Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the October 13, 2025 regular meeting of the City of Fairfax Planning Commission. First item of business is to please stand as you are able to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of 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. Next item is consideration for remote participation by Chair Jim Feather, pursuant to Code of Virginia, Section 2.2-3708.3. I move in accordance with the Planning Commission adopted policy that is permitted by Code of Virginia, Section 2.2-3708.3, to approve the request from Chair of the Planning Commission, Mr. James Feather, properly submitted in writing prior to tonight's meeting for remote participation, subject to the requirements outlined in the Planning Commission adopted policy, and applicable in all portions of the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2025.

Second. Second. Second. We have a second by Dr. Rice. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Mr. Feather, Chair Feather, welcome to the meeting. Thank you very much. If it suits you, I'll continue to run through the agenda, but please chime in where you see fit. Please do. Thank you. Please do. All right. Thank you. Next, discussion or adoption of the agenda. Are there any questions or concerns about this week's agenda? Madam Chair, I move the agenda be adopted as presented. We have a motion to adopt. Second. Thank you. All in favor of adoption of the meeting agenda for October 13? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item. Presentations from the public on any matter not calling from a public hearing.

Do we have any presentations this evening? No, we do not. All right. Thank you very much. Moving on next is consideration of our last meeting minutes, which was way back on July 28, 2025. Are there any questions or concerns about the meeting minutes as issued? Madam Chair, I propose that we adopt an approval of the meeting agenda. Do we approve the meeting minutes for July 2025? I'm abstained. Second. All right. All in favor of adoption of the July of, all in favor of adopting the July 28, 2025 meeting minutes as provided. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We have one work session tonight, and it's fortunate that it's just one because it is somewhat detailed, somewhat involved.

So tonight we're talking about various policy considerations regarding potentially allowing detached accessory dwelling units, or ADUs. So the topic of ADUs, it's come up in a few contexts over the past year or so, and one of the policy questions that's arisen in those discussions is whether to permit detached accessory dwelling units. So right now, accessory dwelling units are permitted in Fairfax City, though they must be attached or they must be part of a house. Expanding that to detached units, so essentially units that are in a house's backyard, so that's a policy question, but it's not simply a yes or no question. There's a whole lot of details that go along with allowing detached ADUs,

and it's those details that we're talking about tonight. And the purpose of this meeting is so that staff can receive guidance on whether the commission wishes to continue examining detached ADU standards, and if so, whether the commission has any priorities on those zoning-related details that we'll be talking about tonight, so things such as height or setbacks and so on, because those details are things that would comprise a detached ADU policy or an ADU amendment, which is how we would go through with this process. So, like I mentioned, this is not the first meeting on this topic. We've held a few meetings on ADUs in various amounts of detail. Back in February, we held a work session with City Council where we discussed accessory dwelling units,

and we spent some time as well at that meeting talking about detached ADUs. And at the end of that meeting, Council asked staff to continue work on this topic and specifically to look at some of the details for detached ADUs, detached accessory dwelling units, and asked staff to report on, like it says here, how we would make that work in the city. And that's what we're focusing on tonight, focusing specifically on the details for detached ADUs. Should city policymakers, should the planning commission, should the city council have interest in moving forward on this issue? And what, how does we make this work? What that means is how would we accommodate detached ADUs without negatively impacting neighborhoods?

And that specifically is language from our comprehensive plan, and we'll see that in context in a few slides. But what this really means is looking at different types of standards that would address how detached ADUs could affect neighboring properties or could affect a neighborhood in general. So as you see here, there are physical standards, there are operational standards, there's design type standards, and all of these could be considered should the city choose to pursue detached ADUs. So tonight's presentation is a bit detailed. The ultimate goal is to see whether the commission thinks that the city really ought to continue examining detached ADU standards, and if so, again, what kinds of standards the commission would prioritize.

So we've discussed this before in a meeting, so I'll be brief here, but in the box here we see the actual definition from our zoning ordinance about what an ADU is. And in everyday terms, the definition says that an ADU is a full dwelling unit, that it's part of another house, and that it's subordinate or that it's accessory to the main house. And what that means is that the ADU is significantly smaller than the house itself. And right now our ordinance allows ADUs that are attached to the house. So think of it as an apartment within a house. Tonight we're mostly talking about whether, again, to permit ADUs that are detached in addition to attached units. So basically a small housing unit in another house's yard.

Now one random thing I'll point out now, since the slide is up, at some point during this process, if we move along, we may end up calling these something else besides accessory dwelling units, besides ADUs. And the reason for that is to avoid any kind of confusion with another item in the zoning ordinance that has the same acronym of ADU, which is affordable dwelling unit. But if we think at some point that it's a bit confusing having two separate things with the same acronym, we may end up changing this to another term. But just to give you the heads up, the name may change, but the concept would stay the same. Now a few city documents mention ADUs from a policy standpoint. So for example, the citywide housing assessment, one of that report's recommendations is like it says here,

to expand permissions for accessory dwelling units. And the comprehensive plan, one of the housing actions in the plan, calls for the city to research changes, let's see, research changes to expand opportunities for accessory dwelling units. And this is a key clause right here, while ensuring that they do not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. And we'll get back to that clause, that phrase, a few more times, but that's an important piece from the comprehensive plan. Now before we get into some of the details on things like height and measurements, it's helpful to have some visual examples of detached ADUs. And this slide gives us some idea of what those kind of structures actually look like.

Most ADUs, they're a few hundred square feet. Beyond that, there could be really a great deal of variety. Just looking at these examples, we could see that some of these were clearly built as ADUs. Some were likely converted from other structures. It's not unheard of for ADUs to be built on top of garages, which is why we're showing this example here in the bottom right. Now we're not endorsing any of these as a model for us, but the reason for showing this is just to give a rough idea of what the rest of tonight's discussion really pertains to. And I can flip back to this slide at any time. Now detached ADUs, like those from the last slide. So what that essentially means, again, is allowing property owners

to construct ADU units really in the rear yard of a house. And once again, that brings us to that comprehensive plan language of ensuring that ADUs don't negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. And this is really the big question for tonight. Should Fairfax City allow detached accessory dwelling units? And if city policymakers think no, then we would really keep our existing standards. So allowing ADUs only when they're part of another house. If yes, then we'd need to consider what standards would be most appropriate. And again, that's what city council had asked us to investigate a bit further by saying how could we make this work in the city. So that is really the crux of tonight's discussion.

Now, like everything, there are pluses and minuses to accessory dwelling units. We could really make a presentation just on this topic. But this list here gives a basic overview. Just keep in mind there are some folks who would think that some of these pros are not pros, and there are people who think that some of these cons are not cons. But generally, on the pro side, ADUs, accessory dwelling units, are additional housing units. And if there's a policy of creating as many additional housing units as possible, that could be partially satisfied by accessory dwelling units because they are new housing units, additional housing units. And also, based on their small size, based on the fact that they're in somebody else's house

or at somebody else's house, they tend to be affordable. Now, it's not 100% guaranteed that there would be affordability, but these do tend to be relatively affordable units. Now, like our housing assessment mentioned, if you read through the housing assessment, ADUs can provide housing options to two groups that were especially called out in the housing assessment, who are seniors and college students. And also, that bottom left item, since these units can generate rental income for property owners, this can make money for the homeowner, for the property owner. Now, there are some potential downsides to ADUs as well. These can alter neighborhood character. So, and that's part of the reason why things like physical standards

or things like operational standards tend to be important in crafting ADU legislation. This second point down here is important, especially considering our meeting tonight. Details can make a big difference. ADU legislation, ADU ordinances tend to be very involved, tend to be very detailed heavy, tend to have overlapping standards. And the reason is that these details of height, details of distance from another house and whatnot, really can make that big difference between affecting neighborhood character and not affecting neighborhood character. So, it tends to be something that's very detail intensive. Now, these last two on the right-hand side are interesting because these are things that sometimes folks don't think about.

So, detached accessory dwelling units are expensive to construct. So, if you look at jurisdictions that allow detached ADUs, you tend to see them on properties of houses that are already expensive. So, like it says here, detached ADUs can be kind of a luxury item for homeowners. It's not something that would really be applicable to everyone just on finances alone. And similarly, this bottom point here, rental ADUs, is something that can further monetize the housing market. So, similar in some ways to things like Airbnbs. So, where housing shifts from being just shelter to being an income-producing asset, and that obviously has benefits to the property owner, but it can, in theory, affect home prices themselves when property is considered more than just shelter.

So, a lot going on with this topic. And like I said, really, this question of pros and cons can be its own very lengthy presentation. But we'll move on to get into some of those details. And like I mentioned earlier, ADUs are currently allowed in the city under certain conditions. And we won't go through all of this tonight, but it's helpful to just take a look at what the current standards are. This top one here is the big one. So, ADUs, again, need to be within the home itself right now, so attached rather than detached. And at the bottom here, you see there are also size standards. And this ensures that those units are accessory to the main dwelling or smaller than the main dwelling. So, an ADU currently has to stay under 35% of the total size of the house in square footage

and has to have a maximum of two bedrooms, again, to keep those units small, smaller than the main house. Now, in addition to these, there are some other operational standards for accessory dwelling units that are in our zoning ordinance. And some of them are listed here. So, of particular note, there's a requirement that the property itself must be owner-occupied. So, that means that the property's owner must live in either the house or in the ADU. Now, other standards here represent more operational items from the city's perspective, so detailed things like what happens to ADU approvals when a property transfers and so on. And there's other standards in the ordinance. A lot of this stuff is necessary from a policy perspective, even though it's not terribly exciting to look at or to read about.

But all of this leads us to be able to talk in detail about these detached accessory dwelling units. And we'll focus on potential standards. And it's all potential because this is something that's currently not permitted. And potential standards, again, if city leaders wish to continue examining this as a policy. And a good start for discussing detached ADUs is to look at the standards that the city already has in place for what's called accessory structures. And accessory structures is the term that's used in the zoning ordinance. So, these are structures like what you see here that are already allowed in the yards of houses. So, specifically, we'll focus tonight on standards for larger structures, so like garages.

And the reason for that is that these can be similar in size to an accessory dwelling unit. And there are standards that we have now in the zoning ordinance. Those standards reflect that size and that interaction with both the property and the neighboring properties. So, essentially, these are standards so that these structures, these accessory structures, don't visually or functionally overwhelm the house or overwhelm the neighborhood. So, like it says here at the top, detached garages must have a footprint of no more than 50% of the main house's footprint. And, again, that's to keep those within a visual or functionally appropriate size. So, in addition to that size, there are other standards for accessory structures.

So, again, this is to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. And we'll look at how these standards could pertain to detached ADUs. But, in general, this is a brief overview of our existing standards for accessory structures. So, for example, accessory structure height is currently limited to 12 feet. So, like it says here, when the structure is in a required setback. So, we'll talk about exactly what that means in a few slides. Also, they must be set back a certain distance from property lines. They can't be located in a front yard. You can't have a shed in your front yard or a garage in your front yard. Lot coverage here is an important concept. So, it's both for environmental and for visual considerations.

So, right now, the lot coverage of all of a property's accessory structures can't exceed 30% of the rear and side required yard area. And we'll have a visual of that a little bit later. There are also some basic appearance items as well. So, certain kinds of buildings, and you can see these here at the bottom, are not allowed in residential areas. So, shipping containers, for example, and others. So, what we'll do now is we'll discuss some of these standards in detail. And we'll really focus on how these types of standards could potentially apply to detached ADUs. And then, hopefully, have a discussion later on about what kinds of standards or what kinds of issues commission members might prioritize, again, if the city moves along with allowing detached ADUs.

Yes. If I could just ask this quick scene-setting question. Does staff have an idea of how many properties in the city right now we would even be talking about as possible for creation of one of these structures, given the setback requirements and HOA coverage and all that stuff? Very, very generally. There's about 5,200 or so detached houses and duplex houses, which are the houses that would theoretically be considered for ADUs. I would say about 1,000 of those units are in HOA kind of situations where the HOA requirements would likely preclude it. And it's not just the HOA, but houses that have properties with HOAs tend to have very small yards to begin with. So, if you look at a neighborhood like Great Oaks or like Farcroft, their outside area is so limited, it's almost impossible to build in that area to begin with.

So, backing out that 1,000, I'd say there's about 4,200. I'd say about 500 would probably be constrained in some way or another, either by setback, by small yards, by existing building material, really bumping up against that lot coverage or building coverage requirement. So, I'd say maybe 3,000 to 3,500 housing units. I'm not sure if I might piggyback on that. Is it possible with the great mapping capability we seem to have access to and that to take a look at the city and map where this would be applicable? It's possible to a certain extent. I wouldn't say it would be 100% accurate. There's just so much involved. There's a lot, but neighborhoods like Ardmore, as you've discovered, where you've got duplexes on small lots would not probably be designed for that.

But when we look at Ardmore, you've got, in managing density, you've got a lot on West Street, I believe, in which we approved the construction of six houses on barely an acre of land or less that are right next to each other. And when you're talking ADU structures or structures next to each other, that's what we're putting in. So we're managing density. But areas like the low density, the big yards, and the older houses obviously would qualify. Many of the medium-sized ones, but I don't know how many of the smaller neighborhoods that were denser would have that kind of quality. But I think a visual map, if we could look at yard sizes, in other words, the backyard setbacks there, and just plot it out to give a visual might be useful.

Yeah, we could do something like that. To that end, and if I'm putting the cart ahead of the horse, please stop me. But just in hearing what they're saying, I think there's merit to it. But I think a lot of what that map would look like would depend largely on the levers that we pulled and whether or not we changed what we were allowing or thinking about allowing. Yes, that's definitely true. So to that end, is there some way that we could kind of, and I'm not trying to make it more work, but parse out? My fear, I think we have a huge housing crisis here nationally. It's a big problem. And my guttural reaction to this is we should do it. What I wouldn't want to do is, to their point, thinking about like a Fairchester Woods or something,

most of these probably aren't going to, based on what I see here, my gut tells me they're not going to fit there. And then what you end up with is these nicer, older neighborhoods where in reality, the people that are going to benefit from this are just, you know, the gentry class who are going to be able to put a rental in their backyard as opposed to serving the people that are in most need. So I'd like to see if we did that map maybe. You know, I don't want to do this and not make an impact. So I'd want to be sure that if we were to allow it, we would have the standards be such that it could be impactful. I think the map might help you in making that discrimination or that judgment. Thank you for indulging my sidebar.

I just kind of want to put some boundaries around what we're talking about. If I might chime in, I was thinking about what we've done with the stormwater utility and the great mapping work that's been done to identify impervious surfaces on lots. We could equally, it seems like we should equally be able to look at lots that may be more suitable for this sort of thing as well. So, yeah, the whole mapping thing is a great idea. I'm sure Dr. Rice has, he's probably biting his tongue, chiming in. I think I've been asked a few times here. Frankly, you know, Jason and Amy Lindeni and some of the folks in CDP that are very, very good with GIS, this would be a great project. It would be a good project to oversee.

We're looking at, you know, R1 and R2 and a few R3 properties. And we have a version of this where we try to take a geographic object and see what the largest circle is that we can circumscribe in that object. And so there are algorithms and GIS that are already well-suited to this. And I do think the stormwater impacts are probably big. I know that Patrick and Satoshi have layers that show, in addition to this home structure, that show other things on the property that are impervious. And I think there would need to be some thinking about whether we allow people to add additional impervious or whether they have to build on top of existing impervious. Along with figuring out which lots and the shape of the lots could accommodate an ADU comfortably,

obviously we go to the bad examples. There's one currently trending online in Greenbrier. That's a three-story structure ADU on the side on Marble Lane that's just a very, very bad idea from both an architectural and a square-footage standpoint. I want to make sure that we put in enough guardrails that we avoid things like that. But I think in addition to lot geometry, we would need to look at the parking issue itself, and that would require perhaps limiting ADUs on some curved roads where the, you know, on cul-de-sacs, for instance, where the properties have very little frontage. And if there's no way to accommodate two vehicles in that setting, perhaps, you know, permission from the neighbors or some approval process that's the neighborhood-wide

that would allow that to accommodate for the impact that they'd have. I agree with my new colleague here that the housing issues are fairly critical, and so we should consider everything. Doing sort of a look at lessons learned from other municipalities that are ahead of us and figuring out how to avoid the worst impacts would be, I think, important as well. Thanks. Okay. It's a good stopping point because we're moving right here into some of the detailed aspects of this, and one of the important aspects to understanding the whole rest of the presentation here is the concept of required yards, and this is something that's known in our zoning, it's described in our zoning ordinance, and required yards are the part of a property's yard that is required to be open and unobstructed,

which is the phrase from the zoning ordinance, and in this context we're looking at side and rear required yards. We're not thinking about the front yard. So required yards must be open and unobstructed, but, you know, if you know anything about the zoning ordinance, you know that there's always exceptions, and then there's exceptions to the exceptions. And in this case there's a whole section of the zoning ordinance that's called permitted encroachments, and this enumerates what can actually be in these required yards. So required yards must be open except for what is in the permitted encroachments table, and that includes some big things. So it includes accessory structures with limitations, and includes lots of little things,

so decks, flagpoles, bay windows that stick out from the side of a house, flagpoles, I mean, everything that you can walkways, everything that you can think of there. So those required yards, they differ by zoning districts, so here's what our rear and side required yards look like in our single-family districts. All three of them have a required rear yard of 25 feet, so that's 25 feet from the rear property line. The required side yards are 10 feet to 12 feet in RH and RM districts and 15 feet in RL. So this just gives kind of an idea of what we're talking about by the concept of required yards. And the real-world application of this is that accessory structures, so think of garages right now, accessory structures are limited to 12 feet in height

if they're located in this green portion here, if they're located in that required yard. But an accessory structure, so like a garage or a cottage or something, is limited to 12 feet or can be as tall as a house itself. So up to 35 feet, for instance, if it's not in one of those required yards, so if it's in the unshaded portion of the image here. Another thing to add is there are no accessory structures permitted within 5 feet of a lot line. So a garage cannot be built within 5 feet of a lot line, for instance. And the reason for this is to help neighborhood compatibility. It keeps taller structures away from lot lines. So with that explanation out of the way, we can devote kind of the rest of the presentation

to looking specifically at options for potential detached ADU standards. This is just one of the – this is a definition that really just requires some additional scrutiny because it's not something that's commonly known. So we're not recommending specifics here. Again, you know, really the intent is to get guidance from the commission about priorities or things to focus on if we move along here. And so we'll start with the big three physical standards, so setbacks, heights, and square footage. And again, I'm providing an overview here about how these standards could apply to detached ADUs. And, you know, again, hopefully it can inform the commission's discussion. Right now, like I mentioned, we have a five-foot setback for accessory structures.

So any structure that's the size of an ADU needs to be set back at least five feet from a lot line, and that's that area shown in red there. Now, some ADU ordinances, if you look around at other ordinances, also have a required separation from the main house. And this is probably for a visual preference reason. It's not a building code requirement, but just for the purpose of illustration, 10 feet is shown here in that tan color, so 10 feet from the house itself. And the reason to do this is to come up with a hypothetical scenario, so just based on setbacks, not based on any other criteria, just setbacks. So an ADU, if you see here, could go anywhere within this unshaded area. So it could go here at the back, at the other side, could go in the middle of the yard, and so on.

So, yes, well, as long as it's under 12 feet, if it's within that required yard. But this isn't looking at height. We're just looking at setbacks here, so just that theoretical setback. Lots of options for an ADU based on setback and based on this yard size. So just gives an indication of, you know, the setback requirements. And most detached ADU ordinances have setbacks of some kind. So like it says here, 5 feet or 10 feet tend to be the common standards from going from a lot line. It's not unusual to see ADU ordinances where the setback varies based on a structure's height. So we have that 12-foot requirement in a required yard, so that kind of thing, or something in addition to that, or even something based on design characteristics.

It's not unusual at all to see that height vary by location on a lot. So setbacks are important, and height is also important, and that's what we'll talk about next. Is there a fire department consideration for spacing between the house and the ADU? There is actually not. So an ADU, theoretically, a detached ADU could actually be attached to the house physically, you know, without movement between the two structures. Or it could be 2 feet away from the house, could be 5 feet away from the house. So there is no code requirement for building separation. So measuring a building's height, and this could be somewhat complex. I will try to make this as understandable as possible. It's one of those things that seems like it would be easy, but it's not.

But like it says here, so in our ordinance now, accessory structures, when they're located in a required yard, must have a maximum height of 12 feet. So 12 feet is essentially a one-story structure, so that's a good way of orienting that. The complex part is understanding how height is measured. So we'll use this representative garage here as an example of how height is measured. And again, the garage is a size that's similar to what an ADU would be. So generally speaking, height is measured at the midpoint between the eaves and the highest ridge point. So that 12-foot mark is actually not at the peak of the roof. It's between the eaves and the ridge point, and here's what that means. This shows the eaves.

So the eaves are the underside of the roof. And this here is the ridge, so the ridge being the peak of the roof, and the midpoint is exactly in between them. So that is how, in the zoning ordinance, that is how height is measured with a peaked roof. Now that's how height is measured with a peaked roof on a flat lot. So if you look at this example, you'll see that this lot isn't flat, and most properties aren't flat. So if this is eyebrow-raising a little bit, then the next part is even more so. So you can see here the ground slopes up from the front of the garage. So how height is calculated in that kind of scenario is by taking another midpoint. So here's a cross-section of a structure where the ground slopes from one side to the other.

And this time, the midpoint is that midpoint in elevation. So in reality, height is measured from that midpoint between the eaves and the peak of the roof, and then is measured like that red arrow shows here by the other midpoint from the ground to the top. So I know this is more detail than anyone wants to deal with unless you want to work in a zoning office, and you might be qualified to work in a zoning office after this, but there's a reason for this, and this is important, because given the building, given the roof shape, given the way the ground slopes, a building might look considerably taller or considerably shorter than its official measured height. So sometimes you'll have a 12-foot maximum, but somebody will say,

the building that was constructed next to me looks like it's a story and a half tall. And that's because of how the roof is and how the ground slopes. So it does become a little bit counterintuitive how to measure height. People usually think it's from the ground at any one point to the maximum point of the roof, and that's not always the case. Is there any questions on height before we move on? Is there ever something written such as a 12-foot height measured appropriately according to the zoning instructions and no more than a 4-foot delta at any other point in the structure or anything like that? Not quite that. What we do have in some cases is called an angle of bulk plane, which essentially achieves that result,

but it's an angle that's measured from the property line itself. And that is intended to account for something like the peak of a roof going against the property line and cutting off sunlight and that kind of thing. So that kind of thing is possible. It is in our ordinance in a few places. I think we're commercial properties about residential properties or some cases like that. But it is theoretically that's a tool that could be applied if folks think it's important. And any other questions on height? Okay. So when it comes to ADU height considerations, there's a few main questions, and I can flip back to this at the end of the presentation, but boiling down a whole lot of detail just into a very simple question that we can think about,

I think that first question there, are two-story ADUs desirable, or are one-and-a-half-story ADUs desirable, or if so, under what circumstances might they be? Because this tends to be the metric that people use as opposed to a height measurement, two-story or one-and-a-half-story. And whether it's the two-versus-one-story issue or something else, is there an interest in varying height with setbacks? So something along the lines of what Commissioner Lockhart had mentioned, you know, about adjusting height, you know, based on something like bulk plane, or something in addition to the required yards standard. So that is all something that we can think about as we go along. So, for example, on the screen here, the image there of the ADU that's been added to a house's yard

that looks like a one-story ADU. If it's a two-story ADU, it would look something like that. And where in the lot would this really look appropriate? Would it look appropriate at all? And what the considerations would be. So these are all just some considerations related to height and also related to setbacks. So those two things definitely intersect. This does tend to be a big issue. So I think these questions are worth thinking about. And moving on, we can also talk about standards that involve potential size of ADUs. And there's different ways of looking at this in terms of either building footprint or square footage. So size standards are very common in ADU ordinances. And, again, this is something that helps prevent accessory structures from overwhelming the lot or overwhelming the main house.

And, again, helping to maintain that neighborhood character that the comprehensive plan talks about. So when it comes to our current standards for accessory structures, we do have a limitation on footprint. So an accessory structure, so like a garage, for instance, right now, must be under 50% of the footprint of the main house. So this top image here illustrates that kind of scenario in a simple way. You see essentially a one-story ADU and a one-story looking house. So we also have standards regarding the size of ADUs itself, so not just the footprint but the size. Now, remember, right now we permit attached ADUs. So this is something in the ordinance now. It applies to attached ADUs. But ordinances tend to have this for detached units as well.

And what it says is that the ADU must stay under 35% of the house's total square footage or gross floor area. And the reason for that, again, is to maintain that accessory nature of accessory dwellings. So the same thing can be applied to detached ADUs. So the example here on the right, that's a large lot, plenty of room from a setback standpoint, plenty of room from a lot coverage standpoint and whatnot. Now, the footprint standard alone could end up with a very large ADU, and especially if more than one story is permitted because footprint just measures the footprint, so it doesn't measure multiple stories. A floor area standard can ensure that an ADU of this kind of scenario can still be kept to accessory type size.

So like it says here at the bottom, so these standards, so footprint and floor area, they can work together to account for that difference in size of lots or house sizes or multiple stories and whatnot. So we'll see as we go along there's a lot of overlapping standards that seem to be a lot of material, but they each address something specific, and this is a good example of that. So any question as we go on from here? Okay. A final item on physical standards. So the zoning ordinance has standards for lot coverage and for building coverage, so both for accessory structures and for lots in general. So like it says here, for accessory structures. So the total lot coverage for accessory structures must stay under 30% of the combined area of the required rear and side yards.

And what that means in real life, so if you look at this image on the left, so here you see the required side and rear yards of a representative house. So let's say you have an ADU in this yard. There's the ADU. Now let's say you also have a shed, a storage shed. There's the storage shed. These two things combined, these two structures combined, can't exceed 30% of that green shaded area. So the reason for this is to help maintain that neighborhood character of having backyards remain largely open and unobstructed. So making sure that accessory structures don't wind up gobbling up a house's rear yard. All right. Clarification. Yes. Is that even if they are not within the required yard, they still can't cover?

Correct. Okay. Yes. So it doesn't matter if they're in or out. Yes, that's correct. It's still the total. Now there's also building coverage and lot coverage standards that apply in general, so not just to accessory structures. So building coverage, and this applies citywide in all zoning districts. Building coverage includes both the principal and accessory structures, so in the context of a house. The house can't use up above a certain percentage of the lot. Lot coverage is more inclusive, so this includes all impervious areas, so buildings plus driveways, patios, swimming pools, and so on. And you can see the building and lot coverage standards down there at the bottom as well. So again, overlapping standards, each addressing something else that has been considered important.

So those last few slides, they provide a kind of an overview of a bunch of these physical standards, and really the biggest of the physical standards that we currently have for residential properties and for accessory structures. So again, as you can tell, these are all interrelated, each addressing kind of a specific area, but under a common umbrella. And hopefully having kind of a general understanding of these physical standards, hopefully this helps with an approach to looking at detached ADUs. So we can move on now to operational standards as opposed to physical standards, and the first one of these that we can talk about is parking. Parking tends to be a visible issue in communities that are looking at ADU standards.

We already talked about it a little bit. Neighbors tend to be concerned about excess parking loads from ADUs. So this was the case several years ago here in Fairfax City when our current attached ADU standards were written, and that resulted in the standard that you see here. So this is actually in the zoning code. This is one of the standards for accessory dwelling units right now, and it says that for an accessory dwelling unit, no more than two vehicles utilized by residents of the ADU shall be allowed. Now, the way this is written, this is really challenging to enforce. There's no other way about it. Really not the best way to make a parking standard. But that's not saying that parking standards in general should be written off.

So some jurisdictions do have requirements for ADU parking standards. And really, if parking management is a priority, so for the community or for policymakers, then it would make sense to look at parking standards of some kind. There are pluses and minuses regarding ADU parking standards. And generally speaking, the parking standards can address an issue that's raised by the community. So if the community is worried about it, parking standards can ameliorate that concern to a certain extent. On the other side, if you think about an ADU, let's say that's 600 square feet, a homeowner could build a 600 square foot addition onto their house and not have any additional parking requirement at all.

So in that respect, it might be treating an ADU differently than the same amount of square footage or more square footage that's added to a house. On the other hand, if folks think that ADUs are different, then it might be justified. So it's definitely an interesting issue, but it's an issue that comes up frequently and it undoubtedly will be something to discuss if we move along. And to be clear, the current ADU standard, it's just two vehicles on or off street, and you're saying the required parking space is on their physical property. That's correct. The challenge here, the reason that this isn't particularly well written is to enforce this. The city would have to prove that a certain vehicle is used by residents of the ADU.

So that becomes challenging to enforce. So something that requires a physical space that could be used by the ADU is a better way to go about requiring some kind of parking standard for ADUs rather than to focus on the vehicle itself. So there are some other operational standards that regard occupancy. So both are intended, like it says here, to reduce negative impacts to the neighborhood by diminishing the likelihood of having a large-scale rental property. So something like a boarding house and whatnot. So for one, properties that operate ADUs right now, so this is in the city code, those properties must be owner-occupied. So by that, it means that either the house or the ADU has to be occupied by the property owner.

So the reason for that is to eliminate the concern of large-scale rentals that an absentee landlord would create an ADU to get additional rental income or additional occupancy in a housing unit. So another operational standard is that for the purposes of overcrowding, so that is for calculating the maximum number of people who can reside at a property, the house and the ADU are calculated together. And the reason for that is because together they form one property, and ADU is not a subdivision of a property. It is part of the original property, so they're counted together for overcrowding considerations. And again, these standards, they've been put into place to, again, reduce that likelihood for the kind of large-scale rentals that are just not thought to be complementary to a residential neighborhood.

So these are the occupancy standard. If you recall, when we first started talking about this, we had limitations on age and disability for ADU occupants. That's been taken out of the zoning code, so that no longer applies. And now the last issue regarding operational standards. So this is a topic that can really get quite complicated. So we won't go into all of the details about this tonight, but it involves whether an ADU ordinance, a detached ADU ordinance, would deal with the conversion of existing structures to be used as ADUs, and specifically existing structures that do not meet current standards. So they're considered, the technical term for that is to be considered non-conforming. So, for instance, garages that were built very close to the property lines.

And there's a number of these in Fairfax City. There's a number of these in all cities, really, usually built before modern zoning standards, or maybe detached structures that are too tall, and so on. So, you know, really the question here is, you know, would these kind of structures be eligible to be converted to an ADU at all? And if so, under what kind of circumstances? So if you see the image on the left, and these images are not from Fairfax City. I didn't want to single out anyone's house. But imagine this image on the left was in the city because we've got a number of properties that look similar to this. Would one or both of these garages be eligible to be converted into an ADU? You see that they are less than five feet from that property line.

And if we say that ADUs follow the accessory structures standards and can't be closer to the property line than five feet, here we have an existing structure. But converting it to an accessory dwelling unit means an intensification of use. And would that be allowed? Would it be allowed if modifications have to be made to the structure? Could this structure be enlarged, for instance? So there's a lot of considerations that would go into thinking about existing nonconforming structures. So this is just one of the many things that would go into an ADU ordinance, but it's important to think about. And if you've been keeping track from the introductory slides, and maybe you have, you'd know that we have one last topic.

So we're near the end. The last topic is that of design standards or appearance. And, you know, it's interesting because if you look up information about ADUs online, so if you look at construction companies, if you look at planning organizations, you'll usually see very attractive ornamented examples of ADUs. So like the one up here on the top left. In terms of expectations versus reality, these units can just as easily be very plain affairs like the one at the bottom. So sometimes in ADU discussions, the topic of design review comes up. So as in setting standards for what these structures should look like. And staff does not recommend design review for accessory dwelling units. So the reason for that is now here in Fairfax, we have an architectural review board.

But the BAR does not review detached houses. And having a design review for accessory dwelling units but not having that design review for the houses themselves or for additions or for other accessory structures is a bit inconsistent. The houses themselves are much more impactful from a community standpoint. So that would be a big inconsistency that we feel is a little bit tough to justify. Establishing design review for houses themselves would represent a very big policy shift and a very big administrative burden and whatnot. So staff believes that if certain design characteristics are deemed important, that there might be other ways of handling those. So, for example, with dimensional standards, with other kind of physical standards.

So sometimes you see ADU ordinances that can control things like windows overlooking someone else's yard. Or the appearance of a looming structure, you know, again, you know, with something like the bulk plane angle that we had talked about or something like that. Something that can get to appearance but without being design review the way that we think of design review as being. So that was a lot of material. So this is the last of those detailed slides. And what we're really hoping to get here from the commission, again, is whether commission members would, you know, what you think of this topic, the concept of detached ADUs, whether or where to go from here. And what we're really looking at is a very broad continuum.

So a few examples of that continuum are up here on the screen. The city does not have to take this step. We don't have to approve detached ADUs. And, again, by opting not to, like it says here on the left, that we would basically be saying to keep our existing standards of allowing only attached ADUs. So that's that left column that says no. Or we could opt to pursue a zoning amendment that would allow ADUs. And doing so can really take a variety of forms. And those are those green shades of green in the yes column. So like it says here, ranging from a very limited application of detached ADUs. So something like just permitting detached units if they're physically attached to the main house.

Like I had mentioned before, there's no required separation. So a detached ADU could actually be attached to the main house, which would eliminate the visual impression of having a structure in a backyard. Or, you know, like it says here in the middle column here, permit detached ADUs, but not in required yards. So ensuring that they're removed from the property lines. дедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедедеде

garages in the city would be good for detached dwelling units as well, or to go potentially even further by expanding the area, expanding the sizes or expanding other standards for detached ADUs. So I can switch back to this slide in a minute. I just wanted to end with next steps. Again, this is what we're hoping to achieve tonight, just some guidance on these policy issues. And I also want to mention that we'll be holding a work session with city council on this topic in a few weeks as well. And obviously, if staff is asked to continue work on this topic, there will be additional meetings. And as you got a taste of tonight, this is not a quick topic. There's a lot that's involved here. So this will certainly not be the last that we hear of ADUs if we go forward from this.

So I will flip back here, and I'm anxious to hear some opinions from the commission. Sorry, if I could ask one more question. Yeah. There's a requirement in the current ordinance that attached ADUs or the existing ADU requirements have, must have a restroom, must have a kitchen, right, must have plumbing, all that good stuff. Correct. To be an accessory dwelling unit, it has to be a full independent living unit. So we would have to have plumbing facilities, we would have to have a kitchen, we would have to have a bathroom. The challenge of pulling utilities and sewer and water, you know, into various places seems a bit overwhelming. I'm sure that folks will figure out how to do it if it's an income generator.

But can you, even if it's not a prepared set of comments, can you tell me just a little bit about where our neighboring jurisdictions seem to be on this particular issue? So in Northern Virginia, the two jurisdictions that have had detached ADUs for longest have been Arlington and Alexandria. And I believe it was 2019 and 2021 respectively where those jurisdictions permitted detached ADUs. Fairfax County does not accept on properties over two acres. So that's essentially does not because that's a tiny proportion of the county. City of Falls Church enacted an ADU ordinance this past year. Town of Herndon and town of Herndon has a ADU ordinance. Town of Leesburg has an ADU ordinance. I believe that Loudoun County does, though it's limited, I believe, to some zoning districts that aren't terribly common in the county.

It would be really helpful to have a sense of what the rules are and where they allow detached ADUs. If they have occupancy limits, if they have relationship kind of issues, has to be family or extended family. These things we've talked about before, but I think, I guess, to summarize this, I'd really like to make sure that we're consistent and that we're not out of step with the neighboring jurisdictions, which can cause problems for us. Frankly, frankly, I'm comfortable moving into the fourth out of five categories here. But I think, for me at least, height restrictions that make sense, you know, two stories and some kind of bulk plane analysis, occupancy limits that make sense, parking accommodations on site,

and certainly making sure the geometry of the parcel will accommodate an ADU with the setbacks. I'd have to think a little bit more about the 35. I've written down a couple of notes here about the lot coverage and building coverage and the size issues. The 35% remind me exactly what the 35% is. That's the total square footage. Total square footage. So the square footage of an ADU needs to be under 35% of the square footage of the house. So by square footage of the house, that is gross living. That's not gross living area. That is square footage. So that includes the basement. Okay. Got it. I think the general ideas presented here have acceptable options amongst every different facet that you've talked about.

Getting feedback from the fire department about what they need in terms of entry and exit from a property, that's always a must. If that's not there, I don't think we should go forward until they have an opinion, and those folks up in the fire marshal's office could do that. But I think the last question I have is whether we will treat some parts of the city different, for instance, the historic overlay district. Although I have no idea, and I should know, whether homes within that historic overlay district are already required to have some sort of architectural review. And if they are, then certainly we certainly apply it to an ADU on those properties as well. It's not a far stretch to think that the Board of Architectural Review could be involved in this.

If there had been some involvement, some of the poor decisions that perhaps we see occasionally with things that are completely incongruous to the rest of the neighborhood, those things would not be built. But anyway, that's just a scattershot of ideas. I'm still kind of wrapping my head around all of this. Sorry, one final question, Mr. Foreman. Do all our neighboring jurisdictions also prohibit short-term rentals? Don't know about that. Okay. I'll have to check on that one. I can imagine immediately, you know, some homeowners would think, okay, perfect. You know, this is an additional $2,000 a month of income based on, you know, $100 a night and 20 nights a month filled up. And making sure that we have something administrative in place to catch that and would be useful.

And, again, I'd like us to be consistent with our neighbors and not, you know, out of step. Actually, getting to that point as far as consistency goes, and you had mentioned this fourth option here, you know, which is essentially our current accessory structures. That is more or less in line, you know, some more, some less with jurisdictions like Arlington or Falls Church or Herndon, Leesburg, and so on as far as height, as far as setback. So, I think it varies quite a bit. Alexandria is a bit of an outlier. And the reason that Alexandria is, I think their detached ADU ordinance was written for their unique situation. They've got a lot of townhouses with deep lots. So, I think they have, and those townhouses with deep lots do not have HOAs because they're very old.

So, they've got a different set of circumstances than other jurisdictions. So, their ordinance is really crafted more for their unique situation. But for the other jurisdictions in this area, it's more or less in line with what we have. And I know in some of those jurisdictions, there was a long, drawn-out debate about whether to have a five-foot setback or an eight-foot setback or whatnot. But generally speaking, it's along those lines. Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of comments, though, I guess that I would have. One would be looking at the ADU policy as it relates to family versus rental. I know in the past when we have talked about various subjects and tried to get information on rental properties within the city,

it's been a challenge because we haven't been able to get a sense of how many rental properties there are, how are they managed, any of the information on the number of occupants in some of the units, if we get to areas like Green Acres, is the entire house filled with eight students because it has four bedrooms. So, when we're adding an additional rental implication to there, do we have the ability to manage that and keep it because rental is a business as opposed to owner-occupied and having additional family members living with us so that there are other things that we cover with that. So, when we're adding rental to ADUs, I would ask, is it enforceable? Because if we're going to write regulations and laws or directives and they're not enforceable,

it sounds nice, but is it really practical? And we should look at that because, to my knowledge, we have one zoning inspector who is in charge of keeping track of all of these kinds of issues. We're in a fiscal climate at the moment in which we're talking about scaling back budget issues so that I don't know that we're going to be adding additional people or manpower to try to monitor some of these kinds of things. So, timing comes into looking at some of these proposals on when they're going to be implemented and can they be reasonably implemented. When I think to other issues within the city is, I've been here for a long time, the principal overriding policy in this entire period is that what we're doing is managing density.

The city is becoming more dense and this is just one more aspect of adding density to the city. We didn't have a lot of large multifamily structures when I came on the planning commission. One of the things we have done in managing density is to look at how can we add more housing to the city because that is a major issue. And if you look at the kind of housing we have added in the last 10 years, it is all large multifamily. That has attempted to address the macro, I guess. When we look at an ADU ordinance, I think we're looking at the micro. I don't know how many units we're looking at. That's where I think it would be useful to have some form of map to say, what neighborhoods are we likely to be doing this in?

What size yards? What's the impact going to be? You know, where is this going to take place? One of the things that Fairfax Renaissance Housing was looking at was trying to maintain neighborhood character by updating housing. Without that kind of policy, we have discussed the fact that you're going to get more of a McMansionization redevelopment process than people coming in and trying to save the old houses, probably because it's cheaper and they're getting a better product for what they're looking at. So these changes, as I see them, interrelate. And if we're trying to keep neighborhood character and things like that, which we have mentioned here, then what is that impact going to be and how do we do it?

When we look at grandfathered properties, what come to mind for me are probably a significant number of properties that already have structures that would qualify as ADUs on them. But a great number of those were there before the city became a city. And some of them that are newer have come in the last 15 years when we have taken older, larger lots, subdivided them, and put additional housing on them. And I know of one that comes to mind where it was intended that the house face the major thoroughfare and we were not going to put a curb cut on the thoroughfare, so we allowed a cul-de-sac to come in from behind. When it got to construction, the house got flipped. When we have come along, it's not an ADU, but a detached garage on a very large structure has been permitted.

And this I would call then side yard as opposed to backyard. So if the construction of most of this is going to be backyard, we need to remember where and how things are fit for our definitions. I remember discussions that corner lots have no backyard. They have two side yards. So that falls into where can you do some of these things. As you have led us through this entire discussion, it becomes a complex subject, which is going to be broken down to where can we actually do this, and is it appropriate to do it in that fashion. So I think more discussion is warranted. I can agree with Mr. Rice that I could go where he is to the yes that says we could do it or you could handle garages if it were in architectural keeping with what's there.

I don't think I can go as far as he did saying that this is something that I would want the Board of Architecture Review to be involved with or looking at it because I think it's out of their expanded purview in getting into individual items in the residential areas. But I think it can be permitted, but I think it's still a very complex subject that needs additional discussion. So I think the additional tools, something like a map where it would be, something like a history of what we have would be useful in trying to say, what are we trying to accomplish, how many units potentially would we be adding in this type of area. I think keeping it out of the rental and into family occupancy would be beneficial

unless we have some way to say that we can get feedback on how are we doing because I know when we let items go from the Planning Commission's perspective that there are a whole lot of other people that get involved in the actual execution of the product. And I think it's beneficial for us to get feedback with what we're attempting to do and what actually turns out. So that part I think is important. And those would be my comments, I guess, on the structure at this time. It's worth proceeding, but I think we're not to the point of proceeding to a final decision. We're to the point of proceeding to collect some more data and massage it to get something that's targeted to a final decision. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you just said. I think to the point of the map, I'd really like to see like maybe a couple iterations of it or like an overlay that kind of toggles some of the different options you were talking about. Because, you know, I'm a supply side guy. I think, you know, the more stock we have, that should bring, you know, the pricing down to equilibrium. But if the reality is that, you know, it needs to be something that complements the neighborhood, and if you get to a point where not having windows, you know, peering into your neighbor or the height or, you know, the impervious, not having enough impervious lot is diminishing it to where it's only a handful of houses, I don't know at that point how meaningful it is.

One caveat, and I may, you know, maybe disagree with everyone, is that the question of it being owner-occupied. And, you know, I understand the logic of that, but, you know, on the other end of the coin, is that to say someone that lives at a Leighton Hall or, you know, the combined deal over at Fairfax Circle, are they a worse resident because they're a renter? I do share the concerns of, you know, it being inspected, and if that's an issue to where maybe you can't properly administrate that, then it needs to be owner-occupied. But, you know, I think if it could be done, why not? You know, if somebody moves and wants to put two rentals there, I don't know if I would be necessarily opposed to that, assuming it could be administered.

But I think there's a million pieces to this. I think the cake is far from baked, and I really think a map, again, with, like, some toggles would be very beneficial to this. But I'm certainly opposed or not opposed to continuing to look into it. Chair Feather, would you like to weigh in? Thank you, Ms. Lockhart. Mr. Rice made a number of points that I agree with. When I look at the policy options, if we kind of start at the back of the presentation first, the one I'm most comfortable with moving forward is the third option. I think there's room to discuss the fourth option of allowing ADUs where other accessory structures are located. They do serve different functions. So an accessory living unit closer to the property line

can be more impactful on the neighbors than an occasionally used structure like a shed or a garage. So I'm a little concerned about moving that far. But one of the things I reflect back on is what the overall objective is. If you go back to the housing study, trying to expand housing options in the city, allowing accessory dwelling units certainly provides a different type of housing from our other multifamily. But I also think of our other objectives of wanting to drive development and creating neighborhoods and community interactivity centers where we're looking for more density and it's probably a little bit more tolerable in the community in the multifamily, large multifamily apartments,

less impactful on communities. When the neighbors, I think, look at those two options, they might be a little bit more willing to support multifamily, more multifamily structures or larger multifamily structures, interactivity centers, and a lot of pop-up accessory dwelling units. in communities, neighborhoods, which really provide a relatively small number of additional residences. We get density in the big areas. Not everybody who can have one will probably want to put one in because they'd like their own privacy. I do subscribe to a dimension of owner occupancy when we're looking at accessory living units in residential neighborhoods. I think it does provide a little bit more control, a little bit more pride of ownership,

a little bit more responsibility for the part of the homeowner. It's not something you can just walk away from. So I'm not sure I'd go so far as to have two rental properties on the same lot with an accessory structure. A number of the items that have been discussed make a lot of sense to me. Some limitation on size, whatever that is, I think is appropriate. I do wonder, and I should have gone back and looked at the zoning ordinance to look at our different single-family residential zoning districts to get a sense as to whether a residential high really on balance will provide reasonable, whatever that means, we have to define what that is, accessory structures without overcrowding a lot or impinging on neighbors.

Do we need to think about some limitation looking at just residential medium or residential low density kind of lots that we might entertain these on? But this is all part of the homework that we have to do in the details. I was curious as well, and I'm glad the question was asked about what our neighboring jurisdictions are doing. I think there's something to learn from them, and I think some of them don't have the experience yet that we can learn from either, so we may be moving forward together there. Some restriction, I think, on size relative to the other structures. One of the other things I thought it feels to me like if a lot contains a single-story home, an accessory dwelling unit should probably be limited

to a single-story as well, some compatibility with the lot itself and what's already on it. I'm not sure if we talked about that or not, but it seems like a reasonable thing to consider. Again, it can impact the character of a community as well. What page is this? Oh, the conversion of existing structures. I'm not sure I have an opinion on this yet. Something we definitely need to address. I'd be a little concerned about what some of these things end up looking like that kind of brings into the dimension of some sort of aesthetic or architectural guidance. One of the examples that was shown on one of the slides you presented, Mr. Foreman, looked every bit like it was just a converted garage.

It had a door and one window. It looked like a little block house. It's certainly not at all appealing. Someone could live in there for sure, but again, the impacts on the adjacent community and the characters and the impacts on the neighborhoods will be something we'll have to consider. How do we accommodate that? That's another question. Let me think of my notes that I took a lot during the discussion as well as what I read ahead of time. I think that more or less covers it, at least at this point in time. Something I think we should consider. I do wonder about, it's part of the comprehensive plan, right? We have objectives that sometimes complement each other, sometimes compete with each other,

expanding residential in some small fraction in neighborhoods, existing neighborhoods, versus what we can get in developing and redevelopment in our activity centers, which is also a priority for us. It's something we should think about what we want to do and where we want to drive redevelopment in the city. So this is not just a standalone. Do we want to allow it in residential neighborhoods? To me, it addresses the bigger picture in terms of expanding housing in probably in a more impactful way with multifamily and creating the neighborhoods we say we want in our activity centers as well. So more than just an isolated topic. So lots more to discuss. But thank you. Good discussion tonight. Thank you.

So I'll preface this by saying normally I have a bias for decision-making and action and moving out. But in this case, there's a piece of information that I feel like is missing, and that's the ramifications of the removal of the age or disability requirements from our existing ADU ordinance. I was very concerned that that was going to have a negative effect on some very vulnerable populations in the city in terms of their access to housing that is accessible and affordable. I have family, friends who in two separate cases have basically had a tiny house that allowed an ailing or elderly family member to age in place, go through hospice. I think that providing that option is a very important toolkit

for things like Fairfax Village in the city. It's affordable and accessible on a scale that can't be attained with some of these large managed care facilities that we're seeing being built. So I do think there's a use case specifically for that population. So I'm interested in what's going to happen now that we've opened the aperture away from just that population with our existing ordinance. Obviously, that won't be, you know, necessarily quick in collecting that information, but I'd be curious things about like an uptick in complaints about, you know, overcrowding, uptick, you know, traffic. You know, do we feel like, do we have a gut feeling that there are more unlicensed rentals out there now

because we've kind of removed this requirement? Or are people more inclined to, you know, get in line and get their business license now that we've removed that requirement? I think those are all really important data points that will speak to the enforceability of whatever we end up putting forward. Similar to my colleagues, you know, I feel like I could land in four with sort of reasonable requirements around fitness for the neighborhood. But I am very concerned about what populations we're serving and whether this is providing an option that is meeting a need, a designated need. We did hear from, you know, a collegiate musician who was very interested in detached housing where he could play music

unencumbered and, you know, kind of intimated that he'd even be willing to pay a premium for that, which great that that's a need, but is this the type of housing that we want people paying a premium for versus housing that we want to have as really a resource for specific populations? No good answer to that question. And certainly there's, you know, equal opportunity considerations to be applied to that discussion as well. But I do kind of want to see what the recent changes have kind of manifested in terms of our current housing options, as well as sort of the geographic overlay of where are we really looking at this and what, you know, that could also even help target some of the community outreach.

If we sort of know specifically who's going to be impacted by this potential reality, can we go talk to those neighborhoods and see what they want? You know, I live on a very tight cul-de-sac with a house that has five cars when everybody's home from college, right? I live a few blocks over from an accessory structure that is three stories high. So these things already exist in the city, these questions, these concerns that neighbors will have, and people are living with them, have been living with them. So not that I take complaints with a grain of salt, but I think, you know, some things are already existing and how do we manage them as a city, creating more, you know, rules and regulations around ADUs

is not necessarily going to create different conversations than what we're already having. Any other final thoughts from my fellow commissioners? Thank you very much, Mr. Foreman, for opening this discussion with us. I think we have a lot to think about. Any questions for us? Takeaways? Are we good? No, I think we're good. All right. Thanks so much. Thank you. All right. With that, our work session is concluded. We will reconvene our regular meeting and over to Mr. Nabte for the staff report. Thank you, Vice Chair Lockhart and members of the Planning Commission. It's been a while since we met, been back in since July. So a quick recap on a couple of the items that have come before the City Council since then.

July 22nd, there were three items that related to the Planning Commission. First was that the City Council approved the proposal at 4131 Chambers Road of the Davies property by a vote of 4-3. Planning Commission recommended denial of that proposal by a vote of 4-2 on June 23rd. The same meeting, the City Council voted to defer the proposal for the Courthouse Plaza Shopping Center Redevelopment until October 28th. And at the same meeting, they voted to approve unanimously the general zoning text amendments that the Planning Commission had previously recommended approval for unanimously on July 14th. September 9th, the City Council approved unanimously the proposal by Chick-fil-A for modification

to their special use permit to expand the existing drive-through. This was just a special use permit, which is why it didn't come before the Planning Commission. And October 7th, they received an update on the Germantown Road Transportation Improvement Project, which is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan. Aside from City Council updates, there are a number of other items to be aware of, other projects that are going on. I wanted to let you know that there is a community engagement expo that will be held next Wednesday, October 22nd, from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Sherwood Center. The purpose of this expo is for the public to be able to come and find more about the various boards and commissions

that the city has. Chair Feather will be attending that day. If there are any other Planning Commissioners that are interested in attending, please let us know. I believe this meeting will be publicly advertised so we could have more than two of you there if needed. The Urban Forest Master Plan will be having a public open house. The first draft of that project has been released. The open house will be held October 23rd from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Sherwood Center as well. Also next week, October 21st, Tuesday, there will be a budget open house. This will be similar to the format that was done in the spring for anyone who attended that. Our department will be there just to explain what we do.

Various other departments will be there as well. This will be 4 to 7 p.m. also at the Sherwood Center. In Fairfax County, the public hearing with the Planning Commission will be held this Thursday on two site-specific plan amendments in what's known as the Fairfax Center Land Unit K area. This is an area that's immediately to the west of the city. The two proposals are for the Fairfax Business Park, which immediately abuts the city. It stretches essentially from the north side of the H-Mart property up to the various multifamily properties along Germantown Road, as well as a proposal on Fairfax Ridge Road to the west of that. These two comprehensive plan amendments will coincide with zoning map amendments.

So essentially, these are the land use approvals. At a later date, the county plans to go back and do a full comprehensive study on the entire Land Unit K area, which is essentially the entire area north of Route 50 just to the west of the city. But these two have specific plan use requests. In general, there are several other items that are moving forward that we recommend you check the Engage page for. I will also send an email to all of you with links to these items tomorrow. This includes the transit development plan, which the city is proposing potential major revisions to the current routes for the QBUS, as well as the Mu Fairfax transportation project, which has an Engage page where you can provide

observances of current conditions. And the Urban Forest Master Plan I mentioned earlier also has an Engage page now. So check those out. I'll also, again, send a link to you tomorrow. Lastly, related to that, the citywide community survey results were presented to the city council last week. Those results are also online, and I'll include a link to that in the email as well. Two items I sent an email to you about that I wanted to get feedback on from tonight. First is the pre-application briefing standards. As I said, the city council adjusted their standards to allow applicants to respond to questions, not to present for pre-application briefings. Previously, they were not even allowed to respond to questions,

and we often had questions that staff was not able to answer, so we could not get clarification on. There is no official policy on this, so we don't need any official vote, but we were asked to get an informal vote from the Planning Commission on whether or not you would support doing this the same. As a reminder, the Planning Commission has allowed applicants to speak on occasion in the past, so if we could just get a quick consensus on whether or not you would support this, then we can let them know that we will be informing applicants in the future that they will be able to respond to questions during pre-application briefings. Okay with that? Are you asking me to counter my past behavior

by allowing people to speak and now tell them they can't or support? I'm willing to support what I've done in the past. Okay. I would support them answering questions. I don't not support it, but I do want to make sure we maintain the integrity of the formal process that things we're asking for are reflected in the staff's official approach back to the applicant. So clarifying questions, sure, but I think if it's anything substantial, we probably need to maintain the professional approach of interacting directly with staff. I agree with that. I think that the staff presenting should be the person and the only person that should cue questions to the applicant. I don't know if that's more constraining

and unhelpful, but I really feel like the person presenting or perhaps, you know, Mr. Nabte or Mr. Sutphin, they have a much better sense of whether or not that's something that needs to go to the applicant. So I'd like us not to address the applicant directly, but I'd like the staff person to be in charge of doing that or you too or Mr. Harden. It's almost like a CYA because if we give one applicant the opportunity to answer a question because it occurred to us, but others haven't had that chance in the past, it's going to be problematic. And it just kind of invites, it invites extra conversations which are unhelpful and unnecessary and counterproductive. Although I think it might invite applicants

to come better prepared. It might. I mean, there are definitely things that are of interest that staff may not be aware of that the applicant's prepared to address. I don't get having the applicant in the room and us asking staff to ask the applicant a question. They're present, so usually, right? My memory of this is that in the past, after the staff has made their comments, after we have made our comments, it's typically the applicant that wants to make some kind of comment as opposed to a question and answer back and forth going on because of some issue involved with the application that they would like to help clarify or make us aware of rather than trying to establish a dialogue. The way it is,

we've only tried this once with the city council and so there's not much to test on, but I think kind of the way you're describing it as the way it worked is that the applicant was only invited to come up to address specific questions, not that there was intended at the end that they would be allowed to come up and give a presentation or anything like that. Right. Yeah, for sure not. We would certainly not encourage a situation where the applicant presents materials and tries to introduce the whole team. Something like they do at a public hearing which takes up a lot of time. These are supposed to be information sessions. Sometimes we just don't know the structure of their financing or their schedules

or how they're going to phase something out because they're not quite there themselves in a lot of these projects, but they know a little more than we do and if there's a conversation from the dais that's coalescing around something, I think we would or Fred or Claire would say, I think that's a good question for the applicant and that's probably where we would have them answer that. And to that end, would you all be policing them? I just think that it's a slippery slope where you end up having people saying that you didn't get the same fair shake as someone else. So I don't think we should police that. Would you? I think it's going to have to be somewhat of a balance. I think we're going to present

what materials we have. We ask them to give us in the package what they want you to know. So theoretically, there shouldn't be anything left on the table or questions unanswered. They should be providing a complete, very good package to you. Obviously, not every application is the same. There's going to be a nuance to something or something's going to be a little peculiar and there's going to be a question about it. And I think those are fair for some general questions. But like you said, I don't think we want a situation where we've allowed one applicant to address a number of questions and then the next applicant out of time or because they seem not as put together with their application materials,

they're maybe not answering questions. We've got to find a way to balance it and we're going to have to feel through that as we go. We're talking about pre-application though, right? That's right, Chair Feather. You referred to application materials. In the past, I think it's been incumbent on the Chair and the senior staff member who is leading this to police that. And I think it has been handled equitably from that standpoint rather than turning it into a session where any one of the parties is overriding with their views on what's going on. as just an exchange of information to allow us to have some basis to move forward. And I think the Chair and the senior staff member have done a good job

of tailoring that. But I know that there have been instances in which if it's only staff and the Planning Commission talking back and forth that you get a view if the applicant is sitting there and they're all looking perplexed and looking like they're about to come apart because they can't say something that's so far out that we're off track that they would like to at least give some information that's worthwhile for our consideration at this stage in the process. And that's the way I think it's been handled in the past and that would handle it in the future just as well. Yes. So the feedback I heard is yes we support this. We will include that with the phrase that provided that if you maintain

to such a way that the applicant is only come up when asked to address a question. for the interaction to be prompted by senior staff or the chair but not by individual individuals. Would we be okay with the staff or the chair because it could be Fred saying very much. I can't answer that. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yeah I think my concern too is just that any question and answer becomes part of the record since it's pre-application so it doesn't devolve into too much conversation but it's we're lodging a formal request for information. Right. Okay. The last item I had is we are scheduled to have a regular meeting on November 24th which is Thanksgiving week. It's not a city holiday so we are open to having this meeting.

We don't know what will be on the agenda at this time. We're not going to ask you to confirm your availability at this time but most likely at our next meeting we will ask that to figure out if we need to move items from that meeting to another one. So keep that in your mind. November 24th we'll ask you to confirm availability when we meet again. And that's all I have for the staff report. Thank you Mr. Nafti. All commission comments? Mr. Cunningham. No comments. Thank you. Dr. Rice. No comments. Chair Feather. I'd certainly like to welcome our new commissioner Mr. McCarthy to the dais. We've had a void that we've long hoped to be filled and we're glad that you're here. I had the opportunity

to speak with him prior to the earlier in the summer and I think he's going to make and as we saw tonight I think will be a great asset to the commission. And just welcome back to after being off for a while with missing our earlier meetings I'm glad to see us reconvening. I will be back in Virginia for our next meeting at the end of October I look forward to it. And just welcome back Mr. Cunningham from your world travels as well. Glad to see you made it safely back. Thank you very much. I will echo your welcome to our new commissioner McCarthy. Glad to have you here. No other comments for the group at this point other than thank you to the staff who worked the fall festival booth. Hopefully you got

great actionable feedback and it was always a pleasure to see you out and about. And with that I believe we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.