Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

NaptystaffWe had comments to suggest that we look for alternative funding for school facility improvements. This is, I believe was based on the hope that there would be changes to the state code that allow us to leverage additional resources to fund school facilities. General comments to support stormwater and wastewater projects. There are questions about the timing and scale of the fire station 3 replacement project. There was general support for the West Drive property acquisition project with a statement that these types of opportunities don't come along very often and are limited so we can take advantage of it while we can. There were comments multiple commissioners supported continued investment in the Willard-Sherberg

Kirsten LockhartOkay. obviously we're also talking about the property yard which hosts some emergency management functions that are going to need to be relocated somewhere so you know is there blank space or swing space that maybe some of those can be rolled into the fire station or has that not been put on the table that

Okay. And then my other question is, I've learned recently that there may be some changes to the city's fire station demand signal based on the county actions, namely that three is now the primary station responding to Woodley Chase in addition to George Mason.

Speaker 8yeah i think i can answer that uh the the plan well initially when we were doing the feasibility study uh the feedback we got from bkv our our architect was that at that time which was four years ago it would be at least two million dollars to go to an alternate site if we were to build at our same location so that essentially took that off the table there was really no locations for that which led to us the city purchasing the the foundation building next to us and as part of that was we would remain in our current fire station until the new one was built which which depending on the design the actual architectural design how far it would encroach on our current property but but we would stay in our

building essentially our current current fire station until the new one was built and then we would just transition over so

Paul CunninghamIs there anything additionally, if you're building the new building on the George Mason Foundation site, how much of the existing site is going to be included in the new fire station?

and with working with with the fire department continue to control that site or could it be used then for additional construction next to it either to expand in the future fire station three if you needed more capacity or used to repurpose for other things within the city such as a property yard function or something else

Speaker 8Yeah, so yes, 50-50 on the new fire station. We're on Fire Station 33. our ambulances can drive around and have the drive through bay. Our rescue engine cannot. Our larger fire apparatus cannot. That is something that I spent a lot of time on, making sure in the conceptual design we would not have those issues for a number of different reasons, but the number one factor just being safety. So we made sure all the apparatus would be able to turn and drive through.

James FeatherOkay. Because we are seeing proposals for larger buildings in the city, whether it be approved or not. Another question. I did have a question about Fire Station 33. In Fire Station 3, we'll plan to use the existing facility until the new one is completed. How is 33 handled? because it was done on the same site, so you didn't have that same option.

Speaker 8Yeah, so general response times out of responding in the city have remained somewhat steady across time. What we really look at is what we call turnout time is getting out of the firehouse. You know, once the call is initiated, the tones alert us in the fire station and being able to get out. And as we build fire stations and as we did the conceptual design for station three, that was one of the number one priorities for us was making sure the majority of the living spaces were closest to the bays where the apparatus is so you can respond and turn out very quickly so the majority of the living area day-to-day living area is on the first floor and on and then the second floor would be the bunk rooms and the showers and the locker rooms and things like

that with fire poles so you can quickly access the bays and the current fire station and i don't know to visit and the current fire station there in the back of the building on the second floor so you have to if you're if you're in the bunk room if you're sleeping get up either go through a door pull go through the kitchen out into the bay or go down the stairs and through a couple doors so it's just it's not a I would say it's not up to the today's standards and expectations of being able to turn out rapidly but that that is something in the conceptional design that we paid a lot of attention to.

I think there's potential for that and not necessarily because of the building, but more so the health and safety factors that aren't built into Fire Station 3. And while some have been accommodated to the best we can, they're certainly not up to the standard now. and they certainly are far below where Fire Station 33 is health, safety, and wellness, building mechanisms that we put into place. And so I think that's where the accreditation piece, we may have challenges in the future with the fire station. While I know they were discussed as part of our last cycle last year when our team was in town evaluating us, it was discussed, with the recognition that we were working on a new building we had the

Paul CunninghamThank you. Mine, I guess, is a little more specific, but it relates to other things that are going on in your neighborhood. I believe our transportation plan calls for 28 or 29, which is well within the 40-year window of the redevelopment of some of the road network. South Street, particularly going over into the county courthouse complex and things along that line. That's going to be right next to you and change some of the traffic patterns coming in and going out of the fire station. Is that something that has been looked at and considered for either improving times by not having to go through downtown if you could get around to go west? Or are there impacts that are being looked at with regard to the future construction of transportation arteries that go through this area?

Speaker 8I would say we're constantly evaluating all aspects of our response times and ways we can improve them. As far as the fire station and South Street, I know our traffic engineer and BKV has looked at that. We spent a lot of time looking at all the various options and kind of landed where we're landed at now based on feedback from them. As far as response times in the future and trying to find better ways, we're always trying to do that. And one of the things we've been able to do is preemption, which I don't know if you're familiar with that, but essentially it's GPS and changes the lights, which is huge for us.

NaptystaffWell, in that case, and I can't provide all the details of how that study has progressed. But with any of these, there is just after a feasibility study is done, the next step is usually figuring out where should we do what we need to do. And that was the case with Fire Station 3. You guys looked at alternative sites and ultimately landed on where they landed. And that was a part of the property yard study as well. And my understanding is that they had identified sites throughout the city where they could move some of the

types of functions that are there, recognizing it might not all be in one place. criteria was. I'm assuming that this site did not turn up in that. My guess is they were looking at larger sites, but there may have been some discussions that could have said, well, if, you know, fire station three is moving next door, there'll be a little bit of empty land there. We could have some facilities there, and I know that's not going to be one of the recommendations that I'm aware of, and my guess is because of the size of the site, but that was a, there was a venue for that conversation to happen. It just focused on different criteria.

James FeatherI'd have to go back and think are there items that we discussed last year that have been stopped or are they just been deferred like Van Dyke that was moved Fire Station 3 has been on the table for a long time still conversations we had a great discussion tonight that could strengthen a recommendation for sure. GST, tomorrow night is your opportunity. Others?

me just make one maybe a couple comments you talked about making things better yes we're also talking about preserving capability that's deteriorating as well things with a big dollar things right now are in that category right the fire station the property yard arguably the Willard Sherwood Center we look at the deterioration and the green acres site and and then making things better yes we have community expectations we live in a different world now than when the city was founded and and the expectations are higher for what services and facilities should be made available. Certainly education facilities need to step up. It's not just preserving what we have. Those aren't good enough in today's education environment.

Paul Cunninghamyou've got a new library you've got a new police station you've got a new annex on city hall those were major steps that were made that are functional at the moment they won't be at some time in the future but they're functional at the moment which allows us to go with a community center a fire station a property yard and focus on those kinds of things and then we focus on schools to keep them current and up to date and functional into the future because they're major periodic investments but none of that deals with replacement of sewers or redoing brick sidewalks downtown or all of the other maintenance things that come into the rest of the infrastructure and it says

NaptystaffOkay, so I'm just jotting down notes on what I'm hearing. But, yeah, we'll go back really quick if you want to. I'll focus on the general capital comments and the project comments. But related to what we heard before, support external funding and seek new opportunities for external funding, leverage to deal on properties to offset costs for other projects. We'll talk about some more of that tonight with Fire Station 3. That quote, invest in what makes people want to live here and consider longer-term changes when prioritizing short-term or partial

James FeatherAnd the other half of the revenue generating equation is cost avoidance. well. We talked about potential downsides long term for property yard deterioration and continued deferral of that potential fire station issues. You talked about accreditation, insurance, and so forth. That's the other half of the equation. Let me go back to the other list, if you please. Yes. The next slide was previous here, right? Is that correct?

Tassos McCarthyLockhart made, is there some world where we should make a general recommendation, like when considering the magnitude of some of these large-scale projects, the property yard, the Sherwood Center, the fire station, to not look at those projects in a vacuum and try to be dynamic and consider future needs and cross-functionality, trying to look around the bend as to not be moving three different people through the same office because we didn't really think about what it was going to look like in a couple years. Yep.

NaptystaffTIMING AND SCALE OF FIRE STATION THREE REPLACEMENT WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TONIGHT EXCELLENT DISCUSSION ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THREE PROJECTS MENTIONED HERE the urgent projects so i assume

Anything else on fire station 3? Support for the West Drive property yard acquisition. This was the general statement about these opportunities not coming very often. We should take advantage of it. It's still in the process. I