Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Good evening, happy new year, welcome to the first regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Fairfax Planning Commission It's January 13th, 2025. Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise as you are able and join us. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next order of business is discussion and adoption of the agenda. The agenda was issued several days ago as required. From the commissioners, any proposed changes to the agenda? If not, Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman, I move the agenda be adopted as presented.

Second. Second by Mr. Denton. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Next order of business is presentations by the public on any matter not calling for a public hearing. We have no public hearings scheduled for this evening. So this is the time for anyone in the room who would like to address the Planning Commission to do so. Has anybody signed up ahead of time? Okay, then we'll open the floor. If anybody would like to come forward, you'll have three minutes to make comments. Anyone? Okay, seeing none, we will move on to consideration of the December 9th, 2024 meeting minutes. Those were issued to the commission for review prior to the meeting. Any comments, corrections,

or changes? No? Mr. Chair, I move that the commission adopt the minutes, the meeting minutes from the December 9th, 2024 regular meeting as issued. Second. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the minutes as issued. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next order of business are items not requiring a public hearing. First item is nomination and election of the chair and vice chair for the commission. This is something that we're required to do annually at our first meeting of the year. I will turn this process over to Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tonight we will have nominations first for the chair and an election for the chair and then we will have nominations

for the vice chair and election for the vice chair. And after those two items are completed, I will turn the meeting back over to the chair. So at this time, the floor is open for nominations for the chair of the Fairfax City Planning Commission. Mr. Rice. Mr. Cunningham, I'd like to nominate Mr. James Feather to serve as chair for the upcoming year. Okay. We have a nomination for Mr. Feather. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, I will close the nominating process and we will move it to a vote. All in favor of electing Mr. Chair, Mr. Feather as our chair for 2025, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? And Mr. Feather is re-elected unanimously.

Congratulations, Mr. Feather. We will now open the floor for the nomination of the vice chair. Do we have any nominations for the position of vice chair? Mr. Cunningham, I'd like to nominate Ms. Kirsten Lockhart for the position of vice chair of the planning commission. Okay. We have a nomination for Ms. Lockhart. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second for Mr. Rice. Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, I will close the nominating process and we will move to a vote. All in favor of Ms. Lockhart as the vice chair, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? End abstentions and congratulations Ms. Lockhart on your re-election as our vice chair for 2025. Mr. Feather, the agenda is again yours as our new chair.

Thank you Mr. Cunningham. Thank you all for your vote of confidence. I appreciate that. I'm sure Ms. Lockhart feels the same. Next item of agenda is appointments to boards and commissions. This is something that we also do annually. I've had discussions with all of you who are currently serving in those roles. And I think the process is going to be that we will, based on your feedback, get nominations for those positions to formally make the appointment. We don't necessarily need to do this as a matter of law, but Mr. Napti advised it would probably be a good idea as a matter of practice. So we will go through the process. First is Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. It is currently being filled by Mr. Rice and he has expressed willingness to continue to serve, but I'd like a nomination to formalize that process.

We'll pass our nominations on to City Council for all of these for formal reappointment. Mr. Chair, I move that Mr. Rice be appointed as the City of Fairfax Planning Commission representative to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Your second? Second. Mr. Napti, thank you. Any other nominations for that role? Seeing none, we'll close the nominations, move on to a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Thank you, Mr. Rice, for your willingness to continue to serve. You've done this already for a couple of years. It's a valuable liaison. There are so many things that are important to the Planning Commission and the PRAB reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and your voice has been very valuable in echoing and carrying those messages.

Next is the Board of Architectural Review. Mr. Denton has served in that capacity for the last year plus, as I recall. And for the record, I have raised a question about the need for continued participation of a Planning Commission representative on the Board of Architectural Review for a couple of reasons. We won't have a discussion on that tonight as we continue our discussions. But the feedback so far from folks as there is value seen. I have seen, I've gotten feedback from the Chair of the Board of Architectural Review himself. One of my esteemed colleagues here feels similarly, but we will have that discussion at some point, particularly as we consider potential changes to the Planning Commission's role in the review process anyway, which may come up in our

later discussion. But for the time being, we will proceed to have a nomination for the Board of Architectural Review. Is there a nomination? Mr. Chair, I'd like to nominate Mr. Denton to continue serving as our liaison to the Board of Architectural Review. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any other nominations on the floor? Seeing no, we'll close nominations. Go to a vote. All those in favor of nominating Mr. Denton to continue to serve on the Board of Architectural Review, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. Thank you again for willing to stand for this extra burden because it does involve a couple of extra meetings a month for you, I know. The third item that we have a representative of is the Facaded Interior Improvement Program.

It's a program run by our economic development organization. It has representatives from the EDA, from the Planning Commission, and from the Board of Architectural Review. And so it's fairly limited in size and scope, but it's important to our businesses in the city who are looking to perhaps get some assistance in improving the appearance of their facilities. So, Mr. Coleman has served in that capacity. We thank you for that. He has expressed willingness to continue to do that. So, if I could have a nomination to formally fill this role, I would appreciate it. Mr. Chair, I nominate Mr. Coleman to continue his representation on the Community Appearance Board. Is there a second? Second. Second.

Moved and seconded. Are there other nominations? Volunteers. Okay, we'll close the nominations, move to a vote. All those in favor of Mr. Coleman continuing in that role, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? And abstentions? Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman. That gets those out of the way. We have one other thing that we must do at the beginning of the year, and that's to review our remote participation policy. I'll turn that over to Mr. Neptey. Thank you, Chair Feather. We wanted to point out that there were a couple of changes to the Code of Virginia this year that applied to remote participation policy for local boards and commissions. And so, in reviewing those, there were a number of such changes that did not require changes to the Planning Commission's policy, but there were two changes I wanted to point out.

That are in the draft markup that we sent to you that you'll be considering for adoption that results of that. The first is that the Code now requires that the policy be reviewed every year, and so we added language there saying that the Planning Commission review it at your first meeting each year, which coincides with when you do your other administrative issues. And then the second is a change that I think is beneficial that says that any Planning Commissioner or member of any Board or Commission participating remotely who has a temporary or permanent disability or other condition that prevents their attendance or is a caregiver of a person with a disability shall count toward the quorum as if they were physically present.

This is because typically people who are participating remotely cannot count toward the quorum, so we still have to have the minimum number of Commissioners in the room. This would allow people in those conditions to still count toward the quorum, which would be a benefit to us. So that change to language is proposed as well. I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, feel free to take action. Any questions for Mr. Napty? Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission adopt the revised Planning Commission remote participation policy as provided in an attachment one of the staff memorandum dated January 13, 2020, and as presented herein by Mr. Napty. Is there a second? Second. We moved and seconded.

Any discussion, further discussion or comments? We will move to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Next item of the agenda is public hearings. We have none this evening, as I mentioned. So what we will do is recess our regular meeting and go into a work session. First item is a work session for zoning map amendment, a rezoning, pursuant to city code section 110-1212. 6.4 from RM Residential Medium District to CU Commercial Urban District while retaining the transition overlay district and a general development plan with proffers for an upper story mixed use building. And that consists of 276 apartments, approximately 6,319 square feet of retail, approximately 4,188 square feet of office and structured parking on 2.69 acres approximately located at what 4131 Chainbridge Road tax map 57-4-02-040 otherwise known as the Davies property.

Mr. Sutphin, I think, will make the staff report. Mr. Sutphin's forecast? The application is currently in the post submission phase there have been pre-application briefings with the planning commission and with city council application had been filed and has been undergoing review at the staff level there has been a formal work session with the board of architecture review It is important to note that there has been a change in the applicant on this property the application has stayed active however the applicant party has changed to the property owner itself Just a little background I don't know if everyone has this background so I thought it was important to provide just some context that a number of different concepts have been explored at this site

Over the last nine years there have been multiple apartment concepts presented senior living concepts townhomes and the most recent application by TDC which is now the hill Davies family with substantial revision since the last iteration and As the chair said this is a zoning map amendment and it would take you from RM to CU commercial urban Retaining the Fairfax Old Town Old Town Fairfax transition overlay district site is located in the activity center There are a number of special exceptions that are proposed I have a slide at the end I'll go over those in more detail and a certificate of appropriateness would be required for the new construction The site is currently a single-family home it is situated between University Drive and Cambridge Road

On approximately 2.6 acres On approximately 2.6 acres Seen here the property is north of Armstrong Street and it is located at the terminus of judicial and Cambridge and Breckenridge Lane with University Drive The purple on this map indicates where the activity center lies it is one of the southern parcels in what we call the mega block The ends of court which is just across from City Hall on the other side of Armstrong Street is the southernmost portion of that block To the east is a collection of townhouse neighborhoods to the west is primarily the Fairfax County Courthouse complex and some commercial property This is the zoning map current zoning map you'll see the site is the only residentially zoned parcel in that block

And the proposal would take it to a commercial district which is in keeping with the designations along that block The activity center was a lot of the city center The activity center was a lot of the city center The activity center was created with the small area plan for those larger consolidated areas with a mix of uses and commercial areas Where pedestrian oriented mixed uses are strongly encouraged? The plan was adopted in June of 2020 And I'll make a note here that the retail should reach at approximately 6,000 square feet on the left This was a backup slide I had it in the other one that that failed just a minute ago But the the previous plan you'll see changes and where the applicant has taken the plan

down from 355 to 276 units They've added to the retail about 1,200 square feet again. I'm sorry for the the quote here and an additional 4,100 square feet approximately of office has been added The height has been reduced by a story on both sections of the building so where it was six and five stories is now five and four stories along with the height itself It was proposed at a max of 77 now it's approximately 58 feet the density the resulting density has changed by about 30 dwelling units per acre as a result of a reduction in total units Two other items here worth noting one is that the setback and I know my cursor is hard to see University Drive the the step back of the building from four to five has increased significantly from what was 56 feet which was in keeping with the minimum recommended by the small area plan to what the applicant has now proposed to the

what the applicant is now proposing at 70 feet proposed here I'm outlining and what was The screen's not working but what was proposed previously is the upper image on the right Just in context for what the small area plan does in vision over the coming decades An increase of 250 dwelling units is envisioned as being absorbable and market driven with the 79 that were approved by City Center West this one would propose an additional 276 office space the smaller plan visions an increase and this provides a portion of that along with retail there is no institutional hotel proposed at this site This illustrates the separation of the building into two buildings due to grade and separation of the units themselves the building code is prescribed has prescribed what is defined as buildings you'll see perimeter landscaping and sidewalks along the southern eastern and western edges of the site with the greenway going to the

The greenway going up the center of the property and a private street that runs east to west of the northern portion of the site Along with the 276 apartments the the site does Have to meet the city's affordable dwelling unit program at six percent for rental approximately 17 affordable dwelling units would be required the mix would have to correspond with the mix of the Studio one bed and two slash three bed units and they would have to be dispersed throughout the complex The project is also proposing 424 parking spaces where the zoning ordinance requires 402 The shared greenway concept that is a major focus area in the small area plan is carried forward in this design it is primarily shown as a pedestrian way in this area

The area that is shown as a pedestrian way in this concept rather than an alley for vehicular traffic There is one area that staff has noted and has asked for the applicant to reconsider which is an area for a garbage truck to pull in for loading and unloading of the trash that's stored in the lower level of the building But that area is primarily in the approximate location shown here And staff believes it could be carried north and south as sites either redevelop or choose to incorporate the design Site circulation Because of the proximity of breckenridge lane to this site any offset will require a right in right out on university drive That is twofold one is the distance in the offset from the intersection one is that there is a shared dual left turn lane that runs down the middle of university drive which resulted from the redesign reconfiguration of university drive

As a road diet which added pedestrian and bicycle facilities Same with Cambridge Road proximity of the signal with judicial drive Requires that it's a right in right out point of egress ingress egress The final design will be The final design at that intersection still needs refinement Public works is exploring whether or not a medium physical mediums needed along 123 or if a pork chop or separated in out it will suffice on that entrance This this image shows where the proposed pedestrian facilities would be located with the dot And the arrows ten foot sidewalks are proposed along both university drive and chambers road the center spine at a 43 foot total width has several access points to the building and a six foot meandering path that goes

From the property line at the south to the private service drive It terminates at the private service drive there is no proposed sidewalk along the northern stretch of the building The sidewalk along the northern stretch of the private street At this time staff has noted that that is an application request by the applicant As for streetscape and other landscaping the applicant is proposing a buffer along the southern property line and street trees along both university drive and along chambers road there are no The street trees proposed along the private street which is required by the ordinance the applicant has requested a special exception from that You will see a number of trees that are planted internal to the site primarily primarily around the pool the greenway and then a central courtyard those are on top of a roof structure

I believe it is the upper roof structure level of the parking decks that are below Hopefully the applicant will be able to demonstrate in some of their slides to greater detail the the parking arrangement and where the roofs line up with the grade Staff is awaiting a transportation impact study that is updated per the approved scoping That our transportation department held with the transportation engineer These are some data points from the scoping document itself that show the difference certainly from a single-family detached to a proposed mixed-use site There will be a significant increase especially where there is only one existing home on almost three acres The the the net total proposed is anticipated at just over eighteen hundred trips per day split out in the a.m. and p.m. Peak hours

You'll see totals of 141 and 175 the TIS will undergo a full thorough comprehensive review by our transportation department once it has been accepted and evaluated in context with the plans Board of architecture review and December had reviewed the updates to the architectural concept overall the board was pleased that the applicant had taken to heart the recommendations primarily for the two facades that face the public streets but also the southern facade which used to be along the property line the southern property line because it was it did not accommodate for windows Board of other breaks to the building that has been pulled off of the property line and now there is undulation along that building wall with higher quality materials and with fenestration

One focus area that the bar had was the southwestern corner of the building which is the gray area here they asked that the applicant focus a little more attention on that corner of the building This is the eastern facing facade along University Drive that faces the Breckenridge community the board felt that the the applicant had made strides in presenting something that was more compatible with townhouse design and residential noting some materiality that they recommended for the roof to change Some technical deficiencies and items that the applicant will continue to work on with staff have been noted in both meetings and in the comment letters one is sanitary sewer capacity or utility entity has indicated that the capacity leaving the site with the significant change will

will will will put the capacity at a point of failure heading to the juncture point just south of the site they have stated that a study is needed and that this needs to be reconfigured I've noted the TIS utility plan our utilities coordinator has noted some difficulties with the existing utility lines how they run and cross primarily primarily the chamber road section at the intersection and hit Fairfax County specific design resolution is going to be needed and consultation with domain power I mentioned the location of the trash truck loading staffs recommending that they re re examine an area somewhere else other than the greenway for loading pickup of refuse that does not seem to be the most pleasant area especially with what we're trying to create with the greenway

And then with internal and offsite trees streetscape our urban forester has made a few recommendations as it pertains to the streetscape and has noted that a few offsite trees are proposed for removal as part of the tree inventory and comments are provided There are a number of special exceptions that are related to the proposal one of which is the requirement in the ordinance that upper story mixed use buildings present 75% of the ground floor as non-residential uses I've asked the applicant to provide a more accurate number we don't have a sheet that has all of the floors on one on one on one She given that there's so much grade change through the site, but the cumulative Estimate of where it stands right now is around 28% and I'll defer to the applicant if they have refined that any further

Obviously the ordinance permits 24 dwelling units per acre and that has a proposal of 102 The transition district as it currently stands caps the height at 48 feet or four stories The proposal is four and five stories which is consistent with the recommendations of the small area plan There are some requirements for landscape strips and street trees which as I've noted are not proposed for the internal street private street There's a requirement that vehicular access is provided to non-residential properties along arterials and collectors So this would be the property to the north and south there is a significant amount of topographical change That is precluding the applicant from meeting these requirements

There is a requirement for sidewalks on both sides of a public street private and private streets I should say It is not proposed along the northern side of their private street and then there are some requests to modify the transitional yards against the property to the north and the proposed tree canopy requirement is 10% What is proposed what the requirement is 10% was proposed is 5.6% Next steps city council will hold a work session later this month We will anticipate getting any comments out to the applicant and will await a resubmission with meetings with staff Receiving support documentation there will be any follow-up work sessions where they may be necessary with yourself the Board of Architecture review or city council

Staff and city council have urged the applicant to continue to have outreach meetings with the surrounding communities and I'll let the applicant explain how many or what meetings they have had Since I understand they have held quite a few And eventually we will move towards public hearings once the plans and other documents have reconciled That concludes staff's presentation I do have some details or images from previous concepts Should at some point you want to look at those tonight The applicants here with a presentation and their team Thank you Mr. Sutton Are there any pressing questions for staff? Otherwise we will go on to the applicants presentation Okay, all right welcome the applicant forward

Welcome Hi, good evening Good to see some of you familiar faces My name is Micheline Kasten-Smith and I am with Paradigm Development Company And I am the developer and applicant working with the owner who is the actual applicant and that is with the Davies We are here to talk about the project, thank you for the presentation We are here to walk through the application and the process and then entertain any questions I have with me here today of course we do have the owners We have Bankhead and Gail Davies who will come up and give a brief comment We have David Houston who is with Bean Kinney and Quermann who is representing as our zoning attorney He will give a brief presentation and then we will turn it over to our architect who is with Lessard Ulyssi

We have John here with Urban Engineering who will discuss the landscaping But we also have our civil engineer who is with Urban as well as transportation representation with Growth Slate And we are all here to answer any questions that you may have So I will turn it over quickly to the Davies I want to first thank you all for taking the time to have this work session on Bankhead Davies To just give a little background The property 4131 Chamberlain Road has been in the family since 1920 My parents and my two sisters we moved into the house in 1954 And the city was not a city it was the town of Fairfax And I can tell you it looks a lot different today We've experienced and seen a lot of changes tremendous changes over the years

Specifically around our house a lot of commercial development has sort of surrounded us My parents dream was to live in the house till they passed away My two sisters made sure that and myself made sure that that was possible And they passed away in 2013 and then my sisters and I started a process starting in 2015 to redevelop the property Try and bring it into what I think is more coming of what that property should have I just want to say that I hope that you all will see after getting all of the information That the benefits of the current proposal is something that will enhance and be a benefit to the city And again I want to thank you for your time Michelle? Michelle? Thank you Okay we'll bring up David Houston please with Bean Kinney and Corman

Hello I'm David Houston Recently had a hip replacement so I walk funny but I was glad to see Mr. Davies is here What a pleasant surprise I just wanted to speak briefly about kind of why we're here The last the original applicant on this application the TDC entity we thought they were the contract purchaser We were working with them we thought they were doing a good job And at the end of 2023 they had work sessions one before this group and one before the city council And they came to us in the spring of 24 and basically said we don't think we can continue on with this project Which was not unexpected but what we decided the Davies family and Micheline's group was We think it's a good project a good plan we had a ten plus page staff comment memo

And we thought we would get a new team together and try to tackle those issues in that memo And that's what's the result is what you'll see tonight We addressed every issue we didn't solve every issue but I think we've come a long way There's been many positive changes to the plan And as Mr. Sutvin said there's been a reduction in density in height Increased step backs Increased parking there's no more compact car spaces proposed We have 20 EV spaces proposed We increased the retail and added some office which you know It could be tough but we're going to give it a go And try to meet the closer to the ordinance requirement of 75% We have two buildings we feel we meet it on one building But the building that fronts on University Drive we just didn't feel was a retail setting

Based on the neighborhood We think you'll hear tonight how this project as we've revised it Is very much in conformance and in harmony with the small area plan that you all adopted in 2020 That's really all I had to say at this point but I'll be available for questions when needed And turn it over to Ulysses from Lessard Design Group Ulysses Montes de Oca Good evening my name is Ulysses Montes de Oca with Lessard Design Where the architects got engaged to continue this application I'm going to give you a quick overview of how the overall project works I'm trying to get control here So just the site topography There's a drop of Cambridge Road site is higher than University Drive It's about 29 feet of grade

Approximately three floors That's how different it is So we're following the transition overlay district and the all-town small area plan With the greenway requirement It's a perfect opportunity to completely split the project It's also a long construction that will require physical subdivision adjoint So we have one building we call building A fronting Cambridge Road Which is five stories plus its associated parking basement below grade The main entrance is proposed on Cambridge Road on the southern side And then the northern side of that frontage is retail Like it was just discussed minutes ago The previous application proposed the project to be right against property line on the southern edge

And it was also a closed and enclosed courtyard There was no opening so part of the changes we're proposing here is to step back from southern property line to allow for real openings and building articulation And also to open the courtyard because this internal driveway is also going to function somewhat It will have pedestrian activity So we'd like to create some events to make it less of a long long wall walk So we have the amenities of the buildings over the parking levels facing that internal driveway facing north Similarly on on on the east side facing University Drive there's a second residential access And here we're stepping the building the full depth of the building double loaded There will be a corridor in the center with units facing the courtyard and units facing University Drive

The entire depth of the building this is part of exchange of comments that we reviewed with your team So the taller portion of the building is in the back five stories and then four stories facing University Drive Similarly there's a amenity courtyard facing the internal driveway there's an opening that wasn't there before Also the ten foot it's ten foot seven feet setback from southern boundary allows for real openings and building articulation Another change was the previous application had the two building segments connected with the bridge There was like four floors of units over the greenway This this new design that we're presenting you it's completely open to the sky And with the the greenway we have I mean we have reviewed the guidelines we have reviewed the small area plan

And there's some multi-function for this greenway the the guidelines also describe this could be a service So we have some services located nearby but we do have the flexibility of not locating them there I will I will go in more detail next on the retail percentage It's a clear break. I mean above ground you will you will not see the connection between the two buildings So the building building a facing Cambridge Road the hatched area that you see that's the area that will be public it would be retail and commercial so just that segment we it's it's what we're proposing that would comply with the 75% ground floor percentage We also believe providing 75% of the overall footprint all the way to University Drive may be excessive for this area for this traffic count for this pedestrian count

The frontage along University Drive is a little bit more dispersed and it's it's there's a lot of green and surface parking lots Retail will struggle to survive if if the cases that we're required provided there Please feel free to interrupt me if if you have any questions on anything I'm saying The application we include a site analysis of what's the current urban setting in terms of mass architecture colors and Ornamentation as well as the street presence So this was discussed also in our presentation with the Board of Architecture Why did the shapes that we're proposing the colors and the pallets Are derivative of our analysis where there's also in the guidelines there is a requirement to

Split the building into multiple elements to maintain human scale and We took that to the letter we're we're proposing multiple breaks vertically and horizontally to Make sure this building fits well it's respectful and at the same time it's it's some good asset that will Will be there for a while this is an updated rendering that mr. Denton you haven't seen one of the Yeah, one of the comments we received with you with your with your group was this corner that if we could consider Maybe a step or a terrace and I think it was a right approach we also updated the lower floors I'll show you next It's it's basically to to create more emphasis on that corner since driving north along Cambridge Road

That's going to be a very visible corner so that could be a feature it's also we're stepping down the architecture towards the lower mass on the southern neighbor So this is this is in this picture what you see here. This is the residential access and to the left is the retail the retail frontage Today the site has a retaining wall the the grade of the site is like four or five feet above sidewalk and it's very narrow not very welcoming for walking So this this proposal it's placing the building far in the back and also removing the retaining wall It was an extensive grading coordination that we we went through Along the university drive the architecture character is different it's far more residential more individual structures and that's what we're proposing also that the multifamily looks like it like a big house in

In in in in the city This is residential access and then the rest are apartments It's a different character also it's part of the the guidelines how we're we're breaking the architecture this element is not This element is not It's a true standalone element in in the overall building is not like after this wall We paint the brick different this is this is a completely different mass than the rest of the building and we're trying to We're treating it differently on purpose to blend well with the university drive frontage This is this is an overlay or a comparison with the mass of the existing buildings the building on the north of the office building sits approximately a couple of feet there's a driveway between property line and the building and then it will be the proposed

The building obviously we will have the internal driveway setback which another change that we did the previous application had proposed 20 foot drive the width of the drive aisle we increase that to be 26 feet that would accommodate a fire truck with aerial equipment requirement per code and we made sure that that was accommodated Then on the south on the south property this is the distance that we're living the previous application was proposing the building right against property line and then this this series of steps on the on the building mass on the top cornice line and also on the break on the base helps blending with the smaller lower height structures on the south The going from bottom floors to upper floors from university drive on the first floor we will have units and lobby access and through the internal driveway there will be the vehicular entrance this is where cars come in they circulate and then there's a ramp that takes either to one level down or to one level down or to one level down

We have the transformer vault and utility rooms facing the internal driveway and the transformer vault is right under the greenway that's for convenience of maintenance if there's any crane that needs to be there for maintaining transformers it's the right place to put it this is where I was going to I was going to explain to you how the service works each building has its own loading area internal it's from the internal driveway a truck can back up and then internally there's connection to the building to the elevator to take the people that are moving in or out to their units also there's a trash room that each building has the trash room could either be serviced through loading if we needed to or the bins could be carted out to the greenway and have it serviced have them picked up on the greenway again the documents were reviewed from the old town small area plan and transition overlay district and guidelines suggest that greenway could be serviced that's the reason why we're doing this but we have the flexibility to

servicing trash through the loading space that each building has we also are using the greenway for accessing bike storage each building has its own bike storage and there's a pet spot part of the amenity provisions so this area could be also enhanced socially by the residents when they're bringing their bikes maintaining their bikes or grooming their pets we don't anticipating this being a high pedestrian activity at least on day one until I guess more properties develop and continue this greenway this will be more livable but in the meantime we're proposing some activity and bike storage is across the street from the other bike storage so there's some similarity if residents want to walk from one building to the other they can do it through here

and the upper floor the upper floor is what I showed you earlier it's retail space lobby co-work business center and fitness and units facing greenway or facing the courtyard the top residential floor we have an amenity terrace that would be the roof of the lower structure that I showed you facing university drive the mechanical equipment we have it proposed to be located in the center of the building approximately 20 feet from any carpet line we have an exhibit that illustrates how tall the carpets are proposed and from the pedestrian from any right of way this equipment will not be visible the only element that will be visible is this exit stair and we're thinking on coordinating that with the architecture of the building to make sure it's part of the architecture we're proposing maybe it looks like a chimney stack or some trellis element that it doesn't look like a service thing popping up but that's required by code because of the occupancy on this amenity terrace we do need to have a direct stair and that's that's the

the one I'll show you next this this this this is to show you from property line the along chamber each road the narrowest point is twelve foot seven and the widest is twelve it's sixteen and a half feet along university drive is nine foot four consistent this is the exhibit where we're showing you how the carpets help visually block the the equipment on the roof from internal driveway from university drive and from Cambridge road this exhibit shows the different carpet heights and the elements that are on the roof how how far up they go condensing fans hatch roof access elevator overruns and the stair that I just mentioned of that amenity terrace part of our composition like I mentioned earlier to maintain human scale we have a series of horizontal lines that are not straight they go up and down in a playful manner on purpose to show some randomness and interest for pedestrians and that's what this exhibit is about

we're emphasizing the base with a different material in highlighting the top also with a different material the materials are a combination of brick on the lower floors and fiber cement on the upper floors we have siding on the elements that are recessed we have Juliet balconies and we expressed on in our session with architectural review board board of architecture I apologize that we have a series of pallets and every pallet has different window groupings different window colors different window formats and different materiality different parpets to make sure we follow the guidelines to the letter and the proportions of width and height are within the guideline what the guideline is requiring this is the elevation the south elevation of that

the building of building B if you recall previous application this whole thing was a blank wall so this is how the building steps now and we have real windows we even have some Juliet balconies facing south the north side from this is the basically the view from the internal driveway on the lower floor this is the parking garage entrance and then as we drive up we have loading and then the greenway and next will be building building a this is the courtyard the third so this this is both buildings together on the left is building a facing Cambridge Road this is the view from the south side looking north greenway in the center and then help building B is already stepping one floor below building a and then steps down again along university drive

this is the view from the internal driveway looking south building a is now on the right side this is a retail space facing Cambridge the courtyard loading greenway loading and we continue driving down parking garage and University Drive these are just enlarged elevations to show how we're treating the storefronts and the details and different colors of window treatments along the three different architecture styles signage we're proposing placeholders for signage maximum boundaries ultimately when we have the you know the real building name provided your blessing and retail they have their own name their own signage style whatnot we're we're we're defining zones where signage would go that are also

consistent with guidelines this is an exhibit on the question is retail is on the high side and parking and transitions on the low side so how do we do we make sure people find their car so this is an exhibit that internally walls can be painted and paths on the floor can be painted to indicate where to park so the the orange arrows show the path for retail parking users they can access and then go up the ramp and find their spot and there's an elevator that would be used those elevators are front and back one side would serve the lobby residential lobby the other side would would go either directly to the retail space or the retail space could carve out a small lobby for easy access because even even if if retail parking parks on the lower level they would have to walk two floors up in order to get to the store so we're we're suggesting drivers go up park and then take the elevator

these are the architecture palettes that i mentioned this one is more traditional fairfax orange color stone accents and colonial a little bit modern also and the next one we call it modern industrial it's the one that would be the transition between the old town fairfax and then the new modern fairfax it's when those grouped in different different order different on the windows as well and then the one along University Drive is more residential and the two on the far right are the transition palettes between each architecture style these are typical two feet to four feet recessed from the exterior wall these are just comparisons of the previous application the red dashed line is what we are proposing and the faded image is the previous application see

how grading is also different we made an effort to make sure grading is meeting the internal driveway and it's also meeting the properties on the north and the south for future development that was a another effort we undertook these are more more exhibits this is a long University Drive the red is what we're proposing and the the one in the back is what was proposed last time our material board the different bricks four different brick five different brick types we're still haven't found the right product one of the comments we received is that the roof for the elevation along University Drive to be something different than asphalt shingles we're still in the process of finding the right product

that's pending but the rest is cement issues fiber cement board the decorative grills for the little openings that are exposed from the garage levels and the colors for the architectural coordinates lines and that's the end of the presentation the architecture the other is John Lytle landscape architect for urban limited urban is also the civil engineer for this project so Ulysses did a great job of running through the architecture how it is settled in the site and what I'll do is run through all the remaining spaces which is where all the landscaping is so the first slide that you see here is overall site rendering with a blow up of the greenway the following site I'll go through more detail about the streetscape on chain bridge

and then the go into more detail on the greenway and then also the streetscape along University Drive so here you'll see the sections so far left is chain bridge during BAR we're asked to look at swapping the side 10 foot required sidewalk with the landscape panel the reason why we did this was line of sight of the trees would put put put these I don't know if you see my cursor but the cars leaving here would be in jeopardy with the trees right along the curb but during BAR they asked us to do a study to study this more to flip it and we have but because of the these are commercial entries that got to be ADA compliant the grade does not work work with the sidewalk begin directly abutting the building and the trees in the right of way

so we feel that this is a stronger design in the greenway you'll see we have this this sinuous path that goes to the middle it's a six-foot sidewalk plus another material we're still exploring it could be another hard skin somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow

either side so the design thought here was these radius planners were needed number one for soil volume to have these large trees in here to get our canopy trees in there but these walls are actually seat walls so you can sit along the entire path and that's why we push this this walk up against one side so all along the middle you have these raised planters on either side then on universe oh also I'll be remiss to point out there's other seating nodes in addition to the the walls so we have seating nodes here here and here there are just little areas to step off and surround yourself in the vegetation so back to the sections on University Drive obviously you can see here the grades pretty pretty different from University Drive to the first floor

elevation so here we did a very quick study to put the sidewalk on on where you see the landscape panel on the landscape panel up against the curb that was not going over due to this grade but we feel that the dual path along this streetscape with the street trees in the middle serves to to be a good design along University University then the last slide I'll show actually there's one more this one has the landscape elements that just a palette of what we're thinking all this is complimentary of the architecture building of the architecture elements on the building the pay the both the paver and the bench is directly from the historic overlay district I know we're in the transitional but ultimately that greenway is

going to go all the way to Main Street through the historical overlay district but this is just to give you a taste of the architectural the landscape architectural elements on that were proposed on site and then the last slide is also a palette but this palette of the vegetation that we're proposing we're of course working with the city arborist to come up with with the exact species but this is just our initial selection so with that I don't know Micheline you want to take it over here okay that concludes the formal presentation again we are all here to answer questions from the civil engineer traffic transportation landscape and architectural and of course our zoning attorney myself and the Davies thank you thank you very much I think

a number of important improvements have been made as it's stated in the presentation I thank you for taking the time to somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow Okay, that concludes the formal presentation. Again, we are all here to answer questions from the civil engineer, traffic, transportation, landscape, and architectural, and of course, our zoning attorney, myself, and the Davies. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I think a number of important improvements have been made, as was stated in the presentation. Thank you for taking the time and covering those in much detail. I think that's important and provides context for our discussion. I will open this up for comments and questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioners? Lockhart? Sure, thank you. I actually have a question for staff, if I may, just a few sort of context-setting clarifications. My first one is about the trip calculations for estimated peak trips, AM and PM. 424 spaces, 85 trips. Is that really a reasonable extrapolation? It is, in the realm of the ITE standards, it is something that will need an in-depth review by our transportation engineer.

Okay. And my next question is, do we happen to have, as a city, occupancy data for the Moxley, the Scout, and the One University complexes? We do have some. That is information that we can send you as a group. I don't know how current it is, though. Okay. I'm just kind of wondering, like, again, to Chair Feather's point, the evolution of this plan and the responsiveness to some comments and feedback is fantastic. I appreciate the detail. But what I don't have a good sense for is whether this is a needed asset for the city. I'm seeing studios, one bedrooms. I don't know that there is a demand for those types of units in the city writ large, but more especially right here in the heart of Old Town area.

So I would like to see some occupancy data, some demand data, you know, economic signaling from some of these other larger developments that have gone in to kind of understand how this might fit in the need signal for housing. I was wondering if any of that had been done as part of a small area plan. The earlier ones we did had a lot more analysis and projection that might be a place to look as well. It is. As you're thinking about that. I don't know, Mr. Napty, if you're aware, have we done any updated market studies? I know certainly we had a more centralized one with Camp Washington and the Circle, but has there been any further evaluation? Yeah, when those plans were developed, we didn't do occupancy data as part of their other market analysis done.

I will say just from hearing from some of the questions that have been asked of Mr. Foreman in the past that Scout and the Moxley are essentially considered fully occupied. Projects of that size are always having some kind of turnover, so I could see it would usually be around 85 to 95 percent. And once they reached that point, both of them reached that point after 18 months or two years of opening, it had been pretty consistent. For the flats, it's a very different animal and I just don't have the data on that. Anything else? Others? Mr. Rice? I have a page full of questions here. I probably shouldn't ask all of them because we'd be here for a while. You may ask some others. Others have anyway, so please.

Yeah. Let's see here. The width of the Greenway still seems inconsistent with the vision in the small area plan. What I'm kind of seeing here is it's a possible place for bikes, for pets, for the residents, possibly for trash loading and unloading, rather than sort of what we imagined, which was a significant travel corridor stretching all the way to downtown that would incentivize pedestrian activity. The kind of literature and pedestrian how to make things walkable suggests that there has to be a kind of a purpose behind the walk and that it has to be pleasant to get people out of their cars onto kind of into areas like this. And I think our vision of this area was that there would be a significant number of people from adjacent communities coming into walk.

I realize the difficulty and we've had this happen before in several other development proposals with, you know, one proposal for one parcel coming in where the adjacent areas, you know, there's still uncertainty about what will emerge. But a real clear message from feedback that's been communicated to staff and to the planning commission is that there needs to be a coherent vision for this entire area. And it's not fair to say that every developer needs to meet and talk to each other and align their greenways and make sure the road network kind of aligns properly. That would be unfair. But what we do have is a small area plan. And so we can say, you know, meet the vision in the small area plan and then we're going to be OK with it.

So I still don't see it. I think in the previous versions, we talked possibly about width and vehicular traffic through this central corridor in the case of emergency response or fire. The road on the north is kind of articulated in letters from some of the residents. It doesn't provide a lot of space for delivery parking and for extra vehicle. You know, all the kind of Uber, Lyft, Amazon. You're talking about now the access drive. Yes, correct. Sorry, switch roads there. No worries. No, I just want to make sure I can answer all of them in time. So there is a concern that some of that traffic will end up parking on that north road, permitting fire and EMS from getting in and out. There is no clear other entry point.

And if there's a blockage there, you know, in a delay, that could be a serious problem. There's not sufficient width there to include kind of road parking and the full width of the roadway and so forth. It's still a possible problem. And then again, the lack of knowledge about what would be on the north side and the south side 20 years in the future still leads me to question whether that plan works properly. Is there also a clear vision for right in, right out, and whether there's some way of prohibiting kind of a delay for folks wanting to turn left? Okay. Okay. Yeah, sorry, I'm not phrasing those as questions properly. No, no, no. I've got them. But we can address them if you, is that okay?

Are we allowed to address? But if there are any insights or comments or. Please. It's a work session. We're going to work here. Perfect. Okay. Well, I have my team here and we can talk about all three of them. So what I understand is the width of the greenway that I believe is available for. Mr. Rice, did you have others? Are there others? You know what, I just take them a little bit. I'm going to try to be real efficient here. Sure. I'm going to give you a fourth and a fifth item. Okay. Be ready. Thanks. The stormwater issue, perhaps where the stormwater vault would be in the documents, it's designed for relatively modest, you know, one year, two year, five year, 10 year events. We're seeing, you know, my other hat I wear is, you know, as a scientist, we do see storms

that exceed that on an annual basis, even though, you know, the name indicates that we shouldn't. Um, the RPA and the water flowing underground is just, you know, a hundred meters further east. So the RPA starts and the, uh, question is what happens when the capacity to store stormwater, because we're essentially losing a huge amount of pervious surface here. Um, and the dynamics of the stormwater underneath, as it goes toward the Daniels run is a real concern, particularly for residents that live to the east. And we don't want to overwhelm a community that's been around for a long time with a significantly different stormwater condition than they've had in the past. This really is the, uh, largest kind of contiguous privately owned green space south of main street

that I'm aware of. Um, and so we are going to be changing things significantly by losing all of that pervious surface. So, um, the stormwater issues, uh, are of interest. And then certainly, um, the fifth issue perhaps is that, um, the 75% kind of coverage on the ground floor is, uh, the requirement. Um, I really do see university as someone who travels up and down university all the time. I see that as not a residential corridor. I see it as a retail commercial oriented corridor myself. I've lived in the area about 16 years, travel that a fair bit. And so once you, uh, pass Sager, it's all retail commercial. There is no residential property kind of access directly to university north of Armstrong.

There are only two townhouses that have a token doorway, you know, 45 feet from the street. Uh, single family homes and townhomes are, you know, a much larger distance from the roadway. So I don't think of it as, as residential. I really do think of it as retail, uh, and commercial, uh, through that corridor. And certainly I think, um, what may be developing within that block from Armstrong to Sager definitely will be, um, kind of on the transportation corridors. I imagine to largely be retail, um, and hopefully with a green spine all the way up the center. So that was a huge number of comments all at once. It's only about a third of what I have written down here. Okay. So I think we have plenty of time to, you know, talk further about this at future events.

Um, it is nice to see a response to the, uh, EV thing. I brought that up last time. And, uh, I really do think a lot of folks are going to be using that. And I, that's an easy one. Yeah, it is. It's an easy one. And even if you don't have those implemented day one, making sure that the infrastructure of the building allows conversion to EV charging. Of course. Is, is a must, uh, I think. Um, I'm going to leave it there for now. So those five issues. Okay. We can address them real quick if we can. Sure. Um, what are you, you're going to talk about the, um, the greenway? Sure. Sure. I was going to mention, um, so I don't think I said this in my presentation, but the width of the greenway is, might be misleading.

Cause I put the six foot walk in there. Yeah. Um, so we're going to say 15 total feet from planter to planter and in small area plan calls for 15. Um, so we're maintaining that 15 foot clear width. Um, even the seating nodes and all the benches and everything are outside of the 15 feet. Um, from building to building, it's roughly 43, 43 feet. Yeah. Um, so that's. Yeah. So the 15 feet width is meant for vehicles to go emergency access vehicles if needed to go down. Is chief sites, um, looked at the plan and given any indication about whether a 15 foot width would allow vehicle. I don't, I believe, I believe it was reviewed, but we didn't receive any comments on it. Okay. I would have to go to staff on that.

I don't remember in their initial responses if we received any comments from the fire. Okay. So if for me to support any project in the area, it would have to have like a thumbs up from, uh, uh, the fire department and it would have to have a thumbs up from the stormwater utility group. Uh, they're super, super good at what they do and they'll instantly be able to see flaws in the plan if there are any. Yeah. And we want to just make sure that we're not causing problems for folks down the road in those two areas. Of course. So encourage you in addition to reaching out to the neighboring, uh, folks, um, to at least cover a few of those bases. Um, and then I wanted to, I think you, your next, uh, point was the width of the access drive.

It's 20, it was 20 originally. Then we increased it to 26. Um, so I, I don't know if Clayton could probably speak to that a little bit better. So he's correct. We've, we've changed it to the 26. I think that was a request. Um, again, the fire marshal, I believe that came from the fire, uh, fire marshal department. What they're going to do is pull up. Um, you had a concern about drop offs, Ubers, Grubhub, deliveries, those sorts of things. So the architect's going to pull back up the access and show you within the garage where those parking spaces are. So there will be no parking on the access drive. That's intentional because we understand that needs to be clear space for, for getting into the garages for access, um, and for emergency vehicles.

Yeah. I, I recognize you do have extra places to get into the garage. Yes. The actual chance of an Uber or an Amazon delivery or Grubhub actually doing that is approaching zero. Um, I'm not, um, you know, I deal with that as a, you know, person in charge of an HOA. It's just the plan has to accommodate behavior rather than, you know, the ideal. It's, I think that there will be a lot of vehicles parked on that private roadway because frankly, right now, just two or three blocks north, they double and single park on the driving lanes of the roadway on a routine roadway. On a routine basis, all the way from North street, all the way up to Sager, particularly on the west side of the road. Um, they're already parking on the roadway and it's a problem.

Um, on a private roadway, they're definitely going to park on that roadway. They're not going to go in the garage. Um, anyway, sorry, that's, but I do just want to make sure that everyone was aware we did. We have planned for inside the garage. We have spaces that are designated for that. Uh, again, for the intention of keeping that access drive open. Um, the right in right out, um, is what is planned currently. And as part of the traffic plan, again, we have growth slate here to discuss that, but on both university and on chain bridge, it is a right in right out. Only there are no left hand turns proposed either on chain bridge or on university. Yeah. So the neighbors are imagining, uh, a buildup or an accident in between.

And that's why, again, it's all a right in right out. Right in right out. Uh, the other comment was stormwater. And I believe we're going to bring up Clayton who also works with urban. He's a representative, the civil engineer. So the first question was where is the stormwater management vault? Yeah. So we have a stormwater management vault over here outside of the right away in university drive, in front of university drive downstream of the stormwater management vault. We actually had two BMP filters to treat the water before it leaves the site. So there's a vault here and two BMP filters right in this location. The vault themselves have been designed to reduce the one, two and 10 year post development flow below the pre development flow from a flow standpoint.

So we have a betterment of the flow leaving the site for post development than pre development conditions. As far as the outfall analysis, if we go to this sheet here, we understand, um, you know, it discharges into the floodplain and RPA in this zone here. We'll, we'll do a more detailed analysis during the site plan process, but we'll make sure that the, uh, channel is able to handle both the two year flow and 10 or 10 year capacity. Okay. It'd be worth going and looking the channel. There's not big and the, uh, underground kind of passages are not very big either. So it, uh, this has been an ongoing discussion in the north side of our city as well, with some development projects there. It just, uh, the likelihood that, you know, even a modest storm is going to overwhelm that at least in my mind is, is high.

So, so we need to analyze up to the 10 year storm event for discharge from the site. We understand that storms are more prevalent and more, more intense, but the code requires the 10 year analysis, but we'll continue to work with staff to see what additional analysis they need, need done during. Okay. And the reputation of the people who you'll be talking to in stormwater is as good as it gets. The city has absolutely the very, very, very best stormwater engineers and folks that do these calculations. And if they don't give this a thumbs up, it'll be very difficult to, uh, to accept without major modifications. We understand. I think the last comment was regarding the retail on university. Um, again, we getting conflicting, um, uh, yet appropriate comments.

Uh, we hear from the community that it's more residential. They don't want the retail. We've heard from previous groups, um, from the city that the retail really should be on chain bridge. We even just came from a city, um, a community meeting from one of the residents that they don't want any retail. They don't think it's going to be viable. So we're, we're struggling, um, to keep up, but we will definitely relook at the, uh, the university side and see, uh, what's possible. So we'll taking the comments down. Okay. And great feedback from the Breckenridge folks on the East and also a smart growth group locally that does a very deep dive into proposals. And both of them have a list of things articulated that have been circulated really widely.

And so folks are reading all of those and it would be worth kind of digging through those very carefully because we do as well. Thank you. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think you guys have done a really good job at listening to the feedback and kind of coming back to us with some, some good stuff. Um, my colleague has hit on a bunch of the things, two comments for you guys. Service through the greenway. I think that interpretation is fairly liberal. I can't imagine seeing a waste management or a blue triple a dumpster just kind of sitting out there. Kind of the same thing. We got to look at the behavior, um, not just the intent, because I can't really imagine wheeling out a dumpster each time trash needs to come.

We can take that right through the low. So I think as you guys hinted towards that, you know, the trash can be reconfigured. I think that would be a good idea. The other thing I'd like to echo, um, Dr. Rice's comments on retail on the university. I think it, I, same way I look at that corridor as an up and coming retail environment. Your renderings even show a vibrant pedestrian activity on it. So it's kind of, I think the renderings even support the retail there. Um, especially considering what the potential and what's already been proposed in other work sessions for the properties just north of this. Um, you could have a really cohesive block there that really could be impactful. Um, you guys have done a good job kind of blending it in with the rest of the community.

And I see that being a space for the community as an extension of their existing neighborhood. Okay. So those are my two comments. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Connell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got some comments. I guess they're going to fall into two areas. One is going to be more general. Some are more specific and there are a number of good things here. I would like to thank the Davies family for coming tonight. I know this was a great place to grow up. I've only been here since 1980. So the city has changed considerably since I've been here, uh, and acknowledging the, the landscape that you've seen change. And I know from the house, when you look across the street, that's not the courthouse you grew up looking at.

That's a whole new building. When we did the small area plan and looked at this area, uh, we looked at it somewhat holistically and said, things are changing and they have been for a long time. So how, how does it look? And if you go back where to go back and look at the overall plan, you'll note just to the south of this, uh, at the townhouse complex, you'll see a few townhouse buildings and you'll see a, an ocean of parking spaces. That's not the future of that particular property. This property, which was residential, uh, and rightly so to, to a point, uh, is now in the mix for being redeveloped. The building just to the north of it is a single building on Cambridge road. And if you look at the depth that goes back to university, because that property does, you will see another ocean of parking.

And above that, you will see an ocean of parking. And above that, you will see an ocean of parking. And eventually we get to the point when we looked at the small area plan and said, how are we going to redo this area? Uh, and what do we get in something that will be cohesive in the future? Uh, how do we do it? So that consolidation was one of the terms that came up and I don't know that that's been a player to date. I don't know if that is a player going forward or if the property has to be developed individually as this little piece right in the middle of this whole area. Because in any jigsaw puzzle, you know, as you take the pieces apart and put them back together, if you can rewind them in something that's more cohesive, there's a value to that.

So the development of this is one piece in a puzzle that then is going to impact the ones on either side of it in their redevelopment as well. And I know when we're dealing with individual projects, you might not want to think of that. But when we did the small area plan, that was one of the thoughts of how do we move things in that direction as redevelopment is occurring. So I think some of the comments that come into this look to that and say, how can we make this better for the city of the future? It's not going to remain single family. There are not going to be future single family memories made there, but what memories are going to be made? And I think that's important to looking at the holistic redevelopment of this piece of property to get something that in the future complements the city,

complements the redevelopment of the court process, court complex across the street, the areas to the north, and the areas to the south, try to give us a better relationship with George Mason University as well as redevelopment up to a historic district. So there are a lot of interesting factors that go into how this thing has gone since we were young and some of us aren't so young anymore. When I look at that, that's one of the things that colors what I look at from the standpoint of the property. When I look at things that are there, if we went to a few slides of yours for some individual comments, one, the width of the street is 26 feet. On a previous development, I ended up asking a question, and it had to do with parking spaces, because we were going to have on-street parking.

And I asked, what's the difference between those two white lines that you're painting to delineate an on-street parking space? The answer as I recall it, and I'm sure my colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong, was 26 feet. So the width of your street is the width of one parking space. And I don't know what you think of when you think of the width of a parking space. Do you think of that being a traffic lane that accommodates two-lane traffic going in both directions, as well as somebody being able to park there? When I think of a parking space on-street, it's not that big. And when I turn it sideways, that's the width of the road and the travel way. So that I see that congestion on that side street, if it's 26 feet wide, and you've got all of the people we've talked about, and I know it's been addressed for internal parking, still is a concern and a consideration.

Okay. So that's one. Two, when I look at the first floor space on, I guess it's building A that's the one on University. And look at the courtyard. I'm assuming if I walk out of my apartment on the first floor on A and look at that area there that I'm walking out to the deck level of the whole patio. Is that a reasonable assumption? The courtyard? The courtyard. Yes. Okay. Okay. When I look at the depth per floor and talk about we're going to have four or five stairs, but we're going to stay within about 50 feet, I'm going to give about 10 feet per story. So from the floor, I'm going to take it down about a foot in order to have the stable base for that floor. And above it, I've got eight foot of ceiling and then I'm going to have ceiling and floor and HVAC and that above it.

So when I look at the swimming pool that's there, how deep is that pool? One foot? Typically our pools range between three and four feet. Just three and four feet? Typically. And another foot or two for the base that has to be built underneath them to support them for weight? I haven't designed them so that would be more of a question over here, my architect who actually knows the square foot is a requirement. It might be. But I'm trying to drag it to your question. From the first floor level, if I go down six feet, am I in the garage? Oh, there'll be a drop ceiling area where the pool is. That's typical, right? So how tall is the garage? It's 12 feet floor to floor. 12 feet floor to floor? Yes.

Okay. So I don't have a challenge then with six feet of that or half of that being pool coming down in, in terms of coming in the door and having to maneuver around. Oh, no. There would be a clearance. Oh, no. Yes. I was trying to follow where we were going with that. Yeah. It's a little bit of detail coming down the road. When pools are designed, sometimes they're designed above the courtyard level. They're raised. Okay. Partially raised. It could be that option. But if you see here in this section, that floor in the courtyard is at elevation plus 442. And the garage below, the floor is at elevation 430. So it's 12 feet floor to floor. We only need seven and a half clear for parking. So there's room to drop.

So we've got the five or six feet. We're not losing parking spaces. No. No. Have we thought of putting anything over that pool to make it a year-round amenity instead of a three-month amenity? Not at this point. And enclosed? No. No. Okay. One, I would commend you on the amount of dirt that's going to be removed. Because in order to put your garage up front under the commercial space, you're going to have to take out a lot of dirt. And there's only a small amount of that left until the road. So taking the retaining are all out and removing the dirt from that area allows you to bring the front of the buildings to essentially street level. Is that what I'm observing in the new Board of Architecture review stuff when you've got essentially the sidewalk at street level with the building and we've done away with the retaining wall that goes across the front?

You're saying at Chain Bridge? On Chain Bridge. Yeah. You've essentially taken all the dirt out of that area. And we're moving a lot of dirt for the basement in the first place. That's correct. And you're just, you're taking it out to level the lot? Yeah. That retaining wall up front will be removed. But yes, we would have to. And all of that goes in. And in effect gives you more building space that's lower to the existing street level. Yeah. It's definitely going to be more level to it, not completely. You got a great change because Chain Bridge itself is also. Also has a bit of a change. Yeah. Okay. There are things that I see that I like about it. There are things that I still have questions on.

One is the side street from traffic congestion. Two is the path and being able to ultimately connect it going north and south as the whole area redevelops. And that this is now going to constrain the rest of the development. And getting back to the idea of potentially running judicial drive through the center and consolidating with the redevelopment of the parcels to the south and to the north. To make better development for the entire project. It's one of the things that I haven't given up hope for. Although when you're dealing with simple properties and we can't go any further than that. I see that that's a major challenge. That's the essence of my comments at this time. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Denton, anything? Mr. Denton, it's obvious there's a lot of work been put in to address the comments from the prior building. The reduction in density. The one wall that had no windows now having windows. I think it's a, it's a, it's, you can see that a lot of work and some improvements have happened. The addition of office space, I think is great. As far as the greenways concerned, there's obviously going to be a lot of staff input and a lot of staff expertise that will make certain that it's wide enough. And then those changes will come if need be. So, so I don't want to mirror anything that anyone else has said concern wise there. The two things that come to mind would be the desire for more retail.

I think to, to echo some things that have been said on the university side, it makes a lot of sense that certain people stakeholders that you've talked to would talk about the need for residential there. Maybe the desire for residential there because on the, when you think of this small area plan, this being on the south side, there actually is residential across the street. Whereas the further you go north, it's, it's commercial on both sides. And although it may not seem like commercial just to have a, an ocean of surface parking, it truly is a business somewhere as you go towards one 23. Um, so I think that I could see why some stakeholders would, would talk about the desire for there to be residential on that ground floor.

Um, and it's always tough to be the first to redevelop in a small area. You got your green way that we want you to match up to what everyone else in theory is going to build later. Um, and we also want you to kind of match the retail flow of that area. And I think, uh, a desire for more retail I have as well as it to necessarily be on that first floor on university side. Um, it is great that there's a corridor there units on the other side and then the pool. So there is a break between what could be if, if retail were added retail there and, uh, still a residential break before the pool. Um, another thing is the canopy. So I think, um, from, from the old plan to now, obviously there's more, I don't think that number was necessarily captured, but what I think is.

It's not necessarily captured, but what was captured is the 10% requirement if you will, and maybe you're at just under six. Is there a way to, to capture more canopy on the fourth floor? I know obviously you have a, an attic space on a fourth floor. It doesn't have to carry a ton of weight, but does it count in your actual calculation? If you do have some trees up on that fourth floor drop down, it will, if we have the correct soil volume. So we are actually looking into adding more vegetation in the courtyards. So, um, the cities and I are going to be looking at either. I think one of your ideas was folding a slab a little bit. Um, also raising planters, but goal being getting more soil, uh, up there in order to get more trees.

Uh, cause that's the only way we're going to be able to, that's the only way the city arborist will accept those trees as canopy is if we have adequate soil. Understood. Um, in that greenway, the w what we see as a walking path, is that just, is that a concrete sidewalk or is there the ability to have grass pavers for, I don't want to say what it is. Can you just tell me what it is in the design now? Um, so we were originally thinking maybe grass pavers, but then the question of, because the, there's the parking garage slab underneath the drainage of all that. And I think, um, differentiating the hardscape is what I'm trying to demonstrate in that section, you know, six foot walk and then something else.

We're, we're looking at that material right now, but it's probably going to be some other kind of hardscape, uh, especially if we need to accommodate a vehicle. Uh, you know, the plastic grid, I'm sure you're more familiar with it than me, but sometimes I've seen where you have the hardscape and then you have an extension that just looks like grass, but it truly has the plastic grid underneath. Yeah. So in the event of an emergency, not something you want to drive on daily, but an emergency vehicle for a, for a fire, let's say could totally drive on it. And it would support that. Obviously there might be some, uh, beautification that's needed once it pulls away, if it was wet that week or whatever, but that is maybe an option to have, you know, your hard sidewalk surface and then have grass right beside it.

But it truly has that grass plastic grid paver underneath. Yeah. So that you don't have to have, take up even more of what could potentially be your soil that provides for canopy underneath. Right. Correct. And that's the challenge, but there is the, that plastic grid. They do make a vehicular grade version of that. And I think that's it. Uh, maybe one other thing, I know it's very minor at what stage you're at, but you did touch on it. Uh, some of the landscaping items you showed, you talked about the bench in particular. Is that something that's, is that spec'd out by? That's actually in the, um, it's, it's in the historic overlay district, um, standards. And it just shows that specific spec'd item?

Yeah. Yeah. Understood. It's a do more. All right. Thank you. Ms. Marcus. Thank you. Hi. Hi. I think this building is absolutely beautiful. Uh, I love the design of it and the steps and the different facades and everything. I, I just love it. Um, I feel like in an ideal world, it, it should have more retail since that is the guideline, uh, that we have set up. I, I, I wonder if it's a requirement or a goal that we are 75% on the main level because we seem to run into this a lot. Um, the, um, the greenway being what, 15 or 16 feet wide. I feel like inside of really tall buildings, that's gonna feel really skinny when you're really there. What's in, what is on the inside of the walls around the walkway?

Well, I want to make sure that with that 16, then we still have open space. So it's not as if the buildings are right up on that 16. It's 43 feet from building to building. It is? Yes. Yeah. Oh, that's great. If, I don't know if you want to go to my section. That's great. I got dimensions on that, but the 15 feet width is just a planter wall to planter wall. So it's how many feet from building to building? 43 right now. Oh, that's wonderful. Okay. That's great. Um, the, um, parking for retail. I think I heard you say that the parking currently is on the other end of the building from where the retail is located. Did you say that? Uh, we have retail parking and then we also have, um, convenient parking for say Uber or Grubhub.

And so he's going to pull up the garage plan. The retail parking we have near the retail and we added an elevator so they could go up. The, you're there yet? Yeah, this is Uber parking. These blue dots are the. That's the Grubhub, Uber, the quick delivery sort of thing. Um, but the retail parking, go ahead and. That's further down the side. Because that's on the other level and that's why we added the, um, elevator. Here. Here we go. So we're entering here and then the arrows take to the ramp, go up one floor and then this would be the retail parking. Remember there's a big grade change. So you enter at a different level. The retail parking is near the retail. Right underneath it. Correct. Yes.

Correct. Okay, good. Because I thought I heard you say it was not. And, um, retail spots or Uber spots outside. Ideally, I mean, I, you only have so much space to work with and it is beautiful, the design, the way it is. But it does seem like it would be ideal to have some parking outside and not inside for sometimes maybe the retail or for the Uber type delivery door dash type things. Um, it seems like it would be better to have some spots, you know, like five or 10 spots outside. It would be great. But I know we can't park on University or Tain Bridge. And again, we were talking about the alleyway or the, the access drive. And so that's the conundrum. Um, yeah, that's, that's pretty much all I had.

I appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Um, number of the things that were on my mind have been saying, um, I'm going to go ahead and say, some, I think are worth repeating. Um, I will be a bit of a contrarian when it comes to, uh, non-residential uses along University Drive. You know, that the requirement, 75% ground floor, that's in the zoning ordinance. And one of our work sessions this afternoon, this evening later, is how we bring our small area plan vision and our zoning ordinance together so that we can better reflect what the small area plans reflect. Small area plans do not reflect, um, retail at all in this area. And I think it's actually a bonus that you're providing some retail and other commercial space in building.

On Tainbridge. On Tainbridge Road. So that to me, that's a bonus. And there are a number of other exceptions that are required, uh, because of the lag in our updating our zoning ordinance, catching up with our small area plans. So that doesn't concern me. Um, we don't know what the redevelopment North will be yet. We may be hearing some more things soon about that, um, which may support more, uh, non-residential uses along University Drive. But at this point, what you propose is probably a step beyond what the small area plan calls for. It's just not consistent with the zoning ordinance, which we know is behind. So I'm not too concerned about that. The greenway does concern me a little bit. If there's one thing that's going to tie this whole area south of Old Town together is the greenway.

We need to make sure that, uh, what you're putting in as the first to the table, uh, will be compatible with, uh, what could happen south and north. Um, we don't want, um, one smaller parcel driving, trying to drive the redevelopment North of it. That's why we have, uh, the plan laid out with a broader vision. So some better sense of fidelity to the vision for that greenway from the small area plan would be improvement. And I think width is actually one of them, as I recall. So I might want to look at that. Um, let me go. Let me go to my other lists. Uh, Mr. Rice commented the new street functioning as the shared use service alley. Uh, and I think it probably would actually need to be wired to accommodate some of those uses.

When I go back to the images in the small area plan. Um, the, uh, vehicular access abutting on residential properties. I get, you don't want to, we don't want a street there. But again, the greenway sort of serves the function of providing that connectivity for potentially, you know, small vehicles or something. Um, so that, that gets into the greenway. The tree canopy is a concern. We have a very modest tree canopy requirement in the commercial urban district. And not meeting that, uh, is going to be a challenge. I think for not only some of us here, but, uh, possibly potentially some of the city council members. So I think you need to be prepared to address that. It sounds like you're trying to do that.

Um, I spent a little time on the board of architectural review. Uh, it's not the purview of the planning commission from a recommendation standpoint, but we are free to comment on any aspect of the plan. The one thing that puzzles me a little bit, frankly, is kind of the Mansard style roof facing university. That seems like 19th century France rather than historic Fairfax. Um, I'm not sure what the other options are, but that seems out of place. I really appreciate the improvement in getting something a little more historic looking facing, uh, the residential area. But that style roof just doesn't seem to fit with the character of the city. So, you know, you might want to think about that. I don't know if that came up in the board of architecture review or not.

I know you had a conversation about the material, the material, uh, and asphalt shingles and so forth. But, um, the scale of this is, is much improved. I think that's a real positive. Um, I agree with comments on the east-west driveway and the concerns with having, uh, short-term drop-offs and deliveries. You know, Paisano's Pizza and UPS and all. So, I think I would look for some creative ways to provide some pull-off space for those kinds of things. And I think that covers my comments. It does. Okay. Excuse me. I don't know if you want to comment on any of those, but that's feedback. Okay. It's really phrases questions, but, um. Okay. I appreciate everyone's time. We've dumped a bunch on you.

No, no. The more the merrier. We want to know. Do you have sufficient feedback, Steph? Mr. Sutton. Just one point. Um, since it's the site next door, if, when you're out, uh, on a walk or a drive, along University Drive, the ends of court has an open space right at the corner. I've got Arc Pro open here and it's approximately the width of that from the retaining wall to the curbs, about 50 to 55 feet. Just for some context and comparison, if you want to see an example of something that's somewhat akin to our greenway. Okay. Good thought. Okay. I appreciate everyone's comments. I appreciate your time. Um, we're going to take into this. We'll talk about that as a follow-up. Oh, yes. We've talked a lot about consistency, continuity across the entirety of the mega block and what, you know, is north and south of this property.

Could you share with us if there have been any discussions about consolidation with other property owners on either side or, you know, any other sort of negotiations amongst the, those with, with big ideas for this area of the city? Sure. Um, and, and David can speak to that and also the Davies. Uh, I've been involved since 2015, um, where we've had a little bit of history with this and, um, there have been questions and, and requests to consolidate. We have spoken with some of the owners and it just doesn't work out. Um, it doesn't pencil out economically. It doesn't pencil out with the timing. Uh, it, it just doesn't work. And so that's why we're proceeding with our property. Even from an easement perspective, because I'm just having a hard time thinking about how you'll even build this with like the, the lot coverage being what it is without some sort of easement or.

Oh, as far as like a construction easement for trailer or access, that's a difference. That's a different subject and we'll talk to the property owners to the left, to the right, to the front and the back. Um, when, and if approved, um, but, um, that, that, that, that's solvable because that's typically short term. But when we're talking about redeveloping on somebody else's property, um, that, that's quite different. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? Thank you for your time. Thank you for all the detail. Thank you for the impact. Thank you for the impact. Thank you for the impact. Um, thank you for your time. Thank you for all the detail. Thank you for the improvements. No, we appreciate the feedback.

Thank you. Brought forward. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you, Mr. Sutton. And thank Mr. Frederick for us too, for his work. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next item on our agenda is introduction and discussion of potential amendments to the City of Fairfax zoning ordinance related to the adopted small area plans as we had just commented on. Mr. Dernapti. Okay. All right. Let me just make sure that we get our join. All right. Good afternoon? Good afternoon? ? Good afternoon? Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for having me here today. I'm joined virtually with Kaitlyn Cameron from our group. And we're here to talk about the small area plan, zoning implementation. First, we've enjoyed working with staff, Paul and his staff, and getting to know some of

the community members so far as part of this process. And so the purpose of the presentation today is to introduce the project and to get your insight, feedback, make sure we're on track, heading in the right direction, and to give a snapshot of what we've heard so far in the process. For those that may be viewing, we do have a URL code to take you to the project website where you can provide feedback. Thank you. And that URL code is on the page in front of you. So who am I? My name is Justin Wallace. I'm with the consultant firm, White & Smith Planning and Law Group. My background is in architecture and urban design and planning. I've been with White & Smith for quite a few years now. The project manager, Mark White, was supposed to be here, but he had another planning commission,

so we divided and conquered. But we're also joined, as I said, Caitlin Cameron, who is a fellow urban design planner and also serves as a chair for her local planning board. So we are looking forward to bringing our expertise on this project. We work with municipalities all over the U.S. and Mark has clients all over Virginia. So we look forward to bringing what we can to this project in terms of strategies and solutions and bringing the zoning ordinance up to date. Just a quick agenda, we're going to go over the background, which you are very familiar with, as far as the comp plan and the small area plans. We'll talk about the project timeline and what our goals are, some of the outcomes, and then

we'll give a snapshot of some of the issues that we've heard thus far. I will not spend too much time on the comprehensive plan, as you know. It was adopted in 2019. It's been amended since then. One of the key components of the comprehensive plan is its future land use map, which outlines the different character areas and place types for the city. We're going to be focused on the purple areas, the activity center areas. These are areas that are anticipated to expect mixed use, walkable, pedestrian areas development over time. And so that is kind of the scope of where our implementation will be focused on. After the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the city embarked on efforts to do more detailed

analysis on a small area plan level focused on Camp Washington, Pickett and Main, or excuse me, Fairfax Circle, Old Town, and Northfax. And four out of the five activity centers, small area plans have been adopted. And so these are more nuanced investigation about what the future character of these small area plans will be like in the next decade. And so they go into more nuance with the types of uses, land uses and activities, what the desired density, intensity, and overall character and aesthetic, what the future street networks look like, what types of infrastructure improvements in terms of stormwater, getting those access improvements in and also considerations for parking and open space qualities.

For those that may not be aware that are listening to the presentation, there is a difference between land use policy and zoning. And we are trying to align the two. And so when we talk about the comprehensive plan and the small area plans, those set the overall vision and goals outlining how the city wants to grow and what it wants to preserve. These are documents that our city officials use for decision making. And these are updated from time to time, but they do not change the zoning. And so therefore, we were brought to the table to look at the city's zoning ordinance and update it. And the zoning is regulation. It's the law. And it controls the physical characteristics, as we know with the allowed and permitted land

uses, density, height, setbacks, landscaping, and all types of other physical characteristics on a parcel by parcel basis. And so we're looking at the city's zoning ordinance to make sure that it is up to date, which we've frequently, it's a working document, so we need to consistently look at it and make sure that it's aligned with the policy documents. And so that is our goal and our task. So examples of those discrepancies and gaps between the policy documents and the zoning documents, they include all sorts of things that were looked at in the small area plans, such as, as we heard tonight, height, what types of land uses and activities, open space, what does that look like, feel like, and what does the future transportation access, and what does that look like in these character

areas. And so we're looking at all of these things and seeing what strategies and solutions we can provide to fill those gaps and needs in the zoning ordinance. So we've started this project back in the summer. And we began in August meeting with staff and different department leadership and just trying to get a sense of what the staff's issues were. And we did a site tour. We toured all the five activity center areas, just seeing what's on the ground, existing conditions, trying to get a sense of the nuances of these different areas and what's on the ground today. Later in the fall, we met, we had a series of technical meetings. The consultant team and staff held a series of deep dives just to understand how frequent

users of the code, what their challenges are, what are some of the top issues that they're dealing with, and just hearing things out. These were listening sessions. So we met, we had a series of five different groups that were tailored around specific topics. Later on in November, we had our first community meeting here in this room. We had not as much attendance as we would have liked. It was cold and rainy that day. Chairman Feather was there. But we did get some feedback. People came interested, engaged, asked a lot of questions. And so we did feel like we received some insight into what people are looking at with the zoning ordinance update. In terms of overall phasing, we're at the tail end of phase one.

That includes much of our discovery and understanding the issues that people are facing from stuff ranging from the staff to stakeholders and the general and the public at large. Our next phase will be strategy development. So we'll take what we've learned thus far and we'll begin putting our heads together and identifying strategies. And that will be included in a written report and we'll be back in front of you to prevent those findings. And then ultimately we'll go into phase three with the overall drafting of the ordinance updates and then into adoption mode. So we're early on in the project and the overall objectives, you know, what's in our scope is really implementing the small area plans.

And ideally this would improve, you know, the challenges that private developers are facing. In your case, how the public is investing in the community. We've been looking at recent trends and development, understanding the issues through the different boards, planning commissioner, planning commission council, and understanding what those trends are in terms of city negotiations. And we're looking at what the gaps are, what the discrepancies are, and of course balancing community interests, what we've heard from the community, and what we've heard from the community, what we've heard from the community, what we've heard from the community. So ideally our outcomes, our goals is to align with the policy, the comprehensive plan, small area plans.

And we'd like for this to be as clear and purposeful as possible. Mark likes to say, make the right things easy. So we'll like, we'll try to look at streamlining and creating an efficient development review process. And just clarifying and supporting the community goals and objectives. So I believe in your packet there's a issue summary. And so what I have here on the screen are eight buckets that summarizes what we've heard so far. And I'm going to go into a little bit of detail. But there's a written description in your packet following each of these. And so again, we are, our goal is to align with the comprehensive plan. When there's misalignment, it leads to inconsistency and unpredictability.

And so ideally we'd want to build in that predictability into the zoning ordinance. We'd like to reinforce the distinctions of the small area plans. There are nuances with each of these plans. So we'd like to build in consistency, but ideally find solutions that are tailored to the specific nuances of each of these areas. And establishing a clear path for mixed use development. The recent development is trending more mixed use. So ideally the zoning ordinance would enable that and create a clear pathway. And we'll be looking at different strategies to do that. Whether that is a new zoning ordinance or addressing current zoning districts, excuse me, zoning district, is still yet to be determined.

But we'll be developing strategies with Paul and staff to understand what's the most effective strategy to go forward. And bring that back to you. Obviously there are infrastructure demands with these larger developments in terms of access, as we were talking about with the previous discussion. And so there's more coordination that needs to happen for these larger developments. And we need the zoning ordinance to address those with all of those challenges that developers are dealing with with their site plans. We heard a lot about open space and trying to understand what is open space and how it's defined in the zoning ordinance. And also applying that consistently across the zoning districts.

Right now there's some inconsistency from what we understand. So really understanding what open space is, whether that's various typologies. And clearly understanding what the expectations are with urban development. Next, we'll be looking at the city's policies for utilities and streetscape elements. So that area between the building and the street, we want to understand what the policy is, what the hierarchy is, prioritization. And just adding more flexibility where there is room to add flexibility for those streetscape elements. And another critical issue and thing that we'll be looking at is incentivizing community needs. So we heard a lot about resiliency, environmentally sound development, and sustainability goals.

And while we are constrained with Virginia's state statutes and what they have permits and what we can mandate, we can look at incentivizing these through the zoning ordinance. So we'll be looking at different frameworks that other communities are using, whether that is a community benefit program, a tiered system, or a point system. I think, you know, something along those lines will be evaluating what would be most effective as a tool to incentivize what the community has said they wanted out of development. And then finally, enabling flexible development frontage. We heard a lot about the 75% requirement for non-residential, as well as, you know, when you think of activity centers, you want an engaging storefront, or you want an engaging presence at the street.

And so what does that look like, and does that mean it has to be a non-residential storefront condition? I don't know, but I think that's worth investigating. So I think we'll be looking at different alternatives that may be appropriate for activity centers and that may vary by activity center. But I think we're in the exploration phase and trying to address what we've heard based on that issue in particular. And so those are kind of the big top eight issues. We'll be looking at these in greater detail in the report. And so there'll be a lot more research, case studies, best practices, and looking at fellow communities in the region and also across the U.S. And trying to develop the most effective recommendation or strategy that we think would benefit the city of Fairfax.

And so the next step will be writing the report. We've already started, and we hope to be sharing that with staff soon and keeping that conversation going. But that is kind of the next big step is the preferred strategies and recommendations report. And I'm going to stop talking, but ideally we'd like to hear from you, just insight, any questions you might have so far in the process, and how we can stay on track going forward. So I'm done with the presentation, but I'll turn it over to you guys. Mr. Nath, did you have anything else to add at this point? No, I think that summarized it well, just to reiterate that we will be back in front of you as we're developing strategies. You'll have a little more information about the way things could work, and we're looking for your feedback on that.

But certainly tonight we do see the Planning Commission as a user group, because the Planning Commission goes through the process of reviewing projects. You've experienced this probably more than anybody. So any feedback you can find at this point that will help go into develop those strategies will be extremely beneficial for us. And what's your timeline? Do you think we might get to that next phase? Thanks. Soon. We are almost done with a draft of the report, but I think we still want to have conversations with staff and make sure that everything they're looking for, the expectations are there. But we were pretty much 75%, 80% done with the report, and so we'll be sharing that with staff soon.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. for the city, if you would. And it wasn't until 2019 that the small area plans actually were put on the table and came out of a comp plan review. So since 2019, we have been developing the small area plans and recognize that they really didn't fit what we had done and that there were nuances as you have referenced them. So what we're trying to do, I think, is personalize the plan to those areas and then personalize the overall zoning ordinance to those peculiarities that are worth being codified in law or zoning and going with that. At this point, I think we have overcome most of the original challenges in that I believe we have adopted master plans for almost everything

I can think of as we're going forward, you know, from parks to the city to everybody has now developed a master plan. And so I think one of our challenges is to get our hands around the master plans and see if they do form a coherent vision moving forward so that the rules that we write will meet the needs of the citizens of the city, which means recognizing the character of the city, what we are and what we want to be. And then balancing that with the fact that we are victims, if you will, of the area we live in. We are not going to get away from denser development. We are not going to get away from upscale business activities and the things that go with being in this geographic area. And so that's what we're trying to catch in all of this

is a set of rules or zoning ordinances that will allow us to move forward so that people like the Davies who may have grown up here a long time ago can still navigate through the process of moving to the future that some of us older people are trying to move to the future from living in our past. There are good things we want to retain. There are things that we would like to make better. And that's what I think we're trying to catch in here, but on a basis that personalizes it so that people who live in any neighborhood can recognize that I've parked my trailer in my yard forever and now you just told me that I can't. Or people who have a small business that is a home business but happens to deal with guns

don't have to fill this area when we come back through to a Zopti Zoning ordinance change with all of their friends who are gun owners to tell us we're getting it wrong. Those are the kinds of things I think we would like to move past and get a zoning ordinance that fits the five individual plans or the four that we've got plus the overall city since we're still trying to move forward with the density of setback and height and how do you trade those one off against the other. That's what I see as our problem or our challenge in coming to this. So I think you've outlined a good program. That's where I would hope we would come out. Is that something when we're done with it, we can read and feel like it's personal to the city,

not something that would fit any city in the state or the country that you were going to drop it on. Others? Ms. Lockhart. Could you speak to your professional opinion on special use permits or special use considerations in zoning? I see it referenced sort of offhand a couple times in the issue summaries, but nothing is an outright recommendation. I do feel like there's an overall tone towards consistency and standardization, which I greatly appreciate and obviously is a weak point, but that seems to be a very glaring black hole of differentiation. That is a great observation. I think as we came into this project, we heard special use permits, special exceptions, and frankly the negotiation process quite a bit.

And I think that is something that we're going to try to mitigate as much as possible and to make sure that the zoning ordinance is clear enough in terms of the expectations so that if something can be by right, then we should allow it if it's possible to do so. And so we're going to be looking at ways to mitigate the applicants from having to go through the negotiations process as their only path. And I think that has been echoed in some of the technical meetings that we've had and with the community because there's a certain optics that's being presented to the community too. And I think by allowing, you know, mitigating those special use permits and the special exceptions would be a benefit to the community as well,

not just the developers. So I'll throw a curveball and I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm just sort of thinking through this. An example of a by right development in the city recently that was met with a lot of surprise was the dispensary that went in on a former drugstore facility. And it was by right because the use case was essentially considered the same. I do not think anyone in the neighborhood was expecting to see that pop up, uncertainly not by right, you know, sort of skating right through. So while I'm a firm believer in consistency and repeatable processes, can we get to the level of granularity in by right that we would prevent those sort of potentially, I don't want to say unsavory,

but things that would upset the community when they find out that it was completely above board? Yeah, no, absolutely. And I shouldn't just say, you know, that everything should be by right, but I guess in the context of activity centers and mixed-use development and standard development that you see in other communities that developers and applicants are not having to go through kind of the loops and the hurdles to get what they're getting by right in other communities. That's kind of where I was coming from. But absolutely, I mean, things that might be causing nuisance for one reason or another, maybe it's causing noise. I mean, absolutely, those types of things should be reflected in the use table

and that sort of thing. Yeah, reflecting sensitivity. And then my final question is, right now our special use permits, special exceptions kind of bifurcate our review processes. And often we as the Planning Commission don't see a lot of those things. They go directly to council despite the fact that they have a big impact on a small area plan or an activity center or even a comprehensive plan. So as part of your work on the zoning, is process part of that work or is it just the letter of the law? That's a good question because the zoning ordinance, there are certain processes and procedures in the zoning ordinance, but there are also things outside of the zoning ordinance that's in the subdivision ordinance

that is kind of outside of our scope. So while we are going to be looking at ways to streamline the review process, I think that's going to be part of the solution. We're going to be looking at all different kinds of facets to the zoning ordinance. So ideally in the end, the process will be more clear than it is today. But I think to answer your question, yes, we'll be looking within our scope as much as we can at review processes. Yeah. Thank you. Others? Mr. Coleman. I just have a quick question. Out of the eight issues that you kind of summarized, what do you think is the most difficult one? The most difficult one? Yeah. There you go. Curveball question. That's kind of hard to answer. I know there's some that are,

you know, there's just needs more clarity, more flexibility. I think the challenging part would probably be looking at incentivizing the community benefits because that in itself requires balance and you have to weigh priorities and what is most, you know, valuable in an objective point of view with the developer's needs and it has to work. So that is probably going to be the most challenging effort. But also, I think, you know, one of the more exciting ones because I think the, you know, the community will look at it and see the personalization aspect of it too. Yeah. Mr. Rice, anything from you? No. Thank you for this great summary. I've, as you alluded, I've seen this once or twice before

and appreciate the update for the entire commission. A couple of things. I think Mr. Cunningham was getting to this when he talked about some of the developments in the city, not all mixed, and you, I think, are aware of this, not all mixed-use development, which we're talking about focusing in the activity centers, actually occurs in the activity centers. So I'd like to make sure that, you know, whatever we do to the zoning ordinance to address mixed-use is not just focused on the activity center. Maybe there's a new, whatever, zoning district or something to address things that are outside of the activity centers because they bring with them the very similar, very same kinds of concerns and issues

in the part of the community, in the part of our economic well-being. You know, we continue to hear things about residential and commercial districts. There's some positives to that, perhaps, but our economic development people and our city council would like to see us maintain a very strong, robust commercial base and not replace everything with high-density residential. So some of those are happening outside of activity centers. So I think whatever we come up with needs to reflect this. This includes some of the process things. There are process aspects of the zoning ordinance. Getting to Ms. Lockhart's comment or question about special uses, there are roles defined for the various review bodies

in the zoning ordinance. And that's a place to address some of the things that I think she was talking about. And I've raised this issue before. Those who have gone before me in this chair have also raised the same concerns about ensuring clarity of, you know, process clarity is one thing, but what is sensible from a review standpoint of what makes the most, what brings fidelity to our development, bringing together a comprehensive plan and development. Who are the right people to look at that? An objective body like the Planning Commission could well be one of those places. We're out of step with our neighboring jurisdictions in some of those respects. One of the things that has struck me about this

and we have run into it for quite some time now are the inefficiencies in our process right now because of the countless special exceptions that have to be documented, reviewed, discussed, and so forth. So, you know, the objectives to get, get past some of those, particularly in the activity centers where we're going above and beyond what the zoning ordinance is, it's a great objective. I know that's kind of at the heart of what's driving this. I just want to reinforce the importance of getting that as right as we can. You've talked about what's community needs. When you use that word community, what do you mean? Who are you talking about? Which community? Which community? Yeah. Well, I think in general,

the city, but I think it's more nuanced. You know, the small area plans are neighborhood specific, more detailed, and so I think, you know, when I was at the community meeting, we had individuals talking specifically about Camp Washington area and, you know, the multimodal hub and others talking about resiliency and tree canopy, and so as a whole, I think it's, we're hearing a lot of voices, but I think each small area plan will have their own nuance and characteristics and priorities. I think it just has to. I mean, when you can't compare, you know, Old Town to Camp Washington, they're just two different contexts, so I think, you know, we're going to hear different things from different activity centers,

and that will need to be ultimately reflected in whatever recommendations we have. It's a bit of a loaded question. Mr. Cunningham made the comment about what's happening around us. You know, there's some things we're going to, it will be difficult for us to avoid in terms of development. I'd just like to make sure we're talking about the development community as well. We can't grow the city, and we don't necessarily want to keep up with exactly or match what's going on in the neighboring communities or neighboring jurisdictions, but we're going to be working with the same people who would like to bring some of the same things, including some benefits, to the city, and, you know, I hope they're engaged

as a stakeholder as well in the development communities. Others? Anything else? Thank you. Oh, thank you. Very enlightening. Really useful discussion. I think you've hit the nail on the head in a lot of the cases and the issues you've heard so far. Excellent. Yeah. You've heard some reinforcement for some of those, and some you've heard maybe not specifically on this list, so thank you. I appreciate your time. Look forward to next steps. Thank you. Thank you. Did you get what you wanted from tonight's discussion? Oh, that's a good question. I usually ask that question. Did you get what you wanted from tonight's discussion? I think so. I mean, we're excited to be in Fairfax, and I think we've collected

a lot of information, and it sounds like we're at least heading in the right direction, and so I think we're good. Yeah. I appreciate that. Good. We look forward to the next steps. Okay. Next item on the agenda in our work session, the final item on the work session is the continued discussion of the proposed fiscal year 2026, fiscal year 2030 capital improvement program. We had a pretty good discussion in December, raised some concerns. What we were seeing, welcome also our chief financial officer, Mr. Martinez, here this evening at our request to perhaps answer some of the questions and address some of the concerns we have. But I'll let you start, Mr. Napdy, with anything you might want to present.

Great. Thank you. Then we need a little more background. Yes. I'll try to be brief. Just want to make sure everyone's up to speed with where we are and provide a little bit of background of what we've heard from you so far. So a quick recap of our schedule. The Planning Commission first received a briefing from the city manager in November, and we continued our discussions on December 9. We are now here highlighted in red January 13. This is our final opportunity to have a work session on this topic because at your next meeting, January 27, we will have our public hearing to hear your final recommendations to city council. And we are held to that date because you are scheduled to present your recommendations

to city council on their first work session in February, on February 4. A quick recap of the Planning Commission's role. A couple of the key bullets here are to determine conformance of proposed projects within the CIP with a comprehensive plan. This is something we haven't had to spend as much time on recently because each project in the CIP indicates its relationship to the comprehensive plan. So the Planning Commission's role lately has been to advise city council on priorities among proposed projects. This is assuming that the city council may have to make decisions about which projects to prioritize and some to defer to later dates. And to anticipate future considerations. The goal here is

to identify components of the comprehensive plan that may not be in the CIP yet to make sure that the city council is aware of that or things that might be in the CIP and to just make sure that those are identified and called out as being important in the comprehensive plan. So for developing our recommendations, the type of information we've gone through so far, we looked at the Planning Commission recommendations for last year's CIP. We looked at projects that are specifically identified in the smaller year plans as well as those that are specifically identified in the comprehensive plan. We looked at new capital improvement projects that were not in previous CIPs that are applicable to the comprehensive plan.

And since we just adopted a major update to the comprehensive plan in October of this year, we looked at new comprehensive plan priorities and identified some of those that have relationships to the CIP, including some that already have CIP projects. One thing I wanted to go over with you today before continuing is that we have some additional Planning Commission recommendations from previous years. After the previous meeting, the Planning Commission asked that we send some of the resolutions to city council from years prior to last year's CIP review. So for last year's CIP review, we sent you the list of items included, projects related to transportation, parks and recreation, sustainability,

and natural environment. And then following that, we sent you the years going back to FY25 to, or FY21 to FY25. Sorry, that's a typo in there. It says 27. And a couple of the things that the recurring themes that are noticed in looking at these, in multiple years, the Planning Commission suggested prioritizing pedestrian safety, whether it be as a whole or identifying specific projects. I did want to note that over the course of these years, specifically a pedestrian master plan and a Safe Streets for All or Vision Zero plan were recommended. Those are now underway as part of the same project in combination with the Old Town Circulation Study. So those have been funded. There have been consistent

recommendations related to parks, whether it be about the parks master plan, about open space acquisition, or about specific projects. For several years, there were specific recommendations to support the Willard-Shirtwood Community Center, which is now received. It's all the funding that's been requested. And there have been recent recommendations to support projects that are listed in the fairly new environmental group of projects in the CIP, which just came about in the past two years. And lastly, I wanted to mention for the FY21-25 year, this was the first year where a recommendation was made after the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2019. we included a set of recommendations from the newly developed

implementation guide at that time and identified potential upcoming projects or upcoming efforts that should influence the CIP. There are 37 action items in here. I did want to point out that among these 37, at least 29 of them have had some kind of progress related to them. Most of them are not specific projects. Most of them are general concepts, and so we've had projects that relate to those concepts. So many of them are ongoing. So not the kind of things that we can check off and say they're done. They'll keep going. But just wanted to identify how that has been impacted over the past several years. And that attachment with those list of actions from the implementation guide at that time

was included in your packet. Lastly, I wanted to remind the Planning Commission of some of the comments that we heard about potential items to provide feedback to the City Council along this year. This is what we heard from you about your last work session on December 9. First, that acquisition of county property yards continues to be a priority as land is one of the resources that we lack for some of the things that we're trying to accomplish in the comprehensive plan. That we should continue to support school facilities and the types of requests that are being made related to schools. Multimodal transportation safety continues to be a priority. Two exceptions to this. it was noted that the previous questions

that were provided on a proposed traffic signal at University Drive and Leighton Hall Drive may still be a concern. I want to note that we did reach out to transportation staff about this project and they identified that as a result of the Willard-Sherwood Community Center traffic study it's believed that that signal is now warranted again which is why that project has returned. Also the Planning Commission stated that they noticed waning interest in the Country Club Hills connector trail. This is something that is still in the design phase and we'll be hearing more about it in the coming months. Planning Commission wants to recognize external funds that are received. This is focusing on situations

where the city is able to obtain external funds to pay for items that are in the CIP so we aren't as dependent on the general fund. A lot of this is transportation products because there's so many programs for us to receive those funds in Virginia but it can apply to other things as well and that we support previous investments. This was getting at situations where the city has already invested in certain projects whether it be design or other efforts that we should continue to invest or contribute towards those investments and then lastly not listed here but the Planning Commission had some questions about the varying amounts in the course of the CIP as it was presented and so we want to note to you

that there was a document that was sent to you that was sent to us from our Finance Department that showed some potential adjustments. This is a draft but it is something that Finance Department is considering that will help even this out and as the Chair noted the CFO JC Martinez is here and can answer questions about this. So lastly to confirm the goal of tonight's discussion is to confirm from the Planning Commission the types of items or the specific items that we want to discuss in our resolution to the City Council. We don't have to work out our exact language yet. Staff will work on that and send that to you for review with some instructions on how to provide feedback to make sure that we're not having

any private meetings but that's something we can continue to work on before our next meeting and then we'll have that information ready at your public hearing that will be for January 27th and of course even at the public hearing we can continue to revise the language if you want to make some last minute adjustments in a public setting. So that will get us ready and have us prepare to make our presentation to City Council on February 4th. So that's all I have for my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions and welcome to the discussion. In the presentation package you have some helpful backup material which I hope you all have a chance to look at as well. You intend to cover those I suppose

specifically identified projects new projects in the CIP. We talked about some of those previously. Yeah we can go through those. Those were in the previous presentation so I didn't want to go through them again unless you want to or if you have specific questions about any of them we can go through them. Would commissioners like to see those again? Were we prepared to just have a discussion? I think the challenge I put out at our last meeting was for you to come in prepared to put on the table what some of your top items are that you think we should be emphasizing to the city council in our recommendations particularly those related to the comprehensive plan. We virtually always in our report

affirm the general compliance of the CIP with the comprehensive plan. If there are areas that you've seen that does not appear to be the case feel free to identify those. I did want to I did one thing this afternoon that I thought about Mr. Napty provided the fiscal year 2630 draft CIP project specifically identified in the comp plan he provided that list. I went through that list as well to see if there had been previous appropriations for those which projects and he's captured you know those like the West Drive property or acquisition not previously appropriated in the plan for this year. Some others previously appropriated one presumes we're not going to make a recommendation all of a sudden

stop something that's now in progress like the climate adaptation resiliency plan for EVs readiness plan solid waste management things like that these were appropriated in fiscal year 2025. Van Dyke master plan implementation we put a lot of emphasis in parks that was appropriated using ARPA funds for example and then he identified a few specific to some of the activity centers Fern Street neighborhood connectors already appropriated and so on Germantown Road Route 29 improvements and corridor improvements not previously appropriated now in for fiscal year 2026 these don't rely on general fund balances they take advantage of other outside funding sources but they do address some of the transportation issues

and needs in the city. other things that are one other thing that popped out at me as in fiscal year 2026 not previously appropriated was the smart smart scale funding appropriated or assigned attributed to the South Street extension so that's a project fiscal year 2026 that will be an important piece of the street grid that we've been talking about around Old Town a number of the other ones on the list not appropriated previously but they're in the out years as well North Fax East West Roadway fiscal year 28 University Drive Leighton Hall intersection fiscal year 27 so just to give you a feel for some of the things that were on that list that Mr. Napkey provided in his staff report definitely some

appearing in 26 some down the road many already appropriated perhaps important to continue to emphasize the broad concepts behind some of these as Mr. Napkey outlined parks and rec pedestrian safety transportation improvements and so forth so just a little bit more background at least from my analysis the summary that the chief financial officer provided potential changes what's what's the state of these they certainly helped balance the concerns that we had this for the record the one of the concerns that struck us was it felt infeasible to really do everything that was on the list starting in 2026 so it's going to be difficult for us to perhaps make recommendations if we didn't really know

what might be deferred this is very helpful to guide that but I don't know if you want to make any further comments about that as well so it's clearly pushing some things down the road I'm not sure what the sense of agreement is elsewhere in the city or with the city council of course if we concur with timing on some of these and find the importance of them and many of them are very important to the comp plan we can say that too Mr. Cuttingham In looking at the previous printed copy or the draft copy of the comprehensive plan one of the things I noticed in getting to the rather high $83 million number was there were a significant number of projects that had been added new this year and it was very nice

to follow some of the original requested guidance that those be bolded when projects are added new out of the five year cycle working its way through but it did highlight the number of projects that were added new to that year and now looking down some of this list that we've provided tonight I am seeing some other projects that said that some of these projects have been moved to out years to let it flow more easily I think that's a benefit one concern that I would have out of this is that when I look at schools capital projects I don't see any projects that the schools have we've just passed a $220 million bond project or bond for major renovation of two elementary schools and a high school roof

but aside from that and there are a significant number of projects listed between pages 169 and 175 that are listed essentially as applying to all schools whether it be painting whether it be carpeting and tiles I didn't get a sense of how those fit with renovation and I don't get a sense how many of these smaller projects and you know $25,000, $50,000 $100,000 fit and they don't appear on the new budget line in the out years does the school board not have a plan for capital improvements to use money out of the city's budget for programs that aren't related to the major renovation or how do they fit together I guess is my question since I'm not seeing any line items for 28, 29 and 30 and what I believe

is one of the line items from 26 has been moved back to 28 so that's prudent in movement as we're making progress but how are we since we don't talk to the school board anymore about or the department heads anymore about what projects they have coming through how do we communicate what they're trying to do so that we have a better understanding of how they're dealing with the CIP sure so commissioners thank you for having me here tonight regarding that question I work very closely with the school board school board chair and also the superintendent of schools Jeff Blattenberg he actually was in the other room in the work session room tonight presenting his FY26 budget as well to the school board

which kind of mirrored this I will say that to your point the school board and the school bond referendum just passed overwhelmingly over 70% for the $220 million school bond for the two elementary schools and for the high school group understanding that we the city the school board are still trying to get some momentum in that specifically in the upcoming FY26 budget trying to set money aside to start doing some A&E some community engagement to figure out what is needed what is we know what is needed based on the feasibility study but more of how they want it to look and then what the priorities are as well the reason for the these are my words the sparse school capital projects in the CIP specifically in the out years

is the school board knows and realizes that this is city funds that they and I do my air quotes control or request they also understand that on an operational side not CIP related but on an operational side we are starting to see increasing tuition contract costs so they are trying to balance that request and I guess the the stress of additional funding requests while we are trying to figure out how to best utilize a 220 million dollar potential bond as a maximum so they are not wanting to over ask and say we need more and more and more to do whatever needs to be done from capital improvements specifically for the middle school or the high school because they also are aware that in the coming

years five seven years down the road there's potentially going to be another ask another bond referendum to start addressing those needs within those two specific schools hoping I answered your question there commissioner I think that answers it partly and I guess wonder I wonder was there any benefit since we have streamlined the process to the planning commission being able to talk to the department heads and ask them are you getting what you need what you have submitted to city council I mean what you have submitted to the city manager and and to yourself for that how is that being filtered coming through you know and general communication to say are you looking at these kinds of things going forward

do you have what you need and right now what we got we've gotten was a piece of paper we got a briefing from the former city manager and you've been responsible on answering questions but but our communication has been diminished as I would see it an example I would use for that is that the police station garage has been on the discussion block for a number of years now right a couple of weeks ago we just had our first significant snow in several years which highlighted the fact of plowing streets you've got to remember how to do that if you don't use it if you don't use it you forget and then I drove through the library parking lot because my wife needed to return a book that was due and dropped it

in the kiosk and what I noticed was a significant number of police vehicles parked in the library parking lot because it's covered and I don't know how that relates to the parking garage that they're talking about but all of these things seem to be interconnected when we're asking do you have what you need what are your priorities and are they aligned with what's coming out of staff so that we have a good dialogue about all of these things and have an understanding why things are being done as well as what's being done I think those are all valid points and comments priorities have to compete with resources unfortunately and there is a limited number of resources I think it's that collaborative

conversation between the department heads of what are the highest priorities compared to what we have as resources as well what city council the planning commission and other boards and commissions PRAB comes to mind of what their priorities are as well if you look at the draft basically revision on that was presented to you the police parking garage is sort of being deferred that is a potential we are hoping to hear back from a grant that we submitted to congress specifically an economic development initiative also known as an earmark if those funds come in prior to the budget being proposed then we would go ahead and actually keep that in line for FY26 hence there's that resource therefore

we can make that priority happen if not then you start competing against other priorities and potentially try to defer that not delete it but defer that back and again try to rebalance and reallocate in the out years if need be I understand that and I think it's a good process one of the questions that we have just been asked by Mr. Napty is to prioritize what we feel is the most important part of the elements in the CIP so that we would think that these are the things that we would the Planning Commission would think should be looked at first one of the things we don't think about is that each one of us is a resident of the city and all of this costs money and if you're going to pay for these

projects in the way we have changed financially over the years residential is paying more than commercial at this point in carrying the workload so every time we say pay for this and this and this and this what we're saying is my back pocket is feeling flush here take this from me and use it to do this stuff so all of the things we do have a personal relationship as well as a relationship to everybody in the city the more we spend the more we have to pay for and we're the ones that are going to pay for it so I think in the communication process of saying how do we prioritize some of those discussions we had and the decisions will be left with you you know the city manager and and you and the

council to make those decisions but it informs our decisions when we have those kind of discussions to know what we're recommending what is what is gaining priority what is not and whether we're so flush that we can say hey 83 million no problem or wow 56 million is that still doable or if affordable housing is the thing am I going to raise taxes on the lowest end of the population and create that many more people who need affordable housing right so it's all a balancing act and getting to an ultimate goal so I appreciate the things that have gone on and I think we've got a well put together CIP the debt service aspect is one of the things that I think would be a priority for us to look at and say

are we staying fiscally responsible as opposed to saying unlike the federal government who is willing to pay for our present with our children's future are we going to stay more conservative and keep us in balance to keep that triple A bond rating not overreach recognizing we can't have everything we want and I think you're absolutely correct I think the key word there was balance trying to balance the priorities with the resources ultimately with the planning commission and other boards and commissions are recommending along with my recommendation to the city manager and then ultimately city council as well and if I could really quickly try to balance not only within what projects have gotten

funded in the past so I'll try to make a case here of sort of our thought process and discussions with the previous deputy city manager Val Marie the current acting city manager Melanie Zipp where specifically in parks and recreation parks and recreation has Willard Sherwood sort of still going on that's about 60 million dollars over the course of its life as an initial investment Thias Park was just approved that's about 11 million dollars so those are two big projects just within the parks domain so trying to potentially pause and defer on Van Dyke for a couple of years and then balance that to other area or other departments may seem beneficial of note and I heard you say kind of earlier so

previously Van Dyke was appropriated two million dollars via ARPA funds in FY23 that's sort of still sitting there in discussions with Stacy Summerfield the director of parks and recreation she feels that that two million is enough to carry for the next two years free up a little bit of capacity specifically in public works and the project managers to start focusing more on Van Dyke as well and so more funding can come via the CIP as designated there okay yeah there were there were I think at least five major projects that were looking to be funded in this year the police vehicle garage fire station three Sherwood Van Dyke and the property yard and those are all important projects but what can

we do reasonably is getting us back into our prioritization discussion so thank you sure so what is your priority all of the above one of my concerns is just the capacity of the city again this is a city council concern and the city management concern about the capacity to actually carry these out not to mention the residential capacity the residents capacity to pay for it but that's what's making this particularly difficult here considering the magnitude of the growth even in the reduced case general fund expenditures ! projected expenditures is 5% increase over what's proposed adopted for fiscal 25 it's an improvement from the 156% previously but the question is do we really have the capacity

again it makes it hard for us to prioritize but we can still focus on the big things others you asked what was my priority one do the public safety agencies have what they need to operate on a daily basis so that we have adequate public safety available in police in fire in sewage and sanitation to see that the basic infrastructure and protective structure is functional then do we have the additional people that we need which is not really CIP but adequate staff the functions we have to keep it in balance next do we have the things that we need to keep the city a place that we would all like to live aside from the Davies and some of us who've lived here for a long time there are people with young

children in schools that would like to keep this a viable community by having great schools so communicating with the schools to see that they have the essential needs they have for improvement when it gets to a 220 million dollar bond issue with no meat on the bone if you will that raises a big question mark for me as opposed to saying this is what we need and this is what we're going to do with it and that to me is much more important so it surprises me but I'm an old guy that we would vote for here's the big box fill it with whatever you need as opposed to here's all the stuff we need how do we fit it into the box and that's that's a challenge that I have with understanding the changing priorities

in the city but what do we have in capital improvement which goes to updating facilities that are getting old and becoming unsafe do we understand enough of what they are to deal with the safety concern there and that falls back into those are the core priorities and beyond that what do we have in the capability to reach out and make it better and the tax ability to fund those things should be balanced with the entire budget and kept in an affordability standpoint recognizing that you know these may be the best of times but when you wake up and they turn out to be the worst of times you can survive it and that's where we we go so we keep it in balance and that was the operative word and you caught

on with that so keep it balanced those are my essential priorities working down and then there are programs we've talked about roads improving what's in the small area plans for the basic core things to keep them moving toward the future that the vision has laid out understood commissioner and I will say that in discussions again with the acting city manager Melanie zip some of the public safety department heads as well I'll sum it up as life safety and security from an operational standpoint is paramount for us on an operational daily basis as well so that's what we want to focus on fund replacement costs on apparatuses for the fire station fund for any vehicles that are need replacement try not to

defer those for the police department or the fire department or even public works as well those are the big ones and then again the key word trying to balance between all the departments their needs and their priorities as well as listed in part of the biggest expense upcoming in the next few years is the property yard where about a third or a quarter of all city workers actually work at and has not had any significant investment in probably 50 plus years I know they've had the firing range which is a public safety aspect there that is probably the newest nicest thing that's gone there but everything else has sort of just been patched for the last couple of decades and when we look at a property

we apparently acquired in 23 but may take possession of in 26 27 the other county property yard West drive over on West drive then that falls into the planning aspect of the property yard for how do we keep the facility moving forward in an efficient way so that as the adjustments are made they're made in an orderly manner and keep those services up to a high level where we have them yes sir so that's that's the and by the way pages five six seven in the CIP I think it's excellent reading for anybody it's the CIP review team who all participates in making this process work page six urgency readiness phasing and questions that's how we go about this process and that's imperative for us to be playing

in as I would see it and then page seven is a good overview of how it should work and moving it forward so you've got excellent guidance out in the CIP for us to work with so thank you it's a good document it's just when it gets into odd budget numbers and crazy questions on occasion thank you Mr. Chair if I can make a recommendation for the Planning Commission sort of statement to the City Council not that we shouldn't get down into specific projects that align with the comprehensive plan I get why that's important but perhaps we should open by speaking to the need for the importance of the feasibility studies the prioritization studies the long-term capital studies because the sense I got from

the initial SIP briefing was like a real sense of urgency these are all hair fires we have to put them out now and they all landed squarely in FY26 right and not to say that they aren't real problems but when you approach them from that way you end up as Commissioner Cunningham pointed out kind of throwing good money after bad right buying new police vehicles without a garage to put them in patching a property guard that we're only going to be the school bond rather we understand tactically based on the assessments of the buildings what's wrong with them but there's a usefulness aspect that you're obviously the city is obviously looking to get community engagement in as well to make sure that

again not throwing good money after something that won't be usable 10 years in the future so as the voice of planning and as the voice of the comprehensive plan sort of preface by saying we understand there's hair fires but we'd like to recommend staying the course with these strategic thoughts very thoughtful yes thank you others Mr. Rice any thoughts Mr. Coleman when I was looking at this myself I started drafting some kind of words trying to think we might put some projects under it the context you set maybe is that we don't have to quite do that but I sort of caught some thoughts that still capture the higher level things that we continue to talk about and maybe we need to capture some of

the urgency thing comments that you've said too and the feasibility schools continue to be important there may be competition coming soon for city resources for funding our curriculum improvements and enhancements and contracts which are essential for high quality education that we want to provide and the facilities that we need to provide them in that they need to be safe they need to be modern and so forth so at the same time doing a routine maintenance to keep things going as Mr. Cunningham alluded to in our public safety area it's the same thing for education but we can't be the we're not the body to probably make those kind of judgments at this point we can highlight the needs and the importance

and the importance we see the importance that's reflected in the comprehensive plan in all these areas projects to improve and expand major city facilities that support these essential services community needs stayed the course where we've committed is a good strategy we're not going to back out from the Willard Sherwood Center at this point I think at the same time we're seeing a convergence of some very high priority projects understanding and doing some of the priorities the feasibility studies that are driving some of these we've talked about a property yard feasibility study we haven't seen the results of that but we're showing huge amounts of money in the out years budget let's make sure

that we complete the work and make sure we have a really well planned enhancement based on that study I don't think we can count on West Drive as becoming our future property yard there are other uses that the city has contemplated for that so parks and open space potential site for future school so we may have to live and adapt what we have elsewhere in the city for the facilities but let's complete the study fire station 3 we've started that process does the timing warrant the pace that's anticipated here the police garage we're already contemplating a different pace to do that I don't know what these needs are but it's important to understand when we have to make difficult finance decisions

well the council does the things that are on our minds but continue to enhance and provide those services public safety very critical you did talk about somewhere along the way external funding sources I think we need to continue to emphasize the importance of going after those public private partnerships have been brought up in the past for some facilities such as parks grants as we've received for the tree program for example other things out there like that are going to be key to helping us meet some of these needs so part of its additional effort perhaps on the part of staff to identify more and more opportunities the creation of the parks foundation I think was a key step to looking for external

funding for things like this environmental and sustainability initiatives there may be opportunity out there earmarks as you talked about we need to be aggressive at looking for those these are all important and maybe the projects we have bring them important enough that they'll get passed and funded but which one or two we might pick and choose it's probably a bigger thing so let's I think the approach that Ms. Lockhart laid out is important and the thing that we've talked about it virtually every year pedestrian safety bicyclist safety in the city continues to be more and more of a concern as more and more cars go through here if the area we need to stay the course I'm not sure there's any

specific project that we can pick here or there there are sidewalk specific sidewalk projects that are out there that may enhance that but you know things that we can do to keep our people safe on the on the streets get them off the streets sometimes with good trails systems I think are important and they provide recreation opportunities as well so trying to bring together multiple needs is also a good thing to help set priorities if we can bring together recreational opportunity of a trail with a transportation opportunity provide connectivity into and through the city and provide connections to our businesses so that they might be enhanced and thrive those are probably good projects you know

things that we can get a lot of bang for the buck so how do we identify what some of those are trails in some cases we've talked about this already can meet some of those needs as well so I think it's difficult this year in particular considering the magnitude of the increase not knowing for sure still what the capacity of the city will be to fund some of these this is a year where it might be nice to have a better sense of where the council is willing to go on budget to drive the CIP instead of trying to make decisions on the CIP before we have determined the will of the council in terms of what they're going to ask to be paid for it's just this year it just seems backwards and maybe for good reason

maybe it'll make our new council do a little harder work but it makes our work harder too at this point I'm not sure if that's helpful but those are my musings I see a head nod here or there I don't think we've managed to do what we hope to do all OPM I wouldn't say that I think generally what I'm hearing is a desire to provide recommendations that are more general targeting council in a certain direction as they think about these things as opposed to calling out specific projects which is something we've done in the past we've done a mix before but if you want I can read through what I have here and if we want to proceed with this I can send you this full email list and we might say maybe we

don't need quite as many things or these two should be combined or something like that but for the most part what I've written has been general conversations about what priorities are how we should go about thinking about this as opposed to specifically identifying projects and seems to me that's what you're trying to convey what do you think all can we do 56 million if council so choose it I'm assuming we can what what's the implication on the tax rate because when I look at the rest of the budget pages it looks like most of the budget projections are fairly stable in fact they're hair down from last year moving across and so you've got stability going across all of the budget projections and yet

you've got instability coming in the CIP which means that something's got to give some place if we're going to stay within the total parameter so that's the reason that I would ask that question I did have one question maybe before you answer that the ones we're looking at here are general fund and that's probably a good place to focus does that include debt financing money that goes into the general fund from debt or how does that work no so the projects that were listed here are general fund but they're not debt financing is not listed in here so we have a plan of finance a generic general plan of finance we're actually on the process of doing our second tranche or second debt issuance probably

within the next month or so 30 days 45 days about $54 million that was on the previous approved CIP up to 2028 2028 of about $300 million so currently we do about 40% pay go meaning 40% is over the course of the five or six years of the CIP is paid with cash anywhere between $10 to $14 million transfer from the general fund to CIP projects is cash the remaining balance about 60% is debt finance but it's not all at once so for the example of the school bond we won't pull $220 million all at once we'll phase that as we need it very similar to here some of these projects they need money for design for engineering for feasibility but that's kind of relatively small until you get into construction

construction is where you really burn through a lot of this cash so we'll try to time it and that's sort of what you see here at the fire station and some of these other properties and discussions with public works and their project managers is like no we're a little behind on our gantt chart of where we think we're going to be we can push it back a little bit and not need that debt financing until year two year three year four from now so we'll go and talk to Davenport our financial advisors go talk to the rating agencies and any potential debt issuers who can finance some of this debt at a later time so to Commissioner Cunningham's point regarding the 56 million we don't need 56 million dollars

right now so the CIP we will work through this and you're looking at interest and principal payment of about 2.5 million dollars per year so we would plan that out going forward of we need to cover x number of revenue whether that's just appreciation economic development or a real estate tax rate increase to ensure that we can cover that two and a half million dollars of principal and interest payments for the next number of years answer your question okay you've got six million dollars in debt that's going to be paid off on the debt page that you have in the CIP is that going to be paid off with cash or is that going to be refinanced I'm hoping that is going to be paid off with cash that's the

process that we're in right now it's 6.5 million dollars that we're trying to see if we can cover it in FY26 because I do not want to refinance debt that's in my mind these are my words it's like using a credit card to pay off another credit card and that is not good financial practice I that's right that's right okay did you have more or what do you want me to read through the notes I took on how we're going to start a list of comments and we can wheel it down from there might be helpful to summarize them okay well I think I'll start with Commissioner Lockhart because that sounded kind of like an opening statement but said make statements about fortidation of feasibility studies to make sure

that funds are being used thoughtfully and then going through topics we have that general question do public safety agencies have what they need to operate do we have adequate well the staff part is more is kind of outside of the tip issue do schools have what they need for improvements do we know what facilities are becoming unsafe priority should be placed on making these situations better support for small year plan transportation networks some of these might be duplicative so we'll work on wheeling them down schools continue to be important even as other competing demands arise projects to expand and improve existing facilities are important state of course once projects begin let's make sure

we use the feasibility study to properly guide the property yard project in terms of next steps does the timing of the fire station 3 project warrant its pace environmental projects continue to be important pedestrian and bicycle safety continue to be important also important to focus on projects that serve multiple purposes such as transportation and recreation through trails projects and the last one I couldn't read my own handwriting continue to emphasize importance of external funding sources not just transportation projects but including other grants things like the park foundation as well as public private partnerships did you mention the sewer system no I see under the first under public

safety as Commissioner Cunningham was reading those he combined sewer with public safety but that is something that we should also identify as a separate item stormwater and wastewater management separately funded enterprises yes right we generally and are self-funded and what I recall looking at them they're pretty stable year on year as well I think the program they have in place is quite rateable in terms of maintenance and enhancements were required so yeah those we tend not to come in I like some of the technology infrastructure as well but those tend to be relatively smaller anyway some are funded in other ways but we can offline do some more massaging of these yeah as we prepare these

we will I know there's some that overlap with each other so we will consolidate them and then when you receive the list we can move them around and if you have some written words that you put together please share them I'll share mine back out too as well that would be great as well yes any else nope okay all right we will reconvene our regular meeting and go to the staff report thank you again chair feather and members of the planning commission for tomorrow night city council meeting the one work session item we have will be the presentation you received tonight on the potential zoning text amendments related to smaller plans this will be also an introduction to them we'll spend a little more

time with them giving them some background as city council general has not been involved with this as a planning commission but also with the new city council we're trying to bring them up to 6pm followed by reception on january 28th they will receive the presentation on the davies proposal that you received tonight some other items of interest that night will be an update on the green building policy the planning commission received an update on this in october I think there have been some changes since then then heading to February 4th they will reschedule for them to receive the presentation from the planning commission on the CIP we're also potentially going to give them a brief introduction

to the implementation guides because at your next meeting you'll also be talking about your annual report including implementation guide updates to city council and we see this as an opportunity to give them a background on that they have several other work sessions that night they'll be receiving a presentation on the accessory dwelling units potential zoning last had a work session on this over the summer there have been some updates but this is primarily to bring the new city council up to speed on that project they'll receive a pre-application work session on a proposal what they're calling the ox block B this is the former enterprise center on university drive proposals for residential with

ground floor retail and it looks like the application will be a ! planning commission is not receiving this presentation they will also receive a or scheduled to have a post application work session on the gatewood plaza proposal this is office building on Fairfax Boulevard city planning commission is scheduled to have that work session at your next meeting on january 27 more about january 27 your next meeting we will have our public hearing on the capital improvement program I mentioned the gatewood plaza proposal you will receive a presentation on the planning commission annual report and implementation guides assuming these are ready to go then we can discuss them with the city council when you

meet with them on February 4th there are three other potential pre-application briefings that you may be having on 27th or shortly after that there is a proposal for a conglomeration of properties in the site south of the block A proposal and the block bounded by University Drive and Chambers Road and Sager Avenue and Armstrong Street this is actually one property removed from the Davies property to the north there's a proposal there for mixed use development the far property on Main Street there is a proposal for that site to be used as a hotel and conference center while preserving the existing bar house and there is an incoming proposal for the redevelopment of the Fairfax Circle Shopping

Center this is something that was discussed somewhat as we were developing the Fairfax Circle Smaller Year Plan so we have expected that for quite some time last thing I wanted to question is that some of you may be having issues with your city emails or otherwise getting information from us so if you have any concerns about that please let me know he received support from our IT department to make sure everything is functioning properly so if we need to do that with anyone else then we are happy to do so so that's it for us today looking forward to working with you all in the new year any questions for Mr. Napoli the other thing we talked about some of you folks may prefer to use personal emails

I don't think there's a prohibition against that but just be aware if there's a freedom of information request that ever comes in that they want to know where your city business is it's on your personal email they'll be in your personal email so maybe some incentive from your personal standpoint to consider focusing on your city email and keeping things separate but that's apparently a personal choice I don't think of the requirement on the part of the city I personally use my city email for virtually everything it's easy to include a disclosure he has a signature line as well which looks really official if nothing else but anyway if you have any questions on that talk to Mr. Napty or Ms. Jillian

I'm sure she can work with you on your preferred mode of communication all right oh yeah don't forget your disclosure we've been requested by the deputy city clerk to complete those and file them by basically the end of the month I've got mine here I was going to give it to Tina to give to her but I'll just bring it when I meet with you tomorrow and drop it off so okay commission comments Ms. Briggs anything Mr. Hatton the bar meets this week yeah Mr. Cunningham welcome to the new year congratulations to our continuing chair and vice chair thank you very much for your leadership in the past we look forward to it continuing Mr. Rice I attended a Parks and Recreation advisory board meeting on the

8th and it was a long one we talked about a lot of different projects the Parks and Recreation Department has complex large projects that are simultaneous ongoing with a lot of money at stake so they've benefited from the help of a public works project management professional and keeping everything going as part of multiple big projects at once there's some kind of shuffling of space old town hall will be offline for approximately 18 months while some renovations are done some activities may shift to some other sites in the city as you heard a little bit there's already some shuffling of kind of vehicles to various places weather related comment about police vehicles but more city vehicles being

placed in other areas so amongst all the projects and things going on my request to to private the last meeting was to try to articulate what they would like us to recommend and emphasize and we reviewed the past recommendations that we've made and always had support for parks specifically for the Parks and Rec Advisory Board the Van Dyke Master Plan and its implementation is critical it's a really important location within the city heavily used it kind of forms the northern part of a spine that's continuous all the way from city hall all the way up through you know Daniel's Run St. Leo's and so forth the park is just really important it's also inherently tied to all the things happening with

Willard Sherwood redevelopment so there may be some senior center activities which now happen outside of green acres which may be partially deployed to Van Dyke and so our support for that is their request and so sorry yeah yeah there are some things that's very specific we won't perhaps name specific sports or European ball games that they tend to play a lot outside but generally the importance of Van Dyke is quite clear I think to most of us that kind of it is a critical kind of note at the top of an activity corridor and so I think that was the request Willard Sherwood is it a 50% design place I think that indicates even though we joked about pulling back we're not going to pull back once it

reaches a certain phase we're fully committed we go forward and I think in the same vein supporting other projects that are well on the way perhaps things like the Eaton Place redesign we just shouldn't be undercutting funding and progress on projects that have had years and years and years of support and where we've already outlaid hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars in design and engineering and feasibility and then undercutting just seems sort of silly that's a personal view the next Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting will be toward the beginning of February and it'll fall after our joint meeting with City Council so that's all I have thanks that's plenty thank you

Mr. Coleman for the facade interior program we had Senberry withdraw their application so we actually are looking to we're looking at some other options to replace those funds so that was the one update from that good to see everybody for the new year and I just wanted to commend the city employees for doing a phenomenal job with the snow removal I had the privilege of traversing plenty of Fairfax County in Arlington and they did not touch the city so I just want to give a shout out to them that's it good thank you not much from me at this point I attended the city council retreat on Saturday for the session that was presented by community development planning well represented by Mr. Harden Mr. Napty

and Mr. Sutphin so I wanted to hear what the council was hearing it was well done well presentation it covered the whole range of things from planning to zoning to development and so forth so met another face to face another one or at least one of our new city council members so looking forward to planning some discussions with them so I would like to do some maybe two on two conversations with them to talk about planning commission so I'll see what we can get set up other than that nothing else so with that we are adjourned thank you