Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Test test test. Test test test.

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, April 6, 2026 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Nia Begley, Chair. Please make note that our recess meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, April 7, will begin at 7:30. Tonight, we will hear and discuss the following items. Fiscal year 27 changes to DCPHD development related fees and items associated with the Walgreens site for redevelopment at 30 3130 Langston Boulevard. A few pointers before we get started. For participants, presenters, and speakers joining the meeting through Microsoft Teams, please keep your phones and other electronic devices muted until you are called upon by the clerk. Please turn off the sound to any devices around you to minimize interference and keep your cameras off until the clerk announces your name to speak. When called upon, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is in the meeting command bar at the top of the screen. Neither the moderator nor the clerk have the ability to unmute your mic. Once you have spoken, please mute your mics and turn your cameras off. If you are dialing in by phone to join the meeting, please press star six to unmute. Public speakers will be called upon by the clerk at an assigned time. Pre-registration with email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We are not able to accommodate additional speakers. All speakers virtually and hybrid will receive two minutes to comment as an individual. Only representatives of a county board appointed advisory group committee and or a commission will receive three minutes to comment. A timer will be displayed on the screen if speaking virtually and speakers in person will follow the timer stationed at the podium. Audio of tonight's meeting is available via phone. If commissioners, presenters, or speakers lose internet connectivity, please reconnect by phone. However, if you are

dialing in by phone and unable to see the screen, we will provide an audible 30 second warning to wrap up your comments. You will be muted when your time has expired. The meeting chat is active for presenters or commissioners who need technical assistance only. Please do not use the meeting chat for discussion, public comment, questions about agenda items, or requests for further information. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. Tonight's meeting will be available for review through the YouTube platform. A link has been provided on the planning commission website 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Although the meetings will no longer be a live broadcast, the meetings will be available for review with closed captioning on Comcast Xfinity channels 25 and 1073 and Verizon FiOS channels 39 and 40 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website via a link to YouTube. As stated, all information associated with tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. Madame Clerk, please call the first agenda item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first item is the fiscal year FY2027 changes to the Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development Developments Related fees for planning, zoning, and inspection services effective July the 1st. We have our uh planning staff, Mr. Jim Baker, to present this item to us.

Good evening, members of the planning commission. I'm Jim Baker. I am the uh newly appointed budget and finance manager for community planning, housing, and development. Um I'm here this evening, as Shel said, to speak on the uh fee changes and proposed changes for the FY27 proposed budget. Uh joining me here is uh Alexis, my our our budget analyst for the department, and then uh several staff who are on online on Teams to also enter answer any questions near the end of the presentation. There we go. All right. Just some background uh in relation to how we got to where we are now. Um in 2025, of course, uh many of you are familiar. We did the um the fee study well concluded in 2025 with a consulting firm to assess um you know our our process and review our uh our our fee structure and the way that we charge fees. Um it included uh both CPHD and dees uh as part of that um part of that study. Um and we concluded it in um in January 2024 with the implementation starting in 2025 and into 2026 as a multi- um multi-year uh process. So tonight we'll detail the FY27 proposed fees for planning, zoning, and the subset of dees um as well as uh the we'll go over some project examples uh so that you can get some some real real world uh examples there as we look at the fee changes.

So just a little bit more of a visual on our journey. Again, we completed the fee study in January of 2024. Um 2025 we're kind of fall calling the foundation because it was our first year of the implementation process. Um and then in 2026 um we went to the uh the the full scale adjustments that were planned um and fully implemented our target cost recovery um of 100% for all of our all of our fees. uh 2027 we're looking to continue that that trend and um stabilize uh you know where where we are on the on the cost recovery scale. So looking at the uh the proposed revenue changes for 2027 for for planning fees specifically sorry um we're coming in at 2.8 million on the planning side. you'll see that the overall budget impact uh is actually a reduction of approximately $23,000. Um although we um we are looking to to maintain that cost recovery uh in the aggregate that's how we see the the negative amount which is due to um just the overall activity that we have planned during that course of 2027. So the fees will go up but due to the activity um it's offset by uh a slight reduction and and therefore we get the the negative negative effect. Um also on the uh board's agenda for consideration is the local historic district designation fee. This is a new fee um that is uh being proposed. Uh it's again based on our cost recovery principles uh that came from uh the uh

the fee study. Um it's based on costs associated with this activity. Um and the calculation for the $500 uh uh estimate uh is related to um costs that were associated in the previous 12 months. So, we l the staff looked at what it costs us per request um and what that cost recovery would look like. Um and that's how the that's how we came to the the the amount of 250 per with a a max of 1,000. looking at the uh proposed uh sample projects to give you a little bit of context. Um on the left you'll see what the 2026 fees would have generated. Um and on 2027 you can see the what the proposed fees will generate. Um looking at the uh customer impact column on the right um for a uh semi- detached dwelling for example uh the 185% increase um all although looks ex looks looks high um it's it's part of that process again of us getting to the cost recovery um the 100% cost recovery that we're we're seeking out Um so although the the base fee is changing um the you know the the type of project um that that's here will see an increase. Just some more examples um on a a different scale with covering the residential commercial and adaptive

reuse and then also a special glove study. Um these fees were all adjusted on a the 3% um what we're calling an inflation indicator. Um and then the uh the other the glo study is the meets the uh the principle that we had of not in not increasing a fee at more than 200% in order to in order to achieve that cost recovery. Um here you can see the uh the staff recommendation. This is part of the uh this is part of the board report that will go toward for consideration to the board um at the end of near the end of the month. Um just giving you a chance to to see what that wording is for the for the staff recommendation. And then lastly, I just wanted to remind folks of the uh public engagement piece that's been ongoing. Uh we held work sessions both dees and CPHD. The NYOP meeting will be Wednesday, April 8th. Um board will uh go through their final decision and markup on April 16th. Um and then we will uh adopt a budget as county on April 21st. Any questions at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Baker. That's loud. Um I know we have no applicant this evening but uh do we have any public speakers? We do have one speaker uh Mr. John Muso. Great. Thank you.

Good evening members of the planning commission. Good evening members of planning commission. John Muso, government affairs manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. Um on behalf of the chamber, I just want to articulate that we recommend that the planning commission does not recommend um the fee increases that are proposed here. Specifically, um we expressed some strong concerns with the adaptive reuse amendment fee increase and the general lands plan study fee increase. Um doubling the cost of the GLUP study fee after have tripled it last year. um we believe would be have a substantial impact on the development of Arlington in Arlington going forward. We are aware of the economic realities that are impacting so much of planning and development in this county today and we feel that having such a stark increase over the course of just two years could have a potentially negative impact on attracting developers and projects to Arlington. Um, additionally, we also feel that the increase in the adaptive reuse amendments would potentially lead to um, lesser interest and engagement in bringing those projects online at a time when county policy has really been to encourage those going forward. Um, so we do very much thanks um, staff for their hard work on the budget. We, you know, commend the, you know, the commissions, the county board and so forth for their hard work on that. But we believe that adjusting these free increases to be more at a minimum more reasonable increases is in the best interest of Arlington's economy going forward. So we do strongly urge you to um either not recommend these increases or at a minimum please consider um not including the adaptive fee study fee increases. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I'm going to guess there's no commissions for this. No. In that case, I am going to open it up to our commission discussion. Anyone have any clarifying questions? Um, Commissioner Strer.

Okay. So, I remember discussing these last year. Um, and and I'm a little curious as to why the vast majority of these are moving with inflation and normal, you know, increases that you have over time and why some in particular here are just are just jumping in such dramatic ways. Um, the special GL piece was one mentioned by the chamber as well as adaptive reuse, but Colombia Pike and the formbbased code is another one that that sees a very dramatic increase. And I'm just curious like what is driving these particular increases rather than these sort of relatively modest increases we're seeing in other places here in the code. Um I may lean on Anthony here to uh to to uh provide some context, but um when we initially started the the process uh you know in 2025 into 2026, one of the um initial decisions was that we were going to slowly implement in order to minimize some of the uh customer burden. And then in during 2026, uh it was decided that we would just move forward with the full 100% cost recovery. And when we made that decision, certain fees that were held back previously that were only reaching the 75% cost recovery threshold were then adjusted for for that. Um so that's why you see the varying percentages and the varying um uh increases across the across the different fees. Okay. And then and then what's the sort of delta between revenue that we're that we're getting with these increases and and like what we're what we were getting in in 26 because I know the total is sort of 2.8 million but I'm curious what the sort of difference is between 27 and 26 with these fees like

are we really putting all this burden potentially on developers for a marginal increase in the budget? That that's kind of my the thrust of the question. So overall like overall throughout the department or are you speaking specifically just for the planning piece? Relative to the 2.8. So like what are we coming up from to get to overall on the planning side we'll see that slight decrease due to activity. Um but if there are uh you know projects that show up in the pipeline during the course of that we may we may be able to make up that gap right like sometimes there are projects that we just don't know about

uh when before we start the fiscal year and um again this is a framework and you know we we would hope that um eventually we would uh you know we would make up that that difference throughout the year based on um you know different projects cyclines what have you that just aren't and our uh foresight right now. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just kind of I'm kind of getting at more like the projected revenue like what what did we take in last year as like is relative to what we're

that I do not have for you right at this moment, but I would be more than happy to to follow. So, thank you for your question. I would be more than happy to follow up with the the commission on that. Um, and uh, I can also include where we kind of are right now because we've just finished our third quarter and so we have a pretty good outlook on where where we can end up with the rest of the year, but I would be happy to provide that information and follow up. Great. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, that's all I got. Commissioner Peterson,

thank you. Um, so first I want to say in general I'm very supportive of cost recovery um, and having that align to what our fees are. Um, I do have an interest in when there, and I made this point last year, when there is a fee that is related to one of our county priorities, is there an interest to not be seeking cost recovery? Um, and an example is the adaptive reuse. Um, commercial vacancy rate in Arlington has been problematic for years. Um we are because of this great new policy that the community put together. Um we have been seeing a lot of the conversions um from commercial to residential. We are really excited about that. In talking to some of my planning commission colleagues from other um parts of the region, they haven't seen as much uptick in the the conversion um as Arlington has. So I think that means our policy is working the way we want it to. Um, so I'm just interested in how an increase in fees could potentially negatively impact, you know, the interest in converting. Um, my memory from when we as a commission discussed this policy about a year and a half ago was that there was only a handful of buildings that were even interested in or possible that we could convert. Um, so does it make sense to increase the fees for this if it's for a small number of buildings and we really just want to get this work done? Have we looked at um the fees, what percentage of the of the overall project is so that we know or we feel comfortable um about whether this would be a deterrent for someone to actually pursue a conversion. Alexis is gonna is gonna fill in some gaps here, but um I can tell you it certainly is discussed because we we don't want to negatively impact anyone

with just a abruptly increasing a fee, right? Um and you know, uh a uh a good example of that would be the childare centers, right? That was my next point. We we would that was we would certainly want to take that into consideration and and understand that uh that's a a high high need area and priority amongst uh all of county leadership and the board and so we wouldn't want to negatively impact uh that development through just a arbitrary free increase. Mhm.

I do see Anthony Fuseli is on. Um I do want to say one thing, Alexis Gio, budget analyst for CPHD. Um part of the FY26 budget proposal, which was last year, we came to the planning commission and discussed our fee proposals. Um it was the CPHD's recommendation to fully recover costs on the adaptive reuse. So right now the um methodology CPHD and the county manager is using is we are increasing fees to reach 100% cost recovery not to exceed 200% over the current fee amount and we've been doing that over the last two years as Jim mentioned the year the year and two prior to that was a different methodology. Um while we presented full cost recovery to adaptive reuse and childare and all those fees as part of the FY26 budget, the county board made the decision to leave adaptive reuse along with um the uh child care fees flat. So uh it is CPHG's recommendation again with the methodology of recovering 100% cost recovery on the work that CPHD staff is doing on this type of work. Uh we are presenting 100% cost recovery. the manager is on board with that and if the uh board suggests again that this again is a priority for the for the uh for the county and is concerned about it being a deterrent would I would assume has the opportunity to approach it in the same way as it did last fiscal year.

Okay. But it is CPHD's goal to receive 100% cost recovery of the work that is being done.

Okay. Great. Um, yeah, it just these projects have the potential to move really fast and I think the revenue impact from the taxes of a productive building could definitely outweigh the costs of the fees. So, if the board does decide again to wave the fees for these particular projects, I think that would make a lot of sense. Um, daycarees was the other item on my agenda. Daycarees um have been uh for many years a priority for the county. There are shortages across the county. Um the fees that are suggested have very low impact to our county's revenues, but a very very big impact to a small business that just wants to help take care of our our family's children. And so again, I I would say I I said last year, I don't like the fees um for daycarees. Um and I'll say it again for this year. Um I think that we shouldn't be charging fees for small businesses that are just trying to take care of our children and provide a service to the community. Thank you. Understood. Just a point of clarification, the board did not wave fees for adaptive reuse. They just didn't increase them to the 100% cost recovery up to 200% increase. There were still fees for adaptive reuse projects. They just didn't do the jumps that you see those specific fees doing. And just to follow up on that, the reason why certain fees are jumping now while others are not is because those other fees have reached 100% cost recovery and the ones that are increasing these large amounts have not yet. And so the goal is to again 100% cost recovery, not to exceed a 200% increase. So as long as the fee increase this year, last year, next year doesn't exceed the 200%, they will continue to increase to uh reach the 100% cost recovery. The good news is, as you noticed, a lot of those fees are only getting the inflationary increase because they have reached the 100% cost recovery. There's just a couple of fees that are lagging behind. Um, and if I'm not mistaken, Anthony, correct me if I'm wrong. We did not

increase daycare fees to the 100% cost recovery for FY27. I can't I'm looking through the notes now.

Yeah, Alexis, thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and planning commissioners. Um, Anthony Fuserelli with the planning division for the record. Um, Alexis, I can follow up on that question. I I think one point I would note as well in the um Commissioner Peterson in regard to your question about uh child care is that um within the past year uh the board did approve zoning ordinance amendments to no longer require use permits for uh family daycare home uh uses and providers. And so that um in our view has been a positive step forward in terms of limiting additional fees um where we have other um vehicles and avenues to ensure proper you know certification and management of those uses. Um if I could as well go back to I think the previous question on adaptive reuse. Uh also noting there that even with and I think um Alexis hit hit upon this as well. Even with the 200% increase in that fee proposed um for this year um the fiscal 26 fee uh level relative to cost recovery um as was said is such a low amount uh that we believe recommending the increase uh that's presented um now gives us an opportunity to monitor uh over the next year you know if there are potential impacts um on uh reducing interest in those types of applications. We don't believe uh that the level of increase um gets us there quite yet. Um but that is an area we can continue to monitor and track uh moving forward.

Commissioner uh Garcia,

thank you. Um I think just to follow on with uh Commissioner Shriner, Commissioner Peterson's line of questioning, I know you guys mentioned that there were um you had engaged with the community. Uh so specifically as it relates to the adaptive reuse um fees and the GLUP study fees, did you have conversations with the community or with the the local businesses and developers about those fees and if they would dissuade development? Um, as for actual like dates and times, if you're looking for specifics, I don't have that in my back pocket right at this moment. But, um, of course, we we always want to seek out that feedback to anyone who's going to be impacted. Um, especially, you know, when it comes to uh an instance where it's going to cost cost them money or more money. Um, but I can again I can certainly like

I guess I'm I'm asking um you know we received the Chamber of Commerce's letter which suggested that in comparison to neighboring counties that this could decrease the competitiveness of Arlington County in in bringing in some of these developments. And so I'm just curious um I heard you know Anthony just now say that we it was kind of a look and see approach. I'm just curious if if there's been engagement with developers to find out how much this might impact them and choosing Arlington over another uh local county.

Sure. Um and I'm sure that uh we'll we'll also get an earful of that on Wednesday when we talk to our NYOP friends. Um I'm sure that they they will be happy to give us some some feedback because they're all private developers. But um did you have anything to add? Yeah. Yeah. So, we have the the NYOP meeting on Wednesday at which I'm sure you know we'll we'll be able to engage, but um you know, as to specifics, I apologize. I don't have specifics of of uh but we certainly don't want to deter anybody from not wanting to look at Arlington as a potential site for development and business. Thank you, Commissioner L. Tell me then, Commissioner Steinberger.

Uh yeah. Um, first I would associate myself with Commissioner Peterson um and Commissioner Striner. Um, I think their comments are are well taken. Um, I note that for example, special glove studies, um, it's a flat rate. It's a large increase and I understand why, but it's still a large increase. Um, and I think that we have a number of fairly small sites within the county and some that we have for this commission have dealt with um that involved very tiny properties yet it's a flat rate no matter how big the site is. I think that by going up so high and having it a flat rate, we're basically having a lot of orphan sites, we'll just simply never qualify, never be able to economically even go through a special glove study, much less redevelop it because this is such a will be such a high flat rate to do the special glove study. Um, and I think that's something we really need to look at because we have increasing numbers of these little orphan sites in the uh in the the metro corridors in the in the um in the sector plan area plan areas. Um, and you know, part of it is because we have a number of sector and area plans that are really outdated. And that's why we've had to have special glove studies is because the plans are so outdated that they don't really reflect current market conditions or even thinking of how we want to do planning for a particular area. Um, so I'm I'm very I'm I'm not thrilled with the way this is being done uh for the special club studies. Um, I also noted we have very large increases for UCDs and URDS. Um, and sort of what's going on with those. Um, and I also note the school fees which we just talked about, they actually they're trip they're they're tripling. Um, and I'm particularly concerned for the small ones um, for enrollment under 100. These

these these are entities that are not highly profitable. Um, and this these amounts make a difference. So, I'm afraid what we're doing is we're discouraging our small businesses. We're inc we're discouraging redevelopment of small properties um because our fee rate is going up so high that it's going to be uneconomic for the smaller businesses, the smaller properties to be able to redevelop the way we want or we that are desirable. Um, and I definitely want to just again resourcing myself on the um, adaptive reuse. Those are quick wins for the county. Um, and saying, well, well, yeah, we're going to do it and see what happens. Well, if we lose even one project in the course of a year and it gets delayed by a year, that wipes out all the savings that we have or or the additional revenue that we've gotten by not getting additional taxes from that property for that year or two that it isn't being done or it's never being done. That's money that's we never get. So, I think we're being pennywise and pound foolish when it comes to the adaptive reuse properties. Thank you. Commissioner Steinberger,

I wasn't sure if there was going to be a response to that from the floor, but apparently not. Um, so I think you heard from a few people. Um, and I do apologize um for being tardy. I have, however, read the pres, you know, reviewed the presentation um, uh, beforehand. And um one of the things that I think you've heard from a few different people this evening on kind of you know picking apart some of the individual fees and everyone sort of has their individual you know pair area potentially you know where they they might you know ask more specific questions whether it's about childare centers or adaptive reuse or what have you. So, I'm going to pull the thread on local historic districts um since, you know, I came to planning commission by way of the HLRB and I have a soft spot for that and they've expressed you know considerable concern that the fees for local historic districts are increasing so greatly. Um I was trying to scroll through and could not find the uh exact uh increase uh so quickly, but it's going up to 500 from what is the current fee?

This is this is a new fee and it's fully new. Okay. Yeah. 250 $250 $250 for per uh request up to four where it will be $1,000. So you'll pay 250 for one 250 that's 500 for the second one. Uhhuh. 750 for the third a,000 for four plus. And that's per applicant. Per applicant. Yes.

Okay. So talk me through that a little bit in terms of sort of the scenario in which the same applicant would need to go through the are we talking about going through the process four times potentially on any individual site or this would be one applicant who might have four is that common when you're applying for a local historic district that you have to go through the same process for the same property so many times?

Uh that I'm that I'm not aware of. Um so if if you it would be per property. So my apologies if there was confusion there when I first said that but per property. So if one person did had if multiple people had the same request like that that would be bundled to to that same request and if it was a different property it would be counted as a separate request. Then that would be a separate 250. Okay. So if multiple people wanted to bring a local historic district designation for the same property in conceptually they would split the fee. It would still be a total of 250 because it aligned to the property not the individual making the application. Right. That's my understanding is

okay. Um, you know, certainly I think that the projection that uh number that was touted out is that this is expected to maybe raise something in the ballpark of like $500 in revenue. I don't think that many people pursue local historic designations um in Arlington County. Uh even if we wish that they would do so a little more, you know, or some people feel that way. Um, so the effect of sort of putting any fee on that when it would raise such a low amount in revenue, I I think that there's some understandable confusion as to where the um, you know, is that really the alignment of where sort of the focus should be when we're talking about applying some of these fees? And if we're already in a situation, I think others talked about, you know, with adaptive reuse, that you don't want to inadvertently chill people from pursuing this, that certainly a feeling that, you know, is abundant when we're talking about, you know, from the perspective of the HLRB, from the community that's interested in historic preservation in, you know, having more folks, you know, consider and pursue the local historic designation opportunity. And that's something that I I think that you know it it there is a concern there and I think it's worth having this body consider it to get your feedback on that to sort of raise you know raise that concern to the level of you know group discourse in this forum.

So I just I want to make one thing clear um that in no way is this fee punitive towards applicants. um is strictly based on our cost recovery principles again where we looked at 12 months worth of expenses per request and looked at what it typically would cost for staff to handle this request through the through the process. So, we certainly don't want to deter anybody from uh submitting a request or or um you know pursuing uh historic designation for for sites that they um have identified of as interest. Um I'm I appreciate that and I I certainly wasn't implying an intentionality to a a punitive action here. that was, you know, not my my goal in the statement. Um, I think that when we're talking about, I think Commission Lantel hit on this as well. We're talking about so little revenue being raised from some of these permit processes in the context of the overall, you know, the county's budget. I am wondering if we are fixating on the right things, not just with LH, the local historic districts, but in a broader context as well. And so I'm still mulling this over, but I may very well make a motion to, you know, strip the new fee for local historic districts from, you know, consideration of this body. Not necessarily to, you know, I think HLB had suggested, you know, increasing fees elsewhere. I'm not interested in sort of taking a wider look at, you know, increasing fees elsewhere, but I I do think that there's maybe room for some scaffolding when it comes to, you know, the application of that new fee and and what the potential impact could be. So, I'm going to think on that a

little bit and see if any others have questions or thoughts on that. Thank you. I uh want to follow up on uh Commissioner Steinberger's comments because I also too have a soft spot for historic things. Um and I did note in the email that was received from Halb that they did uh suggest they didn't say, "Hey, just don't raise our fees." They also suggested another way to recoup fees short of um increasing the other one to 500. So, I'm wondering if it would be possible for the county to consider raising the demolition fee um versus the trying to get your place done historically. It sends a message that maybe we do want to preserve history and we don't, you know, maybe if somebody is going to demolish something. I don't think somebody who really wants to demolish something is going to demolish it anyway, whether it's $1,000 or whatever. And it may very well be taxdeductible. I don't know. But um is there any way we could consider that versus the other fee? Because this body heard I want to say two different uh historic uh district um uh I uh projects within the last year, year and a half. And both were individual property owners. One in Cherryale just trying to protect they felt the need to protect their historic home after you know their demise. So um you know I I I'm just a little sensitive to this topic too. So is it possible to consider that instead? So I one thing real quick a point of clarification uh that those are two different like funding sources, right? Like the demolition is handled not of course by any of our historic preservation folks. Um so it's it's uh more of our our uh development fund

side. So um you know it's it's two different funding sources. Um if you know again it all comes down to a board decision. If the board decided that they wanted to pursue uh you know a different option um you know we we would be open to having of course those discussions. There's nothing that is uh restricting us from having those discussions.

I have a couple other questions. Um, one, and this is this was something I brought up, I think I bring it up every year, and, uh, you alluded to a little bit, um, Commissioner Garcia, the process, it would be helpful for us if this comes up to actually have had the meeting with NAOP first because I feel like sometimes the process, we're not really um, queued in to what the community feels who might be most directly impacted by most of this um, without the letter from, you know, the chamber or from Halb. So, it would be helpful in the future when we're planning these out to make it look like the process is a maybe perhaps a little bit more transparent because right now I don't feel like it feels that way. Um, so, uh, also, um, should this all should some of these things that we've talked about, and I know this is very speculative, be denied or we recommend, not that the county board would follow, but if we would recommend any sort of denial this evening, how much of a budget impact does does that have on your division? And I know that's very speculative, but I'm just curious. I know that's it's kind of hard to answer, but I'm just I'm just thinking it out. Yeah. Um it would depend on which which section you uh the commission decided to oppose as well. If there were really particular fees or areas that you know as part of the um you know the schedule that um is is going before the board that uh you you wanted to move forward with the you know opposing. Um so as an actual fiscal impact I couldn't I couldn't necessarily give you that right now in the moment. Uh but there certainly would be would be something because uh you know myself, Alexis, all of our staff have put in at this point probably hundreds if not thousands of

hours in in calculating uh this uh these these fees along with the the increases um and and balancing that uh out in our FY27 proposed.

Okay. And one more uh question. Um, last year when we were talking about fees, I asked and staff wasn't able to give me an answer, but there was an applicant in the room that did and I was wondering at that time and I got a nod from the one that was here at that time and um, my question was are the fees that are associated with, you know, the project construction and all those other things like the glop fee and all those things, are they taxdeductible? Simple nod. They don't know. Okay. Last year's last year's applicant that was here nodded yes. So I was just curious. So okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Amado, this may seem like an obvious question, but also the has there been an analysis on the burden on projects in terms of process? Like have are there studies to streamline some of the projects especially depending on size, depending on location? I mean, I'm just

Well, I mean, we're we're always sort of reviewing ways to facilitate better, right? When um you know, when there are site plan applications and and um you know, development projects that are coming through. I mean, Anthony and his staff are doing a a lot of u moving around a puzzle pieces and chess pieces to make sure that they can um appropriately lend the the right review and the the amount of time that's needed for each one of those. Um and you know, we're we're certainly always looking at ways to to move those through as quickly as possible. Of course, sometimes as the commission is probably also aware, there there are extrenuating circumstances that, you know, we run into or the developer run runs into or or whatever uh that that ends up being. So, but we always are are doing our best to to try and not create additional barriers, especially, you know, when it comes to uh these uh these important projects.

Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, Commissioner Strider. So, just sorry, one one follow up the Alexis comment on Alexis Lake. Go ahead.

Um, I just wanted to follow up on Chair Bag Chairwoman Baggley's um comment. Uh, the goal is always to meet with the um public groups and community groups in an order that makes sense. Unfortunately, um the timing of the meetings sometimes don't line up. Right now with an AOP we um they are meeting with Arlington staff every other month and it doesn't flow with the time that the manager submits his budget proposal to when we are then allowed to have a discussion about it to them when we're allowed to come to planning commission. So while the goal obviously is to make sure that um all of those are created in an order to where people can make the most informed decision. It doesn't always allow itself like that, but um what we can do is see if there's a way where we can schedule it differently next year to see if we can get those conversations in an order that is I appreciate that. I think that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Okay. Just so in terms of like just respond to me with head nods or head shakes on this one. Um, so if I were to propose an alternate motion here, um, that haps this sort of per fee increase at 50% rather than sort of taking what Commissioner Steinberger was saying, a sort of like individual approach to these, um, would there be support on the commission for capping the increase at 50% per fee? I'm seeing mixed reactions. What would the impact be on new fees? It didn't exist before, right? What happens when you multiply something by zero? Yeah. Um, so I can I just want to say give me a math quiz.

We do this every year and we just spitball a number time speaking I think speaking. I mean I kind of but I didn't raise my hand. So all right. So Patel went ahead. You go. I'll raise my hand. I'll go after Commissioner Patel. Okay. Um, we do this every year. We spitball numbers. We have no basis in doing it. And so I just want to formally say I would not be in support of just throwing out a 50% number. Commissioner Steinberg and then Commissioner don't want a math quiz, but I think what you're saying is that it would get rid of the new fees that didn't exist before.

Well, it just wouldn't be able to address it because if it's zero, it can't increase from zero because Yeah. I still feel like you gave me a pop quiz. I don't like that.

Commissioner Peterson. Um, so I I wanted to say that I in this the whole reason that we're doing these increases in fees is because several years ago we decided that most of these fees should be cost recovery and we were already doing it in a phased multi-year approach. So I think that this is just the next step in the multi-year approach and we are in a very challenging budget season where we are going to be cutting a lot of important programs. So, I'm okay with most of the fee increases with the exception of the couple that to me very much relate to established county policy. And so I plan to have some motions that say like don't increase the daycare and child care fees and um potentially uh reassess midyear the adaptive reuse fees to see if we are seeing an impact and we're not seeing applications and and maybe NOP is telling us it's because of the fees then maybe in six months we are able to reassess and say hey let's put the fees back to where they were. Commissioner Patel, then Commissioner Stryinberger,

I um just wanted to let everybody know that my vote would be in favor of the c the recommendation. Um I I think that we struggle every year with this parsing out certain fees because we're trying to figure out what matters and what doesn't matter, but I don't believe that that is um we don't have the full story. And so when we're thinking about what the impact is on, you know, child care, what the impact, we have no idea where other budget items are coming from. But I think the most important thing for me uh is what you've hit on already. We are in a extremely tight budget year. This is a multi-phase process. We are looking at recovering all fees associated with development and this is a place that we have gotten to after multi multiple years of study. So, I am in favor of supporting this particular motion. I don't believe that we are in a budget cycle that allows us to subsidize these costs anymore. Um, particularly when the budget is speaking specifically to human services as a priority. Thank you.

Commissioner Steinberger, did you want to make a comment? Yeah, I'll soft pull. Commissioner Steiner gave me the idea, even though I did not like your quiz, um, to soft pull the body. Um, with regards to the local historic district fees, if a motion were made to either remove that new fee or to, you know, install it at a lower number, just give me eyeballs or nodding or something. What would be the situation? Okay, I've got one supporter. Okay, thank you. That helps me give me context. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner Lel.

Yeah. Um, I would be happy to support a motion that Commissioner Peterson is talking about introducing. I think that moves in the right direction. Um, it's too late for us to deal with this now. This is coming to us. You know, we have to vote on it one way or another. Um, I would very much like for next year, as Mr. Patel noted, this comes up every year. Um, could we get a briefing earlier on about this? And I'd like to get some ideas for um like for the Columbia Pike, we have it by square footage. We have a base fee and then by square footage above that. Why could not we have that for other parts of this? What would that mean? Um I'd like to know the impact for and I'd like to get our economic development commission involved in this. You know, what is the impact of this? What do they see? Um I'd really like to hear from them about this. Um because this isn't just a planning. This is an economic clearly an e economic issue. Um I very much would like to see you know again adaptive reuse earlier on. Um and I'd like to see how do we deal are we actively discouraging small sites from being redeveloped because of these fees. I'd like to know some information about that. So I'd like maybe six months from now, nine months from now to be briefed as a commission anformational session on this and I would very much recommend that NYOP be before us. Um I don't think that's too unreasonable to ask. Thank you.

Commissioner Amado,

I'm the leazison to the economic development commission. I'd be glad to go and ask them directly on Tuesday. Um but the uh I'm I'm a little anxious about spe being so specific about certain projects. Are there any? Then we're like I feel the anxiety of like okay what else are we not considering? So to me this feels um strange. Of course I'm this is the first time I've seen anything like it. So I'm very curious about how we get here. I'm curious about all the processes, the costs, all of these things. also because sometimes I'm on the other end of it. Um, you know, looking at even with single family homes, how much it costs to to do anything in Arlington right now. So, it's it's very interesting. So, is there anything that we're forgetting? And then isn't it dangerous for us to say we're going to say yes to this, no to that, and then be so specific about that, and no other things? Seeing no other com. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, Commissioner, you go please. You go first. Commissioner, I just had a quick one um to add on to what Commissioner Land tell me was recommending for next year. I I think you know it really would be useful to see the fee comparison across local counties uh uh neighboring counties. I think that is should be something that that should inform our uh you know competitiveness as a county. And so I find it very I find it challenging to to weigh in without understanding that. So, I think I think that would be really uh beneficial if go ahead.

Um to to the extent that Commissioner Peterson plans on making her motion, I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Feifer um my my vote will be based on the fact that I'm not parsing out fees. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioner Lantel, can you read the motion, please? Sure. staff has a comment.

I just wanted to address um the commission members comment. Um as part of the um evaluations of the fees and the fee studies that we we went through, we went through an exercise on trying to compare fees to local jurisdictions. And what we found out across the board between planning, inspection services, and zoning fees, development fees in general, is that each jurisdiction does it differently. And it is very difficult to find an apple on apple comparison. Um and so we found that the data was not useful. Um we every year or two actually we try and go back and dig through it and see if we can find any useful data. But because the type the way that other fee schedules and the way that other jurisdictions charge for certain tasks, it is really and truly difficult to find something that aligns with what Arlington is doing in a one forone kind of um comparison. I will of course Jim and I will take this back to the planning division and see if there is anything that we can evaluate differently. Um, I just wanted to put it out there that we have done that in the past, done the work, the leg work, the benchmarking, the comparisons, and were unable to come up with data that made sense.

No, I I appreciate you you providing that additional information. I think then it just would be kind of working together to figure out how we can um weigh ourselves from a competitive competitiveness perspective, right? It sounds like if the data is all different, well then how maybe we maybe queries are sent out to developers or something or the economic uh development uh commission there there has to be some way we can have this data to inform uh our way forward. Commissioner Lantel, I think we're ready for the motion.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt fiscal year 2027 changes to CPHD development related fees as depicted on the inspection services and zoning and planning fee schedules related to building and trade permits, administrative changes, form-based code applications, site plan applications, administratively reviewed permits and requests, certificates of occupancy, variances, use permits, local historic Park district designations and other fees as shown in attachments A and B to the staff report dated March 19, 2026 and in the staff presentation for the April 6, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Second. Commissioner Peterson seconded. And can I do an amendment? Yes, you can do a Yes. Okay. So, I would like to move that the planning commission recommend to the county board to not increase fees for childcare centers and nursery schools. And then I will do a second motion with the other one. Second. Commissioner Striner um seconded that. Any discussion on your motion?

Uh not more than I said already, which is just that um this is a county priority. There are shortages across the county and I think these fees will have a minimal impact to the county revenue but a very big impact to the small businesses that are struggling to have child care in the county. Okay. Um any other uh Commissioner Amado or you ready to vote? I think you're going to ask me first. No, no, no. I'm not ready to Are there any other comments or questions before we move to a vote? Okay, great. All right, we'll do this alphabetically. Commissioner Amado. Oh, the alphabet. I'm sorry.

The alphabet. Um, I I'm very hesitant because I I appreciate the spirit. I feel the the need to maybe look into who else who are the downtrodden that we're trying to protect and is there more that we're forgetting? So, is that enough to just say daycare? So, I don't know how to vote because I'm torn between the idea of yes, that works, but what else? You could you have yes, no, or abstain. Don't count. I just wanted to qualify what I'm about to say. Yeah. I don't Is there such a thing as a pass? I don't think so. No. No. Sorry. There's no passing here.

So, so I'm gonna I'm gonna say abstain because I don't want to say nay. Very good. All right. Commissioner Garcia. Yes. All right, Commissioner Johnson. I'm so used to being like Whitfield, so I was like, "What to you Johnson?" I know. I I know. I know. It just caught me off guard. Sorry. Um I am going to abstain. Um just from the standpoint of um the child care situation is is not as bad as we think it is. And I know that for a fact. Okay. Commissioner Lentel. I Okay. Commissioner Patel.

No. Okay. Commissioner Peterson. I. Okay. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Steinberger. I. Commissioner Striner. Hi. And Commissioner Begley. That's me. I'm going to go no. So, uh, Mr. Fifer, I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, uh, eyes's, two nays, and two abstensions. Jive with your job. Very good. That's what I love that. All righty. So, yes. So, you have another uh

Okay. And my second motion is I move the planning commission recommend to the county board to direct the county manager to reassess adaptive reuse fees midyear to ensure that there hasn't been a negative impact to applications. I'll second that. Commissioner Lantel seconded. Any other discussion, questions, comments? No. All right. Here. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Steinberg,

I'm I'm going to vote nay on that one. Um I I understand the reasoning behind wanting to reassess this in six months, but I also understand that in a challenging budget environment, maybe when we are doing more with less in terms of staff resources, maybe doing a reassessment in six months isn't necessary. I feel like it's fine to do the assessment in a year, which is what we're doing anyway. So, that's my reasoning. Thank you. If there are no other Oh, Commissioner Johnson.

I just would like it to be read again because I it was very fast. So, I apologize, Senly, but that's fine. Um, so I move the planning commission recommend to the county board to direct the county manager to reassess the adaptive reuse fees midyear to ensure there hasn't been a negative impact to applications. Thank you. All right, so moving along to the vote. Wait, I I sorry I'm thinking this through my head. My my concern is I don't know how they're going to assess that. And so in my opinion, I almost think we just don't increase it at all.

I mean, I don't think it has to be a big reassessment. I think if they're just talking to applicants who had expressed interest and then suddenly they're saying, "No, we're not going to do it. We're going to wait longer." Then that could be enough for the county board to say, "Put the fees back down." I I don't want this to be like a big study. Can you do a midyear change of fees? Excuse me. What's the Can you change the year fees midyear? Could you reduce them again? Yeah. Yeah. It would just take board action. We would do we would put forth the recommendation through CMO. It would go to the board. They would evaluate, go through the same debative process and make a decision, take action.

Mr. Steiner, you have a question. If we did the assessment halfway through the year, then we have to do the staff analysis, then the report, then the commission, then the board, then we're all we're already at 2028 at that point. That's kind of my I think it needs to be a big assessment. I think if like three applicants said I mean there's only like 10 projects that can be converted. So if three of them are like we're not doing this because of your fees, then the staff can write up a memo, it goes on the consent agenda and it's fixed.

Yeah. I I would rather to go back to my original plan. I kind of like the idea of just kind of capping it at a certain percentage, but that's I'll still support it because the board is going to see us discussing this on their report anyway. So, you still have my vote on this. The vote. So, it looks like we're ready to vote. We'll do this alphabetically. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Garcia, I I will support it as well. Um though I am concerned I I do think I it would also have been nice to not have it increased or have it be capped. So but yes I Commissioner Johnson nay. Okay. Uh Commissioner Lantel I.

Commissioner Patel nay. Commissioner Peterson I. Commissioner Robertson nay. Uh Commissioner Steinberger nay. Commissioner Striner I. Uh, I'm voting nay. So, let's see. One, two, three, four, five eyes and one, two, three, four, five nays. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Very good. I'm not sure what that means. Um, it's a tie. We have a face off. Let's go shoot some basket. I may It fails. Yeah, it fails. Okay. All right. So, that

So, could we make a motion then to cap it? like uh Commissioner Striner, could we make a new motion to maybe cap the increase not at I guess 200%. Can you come back to me on that? Well, I didn't know we have because it's going to be amended by the Yes. Yes. We're good. That's okay. No, I might need a second to cook something up, but um come back to me on that. Sorry. Are there other No, this is it. This This is the last one. Oh my. And I don't think anyone wants to hear my rendition of the victors or anything right now. So,

Commissioner, I don't know what to do to fill in the time. Wait. Were you I do have a question for Commissioner Lyn. Tell me about Were you going to propose an amendment on the on the GLUP based on size? Okay. Yeah. It require a lot more than just this. This is why I wanted it for next year.

Yeah. I mean, that's that's kind of where I'm at with it. Like I mean, we I could throw out an arbitrary 50%, but that's kind of what you get with uh with Commissioner Patel raised. So, I can make that motion and we'll just do it for the for the record. But, um I don't have any data backing that up necessarily. I'd rather have a motion like along lines of what Commissioner Lent Tell me was getting at, which is that we should have this briefing earlier in the year, but I don't know if that's a motion that we can make. Huh? Yep.

Okay. We want to be briefed earlier next year. I think Commissioner Lel made that clear, but just I'll reiterate that that's something I would also support. Um because I think then we don't end up in this situation where we're trying to make economic policy from the bench so to speak without data. And when you say earlier in the year, what do you mean by that? Commissioner Lami, I liked what you were saying. Please resume. Yeah, I'd like to have you come to talk to us maybe three months before this. So the issue is that is that we aren't allowed to talk about the county manager's proposed budget before he proposes it and he doesn't propose it until February. What's the earliest you could come talk to us?

Well, anything that's in the proposed budget or is under consideration in the proposed budget by CMO, we need to wait until the CMO releases the proposed budget. So, February midFebruary. Yes. Okay. Okay. That's still the two months earlier than this. No, I think it wouldn't make the fir wouldn't make the February meeting. It would make the March meeting because it would come midFebruary and we meet the first week of February. Yeah. Typically the the board meeting for the proposed budget is around the 18th to the 22nd. So the March but Mar it would be our March meeting, right? It would be it would be a March meeting would be the target date

because I would like to have some sort of way that we could have a discussion with you about what we're seeing and what we would like to know. It doesn't mean you have to tell us what the numbers are going to be, but it's more a case of what are you seeing? what are your numbers that you're seeing that we could then use because as Commissioner Steiner Steiner said there's no data. um if you start having data and again it's not what the board's even what you're recommending but just tell us what you're seeing and see can we then use that to evaluate where we're going to be going and give you questions just issues just for clarification when you say what you're seeing you're saying like project pipeline wise like what what we would expect

for example how many for for adaptive reuse how many projects have been coming up

okay so I I would interpret that to being like a a pipeline type of you Are you seeing more of these type of projects? Are we seeing fewer of these? How many special glops are we now getting? You know, that type of thing so we can get a feel for for that. And I'd like to have the discussion on the policy grounds of these, you know, small small parcels. Are they in, you know, if you can talk to NYOP, can we get idea from the, you know, the from NOAP whether we're just losing development because it's not economic to redevelop some of these orphan sites in the CO districts. That's the type of information I think we'd like to get and have a discussion on. We're not even asking for to give a conclusion, but have the discussion. Thank you.

Sure. Okay. I think we've drunk that point home. Are you going to make No. Okay. So, back to the initial now amended motion. We are going to vote on that so that we can move along. Um, Commissioner Amado. So, this is the initial motion. It's amended for the dayare as for the daycare, right? Abstain. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Garcia, hi. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Johnson, I am abstaining. Okay. Commissioner Lental, I Commissioner Patel, nay. Commissioner Robertson,

I. Commissioner uh, Peterson, I'm sorry. I Commissioner Steinberger I Commissioner Steiner I and I will vote nay on that. So we have one two three four five six uh eyes's and um two naysay

two nays and two abstains. Thank you. Thank you. Is that correct? Excellent. Okay. So I want to thank everybody for uh first of all for your patience. I know that the next one queued up and for the speakers and everything. Um I think you can see that this would I think this topic would have gone much smoother this evening had just a little bit of um uh prep for it because we're all kind of floundering around as to how we should u respond as has been well stated tonight. So I again whatever you can do to fix this. so it doesn't go like this next year will be greatly appreciated. But I know how much this is a very difficult time for staff. Um you don't have enough dollars for everything that everybody expects of the county. So, you know, again, we appreciate everything that you're doing and wish you the best in this very um crazy time for you. And again, I want to thank the speakers and those of the and the folks who sent uh comments to us. Madame Clerk, would you care to call the next item? Yes, thank you. Our next item is associated with 3130 Langston Boulevard, known as the Walgreens site for redevelopment. We have the GLUP GLPA24-0000004, the general land use plan amendment reszoning ren0000004 and SPLN24-00004 for the site plan 481. We have our very own Matt Feifer to present this item to us this evening.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Um, Madame Chair, uh, my name is Matt Viper with the Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development, uh, Planning Division, and I have my colleague Bryce Johnson with the Department of Environmental Services, Development Services Bureau here to, uh, assist. Uh the item we will be discussing this evening is uh a GLUP amendment resoning and new site plan uh known as site plan 481 for uh what we've called the Walgreens site at 3130 Langston Boulevard. So uh again uh this uh package consists of a general land use plan amendment to change the uh GLUP designation from public and service commercial to medium office apartment hotel. uh a reszoning of the site from C2 to CO2.5 uh and a new site plan to permit construction of a 13-story building with 300 residential units and approximately 7200 square ft of ground flooror retail. Uh so the subject site is located at 3130 Langston Boulevard. Uh it's bounded on the north by Langston Boulevard on the east by the famous pawn site which we have referred to as the pawn shop site. uh on the on the south by Kirkwood Road and on the west by the Interstate 66 offramp. So uh this section will talk a little bit about adopted plans and policies that are applicable to the site. Uh so the site is currently identified on the general land use plan as service commercial. Uh the current map does show a portion of the site as public. Uh however, staff research has identified that this is likely a remnant from when VOTE was acquiring right ofway for I66. Um and uh over the years uh due to um the way the Glo map was drawn uh encompasses a little bit uh more of the

site than it had originally. Um for those reasons uh and the fact that the site has uh long been zoned C2, staff does, uh believe that the correct designation is service commercial. Langston Boulevard area plan also identifies the site as recommended for general land use plan amendments. uh when redevelopment occurs. The applicant is proposing to amend the GUP designation from medium office apartment uh with to medium office apartment hotel which is consistent with the Langston Boulevard area plan recommendation uh and will facilitate redevelopment in accordance with the area plan. site is currently zoned C2 and the applicant is proposing to reszone the site to CO2.5 uh which corresponds with the proposed medium office apartment hotel gl designation. So the Langston Boulevard area plan provides the key guiding recommendations for redevelopment of this site. The site is located within area 5 west uh and also is within the spoutrun activity hub. This area is envisioned to include the greatest scale of development given its low topography uh and proximity to I66 as well as proximity to Rosland and other transit corridors. Building heights are recommended for 12 stories uh corresponding to a 136 ft height envelope. The Langston Boulevard area plan recognizes this area uh as prone to significant flooding um and so recommends storm water management measures including overland relief corridors. Uh specific storm water management approaches are recommended to be engineered at the time of final site plan review. Um, finally, the plan recommends a new public space at the southwestern corner of the site, uh, which is recommended to be a park plaza

hybrid space. So, uh, the following series of slides will provide our analysis of conformance to the area plan as well as, uh, the evolution of the project through the review process. So before we get to that, um here is a slide that shows statistics. Uh the um the new site plan uh would demolish the existing two-story commercial building uh and construct a new 13-story building containing 300 residential units and roughly 7200 square ft of ground flooror retail GFA. Uh there are 361 parking spaces proposed in a four-level parking garage. Uh which is one level below grade and three levels above grade. Uh the applicant is proposing 114 units uh and 887 square ft of retail GFA as additional density. Um the proposed height is 13 stories 136 ft. Uh proposed modifications are for additional density, density exclusions, loading spaces, Kirkwood Road uh setbacks, and uh all other modifications necessary to support the development proposal. So, storm water management was a major focus of staff's evaluation of the site plan um and really had a major effect on uh the site design and building placement. The Lansson Boulevard area plan recommends an overland relief corridor along Kirkwood Road, but also notes that specific overland relief and storm water management strategies are determined at the time of site plan review. Through analyses of multiple alternatives was identified that the intentional overland relief pathway should be located on the eastern side of the site. This along with the new covert system to be installed by the applicant effectively mitigates flooding impacts to neighboring properties.

The design of the project changed significantly throughout the course of the review. Uh the applicant originally proposed mason units, residential units lining the Kirkwood Road frontage, but did remove them due to the shift in building placement and impacts on the parking efficiency. Um, another design change I want to draw your attention to, uh, staff worked with the developer on floodp proofing measures to ensure that the building is protected given the site's location. Uh the result of these floodp proofing measures was that the building slab was raised to an even 180 ft. So there were portions where the retail frontage along Langston did not meet the grade as a result of these floodproofing measures. Uh and in addition in the rear of the property adjacent to the public space, there were areas where the building lobby was uh grade separated from the public space. So uh this can be seen on the image to your left. The applicant did work with staff on building designs to better integrate the building into the public realm. Uh so on the Langston Boulevard side, the applicant is proposing a loia system where the building facade is recessed under an arcade. So this design we think will improve retail uh accessibility and integrates uh the public realm um elements in a more deliberate manner. Uh so staff supports this design change. Um on building height, the Langston Boulevard area plan recommends 12 stories. As uh uh explained earlier, uh the Langston Boulevard area plan has a dual approach to height, recommending a maximum number of stories as well as a height envelope in feet. In this case, the subject site is recommending for a maximum of 136 36 feet uh which the applicant is meeting. They're proposing a 13-story building due to a mezzanine parking level that corresponds to the volume of the double height retail space. When viewed from Langston

Boulevard, the building appears as 12 stories. However, other vantage points where the garage level is visible uh is a visible part of the facade, the building appears as 13 stories. Nevertheless, the building does meet the recommendation for a maximum of 130 ft. 136 ft. The applicant is proposing a public space in the southwestern corner of the site. The spa was space the design of the space was discussed extensively during the public review process. Uh and this image shows the evolution of the design. The final design incorporates a mix of planted space, decking and hardscape and tree plantings that provides both casual and active uses. Langston Boulevard area plan sets a target for these types of spaces at 5,000 square ft. However, the space is roughly 10% smaller uh as a result of the placement of the building and overland relief viability. Nevertheless, the place the space does meet the design goals the Len Boulevard area plan for a park plaza hybrid space uh and is supported by staff. In addition, and not counted towards the public space size, the applicant is providing a public access easement for a walkway on the western side of the building that links Langston Boulevard to the public space. Finally, it's worth mentioning that uh the uh applicant is meeting Lynxen Boulevard area pan plan tree canopy targets uh as well as minimums for street tree spacing and planting strip dimensions portion of the site encroaches into the resource protection area. Uh and as a result, the applicant requested an exception from the Chesapeake Bay preservation ordinance. This request was heard by the Chesapeake Bay Ordinance Review Committee or Seabor for short on March 17th which granted the exception subject to certain conditions. These include a requirement for phosphorus load reduction of49 pounds per year of

the current conditions and uh planting of five can five canopy and three understory trees within the RPA area. And so the applicant has agreed to site plan conditions to implement these condition conditions of approval from Seabourc. The applicant is proposing a community benefits package that provides affordable housing, community facilities, and sustainable design elements in conformance with in in compliance with Arlington County zoning ordinance section 15.58 and 15.59. The applicant is complying with standard site plan conditions to mitigate the impacts of the development related to streetscape improvements, public art, utility fund contributions, a transportation demand management program in building wireless infrastructure, and others. The applicant is also going to build a recommended bike lane and rebuild an existing bus stop on Langston Boulevard. Uh, and the applicant is also providing the county overland relief easements on all site frontages. In order to comply with Arlington County zoning ordinance section 155.58, the applicant is providing 19 on-site committed affordable housing units. Uh, these consist of seven one-bedroom and six two-bedroom units at 60% area median income and three one-bedroom and three two-bedroom units at 80% area median income. So, the applicant is providing the following community benefits to earn the requested 114 units of additional density. A $1.77 million cash contribution to the affordable housing investment fund, construction, maintenance, and easements for the public space. Uh, a new 8x8 box covert uh and easement for storm water management and detention. uh and participation in the green building incentive program at the 35 F tier. The applicant will be will be providing

a new development that meets the county's equity goals by providing a greater housing mix than exists today, a new public space, and enhancing the existing transportation network with new and improved pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities. So the site plan was reviewed at two SPRC meetings. Uh major topics of discussion were building height and massing, architectural design, site design and building placement, storm water management. Uh landscaping and tree canopy, public space design, streetscapes and transportation, and pickup drop off. Four civic associations that participated in the review process have provided correspondence to staff, the planning commission, and the county board, expressing concerns related to transportation studies and timing, as well as the lack of site consolidation and perceived impacts to building bulk and site design. As mentioned previously, the project was reviewed by Seabor on March 17th. They did grant the exception to the Chesapeake Bay preservation ordinance subject to conditions. The project was heard by the transportation commission on March 26th who recommended to approve the project unanimously. They also passed an amending motion recommending that transportation studies recommended by the Langston Boulevard area plan for area 5 be expedited. Staff finds that the project is in general conformance with county plans and policies and specifically advances many important object objectives from the Langston Boulevard area plan. Plan implements GLUP and zoning changes and delivers land use mixes and housing production in line with plan objectives given the site's location within the spoutr run activity hub. Plan delivers 19 on-site calf units and provides a $ 1.77 million contribution to AHIFF as well as the base contribution plan delivers recommended streetscape bike and bus stop improvements. Plan delivers a new privately owned public space. It effectively mitigates storm water at the

site through overland relief pathways and a new culvert system that will allow for future expansion of the county storm sewer system. Plan achieves tree canopy targets on a very constrained site. Uh and the plan will participate in the green building incentive program at the 35 F tier demonstrating advancement of the community energy plan. For these reasons and more, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to approve the GLUP amendment and ordinances to approve the resoning and site plan to facilitate redevelopment of the site. This concludes our presentation and we will be available to answer any questions during the deliberation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Feifer. And now we'll hear from the applicant.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Zach Williams. I'm a land use attorney with Venable representing Rooney Properties. And to kick us off, Cassie Guy is going to say a few words on behalf of the applicant.

Good evening. Cassie Guy. I'm here representing Rooney Properties. Uh Rooney is a small local family-owned and operated real estate developer. Uh we are actually located just about a mile up from the project site. Um, Rooney being a small shop is um, grants us the ability to focus on high quality mixeduse and residential projects such as this. Rooney being a long-term holder, we really pride ourselves on integrating in with the community. Um, as such, we've worked closely with county staff and community members for the past two years. Um, and we're excited to be here to present with you tonight. So, thank you very much. So Matt did a great job going over the project. I'll try not to be too repetitive and we do have our whole team here tonight as well to answer questions. Um as for the project overview, you heard most of this from staff. Um couple things to point out. We are meeting that 35% tree canopy coverage. That was no no easy task. Um we were literally working on that uh up until just last week trying to get the right mix of trees to make sure we could meet that. Um, the other thing I should mention is that this is the first market rate project coming to the board, coming to the planning commission under the new Langston Boulevard area plan. So, it's a big deal. We've been working on it for several years. Uh, and we're proud to have the first project market rate uh under the new Langston area plan for hopefully the first of many. Um, staff touched on a number of the community benefits. I will say the total hit contribution including the including the base contribution is a little over 2.6 6 million as well as the 19 on-site calves. Community engagement like any project on Langston Boulevard was extensive uh on this project. It started almost two years ago. Um this slide just shows the sort of formal meetings that we've had. We've had many many additional meetings with the community and with

stakeholders. Uh we were adjacent to no less than four civic associations for this project and we met with all four of them individually as well as collectively. Um it's been a great collaborative um experience with these civic associations. This is obviously a big change for the neighborhood. Um and all civic associations were engaged throughout and ultimately led to a better project. So I'll walk through these uh slides quickly here in the interest of time. looking at the architecture from Langston Boulevard um here and now from the east side of the site. Um this is the parking garage which is part partially elevated with a courtyard on top. This is the pawn shop site that um is not part of this project not for want of trying. As you as you may be aware initially the applicant sought to consolidate the site was not able to. the National Pawn exercise. It's right of first refusal, which is why we were not able to do that. So, that will continue to exist as it is today. Looking at the site from a bird's eye view across the Langston Boulevard here. Now, looking down on the site, you can see that elevated courtyard as well as the the interaction of Kirkwood Road with Langston Boulevard and then I66 there as well. This just a little bit more closer up view of that screening on the parking garage which we've worked on throughout the process to not only beautify from an architectural standpoint but also from a greenery standpoint adding some biophilia there that was not initially there but came through as a result of feedback um with the community and with staff. Just a little closer up view as well um just to show that architectural and bofilia treatment screening the garage there along the sidewalk. Here's the entrance at the corner of um Langston Boulevard and Kirkwood. Um it is an elevated entrance at this point due to some late changes that were made

at the request of the staff um for flood proofing purposes. Um this is uh something that um we were working on really throughout the project to make sure that we were addressing some of the concerns about storm water relief, flood protection and things like that not caused by the site but due to where the site is located in the watershed. the Loia. That's probably one of the most recent changes that were made. Um, and it's interesting. We made this change to address the flood proofing concerns, but it turned out to be what we think is a really um an advantageous for the retailers. You know, Langston Boulevard is a very wide, noisy road in this area. Providing a little bit of more privacy, a little bit more protection for pedestrians to address those retailers, we think will be to the advantage of the site and to those future tenants. So, we really like the way this turned out, even though it initially was really meant for purposes of the floodp proofing. That courtyard on top of the site will be an amenity for residents. Um, it's going to be extensively landscaped. It's also going to have a pool up there along with some plaza. Uh, here's an overhead shot of the courtyard just to give you a sense for how much greenery will be planted on that third level courtyard. um as well as around the site and in the Plaza Park Hybrid that staff mentioned. This is uh these are some images of recent images of the Plaza Park Hybrid which has been redesigned and redesigned and redesigned many many many times. Um and this is the most recent design. Uh hopefully one of the last if not the last designs. Um, but uh I think all most folks agree that that this is really getting at what we want for the site is it's an inviting area for the public. Um, as well as a sort of transition area for the residents of the building. There is an entrance there uh adjacent to this Plaza Park Hybrid which will probably be the primary entrance for residents even though the official primary entrance will be on Langston

Boulevard. Um, and so you can see so the decking treatment as well as the greenery. This is all intentional. Um everything you can see here has been scrutinized and carefully designed by the land design folks, the experts behind us. Looking around the site, not just the park, but really every aspect of the site has been designed, landscaped sort of to the nth degree um to create we hope will be really a beautiful uh new vision um for this site and really set a great precedent for the corridor. You can see that sort of every side of the building is going to have new inviting walkways with new greenery um as well as along Kirkwood Road. Um and turning the corner from Langston. Um we really want to make sure all of these um walkways are inviting, feel safe, feel um like somewhere you'd want to be. Um really kind of getting to the essence of one of the goals of the Langston plan. Here's another view of the walkway down Kirkwood Road. Um, this is a combination of greenery, overland relief, as well as that screening that we talked about. Same thing there. Uh, and, uh, here's a slide I wanted to highlight. This is a big change that happened a couple months ago. Um, where working closely with staff, it was determined that the overland relief shouldn't be along Kirkwood. It should be between the pawn shop site and the, uh, the new building for on the Walgreens site. So, that required us to move our building back um off the pawn shop property line uh and move it up where it was previously moved back along Kirkwood to create a new overland relief corridor and also to install a new box covert. So, there will be overland and underland relief in this area. Um which is great because that's after many months of study it was determined that's where really where the water's going to go. So, we had to address that. the folks uh at Vikica also sitting

behind me can get into this in more detail. Um this was carefully studied from a technical engineering standpoint to make sure this would work. Um and you can see the location of the covert adjacent to the existing coververts which are not on this site, they're on the pawn shop site. So there now will be three culverts um taking that water from the spout run, former spout run that kind of ends across the street there um and down, you know, through the waterhed. Um this will add an additional uh pathway for the water to help take some of that burden off of the existing area. We've seen some flooding there in the past. That concludes our presentation. We have our whole team here available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, madame clerk, do we have public speakers? Boy, do we. Okay.

Okay. All right. So, uh, for those who are speaking virtually, I will allow those speakers first and then we'll finish with the speakers in person. For the speakers online, if you could um turn your own mics on and your cameras once you are finished, turn them off and please pay attention to the time allotted to speak, which is 2 minutes on the clock that I'll be displaying on the computer screen. Thank you. Okay, we have to call this person. Our first speaker is Bernie Burn, followed by Aaron Roberts. Can you Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Had a little problem there. Um, this project does not have enough biofilia. There is no green roof. Uh, no plants hang from the the roof or or ledges. Only a few climb on trelluses to make green walls. There's not very many green walls. Further, the roof lacks solar panels. That's pretty important. A ledge above the third floor will contain trees and other plants. However, that is not enough. The applicant should support should install native perennials that support pollinators and all tree trenches and other spaces are available near side streets and sidewalk. The African landscape plan shows examples of these. However, it's not it does not show these will actually how many of these the app will actually install. The county board's 2017 Monic pledge recommends plantings of milkweeds. Uh however, the plant schedule does not contain any milkweeds. The applicant needs to add common milkweed is lepious serria to the plant list. That's very important. Common milkweed is the most important food plant for bonic caterpillars in all its vicinity. Although common roo spreads through its w roots spread is not rapid roof routine maintenance and mowing can remove it from places where it is not desired. The applicant should also add black cherry and sass to the planted schedule. The caterpillars of many large butterflies and moss feed on these two trees. They're planting the warm trees. The the plant list contains three cultivars that are no more resistant to disease than their parents are. These are October glory maple, jory reaper river birch and wild wildflower tupelo. Many cultivars don't feed pollinators because they are sterile or have deformed flowers. The applicant needs to replace these cultivars with their parents or with native plants with similar characteristics such as height, width, and flower and leaf color.

Basically, we have a problem to plant that's not very biofilic. We need those common milk weeds. We we definitely you have areas that look like along Kirkwood Road where you have grass between the trees. You need pioneer pollinator plants there. There's a mother a lot of problems with this project, but I I've mentioned a few. But put that common milkeed in and provide the county with a with a plant list of of containing um containing the perennials and ground covers before that goes to the county board. I mean, I can't even evaluate this because you never you never produce that that information. Other projects do it. You didn't.

Thank you, Mr. Burn. Aaron Roberts is followed by John Carton. Oh, sure. Uh, no. If you please don't do that. Okay. If you don't mind waiting with the inerson speakers. Thank you so much. Were you Were you Aaron or John? It's been a long night. Okay, let me put you over here. John Carton is followed by Mark Kablins. If you're online, please.

I'm John Carton. I'm vice president of Line Village Citizen Association. Uh, this plan will set a c crucial precedent in implementing the Langston Boulevard area plan vision and significantly determine whether the vision will be achieved. The highest priority should be to implement the goals of the plan to create the vibrant neighborhood hub that is envisioned by the plan. We are disappointed by the current plan which uh falls very short. Despite the significant change in the available uh buildable area due to the loss of the pawn shop site and the storm water mitigation requirements, Rooney and the staff have not revised the density, but instead have cut back many of the features that require ground space and are basic to the vision. This resulted in the current proposal which is reduced setbacks, reduction of space sufficient for mature trees, less space for pullover and drop off areas, and moving the southeast tower closer to Kirkwood in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff dismissed the fact that the tower now encroaches into the 35- ft stepback zone and the space for mature trees is cut from 8 ft to 6 feet. We do not consider these and other cuts as nearly meeting plan objectives to be justified to maintain this the bonus density. These are all degragations to the plan that do not support the vision and could not be addressed by a strategic reduction in the footprint. We believe that the current plan adequately uh does not adequately meet the vision. We believe also the changes could be made for reducing footprints, committing transportation planning and adhering to the vision that would

provide adequate space and policy solutions. And we hope that the commission will take the necessary steps that these requests can be adequately considered and addressed right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last speaker uh virtually is Mark Cooblins. if you're on the line. Mark Cooblins. Okay, we'll turn to our in-person speakers. Our first speaker is John Muso, followed by Aaron Roberts. Good evening again, members of the planning commission. Uh John Musa, government affairs manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. And on behalf of the Arlington Chamber, I wish to express our support for the project before you and I urge you all to please recommend adoption by the county board. Um Arlington faces a pressing and well doumented need for new housing. And as many all of you know um for those of you who are here in 123 the adoption lang boulevard area plan likes the boulevard is corridor that has so much potential that we're just trying to realize and we believe that this project before you both adhere to the county's housing goals while also helping advance the langston boulevard corridor into something that realizes the promise of the plan. um as mentioned by the applicant delivering 300 residential units into a prominent site that was already designated as a hub for residential and commercial activity um goes so far in terms of realizing the vision that we've had for the corridor. Additionally, as noted, we have 19 on-site committed affordable units as well as 1.7 million um in contribution for affordable housing and meaningful commitment for affordability for the corridor in Arlington overall. Additionally, the uh 7,000 foot of ground for retail will again contribute to the vibrant u mixeduse um vision of this quarter and again the the public park plaza hybrid will serve as a meaningful community amenity that complements the existing range of parks

and green spaces in that corridor and only serves to you know continue to add community benefits. So we do believe that this is a proactive and um smart project that will go a long way to realizing the county's vision for Lex Boulevard. So we urge you please adopt it. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Aaron Roberts followed by Bill Browning. Okay, this is on. All right. Um, commissioners, thank you all for your time and thank you all for your service. So, I'm here to ask you to expand the aperture a little bit. The question before you is not whether to approve or deny this project. The real question is, will you send a message to the county board, to the county manager about how to support and enable future developments like this one along the Langston Boulevard corridor, specifically around transportation safety, this site at this intersection and in the environ environment around this intersection. People have died and they will continue to die. Now there's no dispute about whether or not this area is dangerous. None at all. In the last half decade, the question is only whether it's the third most dangerous, the fifth most dangerous, the seventh most dangerous. Now, second point, the way that the Langston Boulevard area plan was pitched to our communities was that it would send a clear signal about to investment capital about unlocking new value and in exchange the community would receive public goods from private investment. A lot of that is happening. We're seeing wonderful community housing. We're seeing AHIFF contributions. We're seeing

storm water management. What is scandalously missing here is a plan for how to make this area safer for pedestrians, for cyclists, and for motorists. I urge you all, please, as you deliberate, consider how we as a community can fix this. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bill Browning followed by Jennifer Anderiner. No, Mr. Browning. Okay. Jennifer Ander. All right. Ginger Brown. Hi, I'm Ginger Brown with the Langston Boulevard Alliance. Uh we worked for many years on the Langston uh Boulevard area plan and so we're pleased to be here to discuss the first site plan to be filed under the Langston Boulevard area plan. Uh the plan envisions consolidating the site with the pawn shop, but unfortunately that didn't happen uh due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner. Um but for future proposals, if consolidation happens, we should take the time to look at it through a flexible and fresh lens um through the site design and make adjustments as needed. But this project delivers many required community benefits such as significant storm water infrastructure affordable housing and tree canopy. It also offers appealing architecture and retail opportunities. LBA was pleased to with the applicant's willingness uh to engage with the community while negotiating with staff for almost two years. Tonight, we are sure the planning commission will do its job and help work through the any remaining details and discrepancies that will be raised by the community tonight. But LBA believes this project should move to the county board. However, this project abotss one of the most problematic and accidentprone intersections along Langston Boulevard. Even after a decade spent planning Langston Boulevard, transportation

studies for this dangerous intersection are years away and the outcome is uncertain. We believe it is imperative for the county to expedite the transport transformation of this dangerous intersection into one that is safe for pedestrians and cyclists as envisioned by plan by the Langston Boulevard area plan. We ask that the planning commission join LBA, the community transportation committee, and use your authority to advise the county board to take quick and decisive action to transform the intersection to a safe and walkable place that was envisioned by the Langston Boulevard area plan.

Thank you. Jim Todd is followed by Jacqueline Snelling. Do I need to turn this on? Good evening. Jim Todd, um, president of the Cherdale Citizens Association. My ask here tonight is a simple one is that you join the transportation commission and all the four civic associations as well as the Langston Boulevard alliance and asking the county to repprioritize an already committed plan to study transportation improvements along Langston Boulevard. So this one comes first, not last. Not after the project is long done, not after hundreds of people live in this building and hundreds of new people come to visit the do retail in this site. The county is for some reason put this this section last. In addition, we ask that you urge the county board to commit funds to implement those transportation recommendations and not wait additional decades to improve the safety of this stretch. And to be clear, we're not talking just about the spout run intersection. We're talking about this entire stretch, both corners, both all sides of this building. That includes the I66 off-ramp, the I66 on-ramp. Uh the only U-turn uh to make for cars trying to get to this new building, would be all the way up to Kenmore Street, which is another block beyond the I66 on-ramp. Uh there's terrible accidents at all these sites. I myself was the first responder as a member of the Cheredale Volunteer Fire Department over 20 years ago to a fatal accident at the off-ramp that split the car in half and killed all occupants in the car. Um that's one of dozens and dozens and dozens of severe accidents I've witnessed at all three intersections, the on-ramp, the off-ramp, and the spoutrun intersection here. Um, all that has to happen is the county has to put its money where its mouth is and actually commit the funds to study and

implement the recommendations of that study to transform Langston Boulevard from a speedway for cars to a neighbor a series of neighborhood connected main streets that uh serves pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. We have extra lanes. We don't need them. We have extra space that we can make use to implement these improvements. Thank you very much. Jacqueline Snelling is followed by Andrew RDE. Hi. Um, it's great to be here to talk with you and I really appreciate your listening carefully to these issues that we're seeing because there's much that has changed during this time. Yes, we've been all working very hard together and we greatly appreciate the very collaborative atmosphere that has been created by the developer and working with the developer. So, we have worked together and I think we've accomplished some great things, but there's more to be done and that is in part because of the changes that have come at the end that were not expected at the beginning. And yes, this will set a precedent for Langston Boulevard area plan, but particularly for this hub because some of the problems that we encounter here, transportation as others have mentioned, but also flood management will apply to the entire hub. And um so as we the discussions have proceeded that's really what it's come down to is that yes our inability to consolidate the site changed the facts you know it couldn't be helped but it it changed the facts

and we didn't adequately I say we didn't all of us um did not adequately anticipate how much ground space storm warm water management takes and we need to know it takes a lot more time that a lot more space than we had available. So as a result by not trying to change the glop or not trying to change the number of units we're cramming things into a space that is too small. And it's not just it's yes and these are things that affect the atmosphere. All those beautiful pictures but it's crowded. Cut back 10 feet here. cut back 11 ft there. Cut back 700 ft in the public space. Um, so is that the end? So those are the things we'd like you to work with us on addressing. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew RDE followed by Claire Jacobson. Is there a button I pressed? Oh, no. No. Hi, I'm Andrew Rue with the Line Village uh Civic Association. I hope you got a chance to read the letter that the four civic associations sent to you today. Not only are we the ones that are going to be the most impacted for the life of this project if and when it is approved and developed, but we're also those which are the most familiar with this project since it is the intersection of our neighborhood. And I think as Jackie addressed, they're trying to cram too much of a project into too limited a space, which results in a myriad of projects, but it fails to address the overriding issue, which it fails to meet the objectives of Plan Langston Boulevard and actually only add of creating safe and viable pedestrian-friendly neighborhood nodes, but actually adds to the danger at that intersection with the project as planned. So, I would like you to actually defer this project, recommend to the county board that this project be deferred until the applicants submit a project which complies with the Langston Boulevard plan and that the transportation studies are done by the county before this plan is reconsidered. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker uh is Claire Jacobson. Hi. Well, hopefully you can hear me. Do I have it on?

Anyway, Jim, can you help her, please?

Okay. Thank you again. I'm Claire Jacobson. I live in Lion Village. Um, I do support the project. However, I have very very serious reservations regarding the project. First of all, I believe the footprint is just excessive. It's just way too big, way too large for this size lot. Uh my second concern or maybe closer to an objection is the the height of this project. It's we started at 8 9 10 11 12 now it's 13 staggering stories or levels and that to me is just excessive. Also, the project is very close to a residential area, better known as Lion Village, and I just think it's it's just way too big, way too dense to be such to be so close to a to a residential area. So, those are my three concerns. Probably more so more objections than concerns. And I'm also disappointed that so far the SPRC now the planning commission, CPHD and the county are not listening to us. They are not we are not reaching negotiations. We are not reaching compromises expressed by the civ by the various civic associations. So anyway, hopefully you'll take what I've said into consideration. Thank you.

That's if we're our speakers.

Thank you to all of our speakers. Um I'm going to move on now to uh let's see probably transportation commission. Do you have a report? Uh yes, this was as mentioned was before the transportation commission um at its meeting last week, two weeks ago. Um I was not there. I was over the Atlantic Ocean at that point. Um but um I did uh recraft for them um an additional motion. um they did vote unanimously to support the three staff uh motions and then add an additional one on their own. Um and I'll I'll read it here because I'm actually going to be proposing the same thing for us when it's when it's our time. Uh but the transportation commission their additional motion reads as follows. Whereas there are now four major site plan residential and mixeduse projects proposed on or near Langston Boulevard between Rosland and I66. And whereas these projects when built will have the potential have potentially thousands of new residents who will be driving using transit and walking along and across Langston Boulevard. And whereas three of the county's vision zero hotspots intersections are along this carter. And whereas the configuration of Langston Boulevard was designed and built in the 1970s primarily to move traffic in and out of DC. And whereas that design is contrary to the goals of the master transportation plan and the Langston Boulevard area plan. And whereas funds for transportation improvements may be available from I66 tolling. Whereas the county has scheduled a study of the Langston Boulevard corridor from Rosland to North Kenmore Street in Cheredale that includes these three intersections. And whereas the study is not scheduled to commence before FY 2028 with capital improvements not scheduled

to be included in the capital improvement plan until FY 2030 at the earliest with actual construction even further out. And whereas there are unallocated funds available to the county from the widening of I66. So be it resolved that the transportation commission recommends that the county board direct the county manager to move up the start of the Carter study to the coming fiscal year with initial preparations to beginning the current fiscal year and that capital improvements be given first priority in the upcoming capital improvement plan. This was uh passed unanimously by the transportation commission. Do we have any other commission reports besides me the chair? I will just say is this a different motion that what we had?

I think it's similar might be one or two lines that are Yeah, I was going to say it's not the same one that I just to flag that now. The one that I gave you that we've shared earlier. Do you have this most recent version? I can forward an email to Okay, if you can forward that. I think I had sent it to you already. I don't know. No, no, I don't think it was attached to an email. Yeah. No, more part of an email.

No, what we what we got was um the older one. Okay. So, I did chair this project and uh I did send out a report earlier today. For those of you who did not get a chance to read that, I am happy to. I've brought a couple of hard copies, so just you know, let me know and I'll pass that around. Um I think the major thing that uh we heard throughout the SPRC was the concern about transportation. Um and also kudos. So you are going to hear well you've heard that tonight. So that that is something that we will be discussing. Also there was a lot of conversation about the open space and landscaping. Um repeated conversations about trees. Uh the applicant is meeting the 35% requirement in sort of creative ways. Um and that is also spelled out in my report. Uh sustainability is a huge issue because the storm water uh again the applicant is to be commended because they uh came up with five different scenarios at during which I have to believe was a significant investment of time and money um and eventually um which of course added to you know the delay that this um process went through. But staff has agreed with one of those options and feels that's the best way to go. And I have spelled it out and they've also staff has spelled it out as well. But we may want to talk about it. You heard the um the concern about the density versus some of the other things that some of the neighbors believe that they should have there and um you know community benefits. Are there any other topics that you would like to discuss this evening? No. Okay. Um moving along. Uh let us uh first topic we'll do is land use and site design

comments questions. No. Okay. All righty. Um building form architecture. No. Wow. Okay. All righty. Um this is a big one. Transportation. questions, comments. Commissioner um Peterson,

thank you. Um I am also very concerned about the delays in transportation improvements to this particular intersection. Um, and I know in the staff report you mentioned a list of all of the uh studies and projects that are coming up, but I don't I if you can just explain more about why those can't be prioritized um and what it would take um from staff and the county manager and the county board to make this a bigger priority so we can make sure this um this area is safer.

Okay. So um for the record, my name is Bryce Johnson with DES. Um, I'm going to caveat my answer with I'm mostly versed on this site plan site plan process. Um, so I probably can't give as much information as you would like, but I can give as much context as I can. Um, so as you mentioned, the staff report does allude to other um, ongoing and planned studies. Um, one of the issues, or I shouldn't say issue, but one of the complications with the request to expedite the area 5 study, um, is that there's already the other study in progress today. Uh, the Langston Boulevard area plan recommended, um, a variety of transportation improvements needing additional study. The county broke that up into two chunks. The first chunk um, is the multimodal intersection study for areas two and three. that actually covers a wider portion of Langston Boulevard than the next um phase or chunk which would be for the area five. The area five study is uh the one that would affect this site um area 5 beginning at the uh 66 offramp. Um the areas two and three study was started last year uh about this time in spring and is anticipated to wrap up at the end of this year um fall or winter. So the phased approach allows some work to be kind of done first. We get some progress. We um get some um momentum for what we expect to see with Langston Boulevard. And then once that's done, we can complete the or begin the area 5 study and then complete that. But again, that's expected to begin either the end of this year or early next year once that areas two and three study is done. Um, I also want to note that we also have a uh Langston Boulevard strategically targeted affordable roadway solutions or stars study uh that VOTE is doing um currently at the request by the county and that is within

area 5. It's not all of area 5. It's just from North Vik Street to North Lind Street. Uh but that is currently being done. Um and there is some benefit to letting that finish before we have the the the wider uh area 5 study. So again, I can't speak to all of the considerations, but that's just some of the overlapping pieces that are moving forward today. So does it have to be phased where you do two and three before you do five, or is it just staff resources, you can't do them at the same time? And and if you had more staff, or if transportation had more staff, could it be done faster? Um

I I can't speak to the full rationale behind it, but I would imagine that it would definitely complicate um the the staff allocation for that. Would consultants help if you had I I can't speak for the full the full breadth of what went into it. Okay. And there's nobody here from transportation that could answer these questions. It would I I just me from dees um I want to say unfortunately but like again that's generally outside of the scope of the site plan reviews. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Strer.

Yeah. So, so building off what Commissioner Peterson said, you know, it it just kind of makes me think that some of these studies should have been started before we adopted the Langston Boulevard area plan. I just think because we knew that was where this was going and now we're sort of behind on getting these uh studies and the results and the and the actual improvements. So, that's just a comment. And then my question would be, does the county have funds or a program available for sort of like quick build? I know I when I was working across the river, we had quick build projects that while not permanent solutions could be sort of a bridge that could help temporarily improve the pedestrian safety at some sites until you could get these larger studies and projects done. Um is there anything like that that's available in the budget right now?

Yeah, so we already have um budget for vision zero uh that's been going towards quick build projects across the county. Uh there was actually one on spout run north of the site completed I think it was last year um because again as the others have noted we've we've been watching Langston Boulevard as well as the rest of the county. So that that's one avenue. Um the capital improvement uh plan also has budget um I think it's 20 million already budgeted for um recommendations from these two studies. Obviously, we anticipate more will be required, but that's already been set aside. Um, you say 20 million. 20 million.

Okay. U, so again, as those studies wrap up and we get those recommendations, we do have some initial funding to move forward. And then it's also, um, I do want to note that there's already been some improvements to the spout run links to Boulevard intersection. not as substantial as I think what people would like to see pending the results of the area 5 study but we have been putting in uh new signal equipment new um curb ramps and that's wrapping up probably the end of this month if not early next month and that that's something that's actually been progress for over 10 years now um just as we've been again having to engage with a variety of stakeholders at VOT so to answer your question there is funding yes

can I do a followup so the vision zero plan is that is there sort of within that program is there sort of like a a spend plan that's kind of broken out on how what projects are getting funding for the vision zero projects already or is that sort of a little more in flux at the moment and and if so could this be moved up to the top

a little bit in flux. So, like we'll we'll hear back from um like community input about um ideas or locations that um improvements are warranted, but we do take a specific look at corridors and that's where there's a more strategic um approach. Uh so for this one, I think it was a quick build for um rapid flashing beacons on spout run for pedestrian crossing. But again for we do also like the wider not wider but like the more in-depth um targeted approach where we look at specific corridors and phases. Um but there's also again there's the the larger vision action plan and I think it's each year every other year we we identify the hot spots throughout the county that need to be looked at.

Yeah. I would just recommend that this be sort of moved up. I know there are a lot of, you know, priorities. Every every one on that every one on that list is a big deal, but this one, you know, given the potential site plan coming here, I think it's important. So, that's all I'll say. Commissioner Lyn, tell me.

Yeah, I'm going to pile on here. Um, this is something I've been working on Langston Boulevard when it was still Lee Highway. It's been 10, 12, 13 years. Um, and you've heard from the neighborhoods here, um, all the way through the plan creation, these streets, this street and its its hostility to pedestrians and its users had was highlighted by every single neighborhood up and down the corridor. So, this is not a surprise. This is coming up. We also knew that there were a lot of projects that were good that were just waiting for land langster boulevard to be be implemented and it's coming true. Um we have a number of them that are popping up. And right now you know what you're hearing tonight. You're also going to be hearing for the um the the Marriott site. You're going to be hearing it for the Air Force site and you're going to be hearing it for PTOIC Towers when that emerges because it's the same issues for every single one of these projects is that Langston Boulevard is just hostile to its residents of the all of these projects. Um this we've known this is coming. We need to do it. And as Commissioner Striner said, we can move some things up. this will probably have to be a contractor uh because this is a major major project. Um and I support that. I think that's exactly the way we should go on this. It'll be able to move faster there and it it can serve you know the resources for dees. But that doesn't mean we have to wait. We can start the initial scoping out of what do we want this study to do? What's going to be the scope of it? What sort of budget are we going to be allocating to it? That's stuff that could probably be done right now starting now and then start moving it up into the coming f for the 2027 fiscal year. We can actually let the contract and start working on it then. You know, we don't have to wait for the other part of Langa Boulevard to be completed that study for this one to

start going. We could start doing that work now. And that's what I'm going to be uh in our resolution. It'll be similar to transportation where we really to start working on this now. Um, and again, this is something that's been unanimous for every one of the the neighborhoods up and down this corridor. You will get support from every neighborhood that this has to be done. And as Commissioner Striner said, we're late. We are late on this. Um, so, you know, I don't know what more to say other than I will be introducing the motion and and continue to raise this and you will be hearing it at every single other site plan that comes up along the same corridor. Thank you. Any other questions, comments about transportation? Commissioner Garcia?

Yeah, I I was just curious. Well, so I do also align myself with Commissioner Lentel's comments and I I would also just add that, you know, at you know, in one of the letters we received, there was discussion of kind of how the the current site plan didn't necessarily meet the the goals for the Langston Boulevard corridor that are in the um Langston Boulevard plan. And I think just to add on to what you were saying uh Commissioner Lantel, it's very hard to do that if you don't have that larger transportation plan uh to to make that a reality. And so I think that that's worth noting as well. Um I did have a question about the pickup drop off. I see that it's in kind of the one section on Kirkwood. Can you explain a little bit more about what changed in the process most recently um and how you kind of determined if that was going to be sufficient for the for the um development? So, I don't know if that would be a question for staff or the

I can I'll defer to the applicant to speak to the changes they've gone through, but I can um after they've done that, I'll tackle the staff's position on whether it's sufficient.

Yeah, we can speak to that. So, um we lost two pickup drop off spots. made that change uh that I mentioned regarding the um the storm water overland relief. Um when we had to move the building around um we also needed to have sufficient space for trees to meet the tree canopy requirements. So like all site plans um we were balancing different priorities um and the the tree canopy and overland relief ultimately won out over pickup drop off at least with respect to the two spaces. And and so just to clarify, there's just the two that are now on the um I guess near that park, the little park.

Correct. And that's also where the most residents will enter or exit the building on that side.

I I think it's worth mentioning also that our garage off of Kirkwood will not have any barriers to entry. So you will be able to free throw free flow through into that garage without any sort of um mechanism for for stopping. There's no gate. Um any in all security for the residents will be handled internally through the ramping but all of the retail uh retail has has 30 plus spots and folks will be guided into the garage as well. Additionally, we also have substantial street parking along Kirkwood um which I think is you know important to note as well. Thank you. Did you want to make a comment, Mr.

I was just gonna follow up if you did you want to hear from staff about if we think it's No, I I think that's a good answer. Thank you,

Commissioner Patil. I just want to make one um note. While I appreciate the conversation about transportation, I think all of us use Langston Boulevard in some way partic and some of us probably all of our lives like me. Um but one thing I don't want to miss in this conversation um and how we frame this conversation is recognition around different areas that are being developed um and where we are um pushing on transportation studies and not necessarily pushing on those same studies in spaces and places in this community that are smaller and face very different structural challenges than this particular intersection um and the two intersections that you know the 66 and and spout run. So you know I will just say two words hotel Pentagon right and so we want to be very careful when we're talking about transportation at this particular site when some of those similar discussions were not being had for that one. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else on transportation? Okay. Uh I do want to circle back on one thing that I may have left off by title density. Any questions, comments about density. Okay. Then I Oh, yeah. Yes. Commissioner Striner,

I have one comment. Um this is an uh staff I think Matt I think the uh the visualization of the community benefits with the sort of math equation was really helpful and I think that that visual at least for me um it would be helpful in future presentations is you're seeing exactly what we're getting for each each component that the developer is you know giving to the project. We're getting x number of units in exchange for storm water. We're getting x number of units for um affordable housing. I I think it was just really helpful. Yeah, thanks for that feedback. I I'll have to give the hat tip to our own Kevin Lamb who kind of came up with that exhibit that we've all been adapting for site plans coming forward. Thank you, Kevin. Yeah,

Commissioner Al tell me you wanted to make a comment. Yes, he's being technically challenged.

I can answer the question u Mr. Piper. Um, everyone from the the applicant to the neighborhood to you, all of us were disappointed that the pawn shop is staying. You know, when we were planning um the Langu area plan, we all thought that this would consolidate. Um, and up until the last second, the applicant thought that was going to happen too until the um the option was exercised. So, we're all disappointed on that. That leaves that essentially as an orphan site. Can it as a practical matter, can that site even be redeveloped? I mean, you can't put a 13-story building on it. I think that's pretty clear. Can you do much of it other than another one or twostory building because of storm water? Um because of parking issues, because of the need to widen the sidewalks, um tree cover, all of those requirements, um other than a byite C1 type of building that would be one or two stories high, can you do anything there? I mean, there's no density left really. Is it am I wrong or what do you how do you respond? Yeah, I mean it it's it I think it would be difficult to evaluate a hypothetical and we haven't done that analysis. Um, you know, the the site would be subject to the same framework that this site is subject to and in in that they could request to amend the GLOP and reszone to CO2.5 and develop under that. Um, as to whether there are geometric or physical constraints to doing that, I can't speak to that. Um, it would be a pretty small site to do that. Um otherwise as you mentioned probably the the other avenue would be to redevelop by right.

Then let me check with the applicant's attorney since you're not constrained as the county is. Do you is that site as a practical matter developable into anything more than really what's there? Um, I don't think I should speak to that since obviously, you know, I don't represent the owner of the site. Um, so I don't think I can really speak to what its developable potential is. We hoped to include it in this project, but that obviously was not an option

because my evaluation is it'd be really tough. Um, looking at our zoning ordinance and even if they requested reszonings, there's not a lot you could do with this, you know, under the constraints of the site which I listed. So, as a practical matter, the density that we have in this site if we approve this project is the density for that entire parcel there, the two of them together. You know, it's not going to be anything more. Um, so I'm not personally that concerned about the density here with the lack of um of consolidation. I think this is what it's going to be. If it had been consolidated, I don't think it would be really that much different um than what we're getting here now, except we have unfortunately an ugly building left rather than you know one big nice building. So anyway I think that the density here is appropriate for this site under plan lang under what we wanted to do in plan Langston Boulevard um that even without the pawn shove site this is still what we would have gotten anyway. So thank you.

Any other comments on density? Okay. The next topic then would be green building and sustainability. Any comments on that? That would include storm water? Um, go ahead, Commissioner Robertson. Then Commissioner Peterson.

Um, I'm a a big fan of what the uh proponent has done by way of trying to deal with storm water issues. Uh, and I yield to no one in my um appreciation for the risk assessment and management plan that the county uses. Um, I don't want to delay us unduly because Yukon is ahead by only one point at this point, Madam Chair. Um, but I will I will also note um that I think um uh what we're doing collectively, the the county and the project proponent on storm water is not enough. Uh and when we do when we have opportunities like this to develop a new building in an area that is um uh central to the problems that we faced in 2019 and will continue to face because we were failing miserably to deal with climate change. We ought to do it. They're doing a lot uh subsurface storm water vaults and the uh the the greenway and the moving the the setbacks etc. But doing a lot of good stuff and I recognize that I am um Cassandra uh doomed to u offer these warnings and to be ignored about them. But I just want to register my concern uh that um that we need to do more. We need to take advantage of these opportunities. Uh it's a great project uh in many ways, but I'm uh significantly concerned about this.

Yes, and you sort of are resident storm water expert, so we appreciate your your comments. Um, Commissioner Peterson, uh, I just wanted to say that, um, I really appreciate meeting the tree canopy goals in this project. I'm loving all of the greenery and trees all over the site and on on the building itself. Um, and I really appreciate the green walls on Kirkwood. So, this um, is a beautiful bofilic building. So, I appreciate that aspect of it. Thank you. Any other comments there? Uh, Commissioner Abad,

I just want to quickly associate myself with uh the comments that Commissioner Robertson made because that area, I have had a few projects there that were completely flooded and I think I definitely appreciate any attention paid to that, but I also would like to um press upon um the county to get this transportation study done uh together because storm water transport, I mean, all of these things if you do separately then the construction of doing one and then you're just you know you're removing dirt in one side putting putting in another I mean it just doesn't make sense so they should be done concurrently and it just makes sense from a construction standpoint

okay thank you um let's move on to the next thing oh I'm sorry okay go ahead and one more uh biophilia adjacent comment I really appreciate the the lighting that has been added to this to the walkway ways to make sure that they people feel safe at night. That's all I want to say. I just thought that was mentioned in the SPRC and I really appreciate that inclusion there. Yes, it's said loger. I like that loa. Sorry, it's the I'm the Italian in in the in the crowd.

That's kind of cool. Um, all right. Open space and landscaping. I just have one question. Um, uh, Dr. burn asked about native perennials including common milkeed. Will that be incorporated somewhere in the site? Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Uh moving along to uh community benefits. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Here we go. affordable housing. Um I think that we I'm not going to say I think we constantly push on affordable housing and we do not have any levers to make you do more. Um but yet consistently we want more and so this particular site we're looking at 6% of the um units being committed affordable and that just simply is not enough to meet the need. So um I wish that there would have been more affordable housing. I wish it would have been at more variable rates and I think that if there was anything that this commission could have done to require that we would have done it. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments on Oh yes commission. What are the sizes? I mean all the units what do we have? Do we have variety? Is it all one or two bedrooms? onebedroom and three twob at the one the three onebedroom and three twob are at 80 and the seven onebedroom and the six twobedroom are at 60 correct? Yeah. Point taken.

Okay. Any other comments, discussion? Are we ready for motions? All right. I will read them. Okay. Let's see. The first motion is I move the planning commission recommend the county board adopts the attached resolution attachment number one to approve the general land use plan amendment GLPA24- 00004 to change the designation of the property from service commercial and public to medium office apartment hotel located at 3130 Langston Boulevard RPC C number 15-012-041. Second it. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Patel seconded. Um, are there any questions? Do you I'm not going to speak to my motion, but any questions, comments? No. Okay, let's move to a vote then. Uh, Commissioner Amado,

I. Commissioner Garcia, hi. Commissioner Johnson, I would. Huh? I recuse. Recuse. Okay. I'm sorry. All right. All right. Commissioner Lentel. Hi. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Robertson. Hi. Commissioner Steinberger. I. Commissioner Striner. I.

And I'm voting I. So that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine. Uh eyes's correct. And one recuse. Is that drive? Okay. Great. All righty. Second motion. I move the planning commission recommend the county board adopt the attached ordinance attachment number two to reszone ren 24-00004 the property from C2 service commercial community business district to C-O-2.5 mixed use district located at 3130 Langston Boulevard RPC number 15-012- 041 one

second. Okay, who seconded? Thank you, Commissioner Patel. All right, I'm not going to speak to my motion. Any questions on this one? All right. All right. Let's go to the vote. Uh, Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Garcia, I. Commissioner Johnson. Never mind. Okay. Yeah. Recuse. Uh, Commissioner Lental. I, Commissioner Patel. I Commissioner Peterson I Commissioner Robertson I Commissioner Steinberger I Commissioner Steiner I

and Commissioner Begley I vote I so again that should be nine uh eyes's and one recuse correct. Thank you. I love it when it matches. Okay. All right. And the final motion from the uh county manager. This would be I move the planning commission recommend the county board adopt adopts the attached ordinance attachment number three to approve a new site plan SPLN2400004 to permit the construction of a 13story building with up to 300 residential units and 7,228 square ft of ground floor retail gross floor area with modifications of Arlington County zone zoning ordinance standard ards for additional density, density exclusions, loading spaces, coverage and placement, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 3130 Langston Boulevard, RPC number 15-012-041.

Second. Second. Uh, also, Commissioner Patel. Thank you. Uh, I'm not going to speak to this. Um I know that uh some residents are a little disappointed because of the density. Um I think we've kind of discussed that. Um many of us are kind of excited about seeing something like this um in the area. Um so I guess we are ready for a vote. Um Commissioner Abado I. Commissioner Garcia I. Commissioner Johnson recoup. Yes ma'am. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Lentel. I Commissioner Patel, I. Commissioner Peterson, I Commission Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Steinberger,

I. Commissioner Striner, I. Commissioner Begley, I vote I. So that is nine with um Thank you. All right. Commissioner uh Lantel, can you read your motion? And uh madame clerk, can you put that on the screen for us since it's rather

lengthy? so that everybody can understand it. Thank you. Yeah, it's not the top one. It's the lower one. There's two on two. Yeah. Yeah.

One on the bottom. Right. Um scroll down. Right. That's it. Um is that all there? I I'll read it. It might we might be missing a little bit here. There's some Yeah, I think there's still some things missing here. Um but let me let me read it so that I get that way. Um whereas there are now four major site plan residential clauses are not essential to your motion, right? I mean they're making us they're giving us findings. That's right. So you want us to incorporate the findings as well? Yes. just part of like comments. Could they just be part of like the comments in the report?

Um, we could do that, but I think it sort of gives the context to why we think this is important. Yeah, but we don't have the information that transportation commission had to make those findings. So, you're asking us to base our findings off another commission's findings, which I would not do. Okay. Um, then we could go straight to the motion and not have any of the whereas clauses. Okay.

Okay. I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board direct the county manager to begin preparations this fiscal year for its study of Langster Boulevard from Rosland to I66 to reconfigure it as a complete street consistent with the goals of the master transportation plan and Langster Boulevard area plan and commence the study in fiscal year 2027. We have a second. Okay, this was um was it Commissioner Striner or Commissioner Patel? I think I beat her to the punch, but pick one. It was me. It was okay. Very good. Um, all right. I think that we probably had enough discussion on this. Correct. Oh, wait a minute.

I have a question because there are like a list of studies that are already like in the works, planned, documented. Um, are can we pull that up again, please? Um, Madame Clerk, can we can we pull up the motion again? I'm just wondering if we are saying study from Roslin to I66 on-ramp. Is that like proposing a new study that then they'll have to like do all of the preparatory work versus just saying like get to the studies that we've already planned like do those faster? My understanding there is one that is already planned for that corridor. Yeah, that's the area five study.

Okay, so this is the area five study. So maybe say like begin preparations for the area five study. Um or maybe that's not necessary. Um sure we could make that change. Yeah, but we have we have what I did. Yeah, but we have a we already it study. I already did say it study. Uh it's not the language here. Don't look at that language. Okay. But Chair Baggley is saying we have a motion that's already been second. So that motion has to be voted on. Yes. So do you want to re

Yeah, I am. Okay. Uh again, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board direct the county manager to begin preparations this fiscal year for its study of Langston Boulevard from Rosen to I66 to reconfigure it as a complete street consistent with the goals of the master transportation plan and Langston Boulevard area plan and commence the study in fiscal year 2027. I will note that in the warehouse clauses which we're not using. I did note that there was a um there a study is scheduled but it wasn't supposed to commence until before fiscal year 2028.

Um which pushes things out and that's fact. That's something I think we can acknowledge. Um and that construction wouldn't have start until at least 2030 in the capital plan. And just editorially by the time construction gets done, we're talking about Columbia Pike, which took like 20 years. Um, I don't want this to be happening in not completing until like 20 2040 or 2045. So, we really need to start now. Anyway, so that's that's the motion. Uh, do we have a second?

We did. I just reread the Okay. So, we did not change it. Okay. So, you're okay. Okay. Very good. All right. So, are we okay to move to a vote now? Okay. Uh, Commissioner Amado, I, Commissioner Garcia, I, Commissioner Johnson, Okay. Commissioner Lantel, I. Commissioner Patel, abstain. Abstain. All right. Commissioner Peterson. Hi, Commissioner Robertson. I, Commissioner Steinberger. I, Commissioner Stiner. I

and me I will say I. So that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine eyes and one abstain. Correct. All righty. Chair Bagley, may I just say to Mr. Breer, the only I I don't actually oppose this motion. I just um as a process issue, I don't feel comfortable directing timing on on projects. So especially when they're already in the pipeline.

Gotcha. Okay. So I again want to thank um staff for tremendous amount of work on this bending over backwards working on this for gosh like 18 months at least that we saw and then all the prep work before that. And I also want to thank the neighbors who stayed engaged on this. You have more opportunities as this goes to the county board with um Commissioner Lantel as our representative on the 18th of April. Um, and I do want to commend um, you know, me personally, when I see certain applicants come in, I'm like, but I did not feel that way. Um, you guys have been great to work with. I also want to commend you for offering your building for the arts types of activities and stuff as it's sitting there vacant, which is great. I actually went to that. I enjoyed it very much. but you've been really great to work with and I appreciate the level of engagement and also showing a sincere desire to get this right. This is another um illustration of what happens in a site plan, an SPRC process, which some people think, eh um at the end of the day, this project turned out better um because of all the input than it would have if it just was the way it was. And I think most of us agree with that and that happened despite that. Not everybody got they what they wanted, at least up until this point, from it. But um it speaks to the process and again thank you all very much for being in involved with that. We will be adjourning. Um I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, we will be recessing to tomorrow night. That meeting will start at 7:30. We will be discussing um Waverly Ridge. I sent that report out today. Please note the county manager has recommended denial on that. So if you have questions or whatever, reach out to me so that we can have a fruitful and expeditious conversation tomorrow night. We'll also do uh PC business at that point. So thank you everybody. They have a great night.