Good evening.

Welcome to the April 7th, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing at the Redella S.

Dell Resource Community Center.

I am Melissa McMahon, Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission.

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 the 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 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 and turn the microphone on when you need to speak.

Um to ensure all can hear you clearly.

Um I also would like to welcome Susan Harris to her first hearing on the planning commission tonight.

Are there any changes to the docket tonight, Ms.

Jacobs?

There are no changes to the docket.

All right.

And that brings us to our consent calendar.

Are there any items to pull from the consent calendar tonight?

Yes, Commissioner Dubay.

I'd like to pull um item three just for a brief uh clarification from staff.

Okay.

We're pulling item three.

Are there any other items to pull from the consent calendar?

Madam Chair, my mistake.

It's actually item five.

Yes.

Okay.

That's like we can discuss the street new too.

Umrection for the record.

We are um we have a request to pull item five from the consent calendar for discussion.

Hearing no other items, I'll take a motion to approve the consent calendar items two, three, and four.

Madam Chair, I move approval of consent items two, three, and four.

I will second that.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Candig and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve consent calendar items two, three, and four.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Um let's take a look at item five.

Docket item number five, vacation 2023 0004.

Vacation 2025 0009.

Kent Place and Russell Road.

Public hearing and consideration of a request to vacate a portion of the public right-of-way located on the southern end of Kent Place and adjacent to the properties at 2800 and 2702 Russell Road.

Property is zoned R8 residential.

The applicant is 2800 Russell Road LLC by Amanda Rudolph, agent, and Shirley and Delicato, trustee by David Shamowitz attorney.

Please proceed, Brian.

Yep.

It was on for a second.

Oh.

Ah, hello, thank you.

Uh good evening.

I'm Brian Dolphemeyer with Planning and Zoning, and we have a joint application for the vacation of an unused right-of-way that is located between 2702 and 2800 Russell Road.

In their presentation today, we will show the vacation area on a map, provide a summary of both the request and staff recommendation, explain the background of the right-of-way, describe the requested vacation, provide staff analysis, and then make a final recommendation.

This site is located in the Northridge Rosemont Small Area plan off of Russell Road.

On the map, Kent Place is shown as a partially improved right-of-way and ends in a stub street adjacent to the area of the vacation.

The requested vacation area is shown in green and is 7,620 square feet of unimproved wooded and steep right-of-way that connects the Kent Place stub to Russell Road.

Both properties fronting this right-of-way have requested the vacation to the center line, and each proposes a 10-foot wide public access easement.

In the staff analysis, the potential future use identified is for a pedestrian connection through this area.

So the applicants are proposing in total a 20-foot wide public access easement.

While the city has no immediate plans to install a trail, the proposed easement would allow such an investment in the future.

Based on the analysis of the applicant's proposal, staff is recommending approval.

The city considers vacation of right-of-way applications to allow adjacent property owners to acquire unused or unnecessary public land.

The land associated with this application is the connection between Kent Place and Russell Road.

The view here is showing the end of Kent Place where the roads improvement stop and the vegetation begins.

From this point, the land slopes down to Russell Road in an 8% grade, which would be considered steep for a street.

The right-of-way is 40 feet wide by about 190 feet long.

The proposal shown here in blue would vacate half of the requested area to 2702 Russell Road to the south.

The remaining half in red would be vacated to the property owner at 2800 Russell Road to the north.

Each applicant is proposing a 10-foot easement along the property line, which then is shown shown in green there, which would then create a 20-foot-wide easement for the city's future use.

Both applicants are requesting development rights for the vacated land, and both lots would be eligible for subdivision under the current zoning regulations based on the lots created after the vacation.

Oh, we went backwards once.

There we are.

Perfect.

The application was reviewed by an interdepartmental team from transportation and environmental services, recreation parks and cultural activities, and planning and zoning using the City Council established vacation criteria listed here.

The interdepartmental team identified a pedestrian trail as a future public use.

With the provision of the public access easement, the city's current and future potential use of this right-of-way for a pedestrian trail would be retained, and therefore the vacation would have no negative impact on the identified current and future uses.

There would be no public or private property access impacts since all adjacent lots have access to existing right of way, and the city's right-of-way does not become landlocked.

The proceeds from a vacation are deposited into the city's open space fund to allow for future improvements.

In addition, vacating the right-of-way would transfer maintenance responsibilities to the applicants, allowing each owner to maintain the vacated area as they would with the rest of their yard.

Within the public access easement, the applicants would not be allowed to install any permanent features such as fences or walls that would prevent the city and the public's use of and movement across the easement.

The city would maintain any public uh sorry, any pedestrian connections that the city installs within the easement in the future.

Staff is recommending approval of the application requests and are available to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for presentation.

I just want to clarify and here for the record, but you did state that parks and rec looked at this as part of the process.

And we got a letter the last couple of days that had a number of statements in them.

One of them that said the record does not reflect the substance of a planning or parks and rec analysis.

Can you speak to a little bit about how that analysis goes specifically on the parks and rec side?

I know you guys did your analysis, it's all through there, but I just want to make sure that's clear for the record that it was done.

Correct.

And I do support this, so I just want to make sure that's clear.

Got it.

Thank you for the for the question.

And when we do get the uh a complete application, we do route it out to other departments because we want to make sure that there is uh nothing missed as far as what the city has planned for any right-of-way.

Um the letter does note that you know once you get rid of right-of-way, it is difficult to get back.

So we want to just double check.

Um and then with that, we do uh send it to different departments, such as Transportation Environmental Services that also has plans for the right-of-way, um, planning and zoning has our long um long-range master plans and parks.

Uh RPCA also has their open space plan um and they also look at trails too.

So there's a lot of different groups that might have an interest in that.

And then we do get formal comments back.

And then in this case, we did work with uh RPCA.

Um because we we we do get everybody's comments back.

We kind of look at them as a whole and then um work with the individual departments to come up with the plan for what um uh what would be appropriate.

And then in this case, um uh RPCA actually recommended the width for the trail.

Um they recommended it a little bit narrower width, but then we went uh just a little bit wider just to provide a little more flexibility in that area, just because we don't know exactly what the trail might look like.

Thank you.

Oh, please go ahead.

Commissioner Linehan.

I have uh one question out of curiosity.

You you mentioned um that both um lots would be um able to be subdivided.

And my question is whether the added vacated square footage was the tipping point to allow them to be subdivided, or if they could have been subdivided without it.

And it's just purely curiosity.

I do not know that offhand, but we we we looked at what they were afterwards.

Um I I'm not sure if I can answer that exactly.

It I I can say that that didn't look like they were really close, right?

So I they might be able to have been some follow-up to the RPCA line of questioning.

Um I see in the city department comments on what page is this?

I don't know.

Page umpteen in the staff report.

Um of the three that are presented, one is from RPCA and it's focused on um that the public access easement is across it crosses both parcels, so it's sort of shared and in the center, and that the owners assume perpetual affirmative maintenance responsibilities for the easement area.

Um of the letters concerns that we heard seemed to be around the the question of whether all potential public uses were considered in your conversations with um RPCA.

Did they indicate that there would be any other possible public uses besides a trail for this wooded area?

And thank you for that question.

Um they did look at uh I I guess evaluate it for the whether it's something that they would want to have as potential maybe open space, however, it is um it's right-of-way at the moment.

And then there when items, and I don't know if if I can delve into this, but just kind of say that like this this came up on another one vacation that we had before too, where if something's dedicated as right-of-way, it needs to be used as right-of-way, it can't be transferred into park land.

Yeah, there's um just to build on that answer a little bit.

Uh it's correct.

Uh the comment in the letter is correct that the the city sort of um requirements or criteria for reviewing uh vacation requests do include sort of what is the plan future use of this.

And so uh when these come in, we do do uh uh an extensive look in in cooperation with RPCA about what is the uh the planned park network in the in the neighborhood.

Uh is this is this particular property a part of it?

Uh and even if it's not on the master plan, is it connected to another park uh where it's foreseeable that we might want to expand into that area?

Um what's Brian is is adding to the conversation is also correct when when the city accepts land for right-of-way purposes, it was accepted for that purpose.

And so in the short term at least, the use is limited to right-of-way uses, transportation utilities, things of that like.

Um if we wanted to convert it to another use, there would be another process for that.

Um typically that involves um the jurisdiction condemning the land and and giving compensation for it, right?

You can't accept land for one purpose and then automatically convert it to another unless that was considered in the original acceptance.

So we do both a broad look, uh, and this property was not included in a future expansion of the master plan, uh, nor is it part of um or adjacent to uh an existing green space.

And so that that broad look showed that it wasn't necessarily needed for uh future open space or any other public purpose, uh, but we did still want to reserve the ability to create a uh a greenway through there for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Okay, that's helpful.

So it sounds like those plan documents, though this the citywide open space frameworks were reviewed in order to determine if there was any sort of place for this niche, but that was not found.

And so RPCA focused its feedback on how to make it work the best in the future as a pathway.

Yeah, and we did explore as part of that conversation what would it look like if this were to become an open space.

Um one of the things to bear in mind is that that part of what promoted uh or what sort of generated this conversation in the first place is that it has been city land for for many years.

Um but I think the neighbors were concerned about the the level of maintenance in the area, they were invasive species, there might have been some infestation with rodents at some point, and so this was a uh a way of uh sort of resolving the the maintenance needs uh going forward as well as still reserving that that potential public purpose of the the greenway.

Yeah, thank you.

Um a couple other quick questions and and then I'll let us go forward.

Um is uh another concern in the letter was with regard to a definition of the public benefit that was being um received as a criteria for the vacation.

Um the city is is to receive a payment from each property owner for the vacation.

Is that what is the determined to be the public benefit of this action, the money that we would be receiving?

And and we're considering it kind of two things.

One is the uh the payment into the open space fund, and then the other is having area that the city doesn't need a that we have uh no longer have to maintain.

Okay, yep.

Yep.

So a positive benefit and a less less negative burden on both sides.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um right.

I'm I'm I don't think I have any further questions.

Do any other commissioners have questions on this item?

All right.

Well, I'm happy to take a motion.

Yes, Commissioner Dubay.

Just for clarification, we need to do two motions on this.

Um actually, this is only one motion, and you can recommend approval to council.

Basically, the planning commission's review is for consistency with the master plan.

So the motion to approve based on the consistency with the master plan for item five, the Kent Place and Russell Road vacation.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Great.

I have a motion by Commissioner Dubay to recommend that these vacations are consistent with the master plan.

Second.

And a second by Vice Chair Canig.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

7-0.

Thank you.

All right, that brings us to new business.

Docket item six, please.

Docket item number six advisory recommendations to the city manager under section 6.14 of the city charter regarding the fiscal year 2027 through 2036 capital improvement plan, capital improvement program.

Staff is the City of Alexandria, Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Planning and Zoning.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

For the record, I'm Carrie Beach with the Department of Planning and Zoning.

And tonight we are going to present to you the CIP as it uh relates to the city's master plan and ask for your um guidance on its consistency.

Um this is based on the planning commission's authority in the city charter to um uh annually review the proposed master plan with um to ensure its alignment.

Uh excuse me.

Annually review the CIP to ensure it's alignment with the city master plan.

And that's um in terms of the scope and uh types of capital projects, is it implementing what's in those plans?

Um, is the prioritization and timing appropriate as well?

Um this is just a quick um excerpt from the code.

And I'm gonna turn this over to my colleague Art for the CIP presentation.

All right, good evening.

Uh my name's Arthur Wicks, and I'm the capital improvement program manager for the Office of Management and Budget.

So just briefly regarding the development process for the proposed CIP.

That process started last fall with guidance from the city manager to departments who manage capital projects in the schools division.

Thank you.

On what kind of levels of funding and the timing over the 10-year plan can be expected.

Largely the guidance was a continuation of last year's plan.

We're trying to execute the plan that we had in place.

That guidance for both city and schools was reaffirmed by city council in November.

And then we spent the winter between the office management budget and departments determining the projects and timing and size for the 10 years, and made a recommendation to the city manager on the proposed CIP funding levels.

Just some brief highlights on the CIP.

So this is the fiscal 27 through fiscal 2036 capital improvement plan, including the year one capital budget, which is the amount actually appropriated by council for fiscal 27.

So it's a 10-year plan of $2.01 billion and a capital budget of $238.7 million.

Like I mentioned earlier, this is largely a continuation of the plan that was approved as part of fiscal 26 or 35 CIP and continues our prudent financial management policies and compliant with that and which we tend to talk a lot about in this world because it helps make sure we maintain our triple A bond rating, which gives us access to cheaper, cheaper long-term borrowing.

This slide, which looks like it didn't transfer over well.

Apologies.

Of note here, the big wedge at the bottom there is transportation, $629 million.

About a third of that is our commitment to LOMATA's capital program.

And that remaining two-thirds, probably somewhere between 70 and 75% of that is coming from non-city funding sources.

So our Department of Transportation and Environmental Services continues to pursue grant opportunities at the state, regional, and federal level to support investments in our community.

And now I'm going to turn it back to Kerry.

What this map doesn't reflect are the citywide chapters, such as the mobility plan and housing plan, parks and open space, etc.

And together, all of those comprise our city's master plan.

And in each of these plans, there are recommendations for community benefits developed in coordination with the community during planning processes.

And these eventually make their way into the 10-year CIP through a pro an internal interdepartmental process where we all look at the master plan and the resources and come up with an appropriate sequencing and prioritization of projects over time.

One of the line items that's in the CIP is our planning and development studies line item.

And this is essentially an 250,000 that shows up in the CIP every other fiscal year for planning studies, feasibility implementation efforts, et cetera, specifically related to a small area plan.

And the Duke Street land use plan, which is underway right now is currently using funding from that line item in a pre from a previous CIP year.

The long-range planning interdepartmental work program, which we'll begin working on this fall will help us begin the conversation about what plans we'll be working on in the coming fiscal years, which will then ultimately be using that same pot of money.

And that and occasionally also development partners.

But in terms of the grant funding, having these recommendations in a small area plan is really important to improving our chances of getting grant funding in the future.

And so that is one of the things that we really ensure that we're documenting in our small area plans to show that we have this long range plan and that we're being strategic about what is um beneficial and needed in the community to implement implement our vision.

Um the combination of grant and/or development uh partners with city money is um reflected in many of these projects on the west end from the mall site redevelopment to uh uh virtually all of the transit um projects and the west end have some grant funding that is um helping with planning or design and or implementation.

On the east side, um some of the same applies.

For example, with the South Patrick Street pedestrian safety improvements and the Arlandria um Mount Vernon Avenue North complete street projects.

Those are both recommendations that came out of the plans that are showing up in the CIP with help from uh grant funding as well.

And uh this is a quick reminder of the uh remaining uh dates in the budget calendar culminating in our April 29th uh budget adoption.

So our recommendation is that planning commission advise the city manager that the proposed CIP is consistent with the master plan, and we are happy to answer any questions you might have.

Okay.

All right, I hear Commissioner Manor.

Hi Gary.

Um we go back to the slide with the map of the city.

I'm just curious about um what's the plan?

And maybe this is too specific, but what's the plan for the Southeast Quadrant that looks like it's planned transit way corridor?

Uh the Southwest Quadrant Um is well what the little kind of orange, very small um small area plan or uh study that happened there was the South Patrick Street um housing affordability strategy.

I see.

And that one was a real combination of focusing on some of the existing um affordable housing out there that was about to be redeveloped, but also looking at those pedestrian safety improvements.

I think I'm misreading the the map.

The the tanks are southeast stuff.

Yeah, the tan color is Eisenhower East.

Okay.

All right.

Uh and the northern tip there is um uh is uh PRGS, right?

The blue and green.

Yeah.

Uh the hatched um no.

Well, the northern tip, let's see, um it would be waterfront combined with um let's see, I'm getting t twisted around now too.

Yeah.

Okay.

No, PRGS is further south, yeah.

So that waterfront goes all the way up to the top.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Well, and I had a question about the um transit or the big piece of the puzzle.

What what is involved in that exactly?

I mean, you said the big piece of it is going to Wamata directly.

Yeah, what is the city?

What is Dash doing with the money?

Right.

So uh they're of that wedge, a third of it is going to just just to Wamata, so not inclusive of Dash.

Uh in the Dash area, really the biggest line on there is uh state of good repair of their bus fleet.

So replacing buses on their you know on the schedule for when they're at the end of their useful life.

Um the amounts in there currently uh the city portion is committed to kind of in-kind replacement of their existing bus fleet.

Um the that project, if you were to look at it in the CIP also kind of maps out their plan for seeking grants to kind of plus up into either hybrid buses or fully electric buses.

But the city commitment is kind of that basically of uh in-kind replacement of buses.

So that means we'll be getting more electrified vehicles.

Uh as they uh are awarded grants, so the how that that project is set up is the city is committed to keeping buses on the road.

Uh if they are able to leverage that city money into state, federal, regional grants for electrification, they are free to do so.

As an example, um the Dash has been awarded two what they're called LONO grants, they're federal grants.

Um the first one uh they were expressly for electric buses and they're in the process of procuring them.

Uh interestingly enough, the second award, which uh uh believe is appropriated in 27 or uh going to be later this year, um expressly only allowed for hybrid buses.

So um changing federal landscape uh I think you could uh chalk that up too.

Um but they are pursuing those opportunities.

They've also uh received some state funding to help them.

So they they have some options to leverage there.

Um the other piece there would be um they're making some investments in their their facility.

Um there's some rehabilitation work that's necessary at the Dash, kind of their their bus building.

Okay.

Um beyond that, there's also our streets and bridges and non-motorized assets are in there.

So street reconstruction is a major line item in the transportation section, probably about some we we need it.

Yes.

It's probably about 10 percent of that pie.

Uh it's somewhere between 60 and 70 million dollars in 10 years.

Thanks very much for the info.

Are there other comments or questions?

Vice Chair Candy.

Uh Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I'm uh completely in support of this effort as always.

It's it's uh kind of meticulously organized and incredibly thorough, and I think from our point of view um over the years I've gotten very comfortable with the fact that this is really a very thoughtful level of information to be presented with from our perspective.

I mean, I feel that we have the even though we only touch this once a year and we're not really in the decision-making process on any of this from the actual CIP point of view, the ability to look at everything that's in the mix and have it distilled to sort of how it in how it touches the planning process and how it relates specifically to our plans is uh is a really interesting and fascinating exercise, and you all have uh regularly and continually do uh an excellent job of giving us a tremendous amount of information that we can absorb in a relatively short period of time, and we don't have to spend five hours over three nights to get through it.

So at the big picture, I think it's wonderful, and I support it completely.

Um I do have a couple of just queries about status of items, if I could run through those real quick.

Um if you could go back to the city map, um Carrie, it's just fun to look at the map is more fun than the pie chart to me.

Um in landmark, um there's a mention uh here that there's uh 19 million um in the plan to support relocation of Fire Station 208 and its co-location with the affordable housing project.

And if I remember correctly, that's block J out there.

Um is can you give us any sense of the timeline um that's projected for how that project will develop given the funds that have been allocated for it?

Sure.

So uh the funding for that project is in two tranches.

The first piece was uh I believe somewhere between five and six million dollars for design.

That's previously appropriated.

Uh I think as part of the agreement that area uh the city was required to be in a position to kind of design as soon as possible.

So that funding is available now.

The tranche for construction funding, I believe, is scheduled for uh somewhere in like fiscal 2930 time frame.

I'd have to go back and check for sure.

It's it's in the it's in the first half of the plan, I can I can uh say that much.

Um so the construction funds will be available.

Uh the actual timeline of that is dependent on development um and you know the progress of that, but from a funding perspective, uh the city is had that in its plan consistently and it you know uh it is scheduled in such a way to make sure we're kind of in front of when it's ready instead of the other way around.

Well that's great.

So if I follow just in a real general sense, that's FY29 and 30 to build.

Yeah.

Does that mean FY27 and 28 for entitlements and the public design process and the DSU P in the U.S.

I think that would follow, but I honestly don't know specifically for sure.

I'm happy to run that down for you.

But it's okay.

It's just um it's nice to have that framework, and I don't need any more detail than that.

Thank you.

Um the next one is goes to Alex uh West and the Recreation Center, and I see that there's it that it starts with some um soft cost money and some design studies, and that's in the FY2030 budget.

Um so that's still a few years away, but I was had two questions came to mind.

One is any and it's mentioned here that that'll be developed in concert with a particular private sector development process or location that hasn't yet been decided.

But has the has the range of possibilities narrowed at all, or do you all have a certain set of um more rather than less likely candidates for where that site might actually be?

I would say that it it it hasn't narrowed dramatically.

Um of the sites that were talked about were you know the the um community college campus or some of the larger redevelopment sites along Beauregard um uh maybe somewhere near Southern Towers, um but again it it we left it intentionally broad and flexible so that there would be um you know opportunities to um to uh fit the timing with with the opportunity.

Yeah project.

Um and there was quite a bit of um I'm sorry.

I was just gonna add the the dollars you're referring to, just kind of the amount the that the intensity of that money is sort of high level feasibility and fit.

It is not uh a design budget to get to construction.

So just to clarify that.

It it's it's the type of money that would let us explore two or three options seriously to get a sense of what their relative merits were and then try to match that up with the one that we want is the one that ends up coming um forward.

There was uh a a lot of but there was a certain amount of discussion that I found very intriguing when we were finishing up the plan about what Nova's intentions were and the possibility of them splitting off the southeast face of their lower end of their property and putting it on into the private sector.

Has that idea evolved any farther toward reality than it was then?

Um we we are keeping in touch with them on a regular basis um to make sure we're both um up to speed on each other's activities.

And um they are still working towards that uh internally.

I don't think any specific decis formal decisions have been made yet.

Thank you.

Um uh two more if I could.

Um uh old town and waterfront plans.

Um there's mention here that um CIP funding continues to support design and construction of the waterfront plan waterfront plan flood mitigation efforts.

So is there any simple high level uh perspective that you can give us at this point about what the course for that going forward looks like now that there's not going to be a grand pump station project?

Um does that send it back years into the reconception process, or is it something where there are a variety of other things that are gonna go forward even if that pumping station doesn't happen?

My understanding is they are coming back to City Council in June with um a revision to what they talked about um I think it was last month um providing the kind of alternatives and and uh pros and cons in terms of funding and um uh timing, et cetera, and what fits within the budget.

And so um I believe DPI is coming back in June to sort of formalize that um next step process.

Right.

And would that would that tend to be an item that shows up on the council's public hearing as opposed to a legislative session?

I should just watch their documents.

It was last last time it was on a legislative, so it could potentially be there.

Um and the last one's a little bit more um general, but uh under the category for affordable housing, there's mentioned that um there's a robust pipeline of projects that has been created that can be implemented implemented if funding were available.

And that pipeline cumulatively totals 4,250 new and preserved affordable and workforce units by 2030.

So it seems to me as as usual when we talk about affordable housing efforts, there's a we know there's a huge need.

There's a lot of planning, there are a lot of projects that are trying to happen, and there's always a limitation on what kinds of funds can be gotten when.

So within that rather semi-specific, rather vague description of the fact that there's a big pipeline.

Is there is that just a um a cons uh a giant assembly of projects that that range all the way from gleams in a um nonprofit developer's eye to things that are somewhere through the entitlements process to projects that actually have approved DSUPs and are trying to get funding.

Does that term pipeline and those numbers of 4250 units?

Does that encompass that whole realm of possible and semi-plausible and waiting to happen project?

I think in that case it's it's the ones that are a little beyond the DSUP uh pre-DSUP level.

Um it is the broader, you know, we are ready as soon as there is funding.

We have don't worry, we have a long line of projects ready to suit, you know, the the budget that becomes available.

I think that is the intent of that broader pipeline.

I think they have a more specific pipeline of things that have been approved.

Um and then and um they will I think that will be part of the what they roll out with the housing master plan.

They'll have a very clear sense of how they've met targets so far and and what will be um in the pipeline in terms of numbers.

The the pipeline represents a little bit more interested parties and uh specific locational opportunities that aren't really worth putting into the entitlements process until there's a little more clarity about the resources being there.

I think you could say that.

Yeah.

But I think there are some different um kind of uses of the word pipeline, so I don't want to put words in in uh the Office of Housing's um mouth, so to speak, um, because I have heard it used in different ways.

So to give you some better clarity, I feel like I should um do my homework and get back to you in a in any way.

Well, actually, again, here you don't have homework to do for me.

I I have homework to do to understand the things I'm trying to understand.

Um it's just it's always such a huge complex rolling um conglomeration of endeavors in that realm that uh it's uh I look for every little bit of help to try to understand how to figure it out.

Um thank you very much.

Great.

Thank you, Vice Chair Keny.

Other questions?

Oh, uh yes, Director Stotting.

Just to add some information to the answer on the pipeline.

That was at uh uh point of conversation during the recent uh budget work session involving the Office of Housing, and they have uh some nice materials uh from that uh presentation, and I can uh share those with the commission.

That would be terrific.

All right.

Other questions, comments, observations about this item.

So as a reminder for commissioners, we are essentially being asked to observe whether we find the CIP consistent with the city's master plan.

That's our our call to action here.

Um I want to re-emphasize one of your key points, Ms.

Beech, um, this observation that when we move projects forward that are consistent with the master plan, it's good for both our bond rating and our ability to get money through grants.

And the city does this very, very well.

Um, and I want us to continue to do it well.

So I I I completely agree with Vice Chair Cadig's observations about how well this is put together.

I wanted to mention two other practices that are related to this that that but are not explicitly shown here.

One is the interdepartmental long-range work program effort, and so that is essentially something we see what now every other year, but it is it becomes literally a table that we see, but that table is representative of cross-departmental coordination and collaboration on long-range planning processes and how we get those done in a balance of staff time and availability over the years.

I feel like that's really so distracting.

You can't look at it because it's not on the same timeline that we have.

Well, and I like I'm I'm like you think I would be used to it by now.

I keep moving and it's making it worse.

Um it'd be very still.

Um range interdepartmental work program, key practice area that lets staff essentially do this.

This is what's what's going on.

These are these plans are happening, and then they are turning them into CIP projects.

Um the other item I wanted to mention is the test side of the equation, which is um like we see it in the Transportation Commission, uh, the practice of going through the unconstrained long-range plan and all of those capital projects which don't really have necessarily even have budgets yet, they don't have funding assigned, they don't have grants yet, but they have been pulled out of all these small area plans, and that list is a very transportation and environmental services focused list, so it doesn't have the community center, it doesn't have some of the stuff that you that you talked about and that we see here, but they very much come out of our long-range plans, and then they very much become some of those um grant-funded projects like the Dash infrastructure that we go out for, we ask for, and we point to our planning processes.

So there's a lot of parallel process that goes on here, but I think what it creates is a tight weave.

We have a system that is very effective and efficient at working together with one another.

So this is always fun to see because it reminds me why, in many ways, why we do planning because it makes it possible to see our community change.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that we find the uh FY2027 to 36 capital improvement program consistent with the city's master plan.

I'll second.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

Docket item number seven, Madam Chair.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Docket item number seven development special use permit 2025 1003 4701 and 4801 Eisenhower Avenue, Eisenhower Point Phase 2 public hearing and consideration of a request for a development special use permit and site plan with a subdivision and modifications to construct residential townhomes in multi-unit residential buildings with special special use permit request for residential use within 1,000 feet of Eisenhower Avenue for fee simple townhouses without frontage on a public street and a parking reduction.

Property is zoned OCM 100, office commercial medium.

The applicant is Tri-Point houses Tri-Point Homes, DC Metro Inc., represented by Math Mary Catherine Gibbs attorney.

Good evening.

For the record, my name is Jared Alves.

I'm an urban planner with the development division of the Department of Planning and Zoning.

Tonight we're discussing Eisenhower Point 2.

Although a distinct project, this name references the nearly complete Eisenhower Point Townhouse project located nearby and adjacent to the former Victory Center building, which the applicant is also constructing.

Here are the items that I will present tonight.

The applicant Tri-Point Home seeks to redevelop the Eisenhower Business Park into 37 townhouses in 80 back-to-back dwellings for a total of 117 homes with open spaces and a pair of new public streets parallel and perpendicular to Eisenhower Avenue.

The applicant has requested several special use permits and modifications, which are necessary to redevelop the site at a residential density compatible with the Eisenhower West small area plan recommendations and are aligned with high quality site design for contemporary townhouse projects.

In the case of the parking reduction, like the first phase of Eisenhower Point and other recent townhouse projects, this is only a technical reduction as the zoning ordinance does not count tandem parking spaces for back-to-back dwellings.

However, each unit will have a pair of private parking spaces.

The applicant has also requested a modification of the open space requirement, which staff support, and I will discuss in a subsequent slide.

The project site, highlighted here in red, is just over five acres.

To the north is a forested parcel owned by Norfolk Southern, followed by railroad tracks, back look run, and then Cameron Station.

To the east is floor and decor, south and opposite Eisenhower Avenue are short commercial buildings.

To the west is a credit union which separates the two Eisenhower Point phases.

The Van Dorn Metro Station is less than a mile from the site to the west along Eisenhower Avenue.

The applicant has arranged the dwellings around a central green with private alleys providing access to rear garages.

The four-story townhouse and back-to-back buildings are contemporary, featuring a mix of brick and siding with two-story bay windows extending from the second and third floors.

Both dwelling types have front entrances facing public streets or open spaces with rear garages fronting the internal alleys.

The homes have private outdoor spaces in the forms of terraces and balconies.

The applicant has requested a modification of the open space requirement, which staff support to help achieve the residential density envisioned by the small area plan.

As proposed, the applicant will still be providing over half an acre of publicly accessible open space as recommended by the plan.

In addition, the applicant has documented areas that do not count per the strict zoning ordinance requirements, but which will still function as open space.

Including these areas exceeds the small area plan recommendation.

The proposal offers several project benefits, including 117 homes that comply with the city's green building policy, a nearly $1 million contribution to the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, over $1 million to Eisenhower West implementation fund, over half an acre of publicly accessible open space, and significant stormwater management improvements.

The applicant held a community meeting and presented to the Eisenhower Partnership.

Staff presented during the quarterly planning and zoning community meeting.

During the applicant's community meeting, attendees ask about the development timeline, anticipated sale prices, utility undergrounding on Eisenhower Avenue, pedestrian access, visitor parking, and the relocation of existing businesses.

Staff recommend approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

All right.

Are there questions for staff?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner DuVay.

Thank you.

Can you go back to the slide that shows the overview?

Can you point out a public accessible open space in that?

Absolutely.

So in this instance, the publicly accessible open space is nearly all the green you see.

It'll include the north-south corridor going to the center of the site.

It will include the corner park in the southeast and northeast corner.

It will include the entire western walkway and the central green as well.

Okay.

And just to be clear for the record, those pub private alleys that are listed there, those are 22 feet.

And it's not actually an alley, but it's 22 feet wide, right?

Right.

And that's necessary for fire access.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Commissioner Manor.

I'm curious why the first phase of this, there was an incentive to build the road, and why this time not.

Sure.

And I believe what you're uh asking about is uh that in the first phase for the Cumberland Street um initiation really in that instance.

Uh there is the parallel road to the north uh of the site that is parallel to Eisenhower Avenue and a condition of approval with the original Eisenhower Point approval did offer uh a concession to the applicant of a credit of 50% of their Eisenhower West implementation fund contribution uh for the construction of that road.

In that particular instance, that was the uh project involved with redeveloping the eastern parking lot of the Victory Center building, which was a uh multi-year extended negotiation to encourage the uh redevelopment of that site with the aim of attracting a federal tenant for the Victory Center building.

Uh and so there were specific circumstances to that site, there was a proffered rezoning, there was a lot of discussion about how to make that a viable project so that it could get redeveloped and then hopefully uh lead to the redevelopment of the Victory Center building.

Uh circumstances which uh are not uh present in this particular instance.

Uh and since I have the opportunity to speak a little bit more about this uh now, I'll note that the small area plan uh on its PDF page 93.

It talks about the implementation fund and the the goal of the implementation fund and it acknowledges uh that applicants in uh development cases will have responsibility for both on-site and adjacent uh infrastructure, including things like new streets.

Uh and then notes in addition to that, you would also have uh an expectation to provide a contribution to this fund.

When the fund was established in 2018, the staff report reinforces and reaffirms that recommendation that new streets and things of this nature would be part of your requirement as a development case.

And then in 2025, last summer, when uh we updated the implementation fund again, that acknowledgement was made.

So that is something that uh I think we've been consistent on since uh for the adoption of the plan.

Uh and then you know I think there's opportunity here to to use that Eisenhower West implementation fund for plan area benefits as uh we'd expect for that purpose of that fund.

Uh for example, there's an ongoing transportation study for along Eisenhower Avenue.

Uh the recommendations of that study to attract grant funding will ultimately need a local match, and so money from the implementation fund would go towards that local match.

There are uh plan area open space needs, uh, for example, Claremont Natural Park uh is a public space today, but has not been improved as a public park, and implementation fund money could go towards that.

And then really close to by in the Victory Center building, former Victory Center building, there is a community room that was uh approved with the redevelopment of that building that has uh funding for a basic build-out of the space, but uh this implementation fund money could also go towards making that space even more usable for the community.

Is that the plan to use it for something like that?

It's absolutely one of the opportunities that we could uh use the funding for, um, but I won't want to commit to a specific use of the funding tonight.

Okay, so at this point the contribution is sort of amorphous, yes.

Well, I mean ultimately any project along this corridor in the small area plan is contributing to it.

So there are both short and long-term needs, smaller and higher value uh ones.

For example, there's the uh widening of the Van Dorn Street Bridge, which is going to be something that's much more expensive than potentially uh building out the community room.

So it's always a careful balancing like uh the long-range work plan we just heard about.

Yeah.

Okay.

Rob Kearns, I just want to add or maybe um reinforce a point.

I think um Jared did an excellent job explaining sort of the the contribution and the and the overall rationale.

The road was planned and shown in the SMARI plan.

And it was only there was only an exception made for the funding of the road given the package of negotiations with the Victory Center as a whole.

So it that road would have been funded by the townhouses if it had just been a townhouse project.

It was because it was bundled with that larger redevelopment effort that there were, I think, concessions made.

The rest of the road uh with the SMARA plan, I don't think it would be envisioned that, as Jared said, applicants are would be responsible for paying for it and constructing it.

It's a little bit to me like kind of pulling the rug out from under the developer, though.

When you get it to get it going, and then they get it going, and then like, well, now the rules have changed.

Yes.

Well, I think that's why I made the statement I did that the rules are established in the SMARA plan.

And it we think they're fairly clear who would what the responsibilities are.

And the Victory Center was was definitely intended as an exception and and packaged that way.

So hopefully we are sending clear signals to the marketplace that to not expect another exception.

That's that's my concern is that you know developers get something going in, and then it's like the rules change.

Well, and just to use an example from uh earlier this meeting, we just approved uh street names for three public streets within the Vulcan sites and as a part of that approval in 2024, uh there was no credit uh given to the construction of those public streets within the Vulcan site, which is also within the Eisenhower West small area plan, which also involves townhouses as well as other uses.

The Vulcan site is a little different than Victory Center, though.

I mean that was uh like a tomb that's out there for a very long time.

So okay.

Well thank you very much.

I have a couple questions.

Um were denser apartment building designs discussed with the applicant at all leading up to this proposal.

At the pre-concept stage when the applicant came forward with the idea of having townhouses and back-to-back units at this site, that is something that staff encouraged them to explore in in greater detail, because it is something that I think initially would have been a recommendation of the small area plan was to achieve uh higher density that you would see with potentially a multi-unit residential building.

Uh that being said, um the applicant uh argued that it was not uh something that was viable at this particular time in the site and uh you know, as I mentioned, there are a variety of modifications that they requested here that will allow for greater residential density than would otherwise be permitted if uh those modifications were not uh granted.

So we are achieving higher residential density than uh we might otherwise have if it was just if they were conforming to all of those zoning ordinance requirements.

And beyond that, there is recommendation in the small area plan for a variety of housing types and and certainly having townhouses and back-to-back units, two different types of housing here uh provides us uh with some variety.

Uh conceivably, if you had a multi-unit residential building, maybe your unit count would be higher, but those units might themselves be smaller than what uh are going to be ultimately offered with this plan.

Thank you.

Um how about small area plan might have envisioned ground floor retail at this location.

Was was ground floor retail discussed at all in early project designs.

Facing Eisenhower, to be clear.

Yeah, and I think what's really challenging with the way the small air plan shows retail on this corridor is that virtually every block is shown to have uh retail as a recommendation.

Uh and I think that uh while we would love to have more retail in the corridor, there is certainly uh a need for more residential that might then support more retail in the corridor.

So uh it is something that we do uh recommend to applicants, but if if they're not able to provide it in these early stages of redevelopment along the corridor, I think there's some areas that we are looking at that uh might be more priorities for retail, whether that's because they're closer to the metro, closer to um key uh intersections and things like that, where you're more likely to have uh foot traffic or vehicle traffic to support the the retail businesses.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Uh our only speaker currently is uh the applicant attorney, Mary Catherine Gibbs.

Good evening.

Um can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Um my name is Mary Catherine Gibbs uh from WireGill.

I have Greg Ruff with me here tonight from Tri-Point Homes.

Greg worked on phase one as well uh and is now working on phase two.

We are excited to be here with this uh next phase of the Eisenhower Point project.

Um we have worked consistently and hard with the staff, and I think you've heard about some of the back and forth based upon your own questions to get to this particular proposal.

Um we are pleased to have two letters of support, which isn't often what you get with residential projects, but um came in this evening and saw a second letter from YIMBE, which I'm happy to have is uh another indication of the desire for making Eisenhower Avenue up um a specific place and you need more residents on this property uh in terms of making it that kind of a place to encourage, as Jared said, potential future retail in the corridor, which right now is is just is languishing.

And the reason why we're here today is because this is an old 80s um constructed office uh walk-up with no ADA accessibility with no stormwater management.

It's not a viable product in the the economy today, which is why the property was put up for sale and they have increased um they had an increased amount of vacancy within those commercial units, which made it less of a viable commercial project.

That's why we're here today.

Um again, uh really excited that we have staff's recommendation of approval.

We as you know from my letter, we have one dispute about the conditions.

Um Commissioner Manor asked about it directly.

I would suggest that um there's nothing in the staff report uh from Eisenhower Point phase one that says that that developer contribution was only um given a credit because that was a catalyst.

That was not stated in the report.

I think it was provided as a a contra as a credit to the contribution because it's recognizing that the implementation of the infrastructure here uh and creating a sense of place needed to be balanced with all of the costs that were part of the process.

Here we have another part of the road that is being extended, but it's not just that road.

We're also including the a new public street that goes from Eisenhower to Cumberland.

Um we are also including, as you said, a bunch of the uh open space, the publicly accessible open space.

All we are asking is to be treated the same in this case as we were in phase one.

And that if I might make a small correction to what Jared said, we're not asking for 50 percent of the Eisenhower development contribution.

We're asking for 50 percent of the cost of the construction of the road.

That's different.

The contribution is about a million dollars.

We have estimated under when they uh based upon the cost of the construction of the original part of Cumberland Street that the cost of construction is around six hundred and twenty thousand dollars.

That is an estimate.

So what we are estimating is that is a credit of around roughly $310,000.

That is a third of the developer contribution.

So the idea that that um uh other projects cannot be funded, I would suggest is is um not accurate.

We will still be making a significant contribution to the Eisenhower implementation fund, and those funds could continue to be used for all of the wonderful projects that Jared um recognized.

I would note that since the implementation plan was adopted, uh a significant project has been removed from that implementation plan.

You are not doing the multimodal bridge.

That is a significant cost reduction in the infrastructure costs that were identified under that plan.

Um and so having a minor uh a minor amount deducted from uh this contribution, I think is uh I'm not gonna say a drop in the bucket, but it's relatively small compared to what the overall uh cost of construction uh in in the implementation fund are.

Um as I said, I would request a recommendation of approval from this body with the added language to condition 96 that's listed in my letter of March 31st.

And I would be happy to answer any questions.

Are there questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Dubai.

Thank you for the presentation.

And I think you talked about the previous approval for 50 percent.

And that was also for 50 percent of the cost of constructing a road.

In the first Eisenhower point one, which was in 2020 2020.

It was approved in 2021, but had a 2020 DSUB.

It was also for 50 percent of the cost of the new Hawk signal that goes across Eisenhower Avenue.

Okay.

So that was six, seven years ago.

The Victory Center was in a far different place six or seven years ago.

It's been in a different place for many years.

Okay.

I just wanted to be clear that that you are asking the exact same thing.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I'm just curious about the timing.

Um, and uh I'm not sure if staff would need to um weigh in on this as well.

But um so we got the letter just this week, and it would seem to me that you have been working with staff for quite some time.

And I'm just curious about when you discovered or decided that you didn't want to make that that you wanted to request this to be.

Consistently throughout our discussions with the staff.

I sent a letter to the staff on March 7th, uh, after we had continuously and every time we got a comment back that we were going to be making a contribution, I responded that we were going to be seeking the.

So it's been clear for some time then that they were going to say no.

Right, yes.

That you got a no initially.

Yes, and I consistently said that's not fair.

I'm going to continue to ask for this.

But it's not as though um their view of the matter was unclear.

No.

Okay.

Neither is the applicant's position unclear.

That I would say that often happens in all of our discussions with the staff.

They regularly ask for something that they think is important, and if it's something that the applicant has a disagreement with, we just say, okay, we'll continue to talk about it.

But it's the first time since I've been on the commission that we have gotten a letter just the day before a hearing to say right.

I sent the letter out last week to every Commission member.

This doesn't happen all the time with staff, that's all I'm saying.

No, absolutely not.

We work very, very hard to not have disputes to come before the planning commission, but when they are important, we bring them forward to you.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

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

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

That brings us to Commissioner discussion.

Who would like to start off?

Commissioner Dubai.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for staff, do you have any idea that the commercial property in between these two?

Is that going to remain there?

Do you have any idea what's going on with that?

Which would allow that roads to be complete all the way through.

At present there's no active concept plans or submissions for that credit union building.

You know, we are going if if something were to come forward there, we of course would aim to have the Cumberland Street continued.

There is, you know, of course, Cumberland Street has been built now with Eisenhower Point.

It is being built with Victory Center.

It is part of the Victory Center's Western parking lot with the CDD.

Floor and Core has given us a reservation for it.

So it's something we are certainly focused on.

So that's the credit union now, right?

Correct.

Even if they don't move, or is that not something you would try to do?

Ultimately, something like that is potentially conceivable that would require funds to do so.

But that is uh it would it would depend upon if they have long-term redevelopment plans or or if not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Or the city would have to initiate that that conversation if there is no development activity at that time, that's that's an option that the city would have.

And and since we're continuing to talk about the street a little bit, I think one note we would make as well is that um last summer, as part of the revisions made to uh the implementation funds across the city, including the Eisenhower West fund.

One piece that acknowledged the uh redevelopment along this corridor and the pace at which it was proceeding was that uh we suspended the cap that had previously existed for catalyst projects, such that uh every project now, unless that cap was reinstated at a higher level is subject to the catalyst amount uh for the implementation fund contribution rate and not to the higher rate.

So uh it could have been the case with the approval of Vulcan and the square footage associated with that or other cases along this corridor, that this project could have been subjected to the higher rate, but in fact it remains the catalyst rate because of that change made last summer.

Madam Chair, can I respond to that?

Sure.

I asked about how much square footage had been utilized in the corridor to determine whether or not we would be at the non-catalyst, and I was told we were under the gap.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Did you have a Yes?

Yes.

Commissioner Manor.

We're in discussion.

Okay.

Yeah.

Commissioner Maynard.

Can you turn on your mic?

Ready to speak?

So we're we're going around the room hearing hearing things.

I'm still learning.

Did you want did you want to discuss what we're how you want to vote, what you think about the project?

I just think it's fair to keep the catalyst in place to get to the finished product.

Just think that that's the right thing to do.

Because I think it's it's a discouragement for future development if you're gonna get something to get something started, and then you get it started, and then it's like, oh, sorry, the rules have changed.

Um I just I worry about what kind of precedent that sets.

So that's my take on this situation.

Thank you.

Can we clarify again with staff that the that the catalyst was a change from what the what the plan was?

And so it wasn't that it was always the catalyst was always the the precedent, but there was a an exception to do it the way that Tri-Point one had done it.

Correct.

An exception was made in that circumstance for Eisenhower Point one.

Uh to clarify it's the catalyst rate for the implementation fund.

It is the credit that was uh given for the cost of the construction of Cumberland Street uh and uh the hockey, the 50 percent credit.

And that the request, as the applicant noted, is for the 50 percent credit for Cumberland Street in this uh Eisenhower Point two application.

So staff is never going to make an exception to their plans ever again because I I just think it's important to state it that there's not another way to see it, which is that it wasn't always gonna be that way, that there was an acknowledgement of of an underlying rule, and there was a change made to that rule as a catalyst, and that now you're back to the underlying rule.

I don't think that's confusing, right?

Maya Contreras, uh just one other point I wanted to note.

At the point that the phase one had gone forward, the small area plan had envisioned a built-out road, but we didn't have a name for it.

It wasn't Cumberland Street.

Um the intent was to have a federal tenant.

The goal was to have a federal tenant at the Victory Center building.

We did not know if a federal tenant would allow a road to go behind that building or not.

And so it was really a question of wow, the road that was built behind Tri-Point one.

Would it ever go anywhere?

How would it connect?

Would that road ever be built out?

And so at that point, that was part of the reason we were sympathetic to the discussion.

Now we are quite a bit later.

We know what is going to happen with the 5001 building.

We know the road is continuing.

Um and again, as Jared noted, we have been able to continue to phase it out.

So that is part of the reason that as has been noted, the corridor is in a different place than it was at the point that that first phase was going forward.

We are all very pleased to see it going forward that way, and we'd like to see it continue.

So grayer grayer than not as black and white as I stated it.

Because it evolved.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Um I I I would like to share some observations about the project.

Um I did ask some questions about density and retail, in part because I'm trying to acknowledge every time we look at a project solution for a site, um, where it's diverging from the plan, the rationale behind the divergences from what's explicitly shown in a plan, and also what people might be expecting for the um the vibrancy of the corridor or the neighborhood.

And I um I have felt that staff's description of work with the applicant has been really clear that this is not a site where we die on a hill of must have a really really dense tall apartment building.

Um looking at the length of the corridor, the walking distance, it's about a 17 minute walk from this site to the metro station, which is doable for for some people, but it's not super comfortable, and that road is not super comfortable today.

So, in fact, this project is gonna build out a nice continuation of a shared path in front along Eisenhower, which will make it if it can continue and continue a lot more pleasant to get to Metro.

Um, but it's not it's not right on top of it.

Um it's hard to build retail and services in a neighborhood that doesn't have people yet.

So I feel like there's a great rationale for this to be a densely designed townhouse community.

I like that it has the back to back units.

Thank you for humoring me as I continue to forget what back to back means.

Um which kind of special unit combo, but but it really is these nuances because you can't see this stuff really from the outside, but what it what it creates is a range of affordability on the site, a range of products.

Um I think we were even talking about how you might get a different price point for the ones that face the alley versus the ones that face whatever the alternative is in each part of that design.

So you create increments of ability of ability for for families to afford to live there.

Um and it does create people, and creating people is critical for this avenue because that's what's going to make it a place that retail and services want to come to as well.

Um I don't have any concerns with the parking item that's requested.

The fact that there's tandem parking, it seems to be perfectly fine in one kind of unit type and not perfectly fine in the other, and that's a little silly.

So we'll call it a technicality, but I'll just be on the record as saying tandem parking in anything like a townhouse or really anywhere is fine by me because if it's owned and wholly accept accessed by one family, one housing entity, um, they get to coordinate on moving their cars, and it it's it's efficient, and I think you get you get more bang for our housing buck with with tandem.

Um especially if we insist on continuing to provide two parking spaces for you.

Um parking for the right schools.

Right, right.

Um I appreciate all the conversation around the question of the applicant's request for the um the reduction in the the credit in the contribution.

I am personally not in favor um of the request, and that is for a bunch of the reasons that we're described today.

Um I think that the plan lays out a clear storyline for what the money is for, why it's requested, and is trying to treat all the entities equally, all the different property owners that come through for redevelopment will be treated in the same way.

Um this is not the only place in town where the build out of the project requires build out of the infrastructure around the project.

So while some sites might already have four sides with streets built, um several sites do not, and I think that the Vulcan site was an interesting point because essentially that's one where they will be expected to build streets that serve the the side all the different sides of their project because they don't have any right now.

Um and so I really think that the spirit of the contribution and the fund is met by staff's proposal.

Um I don't I I don't want to you know dig into whether we should have documented it better when point one when Eisenhower point one was was um approved, that the reason for that credit was very specific to the economic negotiations and uncertainty around Victory Center at that time.

Maybe we could have documented that better, but it seems like it's the outlier, and what we want is to establish a stable frame of reference for all of the parcels that are gonna go under development along this along this plan area over time.

So I'm comfortable with staff staff's recommendation in that regard.

And um and I think this the fact that Eisenhower point two is coming forward is also reflective of the changes that are happening and the approvals that are happening that are making this a more likely sequence of events.

Um we'll be seeing more along this corridor in the coming years.

Um I'm I think it's a nice project.

And I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on on the particular credit, but I'm I'm looking forward to voting in favor of it.

Any other comments, observations, or a motion.

I will make a motion.

Okay.

And I wrote it down so I get it right.

Um I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of DSUP number 2025-1003, subject to the conditions in the staff report and adding the language to condition 96 as requested in the letter from Ms.

Gibbs dated March 31st.

Okay, we have a motion on the table.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

We have a second by Commissioner Duvet and any discussion.

I'd like to clarify the condition, the letter I have it says condition one eleven.

Oh, condition one eleven was the condition from the prior DSUP.

The condition to be amended is 96.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

That is it.

I I support Commissioner Manor's motion.

Okay.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Uh Madam Chairman.

Yes.

So uh I also um support this project and and my um my thinking parallels um very closely what you had said.

My initial questions to staff and in looking at the project were sort of where where's the density and where's the retail, and isn't this supposed to be another place where we're trying to make mixed use in the vicinity of a metro.

But I'm persuaded as you are that in this case we're still pioneering just having citizens living on uh Eisenhower Avenue out there.

Um so I think the logic that the additional challenges of making viable retail for the election to make a denser project is something that this applicant is choosing not to do.

And I think uh for us to uh to acknowledge that that's uh a perfectly reasonable strategic choice in order to actually continue um the progress of reclaiming these sites and turning them into viable portions of a neighborhood that helps to um create the critical mass that will be make it more viable for the next site that is closer to the metro to potentially come forward in the logical and market supportable way to have a greater range of uses and a greater range intensity.

So I think the overall conception of the project is really a very very appropriate and um and in support of it.

Uh also the uh the uh quote unquote technical relief on the parking, I think your logic is impeccable there.

It's a differentiation that makes no sense, and in this case um the relief will allow more um more utility for the owners of the uh of the residences without any downside to the public realm.

Um I do find myself unable to support the or not in a position to support the applicant's request for the relief again for logic that's very similar to what you uh described, madam chair, that um the question of the contribution and the nature of the fund is always another one of these evolving and very difficult um entities that changes over time and has lots of pressures on it.

And the general logic that at the very beginning the contribution um uh expectations are lower and are technically we're still in a c in an overall catalyst phase until a certain amount of critical mass is reached, and then future projects come forward and pay at a higher rate.

So as I understand it, we're still in the basic initial fundamental starting um uh range of um of cost requirements, and I do think that the the sort of to the extent that you can get clarity of expectation in an exercise like this, the nature of the fund and the and the requirements of the contribution are pretty straightforward, all things considered, and it seems reasonable to me that they should apply in this project.

So I um I'm very much in support of the project, but I'm not in a position to support the uh granting of the applicant's request for relief from the contribution.

Okay, Commissioner Lenhan.

Oh, I was just asking the clerk clarifying that if I don't agree with the uh the approval of the request that I'm saying I'm voting no to this.

Right.

I was gonna ask a point of order because I'm trying to do a count here.

I don't have any sense of this part of the room.

Um but let me get a sense and then we can ask for guidance on how to proceed with the the motion actions.

Ms.

Harris.

Um I am in favor of approving the project.

I have no problem with any of the uh the exceptions, the SUPs that they've asked for.

I agree with the other commissioners that I I I don't support the the fee credit.

Okay.

Okay.

So how about you, uh Commissioner Ramirez?

Um I am I am I actually um in support of the application just as it is.

Okay.

So what we have is a motion on the table that includes the fee credit request by the applicant.

Um Ms.

Brown.

Since it's a whole motion, if we vote it down, it votes, it it votes I don't know, down everything.

Can we make us a motion after that?

Should we make a substitute motion?

How should we handle the differentiation?

Because no one up here wants to say no to the project.

We just want to make sure that we're we're clarifying who who would like to vote in favor or against the um recommendation for the credit.

Correct.

So what I would recommend is you can either amend it to change it to remove the credit, or if the alternative is if you um if you took a vote and you and the vote was uh against so defeated the motion, that would be a defeat of the motion for approval with the condition change.

So there could be a subsequent motion made to approve it with the conditions as recommended by staff.

Okay.

That sounds clean.

So everyone knows that the motion on the table is.

I think Director Soddard had a clarification question.

Yeah, I just wonder if uh in terms of keeping a cleaner record.

I think if you were just to amend the motion on the table, that way there's only one final vote versus potentially two final votes.

So if if that's your preference, I'm happy that was voted.

And that was the first option uh put out by the attorney.

I think that's a I think that works.

Okay.

How do we make a motion to amend a motion?

So I would rec someone would need to um move to amend the prior motion.

And then we take a vote on that.

And yes, and they would suggest and they would name what the change is, and then you would vote on the motion.

Yep.

And then in the proceed with the vote on whatever is left of the main of the main motion.

Correct.

You would need to vote on the amendment and then on the motion as amended or not.

Yep.

Okay.

Terrific.

Okay.

Would someone like to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor?

Goodness graciousness is complicated.

Madam Chairman.

Yes, Vice Chair Keenan.

So just so I'm clear, this would be to uh move to amend the motion that's on the floor simply to remove the uh aspect of it that recommends approval of the applicant's request for a changed condition.

That's correct.

And then if if that vote succeeds, we still have a motion on the floor that is for approval of the project without that condition.

That is correct.

And that that that appears to be staff's preference because then one main motion is acted on.

Right.

So um uh Madam Chair, I'm I move to amend the motion on the floor uh to continue to recommend approval of the project, but to remove simply the aspect of the motion that recommends approval of the applicant's request for relief from the development fund contribution.

All right, I have a motion by Vice Chair Kennig.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by Commissioner Harris.

Terrific.

First motion action of the seat for term.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Nay.

Okay.

Can I get hands for the nays real quick?

Okay.

One, two, three.

All right.

So that motion carries four, three, amending the main motion by removing the reference to um the condition amendment that would have provided the credit.

So we are back to the main motion.

It is a clean main motion for recommending approval of the DSUP 2025 1003 with no changes to staff's recommendations.

And it has been made and seconded, just for the record on the table.

So all those in favor?

Please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

And we have a no uh no, one no.

So motion carries six one.

Chair, can I have a point of personal privilege?

I wanted to say this is my last planning commission hearing.

I will not be serving in this capacity any longer after this month.

I'm taking a new job.

And so while I won't take offense that you told me no on my last day.

And I just wanted to say thank you.

And I'm sorry that we don't get to work together.

I was looking forward to having that opportunity.

Um I wish everybody the best of luck in particular that development continues in Alexandria, because I think that's a lifeblood of continuing to keep the city vibrant.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Thanks.

And congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

That brings us to Docket Item 8.

Please.

Zacket item number eight.

Development special use permit 2025 10032300 North Lee Street and 333 North Fairfax Street.

Public hearing and consideration of a request for a development special use permit and site plan with modifications to construct townhomes and special use permit request for a cluster development pursuant to Section 11-601.

An affordable housing density bonus pursuant to Section 7-700 and land without frontage on a public street pursuant to Section 7-1007.

Property is zoned commercial downtown.

The applicant is EYA development by Kenneth Wire, attorney.

Good evening.

Oh, I'll start over.

Okay.

Um for the record, my name is Michael Swodrak with planning and zoning.

The applicant is 333 North Fairfax Street.

Uh North Fairfax Associates LLC, and they request DSUP approval for the construction of 32 townhouses on the 300 North Lee and 333 North Fairfax Street site in Old Town.

Am I doing that wrong?

Am I pointing that?

There we go.

First time.

Oh no.

The applicant is proposing the construction of 32 townhouses, including two committed affordable set-aside for sale units.

Staff recommends approval of the DSUP and related SUPs.

The site layout design and architecture, including public open space design, and evolution of building design based on BAR and community feedback will be discussed in just a few slides.

The site is uh 1.4 acres and it is approximately three-quarters of an old town block fronted by North Fairfax, Queen, North Lee, and Princess Streets, and is zoned C uh CD or commercial downtown.

Uh it's curr uh uh the block is currently occupied by mid to late 20th century office buildings and accessory parking lots and structures.

The adjacent 301 North Fairfax Street site was approved for 48 dwelling units in a multi-unit development in early 2024.

The site is located within a mixed-use area of Old Town in the olden historic district with townhouses, restaurants, offices, and personal service establishments nearby and city hall and the Potomac River waterfront just two blocks away.

The site is uh located in the old historic district and is subject to a certificate of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review or BAR.

The site is located uh also within the Old Town Small Area Plan boundary and also the waterfront plan boundary, though it is not identified as redevelopment site in the waterfront plan, so it's not subject to any specific develop uh development guidelines or goals.

Huh.

Because I can't go backwards.

Thanks.

Uh in addition to the primary DSUP request, the applicant is seeking uh SUP approval for cluster residential development, land without frontage to permit Muse townhouses with frontage on a street or with a uh to permit meuse townhouses without frontage on a street and bonus density for the provision of affordable housing.

Based on the latter SUP request, the applicant is proposing to provide two of the townhouses as committed affordable for sale units.

The applicant is requesting lot size and setback modifications tied to the cluster SUP request, which allows for more commonly owned ground level open space accessible to residents and visitors.

The applicant is requesting an open space reduction in the CD zone since the zone does not permit above grade open space to count toward the open space requirement just for townhouses, not for multi uh multi-unit dwellings.

Uh nevertheless, the applicant is still proposing rooftop terraces for each fee simple townhouse.

Okay.

The 32 townhouses are laid out in seven building roads of uh four or five townhouses each.

Three of uh these rows have street frontage for each each townhouse in the row, and the other four uh contain muse units and face internal courtyards.

Staff worked with the applicant on the site layout during the concept stage, focusing on minimizing curb cuts and maximizing ground level open space, the latter of which is a critical component of a cluster of residential development.

The applicant is proposing approximately 12,500 square feet of ground level open space, nearly 9,000 square feet of which will be under common uh resident ownership.

The applicant is providing nearly 4,000 of the common open area, open space area is publicly accessible open space.

Uh the areas of public access are highlighted in magenta on the screen there on the left.

This will include uh north south and east-west walkway access through the site and access to an approximately 1,500 square foot uh pocket park at the center of the site, uh, which will contain shade trees and seating areas and uh will be refined to design during final site plan.

Pending approval the applicant worked with staff and the BAR to refine the design and variation in townhouse designs.

The applicant held three concept reviews with the BAR during which the board provided feedback on the proposed design of the individual townhouses as well as the overall project configuration.

Based on that feedback, uh the design was revised to include additional variation between the individual townhouses and focus more on traditional architectural styles.

The applicant has proposed several design elements into the townhouse designs that are integrated uh within the seven building rows.

Each of these townhouses will be clad primarily in brick with several townhouses having stone on the first floor elevations.

Um I should note that the brick cladding is generally on the frontages and the sides of the buildings and wrapping around to the end rear units.

Um the architectural template will be designed with mansard roofs uh on some of the units, which will minimize views of roof decks on the interior units of these rows from the right of way and emphasize the elevation as fronting to the street.

Other important highlights of the proposal include a phosphorus reduction of 40% above the require uh the state requirement and a significant reduction of impervious surfaces on the site, um, improved streetscape with six-foot sidewalks around the site, and a generation of five students for Alexandria schools.

Project benefits include 32 for sale townhouses that will meet the green building policy, 2019 green building policy, two committed affordable for-sale townhouses, high quality architecture supported by the BAR, contributions to housing, public art funds, and capital bike share, and approximately 0.3 acres of ground level open space, including public interior walkways and pocket park.

The applicant held two virtual community meetings, attended two meetings of the uh Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, or AHAC, and presented three times at BER for concept review.

Community members that attended had no issues with the proposal and advocated for more traditional architectural design.

AHAC supported the applicant proposal for having two committed affordable uh affordable for sale townhouses using Section 7700 bonus density.

AHAC at their meetings discussed the inclusion of elevators and market rate versus affordable townhouses, and the applicant ultimately agreeing to provide elevators in all these townhouses after discussion at AHAC and with the city.

With that, staff recommends approval of the DSUP and is available for any questions.

Are there questions for staff?

Yes.

Commissioner Harris.

This is in regard to the open space, the publicly accessible park.

Um is there going to be uh homeowners association or condo association that's responsible for maintaining that park, or is that our PCA responsible?

Uh Commissioner Harris.

So yes, it will it's it will be owned by the homeowners.

So the 32 home homeowners will have they will have their townhouses fee simple, but they'll also be owning the common area, which is the driveways, the drive aisles inside the site, and the pocket park and walkways as well.

So they'll be maintaining it.

And what just uh curiosity, what's the requirement for them to maintain it?

We've uh that's a good question, uh Commissioner Manners.

So we've had uh conditions in the past that had certain levels of maintenance.

Um I we I don't think we have those in in some of the smaller projects anymore.

But um since it is publicly accessible, it needs to be remained it needs to be maintained to a certain standard to make sure that is accessible.

So I think in terms of an actual standard, it's more just to make sure that it's accessible and obviously with homes as they are in that neighborhood, there will be a certain you know expectation that will be a higher level of but there are no written rules about what maintenance means.

I would say there are certain maintenance requirements in the city code to keep you know walkways and streets, et cetera, clear and and free of uh of debris or or weed, you know, weed control.

Beyond that, because it's an HOA and they want their their yards uh to look presentable, there's sort of a built-in peer pressure you're going to we we don't overly police that uh uh because it it it's successful.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff?

Actually, I have to have one more, too.

All right.

I I've always asked this and I forget the answer, but how are the student numbers determined?

Very good question, so we do have I've asked it before.

Sorry.

I'll try that again.

No.

Uh we have a formula.

I it is uh something that the city works on with ACPS.

Um we have uh you know demographic data and we based on private previous research and trends, we're able to tell come up with a formula and it's updated every year generally that has a certain percentage of basically a certain rate of students that live in older housing that live in newer housing and they live in either townhouses or single family or in multi-unit dwellings, or they live in uh affordable housing.

So we have certain ratios for that.

And so when you have affordable units, usually that's a higher ratio per unit of students than you know, just a I just curious, do you ever go back and review that to make sure that the formula is accurate?

That's a good question.

I don't know uh if we have our neighborhood planning section works with ACPS to continue to review that on an ongoing basis and set new rates, you know, um, as time passes by to capture the changes in the in the city's population.

One additional thing uh uh point out to what Michael said is that it's not based on any sort of national formula or rates, it's based on actual going in and looking at unit types in the city and what Alexander City townhouses, what Alexandria City multi-unit buildings or what Alexandria's other housing types are generating here in the city, and those are the numbers we use as part of the demographic study that neighborhood planning is is leads.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much for the thorough explanation.

I won't ask the question again.

Don't promise.

Um is that on the Oh no?

Just sort of look at looking for my signals.

Anyone else have questions for staff?

All right.

Let's open the public hearing.

Our first speaker is Scott Corzine, followed by Kenneth Wire.

Good evening.

I'm Scott Corazon.

I live at 300 Queen Street.

I'm pleased to support this project for reasons we're not used to in my neighborhood, given our experience with the tragically inappropriate project at 301 North Fairfax.

This project's height and scale are neighborhood appropriate, unlike 301.

The massings in this development are broken up by view corridors and public walkways, adding the porosity we never got with the monolithic 301 building.

Rather than the obstinance and recalcitrance we experienced with 301, this developer and their attorney were impressively responsive to residents' feedback.

The difference between concept two and three were a perfect demonstration of what collaboration and compromise can look like when based on good faith and fair outcomes for all stakeholders.

Instead of fighting residents, this developer materially changed the roof lines, improved the architectural features, and added wonderful variation among the townhomes.

So I'm happy to support the project, which will gladly welcome to our neighborhood.

It will be a meaningful antidote to the overwhelming building still proposed at 301 North Fairfax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure.

I would just like to thank you for coming out and speaking positively about something.

I didn't think I had an interview.

Well, we've spoken before.

No, it just really is refreshing to hear people in support of something and rather than the other.

Well, when the process works this way with give and take and reasonableness, everybody wins.

Well, thank you for taking the time to come down here tonight.

My pleasure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

I'm Ken Wire with the law firm WireGill.

I want to thank the community for speaking.

There's been a lot of community meetings and a lot of input.

I'd also like to thank staff.

If I could be so bold, Mr.

Swidrack, could you go back to sheet six for a second?

I like to point at something when I talk.

I also want to introduce Donnie Simpson.

He and his family are no strangers to the city with multiple generations I lose track of how long they've been here.

But I think it's an important part of the story when he decided that this building was past its useful life.

They chose a partner EYA who is no stranger to the to the city.

I've been working for them for over 20 years and their sense of collaboration is not unique to this project.

Jack Lester is here with me and his entire team very early on.

We spend a lot of time with staff, and I think it's important to talk about the evolution of a project.

When projects come in, we spend a lot of time with staff figuring out that exhibit.

How do they lay out?

How do you get in?

How do you get out?

How do you get a yield that works for us?

I think it's important to note the two affordable dwelling units here are committed affordable units, rather, are indistinguishable from the market rate ones that are next door.

And that is a pretty significant point.

We don't often get two bedroom, two-car affordable units in the city that are for sale.

So that is a good um credit to the team.

And I want to give a few um background issues on support for the open space modification.

It might be counterintuitive, but we could come forward with a purely by-right application with no publicly accessible open space.

Early on, staff said that's not going to work.

EYA said that doesn't make a good neighborhood.

The staff was very clear about the community concerns from very on that block porosity was a key issue.

So this cluster SUP actually counterintuitively gives you more open space by these um purple lines that they've drawn through there that the community can walk in and out with indistinguishable um I'm sorry, with very clear public accessible space through the areas.

I've done a lot of agreements with city staff.

The maintenance is crystal clear.

We have to be in substantial conformance with the plans.

So we have um ADA access to some of these um purple lines.

We can't have bricks popping out.

If something happens incorrectly, it's our job to maintain it.

Clearly that'll be a zoning violation.

And I finally want to close with the BAR.

Um, this is not an easy neighborhood of development.

There's a lot of opinions, but um Jack McLaren particularly and his team um early on we had a proposal of something a little more modern.

We sort of looked at the neighborhood and we're tilting a little more towards Old Town North, if you will.

And through a bunch of feedback from the community, we went through three different plans.

Even though the layout was accepted pretty early on, the architecture you see is a credit not to me, but to the design team and to community feedback.

So um we are here um in full support of the project.

Thank you again to the community for speaking um in support, and we have no requested changes.

So we look forward to your support and moving forward to City Council later this month.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

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

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

That brings us to Commissioner discussion.

Would anyone like to discuss?

Provide comments, observations.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Um I just wanted to express my um support for the project.

Um I I do like the porosity um that was brought into the design and the use of this space.

Um I think we see many examples of that throughout Old Town Alexandria.

Um, so it's nice to see that kind of language and vocabulary continuing in this project as well.

Um the only thought that I had also is that is is understanding right now, like the kind of turnover right, right?

Um this site was commercial, it was CD site as commercial space.

Um we are seeing a lot of these kind of conversions into residential.

Um I know that I think before I had mentioned, you know, just kind of keeping an eye on ongoing trends, making sure we're not going too far into one direction or another.

Um, understanding that we do need residential, we do need housing um for the city of Alexandria, but um at the same time I'm I'm hearing little bugs you know, going off and talking in my ear a little bit about you know declining birth rates and and who knows what the movement looks like um for populations throughout the region.

Thank you.

Other commissioner observations.

Ms.

Harris?

Yeah I'm in favor of this project.

I I thought it was um really impressive the level of neighborhood support that seems to be apparent here um which is not always easy to do in this neighborhood um adding uh housing including affordable housing in place of obsolete commercial buildings it just seems like a win-win to me great other observations comments on the project um I'll be supporting the project I think this this is this is one of those clearly compatible with the neighborhood um project designs and I appreciate both um members of the community and the applicant and staff sort of describing the robustness of the conversation that allowed it to be tweaked um I appreciate the reference to how a cluster design which in some respects feels like a special case a special allowance um can really get a better product with with essentially the same type of of product out there so um I think that the kinds of things that we can achieve with our development approvals are more numerous than we can count and maybe than we can imagine but I really appreciate the um the fact that it takes a combination of a lot of insight from experienced staff and um and development teams to come up with the solutions that will meet the community needs the best because that's ultimately what we're all searching for.

We might have differences of opinion from project to project on what best meets community needs and that's what ends up being discussed in hearings like this.

But um I think this is a really um it's a fine fit for this neighborhood and I want to especially call out the provision of two committed affordable for sale townhouses which is um it is a real achievement and every every bit of that counts.

I also want to call out the discussion around that that's centered around the equity regarding um the elevator access because those conversations also do trickle up but I think uh making sure that people are paying attention to those details earlier in the process so those issues have been resolved before they get to council um because those issues have issues like that have gotten to council before where it sort of um has hadn't yet been resolved so um I appreciate that that there are eyes and um eyes on that and also just willingness to come to an understanding about what that means for providing housing for the community.

I'm looking forward to walking through these permeable pervious whatever whatever word you'd like to use for it along those purple lines because we'll we'll um I'll be looking forward to seeing the project bill I have one minor comment to follow up in terms of walking those purple lines I I would just like to I think I asked staff this and I believe there will be signs posted.

I do think this feels like quite a private space those purple lines go into that sort of small area it's not a very big park um green space and so I would encourage the I don't you probably can't transfer this message to the HOA but just make sure that everyone commission can just keep walking on all of the streets.

You may see people walking in and out a lot to keep that open feel in terms of access the signage will will be important.

I there was a good discussion we had during the briefing I think these spaces are meant to feel intimate so like just like old town spaces like you like you go down an alley or you know the nooks and crannies of old town and and so I think we're trying to emulate some of that feel as someone else said but but making sure people are aware that it's public and you can explore is is going to be important to to label prominently enough nearby spaces specifically say that not public Chairman I wanted to respond to Chair Romero's question about office conversions.

Yeah because I I want to acknowledge I mean the city's been very successful at uh off office conversions even being tracked nationally with it but I think and I think we've recycled so many fine buildings because we've allowed the adaptability of some of the buddies but it's a I I want to assure it's a very live question right now how much more do we convert where do we convert and I think we're trying to get our hands with you know the Alex Forward plan too like what's the right balance.

So I I appreciate the question, and as you said, throw it to the wind, but we're we are we are actively thinking about that.

Keep keep throwing it.

Because as we continue it and as the years go by, it'll it'll become more and more to that tipping point, perhaps.

And agree.

But um I I do love and to respond to Commissioner Lenahan's uh sentiment as well.

Like as I looked at this plan, I I got the feeling of I had to I had to look it up.

Um, but it was um the old Presbyterian Meeting House and the St.

Um Basilica of St.

Mary in just south of King Street.

Um you walk through there, right?

You can walk through the site, but it does feel kind of private, and it is you you you're not sure if you're allowed to walk in there.

Um so yeah, this the signage may be important.

I I love the idea of this little pocket part.

It's a little hidden gem.

Um I would I would love to see it be a um uh a public kind of asset.

So it's yeah, would like to see it highlighted and not hidden so much away.

Yeah, I'd like to continue on what Commissioner Ramirez said and just add that I think signage will be as important for the residents of this of this community as for any public people who might want to come use the space because uh I you can find people being sort of protective about their spaces and you know we've we've heard stories about kids getting kicked off of playgrounds because they don't live there.

So um probably education for the residents will be as as important as for the public.

All right.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Madam Chairman.

Yes.

Vice Chair Kennedy.

I uh to support the project for all the reasons that we've um uh that we've been uh hearing, and I would move to recommend council approval of development special use permit 2025 10032 at 300 North Lee Street and 333 North Fairfax Street based on the staff recommendation and the discussion at the hearing.

I have a second that I have a motion to recommend approval by Vice Chair Kenig and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

Thank you.

All right, that brings us to item nine.

Zoning text amendment 2026 0001, commercial uses zoning regulations update.

Initiation of a zoning text amendment, be a public hearing and consideration of text amendments to Article 24, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the zoning ordinance to amend and add definitions related to accessory live entertainment, limited live entertainment and recreation in entertainment uses, allow outdoor health and athletic clubs or fitness studios as a permitted use, subject to use limitations, allow live entertainment as a permitted use, subject to use limitations, amend restaurant use limitations, allow temporary trailers for compulsory public and private academic schools as per as a permitted use, and amend Section 4-702 to add daycare as a permitted use.

Staff is the City of Alexandria Department of Planning and Zoning.

All right, thank you.

Good evening, Commissioner.

Uh tonight I'm here to present to you commercial uses zoning text amendments.

This set of text amendments comes at the request of City Council.

In December 2025, Council polled three items which were the subject of tonight's hearing from a larger package of commercial zoning text amendments.

They charged staff with reducing regulatory review and making it easier to do business within the city.

During that hearing, council approved removing uh the special use permit requirement for restaurant uses.

Rather than requiring an SUP, restaurants are now permitted by right, provided they comply with an established set of use limitations.

If a restaurant desires to deviate from those use limitations, the operator may request consideration through the traditional SUP process with a new approach to reducing regulatory review in place as this restaurant uh SUP as an example.

Staff proposes amendments to expand upon it.

It's focused on simple, sensible, and enforceable zoning regulations, housed within the zoning ordinance itself, rather than multiple variations of special use permits.

This new approach improves predictability for businesses by creating uniform operating standards and concentrating SUP review on high impact operations, all while continuing to protect neighborhoods from larger impacts.

Oops.

Not sure what happened.

Staff is proposing to permit outdoor health and athletic clubs or fitness studios in conjunction with abutting indoor health and athletic clubs, subject to the use limitations which you see on your screen.

These use limitations protect against noise and light impacting adjacent properties, particularly residential properties, limiting the hours of operation, limiting the location of the outdoor activities, requiring or encouraging the use of fencing and walls or buffering materials where practicable.

Lights off by 11 p.m., no simultaneous classes, music through house house house sound system only, and no amplification or noise-making devices allowed.

Staff is also proposing permitting indoor live entertainment, indoor, uh, as a principal or accessory use, subject to the following use limitations which you see on the screen.

Limiting the hours of operation Sunday through Thursday from 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

And then on Friday and Saturday nights up until 2 a.m.

Uh requiring businesses to manage patron queuing, uh thus preventing the blocking of rights away, manage orderly dispersal and loitering after events, uh require the windows and doors to remain closed during performances, and some special considerations within a mixed-use building, uh limiting the hours to 9 p.m.

or 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

daily, uh amplified music through a sound system, house sound system only, and installing and maintaining sound attenuating construction.

To accompany those two proposals, uh staff is um proposing to amend the accessory live entertainment definition, limited live entertainment definition, recreation and entertainment uses definition.

The accessory live entertainment definition will define uh accessory live entertainment as 30 percent, no more than 30 percent of the week of the business's total operating hours uh for the week.

In addition, staff is proposing to establish section 71900 as use limitations.

Right now it is uh labeled restaurant use limitations.

Um in order to move uh more uses from a SUP use to buy right subject to use limitations.

We want to create a section specifically dedicated to this exercise.

Uh in addition, uh under that section 71900, staff is uh proposing to adopt three standard use limitations applicable to all businesses within this section or all uses within this section.

Uh the first one is to post the use limitations and train new employees, designate a neighborhood liaison who neighbors can reach out to if they do have a concern, uh, and then also require a control plan if there are three or more verified violations of the use limitation.

And by verified, I mean uh it was inspected by a city staff member and found to be in violation, or an affidavit of zoning violation was sent in by a concerned neighbor.

So verified violations, not specifically complaints.

And then finally, um, as council requested uh with temporary trailers, uh they did approve uh allowing temporary trailers at public schools and then requested staff look at allowing them at private schools for K through 12.

So that is part of this package.

And with that, staff recommends that you initiate and approve this zoning text amendment.

Thank you very much.

Are there questions for staff?

Commissioner Lenahan, go for it.

I would I just have a detailed question.

Um it occurred to me that the timing of when you stop live entertainment at 2 a.m.

that it might be um better to stop it at 1.30 a.m.

and let there be like a half an hour to closing so that you don't have people sort of um emerging from the venue still loud.

Yeah.

And so I mean it's just something I thought of after we had our um our briefing, but I didn't know if that had ever been thought about or whether that's an odd question.

I mean the range could be anywhere from 11 p.m.

to 3 a.m.

Uh you know, it it's up to you guys to make that decision.

We're proposing 2 a.m., but if you would like to roll it back to 1.30, we can make that recommendation to see the same.

But so I mean the venue could be opened until 2 a.m.

We do not regulate indoor operating hours.

Okay, interesting.

Uh okay.

So you really can't bifricate that.

You can't say 1.30 for the entertainment and 2 a.m.

for the closure of the venue.

Correct.

Interesting.

Okay.

So we could we could say when the you know live entertainment has to end, but we don't regulate when the venue has to close.

If that makes sense.

Yeah.

Interesting.

But there are no rules now about when uh any restaurant can be open until 4 a.m.

We used to regulate hours.

Uh a few years ago, city council requested that that be removed from the zoning ordinance.

So we no longer regulate hours of operation for restaurants.

We we used to see that a lot in the SUPs because the problem that we can encountered was that every neighborhood and every restaurant application was a little different.

And then we get into these conversations about whether the restaurant hours should be similar to like the one that's next door to it or in this other neighborhood, and we just got out of it.

We used to have to study the hours of every restaurant in a neighborhood and then figure out what the average closing hour was and then establish an SUP condition related to other restaurants in the area.

It became um a little crazy.

And then there were residents who are asking for 24 hour, 24-hour restaurants, you know, diners to remain open.

So there's places to go at 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning when somebody might get off of work.

There was nothing available.

Now you have restaurants that do stay open later in the city of Alexandria.

Okay.

So how did you pick 2 a.m.?

Uh it's just kind of a national standard.

You know, other cities use somewhat a similar similar closing hour or any.

Isn't that sorry?

The state closing time for bars is 2 a.m., right?

Yes, it is.

Yeah, so I mean, I assume anybody who's operating an establishment will be starting to shut things down and kick people out by 2 a.m.

I would hope so.

I mean last fall will be before that.

So uh so there's a state law that requires closure.

I'll have to look at what the exact state law is.

I can get back with you on that.

Yeah, there aren't I think there aren't really bars, but probably that has something to do with alcohol.

Yeah service.

You have to have you have to be a restaurant in the state to serve alcohol.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um I have a few additional questions.

Um is can you just tell me what an affidavit of zoning violation is?

So it's different than a complaint.

So if someone does, you know, issue a complaint against a property, um, we do provide an affidavit of zoning violation to the complaint.

And if they would like, they can submit this affidavit.

Essentially, it's allowing a member of the public to act as an agent of the city, you know, uh almost like an employee of the city.

They've witnessed this zoning violation, they sign the z this affidavit and have it uh notarized.

And essentially they're swearing and attesting that it's the truth.

You know, I'm not making this up.

And if they go to court, they might have to, you know.

So it's it's it can be the same person who is a complainant, but it has a higher standard of truthiness.

Correct.

To use a really technical term that people might not have heard recently.

Um explain a little bit more, you know, the purpose of it, um, but essentially that's the basis.

Like it's it's a higher bar for you know, making a complaint against a business.

Yeah.

Um Thank you, thank you.

Yeah, I just I know you you made the specific distinction, and I just hadn't really heard that before, so that's helpful.

Um another question is so in the proposal um after three violations that are this this higher standard of of proof, um, then they're they're required to prepare a written control plan.

What happens after that?

So, you know, we're at three violations.

If we have a written control plan, we kind of start back at square one, another three violations, and then at that point we're gonna involve the city attorney's office and take additional action against the business.

Um what action that is, I I can't tell you because every business is different.

Uh every violation is different.

Do we have any precedent?

Because um what we're used to hearing is, and then I think it was one of the points made in the the letter that we received, is that the community feels some sense that an SUP they they have some control over if they don't we can take it away.

And we talk about that.

And particularly because sometimes uh an applicant comes forward requesting maybe a change to their SUP and community members come at the same time and say they're not doing what they originally agreed to quite right.

So do we feel like we have processes in place and have we dealt with this for other uses that maybe aren't SUPs where a buy right use can be managed effectively through these processes?

So an example that comes to mind is a cigar shop on King Street that was I guess emanating cigar odor into a neighbor's property.

Um we were able to you know manage that issue through citations and it became you know almost painful for them, you know, citation-wise, they had to take action.

Um, where we've used control plans typically SUP violations, where you know, and a good example is Hobson Shine.

Um we have Popeyes uh and Mount Vernon Avenue, that was another one.

They had to c install um security gates so trucks wouldn't enter the property after 11 p.m.

Um there was an auto shop uh on Dove Street, 26 Dove Street, where we you know had them go through the process of developing a control plan.

They did not comply with their control plan, so they were brought in for SUP revocation.

Those are SUP examples.

I the only one I that comes to mind that was not an SUP is the cigar shop on King Street.

But it but you you're basically saying because we use control plans with SUPs, we have a precedent for achieving mitigation through a control plan even before having to get to SUP revocation and absent an SUP, the penalties in zoning in the zoning ordinance are monetary things.

Correct if you are out of compliance with zoning fees, fees become due kind of thing.

Uh Madam Chair, there's also um the city does issue civil penalties um for violations of the zoning ordinance.

Um it can do that for n outside of the SUP context, um, violations of the zoning ordinance generally, but we can also take further action and seek abatement or enjoinment from a court to basically um have a court direct that they cannot um continue to operate.

So there are additional legal steps, but typically because people want to conduct their business, they will um address the things.

And and our goal with the civil violations is to ultimately get to a point where um the person is complying with the law.

Um so we do tend we work with them to solve the violations.

Great.

Great.

Thank you both for for digging into the weeds of that a little bit because I feel like that's a that's a fear expressed in this letter is this l leaving the SUP land means there we're taking away people's ability to know that there's a repercussion to not complying.

I totally understand.

However, there are many, many uses that do not require an SUP that could also be a menace to the community.

Um I won't, I don't object to that statement uh whatsoever.

Um let me just check and see if I have any other questions about this one.

Um I don't think so.

All right.

Any other questions?

Um Commissioner Du Bay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um couple of comments.

Uh I will support this all these changes.

Just so you know, um it's question time, not discussion time.

Right?

Well, they only I'll just do this during discussion then because I just want to follow up on the trailers.

Yep, absolutely.

Yeah, so if there are no more questions, we can close close the public hearing.

Madam Chair, I have one more question.

Oh yes, okay.

If you could go back to the slide before this one, yes.

Um the the bullet point on posting use limitations and training new employees, I would just suggest that it would be train all employees because if this represents a change in how the restaurant is operating as soon as this becomes um approved, then then the folks who've already been there are gonna need to know as well.

So I wouldn't limit it just to new employees.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is that a is that uh a friendly edit to the language that we should include in a motion?

Okay.

Okay, we'll do it that way.

Um all right.

So I'll take a motion to close the public hearing because I assume we don't have any.

Actually, we might.

Oh, you have a question too?

Okay, yep.

No, great.

Sorry.

I don't want to rush anyone.

Ask him all the questions.

One very, very, very minor um item.

But um, as I was looking at uh, let's see, the page for the indoor live entertainment.

If we can the slide.

Let's see.

Um the the way that it's outlined in item one, I think it's a lot clearer than the text amendment that I'm looking at in the body of the staff report.

So there were a couple of typos in there.

Just want to make sure that that's cleaned up.

I'll take a look.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

If that's all the questions, are there are there any speakers online?

No.

All right.

No speakers online.

So we can.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion by Commissioner Manor and a second by Commissioner Lannan.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

That brings us to discussion.

Commissioner Dubai.

Thank you.

Now I'll start.

Generally every all the um changes to reduce the bureaucracy and get these small businesses up and running faster in the city.

I've been in support of all of this.

We had a discussion during the briefing about the trailers and temporary trailers.

And there's no real limit on a temporary trailer.

And I know you guys have a ton of stuff that you have to take.

You know, you you look at these conditions however often you look at them to make sure if there's violations you go out and look at them, yes, but I just think that we need to figure out, and this is just maybe this is the council needs to figure out we need to put a review time on temporary trailers, whether it's three years or five years, because temporary and a trailer.

I mean, just put it there.

So we're just allowing it, and we're not there's no condition to the words.

For regular commercial trailers, not school related, there are time limits.

But for schools there would not be.

Okay.

Thank you.

Maybe this is back to questions.

Why isn't there one?

Am I allowed to answer that question?

No.

Um during the bad questions.

Yeah, during development of the initial round of text amendments related to uh public school trailers, um, it was a request not to include a time limit simply because public schools they have capital projects and that eventually you know the plan for a public school is that there will be, you know, a replacement of the trailers with a brick and mortar building.

Um at least that's the hope anyway.

Trailers have a far shorter shelf life than a brick and mortar building, which is you know, there are public school trailers that have been around, I mean, in place for a few years.

Um, having an SUP process where they have to come back and repeatedly ask for an SUP extension was it was a little burdensome from the school for ACPS.

Um there was a request not to, you know, include that time limit.

So we removed it.

And council agreed.

And this request is a sort of parity fairness.

Council requested that public schools and private schools be put on even footing.

Yep.

Yep.

So whether or not the original footing was the right footing, we're at least leveling the playing field.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm on.

Don't worry.

Uh I feel like I sort of have to make a reverse disclosure and say that I am no longer in the restaurant business, and I can wholeheartedly support this, having been through the process a few times.

Um it's a big step forward for our small business community.

And this also very much supports our one billion dollar a year visitor economy, which is very important to the city's finances.

And we're very lucky to have this asset to leverage and market to bring people here to spend money.

And we want to encourage this the small businesses, and this just makes it so much simpler.

So thank you for all the work you've done on this.

We're trying to make Alexandria more fun.

Bring the fund to Alexander.

Yeah.

Good.

All right.

Um I want to observe.

Well, I'm happy to support this proposal.

Um I'm a big fan of the work that you and your team do to really keep track of the problems with implementing zoning in our special use permit process and find ways to make them better for the public in general.

So this is not just it it is about business, but the flip side of business is the community that wants the businesses.

So a lot of the stuff we work on are difficult because it's not as though it's a business serving some customer abroad.

These are businesses that are serving our community directly.

And so we have a customer base of people interested in those services and then a base of people with concerns about uh mitigating impacts.

And I think um the strategy that you're building upon by um switching from a one-off SUP process which generates um one off conditions and different standards um to a place where the zoning ordinance holds standard use limitations that are true of all of that type of use, I think is a really smart way to go.

It makes a lot it'll make it easier and more transparent for businesses who are thinking about what they want to do, but also easier for the community to understand what those businesses, what rules they're held accountable for, and they don't have to go find the specific SUP associated with that one business.

Um entirely supportive of the general use limitations that are applying to everyone, and I think those are clear improvements.

Um they do address some of the concerns that are in the letter that we received.

I did want to flag specifically because the letter was really honing in on the potential um concerns around indoor live entertainment taking this transition that um in this proposal indoor live entertainment is still subject to it's subject to a listed contact, and that's something that the the letter writer specifically mentioned, like being afraid that that sort of thing would be lost.

It is still subject to um the the control plan and the three strikes you're out kind of viol not not out, but three strikes and you have a plan you have to write um process, so it's a similar, it's it's very similar to how we handle SUPs today.

And it's still subject to the city noise ordinance.

Um so it kind of it goes without saying I know the challenges associated with um sort of monitoring noise ordinance issues and particularly because to monitor a late night activity, it requires the city to prepare to have staff out and ready late at night to take those measurements and to handle that.

Um but we have a noise ordinance for a reason, and I expect that we will continue to ask um businesses that are operating, whether it's indoor live entertainment or any kind of operations to be abiding by the noise ordinance.

Um I'm I'm content to support this and look forward to um staff have have indicated you're gonna be looking at this in about a year's time, see how it's going.

So nothing that we do up here with this kind of work is set in stone forever.

It's really just incremental improvement, and we we hope we're continuing to incrementally improve.

And if we take a detour path or or the wrong path, we have ways of undoing that as well.

Um but I think it's the right direction.

So there thoughts, comments, or motion.

Madam Chair, I I have also supported this effort all the way along the line for all the reasons that have been discussed and um appreciate the fact that Mr.

Lacola is here tonight with the last few tiny little bits and pieces of a gigantic um uh uh array of um multiple parts and uh bits that make this whole policy go together.

Um and that the majority of um what this entails has already been um through this commission and taking a recommendation to council and the majority of it has been approved and is in place, and these are three fine, these are a couple of small fine-tunings the council specifically directed some additional attention to.

And it seems to me that they've come back to us sort of impeccably refined and uh I support uh everything about what we're specifically seeing um tonight.

So I commend uh also commend Mr.

Lacola and is everybody on the staff who's worked on such a complex thing for so long to reach such a successful conclusion that is indeed final and definitive for tonight, and then tomorrow things will start to change in three years from now we'll do something else again because that's the nature of the abuse.

Um I'm happy to make a motion, but I wanted to check.

I understood that uh Commissioner Harris mentioned a recommendation that on slide five the reference would change from train new employees to train all employees, is that correct?

Yes, thank you.

Um and Commissioner Ramirez, you had an observation about something that was happening on slide four, but I didn't catch it.

Um relative to the clarity of the language about it.

The language for it was just a typo, but as I was looking through um it was the chart um that was proposed and the staff report between seven or the language itself and it has no, but it's it's just the way that it was broken up was like uh if this is going to be included in your um yeah, just to clean it up a bit.

Okay yes it should say two a m instead of just make one formal PM on um Friday and Saturday I will make that change.

I will look at the language but I believe the language of the zoning ordinance is correct.

Yes it is correct.

Yeah yeah the actual ordinance is fine but great thank you okay nice attention then um so I'll put those caveats in the in the move to recommend to recommend approval and we'll just start with a clean I move to initiate zoning text amendment 2026 00001 second all right I have a motion by Vice Chair Kenig and a second by Commissioner Manor to initiate the text amendment.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye opposed motion carries 70 uh I move to recommend council approval of zoning text amendment 2026 zero zero zero zero one with uh two items from the discussion tonight one to address the language that uh references new employees and indicate that uh that training should be relevant to all employees and that there was an item of coordination between the graphics and the zoning ordinance that will be uh attended to I will also second that all right I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment with those edits that were described all those in favor please say aye.

Aye aye opposed motion carries 70 thank you all right that brings us to other business um commissioners reports comments and questions do any commissioners have reports comments or questions I have a little bit about waterfront commission all right go for it commissioner manner um we met let's see exactly I think it was the 21st sorry one second uh yeah the waterfront commission met on the 17th of March and there's a lot going on in the waterfront commission um everybody is aware of what's happening with the pump house that the National Park Service has changed their mind about um amending the um the settlement agreement to allow for construction of that monstrous uh pump house in waterfront park uh so that is now off the table and the city is sort of reviewing what to do and because this is fairly technical I would like to um suggest that I write a written report and give it to staff about this to for distribution to the commission.

Okay.

All right.

Also that there is a movement afoot to sunset many of commissions and boards and the recommendation by the subcommittee of council recommended that the waterfront commission be sunset by 2029.

And so we are sort of working towards I don't know how to say it like refining why we should continue to exist.

We're writing bylaws which you hadn't had before we're making suggestions they're still under discussion about the members of the commission and it's interesting to me personally because there is a a proposal to allow a member of the boat club to be uh a commissioner which I wholeheartedly support given their position down there.

So there's just a lot of little technical things that I would like to convey in written format.

Okay.

Great other commissioner reports and I guess for um for Commissioner Harris this is just a window of time at the end of our hearings where um when commissioners are delegated to other bodies um commissioner manor sits on the waterfront commission on behalf of planning commission I sit on the transportation commission on behalf of planning we've got our Haw redevelopment working group um Eisenhower so there's a lot of things that we end up sitting on and this is a good time for us to just bring anything any nuggets back that should be um with others others awareness.

So there's a lot of things that we end up sitting on.

And this is a good time for us to just bring anything, any nuggets back that should be with others of others' awareness.

Yep.

And anything else that you might encounter related to or it can also be like I have a couple notes and I'll just I guess I'll go if no one else has reports.

A few flags that tonight's discussion brought up for me.

One was it was highlighted like in the YIMBE letter about the Eisenhower docket item that they required an SUP for residential within a thousand feet of uh Eisenhower Avenue.

It's kind of a weird thing, and I think it's an artifact of that SUP or S small area plan SAP.

Um but it when it comes written in that format, and you're like, oh yeah, that does sound a little bit weird.

Why do we require a special use permit?

Um so I wanted to, I don't know, it's not something you have to speak to, but if you'd like to, you may.

Um I'm happy to uh because we've had this come up in a couple different contexts, uh, and I so I appreciate the the opportunity.

Um the other one where it often comes up is within the the CRMU um uh X zone, which is uh used predominantly in North Old Town.

So and both of those are a product of the smaller plan guidance.

So uh within Eisenhower West and the thousand foot uh sort of um buffer around Eisenhower, uh the idea was really to promote higher density residential development uh and absent that SUP, one of the by right uses along that corridor would be a lower density townhouse form of development.

And so there is a desire um uh to try to really sort of encourage uh something more in line with the small area plan vision.

Uh it's um uh uh um similar uh both similar and different scenario for CRMUX, which comes up in Old Town North.

Uh that's one of the higher density um uh districts, so people often try to sort of use that as a as a tool to to uh reinvest in the neighborhood.

Um and there, the old town north was trying to reserve certain sites for commercial use.

Uh and so there the interest is in trying to promote commercial uses, vibrancy, uh, ground floor uses.

Uh and so in both cases, it's not a um restriction uh against residential per se, but instead it's it's trying to to use residential in furtherance of a of a plan goal.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um there was another SUP that came up tonight that is what I would call an oddball.

It's the one for land without frontage.

And we have seen that.

I want to say we've seen it in a a couple instances.

We see tonight, it's the idea of the townhouse, not because of private drives not fronting on the actual street.

My the house I live in is just like that.

Um but I think we also saw it in that um that site that didn't move forward that was it's in Del Rey, just off of Mount Vernon Avenue that's like the parcel tucked behind Zenry Avenue.

That is scheduled to be heard next next month.

All right.

Um but that that so I I raise it because in one instance it was a primary avenue.

This SUP, the need for it and the calling out of land without frontage was a primary avenue for community objection.

Um in the other instance, it's just a technicality.

It's like no one was reviewing this development design and saying, I don't know if it's appropriate for those houses to not have frontage.

I think we have to develop this property with, you know, like that it was just a technicality.

Um so I guess the the the question I want to raise is how much of a technicality, like do we like this, does staff like this as a protection device because it means we have to look really carefully at a project design and make sure that houses are fronting on streets.

Is there a practical because like like you said, Commissioner Dubai, the the private alleys were all wide enough for fire access, so it wasn't like they couldn't get a fire truck in.

That was my question about why that's yeah, and so I I feel like it's a little bit of a it may be an artifact of the past, maybe, but I'm not sure.

And I just wanted to flag it though, because it's not the first time we've seen it, it creates one more administrative step for staff and for applicants.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that one as well because it does come up in different contexts uh within the smaller context of the infill uh sort of sites, uh, generally uh what we're using that is as a tool to make sure that we have adequate uh emergency access and and uh uh that's really public safety is the primary driver there.

Uh and and uh uh that's really public safety is the primary driver there.

Uh on the larger sites, one of the things we're trying to do is to really promote um uh that sort of Alexandria feel of uh of a porous walkable open site.

Uh absent that requirement to have uh public frontage, sometimes there can be a tendency to to for developments to focus on internal facing streets and they might even sort of wall off the the perimeter of the site.

Um there are certainly some developments along Eisenhower that follow that model.

Um and uh um uh in particular, right, there's one next to the metro, uh, and uh there are a couple in close proximity to the metro where they do have this walled feel where there's one way in, one way out, and it's often a very controlled feel.

Um and so really part of that at a at a site design level is used to make sure that the site remains open and that there is through travel uh for the development.

So is it your sense that having the SUP is the only is like the way because because this last item was really about removing SUPs but achieving it in zoning through use limitations in these instances, do we need SUPs to achieve our our land use and design expectations or safety expectations, or can't can it be through some other method which is a little more transparent and less I don't know, creates fewer layers.

Yeah, I I appreciate that the follow-up.

I'd already written down the question, and that's something we'll look into because I I think it's a good approach we're using with the commercial cleanups, and so there is a question of is there another way to achieve the same thing.

Can yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Um Madam Chair?

Yeah, please.

Uh just like on that same point, um, because another case where that was a was a heavily utilized mechanism was block H atomic yard, where 40% of 120 units were not technically fronting on public right-of-way.

So it seems to me the mechan some sort of mechanism, and I guess part of your your point is mostly is SUP the right kind of tool to get at that.

But there's a there's a fundamental requirement at some point in the ordinance that says a dwelling unit shall front on a public right-of-way, right?

So if we want to have any of these schemes that we're talking about that literally don't front on a public right-of-way, we need a mechanism for relief.

So the question is sort of is there a more efficient way to do that, or are we actually?

And the answer might be no.

But it is funny because it also I feel like it's almost like the the meaning of the language.

Gosh, there was something else in the language in one of these things.

Oh it was the one for the vacation.

Unimproved right-of-way.

There's sort of ways we use language in our processes.

And in that staff report and presentation had a several instances of this sort of unimproved, which sounds like it's bad, right?

Unimproved means it should be improved.

And so we know maybe we can peel apart layers, but ultimately it also colors the way we think about the application.

Oh, this this must be good because we're doing something with an unimproved thing.

And with the SUPs, it always feels like we have to have a special use permit because the thing that's being proposed is really special and requires special assessment and evaluation.

And I don't want to like dismiss the challenges we have with block H because I think that that has like that had like a bigger, it was a bigger fish.

But for a lot of these other ones, I almost I almost fear it it blows out of proportion the request, and it puts a name on it that makes it seem more special than it is for the community's sake.

And so it might be just semantics, but those are like the feelings that it drew.

I think it's a great point.

I think um because the I think that the other part of the reason we need it is so that we don't get dwelling units fronting on completely inadequate passageways at all that.

So I think the fact that the scheme that we saw tonight is essentially solving it with a 20-foot alley means that in terms of all the emergency access and all that, that's being solved.

But we still need some kind of mechanism that makes sure that gets solved if they're not already on a public right-of-way street.

But I agree completely.

The whole SUP mechanism, you know, has all the characteristics that you mentioned, it makes it feel like we're doing something other than just accommodating a different kind of layout and making sure that it has all the required characteristics that we would want for a dwelling from the other.

Yeah, my question would be if um with townhouse development where frontage is in fact respected and there's required green space, is that green space then on the public side of things?

Because what happens with some of these is that you have this inwardly looking um because you allow it because they're they don't have to face frontage and and then it's buried, which is quite muse-like, and we think it's you know, in an old town, we hope that it will work, but it it also allows to somewhat privatize that green space because you're allowing that sort of back alley location of some of that.

So I I think it's complicated.

Right.

And maybe it worked like the the cluster development item that we had was a small block, so fully you could you could actually see you well, it doesn't exist yet.

You could you will one day actually be able to see sort of from one side of the block to the other through it's not linear though, which actually jogs.

Well, the the north-south one didn't didn't jog not really.

I think I think there was enough width that you would be able to see that you could see.

This is the the Fairfax um the the townhouses on Fairfax.

Right, but I thought that the north okay.

Maybe I'm I could be I could be wrong.

But but when I was looking at it, one of the when you were talking, we were talking about walking through.

Yeah, and like at some level, there's a sense at a block site that's that that's that size that you can actually walk through.

And so if you you go in one side, you're like, oh, I can get out the other.

This must be someplace I can go, but on the bigger sites like H, and maybe like others, gets buried.

Yeah, you're like, I don't know if I can get through from one side to the other.

I don't know if I start here, am I gonna be able am I gonna run into some fence, some challenge?

Um yeah, I don't know.

Do you see?

This is straight here.

And this one is and this is straight, and it is jogs a little bit, but I think you could probably have a uh sight line barring barring trees.

Does it go through?

Yeah, it goes lead to Fairfax.

Right.

Does this one but that doesn't?

And so this one I I'm not convinced you're gonna actually see through that.

I think you might see that.

And in this one, where where are you going?

You're busting into something.

No, this is the sidewalk.

This is more crazy.

This is a sort of eight-foot drop here on the other side.

I just read this.

I thought this was something.

This might be sloping at all.

Okay.

But graphically, the gray is in the front sidewalk, yeah.

But I think the point's well taken in the sense that it's at the scale of a block.

So if a person was standing here and a person was standing there, and you were walking here going, I wonder if I can walk in there, you would see that you could go in there, and then you could also actually see the person on another right away and start to go.

And once you get beyond that scale, you get something like block H where you have the word murdered to try to ameliorate that or not.

So all that is to say we we treat all of this with an SUP that has to do with land without frontage rather than or I mean this might not have done that one for this this one might have just been handled with cluster development, but um but they're not all the same, and they don't necessarily like the the SUP process might not be the right one to get us the outcomes we're looking for.

Um keep moving the table.

I keep moving the table.

Um the last thing I wanted to mention, because this is this is something I've been harping on.

Uh townhouses as a potential future commercial space.

I've I've I've mentioned this along block H was one example.

Um this site in old town is another example where we in this it was remind you reminded me, Commissioner Ramirez, because you were talking about the the aspect of converting commercial to residential space, and we have talked about how Alexandria has a history of commer converting buildings back and forth from residential to commercial again and again over their life life cycles because we have these dense networks of place where it's okay.

And when you walk along King, sometimes you're walking by residential buildings that have commercial uses in them.

But when we build townhouses everywhere else in town, we just think of them as residential and we create really big blocks and spaces.

And when we talked earlier about Eisenhower, it's a big residential block and then another big residential block, and we're not ready for retail because there isn't enough demand, so we can't create walkable urbanity there.

But but maybe it's not a bad idea to look for ways to let these residential land uses convert to commercial along the Eisenhower frontage, coming to more of the what was expected to be the fruition of that thousand foot area.

Um but I don't know how to do it.

And I know that's staff have have kind of like acknowledged that we keep building townhouses because they're very lucrative right now, like they fit the market niche.

But it's it's not very easily convertible to a a commercial use, and it's not it's not even like a long I don't know how to describe it.

Like, is are these houses gonna still be here in a hundred years?

I don't know.

Like I don't know, I don't know enough about like we when we work at the old town fabric, these are buildings that have been around for a hundred years, and they've just I can tell you I lived in DuPont Circle for 27 years, and I live in a house that was built in 1873 by freed slaves that where there was a big mass migration of of freed slaves from the south that moved to DC, and that was when the federal government was exploding in growth and they needed labor.

Um so down the road from you was probably a commercial stoop that made out of the same kind of building, but it was but was not being used as a residence.

True.

And so in some neighborhoods, DC has a lot of that.

Old town has a lot of it where there's just a mixture and people expect it.

And I realize it's not as easy to sell everyone on a town home development and then say, oh well, but actually your neighbor could be could have a cafe here, or your neighbor could have something else.

I don't know, uh sewing shop.

But um but I just wanted to throw that out again for the sake of thinking about it over the long term, but I just feel like we're making a lot of townhouses.

I mean, if you if you looked at like like our old dais, right?

The the painting that was there, and you look at um I mean I unfortunately most of it we just build it, right?

We just build it, and who knows what happens to the structure down the road.

We've seen so many of the structures that were built as just workforce housing in Old Town become upscale housing, or have gone through iterations when some of them have become restaurants.

There have they become retail spaces, warehouses became a restaurant.

I mean, like yeah, there's there's so much flexibility um and all these various kinds of uses that perhaps what we may need to look at even as like a planning commission is just thinking about um certain levels of density throughout the city, right, and interactions and certain patterns that can happen.

And most of those patterns cannot and do not happen, but for uh a decade, at least a decade's worth of time when people really kind of path out um how they interact with these structures that are built.

And so, you know, at this certain level, you we just build it, we we answer the questions of now.

Um, but if there's a possibility that it can last into the future, that would be great, you know, and that's we just have to kind of leave some of it to the unknown and see what happens and get out of the way if someone wants to change the use of it in the world.

If I recall correctly, that was uh there was ground floor retail built into uh townhouses in Carlisle in certain sections of Carlisle.

And I don't think that really uh right, and I think we have live work some things in um the Braddock neighborhood.

They're like a loft kind of thing where it's it was envisioned that the bottom could have been res uh a retail and it has storefront source storefront kind of opening, but the upper could be the living space.

Um and I'm pretty sure none of them are used that way.

But but that's today, and that neighborhood right across the road from those houses is changing dramatically too.

So there's a little bit of like we don't there's we don't have to predict the demands, but I just know that a lot of neighborhoods across the country have a little a little more variation, like the ability to have a corner store in what is largely a residential place.

Yeah, and we don't have that.

We just have our protect this this res this retail core because we'll only put retail where other retail can support it, but that doesn't help for the walkable neighborhoods that where you really need to help the residents that are in town that are not walking distance to any of our retail areas, they still have to drive to get or at a bike to get to a to get to a coffee shop to get to a whatever.

Um so sometimes there's just little little things that could change in the future.

Um I can't just one last point because you've made that point before, and I agree it's it's it's fascinating and has a lot of implications, and it's and we haven't found any real way to get to it.

It occurs to me there's a little four-unit live work project up on Mount Vernon Avenue that was built ten or fifteen years ago up around Raymond and Randolph somewhere that I think I haven't looked for a while for for at least quite a while, did have small individual businesses in the ground floor level of each of those four units, and they're really nice residential units above.

Um they're a little bit more substantial buildings and a little bit less uh inherently um uh uh residential in the town house house mode.

And they're a little bit more substantial buildings and a little bit less inherently residential in the town house mode.

But I think it it it could be done.

It was done a long time ago.

It's still done in these tiny isolated little situations.

But I think the point is real well taken, and tonight's project is a perfect case of that.

We were looking in the plan was saying, well, what we really thought we would see here is something slightly more dense, but even if not more dense, still mixed use.

And that there's still sort of as you build the neighborhood, you're building little you're building little increments of the actual street life retail that's there.

And instead we're reduced to saying what we said tonight, basically.

I certainly did, which is okay, it's better than a dead commercial project that doesn't serve anybody anymore.

And it does put some uh resonance there, but it's it's not unlike what we did with South Potomac Yard as well.

We built 20 blocks of people who are now perfectly ready for their walkable retail, and then when we finished that particular plan, we didn't do it.

And now, and we're also finding that we kind of can't do it incrementally at the beginning.

So the option is either, you know, to five or ten years from now, two or five or ten years from now, one or two or three blocks away, we'll actually get a multi-unit building that has five or eight thousand square feet of retail on the bottom.

And yet until that happens, there's zero retail.

And this kind of the live work piece and and building it in so that maybe this particular applicant wouldn't have come forward, but come forward and look out of those whatever a hundred units and a couple of acres, look at the corners, look at the pieces that are um at the public right away.

Look at the places where where something small and commercial could actually happen, and design buildings that are ever so slightly more robust.

Oh, yeah.

And again, we know it doesn't have to be a 10,000 foot column-free clearer thing.

It just has to be a three-story unit that's maybe a little bit bigger and a little bit more substantial, and has a ground floor that can get to 800 or 1,000 square feet that is relatively column-free, and does have a way that you can get in off the alley without blowing up your relationship with your neighbor if you do decide to put a cafe there.

And then that can change over in one or two or five years.

Or it could even change over between when they get their entitlement and when they build it out.

And they end up building out one of their four corners as a live work unit.

Because they got a tenant for it.

Yeah.

So I think your idea is eminently worth continuing to grapple with the question.

One one one more observation that's not technically a report because it relates to the green building plan, and there's no official green building plan advisory group assignment for anybody.

So I'm not technically allowed to be reporting on it anymore.

But I had a conversation with uh Ryan Freed um and Dustin Smith at the Office of Climate Action the other day.

Um and we've had sort of ongoing, kept some ongoing communication, because I'm very interested, and I think the planning commission is interested in how the plan's actually going to get implemented and when that might be.

So what I understand from Ryan and Paul, we haven't talked about this, so I don't know how much of this is or isn't congruent with what you know is that the OCA is now busy working on an implementation plan, trying to get checklists going, talking to the development community to the extent that they will talk back, which is seems to be a little bit of a question these days.

Um my understanding from Ryan is that the intent is to have uh something to present to council before the summer break that represents an actual plan for implementation so that the projects can start to come forward under the rubric and the constraints of the plan.

So the reason I'm reporting that tonight is just for general information and also because I took the liberty of expressing to him that planning commission would be very interested to know how that's coming along, and that we would um, if you concur, be open to any sort of update um presentation uh check-in that they would be interested in doing between now and when that implementation plan actually hits the street and it's the counts.

Thank you.

Please I know I'm interested.

I'm saying please have that happen.

Yes.

I'm happy to speak to that briefly if you yeah.

So uh correct.

So when uh the plan was adopted by uh council recently, uh they did direct uh planning and zoning to work on uh the implementation plan, and so obviously we've been working with uh climate action to make that happen, uh, as well as reaching out as you mentioned to the to the development community.

Uh and at this point it is uh pulling together the pieces and make sure they all speak to each other.

So obviously the green building plan is now the adopted policy, and that's the one we're trying to advance.

Uh and then that the pieces and the components that go along with that are the standard condition language as well as the checklist to make clear what is the um there's policy guidance about what buildings how buildings are supposed to perform, how sites are supposed to perform, so what are the actual pieces that applicants need to provide at different stages of the development process, uh, and then what are the conditions uh um that would actually take that master plan guidance and actually attach it to uh the development applications.

So what are the actual pieces that applicants need to provide at different stages of the development process and then what are the conditions that would actually take that master plan guidance and actually attach it to uh the development applications?

Um so that work is ongoing.

Um that's already in the project plan to bring those draft materials uh I think for council that would probably take the form of uh an update uh in the form of a written memo to say, yes, we heard you here's the guidance we're operating under, and here's what we're doing, and here's what we'll do next.

Uh we've already reached out to, or rather, uh EPC reached out to us, and and we're on their schedule tentatively for May uh to share with them what we've got, and I think we could do the same thing around the same time with the planning commission.

Great.

Thank you.

Does that allow us to Sigway into the director's report where we can see if we can put that right on the May slide idea?

The uh so it's a longer report today, and I apologize that it did go out today.

That was um that was on me for getting it out a little later.

That's only why I made you go last in this session.

That's the uh I'm happy to I'm happy to be the anchor.

Um I'll just try to touch on uh these things at a high level because I know there are several of them in the report.

Uh just to make sure everyone is aware and and where they can find the latest materials.

The the of course the FY27 budget is under active consideration.

Uh and there are some key upcoming dates.

The add delete sessions uh are on April 22nd and April 28th.

Uh, and then final consideration is scheduled for April 30th.

Uh and then, of course, if approved, uh there will be some budget approved.

Uh, once approved, uh, the budget would go into effect July 1.

Uh, that's the start of the fiscal year for the city.

Uh this year's budget uh, of course, is focused on on making continuing progress uh uh around the council's priorities, housing opportunities, uh reducing community disparities, uh strengthening uh the city's economic footing, uh, and then employing uh attracting and retaining um uh the best employee workforce.

Um for planning and zoning, how that translates uh is continuing our efforts on on our one start program, uh continuing our partnerships with uh AEDP, uh especially as we look to implement ALX forward, uh, and then uh consolidating how we do co-planning uh so that it is centralized within our department uh as we look to partner with all of our uh colleagues in other departments across the city.

Uh and then of course continuing the basic services that everyone expects.

They expect us to do historic preservation as discussed a lot tonight.

They expect us to do zoning enforcement, and those are things that obviously we're gonna continue.

Uh zoning for housing dashboard, and I want to make sure that Nancy Williams, even though she's no longer uh she has since retired, uh, this is really um the credit belongs to her for uh number one leading the zoning for housing, zoning for hall, uh zoning for all uh housing for all updates, uh, and then also getting this dashboard sort of finalized and in the and in the great shape that it is.

If you follow the links, you'll see there's now additional information from the first iteration of the dashboard.

It shows the approximate spread of of the new housing that's been made available.

Uh and it is approximately 162 new units uh in including uh within those 96 new ADUs.

Uh and you can see their dispersal throughout the city, that it's not concentrated in any one neighborhood, um uh although it is uh sort of more predominant in the older sections of the city than in the newer.

Uh one start quarterly report.

Uh the latest on this is also available uh and new uh for this report.

Not only are we tracking uh the early stages of the development pipeline, things getting council approvals and final site plan releases.

We're also tracking the later stages, building permit releases as well as COs being issued.

Uh and really the idea is one start was always about getting people from application to occupancy because that's when the community really benefits.

Uh, and so really building out our tracking so that we can uh uh monitor the health of the development pipeline all the way through.

Uh land use and preservation quarterly report.

Uh, this is a great way to highlight uh the work every day when we talk about those core services people depend on for quality of life.

Uh it's it's hundreds, it's almost the numbers are almost into the thousands in terms of the number of folks they're helping every quarter.

Uh and uh this is just another opportunity to highlight the hard work that's getting done day in, day out by so many members of city staff.

Uh Alexandria Master Plan Explorer, uh we had previewed with uh this with you a couple times, uh and I'm happy to announce that it's now live.

Uh you can follow the link.

Uh and it really was uh it's it's designed and it works as a tool to help the general public access all the great information that's in the small area plans.

It does that through visuals, through maps, through interactive displays, uh so that's available for everyone.

Community meeting series and docket look ahead, these last two really go together.

This is this is part of our um don't surprise anyone uh uh sort of efforts that uh we've now been running the community meeting series for about a year uh every other month.

Uh we do a highlight of all the uh cases that are coming out for Docket uh in the next couple months.

Uh and the Docket Lookahead provides a text listing of of all those cases that are expected to come up in the next three months.

Uh and of course, those materials are either linked or attached to the report.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

Uh I would be interested in talking with you about the interaction with AEDP regarding Alexander Forward.

I have some concerns about that.

So, schedule some time to sit down.

I have a random tiny thing that I just want to note, and I was reminded because I saw it in your Q1 certificates of occupancy.

At the Whitley phase one over on Earth Columbus, it really didn't register until the sidewalk was opened that the street, the street light poll for that intersection.

We can have a separate conversation about whether that street needs so many streetlights.

Um but it's right in the middle of the sidewalk.

Like right in the middle.

And there's technically, I wrote a I wrote like a 311 note in about it when I saw it and I took pictures because I thought it might not be the code, but they said it was like it had a minimum 30 inches clearance on either side, which I guess is the standard before it got changed to something more.

But it's like this huge concrete podium thing upon which the huge street light is mounted.

And so the the footprint of it is really big and it and it's right in the middle of the sidewalk.

So you have to like your party has to kind of split and do uh what my husband says bread and butter.

Like you have to like go around on either side to get to get through.

And right now it's it's kind of moot because the sidewalk doesn't connect to anywhere yet because the Whitley phase two is gonna be finished and eventually make its way to Washington.

But um it was just so weird.

And they said no, it's by it was by design, and I didn't remember seeing that in the plans when we looked at it.

So I felt like I missed the the boat when maybe I had a chance to give a comment on it in a in the approval process, but they said that was where it was intended to be.

And I just there are other places in town where the street light posts not so obnoxiously located.

You can't see it because it's this site.

It's it's literally right there, the new street light.

Yeah.

This one.

I see.

Uh yeah.

But it's yeah, the building's all it's all there and the sidewalk's open, and there's just a huge street light in the middle of the sidewalk.

That's very strange.

Um so it's just like a funny thing to for us to keep in mind.

I don't I think by the time it gets to us, stuff like that should be ironed out, but I really it cuts right down the middle.

So if you are in a wheelchair or if you're just or if you're vision impaired, you're literally gonna walk into it, run into it, and have to make your way around it because it's right in the middle of the walkway.

Um the only thing it's not in the middle of is the ramp.

So you get up off the off the road and you run into the street light and you have to go around it.

So it's um yeah, it's not cool.

No, it's a it's uh uh point well taken, and I uh I agree street view is is updating.

It's it's very recent, but but still updating.

The um uh not trying to sort of defend how it landed.

Right, it may have been an odd consequence of the the existing poll and the the the street tree panel and where the sidewalk laid out, but I agree with you it's something we should be watching for.

Um so obviously we will um I'm guessing we have been already, and this may have been uh sort of one that uh it may have slipped through.

Yeah, it's just one of those things like I would I'm sure that the staff who might have made that decision in that moment probably would look look back on it and be like, oh, I wish we had caught that one when we had the chance.

Right.

But um yeah, I guess it's time to go home.

Yeah.

So Madam Chair.

Yes.

Um just real quickly, uh so Paul, I uh um I just want to reiterate, I I think your uh director's reports here are really fabulous documents.

It's all it's all very helpful.

So for instance, um the link to the updated dashboards presenting for housing housing for all.

I know I saw that in a message, and I've been kind of running around on my computer somewhere, but I never quite got to it, and now I don't have to go searching for it because I've got it.

Here it's great to get this level of update.

Um you didn't run through specifically through um the upcoming uh dockets, but it all looks pretty uh pretty normal.

Um I would return though to the point that you made.

Did you you say you did go on you are on EPC's agenda for May with a green building policy briefing?

Yeah, that's what I'm remembering.

Uh it's May or June, but I think it's May.

So I think I mean just looking at these dockets.

June has what looks like PRGS blocks B and C and the open space in the master plan of the housing 2040 master plan.

That might be a pretty big docket anyway.

But um my main objective when it was when I my takeaway from with Ryan was that I think it would be really important that we get that update before the summer rather than after the summer.

Yeah, that's certainly doable.

And um uh just uh uh we do have the benefit of both a June A and a June B.

Uh so if we can't make one, we can try to make the other.

Okay.

Yep.

And in a pinch, we also routinely do those sort of work session timelines.

Uh time frames the hour before our hearings.

So I'm not saying this necessarily warrants a work session, but if something else that would be scheduled as an update in the hearing might benefit from having a work session on it because it's more robust, it could be moved to that kind of time slot.

And the the update time slot could be allocated to this.

So for instance, we're thinking that we're I didn't see this, but the Duke Street land use plan update is on for May.

Is that something that's substantial enough that we might want to actually see it as work session?

Same six to seven.

Doesn't have to be solved tonight.

I just uh Yeah, and I would lean on staff to let us know whether there's enough there there, and depending on the timeline.

So it looks like yeah, yeah, it's just a plan, it's just a planning process update.

Um but that could that could be more discussion oriented, and I don't know enough about the old town north arts district one, whether that um warrants any actual work shopping with us or if it's just like a awareness thing.

Uh could yeah, the uh the old town North Arts District, so that's uh that was included in the two-year work plan, of course.

Uh the arts district vision was adopted with the North uh uh Old Town Small Area Plan and uh from a lot of different angles, people are making good progress on that.

And uh the uh request from council is we had this vision, we've had some progress on it.

Uh how are we doing?

Are there other things we could be doing to better support it?

If we get a presentation in May, would we see the um green building policy details beforehand?

For I think if you come to present it and it's part of a regular planning commission meeting, we would there would be something we could look at before the meeting.

Right, along with the the docket material.

And and just uh I don't I don't want to uh oversell it.

This is um standard condition language is not usually something that is um overly interesting uh unless it's you know when it's outside the the scope of a project.

Um and really this is not about changing what's in the plan, it's really about implementing what's what's there.

Um and so um I I think we're intending these to be more uh sort of informational of um uh but obviously uh always looking for for input and feedback, but I think that the form we're expecting this of is here's the plan, here's how we're doing it, um, and this is what we would expect to to bring to you going forward.

Great okay.

Um so TBD, but feel free to write to Paul if you have pre if anyone has preferences for how preferences are questions to to help them shape what the May and June dockets look like and where we allocate time um to different items.

I don't I don't like to promise all of us for an extra hour on hearing nights, but sometimes you need it to have a proper discussion about something, so I don't want us to shirk that if we if we need it.

Um that brings us to our last item before we pack up and leave.

We have a um item 10 is minutes consideration of the minutes for March 3rd, 2026.

Do any commissioners have revisions, edits, comments on the minutes or a motion to approve?

Uh Madam Chairman, I have no comments, and if there are not others, I would move we approve the minutes of the March 3 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

I would second that.

All right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the minutes from March 3.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

All right.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

And may I have a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

I will second that one too.

All right.

Motion um by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to adjourn.

All those in favor, please say aye.

And we adjourn at 10 05.

Hooray.