you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Good evening everybody. The April 22nd, 2025 Loudon County Planning Commission, public hearing will now come to order. And as is our custom, let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. the I'm in this room. Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission at the end of the day as to my left. If you are participating electronically, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. If you signed up to speak after 12.30 p.m., please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes after 12 noon as indicated on the website. Indicate your name and the agenda item you want to address. Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual, will have three minutes per the commission's bylaws. Written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Deputy Clerk who will make copies for the members of the Planning Commission. The commission may vote on an application tonight and send its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, or may forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking a final vote. Our procedures for the public hearing is as follows. Ten minutes staff presentation followed by commissioners' questions to staff. Tonight each commissioner will be given three minutes to ask questions. Ten minute applicant presentation followed by commissioner questions. Hearing is then opened for public comment, three minutes for each speaker. After everyone has had a chance to speak, the hearing is closed. The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to public comment. Finally, there will be a motion, deliberation, and vote by the commission. The first item we have are the minutes from the March 25th public hearing. And if the commissioners have had a chance to review them, I will accept a motion. So moved. Motion to accept made by Vice Chair Miller, seconded by Commissioner Myers. Any comments? I think all those in favor say aye. Aye. And motion will pass 8. Pass 7-0-1-1 with. Pardon? Yeah. 7-0-1-1 with Commissioner Combs absence and commissioner banks abstaining from the vote. Okay, let's go to disclosures. If anybody has any disclosures, please turn on your light. And I will call upon you, Commissioner Jasper. I met virtually with Molly Novotny yesterday, with regard to the Jesu Court application. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Yesterday, Monday, the 21st, I met with Molly and Abot and Max Wierd from Stockbridge about Jesse Court. That's my commission of myers. Today I met virtually with Molly and court application before tonight and then yesterday I did have a briefing from the county staff in regards to the general plan CPM review we have in front of us tonight Okay, thank you anybody else. Okay, and for myself today I met with the applicants for the Jesse Court application And I also met with the applicant representatives for an upcoming dollars town center application. Our first public hearing item for tonight is we're going to reverse the two that we have. It will be ledgy 2024-0027 Jesse Court, ZMAP 2024-7 and special exception 24-44. And Rachel, ready when you are. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going toce and commissioners. I'm Rachel Evenanschuk with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here to present Leji 2020-027, Jesse Court, which is a request for a zoning conversion for 16.26 acres within the RU28 tax district from Clend development and development industrial park PDIP under the 1972 zoning ordinance. To industrial park IP under the current zoning ordinance with a special exception for machinery and equipment sales and services on the subject property. Otherwise all IP permitted and special exception uses would be allowed, except those that are offered out of here, agricultural and horticulture, caretaker residents, lodging, parking facilities, and recycling collection centers. The parcel is located in the Sterling Election District, a 21593, Jesse Court, south of East Seven Way, west of Atlantic Boulevard, and on the east side of Route 28, I've shown in this aerial view. The property has been in use for several decades as a golf driving range and also has miniature golf about engaged picnic area with beach volleyball. The parcel is now under the same ownership as Carter machinery located to the north and the owner wishes to expand the Carter operations onto the subject property. There is also a flex industrial use to the northeast, also along Jesse Court, and an auto dealership and a hotel to the east, fronting on Atlantic Boulevard. Surrounding uses are zoned either IP under the current zoning ordinance or PDIP under the 72 ordinance. The special exception, as shown on the specs plaque, would retain existing parking at the end of Jesse Court, which is a private access easement and on which the applicant will put sidewalks pursuant to the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes a new sales and service building up to 210,000 square feet in the dark gray where the existing golf tees are located and in approximately 60,000 square foot area which the hatched with the hatched design, equipment storage and display. The area south beneath the storage and display area and blue is river and stream carter resources and existing floodplain. This area is also available for potential refurrication and restoration in addition to the green shaded tree conservation areas as shown on this plat. The applicant will also be required to main plantings pursuant to the zoning ordinance for a road carter buffer type 3 along route 28. and it's anticipated that the applicant will remove the existing recreational facilities when they commence operation for the machinery sales and service. The property is designated in the 2019 general plan for suburban mixed-use place types for residential, commercial and entertainment uses. A adjacent uses, as noted previously, are zoned IP and PDIP. The nearest residential use is approximately one quarter mile to the southeast across Atlantic Boulevard and peace plantation. Although the proposed use is inconsistent with the place type, staff suggests that conversion to the current zoning ordinance and expansion of an existing business outweighs the conformance with the place type. Conditions of approval for the, are tied to the request for the machinery sales and services services. Conditions relate to the tree conservation area, depicted on the plat, specimen trees, invasive species techniques for addressing and treating invasive species and incorporating low impact development techniques. as identified identified no outstanding issues. There were no briefing questions two weeks ago. Staff is aware that the applicant has some additional and modified conditions to propose following discussions with planning commissioners. One in particular relates to specimen tree replacement in condition six the county's urban forest are recommend retaining condition six as Written with replacement by four one inch caliper trees having a better survival rate Steph also wishes to suggest a cushion condition may be appropriate that all screen net, surrounding the driving range be removed prior to operation of the machinery sales and service. Although it could be something the applicant would do regardless. Staff supports a planning commission recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors subject to the Proffers and Conditions. The 2019 general plan identifies the area as appropriate for suburban mixed use, including residential, however, the proposed conversion to the current zoning ordinance retains in expands and existing business and a manner that's consistent with the economic policies of the 2019 general plan. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff. Pass them to me. Mr. Frank. All right. A couple of questions. This isn't being in the 28 tax district. What are recent changes to how we handle data center uses Were this down the road what is grandfather to not I guess with the 28 tax district are they They're not they're still grandfather data centers are not aspects With the recent changes if you're in the 28 tax district So that or if you're stay 72 if you come to come to current This is I'm trying to follow along that's To the best of my knowledge as I understand it by bringing it into the current zoning ordinance It would be a special exception. It would not would not be granted. Okay, so it's still it okay That's's what I thought I just hate to assume. All right. What is the maximum building height of any of the the IP? By right uses that are in this current zoning. Do we know? The IP does allow up to I believe 100 feet. It does require setbacks when the adjacent to certain uses and locations. And data center is not propered out, correct? No, it is not. That use, correct. I believe the, where are the sales facilities only? It's about a story and a half less than two stories? How many feet? How would they answer that? Two or a two or a later discussion. It's not 100 feet, yeah, it's less than, it's that, but I think it's about a story and a half is what they're all about. It's also more than 20. Yeah, it's also more than 20. You're handling that to see Pam later. Yes, exactly. Thankfully. I think that's my only question for staff. Thanks. Okay. the CPM later. Yes, exactly. Thankfully. I think that's my only question for staff. Thanks. Okay, anybody else have questions for staff? No? Okay, does the applicant have a presentation? I do. If staff could pull it up, I'd appreciate it. It's out there. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Molly Novotny. I'm an to go to the next slide. Good evening. My name is Molly Novotny. I'm an urban planner with curator partners. Please to be here before you tonight on behalf of the applicant. did a great job and my presentation will be brief. Just make it bigger. That're doing great, Rachel. Again, for the record, my name is Molly Novotny. I'm an urban planner at Curata Partners on behalf of the applicant repulse bay. Just to go a little bit down back in history, back to 2021, this application really got it start with the application or the property noted with the star. And that property is what exists today as the Carter Caterpillar rental facility. Back in 2020, it was a franchisee of Albin Caterpillar. And they were, Caterpillar requested that Carter Caterpillar, a different franchisee, take over this franchise. And so back in 2021, they took over the franchise, but then they looked to purchase the property. As part of the property purchase, it was determined that the use that existed there at the time was not actually permitted by the 1972 Zoning Ordinance. And so we went forward and brought forward a ZRTD and a special exception application for that property noted with the star. Fast forward today is occupied by a Dallas golf center to be clear that use will be completely replaced by this facility and yes we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by this facility and we will be replaced by be clear that use will completely be replaced by this facility and yes we will agree to take down the nets and all of the golf equipment and recreational equipment that's there today as part of this application. The property is owned PDIP for the 1972 zoning ordinance and as Rachel noted all of the the properties around it are also similarly zoned IP or PDIP for the 1972 Zoning Ordnance and as Rachel noted all of the properties around it are also similarly zoned IP or PDIP. It is planned suburban mixed use noted with the pink, but this area has not developed according to suburban mixed use. It's not an integrated area. There's no mix of uses. There's no residential on this property or anywhere near year noted by this image that we prepared for staff. And so the property is outlined in orange. And what you can see is you've got industrial flex building strictly to the north. You've got a hotel and vehicle repair. And more flex industrial buildings to the east, data center across the street. And so allowing this Carter cap facility to expand to the south makes a lot of good planning sense at the property, which is why we've been very happy to have staff support of the application and why we originally thought this was a good use at the property. What you see here is our special exception plan. The building is limited to the area in gray, that gray box. It identifies 210,000 square feet. That's about a .3 FAR at the property that is larger than we plan to build, but because it's a special exception plan, we need to show where the building could go. And so it would go someplace within that box. It's probably no more than 50 feet in height. That's probably generous. Yes, the IP district allows 100 feet, but we're not looking for that given the use that we're proposing here. What you see here is all those environmental conditions on the property. The red is a risk car and the blue is a flood plain. So everything south of those environmental quarters will be protected. We plan no development down there. We are adjacent to Route 28. This is the Type III Road corridor buffer that's required along Route 28. It's 20 feet and width, and as you can see, it's significant plantings. It's about 95 plant units per every 100 linear feet. And so there will be good screening along Route 28. This is per the ordinance. This is a specific special exception that we're asking for. Machinery and Equipment Sales and Service. It allows again that continued use to the that exists to the north to continue to the south. There will be outdoor sales. It's permitted. It's an accessory use in those zoning ordinance. We did not need to ask for any additional relief for that use. We've got some illustrative renderings here. These renderings are illustrative in nature. They were designed for a different Carter caterpillar facility. So I can't condition that they will look exactly like this, but it shows you a good idea of kind of the caliber of building. Following a meeting with Commissioner Polanden-Meyers, there is a question about where those service-based doors would be located. We've agreed that they would be located to the east. Or we will agree to a condition of approval. So they will not face Route 28 or be visible from Route 28. We thought that was a good suggestion, and the client was happy to agree to that. And so that just kind of shows some good image there. And then the conditions of approval, these are the five conditions that staff already went through that we've agreed to, that we've already agreed to do. We've proposed some additional commitments following meetings with several of you. One was to replace any damage. My error, I type specimen tree tree. This should really be any tree within the TCA. That is damaged during construction. Right now that condition says that we would replace one damage tree with two one inch caliper trees. If NRT wants us to we're happy to replace a damaged tree in the TCA with larger caliper trees, but we understand NRT may have some concerns about the viability of those caliper trees, so we're happy to work with them between now and the board to make sure we get the language right. But that should be for the TCA trees, we're happy to keep the cessamentry condition the way it was drafted. We've also are happy to agree to a condition of approval that we'd prohibit any chain link fences along route 28 that was not our plan, but just to make it very clear to the commission and others. And then also commit that any loading base would face east and not toward route 28. We're happy to agree to that condition of approval. But we're here to answer any questions and happy to do that tonight. Okay, thank you. Questions for the applicants. Mr. Jasper. Thank you, Chair. Cures. Hi, thank you for the good presentation and thank you for the accommodation to the larger trees and the tree conservation area. The other one, if we could apply this to also the specimen tree condition of approval, where, because in this, and with regard to the specimen trees you're taking out potentially, hopefully this doesn't happen, a 30 inch caliper tree, and replacing it with 4 1 inch caliper. So I do think that a larger, you know, the same criteria should apply there. Yeah, and we're happy to work with NRT on that. I'll let Martian speak. I think they raise some concerns. I think what, so generally, to let me be clear, there was two conditions that required a replacement tree. The one was the specimen tree, one was the TCA. TCA. So generally, an specimen condition writes four one-inch caliber trees for one specimen tree removed. And then the conservation areas two one-inch trees. And we reached out to them today. And Generally the survivability or the viability that Molly mentioned earlier at a one-inch tree is higher than the three-inch caliper trees Having to disturb the roots and the transporting so and their experience was that the higher volume or the lesser caliper They also grow faster though to catch up to the three- tree. So that was our, the condition was based on that practice and that experience. And so certainly the condition you can impose conditions, although applicants agree, you do have the ability to impose a conditions that you see fit. If the commission finds that that caliber is a more appropriate standard, then certainly we can amend the conditions to incorporate that. I mean, I might ask that we go back to NRT about the sweet spot. I've got a good bit of experience with tree planting and the, you know, kind of 2 to 4 or 5 inch caliper. And I'm not asking for 4 or 5 because I know what's involved there and I also know the survivability issues. But there may be a sweet spot between two and three that's pretty easy to hit. Yeah. And we're also happy to consider planting additional ones if that's where in RT land. So we're happy to work with that. Yeah. I just think in terms of appearance, aesthetics, et cetera, it's beneficial to have something a little more meaningful than one-inch caliper. And I've seen those one-inch guys die super fast too. So. Yeah, it's something we, I'm sorry, I went to your question and answer, but that's something we can work to. Thank you, Barrett, if you can work together to come up with something. Thanks. Wish your Myers. Yeah, thank you so much. I appreciate you putting in all the things we talked about earlier today. One question and it really kind of came up during more of the staff presentation because of the grey shading. So when I look at your number seven screen or number seven plat that shows a special exception all on it. So your gray area that's outlined there is or not gray, the dotted lines around it, which are also gray hatched. Is the idea that all of that can be used for no offense, but like the cranes that are up in the air today as I drive by Route 28? The idea is that is the only place they could be placed. So yes, they could be located within that entire area but they can't be Anywhere outside of it. And can they how close will they actually get because if you look to the one side there it looks like it's almost touching kind of the Kind of the risk got area. What is the setback that they'd have to be away from that before they could set any equipment there? So it is allowed to encroach a little bit in that risk car area that we've shown. The ordinance allows that and then we would reforest within the floodplain area. But I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is the distance of how close it could be to that risk-cutter that we're looking at? Hi I'm Pat Quania at Bow a bone-man consulting for those of you who don't know me. So can you rephrase the question because I was focused on 28, not risker. Okay. When I look at the red area and you look how you're going down into it when you come around the curve, that means that means that that equipment could literally be setting in the rescout area. So, so the red area is an area that is eligible to be reduced. And so that's what our proper is. We already have, since we have over 300, sorry. Since we have like a huge floodplain area, you're allowed to reduce the buffer in that area So the red area would is allowed to be reduced and then we do additional plantings actually in the floodplain That's what the reforestation condition is so We won't be following exactly the blue line, but will you know, it's gonna be whatever is Geometrically makes a nice Parking area Okay, so I mean, so is what you're saying Pat, sorry Mr. Bowman, is that really the area that we're talking about that's trying to be protected is more the blue lines, not the red lines and the red lines is where we're allowed. where it's allowed to be modified so you guys really aren't setting in the Riscod area No, we're allowed to reduce that red buffer. That all the blue, all the white you see is riskot. Right. Is buffer. So, floodplain and buffer. OK. So you're allowed to reduce the buffer. There's two different lines on there. It's kind of hard to see them. There's an area where you're not allowed to reduce it is far right on the far right where you see the red and the blue kind of run into each other. That's an area where you can't reduce it because it's within 100 feet of the stream. Okay. Okay. But I'll just add the dashed line that's black. That really shows where equipment would be located. So it's really only a very minor encroachment that that would be there. Okay. And then looking at your type three road quarter buffer for this particular side of the application, the other side, which has already existed today, the buffer's not that dense on that side. And did it not have to have the same kind of road, did not have to have the same buffers at this side now has to have? So I don't remember the details of that application, but it was an existing condition and there were already easements in that area. If I remember from the staff presentation that I looked at earlier today, there were easements that existed on the north property that precluded additional plantains. Okay. Because as we discussed earlier, I mean, I went there and sat on the property and one of my concerns is the only thing you really see is the elevated equipment setting up and then the weeds that are growing up on the chain fence, which isn't to me very attractive. So definitely that's one of the reasons why I asked about not doing the chain, but I was also looking and I realized that the budding property is not part of this application. But as you guys are looking at it, it would be nice to see if you could consider an enhancement to that side too that would then have some more tree canopies and stuff to it that I think would just, would make the whole design look like it was more compatible to each other instead of all of a sudden, you've got this one area that doesn't look quite as attractive as the other. Yeah, and we're happy to look to see if there is, but I do recall that there were those easements in place. That's why they didn't make us. That's why they weren't able to do it with that last application. I'd like to meet if they were even more internal where you're seeing the equipment setting coming back in there so that your trees kind of wandered so that it came off the easement areas, which I realize we can't condition on this because it's... Well, like to me, if they were even more internal, where you're seeing the equipment setting, coming back in there so that your trees kind of wandered so that it came off the easement areas, which I realize we can't condition on this because it's the abutting property. But somehow another, if there was just some kind of reforstation or some kind of canopy that was done in that front, see how you're gonna have it on the other side, I think it would enhance that whole look. It's understood, thank you. Okay, anybody else? Last chance. Any questions? All right, I'm for myself. So as mentioned, I can't help but not mention that on March 28th in the Washington Business Journal, there was an article about a point one, which is a data center developer, had bought the adjacent buildings on Jesse Court for data center expansion and were eyeing the Property adjacent to it that currently is a golf course of Driving range. So if you had any contact or they had Any contact with you regarding the property? This company? For this application we're bringing forward for the Carter-Carter to do here right for this property that company approached I saw the article We talked to them about the article Not sure because this is specific to our application is for the special exception before you today, okay All right, and As far as things were mentioned so you've already clarified about committing to the service pay doors. If the fencing not to be chaining, do you have plans for a fence? We didn't. I think the question came up because in my illustrative image it shows a fence, but this was not specific for this, but we just wanted this. Okay. So. All right. And regarding the illustrative, you said you're not ready to condition to that, but would you accept language that says the building will substantially conform to this? So we're unable to chair curious because we haven't, like the building loading base here are facing to the north which would be visible from around 28 on this image. So I don't think we want us to condition to this one, but we can work on creating more appropriate images. Yeah, I'm just trying to get to that general look of what you see is the front of the building. It looks like stone and the metal. It has a... Yeah. We can commit to the same, like conformance with that style of building and a material, just not that image. So how about the change of language to generally conform? Yeah, and we can work with staff. That was staff's effort. And that was conform, or if it's more a concern. concern so Molly mentioned earlier as this is well under the Square footage of what this facility would be so if it's more of the you know the display windows the glass the Metal the stone we can work to create sort of a language that describes this but doesn't Require them to develop this image exactly. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. So it's fine. So I put some kind of language as a condition. I was thinking just generally conform and that gives a lot of latitude. And we have this conversation and we can work on the language on the way to the board. If you move it out tonight. Yep. So, Mr. Chairman, I had to follow up one share. Yep. Go ahead. So this application is actually under the New Zoning Ordinance. So the question's earlier about the encroachment into the red areas. The new ordinance allows more flexibility in terms of encroachments as long as there's areas for replacement. And so in this instance, does show that some of those encroachments into the risker, they are making up for it elsewhere on the property. We did clear that through NRT National Resources team and they were comfortable with this arrangement. So to your question, Mr. Myers, they will build up actually to the edge of the risker, but they are taking their precautions to limit damage, not damage, but encroachments into that. So you're starting to see a lot of these applications come in now that have more detail in terms of the environmental elements, and this is an example of one of those under the new zoning warrants. Ultimately is meant to be more flexible, and hopefully the development community thinks it's more flexible. It's not as rigid as it used to be. So the only thing we talked about too is the comfortableness when removing the netting, the golf course netting, it sounds like the applicant is already agreeable to that as well. So if that wanted to be one of your recommended conditions to add about removing the existing netting for the driver. Right, so back to the apple, one of the conditions I was ahead was that all existing equipment located on the property shall be removed prior to receiving a building permit. Yeah, we'll find that. Yeah, okay. All the sports equipment on the property. Yeah, and the only other request, going back to the tree caliper. So I mean, I'm comfortable with accepting NRTs recommendation with oneinch caliper trees as opposed to the three. But it did say in condition four trees in the TCA would be replaced with two one-inch caliper trees. Would you be willing to change that to four one-inch trees? Yeah, we're fine with that. And I'm assuming NRT would be fine with that. Okay. And then we will obviously follow up with Commissioner Jasper about if there's opportunities to achieve the same goal with a different caliber, we'll work with them on that. That's okay. Okay. All right. So with that, this is in the Sterling District. So I will make a motion. Public hearing. Public hearing. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Is there anybody in the room that wishes to comment on this application? Is there anybody online that is interested in nobody online? Okay. With that, public hearing is closed. Now I'll make a motion. Get over to the page. There it is. I move the Planning Commission forward, ledgy 2024-27, Jesse Court, ZMAP 2024-7, and Special Exception 2024-44, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the proper statement dated February 6, 2025. And the conditions of approval dated April 15, 2025. And based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 1, 2, and 3 to the April 22, 2025 planning commission public hearing staff report. And with the following additional conditions, the applicant commits that any service pay doors for the new sales and service building would face to the east such that they would not front along Route 28. The applicant commits that any fencing installed along Route 28 would not be chain link fence. Any trees in the condition four modified so that any trees in the TCA damage and remove shall be replaced with four 1 inch caliper trees. While existing equipment located on the property shall be removed prior to receiving a building permit. that the building design will generally conform to the illustrative shown at the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing. Second. Okay, motions been made by Chair Kieres and seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Remires. I want to thank you guys again for working with us. Someone thinks staff are a great report. One thing I'd like you guys to think about, absolutely not part of this application, just part of being a possible good neighbor. There's a lot of great sports equipment out there, like in the batting cages and the driving ranges. It would really be a nice idea if you guys thought about talking to Parks and RecreCity if some of that equipment Would the county would like because I know like those bad-incase machines. I set there and looked at them. I mean they are They're pretty nice. They're not old the driving range equipment. I mean some of that could have been used for these high school kids and the programs that are going on That would be a benefit also to the community. So I'm not asking you to do it as a condition of anything. I'm just asking you with somebody that has actually played miniature golf there and been in the batting cages. It would really be a nice addition if you guys would consider if you're not going to use it or you're not selling it. Tink-sick to look at possibly considering it to either the county or to some of the youth with nonprofit organizations in Latin Canada that could desperately use that equipment. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry 801 with Commissioner Combs absent for the vote. Thank you very much. And our second and last item is CPAM 2024-3 2024 review of the Loudon County 2019 general plan. I'm sorry. Good evening. My name is Rebecca King. I'm with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm the project manager for CPAM 2020-4-0003. The 2024 review of the Loudon County 2019 general plan. And with me is Teresa Stein, who's the Division Manager for Community Planning. The Board of Supervisors approved the project plan for the CPAM in June of 2024. This Board initiated CPAM is primarily to address housekeeping issues that staff have identified while implementing the plan over the past five years. It also addresses two issues that came up during the zoning ordinance rewrite and addresses some board direction around the alternative criteria for suburban compact neighborhood police type, proper expectations for attainable housing and the unmet housing needs strategic plan. In terms of stakeholder outreach, staff focused on the Affordable Dwelling Unit Advisory Board, the Housing Advisory Board and our developer partners. So we met with AIDWAB and HAB during the summer of 2024, and then we met with our developer partners in October of 2024 through a virtual and an in-person roundtable. So we invited 16 organizations and 12 scent representatives. Additionally, all of those organizations AIDWAB and HAB were sent the referral materials and given the opportunity to provide comment. So as I mentioned many of the proposed red lines are cleanup fixing errors, clarifying language, making language more consistent. Incorporating board adopted plans or policy documents like the unmet housing needs strategic plan, the 2023 energy strategy and the linear parks and trails plan. The revisions include changes to chapter one, two, three, four, six, and seven of the general plan as well as the glossary. Additionally, we have six updated maps for in chapter three and two in chapter six to reflect updated data only. So things like impaired streams or county facilities. Additionally, we address board and our own policy on proper expectations for attainable housing. Specifically that the county will absorb capital facilities and road impacts from attainable housing as the county already does for affordable drawing units and affordable housing units. So these are units that get profit to serve households at 0 to 30% of area median income or 70 to 100%. There are no use mix, place type map changes or density changes proposed. Also, no changes to the Royal Policy Area or historic villages sections of chapter two. And only minor changes to the JLMA and town section. We are proposing a change to the place types in the suburban, urban, and transition policy areas, specifically adding building height ranges in feet. The goal is to add clarity to what the plan envisions when we say something like one to three stories. So the ranges are based on both the vision for the place type, the description, but also site plans that have been approved in the past five years looking at a range of developments within each place type to see what's happening on the ground. The proposed revisions also address the suburban compact neighborhood place type criteria for alternative use and address T-Luck and board endorsed language and recommendations as well as new language to address the affordable housing component. Some of the text amendments include applying the criteria only to developments of 20 acres or less, applying the criteria in cases of residential infill with parcels of five to 10 acres doing 90% or more residential development. We are increasing the affordable housing expectation from 10 and 15%. 2, 13.75% for multi-family and 17 and a half percent for single family. This is commensurate with the increase in the zoning ordinance. Additionally, staff are proposing a second option to meet the affordable housing piece. An applicant could conform to chapter 9 in the zoning ordinance and then choose to provide an additional 2% of units at 30% of AMI, or 5% at 70 to 100% of AMI. We are proposing to clarify and strengthen some infill policies, starting with a general definition of infill at 20 acres or less, which conforms to the zoning ordinance. We're also proposing to refine our vision of infill for the urban policy area and suburban policy area. So bringing infill down to 3.5 acres from 5 in the urban policy area and bringing it to 10 down from 20 in the suburban policy area. Additionally, we have some new language proposing to support the use of the planned unit development zoning district for applications needing extensive zoning modifications and potentially considering flexibility on use of mix and open space for infill if additional information is provided. Staff are also recommending a zoning ordinance amendment or a ZOM be added to the DPC work plan to look at flexibility to support infill in the zoning ordinance. So that would explore things like an overlay district that might have different setback and yard requirements, looking at small scale commercial in districts like suburban compact neighborhood 16 or 24. Landon Lou is an issue that did come up during the zoning ordinance rewrite. So staff worked with the affordable dwelling unit advisory board specifically on this one to get their input and feedback, which led to proposed revisions to chapter four, as well as the recommendation for a ZOM be added to the work plan. This would address chapter nine and look at allowing land in lieu of 80 use in single family detached only zoning districts, and they could be provided onsite as interspersed lots within a market rate development or off site if additional criteria were met. And the age-wob did support this at their September 2024 meeting. Repurposing of underutilized office and commercial space also came up during the zoning ordinance, right? We are proposing some tax amendments to chapter two and the suburban employment place type that could support the repurposing of commercial as an example into residential This is based on our research about what's happening at the national level, but also in our own region Because while successful office to residential or commercial to residential are really challenging to do successfully when they're feasible and makes sense, you can generate hundreds of housing units, so they can be very effective. Loudin doesn't have a huge supply of office, and where it is located, it's not in its own district that allows residential development. So with that in mind, given the complexity of the issue and this mismatch, we are proposing additionally a consultant to look at if there are feasible buildings in Loudon that could do this and also a ZOM to support multifamily attached dwellings in certain zoning districts, specifically the commercial center, so neighborhood center, small regional center and commercial center. So we did put this out for public comment. Most of our external comments came from the Delis Area Association of Realtors, the Northern Virginia Building Industry Alliance, and NAEP. Generally they were supportive of the changes we're proposing. They were supportive of repurposing commercial and office residential, building height changes. They were supportive of, they did raise some concerns around the proposed changes to some of the info language, and the alternative criteria for suburban compact neighborhood police site. In reviewing their comments, we did add some clarifying language to the criteria for suburban compact neighborhood. We revised some of the info language and removed one or two proposals. So kind of our responses are in detail in attachment six. At the Planning Commission work session two weeks ago, we did get a couple questions, so I wanted to touch on those. Does the project plan allow for remapping place type boundaries? So this scope of the CPM at the board endorsed does not include mapping of place type boundaries. That being said, in some of our briefings we heard concerns about compatibility. So one thing that staff will be doing before the next work session, if we have one, is looking at potential revisions to, as an example, suburban compact neighborhood. Is there language we could add to the description that would really get to compatibility and transition issues that might address concerns? Given the range of density possible in that place, tight. Additionally, we heard some concerns about capital facilities language in chapter 6, so So staff will be looking in that place. Additionally, we heard some concerns about capital facilities language in chapter 6, so staff will be looking at that as well to see if there are changes within the scope that we can propose to try to address some of those concerns. So that kind of gets to the second question about additional revisions. The answer is yes, as long as it's in the scope for the project. We can consider additional revisions that fit within the topics, kind of laid out in the board and d endorsed project plan. So the schedule in the project plan was that we would go to the board in the summer of 2025. That's our goal. So we'll see. And I think that's all I wanted to say about that. Oh did receive a question or two about updating the data in chapter four, which is the housing chapter. That's not really in the scope for this CPAM, but we do now reference the unmet housing needs strategic plan, which does have some more updated data that folks can refer to. With that, the recommendation in the staff report is to approve and adopt the resolution, recommending approval of the CPAM and that ZoAMs to address infill the conversion of under-utilized commercial and office, and land in lieu of ADUs be added to the work plan. And that concludes my presentation. Glad to take questions. Okay, thank you. So commissioners, the way I plan to tackle this, if you're in agreement, we will, if not, we'll do something different. But as first mentioned, a lot of the changes are just, you know, just cleaning up language, clarifications, not actual changes to policy, such as the ones that have been discussed in the briefing. What I was thinking is that today we ask questions that you may have about any of these topics that are being discussed. So staff can look into them deeper if they need to, if they don't have the answers tonight. And then kind of come back at a work session kind of how we did the bylaws and just go through the exact section. Here's the current language with the lineouts and the red so you can see exactly what is being changed and we'll have the discussion on that as a command and then take a vote on it. And if it gets half more than half say yes, that change goes forward if more than half say know then that change gets dropped. Does that sound like a reasonable way to go about this? Anybody have any? Well we do this, we like you were talking about with the bylaws, will we do what we would basically call straw votes and then at the end would be the final vote? Is that, no I was looking to, like that's your vote and then there is no final vote. Right, we'll go through each one and take a vote on it. And if it passes, it passes and that will move forward as something that the commission endorses. Right, but I'm saying at the end, then we need to do a vote that says, the formal vote that has a resolution attached to it and also that the end we still would have to do. One formal vote to pass it to the board, not just individuals up and down on chapter two, chapter three, chapter four. We have to do that overall. Just like with the data center type of thing, we had the overall at the end that went up or went down, but the straw votes kind of stayed the way they were once they were done. So that you may have recommended changes to other stuff, but it may or may not be the full final vote. Okay. I see what you're saying. That's, that makes, for a resolution, that probably makes sense. You need that final vote. Okay, yep. So that's on like a way to approach this. Father, it might be easier just to digest them individually and work our way through them. So questions right now for staff. Commissioner Jasper? Oh, sorry. And are we just going to have two or three minutes in one round? I've got a bunch of questions. So I'm not going to be given the time and this topic, I'm not going to really hold. If you start getting over 10 or 12 minutes, it might say, take a breath and give other folks a chance. Right, yeah, no I get it. I just, you know, there are a number of little things. So, thank you and thanks for talking this afternoon. You know, one thing that I heard you respond to the question I raised about the housing charts. I'm looking forward to hearing more when we get back together about the office to resi conversion. You know, this is a topic I'm pretty familiar with. And when you only have a 7 plus percent office vacancy in the county, and haven't made provision for you're not in a really a mixed use area like many other areas that are trying to promote office to rezy conversions and you don't have a depressed house office stock with a lot of B and C buildings. Then I really don't think it's going to make sense but I'm also concerned that just because other people are doing it, their situation is not similar. And promoting it may be ill-considered at this point when you take into account the entire environment, both Office Demand 1, and the other amenities that will be available in these place types to residents if you happen to have an office or as a conversion. So I don't think it's economic, so I'm not particularly worried about it, but I'd like to hear more about that when we come back. I'd like to hear more about the objectives of the in the suburban compact neighborhood changes and so if you could just speak to this bit. So the changes propose that kind of refine the criteria when you're applying the compact neighborhood place type either in a mixed use plan to area or a suburb of a neighborhood planned area, come out of extensive conversations and meetings that T-Luck held in 2021 and 2022. So what we're proposing the CPAM is almost essentially a straight lift out of the approved language and recommendations of their discussions of how they wanted to refine those criteria. So the idea was to get more specific. So we understand we as the county and our developer partners understand exactly what we mean with those criteria, but also to get a little bit more honestly flexible. Some of the changes are a little bit more flexible on proximity to public facilities, proximity to transit, and what we're calling. What was being proximate to employment and community amenities, we've kind of refined that actually to be more flexible, so it's clear, but it's more flexible. Okay, all right, that is helpful. You and I talked about the open space requirements and revisions and the glossary to the requirements and what how land that subject to utility easements and utility corridors can be applied in both residential and non-residential. So I'd like to, by the time we come back, maybe have some of your insights about what changes might be made there. And the policies that they would support. I do think, and Teresa, you'll appreciate this. I think on the rural village stuff, we actually have, we could do a conforming change just to clean up the language that describes the fact that we had not yet. And we're still trying to get the rural village CPM done, which is now done and approved. So with that, I'll hand it over. I hope I didn't bore everybody to tears. Okay. No, Commissioner Frank. You mentioned perhaps some language if we were to revisit this, which it looks like we will be. Regarding specifically in the SCN areas, compatibility. Again, it's a pretty broad range, what, 8 to 24 units. That can be pretty dramatic if you're next to current R1 or something like that, all of a sudden jump to 24. Have you guys considered, or I don't know that it came up in the T-Luck discussions when they were looking at SCN, but I don't want to be overly prescriptive, but besides just encouraging, compatible, the SCN, what started the whole T-Lock thing with SCN was that there was awful squishy. So I don't want to over-prescribe, but I don't want to leave it so undefined that we find ourselves back here in a very subjective, chasing our tails along with the the developers and nobody really knows what we're trying to get done and all that. Is it possible to, I don't know, relate it to what is something that's measurable related to what's around it, I guess is my question or challenge to you to say no more than two or three times the neighboring parcel density or and I'm not saying I think that's necessarily the perfect right answer. But like I'm again the SCN topic has been one that has been riddled with excellent wonderful intentions and people just defining things differently in their own minds and going well that's not it Well, you keep bringing a rock and it's not the right rock. People get frustrated. So I understand their frustration and I understand some of the things we've met with in the last five years while we tried to facilitate and implement this. So I guess I'm looking to you to say how prescriptive do you think we can get and still be reasonably effective and reasonable with a little bit of flexibility in there. I don't know how far we can go and I don't think T-Luck got into that particular topic. No, T-Luck focused on when you're applying the place type either in a mixed use area or suburban neighborhood. Like when does what is now six criteria, when would they apply and what do they look like? In terms of the range of density and where suburban compact neighborhood exists now in terms of the map, what I've been considering is tweaks to the place type description that would try to give more guidance to staff in terms of when suburban compact is next to suburban mixed use, that is envisioned to be more dense than as opposed to suburban compact as infill next to existing suburban neighbourhood per say. I do want to avoid getting too prescriptive about what is that density. But I do think we could be a little bit clearer about the fact that we do expect compatibility and transition. We have some of that general language throughout, but we can try to get a little bit clearer in this place type and see if it, do you think it would be helpful? Yeah, no, I do. And I think like as it makes use town center, any of that, where you're next to that, obviously a higher density makes a lot of sense. It's very compatible. And when you're next to something that's R1, maybe not as much. You know, I don't know the 24 units next to that makes perfect sense. So I think giving folks maybe some guard rails would be a really great thing. So let's, I'd like to see us keep working on that. One of the things I asked you about, I asked just my last question, was the topic when we're talking about land and, in lieu of, you know, actual ADU units. I know you guys have taken this into consideration and there's folks who are way more worse in housing that avoidin on this. I continue to have the concern that how do we calculate the value of raw land, so to speak, versus a built out unit and making sure that we're getting what we need because I don't want to trade 17 houses for 17 lots. So how have you guys attacked that? What's your approach to, is there some standard out there that can be utilized or calculations that can be done? So a couple of things. One, most of the details around land and they would come in the zoning ordinance amendment process as opposed to in the general plan. That being said, what AIDWAB talked about, what we talked about is, you know, the idea that the lots would be fully available with infrastructure coming to them as opposed to kind of a blank canvas of land. That it would need to be equivalent to the number of ADUs required. And if, when we kind of got into things like assessed value, if there was a large difference in terms of value and contribution, when would we ask for additional cash in terms of the development cost to deliver units on those lots? would there are some models out there that we could look at, or if it's one of those, well, the land to unit math isn't perfect, but maybe you put in another lot, you know, that kind of thing. If that is helpful. Yeah, no, it is. I think my concern is, and again, we won't know until we really see how it's playing out. There's always surprises, but I think my concern is the off-site land contributions. It's like, well, it's not even in the community they're working on. And, you know, what are we getting and how usable and valuable is it to us? And we're making sure that value wasn't lost as we take a different product. for land or cash in lieu when it makes sense. So no, that's good. And you know. it to us and we'll make sure that value wasn't lost as we take a different product. I'm all for land or cash and lieu when it makes sense. No, that's good. And we'll just have a little bit of an period in between a CPEM and a ZOM again, but I think we're getting used to operating that way and for better or worse. All right, thank you. Mr. Myers. I'll just put up my questions and we'll have them. I know that one of the things we talked about, one of my concerns is when we talk about infill, it really kind of references vacant land. And we already talked about that because when you look in the old dash from area, old sterling, Potomac farms, broadband farms, there are a lot of properties there that have a single house or so on them. when you look at the underlying zoning R1, R2, they could definitely have more. But because there's a house there, it is somehow another gets ruled that it's really not an infill. So I definitely, and we talked about this, I'd like to have a better definition or understanding how we look at that pre-existing house that could have been there. I definitely think we've got a ways to go yet on the discussion about the height of buildings because it still leaves so much ambiguity in my opinion because it says in there they can look at a button. Look at topography, look at a button building. So even though we've got some guidance about height, depending on who's working on the application it can go up or down. There's not a standard formula that I thought that we were going to and hopefully have it at the end of this process. I wonder what I currently read, so I'd like to have more discussion on that. I don't know that everything needs to look the same. I'm really concerned about this open end that I don't feel like I have an understanding of yet. When we say we want all the suburbanarity to be in a universal design, I definitely need to understand what the definition of universal design is. When we talk about attainable housing and we talked about land and lieu of and those type of things for ADUs, I think we should also possibly think about going back and because back in the Flintstone days there was a trust fund that was also set up for ADUs. I mean, maybe we also come up with a calculation that allows money to go into that trust fund account that the county has to use for developing other lands or for the starting programs and stuff. It's not necessarily buying land someplace that's not associated but in that area. Public facility. I think we need a definition of really what it is because I can see that be anything from the pool that's meant for the HOA all the way to the Loud and County Sanitation Authority to, you know, and then it also talks about parks versus civic and it talks about how it needs to be done so that cars and automobiles on around them, I don't know how we ever do, let's we get to Metro when it's not coming by, how you ever really set up a lot of civic and park area that doesn't have some kind of motor vehicle association with it. in the map of members that we're supposed to look at, supposedly we're going to actually get a map of prime soils. I definitely would like to see that ahead of time if it's something because it actually is one of the maps you talked about was going to be in this. On page 12 we talk about the repurposing of commercial retail. I have a lot of the same concerns that already Commissioner Jasper mentioned, but also I want us to look into. We need to look at it like especially, and I know it's in the chairs district, but the Delas Town Center was done with the CDA. And there were certain agreements and criteria that were done when we developed that authority and the county helped pay for money and bonds were left and stuff with that. We need to look at what if we would do some kind of conversion, what does it do to that money that's already been invested in that bond that's setting there? Paying for those roads that part of it, the deal was, those roads were to serve no residential use. So I don't think it's just a simple policy answer. I think we need to look at those kind of things. And the same thing with converting any commercial or office to residential with all the respect. I mean, there was no school proffers. There were no parks and recs because they were non-residential. How do we go back and what do we look at? How do we go back and what do we look at? How do we go back and what do we look at? How do we go back and what do we look at? How do we go back and what do we look at? How do we go back and what do we look at it for reabsorbing those and what commitments have they made and what are we giving up? And this is an interesting, I want to understand what an older adult is. Because I'm probably in that category now. We no longer talk about senior housing, now we're going to talk about older adults. I know there's a, you know, in the code and in the different acts. There's a very clear cut for senior citizens and senior housing and stuff like that, but it looks like now we're going to this definition of older adults. So I would like to understand exactly what that has. And then on 2.31, when we talk about the EPA and we talk about trying to get to more affordable and there's an assumption kind of in the reading that makes you think if we make a unit smaller than the unit costs less. Well that's not necessarily the case especially in these urban planning areas. I mean the inside of those can be more expensive than a regular townhouse. So I think we need to relook at deciding that just because the townhouse is 2,000 square feed instead of 25 or multifamily. Somehow another we think it's going to cost it into the day less. I don't think that's necessarily possibly a valid decision at the end of the day. So those are my 15 or so questions that I had from stuff like that. Can I respond to a couple things really quickly? Just for clarity, there is a red line that calls for universal design and residential development in the quality development section. This is in regards to kind of visibility. So it is not about how something looks, but it's about access. It's about ensuring that the first floor of residential homes, anyone, regardless of their mobility, can get in the door. We're not talking about accessibility in terms of fully wheelchair friendly bathrooms, but just the ability for someone to get into a building and potentially age in place. And I understand that, but I would also say that unless you're gonna make it an age restricted building, that could be difficult. And also, if you look at the topography, because there are a lot more buildings that have three or four steps going into them Then there are flat buildings especially when we talk about townhouses some of them the first floor isn't even it's your garage You know there's no living space to it Some people don't want their properties to look like they're ADA. They don't want the wider doors They don't want those type of things so to me again I think we need to really think about, does everything have to look the same as far as it operates to one person versus another that I'd like us to at least discuss before we decide that we think everybody needs to be able to have a flat when they walk into that the bathroom basically has to be on the first floor. I mean those are the kind of things when you start talking about Universal to meet agent in place that you get in. Only, I mean, I've done this. And those aren't necessarily the way everybody chooses to live. I mean, those are the kind of things when you start talking about universal to meet agent in place that you get in. I mean, I've done this. And those aren't necessarily the way everybody chooses to live. I mean, today, most of your townhouses that are above three stories all have elevators. And a lot of your houses today, because the people have the finances to do it have elevators. So this idea, I mean, it's a choice. So it's a choice. So that's the only reason why I think that there needs to be a further discussion about this universal design when it comes to how people should live, I guess, as the best way I'm putting that. And we don't need to debate it tonight. I think I just wanted to bring it up as our work sessions from reading the document. So a couple other things. The trust fund does still exist. And the current zoning ordinance actually already allows anyone to request a modification of the affordable dwelling unit requirements, and they can pay cash and lieu, and AIDWAB does have a methodology to accept that. That's not going away. We're not proposing any changes to that. So there is already kind of a mechanism if it makes sense for an applicant to do that instead of ADUs or land. And that's not changing. I don't disagree with you on that just so we're clear. But what I want to say is that we're putting it into this particular chapter where you had reference going into. And I forget if it was 2.3, which one it was. I'd like to see that also added as also, you know, instead of it being lane and stuff. my idea was let's make sure that people, we continue that as being, because it might be better for the county to take money in that particular, because of where the project's going. Then to have them go all the way across the county or someplace else to do some land that makes no sense. So I was just saying I think it should be a third option, if there's two now. I think we should reference it again as a third option that, hey, this may be also what you should look at. And so really kind of these two we put in. I think it should be a third option if there's two now. I think we should reference it again as a third option that, hey, this may be also what you should look at. So really kind of these two we put in there for right now. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And the last thing, it was just clarity. The maps that we've included, the prime soils one, is the one that's already been adopted. So it's the end of the ZOM process and it's just replacing what was in the 2019 plan with this more current version of the prime soil. So it's no changes, it's just end of the ZOM process and it's just replacing what was in the 2019 plan with this more current version of the prime soil So it's no changes. It's just kind of bringing forward what's already been adopted And that's fine and I wasn't on the plan commission was done So that's why I'd like to see it and when I try to do it Well when you try to do your the blue lights like the blue things that you guys did for us to go to it gives you calendarsars. It doesn't give you the material, it gives you a calendar that you just then have to go into it. And I can show you later. But because I did try to do all of it and I kept getting to like the 2021 calendar, the 2022 calendar. It didn't give me the actual material that I was looking for. And I think, Commissioner Jasper, you made the same comment that you You know, all I got was the calendar for that I was looking for. And I think, Mr. Jasper, you made the same comment that you had it happen to you too. So, you know, all I got was the calendar for that year. You know, got it. Mr. Burns. Yes, I just have a very simple question. What is the ADU rental? What number is that we say the affordable rental in a unit right now in Lowne County? So in terms of the chapter 9 and the ordinance the affordable dwelling unit program focuses on the income range of 30 to 70% of area median income with the idea that ADU rentals are serving families at 30 to 50% of AMI and they're serving homeownership families at 50 to 70% of AMI. Yes, we were building ADU units in town, at least in Bergenheim County, and I asked the guy, I said, what is your lowest price rent going to be in this complex? And he said it would be $1,900 for one bedroom and one bath simple unit and I said to him I say you know we already have cheaper than that You can go to complex where the apartments are you can get them for 1200 to $2,000 with multiple bedrooms. And I said, so of course it didn't go, we didn't approve it. So that kind of stuff we got to figure out what the rent is. And right in this place, I asked the developer that they were building a development. I'm not going to use the name, but I know who it is. So I asked him, I see they're building 30 units, ADUs in the complex. And I asked him, what is your lowest price house will be in this complex? And he said $600,000. Now $600,000 doesn't sound like to me in ADU unit. You understand what I'm saying? There was a their lowest unit in the complex, and they were supposed to be 30 units as ADUs. So these things go around, you know, and words and writings and all, but there are a lot of people get away with a lot of different things. It is not like it is sounds, you know. I don't know if anybody really living in A-D-U unit and paying the real low price. So we can come back with more information on the A-D-U program from Housing Who administers the program. The limits are lower than that in general. I don't have the most current with me, but we can get to the implementation questions you're raising, which are kind of out of the scope of the CPAM, but I'm glad to get more information. Unless it's a county subsidized, you know, a lot of people that county subsidized units, you know, the county pays the rent. And I don't like that either, but that's my concern we talk about, 80 years all the time. But I never come up with a number of what is the price on it in this unit. How much? So I'd like to see sometimes if somebody can figure out what the lowest price in the complex would be. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you. So I think it's no secret that I've said for many years that our general plan is the thousand pages of inconsistencies, contradictions, and unintended consequences. But the one that I learned in my first term on this body was that it served as a de facto zoning ordinance also. Because it took us four years to write a zoning ordinance to go with the new general plan. And in fact, we're still working on that zoning ordinance now. This item will be approved by the forest supervisors before we even get to vote on the Western Houten Zoham. So it's a challenging process and some of the things that folks have talked about tonight are very prescriptive. I've always felt that the general plan should be more aspirational than prescriptive. And what got me thinking about that tonight was you talked about some of the commissioners addressed this also about conversion, office residential conversion. And you had commented that it's something we're going to be looking at. But also that you want to have a consultant look and see if we have things and buildings to do with it such like that. But isn't it, doesn't that make it more the prescriptive side of a general plan rather than saying we aspire in our planning that should we have facility that could accommodate an office to residential conversion that in our general plan we are saying that we are not opposed to doing that. That is something we would be interested in seeing. And then if through research, through conversations with Mr. Reiser's office, through whatever zoning we've created to address that, we find that we have no property suitable for that. Okay. Then we can't do that. So, I would, this is more of a comment than a question, just why would or rather, to have it in the plan, yes, but do you need to go through the process of identifying properties that could be done now? Is that time that you don't, why would you need to spend time doing that if it will come through some zoning ordinance rewrite related to this comprehensive plan amendment, unless we could actually do them in concert. Do the amend the plan and the zoning ordinance at the same time, otherwise we've finished a general plan in 2019. We're not going to finish the zoning ordinance for that until 2027 at the earliest. So here we are amending that plan in the five years and then it's just this overlapping thing. We'll never get to. Either can we do that simultaneously or can we just put the aspirational stuff in there and not have you deal with things now like prescription versus aspirational? So I think the way I would read our recommendations on this particular topic is that like the baseline, the minimum is the text amendment that says this could be a good idea in appropriate places and now the general plan has a policy that supports it. And then for consideration is is there value in working with the consultant to do a feasibility study with maybe the idea that it does or doesn't lead to a zoeam because if there's not a great universe, maybe it's not worth changing the ordinance or focusing on the ordinance because it's not just about the buildings that could do it now, but laying the groundwork for a market in 10 years that could look very different. So that's part of it is this is more forward looking and it's also why we're saying put it in the work plan and look at priority of other projects as opposed to saying this needs to happen tomorrow. In terms of the zoning changes. I appreciate that. And one of the kind I like to make about the Serbian compact neighborhood, I would like to think that the reason that T-Luck and the board included that in this notion is that it goes all back to the seven criteria And I remember that this is where the prescriptive came into a major issue for I think for me and for others was that it was a virtual impossibility for any developer, for anybody to meet all seven criteria. because, largely because because these were land masses, some of them in fill, 20 acres or something like that, that were in areas that had already been developed around them. So the library was already built. And you couldn't build the library half a mile away from this parcel land because it already existed one and a half miles away. So we could never meet the seven criteria. So I remember and Mr. Turner was chairing T-Luck at the time. It was like we need to fix this because if what if we get to five or six of them, I know when Michelle was chair, she was being that drum also of why can we have, can we score it? And so I think that's, this is not a question, it's just a common general for those that didn't have to, weren't saddled with this during the last term, that it was just so prescriptive in the general plan that it was impossible for staff to ever recommend approval of any one of those projects, we had no zoning ordinance and we had an incredibly prescriptive general plan which led to me calling them inconsistency of these contradictions and unintended consequences because that's how tightly wound it was then. So hopefully as we go through this process, especially specifically with suburban compact neighborhood, we find a way that both the plan and the future ordinance that goes with it are flexible to the point that it addresses what reality is, not what a textbook definition of suburban compact neighborhood might be. That's all. Okay. So for myself, I'm not telling you anything you've already heard. I really struggled with this land in lieu of and how that could be a benefit to the county. If possible, whoever is an advocate for this concept within the county, the man that we really need to do this, I'd love to hear from that person to try because I don't see how it could possibly work. It's not going to help for a developer. Well, I'm not going to build the 15 units. I'll give you 15 lots. That doesn't work well. I'll give you 20 lots. Well, I still don't think that. Or, hey, I got a 30 acre parcel over here you can have. Well, I guarantee you if they had a 38-car parcel, it would be in for zoning to build on. I just would like to hear from whoever advocating for this, how it would work. I just maybe like to hear from whoever advocating for this, how it would work. I just may be something I'm not thinking of. The commercial, the residential, of Balbang in the same drum, we have a low vacancy rate. We're already constantly converting commercial to residential. We're losing off a space now to build residential. and There doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there that would even fit this and From what I've been hearing it's really not that easy to take an ex office and convert it to residential because of the needs bathrooms and every unit the plumbing Some are saying you might as well just tear the property down and rebuild in which case they can come in and convert the commercial zoning into a residential. The other one I had a little curiosity about so the waving the cap facilities and transportation proffers like we do with affordable housing and affordable dwelling. And a lot of those were lower percentages, 30 to 50 to 70. But I think attainable housing, it can be up to 100%. And I don't know that we're giving it to ourselves. And I don't know if the numbers are the same, but a few years back I had met with a developer and he told me because the median income is so high here, once you hit above 80% your market rate. And so we're going to say you can get market rate prices and you don't have to pay your profits. So I have concerns about that. So I'd like to see what those percentages of, and if you know them off the top you had, that'd be great. What percentages of the AMI it would be applied to to get that reduction or removal of the profit for the cap facilities and the transportation. So a couple of things on that and I'm glad you brought it up. Part of this is to get to consistency in the sense that these attainable housing units that get profit, they are voluntary, usually either at the zero to 30 or the 7, 8 to 100%. And their capital facilities and roads are not always treated the same application to application. And there's no guidance right now on the plan for staff to accept that they can waive those fees. So we have to say it's an outstanding issue. But there are cases where maybe it's a good idea for us to wave those fees and get those units. And what I'm thinking about are especially homeownership units at 70 to 100% of AMI. Because what that works out to in reality is providing a house at a sales price of roughly, don't hold me to this, but roughly $450,000 or less. less because that's at the high end. That's at 100% of AMI based on recent data. So you do that math. There's not a lot for sale in Loudon at $450,000, and certainly not a lot for sale less than that. So getting those home ownership units is really good for the county, because that serves working families we want to stay here. So waving their fees makes a lot of sense from policy perspective and to support the housing plan. As long as those numbers, because I tried this application that was my last time around, so it was back 2015, 2016, and he readily agreed to, because he was talking about, once I'm at 80%, I'm at market rate for these units. So he was more than happy to profit of that. Nothing well. That didn't do us any good in the long run because it didn't help anybody. But my feeling is the last nine or ten years prices have gone up so much that affordability of the 80% thing probably isn't accurate anymore. So the rental side is a little bit trickier. Like, homeownership is still very much in demand and very much we don't have homeownership at those price points. Rental is a little bit different and I will tell you initially staff we're considering not waving capital facilities or road impacts for proffered rental units at 70 to 100% of AMI for that reason. Okay. Because the rents market rate naturally. Gotcha. That being said, we heard from our stakeholders from the Delicere Association of Realtors, among others, that they didn't think it was a good idea to kind of differentiate that way. And the other problem is we have a definition of attainable housing that is zero to 100% of AMI, and then we're kind of getting a little bit weedy and a little bit Treating things differently. So for a consistency sake and in response to some of those comments We kept it cleaner in what we put forward to you tonight. Okay, so this is a case. I think it is okay to be a little less clean I Just don't want the county to be giving away money when it's getting at the end of the day It's not getting anything in return if they want to say up to 70% not 70 to 100 Maybe but anyways if we look into that a little bit but That's what I had anybody I'll give everybody a second bite at the the apple here if they have any more comments kosher Myers I Forgotten I guess I had my older adult moment. I also wanted us to look at, because I know this just happened on an application that was just in front of us. This is under the physical management chapter that we're looking at. I know we talked about capital facilities and everything for affordable housing but also looking at the ability for road acceptance and lieu of other capital facilities. If it merits, I'm thinking of like the $29 million, $30 million worth of road improvements and the staff couldn't recommend approval because there was an policy that guided that. I'm just thinking that is something that would be good for us to have a discussion about because it's very relevant and it just happened and that would take that kind of ambiguity out possiblyibly if we had some language to look about the other thing that I think would be helpful because I only know because I've had people I've helped do the ADU program It's not an easy process to go through I mean there really is a lot of accountability that you have to go through with Financial counseling understanding what you're getting credit reports, and there's a waiting list. I mean, there's a very long waiting list. And while you talk about market rates, those market rates for the ADU aren't set by the developer, they're set by the county. So while he's saying he may sell something for 600, that doesn't mean that's what that ADU ownership is gonna get. Plus, right now they're committing to like, if they're there for less than 30 years, they're not getting a lot of equity out of it. I mean the county gets the equity they don't. So I think there's a lot of issues that maybe we don't necessarily, and the only thing I'm bringing this up is I think if we had a short paper that talked about what is AMI so that people understand when we say 30 to 70%, That is not a house price. That's an income level that then equals to it so that people see. And I do think maybe we want to think about, maybe we do want to separate out rental versus ownership so that we set it to where 30 to 60%. And again, it's just a recommendation from us to the board. But maybe we set up saying 30 to 60% is for rentals and if they want this credit it's for that. Ownership is 70 to the 100 but there again again I think if we have that snippet that tells us what it really is I think it's a lot different and Sarah Coil who I don't know how many of you guys know her but I mean if you want to understand it just call her she's been's been here actually as long as I've been here, but she can really define it for you to let you know. And I mean it's a great process, but it's also not an easy process. And like I said, I know that they really value to be able to get the contributions for money because it continues to grow the funds for the people that need it because some people need money for the down payment Some people need money for moving in that money can go towards those type of things that helps the broader community So thank you Mr. Break I will just add my voice to what is now a chorus of chairman kirst and commissioner Myers I think rep breaking out rentals versus purchase in the ADUs and getting to bypass those transportation fees or contributions, pardon me. I would strongly encourage that because I think the four purchase units are a completely different outcome and result that is obviously highly desirable for all of us. And I'm willing to give the benefit of that. I suspect some of those stakeholders haven't had it explained quite in the context that like Commissioner Gears anecdotally shared. I think we've all kind of seen that up here, is that some of these, the market rents are really not any different from the 80% rent. And as a member of one of those organizations you rattled off, I'd be happy to participate in a discussion. Maybe we all get around the table and we at least understand where the others, you know, why we think what we think. Because I would absolutely recommend, especially if staff already had some language kind of you were kicking around that separated that residential, whether it's 60%, 80%, we can figure that out, but I think it needs to stay under that threshold not be at 100%. Or you have exactly the conundrum that chair cures raised. So I'd love to look at a change like that going forward. Anybody? Mr. Jasper? Just a couple of other little things. One is that language that we discussed on chapter six page nine, that sentence from loud and water. I don't understand what that sentence means or what kind of policy guidance it's providing. I think I would eliminate it or suggest a clarification. And in the equity definition in the gloss array, it feels to me like there's a poor word choice there. It says the last sentence says, equity is achieved when all people are fully able to participate in the county's economic viability. And I almost feel like somebody wanted vitality in there, rather than just viability. So I know that's a knit, but it's an important one because it's in the definition of equity. So I will double check. The goal was that we were pulling in the board endorsed definition of equity from the resolution. And if we had an error, we will fix it. Okay. Yeah, it's just a hard word to... It doesn't make people wonderful. It just makes them passable, Just anyway. Yeah. And I think those were the only other two things I had. Thank you. All right. We'll open up the public hearing for this item. Given that there's nobody in the room, I won't ask if they want to speak. Is there anybody online that wishes to speak to this topic given that? Okay, the public hearing is closed. So with that, this is the countywide application June 12, 2020 planning commission work session for discussion. Second. Okay, motion made by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Frank. Any discussion on the motion? Did you want it to be a date certain because I know in the past. I'm okay with, I'm assuming it's staff put that data and they're comfortable with that date. That date is okay. Okay, I just know in the past you were asking not to do date certain. It's okay. Okay, do you have an opening? Let's go home. Okay. Any other, any discussion? I thought that was your closing. I think we should leave the date open. All right. Okay, closing? All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed. That motion will carry 801 with Commissioner Cones absent for the vote. Thank you very much. All right guys it's 7 30 now. What do we want to do? Nothing. Yeah. Only good for anything else. So the only thing right now on the agenda for the May work session is our old friend hidden wood. And I really hope everybody can be there so we don't have another even number or or or if you're not going to be here, bring someone with you. Takes one home with you. Gotta have it. the public hearing. May 27th we'll start at 5 p.m. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. And go till. Anything else for our long? A long while. The annual report will be discussed at the May work session as well. Okay. Good. All right. That means then we are adjourned. Thank you. you you