And 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 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, except for 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 step up to the podium located at the front of chambers when your name is called and identify yourself by first and last name.

The city encourages and welcomes public comment 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.

Please speak directly into the microphone to ensure all can hear you clearly.

And with that, are there any changes to our docket tonight?

No, there are not.

All right.

And Director Stoddard.

Yeah, madam chair, if I may, uh, regarding item number four uh scheduled for your docket, uh 404A East Alexandria Avenue, the special use permit application.

Uh staff was made aware of a uh noticing error that occurred on this application.

Uh of course, with any SUP application, there's ample public notice given in the form of newspaper ads, placarding, uh mailing of letters.

Uh in a in this situation, uh, one of the letters that's required to go out actually went to the prior owner of record uh rather than the current owner of record.

Uh given that the other forms of advertisement went out, but this one was an error.

Uh it's it's certainly fair for the for the planning commission to consider deferring this item until a future meeting uh so that staff can work with the applicant to renoce the application.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, I'm I'm inclined.

Um as much as deferring on technical technicalities is not fun.

I'm inclined to recommend deferral or ask that uh my fellow commissioners make a motion to recommend deferral.

Um, and this is primarily so that the deliberations that we have are fairly heard by everybody on this case.

This is not one of those cases where it's a shoe-win.

You know, we have people on both sides who have a lot to say about it.

And um I think we are best positioned to have that um be a clean discussion with a clear um recommendation that goes forward to council if we defer.

So I'll take a motion on that.

We're gonna act on this now and take it off the docket and then we'll go through the docket that we can act on.

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

If we we agree to defer it, we will do do so now so we can um that that also lets anyone who might be here in the audience tonight for that item go ahead and go home instead of waiting.

Um Madam Chairman.

Vice Chair Kennedy.

I would move to defer docket item number four, special use permit 2026 00013 404A East Alexandria.

And I will second that.

Great.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Hanagan a second by Commissioner Manor on the table.

I will ask um Director Stoddard for a small clarification, which could have been the recommendation.

Is it staff's opinion that this is just a one-month deferral because we'll just re-notice it correctly to fix the the missing glitch and then do this next month?

Uh well, uh uh, so in this case, I don't know that you need to defer to a date certain, but yes, for the public's awareness, we anticipate that we would renoce the item and then it would be heard at the planning commission's June, uh, the first June hearing.

Okay, but the motion is fine then as as it stands.

Yeah, just as a general deferral.

All right, terrific.

And with that, a motion on the table and seconded.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carry.

Oh.

Okay.

Did you want to say anything to that?

Uh well, yeah, um, my understanding that the person who did not receive notice notified that they did not receive notice.

So they actually do know about the hearing.

So okay uh I think it would be okay to proceed, especially since all these folks are here and have made the effort, but I deferred to the commission's opinion.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we've got a vote um of six in favor and one opposed.

All right.

So I think that that deferral passes, and we will see this item again soon.

All right.

That brings us to our consent calendar.

Items two and three.

Are there any items on consent that are pulled by the public?

Yes.

We have a request to pull docket item number three for 411 Clifford Avenue.

This is subdivision 202601.

All right.

Um that means we have one item, uh, item three is deferred.

Is there any or pardon me?

Is it a pulled for discussion?

Adam Chair.

Yeah.

Just a clarification.

Item three is um we will hear off uh on the regular docket.

Right, just pulled off consent.

Right.

Yep.

So I item three is off consent.

Um, are there any commissioners who would like to pull item two from consent?

Hearing none, I'll take a motion for approval of item two on consent.

Um, Madam Chair, I move that we approve item two on consent.

That's DSUP 2026 1000 five.

I second.

All right.

I got a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Harris to approve item two on consent.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

And let's go ahead and have that bring us to item three.

Docket item number three, subdivision 2026 0001 411 Clifford Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for a subdivision to redesign to resubdivide an existing lot into two lots with variation to floor area ratio.

Property is zone R25 residential.

The applicant is Teresa Elena Lustig by Duncan Blair attorney.

Good evening, commissioners and madam chair.

Um we are looking at a subdivision for 411 Clifford Avenue.

This is not working.

Maybe Ted can help you out.

Ted, can you have a thank you?

Okay, thanks.

You can go to the next one, Ted.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry for about that.

Okay, so they are requesting a two-lot subdivision with a variation um in the FAR requirement for proposed lot 501.

Uh the key elements here are that both lots would be uh consistent with the surrounding dwelling or surrounding lots.

Um, and that we've found that the substantial injustice exists.

And you can go the next slide, please.

So you can see here uh it's um occupied by a single unit dwelling.

It's in the R25 zone.

The existing dwelling there is a contributing structure to the town of Potomac, which it's not locally regulated, but it is a nationally recognized district.

Um, it's in the Potomac West Small Area Plan, and the surrounding uses are residential, and then there's commercial to the immediate east there.

This is the existing lot configuration.

It's two and a half lots currently.

A lot of lots in Delray are made up of multiple lots.

Um and then you can go the next slide, Ted, please.

This is the uh lot uh configuration that they're proposing.

Um, as you can see here, lot 501, which has the existing dwelling that they are intending to keep um would 501 would not meet the FAR requirement, the existing dwelling.

Um, so they are asking for that variation there.

Uh both lots would comply with the lot with frontage and area requirements for semi-detached dwellings in the R25 zone.

It's just the FAR that would be slightly over for the one existing unit there.

You can go to the next slide.

Um, with the variation standards, uh, we found that the strict application of the ordinance would result in a substantial injustice because it would not allow a subdivision to occur that uh uh preserves the existing house.

Um, and they there are complying lots here.

Um, it's just that the FAR again is the slightly above what is permitted.

Um, because they're not proposing with this any increase in um the existing dwelling.

We found that the land use purposes of FAR are upheld because the the existing structure is staying the same.

Um again, there's consistency with the R25 zone and the surrounding development.

There's plenty of other semi-detached right along this strip in um on Clifford Avenue here.

Um, and that the special circumstance that's required for to apply for variation is that these lots were uh created prior to 1952.

They're created back in the 1890s.

Um, and then the existing dwelling, again, uh, because of existing structures, uh, was created in 19, was built in 1915.

Um, so that's what creates the special circumstance here.

And you can go the next slide.

Um, and staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions.

Um, you should have received a few letters uh from or a letter.

I can't remember how many there were from the neighbor, uh, I believe at the the directly next door um that they are opposing the subdivision.

Um so I just want to make sure you guys are aware of that.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for staff?

I have a quick question.

So um I asked this previously, I believe this is a pitched frame clabbered house.

And and the proposal is that a new built house would be attached to that house, right?

Because it has to be on the lot line.

But that would essentially require some reconstruction of the roof because you have a soffit that goes over that property line.

And so when I asked earlier if that existing house could come down, because we're only talking about lot lines, there's no requirement that it stays, but that is being used as the special circumstance for allowing the subdivision.

And so my question is if that existing house comes down because you can't build two adjacent houses successfully, does that then mean that the additional FAR goes with that property, that they could then rebuild a new building that is in excess of allowable FAR?

Uh no, that's not what would occur.

Um because the lots as again existing are compliant.

It's the FAR of the dwelling that is what is over.

So if anything was redeveloped there, it would all have to comply with the existing code.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I have one quick question on slide five.

Just to make sure I understand all the lines.

Are you able to go back?

Sorry.

To slide five.

There we go.

Yep.

So this says existing lot configuration.

Oh, that would that green line is wrong, right?

Yes, it's supposed to be where the 502 line is.

Yes.

I see.

Yep.

Okay.

I will I can fix that for city or for next time.

For next time.

I'm I apologize for that.

That's that's an error on my part.

No, it just to make sure that I understand the difference between that that slide and the imagery on the other slide.

Thank you.

I completely missed that.

Thank you.

It's the Venn diagrams of the lines.

Um, okay.

Great.

Um, with that, if there are no other questions for staff, um, can we open the public hearing, please, Ms.

Jacobs?

Yes.

Our first speaker is Ashley Preston, followed by Duncan Blair, the attorney.

Um, so I am the flat right next door.

I am in opposition.

Um, my name is Ashley Preston, and I'm against the subdivision of the property 411.

I'm also in a single family home, which is actually registered as a historic home next door.

Um we have there's several problems that we see happening um if this were to go through.

Currently, right now, uh there is very limited to no street parking because of my historic home.

I am not allowed to put a driveway into my uh front yard.

It's not allowed to have a slip or anything else because it doesn't meet current requirements to allow that slip to be put in.

Um because of that, it's very it's becoming a very big difficulty trying to park and unload my family to get into my home every day.

The city has made promises so far for several years over the improvement and flow of traffic up and down our street.

And we've been told of a possible cul-de-sac, uh, making this a dead end, separating where the businesses are and the homes are.

Um, lots of variations that have been proposed over about eight years ago.

There are 15 children on our block, 13 under the age of seven, and our street has become a cut through for all vehicles um coming around in the neighborhood.

Sorry, I'm a little nervous.

I apologize.

Um, adding another home won't reduce this.

It's going to continue to make things worse.

I am one of the two homes on the street that does not have a driveway using street parking.

To be clear, like I said, ours is too close to have a driveway slip to be put in.

The city also approved a special use permit for um for essentially houses up from this for an organization called Mother of Light, that it's during the city meeting, they agreed with the city that they would not allow any of their workers to park on the street and that just homeowners would be able to park on the street and they would car pull over there.

This has not occurred.

And the workers park on the street as well as all of the workers at Braddy.

And now it's becoming worse because of the metro.

People pull up, park, and leave for the entire day with a car on the street.

We have two-hour parking, which um is supposed to be monitored by the city and ticketed, but is not usually followed through with it.

Since the city's approval of the mother of light SUP, the weekday parking is unavailable.

In addition, the city also approved Mother of Light for a large trailer to be put into their parking lot, eliminating all seven of their spots.

As a city taxpayer, I can't park on my own street with two young children in car seats, uh, so that workers of Mother of Light and the Bratty uh building can park closer.

Umthough that doesn't seem like it's it has anything to do with the subdivision, it does.

My house is directly next to what is being subdivided.

The city continues to say yes to everything.

More homes, more projects, more of everything, and no consideration of the current homeowner and changing restrictions, as well as impacting my life as well as others who live on the street and are just trying to park there and live.

Um, where the biggest question I have right now is where will then I park my vehicle while all of this is happening?

Where will I park my vehicle if this subdivision goes through?

And you have two additional families living there in this subdivided property as proposed, and no parking.

And I just assuming with all this going on, I'm also going to have restrictions of no parking again in front of my house with two young children.

I'm going to have to walk up a block to get to my home.

I think it's important for me to speak in opposition because I believe it's not the right thing for our block moving forward.

Due to our past experience with Miss Lustick, there will undoubtedly be personal repercussions for me speaking up.

When my neighbors are contractors have been coming for home improvement projects, Miss Lesteck has the expectation of knowing in full knowledge what's being done with no cooperation to give neighbors when they're getting their home projects done.

She's also unwilling to share any information with neighbors, including misleading one neighbor that she's just adding a bedroom onto her house.

And that's why the city is making her subdivide her property for that.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is the attorney Duncan Blair, representing the applicant.

Oops.

Good evening, Duncan Blair Wire Gill representing the applicant, Teresa Lessig.

Who uniquely in these recent subdivision application lives in the house and continues to live in the house and will continue to live in the house.

This is an opportunity for her to improve her house and yes, uh to create first floor living space with the hope that it's a place where they can live and you know, live in place for a long time.

Uh she will sell the adjacent lot, it will be redeveloped.

Uh the architecture hasn't been uh fully addressed yet.

Uh but that is the intention to make a compatible duplex semi-dached dwelling.

When you do a duplex, 50% of the common walls need to abut.

That's the reason for the variation.

Uh, in most of the cases, you've had recently the existing houses have been demolished.

And so the property line and the new abutting walls aren't based upon existing dwelling, obviously.

So by graining this modification, preserving a house that was built in 1952, uh 15, a house that will continue to be the residence of the owner.

She hopes for a long time.

We'll have a compatible house next to it.

Her house has an existing driveway.

There will be a new driveway in the new house.

The purchaser is not sure if it'll be one or two parking spaces, uh, a tandem spaces, but it will have adequate parking, and we can work with the city on the width to provide parking in between the two spaces.

And again, it's a highly regulated parking area, uh, two hour parking already.

So you residential parking doesn't really help in that instance.

Um, and there's no parking on one side of the street one day of the week and one side on the other day of the street for trash collection.

So I think this is consistent with your policy.

It's great to see the house being preserved and at the same time helping the owner stay in there and continue to live in our own.

Be glad to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Are there questions for the applicant here?

Okay.

No questions for the applicant.

We're good.

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

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

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.

And that brings us to commissioner discussion.

Would anyone like to start?

Commissioner Lanahan, you want to start?

That's what you get for having your mic on.

No.

No, now it's off.

Okay.

Um, no, I I mean, I uh I'm pretty clear that the that there's this exception based on this house staying in place.

I'm not convinced as an architect that you can build immediately adjacent to this house, um, given a SOVAT that would cross the property line or build to the SOVIT, which makes no sense.

So um, and I could be wrong, it was just look I was looking most clearly at the um the the side opposite the newly established property line.

So it seems to me that that you're we're theoretically adding density, which I think is a good thing.

And so I don't oppose the subdivision.

Okay.

Yes, Ms.

Harris.

I actually I want to ask Commissioner Lenahan.

Um in an instance like this, if the subdivision is approved and the building can't be preserved and a new building has to be built, then what happens then is it is no longer compliant with FAR?

That was the same question I asked earlier.

And they basically can't have more FAR than allowed.

So the building could come down and then be compliant.

Yeah, so um we there's a condition in the staff report that requires that anything if it is demolished, anything newly built would have to comply with the current regulations.

So that the FAR request completely goes with the existing building, it would not be grandfathered with the lot.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Um, I would observe that for the standards of a subdivision consideration.

Um, it's my opinion that um I support staff's analysis and that this subdivision proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the nature of the other lots in the neighborhood.

So we're not creating lots that don't conform or inconsistent um with those nearby and with the history of of this area.

Um I commiserate with the parking challenges that were described to us um by Ms.

Preston.

I also don't think that they are fairly at issue in a subdivision recommendation or subdivision decision.

Um, however, I did want to take the opportunity.

I don't know if anyone on is um any staffer online who can really speak to it, but it sounds like they have a building and changing um parking challenge on this street.

And so is there anything that you can tell us um and for the benefit of community members listening about how the city is receiving that information and what what opportunities there are to address it and that that kind of thing.

Uh I thank you for the question.

The uh so obviously sort of managing transportation goes part in part with with managing development, uh, and the city does have a number of programs in place uh that can provide for uh, you know, how is that transition happened between sort of the busier commercial areas and the quieter residential areas?

Uh as noted, these these two, these two, the the boundary between the two here is very tight.

Uh so I'll follow up uh with staff uh and and get a response back to the planning commission as well as the uh the speaker about uh what the status of those requests is.

Thank you.

Because it did sound like um the residents on the street are experiencing some parking impacts related to a non-residential use on the street, and um, particularly if things like um trailers are approved on sites, they're not supposed to displace parking onto the street.

There are there's some sort of basic things here that could be looked at.

And when um approvals like that are zoning approvals, such as SUPs in the past, I don't know for sure if this trailer um falls under such an approval.

There's a zoning process for observing not following the rules of the SUP and then following up on that.

So we do have a few different types of effort that staff can undertake to understand that impact and what's happening there.

Um because that's not the intent.

Yeah, we we want to make sure that um when we are um our non-residential neighbors are still our neighbors, and they need to come into a neighborhood and act like neighbors and in respect that there's um there's a sharing of space and that there's an intended understanding of the amount of impact that they're gonna have on the neighborhood.

Um my notes.

And I appreciated the applicant describing that both parcels will have parking on site in their final design as intended.

Um the one house already does have a driveway.

The new parcel when it's redeveloped will have a second driveway.

So we are not creating a development that isn't also contributing to a mitigation of the parking impact of the people using that site.

Um I think it's a condition of the land use type that they provide a certain amount of parking.

Yeah.

So with that, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Oh yep.

Commissioner uh Ramirez.

Yes, sorry.

Um, just one quick comment.

I think honestly, and in hearing um Ms.

Preston's um uh uh concerns about this development and um the subdivision.

I think we also have to recognize that there is an element here of a um an element um uh development that has happened.

Um that's the metro presence.

Um, that uh the longer term impact and that kind of um radiating out impact um through our neighborhoods of of something that's impactful, um, such as uh um metro development, um, that perhaps the city needs to take a look at some of these um these positive elements that come into our neighborhoods, um, but what that longer term impact might be.

Um, so then again, too.

This is uh you know, a downstream effect of suddenly there's this public transportation element that wasn't there before.

Now people are parking in our neighborhoods.

Um the same thing that goes then, I think with the um uh how we had addressed the the mother of light.

Um again agreed.

Uh you know, having to be neighborly, I think we also have to look at these even farther elements that are happening, namely the metro station and how then that um that may impact through the neighborhoods and how to make everybody neighborly with one another.

So leaning on the city to kind of dive into it a little bit.

Thank you.

Yes, Director Stoddard.

Madam Chair, there was a question that came up about required parking associated with this proposal.

I just wanted to bounce that over to staff.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, uh, just quickly, Sam Shelby for the record.

Um, this is in the enhanced transit area, it's really close to the metro.

So the um, you know, the applicant is stating that they'll provide parking, but it's not actually required parking.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I think though it is not a a requirement we can attach to a subdivision.

This commission would like to see the parking happen on these parcels.

Um that would be consistent with the neighborly conversation that we're all having tonight.

Okay.

With that, a motion.

Uh Madam Chair, I move to approve subdivision 2026 0001 411 Clifford Avenue, uh, based on the staff report and the discussion at the year.

Second.

All right.

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

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

I'd just like to thank the person that put this graphic together to help me understand how to talk into a microphone.

It's very helpful.

Okay, here we go.

All right.

Um that brings us to docket item five.

Docket item number five, development special use permit 2026 10003, 1609 Cameron Street, Old Town Pool Replacement.

Public hearing and consideration of a request for a development special use permit and site plan for demolition and reconstruction of a public pool facility with a special use permit request to operate a congregate recreational facility, the property is zone POS, public open space, and community recreation zone.

The applicant is the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, City of Alexandria.

Good evening, Chair McMahon and members of the planning commission.

For the record, I'm Abigail Harwell with Planning and Zoning.

Tonight I will be presenting with the Department of Recreation Parks and Cultural Activities, a DSUP request for approval to replace the old town pool facilities.

I can keep going if that helps.

Okay.

Staff recommends approval of the DESDP application as it is a funded capital improvement project that will address the community's needs to replace the aging facility for long-term use that will comply with all local and state regulations.

Old Town Pool is a long-standing city facility operated and maintained by RPCA and open seasonally between May and September.

The site is located on the north side of Cameron Street, occupying a little over one acre of a larger 10-acre parcel shared with Jefferson Houston Public School, the Durant Recreational Center, and public passive and recreational spaces.

The site is split zoned with the Old Town Pool and Durant Center on a portion zoned POS with the rest of the property zone RB townhouse.

The surrounding area is a mix of residential and small commercial buildings and within the Braddock Road Metro Station Small Area Plan, which supports enhancing park resources and maximizing the use of public open space areas to satisfy local needs.

The site is also within the Parker Gray Historic District and subject to a certificate of appropriateness from the Bar Board of Architectural Review.

RPCA is proposing to replace all the sites' existing facilities, which are time-worn failing with new modern facilities.

The new pool will still have the eight-lane competition length lap pool with an attached eye pool and a new zero entry family pool, which have which will have a spray play features and a windsale for shading.

The decking area around the pool will be slightly larger with areas of shade and additional seating to accommodate the increased bather load.

Also being replaced is the bathhouse, which will be slightly larger than the existing building with modernized amenities and equipment, and the personal lockers will be moved from inside the building to outside onto the pool deck for easier access, a request of the community.

Important highlights and benefits of the project include a phosphorus reduction more than required by the state, an increase in project area crown coverage from 11% to 43% with the increase of on-site trees, and the preservation of large trees along Cramon Street.

The project has been designed to target the gold or an equivalent and be a net zero of energy use, utilizing large roof overhangs for shade, openings for light, and air on the building and solar panels on the roof.

Community members are very supportive of the replacement project and would like the project to be completed as soon as possible.

The park and recreation commission voted to endorse the project, and the Board of Architectural Review has been generally supportive of the design and endorsed the project.

In conclusion, staff finds the project meets the goals and expectations of the city's master plan, addresses the needs of the community, and supports the continued use of a congregate full use at this site.

This concludes our presentation, and we're available for any questions.

Are there any questions for staff?

All right.

Do we have any public speakers?

No, we do not.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

Motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

And that brings us to commissioner discussion.

Would anyone like to start?

All right.

Commissioner Dubay.

I just want to thank you for the presentation.

It's good to see this pool, which obviously needed to be redone to reaching this point.

Um noticed in the parks and record meeting.

They said it was going to be a one-year construction.

Do you guys know if that's in fact true or is it going to be closed one year at all or two years?

Just a question.

Yeah, we've been um purposefully trying to streamline this process so that we would guarantee a one-year closure, at least a one season.

So the anticipation is we will be open this year.

We would then um go into demolition um, you know, after we get the contract for construction, either very late this year or early 27, and then be able to construct the pool in time to open up for the season in 2028.

Oh, sorry for Jack Browning with the Department of Recreation.

Thank you.

Um, so yeah, commissioner discussion thoughts.

Um, I I just I guess um I have no major concerns with the project as proposed.

It sounds like on a tight budget, it's trying to do what the community needs for this for this community asset.

It's it's very well used.

Um I think that there are design improvements to the surrounding space as well as the pool itself that are going to be beneficial.

I'm a big fan.

Staff has heard me talk about this a lot of the shade that's planned into this, the shade over the pool itself, the shade around the pool.

I'm one of those people who's always looking for shade structures.

And so I will say that in the drawings, there's a bit of um of inconsistency in the like final location of where all the shade will be.

And I would without it's it's um a comment not to be any kind of condition on the project, but but highly recommend that as much space is shaded as possible, even if it's shaded with umbrellas that can be moved around.

Um, because I've never seen anyone arrive at the old town pool and like look for a sunny spot.

You're always looking for a seat that you can get in the shade and you can't find it because there isn't any left.

So um, with with that, I encourage lots of shade, but I think it's gonna be a great improvement.

I think the some of the sensible stuff about moving the lockers out of the building onto the pool side, because what the heck?

I mean, you're just you need to dry off, you need to grab your stuff.

A lot of people aren't changing a lot in in this space.

And like I think it'll make the space more efficiently usable, universal changing spaces for families.

I know that um my family has needed that a lot and actually struggled, even in places like Chinka Pen, where there was just the one room, and then you couldn't like you'd have to be waiting in the hallway for the chance to get into that space.

Um when you need to use a universal changing room as your child gets older and you're not the same gender as your child, then you're stuck and you end up in awkward moments with um other community members who don't expect you to be in that space or don't expect your child to be in that space.

So um I really appreciate that this project is making that shift and providing those resources.

Um I did ask staff um, and maybe staff can talk a little bit more about this project's approach to net zero.

And it sounds like we've got a roof that's ready to hold solar panels, but maybe it's not officially conditioned that it's gonna hold solar panels um upon opening.

But this is one of those lines that we we've talked about a lot because we want to make sure that the city is committing to that.

Um that if it's a matter of the project budget, being able to let it pencil, then we need to be thinking about what it takes to make that project budget, let the solar panels pencil for the actual um delivery rather than being rather than being something we dangle as uh if we need to cost cut, we're just not gonna not gonna move forward with that piece of it.

Yeah, so we have been purposefully designing this to meet the condition, um, so that we do believe that we have sufficient space to put enough solar panels on the roof to bring this to net zero.

Um, but it could be potentially a budget issue.

Um, we are still about six to nine months away from putting this out to bid.

And every delay, as we've known is everything's costing more.

Um, but right now our early cost estimates are actually late cost estimates in the design we are now that we are within budget and that we could provide um that solar um, you know, option, but that we're also in discussion with the city, um other city agencies that if we can't afford it, there is the um cooperative that we can also get into to achieve that goal of having this be net zero um with regard to solar panels.

We have two options.

One would be to pay for it outright within the budget, and the other is the program that the city is looking at with their city facilities.

Other community uh commissioners, yes.

Um, I said this to staff during our meeting.

I'm a huge fan of the old town pool.

My daughter swam in the wahoos.

I'm now part-time lifeguard at Minnie Howard, so I love to swim.

I'm it's it's thrilling to see it be uh redeveloped.

So um thanks for all the hard work and I look forward to swimming there.

Okay.

If there are no other comments, would any commissioner like to make a motion on this project?

I have to get this precisely right though, right?

I make a motion.

Oh this is good.

I moved to recommend uh council approved based on staff report.

No, just special use permit to 2026, 10,000 zero zero three, 609 Cameron Street, Old Town Pool Replacement.

Is that close enough?

Oh right.

We have a motion by Commissioner Linehan and a second by Vice Chair Koenig to recommend approval of this DSUP.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

So this is why I always let you do it.

It was very successful.

Just Christina's mouth.

But only took you one time.

That brings us to docket item six.

Docket item number six.

Zoning text amendment 2026 00002.

Beekeeping zoning regulations, a initiation of a zoning text amendment, and B public hearing and consideration of text amendments to zoning ordinance articles two and 12.

No, sorry.

Seven to define beekeeping and beekeeping equipment, allow beekeeping as an accessory use, allow be keeping equipment as permitted accessory structures and established requirements for beekeeping and beekeeping equipment.

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

All right, go for it.

Good evening again.

Uh Katie McDonald with planning and zoning.

So we'll go through a bit of staff's research for the text amendment and then go into the exact uh text changes.

So we initially started with Virginia's regulations.

They have um codified regulations that uh really focus on these five areas.

Um suppression of bee diseases and bee health, identifying um the APA requirements, colony strength for pollinization, the promotion of sale and distribution, and then of course administration of enforcement of the rules.

Um this is something that every beekeeper needs to follow.

Um, and it's again codified by the state of Virginia.

Um, they also have uh best management practices for uh apiary operators who want to limit limit operator liability.

Um they're not required, it's just if they want to limit their liability.

Um, and these ones again focus mainly on bee health and safety, but they also get into hive water source management, swarming reduction, um, the types of hives and bees that can be kept, um, and then colony density and setbacks.

Um, I do want to emphasize we with colony, the state regulations are specifically looking at the community of bees itself, not the structure and the regulations that we are proposing are focusing on the actual hive structure itself.

Um to the next slide.

We also looked at um other Virginia jurisdictions that have beekeeping ordinances um in conjunction with the state code.

Um, and then we in addition looked at Washington DC, because they are a more urban environment, had the smaller kind of townhouse lots that are similar to Alexandria.

So we wanted to see how they were handling um those kind of smaller lots.

So with that, um, a lot of the proposed tax language is just kind of general things to establish the policy, like definitions and allowing them as accessory uses and accessory structures.

Um, so the meat here is really in the use and structure limitations.

Um our recommendation is for setbacks and the number of hives on a lot.

So the setback is we're that we're recommending is either 10 feet or five feet with some sort of flyway barrier.

And um, in our research, there's a lot of different flyway barriers that people use.

It could be a fence, it could be netting, a hedge, um, some sort of wall.

Um, so there are different options that people have for that.

Um, and then we're also recommending a limit of the number of hives um that lots that are 5,000 square feet or less have no more than two hives.

And then for every additional 2500 square feet beyond that, you can have an additional one hive.

Um, you should have also received a memo uh at the end of last week um with additional language that would permit for um 60 days every year that um in order to prevent swarm uh or in order to prevent swarming um to allow uh beekeepers two additional hives so they can split the hives during that time, and that was based off feedback that we got from uh Northern Virginia Beekeeping Association, as well as a few um uh resident letters from um from people who kept bees.

Um so with that uh staff is recommending approval um and initiation of the tax amendment and can answer any questions you have.

All right, thank you.

Are there questions for staff?

All right, Commissioner Harris.

Um thank you for that presentation.

Um I'm curious kind of what brought this up.

Like, have you had a lot of call for zoning for bees?

Um, and what are uh what are we solving for?

Um, so as far as I'm aware, um, it was from a resident complaint um last year to city council about a neighbor who is uh keeping and kind of running a bit B honey bee business.

Um uh that there was a lot of swarming and um she had been stung and her dog had been stung.

So that then with that complaint council then asked us to look at uh a possible zoning ordinance update for it.

Um and I just thought I have a follow-up, and it's when you were talking about the state.

Um you you said they were guidelines and not requirements.

We're talking about you know, colony health and things like that.

Does the state have requirements like this?

Um so no, go ahead.

Yeah.

So the state doesn't have um it's a little confusing.

So they have codified requirements that are for um really the health of bees and pollination.

Um thank you.

Um but then they also have best management practices for beekeepers who want to limit operator liability.

And um they make it clear in those in that area of the the code that operators are not required to follow the best management practices, it's just if they want to limit their liability.

Um, so that's where the two things get a little different.

Um, so again, that's where with the colony density and setbacks, they do have density and setbacks require like requirements, but it's only if you want to limit your operator liability.

And so then this is codifying it a little bit more just in in the local um area.

Thank you.

And just one more follow-up.

As a as a Dylan rule state, can we impose this as a requirement when the state does not require it?

So I have a lawyer can tell um thank you for that question.

Um, so what we've been doing is uh we've been looking at this and what we're regulating it from is the zoning perspective, and we're looking at it from land use and making sure land uses and and structures and buildings there on are compatible.

So we believe we do have the authority in our zoning ordinance to look at it in that sense that we can regulate it from a zoning perspective, where the focus of the state laws are more of the of the agricultural or the health and safety of um the animals and the people who care for them.

So if this is implemented, you in fact could um keep someone for having from having more than the allowable hives in their yard.

It's enforceable as a requirement for someone in at home or something like that in in this jurisdiction.

Okay.

Okay, because I get a little confused about the state was just if for um reasons of liability, whereas this is really a zoning requirement is very different.

Okay.

And I was very confused initially researching it.

So I understand.

Yes, Commissioner Dubay.

Oh, yeah, thank you for that.

And we talked about this in the briefing.

Can you speak again about the training requirements?

Well, back up just a little bit.

Who would be the person or who's responsible for going out and investigating a complaint?

What kind of training are they going to get?

And I would assume some personal protective equipment would go with that.

For um for these rules specifically, um, the setbacks and the density, um, it would be our our zoning inspectors, and they would be, you know, looking at the things that they can can measure from a land use perspective, the actual setback and like the number of hives.

That's something they can go out and count.

Um, so from that perspective, that's something they couldn't couldn't uh could enforce.

Um from kind of the the hive or the bee behavior perspective, um, that gets a little beyond the the land use area.

So um that wouldn't fall under their their purview.

Um do we know why I I saw that um you all consulted with other jurisdictions to do a bit of a peer review of what's out there.

Arlington was not on that list.

Do we know why Arlington doesn't have an ordinance that that addresses this?

I'm not entirely sure.

Um I think some a lot of jurisdictions, including Alexandria for a long time have just deferred to the state regulations.

Um and this is a little like I I think a unique situation because Alexandria has again kind of these weird lots that in a lot of cases you can't even comply with the best management practices, just how with how the lots configured.

Um and so this at least gives it a little bit more uh it gives us a little bit more something in in our area to to lean on.

Um but for I I'm not entirely sure why Arlington doesn't have have one.

I think it's just they've been leaning on the the state regulations.

Okay.

And I guess I would observe that um it's a little uncommon for us to propose a zoning text amendment because of one community member's experience.

Um when staff were researching what to propose, was there work done to understand that specific beekeeper's choices set up, lot size, number of hives, whatever it was that was was causing there to be neighbor conflict in that operation.

We were not given the entire information until really after the fact.

Um, so we don't know anything about the the lot or or or who it was.

We don't know who that was.

No.

Um we do know that they were operating a home business.

So there are things that can be enforced in in that area.

Um, but that was not provided to us.

Okay.

Um that line of questioning is really to observe that I feel like we're kind of regulating blind here, because what we do often with our text amendments is we have collected years of data on um, like a like for instance would be SUPs that are issued and and there are no problems with how they work in the community, and then we figure out that we can do a text amendment to make something by right, and we sort of accumulate data.

And in this case, what we're doing is we're taking one anecdote and then deriving the need to create code that creates restrictions that don't currently exist on on a potentially several other stakeholders out there, and I'm not saying this is massive numbers of people who are keeping bees in Alexandria, but more than one, and all of those other stakeholders will have to read what we've codified and figure out if it applies to them and how it applies, and it might change what they're doing.

Um I guess I would also well, sorry, okay.

Let me just double check if I had any other questions.

Um and just to clarify, based on my reading of the SNAP report, the engagement for in preparation for this proposal consisted of of um consulting with a member of the Northern Virginia Beekeepers Association as sort of a subject matter expert and then providing their input.

Correct.

Uh we uh talked to one of their members of board of directors who lives in Alexandria, and she uh runs their uh training uh class that they do for beekeeping.

Okay.

And but but there wasn't an opportunity to do other engagement with the beekeeping community for for tonight's item.

Given how small the tax amendment was, we as staff we consulted with each other and didn't think that uh a community meeting was warranted.

Okay.

Um any other questions for staff before we move to public hearing.

I don't see okay.

So we're ready for public hearing.

Do we have speakers on the item tonight?

Yes, we do.

We'll start with John Scott, followed by Joshua Bryant.

Thank you.

John Scott.

Hi.

Evening.

Uh yeah, so I'm a beekeeper, so I've been doing it for about eight years.

Um, actually trained my daughter into it.

So she's been doing it as well since she went to college.

But um, so I think the thing I I stumbled across this, and I think the thing I could kind of had some problems with was like it's not really enforceable.

Um, so example, I anywhere I keep anywhere from like two to four hives.

Now I have five because one swarmed and I had to go go catch it.

Um, but what happens is typically uh I'll lose anywhere between one and all the hives in the winter.

Depends.

Surprisingly, this winter I got four hives through.

Um, just was even though how cold it was, but it got through.

But I've been getting better with like keeping them insulated and stuff like that.

But I think the problem is that like oftentimes when I lose a couple hives, I'll just leave the hives there and the bees will go in, they'll they'll they'll basically scavenge what honey is in there for their own hives.

So the way this was written, you could look from my yard and say, oh, he's got five hives, he's out of compliance without actually knowing that like those hives are empty because we're just being scavenged out by the existing bees, and then at some point I'll break them down and do that sort of thing.

So I think from that perspective, like the the idea that standing off and being able to see it, let's go put people in suits and go open the hives.

That's probably not what you want to get into.

I mean, I do think if you're running a business out of your house, um, I don't sell it, I just give it away to friends and stuff like that.

Um, I think that's a separate sort of issue in terms of if that's being a nuisance there.

Um, I mean, the only thing I think that would actually be would make sense would be a setback.

I mean, I think not having it on your front yard right up against the walkway or something like that makes sense.

Um feet sounds like a good idea.

Um, maybe maybe the barrier as well.

But I think that getting into trying to codify best practices because it's really it's an art and a bit of a science, but it's not really um um, you know, there's a lot of variability there.

And so usually, you know, sometimes bees will just take off.

I've had that happen where they'll just the hives healthy, they'll just they'll just empty the hive and decide they're gonna go somewhere else because they are they are semi-wild.

I mean, they are basically wild instant.

So I think that you know, seeing this come across, I think that uh not really sure how you would enforce this without a lot of training and money and everything else like that.

But I think that the you know, pushing pushing the hives back in the middle of the yard probably is a good idea, but that's about all I got, unless you have questions for me.

Um Commissioner Manor has a quick follow-up question for you.

Sir, I'm just curious what draws you to this hobby, I guess you call it.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's a hobby, it's definitely a hobby.

Um I think back 10 years ago, if everybody remembers there was like this whole colony collapse thing where the bees were all suddenly dying off, and kids start asking questions about it, and we have a big extensive garden, and we sort of thought it'd be sort of a fun thing to do with the kids, which is fun until they start getting stung, and then they backed off of it a little bit.

But uh, but just that this was more fun to do, and then like at some point you make like five gallons of honey, it's kind of cool, and then you just kind of keep it going and then like you kind of keep learning and stuff like that.

So just sort of a different sort of hobby, really.

Okay, good.

I'm I'm a big gardener myself, so I appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, I guess our next speaker is Joshua Burns, followed by Antoinette Bernha.

Hello, um, I just learned about this.

Um, so I made this speech very quickly.

So uh members of the zoning commission, my name is Joshua Burns, and I'm a resident homeowner within the city of Alexandria, Virginia.

Thank you for allowing open discussion regarding today's docket item six, beekeeping zone regulations within the city of Alexandria, Virginia.

I'm here to discuss the implementation regulation and the wording that is proposed.

I recognize that the city council requested the inclusion of the wording establishing provision regulating beekeeping in the interdepartmental work plan in June of 2025.

I'd like to commend the council staff for their work in initiating this process, updating the wording of the ordinance that doesn't exist.

The foundation of this updated zoning has had extensive research conducted to ensure that the health of the bees was paramount to the provision.

We all recognize the importance of bees.

It is undisputed from honey to honey nut Cheerios to their wax and what they can do for you and your neighbor's garden.

We all love and respect bees and what they do for us.

No one is anti-bee.

But bees are scary.

Sometimes people get stung and some people are really allergic to that sting.

The idea of living next to a house that has bees may seem intimidating.

Well, my chances of being stung increase if I live nearby.

How many bees is too many bees to have within a reasonable distance of a neighbor?

I recognize that this issue is being discussed because there was a spot that needed to be filled as we progress as a city and grow from a smaller agricultural-based suburb of Washington, DC to an all-encompassing metro area of its own.

Rules and zoning need updating to ensure the city of Alexandria is as competitive of the surrounding locations regarding compliance with zoning and housing regulations.

I may not understand how all this works, and I'm not going to pretend to, but I am a homeowner and I would be concerned if my neighbor decided to start a full-on honey processing plant in their yard, deciding to go ahead and do it because there isn't a provision regarding what an accessory structure is, isn't very cool either.

We all have to play nice.

We have to live next to each other.

So I would like to suggest that the wording of the updated proposal focus more on the requirements of ensuring that if someone decides to take up the hobby of beekeeping, they're making the decision in the best interest of the animals themselves.

Bees are domesticated animals and they require care and maintenance.

There is a line that should be designated between proper care of a pet and an infestation situation that risks the health of our community.

Can I ask that the writers of this proposed update work with local hobbyists and even professionals within the community to draft wording that focuses on the health and well-being of the animals, being the primary concern regarding proper pet ownership?

Recognize that couple news and oh, I'm almost out of time.

Sorry.

Thank you very much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Bye.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Antoinette Burnham, followed by Jennifer Penisau.

Thank you very much for allowing me to participate here as a guest.

I um our our beekeeping community was explicitly referenced in this process.

And I really do believe that our history with the regulation and remediation of nuisances around beekeeping could be informative to the process that the city of Alexandria adopts.

The um beekeeping in DC with four permitted colonies, excuse me, four permitted hives on any lot size has been in place since 2012.

And in effect, it has been very successful.

However, it was initially enshrined in the city code, something that is very difficult to change and adapt in compliance with changes in science and understanding of bee health, of community dynamics.

In fact, in 2014, the regulation of beekeeping was moved out of out of anything around city code to a regulatory power of a city agency, in our case, the Department of Energy and the Environment.

And in all cases, and I think this board has already realized that zoning is a very difficult tool to use for nuisance remediation, and it's very hard to apply it equitably and across all the situations that beekeepers manage in Alexandria, Virginia.

A suggestions that I would make is we have created a situation in DC where we have regulations broadly similar to the ones that are proposed with significant differences that are the product of dialogue and uh attention to data and science that we avidly follow.

We know that when our bees can fly around our homes, that they are in they have may have sorry, I'm very nervous, they may have impact upon our neighbors, and it is the important responsibility of the beekeepers to take care of those impacts or avoid them in the first place.

I would suggest uh in terms of amendments to the text that instead of just setbacks, that um a proviso for neighbor permission, which is something that exists in DC, be present in order to have beehives present and lots.

One of the things that happens with requiring lesser density is that people of lesser means have less access to this activity.

And one of the things that beekeepers often do in order to sustain financially their beekeeping operations is split out hives, especially into something called nucleus colonies that they may create in midsummer and keep all winter for sale in the spring, financing their beekeeping hobby.

And I I absolutely believe that beekeeping businesses need to be subject to the rules and responsibilities of business.

And I also believe that there are people who are not mindful of the nuisances that they may create for their neighbors, but there are at least 100 beekeepers in the city of Alexandria, 99 of whom appear to be doing a much better job than this.

I do believe there should be regulations.

I believe that they should perhaps be uh created in a means that's somewhat more efficient, uh more adaptable than zoning, and that they be um created in ongoing dialogue and collaboration with the beekeeping community.

Um I'm really happy that's it.

Thanks.

Was there a timer that went off?

It didn't go off.

Oh, okay.

Oh, there it is.

Um thank you, Ms.

Burnham.

Oh thank you.

Yeah, very much for allowing me to speak.

Yeah, thanks so much for being here.

Our next speaker is Jennifer Penisau, followed by Robert Yochum.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Penoso.

Um, my husband is a master beekeeper, but he's not feeling super well.

So I am going to speak against this text um amendment.

Um two hives per 5,000 square feet is arbitrary, quite frankly, and it doesn't appear to be based on any data or any studies.

Um we feel like the community outreach was not adequate um in this um amendment.

It says they spoke to a person, a single person from the board of Northern Virginia beekeepers.

Um the third point I wanted to make that everybody's been talking about is bees swarm every spring.

There's no preventing it.

This is what they do.

Um, so that means for every one hive, you now have two.

So in a 60 days, just a random 60 days where you're going to try to deal with these now four hives instead of two hives is not practical.

Um so this would really inhibit swarm management capture and redistribution, as um Tony Antoinette was talking about.

Um, you know, you you capture the swarm and then you put it in a colony, and then maybe now you keep that one, or you're selling it to someone, or you're keeping it for someone who can't, you know, keep it for themselves.

Um so the ability to have four hives significantly assists in swarm mitigation.

Um, but once again, there's no preventing it.

This is what they do.

They feel like they're um they're propagating their species.

They've been around for 25 million years.

And so this is what they do.

Um, and that would just have a cascading effect throughout the city.

So if everybody, all 100 beekeepers can only have two hives, and now all everybody has four high, you know, what are you gonna do with these other hives?

You're gonna have to take them outside the city.

Um, and then we just we're not sure if staff did any research about the rooftop bees in the city.

So many commercial buildings for their green roof systems, they have hives, some as many as 10 on top of the roofs of buildings throughout the city.

So we didn't see where any study was done about that.

Um, and then also the language, the structure versus the colony or the bees versus the structure is one thing.

So we just feel like there needs to be more education.

Um, okay, I see I'm out of time.

And then also I would was gonna say that when people say they're stung by a bee, you know, there's like 700 kinds of bees, and yellow jackets are usually the culprit because they are super aggressive and they live in the ground.

Um so many people neighbors are stung by yellow jackets and they think they're bees.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, our final speaker is Robert Yoken.

He's online.

Yes, I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yep, gotcha.

Uh thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Uh I just wanted to re-emphasize what uh uh Tony Burnham already said.

Um, if your regulations are meant to reflect what DC has done, we have a very effective program here in DC where we get the consent and the uh of our neighbors.

Um I I want to leave the remainder of my time open for questions.

I don't know if any of the other commissioners have any questions about urban beekeeping, but I'm happy to answer them.

I'm an expert beekeeper on the board of uh both Maryland and DC state organizations.

Um Commissioner Manor has a question for you, sir.

Hello, sir.

I'm just curious, I was surprised to hear about the green roof um aspect of this.

Is that common?

It is very common.

Um, as you can probably guess, um, a lot of businesses want tax breaks for green roofs.

So if you have a beautiful green roof, uh the next reasonable thing is to have honey bees there.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I have a question for you, sir.

Um so in DC's framework, it is there or is there not a hive number per lot requirement or restriction?

There is and there isn't.

Uh there's no setback requirement.

Um, you do have to get the permission uh if you're in a residential neighborhood, so zoned R.

You need to get the permission of your neighbors.

Um, but other than that, um you have, I believe, four hives that you can have per standard residential lot.

Um, and this is as Tony Burnham said, this is regulated by the Department of Energy and Environment.

Um, and they are the one the controlling environment.

In Virginia, it's the Department of Agriculture and the state apiary instruct um inspector.

We I personally have been um in the commercial beekeeping industry for a long time.

And beekeeping regulations in Virginia are much more um uh loose than they are in DC, but it is governed by the state.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I have a quick question also.

So if DOE is regulating in DC, um uh there was sort of suggestion that there's kind of agility in how it works because it's not code or zoning that that it can be somehow updated or mended those requirements.

It did I understand that correctly?

In other words, my question is based on whether in fact we want it as a zoning requirement.

Um now you we may not per Dylan rule be able to do it anywhere else, but I'm just curious about whether it has to live in zoning um rather than another way to regulate use.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um that's that's an excellent question.

Um DC and Maryland, in fact, have not done that.

They have not done the zoning uh enforcement.

It's done through the Department of Agriculture and with and with uh with DC, it's an energy environment.

So whether or not you want to do this or try to initiate this, obviously is in your court, but um I think that the governor and the department of agriculture of Virginia probably are the more appropriate people to handle this, but it that's not for me to decide.

Okay, one more question.

Very pragmatic person.

So does DOE do inspections?

Like how does like it sounded to me like with zoning, someone would uh again are we gonna wait till someone um reports a zoning violation, right?

So so the question about how effectively it's gonna be regulated is open-ended, right?

Someone gonna say, I think you have too many be, you know, hives or whatever.

So in with DOE, do they do regular inspections or is it based on complaints?

No, they do, and absolutely.

Uh within um DC, you are required to register your colonies.

And you are required, you know, with anything.

It, you know, it it is uh based on people's compliance.

So you are required to register your colonies in DC.

And it's mainly as a disease preventative measure.

We don't want to have unhealthy bees in one section of the city that could uh could spread an outbreak.

It's it's mainly a public health thing, uh, a bee health thing.

Um, so you are required to do that.

And the state inspector, quote unquote, of DC, she will go around and she will inspect every single colony for um all of uh the known diseases.

So yes, it is required.

Um as far as Virginia, Virginia does not require this.

Virginia is sort of um loosey goosey about it.

All right, thank you very much.

I'm sorry.

I'm I'm sorry that Virginia is not as strict as DC.

Um to this person or just in general.

I'd like to thank you for calling in.

It was very informative.

Uh absolutely thank you.

Okay.

All right.

That was our last public speaker, correct?

Correct.

All right.

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

Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

I got a motion by Commissioner Canig and a second by Commissioner Manner.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

That brings us to commissioner discussion.

Yes, Commissioner Harris.

Yeah.

Um, with great appreciation to the staff because I know that that you had to do this in response to a request from city council, and it looks like you've done a lot of homework.

Um, I I just don't think this is quite ready for prime time.

Uh, and I think we need there needs to be some more sort of study and then talking to folks that are experts in this and and kind of figuring out first of all, whether zoning is the right way to address this.

Um, and if it is, then you know what what's the right wording and what are the right things to require.

Um that's that's my two cents on that.

But thank you for all the work that you've done.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Dubai.

Thank you.

And again, thanks, staff for all the work you did on this.

Um, back to the Chair McMahon's um point about is there were there any complaints?

Were there any data on any of this?

It was basically uh a council request on their work plan, and now here we are, right?

So I I don't completely disagree with having some um best management practices, whether they're in zoning or wherever, but I do think that we need to pause a little bit and get some community input um before this comes back.

Uh I'm not prepared to support it as it is.

Thank you, Commissioner or Vice Chair Kenig.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Yes, I think um I appreciate the staff diving into this and and they had a mandate to do that.

And we got a point of departure and a baseline of information from their work.

Uh, but I agree.

I think what we've gotten tonight is a lot of a very helpful and uh capable and informed input from all our public speakers, which is extremely helpful.

And I think it it reveals to us, this has been already noted that we have a number of questions that we don't really seem to have complete answers to yet.

Among them, it seems to me they're um a variety of things.

One that there've been well, if the general situation is that Maryland and DC have what seem to be quite competent um regimes for managing both public health and the relationship between beekeepers and non-beekeepers um in place, and we don't, and we don't have the ability to mimic what they've done because our state isn't doing it the same way.

Then I think it is in front of us is something that's a live issue and that we should find some way to address.

Um, but I think we've heard tonight the staff's first pass at it has um raises a lot of questions about whether zoning is the right tool, and uh um despite the best efforts to sort of reduce it to the zoning and land use essentials.

The problem is that doesn't seem to get us anywhere near what it takes to actually manage the bee relationships and human relationships the way they need to be managed.

So to me, that raises a huge question about whether zoning is the right tool.

Um it may end up being our only tool, in which case then I think we just have to work on it to find a way to get zoning to do as much of the sort of public health um operational management that um it needs to be so we don't have a blunt instrument with kind of crude criteria that ends up just making more difficulties um than not.

I think other questions that are raised, the question of whether sort of whether things are a business or a hobby.

I'm I don't want to delve into it more, but I'm intrigued by the original complaint here seems to be something that had dimensions of business nest to it that may take it out of the true hobbyist neighborhood realm, and there may be ways to deal with it from the business perspective rather than from the beekeeping perspective.

Um I have to admit my my initial reaction to the idea that one would uh would just go, we would introduce a process by which one needed to gain the permission of one's neighbors.

The initial my initial reaction, and maybe I'm just old and pessimistic now is that that would be a very difficult thing to do.

Well, that being said, though, I think they're thinking about it a little bit more and listening to it.

First of all, I know of one aspect in the zoning where we still do that, which is if you want to set if you want permission to set an air handler or an outdoor condenser unit outside the limits or within the limits of your adjacent yard, you can do that if you get the permission of your neighbor, but they're not going to be bothered by the noise.

So there does seem to be a precedent for that.

It also seems like the possibility there is if you use that mechanism, you end up with a solution where you have a kind of neighborhood microcosm where you found someone who wants to keep bees surrounded by neighbors who are on the wavelength that the bees are good and that the risks are manageable, and that's a congenial place in the neighborhood for bees to happen.

And if you get to a point where somebody just literally can't come to agreement with their neighbor because they're concerned about the risk or concerned about the kids or just phobic or whatever their legitimate reason might be, that just turns out to be a place where bees unfortunately can't happen.

So I think there are lots of ways to explore this.

The last point I'd make would just be that it does seem to me that outreach it needs to be greater than it has been.

And again, that's not a complaint to the staff's effort so far as much as to recognize that we're just at the beginning um of this.

And I'm also cognizant of the fact that you know, we don't want to we don't want to launch on an effort where we make a gigantic, you know, with a small area plan level exercise trying to figure out what to do with bees.

But I do think there's a legitimate issue here.

It does seem to me that we haven't really solved it tonight, and we've gotten a tremendous amount of really good input about how one might continue to work on it in a way that could end up using uh what may be a not particularly logical tool like zoning to actually get at it or find what the alternative path might really be, which is a really long way of saying I'm not in a position to recommend that we initiate this amendment tonight.

Not that somebody else might know it.

Thank you.

Um any other commissioner comments?

Yeah, Commissioner Atlanta.

Uh so similar to uh previous comment, um, I appreciate staff doing it.

And when I heard about it, I I um it's a lot of work go into you know how to craft this.

Um, but I I also appreciate everyone that showed up to speak because all of a sudden we have this much deeper idea of what beekeeping is.

And if you have four boxes and some of them are empty, it looks like you have too many, or that there are 10 um uh hives on a roof for a green roof.

That I mean that just shows that the depth of or the the the um we don't want a blunt object to regulate this, so there's we need to understand what we're we're talking about here.

So um like everyone else here, I think we need to spend a little more time on it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Um also expressing my um similar agreement in the same vein.

Um, and just hearing all of the feedback that we're getting this evening, I think it's really impactful to understand that we actually probably have a uh um uh solid group of beekeepers, right?

Within the community.

We have a committee, yeah, we can represent it in the committee to um to really think about how we're addressing addressing this um this this business concept.

I think initially when I when I saw this, and I thought it was like, well, I know I know a couple of beekeepers in the city, right?

Um, but that and for the most part, I would say that their approach has always been in a very kind of thoughtful approach.

How do they take care of your bees?

I've seen the stories as well of my entire hive has died, like, oh my goodness, you know, through the winter they couldn't survive.

Um, I was intrigued by the um zoning tax amendment to try to create regulations around a structure that housed things that didn't necessarily stay.

Um, and was uh uh an interesting contrast, I think, in a um like a regulation for something that is a permanent non-permanence.

Um and that for me, I think I it just it um at first I thought, okay, all right.

There's maybe like, you know, we're trying to put regulations on a new business type.

Sure, understandable.

Does it have impact?

Yes, okay.

Check mark.

Um, is it a land use question?

Yes, okay, check mark.

Um, because it is a business type per se, and it is a particular land use.

Um, but that permanence, non-permanence characteristic of these structures, um, I think that brings a lot of questions to my mind.

And partly because I'm not an expert.

Um, and so this is where I'm saying I think that we have um a good um cadre of experts in the city that we need to um work with.

Um, perhaps the more outreach as well.

Um, yeah, for for folks to really understand, like, hey, if this is a true business type that it's coming into your neighborhood as maybe coming to your neighbor's yard um and for um the more folks in the city to be able to provide some input.

Thank you.

Um I think you're hearing there's a sort of a consensus up here or close to a consensus that we aren't ready to recommend approval um of initiation and recommending approval of this this text amendment tonight.

Um, I agree with all of my colleagues' observations and um I guess I wanted to summarize some high level concepts that I felt came up tonight.

One is the nature of enforcement of a regulation that we have over something like this.

And while some things in zoning are very clear cut, um, and we I know nothing about beekeeping.

So I can I can say, oh yeah, it makes sense that I could measure the setback for that hive.

But when I hear, like one of the letters we got wasn't really touched on tonight was that it's not easy to move hives because like you mess up the bees.

They have to orient themselves, like their precise location and where the doorway is to their hive, all of that matters.

So if someone's hive is four foot, four and a half feet um uh from the the setback and it needs to be five with a flyaway barrier under our regulations.

Are we gonna ask them to move it and can they move it six inches without totally disrupting operations?

And is that a thing that we um is that the way we go about enforcing a regulation like this?

Another thing that came up in my conversations is that um there's a lot of variety of our, and you guys actually mentioned this too in our um parcels in our sites and a setback as a zoning tool is still a dull instrument because it's five feet and it doesn't matter what's on the other side of that of that property line.

So there could be a building right there and having a setback from a building on the other side of the line might make a lot of sense.

If it's just open space is is a setback requirement as important.

Um and that the question of neighbor permission, I I do want to echo it's it's um it's a novel idea.

And I wonder if a nuanced proposal comes back where meeting certain standards doesn't require neighbor permission, but if you need to go, if you need to exceed that standard in some way, that's when a neighbor is engaged for permission, such as being under a five-foot setback.

These are all details that I would love for you all to talk to the beekeeping community about.

And so one of my hopes is that out of tonight, the beekeepers can connect with their network and give staff all your email addresses.

And I know that there wasn't uh when staff are are trying to decide how much labor to put into something.

One of the hardest things, I guess for the record for the beekeeping folks listening, is that it's easy to hold a public meeting about a topic.

It's not easy to get people to attend.

And so this is one of those cases where we have a specific constituency of folks who will be directly impacted by the regulation.

And um, so maybe out of this, what we get is an interested group that do want to come to a discussion with you all and to highlight um different approaches and to think about where these requirements could um could not lead to the outcomes that we would expect them to, and actually backfire on us.

Um, I will say of many of the things that we've seen recently, this is the one I'm least, I feel least able to weigh in on as a professional because there's so many aspects of this that don't relate to planning and zoning um or transportation or things, other things that I know about.

Um another idea to put forward when it comes to engagement that could come after this, um, the environmental policy commission and the um Alexandria Beautification Commission may have folks affiliated with it, if not on it directly, who are master gardeners who have um a connection to the work the beekeepers do, and they may also be good places to have a discussion and give you a venue for a presentation, a venue for um idea sharing and yet another venue for beekeepers and their neighbors to come and talk about the proposal and about what might be most meaningful for them.

I don't want to minimize the idea that poorly managed be um operations next to neighbors that could be impacted.

Like we don't want this to be a thing, and it makes sense that we want to tackle it in a proactive way.

I just think that there's more to look at to find the right solution here.

So with that, thank you everyone for your contributions tonight.

Um is there a motion on the to come on the table?

Vice Chair Canick.

Madam Chairman, can I ask a question or two to begin?

Um this is zoning text amendment.

We usually have two pieces.

The first is to initiate, the second is to either recommend approval.

Um in this case, I guess one option is you initiate and it's in the and it's officially initiated, and then we move to defer it.

I guess from my point of view, I'm not sure I'm even comfortable with that.

It seems to me that I don't see any reason to initiate this, which would acknowledge that it's that the right solution is a zoning text amendment.

I'm not doesn't seem to me we even have a consensus tonight that a zoning text amendment is where it's actually going to end up.

So is there some is there a uh received but not acted on action that we can put in the record that doesn't involve actually initiating the amendment?

Um I would recommend in that case that you just um make a motion to defer the action.

Um, and that way you aren't taking that initiation step.

So technically that's fine, even though in the structure that we have that you help us with on these, there's there's an option to move to defer the text amendment recommendation.

There's no option under initiation other than to move to initiate.

Correct.

So we move to defer initiation.

Um to defer the entire item for future distribution.

I would say you would move to defer um the matter.

Um Madam Chair, I move that we defer consideration of zoning text amendment 2026-000 one more zero two beekeeping uh zoning regulations um to a future uh date, not necessarily a date certain.

All right, I've got a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Lanahan to defer the entire item regarding beekeeping zoning regulations.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Until next time.

Yeah.

Yeah, thanks for being here.

Yeah, thanks a lot.

So I know um, Ms.

Jacobs.

We're still conducted.

Yeah.

Um, all right.

So we've got that takes us out of our new business section, and we're out into other business.

And the first item on that list is the discussion item on substandard lots and outlots.

Is that correct?

Are you are you okay?

Okay.

Shall we begin?

Sure.

So Sam Shelby and few.

This is something I know a lot about.

So we can answer any questions you have.

Um, I've been doing this for almost 13 years now.

Um so we're gonna talk a little bit tonight about uh substandard lots um and kind of how we got here, um, some of our observations and questions, and hopefully um get some feedback from you all about uh where we go next.

So, sort of the sort of the broader questions are um can our existing regulations be made more predictable and efficient while preserving appropriate oversight of substandard lot development.

Uh another question is do the existing regulations align with current city housing goals and um finally what have we sort of learned from implementation of these existing regulations?

And so we have a we have a new commissioner or new ish commissioner.

So we wanted to start with the very basics that the zoning ordinance sets minimum lot size, frontage and width requirements for residential uses.

Um substandard lots are residential lots that don't meet these requirements that are they're either too small or too narrow or don't have enough frontage on a public street.

In for the most part, these lots were created or all in all these all cases, these lots were created prior to adoption of these requirements, prior to changes in these requirements, or prior to rezonings or when the city annexed the area the lot was located in from other jurisdictions from neighboring jurisdictions.

So an example is the R8 zone requires a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet, uh 40 feet of lot furnage and 65 feet of lot width.

So a lot that doesn't meet any of those requirements is considered a substandard lot.

Excuse me, can you send this out to us?

Extremely useful.

I think it was sent out today.

Yes.

Isn't that right?

Yeah.

There's like late.

I yeah, I don't know.

I can't pull it up because my device doesn't load email right now.

Exciting.

Um this slide here shows um where substandard lots are located in the city.

Um it actually shows where most of the substandard lots are located in the city.

Most of the the highest concentrations are actually in old town because that's when our basic basically our oldest lots are that they all predate the zoning ordinance essentially.

The colors indicate the zone.

Um and these are generally platted again before 1951.

Um and 1951 is when the zoning code in these residential districts sort of uh came into existence and it sort of looks a lot like the way it's written now.

The rules are almost unchanged.

Um, but generally it's all north of Duke Street and sort of west of Russell Road.

Um there's a big concentration in Northridge and Beverly Hills, um, and then little pockets or you know, kind of varying pockets throughout the rest of the city.

This map actually, we worked with our GIS department to put together.

This actually only shows lots that are substandard in uh size only.

And so what we're gonna we'll talk about this a little bit more, touch on it later, but we staff still has some more research to do to make sure that we have a very accurate grasp on um the kind of the extent of the issue.

This map makes it look like in some neighborhoods it is standard to be substandard.

Basically, yeah.

Which is a really interesting thing for us to see because when we get these items, and we have to talk, we have to talk through all the justifications for approving development on a substandard lot, et cetera.

It's all under this premise that that lot is not good enough, you know, is like not okay.

But in some neighborhoods, that that condition is is actually the more common condition.

And the standard that we set sometime later on is the uncommon condition.

And um I I just feel like for community dialogue on this, that distinction for those neighborhoods um is an important one because it's just not it goes back to the semantics.

Like we've had a lot of talk about how the way we name things creates a sense of how we should interpret them, and that's what's happening here is we think they're bad because they're substandard.

Um, sorry, just had to observe that.

I I'm curious what's the there's no key.

So what's the blue?

Oh, thank you.

Uh the blue is the R20 zone.

Right.

That's great observation of us on a huge section where it's all sub basically all substandard.

Yep.

Okay.

So um these in Old Town, as I mentioned, um, where a lot, you know, the basically the highest concentration of substandard lots are, um, they are permitted to be developed by right and actually have some sort of uh limited zoning tools to encourage development.

Um but in these zones, R20, the residential uh residential only zones or R20 through R25 are subject to additional restrictions or SEP reviews to be developed.

Um there's also a further refinement between uh a split between vacant substandard lots.

So these are lots that are not developed that don't have a house on them now.

Um there's very few pure examples of this um in the city.

Um, but these can only be developed with special use permit approval if certain requirements are met, and we'll I'll get into that a little bit more as we as we move through the presentation.

Um developed substandard lots are limited in a different way.

Um they can be added on to with subject to certain provisions, they can be replaced with generally the same size and height, um, but full teardown and rebuild requires uh again a full hearing special use permit.

And all of these requests that ones that go through the special use permit process are reviewed for neighborhood compatibility.

So is the house um similar in size and height um and design to the houses in the neighborhood?

And then there's the ref, it's it's a pretty broad uh request that you can uh city council can review any of the considerations that they find appropriate in section 11500 of the zoning ordinance.

So 1974 is when um city council first adopted requirements to um allow or to limit development of substandard lots.

Uh this was you know, prior to this date, uh substandard lots of the city could be developed by right and had um in some cases a reduced side yard requirement because if the lot was too narrow, then the idea was that you couldn't fit a house in compliance with the side yards.

And in 1974, um there are these houses in uh the George Washington Park subdivision, which is off of um King Street right by the Masonic Temple.

Two houses went up that um the neighborhood felt were out of scale, too small and too narrow um to uh to fit in with the neighborhood.

And in 74, council adopted the requirement that vacant substandard lots needed special use permit approval um to ensure that that didn't happen again.

Um the regulations were updated a couple of times in the 1980s based on direction from the city manager at the time.

Um it's hard to not get too technical here, but basically, if you own two lots next to each other, then you're not allowed to um develop the the one one of them if it's if it's vacant because they're under common ownership.

The idea being that you're supposed to just consolidate those lots and magically have a complying lot and go on your way.

Um so at over time, those rules were relaxed very slightly to allow for that lot to be developed if it matched the character along the along the block.

That if it's how if it was um either very close to the zoning requirements or it met it was similar in size and shape to other lots on the on the block that were already developed, then they could then ask for special use permit approval.

Um the one of the things that still that exists in the 74 policy is there is a door close.

There's a situation where you cannot apply for a special use permit.

You can't, you your only options are consolidate, um, and you can't you can't ask for a special use permit.

And there's the way the code is written is that you can't ask for variance approvals.

It's a very firm, firmly shut door.

Um 2008 was the last time that the substandard lot rules were amended.

Um this was part of the uh very large infill task force um efforts to address um infill development in these neighborhoods.

Um there were a lot of teardowns and rebuilds, and the zoning code was frankly pretty um out of step with uh encouraging compatible infill.

We had a lot of things that um uh unintended consequences in the zoning code that were fixed as part of this very large package of of zoning changes.

So, as part of that, the infill task force um also included, well, if if vacant substandard lots are subject to special use permit review, then develop substandard lots should also.

So, as part of that package, there was all these fixes to height and how floor area is calculated and how the grade is calculated and all these things to make sure the um that compatible infill happened, and the the task force also felt that it was important to have the the special use permit also apply to develop substandard lots.

So since 74, um we've had 36 vacant substandard lots uh special use permit requests come before council.

Uh 28 of them have been approved.

Numerous um uh many of them have requested yard and open space and parking modifications.

There have been eight denials, um, and of those denials and those also those requested, those also had you know requested modifications for yard and open space requirements.

Um since 2008, we've had 35 developed special uh developed substandard lot SUP submissions come forward.

All of them have been approved.

Um, and uh and of those nine of them have um had you know modifications to their yard requirements and that kind of thing.

So some of our initial observations, well, not initial, our ongoing observations is that the eligibility thresholds are strict.

The lot either has to meet 90% of the requirements or the the situation I was making before with my fingers that the lot that doesn't meet that is similar in size to in shape to other lots on the block, there have to be it has to be in the majority that it's not just is there another lot or there are a couple of lots, it has to be more than 50%.

So that's a that's a very high threshold to meet.

Um and you may have other uh lots on the block that are similar size and shape, but not enough to get to to ask with a special use permit.

And as I mentioned, if these requirements aren't met, then the application is ineligible for SUP.

And so they then just have to consolidate and hope that they get to a consolidated or could get to a complying lot.

Um the SUP approval criteria uh overlap with existing bulk controls.

Um, you know, the requirements are um, you know uh the criteria are is it compatible in size and height?

And the reason for these requirements, setback and building height and threshold height and FAR requirements and the other things about how we measure height and grade and that kind of thing are all designed to encourage compatible infill that buildings should be similarly sized and shaped in and specific zoning districts.

Another point is that substandard lots are already somewhat self-limiting.

If your lot is smaller, your your building has to be smaller.

And so substandard lots themselves already constrain development to some degree compared to the allowed development on a standard lot.

As many of you know, whenever we pry open the, you know, pop the hood of the of the zoning ordinance, we often find text conflict or unintended consequences, and there's some minor errors in the in the language themselves that don't necessarily uh work when they're applied strictly.

So there's some you know uh basic straight up errors in the in the zoning regulations now.

Um and I I want to stop talking and hear from you guys.

Um, but the the some of the questions that we're gonna start to put out here is um, you know, are the eligibility requirements too strict?

And if if that's the case, then what size and front engine width does a substandard lot necessitate extra review?

Um should should lots be precluded from the SCP process entirely.

Um do we feel like the existing bulk controls uh height and setbacks in FAR um are in good shape and do they do they regulate um compatible rebuilds and infill development without the SCP, or are there possibly changes that could be made to these rules to to make them work even better?

Um and sort of one of the uh last questions is do the regulations align with um the city's current housing goals?

And I you know, I think this might be a good opportunity to dive in here a little bit, and I'm happy to stop talking here from you guys.

Okay.

Um would anyone like to kick off.

Um I'd be happy to um aside from the fact that that this um synopsis makes me realize that there's a whole lot I don't remember about the infield task force.

Um, but what I do remember seems completely in alignment with what you've described, Mr.

Shelby.

If you would go back um one slide, um the eligibility threshold strictness that the lot must either meet 90% of requirements.

That first threshold is 90% of the of the state of the what would make it a standard, what would make it a complying lot?

So for instance, lot area, that if you if you're in a zone where the minimum is 5,000 feet, if you have a lot that's less than 4500 feet, you just don't comply.

You have to be in that magic little zone between 4500 and five.

It's a it's you you've you basically got it, it's an either or so you can either meet 90% or you can meet the block study kind of character.

Okay, at that point you've you flip into whether you have compatibility.

But if you don't match compatibility, that's that's a that's a well, as you described, that's a strict threshold.

And I guess I didn't do we have cases where they came forward and they weren't allowed to come forward as an SUP because they were too substandard?

Yes, we had one uh just a you know, an inquiry just a couple of weeks ago where it was out in Alexandria West.

Um I can't remember exactly the street, but um it was a vacant substandard lot.

Um and there were a couple other block or houses or lots in the block face that had houses on them that were the same dimension, but not enough of them for them to consider to apply.

So they were ineligible to ask for the what was the size of that lot?

Um curiosity.

Probably 10,000 square feet or bigger.

It's the R20 zone, which requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet.

But it was below the 90% of the required area.

And didn't meet the block study.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

And if you could go back to your other questions then.

Um I guess the first thing that comes out of that is what's really the what's the utility of that?

Um, and I guess all these things kind of fit together, right?

So if our housing goals are about utilizing land as efficiently as we can to house the largest number of people in in a way that is um congenial and civilized and well designed and overall in compliance with our with our desires for how we want to um live.

Is there any particular utility to not allowing somebody to build a house on an 8,000 foot lot in an R20 zone when you can build a perfectly good house on an 8,000 foot lot?

So that's just one initial um reaction.

The middle one here do the existing bulk controls result in compatible rebuilds and infill development without SUP review.

Makes me uh think back to Commissioner Brown, and as uh as much as we were on the same wavelength about many, many things, including our time together on the infill task force, I had a tendency to look at projects that came in on substandard lots.

And if it was in an R25, it was in whatever zone, it's starting with 90% of the lot area, not 100%, and still meeting all the bulk and setback constraints.

I was generally perfectly comfortable that that was a good solution because it was like, well, it's already meeting, it's already meeting standards that are actually more onerous because it has less land on which to do it.

Um, and I think if I remember correctly, uh his take was often that's necessary but not sufficient.

Um, and I personally am wondering if we might not be able to say that that's sufficient and and consider whether we really need this SUP review at all.

Um, and it seems to me if we took that logic and you just said that for every piece of legally buildable um property in the city, we may actually have to think this through a little bit more, that if you could build on it without asking for any variation, without asking for variance or relief on any of the requirements, why not?

Um I think at that point it gets down to the point where we'd actually have to worry about correcting a little bit at the other end that if you have a 5,000 foot lot in an R200 zone that has 85 foot setbacks, so that you actually don't have buildable area on your smaller thing in the zone that you're in, you might actually it might be some mechanism by which you could ask for relief for those constraints within the zone.

Or I guess that puts you back in the SUP review process.

But um, in general, uh it seems to me if there's some simplification that's possible here.

Um I do think, for instance, my my next door neighbor um uh went through this process when the long-term homeowner passed away, and the new owners bought it, and it was a very out-of-date house, and they weren't willing to keep the 50% or 51% of the existing walls, and the lot is in a zone that requires 5,000 feet, and it was 400 4940 square feet for the lot.

And it was almost exactly regular, and it was almost exactly like my house and everybody else's house around.

Um, and it had to come through the SUP process for a substandard lot.

And that in that case, that seemed to me like um an unnecessarily burdensome additional um requirement.

Yeah, I'm so glad I'm sure you brought that up.

That's one of the coloring in that I skipped over a little bit there is that the um a lot of these properties are very minorly substandard, that they're supposed to be 65 feet wide and they're 63 feet wide, or the example you gave that that's that's one of the, you know, are the required eligibility requirements too strict?

That's you know, that kind of falls under that category.

Um, and another thing just to color in the lines a little bit more too is um to kind of put the idea out there is or to think about is like what makes a lot, when is it visibly substandard?

Is it the size or is it the width or is it the frontage?

And then what you know, what is the range that makes it visibly different and therefore necessitates additional review, just another sort of food for thought kind of question.

But also part of that, I mean, I don't know how far afield you want to go here, is you know what this whole notion of substandard, I mean, it's a it's a value judgment effectively, right?

Or I mean it feels like a value judgment.

Um, and it has the if if we have a situation where for whatever circumstances over time, lots are extant that are that are eccentric or trapezoidal or extra skinny or wiggly or bent or whatever, um why do we judge that a negative feature?

And why don't we just judge that a welcome to the homeowner/slash builder slash designer who's willing to make a slightly bent, slightly long wigglier house that may serve a family just as well and be just as convenient in the neighborhood and have the one characteristic that would be inevitable there is it's going to be individual and idiosyncratic.

And I think that's a lot of what we get to with some of this as well, is that it seems to me our city and some of our neighborhoods like Del Rey, for instance, celebrate a level of individuality and idiosyncrasy, and we're sort of driving out that possibility by policing what's an acceptable lot.

So one thing that occurs to me going to what we just talked about is instead of having an SUP review for what you have to do on your site if it's 50 square feet too small, is just make that by right if you can satisfy the bulk regulations.

And if you end up with that 5,000 foot lot in an R20 zone, and you literally don't have buildable area, you come forward to, for instance, the Board of Zoning Appeals and treat like that, treat that like a typical variance case where you're trying to put something on a lot where somebody's asking for relief from the setbacks.

And I remember some statement at that point that some previous council or planning director got pissed off at the BZA and took all their work away and put it in the planning commission.

Because I think there are a variety of things that we now that may be apocryphal.

I have no idea why it's actually true or not.

Um, when we look at things like that, I also have that question.

I mean, the Board of Zoning Appeals, that these kinds of things have always struck me.

This is one dwelling at a time, intimately embedded in the neighborhood.

That's what BZA does every day for their bread and butter with variances and special exceptions.

So I'm sorry, you it's very all very interesting.

And um, and it brings up some ideas that I thought were kind of dormant, but I like the idea of is there a way to simplify this?

And the general um SUP review process for substandard lots has always struck me as uh overly ornate and unnecessary and kind of um not a lot of benefit to the public from the additional burden of process on the property.

Could you go to the slide on um that had the numbers of approvals and denials?

Um, one of the points that um Vice Chair Canig was making is that question of when we get a substandard lot um SUP, sometimes they're not asking for any relief.

They can actually meet all of the standards of the zone, but they still need a special use permit for it, and that's the 13 minus 28 minus 13, right?

For for one example.

Um I think one of my observations in the community conversations we've had on substandard lot cases, um the conversations on the dais, the um, I don't have direct experience from the in-filled task force, but I feel that the um the narrative that has come out of that is a lot about fit, like appropriateness of development and community.

And so I was a little surprised when you described that the in-fill task force did all these things to make in fill easier in some respects, except creating an SCP process for substandard lots, which did the opposite and made it harder.

Um when what seems to matter most to community members is the sense that that what gets built on the site is going to fit in and is going to be reasonably consistent with their neighborhood.

Um to that point, I'm not sure that the SUP process that we've that we undertake today gets us much beyond the development standards.

Um, and so this is this is sorry, me reinforcing um the observation that you made, and that maybe the conversation needs to continue around what beyond development standards is it is this a phased transition where we say um projects that can meet the development standards of the zone um don't need an SUP, but only the ones that can't, so the 13, the nine, um would potentially require it.

And as a as a potential approach, if if it were a phased transition to a different way of doing things.

Um I appreciate the point about a de minimis substandard condition, because that also we there are other precedent in planning and zoning across jurisdictions to have sort of established treatment of de minimis difference so that it can be administratively handled, not something that has to go back for an approval by a council or um a commission.

And so I wonder if here there's also a way that we can treat the de minimis condition and define it and then establish um parameters around it.

So if something is super substandard, and I guess if you have in a R20 zone and a 5,000 foot lot, so development on it might look remarkably different than then everywhere else.

Maybe we have a way we treat that that's different than an R20 zone that has a 19,000 foot lot.

Um I don't know what that would look like exactly, but I think it would make it would feel right because I think that's what we're trying to create is a set of rules that helps people make projects that feel right in a neighborhood.

Um that also so maybe that's related to I had a note here about that.

Um should substandard be held to this 90% threshold.

Um so those two things may be related.

I'm not sure in the letter of the of the substandard regulations, um, if that's exactly the same way that that that phrase would be interpreted.

Um, I guess I just want to observe because this is not my forte.

I haven't spent 13 years on it.

Um that my observation is that sometimes we have rules that we all are trying to follow that staff are have to implement.

Planning commission has to make our judgment by that I feel like um it it starts to make it hard for me to tell what the community's problem is with a proposal because it's no longer about something that I can see them experiencing, they can use a very minor detail to not want something to change near them, but it's not necessarily um logically connected to what their experience with that development outcome might be.

And so that isn't to say that neighbors should not be engaged in the maintenance of the of the neighborhood around them, the continuity of development and um neighborhoods like Del Ray, um, which have a whole land use committee associated um with this kind of stuff, um, they care a lot and they're looking at guidance and providing us and council with their opinions on things, but it would really help to know that we create a toolkit for decision making that is tied to the actual community experience and not tied to um things that can't even be uh perceived.

Yes, Ms.

Uh Commissioner Dubai.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You you guys have covered just very well, obviously um your level of expertise on this is far past mine.

Can you go back one slide?

You the 90 percent.

Maybe it was two slides.

Yeah, the lots that mean 90% or more than 50%.

And you said you had a recent inquiry for a lot on the west end to get an SUP to put a dwelling there, and it was just a non-starter.

So what recourse does that person have for that lot?

Um, they can so I think it was in common ownership with the adjacent property, and I don't remember that exactly.

But the idea that the zoning ordinance is setting it up for is that you can just consolidate that lot and you can do in addition to the existing house that you can't add another dwelling unit, but that you can make the existing house bigger, maybe.

Um one of the the big flaws with that requirement is that consolidating doesn't automatically mean complying.

And then that then if you consolidate, there's another because you're creating a new lot at a different date, then it also is it's ineligible again.

Yeah.

Thank you for that clarification.

I mean, it seems to me 74 and 2008, and now here we are.

You've got a lot of data to support some changes and certainly some streamlining, which I think we're all in favor of.

So thank you for bringing that to our attention.

I have one more clarification question.

Lot must either meet 90% of the requirements.

It sounded like you were saying 90% of lot area had to be met.

Whereas I when I read that, I think there are 10 requirements and you have to meet nine of them.

So which is it?

It's each one individually.

So is it 90% of the lot size?

Is it 90% of the lot frontage?

Is it 90% of the lot width?

Yeah.

All right.

That's very different than I thought.

And and one other question, if you combine a lot, can you put an ADU ADU on it?

Yes.

You know, I mean, not you know, don't take that to the bank, but basically, yes, if you're if you depending on the lot size and the FAR that's involved and everything like that, if you if you're in a situation where you're stuck, then you can theoretically, if you have the FAR to build an ADU, you could build an ADU.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on something.

Following up on what you said.

Lot must either meet 90%.

Thank you.

Meet 90% of each requirement.

Yes.

Okay.

So that I think that would be clearer if you wrote it that way.

Um, because then people know they've got to meet everything, basically.

I um I have one more slide to share.

Well, actually, just a couple more if we if we want to, unless there's any other comments before I move on.

No.

So, you know, what the direction we're hoping to head is to move toward more buy-right development as most substandard lots.

I think for now, um we had originally started this process by saying we're going to take a look at lots without frontage, the special use permit for that too.

Um, because that's from 1966.

Um we are uh not going to recommend any changes to those requirements at this time.

Um those requirements that that requirement has worked the way that it's intended to work for a very long time.

There's been some notable exceptions, but for the most part, that those requirements work the way that they're supposed to.

So for now, we're we're recommending retaining those requirements as is.

Um the uh so what we the work that we still have to do is to study what these you know deviations from the lot size requirements are to determine when the when the extra review is necessary.

So we still have some research to do there, and we're gonna work on refining the policy.

Um and then whatever the process looks like for those lots that don't meet those requirements.

Is it an uh an administrative special use permit?

Is there some opportunity to give the BZA more work to do?

Um, you know, you know, looking at figuring out exactly what that process looks like.

Um, and one of the things that we've observed again, the last time we took a big crack at the in-fill regulations has been a couple of years now when we raise the height from 25 to 30 feet.

Um there's some things that still don't work the way that we want them to.

Um attic attic floor area is one of those.

Um, I think this is this will be the third or the fourth time that we've tried to actually have the at the floor area and the attic level captured in a in a way that actually reflects what's built.

So that's definitely something that we have in mind um to look at refining to make sure that the the floor area actually captures what that the bulk and the in the presence of the house better.

Um, but that's just one of the kind of uh bulk controls that we're thinking we're thinking about um suggesting some amendments to with this, you know, as kind of part of this package.

Um just to um get some maybe can you give an example of how not counting attic floor area correctly creates a building whose bulk is unintended.

So you if you don't count any of your attic, which is what's happening a lot right now with new houses, um none of that counts toward your floor area.

So your house doesn't have to shrink in some other dimension in order to get that attic that size.

Um if you did have to count some portion of it, we're not talking about counting the whole thing.

There's always gonna be some sort of way of of uh making this um fair.

So you're not calc, you know, there's all this are I don't really want to get into it right now, but there's all this argument about uh is it habitable space, is it usable versus is is it visible bulk?

Is it not?

Um so it's it's all about striking that balance.

And right now we have situations where the lot gets it all.

They have a big attic that doesn't count at all, and the house didn't have to shrink to sort of accommodate that.

How does that happen?

I'm just curious.

Like, how does that mistake happen?

Um it's all about how the zoning ordinance defines how you measure that attic space for floor area.

So it's different per zone.

Well, it no, it's it's consistent across the in in the all the residential exclusively residential zones, the attic for areas measured from attic floor, like to the the floor to the bottom of the roof rafters, but people are vaulting the ceilings on this on the second floor, and so the attic ceiling or attic floor is higher.

And so there then there it the number is less, even though from the outside, you know, it's still a full attic.

It doesn't change what the size of the bulk if the if the ceilings are are lofted inside.

Yeah, I think I think sometimes even for those of us that um are architects, it would be helpful to have like a little diagram.

Yeah, yeah, we we'll have to yeah, we'll have to show diagrams when we talk about this because I think a lot of diagrams is tremendously tedious.

And the flip side if we had builders in the room was that um when we tried to include FAR, uh I think there was a legitimate thing about how you actually calculate it if it's not actually usable space, and then all of a sudden we're putting an a different kind of area into the FAR calculation, which I had a lot of difficulty with.

But Billers made the point that well, people just need the space that they need, and if they've only got this much FAR and you make us count something under the slope, everybody's just gonna build three and twelve roof.

And then everybody freaked out in Delray because nobody wants a uh neighborhood field with three and twelve roofs when all the rooms are steeper than that.

So it's a it's a really gnarly thing.

And I didn't mean to extend that conversation.

I actually I would love the opportunity to sort of because this this has sort of gotten away from us over the years.

Like it is a both problem, but part of the reason why we saw these low-pitched roofs was the height limit.

You know, the FAR does play play an element to that, but it was it was primarily in our experience reviewing you know 800 to a thousand building permits that it was the height limit that was making people do making people do that, not the not necessarily the FAR.

Good luck with how you solve it this time.

Yeah, I'm just gonna use this set of recommendations as another opportunity to plug.

Um I have literally, since I left the BZA not understood why we see these projects here.

I think it's just really not a good match for planning commission.

It adds to the workload here with projects that are actually, I think not really in our wheelhouse.

They are in the directly in the realm of what the BZA does every day, which is talk to individual neighbors on individual blocks about individual adjustments to single property at a time.

That's exactly what these are, and they're expert at it.

And I think it usually takes us into a realm where we're down at a granular level about one yard and one setback in a way that we just actually don't really do that much.

And I don't I don't think it's so I I would there's just one probably unnecessary plug to look seriously at the possibility whether that however you refine it and streamline it, and then it moves another notch on the word chart to be somebody else's.

And I'm just gonna say quickly that then for me, at least at this level of planning commission and it with an SUP, I'm not exactly sure how this works, but I'm always curious about whether we're setting some precedent with agreeing to these very granular things.

And so it does seem if it were you know, in in the calculation of what they do every day, it might make more sense.

Forgive me because I'm not as familiar with what the BZA does and how the workflow works over there.

If it's something that they um uh adjudicate on, does it then go to council or is it just stop with them?

They make a decision based on the case.

That's a sweet little weirdness about BZA is that the appeal minimism for decisions of the BZA is not council, it's court.

It's still correct, right?

Yes.

I also always thought was a weirdness on that, because that's a hugely that's a hugely high threshold.

And I think it's I think it would be on the other hand, maybe that's to keep it off of council's uh workload for trying to adjudicate those problems.

But I think some mechanism for them that didn't involve going to circuit court would be a fairer process for the homeowners that go through BCAs.

Can of worms just but you're organizing the can of worms very nicely.

I'm sure it's going to get better.

Um other thoughts for staff on this item.

I realize there's there's a ways to go yet.

You want to talk about your next steps?

Yeah, I can just quickly touch that we are um we had a community meeting last week.

Um, and we had uh eight people come to that.

So we're gonna take another whack at a community uh meeting and and kind of catch them up and and start talking about the things we're talking about tonight.

Like what are the numbers that are right for capturing when substandard lot should still be should still have reviews and that kind of thing.

Um, so that's uh gonna be coming uh up in the beginning of the summer.

We still have a a lot of research to do with um making sure we can have this inventory down properly.

Um again, continue research on how the existing regulations have applied and you know what effects they've had on the community.

Um, so and then more policy refinements through the um summer, and so we're targeting um fall of this year.

So September hopefully is where we could we end up before you with the final um recommendations.

Sam, I'm just curious who who shows for a meeting like that.

You know, residents who come to planning commission are you know, some that have had personal experience with a substandard lot.

Um, you know, we're hoping to get a mix of of residents that have been through the process as the property owner, but also neighbors, so we have a bigger that's not just negative.

Okay, cool.

I'm curious about your inventory.

Um, is that gonna be parsed out so that it'll say, you know, this many properties are substandards, but they would beat the 90% kind of thing.

Um, so you could see how many would be affected versus how many would have to really have that SUP process.

That's the hope is that we will have that kind of data or that kind of information that it's not just where these are and um how many of them there are, but how they are how they deviate from the requirements.

Yeah.

Is that something that you want to map or just tabulate so people don't start weighing in based on whether they're neighbors of a particular we have to be careful about it, yeah.

Um it sounds like something that Power BI could also help, like you'd end up with just some basic graphics around numbers and things like that, but not in fact particular locations.

Right.

Yep.

Yeah, to Commission Vice Chair Koenig's point to the extent that we can help you by advising on the overall purpose and value of your proposal that regulates on high.

Um, but BZA gets to look at those at the at the individual sites.

Like there, there I think there's it's it's healthy if there is a distinction between the individual cases and those individual neighbors and and their setting versus what we talk about.

Yeah.

Um excellent.

Well, looking forward to this continued work.

Um please get it in the weeds as much as you like with us in the lead up to us giving the BZA more work.

Just kidding.

Just kidding.

Not uh not pre-deciding here what they what the result is.

Um, but we really appreciate it.

We know this this does come up a lot for us.

It is confusing, and I think that your work is gonna be really valuable in making this part.

Use that expertise.

Good purpose, right?

All right.

That brings us to commissioner reports, comments and questions.

And I know we received a written report from Commissioner Duvet.

Would you like to kick off?

Yeah, sure.

I I um this is for two meetings that we had since the the March meeting was right before our April meeting.

I didn't have a chance to put together, but it kind of let me finish out because at the uh April meeting we've finished out some things or we got some things moving along.

But you'll see in there um the Cameron Valley dimension of the Cameron Valley structural problem that's been going on for quite quite some time now.

They finally got some traction on that.

They've got a consultant or an engineering firm that's going out there next week to do an evaluation.

Um the potential for redevelopment there kind of goes with the Duke Street plan where that section that they want to um increase the density there by going up uh in that whole development.

So this particular assessment may accelerate that.

Um city council authorized the 20 million dollars in bonds for the LaDre building.

So that's well underway.

Samuel Madden North is if you haven't been by there lately, it's well underway.

Um other than that, the rest of it's just some information I thought guys would want to read, especially about the backlog of the rent.

I have a quick question.

I walked by um the well, I walked by the San Madden North site on my normal dog walk and also by the south side.

And on the south side, they had torn down the um play structure in the middle.

Is is something starting to happen on the south?

They're using a lot.

The last report we got there was one resident still in there, but they're using a lot of that for staging for the north side.

Okay.

And that's that's probably what you saw.

Okay.

So yeah, it'll it'll it's an interesting um interim condition.

I know many of those windows are boarded up.

Um, they just replaced the sidewalk, which was weird.

Um, like constructing a new sidewalk on a on a parcel we're gonna tear up at some point really soon.

But but I think it must have been in poor enough condition that they that it warranted uh sort of an accessibility improvement or something.

But yeah, I don't know about I know I don't know about that, but the the South buildings as well as the Ladre is being used by the police department and the the fire department actually to train.

So I know there's a constant present and presence in both um buildings.

So yeah, it's just uh it's gonna be a little bit of time, but not as long as it has been, I don't think.

Yeah.

Uh so Robert, another question.

Um Ladre, does that mean that uh the sort of design and documents package for the fact that it's a renovation instead of new construction now is going to be in the DUs DSUP pipeline in the foreseeable future?

I would assume so.

Um, but they haven't gotten that the bond was the big thing, the bonds.

Um but yeah, it's supposed to accelerate pretty quickly.

Um and on the Cameron Valley piece, um is it um next on the redevelopment um list now, or is it potentially jumping up a notch potential?

Jumping up, I don't think it was next.

Assume so um but they haven't gotten that the the bond was the big thing the bonds um but yeah it's supposed to accelerate pretty quickly um and on the Cameron Valley piece um it is it um next on the redevelopment um list now or is it potentially jumping up a notch but jumping I don't think it was next um I know they talked about Atkins and some other projects but this may be an opportunity to move it up or a necessity in the sense that is this we're uncovering a problem that may be too big to put band-aids on but not worth making a gigantic investment for something that is going to show up on the list of redevelopment sometimes soon is that the corn dream the problem was identified in 2019 the problem that nothing was done was identified about six months ago and now we're where we are so these like settlement structural things or yeah yeah foundational issues they had to relocate one one resident already and then the assessment's gonna look at an um city code was out there and basically vulnerable to go I mean it was sounds difficult well yeah um well thanks actually and and again these these reports are are great because there's so much going on there yeah it's highly detailed and to have you give us this really excellent synopsis each month is really a bonus yeah I it's um it's obviously not just planning commission stuff that that we talk about and I think it's important for you guys to know the community to know that um in particular there was almost a million dollars in back rent in this report it was 250 a bit caught had been caught up but as of last week it's been totally caught up and that was due to uh faith based organizations donating to to bring that up and it wasn't they didn't just give them the money they had to come in and meet one on one and go through you know how did you get here how can we not do this again so it was it was quite an effort a lot of people so it's huge so and that's also happening under the you just have the new board right so I assume that transition is helping yes new board and and a lot of staff that's new as well yes okay commissioner manor uh so I want to talk about waterfront commission thank you there's there's quite a bit going on um and I will take uh commissioner dub's lead and send out a more detailed report but essentially the commission is fighting for its survival uh in I believe it's 2024 council reactivated this subcommittee on boards and commissions and this was in response to a concern that boards and commissions eat up a lot of staff time and that some boards and commissions don't regularly meet quorums so they wanted to take a look at it and the unfortunate in my opinion uh fallout of this is that council is um let me get this specific um is recommending that this the waterfront commission be sunset in 2029 or 2030 coinciding with the completion of the waterfront plan because they think that the we were not necessary anymore because you know all the big stuff is done but of course that does not include PRGS which is struggling to get going and uh Montgomery Center which is in the waterfront um land zone um is also struggling to get going so I'm very much opposed to this um the idea of getting rid of the commission um let me just give you some over so our our and this is one of the reasons I I waited to do we have sent a letter to council is you know it's a word uh opposing that's too strong um recommending that we not be sunset and for variety of reasons um you know the the water waterfront has become in my opinion it is the reason we have a one billion dollar visitor economy in per year in the city and you know if you go down to waterfront park it's busy morning noon and night and all those restaurants are generating a lot of money for the city's treasury that wasn't happening before I mean I was on the commission during the battle royal over the plan and the change is just dramatic.

It's gonna be busy.

Okay.

But I will send out more detailed info.

Hopefully, we'll get a response back on this message we sent to council.

Thank you.

Any other updates from commissioners.

I wanted to ask real quick, um, because I know that Commissioner Ramirez and Commissioner Harris have been in communication around the Eisenhower East, and what am I saying?

Eisenhower West, Landmark Van Dorn advisory group assignment.

And can you just provide an update on that coordination and then remind me what what the logistics are for it?

Sure.

Um, I met with Commissioner Ramirez and talked to her about that uh advisory group and what the responsibilities are.

Happily agreed to take that on.

Um and she said she'd coordinate with you to reach out to that group.

I uh understand the group has not been meeting super regularly, but um, I have that's the last that I've heard.

Okay.

I actually have reached out to Paul first to get a reminder on the process.

Yeah, make sure that we're on the south side.

Yep.

Uh we started pulling preliminary information about whether uh the the process for making those appointments, uh uh preliminary information, uh, but I need to confirm this.

Looks like it is an appointment uh where there's a designated seat for the planning commission, and you all then get to select your member again.

We need to confirm that.

Um, if that bears out, then we would bring it back to you uh for your consideration at a at an upcoming meeting.

Okay.

Great.

Yeah, because I I know some of the things that we do go through a council, this like formalistic council appointment process, even though it is still like a delegate from us.

So just want to make sure we were following whatever the rules are for getting that change.

Yeah, so I appreciate the time to look that up and confirm it.

Great.

And thank you, Commissioner Harris, for taking that on.

Um, we we have different roles we have to fill, but it's also important that we find the ones that are a good fit so that we don't find um Commissioner Ramirez sort of like lots of interest.

That's great.

But when it came to some commission actions, when it came to us, she couldn't actually act on it.

And so we don't want to stick anyone in that in that situation.

Um yeah, so that's great.

And I don't know that we have any other vacancies right now.

I I the tiny update that sort of relates to that from the transportation commission side is for many years we've had two planning commission spots on the transportation commission.

And um when I think it was when Nate turned off, we wanted to get Jody on the waterfront commission.

Am I remembering that correctly?

Um, and so Jody, instead of being the second planning commissioner on the transportation commission, the transportation commission had already discussed and written a letter to council recommending that our makeup be modified to take away a PC slot, um, add a slot for or re reuse that slot for um a representative from um the commission on persons with disabilities or commission on aging, and um a second modified description of the slot that the dashboard has.

Um to date, it's been gosh, it's been probably more than a year, maybe more than more than two years that we've had a real Dash representative because it's a board member of Dash and the board members of Dash have other things going on, and it's just hard to get the time.

So we recommended a switch to how it was phrased so that the dashboard could essentially essentially delegate someone who they recommend, but it's not actually seated on the board right then to represent their their positions and their um knowledge base.

Um so that change uh uh uh an allocation of a position to a young person, like a young professional.

Um, so we made a bunch of recommendations, and I believe they were all incorporated into a council recommendation, but the way that council acts on um boards and commissions makeup is a two-part process where they sort of direct staff on how they want things to change, and then staff has to come back with um the language.

I don't know what the right word is, that that changes it in in the places in code where it needs to be.

And so that second step has not been finished yet.

So we are still waiting, and it's been like over a year since um uh we provided that guidance.

Um, so we're we're waiting, but we're excited because we think there's gonna be some good improvements um and a sort of reinvigoration of some uh of commissioner interest areas and activity on that on the transportation commission.

Um that's all I've got for that.

With that.

Any other planning directors?

Ah, yeah, okay.

Planning directors report.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Uh, I have a brief report for you tonight.

Uh, and I do want to give credit uh to Kendra Jacobs, who actually drafted the report.

Uh so Kendra, thank you for that.

Uh the so two items to highlight uh the community meeting series.

We've now been running this for approximately one year.

Uh we run this approximately uh every other month.

Uh there's some allowances there around the holiday season and the summer recess.

Uh, but the idea, of course, is to make sure that the public is kept informed of items as they're coming to the docket.

Uh, and in the case of long-range plan item planning items that they're uh uh being made aware of changes as they're being considered and it's going through the plan development process.

Uh the web uh uh page uh that has a link in the director's report uh provides access to uh past recordings, past presentations, past QA, uh, and of course the dates for the upcoming meetings.

Uh and I probably should have led with this.

Uh our next meeting is on uh Tuesday, May 19th.

Uh so coming up shortly here, just in uh two weeks.

Uh docket look ahead.

Uh again, our efforts to keep uh the commission and the general public informed about what's coming up.

Uh our docket look ahead, which is attached to the report, uh, shows what's scheduled for uh tonight's uh uh hearing as well as what goes forward into the planning, uh I'm sorry, the city council's hearing this month, and then what we uh refer to as June A and June B.

Uh June A is the planning commission's first hearing in June.

Uh the June B hearing is your second hearing in June, and of course, the the reason for two hearings is to accommodate the the council's June and July uh hearing sessions for June A.

I think that the three things to highlight for the group.

Uh, number one, uh, as promised, uh staff is coming back with materials on the green building plan.

Uh and uh we know those are of interest to the council uh to the commission, and we did not want that to get in the way of or got run over by the other items in the docket.

So we're proposing to start uh with a 6:30 uh discussion item that night uh so that we can uh focus on the green building plan uh implementation materials for 30 minutes uh before we get into the regular docket, which is uh relatively full.

Uh two items to highlight out of that long list.

Uh number one is the uh the PRGS Potomac uh river generating station uh applications coming to you all for your consideration and recommendation to council.

Uh and then also uh the housing 2040 uh plan update within the master plan.

That also coming to you for your consideration and recommendation to council.

Uh and then of course uh other important applications as well.

Uh that concludes my report.

Happy to take any questions.

Can we get a copy of that?

Of course.

Uh printing copy of the look ahead.

And and I'll note um 404A may come back onto that correct added to that.

Of course.

Yeah, we anticipate correcting the the working with the applicant to correct the advertising.

Yeah.

June B is the waste.

Wasn't there some confusion about the June Bowls?

It's on the Monday now.

It should be uh state or still.

Yes, correct.

It is on the uh the Monday, June 22nd now.

There was a conflict with um city council, but I uh colleague Ted reached out to everyone, and it seems that all of you are available.

Just probably didn't get the message, which is something I do a lot.

It's okay.

We're here to remind you, don't worry.

And that's still at seven o'clock.

Uh for June B, yes.

Correct.

June B is our July meeting.

Right.

And then we just have to wait for the message in August whether we're allowed to come back and sometimes you just never know.

Kendra tells us.

We don't need questions.

Sorry, I was just uh all right.

Uh let's let's uh take a motion on the next thing.

Feel free to motion make.

Um I'm moved to approve the minutes from the April 7th, 2026 planning commission public hearing.

Second.

Are there any?

I have a motion by Vice Chair Kleinig and a second by Commissioner Lenahan.

Are there any questions or edits to the minutes from that last meeting?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye opposed.

Motion carries 7-0 to approve our minutes from April 7th.

I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, madam chair.

All right, I second.

A motion by Commissioner Harrison, a second by Commissioner Ramirez.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

It is 9 41 p.m.