[0:44] Good evening. I'm going to call a meeting of the planning commission to order at 7 p.m.

[0:50] Chair Romeo is absent this evening. As vice chair, I'm going to chair the meeting.

[0:56] And for the record, at present, four members of the planning commission are here, which constitutes a quorum.

[1:04] First item is approving two sets of minutes from the January 8,

[1:10] 2021 work session and the January 22nd, 2024 regular meeting.

[1:19] I'd like a motion, please.

[1:22] Assuming everyone is satisfied with them. Move approval of both sets of minutes, Mr. Chairman.

[1:28] Seconded. Okay, any discussion on this motion?

[1:34] Okay, seeing no discussion,

[1:36] I'm going to call a vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll, please.

[1:40] Commissioner Oberasi. Yes. Commissioner Donahue. Yes. Commissioner

[1:45] McFarlane. Yes. Vice Chair Burke. Yes. That motion passes by a vote of four to zero.

[1:55] Moving to the comments portion of the agenda. Does the staff have any comments

[2:00] for the Commission this evening? No, Mr. Chairman. We do not. Thank you. Okay.

[2:06] Thank you. Any comments from my colleagues on the planning commission?

[2:14] Okay, that's none.

[2:17] And now, if there are any comments from citizens on any item that is not on tonight's agenda,

[2:27] please come forward.

[2:31] I think there's a procedure here, but if there is no one

[2:36] coming forward to do this, I don't see any reason to go through the procedure.

[2:44] Okay, now let's move to the public hearing portion of the agenda.

[2:50] Ms. Giller and I have the items on the public hearing been appropriately advertised.

[2:56] Yes, the items were properly advertised with notices of public hearings having been duly

[3:01] advertised in the February 16th and February 23rd, 2024 issues of the Fairfax County Times

[3:07] newspaper certificates of publication from the editor will be entered into the record upon receipt.

[3:15] Okay, thank you very much. The first public hearing item on the agenda is the town's fiscal year

[3:22] 2025 to fiscal year 2030 capital improvement program. I'm going to open the public hearing

[3:29] and call on John Burden to the staff report.

[3:49] Good evening, Commissioner Burke and members of the planning

[3:54] commission.

[3:55] My name is John Burden, and I am the CIP program manager.

[3:59] We are here tonight to review the proposed FY2025 FY2030 CIP

[4:04] and discuss the resolution for you.

[4:11] The CIP is a fluid financial planning document.

[4:14] These projects support the intent and implementation

[4:17] of 2030 comprehensive plan. The capital budget FY 2025 portion of the CIP becomes part of

[4:28] the current annual budget, which will continue to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act

[4:34] or ARPA. CIP is a plan for out years to support projects staged from concept through design

[4:42] and construction.

[4:46] The proposed CIP contains 36 projects. Transportation and water and

[4:51] sewer projects make up 86% of the capital costs.

[5:04] A quick review of the CIP process might

[5:06] be in order. From July 1st to November 30th, Department heads submit new projects or updates

[5:12] existing projects in the CIP. The project's submissions require capital costs, funding,

[5:17] and operational costs. Additionally, the projects is prioritized using 10 criteria, long-term

[5:24] planning, health safety, infrastructure, regulatory compliance, operational budget impact, quality

[5:30] of life, timing and location, sustainability, external funding, and equity. In December,

[5:38] the CIP review committee reviews the projects for accuracy and completion. By mid, they

[5:44] We confirm and adjust the project's prioritization.

[5:47] By mid-January, the committee determines the project's readiness using the guidelines above.

[5:54] If the project has a fully developed scope and is funded, it is classified as eminent.

[6:00] Priority projects have a well-defined scope with some or no funding.

[6:07] Future projects need to have their scope and program developed as well as identifying

[6:13] the funding.

[6:13] There are four new projects added to the CIP, Ferndale Avenue improvements, estimated

[6:20] cost of $545,000, police rear security gate, cost of $376,000, HPD buildout $345,000, and

[6:32] the lead and copper compliance rollout $600,000.

[6:35] The

[6:40] review committee identified 20 imminent projects, 55% of the projects fall under water

[6:49] and sewer.

[6:53] These projects,

[6:56] water and sewer projects, are over the next three years in readiness

[7:01] for the TRG development.

[7:04] In FY 30, we do see transportation costs of $16 million for South Elden Street improvements.

[7:11] this.

[7:14] Here are the list of the 20 projects that are classified as eminent.

[7:23] There are 15

[7:24] priority projects. 86% of the priority project costs are multimodal transportation projects.

[7:32] As stated earlier, the projects are well-defined and many of the projects are partially or

[7:37] wholly designed. They were classified as priority projects because the projects are relying

[7:43] on receiving grants from one of more than 17 different agencies that community development

[7:52] are aggressively seeking.

[7:57] These projects dominate the last three years of priority projects because

[8:01] of anticipating future funding.

[8:07] A shout out project is the downtown redevelopment

[8:11] for arts center that is linked to the ComStop development which provides for the development

[8:17] of public parking as well as an art center in the downtown in accord with a comprehensive plan.

[8:29] For future prospects projects, Parks and Recreation makes up 55% of the 11 future

[8:36] prospect projects costs. Projects can be moved to a different readiness classification

[8:42] once additional efforts in defining the scope and as programs are applied.

[8:47] These

[8:54] projects are in the CIP but not part of the budgeted number finance will

[8:59] you be using. Projects future costs such as HCC Phase 5 and Runany Park are based

[9:08] on a square footage cost in today's general market escalated with an

[9:12] inflate inflation rate at 4% to the year they are assigned.

[9:21] The

[9:21] The proposed FY 2025-FY 2030 CIP has 36 projects, which is a combination of the eminent and

[9:29] priority projects, at a cost of $205 million.

[9:37] Except for FY 30, the yearly costs fall within the $24 to $36 million range.

[9:47] As stated earlier, the first year of the CIP becomes part of the FY 25 annual budget.

[9:52] There are 22 projects at a cost of $25.8 million, which is lower than the past several years.

[10:02] When we look at the funding for FY25, we see that 86% of the FY25 CIP has external funding,

[10:10] which includes the $1.7 million from ARPA.

[10:15] Transportation projects are funded from various government agencies,

[10:18] and the water and sewer funds are funded by fees, enterprise fees.

[10:26] $375,000 of the general fund money will support three projects, sidewalk trails,

[10:32] bicycle facilities, IT improvement, and the aquatic office build-out. The 36 up

[10:41] there is actually the total number of projects not in just the FY25.

[10:48] So the

[10:49] projects in the proposed FY 2025 FY 30 CIP aligns with the town's 2030

[10:56] comprehensive plan and the action items found in the town's adopted pedestrian

[11:01] plan and bicycle network master plan.

[11:10] The staff proposes that the plan

[11:12] commission recommend the proposed draft FY 2025 FY 2030 CIP to the town

[11:18] manager by passing the resolution in front of you.

[11:24] Any questions?

[11:25] Yeah. Thank you, John. Are there any questions or comments from members of the planning commission?

[11:33] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. One quick and John. As far as ARPA is concerned, it was my impression that ARPA funding is finite and might be coming to an unfairly soon.

[11:46] Am I under a misimpression or what's the situation on that?

[11:49] So, the offer of funding has two deadlines.

[11:51] The first one is that the dollar amount has to be encumbered by December 31st of 2024

[11:58] this year, and then they actually spent by December 31st, 2026.

[12:06] We are in the process of identifying any amount that isn't part, right now, part

[12:13] of a project, and we see, we are pretty confident that we will spend every penny

[12:18] of it. Well I hope so that's good but beyond ARPA 24 we will not see any more

[12:33] ARPA funds in the budget or will we continue to see those dollars through

[12:38] 26 when they become encumbered.

[12:43] The majority of the projects will for the

[12:46] the ARPA funding will end in 24.

[12:48] There could be a residual amount carryover

[12:51] if the project is encumbered in the last month

[12:56] and then it won't happen for the next year or two, but.

[13:01] Okay, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[13:06] Any further comments?

[13:10] Okay, seeing none, I'm now gonna call on comments

[13:13] from the audience.

[13:14] These comments should be limited to three minutes

[13:17] in length.

[13:18] a green light will come on at the beginning, a yellow light will come on

[13:23] 30 seconds before your time is up, and a red light will come on when your time

[13:28] has expired. Please complete the sign-up sheet on the podium and state your

[13:35] name and address for the record. Are there any comments from the public on

[13:39] this item?

[13:44] All right.

[13:47] Are there any further comments from staff or from the

[13:50] commissioners.

[13:53] Thank you. This public hearing is now closed and I'll move to

[13:58] the commission level for discussion and action including a motion.

[14:12] Somebody?

[14:13] Can you put the number up? I can't find it. The new portal I'm having trouble

[14:17] seeing the agenda so just for reference the

[14:23] motion would be to

[14:28] recommend the resolution and I defer to the town attorney on this but

[14:34] Thank you.

[14:35] Motion would be to recommend the resolution as presented.

[14:39] Thank you very much.

[14:43] I just had looked at it before,

[14:44] but I can't seem to get it on my device right now.

[14:48] So I'd move that we approve proposed FY 2025,

[14:53] FY 2030 capital improvement program, the CIP.

[14:59] Second.

[15:00] All right. Having a motion and a second, is there any discussion on the motion?

[15:09] I just want

[15:10] to add for the record that this motion affects a resolution to recommend to the town manager

[15:18] the capital improvement program as presented. It is for further consideration and adoption.

[15:28] and

[15:32] I note that the sidewalk bicycle and trails project continues to be funded

[15:36] using general fund dollars and the general government project focus should

[15:41] be on maintaining existing major infrastructure and ensuring safety of

[15:46] operations and that is verbatim from the resolution before us. Can I call for

[15:54] the vote and Aaron would you call the roll please? Commissioner Elbarasi? Yes.

[16:01] Commissioner Donahue? Yes. Commissioner McFarland? Yes. Vice Chair Burke? Yes.

[16:07] Thank you. That passes by a vote of four to zero.

[16:13] Now I'm going to open the

[16:15] public hearing again on zoning map amendment ZMA 22-02 concerning 13-100 and 13-150 World

[16:28] Gate Drive.

[16:31] Mr. Stromberg?

[16:55] Good evening, Chairman Burke and members of the Planning Commission.

[16:59] This is zoning map amendment CMA number 22-02 at 13100 and 13150 Whirlgate Drive.

[17:08] I am filling in for Mr. Perry tonight who had been briefing you these past two months at the public hearings on this project.

[17:18] So the property is located at the northeast corner of Eldon Street and Whirlgate Drive where there is currently in office building.

[17:29] building which used to be Fannie Mae and a parking garage structure there on the site.

[17:37] The proposal is the demolition of the existing office buildings.

[17:42] This property will be redeveloped with a multifamily building attached to a portion

[17:48] of the existing parking garage and that would be on the western half of the site along

[17:55] Elden Street and then there's proposed stacked townhouses and standard townhouse units on the

[18:03] eastern portion of the site. The total density of the proposal is a 1.34 floor area ratio and it's

[18:13] a total between the two phases of 460 dwelling units. There are several modifications requested

[18:20] in order to get this development form to work on this particular site.

[18:30] As you can

[18:31] see the multifamily apartment building again is located on the eastern portion

[18:38] of the site. It has two internal courtyards for the residents of the

[18:43] apartments. The primary entrance in and out of the entire site is on Wiltshire

[18:49] Court. Ordering on that, those are the stacked unit townhouses and there's also a row of

[18:57] stacked unit townhouses fronting on Royal Gate Drive. The standard townhouses are located there

[19:04] on the northern half of alley 1, Road B, alley 2, and alley 3.

[19:13] So the significant update from

[19:16] The last time this has been brought before the planning commission is the revision to the road a entrance.

[19:26] If you recall, this was a right in right out entrance.

[19:31] And there is a lot of going back and forth between staff and the applicant related to a continuous right turn lane going from this road a to Elvin Street.

[19:44] The applicant has revised the plan, so this would be a right and only, and then any vehicles leaving the site from both the

[19:54] multifamily apartments and the townhouses would go out back towards that road shore where the signalized intersection is and leave from that location.

[20:07] There have been some minor revisions to the proffers since this was last before the commission,

[20:13] And the Fairfax County Fire Marshal review is still ongoing with this application.

[20:19] And a draft resolution recommending approval has been provided to the Planning Commission tonight.

[20:26] So that concludes the updates on this application.

[20:29] And I would be happy to answer any application questions that you have in the applicant is here tonight as well.

[20:36] Okay, any questions or comments from my colleagues?

[20:42] Has the fire marshal shown any concern about anything?

[20:47] Is there anything in particular that they're reviewing or why they're still reviewing it

[20:51] after so long?

[20:52] They need to re-review this change with the right turn in.

[20:59] Good.

[20:59] So they have reviewed it initially.

[21:03] Okay.

[21:04] Seeing no further comments, I'm going to invite the applicant's agent forward to

[21:08] address the commission.

[21:09] Please complete the sign up sheet and state your name and address for the record.

[21:15] Good evening, Vice Chair Burke, members of planning commission, Ken Weyer with the law

[21:19] firm, Weyer Gill.

[21:20] With me this evening is my colleague, Faheem Tarab, and then Sean Sullivan with Boston Properties.

[21:24] We appreciate the opportunity to come back to you all again.

[21:27] From the very beginning, I reference the fact these conversions are a bit quirky.

[21:31] We're keeping the majority of the garage that's there today.

[21:34] We have topography, and we're also on the very edge of the town next to a very

[21:37] busy intersection at World Gate in Elden.

[21:39] As Mr. Strongbird laid out a second ago, the right in has been the resolution

[21:44] of the write-in, write-out. We have met with the Farm Marshal. There is no concern that I'm aware of.

[21:49] We just don't have the final letter. We expect it hopefully before the Town Council review.

[21:53] We've also worked with staff to modify the proffers. That intersection can be whatever

[21:58] alignment they want it to be. We just don't want to move our building. So there's a few

[22:01] radius issues and how does it make sense for the pedestrian? I think we've had a good

[22:04] discussion on that point. So we hope with that background and updated proffers,

[22:09] you all will feel comfortable recommending approval to Town Council. I did not realize Mr. Perry was

[22:15] out. We did email him this afternoon. There was one minor modification on the draft resolution.

[22:20] The date of the GDP and the modification should be January 16th. The dates that were in here

[22:25] were the earlier submissions. So if you find yourself in a position to recommend approval

[22:29] on number one of the motion, if we could just make those edits to January 16th, 2024,

[22:34] that was our most recent submission. So I'm not going to ramble on any longer. We appreciate

[22:38] your efforts and we're here to answer any questions. Okay thank you. Any questions for the

[22:44] applicant's agent?

[22:47] Thank you. Okay that's a good sign that we've gone over this quite thoroughly

[22:55] in my opinion. I'm now going to call on comments for the from the audience if anyone has anything

[23:02] to say you will have three minutes watch for the green light and a yellow light will come on

[23:07] when you have 30 seconds left and a red light means your time is up. Are there any comments

[23:13] from the audience?

[23:18] Okay.

[23:22] Anything further, Mr. Stromberg? Okay. Thank you.

[23:29] Public hearing

[23:29] is now closed and I'm going to move to the commission level for discussion and action,

[23:35] noting the recommendation on the staff report for further action.

[23:45] Could I have

[23:45] motion please motion to approve zoning map amendment 22-02 with the

[23:54] proffered conditions as amended as amended with the amended date thank you we

[24:04] have that amended resolution for the minutes okay I'll second that any

[24:11] discussion on that motion

[24:15] okay will the clerk please call the roll

[24:28] All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weier.

[24:36] Next item on the agenda is consideration of comprehensive plan amendment CPA number 23-01.

[24:45] It's a resolution to consider a comprehensive plan amendment to the town of Herndon's

[24:51] 2030 comprehensive plan adopted on August 12th, 2008 and amended through May 24th, 2022.

[25:02] This item is continued from the January 22nd, 2024 meeting.

[25:08] I will open the public hearing and call on Ahmadzaki for the staff report, please.

[25:14] Thank you, and good evening, Chairman Burke and the Motor Planning Commission.

[25:19] My name is Ahmad Zaki and I'm the lead planning, lead language planning development.

[25:24] Tonight once again I'm here with a brief presentation to update you on the comprehensive plan amendment

[25:32] and on the transit rated growth smile plan.

[25:35] Indeed our discussion will be to pick up where we left off last week and the discussion

[25:40] of the plan and two major items were discussed.

[25:44] One of the questions were about the radar sheet, and the next question was about the

[25:49] balancing between flexibility and the prescriptiveness of the plan.

[25:56] So to recap a little bit, the final draft TRG plan, which I shared with you last week,

[26:03] was submitted to us on February 12th.

[26:07] This draft contains revision based on the TRG advisory committee comments, the planning

[26:12] Commission and the TRG Technical Committee comments. Obviously, there's a lot of content

[26:20] in the new revised plan that's being updated. However, the principal contents and the tent

[26:27] of the plan remains the same and the staff is fully supportive of those contents. However,

[26:34] there are some certain new elements of the plan that needs a closer look and analysis

[26:40] And in order to do so, the staff has created a new radar sheet to mark the refinements that's needed to be brought.

[26:50] Majority of those comments are kind of editorial issues like spelling, profiting and housekeeping kind of items.

[27:01] But last week during the discussion, which we had with the planning commission, a question was raised that we need to see the radar sheet.

[27:08] Now, I'd like to bring your attention to the kind of form of the questions and comments

[27:14] that we have in the Rata sheet, which is now on the display.

[27:18] I'm not sure if you have a hard copy of that Rata sheet, but you can see it on the display

[27:23] here.

[27:25] As you can see from the Rata sheet, we have kind of page by page markups of the comments

[27:32] that we need to edit and the plan.

[27:34] As I mentioned, a majority of those comments like table of content should be linked with

[27:39] day titles, like physical impact analysis that the disease is missing while it's being

[27:44] included in the table of content.

[27:46] There are some unsolved comments that people provided last time to the consultant like

[27:52] the name of vice mayor is kind of missed out.

[27:56] There are some paragraphs that we have included for clarity because inconsistency, which

[28:02] which were kind of repetitive and redundant in the final draft plan.

[28:07] In addition, as you can see, there are kind of markups, let me increase the size, I'm

[28:13] sorry, it's really, yeah.

[28:17] There are markups, for example, for the number of pages that's being kind of misplaced,

[28:21] the location of images and photos are kind of misrepresented, and there are kind

[28:28] of references that needs to be double checked and put in the right place.

[28:35] For example, the number of meetings that should be included as part of public outreach as missing

[28:40] and we have asked them to include.

[28:43] However, there are some comments too that we have asked them to, which is refinement

[28:49] in this case, that somehow can refer to the elements of the plan that we have asked

[28:56] the consultant to include. For example, one of the comment was about the community's input.

[29:03] There was a survey that we conducted at some point during the vision and phase of the project

[29:08] that asked communities perspective on the type of kind of environment and building that they

[29:15] want to see in the meteorology. We provide questions to the consultant to provide

[29:21] the type of feedback, the summary of feedback of the community. However,

[29:25] those questions were or kind of omitted from the final draft plan. So we have

[29:30] included that question again and based on our collection of communities feedback

[29:38] and answers we have provided kind of detailed questions in order to indicate

[29:43] to the consultant that those questions might be kind of discussed again and

[29:48] included in the final draft plan because that forms the basis of the

[29:53] framework development. So this was the Arata sheet as in this

[30:00] Form, and we have the page number and question by question, which we would kind of keep updating this or add a sheet based on the comments that we will receive from the planning commission during this session in our planning sessions and also from the town council during their review of the TRG plan.

[30:19] And these refinements and markups will be shared with the consultant once the town council acts on the plan and those will be applied.

[30:31] The second question here, the second topic that we wanted to discuss was pretty much about the

[30:39] question about, that was asked regarding the level of or balancing between flexibility and

[30:51] prescriptiveness of the plan. Last week we did discuss this. In order to focus on this specific

[30:58] the question. I'm sharing here some specific pages of the plan that can help discussion

[31:05] and I ask Lisa Guillen to facilitate discussions about the specific topic.

[31:12] Thank you.

[31:19] Good evening for the record. My name is Elizabeth Guillen, Director of Community Development.

[31:25] We did want to go over some of the questions, the issues that we're facing as we look

[31:32] at the plan and we try to deal with the issue of how prescriptive it is versus non-prescriptive.

[31:41] And for that, I'd like to draw your attention to page 42, which you see before you this

[31:47] evening.

[31:49] And as you look at it, I'm just going to orient you here a little bit.

[31:54] But we see in the pink area where the cursor is, hopefully you can see that.

[32:02] That is the arrival plaza.

[32:04] That is the continuation of the promenade.

[32:09] And then you see this somewhat golden area that stretches down from west to east to

[32:19] what is today exchange place and then just beyond exchange place.

[32:24] that is the electrical easement, the electric line easement, and that, as you

[32:30] know, is designated as a linear park within the planned concept.

[32:36] And along the

[32:38] north side of that linear park runs what we're calling the parallel street, and

[32:45] that is the street that will connect to Herndon Parkway and eventually

[32:51] Worldgate Drive extension on the west and then run through the entire northern portion

[32:59] of the TRG up to Spring Street, creating a spine road that is parallel to the Herndon

[33:07] Parkway on which the grid of streets within the park, within the TRG is built off of.

[33:16] To the north and west of that spine road, the plan currently shows that there is a residential

[33:25] mix of townhouse and two over twos.

[33:29] And then on the, I guess it would be the east and the south side of the spine road,

[33:38] you see a mix of office and multifamily mixed use buildings.

[33:43] For the most part, some of the buildings are single use, others are mixed use.

[33:50] So as we look at this, we see on the legend where SOM has actually placed a term key distances

[34:07] And the various colors on the streets and the plazas you see are literally, the width

[34:18] of these elements is called out.

[34:21] So the plaza would be 120 feet between the two development blocks.

[34:27] And then the green streets, which are private, well in this case that's a public street,

[34:33] the others are public as well.

[34:35] the green streets would be a hundred between development blocks and then you

[34:41] get into the smaller private streets and those sizes are laid out specifically.

[34:48] And this is this is where you have a very what appears to be prescriptive.

[34:57] There is some language that has been added to some of the pages of the

[35:01] plan but at the same time this particular illustration and its legend

[35:12] would lead one to believe that that's what it has to be and that's what zoning

[35:18] would be built on and decisions in the future would be built on. So the staff

[35:24] is recommending that there be changes to that language and to make certain that

[35:37] it's the plan is allowing for flexibility and we're assuming from what

[35:46] we've heard from the Planning Commission that that is the direction

[35:49] that you wish for us to go, that we don't have specific numbers,

[35:55] numeral dimensions.

[35:57] At least that's what we've been hearing in our work sessions

[36:00] and previous public meetings.

[36:04] So before you tonight, we're going to show you where some

[36:07] of these specifics are in the plan just to obtain your

[36:13] comfort level with how that is displayed. So on this particular sheet, am I correct

[36:24] in assuming that it's this type of legend that you're concerned about, where you're

[36:31] actually stating that the width of this street from block to block will be a certain dimension.

[36:39] So,

[36:42] that's what we're assuming and so that is the sort of refinement that really goes

[36:50] beyond an errata sheet and so we're calling it an errata and refinement sheet because it's

[36:58] this sort of detail that really isn't normally included, errata sheets usually grammar and

[37:06] minor changes like that. I would also like to point out that it gets into where

[37:18] the front of the building should be, where the backs of the building should be,

[37:22] and again we're adding flexibility. I think we've achieved it with with some

[37:30] of the pages already during the previous changes that we've recommended to SOM.

[37:41] Here you see where we've added feasibility language,

[37:44] which was included in this latest draft,

[37:48] where it states that road geometry may vary from what is shown

[37:51] on the road type plan to the right to accommodate future development needs

[37:56] due to the anticipated piecemeal development phasing and example of applying flexibility as shown.

[38:03] And what you see here is the insert and really the genesis of that insert is that the engineering

[38:13] division for the town did note that in the original drawing the distance between the

[38:21] The spine road in the Herndon Parkway as we've gone over before was too tight.

[38:27] It wasn't going to allow for adequate stacking of vehicles potentially.

[38:34] So the insert that you see below that is actually moving that spine road a little

[38:40] further to the north and into the west to increase that dimension.

[38:46] And so we're building language into the plan to allow that flexibility.

[38:52] So this is a case where it's already occurred.

[38:55] We've got some other cases that have also been included.

[39:02] But on this particular sheet and on several of the following sheets,

[39:06] there is some direction that we would like as you discuss this plan this evening.

[39:12] And that is on the sections, on the street sections.

[39:17] The street sections have ranges and because of that they are very, if you're looking at this plan for guidance, it would appear that this is in fact exactly what you're supposed to do.

[39:32] If you look at the muse for the pedestrian street, what you see is a 10 foot front yard.

[39:37] you see a five foot minimum sidewalk, a five foot minimum planting area, then a 20 foot muse,

[39:46] and then a repeat on the other side of the muse. Now I have a few comments about this one. One is

[39:54] whenever you say a minimum, you're going to get the minimum. Not too often will you see somebody

[40:00] come in and decide to make that five foot minimum sidewalk a 10 foot sidewalk.

[40:07] The other feature here is that we're seeing, again, very specific numbers.

[40:16] And even though it says street sections provide a guideline of how the program, how to program

[40:22] the area between the development blocks, however, there is flexibility for the shown

[40:27] dimensions and features to change depending on future development needs, e.g. substituting

[40:33] on-street parking for turn lanes.

[40:39] We would like to gauge during the discussion this evening whether the Planning Commission

[40:46] is comfortable with that added language or if you believe that the dimensions should

[40:54] be removed and that just the section is shown so that the future developer, designer, will

[41:03] know these are the features that are supposed to be within that area from building to building

[41:12] and then work with best planning practices and with the staff and probably some additional

[41:19] language in the zoning ordinance to give greater guidance.

[41:21] So, here the question is, is the language of the flexible nature of the drawings adequate

[41:29] or would you be more comfortable with the actual dimensions removed?

[41:36] Staff on a matter like this, we again,

[41:43] we know that if we have minimums, that's what

[41:46] will be coming in on the plan.

[41:48] And we also know dimensions in the sense, not in the number dimensions, but there

[41:53] There is a key when you come to urban designing that your height of the building and the distance

[42:00] of the building to the building opposite creates a space that needs to be wide enough but yet

[42:11] have a sense of enclosure.

[42:12] So it is important to have that correct dimension so the height with it's working together

[42:21] to give you a sense of enclosure but not a sense that it's too tight or it's too dark

[42:26] and shadow. But again,

[42:31] do we actually try to plan that here or do we wait until a later

[42:36] date when a proposal comes in? And so that is one of the questions that we'd like to

[42:45] hear more about your thoughts about the the other excuse me for a second yes is

[42:57] it satisfactory to receive answers to these inquiries at the next work

[43:02] session are you looking to hear something from the dais tonight it would be

[43:08] although it's a little unusual during the public hearing when once it goes to

[43:13] comment section to the to the commission. If you'd like to give us some

[43:20] direction we would appreciate that and that way we can be working to make that

[43:24] irada and refinement sheet ready for your work session incorporating your

[43:30] thoughts. So that would that would be useful. It's not necessary but it would

[43:36] be useful. So this is the type of refinement that is going I would say

[43:43] be on just the typical what you would see in an Arata sheet. And this is more of more

[43:51] of these issues you will see in the next work session. But we did want to bring these just

[43:57] to gauge your comfort level. And with that, I will say that the staff is recommending

[44:05] that the public hearing remain open and that you continue until a date is certain.

[44:11] and I believe the next planning commission public hearing is on March 25th

[44:19] and I'm happy

[44:21] to answer any questions and I know I'm odd it's too.

[44:26] Okay.

[44:29] Any questions or comments from the commissioners including in response to some of the issues

[44:36] raised by Ms. Gellerin?

[44:41] Jay.

[44:42] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I've heard nothing this evening coming from staff.

[44:49] that would discourage me from giving them the degree of I'm going to use

[44:55] the word flexibility that they would like to have in fact

[45:00] It sounds quite healthy to me.

[45:03] The, as far as the dimensions issue is concerned, the more specific dimensions issue, same thing

[45:11] I think. I can be easily sold on what the director said, which was, if you have a dimension on

[45:19] there, that's what you're going to get, and I can get any more. I've seen that happen,

[45:22] so I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. So I am, yeah, I'm more than willing to

[45:28] go in the direction that staff I think is trying to get us to go in and direct us

[45:33] this evening. I don't know if the vote has to be taken this evening or if you

[45:37] actually want to give us a better shot at the work session and then the

[45:43] following public hearing to actually do the vote. I think that's a good plan but

[45:48] as far as my initial comments and my initial impression is concerned I

[45:54] I think to have the flexibility that staff is looking for is a very healthy idea.

[45:59] I know I've spoken on the prescriptive issue before. I hope no one has gotten the wrong idea.

[46:04] I've tried to explain. I am not. I do not want to be terribly prescriptive.

[46:09] In fact, I think there was, in the presentation that was sent to us, the staff memo,

[46:17] and it's the very first comment I think was very good, and I can't remember exactly the wording that was used,

[46:22] but it referred to the input of the community and I think referred to the

[46:27] need to give that input some credence and pay some attention to it. And I think

[46:33] that's the type of wording we should be using. I'm not in favor of being overly

[46:37] prescriptive at all. So I think basically the comments made by staff

[46:42] tonight and what I think is their desire to have is something I think I

[46:47] would support. I'd like to look a little further but that would be my

[46:49] initial feeling. Thank you.

[46:54] I just want to make sure I understand so I can help

[47:01] kind of express an opinion here. So I understand we don't want to be

[47:05] prescriptive and I understand that we don't want to prescribe distances

[47:10] because they'll come in. But at the same time we've got to give the future

[47:14] developers an idea of what we're looking for. Should we provide language

[47:21] which that would elaborate on the goal

[47:23] that we're trying to achieve,

[47:25] like greater walkability, open environment,

[47:27] that type of thing, would that be helpful

[47:29] or what's your thought?

[47:32] And I'll let Ahmad also answer if he has thoughts.

[47:35] My thought is with the sections

[47:37] to perhaps include sections but without the dimensions

[47:42] so that if someone is looking to provide us

[47:48] with a generalized development plan,

[47:50] they know the expectations of what activities and what features should be

[47:59] there. In other words, if it shows a cycle track, if it shows a sidewalk, if it

[48:04] shows a planting strip, if that's in the section, they know that is what the

[48:10] town expects to see. What would not be there is that the minimum is five feet

[48:16] or the minimum and maximum. It wouldn't be the numbers, but they would still have an idea of how that space is to be activated.

[48:28] Thank you, Lisa. Just to add on this, when we were conducting the community survey, the key words actually that you're hearing a lot was safety, functionality, aesthetic aspect of the plan.

[48:41] So those are kind of abstract terms in order to have those kind of abstract terms translated

[48:48] in a design, particularly when it comes to public spaces.

[48:54] So if we can add the kind of adverb maybe of best practices somehow to indicate that

[49:00] function, that could guide us to come up with something maybe with more kind of rigid

[49:07] or something later on in the process.

[49:09] Thank you.

[49:10] And to elaborate on that, I'll give you an example,

[49:17] a dedicated bicycle facility, well

[49:20] out there in the engineering world at this time and planning world, there are dimensions

[49:27] for and operational measures for a safe, best practices functional bicycle facility.

[49:39] So we would be applying that, of course, but we wouldn't be saying in this document that

[49:46] it has to be five feet.

[49:48] And that's probably a good thing because we've learned over time that some standards continue

[49:55] to evolve.

[49:56] One of them is cycling facilities.

[50:00] What was considered adequate five, six years ago has actually changed.

[50:06] and the dimension now is different than it was then.

[50:10] So it's probably best not to, in a case like that, perhaps rely on a dimension put in a document in 2024

[50:20] if we're going to be applying this still in the next 5, 10, 15 years.

[50:27] So, are you saying that there'd be less subjectivity with the staff's decisions on approving plans

[50:35] because of the term best practices makes it a little more objective and evolves with time?

[50:42] It does evolve with time, at least some standards do, some practices do, some don't, but what

[50:50] What it also tells the developer is that we are going to be holding this up against those

[50:59] standards, whatever those standards are at the time.

[51:03] In addition, as we're looking at the zoning ordinance, and we're going to have to write

[51:07] zoning language, as we come to the Planning Commission and Town Council, if there are

[51:14] particular distances or numbers, something critical that is identified by

[51:21] that time, it would be more appropriate to have that in zoning ordinance language

[51:27] rather than putting it into the comprehensive plan.

[51:35] Did you want to add

[51:36] anything Commissioner Albarasi? I'm comfortable with removing the specific

[51:41] numbers within the dimensions and just leaving the sections within the

[51:46] illustrations.

[51:50] Thanks.

[51:54] One comment. The question of flexibility versus prescriptiveness for

[52:05] one of a better word was a major topic for the TRG Advisory Committee. I wanted to mention

[52:14] that, and that was a group of several people from various sectors that reviewed and considered

[52:23] the issues throughout this process, meeting several times.

[52:29] And this matter of flexibility was brought forward by the Committee for the Planning

[52:37] Commission and for staff, just to note that.

[52:41] As far as the specific questions raised here, I will say that I favor, in most instances,

[52:54] a flexible approach.

[52:57] That said, I'm not sure that the instance on the screen right now is one that I feel

[53:03] it's necessary to remove the numbers from, personally.

[53:07] Now that there may be other viewpoints, but that that's mine if that's any help.

[53:16] Anything else from staff?

[53:20] No, Mr. Chair.

[53:22] Okay.

[53:25] I believe, and maybe a little assistance from the town attorney here,

[53:32] Seeing as there are several alternatives one of which is

[53:36] Continuance I'm keep the public hearing open for purposes of motion and proceeding there

[53:45] should be yes there should be

[53:46] The public hearing should be kept open there needs to be a motion to keep it open and for the public hearing to be continued to

[54:02] March 25th

[54:03] But let's start there, so if you wish to continue, please add that we're keeping the public hearing open.

[54:12] Mr. Chair, I think Ms. Guillarin has a comment.

[54:15] Well, we have some people in the audience, so they may wish to comment.

[54:21] We can go ahead and take public comment today and still continue it for public comment at the 25th as well.

[54:30] Okay. So, Mike, should I request further public comments? I apologize for that, by the way.

[54:41] Mr. Vice Chair, again, Ken Weier with the law firm, Weier-Gill. I do want to associate

[54:45] myself with Mrs. Gilliran's description of features. What's important in the master

[54:49] plan is tell developers when you come here, we want to see these elements. And I think

[54:53] that's the right way to describe it. Mr. Burke, for example, in the bottom right

[54:56] hand corner the street muse alley. If it's a two over two unit that probably works perfectly

[55:02] well because you park one car in the garage or one car behind it. On the Boston Properties

[55:06] project we just approved we actually didn't do that. All the cars were inside and the

[55:09] alley was 22 feet. So that's an example of the flexibility. It's not just for the developer

[55:14] also staff to flip things around and turn them around to make sure the project sort

[55:17] of fits. I just want to give that granular example because I do think that the direction

[55:21] staff is headed we fully support them and you for your time working through these

[55:26] detailed issues. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

[55:35] Okay. Seeing no further comments, let me entertain

[55:39] a motion at this point. Mr. Chairman, I move that we keep the public hearing open and we

[55:46] continue our deliberation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA number 23-01, to the

[55:55] public meeting, which is March 25th. Second. All right. Any discussion on that

[56:06] motion?

[56:09] Okay, seeing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote and ask the clerk

[56:14] to call the roll, please. Commissioner Elborasi. Yes. Commissioner Donahue. Yes.

[56:21] Commissioner McFarland. Yes. Vice Chair Burr. Yes. Thank you. And that is a vote

[56:27] of 4-0 in favor of continuance. And that vote concludes tonight's agenda. Is there a motion

[56:35] to adjourn?

[56:37] So moved, Mr. Chairman.

[56:39] Second.

[56:40] Okay. If there is no objection, Planning Commission meeting for this evening is adjourned at 8.56

[56:49] p.m. I'm sorry, 7.56 p.m.

[56:55] Do any of these again?

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript