know you've gone above and beyond on the green space in the
[2:43:28] attention not only to what the small area of playing calls for, you're playing attention to what you've
[2:43:33] historically heard the feedback from this council on other projects. DPI Adaptive Fitness
[2:43:40] is in this complex. They're on the first floor. I don't know what other businesses are there. We
[2:43:45] have vacancy in the city for like accountants and medical space and things like that. But DPI Adaptive
[2:43:51] this is a very unique space that has been configured in a specific way and so I think I
[2:43:59] haven't spoken with Devon or anyone else over there but the city obviously has plenty of time
[2:44:06] to work with them to find another location in the city but you know so it's important that we know
[2:44:11] who our businesses are I believe that they'll want to stay here in the city but we're first
[2:44:16] step of a hundred people are now on notice that we need and I think our economic development team
[2:44:22] will in fact find spaces for the businesses that want to stay here and I hope they all want
[2:44:27] to stay here but I think the fitness definitely will want to stay here. So I have confidence,
[2:44:32] I really have confidence in this project and look forward to seeing you come back based on the
[2:44:39] feedback you've gotten. So thank you very much.
[2:44:45] Missionary? Before I announce the next item and as
[2:44:48] early, but I'm just doing a time check in 9.45.
[2:44:53] So our last work session item is a discussion of a request by combined courthouse LLC.
[2:45:04] 1-2-0-049 for the redevelopment of 103-00, willard way, imprints 5-7-2-2004-D, and 3-9-2-2, blend embulivard, imprints 5-7-2-2-2003-A, and when
[2:45:30] moving right along to Court House Plaza. This is a work session to discuss a redevelopment proposal at
[2:45:35] 1 0 3 0 0 order away and 3 9 2 2 blinnable of art. We are currently in the post submission phase of
[2:45:44] a development review process so the applicant has made two submissions of the plan and staff have given
[2:45:49] the applicant comments on their application. A work session was held with the Board of Architectural
[2:45:55] review on June 3rd, and with the planning commission on June 22nd.
[2:46:04] On the right here is an aerial of the site.
[2:46:08] The site is bounded by Blenham Boulevard on the east and university drive on the west.
[2:46:13] To the north is Democracy Lane and Plaza Drive, and to the south is the library.
[2:46:20] The site is located in the activity center, please type, and is subject to the old town
[2:46:26] Fairfax small area plan.
[2:46:28] This site is currently zoned CR commercial retail and CG commercial general in the transition
[2:46:35] overlay district and the applicant proposes a zoning change to PDM plan development mixed use.
[2:46:44] The applicant proposes a phase development with phase one including 315 residential units,
[2:46:51] a 72 foot height maximum, which does require a special exception.
[2:46:55] the applicant has submitted a special exception request to exceed the 48 foot height
[2:47:01] maximum in the transition overly district and the small area plan recommends a
[2:47:08] six-story height maximum on this site. Phase one also includes 12,500 square feet
[2:47:16] of first four retail, roughly 30,000 square feet of open space, a plaza to the
[2:47:23] of the existing retail, new landscaping, and two new streets.
[2:47:29] It also includes new and wide-end sidewalks.
[2:47:32] The applicant is also requesting a special exception for sidewalks
[2:47:35] to allow some sidewalks to be narrower than 10 feet.
[2:47:41] The plan also shows 741 parking spaces in service infrastructure parking.
[2:47:46] The applicant is also requesting a special exception to reduce the minimum parking ratio
[2:47:51] from 1.5 to 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit.
[2:47:57] The plans also include facade updates to the Courthouse Plaza Shopping Center and public
[2:48:02] are along the proposed street one facade.
[2:48:07] Phase two would require a future amendment to the master development plan.
[2:48:12] So if this application is approved, phase two would need to come back to this body at a future
[2:48:17] time for approval.
[2:48:20] In phase 2, the applicant proposes 315 residential units, a new North to South Street,
[2:48:27] 50,000 square feet of first floor retail, and addition to one of the pad buildings,
[2:48:35] 90,000 square feet of open space, and 980 parking spaces across surface infrastructure parking.
[2:48:43] Here are some renderings of the proposed building for phase 1.
[2:48:50] These are more renderings,
[2:48:56] these are renderings of the center that would be refaced, and then on the right image you can see a proposed plaza to the east of the existing retail.
[2:49:10] And then next steps for this application are plan resimission and staff review, public hearings with the Planning Commission City Council and the Board of Architectural Review, and that concludes my presentation.
[2:49:23] And the applicant is here to present next.
[2:49:29] Yes, do you want to switch?
[2:49:30] Or do you want to?
[2:49:35] Sorry.
[2:49:35] One moment.
[2:49:39] There you go.
[2:49:51] Good evening.
[2:49:51] My name is Molly Novotny.
[2:49:52] I'm an urban planner with curada partners.
[2:49:54] And I'm pleased to be here before tonight with the combined properties team.
[2:49:57] I have Aisha Hill at the table with me.
[2:50:01] Significantly to this body, combined properties, owns four properties in the city, scout on the circle in the upper portion of this image, pick it in turn, pick shopping centers and then courthouse, which is what we're talking with you about tonight.
[2:50:14] This image you saw when I was here before, it shows the area in magenta which will be removed. That is the only portion of the building that would be removed with this first phase.
[2:50:24] and then rebuilt with the mixed use building,
[2:50:26] everything in green as existing retail
[2:50:28] that would be renovated with this project.
[2:50:32] We have made significant significant revisions
[2:50:35] to this application before this body saw it.
[2:50:37] Since this body has seen it in 2025,
[2:50:40] additionally we've made significant revisions
[2:50:42] since the images that Clara presented in her presentation.
[2:50:45] So you're going to see different architecture
[2:50:47] and my presentation,
[2:50:48] we're going to see additional commitments
[2:50:49] that we've made because we have been working with staff,
[2:50:52] the Planning Commission and BAR over the last six weeks to be able to address their comments.
[2:50:58] So significantly with this application, we're now rezoning the entire property to the
[2:51:03] PD and district. We've also proposed that second phase, which was something staff had requested
[2:51:08] before. We've removed some several of our special exception requests, including the request for parking.
[2:51:15] We have upgraded our architecture, so you're going to see a lot of red brick integrated into
[2:51:20] buildings, you're going to see the commitment that the Safeway gets refaced with this phase
[2:51:25] one. We've also reduced the height of the building at the corner of university and democracy.
[2:51:31] Some additional things with landscaping, we've added a central park in phase two,
[2:51:35] we've added a linear park along Blenham. We've really created an established new open spaces and also added
[2:51:41] interim open space if phase two gets delayed. And then for site conditions, we have removed the
[2:51:47] point at the sidewalks so our sidewalks facing public roads are all 10 feet and we have
[2:51:52] widens and streets for a vehicular traffic.
[2:51:59] But to set the stage, this application is
[2:52:01] here before you because your small area plan in 2020 asked for this application. It identified
[2:52:06] this site to be redeveloped to include multi-family apartment buildings up to 6 stories and height
[2:52:12] and to be grocery anchored. The area in this image in this part of Old Town had 0% residential
[2:52:18] in 2020 and that plan called for our 58% mix of residential and that's again from your small area
[2:52:24] plan. And so what we've done with phase one is we've focused on the left portion of the project,
[2:52:31] we've got the parking garage, the interior courtyard and a mixed use building. That building
[2:52:35] will have 12,500 square feet of new retail and all of this green space will be all open space
[2:52:42] available in phase one with new pocket parks throughout. And then when we come to phase two,
[2:52:48] What we've done is we've established the street network.
[2:52:50] We've established the street trees.
[2:52:52] We've established the building on below.
[2:52:53] We hadn't had these details before you and we were here in 2025,
[2:52:58] but we've now committed to this as a phase two plan
[2:53:00] to start to show you how the full site could redevelop
[2:53:04] and this entire site would be re-owned.
[2:53:06] Additionally, we've shown an additional building
[2:53:08] on the pad site that building could locate in different areas
[2:53:12] along that pad site.
[2:53:13] We could put it along street two or along bloom as we've shown.
[2:53:17] Architecture. This is an image that was in Clara's presentation and is what was included in our second submission to staff back in May.
[2:53:25] Since that time we've heard from your BAR and staff they would like more red brick. So what you're going to see is a significantly revised building.
[2:53:33] What this building does is it removes the white brick and it converts any black brick to be an accent material and it integrates red brick throughout.
[2:53:42] So, these facades, democracy, university and street one are primarily brick.
[2:53:49] The only element on these buildings, besides access, that isn't brick, is that champagne-colored
[2:53:53] fiber cement.
[2:53:55] So, we've really done a significant overhaul with the materials and the color palette.
[2:53:59] This is a corner of democracy and university.
[2:54:01] You can see how we've lowered that building height to help with that transition at that corner.
[2:54:07] And then again, just looking up democracy.
[2:54:09] This is the safe way that top image is what it looks like today.
[2:54:13] The bottom would show a refaste safe way, which would occur prior to residential occupancy,
[2:54:18] and then the overall center being a completely renovated and integrated development.
[2:54:24] Existing tenants, yes, we will be relocating existing tenants that are there.
[2:54:28] We have commitments in our application that commit to rent subsidies for tenants and goods
[2:54:34] to help them relocate to find other properties in the city.
[2:54:39] We also have a commitment that we're going to reserve some smaller space in our building
[2:54:42] for startup customers and to continue to work with your economic development.
[2:54:46] We think those are important commitments and we're proud to have made them.
[2:54:50] In terms of connectivity, this site is incredibly poor.
[2:54:53] This image shows an orange, all the vehicular routes through the site
[2:54:57] and then all the pedestrian routes through the site, really interesting.
[2:55:05] We've got a list of seven feet of walking area on street one, and then it enlarges to at least 10 feet of walking area everywhere else. If not 12 feet or wider, you've got lots of room for outdoor space, lots of room for tables,
[2:55:24] and then we've got significant open space. Today the site only has 4.3% open space. It's ridiculous.
[2:55:28] there's there it's a surface parking lot. At the end of phase one we will have increased that open space to 12.3%
[2:55:35] and then we've added interim open space. If by 2035 we haven't moved forward with the next phase that
[2:55:42] bolsters that open space to 13.4% before bringing it to the 20% with the full build out of phase two.
[2:55:49] Just some images to show you and give you that feel of how we've articulated and really activated the open space
[2:55:55] retail park along Safeway, proposed linear park along Blunham, and then again a reminder of the
[2:56:01] significant revisions that we've made to this application since 2025, and I'm happy
[2:56:05] to answer any questions.
[2:56:08] Councilmember Ames.
[2:56:11] Thank you.
[2:56:12] This is a great presentation.
[2:56:14] Just to go into some of the likes, the open space plus the linear park that's pretty impressive.
[2:56:20] So I appreciate that.
[2:56:21] I'll come back to the tenor location plan shortly, my understanding is also you've been
[2:56:26] communication with our academic development team and I see that's included in here that makes
[2:56:30] me very happy to see. And I think you'll probably hear from my colleagues as well with the
[2:56:35] color scheme as a significant improvement. So I really like to see that for the tenant relocation
[2:56:41] plan just for clarification and this is more just interest rather than anything substantial for the
[2:56:47] graduated rent for smaller scale tenants. So in terms, where did that idea come from and what's
[2:56:52] all to make goal with accomplishing that.
[2:56:55] Good evening.
[2:56:57] So the idea originally came from the current situation
[2:57:00] at courthouse plaza, because we do that we
[2:57:04] wanted the opportunity to redevelop it.
[2:57:07] We were left with below market least terms.
[2:57:11] So ultimately for less than market rent,
[2:57:15] you could lease our space instead of 10 years.
[2:57:17] You might get three or five or seven depending on the timing.
[2:57:20] And so there are some tenants that have this gap between what's technically
[2:57:24] market rent and what they're paying today, and so recognizing that
[2:57:29] difference we wanted to be able to help people along the way and help our
[2:57:33] tenants along the way in the event there isn't another below market space
[2:57:37] available for them that we can help them get there. So over a three-year period
[2:57:43] you know the details don't need to be worked out how it would work with the other
[2:57:46] landlord and that sort of thing, but that we would, we would fill that gap for them, and then
[2:57:53] on the other side of that, that there could also be an opportunity for new small businesses
[2:57:58] coming in, or businesses that are currently there today that want to come back.
[2:58:03] That might also need similar assistance as they get started and, you know, or early in their
[2:58:09] business, that this could be a place they could come and start and grow.
[2:58:12] And would this be just for three years, or are you saying this is kind of like a process you want to implement moving forward over the long term?
[2:58:19] So for existing tenants, it would be for three years.
[2:58:24] It's not something that we could financially handle, you know, into infinity.
[2:58:31] We could give it a little bit more thought on the new small businesses.
[2:58:35] Our original thought that it would be a similar three year period.
[2:58:39] And they could choose to stay though in the space, but that their rent would gradually increase
[2:58:43] over time.
[2:58:44] And if they chose to stay they could.
[2:58:45] Sorry.
[2:58:46] I asked my question poorly and that's why there's confusion.
[2:58:49] What I mean is, for example, you have a business that moves in there and they're there for
[2:58:53] 10 years and they'd said to relocate, does the new business coming in get a similar program
[2:58:58] or would they just go, I'm assuming at the rate that's existing at that time?
[2:59:03] After 10 years it would be that new market rate.
[2:59:06] Okay.
[2:59:07] Thank you.
[2:59:09] Other questions, comments on this, Councilor Perpates?
[2:59:15] Thank you, so certainly, you know, I think that there have been some improvements here that are much appreciated.
[2:59:26] As well as perhaps some lingering minor questions and issues to be addressed and understand you all, you know, have another submission coming up.
[2:59:35] But I mainly just want to ask, do we have the current tree canopy percentage as well on the site?
[2:59:47] Under current conditions?
[2:59:49] We are working on getting you the current tree canopy on the site today.
[2:59:55] The way tree canopy is calculated doesn't necessarily measure.
[3:00:00] The survey ability or the quality of that tree. And so, rather, it takes it into account the canopy of the tree.
[3:00:07] But if you go out to look at that tree, the health of the tree is not always at the standard you would want.
[3:00:14] And so, we want to be able to paint an accurate picture for you. And so, we will be providing that calculation.
[3:00:20] But anyway, I think that the significant increase in open space, particularly where there was
[3:00:31] simply pavement before in a lot of cases, represents significant opportunity to reduce
[3:00:38] impervious surface on the site, in addition to a belief that there are additional stormwater
[3:00:43] management improvements proposed as well.
[3:00:45] So I think that's really important for our environmental sustainability going forward, as well as
[3:00:53] you know, stormwater management.
[3:00:55] Thanks.
[3:00:57] Council Member Hall.
[3:00:59] Thank you.
[3:01:01] So I want to start with saying this is, in my opinion, very, very much improved.
[3:01:06] I'm really happy to see the changes to the brick.
[3:01:09] I feel like you're incorporating a lot more of what is our historical down it and so many areas throughout
[3:01:14] the city, sorry my voice is going away. I'm having some trouble visualizing some things
[3:01:21] and I'm hoping you could maybe help me a little bit. I'm most curious, did you decide
[3:01:25] no, did you happen to meet with the old Fairfax Muse HOA? We did a while ago or recently.
[3:01:32] Two weeks ago, three weeks ago? Okay, because did they see this updated? No, so when this
[3:01:38] is a work in progress and this is part of what happens in this cycle, right? So we had been
[3:01:43] to the planning commission and the BAR before we met with the old Fairfax News.
[3:01:48] We told them that those bodies had asked us to revise the architecture.
[3:01:52] We had shown them an interim option that we had shared with the planning commission,
[3:01:58] but said we are still working on this.
[3:01:59] So they have not seen these latest ones you guys are the first to see them.
[3:02:04] I appreciate that and knowing that, I think some of the concerns that the VHOA,
[3:02:10] I'm sure you heard them.
[3:02:11] Yes.
[3:02:11] Some of those have been, I think, moderately addressed in here, and this is where I'm going to need a little bit more of a visual.
[3:02:21] So, looking at this picture, democracy-lane-looking east, so this, the flaps are on the left, is that the flaps are on the left, yep.
[3:02:32] I'm standing at university, looking up democracy-lane here.
[3:02:37] Okay.
[3:02:41] Okay. Okay. So right now we're at five stories on the front side as opposed to the six that had been previously.
[3:02:53] Yes, so let's.
[3:03:01] So this image now I've moved down a street. So sorry for the confusion.
[3:03:05] I've moved down a street. This is looking to the left is university and the flats are in the background behind that ghosted out tree.
[3:03:14] Street, our new street one is to the right here, and so this is kind of our front entrance.
[3:03:20] I am looking, the old Fairfax Muse is going to be up into the left.
[3:03:25] Okay, so I'm on University now on University now.
[3:03:28] And so you have here, six story, six story building along University, it drops to five stories
[3:03:35] at that corner of democracy on the left side, it drops to five, okay.
[3:03:41] is it? So I appreciate that the land, the design of the landscaping, the, the, the, the,
[3:03:49] the way that the, the darker brick, I guess is there in the forefront, and then the wider
[3:03:55] is in the back. I feel like that visually helps a lot with the height feeling.
[3:04:01] I do still feel like that one section there where it says retail and the apartments is still a little
[3:04:06] tall. I would love to see that knock down by one story. If it all possible,
[3:04:10] But I do understand that, you know, you need to make a profit and all of that.
[3:04:14] I still think it's a lot of units, but visually I think this is much more appealing and in-line with what our residents have been asking for there.
[3:04:28] This is going to be a clearer question or maybe a Dan question, but I don't think I realize the university drive is going to be going down to one lane to accommodate bike lanes.
[3:04:40] I thought we were putting bike lanes on there, but we were still keeping two lanes of traffic.
[3:04:50] Sorry.
[3:04:50] We're making it up a lot tonight.
[3:04:55] It quite not sound much, sure.
[3:04:56] I should be answering this.
[3:04:57] I believe it's four.
[3:04:58] It's a four lane second.
[3:05:00] As you get toward North Street and then as you come back, headed north going by this property down the hill and so forth, it transitions to a three lane section where you have a center turning lane and two travel lanes, but we'll check that.
[3:05:21] Our traffic engineers here and they're not in their head and agree about it. Okay, for the city's plans. Not our plans
[3:05:29] We just show them but they're the city plans. Yeah, what I will say for the city as large
[3:05:35] Whether it's you guys were the city, but we have these nice 10 foot wide sidewalks
[3:05:40] Which could also be called a shared use path to me that could be a great place for a bike to go without taking out a total lane on university
[3:05:47] recognizing not your situation, but I think we're going to get a lot of pushback when that starts to come out a little bit more.
[3:05:54] I don't know who I'm looking at but all of you.
[3:06:00] So, I think this is not depressing looking anymore to quote the woman that came earlier and I have to agree with that.
[3:06:06] I mean, I think before it was very, it's just two new, it was two fancy, it was two, all of the things that I don't think were great.
[3:06:14] I still think it's a lot of units and I know I've said that a couple of different times and I'm not going to change my mind on that.
[3:06:20] But I really do want to give you credit for adding in as much of the open space that you have adding in the green space.
[3:06:29] I don't know what your plans are for like the parking, but if there's any way to do some impervious,
[3:06:35] serious, you know, pervious parking spots in some of those areas with, you know, the fancy
[3:06:41] things as opposed to concrete or as a lot or whatever. I think that's another opportunity
[3:06:45] to take what is still a pretty large parking lot out in the open. I appreciate your, I'm
[3:06:52] sorry, I'm trying to find the pages here, but I appreciate your efforts to do the kind
[3:06:56] of the pocket park along Blanam and some of the other things. Is this, yeah, sorry, there's
[3:07:04] a lot of pages. Thank you. But there was another spot where you're kind of doing a little bit more
[3:07:11] of a park feature. There we go. Thank you. So we have this is our phase one commitment that
[3:07:17] when the multi-family opens. And then the darker green on the blendem side here would be an interim
[3:07:24] park space. If for some reason we don't move forward with phase two. So right now if you recall
[3:07:32] safeway controls the entire parking field with its lease. So we can't affect those parking spaces
[3:07:36] anymore than what we've already done. But when that lease expires at the end of 2034,
[3:07:40] we can control that space and so we can commit to turn that into additional open space at that time
[3:07:46] if we haven't filed a phase two plan. Okay. And does any interior safeway work get done in any of these proposals?
[3:08:00] So, that's safe way of decision.
[3:08:02] It is our hope that they will do work on the inside of the building,
[3:08:06] but they are completely uncontrolled,
[3:08:08] and not combined, unfortunately.
[3:08:10] Okay. I figured that was going to be your answer.
[3:08:12] I do like the brick.
[3:08:14] I like all the things that you have proposed there.
[3:08:17] I mean again, because it's a lot of pages here.
[3:08:19] How many units total are we talking in phase one and phase two?
[3:08:23] It's a total of three hundred and fifteen units per building.
[3:08:26] And so phase one would be three fifteen and then if we come forward with phase two would be three fifteen
[3:08:32] It's in the fourth and thirty children. Yes, over
[3:08:36] You're significant time period, right and we're not we're not asking for the approval of phase two of those details now
[3:08:43] We are merely committing to the build of a envelope the street network the street trees that open space commitments
[3:08:50] But we want the market we want the cities growth to be able to be absorbed into really give us
[3:08:56] guidance on that phase too. Okay. And I think, again, it's a lot of units, but I do think
[3:09:04] it's reasonable in the layout and the things that have come out of this newer design
[3:09:12] with it. Do you know roughly what your breakdown is going to be for one versus two versus
[3:09:17] three units, better units? We can get you the specific breakdown for now. I don't have that in front
[3:09:25] But we will have the majority one bedroom one bedroom. Yes, okay,
[3:09:34] and will there be any like amenities on site
[3:09:36] Can you remind me for the residents that live here? Yes, so there's a structured part can garage build the
[3:09:43] upper part of the interior building and then it's an interior green courtyard that would have a pool
[3:09:48] We've committed to a pool indoor outdoor pool, okay, but it's a
[3:09:53] court yard that is internal to the building, right? So it's really
[3:09:57] creased that privacy for those future residents.
[3:10:00] Okay. And I was in there with those. There would be a fitness center in kind of co-working space in a lobby in your traditional, you know, pet spa, bike room, traditional, class A apartment amenities.
[3:10:11] I'm sorry, was that pet spa? Yeah, so it's spot to wash your dog.
[3:10:15] That's called my shower right now.
[3:10:17] Right.
[3:10:18] Okay.
[3:10:22] Sorry, question to something. Oh, I did want to thank you also for reaching out to every single tenant that's in there. I've actually heard from a couple of tenants this week.
[3:10:29] I haven't had chance to respond yet, but I think that the outreach was appreciated.
[3:10:33] I'm happy to see the plan that you've put in place, and just to make sure I understand
[3:10:38] what that is, it's a commitment of low for up to three years with pre-negotiated increases
[3:10:47] of 3% per year.
[3:10:51] So this would allow them to temporarily relocate, come back into your new space for three years,
[3:10:59] with a 3% increase, is that correct?
[3:11:05] Whether the relocation would be up to the tenant.
[3:11:08] So we've committed to helping them find a new space,
[3:11:13] if they would like, or if they do want to come back into this space,
[3:11:17] then we could help them in that situation as well.
[3:11:20] But it is challenging for tenants to move twice.
[3:11:24] So they're probably wouldn't be very many that do that.
[3:11:26] But we are open to them coming back if they would like to do that.
[3:11:31] Okay, and is there any way with the construction and the answer might be no, but is there
[3:11:37] any way that these businesses could stay in place during some portion of the construction?
[3:11:43] Like when you're working on the, I'm going to use the word left because I'm not going to go with
[3:11:47] these unless with the left portion and those kind of things or is it once you start
[3:11:52] you start and everything to the left of the safeways is kind of instantly gone.
[3:11:59] more than likely everyone will have to vacate for safety reasons we usually have to cut off gas power water and make sure things are safe.
[3:12:10] Well, it's never perfect for everybody, right?
[3:12:12] But I do appreciate what you are doing and I think it's clear that you have gone above and beyond,
[3:12:17] I know phase two was not something that you initially wanted to kind of commit to at this point.
[3:12:22] I know there was a lot of pushback on that from city staff from members of council as well.
[3:12:26] So I do want to acknowledge that I can tell a lot of extra work has gone into this.
[3:12:30] So thank you very much.
[3:12:32] Thank you.
[3:12:34] Councilmember McCool.
[3:12:39] Thank you.
[3:12:39] This is much a much better fit than previous submissions.
[3:12:43] I really appreciate the work that you all did on changing the colors and the architecture
[3:12:49] look to it.
[3:12:50] It looks much more like if it's in this area of our community.
[3:12:54] I also like to reduce height the corner of university and democracy, I think that that really does make a huge difference.
[3:13:02] The 10-foot sidewalks, thank you, really appreciate that in the green spaces I like that as well.
[3:13:10] The only concern I have, I do like your explanation about your approach and your strategy for phase two and the safe way, if you could do that, that would look great.
[3:13:20] The only concern I have is density still.
[3:13:23] It's still pretty, it's still a lot of units there for me.
[3:13:27] However, it looks like there's, I guess the only question I have then
[3:13:31] is what, what community benefit beyond just housing do you see this offering?
[3:13:39] So we have a commitment statement within that statement.
[3:13:42] We've, you know, made commitments to financially fund the schools.
[3:13:49] Financial fund Parks and Rec, I'm trying to get to the right page,
[3:13:57] we've made our tenant
[3:13:58] relocations.
[3:14:00] I skipped right by it.
[3:14:02] So the City School Fund, we've committed to $1600 a unit, which is more than other
[3:14:06] applicants have committed to when we studied this last time.
[3:14:09] We've got $367 a unit for city recreational amenities, we've committed to up to $305,000
[3:14:16] toward undergrowning utilities, we've added $10,000 for commemorative signage on the site,
[3:14:21] in a variety of things like that.
[3:14:23] Thank you so much.
[3:14:25] And then my last question was that the small area
[3:14:28] plan in this area, what is the top amount of stories
[3:14:32] that you can go for this spot?
[3:14:33] It calls for six stories.
[3:14:34] It's six, and that's what this says, right?
[3:14:37] Yep, and that's what we proposed.
[3:14:38] Thank you, I appreciate that.
[3:14:41] Can some member Petersen?
[3:14:43] Yeah, just a couple of clarifying questions.
[3:14:45] I may need a little help from staff.
[3:14:47] On this, I got the presentation this morning at nine
[3:14:51] and really didn't have a chance to go through this,
[3:14:55] and to tell also, pardon me if I have not been able to.
[3:15:00] Capture everything in here, and that I'm not able to capture everything with the questions right now.
[3:15:07] But just a couple of clarifications here. You said there's zero residential density, there's zero residential,
[3:15:16] where you were referring to again.
[3:15:18] So, in the small area plan, when that was adopted in 2020, it identified that there was no residential,
[3:15:23] So I can pull up the page number, no residential in this portion of the small area plan.
[3:15:30] So it's page 25, the small area plan, it has pie graphs on it, and it noted existing
[3:15:35] mix of uses and proposed mix of uses.
[3:15:39] This portion, are you talking about the old town Fairfax, old town Fairfax, small area plan.
[3:15:45] And there's no residential in that area.
[3:15:47] That is what the small area planned document identified on page 25 with a pie chart.
[3:15:54] So in the plan was completed in 2020, there wasn't any, but now on page 8 of my staff report,
[3:16:02] I have the same table that you saw in my last presentation, so there has been plans approved since then.
[3:16:11] Yeah, I think the Planning Commission commented on 2,000 bedrooms in that area, so some such figure.
[3:16:18] I'm just a little surprised to hear that.
[3:16:20] It's my neighborhood, so, you know, I am familiar with a lot of residences there.
[3:16:27] The, maybe to go back just just to be a little clear.
[3:16:33] And again, I got the presentation, and I noticed something in it that said,
[3:16:37] The smaller airplane, I think it was calls for 1250 units and it's my understanding this sort of goes back to the earlier discussion this evening that that
[3:16:49] 1250 is a potential undermarket conditions, but it's not a goal.
[3:16:55] Right, yep, that's just an estimate from the smaller airplane.
[3:16:59] Okay, so it's not really calling for that, it's just saying that's a possibility undermarket conditions.
[3:17:04] It also is not requiring six stories.
[3:17:08] It is permitting up two six stories.
[3:17:10] So there's flexibility around that.
[3:17:15] Okay, so then the other thing and not to be totally
[3:17:18] in that picky here, but the guiding principles
[3:17:20] redevelopment, I think are really focused
[3:17:23] on the kinds of design considerations
[3:17:27] that you've brought to the site.
[3:17:30] And I think you've been working really hard on that.
[3:17:33] It's clear, but I'm just wondering, I mean, we're acting as a body here to make a public policy
[3:17:39] decision and are driven by a community interest and public interest in this and I'm
[3:17:45] wondering, are there perhaps this is for staff, but there ought to be another set of principles
[3:17:50] here or a principle anyway related to the public interest and how would you express that
[3:17:56] in terms of how this meets as a matter of principle public interest to put this particular
[3:18:01] proposal in place and I'm particularly noting there's been a lot of concern about
[3:18:07] heightened density there's also been a lot of concern about the shift here towards
[3:18:10] residential versus commercial and cities overall need for expanding commercial and
[3:18:16] light of that what what is the principle here in terms of of the public
[3:18:20] interest for this so this shopping center has been not the city's crown jewel for
[3:18:29] decades. And so we think the public interest will be represented by redoing this shopping center
[3:18:35] and creating it to be an active and vibrant community with strong pedestrian in particular
[3:18:40] connections through it, lots of new open spaces, and wider and improved street presence
[3:18:47] along to central drives to the city University and Blinnon.
[3:18:51] So we certainly hear a lot, there's been a lot of comment on this. You know, people love
[3:18:58] the grocery store, et cetera, I think the thing that is being raised that perhaps raises
[3:19:04] inconsistency with public interest is the heightened density here, and the aesthetics
[3:19:09] have come a long way, but still this is a lot. In this particular spot, there is a lot of
[3:19:14] development here, already, a lot of residential development. So I just want to acknowledge that
[3:19:19] I think we've all heard that there is a lot of concern about that, and it's really been
[3:19:24] raising the question of whether there's some modification that could address the concerns
[3:19:27] that have been raised about that, I recognize there have been some changes here, y'all work
[3:19:32] pretty hard on it, but the first blush it looks very similar in scale to the proposal we've
[3:19:40] been seeing for a while, so and I'm hearing that from others in the community who are seeing
[3:19:44] this in the general reaction is essentially the same while there have been some modifications
[3:19:51] involved in this and improvements. It is essentially the same proposal as originally presented
[3:19:56] And that is a concern to a lot of people.
[3:20:00] I'd look forward to spending more time with this and getting a chance to digest this a little bit more, but I would hope that there would yet be a way for us to address some of those concerns.
[3:20:11] I also think that the Phase 2 thing, it is very helpful to have made additional commitments around Phase 2, but they're certainly not guaranteed.
[3:20:22] And I'm not sure we're yet at the stage where we've seen a layout for what this area would look like under a fully developed approach here.
[3:20:29] You know, that was a recommendation slash concern of staff.
[3:20:33] I'm interested in looking further to see what extent that's actually been addressed.
[3:20:37] But it would seem to me it's a valid request to have a closer understanding of what a full
[3:20:44] build out would this look like with this place would look like as it particularly pays attention
[3:20:51] to commercial and restate retail development.
[3:20:54] Thank you.
[3:20:56] So
[3:21:01] there is a great deal of evidence that you have been listening and integrating what you've been hearing into this next iteration of your proposal.
[3:21:10] I want to echo some of the positives that people have been talking about the green spaces and those kinds of things.
[3:21:19] And add to that list that you also listened in terms of concerns about connectivity and the roadway spaces as well as the pedestrian spaces.
[3:21:32] I do think that, and I don't have a question, many questions have been answered.
[3:21:36] I do think that you are making an attempt to balance what's needed in terms of development against what would happen if you did nothing.
[3:21:47] Right, and I want to highlight what you were starting to say about that being the public policy of it not being the Crown Jewel and
[3:21:55] Really looking at how we're uplifting the whole activity area. I get the concerns about
[3:22:03] About density, those are definitely an ongoing balancing act and yet as has been mentioned
[3:22:11] I think by the mayor several times, you know just in terms of having people near the spaces to support
[3:22:17] the retail aspects, I think is an important contribution.
[3:22:22] Something has to be done there.
[3:22:24] And I think that every attempt has been made by your organization,
[3:22:29] which has invested in this city,
[3:22:33] which at that is another point I want to highlight that you have
[3:22:35] made other investments in this city.
[3:22:38] This is, I try not to look at things in isolation.
[3:22:40] This is yet another investment that you're making in our city
[3:22:44] to kind of collectively elevate our city.
[3:22:50] So I appreciate the work that you've done.
[3:22:52] I appreciate listening.
[3:22:54] That's evident to me doing nothing is not an option.
[3:22:59] And I think I supported this project
[3:23:01] in its prior iteration.
[3:23:04] So with the advancements that you've made
[3:23:06] and showing once again that you're willing to listen
[3:23:09] to the feedback, I appreciate the changes that you've made.
[3:23:13] And I just want to highlight that.
[3:23:14] And again, for me, no development on that,
[3:23:19] very central spot in our city is an option
[3:23:22] that I think goes against proper policy for our city.
[3:23:26] Thank you.
[3:23:30] Other comments, Council Member Peterson?
[3:23:32] Yeah, just on the score.
[3:23:33] I don't think I'm hearing from anybody.
[3:23:36] There's a preference for zero redevelopment here.
[3:23:40] I think everybody, like many other spots in the city,
[3:23:44] virtually everybody is interested in
[3:23:46] that the question is how and that's really
[3:23:49] where the feedback has been.
[3:23:51] So again, I would hope that we would be able to focus
[3:23:55] a little bit more on the fundamentals of what
[3:23:59] that question really involves from the community in terms
[3:24:03] of what happens here.
[3:24:05] Thanks.
[3:24:07] Can I just remember Amis?
[3:24:09] Last comment I'll make and it's a quick one just because
[3:24:12] I see some similarities to it and a lot of it's dependent on phase one getting approved and then phase two ideally happening,
[3:24:20] but that phase two location does give me elements of Fairfax quarter and I do appreciate that.
[3:24:27] Other questions or comments?
[3:24:30] I like the project.
[3:24:32] I've been looking at the Safeway now since 1981.
[3:24:37] And it is right in the center of our city and when we talk about getting feedback from the public that is the point of having a public hearing.
[3:24:45] And I do expect that we will hear from residents who have a vested interest including the people across the street who are residents.
[3:24:52] But I hope we have a robust feedback from our businesses.
[3:24:56] I hope our businesses step up to say what it means to have three.
[3:25:00] 360 units, right next door, or right behind their buildings. The flacet university was our first
[3:25:08] four-way into having housing in the downtown, which is great, but those students aren't there 12 months
[3:25:13] out of the year. So our summer time doesn't look nearly as active as our fall and our spring. And so I hope
[3:25:21] our businesses will come out to talk about the economic impact of having housing in this location.
[3:25:28] We need to hear from everyone and I do think that is why we have a public hearing and I do want to acknowledge the fact that you didn't have to come back and give us another chance
[3:25:38] but you did and you incorporated so much of what you heard including the people from the news who said I don't like the color.
[3:25:46] I think you have, you have done your best to negotiate what works financially and from a property ownership standpoint what works for combined properties.
[3:26:00] Again, I agree with Council Member Hardy Chandler. You've been deeply invested in our city for six decades and we appreciate the fact that you keep improving the properties that you own here.
[3:26:10] a long-term relationship and I want to acknowledge that we appreciate all the work
[3:26:15] that's gone into this and I do think there is an opportunity through public
[3:26:20] hearing for people to come and give us more information on this project.
[3:26:24] But I do like the project.
[3:26:26] I believe it is in the best interest long-term of the city to redevelop this
[3:26:32] piece of property so close to our downtown.
[3:26:36] It is just it's something has to happen there.
[3:26:39] So, thank you so much for the presentation, and we look forward to seeing you again.
[3:26:46] Missionary.
[3:26:49] Okay, I will now reconvene the regular meeting and kick it over to our city manager, Mr. Alexander.
[3:26:57] Thank you, Mayor Council, as you know, after this meeting, we'll take us into a break for a month.
[3:27:05] And then we will be back for a robust work session on September 1st, reminder that it's scheduled to start at 4 o'clock.
[3:27:13] You will see a number of items on that work session for a reason, and we certainly wanted to try to do as much work shopping as we can on those sessions.
[3:27:27] So you'll see pre-application briefings listed there for 32.501M,
[3:27:36] 10.5.60 Main Street, and 35.70 Chain Bridge Road.
[3:27:43] We will also bring back citywide level service
[3:27:47] and dynamic capital impact modeling for discussion.
[3:27:52] We will make a full way into our legislative program and then we will have a discussion which
[3:28:00] you'll see on consent later regarding the reappropriation of general operating capital
[3:28:05] and enterprise funds carrying over to 2027 from 2026.
[3:28:11] So, again, that'll be a pretty robust work session on the first.
[3:28:19] Looking ahead to the A, on consent, you will see construction contract for a university-drive
[3:28:27] bike lanes and consideration of resolution to cancel the V dot project listed there.
[3:28:36] And then, as I mentioned, you'll see the introduction or consideration of the resolution
[3:28:40] for the reappropriation that would have been workshops on the meeting prior.
[3:28:46] Also, items not requiring public hearing will be the consideration of adopting the code of ethics on the eighth.
[3:28:55] Looking ahead to finishing out September,
[3:28:59] public hearing and council action on a redevelopment of existing office into 14 townhouses at Mantua,
[3:29:07] 94.95, Silver King Court, and then if needed a public hearing and council action on the
[3:29:15] resolution for reappropriation on that night, and that would wrap up, September, October
[3:29:21] would be our second work session starting at 4 o'clock.
[3:29:27] Happy dancer and the other questions and items that we've discussed or otherwise are ahead
[3:29:31] of us.
[3:29:33] All right, questions on future, the Council Member Pro.
[3:29:38] Did just two questions, I think.
[3:29:42] The University of July of Bike Lanes.
[3:29:45] That's the same combination we just had a few minutes ago.
[3:29:48] Can we get a refresher on that?
[3:29:50] Did we see that as this Councillor?
[3:29:52] Was that a previous Councillor?
[3:29:53] It might just totally forgetting that.
[3:29:56] We've talked about it for a while.
[3:29:58] I know, but did we do a recent public...
[3:30:00] I mean, I'm sure that was closed on a while ago since we're at the consideration phase, but I'm just really wondering and in light of the ten foot sidewalks that they're considering is there maybe a better solution to a shared use path there.
[3:30:15] Well, what we'll do is come back with some information generally about our plan and more information specifically about this ahead of this meeting.
[3:30:24] Well, ahead of this meeting, so you have that information.
[3:30:26] Yeah, I mean, we don't really have a lot of time because I know we have the August recess.
[3:30:29] I'm certainly open to receiving information in August, but, okay, and I will also do my
[3:30:35] due diligence and go back and try to check that out.
[3:30:41] My second question in this just a logistical one, is that we have a meeting on October 13th,
[3:30:46] which I think is the final day of the VML conference, are we, is it, is there any actual
[3:30:53] conference that day and then we're coming home or it's only half day. So they
[3:30:58] wrap up about noon. Okay. So we should be home in time then for a few. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
[3:31:05] Count's room for Ames. Just one quick follow-up question for September 22nd. The
[3:31:10] Highlands have been to a project. If I'm remembering that correct. I remember gosh. I don't
[3:31:15] know if that was a pre-application that we did or was it a post-submission? I mean I think that was
[3:31:21] last year if I recall correctly and that's the one where we have the conversation about whether
[3:31:25] to keep the tree landscaping there or they wanted to put in a park if I recall.
[3:31:32] Yes, I believe you are correct that application is now going to the planning commission.
[3:31:40] There will be a communication to each of the members of council and the mayor for individual
[3:31:47] meetings to give you an update on that project from the development team, and then any questions
[3:31:53] you may have.
[3:31:54] Thank you just because it feels like it's been a pretty significant gap in time between
[3:31:59] when we spoke with them again, I think it was last year versus this coming up in September.
[3:32:04] So thank you.
[3:32:05] Yes, sir.
[3:32:08] Other questions, Councilmember Hall, are we going to talk about the buck slip at another
[3:32:14] time, or is this the right time?
[3:32:15] We can, I had it on the report out so I can kill two birds.
[3:32:18] We can talk about it then, that's fine.
[3:32:19] Thank you.
[3:32:22] Councillor member Peterson.
[3:32:25] Can you clarify this purpose and scope of the citywide level of service and dynamic capital impact model?
[3:32:35] I want to set expectations for what we will be receiving.
[3:32:39] What is the actual purpose and substantive application of that?
[3:32:44] Yeah, we previously, I think, presented in a work session to Council, but I'll go to the
[3:32:50] Volk Pen and ask for what to come up again.
[3:32:55] And this would be an update to that previous work session that Council held, which was
[3:33:00] more of an introduction to the project and a review of what the effort would be undertaking
[3:33:09] and what factors would be analyzed as part of the project.
[3:33:14] But this is to come back and share results of that analysis.
[3:33:21] It would not be a moment where we would ask for counsel approval in terms of considering
[3:33:30] proper policy or anything of that nature.
[3:33:34] We would anticipate that based upon this discussion, the counsel would give staff feedback
[3:33:40] on those results and whether there's a desire to move forward with considering policies in terms
[3:33:47] of level of impact to various city infrastructure. And so that would be a future discussion.
[3:33:56] And so this will be to share the results to give a sense of what those impacts are, how those
[3:34:01] numbers calculate, and whether there's a desire to continue to move forward to look at policies
[3:34:07] that would be part of the city's development review process.
[3:34:13] Let me understand if I might a little bit more clearly.
[3:34:18] Is this providing guidance and benchmarks related to
[3:34:24] Prophors?
[3:34:25] Potentially.
[3:34:28] So potentially that is this
[3:34:31] design to be a
[3:34:35] regulatory impact or public policy impact.
[3:34:38] assessment tool? It is a development impact assessment tool. And so the team is analyzed what
[3:34:49] expenditures are associated with development proposals, what that means in terms of the city infrastructure.
[3:35:00] Whether or not there are, you know, what those financial impacts are. And so, a level of service
[3:35:07] study would provide to the city on a per project basis, what those impacts would be to things
[3:35:19] like Parks and Recreation Facilities, School Facilities, Transportation, Infrastructure, Public
[3:35:26] safety infrastructure, and that analysis could guide the city toward a proper policy for
[3:35:35] all of those items, you know, what the approach has been to this point has been those have
[3:35:42] been negotiated on a case by case basis, and not to get too deep into the proper thing. I think
[3:35:48] we've talked a little bit about that before, but the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2016 rewrote
[3:35:53] rules in the state for Prophors which severely limited localities ability to negotiate for
[3:36:00] Prophors since that time we've instituted some measures that have given us a little
[3:36:05] bit more flexibility to do that and so we've seen the potential for Prophors to be offered
[3:36:13] particularly in our activity centers because the Code of Virginia carves out special provisions
[3:36:19] for areas covered by small area plants. And so that gives us some more ability to negotiate
[3:36:25] these things. What we would like to do is be a little bit more systematic in how we do
[3:36:31] that. And so it's not an unknown to the council. It's not an unknown to a property owner or
[3:36:38] developer coming in as to what those expectations are. But that will be totally at the discretion
[3:36:44] of the council. This first discussion is to merely share the results of that analysis if the
[3:36:50] direction from the council from that point forward is yes staff we would like you to to look
[3:36:56] at creating some policies that again could come back to the council and we consider whether that's
[3:37:01] something that the council wants to adopt. That's what we'll do. Is this an accounting tool so that
[3:37:09] know when we're looking at a project from an accounting standpoint, what the outlays, outlays
[3:37:16] and expenditures are for a particular decision we make, is that incorrect accounting
[3:37:22] on who's on who's...
[3:37:24] Citywide accounting.
[3:37:25] I mean, services and infrastructure from an accounting standpoint, the public accounting standpoint,
[3:37:29] what are we spending as a consequence of a decision on a development?
[3:37:33] Is that the question that this is answering?
[3:37:35] Not necessarily, that's something that the city does currently.
[3:37:38] So the city does a fiscal impact analysis reach one of the significant projects that come forward.
[3:37:45] To the council and that's part of your staff report that you see at a public hearing that accounts for anticipated revenues and expenditures for any development.
[3:37:56] And looking at the city's budget and what those costs are to the city and then in terms of the development proposal, what revenues that we anticipate coming in.
[3:38:07] So that's a part of what we do today.
[3:38:11] And that looks at city costs kind of across the entirety of the budget.
[3:38:20] The level of service would look at physical impacts,
[3:38:25] would look at infrastructure impacts,
[3:38:27] things that the city can potentially get
[3:38:29] Prophors for, City can't get Prophors for operational costs.
[3:38:34] Look out, it can get Prophors for physical infrastructure
[3:38:37] and expansion of capacity of physical infrastructure.
[3:38:42] That's associated with the development that's being proposed.
[3:38:45] And so the level of services looks more at the infrastructure side of the equation, not so much the overall fiscal impact, but that is part of what the council receives as well.
[3:38:58] Is this somewhere where it already is scoped and we can look at its current status in terms of what it's covering.
[3:39:07] Is there something that I could read, for instance, or anybody else could read about the scope of this?
[3:39:12] We can certainly share the materials that we brought forward previously.
[3:39:20] We don't have necessarily have the materials that will be presented in September ready to
[3:39:27] bring forward yet, but we'll share those as soon as they're available as well.
[3:39:32] Well, that would be a real helpful.
[3:39:33] I mean, I think the general thing is on the February 14th, I think we had a discussion about
[3:39:39] development land use applications and the city manager listed out a whole series of impacts
[3:39:48] that could and typically are included in assessments of the full suite of impacts associated
[3:39:57] with an development or land use application.
[3:40:00] Safety, crime risk, you name it right down the list here. And that sounds like that, you know, it's just sort of socioeconomic impacts, public, public impacts here.
[3:40:14] That's, this would provide only the fiscal dimensions of that with respect to services and infrastructure, but it's not, this is really not.
[3:40:25] What impact are we able to determine in terms of the effect of these decisions on elevated crime risk and the response that we'll have to, you know,
[3:40:37] engineer in terms of that things like that? Is that a fair understanding?
[3:40:42] Okay, so there's a broader piece of this that this really is not looking at.
[3:40:47] I would like to see if I might, and I'm sure everybody would, what that is because I think there is a broader question mark
[3:40:54] about how we assess from a public interest standpoint,
[3:41:00] the impacts and the opportunities associated with these decisions
[3:41:03] we make.
[3:41:04] And it would be great for that to be as inclusive as possible.
[3:41:07] So I think we send you what we have up at this point.
[3:41:11] I'd also say at this point also that we'll offer each of you
[3:41:15] an opportunity to have a conversation with the head of the work
[3:41:17] session, which will benefit the conversation at the work session.
[3:41:20] That would be great, and it would be great if there could be, with respect to the fiscal impact analysis that we do now,
[3:41:28] a little bit of transparency in terms of what actually in that, I would love to see that.
[3:41:36] Any other questions or comments on the future meeting?
[3:41:42] Seeing none, we will go to the managers report out.
[3:41:46] Thank you, Mayor Council.
[3:41:49] As was mentioned earlier, we did send you this morning,
[3:41:54] let's call it in Buckslip, informational item,
[3:41:59] but because it's a size of a dollar
[3:42:00] that we would like to maybe include
[3:42:03] in the personal property tax bills
[3:42:05] that will be mailed out in September.
[3:42:08] The idea is to give us some more transparency
[3:42:10] and information on how our general fund dollars are spent
[3:42:13] and investments are made
[3:42:15] with an operating in capital. We provided you an example and the timeliness issue really is one of
[3:42:23] I know the treasurer's office wanted to know we had consensus from council before we coordinated
[3:42:28] with them in order to push that out and so this is an opportunity to get some feedback from you
[3:42:35] on that item so that we can quickly turn it around and again coordinate the process of getting that out to
[3:42:43] residents so happy to take any feedback from you on what you saw and what you might want
[3:42:49] to see out of that understanding. It's it's this big so.
[3:42:53] Councilmember Hall and then Councilmember Hardy Chandler.
[3:42:56] Thank you. I know I've been asking for this for a while and I think actually with the interim.
[3:43:01] So I'm really really happy to see that this is moving forward. I really just have two suggestions.
[3:43:07] One is maybe just add a thank you for paying your taxes.
[3:43:10] And also on the back side of it, there was an area on the bottom right where it had the percentages of certain things, and there was a bit of an area available.
[3:43:23] I'm wondering if maybe we could add a QR code that would direct people to the fiscal year 2027 budget, and just say, you know, here's a link to this.
[3:43:35] Hopefully that won't add too much extra effort, but that was just my suggestion to, you know, kind of here's the basic information and then if you want more information here, it is nice easy ready to go.
[3:43:46] Thank you.
[3:43:48] Councilmember Harder-General.
[3:43:50] I think I responded that I absolutely support this.
[3:43:53] I think the visual helps people understand that it's not going into a black hole.
[3:43:59] It really is going to services and how those services are divided.
[3:44:02] So I absolutely support that.
[3:44:04] Is there any question of the cost of adding that
[3:44:07] to the mailing of the bills?
[3:44:09] No, we just wanted to go ahead and make sure
[3:44:11] that we get consensus for council
[3:44:12] before you approach the treasury again on this process.
[3:44:16] Well, I think it'll be very beneficial
[3:44:18] to all of the residents of the city.
[3:44:20] So thank you very much.
[3:44:22] Councilmember McCullan?
[3:44:25] Yeah, I love this idea.
[3:44:27] Ever since Councilmember Hall bought it for,
[3:44:29] I think this is great.
[3:44:30] Thank you so much.
[3:44:32] Any other feedback, Council Member Petersen?
[3:44:35] Well, I think this a separate thing, it kind of gets to the last conversation, but it'd be great to kind of boil this down to a communications format.
[3:44:44] Is every time we make a decision here, it has, well, not every time, but very often it has out-of-pocket expense implications on residents, and I'd like to use the term neighborhood math.
[3:44:57] People need to understand if you do this. What's coming out of my back pocket?
[3:45:00] Next year. And it would be great to be regular about lifting that information out of the decisions we make so that people who are tuning in can now, and we need to invite other people to tune into that.
[3:45:17] So I don't think this is exactly the same thing, but I think they're related. I would say also it's not just a matter when we make decisions of the out-of-pocket expenses that people are facing as a consequence.
[3:45:29] But just a reminder, we're also helping people save, reduce those out at a pocket
[3:45:34] expenses.
[3:45:35] We've done energy, you know, clean energy things that are actually cost savings things.
[3:45:41] And then we've done things that proactively are designed to increase revenues, commercial
[3:45:45] economic household, et cetera.
[3:45:48] It just would be good for a communication standpoint for a resident to know when we make decisions
[3:45:53] what's the plus and the minus, you know, that's going on here.
[3:45:56] And again, that has to be in terms they can understand and what they typically understand
[3:46:01] very well.
[3:46:01] So what's coming out of my back pocket this year?
[3:46:05] So I know we don't have that exactly and that may be ground for further creative thinking,
[3:46:11] but I just wanted to suggest it.
[3:46:15] Any other comments?
[3:46:17] I think we have consensus that the idea is good.
[3:46:21] It is helpful for people to visualize where their dollar goes.
[3:46:25] So, I think you've gotten feedback in other than that, I think we're all nodding in agreement that this is a go.
[3:46:33] Thank you.
[3:46:36] Anything else, Mr. City Manager?
[3:46:38] That's your thank you.
[3:46:39] That's it for you.
[3:46:39] Okay, then we will do the council comments.
[3:46:42] Council member Amis?
[3:46:45] Thank you.
[3:46:46] So looking over to Melissa, she wanted to quickly go over the BACs and setting up that for August.
[3:46:51] I believe.
[3:46:52] Thank you.
[3:46:53] Council member Amis.
[3:46:54] So, each of you have a printout of the first two pages or vacancies that's going to be advertised in the August city scene.
[3:47:03] As you see on the second page, it's the HCab 17 positions that are coming up for reappointment or appointments.
[3:47:13] On the third page is the applicants I have on deck that would be ready to be interviewed.
[3:47:19] There are 20 people listed on here.
[3:47:22] And I'm bringing this forward because a council member had brought this up last week about
[3:47:27] maybe doing an August interview night.
[3:47:30] So I want to get feedback if there'd be a consensus or at least four council members
[3:47:34] that would be available in August.
[3:47:38] And I would say either we keep it on a Tuesday, either the 11th, 18th or the 25th.
[3:47:43] Because next week's national night out.
[3:47:46] Okay.
[3:47:47] So feedback and we'll just start with council member Amis.
[3:47:53] August is a bit of a rough month for me, so it's unlikely I'll be able to, however,
[3:47:58] if I were to be able to finesse it, it would need to be towards the end of the month,
[3:48:02] so that 18th through the 25th. If we stick with Tuesday.
[3:48:06] Okay, Council Member Hall.
[3:48:08] I would prefer not the 25th as our kids go back to school the day before.
[3:48:13] So I am, otherwise, the 11th or the 18th we're fine for me.
[3:48:18] Okay, Councilmember Hardy-Chandler.
[3:48:22] I believe I can do the 18th.
[3:48:26] Councilmember Peterson?
[3:48:27] I'm flexible.
[3:48:29] Okay, Councilmember Bates.
[3:48:31] Any of those work for me?
[3:48:35] I'm going.
[3:48:35] I'm going.
[3:48:36] Oh, sorry, the 11th or the 18th, please.
[3:48:39] Okay, it was like the 18th is the winner.
[3:48:41] Okay, and just next question, like I said,
[3:48:43] I have 20 people on deck.
[3:48:45] Is there a certain amount you want to bring that night?
[3:48:49] We do four and hour, so that's a long time.
[3:48:58] Councilmember Peterson?
[3:49:00] So I'm looking at the list, and if I've got it right, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, but twelve or thirteen are housing and healthy communities advisory board.
[3:49:10] Did I get that right?
[3:49:12] So some of them have long titles because they represent a certain position on there.
[3:49:17] So really on there, let me get my glasses on.
[3:49:19] okay yeah my eyes are not my eyes are not working
[3:49:22] there's like six right now okay yeah thank gosh that was hard to figure out
[3:49:26] well there's I didn't want to you know just put names on there I want to
[3:49:29] at least you know show like what position they represent but I wonder whether
[3:49:34] that's sort of a stack that we might set aside and do that's a bunch of folks
[3:49:39] and that if we split it so that somehow that we weren't doing them all at once
[3:49:43] that would be an option for that being set aside so their terms are not open to
[3:49:50] January, yes. So on the last page, I have a list of all the applicants who would be re-appointments
[3:49:57] for the rest of the year. They vary.
[3:50:23] All right. All right. That's all I need. I'll get back on the date or we'll see. Okay. We can do the 18 since everybody is in the middle of the year.
[3:50:32] pretty much on the 18th. Okay. We can start a seven or we can start six. You're
[3:50:38] a preference. Six.
[3:50:48] Okay.
[3:50:49] Okay. I forgot that it's still on me. Okay.
[3:50:52] Thank you. All good. So pivoting back real quick. I've another, I guess, calendar
[3:50:58] clarification doesn't need to be during council comments. I know Brian
[3:51:01] I'd love to respond to us about the pickets reserve visit on Saturday, so it folks want to message on how we want to go about that with the handle that separately.
[3:51:11] So I'll just mention that.
[3:51:14] Last two items, National Night Out just want to celebrate our police and thank the communities who are hosting for them next week.
[3:51:21] And shout out to Courtside Ty on your 20 years of activity and serving the great citizens of Fairfax City.
[3:51:29] So thank you.
[3:51:32] I want to thank Ornery for many, many years of service to our city, very, very sad to see them close.
[3:51:39] It seems to be a tough spot there, and I love you when you're up there.
[3:51:45] I love you when you're down stairs, and I just sad to see you go.
[3:51:50] And I don't really have much else prepared.
[3:51:54] I wish everyone a quiet month in August, while we don't have council meetings.
[3:51:59] I'm sure staff will appreciate the somewhat hideous of dealing with all of us on a weekly basis.
[3:52:05] We'll make sure to check in, I promise.
[3:52:09] And as I said earlier to my colleagues, I just want to thank you all for your flexibility,
[3:52:12] for our remote participation policy, with the things that we're going on with my dad.
[3:52:17] Things are definitely looking up. Being went on as a first solo walks and things are good.
[3:52:22] And if I owe you an email, it will be coming this week, I promise.
[3:52:29] And I know we had difficult conversations tonight with regard to the ADU conversation, but I do want to say that I think we had respectful conversation, I think we were all able to share our thoughts and feelings in a way that, you know, is what we should be doing on council here, whether we disagree or agree at the end of the evening about it.
[3:52:50] You know, we're all able to still get together and laugh and do the other things, which makes me think I think we're also do for a night out to
[3:52:57] our planner over here on the right.
[3:53:01] I got you.
[3:53:02] All right.
[3:53:06] Councilmember Hortison.
[3:53:07] I hope everyone enjoys a restful break except for breaking the break for other tasks.
[3:53:13] Looking forward to national night out. I'll look forward to trivia and idea if we do get together.
[3:53:19] Happy summer.
[3:53:21] Councillor Piederson.
[3:53:22] Well, likewise, so I think everybody deserves a good break and I hope they take advantage of it.
[3:53:27] So I believe it or not was the last customer to leave Hornery on its last night on Sunday.
[3:53:35] Yeah, very sad.
[3:53:37] But I had a long conversation with the owner, and as it turns out, has been a little bit of a busy week,
[3:53:44] because just happenstance had long conversations with other restaurant owners in Old Town,
[3:53:53] some past recent and some current. And I think the kind of sense that came out of all those
[3:54:01] conversations is that there is a conversation that hasn't exactly happened yet with that community
[3:54:09] about what their needs are and how they might be met.
[3:54:14] And I think in their view, ain't so easy.
[3:54:18] There are multiple factors that play here,
[3:54:22] and I just wanted to suggest that we find a way somehow
[3:54:26] and other to have that conversation that is perhaps something
[3:54:30] or economic development director can help with.
[3:54:32] I'm not sure, but I think my sense from talking with all of them
[3:54:37] And these are people who are pretty capable business analysts, as well as being entrepreneurs.
[3:54:47] They had kind of an advanced sense of the challenge that they're facing, and they're looking
[3:54:53] for a way to unpack that on some meaningful way.
[3:54:56] So I'd like to encourage us to find a way to do that, because it's...
[3:55:00] You know, it's tough. People put their lives into these businesses. It's interesting. The one thing that small business people have in common, according to McKinsey is that they work all the time and they go to the gym regularly. And this is a set of people who's an example of folks who work all the time. And to see this cycle kind of happen where people have to check out because they're not able to keep up is a hard thing. So I just want to shout out for them.
[3:55:29] I certainly feel they're paying and want to do everything we can here to be helpful for them.
[3:55:35] Councillor member Bates.
[3:55:38] I just want to wish everyone a happy national night out.
[3:55:43] And echo council member Amy's comments thanking our local police.
[3:55:47] Thank you.
[3:55:48] Councillor member Quillin.
[3:55:51] I too am looking forward to national night out.
[3:55:53] And I also was able to visit Ornery before they close their doors this weekend.
[3:55:58] and we'll be sad to see it them go, wishing all of our staff a great month off, thank you.
[3:56:06] Okay, and I want to remind everybody that Frozen, the City of Fairfax Theatre Company's
[3:56:12] production is currently playing and we'll be going with grandchildren to see that on Saturday the first,
[3:56:19] so I encourage everybody to go see Frozen. I know you know all the words to the songs.
[3:56:23] We also have restaurant week from August 20th to 30th.
[3:56:27] So please support our local restaurant speaking of our local restaurants.
[3:56:32] Get out there, try some new ones, take friends and family.
[3:56:35] We did that in this particular time period because the George Mason's students are returning
[3:56:40] to the campus on August 26th, and please keep in mind that Fairfax City is in fact
[3:56:45] George Mason University's hometown.
[3:56:48] So we need to kind of represent out there, welcome the students and their parents back when
[3:56:52] see them around town and with that I am going to adjourn the meeting at 10.57 PM on Tuesday.