I have the home like the NK version of and then it's the yeah and yesterday it was the last one yeah okay we haven't got a lot of parts. I'm stepped out. Yeah, yeah, no, I'm there. All right. We'll call this meeting of the Alexandria Planning Commission to order. This is the September 5th, 2024 public hearing meeting. Before we begin this evening, I have some speaker instructions. 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 hyperlinked present on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket. Or if you're here in person with us by filling out a hard copy speaker form, which can be found on either materials table, located immediately outside the chambers or the back of the chambers, and providing it to Miss 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 app. Please click on the raise hand button located on the zoom task bar once we call your name and then staff will unmute you to make your public comment to make your public, if you're dialing into the night's meeting via phone, please press star nine to execute the raise hand function. Once we call your name, followed by star six, to toggle the unmute function. To make your public comment in person, please come up to either lecture and locate it at the front of the chambers when you hear your name called upon to speak. For stating your public comment either online or in person, please first identify yourself by first and last name. The city encourages and welcomes public comment from all residents on planning commission matters. And keeping with that principle and with the principle of inclusiveness, this is a reminder of the shared expectation that the content and tenure of public comments always be civil and respectful. Thank you for honoring those principles. Reminder to all including commissioner, staff, and speakers in the chamber to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all are able to hear in a clear manner both in the hall and online. And with that, we'd like to turn to our Clark Mess Williams. Are there any changes to the agenda this evening? There are new changes this evening. I do want to just underscore that we do have interpreters online, especially for the master plan amendment, but they are online now. Okay, and for individuals who may be dialing into tonight's meeting in need interpretation services, there is an option to select that in the Zoom app if I understand correctly. Yes, okay, so there should be a menu option in Zoom. Yes, we'll get some clarification on that. If I could just add quickly, we also have interpreters in the room for people who wish to testify during the master plan amendment item. If somebody would like interpretation in the room, what do they need to do? Do they need to see or who do they where they need to go? Their headsets in the back. But if they can just check with me, I can help them get what they need. Okay. There are headsets in the back, but if they can just check with me, I can help them get what they need. Okay. So if anybody needs interpretation, the room is beach here in the second row can help you out. Okay. So that will take us then to our consent calendar. The consent calendar are cases that are herbivore the planning commission. Only the consent calendar are cases that are heard and voted on as a block by the planning commission unless there's someone who would like to pull that item to have a public hearing on it. And I do understand that we've had speaker forms submitted for docket item number three, which is subdivision case 2024-7, 415 East Nelson Avenue. So we'll be pulling that one from consent. I would leave items two, four and five as the remaining consent items. Is there anyone who's either a member of the commission or a member of a public who wishes to pull any of the other consent items? Mr. Brout. Number four. Okay. Number four. Okay. Number four. So we'll have a hearing on number four as well. That leaves number two and number five on consent. Any interest in either of those cases? Okay. If not, I would entertain a motion to adopt the two consent items. Item two and item five is a block. I'll make a motion to adopt the consent agenda two and five is a block. Second. I'm motioned by Ms. McManus, second by Ms. Lyle to adopt items two and five on the consent calendar. As a block, all those in favor of that motion, please say aye. Aye. I post motion carries 7 to 0. So we will move then to our hearing on item number three, if you'd like to call that item this way. Item number three, subdivision 202400007 or 15 East Nelson Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for subdivision to re resuppdivide and existing law into two lots, zone RB, applicant OCH at Nelson, LLC, a Virginia limited live built-up T company. Okay, and we have a staff presentation on this item. No, I just want to ask a question. But this is the one that we have speakers on. This is not, you pulled item four and this is item three. Yes, I'm sorry. Okay, we'll go to the staff presentation. Thank you. All right, so this is a subdivision submission for for 15 East Nelson Avenue. Oh, I'm Katie McDonald with planning zoning department at City of Alexandria. the current site is zoned R25 and is surrounded by townhouse, two unit and single unit dwellings. The current existing lot configuration contains a single unit dwelling and is So, the same thing that we have here is the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here. So, the same thing that we have here a semi-detached two-unit dwelling in the R25 two-unit zone. Staff is recommending approval as everything meets the zoning requirements and it follows the small area plan recommendations for this area of the city. We have supplemental information just on the lot sizes if people are interested. Okay. My question for staff. Did the zoning for housing policies that were adopted by city council earlier this year, change the requirements in any way that would have affected what is proposed for this particular lot. No, this R2-5 zone already allowed to unit, semi-to-tash to unit dwellings prior to the adoption of zoning for housing. Zoning for housing was simply changes to formerly solely single family zones. So if we were looking at more than two units here, maybe that would have applied, but in this case where it's just two units within a square of what standard R2.5 wide, that the provisions that were adopted don't apply to what's proposed in this case. Exactly. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. Any other questions for staff? Mr. Brown. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm not going to talk The property is open and available to the property owners east of this site, but not this site and not on the sites that can westward to Mount Vernon. How do we get to a situation where an alley is partly open and partly not? And does that have any bearing on this case? Sam shall be planning and zoning this. It doesn't really have any bearing because there's no requirement for the applicant to use the alley for parking or any for access parking or anything like that. There's nothing in the zoning ordinance that either requires them to use it or prohibits them from using it. The alley is improved behind the subject property that pavement continues to there, but at narrows, at that point, a narrowed from 20 feet to 10 feet wide. So, usability is somewhat limited because of how narrow it is there. And the fact that the whole alley between the wit and that Vernon, the unclear why it's not improved all the way from one point to the other. That situation could change in the future. Possibly. Yeah. What about the one of the neighbors requests that they alli not be used for construction purposes? Is that a legitimate request? I think that's something that the would be considered when the applicant move when either the applicant or a future buyer moves forward with a with a potential project on the site that the transportation environmental services would be looking at that alley to see if it's suitable for construction access. I don't know if it's appropriate with a subdivision request to condition that it not be used for construction access because it doesn't really have anything to do with or doesn't it's hard to argue that has anything to do with the subdivision requests because it would apply to anything that happened on the subject property. Okay. I'm very glad to hear from you that there's a possibility that that very unusual tree with four trunks in the front yard might be saved. That would be, that would be good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea Duncan Blair or attorney representing the applicant, Vicki Garrett and David Dettlet. Mr. Blair, would you like to speak first or reserve your comment until the other speakers have? And see item was in the consent calendar. I'll be glad to answer questions that may come about through the public hearing. Okay, so why don't we hold you as a speaker then until we've heard from the other speakers. And commission will be mindful of your availability on behalf of the applicant. So we'll call then. Fickigarrett followed by David DeTlet. I'm Fickigarrett and I live at 427 East Nelson Avenue. My husband and I have on the property there for 47 years. I did send a note to the city for trash removal and for the fire department for emergencies. And that's why it only went to the end of this single-family property and stopped there because that's where the row houses stopped. We had a fire in our house some 35 years ago, and the fire department fortunately was able to get up into the alley in order to put out the kitchen fire. The one problem that we had is it took us about six or seven years to get the city finally to repay that alley. It was in such poor shape. And all of the houses in those two rows park our vehicles in back of their houses because street parking there is almost unimaginable because of the businesses that are on the corner there that have been have people that come from Maryland, D.C., and everywhere, and they park on Nelson Avenue. The one thing about this house that's being asked to be changed is it was a single family house. Their trash pickup has always been from the front of the property. With the duplexes that they're proposing that should still not be an issue because you can still take your trash out to the front. There's no problem with somebody in the second or third houses being able to because they can't get through. They're attached. So that should not be an issue. but this property was dedicated to the city by the homeowners years and years ago for that purpose. It was for the trash and the fire department and then for us to be able to get access to the back of our properties. So that's why we're requesting that this not be an alley that would be used because it's not necessary for them to be able to get in from that way. They're going to, according to the proposal, have driveways in the front of their property. If it's a duplex, the fire department can get around from either side and the trash can be picked up out front on East Nelson Avenue as it has been for the last 47 years that we've been living there. So that would be our concern. Otherwise, we have no issues with them rezoning the property. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Our next speaker is David Deplet. Hi, so I'm the joining neighbor at 419 East Nelson. And Mr. Brown had actually anticipated much of my question with the difference between the 10 foot alley and the 20 foot alley behind us. I guess my original thing that I'd like some clarification. Sir, could you speak into the microtonic? So the, so Mr. Brown has anticipated most of my question, but I was hoping to get some additional clarification on the diagram that was shown with the 10 foot and 20 foot alleys. So describing the 10 foot alleys unimproved is even a bit of a misnomer. It's there is no alley there. It's the property that 10 foot alleys section is completely fenced in by the property on the surface of the salif. And it's just for all intents and purposes is their property. So I don't know if it may not have any bearing on the subdivision, but it's interesting. The diagram itself might need some sort of correction or updating because the alley simply doesn't exist that far east. Thank you. We can ask staff to clarify that. Thank you for your comments. So why don't we tackle that question right away if you would the difference between a technical ally and a functional ally? Sure. Sam and Shelby again. So this is the when the lots were subdivided, the alley was plated as part of that subdivision approval. And whether or not it's used by the city for public purposes or it's been incorporated into people's yards, you can't see lot lines on the ground. You only see where people's improvements are and the fences are and that kind of thing. So I was basing because it's hard to get back there, we, I was basing the assumption, I was basing my observation on the fact that it's improved behind the subject property on a adjacent plat that we had for the, the property behind it, the one he just mentioned. At that plat, unfortunately, I don't know the date, but the date on that plat is unknown, but that plat showed that the alley was concrete behind the subject property. But, you know, based on what the neighbor said, and it's a common thing, that the alley may be completely unimproved here, between the subject property and eastward, until it picks up again, behind, as you get closer to Mount Vernon Avenue. But to make a really short answer long, that's, you know, you just because the Allie's Plata doesn't mean that it's gonna look like an alley on the ground that it might have been being used as yards by the adjacent properties. So, all we can subdivide is the privately owned property here. That's the only thing that's on the table because the 10 foot alley, even if it apparently looks like a portion of the adjacent yard is not private property to be subdivided. So our subdivision approval that we're being requested to approve tonight only pertains to the privately owned portion of the property. Right, not the, not the alley. And that property, that's the apparent, you know, the, as planned, the 10-foot public alley remains public property even though there's been encroachments on it by private landowners. It's, to just, it had a little bit, it's, it may be private on it by private landowners. It's to just edge a little bit. It may be private, it may be a private alley. That's undetermined, at least this part, that other neighbors said that they dedicated, that portion of the alley, but staff is unaware of can't say definitively whether or not it's public or private. But it doesn't have anything to do with the application before you. Because all we're concerned with is the land that is the existing lot, which does not include that alleyway. Right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. All right. So our last speaker. I'll circle back to Duncan Blair, attorney on behalf of the applicant. Anything you'd like to add Mr. Blair? Duncan Blair, Lynn, Carolyn Blair. For my last Lynn, Carolyn Blair. Appearance for this board before I get to say next month, Duncan Blair, wire, gill. So it's kind of a momentous occasion. I'll be glad to answer questions. I'll be glad to answer questions about I'll be glad to answer questions about the alley, but you're going to have a lot of conversations about alleys. And what I can say is this is adjacent to three different subdivisions that were subdivided at different times in the 10 foot alley. Mr. Orr is a city surveyor and I said we're not going to let you know. Mr. Orr, who's the city survey or nice, we're not going to litigate that issue now, but it is plated as a public alley, but it does not appear that the city has ever or recently policed it enough to keep it open as a public alley. As far as construction traffic, there is no intention to use it for construction traffic. It's part of this project. As to the tree, my client Mr. Gray is anxious to try to take the tree preservation measures necessary to preserve that tree because despite the normal perception trees bring a lot of value to a property. And this tree is one that merits the preserve, even though it is five trumps, which is not the optimal construction and structure of a tree. With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. Questions from Mr. Blair? Well, I hear from Budhardt and Mary Caffin-Gribs that N.Wireires an excellent boss. So you'll enjoy working for him. Well, never mind. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Okay, we got a motion to close public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. OK, so that'll take us to any further questions for staff. I guess one other question about just to note for ex-clarification. This arrangement where you have an encroachment into a public alley. My understanding based on other cases we've had somewhere to this is that this is not an unusual feature in Alexandria. Like this happens quite a bit in some of these places where there were alleys that either existed in the past or were dedicated in the past but not functional alleys. So my understanding is this is kind of a common circumstance in a lot of areas of this neighborhood in the city in general. Right? That's true. and circumstance in a lot of areas of this neighborhood and the city in general, right? That's true. Yep. Okay, and it doesn't change in any way the standards for a subdivision on a adjacent private parcel. Correct. Correct, sorry. Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, for the questions or commissioner discussion. All right. For the questions or commissioner discussion. Good question. Staff report uses RB, but I think this property is in R2.5. Am I miss. Miss reading something. No, it's it's all RB. I think Katie Katie at Miss Bokello and said R2.5, but it's all RB. I think Katie Katie at Miss Bokello and said R25 but it's all RB. Are we certain? Yes. Okay. Is that just I just pulled up the zoning map and it looks like R2.5. It's okay. Yeah, he's okay. Yep, yep. I see it too. Okay. It's our B. Just wanted to make sure that I knew which zone we were talking about. Okay. It's the only clear. Okay. For the discussion or emotion. Well, I'll just offer for the record, Chair May 6, line of questioning earlier was clarifying that what's before us today is not a proposal that was enabled by zoning for housing. This is actually enabled by the existing zoning on this site. And with that, I personally support the subdivision. I don't see any conflicts with the proposal that we see. These are two lots that are being proposed that are consistent with many of the lots around this site. And I don't think it's going to result in any odd development pattern that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. development pattern that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. To be motion by Ms McFandry, have a second. Second. Second by Ms. Lyle. To your basic may clarify, staff, there were changes to one of the conditions. Is that correct in amendment to the condition? Right. Condition number two. We originally were proposing staff originally proposed that the condition the commission. Right. Condition number two. We originally were proposing staff originally proposed that the condition, do I need to explain, do you want me to explain what it was to or just, there's an amendment to the condition that the planning commission should consider to. This was the amendment with respect to when the House would be demolished. These are the, what was the word? The plating? The plating, exactly. Yep. Yep. So all commissioners familiar with the amendment proposed by staff. So I will incorporate that into a motion to approve the subdivision with the amendment that has been provided to us by staff. Second. OK, so that's been revised motion to incorporate the staff recommendation in the September 3 memo on this. All right, so one of the things I wanted to address before we vote is just the questions regarding the alley access. So, what's before us tonight is a simple subdivision of the property, not a development proposal. So we don't have the authority with what's before us this evening to make any determination or conditions, respective to all access. But as we discussed, the comments have been heard and understood by staff that we'll be working with this as it proceeds. And there will be, you know, due consideration of that request as this moves forward to site planning and other approvals that are administrative in nature as this proposal proceeds. Any other comments? If not, do we have a motion, well, we have a motion, so we're rude to vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed motion carries 7-0 and the subdivision is approved. Thank you. So that'll take us to case number four, I believe. So this one is, would you like to call that case? case number four I believe so this Williams would you like to call that case? Or item number four subdivision 2024-0008. 26 was chaplain street public hearing and consideration of a request for subdivision to re-subtivide an existing lot into two lots, zoned or big, applicant, loose-doned builders, LLC represented by M. Katherine Pascars. Okay, thank you. So we don't have any speakers signed up on this item. So let me turn to you, Mr. Brown. I believe you may have just had a question about this one. Yes, I just have a comment for staff on an explanation before Ms. McDonald. Thank you for providing me a copy of the 1926 subdivision plat, Hiroshima. The reason I asked for that plat is because there's language in the subdivision ordinance I'm talking about 1710 B, which says that one of the things that one should particularly focus on when you're comparing lots or purposes of the subdivision comparison is similarly situated lots within the adjoining portions of the original subdivision. And what you provided was a 1976 resubdivision and not the original subdivision. So I wanted to see what that looked like. I think it's appropriate to look at the original subdivision even when there's been a resubdivision. And your explanation was that the resubdivision rather drastically changed the whole configuration of West Chapman Street. And I think that's absolutely right. And looking at this old plaque from 1926, my thoughts, this goes way beyond my time earlier. But I think that Rosemont, the Rosemont area had only become a portion of the city of Alexander for about 10 years at that point. I don't know whether there was any office that maintained a control of subdivision plants. I don't even know whether there was zoning ordinance or let alone a subdivision ordinance in effect at that time. So maybe there are some cases where the original subdivision is not that relevant, particularly where there's been a resubdivision. In this case, I was rather astonished at the change in West Chavin Street between this version and the 1973 version. The lot where the resubdivision is now proposed has a house on it that was built, I think, in 1956. So it was under the old subdivision plan that you've provided me. And frankly, they ignored the fact that there are two small lots facing Russell and turned the orientation of the house around to face West Chairman. the house around to face West Chapman. So I think what happened was the whole concept of what Chapman Street was to look like got reversed. The instead of having the small lots on the end, there were large lots on the end, and the interior lots were all made smaller. I don't know why or how that was justified under the circumstances in 1973. That's before my time, too. But I do think it's interesting to understand from A to Z what has happened. And what has happened. And if that lot had been originally not a too lot project in 1926, I might object to the fact that the lot's orientation or has the whole plan of the neighborhood has was being changed. So as to turn that lot into two lots. But that's not what's happening here. So I just want you to know that I have no problem with your relying on the on the resubdivision and in addition changing that lot from one lot to two lots even though I would generally not be in favor of that if that was the established pattern. That's a long explanation but I watch I look I look at these things very carefully, because in my view, I am not a big fan of changing lots in order to create two lots out of one. They create problems with the status quo, they just urge people, and the neighborhood without, in my mind, and the neighborhood without in my mind, having the kind of public benefits that clearly outweigh the status quo. But we have a subdivision ordinance as the chairman said that it has a narrow focus. There was nothing illegal about the prior one. There's nothing illegal about this one. So just want you to know I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you very much and thanks for your diligence on that Mr. Brown. Any any other comments or points from anyone on this one? Okay do we have a motion to approve? The move. Second. We've got a motion by Ms. Lyle and a second by Ms. McBandu approved the subdivision and could you clarify that that includes the condition recommended in the staff memo dated September 3rd? recommended in the staff memo dated September 3rd. And includes the recommendation in the staff memo dated September 3rd. Second. OK, so they've formed that. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all is in favor of approval. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 70. And would it be possible thank the council for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the request for the is part of the standing record for this case. It could be done. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And it was dated September 1924. It's actually the 100th anniversary of the subdivision. So what a way to celebrate. All right. That'll take us to item number six. And Chair May sick, if we'll go to the city council for their information so we can add it. Okay. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Okay. Item number six. Master plan amendment 2024003. Alex Westmo area plan. A initiation of a master plan amendment. And be public hearing and consideration of, initiation of a master plan amendment, and B, public hearing, and consideration of an amendment to the master plan to create the Alex West Small Area Plan, replacing the Alex West Small Area Plan and the Bill or Gord Small Area Plan. Applicant, City of Alexandria, Department of Planning and so on. Okay, and we have a staff presentation on this item. But first, did you want to revisit the translation services for anybody who might have joined in the meantime? I do. Thank you so much. For everyone in the audience, either online or in person, we are offering interpretation in Spanish, M-Harec and Arabic, and people who are online are in a room that is offering that interpretation, and then people who come into chambers can wear headset and get the interpreted simultaneous interpretation and if people in the audience wish to testify we have interpreters in chambers who are able to do that. And I'm just going to have the interpreters say that again in the languages. Thank you. Thank you. Buenos noches. My name is Jaime. I am Interpreter Calidoma, Spanish. If you need interpretation, please let me know and we will see you at the call for that proposal. For the next, if you want to participate, have comments or want to ask any questions, please inform me to be able to do this. Thank you very much. You speak in the microphone. Did you speak in the microphone? You speak in the microphone please. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead really get us here this evening. And I also wanted to, before I start, I also wanted to thank Commissioner Lyle for her participation and the representative as a planning commission to help lead us in this process. This process and discussion has, I think, taken us where we were anticipating when we brought this to you as a work potential work program item, which is trying to create a proactive vision, dress housing affordability, and trying to create a vision really for future development. And at the time, and still the case, we are seeing development pressure here. And so rather than being reactive is trying to create a pro-activision. And also as you're going to hear one of the things we very much strove to do through this process was view planning through an equity lens both in terms of the different resources and how we incorporated those into the plan. The other challenge that you're likely going to hear tonight is as all of you are aware one of the things that we have been striving to do with recent smaller plans this of course is a land use plan and really thinking about what is a smaller plan and what are citywide policies and I think this has been an ongoing conversation that we've been having with recent smaller plans but one of the things that we have certainly been trying to do is where there are city wide policies, making sure that we address them city wide and where there are geographic police specific policies trying to address those in a smart way. So with that, the next slide is really the agenda and this is really the things that we are going to cover tonight which are the core elements of all of our small area plans and then at the end hopefully have an opportunity for us discussion. So with that I'm going to turn over to Miss Beach and I'll come back and future slides. Good evening Chair Macy. I can members of the commission for the record I'm Carrie Beach of the Department of Planning and Zoning. This slide is meant to just remind us all of the plan area, the magnitude and scale that we're looking at here. As you all know, it's west of 395. It's about 1300 acres, about 30,000 people live in Alexandria, West. It's a very diverse population with many foreign-born residents. It has about 70% renters in this area. And about 38% of the city's market affordable housing stock is in this area. We got a lot of questions at the beginning of why are you doing this plan? And Jeff touched on that to some degree. And I think that one of the key things is rent escalation in this area. And that is, obviously that's an issue in the city writ large and in the region, of course, but here it is potentially important, particularly important because of the vulnerability of folks who live in market affordable housing who are already cost burdened and any increases in rent really have a more of a magnified impact on those residents. And so for that reason, we really wanted to begin to lay a framework and a strategy for addressing that issue proactively. So these factors really influenced our engagement approach. We really set out to have a very multifaceted engagement using basically all of the tools at our disposal, at our disposal, taking advantage of many community partners who helped us to work with the different neighborhoods and communities and building complexes in the area. We started about 18 months ago, a little less than two years ago, knowing that we really needed to reach this wide diversity of folks. And we, you know, through everything at this process that we could, doing everything we could to make it easy for folks to participate, whether that meant providing interpretation as you've just experienced, or things like meeting them at existing community events or providing child care, food, et cetera. We also met with anyone. So if someone asked us for a meeting, we said yes. And we found ourselves at a lot of meetings over the course of this process. We listened, we incorporated everything we could, and what you see before you is the result of a very iterative process where we took feedback, we synthesized it and we came back to the community each time saying okay, did we get this right? Here's what we heard, building from that initial community poll to the draft objectives, to the concepts, to the recommendations, and ultimately a draft plan. The column on the left really just shows you the variety and magnitude of different events that we attended or hosted, and in our effort to hear from as many folks as possible. From the outset, we heard a pretty consistent set of themes and one of the principal lines was focused around this housing affordability issue and fear of displacement. We also heard about folks who wanted to be able to get around more easily and safely in the neighborhood who wanted to have more community serving amenities like retail or open space or recreation facilities. as I mentioned and we had our iterative process of the various phases building the plan with the community, incorporating as much of what we heard as we could. Now of course, all of any smaller airplane process is a process of balancing interests and issues and not everything can be incorporated and that's part of the process. So what you see before you is our best attempt at incorporating as much of that as possible. So this slide really gets to the first building block of the plan, which is where we looked at, you know, given the population and the factors that I discussed earlier, how can we, how can development occur, produce new affordable, new housing stock in general, and this place is few residents as possible. And so we started by looking at surface parking lots and commercial areas and this graphic is a representation of where we saw high concentrations of those of parking lots and commercial areas. And that became sort of the core of the plan area, which is now what we call the focus area. The area on the left, which you see outlined in purple, is Morgan Properties, and of course that is not a parking lot or a commercial area. Obviously there are residents who live there and that property already had zoning as part of the previous plan, and so it was incorporated as part of the focus area, but was not given additional density. So again, this is sort of the building block of the plan. And Jeff's going to talk about the land use strategy that we built from it. So that conversation, again, building on and being sort of focused around anti-displacement really led us to the strategy of prioritizing development in those non-displacement areas. So allowing housing to happen and prioritizing development in those non-displacement areas. So allowing housing to happen and prioritizing it where it's not going to display existing housing. Also as part of that, one of the things you'll see in the plan, we recalibrated retail. In the previous plan, particularly in the Beauregard plan, it was much more concentrated. We think the market has changed. I think all of you have seen that. The neighborhood serving retail is really the focus in this plan. It's community college, it's Southern Towers, it those are going to be sort of central hubs for each of these neighborhoods, which are sort of a core concept of this plan. The other thing that I think is in this plan, speaking of community building is really leveraging a community college that is there today. that is there today and really building on that and one of the things we're going to discuss later is there's some potential for city facilities in addition to public parks being there and the purple area is acknowledging that there may be development that happens outside the focus area but we're not incentivizing it the FAR is less heights are generally less and the beige area is area 3 which is we are essentially saying keep the density and height that is there today. I will say one of the questions and comments staff are here is housing ownership and housing affordability. There are a lot of condominiums, for example, that are in the beige area that are serving as a different ownership type at a more affordable rate. And so our thought, particularly in the left side of the screen of the south part of the plan area was let's keep that typology and that opportunity in the plan area. So having this diversity of building type and also levels of affordability and rental ship rental and ownership options as well. So the next slide is, I think this is, it's okay. The next slide is, I think something that has garnered a lot of discussion and rightfully so. I think this is the challenge, certainly the affordability challenge of this plan, which is what happens if we do nothing and what happens with this plan. And I think the challenge as we started this planning process that we saw and we have been talking about with you and others is rent escalation is happening in this plan area with or without this plan. And so this plan we believe gives us an opportunity to intervene in a really strategic way using the tools we have, which is essentially density. And is that taking it far enough? I think we're going to talk about that a little bit, because we also have other tools and other processes that hopefully will build on this. So we are, again, this is a land use plan. We have an affordable housing strategy that is 10% of the new density needs to be provided at 60% AMI. And we believe that's going to achieve the green line, which is committed affordable units rather than market rate units. And in addition to this, we believe it's going to take some of that rent escalation pressure off in the short term because of the new development that is likely to happen. The other thing that we talk about in the staff report and the plan is we're going to need more tools. This plan and this land use strategy is going to certainly help we believe in the short the midterm and the mid to long term we're going to need more tools. And housing office is discussing that that is discussed in the staff report that'll be a future conversation with city council The other piece is and this I think is a real opportunity Helen and her staff and housing department are beginning to housing master plans We believe that can build on this And I know you've had a lot of correspondence that you received as should this go farther can we more? And we're very much trying to balance and calibrate what is achievable and implementable. And also sort of this market need. And I would also say through the Housing Master Plan, it will give us another opportunity to look at this. Is this area the right percentage? Our analysis is based on the market conditions today, as we all know that changes. The housing master plan is going to be looking at that in the next year. I think there's been certainly a staff discussion to look at our housing policy more frequently. So we think there's touch points along the way to look at this 10% and is that feasible, is that possible? I would also say there's been a question of should the AMI be lower either are there opportunities to do that? And that is certainly an option of the planning commission city council to recommend lower AMIs. The challenge with that is I think you're aware it results in less units. So there is a policy conversation with that, but that is an option you're aware it results in less units. So there is a policy conversation with that but that is an option as future projects come before the Planning Commission City Council. The one thing I would also say on this front is we think about tools and options is that some of the property owners that will be coming to the Planning Commission Council in the future are large property owners. They have existing buildings and one of the things we discussed in the plan is the opportunity for preservation. So rather than getting X units in a new building, we get X plus something as part of preservation challenges come with that, maintenance, ownership, etc. But it is a tool in the toolbox that is available to both the Planning Commission and City Council. The next slide is really how do there's been a lot of questions as part of our community processes. How do all these layering of different policies and approaches work? And what we tried to do in a really simplistic way was to say we are at a land use plan, which is a smart plan. And we have a housing master plan, which is kicking off soon. And that is going to certainly build on all of these conversations. And it's going to be this smart plan plus the housing master plan plus any conversations of future legislative authority ultimately all leading to how we integrate those into our future development projects. All of those will have particularly the housing master plan is going to have a robust community process where people are going to engage and weigh into that process. So that is sort of how we anticipate some of these layering and conversations. And we do believe that the housing master plan is the place where changes or alterations to housing policy should live, not in an individual geography of the city or an individual smart plan. The next slide is, this is open space. I had mentioned equity in the beginning and I think this is something I think we are very much proud of as staff. One of the things we heard early on. From the community is there's a lot of open space, but it's concentrated in one area I can't get there and I don't have it in my neighborhood. And so one of the things that we were really intentional about and you see this in the plan is each of these new focus areas have new parks, public parks. So they will be very much open to the public. They will not be private. There's a lot of discussion about designing them to act and function that way. There's also a recommendation in the plan for a potential new rec facility. That would have to go through a city budget process. But we identify one of the neighborhoods as an opportunity, for example, the community college to do that. And we think there is an opportunity there to really leverage community access and community recreation in an equitable way. Next slide is this is something we do in all of our smaller plans, which is we had lots of discussions through this process about connectivity, safety, access. And the next slide, just to jump to that, which layers onto this, is how do we think about all of the networks? And I think one of the things we discuss in the Smartaria plan is, and in the staff report is, this plan area was really focused generally for one user, which is the car. And this plan is beginning to recalibrate and balance all those users to address safety and accessibility. And one of the things we tried to do in the implementation chapter is to prioritize those, because there's lots of needs to be candid. And so we are going to really think about potential grant funding and potential redevelopment opportunities as we begin stitching opportunities together for future mobility and safety improvements in this plan area. Next slide. This is a good example of how we I think are effectively using grant funding. The TNES department has a $10 million grant for a new transit facility in the Southern Towers. And we are working with the property and are now to integrate this into the site in advance of redevelopment. And really this is safety and accessibility. And a lot of the strategic goals that are in this plan and a lot of the strategic goals of our city as we think about transit and accessibility. Next slide is this sort of relates to I think a lot of the conversations we've had of how do we integrate other city policies and approaches. Green building housing policies. And I think our approach has been, as I discussed, rather than having individual geographies of approaches, having the citywide conversations at the citywide level. And housing is certainly one of them. Sustainability perhaps is another one. I will say on the sustainability front, we did try to weave in a lot of the goals of the environmental action plan from impervious surface to stormwater, building on parking lots. That the one thing we talk about in the Smaria plan is in addition to the benefit of non-displacement, all this parking, almost all this parking lots have no detention, no treatment. So we are bringing this parking, we're doing a couple things, we're increasing parkland by 60 acres, we're treating that new parking and we're adding density and housing. So as we're thinking about how do we integrate sustainability practices, transportation, best practices in general, we were mindful of this concept as we were thinking about the plan. Next slide is really in summary. This has been sort of a year and a half conversation and journey and building with the community a plan that we have tried to incorporate as much as we can and as much as we've heard and really actively listen as Kerry said and hopefully the community really sees a lot of their voice and their comments in this plan. The thing I would close on we also have a memo to the chair dated September 5th regarding some potential staff additions and it is regarding small business. And I just want to speak to that briefly. We did hear comments about concern about small business in the plan area in general and I think one of the things we were committing in terms of additional tax is the importance of that in the plan area but also the importance of looking at that citywide as a future work program effort. So with that we would be happy to answer any questions. Okay, any commissioner questions for staff? Okay, any commissioner questions for staff? Commander. How, how, what do you anticipate the deal is going to go down with the community college? So good question. I think, I think the first step is to have a city vision. The community college is I understand it has to go through their own state approval processes. Once that happens, if that happens, my understanding is that they would then offer that site for future development and they would come back before the Planning Commission and City Council likely as part of a CDD. So they probably come in with the CDD concept plan and the future DSUPs at some point in the future. How big is that parcel? It's big. Roughly. Roughly 20 acres. One other thing, it does on the open market. It's not being bought by the city. That parcel after all of the state approvals has to be put on an open market for sale. So there's no guarantees on that site. I'll go get into some that site. Other questions for staff. Mr. Chairman, just a corollary to the while we're talking about the the terrace neighborhood over there in the NVCC site, you your discussion of the new civic facility, the possibility of a recreation center, the working concept seems to be that it would occur in that newly evolved neighborhood that spins off from the lower end of the community college. Given what we understand about that process so far, which is it sounds extensive, potentially laborious and potentially long, and when we would actually be seeing a CDD and a concept plan and a proposal. So that's a long way of asking that if the Rick Center either needs to move forward before all of that has occurred or it occurs and does not evolve in a way that the rec center could happen on that site, are there considerations of other potential locations within the plan area for the rec center? I think short answer yes. There is a recommendation for a rec facility. I think that is an opportunity site. It could certainly be in other locations, including there are lots of opportunities. And so I think one step is identifying the need, which is the smart plan. Second step is getting something in the budget process, and then third is figuring out time. But sort of answer your question, Steven. Yes. Right. And at some point in there, the department of parks and recreation and cultural activities would be exploring what would be the optimum characteristics and potential desirability or desirable locations so that it doesn't kind of float as a completely To be determined opportunity Depending upon other development issues that would actually get cited as something that was well placed relative to that need That's identified and the neighborhood belongs Correct and we've been working with park staff on that exact topic. Okay, other questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Remer. Just one. Sorry. Oh my goodness. One minor question. Looking at the mobility and connections, I want to understand the context of the current plan in relation to the adjacent sites and jurisdictions and just to make sure that we're kind of interconnected. Really good question. Could you go back to mobility? Yeah, there we go, perfect. So one of the things you will see on the bottom left is blue streets and it's hard to see here but there's a note in the plan that basically says that we need to coordinate with Fairfax County on the planned streets. So we've been in conversation with Fairfax and Arlington and there is a if you look at the neighborhood at the intersection of Beauregard and King Street, we're actually continuing a bike trail connection that is planned, partially planned, partially existing in Arlington. So we've been looking at other jurisdictions because obviously this touches both. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Mr. Chairman, I actually, I have a lot of interest in the way the plan is dealing with height and I was wondering I sort of anticipated this and maybe this is a request now that you there's a incredibly informative and explicit height diagram in the plan that wasn't shared as part of this presentation. Is there any possibility that that's available and you could just walk us through the concept of how these heights were determined? So just generally I would say in the focus area, one of the things we looked at was what is the density that is achievable, what is the height that is achievable in the timeframe of this plan and all of our economic studies were sort of telling us that it's probably wood construction in the sub market for the next 10 to 15 years? Generally. Could be exceptions. Things of course change. So one of the things that you will see generally in this diagram is generally 85 to 100 feet in the focus area. And one of the questions that we've had is, is there an opportunity to go higher? And short answer to that is yes, we have a tool to do that which is section 7700. So there is an opportunity for these sites. We document this in the narrative of the plan. And it also is recommending the option of using more than 30% bonus density for section 700-700. So this we believe this is a base and there's an opportunity to achieve more housing and more height which we believe are both consistent with the intent of the plan. A couple of follow-up items there if I could. So in the application of 700-700 is there, items there if I could. So in the application of 7700 is there, there's a cap to how much a given height limit can be extended through that mechanism correct. So there is a, that is correct. It is at 25 feet. Yeah. Yeah, it's 25 feet. Right. So that 100 foot 100 foot limit, even with 7 700 means the buildings would max out at 125 feet. And so I guess one of the questions I have for this is that when I look at where the 150 foot zones are, they seem to be clustered around locations where the buildings are already essentially at that scale. And yet some other locations where the buildings are already at that scale have been identified at a lower height limit of 100 feet specifically southern towers and the marks center. What is the logic to establishing a height limit for new construction in an area that where we already have a precedent for building 150 foot building or higher. Yeah, so good question. So Southern Towers is some of the buildings are 150 feet today. The plan is recommending 100 feet. And again, I think one of the things we were trying to do was And again, I think one of the things we were trying to do was really be mindful of what we think the market is telling us what we think good planning is telling us And also how do we think about integrating height around those existing buildings? So we were trying to balance all of those It is their transit, which is why we were also recommending a 3 OFAR, which is pretty dense for our city in this location. Then again, giving them the opportunity for bonus density and height. Another question if I could along the same lines. I haven't seen a lot of other 60-foot height limits in the city that come to mind. What generally gets built at 60? I appreciate the attention you all have paid to kind of the nature of construction. And we've talked about this a lot in previous plans with height limits that if it's wood frame construction, it's going to top out at 85 feet or 90 feet and buildings that make the transition to the more expensive concrete framing need to be much taller and I think exactly how the height limits kind of plan to that is actually quite complex. So it seems to me that with the 100 staying with 100 foot height limit for a moment that accommodates all of the stick bill multifamily that you anticipate the market wants to build. It doesn't really accommodate anything else, right? Because if someone came along and said to Southern Towers, this is a site where there are available sites and wanted to build another 150 foot building, they can't get there with 100 foot limit and 7700. And economically, haven't we found that once you switch to that concrete framing system you really need a bigger building you don't build a hundred foot concrete building that's only two stories bigger than what you can do in wood and get the economics to work right so I guess I'm worried or I'm concerned to make sure that we don't inadvertently limit a type of architectural development that you all don't think is likely, but unless you're specifically and purposefully trying to prevent it, I'm a little worried about how the height limit will play into that equation. Yeah, I think it is an acknowledgement that there are really two tools. And how do we ultimately achieve one of the core objectives of this plan, which is housing affordability? And I think our economic analysis is telling us, almost certainly it's going to be what construction could be different. And there's another tool, which again gives us more housing affordability which is a core mission of this plan. And so if they want to choose more, I personally think it's unlikely is possible, but they have a tool to do that. Thank you. Back to the 60-foot height for a moment. As we look at the BRT corridor there and look at our guard, there are some segments to the north end there where you still have 60-foot limits there. I think that's in the Newport area. On that BRT corridor with the stops that we've gone through, and you considered higher limits there so that we can go ahead and focus the density around that pathway. We did. I think one of our core metrics that we kept coming back to is what Kerry sort of pointed out early, which is where are we incentivizing development so we minimize displacement. And I think we were really, really mindful of if we had too much density and too much height in locations like Newport Village, are we incentivizing redevelopment in areas that house existing? People who live in this community at different price points. And also to respond to the 60 feet, one of the reasons we chose 60 feet is that at that height, they can request both more density and more height with Section 700. I think is the commissions aware there's a 50 foot limit. So giving them slightly more than that gives them both the opportunity to ask for more density and more height using Section 700. It is a tool that we have and candidly, I think our thought as staff was, this is a tool to we have and candidly, I think our thought as staff was, this is a tool to encourage them to use that. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I do have another question if I could unless there, if we could go back to the slide that I think we've all spent a certain amount of time looking out, which is that increase in that decrease in affordable units. It indicates that over the 15 years of this scenario, the expectation is a nominal loss of a thousand market affordable units, and that the generation of these new tools being employed in the plan will create just about exactly the same 1000 new units, which would have the advantage of being completely new and dedicated affordable. But I have to say, as we all look at this, and it's obviously not an original thought, It's just about everybody who looks at this, is that seems underwhelming to be diplomatic about it in terms of having some effect on the issues that we know are trying to deal with. And I have great respect for the fact that these issues are completely intractable. And we've been working on them and you have noted that we need more tools and you all have noted that. There's a cost to delay as well, even if these tools are imperfect. But I guess I was hoping to find out what other ways new affordable units gonna happen and my question was, how does a project, other projects like housing Alexandria as Sansa and Nasha project that's coming out of the ground in Arlington now, that's coming out of the ground in Arlington now. That's 500 plus dedicated affordable units, or our HAUS redevelopment of the Samuel Man property that my memory fails me, but I think between those two blocks and it's a mixed market and affordable project, but that's still more than half of 500 plus units there as well. Potomac generating, sort of PRGS, Potomac River generating station, redevelopment project has a very intriguing element that's a public private partnership that I think is intended to generate a dedicated, affordable piece of architecture that's in the several hundred units. Where, what's the place for projects like that in this plan area and how is the plan either accommodating, facilitating, accelerating or encouraging those kinds of projects? So I'm gonna talk generally and I'm gonna ask Helen to speak about the financing and city funding on projects. So it is a, that is an important distinction of the green line that we are showing is the 10% with private development. So is there an opportunity on other options as you're discussing which are funding and other sources, Helen, if you don't mind, or Tamara, I'd appreciate that. Sure, Tamara, you're yoga to the Office of Housing. So as Jeff noted, the green line is really reflecting committed affordable units that were envisioning being created through that 10% expectation. And again, I'll note that these units are anticipated to be at 60% of AMI. We know that there is a deep need for units at 40% and 50% AMI. So the plan very clearly outlines the possibility to buy down units or convert those units to meet better meet housing needs and to lower housing cost burden in the community. But specifically to your question, so the small area plan establishes of framework and it basically tries to identify all the possible tools that we have at our disposal. It does not necessarily call out specific sites because they haven't been identified at this point in time. However, it's our job in Office of Housing, with our partnerships with planning and zoning through the development process to try to identify opportunities as they arise. So there hypothetically could be an opportunity to do a project that involves preservation or a project that might involve air rights. One example is the Nexus, for example, which is incorporated into a larger mixed-use development. You pointed out San Sanando, which one, well, there are many, many interesting facets to that project, but one of them that, one of them is that it involves city land. There might be opportunities potentially for co-location, for example, the station of Potomacard, Serzism model. So my point is just that there are a lot of different examples in the city that we can build on. Does the plan identify particular sites at this point in time? No. Any public private partnership involves typically a substantial investment from the city, because we're typically leveraging low income housing tax credits or state and federal funding sources. And that is certainly a large commitment. But these opportunities will be honestly opportunity driven as redevelopment occurs in the city. So again, that green line really isn't reflecting potential projects, but that's not to say that we won't be looking at them as aggressively as possible as opportunities arise. All right, thank you. And especially that very last comment was kind of where I was trying to get to is that there are other ways that we generate affordable housing units in the city. We've been actively doing that quite successfully. And the projects I mentioned are on the top of my mind because I think they're brilliant projects and they're happening and they're at a scale of significance in the city and private partners and our public housing agency and our, say, non-profit housing entities have all been working together on a very complex environment to make those happen and they've been happening and my interest would be to see that we have that we publicly declare the intent to have all of that kind of effort be fully engaged within this plan area even as we acknowledge that it's not specifically defined in the plan. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey, thank you. Other questions for staff this while? I just have sort of an add on to something, Mr. Canick was discussing, and that goes back to the height. I keep hearing staffs analysis, staffs economic analysis shows that we need to keep the heights lower. Why not raise the heights? Because that's one huge issue that I have is that I think our heights across the map are too low. Race the heights and allow the developer to do their own economic analysis and decide what they can or can't build on a particular site and manage community expectations because we know we hear a lot of times that people come in and want to use 700 and then there's an uproar because the building's gonna be too tall or we expected X and now we're getting Y and so why not raise the heights across that whole focus plan area, especially on Southern Towers, on Mark's center, down the BRT corridor, and manage community expectations along the way. I think that's an option. I think we have, again, I think we are trying to balance the tools we have, which is how do we maximize housing production given what is likely going to happen. And again, I think there are opportunities for people to go to 100 plus, 125 feet, which is pretty high in this plan area, pretty high around transit and 30 plus, which is about as dense as most of our projects in our city. So aside from Carlis, I'm sorry. So the densities are pretty high, the heights are pretty high. If there's a desire by the Planning Commission to raise heights, I think that's certainly your opportunity to do that. Okay, other questions for staff? We do have 10 speakers on this item, so we'll call them in turn. So, let me read off the first few here, and then we'll hear from the first speaker. So we'll hear from Jacob Josef, Ken Notis, Ingers Moran, Shelley Murphy, Peter Sutherland, Kathy Hokesstra, Betsy Faga, David Laritzon, Megan Ruppolt, and Ken Weyer in that order. And then if there's anybody from staff who can confirm if we have any online speakers, I don't have my computer this evening, so just track that for us, please. So we'll start with Jacob Yosef. Okay, then we'll go to Ken, the either speakers online. Danny, can you confirm if there are and if so, how many? Annie, can you confirm if there are and if so, how many? I have Jacob Joseph online. He's not online currently, but he also submitted a letter on behalf of any city potentially would not make it tonight. Okay. And I have Ken notice and Engris Moron. Okay. Ellie Murphy is in person and Peter Sutherland, I do not have online. So you're online. Okay. And the rest are all here. So the question would be if anybody else pops their hand up online to speak, but we want to call that. Okay. So Jacob Joseph is not president of the hall or online. We could always circle back if he pops in. So why don't we go to Ken notice and then Ingers Moran remotely? Good evening. I'd like to thank staff for their hard work. Thank you, Planned and Commission for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ken notice. I'm speaking on behalf of livable Alexandria, the original livable Alexandria, which is a group of citizens who support transit and added housing, both committed affordable housing and market right housing. We are broadly supportive of the plan amendment and recommend that plan and commission adopted. We do have one concern. given existing parking mandates and parking minimums, it will be difficult to achieve some of the hope for redevelopment with the need to replace the extent of parking. And while I understand that city parking policy is to some degree out of scope of this plan, we would request the planning commission, request to council, and to appropriate staff to look at modifying parking minimums and doing other parking management strategies to ease development and fulfillment of the plan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Knows. Ingress Moran. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next West draft small area plan. First and foremost, we appreciate all of the staff of planning and zoning in the office of housing for taking the time to meet with our staff, but most importantly for taking the time to listen and meet with the families. For almost two years, our organization goals has been to ensure all families from the West and participate in this process for them to voice out their concern. Although the plan covers multi topics, housing continue to be their number one priority. Due to that, we are still concerned that the city is not prepared for the probable displacement that will result from the land use and planning and zoning changes in the West End. Working class families who reside in the impact of neighborhoods, particularly tenants continue to suffer from the high cost of rent, landlord generated arbitrary fees, unsafe housing conditions, and the lack of tenant protections. This Alex West small area plan could have been an opportunity for new innovative and proactive tools and resources that would protect and preserve existing communities. But we do not believe this plan will do that. The following are issues we want to raise regarding the plan. It does not guarantee the preservation and creation of deeply committed affordable housing. The plan mentions the cities recommended affordable requirement are for housing at 60% AMI, which excludes many of our community members because they earn far less. The plan misses key opportunities to require deeply affordable housing when it recommends significant height and density increases to incentivize the development of parking lots and commercial areas, especially in the focus area. Number two, we urge you to require a significantly higher percentage of deeply affordable housing among that new housing development created by rezoning more than the current proposed requirement of 10%. Number three, we are concerned about incentivizing development in areas that already include the majority of rental housing in this area. We would like to see the plan equitably distribute development impact and opportunities throughout the West End. This plan does not provide anti-displacement neighborhood preservation and tenant protections. It does not outline anti-displacement measures or explain how low income communities will be preserved through programs such as a housing voucher program. It does not outline ways to protect Western residents from any development and does not mention any investments in displacement prevention. The current recommendations offer minimal tenant protections. While the city briefly and broadly mentions relocation plans, it does not break down what the city's techniques will be. Tenants and workers united believes the city's priority and vision for working class families of color living in the West end should be for them to stay in their communities and not be relocated due to gentrification or development. The city's goal should be to keep families and their communities not help them move out. While we recognize that the housing master plan process is coming up, once again, the community members will have to participate in yet another city let planning process. already engaged in the housing zoning for all, the Alex West small area plan, and then they will continue to voice out those same things, but their needs and asked are not taking it into consideration. We hope as members of the planning commission, you're really taken to consideration, the negative impacts this plan will create to the families. We believe that the plan needs to be halted and have an assessment made to ensure families will be protected. We also share to you all a more detailed letter of our concerns. Thank you for allowing us to speak. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much. Next we have Shelley Murphy McCabe. Good evening. I am speaking tonight as co-chair for the Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee. That's always such a mouthful. discussion around this plan for the whole 18 months, I think. And staff has been great about reporting out to AHAQ and listening to our concerns throughout the process. So, in addition to all of the other work they've done across the community, they've certainly been supportive of the housing issues. AHAQ broadly supports the plan. As was mentioned, the two primary missions of this plan that and needs heard from the community were minimizing displacement and maximizing affordability. And those are the two areas that AHAC would want to see continued work on. You know, if we look at minimizing the displacement, first of all, we love the idea of building on the parking lots. We agree that there are certainly issues around how that deals with parking minimums, and particularly when you're dealing with affordable housing, you know, some of those folks actually need parking places so that they can get to their jobs. So, but we do appreciate the thought towards that. That being said, there's still going to be significant displacement with the amount of development that is forecasted in the plan. As was just mentioned, how do you handle that displacement? So one of the things that we would request is that for situations in which the development will display existing low-income residents, we recommend that the developer be required to comply with the tenant assistance and relocation policy for the RMF zone. This is a specific plan related that applies to RMF, but even if RMF is not utilized, if it's 7,700 or even within the 10 10% if it results in significant relocation or displacement that those tenant protections be put in place. When it comes to affordability, we love the fact that there is 10% dedicated to affordable housing. That's certainly more than we get now, right? So it's a great baseline. We understand if you look at the magic graph, if we're going to get to lower levels of affordability, there's likely to be a trade-off on units. So we are very concerned about the lack of units below 60%, which is probably the single most critical need for the existing residents and potential future residents in the West area. So we would really ask that as was discussed, provisions be, developers be encouraged to use RMF zones and other tools that would allow the reduction in affordability to at least 40% without having significant city financial investment because right now there's just not enough funding to get to the affordability levels that we need so we need to encourage other tools. Thank you and thank you again for all your hard work. Thank you very much. Next steps, Peter Sutherland, followed by Kathy Hokeshutz. Good evening Chair Mesa, Vice Chair McMahon and members of the Alexandria Planning Commission. I'm Peter Sutherland. I've rented in Old Town North for four years and just converted over and in the homeowner now in Rosemond. So excited to continue my tenure in the state of Alexandria. I'm representing tonight the Alexandria chapter of Yimbees of Northern Virginia, the yes my backyard group. And actually a lot of the commentary that I was going to have on the plan has already really been preempted by Mr. Canig and Miss Lyle, in some of their comments and questions to staff. But I will hit on a couple different points that may echo some of those statements. First in looking at, I think if you could pull up slide eight, the one that has the graph that we keep mentioning of the pink line going down and the green line going up. A lot of the speakers I mentioned, seeing the green line go up 1000, hoping for more committed affordability, but our group is really concerned primarily around the decrease in the market affordable units, the pink line going down. And really the tool to do that is the height aspect that, you know, even members of the committee spoke to as well as density and heights. So I think something to point out is really around increasing the baseline height. I mean, one of the considerations that we would have would be thinking about increasing the baseline height to 85 feet. You know, it's mentioned that very large buildings are unlikely to pencil out in Alexandria West in the near future, but that's a likelihood, right? That's a probabilistic statement. There, there yet might be some of these buildings that could pencil out in the future, particularly as market conditions improve, whether it's interest rates going down. So I wouldn't want to remove the possibility of something unlikely happening that could contribute units. I think as well parking has definitely been mentioned as one of the aspects. There's in the in the plan five parking garages would necessitate construction in a report recently submitted by the owner of southern towers. We know that parking is important for a lot of folks who are dependent on their car in the area, but would want to reconsider whether that amount, particularly relevant to the parking minimums in Alexandria is warranted. Maybe this is a conversation as with a lot of this to come up in the housing master plan conversation to come up, but just these things we wanted to hammer home to keep in mind that this plan could always go further. I do really thank the efforts of the staff to get to where we are today. and it's encouraging to hear staff even asking, you know, sort of we're thinking about does this go far enough. Our answer is we'd like to see more and we hope that the housing master plan process will allow for more of this conversation to continue. So thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Um, Kathy Hoagstra. So, uh, good evening, uh, Chair Mesa can, uh, Vice Chair McMahon and the rest of the planning commission. My name is Kathy Hoagstra. I'm the former chair of the Environmental Policy Commission. And I actually live in the West End. I'm living in the area. Um, so I made a number of comments. Um, first of all, I want to say, I think staff did a really great job. They addressed a lot of the sustainability issues and came up with some novel ideas that I haven't seen in past plans, for instance, district energy and things like that. So I really want to compliment on that. But when I submitted questions and got the responses back from staff in one instance, I was kind of confused by the answer that I got. So I raised the issue in the plan about, well, you mentioned the Green Building Policy, but you didn't mention the Environmental Action Plan or the Energy and Climate Change Action Plan or the Climate emergency declaration. And the response I got, I won't read the whole thing, but the basic of it was, well, we don't want to mention that because it might be modified and you're going to create redundant season, and anachronisms or outdated information. So I'm confused. Why do some plans get mentioned and other plans not? Because it seems to me they all may, I don't know where of any policy that the city has that won't be updated at some point. So I'm kind of confused about the hierarchy of what gets mentioned and what doesn't. So and if you don't want to mention the policies, then perhaps you would talk specifically about what's in it. For instance, the EAP saying, you know, we want to reduce pollution by 50% by 2030 and 80% to 100% by 2050. Or in the E-CAP, well, that 95% of the new buildings are supposed to be high performance. So those are the kinds of things. So like I said, I'm confused. I think that the trouble with having that kind of thing of confusing it leaves people to wonder what why like I said, there's an hierarchy. And the other thing is the second thing is we have principles that City Council adopted uh, principles that city council adopted uh, across the board. One of those is environmental justice. And um, unfortunately, we have this section on sustainability, but we don't really look at things that are woven into the body of the plan. So for instance, when we talk about housing, we aren't talking about energy burden and how if we made the units much more energy efficient, that would reduce the cost of energy for the residents and also would solve a, excuse me, a lot of the problems that deal with mold and moisture and smells and things like that, draftiness, all those kinds of things. So I just think it would be better if we kind of wove those in. I know they did a better job in this plan than many of the other ones I've seen, but I think there's just another step further we need to go to rather than separating out sustainability into a specific section, instead weaving it into mobility, housing, and that kind of stuff. And I'm happy to answer any questions or work with staff in the future regarding that. Thanks. Thank you very much. Next up we have four more speakers who are signed up. Let's see Faga followed by Dave Luretsten, Megan Ruppolt and Kenneth Wier. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Betsy Faga and I'm a resident of the West End and have spent all of my 54 years in the city in this part of the town, having moved in in 1970 to Southern Towers initially. I'm an active member of Church of the Resurrection, which is right there and used some of its property to build the affordable housing complex, the Spire. I'm also a member of AAC and I work with the Christ Church Financial Ministry, which focuses very much on the West End helping Alexandria residents. So that's the lens from which I'm speaking. These are my personal comments, however. And again, as you've heard, I would give kudos to the staff for the number of meetings they had because this is my part of town I had more interest in it than even some of the other areas. So attended many of the meetings and I also was very impressed with the readability of the plan. I appreciate that very much and I realized it's a framework for over a 20 year period. So some of the things that I will say, obviously I know will evolve over time. What I liked as I have seen changes in the area is the diversity that has come to the West end and the affordability of it. So certainly please with some of the recommendations on the 10% and the affordability. And after the Spire has 92 children and teens and in talking with them, the Rec Center is something that I would champion for and certainly sooner rather than later. The concerns that I have, I think, have been echoed already. The predominance of 60% AMI as opposed to the lower affordability. Concerns about displacement will it truly retain the diverse complex that it has at the moment. Will the retail be usable by the diverse number of people that are in the area? And I was very impressed, Jeff, with your remarks tonight, that we certainly all recognize the challenges that go with us. recognize the challenges that go with us, serving on the A-HAC. I know the balance between AMI and the costs of lesser, affordable units. And I look forward to being part of A-HAC and a resident to work on the Housing Master Plan. And as well was mentioned legislative authority because I know we're very constrained by what can be done on that. And a little side thing very selfishly, I'm interested in having more conversation about the traffic plan because I really like the little slip lane that's at Boregaard and Seminary. Thank you very much. I'm can I ask a question before you step away and this is sort of probably should have S.B. A. Hack Chair earlier as well but since you remember I'll ask out of curiosity. Did your committee have discussions about the trade-offs between heights and the impacts of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of the impact of impact of the impact of a member of the AHAC as well. We haven't discussed that and I think the conversation that has gone on this evening has been very interesting and lightning and I think it's well worth having more conversation about it. Okay thank you. Thank you. So we have Dave Boretson, followed by Megan Repolt and Kenneth Fire. Hi, I'm Dan Larza and I'm here speaking on behalf of Alexandria Families for Safe Streets. Like many of the speakers before, I strongly support the Alexandria West plan. I think it does a good job of implementing, transit and safety and a variety of uses to address things that the city needs, like additional affordable housing, additional housing, generally additional mobility options. However, like many of the speakers, I would urge the planning commission to go further. First, I would note that this is a long range plan and that we would urge the city not to include any sheriffs in its long range plan, particularly a long north for well regard. Studies show that sheriffs provide no real safety benefits to bikes and are more dangerous sometimes than doing nothing at all. Additionally, it's inconsistent with the Alexandria mobility plan, which aims for a core vision of all ages and abilities. And so we'd urge the city to actually commit in a long range plan like this to separated lanes, to a variety of the other lanes, which they've generally committed to for all parts of Alexandria West. It's the safest option. Second, regarding connectivity, we highlighted this in our letter, but the Chamblest neighborhood does not have good access to the Doric Kelly nature park. If you look at that, there are a number of roundabouts there. I went out and walked it myself. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to walk from the end of one of those roundabouts to get to the park. We'd simply urge the city to implement a plan where if any of if there is any redevelopment there, if there is a change that would allow the city for a relatively low cost to implement an easement that we have a plan ready to go so that pedestrians and bicyclists in that neighborhood would now have access. Right now you have to walk all the way north to Trambleys or all the way south to Beauregard to access that park. And this is a significant north south transit for people on bike for pedestrians and this, we strongly support the transit-oriented development. We strongly support the BRTs and the bus routes. However, we'd urge the city again to go further. If these are BRTs, we should do them like we're doing Duke Street, and we should commit to a vision of dedicated lanes on all identified transit corridors. That would be King Street, that would be Singer, that would be North Boehrgard, and Duke Street to the extent that it's on the map. And if we do that, dedicated lanes are safer. They prevent the buses from being stuck in traffic and they provide more mobility options that help people get around the city, no matter what their abilities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Megan Rpolt and then Ken Wyam. Thank you. Thank you very much. Megan Ruppolt and then Ken Weyer. Good evening. My name is Megan Ruppolt. I'm with the law firm of Weyer Gill. We are here tonight to represent five different clients. I'm going to speak on behalf of three. We'd ask for the three minutes per client. However, I think we'll be a lot more brief in that. You've all received letters from us. Ken Weyer will be speaking after me about two of our other clients tonight. First, we also wanted to thank staff. We think this particular plan is a lot easier to use than the Burgarts Fall Area Plan. We appreciate how accessible staff has also been with us. They've gone to lots of meetings. We've been to almost all of them with our clients. They've taken all of our meeting requests. We don't always agree with them, but they've been very accessible and we appreciate that tonight. The first client that we wanted to talk about is what the first property actually is Uppland Park, which you all are probably familiar with. In 2021, Chris Bell brought forward some townhouses in the city park. That project has gone through the final site plan process, and now they are going to start construction soon. While we're here tonight, those to talk about the phase two part of Upland Park, which was approved as part of the CDD number 21 back in 2013, along with the Boroughts Mall Area Plan. And that particular CDD allows for 401 units on phase two, as well as hotel use and about 8,000 square feet of retail. And an unintended consequence that might have plus plan in subsuming Burgarts Mall Area Plan is to essentially eliminate some density that our client and he meant thought they would have a phase two instead of having 401 multi-family units there, they actually now and we sort of test out all the parameters of the Alex West plan are left with 100 less units and also and so they won't be able to build what they always thought they could build in CDD number 21, which is still existing there today. And one reason for this, as we've detailed in our letter, is during Bergerts-Milleri plant CDD 21, density was set by FAR. Or sorry, was set by, yeah, I'm sorry. Actually, it was set by units and not FAR. Now Alex West is now set is going to be based on FAR. So we're essentially losing, I don't know, about a one OFAR on the site. So we would request that a change to the map be made on I think it's page 102 that Hikimi would be able to retain the approved density that they have in CDD number 21, and the uses that they have always had at that particular site since 2013. Moving on to our other property that we have, who we represent, it's UDR, who owns three very large parcels along North Bay or Gorge Street. They, those parcels contain garden apartments. And you might recall in 2021, we had approved about a 300, 350 unit building at the corner of West Bratwick and North Borough Gorge Street. That building is 93 feet in height. And it's situated right beside a BRT station and the BRT transitway along North Burger Street. As the Alex West plan has proceeded, we've requested with URD to allow for 85 feet in height along North Burger Street. And this is something that we keep hearing over and over again tonight is that height should probably go where the transit way is and that's what UDRs requesting along that area and it's not for the entire parcel is just for the portion of the density in that particular area and have more height, they then will not displace as many garden apartments as might be thought of as you think about that particular site. And unfortunately for the NV2 project that they already have approved, it's been really hard for them to bring that project to light. We recently got that extended another three years. At the end of last, I think it was December. The expiration, we moved forward another three years. So that project itself is hard to pencil out. And the height as it is shown on the Alex West plan, it's 60 feet. It's disincentivizing them to do anything actually because they'd be required to do a 10% affordable housing just on the base development. They'd be forced to use section 700, which is also another affordable housing bump. And again, like they're starting with the lesser height. hit on them, disincentivizing them to redevelop all. When in fact, greater height would let them go up further and also sort of allow for more land area and more units to stay where they are in place. So the request we've made here, it's quite simple after all that, is to allow for just 85 feet, basically from the back of NB2, I guess to the east, more onto their second parcel that they haven't developed anything on it. I think our letter shows a map that has a line there that we would request. The last property that I will be talking about is the Hilton Hotel Site, which everyone's very familiar with in this particular area, very tall building. It's one of the tallest buildings in this area. We've been confused about why staff is recommending height of 100 feet at this particular site. I think it's a site that everybody sees as one that can take height. I don't think that's a community concern at that particular location. There's no plans for redevelopment of this whatsoever, but in the future, if the property owner would want to come forward and do a conversion or change the building, we have this plan that's disingenuous with what is there there now, and it's just inconsistent. At a minimum, we'd request that at least the site get the height that is the highest height that's called for in this particular plan. The 150 feet is surrounds this block. We're still not sure why this block was set at 100 feet. I think someone else had brought that up earlier today. So we'd ask staff to take a look at that. There's two other minor things on this site that the property owner asks us to bring to your attention. Basically, there's a public park shown in the front of the hotel and there's also a pedestrian pathway that's shown through the middle of the site. And again, while there's no redevelopment plans whatsoever right now for this particular site, it's a 20-year plan. You know, the property owner would only like that. Those two things to be implemented if the entire site would happen to redevelop. Don't sort of want someone to point back at us and say, you know, you're doing a conversion on this one side of the site and now you have to blow a hole through your building. So I think they're just worried about that. And then a minor concern that the property owner has just south of this project, the Rutherford that you might remember, there's an RPA shown on that property in this plan and there's not an RPA there today. So just to clean up on the plan if uh or client wanted us to ask that and with that I am finished. Much um Mr. Wire. We need Mr. Chairman members of a planning commission Ken wire thank you Megan for your concise review of three different properties. I have two properties, Mr. Chairman, to talk about. Staff, would you mind going to the height map for a second? I do want to echo everyone's conversation. You get a feel, if you will, for the community's response to a plan. If I can categorize most people's conversation, it's we're heading the right direction and height should probably pop where we wanted to. And we really care about housing, we really care about open space, and frankly, so do we. I think we've learned our lessons from Beauregard. I sat up here 11 years ago, and we had a very full hearing. It's hard to believe that Beauregard planned for 7 million square feet of residential development, and oddly, almost 10% affordable housing at about 100 units. Almost nothing happened in the past 11 years. Now, it was part of that nothing happening. We came in here, we had a plan, we overshot the mark on what was economically viable, and frankly most of the stuff sat. And now we were able to go ahead and plan this entire part of the city, the Beauregard boundaries never made sense to me. At least this map looks pretty strong. So I want to thank staff, make the community, I think more conversation is warranted on a few discrete issues. First, this is somewhat of a technical zoning issue on Monday properties. That is the Adams neighborhood. That client's been working with staff for over two years. As opposed to the next item we're going to talk about, we have engineered that site to the foot. That is a plan we can stand behind. There might be a little wiggle. We've been working with staff. We're supportive of putting the green space next to John Adams. Neighborhood, we think we've ironed out the road network. And that is it. We think it's a good plan. And if everything holds true, we will be back in front of you for the first development approval under this new master plan, hopefully in the first quarter of 25. I'm here, however, because there's a zoning issue my letter lays it out based entity matters I do think staff has been rightfully tasked with maximizing affordable housing and I agree with that and then applaud that But the zoning ordinance says what it says I won't repeat myself if you don't listen to me at all tonight We'll be back to work with us on zoning because this is actually a zoning issue I want to note that we don't agree with staff And all CDD zones in the city the first first column lays out your buy-right density, and that's what this does. Staff, if you ask them, we'll probably say, that's true, Mr. Wire, but the current plan doesn't allow for any residential. And I'm saying we're comparing a zoning ordinance and a master plan. Those are two different things. So what I'm basically doing here is putting a 1.25 is permitted on the site today in base zoning The second site when I speak about for a few minutes is southern towers Southern towers is a big property. There are over 2,000 homes on that site There's also 2,500 parking spaces on about 40 acres of land. It's a big site. Those towers aren't going anywhere. There's a very robust renovation plan and capital improvement plan going on now. And our team is focused on that right now. The master plan was a staff created and community driven exercise. We didn't submit plans and we have to look at the road like this or had certain plans. Some of the drawings on that site are very obvious. The road paralleling seminary and the bus rapid transit loop around the building at the corner. You'll see that staff put those in gray. That's kind of only one way to do that that corner. What I wanted to notice is sort of three things about the site. The first, as we talked about, those buildings are 150 feet tall. The staff recommendations are 100 feet. In the development business, 100-foot building is the least valuable building you can come up with. There's only three things that have value. There's townhouses, 85-foot tall stick buildings, and taller concrete buildings. Once you're at 100 feet, you might as well just go back down to 85 and cut your construction costs down by a quarter. If you're at 100 feet, then you might want to pop up to 150 because then you're already in majority of the cost and the accretive ad is pretty, pretty clear as you add extra height. That's very important for Southern Towers because of those 2500 parking spaces. That's a million square feet of parking. I know many of your advocates are reducing parking. We love to reduce parking as much as we can, but those are people who live there and park there right now So we have to figure out a way to collapse the footprint to do that replacement parking in order to get the roads and the parks that are planned for in the plan With that Summary and order of magnitude on parking we have worked with staff Conversationally and said a three OFAR one site's not a three OFAR on another site like Like for instance on the Adams neighborhood, that'll be scraped clean, no displacement. It's just new multi-family buildings on empty lots. We need to work through this replacement parking. So our barrier to entry, if I can use that term, is that million square feet of commercial, sorry, structured parking we have to do. So we'd like the plan to note that it's part of the rezoning we should work with the staff. I know the plane director was laser focused on it's above ground its floor area. I'm not going to try to talk them out of it. I've tried for a couple years and I've lost. So I think we'd like to ask for that the replacement parking being in addition to the three OFAR. That puts us at a same starting point. And then finally, I want to take a page from the Old Town North Plan. I know it's the opposite end of the city, but the Genon site there that my partner Mary Caffin worked on was in a similar development posture as this plan. This plan is ahead of any effort on southern towers, just like Old Town North was with the Genon site. But the plan went forward and it made some recommendations. We think staffed on a great job on putting a hierarchy for roads and height and open space, but it'll look nothing like the plan. We haven't designed anything. When you think about the replacement garages, I came up with a term five garages because we more or less want to garage near every tower. We want people to be somewhere near their tower as just sort of a placeholder. On this request, I'm not asking you to do anything other than sort of in your mind, think of Southern towers as the word draft stamp on it. When we come back, that'll probably be a two year zoning effort, where we work out all the details, we stand up our engineering team, we've done none of that work. But I wanted to hear for the record, for the community to know, before anything happens on Southern Towers, it'll be its own mini planning process because it's extremely complicated. So just sort of to close on that issue, height up to 150 feet in exclusion of FAR for replacement parking or to direct fast. I know Mr. Epstein gave you a lot to talk about, but I think these are discrete issues, despite a little bit of background from both of us. But we look forward to getting the plan approved, especially because Monday properties is literally chomping at the bit to go for with an entitlement for approximately $300,000 in a building as soon as we can actually get it to you. So thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Okay, so any do we have any other public speakers online? I have three public speakers online. I have a married dose, Dan Dosed and then Jacob Joseph. Okay. Yeah, why don't we take them a net or. I want to call their names again or for each of you. Mary does. Oh. Hi, please proceed. Okay, go ahead. Run. Hi, this is Mary do. So I'm calling about the Beauregard Transit Plan. My husband and I live on Rayburn Avenue, which is perpendicular to Beauregard Street. We understand that for this plan, they're going to tear out all of the trees, the center part of the street, and this would be disastrous. We do not sign that this plan, we've been sitting here listening to about this transit plan. It absolutely is of no use to where we would want to go. I think this is a very, very bad mistake and it's shocking to see how much money is going to be appropriated for this plan, which will destroy the Winkler property Beauregard area, which has, they were very careful in building these mid-century modern buildings and ponds and trees, flowers, everything. It's an absolute delightful, parkish type of place. It is unfair to destroy our environment. My husband and I are very depressed at this what is going on. You cannot this plan that you have for the transitway all the stops, none of them are even near where we live. There would be an absolute useless for us to have something like that. We already have a four lane road with a center aisle which it has trees on it and let's see what else and I want to say. I've lost my train of thought but anyway I'm sure that you, I don't need to say anymore. Please, no plan for the transit system. We also have a wonderful bus system which comes through there, which is what we could use. But this transit area plan is not something we can use. And we don't want the winkler properties destroyed in the Mark Center area, which it would do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dandos. That's me. The I'd Dandos A. I want to echo what Mary has said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Council for including us in the presentation. 1st of August. My comment is, don't fix it if it's not broke. The current bus route number 35 is great on Borgard Street. It goes to the Pentagon and it's and is that possible you could bring up a slide, the mobility slide that shows the BRT stops please. Okay, if you look, the book, the 35 bus road, post-owned burgerglard passed Sangar Avenue all the way to eventually Duke Street and to Van Dorn. I don't know why somebody decided to have this tressit way sea stopped at Sangar Avenue and go over to Van Dorn Street. There is only one stop and it's actually at Rayburn Avenue, the BRT station. There are several bump outs along Bowergaard Street for the 35 bus. The other comment I might make if for the city they could extend the 35 bus to work it out with Arlington and go into Arlington somehow on lottery drive. There's not enough stops and the area is a tremendous population density. The other thing is, Mary had mentioned the median along Borough, Boroughgard Street as all these mature trays, they would be destroyed. What we saw in one of the presentations, what would look like Route 1 towards Monroe Street, would have a rapid transit bustling down the middle, and it would be very, very not well served. It's a hazard to try to get to these stops. The design is these more work and what I'm saying there's trees that would be cut down. I don't know whether anybody's looked at it recently but it's very, very picturesque. The drive along Borgard Street. All those trees would be very bove, and it would kill the vista. So I would recommend that somebody re-study, dress it way, say, West End dress it way and think about you need to serve the people towards boar guards or towards Duke Street on boar guards. That whole area where the North Armistead is is in the Bay. That's a very high density population area. The bus goes back into that area. So somebody's not using their their thickenin cap on this. Too many stops between Seminary Road and King Street and nothing other than Sangha Avenue one stop and then it goes over to Van Dorn Street which is they have their own bus route. So that's about all I have to say. I appreciate your time. And that's just our opinion. Please, please don't just join the Mark Center. Okay, keep the keep the card bus 35 and do something with this useless worst end translate. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I use less worst than transfer way. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Last speaker, I believe is Joe, sorry, Jacob Joseph. Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Go ahead. Okay. My name is Jacob Joseph and I live in the West End. And I've lived here for almost two years now. I live in Southern Towers and I think that this is exactly what we need for our community. I'm making this call a Wallam at work because I work a serving job and I couldn't get the time off to come to this town hall and voice my concerns and there are so many others like me that feel this way of our country's program but we just cannot come out and voice my concerns. And there are so many others like me that feel this way of our constraint, but we just cannot come out and say our piece, because we're working all the time. And half of my income goes to housing and I rely on a bike to get to work and to get to other places and to get my groceries. And I rely on the bus system too. This would make my life so much easier. And Also, I think there should be a dedicated bike lane separating us from traffic because I think they're called sparrows. The bike signs that are on So I think they're called sparrows, the bike signs that are on the floor guard street. Down to King Street like that narrow like from Philmore to King Street like the blow guard street strip there. It's like incredibly unsafe even though it's rather bright things. 25 or 30 miles per hour all the cars go over over that. And it's hard to bike down. And I'm not the only one who uses those roads. Multiple other people use the roads. I see people biking from work at night. And it's really dangerous because these cars are going at like 45, 50 miles per hour in the dark. And I'm afraid I'm going to watch someone get hit or or I'm gonna get hit. And if I get hit, then I can't do my job. I'll lose my job. I'll lose my house. I'll lose my apartment. So I feel like this would make my life easier. My co-workers' lives easier. And most of the people in the West sends lives easier. Because I'm hearing that the people who are opposed to this kind of have all the time in the world, the people who would actually use this, we don't have time to sit down and talk about how it's gonna mess up the trees because we're always working. And that's basically my piece. Thank you very much. Do we have any other online speakers? Okay. Do we have a motion of close to public hearing? I'll move. Second. We have a motion by Ms. Lael. Second by Ms. Wanda. Close to public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. I close the motion. Carry 70 on the public hearing as closed. So that will take us to questions. A couple questions. I want to clarify based on the last little back and forth here a little bit. So I guess with respect to the West End Trans away, are we, this is already established in the Alexandria Mobility Plan and is, you know, the basic plan for it is basically to find elsewhere and we're reaffirming it with this, but we're not proposing changes to what some previously been adopted. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then with respect to specific bus routes, we heard about the 35 bus route, for example, there is no transit service plan that's prescribed by this small area. But it's primarily a land use plan and we rely on the transit and transportation infrastructure that's defined elsewhere in city plans and policies, but it's to stop prescribed anything specific with respect to routes or service levels or anything like that. Is that correct? It's correct. OK. And then we did hear some concerns about the inclusion of bus infrastructure or, sorry, bike infrastructure. Sheros versus dedicated transit lanes. Can you comment on the extent to which you considered that as part of the plan and to what extent, you know, this, you know, sets in stone what we're doing with respect to that versus other processes that would further define those approaches later in time. So the graphic that Kerry has up right now, which is the mobility section, I know I know this is a little hard to see at scale, but if you want to zoom in, carry to the legend a little bit. And then we can slide 12 and our slide 12 and it is page 50 on the plan for people who are online. So one of the things that we did as part of this plan was a couple things. In working with our transportation staff is right sizing the streets to begin with. Because one of the things we heard from the community was safety. And one of the speakers talked about speed. So one of the things that is in the plan is right sizing the streets, which are based on the city's complete streets. In addition to that, one of the things you'll see in this exhibit is on the bigger streets, generally, for example, Beauregard. The speaker talked about having off-road facilities and that's exactly what's in the plan. And I think one of the challenges will be how do we implement and phase that and fund that over time. So generally what we tried to do was think of the network, think about right sizing new streets. There are some shared facilities on neighborhood streets. But generally we were thinking about a dedicated network throughout the plan area and then again right sizing streets and some shared facilities you also see a trail network that we've worked with our our transportation staff and our park staff to show as well so different options different connectivity and really with safety in mind because that that I think is a key theme that we have heard candidly for a year and a half. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Other questions for staff from members of commission? After and break at the other end of the table here. I'm not as we can, did you have a question? No, but I think we have to make a motion to close the public. Where are you there? Oh, excellent. Don't we can move the comments? Definitely need a break. We can we can move the comments. Okay, I'll go ahead and start and one thing I want to say. If you're still online is that the winkler preserve is not being touched by this plan. That has been given to the city in perpetuity and will remain a protected area. Jeff, Carrie, the entire staff has worked really hard. We've had so many meetings over the last year and a half. And while I would love to say I am totally unbored and I'm prepared to recommend approval, there are so many chunks and that's the only description I can use in this plan that just aren't there yet. And we can start with the Hight map. We need to work on this to adjust the density. We need to look at the impact that the changes in the way we look at parking impact the FAR as Mr. Wire and Mr. Rappl discussed on their sites. So we have some big issues with the height. I feel strongly that the height along the BRT lines should be raised, and that density should be tied to public transportation lines. The housing section really needs to work. And we're tying everything to the housing master plan updates, which haven't started yet. And I want to say one thing, because I've had so many people call me and say the housing master plan updates are zoning for housing 2.0. This is not the case. It is strictly housing master plan updates. And there is a difference. And through this plan, I really feel like we're lowering the number of units rather than giving affordable housing the boost that it needs in this area. This is such a dense area of the West End. And we need to include more housing. One thing that Jeff and I have discussed is maybe some sort of catalyst phase adding some different tools for housing to get more units in this area, that I think needs more work. The small business part of the plan, one of the parts of the board guard plan that I really liked was talking about how to preserve small business retail space. We discussed that in Eisenhower West. We discussed it in Landmark, Vandorn. All of these western areas have huge immigrant communities that have small restaurants, that have home-based businesses where they sell things that are made that it's just such a cultural rich area. And I watch what's happening along King Street as rents escalate and businesses are closing. What I don't want to see is that through the West End, whether it be in Eisenhower West, landmark Ben Dorn, or Alex West, that by redeveloping these areas, we run these neighborhood small businesses, or small business franchise owners owners out of their properties. And I really have a lot of angst over the small business plan. What has been worked on this week is a huge improvement. But I think we're still not there yet. The recreation piece, we know that there has to be a new recreation center in this part of the city. All of the city rec facilities west of Quaker Lane are tied to public schools, which guess what that means? That means you can't use them during the school day. And as the last speaker said, he works. He's not at a rec center at 8 p.m. He may need to be at a rec center at 10 a.m. And so we need to look at this. I don't like tying this to the community college site because when the community college still doesn't have, they haven't even gone to the state to get permission to sell that site. And then you can believe that's going to be five to ten years before it sold. EWOLD Park is a prime example. We started working on renovations to EWOLD Park in 2010. It's now just coming up. And guess what? It's going to be 2025, January 1st. So are we looking at this rec center being built in 2040? It doesn't help people who are there now. I think we not only need a rec center there, we need a community gathering space of some sort. That's not the parking lot at Southern Towers where you have a former's market. And so for all of those reasons, those are my big chunks that I really think still need a lot of work on. My suggestion would be to defer this for a couple of months to have a joint work session with City Council and work with staff and get these bigger pieces meshed in, so to speak. I don't know any be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a way that we can be in a I am totally I am all in on this plan. Just like I've been on the other five I've worked on. I can't say that with this one. I just think they're you know we in one thing in in staffs not defense but what happened is we got derailed along the way with some significant housing issues along the way with some significant housing issues that had to be addressed, that had to be listened to from the public. And that took a lot of time out of the actual planning part of this. So those are my comments. That's that's where I am and I liked here what other people have to say. Mr. McMahon. So I think this is a pretty good plan. It has weak spots and you've gone over them very well. I may be a little more optimistic about how much it would take to deal with those. But I guess I want to talk about it. Big pictures. I see this as a land use plan. I know these are small area plans and they touch on lots of different disciplines, lots of different parts of our lives. But they can't do everything. And a lot of the things that have been discussed in back and forth with staff questions and some of your biggest concerns. I think a lot of those go back to budget and they go back to the fact that citywide, the parks and recreation programs have not necessarily gotten the same support as other programs in budgeting processes and it's made it hard to keep working on the capital improvement plans that you would need to fulfill expectations, the based ones that are already out there. This is a whole new plan and it should in theory have whole new expectations, but you're absolutely right that it's not cool to have a facility take 15 years to go from, we have a good plan here to oh my gosh now we have the money to actually do it. So that that to me is a budget question. But I do think that there so I think this plan does an excellent job of laying out the delay news challenge for this area. If you want to get to brass tax with the question of displacement and protecting households from the damage that redevelopment can do, building on parking lots is the best thing that you can do. And my solution to minimize the challenges of building on parking lots is to take to heart some of the critiques about parking here and exclude the FAR that's needed for any a call it required but we could get into more detail on necessary replacement parking from the FARs that are allowed on these sites so that if there is an existing building which whose existing surface parking you're displacing and it's going to keep being there then we we're not counting it against. And that is a major concern on the Southern Tower site. And I think it's reasonable to just say if we've got to build it first, we should really have a practical discussion about what has to be built because I don't think it all needs to be replaced. And by the time those plans come to fruition, I don't, and it should be done and it decided in phases and not in this like let's build all the parking first and then make other decisions later. We should be going incrementally to replace only the necessary required parking that's being displaced, do it as a part of those developments, integrate it so it's not big hole king structures that have no other kind of urban design purpose and and only build what you need because parking even when you exclude it from FAR still It's not big holeking structures that have no other kind of urban design purpose and only build what you need because parking even when you exclude it from FAR still costs money to build. So that's going to be its own barrier to development efficiency. But I think this, the key land design approach is working here. And I want to also point out because we got some really eloquent letters critiquing this plan for not going far enough with affordability and with housing. And I know the staff feel this in their hearts too because they can't do everything with every plan. And we've talked about how we don't have all the tools that we need. But while this plan may not do everything yet, it is also, it doesn't have to be a hundred-year plan, because we have to build this plan out. So what we do at the beginning is we have to have a plan that creates feasible development opportunities between now and the next 15 years. And that's not a long time for development, frankly. We want to do whatever is in our power to create a plan that does not get in the way of practical and successful development in these parking lot opportunity sites that have identified in the focus areas and that we are facilitating them through the right heights. So I think some of the concepts that have identified in the focus areas and that we are facilitating them through the right heights. So I think some of the concepts that have been talked about I would fully support as friendly amendments to the plan or modifications to it before it goes to council grandfathering all the existing heights into the plan so that there's no question about whether those buildings are still allowed to be that tall, or if they get renovated, do they fall under some weird master plan amendment requirement? Increasing the height on the Southern Towers site to represent the heights that are on that site currently at the 150 feet. I think these height modifications are relatively small ones, but that get at the spirit of what we're hearing from the owners of the property is to truly build and build soon and build feasibly in their pro forma, they're gonna need more height. And if that's true, I wanna kind of take that to heart because what we don't wanna have happen with this plan is that it's not feasible. And then we go another 10 years with this plan is that it's not feasible. And then we go another 10 years with a plan that's sort of sitting and waiting to be fulfilled. And obviously, we can't. We don't have crystal balls. But I think that those are reasonable adjustments to this powerful base plan that sets out a lot of important priorities that are modernizing what these neighborhoods need across the board, right? There are lots of different topics again covered in this plan. We're not going to get all of the benefits that we need out of the plan as a whole if we hold it back or prevent or have stipulations in this plan that prevent redevelopment from actually happening. And that's also sort of an important lesson for all of us as we talk about it. The plan is enabling private property owners to transform communities in partnership with us. It's not something that the city can do all by itself with taxpayer dollars. It's something, and it's not something that private property owners can do all by themselves either. So it has to have enabled both of us to do things at the same time. And I think it's, I think it's really close, really close to that. But I do think that some of these improvements would make it better. I'm not sure if a, I'm not sure that again, that it can do what some of these letters have asked it to do. Like I don't think that there's a big benefit we saw in several letters of eliminating area three and sort of cutting out this concept that there's untouched neighborhood sections in here and raising the heights across all of it. I think that is a can of worms that's just not even necessary because the timeline of this plan, there's enough opportunity in the plan that you don't need area three. Nothing is gonna happen there that can't already happen through the means that the city already has. And that's cool because we don't need it. But 20 years from now, talk to me again and we'll see what we need for the next stage of evolution of the neighborhood. So I just think it's important to balance that when we talk together about what this plan can do, what it's already doing and how we might refine it. Thank you, other comments? Thank you. Are there comments? Mr. Chairman. Let's see where to start. I guess I have, I'd like to start by sort of acknowledging all the points that Commissioner Lyle has made and acknowledging again the sort of incredible contribution and dedication of efforts he's made to follow this whole plan through its entire gestation phase. And I respect every molecule of her passion about the issues. And I think that the pieces she has identified are indeed pieces that need continual attention and continual refinement even if the plan goes forward now. So my understanding of these issues is massively informed by all of the work that she's done and everything she shares. She has shared with us. I'd also like to basically associate myself with the rationale and the argument and the suggestions that Vice Chair McMahon just made. I agree. I think this is a fundamentally sound plan. And I would pause to try to complement and acknowledge the work of the staff which we've all done but it's really, it's an incredible level of effort and the plan itself, I think Miss Fagan made this point about it being a very readable plan and someone else made I think maybe it was, Mr. Polt, made the point that it was an easier, more functional and accessible plan for the private sector to use. And I think in addition to all the outreach that was done to bring this conversation to a conclusion and in a plan, the plan itself is really beautifully designed and executed and these very complex ideas that we're trying to find the right balance for are sort of really well formulated and communicated here. It's concise without being overly simplified. It's detailed without having us get lost in a mass of information and not be able to find our way out the other end. So that being said, I think the fundamental strategy here of prioritizing new development on the surface parking lots was a brilliant initial analysis of the nature of the place physically and does indeed unlock the points that Ms. Beach and Mr. Farner made about potentially allowing a significant level of new redevelopment to happen simultaneously with the preservation of a majority of the architecture that's already there. And that's not something that we always have. In fact, the West End may be one of the few places left where we have a sort of a lot of open space that we have coded with impervious surface over the last 50 years in the service of the automobile. And it's beautifully interwoven to the neighborhoods that are there. And it offers a tremendous opportunity for development that could be done in a coordinated and integrated and creative way. So I agree with Vice Chair McMahon on that point. And I think that it is a sound point of departure. A lot of the problems that we continue to wrestle with. I agree are driven or controlled or will be solved by something greater than the plan. And I'm hesitant to hold the plan at this point in the interest of trying to fix those larger issues at the expense of not getting the plan into place. So at this point, I would support the suggestions that Commissioner McMahon made to potentially suggest modifications tonight and would be happy to support the plan and recommend it's some passage to city council. Thank you other comments. If memory serves and it doesn't serve particularly well these days, I think perhaps during the first year I was here on on lands of this type in Montgomery County, I really thought that they had a better procedural process for approval of master plans. There would be a public hearing before the planning board at which the planning board would hear at which the planning board would hear for the last time public input into the plan. And there would be a discussion of that public input after the public hearing as part of the public hearing process. But there would be no vote. The vote was scheduled for the next planning commission here. And I thought that was really a good system. I think what we're the problem that we're coming to tonight is the fact that the two have been compressed together in a way that I have long recommended be separated. So I have really So I have really great sympathy with Commissioner Lyle's request that things are not quite done yet because there's still things that should be should be thought through. But I also have great sympathy with the vice chair and saying that this is a good plan and we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I for one have a couple of questions about some of the comments made by Mr. Wire, particularly concerning his notion that the CDD has an entitlement of based density, regardless of whether it's commercial or residential, it's still based density. And I think that staff's wrong in rejecting that in table 8.8. But that's one of these little details that we shouldn't be spending the last hours of this evening thrashing out. It seems to me it's the kind of thing that could be adjusted if necessary and come back for a vote. And how many of the things that Commissioner Lyle brought up that it has ultimately agreed don't really need to be addressed in the plan, that can be worked out as well. So I'm of two minds here on this whole thing. I will say as an overall comment that those who in the those in the public that commented that this plan doesn't do enough need to understand that Alexandria is a municipality in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And we're not in the Commonwealth of Northern Virginia. The last time there was a split-off like that was well over a century ago with West Virginia. And I don't think any other states ever had that problem. And it's not gonna happen in this case. We're going to be governed by the General Assembly and the governor and the General Assembly are only gonna give us the powers that they expressly provide to us, not implied powers or a Dylan Rule state. And I mentioned that because in Montgomery County, which is not so limited, the county thought it fit and appropriate to require new development of any substantially sized rental apartment project or even a condominium project to provide a minimum of 12.5% affordable dwelling units. And if you want bonus density, you better go above 12.5%. I admire the staff's ingenuity in all of the ways in which they have tried to increase the requirements or incentivize the requirements for mortar affordable housing, but we don't have that authority and we can't criticize a small area plan for failing to achieve those kinds of levels. In that respect, the only thing that I heard and in all of the discussion was that perhaps there was something going on in Charlottesville that we maybe have overlooked, but I doubt that that's the question was that perhaps there was something going on in Charlottesville that we maybe have overlooked but I doubt that that's the case, although I don't I don't want to press it tonight. So my thought is I'm basically prepared to to vote to approve the plan and I'm also basically prepared to to give it a to give it a month. The difference between the schedule that we have now with the city council approval on what is September 16th or something like that. And a schedule that has them approving it a month later, I don't think is gonna make a dime sort of difference in the longer run, but it might improve the plan. So I'm basically agnostic about whether or not we approve it tonight or approve it next month after some additional hard knocking one on one. Okay. Other comments? comments? Lay in. So I think that Ms. Lyle outlined some things that need attention in this plan. And I would support deferral for additional refinement to the plan, assuming that it comes back within a one to two month period, because I don't think it needs to drag out. And I do think it needs to come back to us in writing for us to further review and refine those changes to the plan, because I do think that there's more work needed here than would be appropriate for us to say, we're approving this provisionally. And between now and the time it goes to council work on x, y, and z. There's too much here for that and I think we need some feedback here and I do like Miss Lyle's suggestion which actually have been my idea to have a joint meeting with council on this, and part because if we want this to happen in an expedient manner, I think having the conversation with them on the plan would help to get their feedback on this as well to make sure there isn't anything else that we're missing that we would want to have contemplated for consideration when this comes back to us for another go at it and then on to council in the next month. So I do support that recommendation. So let me, a lot of this is going to be things that others have said that they want to see, but let me just put out there for the record my own list of changes that I would like to put on the table for the plan. And again, this is a lot of these have already been said, but I just want to want to outline each point. So I think we need to increase maximum building heights where existing buildings exceed the limits. Now that doesn't mean that we couldn't require a lower height for new buildings in those same parcels, but I do think we need to acknowledge the obvious here, which is that we have buildings that are already above what the height limits call for, and we should address that in a plan directly rather than carrying forward a non-conformance. I'd like to see, as Ms. McMahon suggests, of carrying forward a nonconformance. I'd like to see, as Ms. McMahon suggests, the credit of FAR for replacement parking, I think that that would help to address some issues with the plan. I would like to preserve the density approved in existing CDDs, which gets at the issue regarding the property at, I guess is the Northwest corner of Borgart in seminary. I'd like to see a higher height allowance along the western transitway. I think we need to have the densest development along that transitway. And I think the height needs to be higher there, to just need more production in general along the transitway. And that's just a land use fundamental that we need to support. I'd like to know if there are any further housing strategies similar to what we adopted in the our Landry plan that could be part of the formula here where there was in addition to the zoning based strategies that we're talking about here. There was also plans for direct investment and subsidized support in different ways for both private and nonprofit housing development. And it would be good to know if there's anything more that we saw in that, which was very much a housing focused plan for our landry, but is there any more in that bag of tricks that could apply to this larger plan area and to know that? I'd like to see a more solid plan for the community center or rec center facilities. I do think that that's an important feature that we need to get right within this plan. And I am also concerned about the extent to which we are dependent on the community college for that to happen. When there are other sites that could potentially support that. And so I think that needs some more attention. I think that we continue, now I've said this before about the Duke Street Transitway, and I continue to have some of the same concerns that we are under investing in the bus rapid transit infrastructure because we're sort of making do some of the same concerns that we are under investing in the bus wrap and transit infrastructure because we're sort of making do with what we got from regional grant funds and we're dependent on developer contributions when the development happens but we're completely missing the opportunity to pursue state and federal grant funds that could make a substantial investment in doing the transit way right from the start. And this one might be moving forward sooner than we'll be able to get those funds, but I think we're missing the both by not going after state and federal funds for these transit ways. So I'd like to see a new condition added on page 81 after existing conditions 39, reading to the effect the city will aggressively pursue state and federal grant options to support full realization of the plan west and transit way so that we have a policy hook to pursue federal funds primarily federal funds but also state funds for that because it's such a fundamental piece of the infrastructure for this plan. It would be helpful to see a comparison of the key differences from the Borigard Small Area Plan and a discussion of the rationale for changes where they were deliberate, just to make sure we're not missing anything in any of the changes that happened from one to the other that we will regret. So we'd ask for that. And then a couple of things that we heard in the public testimony tonight that I think would be worth exploring under the concept of bicycle pedestrian access, which is any further consideration with respect to Dorah Kelly Nature park access from the Chameless neighborhood. And I think, well, I think that's the main one, because I think you kind of covered the other two to my satisfaction with the answer that happened after that. So I'd put that one on the table. But anyway, so I'd support some form of finite short-term 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, 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 going to go to the committee. Any other comments? We have anybody who like to make a motion. I'll make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to. The farthest plan. To come back to planning commission. No later than the December meeting with a meeting to be a work session to be scheduled with city council between now and that time to address some of the major concerns that we're outlined tonight. some of the major concerns that were outlined tonight. Second. I don't know if staff has any questions or I, we're fairly clear with what we were looking for here, but any other questions. I just have a comment. There is a city charter provision that requires the commission to act within 60 days of initial application. So my only caution would be making sure we comply with that. So I think that's something we need to look at in the schedule. Could come back in November, that would be fine. Understood. I'm just saying that that's something as we think about particularly work sessions and other items. We'll just need to sort through timing and make sure we meet our legal obligations. But does this count for that? Because the city is the applicant. It's not like we're waiting on a private applicant. Also, we haven't voted to initiate this yet either. So to say it's even being considered yet is maybe premature. We will need to look at that, but that is one consideration. And additionally, if there is a 60 day limit, council can vote to extend that. So that is something we will take into consideration as we're planning out what we're looking at for the schedule. Because if we are, well, it sounds like that's something that can be worked out after the fact to make sure we're in legal compliance, but because the November meeting is on November 7th because of the election. So we're on a Thursday. Today's today September 5th. And that meetings on November 7th, which is about, I don't know, 62, 63 days from now. So we may have a, we may have an issue either way with November, those will have to figure that out. Yeah. Okay. Okay. But I guess so procedural issues decide it. Any questions or or clarifications on any of the subs of the points that we made. No, thank you. Okay. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? I just want to clear that that way you the way you articulate things you'd like to hear some of us at least me would would prefer to put something in writing and send it to the staff after collecting thoughts after tonight. So I would trust that though that kind of communication So I would trust that, that kind of communication could supplement, maybe even some one on one meetings as a result. Okay. I think we can do that. I mean, I have my own short list here in writing and we can, we could, I also think that the term work session is perhaps a bit of a euphemism when you have 14 deciders in the room. That's, well, we'll see. Well, that may be, but I will say that the zoning for housing work session that we had a year ago in June 2023. Worked pretty well. It did, and I think it helped move that process along in a positive way. So I hear you. It's a child. I'm just saying it's a challenge. Law of Front Commission has 21 people every month. So that's not 14, it's not them. Other discussion. Okay. All right. So we'll move to a vote. All those in favor of the motion from the I am seven. Item number seven, vacation 2024-00001, vacation 2024-00002, vacation 2024-003, public hearing and consideration of three requests to vacate various areas of unimproved right away located between 404A, 406 and 408 East Alexandria Avenue to add area to residential yards. Applicants for at Rice, Vacation 2024-00001, Alicia Montgomery, Vacation 2024-00002, and Eric Taran, Vacation 2024-0003. Okay, thank you very much. We have a staff presentation. Yes. Can I just interject on the last item? We need to let the interpreters who are online know that they can leave. They do not need to continue interpretation. Thanks. Okay. Certainly. Thank you very much. And for the vacation. So we have a staff presentations. Good evening Chair basic vice chair McMahon in the planning commission. I'm Brian Dauphin Meyer with transportation and environmental services. Resonting the vacation requests for the right of way 404A, 406, and 408 East Alexandria. The right away in question is located on the north side of East Alexandria Avenue and is surrounded by residential properties. It is owned R25 and located in the Potomac West small area plan. and located in the Potomac West small area plan. The right away was created with the 1892 subdivision, but was never improved and currently functions as an open space. The site meets three criteria identified in the open space master plan as a site that supports the goals of the plan, which seeks to identify, map, and repurpose public right-of-way to be active and protected open space. First criteria is a small lot in neighborhoods that is suitable for pocket parks, gardens, and green spaces. Second criteria is land with significant natural features, such as significant tree coverage. Third criteria is access right away, which can be used as open space that enhances community access and environmental stewardship. The current condition at the site is a small area of right away that does not have a roadway use. The views here show the significant tree cover of this approximately 6,300 square foot area, retaining properties like this aligns with the city's commitment to maintaining and expanding open space acreage. The requested vacations include ones from 406 and 408 where they propose to divide the area and question as shown in the blue and red rectangles. They are not requesting any development rights. 404a is requesting the full right away and is asking for development rights. These requests were sent to city staff for review and evaluated using the city council establish vacation criteria. In the staff analysis and for the open space master plan staff determined that there is an existing and reasonable future use of this parcel is open space. And therefore criteria one and two are not satisfied. Criteria three is satisfied since the vacation would not land like any portion of the public right of way. Criteria four is conditionally satisfied if the vacation approval includes the vacation for 408 East Alexandria Avenue, which ensures that they continue to have access to their side load garage that faces the right of way in question. Criteria 5 is not satisfied since the use of this right away is open space is the existing public benefit. In summary, the vacation requests do not satisfy all of the criteria to recommend approval of the vacations. If the vacations were to be approved, the layout shown at the bottom of the screen is the recommended solution with the amount of the vacation proportional to the frontage of each requester and to the center line of the right away for each of the three requests. Since all three properties are looking to assert their property rights for this right of way. Staff recommends denial of the vacation request and to retain this area as open space. We are available to answer any questions. Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions for staff? do we have any questions for staff and teachers? Can you, Doug? Mr. Chairman, just a quick question on the staff. Alternative, if the vacation order to be approved, you mentioned that in the current vacation applications, some of them request development rights and others do not. And in your recommended potential solution, what's the take on development rates? And then each one could have their choice still. So it's basically the area would be divided up, but each could still choose whether they want development rights or not. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions. We have three speakers on this item. The three applicants for the three vacation requests. So we'll take them in the order that they applied to speak on the item. So we'll hear from Eric Tran first. Followed by Alicia Montgomery followed by Brett Rice. Good evening commissioners. My name is Eric Tran. I am my wife or the owners of the lot at 404A East Alexandria. We've been residents here for 11 years. Hopefully a lot more. Hopefully a lot more. We came in June January for the special use application to for to develop a lot. It was past year 4-3. However, the City Council later denied it. And so we can allow your build there. However, Mayor Wilson didn't make their idea of application request. And that's why we're all here today. I think there's four options. The first one, as you heard, is for the city to keep it. They've had it for 130 years. So far nothing's been done. They say it can be used for a park. However, I do see that a little bit odd with residents on the west and east and also on the north. There's 50 feet from in front of the sidewalk, but it's not that visible. I understand more of what was on the corner, but this is kind of being wedged in between houses. And I don't know how they would feel about having a park or possibly gardener the entire time. Now, the second option is the two other applicants. I don't agree with that because then they're not developing. They're just leaving it as huge yards, which would be nice for their property value, but I don't see any benefit to the city. The third option is with city staff recommends if the council does approve it. The only thing I would agree with is a map in why 408 would have 50% and then 406 East Alexander and myself we're going to get 25%. and then 406 East Alexander and myself, we go and get 25%. I emailed a diagram on Tuesday, where I thought it'd be more fair, where each owner would get 2100, about 2100 square feet. And lastly, our application, which I think is the best, not just for, because it's my application, but I think it also benefits the city the most. There's less than 50 residential lots left in the city. Most of them are used for side yards and allow them are substandard, like the lot that we own. So it's hard to develop there. You know, the city needs housing. Now that's my understanding that this is only for housing was passed to get creative solutions for more housing. I'm proposing to build a house or two within the zoning guidelines, within the zoning regulations. That house would have the same massing as other houses on the street, which would be the character of the neighborhood, which I believe a house would make more sense than trying to wedge in the park or a garden area or leaving it just vacant or large yards. Additionally, we build one or two homes where we're creating property tax dollars. We also have one or two families that will be living there and Delray is a walkable community. They'll be walking, you know, down Delray, using the shops, spending their money, taking the bus, taking the metro, will be part of the community, which Delray is really nice. And because of these reasons, I believe this is a creative solution to find more housing in the city of Alexandria that we need. And that's why I believe that not just for me, for my application, I just think it benefits the city as well. Thank you, commissioners, for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much. So next up, Salishamut Montgomery and then Brent Rice. Sorry, Brett Rice. Good evening. Obviously I'm a Salishamut Montgomery. I live at 406 East Alexandria Avenue. I'm here tonight to request the vacation of a portion of the unused right of way. It's adjacent to the property. My main objective in making this request is to preserve the open space that currently provides and to ensure appropriate maintenance of the land. As such, I'm not seeking development rights for the area. While it does seem contradictory to ask for vacation, I believe that this is the only guarantee that this base remains as open green space and the only way to ensure regular maintenance. Despite the areas mentioned in the cities to a 2017 open space plan as a candidate for open space preservation. There have been no concrete plans provided for its use nor any plans or prior evidence of intentions to maintain the lot. I have previously submitted 311 requests for upkeep but they've been unanswered. As such, my neighbor, Mr. Rice, and I have been the only ones maintaining the lot by incorporating this right of way into my property. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the surrounding neighborhood. In regards to the specific area of my requested vacation, I did recently meet with city staff to discuss formally amending my request details. When Mr. Rice and I initially submitted our vacation requests in February, we confirmed that no other vacation requests on this parcel had been submitted based on that information. I submitted my request to include one half of the area in question. So it was not to leave random pieces of land unaccounted for. However, now that the Mr. Taran is also submitted a request for vacation, I've asked to formally adjust my request to reflect what I believe is the fair and equitable solution for all parties specifically to divide the land among all three adjacent landowners as outlined in the city staff report and figure four. In conclusion, my request boils down to stewardship. I'm not seeking development rights. My goal is to ensure that the land remains as open space, that is well maintained, benefiting both my property, and helping to maintain the overall character of our neighborhood. Additionally, I hope that by adjusting the specifics of my request, we can achieve a balanced distribution of land that works for all parties involved with everyone committing to its upkeep. I will respectfully respectfully ask the Planning Commission's approval of my request for VAKESHIN and would like to thank you all for your time as well as all of the city staff members that have helped field many questions of mine along the way. Okay, thank you very much and Brett Rice. Okay, thank you very much and Brett Rice. I'll try to be brief. I'm sure there are some chiefs or Ravens fans here that want to go. My name is Brett Rice. I am requesting to have the right of way they cater to the midpoint, which is again their solution if you were to approve this. I do wanna give a little bit of history on this lot because this is one of those odd scenarios that's super, super complex. This lot, this was plated park edition to Alexandria in Arlington County. This was not an Alexandria plaque. You have to, I drove to Arlington County, pulled the original Plats subdivision that's recorded there. This was annexed. So in 1892, a staff said this was plotted in Arlington County. George Vittetto, he recorded it on the, I think it was the 16th of May in 1892. Just go ahead, I think we're just getting some feedback on it. That really must be out of here in a second. So he did that and then he put about a month or so later after the annexation, he put him per sale. You can pull up an old Alexandra Gazette and he was selling him for $200 a lot, $20 down $10 a month. We've got a lot of talk here about affordable housing tonight. He was obviously an originator of affordable housing. So where I live at 4080, St. Alexandria, the original house was built approximately 1910. If you go to your records in the archives at Alexandria, city will find actually a permit for the garage that was built in the back of my property. Some few years after 1910, the exclusive and only access to my garage has been that right away. So for a hundred and some years, it's always access the property. There's a curb cut there and there's a driveway. And as a matter of fact, 30 some years ago, the city of Alexandria and TNES actually sent the owner notices twice saying, your curb cut on your driveway on the right away needs to be repaired. If you don't do it, we're going to do it in charge. So that's kind of the situation where it's been to this point. I think the important thing is to understand here, and I don't think we've had any clarity whatsoever. This, you know, similar to if you have a home that was built in 1970, it was approved under the code of 1970, they approved the building code. You don't go back and change your home to meet the new code. I think everybody understands that. This was platted under a different act than today. This was the PLAT Act. I mean years before, this was I think 1877. There was a PLAT Act that determined what happened in properties like this. The intent of that was to say, and I'll read it, the concept of the ownership of them was the midpoint, which is what we were asking for. Mr. Tran said he didn't think was fair. It is common law. So I think fair or not, that's the way it is. It's been influenced by historical practices, judicial interpretations. The principle, it really reflects that when a right of way is not developed, the land is still technically has fee ownership of the abutting property owners, the landowners. And the principle behind that was nobody wanted to have a piece of land, a strip of green land that was not used to just sit there. And that was never the intent. So it would go to the abutting property owners and they would have the fee title. I would ask a couple of things as I, a couple of questions really to ask, you know, the city, the staff, a few questions. What was the platters intent for this? This ran, this, this fourth street ran into two dead end alleys. There's homes in there. I thought it was never going to be used for anything. The question needs to be asked, while we understand it's a right of way, is it a public right away? Is it a private right away? There's differentiators there that people are all ignoring here because nobody really knows the ownership. The question of ownership has to come up here. Under what governing law does a planning staff for the city or should be asked, under what governing law do you determine title you have to property? It's not enough to say we exercise jurisdiction and dominion by vacating it across the street about 65 or 75 years ago, which did happen, but even in that case, at 4090, St. Alexander Avenue, when they vacated the other side, they didn't have title of the property then. That's a question. That's a problem. So I think we have to understand that. What is the city relying on? It's to claim title ownership. It's not enough to just say we've called it a public street in the city of Alexandria. That doesn't mean it is. We are under 1877 plat law on this 1892 platid property. We need to do it under that. The last thing I'll say and I'll get out of here is understanding interpretation of what a plat means and I've asked the staff. They were nice enough to talk to us and really answer a lecious questions. I agree with Mr. Toren when he says that this is not appropriate for a pocket park. I think if you have to understand that my access to the property, I have to use 20 feet, 20 to 25 feet of that right away to get in out of a garage. How could you possibly make a park? I'm not sure the legal authority is there to do that to a park anyway, because that's a dedication thing but that's a whole other subject but how could you actually improve that and make make that something that it's not people do not travel through there it's not used the abutting property owners but would it make sense and I agree with him to put something there where I'm back in my car out 25 feet into it and maybe run a kid over that you encouraged to go there and play. I mean, I don't see how that makes any sense. So I would respectfully ask that you do approve this. The public benefit that the staff has talked about, I would actually argue that if we do now pay taxes on the property, we're paying for it. If you like open space, we're right there with you. If I don't ask for development rights, then it's open space. Everybody has gotten something accomplished. The public does not. One last thing. Technically this city is responsible for providing me access to my garage and functional access, meaning they have to fix the curb, which they haven't done in 75 years, and I've asked them to do it. They won't necessarily let me do it because it's not my property. So now we have a curb that's destroyed, curb cut. My gravel driveway is now pits and holes and mud so I don't have functional access. I don't think the city should be paying for that. We should have a vacation and let the flooding owners pay for it. So do you have any questions? I have some questions. Okay, Mr. Brant, Mr. Rice. Oh, some questions. Sir. When I visited the property, there was a white vehicle parked in the area close to the street where the driveway would be, if you had a driveway to your second structure, is that your automobile? The, what kind of vehicle was it? I can't hear you. Is that your automobile? The what kind of vehicle was it? I can't hear you. Is it parked on the street? No, in the driveway area, electric off the street. A Rivian? Is that your vehicle? If it's a Rivian, it is. Was it a Rivian vehicle? Rivian? You know what make your model was? It was a white SUV of some sort. I didn't. I have an electric Rivian. I didn't have an electric Rivian. What? I have an electric Rivian. As a white. Sorry. Is it white? It yes. Yes. Yes. Now with respect to the driveway itself beyond that parking pad, which has gravel in it, there was very little gravel or very indicate any indication that that driveway was used as a driveway because there were a lot of fresh small plants in the area where you would have a car going back and forth. Well, I think do you use the driveway to get to your second structure? Yes. And I would say you're 100% right, Commissioner, but that's why I'm asking for it to be improved. Because there are his gravel there. If you go back and look at pictures 20 years ago, but it's all overgrown with grass. So I'm not, again, the question mark becomes, do I maintain it or does the city maintain it? It is a city's responsibility, but they don't do it. I've mowed that grass for 20 years. I'm asking you if you're using it now. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's why I'm asking for the driveway. At the end of that driveway area, there is a second structure behind your main structure. Does it have driveway garage doors on the west side? It has two garage doors facing the right of way. And that's how I get in there. And I come around and I have to drive all the way through it to get in and out. And inside those garage doors is there open space for vehicles? Yes, it's a garage. Yes. There's one car in there now. Right now your concern is that space is unusable as a garage if you're not allowed to drive on the public property. No, I am allowed to drive on it. I have the right to use it. My problem is I don't have, it's not a written right, although again, if you go back to the law itself, I have the right of passage to use it. Who says that you have the right to use it? Every law that covers right of ways? I'm looking at a I'm looking at mr Alpha Myers memorandum that he re refers to a Hearing that I took I think took place in 2007 which includes the following language and seven, which includes the following language, allowing the owner to use the driveway alley for access to the garage at the rear of your property, but we cannot allow you to use the publicly owned property for your exclusive parking space. Okay. You understand that you're not allowed to park in the driveway as an exclusive parking space? Well, it says I can. It does say I can in that letter. It says it doesn't want parking overnight, but so can park. Is it your contention that you're not doing that? Well, I think my contention is that I'm here asking for a vacation so that it can be used without any question at any time. That's why I'm asking for it. Thank you. Sure. That's our last speaker. Do we have any online or that's it? Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. That didn't. Okay, motion by Ms by Mr. Pan, second by Ms. Law of the close public hearing. All those favour please say aye. Aye. I always motion carries. I'm in zero. Okay. That'll take us to questions. Any questions for staff on the case? Mr. Dolphin, I would thank you for getting your response back to me as quickly as you did. I'm sorry I didn't get to asking you these questions earlier in the week. But my interpretation of what you've sent me is essentially what I just asked Mr. Rice about that. Even if he may be allowed to use the right hand side of that open space as a driveway right now He's not allowed to use it the front of it as a parking pet is that correct? That is my understanding from the letter. Excuse me the letter that you referenced All right now with regard to the defense of maintaining the property and public ownership, it seems to me we are switching from the notion that this is an unused right of way that might have potential future uses a right of way to it being open space. Is that essentially correct? Can you clarify that just a little bit? Well, Mr. Rice has basically used it as a right away. And now you're saying it's not a right away, it's gonna be open space. So part of the lot does still function as open space right now and then there is the gravel driveway that has been there and functioning since for a while for at least a decade. But you don't see, you don't see, uh, I basically, I guess you're saying that it's, it's both dry open is city right of way, but it is not developed as a road with the full street section. Well, one of the other persons said that the area is overgrown. My impression was it's not really overgrown and that it might well be a useful small park. Is there some thought about making it subject to park parks and wrecks as open space? And then so there is a discussion and we have somebody from RPCA here that can talk about how this space may be programmed. I do understand that it would have to remain technically as right of way, but could be functional as program space, though. I would think also that to the extent that it's going to be personally used by an adjacent property owner. There ought to be some compensation to the city for that. What do you say about that? This is something that we can look at. There are a few tools that we can use to potentially formalize the access for 408. Thank you. For the discussion. Ms. McMahon. Yeah, I'll give it a shot. In my, in my assessment of the requirements that have to be met for a vacation. And I'll just go through them. Well, I guess an important one is going to be the question of whether this is really open space or this is really gonna be open space. Because I do differ, I guess, with staff's assessment that this counts as open space that we should be protecting because it's in a plan. So the first is there's no use. We have to prove that there's no use of the right of way at the time the application is filed. My interpretation of what that means is not that someone informally uses a piece of a land that is not maintained yet is right of way but is reserved for the potential of right of way. So it's a little different than your line of of of argumentation, um, commissioner Brown. I don't think there's any use of it today. Um, the only use that has been identified by staff is the hypothetical open space. And because it is located in an existing plan, and I took a look at that plan, and it really just exists as a line in a very long inventory of parcels way at the bottom of what seems like hundreds of other lines that are more important in a section on right-of-way pieces, basically, that are not that are unimproved. And I don't see that as a legitimate current use because I don't have the fact that it is green to me does not make it qualify as open space. I actually tend to agree more with all three of the vacation applicants in their positing that this is really just a place they maintain. It's a place the city hasn't invested in. It's not a place that will reasonably be even a pocket park that people will want to go to. You can't find it. It's not, it does not connect to other things. It's just not a, it's not a current, um, a current open space. The second is no reasonable use of the right of way could exist in the future. Either for its original purpose or some other public purpose and then give some listing there. And again, I don't think this is expected to be right of way, improved and maintained by the city as a right of way in the future. And I don't expect it to be improved and maintained this open space in the future by the city. And I don't mean to say that in a defeated manner, but we have so many open space priorities that are more important than this piece, that the likelihood that we're going to invest money and maintaining it and taking care of it, just to me seems unrealistic, I guess, is the way I would put it. So I find that there isn't a reasonable use of it in the future. I don't think it's a practical addition to the network. It doesn't, again, it doesn't connect to things. Even if we wanted to make it a pocket park, we can't connect it to a trail, we can't make it more accessible to others. On three sides, it's just private property. Number three, no portion of the public right of way shall become landlocked. I believe that condition is met. I don't I don't think that vacating this this piece of land would create any landlock situation for any of the other three properties that we're talking about here or the ones that that might have butted that are not here tonight. No, but in property owners shall become landlocked or have access substantially impaired. I guess that's that piece. So no right of ways landlocked, no properties or landlocked. I guess an observation then would be of the vacation proposals we've seen tonight. A question I would have is if one were to find that the original vacation request by 401A that is the full development vacation request of that location were found to be met. That seems like it would remove access to the garage of, forgive me, 406, 408, thank you. And so is that staff's assessment? So under that circumstance, that vacation request would actually create a landlocked situation for that site. Correct, and that's why on the screen I put conditionally met then some of some of the request met it and some of them didn't. Okay. And then the last, the vacation shall provide a public benefit. And in this instance, I don't find the vacation requests that just split the property between 406 and 408, provide a public benefit. Well, really, all of these vacation requests are turning what is public space into private space. But the drawback to a public benefit evaluation in my mind for the ones that are not development proposals is that they the city only gets a little bit of money for it and there there isn't, but it does provide a substantial sum of money to the city that can be used to invest back into our open space network in places that are higher up on the list of priorities. And I tend to agree with the argumentation of Mr. Terran on the other kinds of benefits associated with an infill house. We do this in other, we've done this in other spaces. It's you're putting, you're putting a home with people in it along a street that has other homes with people in it and you're adding tax base and community participation and so on and so forth. However, the drawback to that request is that it doesn't seem like it can, at least on its face, meet the needs of that fourth condition. If there isn't, if there is a design that does not provide driveway access to the back of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the convinced that the one of these sharing versions that lets each of them have a piece of the property. If that is something that they all three want to move forward with would appear to solve to solve the one issue associated with access for 408 and still provide some benefit. I'm not sure if it provides a lot of public benefit if the pieces of the vacations are not developable. That's kind of where I am right now. Mr. Canning. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Commissioner McMahon winding through that whole analysis and it, I find myself virtually completely in agreement with it, as I run through the criteria, the staff has judged that the first two are not satisfied, but I would agree with her observations that this is not in any meaningful way, functional right of way, now that's being maintained by the city for its normal purposes. And it's clearly not functional open space in the way that we would generally characterize that as indicated by the fact that it's not really a pocket park. And I would agree that it strikes me that it's Virtually impossible to consider a scenario where it would be a useful pocket park Both because of its intrinsic location and size and the other limitations the Qi much and And also for the observation that Mr. Rice made that I think is seems to be reflected in the judgment here that he has a a sort of a discernible and maintainable and defendable right of access based on the history of the site. So I literally don't see how you take a 50-foot wide property and continue to have vehicular access from the front to the back and then combine that in any plausible way with an actual pocket park that would work. So I would find that the first year criteria are satisfied and in terms of the fifth criteria, it seems to be one of the public benefits is that we take this currently unmaintained right away for over a century that's been a burden on the adjacent property owners and remove it from the roles. And the plus side then is in any of these scenarios where it does actually get vacated to some combination of the adjacent property owners. At a minimum, we get the public benefit that the owner of four or six had mentioned of literally just being a good steward of the space. All the way to the potential benefits from Mr. Torrance proposal to redevelop it as housing. So I'm also not persuaded by the staff analysis here that the vacation can't be supported. But I am completely flumoxed by the reality of trying to make some evaluation on a vacation case of competing property owners, those sorts. I will say though that I think I hadn't really looked at Mr. Teran's updated diagram carefully. I had just been looking at the staff report in his previous proposal. The proposal that's in front of us now from his perspective, would divide it into three pieces, would have the equity factor that he mentioned that they are all equivalent in size and one property owner isn't favored by getting a larger share of the property. There is a certain piece of it that becomes a logically coherent addition to the area of his current substandard lot and therefore may have the development potential and the value to the city that was manhead mentioned. And still it would then it would formalize the access way to the owner of 408 that they have depended on consistently and and apparently have a right to so if we to accept the idea that the vacation is plausible and has some admittedly minor but discernible public benefit, I would find this adjusted proposal of three equal divisions to be the most plausible way forward of the things that are in front of us. Two other comments? Well, I'll add mine. I cannot support a vacation in this case. I don't think that this is the appropriate vehicle for distribution of land like this. And let me explain why that's the case. I think we're privileging three landowners with some division of this land because they happen to be adjacent to city right away. I think it's a large amount of land to basically give away for peanuts to adjacent landowners. You know, this is a 6,400 square foot lot. That's more than my lot in Rosemond that we'd be giving away for a few thousand dollars which adds substantially to the adjacent lot owners for what is a city right of way from a technical point of view, but really isn't, for all intents and purposes, this should be treated as a lot. And I think the appropriate disposition for this would be to convert this into a standard lot by the city and to use the city's surplus land policy to request proposals or bids for the purpose of the law. But this doesn't make any sense to give this away to the adjacent landowners. So I can't support this. I don't even think this is the right process for this. I don't know this proposal. Thank absence of further discussion, I would move to adopt the staff recommendation of denial of the request. Here we have a second. So we have a motion by Mr Brown and a second by Ms. vote. All those in favor of the motion to support the staff recommendation of denial. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion. Aye. Oh, motion carries six to one. All right. Very much. So that will take us, that's our last formal document that we need to call. So that would take us to Commissioner reports, comments and questions. Any, any reports from the, from the commission? That's I have one. Yeah, just about. As I'm sure you all know, we have a retreat coming up on the 20th. And one of the first items of discussion is the future of Atomic Yard. Commissioner Canning and I have been thinking about that hard ever since the sports arena crashed. crashed. And we've come up with our suggestion, which we hope to present at the hearing on the 20th. And in advance of that hearing, he and I have agreed to put together a PowerPoint or combination of discussion papers for circulation by Nancy to whoever's going to be at the meeting. And we will get that to you by September 10th. Sounds good. Okay. Okay, we look forward to seeing that. Thank you. Mr. Canning. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to report that the I've forgotten the acronym already the advisory team to ACPS for the beginning of the George Mason Elementary School replacement design process headed first, headed first meeting sometime in the last day or two, a virtual meeting, kickoff meeting. And I have the privilege of being the planning commission representative of that. And I just wanted to report that it has started. And I'm actually very excited about it. I didn't realize until I tuned into the meeting that the architectural and engineering team that's been engaged by the city to do that is the same team that did both. What's the name of the over school on camera over by Sarah? No, I'm sorry. Anyway, it has done one of, not only at super recent school, one of our recent schools, and also worthy architects of discovery elementary in Jefferson Houston. Thank you, I think it was Patrick Henry. So they did Jefferson Houston. They also did the discovery elementary school back in 2015, which was the first zero-energy school in the state as far as I can recall, and has been from my perspective the model of what we should be doing in the city ever since then. And the tenor of that meeting was that this sort of high energy performance and zero net characteristic of this school now that we have done many howard and that we've done Douglas McArthur and we've had our requirement for new civic buildings in the Green Building Policy for a few years saying that they should be net zero. It feels like a normal part of the process to design this building as opposed to something that is continually trying to be sort of thrown over the transom into the program of requirements. So it's getting started and the process was also very efficient. And that first meeting, there was a presentation of three different clearly developed conceptual approaches so that the next time we convene, there'll be a recommendation to proceed with one of those. And the whole time frame for the whole exercise is something like six months for the advisory team. And the construction is anticipated to be starting in 2025, which is a timeline that sounds about the third as long as the one we had for a similar effort on Patrick Henry, which is the last one that I served on or any of the previous ones. So it strikes me that ACPS has there on themselves very well organized, the team is very tight. And it was a good start. And I have a question for you, Steven. Did was there any discussion of issues with dominion regarding solar and connectivity and that additional one plus million dollar? No, so the conundrum that we have with with turning Douglas McArthur and Minnie Howard on and actually getting the connected and. That tremendous additional difficulty the Dominion is presented us with wasn't raised so. with wasn't raised. So, and it wasn't raised in the context of, hey, we've got this new hurdle, and therefore we're backing off on the requirements or we're not gonna pursue this design. It didn't even come up. So I'm assuming that the city and ACPS have a strategy for finding a way to address it. It doesn't rise to the level of us having to wave our arms and worry about whether we can carry on this one. I have a question about one of the places where I feel like some of the previous school projects sort of added cost and unnecessary ways related to parking and you know I think with Douglas MacArthur in particular, the parking requirements and the underground or under building parking got to be a very costly element of that project when we have ample on street parking in adjacent neighborhoods that could be utilized during the day by teachers for elementary schools, just like it is for Naomi Al Brooks and some of the other urban setting schools. So I'm wondering if they're being mindful of the same opportunities with respect to minimizing the onsite parking and the construction requirements related to parking and thinking creatively about how the neighborhoods may be able to serve part of the need there so that we're not overbuilding and over-costing the project to build places to park cars instead of educate children. Right. It wasn't addressed in that level of detail, but it's apparent in the original, in the initial diagram, you know, the site is relatively constrained. It's not gigantic. But the, the amount of surface parking that's being shown on the site is relatively modest. It's like six to seven, these spaces altogether. It's not a major driver of the form factor for the building or the site design. There's no bus loop on the site. We're just talking about sort of getting a little bit of widened right of way for a lay-by for five buses in front of the school. So the buses aren't even, crossing the property line to get on the property so that they can chew up three and a half acres on their own just getting in and out. What's evident in these very conceptual initial diagrams, I think you would be reinforced in a positive way for that issue. Certainly, the complexity that developed at Douglas MacArthur said that there was actually a garage on the building. I mean, that's tremendously difficult. There are other issues about the way the green building policy update and the requirements for our schools to get to satisfy zero net energy are also have that same kind of potential, which is an issue for me that there are ways that if we fine tune the definition of zero energy appropriately from my perspective in this update, it'll put less onerous on ACPS to try to max that out because you literally don't have to get the zero energy on the site. But the definition that we wrote in 2019 is one line that says 100% on site zero zero energy, and no buildings except kind of elementary schools that are very low rise and have very big sites can really do that. And my understanding without knowing the details, potentially speaking out of turn, is a real stretch for both Douglas McArthur and Minnie Howard to get to that full 100% and when there are places in the schemes like that where if you're trying to get from 80 90 or 90 to 100 You know the curve for the cost goes up to get that last marginal bit And it's just having the green building policy catch up with the reality of best practice So that's a similar kind of tradeoff of making sure we don't push for something that has marginal additional value at great additional original additional value at great additional cost. Yeah, yeah. Well, thank you for that. Add up my data. Other commissioner updates. Here, Mike. Ms. McGahn. Just a tiny one, which is just that I will not be in town for the January meeting. So just giving you a lot of things up, which might be your last meeting last. I remember you second time meeting. That's good. I'll plan to be here that night. Make sure we've got covered no traveling for you. TRB is that way. So I will be in town. I just don't know what good parties I'll be missing downtown to be here instead. This Williams. I just have a couple reminders. The kickoff for the housing master plan is on Wednesday, the 18th. It's on the list of related meetings that I sent out last Friday. I think Lanny also sent out an email about it, but it's all virtual this first meeting and it's from 7 to 9. Also, thank you, Commissioner Brown, for bringing up the retreat. We do need to get out the final agenda. I think next week, early next week. And so if you have any final comments, please share them with me. I do think that I have incorporated everyone's comments to date. And just as a reminder, the first item on the agenda is the restructuring of our department. Also, we did add the EPC, Planning Commission, coordination and we did add your comment about Dominion and Sola, Potomac Yard, also trailers and short term rentals and then the long range planning efforts. But again, if there's anything else if you can get your idea to me as soon as possible so that we can post the agenda. to me as soon as possible so that we can post the agenda. The third thing is the fiscal year 2024 Planning Commission annual report. It's been sent out. I think I've had one comment to date that has been incorporated. But if you have any other changes, we can talk about it at the retreat if you like or you can send them to me and we will we will update it and send it back out to you. You probably know that this year the city clerk has extended the deadline for all boards and commissions to actually September the 30th, but your October meeting I think is October the first. And so if you actually wanted to vote on it, we could ask that you get an extra day to that extension. So that's all I have. Thank you. And I don't and I don't think we've typically voted on it. So I don't know that that's necessary. But I do appreciate that the city clerk added an extra month because it always seemed a little problematic to have an August 30 deadline when so many commissions don't meet during July and August. So that's very helpful. I guess I would just add, if we can encourage the clerk to do so again in future years because that timing works really well for commissions for us to get a chance to finalize a document distributed people get a chance to look at it. I just think it's we can just have them corralos. OK. Any other comments? Report to comments, questions. All right. That will take us to consideration the minutes from the June 4th and June 24th, Planning Commission meetings. I worked with Nancy to make a, in my review of both sets of minutes, I noticed that the, the public speaker section was appearing after the Commissioner discussion section in the sequence of events. And it caused me to look back at some other because it doesn't match our actual the way our proceeding goes and the sort of logical sequence of how we listen to things, consider them, discuss them and then decide. And I looked back at the last five meetings and I think three of them were in the order. I expected them to be in two of them were in a different order. So so what I had asked and Nancy kindly obliged was to move the speaker, the public speaker descriptions up in front. So right after the sort of introduction to the item. So our discussion comes after and she did that for these cheer landing one and one of you two after for these two. But then I would request if it's conducive for the rest of the commissioners that we just give them that guidance to use that order consistently going forward. that we just give them that guidance to use that order consistently going forward. So we know. So if everyone just wants to nod, that would be great. Okay. So thank you again, Nancy. Thank you. That was the only specific change. I know you made a few other clean up changes as well. Thank you for sharing both of those meetings. And I would, I would entertain separate motions to approve because I'm going to abstain on the June 24th meeting since I was not a frustrating member on that one. I'll make a motion to approve the June 4th meeting minutes. Okay, we have a motion. Second to approve the June 4th meeting minutes. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, motion carries 7-0. I'll make a motion to approve the June 24th meeting minutes. Correct. A motion and a second to approve the June 24th meeting minutes. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, and abstain. abstain. So that carries 6-0-1. And that'll take us to German anything else before we had any other announcements from staff before we adjourn Okay, I second We got a motion from the motion from Miss Laos second from Miss McFandy would join all those in favor please say aye Motion carries seven zero we're in adjournment. Thanks.