Welcome. I, Vice Chair Melissa McMahon of the Planning Commission, I'm calling the meeting to order this Monday, June 24th, 2024 of the Planning Commission at 7.03 PM. Chair Masek is on an excused absence tonight for work-related purposes, and he has given me permission to preside over tonight's meeting. Commissioner Jody Manor is expected to participate remotely due to a personal matter from Phoenix, Arizona. I don't believe he's on just yet, but he will join us shortly. City Attorney, Sharon. Sharon Ivory is sitting in for Deputy City Attorney Christine Brown who is ill. I'm going to go to the next slide. Sharon, is sitting in for Deputy City Attorney Christine Brown who is ill. If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the sign up to speak hyperlink, present on the cover page of the evening's public hearing docket or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form which can be found on either materials tables located immediately outside the chambers or at the back of chambers and providing it to Ms. Williams who has her hand raised. Please note comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker with the exception of applicants and their representation. To make your public comment through the Zoom application please click on the Raise Hand button located on the Zoom taskbar. Once you hear your name called upon to make your statement. In order to let staff know, it is you who needs to be unmuted in order to make your public statement. To make your public comment, if you are dialing into tonight's meeting by a 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. To make your public comment in person, please come up to either podium located at the front of chambers when you hear your name called upon to make your statement. Before starting your public comment, please first identify yourself by first and last name. The city encourages and welcomes public comment, please first 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 chamber, to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all are able to hear in a clear manner. Are there any changes to tonight's docket? Good evening. Yes, there is a change to tonight's docket. The applicant, which is the city, has requested withdrawal of item number 10 city charter section 906 case 2024-00003. 5801 Duke Street. All right. Do I hear a motion by commission or lilyl and a second by commission or canic. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Live zero. All right. That brings us to our consent calendar. Are there any commissioners who wish to pull any items from consent tonight? I want to pull docket item two. All right. What was that number? Dock of item two is 3950 Wheeler Avenue. Dock of item two. I'd like to talk about number five. Number five. Okay. All right. We're pulling number two. 3950 Wheeler Avenue. As well as talk about them five which is 2 9 2 7 and 2 9 5 7 eyes and how are Avenue That leaves items 3 4 6 and 7 on the consent calendar May I hear a motion for the consent calendar that remains? I Think we need to, Siroan, I... Siroan. We need two motions for the consent calendar, right? Because we approve subdivisions, but the others recommended approval to City Council, correct? Okay, so I make a motion to approve subdivision 2020-4-00005. 41-East Read Avenue. Second. Subdivision 2020 40005 41 East Reed Avenue Second, all right. I have a motion from Commissioner Lyle and a second from Commissioner Cainig on the subdivision At East Reed Avenue all those in favor please say aye aye Opposed Motion carries 5 0 the motion carries 5 0. Okay, so I'll make a motion to recommend approval of duck at items 4 6 and 7. Second. All right, I have a motion by Commissioner Lyle to recommend approval of the vacation. 2024, 0, 0, 2024, 004. Six is the development special use permit, 2024, 1003, and item seven, which is development special use permit, 2024, 1005. Motion by Commissioner Lyle and a second by Commissioner Canning. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That should bring us to docket item two. Docket item number two, special use permit 2024 dash 0 0 1 4 3950 will or avenue Public hearing and consideration of a request for a temporary trailer zone I industrial applicant North lock LLC represented by M. Catherine Pascord attorney. Good evening. I'm Ann Horowitz with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Would you like a presentation this evening? I don't think we need a presentation. I just want to talk about this for a bit, because it seems to me that lately, every month, we have one or two temporary trailers coming in. The definition of temporary, now it's not coming up, is lasting for a limited period of time, not permanent. OK. What we're doing, this is five years, basically. And what I want to do is add, is a mend condition 3 so that the temporary use ends in five years. Because then if you keep extending that, it becomes permanent. And what we're doing is we're adding a lot of temporary trailers as permanent fixtures in the city, which is not good for planning principles. It's not good for the commercial real estate tax base. It is not good for all of these buildings that are sitting vacant. So we need to start looking at temporary trailers as just that temporary. So that's why I've proposed amending this condition. Commissioner Brown, do you have any comments? I wasn't sure because your light was on. No. Okay. Don't go checking. Do any other commissioners have comments or questions regarding this item? I just want to acknowledge Commission allow that I think your amendment is a sensible one and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Our need to address this in a more systematic way. All right, and with that, does the applicant have any comments that you'd like to make tonight? Yes, thank you, Commissioner McMan. For the record, I'm Lauren Riley with Walsh Kulichy. We represent the applicant. And tonight joining us virtually are Bill butcheringering care and butchers as well on Zoom. And we had the opportunity today to discuss this amendment with Commissioner Lyall and confer with my client. We're not supportive of the amended condition language because given the amount of investment that the applicants will be putting into this temporary trailer, you know, a little over 360, $1,000. They need the ability to come back and evaluate this to paray trailer use in another five years. And I want to provide a little bit of additional context here for this use. In addition to the temporary trailer, which will serve as cooking and facilities and serving facilities, the applicant will be installing a prep kitchen within the existing building, and that's the maximum amount of space that they have to devote to that type of use, given that the principal use on the property is currently the brewery. And so the provision, you know, with this prep kitchen, and then the cooking and serving me to order meals from the temporary trailer, the applicant's able to enhance its customer experience, serve more customers, attract more customers to the site by providing consistent and reliable food operations. You know, today there's food trucks that come frequently. They're very popular, but with this increased demand, there's a need for a more consistent food operator on the site, and that's the purpose's original condition. The staff's original condition consistent food operator on the site and that's the purpose for this trailer. And so like we said, given that amount of investment, they will need the ability to come back and look at this in another five years. And we are supportive of staff's original condition. Language in their staff report which does terminate the SUP in five years already. So we're happy to have their recommendation of support. We support that language. It's been afforded to all other temporary trailers that you've approved recently. And we request the same here. Thanks. Thank you. And I do not believe there are any other speakers on this item I'm going to go ahead and move to the next one. Thank you. And I do not believe there are any other speakers on this item other than the applicant. Does anyone have questions for the applicant or would you like to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Thank you. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Lyle and a second by Commissioner Cannig. I did just see a hand go up under attendees. I do not know if this attendee was intending to speak to this item or a later item, but I'll give them a chance before we close it. Emily Wolfson has their hand raised. You've been unmuted and you should be able to speak at this time. You can go ahead and unmute yourself. My apology, because that was a mistake. Oh, OK. All right. Well, we have a motion and a second on the table. So we can go ahead and vote on that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That brings us to Commissioner discussion or additional questions. Okay, I'm just going to start with this. Last month we had Daniel Donnelly and City Council ended up putting a pin in that approval in terms of limited number of years. And what I'm hearing is we want five years but then we want to come back and get more years. Well that becomes permanent. So if you want permanent, why are we approving this as temporary? It doesn't mesh. And so I just think we need to really get a handle on these temporary trailer uses in the city. We have several right now that are temporary trailers that aren't approved. That are being used in different areas that have just sort of popped up over the course of the last few months. Any other commission or thoughts? Vignans? I do. I think that's the other commissioner thoughts. Vignans? I do think that the bird does not mean indefinite. We have to give meaning to the statutory language. And I think your adjustment does that. All right. Would you like to make a motion to recommend approval of special use permit 2024 0 0 0 1 4 with condition number three as amended by the memo of June 24th 2024. Second. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Lyle and a second by Commissioner Canning. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Commissioner McMahon, may I note that we are having some technical difficulties with displaying PowerPoints in the chambers, not to the rest of the world that might be watching. I'll note for folks that IT is on its way, et cetera. Also, we have printed copies of the PowerPoints out French or out in the, in the vestibule as well as available online for anyone who needs to follow along. Thank you very much. All right. That brings us to the second item from consent that has been pulled. Staff would you like to call the item? Item number five, development special use permit 2024-1002, 29 and 29.57 Eisenhower Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for an extension of a previously approved development special use permit, the SUP 2015-001 with site plan to construct a new multi-unit residential building with ground floor retail slash commercial. Zone CDD number three, coordinated development district number three, applicant, Rushmark, Eisenhower, self-tower, LLC represented by M. Catherine Pascard attorney. All right, staff, would you please proceed? her impuss guard attorney. All right, staff, would you please proceed? I have a question for the applicant's council, Ms. Riley, that's all. Ms. Riley, I've spoken about this with your associate Kathy Pusscar, and she's conveyed my concerns to you, right? I'm looking at section 11418F of the zoning ordinance, which says that if substantial construction activity on a building has been interrupted for more than 24 consecutive months between the completion of one building and the commencement of construction on another building in a phased project, that constitutes prime of face evidence of a failure to maintain due diligence. Evidence of such failure can be rebutted by evidence that the interruption and the activity is approximately caused by either a change in circumstances or a mistake. I would think in the end of your state, your the statement in the application, which simply refers to unfavorable market conditions that you're really relying on change in circumstances, not any mistake in the original approval, is that right? That's correct, Mr. Raoul. My attitude toward this particular statute is that it doesn't give anyone a freebie with regard to a first-time extension. Even on the first-time extension, you must explain what the change in circumstances is and why they approximately caused. In this case, what I think is close to a three-year delay, not a two-year delay. Am I right about that? I think it's about a two and a half year delay, given when they saw their building permits. Please tell us please. What's the circumstances change in circumstances are that are keeping this project from going forward? Yes, thank you, Commissioner Brown. And for the record, my name is Lauren Riley. We represent Rushmore with regard to this application. And just to give you a little bit more context is to the application. And just to give you a little bit more context as to the timeline, this original DSUP was approved in 2016 for three phases of development, two multifamily buildings and the townhouses. And so construction began, Rushmark began their process in 2017 by getting a construction loan for that first phase of development. And at that time their interest rate was 3.17%. And that loan covered approximately 65% of the construction costs for that first phase of the project in 2017. And then they continued on the next couple of years phase two was sold off to a different developer who was able to construct that by 2019. So presumably similar favorable financial market circumstances at that time. And then meanwhile, Rushmerk has continued to pursue its final site plan and its building permit on this last phase of construction. And so its final site plan was approved in 2022. And later that year their final building permit was approved. So the only reason that they don't have a shovel in the ground right now is the financial market. And if you were to look at this today compared to 2017, the interest rates are now 7%. Double what they were when they first started the their first construction fees in 2017. And also now, if they were to go to the bank and try to get alone, that loan would only cover 50 to 55% of the construction costs. So the cost to construct this last phase is roughly $100 million. The difference to Rushmark is that they would, they would, instead of $35 million and 3%, they would have to pay $50 to $55 million and 7%. And the current market rents in this area don't justify that. And you definitely cannot just increase market rents to offset that cost. It wouldn't work. The bank wouldn't loan you the money because they know what the rents are in the Eisenhower area. So it's for that reason alone that they've not been able to put a shovel in the ground. They remain committed to beginning construction as soon as the market conditions are more favorable. I appreciate that explanation. It's much more helpful than the two or three words that were in the application. And I think it's the kind of information that we on the commission need to keep mindful and get this kind of information from developers who are having trouble completing projects on time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I will note that there is a hand raised in the online attendee list. So in the interest of the open public hearing, Adam Stickler, if your hand is raised to speak, we've unmuted you on this side of things and you can unmute yourself a handler, if your hand is raised to speak, we've unmuted you on this side of things and you can unmute yourself to speak. That's what you wish. Yeah. It's good evening. Can you all hear me? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Great. Thank you. Sorry. I'm working from the phone. So, I have a couple of concerns and reference to lives in the master association, which the initial permit and then a subsequent three year permit extension. So within 10 years, market conditions have been more than favorable to initiate construction. And as a homeowner, we're concerned that having a wooden fence, parched off on property and unkept areas will detract from the value of our home. So we would be interested in working with, we would be interested in with the planning commission, thoughts would be if they extend the permit for Rushmark to consider maybe utilizing that space. It's currently fenced off as a green space like it's been done in Delray. So I would argue now that this short term project has now been an active construction site for more than 10 years. And other long term projects in the city, such as Potomac Yard, have had extensive, an expansive green space installed in the interim of its construction and economic and pandemic reasons. So, because it costs a little bit more money today to not build as a homeowner that's impacted by this. So the developer pays a couple more million dollars. Doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to continue to not have them accountable to follow through on constructing the building as previously approved. You know, to me, this looks like, you know, what happens three years later if we're still in the same consideration. Is it going to continue to be extended? That doesn't seem reasonable. I would also argue that I've heard, and I don't have that information to present today, but I've also heard that Rushmark is interested in selling that particular piece of land. So what is it really? Are we really trying to build here, or are we just kicking the can down the road and hoping interest rates drop? When a year or two or three down the road and hoping interest rates drop when a year or two or three down the road were not really short. So, you know, I don't know if you guys have pictures of the particular site, you know, before the commission, but it is a very big large wooden fence that really if it could come down and be placed and grass to be there, would be more aesthetically pleasing to the type of environment that the city is endeavoring to create for its residents. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Stickler. It looks like we have no further speakers on this item. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. All right, I have a motion by Commissioner Lyle, second by Commissioner Ramirez. All those in favor favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That brings us to Commissioner Discussion. Commissioner Brown? No. Commissioner Canning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a question for staff. What are the typical requirements in terms of the level of maintenance of this property while it is not actively under construction? For the record, my name is Nathan Randall, principal planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I, the typical standard I would say for most of the projects that we see, including those on extension, they would of course have to meet city codes for property maintenance. But, you know, we would expect that the offencing, that there would be fencing around the site that the vegetation would be kind of kept in check. The, in terms of interim uses, I would say that it is not as typical to require there to be an interim user for the site to be open to the public. You know, we, I'll also add that we have included condition language to address the concern about the condition of the fencing, as well as to cut back some of our ground vegetation and to keep the site in good maintenance and good condition until construction begins. Thank you. Commissioner Lyle. Can we get code enforcement to go out and do an assessment. Between now and city council public hearing so that City Council has a report from code enforcement. Commissioner Nile, I will work to make that happen. I'll be in touch with the code administration tomorrow morning. Does the applicant wish to respond to the request? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner McMahon. I won't belabor the timeline because I think I've gone through all the phases and while we're not able to pursue construction. And so it's not 10 years that they've had the opportunity to develop the site. It's really a couple of years as this was always intended to be faced construction and this phase throughs, was the last phase. That being said, we understand neighbors' concerns about the existing fencing and vegetation on the site and we're committed to taking action on that to repair and replace that fencing, as well as cut back the vegetation, clean up that area to that effect. As Mr. Randall noted, there's a new condition 132 that does require that work and in speaking with the applicant today they've got a contractor and they intend on beginning that work within the next two weeks so it won't just be the 60 days it's required by the condition we intend to act on that soon. Thank you very much. All right. We close the public hearing. I guess I would just say, I appreciate the, we did, right? Yeah, okay. It's hard to balance the proceeding of the meeting with the things you want to think about at the meeting in case anyone else has ever wants to try out this role. anyone else has ever wants to try out this role. I can commiserate with the speakers wish that this fallow site could be more useful to the community in these intervening years. It's my general understanding that in most of the places I've seen around town including one fairly large field that's fenced off right next to the Bratik Metro station where a bunch of buildings were torn down and development has not been able to proceed yet It's pretty typical for these sites to be fenced off and I think in many cases it's because of liability That site is not made for public use. There's no public easements on it. Who knows what's in the ground that they haven't pulled out yet? Like in terms of things that are metal or things that are glass or what it might be. So it isn't as simple as taking some fences down and letting dogs run around on an open space. And if you were a landowner of a piece of property like that, it's think that I get where the applicants coming from and I appreciate their intent and staff's work to ensure conditions are speaking to the important condition of the aesthetic of the site as it has to be maintained until it can be built upon and that that is fair and that we also, and thank you Commissioner Brown for sort of bringing up that it was good to get a full understanding of the economic situation. I can't claim to have enough resources to have a piece of property like this and be weighing these kinds of decisions but we want this to be a successful investment and we want when it starts construction for it to come to completion for it to be occupied and there are sometimes instances where that doesn't happen if these calculations aren't done correctly. So I hope that this extension is what is needed to bring this site to fruition for on behalf of the city as a whole but also on behalf of the neighborhood. Happy to entertain a motion. I'm happy to move approval. You may get it. Yeah. I'll see you. Yes, Dick. 2024, 1,000, 1,002. Second. All right, I have a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Commissioner Lyle. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. All right, that brings us to new business tonight. Would you please call item 8? Sure. And unfortunately, it seems like we're still experiencing technical difficulty. I know that they were trying to get a fix. I'm not sure that they will in time for these last two items, eight and nine. But item number eight, special use permit, 2024-0033-201 East Delray Avenue, 2207 and 2213 Mount Vernon Avenue. Public hearing and consideration of a special use permit for outdoor dining, over 49 seats and for recreation and entertainment amending SUP 2.022-0060 Som CL commercial low applicant Arpert-Hom Rayon Rousseff Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you very much and good evening members of the planning commission for the record My name is Patrick Silva urban planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning here again to present on the special use permit for the aforementioned sites So first some context the subject sites are two contiguous park parcels address separately as 22 13 and 2207 mountain run in Avenue 22 13 is Developed with a two-story commercial building, which includes the restaurant known as Gustav's Belangerian Brasery, on the first floor and includes office space on its second floor. The parcel of separately addressed as 22-07 Mount Vernon Avenue was currently undeveloped with any buildings. To the west of these subject properties are the Potomac Tanswere Commercial Condominiums. To the lots of the north are likewise developed with commercial buildings, including St. Elmo's coffee pub. While the adjacent properties located immediately to the east are developed with detached and 70 detached residences. Finally, the adjacent property to the south is developed as a commercial property that includes a beauty salon and furniture store. Now, on the special use permit request itself, again, the applicant, Ryan Musaev is requesting after the fact special use permit approval to increase the amount of outdoor seating volume from its present total of 40 seats to 104 seats across both properties, as well as a request to operate outdoor recreation entertainment uses at the 2207 Mount Vernon Avenue site. These outdoor recreation entertainment uses do include children's play sandbox, as well as a botchy court in an off leash dog play area. The applicant's goal as communicated in their application is to create a family friendly community gathering space in the heart of the Del Rey commercial corridor. The hours of operation for both of the aforementioned uses would be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., which is consistent with the Mount Vernon Urban overlay zone criteria. And the amount of patrons present at any one time is never expected to exceed 150 patrons during standard operations. The proposed configuration of the outdoor dining at outdoor recreation entertainment use elements can be seen on this site plan graphic, which is now showing up in the chamber. The Batchee Court is located on the eastern portion of the site, as you can see here, with the Children's Sandbox Play Area located roughly in the middle of the 2207 site and the off-leash dog play area located along the southern property line. Regarding the staff recommendation, staff is recommending support of the special use permit request. The expansion to 2207 Mount Vernon Avenue has been an operation for some time now, and it's easy to recognize that the outdoor area has become a beloved aspect of the Delray community as a gathering spot where individual neighbors and families catch up and can relax in this sort of low-key atmosphere. And staff additionally, while the uses have been operating, has not received any complaint stemming from operation of the outdoor commercial use is present at the site, been operating has not received any complaints stemming from operation of the outdoor commercial uses president This site, but nonetheless has analyzed them for the potential of impacts stemming from those uses So first on noise while the three residents who do live closest to the outdoor component of this business Have spoke both spoken favor of the requests and mentioned that they really haven't experienced any impacts from their operations. And indeed the Delray Land Use Committee and the Delray Citizens Association at large did a voice their support for the proposal. We still did want to address noise as part of our analysis here and any potential noise impacts standing from those outdoor uses would be mitigated by a number of special use permit, special use permit conditions of approval that staff has recommended, including one that the applicant establishes staff member to act as a community liaison to the neighbors in case there are any issues or noise impacts that need to be followed up on in short order. And condition requiring the applicant do develop a policy for safe and impact for use of all of those outdoor recreation and entertainment uses. On parking, though the staff, or rather the applicant is not able to accommodate all of their required off-street parking on-site, staff does find that the arrangement for the five off-street parking space deficit, which is proposed to be provided at two or three CUSAs Avenue is a reasonable approach to meet their eight space requirement. In addition to afford the applicant flexibility the state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. The state's budget for the public. provided in case that two or three CUSTA 7U site does not work. Finally, an additional point of note. Approval of these outdoor entertainment recreation use elements is contingent upon city council approval of a zoning text amendment, which you all considered last month, to add outdoor entertainment, recreation entertainment uses as those which may operate with approval of an SUP in the commercial low in Mount Vernon, urban overlay zones. And that is scheduled for consideration by Council at their July 2nd hearing. So in conclusion, subject to the conditions of the, conditions of approval contained within the staff report, as well as the proposed amendments to condition 26, regarding outdoor seating volume and 37, regarding the outdoor use elements, as recommend in the staff, memos dated June 20th and June 24th, staff is recommending approval of the SUP request and is available to answer any questions Thank you very much We have some public speakers on this item Bear with me I'm going to go to the next speaker. Speaker number one is Gail Rooter followed by Brendan. No last name given. Hopefully you can give the last name when he speaks. followed by Paul Harry, for you of me, and yes, so I will list off some others as you all come up, but please feel free to come near the podium when you're ready. Good evening members of Planning Commission. My name is Gail Rooter and I'm here to speak in favor of Gustav S.U.P. request. And also thank you for the recent tax amendment changes you made regarding outdoor recreation and entertainment use. As a homeowner and Delray for over 40 years, I served on the committee that developed the Mount Vernon Avenue business area plan that was adopted in 2005. And this business would have been exactly what we would have hoped for if we could have dreamed that big almost 20 years ago. It is perfect gathering place for neighbors, families, dog owners and everyone who enjoys getting to be outside and on top of that they have great coffee and great food. When I first met Cream the manager before he had even opened his doors he mentioned how he had looked for the perfect neighborhood and And when he found Delray, he had been told, if you open in Delray, it's not like in DC. You have to be part of the community. You get to know your customers and they get to know you. And that is exactly what has happened. From the moment they have opened, they have become much love neighbors. I love that they've hired local kids. I love that they have stepped up to be part of the many events we do. And they have partnered with so many of our nonprofits to help raise needed funds. While I am not an immediate neighbor, I do live at one 10 East Delray, which is directly next door to St. Elmo's across the street from Delray, Pizzeria, and Cadi Corner to Gustafs. While when walking by, I may hear lots of laughing and neighbors greeting neighbors, I have not seen any adverse impact either through noise, litter, or traffic. And I also know that Creme would be extremely responsive at any point any of his neighbors have any concerns. I also want to thank City staff for their understanding and working with Gustavs as they brought their SUV up to date and have gone through the process to officially make these changes. I hope you support their SUV as they requested and we look forward to a long and wonderful relationship and partnership with Gustav and Delray. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Brendan, followed by Paul Heary, followed by Pat Miller. Don't see Brendan. It's Brendan on the... Hello, this is Brendan. There you are. Thank you. Go for it. So Brendan Belair, I little bit 100 east Oxford Avenue. Sorry. Can you guys still hear me? Yes. Yes, yeah, okay, and I just wanted to I'll be very brief. I just wanted to echo a lot of what the previous speaker said It's just an amazing space. It wasn't there when we moved in I have a family with three little kids and We move from Capitol Hill Which you know has a lot of green space and you know one of the things I think this fits a perfect need is providing an amazing green space Obviously the sandbox is something my kids love. The botchie I think is great. It's a great environment to oftentimes bring it in friends from DC and they're always marveling at what a great community benefit that is to have that space. And I also just think, you know, furthermore, obviously the other speaker has a lot more experience with this, but I think it's just the type of business we want in Delray because they said, Karim, like I hosted my wonderful birthday there, he's the most inviting person ever. He's really a part of the community. He's only been there, you know, for several months. And I think he's someone that's really respond to the community providing just really an amazing facility. And it's also I think smart just from perspective Del Rey and Alexandria to really appreciate these folks that are really investing in it. I mean, before it was a pretty blighted space, I mean, there was really nothing to it. And he's really made it into a jewel of that area. And in a work two blocks away, and I'll just say that I've never seen any negative impacts at all. It's all been positive. And I hope the Commission looks favorably upon them asking for a little more capacity because I think it's very fair to reward the investment that Cremes made in the community. And I think it'll be a benefit for years to come. Thank you for having me talk for a minute. Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul. Here. Here? Okay, excellent. Okay, and then that will be followed by Pat Miller, followed by the applicant. Don't complain. Given what's already been said, I don't have much to add. There is a certain advantage to having had them open before they got their SUP and that we've got experience here in which to base our recommendations. And I'm the owner of your dog's best friends. I'm the owner of the dog store which is right across Del Rey from this establishment. And about the only thing I can add is every dog in Del Rey wants you to vote for this. Thank you very much. Pat Miller, followed by the applicant Duncan Blair. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and commissioners. It's indeed a pleasure to be here. I just agree with everything everybody has already said but I do have to tell you when you brought up the word noise I there is no noise what is children laughing and having fun that is one of the best noises we can have on Mount Vernon Avenue. And that is what you get from here. It really is. And there's a whole new entertainment thing going on out there right now, I think, with parents wanting to take their kids with them and their dog. And this is the kind of thing that just fits this so well. And I sure hope you support it because I know the residents of Delray love it and want it to continue. So thank you for your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Duncan Blair representing the applicant. Duncan Blair, and then Karen Blair, I will be very brief. First of all, it's wonderful to have this facility, my daughter, and my almost six months granddaughter go there weekly. It is a great place for them to meet up with their friends after going to another Delray business across street and yoga. So I didn't have a conflict. I'll put that out. My granddaughter wants this very much. But the community wants it as much. This has become a, like the garden further down, a gathering place for families, gathering place for entertainment. So it is much needed, much loved in the day. I think that's a good idea. Further down a gathering place for families, gathering place for entertainment. So it is much needed, much loved in the country, in the community. Also interesting is, I know there's a comment about the curb cut. That curb cut is actively used. I just found out when I walked in, I think Mr. Coney, we like this. There's a truck in there for two days with natural grass cutters who have been permitted to cut the grass and chew it down to its nubs. So there are two goats there now, cutting grass per city policy. The area in is, again, it is a great amenity to the community. We'll be glad to answer any questions. I know Del Rey submitted some additional comments, but we believe all those comments are either succumbed in the existing comments, or potentially our comments set would be hard to enforce as SEP comments like making sure they're constant plans because weather conditions, others may make that difficult for zoning to enforce and for the applicant to comply with. So with that, we endorsed the staff recommendations as amended. I know Mr. Brown had a question about after the fact so I'll preempt them. It is interesting in a way it's proactive not after the fact. The seating application was filed and that triggered a lot of conversation with the staff. The botty court which as much as anything is kind of a play area to run around area. And the sandbox were put in thinking they were amenities like other restaurants have, it was determined that it reached a threshold beyond what would be accessory uses. And as such, the ordinance was changed to allow dog parks and to bring it into this district as amusement enterprises morphing into recreational and entertainment uses are now permitted citywide and there's a little more guidance to applicants on where that line is between accessory and principal use. Also just want to say as a result of all of this, that off-leash dog area is not being used for off-leash now. There are a number of reasons for that. It may or may not be used for off-leash in the future. But as a business decision, it was decided not to use that for off-leash. So I'd be glad to answer any questions. Are there any questions for the applicant? Otherwise, I'll hear a motion to close the public hearing. I'll have a motion by Commissioner Lyle. Second, a second by Commissioner Ramirez. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. On those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. On behalf of Brooke, thank you. Yeah, so that brings us to discussion. Any comments? I mean, I'm happy to support this application. I appreciate the elaboration on this after the fact question, because as you know, we get several after the fact requests for approval for SUPs over the course of every year, lots of different types. It's always a curiosity to me about what the, whether it is because of a lack of awareness of the things that require permits. In this case, I think it really was a lack of definition in some areas which our ordinance update was able to rectify definition and really allow and it's like thinking about the community as a whole and that there were neighborhoods that were actually left out of certain types of use. But that said, I appreciate the applicant coming in going through this proactive process with staff and I believe that the conditions do a good job of putting the controls where they need to be in a consistent manner as they would for other similar SUVs. And we do have for the sake of listeners and our commission members remembering, we have a couple of condition edits that we've received by staff memorandum, two memorandums, one memoranda, one from June 21st, and then one of the two conditions that are in our June 24th memo, both of which pertain to this item to reflect some nuance here. I'll mention that the one in the June 24th memo is really taking out the maximum seat threshold for this space and tying it back to state wide building code and the sort of safety provisions because this is something we would much rather be a building code provision than have us try to make individual determinations about the right amount of seats are in a given space. So I support that amendment. In the prior one, I don't have that up, but it had to do with the specification of the different uses in that space. And I also support the prior, the June 21st memo condition revision that was provided. I believe that was provided. I believe that was condition number 37. And I don't know, do you have that on a slide? So we could see it, because it wasn't in our printouts. I don't know if that's fine. We don't, but I could read it. If you could. That would be great. Okay. A configuration of the outdoor dining and outdoor recreation and entertainment uses shall be substantially similar to the layout as depicted in figure three, which is in the staff report. The Batchee ball court, child children's play area and the off leash dog play area permitted pending City Council approval of zoning text amendment 2024, 00, 006 on July 2, 2024. the second. Thank you very much. So those are the two condition amendments that we're looking at along with this item proposed amendments along with this item tonight. So I'll be supporting any other comments from commissioners before we hear a motion. Yes. Yes, commissioners. Ms. Horowitz advises me as part of our action. before we hear a motion? Yes. Yes, Commissioner Mayoung. Ms. Horowitz advises me as part of our action. We can recommend the removal of the no parking signs that bracket the curb cut. I think that's a good idea, even though staff is not recommending elimination of the curb cut, but rather leaving it there for some future possible use. But right now, I don't think it's impeding the sidewalk. And I think it's a natural part of the street. I think it's fine. But parking is quite dear on the street. And I'd like to recapture the parking space that we lost when those signs were put up. They can always be put back up again in the future if the curb cut is activated again, but right now it's not. So whatever language we need to add, I would like to recommend that we ask TNES to remove the signs at least for now. Wait, I have a question about that, Mr. Brown. Mr. Blair, did you say that? Curbcut is being used for the goats. Yes. Okay. And it is actively used. It's a passive use. So it's not in and out every day to parking as we think of most curb-puts. But it is used actively. And if the signs were to come down, which may or may not be to the benefit of the community, because a lot of people do park there anyway, benefit of the community because a lot of people do park there anyway. Would be what is the mechanism by which the owner of that lot can use his curb cut knowing that it won't be blocked because of parking which is now permissible. I don't know the answer. I would probably say enforcement, but I can't say that too loud, but he needs to have the ability to use the curb cut, not only now, but also in the future. And he had actually asked the parking and planning board to put signs up a number of years ago because it was constantly blocked. In the parking situation changed when the city put in the bike share on the corner which took away a fair amount of parking to and that probably increased the man from parking. But it is a conundrum, I understand. I don't, it's not as if there could be no parking, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. because you don't really know when the deliveries are. And on my shorts, realistic to assume that the city would want to put emergency 72 hour no parking signs up every time it had to be used. It would be glad to explore West Ave, but I think there's some practical realities. I just don't see this as the applicant's call in any way, shape or form. This is public parking. Appreciate it. Commissioner Manor has joined us online and he has his hand up. Would you like to speak? Yes, please. I'd like to make a play on words and say I raised my hand for this business. I think it's a great addition to the neighborhood. And when I read this and I come on, kids and dogs, how can we say no to this? I mean, it's Delray after all. I remember when they painted the building that interesting blue, and it took quite some time for them to actually get open, but it was an interesting intro to the neighborhood. And I've been there many times, I've spoken to the applicant and the owner. And I find their food really good and it's always busy when I'm there and especially the outdoor space. So I would vote in favor of this without question. Thank you. Thank you. Additional discussion. I'm happy to support this and I'll be happy to make a motion when the time is right. I think I had the same question Mr. Brown had about the curb cut when I spoke with staff but I think in light of the fact that it is in use. I don't really see the need. I sat out there a couple of mornings and just sort of watched people come and go. And the majority of the people who patronize this building are on foot or on bicycles. They're not driving up. You see one car drive up for every 20 that walk up. And so I don't see a real need for additional parking other than our requirements. And so I think, you know, this morning when I spoke with staff, I said, well, maybe we take the signs away and open up that curb cut to parking, but I think in light of the uses that it's probably not a good idea to do that. So my take on the curb cut question is kind of a couple things going on, and I don't know if I have all the information I need. Curb cuts do prevent parking. But how we assign the space to a parking use also depends on it seems to me whether the applicant has a claim to using the curb cut for its property access. And so I don't know if we, because you can't put, you can't put up parking signs in front of someone's driveway, for instance, right? Someone has a driveway, you can't just turn it into a parking space. So I don't, I can't speak to, and maybe staff could help me out here to like what we're allowed to or not allowed to do, what designates it as a curb cut that is protected as a curb cut. And operationally, the question in my mind is more about it. Curb cuts are used for vehicles to traverse over the sidewalk. And I wouldn't really want vehicles traversing over the sidewalk here. Like that to me is not the best use of a curb cut. Access under understandably what most businesses do when they need access to a curb near them is petition for a loading zone, short-term parking, something that is designated so that cars don't just park there all day because most businesses can't just make a curb cut. They can't, they can't, on their own, change the nature of that, of that parking space. So I guess I would, I would emphasize that I'm not really in favor of being used as a curb cut unless in fact it has to be, but it could be something that if it's not, if it's an active curb cut that staff can't take away, then I don't think we have a position to take it away from them. But if it's not active and there's some designation of that that staff can make, then what I would suggest is that the applicant work to get that kind of commercial loading or short term parking designation on the signs so that it is high turnover. And if they need it for bringing equipment, mowing equipment of the foreleg it or whatever it is, variety, or whatever it might need to get onto the site that they're using it as a loading zone, much like other commercial businesses would use a loading zone or short-term parking. So that's kind of where I land on it. I don't know if staff can speak to this technicality at all. I can speak to this technicality at all. I, Brian Dolpha-Mire with TNES. Thank you for the question. Just a few thoughts on it. We did check in with parking enforcement. We did not get an answer back yet as to without a sign there, when people be able to park there and not get ticketed as your point is, because there is a curb cut there. So we think, the person that I checked in with did think that it was generally the signs that parking enforcement looks at, but like I said, we didn't get a confirmation on that yet. And then, and maybe that's a little bit helpful. And maybe that's a little bit helpful. Well, I think the question that Commissioner Brown is putting forward is whether or not it is in fact up to the applicant or if it's up to the city slash us. Because if we could say we would like it to be closed and be parking, then we could vote on that. But if we can't actually vote on that, then I don't want us to have it in one of our motions. Right. Are you coming in? As I was going to say, we did check in with the City Attorney's Office, and then you are allowed to include in your motion that the signage be changed, which is similar to how we do for DSUPs and site plans that come through also. All similar to how we do for DSUPs and site plans that come through also. And that's some kind of beaten around the bush because I know we could change signage, but if it's a curb cut that they have the right to drive on, then it's not, we're not fundamentally changing anything. I had sent earlier some references to the city code and to these zoning ordinance to Commissioner Brown today, which expressed the authority that the Planning Commission is given for the on-street spaces and the use of those. And you can designate in lieu of the traffic and parking board to identify how that curb is used. Combining that statement with what Mr. Dauphin Meyer just mentioned, it does appear to me, at least, that if the signs were removed, that the parking enforcement would not ticket anyone for parking there, should you decide to remove the signs be removed. We don't actually have the ability to recommend or request that the curb be something other than a curb cut and a drive access, but we could request the signs be removed as part of the execution of this special use permit and then let the powers that be do whatever the enforcement is in this location. I think that's an accurate statement. Okay. How are you feeling about that Commissioner Brown? Is that what you want, what your objective is? Or do you? I was, I'm looking for a compromise here where we're not forcing the property owner to lose a curb cut if he needs it in the future. I just don't see where the applicants need for the curb cut out ways that the citizens need to have this parking space because it's really crowded down there all the time. And you would not be changing the applicants, the physical reality of the curb cut, nor the applicant's ability to use it. Okay. Yeah. And I think removing signs opens up possibility, whereas leaving the ones there closes down and also short-term parking signs would close down opportunity because they would be specifying what could happen in that location. And I want to amend what I just said to say their legal ability to use it. Of course, if there was a car park there, they would be very rarely unable to. Yeah, unable to. Okay. Any other commissioner thoughts on this item? Because I think Commissioner Brown would like it to be part of a motion associated with the action. Commissioner Manor, your hand is raised again. Yes, I just thank you. As I said, I kind of would like to follow up on something Commissioner Lyle said, as I said, I've been there quite a number of times and I've never had to be more parking demand because we're permitting this. That's it. Commissioner Ramirez. I'm just a couple of thoughts. I am in agreement and I am in support of this application. A couple of items though I thought you know with this after the fact application of which we've seen several come before us but in alignment with some ordinance, potential ordinance changes that we had approved recently, I think I want to highlight for anyone who's thinking about changing something, even if it's an outdoor space like this, which is very lovely, that perhaps reaching out first to planning and zoning to talk about the potential changes would be beneficial to understand, first of all. Like you may want to just wait a little bit and see how this legislation or change in zoning, you know, how it comes about maybe a week or so down the road before you go and make a change. You know, that's something that planning and zoning can help advise. The other part is that I find a very remarkable though that even though this DSUP is coming before us after it has been already, you know, the whole the space has already been changed. It is I don't know how many times you know my husband and I we live and my family and I, we live in Delray. We come here very regularly. I would say, yes, it's true. I rarely see parking there to be an issue, but then again, I walk there and I bike there all the time. A lot of people bike and walk through Delray. The only parking issues I've seen come up have only been on Saturday mornings during the farm's market and if there is a way to be able to I don't know how TNE us can work it out if there's some Put it all in your hands but some way to be able to allow for The applicant's use of that curb cut for their mowing equipment. If there's some way to be able to find that compromise, I think it would be beneficial. But being able to see the space activated, how many times we've walked by like, and thought, this is exactly what we always pictured this space to be. We've seen the space go through several iterations. Every time it's been the activation of it that has proven to be the most successful use. Otherwise, for I would say, you know, 350 days out of the year for the most part, it had long been just an empty yard. You know, when there was the, um, the string art installation, um, the connection installation, um, that was an amazing activation of it. Whenever we have Aronnie Avenue in Delray, it's an amazing activation of it. And now we're seeing a patch of grass that is actively used continually, seven days a week, which is amazing. It's a lovely space. It's a wonderful addition, absolutely in support of it. With the noise mitigation, I think what the applicant has done has been a, I would say, like a model that we wish most applicants would do, which is really talking with your neighbors before you go and do something. And I'm making sure that they're comfortable with what you're doing. It's just a part of being neighborly. And this applicant has absolutely, in many ways been neighborly to our Delray community. So in support. All right, Commissioner Cainek. Madam Chairman, I'm very happy to enthusiastically join the consensus of support for this project. I think it's really wonderful and dynamic and creative and all the ways that have been identified. And I appreciate the testimony that we received from a neighbor tonight who are clearly intimately familiar with it and are fully engaged in close proximity on a full time basis and are also enthusiastically in support. I'm comfortable with a motion that would propose including the memos modifying and tweaking the conditions. On the parking, I appreciate your efforts, Madam Chairman, to sort of decipher what's actually an issue here from a process point of view. I think the fact that the owner clearly has a which sounds like an occasional use that can only be facilitated by use of the of the curb cut. On the other hand it seems like somewhere between 50 and 98% of the time it's not being actively utilized. So how to find that balance that everybody's been searching for? I'm not totally clear on if the idea of removing the signage and letting the parking happen is a way to gain the additional parking capacity and that there's still, doesn't sound like there's any particular formal way to protect the applicant's use at this point other than the fact that it's still there. And if there's an informal way that they can, and I'm not going to suggest anything in particular an informal way that they could identify when they need to use it and encourage that space to be open at the time frame that they needed if that really is something that happens occasionally not, you know, two times or a day or six times a week, maybe an informal solution that still offers the ability to use it when they need it and the removal of the signs eliminates a kind of unnecessary formal restriction the rest of the time, I would, if the motion includes removal of the signs, I would be willing to support it. If the motion doesn't include removal of the signs, I will be willing to support it. If the motion doesn't include removal of the signs, I will be willing to support it. Commissioner Lael. I have a suggestion. Why don't we have staff work with being in work with parking enforcement and the applicant over the next week, prior to city council. So public hearings on this signage issue and see if we can come to some kind. We're not going to come to a conclusion tonight. So we could keep talking about it, but it's. There's probably a way to work through this. That's not going to happen in the next three hours. Because we don't have the people here that need to be at the table. So, Mr. Brown, would you support that if in the motion I add that staff, the applicant, will work with parking to try to ameliorate the curb cut issue over the next week and see where we can come what agreement we can come to. I can add something that can be done and I think it was mentioned briefly. There are temporary test parking of curb use permits that can be submitted for. They can allow it for a certain amount of time. It's called a right of way permit along the curb. And it's very easy to apply for it. That started after the COVID programs that we had. So they initiated that. Another option that is not readily apparent from Mount Vernon Ave is that there is a second curb cut on East El Rey Ave that does actually have a gate, a point of egress, egress where the long mowing equipment can be unloaded and enter the grassy area. And I'm chair, just I'd already written down Carl Bryan Dauphin, I'm here firstly in the morning and Bob Garback and do some research on when the signage was put up what the parking traffic board said at that time, are there creative solutions to provide the parking and traffic boards said at that time. Are there creative solutions to provide the parking when it's not used for bringing mulch, art on the avenue, bringing trailers and all those things to facilitate the continued use candidly, but one could say is a property right. The code does have a provision that if a curb cut I'm not sure there's other code provisions and I'm going to look tomorrow on removing a curb cut. Essentially parking in front of it does somewhat remove it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. on removing a curb cut. And essentially parking in front of it does somewhat remove it. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. And that is my main concern. As much as I don't like curb cuts and I want them to go away and they make the sidewalk less safe for the people walking along it, I also don't think that I'm comfortable taking an action that would be like taking that curb cutaway. And that's where I'm just not sure what the sign solution is for that. But I would be happy to have your motion include the language that you describe. Our staff can work with the applicant and see in the next week or so the other way. So, I would like to have your motion include the language that you described. Our staff can work with the applicant and see in the next week or so what they could do to make this work better be safer, accommodate more parking when it's not being used as a driveway. Are we ready for a motion? I'm ready. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to recommend approval of special use permit 20240033. To include the memo of June 21st and the memo work with tests to resolve the carp cut issues prior to City Council public hearing. Second. All right. I have a motion by commission or liel and a second by commission or remeres. Any last discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. Six zero. Thank you. Yeah. the 1 0 0 4 107 and 125 Northwest Street, Northwest Street townhomes. Public hearing and consideration of a request for development special use permit and site plan including a special use permit for land without frontage, subdivision and modifications to construct nine residential townhouses and four semi-detached dwellings. Zone CD slash commercial downtown, applicant 125 north west street LLC, represented by Duncan Blair attorney. Please proceed. Thank you. Good evening. Vice Chair McMahon and Planning Commission members. For the record, my name is Catherine Milliarce with the Department of Planning and Zoning. The applicant, 125 Northwest Street LLC, proposes to redevelop the existing two parcels at 107 and 125 Northwest Street with 13 new residential units. Nine townhouses fronting the public streets and four semi-detached units facing the private alley. The project site is in a mixed-used area of Old Town with street frontage on Northwest Street and Cameron Street. The site is half a block from commercial core on King Street and adjacent to a variety of different property uses including retail and commercial, educational, personal services and residential townhouses, both historic and modern. The project is in the Braddock Metro neighborhood plan and the Braddock Road Metro station small area plan boundaries. And the site is adjacent to, but not in, the city's two locally regulated historic districts. The site plan you see here shows the nine street-fronting townhouses and the four semi-detached units accessed from a new private drive aisle. The project includes a new curb cut on Northwest Street and the removal of an existing curb cut along Cameron Street. The new west street curb street curb cut will be right in, right out only, and will have an extended ball bout to improve pedestrian safety and minimize the given its close proximity to the intersection with Cameron Street. The project also includes a variety of open space, including at grade publicly accessible open space at the corner with that will have a bench, private at grade space for project residents, as well as rooftop decks for all units. The semi-detached units will also have rear yards. Each townhouse will have one standard and one compact parking space. The public alley to the south that's existing will be enlarged slightly to meet city standards. Architecturally, the dwelling units are well designed and consistent with a variety of different building styles within the vicinity. They're compatible with the transitional nature of this neighborhood, which features the commercial core of King Street and larger buildings to the south, and more residential uses to the north. The buildings will be primarily constructed of brick with the limited use of synthetic materials largely located on interior elevations. All parking for the units will be in a garage on the first floor accessed from the private alley. As is common with info developments, there is a special use permit and three modifications associated with the project. The SUP is for lots without frontage and the SUP request necessitates a DSUP for the project without that request the project would have been processed as a development site plan. The site was posted and adjacent properties were notified of the project as is required for all projects before planning commission and city council. In addition, the applicant reached out to nearby property owners and hosted a community meeting at the site. The well-attended meeting included representatives from three civic associations and several neighbors. City staff were also available at the meeting to answer any questions. As with all projects, we like to highlight certain areas like store-modern schools as well as transportation improvements. Regarding store-modern, the project is improving current conditions through reduced imperviousness and an underground BMP structure. There are transportation improvements also associated with the project, including wider sidewalks, a bump out at the corner of northwest and Cameron streets. The city will also receive increased taxes over the current taxes collected. There are also several benefits associated with the project, including the replacement of office buildings and surface parking with dwelling units, enhanced streetscapes, and an open space with a public access easement and a bench, high quality architecture, meeting the green building policy, and monetary contributions to bike share, affordable housing, and public art. With that, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the project conditions, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Yes, I have one. Yep, Commissioner Manor. Has there been an estimated about the difference in real estate taxes? As you mentioned, it would be increased. Commissioner Manor, yes. In the staff report towards the end of it you'll see there's a section that talks about the calculated taxes as a commercial use right now versus what real estate would estimate would be the future real estate taxes based on The construction of the 13 townhouses and we estimate that it's an increase of approximately 85 to $100,000 annually. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. I missed that detail. No, no problem. All right. And with that, we do have some public speakers. We do have some public speakers. The first speaker is Susan Barkel, followed by Kendall Wingsguard, followed by, I believe, double checking online. The applicant represented by Duncan Blair. All right, let's start out with Ms. Barcl. Hello. Does it see some barcl. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. And thank you to the planning committee for the opportunity to discuss the project of 107 and 125 Northwest Street. My husband and I are the owners of 114 North A's Street. We purchased it in June of 2022, and our backyard is directly adjacent to 107 Northwest Street, which is where the current architectural and photography company buildings are, which of course is intended to be demolished. We purchased this house because of the lovely historic neighborhood and wanted to be in the historic district, understanding that any external remodeling would be challenging, but also understanding the desire of this lovely city, keep the integrity of the old town farm that brought us here. My daughter and her Air Force husband would love to be citizens of Old Town, Alexander, but they are not able to afford living in this city, so therefore they live in Maryland. Once purchasing the property, we had plans to remove the 1970 exterior and 1990 interior in the order to restore as much as possible of the 1870 look that the exterior used to have, but also to update the living conditions on the interior. The approval process for our remodel took 14 months. This includes the process with the architectural review board and then the city of Alexandria and finally approval was received in August of 2023. And then construction can command stand and just finished. We finalized our reconstruction in April of 2024. I don't understand how it's possible for approval of such a massive magnitude of 107 and 125 north west to move so quickly through this process. It feels like a total disregard for the immense changes in impact, residential property, and the citizens of Alexandria. One of the main reasons for us purchasing this house was because of the backyard. We're moving from Michigan with 15 acres of very private property. And privacy is one of our major interests. After many months of searching for suitable property, we found 114 North Payne, which has a private and beautiful backyard and a wall that defines that backyard. The backyard looks like a lovely European garden with the view of George Washington, Masonic Temple. If this project goes through, not only will that view disappear, but also that whole family will be gone. This is what provided the uniqueness to this house and certainly the value. We put many of hundreds of thousands of dollars into our renovation for our living pleasure, but also expecting a value increase. The schematics of the townhouses are nowhere near the charming and uniqueness of other houses in our neighborhood We're retiring in January and moving to this house permanently It's in time for the project to commence and my backyard will be open to the public display I'm removing that building and my wall my project is directly impacted by this project Yet I found out about it on Saturday, June 15th. Also I want to mention that on neighbors on the south side have moved out 108 110. My property value privacy and construction for three years will be directly impacted. and packed it. Mayor, at the end of your time. Thank you. I would like to keep the height of the wall. Thank you very much. All right. That brings us to Kendall Wingsguard. Good evening, Madam Vice Chair, members of the commission. My name is Kendall Wangsgard, and I appear as a concerned member of the community and resident of Alexandria. My address for the record is 1-1-2 North Payne Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I appear to urge the commission to die DSUP application 2024-1004, or at a minimum, defer the application and return it to the staff DSUP application 2024-1004, or at a minimum, defer the application and return it to the staff for further assessment and development of the record. The application is rife with special use and modification requests. Special use of frontage, height increases, open space modifications, side guard modifications, setback modifications, and parking modifications. But in many cases, fundamental question is not answered, which does this make sense as design. It lacks analysis, articulate reasoning, or support in examining that fundamental question. If Zoning and Use Rules would be given any effect, and this committee should deny the application, anything less risks allowing the exceptions to swallow the rule whole without due regard to the baseline standards designed to benefit the entire city. And this committee, this commission, has earlier stressed the importance of giving the statutes a fact. In advances meeting, I've submitted a detailed summary laying out several often interconnected concerns with the proposed project. But for the sake of time and efficiency, I'll not repeat each of those points here. But I will highlight the key issues and I urge the commission to consider the points in that written document carefully. I'm also happy to address any questions the commission has or depending on how things go, the opportunity to respond to applicant. That might be a little out of character, but I'm used to rebuttal, so I apologize. Having spent some time with the application materials in the staff recommendation, I first want to recognize the important and hard work the staff puts in. That said, I do maintain serious concerns regarding the staff recommendations in this case. These can briefly be put into a few buckets that underline the importance of this commission acting with a critical eye towards the staff recommendation. Those buckets are one concerns about the process. Some are relatedly. Number two concerns about the sparse and often undeveloped reasoning in the recommendation. And number three, the risk to the city, including potentially time and resource intensive litigation and judicial review, that flows from these process concerns. Proceeding on the current basis without more, would result in a project that may not be in the public interest, raises substantial safety concerns, and is not as a zoning ordinance requires, quote, compatible with nearby residential housing, and with that area generally. High level, these concern the proposed curb cut on Northwest Street, and how it came to be that the staff is recommending this change, so close to the intersection with Cameron, close to the school, and with less than ideal fire access, as CNES has explicitly stated to the staff. Also, the heightened SecBet questions, towering development squeezed into one-half acre, and the suboptimal community involvement addressed only in passing by the staff. Also, the incompatibility with this neighborhood, and of course, the process by which we arrived at this juncture tonight. In short, I understand that the committee is presented with competing principles, including increasing housing in Alexandria, but if the rules and requirements is zoning ordinance and master plan are to be given any effect and if principles of transparency are to be given due weight, and the only conclusion must be that this project, as proposed, based on this record, as it stands, and this recommendation, as written, should be denial. Thank you. Thank you very much. That brings us to the applicant represented by Duncan Blair. Good evening. Once again, I'm Duncan Blair, Lan Carole and Blair. Curl me half of the applicant, 125 North. West Street with me is principal of 125 thick banalme. Thick is Alexander your resident. And thick is the major outreach from the beginning of this project when we both the property. He's not condors. He's talked to people. We had an open house. He sent cards, apologized from his back to hell, but her home address was a home address. We sent information. We finally talked last Saturday. So we tried our best, but we can't reach people unfortunately if are contact information is unavailable in the city records. We had a great community meeting, we've had great conversations with West Alexandria, Civic Association, all town in Upper King Street. Project has been an iterative process. It started out as nine units on west, northwest street. When the wind Stanley property became available, explored multifamily on the two, looking at the environment, many of the things that is Riley said earlier, weighed in that attention, settled on new housing, 13 units of new housing much needed in the area, worked very closely with staff to develop a plan, worked with the Alexandria Police Department, the Alexandria Fire Department on access issues, and on the Cameron Street we spent a lot of time conversing on it. What it can't people can't to realize is Cameron is an important street that across the street from Cameron, they're two public alleys that are heavily used by the day care and others. There's a car repair shop on the corner that is effectively one quarter of a block of curb cuts in garage bays and on west on this side of Cameron there are two curb cuts. So the amount of traffic that would come from the existing curb cut came to the realization that controlling the west street curb cut providing the loop that the in the area of the city. The company that was in the area of the city. The company that was in the area of the city. The company that was in the area of the city. The company that was in the area of the city. The company that was in the area of the city. The company that was in a lot of the CRMU project, it does provide for rear yards where it is residential, where CRMU has no rear yard. That said, we were closely with staff. It's not in the architectural control area. I think I was as surprised as staff was that it's in this area where it's not, but the architectural review by the staff was indeed was detailed. And I think that the project shows itself to be consistent with townhouse projects that are being approved in the area, including just recently given street and north outwards Street, and the height is consistent with those height. Part of the reason for the bump in the height was a wide, of some flexibility for architectural interest on the streetscape, and not just merely have flat roofs. So with that, I will be glad to respond to any questions that the commission may have. Commissioner Lyle. Mr. Blair, when did you start working on this application with staff? Because I know we keep hearing, oh it's just shown up in the last month or two we've gotten several comments on that and I know it's much longer. I put under contract. My right last year, that recollection our first conversation was that while the nine 13-year-old was a year almost a year ago. Other questions for the applicant? I will acknowledge there is a new hand raised in the attendee list. So I want before we close the public hearing, make sure that they have a chance to speak. I see a William and Marianne Schreiber online. Yep, you should be able to speak now. Yes, thank you. This is William Schreiber for the record and my wife Mary and Tascone. We own two residences immediately adjacent to the proposed site one of which is our primary residence. We personally feel that the townhouse design very much represents the aesthetic of the neighborhood. We're very pleased with the outreach and graciousness with which Vic and the planning team have canvas the neighborhood and spoke through concerns. And we think overall it would be a very positive addition to the sort of up and coming upper King Street neighborhood. We've lived here since at least 2017 and we've seen a lot of good additions but we think that more residential housing stock in the area and townhomes in particular not only would be keeping with the aesthetic of old town and this downtown area of old town but it would be a much better utilization of the space than an office space which is largely empty, most of the time to be frank. So strong supporters from West Street residents is here. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I have a motion to close the public hearing by Commissioner Lyle. Second. Second by Commissioner Canning. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0 to close the public hearing. That brings us to Commissioner Discussion or questions for staff if there are new ones. And I actually have a question for staff. I am in reviewing as much of Mr. Wangs guard's memo is very long and I was working today. So I can't admit to having read every sentence of it but one of the key concerns is safety and the fire department, the correspondence behooving staff and the applicant on design of the site and what would be the safest or most appropriate drive aisle arrangement. Can staff speak to the fire department position on the final proposal that we're seeing here tonight and their satisfaction with it. I grind off a Myerva test and yes, we did work closely with them. Of course, I we try to balance safety concerns with public safety concerns, right? An access for the site. So at one point, we had tried to limit the curb cuts as much as possible, but then fire does need to get through the site, and then they needed to make a loop through there. And then so once that was established, then we worked with a applicant to come up with ways to make that curb cut on Northwest Street as safe as possible, including working with them to make it a right and right out, as well as working on some ball bout at that corner, also to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Okay, so it's your understanding that the fire department is satisfied with the safety of this solution and that they can serve this facility. Yes, so Catherine Miller, we had extensive conversations planning and zoning, transportation and the fire, in Co, fire, commercial encode administration to discuss how to ensure that access to all of the properties was maintained and the most ideal way to get different trucks in and out. And they were happy with the solution that we arrived upon. Thank you for that. I have another question for staff that comes out of this memo. The applicant speaks to what is essentially a footnote to a table that relates to the height that's being proposed here and that in code the base height would be 35 feet except in meeting for 506 the height for this zone for residential building of this nature can go up to 45 feet. And the two criteria that it lists are related to the ridge line being parallel to the street and the slope of the roof being compatible with neighborhood buildings. It's not super specific or detailed other than that's that's what the code says. So can staff speak to how this project meets those two criteria. Sure. Staff have found that the proposed design does meet the two criteria. The townhouses that you see have a sloped gable roof with dormers, with individual gable dormers. It's technically a man-sard roof because it's flat at the top, but the appearance is as a sloped gable. And so that ridge line is parallel to the street. So it meets that first criteria. And then the second one is compatibility with the neighborhood. And this site is in Old Town. It's near both of the historic districts, which feature a range of historic and new buildings that have a range of different roof types. And one of the most common forms are gable roofs, man-sared roofs, and on North Pain Street, Northwest Street, you see examples of gable roofs with dormers, even on Cameron Street adjacent to this site. There is a similar example of what they're trying to do. So the architect was to create a compatible design. I suspect walked around and looked at some of the buildings that exist to create a design that was appropriate and compatible. Thank you very much. There are other commission or manner. You have your hand raised. Do you have a question for staff? Or comments? Yeah, I didn't have the applicant. or manner you have your hand raised you have a question for staff or comments. Yeah I didn't have the applicant I couldn't tell what they said about how long they've been working with staff. It's hard to hear. Over a year. Okay and then I have question for staff. How tall is the building at 1.14, or no, I'm sorry, 1.16 North Pain? I don't know. 1.16 North Pain would be a townhouse behind this. And I do not have the height of one of those townhouses. I'm readily available. It's I mean, looking at the map, it's quite massive. Comparatively of houses in the neighborhood. It's three stories. Are you so you're referring to this house? Yeah, the three story, Gabel Roofhouse right here that I'm pointing to. So typically I would expect that a three story building would be at least 30 to 35 feet. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Commissioner Comments. I'll start. I am fully in support of this project. I think it's probably one of the better designed projects in terms of compatibility with Old Town, with both historic districts that we've seen come through in quite a while. We've seen a lot of modern architecture, but this really combines the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And I agree with you that the architect probably walked around a significant amount of time before he hit the boards. I sympathize with the neighbors, but no one is guaranteed a view. And we've had these cases come before several over the last two years that I can remember where people were upset because one project was coming down another going up and their views were impacted, but that is not something that we can take into consideration when we're looking at whether a project for a DSUP. And so I think this is a good project. It's a nice use of what is one vacant commercial building and another that's soon to be vacant. And I'll be supporting it. Other commissioner comments? Commissioner Canning. Madam Chairman, I concur with Commissioner Lyle's perspective. I'm in agreement with the staff report and I'm in support of the project. All right. I'll give some of my comments. I'm in support of this project. And one of the reasons is because I've been up here and walked around Old Town enough to see a fair amount of infill townhouse development. And this is as old town as anywhere, but there are lots of blocks of old town, east of here, closer to the water, closer to the historic core, what some might say, that have larger, but compatible, Infield Townhome development. Sometimes it's on a corner, like this one is. Sometimes it's not a corner, like this one is. Sometimes it's not. But I appreciate when architects can put together the package that allows for homes to be developed into, sometimes it's reuse of funky commercial space that hasn't had any activity in a long time. Sometimes it's those odd vacant lots that sit between homes and maybe once upon a time how to building on them, but it burned down like a hundred years ago. But it's been a vacant lot between row houses for a long time. We've seen those fill in and they don't fill in with two story row houses. They fill in with three, three and a half story sort of full-size market appropriate homes. and the other two are the projects that are in the building. They fill in with three three and a half story sort of full-size market appropriate homes, but with design that allows them to fit into the fabric around them. And I think that this project does that really well and it looks very similar to a lot of those. I appreciate staffs, appreciate community members interested in this in the concern that it's safety was taken into account and was closely evaluated and I believe that the account that's provided through the memo from community comment actually does a good job of talking about and showing illustrating the back and forth that staff undertake with applicants to find a solution and no one sits rigidly in one position through a negotiation like that because everyone is in a design process. Everyone is looking at what a solution might be that fits the location. And I'm glad to hear that fire is fully on board with the alleyway configuration that ultimately appears in this final design. I also think this final design does a good job with open space solutions. It is rare that we see a public accessible open space provided as part of a townhome development. And so even the fact that there is a little of that on the corner with some public seating is entirely appropriate and helpful at this location. And yeah, and I appreciate staff's description of their assessment of the 4506 process. That there is admittedly, it's not just an auto stamp on this 35 feet to 45 foot question, but rather there is a design consideration associated with the project's final look and feel that allows it to qualify for that extra 10 feet of space. And these homes happily have rooftop outdoor open space amenity, which is very desirable and very helps to balance the fact that this is such an urban location. And it's very hard to get open space anywhere at this part of town and so to fit what they have on this block is admirable and I think makes it a great amenity for the community. So I will be supporting this application. Any other comments from commissioners or a motion tonight? Are we ready for a motion? I'm ready for a motion. OK, I'm just going to make one more comment. This is really an interesting use of this site, because 107 Northwest Street was originally a tire company. And it was a tire warehouse and it became an architecture and photography studio with a great adaptive reuse of the tire company. And now it's's gonna be housing. And I think this shows us how this city has changed through the years because it was not that long ago that the tire company became the architecture and photography studio. So, I move to recommend approval of development special use permit 2024 100004 107 125 northwest street. Second. I have a motion from. I'll second. Oh, I have a motion from Commissioner Lyle and a second from Commissioner Cannex. Sorry, Commissioner Minner. He beat you to it. No, I'm on delay. All those in favor, please? Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Brown here. It's clear to me that this project is going to be given approval. And I don't want to disturb the consensus of the commission on this project. On the other hand, this goes to the council. I just want them to understand that I think that this project does not more, at least in my case, my approval. Staff calls this high quality design to me, Commissioner Caining may disagree and I respect his views, but I see nothing distinguished about this design. I don't like the idea that it's going to rather massively overwhelm the two-story townhouses on the other side of the same block. I don't like the idea that the only way to get into this project is northbound on northwest street. King Street is one of the premier streets in the city. Not in the country. And I don't like jamming up King Street with traffic that has to come in one way or the other on King Street just to get to this project. Unless they happen to be on the southern half of North Street. I'm in considerable sympathy with the remarks of a Mr. Wines guard on this project and I believe that they deserve more attention. I don't understand why the staff switched its views with regard to the elimination of access to this property on Cameron seems to me a much better way to get into and out of this project. But there wasn't enough of a negative view on the commission. I just want the council to know that not everybody sees it the same way. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second on the table. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. No. All right, motion carries 5-1. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on. All right. I don't have a paper. Oh, yes. Your next item is item number 11 and it's Commissioner reports, comments and questions. I just have one thing tomorrow night is the final meeting for the next meeting. item is item number 11 and its Commissioner reports comments and questions. I just have one thing tomorrow night is the final meeting for Alex West's small area plan. There will be a short presentation and then an open house so that you can sort of see where we've gone before it comes comes back to us in September. And it's for an anti day at 630. Any other commissioner updates? If I may, during briefings, at least one commissioner suggested we talk a bit about the retreat and assistant director Nancy Williams can confirm the date is date and time is. Yes it's Friday September the 20th and it's from noon to 3 o'clock it will be held at the Del Ray Resource Center and we will serve lunch. We do have a tent bit more about the items that we have heard to date, include Potomacure, the future of Potomacure, short term rentals, and I think coral, and I think that's a little bit more about the items that we have heard to date, including Potomacure, the future of Potomacure short-term rentals. And I think coral may be the vision plan and the Duke Street quarter. Right. At one point in Commissioner Ramirez, of course, can speak for herself, but she brought up a point earlier about how the master plan and the associated smart airplanes and other plans work together and ensuring their consistency. It did occur to me that we are coming up on the once the Alex West plan is approved. We have in our work program but we have been calling a vision plan and probably have a different name that's a little more evocative of what and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and and planning principles for our entire city. And so that is going to be an opportunity to make even more clear how all of our planning is knitted together. And since that is going to be launched this fall, a retreat discussion on that topic seems like it might address the topic that you raised as well as get you thinking about what that planning effort should be. If there are any other thoughts though that commissioners want to raise for your consideration, of course you are welcome to. Commissioner Canning. Thank you Madam Chair. As I'm just very much looking forward to the retreat and appreciate the opportunity to kind of get the update now that we've got We have a firm date and we have a sense of what kinds of things would be on the agenda and I think the suggestion of the vision plan is really excellent. I very much look forward to that I've been looking forward to it reaching the top of the list in the work plan and this seems like perfect timing and it also seems like a piece of our master planning endeavor that we haven't touched for some number of decades and it's really a critical part. So I'm very excited about that. And I won't believe we're the Potomacyard piece other than to reinforce that I think the same thing applies there. It's perfect timing to think about Potomacyard and without getting into too much detail as I've been thinking about it, it seems to me that there are absolutely three basic fairly obvious pieces of that that would be nice to go into some that would be nice to go into some depth on in the first is what has actually been accomplished in the last 25 years because it's we've been actively working on it through multiple phases and evolutions of small area plans for both the north and the south part of the yard and building lots of things as I think think back in, well, you're a little lost in time these days, but around 2005, most of the DSUPs for the south end of the yard were coming through the Potemacare Design Advisory Committee, which I have it to be on at that time. And at that time when we were looking at those, the south yard was a flat spot that still had like a rental avis, a lot in it. And now we are 20 years on and most of the South plan has been built out except for a couple of very significant pieces. So getting some kind of kind of update and tabulation on exactly how much of especially the South plan, which we haven't looked at a lot in detail, how much of that implementation is actually complete, what's actually involved in that, how much has been built, and as a corollary to that, really what the constraints are on the pieces that are not yet built. So if the interim use in the North yard is gonna be extended for quite a while, which seems to have been presented as sort of a fate of complete, because that's kind of what things are. But I'd be very interested to know exactly what kinds of kind of limits and opportunities and constraints there are on how that's going to operate over the next 20 years as a what was originally an interim use that apparently is getting extended. The second piece that is not a simple subject, but I think it deserves to be opened and explored as much as we might be able to. Is to consider what we could learn from our arena adventure, because it seems like, I mean, that kind of came out of nowhere nine months ago. Occupied all of us sort of 24-7 for 60 or 90 days, and then has disappeared. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. development going forward and I think some sort of debrief of what from the planning commission's perspective happened there and what we might be wise to try to digest and learn would be good. And the final piece is the obvious one of starting to think about what the next evolution of the plan should be and how we both the substance of it and the process of how we would go about trying to potentially evolve both the south and the north plan without a full blown effort but recognizing that it's clearly not going to proceed along the lines of what was most recently modified in the 2017 piece. And a corollary to that that I just throughout now because I'm busy talking and have the floor is we have a North Potomacare Plan and we have a South Potomacare Plan and it seems to me that we got those two plans 20 years ago when we drew the line between land bay F and all of the South and said that everything north of that line was going to be a temporary use of retail center for the next 15 years and everything south of the line was going to be a temporary use of retail center for the next 15 years, and everything south of the line was going to get built over the next 20 years. And now that's basically happened, and now that line separates those two small area plans, runs right through the heart of what's happening next, and leaves a couple of very major parcels as almost vestigial pieces of the south plan that the whole time we were updating the North Plan in 2017 we almost didn't look at even though it's too much as away from the metro station we just built So Whether we might want to consider if it's if there's still a utility for Potomacard as an entity to still be considered from a planning point of view as two separate Small area plans So that's way more than a brief way of saying I'm excited about having put the backyard on the agenda. But that's kind of my thinking at the moment. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Any other commissioner updates? If not, it looks like the next thing on our agenda is minutes. the next thing on our agenda is minutes. Consideration of the minutes from the June 4 meeting. Do we have those yet? No minutes. Okay. So we will do those another night. So I'll make a motion to adjourn. All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Lyle to adjourn for this evening. Second. I have a second from Commissioner Ramirez. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, I saw, I saw I didn't hear, but I saw Jody's mouth open, so 6, 0. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody.