Planning Commission - public_hearing

Good evening. Welcome to the September 1, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing. I'm Melissa McMahon, Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. Vice Chair Koenig is absent tonight. Before we begin, I have just a few announcements about participating in tonight's meeting. If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out the speaker form online by following the Sign Up to Speak hyperlink on the cover page of this evening's Public Hearing docket. in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form, which can be found on the tables located immediately outside the 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, except for applicants and their representation. To make your public comment through the Zoom application, please click on the Raise Hand button located on the Zoom task bar once you hear your name called to let staff know you need to be unmuted. If you are dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, Please press star nine to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name called upon to make your statement, followed by star six to toggle the unmute function. For those here in person, please step up to the podium located at the front of chambers when your name is called and identify yourself by first and last name. The city encourages and welcomes public comments 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 chambers, please speak directly into the microphone to ensure all can hear you clearly. And with that, Ms. Jacobs, do we have any changes to the docket tonight?

Yes. Docket item number four, the applicant has requested a deferral. All right.

I'll take a motion for a deferral of docket item four.

So move.

I HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER DOCKET ITEM 4. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DUBAY AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. AND THAT BRINGS US TO OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. ARE THERE ANY, LET'S SEE, WOULD ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM CONSENT TONIGHT? And if not, do we have any public comments on items from consent?

Yes, Madam Chair. We have public speakers for docket item number 2, 1913 Mount Vernon Avenue.

All right. So we're pulling docket item 2 from the consent calendar, and that leaves docket item 3 on the consent calendar. I'm sorry. If you could hold just one moment, let me just double check. I think we might have been expecting a public speaker on 1 East Custis.

No, I just have the attorney for docket item three. Okay. Okay, just docket item number two. Okay. IT'S ONLY DOCKET ITEM NUMBER TWO TO REMOVE FROM CONSENT.

OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHICH REMAINS ONLY DOCKET ITEM 3, 1 EAST CUSTIS AVENUE.

Motion to approve the consent calendar, docket item number 3, 1 East Custis Avenue.

I will second that. All right. I have a motion to recommend approval of the consent calendar from Commissioner Harris and a second from Commissioner Manor. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. SO LET'S DO DOCKET ITEM 2.

DOCKET ITEM NUMBER 2, SPECIAL USE PERMITS 20260024 1913 MOUNT VERNON AVENUE, PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A MODIFICATION TO LOCATE THE ENTERTAINMENT STAGE IN THE VISION CLEARANCE. PROPERTY IS ZONED CL COMMERCIAL LOW. THE APPLICANT IS D. JASON PORTLANDS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. WOULD YOU LIKE A PRESENTATION OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO INTO OUR DISCUSSION ON A MEMO WE HAVE ATTACHED?

LET'S DO A SPEEDY PRESENTATION AND THEN ROLL RIGHT INTO YOUR MEMO.

All right, so good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lanning Blaser with the Department of Planning and Zoning, Land Use and Historic Preservation Services. I'm here to present SUP 20260024, a request for outdoor live entertainment and a vision clearance modification. This is our agenda slide, and I will go into our summary. So again, this is a request for outdoor live entertainment with a vision clearance modification. This is a summary slide, so I'll highlight that the use is compatible with the small area plan amount for an in-business area plan. The applicant has had a positive compliance history since being in operation in 2025, and I'll outline SUV conditions that staff have added to mitigate noise and visual impacts. So zone, the site is located in the CL commercial low zone and the Mount Vernon overlay zone. The site is in the Potomac West small area plan and the Mount Vernon business area plan. This zone permits outdoor live entertainment with an SUP approval. And these plans promote pedestrian-oriented uses that support the vibrant Mount Vernon Avenue corridor. And the use is directly surrounded by commercial uses. And we get more mixed use in residential parcels as we travel east and west. FOR A BIT OF BACKGROUND, OUR APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE MAY OF 2025 UNDER SUP APPROVAL FOR OUR GARDEN CENTER. DURING THAT TIME THEY'VE BEEN ISSUED SEVEN NOISE PERMITS, RECEIVING NO NOISE COMPLAINTS DURING THOSE TIMES. AND ON MARCH 6 OF THIS YEAR, STAFF RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE VISION CLEARANCE WHICH WE CONFIRMED WITH A SITE VISIT. So the request is for live music performances, accessory to the garden center use, 10 AM to 7 PM daily, and a vision clearance modification to allow the open pergola to remain in its location. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE IS TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THE SMALL AREA PLANS SUPPORT COMMERCIAL USES THAT ENHANCE THE VIBRANT CHARACTER OF THE MOUNT VERNON CORRIDOR. THE APPLICANT HAD A POSITIVE COMPLIANCE HISTORY WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND STAFF FIND THE MODIFICATION REASONABLE FOR THE OPEN STRUCTURE AT THIS CONTROLLED INTERSECTION. We have added recommended conditions. Our memo attached has two additional conditions recommended based on some comment letters that we've received from DRCA. Conditions two is our hours of live entertainment. Condition four is our designated community liaison. And condition five requires the applicant to obtain a sound management plan from a certified sound engineer. Conditions six, seven, and eight are more related to the stage and some sight lines. Condition six would require the stage to remain open. No fabrics or coverings would be permitted. Condition seven requires that any mechanical equipment to be used within the stage can't be more than four feet in height. And condition eight limits the stage to two people at one time. So with that, staff recommended approval of SUP subject to these conditions. And the memo before you is two additional conditions that we've recommended be added.

I don't think we have a memo yet.

I'm sorry, it's on the last page of the docket materials for number two.

It should be on, there might be two other things in front of it, a letter from DRCA and... Oh, okay, I see it attached on the back of the DRCA item, like the letter and then the memo is attached to that. Okay. For some reason... It's in some people's iLegislate, and it's not in mine. Sorry. I'm not sure why. This might relate to the fact that my iLegislate wasn't showing all of the materials correctly, just as sort of a note. I don't know why it's not showing up in mine. Thank you. Okay. I've got a copy of it now. So please proceed to describe the items that are in that memo.

Absolutely. Condition 11, SUP holders shall ensure that all musicians use only the permanent in-house sound system, which shall be equipped with and operated through Noise Governor. This is a pretty standard SUP condition we've added for other live entertainment uses. And this was kind of in response to DRCA and a Joining Neighbors response letter around noise. CONDITION 12, THE ACP HOLDER SHALL ENSURE SPECTATORS DO NOT CONGREGATE ON THE SIDEWALK. ALSO ADDED BECAUSE OF SOME COMMENTS FROM TNES TO PROTECT THE SIDEWALK FROM CONGESTION WAS REALLY THE MAIN REASON TO ADD THAT CONDITION AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ.

I do have the one question regarding the question about lighting As pointed out by the DRC a letter. Is there any concern from staff regarding? Installation of lighting. I mean what I'm thinking right now is that sometimes with some stages right you end up having the lighting that can be pointed at the performers, but this being in a intersection area Are there any concerns?

We know that sometimes there are, I think, fairy lights attached. But we'll communicate with the applicant that they can't have bright lights that would shine to the stage that would kind of impact the driving sight lines for both sides of the road. Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Harris.

Yes. One of the comments that we received requests that the hours for live music actually be restricted during working hours on weekdays. And I do understand why that request was made, because there are office uses around there. Is that something that's ever done? Or is that a common condition that you might do?

We in the past for other live entertainment uses have done restricted hours kind of depending on the location or Hopps and Shine, for example, live entertainment use. We give six hour block windows. I think it can be, I think they're only allowed one live entertainment per week, but it can be any day and they just have to inform their agency. So we have the ability to be flexible. Our applicant did originally submit an 8 to 8, so 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and we talked about it with the applicant and OEQ, the Office of Environmental Quality, and they suggested 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., which we brought back to the applicant. um based on these comments i i spoke with our applicant again yesterday and they they wanted to remain with these hours and just to have flexibility any other questions yes commissioner dubay

Thank you. Thank you, staff, for that presentation. This is a couple of additions to what we had recently. So I'll just talk through this condition five and condition 11. Considering what this stage is and what the music has already been, what did you say, five other times they've had, seven other times they've had musicians there, assumingly mostly acoustic musicians, And you're saying that that's a typical condition. And I do believe we had that recently on Prince Street with a similar condition. But a permanent in-house sound system that would probably take up all of that stage. It's just not adding up, right? And the sound engineer... If we have a mechanism in place for noise complaints and neighborhood liaison and everything else we have that does that, and yet we have in that same block, which I'm very familiar with, there's a couple of places, one in particular that has a boom box that's typically going at level 12. Across the street there's music coming out of outside speakers that's not a band, that's louder than anything that's ever been at the farmhouse. I think we're just, it just seems to me we're creating a lot of fixes to a problem that doesn't exist.

I can take this. Tony Licola, Planning and Zoning. With regard to that particular condition, it is pretty standard for outdoor live entertainment. And it probably should have been added at the first round of this SUP before it went out. And DRCA brought attention to that other outdoor live entertainment venues have this condition. And staff agree. We believe a sound engineer can help the property owner. design a system that works. It doesn't have to be a permanent sound system that's permanently anchored in place. It can be something that's portable, but also a sound system that can be used by other musicians. They can come and go, use the same sound system, but it has a noise governor on it as well. So if someone's coming out to play, they're not bringing their own speakers and cranking them up to as high as they want. There needs to be some way to Monitor to keep keep sound in check and noise governor has been the way that we found works the best with other businesses.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying we need to have it at the level of let's up and plan how and number but yeah, I just think it's a lot. So for example, the buskers to play at Lee and King Street to they have a sound engineer.

They don't, but we have noise enforcement down there and noise monitoring on weekends.

And we have that here too, right? If somebody makes a complaint, we have it.

If someone makes a complaint, we will send someone out there.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, just to add on to it, what Mr. McCullough said is correct. What we've seen is that the city is transitioning to this more sort of vibrant sort of situation with people playing entertainment indoors, people playing entertainment outdoors. And that can add a lot to the quality of the community. What we're also finding is that there's a significant uptick in the number of complaints that are being filed and the number of requests for people to go out in person and measure sound levels at different locations. And so what we're moving toward with these proposed conditions is a system where the concerns are addressed before the operations begin so that everyone knows what the rules are. There's a level of certainty when the projects get approved that they're going to operate within that system. And so we're not as reliant on people going out at the right time of day and in response to complaints on a moment's notice to catch violations and address community issues. And so just to repeat, this is intended to be a support to encourage these kinds of uses, but make sure that they're operating within the limits that are set.

Okay, well, why don't we open the public hearing?

Our first speaker is Darlene Duffett, followed by Danielle Roth, and the applicant, Jay Portlance.

Good evening. All right, good evening chair members of the Commission. My name is Darlene Duffett. I'm a 26 year resident of Delray So I've been in Delray and seen changes throughout all the years. I also work in Delray So I live in like this is where I live my life every single day and I love it I love the changes that have been happening through the years I also love what the has happened to the corner where the Delray farmhouse is you can if you walked by there ten years ago or even three years ago two years ago It was an eyesore. And everything that the owner does improves and enhances the block, the street, the ambiance, the people even hanging out in the front of the farmhouse. So I think asking what they're asking for, I'm here in support of the proposed changes. I'm also a member of the Delray Citizens Association. But I'm here in support because, one, everything that they do enhances the avenue and makes it a better place for all of us who live there. So do we support the business? Yes, we do, because we love them. But I think it enriches what Delray is. It enriches what we've tried to make Delray, the people who have lived there for so long that wouldn't walk my kids in a jogger to certain parts of it 26 years ago. But now... I love it and live it. I appreciate the importance of finding a right balance. I appreciate the time that staff spends doing it. And I believe this proposal does strike a good balance and respectfully ask that the commission support it. And thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Danielle Roth, followed by Jay Portlantz.

Good evening, commissioners. First of all, I want to thank you for your service on a lovely summer evening that you have chosen to be here. I am a resident of Potomac Yard, and I am here in support of the application. But I think that, and I'm trying to read your name correctly, Commissioner, you brought up a good point, that we don't want to overburden the applicant. I'm going to echo a lot of what Darlene said. If you had been in that corner three or four years ago, it was not really a corner that people really enjoyed being at. And you go to that corner today, and it really shows what a city can be. It's life. It's vibrant. It's people who enjoy being together, who enjoy being out. And what we've seen in that transformation over a very short amount of time is going from a place that people hesitated going to to a place that people can't wait to go to. And that's because of one applicant. And I want to go back to what I think was the most important part of the staff presentation. He has had several live music events. And in a neighborhood that is not afraid to complain, and in a neighborhood that is not afraid to raise their hands and say, I don't like what's going on here, he has received zero complaints. Maybe we can trust this applicant. maybe we can allow him to do business without overburdening him with so many constraints that it gets away from the outcome that we're desiring. So I think he's already agreed to a lot of constraints on the business. And I know that he wants to go forward with that. But if we force him to put a permanent sound system and the costs affiliated with that, that may end up costing him out. And then we will just have an empty and blank space that no one can take advantage of. So although I understand the concerns, I think we need to look at the history of the applicant and that he is shown to be a good neighbor with zero complaints, and we can trust him to go forward in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The final speaker is Jay Portlantz, the applicant.

Good evening.

Some of you I know, some of you I don't. My name is Jay Porlance. I own Delray Farmhouse, Delray Hardware, and soon to be Rosie's Tavern. I say that because I want to highlight that I am not short-sighted with the decisions I make pertaining to my business. I want to highlight that as a resident of Delray I have more invested in the neighborhood than just a stage Every decision I make with farmhouse with the stage with everything else is extremely intentional extremely calculated and I concern myself with my neighbors. Everything I do is intentional. So I hope that you guys will take the original recommendation and not add more burden as I plan on opening more businesses to help Delray grow even more. And I don't plan on going anywhere. So I assure you that you can trust me. Thank you very much for your time.

Final speaker all right I'll take a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing Motion by Commissioner Dube and a second by Commissioner manner all those in favor. Please say aye aye Opposed motion carries 6-0 and that brings us to Commissioner discussion Commissioner Ramirez.

I will. I just want to say so a couple of things. First of all, it is true this this block and the what this applicant has done with this block both in this current location and it's across the street location. has brought a vibrancy to this intersection on this side, on the east side of this intersection. It is absolutely true. One thing I wanted to consider, however, is that when we go and approve certain conditions for use, my understanding here is that this is attached to the land itself. So we're looking at an approval for the land use. So at some point, if, say, for example, we don't have this applicant at this land anymore, that these approvals still carry with the land, is that correct? Or is it only attached to the applicant?

I will note, and staff can just confirm, that condition one applies the SUP to the applicant or the business entity in which the applicant has a controlling interest. So as I read it, that means that if the applicant sells the property and moves to Florida, this wouldn't exist at this location anymore until a new applicant came in. Is that a correct reading?

A new business owner could file for a change of SUP application. They could submit that to us, which we would evaluate. There would be notice to adjacent property owners, and they could comment. But the conditions of the SUP could carry over to a new owner if they apply for a change of ownership.

Okay. So if he sells his business to another person and then That appears typically in our administrative, the list of administrative things that we get like at the end in the month docket for awareness. Okay. So it is possible for it to go to another business entity, but it doesn't run with the land. So unless they buy the business, they wouldn't get the SUP.

goes with it without a change of ownership of the SUP after they purchase the business correct yes yeah they would have to apply for the change of ownership to you know carry those SUP conditions over they might not you know they might not want to deal with live entertainment so it does not come to us except by

For situational awareness only, at the bottom of our docket, there's a list of administrative things that staff do each month, and it would appear in that list.

It goes back to planning and zoning, not to planning and commissioning, but to planning and zoning.

Essentially, we're carrying the SEP conditions forward to the new business owner. They agree to abide by all of those conditions.

Yes, Commissioner Dubé, and then Commissioner Linehan.

I just had a question for staff real quick. We talked in the briefing about... reaching out or talking to T&ES about potentially making Howell Avenue no turn on red. Is that something you guys will reach out to them about? Just a suggestion, or you may not even remember. I may have mentioned it in passing, so I apologize.

We have had a discussion on TDS, and nothing has been finalized yet, but we can continue having conversations with our TDS engineers on that no turn on red sign.

Regardless of the stage or not, that intersection on both sides trying to make a right turn, it's pretty dangerous getting out of there. Thank you.

Something occurred to me. Several people have spoken about how Del Rey has changed, and I think some of that is sort of liveliness created by some of these venues. And Condition 12 is a little puzzling to me because sometimes you go to Del Rey and there are actually people set up with tables in the sidewalk. And so the idea of having an owner have to police sidewalk activity or congregation, it seems to counter to the how we often even want to see that sidewalk be. So I think that condition is problematic for me, to somehow expect someone to be making sure two people don't stand and have their cup of coffee and listen to the music on the sidewalk. So I guess that's another question that we seem to be having up here is sort of consistency and whether something like that is overburdening the applicant. So I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Certainly. I mean, the concern from Del Rey was crowds gathering to listen to the music, not specifically people setting up tables. And I believe that's associated with Saturday markets. The condition does not need to be added. If you feel that it's an overreach, an overburden, by all means, it's not necessary to adopt.

I think just to clarify it, I think I want to stress that this is done based on staff's review. Obviously, we're going out to the community to understand what their concerns might be, and then we independently look at the site and identify what might or might not work and the specifics of the application. So as I said, outdoor entertainment adds a lot to the value of the community. In this particular site, the sort of audience area is relatively constrained within the site itself. The sidewalk adjacent to it is relatively constrained. And so what we're looking for is when there are live performances, IF IT APPEARS THAT PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO GATHER ON THE SIDEWALK AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO USE IT, THEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO PLAY SOME ROLE IN MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A CLEAR PATH THAT PEOPLE CAN CONTINUE TO WALK AND PASS THROUGH THE SIDEWALK.

DO YOU THINK INSURE IS STRONG? IN THE CONDITION IT READS INSURE. versus what you just said was encourage people to not be like, I can imagine the applicant saying, all right, guys, come off the sidewalk and come into the, but I'm not sure how we would enforce ensuring in this instance, much like the noise stuff, you have to come and observe it and then you have to like ding them 20 times. with a violation. I'm just, I don't know.

Yeah, the situation, right, we can, I think you're right. It's probably worth sort of fixing that wording. I think what we're looking for is a situation where people don't feel like they have to step off the sidewalk into the street in order to get around the audience. Right.

You wanted to react? I don't need to say anything anymore.

I'm fine.

Don't cut me. Other questions comments discussion.

Yes Yeah, I want to echo what other folks have said I am also a Delray resident and I really appreciate what the port lances have done for the neighborhood and continue to do I'm also really impressed that you know They've had seven noise permits and zero complaints and I think that speaks a lot to the respect that they have for the neighborhood and for the neighbors and I want to circle back to Commissioner Dubay's question about the in-house sound system and whether or not that condition is really necessary in this case. I see if it's a Friday, Saturday night club that's going to be open until 11 or 12, I could definitely see that being necessary. But it's a teeny stage that doesn't hold more than two people in the middle of a neighborhood in the daytime. Do we think that we really need to have that condition in order to approve this? So I would just say do you want to speak?

I was just gonna I'm sorry. Yeah Throughout some options so I could receive a motion to approve as recommended by staff including their memo and then that would be just the base and and or potentially a motion to approve amend that that we could vote on separately if there's differences of opinion on which conditions we might not want to include um but if there's a consensus that there are one or two conditions among those that staff have recommended that we aren't comfortable including in this particular package we can sort of i don't know take a take a look at raised hands or something and someone could make a motion that that starts out with not including them

Okay, yep go for it Yes Feel free to make a motion and then we will react to the motion on the table madam chair Yeah, I'd move to approve special use permit 20 26 0 0 0 2 4 with the caveat of striking condition 5 11 and 12 I

All right. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Dube and a second by Commissioner Lenahan to recommend approval of, goodness, of SUP 2026 with staff's recommended conditions except for conditions 5, 11, and 12. Do I have any reactions to that? Second no, we got a second. I've got yep. I've got a motion in a second So we can vote if there are any concerns about those omissions of conditions please raise them now because we want to make sure that we give everyone a chance to support something if they want to support it and or Give me a warning if you can't support it, but I'm not seeing any people saying they can't support this so We'll take a vote all those in favor. Please say aye aye Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 6-0. Thank you very much, guys. Looks like how much do you want to fight them? All right. Let us go to, pardon me while I click back. That was item two. And now we are on item five, new business, discussion item.

Yes, discussion item for the proposed zoning text amendment for required provisions for affordable housing on tax exempt properties and regulations related to administrative site plans.

All right, welcome.

OK. Good evening, Chair McMahon and commission members. My name is Catherine Miliaris. I'm a principal planner in planning and zoning. I'm joined by my colleague, Nathan Randall, also a principal planner. And we are the project managers for the forthcoming zoning text amendments related to tax-exempt affordable housing projects as part of the Virginia faith and housing legislation and a new administrative site plan process.

OK, oh, the clicker works. Great.

OK, here is an overview of what we will be covering in this presentation as part of this discussion item. As you may be aware, the Virginia General Assembly recently passed legislation requiring that localities adopt a streamlined by-right approval process to promote the construction of affordable housing projects. As part of the streamlined process, we are also required to implement an administrative site plan review process. This process may be utilized for the construction of certain affordable housing projects on land that is either owned by a tax-exempt nonprofit or religious organization for at least five years. You've likely heard it referred to colloquially as Yigbe, or Yes in God's Backyard. In addition, the legislation prescribes that at least 60% of the units must be committed affordable units for 30 years for renters up to 80% of the AMI and up to 120% AMI for purchasers. So where might this happen? This map illustrates properties that could potentially utilize these provisions. This is a preliminary map and shows parcels that are real property tax exempt, but may not include every possible parcel that could be eligible. If a religious organization owns income producing property, for example, then it would not qualify. So in the center of the city, just to orient you, the yellow designated parcels that you see that are large are Virginia Theological Seminary and Episcopal High School. In the west end, you can see Winkler Preserve and Goodwin House. And towards Old Town, the large yellow parcel is the Masonic Memorial. However, the majority of the sites that could potentially utilize these provisions are smaller scattered sites across the city. The state legislation also establishes the permitted zoning allowances for a particular site. Many of the limits are contextual and based on maximums within 500 feet of a subject parcel. For example, height is a minimum of 45 feet or the height of the tallest building within 500 feet. Density and setbacks are established similarly. Projects may include up to 30% of non-residential uses. Parking will be no more than one space per residential unit or the fewest required by the zoning ordinance. And while not specifically set out in the legislation, staff is also looking into whether we can have an open space requirement. And we are considering a requirement of 25% of a site as open space. These projects will be reviewed through a new administrative site plan process, which means that the projects will be reviewed and approved by staff without public hearings. While currently the Planning Commission reviews a preliminary site plan as part of a DSP or DSUP, and then after that approval, staff reviews and approves a final site plan, the administrative site plan process will combine these two reviews into one accelerated timeframe. For example, a complete submission will have a 40-day review period with shorter subsequent reviews. Staff will review the applications based on a set of clear established review standards that will include environmental, siting, historic, and archaeological requirements. I also want to highlight that the period of validity will be five years, which is in contrast to the typical three-year period of validity for most DSPs and DSUPs. Additionally, the state legislation does not require noticing or outreach, but staff is considering adding a city-initiated noticing requirement, such as placarding the properties. Staff intends to also make some recommendations regarding administrative approvals. First, we are proposing to look at raising the number of dwelling units that trigger a site plan to four or fewer, which is now more consistent with zoning changes from zoning for housing, which allows fourplexes. Currently, any development of more than two units triggers a development site plan. There are no changes that we are looking at proposed to the grading plan process. And those will still be required for disturbance over 2,500 square feet. We're also proposing to utilize the streamlined administrative approval pathway for smaller by-right projects. such as projects that have 10 dwelling units or fewer or less than 30,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. And to be clear, to qualify for the administrative site plan process, a proposal must meet all zoning requirements and not require any modifications nor special use permits. To understand the impact of these additional changes that we are looking into, We analyzed the development site plans that have been approved by you over the past five years and determined that under the proposed changes, four non-residential projects would qualify for an administrative site plan. These projects that would qualify tend to be smaller commercial projects, such as an addition at a church or a daycare. Most residential projects have tended to require modifications, so the ones that you have approved over the past five years would likely not qualify under what we are looking at. In addition to presenting to you tonight and having a discussion, we are also presenting to AHEC later this week. and will also give a similar update to get feedback from CREDA, formerly NAOP, later this month. Based on the feedback that we receive, we will draft and refine the specific language of the zoning text amendments to incorporate the feedback that we are able to. I say that because I want to mention that there is limited ability to alter the state mandated aspects of most of this initiative. We anticipate bringing forth the final zoning text amendment ordinance language later in November. And this last slide includes references to the adopted Virginia legislation related to Yigbee and the administrative site plan process so that you can look at it more closely. And tonight, as we start this process, are looking forward to hearing your feedback, the questions that you have, the things that need more information, and any other suggestions. So thank you very much.

Thank you. I can kick off with some questions Maybe I'm trying to think if you cover it on one of those slides I'm I was curious how the required density per acre allowance compares to our residential zones because I don't really have a good mapping of 20 units per acre in what zone is that's similar to? Is that something that you guys happen to know offhand?

This is Nathan Randall with Planning and Zoning. And I don't think we have that right in front of us at the moment. But it's something that we can take a look at and do some comparison and have that information for the future.

Thank you. Just for a point of comparison, it would be a little bit lower in units per acre than a typical townhouse development.

OK. OK. That's helpful.

Yeah. Since most of what we see is in terms of a zone and then it's hard to see that. But that's a helpful image. OK. You mentioned on the city noticing standard that sort of as an aside that something like a placarding is that What does noticing do for a project that's eligible for administrative approval?

So the thinking that we have is that Alexandrians want to know what's happening in their neighborhood. And while there's not a requirement in the legislation, how can we make sure that neighbors know what is going on? So we're exploring what that looks like. Does it make sense to placard the property? Again, there won't be a public hearing. But of course, there will be the submissions. Do we have a website where we have some overview information of a project?

That is what we're working for. And this is something that we are adding.

So this is something that we can craft to make sure it meets what we all want to achieve.

It doesn't seem like a good move to surprise people.

Right. Right.

Even though it's going to be clear that there's not a hearing and the input is limited, we don't feel it helps community to hold back information.

Right. Is this similar? I feel like when there are some kinds of, I don't know, building permity things that get posted on Windows when stuff is happening and it's not like it's asking permission. Is it sort of that idea? You walk by, you can see it. We're not mailing neighbors with direct mail.

One thing that we're contemplating is we're looking at the administrative SUPs as an example. We're talking about a change of ownership for the prior case. And, you know, that's one sort of precedent or, you know, example that we're looking at how we do that. You know, it goes on to e-news, gets placarded, those kinds of options. Okay, great.

And a follow-on question to that. Can you just clarify for me, would this administrative site plan approval HAVE SOME SORT OF COURSE FOR APPEAL IF SOMEONE DID SEE IT COMING UP AND DIDN'T LIKE IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, FELT LIKE THERE WAS A CONFLICT? IS THAT A THING IN THIS ENVISIONED PROCESS?

I CAN START AND PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN JUMP IN, BUT IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT A PART OF THE STATE LEGISLATION DID NOT ALLOW FOR AN APPEAL FOR OTHER THAN AN APPLICANT. SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF THE If something were denied, if a project were denied, the applicant could appeal, but it doesn't have a right of appeal to, say, a neighbor or to some other entity in the city.

Once you establish the requirements and they're in code, as long as staff document the meeting of all those requirements, there is an appeal flow. Yes, Ms. Brown.

I will just echo that that is correct.

Okay.

So if they meet all of the standards we set out, They'll get approved, and yeah, the only appeal process is for the applicant themselves. Okay.

Great. That is helpful. And my last quick question, will the administrative site plans be subject to green building plan requirements as DSPs and DSUPs are? And if not, what's the rationale why they wouldn't be?

So we're currently in the process of looking at which of our policies and processes standards from the zoning ordinance would would apply. The state legislation is very specific about the things that we can require of these kinds of projects. I believe there was a slide earlier that said it was a historic environmental ARCHEOLOGICAL SITING. SO THE STATE LEGISLATION INCLUDES, THERE IT IS, THE SECOND TO LAST BULLET POINT. SO WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH COULD IT BE UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL QUITE POSSIBLY. WE HAVEN'T COMPLETED THAT WORK JUST YET AS TO WHICH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS WOULD APPLY AND CROSS REFERENCING THEM TO THE STATE LAW. SO THAT WORK IS ONGOING. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.

JUST A SIMILAR ALMOST PARALLEL QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE 25% OPEN SPACE THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT YOU MAY ADD THAT ON AND JUST YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THE STATE LEGISLATION DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT OPEN SPACE. IT DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. you know, when we compared the legislation to our, you know, sort of standard zones, that seemed like an item that was, you know, that could be addressed. And so we're looking at whether that's something that we can do legally. It's something that we're interested in doing, but we're not at this moment sure if we can do so or, you know, we don't have a final answer on that.

Yes, Commissioner Harris. Yes, thank you.

One of the things that doesn't belong in here per se, but I'm just curious how this is part of your process. Religious organizations typically are not housing developers. So folks who are going to be taking advantage of this legislation are probably people that haven't done this before, don't have a lot of capacity to do this. So alongside these standards that you're setting, are you also thinking about ways to sort of handhold people and help them through the development process so that you don't end up hung up in the development process when they don't know what they don't know.

Yes, and that is one of the things that's driving how we're approaching this is we want it to be very clear when you look at the ordinance and then when you look at the application checklist, we want it to be clear to everybody what we're expecting to see. In addition, we know that a lot of organizations in Northern Virginia are also hosting webinars and conversations so that they can provide assistance to help anybody who's interested in pursuing this. So, you know, information is getting out there and it's our job to make sure that this is a very clear process.

I think I would add two other things to that is that our development review structure is set up so that there is a sort of one point of contact with the development review team that goes from the idea on the napkin through to opening the doors. When questions come up, it's fairly easy to know who to contact. And we can then find the appropriate answers. So we already do that as a matter of practice in our structure. And I also know that housing advocates, as was said before our meeting, and talked actually to Virginia Housing about this capacity issue and how they may need to do things on their side in terms of helping applicants. Yeah.

I GUESS I WANT TO JUST OBSERVE THAT I THINK THIS IS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, CONSISTENT WITH ZONING FOR HOUSING ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TACKLED AS A CITY IN THE PAST. THE FACT THAT IT COMES FROM RICHMOND AS A DIRECTIVE IN MY OPINION SIMPLY MEANS WE'RE ALL BEING HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD NOW, SO ALL JURISDICTIONS ARE LOOKING TO FIND A WAY TO CREATE REASONABLY CONSISTENT PROCESSES FOR ENTITIES LIKE THESE, WHICH AGAIN ARE SMALL AND SO THEY NEED THE STREAMLINING AND THEY NEED THE SIMPLIFICATION IN ORDER TO GET IT TO HAPPEN AT ALL. SO IT'S HOPEFULLY GOING TO RESULT IN MOBILIZING NEW OPPORTUNITIES WE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE SEE. I DO FEEL LIKE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE VERSIONS OF SITE PLANS THAT AT LEAST ON THE FACE OF IT GREEN BUILDING PLAN REQUIREMENTS should apply, in my opinion. We've got environmental listed there as a review standard category that the state envisioned was going to be relevant. And frankly, a lot of thought has gone into the fact that anything that is substantively redevelopment is stuff that's starting from scratch. We need to continue to provide the technical support and develop the processes that make green building easier, too. In parallel, we're trying to make it easier for entities like this to build, period. But we're also trying to teach people how to build the right way. And I don't think there's any reason why we would leave this group of customers, so to speak, out of that pipeline of making good sustainable development. And what we've seen a lot in the data about green building is that it is beneficial to tenants over their life cycles in the buildings. It keeps their bills low. It keeps the indoor environmental air quality high. Those are all things that folks who need affordable housing also particularly need and will help them. So leaving them out of that would seem to be inconsistent in my mind. So those are, I guess, some. thoughts and I think your other questions coming up with ways to package the information like density comparisons to get a sense of what this means in neighborhoods I think it's just nice acknowledging that these aren't necessarily things that we change these are things that are being dictated that simplifies the process in many ways but I and I also want to acknowledge staff for THINKING ABOUT NOTICING AND THINKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE EVEN IF THE STATE DOESN'T FORCE US TO WE DO A LOT OF WORK IN THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROCESSES ARE TRANSPARENT AND THAT IS A CREDIT TO STAFF BY AND LARGE.

On green building, I wanted to note that the green building plan has an affordable housing pathway. So that is likely, if we do feel that those requirements can be, if we find that those requirements can be added, that's likely what would be the pathway.

Yep, the way that we would tackle it. Yep, I think that's great. Any other comments, observations on this discussion item? And I believe we want to ensure that the public has the ability to comment on the item tonight. If there's anyone, I'm not sure if anyone has signed up to speak. or is online, if we have anyone online who would like to speak to this item, you are welcome to. And the instructions I gave at the beginning of the hearing apply here. So you can let our staff know via Zoom or your phone whether or not you wish to speak. But barring other commissioner comments or anyone signing up to speak from the public, We can potentially wrap this up. Any other questions from staff to us? Anything else you're looking for tonight?

Thank you for the feedback. This has been really helpful in how we bring it forward later this fall. Thank you.

All right. THAT BRINGS US TO DOCKET ITEM 6.

DOCKET ITEM NUMBER 6, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 202600022, 911, C AND D, PENDLETON STREET, PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF A NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO RESIDENTIAL USE WITH YARD AND OPEN SPACE REDUCTIONS AND A LOT Without frontage on a public street. The property is zoned RB townhouse. The applicant is Eric Olson Good evening.

This is Sam Shelby planning and zoning as Kendra mentioned This is a special series of special use permit requests to special use permit requests to convert an existing warehouse building at 9-11 B and C Pendleton Street to a residential use I Some key points here is that we are recommending approval because it reactivates an underutilized storage building that is not necessarily compatible with the or consistent with the small area plan vision for this area and that the open space and yard reductions the applicant has requested would not impact adjacent properties. So for some background, this slide shows a photograph of the existing building. Again, it's zoned RB. It's in the Braddock Road metro area. It's surrounded by other residential uses. And you can see it's two of the storage bays within this row of storage units in a single building. It's in the middle of a block. It's surrounded by alleys on all sides. So again, it's a request to convert a storage building to a single unit dwelling. This is the second case that's come forward under our new conversion policy that Planning Commission saw and City Council passed earlier this year. The applicant has requested side and rear yard reductions. So the applicant cannot meet the yard requirements and asked for reductions from those. He is also proposing a second story addition a penthouse, and a rooftop terrace. So this overall increases the building height from about 12 feet to about 35 feet. There would be open space provided both on the ground level and the rooftop. And one off-street parking space would be provided on site, although none is required. So we found that this would be consistent with the small area plan. It designates the area for medium density residential uses. As I mentioned, the existing storage unit, that use is not consistent with the small area plan. This brings that up into consistency with the small area plan. The adjacent building directly to the west is the Arha Ramsey Home, formerly Ramsey Home site. that is significantly taller and closer to the lot line provides less of a setback than the subject property does. So this building would be, when it's finished, and would be 10 feet shorter than that building. And so it would really fit in with the context of the neighborhood. There are several lots without furniture in the immediate area. Several of the new townhouse style developments that are in here. in this neighborhood don't have frontage on a public street. Nearly all of them rely only on alleys for vehicular access to their properties. So it's kind of in the neighborhood fabric and character that there are lots without frontage. There's almost a direct parallel in the block south of here that there's an isolated single unit dwelling that's 35, 40 feet tall that's in the middle of the block, and it's on a lot without frontage. So the context in this area exists for this kind of development. The side and rear yard reductions are necessary given the building's existing footprint and the shallowness of the lot. The lot is not shaped like the zone wants it to be. It's supposed the zone expects and kind of dictates a deeper rectangle shaped lot, that kind of shape of lot. This is more of a square. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE SETBACKS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONE. AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S ALLEYS THAT CAN CONNECT YOU FROM WITH THE NORTH AND SOUTH STREETS, BOTH DIRECTIONS AND THEY'RE ALL SUFFICIENTLY WIDE AND THEY ALL PROVIDE ACCESS FOR EXISTING HOUSES AND PEDESTRIANS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE FOUND IT WOULD ALSO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

Yeah, I was curious if the house directly south of, or the unit directly south of that, is that already a residence? I saw it has like a door and a porch light.

I don't believe so. There aren't any permitting records for that kind of conversion, so officially no.

Got it. Thank you.

I feel like walking through the neighborhood once upon a time, and I don't know if it's still true, I would see people getting like, Personal training sessions outside of that building so it might just be being used by someone in a more formal way than a storage unit, but But that's all I've ever seen out that way All right other questions for staff And if not do we have any public speakers yes our first speaker is Keith Simon Followed by Glenstone

Followed by the applicant, Eric Olson. Keith Simon. Is this right?

I've never done this before. All right. Did I press anything? All right. Well, thank you very much. I'm a neighbor of Eric. I have one of the units in the storage units, I guess. And I'm all for it. I think when I purchased, I initially purchased three of those units. I was ignorant of what I was getting into. And I did have a personal trainer operating out of one of my units at the time. Oh, okay. You know your neighborhood. Yes. And you know yours. There is a porch light. That's not me, though. So since I've owned the properties and then Eric bought some, I just worked. I like working on cars, that's what I do in my unit. But it's always been unclear with the city, the potential use cases of this property. So the personal trainer you mentioned, We had to get a, there was a long discussion with some of the zoning people about whether he could operate there or not. They're currently zoned townhome, which I thought, act like it's a townhome, but that's not really the case. So I'm all for clarifying the potential use cases for these properties. I've enjoyed mine just being a shortage unit, but I'm all for people, you know, using this new approach. So thank you very much.

Great.

Thank you. Next speaker is Glenn Stone followed by Eric Olson. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Glenn. I own the property, the garage directly to the south, the end unit that you were asking about. I'm a local artist. I live on the west side of town. I use it as an art studio and storage. So I'm there quite a lot painting and whatnot. But I'm here to support the project. I think that they would create a unique row of housing there if it was approved, and I would just like to say I approve any variances that might be requested here. Thank you.

Thank you. Finally, Eric Olson.

Good evening. First of all, thank you for your time and thank you for the staff. Sam and Ted have been great for what is a dizzying process for a citizen just trying to get through this. This building is named after Dale Pepper, if I'm not mistaken. She once called these garages one of the ugliest things she had ever seen during one of the early discussions on Ramsey Home. I'll just say, look, I'm a resident. I live in Old Town. I live on Alfred Street. I don't live in the garage. We built our lifelong home on Alfred Street. We're not leaving. I care about the neighborhood, and we're trying to do something that's appropriate. When you look at it, I want to build something that's less than the floor area ratio allows. I want to build something appropriate. smaller and shorter than it allows. It's important to me that we finally get some vegetation outside the planting boxes we put in inside of that alley. I advocated for it when the Ramsey homes went through and I understand priorities, but I'm looking forward to planting a tree out there in that concrete alley that's there. So we're trying to do something that's appropriately sized. What was the word you used, Sam? This is an underutilized property. I think that's an optimistic adjective. These garages have been a little bit of an eyesore for a long time. This will help potentially break the cycle and make it something that I think will help improve the quality of the neighborhood, and that's why I'm doing it.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for me? Okay. Thank you.

All right. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Second.

All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Dubé and a second by Commissioner Ramirez. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. And that brings us to commissioner discussion or a motion.

Yes, I love this. I think it's a it's a really creative way to bring more housing Into a place where a lot of people want to live And because it's not huge it's probably more affordable than some of the other new places. I think it's genius Commissioner Dube

I echo Commissioner Harris' 100%. I think it's a great use of the property, and certainly Ms. Pepper will probably be happy, too. So we'll go with that. And if there's no objections, I'll make a motion to approve Special Use Permit 2026-00022, 911CND Pendleton Street. Second.

All right, I have a motion by Commissioner Dubé to recommend approval and a second by Commissioner Linehan. And I will just say I fully support this project. It could be fun to see each of the little units come forward for this kind of transformation. But in the meantime, it's also fun for me to hear how they're currently being used. We've got art happening. We had a physical trainer happening. We're going to have people living there. I feel like Ms. Pepper might have been a little harsh on the units, because while they might not look great, sometimes Sometimes you just got to give a neighborhood time to evolve. And like, I live not very far away. I like that Chop Shop is in the front of what must have been a auto body shop. You know, like I don't need everything to look new. Sometimes things just need to take their time. And if this house gets built and then beside it, one of the other units becomes something slightly different than it is now. And then another one, that's great. So I'm excited about this evolution and appreciate that. staff and applicant went through this um creative process um and with that all those in favor please say aye aye opposed motion carries six zero thank you very much and that brings us to item seven please docket item number seven subdivision 20 26

0 0 0 6 development site plan 2026 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 5 North Alfred Street public hearing and consideration of a request for a subdivision of recent re-subdivide an existing lot into five lots and a development site plan with modifications to construct five townhouse dwellings with detached garages and accessory dwelling units. Property is zoned CL commercial Lowe, the applicant is P.T. Bloom's Development by Ken Wire, attorney. Welcome.

Good evening. Good evening. How's everyone doing? For the record, my name is Michael Swidrak. I am of Planning and Zoning, and I am here to discuss the 415 North Alfred Street townhouses case. The applicant is P.T. Bloom's LLC, and they have filed a development site plan, or DSP, and subdivision applications for the construction of five townhouses with five accessory dwelling units at the site. Here's the agenda for the presentation, and we'll talk about the site plan and the community comment and highlights and benefits. The Enfield Townhouse and ADU proposal requires the approval of a DSP with modifications and a subdivision. The two site plan modifications requested will be discussed on the site plan slide. The subdivision is required to subdivide the existing site into five lots for townhouses. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and DSP requests. Key elements of staff analysis are the project design, location of open space, and integration of the ADUs onto each townhouse lot. The roughly quarter acre site is located in the Braddock Road Metro Station Small Area Plan and the Braddock Metro Neighborhood Plan boundaries. It is not identified as a redevelopment site in the latter plan, or either plan for that matter. The site is currently occupied by a one-story office building, which is now vacant, as seen in the street view image on the bottom right of the slide. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the site was the location of the Lee or Hallowell School for African American Girls. The site is also located in the Parker Gray District and subject to BAR review for a certificate of appropriateness. The site is located in a mixed-use neighborhood, though the block faces primarily lined with townhouses. The site is zoned CL or commercial low. The applicant is proposing the construction of five townhouses with five ADUs on top of detached parking garages. Each townhouse is 35 feet tall, clad in brick on the north Alfred Street frontage, and has a rooftop deck. Each townhouse and garage ADU structure, or between the townhouse and the garage ADU structures, are approximately 450 square foot backyards with paved and lawn areas. At the rear of the site adjacent to Butts Alley are garages that accommodate up to two compact cars each and have access to each ADU. The ADUs are located on the second floor and are 350 square feet each with a small balcony facing Butts Alley. Each ADU will have a kitchen and bathroom and will be considered a separate dwelling unit from connected townhouses. The two site plan modifications that I discussed on a previous slide, one is needed to permit more than half of the rears of the ADU and garage structures specifically to have more than 50% of paved area for parking access. And that's something staff supports since Butts Alley is adjacent to that. And that just continues the parking service court nature of the part of the site. There's also a modification to permit lot 501 because it has a three foot wide yard on the north end. It is considered an interior end lot, and it has a 26-foot wide width requirement. So this modification would permit the lot to be 22.5 or 22.4 feet wide, and that's something staff supports. And that is based on the widths of other townhouses on that block face. Project highlights include the potential approval of the first ADUs in a DSP or DSUP project since the ADU ordinance was passed last year, a reduction of 10-year storm flows and phosphorus by 10%. And also, there's a student generation of one student for Alexandria schools. Project benefits include a $59,000 housing trust fund contribution, enhanced streetscape for the 100-foot long STREET FRONTAGE ON NORTH AFFORD STREET AND THAT WILL HAVE NEW STREET TREES AND SIX FOOT WIDE CONCRETE AND BRICK SIDEWALK. THE PROPOSAL WAS DISCUSSED AT FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS, TWO OF WHICH WERE BAR CONCEPT REVIEWS AND PERMIT TO DEMOLISH MEETING AND ALSO THE APPLICANT HELD VIRTUAL MEETING AND JULY BIMONTHLY VIRTUAL COMMUNITY UPDATE. THE PROJECT HAS EVOLVED BASED ON THAT BAR FEEDBACK IN JANUARY The applicant updated the design after the January hearing to provide more brick colors and additional facade articulation. The applicant received additional feedback from the BAR and the community at the June hearing, including studying additional facade height variations. Prior to submittal for certificate appropriateness, the applicant may make architectural refinements to address BAR comments. Staff recommends Planning Commission approve the DSP and subdivision and is available for any questions. I also should mention that we provided a memo to Planning Commission, published that, and that recommends a new condition, 24.1 and condition 80. Both are related simply to restricting, prohibiting parking in the driveways that are the 12 to 12 and a half foot wide driveways between the back of the garage and the back of the property. And then there are cleanup amendments just changing dates for the preliminary site plan for conditions one, three, and eight.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff? I have a quick question. In the memo and the proposed clarifications on conditions related to no parking or permanent storage, One of the phrases says that we're requiring the applicant to post no parking signage in these areas and paint signage in the driveways. What are we envisioning with that? Because it doesn't look, it's an alley, the backs, based on the, I know it's not the fully rendered elevation look at the back there where the garages are and the ADUs, but it didn't look like there was a lot of space for signs. So what exactly are we imagining?

That's a good question, Chair McMahon. There is not a specific. We did look at some examples. I mean, it could be something where there's a stencil on the driveway area that literally just says no parking. And that's something, you know, it could be of any size. You know, it's something we will. Judging on the final site plan, it could be smaller signs that are almost like you see parking signs on the street for three-hour parking or something. It could be one or two of those signs that say no parking.

But it would be like provided to city specification signs so they look like city signs? Or would they be, I don't know, sometimes like private signs look like they're not real? Does that make sense? Like people don't know to pay attention to them because someone like stapled them to something?

Can the city just put up no parking between these signs like they do?

It's a private alley, technically. So the signage would be on private property, first of all. It wouldn't be in the alley. It would be on one of the five lots or up to five lots.

So it would be in collaboration. And Tess would advise heavily to their satisfaction that the signs will be taken as real signs.

Clarification, I think the intent was that it could be the stencils, it could be signage. It doesn't have to be both necessarily. It's really just some kind of demarcation. And looking in the final site plan, we do look at the type of signage and we do review to make sure it is something generally legible. Okay.

Yeah, we want to make it look official.

Yeah.

I think one of the scenarios that we were mindful of, there's the turning movements, because Bud's Alley is pretty tight back there. But also, these ADUs could be used as Airbnbs. And so people could come that have, you know, if the sign's not right there and very clear in front of them, they may just pull up and park. And as we know, people do. So that was one of the considerations we were thinking about, or scenarios we were thinking about with WITH THESE DRIVEWAY AREAS.

IS THAT TO PREVENT THE OWNER FROM LOSING ACCESS TO THE GARAGE OR IS IT JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS, SO YOU DON'T WANT NON-RESIDENTS TO PARK THERE? CAN THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY PARK IN THAT AREA OR NO ONE CAN PARK IN THAT AREA?

THAT WOULD BE NO ONE. SO THIS CAME UP BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE CITY WHERE There are cars that might be parked kind of diagonally or not straight in, and there's not enough room for them to fit, so they might jut out into the private alley, and that could create some access issues for either the adjacent properties or just access to the alley in general. So it's really just about making sure that area is clear. It is 12 feet deep, generally, behind these townhouses to allow for those turning movements so that users can get into those garages, so we're making sure that they can get in and out of those garages.

Along these same lines, this is a private alley. We have no enforcement authorization. If someone's parked back there, APD can't write them a ticket. It's not a fire lane. The fire department can't write them a ticket. How would we enforce that, I guess? And I equate it to where I live, where we have no parking areas, but the HOA has a tow service that we get it towed, and then whoever's car it was has to pay it. Is that what we're envisioning here? I just see it as an enforcement problem for the...

Development that's why exactly why we're putting it as a condition of the site point because they were in violation of their approval then So it would be a zoning violation So enforceable by zoning And they would have to come up with a management approach for it probably a tow company

Just to add, this is something that we typically solve by design now, where we either look for these areas to be so shallow as to be obviously not parking spaces or deep enough that it can fit a car. In this situation, Butts Alley actually narrows down to about 10 feet wide. And so this is a distance that both allows for the turning movements in and out of the pro's garages, as well as keeps some open space between the townhouse and the garage as that usable open space. And so the reason for the signage and striping, we wouldn't typically require this, but we are doing it because of the particular situation of it's in that in-between stage where there's a risk of blocking access and then we've got a problem for how do people traverse the alley.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Ramirez.

Just looking at that, I know that we had talked about this extensively during our briefing and the thought of keeping it completely open through all of the properties, right? Because it looks like some of the vehicular patterns to be able to park into the garages actually traverse the property lines. So... YEAH, I GUESS THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE. SOMEBODY DOESN'T SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I WANT TO PUT UP A PLANTER RIGHT THERE. AND THEN SUDDENLY THEY BLOCKED IN THAT VERY LAST RESIDENT. THEY'RE UNABLE TO MANEUVER IN THERE. YEAH, I WILL ALSO SECOND, YES, ABSOLUTELY, LET SIGNAGE OR some sort of enforcement for that zoning to keep that area open would allow for the kind of mutual usability of each of these lots. I don't know what that would look like, but I know that you all will be working pretty hard to get it established.

All right. Do we have any speakers for the public hearing?

No, just the applicant's attorney.

OK. Would the applicant's attorney like to speak?

Just very briefly, thank you for the conversation about the striping in the back. We're okay with it. We just don't want to look like an airport, no landing zone. So as long as we can be tasteful in the signage, we are in agreement with staff and appreciate the support. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with BAR in the coming weeks. Okay. Thank you.

Great. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close public hearing. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Lanahan and a second by Commissioner Manor. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. And that brings us to commissioner discussion. I will say I'm happy to support this project. This has been a funny building to walk by for all the years I've lived in the neighborhood. I've had these little daydreams that I could like convert it into a house for me because it's got that cute little I don't know what to call it like courtyard thing But my husband rightly told me that's a very silly use for that giant building the house for just me so this project sort of emphasizes that right we get ten homes out of What could have been just an imaginary house for me? But yeah too much information right from your Planning Commission chair but I think the design is perfectly lovely and is very likely to fit in. We're getting fabric knitting together here. Just a bit, just like two houses to the south of this section of the block, there was also a relatively recent infill townhouse or row house, or whatever you want to call it, infill there. And so this happens all over Old Town. And I think that knitting together It doesn't take very many years for this to all just feel like you can't tell when things were built and which came first and which came second. And I expect this will be exactly like that. I especially like that it comes with intentional ADUs. That's really special and it's not something we see a lot of. And even if they are used for Airbnb style stuff, this is a tight knit fabric and so people will get to stay right in Old Town and not have to get an expensive hotel room, potentially, or get to accommodate the needs of their family better and still fit in. So all that's very exciting. I have a very minor potential proposed tweak to the language of 24.1 to clarify. It's not an and. It's more of an or, like signage or. stenciling or striping or paint just so that we know we're not expecting all of it if the solution can be found that's tasteful but clear. But other than that, I'm also perfectly fine with attaching to the site plan the condition of having to indicate this. Because to the points about maybe a neighbor blocking another neighbor from access, I live in a property that is part of an HOA and has shared driveways that require you to be polite your neighbors but we also have it marked as a fire lane and we can kind of point at the sign and say move your car this is a fire lane you can't just bring your contractor in all day and have them park park there and not expect to have to move around hopefully all these neighbors will be able to communicate but having a some sign to point to if it's not a fire lane sign at least a no parking sign and something in the site plan that goes back to it will help the neighbors get along with each other And since it's a small area back there, it's sometimes just nice to give them a chance to have tools to help them get along. Yeah, I think it's great. Any other comments, questions?

I would just echo that.

Wait, sir. Let's get you that along. I'm out of practice.

I'm out of practice. I would just echo that I think the ADU is fantastic. Let's be honest. There's a market for Airbnbs. THERE'S A BIG MARKET AND IT SUPPORTS OUR $1 BILLION A YEAR VISITOR ECONOMY WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY'S TREASURY AND THIS PUTS MORE HOUSING IN THE INVENTORY AND IT GIVES POTENTIALLY AIRBNB. AND I WAS JUST LOOKING, IT'S A 14-MINUTE WALK TO THE BRADOCK METRO. IT'S POTENTIAL WE COULD GET PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PARKING, WHICH IS IDEAL. SO I JUST REALLY APPLAUD THE IDEA OF INTEGRATING THE ADUS. IT'S REALLY CATCHING UP WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING AS A CITY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ?

I just wanted to echo the same that we're building in this little element that we had approved a little while ago as kind of a new typology into the language of this new project. And I'm excited to see this kind of new modernized coupling happening and this little experiment that's happening in Old Town to see how it's going to turn out, what the use actually ends up being. I would also then turn as well to planning zoning to see like if there's some way that we can track this kind of data and kind of figure it out. and figure out, you know, is it more families moving in? Is it being used as a business type? Or is it, you know, used just for, like, you know, I don't know, occasional guests and whatnot. But I am very excited about this project as well, so. AND I WILL ALSO SAY, CHAIR McMANN, YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT LITTLE DREAM.

AND I WILL JUST MENTION BEFORE MOTION THAT BOTH OF THE ITEMS ON THIS DOCKET ITEM ARE OF OUR AUTHORITY. THEY'RE THINGS WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON RATHER THAN OR WE APPROVE RATHER THAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL. BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. BROWN. CAN IT BE DONE IN ONE MOTION OR DO WE HAVE TO DO THE SUBDIVISION FIRST FOLLOWED BY THE DSP?

I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING SEPARATE VOTES, SUBDIVISION FIRST AND THE DSP AND THEN ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING IN THE DSP ANY OF THE CONDITION CHANGES YOU WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR SEE.

Terrific. I guess for the record, oh, yes. Well, I was going to mention the phrasing that I was looking at under 24.1 in the staff memo. It reads, post no parking signage in these areas and paint signage in the driveways. And I was just going to recommend that we strike the words in these areas and, and we replace that with or. So post no parking signage or paint signage in the driveways. So just a slight cleaning up of that.

And with that, Ms. Harris? I want to make a motion to approve subdivision 2026-0006. All right.

I have a motion by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the subdivision. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0.

I'll do the next one. Motion to approve DSP 2026-0003 development site plan. And with the conditions as revised in the staff memo. Dated August 28th.

Great. And we've got a second by Commissioner Manner. Okay. We've got a motion by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the development site plan with the conditions in staff's memo of August 28 as amended. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 6-0. Thank you. All right. And that brings us to item seven. Eight. No, wait, eight. Thank you. Sorry. Eight. This was seven.

Docket item number eight. Development Special Use Permit 2026-10007. 724, 726, and 728 North Patrick Street. Public hearing and consideration of a request for development special use permit with a site plan and modifications for cluster development per section 11-601 of the zoning ordinance to construct five townhouses. Property is zoned CSL commercial service low. The applicant is Parker Gray 1, LLC by Duncan Blair, attorney.

Welcome.

Good evening, Chair McMahon and Planning Commission members. For the record, my name is Stephanie Sample, and I'm an urban planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning Development Division. The applicant, Parker Gray 1, LLC, proposes to construct five townhouses at 724 to 728 Patrick Street. This is tonight's agenda. The applicant proposes to demolish two existing buildings on the site and construct five townhouses fronting on Patrick Street. The applicant has requested approval of a DSUP with site plan and an SUP for a cluster residential development along with modifications. Staff is recommending approval of the project. The project location is in a relatively dense, mixed-use area of the Braddock neighborhood. The site is almost entirely within the boundaries of the Parker Gray district and falls within the Braddock Metro neighborhood plan area. There are a variety of uses in the immediate area, from residential on North Patrick Street and diagonally across the street to commercial to the west on Madison and across Henry Street. Charles Houston Rec Center is located across Patrick Street, and the ARHA-owned Samuel Madden is immediately to the north. This is the site showing garden-style apartments. This block represents the second phase of the redevelopment of the two-block Samuel Madden public housing. The north block is currently under construction, and the south block will be redeveloped following the construction of the north block. The two buildings on the site date from the mid-20th century and are not considered historic. Cluster SUP allows for a more advantageous site layout and is achieved by demonstrating that the same number of residential units could be accommodated in a by right layout on the site the proposed layout is supported by staff as it provides meaningful open space for residents in the rear and allows for enlarged sidewalks and streetscape improvements along Patrick and Madison streets a You can see from this rendered site plan that the townhouses will face North Patrick Street with a small planting area in front of each townhouse. The applicant has dedicated a small portion of this right-of-way so that sidewalks can be enlarged and street trees can be added. A rear drive aisle will provide access to the unit garages, which will accommodate one car each. The project's open space will be located at the western edge of the site, which includes a BMP planter doubling as a pollinator garden and with areas for seating. In addition, each townhouse will have a rooftop open space next to their partial fourth floor. Renderings on the right show the front and rear elevations of the four-story townhouses, which will be clad in brick except for a small amount of fiber cement on the fourth floor of each unit. The BAR reviewed this project in concept in April and they were supportive, asking for only a couple minor revisions when returning to the board for approval of the certificate of appropriateness. I will say they have not received their permit to demolish yet, and that's what the there's a misstatement in the staff report. It says they received approval. They didn't. They will get that when they get their certificate of appropriateness. As with all projects, we like to highlight certain areas. With respect to transportation, the existing bus stop will be enhanced for safer access to and from the bus. The project meets the phosphorus removal requirement. And for schools, our estimate is that the project should generate only one student. Benefits include five new housing units, which are in a very transit-friendly area, pedestrian improvements, with sidewalks ranging from 8 feet to 12 feet, as well as contributions to the housing trust fund. There were three different community meetings where this project was discussed with very few attendees, and no one expressed concern about the project. With that, staff recommends approval, subject to conditions.

Thank you. Are there questions for staff? All right. Do we have any public speakers?

Nope. The applicant's attorney is ready at the podium. That's it.

I have some questions for the applicant's attorney. Yes, ma'am. When I saw this proposal, I only had one concern. And that was, why don't the houses face Madison?

Excellent question. We spent a lot of time talking about that during the concepts stage of this project. There are a lot of competing interests, as you know. One competing interest is the variables of what will happen on the other half of the block. Most likely it will be a multi-family building at some time facing on Henry Street. We thought that by putting the open space in the middle of the block would provide a transition and provide some green space and some relief on that block face. Across the street is Samuel Madden, which is a multi-family building with some retail on the bottom So we thought that provided some relief and opened the open space to the public number two, you know, this is Parker Gray district and across the street from This project is the rec center. It's a whole block of side of the building rec center across the street is some Residential housing we thought it was important to strengthen that residential part of Patrick Street and to pay homage to Parker Gray in the residential district that was there And felt that was critically important also having a curb cut and on Henry Street was not desirable in a lot of ways. We know that during rush hour It's a very busy street. So putting a curb cut there on didn't seem consistent. And this may be obtuse, and if it is, I'll admit it. If you look at the side elevation, there's a lot of glazing. It almost, when you're walking by, it's got the setback, and it kind of relates to what will be across the street. whereas front doors would be kind of an anomaly to what probably will happen next to it and the multifamily buildings across the street. So for all those reasons, the very talented design team of Steve Glensky and Jason We worked through it and figured that from an urban standpoint, this is a great Way to orient the buildings paying homage to the residential character of or what was once a very residential character of this part of North Patrick Street, so without further ado, I'll stop Thank you for your explanations

I'll save my commentary for the commentary period. Does anyone else have questions for the applicant?

I'm just curious, who owns the parcel behind where the taco shop is?

I can check my notice file candidly. I don't know. We've talked to them. But they've talked to us, to the builder at times about the future of that.

Yeah, that's my curiosity is what's coming now.

I think it needs a little assemblage, if I'm correct.

Okay. If there are no other questions for the applicant, do I hear a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Second.

All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Dubé and a second by Commissioner Mennon. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. And that brings us to commissioner discussion.

I just want to say like this project like the other two we did it seems like they're all in the same basic area There's gonna be some great additions to the neighborhood around there and I just think I REALLY LIKE THIS ONE. I LIKE ALL THREE OF THEM REALLY TONIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT. TO THE CHAIR'S QUESTION ABOUT FACING MADISON STREET INSTEAD OF PATRICK, I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S REASONING FOR THE WAY IT'S ORIENTED. AND HAVING THE FRONT DOORS FACE SAMUEL MADDEN SOUTH WHEN THAT'S DONE IS GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL AREA. Made the right move there, and I also really, really like the outdoor space, even a mini park area behind the alley area there. So it's good. I'm going to support it. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Ramirez?

I JUST WANTED TO ADD, I DID HEAR ABOUT THE COMMENT REGARDING THE FACING ONTO MADISON STREET, AND IN LOOKING AT IT, I ACTUALLY TRIED OVERLAYING A LITTLE SKETCH ON IT, AND WHAT I ACTUALLY FOUND WAS THAT THE DEPTH OF THE BLOCK AND THEN THE ACCESS, THEY WOULD HAVE PROBABLY HAD TO GO FOR MORE VARIANCES FOR PARKING REDUCTION ACCESS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT DOES MAKE SENSE. that is facing onto Patrick versus onto Madison. But that said, I would say during the briefing I did voice to staff that I was excited about this little park that was showing up on the western side of the site, thinking that that would also help to open up a little bit of an opportunity along that block. It doesn't feel as solid. gives it a little perforation there. I think it'll give a little bit of life along that side. It won't feel as if, like, it's this huge facade of a building, a huge wall on Madison, and that breaking it up helps to create a nice little rhythm along that side. So outside of that, I'm excited about this project and bringing more housing into this area. Thank you.

Commissioner Harris.

I agree. I'm pleased to see more housing coming. I like the design. I like the open space. My one question is about the public art element. Are you proposing that the design of the elements in the open space is meeting that public art requirement?

that we it's still kind of early to do that but the answer is yes we'd love to incorporate the art and some of the grill work and other uh parts of the park it needs to be public there's some screening that needs to occur uh on madison street so we'll do that but that's kind of the next step to to bring in that expertise

I feel like I've heard a couple different things, so just a quick clarifying question. That landscaped area with seating is private, right?

That is correct. You see open space under the cluster for the residents.

Right. So people who just had a couple drinks at Chop Shop next door are not going to be able to hang out on the stoop there.

That would most likely be the intention of the owners who are maintaining it, yes. Unless one of the homeowners is going to the shop shop.

Right, and invited their friends over to join them for the after party. So, yeah, when I looked at this, I still think that the orientation is suboptimal acknowledging that the architects who I've spoke to have a good, probably have a very good sense of what is the better sort of spatial configuration for the logistics of making buildings. But from a pedestrian perspective, Madison is the pedestrian corridor. People don't walk on Patrick. Only cars go on Patrick. So I recognize staff explained that Tess recommended the driveway be on Madison because no one wants No one for, I don't know, transportation flow purposes wants driveways or curb cuts on Route 1. But Henry and Patrick have curb cuts. There's a daycare curb cut on Henry just a block away. And that has high capacity flows in and out of it twice a day, which is probably even more than these townhomes would generate. But it's more of a, it perturbs me more that the consideration was a preference given to free flow of traffic on Patrick and the potential safety implications of that over creating a curb cut where the high demand pedestrian flow is, which is to and from the metro station and the bus route that goes along Madison. So people are constantly walking there, going to Charles Houston, constantly walking there to get to the community center. So we put a curb cut right where everyone's walking. And even though that curb cut might not always be used, it's a conflict. And in fact, there is a bus stop. The bus is there. They've got to pull out behind the bus stop if the bus is stopped in the bus stop. I don't know how any of this relates to any possible two-waying of Madison and Montgomery, which may or may not ever come to pass. but it's been talked about for a generation, it feels like. But it's just a lot to happen right there. And I think that wasn't the best choice. I also think that the open space, while it makes sense for a potential future redevelopment of the other half of the block and having some space between two larger constructed buildings, if any additional space had been against the homes, along Patrick to the south of this project, it would also provide space from those homes. And those homes now have a very large townhouse up against them. I'm not sure if any of the currently visualized pictures show that. But it's a pretty big size difference. And it's right up against them when right now they don't have anything up against them. That could have been an opportunity, yeah, that's a good one, to give that row house some BREATHING ROOM INSTEAD OF HAVING A HOUSE RIGHT UP AGAINST IT HAVE A SMALL OR OPEN SPACE AND A DRIVEWAY THAT TAPERS IT DOWN. SO I THINK THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFITS TO THE OTHER LAYOUT. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT STAFF WORKED REALLY HARD WITH THE APPLICANT AND PROBABLY WEIGHED ALL THESE TRADE-OFFS AND SAID THIS IS THE BETTER OUTCOME, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. THAT SAID, I HOPE THAT, NO, THIS IS GOING TO BE A QUESTION FOR I THINK I ASK IT LIKE EVERY MEETING. CAN THE TOWNHOUSE AT THE END CONVERT INTO A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IF IT WANTED TO IN THE FUTURE?

THAT IS SOMETHING WE KEEP EXPLORING. I THINK FROM A ZONING ISSUE, I DON'T THINK IT'S A ZONING ISSUE, BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING CODE, OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME RENOVATIONS INSIDE, BUT I THINK GENERALLY IT'S A QUESTION OF THE INTERIOR LAYOUT AND WHETHER THAT WOULD SUPPORT COMMERCIAL USE.

WHATEVER THE COMMERCIAL USE IS, OKAY. AND I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT FUTURE OF MAINTAINING A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT ALONG MADISON AND ACTIVITY AND VITALIZATION, THAT UNIT MIGHT WANT TO BE NONRESIDENTIAL AT SOME POINT IN ITS LIFE BECAUSE IT IS FACING THAT ENTIRE FRONTAGE WHERE ALL THAT ACTIVITY IS HAPPENING. SO IT'S A LITTLE DISAPPOINTING TO ME AS A VERY CLOSE NEIGHBOR, BUT IT'S NOT DISAPPOINTING THAT YOU'RE INVESTING IN THIS SITE. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU This is still going to bring a lot of value to the community. I will get used to it. And maybe I'm overthinking the drawbacks and they won't feel that way when the design comes to pass. It's certainly not enough to prevent me from supporting the application.

May I say two things? Yes. I hope there is a day when the commercial comes back and someone may want to invest in a commercial use in the city. Me too. So I hope that happens. The other is access. hopefully there will be more pedestrian traffic on patrick street coming to the commercial hub which we're going to find in sammy madden to bring some more non-vehicular life to a road that's pretty vehicular maybe we'll put it on the road diet

Anyone in tests like listening to me on this call?

Please don't do that at a public hearing.

Yeah, this is not a part of the scope of this project. So thank you all for listening, and I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

All right. Commissioner Ramirez, go for it.

All right. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of, and we're doing this in two parts, yes, DSUP 2026-10007 for the site plan.

I think it's just one item.

Just one item, yes.

Second. Great. I have a motion to recommend approval of the DSUP 10007 from Commissioner Ramirez. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, I got a second from Commissioner Harris. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. all right that's the end of our main docket we have other business to attend to i've got an error on my device commissioners reports comments and questions anyone have reports comments or questions tonight

I have a question.

Yes. Commissioner Harris.

You had suggested that I take over Commissioner Ramirez's seat on the Eisenhower request, and I have not heard anything about that. So I wanted to ask if you have heard anything about that.

I have not. Director Stoddard.

Happy to respond. That's still in staff's to-do list. I think one of the things that we're going back and confirming is that some of the groups that are involved haven't crossed over their sunset dates. And so that's some research that we're doing just to make sure that we're not sort of creating work that we shouldn't be.

Okay. So we will await staff update. So is this sort of like whether it will continue to exist as a group kind of question? Correct.

Some of these groups are established in the zoning ordinance and they exist in perpetuity. Some of them were to help make sure that especially in the early years after adoption of a small area plan that public investments as well as private investments were coordinated in alignment with that vision. This is one of those ones that I think did have a sunset date when it was created and so we want to make sure we're being consistent with that.

Okay, thank you. I just want to make sure I didn't drop the ball on anything. So thank you for that update.

Thank you any other Reports. Yes, Commissioner Dube.

Yeah for the our redevelopment workgroup. There were two meetings Well, there was one meeting over the summer one one cancelled, but if you followed that lately they're on their second interim director since the director was relieved a year ago, maybe now NOW, THE INTERIM DIRECTOR NOW IS MR. ROY PRIEST. YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THAT NAME FROM THE CITY. HE WAS THE DIRECTOR THERE YEARS AGO. SO HE'S HOLDING THE SEAT WARM WHILE THEY LOOK FOR A DIRECTOR. SO IT'S BEEN QUITE A PROCESS. YOU PROBABLY NOTICED SAMUEL MADDEN NORTH HAS PROBABLY NEARLY TOPED OUT, IF IT'S NOT ALREADY. They haven't started on the south side yet. They're still using it for our staging area. There's been discussion of the Yale Drive townhouses being completely changed from townhouses to a bigger building, but that hasn't got approval through HUD yet or to be able to do that yet. The Ladre is completely vacant, currently being used for police and fire training. waiting to start on that project.

Are they going to set it on fire? No.

No, you can't do that.

Okay.

Just checking. I guess you could. You can't do it legally. Okay. Okay. And that's really about it. There's a lot going on there, but, again, they're still waiting for their new director. And the other thing I want to mention is I was talking to the chair about it, the Braddock West development that we approved. probably a year or two years ago now. And then they came back for an extension. They're having a community meeting on the 9th at Charles Houston. I really don't know what they're going to discuss. Maybe the director has some insight on that. The developer is hosting the meeting.

Yeah, I can follow up on the specifics. I know one of the things they've been doing diligently is making sure they're compliant with their conditions of approval. And so I'll follow up on the specifics of the agenda and get back to you on that.

If it's not me, it's my husband, because we'll have the tag team that night.

Other updates? I don't have any Transportation Commission updates. We meet for the first time in this season next week, I think. Or maybe the week after? Week after. So that'll be coming up. I DO KNOW THAT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, THIS IS LEGISLATIVE ADVICE SEASON, I GUESS. IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION DOES, PETITION FOR THE CITY TO DO LEGISLATIVE THINGS IN RICHMOND, BUT THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES DO THAT PRETTY ACTIVELY, AND SO THIS WILL BE A HEARING IN WHICH WE COME TO THE TABLE WITH THOUGHTS AND WE MAKE ADVICE IN THE MEETING ON A LETTER TO STAFF ESSENTIALLY TO THE MANAGER ON WHAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING TO SAY WE CAN'T BUT I THINK IT'S MORE ON LIKE IS IT IN OUR LINE OF DUTIES AND IT'S NOT REALLY IN OUR LINE OF DUTIES IN TERMS OF HOW THE CODE DESCRIBES WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. YES, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY SEND THINGS AS PRIVATE CITIZENS. AND IN SOME RESPECTS, LIKE WHEN WE WORK ON PLANS WITH STAFF, ZONING FOR HOUSING, THOSE PLANNING PROCESSES SURFACE THINGS WHERE WE KNOW RICHMOND IS IN THE WAY. WHEN RICHMOND IS IN THE WAY OF THINGS WE NEED TO DO IN PLANNING, THAT'S WHEN STAFF PUT IT TOGETHER TO RIGHT. BUT YEAH, IT'S AN INTERESTING PART OF THAT COMMISSION'S DUTIES. I'M TRYING TO THINK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THING. OH, I GUESS I WILL JUST SAY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'LL TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE ANNUAL REPORT AND THE ZONING DIRECTOR'S REPORT, BUT WE DO HAVE A RETREAT COMING UP AT THE END OF THIS MONTH ON THE 25th. Do we know when we'll get the agenda for that? I don't think it's been sent out yet officially, right?

It has not. The agenda, and I appreciate your inputs on the agenda, it largely aligns with what we had talked about, the three of us had talked about on the phone, providing a first view of the green building plan implementation tools around sort of the design guides that we've been developing with Introva to help inform and steer applicants and developers to how to get to compliance with the green building plan. We also talk about we'll take a look at rules of procedure and make sure that everyone's familiar with those. We can provide updates on how to attend virtual meetings, make sure everyone's familiar with the number of days you have to be here versus the number of days you can be virtual and the mechanics for requesting those. And then I think one of the bigger discussion items is going to be looking WHERE DOES ALEXANDRIA EXPECT TO GO OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS? AND THEREFORE, WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS GIVEN DISRUPTIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN CITY PLANNING AS WELL AS TRENDS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN CITY PLANNING? WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE THINKING ABOUT NOW?

IS THAT GOING TO BE AN ALL-DAY THING?

I THINK WE'RE CONFIRMING THE TIME, BUT I THINK... 10 A.M. TO 2 P.M. 10 TO 2.

AND WE'LL PROVIDE LUNCH.

They will keep us fed and watered so we can be productive but not asleep.

We do. We actually get to be right here, not in this room, but we'll be down the hall in what is used as the overflow room for public meetings. It used to be the cafeteria space.

And that is on the 25th, yes?

Yes. Okay.

No meetings for waterfront Commission over the summer and we will also be meeting two weeks from today So inviting Great thank you for that update

IF THAT'S IT FOR COMMISSIONER REPORTS, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, WE HAVE BEFORE US OUR FISCAL YEAR 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, PAUL, YOU JUST MENTIONED THE GREEN BUILDING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. coming up at the retreat, would it be possible to have that be on some kind of monthly list of things that we get an update on? Just because I think, for me at least, it's very easy to lose track of how long is it going to take, where is it, what stage is it, is there any point that we're going to see it again? Officially, if we're going to see it at an APC meeting or something like that.

Yeah, happy to. So yes. WHAT YOU'LL SEE AT THE RETREAT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, AS I MENTIONED, OUR CONSULTANT TEAM THAT'S HELPING US OUT. AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR INTERNALLY IS AN INITIAL DRAFT. AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS WHEN PEOPLE IN THE KNOW AROUND GREEN BUILDING ARE APPROACHING DESIGNS, WHAT ARE THE KEY FACTORS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. SO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THINGS LIKE RATIOS OF WINDOW TO WALL RATIOS AND A RATIO OF how much surface area is on the building versus how much floor area is in the building, and then also the ins and outs of how the mechanical systems work. And so for each of these component pieces, in my head, the way I've been visualizing this, if you think about the energy sort of star stickers that are on all the appliances, and it says here's a typical range of where this factor typically lies, and here's one that would probably get you to the target EUI. And so what we'll be able to do, I think a lot of this is informing applicants and developers about what is the state of green building and how should you be approaching building design to make sure you're meeting those targets. In terms of the timing, yes, we can provide more regular updates on where that is. The next time we're expecting to get something that is, the first time we're expecting to get something that's public facing is at the Planning Commission retreat. And again, this is not, changing the standards. It's not creating standards. The standards are those that were adopted when council voted on the green building plan. This is merely a design guide that's helping people understand how to get there.

I mean, I would say most architects in this region probably know all of those things, but I'm sure it's better to have it written down.

Yes. I think part of what this is attempting to also cover is the information gap. I think there are a lot of people who are going to use this same document in a lot of different ways. So in a way, it's a little bit like a Rosetta Stone, I think, for developers who aren't familiar with this language. It's going to help them. It's going to provide them an entry point into how to get into the conversation. Like you said, the architects and the design professionals probably know. But maybe the developers aren't as familiar with the language and how to have this conversation with their professionals. I THINK FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, CERTAINLY FOR THE GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF, AS WELL AS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL, GENERAL PUBLIC, I THINK IT PROVIDES A LANGUAGE WHERE PEOPLE CAN SAY, OKAY, I GET IT. THIS BUILDING EITHER DID THE RIGHT THINGS BUT STILL DIDN'T GET TO EY OR MAYBE IT DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THINGS AND HERE'S WHY IT FELL SHORT ON EY. AND ALSO IT CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT, WELL, HERE'S WHY THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOME PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL AIM. So depending on who you are, it's serving a different purpose. But the idea is it's a common language everyone can start using.

OK. All right. Thank you for sticking to it.

IT'S MY ONE SUBJECT COMMISSIONER.

THERE ARE SEVEN OF US AND WE CAN'T ALL DO ALL OF IT SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT AND TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT AND FOLLOW ALONG BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GETS THINGS DONE. THANK YOU. ANNUAL REPORT. Director Stoddard, do you want to give an intro to this? I presume we're going to look at it, and then if anyone has edits or comments, let us know, and then I sign it. You sign it later.

A FINAL VERSION. I'LL ACTUALLY TURN THIS ONE OVER TO MS. JACOBS AND LET HER GUIDE YOU THROUGH THE REPORT AS WELL AS THE PROCESS.

GREAT. OKAY. SO AS WE DO ANNUALLY, WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU YOUR FISCAL YEAR 2026 ANNUAL REPORT. THIS IS A REPORT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY CODE, SECTION 2.4.4. AND JUST BEFORE I GO TOO FAR AHEAD HERE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I TAKE A MOMENT AND THANK TED ALBERON FROM MY UNIT, FROM coordinating and pulling everything together in such a nice organized fashion. I also want to thank some of the members of our neighborhood planning team, Amanda Diaz and Christian Brandt, who contributed to the content that you have in here on the projects. Also the zoning team and historic preservation team, Tony LaColla and his team, as well as development, Rob Kearns and his team. So in this report, the second page is a summary of the regulatory activities that the commission reviews. So the commission reviews 72 regulatory cases in FY2026. As they tend to do, SGPs and development cases topped the list with the most, and there was just a very small decline of the total cases in FY2026. I did want to point out that The Commission reviewed 16 special use permits and staff reviewed under the Administrative Special Use Permit Review Process 29 special use permits. making very good use of staff time and streamlining things for our applicants. So pages 3 through 17 highlight projects, some of the projects that the Commission reviewed in FY 2026 or previously reviewed in previous fiscal years and are now moving forward in 2026. So of course I won't go through all of them, but I did just want to highlight THAT THE ZONING FOR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ON PAGE 6 JUST GIVES SOME INFORMATION, AN UPDATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY. AND FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS AN APPROVAL OF 41 ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN FY26 AND 106 IN TOTAL SINCE THE POLICY'S ADOPTION IN 2021. And we'll just move on to a development case, Victory Center. I just feel like I have to personally mention this one since I see this building often and have seen it sit vacant for so long. Yes. Yes. So the long vacant federal office building is now under construction for and they are building 377 affordable apartments. The commission and city council approved this in December of 2024. And in this year, February of this year, the applicant broke ground on that site and expected to be ready for occupancy in 2027. Another project that I just wanted to highlight is one that was fairly recent. It feels like it was recent, but it was in December, Potomac Yard, which is on page 12. The Planning Commission and City Council approved that project in December of 2025, and that was for the multi-unit residential building on Block G. Lots B&E, the townhouse development on block H, and the affordable residential building in block G. And I believe that is this set of development cases are the few remaining lots that are sitting vacant in that area. Right, Rob? In South Yard. In South Yard. There you go. All righty. And just moving on to some of the zoning projects, the Planning Commission reviewed a text amendment to streamline the process for turning underused office space into new housing opportunities with the commercial to residential zoning text amendment. A lot of good stuff in the report, as I'm sure you've seen, but I just wanted to highlight a few of the projects that the Commission has reviewed and approved. Page 18 goes over your membership and attendance. On the next on page 18 and 19 and that is the page that you will sign Commissioner McMahon so the next steps I'm sorry chair McMahon the next steps is that Planning Commission will vote to accept the report to authorize your chair to sign it on your behalf And we will send this on to City Council for their review Thank you Since we were just on the topic of green building I did note its conspicuous absence and

CAN WE ADD THAT? THE GREEN BUILDING PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN JANUARY I BELIEVE SO SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS FISCAL YEAR AND I DID CHECK THE LAST YEAR'S ANNUAL REPORT AND THERE'S REFERENCE TO WORK SESSIONS THAT WE HAD BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE MIDST OF ALL OF THAT WORK WAS THE JUNE WINDOW BUT WE DEFINITELY FINISHED THAT PACKAGE OF EFFORT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS FISCAL YEAR. A section on that. Thanks for playing Honestly in documents like this It's hard to know what's not there because you're reading it and you're like I was so excited about doing that thing But then yeah because we were we're talking about it. I definitely noted that That was the only oh and then I just this is more of a point of order because I'm not really sure how it stands in real life, but we know Commissioner Manor STEP DOWN FROM THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IN ORDER TO SERVE ON THE WATERFRONT COMMISSION. SO TECHNICALLY WE HAVE SORT OF A SEMI-VACANCY OF THE SECOND PLAN. IT'S A BIT OF AN ARTIFACT OF THE FACT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ALSO PUSHED FORWARD I THINK TWO YEARS AGO NOW A COMMISSION MAKEUP PROPOSAL MODIFICATION TO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL HAS PARTLY ACTED ON IT BUT LIKE IT'S NOT FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF I THINK YET OR MAYBE IT WILL BE IMMINENTLY. That position, the second planning commission slot, I think is in a limbo status. It doesn't really exist anymore, but the other slots haven't been, it hasn't, I don't know what the right term is. Like council said, yes, you have our blessing move forward, but maybe the code details haven't been updated. Okay. But technically speaking, that's how it kind of aligns now is just me on the transportation commission and Jody on the waterfront.

Okay, we can follow up on that.

Yeah, if it's if it's cleaner to keep it the way that it is for official purposes, that's totally fine But if I don't know because I don't know quite the status of when that change happened Or if it's fully fully executed yet. We just keep waiting for the new positions to be properly noticed so they could be filled Which is a position for either Commission on disabilities or Commission on Aging or designees, and then a designee from DASH. There's a slight modification to that position, and then a youth position were all proposed in exchange for a spare planning commission.

We felt like two seats on that commission was probably overkill for the work that we needed to do.

I'll go back to getting a seat on the Alexander Renew Board. I don't know. I would like to do that.

I don't know. It's probably an application process. Sewer's interesting.

Sewer's interesting. Well, my grandfather was the chief sanitation engineer for the city, so I spent a lot of time down there with the sewage treatment when I was a kid. And watching what's now the Alive Warehouse, we used to be the incinerator. And when you're 10 years old and watching trash trucks back up and dump their load in that big flaming pit was fascinating. So I would like to, I would really like to understand how we can go back into that. Because, I mean, they turn up the streets all the time.

True.

Yeah.

True.

All right, that was my my only real substantive comment I think it's a great it's I really like these documents because they're fun for us to look back on what occurred during the year and see how when you look at them in Sequence we also see a flow of activity and the evolution of projects that are actually moving forward And it's it's very hopeful these reports, thank you for putting that together Any other comments on the report? Awesome, okay.

Well that brings us to the planning and zoning directors report, please Members of the Commission the it's a brief report tonight One thing I always want to highlight our community meeting series. We are seeing in uptick in attendance over the last several sessions so I'm glad to hear that the word is getting out about the series and one thing we have been highlighting as part of this is we are starting to run a within the meeting series there's something we're calling our spotlight series so we've used the opportunity to share information about PROCEDURES, TESTS, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE REGULARLY GET QUESTIONS ABOUT. SO WHETHER IT'S ABOUT HOW DO WE DO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, HOW DO WE DO TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, HOW DO WE DO LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE REVIEWS. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT IN A FUTURE SESSION LOOKING AT HOW DO WE ASSESS SANITARY SEWER NEEDS AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS. I THINK THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN UNDER THE AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THESE REVIEWS ARE GETTING DONE ON EVERY PROJECT. OFTEN THEY AREN'T THINGS WE TALK ABOUT AT HEARING BECAUSE THE STANDARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET, BECAUSE THE PROJECTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO MEET THE CITY'S PRETTY STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS. SO OUR LAST SESSION WAS AT THE END OF JULY, JULY 21ST. OUR NEXT SESSION IS ACTUALLY IN JUST A COUPLE WEEKS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. And as always, we are running these in a virtual format so that they can be, one, in real time, they can be accessible across the entire community. But also, even if people can't catch it live, we can record the session so people can catch the videos. We do post the videos from the events. We post the slides from the event. We post the Q&A from the event. We want to make sure that information is available and accessible to people. The other thing to highlight, as always, is the docket look ahead. Again, credit to everyone doing the hard work to pull this together, and of course to Ms. Jacobs for pulling together this docket look ahead. In October and November, just a few things to call out. We'll have another zoning work session, another work session to start off the October session to talk about proposed amendments to the parking regulations for residential. This has been on the city's work plan, and so it's something we want to look at. It's also something that has an inject from state code requirements, again, How localities are setting parking regulations, so we'll brief you on that And then that would come back to you for your formal consideration as part of your November hearing Duke Street, you've seen that a number of times the Duke Street smaller plan We've got another update for you in October and then action expected sometime in January or February of next year

A QUICK CLARIFICATION. I SEE THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHICH WE HEARD TONIGHT AND THE YIGBE LEGISLATION ON NOVEMBER DOCKET BUT THE PARKING ONE, WOULD THAT GO TO DECEMBER PROBABLY? OR WE DON'T EVEN KNOW YET.

WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT. WE'LL OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE RIGHT DATE. WE'LL UPDATE YOU ON THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE WORK SECTION IF NOT SOONER. A couple of schools, one in October, one in November, doing field improvements. St. Stephen, St. Agnes actually proposing to put lights on their fields. And then Bishop Ireton in November not proposing to put on lights but proposing to do an improvement to their facilities. Zoning text amendments, you'd seen substandard lots previously as a discussion item. That's coming back to you for your consideration. And then a number of... infill developments as well as subdivision cases. And that wraps up, those were the things I wanted to highlight in the look ahead and that wraps up my report.

Thank you very much. I like the look ahead a lot. So thank you for the labor that goes into putting it together. You're welcome.

Also, Madam Chair, I just wanted to clarify that as in the past, I believe the commission needs to vote to accept the annual report and authorize your signature on the membership.

So we could vote to accept it with the addition of the green building? PLAN AS AN ITEM? YES.

OKAY. AND WE CAN SEND THAT AROUND FOR YOU ALL TO SEE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THAT SECTION WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT BUT YOU WON'T MEET AGAIN BEFORE WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THIS. OKAY.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE GREEN BUILDING POLICY ITEM AND FOR SIGNATURE.

All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Linehan and a second by Commissioner Manner to accept the annual report with the additions discussed. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0.

Thank you. Thank you.

And that brings us to minutes, I believe. Does anyone have comments, questions, or concerns about the minutes of the June 22nd meeting, which were conveyed? I remember looking at them. We didn't have any issues receiving them on time. All right. I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion to accept the meeting minutes for the June 22nd meeting.

I'll second. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Linehan and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to accept the minutes from the June 22nd meeting. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 6-0. And that brings us to adjournment. Would anyone like to move to adjourn?

Second.

All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Dubé and a second by Commissioner Linehan to adjourn tonight. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, 6-0. Thank you, everybody. It is what time is it? 9-14.

Good work.