the meeting to order. It is a minute past seven o'clock so we'll go ahead and call this meeting of the Augs-Anter Planning Commission to order for Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024. We'll start by reading a few announcements here. I can find the right paper. Is it in the pile? Yeah. We need to make sure everybody knows. Thank you. Thank you. We need to make sure everybody knows how to connect with tonight's meeting. So let me read this. If you wish to speak on a DACA item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the sign up to speak hyperlink, present on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket, or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form, which can be found on either materials table located immediately outside the chambers or at the back of the chambers, and providing your completed form to Ms. Williams, who has her hand raised. Please note that comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker with the exception of applicants in their representation. To make your public comment through the Zoom application, please click on the raise hand button, located on the Zoom taskbar, when you hear your name called upon. In order to let staff know to unmute you, to make your public comment. To make your public comment. To make your public comment, if you're dialing into tonight's meeting via telephone, please press star nine to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name, followed by star six to toggle the unmute function. To make your public comment in person, please come up to either electron located at the front of the chambers when you hear your name called upon. Before starting your public comment, electronically or in person, please first identify yourself by first and last name. The city encourages and welcomes public comment from all residents on planning commission matters. In keeping with that principle and with the principle of inclusiveness, this is a reminder of the shared expectation that the content and the tender of public comments always be civil and respectful. Thank you for honoring those principles. We're a reminder to all including commissioner, staff, and speakers in the chamber to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all are able to hear in a clear manner. And with those announcements out of the way, I will turn to Ms. Williams to ask if we have any changes to tonight's agenda. Good evening Chair, my basic members of the planning commission. There are no changes to the agenda. Other than we will ask for deferral of the minutes, they are not ready. Okay, so which is fine and? Item number 12. So do we have a motion to defer consideration of the minutes from tonight's agenda? So moved. Second, we have a motion by Ms. Vienna, second by Mr. Canig to defer consideration minutes. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed motion carries. Six zero. All right. So that will take us to our consent calendar. So consent calendar items are adopted as a block unless there is a speaker who wishes to address any of the items on the agenda. There are five items numbers two through six on tonight's consent calendar. We do have a speaker form here from Ms. Puscar for item two. Did you want to pull that one from consent? I was preparing for Mr. Brown to pull it and I'm ready to speak. Okay. All right. Mr. Brown, did you want to poll number two? Were there any other items that members of the commission wanted to poll from consent this evening? Okay, so we'll poll number two and number five. And this is one last chance for any member of the public who wishes to speak to any of those items to stop us so that we don't adopt them on the consent. And seeing no concern, I would entertain a motion to adopt items 3, 4, and 6 on the consent calendar. I'll make a motion to adopt items 3, 4, and 6 on the consent calendar. Second. We get a motion by Ms. McMahon, a second by Mr. Canning to adopt those items on the consent calendar. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 6 to 0. So we will call item number 2. Item number 2 special use permit 2024-0061 915 Beverly Drive public hearing and consideration of a special use permit to construct a new single unit dwelling on a developed substandard law. Zoom or dash a presidential applicant owing a griffing represented by M Catherham Pascard attorney. Okay, Mr. Brown, you pulled this one. Do you need a staff presentation? No, I just have a question for the applicant. Can you turn your microphone on? I'm sorry. Do I understand correctly that one of the larger trees in the backyard that was slated for removal is actually gonna be saved? So for the record, my name is Kathy Pusker with Walsh Klugey here on behalf of the applicant. And yes, the engineer looked at tree 15, which is in the back of the property and has confirmed that we can preserve that tree and commit to do so on the record. That's good news to hear. I know that the folks in Northridge are always glad to hear about trees that can be saved in the redevelopment process. I will say that, you know, I looked carefully at this project. I think it's kind of close to the line, but on balance with some support from the neighbors, I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Okay. I have nothing for you. Okay, would you like to place a motion to close the public hearing and I would like to move to close the public hearing on this matter? And we can do it all in one motion if you'd like to recommend approval. To recommend approval of the application. Second. Okay, we've got a motion by Mr. Brown, second by Mr. Canning to close the public hearing and recommend approval of the SHP Any discussion of the motion If not all those in favor please say aye aye The opposed motion carries six to zero. Thank you. We will call number five Item number five subdivision number two oh-0013, 1, 2, 10, Janie Street Lane, public hearing and consideration of a subdivision with variations to re-supdify an existing lot into two lots, zone or dash 20 slash residential applicant SW Development Company Company represented by Duncan W. Blair attorney. Okay, Mr. Brown, you pulled this item would you like a staff presentation? No, I just have a question for Mr. Blair. Yes, sir. Mr. Blair, I am not a fan of creating substandard lots that are either too short or too narrow for the zone. And as a result, that brings you to question somewhat subjective standards about what constitutes the kind of hardship that mourns a variation. In this case, I would feel very bad if we approved narrow lots in the R20 zone, and then the applicant went turned around and asked for variance from the side yard requirements on the grounds that the lots are too narrow compared to the normal sized R20 zone lots. So I'm wondering if you're a client in consideration of the fact that he's been given the kind of special dispensation that comes with the approval of a variance would consider an exceptional condition of the property justifying a B.C.A. variance on the grounds that the lots that we are creating with this approval our narrow our to narrow. Good evening Duncan Blair, why are you? I understand your question now I did not really understand the question when it was a general issue that I heard this afternoon. My client does not have any intention of seeking a variance from the side yard to allow the buildings to be closer than the standard side yard. It is a function of the height of the building on the side. It's a, our 20 is a minimum, I think of eight feet, but there is also height to setback ratio, but he is not seeking, he will not seek a variance from the side yard setbacks. So are you willing to agree to that condition, I'd like to say that I would like to say that I would like to that it is the condition. I'm not splitting hairs, but from the staff was pretty clear on what its belief was, an imposing that I'm kind of the cheese in the middle and the farmer in the del. We will make a representation that my client is not going to make a seek of variance from a side yard, the side yard, setback requirement. And I think under the code of representation essentially serves the same purpose as a condition, but I'll defer to the city attorney. Well, we're not going to get, I don't want to get into the legalities. Mr. Blair, I was just asking for you. My client will not object to a condition. My own personal view on the legalities is that there is no realistic constraint in any prior court decision that would require us to ignore the fact that we are creating substandard with lots in approving the subdivision and making sure that people didn't take advantage of that fact. My client would not oppose the acquisition of such a condition. On the basis of that, I move to close the hearing and recommend approval of the application. Okay, so we've got a motion. Second. And a motion by Mr. Brown to close the public hearing and recommend approval of the application for the special use permit, second by Ms. McMahon. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. 7-0. I'm running for the record that. Ms. Liles, right. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I commend, I know there's been a lot of discussion of substantial injustice. I commend to the commission to read the staff report from 2010. Mr. Brown was here, was written also by Mr. Dunn, it's a very thorough analysis of what was meant by substantial injustice at the time the term was added. I think it will help inform all the commissions at least what the intent was in 2010. Okay. Thank you very much. We will call item number seven. Item number seven, rezoning 2024-00003, development special use permit, 2024-1000015, Silverado, Alexandria, Memory Care, 2807 King Street, Porsal Address, 2811 King Street, Public Hearing and Consideration of an amendment to the official zoning map to revise an existing proffer and to amend approved development special use permit, 2021-005, to allow for an increase in the number of beds and minor revisions to the open space, at an existing continuum of care facility, and the committee. We have a staff presentation on the item. Good evening, Chair Macyk and members of the planning commission. My name is Alexa Powell and I am an urban planner with planning and zoning. Development division. I'm here tonight to present our committee. We have a staff presentation on the item. Good evening, Chair Macyk and members of the planning commission. My name is Alexa Powell and I am an urban planner with Planning and Zoning Development Division. I'm here tonight to present a request from Silverado Memory Care. Approved in 2015 and opened in 2018, the site at 2807 King Street is an existing three-story continuum of care facility, which is approximately 74,000 square feet with a below-grade parking garage. Other institutional uses surround the subject property, including Ivy Hill Cemetery, would buy nursing home and a church across the street. The applicant is pursuing two separate approvals with the development special use permit amendment. The applicant is requesting to amend a condition of the previous DSUP to increase the maximum number of residents allowed from 66 to 90, an increase of 24 residents or 36%. They're also adding beds, other minor interior changes, but the building will not expand, and the applicant is proposing open space improvements, including expanding the fence garden area in front of the building, as well as landscaping elements at the front and rear of the site. With the rezoning request, the existing proper language would be revised to change the plan referenced in the proposed DSU PM amendment to reflect this increased bed count. Refer to the use in the proper language as continuum of care facility instead of the previously used nursing home. As far as community benefits, Silverado's proposal creatively utilizes existing space while providing more housing options for seniors requiring higher levels of care. Companion rooms with double occupancy offer more cost effective alternatives to private rooms and benefit the community by expanding housing choices. This proposal includes the addition of an affordable bed for a total of three onsite affordable beds, which aligns the goals of the Housing Master Plan and the city's age-friendly plans by providing a less expensive option for assisted living and increasing the available bed capacity in the community for this type of care. The applicant is also reconfiguring their patio to provide more outdoor spaces for residents, including increasing landscaping along King Street. The applicant discussed the proposal with the community on several occasions, including outreach to the Taylor Run and Rosemont Civic Associations. The Taylor Run Civic Association wrote to express their appreciation for the applicant's community engagement and had no concerns or opposition to the proposal and generally supported the applicant's mission to provide elder care. The applicant also met with the commission on aging in September. Major topics included affordability, safety and supervision. members strongly encouraged the applicant to provide an additional affordable bed, and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to include this in their proposal as indicated in amended condition number 32. Silverado hosted several meetings to discuss the proposed changes with residents' families. And as a follow-up to a letter we received, staff also met with residents' families at the site in late November. The concerns reiterated at the site visit and in the letter are safety, staffing, crowding, parking, and pedestrian safety. Staff believes several of these concerns are sufficiently addressed by the State Department of Social Services Review. In coordination with the applicant and TNES, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute $20,000 to the city for the design and construction of a pedestrian improvement, including the installation of a median, crosswalk, and activated beacon to address residents' family's concerns. To date, we have received several letters of support for this proposal from medical professionals throughout the country employed by Silverado, independent experts, as well as testimonials from family members of residents from other Silverado facilities. There have also been letters expressing opposition or concern for reasons similar to those stated by residents' families. You may hear from several speakers about these concerns tonight. The proposal continues to be consistent with the Northridge Rosemont Small Area Plan, the Housing Master Plan, and the city's age-friendly plans. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions contained in the staff report, and we are available for any questions you may have. Any questions for staff on this application. All right, if there are none, then we will move to our Public hearing on this. We do have, let's see, about 16 speakers signed up for this. So let me call the first few in order who will speak, and then We'll hear from speakers one by one. So we'll start with Thomas Neal Thomas, Paul Cooper, Karen Rosalas, Stephen Graham, Scott Planting, Paul McFarlane, Ruth Reader, Tom Reader, David Troxel, Richard Shope, Barry Thomas, Vivek Sinha, Jeff from Lauren Shook, Sean Hanson, and Kathy Puscar. I'll be happy to be applicant. And I'll call those names again in a shorter list as we go. But we'll start with Thomas Nealtamus. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Tom Thomas. In the first of nine Silverado family members who would like to speak about their concerns of this proposal. Two points off front. Silverado is giving excellent care to our loved ones. However, all of us have great concerns about the proposal and what it creates in terms of negative effects in the future for our loved ones. Among these concerns, personal safety, crowding in the common areas, quality of care, and the increase in already existing shortage of parking and the uncertainty of its availability. Memory care is complicated. There are several diseases that cause memory loss and they exhibit different symptoms as the disease progresses. The diseases include Alzheimer's, Louis body, FTD, Parkinson, and several more. The dementia sufferer may experience anxiety, paranoia, delusions, changes of personality, a loss of ability to communicate, and temper changes. Many times these changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly. Currently there appears to be no official designation that appropriately captures the unique needs for a memory care facility. We feel it's not a nursing home, and it's not a continuum of care facility. I know our families are very pleased with Silverado and the dedicated people we depend upon, but it still takes a considerable family involvement working with the staff to make this all come together. We have many members of our Silverado family here tonight because they share the concerns that our speakers are going to express. And I would like to ask the family members, Silverado family members to stand up. In this group, one wife's husband has Parkinson's. Another person's wife has Louis body. Another wife's husband has FTD, and my wife has Alzheimer's. So you can see there's a large mix of diseases at Silverado. And I want to say that Silverado staff does a great job dealing with them all. My wife has been in Silverado for four years, and I'm concerned about her personal safety. Resulting from this increased population density from 66 to 90 residents. Silverado rooms were built for one person. There is not room for two mentally impaired people to share a room unsupervised for eight to ten hours a day at night. Just weeks ago we learned of a tragic killing of a memory care facility where one resident killed his roommate. While this tragedy is considered rare, conflicts between residents are not. To convert to a double occupancy, unnecessarily increases risk to our loved ones. Sir, your time has expired. Could I ask you to wrap up, please? Currently, Silverado has a great policy that keeps the residents out of their rooms from breakfast until bedtime. This means that during that day, our family members are under caregiver observation and get to participate and stimulate an activity's appropriate for their capability level. I guess if you want me to wrap up, I've got one more page of stuff. So. We have three minutes per speaker. So appreciate your comments. And we do have your written testimony as well. So we do have additional detail. So thank you. Okay. So I'll call Paul Cooper and then Karen Rosales and Stephen Graham. Thank you commission and I'm happy to be here. My name is Paul Cooper. My wife, Victoria and I have been Alexandria residents for over 20 years. She's been in Silverado for about three years. She is an advanced stage of Alzheimer's. She can't dress herself. She can't undress herself. She can't feed herself. She can't walk, talk intelligibly. She is unpredictable, cannot protect herself, and is incontinent. She is unable to respond to any stimulus at any level. I'm providing my comments based on my own observations during my daily visits of four or so hours and on published research. I'm speaking against the population expansion for the following reasons. Research indicates that expanded population environments can exacerbate behavioral issues and residents with dementia or Alzheimer's. Studies have shown that residents in more crowded settings exhibit increased levels of agitation, aggression and anxiety. A recent incident in California, a California facility with double rooms resulted in the death of one of the roommates. A study published in the Journal of Aging and Social Policy found that high resident to staff, ratios, and expanded populations correlate with lower quality care. Care givers in expanded population facilities often report feeling overwhelmed which limits their ability to provide individualized attention, utilizing what is termed the best friends approach and care. Expanded populations not only affect residents, but also lead to higher rates of burnout among staff. A study in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry concluded that inadequate staffing and memory care settings due to expanded populations contribute to increased turnover rates among caregivers negatively impacting the continuity of care. Research has also shown expanded population can compromise safety and memory care facilities. Wider paths, fewer residents can help prevent falls and accidents. If you were to tour the third floor today at Silverado you would see three new bruised faces from falls that residents have taken in the current situation. Several researchers appointed out that expanded populations often lead to violations of regulatory standards at dictate minimum space requirements care to resident caregiver to resident ratios. In addition to additional residents in the common areas, is that the time? Yeah, please wrap up your comments, please. All right. My own observations and published research point to expand the populations and memory care facilities create significant negative effects on residents, caregivers, and families. Memory care is a subject that most people don't know anything about until you have to know everything about it. We can't know that that's why we're appealing and relying on you to protect your constituents and reject this request. Thank you, thank you very much. Karen Rosales, followed by Stephen Graham and Scott Planting. Good evening, I'm gonna try and nail this three minutes here for you. Okay, Karen Rosales, caregiver for my 82 year old mother who's been living in Silverado for three years. Good evening. I'm going to try and nail this three minutes here for you. Okay. Karen Rosales, caregiver for my 82-year-old mother who's been living in Silverado for three years. I am opposed to the proposed amendment for expansion. My mom has experienced life on all three floors of Silverado. The first floor is designed for the highly functioning memory impaired. The residents are mobile. They engage. They socialize. They engaged, they socialized, however, they still operate with fear, paranoia, aggression, anxiety, as did my mother. To the outside, I, my mother looked great. You know, jovial, talkative, well-adjusted. Inside her brain, her demons were raging, right? She was operating with conspiracy theories, fear, paranoia, et cetera. One day, while she was living on the first floor after about six months at Silverado, a resident entered her room. My mother mistook her for a man, thought she was about to be assaulted and shoved her hard. The woman went to the hospital, ended up in intensive care, and my family lived in fear for a year, for a couple weeks. You can imagine what we thought the downstream implications might be. Legal implications against us and my mother, the fate of the woman who was hurt, etc. Fortunately it all worked out. My mother a year later moved to the second floor. Second floor is where there are more behavioral issues, Tempers Flair, frequent altercations. Not because of the care that the staff is providing as Tom said, we're all very happy with that. I love the staff at Silverado. They do a great job. I particularly appreciate Katie's leadership. I mean, Angela's leadership. I appreciate Angela. But on the second floor, the residents have to be coistered to manage the volume of residents and the volume of issues. My mother one day was trying to seek that coistered environment and go to her room for arrest. She wandered into the wrong room, found a defenseless older woman sleeping in what my mother thought was her bed. And my mother began to beat the crap out of her. The resident's eventually, the staff eventually came running and was able to separate the two people, but not before my mother landed some really serious punches. Again, my family was very worried about what the downstream impacts could have been to us. I share this with you because these stories really illustrate the stark reality of proximity, proximity breeds conflict in lots of things in life but particularly in memory care. I think that if the issue, if the amendment is passed without fully considering the other objections that have been raised here tonight, it's going to exacerbate issues that already exist. I want to thank the commission for listening to all of us tonight. We've been very thoughtful with our comments. We are not contentious. We are not overly emotional. We are thoughtful, educated people who have put our comments together, and we appreciate your audience this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Just Stephen Graham Scott planting and Paul Muffarlin. Who's got the clock up there? Who's got the clock? Okay. You got it? Let's see if we can match up here. I'm Stephen Graham. I live in owner home in Alexandria. My wife, Gerald Lynn, has dementia and is a memory care resident in Silverado, Alexandria. Silverado is a tremendous facility. The staff is extremely capable. There's been a good dialogue among Silverado, Alexandria, Planning, Commission Chair, Nathan, and the staff. And Silverado family members regarding the proposed expansion are likely to address some parking concerns. I've got seven points. Could I ask you to just speak into the microphone a little more? I have seven points. Thank you. It's much more? I have seven points. Thank you. It's much better. I have seven points. There's not sufficient parking and a need for additional parking in Silverado. Currently, there are 33 parking spaces for 66 residents. The proposal expands the number of residents to 90, but there is, quote, no increase in number of units, unquote, at Silverado. As a result of the no increase in number of units, there will be no additional parking spaces required. And due to the proposal, quote, it meets the parking requirement set forth in the zoning ordinance of a 66 unit continuum of care building, which is kind of a cute way of getting around. It's like stadiums when they say they have enough restrooms and everybody sees lines outside of restrooms. They check the box, but it's overcrowding. This expansion will result in additional staff visor density aids, associate services. Currently Silverado staff is 90 people, with 90 residents, that's 180 for 33 parking spots. Conservatively with part time people, it could be 140, but things could go wrong. Silverado is a private company. From what can be determined, Silverado generates revenues between five and 600 million. The CFO provides himself on key performance indicators to increase profit margins and occupancy. All good business analytics, but alarming when considering individuals with dementia. Currently, Silverado has an informal agreement with the church across the street. That's valuable property. And that church could be sold at any time, which is why we think there's no formal agreement. Crossing King Street is dangerous. From what I understand, there is discussions going on. We're so right on the city of Alexandria to install flashing pedestrian crossing, but families have heard that for years. Most communities have concerns when an entity wants to expand. There have been reports of surveys. No one in our group has ever seen a survey. We would like the planning commission to use common sense as opposed to checking the box when considering how this additional density and activity makes sense. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. additional, additional density and activity makes sense. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Scott Planting, fellow Di Paul McFarland and Ruth Reader. My name is Scott Planting. I live on East Oak Street in the city of Alexandria. My wife, Marsha, who is 74 years old, has been a resident at Silverado Memory Care for two years. She lives on the second floor. Marsha suffers from late-stage Alzheimer's disease. My family and I have been well pleased with the level of care my wife receives from the caregiving staff, nursing staff, and the administration. I'm speaking in opposition to Silverado's application because of the impact of double rooms on staffing. I understand the only mention of staffing in the application is the number of personnel expected 60 full time employees and 30 part time employees. I have two concerns. for a personnel expected 60 full-time employees and 30 part-time employees. I have two concerns. First of all, the care for residents. Let me describe you life on the second floor at Silverado. Under current single occupancy, there are 22 rooms on the second floor. Of the 22 residents about a quarter are ambulatory. The remaining residents are either wheelchair-bound or need assistance. The majority of second floor residents spend their day in the common seating area across the dining room. The seating area is fully occupied by residents, caregivers, support staff, visitors, and family. There is one bathroom across the hallway from the sitting area. Care givers spend much of their staff of their shifts assisting residents in toileting. Several require mechanical lists. The second seating area 240 is located a distance away down the hall. And that's typically occupied by fewer residents. These residents prefer to need the less occupied space because they can become agitated by living conditions in the more crowded seating area. There's no bathroom near this seating area and usually no caregiver is assigned to watch over residents preferring this less crowded area. My concern about adding ten residents to the second floor is increased congestion in both seating areas, leading to resident agitation requiring greater staff attention, especially in toileting 32 residents. Number two, overnight staffing residents spend most of their day in the common seating area. The only time residents occupy their rooms is overnight. Many of the ambulatory residents, like my my wife spend much of the night wandering around, and that requires additional staff attention. It doesn't take much to set off the agitated behavior with second floor residents. During the regular residents regularly need to be physically restrained, they need space. If residents are confined to double occupancy rooms overnight, I am concerned about behaviors resulting in two unsupervised, mentally impaired people living in close proximity, where paranoia, anxiety, confusion, and inability to communicate exist. As we've heard, we've learned about the killing of a resident by his roommate in a double room at a Silverado facility in Thousand Oaks, California. Overnight, double occupancy will require increased staff supervision of Silverado residents to avoid the risk to vulnerable people. Tonight, you are hearing concerns expressed by Silverado residents' family members about the impact of increased occupancy. Double occupancy is going to exponentially impact the demands of nursing caregiving and support staff and the quality of life for residents. I encourage you to decline the Silverado application to increase occupancy. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next Paul McFarland, followed by Ruth Reader and Tom Reader. Good evening. My name is Paul McFalland. I lived in Springfield 33 years. My wife Sarah is a member of Silverado, Alexandria. It has been a resident for over a thousand days. During that time, her condition has considerably worsened though she is now in the late stage of Alzheimer's. She cannot communicate, amulet, get in and out of bed, or sit without assistance. Her disabilities are the result of that disease. I would say that Sarah's condition is not significantly different than most of the 44 residents on the second and third floor of the facility. Unlike most of the first floor residents, whose dementia has not worsened to this state yet, I am opposed to any increase in resident capacity. Others have expressed their opposition due to crowding, lack of parking and safety due to the potential increase of residents. I concur and support all those rationale for not expanding capacity. My opposition focuses on the near impossible task of evacuating these current residents. Because of the large number of wheelchair bound and walking impaired residents on the second and third floor, none of whom have demonstrated any capability to descend one or two flights of steps. Their evacuation in an emergency will be extremely challenging. Assisted living communities of which Silverado, Alexandria, is one house over 800,000 older adults nationwide. While similar to nursing homes, assisted living facilities are less regulated than nursing homes in terms of emergency preparedness. A center for gerontology and healthcare research study conducted five years ago states of acuation problems in assisted living facilities. Primarily stem from the needs of elderly residents with potential mobility, mobility issues, cognitive impairments and complex medical needs, which can make moving them quickly and safely during an emergency, very challenging. At Silverado, Alexandria, there was a single stairwell at each end of the building, and small elevators, which may not be operable in a fire emergency. The vast preponderance of these top two floors will need to be evacuated by a fireman's carry technique. The golden rule of fire safety is get out, stay out, and call for help. Individuals need to immediately and safely evacuate the building using the nearest safe exit. At Silverado, Alexandria, there is no safe exit for Sarah. Increasing the capacity by nearly 50% will compound and already challenging Endeavour. I ask you to not approve this request for expansion. Mr. Chair, thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next is Ruth Reader. I am Ruth Reader. Good evening. I have lived in Alexandria for 37. Could you adjust the microphone? Yep. It's good. Too loud? Perfect. OK. All right., too loud. Perfect. OK. All right. So I am a resident. I've been here for 37 years. I worked for the Office of Historic Alexandria for 25 of those years. And my mother, Joel Fenzie, lived the last four years and three months of her life at Silverado. Before her death, three weeks ago ago at the age of 97. I calculate that I have spent about 600 hours with her at Silverado, mostly in the mornings and before and during lunch, and almost exclusively in the common areas. We started off on the first floor, moved to the second against my will, and spent the last two years of her life, mostly confined to the third floor. Her compassionate care during the last week of her life was exceptional. But I can't imagine what it would have been like in a shared room with a roommate roommate and no place for family and friends to gather in peace. One group not mentioned in this report is us. We are the most vital link to ensuring the best quality of life we can muster for our loved ones. We are the families, the friends, the private caregivers, and the hospice nurses who are daily, who on a daily basis assist with feeding and caregiving, thus freeing up the Silverado staff to tend for other residents in need. Our presence in our time onsite is recorded daily in the visitor's log to front of the desk. Adding additional residents would increase our numbers and the demand for additional parking, which is already sorely lacking. I've seen a lot during COVID, I helped change and care for my mom when there was a staff shortage. Mom and I have had to shelter in place when a resident became violent. And we had to wait behind a locked door until told it was safe to come out. As an eyewitness to my mother's experience, I can tell you that overcrowding will adversely affect the quality of life and care on the second and third floors. Condition for approval for the original SUP clearly states their maximum number of residents shall be limited to 66, and the applicant must locate a minimum of 33 parking spaces. Adding 24 more residents is the equivalent of adding 20 more units, which would violate the intent of the parking requirement. And I think my last comment, I think the only facility that will benefit from this is Silverado, Alexandria, Prop Co, LLC. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Tom Reader, followed by David Truxel and Richard Schoep. Good evening. I'm Tom Reader and I am Ruth Spouse and I associate myself with all her comments. Otherwise, it would be tough tonight. I've lived in Alexandria for 37 years as well. And I am a member of the Alexandria Commission on Aging and I will speak as a member, but not on behalf of the committee or on behalf of any other member. Because there is something that I found disturbing in the staff report and in the presentation this evening that referred to the strategic plan on aging. There's a lot of talk about that and there's actually a quote from the strategic plan on aging. There's a lot of talk about that and there's actually a quote from the strategic plan on aging and I'm here to say that that is something that is no longer in effect. That's been replaced by the age friendly plan and that was replaced in 2018 by the age friendly plan. The quote that's in the staff report says that we need more beds in Alexandria. Well, the strategic plan on aging was drafted in 2012 when it was drafted. There were five continuing care facilities with a little over 250 beds in Alexandria. Now, according to the State Department of Social Services, there are over 10 facilities with over 1,000 beds. So what the age-friendly plan does is it says, we don't, it doesn't say we don't need more beds, it needs, it says we need more affordable beds. There is nothing at Silverado past, present, or proposed that's affordable. We, at the time of my mother-in-law's death, we were paying $200,000 a year. Okay? So even their generous 40% discount doesn't make that affordable. And that number is 188% of area median income. And there's a lot of talk about increased affordability and cost effectiveness of shared rooms. There's nothing in the report, there's nothing in the proposal that concretely says what the discount said, what the discounted. We've been told that it's about $2,000 a month discount. That's $2,000, that's $24,000 off of a $200,000 bill. That's $24,000 off of a $200,000 bill. That's not affordable. That's still way over area median income. And to their credit, Silverado has proposed, as agreed to, one more 40% discount. Even a 40% discount from $200,000 a year is not affordable. So I urge you to take that in consideration if you believe that this proposal is consistent with the age-friendly plan, which is not. Thank you. Next up is David Truxel, followed by Richard Schoke and Mary Thomas. Good evening. I'm David Truxel. I work in the field of dementia care. I'm a consultant. I also do a lot of writing and work on staff training and program development. I've also am a family member. My mother-in-law lived in memory care for four years. My own mother lived in memory care, actually in a shared room in Sacramento for three years. I'll just really quickly comment saying that I just blend out acknowledge the families, their wonderful heart-thoubbing marks and appreciate their involvement in this issue. My role today, I think, is to share with you a little bit about Silverado's reputation and model of care in the industry. Memory care, I'm sure, are where is growing in every community. There are dozens where I live in Sacramento. There's one area where there are three neighborhoods, memory care neighborhoods, or communities in one block. What I'd like to share with you is that Silverado enjoys an excellent reputation in the industry. They do things differently. Their shared model is not the model that everyone does, but what they do, which I think is so successful, is they have much better staffing models than many of their competitors. They have excellent activity programming, music therapy. There are many communities in this industry where even for 66 residents they might not have an activity person on a Sunday. They may not have more than one and a half people. They have very limited music, music budgets and art therapy budgets. Silverado is known for putting boots on the ground, having well-trained staff, and creating a program where we don't want the residents to be out in their rooms all day where we want them to be in a common space. I'll just share with you quickly in terms of the area, the issue of common space and square footage. As I do my rough math currently, the residents have about 1000 square feet per resident in the community in terms of just the common space. Again, I have visited many communities with 60 or 70 residents that just have one activity room, one dining room, and a small kind of private area. Even with the new proposed numbers, as I see it, they'll be about 650 or 700 square foot per resident. So in terms of creating a therapeutic healing environment, you want to have well-trained staff. I serve as a member of Alzheimer's disease and our nationals accreditation panel. Again, I'm not representing them formally tonight, but Silverado is the only US company that has a accreditation for their staff training. So they have shown excellence in staff training, excellence in programming, the contemporary treatment for Alzheimer's disease, socialization and engagement. We know that memory care is tough. It's a tough business to really provide care, but what I've been impressed with by own work in seeing Silverado, I don't work for them, is that they are very much focused on person-centered care planning. I think they will have the ability to care plan to be sure that each of the residents is benefiting from their model of care. Also as a family member, not paying quite $200,000 a year, but almost that figure. I will say that as I understand it from the company that savings are about $27,000 a year, that is still very significant to many of us as family members. So I do speak in support of the proposal and believe that they will be able to create this therapeutic positive environment for their residents. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have Richard Schoep, Mary Thomas and Vivek Sinha. Good evening for the record. My name is Richard Schoep. I've come today from California in support of this request. My wife Pat currently resides at Silverado Escondito in California. Prior to Silverado, she resided in another memory care community that was a single room configuration. And during her occupancy there, I saw her mental health and her physical health decline because of a lack of interaction with staff and other residents. I also noticed that she was losing her basic life skills as well. In going to Silverado Escondito after approximately a two-month acclamation period, staff there came to me and offered me the choice, the choice to go into a shared room configuration if I chose to do so. I initially resisted. I said, no, I don't want that. I want a private room. And then I got to thinking, what's wrong with me? This is not about me. It's about her. And I know where she had been, and I knew the experiences that she had had. So I went back and said, I'll consider it. And they said, let's do a partnership. You help us tell us what kind of person Pat would best room with. And I did. we made it happen and it was, the results were tremendously positive in every area from her increased happiness to her appetite that returned and she gained back weight, she lost over a six year period. Her just complete quality of life improved and I do believe it was from the companionship that gave her that sense of comfort, that gave her a sense of familiarity, of normality. And by the way, normality, that's really huge. And that's what Silverado excels at is creating a naturalization process for those people to live the rest of their lives dealing with this terrible disease. The roommates connect with each other both in verbal ways and in nonverbal ways. But guess what? The families of those roommates bond together as well. And we support each other. And we give each other the encouragement, the suggestions, the guidance, the help, the feelings of togetherness, not loneliness, or isolation, to where we can help navigate our loved ones through this terrible journey. So I respectfully request your approval of this application today and ask that you please allow other families the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful Silverado community and the benefits that it has to offer for them as they deal with this terrible, terrible disease. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mary Thomas, followed by Vivek Sinha and Jeff Frum. I'm going to go to the next floor. Here is my wife. She's not here. I think we'll let that. Okay. Let's finish my briefing. We can only allow one turn at the mic per person. We'll go to VVex and half. I'll be Jeff from and Lauren should. Good evening. Thank you for your time today and allowing me to speak on behalf of the Silverado Alexandria Memory Care Community. My name is Dr. Vivek Sinhan. I'm a board certified family medicine physician with 18 years of clinical patient care experience. I would like to acknowledge and honor and thank all the family members that have spoken here today. As an Alexandria resident since 2008, I've had close professional ties to the city of Alexandria. I've had the opportunity to work with various facets within the city, including serving as position advisor to the Alexandria City Public School System and as medical director to the Fairfax County Public School System. As a physician, I work very closely with Alexandria City adult protective services in performing capacity evaluations and well-being medical exams throughout the county. I witnessed the difficulty that families in our area face when trying to find appropriate caring, compassionate, and most of all safe placement for the loved ones with dementia. For the past five years, I've had the honor of serving as Silverado Alexandria Medical Director. During this time, I've seen firsthand the world class care that was provided to our most vulnerable population. Over the years, I have overseen numerous patients as we have assisted them and their families as a transition to living at Silverado, Alexandria. Overwhelmingly, I have seen the relief on family's faces when they realize that their loved ones are now safe as they enter this new chapter in their lives. This is an emotional time for all. As a medical provider of patients of dementia, there are several responsibilities that we must uphold. We must ensure that one's dignity and humanity are kept intact. We must ensure that at every step, every treatment option we prescribe should be towards enhancing the resident and patients' quality of life. We must ensure that as much as possible, one's autonomy is honored and one's wishes are followed. I can proudly say that I truly believe the staff and providers at Silverado Alexandria take these responsibilities seriously. By allowing for an increase in the number of beds at Silverado Alexandria, I believe that the Alexandria community at large will benefit. There are multiple reasons as to why I feel this will be beneficial. Research and experience show that isolation can accelerate cognitive decline in individuals with dementia. Companion rooms can reduce isolation decline in individuals with dementia. Companion rooms can reduce isolation and provide residents with essential social interaction. Individuals with cognitive impairment can experience isolation and induce depression. Having a roommate offers companionship and provides someone to share meals with and attend activities with. Companion rooms provide an affordable high-quality care option, making specialized memory care accessible to more families and enabling them to benefit from Silverado's holistic care method. One question that must be answered is how will companion room residents be selected? This responsibility will be primarily addressed by the director of resident of family services, a role that is typically filled by a social worker or a gerontologist. Together with the leadership team, they will match residents utilizing several parameters in determining the best fit. This process will be fluid and frequent and require re-evaluation to ensure that the best possible matches are in the same room. In closing, I'd like to say how proud I am of how senior-friendly the city of Alexandria is. It is my hope that by proving the sped expansion, the city will continue to move in the direction of caring for all of our seniors and allow Silverado Alexandria memory care, the ability to extend these proven clinical benefits to more residents, thereby enhancing their quality of life and health outcomes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Jeff from followed by Lauren Schuch, Sean Hanson, and Kathy Puscar. Thank you. My name is Jeff Frum, followed by Lauren Schuch, Sean Hanson, and Kathy Puscar. Thank you. My name is Jeff Frum. I'm employed by Silverado and also a family member as well. I am here in support of the proposal to expand the bed count at Silverado, at Silverado, Alexandria. Six months ago, my siblings and I made the decision to move our dad into Silverado Memory Care in Thousand Oaks, California. This decision was life changing for him and for our family. Before Silverado, my father's health was deteriorating in isolation at home. Over nine months, ten trips to the emergency room. His last fall resulted in a 12-day hospital stay and he was in tough shape. When we discharged him, he was frail and disoriented. Within just three days at Silverado, he was cleaned up, engaged, and even went out on the Silverado bust with fellow residents for tacos at a local restaurant. My transformation, my family calls the Silverado Magic. Earlier today, I visited Silverado Alexandria, and while the two communities differ in structure, I experienced the same magic here in Alexandria as I did in California. Silverado's model of care is centered on meaningful connections supported by research-based understanding of dementia. Since moving to Silverado, my dad has re-engaged in life, benefiting from daily interactions with staff and residents and participating in physical therapy five days a week. Compendium rooms in particular offer unique advantages. From my father who was married to mom for 60 years before she passed, a companion of rides continuity and comfort. Silverado's team has built trust with our family, ensuring that each decision, like his transition to a shared room, is in his best interest. For many families, companion rooms also offer a more affordable option while maintaining access to the same high quality care. It's worth noting that Silverado Alexandria has been at a 100% occupancy for over 18 months, highlighting the significant demand for their services. Expanding the bed count would allow many more families to access this critical care and experience the hope and support Silverado provides. While there was a tragic isolated incident at our community at Silverado 1000 Oaks, families in our community never doubted the quality of care. In fact, this past Thanksgiving, we all came together to express our deep gratitude for the staff's dedication and the difference they make in our loved ones' lives. In fact, 1000 Oaks tomorrow has a new resident moving into a companion room. I firmly believe the benefits of companion rooms far outweigh any remote risks. My father is currently awaiting a roommate. And my family is full confidence that Silverado's team will carefully match him with someone who will enrich his quality of life. By approving this bed expansion, you will give more families the opportunity to find support and care they desperately need. Thank you for considering this proposal. Thank you. Let's see. It's how Lauren. Sir, your name? Lauren Scho. Lauren Scho. Okay, just trying to keep track of where I am. So Lauren Scho. Followed byoek. Okay. I'm just trying to keep track of where I am. So Lauren Schoek followed by Sean Hanson and Kathy Poscar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am Lauren Schoek, the president and CEO, co-founder of Silverado. I want to start by thanking our families for their avid commitment to the quality of care provided by our staff at our Silverado Alexandria community, we're very proud of what our staff does. I found it the company 28 years ago with Steve Winner and Jim Smith, my co-founders, and we started with a hundred-bed community in Escondito, California, which has all companion rooms but two rooms. The norm in our Silverado communities we develop have 80 plus percent companion rooms and the rest are private rooms. The norm in our Silverado communities we develop have 80 plus percent companion rooms and the rest are our private rooms. So the vast majority are companion. They're companion because of the benefits companion rooms gift to people who have memory and pairing diseases of reducing anxiety, reducing depression and providing a better quality of life for most people. That's not for everyone. I want to emphasize that no one residing at Silverado, Alexandria community will be required to move into a companion room. No one. They can move from the first to second to the third floor and stay in a private room. It is entirely their choice. We have a wait list, a considerable wait list, as Jeff mentioned, 18 months of zero revenue last days, which means there's somebody waiting for every room that opens up. And this will give access and capacity to more people. It reduces the costs for certain people going into companion room by $27,000 a year. That's a significant savings that will make the difference between some people being able to stay at our community and have to move out because of economics. I wanted to talk about safety. Silverado has served tens of thousands of people in ten states across 27 locations for 28 years. And we have the number one evidence-based clinical outcomes of less than 3% of our people going to the emergency room that compares to Harvard study by Dr. Grabowski of north of 20% in a normal assisted living and sniff data from the CDC that you would look at around 11%. Less than 4% of our people have re-hospitalizations. We're number one chosen by the NFL. Many of those people reside in companion rooms. Companion rooms have nothing to do with the person's wealth or capability has to do with the quality of life for their loved ones. Now, that's not the norm in a lot of Alexandria. If you look in the packet, we have a letter from our architect that has an architect of license over many states that's the norm throughout most of the country. And it is the norm at Silverado. So we have, you know, opportunity for people to access care. We know one has to move to companion room. They can stay where they're at. And, you know, people will have choice to be able to reside where they wish. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next step question. Sean Hanson followed by Kathy Busker. Hi, I'm Sean Hanson. I did have a question on point of order. When do you have standing to speak? Do you have to be a resident of Alexandria or so you can speak? Any individuals here do you have to be a resident of Alexandria or so you can just speak okay any any individuals want to speak for up three knots okay all right so please let me begin my three three-minute time now my wife is a resident at Silverado for a year now she has AFT or she has FTD frontal temporal dementia she is nonverbal or like Bruce're like Bruce Willis, basically. So I'm here to speak on behalf of her. And what the leading cause of death in people with FTD is pneumonia, believe it or not. It's also a very common form of death of other people with dementia, is pneumonia. Given that we're going to be putting people in rooms that were never designed To be doubt dual occupancy rooms in a single occupancy room I don't see how you can do social distancing and be effective there and protect these frack frail individuals From circumstances that with somebody else gets an illness so I am very concerned about it I'm concerned about safety I'm concerned about parking because if I look at many of my friends at the facility, they're older. They can't. They don't. It's difficult for them to walk across the street from the church parking lot to Silverado. I often park in the church church parking lot where there's a sign that says you will be towed unless you're here for church parking. It's not clear that, hey, I might not be towed at some point. So it's a little bit concerning. But I'm more concerned about older people having enough parking spaces. I parked there because there's just none of parking spaces there. In fact, when I first visited, I went to try and find parking. I was told I'll park across the street because there's not parking in downstairs right now, essentially. I don't know how I'm going to be able to visit my wife on Sundays because Sundays in church parking less not available to us. So I can go there, especially if we increase the capacity. As of late, I've always been able to find parking on Sundays. But if we increase capacity, I don't know. With other loved ones trying to see it, they'll all be able to see my loved one. On the one day, I have to work. On the one of the two days that I really can get, there's been a lot of time with my loved one. I might not be able to park to see her. There's no other parking anywhere near the facility, except for that church parking lot. So I'm opposed to this. My wife is opposed to it. She can't tell you she's opposed to it, because I'm concerned for her dignity, I'm concerned for her safety, and I'm concerned for the ability for loved ones to see her. And also, as well, I want to spend time with her. Sometimes I'm concerned about her final stages of life, and how will I be able to spend time with her, which there's room in there, because there's not even room for another chair in there. It's been now today there is, but these rooms were not designed to have dual occupancy. If they were designed for dual occupancy, hey, that's a good idea. But it's not. On top of that, my wife is nonverbal. She can't speak. They're going to put another person in there for socialization. Their expansions are on the second and third four most. That's where the adding most occupancy. First floors where they would benefit from it most. Why not there? Why is it on the second and the third floor? That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Kathy Puscar, our last speaker. Good evening, Chairman Mason, on behalf of the applicant. I just want to take a moment to go back. At least one of you, if not more of you, were here. In February of 2015, when I stood before you, asking for approval of Alexandra and Memory Karen King Street. There were 40 speakers, there were petitions, there were letters, fierce opposition. It was going to ruin the neighborhood. It was going to be the downfall of the city. And luckily you all supported it, the council supported it, and here we are today talking about an amendment to actually increase services at that community. So I think it's a real accomplishment that it was able to get built. And it is clear from the people that are here this evening that it has a huge impact on the lives of people in our city and beyond. In fact, back when we were here in 2015, there were a lot of questions about who's gonna be in this building? And are they gonna be Alexandria Resins? And are they gonna be Alexandria residents? And are they gonna be from Alexandria? And we talked about the fact that it is gonna serve some people that aren't from the city, but it's also gonna serve people that have lived in the city for years. And it's gonna serve family members of people who live in the city. And I think you hear from the testimony tonight that that has borne out. I also wanna say that the other thing that really impresses me is everybody here, everybody here cares about the safety and care of their loved ones. And I have had the opportunity to meet with some of these family members on multiple occasions and I have told them how impressed I am at the love and care they provide for their loved ones. But we have to remember that not everyone has that luxury, not everyone has that commitment. And so these companion rooms that we are proposing are a good choice for some people as you have heard. Now, you're the planning commission. You're supposed to be looking at this from a zoning perspective. But of course you want to hear testimony from the loved ones and from others about whether this is something you should support or not. And so I want to speak a little bit to the specifics of the zoning and the specifics of the application because that's really what we're deciding here. So it is true that we are coming in to ask for 24 rooms in the facility to be allowed to have two beds in them. It's a unique proposal because it's not often that I come to you talking about the number of beds in a particular room or the size of a room. I come to you. I think Mr. Reader had spoken about, you know, the strategic plan on aging in 2012, I remember it well, because when we started this original project, it was 2014, and there hadn't been a new facility built in the city since sunrise on Duke Street in the 90s. So that was very much on everyone's mind, but once again, it was a very controversial case. So we had to tread very lightly on what we were proposing in order to establish this community and show people that they didn't have a reason to fear this building in their neighborhood, in their community, that in fact it would be a benefit to the seniors of Alexandria, the families of Alexandria, and that has borne out. So normally, since then, I've come to you with a number of projects, right? The landing. I've come to you with Goodwin House. I've been in front of you. There's one that I'm forgetting. But in none of those cases, did we talk about the number of beds in a room in that facility? So I have heard concern. And I think the last speaker just said, well, but this is different because these rooms want designed to accommodate two beds I beg to differ on that and I'll tell you why there are 27 Communities that Silverado has and we took the data on all 27 of those communities the average size of a shared room is 302 square feet the average size of a shared room is 302 square feet. The average size of a private room is 234 square feet. And then the average size of a building containing an average of 83 beds is 39,000 square feet. This building is 64,585 square feet. And it has 323 square feet of common area that doesn't include the rooms. It just is common area where people can gather. So the idea that this shouldn't be allowed because it wasn't designed that way. That's not the case. There was built in size to allow for this in the future if and when it became appropriate. And I will tell you that there are 24 rooms that have been identified for the double beds. They are very specific rooms. They are the rooms that are of the size that can meet the requirements of the Department of Social Services in Virginia and that exceed this average room size to accommodate two beds. The other thing that was talked about was staffing and I think that is correct to say that in our application we spoke to the total number of staff, right? But we've sensed real down on that because of questions that have been asked. So for 66 beds we we currently have 78 staff. For 90 beds, we will have 90 total staff. On site between 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., we currently have 30 to 33 staff members. In the future, with the 90 beds, we will have 34 to 37 staff. Between 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. Instead of 12 to 15 staff members, there will be 15 to 17 staff members. And overnight at full ramp up, we will go from six staff people to nine staff people. And it is not the case that there is no oversight of the residents in the evening. In fact, there are at least two check-ins during the evening where staff physically go into the room to do a wellness check on the people in those rooms. As to parking, we meet the parking requirement. As you all know, when this project first came forward, there was no definition of continuum of care. Alexandra was very antiquated once again remember that there hadn't been a facility built since the 90s. There just really wasn't a focus on it. All the sudden, we have a commission on aging, we have a strategic plan on aging, we have the Silver tsunami, and now these projects are coming forward. So the city did an analysis to say, we need a better way to characterize these things. This is not a nursing home, this is not people lying in a bed, in acute care. These are people who are, many times able-bodied when they join, and they, as you heard, Silverado tries to get them engaged out of their rooms, activities. So we have now the definition of a continuum of care. And the parking requirement for that is one space per two units. So it's not based on the number of beds. It's based on the number of units. Now that being said, we do have an overflow parking lot. We talked about this with the original proposal for Silverado. We have the church lot across the street. It is true. They will not give us a written agreement, a formal agreement, because they want to reserve their rights. Should they decide to do something in the future. But what I can tell you is we have had that parking available for six years and we believe it'll be available for the foreseeable future. There were also comments about a crosswalk and it is true that the residents and Silverado have had prior conversations with the city about getting a crosswalk and pedestrian beacons and there hasn't been much success in that regard. This application has brought that item to the forefront again. and pedestrian beacons and there hasn't been much success in that regard. This application has brought that item to the forefront again. I followed up with Transportation and Environmental Services last week and they agreed to partner with us whereby Silverado will agree to donate $20,000 towards that crosswalk, median and pedestrian beacon and the city will install it and and match those funds. And so I did send you an email with proposed condition language, which I can read again into the record if need be. But we do believe that that will help people cross King Street because it can be a little bit dicey sometimes with the speeds along King Street. And so I just want to finish up again with the fact that there are 24 designated companion rooms. No one will be put in a companion room unless they self-select that choice as being right for them, being right for their family member, being right for their loved one. Anyone that is in that building today in a private room has the right to stay in a private room. And if you think about that there are 24 rooms that have been identified as potential companion rooms. They cannot become companion rooms until the individuals in those 24 rooms are no longer in those rooms. So if all 24 of those rooms are single beds today and all 24 of those rooms are single beds today and all 24 of those resident families want them to say single beds, they will stay that way and the companion rooms will ramp up one by one by one. We will also have a notice that is being provided for all new potential families and residents that makes it clear that we will be including companion rooms as Silverado moves forward so that everybody comes in eyes wide open, that that is the direction that things are headed. But nobody will be in a companion room that does not want to be in a companion room. And as to people whose needs increase over time, there is language and an agreement that if at some point they are no longer appropriate to be in a companion room, there are two choices. The family can move them to a private room or the family can move them somewhere else where they can get the care that they think that they want if it's not a companion room or not a private room at Silverado. And then finally, same thing as to behavioral issues. Silverado will speak to the families to determine whether these residents are compatible for a companion or not. And once again, if they go into a room and they're ends up being an issue, then they also could be moved to a private room. So I think the success story in all of this is really, I mean, for those of us who are here in 2015, the ability to get this community built and the love and care and compassion, I think you hear from everyone that's here, is real and is a real success story. And I appreciate that the families are so supportive of the staff at Silverado. And I also appreciate that we have some differences of opinion. But I did say to Mr. Thomas, I think there's a couple of things we agree on. I think we agree on the crosswalk. I think we agree on expanding the dining room space. And we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on the value of these companion rooms, but from a zoning perspective, we meet all the requirements of the application for the continuum of care, the number of beds, the required parking spaces, and look forward to providing, continuing to provide the high level of care that you see at Silverado, Alexandria today. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I do have a question about the proposed condition language that the applicant has proposed. Is the proposed condition regarding the pedestrian crosswalk acceptable to staff as written in the letter from the applicant dated today. Pardon me for the record by name of Nathan Randall principal plan or planning and zoning. The answer to that is yes. It is acceptable. It could be added as new condition 84. Okay. Thank you. I should sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. by Ms. Fanta, second by Ms. Lauderdale, close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0, and that'll take us to Commissioner Discussion. I'll start just to say that I did a lot of thoughts about this particular case. And I appreciate the time I spent at the facility on, as it was Tuesday morning. I've been on the commission for almost 12 years and I can't say I've had a site visit for a case that was quite like this one where you met with the applicant and met with the concern family members. So many of the people who spoke tonight, I had the opportunity to meet with at the facility on Tuesday. And it's a different environment here where you have family members who care about the operation and concern of how the facility operates with respect to their family members and have opinions about this particular case, but at the same time, have a great deal of respect for the applicants and the staff here who manage this facility and know that regardless of the outcome of this case, their family members will remain in the care of this facility most likely as things proceed. So, you know, I appreciate all of the viewpoints that were expressed in person last week and the testimony here today as well. I also remember, you know, I was on the commission when this case came forward nine years ago, and it was incredibly contentious, incredibly, needlessly contentious at the time. And I think that the passionate testimony we heard from the speakers here today, many of whom were city residents before they became residents of this facility. Or before the loved ones became residents of this facility, really speaks to the need for a facility like this in the city and you know Sort of validates the approvals that came forward nine years ago and I think that the city and the The options that we have for loved ones who need this sort of health care and living Support is improved because we have this facility and I'm gratified that the You know the the worst case scenario that we heard all the testimony about if that time did not bear out and that you know This facility has been a net asset to the community With respect to the issues that are before us this evening, we are a planning commission and I do need to take into account what is our charge within the zoning ordinance here. And in my view, the zoning ordinance and some of the control that we have relates to the ratios of units to parking spaces. And some of the concerns that people have expressed with respect to the staffing levels and the square footage per resident are generally beyond the scope of what we as a commission are tasked with under the city charter and under state laws. And a lot of those issues will be worked out with the Department of Social Services who regulates this type of facility at a statewide level in Virginia. So I know and have heard the concerns expressed and I appreciate the viewpoints that were expressed here today. But I also have to limit what I consider to be within the scope of what we're charged with as a commission That said I think that with the the facility will be within the parking standards for this type of facility and I think we also have an acceptable solution here for parking across the street. And I really do appreciate the proposed condition language by the applicant to improve the crosswalk to facilitate access to this facility from the church parking lot. I think we're fortunate in this part of the city that you do have that option and that that parking is there and able for use. I do understand the concerns that this is not committed parking or there's no formal agreement for this parking but at the same time we have a situation that that works and I think to the extent possible I think shared parking arrangements are preferable because we make use of the fact that parking lot is vacant most of the time and you know Sundays we've got a juggle between the church services and the family members who'd like to visit so Sundays are a bit crowded but I think that that justifies a reason why we shouldn't require more parking here, and even if we could require more parking, which should be difficult in the site plan, that we have a sufficient amount in the neighborhood off street that serves the needs and would help it fit. I want to note to one other thing that I think, you know, well, this will sort of change the circumstances for the families that live there now. I also think it's important that given the demonstrated need for these types of services in the city, this is a bit of a housing case as well for us. And that by approving this, we will provide, you know, recommending approval, I should say, in terms of what's within our scope. We potentially provide for residences for another up to 24 individuals who might need this type of care who may not be receiving it at the moment or may be receiving it outside the community or at a substandard facility. And I'm heartened by what I've heard from the family members here today. And I think that there's also something special about the fact that this would extend the excellent care that we've heard about at Silverado to an additional 24 individuals. And I do acknowledge that it will, you know, this is like other sort of capacity issues we face. I'm a parent of young children. I'm familiar with school capacity issues and how that affects things when you have, you know, a large classroom with a lot of kids versus a classroom with fewer kids. This is, you know, a kin to that in some ways, but on a much different level because of the amount of personal care that's needed. So I appreciate the concerns that are raised, but I do have to limit, you know, my judgment on this case to what's before us within the context of the zoning ordinance. And, you know, we turn to other commissioners who have comments or on this one, Ms. Lyle? I too was here when we approved Silverado many years ago. And I toured the facility yesterday. I met a couple of family members and while the facility is impressive, they still have some concerns. This Puzzcar met one of them because for about the past four weeks, I've sat on King Street and watched people dodge cars crossing back and forth to the facility. And I've had some real concerns about that. So I think the crosswalk will help. However, the size of the rooms does trouble me. I've been told that yes, this meets all the zoning requirements. It meets the parking requirements. But sometimes, and it doesn't happen often, I can't rationalize what's legal and what I feel is the right thing to do. And so I will be abstaining from voting on this case. Other comments? Mr. Manor and then Ms. McMahon? I have a unique perspective on this having spent a few months in an assisted living facility due to an accident and while it wasn't specifically a memory care unit, there were people with memory issues. I had to wear a bracelet that set off an alarm if I went near the front door. I toured the facility yesterday, and I was very impressed by all the communal space that was provided. Because the place I was in, you were trapped in your room all day long except when there were mealtimes. I know that that stretch of King Street is like a speedway and I think putting a crosswalk or a traffic right in there would be very wise for the entire community. And I would also say that I would agree with one of the speakers who talked about the companion creating a relationship with families. I think that's really important. It's a very difficult time for families to deal with someone in one of those facilities. And I think there's a big benefit to that. Benefit for the person who's staying in the facility. And of course, the families as well. So while I understand the concerns about overcrowding, I think given that there won't be any change for the people who are there now and there's the staffing issues seem to be addressed in going forward and there seems to be a very thoughtful approach to how people would be matched in these companion rooms. I would be in support of this item. I thank you, Ms. McMahon. Okay, yep, I hanged it. I'm trying to make sure I can see my notes here. I want to thank family members for being here tonight and speaking with us. And representatives from Silverado from across the country, also being here and speaking with us and staff's effort in putting together this package. I associate myself with Chair Masex comments in particular about our role as planning commissioners, and when we face difficult questions, difficult land use questions in the community, it's not uncommon for the most difficult parts of the question to not actually be about land use. And I don't consider myself qualified to weigh in on what the best environment is. I will shortly be in a sandwich generation where I have a child in middle school, high school, and parents who I'm working to transition to live closer to me so that I can help them through this. But I'm not an expert in the challenges you all are dealing with today. I'm not an expert in the science behind memory care and the care of people with neurological and memory issues and the process that they go through as they get older and their abilities are further and further impaired. That said, I do respect that there is science and there is experience and there's going to be differing opinions. But I have to, from this day, try to reserve my judgment on whether a companion room is the right thing for a particular family or particular condition or the single occupancy room is the right thing. And try to focus on the land use questions at hand. So that's what I do in my notes here. I don't believe this project has any negative land use implications. What is being proposed does not dramatically expand the building, does not dramatically change its characteristics with respect to the neighborhood around it. Our decision is also from a land use perspective. It's not about things like fire safety and we did hear that as a comment from community members and sometimes we do get feedback like that on different kinds of land use cases so I do want to emphasize we don't adjudicate on whether a particular building design is better or worse for fire safety those fire safety building code those are things that are handled at a different level and really more of an administrative practical level something is either allowed or not allowed by fire safety code and building code. We do look at parking supply and as has already been mentioned, this building and the site provide the required amount of parking according to our current standards. And so I cannot hold this building to a different standard than we would hold any other building of this type. However, it was very exciting to see the offer that essentially has come now in the form of an additional condition here that allows the applicant to help the city invest in an improvement with regard to traffic safety and a crossing here, which I think has the double benefit of helping to ensure safety of folks crossing who are using that off-site parking area, but also it's gonna have a traffic calming impact on the stretch of the street. And I've traveled along that stretch of the road in particular on a cargo bike with my son going up to Chinkapin and taking him to swim lessons. It's not super comfortable sharing the road with cars. There's no protected separated lane for me, and I'm there on my bike, and the cars are going by, and they're pretty big and fast and close to me. But this will provide a really helpful speed bump in a stretch of road that doesn't today have any kind of break in it. So I think that that's not only going to help people crossing, but it should also have the benefit of making it easier to get in and out of the parking lots when you're in your car. And so when you're going to this facility, leaving this facility and crossing between these two locations, hopefully what we see is an improved sense of safety and actually improved driver behavior in this area. I also want to reiterate from the housing perspective which is a land use interest for us and we look at the broad housing interests of the community at large. Not only does this offer an affordable unit, but it does offer more housing a very special type for more people in the community. And that is a benefit that I don't want to overlook. I also want to acknowledge that it really sounds like what is proposed here is effectively a very slow incremental change because nobody is being asked to change their living condition today. And in fact, it's as either residents want to change their living condition or rooms turn over that the conversion of these particular rooms, which were cited to be larger and of sufficient size to actually be converted into two person rooms, that's when it would happen. And so it's also practically speaking, I imagine it'll be the kind of change that is only felt very slowly over time and may not even be largely visible to the residents and the families that are there at the particular moment that they come and interact with the facility. So I think that makes this a less jarring proposal for the folks who are living there today and more sustainable as an approach to change the nature of a community where it sounds like there are plenty of them across the country operating with larger numbers of shared rooms, but maybe this community is not used to it yet, so I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown. Let me start by saying that I will be supporting this recommendation for all of the reasons that you've already eloquently heard from the Chair and the Vice Chair and others. I want to just speak briefly about where I'm coming from because it's a slightly different perspective from that of my colleagues. First of all, my wife and I will both be turning 80 in the next calendar year. So both of us, I think, feel blessed that we are not experiencing in our personal lives the kinds of problems that you all have been telling us about tonight. Although we have that kind of a situation in the larger family of which I'm a part, it's very real for us, but not immediate. Second, some years back in my law practice, I had an occasion to take over personal, financial, and medical responsibility for an aging woman who is now in a memory care facility in Montgomery County. It's a much less expensive facility than Silverado, but I am able to manage the payment by basically offsetting the charge by having the fact that she has both an incoming pension and social security amount. She has just turned 96 years old and I've calculated that her money is not going to run out before she turns 100 and I'm hoping hoping that things will work out for her. She's in what is called a group home where there are only about seven or eight memory care patients. And she's well cared for and it's worked out well for that situation. So I bring a certain amount of personal experience to this kind of situation. And it causes me to ask the kinds of questions that you all have been particularly raising. So what I did in thinking about this application was I went to another client that I have out in Montgomery County. He happens to be a doctor who basically left his medical practice, which was sort of the neurological study and work with the aging brain, and decided to open his own memory care facility, which is still thriving out in Montgomery County. It has only about 15 patients. They're all in severe dementia, and his staffing level during the day is almost a one-to-one patient to staff member ratio. It's almost like a personal, your own personal assistant all day long. And the demand for that kind of a service, despite its high cost, is so great that he never has a vacancy. There's always people that want to come in and replace those who, the families who are taking care of these people, that want to come in and replace those who, the families who are taking care of these people simply do not want their clients to ever have to leave until they die. And that's basically how new people come in when somebody dies and a room opens up. So I asked him yesterday about the approach of Silverado to say that doubling up on some of the rooms will be good for patients. And he sent me back an email that said the following. As to Silverado's argument that the residents with memory impairment would benefit from a roommate companion, it's analogous to getting a hotel room with an absolute stranger. The greater the impairment of the resident, the more troubling the room sharing will be. Dementia is a progressively downhill disease and the more compromised the more uncomfortable the residents will become. As an economic necessity however I could understand a family finding a shared-room situation with reduced rate attractive. So here I have a statement from what I consider perhaps one of the most qualified people to stand firm behind the notion that everybody should have their own room to saying that he could understand the need for reduced rate and to make it work. evening, I get the distinct impression that this process of adjusting to double rooms is not going to be a blunt instrument, but it's going to be handled with care and attention to the detail of the patients. And while I firmly understand and agree that this kind of a question is not strictly within I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, I would say, as well as what I hear from the applicant about how this is going to proceed down the road. And that kind of argumentation to me is much more persuasive than any kind of issue that somehow seems to attack you when you are not the ones who came here 10 years ago and complained about this. I doubt that any of you out there were among the people that came and said don't build this facility. That's the past. That's a long gone issue. The question today is whether or not this project is going to work. If the Department of Social Services says this project is going to work, I'm fine with that because I haven't heard anything to suggest that it's not going to work and I certainly haven't heard anything to suggest that it has a planning and zoning problem. So I will be supporting this project. Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting this proposal. I think I agree with the observations that the Chairman made about sort of role and responsibility of the Planning Commission in this case. And I concur that for those issues that are actually at play and within our authority, all of the requirements the project have been met, and I concur with the vice chairs, very, I think, thoughtful and comprehensive inventory of those particular Germainland use issues how well the project complies with them At the same time I would also like to express my appreciation respect for the testimony that we received tonight from the folks who are actually The living members of the community at this particular moment in time. I Would take note of the fact I also happen to be here in 2015 when the project originally came through. And I appreciate that that's in the past, as Commissioner Brown has said, but I'd like to acknowledge what other, what some of my colleagues have mentioned about that, which is it wasn't clear at the time that the project would actually come to life at all. And I think the fact that it has come to life and is a living community now, is of great benefit to the city as a whole, as well as to the folks who are taking advantage of its services and its opportunity to take care of their family members now. I also think the Vice Chair made a great point about the complexity of the fact that in a lot of these projects, the most challenging and difficult questions are not ones that actually fall within our, within our purview, at the same time they're inseparable from the character of the project itself and deserve some attention. So she also made the point that in a realm like this, something as complex and challenging and evolving as the science and the operational expertise of delivering memory care. There's a level of expertise and science behind that with which I'm not familiar at all. That being said, I like probably everyone else in this room have familial experience with this type of issue in my particular situation for our individual family. The companion room solution was very much along the lines of what the proponents of it presented tonight. It offered additional support and interaction for the families themselves. And my father, who was a retired naval aviator, and interaction for the families themselves. And my father, who was a retired naval aviator, ended up in a room with another retired naval aviator, which is a pretty common thing you can do in Virginia Beach. And in his last six or 12 months, that turned out to be a pairing that I believe added a dimension to both of those gentlemen's final days. That being said, I offer it only because we're in a realm where we are all offering some information about that tonight, but it comes with the same caveat, but that's absolutely subjective, is not applicable, and is not offered by me as any kind of a scientific observation. And I, at that point, will return to confidence in the fact that the system itself and the operator's demonstrated capability to deliver excellent care. And the authorities at our local and state level that are responsible for apps actually judging those particulars of the care. We'll fulfill their function after we finish with our modest land use to mention the project if it were to move on. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm interested in supporting the proposal. You see? Okay. Any comments? Motion. I will look at our advisors. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning 2024-00003. Second. We've got a motion by Ms. McMahon and a second Mr. Canning to recommend approval of the rezoning. All those in favor? Is that the condition? The condition would be specific to the DSP, which will be another motion. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Abstain. OK, motion passes 601. And I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the development special use permit, 2024-10015, with the addition of the condition discussed earlier in the proceedings, which was memorialized in a memorandum from the applicant's attorney, but also confirmed by staff as acceptable as written. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. McMahon, second by Mr. Canig to recommend approval of the DSP with the addition of the condition related to the pedestrian crosswalk. Any discussion of that motion? If not all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? abstain. Motion carries 6-0-1. Thank you very much. And we will call item number 8. Item number 8. City Charter Section 906 case 20240005. Two King Street, public hearing and consideration of a request for planning commission to review whether the proposed lease by the City of Alexandria, a property at two Kings Street to my tie. For the purpose of outdoor dining is consistent with the City of Alexandria, master plan pursuant to section 9.06 of the city charter. Applicant, City of Alexandria. Mr. Chair, I actually volunteered to handle this case for staff, although I am joined by Al Coleman, who is from the Department of General Services, and he is familiar with the specifics of the lease. I'm going to ask if the Planning Commission would like a presentation or if they would like to go directly to discussion or a motion. You would what? All right. First I'm going to just cover the why it is that this is before the Planning Commission, the Section 906 of the City Charter, does require for specific changes to the use of City Land, particularly streets, but also a change in either acquiring or disposal of city land. In this case, it's the change in use for the planning commission to weigh in as to whether it's consistent with the city's master plan. Next slide. So I imagine that you are familiar with the location that we're talking about, but to go back a bit, when the city of Alexandria was negotiating and then implementing the change of location of the Bo Club, we acquired the property where the former Bo Club was sitting in that included the parking spaces that are adjacent to what is now the Mai Tai restaurant. Those spaces had been leased to Mai Tai for parking, but as the city closed the unit block of king to a vehicular traffic that was no longer necessary or desirable. So the city has looked at or is proposing to lease those spaces to the adjacent restaurant for the purpose about their dining it would consist of just over 900 square feet. And the term would be for one year period and that is designed to coincide with planned flood mitigation improvements that the city has. So we do review the master plan, the three chapters that are up there on the screen are the ones that we looked at, but I did also want to highlight that post approval of the Waterfront Smaria plan. We did a project with the Olin landscape architecture firm. So the product, which was adopted by City Council, is sometimes referred to as the Olin landscape architecture firm. So the product which was adopted by City Council is sometimes referred to as the Olin plan and it does in fact show outdoor dining in this location. So to some degree, although that's not a regulatory proposal or of any kind, it does show that it's consistent at least in theme with what we were intending in this location. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find that this change in use is consistent with our master plan. Okay, thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Moritz or staff on this item? Mr. Mayor. I'm a big fan of the pilot program in the unit block of King, but I'm very concerned that we're just not getting much activity there. And I'm just curious why the applicant taking advantage of that big space and right in front of the door. So, you mean on the sidewalk on King Street? Well, I think, well, I can't speak for them and technically, Nytized not the applicant so much as the city is requesting permission to lease this space to them. But so I haven't actually talked to my tie and if Al has done so he can jump in. But I anticipate that part of the question is just the congestion on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the corner. Would be a reason why they'd feel more comfortable. Plus the view is a little better, at least for those who like the river a few. Sure, your mic on? That's right. That's correct. Okay, any other questions for staff? A motion. Okay, any other questions for staff? Or a motion? Discussion? Discussion. And I think it makes perfect sense when you look at the waterfront plan that we've worked on for so many years. So I'm in total agreement with this. Would you like to make a motion? Sure. Make a motion that we find that the proposed that's consistent with section 9.06 of the city charter and with the city's master plan. Second. Okay. Motion by Ms. Lael, second by Ms. McMahon to find consistency with the city charter section 906. This is the master plan. I'll just add comments I agree with Ms. Laos comments and I also think that this is a good interim use that you know it preserves the option to do something more intensive here later. There was a RFP consideration at one point to potentially sell this property and potentially combine it with other redevelopment of an adjacent building. But I think given the changes to the forthcoming construction in this area, it makes sense to keep it as a dining area for now and figure out the permanent use later. I will note too that I always push back when staff calls the project the Waterfront Flood Mitigation Project because the official name of the project and the CIP is the Waterfront Plan Implementation Process. The flood mitigation is a means to an end. We're not building flood mitigation for the sake of flood mitigation. We're building it to better our parks. And I feel that the flood mitigation has taken on such an outsized role with what we're spending the money on that that's all that anybody refers to it as anymore. So I appreciate that. It's an important one. Yeah, yeah. Because the finished quality of the parks is really important. And that's something we've discussed at the Waterfront Commission. And we just want to keep in mind why we're making the investment in that part of the city. Any other discussion? Question for the director. What will be the implementation process, if any, for a review and approval of how they actually configure the least space? review the proposal for how the tables and chairs are arranged. That would be routed to the departments that are of some per view over. So it would be planning and zoning. It would be transportation and environmental services primarily prior to the adoption of the least. Your anticipate will be enclosed with some kind of boundary marker? They're not proposing any structures. So it'll be tables and chairs primarily and possibly a little fence. Yes, exactly. This site previously operated without door dining and doing the pandemic. Yeah, so presumably it would operate similar to how it functioned at that point I just don't remember what yeah, I know I ate at that point So it it seemed fine if it's gonna be similar to that for the discussion We do have a motion on the table so all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And we will call number 9. Item number 9. Special use permit 2024-0060 by 15 King Street. Public hearing and consideration of a special use permit for a personal service establishment with a 30 foot or greater frontage on King Street. So, KOR slash King Street, Urban Retail. Applicant, TD Bank, NA, represented by Mark Vianne, attorney. Okay, and it's 9.02 PM, the temperature's 34 degrees. Do we have a presentation from staff about TD Bank? Thank you, Chair, basic members of the Planning Commission. My name is Mavis Stamfield. I work in the Landview Services Division of the Department of Planning and Zoning. This is an application. The applicant TD Bank is seeking special use permit approval to allow a personal service establishment consisting of a bank to locate on property within 30 feet or greater frontage on King Street. The background for the special use permit requirement is based on the KR Zone goals as adopted from the King Street retail strategy, which is part of the Old Town small area plan, which requires active ground floor uses. The 30-foot front-end limitation is designed to limit the space that these non-active uses utilize to support area vitality through a diversity of uses in a pedestrian oriented environment. The proposed layout indicates the building would be an area of approximately six feet by 18 feet that is planned to remain empty. Further back in the tenant space, and behind the ATM room, offices are located behind a stair tower. Teller stations are to the left of the offices behind the waiting area. Restrooms, lounge, and other ancillary spaces are located in the remainder of the space. Hours of operation are during standard business hours, during the week, with the addition of four hours early on the day on Saturday, and the business will be closed on Sundays. Staff recommends denial given the KR Zone and King Street retail strategies strong emphasis on the role of active ground floor uses in support of the long-term economic vitality for what many consider the city's premier commercial center. Should the planning commission recommend approval of the application conditions are included in the staff report. This application does not align with the goals of the King Street Retail Strategy Plan, which envisions active uses in ground level spaces. Three other banks and other non-compliant and complying personal service uses, including an optometrist and office and PNC bank and empty real estate offices in the vicinity, didden these areas of King Street. The staff recommendation reflects our concern that this use with over 30 feet of frontage will contribute to an interruption in the vibrancy of King Street, reducing the possibility of a diverse mixed use interactive and pedestrian oriented environment. And that concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, questions, Ms. Lyle. How long has this space been vacant? I don't know exactly how long has been vacant. That might be a question for the applicant. Approximately. I would say approximately, it was approximately two years when the Sun Trust bank left. And Tate came within the last year to take up a majority of that space. Thanks. Any other questions, Ms. Brown? Ms. Smith-Stanfield, this is the first time in all my time here that I've had occasion to study in any detail either the King Street retail zone or the retail strategy document which predates my time quite by quite some time. And here's what I noticed and I will hope you could answer this question for me. Maybe I'm mistaken. The zone places significant emphasis on the amount of street frontage and says if you're under 30 feet is permitted. If you're over 30 feet, you have to, it's a special permitting. It's a special use and requires a special use permit. I got that right so far. Yes sir, that's correct for those types of uses. So what I did was I went back to look at the retail strategy document and I just couldn't find any reference to this dividing line and this dividing number of 30 feet in the retail strategy document. Did I miss it? Yes, we did locate it in a few places and we also located it in the staff report, so it is referenced, but it's not specifically called out in any, it's a very limited reference. My understanding of the way we work these things is that the retail strategy was kind of a master plan document and the zoning follows as an implementation of the master plans, but I just didn't see any rationale or significance to the 30 foot number. That is true. That defined number is not in the retail strategy. Nor is it exactly in the staff report for the master plan amendment? It is found, as you noticed in the KR zone, what supports that 30 feet frontage limit as in the zoning ordinance is the retail strategies intention as well as the master plan amendment and the text amendment staff report to support mixed use, a mixed use, range of active uses. And the thought being that it was by the time it got to the text amendment that 30 feet, which is approximately the size of the width of a historic storefront, would by limiting it to that amount, that would be able to limit the non-active uses frontage, which would not contribute to palliating. All right, you're making perfect sense. Steady. So, I mean, to ask you the next question. That 30-foot limit seems perfectly applicable to the 100 and 200 blocks of King Street. And it seems almost as perfectly applicable on the west side of Washington along King Street. But this property is in what's called the government center portion of the retail strategy. And the strategy acknowledges that this area was completely redeveloped in the 60s and maybe the early 70s, with very different kinds of buildings than you see in the more historic areas to both the east and the west. So here's my question. Considering the difference between the east side and the far and the further west side, is that 30 foot number more important in those areas than it is in this government center area? We, I understand that what you're laying out there. These were buildings that were part of urban renewal, so they do look different. The element that remains the same in this assessment, this evaluation is to limit the frontage for non-active or less active uses. So that a mix of different, a suitable mix of other more active uses can support the street much essential and primary to the King Street retail strategy. The, what, the Stanfield noted at the end of the presentation, what we've seen in other areas that were part of the urban renewal areas. There is, there is an existing non-compliant bank in the 400 block. You may have experienced that that frontage is over 30 feet. You may have experienced a lack of street vitality in that area right across the street. There it was a non-compliant frontage for a real estate company. That they have, that's a vacant space right now, but when it was that white swath of a, of a over 30 feet frontage, that again right across the street, the pedestrian, the level of pedestrianism just is less. So last question, the use right next door, it's a Tate breakery, that has more than 30 feet of street frontage, doesn't it? Yes, a restaurants are not limited by frontage. They are what? They are not limited by a frontage requirement because they are considered an active use, a more active use. So there's even a distinction among the permitted uses. Well, it's a distinction between yes, yes. A personal service use is what the bank falls into that category. Those can operate, in the writing of the KR zone, those were considered less active than the other permitted uses or SUP uses. That's because actually the definition of the permitted use has the 30 foot limitation in it, right? That, yes, it does. Okay. Or permitted. If I understand where. Permitted personal service using yes. That's all I have. Okay, any other questions for staff? All right, we do have two public speakers on this item. We'll hear first from Jeremy Fretz and then from the applicant, Mark Dionne. Hello, my name is Jeremy Fretz. I'm a resident of Alexandria at 5150 Maris Avenue, apartment 200. I speak tonight. I am an architect. I have been a 10-year veteran of committee appointments, commission appointments in the city of Alexandria and have been involved in urban design and mixed-use projects around the country. I also used to be a bank teller in a small town and have a special and uncommon fondness for banking and walk-in banking. But the other night in my bed, I opened multiple accounts, moved money, and changed accounts between two banks from my bed. Retail banking is not what it was in 1990, in the 1990s when I welcomed a steady stream of people walking in all day, every day. And what I've learned since then is also about the importance of active uses in a downtown and a retail district, uses that are open at night when many people get their shopping done or do their activities. And I support the staff position on this. It may be a technicality that it's a seven foot four inch difference in width requested, but there is, I frequently am riding around with friends and we say, oh my gosh, another bank, another bank. Who needs a bank in this day and age in a retail storefront location? So I am here to oppose another bank in our downtown core, despite my personal affection once upon a time for retail banks. And I think that's, I would encourage you to consider that enlivenment of the street. And if nothing else, if you know, I would encourage you to consider that in live and meant of the street. And if nothing else, if you do choose to support this, I definitely hope you'll adopt the conditions, particularly conditions six about visibility. I worked in Old Town for over a decade and walked past the big blank empty, untrust windows with the screens on them. You could see nothing inside. It was effectively a waste of real estate. As I walked to Bittersweet for lunch, three quarters of a mile away. So thank you. Thank you very much. Mark Bionne, on behalf of the applicant. Chairman Mason, members of the commission, thank you very much Mark Bionne with being Kenny and Cormin. On behalf of the applicant, TD Bank. I want to start off first by thanking staff, Davis, and landing. As you may know, I am not one of the more frequent flyers, not Ken, Kathy, and some of the more learned council here. I showed up every couple of years or so. But they've been great. They've been really wonderful to work with. I appreciate the transparency and constant communications we went through this. At its core, this case is about not about a bank. The bank is allowed up to 30 feet, right? And that's really all we need. What this core is about is the SEP applies for the remaining seven feet. And as I hope as we talk about the SEP process, it's where we look through cases that kind of have different circumstances and try to find out how to make things approved or determine what's in the best public interest. And I would, as we explain here, hopefully we can establish that, you know, from a security standpoint, it's in the bank's public interest to make sure this remaining space is occupied, governed, and has a steady present on it. From the community's standpoint, it's better to make sure that this place is occupied aesthetically pleasing. And so that's where we're sure that this place is occupied aesthetically pleasing. And so that's where we're hoping we can get through with the direct you all through this community, SEP process. We can point to, I think you may have the PowerPoint that we've handed out here. And again, like, random note, seven feet, seven feet is maybe two thirds of the distance between me and Mr. Moritz right now. That's what we're really talking about. Just to pause a second. Are we able to pull up the applicant's presentation for any viewers of the broadcast? Okay, you can work on that. Well, Mr. Vianne continues. All right, so let's start a little bit of background. This is not a new bank. This is the same TD bank that's literally right around the corner on Washington, Baltimore, one 19 Washington, Boulevard. It's been TD operating there as TD banks since the merger with Commerce Bank back in 2009 before that was operating as Commerce Bank for many years beforehand. There releases up in the end of October 2025. You know, they serve a lot of businesses, a lot of residents, a lot of nonprofits in the area, and it's critical to basically stay in the community. So working with, you know, looking at, you know, where the sites were, they found a place just around the corner, literally just around the corner. One block up of Washington, block and a half right down on King Street. And where that place is, is, you know, let's talk about the property. The next page is 515 King Street. 515 King Street is a building built in the 1960s, 1966. You know, you do remember, I think someone talked about beforehand, it was previously a SunTrust bank, right? SunTrust took the entire ground floor of this property. You know, a SunTrust merged with BB&T in 2019. The branch office was closed at the end of 2021, 2020. All right. And at that point, the property lay vacant for about two and a half years. At that point, you know, Tate came in and announced that they were coming in and then October 22, and January 24, they opened. Now, if we. I guess we don't have the city's presentation itself. We've got we've got your look looking at my hand out there. You'll see next page is the is the ground floor. So if you can see right now you have Tate. You have our proposed site right there. So we're going to is the, is the, is the ground floor. So if you can see right now, you have Tate, you have our proposed site right there. And then a couple of things I want to note real quickly is one you'll see kind of jutting into it is the staircase for the rest of the building going upstairs. There is no access to it. It just kind of creates this kind of isolated knob, you know, in the very frontage. Then next the staircase you'll see two double doors. Those are where if you're going into the ranger of the building, you'll see that where the elevator banks are or you can take the stairs to go upstairs. And running around the perimeter of the front building is actually a ramp system. And originally that had gone all the length of the place to where Tate was and that was the ADA ramp. That's how you would get from the building, go around the front of the building, around the corner and into the doors. And that's when Tate came in, what they did was cut off part of that, they put the new ramp midway between the Tate and the proposed TD Bank site and put a couple stairs. So that area right in front of us is still the ADA ramp for the rest of the building. Okay? So moving the next thing as we just talked about, we'll walk through that. Points. The property's own KR. KR permits the bank to be up to 30 feet. The bank can easily do 30 feet. The property permits up to beyond 30 feet the approval will especially use permit. We have seven know, up to beyond 30 feet with approval of a special use permit. We have seven feet four inches beyond. That's the really the ask here in the special use permit. You know, we're looking to, if we didn't get the approval, then we just go ahead with the 30 feet. But that would leave a seven foot four, you know, in space by about 10 feet deep. Vacant, ungoverned, and that's not a really good idea to have next to a bank. More importantly, what would you do? You can't separately occupy it, you can't provide utilities, you can't provide access to it. There's no real use of like, the best part is, the best solution is just incorporate into the bank space, create an arc feature there. Because it's not needed for the bank, not really needed for bank operations, but just so you have continuity and you close up the area and you're able to have a better appearance from the street view. If you look at the next page we have here with the PowerPoint and that gives an illustration of you can see in the overlay. You see the floor plan. Everything in white on the floor plan is by right. The special use permit applies to the red overlay hatched area. Okay, next page takes it in greater detail. What we're planning on doing with this overlay hatched area is, as staff talked about, the frontage would be just an art feature. We were gonna put an ATM up the front, and we decided to rotate it to the side, because that gets it out of the way of the ADA path. And we think that that would also probably provide a greater improved aesthetic appearance. The next series of slides will show you what we would look like if we had the seven feet. Now, I would note that these were all prepared before we told the talk to the Old Town Civic Association, which I'm proud to say we did get their support. They did ask that we not include the TV, so we're not proposing the TV on the thing. But you'll see, when you look at this, there's the contiguous front, a lot more pleasingly aesthetically appearance. You go around the corner. There is the... There we go. All right, now we can get back to it. Next page, you see there's the ATM. That's where we'm proposing. And I want to look, when you look at the ATM, look immediately to the left of it. That's the space that we're talking about, just putting an art feature or something like that, which we're happy to put with staff. But what we don't want to do is have that kind of vacant space there, right next to a bank. And we also think it's going to provide a better aesthetic appearance And I want to note that, you know, when we talk about the interaction with the street view, remember, this is set back from the ramp from the streetscape itself. I've lived in this area off and on for 50 years. You know, many times there are, most of the time, I people note, they use that ramp they're either using it or they're sitting on the edge of it, just using as a bench because they're eating something from Starbucks or something in the area. You know, that there's not a lot of interaction with there. This will provide a pleasing aesthetic appearance. This will provide a continuous street fronters. This will occupy space that's been vacant since 2020, over four years. You know, we did talk to the property owner and asked him how much energy have he had on this property. They haven't had much property. Interest in this part is property. Tate took the portion of the ground floor that they took because the way the buildings oriented. You know, it focuses its engine on the intersection close to St. A. Saf street and King Street. So the next page is show a no-sional if we were to do an art page. You can see the next page there is the open space, next page. If we were to do an art piece, obviously we were working with staff to get something that's pleasing to the community in there. And the next page, if we didn't do this, we just went by right. You're going to end up with, you'll see in the area right there, we're trying to do with kind of the most pleasing way to do it, is just they probably just go ahead and leave the original advertisements right there for the floor space above. Let's go the next page. And that's how it would look like there. So this is not the most prominent portion of the building street frontage, but it's, you know, it's a secondarily prominent area. And we think by including within the TD Bank site, providing that element of security, providing an attractive art feature, it's not really needed for the bank operations. We think that that's ultimately in the public interest and it's ultimately best for the bank as well. And so with that, I would say, we appreciate you're taking the time to listen to us. We did include also some draft condition edits. We thank very much staff for the conditions they proposed. We're mostly fine with them. I would just note that with regard to condition one, eight, one, relocation of the teller windows right up to the front thing. That's an absolute non-starter with TD bank security. I don't know any bank I've done represent a lot that, you know, like to have their tellwenders right up next to the windows Customers don't like that be right next to the windows So we we would ask that that condition be removed and then you know with regard to condition number two We're accepting we're happy to do an art display We at one point we talked about doing a rotating art display for security reasons and for vetting and internal procedure like that, that's really gonna be a very cumbersome process for TD Bank to do. What we propose to do instead is a mural or something like that, we could work with staff on that. You know, to provide something aesthetically pleasing and stuff like that. But, you know, that would be our two judges so we'd ask for the conditions. So with that, I thank you very much for your time. I would take any questions you might have. for the applicant. I have one. You said that Old Town Civic is supporting it now. Yes, sir. I read something from Ivonne Wade that they were against it. No, there's a letter from her saying they are in support of it. They're requesting that we not include the TV which you saw on the illustration. Yes. Which were happening. That was just something we threw on there as a no-sional thing. All right, but there's port of a Charlotte Hall. Let me advise me to hold down business aligns. It's also in support. So I hope that's responsive. Mr. Brown. Mr. Vianne, I take it from the application. TD Bank is a conditional less or from the Jamal's. Yes. And that condition is approval of the issue P. Right? There's an option. There's an option where they can get out if they don't get it. But likely they're just going to go right in there. If what I'm getting at is do you have the right under this lease if the special use permit is denied to occupy all parts of this premises except the seven foot? Yes, area. Yes, and that correct in thinking that you would have the bireite used to reconfigure this property without coming back to us? That's correct. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions? Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Some move. Second. Motion by Ms. Law. Second by Ms. Poo-Pan to close the public hearing. All those in Second. Motion by Ms. Law. Second by Ms. Pantle. And to close the public hearing, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Motion carries seven's or all. It'll take us to Commissioner discussion. I'll start. I am in favor of this. The one thing. Just to clarify, can you state what you're in favor of? I am in favor of approving this application. Reason being, as space has been vacant for at least two years, I think may be longer. I don't see anyone coming in and dead space without a tenant is worse than what we consider dead space. I also believe that the retail strategy was probably developed at the same time. We developed a strategy for King Street that regarded outdoor dining as the bayonet of our existence, which we know is not the case because we argued for years over outdoor dining, right? And now everyone's embraced it. I think things change. I still use banks. I know there are a lot of people that don't, but I think in a business community, you need banks for businesses, and a lot of non-profit, a lot of other businesses, cannot just move money the way you do with personal accounts. There are other protocols in place. So I think this is a good location. The one thing I question in the condition changes because this outdoor area that staff wants to put seating in is actually a handicap accessible ramp. And if you have someone with a walker, with a wheelchair on crutches going up this ramp, how is this seating going to impact it? I would be in favor of leading this condition in with a caveat that there is ample wheelchair accessible space, walker accessible space, and handicap accessible space on that ramp where you don't have the outdoor seating impeding access. Because I think looking at that ramp, that if you put seating there,'re going to create a different problem. I don't think it's wide enough. May I address a point? The purpose of putting in the language that we did and we did discuss this with the attorney for the applicant, the publicly accessible outdoor seating, subject to statewide building code requirements which we thought would address those those handy cap concerns at my but I I would really be careful because One inch Can make a difference in someone being able To physically use that ramp and not being able to use it. And I would also look at mobile scooters because a lot, there are a lot of people with mobility issues that now are using scooters. And they're a little bit wider than wheelchairs. So, and I'm happy to make a motion when the time is appropriate. Okay, other discussion? Mr. Ramirez. I just wanted to express that I also will be in support of this application for a couple of reasons. I have to admit, when this came across and discussing this, discussing this application with staff. Part of my thought was that, you know, I understand the intent of energizing and bringing a lively character for King Street, but understanding also that this space has been sitting vacant for a long time and that bank by right can be located in this location minus the seven feet. That's seven feet and the way at least that is presented right now in that kind of clear corner. I feel as if that is a much better use of that space. I think it does address in a way like we you know, we did discuss the thought that having a bank there, there is a bank rate across the street as well. You know, people still do use banks for a variety of reasons. And while it is still, it could be seen as a mere presence for a bank, for them to assert their presence on King Street. And especially for folks who may be more used to other modes of banking, it's still, I would say it's probably no different than having a piece of art there in a way. It's something that activates that space and advice some interaction from the public. And I think in this way, when we're looking at the use library versus an additional seven feet that doesn't leave this weird little tail that's closed off or that's covered up and leaving us with a blind corner. I think it's a really, I don't have any opposition to this kind of use. So I'm in support. Hey, thanks. Other comments? Ms. McMahon. I struggle with this. I tend to agree with staff's Recommendation of Denial. And that is primarily because I do Not think that this. Use warrants and exception. Consideration of exception to give them more frontage along King Street on the ground level. I separately also think we really ought to be reconsidering what our buy-right uses that can have even 30 feet of frontage in such frequency on this part of King Street because I think staffs context information about just how many banks are here. I've walked along these stretches in front of these bank service areas They don't contribute to the street vitality at all In fact, they usually much much to the point that's made by Mr. Viani. They're emphasizing privacy for their customers who are there. So there is not only in frequent customer interaction, but all of the interaction is hidden as far away from the front of the building as it can be. And when you walk in front of these facilities, whether it's the way the glass is treated or where the activity is housed and kind of tucked away, it does the opposite of creative vital street front. Further, when it comes to consideration of what's allowed at the ground level, I really think banking is an example of something. And I'm not poo-pooing the people still need walk-in banking because there's gonna be technology transition takes time the vast majority of people don't use walk-in banking the vast majority of time But you have small businesses you've got other reasons why people need walk-in banking services, but those are not spontaneous Those aren't just like oh, I'm walking down Kingston. I got my coffee Oh, I should stop at the bank and do this thing I have to do you have to like check the banks hours on your phone in advance because whenever I do things like that spontaneously banks always closed so I have to check any way in advance People can do this by appointment and they often do if they're doing important work, right? So they can be on an upper level Second story not on the ground floor on King Street. And they can be up there, make their appointments, have a nice secure access elevator that, you know, however that's managed, and all of this kind of activity should really be happening on a second story and not at the ground floor on King Street. So that's like, I can't fight to Commissioner Brown's point. I can't really fight the fact that our K.R. zone says a thing and has this big group that just is cut and dry. 30 feet or less, by right, they're going to go in regardless of what I do with this action. And I don't know why the building owner is making this deal with a bank when I know it might have been vacant for a while, but Tate has not been there for a long while. Tate has created a whole new feeling on that block. And I think we need a little bit more time and hopefully creativity for the building owner to find a companion business that could actually feed off of Tate and vice versa. But a bank isn't helping that business. A bank is creating no vitality in the evening, and there's no companion activity that's likely to happen between people who are frequenting to one business and the other. Like it's just not trying very hard. And so I feel a bit caught because I can't, I'm not, I don't know how to describe it. I can't do anything about the fact that it's already a biret use and with my proposal of denial, I can't stop it from occupying the remaining 30 feet and creating an annoying square at the corner. But I don't particularly think that a piece of static art in the corner is all that much better. It's ever so slightly better, but I think what's more, what would be better is the building owner thinking more creatively and working harder to get a complimentary business that is in communication with what's actually happening in the evolution of this block. And this block has been a challenge, like this section of town, with the way these buildings were redeveloped, it's just harder. And we all know it, we've been struggling with it, it doesn't have that same charm that other parts of Old Town have. This doesn't contribute to the remedy of those past failings. So I don't feel like in that context, my approval of the special use permit request, which is essentially saying not only is the 30 feet sufficient, but I'm willing to give them more feet for a little piece of art in the window. I just don't see it. I don't see the rationale there. That said, I appreciate that there are recommended conditions assuming this does get approved and an SUP moves forward to allow them to use the full space, but I would prefer to not support it. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the perspective that was just presented by Vice Chair McMahon and instead of running on and rehashing it, I'm going to leave it as kind of complete and convincing as she had presented it and I will be. I am interested in supporting the staff's recommendation of denial so I won't be supporting a motion to approve the SEP. Any other comments? I'll weigh in. Well, first of all, I think bank uses are part of a healthy business district, so to say it should all, all bank should be on second floors and that we should banish them from the street. There's more to a downtown area than boutiques and restaurants and there's banks, there's government offices. Look, we're in one of the biggest dead blocks on the street with the market square in City Hall with one door facing King Street. So, you know, we're the pot called the Cuddle Black here to complain about 37 foot bank when the whole City Hall has one door on King Street. So I think that, you know, that I understand the impetus for saying that personal service uses should only have 30 feet of frontage and I think it's a good goal to set for ourselves, but I'm glad that there's an exception process here and I think that we're properly vetting this through the exception process. You know, this building was already a bank. It was a huge bank. It was a pretty, pretty dead use for what decades that it was a big, big bank. I lived here 15 plus years before the bank closed. I never set foot in it once. So, and I'll be the first to say that Old Town has too many salons, too many banks, too many rug shops. There's certain classes of businesses that we end up with a lot of. And like in each case, you only need one, typically. You don't, you know, if you have one bank, maybe two, you don't need a third or four thirds, 16 banks. So, you know, I, at the same time, it's a, it's a, it's a market. It's a marketplace and businesses want to be here. We need to accommodate that. I would say we've already activated this block by bringing Tata here. So if they wanted to go into the previous SunTrust bank branch and have that whole space, then maybe I'd see some merit in the staff recommendation, but given that we've already done a lot to activate this building, I don't have a particular problem with this proposal here. I think we've got to recognize retail faces, struggles, that were in a different era from what was adopted as part of the retail strategy. I mean, it's probably something to think about as a work plan item in the next few years, whenever we come up for air with new things on the list, because it's important to sort of make sure that we're creating a strategy that fits the current retail environment, because it's changed so much since that plan was developed. As I know, we had to approve a similar special use permit a few years ago on Upper King Street for a barbershop that wanted more than 30 feet. And it was somewhat similar to this where it's a large building up in the Upper Part of King Street and they were certainly doing more to activate it than other uses in that area had been. So I think revisiting this, but I would lean towards being more inclusive of the uses that we permit rather than more exclusive. I think I think we've got to look at this the way we would have substandard lot or other cases where we're looking to make some exceptions and say you know what's what's the best case here. And I think in this case, the fact that the bank's gonna go here anyway. You're gonna end up with this funny little seven foot appendage that's just gonna be useless if the permit is denied. I think we're under the circumstances. You know, a different storefront on King Street could be a different story here. But I think in this particular odd instance with the stairwell and everything, I think the permitting the full extent of the use makes sense. And I would support the application with the recommended conditions that staff provided along with some of the amendments that the applicant proposed to the conditions. I don't think we should be dictating the interior design of banks. I think that's an overreach on our part with what we're trying to regulate here, which is really street life and by saying where you need to put your teller windows inside the bank, really strikes me as kind of getting outside of our, getting ahead of ourselves in terms of what we're trying to do there. But I support the, whatever we can do to sort of ameliorate the circumstance here, but I think an exception is more. I'm ready for a motion if somebody wants to put one on the table. Did you want to say something or? I very much respect the recommendation of the staff for denial. And I kind of think of myself as the last person who would object to a staff recommendation of denial, but I have to go along with the chair in this particular case. I think in the end, based on the testimony of the applicant's attorney that we are faced with either a TD bank with 30 feet of frontage or a TD bank with 37 feet of frontage, or a TD bank with 37 feet of frontage where the last seven feet is largely decorative, but it would be under the tenants control, which I think is better than having it still under the landlords control. So in my mind, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between saying yes and no in this particular case. And my preference is to see the space under the tenants control for whatever useful purpose they can figure out. And I would maintain as I kind of intimated in my earlier questions to staff, that I would be a whole lot more strict about that 30-foot limit on the older sections of King Street that to which I think it better fits. I doesn't fit particularly well on this block and this particular occasion, which is one of the reasons why I don't have too much pause in recommending that the special use be allowed. Okay, thank you. Is Lao? I will make a motion to recommend approval of special use permit in 2024. 0 0 0 0 0 0 with the applicants requested condition amendments. Okay, so motion by Ms. Laos second by Mr. Brown. So a question for you about the amendments. Are you proposing anything related to ADA to that amendment? Yes, to first have to add a point in there that you carefully check any kind of outdoor seating to be certain that it's not gonna impede access by wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, whatever, because the purpose of that ramp was accessibility. So what if we were to amend that condition to say publicly accessible outdoor seating in front of the tenant space on private property, subject to statewide building code requirements, comma, maintaining adequate ADA of adopted the additional language. Did you catch what I said there? Got that? Okay. All right. Further discussion. We have motion on the table for the discussion of the motion. If none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries five to two. We'll keep rolling. And we'll call item number 10. Item number 10, Master Plan amendment 2023-00004, zoning tax amendment 2024-00001, rezoning 2023 Public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the public hearing and consideration of requests for a amendment to the 001 and 4991 Eisenhower Avenue. Public hearing and consideration of requests for A, amendments to the Eisenhower West Small Area Plan chapter of the master plan to amend figure 4.1 to change the land use from office slash institutional to mix use. B, a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to amend the provisions of section 5-602 to establish CDD number 31 slash coordinated development district number 31. C, an amendment to the official zoning map to change the zoning designation of the property from the OCM 100 slash office commercial medium 100 zone to CDD slash coordinated development district conceptual design plan to convert an office building to residential use and allow development of townhouses and a multi-unit building on the site. E, a development special use permit and site plan to convert the existing building to a multi-unit residential building, including special use permits for a multi-unit residential building, including special use permits for a multi-unit residential building within 1,000 feet of the center line of Eisenhower Avenue in a parking reduction. A modification to the minimum drive out with in the garage and F a subdivision to create parcels for the existing building. Future development sites in streets zone, OCM 100 slash Office Commercial Medium 100. Applicants, City of Alexandria for the Texas Amendment, 5-0-0-1, Eisenhower. Eisenhower Office owner, LLC, care of Stonebridge, represented by Kenneth W.R. Attorney. Hey, thank you very much. And we have a staff presentation on the site. Good evening for the record. My name is Jared Alves with the Department of Planning and Zoning. The project site shown here outlined in red comprises two lots totaling about 10 acres. The lots include an 11 story former office building known as the Victory Center and a large surface parking lot. The site is about one third of a mile east of the Van Doren Metro station and is surrounded by a mix of residential, institutional, industrial and commercial uses. Highlighted on the slide, the adjacent Eisenhower Point redevelopment is converting the eastern parking lot for the former Victory Center building into a new townhouse community. Consistent with the Eisenhower West Small Area Plan, the applicant is proposing to redevelop this site and is requesting a rezoning from Office Commercial Medium 100 to a new coordinated development district 31, with a text amendment to add the CDD table into the zoning ordinance. The applicant is also seeking a master plan amendment to classify the western edge of the site from office institutional to next use. As detailed extensively in the staff report, the applicant has tried to get many office tenants after the Army Material Command Center left, but the changing needs for office have made the existing building obsolete for office. So we support the master plan amendment and special use permit for residential next size and hour avenue. I'll explain the proposed CDD and DSUP further in the next slides. The overall CDD concept plan will allow over 1.4 million square feet of development with a mix of multi-unit residential, townhouses, and retail. The DSUP included with this application is for the first phase to convert the existing building from office to residential. The proposal includes 377 committed affordable and rent controlled units at 50 to 100% of the area median income with flexibility to increase the unit count to 400 based on final engineering. With the DSGP, the applicant is requesting a special use permit to reduce the parking requirement. The applicant is proposing an innovative conversion of the first three floors of the existing building into garage parking, which involves a modification for the widths of the drive aisles. As noted in the staff report, we do not have any concerns with the proposed reduction. As the site is close to transit, the applicant is approving the area to make it more convenient to people walking, biking, or taking transit. And the challenges from converting the building make providing more parking and feasible. Finally, the applicant is asking for a subdivision to account for the future street grid, the existing building, and a publicly accessible private park next to Eisenhower Avenue. The CDD Conceptual Design Plan proposes a four-phase redevelopment of the site. As noted, the first phase would convert the existing building from office to residential. The second phase would be Lot B, shown here in orange, for up to 80 townhouses. The third phase, shown in pink, would be a multi-unit building with up to 400 units in retail. But with both phases, would be a proposed perpendicular private park that is publicly accessible, depending on market conditions, the applicant may switch the order of phases two and three. The final phase would be to complete this regret adding road A to the western edge of the site. The DSGPs for these future phases would be subject to the typical review and public hearing processes. This view of the first phase site plan shows proposed ground floor of the conversion building to include the lobby, first parking level with two additional levels underneath, and 2,000 square foot community leased room. As noted in the staff report, the city would have control of this room for 40 years at a nominal rent, and a future process will determine the ultimate use of this space. This plan also shows the many improvements to the site, including new public and private streets that meet the city's complete streets policy and mobility plan or post-park spaces. The private dog run and seating at the northern edge of the site would be for residents and their guests, however the parallel park between the building and Eisenhower Avenue would be privately owned but publicly accessible. Staff of recommended conditions to refine this park during the final site plan process. We strongly recommend including a multi-use sports court. The up to 880 proposed residents in this CDD would greatly increase the need for active recreational facilities within walking distance. And the parallel park should serve these needs to the greatest extent possible. We acknowledge concerns in the applicant about having a sports court in this park, but we believe that it is appropriate and would be like the well-functioning court at Poahatt and Park next to Route 1 on the eastern side of Alexandria, including a court here also leaves room for all the other proposed functions of the park. The changes to the existing building are mostly internal, the new lobby, community-led spaced apartments, and parking levels. In 2008, the exterior was updated to its current appearance and its formal and symmetrical with a vertical pattern of window openings and bays. Exterior walls are clad in precast concrete and neutral colors with a metal panel and trim around the window openings. A large canopy identifies the main building entrance. With this application, the most visible changes will be to replace the fixed glass with operable windows for the apartments. The main window level along the front will also be changed to meet the ventilation needs of the garage. The applicant and staff presented at six meetings, including three meetings of the Eisenhower West landmark van door and implementation advisory group, or members expressed support for the redevelopment. During the AHAC meeting, commissioners voted unanimously to endorse the plan. AHAC members were excited by the opportunity to use the tax payment to provide affordable housing, and the NASA proposal could include deeper levels of affordability. Staff know that the affordable housing package for the existing building, and I provided a letter requesting the applicant to consider conducting a life cycle analysis, and the saw solar panels were feasible. Finally, during the community meeting, residents asked about the construction and the construction of the city council. The environmental policy commission members also voted to support the project, celebrating the opportunity to conserve the existing building, and I provided a letter requesting the applicant to consider conducting a life cycle analysis and the soft solar panels were feasible. Finally, during the community meeting residents asked about the construction timeline, parking for the parallel park, retail opportunities, walking routes to the metro station and traffic impacts. The proposal provides many benefits for the city, most notably by laying the groundwork to redevelop the entire site in the long term and in the short term by reusing the former office building to provide 377 committed affordable and rent control departments a community leased room in a parallel park. As part of this DSUP the applicant also provide public art and a contribution to a future capital bike share station. The future DSUP's for phases two and three will provide additional affordable housing open space transportation and public art benefits consistent with city policies at the time of their submissions. The CDD concept plan is also committed to nearly two acres of open space at full build out. With the DSP, the applicant will greatly improve some water quality, removing nearly 30% more phosphorus than required. The street grid and streetscape comply with the smaller air plan recommendations and meet the city's complete streets policy and mobility plan. Finally, staff anticipates 109 net new students at full build out of the CDD with a site within the boundaries for Samuel Tucker and elementary in Francis Hammond middle school as well as the city high school. Staff have coordinated with ACPS on these projections. Staff, AHAC and the EPC recommend approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Okay, thank you very much. Questions for staff. I do have a question. So we got some correspondence from a member of the community who questioned the adequacy of the affordable housing and the rent control given the tax abatement and sort of made the argument that because the rent controlled portions of the building are what 80% to 100% AMI, they're aiming for a higher AMI target and we're often focused on for housing affordability that we're offering a tax abatement for nothing because of, you know, at being at 80% to 100% AMI. And what I wanted to vet with you a little bit was how you arrived at that tax abatement and the resulting, how you arrived at the resulting, AMI numbers and the balance between the affordable and the rent controlled units and the tie between the tax abatement and the unit count that you got. And would we get what we're getting in those rent controlled units to the same degree without the tax abatement is really what I'm interested in. This is a challenging project. This building has remained vacant for 20 years. It staff pushed very strongly for the applicant to conserve the building, to avoid the negative effects associated with demolition, temporary ones such as noise, but also just the embodied carbon associated with with demolition, temporary ones, such as noise, but also just the embodied carbon associated with that demolition. It is as a result of a costly and complex project. This is something that there is extended negotiations between the city and the staff and the applicant to determine what would be the appropriate route forward for this, ultimately a tax payment, was determined to be a tool that could support the redevelopment. What we have determined is that this value provided by the tax evapment is appropriate for the amount of affordability that we are receiving. And without this tax evapment, it is likely that this project would not be coming for you today as proposed. It is likely that maybe the building would not be conserved. It would be something entirely different. I'm sorry, I'm going to jump in a little bit because it seems like we have a little bit of a theme tonight where planning commissions per view is central, perhaps to some of the discussion. And certainly in this case, we have some housing, affordable housing, contribution policies or requirements that we impose through the land use process. In this case, we're talking about a conversion of an existing building. And as we are often telling you and members of the public, we have a very small toolbox from a land use point of view in terms of inducing an affordable housing component. And that is typically when additional density is being required or requested. And for the DSUP portion of this request, no additional density is being asked. And we often see with conversions that no affordable housing component is coming along with. So obviously contemporaneously with this DSUP is a request for a tax abatement that the City Council is considering. And so while that is perhaps germane, I think for the purposes of the DSUP case, they are, you must be satisfied that they're complying with the land use application ordinances which they are providing for more affordable housing than we would normally require. I guess the question that I have is without that tax abatement, it's not even like we would be getting a project with more luxury apartments or a different mix of housing within this structure. I see. Yes. We really be winding up with a completely different land form that would result in fewer overall units and fewer affordable units and fewer rent controlled units than what we wind up with in this case. Yes, absolutely. I would also just note for any members of the public who are interested in providing comment on the tax payment issue that the city council will be meeting next week on the 10th during their legislative session and they will be discussing the tax maintenance of an opportunity for public comment as well as on December 14th during the city council public hearing. To clarify, is there an opportunity for public comment as well as on December 14th during the City Council public hearing. To clarify is there an opportunity for public comment on that on Tuesday or is that part of the public hearing along with this at the Saturday meeting? I believe there will be opportunities at both meetings that's advertised on a City Web page specific to opportunities for engagement on this project. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for staff? We do have one speaker on the item, Ken Weyer. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Ken Weyer with the law firm Weyer Guild. My colleague, Megan Mipolt, is with me this evening as well as our client, Stonebridge, Doug Firstenberg, and Dave Streniglia. I do want to thank staff for all their effort. I personally have been out this for 15 years on this project. It's been vacant for 21. Staff, you could back to the site plan. Miss Lall and I spent several years on the Eisenhower West Small Area plan. There were a few key components of that. The first was is to utilize our metro station. It's one of the most underutilized metro stations in the entire network. This building has been a barrier, if you will, for that development for a long time. It's a 605,000 square foot building with an acre footprint. That is quite large. Our first proposal, Mr. Masek, was to come in with a market rate plan. We could build townhouses, create the entire site, we can finance that, and off we go. To say the staff was enthusiastic about that, was an understatement. They basically said that doesn't apply with the plan, we want density near the metro station. So if you see from our public outreach, we more or less figured out how to deal with the building and put the parking inside the building in the fall of 2023. To your question, without the tax abatement, there would be no project here. This project is so complicated and so detailed and so big, actually, it's almost counterintuitive. It's so big that we can't have a market rate solution without the tax abatement. What we're getting from that is 80 to 15, 60% AMI units and the remaining of the 177 is split between 80 and 100%. So the entire building's rent is tied to average median income. So if Amazon comes across the street, we can't just raise rents to meet the market. The entire building, you will know every year which your rent is because it's pegged by a HUD assessment of AMI. What we're also doing from the master plan is we're having the connectivity to very master plan asked for. It asked for connectivity from Eisenhower back to backlic run in an eventual park that will run along the rear of the property. We have the perpendicular park. Sorry, Mr. Alves, could you go to this slide that shows you overall neighborhood? We are changing it. It used to be on the other side of the conversion building. We need the parking lot there for the surface parking and the community space for the city. So we're moving it between our western phase, which is a townhouse and the multi-family, we're providing all the open space required in the master plan. We are also, spend a lot of time, sorry, staff, you go back now to an individual layout. A lot of time with staff on this open space layout. As you all have known, I've done a dozen conversions. Each one of them, you have what you have. This is a space that we have. We don't have a free hand here. The building sits, the road sits and we're working intensely with staff to figure out how to load the building and the have activity. You can see on the top of the plan for those of you who can't read it, it says there's a dog park in the back and also a community space, sort of some louder spaces in the back of the building near our loading docks. The half-baker 0.4 You can see the playground, the entry area, the flexible play area, and then the garden on the right-hand side. Our disagreeing with staff has never been about the need for a ballpark or a sport court. Of course, they need one. I'm sure staff is right. The challenge is in the couple hundred page master plan, the work court only comes up twice. Once two knowledge is the temporary use permitted in Eisenhower West, and once to acknowledge it can go in Armistead Booth Park next to the current court. So as a community statement of interest, it did not come up at all. We're not opposed to the idea of sport court just in belonging the front of our building. If you wanted to task staff with go finding a sport court and they came back to you and says, well, here's three quarters of a half one, is that good? I think you say, go try again and find another spot. So we strongly, and Mr. Alps, use the word strongly, and spoken a deeper voice, I'll try to mimic him a little bit. We also strongly oppose the idea. However, I've been at this for 15 years, if you feel the project hinges on the provision of a sport court, that we requested object to the idea of a 10-foot walled fence around an area that's just a sport court and it's all it can ever be is not the right call. Your master plan, the Eisenhower West implementation fund, talks about contributions to deal with these region-wide issues. This building's not paying for it because it's already there, but the $3 a foot escalating up for the western parcels, they would pay into that fund. And there's money and space to put that in other parts of Eisenhower West. So again, it's not a disagreement with staff on the need. I'm sure they're right, and we agree with them. The question is, is it the right idea in the right place? We don't think so. But to include on a positive note, to get 377 a building that's 3% of the city's 15% vacancy, that's a strong message. And I think we've worked on that in our West for years. I've worked on it. I think the uncertainty of this building has been a barrier for development around this area. I've had clients and written memos. I'm sure all the zoning attorneys have. No one knows what to do with this metro station until we figured out what. So I hope this is my last application in front of this come. For this building, we appreciate your support and we look forward to answering your questions. And as a conversion building, these units can come online in approximately 18 months. That's also pretty remarkable. So we look forward to your questions and look forward to getting to work on this very important project for our city. Questions for the applicant? Thank you, okay motion to close the public hearing So moved second motion by Ms. Laos second by Ms. Man the close public hearing all those in favor please say aye I I most motion carries 70 so let's take a commissioner discussion Oh, yes, I will be recusing myself from the discussion. Oh, quick. Oh, yes. Yes, I will be recusing myself from the discussion. Okay, yeah, I should have turned you earlier on that. Sorry. No worries. I did not vote on the last portion. In my defense, Ms. Williams took so long to read that description that I forgot you would ask me this for queues yourself. At the time she got to the end of it. So, not her fault. So she didn't vote on that. So yes, 6-0 on the, thank you, 6-0 on the closing of the public hearing. And she's recused, okay. Mr. Discussion? I'm having to open it up since I never thought I would see a day that this building would actually be used. And there was actually another attorney working on this prior to Mr. Wire. I've been looking at this since about 2007. And this, as he said, this building was really a big focus of the Eisenhower West's small area plan. And has been a true barrier to redeveloping that entire corridor. I think that this is a great use. I never was a fan of tearing this building down for a lot of different reasons But if you've ever been inside of it and seen the floor plates you would know the difficulty In redeveloping it. I think What they've been able to do is really going to be a benefit to the community. The one thing that I too disagree with staff on and it's interesting. We had an Eisenhower West landmark van Doren meeting on the Thursday night before Thanksgiving and this half court was never mentioned in that meeting. So, yeah, that was a little bit of a surprise, and it's still not on this drawing where you wanted to pop it, to pop it in. But I think that a sport court somewhere in this CDD is appropriate, but it's not appropriate for the front of the building. When you have the high fences in order to keep balls from going into, onto, into Eisenhower Avenue, if you have a lower fence, all you need is one ball to hit the front windshield of a truck, and you have an accident. And that's not a good position for anyone to be in. So what I would suggest is to move your court use to the CDD and have the applicant find an appropriate place somewhere within the project. It may even be behind the building. There may be some configuration, but I don't believe it goes on Eisenhower Avenue. We had a really distinct vision of Eisenhower that it changes to a lot of green space along that avenue. And I think this accomplishes the vision from the Eisenhower West small area plan. We also in that plan talked about parallel running parks and parks in both the front and the backs of buildings along the linear street that goes, runs parallel to Eisenhower. I think this accomplishes that. So what we need to do is leave this park alone and look somewhere else within this CDD for a court because it will be needed. And I think if you work on it, you can find a place that I don am happy to make the motion to approve and I'm fully in support. I'm excited to see this project happen. Mr. Canning, is your later. I think it was on accidentally, but I'll go ahead and make comment or do anyway. Thank you. I concur with Commissioner Lyle, I think it was on accidentally but I'll go ahead and make comment or do anyway. Thank you. I concur with Commissioner Lyle and I have watched the saga of this building over the decades now as well and did not have the fortitude that others in the room tonight to find a way in the end to bring forward such a really brilliantly conceived adaptive rejuvenation of this structure that converts it rather than destroys it, that solves the parking internally in an existing building that adds the sort of redevelop the site so that we introduce this significant and very desirable sort of public access park. So without belaboring the issue, I agree completely with the fact that it's really a spectacular opportunity and to have it this close to the finish line is great. On the detail of the support court I would concur that it's certainly concur with the staff that it's needed but I think there's so much happening with this proposal right now that we can comfortably say that that piece can be sold elsewhere in the future. So I'm very much in support of Commissioner Lyle's proposed motion and would be happy to second it when it comes by. I'll be quick, I agree with my fellow commissioners. The opportunity did not tear down the giant building and lose that embodied carbon and start all over again to ensure that we have high density housing near Metro. The rent control and the certainty around affordability, even if it is not deeply affordable, but at this location and for this many units, there's like, maybe there's a bit of a misnomer, but even 100% AMI is something because we have a lot of people who make more than that here. And well more than AMI and the new home opportunities, whether it's ownership or rental, are not necessarily affordable to 100% AMI. So this is still fitting a niche within a project that wouldn't normally even give us that. And I'm content with the rationale around removing the requirement for the sport court in this particular location. I actually really appreciate Commissioner Lyle's suggestion that it be sort of folded into a CDD-wide approach so we don't lose the opportunity to ensure it's designed into future open space on the wider site. I did want to highlight that it's really interesting how we achieve the internalization of parking on this site because it's basically a giant. It's a big building and a sea of parking and we're slowly turning all that parking into buildings. So it's a real achievement to internalize that parking and to make it usable. If anyone's looked at dry vile dimensions before, you'll note that this is a really narrow dry vile and there might be some question about how folks navigate. Long and the short of it is staff, I asked staff these questions and staff were really, I appreciated their explanation that in part this is sort of a, it is a make-do because you can't change the structure of the building. However, it's also a make-do in the context of known recent past experience with conversions where we had to internalize parking and we're dealing with other constrained spaces. And in those other conversions we've seen general success with people just making do and getting by with less space. That said, I do want to highlight that there's one difference in this building that from what I know of other converted office buildings here in the city. And that is that because these are rent controlled units, the people who are moving into them are qualifying, they're applying, they might be competing with other people trying to get these units. And the weather or not, their pickup truck fits in the parking space, maybe a secondary concern to them when they're trying to get access to the unit. And then once they're in and they have access and they got the lease in their, they're there. It's also still a secondary concern. So there is, there's the potential that people don't make good decisions when it comes to where their vehicle's gonna go. And they struggle after the fact to find a place where their vehicle can go, not wanting to give up their opportunity for a location that they can afford to live. Now that said, I think that that is mostly resolvable by really clear communication between the people who are running the building and the people who want to rent in the building. So really clear disclosures, maybe even cutesy guidance around how it's easier to back into a parking space than it is to pull in when it comes to some of these constrained garage facilities. But I say cutesy and it's sort of on the realm of marketing, but it's also just in the realm of good community service because this is going to be several hundred households that need to understand what they're getting into and you don't want them looking for surface parking on the random street frontages in the neighborhood just because they didn't realize that their vehicle doesn't fit the way they thought it would. So it's mostly just a note of encouragement to think creatively about that as you get to that place when you're leasing up and when you're thinking about what kinds of disclosures go in and what kinds of agreements go in so that we don't see an oddball impact that we weren't expecting. With that again, I'm happy to support. and clarification from staff, a couple of people have suggested finding an opportunity elsewhere in the CDD for the sport court idea. If that is something the commission wants to see, we would have to add a condition in the CDD section. We have some language, but wanted to get clarification that that is what you expect of us. I think that, good we get Mr. Wire back up and let's figure this out right now quickly. I think that would be the easiest. I think we're all thinking the same thing. So our thought, Mr. Kern, is just to move that condition into the perpendicular park CDD condition. So within the same open space we have, we have to reconfigure it. It's going to look different. It would be move that condition into the perpendicular park condition with the same area. We can figure it out with the next phase. So it's just really just move in the idea to the perpendicular park within the same area. And that essentially would mean taking condition 20 dot ii and taking that dot ii portion and moving it as a new e within the CDD condition 47. So it would be 47e. An alternative would be to leave it a little bit more broad with flexibility for the applicant such that it could be a new 47 capital A, which would then essentially take that language from 20 dot ii and say within phases one through four, the CDD shall provide and the rest of 20.II, they can make it specific to perpendicular park, and that's acceptable to us, or if they want to make it more broadly anywhere within phases one through four of the CDD, that would also be acceptable to us. I'd like to nail it down, let's just put it in the perpendicular park. So it's the same concept, we're just moving it to the other park. You can design it in then. Yes, ma'am. That works for us. So when you say you want to put it in particular park, are you saying to go with it as 47 lower case E in the CDD conditions or as 47 capillaries? Lower case E. Correct. Lower case E. In the CDD conditions. Lower case E. Yes, thank you. for the discussion. Mr. Brown? I don't have any problem with the motion to support the staff recommendation as a minute. I just want to make a comment about the future before we vote on this. The IZN, the IZN harm master plan in this area is replete with red lines on the face of buildings all along Eisenhower Avenue in this area, except for one, and that's this particular building. Everywhere else, there's a stress on there being street facing retail. And I just want to make sure that retail does not become kind of a neglected stepchild in this process of building more and more residential units because although I don't have any numbers to support it, I would say that the walkscore in this particular neighborhood right now is atrocious. There's no place to walk to to buy groceries. There's no place to walk to to buy groceries. There's no place to walk to, to sit down and have coffee. I think there's a tiny little restaurant across the street and not much else. And we have an entire length of Eisenhower. I don't know how many miles long it is. Three miles or more. And there's not a grocery store and site unless you get all the way down to Wegmans, which is not on Eisenhower, but just off. So I'll be looking with strong favor toward future development proposals that don't make light of the need for the retail as specified in the master plan in the other areas. And that includes the other two development parcels that are not part of the immediate approval here. The development parcels in the CDD. That's all I have to say about the future, but that's what I'll be looking for. Right? Further, further discussion or emotion? Are we ready for emotion? Sure. Okay, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of Master Plan Amendment 2023, 0,0004. Second. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's correct. The text amendments, the only one that needs an initiation vote as well. But they do need separate votes. Okay. So your first, or state your first motion? I make a motion to recommend approval of Master Plan amendment 2023-00004. Zero zero zero zero zero four. It'd be clear where we would be adopting the resolution for the master plan amendment Yes, thank you. I can't talk much more Okay, so we've got a motion by Miss Lyle. Is there a second? Mr. Canning Okay, any discussion of the motion to adopt the resolution for the master plan amendment If not all those in favor please say aye aye Any opposed motion carries 6 to 0 Okay, I make a motion to initiate text amendment 2024 0 0 0 0 1 Second Motion by Ms. Laos second by Mr.. Cainig to initiate the zoning text amendment. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay. I may come. Any opposed? Motion carries 6, 0. Motion to recommend approval of text amendment 2024. 0, 0, 0, 0, 1. Second. second motion by Ms. Laos second by Mr. Canig to recommend approval is zoning text amendment. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed motion carries 60. Make a motion to recommend approval of resounding 2023 zero zero zero zero seven. Second. I wish my bills allow second. I, Mr. Canning, to recommend approval of the rezoning. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Okay. I make a motion to recommend approval of CDD concept plan 2023-00002 with the new condition 47 E. Second. recommend approval of the CDD Conceptual Design Plan and that condition 47e would read at least 150 by 50 foot by 55 foot multi-use court area strike to accommodate multiple games such as racquet sports and half court basketball. Thank you for the discussion of that motion. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Thank you motion to recommend approval of DSUP 2023-10019 with the removal of condition 20-C2. second motion by Ms. Lyle second by Mr. Canning to recommend approval of the DSUP as amended. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 6-0. I make a motion to approve subdivision 2020-3-000005. Second. Okay. Motion by Ms. Laos, second by Mr. Canning to approve the subdivision. Before we vote on that, I'll just say briefly on this case, agree with the comments of my colleagues on this really being a signature accomplishment here with so many years, so many different proposals that we've seen over on this site. So I'm happy to have this one and support this one on my watch here. I will note just on the sport court, I'm glad we're able to accommodate it elsewhere on the site. I think this is an acceptable approach. I don't know that it being on the street would be a problem necessarily. There are other examples of sport cards on Russell Road, Potomac Avenue, North Henry Street that are, you know, with fence areas that are near roads and they work fine. So I don't know that what staff was initially proposing for this was a problematic solution in my point of view, but I think we found probably a better solution overall. And I just hope that we get the court in place in a timely manner, because I do think with 800 residents here and 100 school children, a lot of these kids are going to be too old for the playground. And that support court is going to be an important place for them to have an outlet. So I just hope we can figure this out in a timely manner. So we've got a place for kids to have some outdoor space So I just hope we can figure this out in a timely manner. So we've got a place for kids to have some outdoor space in the immediate vicinity of the project. So with that, any other discussion on the motion? I think Scott may have been influenced by the vibrant sports sports in a hard-working village. Which is a good example of how they can get table for the subdivision. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 6-0. I think it's everything. Thank you. I'll leave it truly. Okay. What was this called? Item 11. Okay, item number 11. Development Special Use Permit 2024-1007. Eisenhower E's Block 20 E's. 2250 Doc Lane Public Hearing and consideration of a request for an amendment to previously approved development special use permit 2017-005 to allow for the construction of a multi-unit residential building and related site improvements and with the modification zone CDD number 24 slash coordinated development district number two applicant, paradigm development company LLC represented by Mary Katherine Gibbs attorney. Okay. Would anyone like a staff presentation on this item. If not, we can skip the staff presentation. Any questions for staff? Okay, we do have one speaker on this item. Mary Catherine Gibbs. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the side transformative, one of the transformative developers of Eisenhower East. And they started working on block 19 in 2015, I believe. And so it's been nine years, and now we're working on the last portion of block 20. And it's a pretty significant opportunity, both for a condominium ownership opportunity. But for the affordable housing contribution, it's the first opportunity for affordable home ownership in Eisenhower East. And I just don't not sure if it's a good idea to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a Joe Plumpy from Studio 39, Ashley Erensberg from Urban Engineering and Felicia. What is your last name? Ricta from Grovesley. But we are here. We are in agreement with all of the conditions with staff. I want to thank the staff. They worked very, very hard to get us to this point. We both worked on the CDD amendment that you guys approved in June and then got through the DSP to get us to this point before the end of the year. And with that, I'm here to answer questions and would request your recommendation of approval. Great. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Brown. Mr. Gibbs, did you come all the way from Chicago to talk to us tonight? I did not. I moved back. I don't know if you... I didn't, I said I didn't tell you that. I bought a house in Del Rey. Well, I haven't, I haven't a profound question to ask. Go ahead. Is it true that there will be, there will be no rusty crawling and flying critters on the side of the wall of this building? Those are all contained on the walls of the other building on block 20, correct. But there is gonna be a significant stone feature on this wall as you're coming off of the beltway on Mill Road. You will see a very significant architectural feature on that corner of the building in stone. I can't say that I'll miss it because I don't get down there too often, but I enjoyed seeing them when I toured the property. Thank you. It's a really beautiful place. Ms. Lau. I'm just going to say this. Each building that's gone up in that block has been better than the one before. And so I really look forward to seeing what happens with this one because they're becoming statement buildings in Eisenhower East. Thank you. Yeah, I would echo that. And I think this project was, you know, when the first stage here came before us for the the streambed and the trailway through that was a really creative solution and the buildings are great. The artworks great. Hopefully this will be another excellent addition to this block. So probably at this point, the American Trucking Association's building that used to be there is long forgotten, but it's good to see a productive use on the site. Are we ready for it? Yeah. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve DSU P 2024 100007. Second. Mm-hmm. Uh. He's going to wait over that. We'll go with, if it's a misbehave. Man is the second. Right over that we'll go with it. It's a miss miss miss miss miss miss miss Laal second by miss Laal by miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss that emotion to Oh to end to close the public hearing. Okay, so it's to close the public hearing and to recommend approval of the DSP. Yes. Yes. Okay, thanks for confirming. Yes. Yes. OK. Thanks for confirming. Any discussion of that motion? If not all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And we have skipped the minutes. Oh, we're missing our, you knew it would be a late meeting and that we wouldn't wanna have any sort of commissioner comments, questions or discussions. Since that's not on the agenda, but I will. Ask if there's any brief reports folks have for the Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to, with the, this will be quick, but with the approval of the Alex West plan, we, or as we never best in so we are now focused on our next planning activity, which will be the Dukes Street Court or plan. And I went into, I like that it won't be probably until April that something in terms of a community meeting will occur, but we start working on it by talking to members of the community often one by one and so those conversations will start. So if you had, I wanted you to be aware of that so that if conversations were reported to you, you would understand what is going on that we do like to get some sense of community interests and topics and so on as we're formulating our plans. And staff has already interviewed Miss Pepper. Of yes. Or a couple of hours. I'm sure that was a delightful experience. It was, no, it was an extremely informative and eye-opening conversation because it went back to the 60s. That is really fantastic. Well, thanks for that update. Any other reports have? Mr. Chairman, just to quickly note that since our last meeting the ACPS is conducted their third virtual community meeting on George Mason Elementary School. It was from 630-730 on the 21st of November. On the upside, the design team is making very organized progress. ACPS is very organized. The design is moving forward. On the downside, I would share the concern is still have that 60 minute engagement events that consist of a slide presentation followed by Q&A in which the questions are submitted by CHAAT, read by the ACPS moderator, answered by the staff or design team, and no follow-up as possible is really a kind of a relentlessly antiseptic exercise in which the actual voice of a community member is never heard. There were some questions relating to the open space aspect that we know that was at issue before, but I had absolutely no ability to gauge what the current temperature of the neighborhood is on the issue based on the fact that I couldn't see who asked what questions I couldn't talk to anybody who might have asked a question and followed up. Nobody who asked a question had a chance to follow up. So I think it's the same challenge that comes from having what I would consider really 60 minute remote briefings for the community, rather than something that we would call a community engagement effort. The next meeting is scheduled for the 20, I don't know, the correct, I don't. 16th of December, I believe, and the next Superintendent's advisory team meeting is the 17th of December. Seems like we need to send a copy of what's next Alexandria at ACPS and the Superintendent's office, so they're familiar with our presence. to send. Seems like we need to send a copy of what's next Alexandria at ACPS and the superintendent's office so they're familiar with our principles of engagement. Well that's just what I was going to ask Mr. Mort. Is there any way before that comes to us for public hearing, which it will, to require that there be an in person in a meeting where it's not so prescriptive? Well, I don't know about requiring, but let me tell you, I have the sense of the planning commission. Let me talk to them about, I will convey to them what I sense is your expectations. They are certainly aware that this comes to you for review and approval. And so I'm happy to follow up and report back. And if I could make one last observation, I think it would be that the absolutely time critical points at which public input could have significantly affected what we'll see on the docket is passed on this project. It passed 30 days, 40 days ago now. So I raised that point only because I think my efforts, such as they have been, I'm not interested, I'm not attempting at this point to try to change the process in any way. It's very organized and it's pretty relentless and it's very successful in terms of moving the project forward. I think the issue for us is how the next process might actually work and to capture the fact that one of these projects starts, we can't have a process where the point at which it's introduced as a process underway is simultaneously with the significant conceptual decisions about the project. And in my memory, that's not the way it used to be, but that is in my observation exactly what's happening now and reorganizing that pattern for the next project may be more critical than trying to fiddle with this one. But that may just be because I've been so ineffective at fiddling with it so far. That was going to, that really sort of teased up the question that I had, and I don't know if Carl, if you even know the answer. But who, who, what, how? Do we influence future processes? Because I recognize that there is an elected school board that's separate from city council, and there's like, there's the budget questions, which are separate from the planning questions that they tend to undertake in their own processes, but like, what's the right way for us to make enough noise that we are completely dissatisfied with the way planning processes work from major community facilities that affect our neighborhoods and affect our families. I encourage. I encourage. But how are parents going to help with that? It's like structural organizational choice that's being made by the five-school system. One potential. It's three-born meetings. Yeah, but I feel like the thing with parents is you've got so many other picker battles. the school system. One potential. Report meanings. Yeah, but I feel like the thing with parents is you've got so many other pick your battles. What are you going to start when it comes to complaining about something at a school board meeting? The, um, the, the, the, the, the thought to me is that a venue for this discussion could be the, there's a joint task force between the school board and City Council on Facilities, isn't there? There has been. I mean, it is no longer active. The Joint Task Force made a series of recommendations a couple of years ago, which included joint facilities, master planning work, which included joint facilities, master planning, work, which, but it is not active now. There is some sort of joint school board, City Council. Yes, there is. There's a City Council school board subcommittee that meets once a month and then to my members. I mean, it's two council members to school board members. What we could do is we could, it's all everything's in a state of transition right now, but as a commission we could author a letter to the members of that, the City Council members of that commission, right, to Eddie, and voice our concerns and ask that they discuss it with their school board counterparts. Because our responsibility is not, to the school board is not the schools, it's to the City Council, we're here to advise City Council and I think it would be within our powers to provide that advice to city council members. We would copy all the members of city council. So it would be addressed to the two members who sit on the commission, that committee, but we would inform all the members of city council that this is something we would hope that they would do. And I think we could bind copy the school board and the school board members of that committee as well, but really address our concerns to the council members if we wanted to, you know, write a letter that conveys that sentiment. I guess I would just say that I would be in support of assisting with composition of such a letter. Because I think we've watched now sequentially for the tenure of various commissioners on this commission school projects come before us and have their strengths and weaknesses, but I really feel that the narrative that Commissioner Caining has offered of this process is particularly disheartening. And these projects don't stop. And they are, even though the school systems decisions are not directly under our purview, we see them as development projects, and we talk about them and try to advise on them from the perspective of community land use decision making and community building. So I think that Council should hear from us to the extent that we can describe it and the flaws and the process they're using today. Yeah. Well, could I ask Ms. McMahon and Mr. Canning to jointly work on drafting a letter? And then we can, I guess the way we've handled this and other commissions I've been part of is that you pick it up as a draft at a future meeting and review it as a group at the public meeting and then finalize it and send it out. So the yes but, is that won't be at the next meeting because I'll be out of town. So we can but I am happy to do that with we can do it. We can do it. We can plan to do it at the at the um. A worry meeting. Yep. Sounds good to me. Okay. Sounds good. All right. And then and then to the extent we might want to vote on it, we don't need to vote to initiate drafting in the letter. We can vote to adopt the letter at the point that we review a draft of it. All right. I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Get a motion to adjourn for Ms. McAnne, second for Ms. Lyle. Mollison favorably say aye. Aye. I was motion carry 7-0 on word germ