City Council Special Meeting and Work Session

Paul Nabtistaffis a negotiation process where we are trying to achieve the benefits to the community that are the small area plans through the development process where we don't have any standards that make this consistent in addition there are also recommendations in the smaller plans that may conflict with the regulations in our zoning ordinance and so we have conflicts we have to work through as well the comprehensive plan has an action that suggests that we regularly review the zoning ordinance to ensure it supports the future land use map and other guidance from the comprehensive of plan and smaller plans so this was a genesis for this project starting with the intent of removing the majority of the conflicts between the zoning ordinance and adopted smaller plans

very different characteristics. The last item on the bottom here is a standard for consolidation. This is something that is not specifically identified in the small area plans but we heard a lot of feedback during our earlier phases of this project about a desire to encourage property owners to consolidate before proceeding with redevelopment. So there is A UNIQUE BONUS DENSITY CALCULATION YOU'LL SEE IN THERE FOR CONSOLIDATION. THAT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY CONSOLIDATION THAT HAPPENS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATA OF THIS ORDINANCE. SO IT'S TRYING TO ENCOURAGE NEW CONSOLIDATION. AND AN APPLENT COULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL DENSITY BASED DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THEY'RE ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE.

up. So before we wrap this up, I wanted to mention the comments that we received last time we were with you back in the spring. We were raising concerns about what would happen if we went back and changed our small area plans and how this would impact any types of zoning ordinance amendments that are related to them. And we do expect that we will be reviewing our small area plans and making some changes. So this is something we need to be ready for. Here we have listed all the topics that are in the proposed draft. And the items that are in red is where we may have or we would expect to have little to no impact if the smaller plans are to change. Items in green are where we could have some impact.

However in each of these cases we expect that we could make amendments to accommodate those impacts. So for example, looking at dimensional standards, if we review the smaller plans and decided to change the height recommendations in some locations, these amendments are setting up a structure for those heights to be defined. If we wanted to change that in the future, we could amend the zoning ordinance and really just change the maps or the numbers and not have to change the whole structure. And I also wanted to point out the item on the bottom. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT IS THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SMALL AREA PLANS COMBINED. AND THIS RELATES TO THIS COULD BE

Stacy HallI know understand it's unrelated but it's not in my head the height bonuses I get very concerned about those because I think that you open a window and I think then the door just goes wide open. And I saw, unfortunately my laptop died, but I think it was in the North Fax area, it showed seven stories. And I think in the Old Town area, it was limited to six. And then in the Fairfax Circle, I think it was nine. Where are we currently with, are any of the maximum heights in that area, those small area plans, are any of those currently being met with what that maximum is?

Paul NabtistaffAnd so a typical process in most of our zoning districts is that there would be a special exception. If somebody wants to propose a building that's taller than what's allowed on zoning warrants, they request a special exception, and it goes with the rest of the package of their amendments. In the case of this district, instead, we would have this alternative compliance process, and the district has specific standards for how they request that that are different from the special exception process and that they have to explain why they are seeking this alternative compliance why it makes their proposal more inconsistent with the small area plans and that type of thing so it's something we accommodate in most of our districts through a different process

Thomas Petersonin that same period, almost four times the rate of population and four times the rate of household estimated growth. And that number puts us at where we otherwise would expect it to be by 2030, so we're way ahead of schedule. And then in addition to that, my understanding is the small area plans are the translation of that forward is about another 4,000 units in the next 10 years, which puts us numerically 50 in terms of where our population and household growth would be. So we are, again, way, way past the growth rates for our population and household with our actual units and proposing to add more. And on top of that, there's an unanswered question about the translation of the maps for the small area plans after that

period of time. And that's a little bit unclear, but the estimates that have come in is that that could as much as double the city's population. And so I think it's not a surprise that we're hearing so much concern from the community about the level, the volume of new high-density development coming in the city and where that is projected to go. It would seem to me that that would be one of the top issues that ought to be re-examined in the review of the small area plans to try to recalibrate all of this. and based on this history alone, we have on top of it, though, now the decline in population. We've seen this last year, and that may hold for a good stretch, and we've seen a decline in employment, which also is expected to hold for a stretch,

which translate into the last modeling I saw, possibly a 20% reduction in household growth here in the city of Fairfax. So the numbers are not matching, and my concern is that the small area plans are based on assumptions that may not be fitting in terms of where we are with population and household growth. I think the question becomes then, when is our next opportunity to take a second look at that so we can bring alignment between both the small area plans and the zoning ordinances we have to be a little bit more reflective of where we are in terms of household and population growth.

Billy BatesAnd additionally, so going off of that, when we're talking about, say, 300 multifamily units, that's not necessarily the same as 300 single-family homes. And so that's a good point to consider. now thinking about just heights in general since that is sort of part of this Old Town Fairfax for example Old Town particularly Old Town South number of five story and even six story building fronting onto the sidewalk in that area already and Camp Washington right across the city line a couple eight-story buildings right nearby, and then, of course, Fairfax Circle, we have around 12 to 14-story buildings right over the line over there. So thinking about the context, but again, this is based on what's in the small area plans

that have already been adopted, and I do want to note on that note that this is really an exciting time for me as someone who's followed the development of small area plans and development in general since those first small area plans were considered back in 2020 that this is finally coming to fruition in terms of our zoning ordinance because the two have really been kind of out of sync for a number of years and so circling back you know i this is really going in the right direction and And it's really fascinating to see the functionality of how this all works, how this kind of hard codes some of the expectations of the small area plans. And, you know, certainly I understand it's not going to be perfect and that we are perhaps

throughout the activity centers and in different parts of the activity centers and make sure that we're not inadvertently making it more difficult to build certain projects that staff would otherwise see as being in compliance with small area plans. And, you know, so something to consider. You know, and I'm thinking about different ways of looking at this. I know that 48 units per acre makes sense based on the recommendation for sites that are not subject to small area plans and the comprehensive plan. I think that makes sense as a starting point. But maybe we might think about having different base densities for different parts of the activity centers. For example, looking at the Old Town core,

Rachel McQuillenThank you, Mayor. I just want to also echo the sentiments of Councilmember Peterson in regards to the small area plans and zoning alignment and that increase, that 42%. I appreciate your comments, Councilmember Bates, but on the school board, when you see this type of growth so quickly, you really notice how it affects the infrastructure, particularly our tuition rates, because we can estimate that we're only going to have one or two individuals, when in fact, I have seen families or couples with small children that do move into these units, and so that does affect our infrastructure, and so it does it doesn't need to be considered and I too would like to know a little bit more about that and where we are in the numbers for our small area

Stacy HallI think it's making people take a very, very different approach to home ownership or to what type of unit they want to rent. And so to echo what Councilmember McCullen said, I just don't think that it's as easy as, well, it's this many studios or one bedroom, so we're only expecting this. I think we really do have to be using the most accurate data that we have for each of those buildings that are newer now or, you know, a couple years old and see really what we're generating. And I know I've said this before and I will say it again, but correct me if I'm wrong here, but the small area plans were put into consideration and circulation in 2020. Is that correct?

Okay, and just to remind everyone, we had a pandemic then, so I think not that everyone comes out and gives their opinions on everything all the time anyway, but I do wonder if the small area plans are still serving us in the way that we expected them to, and did we get out of them what we wanted? And I think for those who put in the time and the energy and had a vision for it, I think it probably is very accurate. And I applaud those who worked on those. But I do wonder that if we take a step back and we ask the residents now that we see how they look, what kind of development we're expecting in those areas now that we understand exactly what we've signed off onto, are we really seeing what we expected to see as residents here?

Catherine ReadRight, and so the final thing I will say is that not everybody in this city is against high density housing, and I would hope that voters and residents are talking to people on the doors as our candidates are door knocking to ask questions about where they stand on basic development or the small area plans. This is the city's the opportunity to find out because the people sitting here are the ones who make the decisions. So an informed resident and an informed voter means talking to the people who are making these decisions to ask where they stand because you do hear from community members, but there's 26,000 people who live here and there's 18,000 registered voters and we're not hearing from

everyone. So an election year is the opportunity for voters to have these conversations and to let more of the population be heard on how they feel about these big visionary plans that are guiding the future development of the city. I mean, the small area plans, the comprehensive plans, they guide the development that comes here, the people who choose to build things here or not. So people need to understand that who sits on this dais that has an enormous impact. All the planning, all the studies, all of it makes a difference but ultimately it comes down to the votes that are taken here on what does or does not happen so I would encourage the people in this city to talk to the people who are