City Council Regular Meeting

Paul NaptystaffThe Planning Commission received the same letter from the property owner identifying that they were interested in having residential uses on the second floor of the existing building. The Planning Commission discussed this last night and essentially expressed support for on the upper floor of the building. However, they didn't feel the site is consistent with the intent of the mixed-use place type as their evaluation really looked at opportunities for cohesive, consolidated developments. And they felt that the proposal could be considered with a special use permit without having to change the comprehensive plan to include this. So that's kind of a summary of the staff's analysis of the mixed-use place type.

Thomas RossIn terms of the process, assuming that this plan goes forward, would it still be a requirement for a property owner who desires to add some housing into a commercial corridor to apply for a special use permit? is that where you're headed with this or there are several examples as you pointed out that that lend themselves to that including fairfax square and ova and the property on fairfax boulevard um if we proceed as is would they still have to go through a special use permit to gain approval

Right. So they would still be required to go through a special use permit, which would mean a separate process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

So LimCouncilmember Lim. Thank you, Mayor. So I just want to clarify and understand it clearly. So currently if the address, the Fairfax Boulevard, the Baskin-Robbins building owner wishes to have residential on the second floor, he can still apply special use permit. That's right. And what you're recommending on this revised comprehensive plan is for them to still apply special use permit.

You say you recognize two locations. Okay, is the other location, I'm sure you're going to go over it, but the other location is the same scenario. You would recommend them to also apply for special use permit, rather than giving them the right to just go ahead and do the residential in the recognized mixed development area. I would personally like to see the Planning Commission recommend to us to So let's change those locations to let them do a residential on the second floor rather than kind of leaving at the same anyway. They could still apply to SUP, and then your recommendation is for them to still apply.

Featherthings. Neither of these properties probably are talking about second floor residential on top of ground floor commercial uses. The residential on the Fairfax Square site would be elsewhere on the site. It wouldn't be facing the commercial main. On the Inova site, we don't have a plan yet, right? But in that area, the commercial main is Chambers Road, which is where the commercial would be focused, including maintaining the emergency room, as we understand. Residential would face School Street, not a commercial main. George Mason Boulevard, not a commercial main. so and again as Mr. Napdi pointed out this doesn't change the zoning ordinance right now the zoning ordinance still would require the special use permit to do what you're suggesting would require a significant change to the zoning ordinance probably create a whole new zoning district or something just a guess