Planning Commission Regular Meeting

. Good 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 pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one 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? Mr. Chairman, I move the agenda be adopted as presented. Is there a 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. All those in favor of the 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? The only sign-ups are for the public hearing. All right. No 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? Mr. Chair. I move that the Commission adopt the meeting minutes from the May 12, 2025 regular meeting as presented. Second. All right. Moved and seconded to adopt as issued. All those in favor say 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. Thank you, Chair Feather and members of the Planning Commission. Just for background information, this pertains to the information that was presented to the Planning Commission at a work session on May 12, 2025 and City Council on June 3, 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 initiate through a motion any such text amendments to the zoning ordinance. So that's what 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. Okay. 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. Mr. 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 these amendments 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. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Any further discussion? On 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 Chambridge Road, tax map parcel 57-4-02-040. We'll begin with a staff report. Welcome Mr. Frederick. Good 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 Chambridge 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 land 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, the frontage on the west side of the 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 consist of a former bank site to the north, office condos to the south, Breckenridge Townhomes to the east, and to the west is the former site of Red Hot and Blue Restaurant, several offices, and the Fairfax County Judicial Complex.

The subject property has a future land use 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 small area 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 an alley by walking path and back patios associated with nearby buildings. Also, this alleyway would serve as emergency access, but it's primarily a function 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 applicant is proposing 276 units. The small area plan prescribes an increase of 25,000 square feet of new office space. The applicant is proposing 4,188 square feet. The retail, there's an increase of approximately 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 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, the, the, the, the, the, it's residential medium in the, uh, transit, transit overlay district. And approximately up to 15 homes could be developed on the property, not including some water and roads. So just looking at doing a rough, uh, calculation, approximately 15 units could be, be designed under the residential medium. The proposed, uh, zoning is commercial urban commercial urban is, uh, established to provide an urban mixed use development option for appropriate parts of the downtown area.

And also within a, uh, uh, prescribed, uh, small area plan, such as the old town, uh, 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 6,600 square feet of retail, approximately 4,200 square feet of office. So, uh, a 26 foot private access drive near the northern property line from university drive to chamber drew. Um, this also includes a 10 foot wide sidewalk on chamber drew and a tempered side, uh, foot sidewalk on university drive. And the applicant has provided a five foot sidewalk on the south side of the private, uh, drive. The subject property is approximately 2.69 acres in size.

Both access points are designed as right in and right out. Uh, building a, which is, uh, closest to, uh, uh, Chambers road. Um, so this is building a, uh, building a consists of a five story building, uh, with 114 units and the office and retail, uh, located on the ground floor, uh, fronting along Chambers road. Uh, building a has a separate entrance for retail office, uh, the cowork, um, units and residential units. Building a has a bicycle storage area for approximately 28 bicycle spaces near the greenway. And a building a also has a front yard setback that ranges from seven feet to 11 feet on Chambers road. Uh, in terms of building B, which is, uh, located along university drive. Uh, it's consists of 162 units, a courtyard with the pool area and amenities and a residential lobby and leasing area fronting on university drive.

Uh, the building height for building B is proposed as four stories along university. Uh, with a step back of approximately 70 feet and then, uh, five stories near the center of, of the site and the building, uh, with the height of, um, approximately, um, um, um, 50, 51 feet. Uh, building a has a bicycle, uh, storage area with roughly 20 bicycle spaces on the first floor near the greenway. And building B has a front yard set back of 10 feet from university drive. University drive both buildings have, uh, loading zone and trash room interior to the buildings along the private and internal, uh, street drive. So in terms of the general, um, plan, looking at the number of parking spaces, the, uh, parking plan shows a three level parking garage, um, with 423 spaces.

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

So basically it would be, um, underground parking and the applicant has provided again, nine, uh, spaces, uh, surface parking spaces. So the, uh, red arrows, uh, indicate the loading zones, um, for both buildings. And on your screen now is the, uh, bicycle, um, um, bicycle rooms that has the 46 bicycle, uh, spaces. Um, the applicant has met the standards for the non-residential standards, uh, provided in the TOD in terms of maximum lot coverage, building coverage. Um, and we'll get into the, the building height and the density, uh, later on in the slideshow. Uh, it should be noted that the smaller area plans suggest, uh, that height be limited to four stories and five stories. It's, uh, somewhat of a tailored approach and that the smaller your plans suggest bulk and form or maximum density.

And has a near term horizon of, uh, 15 years with projected increase of 1,250, uh, resident residential units. So, uh, in terms of what the applicant has provided is consistent with, uh, with the smaller area and plan, uh, um, prescribes in terms of height, uh, the number of buildings, um, the, the number of, uh, stories. And also the, the bulk and form of the, um, of the building is consistent with a smaller airplane. Um, in terms of setbacks, the applicant has, um, um, provided a seven to 11 foot setback along, um, Chambers Road for building a and a, uh, 10 foot setback for, uh, building, building B along university. The rear setback to the south is, uh, 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, um, for the alleyway that connects from, um, this property all the way to the north, um, to say gravity, which is, uh, the applicant is setting the stage for that, um, 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, uh, what the small area plan, uh, uh, speaks to of as public open space. And then the greenway is within the middle, uh, and the applicant has provided that, um, 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, um, east west private drive with ride in, ride out, um, uh, turn movements. Uh, building B provides access to the parking garage and loading zone for building a and building B.

Uh, I showed those locations earlier, uh, the pedestrian access. There's a 10 foot sidewalk on Cambridge road and university drive and a five foot sidewalk on the south side of, of the access drive. Um, again, the applicant has provided a 15 foot pedestrian path between both buildings connecting to building a and building B. Uh, uh, the smaller area plan, uh, contemplates, uh, streetscape and the applicant, um, has provided, um, um, a streetscape, um, in terms of, um, overall canopy trees along university and Cambridge, Cambridge road. And also within the proposed greenway, uh, the, the site is required to have a, uh, 10 year tree canopy. Uh, and this, in the CU district, uh, which is 10% the applicant has met that requirement, uh, by providing a, uh, tree canopy of 10.32%.

Uh, I'll get to the transitional yard modification, uh, 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 in, um, in this location in yellow. Uh, this, the applicant proposed the stormwater vault on the east side of the property to control a one to two and 10 year, 24 hour storm, um, event and release stormwater runoff into proposed closed conduit storm system, uh, provided, um, as parallel to the university, uh, to university drive. Um, the applicant has, uh, met with, uh, public work staff and, uh, staff has reviewed the plans and they have no additional, um, comments or issues with, uh, with the location and, uh, the functioning of the stormwater management system.

Uh, utility plan, the applicant is proposing to underground all utilities in accordance with, uh, section 4.11, um, of the zoning ordinance. Um, so in terms of the special exceptions, there are a number of, there are seven special exceptions, uh, for this application. Um, and I'll, uh, try to go through each one. Uh, the first special exception is for 75% ground floor, non-residential, uh, use in a mixed use building. Um, density of requesting that a special exception for density of more than 24 acres and in the TOD. And also a, um, height, a special exception for height for more than 48 feet and the TOD. The applicant is also looking to, um, uh, looking to eliminate the requirement of landscape, the landscape strip and street trees along the access drive,

as well as eliminate the requirement to provide vehicle access to a buddy, non-residential properties, um, to eliminate the requirement of a sidewalk on the north side of the road. 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 bear with me, I'll go through each one of them. Um, so the ground floor, the applicant has provided the, um, ground floor, uh, retail, um, on the west side of the building and building a along, uh, chambers road. The applicant, um, was encouraged to provide retail on, on this location as a smaller area plan does not recommend non-residential users at this location. So the small area plan, uh, doesn't call for it, but planning commission and city council, um, urge the applicant to provide some retail at this location.

And so the applicant has provided some retail, um, at this location. However, it does not meet the 75% requirement, uh, based on the zoning ordinance and therefore they seek a, uh, a special exception. In terms of height, the, the applicant, um, seeks a special exception for the, I'm sorry, for density. Uh, density is at 24 dwelling units per acre in the commercial urban district. The applicant has proposed a density of 103, uh, dwelling units per acre. Um, again, this, the, the, the density, um, for these, for the zoning ordinance doesn't quite match up with the, um, small area plan. So the, uh, staff is currently working on updates to, uh, to the zoning ordinance. However, the, um, the bulk and the form that's provided by the applicant is consistent with the small area plan.

Uh, and so the applicant has requested small area plan. Staff believes that the, uh, that the bulk and the form, um, for this, uh, site is consistent with, uh, with the small area plan. Um, in terms of the, uh, height, height is limited to 48 feet and the TOD, the applicant has, um, provided, um, four stories along a university drive with a step back and then five stories on Chambers Road. Uh, building B is four stories and has a step back again instead of 70, 70 feet measure from a property line along the university drive. Uh, the applicant is, uh, seeking a special exception, uh, to allow, uh, height beyond 48 feet. Building a is measured at 62 feet and building B is approximately 51 feet.

Uh, so along the, uh, private drive, the applicant, um, is required to have landscape strip and street trees along, uh, the access drive. However, uh, the applicant is seeking a special exception. Uh, the fire marshal has designated the entire length of the private street as a designated fire lane. And, uh, the applicant is providing a, uh, five foot sidewalk, um, abutting the, the building. Uh, so the Northern side of the, um, property, uh, would not have a landscape strip and the street trees, um, based on the request from the, uh, fire marshal. And also there's a change in grade, um, at this location, which, um, I'll get to in the next slide. So with the change in grade, there's also, uh, the requirement.

The applicant is seeking to eliminate the access, um, to the budding non-residential properties. Um, but the applicant has provided, um, roughly a change in grade. Um, and the applicant has provided an access easement, um, shown on, on the screen, uh, in yellow to the north and to the south that would provide a pedestrian connection as the, um, as those properties redevelop. So if those properties redevelop, the, um, there would be a location for the applicant to tie into in terms of a pedestrian connection and also to the north, the applicant, the, uh, the development when it redevelops, they could also, um, provide access drive, uh, to increase the width of the proposed, um, access drive, um, as it serves the redevelopment to the north and also for this, uh, for the subject property.

Um, it's kind of similar to what, um, if you recall to the, uh, uh, in 29 proposal, um, that was, uh, recently approved, um, um, earlier this year. Um, and then in terms of eliminated sidewalk and the north side, the applicant is proposing to eliminate that, uh, sidewalk, um, as providing a five foot sidewalk, uh, connections, um, um, um, on the south side of the private drive, uh, just north of, and abutting to the, um, 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 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 buffer yard C&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 DNA 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 public hearing there are four items but largely the two items that that are really technical issues comes down to attorney movements shown on sheets 26 and 29 and a

sight 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 proper 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 a 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 are there any pressing questions for staff before we move on to the applicants presentation okay thank you Miss Frederick we'll invite the applicant to come forward and make your presentation welcome

good 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 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

we have Clayton with urban engineering who will be representing a civil civil we have John who's also with urban representing landscape they're all sitting behind me Felice who is 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 for the owner we appreciate your time and so we'll get right to the presentation if you have any questions if you have any questions we'll all be here to address them thank you good evening my name is Ulises Montes de Oca with Lesart Design the architecture group engaged to design this development just gonna start real quick to refresh refresh everyone's memory on where do we start we started from a former application with 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 as 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 even

the building that evolved into a far better from what was proposed before originally was 20 foot access drive with no sidewalks with no sidewalks number four is a step of the building along University Drive now we're proposing four stories and a deeper step before if you can see the building got a little bit closer to University Drive now we have a full depth of 70 feet the entire building depth is stepping back and number five the courtyards are open similar to what's in a small area plan in a small area plan in a illustrated in a small area plan as its envision by the city the courtyards are open both before it was a fully enclosed building and number six the we have coordinated back and forth with your teams on the setbacks and the composition of the sidewalk and where the

the trees the landscape portions the width of the walkways and multiple functions that we have along entrance entrance entrance points so this is just 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 small area plan

the plan suggest different architecture 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 the changes this this 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 you are what's in the small area plan guidelines 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 residential character like I mentioned before we had blank wall facing south now we have more articulated mass and materials are a little bit more residential friendly more neighborhood contextual this is also University Drive but this one's looking to the south I believe I 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

and this is the corner of the 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 perceived almost like a gateway when you're driving north towards the city towards downtown this corner wants to be special and we just went back and forth several details and it's one of the latest updates we did that's in summary of the evolution of the plan I'm going to go over the plans I think we have we have the file open I apologize this is the one thing got stuck oh it's taking a while it's taking a while it's a large file yes yes while 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's referring to on the top that was different from the bottom the application that was submitted was a

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 back came back with the Davies joined forces with them as 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 we 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

patience there's a three miles there's a three miles there's a three miles there's a three miles let's see this might work perfect shazam got it thank you for your patience sorry about that well there's a significant topography differences between Cambridge and University Drive the site drops about 29 feet as I mentioned we have two buildings building a 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 to be 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 out along the building this is the lowest level it's a lot of the shows you the lowest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest shows you the highest

It's parking. Then the second level up, this is 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 exhibit is meant to show what happens on the greenway. We have two independent loading zones. They're internal. They're internal for movers. Also for trash pickup. We have bike storage on each building, and they're both accessed through the greenway.

So people on their bikes, they can easily access through the greenway. We think that brings activity to the greenway. Then we have residential amenities facing the courtyard. This courtyard is technically the roof of the parking below. And like I mentioned earlier, we have the short-term parking on each building. 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 front doors, 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 an amenity 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 a pedestrian eye level from the several right-of-ways that we were required to demonstrate. These are related to setbacks that were shown to you before. The setback along Cambridge Road is from 7 to 10 feet. Along University Drive is 10 feet. The building height, because the building steps, we have two 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 are required to provide higher floor-to-floor heights on the ground floor, at least 12 foot ceilings. So we are holding a height of 13 foot 8 on the ground floor.

And along University Drive, same thing. We have 13 foot 8 floor-to-floor. This is the visual I mentioned earlier about where the pedestrian eye level sees the roof equipment is 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 with that. We're also proposing placeholders for future signage. The red dashed lines, basically the boundaries that would have a sign in the future when retail tenants come in.

There's placeholders, but the area is what complies with code. This shows how parking for retail works. The orange arrow is basically from the entrance. Retail parking would be signalized in similar fashion as the examples and photographs above. 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 are different architecture palettes 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 the 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. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Questions for staff for the... I'm sorry? I'm sorry. Oh. Well, he asked a question. Should we... Do you have anything further? Go over landscape... We have more... We have more presentation with the landscape. Oh, okay. Can I just stop if you'd like to ask a question to architecture? No, please go ahead. This one is pretty quick, so... So don't ask for questions. We're... And then we're available after that. Thank you. All right. Fred, 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... Okay, we'll talk. 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. So back in 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 the tree panel, six-foot street tree panel behind it. Small area plan calls for that to be flipped. We, at the time, couldn't work that out 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 along here. So you, rightfully so, made comments on 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 ten 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 ten 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 ten-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 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 on 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 the

parapet wall 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 whoop I don't know what's doing that bear with me okay sorry I thought I had one more slide and that those are all the points I wanted to make okay 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 okay commissioners questions for or comments for staff and or the applicant mr. 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 what this is by far the best and the one that's been

subject to more scrutiny and and comments and change there are a couple of specifics that are still concerning to me and a couple things that I really like the bicycle features and the investment in bus uh mass transit over on the chamber 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 um with that as a kind of anchor point the 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 the most important the one I hear the most from all my neighbors and 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 this because it's the first sets the precedent and I think if the scrutiny is high 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 plans and seeing the comments and specifics in the plan it's real hard to see what will emerge um 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 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 etc 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 the

with a very difficult problem that will 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 the right turn out of the garage will swing over into the left lane unless they're extraordinarily skilled and managed 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'd need to 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 in an effort has been made to incorporate more brick and more kind of traditional aesthetic that matches some of the adjacent properties matches some of the buildings at the courts across the 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 saw it at Breckenridge across the way although the traffic and this 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 with the 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 some more attractive development which I appreciate let me ask just real some specific things that building coverage in our documents is listed at 56% and I didn't believe that and still I'm 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 the 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%

but the billing coverage itself is 53% the image that we're looking at this is the yellow sections plus the area underneath the activated balcony that's correct so the footprint of both buildings is really only 56% correct does that include the structure underneath the pool and underneath the other central courtyards? no the courtyards is excluded just and is that a common practice to exclude areas like that that are still sort of structure but not yeah that's where the lot coverage comes into place so the garage plus the courtyards plus the billing would be the actual lot lot coverage okay that's a little clearer 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 there's curb on both sides of the roadway both the north and south side of the road so I was hoping you'd say no that way you know if an emergency vehicle needs to you know needs to use some of the sidewalk to get past an Amazon driver on the north side they'd be able to do so anyway I don't know what the standard practice is it is a private road so if we want to pursue that we could definitely look into making that multiple curb yep all right I'm gonna leave it I'm gonna leave it there if it's okay others I 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 a hundred iterations of it and none of them will be come out flawless so I 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 in 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 is we need to be looking at this in a forward-looking manner which we do and it's change is inevitable that's the one thing that we're always going to see it's the one constant in life and all of that is always going to happen and and knowing that it's Fairfax is a very special place to live in this creates an opportunity potentially for two hundred and seventy six new families or residents to join our special community that's the one thing that if we look at it ten years fifteen twenty 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. Thank you. Slogger? I do have a couple actual questions. do you have any proposed plans for the retail and commercial space? Are you in talks with any vendors or We haven't started any talks with any vendors yet that's we 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 the size and the use but we haven't ventured out too far until we really had a sense of Okay, so are we talking like open shell development or do you think you'll kind of

it'll be purpose-built or Well, 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 is giving 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 talk to them as well we would want it to be successful you know a lot of buildings struggle when they get the retail and it and it we've had that happen within our own buildings so we'd want it to be a successful retailer that comes in we don't want a revolving door or for our residents or the community yeah I 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 feel like applicants should at least have an idea of what is coming in there because that needs to be communicated to the surrounding community as well

mm-hmm stormwater management the proposal says shall be designed what's your current understanding of the need there and the plan as you see it I'm going to transfer to Tiffany so 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 is overland flow it's not in the pipe system so for our 1, 2, and 10-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 a 1-year storm event we have a 36% I mean is it a betterment because there's nothing there right now?

like whatever is coming off the site today like for a 1-year storm event for the existing conditions we have 3.94 CFS sleep in 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 1, 2, and 10-year flow rate sleep in the site for detention purposes okay and given the grade of the property and its location I mean is this going to be impacting the existing eco pond that's the existing one the 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 going down University yeah okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay I want to echo my colleagues compliments I think this is 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 I mean I do wish that 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 to right right 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 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 it's if this proposal came in front of me today with an incorporation of the immediate to the

the immediate to the south property the office condos that are there allowing egress to the site from Armstrong as well as 123 in 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 and economically I don't know if there's really any like reduction massing or you know increase in in cushion that can be provided and so that's that's really my sticking point again I appreciate some of the thoughtful things that have been done I do think that that south most corner on Cambridge 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 405,000 a year just for the increase in students coming to the city the proposal lists about 117,000 $300,000 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 mapping here with a $320,000 a year financial gain but a $400,000 cost for students little concerned with that as well but I mean that also assumes that we're going to 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 fair point at Fairfax the flats and University of Maine and everything has availability there no one is is over subscribed right now for one and two bedroom apartments particularly those places that are targeting students they're actually hurting for occupancy so is there a sound economic rationale for the breakdown of unit sizes that's being proposed here we typically work with a mix of studios ones twos and I and I think in this one we have a few threes in my correct no threes okay ones twos and I think we had a two and dinner maybe that's what I'm thinking of we typically prescribe to a certain percentage in 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 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

the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the

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. 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, that they'll do it in the drive lane going 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, staggered 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 and 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 1,000 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 they had a great area and there's a great grade change. That was with the natural environment that they are now. When I look at a development plan like this, then I start at 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 wall 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 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 has been dug 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, and then you have two 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 to move to the south, then you could bring the street there. So it's just a quirk of geography and past development that says 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 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 in 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 put a small amount of 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 were 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 in a park type setting. I think those are the bulk of the comments I have and the concerns that I still have with the development and 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 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. Mr. Chair. Anything else? Anybody else at this moment? Mr. Rice. Just to follow up on the comment about the type of trees that would be planted, obviously the constraints in the central Greenway corridor are sort of limited space, limited soil volume, limited space for the canopy to spread. My other concern certainly is the ones on the university. Is it true that there will be a stormwater vault underground under the area where the sidewalk will run,

and how will that impede with the soil that the tree will need for soil volume to be able to mature? So 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 four 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 four trees.

Okay. What were her comments about the trees on the university side and the underground stormwater BMP? 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. Okay. So we actually moved the vault so it's outside of the right-of-way, so it's right adjacent to the building. Okay. So we have about eight feet cleaners from the edge of the vault to the center of the tree. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. 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? You said is that a constraint for you? Right. 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 and what their choice is? I see Jason making his way to the... Thank 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 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 review 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 just a nomination that 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, it would have to be protected through a zoning mechanism. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Does the applicant have any comments about historic nature? I see you're committed to study some signage to recognize some of the history of the place and the people.

Yes. 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. But we also 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. It's giving some history, but I'll let her go ahead and give a more professional opinion. Okay. Thank you. Again, I'm Anna Moss with Stantec, and I had the great fortune to meet Bankhead and his wife and tore the property inside and out recently. 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 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, but they moved in in 1920 in semi-retirement years after he was in the state Senate, which passed a lot of the Jim Crow laws. And they also lived part-time in D.C. and just hosted parties there in the summer. And he died in 1928. And then Aunt Sue Bankhead's great aunt, who was very involved with the DAR, Colonial Dames, Confederate, she left a Robert E. Lee 10 type to the museum in Richmond. She hosted a lot of the nieces and nephews out there. They never had children. And she spent her time in D.C. and Florida, also summer retreat.

So in 1954, Bankhead Davies' mom, Dixie, actually inherited it over the direct bloodline. And at the time, she was 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' art involvement. So, yeah, if you have any questions. It would seem to me that capturing that kind of history about, 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? It'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 catalog houses of 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. Okay, thank you. Staff has raised a couple of things that they call technical deficiencies. I think we're done with the history. Thanks. That you'd like to see resolved before going to the city council. How does the applicant respond to those things? Are they resolvable satisfactorily? I'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 were actually doing this today, we were looking at two and three, which had to do with the turning radius, I believe. And we are working on that.

And so we will do our best to get that resolved by the date. I think of things like vehicle interferences and so forth. These are common around the country. You don't like to design them into a new facility. But on the other hand, things like putting in mirrors or sensors that alert a driver that something is pen-made. 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 roads. 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.

Okay. And 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? Right. And 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 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 the 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, will 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 is 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, it will be 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, 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. And 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've 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? Let's see if I can find a sketch for you. If I could chime in a little history on the development of the small area plan. The location of the driveway as shown in the small area plan, which is fairly consistent with where it's shown on this plan, was more about the intersection on the side of Chambridge 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. So the way they just lined up, there wasn't as much of a concern on the Breckenridge side. There might have been concern from the committee on that, but there wasn't any concern about it being a through street or anything because Breckenridge is a dead end. So really the position of that in that sketch is really more governed by the Chambridge side than the university side. That image doesn't really show judicial at least particularly well, but it seems to me it's still coming in between the two roads. Somewhere up in Norma Hayne.

I think it's somewhere up in here. That's really envisioned to 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. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. 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 of the folks who have signed up. Madam Clerk, who do you have? Yes, we have three signed up. The first is William Fournier. Okay. 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. Right. Thank you. Good evening. I'm William Fournier. I live at 10134 Spring Lake Terrace. The small area plans have near-term goals for increases in residential units. Camp 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 asked the project not use the small area plan as a blueprint for extreme growth. Thank you. The next person that signed up is Ken Danger. Yep. Hey, 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 zoning requires 24 units per acre, I believe. So I just did quick math, right? And if you do 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 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 a big, giant apartment building. That's what we've got down here. So I'm thinking about Mr. Cunningham's stuff and Matt Rice's stuff.

I just don't know that it's, what does it offer for the city of Fairfax residents now and in the long term? I understand that they're asking for a variance from commercial urban to, or from residential medium to commercial urban. That provides you, not with eminent domain control, but with the ability to say, no, we need more. The proposals in the past that I saw, they look 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. Bankhead Davis. Davies. I just want to, I 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. Is there anyone who has not signed up that would like to address the commission at this point? Going once. Okay, 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. I 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? If it tends to get blocked? Feel free. Where's the snow go? My apologies. I didn't hear the first question. Snow removal? How will snow be managed? Did we consider snow removal where? Off of the access? 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? Yes. 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.

Other 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 small area plans are concepts, not contracts. So the best you can do sometimes is 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 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. 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 under-parked, I think that's something to be made note of. The greenway, I have some 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. We haven't seen anything at 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, you know, 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. People are going to want to go north into Old Town.

So I'm not too bothered that, you know, 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 small area plan. 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, you know, 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, you know, 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. So 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. But it will 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? Cut it again. Thank 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. And that includes Breckenridge being essentially the creek bed that went down and heads toward Daniel's 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 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 that makes 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 developer's 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 that means massive 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. I just wanted 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 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 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.

I think my cynical view agrees that future developers may see a precedent here and 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 the invitation to kind of explore downtown. And I think, like Ms. Lockhart, I'm appreciative of all the effort that's gone into this and worried at the same time that this is less than we need as the very first project.

I'm also 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 go big.

And 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, yeah, stay off my lot. 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 3 is just not going to be achievable. Anyway, 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, with anything parked on that street, it's not passable. And with snow on the street, it's not passable. And I would love to have seen some consolidation where that street could be widened and we could incorporate more green space. You've got all the density here. 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. Anyway, those are my final thoughts. I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of my colleagues, all of whom have seen this multiple times. And 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. And we're 80% there. And I think I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Is there a motion, Mr. Coleman? I can do a motion. Okay. Mr. Chair, based on the public convenience, welfare, and good zoning practice, with respect to rezoning application Z-23-00073, which has been filed for the land known as the Davies property and more particularly described as and identified as 4131 Chainbridge Road, tax map 57-4-02-040, I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval 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. Is there a second? I will second it. So we'd have a discussion. Any further discussion? Okay. We'll take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Nay. So that motion fails 2-4. Is there another motion? There's no requirement for another motion. We would ask failed. We can ask. So we can make a statement. No. We can. Would you like to? I believe from Pac-Fast, if the motion has failed, then that is. We 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. The nay vote is essentially the motion for denial. No. It is not. Is it correct, Mr. Harden? A no vote on the approval is not a motion for denial. Are you going to say what Mr. Lubkin? That is correct, Mr. Chair. What Mr. Lubkin was said. It 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. I will add that Mr. Lubkin was consulted prior to this meeting. Ah. So he's changed his advice to the former chair. Could be. That could be. Could be.

Thank you. Is there another motion? Mr. Chair, based 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 baby's 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.

Second. It's been 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And for Mr. Houston and Ms. Gaston Smith, we have talked about snow before on previous iterations. Okay, we are moving on to our staff reports. Chair, if I could just... Mr. Napti. Thank you, Chair Feather, 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 13th, 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 3rd, 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, I believe this was shared with you. The result of that study will be a reference for future decisions, particularly related to the small area plan.

In general, it encourages shared parking with proposals going forward and suggests that if 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 Sisson's House, and Germantown Cemetery. All of the sites were identified as having potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, except for the Sisson House.

They also had a work session that day on the general zoning text amendments, which the 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 that 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 land 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 the next implementation group meeting with a focus on Old Town. It 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 a 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 plans have changed, just let me know. And any others that are able to make it, also let me know. But we hope to see you there.

And that's all we have for the staff report tonight. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for staff? It will be here in the work session room. Okay, great. We'll add you. Did you tell me already? I think you... Okay. So, Mr. Navtee, is there a remote attendance option for... Unfortunately, no. We inquired about this. I asked about that myself. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. 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, I may not be able to attend on the 1st, but I'll be very much eager to participate.

Great. Thank you. And that reminds me, I failed to mention, that Commissioner Weiss was appointed as a representative for the Planning Commission for the move Fairfax Committee. So, I know you will certainly be involved, even if you are not there on the 1st. Okay. Commission comments. Anything? Ms. Briggs, anything to go to the body? I'm happy to look at the way out on the 2nd. I appreciate you guys. If you're not bad, everybody has helped 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 fireworks show at Fairfax High School that evening, along with

a large party that goes around it. And we'd like to invite everybody to come and enjoy the celebration of our country's birthday. I don't suppose there's a remote participation option for that, either. It's not televised, but it will be recorded. Ms. Lockhart, anything? Nothing for the Commission's evening. Thank you. Mr. Rice. Yeah. I attended a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting on the 12th, and there's a lot going on. It 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 out of commission for a while. It's 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. Tice Park is under construction. As many of you have seen, if you've driven up Pickett Road, it's not only on time, but it's on budget. And so that's a good report. Old Town Hall, bids in July. Construction's intended to start in August. This is a switch from construction that would have started a little earlier in the year, but there were some delays. That will be at least 10 months 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 that 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 discussion's almost a constant right now, and so we've recently been talking about budget issues and 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 the answer to that is multiple tens of millions of dollars lost by the county and the sort of legal ramifications of being partners with 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 Nova 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, anything? 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. It was 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 it 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. When I went back and talked to Mr. Denton, who served in that role for us as well, he thought it was valuable too. It would not be time wasted, and I think he'd bring a value 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. Thank you. Thank you.