Planning Commission Regular Meeting

James FeatherGood evening. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Fairfax Planning Commission for Monday, June 23rd, 2025. Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise as you're able to join us. I

Speaker 10pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

James Featherone nation, under God, an individual, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Our next order of business is discussion and adoption of the agenda. The agenda is issued ahead of the meeting as prescribed. Any discussion on that?

Paul CunninghamMr. Chairman, I move the agenda be adopted as presented. Is there

James Feathera second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Extensions? Motion passes unanimously. Next order of business is presentations by the public on any matter not calling for a public hearing. We have one public hearing this evening. Comments pertaining to that public hearing, which is the Hill proposal, will be taken at that time. But if anyone would like to make comments on another matter, you're free to do so at this time. Madam Clerk, have there been any sign-ups for that?

Speaker 17The only sign-ups are for the public hearing. Okay.

James FeatherNo other sign-ups. Is there anybody in the room who would like to address the Planning Commission on a matter not pertaining to the Hill development? Okay, thank you. We will move on. Next order of business is consideration of the May 12, 2025 meeting minutes. Again, those were issued ahead of the meeting. Comments from anybody?

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair. I move that the commission adopt the meeting minutes from the May 12, 2025 regular meeting as presented.

James FeatherSecond. All right, move and second it to adopt as issued. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? extensions passes unanimously next order of business items not requiring a public hearing we have one matter for the commission to address this evening that did not require a public hearing and that is a motion to amend chapter 110 the code of the city of fairfax as part of the regular review of our zoning ordinances articles and sections contained therein mr napty

Naptystaffthank you chair feather and members of the planning commission just for background information The information that was presented to the Planning Commission at a work session on May 12th, 2025, and City Council on June 3rd, 2025, related to regular upkeep and maintenance of our zoning ordinance where we regularly recommend amendments to smooth out processes. So the proposed amendments in this package, as previously discussed, includes a review of the age and disability occupancy requirements for accessory dwelling units, reducing special use permits for indoor recreation medical care facilities and animal care facilities general language edits and changes to requirements for public notices per changes to the state code state code requires that the

Planning Commission or City Council Council initiate through a motion any such text amendments to the zoning ordinance so that's we're asking you to consider tonight if the Planning Commission does move to initiate these amendments, then a public hearing will be tentatively scheduled for July 14, 2025. And that's it for the staff report.

James FeatherOkay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Again, at this point, all we're doing is initiating the process. We'll have the opportunity to review the text amendments again and have a public hearing on them in July. Okay, a motion, please.

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair, I move that in accordance with good zoning practice and in support of the public interest and general welfare, that the City of Fairfax Planning Commission initiate to Chapter 110 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, as part of the regular review and maintenance of the zoning ordinance, articles, and sections contained therein, including but not limited to zoning districts and regulations, site development standards, and development review and definitions. I further move that a public hearing be scheduled for the consideration of these amendments.

Bankhead DaviesapplicantSecond.

James FeatherSeconded. Any

Bankhead Daviesapplicantfurther discussion?

James FeatherOn and off. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It passes unanimously. Okay, next item on our agenda is the public hearing. This is a public hearing for the applicant, the Hill, a Davies Family LLC, which has proposed a zoning map amendment from RM Residential Medium to CU Commercial Urban in the Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District with a general development plan and proffers to develop an upper story mixed-use building that consists of 276 multifamily units and approximately 10,796 square feet of retail, office, or other commercial non-residential uses on the ground floor, and a three-level below-grade parking garage on approximately 2.69 acres on the property located at 4131

James FeatherChambers Road, tax map parcel 57-4-02-040. We'll begin with a staff report. Welcome, Mr. Frederick.

FrederickstaffGood evening. This is a public hearing for the Davies property. The applicant is the Hill, a Davies family LLC. The site is located at 4131 Chambers Road. The applicant submitted a revised application on September 6, 2024. A post-submission work session with the Planning Commission was held on January 13, 2025, and City Council on January 27, 2025. The plans for tonight's hearing was submitted on June 2, 2025. There have been several conceptual plans and applications for the development for the site dating back to 2016. the again the applicant submitted a revised lane use application and plans in september of 2024 the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from a residential medium to commercial urban with proffers in the old town fairfax transition overlay district

special exceptions and a major certificate of appropriateness for architecture and landscaping the subject property is located in the Old Town small area plan the site is currently developed with a single-family home that was constructed around 1916 the subject property is located on the eastern side of Chambers Road at the intersection of judicial Drive and spans a block from with frontage on the west side of University Drive across from Breckenridge Lane south of Sager Avenue and north of Armstrong Street the surrounding adjacent uses consists of a former bank site to the north office condos to the south Breckenridge townhomes to the east and to the west is a former site of Red have in blue restaurant several offices and the Fairfax County Judicial Complex

the subject property has a future language designation of activity center and the Old Town Fairfax small area plan was adopted in June of 2020 so some of the highlights of the small area plan the smaller plan provides guidance for the site recommended height of four and five stories new construction the building layout and building placement may be necessary to allow full intersection across from Breckenridge Lane provide an architecturally sensitive facade along University Drive forming a street edge as well as provide public outdoor space that may be included within the site design the small area plan also prescribes a shared greenway space that can serve as a community backyard for the new mixed-use buildings and existing offices within this block

the new Street will function as a alley by walking path and back patios associated with nearby buildings also the this alleyway would serve as emergency access but it's primarily a function for for pedestrians so just to speak in terms of the overall small area plan and the amount of residential and office and retail space as well as hotel and institution uses the small area plan prescribes an increase in residential uses of 1,250 units throughout the small area plan the applicants proposing 276 units the smaller plan prescribes an increase of 25,000 square feet of new office space the applicants proposed is proposing 4,000 188 square feet the retail there's an increase of approximately 60 60 000 square feet of new space and also a fill of 20 000 square feet of currently vacant

retail space the applicant is proposing roughly 6 600 square feet of of retail space the applicant does not propose a hotel nor an institutional or arts facilities on site the current zoning is residential medium the the in the it's residential medium in the transit

Anthony Colemantransit overlay district

Frederickstaffand approximately up to 15 homes could be developed on the property not including some water and roads so just looking at doing a rough calculation approximately 15 units could be be designed under the residential medium the proposed zoning is commercial urban commercial urban is established to provide an urban mixed use development option for appropriate parts of the downtown area and also within a prescribed small area plan such as the Old Town Fairfax small area plan so in terms of the site plan so the general development plan the applicant has proposed to develop two buildings with up to 276 apartments approximately 6600 square feet of retail approximately 4142 hundred square feet of office a 26 foot private access drive

near the northern property line from university drive to chambers road This also includes a 10-foot-wide sidewalk on Chambers Road and a 10-foot-foot sidewalk on University Drive. And the applicant has provided a 5-foot sidewalk on the south side of the private drive. The subject property is approximately 2.69 acres in size. Both access points are designed as right in and right out. building a which is closest to chambers road so this is building a building a consists of a five-story building with 114 units and the office and retail located on the ground floor fronting along chambers road building a has a separate entrance for retail office the co-work units and residential units building a has a bicycle storage area for approximately 28 bicycle spaces near

the Greenway and building a also has a front yard setback that ranges from 7 feet to 11 feet on Chambers Road in terms of building B which is located along University Drive it consists of 162 units a courtyard with the pool area and amenities and a residential lobby and leasing area fronting

Anthony Colemanon University Drive

Frederickstaffthe building height for building B is proposed as four stories along University over the step back of approximately 70 feet and then five stories near the center of of the site and the building with the height of approximately 50 51 feet building a has a bicycle storage area with roughly 20 bicycle spaces on the first floor near the Greenway and building B has a front yard setback of 10 feet from University Drive both buildings have loading zone and trash room interior to the buildings along the private and internal street so in terms of the general plan looking at the number of parking spaces the parking plan shows a three-level parking garage with 423 spaces the applicant is required to have for the total

project of 349 spaces the applicant has also provided nine surface parking spaces after discussions held with planning commission and city council earlier this year so they've increased the number of parking spaces along the internal drive the applicant is required to have 46 bicycle spaces I'm sorry is required to have 20 20 bicycle spaces never provided 46 spaces as well as the two loading spaces and which is required so this is the second level of the parking garage and this is the uh the top level of the parking garage uh along building a under building a so all parking um in the garage would be under the building so basically it would be underground parking and the applicant has provided again nine uh spaces uh on surface parking spaces

so the red arrows uh indicate the loading zones for both buildings and on your screen now is the bicycle bicycle rooms that has the 46 bicycle spaces the applicant has met the standards the non-residential standards provided in the tod in terms of maximum lot coverage building coverage and we'll get into the the building height and the density uh later on in the slideshow it should be noted that the smaller area plans suggest uh that height be limited to four stories and five stories it's somewhat of a tailored approach and that the small area plans suggest bulk and form over maximum density and has a near-term horizon of 15 years with projected increase of 1250 residential units so in terms of what the applicant has provided is consistent with

uh with the smaller area plan uh prescribes in terms of height uh the number of buildings um the number of uh stories and also the the bulk and form of the of the building is consistent with a smaller airplane in terms of setbacks the applicant has provided a seven to eleven foot setback along um chamber road for building a and a uh 10 foot setback for building building b along university the rear setback to the south is uh it's approximately 10 feet and the applicant has provided the distance between both buildings of 43 feet which is consistent with the small area plan uh for the alleyway that connects from this property all the way to the north to sagar avenue which is the applicant is setting the

for that dimension so they're consistent with the with the requirement of the smaller plan of 43 feet so again so looking at the um the shared greenway path uh on the left side of the screen it shows what the small area plan uh speaks to of as public open space and then the greenway is within the middle and the applicant has provided that that greenway with a 43 feet and provided a 15-foot pedestrian path that connects to building a and building B in terms of site circulation the applicant has provided a 26-foot east-west private drive with right in right out turn movements building B provides access to zone for building a and building b i showed those locations earlier the pedestrian access there's

a 10-foot sidewalk on chambers road and university drive and a five foot sidewalk on the south side of of the access drive again the applicant has provided a 15-foot pedestrian path between both buildings connecting to building a and building b the small area plan contemplates streetscape and the applicant has provided a streetscape in terms of overall canopy trees along University and Cambridge Cambridge Road and also within the proposed Greenway the the site is required to have a ten-year tree canopy and this in the CU district which is 10% the applicant has met that uh by providing a tree canopy of 10.32 percent i'll get to the transitional yard modification later on in the presentation in terms of stormwater improvement the applicant has

provided a stormwater vault on the east side of on the east side of the site along university drive it's shown on the screen here and in this location in yellow this the applicant proposed a stormwater vault on the east side of the property to control a one two and ten year 24-hour storm event and release some water runoff and to propose closed conduit storm system provided as parallel to the University to University Drive the applicant has met with public works staff and staff has plans and they have no additional comments or issues with with the location and the functioning of the stormwater management system the utility plan the applicant is proposing to underground all utilities in accordance with section 4.11 of the zoning ordinance

so in terms of the special exceptions there are a number of there are seven special exceptions for this application and I'll try to go through each one the first special exception is for 75% ground floor non-residential use in a mixed-use building density of requesting a special exception for density of more than 24 acres and in the TOD and also a height it's a special exception for TOD the applicants also looking to look into it eliminate the requirement of landscape the landscape strip and street trees along the access drive as well as eliminate the requirement to provide very good access to a buddy non residential properties to eliminate the requirement of sidewalk on the north side of the proposed access drive while providing the sidewalk on the south side

and finally applicant is looking to modify the transitional yards so if you me i'll go through each one of them um so the ground floor the applicant has provided the ground floor retail on the west side of the building and building a along chambers road the applicant was encouraged to provide retail on and on this location as a small area plan does not recommend non-resident users at this location so the small area plan doesn't call for it but Planning Commission and City Council urge the applicant to provide some retail at this location and so the applicant has provided some retail at this location however it does not meet the 75% requirement based on the zoning ordinance and therefore they seek a special exception in terms of

height the the applicant seeks a special exception for the I'm sorry for density density is at 24 dwelling units per acre in the commercial urban district the applicant has proposed a density of 103 dwelling units per acre again this the the the density for these for the zoning ordinance doesn't quite match up with the small area plan so the staff is currently working on updates to uh to the zoning ordinance however the the bulk and the form that's provided by the applicant is consistent with the small area plan and so the applicant has requested small area plan staff believes that the uh that the bulk in the form for this site is consistent with with the smaller airplane in terms of the height height is limited to 48 feet and the TOD the applicant has

provided four stories along a University Drive with a step back and then five stories on Chambers Road building B is four stories and as a step back again instead of 70 70 feet measure from a property line along the University Drive seeking a special exception To allow height beyond 48 feet building a is measured at 62 feet and building B is approximately 51 feet So along the private drive the applicant Is required to have landscape strip and street trees along the access drive However, the applicant is taking a special exception the fire marshal has designated the entire length of the private street as a designated fire lane and the applicant is providing a five-foot sidewalk butting the building so the northern side of the property would not have a

landscape strip in the street trees based on the request from the fire marshal and also there's a change in grade at this location which I'll get to slide so with the change in grade there's also the requirement the applicant is seeking to eliminate the access to the budding non-residential properties but the applicant has provided roughly a change in grade that would be about two feet from a change in grade to the north and the applicant has provided an access easement shown on on the screen and yellow to the north and to the south that would provide a pedestrian connection as the as those properties redeveloped so those properties redeveloped the there would be a location for the applicant to tie into in

terms of pedestrian connection and also to the north the applicant the the development when it redevelops they could also provide access drive to increase the width of the proposed access drive as it serves the redevelopment to the north and also for this for the subject property it's kind of similar to what if you recall to the n29 proposal that was recently approved earlier this year and then in terms of eliminated sidewalk on the north side the applicant is proposing to eliminate that sidewalk is providing a five-foot sidewalk connections on the south side of the private Drive just north of and abutting to the into the building in terms of the transitional yard the applicant is looking to modify

a couple of items here so the buffer yard a B which is on the north side the applicant is looking to propose to maintain the width of the transition yard of seven and a half feet and keeping the six foot fence while not providing the canopy trees and understory trees and shrubs along that buffer yard buffer yard bc along urban along university drive the applicants were proposing five canopy trees along the south side of the property on buffer yard c and d the applicant is seeking to reduce the transition yard from 15 feet to 11 feet with a six foot fence on top of a retaining wall and finally the applicant for buffer yard which labeled as d and a the applicant is proposing five canopy trees in your packet there's an attachment labeled technical deficiencies these are items to be

addressed prior to state council uh public hearing there are four items but largely the two items that um that are really technical issues uh comes down to attorney movements shown on sheets 26 and the site distance from the garage exit to university drive the two other items are things that would just basically need to be cert sheets inserted into the plan to clarify a few things over the signal modification and also to update a proffer for the easement covering the bus shelter as it's shown partially in the public right away the applicant has received in a recommendation of approval on the certificate of appropriateness so the buildings you're looking at this is a view from University Drive and this is

view from chamber drood again the applicant received on june 19th or june 18th received a recommendation of approval from the board of architecture here are the conditions that are in your packet these are standard conditions one two and three are basically standard conditions the final condition that was as a tailored condition for the applicant, the applicant shall not change the standing seam metal roof to shingles along the University Drive. Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment from RM to commercial urban and the Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District, and staff recommends approval of the general development plan with proffers. I'll stand by for any questions you may have.

James FeatherAre there any pressing questions for staff before we move on to the applicant's presentation? Okay, thank you, Ms. Frederick. We'll invite the applicant to come forward and make your presentation. Welcome. Thank you.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantGood evening, everyone. Good to see you all again. Thank you for your time. My name is Micheline Kasten-Smith. I'm with Paradigm Development Company, LLC, and I'm representing and working with the Davies family on the Chain Bridge Redevelopment Project. I want to first say that Fred and Jason and staff and the city staff have been fantastic in getting us to this point and helping us address questions, and we appreciate everything they've done. We appreciate you taking this on tonight, and we will not go through the exact presentation. What our plan is is to review the comments that you made during the work session and sort of highlight the items that have been updated from that work session and to this point.

with me of course we have the team here the architect you will see with Lessard we have Clayton with urban engineering who will be representing a civil we have John who's also with urban representing landscape they're all sitting behind me Felice who was representing with growth slate with transportation Anna who is assisting us with historic resources with Stantec David who is with being Kenny and Corman and of course the family is here if we have any questions We appreciate your time, and so we'll get right to the presentation. If you have any questions, we'll all be here to address them. Thank you.

Ulysses Montes de OcaapplicantGood evening. My name is Ulysses Montes de Oca with Lessard Design, the architecture group engaged to design this development. Just going to start real quick to refresh everyone's memory on where did we start. We started from a former application with a different development group, different team of consultants. I'm just going real quick to what was presented and the evolution of the plan real quick. This is a summary. On top is the previous scheme that was brought in front of you. Number one is the property. If you remember, the development was proposed to be along the southern property line. It was going to be a blank wall. The improvements that we've made and the evolution of the plan, we separated the building from the property line to allow openings and real architecture to be there before it was proposed a mural.

Second, there was a bridge over the greenway, which was removed. Now it's two completely separate buildings with the greenway open to the sky. Third, it was the entire articulation of the private access way. got wider we included a sidewalk and we were including also short-term parking the entire coordination evolved into a far better from what was proposed before originally was 20-foot uh access drive with no sidewalks number four is the step of the building along university drive now we're we're proposing four stories and a deeper step before if if you can see the the University Drive now we have a full depth of 70 feet the entire building depth is stepping back number five the courtyards are open similar to what's

in a small area plan and illustrated in the smaller plan as it's envisioned by the city the courtyards are open both before it was a fully enclosed building And number six, we have coordinated back and forth with your teams on the setbacks and the composition of the sidewalk and where the trees, the landscape portions, the width of the walkways, and multiple functions that we have along entrance points. So this is just a quick evolution of where it was and where we are now. This is an image also, the evolution of the architecture. If you recall, it was a blank wall on the south side. That's the image on the top, the elevation on the bottom of the top two. We see also the bridge over. It was three stories bridging over the Greenway and a narrow setback along University Drive.

now we have open courtyards so there's more variation in the building mass along the private driveway and also the step is deeper and the greenway is open to the sky also the guidelines of a small area plan suggest a different architecture different different buildings split into certain proportion which we comply with, different architecture, we're proposing different architecture, more residential character on University Drive. Those are the changes. This is also a 3D rendering of the view angle from Cambridge going southbound. The top left is what was proposed before. top right is after we redesigned it and collaborated with your team architecture review board also the materials are in line to with what's in

the small area plan guidelines architecture guidelines in terms of materiality and distribution and storefronts floor ceiling height etc This is the view from University Drive looking north. Again, the top image is what was presented in September 2023. Bottom image is the coordination that we have for you to review today. It's more residential character, like I mentioned before we had a blank wall facing south. now we have a more articulated mass and the materials are a little bit more residential friendly more neighborhood contextual this is also University Drive but this one's looking to the south believe and again this is the top left a little bit more commercial look building and what we're proposing is more

residential we have also the changes along the private driveway that includes a sidewalk includes openings includes ins and outs and parking for a short-term parking for deliveries and drop-offs pickups this is the the corner of Cambridge Road as we were driving north this corner in particular was a topic of discussion with the Board of Architecture about articulating it because when you it's it's perceived almost like a gateway when you're driving north towards a city towards downtown this corner wants to be special and we just went back and forth several details in one of the latest updates we did that's in summary of the evolution of the plan I'm gonna go over the plants. I think we have the file open.

I apologize.

William Fournierpublic commentThis is the one.

Ken Dangerpublic commentI think it got stuck.

Ulysses Montes de OcaapplicantIt's taking a while.

James FeatherIt's a large file.

Ulysses Montes de OcaapplicantYes.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantWhile he's pulling that up, it is a very large file, so it's taking a minute for it to fully populate. As he was walking through that, just as a reminder, the application that he was referring to on the top that was different from the bottom, the application that was submitted back in 2023 was under a different contract purchaser, the Perseus Group, that was working with the Davies. That application, they went through a couple of meetings, received comments, but they decided to not continue with the project. We came back with the Davies, joined forces with them, as Ulysses said, brought in a different set of consulting team. We then responded to the comments, and that is what we are presenting here.

It's what we walked through with you during the work session back in January. I think we're still using a little more time. I think he also has a thumb drive possibly that we may try to locate and see if this will pull them up. We appreciate your patience.

Ulysses Montes de OcaapplicantI can see the architecture.

FrederickstaffThose are three miles.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantThank you.

Ulysses Montes de OcaapplicantWell, there's significant topography differences between Cambridge and University Drive. The site drops about 29 feet. As I mentioned, we have two buildings, Building A and Building B, open courtyards. These are just contextual images when we were coordinating with Board of Architecture. we're adapting to the context in a way of materiality the rhythm of openings and trying to be as respectful as we can there's a lot of commercial buildings along Cambridge Road that we know they're in transition of being redeveloped but still the image of a traditional Fairfax there's a lot of colonial architecture red brick and beige stone or brick accents and that's what we're trying to maintain in a more contemporary expression.

And then as it wraps around, we have other architecture characters that change along the building. This is the lowest level. It's one level underground under the units that face University Drive. It's parking. Then the second level up, where the main parking access happens, right here on this corner. We have units facing University Drive. This level is technically considered a basement because of the slope, this is still one level underground, but it's fully exposed up here on University Drive. The next level up is basically the middle section on the right side we're already on the second floor above the first floor on the left side we are underground we're below street level so this this exhibit is meant to show what happens on the

greenway we have two independent loading zones they're internal for movers also for trash pickup we have bike storage on each building and they're both accessed through the greenway to people on their on their bikes they can easily access through through the greenway with we think that brings activity to the greenway then we have residential amenities facing courtyard this courtyard is technically the roof of the parking below and like i mentioned earlier we have the short-term they have their own set. These parking spaces are oversized. They're not the standard dimension. They're oversized because sometimes delivery packages coming in the box trucks or larger vehicles. Next floor, this is the level facing chain bridge. We have retail. The majority of frontage is retail.

We have the residential access and also the co-working access. So there are three different three different functions we have a residential courtyard and then the rest of the building is the floors above what I showed you earlier next floor up these are volumes for two-story retail height and this is two-story truck height to be able to accommodate the truck inside then as we go up we hit the roof of the lower side facing University Drive this will be a mini T terrace for residents so it's an active roof we continue going up we have two levels of typical residential floors and then our roof we have our mechanical equipment it's set back beyond the building perimeter and we have visuals that demonstrate because

of the height of our parapets and the location of the equipment and the height of the equipment these will not be visible from pedestrian eye level from the several right of ways that we were required to demonstrate these are these are related to setbacks that we these were shown to you before setback along Cambridge Road is from 7 to 10 feet along University Drive is 10 feet

William Fournierpublic commentthe

Ulysses Montes de Ocaapplicantsteps we have two different different height measurements one is from Cambridge Road and the height is 62 foot 1 inch and from University Drive the proposed height is 58 1 from the average grade this shows more basically how we have the residential floor we're required to floor to floor heights on the ground floor, at least 12 foot ceilings. So we're holding a height of 13 foot eight on the ground floor. And along University Drive, same thing, we have 13 foot eight floor to floor. This is the visual I mentioned earlier about where the pedestrian eye level sees the roof equipment's not visible. Different kinds of carpets. this is the architecture composition it's consistent with guidelines how we're supposed to have

base, middle, top and then vertical expression differentiated with materials, different fenestration and different materials and cornice lines and roof lines. There's also emphasis in the guidelines on storefronts and how they should be treated main entrance doors and the materials allowed. We're in compliance placeholders for future signage the red dash lines basically the boundaries that would that would have a sign in the future when retail tenants come in there's a placeholders but the area is what complies with code this shows how parking for retail works the orange arrow basically from the entrance retail parking would be signalized in similar fashion of the examples and photographs So cars can follow the ramp, go up, and then find their parking.

And then they take these two elevators, these have front and back access, so it could take patrons directly to retail space or with a key fob, it would be on the other side for residents. This is the architecture composition, the different materials or different architecture pallets that we proposed. We have five kinds of brick. We have metal roof on University Drive, and then we have fiber cement and some metal on coping and miscellaneous cornices. Two types of window collars. And the brick we're using is modular size. That's the end of the architecture presentation.

James FeatherOkay, thank you. Questions for staff for the, I'm sorry? Oh, well, he asked a question. Do you have anything further? Go over landscape.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantWe have more presentation with the landscape. Oh, okay. Can I just stop if you'd like to ask a question to architecture? No, please

James Feathergo ahead.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantThis one is pretty quick, so.

James FeatherSo don't ask for questions.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantAnd then we're available after that. Thank you.

John LytleapplicantFred, how do I go back to what you had originally? Hi, I'm John Lytle, a landscape architect with Urban Limited. Mine will be quick. I just wanted to go over the, specifically, the last time we met and what we showed you then, and then what we did to address your comments. Yep, that's it. Thank you, Fred. And what we did to address your comments with this application. January when we met during that work session this is what we showed you we had a streetscape that was not compliant with the small area plan due to grade changes both on Cambridge and University we had the sidewalk up against the road with this with the tree panel six-foot street tree panel behind it small area flipped we at the time couldn't work that out due to due to grade the

courtyards had a lot less landscape in it we were not meeting the 10% canopy we also had loading right here in the middle of the greenway that the greenway ran into we have now internalized those we also didn't have any surface parking here so you rightfully so made comments and all that so what we're showing now is streetscape with the we worked with the civil engineer to put some retaining walls and to make the entry walks to go parallel to the face of the building in order to push this 10 foot sidewalk back and provide the six foot tree panel through here there is a little jog right here but it is a still a 10 foot clear behind the trees likewise over here at University it was even tougher we had we

had top taller retaining walls but we got this six foot required street tree panel and the 10-foot walk behind that as you can see we really greened up the courtyards by adding raised planters because there is a soil volume requirement for each one of these trees so we had to work with the city's arborist in order to to make sure we have the right sized trees and the distances from the building but we got it to work so a lot more trees in the courtyards the greenway like I said the loading at the end we internalized so this now goes all the way through to the street added surface parking along the the drive access and then over here this is the terrace on the top of the fourth floor we have added this is an extensive green roof so sedum tray panels shallow

depth but we are showing that because we're probably going to use that for sustainability at time of a site plan and then the rest of the space up here is open programmable movable furniture with planters and then I wanted to show the sections just so you can see exactly what we did with the streetscapes especially on University Drive and see we added retaining walls in order to make this work in order to push the sidewalk back and make the make it more safe to put the six-foot landscape panels against the street this is a close-up kind of detail of what we're showing on the terrace zoom in so here's the green roof tray system we'll have planters around the perimeter all of this is not visible from the public right away because because due to

so this gathering space is still separate from the from the street and then there's just precedent images that we use to demonstrate what the courtyards would look like another thing I wanted to point out was we also included an art feature and I'll show you where we put that the star that you see right here in the greenway that'll be an art feature probably something his relative to the history of the site we can get into that a little later but the the idea is to have a walkthrough here with interpretive signage and Bear with me. Okay. Sorry. I thought I had one more slide. And those are all the points I wanted to make. MS.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantOkay. We're available now to answer any questions. I'll just have the consultants step up so that we can move quickly and transition to answer questions that you may have.

James FeatherOkay. Okay. Commissioners, questions for comments for staff and or the applicant?

Matthew RiceMr. Rice. Good. Thank you. I think, you know, in discussions with a few others, we recognize that several changes have been made, and I personally appreciate their responsiveness to us. It's disconcerting when we invest hours in reviewing documents and staff puts in several multiples of that time and applicants come back with the same poor design. This particular parcel has gone through several proposals that have not been successful. So there's a track record that hasn't been great and a little skepticism from neighbors on both sides. The east and west sides that have seen all those designs come through. This is by far the best and the one that's been subject to more scrutiny and comments and change.

There are a couple of specifics that are still concerning to me. really like the bicycle features and the investment in bus mass transit over on the Cambridge sides certainly a huge plus and the extent to which we can encourage people to use mass transit especially on the short hop to the University in a short hop downtown it's it would be a travesty if we end up several years from now if this is built having vehicle trips extensive vehicle trips between this development and City Hall this development and downtown this development the courts this development and Mason because those are all extraordinarily walkable distances even to most lazy Americans we still typically will walk that short distance so with that as a kind of anchor point

greenway in the center uh last time i was uh hyper critical over its use as a place where the trash is brought in and out and that just sort of was a metaphor for the lack of awareness about how critical that greenway is in the small area plan it is the most important the one i hear residents it's that plan that all the way from city hall all the way up to main street and north street that there's an interesting walkable safe uh corridor that we would take um this because it's the first sets the precedent and i think if the scrutiny is high I recognize that's because you're the first. It would set the precedent. With that in mind, that interior greenway, as great as the changes that have been made,

I still don't see it as an activated place where people will choose to go and choose to transit. I think it's impossible, other than looking at the small area of plans and seeing the comments and specifics in the plan, what will emerge this corridor was meant to be kind of activated with buildings functionality and exit points and gathering places perhaps very small retail kiosks things like that that would that would emerge all the way through the center of this block the two proposals that have been formally presented with a public comment both of them really lack the vision of that central greenway and i'm still concerned about that and i think our answer last time was let's figure out how to

how to consolidate because if there was a consolidation both to the south and the north that would give more space that would allow you to do more it would allow more open space more green space, perhaps a widening of that central corridor. But every single property owner development plan in that center areas, other than the folks on the north end who have made a great effort to consolidate or get agreements in place, nobody's been willing to look at that. And I think the outcome is plans which don't really have the space and the flexibility to do what we had in mind as a small area. However, this gets pretty close, and I wouldn't want, you know, the perfect that I have in mind to, you know, to kill something that's pretty good.

So that central greenway needs to be somehow further activated. and I'm I know what I have in mind because I've seen it and this is not quite it but this is pretty close the roadway to the north I last time was quite concerned about the width I'm still real concerned about the width and I really really want to compliment you on the inclusion of temporary parking spaces on the north side the residents are going to use those and that's going to suit about half the problem that's going to solve 50 of it the other 50 are the amazon and ups drivers that will still be there so at 26 feet we've still got vehicles that i absolutely guarantee will be parking there many, many times a day, you know, with at least a 10-foot, 8-foot vehicle width,

10 feet loading, unloading, doors opening, et cetera, you're still going to only have many times a day a 16-foot corridor for fire trucks to get through. They need 22. They need the full width of the road. And if there was some way of, you know, guaranteeing that nobody would ever park, you know, parallel on that street, then, you know, we have no problem. But I do know human behaviors, and especially people that are in a real hurry, they're not going to park nose in or back in. They're just going to park parallel on the street. and that's going to leave us with a very difficult problem that we'll continue to have with emergency vehicles not being able to have appropriate access through the middle.

I know that there's a right-turn concern that vehicles, especially trucks making a right turn out of the garage, will swing over into the left lane unless they're extraordinarily skilled and manage to kind of widen the turn on the front end. That still is a concern to me as well. Staff has brought that up in the briefing documents that we have. That's still a concern. I need, in fairness, to spend an equal amount of time complimenting you on all the things that have been done. We get feedback from residents on materials and architecture, and that's not my forte. But I do recognize that an effort has been made to incorporate more brick and a more kind of traditional aesthetic that matches some of the adjacent properties, matches some of the buildings at the courts across to the west.

And I have no great concerns over the design. I do appreciate the kind of step back on the university side that leaves it at four floors and the folks at Breckenridge across the way. Although the traffic and the outlets not being kind of connected potentially does still leave us with problems with connecting a street grid. but the setback will be helpful four feet plus the roadway width of university plus the setback on the other side however this is a lot of density in a 90% lot coverage in an area that's been open space for forever and I think there's just a lot of concern about that and I recognize that you've made a lot of efforts to try to scale things a little bit, to move things, to make this a more attractive

development, which I appreciate. Let me ask just real some specific things. The building coverage in our documents is listed at 56%. And I didn't believe that and still am wondering a little bit about that. And if someone could maybe just articulate from the design team how a 50% building coverage statistic is achieved, because it looks a lot higher than that.

Speaker 16The building coverage is the actual footprint of the residential building itself. As far as the lot coverage, which is all inclusive of the garage and building, that is 90%. coverage itself is 53%

Matthew Riceunderneath the activated balcony that's correct so the footprint of both buildings is really only 56% does that include the structure underneath the pool and underneath the other central courtyards

Speaker 16no the The courtyard is excluded.

Matthew RiceAnd is that a common practice to exclude areas like that that are still sort of structure but not?

Speaker 16Yeah. That's where the lot coverage comes into place. So the garage plus the courtyards plus the building would be the actual lot coverage.

Matthew RiceOkay. Okay. That's a little clear. Thank you. is the drive on the north side is this sidewalk that will be a five-foot sidewalk against the building will that include a curb or will there be a it was it a curbless sidewalk or their bollards that will separate the sidewalk from the roadway

Speaker 16there's curb on both sides of the roadway both north and side of south

Matthew Riceside

Speaker 16of the road

Matthew Riceso um i was hoping you'd say no uh that way you know if An emergency vehicle needs to use some of the sidewalk to get past an Amazon driver on the north side that would be able to do so. Anyway, I don't know what the standard practice is. It

Speaker 16is a private road, so if we want to pursue that, we could definitely look into making that multiple curb. Yep.

Matthew RiceAll right. I'm going to leave

Speaker 16it

Matthew Ricethere if it's okay.

James FeatherThanks. Others? Mr. Coleman?

Anthony ColemanI do want to thank everyone for their hard work on this. I know this whole project and its conception has preceded me, and I think many up here on the commission. So I really do appreciate the hard work you guys have done in listening to our feedback and coming back to us with a solution. There is no perfect project. I don't think this one is perfect, but I think it's really good. and I do have some similar concerns, but at the end of the day, I think you guys could put 100 iterations of it and none of them will come out flawless. So it is really good. I do think initially I was a little apprehensive with the coverage and all that, But at the same time, the commission and the small area plan, we've given you guys your boundaries,

and you guys have checked those boxes. You're within them. So even though there are those concerns, you guys are definitely coloring inside the lines. So I think the big thing is we need to be looking at this in a forward-looking manner, which we do. And change is inevitable. That's the one thing that we're always going to see. in life and all of that is always going to happen and knowing that it's fairfax is a very special place to live and this creates an opportunity potentially for 276 new families or residents to join our special community and that's the one thing that if we look at it 10 years 15 20 years down the line is those people get to also be a part of this community where in 1989 when Breckenridge was being built,

the same discussion was probably also happening. So I think we need to be mindful of that where we have a very inclusive community and this project in my mind has done a good job kind of trying to bridge the gap between past, present, and future. So thank you guys for your hard work.

Betsy BriggsThank you.

James FeatherSlugger?

Kirsten LockhartAll right, thank you. I do have a couple actual questions. My first one is, do you have any proposed plans for the retail and commercial space? Are you in talks with any vendors or lessees?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantWe haven't started any talks with any vendors yet. I would love to do that, but that would be a little premature. But we have spoken with our broker who has given us some ideas of what would be attracted to this location, use but we haven't ventured out too far until we really had a sense of

Kirsten Lockhartokay so are we talking like open shell development or do you think you'll kind of it'll be purpose-built or

Micheline Castin Smithapplicantwell we're looking at it's I think within our proffers or within our summary this is really David's world but I'll speak on it you know convenience stores it's an orange theory it could be a UPS it could be again that's in the retail space it could be a coffee shop it just depends on the interest. We would, of course, design it with exhaust and all those great things that need to be there so that we can attract the best and highest use. Of course, with the office and the co-working, there's attorneys, there's doctors, there's all sorts of things that could potentially go in those spaces as well. Again, the broker has given us sort of a gamut, and I think we've included that in our proffer of what we would consider or that we should consider.

And of course, we're happy to work with the city and the economic development group and we would want it to be successful you know a lot of buildings struggle when they get the retail and it we've had that happen within our own buildings so we'd want it to be a successful retailer that comes in and at one time we don't want a revolving door because that doesn't do well for the city or for our for our residents or the community yeah

Kirsten Lockharti mean that's the reason i ask because we've had other proposals that have had essentially vacant retail space proposed and to my mind that's an incomplete proposal you know i i feel like applicants should at least have an idea in there because that needs to be communicated to the surrounding community as well. Stormwater management, the proposal says shall be designed. What's your current understanding of the need there and the plan as you see it?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantI'm going to transfer to the .

Speaker 16So the current design in the plan is designed to treat the 1, 2, and 10-year storm event as far as stormwater management and BMP. As far as adequate outfall, that's designed to analyze the 100-year storm event, which and flow it's not in the pipe system so for our one two and ten year storm event from a pre-development standpoint we've met or exceeded or are below the pre-development flow rates so we're doing a betterment from a flow rate perspective for the proposed condition for one year storm event we have a 30 36 percent

Kirsten LockhartI mean is it a betterment because there's nothing there right now like

Speaker 16well whatever is coming off the site today like for a one-year storm event for the existing conditions we have 3.94 cfs leaving the site for our proposed condition we're reducing that down to 2.5 so we're holding back more water for the proposed condition with what we're doing so yes we are it is a betterment because we're holding back more water from a flow rate perspective and we have a reduction in both the one two and ten year flow rates leaving the site for detention purposes

Kirsten Lockhartokay and given the grade of the property and its location i mean is Is this going to be impacting the existing eco-pond?

Speaker 16The existing one.

Kirsten LockhartThe existing retention. I mean, I guess that would be uphill from your property, so it would have to be going, the flow rate would be going further downtown. It's

Speaker 16going down University.

Kirsten LockhartYeah.

Speaker 16Okay.

Kirsten LockhartI want to, you know, echo my colleagues' compliments. I think this demonstrates a really thoughtful redesign that incorporates a lot of feedback that you've received. I'm not as concerned as Commissioner Rice about the greenway. there was some activation or interplay between the building and the path but as we've seen in lots of our small area plans you know the expecting developers to give us sort of this communal good that we have envisioned is difficult right um the state doesn't give us much leeway and you know unless we were to eminent domain a bunch of properties to create it so we are at the mercy of the of the applicant and in this case you know the proposal does show that some of that feedback

has been taken into place so i appreciate that my concern about this proposal is is much more foundational, which is that it's with the coverage and the tight boundaries all around, it's really isolated. If this proposal came in front of me today with an incorporation of the immediate to the south property, the office condos that are there, allowing egress to the site from Armstrong as well as 123 and University or George Mason Boulevard, I would feel much more comfortable about it. But as is, it feels unsafe to me. It is so tightly constrained by the boundaries of the site. Economically, I don't know if there's really any reduction in massing or increase in cushion that can be provided. And so that's really my sticking point.

Again, I appreciate some of the thoughtful things that have been done. I do think that that southmost corner on Chambridge Road is still a bit foreboding compared to the landscape. But again, that's because this site is being developed in isolation. I would have really liked to see some interplay, some engagement with the property to the south in particular to make this feel more workable. because as it is right now it's it's very pretty but it is very much sort of a fortress unto itself in terms of the development and and I do have concerns about that from a safety perspective the student increase I hate doing this as a as a mom and a you know school supporter myself of the economics of this but 27

students at roughly the 15,000 per student cost that we're facing right now with the increase from the county that's four hundred and five thousand dollars a year just for the increase in students coming to the city the proposal lists about a hundred and seventeen thousand three hundred dollar contribution from the developer which covers about eight students I know we don't have proffers and we can't officially ask for things but the the math isn't necessarily math thing here with a three hundred twenty thousand dollar a year financial gain but a four hundred thousand dollar cost for students little concerned with that as well but I mean that also assumes that we're gonna see full occupancy and families in this unit and that's my kind of last question is what's the current

demand signal given changes since January of 2025 for predominantly one and two bedroom units in the city because I've called around to scout and the point at Fairfax the flats and University of Maine and everything has availability there no one is is oversubscribed right now for one and two bedroom apartments particularly those places that are targeting students they're So is there a sound economic rationale for the breakdown of unit sizes that's being proposed here?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantWe typically work with a mix of studios, ones, twos, and I think in this one we have a few threes. Am I correct? No threes? Okay. Ones, twos, and I think we had a two in dinner. Maybe that's what I'm thinking of. We typically prescribe to a certain percentage and a certain mix. And you're correct. There are jurisdictions all around that some occupancy is struggling, but I think that has to do with the current market and what's happening in the world, if I can say that in general terms. I don't think that's going to continue. I think the need for ones and twos, particularly with affordable housing, which we are also providing, will come back to normal and, if not, increase because of the cost of housing.

We have inside our proffer is that we can adjust the mix if need be, and so we will look at that during the site plan process. So it could shift a little more to more studios. It could shift to ones or twos, and we will look at that as we go through the process. But I understand your concern, but I think it will mellow out. We're seeing it throughout, like I said, in different jurisdictions, but it calms itself. Again, I think this is market-driven, and it will change.

Kirsten LockhartI think those are all my comments. Thank you.

James FeatherThank you. Ms. Burgess, anything? Mr. Cunningham. Thank

Bankhead Daviesapplicantyou.

Paul CunninghamI do have a few questions or comments and would like to say that I agree with a good bit of what Matt Rice had to say in terms of where this is going. I think this is, to your credit, a much improved submission over what we've seen in the past. But my concerns, I think, start from a larger perspective where, one, I still view it as a negative impact on the neighboring projects, properties without consolidation. consolidation uh the the narrow 26-foot road is essentially the width of a parking space i travel up and down university drive and other streets in town and i find that delivery trucks will park in the right-hand lane on a two-lane road and block it while they're delivering so i have no doubt if they're going to do that on city streets but they'll do it in the in the drive lane

through here as has been suggested. I think I have a bigger concern with the safety of this as it involves the traffic that's developing in this entire area. There's redevelopment going on at the courthouse. There's going to be redevelopment going on north of here, and at some point there will be some adjustment and redevelopment to the south. and as such this doesn't lend itself to tying into any kind of cohesive method of handling the traffic within the box that I had described before. Sager to Armstrong, University to Cambridge so that with small streets in here that exacerbate the traffic problem, I don't see it as a long-term benefit to having a street like that if it could be avoided. When I look at gateway development, as was described by Mr. Rice, I think that was my view also when the small area plan was developed.

that in the past we've tried to find an answer to the question of if you had a family and went downtown what would you do you'd go to a restaurant you'd go outside decide that the streets and traffic were too unsafe and you would take your children and go home there's nothing else to do so to speak so that in many instances we've seen where streets have been blocked off in towns providing a mall-type atmosphere where other things could develop, and people would go down and not only could eat but could find recreation or entertainment or something else so that you activated the downtown. And there was a hope that the Greenway, as it came down, would be that kind of activity. And when we look at putting in 276 units, I translate that probably to 400 people.

And this is not the only development that's going to go on in this area. So by the time we do this and a couple of more developments, we're talking about putting 1,000 people in this area. And if they come out and want to do anything, what can they do? And again, a sterile greenway, which is just a transportation corridor, means that they might walk it to downtown where they can eat and then leave because there's nothing else to do. I think some of the hope was that this could be activated and the Greenway also would have, as was mentioned, kiosks or a restaurant or a bar or things so that you now had instead of a closed off street, you had a pedestrian way that would serve a thousand people and be able to accommodate additional activities.

But none of them are shown here to kind of activate that path as it goes north and south. When I look at the greenway and the comment, it goes across and it has two borders, but there are going to be great grade changes to make it impossible to plan how the greenway would flow. I look at this and I look at the plan underneath it. And right now, I look at the Davies family and say, if they went out of the house and they played on the hill and they went down the slope and that, they had a great area and there's a great grade change. that was with the natural environment that there are now when i look at a development plan like this then i start at the basin the basement grade level that's going to be excavated

and then i look at the fact we're going to take the front of the house instead of the retaining while we have now and the image i get says it's going to be at street level it tells me that virtually all of the dirt on this whether it's building coverage or you know lot coverage or whatever most of the dirt on this place is going to go into a container and be moved someplace else because you need that in order to dig out for these levels of parking and then the housing above it so the level that the greenway is finally at is really determined on where it's put in the building level because the area below it out and is repurposed for parking or other events. So the greenway can go up and down if it were reasonable to fit with the rest of the redevelopment.

But without consolidation to know how that's going to go, it becomes a challenge. And when we look at the lot to the north, we've got three curb cuts. Right now you've got a single car curb cut for access to this property. actual street curb cuts for the building just to the north and if those were to govern and you had to be 50 feet away from one of those two then that street would not be viable but by the same token if we put this street in then another street 50 feet north for a curb cut makes development of the adjacent property to the north almost impractical and drives it. So it's going to create future problems as we see this area redevelop if it's not going to be a piece that fits in a puzzle so that they all play nicely together.

and from that standpoint if this were to move that one lot to the north you could almost rationalize judicial drive as a four-way intersection and bring the street across to the south of this and rationalize it so you wouldn't be dealing with right in right out or if it were moved to the south then you could bring the street there so it's just it's just a work of geography and past this lot is sitting in a blocking position for making redevelopment a real challenge. When we look at density, going from 24 to 100 units, that is going to be dense. And it's part of the issue of putting things in here and redeveloping a more urban downtown. And that's where this is headed. so the original density probably needs to be adjusted up and I can go along with

that when we look at trees my question for our urban forester is that the ones along the street along Cambridge and University appear to be in an area where they can be planted and we're going to look at the kind of trees and say what what is their growth potential because trees along streets are somewhat constrained but when I look on the greenway and put the trees in there and realize that those are going to be an effectively big pots or an area with dirt I think you've commented on the fact that what kind of trees are we going to put in there what kind of canopy I mean are we getting canopy because we can just foliage up there and is that the purpose of what planting trees is and i would wonder

from that standpoint with our green space are we using it effectively i think i saw one of the presentations that went to the board of architecture review where we're talking about using astroturf because it was going to be too hard to keep or it appeared to be too hard to keep grass growing there but you'd still get a green lawn if you could put a green synthetic field in there that didn't have to be mowed or need maintenance but would provide that aesthetic of hey we're out you know in a parking park type setting uh i think those are the bulk of the comments I have and the concerns that I still have with the development in the the impact on any neighboring development the impact on the safety of

the traffic in the long run those kinds of things it's a much improved product I guess from my feeling I would like it still to be better and I know that's a a tough ask. So those would be my comments on where we sit. And thank you. It's great work. Move it just a little and it's fabulous work. So from that standpoint I think those are my comments.

James FeatherAnything else anybody else at this moment? Mr.

Matthew RiceRice. Just to follow up on the comment about the Type of trees that would be planted obviously the constraints in the central greenway corridor sort of you know limited space limited soil volume limited space or the canopy to spread My other concern certainly is the ones on the university it is it true that there will be a stormwater vault underground under the area where the sidewalk will run and And how will that impede with the soil that the tree will need for soil volume to be able to mature?

John LytleapplicantSo for the trees, there is a requirement to meet the soil volume of a minimum of a three-foot depth, as well as the square footage for the – those are Category 4 large deciduous trees. We've also committed to if we can't meet the soil volume, especially for the trees on Cambridge, we will have cantilevered sidewalks or silva cells in order to create that soil volume if needed. We worked with the urban forester to make sure that was in the plans and that she can enforce that if needed at time of sight plan. But, yeah, there are very strict soil volumes that we're meeting for large Category 4 trees.

Matthew RiceOkay. What were her comments about the trees on the university side and the underground stormwater BMP?

Speaker 16The stormwater management vault is about eight feet away from the edge of the trees that are being planted. So you have the trees along the curb, the sidewalk, and then the vaults closer to the building.

Matthew RiceOkay.

Speaker 16So we actually moved the vault so it's outside of the right-of-way, so it's right adjacent to the building. Okay. clears from the edge of the vault to the center of the tree.

Matthew RiceOkay, thank you.

James FeatherOkay, a few things for myself. For staff, there's mention in the staff report, but there was no comment about it in your presentation. I want to make sure whether it's a concern for us or not about the historic resources study that was done. This was described as being potentially eligible for registration. Is that a constraint, truly, for us?

FrederickstaffYou said, is that a constraint for you?

James FeatherRight. How does that weigh into anything that can be done on this site? It's not registered now. It may be potentially eligible. It's something that the city can take action on, or is it up to the property owner? you know what their choices I

Frederickstaffsee Jason making his way to the

Speaker 10thank you for the question chair Feather so following policy guidance that the city has that really stems back from a 2004 citywide survey that had had looked at a number of parcels including this one for further evaluation the city did move forward with the study of this and a few other parcels throughout the properties throughout the city for the baseline next step of evaluating both from a windshield survey standpoint in this case or an in-depth survey for other buildings where access was granted an understanding of potential eligibility now this is a documented report that gives historical analysis of the building along with observed exterior architectural preservation you know what exists there today and what

state is that in along with our consultants initial appraisal of do they believe that it would be potentially eligible for national register listing certainly not an inclusive all-inclusive step in fact to gain concurrence or state Department of Historic Resources is review and and their recommendation on that a preliminary information form with a more formal submission would actually be required that's not something the city has underway nor is it something we're planning for at this point so it is just a base level understanding of the history of the property there have been no determinations at any level that it is contributing building and should be placed on the register placement on the

register itself would not protect the property that's this a nomination a nomination that is not it does not carry regulatory weight creation of a local zoning defined historic overlay district is what would carry weight so similar to what we did with Blenheim or the museum site which was the old school would have to be protected through a zoning mechanism.

James FeatherOkay, that's helpful. Thank you. Does the applicant have any comments about the historic nature? I see you're committed to study some signage to recognize some of the history of the place and the people.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantYes. We actually brought on our consultant. I'm going to bring Anna up front. Yes, we proffered, I believe it's in the proffers, that we would continue to do some studies, agreed that within our plan that we had indicated some markers some artwork through the greenway as well as either in the front or the back of the building some plaques of some sort is giving some history but I'll let her go ahead and give the more professional opinion again

Anna MossapplicantI'm Anna Moss of Stan tech and I had the great fortune to meet Bankhead and his wife and tour the property inside and So we've thoroughly photo documented and conducted research. So the proposed interpretive signage would be based on my research. We found that it was built, it was occupied consistently by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant politicians and attorneys who were heavily involved in the Confederacy and the Daughters of the Confederacy and helped fund the Mar Memorial that has since been removed. And M. Carter Hall was a railroad attorney living in D.C. when he built it as a summer retreat and moved his wife down. He hired his fraternity brother from UVA out of Norfolk because I thought, oh, that's strange, a Norfolk architect up here.

So let me go look in the old corks and curls. And sure enough, they were in one of the most secret fraternities together. So he hired him. The architect was Robert E. Lee Taylor. And his wife, Martha, came down in the summers and she found it to Provincial, so they sold it within five years. Even though she was from Petersburg, she thought Fairforks was Provincial. So then the Thorntons bought it. And I know the Thunderbird report argues that it's important because of the Thorntons. Um, they moved in in 1920, um, in semi-retirement years after he was in the state Senate, which passed a lot of the Jim Crow laws. Um, and they also lived part-time in DC and just hosted parties there in the summer.

Um, and he died in 1928. And then Aunt Sue Bankhead's great aunt, who was very involved with the, um, DAR, are colonial dames confederate um she left a robert e lee 10 type to the museum in richmond um she hosted a lot of the nieces and nephews out there they never had children and she spent her time in dc and florida also summer retreat so in 1954 um davies's uh bankhead Davie's mom, Dixie, actually inherited it over the direct bloodline. And at the time she was, you know, young, they had a few kids, and she'd had an early career before marriage at the Smithsonian National Gallery. And that's what comes into our art interpretation. And we actually, they have a painting in the house where she painted the barber dairy farm

before it was torn down. And the Thorntons and the Barbers were best friends, and they were, like, doing the D.C., Florida thing together. Anyway, so that's going to kind of all go into those interpretive plaques and then the legacy of Dixie Davies, our involvement. So, yeah, if you have any questions.

James FeatherIt would seem to me that capturing that kind of history, particularly about the people, maybe some of the artifacts are transferable to the city's museum or whatever, would be a good place to deposit that stuff. The building itself, is there anything particularly unique about that in the city? Is this the only example of its kind of architecture?

Anna MossapplicantIt's not at all. There's over 100 colonial revival houses recorded just in the city. That's not counting the county. Even though it was designed by a prominent Virginia architect who has done some work on housing in Norfolk and Charlottesville And some buildings at UVA, it's actually kind of one of his most bland designs. It actually is identical to houses in kit catalog houses the year before, like Sears catalog or Aladdin homes, Montgomery Ward homes. It has, I found, identical floor plans. And it's almost as if he did it as a favor for his frat brother.

Bankhead DaviesapplicantOkay,

James Featherthank you. staff has raised a couple of things that they call technical deficiencies I think we're going to history thanks that you'd like to see resolved before going to the city council what how's the applicant respond to those things are they are they resolvable satisfactorily to this

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantI'm almost certain one in four one being just slip sheeting I think those were administrative and then just updating the proffers I believe we were looking at we're actually doing this today we were looking at two and three which had to do with the turning radius I believe and I we are working on that and so we will do our best to get that resolved I

James Featherthink of things like vehicle interferences and so forth these are common around the country you don't like to design them into a new

Micheline Castin Smithapplicantfacility

James Featherbut on the other hand things like putting in mirrors or sensors that alert a driver something is right

Micheline Castin Smithapplicanthere we are we're looking into that if it's speed bumps if it's the mirrors just keeping in mind if I recall that this being a private access road it is not a V dot road and I believe University and Chain Bridge are also not V dot road so they are re-looking at the line of sight and looking at the turning and so between transportation civil if it's my architect whoever it is we're all going to be looking at that and trying to resolve it with those options.

James FeatherAnd a number of concerns have been raised by my colleagues about delivery services, simply parking the roadway and not using pull-off spots. How would the operator of the facility address those?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantAnd I appreciate it, and I can't guarantee anything, so I'm not going to stay here and say, nobody's going to park on that access road, because that would be a lie. But what we have, and it was comments from from the bodies here as well as I think some residents about the short-term parking. So we were able to adjust that access road, got it cleared with the fire marshal by adding those nine spaces and making them wide. I know because we are on a slope there so if a door opens and that is to accommodate truck drivers for the Amazon, the mailman, but also short-term Uber drivers or food delivery. But in addition to that, I want to make sure we're clear that and it's something maybe we can show on the plan is that we did bring in the deliveries also into our loading docks.

So those trucks will be able to pull into where the trash pickup, which happens early in the morning. That's a 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock pickup. But those loading docks, when we don't have deliveries, excuse me, when we don't have move-ins, of course, we'll be able to pull in those trucks. So the Amazon driver who is dropping off because of our package locker rooms are strategically placed close to those loading docks. is able to pull in, unload, take them into the package room, log them in, do what they need to do, and then they can pull out. So the goal is hopefully those trucks will be using those loading dock areas so that that would leave the parking spaces available for the cars. And that would also include our retailers for the patrons that can come quickly, whatever it is,

if it's picking up a coffee or whatever's happening there at the retail station. So the hope is that, and of course we will manage it that way, with it being a fire lane, completely marked. But as a management company, we will, if it was our management company, we would have proper signage and we would be enforcing that. And that just, of course, it's, you're going to have hiccups day one. People aren't going to follow instructions. We know that. But over time, it will get corrected. And the enforcement of towing with my staff or, again, with the signage, hopefully we will keep that street clear and free.

James FeatherAnd one hopes that the need for emergency vehicles is pretty infrequent. Hope is right. But the consequences are high if they can't get in. That's correct. But the probability of them needing to be there often is relatively low. But you never know. One more for staff. A couple comments I made at least about my colleague to my left talked about the driveways and potential four-way intersections with judicial. When I look at the illustrations in the small area plan, I haven't seen anything that suggests there should be street connectivity from judicial through this section over to Breckenridge. In fact, I thought I'd heard that there's pushback from the Breckenridge community against that sort of thing.

Usually it seems to be driveways north and south of the judicial intersection. Am I reading those sketches, illustrations incorrectly? Do you have those images?

FrederickstaffLet's see if I can find a sketch for you.

NaptystaffIf I could chime in a little history on the development of the small area plan. And the location of the driveway as shown in the smaller plan, which is fairly consistent with where it's shown on this plan, was more about the intersection on the side of Cambridge Road, where our traffic engineer had concern about making that a four-way intersection because of how close it is to Armstrong Street. And having changes to that cycle would impact backups by having those two signals so close to each other that we lose some control of our ability to control them in tandem. the that the way they just lined up there wasn't as much of a concern on the Breckenridge side they might have been concerned from the committee on that but

there wasn't a concern about it being a through street or anything because Breckenridge is a dead end so so really the position of that that in that sketch is really more governed by the Cambridge side than the university side

James Featherthat image doesn't really show judicial at least particularly well but it seems to me it's still coming in between the two roads but somewhere

Frederickstaffup in where my hand I think

James Featherto have a four-way. And it seems to me when the north property redevelops, who knows where they're going to want their driveway anyway. There's a lot we don't know. We don't know if that property would be consolidated into the one further to the north. None of us can predict the future, but okay. I don't think you have any more questions. I have a bunch of comments, I think, when we get after the public hearing and have further discussion.

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantThank you

James Feathervery much. Any other questions for staff or the applicant before we open the public hearing? Okay. So this is a public hearing. We're open for comments from the public. We've given the opportunity to members of the public to sign up ahead of time, but you're not constrained if you didn't get your name on the list. But we will start with the names, the folks who have signed up. Madam Clerk, who do you have?

Speaker 17Yes, we have three signed up. William Fournier.

James FeatherOkay. Rules of engagement are you'll have three minutes. This is for you to make comments to us. It's not an opportunity for questions and answers or dialogue. Thank

William Fournierpublic commentyou. Good evening. I'm William Fournier. I live at 10134 Spring Lake Terrace. The small area plans have near-term goals for increases in

Ulysses Montes de Ocaapplicantresidential units.

William Fournierpublic commentCamp Washington is 1,100, Fairfax Circle 950, Old Town 1250, Northfax 1,400. That's a total of 4,700 dwelling units. The impact on population in the city of these dwelling units will be significant. This could be an increase of 40%. There are over 2,300 units in projects shown on the city website that have not started construction. The near-term goal is likely to occur if the city allows development in accordance with the small area plans. The number of new mixed-use buildings that are shown on the diagrams in the plans would result in a doubling of our current population in the long term. I believe that the people of the city are not aware of these figures. This growth would be disastrous. The Davies project has a lot of dwelling units, resulting in a density of over 100 dwelling units per acre.

This is too much. The financial impact analysis provided in the attachments shows that this project, as proposed, probably could be a drain on the city. The buildings are too close to Chainbridge Road and University Drive. It is closer than the two office buildings that are immediately to the north of the Davies property on Chainbridge. The small area plans talk about frontage. New developments should be situated to be space for future multimodal transportation. Scout on the Circle provided for this kind of frontage. School contribution in the Davies Proffers is $425 per unit. Other projects contributions are Willowood Phase I, $1,500 per unit. Fairfax Moxley, the point was $200,000 which is $496 per dwelling unit and that was in

2018. North Facts West is $108,000 for 56 townhomes. That's $1,900 per townhome. I ask the project not use the small area plan as a blueprint for extreme growth. Thank you.

Speaker 17The next person that signed up is Ken Danger.

Ken Dangerpublic commentHey, my name is Ken Danger. So I own a rental unit here in the city of Fairfax. This is my first time ever at this particular forum. And I'm not familiar with the long-term aspects of what you're planning, but a couple of things did strike me. One thing is that the current proposal, current zoning requires 24 units per acre, I believe. So I just did quick math, right? 2.69 acres times 24, you get about 64 units that would be expected on this particular unit. This is calling for more than four times, you have to think about it, four times what the current requirements are. It's a significant variance from what is currently the standard. The other thing I would think is this, is that, and again, I don't know the math here,

but there's 276 units here if you do 500 square foot per unit I don't know what what they've got in mind and there's 11,000 square feet of retail office space basically we're talking about parking an apartment building downtown with hardly anything on offer for the city of Fairfax it's almost nothing in terms of retail or office space or anything else so it's just it's just a big giant apartment building and that's what you've got down here so I I'm thinking about mr. Cunningham stuff and Matt Rice's stuff I just don't know that it it's what does it offer for the city of Fairfax residents now and in the long term I understand that that they're asking for a variance from commercial urban to, or from residential medium to commercial urban, that provides you not with imminent

domain control, but with the ability to say, no, we need more. The proposals in the past that I saw, they looked truly horrible to me, architecturally speaking, but these are much better, but I still think there's a long way to go. So that's all I've got for you. Thanks very much.

Speaker 17Bankhead Davis. Davies.

Bankhead DaviesapplicantI was here in January when you all had the work session. I appreciate and just want to say the time and effort that you all put into this is tremendous. I know that you do a lot of homework ahead of time, and I appreciate it. the team that we have did I think an excellent job of taking what you all and you have mentioned it back and they have worked extremely hard on this we've been on this for almost 10 years now trying to find that right thing our family my sisters and I are just extremely excited about this project and what they've done And I hope that you all will get behind it and help us out, and we can move forward. So, again, I thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

James FeatherIs there anyone who has not signed up that would like to address the commission at this point?

Paul CunninghamGoing once.

James FeatherOkay, we'll close the public hearing, put this matter in the hands of the commission. Other comments from the commissioners that you'd like to make at this point? Ms. Briggs.

Betsy BriggsI was just wondering if they've considered snow removal on this long street. And also, is it possible to create another entrance to the parking garage so that there is another way to get in and out?

James Featherif it tends to get blocked. Feel free. Where's the snow go?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantMy apologies. I didn't hear the first question.

Betsy BriggsSnow removal? How will snow be managed?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantDid we consider snow removal where? Off of the

Betsy Briggsaccess? There's just one street in and out, right? So in a big snow, is there a place to put it so that people can still get in and out? Emergency vehicles can still get in and out?

Micheline Castin SmithapplicantYes. The snow removal process is typically we either have staff on site or we hire outside, and they would take it with them. So they would either have a truck where they're taking it with them, or they move it into the courtyards, or they move it someplace so that it's a clear path for driving. It's required, I believe, within the city by certain, well, at least in other jurisdictions, it's required by a certain time frame to have the snow removed off of sidewalks or public areas, and so that's what we do. It's a safety issue as well. As far as a garage entrance, we did not do the slope on this building, on this property, and I believe that's the case. I believe it's a sloping issue of trying to get a garage entrance off of the chain bridge side,

and that's why it was focused more on the university end.

James FeatherOther comments? I just want to offer some of my own thoughts. These aren't questions, but before we move on to potential motions to address, I like the changes to this project. Others have commented on that. I think you've done a commendable job at addressing some of the more important aspects of what's in the small area plan. Mr. Coleman alluded to and made a statement. There's going to be no perfect project. we've said this many times as we've addressed proposals that come before the Commission trying to meet the intent of the small area plans the smaller your plans are concepts not contracts so the best you can do sometimes it's different from what the grand vision is there's not going to be a perfect project I think

you've done a commendable job at meeting those it's particularly important aspects OF THE SMALL AREA PLAN. YOU'VE ADDED THINGS THAT WEREN'T EVEN ASKED FOR IN THE SMALL AREA PLAN. SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE YOU'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING MORE PARKING THAN WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ATTRACTIVE TO SOME PEOPLE, BUT AS MUCH AS WE TALK ABOUT PARKING, SOMETIMES BEING UNDERPARKED, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE MADE NOTE OF. THE GREENWAY, thoughts about that. I get the concerns about making this an active space, but when you really look at the concepts in the small area plan for the southern end of this big block, super block from Main Street down to Armstrong, never did call for retail kind of

activity, particularly along the Greenway. It was a means to get people outside into a pleasant place to be able to transit from one place to another. Certainly it could be interesting art features, other things of interest, play spots for the kids. Those can be things that can be made active. This property, maybe not a good illusion, but it's kind of at the tail end of it. It's the start of the feeder going north. So I would expect and would hope to see as development progresses further north, we get more and more activation as we bring more and more people in from the many potential residential communities that are envisioned in the small area plan. So I'm not too concerned about the nature of this end of that greenway.

There have been concerns about connectivity to the greenways as development occurs further north. all related to the adjacent property immediately to the north. We have seen concepts in a pre-application session with properties to the north, and it's my understanding they're looking to align their greenway design with this one. So we're not, in this case, should not be thinking that it's not exactly where the small area plan envisions it. You're actually in the driver's seat. This is, as Mr. Frederick alluded to, this is kind of like the Willowood, the N29 thing that we approved, recommended approval for earlier in the year. You're the first here, and it comes with risks, but it also comes with the opportunity for you to put together some other concepts that may not have been envisioned by the firm that we engaged for our small area plan.

so I think you should be granted some latitude and some grace in offering some things that maybe we didn't think about and think about how facilities might be used relative to the grand vision. The greenway is one for me that the lower end of the superblock, it's probably going to be less active in the base case because there are just fewer people down there. As attractive as it is for our city hall is, it's not going to be a major destination for a lot of people. into Old Town. So I'm not too bothered that maybe it's not quite as wide as it was envisioned to be. Maybe it's not going to be able to handle a small electric utility vehicle running up and down. But I think it provides the intent of the greenway. So I'm not terribly concerned

about that. Again, I think you're meeting a lot of the other important aspects of the As far as the special exceptions are concerned, we don't make recommendations related to those, but I will just remind folks, several of those stem from the fact that our zoning ordinance has not kept up with the small area plan. We are working that, but as Mr. Frederick pointed out, when it comes to things like density and height and so forth, those aren't prescribed. well density is not prescribed in the small area plan but sizes like heights are and you're in conformance with that by nature it's going to bring greater density but that was the whole idea of having activity centers is to develop vibrant mixed-use communities and you're not going to get

that with some very small or minimal construction that maybe meets some very low density I'm not terribly concerned. I don't think 24 dwelling units per acre is probably even reasonable in a commercial urban zoning district if we really think about what urban means. But that's what our zoning ordinance is. But we're not limited by that in the small area plan. So I'm not too concerned about those special exceptions as they pertain to zoning ordinances. Others are just the practical in nature of what's the sense of having a sidewalk on the north side of the driveway when there's nothing over there. and we don't know how that property is going to be developed. Those kind of things I'm not at all concerned about.

So now is not the time to start to try to revisit what the small area plan really asked for. It is our plan. It is our concept. And I think we've got a good starting point that you're proposing planting the seeds for future development. And it feels to me what we're seeing potentially coming down the pike to the north will be compatible. we can debate density and housing and so forth but it is what our vision is we are in a growing area and we need to be able to figure out the right way to accommodate the growth not stop the growth and think we can stop time because i don't think we can do that and i don't think it's good for the city if we do that it'll just increase the burden on the rest of what's left so

There's not going to be an ideal design. I think this is a good one. I intend to support it, but I'm happy to get comments from anybody else as well before we move on. Is there a motion? Can I? Can I?

Paul CunninghamThank you. along that line a lot of water has gone through our drainage system since I started on the planning commission I will say and when we looked at the historical maps for this property we saw where the natural drainage went for it into creeks before all of the development occurred which capped a lot of it That includes Breckenridge being essentially the creek bed that went down and heads toward Daniels Run. This project has gone on for a long time. But I will say with that, as we look at development in the city and look at some of the trends that have occurred with development, there are a number of issues that have come up with each one. and they bear careful consideration looking at the outcomes of some of them.

In this case, the land is zoned residential at the present time, which means it has an alternate use. It has a by-right use. There is nothing keeping the land from being redeveloped by right into something that the city may or may not have envisioned. So we're not preventing, as I see it, the redevelopment of this particular parcel. And that includes strange actions that have been taken in the past to try to rezone land as a historic district in order to prevent its redevelopment, which may have been very short-sighted in the final outcome that they provided. So I'm not saying that the city has done everything well in its processes moving forward or that they are great processes moving forward.

But I will say that with a given right and by right use, when you're looking for an exception, when you're looking for a change, I will look back to a time, I think as we were starting, perhaps looking at this process, when the Planning Commission was able to look and communicate with developers and people coming in with projects in terms of proffers and then state law changed that particular communication method we've been prohibited from doing that so those changes have come along and we have adjusted to them the adjustments that we have available in dealing with this particular project mean that if If we have exactly what we want that fits the vision, there's a reason to grant the change.

Because it is a granting of the change that is going on when you approve this kind of development. And there is an alternate by right use. So we're not preventing the landowner from using the land. It's just not what they might want from an economic outcome or some other purpose. In this case, I think we're good and not great. And I understand that great has been deemed to be the enemy of the good. But when we do something like this, it is going to be looked at by the other people who are going to come along. And each one is going to try to tailor it to their specific situation. And

Frederickstaffthat

Paul Cunninghammakes it a challenge for staff to deal with. Because the best we can do in writing rules is to try to gauge what the city wants and couch it in terms that will allow the staff primarily to communicate with people who come in and want to make a change. So, yes, our zoning ordinance, which was rewritten in 2016, immediately came up for review and correction and personalization to the city because an outside contractor wrote it and we want it to fit us, not what some outside perfection is. We're in the process of doing that. So our zoning ordinance and the small area plan zoning ordinance is something that is taking time to work through as we get the details moving. I don't know if we're there yet.

I don't know if it's going to be perfect when we're done. I suspect not. But in this case, we're dealing with a situation in which the rules have changed over time. We're dealing with a situation in which they are expected to change. we're dealing with a situation in which we've developed small area plans which came along in essentially 2019 with the adoption of the comp plan at that time which was a major rewrite there was no concept of how do we deal with the business areas that's what gave us small area plans that's what gave us the fact book so that you could look at statistically what's going on in the city. This project was already in its state, which means it was being looked at for redevelopment at

that time. So the playing field has changed on both sides, both the developer side and the city side as we're trying to get a development that fits the future needs of the city. Some of us were much younger when we started this plan, and that means we probably won't be around to see what the outcome is 15, 20, 25 years from now. But that doesn't mean that the city doesn't deserve the kind of planning that will give those of us who are graduating from Fairfax High School at this point a future that will give them the best life. We've taken a lot of commercial space and turned it into residential space. We won't get that back if the economy changes. We're doing that in this case. It is residential now.

We're leaving it residential with the density that we're putting in of residential. But as a comment was made, we're impacting the future population of the city as we're managing density and growth. I think we can still do better in the consolidation and sense of where we're going so that much as I like the improvement in the plan, I don't think I can support it at this time yet. And I think we can still do better as we're moving forward. With that, I will say thank you for the time and attention because a lot of work has gone into this. I know when I get homework that includes 186 page detailed staff report and that's just from the staff that's not the developers paperwork that yes we spend time on it but I look at the time that the city staff has to spend preparing that I look at the time that the development team spends developing these ideas so that they can bring them to us and recognize that it's going to be debated by a small group of people.

change for a lot of people who aren't here voicing it. So I think what we're doing is important to keeping the city's vision alive and giving us the best future that we can moving forward. Thank you.

Kirsten LockhartI was just wanting to return to your point about this being the first example of kind of adherence to a small area plan particularly with regards to the Greenway and I've already gone on record as saying that I think this is fine you know it incorporates the Greenway where previously, but the plan didn't. So that's appreciated. But I'll flip your point about kind of giving grace to and, you know, managing our expectations to should we have higher expectations for what comes first? Because does this inspire someone to the north or south to do more than this? Or does this say, we had a grand idea for a greenway, but we'll be happy with a sidewalk? And I'm not sure I'm willing to back all the way off of the concept in that in creating

that precedent. Just to kind of, the way that you phrased it made me think that, you know, sometimes the people who come first have to meet higher expectations, not lower.

Matthew RiceI think my cynical view agrees that future developers may see a precedent here and may may try to undershoot a bit. My perspective is also colored by living south of this development and seeing the four parcels on that south edge of that super block as being the gateway. It's the gateway into that greenway that will take you downtown. And I work at, you know, a large University just further south and it just the weight of kind of people on that south side just is huge and it's uh it's the invitation to kind of explore downtown and I think like Miss Lockhart I'm appreciative of all the effort that's gone into this and worried at the same time that um that this is less than we need as the very first project I'm also um cognizant of the

impacts that the east-west street on the north side, what that will do to future developments of the other parcels, the two parcels that are similarly oriented east-west to the north of this, it creates problems. We typically don't build multiple outlets within such a short distance. it's maybe a fantasy, but I would have loved to see consolidation with the ends of court or some effort to consolidate with the two parcels to the north to develop something that reflects what's in the small area plan, which is sort of a grander entrance into this greenway that's activated on the south side. And while that's a disappointment, I think to some extent I also believe that the first person in has got to

James Feathergo big.

Matthew RiceAnd I think in most ways this does check most of the boxes, but I'm still reluctant about those issues. I'm also thankful to my colleague at the end. Snow removal is a perpetual issue for privately owned streets. One of my colleagues lives in a private street just north of my public street, and their snow always ends up on my curb. And I actively have to stand out there on the curb, you know, playing the senior citizen role of, you know, stay off my lot. um having a 26 foot wide road with snow plowed to the curb just makes it so much more likely that the actual drivable space for tower ladder three is just not going to be achievable anyway i i i do recognize as my colleagues have pointed out that it will be a great exception to

the rule that that street is completely impassable but the minimum for tower ladder trucks like that 26 feet um with a anything parked on that street it's not passable and with snow on the street it's not passable and i i would love to have seen uh some consolidation where that that street could be widened and we could incorporate more green space you've got all the density here uh the proposals that come in were maybe going to unfairly insist that they incorporate more green space because we didn't get it in this one um anyway those are my final thoughts i do appreciate the thoughtfulness of my colleagues all of whom have seen this multiple times and um this has a history well beyond kind of my service in January 2020

when I started on the commission. This has a long history. It really would be great to see something done and something built that reflects all of our goals in that small area plan. We're 80% there. And I think I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

James FeatherIs there a motion, Mr. Coleman? I can do a motion.

Anthony Colemanokay chair based on the public convenience welfare and good zoning practice with respect to rezoning application Z dash two three dash zero zero zero seven three which has been filed for the land known as the Davies property and more particularly described as as and identified as 4131 Chain Bridge Road tax map 57 dash four dash zero two dash zero four zero I move that for the rezoning application Z-23-00073 to rezone the subject property from RM, residential medium, to CU, commercial urban, while retaining the old Fairfax transition overlay district, TOD, and approve an approval of the general development plan with proffers, which has been prepared and submitted by the applicant.

James FeatherIs there a second? I will second it. So we'd have a discussion. Further discussion? Okay. We'll take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Paul CunninghamNay.

James FeatherAye. So that motion fails two to four. Is there another motion?

Paul CunninghamThere's no requirement for

James Featheranother

Paul Cunninghammotion.

James FeatherWe would ask for all. We can ask.

Paul CunninghamThe motion.

James FeatherSo we can make a statement.

Paul CunninghamNo.

James FeatherWe can.

Paul CunninghamI believe from Pac-Fast if the motion has failed, then that is.

James FeatherWe have two options for motions. One is a motion for approval with conditions, and we have an option for a motion for denial. So we haven't exhausted our options at this point.

Paul CunninghamThe nay vote is essentially the motion for denial.

James FeatherIt is not. Is it correct, Mr. Harden? A no vote on the approval is not a motion for denial.

Paul CunninghamAre you going to say what Mr. Lepkeman?

Speaker 9That is correct, Mr. Chair. What Mr.

Paul CunninghamLepkeman would have said?

Speaker 9It may look like one, but it's not. No. City attorney typically recommends that the body take an affirmative action, as opposed to moving forward with an action that's failed. So if there's a contrary action for the board to take, that would be the recommendation.

James FeatherI will add that Mr. Lubcom was consulted prior to this meeting.

Paul CunninghamSo he's changed his advice to the former chair? Could be. That could be? Could be. Thank you.

James FeatherIs there another motion?

Speaker 9Mr. Chair,

Kirsten Lockhartbased on the public convenience, welfare, and good zoning practice with respect to rezoning application Z-2300073, which has been filed for the land known as the Davies property and more particularly described and identified as 4131 Chainbridge Road, I move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning application to rezone the subject property from RM Residential Medium to CU Commercial Urban while retaining the Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District because the applicant's proposal as set forth in the General Development Plan is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city goals and policies as currently presented.

Paul CunninghamSecond. It's

James Featherbeen moved and seconded to recommend denial to the City Council. Is there further discussion? All those in favor of the motion to deny, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Or no. All right. That motion passes. You'll be consulting with staff on what your options are going forward, but that is the decision of the commission. Thank you for all your time and your efforts, the work you've put into this, getting to this point.

Paul CunninghamAnd for Mr. Houston and Ms. Gaston-Smith, we have talked about snow before on previous iterations.

James FeatherOkay, we are moving on to our staff reports. Mr. Napty.

NaptystaffThank you, Chair. If other members of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission last met on May 12th. So since that time, there have been several city council meetings. A couple of items have come up that may be of interest. May 13, City Council endorsed funding applications for revenue sharing funds with this round, included several projects, one of which is the Northfax East-West Road that is identified in the Northfax Small Area Plan. On June 3, the City Council had several work sessions of interest, including updates on the Blenheim Boulevard multimodal improvements, the George Snyder Trail, Old Town Parking study which for the planning commission's reference this was shared with you the

result of that study will be a reference for future decisions particularly related to small area plan in general it encourages shared parking with proposals going forward and suggest that if the there are no other changes to the ordinance and encouraging through encouraging shared parking that we may not need a second parking garage in Old Town a separate community parking garage in Old Town as is identified in the Old Town small area plan. At that meeting the City Council also received a presentation on the historic properties evaluation that was mentioned tonight included the Davies site as well as the Far House, the Sistens House and Germantown Cemetery. All of the sites were identified as having potential eligibility for the National Register

restorative places except for the Sisson house they also had a work session that day on the general zoning text amendments which planning commission initiated for future public hearings tonight moving forward to the June 10 City Council meeting City Council adopted the commercial property assistance clean energy program or CPACE program as otherwise known this is something has been identified in the comprehensive plan since 2019 there have been changes over state code that have made this easier for us to implement which is why it took so long for it to move forward and they also had a work session on the potential lane use request for the Willard Sherwood Community Center and then the City Council had closed meetings on June 17 and tonight for appointments to boards

and commissions so hopefully that will include a new appointment for the Planning Commission a couple of things moving forward we have this Thursday is on Old Town will be held at Commonwealth Brewery at 9 a.m. and then July 1st we've mentioned this a couple of times we're scheduled to have a joint work session with the Planning Commission City Council on project that is now known as move Fairfax previously known as the safety action plan we have heard from the commissioners Lockhart rice Cunningham and Coleman they'll be able to attend if your change plans has changed just let me know and any others that are but we hope to see you there and that's all we have for the staff report tonight thank you

James Featherokay any questions for staff

Paul Cunninghamit

Naptystaffwould be here in the work session room okay great thank you did you tell me already I think you okay so

Matthew Ricemr. Navti is there a remote attendance option for

Naptystaffunfortunately no we inquired about this I asked about that myself.

Anthony ColemanOkay.

Matthew RiceOkay. I have a conflict that I haven't completely resolved yet, and I may be traveling that day. I do intend to participate and put 100% of my effort behind this. It sounds important and sounds like something that will be worthwhile. There are things I do professionally outside of this building that relate directly to that. so um i may not be able to attend on the first but i'll be very much eager to participate

Naptystaffgreat thank you and that reminds me i failed to mention that commissioner weiss was appointed as a representative for the planning commission um for the move fairfax committee so um i know you will certainly be involved even if you are not there on the first

James Featherokay commission comments anything Ms. Briggs, anything to go to the body?

Betsy BriggsI'm happy to play it out with some of you. I appreciate you guys. You know, everybody has

Paul Cunninghamhelped a lot. Thank you. Mr. Connigan. The 4th of July is coming up very imminently. The city has planned an excellent parade during the day. I'd like to invite everybody to attend and come celebrate, and then there will be a firework show at Fairfax High School that evening along with a large party that goes around it and would like to invite everybody to come and enjoy the celebration of our country's birthday I

James Featherdon't suppose there's a remote participation option for that either

Paul Cunninghamit's not televised but it will be recorded.

Matthew RiceMs. Lockhart, anything?

Kirsten LockhartNothing from the commission's evening. Thank you.

Matthew RiceMr. Rice. I attended a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting on the 12th and there was a lot going on. That always surprises me that a board that's meeting once a month has such a jam-packed schedule and there's a lot going on. So Splash Pad Downtown has been at a commission for a while. Going to be open again in July. Work's being done quickly on that. There are currently a couple of options for redesign of the playground at Pat Rodeo Park. There's an online survey. Links have been sent to most of the citizens in the community. It would be worth voting and giving some input, particularly if you spend time there with your kids. um tice park uh is uh under construction as many of you have seen if you've driven up picket road

it's not only on time but it's on budget and so that's a good uh report uh old town hall um bids uh in july constructions intended to start in august this is a switch from construction that would have started a little earlier in the year but there were a little bit some delays that will where it will be out of commission. Importantly, the City of Fairfax Parks Foundation is being established and staffed, and that's sort of a private body where members of Parks and Rec as well as outside advisors can do things like raise money and gives a little more flexibility to sort of the funding side of parks. And so that Parks Foundation is being set up. That's been ongoing for a few months. And if you have any questions about that

or if you know people that have expertise that would be useful, it would be worth checking in with the parks folk. the Willard Sherwood Center discussions almost a constant right now and so we've recently been talking about budget issues and you know practical issues for that project to happen and what would be incurred as a city if we were to decide not to go forward and I think that the answer to that is multiple tens of millions of dollars lost by the county and the sort of legal ramifications of a much larger entity that loses money because of our decision so my personal view is we need to do everything we can to support the construction of the Willard Sherwood Center as we planned with the county and when we partner with

outside groups whether it's Novo Parks or the county on projects we need to meet our commitments that we make it's real hard when you partner with a group and then you get cold feet and decide you're going to back out or make kind of changes. So that concerns me personally, but I'm very confident in the ability of the parks director and the other city staff to sort of navigate in a way that's best for the city. That's about it for the parks and rec. Again, tons of business, multiple construction projects. We have very few citizens attending, and it would be great to see additional people showing up on the second Thursday of every month to give input. So our next meeting is on that second Thursday in July.

That's it. Mr. Coleman,

James Featheranything? Okay. Okay. From me, I didn't realize until today that it's the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Old Town Small Area Plan. Mr. Frederick's presentation. Happy anniversary. We still have an opening to fill on the Board of Architectural Review. They had been down two people. One was our appointment, but they have had a new appointment of an architect, so they're back to only being shy, I think, one person now from this body. I thoroughly enjoyed that when I served in that role. Mr. Cunningham, you did as well. It is an extra meeting burden. They don't necessarily meet every time they're supposed to meet like we lately have done. But I would still encourage someone to think about stepping up to fill that role.

I think it is a good interface. If necessary, we can have the discussion with them about the long-term value of that role. But when I asked that same question recently, the chair thought there was value in our participation. So, and when I went back and talked to Mr. Denton, who served in that role for us as well, he thought it was valuable too. So, it would not be time wasted, and I think he'd bring a valuable perspective on other aspects of development in the city to that body. I think there's nothing else. We will meet again in July. I'll be back for that. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. you