I'm just gonna test that this works.

Can everybody hear okay?

Great.

Yes.

Yeah, but it's not so important.

Well, that's the path hour.

No, I'm just putting it on.

Um, I just got three.

So I was like, yeah, so we can represent that.

Well, I think there's a little technical.

But I say that.

Okay.

Okay.

I can get over.

Good evening.

Welcome to the February third, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing at the Radella Dell.

Pardon me.

Radella S.

Dell Resource Community Center.

I'm Melissa McMahon, Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission.

Commissioner Lenahan will participate in tonight's meeting remotely due to personal travel to South San Francisco, California.

Waiting.

I'm waving to you on the screen because you're right in front of me.

Um Commissioner Manner will also participate in tonight's meeting remotely due to temporary illness.

Hello, everyone.

And he is participating from home.

Commissioners Lanahan and Manor are participating remotely pursuant to section two point two-three seven oh eight point three of the code of Virginia and the city's electronic participation policy.

Before we begin, I have just a few announcements about participating in tonight's meeting.

If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out speaker form online by following the sign up to speak hyperlink on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form, which can be found on the tables located immediately outside the chambers and providing it to Ms.

Jacobs, who has her hand raised.

Please note comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker, with the exception of applicants and their representation.

To make your public comment through the Zoom application, please click on the raise hand button located on the Zoom taskbar once you hear your name called to let staff know you need to be unmuted.

If you are dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, please press star nine to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name called upon to make your statement, followed by star six to toggle the unmute function.

For those here in person, please come up to the podium located at the front of the chambers when you hear your name called and identify yourself by first and last name.

The city encourages and welcomes public comments from all residents on planning commission matters.

In keeping with that principle and with the principle of inclusiveness, this is a reminder of the shared expectation that the content and tenor of public comments always be civil and respectful.

Thank you for honoring those principles.

A reminder to all, including commissioners, staff, and speakers in the chambers, to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all can hear you.

And with that, we can go to our agenda.

Are there any changes to the agenda tonight?

Yes, Madam.

Madam Chair.

Docket item number seven.

Uh the applicant has requested a deferral of docket item number seven.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh Commissioner Brown.

I'm going to support the deferral, but before doing so, I want to make a couple of comments about this application because I won't be around here to vote on it when it comes back around again.

Um I was going to prepare a memorandum detailing my objections to this application, but the deferral has spared me the need to do that.

However, I'll be happy to provide the chair and the director a memorandum if they want it.

I will just very quickly summarize that this application should be controlled by section 12-1000 of the ordinance, which states very simply that any lot of record prior to December 16th, 2023, which is true of all three of these lots.

Uh that have less lot area width or frontage than the minimum required for the use in the zone where it is situated, which is the case here, may be developed with a single unit, two-unit or townhouse dwelling and its accessory structures, subject to the following requirements.

Regardless of the maximum height and floor area ratio otherwise established, the maximum permitted height and floor area ratio shall be 35 feet and 1.5, respectively.

In this case, the application is below the 1.5 maximum FAR, but it is above the 35-foot height limit.

The staff report makes makes only oblique reference to this requirement and does not discuss the significance of it.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Do I hear a motion to recommend deferral of this item?

And for the record, this is not deferral to a date certain.

I believe the applicant just wants it left open as to when they are comfortable coming back.

Uh Madam Chair, I move to defer item seven.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to defer docket item seven until the applicant is ready to return.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

70.

And I'll just note Commissioner Manor.

Can you come off mute and then just indicate for the record your vote on that?

Yes.

Okay, great.

And can I know if that's his volume or our volume?

Let me see.

Where did he did we lose him?

No, he's the big one.

Okay.

Can you just talk a little bit more?

Sure.

How about that?

A little more.

A little bit better.

Well, if if you um when you indicate on a future item to make any comments, just be sure to speak up really loud because you're a bit a bit low volume right now.

Okay, great.

I'll see what I can do here with trying to make it better.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any other changes to the docket tonight?

No.

That brings us to our consent calendar.

Are there any requests to remove items from the consent calendar?

Madam Chair.

Docket items three and four have been requested by the public to be removed from the consent calendar.

Thank you very much.

And that leaves docket items two and five on the consent calendar.

Are there any requests from commissioners to remove either docket items two or five?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve docket items two and five on consent.

I move we uh approve docket items two and five on consent.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to approve consent calendar items two and five.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

That brings us to docket item three.

Next docket item number three.

Subdivision 2025 00012, 102 East Monroe Avenue.

Public hearing and consideration of a request for a subdivision to resubdivide an existing lot into two lots.

The property is zoned.

R25 residential.

The applicant is Alabama Avenue LLC, represented by Duncan Blair Attorney.

Please proceed.

Good evening.

Uh Catherine McDonald with planning and zoning.

Uh this is uh request for a subdivision at 102 East Monroe Avenue.

Um the request is to resubdivide one lot into two lots.

Um, and the proposed lots that they are uh uh showing uh comply with all the subdivision and zoning requirements.

Uh the zone is pardon me.

The zone is R25, and there's currently a single unit dwelling.

Um it's in the Potomac West area, a small area plan, and it is surrounded by residential.

Um there's uh single unit and semi-detached two units in this area, and then right off screen.

That's not shown in the um in the screenshot there.

There's also some multi-unit dwellings as well.

Uh this is the uh current ex uh lot configuration, and this is what they are proposing.

Both lots would comply with the zones requirements for semi-detached two unit dwellings.

Um they currently would not comply with the current regulations for uh single unit dwellings in the zone.

Uh given the proposal, staff is recommending approval, and we can answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Are there any commissioner questions for staff?

All right.

Hearing none.

Um, do we have any public speakers?

Yes, our first speaker is Barbara Mencini, followed by Kim Nordmeyer.

Just over here.

Over there, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Barbara Mancini.

Please excuse my sunglasses.

I fell and I have a massive black eye.

So I can't see the bright lights.

I live at 100 East Monroe, right next door.

And I know how things are going in Del Reg.

I've been here 35 years, but I'm not happy with what's going on next door.

Um my biggest concern, obviously, is the flooding issues.

Building a two, a duplex, and I know it's going to go as long as the property is.

Well, you may talk about whatever you wish.

Oh, we have certain restrictions along what we can.

Okay, council, I'll tell you.

It's been a long time.

Well, as I said, my concerns are the flooding issues and what the permeable land, what they plan on doing with that.

Um, the front yard set back.

I'm a little annoyed because I had uh asked for I wanted a porch on my front house, and council said no, because it wasn't 25 feet, and now they're asking for 20 feet in the front, and like that's just leaving a bad taste in my mouth, you know.

I didn't get it.

Um I know things changed, and I know you've already approved it.

So I don't think there's really much I can do.

I just did this so that it's on record, basically, especially the flooding.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

And just for the record, we haven't we haven't approved the subdivision yet.

Um next speaker is Kim Nordmeyer, our final speaker on this item.

Hi, Kim Nordmeyer, property owner.

I'm across the alley from this property.

Um, were you saying that the subdivision of the property has not been approved?

Correct, because that's what this hearing is for.

Okay.

The subdivision.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, well, as Barbara mentioned.

Sorry, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Yes, that kind of thing.

Um my concern, I have two concerns.

One, the major concern is the flooding issues that we have.

And um, you know, putting in large structures and whether they're parking pads or parking structures, there's no permeable ground left.

So the rainwater has nowhere to go except maybe down the sewer, um, which then backs up into our basements and then also into other property and then into our basements.

So um, and then also um just the allotment of off-street parking.

Um, it seems like whenever we have bigger homes, um, there's not enough off-street parking, um, which causes other issues in the neighborhood.

Um so those are my two biggest concerns.

Um I would prefer that it not be too a duplex, but I wasn't prepared.

I I thought the subdivision had already been approved of the property.

So understood.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, that's our final public speaker.

We have Duncan Blair, the attorney representing the applicant.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Duncan Blair Wire Gill.

I'll be glad to answer questions with regards to the flooding.

Uh candidly, it just came to my attention when the letter came in and was posted.

Clearly, um flooding water, storm water uh will be looked at at the grading plan stage.

Uh, will be taken into consideration by the TENS staff at the time they're doing the grading plan.

And I know from experience the fact that there is a letter and it's been brought up at this hearing, it will be given a great deal of attention.

And clearly is an issue that my client will be concerned about also as he moves forward, hopefully, with the construction of semi-detached dwelling on the property.

Be glad to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

All right, none at this time.

Thank you.

All right.

That brings us to our last public speaker.

Would anyone like to close our public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canig and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

You know.

What was that, Commissioner Dubai?

Yes, we've got him now.

And I can hear Commissioner Lenahan just fine too.

So thanks everyone online for speaking up.

Um motion carries seven zero.

That brings us to commissioner discussion.

Who would like to start our discussion?

Commissioner Dubay.

Just um I support this application.

I I don't see that there's any reason not to, other than the flooding.

Um, but you said this is the first time you've heard of flooding in that area.

No, no, not the first time I've dealt with flooding in this area many, many times.

Yeah.

It's the first time and seeing a letter that was that was out by the neighbor with the picture of the flooding on the street behind.

Yeah, understood that I'm flooding in that area, other areas of Del Ray, um, multiple areas in old town.

This is something we talked about as nauseum, but no question.

Hopefully, that will eventually get rectified with some of the things that are underway, but I'll just make sure staff notes obviously the letters there, but notes that TENS can take a close look at this.

Yeah.

Um Director Stoddard, why don't you um speak to how we handle flooding mitigation in development projects in general?

Yeah, I'm happy for the question.

Thank you, Chair.

The uh, and so I think I want to break my answer down into to two different pieces.

One is how we review uh the potential stormwater impacts of each individual application, as well as uh what's happening within Del Ray and citywide more generally.

Uh so first on a uh site specific basis, uh, whenever a development application comes in uh uh for a single uh for a single family, uh uh single unit home, uh, we would check that uh for uh pre uh sort of what are the stormwater conditions conditions today and what are the modeled stormwater conditions in the future.

Uh and we would ensure that through the design of the site, whether that's on site detention uh or retention of the water, uh, we would ensure that uh stormwater flows uh during the the one-year storm, the two-year storm, the 10-year storm, that there's no increase in projected peak flow from what's what's experienced today uh to what would be expected to happen in the future.

Uh, in addition to uh those volume controls, we also check for erosion and sediment control to make sure that there's no uh increased erosion and sedimentation onto a neighboring property and that there are no concentrated flows onto a neighbor property.

Uh so that's uh very routine review uh that we do.

And obviously, we've seen uh uh several of these kinds of applications with these side by sides going up.

Uh, and so we have seen common measures that that can be used to meet those requirements.

Uh at a citywide scale, we know flooding.

Uh staff is very aware that flooding is uh is a concern in in Del Rey is as well as other areas of the city.

Uh flood action Alexandria remains an active program uh that staff is working on.

Uh, there are approximately 20 uh active stormwater projects happening within the city right now, uh, including one actually just down the street from this application.

Um, and as I said, that's an active project that's that's wrapping up with data collection, and then it'll move into design and construction in the next few years.

Uh and the city at the same time is also embarking on the development of its of its first flood resiliency plan.

Uh, and so this is something that continues to be uh uh an active area for for staff work.

Thank you very much.

Um I have another question.

I have a follow-up question for staff based on um the first I think it was the first speaker's comment.

Um she was referring to how she applied to try to get a porch placed on the front of her home, which would have um would have perhaps been approximately the 20-foot front setback.

Um, and that was denied by the the review process that was that's in place, maybe for an existing building to get a porch, but this application has the potential to be approved based on our criteria.

I shouldn't say application, a building with that front setback could be approved with maybe the same setback.

Um can you speak a little bit to to how those review processes happen?

Are are they different?

Are they similar?

Is it just circumstances of what the code says today versus when she might have looked looked into it?

Yes, uh Sam shelby planning and zoning.

So uh Miss Mancini applied for um, I just looked it up uh a variance and a special exception to build a porch in 2017.

Um her house is very I don't really want to go into like the very, very specific details, but um her request was denied.

Um her house is very I don't really want to go into like the very very specific details but um her request was denied um and I I don't know the I couldn't look that up quick enough to get the answer of why that was denied staff recommended approval of that um the rules have changed multiple times since then um porches have become uh by right process in almost all cases um and the front yard setback has changed since since then too so you know things could be different for her property now you know I maybe right so so perhaps because of things because of the way our code and requirements and processes change over time the circumstances for an application may also be different today than okay great thank you for that context yeah I appreciate that this this isn't the time to go into the the weeds but that's helpful um all right would anyone like to speak to their assessment of the merits of the subdivision application Vice Chair Kaney Madam Chairman I um I concur with Commissioner Debay I I support this on its merits I think it's just about as simple as um subdivision process can be it's literally dividing the property um exactly it was originally conceived of um back several generations um of regulations uh so uh I think from the point of view of the criteria for the subdivision it's very clear cut but I do have another question for uh Ms.

McDonald or Mr.

Shelby uh just along the lines of context as well that occurs to me as we're talking about this if this site were to be redeveloped without a subdivision someone didn't come in for a subdivision but came uh to redevelop it as another single family dwelling um are there significant differences between the overall density the overall footprint the overall amount of lot coverage that could potentially result from redevelopment as a single family dwelling as opposed to uh redevelopment uh as a two family dwelling um no so for in the R25 zone the uh FAR is the same for whether or not it's a single unit dwelling or a two unit dwelling um in the terms of a single unit versus two unit they would eventually essentially if you maxed out FAR on both lots and or the single lot it would be the same because it's a single lot that's just been divided in half um so if you just like do the math out in terms of that um but it's the same floor area requirement for whether it's a single unit dwelling or uh semi-detached thank you very much so I think that again that's not germane to our specific decision I still think this is a very clear and simple subdivision and support it but I think it does highlight the fact that the challenges that the neighborhood faces and that the applicant is going to face in the redevelopment process relative to how to manage the stormwater which again falls in another um purview is is literally no different than if it were uh uh uh a contract purchaser two years from now who wanted to just replace the single family dwelling so I think all those challenges are there as soon as something changes on this property irrespective of whether it's subdivided or not thank you Chair thank you any other observations um I'll just say I I agree that this applicant's proposal in my mind fully complies with the subdivision and our 2.5 zoning requirements for this kind of development and um for community members listening the we as the planning commission sometimes see large development projects with a lot of um subjective elements for evaluation but subdivision um evaluation is not that is not that subjective um there's we have a much more I should say stricter set and smaller set of things that we're considering and that doesn't include um the details of the development project or um its ability or not to to meet um flooding mitigation requirements I have a lot of confidence in our development review process which we apply even to by right projects and by right projects today and that means they don't come for approval to us or to anyone um they get built to a higher standard than they did 15 20 years ago so um sometimes when these buildings get rebuilt in our communities whether as a single family home replacing a single family home or um a duplex or something replacing a single family home those standards um have it have in most cases improved and certainly for things like stormwater runoff um so I hope that that um gives you some sense of um that that there's uh light at the end of that tunnel um I'll be supporting the subdivision um based on its merits against our subdivision requirements any other comments if not I'll take a motion madam chairman I move to approve the subdivision second all right I have a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Vice Chair Kenig to approve the subdivision 2025 zero zero zero one two all those in favor please say aye.

If not, I'll take a motion.

Madam Chairman, I move to approve the subdivision.

Second all right.

I have a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Vice Chair Koenig to approve the subdivision 2025-00012.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye opposed.

Motion carries 70.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to docket item four.

Docket item number four special use permit 2025 000 54, 601 and 619 South Patrick Street, public hearing and consideration of request of a request for a special use permit for an outdoor recreation and entertainment use.

The property is zoned CSL commercial service low.

The applicant is Valhalla property holdings, LOC by Duncan Blair Attorney.

All right.

Uh, this is a special use permit application for 601 and 619 South Patrick Street.

Uh the request is for an outdoor recreation and entertainment use.

Um, the key elements here are that they are converting the existing building to a health and athletic club, which is a buy right use.

Uh, but the associated rooftop workout spaces, the uh uh outdoor recreation and entertainment use that they're requesting.

Uh the site is located on US Route 1, and they are not changing anything in the building footprint.

Uh the uh site is low uh zoned CSL commercial service low, and it's in the Southwest Quadrant Small Area Plan.

Um again, right on US Route 1.

There are other automobile um oriented uses surrounding it.

There's two gas stations, um, there's residential uses, and then uh commercial use, there's a convenience store uh uh next door to the uh subject property.

So again, what they're requesting is they want to convert the existing building to a health and athletic club, and the special use permit request is for the outdoor rooftop space, uh, which is considered an outdoor recreation use under our ordinance.

Uh the rooftop space would contain weight machines, uh running tract around the perimeter of the building, and then open turf in the center uh for individualized workouts and such.

Uh and then uh the rooftop space would be closed at 11 p.m.

per the noise ordinance uh requirements.

Uh key findings for this application and uh different recommended conditions.

Uh the proposal will align with the small area plan goals.

It's providing a neighborhood servicing use that's accessible to pedestrians by foot.

That's a big goal in the small area plan is having pedestrian access to uh neighborhood serving uh uses.

Um while it's right on Route One, we are also recommending a few conditions just to mitigate the noise um around the or that could be uh that could come from this use.

Uh so the outdoor operations uh shall be limited from 7 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

And instructor led classes uh using Apple and flight sounds are not permitted outdoors.

Um and then the standard SUP conditions apply with uh outdoor recreation entertainment uses with that staff is recommending approval and I can answer any questions you have.

All right, thank you very much.

Are there any commissioner questions for staff?

All right.

Do we have any public speakers?

Yes, we do.

The first speaker is Samuel Brant, followed by Shelley Castle.

Members, neighbors, appreciate the time.

Um I think I'll probably represent a couple issues.

Uh I see most of my neighbors here.

We are um directly adjacent.

I'm at 600 South Henry, so I'm the end unit next to Gibbon on the alleyway.

So what that does is it places the back of my property about 50 feet away from the outdoor use space on the roof.

It just so happens, unfortunately, my wife is not here to speak, but uh her home use office is at that back window and has been for three years.

And um we're quite afraid that the though it's not amplified sound up there that she has to conduct the business routinely on the phone and needs to have a controlled sound, right?

For that that type of operation.

Um if I'm sure plenty of the people in this room are used to and familiar with CrossFit, and even though there won't be amplified sound or instruction, um, the activity itself with equipment and just members themselves kind of uh expressing um, you know, their ambition through exercise will be quite loud, and a normal conversation can be held or heard from 50 feet away, recognizing there will be glass panes that will deflect some of that sound up, but um with that office space being on the second floor, I think that mitigation strategy probably is not uh as effective as we would like it to be.

Um that kind of rolls into the hours of operation, recognizing that the quiet hours begin at 11 p.m.

We're gonna have additional sound and lighting until 11 p.m.

and a uh very closely adjoining residential neighborhood, um, which is concerning.

Um my second kind of point and issue would be future.

If this is approved for um recreational entertainment use, if this business uh moves on and another business comes in with the uh same approval, recreational and um entertainment, what would that approval look like and how could that scope kind of expand and have a little bit of creep in the entertainment zone, which could be concerning for the neighborhood.

And third, I would like to just um for the city's um kind of I guess a recommendation would be the alley traffic.

Uh that already is a heavy cut through because of the traffic pattern from Gibbon onto Route One, and people come through the light and turn left down the alley.

I would like to recommend uh probably as a separate issue, but through this forum, that that alley be made one way from Franklin to Gibbon, which we're reduced cut through not only for this business but for day-to-day use, but still allow members uh of the community to access the back of their residence.

And um that actually changing the direction to one way would make that a longer route for anyone trying to cut through and and would make it not beneficial to use.

And I think that would really help at least our block a lot.

And um, you know, the kind of the traffic and the danger of stepping out of your back door into that alley.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Our next speaker is Shelley Castle, followed by Karen Casmir.

Hello.

Um very much same complaints.

My biggest concerns with this is the 11 p.m.

I I mean, I our houses the way that they are, they're brick and going next to I am 50 feet.

I'm directly next to the building.

Um any noise that comes from those alleys literally goes upward, reverbing off those brick walls.

And I'm very concerned that it being a power lifting um activities up there, and they are going to be up there grunting, yelling, cheering each other on.

Um, I you know, I'm very familiar with power gyms sound like.

Um, I don't want that at 11 p.m.

My bedroom window is literally right there at the same level of that, what that rooftop would be.

And then, like I said, 50 feet away.

I can hear what my neighbors are saying in my next door at evenings.

And we use our backyards constantly during the nice weather.

I don't want to have light filtering in from another um from that building.

Currently, West Marine does not put lighting that goes into and and disturbs our backyards.

But if you do put a rooftop with people working out, you know, till 11 p.m., that means sitting in my backyard trying to enjoy my backyard.

I'm gonna be listening to people grunt, yell, and have lights spotlighting right into my backyard rather than me being able to enjoy it.

So those are some of my concerns.

Um again, I think that this would be very intrusive and reduce the ambience.

And you know, our our freedoms that we have in our neighborhood, and it's not just me.

We we've got, you know, what maybe one, two, so up to 12 buildings that are directly like within a few feet of this building.

Um I don't I'm not opposed to the gem generally.

I am opposed to having lights glaring into my backyard and people yelling into my backyard in the evenings when I come home from work, and I want to be relaxing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Karen Kasimir, followed by Jeff Erickson.

Hi, good evening, and thank you.

And much as my neighbors have already said, our biggest concern is the noise and the lights coming from that rooftop.

Um, and we really um we really appreciate you taking our uh considerations into account and looking at a way that we can really do mockups and see what those lights look like and what that noise does sound like.

But additionally, as Shelley said as well, noise is a big factor, and my house being a few doors down from hers.

Um I I open up right to the parking lot, and there is constant traffic back and forth all day long, whether it be walkers, whether it be um just passer buyers, whether it be the cars, whether it be anything, that parking lot is a big hassle.

Imagine what it was with a boat store that only had patrons coming through a couple times a week.

Imagine 50 or 60 or 70 or 100 people coming by at every get at any given hour throughout the day, 24 hours a day.

Um, people out there talking after their workout, sitting there, as Shelly was saying, and discussing their workout, discussing their life.

We're going to see it all and hear it all.

And that's a big concern for our privacy.

Unlike the two gas stations that were mentioned earlier, um, adjacent to uh the residential houses adjacent to the gas stations on the opposite side of the road, they are not directly affected by somebody in their parking lot.

They have privacy fences in front of them, and they have separate alleyways leading to their backyards.

We have no privacy, we don't have a fence separating us from West Marine and our backyards.

These patrons of this gym are directly accessible to our privacy into our home.

Um, so it's not just our noise and our light concern, but it is some of our security concerns.

So we really appreciate the kind of um review in those concerns as well.

Um, and I pulled many of my other neighbors that didn't come.

I went and spoke to 10 of our neighbors today in anticipation of being here.

We were hoping it would be a nanny lee, like it was for the apartment building.

Um, and they couldn't make it now, but uh their concerns are about their concerns are the same.

The noise and the type of activities that are going on, and then the security of the situation.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Jeff Erickson.

Followed by the attorney for the Project Duncan Blair.

Hi, I'm Jeff.

Thanks so much for giving us the opportunity to um speak up about this um proposal.

Um my wife is Shelly, so I live in the same house that she does.

And when we look at our back door, we see you know that first row of parking for West Marine and all the people that come in and out of it.

So on as it is currently between the cars that go there till I think they're open till eight or nine.

Uh it's really not that much of an issue issue past nine o'clock.

But I could imagine a 24-7-hour gym with uh people coming in and out at all hours of the day and night.

Um, we would see a huge amount of uh car traffic coming through that back alley, like Sam described, which right now you can go either way.

And uh on top of that, you have a lot of people that try to cut through commuting-wise to get back out to Route One, but that's a separate issue.

Um, as far as the rooftop part, my concerns would be the lighting and the noise, even though the decibel level might be on a median level uh below whatever normal decibel level is required.

Um, but you'll have spikes throughout every time weights drop on the floor or something bumps into metal on metal, you'll have those pinging noises.

And that's reminiscent of the construction that's going across uh Route One right now when they're driving the pylons into the ground for the basement.

We hear those bangs every like five seconds for about eight hours a day.

And imagine having those type of noises uh throughout the evening time would be kind of uh an irritating thing to have to deal with and live with.

Um and the other part of the uh glass wall on top.

Um, I know one thing that probably would make it sensible would be to have some sort of frosted glass versus having clear glass that you could see through.

That way, when they're elevated at 30 feet looking down into our backyards, they're not just sitting up there, you know, having a conversation with somebody while we're just sitting out in our backyard and they're able to watch an eavesdrop and what we're doing and that type of thing.

Um, so maybe that plus maybe having that wall maybe higher.

So that would help to alleviate the noise even more so.

So those would be some of the things that I have a concerns about and suggestions.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Duncan Blair.

Good evening, Duncan Blair, uh, representing the property owner on her plans to convert the building to a health and athletic club.

What's before you tonight is the use of the rooftop as a recreational and entertainment use.

Uh, it's interesting that in December this year, the city council considered making it part of a um health and athletic club, but they deferred that apparently until March or so.

So that is why we are a uh recreational and uh entertainment use.

The proposal uh was intended to be the proposal that provided outdoor recreational space.

There will be sun change, is it is not intended to be a high intensity use.

It is not intended to be a large member-based health club.

It's a smaller, I hate the word boutique, but it's more of a boutique for people who are serious into lifting weights.

Um the glass around the building should be an adequate sound barrier uh to block the noise from Route One and then to not block the noise from the neighbors.

We've worked with the uh Department of Environmental Quality on noise standards.

The 11 o'clock is permissive.

It doesn't mean it will be used till 11 o'clock, but we are encouraged to look at what is a realistic business practice so that you can have the opportunity to do it.

I've talked to the was contacted by one of the neighbors today, gonna meet hopefully next week uh with the owner of the facility, who is a local Alexandrian, to talk about some of the concerns.

Frosted glass is an aesthetic issue, uh, probably not an issue.

I understand the alley.

Um, and I understand the concern that there's a new business on the corner that seems to direct traffic in an odd way, not opposed to that.

And one of the things clear from the conversation tonight is it may make sense for my client to put a fence along the alley line, uh separating the uh parking lot from the alley, uh, and encouraging people then to use Patrick Street um as the entrance.

It's fairly limited because you're basically would come up given, or you would come down Patrick.

But the alley does not need to be an essential element to the access to the site.

Um again, don't want to the noise ordinance uh controls noise and the lights, there are code provisions that provide that you cannot direct lights uh from one business to another, especially where there's a residential transition.

And I know as a building permit comes in, uh that will be something that will be scrutinized also.

So I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Again, I I think it's in it's it's a good use during COVID.

Uh, I couldn't go to my gym.

We worked out on the parking deck behind one life consistently.

Uh there was not huge banging.

Um don't anticipate uh the volume of noise that's being discussed.

Thank you very much.

Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Dubay.

Yeah, thank you.

Mr.

Blair, can you talk a little bit about the the roof itself?

So that building was built 30-ish years ago.

It's been there as long as I can remember.

Our architect Stephanie Diamond is looking at the load capacity now.

Yeah, because the the it's a truss roof, basic uh roof composition.

It's only designed for several dead loads, HVACs, right?

Now you're gonna be putting a much larger live load.

Yes.

And so I just want to, I didn't see it anywhere in the in the documents.

I just want to make sure it would be, but I wanted to put it on record that I the architect Stephanie Diamond uh is well aware and looking at the various load of what would be needed is also an access issue.

There will be a for lack of a better word, a pavilion where the stairs come up and some storage that is a that is on the west side of the building.

Uh and the west side abusive residential.

So in that portion of the site, it will be a structure, not the walls.

The walls are more on uh Gibbon Street, the parking lot, and on Henry Street.

Okay.

Um and the lights that they've talked about that those are that again.

The there's a provision in the code prohibiting lights shining on residential property.

So that that's a given.

I think like most project the lighting would be very subdued, uh lighting only the the surface.

Thank you.

That was all thank you.

Um, yeah, so to clarify, um, based it's a little hard to see on the plan, but the the rooftop wall structure that faces the residential properties.

Yes, is that the same glass?

It's it's showing almost like a six foot high glass.

The elevation is not a if you look at sheet A3, you can see uh there's a section on the top.

That's a section looking from Gibbon Street, and you can see there's a structure that has uh a gable roof on the western side.

Uh uh, yep.

That is that is the stairway structure.

That's the some storage space, and that will be across the building in that location.

I wish I could tell you 100% what the material is on the back wall, but I it's not intended to bring in light.

It doesn't need to bring in light.

So on roughly the full extent of the roof wall facing the residents, there's actually uh a structure that creates a noise buffer and a light buffer.

Visual buffer visual buffer um across that entire extent.

And it was placed there for that purpose.

Yep, I think that's a helpful design consideration.

Um another question I have.

Um several neighbors are concerned about light, and based on the um that elevation, the size of this building, the height of the building, I can see how light could be a concern.

How is the light designed to be happening on the roof for after after dark activities?

Again, the way modern lights work, and we know from looking at fields and the way they're very isolated.

The goal would be to have it isolated to the site, minimum lighting just to provide the lighting that one would need to use the facility.

Um also a very bright person said you should think about sunshades, and the commission was wise enough to change the definition of FAR to allow sun shades.

So it would be anticipated there would be sun shades also that would be below the lights would not go above the sunshades.

Yeah, okay.

And it is it a reasonable impression that this building that's along the residential frontage of the of the main structure, the the the building, the um the storage space being built out on the rooftop, that the lights, any lights that are installed on top of the roof for activity would be going outward away from the resonance toward the toward route one there is a on the back of the building today.

If you've driven by, there is a loading zone.

I'm not sure what the lighting is on that loading zone.

If that is an issue, uh, but there's something I'll talk to the architect about also.

I guess I can see that now.

Um great, because I do think that certainly it would be nice if in the final fit out of the space there aren't lights randomly peppered on the side of the building that are facing the residents if they don't need to be over there.

I realize there's a certain sometimes amount of security lighting that's necessary in in spaces.

Um, but but it sounds to me like the rooftop space is not oriented toward the residents at all, and the lighting can be oriented away.

And that was only things blocking it.

Very intentional.

Um and these rooftop glass panels, they appear to be taller than people.

Yes.

Okay, because there were some pictures in the documentation that made it look or feel like they were, I don't know, waist height or something, but these are it's not a safety wall, it's intended to be a wind barrier.

It's intended to be believe it or not, a noise barrier for people up there from noise from Route One, also.

Yep, yep.

Yep, okay.

Um that answered that question.

Um floor treatment on this rooftop space.

I know in a lot of workout facilities, the floors are actually specially uh prepared to handle weights falling on them and they're cushioned and that kind of thing.

I I don't know.

I will find out, but I'm assuming at the level of care that is going in this facility.

Uh that and the quality they would be some time of rubber matting or something to the extent that people drop their weight, and a lot of these are machines, so we're not talking about Dunkin' lifting 550 pounds, putting it over my head and go, yeah, and then slamming it down.

That's not the goal.

Maybe 600.

Okay.

I'm not sure if it'll be legible on the screen, but if you could pull up that floor plan drawing.

I'm not sure if the little machine labels are legible, but I know some of them were bikes.

Yeah.

Um is those are to be specified.

That's why we included climbers.

Okay.

It's illustrative.

That's why we included the handout, which is uh I'm solutions, outdoor fitness and sport.

It is a whole series of equipment that you would find on a rooftop.

Right.

Yep.

And what's interesting, this is not unusual because most multifamily buildings now have rooftop users and encouraged to do it.

Okay.

I appreciate your observation that there might be a sensible fencing um uh feature to this final build out that helps to mitigate both the visual and noise and security clutter associated with the parking facility and how it relates to the residents across that alley.

Um, so that that did I hear that correctly that that would be under discussion.

And more under discussion now.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay.

I did not have additional questions for the applicant.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I have um Vice Chair can Vice Chair, oh, okay, yeah.

Vice Chair Canigan, then we'll go to you, Commissioner Lanahan.

Thank you.

Thank you for putting your hand up and yelling.

Uh just to follow up to that same sort of um detail refinement question.

Back to the roof plan.

As we look at the roof plan, the storage areas that we were talking about in the stair to the roof in plan, they seem to constitute about 50% of that west wall at the top.

So the balance of that is the glaze.

That is evolving as the design is all evolved.

Um so my only questions there to follow on what you had already mentioned that we assume that the because one of the illustrative aspects of the way this glazing works looks more like a three or four foot banister level height, but the elevations of the drawings do indicate human figures that are a foot or two less than the top.

So I take your your representation that this is really a taller wall, which I think is very awesome.

The question is just to go back to did you make a representation that you would consider uh translucence rather than transparency on some portions of this, and would you consider it specifically for those sections on the west wall, which I think would go a long way toward um giving the neighbors confidence that that was a sight line that was.

I think that I can make that representation without getting in too much trouble.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lanahan.

I realize that it's not our purview to talk about code, but I presume you're gonna have to have that um roof be ADA accessible, in which case you'd need to have an elevator as well as a stair.

It's that is correct, and that that's part of the structure on the west side of the building.

I think it needs two means of egress in addition to an elevator.

I just I didn't see uh any indication it works.

That's why I asked.

Okay, any additional questions for the applicant?

If not, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

I have a motion by Vice Chair, bless you by Vice Chair Koenig, and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

And that brings us to commissioner discussion or additional questions for staff.

I I will kick off.

I'll kick off.

And then we'll go to Commissioner Dubai.

Um I think that this use is a reasonable use of a rooftop in this location in the community, both in terms of its um its current setting and in terms of the way that we work to integrate community serving land uses within and around the community.

So they are wind barriers, but they're also sound barriers pushing the sound upward and not um so this makes them substantially taller than the um the nearest residence.

And with noise, a lot um line line of sight or line of noise movement matters a lot.

So I think the fact that these are quite tall is going to help substantially with noise mitigation.

Also the fact that the construction on the roof is designed to be non-transparent and actually structures moving the activity away from the residential side.

I think those are important um design features that help to make this more compatible with the residential land uses.

Um I also appreciate the clarifications that um I got pre pre-meeting, and we heard tonight about the um the ability to provide solar shades.

I I had a concern about the feasibility of this being a useful space um year-round if it didn't have the ability to put solar shades up in.

And I think um so solar shades will provide um multiple benefits.

It will allow that space to be usable in more seasons and more conditions, but it also will um contribute to reducing light pollution in any direction.

Um, but I think because of those buildings and the fact that the lighting is focused on the use space, which is adjacent more to the parking lot, the street, and the other street, um, that those light installations are are very capable of being targeted.

We we actually see a fair number of um SUPs for lighting related stuff over the years with this commission, and a lot of those lights are very, very, very tall, a lot taller than the top of this building, designed to light fields, and there's a lot of technical analysis and technology that can help us achieve lighting without light pollution.

So, based on the physical design and the considerations about who's using it, um, how big this space is and where those lights can be located and targeted.

I I don't think there's going to be a light pollution issue here.

Um I don't know, and actually, I guess I'll I'll maybe direct this back to staff.

I I don't think there's a place in this approval to weigh in on this one-way alley um idea, but I think that the functionality of the alley, even if nothing is happening right off the bat, when this use goes into operations, the functionality can be observed and recordings like staff can take can take data, community members can take data, and if um a management choice can happen later on to improve both safety and functionality, that's something that's entirely workable with existing staff, and it doesn't require opening up the use permit for that.

Um I also appreciate the offer that fencing be strongly considered because it sounds like if you're backing up to a parking lot that's underutilized today, it's it's a commercial space, right?

So it could have a more heavily utilized space uh parking activity today, um, even without a rooftop use.

But but it makes a lot of sense to me that a parking lot be both aesthetically and sound and security screened from nearby residences.

So I think that would be um a significant improvement to the residential experience behind this facility.

And um I I think with a lot of these types of applications, we we do expect there to be um uh neighborly collaboration on the nature of of um incompatibility if if this gets built out and there are um there are issues that that you all see, you raise them to them as your neighbor and you work on improvements that can that can continue to mitigate those issues.

And um because it is an SUP, this is also the kind of thing that staff monitor.

So if there are issues with the performance of the SUP or they're unable to meet standards, the noise ordinance is governs the whole city.

So they can't be, it's not it's not strictly that the conditions say it's gotta be closed by 11, but they also aren't supposed to be producing noise that's audible well off the property line at high decibels.

So these are all things that can be monitored and SUPs can be re-evaluated and can come back to us or can come back to council um if they're not being abided by.

So um I think it's just important to keep those into consideration and to remember that um this property owner is a neighbor trying to do right by you and create a great neighborhood resource.

And I think that there's a real potential for that here.

Commissioner Dubai.

Sorry.

I I concur with what you said, and and I'm certainly gonna support this after hearing um a lot of my concerns were about the lighting and the noise and in the rooftop area.

And I think what's been proposed and and what's in the um report here, I think is gonna go a long way to mitigate a lot of that, and specifically, you know, condition 10, where the director's gonna review this within a year, and then if there's multiple complaints, we're gonna get it back again.

So yeah, I'm I'm pretty comfortable with this.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Um, I'm also comfortable as well, um, and concur with everything that um our chair has outlined um for this case.

One thing also uh within the CSL zone, outdoor dining is a permitted use by right, right?

So in that case, I'm thinking that an outdoor use, like an outdoor dining use, could have been permitted along the roof of this, but in this case, it just happens to be an outdoor gym.

Um, understandably, with some of the mitigation measures to put in to provide that kind of neighborly relationship with privacy of sound, of noise, of uh of light, um, you know, do not let it overflow.

Um, I I think that you know, this this use is is great use for this building, first of all.

Um, if we had outdoor dining here at this location, they could have occupied, I think could have occupied the roof by right, um, could have had tables up there and chairs up there without um having to put up any kind of barrier.

Um, it would still have been um a use on the roof.

There's just a different one.

So just wanted to call that out.

Thank you.

Was staff were moving toward the microphone.

I'm not sure if you had any clarification.

Yeah, quick clarification to Commissioner Raymond Ramirez the um outdoor dining is permitted with administrative special use permit.

So it it would, you know, it would follow the staff approval process and wouldn't go through to the planning commission necessarily.

Yep.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brown.

I have a question for staff.

Maybe Mr.

Blair can pitch in as well on this.

I'm just looking at the access to this building from a transportation vehicle perspective.

Um obviously you can get into the parking lot southbound on Patrick.

But on Wilkes, that particular block is one way, the other way.

So you can't go down Gibbon around the block and come in off Wilkes and coming in off Gibbon, I guess you'd have to use that narrow alleyway behind behind the houses.

Is that the plan?

Obviously the uh traffic patterns developed by the city are difficult in this area.

If you were arriving this way, yeah, I think my parents probably drew uh drove me to Robert E.

Lee Elementary School now, Nanny J.

Lee Lee Center this way.

You may come down Henry Street and then turn on Franklin and use the alley as currently configured.

Um Henry Street north of Gibbon, especially during rush hour.

Get in the left lane and then use that entrance into the parking lot off Patrick Street.

As you know, because the next there is Gibbon Street, but then there is no other street because of the heritage until Duke Street.

Am I correct?

So it's gonna you're gonna have to train yourself on the access here, but the primary access, especially if there is a fence, is going to be uh a right-hand turn off Gibbon Street.

I'm sorry, off Henry Street, Patrick Street, excuse me.

Uh leaving the site is going to be uh is somewhat of a challenge also because you'd have to make a left out.

Uh you would either have to go down into Fairfax County and turn around.

Uh or you would be hopeful that the traffic is not heavy and you can cross uh Patrick Street and turn left onto Franklin.

Well, whatever the traffic pattern is today.

Is there no left turn there?

Yeah.

No, I know that access is not not wonderful.

I think the uh convenience store on the corner is finding that out.

What I'm trying to say is whatever the traffic pattern is today, unless it's changed, it will be the same for the next use.

Yes.

And do you anticipate that there will be much more vehicle traffic uh under the new use?

You know, I have not done it.

Driving by West Marine, it surprises me that there's not, it's not full.

It's not like a um a large taco shop.

Uh I'm assuming that it they're customers in and out all day.

I would assume from a volume standpoint, you're gonna see more cars in the parking lot.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other observations or discussion from commissioners?

Otherwise, I'm happy to hear a motion for discussion.

Madam Chair, I would move to recommend council approval of special use permit 2025 00054 for 601 and 619 South Patrick Street, based on the staff report and our discussion here at the hearing.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion um to recommend approval by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Ramirez.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

May I have one moment?

This is not a eulogy, Mr.

Brown.

It's not a eulogy.

But I do want to say uh we've worked a long time together on many things, both before the commission and afterwards.

Uh I've never really can say honestly, I've always agreed with you, but we've always disagreed in a collegial manner.

I wish you've airwinds in a trailings or whatever it is.

Fair season a trailing wind in your endeavors in the Great Northwest.

Thank you, Mr.

Blair.

And I and mention that I'll out west.

I'm going to keep my eye on the zoning for housing legal challenge because I'm looking forward to seeing the day when you come back before the uh the planning commission and say we're ready to go with with some of those changes.

Well, you know, we did tonight.

Um, some of the bill are taking risk and supporting the city and and taking actions in support of housing for all because it is a very global change of our ordinance.

Uh, and that is in reliance of uh that the uh city attorney is going to do a great job.

And the court of appeals is gonna do what they did today for the 301 North Fairfax Street case.

So with that, thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, that brings us to docket item six.

Docket item number six, rezoning 2025 0007 development special use permit 2025 1003 11 and 21 North Quaker Lane and 3369 Duke Street.

An amendment to the official zoning map to change the zoning designation for the properties from CL commercial low with proper to CL commercial low, remove the existing proffer, and be a development special use permit and site plan with modifications to construct two multi-unit townhouse townhouse style residential buildings, and with special use permit request for an increase in building height and bonus density pursuant to section 7700 of the zoning ordinance, property zone CL commercial low with proffer.

Property zone CL commercial low with proffer.

The applicant is 614 with Brad LLC, represented by Kathy Puscar attorney.

Good evening, Chair McMahon and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Alexa Powell.

I'm an urban planner with planning and zoning development division.

This evening we'll discuss items outlined in the agenda on Duke and Quaker Townhouse Project.

The applicant here is requesting a rezoning to remove the existing proffer and proposes to construct 11 townhouse style residential units, including 10 market rate and one affordable in two multi-unit buildings.

Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and the DSUP, and the project is consistent with the small area plan and provides benefits outlined later in this presentation.

Key elements of our review included dedication of right-of-way, details about site access and monetary contributions.

The site is a little over a half acre.

It's located on the northeast corner of the intersection between Duke Street and Quaker Lane.

The property is currently zoned commercial low with a proffer.

For some background, in 1982, the planning commission approved a site plan for the construction of a three-story office building on the property, including a proffer.

Among other things, this proffer limited height, uh restricted the site to office use with a floor area ratio not to exceed 0.7.

The building was never constructed, and the proffer has remained on the site in effect since that time.

The property is located in the Taylor Run Duke Street Small Area Plan, which recommends land use is consistent with the commercial low zone and maximum building height of 45 feet.

The Duke Street Transitway recommended in the Duke Street and Motion Initiative is anticipated to be constructed along the southern frontage of this site.

Other uses surrounding the site include residential, uh religious institutions, medical office, and commercial, as well as a park across Duke Street.

The applicant is pursuing two land use approvals with this proposal.

Um requesting to remove the existing proffer, um, but maintaining uh the commercial low zoning.

And then with the development special use permit, the applicant is requesting to modify the front and side yard setbacks as well as modifications to the 2019 uh landscape design guidelines or landscape guidelines for uh street trees along Duke Street.

And then they're also requesting an SUP for bonus density using Section 7700, as well as an SUP for a building height increased to 45 feet.

The proposed four-story townhouse units include four bedrooms and ground floor garages.

Each building is 45 feet tall with loft on the top floor, which is set back from the primary facade.

In terms of materials, it combines brick, uh cement uh cementus panels and horizontal siding to name a few.

Uh in terms of the site plan, as you can see here, uh building number one has five units, and building number two has six units that are being proposed.

The applicant meets the open space requirements through a combination of ground level and rooftop open space and vehicular access is provided through rear-loaded uh garages provided uh via shared private drive aisle.

The church parking spaces are also being reconfigured here with the same number of spaces and access from Quaker Lane.

And so there will be uh nine spaces that are shared between this property as well as the church.

Um, in addition to those parking spaces that are below each unit.

At the city's request, the applicant has agreed to dedicate approximately 30 feet of the property for future construction of the transit way, and the design phase of uh which is expected to complete in the fall of 2027.

Um construction to begin shortly thereafter with the operation of transit way as early as 2029.

In terms of some highlights and benefits, um, up to three students are anticipated to be generated with this proposal across all grade levels, and we'll attend Douglas MacArthur, George Washington Middle, and Alexandria High School.

Um proposal did not trigger traffic study based on the number of units that are anticipated and the vehicle trips generated.

And the site is near uh several existing bus stops as well as the transit way that's anticipated along Duke Street.

Uh the applicant plans to treat the required volume through stormwater BMPs, and uh which will offset any remaining untreated area with purchase of off site nutrient credits.

Oh terms of benefits, this project provide several, um, including a dedication of the Duke Street along Duke Street for transit way, as well as uh one new on site uh affordable unit with up to uh for up to 100% AMI, as well as a $68,000 voluntary contribution towards the affordable housing contribution, affordable housing contribution.

Uh and it's also consistent with city policies um contributing $9,000 to the city's public art fund and $2,000 towards the uh capital bike share project capital bike share uh projects consistent with the green building policy as well.

When we spoke with the community community, um we held there were several meetings that the applicant held.

In particular, we heard from the community that they had some concerns about access to this site uh as it relates to uh stacking of traffic along Quaker Lane, and the applicant proposed as a mitigation strategy uh to restrict left turning movements from that access point and move have uh uh residents exit the site further north, go around the um church and use that to give some more visual clearance as an option.

And uh we have we believe that that would be a good strategy as well as um restricting or having uh signage to that effect.

And in conclusion, staff is recommending approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, are there questions for staff?

I have a couple.

Um it's a little unclear for my eyeballs on the drawing.

Um, where the plan shows the driveway access that would be left turn restricted that first driveway um closest to the townhomes.

Is that actually moving a curb cut?

Because right now that parking lot has two curb cuts with like a little bit of space between them, it's and it's it's a little bit awkward because it looks like they drive the curb cuts go into the parking lanes.

So um is this is this creating one curb cut in the middle of the case?

It is consolidating the two curb cuts that currently exist into a single curb cut and moving it further to the north.

Yeah, um, and so that is um so it'll make more sense.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, that's helpful.

Um, because certainly accessing this site was hard for me.

I I passed the driveway before I realized it was the driveway, and I had to drive up the road, and then I had to turn into a neighborhood, and then I had to wait what seemed like five minutes to turn left onto Quaker again, even that was like uh several blocks up.

Um, so I I um can commiserate the getting onto Quaker Lane southbound here is hard.

Um, but maybe everyone will just find some other way to leave, like they'll just all go right because that'll be easier, and they'll find another way to where they have to go.

Um my second question is about our land use planning process.

Um, so I know you all are more in the current planning team, and you you deal with the development projects and proposals, but you work alongside a bunch of staff who are running a long-range planning process, and right now this site is part of a slightly larger parcel or slightly larger gesticulation in our plans conceptually for an opportunity site that includes these um office, small low-rise office buildings that are just to the east.

Can staff speak to discussions on the suitability of this project proposal for this part of the location, given that it was conceived as being a larger opportunity site, and this is along Duke Street, and we're looking for land uses that can be transit supportive.

Um and how this fits into that equation.

Sure, I can take that question.

For the record, my name is Nathan Randall with uh planning and zoning.

Um we have been coordinating with our uh colleagues in um internally um who are working on the Duke Street um land use plan.

We've also been coordinating with them regarding uh and our colleagues in Tess, uh Transportation Environmental Services regarding the Duke Street and Motion Initiative as well.

And of course, that's um one result that you've seen is the dedication of the right-of-way for um consistency with that initiative.

Um but in terms of the land use plan, it is true that in the draft documents, I think they were released in early December, mid-December, um, this site is was included uh as part of an opportunity for redevelopment.

And you know, we think that the development that's proposed here is consistent with that, uh, with that um intention on the plan.

And we would say that uh part of the reason for that too is that the or part of the reason for that is the site does have a few access challenges.

Um and you know, uh it's also been a vacant site for many years as well.

And so, you know, we we see that this uh proposal for development um you know coming forward and one that is um you know has 11 units, um, that it's it's it's right sized uh for the for the site for the um, you know, give and given the um the site access challenges.

And today this site is not owned in conjunction with that nearby office complex.

Correct.

Okay.

So um aspirations to consolidate the two and redevelop them as one whole would would be entirely um uh what's the word um project projecting like into the future that possibility.

I assume that there wasn't a conversation here or was there?

I I'm not aware of a specific conversation about that uh specific idea, although I will say that we are aware that the applicant has coordinated with both of their neighbors, the of course the church and um the uh representatives from that office complex uh attended a meeting that we were a part of, and there may have been other conversations in in general as well.

Okay.

Um I think that's it for my questions.

Commissioner Brown.

Mr.

Randall, what can you tell me about how long this property has been undeveloped and why it failed to develop?

Well, we can tell you that it's been uh vacant.

We believe it's been vacant since at least that proposal from the early 80s where in the proffer was instituted.

Um and so, you know, that's uh we think it's 82.

Um, so that's over 40 years that it's been vacant.

Um I'm not entirely sure why it's been vacant for that long.

I can um surmise some reasons that one of them could have been the could be the site access.

Um, but it is uh it is true that it's been vacant for quite some time.

The the proffer, the existence of the proffer um might also be a factor in limiting what can be done at the site.

I'm just speculating here, but my thinking is that this property for many years has had the same heavy traffic access problems that it still has today.

Does that sound about right?

Um I think that the site access challenges could be uh could be a part of this.

Yes, I think that the um this development being 11 units um is you know, the the traffic that's been estimated to be generated from it would be quite low.

Um, just thought I'd mention that as a part of this.

So that that's been a part of our review.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

If none, we can go to a public hearing.

Do we have any speakers on this application?

We do.

Our first speaker is Stephen Morris, followed by Luana Russell.

Thank you.

Stephen Morris, uh, let's see if he's on the line.

I just unmuted.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, indeed.

Thank you.

All right.

I don't think I can go on video, but uh yeah, thank you so much for the the time.

Um I'm the president of the Sim Seminary Hill Civic Association.

Uh, and uh wanted to first thank uh the developer and his his attorney, Ms.

Puscar.

Uh, and the transparency from the beginning of this is as mentioned in the slides before they came and provided a uh demonstration of what they intend to do.

And and we fully support um the development.

Uh we think it's great that they're taking this underutilized lot and creating homes and also the affordable units that they're including in uh in the proposal.

Our primary concern, which uh commission the commissioners have already raised is around accessibility.

Um in the staff report, they do say that there's going to be no left turns uh out of the southern entrance.

Um and our recommendation that you consider would be that people ignore no left turn signs.

Um, as we witnessed when uh at the bottom of Yale and Duke.

Um, even though there were no left turn signs, people just kept making them.

Uh and in this case, uh what we foresee potentially happening is people coming out, trying to make a left turn and wedging into the Quaker Lane traffic coming down the hill and waiting for somebody to let them in.

Uh meanwhile, cars are going to be starting to come up the slip lane from Duke Street, and all of a sudden you're just sitting in the middle of uh Quaker Lane trying to find a spot to get in, uh, which would create a potential safety hazard.

Um so our what we surmise is maybe we could add those delineators that the city has been putting uh up the midline of Quaker a decent amount to at least add a physical barrier for cars to make a left turn, at least from the southern entrance.

Um the northern interest, which is uh mentioned in the uh staff report.

Um, I think it'll still be tough to make a left turn uh at certain times.

I think a fun exercise is if you open Google Maps on your phone or laptop right now, the satellite images show cars blocked or uh cars waiting far past the north entrance on uh Quaker Lane, um, about at least over 150 feet.

Um that was our one recommendation.

We again uh appreciate the collaboration with the developer and fully support the proposal.

Um, but if if that could be a condition of the uh recommendation for approval that maybe there's delineators added up to at least add a physical barrier so that people can't just ignore the no left turn because that's a very difficult area for traffic enforcement to actually uh you are at time, sir.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Lawana Russell.

Followed by Kathy Puscar, the attorney for the apple.

Good evening, everyone.

I have to put the glasses on.

I'm Lawana Russell, and I am a fourth generation Alexandrian.

I've been here most of my life, and even when my mom moved us away for a while, I came right back to the city that I love.

When people ask me where I would like to live, I really am stumped because my roots, my family, my 102-year-old grandmother are all right here.

When I was able to purchase a home of my very own here, well, you can imagine my other excitement, joy, pride.

My address is 151 North Quaker Lane.

I love my little sanctuary.

I'm in the heart of what I call the biggest small town in America.

And you also know from that address that I am right on the hill.

I am right where you guys are speaking of.

I'm near the church.

When I purchased the home, I was thrilled to learn that that empty property on the corner of Duke and Quaker was zoned commercial.

And I would love to keep it that way.

As I don't feel that rezoning this site, I feel that rezoning the site would negatively impact our community.

The impact would be, of course, the increase in traffic.

That's what we're talking about, right?

There are literally times that it takes me 20 minutes just to get out of my driveway to go left on said Quaker Lane.

There have been other times when it's taken me almost 45 minutes to get down Quaker Lane when I'm coming in from the Shurlington area.

As soon as I hit the light at seminary and I see cars, I'm like, okay, it's gonna be a long night.

And it doesn't make sense to go around because it's just as bad.

I know that the decision to make Quaker the throughway for those traveling to the beltway made sense in another situation, but it just compounds the traffic right on our street.

So the added units and not having them make less left turns is not going to help the situation.

How it's gonna be monitored.

It's gonna be a traffic camera where folks making a left turn out are gonna get a ticket every time they make a left turn, so then they'll stop making left turns.

Is there going to be a cop standing there saying you can't make a left turn?

How is that a really a good solution?

And when you're coming talking about coming out north, you're literally what, 10 feet coming out on the other side of the church, just getting closer to my house, making it more difficult for me to get out.

That's not a solution.

So the proposed town home community is also starkly incompatible with the established neighborhood character.

We move there because we love that neighborhood.

Our single family homes, our yards, it's beautiful.

We walk, we have fun.

That area is not built for what they want to put there.

Um it just mismatches in form and function, it diminishes the curb appeal and maybe market, maybe market confidence for the adjacent properties.

We can put into single family homes.

That's another consideration versus 11 different townhomes in that small space.

Finally, when they say that neighbors have been adequately engaged, they have not been, because this is the first time I've heard of it, which is why I'm here tonight.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Kathy Puscar for the good evening.

Kathy Puscar with Walsh Callucci for the record.

Uh, thank you for having us here this evening.

Uh Mr.

Brown, I think you asked a good question as to what has changed between when this first came forward and now.

And what has changed is years ago, uh, there was not coordination and collaboration with the church.

And so, as Mick Miss McMahon pointed out, there are there today two curb cuts on that southern portion.

And when the project came forward in earlier iterations, those two curb cuts remained at the lower portion of Quaker Lane.

Since that time, and what is before you today is a project that has been fully coordinated with the church with their consent and approval for the traffic pattern that we are showing.

Um we appreciate the support of Seminary Hills.

We did meet with them, we did talk about their traffic concerns, and that is what precipitated the change where we are going to put signage that says no left turn out of the southernmost at most entrance, and that traffic would circulate around to the north to take the left where you're farther away from the intersection out of that entryway.

And to understand the traffic that we're talking about, we are anticipating one inbound trip in the AM peak hour at the southern driveway, four uh inbound trips in the PM peak hour, and then outbound of that southern entrance, two in the a.m.

peak hour, and one in the PM peak hour.

And out of that north uh exit, zero inbound because you can't go inbound at that uh point, and two outbound in the AM peak hour and one in the PM peak hour.

Um, the reason we cannot do improvements to Quaker Lane is because, as I just mentioned to you, we have the cooperation of the church, and the church today has full access in and out of their property on that southern entrance.

We are not in a position to put up a barrier on Quaker Lane that limits the access for the church.

That wasn't part of the agreement.

The agreement was that we would consolidate the entranceway.

Uh, we would improve the parking lot to provide for better access.

We would provide the signage for no left turns out.

Now it's a low number of cars.

And to the question about, well, are people gonna try and do it anyway?

I can't promise you that there's not a car that might not try to do that.

But what I can probably assure you of is once they try it once or twice during rush hour, they're gonna go up to that top access and they're either gonna go right or left from that top access and coming home, they're gonna find a way to get back to their townhouse that doesn't create that left turn during rush hour.

Um, what else has changed is the city's approach towards density and housing over the years.

Um, we have changed our policies as to what is encouraged in the city and what is necessary.

And as you all know, uh zoning for housing was approved.

Uh the council of government's regional housing crisis and and goals towards solving that crisis had been approved.

And so this project is consistent with the city's goals for the production of housing.

Um, if it were a commercial office building, there would be more traffic generated than these 11 townhouses.

And I would like to point out that we are using section 7-700 to provide one affordable housing unit.

And we have worked with the city to accommodate um the proposed dedication of right-of-way for their transitway improvements when that time comes.

Um, so we did um across the street from us, across Duke Street or townhouses.

I'm sorry that Ms.

Russell was unaware of the community meetings.

We did send um letters to the surrounding property owners and to Seminary Hill um to distribute to their members, but um we've worked hard on this project and we've tried to address concerns um and we ask for your support.

I have a quick follow-up question.

Um you were indicating that you have concern if um, and it's not on the table tonight, but if if ballards or something to that effect were installed along Quaker Lane along that double yellow line as far up as the first as far up as the parking lot that that might be objectionable to the church.

And I'm curious why you think that, because the church has the loop church has full access at that intersection today.

Right.

And there's no reason for them to have to give that up today.

That's just something, and I don't know what their plans are for the future at this property.

Right.

And if and when they they did something on their property, it might be ripe for a discussion about what that limitation would be.

All I know is that we had an agreement with them for access to consolidate those two curb cuts into one.

We did not have agreement to close their left turns in.

Yep.

Yeah, and I don't um I don't think that it's in the scope of the the project.

I think it's an interesting idea that might be something that after the project's built and functionally everyone is observing how things are operating.

If I don't know, it's like well community members write in requests for for tests to evaluate.

But but I think I need to clarify one thing.

That is the only access point for the church for left in the you so we're limiting left out, correct?

But the church has to be allowed a left turn.

You have to have the ability to go left in.

Yep.

Because that upper access point is out only.

It's left out and it's right out, but you can't get into the church property from so if you were to put the bollards on Quaker Lane, then you're forcing the church and the townhouses to go to the neighborhood and come up and write in only.

Yep.

And so on the balance, we think that this is such a low intensity use that an additional couple of left turns in during rush hour um won't be an issue, or to the extent that it is, the people who live there will learn the pattern to get to their home efficiently.

I know I wouldn't have done what I did if I could do it again.

I would I would I would get that turn right.

Um thank you for that point.

Because I I agree with you since that is this parking lot lane will be the only way for people to get home and for church members to arrive.

So it needs to uh retain that in in access.

Um that was all my questions for the applicant.

Does anyone else commissioner Brown?

You have questions for the applicant.

Did you ask them uh what their experience has been with regard to left in and left out for church services?

No.

Do you do you happen to know uh how many people are coming to the church and when?

I do not.

Oh, did they they did they did not express to you any concerns about adding to the left turns in and left turns out?

They did not.

I now I have to say I did not meet with the church.

Um my client coordinated with the church, but they signed all the easements and agreements to facilitate this project coming forward, which to me says they didn't have a concern about it.

Okay, any other questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Dubay.

Just one quick clarification.

The access that the church is letting the development use to get out on the north side is that that's gonna be that's church property.

They'll be responsible for maintaining it and there's no issues there, I guess.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

That was it.

All right.

Um we do have another speaker on Zoom.

Okay, let's go to our next public speaker.

Michael Mick.

Excuse me.

That's Macinity.

You all hear me.

Yes.

Um, so I've been living in Alexandria for uh 26 years now, uh, currently living off of Trinity uh Trinity Drive.

And I will say the primary traffic concern here is not necessarily the Duke uh the Duke Street traffic implications, but obviously as we've been talking about the Quaker ones.

And I will say the primary traffic concern here is not necessarily the Duke uh the Duke Street traffic implications, but obviously, as we've been talking about the Quaker ones, I'm concerned that even if you restrict that left hand turn out of this property onto Quaker, what you'll be doing is sending folks right hand up uh Quaker Lane going towards seminary, and at that point they'll be looking to correct their course rather than making a right down Trinity towards Bishop Ired and they'll look to make a U-turn uh at that intersection of Quaker and Trinity, which if anybody's had the misfortune of trying to make a left-hand turn uh from Trinity onto Quaker, you know that it's one of the most dangerous left-hand turns you can make in the city, particularly at rush hour.

And so I'm concerned with the one, the traffic from the residents uh they're going to make that U-turn when they're looking to get down Duke, but they can't make a left out of their property.

And as well as the construction crews coming and going to work, uh, that is a very busy corner right there at the corner of Duke and Quaker.

And I'm wondering if that'll be considered and if there'll be a constructibility study as well as the traffic impact uh as a result of that construction.

That's a very difficult location to operate.

I having spent four years in construction management, know that that was a primary concern always, and that contractors typically spend a good amount of time focusing on that issue.

And I'm wondering if that constructability study and the traffic impacts from that construction will be made public for pub uh for the general public's comment.

Thank you very much.

Ms.

McMahon, I think.

I think you address that uh point of order.

Can we have staff maybe try to address that first?

Sure.

Um the question I think is just where in the process um is the concept of constructibility.

This is not a planning commission matter, so to speak, but constructability and then construction traffic management.

Uh so part of the um so tonight before you, of course, is what we call the preliminary site plan or preliminary DSUP approval, and um the applicant is required to file for their final site plan approval um with with staff as an administrative process.

Um and um part of that uh administrative approval of final site plans is something called um a construction management plan.

And that construction management plan covers a number of items such as construction worker parking, um uh the construction entrance.

Um, I believe there's uh some um erosion incentive and control involved to some degree as well.

And so um, you know, those those elements of um of the construction process will be included in that construction management plan, which is reviewed by uh city staff as part of the final site plan.

And there is usually a public um meeting, there's coordinating meetings by the construction team with the neighbors prior to construction beginning and then throughout.

The um there's a uh standard condition of approval that uh requires the applicant to uh hold a pre-construction meeting with the community um and also provide um the contact information from a member of the construction team um that can be that that would need to be available to answer any questions from the public.

Okay, thank you.

Um Robert I'm responding, is that right?

Yes.

I want to acknowledge the neighbor's comment though, that's just the the unique nature of the site of rework that into accounting about the side of it.

Yep, yep.

Yeah, I mean if it's if it's hard to get into and out of for a regular car today, um, it's just one of those things.

Now that that doesn't stop us from making a better use out of our awkward sites.

We do this all the time, but um, and and for the community members sort of sense of things, we don't we planning commission also presume that these processes um take place in good faith.

Staff are working very hard with applicants to make sure that the in the entirety of the process of coming from what once a project um in concept is approved by planning commission and the council that it can get to um completion in a way that um works the best it possibly can for the community that isn't to diminish that any construction project, even in a perfectly accessible block, isn't a disruptive process for a neighbors.

So that that does take place.

Um other public comments, Ms.

Jacobs.

Anyone else on there?

Okay, great.

So we can um, unless there are further questions for the applicant, we can go ahead and close the public hearing.

Move to close the public hearing.

All right, second.

I have a motion by um Vice Chair Canigan, a second by Commissioner Duvet to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye opposed.

Motion carries 7-0, and that brings us to commissioner discussion on the merits of the project.

Anyone want to kick off.

All right, Commissioner Brown.

I'm happy to do so.

Um I think that as I said to Mr.

Randall that this property has been undeveloped because most people who see it recognize that there's an almost unsolvable access problem in terms of the traffic that's on Duke Street and Quaker Lane.

But I think I'm following what you just said.

Um unless the project were a huge incremental addition to the problem, that there's a reason there to disapprove the project.

I I'm not sure about the numbers from Ms.

Puskar, but regardless, even if four or five of the of the occupants uh traveled out early in the morning uh to get to make that south that to make that difficult southbound or to coming home in the evening to make that difficult.

Left turn traffic.

That's only a minor increment to a problem that this problem this project can't solve.

And we have we have bigger, bigger fish to fry with that particular thing.

So it's not a reason to disapprove the project.

I really don't have any issues with the project.

I think uh I think it's a great location if you're if you're if you're a uh if you're a fan of Panera or Frank Pepe's Pizza, a couple of other good spots over there, and there's a grocery store within walking distance uh that uh very substantial giant food.

So this is there's nothing wrong with this place as a place for re for residential.

Um finally, and this is by no means a criticism of the application or uh or any reason to reject it.

I just want to note that uh Mr.

Kennig and I have had a long, a long running discussion about when a building has a lavatory as opposed to a bathroom.

The difference being that lavatories have a 50 foot FAR credit for each one.

And in this particular case, each one of the 10 uh units that's not an affordable unit have 232 square feet of free space that's not counted in FAR.

When you when you multiply 232 times 10, you get 2,320.

And Wolfada, that's just enough for an 11th unit.

So we have an 11th unit and it's an affordable one.

But I I'm hoping someday down the road, we will we will no longer be distinguishing between a completely residential property that happens to be in a commercial zone versus a completely residential property that happens to be in a residential zone.

I have never I've never bought that idea.

I raised it with the planning director when we talked about it.

I hope that someone will give it careful consideration in the future.

But for now, I'm I'm perfectly happy with 11 units here.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

I hope uh Director Stoddard's taking detailed notes of the things that I'm not going to remember to put on our work plan unless you help me.

Um else want to contribute.

I um I will be recommending approval of this application as staff and the applicant probably um caught on in my questioning around the long-range planning process.

Um a part of me wishes that this site could be um a combined redevelopment opportunity with this other commercially used parcel nearby, the way that it's envisioned um in these at this concept level in the land use planning process today.

But I also don't have illusions that we can just like we can't make magical perfect projects happen.

We see projects come forward and we we review them for on their on the basis of their own merits.

And to some community members' concerns about um potential impact at this location, I think this townhouse project is um the right increment solution, which is right alongside what will be a transit way.

So um uh I I do take note this across the street from from this site on Quaker Lane, our townhouses behind this site on along Duke Street is low rise um commercial right now.

The transit way when it comes through will provide even better access, both pedestrian access, um, and I don't remember the details about bicycle access, but at minimum pedestrian and um and transit access.

And I don't remember the details about bicycle access, but at minimum pedestrian and transit access.

So folks living in these townhouses could actually just walk around the corner and hop on a high uh capacity bus and head either direction, um, to whether they're they're they work to the west or they work to the east, um, that they can connect to Metro in that way.

So there's a lot of opportunity here.

Um, it doesn't exist today, but if I were a prospective buyer of a townhouse, I might be thinking about the future transit access that this townhouse will have.

And from a neighbor's perspective, um, no neighbors that live here today might feasibly think that transit is the way they're going to get around, but their um perspectives may change.

And even if their individual perspectives don't change, knowing that new residents moving in don't necessarily have all of those same patterns ingrained.

So new residents that move into this development may be more receptive to being able to stay off the grid right here at Quaker Lane where it's very problematic.

And that just the ability to avoid being on that street could be enough incentive to find a transit-oriented route out that's not requiring you to be in a car.

Um, so I think that we I have to take into account that this is a transitional space.

It is an important commercial corridor.

It is a corridor we are going to invest in.

It may not be able to be as um this spot might not be able to be as high density as other parts of this corridors redevelopment will be able to be.

But townhouses are not incompatible here.

And um, I think this design does the maximum that it can do to um to manage the compatibility when it comes to the driving piece while already achieving the compatibility when it comes to land use and fit and the dedication of the space, which is which is really nice to have because we're gonna need lots of incremental dedications like that over the years of building out this corridor.

Um so with those comments, I will be supporting this proposal.

Are there any other observations or comments?

Um, I would just um take note of my complete uh concurrence with all your observations from the strategic planning level um down to all the observations that have been made about the particulars of the case.

And I am comfortable moving rezoning in a DSUP, right?

Um if you're willing to entertain a motion, I would move to recommend council approval of rezoning 2025 0007 uh in North Quaker Lane and Duke Street townhouses.

Um, that that approval be based on the staff report and discussion at the hearings.

I will second that.

All right.

I have a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning by Vice Chair Canigan and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

Did you do you didn't do the DSUP too, right?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, just kind of check there.

Okay, just check.

Okay.

Okay.

We don't have to.

Everything's gone on so long.

I can't, you know, I can't one more.

Otherwise, they don't get what's necessary.

Yeah, that's right.

I would I would move uh to recommend approval of uh DSUP 2025 1003 one.

Um, and that approval would be based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearing.

I'll also second that.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Brown to recommend approval of the development special use permit.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I am opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

And Chair McMahon may also have a moment to address Commissioner Brown.

You know, this hearing's going on so please.

Commissioner Brown, I appreciate your support tonight.

And as always, it it you are nothing if not consistent uh in your approach to certain issues like lavatory and bathroom exclusions, because I believe you and I have been discussing that topic since uh a commercial mixed use project at 701 North Henry in 2021.

So perhaps we can have coffee before you leave to hash it out one last time.

But I have to say um we've had a lot of meetings, we've had a lot of discussions.

I've always appreciated your um uh uh close study of the zoning ordinance.

And like my colleague Duncan Blair, it's no surprise that we don't always agree.

Um and so thank you so much for your service.

You know you and I I think the first time we worked together you brought me a letter when you were cleaning out your files and I think it was from 1996 or 98 and you were head of the Civic Association or the land use chair for the Northridge Civic Association and I was working believe it or not on a townhouse project and uh we had many many meetings over that project and I always appreciated the way you represented your community and worked towards uh a collaborative uh consensus to move the project forward so thank you so much for all of your time and wish you the best in your new endeavors thank you for that very much thank you all thank you all right that brings us sorry to our minutes consideration of the minutes from the January 6th 2026 planning commission public hearing do any commissioners have edits or comments on the minutes we had some big discussions at the last hearing are all the T's crossed and the I's dotted um Madam Chairman yes um my uh my observation would be that um that the minutes are are a real are very uh accurate and faithful reflection of um our discussion um and and I uh take your point that that's wasn't necessarily one of the easiest hearings to transcribe to a coherent set of um minutes so I appreciate the staff that staff's done a very nice job of that and I'm uh whenever you're ready I'm uh ready to move a motion to approve the minutes thank you all right I'll go ahead and take that motion uh I move to uh approve the minutes second all right excellent I have a motion by Vice Chair Kennig and a an appropriate second by Commissioner Lenahan on um on a uh a big on a big docket an important docket um all those in favor please say aye aye opposed motion carries seven zero and that brings us to other business commissioners reports comments and questions planning and zoning director's report um commissioner dubay you provided a written update um it was excellent thank you so much did you want to highlight anything in particular from the written no I um I took the time to write that after those two meetings just so I could capture everything and it seems um the 11 months that I've been here when we get to this point of the night you kind of fade in and out of the conversation I guess uh are you looking at me I um just this this is something we did in another life I was in that the people were on other boards would provide a quick written report and then if there was questions that the other commissioners could ask and it number one it got a better coverage of the meeting in detail and then two it it kind of shortened the end of the meetings at night so just just an observation but I don't have anything other than what's in there.

Great.

Great thank you.

Other commissioners' updates commissioner Kennig Chair if I if I could just follow up with Mr Commissioner DeBay's um report which I didn't realize had been attached and didn't get a chance to read uh but you have a timeline here for LaDre.

Um the permits are anticipated for May of 2026.

So that project is actually reanimated as a rejuvenation of the existing building this quickly and is in the pipeline that's what they said.

Well that's uh that's exciting and one of the one of the sort of few positive dimensions of that whole um situation recently um I think an interesting to me in that whole discussion was the lawsuit from the Annie B.

Rose House against Modre from the template and it'll be a moot point.

Right has that been okay right yes I remember when that developed and it was really kind of an unfortunate thing to uh to see kind of neighbor on neighbor concerns there um but yeah the level of demolition involved in the rejuvenation will be so much less that so is that essentially just formally gone away then that concern it had not as of that meeting but they just thank you all right whoa we didn't I just lost someone okay uh commissioner manor you've got your hand raised yes um it was my intention to give the report uh in person about the waterfront commission but there was a lot that has going on there's a movement to sunset certain commissions including waterfront which I think is a very poor idea given it is a major reason why we have a one billion dollar a year visitor economy and I would like to um

Yes.

Um it was my intention to give the report uh in person about the waterfront commission.

But there was a lot that is going on.

There's a movement to sunset certain commissions, including waterfront, which I think is a very poor idea given it is a major reason why we have a $1 billion a year visitor economy.

And I would like to um because also I've been coughing all day long.

I'm sure I can get through this the speech.

Uh I'd like to also submit a written report to the commission and just highlight because there were things about the marina, the decline of youths in the marina as well.

There were quite a number of important things at the meeting um this this uh month that I'd like to bring everybody's attention to.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh other commissioner updates.

Any other updates?

Commissioner Brown?

Um I want to mention that in my permanent absence.

Uh I have I have along with the rest of the of the working crew that's been working on uh the idea of replacing the monumental sports entertainment complex with something better.

Recruited uh Jody Manor to be a part of the team, which I think is getting close to being incorporated so they can actually raise some money and move things along.

Um and I've promised everyone that I'll try to keep track of what's going on from the West Coast and if they need anything from the people in Seattle who have already kind of pioneered this these kinds of ideas.

I'll be there.

Um and I haven't forgotten my commitment to get you a memo regarding uh possible changes to the sub the uh resubdivision ordinance, and that's still on my work schedule, although that that schedule is getting closer and closer to the end because of the moving trucks are now scheduled for March 5th, but I will get that done.

As well as as well as a memo on uh docket number seven from tonight.

Thank you very much.

Any other updates?

I don't really have um items of note from Transportation Commission.

We did have a hearing in January.

Um but no real land use items.

I know that staff are working on parking standards, but I what I requested in that commission's hearing was them to be docketed as a discussion item or something to that effect in our transportation commission work program, but I also don't know what the um it's it's a very staff-driven effort at this point in time.

And so I'm not sure.

Um, Director Starr, I don't know if you have any particulars about that process right now, where it is in the process, but since parking standards and what I mean by that are the way we put parking requirements on land use um is of interest to this commission as well.

So I'm not sure if it makes sense to be a work session or makes sense to be a discussion item or or what have you.

But I think it would be it would be good to be um looped in.

Yeah, I'm happy to reach out uh and coordinate that so that that you all are kept aware of it, of course, not only for your review of development applications, but of course your your important role in in preparing the zoning ordinance and and of course the parking requirements live there.

Um and and I know uh that they do a lot of work.

I want to speak up for the work that staff does in this analysis looking at what are best practices in the industry, what is parking utilization across the city?

Uh, and since the buildings we're talking about often live for 40, 50, 60 plus years, uh, if not longer, uh, what are the needs of today and the projected impacts for tomorrow?

And how does that relate to the to the planned improvements and the kind of transportation network the community is expecting in the future?

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

If there are no other commissioner reports, comments, and questions.

Um, Director Starter, would you like to give us your planning and zoning director report?

Or I should say, do anyone I does anyone have questions on that material.

I admit I didn't get a chance to look at that.

Was that in our was that posted?

Did I just miss it?

Sometimes I feel like it's sent in an email.

I think it came out in one of the emails.

Okay, so I didn't quite I didn't quite catch it.

But um, could you give us an overview?

I'm happy to summarize it.

Uh thank you, Chair uh members of the commission.

Uh in the director's report, I wanted to highlight four items for you first.

Uh good news, uh, the green building plan was approved by unanimous vote of the city council seven zero at their recent public hearing.

And of course, your advice and guidance in that was instrumental.

The uh included in the report are our highlights of final points of discussion that were uh considered at the hearing, uh setting the EUI target uh at 35 uh for multifamily development, uh sticking with the commission's recommendation to move small project thresholds to 10,000 square feet uh on on site uh and renewable energy.

That was a point of of much discussion.

Uh they moved it to uh uh 3% on site uh generation or uh an off-site equivalent uh capped at 150,000.

Uh the the uh direction you all provided around reviewing EV chargers was included.

Uh uh net zero provisions on on public buildings either being met on site or through energy generation, uh including the clarification this group recommended around uh on-site combustion being prohibited unless specifically listed.

Um ultimately after discussion, uh the requirement to uh include a flushing of indoor air was was removed but maintained uh was a commitment to using uh um uh low off gassing uh materials.

Uh development review procedures.

That's something I I touched on in the next paragraph.

Planning and zoning.

Uh uh council directed the planning and zoning serve a lead role in that, but obviously we're coordinating with our colleagues.

It's it's one city.

Uh, and that'll take uh probably a few months to lock in uh because it's uh of course the development conditions that we often see, but also what are the materials we need to see, what are we going to check for at each of the points in a in an application's life?

Um and then, of course, a commitment to report back uh to the council and the community on the on the uh results of the the green building plan.

Uh number two was a five-year outlook.

I will not step through the slides for this.

There's a lot of materials, but I'd encourage anyone to look through it if they're interested.

Uh this is a new publication that we did this year.

Uh we shared it with the Civic Federation uh last week.

Uh we'll be going to our our uh to NAP uh, I think in either February or March with the same information.

But it's a uh relatively short presentation, 15, 20 minutes of of materials that uh one uh ground uh the materials in sort of uh you know what and who are the Alexandria community today, because of course that's always important to keep in mind who are we planning for, uh, why it's important to to engage in city planning, uh, and then summary information about what are the ongoing planning efforts, uh, what are development applications that are under construction and expected to begin in the next few years.

Uh, and then how can everybody in the community uh get involved if they're not already and stay involved if they are?

Uh this is part of a series we hope to prepare on an annual basis on a recurring basis uh to make sure that we're doing our part to share information about what's going on in and around the city.

Uh community meeting series, just highlighting.

We've been running this now since last April.

We're getting growing attendance with each meeting.

Uh our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17th.

Folks can see the link there.

And then our docket look ahead again, uh uh another regular publication to make sure people know what's coming.

Uh the docket look ahead is included.

Uh, just some things to highlight.

Uh, planning for Duke Street uh uh land use plan continues.

You can see upcoming events in March and April.

Uh and then uh April would be a slightly heavier docket, uh, looking at a couple proposed townhouse projects at 4801 Eisenhower Avenue and then at 300 North Lee Street.

And we'll also be coming back to you with a follow-up effort on our commercial zoning text amendments.

Those were uh uh of those 75 pages of markup.

I think about 72 pages were adopted as is by council.

Uh and we had some cleanup items that they requested uh to clarify.

Uh indoor uh music, uh uh uh temporary uh uh trailers for private schools, uh, outdoor fitness areas and uh outdoor speakers at restaurants.

And that concludes my report.

Great.

Thank you so much, and thank you as always for keeping us apprised of the community meeting series dates because those are excellent.

Sometimes they conflict with things, and I can't tune in, but I really do like them a lot.

That is one of the things we plug about the the remote option uh is that uh the recordings are available.

So we make available on the website the the slides, the the voice track, the video, uh, and the QA.

Awesome for asynchronous learning.

You know, like what we're doing right now.

Thank goodness we're out of asynchronous learning.

We're now just in into the two-hour delay.

Um yes, Commissioner Keny.

Um thank you.

I if I could, I have just a couple of hopefully relatively quick queries on this very interesting and um and sort of information filled director's report.

Uh back to the green building plan.

Um, your your summation here about what happens next um and how the development review procedures um get uh proposed and prepared.

And you've mentioned preparing the procedures could take several months.

So understand that.

I'm just trying to get a slightly clearer idea of what the sequence will be.

So this will generate some translation of the plan into tools that staff can actually use to do a development review and can actually be issued to the development community as a discernible, concise set of criteria that they need to respond to.

So that promulgation of it, once you get it figured out is usually fairly formally announced to industry and has a kind of certain um point at which it actually applies.

Once it's actually in place and it applies, um, it would then start to apply to any project that comes in for a concept one after that.

So it wouldn't apply to any projects that are already beyond the absolute initiation of the project.

Uh that's correct.

So on the on the first point, uh, so obviously the the development procedures are going to implement uh the the plan is adopted by council.

The the purpose for um uh engagement with the the development stakeholders is to make sure that they understand what's written uh and and that they can it that they can understand how to follow it through the process.

So uh we would probably do that over a series of two meetings.

Uh first to bring a set of potential drafts to them uh uh to get feedback on that, take a refined version back uh and then see if there are any final edits.

I I think that that two series of meetings uh probably wraps up either right before or just after the summer recess, uh so certainly no later than the fall, these things would be uh in effect.

And then your point, your second uh sort of point uh about sort of at what stage in the life of an application does this take place.

I think in in years past we've looked for uh uh deeming an application complete uh as being a potential threshold, or whether it's a a concept one or a concept two, so early enough in a project's life that it still has flexibility in the direction it goes, um, versus having already been deemed to to have all the materials necessary to be ready for hearing.

So just a couple of points there, real quick.

Um yeah, I was assuming that uh given the fact that this is an endeavor to get criteria into the project literally at inception, that it would be not wise and not um equitable to be trying to ask projects that have already gone through even an initial conceptual review to do that.

And if that were the case, not that you're necessarily committing to that, but it seems to me logically that's the way it'll turn out.

Then we're really, I guess my next question is from the point that the policy uh begins to actually be engaged in the review of projects, then we would talk about the timeline that really that generally goes from when concept one comes through the door to when it's on the docket at planning commission and council.

And I know you have been working assiduously to try to make that as streamlined and efficient a process as possible.

But just generally speaking, what do we usually assume for that to get from concept one through two through three if necessary through completeness and on to DAC?

Yeah, our service standard now uh for projects uh sort of calendar time, our our our our individual review cycles are much quicker than this, but our total calendar time from from first submittal to to uh scheduling for hearings should be no more than a year.

Uh, we've certainly seen a number of projects go go faster than that.

I I think in the last calendar year, our our median turnaround time was right around 12, 13 months.

Uh, and I'll say that in the last quarter of the calendar year, those projects uh were all hitting that service standard.

So we're seeing some positive traction there.

Um so one year is the maximum we would expect, uh, but certainly some projects come through quicker.

So for for just again, this is rule of thumb, not holding that to anybody, but a sense of expectation is if the process you described to get this promulgated is kind of complete at the end of the summer, and in that timeline, the first concept one that gets filed in September of 2025 would be subject to the new requirements.

And that means planning commission could accept expect to see that first project on their docket in September of 2027.

Right.

There's a there's a bit of a linear uh sort of way in which these that these timelines stack up.

And so that that you're you're right to signal that that sort of in between sort of now and uh uh sort of when this will take effect.

There will be a series of applications that are in this, this in-between space.

And if I could, um, and I'm not trying to extend this, but I think how how this goes from here is uh uh it is something that I think planning commission, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that will continue to be very interested in how this develops.

And you just mentioned a part of the process that I wasn't aware of, which is at the point that you generate these um requirements that there'll be a draft and you have a series of kind of a draft and a review and an edit and a final process that involves communicating with the development community.

Does that also draft and response process include uh communicating with the commission?

Uh we can certainly provide updates on where we are.

Uh so often what this is is that it's um uh in the it takes the form of administrative updates to uh application checklists.

So what's required at a uh concept one, concept two, um uh completeness submittal.

Um those were all public documents.

There's no reason we couldn't share them.

Um I I suppose that's something we could do if if there was interest.

Right.

I guess part of part of the nature of my question though goes to the to the nature of the input.

And what I'm hearing is a draft that gets reviewed for substance with the development community and a draft that gets um noticed for update and acknowledgement as opposed to input to the commission.

And I'm just I'll stop for tonight and try to process that.

Um do you do you have the ability to pull up your other slides from the bigger part of your report?

I I should.

Uh I'll look to the back for technical assistance.

Oh, and here it comes.

I promised to keep this brief, but I think there were some very interesting uh things in here that I wanted to ask.

And and may I because that goes to a different topic, right?

Yes.

Um, before we go off of um the green building plan um next steps, we do have this clause, staff will report back in two years on progress.

But I I guess I just want assurance that the two-year clock doesn't start until the requirements start.

To some extent, like we're we're talking about uh window of time that's lengthy potentially before we even see the first projects come through the development pipeline.

And so I'm just I I'm curious how how you're envisioning the counting block.

Yeah, I think the the two-year clock was uh was a maximum amount of time in which we had to report back.

I think there was an invitation to to report back sooner if there was anything staff was seeing um exactly when the when the clock starts.

I I could imagine there's a couple different ways that could play out depending on what you're trying to capture.

But um I I suppose off the cuff, uh, an easy way to do it would just be sort of look at the action date, and then we can report back on here's where we've gone with with implementation, the number of projects we've seen.

Um, because it's it's unlikely that anything would get to construction within that two year period.

So I think it would be uh the report back would be both on on our status of implementation and and how the development uh uh sort of industry is is doing under the new system, uh, as well as uh what is the state of practice uh for green building.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

I I wanted a couple of please please come to the microphone.

Um sorry about my cold.

Um that a couple of projects have asked to opt into the new green building plan.

So we may see a few projects actually a little bit earlier.

Can't promise that.

Um, but that was that was encouraging to hear a number of um projects asked about that.

And that's something we're likely to wrap into the like an opt-in uh clause as part of the standards.

That is great to hear.

Thank you for sharing that.

Um so real quickly on this um you have a slide on your own.

Um my only question there is any idea, Grandpa.

Commissioner Koenig, I can't hear you.

Can you speak more into the mic?

Um, sorry.

I would I was uh thank you, Holly.

Uh I was asking about the timing for the old town north's arts district evaluation.

Um is that in the work plan?

Is that something that falls outside the work plan?

Can you give us any sense of the time frame for that?

Yep.

So this one was included in the work plan uh and it was scheduled to to take place in the in the I think the first half of this calendar year.

So uh initial thoughts uh on the evaluation already underway, and of course, we're we're already in discussion with the old town north uh alliance about uh uh uh what's their uh sort of um uh experience with the arts district.

And so I think what this will be taking the form of is is sort of what were the what was the intention and then what were the successes, what are the pillars that that um could bring about uh some of the uh the liveliness of an arts district uh sooner.

Thanks.

Uh and then the slide, I don't have a number on it, but it's your under construction 2026 to 2028.

Um I'm just interested in how the statistics work here.

So the the two data points at the lower left, 2600 residential units, 3% increase from 2025.

That 3% is relative to the total count of residential units in the city.

Right.

So that was uh I appreciate the question because it was a tricky stat to fit in one bullet point.

Uh so uh current uh uh number of residential units in the uh current number of households in the in the city is somewhere around 75,000.

Uh we have that number earlier.

Uh and so 2600 when you run the math and you account for rounding that that 2600 is 3% of the 75,000.

Uh and so that's uh really a 1% growth uh over each of the three years, 26, 27, 28 on average.

And that and when we say residential unit, that's residential unit of every type and every scale.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And then the 1,000 plus or minus affordable units, they're included in the 2600, or they are an additional.

Direct.

That's a component of.

Okay.

Yeah, so 2600 uh residential units.

Again, that's that's that's clearly rounded.

Uh, and then of that 2600 approximately a thousand are.

So the assumption is they're a thousand affordable units and sixteen hundred market rate units.

And then my this is less a clarification than just a question for thought that that relationship then is is 1600 market rate to a thousand affordable, and that's about a 1.6 ratio between the two, right?

And then if we go to the next slide for 20 uh 28 plus, we've got 1,700 affordable out of uh 8,500 residential, which means that's about 6,800, market rate to 1700 affordable, and that's more like a four-to-one market rate to affordable.

Is there something purposeful in your projections there that the proportion of affordable units would go down relative to the total?

The uh I this is a little bit of a guess, and I might uh turn to some colleagues from assistance on this one, but I think the ones that are in construction are certainly more definite that they have financing, they have permits, and and they're on their way.

Uh for our affordable housing pipeline, that tends to be a pretty steady projection that that we work on projects and then we work on funding to get those done.

Uh so I think there's a higher likelihood that the the affordable projects here uh that are that our city approved have a more have a higher chance of going to construction.

Uh on the private side, it's it's not uncommon that a project will get entitlements and then get stuck.

Uh, either uh it needs an extension or it needs to rethink its its its building format.

And so I don't know that all 8,500 of those uh sort of approved residential units will will make it to construction.

So I think that the lower number, the 1700 is more certain, the 8500 has less certainty.

Right.

Well, I appreciate that.

I guess my question is still to the fact that whether they all move forward or not, that the overall projection is a so much greater proportion of market rate um to affordable.

But again, I'm not a I'm just these are questions that come up in this excellent bit of data that you've presented with us, and I didn't want to go by.

And I think another factor here is the delivery of the Delray project.

Uh the Sunsei and Naja.

Oh, Sansa Nash is that really large delivery in the in the previous projection.

Oh, in the previous one.

I guess they says uh a thousand out of 2600 sounded like a tremendously uh excellent kind of ratio.

And that's why I was disappointed that we sort of weren't.

That's probably the high bar, I guess.

That's that's the that's the rabbit moving through the snake.

It's great, right?

You know, but that's just the way the numbers are falling.

And so the answer is that we have uh an unusually high proportion of affordable in the near term, not that the uh proportion of affordability in the out years is going below this.

We have more work to do there.

Okay.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Well, thank you, uh, Chair, for your indulgence, and thank you, Director, for giving us that additional detail.

All right, yes, thank you so much um for the massive amount of information that we have at our fingertips every month.

And um, both at this hearing, but also for the community in an ongoing way.

It's really important.

Um and that brings us to the part of the night we've all been looking forward to so we we have um we have a present and uh mayoral proclamation, which I'm going to read, which I'm going to read in full into the microphone.

So that everyone can hear it.

Um and this is a of course is an appreciation for the years of service of David Brown.

Right.

Bear with me, everybody.

When people read these, do they normally change the eye to it's the mayor, the mayor's talking.

I'm gonna I'm gonna embody the mayor.

I'm channeling.

I'm channeling in recognition of exemplary service of David Dave Brown on the City of Alexandria's Planning Commission.

Whereas for nearly two decades, David Dave Brown has served the City of Alexandria, Virginia and its residents in numerous critical roles, providing valuable guidance that has helped shape Alexandria's future.

And whereas in 2007, Dave Brown was appointed by city council to the residential infill task force and played an integral part in developing residential zoning regulations important to the community, and having demonstrated a keen understanding of planning and zoning fundamentals, in addition to a strong commitment to Alexandria residence, he was appointed by city council in 2014 to the Alexandria Planning Commission and reappointed for a total of three terms.

And whereas Dave Brown represented the planning commission on multiple advisory groups and committees, including the Transit Way Corridor C Policy Advisory Group, the Transportation Commission, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group, and the Open Space Steering Committee.

And whereas during his tenure on the Planning Commission, Dave Brown participated in and provided guidance to the city council on eight small area plans and overlays, allowing more than 60 million potential square feet of development with corresponding plans to support that growth, including the preservation and creation of housing affordability, and by doing so assuring the orderly development of the city for decades to come.

And whereas, while on the planning commission, he applied careful judgment to more than 1,100 docket items on various types of cases throughout the city, and in particular provided expert guidance on subdivision lots, pardon me, substandard lots, special use permits and subdivision cases, in addition to numerous amendments to the city's zoning ordinance.

And whereas Dave Brown advised on and helped guide the development of numerous policy documents in citywide chapters of the city's master plan, such as the Alexandria Mobility Plan, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, the Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan, the Environmental Action Plan 2040, the 2019 Green Building Policy, and succeeding Green Building Master Plan, and zoning for housing, housing for all, ensuring that multiple perspectives were considered and informed each decision.

Now, therefore, I, Aliyah Gaskins, mayor of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize, celebrate, and show deepest appreciation for the many works of Dave Brown with special recognition for his remarkable service to our city as a member of the Alexandria Planning Commission and his tireless advocacy on behalf of current and future Alexandrians.

And I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

In witness whereof, I have here to hereunto set my hand.

Man, they get really formal at the bottom.

Hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Alexandria to be affixed this third day of February 2026.

And this is yours.

I've forgotten I've done all this stuff here.

I know, right?

And there is a present for you.

Uh oh, what's this?

Well, it's beautifully wrapped.

In a matching bag, too.

I've been packing up frame stuff for about months now.

So you leave it wrapped.

Never said I'll have to read all of this later, but I very much appreciate personal notes.

And I take it the spire is gonna be there when they're done with the building.

Still gonna be there.

That's great.

Thank you all very much.

Um, yeah, I think I think uh several of us would like to talk to you a little bit about our appreciation.

Would anyone like to go first?

Commissioner Dube.

So I just want um, I guess 11 months serving with you.

That's been a pleasure.

I um I really found your attention to detail remarkable.

Um your ability to recall the nuances of the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, and all of the other documents was um obviously a result of years of dedication, and I really appreciate you you made me look into a lot a lot of things that I hadn't looked into, and I for that I appreciate that.

I really like the way you pulled history in.

Um, as a history buff myself, I like to when you rolled some of that into our conversations, it it helped clarify things for me, but I do appreciate that.

And as I said in our briefing together the other day, that I wanna use you as a resource, maybe a retainer.

I can I think you should establish your own chat DBT.

So I can just shoot you something.

Hey, what do you think of this?

Get it right back in 20 seconds, right?

We can do that.

So anyway, good luck.

Um enjoy the West Coast and that's about all I got.

But thank you.

Awesome.

Commissioner Lanahan, you came off off mute.

Was that on on by accident?

Uh no, I I just thought I'd be laughing in the background.

Um I'll go, I'll go next.

Um, and I'm yeah, I feel like I'm not I'm not great at this stuff.

I I I want to um second some of Commissioner Dubai's observations.

I think um what I appreciate most about your contributions um beyond your attention to detail, which is admirable and exceeds my ability to manage some of the um the nuance of our code language, um is your ability to connect our past to our future, and you do that through stories, and you do that through telling us about your life in this city and your connection to your neighbors and your vision for how the future can be better than the past.

Um, and that has allowed me to um perhaps empathize better with members of the community who've been here longer than I have, because I feel like sometimes we hear it in our in testimony and we sort of see it on the dais, but um, there can be tension between community members who have lived here for 40, 50 years and community members who are newcomers, and sometimes that means in that in that tension, there is um less tolerance for the differences of viewpoints.

But I think um all of our interactions and your testimony with us has helped me bridge that gap in understanding and have um a greater ability, not as great as yours, but a greater and growing ability to understand the different perspectives that community members bring to the state.

Um so we see it in your dedication to conservation of neighborhoods and ensuring that the future of those neighborhoods is evolving with an understanding of the past, but also your commitment to the evolution of new places because there are parts of town that you've committed and dedicated to Potomac Yard being one of them that hasn't had a neighborhood sense, sensibility yet, and I um appreciate your willingness to be in both of those conversations indeed.

You haven't just dedicated yourself to a position of neighborhood preservation, but you've you've also taken a deep dive into what it means to create evolving spaces where we have opportunity and where the book hasn't been written yet.

Um it's been an absolute pleasure to work alongside you.

I learn from you every day that we're here together.

So I will miss you on this commission, and um I don't think we can fill your shoes.

Um, so it'll be interesting to see our new makeup, but it won't be the same as it is today.

Thank you.

Well, I have to take a moment to tell you about what I think was one of the best decisions I ever made during my time on planning commission.

And that is um it became it became clear to me that there would become a time when Nate Masek would no longer be with us, and we were coming up on the time to nominate somebody who would be vice chair.

And although I had seniority at that point, I had no aspirations to leadership.

And I looked around and I remembered all of our time together, both on the commission and on the Transportation Commission at the same time.

And I said, I believe this woman is the best suited to become the vice chair, because then she will be in a position to become the chair.

And absolutely nothing has happened to give me any doubts about the wisdom of my nominating you for that position.

And it was uncontested.

Everyone's chomping at the bit for this job.

Commissioner Keny.

Yeah, thank you.

So I I jotted a few things down because when I speak off the cuff, it does not end up like the chairs where she mentions, oh, I don't do this much, and then it's just beautifully dense and intense and perfectly formulated.

I don't do that.

So I'm just going to read you a couple things that occurred to me.

Um so in in my recollection, our first opportunity to collaborate was on the infill task force in 2007.

And I had to go back and look that up, and now that starts to sound like kind of a long time ago.

Um, but I think that's that's been my good fortune.

So since then, my sense of how to participate in civic affairs has been enlarged by observing your way of working in the public realm.

You champion our master plan as the well considered expression of community vision, and you center it in the evaluation of every proposal.

The thoughtful informed empathy with which you consider how change will impact existing places and people is crucial to assessing the benefits and the costs of every project.

And the rigor with which you apply your legal expertise to issues and situations invariably enriches the deliberations of this commission and improves the quality of the judgments that we make.

As this particular phase of your service comes to a conclusion.

But given what we've just heard, I also wanted to make another uh observation as if I could you made the observation about both is uh your focus on conservation of neighborhoods and your willingness to be fully engaged in the evolution of new things, and one of the things that I that I neglected to put in here that was perhaps the most impactful to me of all the things I've watched you do is the nature of your thinking and the conclusions that you drew while we were working as a city on the uh zoning for housing housing for all because with your history as a long-established champion of a well-established neighborhood of the type that is sort of most potentially in the realm of future transformation as a result of things that happened in that plan.

You drew conclusions that were not necessarily to be expected by someone who might just be observing you from the outside, and I watched that happen, and I think that was a sort of a deep and intense and purposeful set of conclusions that you drew that changed your way of doing things in a significant way without violating what you were already good at.

And I thought that was that was fundamentally inspirational to me, frankly, and helped me do a rather more modest version of the same thing.

So we're gonna really miss you there.

I I will say to you that uh I think I'm one of those people that more than a lot of people is not so set in his ways that he's not willing to consider whether or not his attitude towards something was wrong or misinformed, and that is no better illustrated than in kind of the conversion I had toward my neighborhood after reading the color of law around the same time that we started going into zoning per house.

And I'm kind of proud of myself for changing my mind absolutely and I'm very glad to share to have been able to share that with all of you.

And I'm sorry, Chair, I have one last thing that occurs to me that I forgot.

You mentioned earlier you made a sort of very low-key report about the efforts on the future port project and the fact that we've managed to sort of broke Commissioner Manor into um playing on that with us, but I'm uh I think we're all very intent on taking you up on the fact that there are a lot of things that we're gonna be doing if we manage to move that farther forward that we can still do in collaboration with you just without being able to be in the same room all the time.

And I think we have a high level of confidence that you're that you'll follow through and continue to hang out with us.

I think we're on our way.

We'll see.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Um I will also add my note of much gratitude to you.

I don't think uh I don't think any of us are in disagreement here that with your presence.

Um, we've all always learned.

There's always this constant learning from you, but the best, I think lesson is what you had illustrated with the color of law, and that it's changing your perspective.

You were able to adapt your mind and your perspective.

Um in shaping um, you know, the the future of our city, um, not by the entrenched past that you had, but by opening your mind to other possibilities.

Um, and you know, just being able to recognize that and recognizing that somebody can still come around and spin and say, wait a second, I'm I'm not just as you teaching.

You're not just teaching all of us that you are learning, but that our observation of your ability to learn is a lesson in itself.

And I'm eternally grateful.

I will say to you also that many times I've come to meetings convinced that I that something had to be decided a particular way.

And then I hear a variety of different views, and they all make sense to me.

And you know, in the end, it's never about whether I win or lose on the vote, it's whether or not everything that should be talked about is talked about.

Yeah, because as I've said many times, our main role is not to decide things but to but to advise on things, because in many cases, being unelected but just appointed, we are not the deciders to use a George Bush term.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

It's but the I have been enriched by everyone else's attitudes and experiences that are different than mine.

Yes, Director Stoddick.

If I may, I I didn't have the benefit of working you uh with you as as long as I would have liked.

Uh but I would like to say uh that that, and and in case you didn't know it, you've had uh a very uh uh uh positive impact on staff.

The the way we uh approach applications, the way we approach conversations, the way we structure our analysis, I think uh, and really those those two points.

One sort of how we approach a problem, right?

There's a certain way to to approach a land use uh question, a land use law question.

And uh you were a constant reminder in the briefings and the meetings about uh what's the kind of thing we're looking at.

What's the purpose behind the thing we're looking at?

What are the rules as they're written and how does it apply to this situation?

And so uh always uh helping us to better understand how to dissect a problem and apply the right lens to the different components of an application.

I think that uh that rigor is important to the work that we do because of our uh of course our responsibility is to implement uh the rules that people have been decided upon.

Uh and and that's uh I think your approach to that has helped us uh and and then the way you approach conversations.

It came up a couple times here, uh, but the the willingness to to go to a difficult conversation to call out the things that maybe people aren't comfortable with.

Uh, and if there's a you know, if there's a piece of the the project or the analysis or the testimony or whatever it is that seems a little bit unclear, a little bit gray or a little bit fuzzy.

Well, let's let's try to sharpen that uh and understand what it really means before we come to a uh decision on the questions before us.

So uh your approach, your manner uh has certainly been uh uh um uh instructful for for us.

Uh and I think it's something that we're gonna carry with us uh even after uh you've moved on to to better things.

A message that you can take back to the staff from me is number one, I love the staff.

I think they're a great staff, and and for that very reason, I try to be as hard on them as I can be, because I think that's the best way for them to improve if they can withstand my criticisms.

I make the criticisms not because I think they're they're not worth paying any attention to, but because I want them to be the best that they can be.

And every time if I sound like I'm if I don't sound like that.

They just need to understand that there's that love and respect underlying it, which I hopefully convey at other times.

And uh just to make sure everyone is aware, of course, the the gifts that were presented tonight were a compilation of contributions from from everyone on staff.

The the handwritten notes as well as the drawing is uh is a Jeff Farner original, uh, of course, our deputy director.

Well, someone did a lot of work to pull all that together.

Someone did do a lot of work to pull that together, and I know some of those folks are in this room.

We have to give credit to Nancy Williams.

Nancy Williams did a great job.

Awesome.

Commissioner Manner, I see your hand up.

Yeah, um I'll remember turn it down now.

Uh Commissioner Brown, I just want to thank you for everything I learned from you.

Um I am very aware I have a lot to learn up there.

You know, I'm I often say I'm the dumb restaurant guy sitting next to land use attorneys and architects and you know, people who are pros in the development game.

That said, I think something you just said, I think everyone's experience really makes the commission very valuable because everybody comes from different walks and have different experiences, and I like to remember that I'm the only one who's ever been down in front and been denied for for an SUP for for my cafe, which turned out to be sort of the community clubhouse in town.

So I have a different level of empathy for the um for the power that the commission has because had I not gotten that SUP, I would not own the building, and that has made for a rather comfy retirement for me.

But I also think that and I'm sorry, I'm gonna talk about myself a little bit.

Uh but I really I thank you so much for everything I've learned from you.

You you you're a pro, really.

But I I just want to take the opportunity to say that I think my experience working in restaurants is helpful because I realize how important the small area plan for Chirilagua is, because we could not have that one billion dollar a year visitor economy were it not for that Latino workforce over there.

And everybody in this city should be grateful that we have and we have protected that community.

Um, there's so much denigration of immigrants going on now, it just makes my blood boil.

So I want to take the opportunity to get on my soapbox here and and say that because you know you're absolutely right.

Everyone brings their experience to the table to the dais, and it makes a big difference.

And um so I thank you for recognizing that, and I wish you the best.

Um it's real different out there.

I want to tell you that um in recognition of your experience and abilities.

Uh I had a conversation with Bill Dickinson, your future port uh co-workers today, and I turned over to him a homework assignment that I didn't get to, and said, please call Jody Manor and the two of you go to work on this because I think you're the right people to fill in and do the thing that I just didn't have time to get to.

Right.

Yeah, I'm happy to do it.

Cool.

All right.

I think we reached the end of our proceedings tonight.

Do I get to move to adjourn?

Of course.

Yes.

All right.

Motion by Commissioner Brown.

Last motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Vice Chair Koenig to adjourn the meeting tonight.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

We are adjourned at 9 52 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.

Bye.

Bye.