Okay.

So we thank everybody for coming.

This is uh I'm Sam Shelley.

I'm with Planning and Zoning and I've been with this city for it'll be 13 years in December.

So I've been here for a little while now, and I'm joined by colleagues here.

Katie McDonald, I've been with the city for about three years now.

And Sam's my supervisor.

I'm Rachel Dresher and I've been at the city for five years.

Most of you guys know each other, right?

Do we want to do introductions in the room since there's so few of us, or do we want to just absolutely okay?

I'll start.

I'm Mike Rodriguez.

I live here in Room.

I'm also president of political city association.

Welcome.

I'm Phoebe.

I'm on the leadership team with Yemen's Northern Virginia.

I'm Mary Ellen File.

Hello.

I'm Katherine Restman on East Alexandria Avenue.

I know they have not my friends in the realtor.

Oh, show Montgomery's Eve Anderson, President Taylor Rencens Association.

Oh good Rosie.

Awesome.

Well again, thank you guys for coming.

This is just a quick agenda to talk about what we're going to go over tonight.

It looks like a lot of items, but we should be able to kind of get through this sort of quickly because it's such a small group.

But we just, and I I think most of you know what substandard lots are based on the faces that I'm seeing here.

But um substandard lots are lots in the city that don't meet the zone's minimum lot size, frontage, or width requirements.

Um and in general, they are um they were all created before the adoption of these requirements.

So either they were um annexed in some parts of the city.

The we you know, the city annexed different areas over the over the years, and some uh when the land was annexed, they were zoned something, and that made the lot non non-complying um in areas like Northridge and Beverly Hills.

Um when we annex those areas, uh, they comply and complied when we annexed them, but then we decided that they should be zoned a certain thing, and then that made those lots non-complying.

So there's there's a variety of reasons of how this ends up happening, but it's not you cannot create a substandard lot with uh an approval process.

Like you have to, if you were creating a lot that doesn't meet the requirements, you have to get special permission to do that.

So these are these are um I think we're trying to get away from the word grandfathering, but these are sort of legacy lots that existed before the rules applied.

Um and I can just briefly pause there if there are any questions yet.

But you know, we're it just feel free to shout out my name or interrupt me or whatever if you have questions during the presentation.

I have questions, yeah.

Um I can we rose it in now um but like for minimum size, not what about what if a house is in a lot that like doesn't is actually smaller than zone actually is meant for.

The lot is smaller than the zone requires.

Right.

So like for example, an R20 zone, but you're actually you have a lot of square footage that is closer to like what's the next one now, or 10.

Yeah, so you're if you're in as in is in a zoning district like R20 and the minimum is 20,000 and your lot is less than that, then you're a substandard lot you're also substandard, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um this map is uh hopefully uh going to eventually be an interactive tool that we can use, but it shows you kind of where these are are located throughout the city.

And as I mentioned, the big orange area is Braddock Heights and Beverly Hills and Northridge.

Um, and that's where a lot of the substandard lots are concentrated.

Um there's a couple that are in Del Ray that are deficient in frontage, and so they're not shown on this map because we don't have that.

This is a map that our our colleagues in uh GIS, the uh geographic information services department helped us put together.

And it can only it can only find the substandard lots based on the the size of the lot and not the width.

So Katie and I have the pleasure of over the next couple of weeks sort of basically going lot by lot to determine um the number of substandard lots that are in the city.

But this gives you kind of a general concept of where these are concentrated.

So again, like I said, primarily in north of the Northridge uh Rosemont Small Area plan.

There's pockets along Duke Street.

Um there's some streets that are not too far from here, um north early um that has a handful of them, and then there's some sort of in pockets in the west end off of Eccles Avenue and that kind of area.

But this is we feel like having done this for so long that this is a pretty good indicator of where these lots are.

Um and you know, even I'm seeing some over by Kieve.

There's some over in George Washington Park too that in that area of the city.

There's 53 in the same little one.

Yep.

And then the blue ones.

There, so they're depending on the zone.

It's any anything that's sort of highlighted in any sort of colors is is a substandard lot.

So are you guys gonna um have that on like publicly available?

We're trying to get to that place.

There's a there's a funny law right now, um, not funny haha, but like uh a law that's like uh there's all these privacy concerns right now that our uh legal department has with releasing addresses.

Um and it doesn't um I don't fully understand the nuances of it, but that's what's prevented us from putting this on the website yet, is that we're still trying to work out whether or not we can put a map of the city with information on it about that.

Because the worry as I understand it is that it can be tracked down to an individual owner or something like that.

But so we're again, we're working on it.

Um I think that we can see the system able to track down to an individual.

Any other part of the website that's already up there, basically, yeah, you can do that.

But so I but I'm I I don't understand what uh the nuances of the law are, but that's that's why we this is not already available.

Duncan.

I know the answer.

Those are both improved substandard lobs and baked unbaked.

How many vacated?

Um, not very many.

That's that's sort of the more challenging um number to find out because a lot of them, and I will actually tell you I'll I should clarify that this is mainly improved lots, because the um the ones that are unimproved often are jointly owned by somebody else.

And so they're those are harder to find because they require like going and getting the original subdivision plat and comparing that to what's built out there and figuring out from there.

So there's um this is mainly uh I I guess I should say this is mainly probably developed lots of record.

Yeah.

So maybe we're way ahead, but where the city was requiring requesting consolidation.

They can unconsolidate lots that were forced.

You can't stand or you can unconsolidate without a subdivision.

You have to go back to planning commission to ask the new lot line to be drawn.

But solid areas.

Yeah, so yeah.

I mean, if it meets all the, you know, it's you can apply for one, I guess.

Well, there's an administrative consolidation.

You still if you went to the courthouse and had the lot line vacated, then and you have to go get a subdivision to get it.

Well, there's there is no there's administrative consolidation that real estate assessments does to like so you only get one tax bill, or at least this is my understanding of that part.

Um, there's also administrative consolidation that we ask people to do to comply with the zoning ordinance if they're doing an addition or something like that.

If the house crosses a lot line, then you have to consolidate.

So you have the FAR and you can meet the setbacks and stuff, but that requires a deed of consolidation and often a uh deed that or I mean a plat of consolidation that shows that the lot lines have actually been vacated, vacated.

But if they haven't, then you sort of go back to things.

Right.

And and it depends on the zone.

I mean, there are there are a lot of factors, but um in Del Ray, for example, if you are on two lots and you have not consolidated, um, it depends on what you want to build on those lots, whether or not they comply, because they might comply with uh as lots for semi-detached dwellings, but not individually for each to be a detached structure.

Um I just wanted to touch briefly on the the history of this of these policies.

The original uh special use permit for requirement uh special use permit requirement came into play in the in 1974.

Um and this was only in um the R the R numbered zones is sort of the shorthand that I'm hoping we sort of catch on here.

But it's R20, R12, R8, R5, and R25.

So that's you know, basically the neighbors, the neighborhoods of you know, Delray, Northridge Rosemont, uh parts of the West End, it's the city's more residential, you know, exclusively residential areas.

Um these rules were put in place because there was concern about um houses on uh a street right by the Masonic Temple that um the neighborhood felt were um out of character with the with the scale and size of the neighborhood.

Um and I think one of them actually is on is for sale right now if you want to still look for the uh so that was the original reason for the those lots are basically what the staff reports identify as the reason why they originally started requiring special use permits for development of substandard lots.

Before that, they could be developed by right.

And I do want to mention um that in other areas of the city, old town basically um is chalk a block of substandard lots because these lots were all platted well before the zoning ordinance was even a dream in somebody's head.

And so there's a lot of substandard lots in Old Town, and they're regulated completely differently from the lots in the city's residential zones.

The city's residential zones only are require special use permit approval in old town and other areas where there are substandard lots, those can be developed by right.

And they actually get, depending on the lot characteristics, they'll get extra FAR and reduce setbacks.

That's all for special use permit.

The the old town area substandard lots are or by right.

There's no public hearing special use permit required.

Just real quick, those two lots in 1974, those were already two separate substandard lots when they chose to below on them.

Yes.

But the same builder or some same owner.

Do you know?

I'm not sure they must have been jointly owned because that's typically that lot pattern over there is that you don't see that many.

And you know, the zone doesn't permit detached or semi-detached dwellings.

Okay.

Um, or didn't at the time.

Um, and uh so they must have been commonly owned.

Yeah.

And the the way they got built um was they at the time, well, I might get this a little bit wrong.

I can't remember if this one is the one that had um a board of zoning appeals relief from its side yard setbacks.

Oh yeah, but they also before 19, yeah, it must have been because before 1974, there was also a stipulation that if your lot was of of a certain narrowness that you got some relief on the side yard setbacks.

Um but that yeah, I think that's how those I just is that answering your question basically.

Okay.

Um those rules stayed in place for a little while in 74.

Um Bulla Lawson and a couple other city managers are like, wait a minute, we're kind of taking away some of the people's development rights with with people that own lots of record right next to each other.

Um, some people had had bought adjacent lots or acquired them in the first place so they could as investments as as ways to retire or send their kids to college or whatever.

And so the city council amended the the um policy slightly like in the 80s, up until 89 is when they finally stopped fiddling with the rules.

But basically they started adding in provisions about if your lot doesn't meet the standards, does it meet 90% of the standards?

And if so, you can ask for a special use permit to be developed.

If it meets if the lot is similar in size to the surrounding lots in the neighborhood or on the block, then you can also ask for a special use permit.

So the rules were amended to to uh hopefully allow people who had made these in these bona fide investments in in their in their land to develop them as long as they were sort of in character with the surrounding neighborhood.

And so those rules basically stayed untouched from about 89 until 2008.

And 2008 was when the city um was responding to kind of what you know.

If you read the staff reports from then, it was really sort of what almost was like a crisis.

It was like there were there were all these things that were basically wrong with the zoning ordinance that allowed for infill houses to be uh out really out of scale.

The the height limit then was 35 feet.

There was um floor area ratio exclusions that were uh uh basically if you had ceiling height less than seven feet or seven and a half actually at the time, then those were all excludable.

You could build like if you if this is the full the level of the house, the first floor of the house, that's called threshold height in the zoning ordinance.

And if Katie was here, then I could it doesn't that we you could go you could build way up.

So that in 2008, they were responding to all these different problems that were that um that the infill task force and planning commission and council have identified with um development of substandard or in field development in general and created this huge set of policies to address them.

So they they covered all the some of the things I mentioned and more.

And at the time the infield task force felt that if vacant substandard lots are required to get special use permit approval, then so should develop substandard lots.

So this means that if you had a lot on a house built on a lot that didn't meet the requirements, then you only had three different options for modifying it.

You can do an addition.

And the strange part about this is that if you retain a certain portion of the first floor, then you can achieve the maximum FAR and the maximum height um without going to a special use permit.

Um the idea being that that would hopefully incentivize people from keep it to keep you know parts of the of existing houses and and that kind of thing.

There was also a provision that was like, oh, if your house burned down, then you could basically replace it as long as it was the same size and height.

And then the third option is the is the option for teardown and rebuild, and that's when you require a full hearing SU special use permit.

So that was a lot of hopefully somewhat in from interesting information.

I don't know if anybody has any questions, Get, but I don't have them to keep going.

There will be more questions.

Okay, good.

So I kind of went over this slide basically just now, but um vacant substandard lots can only be developed with special use permit approval if certain ownership and law character requirements are met.

Um and I just explained this development substandard uh lots section that you there's three options that are available for those.

Um all these requests are basically reviewed by council for neighborhood compatibility and property values, and um, you know, whether or not the proposed houses is compatible in terms of bulk height and design.

Um they both sections also reference um section 11500 of those the zoning ordinance, and within that section, there's a long list of of other considerations that council can take into review if uh council finds those those reviews to be or those uh aspects to be appropriate.

Yeah, just get a little bit of quick clarity on definition at the top of um lot character versus neighborhood compatibility as you're describing as full height and design.

I was trying to use a shorthand rather than what's in the ordinance because the ordinance talks about block faces, and you guys are are familiar with this now.

This is where you live in the application that's near you, but there's the standards in the ordinance that say, and even to even get to a special use permit uh review that you have to demonstrate that the lot is uh similar in size and shape than the to the surroundings.

And and compatibility is more about the the like the configuration of the building itself, the size and design and that kind of thing.

So Katie, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I don't do you want to go over this slide?

Sure.

Um yeah, so for these for the two dice, um, vacant subscribing lots and developed subsidiary lots.

Um we have the case history here.

Uh since 1973, there have been 36 vacant substandard law SEP cases that have come forward.

Uh 28 of these have been approved, and 13 of them requested some sort of modification.

Um, and then eight of them have been denied.

Um for developed since 2008 when that SUP requirement was put in place.

Uh 35 have come forward, and all of them have been approved by uh uh city council, and nine of those requested uh some sort of modification.

Um yeah, I can answer any questions on it.

Where were any of the eight denials ones that then came forward in 2008?

From the from the the vacant.

Uh no, so they would have had it would have been the same process.

The 2008 one was just the addition of the SVP requirement for already developed substandard lots.

Sorry, these are all residential.

Correct.

Yeah, the um R25 through R20 zones.

And vacant substandard law ordinances have not changed in 19 since 1973.

They've been um just language, language updates, the general concept is basically the same.

So since 1973, only 36 vacant substandard law SUVs come from our research, that's what we could find in our records.

Okay, that's out of around 100 vacant lots that were documented in 95.

I don't know the exact number of the vacant lots.

Yeah, there would have been more before 95.

I was gonna ask I'm thinking we're not gonna lead.

And does that count ones that were proved post denial?

We tried to capture that as accurately as we felt like if we could.

So we basically went with the final decision on a property right.

Yeah, yeah.

We went with whatever like ended up happening with that property.

And so why do you know why they're denied or there are various reasons?

Um of the vacant lot denials were denied um prior to 2000, uh, except the recent one in 2024.

Um a lot of them were kind of all over the place.

Some were very descriptive, and you know, there was a lot of neighborhood resistance, and uh or council felt that the lot was just undevelopable or whatnot.

Um, some of them, if they're really old, like in the 70s and 80s, they the staff reports don't really give much information as to why council made their decision, unfortunately.

Um answering yeah, it's really all over the place, depending on on the lot and depending on how much neighborhood pressure there was for the case.

So those lots are still vacant.

Sorry.

Yeah, the ones that have been denied, yeah, as far as I'm aware.

They either are still vacant or they could have been consolidated with like adjacent property, and like you know, the then the property owner could have done an addition to their house or something like that, you know.

They it could have sort of disappeared by being consolidated.

Yeah, so now I'd like to take a brief interlude and do a sort of a discussion first.

Um I want to hear, you know, these are just sort of meant to be guiding questions, not leading or anything like that, just to get us started.

Um the first one is does the SV process feel like the right level of review for all substandard lots, or do you think it depends on the situation?

And you know, sort of related to that, what factors in the review process matter most to you?

All right, okay.

I mean, it's just a weak step out.

Each one are you just on the first question?

Um, I mean, it doesn't really matter.

We can go so we can say on whole view just for I think the direction you're going in some ways is I think a certain thing is 100% put that again to 100% in some ways.

I don't know that exactly what you're doing, but assuming it's what you said sort of the other day.

Um I mean I think that there 100% needs to be reviewed of all substandard lots as a process point.

Um because the majority of them are not built on majority, not the ones that are developed, the undeveloped ones are not built on already for a reason, whatever that reason is.

You know, there's different things, but so I think that that the actual process makes sense.

Uh, I would also say that assuming you're going in a direction where some substandard lots do not need the administrative process because it's almost silly.

I mean, you'll take, let's take oak or maple or everything other, they're all substandard lots.

What they're all the same.

That doesn't make any sense it makes sense to start a process, that would say it makes it's definitely in character.

If it's 4,000 square foot lot and 99% of the other ones are 4,000, why would you make them go through all that process?

That's silly.

And maybe if they at the same time, if there's a you know, standard that says if you are 80% or 90% or whatever it is of the 5,000 square foot minimum, again, assuming all things are equal in what they're building, again, maybe that doesn't make sense.

I've always argued that you know, you know, I did that one 4200 square foot lot that I built on that was substandard that took three years.

Yeah, when you know, 80% of the neighbors were forward, there were half the neighboring lots where that's exactly of detached houses were exactly the same size, comparing apples to apples, it makes it doesn't make sense to have you know a whole process where all your time is spent doing all this when it's really it conforms with the neighborhood already.

So I think that stuff makes sense, you know.

Compatibility off the field of that one.

I think we're all going to go to our opinion on it, but I think it's probably every homeowner may mainly in here or every resident here if it you know if it is in character with what's there already substantially at least.

I don't think there's no huge issue with that either.

Have I had a personal experience with substandard long mind?

What does that experience tell us about process?

I think if we're sorry, Duncan if we're doing this purely on on the premise of affordable housing, it makes no sense.

Or doing on a premise to make create more housing, which by definition I agree will make things a little more affordable, even if that's still fairly affordable for most.

It can make sense.

But I think we just go back to what you what I started with.

There has to be a review, some sort to keep something that makes sense, making sense.

When you say review, do you mean uh public hearing review?

No, I think somebody needs to look at it.

Well, that's absolutely like every everything that's built goes through a building remote design.

That right, I'm very familiar with that.

I think that makes sense.

It's just what continues to happen in our city after that.

I 100% agree.

It gets a little bit ridiculous.

Again, if you have a 4200 square foot lot or 4600 square foot lot, it's 90% of the required.

It's not so abnormal, especially if the entire neighborhood is built that same way.

We've we've had to fight over that for years, and you know, you know, have attorneys go through and you know, like every single one is four balance.

Why are we doing this?

You know, it's kind of silly.

So I think, but but again, I think when you get to point it, I think you without belaboring something else in my my own experience in the neighborhood.

Um 40%, 50%, that's gonna have to have some process to, you know, because we go back to there's a reason it it's not been built on already.

And I don't think we force that, but I do think on the other parts it 100% makes sense.

I don't think you guys want to talk about what Ren had to say because I'm gonna change the subject.

Uh we can come back to it.

No, go ahead.

I'm like go ahead, that's fine.

Um I kind of agree with Brent, kind of don't.

Um sorry, a rice, but not my rights.

Um I guess I feel like just from the singular experience that we've had on my screen um and looking at the staff reports that their definitions of things they're there are concepts that aren't defined clearly and that I feel keep changing.

Um like block face.

I think that's not like practically arbitrary, um, which is just like if a if a if it if a substandard lot has the address of East Alexandria Avenue, you'd think we'd be compared to the houses on East Alexander Avenue.

It's not the sound of the disagreement.

No, no.

Um, so I agree with you in in terms of there should be a threshold level of review, and if it gets like, you know, well, I think we're all saying the same thing.

If you if you're comparing a detached lot to a detached lot, that's apples to apples.

You're comparing RB zoned townhouses to R25 where townhouses aren't even allowed, it's kind of a very far stretch to compare a zone that's not even allowed in the zone and say we're now the same thing.

So some kind of clarification of the of the block base, you know, what it means.

There's a lot of I go through it, it's different.

And so Katherine, what you're saying too, is that you would prefer there to be still a gatekeeping to even for people to ask for the special use permit.

Yeah, but I think bread is too.

It's like there's a common sense level, and then there's stuff that really kind of stands out.

Um, but I think um, yeah, I think it needs review.

I I think that there was a reason why they have the they developed the SP process.

And well, no, what I'm trying to what you're getting to is that there's there's provisions in the code that can then that can tell an applicant that they can't even ask for the special use permit, that they can't even get on the track to go to to a to a hearing to be reviewed.

And so is that kind of what you're seeing you feel that that it's important to have that gatekeep to even get on the track.

Yeah.

I will agree with that.

Yeah.

Um, I think that that taking this process away takes away a lot of the reasons why those eight properties were denied.

And so that was most of it depends on neighborhood pressure.

And so again, those are people living in the neighborhood familiar with the character of the neighborhood that are there day to day.

Um feel like again, it also provides transparency to the process too, because I there can be different perspectives on how to approach approving or not approving something.

Um, and I feel like this is just gonna take away the checks and balances of that process.

And I I'm not trying to sway anybody on just sort of offering sort of different viewpoints.

One of the things that we sort of struggle with with preventing somebody from even asking for um a special use firm to develop is that it starts to look like the city's taking that land and saying you don't have any reasonable use of your land.

And when you're in a situation where you can't consolidate your way out of the problem, then you basically have like a piece of land that's undevelopable.

See, I would say to that when you buy that land and you know it's not billable, buildable, then you know, and yeah, I mean that's a that's a it's not buildable, so maybe you give it to the city as a part.

Yeah, it's another kind of argument.

I guess what taking though.

I mean, a taking is a pay.

But you know, I I I think you know there's a time frame where that matters, but yes, yeah, I agree.

Go ahead, Mike.

Well, actually, I think I think lip it on it to you.

Yeah it's another counter argument I guess points won't take you though I mean a taking is a pay but you know I I think you know there's a time frame where that matters but yes yeah I I agree go ahead Mike well actually I have to flip it on it to you say I'm in your team 71 properties in 53 years doesn't seem to me like an onerous process doesn't seem like it's a burden on it doesn't seem to me like it's a a burden on the process.

It doesn't seem like you're getting you know covered in these weekly so why now are we looking at a change?

What's driving the process?

So I think for vacant substandard lots it's a slightly different story because there's not as many vacant lots in this in a built up city like Alexandria it's more of the developed ones that we are we have it's been on our work plan that councils endorse and council is sort of not um directly told like knock on my door and said can you please look at no that was no sorry and told me uh to uh review these but it's been on our work plan um uh when the interdepartmental work plan was endorsed like sometime last year like you know I can't remember exactly when recently recently ish um because the the part of the reason the 2008 requirement to get a special use firm or to redevelop a substandard lot was um a belts and suspenders type thing that we did like I remember I was saying that the 2008 set of rules was this enormous package of of zoning changes that um the special use permit was like an add-on that they felt really was gonna make sure that this was met and we're we're starting to feel a little bit like for developed lots that the and I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves here but what the the for developed lots the changes to the zoning quote over time make sure that in field development is is more compatible than it than it was pre 2008.

Okay.

And so that's kind of that's that's part of what we're thinking on that.

Um staff incidentally at the time felt the same way when they when they passed the the rules in 2008 staff said the same thing that we feel that that we have confidence in all these other changes that will make sure that in field development is compatible.

And I have on my next slide a little bit of like kind of our our perspective and but I'm happy to you know if you want to ask any other specific questions we can we can go back to those on those numbers.

So the the numbers are not that high but these projects are agonizing.

You're putting a decision in front of council that's a not an easy one for them to make um and we're being put in a position where we're having to follow like the rules um you know it they're just they're really difficult time consuming projects so there's not that many of them but they are um they're really hard to work on since you've done this research you may have been another agonizing meeting to set this but how many substandard lots do not have front um how many how many substandard detached lot no front I mean I this of the the lots that were substandard of the lots that have spaces or just in general existing today of your either all the way up to today and including to probably in the in the R25 through R20 zones there's not that many of them.

I mean there's um because we're talking about no frontage lots too right in that part of this discussion.

Sort of uh we're about to get to that little I just wanted while we're on the line yeah I mean I know you talk about old town and we you know in those agonizing meetings we brought up all the old town properties but you've uh now said that old town really is its own end thing and really probably can't be compared to R25 kind of starting this discussion right they're treated completely differently don't need the same thing so you've got we're looking at the R25 through R20 I think right so what I'm saying but I again I'm we're tying it in anyway even though you don't want to sorry but I don't know how not to this point since my neighbor started but but um but just so we're clear contextually um they're not they're totally different animals we're doing this so maybe we'll come back to it when you talk about your thing out so my my view is I think that minimum lot sizes should not exist but until we get to that point I'm you know certainly in favor of more incremental changes that give property owners more rights to build homes on their property.

So I for you know for me I'm mostly interested in you know when uh vacant lot is being developed or when you know you have kind of like a home that's on two lots that's being demolished and you're building a duplex because those are cases where you're adding housing.

Um, but even you know, for the teardown and rebuild cases, then you know, simplifying that process would you know give you guys more time that allows you to approve apartments faster, which I would be in favor of.

Um and then when I think of like neighborhood compatibility, like what really comes to mind for me is that you know, some of our most beloved beautiful neighborhoods were built at times in history where the government wasn't micromanaging what property owners build on their property.

So, you know, I think it's you know important for property owners to to be able to decide.

Um so um I based on the what I'm hearing.

I think I'm coming at this from an entirely different perspective and problem stuff.

Um my my experience, um, the fourth question, my personal experience.

Um there are several properties in this neighborhood that are zoned.

R20, but they have lot sizes of like less than 10,000 square feet.

Um and I know about this because I personally spent like we did a home edition a couple of years back, and that's what I ran into this potential issue with four area ratio restrictions.

Um wound up not being a problem for me currently, but it could be if I want to have additional space in my house where I feel like I'm artificially limited in the amount of space I can put underneath my roof due to the the weird zoning that I am subject to.

Um and this also has also come up with several neighbors in the affected area.

Like uh if you go back to slide two, yeah.

Like that uh division on the left side of the neighborhood.

What's the difference between the the blues and the graves?

The zone.

Okay.

So all those blues on the left side of the map, there that's us.

Um, and like I've had neighbors come up to me asking, hey, um I would like to build a second or third bedroom so that my family that is here can stay here.

Um, but I can't do that because I'm limited by four area ratio based on the fact that we're zoned the way we are.

Um so that is my experience with it.

Um and they've asked, hey, so what's the recourse?

Like what do we do?

I I don't know.

I don't know.

Is this like a board of zoning appeals thing?

Is this an SUP thing?

It's a really unfortunate thing.

Um it's because you can go to the board of zoning appeals and try to ask for a variance from floor area ratio, but it those they're the legal threshold is so high, you basically have to be like you have to be unique.

So if there's any other lot that's similar to set fix, this is just the barrierment standards.

The short answer is that it's the best answer to fix that problem for would be for the city to look at these lots and to discuss a rezoning initiator rezoning of the lots to make sure that they shouldn't see if they match better.

Is that rezoning contemplated by the policy that's being discussed here?

Or is it okay?

It's it's kind of like a separate problem that we are aware of.

I mean, there's also over you're you're talking about this area, right?

Uh I guess it's not showing, but this area right here.

These are all um either these or these are all semi-detached houses that are zoned in the zone that don't allow semi-detached dwellings.

And so some of this stuff is you know, predates when we had mapping and stuff like that.

And and sometimes there was logic to it, but um, a lot of times these decisions were made really long time ago, and so they're we don't really know exactly how they ended up there.

Um I'm not trying to say like what the city doesn't care about that or whatever, but it's just a scope.

It's a sort of a separate scope, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

But I I kind of maybe that meeting case based on the discussions here.

I'm really glad you brought it up though.

Sorry, just for clarity.

So why why are we approaching this with taking away just blanket level all um substandard criteria rather than talking about rezoning?

Um the rezoning just this is a sort of a laser focused effort or a slightly less broad effort um than rezoning the entire city because rezoning the entire city would mean amending all the master plans because they're all very prescriptive about uh lot sizes and widths and stuff like that.

So it would just be a much much larger project.

So this is just a van edge a band aid on a problem that still needs to be addressed.

Well, it's sort of like there's a couple problems going on, like um this gentleman's problem is sort of a sort of separate problem than what we're talking about now.

He's he's come running into an issue where he can't build what uh you know to stay on in this law and what the requirements are sort of they're at odds with each other, but they're the two that this 1974 requirement is the lots are the houses are too small and the 2008 requirement or SCP is the lots or the houses are too big.

So we're trying to sort of untease that those issues and and fix this sort of only related to substandard lot uh issue without you know casting this net.

Um, you know, that's not something that it's not something that we're not ever going to talk about.

It's just we don't have the resources or the or the staff to do it right now.

And so I guess my other question then is if you're if I'm understanding this correctly, your goals really are targeting changing the rules for substandard lots that already are developed, is where a lot of the problems came in.

We are sort of we're talking about both for now um right but it the problem in it like this discussion started because of the most of the use of the developed lots.

Right.

So what point did all of the undeveloped get looped into this and why can't that be separated?

It's not that it can't be separated just uh there's still substandard lots and there are some uh let's see how to say this council right now one of its goals is providing a variety of housing types and so that me you know that uh Brett said it pretty well that this isn't um a affordable housing effort that you know for us to say that we're trying to provide affordable housing here is not what we're what the point of this policy is is because we're talking about um you know lar put relatively large houses on on relatively large lots that are going to command pretty high prices in a in a neighbor in a city like alexandria um but substandard vacant substandard lots are included right now because if in general a smaller lot means a small house and if council is interested in a in a variety of lot sizes and uh house sizes then that's that's why it's on the table now is that if we're zoning for housing was one of the things was was providing housing at different um not afford like you know sort of different affordability levels but at least at different at slightly different price points and so that if you have again if you have a I'm I'm hoping that this is answering your question if you have a slightly smaller lot that's vacant and we're giving you now permission to build on it then you might end up with a slightly smaller product and the house might be slightly small or will be slightly smaller because it doesn't meet the zone requirements.

Unless you build underground.

Yeah so why are there provisions preventing that because that's where a lot of the flooding concerns come in specifically for the lot that we're working on.

So it's Andrea and I feel like it's just swept under the rug that this is a huge house a huge square footage that's being put in that tiny lot it's just that it happens to be underground to get away to like kind of go below the table similar to what you were talking about with the height of your first level you can drop your ceiling and still be you know within those guidelines and we figured out eventually that that wasn't good for what our goals were.

So you're sort of hinting at the in this direction of of policy refinements that we sort of feel um that we're we're working on kind of making a list of um the basement one that you just brought up was not on my radar but we can certainly add it um the one of the ones that we think uh is happening right now is that the um the the floor area ratio calculations are wonky and require a zoning planner and stuff to to figure out but there is space in attic levels in new houses that are not um counted exactly the way that we meant them to be counted um and so you know there are um there are opportunities to stretch the zoning book to to fix some of these concerns like the basement on on the property you're talking about and and other you know other things that that could be stretched and fixed to to make um in field development more compatible here's another example I'm in the street next to us um think of this in our 25 lot and it was split into two lots um and the it's like a it's a duplex and each side uh ended up being sold for like 1.6 million which is even 1.8 well 1.6 to 1.8 that's more than my all on my R25 lot my single home stuff I'm not sure that smaller lot size is going to particularly create um accessible it is but how expensive would the mansion would have been have been that would have been built on both of those lots together.

So it's yeah but it's really it's gonna be expensive but some of them are going to be more expensive I don't think this is a yimby nimby sort of situation going on because unfortunately we're always going to have a variety of incomes in the world and I don't think that's where you're going with this.

I don't see that this is like we're not yet at zoning for housing part two.

We're at text amendment for existing zoning you know I don't I I don't think we're going there tonight so I'm trying to see where we are going.

Right.

I guess I was just kind of putting a little icing on the idea that smaller lot is going to make uh more available I mean a smaller lot could command a high price one day yeah I mean it could be right next to the metro yeah right it could be in the yeah and if you're talking about East Nelson um East Nelson yeah it's a it's the opposite problem than this gentleman here but those lots for zone RB which is a townhouse zone and have a almost double FAR from the surrounding lots and so you know that's that's almost the reverse of the of the issue that those lots are way larger than the minimum required for the zone and are meant to be developed with townhouses essentially I mean they allow other uses um but that's that's part of why those houses on East Nelson the two the semi detached are so large is that the FAR is huge.

And so, you know, that's that's almost the reverse of the of the issue that those lots are way larger than the minimum required for the zone and are meant to be developed with townhouses essentially.

I mean, they allow other uses.

Um, but that's that's part of why those houses on East Nelson, the two the semi-detached are so large is that the FAR is huge.

It's huge.

Yeah.

So we want to hear from you from us a little bit, or do you want to so some of the things that we've heard and observed is um the line between a complying lot and a substandard lot isn't always perceptible or even numerically uh significant.

Um there are lots in um Beverly Hills in particular, where the lot is 14,000 square feet, which is double the minimum of the zone, but its front edge is um not sufficient, and so therefore it has to go through this whole process to get um a special use permit to be reviewed.

But the the the bigger point that I don't know why I started with that, the bigger version I'm talking about is when a lot is 63 feet wide and it's supposed to be 65.

That it is that does that kind of lot still need to go through the full the full uh public hearing process?

Um and that's a little bit what kind of what Brett was bringing up too.

Um I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's um that there's a point of selling.

There is a there's a point where it nobody could tell if a lot is substandard um because it's so imperceptibly substandard.

Um the next point uh that I didn't win any points with with Catherine is uh substandard lots are already somewhat self-limiting.

Um because our FAR, our floor area ratio calculations and our setback requirements are all dimensional requirements, they're there was based on ratios.

If you have a smaller lot, you're you're already constrained to build um a smaller house, a smaller and shorter house than the lot um that may that might comply with the ordinance.

So what we're worried about is houses that are too big.

Um a substandard lot feels a little bit of a funny place to start because it's already limited by how big it can be because it doesn't meet the zone requirements.

The third part I kind of already hinted at too, because you guys are also astute that you brought up some of these things before we got to them, but that we we made zoning changes, especially a giant package of them in 2008 to um to discourage incompatible redevelopment.

Um I think a lot of you have been here long enough that you've seen some of the houses that were built before 2008.

And I'm I'm not trying to disparage anybody's house or any development, but some of them have these huge front-facing garages and um are built way up or are and just because of the gamemanship kind of that they could find with the floor area ratio calculations that they're much larger than than the rules are sort of intended to produce.

Um we also these rules have been in place like we're talking about since 1974.

So that's more than 50 years of experience that we've had looking at these rules and implementing them.

And even since the most recent update, we've had 16 years of experience.

And the um housing market and the conditions in the city are um not completely different, but vastly different than what they were um at least in 1974, but um uh maybe even so in 2008.

And uh there I have a little bit more, but I want to pause if there's anything to talk about on this slide from the audience I just have a question for clarification.

So basically the city's position that those games played were problematic.

Is that still a city's position?

No, you know, as it relates in general to compatibility.

You mean like with the attic floor area question or the basement one?

Front basin garage.

The front facing one was any of those things you bought.

Yeah, it kind of depends.

Like the front-facing garage one was like the the infill task force decided that front-facing garages didn't belong in an urban area like Alexandria.

Umpatible, yeah.

Yeah, the other ones were rules that were passed with good intentions that had these sort of unintended consequences that we didn't realize that people were gonna be able to put um a bunch of trusses in their attic and have it be enormous, but not count towards FAR because the ceiling height's not more than a certain amount of feet, or people building things completely below grade so they can be in um required yards.

Right in flat roof.

And the flat roof problem that we that I think that we sort of fixed a couple of years ago, we did a little update because again, in two, and I'm not the 2008 set of infill um rules were very comprehensive um and a little bit reactionary.

So they sat down this group of architects and builders and and planning commissioners and said, you know, oh, everybody should really be able to build a two story house with pet 25 feet tall.

But the minute you start talking about whether or not a lot has grade, like Alexandria has a lot of hilled or hilly areas, um, that takes away how tall the house can be and the ceiling height requirement or expectations have changed over time.

And so as you start to whittle away at that, the 25 feet, the the builder is gonna take away the where the the experts measure that so you know that there, and this is sort of gets to um Alicia's point too that you know there are opportunities to refine the zoning rules, even if we do make changes to the uh whether or not that the actual SUB is required.

Is that kind of what's the flat roof problem?

Uh was there an example?

Not flat, but they they took, you know, don't answer and make that the same.

Yeah, I mean, uh, let's see if we have the same idea.

Like you had this vision of a house that looked nice with a pitch, sure.

And then they took away anything over you know five feet or it was was FAR.

So the builders instead of doing this, did this.

And all of a sudden you have these weird-looking craftsmen with no pit.

You couldn't even see the roof, and that defeats the purpose of it looking good because they were oh yeah, it's because of all livable.

I would have never done that to screen the rules.

Okay.

That's that we've agreed.

Yeah, yeah, that's it.

It was it was FAR and height.

The 25-foot height limit was part of the problem.

That if you talk about how height is measured, then to get to 10 foot ceilings, if you if you're whatever, nine foot ceilings plus grade and the attic, they're gonna uh shrink the the uh pitch of the roof to to achieve the height limit and the FAR.

Um again, I think I we I basically spoiled all of these.

Um the uh there's a question of you know, do the do the especially the vacant substandard lot rules um reflect the city's current housing goals again in 74 um and 2008, they were in response to um concerns in the neighborhoods that in 74 the houses are too small and in 2008 the houses were too big.

Um, and so you know, do these do the current set of rules reflect uh councils and the city's current sort of housing goals?

Um the last point I have before we get into sort of our draft policy recommendations and discussion is that the process likely adds cost, and buyers may bear the the cost of the of the SUP process.

That an SUP SCP application takes time and money.

Um, there are application fees, a lot of people hire attorneys, um, and there's a lot of uncertainty with approval.

Um, and you know, we haven't done our full research and homework on this, but it's our suspicion that these costs get built into the final stack price and may affect the price of the home.

And I asked is our realtor.

I first want to be go on the road and be very clear that it's very important that people hire attorneys, they're very, very important.

I think that part of it should never be taken out of this.

That being said, I mean, some of them are the best.

You're sitting in the room, but that means that um 100% last line is not true.

Because we're we're market-driven, right?

Truthfully, you know, I being being on both sides of that equation.

I mean, you buy and determine what you can sell it for.

The cost is going to be your cost.

Like as someone not familiar with real estate at all, like sure, maybe on the first sale of the house if they're just constructing it to build it and sell it, but I can't imagine how that would translate down the line where they can say, Well, we put so much into this house on the front end to try to get it approved, and now you're paying more.

Like that just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, yeah, I mean, I I think I'm a little bit on both sides on that, because again, I I think the process can be way too onerous and is unnecessary and sometimes ridiculous for staff and for anybody involved.

And that I agree to the same time, I think that last part's a structure.

So when a developer or homeowner, I guess somebody if there's a sale that precedes the the application for the special use permit, the buyer is gonna try to negotiate a lower price because they know they have to go through the special use permit process.

But but yeah, and I had one I just sold that's going to go through an SUP process, most likely.

And um and you know, he paid a little bit less because he had most likely gonna have to go through the process, but the purchaser is not going to bear the problem of that.

You know, it's a market-driven world, so it's worth what it's worth when it's finished, regardless uh of the SUB process.

But I I still not really understand if you sell a home for a million bucks, you're gonna sell for a million whether you went through the SUB or you didn't.

You're gonna eat the cost of the legal fees and stuff.

You are going to eat the cost, especially if a great attorney and it's well worth it.

But I mean, again, like 30 years down the road, you sell your house, nobody's gonna look back and say they spent tax thousand dollars on all of these fees and applications.

So we're gonna tack that onto the price.

Right.

And you and again, you know, when you're buying the property in the city of Alexandria, these guys have a wonderful reputation.

You know, you're going through that process.

There were going to be cost you're gonna be or to do this.

Do you want to buy it?

Right.

So I know I had a time.

Well, I agree with a lot of that.

It does take time, money, well worth the tired attorney.

Yeah, I think we all agree on that.

But that last line is not gonna really hold.

I mean, I think that's the price of doing business as a developer.

It is cost of the business.

Just like when you donate pieces and you you make profits and you parks and you you do this, that they didn't change the price for sold for that, just changed your profit potentially.

So if you're if your goal is to make the developer more money, that line would fit in better at the end.

And I wouldn't disagree with that part, by the way.

Well, our goal is to not is if there is an impact on the price, the final sale price of the home that the price is lower hypocrite.

That's 100%.

You you the government that we're I don't remember your name here, but she and I are going to agree that the government's not dictating the price.

It shouldn't do anything to it, do anything for that.

The market is going to do that.

But then I also agree, you know, again, being ridiculous they have to go through a process for no reason makes no sense by definition, it's more but then the then the developer or whoever's doing the construction is just going to eat the cost that was lost to the yeah, I mean, you know, I have a proper lesson for 750, but it was worth 750 if you didn't have to do it, he paid 725.

You know, it's just the seller is going to do it.

I mean the seller's going to eat it.

Again, that that line I would probably put, but but all the other stuff's not.

Or if it's not worth it, do you eat the cost and they just wouldn't develop it?

Just like you, you know, you again if there were if there were rules in place that were like clear and actionable, then we know some of this, yes, does need to get addressed and making it happen as rules.

But for we know when we buy a property, every property I bought, I know exactly what I'm getting myself into.

You know, you call down in the city, make a phone call, it's really clear.

You know, you can see what direction you take a risk.

You know that there's phenomenal lawyers in town that you can work with to make that process so much.

So that's the direction you need.

I'm glad we had it on the slide because it's you know, it's something that isn't necessarily our like we're the zoning people, we don't know about how buying property and selling it and yeah, look, I think from the goal of of more housing and all that, that it's a great line for that.

Like it's you know, that that that that but it's it's just not real.

It's just like I we're all gonna agree a little in different things.

I I don't think you're gonna create affordable housing, but you are gonna create by definition more affordable.

You know, it may be only a thousand dollars less, more housing.

It will be cheaper again.

To her point, you know, the unintended consequences of your zoning changes that you guys did, whether you help to break it out now, is you created a situation where it's a lot that was worth $900,000 is now worth $1.25.

So now the seller makes $300,000 more because you created duplex lots that he could do.

No builder almost is going to build any more detached houses because it doesn't pencil anymore.

You're making one two a million $250, you're doing duplexes.

So, and from a developer's point of view, you you don't sell a home for $2.7 million, you sell for 3.6 million.

So the developer makes a lot more money.

It's a win for the developer, it's a win for the seller.

The argument is it'll win for the purchaser, probably still is because now you can't buy a Dcash number two seven, you can afford it, so you can afford a 1.8.

Not necessarily affordable, but more affordable than two points up.

So I mean, but yeah, every but every DC home that gets built now is gonna be 2.9 or 3.2 million now because it's a supply and demand, there's nobody gonna build you guys have created an environment which you want, right?

More, and then that's what's gonna happen.

I just point for um getting rid of the SUP entirely.

I just feel like um it was really helpful um to have the SOP in our circumstance because it allowed me an opportunity to participate and know what's going on in the neighborhood.

So that was removed entirely.

I wouldn't know any, I wouldn't know.

I wouldn't even know that.

No, but I mean I think it's another wrong.

I think it's a very important strength and balances system to have.

And so um, you'd be like that's taken away more and more in the stand line with our government.

And so I feel like taking this away too is just following that trend.

So who's who's policing what?

So quite an intro to the next slide.

know what's going on in the so that was removed entirely it would be problem I wouldn't I wouldn't know how wouldn't even know that no but I mean I think it's another I think it's a very important strength and balances system to have and so it'd be like that's taken away more and more in the stand line with our government and so I feel like taking this away too is just following that trend so who's who's policing what quite an intro to the next slide um you know so this is our draft point of view we had to put a uh stake in the ground somewhere to just sort of start the the conversation um these are subject to more consideration and more conversations and um more research and discussion and all that um so right now we're feeling that retaining the existing lot without frontage requirement and process is the the approach that we'd like to take um that process i i didn't touch on it because we're kind of we were hoping to leave it in place um but i that has been a requirement in the city since 1966 um that's when the special use permit was uh it's introduced for uh lots without frontage um and so our current line of thinking is to retain that um it has worked uh well ish for plenty of properties in the city um and so keeping it kind of as is is sort of not by as is i mean leaving it in structurally in place maybe um some of the things that were helpfully brought up tonight about clarifying what words mean and stuff like that could could really help uh improve the process a little bit more um uh but that's the I would say probably the good news for most of you is that we're right now our policy our position is to retain the existing requirements for that's the question I know we're wrong this I'm sorry what does that mean like what are the requirements bro like you are required to get if your lot requires uh frontage and you don't have it then you need to get a special use permit to obtain permission to build on that lot if your lot just any lot blanking any lot if your lot doesn't have frontage no way you know like you need a special use permit to get frontage to build on a non shape frontage well to what's that build just to exempt from nothing yes yeah correct no well again that's two different things that's why I'm asking what we've gone over this but you know so I know but but that's where if we keep something that is meaningless what's the point of keeping it I mean I'm being honest when it's because so you need the the the existing law without frontage requirement in process requires that a lot get get an SUP to exempt it from frontage.

If you have zero frontage then there needs to be a process we feel at this point in time that council can say no because you don't you can't access your property if you're a landlocked piece of land you don't have any way to get to it then there needs to be a a way that would the council can compel an owner to or not compel but get an owner to work with neighbors to get easens or something like that.

Don't those two counteract each other then to allow by right development then the front end requirement is not even does it matter.

So substandard lots in this case will are not including lots that don't have any frontage they're including lots that are deficient in size frontage or area if you're to that's the current definition.

That's the current definition of of a substandard lot so uh a lot without frontage um is its own sort of pocket it's all yes zero frontage not zero frontage whereas if you were you know say uh lot in in Delray some of those are like 40 feet wide instead of 50 feet wide you'd be uh uh deficient in in frontage by 10 feet but you have but you have frontage a lot without frontage doesn't have to be subscribed there are lots of lots and more voltage yeah that are interior lots and have no frontage but they meet all the the lot dimension requirements and this no crime we did one this grade building so yeeton cordon supposed to be blair cordon so fear all said no um but you're talking about clusters like what do you think what do you mean they're a pattern in oh in part grade area was to have a loss with like an H almost with a big lot in the middle okay and those lots don't have frontage but they're huge lots and several have housing or some reuse for parking in the old days on a subdivision used to put like reserve for parking or something because you didn't have common area associations.

You were you were talking about the um the frontage and the it would be buildable other than correct.

So it a lot that has no frontage, it falls under um what we call an out lot because an out lot um it because it doesn't have any any access to it.

Um a lot that's deficient in front edge would just be a substandard lot where it doesn't meet the zone minimum for frontage, and so what Sam was saying is for lots that don't have any public street frontage or these outlots, um they would still go through the full the SUP process that's in place, but then for other substandard lots, um like the one you brought up that you developed a few years ago, that would hopefully be a buy-right process, because it's only deficient in frontage, yeah.

No, no, I think I understand, but but so I guess the question mark in there in the slides, correct?

But I mean question mark again goes back to if a piece of land meets all the requirements within its zone, but for street frontage, that was would be what you would use the street frontage, correct.

You mean that would be correct and SUP?

Correct.

So it's it it's an interesting point because that was kind of the point I made before when we had that discussion, was what you just said, which is how the zone the ordinance reads.

If a lot meets all the requirements, like the old town ones you're talking about, none of those are substandard lots, none of them, not one.

They all meet the requirements of the zone they're in, but for the street frontage, it can then be deemed to have street frontage what if a special use permit isn't is granted.

Right.

That goes back to the substandard lot question, which does not meet any of the requirements in the zone it's within, meaning it cannot be given street frontage.

Right.

Because it's what you just said, it's exactly the way you framed it, is the way that it orbits rates.

It does not read if we go and give it a special use permit to build, then we can go back and get a street frontage.

If we're going over the specifics for 404A, I don't really feel like this is the right time.

But the facility just what you explained.

That's and just we're I think we're on the same page.

I think that that's great.

That's all the way you explain it's exactly how already.

So that that makes me happy.

Thank you.

So just to repeat, go ahead.

Oh, I was gonna ask a totally different question.

Go ahead.

So just to repeat it, if it is substandard, but it has and but it and it fits all the the conditions and it has street frontage, um, then it wouldn't need uh to apply for an SUKE.

Great.

That's the direction we're thinking, correct?

So not a percentage, just well, that part is still kind of refining you know, yeah.

So can I switch to can I go to this buy-right development of most substandard lots?

What would what is that word most mean to you?

So that's the piece that we still are refining.

Okay.

Um you know, does it mean 75% of the lot requirement?

You know, that's kind of ABC, but not D or something that you're still working on.

So then my next question is with the changes of zoning for housing.

It was my understanding that that opened up the buy the opportunity, the buy-right opportunities.

Am I not correct?

Yeah, I'll have me on here.

We got the week of the code green.

So most developed substandard lots, most of the substandard lots that we're only talking about developed at this point, could be converted to multi-units, like you because of the way the zoning changes, zoning for housing expanded the options, you could build an addition on your substandard lap if you keep most of your initial building.

So the wheels came off anyway.

They don't need SUPs, R.

But that's an existing thing that right.

So they don't they don't a lot of buy-right development has been expanded under the zoning for housing changes, isn't that correct?

That condition if we're talking about the thing in your backyard, that was the that was an existing uh allowance that if you had a developed substandard model, you can add on to it.

Right.

So that's what I'm saying.

Doesn't that not, I'm not necessarily talking about what the structure behind me, I'm talking about in the city that couldn't couldn't I take my home, if it was on a substandard lot and do an addition if I hadn't and within my FAR and add multiple units.

So that is isn't that what we're talking about?

If I was missing frontage, if I'm at um 30 frontage instead of 40, can't I just go ahead and do an addition?

If I've got a little tiny 600 square feet on my 5,000 lot, couldn't I just go ahead and do that anyway?

Because it's already developed.

I'm keeping the foundation.

Do you think where I'm saying I think where you're confusing me, Eve is that the if you're you're talking about an existing rule and sort of mixing it with what we're proposing that we are right now, we're sort of where we're thinking is that we'd have to do more research in German if by rights of a buy right development of substandard lot includes multi-unit buildings.

That's because that's we don't know the answer to that yet.

Because that's where I was headed.

It was my thought was well, we put the these multi-units in that are now by right.

So okay.

So it's sort of like two things that we haven't decided together.

Yeah.

If you were to tear it, tear your house down and build a new one right now, that requires an SUP if it's a substandard lot.

Right, right, right.

But I'm talking about like converting or addition or whatever.

I'm okay.

But you're really talking about by right development of developed substandard lots.

And yeah, either full like tear down redevelopment, it has a structure of some written on it.

Correct.

It has those, you could do this, the three things you could.

And you're saying that you're looking at because they're already developed.

Is it necessary for additional an additional process, an additional SUP?

If you want, I'm just trying to get it all together.

You can tear down and build the identical footprint SUP, but yes.

As long as it's not any bigger top of it.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I think it's very specific.

So this essentially would just kind of give a little bit more flexibility to that current rule.

So sort of take out those three conditions.

Yes.

Bite, yes, right.

Yes.

Okay.

So I primarily came here today because I was interested when I saw lot that you were looking at lot without frontage.

So I'm not really concerned about that in the R zones, because that's going to be rare pew and far between cases.

But that is very common to see in townhouse developments recently.

Because they'll have like basically all the recent townhouse developments, they're accessed via private alley that goes to the garage in the back.

And then it's common for like, you know, some of them to have like a central courtyard where some of the townhouses are fronting on the central courtyard rather than on a street.

And so it's like very common for townhouse developments to have to request an SUP for that.

Even though, like often when I'll like look at the stop report, it's pretty clear that like staff prefers building townhouse developments that way now, but you still have to basically request special permission for city count from city council for a method of building townhouses that is actually the method that staff prefers now.

So that's kind of what I was interested in.

So that's why I'm surprised to see that you're not looking at making changes to that.

So some I I don't want to like be pedantic, but there are a lot without frontage, also specifically means um in most cases, uh that it's on a public street.

And so the townhouse development, some of the ones you're describing are in private streets.

Um, so they're we're running up against a we're trying to fix this sort of isolated or what we feel is hopefully of isolated problem of substandard lots and lots without for front.

Well, we're thinking about lots without farms, but now aren't the I think what you're sort of getting toward is is maybe belongs in sort of a larger package of making housing easier to build, um like in a zoning for housing tube type of thing.

Okay, fair enough.

But that's like if you were to make changes to lots without frontage requirements, which you've decided probably not to go in that direction, but if you were to make changes, would that also apply to to townhouse to to townhouse zones, townhouse lots?

Not in this like current hat or whatever how whatever analogy you want to use.

Like this project is more focused on like the residential zones that are those sort of lower density, like not townhouse ones.

I see.

I think many of those townhomes, which I actually agree with.

I agree, but many of those townhomes.

They'll have like parking thing as for street frontage, not necessarily the towns, because it makes more sense to put them in a U shape or whatever we have the courtyard in the middle of open space and green.

But then, you know, but generally I do prepare you're right.

And that not to color this too much, but there are other ways to achieve what you're describing.

Um there uh is a the thing that I thought Duncan was talking about is the cluster special use permit, which the word cluster is not my favorite, but it um it that can do the sort of creative, unique arrangements where the townhouses face a courtyard or something like that.

Um and that can be achieved in another kind of approval path.

Yeah, and that's I don't want to derail this too much to get onto that, but I was I am kind of curious about why some of those types of developments are getting are like called cluster development and some are not, but they seem very similar to me.

But uh, you know, I know that's not that's not really the purpose of this meeting.

Well, we're happy to with anybody in here and any anyone ever on this project.

We're happy to take time and talk to you individually about you know any of your concerns or suggestions.

So I'm gonna go to the next slide unless anybody's got anything else on this one.

So um next steps to look forward to are um you know, continued community engagement.

We were talking, I think before the meeting started, um, that this is just the first one.

Um we don't have the next one scheduled yet, but we will, and we're thinking that it's going to be a virtual meeting.

Um, just so more people can attend, um, and you don't have to drive as far or wherever, you know, that it hopefully makes a little bit more accessible to people.

Um, we still have a fair bit of background research to do, as I mentioned before, the detailed inventory of the affected properties is a really time-intensive process.

Sometimes we're gonna have to go to Arlington County and go to their land records office because all these subdivisions happened in different places and look at um the lot dimensions that way, and it's it's basically parcel by parcel.

So what we're trying to do is is make sure that we're not doing something um too fast that affects a bunch of properties that we should take more time to do.

Um the other piece that we've hinted at a couple of times throughout the meeting is refining the policy proposal.

So that's stuff like Alicia that you brought up about um, you know, where can we stretch the ordinance to um prevent unintended consequences of too much basement or too much attic, um, that kind of thing, but also to look closely at the uh requirements and make sure that we're not leaving something behind that we want to include.

So that would be some of the the things about lot consolidations in the current um or not lot consolidations, but lot ownership in the current requirements, or should there be a standard about you know what the standard is in terms of how big the lot has to be in order to be developable by right?

Um as well as you know, if there is another approval pathway that's needed that's not the by-right option, what is that?

Is it an admin special use permit?

Is it just still a full hearing special use permit?

Or do we involve the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is um a board that does that still has public meetings, and they just have um slightly different rules and their their purview is a little bit more limited, but they're basically in charge of exceptions from things that regulate the size and shape of buildings.

So they might be a good fit for um cases that where a public hearing is still needed if we decide or if we collectively determine that a um that going to plan commissioner city council is uh is not quite the right fit, but it still needs a public hearing.

Um I think that's the those are the kind of the main points I wanted to touch on on the refined policy proposal slide.

Um I think we mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that next Tuesday we're presenting to planning commission, and that's basically going to be like here's what we talked about at the first community meeting, and we're gonna um try not to bore them with all the the background information um because we have some relatively new planning commissioners that don't know as many um, you know, that might not know the history, um, the fascinating history of this uh this project.

Um, and again, it's just a discussion item.

This is really just us reporting to planning commission and then giving us feedback on on direction, and there's no vote being taken.

So the last piece is that our current target public hearing dates is we're trying to get this to public hearing before the end of the summer.

Um, a lot of this depends on um the research stages that we're still doing um and the next the levels of community um the next community meeting that we have.

Um, but I just wanted to get that out there that this is that's kind of what we're targeting.

Um, and as more information is available and as the schedule gets refined and more dates appear, then you'll see all of this on the website.

Um, one of the things that worked, I thought pretty well for some of our previous text amendments is we did these things that we were kind of calling office hours.

And so that way there's asynchronous times to meet with staff.

Um, if you can't make it to a community meeting, even if it's virtual, that you you don't have to be available at seven o'clock when you're trying to get to their own table that we picked different times during the week that were available at eight to ten that you can sign on and talk to us and stuff.

So, you know, we're trying.

Um, I I'm I in some ways I hope that this is a small ish audience for this conversation because we can have really good conversations.

Um and these sort of uh uh outreach opportunities are are we can be a little bit more nimble when we had a patch of a smaller audience.

So that's that's everything I have for now.

Um I really appreciate you guys coming out here.

It's you know, it's kind of a gloomy day.

So I I personally wanted to go home and eat a bowl of soup and you know Docs.

Yes, exactly.

Could you define the 10 define what you're doing?

Pandantic.

Pedantic.

Oh, it's just when I'm like, well, you didn't, you know, I'm being persnickety about this all our first to be.

I mean like noise.

I'm just gonna Google the second Google.

He does it to me every day.

One thing that this is not the whole we never really talked about what might happen when you look at the things like light and air.

I didn't really get into those nitty-gritties.

I don't know if you intend to put that in the light, air.

And I think and I think you're that the definition of compatibility really could use some good defining.

Because as we know, that's that's a very subjective part.

So the I think that this is well, I don't know.

We'll see.

The light and error question you're bringing up.

What we're proposing here, by right development of a substandard law, if that is the direction we go and no special use permits required, they'll still have to comply with setbacks and FAR and height.

And those rules are also all in place in theory to make sure that light and error is protected.

Um, but that does not mean, you know, as I'm I'm hoping that I'm I'm getting this point across that it there doesn't that doesn't mean that there might not be room to refine some of these requirements to make them fit better when there is not that level of scrutiny at Planning Commission and Council that if the lot is, you know, for example, if the lot is a certain narrowness and it's too narrow, then what does it mean to still provide setbacks and that kind of thing?

And like how are you going to prevent um undue impact to your neighbors?

So hopefully yeah, I mean, I don't I've like my background anymore at all.

I lost my sunlight.

So that's sort of where I was coming from with that one.

Is I've seen in other SUPs and all of that where they put light projections, but then why it didn't happen because it was by right.

And so I would you know, come stand in my backyard one day.

And I I don't want to continue to, I don't want to repeat myself too many times, but there are unique and it's kind of on theme, but that lot may not have been zone the right zone.

Might not have been.

And so the side yards are are small because it's supposed to be on lots more, you know, typical of that neighborhood.

Um, if it's a higher zone, a higher or lower density zone with a higher number, the setbacks are bigger.

Yeah.

Well, I think because it was built as an addition, also if off the shape of the existing structure, the way it continued.

I don't know.

I'm I'm just saying, like I'm not what's I'm not talking about, I'm just saying light and air are very important.

Yeah.

And so when we take guardrails off, certain important things don't get looked at, don't have to be looked at it.

And maybe, you know, and again, I'm generally against a lot of too much government intervention, but I do think that there's a purpose of government.

And that's true, yeah.

Right.

And I I do think like again, I might differ with some people in here.

I do think it needs to be slowed down for sure.

But I do think they're doing these cars.

You know, we we've we've morphed over the last few years on the compatibility issue, what that means to you, you know, and again, I remember applying 15 years ago, and staff sat there with me and said, we think homes on this block have more windows.

We think that homes on your blog have a feel of these one of these, you know.

I mean, all and I mean I actually think that's cool.

It doesn't need to be a you know, uh architectural review board.

I think that gets a little more onerous, but having guidance to have a product that everybody likes, not just the person building it, not just the person that's buying it.

Like not just those two people because we all everybody has a stakeholder in any of these substandard lots because we live or up.

So you know, while that I do think it's the process is way more onerous than it ever needed to be on on the majority of properties, not all of them, but majority.

I do think there should be some guidance from we we assume people such as yourselves are well-versed in the code, well-versed in what things should look like, or you know, and those kind of things.

You know, otherwise you wouldn't be planning.

I think having your knowledge is important in in a lot of cases, at least for some guidance.

And again, maybe you maybe it's a streamline process.

You don't have to get rid of it completely, but but you know, you need to have a certain basis of what you should do, what we're happy with.

And once you do that, you can bath scope, you know.

I was just thinking, um, one of the nice things about the SUP that we're dealing with on East Alexandria is there's a beautiful silver silver maple.

And because of the interaction with the developer, he's gonna try to protect that now.

Where if it was by right, you probably wouldn't think it would just be like a personal relationship kind of thing.

Like, it's a really nice tree.

So there are some good sides to like your light mirror things.

Like there's some things that it allows.

Yeah, that you can't do it at the staff level.

You need to be going to a board where they're making a discretionary approval to to make those kind of things, those considerations.

Um I didn't catch that.

That there are certain things that are the staff, like we have to, if we're gonna make things by right, we have to be really creative about how we craft those rules so we aren't giving ourselves too much power, you know, that we're not saying that that Katie's not going out to a site and evaluating evaluating the impact on a tree, then that should be being made by public by elected officials.

That if there's a decision being made that that is discretionary, then it's being made at the right place and not at the staff level.

Yeah.

So can I just ask, am I correct to assume my understanding of this is that it sounds like maybe your plan is not to completely remove the entire process, but to modify summary?

Okay.

Kind of I mean, it sounds like it's gonna be by right if they well to have straight three.

So I mean, my what I wrote here was like if the whole process gets removed, how will the public and neighbors be notified of development ahead of time to waste concerns regarding the trust balance?

So I mean it again.

You wouldn't be right.

Yeah, but I mean, so I feel like there's still some place for this.

It just needs to be revered to the days.

The staff is always gonna look at it, right?

It's just a matter of whether city council is gonna have to vote.

Correct.

Or if there's any dialogue with the neighbors, that's what she's doing.

Yeah, like dialogue neighbors, you know.

Yeah, by right, they don't.

I mean, by right is by right.

You can't stop it.

You can't, you really can't architecturally, there's no real comments on architectural.

It's just the uh just it's code, smart zoning.

You make you're within 12 feet, 12 foot and seven foot and seven foot, and you're hiding, then you go on.

So I guess where do you want to say that there's any way of having an opening in there?

So it could be feedback that makes positive change for everybody, you know, or if it's just it's not a it's not entirely all or nothing.

It's you know, it's there can be opportunities to flex the code to have things that go by like for for example in 2008, again, the giant infill package.

There was an instant they instituted a 25% canopy coverage with that um requirement for teardowns and rebuilds in certain zones.

And that is an enforceable thing because when I review those plans, I can look at the thing and see that yes, 25% can't canopy coverage is met, and so I can approve it.

I'm not making a discretionary approval.

Um the other things that are a little bit more nebulous do require, you know, there that you we we can try to be creative, but there are legal limits to what we can look at if it's not going to a public hearing.

Okay.

Very interesting discussion tonight.

Yeah, Marina, I'm sure you're wet.

Oh the line walking in from the came out there with the colour.

Mr.

Blair walks in and then walks in.