you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you You Here. Mr. Kravinsky. Here. Thank you. We have a quorum. All right. Thanks. Good to see everybody again. Maybe we can just add Mr. Polinsky to the roll call. Once you get settled, don't rush. And Mr. Polinsky here. Thank you. We still have the corner. All right. Terrific. Thank you. Okay. And then can I have a motion to adopt the agenda? Manager, I move to adopt the meeting agenda. And is there a second? All right. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. No speaker series tonight. So the next item is the receipt of petitions. Mr. Trainer, do we have any written correspondence? No, but I'm sure I did not receive any written petitions for the Planning Commission. And I also did not receive any speaker slips for in-person comment. But if there is anyone in the audience, I would like to speak tonight. Please make yourself known. Would anybody like to speak tonight? OK. All right. Then I think we can move on to our action items. The first action item is the Ekeni Site Plan Final Action. Mr. Fuller, would you like to introduce the item? Yes, this is a site plan. This is up for final approval tonight. You've seen this before and several work sessions and it's in final form and there's a few administrative things that we're happy to wrap up very basic. they're listed in the report. And then I have Jeff Haller and is the project planner, he'll be presenting tonight. Okay, great, welcome, Mr. Haller. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Cormont, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Jeff Haller, and the Planning Staff. The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on a site plan application for the proposed Econized Closet Showroom and Office. This is the Planning Commission's third meeting to review the application. Staff has recently completed a review of the third submission of all of the application materials and transmitted staff review comments to the applicant last week on April 17th, 2025. Remaining comments are limited to the clarification of various pre and post-development stormwater comments. The review of the sanitary main tie-in and surrounding soil, as well as a request to adjust the proposed inter, the condition at the proposed intersection with West Broad Street. For some background on the project, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing building at the corner of West Broad Street and Spring Street. The applicant will then construct a new four-story all-commercial building, totaling 11,547 square feet in size. Once constructed, the applicant will relocate from their current location at 703 Park Avenue to the new building. The new building is to serve as a showroom and office for Ekenize closet with a limited offering of co-working and conference room space on the basement level. The application also comes with a request for five waivers. First, there's a waiver for the perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to abutting properties along the eastern boundary. Second, there's a waiver request for off-street parking reduction of 39% including a loading space. Number three, a waiver of rear yard setback requirement when adjoining an hard district. Number four, a waiver of requirement for no vehicular entrance within 100 feet of an art district. Number five, there's a waiver of interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Lines 94 through 212 includes all of staff's analysis of the proposed application against the comprehensive plan, West Broad Street, Small Area Plan, Zoning Code, and StreetScape Standards. In summary, staff finds that the proposed application will help towards achieving many of the goals outlined in those plans. Specifically, those that encourage a well-designed and walkable transition between commercial and residential districts. Lines 214-286 of the staff report includes all of the waiver requests, justifications, and staffs analysis and recommendations. The parking reduction request of 39%, percent has been supported by a transportation demand management plan shown within the cover sheets of the site plan document. Of note is that the building's 11,547 square feet is not indicative of the number of staff and patrons that will be on the site at any given time. The bottom of the report shows the application's timeline up until tonight's public hearing, which was noticed to the public and only received questions to clarify the uses and the parking reduction request at the site. Staff responded to these questions and provided links to previous work sessions on the project. That's it for the staff report. We do have Zach Asper, who's a project architect here in the building, and then I'll stick around for questions. Thank you. Okay, great. Did the applicant want to speak? You're not required to, but... If you do, can you come to the mic? Thank you, Dan. Yeah, I'm tracking this. We have for very good schools. Great. Thank you. There hasn't been a whole lot of changes since the last time we talked, but I just wanted to show you the few changes that were made. So yeah, this is the design. Overall, the building design actually hasn't changed if you could go to the next slide. The site, next slide, please. It's really just the parking in the back. And I think actually actually the next slide will show it a little bit better. I think the last time that we met with you all we were assuming we're going to have 18 onsite spot parking spots and two on the street. We're still carving out space for the two on the street but we had to reduce the onsite spots by two. I believe that was tied to some staff comments about access to the trash container and back. So. to reduce the on-site spots by two. I believe that was tied to some staff comments about access to the trash container and back. So we had to, you can see the last two spots on the right there are no parking spots and that's just still allow better access for the trash truck to come and pick up trash or cycling. But other than that, that was the only changes. So yeah, we're thankful for this process. And look forward to hopefully again, a final approval from you all. Okay, great, thank you. I'll open it up to my fellow commissioners. Any questions or comments? You know, we've seen this a few times, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before you run away from the two parking spots on the street, remind me again what happens if somebody who's may not patronizing the coin shop or one of the other stores in your new neighborhood want to park in one of those spots next to your building on the street. Is that going to be allowed? That is allowed, yeah. That parking's not reserved for econize. It is not counted towards our calculation, but it is something that is not currently there that we're going to be kind of highlighting as parking spots. Any one can park there. Okay. And Mr. Hall, and you said that the public comment or questions had been fairly minimal and focused on a couple of questions you were able to respond to, is that right? Yeah. So we noticing, 10-day A-PON noticing, and the only comment that I received was not really a comment. It was more just clarification questions of what are the uses in the building, and also if staff believes that it's going to be enough parking for their use. Okay, well that's good. I remember when we had the proposal for a condominium small condominium building at that general location, then there was much more public input. Folks on the street were not quite so happy with that. So for whatever reason, either folks are more confident that we can do a development nicely or maybe the nature of this particular Application seems less less likely to be a burden on parking or whatever, but it's good news. Whatever it is Final question. So the back part of the lot is Residentially zoned now and that's gonna get folded in with the part that's commercially commercially zone now, right? So here's a question that somebody can school me on. If we give you the entitlement to go ahead with this project and somehow, you know, somebody comes to you next week and says, gee now you've got this entitlement for development that takes in, you know, the entire length length of the property all the way down to the single-family house that's there. We want to buy it from you and do something else. What would our position be? Does the clock start all over again with a new development or does the residential-zoned area that we're folding into this with this action, you know, carry with the property after these folks are using it. So just to answer that, this site plan when approved would then be able to be used by this applicant or if they were to sell to another. If somebody wanted it was to buy the property before this was built, then they would have to cement a new site plan for what they plan to do with that. The residential zoning, there is business and residential zoning. That is not changing and it's not being re-zoned. So that will remain there. So if a new applicant were to come in, then we would look at the code and how that split zoning on that property, which is remaining with this site plan, would be addressed with whether or not the proposal came in. So, okay, others here probably were aware of that. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. I'll just make a follow up with that question. Good. Since we brought up the issue of the split zoning, right, we're not. that I understood that. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. I'll just make a follow up with that question. Go ahead. Since we brought up the issue of the split zoning, right? It's not a rezoning, yeah, that was going to be something. I mean, the staff is well aware of that. I guess the question is, and I don't know if we touched on this at some of the work sessions, but, I mean, just to also folks anyone listening, the use is going to be in the business zone. The only part that's in the residential zone is part of the parking area and our code can stay up and from our code allows a part of a commercial parking lot to extend into the R1A. That is correct. Right. And we looked at that early on before the applicant filed anything formally with the zoning administrator. So we sorted that out because of the split zoning. So you were correct in the statement you made. Yes. Yeah, split zoning is always a tricky thing because technically, you know, the rules inside only apply within the zone, you know, and when you have a split zone lot, unless the code makes certain allowances, so they could not, not that they ever propose to do this, but they couldn't have the building extend over until they are 1A. It's not permitted. So to your point, Mr. Duncan, you're either not rezoning the property so it'll remain split-zoned. At least for now and perhaps for a long time if this is built since this is pretty much locked that in for the foreseeable future. I'm just another question also about parking. Just for staff I'm interested to get a little bit more elaboration from staff where you talk about, I wasn't clear if you were making a recommendation. Oh, starting on line 294, where you say, I'll just read what you wrote. Due to the proposed parking reduction staff in the planning commission may also consider attaching conditions, then he said waiver or modification to assure that the results of the waiver or modification are applicable for this use only. And the future uses of the site would need to reapply for a parking reduction. So one I think we should debate that, but they also in light of like what we just approved or I think the council approved it for the changes to the rules for parking and for small uses. I don't know that would apply. This is a new building. So that wouldn't apply, right? Is there any overlap with what we just approved to change to the code related to parking and what they're- In existing buildings? Yeah, that was only for existing buildings. I forgot where we landed on that. I know we went back and forth on that but it just confirmed that. That that that to co-change doesn't it's not applicable here at all. Right now as far so then to my original question. Are you recommending that the commission do that? This would staff is staff recommending that we put a condition that limits the parking reduction specifically to this use? I guess it wouldn't be a recommendation. It's just more so of informing the planning commission that that is something that they can do. I think this kind of goes a little bit with Mr. Duncan's question as well. The issue that we're having here is that the square footage of the building is making it so that there's much more parking that is required. But this use does not require that much parking. Right. Now future use is may, depending on what it is. So staff is just making sure that the Planning Commission knows that they can put a condition on the waiver that this only goes for this use and that will have to come back to the table when it's a new use to talk about parking again. I had asked staff to put this in as an awareness thing. So as you're granting a waiver for parking, there is the opportunity to put conditions that you would feel appropriate. It's just a reminder that I wanted in all the staff reports so you know you have that authority to add some condition if the need were to rise. So yeah, so I guess the commission should, we should probably deliberate on that point. If we are for inclined to grant the waiver, do we wanna put any conditions on that? And so that's something that it's worth considering. It may be another use might generate a lot more parking. It could be a very different type of office or use that would go in there. But we can talk about it. I don't know how folks feel about putting that type of restriction on it. But just wanted to see if staff was making a recommendation sounds like they're just kind of neutral on neutral on it, but they're down as we can we can do it. So all right, thanks for that. Any other thoughts before we maybe discuss Mr. Krasner's question? No? Any thoughts on conditioning the parking reduction? I guess I would be okay if we wanted to say it's conditioned on this use. Just to make it clear that if they were to sell the property to somebody else who came up with a different use for that space, that it could lead to a different conclusion as far as the parking is concerned. I guess my question would be for someone relatively new to this particular process. Is this like, I understand the authority exists within the planning commission, but is this type of thing done? Is there a precedent for attaching this kind of waiver in any of the fallsturch? I think we've attached conditions to other different Cypress. So it wouldn't be setting some new precedent? necessarily. I think the issue comes down to whether or not we feel that if we're inclined to support the waiver and we feel it's really predicated on the particular operational characteristics of Econize and that if another completely different intent was to come in that we might not support it. Maybe staff could also elaborate on what would be the mechanism for a new tenant to get a parking reduction. If they're not flying a site plan, what would be the, who would grant that? I mean, what's the, because we're hearing this now because it's a site plan waiver, but if this was built, they get it. We say, okay, new tenant doesn't need to reapply for the parking reduction. What's the process for that? Again, in terms of if you were to have a different use, I would go through the zoning administrator, in this case, the waiver would be in the system and kind of flag like a variance almost. And so at that point, it would be a site plan amendment for the waiver. So it would come back to you for, you know, the original proven authority. So as a site plan amendment, I wasn't sure if there was any other mechanism for parking reduction. Just to answer the earlier question, disability to grant waivers to parking in the site plan and process is relatively new, was the code changed a couple of years ago. So we've had a few site plans, mostly townhouses and the D1 and so forth. So we haven't really utilized it, but the idea is, I just wanted you to be aware that that authority does exist if you feel the need that there need to be a condition. So the answer question we have it actually put a condition on parking today. We get TDMs with it now. And then, you know, we've, you know, granted the waivers to date without any condition. So that this would be the first time if we were to attach one. But as I described, that's how we would handle in the future. So it's a site plan of amendment if a new use were to try and use it. It's regardless of whether or not we sort of attach that condition, that site plan amendment, stuff, whatever. Without the condition, the the its only administrator would look at the use and look at the parking, but know wouldn't necessarily come back to you that would be a decision on their part based on the use of the demand. I have to throw another layer. I know maybe nothing will. With the state code change that takes away cyclan reviewing authority sounds like if it did come back you would come back to the staff. It would be whoever the designated staff becomes the main reviewer and approver of the side of the case. Whether it's the director of planning or the director or whatever, it would fall in that person to review the side plan. So just another, I mean, the only significance there is that if people are concerned about that we be putting an onerous restriction that would require another public hearing and a site plan, it sounds like with the state code change, we'll talk about that I guess at the end of the meeting, but that may not be the case in the future. It would be an administrative process to do it. So maybe that makes it a little bit less onerous if somebody, if we somebody, you know, if we're worried about trying to balance, you know, concerns about a new use, creating a parking problem, but not wanting to kind of overburden the property. So, yeah, food for thought, but that made, yeah, that actually, maybe in some ways, makes me more inclined to want to put the restriction on place because the remedy in the future would be, you know, staff level process. Any other thoughts on waiver, no waiver, Mr. Duncan? What was the applicant think about us putting that condition? Sorry, not waiver, no waiver condition, no condition. Yeah. Do you have any opinions on it? You know, as a representative of my client is the property owner, I can see how I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'd rather have the site plan get approved today than I would have been able to do it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. I'm not going to be opposed to it. So I would prefer not to have that way we're put on, but at the same time, I'm not going to be opposed to it. You know, I'd rather have the site playing to get approved today than have the waiver to the, I forget the proper nomenclature there, but yeah. Any other thoughts, Mr. Polinsky? Or, oh, okay. I would just say, it sounds like it would be prudent to have that condition put on it based on the size of the building and potential future use of the building. So if there's no significant pushback from the owner, I probably suggest it might be prudent thing to do. Mr. Seaman? I guess the motivation is just the protection of the neighborhood in case situation changes. And like we hypothesized, if some type of a use comes in there that generates lots of traffic and lots of parking on the street that obviously folks aren't going to be very happy about that. So having some way to address that sounds like a prudent thing to do. Okay. And Mr. Duncan, Mr. Polinsky. I did come up with an idea. I think I also like the idea of setting that precedent, especially with any new buildings that come into that area that this particular applicant did it this way, but that was a special review. We made a decision based on that. Different reviews don't necessarily get that precedent that you can reduce parking and still get it in because you, as Mr. Stevens pointed out, you end up different building different use case and sub invading or emerging or expanding into residential parking. Okay. There's a challenge. Okay. Chair, go on. I wanted to maybe just a quick refresher on. So there's there's two administrative avenues for parking reduction. There's the one that the planning commission approved, which is there's certain conditions that an applicant can meet when moving into an existing commercial building that can apply for the first 1,200 square feet of the use to be removed from parking considerations, calculations. There's additional requirements to be able to be eligible for that, but that is an administrative review that is done at the time of certificate of occupancy. So when someone comes in proposing a new use, that could automatically be checked at the staff level. level. There's a second avenue where if that doesn't apply then an applicant can petition the zoning administrator specifically and there's provide some specific information basically submitting a TDM plan for the zoning administrator and that's a more of not as kind of straight forward but is more of a conversation, I'd say with the zoning, there's more discretion for the zoning administrator to recommend the request being made on condition that they supply the appropriate information. Okay. And would us, if we were to place a condition on this waiver, would that tie up, the zoning administrator stands in that second scenario? I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll be able to... I think I'll. I'm not exactly sure how that would play into the processes that are available, you know, when a waiver or condition is not put on the site plan, I'm not sure to be honest. So the conditions here are just when the properties changing use without consideration of other conditions put on it previously. Did you have another comment, Mr. Fuller? Yeah, I would say, I mean, what I stated before, the condition added to the waiver, it's really technically a modification to the parking requirements per the code. That would carry with it the plan and so another use that had a higher demand of parking needing more than that would have to come back in and modify the parking again and justify that that use. I mean an extreme example would be know, a restaurant coming in, trying to occupy versus an office building, which would be probably appropriate. Right. Right. Right. Okay. I'm hearing general support for the idea of including a condition. Is that right, Mr. Duncan? I think I saw thumbs up from you. Okay. All right. I'm fine with that. I'm a little ambivalent about it. In general, I think I would prefer to not have it, but I'll go with the commission on it. So, if we wanted to include that, would it be in number two in the motion, including the following waivers, waiver for, of waiver, I think this one was worded a little oddly anyway, waiver of required off street parking, including the following waivers, a reduction of off-street parking of 39% including a loading space for the current, for the proposed use only or something like that would that be the way we would were the condition. I would use the modifications in a way which is that is technically what it is. Okay. Okay. 48, 1004. So, I think. Do we need to make that change for all five of the? No, no, that's the only one because it's specifically that way. Okay. So, what is the, what wording do you suggest for number two? Do you have? I think what you said would work fine. I don't remember what I said. Putting the following waivers, a reduction. It's a modification. You could just change waiver modification requested for an off-screen parking requirements for reduction of 39% of the original employees for. Or we can pretty word it more like what we do. Let's see. Sorry. So it is amazing after all the parking requirements for a modification of required off-street parking, like which would be reduced by 39% and a loading space. And one loading space is that also being that's also included in Which would be reduced by one loading by 39% of one loading space for the Proposed use only I can So, Keeps it simple. Yeah, including the following waivers, a modification of required off-street parking, which would be reduced by 39% and one loading space for the proposed use only. Does that sound right? Okay. Does that sound right to you, Mr. Crasner? This was I think the idea that you read. Yeah, I think that works. Yep. Okay. Any other discussion? Any other items? Does something like to make the motion? We got all darn things. Anybody feel like reading? Can the chair make the motion? I can do it. I can do it. I can do it. I'm not sure what she's going to do. She's not going to do it. She's not going to do it. I should dunk in as saving. I got nothing to say. That's okay. All right. Let me, of course, I'll have to now restate what we just said. I, uh, you typed, okay, well then I'm in. I'm in. All right, well then I will make the motion. Um, I'll preface it just by saying that before I make the motion that, you know, I'm thankful to this applicant for working with us on this. I mean, I think this process actually went fairly smoothly considering at the beginning, there were some not insignificant concerns about the original proposal and I think you sort of right-sized the building for this site. It's not an easy lot. It's a corner, a very long skinny corner lot, which comes with challenges which we get. And then I was really heartened by the resubmission after the first work session. And I think the reason why we're here tonight relatively quickly is, you know, as far as these site plans go, is that the applicant worked with us and really listened to our concerns. And so, anyhow, so with that is, and so at this point, I can say, I don't know, there's this final issue about the parking. I don't think there's any outstanding issues that I see on this. And I think this will be a really great addition to that corner, which has obviously there been previous ideas and proposals about that little particular intersection in town. And I think this will be a really great addition and kind of in that stretch between some of the newer stuff that's happened to the west and to the east of there to begin to have some activity here and bring some life to that particular block. So with all that as a preamble, I'll go ahead and make the motion. This is in, let's see that the official title of the action is this is a site plan application, Munis number 2024-0569 by... Mr. Grasmer, I'm sorry, I just realized this is a public hearing I need to open the public hearing. Oh yeah. No, we asked for speakers at the beginning but yeah. Yeah, so this is a public hearing. Even wrote down open public hearing in my nose. I always forget to do that. Is there anybody here to, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on the item? Okay, seeing none. Oh, yes. Okay, please come forward. How do we ask? Ha ha. Is your mic on? Yeah. First of all. There should be a green light. It is green. Great. Got it. Okay. My name is Charles Longer. I am homeowner at 108 South Springs. I'm about three parcels down from the proposed plan. This is more just a question for clarity. I believe my neighbor is actually the one who emailed asking for other details. Curious under the current configuration, what the proposed maximum occupancy is going to be a more way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a way to be a that maximum occupancy is and also how and if that fourth floor sublet, I believe fourth floor might be sublet or there was discussion about fourth floor being sublet to the basement floor. Thank you. How those parking numbers might impact the joining area and parking availability based on who's in the sublet and how many you know people might be expected in that basement area. Mr. Helen, do you? Yeah, so the way that it's been described by the applicant in previous work sessions is that Ecanize Clause it will only have about one or two staff members at a time at the office and then all of the customers are by appointment only. So they will just by nature will have very few people at the site at any given time. As for the co-working space down below that will be something that is what it's rented kind of rented out. It's actually not going to be so let's have be owned and operated by ECO and I especially have to be a co-working. I would go to the business and sit there. Okay. So yeah,'s actually not going to be so wet. It's going to be owned and operated by ECO-9, especially on the field. I would call the business to think. OK. So yeah, it's not going to be a separate. So OK. But then as a co-working space, there are predicted number of people that will be down there. I think he was going back on the mic just in case anyone's listening at home. I don't have that number off the top of my head. I mean, that's generally dictated by the allowable use of the number of my head. I mean, that's generally dictated by the allowable uses based on the number of occupants that you can have based on the square footage and what the use is considered. I don't have that number immediately. Right. Ready. But what is the square footage on the base? What's the time with the guy? It's a 4, hundred square foot footprint. You know probably I don't know third of that's taken up. Sorry third of that's probably taken up by Storage and bathrooms and non-really occupable spaces. Maybe even a little little more because another part of that circulation as well Okay Any other? No, thank you. That's it. I'm grateful to see the space being developed into something that's not a bamboo lot with Fairland, etc. Just want to make sure that we're I'm voicing the concern about the parking and as it expands down to the act are possible public services and also traffic, etc. as it narrows up with people on both sides of the street. Yeah, well that can slow traffic which can be a good thing but thank you for your call. Thank you very much. Yeah, appreciate it. Anybody else here to speak on this item? Okay then I think we can close public hearing and Mr. Crasner. Okay, I'll pick it back up again and that was,, oh, I'm glad we opened that and hearing from neighbors, I mean, I think you, just for the benefit of you and any other neighbors you may be watching, I mean, I think you can hear in the commission that, to the extent we have any remaining concerns, it was about the parking reduction and the condition we're putting in place, if you followed it, the reductions are only being granted to this particular use of a new tenant, even years from now, was to come in, and they sold the building or a new owner rather and they sold the building and bring in a new use they'd have to get another review in order to get the reduction renewed. So there'd be another set of eyes in city hall looking at that to make sure that a new use would be able to work with the with the produce parking. So in that sense, it is looking out for the neighborhood and not having a creep of commercial parking down further down the street. So, okay, so, let's see here. I think I was at the title here. So this is in again action for the Zyplan application in the UNIS 2024-0569 by Kareibazkert, agent for the owner for redevelopment of approximately 0.35 acres, 15,000, 300, 34 square feet of land located at 821 West Broad Street, RPC number 52-206-040 of the false church real property records, zone B1 limited business and R1A, low density residential to demolish the existing doctor's office and develop a new location for the Econized Closet Showroom and offices. Whereas the Planning Commission finds approval of the site plan and related waivers and modifications meets all applicable requirements of Division 7 site plans, Chapter 48, Daesh 1137, and whereas the requested waivers and modifications would not be substantially detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community. whereas the proposed project includes the demolition of a vacant medical office building to construct a new Econized Closet showroom, which will allow a local business to expand along the city's commercial corridor. And now therefore, I move that the Planning Commission approves, site plan application number 24-0569 to permit the construction of a new Econized Closet showroom with the following waivers and modifications. First one is the waiver of the perimeter parking lot landscaping. Jason to a budding property, properties along the Eastern boundary. I'll save the parking for last. I'll come back to that. Waiver of the Rear Yard setback requirement when adjoining the R district and 41-1101. Waiver of the requirement for no vehicular entrance within 100 feet of an R district, which is in section 48-938 and waiver of the interior parking lot landscaping requirements in section 48-1182 and all these waivers as staff said are really modifications in lieu of or in favor of what's shown on the the site plan. And then last but not least, we are also moving to approve a way or modification of the required off-cruque parking to allow reduction of 39% including a loading space, which is found in section 48-104 table three subject to the following condition. And where's that language that we said said do you have it? I think we added just I think we just added for the proposed use only. Yes, subject to the condition that the modification for the parking reduction is for this use only and any change in occupancy would require a renewal of the reaffirmation or renewal of the modification. Okay. That's that's the motion. Great is there a second? Second. All right. Well I'm sorry wait there was another little bit at the end. I think I missed. It's also I'm sorry. Also contingent upon the applicant resubmitting an updated final site plan that addresses the minor technical comments as noted in the attached staff comment table and line 17 to 27 to be reviewed and administratively approved by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. Those are the technical cleanup items so it's also conditioned on on that. I'm still second. Okay. All right great. I make a comment before I have just a quick comment before we okay. Yeah just a quick comment before we take the vote, I look forward to a great question. I think that's a great question. Great. All right. Great. Did I make a comment before I make a comment before we, okay. Yeah, just a quick comment before we take the vote. I look forward to voting for this. He can. He can. Is an example of a business that's been very successful and a very welcome addition member to the community on their location at Park Avenue. So I think this will enhance broad street. And so for those reasons, I look forward to voting for this. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I agree. Oh, I agree with that. All I wanted to ask is that the applicant and our interested citizen not leave tonight without exchanging emails to make sure that the process of getting started on this and constructing it and so forth, be one that includes close collaboration and constant contact about what's happening. You got neighbors, martial neighbors to the east and residential neighbors to the south and religious institution on the other side of the street. And although it's a small lot, it's going to be as usual a disruptive construction scene for some time. Those of us who live just down the street from Founders Row 1 and 2 know that all too well. It's worth it in the end. But you know, it would be helpful if you would have regular Zoom meetings, teams meetings with the neighbors who are interested in the latest on what's going on with the construction process. Thanks. Good suggestion, Mr. Duncan. Any other discussion of the motion? Mr. Trainer, can you update that motion from the tape further, further, further? Yeah, we've got it written down. Okay. Okay. And I think we can do a roll call vote. Okay. Mr. Polinsky? Yes. Mr. Duncan? Yes. Mr. Crasner? Yes. Mr. Stevens? Yes. Mr. Kravinsky? Yes. And Chair Koma? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes. Great. looking forward to seeing this. Thank you so much. We're really looking all looking forward to seeing this. Thank you. All right. Okay. So I think our next action item is the annual report. Mr. Follard, do you want to introduce this or toss it to Mr. Trainer? Mr. Trainer is going to handle this item. Thank you. Great. Sure. So, um, yet this item is action on the planning commission's 2024 annual report to the City Council. Um, the planning commission has had a couple previous meetings, uh, looking at this and, um, decided to withhold action until, um, the Commission held its annual advance, which was done on March 26th, where recommendations were made to City Council for priorities to focus on for the Council's next work plan as well as a give direction to staff to update the planning commission's priorities for 2025 and 2026 as well. And so those updates have been made to the report on the final page. If I can find the kind of drag down there and they've been categorized by kind of general So in the 2025 planning division, work planned updates based on the priorities that the planning commission identified it. It's advanced. We had items under comprehensive plan, chapter updates, transportation planning, environmental sustainability, and zoning ordinance review and cleanup, and then recommendations for the next council work plan, which is 2026 to 2027 included, also items under comprehensive plan and small area plan updates, and zoning ordinance review and cleanup. And so those are the updates. Great, thank you, Mr. Schiener. Thank you for drafting this and for updating it based on our discussion at the advance. This look good to me. Any feedback on this list, Mr. Duncan? Thank you. Great reading. Very good work by all my colleagues up here to do many important things for the city. Could you go to page 7 of 17, just a couple of little typographical things caught my eye? 7 I think, I think it's 7 of 17. Founders row is the... there we go, there we go. So Founders Row is rendered with an apostrophe once and without the other times, I think it's without an apostrophe. This is one of my little bugaboo's. Even in the title? Yes. Founders Row 2 site plan of them for public art. Just needs to be... Oh, okay posh and a little down below there the arts and humanities council is acronym that is I think ACC once yeah down there at the bottom of the screen that shows now and that should be a HC I guess right we may miss that in the original motion if you're sort of copy pasting them. I think this is like a record of the motion that we passed so we may have missed. I mean not I guess you could change it. Yeah I mean I can go back and double check that. You have the administrative authority to correct typos. It's two lines down from where you're highlighting this. Yeah, it's two lines down over here. Yeah, very easy. Right. And, uh, and then just back, just step back from that paragraph for a second and just read it. And does it make sense? Actually, I found this applause already on installation of public review process and engaged with the Arts and Humanities Council and the A B to develop as well as members of the community. We're not developing members of the community. I think somewhere in there. It looks like it got a little garbled. The members of the community need to be after the architectural advisory board. All of them developed, I don't know what developed is even doing in there, all of their work resulted in a recommend anyway. That sentence just doesn't quite hang together to my eye. So if you have the administrative authority to tinker with language for clarity, which is all I'm asking. Question is, is that wording on your mic is off? It was just the wording in the item that we voted on or... It's possible, yeah. It's quite possible. Would you double check if it was... We could double check but yeah generally I copy and paste it from... Yeah. For language but I can double check. I author on behalf of my eighth grade English teacher, I authorize you to make changes for clarity. That's all I had. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Mr. Krobenzki. Just one comment on the recommendations on page 16. So when we were doing our advance, we had discussed. I think the original title of chapter 4 was land use and economic development and we had discussed decoupling those into either separate chapters or not making them codependent as a chapter. This is as land use. Is this, did we change the chapter structure to reduce it, to take off economic? Wasn't there, wasn't there originally land use in economic development? I think it's just a shorthand for the chapter. Is it just shorthand or did we change the structure of the chapter? No, it's just shorthand. Yes, so this does not include decoupling, but if you'd like to make that amendment, I can add that to the recommendations of decoupling those two. No, I'm just trying to clarify because there was some discussion about land use is not necessarily tied to economic development there. Under their religious, economic. Yeah, but they're related, but they should be addressed separately. But it sounds like... I think it's just shorthand, that's why I read it. Yeah. Okay, just a... We'll have that discussion, but that's a pretty substantive discussion that we'll have as part of the updates. Then the other question I had on the same bullet with a preceding scoping study. So that was a part of our discussion. I appreciate you guys putting that in there. That's great. Can you discuss what you're planning on the preceding scoping studies? Is that going to be a contracted study? Is that going to be done in-house? Have you thought it through yet? And then where do you see that study going? Do you see that study as something coming back to the Planning Commission for us to vote on the scope before you start the drafting process? We have it talked specifically about it. I did talk with Emily Bayes-Morr, our acting principal planner that heads up the comp planning team and so she's aware of it and we haven't discussed the particulars of it. My guess is it would be a scoping study that we would build internally with staff. And then we would obviously come to the planning commission with the outline and discuss it further in a work session as we develop that scope. And before we would do the work on it or contract out at that point. That's how it worked for community facilities, right? Yeah. Yeah. On the bike plan, we had the Virginia Tech Study. They did that study and they had informed the work that the study did. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The thinking about the Virginia Tech Study, where you could, in fact, outsource a study, probably, I think Virginia Tech was a no-cost study's correct. Right. That was part of their classwork actually. Yeah. So there might actually be some opportunity to do some kind of academic study that might not cost the city anything or minimal cost. So I think we just need to get a little bit more clarity before you start the drafting process, which it sounds like you're planning to do. Thanks. Yep, any other comments? Good luck. Okay, yeah. So I think once we approve this, my task is to go deliver our annual report to council on Monday. And I'll spend some time on these recommendations and priorities. So if there's anything in particular, anybody on the commission wants me to communicate to council on Monday, please let me know. Otherwise, Madam Chair, I may have to adopt the 2024 Planning Commission annual report to City Council as draft. And. Excellent. Is there a second? I'll second all second okay I think I heard Mr. Stevens first all in favor hi okay thank you very much and thank you Mr. Trainer Mr. Fuller for organizing the advance and for putting this report together really appreciate the hard work okay so our next action item is our minutes from our March 19th, 2025 meeting. Any updates to this, Mr. Duncan? The usual fine job by our clerk and general solver of all problems to act trainer. Online 112 as there's a reference to the architecture advisory board, which as we all know and love is the architectural advisory board, I think. And that's all for the 19th. If you want to bundle them them together, the minutes for the 26th on line 57, it's not it apostrophe S. And if there's no one else. Anything else? No. Any other changes? No. I'm anything else I'd move to approve the minutes of the meetings of Wednesday, March 19, 2025, and Wednesday, March 26, 2025 has revised. Okay. Is there a second? No second. I have Mr. Okay, Mr. Krivinsky. Mr. Krivinsky on the second, all in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Did you vote Mr. Steve and Si? Yeah. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you all. I think you, Mr. Trainer, for a lovely minutes, too. Okay, so our next item is a work session item. The West Falls SE amendment, Grocery VCs. Mr. Follard, do you want to introduce it? Yes, I will. This is a, as we work session item for tonight. This is a resolution to amend the voluntary concessions associated with the SE, which is the special exception entitlement that was done for the West Falls project. And this is to do with the reduction in the minimum size of the grocery store that was originally proved under the SE. We have Henry Zhang, our project planner, with West Falls as well as the Acting Deputy Director. And so he will go through this with you tonight. Excellent. Welcome Mr. Zhang. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Fuller. Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Henry Zhang. I'm the Planning PUC of the West Force project. Maribas Everdice, who is the representative of Hoffman Associates, also joined us in person here over there. Thank you, Maribas. Line 6, basically, Hoffman's and Associates in care of West Force developer LLC, requested an amendment to the volunteer concess specifically VC number two which was approved by the City Council on August 9, 2021 as part of the project special exception entitlement. This request is to reduce the minimum size of the grocery space from 39,200 sq. ft. to 32,900 sq. ft. This amendment basically has been proposed in response to the leasing reality and also to facilitating the completion of the phase one of the Westfall. As we all know, phase one of the Westfall started construction in 2022, except for the senior building on D1 parcel, the entire phase one is expected to be complete by this summer. We have attachment number one. That's the staff report to the City Council. The City Council reviewed this case on their walk session on April 7th. And then further support the amendment and then refer to the Planning Commission on their 14th regular meeting. The Planning Commission is requested to hold a work session on the requested amendment in advance of writing a recommendation to Council at Planning Commission's May 7th public hearing. This amendment is very limited in the scope to those language as amended in the VC number two. The rest of the approval include the entire SEE and also SESP which is the site plan will plan will remain governing and in full force and effect. Staff recommend that Planning Commission review the proposed changes to the VC number two and provide feedback and also recommending that the item be scheduled for public hearing and the final consideration by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2025. This concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer your questions. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Zhang. Any questions? You, Mr. Polzky. Yeah, thank you. I had one question. I don't think I understand I don't think I'm quite understanding You said they wanted to do the reduction of the square footage Because of the realities of the Build that I was like I'm not quite understanding exactly what that's a fresh markets Request it's fresh markets request. Would you please put the attachment? Yeah, so it's actually, yeah, attachment number four, please. There's a story which I'll need to tell. Yeah, I'll take a first step. Basically, when they're drafting this VC approval back in 2021, they already have somebody, some grocery store in their mind. But later on, that grocery dropped out. And then now they're listed to a different grocery.er right and then this different the new grosser will not be able to take that many of the floor area if you can see on this exhibit this one on the right lower right hand side that basically basically hatched the space that the original grocery space. Right. Yeah. Go to the next exhibit. Just do. Yeah. It's the following one. Just to scroll down please. There's another, yeah, another picture. Yeah. Keep going. Yeah keep going yeah right now this the new grocer Already been listed there so basically basically they added a one one oh five as a separate space and condensed down the That's the surplus They may one oh five is the surplus from what the grocer wanted exactly Because of the VC have a minimum square footage, the growth rate had to take, I mean, previous... from what the grocer wanted? Exactly. Because of the VC have a minimum square footage, the grocer had to take, I mean, previously. And now because the changes is about 16%, so they had to revise the VC in order to let this happen. As a result of that, yes, there is additional 63 hundred square feet will be available. And this will provide additional opportunity for the different tenants there, which will create additional tax revenue for the city. So I think during the two meetings with the city council they didn't have any specific comments on the amendment per se, but they did ask some general question and Maribes was there to answer the question. Yeah, I think my only concern here with this is it's competing with a 45-50,000-foot giant across the street. It's got about 60,000-foot, square foot, and Harris-Teter. My worry would be, I'm sure they've done the business case on this and said they can make it work with a reduced square footage or want a reduced square footage. But I would be worried about having to go back and replace them because it was too small to be effective. So as long as staff feels like they can make it work in 30,000, even if I know they asked for it, that's a request from the grocer. The concern would be that they lose out on whole foods down the street. The bigger, more shiny stores, and then we're having this conversation again and Three or four years, five years when they need to get replaced. So If staff feels it's okay, and they're confident in the The reduction and then still being a successful store, I know Trader Joe's make it in 12 to 15,000 square feet right like it's not to say they can't do it. Right. But just a smaller store competing against bigger stores that are very close would be my primary concern that the smaller they get the less likely they're to be successful and then we have to have this conversation again in a couple of years. It's so pretty big. You know that. Yeah. You're point taken. Mr. Duncan. I hear what you're saying, Mr. Polinsky. I listen to the council's discussions and questions and you characterize that correctly. After saying and I end up where they ended up to being supported with this for the economic reasons if nothing else. Mary Beth, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but since you're here and it's not midnight because we're not going to keep you that light like the council did. I just wonder if could you speak a little bit to the, you know, the business plan from your perspective for a grocery of this size and type as it relates to the competitors as it relates to the people who live in the community where do you think most of the business is going to come from first and the second question I have if I can just put them both out there is this a 1-105 space Do you all foresee that in your rental plan as you know like all the other openings that you've been filling with longer, hopefully longer term users or is it more of a kind of a pop-up type space just because of where and how it lies on the project? Oh no, it's not planned to be a pop-up. Turn your mic is off. The green light is on. Maybe I wasn't speaking into it properly. That's good. Thank you. And thank you, by the way, for the opportunity to come and speak with you. I'm Mary Beth Avadesian with Hoffman and Associates. First, your first question about the viability of this grocer. You all know, of course, you have a lot of grocers in a fairly tight proximity to one another. So finding this tenant was no small feat. And certainly, it was competition for them. There were only a couple others in the market at the time. I think Sprouts was another one that was looking about the same time and given the size of this. I mean, obviously we would have loved to have had a tenant that would take the full 40,000 square foot footprint. Makes our lives a little bit easier. So I wouldn't have to necessarily be standing here tonight. And I have my, your, your presence, of course. But this particular tenant who focuses on a lot of prepared food, so they have a pretty heavy kitchen in the back house. We actually were trying to encourage them to take the entire footprint. And they said, actually, we don't need it and we don't want it and if you want us to take it we'll take it but we're not going to pay more rent for it. We can make our our program work in this amount of square foot, square feet. And so if you want us to take the rest fine we're going to pay this amount, X number of dollars and no more. So we're like well as a business, it didn't make sense for us to just let that 6,300 square feet is quite a good size retail space to let it go, follow. So we said, fine, you keep your consolidated and we'll try to find a tenant for the rest of this. Of course, in reading the VC, it kind of hamstrings us on the type of tenant that we can put in there because it very much says if you don't do the entire score footage as a grocer that generates a minimum of $400 a score of feet, which is going to be easy for this grocer to hit according to them, the feedback that they've given me. They said, then I have to replace that leftover space with a non-service, which means it can't be hair style, a nail salon, a gym, or this or that. It has to be a non-service, which is something like somebody that sells goods or restaurants. We looked at furniture stores and showed it a couple. They sell goods that would generate sales tax, which is something the city wants. That we had one party, maybe two, just wasn't the right fit for them. They didn't feel it was the right location. And the more we looked in, and then of course we got this grocer and they have their own restrictions on the types of tenants they want in close proximity to them. It leaves us with a fairly limited number of options. So the fact that the $400 of square foot generating sales became a problem. The fact that it had to be a non-service became even more of a problem. So, that's why I'm here. When we did the math, we're like, they're going to crush it with their sales according to them. So, if I changing that $400 to a bigger per square foot number, I can make the square feet be long. You multiply those two numbers out. You get the same amount of of tax revenue to the city. That leaves this extra space to be rented to somebody else. If they're not hamstrung by those additional non-service and has to be generating $400 a square foot in taxable goods and service goods, if you will. Then it opens my options up considerably to what they are now. So that's why we're here is to amend that. If we did that, you would be at par with the way that the VC reads right now in terms of the amount of tax revenue, the city will get. You'll get the revenue and more we expect from the grocer on its own. Then if I remove all those extra incumbrances on A1105, I can lease it to something else. It's probably a service use that will work within the confines of our other leasing restrictions that the grocer has on us. But it's not going to be pop-up. We actually are this close to having assigned L.O.I. with a 10-year tenant for that space. I can't really get it. It is a service use. But still, the city will get, they'll get the revenue because we'll get rent from that tenant space as opposed to zero given what our other options are. We'll get rent from that space. And if you know how the tax assessor works, we have to present an income and expense statement to the tax assessor. They put a cap value on that and say, okay, here's your assess value based upon that. The more income that we generate from the space the higher the assessed value will be and that space alone With a conservative rent assumption. I think I put in my letter of justification Could generate just normal property tax revenue of somewhere in the 30 to 40 thousand dollar range we think Versus zero if I can't lease it to anybody and the grosser didn't want to take it. And we get another business in the city. Thank you for sharing. Really helpful context. Thank you for sharing your expertise. Yeah. A couple questions. So, Mr. Cunst. You know, I'm looking at the fresh markets. I don't know them that well, but I guess they have one right down the road in Vienna. They got one in Charleston. They got a couple in Maryland and then beyond. There are other locations are all pretty suburban. They have large parking lots and the footprints look pretty big. I'm just curious, is this a different model for them? They're trying to, why did they block at the extra square footage? It seems like their other store just down the road is similar. They were showing to one certainly. It looks maybe the Vienna one is in an older building that they took over from something, but I just don't know a lot about the chain. It also looks like a conventional supermarket. I'm curious about what their angle is. Since they will be next to a giant and surrounded by supermarkets where like the grocery city now I actually I'm always astounded how that kind of you know they can all you know get their piece of the pie but what's their angle I don't know a lot about them and why they bought that 6,000 square feet seems like a relatively small difference compared to some of their other stores that they have in the region. Hart for me to speak on their behalf but they insisted this this was more their prototype than the other that you've described. My only experience, I live in, excuse me for I live on the other side of the river. I know that's hard to swallow some people, but I've been in their store in Rockville. Yeah, I was looking at one too. In Congressional Shopping Center. And I know they, I've lived in that county long enough to know that centers gone through many iterations of tenants and renovations and they took that space over from a larger tenant and you walk in the space and it doesn't feel cohesive. It's like to spread out and maybe they've done focus groups and realized you know something that's more compact and you feel the energy a little bit better as you're walking through the store. Their produce is beautiful. That's what they're all about. It's fresh. Their name in their, in their, in their logo is really what they're all about. Their produce is beautiful. As I said, they do a lot of prepared foods. I've had some of the baked goods that, that they sell that are just out of this world, put any bakery to shame. So I think that's how they compete is just on keeping things in a more compact footprint. So they're not overpaying for their space. It's the bigger space they take to. They're gonna have to pay more of their cam and taxes, a bigger per-radity share of the operating expenses for the property. That's how it's not just the rent, but it's the Cam and tax piece that gets passed through to tenants. So, I mean, again, I can't really speak on their behalf, but I have to imagine from seeing their other stores that this is just a prototype that works better for them. They have said that they're more accustomed to doing the big box retail, you know, with the big parking lot out in front. So this is kind of a new, this is their first type of vertical construction project that they've gone into. And I, you know, maybe they were just trying to be cognizant of, you know, the fewer feet that they encounter, the less they're gonna have above and below conflicts with trying to do their construction and whatnot. Okay. Question for staff maybe. And I don't recall how we arrived at the number. I mean, it's a very specific number in the VCs, 39, 2, you know, it was so specific. I forget how we backed into that number. I'm sure we reviewed that. And so I'm just wondering, you know, for the future, you know, I think again, when we're so prescriptive, we find ourselves in this type of situation, right? Where we say you must have 39,200 square feet. If you have 39,198, you're, you know, you gotta come back in. I'm sure it was some financial calculation that we did based on projected texture of an U. but I just remember. I don't have anyone's to have for or maybe I've come from the original grocery. Yeah, maybe I was getting those. Yeah, I just don't remember how we arrived at that number. I don't want to take words out of your mouth. Maybe you know better. I just don't remember how we are. But I presented the numbers to them and then I'm sure they've added them. I can tell you my rationale for coming up with those numbers and I know Henry probably double-check them to get a comfort level. But first thing I did was I looked at, we had the original grocer that you saw on the cross hatch was actually Elise. It wasn't just a prospect but we had Elise and that tenant had Elise of 40,100 square feet. And that lease was in hand before that VC was negotiated. So I'm a math kind of person. I looked at what's that 39,200 divided by 40,100. There was a 2% difference variance, right? 98% of the other number. And that's a kind of a common factor to put in, because if you put something at a lease, the lease always says the tenant has a right to come back and remission the space once they get in it and they get, you know, take possession. And usually you're not off by much, but a 2% slush factor makes a lot of sense when you're doing something like that. So I had to think like this was all negotiated before my time on this project. But as I was thinking through this, I thought that sort of makes sense that they built in the 2% slush factor. So the 39,200 is about 2% less than what was actually the lease. Using that same logic, I applied it to the fresh market lease. It's 33,500 and something. I took 2% off of that, rounded it off, and it came to 32,900. That was just math. It was nothing really sophisticated about it. I just thought we ought to have the same kind of a slush factor built into that so that if they go and measure their space after they take possession of it and say, oh, you're off by a bit. The demizing wall was thicker or thinner or in the wrong place or whatever that that there would be some of that built in. Okay. I appreciate that background. That's real. Yeah. If I may, in addition to the least driven mass calculation, they also took into the consideration of the per-squal feet, you know, revenue generated. So that's the combined of both of them, the settle on that number and the range. Yeah, thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Zang. Mr. Steven. Yeah, just one question. So does that space set a 1-105? Does that already have a zone applied to it? In other words, it doesn't have to go through zoning. We don't need to go through the zoning again. I think logistically, we just need to assign a parcel number. I mean different tax ID and then they can just carry it on because the previous approval will cover everything. Now not change any use. The other restriction that a CZE, for example, we have a prohibitive use. We have a primary retail and secondary retail. this all apply to here. So that will be implemented by the zoning administrator at the time they apply for the seals, all for the permit. Like Prince your Duncan, I also watched and listened to the council discussion on this. I think this kind of makes sense to me. This is probably a situation where being flexible kind of works to everybody's benefits. So as it stands right now, I'm okay with this. Okay. Mr. Kyrvinsky. No comment. I'm good with it. I'm looking at the fresh market website. It looks like they have a very different feel than the giant across the street. It's sort of specialty goods. It's not staples, such as paper towels and things like that. So it's prepared goods, specialty goods. So it does look like it's going, it's a very different business model than people who are going to the giant. So that's good to hear. All right, great. I mean, it seems like a win-win to me too. And then maybe a no-brainer for the city to get some extra tax revenue and another tenant. So any other questions during this work session? No, it's a work session. So I think they're gonna come back to us. So I think we'll see this again. You said on the seventh, Mr. Zang, is that right? Yes, instead of sevenths. Okay. And then the council is scheduled for the 12. For the 12s, yes. Okay. So you think you'll have that letter of intent or at least written by then? If I have a letter of intent, I still wouldn't be able to disclose to the tent as until I get to lease. So once I have a lease, you'll all know about it. May I ask a question before we... Yes, please. Would you like me to come back and speak at the hearing, the Planning Commission hearing, or would you... I'm not sure if this was, I'm happy to join remotely in case some questions come from any of us. I think remote would be fine. Okay, yeah, all right. I'll do that. Since you are across the river. I'm sorry. You are across the river, right? Yeah, that's why I'm asking. Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, no, you have the full contingent tonight. I think Sharon maybe with us. She's the only commissioner not here. So if she has any questions that you can answer, but I think a remote context would be fine. Thank you. Thank you for coming in person tonight. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. All right. I think that's all then. Thank you, Mr. Zang. Thank you. appreciate the work on this. Looking forward to seeing all of this first phase one complete. OK. So I think we can move on to our information items. We're running ahead of schedule tonight. Any planning commissioner reports? It's been a while since we've been together. Anything new in anybody's world? Any anybody's planning commission world? Just general. Yeah. Part three. You're like a share. How was your spring break? Any updates? No? No? OK. Directors report. Mr. Fuller, I think maybe this is where we might spend some of our time actually. Here we go. All right. So before I get into the specifics of the director's report, so our schedule, as we just stated, we have the public hearing on May 7th for the West Falls SE amendment that we discussed. and then the Affordable Living Policy will have a work session on that that evening as well. Then at this point we have a lack of agenda items coming up but we'll see so we're not having a specifically scheduled until June and so we'll see what comes along. I know there's a couple of things we're looking at on the upcoming schedule. But I know the Maple and N&Dell special exception is going back to work session with the council on May 19th. At that point, there's the potential for that to be come to the planning commission at a work session as well, but we're waiting for the council to get it first and then see what their disposition is. In terms of that's the schedule and looking at the director's report, we did send you some information on the plan forward that's going on in Fairfax County. That's been underway. They're looking at a number of elements, land use parks, recreation, transportation, environmental, human services now. They'll be going to a phase two in the first quarter of next year, looking at housing, and development, the heritage resources, revitalization, and visual performing arts are our conference of planning, staff is monitoring this and participating as well. And so this is something that's on our radar. In terms of accessory dwelling unit update, we had approval. Jack did a great job on that. And I know he got a lot of kudos and congratulations on that. So we appreciate all his hard work and on April 14th, that was approved by council. So he's doing some follow-up post work on that. And so, you know, that's been completed. The other item was the state legislation, regards to the Senate bill 974 and that's a new law that removes the governing body and planning commission in terms of site plan and subdivision approvals and authority and that a designated agent would do an administrative review of those plans starting in July 1 of this year. I have a I've met with why I've scheduled a meeting with the city attorney for Monday to initiate discussions on that. And then the council will be looking at it on May 27th, so I'll be reporting to you prior to that once I get some more definitive in terms of the requirements and options that we may have to address that. We'll be looking at the City Charter looking at the state code, and then I'll be working with the city attorney to sort through this, and then we'll be reporting back to you in May with specific details, but at this point I haven't had those discussions, and so I'm still also kind of learning about what the options will be as well. So I look forward to reporting to you in May on that. So I'll open it up. Okay, thank you, Mr. Fuller. I'm sure we have some questions about that. You said that you will be looking at other smaller local jurisdictions, use that you mentioned, city fair facts. Yeah, that know, we'll be looking at kind of around the state who is, who had planning commissions. It's similar. Doing this and the in the context of of that, it was more, more on the, on the, um, compensation side of. Oh, that's right. That's right. I'm saying, but, but it might be good to do that. No, that's something that we're going to do when we make those calls, we're going to ask about both. So in terms of, you know, kind of what are the designated agents and administratively, how do they process things regarding the site plans and solutions? Since you mentioned the compensation thing, maybe I'll just mention really quick for the rest of the commissioners that we discussed are sort of flat, apparently for 30 years, $ compensation. Over 30 years. And so the council is in the process of sort of reviewing their compensation. So Mr. Fuller drafted a letter on my behalf. Yes. sent to City Council to request that they also look at ours. So just so you all are aware, who will send that probably tomorrow. I'll take a look at it and just reply to you. Sure, I said it to you in a work document, so feel free to make the edits. That sounds good. Yeah, I'll take over that. Yeah, so just, that's a different topic, but just an FYI. But back to the new state code, any comments, discussion, thoughts on that? Well, I'll just say I had heard something about this. out this I get like updates you know through like the Virginia planners folks were kind of tracking some of the bills this year and this came out of I think the Glen Allen yeah from Henrico the senator from Balkenbrook yeah um I know I think this is a I think the genesis of it was again the idea of streamlining the process. In some ways it brings in a while, it's sort of like a loss for us, as a commission personally, as far as losing an ability to have some impact on that process. I mean, it does bring us into line with what most jurisdictions around the state do. I mean, of all sizes, you know, certainly the medium and larger have always done it that way. You know, site plans been, you know, been done at the staff level as an administrative process. So, you know, and we all, I guess at some level, you know, there are certain site plans, I guess, where we do, I think it we add value. There's certainly certainly others though, where, you know, it's, you know, it's something that probably could have been handled at the staff level. But I had heard this was kind of percolating through, but I think that's the genesis of it. Why they picked the number 5,000, as a population size, cut off maybe. That I don't know. And if that went, I got to double check up that, I went through any kind of changes throughout the course of the bill. I don't think it did. So, we've been, we've been about 5,000 for a long time. So it's not like this is something that we, we used to qualify or not. They just, they specifically took out planning commission and governing body. There are certain, I think towns and counties, some small counties as well, where the governing body was approving site plans and some of the more, you know, really rural parts of the state, like where a whole county only has 10 or 20,000 people. The governing body was voting on side plans. And so they're losing that ability too. So that was the genesis of it to streamline things and avoid need for additional meetings and public hearings and stuff. I think that's what I had been told. So I heard it was kind of percolating through but kind of had lost track of it. So I guess it did pass and got signed. So yeah, well, meetings may be shorter. I don't know. Some fear of meetings. Here, I was Mr. Krovenski. Yeah, I was on the Van Volkmerg's Facebook page. So he posted my bill to help streamline housing permitting passed out of committee 13 to two today that was back in January. This will help get housing online faster and therefore bring down cost. And so that really is a streamlining issue and the whole idea that if we streamline the permitting process, you know, you get more housing and you bring down costs so it's part of it. I think it's part of a fairly major national trend to sort of streamline the process. Whether this will actually do that or not, I don't know what that was saying. You have to can be just as difficult and slow as we are. But they think it's going to be just a picnic with staff. I don't know. Yeah, no, I think that's right. One thing, I guess, I was thinking about this. I mean, you take the ecanize item that we just had. We had five waivers or four waivers and a modification. So presumably under this new legislation, that would be all done as a ministerial staff effort. Yeah. And it just strikes me that it's not, I mean, if the vision is, you just, you know, you look at the statute and it's just a matter of, you know, implementing it that there isn't an, you know, there is, yeah, where judgment kind of has to be applied. That's the note of caution, I guess. I would, I would share one person I contacted, who had reached out to the city of Alexandria had gotten some feedback that they think, isn't verified. It's kind of second-hand, here's a but the thought from Alexandria is that their city charter kind of overrides this legislation and so that it presumption is it wouldn't apply there but But, you know, that the city, yeah, it obviously needs to be verified, but I thought that was an interesting sense. We aren't necessarily that much different from Alexandria. So I think your meeting on Monday with city attorney will be hopefully clarifying questions like that. Yes, we've specifically and our pre-comerciations talked about the charter and versus the state code. So that'll be the main initial determinations as to where this falls and then from there, it will look at the alternatives. Sorry, can you scroll back up just a second on the paragraph before the one that's shown? This this law Exclusively planning commission has been the designated agent meaning the planning commission would not be responsible or could not be responsible for Specifically approving a site plan Does it say anything in the law about the planning commission contributing to the review of a site plan? I understand what the state senator's goal was, but like this specifically exclude a process whereby the planning commission reviewed prior to the designated agent being the one who made the decision. That's one of my specific questions and one of the research will be doing because the thought was maybe there could be if we were to want to do it, a committee version that might be a clearinghouse with recommendations to staff and so that may may be an alternative. And so I'm curious with the city attorney, that's one of my questions on my list, whether that becomes an alternative to consider. So I think that is along the lines of what your question is. Yeah, I would also be interested. I'm just also curious, what do you think about this? I mean, at this point, I really do want to sit down with the city attorney. I think we have some strong language in the charter, especially on subdivision side. Site plan is different than the definition at the state level versus how we handle things and special exceptions is another. where the definition of those at the state level versus local it's just a totally different nomenclature in a way looking at the definition so I'm going to be yeah I have a lot of the same questions and so I think once I work through with the city attorney she'll she'll be able to kind of lay the foundation of where we are and what our alternatives are. So at this point, obviously the designated agent for the ministerial action cannot be the city council and cannot be the planning commission. If there's an advisory role or the other thing is you've got a 5,000 population cap on it. If we feel strongly about it, next general assembly session, we say up to 25,000 or whatever. I think there's a number of alternatives to look at on this. I've got a list of what I want to explore with the city attorney and then I'll report those to you and then we'll have that discussion ourselves and then you know we'll get guidance from you on you know what what you're looking for that we can carve out of this and so I think I think we're all together on this actually so thank you. Mr. Duncan. Yeah, my impression was that the impetus behind VanValkenberg's legislation was, as you say, to promote housing, which is commendable goal. And I think talking to delegate Simon, that was his impression of why he supported it. And I don't think they really had it in their mind that this would pretty substantially change if it just goes through as explained here. You know what the Planning Commission does so don't discount the possibility. It reminds me a little bit of a few years ago you know some of the bigger develop from the other side of the development spectrum, some of the big developers who wanted to put a Walmart in, you know, some rural county and we're coming up with all sorts of hurdles and opposition and so forth basically did an in-run around the local government and said that, you know, set up conditions which enabled these big developers to put in their big developments. And it was so extreme that it basically prevented conversations even at the local level about, you know, where the road comes out and how many traffic lights we might need. It was just wholly unworkable to the point that it froze all development. And the legislature had the backtrack and find ways to enable us and others to do what it is that we do. So yeah, I look forward to hearing what they do so much so quickly in Richmond during session. It's just really, I mean the fundamental reform that that's needed is legislature that has a little why me, even Tennessee where I grew up, you know, their legislative session is just about to wrap up, you know, and it's May. And, you know, in Virginia, we try to do all these complex and complicated things in like 30 days. It's ridiculous. It's nuts. Especially land use. Every time they state and tries to, you know, they think about the and the land is in zoning, it never works our ride. There's so many unintended consequences, and then they're going to back the next year fixing stuff and undoing stuff. Every time the state tries to, you know, they think about the land is zoning, it never works our right. So many unintended consequences, and then they're going to back the next year fixing stuff and undoing stuff. So yeah, it's true. I'm sure the last word on this hasn't been written in, you know, I don't know how many, you know, if they bother to actually study how many cities and towns it affects, probably a large number. But the case that we would have to make, I mean having been on council and seen what contributions the planning commission makes to the process, I mean city council is simply not able to go into the sort of detail that the planning commission does. There's just got too much else to do. And you know, depriving the council of that benefit and generally it is a benefit benefit even if, you know, some disagreements arise during the process. It produces a better product. But, you know, depriving that, that means of input from the public and more heads, you know, do you make a better product? I think in the end, we figured it out here. I think how to, you know, take tough issues and work through them with a good process and allow plenty of input and come to a resolution there on in some reasonable amount of time like we did for the accessory dwellings project. And it would be a shame to lose that. And if we did lose it, and then yeah, my suggestion to the mayor was that you set up a five member, what are they calling it? The designated agent would be five members who might just have happened to have had the experience as planning commission or somewhere along the line who would do that part of the work with the planning commission now does, because there's still plenty of other work for the planning commission to do in terms of long-term planning and all the other things that keep us, but here it'll, you know, 10, 30 or 11 o'clock at night. So I don't know, it'll be interesting to see what comes of it. Yeah, I, thanks to Gary for being, because he's seen, he's seen it all over the decades and so he's a good person to have in this place at this time. I spent some time trying to Google this legislation and I will tell you that like you mentioned how rushed it is, it doesn't seem like there was any debate on this thing. It doesn't seem like there were any articles, news articles about it. It just went through the system and whether in fact it has the intended consequences of actually building more reducing housing costs or something like that. I don't know. I'm not sure. Well, see. Yeah. Well, I, Mr. Krasnoy, I was just going to say to you, and in some jurisdictions, I mean, you know, in 5,000, this is actually a really small cap. I mean, you know, jurisdiction would like six or seven thousand people. I mean, they're staff. And we're blessed with a pretty robust staff. There are a lot of jurisdictions that don't have that. And so they rely on the planning commission, you know, to do that. They may have, you know, or they, you know, or they're farming up to consultants. So now a small city may have to farm out some of that work to consultants and pay for them to review the site plans because they've lost the ability to work with the commission on it. I think there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences for it. It's unfortunate. But these things often go like that in Richmond where they're especially on land use matters. Sometimes people get picked up in the press and people pay attention. But other times, right, it's kind of considered like an obscure, technical thing and people are saying, okay, yeah, that sounds fine to me. Yeah, it sounds like it all sounds good. Yeah, streamlining good, yeah, okay. But without actually digging into what it really means. What's surprising to me is that the legislative assistance, and let's say the Nova jurisdictions, I mean, they're pretty stooped. You know, they follow this legend. And they share with each other. And this just seemed to come out of nowhere. Under the radar. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, for my part, like I support the goal of streamlining, recognizing also maybe the the unintended consequences, I also really value at the same time, you know, the way that we're able as a commission and with the community to help sort of shape these projects that come to us. And so I don't want to lose that opportunity. One thing that I was thinking about was just like the full development process. I think Mr. Fuller at some point you would mention the idea of doing a sort of development review process 101 for our new commissioners. And I was just Googling on the city site and there's actually a really nice flow chart. I don't know who put it together or how old it is on the site. Yeah, Carly's flow chart of all the steps in the process. And it just made me wonder, you know, I mean, we're still involved at the conceptual development plan for SEEs, right? And are any special exceptions. So like, I just wonder like, I know, I know, well, so for my part, when Cyplanes come to us, there's a lot that I think there is, you know, in their for us to discuss, but there's also a lot of really just technical things that stuff should, I'm not the person to be reviewing our stormwater calculations, right? Like that is a staff role. And so there's a lot in site plans that should be managed by staff. But I think it's sort of like what are those elements that still deserve some discussion with us or with the community that we're reviewing at site plan and could we kind of firm those up at the conceptual development point in the process. That's what I'm wondering. Like is there the things that we really care about as a commission that the community cares about? Can we get those firmed up earlier in the process? So then when it is a site plan, it's really just the more technical details and staff can just ensure that it confirms to the CDP and the rest of our codes. So that would be my preference. I don't know about setting up a whole other, I don't want to do a run around. I mean, maybe we should if it's bad legislation, but yeah, that's going to work on it. I think the answer to your question is, you know, you do better by doing something more often. And for many years here, we, you know, we were not going to way at it, but we were not doing what we've done in the last 12 years, saying. And now every project that comes to us is like, well, you know, when we did the other three like this, the previous three grocery stores, we handled this way. And so the fourth grocery store has probably got a benefit from that experience. And we've been lucky. the previous three grocery stores, we handled this way and so the fourth grocery store is probably going to benefit from that experience. And, you know, we've been lucky in that regard, but that doesn't go on forever, you know. I mean, there's urges and peaks and valleys in development and we may be heading towards a valley. Yeah, for sure. And then you lose, you know. The muscle memory? Yeah, you do. You do. And you know, it's a big benefit to have the staff obviously nothing happens without the staff, you know, the muscle memory. Yeah, you do. And you know, it's a big benefit to have the staff obviously nothing happens without the staff, you know, bringing their expertise to it. It helps them sometimes for us to give them cover in the community because people can be really, you know, brutal towards the staff. Like, their fault that they're carrying out the expressed will of the elected and appointed and that's just totally unfair Yeah And then to put them as the only agents of action and a process is I think not good for them either Because it gives them no Well, you know, hey, I'm just doing you know what the people want Mm-hmm. And that's an effective response. That's why we have elections. If you don't like it, elect different people. Right. Right. Yep. Any other thoughts? We have to stay tuned. Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Fuller, for, it sounds like you have a really good list of questions you've heard our, our early takes tonight. Yes. Our city Attorney will be busy helping. Yes, yes, I'm sure it will be more than one of me. The photo hearing for you now. Yeah, then and then we'll be not only reporting you, but to the council the following month. So, okay, so you're having that discussion on Monday. And then I think we might hear from you on it at our next, the May 7th meeting. I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm happy to, I assume it'll take more than one meeting. It's a one hour teams meeting on Monday. And then I'm happy to report out any preliminary findings. And then we're going to continue to do some research and to kind of work through what options might be. So I see several meetings with the city attorney before we kind of get a good picture of all the alternatives and But I still you know see presenting that to you prior to it going to council So it one of your two meetings. So I'll basically give you an update at both or you know for some reason I mean we've got on the schedule On the meetings coming up.'s see. By the way, you'll probably get a question on Monday from Council on that. Yeah. So on May 7th, I'll report the findings to date to you. And then if we don't have the meeting on May 21st, then I will specifically, we can even have a meeting just to talk about this or I can send you the latest correspondence and you can tell me whether you would like to discuss this publicly or not on the 21st because right now we don't have any agenda items. So my commitment is to report to you on the 7th and then give you more information prior to the council taking it up on the 27th of their work session. And so you can be informed of the alternatives that we're looking at and where this land. Okay, and in the meantime you're also doing some research on what other localities are like. Yeah, it'll be with the other localities and then you know, we'll be the same time when we ask them what their Compensation is as well. Yes, excellent. Okay, so we'll be asking two questions. Okay, great. All right. Well, thank you. Any other thoughts? Okay. OK. Do you have any correspondence? Nope. OK. And I think we are adjourned. We will. We will. We will. Correct. Yeah. All right. All right. I think that's right. you you you