[3:45] We have five members of the Planning Commission that are President which constitutes a Quorum. Our first item this evening is an organizational meeting item from the Election of the Officers, the First Item of Business is an Election of Chair and Vice-Chair and the Degs and

[4:03] Nations of Secretary and parliamentarians.

[4:05] for the 2024 term of the planning commission.

[4:09] So, right to the chase, is there a motion to nominate the chair for the planning commission?

[4:15] Mr. Chairman, I nominate Michael Rumbio as the chairman.

[4:21] Second.

[4:22] We have a motion by Commissioner McFarlane, a second by Vice Chair Burke,

[4:27] is there any discussion on the motion?

[4:32] Seeing none, I will call for the vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll.

[4:36] Commissioner Donahue?

[4:38] Yes.

[4:39] Commissioner Mark Farland?

[4:41] Yes.

[4:43] Commissioner Johannes?

[4:44] Yes.

[4:46] Vice Chair Burke?

[4:47] Yes.

[4:48] Chair Romeo?

[4:49] I will also support that motion.

[4:51] It will pass 5-0-2 with Commissioner's Alperancey and Moses absent for the vote.

[4:58] I want to thank everybody for your continuing confidence in me.

[5:00] I very much appreciate it.

[5:02] Second, is there a motion to nominate the Vice Chair for the Planning Commission?

[5:09] Mr. Chairman, I nominate George Burke as the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.

[5:13] I will second that.

[5:15] Is there any discussion on the motion?

[5:19] Seeing none, I will call for the vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll.

[5:27] Commissioner Donohue.

[5:28] Yes.

[5:29] Commissioner McFarland.

[5:30] Yes.

[5:32] Commissioner Johannes.

[5:34] Yes.

[5:34] Vice Chair Burke.

[5:36] Yes.

[5:37] Chair Romeo.

[5:38] Yes, that motion also passes 502 with commissioners Albrossi and most absent for the vote.

[5:49] Is there a motion to designate the director of community development or their design me as the secretary for the planning commission?

[5:57] So I'll move Mr. June, very good is there a second second.

[6:01] Okay, motion made by commission Don he's second by vice chair Burke is there any discussion on the motion?

[6:08] I'm going to call for the vote and ask for the vote.

[6:09] Call the roll.

[6:10] Commissioner Donnie.

[6:11] Yes.

[6:13] Commissioner Mike Farlane.

[6:14] Yes.

[6:15] Commissioner Johannes.

[6:17] Yes.

[6:18] Vice Chair Burke.

[6:19] Yes.

[6:20] Chair Romeo.

[6:22] Yes.

[6:22] That motion passes 502.

[6:25] Moving on.

[6:26] Is there a motion to designate the town attorney or their, sorry, and their designate as the

[6:32] parliamentarian for the planning commission?

[6:33] So moved second very good. We have a motion by vice chair Burke second by Commissioner Donahue. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[6:44] Seeing none I'll call for the vote. And that's the call the roll

[6:48] Commissioner Donahue. Yes

[6:51] Commissioner McFarland. Yes

[6:53] Commissioner Johannes. Yes

[6:55] vice chair Burke. Yes

[6:59] I'm also, yes, that motion passes 5-0-2.

[7:05] Commissioner's Albrossi and Moses absent for the meeting.

[7:11] Let's go

[7:21] on one second.

[7:22] Miss Yeats, I have a question for you.

[7:25] Okay,

[7:53] moving on.

[7:54] Item 3 in the agenda are the approval of the minutes.

[7:57] minutes.

[7:59] These minutes are the December 4th, 2023 planning commission work session minutes,

[8:04] the December 11th, 2023 joint planning commission, TRG advisory committee minutes, and the December

[8:10] 18th planning commission regular minutes. Is there a motion to approve these minutes?

[8:16] I know that we approve all of those. And what, go.

[8:21] We have a motion from Commissioner McFarland for approval.

[8:24] second. Second by Vice Chair Burke. Any discussion on the motion?

[8:30] All right. Seeing none, I'll call for the vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll.

[8:34] Commissioner Donahue. Yes. Pardon me, yes. Commissioner McFarlane. Yes.

[8:39] Commissioner Johannes. Yes. Vice Chair Burke. Yes. Chair Romeo.

[8:45] I'm also, yes, that motion will pass 502 with commissioners Albrossian Moses.

[8:49] is absent for the vote, moving along to item four on our agenda of the seating.

[8:57] In the comments, does the staff have any comments for the commission of the seat?

[9:05] No chairman Romeo, we did not. Thank you.

[9:08] Thank you, Ms. Gillard. Do you, are there any commissioner comments

[9:12] this evening?

[9:16] Okay, very good. Moving on to comments from the citizens.

[9:21] This portion of our agenda is to invite forward any individual to address the board on any matter that is not listed as a public hearing item on the agenda this evening.

[9:29] Speakers have up to three minutes and may not address the commission on the same item more than once and less call back by commissioner.

[9:36] Green light comes on at the beginning a yellow light will come on a 30 seconds before your time is up and speakers should wrap up at that time a red light will come on when your time is expired.

[9:45] speakers should complete the sign-up sheet at the podium and state their name and address for the record.

[9:50] Is there anybody that would like to address the commission this evening on anything that is not on the agenda?

[9:57] All right.

[9:58] Seeing none, we'll move on to item five on our agenda, which is the public hearing portion of our agenda.

[10:03] I was for Ms. Giloran.

[10:04] If the public hearing items on the tonight's agenda were properly advertised.

[10:09] Yes, they were. The items were properly advertised with notices of public hearing, having been

[10:15] duly advertised in the January 12th and January 19th, 2024, issues of the Fairfax County Times

[10:22] newspapers, certificates of publication from the editor will be entered into the record upon receipt.

[10:29] Thank you very much, Ms. Giller. Our first item this evening is on the map of amendment

[10:35] ZMA-22-02, 131-13150-world-gate drive.

[10:41] This is for the redevelopment of that site with single-family attached and multifamily residential uses.

[10:47] This item was continued from our December 18, 2023 regular meeting.

[10:52] I'll open the public hearing and call on Mr. Bryce-Prayer for the staff report.

[10:55] Whenever you're ready, Bryce.

[10:57] Thanks, Jeremy. I'm members of the Planning Commission. Good evening to you.

[11:11] Okay, so this case has been before the planning commission now on a few occasions.

[11:16] I'm not going to really spend too much time going through all the details of the case

[11:20] that will provide a brief summary of the case but then spend most of the presentation

[11:24] are going through case updates since you all saw it at your work session in January.

[11:30] So the two subject parsers are located at the corner of Eldens Street and World Gate Drive.

[11:34] that's the area highlighted here in yellow.

[11:38] It's just south of the Shannon Park in the course of Shannon residential neighborhood

[11:42] and the Dallas Glen apartments.

[11:46] It's across Worldgate Drive from the Worldgate Retail Center, across Elin street from the

[11:50] coal shopping center, just to the west of the western apartments of Worldgate.

[11:56] It's about 0.8 miles to both the innovation metro station and the Hernan metro rail station.

[12:02] And it's about a mile from where we are today in Doughton, Harneddon.

[12:06] This site is currently improved with a two-story parking garage and two office buildings

[12:13] totaling, I think it's around, it's about 350,000 square feet of office GFA and the acreage

[12:21] of the site is a little over 10 acres.

[12:23] So with this case, the rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of the site, including

[12:31] the demolition of the two existing office buildings, the demolition of half of the existing garage,

[12:37] and then redevelopment with a multifamily building and then stacked to over two residential units

[12:42] and residential townhouse units over the property and then retention and reuse of the remaining

[12:50] half of the existing parking garage. In total, the density was set around about around 1.34 floor

[12:57] area ratio and in total it's about 460 dwelling units that's about 610,000 square feet of residential

[13:04] rest floor area. There are nine zoning modifications being requested as part of this application which

[13:10] does include a generalized development plan and GDP and also a proper statement.

[13:18] So since the work session

[13:19] staff did have a very productive meeting with the applicant and subsequent to that there were revised

[13:26] materials that have been submitted those came in last week.

[13:30] The revised materials are very responsive to the issues that have been raised by staff,

[13:36] the vast majority of staff's comments were addressed with what has most recently come

[13:41] in.

[13:42] However, staff has not yet had the time to fully review the revised materials and is still

[13:47] continuing to do so as of right now.

[13:50] What I have here is a list that highlights some of the revisions or the least the most

[13:56] notable revisions that have occurred with the latest submission.

[14:00] This was not provided to the Planning Commission, this is new information.

[14:04] We will certainly have this before you all as soon as we can at the next meeting.

[14:11] But just to go through here, there was a redesign of the Rode entrance to a right-in only off

[14:16] of World Gay Drive.

[14:17] If you remember, that was right in, right out previously, and that addresses a lot of safety

[14:23] and conflict questions and issues that staff had raised and was working with the applicant

[14:28] on over the last couple of submissions.

[14:31] The trail along the northern boundary of the property was moved away from the garage

[14:35] and some security lighting has been committed to security lighting has been added to the project.

[14:40] Those were two key comments from staff.

[14:45] The alternative options have been provided for the offsite work in cases where permission

[14:52] from the adjacent property owners are granted, so now there are provisions, there are commitments

[14:57] and it's to all that...

[15:00] So, pursuing other means to make those improvements and connections in that event and that is in there now. Staff had a number of pedestrian circulation concerns internal to the site, ADA compliance concerns internal to the site, those have all been addressed. It would seem with this most recent submission. It also, the most recent submission also includes now the inclusion of the Worldgate Drive bus stop in the location that I had discussed at the work session.

[15:27] and also addresses staff's concern regarding the timing

[15:31] of the Elm Street bus stop.

[15:33] There is some additional clarifying information

[15:35] that have been provided for emergency

[15:36] and public accessesment and some clarifying information

[15:39] provided regarding private improvements

[15:40] and maintenance within public right of way.

[15:43] The parking study has been updated with information

[15:45] about visitor parking, which is something

[15:47] that the Planning Commission had discussed and requested.

[15:51] There are some further commitments to finishing

[15:54] the garage and the interim periods between the two phases of the project, and there are

[16:00] further commitments to green building and green infrastructure measures for the project.

[16:05] Also there are some tree preservation areas that weren't previously being proposed, that

[16:10] are now being proposed, those are along the Northern Boundary and the area where there

[16:14] is an established canopy, excuse me.

[16:21] Although staff review is ongoing, there were a couple of, I'd say, relatively minor items

[16:28] identified that will need some follow-up by the applicant, and of course, as staff

[16:32] continues to review this, we do expect a few more items to come in over the next couple

[16:37] weeks.

[16:39] Given the reality of the timing, necessary for staff review at this time staff is recommending

[16:44] of the case to the February Public Hearing of the Planning Commission and to further clarify

[16:51] that although there are matters that we do truly believe need to be worked out prior

[16:57] to this case moving on to town council, a big part of this recommendation really is that

[17:03] timing issue.

[17:04] It really just, staff hasn't really had a chance to give it a full technical review that

[17:09] that we would normally expect to have been done for this

[17:12] and to be able to guide the planning commission

[17:15] in every way that we can.

[17:17] I do have one more slide here.

[17:19] This is bit of a preview of the revised,

[17:23] one of the sheets in the revised GEP

[17:25] that has been extracted out here,

[17:27] but this does show you some of the items

[17:30] that I had referenced earlier.

[17:31] As you can see that entrance into Rode has been changed

[17:34] into a right in only so that concern and conflict

[17:39] of the right out and the potential for vehicles crossing over multiple lanes,

[17:44] either go straight through the intersection or take a left south on onto

[17:48] central road, that has now been removed, that movement is completely removed

[17:52] from the entrance.

[17:56] You might also notice the internal pedestrian connections,

[17:59] additional crosswalks, additional sidewalks, sidewalks moved away from the curb,

[18:03] all of those issues that staff had raised are now shown on the GDP.

[18:07] I mentioned the trail on the north being separated a little bit from the garage.

[18:15] It has been by a couple of feet here, I believe, any further, and I believe it would start

[18:20] to impact that existing landscaping that they're trying to now preserve along that northern

[18:26] boundary.

[18:30] Staff is working to get this review wrapped up as soon as possible and does hope to have more

[18:38] information and a recommendation back before the planning

[18:41] commission for your February work session and public hearing

[18:45] at that time.

[18:47] And that's all I have.

[18:48] Thank you.

[18:51] Thank you, Bryce.

[18:52] Do any commissioners have questions for staff this time?

[19:00] I do have a question, Bryce.

[19:03] Could you walk me through the timeline real quick?

[19:05] And can you go back to the bullet point section,

[19:07] the bullet point slide that identifies all the updates,

[19:12] all their commitments that were made.

[19:16] So just to kind of walk it back from what I recall from our previous meeting.

[19:20] So at the January, January 8th, Plenty of commercial work session,

[19:24] you had mentioned that the Friday before, I assume that was January 5th,

[19:28] you provided comments to the applicant.

[19:30] It was either that Saturday or that Sunday.

[19:34] It was over the weekend.

[19:35] It was a 6-7th.

[19:38] And then you guys said you were going to have a meeting

[19:40] with the applicant on that Friday, which is January 12th?

[19:44] Correct.

[19:45] When did the applicant resubmit materials to staff?

[19:49] It was a very quick turnaround.

[19:50] I believe it came in on Tuesday night.

[19:52] Tuesday night?

[19:53] OK, so that was the following Tuesday.

[19:58] So we're looking at the 16th, the 16th.

[20:02] So my question is, I understand where staff's coming from.

[20:08] It takes some time to review this information,

[20:10] But in the packet materials we've got a one page agenda item update that just says we're going to continue the item.

[20:20] Would have been impossible to provide us at least with this bullet point list of things that have been updated prior to tonight because I.

[20:27] I feel like we're just coming in blind to this assuming we're going to a continuance and I'm not sure if that's necessarily where we are.

[20:33] Maybe we are maybe that's where the commission is going to be.

[20:35] was there an ability to provide a staff report that's a little more media than just

[20:39] this one pager that we did receive? Unfortunately not. The deadline

[20:45] essentially for staff for the planning commission dispatch was the week

[20:52] before the we received the revised materials so it just wouldn't wouldn't

[20:57] have been possible. We didn't have the materials at that point when we were

[21:00] gathering up the dispatch for you. Okay. Thank you, Bryce.

[21:05] I thought it was more of a comment, but perhaps a question, but walking around the area, I noticed there's a dog park almost immediately adjacent to this project.

[21:17] Right now, it's commercial use. It's going to go to residential use, which will certainly, I'd imagine there'd be more dogs on the dog park.

[21:28] Is there any talk about whether or not that dog park is sufficient given the fact that it's going to change from office used to residential use it seems to be a big benefit for this project for tenants and purchasers?

[21:45] There hasn't been any specific conversations between staff and the applicant regarding any sort of additional accommodations for pet owners.

[21:55] of course, we have seen that with some other applications, but in this case, as far as staffs,

[22:01] staff knows, that is not something that's being proposed. However, the applicant might be

[22:05] able to provide more information on that. And you are correct. The Shannon Park Dog Park,

[22:09] public dog park is immediately a budding, really, like the center of this site here, it's in this

[22:15] location right here. Are you worried that that dog park might be overburdened? And some sort of,

[22:21] We changed that. Is that at all a concern or seems like it's in kind of rough condition right now just from looking at it to be perfectly honest

[22:29] We didn't didn't look at analyzing that it is it is a heavily used park. It's very popular over there

[22:36] But we did not analyze it's usage and and the impacts that this would have on it

[22:44] That's a county facility though correct

[22:49] It is it

[22:50] It is a town owned, oh boy, we have every parking town is different whether it's town owned and county operated or vice versa, but

[23:01] Miss Kilerin, do you have clarity on whether that is I'm trying to remember this town or county

[23:07] But the actual operation is by an organization called herndon dogs, right and

[23:13] And they're responsible for the upkeep of it.

[23:17] It was an agreement that was entered into.

[23:19] I think it's town, but the town as an entity is not the one taking care of it.

[23:27] It is this other organization.

[23:29] That's my memory.

[23:33] We can collect some additional information on that and provide about a planning commission.

[23:38] I guess my point is given that it's, well, it's certainly adjacent to Shandon Park.

[23:43] I don't want to say it's part of Shannon Park, Shannon Park is a Fairfax County facility.

[23:50] And if in fact it's Fairfax County land, it seems to be outside the scope of

[23:58] town's negotiations with the applicant.

[24:03] I share your concern, but I think the ownership of the land is relevant here.

[24:08] Right.

[24:13] So I had a couple questions about the technical changes. I know one of the big issues

[24:18] for staff was the right out extension of the right turn lane from that entrance to Eldon

[24:24] Street. Was that included in the updated package?

[24:30] Or was it from Wiltshire?

[24:31] The last time we spoke about this, staff's comment was a request to extend the existing right-hand

[24:41] in turn lane northbound onto Eldon Street,

[24:43] extend that back all the way to road A.

[24:45] And the purpose of that was to reduce

[24:49] a conflict of vehicles exiting road A

[24:55] and merging into that through lane.

[24:58] With the change of this into a right in only condition

[25:03] that conflict no longer exists

[25:04] so staff's comments of extending that lane

[25:07] is no longer valid or no longer applicable, I should say.

[25:10] So Rode is just to write in. That's why I see I didn't I missed that that there was no longer writing right out there

[25:16] So that's right just to write in now so they're all gonna be going out through the signal there

[25:21] With department complex. That's right. So we there's no no need to have to then

[25:26] Access manage that stretch of world gay drive really in any manner if you remember before there was a

[25:32] raised concrete median that was going down splitting the the left-hand turn lanes and the through lanes

[25:37] to limit that to limit cars crossing to try to make that left movement that's no longer necessary here because again, it's right in only.

[25:44] Okay, thank you.

[25:46] In regard to pedestrian bridge because across to Shannon Park, there was a question about getting that little sliver of an easement there.

[25:53] Is that part of the updated package that that's been included?

[25:57] It's still showing it as it was previously shown with that connection being made right next right at that end of the bridge.

[26:04] However, the proffers now also commit to a connection directly into Shannon Park if the offsite permissions are not achieved to make that connection at the bridge.

[26:16] Okay, so there would be a bridge connection. If he's was not acquired, then there would be another connection somewhere along the two over two frontage there in the Shannon Park.

[26:25] Alonglines what staff was requesting before. And you don't need to tell me the exact location.

[26:29] Yeah, I mean, it would be in an area that makes the most sense, which is where it's at.

[26:33] It's probably at its flattest and closest to the existing trail, it'll probably be open.

[26:36] This area here. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Bryce. Any other questions for staff?

[26:44] No. Okay. I invite the applicant, the applicant's agent forward to address the commission.

[26:50] If you came forward, please complete the sound of sheet of the podium.

[26:53] The stage of name and address for the record.

[26:56] Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

[26:57] Remember the Planning Commission, Ken Weyer with the law firm, Weyer Gil, with the

[27:00] mean this evening is Sean Sullivan with Boston Properties and various members of our

[27:04] design team.

[27:05] Mr. Perry, if you can go back, maybe to a site map for a second while I ramble on and then

[27:09] get to the meet of it.

[27:10] I do want to thank staff.

[27:12] Mr. Perry is absolutely right.

[27:13] We're still somewhat suffering from that holiday contraction of our response times.

[27:18] So we did a great turnaround with staff.

[27:20] We had a I think great working meeting going through all if I can count correctly 11 bullet points

[27:25] I think we did everything staff asked for in that we talked it through we had I don't know doesn't or so members on our team and staffs talking through it and we were hoping

[27:35] To submit on a Tuesday and be approved on a Monday. That's a very tough statement to say. I certainly understand and appreciate that

[27:43] But Mr. Perry if you can go back to your list for a second. I would be remiss if I didn't push a tiny bit

[27:47] It seems like we have reviewed a bunch of these items

[27:50] I think in the global sense staff asked for 11 items and we saw the wisdom to fix all

[27:54] them.

[27:55] Pedestrian connections, off-site easements and the like.

[27:58] I will admit there's probably some still wordsmithing we could do in the proffers.

[28:02] For instance, we're committing to lead certified.

[28:05] We didn't make that strong enough so there's a comment we continue to work on.

[28:09] But my request to talk about possibly going forward now is one of timing.

[28:14] As you know, the markets are extremely tight, months matter, weeks matter.

[28:17] We have a project we can fund and we're ready to get going.

[28:20] I think from the conception of this project, I don't think we've ever disagreed with staff.

[28:24] We work through things, don't get us wrong.

[28:25] I mean, if you remember in the beginning, the entire project was backwards, excuse me,

[28:28] it was backwards.

[28:29] We had the townhouses closest to the Elden Street and the multifamily in the middle, and we

[28:33] worked with staff, we flipped it around.

[28:35] Just like the right-hand turn, we liked that idea for project access, but the more we heard

[28:40] staff's concerns about safety, we sort of saw the wisdom of that and removing that right-hand

[28:45] in turn lane with somewhere between one and five percent of our total trips.

[28:49] So it's almost negligent to put it back to World Shire like it is today.

[28:52] So the reason for that background is really just to talk about, and thanks staff for

[28:56] the collaborative approach and just see if there's any chance to work forward between Plenty

[29:01] Commission and Town Council on some of these nits.

[29:04] Because I think the macro issues of the unit types, we are offering $2,000, $2,100 per unit

[29:12] for off-site recreational amenities that's roughly $910,000 towards off-site parks and rec for

[29:18] whether it's dogs or trails or whatever we want to work for. We're happy to work through that.

[29:22] But I think conversion of this building at the edge of town, doing the bus stops, having the open space,

[29:28] saving the majority of the garage, I think it's a good project. We've had several community meetings

[29:32] and one or two people attend, but signs up. I think we notified over 800 people of our meeting,

[29:38] and we had a few emails, but just generally more concerns about when it's going to start,

[29:42] what does it look like? And I think we've been pretty visible. That's the right word in the community.

[29:47] So this is our fourth planning commission appearance. We had in two ARBs, our sixth time.

[29:52] We would like to stress test staff's position of not continuance and see if we can continue that

[29:57] working trend of working in quick succession.

[30:00] And see if we can work forward. I know it's a big ask, but I would be remiss if I didn't, I didn't ask. Some happy to answer any questions while I fill out to our speakers here. Thank you, Mr. Warr. Do any commission members have questions for the applicant's agent? Mr. Chairman. One question I recall parking. We were trying to reduce the parking requirement outside of what is typically required. Am I recalling that correctly? Where do we stand on parking? So we go back to the map. Sorry, Mr. President. I like the point when I'm talking.

[30:29] and keeps me grounded a little bit.

[30:32] So if you recall,

[30:33] let's think of this as two projects.

[30:34] On the right hand side with the multifamily

[30:36] and two over twos,

[30:37] every building there has,

[30:39] every unit has two parking spaces.

[30:41] Staff and my team can correct me if I'm wrong.

[30:43] There's also 37 street parking spaces

[30:46] for the visitors and the like.

[30:48] So that's an excess of code,

[30:50] if you will.

[30:51] 37 on street parking spaces.

[30:54] How many residential units are there?

[30:56] There's 460 total and for the life of me,

[30:58] I forgot the breakdown.

[30:59] It's probably in the hundreds, it's over 100, I believe we're at 350.

[31:04] 101.

[31:05] Easy number, I don't know why I forgot it.

[31:06] So there's 101 total units with 202 parking spaces internal and 37 external.

[31:13] Staffing grant me if I'm wrong, but we're meeting the parking ordinance on the

[31:17] for sale townhouse and two of our two product.

[31:21] I believe we're at 1.3 ratio on the multi-family.

[31:24] We sit in a pretty extensive parking study.

[31:27] We think we're going to be somewhere between 80 to 90% occupancy, and the letter we submitted to Mr. Perry is that all

[31:35] Multifamily parking lot to park internal to the garage and from our sort of studies roundabout

[31:40] We think that that 1.3 is less than than town code

[31:43] But if we were in Fairfax under the new code we meet it and we think from a demand standpoint

[31:47] There's about a 10% fluctuation there we can use to meet demand and turnover and visitors and Mr. Perry you're free

[31:53] Please correct me if I misstated any of that

[31:57] I'm more concerned about the for sale units you're saying I see you meet the code yes

[32:01] sir for the for sale yes sir sorry I want to tangent for something you didn't ask all

[32:06] good to know

[32:14] all right I thank you mr. wire for providing your comments and thank you

[32:21] Bryce for providing your comments as well I I really dislike the timing on this one in terms

[32:28] of like the quick turnaround. It's just an unfortunate factor of the holidays. It happens

[32:33] all of us, things get pushed and you try and turn things around quickly. It's just a very

[32:37] tough situation. I don't like keeping this here for another month if we don't have to.

[32:44] My question I guess would be more for Bryce.

[32:49] Are these major issues that still need to be resolved?

[32:51] Are we talking about minor proper revisions and CDP revisions at this point in time?

[32:58] Well, again, we haven't received engineering is still doing its review.

[33:03] Legal is still doing its review.

[33:06] Planning zoning has started to look into it and has noted a few things.

[33:11] Some of that I'd say is a little bit more administrative.

[33:15] I think some of the modification requests actually have to be updated to reflect the existing,

[33:22] the revisions that have been made now.

[33:24] know, I think there is real concern regarding language on conflicts with existing utilities

[33:35] and proposed landscaping. There is a new, obviously there is a new road configuration

[33:42] here. What that means for final Marshall review is kind of up in the air.

[33:53] It's likely

[33:55] Those are the items that I think jump out at me.

[33:59] I mean, there's a few other minor ones, but nothing more significant really than I think those,

[34:07] although again, without hearing back from reviewing agencies,

[34:13] I can't really be confident one way or the other.

[34:16] That's something I won't come in.

[34:19] Obviously, the road design, although it really addresses a lot of staff's concern

[34:23] and it was in response to staff's concerns.

[34:26] It is a little bit of a new configuration

[34:30] that our engineers are gonna have to take a look at.

[34:32] Okay, thanks for ice.

[34:34] Ms. Yates, from the county attorney,

[34:37] or the town attorney's review perspective,

[34:40] how significant were the revisions

[34:42] to the proffers that you saw?

[34:47] They're numerous.

[34:50] Okay.

[35:11] And I don't have my speaker on.

[35:14] So to repeat, we felt like there were quite a few

[35:18] provision, proper revisions, and other irregularities that we agreed with through

[35:24] in development's recommendation that it should remain plain in commission to

[35:30] allow those comments to come in and those things to be done and we felt that it

[35:36] might not be a service to the applicant all of a certain that they would want to

[35:41] say whether they feel like it was or not to pass it on to town council at

[35:46] this point. Okay. Thank you, machines. Just real quick. You know, this is a very

[35:53] tough one because again, I haven't even seen any of the bullet points until tonight. And I know

[35:57] I feel the commissioners haven't either. Just getting a comfort level check from our commissioners

[36:03] from the commission. Just going down the line, sorry with you, George, how do you feel about this? Do

[36:08] want to continue this, or do you want to move forward this evening?

[36:15] Well, I understand your point, and I wish I could share it.

[36:22] The cake isn't fully baked, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons.

[36:27] And that, to me, is the deciding factor.

[36:31] I would vote to continue it.

[36:33] Okay.

[36:34] Mary, do you feel similar?

[36:36] Yeah, it's hard for me to vote on something.

[36:38] I think I feel like I didn't get a proper review on, unfortunately.

[36:42] Yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to agree with that.

[36:44] I just, frankly, I don't yet think we've done our job here.

[36:49] And I don't think I want to pass it out on the town council, one force them to make

[36:54] judgments whether or not quite as informed as they should be.

[36:57] So I think I would support the continuance.

[37:01] Okay.

[37:02] Well, I think I'm in the minority because it doesn't, it seems if we have the general concept, the cake can continue to cook and take and maybe the town council could pull it out of the oven to beat an analogy.

[37:17] But if I'm in the minority, I think continuance is probably the best option.

[37:22] Okay. Thank you all for your input. I think that's pretty straightforward as to what the outcomes

[37:28] going to be. I wish we could move you guys forward tonight. It's just not going to happen.

[37:33] Unfortunately, so I apologize for that. It's just a product of the schedule that we had to do with

[37:41] over the holiday. So hopefully we can get all this worked out. All the T's crossed and I started

[37:47] before the next meetings and we can have a very good robust

[37:50] supportive recommendation of this when it comes back to us again.

[37:54] So I want to thank the applicant again for putting all your

[37:56] effort into providing the updates that were requested by staff.

[38:00] And Brian, thank you for working with the applicant.

[38:02] It sounds like you guys had a great meeting on that Friday.

[38:04] And you guys came to a lot of agreement, which is very helpful.

[38:07] Mr. Chair Romeo, I don't believe you called on the public.

[38:11] It's a good point.

[38:13] Thank you very much.

[38:15] Thank you.

[38:16] I'm glad we re-appointed to go that position.

[38:21] All right, so moving on.

[38:23] So this time I'll call in comments for the audience.

[38:27] Comments shall be limited to three minutes.

[38:29] Green light comes on at the beginning.

[38:30] Yellow light will come on 30 seconds before your time is up.

[38:33] And speakers should wrap up.

[38:34] And our light will come on when your time is expired.

[38:37] Speakers should complete the sign-up sheet at the podium

[38:39] and say their name and address for the record.

[38:42] and at this time would anybody on public like to speak on this application?

[38:49] All right, so you're none. I'm not going to close the public hearing because looks like we're going to be going to the February work session and planning commission public hearing.

[39:00] So I'll move to the commission level for discussion and action. Do we have a motion for this item?

[39:05] this evening. This is a motion to continue, correct? Yes, I moved to continue until the February

[39:19] 2022. February, it's been a long time. So February, 2024, public hearing. Second. Very

[39:26] good. We've got a motion for continuance by Vice Chair Burke and seconded by Commissioner

[39:30] I'll call for the, I'm sorry, is there any discussion on the motion?

[39:34] No? Okay. Call for the vote. National clerk. Call the roll.

[39:38] Commissioner Donohue. Yes. Commissioner McFarland. Yes.

[39:43] Commissioner Johannes. Yes. Vice Chair Burke. Yes.

[39:49] Chair Romeo. I'm also yes. The motion will pass 5-0-2 with commissioners Alborossi

[39:53] and Moses absent for the vote and we look forward to seeing y'all back here in a month. Thank you.

[39:58] Next item on the agenda is SE23-03.

[40:04] This is an application to allow personal service use

[40:06] consisting of cosmetics and aesthetic services

[40:09] at 299 Herndon Parkway, Suite 106.

[40:13] I will open the public hearing

[40:14] and call on Federica and Glacias for the staff board.

[40:17] Whenever you're ready.

[40:27] Good evening, members of the planning commission

[40:29] for the record.

[40:30] My name is Federica Iglesias, Community Planner

[40:33] and I'm here to present you the special exception,

[40:38] SE2303.

[40:39] How do you go? Hold on. Can we just have somebody close the door?

[40:41] Sure. Thank you. Apologies for that.

[40:48] Please go ahead on your own.

[40:50] Thank you.

[40:54] This application is to consider personal service use,

[40:57] consisting of cosmetics and aesthetic services.

[41:00] The property owner and applicant

[41:01] proposes reconfiguring the existing 916 square feet

[41:06] of tenant space to sign a new tenant

[41:09] within the first floor of the multi-tenant commercial office building at the intersection of

[41:14] Herndon Parkway and L.S. Street. The site to attach buildings to 99 and 297 parking ends around

[41:22] these site features known as the Herndon Park condominium center and was constructed circa 1987.

[41:31] The commercial space is surrounded by associated business parking at the northwest corner of

[41:38] intersection of Herndon Parkway and Elden Street. The property is zone commercial office,

[41:44] CO, the Herndon 2030 comprehensive plan, designated the property as business corridor use.

[41:51] The existing zoning of the commercial office, the ADS and zoning at the north

[41:58] is residential multi-finaly. The south is office and light industrial. East residential single-family

[42:07] are 15 and on the West commercial services. The land use designation is Business Corridor,

[42:17] ADS and land use designation on the north side neighborhood conservation on south and east

[42:25] community facilities on the West Business Corridor and south west adaptive area residential.

[42:33] The current zoning ordinance addresses personal service uses in the commercial office zoning district.

[42:41] It's not permitted by right in the zoning district, but is permitted by special exception only.

[42:49] Zoning ordinance allows flexibility for businesses traditionally located with other commercial service and retail sales uses.

[42:57] but have operational characteristics that make them appropriate to operate in traditional office parks like this.

[43:05] Adequate development and land use controls are necessary.

[43:09] Provide for compatible spatial exception uses and minimize impacts to adias and less intense use.

[43:16] For example, residential uses next to it.

[43:20] A previous special exception is E21-05 was granted to allow personal service use consisting

[43:28] of cosmetics and aesthetic services within the adias and unit and an expansion into an

[43:34] additional unit subsequently granted a few months ago.

[43:39] So one special exception, 21-05, turning on Parkway, suite 108 for personal service use consisting

[43:49] of cosmetic anesthetic services for a maximum of six people was granted in November 2021.

[43:58] And a special exception, amendment 21-05, at the same building, 299 here in the Parkway

[44:07] Suite 107, for an expansion of the other service use, consisting of cosmetics and aesthetic

[44:15] services was granted on June 13, 2023, and increased the number of clients to 12 people

[44:23] in total, both units, including employees. In both cases, the planning commission recommend

[44:29] approval with the same conditions and the town council approve the application.

[44:41] The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing 916 square feet of tenant space into a cosmetic

[44:51] and personal services business to sign a new tenant.

[44:54] These personal services may include a spa, salon, and cosmetic services.

[45:01] Proposed maximum of customer count of 6 at any given time of each unit, including staff.

[45:12] The property contains a parking lot with 108 spaces. It's close to bus station and 101 mile and a half away from a random metro rail station. The staff analysis of these requests for a special exception for a personal service used in the CO zone in this street, evaluated the

[45:34] components such as zone-in-ordance compliance and comprehensive plan adherence, purpose

[45:39] and intent of the CO zone in district, byte-write uses versus special accepted uses, use compatibility,

[45:46] parking analysis and potential impacts, and what conditions may mitigate and-or manage

[45:51] impacts.

[45:54] Disapplication as proposed and with conditions recommended by staff would not adversely impact

[46:00] at ESN properties, but anticipated at denial or approval.

[46:05] The denial of the special exception means

[46:08] by-right use is commercial office remains zero.

[46:13] Proposed expansion of business or lease this space

[46:19] would not be permitted at the subject property location

[46:22] for the specific use.

[46:25] And approval of the special exception

[46:26] would mean by right uses and land use compatibility remain,

[46:32] non-anticipated negative impacts with attached conditions

[46:36] and current local businesses will be ready to expand operations

[46:40] or lease adding economic development and tax base.

[46:47] The special conditions proposed are the following.

[46:51] The personal services business space shall be constructed

[46:54] and utilize insubstantial conformance with the original application and updated first floor plan

[47:02] received on June 27, 2023 and soon subsequently on in September 25, 2023 or similar types of

[47:14] cosmetic samples on the service uses. The business operations shall be conducted by appointment only

[47:20] be limited to six total people, including employees, occupy in the space at any given time.

[47:27] And the third condition is that the retail sales floor and space location shall be limited

[47:32] to not more than 50 square feet within the tenant space.

[47:41] Staff recommends approval of a special exception, 23 or three, with conditions in accordance

[47:47] to drop resolution.

[47:52] Thank you, Mr. Glacias.

[47:53] Appreciate the staff report.

[47:54] Do any commissioners have questions or comments for staff at this time?

[48:01] Go ahead, George.

[48:01] Thank you.

[48:03] I raised this, I believe, at the work session.

[48:08] And I'd just like to go over it again for clarification's sake.

[48:16] In terms of the conditions,

[48:17] as I read conditions two and three together, walk in clients for the retail

[48:30] operation would not be permitted. Is that the intent of this? That's correct. Okay.

[48:41] All right. That answers my question. So anyone purchasing from the

[48:47] retail space would already be there by appointment.

[48:56] Correct. I have one.

[48:57] Okay. Thank you.

[48:58] I'm glad I got that on the record. Thank you very much.

[49:00] I'm done.

[49:01] All right.

[49:03] This time I'll invite the applicant, the applicant,

[49:04] it's agent to come up and speak before us this evening.

[49:09] I'm not seeing anybody move, so I assume they're not here.

[49:12] At this time, we'll call and comment from the audience.

[49:16] Is anybody would like to speak on this item this evening?

[49:22] Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and move to the commission level for a motion.

[49:29] Is there a motion on this item this evening?

[49:33] I would move to approve SE23-03 with the stated conditions.

[49:42] I'll second that.

[49:43] So motion for approval by Vice Chair Burke, a second by Chair Romeo.

[49:46] it's any discussion on the motion.

[49:51] All right. Seeing none, I'll call for the vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll.

[49:54] Commissioner Donohue. Yes.

[49:57] Commissioner Farron. Yes.

[50:00] Commissioner Johannes. Yes.

[50:03] Vice Chair Burke. Yes. Chair Romeo. Yes, the motion will pass 502 with commissioners Albrossi and Moses absent for the vote.

[50:13] Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

[50:15] Our next item this evening, which is our last public hearing item, is CPA 23-SAR-1.

[50:21] This is a resolution to consider a conference of plan amendment to the town of

[50:25] herding 2030 conference of plan adopted on August 12, 2008.

[50:29] As amended through May 24, 2022, I will open public hearing and call Mr. Ahmed Saki for

[50:35] the staff board.

[50:36] Whenever you're ready.

[50:37] Thank you, Chairman.

[50:38] Good evening, member of the planning commission.

[50:42] For the record, my name is Ahmad Zaki and I'm the lead planner in both giving development

[50:46] long-range planning.

[50:48] Tonight, once again, I'm here to present the comprehensive plan amendments to be in

[50:52] number 23-01, and as you all know, at the heart of this planning allows the transatlated

[51:00] growth, a small ear plan, for the record, the transatlated growth, a small ear plan is

[51:05] looking at the south-eastern corner of the town between Spring Street and Van Buren Street

[51:10] and on the north side, it's mounted by

[51:13] a dance residential neighborhood

[51:16] and on the south side of it is the

[51:17] hand and transit-oriented core area plan.

[51:20] The site excludes the fair work of property.

[51:25] As a result of the background,

[51:26] the comprehensive plan amendment was initiated

[51:28] by the town council on December 12th,

[51:31] through the solution of the 23-G-777

[51:34] and was referred to the planning commission

[51:35] for review and recommendation.

[51:37] The amendment will adopt

[51:38] the transit-related growth small area plan

[51:40] and then incorporated by reference

[51:42] into the town's 2038 Comprehensive Plan.

[51:46] Personnel Section 152,

[51:48] Dash 2222 of the Court of Virginia,

[51:49] local planning commission prepares

[51:51] the Comprehensive Plan amendment,

[51:53] and you command this,

[51:53] you command this by resolution for adoption

[51:55] by local government bodies.

[52:00] As I said background,

[52:02] the TRG project wasn't shaded by the town in April 2022.

[52:07] From the beginning of the process,

[52:09] we engaged with the community in order to get there for the

[52:13] spider-ion and their expectation from the planning process.

[52:16] The project was started with community outreach, reaching to the

[52:21] abatting property owners, abatting residents property owners to the town's community

[52:27] and also to the Tearge Advisory Committee, which was established to

[52:32] advise the governing bodies.

[52:36] Then, in the second phase, the project started with data collection, data analysis, kind

[52:42] of strengths, and opportunity analysis, and infrastructure analysis, and so on.

[52:47] At the phase three, using the material that we had collected, the project consultant developed

[52:55] three alternative scenarios for future development of the TRG.

[52:58] And those scenarios were shared with the public on TRG advisory community planning commission

[53:06] and town council for input.

[53:10] When those comments were reached out to the community to know about their expectation and

[53:16] aspiration for the future of the TRG, we heard their expectation as a TRG that's walkable

[53:22] that has the feel of small town that has the promotes connectivity that has a

[53:28] distant character and flexible flexibility of uses. Some of the community members

[53:33] also ask for more park spaces.

[53:38] Further, we also ask the community about the

[53:40] look and feel of the future Teorgy and majority of respondents prefer to feel and

[53:46] look like Mosaic District and a future herendent downtown.

[53:54] This process was kind of the end of visioning phase and based on those inputs, the project

[54:04] consultant kind of developed the draft TRG plan that included different elements like

[54:12] Land use aspects, transportation aspects, economic development, and other elements that are

[54:20] part of a small area plan. Obviously there are some critical elements that still

[54:26] needs to be discussed and still we need to work with the project consultant to

[54:33] further develop and resolve any potential conflicts or concerns that staff or

[54:40] We have here from the community or advisory community.

[54:43] One of the issues that we need to discuss further is the transportation framework and

[54:52] particularly the street network as, you know, the TRG plan proposes a new alternative

[55:00] to herendent parkway.

[55:03] The nature and function of herendent parkway is being changed and network of additional

[55:08] the street is being proposed. These all proposals are made in order to accommodate and facilitate

[55:13] the transportation and the density and added density that we will have in the future of GRG.

[55:21] Just to recap, the transportation was identified as a major constraint to density

[55:25] from the beginning of the project.

[55:30] The future of the year obviously changed

[55:33] from the existing suburban setup of development to a mixed-use urban transit-oriented development

[55:39] The Henan Park Race proposed to change to an urban corridor with vibrant mix of uses on two sides of it, connecting random metro station to sunset business bar.

[55:48] The proposed network includes a multi-modal mobility grade and that facility is different movement patterns.

[55:55] The street grade also helps in framing building envelopes and front of front of back of buildings.

[56:02] Another major element that is still being discussed is the development of the TRG, which

[56:09] is actually around anchored around the parking spaces.

[56:14] Some of the concerns that cell and items that cell are being developed is the network

[56:22] and shape of an accessibility and use of triangle park and the trapezoidal park, that's the center

[56:31] of the TRG and how a majority or all the user of the TRG or the residents of TRG should

[56:38] have access to different parks.

[56:45] Another major element of the TRG is the districts, the five kind of character-based

[56:54] districts or zones that we have in the TRG.

[56:57] The framework proposes five different corrector zones for the future.

[57:02] There are certain context-based guidelines proposed for each of the zones in the TRG plan.

[57:07] For example, the metro arrival, which in the five minute distance,

[57:11] five minute walk distance from the metro station was served as a gathering place with numbers retail kind of uses.

[57:21] The transition district, which is the residential area that will transition the height

[57:26] from the rent and metro station or the metro arrival zone to the Don's residential neighborhood

[57:32] will facilitate the high transition. The plan strategically places blocks shaping the network

[57:38] of open spaces and funding parks within the, within and outside the TRG.

[57:45] Another elements in the

[57:46] TRG critical element that still is being developed is the nature and the approach to the future

[57:53] of Sunset Business Park.

[57:55] Besides the option of retaining the existing Sunset Business

[57:58] Park in long term, the plan suggests transforming the Sunset

[58:03] District from a parking lot driven business park

[58:05] to a great urban public room.

[58:11] From the work session, the update that we have is

[58:15] the advisory committee recommendation that they put forward

[58:18] and their December, January 10, meeting.

[58:25] Just a recap, just as a recap for our public audience,

[58:30] the TRG Advisory Committee was established at the beginning

[58:32] of the TRG planning process in order to be part

[58:36] of this planning effort and also to advise

[58:38] the Planning Commission and Town Council

[58:41] on this planning process.

[58:43] The committee had their last session on January 10,

[58:45] in which they discussed the planning detail

[58:47] and came up with a set of recommendations that are us following.

[58:52] The AC generally, the advisory committee generally supported and recommended TRG plan

[58:57] with the following considerations.

[59:00] The committee supports the plan and use and density considering required flexibility

[59:05] of potential uses to market dynamics.

[59:10] The committee further recommends that densities should be balanced

[59:13] with viable transportation infrastructure improvements.

[59:17] When discussing about transportation and traffic, the committee recommended consideration

[59:21] of multimodal travel options and a balanced mix of transportation modes with the focus

[59:27] on walk-up, walk-ability and bike-ability in the TRG.

[59:31] They further recommended that street grid shall clearly define public and private roads

[59:37] in the plan and should allow for some adjustment in the small streets.

[59:43] The committee further instructed staff to collaborate with Osam when it comes to the

[59:48] architecture language and a TRG character that could help the development of guidelines

[59:56] lines that could help further the Architectural Review Board.

[1:00:02] The committee supported the park and open spaces framework and recommended spaces that allow and facilitate pop-up shops and recreation activities.

[1:00:12] In the discussion of parking measures, the committee supported parallel parking on some streets and the concept of shared parking where common ownership exists. About the sense of business park, also the committee recommended an interim option for the sense of business park.

[1:00:29] In which the park would be retained in its existing form and open space improvement would be part of it.

[1:00:39] As I mentioned, a lot is being done so far in the TRG planning process.

[1:00:46] But still there are some outstanding items that need further work and development that we are currently doing with the TRG project consultant.

[1:00:57] Some of the items that still need a nurse being developed as transportation impact mitigations,

[1:01:05] potential policy guidelines for traffic level of services, road alignment and geometry,

[1:01:13] open space and architectural form and character principles and guidelines,

[1:01:18] interim option for the sensitive district, and also parking strategies both of street and on street,

[1:01:24] impact to community services and town administration, which will be due to increased density and

[1:01:31] implementation and phasing strategies in the CHRG.

[1:01:36] A staff is continuing review and development of the detailed Arrata sheet listing additional

[1:01:40] comments to the consultant.

[1:01:42] The project consultant is currently updating and revising the plan in response to town

[1:01:47] affairs and comments, and also to staff and advisory committee comments and recommendations.

[1:01:52] These are revision and code both editorial and plan content updates.

[1:01:57] I find version of the plan is anticipated to be shared with the planning commission before their upcoming session.

[1:02:08] At this time, that we still need to work with the project consultant for additional for improvement and the outstanding item that they need to work.

[1:02:23] The staff is withholding a recommendation, but the Planning Commission has the following options for a recommendation.

[1:02:31] With this, I conclude my presentation here, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[1:02:35] Thank you.

[1:02:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Zaki.

[1:02:38] Do any commissioners have questions for staff at this time?

[1:02:44] I do, there's no question.

[1:02:45] I'll go Marin and then George.

[1:02:46] Go ahead, Marin.

[1:02:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:02:50] Thank you, Mr. Zaki.

[1:02:51] I have a question, understanding that a lot of progress has happened, but there's still

[1:02:57] some flags that you all communicated to us.

[1:03:03] What's since the last TRG work session that we had, is there any plan for meeting with

[1:03:11] the consultant related to the next step?

[1:03:13] So I'm just curious about the timeline.

[1:03:16] Actually, we do have bi-weekly meeting with the consultant.

[1:03:21] We have already shared an Arada sheet that's with our comments, including the Teorgy Advisory

[1:03:28] Committee comments, and we had a meeting with him this morning.

[1:03:33] The schedule that we all have agreed on is they will prepare an updated presentation for

[1:03:42] upcoming planning commission and they might share an updated kind of soft copy of a plan

[1:03:50] that you will have access and we could comment. But the plan is that they will provide the draft plan,

[1:03:57] the next draft of the plan which could form the final version maybe before any minor

[1:04:03] edits that might be possible during the town council sessions or maybe major edits that will be

[1:04:09] required, they will share that we've

[1:04:11] best done before the town council.

[1:04:14] Thank you for that.

[1:04:16] And so if next month we have a draft that we look at,

[1:04:22] are we still on track in the over arching timeline of the TRG

[1:04:27] and going to the town council,

[1:04:28] or are we, I'm forgetting the overall timeline for this

[1:04:32] project.

[1:04:33] Yeah, based on the discussion and the kind of update

[1:04:39] that we are seeing from the project consultant, we think that they will be able to submit the

[1:04:47] revised version before the town council and we hope that we could get it done with the

[1:04:53] after the plan is being recommended by the planning commission and once it up in the town council

[1:04:58] decisions. Awesome. Thank you. That's it for me.

[1:05:05] Hello again. We've been saying a lot of one or

[1:05:08] other.

[1:05:11] That slide and the slides with the recommendations of the advisory committee.

[1:05:18] Did this body receive those and I apologize if we did and I missed it? No, unfortunately

[1:05:25] the same. It was listening to the discussion. Okay.

[1:05:30] Another piece. Yeah. The last platform. If we could go back to the first slide of the recommendations.

[1:05:36] Yes.

[1:05:39] In the event, we do not move this forward. I request that all the members of the planning commission be given.

[1:05:51] Well, you could give us a whole slide presentation if you'd like, but certainly from here until the until the end of the presentation.

[1:06:00] and I'd like to emphasize that that generally covers a lot of ground and most of that is

[1:06:12] flushed out by the numerical items to follow for the benefit of my fellow commissioners.

[1:06:20] Thanks.

[1:06:23] Thank you, George. Thank you, Marin.

[1:06:26] Mr. Zaki, I have a question in relation to the comments or the response you gave to Commissioner

[1:06:31] Johannes. Is it accurate to say the final version of the TRG draft? Assuming we continue

[1:06:37] this to the next month, we won't know the final draft version or won't see the final draft

[1:06:43] version of that at the February meetings. It won't happen until after we make a recommendation.

[1:06:48] Is that accurate or did I misinterpret that?

[1:06:50] Yeah, Lisa Glenn might add on this but what we had a discussion with as we had a discussion with the project consultant they were kind of all looking to account to a condition that they said that if we even submit a revised version, we will receive additional comments.

[1:07:08] So they said that we will receive the comments and apply it and you will have access to the revised version, but they said we will hold the whole cemetery vice version.

[1:07:15] and tell the Council for after meeting.

[1:07:18] Okay, so in advance of, if we go to February,

[1:07:21] in advance of those meetings,

[1:07:22] we'll see a revised version of this text

[1:07:24] based on the recommendations from the TRG committee

[1:07:26] and from staffs are out of sheet.

[1:07:28] And then at that time, there will still be further versions,

[1:07:31] which we would expect for town council to make,

[1:07:33] but we'll see a more complete version

[1:07:34] before our next meetings.

[1:07:36] Okay, that's right.

[1:07:36] I just wanna clarify that.

[1:07:37] Thank you.

[1:07:38] Any other questions for our staff at this time?

[1:07:42] Okay.

[1:07:44] this time we don't have an applicant so I'll call and comments from the audience. Does anybody

[1:07:49] from the audience, would anybody from the audience like to speak on this item this evening? Please

[1:07:53] me, I'm going to go ahead, you have three minutes to speak and please felt the sign and sheet when you're

[1:07:57] done speaking. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you all. And thank you for the opportunity to

[1:08:03] speak on this important plan and my name is Laurie Greenley from a senior land use planner with

[1:08:09] McGuire Woods, speaking tonight on behalf of Shornstein Properties LLC, the owner of approximately 15.46 acres of land in the TRG, the largest single ownership in a very strategically located property directly across from the promenade access to the Metro station.

[1:08:29] Greg Regal of my office who participated in the TRG advisory committee throughout the process

[1:08:36] I hope to speak tonight fortunately he could not be here so I'm here to relay our comments

[1:08:41] on this draft plan.

[1:08:44] First we appreciate the collective process staff has undertaken for the small area plan

[1:08:50] there was considerable engagement in many different forms and that's really the hallmark

[1:08:55] of an exemplary planning process.

[1:08:58] The Advisory Committee met numerous times alone, and together with the Planning Commission

[1:09:05] and there were very constructive discussions.

[1:09:08] On behalf of Shorenstein, we do support what is reflected in SOM's last plan, but importantly,

[1:09:15] we do support it as qualified by the comments and the motions that were unanimously passed

[1:09:21] by the TRG advisory committee. I staff mentioned this, the comments and the motions. It is our

[1:09:30] understanding that as you mentioned, Commissioner Burke, that you will receive the detailed resolution

[1:09:37] before you act in February, because there is a lot in there. Among other things, the advisory committee

[1:09:43] motions or recommendations added important and practical flexibility to the plan recommendations

[1:09:50] to ensure that landowners can reasonably respond to the still evolving market conditions.

[1:09:57] This flexibility also allows for the inevitable realities that come to light

[1:10:03] when site plans are actually engineered and buildings are put on the ground.

[1:10:08] And that is extremely important.

[1:10:10] The flexibility should not be construed as simply a landowner benefit.

[1:10:15] but very clearly it reflects a trust in and a reliance on the land use zoning process

[1:10:23] and that will follow any of the TRG recommendations.

[1:10:29] The flexibility to allow the landowner, staff and members of the commission and the council

[1:10:35] to continue to work together within a general framework provided by the plan is critical

[1:10:43] to a good outcome for any project in the TRG.

[1:10:47] The advisory committee recommendations logically establish

[1:10:51] well-defined maximums in terms of scale and density

[1:10:55] and a clear design framework, we think,

[1:10:58] that can logically guide future applications.

[1:11:01] The last point I'd like to make is that time is of the essence.

[1:11:05] This is a planning process that has spanned almost two years

[1:11:09] In a time of still rapidly shifting and evolving market conditions, finishing this planning process and moving quickly to the zoning ordinance text, which is a process in and of itself is the best way to ensure that the vision that you all vote for is comes to pass in the TRG.

[1:11:30] So thank you for your time.

[1:11:32] Looking forward to continue working with you.

[1:11:35] But you miss Greenleaf?

[1:11:38] Would anybody else like to speak on this side?

[1:11:39] I miss Greenleaf, you can move that to the side.

[1:11:41] The sign-in sheet.

[1:11:42] That's probably making it easier.

[1:11:43] So we've got the next speaker.

[1:11:44] Thank you.

[1:11:45] Mr. Warr.

[1:11:46] Welcome back.

[1:11:47] Chair and members of the commission.

[1:11:48] Staff, would you mind turning to page 9 for one second?

[1:11:51] I want to reiterate Mrs. Greenleaf's appreciation

[1:11:53] that Mr. Regal said for the TRG group.

[1:11:56] As Mr. Burke can probably attest in the first meeting or two,

[1:11:59] we sort of nodded.

[1:12:00] We got the right plan here.

[1:12:01] Tensing near the Metro, tapering down to the neighborhoods.

[1:12:04] roads, a parallel road network, and good open space.

[1:12:07] I would describe our struggle since then is getting the plan in the right form to reflect

[1:12:11] that community agreement.

[1:12:12] And how do you have a rigid flexibility, right?

[1:12:15] How do you take those two things that are opposed?

[1:12:17] I'm here this evening on behalf of Rooney Properties.

[1:12:20] They own 9.4 acres.

[1:12:22] And the first blue line, hopefully this is able to follow, but has the 90 foot width, and

[1:12:27] I'm giving you an example here of this flexibility we're looking for, as you see the 90 foot start

[1:12:32] to the middle of the plan and move to the right-hand side,

[1:12:35] that is a dimension shown in the master plan for 90 feet.

[1:12:39] And no one in the community asked for that.

[1:12:41] No one's way opposed to it.

[1:12:42] It's just a dimension.

[1:12:43] The problem is that forms the basis of zoning and expectations.

[1:12:47] To staff, you go to page 12.

[1:12:48] I want to show you what 90 feet means.

[1:12:49] And this is an example of this rigid flexibility,

[1:12:51] if you will.

[1:12:52] On the bottom right-hand side, our project for Rooney Properties

[1:12:56] is multi-family along Herndon Parkway,

[1:12:58] and then transitioning to those townhouses in the back.

[1:13:01] Well, if you do that, you have almost a 20-foot sidewalk that makes total sense against

[1:13:04] a building.

[1:13:06] This is a sunset business park.

[1:13:07] This is an example of a cross-section.

[1:13:09] As you see the cafes and the sidewalks, that makes total sense.

[1:13:13] It doesn't make a lot of sense up against townhouses.

[1:13:15] So this is an example of how do we take that intent of the plan for a big, vibrant road,

[1:13:20] paralleling herndon parkway that shows 90 feet, to wait in some sections it might be 82.

[1:13:25] And that's just an example of how we're hoping to see the master plan evolve and some of the

[1:13:29] flexibility we've been talking about because we've all been doing this long enough.

[1:13:33] As soon as you write a number, you're compared to the number.

[1:13:35] And we already know if some of the numbers are a little too tight in areas and they're

[1:13:38] fine to others.

[1:13:39] So somewhat of a joke here, I do hope you continue this until next hearing.

[1:13:43] Because we do hope to see the updated draft from SOM.

[1:13:46] Again, it's been a very good process.

[1:13:48] I think now it's getting the document in the right shape.

[1:13:50] I think the intent is there and now it's getting as technical items aligned.

[1:13:54] So thank you for your time and look forward to seeing you next month.

[1:13:58] Any other speakers this evening here this evening would like to speak on this item.

[1:14:04] All right.

[1:14:05] Seeing none.

[1:14:07] I'll move that the move to the planning committee is a little forward discussion action.

[1:14:12] Is there a motion for this item this evening?

[1:14:15] Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this matter to the February schedule.

[1:14:20] Very good. Is there a second?

[1:14:22] I'll go ahead and second that so we have a motion for continuance to February by Commissioner McFarlane.

[1:14:27] Second by Chair Romeo. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:14:32] I'm going to support the motion but I would also like to point out that this has in fact

[1:14:41] been a very long process and the point made by one of the speakers about market changes

[1:14:52] and so forth is very well taken. I hear you. Thank you.

[1:15:00] Chair. Let me know if this is not the appropriate time to mention this, but just knowing that it, even I forgot that it's been about two years now, recognizing the market changes as well as Vice Chair Burke said, I'm curious to know if it would be fruitful for the in February to do another joint work session with the town council. If it's, I'm just imagining how long it's been taking for us to do this, how long it could also be with the town council and then zoning.

[1:15:29] So I'm just trying to be mindful here if that could be potentially helpful or useful to be able to do a joint session.

[1:15:36] If that's already on the calendar, then please ignore everything I just said, but if it's not, I just want to throw that out there.

[1:15:43] Any commissioning on us? Any other comments from commissioners this evening?

[1:15:50] I'm going to probably thank commissioning on us and vice chair Burke again next month, but I just want to thank you both for being the representative of the commission on the TRG committee.

[1:16:00] I think this plan is in a really good spot and I like the recommendations that were made by the committee.

[1:16:06] I can't wait to see the final revised version when we get that next month.

[1:16:12] And I look forward to supporting it at that time.

[1:16:15] So many everything has worked out.

[1:16:17] So at this time, I will call for a vote and ask for the call to roll.

[1:16:33] Yes, the motion passes 502 with commissioners Albrasi and Moses absent for the vote. All right, moving on to new businesses evening are six item on the agenda.

[1:16:46] This is a resolution to amend and restate the by-laws of the Ten Hurn and Planning Commission.

[1:16:50] I'll call on Ms. Alicia's for the staff for it.

[1:16:53] Thank you, Chair Romeo.

[1:16:55] As I noted at your last meeting, when we reviewed this first, the current by-laws require

[1:17:05] that you consider any amendment to by-laws at two public hearings before it can actually

[1:17:12] be adopted.

[1:17:13] So this would be the first public hearing.

[1:17:15] You are not seeing any of the suggestions that were made last week because staff is currently

[1:17:23] amongst all the boards and commissions, all four of the boards and commissions, gathering

[1:17:28] all the comments from all of those bodies.

[1:17:32] And then we will try to make them consistent across the board and commissions.

[1:17:38] At this point, however, one of the really key goals of this process was to make all the

[1:17:49] boards and commissions consistent with town council.

[1:17:55] Currently town council does not have attendance provisions on its agenda for consideration

[1:18:02] moving forward.

[1:18:04] So I think we will have to see whether they bring something forward in February, perhaps, or March,

[1:18:13] and then we could come back and adjust your bylaws for those to reflect those as well.

[1:18:22] So what I am saying is we do not anticipate having a final version for you to consider and vote on

[1:18:29] until possibly the end of February, beginning of March, your March public hearing, probably.

[1:18:37] Questions?

[1:18:40] Thank you, Ms. Yates.

[1:18:42] Any questions from Mr. Goodman?

[1:18:46] Good question.

[1:18:47] So, understanding that has to go through two rounds of public hearing, but knowing that

[1:18:53] there's a chance that the town council won't bring this up, this can still go forward.

[1:19:00] It's just going to be uniformity of all the boards, but there's not the same level of expectation for the town council.

[1:19:07] Am I getting that correctly?

[1:19:09] So, I think that, of course, you have a mandatory bylaws in the past without town council changing anything about what they do.

[1:19:19] This effort was focused on making the boards and commissions and town council rules and expectations all consistent.

[1:19:30] It does not look like that can happen as quickly as we thought, and right now, as I said,

[1:19:40] Council was considering an attendance ordinance that was not carried forward to the public hearing

[1:19:48] that they're having tomorrow night, so they won't be voting on anything.

[1:19:54] And given the fact that we

[1:19:56] have to review all the comments from the ARB, HDRB, and BZA. I don't know if that answers

[1:20:03] your question. I think it does. It does, but now I have a follow-up question.

[1:20:11] And not

[1:20:12] to put you in the spot at all, but like thematically, can you explain what was the reason for the

[1:20:16] town council for pushing this away momentarily? I think probably the best thing would be to watch

[1:20:26] the two work sessions where this was discussed, there was a lot of discussion around the meaning

[1:20:37] of good cause, and not so much discussion around what you are, your requirement, which

[1:20:47] is laid out in the code of Virginia, which is a two, two absences in a row or 25 percent

[1:20:55] for them, it was to be four absences in a row or 25 percent.

[1:21:01] I think it would be best to

[1:21:05] watch the discussion. There were two rather likely discussions at the work sessions.

[1:21:14] Got it. Thank you.

[1:21:18] Any other questions, comments for Ms. Hates?

[1:21:22] So the recommendation is not to approve this tonight.

[1:21:27] We couldn't. It's just the first. It's just the first reading. It requires two public hearings. I'm comfortable with that.

[1:21:36] As an aside, I couldn't help but notice that actually this is not a change as far as I know, but it brought it to my attention that the grounds for removal of a planning commission are based on certain attendance issues.

[1:21:57] are without limitation and that the somewhere it seems that the Councils is

[1:22:09] considering for for car or without cause and I see a distinction. Didn't I see

[1:22:17] that somewhere that there is that that's not without limitation provided

[1:22:22] provided causes shown.

[1:22:24] Definitely the state code language for you all.

[1:22:28] Has that in there in the in one of the versions

[1:22:33] that was considered by town council,

[1:22:35] it was with good cause.

[1:22:38] Another version was suggesting that good cause is presumed.

[1:22:45] So we have both versions of that out there.

[1:22:48] But no version is on the agenda for town council.

[1:22:51] My thinking is that if uniformity, and I think I gathered that, if uniformity is one of the considerations here, that the grounds should be identical between the standards to which the town council is held and the standards to which the planning commission is held.

[1:23:11] Understood. Of course, you can't change your attendance standards because those are dictated by the code of Virginia.

[1:23:18] Yeah. Well, then we can we can fix theirs. We can. That's powerful. We have. Any other questions, comments for mishades? No, I'm just going to say I'm glad we're not voting on this tonight because the three comments I made the last many weren't addressed in here, but I appreciate the explanation mishades and look forward to seeing this back in March. Well, I guess I want to ask if there's any other suggestions. Yeah.

[1:23:49] We'll bring forward the ones from the other bodies.

[1:23:53] We'll have a chance in March at the work session to make any additional comments.

[1:23:56] Sure.

[1:23:57] Okay, we'll see the updated version then, react to that and then hopefully adopt into that.

[1:24:02] I hope we'll carry that one.

[1:24:03] Okay.

[1:24:05] Any additional questions?

[1:24:06] No, I don't have it.

[1:24:07] All right.

[1:24:08] Great.

[1:24:08] Thank you very much.

[1:24:10] There's nothing to act on on this one, so move on to adjournment.

[1:24:13] Our final item of the evening is their emotion to adjourn.

[1:24:17] so moved. Second. Motion by Vice Chair Burke, second by Commissioner McFarlane.

[1:24:23] There's no ejection. We are now adjourned at 8.23 p.m. Thank you very much. Have a good evening, everybody.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript