Post updates to the bicycle master plan. Garrett G of Greenway Downs also wrote in in support of proposed updates to the bicycle master plan with recommended edits included. And then Falls Church forward and several affiliated residents wrote in supporting proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance related to commercial parking. Great, thank you so much. See. Sorry, it's getting back to my agenda. No, do we have any in person petitions for tonight? No, chair. So that brings us to our first action item. And the first one up is the Commercial Parking Zoning Amendment Public Hearing. Would you like to introduce this, Mr. Fuller? Yes, thank you. I'll introduce this. You've seen this previously. Tonight we have advertised public hearing. Staff has recommended approval of this and this is a recommendation to council by the Planning Commission. Council's scheduled to hear it on October 28th next. I'll turn this over to Jack. He's our staff person on this side. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Foller. Do we do we need to technically open and close the public hearing? I was going to ask you about that. When do I do that? Do I do that after? We can do it now before I give the presentation. Okay, so do we need to take a vote to do that? No, it is the chair can. So it's a pretty good day. Say, they were people here. We might want people to listen to stay up and then have a chance to come up with a proposal. Yeah, I wasn't sure when in the order of operations and who does it? So I'm happy to open the public hearing and So do we leave it open while you do the presentation in case anybody arrives and would like to speak? Or do we close the public hearing? You can but I think since no one's here, we might as well just just close as we don't forget Okay, we'll close the public hearing reopen it if we have some later rivals. Okay Well, thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Fuller, for the introduction. Before you tonight, planning commission is proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance related to excluding the first 1,000 square feet of individual commercial uses in off-street parking, requirement calculations. in Off Street Parking, Requirement Calculations. Staff does recommend approval of the proposed motion. And on the proposed motion, staff has included one the proposed motion that includes the 1,000 square foot number that Council referred out. And an alternative part of that motion has also been provided based on discussion that the Planning Commission had previously that includes language supporting exemptions of up to the first 1,500 square feet. So going into updates, there's added, well, let me move this here. Online 45, we've included a new section to the staff report called Updates Since Council's First Reading. This is largely the same content that was included in the last staff report, but it is shaded gray just because it's a new section. And to just to call out what all those updates have been since Council's first reading, the first is the first line of the proposed code amendment to Section 48-1,03E was edited to clarify that all new non-residential uses would be eligible for reduced parking requirements that meet specific criteria when applying for certificate of occupancy. The second addition is additional criteria were added and there were two. The first is the additional criteria that the building changing use cannot have a gross floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater and then also the additional requirement that's consistent with additional criteria that Council referred out which is that the building changing use cannot be subject to off-street parking agreements to be eligible for the proposed parking reductions. And then the second two updates are new updates since the Planning Commission last reviewed this on August 7th. The first is a clarification on the shopping center parking rate language. So as needed staff will continue to research individual site plans for each property that you know could is eligible to be parked at the shopping rate or you know is suspected of being approved under such parking rates but recognizing the staff time and resources required to research every of being approved under such parking rates, but recognizing the staff time and resources required to research every such case, staff added the clarification that properties eligible to be parked as shopping centers under the current code would not be eligible for the parking reduction. And then the last update is a restructuring of the subject section of the zoning ordinance, which is 48-103. I'll jump to it in a second because it's easier to walk through it with it on the screen. But in addition to restructuring, that section staff also struck a proposed deletion of an existing regulation, which allows the zoning administrator to have discretion over parking really for nonconforming spaces. This is meant to keep some flexibility on the city's behalf and also continues to offer a really foul for applicants should they decide to explore parking reduction of greater than 1,000 square feet. So to go down to that code section, just to kind of reiterate the restructuring. So the bulk of the amendments is in subsection B of 48 dash, 1,000 three. These were originally included of the amendments is in subsection B of 48-103. These were originally included at the bottom of this section down here, but taking into consideration the deletion of the deletion of this existing regulation, staff bumped this up to the top to communicate that this would be the first consideration. So any eligible business or building, changing use, interested in exploring, parking reductions under this section would first go through the proposed changes, which is up to 1,000 square feet, and then the additional zoning administrator discretion would kick in, which requires submission of a typical parking management plan. And includes all of the things listed here, like the type of uses, the number of employees, building design capacity, and then other site-specific things. So these kind of submissions can be particularly burdensome to the smallest of businesses, which again, the proposed amendments meant to support. So again, getting rid of that first 1,000 square feet would disproportionately benefit the smallest businesses in the city and then those that are of medium or larger size that have parking bird and leftover can continue to request the zoning administrator review their case after they submit what ostensibly is a traditional parking reduction petition. And just one touch on a couple. So those are the updates in the actual proposal. Also included in the staff report are updated parking reduction numbers for those examples that have been included in the staff report at the 1500 square foot level. And then lastly, the last kind of new thing to the staff report is an acknowledgement of a request that was brought up at the last time the planning commission reviewed this item which is that a year from such a time that any amendments are adopted staff would come back to the planning commission with a report on you know how the programs going what we've observed so we've observed. So we've included that promise. So I'll just wrap up with the public engagement schedule. This started back in April. We're now in middle October. So after several year, excuse me, several month kind of review process following tonight's planning commissions public hearing. The City Council is scheduled to have their final action take place at its October 28th meeting. So that Madam Chair, I'll turn it back to you. Thanks. Great. So we've had two, well, we had one work session on the item and then one was supposed to be I think a public hearing that turned into a work session on the item and then one Was supposed to be I think a public hearing that turned into a work session because it was delayed so right We had an advertisement Snaffoo so the last public hearing turned into the work so I think the third time So I guess I'll just open it up to my fellow commissioners. I think mr. Crasner you were not with us for the second discussion So I don't know if you have any thoughts about kind of where things are at this point or if anybody else would like to weigh in. Mr. Steven. Yeah, should I go? Great. Okay. Well, thanks to staff for pulling this together. Certainly gonna vote for it. I kind of look at this as an opportunity for us to lend our support to fine-tuning our parking regulations. And in this instance, it's to encourage the formation of new businesses in old buildings. And it kind of prompted me to recall a quote from Jane Jacobs, new ideas often need old buildings. I've seen very appropriate for the situation. And I think as I looked through all of the materials here, I think it will enhance the city's reputation as a good small business friendly place that we like to think of ourselves. This will enhance that. Obviously there's a lot of positives to that in terms of tax revenues and maybe making our city a more interesting place to live because of the diversity of businesses that hopefully will attract. I think we all know that the commercial rental market has changed considerably over the last 10 years and that unless we make an effort on occasion to revise our codes, we risk discouraging businesses to locate here. So I think we also know that we need to have an overall review of parking regulations, but that's gonna take some time. And I think in the meantime, we can support implementation of this type of a limited proposal to reduce the amount of parking spaces that are required. I think what it does in effect is it leaves it more up to businesses to decide themselves on what's needed for their success. They certainly don't want to open up a business and not have the ability for customers to gain access to their whatever it is that they're offering. The only risk, I think, that is identified here and staff identified this is that it might lead to some spillover of street parking. And my sense is that there are tools available that the city has demonstrated in the past to address any harms. Should that occur? But I think whatever risk there is of spillover parking, that has to be weighed against the harms of parking regulations adopted Obviously many decades ago And I would add that just taking a quick look at the regulations and it's one of the items that's in the attachments It becomes clear that it's somewhat arbitrary and how these Different uses and and the amount of parking that was attached to each of those was developed. So all of this bottom line is that I think this is something I can easily vote for. Great. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Any other comments? Any other questions? Yeah, please. Sorry. A few questions. Maybe because I wasn't here at the... I remember when we talked about this originally, which must have been in June. And then I missed the... It was August, I guess, when you guys talked about it the second time when I was away. And so I forgive me if like some questions that I'd raised in June. And I did read through everything. And I see kind of, I kind of see, I guess I can see from the, what was amended, you know, how things should go. But I know in June, I'd ask the question about, you know, the sort of the building, square footage, versus, you know, multi-tenant. I know we've excluded shopping centers but then like a multi-tenant building that, you know, is it applying to the whole building or per use? And looks like we kept it as per use. And so if you just walk me through what the thought process was on that, was there any consideration given to that and what that might mean and like a multi-tenant building or like all the uses are are less than a thousand square feet. Sure. So the right, yeah. I think a response to that, that's when the 20,000 square foot cap came in on the building, changing use as a whole, but the reduction would apply to individual tenant spaces. So the, right because if the target is, you know, on our smallest businesses, are the most vulnerable building stock are those older, kind of smaller commercial buildings, which probably only have one or two tenants blocks in them anyway. And so I think the thinking was that this would probably get most of those kind of buildings and help preserve those, whereas the larger buildings would become excluded whether they you know fall into the shopping center definition or the you know are too large to be eligible beyond that 20,000 square feet. So keeping it at an individual 10 basis was also kind of tied to the certificate of occupancy requirement in how we actually administer this reduction. Okay, and I do appreciate that. I think I, it sounds like Council asked for too, but the map, I mean, I appreciate that you guys, I think I mentioned that in June. Other people have mentioned it probably too. It's helpful to see on a map, I mean, I appreciate that you guys, I think I mentioned that in June. And other people mentioned it probably too. It's helpful to see on a map, the buildings we're talking about that might be eligible. I mean, obviously, there's someone here that we can pick out that have either already been redeveloped or some that may, like in Gordon Road, a lot of those buildings probably have other plans slated for them in the future. I think, obviously obviously I think the buildings that everyone's the most concerned about are probably along Washington Street, North and South, specifically North, some of the older buildings there that I'm not as familiar with how exactly what their tent situation is. It seems like some of those have more vacancy than others and to the extent this will help them. That's a good thing. But yeah, it's balancing act, I mean, right sizing parking, I mean, I'm probably, I think I generally the commission I know is anti-parking minimums of any kind. And I'm kind of getting in that direction. I've been in the planning game a long time and things evolve and me included and so I kind of get that. I think that some degree, I get the argument for having no requirements but you still have to have options. I know in other parts of the region, if know, your proximity to Metro and other things, you can, you don't need it, there's no parking requirements and, you know, where there are options. I mean, here, I think, you know, I think the large percentage of folks, you know, are driving, but with that said, you know, people, you could argue it's the market, you know, if there's not available spaces people find another way. They'll find a legal place, hopefully a legal place to park either on this public street or somewhere else. So I don't anticipate this would be a huge problem. Sometimes we've seen it with individual uses that have come in like the Latina thing. Which actually speaks to, speaking of that, I don't know if we address it here, we probably don't. I know I'm kind of like not asking a question. I'm just kind of editorializing here. But there's a weird part of our ordinance. If we're looking at our ordinance and how we treat parking, there's that weird part of our ordinance that talks about not using the street for storage or this or that. It was like a weird phrase. So weird phrasing in our ordinance that probably dates back, I don't know how long. And I remember that that came to light in the Latina rear thing. They were using that as somehow as like a, some way to say that businesses couldn't, like, you know, the patrons of a business couldn't park on a street. It was kind of strange, but I guess you guys didn't look at that as part of this. You're kind of targeted specifically on the rates, but I feel like that needs to be looked at as well, because if we're gonna shift some of the parking to like on street parking, by not having as much on Prague property, which is fine, we're kind of shifting some of that. We need to make sure that, you know, there's nothing else standing in the way of that, or we don't find ourselves in a situation like we did there. Where, you know, people are kind of saying, well, we don't want patrons of these businesses parking on our street. In that case, we're adjacent to residential, but most of our commercial areas are adjacent to residential. So, so anyhow, I don't know. I'm kind of talking a lot and I'm not asking a lot of questions, but I still have a concern about how that would be and it may You know, it may not ever be something that causes a huge problem A lot of these buildings don't have that many tenants the ones were talking about they're smaller You did it is a chart near right is there a chart that shows Break it up by square footage. I think you did have something to learn. For the businesses? Yeah. Yeah, it's a line like two. It's on page 16, line 228 or so. Is it about the bowling square footage? Sorry, it's 258. 258. The square footage of the difference. Or the certificates of occupancy. And actually, I'm glad you mentioned that, Mr. Krasner, because this table came up in our last discussion in August, if you don't mind me interjecting. Yeah, go for it. And this is actually one of the reasons that we discussed moving to a 1500-square-foot cap because if you look at this table, roughly that 1000-square-footage might, you might help if you consider this helping, right, businesses, which I think is the goal that we have in mind. You would be helping maybe the smallest 30-ish percent of businesses, whereas if you looked at a 1500 square foot, you would be helping maybe the smallest 60 percent of businesses. So sort of was, we discussed raising that cap in order to make this available to a wider array of businesses and more. So that's sort of the source of this table in particular was kind of what supported that general decision from the staff is still showing a thousand. Staff recommendation is a thousand and I think I think Mr. Trainer you can confirm this but I think the reason for that is that that was what Council had originally referred to us and there's some question about whether it would be legal for us if there's like a substantive change in a recommending 1,500. So my feeling on that is let's recommend what we think is the right number or up to whatever is legally permissible. I think the way you've worded it here makes sense. And then council can decide with the consultation with the city lawyer. Yeah, that's correct, Madam Chair. We stuck with our 1000 square foot recommendation just to be consistent with what council referred out. We did work with the city attorney on that alternative language. And she has said that going up to 1500 square feet would not trigger the need for a new first reading. There is no hard cap that she recommended that language, because 1,500 kind of has been at least the highest number, I think, discussed between Council and Planning Commission. At least today, so that was what was included in that alternative language. Speaking of question on that, I mean, do we advertise a range? I mean, sometimes I know it's permissible to advertise like a range. I mean, we didn't do that in the future. We should probably do that. I mean, you know, that's kind of common to advertise like a range and then, you know, it's boxed in and you don't have to re-advertise because we don't like the one number. But anyhow. So you're saying the reason we got to 1500 again, I apologize because I was in here in August, was because of the chart on page 16 that shows that that gets you the 50% like half of the 50% or 60% yeah, approximately a little more than 50% of the. Yeah, that is correct. Right, based on the most recent COs that were issued. Which I think if you think about it, it's still somewhat conservative. Yeah. If you're interested to know where those COs were geographically, you know, like how many of those were in these buildings. Some of these were probably job incentives. We wouldn't have been eligible anyway. Do we know that? No. Yeah, I think we're just kind of, we weren't going by geography, but the most recent CEO submitted. Yeah, I'm interested in it. I guess we don't know. And some of it, obviously, there are potential tenants that don't wind up signing a lease. We never know about it. It's a private issue. Okay. And I saw we did get some letters of support from the right IDDA and the Chamber. Well, you know, it's the kind of thing where we can always, you know, see how it goes. You know, it's the kind of thing where it's not, you know, it's, and I appreciate that what's in there talks about coming back. And that's also a good rule of thumb. And I think we, I forget if we did that with T zones we might have. We didn't we should do it with a D use as well. You know, whatever we side as to like require that staff comes back in a year or 18 months and provides a report on, you know, what's actually happened, you know, as opposed to just hearing sort of anecdotally it's working, it's not working, you know, so I support that. That's in your somewhere, right? Is that in our motion? If it's not in the motion, does it need to be? I think we should put that in the motion. I think it's going to be a motion. I think a follow on motion or whatever we want to do with that recommends that staff come back. your report. Yeah, I don't think we included in the motion just in the staff report, but I think we should at least to tell council and they can decide if they want to they agree with us, but I think it'd be good that way we know if the number is working maybe we wanted to be higher and we wanted to be lower. We don't know, but you know, just I think it's it'd be helpful. Now, way you guys have a set deadline, so to speak timeline timeline, and you'll come back at that time and show us what's going on and what we can decide if the data bears out and the need for any changes or adjustments. I like that's the best way to do it. There's something like this. Because it's true, I don't think any of us know for sure. Obviously, it's hard to get it right. Spent down to the square foot. I'm comfortable over to 1,000. I guess if we're going to vote for 1,500, I don't want to sink the whole thing. As long as there's some kind of safe guard to have them come back and let us have staff let us know how it's going, I'm OK with it. See how it goes and see if it makes a difference and positive difference. Or if it causes any unexpected problems and then we can try to address those later. We do have tools available for overflow parking in our residential neighborhoods, the permit parking program to our elements, those kinds of things. Of course I did. I'm not a big fan of the permit parking. It's public parking, it's public parking. And it is a push and pull between a city and having the expectation versus a more suburban mindset of the expectation of free parking when you arrive at a business. We're kind of straddle about that. I think there are certain destinations in town where people just plan around it. There's businesses that are referenced in some of the letters. Like I think someone references reference some of the letters. I think some references in one of the letters. Am I reference Thompson Italian or somebody that now they don't have obvious free parking? I've got very used to parking at Kaiser. Yeah, and before it was public transport anyway. But regardless, people I think just know that. They're going to more urban destination, and parking is gonna be, and that somewhere, maybe within a block or two, or if you're just a lot of people are re-rooing these days anyway and they can drop off. Or hopefully, riding a bike or walk away, because they're investing in that infrastructure too, right? Yeah, yeah. So, anyhow, okay, I'm okay with whatever number the Commission wants to put in the motion 1500 thousand. Okay, either way. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel emboldened to evolve since I'm following the lead of Mr. Crasner on this. Most of the points that I jot it down, I've already been made so I won't bother to repeat them thanks to the staff for the responses to the questions that both we and the council have voiced. This is a subject as we've heard in our last meeting that stares the usual passions because parking is just one of those hot button issues. For the reasons that Mr. Grazner listed we still straddle between being urban and suburban and have aspirations to be more walkable and bikeable and and be less reliant on our cars and yet we do still. Many of us get by, get around town by car. I guess I would just, yeah, second the motion for trying to aim a little higher for 1500 square feet just because of that chart, don't line to 58. I mean, if we're gonna have gone to all this trouble to assemble all this information and have staff collect and hear from the public both sides, I'd like to at least try to help out, you know, half or so of the target audience here, and it seems like it's worth. And there are guardrails as you've indicated, the 15-9 square feet still would not reach a certain percentage of folks that's significant. Neighborhood parking protections do exist. There is a process for that so if there is overflow and some commercial lot that impinged on the neighborhood. There's a means of remedy there. Look back provision is a I think a good idea probably ought to be done more often for most things that we do here. We should take a look year or so down the road and see how what we did laid out. If I could ask just so that I can put some concrete thinking around this. A building like 603 West Broad, I'm not sure if that shows up in one of the charts. the old bank building which is now smoothie king on the ground floor, physical physical therapy on the second floor and an empty space on the other half of the ground floor and parking for, I don't know, probably 20 cars I guess, between those three business or the two businesses that are already working and the one that would come. If I wanted to move into the empty space on the ground floor and set up, yeah, I don't know, some sort of consultancy office or whatever, not something that would involve a lot of foot traffic, maybe seeing people one of the times, something like that, is what we're doing tonight going to be helpful to me. I mean, you know, I don't know exactly what the square footage is, but I'm pretty sure that building would be under 20,000 square feet, I think. And the first floor space certainly is, you know, not much more than 20 by 20 by 20 or whatever. It's not a big number. And I went for a CO for my consultancy that I wanted to locate there. What's my experience? Is somebody gonna ask me, oh, you're gonna have to provide five parking spots to open a consultancy or does that fall in the category of, oh, it's okay. It's just basically a sort of one-person office use operation. Or does it need to go through this process that we're proposing to approve here? So, a couple per question there. So I think this is the building on on South Least Street. That's now the smoothie king Yeah, it's Here's algebra barring you know any Perhaps a peak at the any site plan that may shown that it does have parking reductions We didn't do that for each individual property. So caveat here is that each, this is done in GLS. So we're looking primarily at size. And then the shopping center recommendations those that we could kind of do on the highest level. But when someone does come, when a tenant does come in for their certificate of occupancy and any associated trade permits upon that zoning review, it would be some staff doing that review seeing, okay, where's the property and what's the use, what are the current parking requirements for that use and then applying that reduction as part of its everyday administrative review. So we're still working with the zoning staff about how if we need to kind of call that out or if staff's gonna be trained to do that on our own, but that would be part of the kind of regular zoning review when looking at certificate of occupancy. So no matter what, that's good. And no matter what we're doing here tonight, there's still an administrative regulatory process of some sorts that an applicant would need to go through. It's not like we're just throwing the doors open and say no. And with however many cars or whatever line of work you're doing, that's not the way it's going to work. It's going to work the way that you described. Right. There is part of the regular kind of process that happens today. So either either way zoning is going to review it and see what the current parking rate is. As that would for any business, but now as to go in there ended up leading to that parking lot filling up with the Smiley King business and the physical therapy business and this third pukative business. And people started parking on the street, the residential street right around the corner. And that was causing problems. If that touched off a petition process to get 75% of the folks to say we need to have residents only parking on our residential street because it's crowded or whatever, that process could still play out and be decided on in the course of events as other locations like in Harris-Teter one then. We did that for a lot of winter, Hill, Cherry Hill. Right, yeah, that's one of the safeguards that are in the curries, this residential permit parking. There's nothing prohibiting or changing that process that's already there where residents could raise that petition and then the abnormal counting and program administration would play out to implement new residential parking. That's very much still at play, right? And is an important safeguard. So, yeah, this process in no way changes that. Okay, good. All right. Well, I just want to get that on the record because the folks who came and spoke with us earlier on this were, as I say, quite passionate about and concerned about existing businesses. And that's great that they're loyal to those businesses and concerned about them. But so are we. And we would like to hope that we could attract the kind of businesses and generate the sort of commerce that would be more reliant on walking or biking or taking a metro or, you know, not necessarily everybody getting in their car to do everything. And we would like to nudge the city along in that direction, I think, wherever we can get a plausible reason for the opportunity. It seems like this is one such. Just in closing at the Chamber of Lunch and yesterday, I mean, I'm not there to hang a shingle out and take complaints or suggestions, but no one in particular seemed to speak to this. The candidate forum was the agenda and both candidates responded to questions, some of which related to parking and some of the issues that we talk about here. And I did not get any sense of any great uproar concern in the business community that existing businesses would be harmed if we tried this. So that helps me feel that, you know, the business community, the existing business community is comfortable enough with it that they're willing to let us see if it might happen. Okay, I think that's all I have to add. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad you mentioned existing businesses. I think that's the one thing that's kind of niggling in my mind a little bit. And I support this motion and I don't think we need to deal with it now. But I guess I just want us to think about, you know, this is only going to apply to new uses, existing tenants. Their parking calculations were already decided at CFO. But maybe you're, you know, it's sort of, if you think about it, it's not very fair, right? Because you're an existing tenant and you have to provide this parking. And now here's a new, maybe similar business that can take that same maybe take that same parking and put a better Use make better use out of it perhaps like maybe you can provide outdoor dining that an existing tenant wouldn't be able to provide because they need to provide parking So I'm just noting that Obviously any existing business was able to open so Providing that parking was doable for them, even if it maybe wasn't easy. But I do think about when it comes to them being competitive with other new uses that are opening in the city that might have a wider array of options for how they might be able to use that space. Am I thinking about that correctly? Because I feel like this is something that was discussed. If you have existing parking in the lot, can you re-dedicate it to some other purpose or not? I feel like that was asked either at Councilor. No, that's probably zoning approval, right, to open. If you're already approved for that parking rate, you're stuck with that. So this amendment applies specifically to buildings changing use and so any new use is coming in where they wouldn't be able to open under the current parking code. So any existing use is right, yeah, would have to are required to maintain the parking they are currently using. So let's say there's a new use and it wants to open in a building that has six parking spaces provided. Because they're technically, they wouldn't be requested or required to provide any parking if they're, you know, a thousand square feet or a 1500 or whatever we decide on. Would that mean that those six spaces they could turn into outdoor dining and not use for parking? Yeah, if they're, you say at the end there's an existing building with success? Building and it's not, if it's not required to provide any parking, could it, and there is parking available in the building, could they use that parking for something else? Which is something that I would personally support. Maybe that wouldn't be the decision a business would make, but I much rather see, you know, patios like outdoor dining for like what, you know, we would not be between them and their landlords then. It might be. Yeah. Yeah. You've met our needs. So. Yeah. As long as there's not any existing use that, you know, was able to open due to the parking and just because they're not using it but was met that requirement in order to open. You know, just because a business did open and under the current current they realistically do only use two spaces but maybe they have ten that are never touched. They still are required to keep those parking spaces under under these because of zone yeah yeah if they're there okay but there is I'm not as familiar with the outdoor dining one is I know it does provide for some I'm actually outdoor space to be converting into other uses so yeah and the zoning administrator I know does have a live discretion under that. So that's also what's being kept here. Is that the zoning administrator would be able to review any additional parking requests? Yeah. I guess my concern is just insofar as it's an advantage to new businesses that are opening in the city to not have to provide the parking. I would like, you know, ideally, those same advantages be available to the existing businesses, you know? I don't want to have different, I mean, I think we're going to go with that, like sort of different requirements for existing in new businesses, but that's also a way to test this out and see what happens. Another reason why this is interim. Yeah, it will, interim, how do you mean interim? Well, I mean, if we're going to do an overall parking study, hopefully we would capture that type of a fairness issue and come up with a code that treats everybody the same. Very is a good question, though. I mean, it's like, so what about the landlord of one of these buildings? Yeah, I mean, that is a good question. Because the ordinance doesn't really say that. You gotta be careful because it doesn't say it only applies to new businesses. It talks about getting a applying for a CO. But I don't know. I think you gotta be careful because I don't know. Like let's say a landlord wants to, you know, it says, okay, well now I could convert few extra spaces on my property to something else or I could build an addition because now I can park it. You know, I don't need, I don't know. I have less parking requirement, you know, that they get, they be able to do that. Or like, for example, I don't know how every uses parked in the city, but some of our like, you know, buildings that have like some restaurant uses in there, plus office, plus other things, you know. And then it turns over, could they then like, I don't know, it might want to be specific about that. I give a date, an effective date, and say, you know, CEO's issued as an effective date of the ordinance. And then, you know, to make it clear that this is a forward looking thing only, and make sure the county, or sort of the city attorney is okay with that. Because it's true, normally, you know, it's okay to have exemption clauses and all kinds of stuff that explain how, you know, when an ordinance is effective and what it means for like somebody in process, right? Or like let's say for example, like the jewelry store that we just saw that came in for a site plan. I don't know where they are in their process, but they're an eligible building. They expand their building now and then not they don't they could lose those parking space or two. I don't know. They don't have a sea of oh yet. So you just got to be clear about that kind of stuff. It's like those are the kind of things that always can value up on the back end. So there needs to be an effective date and a way you're going to handle folks in process. Like for new construction or people that are, because a couple of those buildings, I think are falling to that on the base on the map. Yeah, I remember having conversations around towards the beginning we were, we had in mind about we needed the most vulnerable buildings were the oldest ones. And so age was certainly a consideration. We were advised by the city attorney that we couldn't, there was some kind of legal hang-up that prohibited us from putting new construction versus existing. And so kind of thinking about how can we, again, kind of help the existing buildings, we introduced the kind of site plan. So a lot of new buildings are new construction are approved. Obviously under the site plan ordinance and that's where you get a lot of the parking reductions approved you know under the current current. So that's that's why that that language was included in there for in eligibility criteria if you have an existing parking reduction tied to a site plan thinking that that not that's related to new construction. So we're saying we don't want to apply to new construction. Let's say one of these older sites, sides they want to now do an addition, you know, expand because they could convert some of their parking lot. They get to do that. Well, not that we don't. They're going to get new CEOs when they're done. So the way that's written wouldn't that apply to them? Well, you're in any existing building. way that's written wouldn't that apply to them? this was kind of meant with them in mind. No, I understand what we meant. Yeah. You know, the road to many places is paved with good intentions. But we need to be careful about how it's written. Because the way it's written is how it's going to work. Regardless of what staff or council or commission thinks we mean, if it doesn't say it, it doesn't say it. So I think I just think because it's kind of vague. Like it talks about applying for CEOs, but CEOs can be part of new, that's the last step for new construction, as you get your CEO. So what's, let's say, one of these sites wanted to demolish their building and build new. I don't know, couldn't they take advantage of it? I'm just saying, we should be clear about what we're talking about. I don't think we can limit it actually to just existing buildings. I mean, maybe there's a way to say, you know, as buildings existing as of this date, it applies, you know, buildings existing as of the date of adoption, but doesn't say any of that. Anything like that? Why don't we put that in our motion then just say recommend staff include an effective date? Or for existing buildings. I mean whatever we mean, but I understand like the genesis of this idea was to help these older buildings But it doesn't mean that it might not induce I just think of an example So I always I always bring up the county it's because I spend a lot of time there but the county just did a huge you you know, overhaul of their parking requirements. And, you know, called parking reimagined where they actually pretty much across 95% of the use categories reduced the parking rate. But, you know, what we're seeing, and generally it's been well received, but it's certainly in some instances has induced some new construction. It's induced owners who now can convert areas that are being used as a parking lot to new, you know, to expand. Like for example, like I'm working on a project right now for an assisted living facility that now no longer has a lower parking rate that wants to add like 50 beds because they can because they don't have to worry about the parking requirement they can still meet the parking. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing we're working on it but I would say that's a good thing. Yeah maybe it's better. It's good for the city's coffers. Maybe that's good. Maybe that's good but we don't say that. Better use a parking asphalt. Yeah that's a policy judgment on that, but I'm just saying that's like it's induced a lot of, you know, some of that, which is good. But we're not really saying that here, as far as like, you know, whether or not it applies, I hear staff saying, well, no, it doesn't apply to that. It doesn't say if you have a site plan doesn't apply, right? It just says if you're subject to a reprieve site plan That will require you to have x number spaces. I guess I guess it's saying if you have a previous in existing site plan on record You don't get to like Modify that right. I think the right the right question is Maybe we want to I mean I'm more you talk about it the more I think yeah, yeah, that would be okay I mean if some I guess I'm putting the onus on the business to know what it's most likely path to success is you know if they've got an all-building I want to tear it down and replace it with a building which has got a whole bunch of thousand square foot office spaces and they don't want to happen to much parking because they think some you know a number of those are going to be used by people who live down the street and are setting up their counseling business or their tutoring business or whatever in these small offices and want to need parking for staff, which is really, that's the big area that, you know, we do sometimes a miss on like with the Kensington, you know, we should have been more aware that staff parking needed to be provided for shift workers coming in and going in the middle of the night. And anyway, if a business thinks it can succeed, then this helps in some way to do that with less parking, then I'd be okay with that. I mean, you know, the real world examples that we have here in the city, or you've mentioned them, Northside Social and Tinkaria and Godfrees. I mean, I'm always asked, first question I ask anybody who goes anywhere in town is we're able to find a place to park because I'm sensitive to this now. And so my spouse, they went to Godfrees for a late lunch and at two o'clock, you know, the parking lot was full, but you know, apparently that's okay with them. You know, they're done good business, I guess. And that parking situation there when we allowed that use was a little, a little edge, you know, I had social certainly was controversial. It came in with historical designation, and therefore planning commission wave the traditional parking requirements. And then we found, I don't know, at least 30% more spaces on the street than we'd ever had before. And people find a way. Tangeria was a difficult situation for several months, but it seems to have worked itself out. So I don't know. months, but it seems to work itself out. So I don't know. My this have applied to that so with this ordinance have helped that circumstance, it would have it would have applied it would have right? No, no, the nottingria. That was an existing building. Right. Yeah. So at least they would so they wouldn't have had to count the first one down. There's existing building changing use and so yeah, it would be such. I don't really have it now this year. They would have had zero requirement. And I mean yeah, I'm sure they could make a very nice use of the parking lot. But it also speaks to the equity thing as far as the likes. So now they had to like whatever they had to go through a lot of gymnastics to do it. And now I don't know. It raises a lot of questions about that. Well, there's bigger questions just general. Is Mr. Stevens earlier about parking in general? So I don't know that we'll get this perfect because I think there's a lot more bigger things to discuss. Well, it's part of our recommendation. I think we do need to lay out at least what we feel, how it should apply as far as like is this just prospective or is it the new law of the land? Yeah, it's the new law of the land, and everyone gets to take advantage of it if they meet the criteria. Or is it, I think, honestly, that's probably the better way to do it, is have it be for anybody, who meets the criteria that's a non-residential use, the first thousand square, in less than 20,000 square foot building, whatever, whatever thing. You meet all the criteria, I don't know if we want to limit it to prospective. Why would we want to do that? No, I think you make a good point. Yeah, so is the language and the alternative resolution consistent with what you've just heard in that regard? The only difference in the alternative is the exception number. Yeah, right, that was my impression, which if you'll call it up, I'd be happy to make a motion if asked. If we've. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I mean, we may have some discussion on the motion. Yeah, right. I mean, we don't have to. But, in some ways, this just be the new rate and that's what it is. Like, you know, if you meet this criteria, this is your... It would be simpler and I guess the onus would be on if if we if council agrees that existing Businesses who would meet these criteria should also be eligible than in the onus would just be on them Yeah, I'd like to counsel debate. Yeah, just this just as we have because I think that would be What is the thought that that demarcation was put in there to limit the application of this? Well, I was gonna I add, I think I'm going to clear about what which eligibility criteria specifically. So I think the way you all have it written here is that it applies to new businesses that are opening in the city in existing buildings. Oh, your time at existing. Existing buildings that would meet these criteria is if they had opened tomorrow or whenever this ordinance is passed, they wouldn't have had to provide the parking that they've already done. And so should they be also allowed? But I guess that, yeah, and let angry is a good one. Like, where are they providing parking? Like, some businesses may be like paying or had to go through some, I don't know what they're doing there to weird circumstance, but. Norse side is renting those spaces. And that's a business decision that they made. It was not required. And Godfrey's is doing a valid parking. So those are business. No, no, these are the things. The market is working. That was a tenant in the existing building, right? They were between thousands per feet at building anyway. Yeah, I mean, I think with that, when you have buildings that are tied to a site plan or were approved under a site plan, then you might get into your own issues where you have to amend the site plan potentially when you're talking about parking. So it's... Because that was a significant renovation. Was there a site plan for Godfrees? I don't... Although I just... You have a rating plan. You don't limit it only to a site plan you ever written site plan with a TVM and a Brutkin plan which most of the newer buildings are gonna have some kind of TVM But older ones wouldn't they have a site plan, but they won't have a TVM anything from the last ten years Right, but the site plan could have been approved under you know the current parking standard so when you're changing that Well like the jewelry business we just approved whatever effort their name they don't they're not the new building altogether. They're they're gonna have a site plan but they're not they have a site plan but they're not gonna have TDM. They don't have TDM or parking so are they eligible for this? I think the way it's written actually they would be. It's not an existing building. It's a new say that. What line is that? Where am I? Well, I think one doesn't say it here. It doesn't say it. Okay, go existing though. Not simply to just existing off-site parking agreement. Doesn't say anything about existing buildings. Hold on. It's on line 174, Jack recommended amendment. Where? 9-3-7-4. Well, there's no new. The ordinance text is it's got three. Yeah, but it's not in the text. It doesn't count. It's not in there. That's the law. So it's not specifically spelled out. So right now it's actually not limited the way I read it to new uses. It talks about when the rate is, you know, when they're getting a C of O, I don't know if that's the best trigger actually, you know, the way that's written. But we go to the, because right now our rates are like, spell that. We're rates. They like just, I know we don't have the whole ordinance printed out here, but I kind of understand how staff approach this, but in some ways it might be simpler to just like, you know, do we have a table? I forget how our parking rates, they just listed. It's like how many pinball machines do you have? I got to pull it up. Yeah, it's in there. It's one of the two spots per pinball machine or something. My father, that wasn't how I probably brought up some of the stuff in August, but it's all right. Oh, here we are. Yeah, it's just not clear. It's just not clear how it, you know, because it's not spelled out, existing buildings, it's not spelled out. I mean, it talks about a trigger when you apply for a C of O. Well, sometimes, you know, a business when they change ownership gets a new C of O. The same business could change hands and they get a new C of O, I think. So that would apply, I think, I don't know. It just may not be the best trigger. I feel like we should have a rate and the rate should apply to the use and that way, you know, it's just, I think that's simpler than the way this would try to work. What do you mean the use? Well, like normal. We have, like, like, in this case, we have defined the uses we're talking about, the ones that are, right, the ordinance says ones that are non-residential, non-residential, non-residential that are not residential. Not residential. Well, not residential that are regulated based on floor area, side area or customer use space. Some are regulated differently. The only ones as this is drafted, the only uses that get to do this are ones that are calculated based on their floor area, side area, or customer use space, right? Some like schools and other things, there are other not residential uses that are based on people and This is not affecting them right? It's this is people who are regulated based on square footage of some kind Our uses that are regulated based on square footage So maybe it needs to be Like you know, there just needs to be like an asterisk in the table somewhere that's it I got to pull up the ordinance to see if we forget how we have it listed. It's one of the attachments. Or is it? Beautiful. No, I know I want to pull up the actual adopted ordinance the way it is today. Is it in there? No, is it in our attachments? No, it's not. Do you understand what I'm saying Mr. Trainer? Like what I'm getting at? Because the way it's worded now, it's kind of awkward. And I don't know, like I think practically speaking, you may get into trouble applying this. Like if you try to tell somebody they're not eligible to use this, they might say, well, I don't know. That's not how I read it. I mean, I feel like you don't want to be ambiguous. the limb, they do us actually. If we know what we want, then we should just be as transparent and clear as possible. So maybe the first thing is one, the use is an existing building. If that's what we want, I don't think I want that actually. We've been talking and digging out loud here. You think you want to plot? Yeah. Why do they roll? I don't know. What's the difference? If we don't speak to this, if by default the understanding is that's any building. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. So what are the changes that you would want to see? Well, I want to pull up the rest of the code that we only have a snippet here. I want to pull up the rest of it so I can see how this fits in with how we list the other rates. Because we didn't, I don't know what the, I hate to defer this, but I don't know. Yeah, I think it's going to counsel at the end of the month. So it's sort of, it's sort of, right. Yeah, they, a hour. The recommendation. So yeah, there's no, I don't believe in that. I mean, council can always, there's, there's not, years. As another couple weeks going to change anything for anybody? I don't know if we can't get right. That's how we ended up with the carpet store at the corner for 45 years. Well, the point is like we want to get it right. We never could seem to find the right two weeks to make it move until we did. I mean, I thought your concern was with the sort of existing building qualifier, but it's not. Sounds like it's not. So what is the, because maybe I'm not following that you are now. I guess my concern is that if staff seems to be under the impression they would only apply prospectively. I don't, first of all, I don't think it's written that way, but I also don't agree that that should be the intent. And I think that it shouldn't trigger it by saying, you use is applying for a C of O. I mean, it's the same way parking is regulated today. If you're a use, you have a rate. And, you know, yes, when you... it's enforced, it's enforced at the time you apply for your C of O. But if we change the rate, like, what if we didn't do any of this? What if we just went into the... and I'm proud I was trying to pull up the code so I can actually see how we... Well, I mean, I'm not necessarily... I mean, I know so I have to write the code here. I think if we put in the end result that we recommend being included in the final code amendment, and then let the city attorney and Mr. Stoutard, you know, draft the language that... Well, I think we need to see the language. I think that's our job as the planning commission. It's to make recommendations on the zoning ordinance and then council adopts it. I mean, that's what we're here for. You know, we don't just, I mean, a lot of times we speak at a 10,000 foot level, but now we're talking about code. I mean, I don't know. I just feel like there's some problems with the way this is written. It's just awkward. I don't know if it's going to do what we wanted to do exactly. It's going to do what we wanted to do and maybe even more as I understand what I'm hearing. Yeah, that's what I'm hearing and that sounds like what you're in support of. And as long as it's sort of, okay, here we go. Making this available to a wider like right now we have a table right all our parking is in a table yeah I mean why wouldn't we just then we have a bunch of notes at the end of the table we have some other we have some notes and asterisk at the end of the table I don't know I mean we could just why couldn't we just add that that you know, for use is regulated this way, the first thousand square feet in a building under 20,000 square feet, you know, whatever, whatever, doesn't count. Isn't that how it is, though? Well, it's like, I guess I don't like the B. Non-resumption use is applying for a CFO business use program. And is it because you don't like the CFO trigger? Yeah. Okay. like the CFO trigger? Yeah. OK. I don't like that. Is there a different, like, when, how did staff arrive at the CFO triggers that? Because that's when parking is normally sort of determined. Yeah, right. When they come in for the certificate of occupancy, that's what triggers the zoning review. Did you all contemplate like a situation where there might be an existing business who would come in, who would say, hey, I hear we have this news in your parking regulations. Like, can you reevaluate my parking? Did you talk about that potential use case? Yeah, I mean, so there still be subject to what they were purfed under, though. So this is meant to be a relief valve for existing buildings. So. And we also have a relief valve for existing buildings. So. And we also have the relief valve of the zoning administrator, right? And that was originally you had contemplated striking that, but we've restored it. Correct. So the zoning administrator, I think, also has the ability to make a ruling. And I think that's the case today. And not conforming. Parking. And not conforming. Yeah. So would we want to expand that to existing uses? I mean, if they're not coming in for a CFO, I mean to Mr. Krasner's point. For existing. So the current requirement is as well, specific use is stated where existing parking is non-conforming. That's when the zoning administrator has the discretion to provide relief. So it's talking about non-conforming parking. So in existing building where there's not enough parking to accommodate a prospective new use. But if they were conforming today, I think that's the situation. So that's what you. That's weird though. Yeah, so that was proposed to be deleted and now it's back. Correct. And it's back. Who asked for it to come back? I don't know if that was, this kind of came out of additional conversations with staff and the zoning administrator and thinking about that this would add additional flexibility and kind of build on that relief valve for existing uses. That doesn't, there's not a lot of, you know, relief for current uses. So, just playing devil's advocate, wouldn't that one phrase that allows as an administrator to like, wouldn't that obviate the need for any of this? Couldn't the design administrator say to any business, my policy is now this, and so I'll determine that you know anyone who's the first thousand feet on count. I mean you know what to be I mean I don't understand like that's active we have that in there so what's yeah I don't know I just that's okay to give the zoning administrator that kind of power that's a lot of power actually to give the zoning administrator because in theory they could use that to say that no parking is needed anywhere. Right. It's kind of the one complaint about that. Or existing parking. Or any manager over here. Well, only when it's not conforming. I guess for any building that doesn't have enough, they could say, yeah, it's true they might, but the ordinance to wouldn't preclude it. I don't know. So initially, what was the idea about deleting that? Where did that come from? from one step to ask. So part of the consideration in addition to offering flexibility to the small, again, most vulnerable businesses is this phrase here, again, which gives a zoning administrator a lot of power and discretion. Part of it was meant to take that kind of wait off of the zoning administrator or one single staff person in making these kind of decisions. So by putting this in front of that, you're creating a new standard and sort of perhaps, for the smallest use is perhaps eliminating the need to go to the zone administrator at all. But for those that are requesting additional parking, it maybe gives a zone administrator a better like to stand on more data to consider such a request. Okay. So you might want, I mean, and that's okay. I mean, I don't, I mean, it's a lot of power to get the zoning administrator, but it's been no way for a long time anyway. But you might want to say where, where B or where B does not apply, because if you want, if we want B,'s under you inserted a new line 37. Well, I'm right. So now like under 48103 we're adding a new B. So you might want to say then and see where no specific requirement is stated for the use or where B does not apply you know and the existing parking is non-conforming because we're saying for situations where B is going to apply, we don't want the zoning administrator to substitute his or her opinion or judgment. It would almost seem like they'd have an option. They could try to go under B or they could ask the zoning administrator. You might want to, I think we should be clear that if we're going to go through all this trouble, that's what we want to rule the day. Not the zoning administrator to substitute their judgment on for B because we're being very deliberate and specific about that. So thinking is is to to have businesses subject to either B or C but not have the ability to request additional relief from the zoning administrator. So the actual like text change with the under C. Mr. Krasner were no specific requirement is stated for a use or where B does not apply. Where the requirements of subsection B did not apply. I would say when those specific requirements are stated for use, you know, or where B does not apply and the existing parking is not conforming, because we still want to keep it. So there's only going to apply to non-conforming properties. I think it should still be an ore though, right? Yeah, it'd be an ore. Or where beat is not applied and. Because we want beat or to. So it's where beat is not applied and no specific or criminal state of for use or existing parking is not conforming. And that's what we're trying to do, because otherwise what's the point? Otherwise the zoning administrator could say, yeah, I'm going to give them the first five dozen square feet off because I just think that that's a pervert. I'm just being, I'm playing devil's advocate. How does that work internally in the office? I mean, a front line CEO reviewer would have authority beyond what the zoning administrator herself would have as I would interpret that. Is that wise? Is that really we? Well, so the zoning administrator alone would have currently has the power to hear parking really for existing nonconforming parking. And then the zoning shop or whoever's reviewing the certificate of occupancies would be, it'd be part of their duty to, again, just looking through a regular CO submission to apply the proposal, the proposed 1000 square foot reduction. So there's no judgment call in that scenario, whereas today, the zoning administrator does have discretion over such petitions. So, so again, by kind of structuring it ahead of that, we're kind of offering a streamline path to some relief, saying you don't have to spend and time and resources to put together a parking reduction petition, which you do under C when you have to request the zone and get administrator review. We're offering, you know, what the proposal does is, you know, offer a kind of certainty about if you meet the criteria, then there's no question about whether anything is going to get in your way of that. But if you need further relief, then you can request that from the Zoning Administrator by submitting one through nine. And that's how it would play out if we made no changes in the resolution that you've written. As written, that's the process. How often does that happen? How often does the administrator deny these requests? Do we know how often this is occurring? We don't have hard data on that, but just from talking to her, it's a really rare occurrence. I'm not sure that she's actually used this before. Yeah, I was wondering. Although with the law, I hate to keep real often, but I think that's kind of what happened there, right? That was a previously doing administrator, but then the zoning administrator getting involved in that. They were approved as a carry out which required less parking, I think then maybe what people, they didn't do this. They didn't think you mentioned that. No, and there was, that their parking is conforming. They're providing what was right. Yeah, the remedy was just signage. I think it was the only thing they had to do. Yeah. Well, I thought on this lack of fairness, because existing businesses, seems to me the remedy is well enough, that difficult. If I have a business that's already in place and now I want to take advantage of this, I could just simply go to an attorney and say make me up as a new business. I'll go in, I file a new CVO and- But why make someone go through that rig and we're all if they could just make it clear? Why make someone do that? They already have- They already have. I'm okay with that too, maybe it's a first choice, but I'm just saying there is a remit. So it's not an outright discrimination as I see it. Yeah, and maybe it depends on the business, but if you already have the parking, then maybe there's an advantage about where an existing business could use that space for something else. But- And they also may want the parking. Right, if they already have the parking. Mm-hmm. Just to sort of- Yeah, I've been just thinking about a place like Lotta Ingrid. I know they tried to build a nice little patio right on Lee Highway. And that certainly would be nicer a little bit farther away from that highway. So Yeah, I just I want people to make the best use of the space that they have in some cases that will be Parking for their business and other cases that might be outdoor dining So I just want people to have a flexibility Now you know advocate again that I think it's a good idea for the planning commission to improve in the motion, something about a follow-up report, where some of these things could be studied and observed a little bit. And then if there's the thought or movement to amend whatever's approved tonight, then that can happen. I'm comfortable with this as is in applying to new businesses and then maybe in a year we can see and you can also inform us about whether there's interest from existing businesses or confusion about it, your feeling of unfairness. I think for me, I'd like, we could just, it's real simple, you can just strike and set the first part of B, not only is it used as applying for a CFO business, use permit, shall be exempt, just strike that up to the word from, strike that and then the, becomes the first part of B, non-resonial use is applying for a CFO business permit. Shall we exempt? Just strike that up to the word from. Strike that and then the becomes capital T. The first 1000 square feet of contributing flow area when calculating loss tree program requirements we would add is exempt or provided and then one, two, three. For non-residential, you need to keep the non-residential uses but you would just you would just remove the CFO is the trigger is Yeah, I'm saying why don't we just right? I mean to that to me that I don't want to distinguish between it someone who comes in has the as the fortune of you know applying for CFO After we have approved them December versus someone who's going through the process right now Because we haven't been clear about when it kicks in. So I don't know, to me that, like that's just the way. Well, I guess they've already made the necessary sort of decisions to be able to provide the parking. If they are existing or sort of on their way to becoming and existing. Right, but like, yeah, that's true. Yeah, I know. And we can't. And there may not be that many people taking advantage of it. What would be the downside of removing that C-Avo trigger? So that was sort of the trigger about how this would be administered. Because again, we're talking about nonconforming parking. So we're talking about again, existing parking and nonconforming uses to that parking. So getting rid of that. It doesn't say that though. It doesn't say it only applies to non-conforming. Does it? It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. It doesn't know. I don't think that's what Mr. Trainer means. I think he does. That's for it. We're exempting these misses from parking requirements in a way that might make them non-conforming. Is that kind of what you mean? Right, yeah, right. I just think it should apply. I think we're lowering the rate. I think if we want to experiment with this, let's lower the rate for the first 1,000 square feet. They don't, you know, they get that bonus that these uses don't have to count the first thousand square feet wherever these uses operate in the city. We don't need the language about the CFO. That's implied. That's part of the code. That's in some other part of the code. I mean, the parking rates there in the table right now are being enforced the same way. So we don't need to call this out separately. It'd be the same thing. You guys wouldn't do business any differently than you're doing it today. But it's just there were there's no confusion. It just applies. That's the rate. And so, you know, and maybe that is practically speaking what someone has to do to, you know, because they're CFO. What does it say? They're parking requirement on the CFO? No. It just says, what does it say on the CFO? Sometimes it sometimes actually it does, right? Doesn't the CFO give an occupancy? Sometimes it gives like a capacity it gives. So you would just have it say non-residential uses shall be exempt from the first 1000 square feet of contributing floor area provided blah blah blah. All right, rest. Yeah, exactly. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with making that recommendation. And then I think that I don't know how substantive a change that would be. I mean, I think we might need to have the low the city attorney weigh in on that change and council will have to contemplate it. I mean, because the thing is it will open this up to potentially more existing businesses, which I think we agree could be a good thing in the interest of fairness. It's just not clear. That's a problem now is that even though the intent is that it only applied a new, it's not written that way. So I don't know. Like, you know, people like Mr. Steven just said, you could try this, people could try to get around that. It's pretty easy to, but I think you're arguing for everybody to be eligible anyway. So even, even new buildings. No, I'm arguing that it's just, not new buildings. No, I'm arguing that it's just- Not in buildings, sir. We're just going to, we're going to, in effect, lower the rate for the, in these specific circumstances, the rate on those uses, which you've laid out, the ones that are- Two. ...that are defined by customer space, floor area, or site area, that they don't, the first thousand square feet for those uses doesn't get. Because there was no analysis by staff, was there that looked at existing businesses and thought through whether or not applying to 20,000 reductions would cause a problem? Just the CEOs for spaces to get a sense of individual tenant spaces. Right, but I mean, just thinking through problems that might arise if you had existing businesses come in and say, oh, I want to now have this new reduced parking requirement applied to me. There was no analysis of that. Correct. There's been no study about existing businesses decreasing their parking. So I guess if we can find it to just new businesses, then that's a, well, it's supported by the analysis that staff has done so far. And it's a way to kind of tiptoe into this and see what the effects are. And then maybe in a year when staff comes and reports to us, we could expand it further. If we want to limit through businesses, then we need to say that explicitly. It doesn't say that. I'm not going to vote for it this way because it doesn't say that. So non-residential use is applying for a CFO. So like what you're saying is that just apply the virtue of applying new businesses. And existing business could just change their name. And like legally, they decide they're going to be called, they just, that happens all the time. They change a name, they change ownership, they get a new CFO. It's father sells to a son and he gets a new CFO, but it's the same business. Like the customer doesn't even realize it's any different, but they get a new CFO. I'm OK with applying it across the board. Since there's no analysis by staff that shows that applying it to existing businesses is going to create a problem. We'll just make it clear. Yes, I think the one that was furthest is the thinking that we're going to be about to get approved at the site plan level. It's you state what the zoning program is. And so you're required to provide enough parking according to what it gets approved at its site plan. So when does it do that? It only says if you have a site plan with a parking with TDM or a parking management plan, just a plain old fashion site plan would be allowed to use this. The way I read it. Right, but the thing is, if an individual comes in for a certificate of occupancy process kind of assumes that it's an existing building. It may, maybe not. I mean, what if the owner wants to, I don't know. I don't like it this way. Are you concerned about the existing versus new building or existing versus new business? Well, my main concern is that it's ambiguous and then we can talk about whether or you know we can try to get to a consensus about what we think it should say. But right now it's very ambiguous about whether it applies only to new businesses and only to new, you know, and doesn't apply to, you know, existing construction. It's a new construction. It's not clear. We don't say it. So if we want it to be very narrow, then we would need to add some wording in here that restricts it to only those situations where it's an existing building. Can we say no new construction? Can we? Okay. So then, I don construction? Can we? Okay, so then. I don't know if we want that. Ironically, I think I'm being more liberal here. I know you are. Why don't we just try? Why don't we just do it? I mean, well, it's different than what I think council. It's significant. And I'm in agreement with you. I kind of reason myself, but like I, you know. provide an opinion. Why not apply it to all of them? They can have the same debate. I didn't listen to the council's entire debate. We're not aware of any analysis. They want to limit this or not. I think staff maybe put this forward. I don't know. Council said we're really worried about it. We only want to apply in this way. We've got no analysis before us that shows that applying it to existing businesses creates a problem. Well, I know, but there's no analysis period. So it could create a problem. We just wouldn't know if I could staff didn't do the research, right? So that's my concern. And the other alternative would be to defer it. Let staff come back with more data if we want them to do some more work on that and come back and provide us with additional information to, you know, substantiate people have concerns. I'm not concerned about it. I think that it's not as big a change as maybe so much I think, but. There are a lot of people that would, I don't know what other use many of these, like depending on the business that you have, like maybe you would add some outdoor dining or something like that, but most of these businesses that they have parking, they're probably gonna wanna keep it. I don't know what else to do. Not always though, he'd be stressed. I mean, it depends. You never know. But I guess I'm willing to see what happens if we want to allow more flexibility and try to encourage some activity on these to allow these smaller uses. Again, it's only applying under the 20,000 square foot building. I mean, there still are some safeguards in place that on these relatively tiny buildings, with smaller buildings, these particular uses, only for those particular uses, although. I think there are two small changes that we could make to sort of align this with the direction that you wanted to go in. The change that you recommended earlier for B, which is striking part of that first sentence, so it would be non-residential uses, shall be exempt from the first 1000 square feet of contributing floor area, right? So you just eliminate the CFO. So that sort of addresses the non-residential uses, any non-residential use. And then I think for the existing building, thing maybe in one, the building that the non-residential use will occupy is an existing building, not subject to an existing offsite parking agreement. So not a new building, or do you want it to apply to a new building? Because if not, then I think you can just strike the CFO as a trigger, and we can be good with it. I mean, I don't know what the, if, like I said, I'm not looking to be in the difficult and make it harder than it needs to be. Folks are more comfortable with only allowing us to apply to existing buildings. That's fine. And if we say that, then at least then it's clear. And that can be the experiment that we're only going to get only to the existing buildings, you know, existing as of the date of adoption. I think that my sense is that staff would probably be more comfortable with that because that's the analysis they've done so far. That's the best that's been available. I like that. Well, I would also be more comfortable because that's the analysis. The analysis that staff has done so far is sort of like with this pool of businesses in mind. Right, they haven't really looked at like what could, you know, how many potential businesses could be eligible that are already existing in the community. And like I said, my expectation is it would be a small number of those would come in and say, I'm gonna put it outdoor dining in my parking lot, but it could happen. So, you know, that's a different analysis and we don't have that information. I'd be okay with what you just proposed. Yeah, deleting the- We're moving the CFO O trigger. Mm-hmm. And then you want, and then putting it specifically saying existing buildings. Okay. Those, I'm okay with that. Okay. So for the outdoor dining piece, I mean, I'm a little bit confused because we already have an outdoor dining method for that. Yeah, that's true. I'm not sure. What else I'm not sure what other uses people might find for their parking spaces. Well, I guess it would be the business finding the use or would it be the landlord potentially finding the use? That kind of is another question is how would that be administered and who would be in charge of that? For example, like a landlord could then say, I'm gonna build a 900 square foot addition and rent that out to a new business. Any one of it. Which maybe that's, I don't have to add any parking to, you know, in order to do that. I can find, you know, maybe you need to take away a spot or two because now we can make it work. I don't know. building. But that addition. The addition would be new. We didn't say that. The building would be existing. We didn't say only to existing square footage, only square only for like, you know, GFA existing today. I don't know. It's kind of hard to limit it that way. But. Yeah, I just worried we're getting out of the scope without triggering any first reading. I mean no that's so Can we include in our motion at which mr. Duncan made a little while ago Do you want to make an amendment for those? Yes, we have a motion on the table. I'm sorry. I'm like this is an interactive board. No, that's OK. So don't give me the motion as prepared by staff. They're alternative motion, which is on? Which is the 1,500 square feet? Yeah, which is on page 1. Allowed by law. Or yes. Hi, Paul. which is on page a lot by law or yeah, I Pogism getting losing track of where we are in the order of business here But you didn't read all the where-ass is no, no, that's why I didn't hear all the where-ass is oh I see maybe you just said you were gonna make a motion I well, I'm okay. I tend to that was the Long dogging me question. Why do we have to go through the whole whereas, Riggum and Roll, why can't we just cut to the chase and say now, no, for our vote? It's an every one. There's no law that emotion needs to be. I mean, assuming that the legislative language is included in what's transmitted onto the council is. You can say whatever you'd like, Mr. Nungan. Is the city attorney going to get on us if we don't read the whole preamble to the council. But we've never been at the time. There are recruiters, people who are watching. I don't know. Do you want me to read it? I'm happy to read it. What are they saying, Congress, you know, and it just approved this as if read. I mean, I can read the whole thing if you want. But the final destination is where I'm still not clear that we're landing. So is there anything that needs to be added by our vote, or are we just giving guidance to staff that in the legislative language underlying the resolution? I thought we were going to get the discussion that we've had to reflect it. I think the point of sort of removing SEVO is the trigger and clarifying that these supplies to existing buildings, those would be the recommendations, Mr. Krasnick. Yeah, we'll read it out to staff so they know what we're wanting to call it. Well, that's a good one. And how about we read it out first so that whatever motion I make is, okay. It includes that. Right. I think emotion needs to be made seconded and then discussion and we can do discussion. Yeah, so Okay, all right So do I have to read all the where as is just for kicks? Whereas the city council and its calendar year 2024-25 priorities work plan established certain goals for the city of false church, including promoting efficient use of parking, being more business friendly and encouraging and supporting transportation alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and whereas excessive off street parking requirements can present challenges for small and independent businesses seeking to open and existing commercial buildings with a fixed on-site parking supply and whereas reducing the off street parking requirements for existing commercial buildings with a fixed on-site parking supply and whereas reducing the off-street parking requirements for existing commercial buildings for existing commercial buildings. There's that word existing. Encourages their reuse by expanding the number of allowable commercial uses to occupy the building. Now therefore I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Commercial Parking Ordnance Reduction and recommend that the exempt space be 1500 square feet or in the alternative, the high square footage under 1500 square feet allowed by law. I can second. Alright so now we's an hour discussing. So the language that I just read includes the word existing commercial building. But if to Mr. Krazner's point of it needs to be clear in the proposal. Right, the where asses don't hold any legal way. Who's in what? Did I just read? I mean, is that dumb question? They should know. Well, they might, I don't know I'm out of attorney but they might help in the case of like somebody somewhere not us looking back to try to understand what we or the council did. I mean it says proposed motion and therefore it seems to be like every word and it carries the full weight and therefore if you want existing out then you shouldn't have it in and well paragraph. It sounds like a based on the discussion we had I'm personally okay with limiting it to existing buildings, but we do in order to make sure that that in fact will happen, I think we need to adjust the language in the proposed code the way we just discussed. So we want to make it, I mean, I'll make a friendly, so you're friendly, I'll make a friendly amendment to amend. So it's your motion, but it's to adopt the, let me see how it's worded here, so we can do this properly. To recommend approval of the commercial parking ordinance reduction, and recommend that the exempt space be 1500. We can leave it as it is, and with the following revisions to the draft text. And then we can, so then getting down to the draft text in little under, starting under, a little paragraph, paragraph a little B under 481003, non-residential uses, we keep that, and then we strike applying for a certificate of occupancy business use permit. So we strike that. So now it reads non-residential uses, shall be exempt from the first 1000 square feet of contributing floor area when calculating off-street parking requirements provided And then I'm sorry word Where did you want to use that? The building that the non-residential use will occupy is an existing building. Maybe we would add that right is an Okay, right. That's I'm sorry. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Is an exit. Yeah, well, I was an an existing building After the is, yeah. Yeah. And then the second is, we only need one. Does that need a date, as of? Yeah, as of the date of adoption. As of the date of adoption. Of the word. Of the word. Well, is that even, as of, I guess we could fill in the date? I don't know that anybody will know when this amendment was made. Well, that's why you adopted the fill that in, right? As of the date of the ordinance or something like that. As of in leave it blank. When the city council adopts an ordinance, I think there is a date on the bottom. Like that says the date they did it. But it's not. It's like an amendment to the existing code, right? But the date when I recorded. Any time the code is updated, there's usually and a number that goes along with the update to tell you when it happened somewhere. Is that available? In the, like I just want I'm thinking about like a business owner reading this. Yeah, we can add the date. Yeah, just include the date there. Like it's easy. We're like fill in the date as a, yeah. So we would want it to say is an existing building. As of the date of adoption. As of the date of adoption. As of the date of adoption. Yeah, that's a placeholder now for us. I mean, this is draft tax. That's a placeholder. It would be filled in with the actual date. So as of the day of adoption for now. Yeah, date of adoption. Yeah. And I would put that. If you put that in brackets, then I think that communicates that we're trying to. Yeah. of the date. Date. Date of adoption. Yeah. And are you changing all references throughout the whole document, wherever they may be from 1,500 to 1,500 as part of this? Oh yeah, that's right. We have to do that. I'm sorry. I mean, that's the recommended date. Yeah, let's do it. Okay. This is our proposal. I mean, the Council can say, I'm listening to any of it. Yeah, that's fine. We'll tell them what we think is friendly. So, uh, and the second line above there, Jack, we switched the 1,500. Yeah, and B. Yeah, to change it to 1,500. Okay. Or else that may appear. Yeah. I think that's it. I think that's it. It's just not where you're looking. And then everything else you have in there is fine. Yeah, when I change anything else. I think you've got 5,000 Jack, not 1,500. I know he's got it. It's there. Yeah. It's kind of hard to see, but the ones there. Yeah, the rest of it I think reads fine. So 1,000. One,000, 1,000. It was originally 1,000, so he stuck out the first zero and replaced it with the five zero. It's in red. Yeah, it's there. No, I want to accept once the track changes are turned off. It's there. OK, so how do we reflect this in the motion? So the motion, again, my friendly amendment in the motion was, as just as Mr. Duncan read it, but then at the end of his motion, after where it says, or allowed by law, and with the following revisions as reflected in the draft below. Yeah, and with the modifications indicated in the attached draft text. We want to spell out what those are. You know, like a bullet one, removing CFO is the trigger and clarifying that this only applies to existing buildings. Just for ease of counsel. That's fine. Yeah, okay, and fine. And, you know, right, with the revisions. I'm not getting indicated in the attached draft text. Specifically, and to colon. And then I think you could use this bullets. Yeah, specifically. And then write, first bullet, or delete the issuance of the certificate of occupancy as a trigger. And delete the issuance of the certificate of occupancy as a as a trigger or application for certificate of occupancy is what you said. Delete the issuance or the application. The application. Yeah, as the trigger. I think that's how you had it worded. Yeah, as a trigger, increase the limit to 1500. That's in the, I mean, we can underline it, but it's in the proposed motion. The exception area or what's... The exemption or whatever, what are you calling it? Yeah, limit the exemption or increase the exemption to the first 1500. It's worth it. or increase the exemption to the first 1,500 square feet. And... To clarify that this applies to existing buildings? Right, and to explicitly indicate that it applies to only to existing buildings. I think that's it. Hey, those are three. Those are the three main. Oh, two existing buildings. Right. Oh, it's right. Building. Okay. Okay. Buildings are building buildings. Yeah. Plural. And then. Any. Thank you for bearing with us. Any further discussion? I'm just looking at that language again explicitly and the commissioner don't accept the amendments and now the seconder needs to accept it. Yeah, I will do so. Yeah, and you're ready. If you're ready. They say watching legislation made is, you know, it's like Congress making this. Don't we want to say in that third bullet that it doesn't apply only to existing buildings that it applies I think what we decided is that We do we do want to Go with the original staff recommendation that this oh On that I'm okay. I'm okay. I'm okay with that because I know council was concerned that That this would apply to too many buildings and there was a lot of uncertainty. So they were looking for ways to kind of and this does that. So all right. I'm with that. Okay. As a seconder, I accept it. The friendly amendments. Okay. Any further discussion? Yes. Gary four, you had mentioned the the effective date where you trying to capture that as a fourth thing? Well, I guess we were. Just for the existing, that's just for when what existing means. I think that's okay. I think that's self-exponatory. Okay. You had discussed that as a ninth. Just to clarify what existed. I guess you're suggesting maybe that we would add this to the third bullet here, explicitly indicate that the proposed amendment applies only to existing buildings. To buildings existing. Buildings constructed before the effective date of the amendment. Existing as of the date. Existing as of the date of the amendment. Is that, would that be clear? Yeah, I mean, that's what you had stated earlier. So, I mean, it would be a clarifying point. Yeah, that sounds good. Does that jug with you? Mr. Stevens? Yep. Okay. Amen, men, sir. Mr. Duncan, did you... Is it? I'd like to leave that asset, the end. No, I'd like to. I'd like to have a man, man. Yeah. All right. Everybody happy? Happy is we're going to be connected. Okay. Can we can you do a roll call vote please? Yes. Mr. Duncan? Yes. Mr. Crasner? Yes. Mr. Stevens? Yes. Miss Coma? Yes. All right. The eyes have it. 4 motion passes has amended. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I had one other follow up. So they you know with the motion. I think where it leaves this is well, the code will be not specific to a CO trigger. We're still going to have that CO review every time. So so that's going to just be automatic so we clean up the code side and I just wanted you to understand that that will be the process that these will come through every time. So I just want to make sure Roy is clear on that. Thank you. Okay. What is next? Who says we don't earn our pay? I forgot I don't get paid but still I'm glad you all under your pay today. All right. So the minutes from our last, I think this was our last meeting because we did not meet the September 18th. Yes, it was. I think Ms. Freelander had sent some amendments and let me pull those up. Did she? She said in the accessory drawings update. I also noted that the city should review potential local code and or construction requirements that are barriers to ADU construction. One example that comes up frequently in many jurisdictions is that they have a restriction to having more than one kitchen with full size appliances is sometimes jurisdictions or strict the second full size stove oven and therefore. So this redeler noted that specific definitions will be needed for various forms of accessory or strike the second full-size stove oven and therefore. Okay. So, um, where's that? The Sreadlander noted that specific definitions will be needed for various forms of accessory dwellings, including internal attached attached and conversions. Considerations that will be more applicable as certain accessory dwelling forms. Brooks, God, you're what's presented. So maybe there's an additional item for Miss Sreadlander. Um, another, um, like bullet point, There's an additional item for Miss Freelander. Another like bullet point. Miss Freelander noted that the city should review potential local code and or construction requirements that are barriers to ADU construction. Sorry, I should review. Potential local code and or construction requirements. Mobile code? Local code. Local, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Local code and or construction requirements that are barriers to ADU construction. Things like the sort of kitchen requirements that she mentions to ADU construction. Things like the sort of kitchen requirements that she mentions in her note here. And then I may have messed up our line, but she also said it line 293. There's a comment about her misread line requested studies from other cities on accessory dwelling's traffic impacts. And she says she wasn't concerned about traffic impacts as a result of implementing a new ADU policy, and as much as the impact of the number of cars that came with those ADUs, it should read, and this is her suggested at it, Miss Friedland have requested a study of the impacts on street parking. A study of the impacts on street parking. Or the number of cars that came with 80s. Instruct the rest. Yeah, and I think her revision that she emailed is a little longer, Yeah. And strike the rest. Yeah. And I think her revision that she emailed is a little longer, but for, I think that's clear. Yeah. And you could argue that traffic impacts encompasses that, but if that's a distinction she wants to make. Yeah. Isn't that what Arlington does? Yeah. Isn't that what Arlington does? Yeah. Yeah. I think that's fine. Okay. Any other changes? Madam Chair, I'm on a purely typographical. The ones that I noticed as I read through line 34, I think it's Chad Prince. I'm sorry. Price. It's Chad Price, I think, representing Mill Creek. I you spell it correctly later on. So I think that's just skip the end there. And then any reference to Founders Row should not include an apostrophe. I think it's just Founders Row 2. OK. That's relevant in that line. And then also in line 43, it may be elsewhere if you could just do universal search And make sure that's changed online 100 is far Marshall spelled with two Ls or just one I forget I think it's just one online One, on line 100. And there was one other I thought. But I don't know where it is. Did you say line 100? I did say line 100. Oh, fire marshal. Yeah, I think mars Marshall of that sort is, in the military sense, is just one and a half. Here, he was teacher would be proud. I channeling Mrs. Graff, my grammar teacher, Mrs. Hudson's, sorry, Miss Hudson. Yeah. I think the other thing that I saw was in some other document. It meant to say EDA and it said EDC, but I don't think that was in the minutes. Maybe Jack can find out where that is. Just make sure that that's corrected. If it's in the minutes, please correct it. Anyway, I move adoption of the minutes is corrected for the meeting of Wednesday, September 18th. Great. The second? So I can. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. One thing on the minutes is just the general thing. I just noticed Mr. Trinot on this set. This set sets fine we haven't uploaded minutes to the website since for a year state code says they got to be uploaded in seven days after we approve it so I don't know what happened over the last since last September but whatever needs to happen and staff to put them online. Okay I'll double check that just make sure I'm looking at where we have them and like I know it's like I see all the 2023 and then up through September of 23 and then it stops. Okay, so you came up right? Yeah. So you're so good about getting them done in a week. You are and the other places they were probably getting them done so we're so great about getting them done. Let's just upload it because technically it codes us seven days. Yeah and they're really really media. It reminded me of how media discussion that was that we had. So I appreciate the detail, the level of detail, the time and effort you put into creating these. Thank you. There's some talk at the state level about allowing boards and commissions to substitute digital video recordings to substitute for written minutes. It hasn't become law yet, but it could happen. But for now we still have required to have minutes. But at some point there may come a time where Mr. Trainor does not have to do that. The minutes could be digital. A digital recording could be substituted for written minutes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, most people want to know what we said are going to watch the meeting. But so that's another thing people should always keep in mind. Like it's good that we're very diligent and should be accurate if we're going to go through the trouble to type them up. But there's always the safeguard of the actual recording. But for now it is the law that we have to have them. And once we vote on them, they're supposed to be online in seven days. Great. Thank you for following up on that, Mr. Trainer. Appreciate it. OK. That was our last action item. We're running a little behind schedule. Sorry about that. But the media discussion that anticipated on the parking ordinance. No work session items, so I think up next is information items. And Mr. Fuller, I understand you're going to be sharing the. Yes, thank you. Oh, sorry. I just totally skipped over planning commissioners' reports. Yes, that's correct. Sorry. Does anybody have anything to report? I've just had one thing. There was a good session that was held up at the high school about a week or so ago. It was on sustainability and climate change. There were superintendents from schools throughout Northern Virginia. Anyway, at one point, Dr. Nune and mentioned that Sun Tribe, who was the contractor throughout North and Virginia. Anyway, at one point, Dr. Nuneh mentioned that Sun Tribe, who was the contractor for the solar panels on the high school, had a lot of heartburn over the permit fees, and that had they known what those fees were going to be, they would not have been on the job. I don't know what the details are, but it struck me as something that might be worthy of some discussion. I just off the top of my head. I don't think we would want permit fees to be stopping people from putting up solar panels. So there may be a lot more to the matter than what we were able to glean from that session but but it just caught my attention. So I thought I would mention it. Thanks for sharing that, Mr. Stevens. That's all I have. Anyone else? Reports? Nope. OK. Mr. Fuller, sorry. Oh, no, that's fine. That was part of the agenda for you guys. Under the Directors Report, I'll start off with the upcoming schedule. As you can see on the back of the agenda, for November, we have a number of items coming up on the fourth. So we have the Ysini Jewelry site plan, so they kind of went on hold for months and they resummeted in the last two weeks. So we're completing our review of that resubmission and we expect it to be in final form in order to be on your agenda in November. Also the Quinn site plan, that is in following the special exception approval. That would be a work session for you to be introduced to that. We're reviewing and making the determination there were some slight changes in the some of the use areas for instance loading was moved and so forth since the SE approval. So we're looking at those carefully as well in the context of the site plan and you'll see all of that so you'll see that determination as well as the new site plan. Also the utilities chapter of the comp plan you'll have a work session on that on the six. And then accessory dwellings, there'll be a draft code, and including, it was a work session. So you have a site plan in three work sessions scheduled for November six. That's a very busy meeting. I'm gonna say I'd be up to the chair, but that strikes me as being way too many things. Yeah. All right. I will mention things. Yeah. All right. I will mention that to Paul. Thank you. It looks like a senior is tentative. Then the following meeting two weeks later, on November 20th, we have a work session to introduce a new site plan. The 821 West Broad. It's a small site that's being redeveloped for Econoize Clause. And then we'd be the CIP kickoff, be a work session on that. And then the planning division calendar for the next year, the work program, we would have a work session to start discussion on that. And so maybe Paul and the chair can discuss if there's any November six work sessions that might move to the 20th. What is the 21? What's the 21 West Broad? What are they what are they proposing? It's it's the use that's down on Park Avenue that I know the use yeah, well anyway, they're they're moving there. It's an office building with a retail combination So is it new construction or is it they would remove the existing building and build new construction? They've come in and talked to us about the setbacks and the parking requirements because it's a tight site. It's quite a lot. And their current site I believe is on T. So I have a feeling we might be hearing something about their current site at some point in the near future then if they're vacating that site. Yeah. So those are scheduled then in December we have some items listed there in terms of work sessions and the end of the year survey. But anyway those are the following months. So yeah maybe the I'm not sure what the schedule is for the utilities chapter, but that strikes me as one that maybe could move from the sixth Some of the other sort of development ones. I know it can be on a tighter timeline Okay And and just as an additional item um just you know a maple and anndel special exception That uh has been resum. So that's our third submission. So everything seems to be in right now. So we're busy with all the applications. And so we'll be reviewing that currently and then T and that up to come back to the different bodies. And then eventually a referral from the council if that's their desire. So the plan is for us to have one work session, one work session on the Access Regwelling Draft Code. And then council would do first reading and then we would have an additional final work session in December. Yes, that's what's shown as the schedule. Okay. Yeah. in December? Yes, that's what's shown as the schedule. Okay. Yeah. So you had that on November 25th, Council would do first reading, then would have come back to you. And then the... Once is referred out to the board's incommissions. Then that the finals or public hearing would be in, I guess, some time in early 2025, maybe through. It would be, yeah, in the next year. Not on the calendar yet. Yeah, usually we try and schedule a minimum of two months for board commission reviews. Okay, thank you. Yeah, on that front, I think we'll have to see how things play out. We'll kind of feedback, you know, we get and we, you know, we don't want to take anything back. That feels rushed. So depending on how this work sessions go with council as well, I think we'll see how the accessory dwelling schedule pans out. Again, right now, action is still scheduled for February from council. But that might get pushed back later into the spring. Again, we'll kind of see how that plays out. I think the other thing to call out is the first January meeting is New Year's Day right now. So we, I think, wanted to see how the council the commission felt about adding a second meeting for January 22nd. So we could do our annual advance, or would that be a regular work session or regular? That would be the advance and administrative. We need a reorg meeting, right? We need our first meeting of the year. Yeah, Election of Officers is January 15th but when is the annual advance? Oh I see it. Yeah it is on the 22nd but that looks a rules of procedure remote participation policy, annual report, annual schedule meeting. So that January 22nd additional meeting would really be that, mostly that organizational meeting, but we would do election of officers on the 15th. Yeah. But the rest of the 15th meeting would be a regular, like, public hearing work session. Right. It's something I'm looking forward for the commission. I mean, I just would help with, like, sort of, planning. I think we should get it into the habit of, like, adopting a calendar of meetings for the whole year. Like we meet on regular days. I mean, I think, but like, for example, there are certain times where we look at an next year's calendar and we say, you know what, our normal custom is going to create these issues. Well, let's adjust it. Or we decide, you know what, we only want to meet once in August, we're going to do that. I think we should do that. I think we should adopt, I don't know what our bylaws say, but it's pretty common for boards and commissions to generally have a calendar and to adopt the dates. You know, that we should approve of us at a date so that we can look forward and then not be surprised. Not they were surprised. I think they have tries to keep merit to like, you know, at some point, at a part of a meeting we take 10 minutes, we look at next year's calendar, and we say, you know what, like, let's adjust it like this year, and let's meet on the second Wednesday or so. Hopefully avoid conflicts with religious holidays. Things like that, what they try to do anyway, but like, kind of as we're doing that the last minute, like, So I think we could easily figure that out if we look at the whole year. I don't know what the council does. Is there not going to be the council adopt a calendar for their meetings in advance? Yeah, I think they try to, but sometimes, the clerk certainly is well-schooled in all the religious holidays. More so than used to be the case. So those are usually blocked off early on. But did the council sometimes vote on a slate of a calendar? Like, you know, I don't think they vote on it. It's just, you know, they have the mayor's agenda meetings every Wednesday. And so sometimes, you know, like when the VML meeting coincides with a council meeting, oh well, I guess we need to count that. That's the difference they have that. That doesn't happen. The agenda meeting. That may not happen until you know a couple of weeks before everybody's off to VML. I think looking ahead at holiday conflicts can be helpful. We can play around here. We had Juneteenth I think this year too was a conflict right? Yeah and that way we can't look for that. But I'm a little reluctant to like sort of just say we only want one meeting in August because what if August ends up being a super busy in the two meetings? I drew that as an example. We could just adopt a calendar that has the meetings and then if we don't have enough to meet in the meeting in Cancel. Yeah, we could just adopt the normal calendar, but if our normal calendar, which is the second, what do we normally the second and the fourth? First and the third, first and the third? First weather Wednesdays. If we see how that lays out in a given year, we say, you know what, like for example, right, our first January meeting now, it's like there's on the holiday. Right. We could adjust it, you know, and say. And know that further and it may be. Yeah, I agree. So that that that month will meet, you know, on these Wednesdays. I don't know. There's some merit to that. this part of like just the typical end of the year. You usually do it like some point in the second half of the proceeding year. You adopt next year's calendar. I see Mr. Shatter to include is the first item for that organizational meeting, annual schedule of meetings. So maybe that's what's a trigger me to say. Yeah, maybe that he's already thinking that way. Maybe that's what we're gonna do. Yeah, that's what I thought about. So maybe that's what enthusiasm for an annual schedule meeting. Yeah, so the meeting on the 22nd actually running into that week, that's Martin Luther King and the inauguration holiday on Monday. Yeah. And it's a holiday. So, I don't know if that moves everybody else off, I guess we still, we still get Wednesdays, I suppose. We have first rides to Wednesdays, but Council, I would think, would meet on Tuesday of that if they meet it all. Which maybe they don't. So anyhow, well, yeah, I mean, normally it's kind of thing we would do before the year starts. Like it's talking about that, you know, already, you know, like, like, January already has a problem. So we're, you know, we're so, but anyhow, I guess it. Let's look like 18 months ahead is what I'll talk to Chairman Pointe as well and see it maybe in December week and talk about the 2020 calendar instead of doing it after the years already Begun or maybe even a little a couple months more into 2026 Yeah, well at least yeah, or at least one year at a time But I think yeah at a minimum we can start with that just an idea. It's a good one. Okay. Any other comments on the schedule? Questions? No, I guess not. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Crasner's comments. Mr. Trainers captured those for the January 22 to put the annual schedule of meetings on there. We can move that around as needed. So anyway, we've captured that so we'll plan on that. Yeah, I'm available. I'm fine to meet twice in that or move that January one meeting to that date. Everybody else, okay? Well Well we have time to revisit it but at least we've captured it on the upcoming things. Okay great. All right then moving to the other quick items on the director's report. The five year outlook we've completed that and provided to you a copy of that publication It's an annual one that as I stated and it looks at ongoing and upcoming projects as well as into the future and We you know captured the growth and housing and how that was tracking We also looked at the the number of small and large projects that are continuing with the development of small and large projects that are continuing with the development of the community. Then the public investment and intermodal transportation and green space, we highlighted that and then the ability to walk to grocery stores, we've been tracking that as well. And then population trends as well as car trips. We're using V.OT, perimeter city counts as well as city center counts, which are annual counts that the V.OT does and so we have that good history. And so we've provided that data as well. Are there any thoughts or comments on those, the five-year outlook? Madam Chair. Yeah. I just gave a quick look to it. I don't need to get the printed version jacked way through in more detail. I think that's the document though. As you said, it has the data right about how close we all are to grocery stores. Does that include the Whole Foods? It wasn't clear if we're just starting. No, not because it's not open yet. Okay, so that number will increase by a significant amount when Whole Foods comes online, which is going to happen before the end of the year. I mean, right, that's the idea. So I would just like to, I mean, I'd like to have that number be as up to date and whatever documents that we have online. And then of course, down sometime next year, maybe 2025, we'll have at least one other grocery and maybe optimistic to say too, but the West Falls fresh market, grocery also, anyway, just the flag was there to keep that number current and whatever communications that we have. Yeah, I mean, this is a five year outlook. So I'll make sure that those get captured as a future. Yeah, there's a dynamism to that fact. Yeah, I mean, certainly over the next five years, in the next five years, we will, we will reach something closer to that. I would hope 80 or 85% with the opening of the two extra groceries. And similarly, population, I've asked this before, but I'm not sure what triggers our population estimates, you know, outside of the census, the sinneal census, but that number also from 14-6 surely will go over 15,000 sometime maybe as soon as early, first or second quarter of 25, maybe a little longer than that. Sometimes during 2025 that number will cost 15,000. And then finally, the car trips data through VDOT's traffic count program is information that is widely either unknown or disbelieved by most people in the population. If I told them a representative sample of people that they're actually fewer people traveling through the city center on a big number by 23 percent. So I'm just suggesting that we make sure that the is somewhere where we can easily point people to it, whether it's online or in some document somewhere. But that's an important number because it measures the outcome of a lot of what we talk about here about walking and so forth, transit and such. Yeah, that was referenced in the planning report, the planning directors report, but there wasn't a additional attachment with that analysis, right? The traffic analysis? No, not at this time. But obviously that base data is available and we could provide that. Yeah, right. Yeah, it would be nice for posterity to be able to see those numbers. This is, I'm it's a shame, like you said, that Mr. Puntas isn't here tonight because this is the exact same finding that he had and published in the Fulcesters News Press. I think three years ago. Four years ago. So, where the city staff is confirming that that is, as much as it might not feel like it. And you know what this movie think about is that smart signal. Is that smart signal? Is that smart signal? Smart city? Yeah, that's sort of traffic light timing project. Because I feel like a lot of this is, I mean, I don't know, or maybe people are just getting into the habit of being on the road at those peak times and just having a lot of good work. It's getting past construction of all the big projects. And the construction is contributing, and that is a temporary thing. So maybe this will get better. Well, you know, one thought is further along. But I think the signal timing will also help a lot a lot that we can do. And then I think the other thing to think about is like you don't necessarily want people driving 30 or 40 miles an hour down Broad Street. You actually like the is, we're putting these stoplights in to create a more walkable environment that people feel safe crossing broad. So, you know, big picture, yes, we all may spend an extra two minutes in traffic to get from one end of the city to the other, but if that means that we can have a walkable welcoming community, I'm happy to spend those two minutes, you know, as a citizen, personally. So just big picture of thoughts. Sorry, I think we got off. You were in the middle of your report. No, I was asking if you had any thoughts or comments on the five-year outlook. So that was appropriate. Thank you. I really appreciate this document. It's just a really nice check-in. And I like how it walks through all the many. I'm just always continually surprised by how many projects our city staff is able to take on an accomplished, really complex projects. So I'm very grateful for that. Is this produced, did you say it was produced quarterly? Is that right? This is annually. It's annual. Yes. It's funny. I feel like we see it more often than annual. It's funny, I feel like we see it more often than annual. We have a quarterly report that we do for the department which tracks permits and site plans and other related things. So you're seeing that real-time quarterly and then you're getting this annual report that's more of a documentation of some of that but then a a real look ahead for five years. Yeah, yeah, it's great. Thank you. And I think Miss Arseneau, who produces this or takes the lead on, I'm sure it's a team effort. Yeah, I think it's both Zoe and... And Laura. Arseneau, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's really great. Please give them our compliments. All right. On the next item, we just wanted to just let you know that we've applied for technical assistance with VDOT for the Ready Set Go grant program with the Oak Street Elementary for the walk zone. And so it's really a target to get a grant in which we can then address the missing links in that vicinity of the elementary school. And so we just wanted to let you know that we were applying for that and hoping to get the ability to submit a grant and then do the construction and then you would probably see it in a CIP project at some future date. So any comments on that? All right. And then the last item was just. Actually, one question about it. Yes, at the end of the questionnaire that was on the document there was some question about you know if you get this money are you gonna apply for other money and our answer was maybe I just wondered is that maybe because we may not have the staff to apply for it or we don't think we'll need it or we don't think we'd get it or as opposed to yes or no, which just made me wonder why maybe. It's probably a combination of things where we may get the technical assistance and it's to apply for the grant and then whether we get full funding or some kind of matching, we'll have to see. I mean, grant usually means that, you know, it's all paid for. So we'll have to kind of see how it plays out. And so I think that's what it's kind of edging. Okay. All right. Well, I just, yeah, there's nothing we can do to make, maybe yes, if we get the money. I'm in favor. It's not like we're hard up for money. I mean, I know. There's always competition for the dollar, but this would be an important investment in the future. All right. Then just the last item was just to let you know on the planning library, we've updated that, updated the web page. And so if you go to that, you'll find everything's up to date. It's hard to keep it on a regular basis. So we made a real effort to kind of go back in and clean that up. And so there's some new navigation methods that you'll find a little easier to get around as well. So anyway, that was all the items I had to share with you on the director's report. Thank you. That was good. Thank you, Mr. Follett. Can I ask one crosswalk question of smaller, or smaller, or your plans? I'd sent Jack and out about the property deal at buyer, Volvo, and then I still haven't read anything about it because I don't subscribe to the Washington Business Journal. I guess there'll be some information on it, maybe in the news press online already, I don't know. At any rate, I just wondered whatever is happening there, what effect it'll have on the tap for the Gordon Road Triangle I know we are still proceeding on. Anybody know anything about any of that? I'll have to ask about that. I haven't read the news press article, but I did hear that that property has been sold. So we'll be looking into that and how that may That property has been sold. So yes. Okay. So we'll be looking into that and how that may involve other things. Okay, thank you. Not related necessarily, but I'm not a farmers market attendee generally, but some change has occurred in the parking for the farmers's market and the office buildings that are... Oh, I did hear about that. Yeah, that was in... ...or causing some... Is it working out or I don't get up that early on Saturday? What are people doing if they can't park? And either the park Avenue office building lot or the Folk Search Festival Center lot? Maybe they're parking at Kaiser. Well, that's actually why I ask. You know, that would be a good sign that people say we don't enough parking and it's just you've got to go find it. Didn't come up with Mr. Shields and one of his council reports. Yeah, it was either in the council meeting. I don't think they talked about it again. I think he said discussions were ongoing. Yeah, which means I don't know a lot. Anyway, parking, yes. People find their way somehow. Or, you know, we let people park in the city hall parking a lot and move the farmers market to some place that like park Avenue. Yeah. Something like that. Or some permanent home for the farmers market with. Yeah. So you should invest in if we're so keen on the farmers market. It's been a big success for the city. That's for sure. Anyway, thank you. All right. Any other questions for staff before I turn it back over for 8C correspondence to Mr. Trainer? No. Any other questions? All right. Well, thank you. I think we just have this one correspondence item and it's one that I actually shared. So I can. I don't know if you all had a chance to look at it. I'm continually not surprised, but pleased, I guess, at how bipartisan an issue sort of housing reform is. So this is an example from the Mercatus Center, kind of a list of strategies that localities can pursue to increase the availability of housing. I thought it was a good list and interesting to think about. And I like seeing these kinds of recommendations from both sides of the aisle. I think you're seeing more jurisdictions all the time adopting portions of that report. Yeah. This is quite a list. The even get into the single-stair building controversy. Oh, right. Yeah, that's actually. Frequently talked about on Twitter, single-stair buildings and how they'll solve all our problems. Yeah. So new buildings are required to have two stairways. And because of that requirement, buildings have to be constructed with these really long central hallways with units on either side. And then those units end up being kind of smaller, and they only have windows on one side and ventilation at one end. Whereas if you have a single stair building, my understanding is you can have more options with your layouts of the units. You can have windows sort of, you could have a breeze running all the way through, you can have more windows, you can have larger units. They allow it in Europe and they just get a lot more units. It's for fire safety. A lot more units. But our standards for fire safety here, I think are higher than they are. Well, they're out of date too. I mean, they're not. Yeah. So there's a war being waged on to staircase requirements. But anyway, yep. Take a look. That's it. Any other? So our next bite at affordable, sorry, accessory dwellings is November 6th. Is that right? And staff will have draft code. Right, well, so that's what I'm saying. We will have the benefit of at least knowing what the local election results are before that. Which could be indicative. That's right, though. We're working on the draft code. This is also sort of a updated draft recommendation so it's a fresh crack at what the actual language of the code will be but it also reflects the feedback that we heard from this commission and City Council and the public generally from the second two open house meetings. So it's an updated recommendation and with the benefit of seeing some of the technical code draft as well. So as the calendar falls does that mean that planning commission will see that draft code before the council will see it. I mean, formally. The same works are right after. I think council is scheduled for the fourth. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. I didn't look. So they see it on the fourth and we see it on the sixth. OK. Correct. And then, yeah, from there, we'll see how the schedule shakes out. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, from there we'll see how the schedule shakes out. Yeah, exactly. See what the world looks like. Great. Make it like. Move to the journey. Sal second. All in favor. Hi. Bye. Thank you all. Bye. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you