All right. I better put on my glasses. I call the planning commission meeting of March 4th, 2025 to order. The first order of business is the election of the planning commission officers for chair and vice chair. Are there any nominations for chair? Yes. Mr. Kenney. Thank you. I nominate Vice Chair Melissa McMahon to become Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. My observation of our years of shared service on this body is that Melissa is knowledgeable across the remarkable range of ways that planning and development intersect with the quality of life for Alexandrians is dedicated to the integrity of our civic discourse on the issues that affect the future well-being of our city and is the most qualified among us to fulfill the responsibilities of this role. A second the motion. Are there any further nominations? If not, the nominations are closed. As many as favor, Melissa McMahon for Chair say aye. Those opposed a nay. The eyes have it. Melissa McMahon is unanimously elected Chair of the Planning Commission for a term of one year. And now I'm I'm going to turn over the materials to be new for me. We will open the nominations for vice chair. Are there any nominations for vice chair? Yes, Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Brown. Back in the day, too many days for me to care to count, I had the privilege of moving for the first time the denomination of Melissa McMahon to be vice chair. I said simply at the time that I thought she would be the best among us to be to serve in that role. I've got to say that in the in the quite sometimes since then when she was successfully given that position, I feel like my judgment has been indicated over and over. And so I'm especially glad to again have I guess a seniority privilege of suggesting and nominating Stephen Canae as the vice chair because like Melissa McMahon, well, before him, I believe he is the best qualified among us to assume that position. Thank you very much. And I know my notes say the second is not necessary, but I would give one if I could if we're needed. Are there any further nominations? All right, hearing none, nominations are closed. As many favor, Stephen Cainey for Vice Chair say aye and those opposed? No. Aye. I. Don't hear any noise. All right, motion carries unanimously. Stephen Cammig, welcome to Vice-Chairmanship. Thank you, Chair. I very much appreciate it now. I look forward to doing the work. OK. Does he have to move? Stephen, you don't have to move. It would be your right to move. But you have to sit next to be in the future. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the future. Stephen, you don't have to be right. But you have to sit next to me in the future. Absolutely. All right. That should bring us to what would be our normal proceedings. I have a nice long script for the beginning of the meeting. If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the sign up to speak 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 tables located immediately outside the chambers or at the back of chambers and providing it to Ms.. Jacobs who has her hand raised Please note comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker with the exception of applicants and their representation to make your public comment through zoom application Please click on the raise hand button located on the zoom task bar once you hear your name called upon to make your statement In order to let staff know it is you who needs to be unmuted in order to make your public comment. To make your public comment, if you are dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, please press star 9 to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name called upon to make your statement, followed by star 6 to toggle the unmute function. To make your public comment in person, please come up to either podium, located at the front of chambers, when you hear your name called upon to make your statement. Before starting your public comment, 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 tenor of public comments always be civil and respectful. Thank you for honoring those principles. A reminder to all including commissioners, staff, and speakers in the chamber to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all are able to hear in a clear manner. Ms. Jacobs, are there any changes to tonight's stockets? Yes, Madam Chair. Dock and item number eight, Master Plan amendment 2025-0001. The applicant which is the City of Alexandria has requested a deferral of this item. Thank you very much. Sorry. Madam Chair, if I may, that would require a vote of the- Yes, so- You're already getting to that. Yes, I was going to request- I apologize. No apologies, this is Sarah, because I am new at this. So I did check in with Ms. Brown by email earlier today and do staff wish to have a deferral until staff are ready to bring this item back because normally that is our request. Yes. Great. I'm looking for a motion. Would anyone like to make a motion to defer until staff are ready to return the item for decision? that we defer item eight until the staff is ready to return it to the document. Second. All right, I have a motion by commission or can it? Again, a second by commission or brown? Any discussion of the motion?, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,. Are there any items commissioners wish to pull for discussion? Please go ahead and just let me know. Number five and number six. Okay, Commissioner Brown would like to pull number five and number six. Commissioner Dubé. Number three for a comment. Just for a comment. And number three. So. Number five and number six. Okay, Commissioner Brown would like to pull number five and number six. Commissioner Dubé. Number three for a comment. Just for a comment. And number three. So we're pulling items three, five, six. And I will also pull. Yep. Also number four. And number four. Three, four, five, six. Is that right? And I was going to do number seven. So honestly, everybody, that's the whole consent calendar. But hopefully, and that means we have one less vote, right? Because we won't do a consent calendar vote. Sorry, staff. We're going to pull all of our items. And with that, let's bring them up in order. Dogcket item number three. Night special use permit. 2024, 0089, 1913, Malvern in Avenue. Public hearing and consideration of a special use permit for a parking reduction for an outdoor garden center. Zone is commercial low. The applicant is D. Jason Portlands. All right, Commissioner Dubé, do you require a presentation? No, no, ma'am. Just a comment. I talked to staff about this earlier today and it just seems to me we have some extra hoops here that we're making the applicant jump through. Primarily around the parking, but there may be other things that we could look at. I'm just asked if staff had a process to look into things to streamline processes like this, to get our small businesses and other applicants up and running. In this case, he got, obviously. So I just asked that staff would look into that and maybe some other changes to streamline. And I do support this. So if there's no other comments, I can move to approve. I do have, now that this is off the consent calendar, I do want to make a quick comment. When I talked with staff about this, I expressed some concerns about parking and loading in this crowded area of Mount Vernon Avenue. And I was also concerned about whether it's a really good place for walk-in service when they're going to be having selling potted plants and plants oil. But I met with the owner Sunday morning and I found his answer is very reassuring and I think this is gonna be a wonderful project. Re-enforced by the fact that we have support letters from the actual citizen groups involved. So I'm very pleased to see how this thing is. I that this is going to work out well. Okay, so we do have a handful. So while we were, I was going to say we have a handful of people here for public comment on this item. I believe they're all, I can list off the names. They're all supporting, but we can just, how about as I list the name, just wave if you're saying, no, I don't need to speak, and then we can fast forward. Okay, just so we can be fair here. Jay Portlands. All right. Dan Roth. All right. Gail Ruder. All right. Darleen Duffett, okay. Lauren Fisher, and Pat Miller. Okay, and that looks like everybody's happy to not speak on the item tonight. So I would like to hear a motion. Oh, actually no. Yes, the motion can include closing the public hearing. Yes, second. All right. Second. Great. I got a motion to close the public hearing and recommend approval for a docket item three special use permit 2024-0080089 from Commissioner Dubé and a second by Commissioner Brown. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 70. Chair McMahon, just a quick note. I want to thank Commissioner Dubé for his comments and I wanted to just highlight that we do have a small business zoning project in place. Periodically, we have done this to identify aspects of non-development cases, particularly small business-related ones that could, there are candidates for further streamlining, such as moving from full hearing, us who peace to Edman or Edman to permitted and Ms Horowitz is actually leading that effort and we expect to have something for you in the fall Thank you very much All right that brings us to docket item 4 docket item number 4 special use permit 4,00091, 2701, Cameron Mills Road, 526 Monticello Boulevard, public hearing and consideration of a special use permit for a cemetery and lot modifications, zone R8 residential. The applicant is Westminster, Presbyterian, Church of Alexandria. All right. I believe Commissioner Brown. Well, no. No. I had pulled it. So yes. I'm sorry. I have to recuse myself from this case because I am doing business with one of the entities who's working on this project. OK. All right. And I presume we don't need a presentation. So, um, and do we have any public speakers on the item that are not the applicant? I don't see anything. We do not hear. Okay. I moved close to public hearing. All right. Motion by Commissioner Brown to close the public hearing. Second. Second by Commissioner Canick. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries 6-0 and 1 recusal. I move to approve the project. All right. We have a motion to approve, especially use permit 2024-00091 committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask 2024-18, 29 East Reed Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for a subdivision to re-subdivide and existing lot into two lots. The zone is RB residential, applicant is classic cottages, LLC. I've asked to pull this in order to ask the attorney for the client just one question. Can you state for the record what are your client's purposes in seeking this re-subdivision request? They intend to build a two unit duplex unit. We don't call them duplexes if they're side by side. It's a might detached dwelling. Of the public hearing. Second. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Brown to close the public hearing and a second by Commissioner Kinnig. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. I also move to approve the resubdivision requests. Second. I haven't stated that correctly. I have a motion to approve the subdivision 2024 dash 0 0 1 8 by Commissioner Brown and a second by Commissioner canic all those in favor please say aye aye opposed Motion carries 7 0. Thank you All right that brings us to item six. Pocket item number six. Development site plan amendment. 2025-03-38-30. Seminary road. Public hearing and consideration of a Development site plan for a religious building to modify the front yard setback and to construct a fence. This is amending site plan 68-010. It is owned our 20 residential. The applicant is Beth Elkhybru congregation. All right. Commissioner Brown, would you like a presentation? Yes, please. Let's go forth. Good evening. I am Maggie Cooper from the Planning and Zoning Department in the development division. So I'll be presenting on a request from the Beth L. Hebrugh congregation for offense. So the request is for an amendment to an existing site plan from 1968 and the request is also for the modification to that site plan for to modify the front yard, the required front yard to allow for a six foot open fence. We are the applicant is seeking planning commission approval and it is worth noting that this project because of the modification for a DSP is not required to go to city council. So planning commission will be the deciding vote. And the key elements of the project are the required front yard and what qualifies as the required front yard and the fence height. background. The original building was built before site plans were required from the cities, was built in the early 50s. Site plan 6810 was approved for an addition to the existing building. And since the additions have been made, there have been a number of SUVs that have been granted for this property for childcare services and private schools. And so the modification is that Bethel has received a federal grant for an open fence for safety and security and the requesting a modification to allow for that six foot open fence in an area that is currently the required front yard. In the R20 zone, it requires a 70-foot required front yard for non-residential uses. This is the proposed location and red of the fence and a substantial part of the fence does fall within that required front yard. And then you also have here a draft of the proposed fence, which is six feet tall and roughly 75% open. Staff is recommending approval and I'm happy to answer any questions or go into any more detail that you'd like. I just have one question that comes out of the response that I got today. Can you tell me what the speed limit is at that portion of Senator Road? Believe it is 35? Sorry, I think it is 25. It's 25, thank you. 25, just like Lon Quaker Lane on the other side of the Episcopal property. Right, thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have any public speakers on this item tonight? No, only the applicant is representative. Okay. So I know I have questions for the applicants representative and it is I had to bring them up if not we can I guess not open the public hearing close the public hearing and move to a commissioner discussion All right, I have a move I have a motion to close the public hearing by commissioner Brown and a second by commissioner Canning all those in favor please say aye favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And that brings us to commission or discussion. I'm the one that had questions about this project. And I find after reading the staff report and the response to the to the questions that I raised in a memo yesterday, I still remain very doubtful that this project makes sense. The basic, my basic feeling is that I don't think that we should be doing drastic adjustments to front yards just to make it legal, technically legal, for them to have a six-foot fence when a four-foot fence is perfectly proper and allowed. I would not allow that sort of change unless there was, I felt that there was a strong need for the change. In this case, my understanding is that the applicant is proposing six feet on the grounds of providing additional security and safety primarily for the children of the congregants to play in the front yard. If you just look a block down the street, in fact, right next door on the west side at the Carragavano, the new development at Carragavano, the first house on the corner at Carrag and Seminary has a four foot high, raw dye in fence, which is exactly the kind of thing that seems to me quite appropriate across the front of the congregation. I just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that that would be inadequate safety for the children and that in terms of security. It seems to me that unless you're trying to, unless you're trying to guard the entirety of the property against some kind of assault attack, the four-foot fence is equally serviceable for that purpose as well. Finally, I think that this would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the city to lower front yard fences, to increase the height of front yard fences for what I regard as not really strong reasons. We have a lot of churches in our residential areas that are open and beautiful and have open and beautiful yards. In fact, that particular characteristic of the Westminster Presbyterian Church for which we have allowed a modest change in the front yard tonight. In item number four, it illustrates for me the distance difference between that case and this case. So for all those reasons, I will be not in favor of this proposal. Other commission or discussion? Madam Chairman. Yes, commission or can you? I would just like to make note of the fact that I appreciate commissioner Brown's endeavor here to ask these additional questions and his dialogue with the staff in clarifying and having the answers presented for the questions that he raised has helped me take a look at the issue in a way that I hadn't before. And I do find myself in agreement with both of his concerns, one that the general logic behind the necessity for this modification seems incredibly broad and undefined. And second, that it is, I don't see any way that this is anything other than a really incredibly open-ended precedent for virtually every other house of worship in the city, in a residential neighborhood that has an open front yard to essentially present the same desire and to begin a parade of six foot fence enclosures of these perceptual open spaces in our neighborhood. So with that said, I'm in a position to also oppose this proposal tonight. Madam Chair, I do have one question. I don't know if the representative here. The thing that strikes me is that they got a DOD grant to do this. And so I'd like to understand more about the reason for it, because I certainly would not want to doubt their sense that they feel they need it. And that in fact, that synagogue may not be like all other churches in Alexandria. So I'd like to hear about that. Thank you. Hi. My name is Elizabeth Baer. I'm the executive director of Beth L. Hebrew Congregation, who has been a proud member of the city since 1859. I'm not sure that everyone is aware, but anti-Semitism is on the rise. 140% since last year. Before that, I would say in the early 90s, if you're familiar with our building, you'll see the, oh, sorry, thank you. You'll see the white planters that, in my personal opinion, are a hideous eye sore for the city. And those planters were actually put in with a DOD grant shortly after the first attack on the World Trade Center because everybody was worried about car bombs. We are not in that situation anymore. We are now worried about individuals with weapons. And part of the Department of Homeland Security and these grants that are issued to houses of worship are to mitigate the loss of life. So we are a target. Unfortunately, in comparison to other houses of worship in Alexandria, Jewish institutions are a high target. We are especially in our our location, right off of Highway 95. I think, very close to the Pentagon, we are considered a high target in terms of if somebody wanted to cause an act of terrorism on a Jewish institution, we would be a good choice. That is an unfortunate part of our people and who we are, and so every single year, I apply for Homeland Security grants, and we have never not received them. So that gives you kind of an idea of where we are at. This fence putting, and this fence is a benefit, is to keep the children safe when they plan the front yard. But really the goal is to be able to walk, be able to keep the individuals from walking on our property to a main entrance of our building. And this is something that we work really hard on with the Alexandria Police Department and Sheriff's Department who we have at our facility at all times. So really it is unfortunately, Mr. Brown, it is an act of terrorism that we are trying to prevent because we would all rather prevent one than have to deal with the aftermath. Is there any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Manor. I'm just not clear on why offense, it's not gonna be the entire perimeter. Are you not gonna have gates? You can close as well. It's all about keeping the one main entrance watching how people are coming in. So yes, most of our property is actually already fenced the entire back and the sides. It's really about connecting the fences. And we even have Mr. Redman next door has a gate inside our property for his trash. I mean, this isn't, you know, it's really about not, you know, the addition of the two feet is about not having the ability to climb over it and having to really direct traffic to walk into the property the way that we want people to walk in. And that's where we have, I'm last Homeland Security cycle. We had 45 cameras installed into our building, into our property. And biometric access, our building, is like a school, locked all the time from outside. Yeah. So we really are trying to get everybody to our front door where they have to ring our door like a public school. But when the service, excuse me, when services are happening, don't people just sort of stream in? We're not worried about our own people. We have to be. How would you tell a person is not one of your own? Well, we know our congregants, but, you know, I mean, really, that's the main thing is, even if they're not, that's why we hire police to be at our entrance in case there is someone that has bad intent can be diverted. I mean, it strikes me that anybody could have a mask on and people wouldn't look sideways at them. They wouldn't be allowed in if they had a mask on. Okay. Thank you. They would be required to remove it at this point. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Yes, I do. Yep. Commissioner Brown. I just want to confirm my observations when I toured the property on Sunday that you agree with what I saw. There's a large clump of invasive bamboo in the northwest side of the property along Carrag. Just beyond that, on your side of the property, there's an entirely open space with no fence that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is not a property that is? There's an entrance for pedestrians or for drivers. I'm not talking about, I'm talking about, after you park your car, you get into the building from the parking lot in the rear or perhaps on the west side, where there's another entrance. Is that right? Yes, that's right. There's no entrance on the front. There are doors on the front. They're not considered entrances, but there are five doors on the front side of the building. And your application states that the gates on either side, the entrance gate and the exit gate will be kept open at all times, except in the case of a declared emergency. Yes, and I would go as far as to say a catastrophic emergency, otherwise they will remain open. So if unbeknownst to you, a terrorist were to come onto the property during an ordinary day, whatever day, obviously probably one of the days when you have services, there would be no emergency that would have closed the doors before that person arrived on the property, isn't that correct? That is correct. We are not trying to prevent people from coming onto our property or make it unwelcome or make it a traffic problem, which is why we intend to keep the gates open. But we are trying to the the goal is to keep individuals from walking onto the property where we can't see them who have intent to cause harm and Why and why can't that be done with a four foot fence because I can can climb over a four foot fence. I invite you to look at the, I would invite you to look at the fence over at the corner of Kerrigan Seminary and think and ask you whether you think there's any possibility, anybody could climb over that without injuring themselves on the sharp points at the top of those bonds. I am very familiar with that property and with the fence. And that fence does not have sharp points that I could climb over that fence. I respectfully disagree with you on that. I went over there and tested the sharpness of those points myself on Sunday. Thank you for your answers. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, we could close the public hearing. I guess we did that already. Yeah, good. We dismiss the applicant then. Thank you All right other comments reflections Mission or can you got your light lit up? Yeah, that was sort of accidental, but I am trying to think of An observation. I think this is a very difficult Judgment to make. I think the fact that we live in a society where these kinds of threats are absolutely real is just a fact of our collective life. I think we live in a city where there's a tremendous effort to ameliorate those dangers and to foster a sense of community that helps provide a certain potential in a safety factor by the nature of the community that we have and the nature of this sort of open environment that we have. And so I don't want in any way to give less than maximum respect to the applicant's desire to have the security that they seek in a world where they are indeed deliberately targeted. And I think in one sense, it's easy then to just say that that's such an overwhelming characteristic that really anything that would be suggested would should just be acceptable. And I do acknowledge here that this is not a proposal for a massive fortress or a gigantic heavily, obviously, security-related installation. But I do continue to share Commissioner Brown's skepticism that it is indeed discernibly an effective deterrent as proposed and return to the fact that the fence or the fence design limitations in the city have always been a really difficult thing. I happen to serve 10 or 15 years on the board of zoning appeals in a earlier couple of decades where fences throughout neighborhoods are a live issue. Every fence has meaning to the people who want to build it and mean something to the public realm that it's inserted in. And I think this characteristic, again, Commissioner Brown alluded to that, as you look through our communities, our churches and our houses of worship of all types are integrated into those environments and for the most part they are manifestly open, visually and for the most part physically, natural environments surrounding these structures. And it's subtle here, but a six foot fence of this type even though it's mostly open that's right out at the perimeter, has a level of evident exclusion that is a step beyond that. And I think we should be very careful about allowing that to happen. And I think the precedent that we get into an environment where there is a generalized sense of threat to houses of worship that goes beyond this particular situation. And we've said a precedent that allows that to happen. And maybe if our world evolves that way, we make the collective judgment that we should have six foot metal fences at the perimeter around all our houses of worship. And I think if that comes to pass, we'll all be the horror for it. And I really, I don't want to inadvertently set that precedent. And I think the fact that the alternative that is absolutely achievable here without any specialized precedent setting relief is a fence that looks exactly what's proposed only its four feet tall. And I do have a operational difficulty getting past the operational question of the statement of the threat, which I think is completely understandable, and we know how intense and horrific the threat can be. And the nature of this defensive element, which is actually really almost unbelievably minimalist. And at that point, the idea that it would be just as it's planned, but four feet rather than six feet strikes me as a better solution than offering this particularized relief that sets a really unbounded precedent. So that's running on a little bit, but I am thinking out loud as always, kind of dangerous and boring. But I find that this is a really a difficult judgment to make, but I find myself still in a position to be unable to support it as it's presented. Yep Commissioner DeBae. Madam Chair thank you. I had sitting or listening to both the gentleman speak about the aesthetics more than anything else I guess. But my background maybe is a little different and understand understandably, from the applicant's point of view, they are absolutely a threat or a much higher threat than other houses of worship. You just have to look at the data. It proves it beyond a doubt. And it's not just the individual with a weapon, the weapon could be a vehicle. And you don't have to look very far to see that. New Orleans a couple of weeks ago. Would that fence the six foot and stop a vehicle like that? I don't know. It would certainly slow it down. And then you don't have to look too far in our standards. It's through 2016. We had this at Simpson Field. So it's here. We have to deal with it. I understand your concerns, but any level of safety we can give to these kids, I'm gonna be supportive of it. Thank you. I'll go ahead and provide some comments as well. And they don't have to be the last comments. So anyone else who has a hands-on have some time to speak. I was really trying to take to heart the concern that we were opening a bit of a Pandora's box. This idea that providing what is essentially a front yard setback modification. So for folks who are listening who are thinking about the technicalities of this, this isn't about proving a for-fence or approving a six-foot fence. It's about deciding if we can make a required front yard six feet instead of 70 feet. And this is a weird location and in part, that context is what I would pose might make this somewhat unique instance of a house of worship in our community. We have a lot of them, right? We have little, the city churches, the ones that are right up on the block, right up against the sidewalk. We have ones like this that are out on a kind of campus. We have a seminary. Like we have a really wide variety of houses of worship with their communities. In this instance, I asked myself the question, is the nature of the front yard modification one that is a substantive, in, substantively in conflict with its context? And I thought to myself if the request were the way we might see in a development project that they want to bring the building up to six feet from the street, then we would have a conflict because the buildings in this part of town and on this stretch of road aren't six feet from the street. But that's not what this is asking for. And the buildings in In fact, still way back there, it's a big building set back far. It has a lawn. What's being added to the front is proposed to be a fence that is six feet tall but is mostly open. And it's set, I believe from the designs, six feet back from the sidewalk. So it's also unlike some, I think there's a side yard fence just down the road from here that is a six foot fully closed side yard fence for a resident for a resident and to get back to our fence excitement. I mean we we allow people to have these six foot completely closed side yard fences that are on like corner properties and then are in many ways feeling like front yard spaces. And they're right up against the sidewalk. And that I felt is more impactful when it's closed, when it's right up against the sidewalk. And in the design that's proposed here with the setting of the building, the size of the property. I'm not seeing that the local precise in situ compatibility issues that would suggest that I would want to on its face deny approval of this fence in this location. When confronted with a question of whether we're likely to have a lot of similar requests going forward like this one. I'm skeptical of that, in part because I don't feel that there are so many houses of worship under the same level of threat that we know this one is and the presence of anti-Semitism in the community in many communities today and how it is not quite the same for a synagogue as it is for a church, you know. Not every house of worship is treated the same in our society right now. And so I don't have that same level of concern that every church that we see walking down the street is going to come in with a six foot tall metal fence application. And it's smaller yard, it's bigger yard, it's up against its facade, a gate across its door. Like I just don't see this being a widely implemented ramification. And I think that we have the ability to have this conversation, because these do come to us. This kind of, this is a judgment discussion, which relates to both the specifics of the application and where it could be generalized. And I don't feel like if I support the application tonight, I am generalizing that I'm gonna be in support of every six-foot-tall middle fence in front of every house of worship, regardless of its context in the community. And I think we would have opportunities to question the validity of the approach if those were to come before us in separate instances later on. I do agree with Commissioner Brown on the, the, in comparison to the earlier docket item tonight, which we didn't have to have a full sum discussion on, that was an easier sell than this one. This does pose bigger questions. But despite those bigger questions, I feel that the context of the specific request is such that I can support it, that I do not fear it's easy generalizability to other contexts and I'm willing to support it tonight. Ms. Ramirez. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Fair with me. I am also in agreement. One part of this is that what we're looking at is the height of the proposed fence in the front yard where the building is still in excess of the required setback from the sidewalk. And because of the nature of the fence itself, whether it is at four feet or six feet, I do find that the visual element is not that different. It would be something different if it were a six-foot-solid fence, six-foot-solid wall. The only caution though that I would throw would be that some of these pickets at times can build up a certain kind of solid visual block at the driveways where they come in and out. And that's something to be very aware of, particularly, as we do have a concrete sidewalk there and there are pedestrian walking along. So that's something to keep in mind. However, for the actual nature of the fence itself, as it is presented, it feels that it is as open as it would be if it were open air and it's simply that there is a little bit more of a visual barrier and that does provide that level of a certain visual protection for the synagogue. And I can absolutely respect that there is a difference here with this property that I think we need to consider. Thank you. Other commissioner comments? And if not, it's probably time for for emotion. All right. We have a motion to deny. All right, we have a motion to deny application for development site plan amendment 2025-000003 by commissioner Brown. Second. Second by commissioner canick. There's a motion to deny on the table. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Nay. Nay. All right, I counted three eyes and four nays, which means the motion to deny did not pass. And where does that put us? Someone who knows the logistics of it? You will entertain a motion. Another motion. OK, so we can't leave it at this, everybody. Someone's responsible for giving me a counter motion now. Who would like to do so? I'll give it a try. All right, Commissioner Romirez. I would like to make a counter motion to the motion of disapproval as presented by Commissioner Brown for development site plan 2025 0 0 0 0 3. I second. Okay, so I do that right. I hear that to be a motion to recommend approval. Yes. Actually just. It would be approved. Partly. I'll take credit for that. I heard a motion to approve. I heard a motion to approve. I hear that to be a motion to recommend approval. Yes. Actually just to approve. It would be approved. To approve. To approve. To approve. To approve. Yeah. I confused you. I'll take credit for that. All right. I heard a motion to approve. Development site plan. A amendment. Commissioner Ramirez and a second-by-commissioner, Lena Han. All right. All those in favor please say aye aye opposed All right that was the motion passing for with three three Whatever four to three Thank you to three. Thank you. All right, everybody. Thank you. And that brings us to item seven. You all thought we were out of the consent agenda? No, we're not. All right. Four, three. Dog at item number seven, zoning text amendment 202501, A initiation of and be public hearing and consideration of a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to correct technical errors and unintentional emissions in articles two, three, four, five, seven, and 11, Roman numerals. Two amend sections four, dash 506, dash 700 to increase height and FAR limits for the public buildings constructed prior to January 24th, 1998, in the commercial district and King Street retail zones. Three amend sections seven, dash 200 to allow fences up to 10 feet in height and required side and rear yards when a subject property immediately about say lot developed with a non residential use and to clarify that wall mounted mechanical equipment may be located in the required side of rear yard. For amend section 11400 to allow additions less than 3000 square feet to be exempt from the site plant requirements. Five men's sections 12-212-302 clarify that a public building constructed prior to June 24th 1998 is not a nonconforming use that such public building is a noncompliant use. use and that such use may be expanded without special use permit approval and six to amend Article 11 to make the director of planning and zoning responsible for certain activities and make other clarifications. The applicant is the city of Alexandria, Department of Planning is zoning. I hope I didn't miss it. Thank you very much and started to make you read all of that when I do not need a presentation. However, if staff would not mind going to maybe slide three, it might be three, four. Yes. My main reason fellow commissioners for pulling this item was just to acknowledge that actually akin to what you were talking about earlier, Carl, we do practical updates to zoning kind of all the time in a continuous fashion. Some of those updates stem very directly out of conversations planning commission have with staff over the years or staffs Work flow and realizing that we do the same things over and over again in a lot of the same ways and we can streamline processes So you're gonna love it. I love it and this Because it's one of those big long lists of things that we're changing and zoning and and a lot of them are minor. In fact, well, they're all minor, but a lot of them are more of those. We will apply this consistently across the board in this way. You'll see it here, you'll see it there, it'll make sense. I wanted to just highlight that also bundled here are some items that pertain to this little a teeny bucket buildings, public buildings, constructed prior to 1998. And it is really some changes that are designed to facilitate the process we're undertaking with this building with City Hall. And it helped to have staff talk to me about how this fits into a minor updates package, instead of being folded into a package where the project is coming with it. And we sometimes talk up here about whether a project should come with zoning changes at the same time or if they should be done separately. And in this instance, I'm perfectly comfortable that they're being done separately. It's essentially staff's way of being very aware of what are the administrative barriers to getting a good project completed. And the fact that the code that we have doesn't reflect our city halls, it stands today, our city halls we want to have it in the future. The public process that's already well underway with people's vision for how this building can continue to be a sort of historical monument, but modern enough to serve us as a community. And it's not likely to be able to do that if we left the zoning code the way it was or the way that it is with respect to the use that's here today, it's height, it's density, and these factors associated with what might change in the future. So it's different. I'm raising it so that the community knows that we know this is a little different than some other zoning updates that we do, but I personally think it's a great package. These are still necessary changes that will just make that project easier to execute when the time comes. And that's my comment. Commissioner Cainig. Madam Chair, I would just like to basically concur with everything that you said in the sense that both the practical update process that as you describe really is a Fabulous tool that I think every time it comes forward. It's important that we take the opportunity to recognize how How well oiled you're trying to keep the machine and we all know what happens with our gigantic sort of of masses of ordinances and interconnected requirements and policies if they're not regularly examined and tuned up when they often come as gigantic operational problems when a project reveals that there's some sort of massive disconnect from 1992 that we didn't recognize. So I'm a great proponent of this process as well and think that everything that's in here is fully supportable. I also though appreciate the fact that you've pulled this off specifically to make the observation that within this set of completely typical practical updates, we do have a rare occasion where we're actually adjusting development characteristics of height and density and to make sure that we are indeed looking at this particular case where it applies to a very circumscribed class of public buildings. And it essentially, in the case of City Hall, acknowledges non-compliant conditions that are already there, which would just cause meaningless administrative difficulty of bringing the project forward. So I'm persuaded by staff's recommendation that that acknowledgement of those conditions is worth doing and recognizing that, again, with City Hall as an example, the project will come through to a full and comprehensive community engagement process and a complete entitlements review by planning commission and council so With having taken that incredibly long way to say that I agree with everything that you said I'm available to make a motion to approve whenever you like Are there any other Comments before we have a motion Madam chair Chair, if it's helpful, if there were to be some motions, they would be an initiation and a vote on that and then a recommendation and a vote on that. Thank you very much. You've been giving your hints. That's okay and I actually studied enough to recognize that we would indeed need to move to initiate, because it does get complex, and I appreciate the confirmation that that's what we want to do. So I would move that we initiate zoning text amendment 2025-0001. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Cainig and a second by Commissioner Brown to initiate the zoning text amendment on the table. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Madam Chair, I move to recommend approval of text amendment 2025-000001. Great. And a motion to recommend approval by Commissioner Cain who gets seconded by Commissioner Brown. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0 zero Thank you All right that brings us to our new business Dock at item eight actually Not be deferred dock at item eight dock at item nine. Yes dock at item number nine zoning text amendment 2025 02 and Coordinated Development District Concept Plan.03 for CDD number 21 amendment. The addresses are 1250, 1315, 1460 through 1470A, 1516, 1819, 200, 2,000 North Barbarale Street, 5666, 5005, 50106, 51, 18, 51, 21, 51, 29, Fairbanks Road. 26, 18, 26, 23, 26, 27, 26, 41, 26, 38, 26, 48, 26, 58 Foster Avenue, 37, 57, 41, Leverecourt, 5650 Rayburn Avenue, 555-1, 5650-711, 5900-A Sanger Avenue, 555-5143-5165-570-350-580-183-Seminary Road, 54-43-A Sheffield Court. This is an initiation of an public hearing and consideration of a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to amend section five-six-o-two, replacing references to the Beauregard Small Area Plan with the Alex West Small Area Plan and public hearing and consideration of an amendment to coordinated development district concept plan number 21, including for the Adams neighborhood to align with the Alex West Small Area plan. This is the property of zone to CDD number 21. The applicants are the City of Alexandria for the text amendment. 1900 Beauregard property owner LLC represented by Kenneth wire, a serny, and Alexandria development associates LLC by Kenneth wire and Megan Rappolt. 50-21 Seminary Road owner LLC also represented by Kenneth Wire and Megan Rappolt and Morgan Properties Management Company LLC by Matthew Alman, attorney. All right. I'm Maggie Cooper, again from Planning and Zoning, and I will be giving a presentation on the CDD amendment. So we'll have a quick summary background. I'll talk a little bit about the Alex West plan than the CDD specifically in the Adams neighborhood. So the request before you is to amend CDD 21 to align with the conditions to align the conditions with the Alex West Small Area Plan. So the and also to update the Alex the Adams Neighborhood Concept Plan. We are asking for a recommendation of approval to City Council and the key things we'll be discussing are going to be the updates to the specific conditions and then the updates to the Adams Neighborhood Conditions and Concept Plan. So in June 2012, City Council adopted the Beauregard Small Area Plan and established the CDD number 21 zoning district the following April 2013. The CDD concept plan established and specified infrastructure design and open space requirements for six neighborhoods. The Greenway Garden District town center, Adams, Upland Park, and a portion of southern towers. Since the adoption of the CDD, the Blake, a multi-unit residential building, has been constructed and has residents living in it. And there has been an approval for the townhouses and a new park in the upland park. Excuse me, neighborhood. As you're all, I assume very familiar, the Alex West Small Area Plan was adopted in December 2024 by City Council, and it replaced the previous Beauregard Small Area plan. Updates were made to neighborhood names, so the garden district and now it was incorporated, excuse me, the town center was incorporated into the garden district, and then the name was just slightly changed from garden district to garden neighborhood. And then the portion of Southern T Towers and CDD21 was renamed the Crosswoods Neighborhood, Crossroads, excuse me. So the current application would amend the general open space conditions for CDD21 to align with the Alex West Small Area Plan. I apologize. Sorry, so it would update the conditions to align with Alex West. And then the conditions specific to the Adams neighborhood would also be updated now as the applicant for 1900 Northver regard is ready to move forward with that DSUP. And then all future DSUP's for properties within this CDD, they would be coming forward in the future to update their concept plans when they are ready to develop. It's also worth mentioning that we are also speaking about retiring the Beauregard Design Advisory Committee. So when the Beauregard Design Advisory Committee was created, it was part of the Beauregard Small Area Plan and it was created to enforce the Beauregard Design Standards and Guidelines. Because Alex West has replaced Beauregard and because we are coming forward at some point with the streamlined version of design guidelines. We are recommending the retirement of BDAC. However, that is not before you this evening. That will be a part of a text amendment that comes forward when the design guidelines come before you. We do want to mention it now. So the benefits of the project are really are allowing the project to be a part of the project. So the forward as Recommended by the Alex west plan so the main changes to the conditions would be to replace any references figures images graphics that are specific to the Beauregard Plan and update them so that they are consistent with the now approved Alex West Plan. That includes some updates to open space requirements, contributions. There's a number of places in the CDD that reference retail and the way that we view retail has slightly changed in the Alex West plan. It updates infrastructure conditions, again, to be consistent with what is in the Alex West plan. We also are recommending to streamline conditions that are within the existing standard, within the conditions to be a bit more in line with what we currently do for conditions. And that's just really that we have streamlined how we write conditions. We tend to use a bit less words and and and you don't have conditions that are already listed in the zoning ordinance that their applicants are required to meet anyway. We also have updated it so to comply with all city policies when CDD21 was created. We did not have some of the policies that we currently have. So now instead of having 10 or 15 conditions that specify green building, we can require them to just be compliant with the green building plan. Similar for public art, affordable housing, and the transportation management plans. And another huge benefit for this amendment is that it will allow, again, the property owners to move forward to improve public property, in public open space, public amenities, and then also publicly accessible open spaces. There is a conversation within the Alex West plan to have a new community facility in the Alex West area. However, we want to clarify that it's not guaranteed to be within CDD 21, but it will be somewhere in the Alex West area. And then the specific conditions that we are recommending for the Adams neighborhood predominantly have to do with some open space, and then also an increase of flexibility of uses when CDD-21 was created. And then the Adams neighborhood is part of that. It predominantly allowed, well, it's probably called for office and hotel. Of course, because of changing economics in our society. That Alex West plan did include a different types of residential use in this area. So those conditions would be updated to align again with the Alex West small area plan. And also want to note that the property here on the far right is the Blake, which is constructed, and then the one just to its left is 1900, and that is the one that is expected to come before you in April of 2025. So with all of that, I'm happy to answer questions or give any more detail, but staff is recommending approval. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Brown. Are you making any changes to attachment three? They revised CDD 21 zoning table as we discussed. Yes. So we can go, I can give a little bit more information about that. So in attachment number three, we are recommending when we go to City Council to remove the word town center and to revise the phrase garden district, to garden neighborhood, to reflect the change in the atoms and the Alex West's library of land. Thank Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Canning. Thank you, Madam Chair. My, I have two basic sets of questions that relate to open space. And if we could return to slide seven. So and this follows on questions that I had submitted earlier and I appreciate very much that you incorporated answers to those questions in the memo that came out on the fourth. But I find that there's a certain complexity to the way all this works and I just want to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly if I could. So as we look at, and I think the Adam's West example here is great. This is a sprawling plan and a very large CDD and this particular neighborhood being at issued is a great example for us to try to make sure for me to understand how things are working here. So as we look at this diagram, the heavy dash boundary is the actual Adams neighborhood boundary. It includes five or six properties there. It's got a carve out for the Clyde's property. And it's hard to see from here, but within that dotted line, there are four or five parcel boundary lines between the sort of, that roughly according to the development parcels there, right? And the public open space in green, those parks, that exact configuration, and in fact this diagram, is explicitly a function or a product of the small area plan itself, right? So the small area plan that we previously approved includes effectively this level of differentiation and this level of decision about exactly what the configuration of those parks we're gonna be. And those parks are required to be assembled from relevant quadrants of the actual private sector parcels, right? So as we look closely, we're seeing parcel boundaries go through and actually dividing the triangular park into pieces. So it's an eccentric thing in the sense that it's variable by geometry and the neighborhood and the condition of the parks, how much of a particular piece of a property is dedicated to that particular open space. But those are required by the plan. And as you indicate on the graphic there, they total in this diagram a little shy of three acres of new open space that will be constructed and assembled in this way. Okay, so that's publicly, that's public open space. Then when we get to the development parcels themselves which are indicated here in gray, there's an additional and separate requirement to achieve 25% open space on each of those parcels when the development comes through as a development, especially as permit, is that correct? And in that case, that 25% is generally comprised of either at grade open space or above grade open space. Correct. Just a quick clarification. Sure. So then 1900 North River Guard is a little bit of a different case because they did come in and applied for completeness prior to the Alex West Myri plan being finalized. And so when that comes forward, the calculation would be slightly different. So that's a reflection of, as you said, that that project was already in process. But when we're talking about open space on the individual development sites, that can be entirely private access open space. Not necessarily, and you indicate that in certain cases, specific to the development of a particular project, a portion of that 25% may actually have a public access easement of some sort depending on how the design works out. And that's all worked out in the give and take of the DSUP process. And I guess then the part that we've had some conversation about and that I would try to make sure I was understanding understanding completely is that it seems to me the language in the recommendation in the small area plan which is exactly the same language that's being translated to the CDD conditions on open space is explicit about the fact that the 25% requirement on the development parcels excludes the contributions that are made to construct the public open space in green on this diagram. Is that correct? And then a part of my question to you all had been, is that typical, is that the norm, is that the standard and in your answers to my questions, I believe the answer was essentially that that is the same process that was utilized in the predecessor plan to this the Beauregard plan. And it's also either exactly the same or directly analogous to the process that's used in several other plans that you indicated here that are previously done in different parts of the city. Thank you. That. That's helpful because we say open space a lot, we say public open space a lot, we say easement, we say public accessibility, and that question of kind of the 25% applied to the particular building projects themselves is downstream from all the work that went into the small area plan to define that private sector property would be assembled to construct these dedicated public open spaces here. Thank you. The second piece then was the question about modifications and what happens if someone can't meet those requirements, what the process is. So in the staff report on page 10, you all recognize that by the mention of staff recognizes the increase in required open space because we are moving this requirement of open space to 25% from a lower level in the lower regard plan. Staff recognizes the increase in required open space may result in some projects requesting an open space modification. Okay, so this is all tried and true process. My question there and the thing that I wanted to re-equate myself with was what actually are the criteria that are utilized when staff evaluates whether a project is something that they want to recommend a modification to the open space requirement for. So what I found in your response, which seemed familiar once I got back to it, is that the specific requirements for granting a modification to the open space requirement are that the commission determined that such modification is necessary or desirable to good site development. So again, that's one of those sort of broad design principle kind of things that leaves a lot of room for you all to draw conclusions about what those good principles are and for us to make a judgment about it, but that's the foundation of it. There's an underlying level of flexibility built into that, that specific and identified features of the site design make up for those impacts otherwise protected by the regulations for which modification is sought, which essentially means there's something implicit in the characteristic or the geometry with the configuration of the site that makes something possible and other things not possible and there's some trade-off and a judgment you all make about that, right? And then the third piece is that such modification will not be detrimental to neighboring property or to the public health, which again is a catch-all thing of don't do the wrong thing and don't have a negative impact, okay? Well, thank you. I just wanted to refresh that for myself and also as we know that there's a level of idiosyncrasy here and we know there's a level of complexity and there's every possibility that projects will be coming forward with some level of modification as they often do to have a good sense of the fact that you all will be looking at that range of criteria when you would potentially bring forward a recommendation to modify. Yes. Okay. So, that was a little long-winded, but in studying this, I got myself sideways about five different times, so it was very helpful for you to help me clarify that and sort of set the frame for how we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. questions for staff I have a quick question for staff. I don't recall in the presentation you going over the memo from today From director Moritz with regard to some changes. Did you cover that and I just zoned out? I did not. But we're happy to go into it a bit more. Yeah, because you just covered the high level bullets of what occurred in that and how it changes. So we're acting on tonight. Yes. The two components are first, it was a change in the calculation of residential based density from what was shown in some tables in the small area plan. We had an opportunity to do a deep dive into an aspect of the zoning ordinance to go over exactly how residential based density would be calculated and determine that our previous assumption during the smaller plan that if a use is different from what is covered by the or allowed by the CDD concept plan, then the residential, for example, if it does not allow residential development, then the residential-based density is zero. But a closer reading of Section 5600 showed that actually uses something that you continue to have rights to the base density for, and so consequently, in the case of the Adams neighborhood, the underlying zone is a sea, which does allow residential. And so, all of that is sort of prelude to saying that the actual change in language is quite simple. We are just acknowledging in the new language that of course the calculation is based on what the zoning ordinance allows and skips the reference to the smaller airplane. So that is the first thing. And then the second element of that was, I guess, the edits, go ahead. Maya's going to remind me of the other edits that we made. Thank you. It appears that the other edits were more just to remove redundant language for already in our. Thank you. Correct. Maya Contreras with the development division. So there is a clarification under the Affordable Housing Section in the staff report. And then there are two conditions, one that we are amending and one that we are removing. And I believe those are conditions 37 and 38. And they're on the screen now too. Correct. So when you make your recommendation, we would just ask to have the changes to those two conditions included. Thank you very much. I'll just comment that I think commission or conversations with the applicant and with staff put us in a bind on some of these items because we felt like we were not of the authority to do the interpretations that you all were working out together. So I'm glad that this process continues and the right lawyers gets us sit together and spend lawyer time together because I'm not one of those lawyers. Great. All right. I have a list that only has one speaker on it, but it's not this speaker. We have the applicants representatives. Okay. So there's more than one. I don't believe Mr. Blasow, we don't have any other public speakers. That's correct. We do not have any other public speakers. Okay. So the one that I have listed is Matthew Alman. So if you would like to speak first, and then is that for Mr. Wire? Let's wrap it. Yep. Okay. So I will catch you guys in that order. It's Mr. Omen followed by Megan Rapper followed by Kenneth wire. Thank you. My name is Matthew Omen. I'm a land use attorney with Venable. And I'm representing Morgan Properties this evening. Morgan Properties is the owner of several parcels in Alex West and is one of the co-applicants for the CDD amendment before you. Morgan Properties does not have a redevelopment project imminently teed up and ready to file. So our interest in the CDD amendment is a little more future looking. We want to make sure that there's good consistency between the planning guidance of Alex West and the CDD language. We'd like to make sure that the CDD text is sufficiently future-proofed so that it can accommodate development well into the future as market conditions change. And I think overall, we've been successful working with staff on both points and we've arrived at a good space. And I'm certainly very grateful for the productive collaboration that we've had with the staff team. The one remaining area of concern is you've already heard alluded to this evening is the open space and the 25% requirement. We anticipate that that could be difficult to implement in certain areas of the Morgan site. Particularly those areas where the plan already calls for a very intensive level of development or already calls for significant contributions towards public open space and roads and other infrastructure. And there is quite a bit in the Morgan site if you look at the plan. So we understand there are opportunities to come in and request a modification through DSUP and we all know how that works. But I think the concern is that a modification is usually best suited for a one-off circumstance where you're dealing with something that's maybe a little unique or a little out of the mainstream. But in CDD-21, I think this open space concern is something that we've keyed on and I think you'll hear some of the other applicants are also concerned about. out. So we hate to set the commission up for a situation where every applicant is coming in requesting this modification every single time, right? That can put a burden on you, it can put a burden on the community to have the same fight over and over. So we think potentially a simpler solution is to modify the condition language and allow for the public open space to be considered as part of the 25% might allow the staff and the commission to look at open space a little more holistically during the DSUP process and perhaps avoid having to come in for a modification each time. Recently sent you all letter with some suggested condition revisions just to facilitate conversation and refer you to that letter. But in conclusion, we think the Alex West plan is a really positive step in the right direction from a planning perspective. We think the effort to translate it into the CDD conditions overall has been very successful, so I don't wanna overlook the positive outcome that we've arrived at. And I would certainly encourage the commission to recommend adoption of the CDD amendment, but perhaps with just some additional consideration on that one open space item. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown. No, Mr. Mr. Allman, a question for you. Yes sir. You say in your letter that as currently written the open space calculation would exclude public open space and right away areas and you express concern about that. Yes sir. Yes sir. aware, I trust, that in table 813, note three of the approved master plan, that that's exactly what is supposed to be done? Yes, sir. Now where are you from? Are you requesting a change in the master plan? Not requesting a change in the master plan. We did see that language at the time of master plan consideration. I think there was some concern at that point in the process, but when weighed in the balance of all the moving pieces with the master plan, it maybe didn't rise to the level that we're focusing on at this evening. And I do think there's a distinction between a statement in the master plan which we're all aspiring to meet versus codifying it in the process. evening and I do think there's a distinction between a statement in the master plan which we're all aspiring to meet versus codifying it in zoning text, which makes it much more concrete. Thank you. All right, any other? Okay. Our next speaker is Megan Rapold, followed by Kenneth Wire. Good evening. I'm Megan Rapult with the law firm of Wire Gill. We represent CIM, who is the owner of Southern Towers. If you look at the slide that staff has up, you'll see that the Southern Towers property only one corner of it is actually zoned to CDD-21. So in the future, when CIM wants to come forward and effectuate the plan, we would also be doing a rezoning to CDD-21. And then the conditions that you're approving tonight would apply to all of the southern towers property, which in the plan is called the Crossroads Neighborhood that Maggie mentioned earlier. Speaking of the plan, on page 96 there is the Electro Plan for the Crossroads Neighborhood and smack dab in the middle of it is the one acre open space. There's also four other public open spaces on that plan. There's also a new road network, the RT station, sidewalks, connectivity throughout the plan. There's a lot of public amenities coming forward with southern towers. And so I think we just wanted to point that out to you and align ourselves with what we're going to say too. Because we're going to be providing so many different things that are essential to this Alex West plan, we are foreshadowing, we are previewing that we're going to be back to you, asking for modification for open space. As I said, we're going to be providing quite a bit of open space that won't count towards the 25%. We'll be doing lots of other public things that I think will be very good for the plan. And CIM has been supportive of the Alex West plan the entire time so We're also very happy with the streamline conditions that staff worked hard on and I think that's it Just wanted to make make our points down about that. Thank you. Thank you A quick follow up One moment a quick follow up for staff actually just a follow-up question because I appreciate your pointing out Now, I guess what I would call the odd nature of the CDD only covering part of the site in question for Southern Towers. Is there an anticipation that the CDD itself will change shape at some point to deal with this as a whole and yeah, I don't know if the also wants to talk, but I feel like staff could speak to whether you've had conversations with the applicant that applicant said, I don't know if that's something right term. The Southern Tower's ownership about that site and its coordinated development. Certainly, Maya Contreras, again, our colleagues in neighborhood planning spoke several times with CIM during the course of the Alex West plan. When the Beauregard plan went through in 2012, at that point, the VIN owners, which were not CIM, had only anticipated that they were looking at the one building, which is the grand building on the corner. There's new ownership now. They worked with staff throughout the plan. We do anticipate at some point in the future that they may come in and it may change but they are not ready to move forward yet and so those conversations are teed up for the future. Okay thank you very much. Ken of the wire. Good evening Madam Chair,, members of the Planning Commission, Ken of the Law Frame, Wire, Gil. I first like to start by thanking staff. Somehow, I've been at this 15 years in Beauregard. We worked with staff many years ago, and we came up with the Beauregard plan. That at the time made a lot of sense. We were funding elipses and fire stations in schools, and we had a different regulatory structure. didn't age very well. Very few projects went forward to the Bobargart plan. So we started the Alexandria West. You just look at that geometry. The reason it looks like that, those were the only people. I think CDDs made a lot of sense when it was just patented trademark and Hoffman as they age. I pity Mr. Moritz having to coordinate all these developers together. It makes sense for roads. What you're hearing tonight is one set of rules doesn't always necessarily fit neatly with every neighborhood. So I am I represent the state of the state. I think CDDs made a lot of sense when it was just patented what you're hearing tonight is one set of rules doesn't always necessarily fit neatly with every neighborhood. So I am, I represent at the top right hand of the page, Upland Park. I'll take these one at a time and maybe Mr. Moritz can confirm, Upland Park has an approved CD concept plan today. The majority of you all voted on their townhouse development. They're sort of stuck behind some private issues right now. Whether road networks are approved and once those resolve they will build their project. They are only an applicant today to clean up the conditions. And like the other speakers, it is a much more streamlined, sensible, easier to explain to yourselves, our clients, and our investors about what the plan is going to be. The challenge for my task is that if we're green to zoning, when you turn around to our investors and say we can meet that, because they take it seriously. A master plan is aspirational, but zoning is regulatory. So I believe staff can confirm. I believe their position is that because the Adams neighborhood has an approved CD concept plan, that the prior open space alignment works. By order of magnitude, it's 38% on the site with the public park and about 16% without. We were hoping if you all can tell we think we've gotten past the substantive disagreement and we can work between now and city council and a note to reflect that. If I said anything incorrectly, staff, would you please confirm that that's our agreement to work on that note for the add up in park neighborhood specifically between now and city council. That's correct. Rob Kern's punting is ending. Thank you. And Mr. McKimmy, Mr. Bell with the Chimmy and properties, his plan hasn't changed basically in 13 years. He did some movement around for the townhouses, but it blocks are basically the same. His block is very tricky because the ellipse used to intrude into his property now it doesn't. So we hope to come back to you all sometime in 2025, 26, and update that with that new road alignment. Ms. Guber, could you go to the Adams neighborhood for a second? Unfortunately, Mr. Canningham and correct you, you said this was a function Alexandria West Plan. That drawing, we've been at it for three years, working with staff. What we're trying to do is pivot away from a office complex with 10,000 square foot floor plates with five office buildings at 100 feet to residential. We spent a lot of time with staff working on that. The key assumption from staff and ourselves is that two-acre open space next to a public school was a facility you don't get very often. Please preserve that. We agree with staff very early on and we drew this through this plan. As you can see on the right-hand side, and roughly my glasses aren't on 19% for the entire neighborhood is open space not counting the individual blocks. Much like up on park I believe staff is confirming that between now and city council will confirm that 1900 project will proceed as designed. I'm bringing that up because we're coming back to you next month and we meet 25% if you count the strip behind we don't if you withdraw it but we've We've been at it for so long. I think we're all happy with this layout and I'll stop there and Steve Staff also agrees. We can work on the nomenclature between now and city council just for the 1900 building. That is correct. And going to philosophical for a second. So the arrow that you see points to 1900, the other blocks we call 15, 16 and 1800. Art Challenge with staff is not one versus open space is a good or bad. Our challenge is in our business. Roughly 300 unit buildings are financial. You have enough efficiency and enough weight that you can go to the market and invest in it. If you look at the other blocks, they are pretty weird shapes and they're not 300 units. They're much smaller than that. So much like the other owners, we're just putting you all on notice that we have to figure those blocks out. There's subject releases for five to eight years. We'd like to change it. units, they're much smaller than that. So much like the other owners, we're just putting you all on notice that we have to figure those blocks out. They're subject for leases for five to eight years. We'd like to change it to include open space, but I think Mr. Moore said he wants to have one set of rules for everybody. I think we're going to make his life in our life easier and agree to that. But we just wanted to note we come for with those blocks and whatever decade that is, they're very tight. And you can just stare at and look at it. It's at the weird shapes, they're tough, and much like Beauregard, if you put requirements on, we can't do. that is, they're very tight and you can just stare at it and look at it. It's at their weird shapes, they're tough and much like Beauregard. If you put requirements on, we can't do. Nothing happens. So our task is different from Mr. Morris. We look at it from a bricks and mortar standpoint. He comes at it from regulatory. I think we're in a good spot now, despite all the back and forth in exchange of letters. But I want to put my finger on the scale of this is a better plan. We have a few little notes to work out between now and City Council. I do want to thank staff and we look forward to seeing you next month with 350 unit building right on that 1900 block in April. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Madam Chair, I move that we close the public hearing. All right. Motion by Commissioner Canneck and a second by Commissioner Brown. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And I do want to apologize. Vice Chair Canneck, I've been calling you just to commission or canneck all? Out of habit, and I will get better at that. It'll help when you sit here. I would have been happy to do that. I just was too complicated to move the little thing. And I'm assuming I get a uniform in a hat. Yeah, yeah. I'll give you my uniform. Great. Any commissioner discussion? Commissioner Canne-Gazza is laid on. Well, happy to start. I think a couple of things. One is I think we're all excited to be at this point. I mean, the fundamental maneuver now that all of the work represented in the small area plan is now being transferred into the zoning tools that actually will define what happens on these sites. And the fact that we are this far along and there's as much consensus as there is, I think is great. I do think my perspective is that we should at this point be making, we should be transferring the intentions of the small area plan into these CDD conditions as explicitly and as unmodified as we possibly can. Because I think if we pre-overly are overly proactive about recognizing idiosyncrasies and variations that may come forward, that we end up effectively compromising the goals that were set, that that's something that we really want to avoid doing. So I'm very comfortable with the fact that literally the language and the recommendation and the master plan for how public open space is calculated and implemented and how development onsite space is calculated and implemented relative to that public open space that that's effectively identical. And I think that makes sense. I think that does a couple of things. One recognizes that a master when when the small area plan was put together. There was an intention to take these examinations of public open space far enough, along to make explicit enough descriptions of how they should work that they would function at the level of CDD conditions. And my understanding is that's what the staff is proposing, and I support that. That being said, I think we do have the other fundamental issue is the one that all three applicants have raised and we've all struggled with, which is the intent is to make a plan that is implementable and feasible on planet Earth. And I think that's obviously the aspect that the applicants are the most interested in. I think from our perspective, the point is to make sure that we can achieve that without effectively abandoning disregarding or giving away all of the goals that we set were some significant portions of them in order to achieve that. And I think what I would sort of channel commissioner Brown at this point and say that's what the small area plan process was all about and we finished it, and we just made our best collective community judgment with participation by property owners about what should be achievable here. So in this question of, that's kind of why I made the point of making sure I was clear on what the process for modification was because I think the scenario where literally every single property comes forward over the next 20 years with modifications is doesn't have the sort of clarity and simplicity that we would all look for. On the other hand, setting the requirements so that they literally never get modified and also literally nothing ever gets built is the other end of the spectrum that we don't want to be at. So I guess where I'm leaning on that is that we go forward with the proposal that we have in front of us and we acknowledge that there's a level of complexity across the board in the geometry of the site says Mr. Mrire mentioned, in the ever unpredictable aspect of financing and development conditions. And that we just, excuse me, recognize that there is going to be a lot of consideration on staff's part when they're looking and analyzing it in our part when we're making judgments about recommendations, about what is actually a win-win resolution that really a win, win resolution that allows a project to move forward, and if it doesn't get to exactly this criteria, or that criteria, and the standards that we know that we've made understandable and modest adjustments to get it to fit, and not just sort of gone well, I guess then we can't just, can't make that park happen. And that's, I guess now that I describe it, it seems to me that's just pretty much the work we always do anyway, right? So it's just gonna be more of that. So there's a little wandering there, Madame Chairman, but my position on this is that I'm very comfortable with the staff proposal. I would not, at this point, I'm not inclined to support any modification language to the conditions. And I am attempting to be as open-minded as possible about how creative and pragmatic we need to be going forward to make this plan really work. Thank you, commission. Nice Chair Kenig, other Commissioner comments? Discussion? Commissioner Brown. I just want to express my agreement with the Vice Chair. And also with the staff reports analysis which we got today on the open space issue. And I just thought I'd throw in from my experience in zoning law. The issue of vested rights. I don't know what the rule is exactly in Virginia, but in DC and in Maryland where I've dealt with it many times. The rule is that you are not vested with the right to develop according to the existing zoning law as opposed to having to meet a change in the zoning law. Unless before that change, your rights have been vested by virtue of some action. Typical rule is something like you have to have commenced construction under an approved project and it's not right or constitutional or fair to change the rules after that point. I think that that rule probably applies not only to standard Euclidean zones like R8 or R20, but also to CDD zones. So my view is that when the master plan is very specific about the priority of the public open space, that's to, that's cast in stone. And for the future, from the time that master plan goes into effect, with regard to the open space requirement that is in addition to the public open space requirement, we still have available all of the tools and considerations that go into deciding whether or not the applicant has to fully meet that obligation or not. And I really don't think that's changed. But I do think that the decision to put 25% open space in is well justified by the staff memorandum and that we simply have to regard it as a forward looking thing for any property that doesn't have tested rights and a story. Thank you commissioner Brown. I am fully in support of staff's recommendations on this item. In listening to how my colleagues, the applicant, talk about the process of modifications, and I can feel the concern from the applicants about how modifications look from the perspective of their financing process. However, the way I would describe a modification is the transparent community conversation that we have about how an actual project, so not just a zoning designation, but an actual project will meet the vision of the small area plan. So I actually found Vice Chair Kinnegs' elucidation of what those considerations sound like when we see a project to be really helpful in that regard because it's not as though a modification is just us up here saying, oh yeah, we know it's hard for you to provide all the open space, so we're going to let you provide less. It's actually that process of being convinced that the design achieves what the Small Area Plan is trying to achieve. And in doing so, it may not be able to provide exactly the amount of open space that the zone would require. Or in this case, the CDD would require, or even the small area plan would require. But because that is a design process, that's something that we look at when staff looks at it and when we are all looking at an actual project. And I fully agree with my colleagues that the goal of this item before us tonight is to ensure that we set ourselves up to implement the small area plan, because that's what the community put together through a very long and sophisticated process. And these are the goals of it when it comes to open space and other items. And the technical details that it takes staff to weave that plan into these other structures that are the regulatory structures that make development happen, I think is a really important step. And it's important that it's transparent. So if a community member who lives in these neighborhoods wonders, why does that area not have the requirements that we all talked about in the plan process, we wouldn't want that to happen want them to see how it's reflective of the plan that they all bought into. So I'm, yeah, I'm in support, including the revisions in the memo from the Director of Dated March 4. And I'm happy to entertain a motion at commissioners pleasure. Madam Chair. Yes, I'm just kidding. I'd be happy to entertain a motion. Commissioners, pleasure. Madam Chair. Yes, I'm Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to make a motion and I do have a clarification question beforehand though. Mr. Wire made comments on this staff. I believe concurred about the fact that there's a mutual commitment to work on some supplementary communication that will go to council that relates to both the Upland neighborhood and the 1900 block in the Adams neighborhood that as I understand it is focused on acknowledging the fact that those are both in process and have some are somewhere on that continuum of vested commitment. When we make the motion, is it enough for us to have discussed that and concurred that that is, we want to build into the motion that we concur with the fact that that additional tweaking is going to happen without worrying about seeing the language? Well, if you gave us the direction, I believe that we have clear direction. If you gave us that direction. We would provide that direction if we made some less wordy reference to that in the course of the motion. And yes. Well, I have a director to consult in the fact that we don't have a misdeclin brown tonight. My understanding is that we initiate the zoning text demand, man. We recommend approval of the zoning text demand, man. And then we separately recommend approval of the CDD with this additional tweaks. OK. So I would start by moving to initiate a zoning text amendment, 2020 5-0002 plus or minus a zero. I'm not sure I got the right number. All right. It's a motion by commissioner, can you get a second by commissioner Brown on the zoning initiating the zoning text amendment. All is in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries on the initiation. 7-0. And I move that we recommend approval of the zoning text amendment 2025-002. That's a recommendation of approval motion by Vice Chair Caining and a second by Commissioner Brown. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. Okay. And finally, I move that we recommend approval of coordinated development district, CDD-21 conceptual design plan, 2023-0003,, inclusive of the modification to CDD conditions 37 and the deletion of CDD condition 38 as defined in the staff memo dated March 4th concerning interpretations of base density and that we acknowledge that the applicants and staff, the relevant applicants and staff are going to work on refinements to acknowledging the status of the Upland neighborhood and the 1900 Beauregard Adams neighborhood projects in advance of submitting this to City Council. I second the motion with a clarification. I just want to acknowledge from staff that the what is being approved here or recommended for approval here is the zoning table for CDG-21 as modified by the staff as reported tonight. Yes, and thank you for that addition. Thank you. I second. Do I need to recognize that? And is that a specific reference I need to make? This is enough. Okay. Right, that was motion by Vice Chair Canig on the CDD text amendment. CDD text amendment, CDD amendments and a second by Commissioner Brown. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. Madam Chair, may I just ask on the text amendment. Did that include the references? If you bring up the slide that has the two... At the bottom of the screen, the Remove Town Center and Change Garden District and Garden Neighborhood. That last item was, I believe, when a commissioner Brown highlighted the tables that needed to be changed. Yes. I think that's the same thing. I think that's the same thing. I think that's a commissioner Brown highlighted the tables that needed to be changed. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And those attachments are in the staff. They are indeed. OK. Yep. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. And that brings us to other business. Do we have other business tonight? Yeah, well, since I've other business. Madam Chair. Yes, Vice Chair. We had an issue to talk about this, and this may not be comprehensive, but I was aware that things that we might be considering tonight are an update on the George Mason Elementary School project and with the results of the planning commissions issuing the letter. I believe Commissioner Brown is interested in initiating a bit of a report on Potomacard and the exploration that we had undertaken there. And you and I had talked about the fact that the assignments process is kind of time critical and we also have new members who aren't necessarily familiar with it, so we might just be discussing that. And there may be others, but I know of those and I'm happy to have them go and whatever order you would want them to. Those all sound terrific and I think I'll just kick off before I hand it off to you for George Mason just to say welcome to our two new commissioners because we just had to dive right into proceedings but I'm really, we're all really happy to have you. We hope this is a rewarding and enjoyable experience of service for the community. And if either of you feel like saying anything about yourselves or happy to give you some air time or not, it's up to you. Out of here. Out of here. Okay. So yeah, we'll dive in. I'm normally... No, this is right. Yeah. Other business commissioners reports, comments and questions is a period of time at the end of our meetings where when we have assignments and we've had meetings and activities that are happening outside of this meeting, it's a chance for us to touch base with each other to talk about what we're hearing from those other environments, bringing it back here and any other activities of the commission that might sometimes staff have items that they need to bring to us and we do that in this time prior to minutes and prior to a German. So you know what that spot is. Vice-Chircannig, you want to give us an update on the George Mason Elementary modernization? Certainly. So I am the Commissioner of Science of the George Mason Elementary School Supervisors Advisory team on the George Mason Elementary redevelopment that is moving toward. As I understood from the community meeting last night, this presented as being on our dockets on the 6th of May. Does that tally with what you all are seeing in terms of? I'm, yes. I certainly think they would know. Well, I figured. And actually, and one of your colleagues was on the call and did not pop up. No, I was sure that's right. That's right. So that's, and that's the first I'd heard that was specific date, but that's right around the corner. So this project has been underway for a while and the latest round of public meeting started in September and it has been on a sort of very fast track and as that project was presented to the community, options were described, school board made a decision about a particular design approach to take. And the community meetings were going forward and the supervisors advisory team meetings were going forward. A couple of observations in my reports to the commission were that it was a very compressed time frame for the for the neighborhood to consider design options The first community meeting was on the 3rd of September and the school board picked a design approach on the 10th of October and so that was of Concerned to us as a group in terms of actually having any meaningful community impact on the direction of the design. The second part, which is that I raised is the fact that the community meetings are in their entirety virtual. And that's of concern to me as well because the dimension that comes from public meetings, neighbors meet one another, they talk to one another before and after the meeting, they speak to the presenters from the entity that's presenting in real time and they have actual back and forth and they can build networks and they can have consensus and anybody like planning commissioner can show up and talk to citizens again. So none of that was happening and to me that was a worry. So, and I'm going, everybody knows this except for Robert and Holly, I thought I'd do a quick recap on that. So the short of it is we wrote a letter that essentially raised those concerns and we directed the letter to the city manager and it was transmitted to the school board and to the superintendent. And as a result, Chair of the school board reef reached out to our previous chair, Nate, and set up a meeting between Chair Reef and school board member, Verred Simpton, who is one of their representatives on the advisory team and Nate and me. And we had a, I guess, what's the terminology? A Frank and thorough exchange of views. And it was very productive. And we, clearly we have a shared commitment to meaningful engagement and a desire to do community engagement well. The school team was not aware of the public engagement policy that's reflected in the came out of the what's next Alexandria effort in 2014. As I will admit, I wasn't particularly familiar with it either until we started to try to write the letter and found that there were explicit things in there like absolutely do not do exclusively virtual for community engagement meetings. The school board members made some very good points, one of which was there is a very long pre-development sequence to this project and this is something that I know that, and let me step back for a moment and say that other than these particular issues, I am 100% in support of this design team of ACPS's approach to the project. Their capital projects team is on it. The briefings that we get are great. The A and E team they hired is great. There's no quibbling about meeting the zero energy policy requirement. Everything about it except these process things I think has been stellar. And this school board members pointed out that there wasn't an extensive process that went through a feasibility study process in the year or two previous that did have a big public engagement component to it and did result in a very explicit and productive feasibility study that laid out a relatively narrow range of options. I think, and then there were budget wars and budget difficulties that cramped the schedule. And so when the September outreach started, they weren't a very tight box with what their decision points had to be. And I fully, after having heard and understood more of the backstory, recognized that I was seeing a smaller part of the process. It was the critical decision point, but it wasn't the only thing that had gone into that. On the other hand, I think the issue of all virtualness is one that we continue to press for a level of consideration that may actually bring some adjustment. So the outcome was that there would be, and I think this was something Carl that you had mentioned would be a desirable feature, is that there be some level of interaction at the staff level between planning and zoning and ACPS to work out things before it rises to a higher level. So I think we all came away from that meeting with the idea that that was all gonna happen. And one question I had for you is, has there been any back and forth yet between you and ACPS staff about any of these issues? Yes, and a couple of different episodes, both are at a higher level and then sort of at the day-to-day level, in fact, one of the conversation this afternoon where we are actively talking about not only initiatives that we can work on together that are coming that we need to work on but then how to do the things that we're raised in that letter to, so yes. Oh, that's great. I think the part of the discussion was also, hey, maybe the whole policy needs to be reconsidered and all that. My initial reaction was just if you all get in it at the engine room level of it and the thing that actually comes out is a way to go at Cora Kelly or their next school project that now feels like all of you all are on the wave link that's in, then I wouldn't see any reason for us to be spending time figuring out, I put it on the interdepartmental work program. If this can kind of just be worked out in the way the head originally described. So that was pretty much that, we came to the end of that kind of part of the conversation and I was getting ready to sort of get booted out and Chair Reef then brought up, pulled out her map of facilities and opened a conversation with Nate and I about the challenges that they have on the planning for their rejuvenation and modernization facilities. And it walked right into the discussion that we were already having that we left out of the letter about things like these K-A to middle school modifications and all that. And it was a very, I took it as a very genuine and open kind of invitation from the from chair, recent point of view about inviting us into some level of consultation on that. And I was very excited about that as I reported to you because that would allow us to get into the process with them of helping them Adding a perspective that might be useful as they actually try to lay out the strategy for how they're going to address these facilities and not have us just sort of standing around the side of the lines later going to you. We wish you had done this with that a different way. And to my knowledge, we never really had a kind of liaison issue like that. So that one, I think, is teed up for our assignments discussion later. But I thought that was an unexpectedly positive end game to that conversation. So that is, I apologize, Madam Chairman. You asked for this report to be a light touch. But at least it's not after midnight that I started that big ramble. So I don't know if there are questions or not, but that's kind of where we are with them. Madam Chair, I just wanted to highlight or underscore that when we took the Long Range Planning Work Program to City Council, they also highlighted a priority of theirs is re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- re- So sort of reconnecting all of us, Council Plan Commission, school board to the work that's been done and using that to highlight what is the work that needs to be done in the future. So that is also something that the City Council has expressed an interest in. Thank you very much. The next item, the Potomac Yard Touchpoint Report back. I actually have two items for you tonight. One is a comment and the others are a report. The comment is directed at what happened on Docket Item number six tonight. This is primarily for the new commissioners because those of you who have been here a while have heard this before You know, I have a long long period of experience in working and zoning and planning law and I naturally bring a sort of a legal focus two matters that Others on the commission don't necessarily have and sometimes it leads to differences of opinion. And it's not passing strange that I come out from time to time on the losing end of a vote. Sometimes it's this whole dissenter. But as I've told everyone many times, I've never heard of a vote that went against me as, or never regarded it as any kind of a violation of the quote, rule of law. Most all of the time that I've heard, where I've lost, I've heard nothing but reasonable arguments in support of the decision that was made in the other direction. So I just want to say to the new commissioners that I've never regarded and will certainly not regard in this case your disagreement with me on this is somehow crossing me in any way, shape, or form. We're all doing our best to do our job. And this, I do want to make a comment that I, on that project that I think is warranted apart from the merits of the case. My impression, I could be wrong about this, but my impression is that this case would have been benefited by having the applicant represented by council. What I got from the application material was that the applicant thought they were just asking for a two-foot increase in the height of the fence period. Not a big deal, and the justification was basically a very generalized statement, this is for safety and security. There was nothing in the application about a concern, about threat of or anti-Semitism or anything like that at all. It didn't come out in the written record. It only came out in the oral testimony tonight. The actual fact is that the applicant, even if she thought she was only requesting a two foot increase in this height of the fence, was in reality requesting a reduction in the required yard from 70 feet to 60 feet to 6 feet. That's a 90% reduction in my mind, a huge change that required substantial justification, not just a couple of throwaway sentences that said nothing but safety and security. So in terms of precedent, I would be much more comfortable about the problem of precedent or less concerned about the problem of precedent if the record contained an express representation about their concerns and why they wanted this. It's not there and what was in the transcript tonight will not be part of the public record that the zoning lawyers who will have long memories about what we do will be consulting in the future. To say, well, you did it here, why can't we do it here? There will be nothing in the record to support the notion that this was done out of the concerns that were actually expressed tonight. And I think that when the staff gets a case like this where the actual modification is really much more significant than the applicant seemed to think, that it's very important for the staff to push back and say you need to present a much more considered justification for your project. Maybe I would have even voted for the project if they had done that. I don't know, but that's that's a candle for another Christmas. And again, I reiterate, I don't have a problem with the decision on a four to three basis, but that's my message for the staff. And I want to pass out with regard to my update, a written version of it. So you can actually refer if necessary refer to the website that is in here. But I will just briefly read it for the record. Those of those five of you will remember that last September the Vice Chair and I at the retreat sent out a concept proposal for the area in North Potomac Yard that had been targeted for the monumental sports and entertainment complex that just didn't go. So we instead came up with an idea for a world classclass museum oriented to advanced technology that so influences daily life. There was consent at the request, at the retreat, that Stephen and I ought to continue our exploratory efforts, but not as a commission endeavor. We've done so. We've had a number of Zoom conference calls with leaders in the field of museums described as science and technology centers. Starting with the CEO of the DC-based Association of Science and Technology Centers, which has a membership of over 700 large and small museums, mostly in the US, devoted to science and technology. The ASTC CEO gave us a positive endorsement of our concept, and it led directly to similar lengthy calls with CEOs of ASTC members with large museums, one in Portland, Oregon, another in Jersey City, New Jersey, and another in San Jose, California. Again, our concept was well received. In addition, at the suggestion of then Mayor Alec Gascon, whom we met with before she was formally inaugurated, she was well received by her. And we had a Zoom call at her suggestion with the CEO of a new science museum growing out of a small children's science museum in Fairfax. That's going to be started soon in Chantilly, somewhere near Dallas Airport. And we also had a conversation with a group that will soon have a woman in science display at the Virginia Tech Innovation Campus. Again, our concept was created very terribly. The main issue of concern we heard during all these interactions is that establishing a publicly owned museum or one that is a public private partnership takes many years to get off the ground and operating. It also be claimed clear to us that sponsorship by the Smithsonian Institution and our first instinct would perhaps encounter the longest time table of all. Given the fiscal burden of debt retirement of the city's major investment in the North Potomac Guard metro station, we were hoping for sooner rather than later. So we're shifting our focus to engaging with the candidates for creating a technology center that is entirely owned and operated by one or more private corporations that have the resources to bring it to fruition more quickly. And furtherance of that refocus, the Vice Chair and I joined other commissioners. I know some of you were there in attending the grand opening of the Virginia Tech Innovation Campus last Friday. If you did not get a chance to attend, you can take it in on YouTube at the website that I've stated here on this piece. You'll hear the new campus extolled by the governor, our two senators, our general assembly delegates, Mayor Gaskin and others. I can't remember whether or not our house representative Don Byer was there or not. Do you remember? he was, it was before I got there. Yeah, I don't think so. In any case, all of them across political lines, see the new Virginia Tech Innovation Campus as the start of something bigger, with impacts reverberating locally, statewide, nationally and even globally. You can judge for yourself. But what Stephen and I took away from these elected officials' enthusiasm over the innovation campus seemed very much in agreement with the promise of the visions we have, namely that Alexandria should take advantage of the window of opportunity that exists in this moment in time to ensure consistent with the small area plan that the multiple vacant acres between the new innovation campus and the Metro station be devoted to a publicly accessible technology center that strongly amplifies reinforces and furthers the thinking goals that Fringe and Virginia Tech is now advancing with its major investment in technology oriented education and research in this uniquely suitable location. In short, our work goes on undeturbed and in fact reinforced by our research and work thus far. Thank you so much for your ongoing work in this regard and I realize it's not commission work, but it's like everything that you know, the heart that you bring to this service is the heart you're bringing to this service. So it's that idea that we know there's a better solution than what we've seen recently and that we're hoping for a better solution that is bringing together what we already know is just. Yeah, I would say that now that we know so many of our political leaders are behind for junior tech, we will probably asking them whether they might consider being supportive of our plan and maybe even provide us some of the contacts that we need, because they seem to know a lot. You might know people. I know, right? So you got to make calls. Calls, calls, calls. Awesome. Thank you very much. What were the other items here? Okay. We wanted to touch on assignments real quickly and I thank you staff for sending around, landing, presenting around bylaws. That was mostly for my benefit, but to the extent that others could benefit from a refresher on the bylaws and how generally like the little, it's not very long, but the little details on how we operate that don't actually show up in our enabling legislation. It's helpful. It's there. It's in recent email instead of email from 10 years ago. And the assignments, so the assignments list, we touched on this briefly before, there are some specific other commissions, working groups, advisory groups, to which planning commissioners are assigned or allocated. Our resources are allocated. And apparently, I'm going to get to do that. But joking aside, we come to agreement on a distribution of responsibilities. And what I wanted to press upon us was that it was actually a bit of a shift. So this is a short list. It's much shorter than it's been in the past. And in the past, we had probably an advisory body for every small area plan. And every time a small area plan would get updated, there'd be this little cadre of people that would be an advisory group and would meet in planning commission. We probably have someone on that. The sense that I have from Alex West is really that we're probably shifting away from that model. That's correct. So we spend a lot of time thinking about how the best way it is to get a broad representation of the public's voice in small area plans. And we found, and it is held up by literature and research that when you have an advisory group, it inevitably creates a group of people that have their voices magnified and others, it's less easy for them to get their voice heard. And so the Alex West and Arlandria was a series of many events and many ways to get involved so that everybody had an equal voice and that the number of voices was dramatically expanded. And so that has been the case for the last two plans. Yeah, yeah. And I have zero objection to this direction. I think it follows best planning practice. I'm really excited about how we can continue to make our planning processes more inclusive. However, as a planning commissioner, I also want to make sure that we are connected to these processes. So typically we don't ask every commissioner to attend every community meeting about every plan so that we're all sort of simultaneously up to date. That would be too much work, right? And one of the benefits of having a delegated person to an assignment is that they can then bring back things to this body that are worth discussing context. Smaller-year plans do come to us in sort of workshop form throughout the development cycle of the plan, so it's not as though we don't see it. But I wanted to put out there that I think we're in an inflection point that we should think about carefully and talk about. So I don't have a solution for tonight. But I want us to look at the fact that we have had a technique in the past to stay engaged with these processes that won't work exactly the same way going forward. But I think that we can work with staff to come up with some other ways. And Vice Chair Cain alluded to this when he was talking about the fruitful conversation with schools and Carl in your reflecting on what City Council is thinking about. That we really have some processes that we can maybe engage differently with than we have in the past. And I'm open to ideas on that front. I also want to acknowledge standing processes and commissions where we do have these roles. We need to try to keep those filled. I do want to make a disclaimer. Well, so with these people express interest to me, I want to acknowledge Commissioner Manor is very interested in filling the vacancy on the Waterfront Commission, and we've had several discussions about that. Ultimately, I will make these appointments. And so it's only as formal as me making a decision, if there were two commissioners that wanted to contest a particular appointment. But I guess I see us as having a much more collaborative engagement than that. And I want to make sure our new commissioners also feel comfortable telling me if you're interested in serving in one of these roles Feel free to let me know Feel free to engage with staff and or commissioners to understand the the nature of that role and those who who have been serving can provide that input and new new I Would I would anticipate that some new appointment style categories will pop up on this list over time as planning processes continue. Are there any questions about these? Oh, sorry. Is serving on another commission required? Not explicitly, but the work is, how would I describe it? If we have a seat on another commission, we really need to keep it filled. I understand the intention. I just wasn't sure of each commission or was it? But there isn't a requirement that every commissioner have an appointment, for instance. So if we don't have enough slots some people get off light and they get to just come to these meetings prepared for these meetings but others may have another assignment. on that note, could I retire from transportation and if I pick up? I was anticipating that you would, yes. I didn't even think about that right now. Okay. Yes, yes you may. Yes, I would understand that. Well, and even in that context, my intention is to discuss, because it's hard for planning commission to staff up to spots on another commission like that. And I'm not sure that's the best use of planning commission time, so I will be raising to the Transportation Commission and their staff, whether or not we need two slots or whether a slot is better allocated to a different commission that has not formerly been very engaged in transportation planning. But these are all things that are not, I think Council has to adjust the allocations. It's a thing that Council would have to act on. But it might not be a heavy lift. And so I will be rather than racing to fill a second slot vacancy on transportation commission. I would probably have those conversations with transportation commission and staff and see if there's a better fit. We've also struggled to get the dash position on the transportation commission filled the dashboard commission slot tends to be vacant. It makes a lot of sense, but it's also a body that operates in a different way. And yeah, and there may be other commissions on topics like public health that might be warranted to bring to the table that aren't at the table today. So those are all conversations we can have and Vice Chair Canig, I recognize you're on two of the items here today and the George Mason assignment, which is not even on the list. So you can also let me know how you're feeling about your assignments and I don't, these don't have like durations on them for folks awareness some things are ongoing like transportation commission others like the Green Building Policy Task Force that's not an ongoing forever item it's sort of a to get it's not supposed to be right so these have different features about their work as well. Madam Chair. Yes. Could I add another observation to yours? I think the issue of how the smaller area plans get updated, I would reinforce what I took from your message there, which is the way Alex West, for instance, was in the Arlandria Plan as well. I think that we've said this many times, but the outreach and the way the community engagement has been structured and evolved to make those plans work, I think is really brilliant. It's much more diffuse and it touches the community in a much more molecular way and they resulted in really good plans. And the fact that we don't have the advisory group structure with the dedicated planning commissioner, I don't miss that at all. But I do miss the fact that there isn't something between every three months briefing here from staff that brings everybody up to date. And the requirement you mentioned of like, well, let's just all go to all those 800 meetings. So in that case, and I think also in the case of some of these other commissions like Environmental Policy Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, where planning commission does not have a dedicated seat. But we also, at the other end of the spectrum, for instance, I just started hanging out at EPC like eight years ago, and then gradually we just, we found some ways to kind of build a little collaboration and stuff, and I got informed about things, but that had zero formality to it, and I'm wondering if there isn't something in between some kind of liaison assignment that has, that technology has an assignment, so somebody knows they're going to do something, but doesn doesn't rise the level of having to be in the code or change the by-laws of a commission or whatever. So both how this small area plans work and how we interact with a couple of these other commissions that I think would be hoovist to have more interaction with, whether there's some way to quite informally from a regulatory point of view structure something, but formally enough that we have a kind of a conduit with one member dedicated to watching a particular process. And I put the school board in that as well. I'm very excited about how that might develop. A couple of particular items that I'd mentioned just as everybody thinks about things. The ARHA redevelopment work group is a great entity, and I've served on that for two or six years now, I don't know, but that is dedicated to how our public housing agency and the city council basically worked together and it grew out of a disaster to that we had back in pre-pistory. And it is the mayor and a member of council and the CEO of RAH and the chairman of the board of RAH. And then for reasons that I'm still trying to figure out a planning commissioner gets to be in the room. And those meetings monthly are staffed by the director of planning and the director of housing and the city manager. Those are, they are fascinating meetings. I've learned an awful lot about what's going on there. I also don't think I have any particular expertise in other than waving my arms about, why don't we make zero energy buildings? Haven't done a whole lot. So I'm, I would be happy to step off of that if someone has an interest. And again, the green pot building policy should be ending sometime soon. And on George Mason, I think those, the fact that we do have that structure relationship on individual school projects is a great thing. Vivian served on mini-Howerd and Mindy was on, there was MacArthur and I got to do Patrick Henry like whenever that was. I think those processes have worked really well and can obviously continue with schools that come down. The road with a slightly tweaked process. So nobody has to wave their arms about virtual only meetings all the time. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would be beneficial to have a seat on the Alexander Renew Board to zero likely to be tearing up lots of streets and so on and into the future. So I don't know how, well, this might, um, bridge to vice chair, canning suggestion. Um, what we could do is make a list of what we think are important, quote unquote liaison assignments. And those would be not codified where planning commission gets some kind of formal seat at the same table as everyone else, but it could be in the room. Yeah, that we commit to being in the room. And to the extent the room is public. Yeah, we can't commit to being in the non-public meetings. But that would be, we would formalize it as a commission by making adjustments to our list, assignments list, and we can have the sort of formal assignments at the top, the ones where we have a seat we need to fill. And then liaison assignments which are filled as best we can in priority order of those processes we want to keep the rest of and that people are interested in. And then we can make those assignments as well. And again, these are, these can be in flux. Like if we need to reassign because someone has a change in their life conditions and can't handle doing the extra meeting work on the side, we just, we work through that as we go. But to the extent that we can keep them nicely distributed across the commission, we're sharing the load, we're sharing opportunities for new experiences, and we can all benefit from this. Well, I put my hat in the ring for all of the energy. I had a family history with that organization. My grandfather was the Chief Sanitation Engineer for the City. His offices were down there. I went there many, many times. And it's fascinating. The incinerator was excellent. So that brought us to the end of what we figured we'd cover in other business. Did anyone else have additions? I do have one announcement to make. So I did want to bring a bit of the up to speed. We had two retirees off the commission last month. Name a second Mindy Lyle, and we had agreed to gather to celebrate their tenure on March 25th. And I wanted to update you on that. The two elements of it, one is that we're no longer need to be at City Council at seven because the proclamations are going to be sent to the two commissioners by mail rather than have a specific event at City Hall. There's a crush of proclamations that needed to be provided. But all the mayor here because that gives us more time to hang out at the event. It will be, again, March 25th, 6 to 9 p.m. Sorry, I should have my glasses on. I'm wearing an abadat hummingbird at the end to go hotel. And it will be all the planning commissioners. Of course, are invited. Some senior staff will be there as well. We are Nancy Williams. We'll be sending out an email to you with the more details. But I hope all of you can attend. And we hope to see if some former planning commissioners, other former planning commissioners might be available. So I need to mention that. It's going to be great fun. Terrific. Thank you. Unless there are other updates, it brings us to consideration of the minutes. Everyone should have received the minutes from landing yesterday. Is that right? I think it came yesterday, right? It might have been today. So, yep. I sent you one tiny typo item, but I didn't see any other issues of note with the minutes. If folks were able to review them, I understand our new commissioners can abstain. It's not relevant for you, but for other folks, I'm happy to entertain a motion. I move approval of the minutes. Second. All right, a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Vice Chair Cannec. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed and abstentions? Same. abstain. All right. So minutes are approved passed by one, two, three, four, five of us. So 5, 0, 0, 0, 0,ment? All right. Commissioner Dubé made a motion to adjourn and seconded by vice chair canning all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed motion carries 70 and it is 932 p.m. Thank you all.