Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm out. Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Nia Bagley, chair. Tonight we will hear and discuss the following items: site plan amendment for the Waverly Ridge Town Homes, 2134 North Taylor Street. 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, 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, virtual and hybrid, will receive two minutes to comment as individuals. 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 on 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- secondond 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. Uh given that we do not have quorum at this point, uh perhaps, Madame Clerk, you should call I apologize to the group here, but perhaps we should deal with our uh uh commission business. So, you know, check your cell phones, check scores, just ignore us for a few minutes while we do this. Thank you. All right. So, commission business. Uh, couple things. Um, can I seek unanimous consent to approve the March minutes?

Yeah, perfect. Great. Okay. Thank you. Um, also there are a couple of housekeeping things that I want to go through which I know I have on a list here somewhere. Um, yeah, here it is. Uh, first I just want to mention um it's important that Madame Clerk uh when she sends out things is getting responses. And as I mentioned in the February meeting, although I know for some of us the commission email then represents a third or fourth email for which we are responsible that um I really do have to ask that you check it at least once or twice a week. That way um we can get responses when we need. Um I appreciate that. For those of you who have any questions about that, particularly those who have not been on the commission that long, um, historically, uh, this really came into play to create a commission, um, email for us when we were forced during, I think, um, missing middle to go through all of our personal emails and texts and everything, um, because of a foyer request, which was a tedious process and given giving us and it was unanimous at that time that we do this. So, giving us a county email lets the county have backdoor access so we never have to do that again. So, again, and I apologize, not everybody's here. Some are better at this than others. I understand it's a pain, but please do check it more frequently. Also, I've been asked by staff to remind everybody to reach out to the project chair and staff if you want to attend a meeting virtually um instead of just kind of showing up. So, on online um it used to be there was supposed to be an excuse why you would not be able to join in person. Uh I think everybody's a little

bit more lenient with that, but if you could just staff has asked and I'd appreciate if you could go back to that. And then lastly, um, we used to, and I think we got away from it sometime last year, when we were representing the commission at the county board, we would then send a little summary back to all the other commissioners to let them know what had happened. Um, because it's kind of helpful. And sometimes when we sit for hours through the county board meeting and we're not even sure what's happening, it helps to sort of say, "This is what they decided." Oh, and they added this or they ignored that or whatever. Um, it also helps those of us who are queuing up motions and things to uh attempt to further a point um with that. So, other um do we have any staff updates, Mr. Fiper?

No staff updates this month.

Wonderful. I know we don't have any rosters. LRPC Commissioner Peterson. Uh thank you. We had two meetings in March. Um, one was with Mr. Fuserelli um to discuss the planning division work plan. Um, tomorrow um our chair, Commissioner Baggley, will be going to the um county board budget work session to provide feedback um on uh what our commission's kind of views are from that meeting. Um so, thank you, Commissioner Baggley. Um we also met in March to discuss um the uh special land use study for 1401 Langston Boulevard which is the former Keybridge Marriott site. Um the 2020 site plan that we had approved has since expired. Um so I will be working with staff in the coming days to um put forth a leer for recommended next steps. Um, and coming up in April, we have an LRPC meeting for the climate action plan. And in May, we'll be probably having a meeting for the comp plan update.

Thank you. Um, let's see here. Uh, Zoko.

Yeah. So, as of the first half of the, uh, meeting where we discussed the work plan, we went over some EV uh, zoning changes uh, in the March meeting that we were generally supportive of. Um, and they'll be working their way through the commissions here shortly. Um, and we also have well, I guess we will not be having a meeting in April because we're not we don't have enough uh here for a for a full-on meeting. I will say regarding last night's conversation with the fees, uh, I reached out to staff and Tanley was on the email as well. Um, and we we are trying to set up a briefing either through Zoko or LRPC or some third venue for next year so that way we're a little more prepared. Yes. uh for the fees discussions when they come around. Better prepared than last night. Yes.

So that's all from the Zoko fun.

Excellent. Um for SPRC, I did send out a report last week. Um I want to thank Commissioner Striner and uh Commissioner Garcia for co-chairing the Oakland Street Flats project coming up. And of course, I just realized I forgot to write down April SPRC's. I do know that April 20th, it's not an SPRC per se, but Virginia Hospital Center, which uh thankfully Commissioner Patel continues to chair for us. Um they are having their community meetings so that they can kick the process back off. And I think that Thank you. And I think Oh, good. Thank you. And I think that is April 20th at 7 and it's here, correct? It's not at the school.

And then thank you. My team up here says that SPRC2, thank you for uh being chaired by uh Commissioner Striner, 4420 Fairfax, is Thursday, April 23rd here at 7 o'clock. Anything else that I missed? Oh, goody. That's perfect. Perfect timing. That's it. Okay, good. Um, and I do want to uh go on record as um last night when I was thanking everybody, including my first grade English teacher, I forgot to thank um uh the people who really keep us in line to uh during these meetings and have to deal with putting it all together, and that is our clerk, Miss Johnson, and also um Miss Harrison. So, I really appreciate that, and I that I please forgive me for overlooking that. Uh and since we do have we're joined now by Commissioner Striner, Commissioner Seinberger. Um Erin, uh Space Force, uh is that meeting number two? Is that um Thursday, April 16th, or has that been

uh that that actually has been rescheduled to, I believe, May the 11th? Um there was one that we missed 11th. There was actually one that we missed in in April and that is uh the 1401 Wilson Boulevard and that's going to be Monday, April 27th.

Okay. Very good. Okay. Very good. So I think uh Oh, and um thank you to Commissioner Lantel who will represent us at the county board on uh April 18th. Okay, having said that now uh welcome Commissioner Steinberger. We were waiting for you. Thank you. And we got a whole bunch of stuff done. No, no, no. It was perfect. Our timing couldn't have been better. Um uh madame clerk, would you please call our now first item?

Thank you. Our next item uh from last night is item number three, SPLA25-000027, site plan amendment for site plan number 452, the Waverly Ridge Town Homes. We have Kevin Lamb, our planning staff, to present this item this evening. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kevin Lamb uh with the planning division and tonight I'll be providing a brief presentation on behalf of staff for the Walu Ridge project. So this is a site plan amendment to construct 47 townhouse units uh with modifications. So based on staff's analysis during the public review process, uh staff finds the proposal includes numerous deviations from the Langston Boulevard area plan with regards to land use, housing, public space, and tree canopy. Collectively, these deviations result in a project that fails to adequately achieve several area plan goals, including expanding land use and increasing density in appropriate locations, progressing towards housing production uh targets, including affordable housing goals for the corridor, increasing access to public spaces that promote social connection, and expanding tree canopy to strengthen the corridor sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the site plan amendment application. So, the site itself is located at the corner of Cherry Hill Road and North Taylor Street in the Waverly Hills neighborhood. The 2.8 acre site currently consists of four unoccupied single detached dwellings. There are also five out out buildings as well as a large forested area. It's bordered by

several condos and apartment buildings as well as some town houses. So the applicant is not requesting a change in either the general land use plan designation or the zoning district. So the existing glo designation is lowmedium residential and it is also located within the Langston Boulevard planning district. Uh as you can see here the site also includes a triangle denoting uh the general location for public space. So in terms of the existing zoning uh it's RA818 multiple family dwelling district. So the existing site plan uh consists of site plan 452 which is also known as the artist senior living project. This was approved back in 2020 and it consists of a 175 unit assisted living facility that is six stories and includes new public space. So while the site plan approval remains valid, uh it also remains unbuilt. And then back in 2023, uh, a site plan amendment application was submitted by a new contract purchaser to revise certain building elements to facilitate construction of the elder care facility, which was to be known as Solera Reserve. However, unresolved contractal regions prevented them from proceeding and the county board ultimately deferred the site plan amendment indefinitely. So adopted in 2023, the Langston Boulevard area plan establishes a vision for the Langston Boulevard corridor as a green main street of connected neighborhoods with improved access, safety, sustainability, and amenities. It provides a framework for future growth along the corridor and outlines goals and recommendations related to key planning elements. Uh so to encourage new housing occurs

within appropriate locations, the area plan includes uh usemix maps and building height and form maps that inform future land use types and densities. So as you can see here at the subject site, the area plan recommends multifamily residential up to seven stories. So to enable these recommended land use and building heights, the area plan also envisions future GLUP changes along the corridor when redevelopment does occur. So again at the subject site, uh the area plan recommends a designation of low office department hotel. In addition, the area plan seeks to increase access to a diverse network of public spaces as growth occurs. So again, the area plan identifies a uh 20,000 square foot public space at the corner of Cherry Hill Road and North Taylor Street, approximately 17,400 ft of which is to be located at the subject site itself. The area plan further recommends the public space includes a hybrid of plaza and park amenities uh with a mixture of heartscape and landscape elements to support large community gatherings. So the proposal itself includes 47 townhouse units at a density of 16.8 uh units per acre. Each townhouse unit includes two parking spaces with another 11 spaces located on site dedicated to uh visitors. The site also includes private internal streets and 10,279 square ft of new public space. The applicant is also requesting modifications for lot coverage and setbacks. So in support of the quarterwide vision, the area plan establishes several goals

uh including here uh increasing density through future glo changes, achieving housing production targets, including 2500 affordable units on Langston Boulevard corridor by 2040. expanding equitable housing choices, increasing access to public spaces and also expanding tree canopy. So this on the left uh shows the concept plan depicting the site as envisioned by the area plan in support of these goals as a multif family residential development. So in reviewing the proposal in relation to these goals, uh the proposal maintains the existing club designation of lowmedium residential uh ultimately providing 16.8 units per acre. It does provide uh 47 market rate units with no contribution for affordable housing. It provides uh home ownership housing with larger size units. The proposal installs and maintains again the 10,279 ft of new public space and includes 26% tree canopy coverage. Um so staff finds a proposal fails to adequately achieve these area plan goals uh which is largely attributed to the proposed housing typology which is town houses. So the fact is this proposed housing typology presents a major deviation from the area plan which again recommends that multif family residential. So the impacts of the townhouse typology is reflected in the proposed site design uh compared to what is uh envisioned uh by the area plan. So typically, you know, multif family residential consists of compact multi-story buildings with vertically stacked units and shared

entrances and parking facilities. However, townhouse communities uh instead feature these sideby-side units and are often characterized by increased lot coverage to accommodate uh internal sidewalks and streets uh to support those individual unit entrances. the private garage access uh the visitor parking as well as overall fire access. So while the area plan does acknowledge that town houses contribute to more housing options in the corridor, it also stresses that by right townhouse development would likely result in a form of development inconsistent with planned goals for moderate to higher levels of residential density and the urban and pedestrian oriented streetscapes, consolidated public open space, and a coordinated multimodal planned street grid that could be achieved through multif family housing. So, as a result, the ERA plan actually recommended a zoning ordinance amendment to require approval of town houses within the Langston Boulevard Planning District via site plan. Uh despite this, the area plan does identify uh transition areas along the edge of the corridor for townhouse development where this housing typology could provide appropriate uh height transitions between high density to lower density areas. It's also important to consider the proposed townhouse project in relation to the currently approved artist senior living site plan as well as the site as envisioned by the area plan. So the um artist senior living uh which actually predates adoption of the Langston Boulevard area plan uh provides over three and a half times the number of units all senior housing. It also provides a $350,000 AHIF contribution. Uh the same amount of

public space which is outlined here in pink as well as a greater tree canopy coverage than uh Waverly Ridge. And then for the multif family residential project as envisioned by the area plan, that project would theoretically provide at least 200 units uh the recommended public space and tree canopy as well as affordable housing uh in the form of an AHIP contribution to meet the base ADU contribution, 30 on-site calves which would be associated with the recommended glo change and potentially additional calves associated with a request for bonus density. So, the area plan itself uh did evaluate existing conditions through an equity lens and found the corridor provides limited housing opportunities for lower and middle inome households to deliver stay in the area. It also found there are connectivity gaps in areas with insufficient public spaces. Uh the corridor lacks robust tree canopy coverage which disproportionately impacts those who rely on non-vehicular transportation and the existing transportation network is generally undesirable for walking or biking. So as a result the area plan seeks to address these inequities through the policies and recommendations previously mentioned. Staff finds the proposal does not adequately advance the equity goals for housing, public spaces, and tree canopy, but does con but acknowledge it does contribute to the uh transportation network goals. So the project was reviewed by the SPRC which included uh representatives from various commissions, civic associations and adjacent condos and HOAs. So during the SPRC meetings, members were generally receptive to the proposal

uh despite the deviations identified by staff. Some SPRC members raised concerns about the anticipated sales price uh being unattainable for most Arlingtonians as well as the lack of green building elements. Uh some also suggested the limited size of the public space could be mitigated through other site improvements. While there was uh strong support expressed by civic associations and adjacent condos and town houses for the proposal. Um and in terms of uh commission and community correspondence uh attached to the PC meeting materials includes letters and comments from the commissions and community groups listed here. Uh I know there were also letters from C2E2 and the Langston Boulevard boulevard Alliance uh distributed earlier today. So following the SPRC meetings, the project was heard at the transportation commission where they voted 9 to zero recommending approval. And to conclude, staff uh recommends denial of the site plan amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we'll hear from the applicant.

Um good evening everyone. Nick Cummings with Walsh Kaluchcci here on behalf of the applicant BCN homes, a local Arlington-based real estate development company dedicated to the construction of single family homes, town homes, restaurants, and other projects throughout the county. BCN has done a lot of development in neighborhoods uh in the neighborhoods of Arlington County over the last 25 years, and we're all very proud of the plan that we're putting in front of you today. The site has sat vacant and blighted with various approvals and attempts at approval since at least 1999. BCN has been pursuing this land for the last decade because it sees a great opportunity for housing and were actually the runner up to artists in 2017 who brought forth the previous failed elder care plan which of course failed due to lack of financing. Suffice to say, there's a long history with this site with multiple failed developments and any multif family developers who seriously considered this parcel could not develop a plan that was financially viable. My goal is to ensure that this is not a missed opportunity for the county, but instead the approval of a viable project that leads to the construction of these homes and provide much neededed housing to the county and bring enormous benefits to our community at the same time. So when BCN purchased the site, and they do own it outright, and planned their proposal, they were careful to ensure that the community benefits that were provided by the currently approved site plan, which I'll call the artist plan, including the public open space, street improvements, and storm water management, were retained and even improved in some cases. That's despite a significant decrease in density and despite the fact that the artist plan like ours was providing community benefits in this plan such as privately built and maintained public open space that typically earned bonus density even though no such density is requested with this proposal nor was requested with the artist plan. It's important to note that the Langston Boulevard area plan I'll just call it the plan was adopted in 2023 while the currently approved artist site plan was approved in 2020. Little attention was focused on the community benefits associated with this site because they were already included in the artist approval that many at the

time we heard this in SPRC felt was a given. The proposal before you preserves and improves the community benefits of the existing site plan approval as I said while also furthering many additional goals of the LBAP including family-sized housing ownership opportunities and diversity of housing type. The central issue issue of staff's denial recommendation is the type of housing we are proposing. The project before you is a town home community, a type of housing that is anticipated in the plan and is financially viable to develop on this land. The project offers a mix of home ownership and town home sizes which are incredibly short supply today as the prevailing home choices are single family or condos or renting in a multif family building. Staff has posited that the proposed development is not consistent with the theoretical multif family building that could pursuant to the plan be proposed for this site. We disagree and we'll show you why it is indeed consistent with and appropriate under the plan. Now, first land use and density. Town homes are permitted by site plan throughout the plan area wherever residential uses are allowed and the project density of 16.8 units per acre is consistent with its current glut designation of lowmedium residential. The plan states that it allows for optional increases in density in in exchange for community improvements and benefits that could be achieved through optional upzoning and upkeep requests. This is an implementation strategy to achieve planned goals, but it is not a requirement and should not be an expectation of any development throughout the corridor, particularly when the incentives offered simply don't result in a financially feasible project. The plan is written as a guideline and policy document that should not be read as a formulaic and prescriptive document. It instead states that flexible land use policies will allow the corridor to adapt to market and community needs and transform over time. Inherent in this plan is that appropriate flexibility should be exercised in applying its goals and policies to actual circumstances. I think that very much applies this

evening. Remember, plans are policies, not law. They are intended to demonstrate how development could proceed in a neighborhood and identify community goals for the area. The plan states that new town houses can offer an option that is appropriate between taller building heights and existing lower density residential areas. That is exactly how our project offers a transition from the taller multifamily buildings to the north and west horizon to the single family homes and low-rise town home and multif family communities to the south and east. Arlington's own missing missing middle initiative unanimously supported by the county board explicitly identified town homes as one of the EHO housing types that's consistent with county planning policies that identify town homes as neighborhood scale housing that serves to bridge the transition from single family to higher density zones. BCN and proposing a townhouse typology here will be delivering exactly what the county board and staff said it wanted. a type of ownership family-sized housing with three bedrooms and more that barely exists in Arlington. It is about 3.5% of the total housing supply here, but it is much more attainable to many who want to own in Arlington. Moving forward, the plan recommends open space, which we deliver fully consistent with the currently approved plan and with an improved design and configuration. And notwithstanding the fact this plan does not use our proposal does not use the optional up club or up zoning offered by the plan and we have not reduced the open space and size commeasurately given that our density has been reduced by significant numbers from the artist plan. Most critically as well, members of the Langston Boulevard Alliance, who are present at SPRC, testified that the specific open space size was not thoroughly discussed in any meetings that the assumption was the artist site plan would be built with its park at about 10,000 ft as shown in the preliminary concept plans for the area and there was no specific intention to try to increase the size of that park. That 20,000t size is used several times in the plan. It was not necessarily

tailored to this site. Waverly Hills Civic Association strongly supports this application along with neighboring homeowners associations including Cherrydale, the neighboring condo and town home development uh HOAs. They specifically stated they felt the open space is appropriately sized and welldesigned. Again, the project is not requesting any bonus densities below the density permitted in the zoning ordinance with approval of a site plan. Benefits like open space are supposed to be tied to the impact of the actual development proposed and are commonly seen with larger, more dense projects that have more impacts to mitigate and bonus density to earn. The 10,000 plus open 10,000 plus square foot open space that is proposed is already well above and beyond what could ever be expected of a 47 unit community. But we fully acknowledge here the previously approved plan and have committed to maintaining this benefit for the community and our project. But the project cannot and should not be held to a planned concept that is not proportionally related to the impacts associated with the proposed project. Um on tree canopy uh staff states that the 35% tree canopy goal for seventory and above buildings applied at this site. We don't feel that that is a fair reading of plan recommendations and it's an unrealistic expectation for any site without high-rise development. We are not requesting the optional upzoning and up club that would provide the density and other incentives to allow for a developer to shape a building for 35% tree canopy. Tree canopy goals consistent with the applicable height limits for the current zoning and gl designation should instead apply. We can't get to seven stories under the existing glop and zoning. The height cap is 75 ft which would be extraordinarily difficult to fit seven stories into if you were even pursuing multif family town homes. Again, they're permitted use. They are not tall buildings. This is another instance where the plan recommendations were written assuming taller structures without any consideration of town homes. And note too, our tree canopy of 26% is a very good number objectively for any development. It is above the 20% target

that should be applicable considering we can't get to seven stories absent the upzoning and up club. Now, in closing, um I want to say that many of us at this table have been working on pursuing the site for almost a decade, and the record shows more than 27 years of unsuccessful attempts to redevelop the property and deliver a completed project. The abandoned homes in the site today are uh blighted, boarded up structures, yet continue to be vandalized and create an undesirable and unsafe condition. Now, through the SPRC process, and we've put up on the screen here some of the changes that were made and improvements made to the project with some accompanying images during the SPRC process. You're going to see that that includes um some greenery on rooftops, accommodation for planters, uh balconies shown on all of the units, uh the elevator optionality we have for twothirds of the units. We've explored that further as well. And of course, confirmation that the roofs can accommodate solar panels. Um that SPC process confirmed that this project has strong community support from all of the surrounding civic associations including Waverly Hills and of course the Alliance. There are letters of support you've all received that detail numerous reasons why this project is good for the community and should receive approval. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. Building anything is a serious challenge today and many many people are desperate for this exact type of housing. 47 units, by the way, with an average of four bedrooms, which can can accommodate housing for up to nearly 200 people is not all that dissimilar on a bedroom count from what would be legitimately expected from a multif family 200 unit building that would be composed of largely studios, ones, and some twos. We looked at a bedroom count, we can show you in a chart during discussion, comparing the Walgreens distribution to our bedroom count, and we're not that far off with this community. We ask for your support this evening so we can build this community and house these 200 Arlingtonians in this great neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Madame Clerk, do we have any public speakers? We do. Um I will start with uh virtual speakers. If you can please hear me, please turn on your own mic and your camera. When completed, turn them off and I will have the timer displayed on the screen. Our first speaker is Bernie Burn followed by Sha Wilson. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Thank you. Um, because it is residential, this project needs more green space to accommodate trees and low vegetation. Green space supports butterflies and other pollinators. It also increases livability. This project is short of green space even though it has a public plaza. All all buildings should have flat roofs to make and these are not flat roofs to make ro space for green roofs and solar panels. The applicant should reprove the lawn from the public space. This is important. Lawns provide little habitat for pollinators. They also create storm water runoff. This is a p this is a public space now. A place of storm water runoff. Most lawn grasses are invasive and non-natives. Their mowing uses energy. It creates air and noise pollution. Replace the lawn with native trees, shrubs, and perennials. Or just forget the whole public space. It's useless otherwise. Uh flowering native vine should hang from the roofs and balconies. They should also climb from the ground to create green walls between rows and windows. To its credit, the plant pallet contains common milkweed. This plant feeds many modic butterfly caterpillars at all and its vicinity. However, the plant pallet also contains 10 species that are native to North America but are not native to all vicinity. These include a tree southern magnolia shrubs such as ink berry, summer sweet and American beauty berry, a perennial perennial purple cone flower and two ornamental grasses tufted hairrass and prairie. All these are not native to all in vicinity. Native polies made native pollinators may not recognize them. The applicant should replace all non-natives with plants that are native to all vicinity. They should have similar characteristics to non-natives that is planning to install. The applicant should also add black cherry and chest as frustrators

as well as fruits that feed birds. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sean Wilson, followed by John Muso. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Of course. Wonderful. Well, good evening. My name is Sean Wilson. I'm a licensed residential real estate agent here in Arlington. This is my home. I grew up here. I built a career here and I've spent the last several years building this career with alongside my mother Ann Wilson, helping families find homes in Arlington and in this community. Over the past few years, I've watched my clients have the same conversation over and over again. There aren't a ton of homes that check all their boxes. That home being a four-bedroom, fourb new build with walkable shops and restaurants. That product is relatively challenging to find in Arlington currently. And just to provide you guys with some stats, according to Real Scout, which is a tool that I along with multiple other realtors use, states that there are currently 500 active qualified buyers searching for that exact criteria. Um, I personally know of five that are currently renters looking to purchase a home of this stature. Um, and I'm honestly personally very excited about this development. These are real people who are qualified and ready to buy and ready to make Arlington their home. What I love about this project is it fills a gap in the market that has been vocal for years. Langston Boulevard, while I say this for love of the corridor, is dominated by car dealerships and it has been for decades. And while those businesses serve a purpose, they're not creating the kind of neighborhood or energy that this community deserves. After looking closely at this plan, I believe Waverly Ridge is exactly the kind of attainable highquality housing Arlington needs. And from what I've seen, this plan delivers that perfectly that BCN has proposed. These homes have the potential to accommodate elevators, which is also great for older generations that currently have Arlington as their home and they're looking to downsize and accommodate properties that they can live in comfortably. Um, I speak for all of my clients frequently who are looking to downsize. They're looking for low maintenance. They're looking for a home that can accommodate an elevator. And I

believe that this is a great proposal for the uh for the space. Like I said, I'm genuinely excited about this project. I think it means a world to Arlington for something like this to happen and I would love to see this proposed uh go to approval. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Of course.

Our next speaker is John Muso followed by Sandy Chessron. Good evening, members of the planning commission. John Misa, government affairs manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Arlington Chamber, I wish to express our support for the project before you, the uh associated application for the redevelopment of uh 2134 North Taylor Street. We believe that this project would finally bring productive use to a site that has been underutilized for quite a number of years while also advancing a goal of a more vibrant and populated uh Langston Boulevard corridor. Um the current state of this site really kind of speaks to itself. This is a gap in likes and boulevard corridor that has unfortunately resisted development for a number of years and we believe that this project is able to finally realize the goal of a wellutilized site of land with 47 townhouse units in a range of sizes specifically family sizes which is a size of multif family housing that is still very scarce throughout the county including along lengths boulevard corridor. Um we understand that there's considerable you know community support for this to WL Hill Civic Association um and others. We also just really want to emphasize that currently this site of land is in being underutilized. It is providing no community benefits. It is providing no tax revenue. It is not providing a home for any residents. And if this were to be utilized this will have 47 new families will generate tax revenue. it will add to the vibrancy that we wish to see in likes the boulevard going forward. Um we also do believe this includes a meaningful package of community improvements as noted in terms of more than 10,200 ft of publicly accessible open space, storm water management and so forth. Um and as noted in the presentation, the transportation commission to vote unanimously to recommend approval. So respectfully request that the planning commission recommend approval of the

site plan amendment and associate application. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sandy Chestron followed by Ginger Brown.

Good evening. My name is Sandy Chestron. I'm the president of the Waverly Hills Civic Association and I was also the vice chair of Plan Langston Boulevard. Um, first I want to thank Chair Bagley and Kevin Lamb staff for really listening to the neighborhood at the SPRC where all six neighborhood groups supported this plan. We very much appreciate it. We all wanted artists and then Salera to build senior housing, but the market didn't want it and there was no financing. Thus, the Waverly Hills Civic Association strongly supports this plan. It is consistent with the zoning and it is consistent with the Langston Boulevard area plan. Town houses are an important aspect of Arlington's housing supply. We talked a lot about it during Langston Boulevard area planning. Currently, they are only 3.7% of the inventory, although there's high demi demand by both families and seniors who would like to age in neighborhood. The community benefits on this plan are many. Excellence in architecture, a bike lane, a much safer walk to school along Taylor to Dorothy, extensive storm water management. You know how much Waverly Hills floods and so we very much appreciate the underground vault. Solutions to address climate change including shade trees, native plants, electrical systems for the units, solar panel ready rooftops and EV ready charging stations. In addition, the plan continues the promise made under artists to provide the open space. This is a very important pocket park and it is slightly larger than the uh pocket park provided by artists. In summary, as you know, normally townhouse developments like this in this zoning district are by right. No community benefits are negotiated. During these

tough times of a budget crunch and high construction costs, please support keeping this investment in Arlington. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Ginger Brown and Mr. Robert Sandoli will be speaking on behalf of C2E2. Hi, good evening. I'm Ginger Brown. I'm with the Langston Boulevard Alliance. LBA strongly supports the development of these 47 town houses um which enhance Langston Boulevard's overall housing variety, expanding home ownership opportunities and offering units designed for those looking to age in place and also for families. Uh but is the property itself a longtime vacant lot with a few dilapidated buildings that brings its unique history to tonight. LBA was fully involved with when this property went through the site plan review in 2019 for artist senior living which was approved prior to the adoption of the Langston Boulevard area plan by the county board. Giving given the timing of the approval and the intense scrutiny of the site plan process, the site was left out of the public dialogue during the planning process. LBA was extremely disappointed when the elder care facility failed. LBA was uh disappointed for the second time when the property was sold and the second attempt at development failed. It would be especially disappointing for a third development to fail, leaving abandoned houses and diseased trees in its wake and so many wasted resources, both staff, commissions, and communities. The artist project's highly desirable community benefits re recently approved by the county board and supported by the community continue to be highly desirable for the our Waverly Ridge project. the green public space, the storm water improvements, the

transportation improvements. Um, it's just a very good project. Failure should not be an option. Uh, in short, this is a good development and welcomed by the neighbors and we should uh strongly encourage all to continue to work through this process and get to a point that we can get an approval from the county board. That's the end of our public speakers. Uh Mr. Sandoli will speak under committees and commissions. Hello. Uh my name is Rob Sandoli. I'm the vice chair of the Climate Change Energy and Environment Commission or C2E2. uh we have submitted a letter opposing this project and the reason is simple is that we did not have the information to assess this project for its sustainability attributes. Uh just today I logged onto the website. I counted 81 uh separate files on the project website. uh for two of those um uh one on sustainability commitments and one on energy model summary and proposed savings. Um this is what I printed out. The applicant will submit this documentation at a later date. We at T2E2 find this wholly unacceptable um and inconsistent with the climate action resolution that the county uh board passed unanimously uh last year. sustainability is a priority uh for the county. Uh and in order for us to do our jobs on C2E2, we need this documentation in order to provide um our advice uh to the county board. Uh we noted this lack of documentation uh uh in advance of the second SPRC meeting. Uh and during the SPRC meeting,

we reached out after that SPRC meeting seeking this documentation. Um and so we are not opposed at C2 to to development at all or to super expensive development. Uh we just need the information in order to do our jobs and uh so in that case we are simply calling a process foul in our uh opposition to this project. uh we don't think the county should consider uh and or the PC uh in in on its own consider any project that doesn't have the proper documentation submitted so that all commissions can weigh in uh consistent uh with their mission. Thank you.

All right. Thank you to our public speakers. Uh commission reports. I believe we probably have transportation. Correct. That is correct. And as I said last night, I was not able to attend, but I did get a report from the chair of the transportation commission. Um, as mentioned before, the transportation commission did vote unanimously to recommend this project. um their the way they um characterize it is that the transportation commission found that the application for site plan amendment um SP452 is not inconsistent with the master transportation plan or the transportation elements of the Langston Boulevard area plan and so recommend that the county board approve the application to permit the con the construction of 47 townhouse units with modifications for lot coverage front and sideyard setbacks and other modifications necess necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 at North Taylor Street. Um that's that was their only um vote report on this. They declined to to deny it as the staff had recommended and that's pretty much it.

Thank you. Okay. So I was the chair of this particular SPRC. I was also the chair of the artist um project. I think all of you saw the report that I sent out. If not, I have paper copies. Um, just briefly, um, because I think it's been well stated already. Um, the staff has pointed out a number of what they believe are deviations between um, the Langston Boulevard area plan. Um but there was as you can see there was some disagreement uh in the SPRC process even amongst those who includes some of us um actually participated in that planning process as to what was actually required or envisioned for that spot. Um the neighbors believe that it's an eyesore and uh any the current proposal would certainly be better. um land use and density. Um we'll be there were some that feel that more folks should be there. Um site design and layout. Um we asked a little bit about personal green spaces, open space and landscaping. There was a lot of discussion about that. Um, if you go back to the artist plan, in addition to the um, pocket park, I guess is the corner park, they also had a um, central meeting um, gathering space uh, for the building. Um, the tree canopy was uh, a concern. Uh, let's see here. Um, building height uh, form and architecture. Um they talked about building height. Uh as you heard here, um residents

in the area were pleased with a smaller building height and less density. Um which can be kind of a luxury. We heard last night from the folks around Walgreens that it's too high. We heard from the folks at Leky Gardens up the street that it was too high. So you know that that is an area of discussion. Transportation I think uh a lot of the transportation issues were resolved there as well as parking green building and sustainability. I will discuss that a little bit more especially given um C2E2's comments. We didn't have a lot of comments on construction phasing and community benefits um because uh the applicant is coming in under one F uh they don't require um affordable housing contribution. So, you know, these are some of the topics that um I'm going to open it up now and we're going to actually go by the topics that we discussed in the SPRC. So, we're going to start with land use and density comments, questions. Land use and density. Yes, Commissioner Pet.

Thank you. Um, so I think one of the big discussion points for tonight is this doesn't um currently align with the Langston Boulevard area plan, but what are the alternatives? So, if if not this project, what could be built by right? Are we looking at a handful of McMansions that if we don't approve this, those could be built? Um, the site is zoned for townhouse, but because of the extra layer of requirements, that's no longer by right. Um, so if if we didn't pass this tonight, because we're hoping for more density, but like what are we what's the alternative? Could we just get six McMansions at this place?

Yes. So, I can start. So there are a few byite options for residential uses like you said single family houses there's duplexes and there's actually a byite option for multifamily as well. Um because it is byite they are subject to kind of the uh density requirements per the zoning ordinance. So we did run some calculations theoretically. Um, so the maximum densities could be 20 single family houses, 34 duplexes, or 101 multif family units. However, that's kind of with an asterisk because there are different zoning ordinance um, street frontage requirements. There's setback requirements, bulk requirements. So that's kind of the maximum you could conceivably do at the site, but it could be lower than that.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Strider. Oh, I just had a clarification. Yes, go ahead. So, you're saying there could be a multif family option of about 100 units give or take by right by right. Yeah. Okay. Do we have a mockup of what massing or what that might look like? I know it's a lot of Okay, thank you. May I ask about if it's by right then we wouldn't get the community benefits in that case since it's by right yes but there's also special exception options as well.

So why would somebody um pursue a special exception option with extra requirements for community benefits if they could build a multif family by right? So there you know with the area plan itself it does provide those land use recommendations for increased density. So we have that glo change to a higher glo kind of accompanying a glove change would be also a zoning change. So those together along with the building height recommendations try to offer incentives for developers to build at greater densities in in one respect to offset kind of going through the site plan process.

Commissioner Shriner. Yeah. So this is more of a history question I suppose. So there was obviously a site plan here. two senior centers and now we're here on a third. Um, and kind of pulling on the thread with the alternatives. What was the sort of interest from other developers? Like were there by the time we've now reached this third site plan and the property has changed hands presumably three times. Was there still, you know, were there still multiple parties interested in pursuing this site? I guess this is I don't know who that was the

I only know a little bit of information but I understand there were other interested developers when the project when the site went on sale Mhm. last year. I know there were different parties and do you know more or less what they would have been proposing? Would it have been something more in line with Solaris or or um the original plans? That I'm not sure.

Okay. So, thank you. I see where you're going with that thread. I mean, the reality is that the market's very different even now than it was when that transaction happened. So, I don't I personally don't want to spend a lot of time going down the whatif path of who could have bought what. This is in front of us. I think we approve or deny based on what's in front of us. Um, I think we've heard reasons to find either way. Um,

I'm, you know, still have more questions to go through. I don't know where I'm going to land on this, but I don't I personally don't want to live in whatif land because there's a there's a proposal a site plan in front of us and I don't other things didn't pan out. You know, more senior living would have been lovely. Didn't happen twice. But I also don't know what would come or anything could come because what the economics of now are not what they were when the site changed hands the third time. I I just to me that's not a helpful line of inquiry. I hope that's not rude. I just that's how I feel. Mhm. Commissioner Mado.

Okay. Um I you know I don't have to be convinced that town homes are a good thing. So this is I don't want the conversation to be you know is a town home a good idea? It is. But is the town home a good idea? Here is what we're trying to understand. and and I'm trying to understand is there a way to make this project viable towards what they're asking and what you need to do in order to make this viable financially. I'm just wondering was there an emerging of I know you've been itching to talk so I would like you to help me understand why there's you've made all these um associations happy. I'm trying to figure out why we can't make some of the requirements also happen.

Um, hard question to answer. It's not really getting to a specific challenge, but I can kind of try to run through them. Um, I don't see how we could feasibly deliver anything that would be um, a multif family building on this site. I think we've been clear about that. That's not going to work. I mean, I think the fact that the byite multif family building is not something we're interested in is pretty telling on that. Um, beyond that, stacked flats, other things like that that people have suggested to us don't work for many other reasons. They use up more sight area. Um, they aren't particularly efficient, but also you get into condo sales, which is just not something that, um, this applicant and many developers are willing to do because of liability concerns, etc. Um, so I honestly think that I'm short of, you know, the multif family building that is just never going to happen regardless. Um, that 47 town homes, particularly with the variation in size, etc. We've packed in as many as we could. Um, is a very dense good project that delivers a lot of housing. Um, I do think that ultimately what we're being compared against here is a hypothetical building that would achieve everything that staff feels is important here, but it's hypothetical and it won't happen. And I think that in reality, even if someone were able to build a multif family building here, you wouldn't get to the um tree canopy goal. I don't know that you would necessarily have the park. You would need a very large building to accommodate the number of units to carry all those affordable housing set aides, etc. You would need um a parking ratio up to like a 1.5 at least. You're not close to the metro. And I did talk to virtually every bidder on this site. Um there only a couple for multif family that even looked at it. They were enormous buildings, donuts that are five

over two stick built development that would consume almost the entirety of the site. you need to build that parking deck into the hill just the same as you did with artists. Remember that that was a project with significant lot coverage because a lot of that green area was built on top of that parking deck. What you would see instead with a multif family building is something that looked a lot like that but had another bar behind it and pushed out basically as far as it could because you'd be trying to get every square foot that you could to be able to sustain all the other commitments that the plan expects. Um I don't know that you could achieve 35% tree canopy with a building like that. that doesn't really make sense to me. Uh it would be very difficult because it's not a skinny high-rise structure that allows for a lot of green around it at all. Um so those are some of the logistical sort of uh feasibility concerns that we look at. Um all of the biders who are realistic on this are looking at towns. And part of that too gets to the land value, right? the price of the land itself that nobody's going to sell this for, you know, a dollar or something such that maybe you could build whatever you want on it because you can build single family by right and so the land has value um with or without this process. And you know, I'm glad that the comment got surfaced about what the alternative is. We've done all the layouts. We have looked at the engineering. You can get 14 single family homes on this lot and that is the fallback. So if this gets denied, that's exactly what is going to happen. Um, and with that, that means as was noted, I think by Commissioner Baggley, there would be no public open space, no streetscape improvements, no storm water improvements, no utility undergrounding, and no public art contribution. All those things you don't do. You just go and get the permits for the houses as you go. Um, that's a worse outcome for us. We don't want that. Um, BCN has spent um a good amount of money. You all know how much all of this costs on their end for design work, all the consultants, etc. um to bring this forward because they genuinely want this, right? I mean, we want to do this town home development and deliver all these benefits. It's better for them, it's better for the community, but the alternative is the is

the byite development unfortunately in this situation. Um which also helps drive the reality of the economics here because the land is not worthless um because of that. Yeah. I just was wondering if there is still a way to for instance that central road it there's so much paving if there is a way to add some green space and then to still communicate with the commission that hasn't seen I don't know what happened there. Yeah. Can we table that part? Yeah. I'm not going to you know I'm going to get into it. I'm just saying there just seems to be some disconnect here that we need to address tonight. Yeah. Um,

go ahead. One thing I wanted to add, I think here to Strider. I think the person that can speak best to that is actually right here, Jay Hicks. Jay represented artists and went through the process and forgot to sign up tonight to talk,

but he's been involved with this property for a decade. Jay was involved in selling this parcel two times. First, ultimately to Solera, who came forward and tried to get a proposal developed, no luck. Jay, can you tell us just for a second or two about what it was like when BCI purchased this property, why you chose BC?

Commissioner Bagley, would you allow us to have Mr. Hicks? If we do it here, unfortunately, Mr. Kumas, if we do it here, we got to do it for everybody. So, it's nice to see you, Jay. I'm sorry that we Yes. discussed that. Um we think we maximize space while reticulation you need and we did get helpful on narrowing travel lanes and the amount of early on which we took because at this point there is think any feasible shift that can be made to substantively change the amount of site I'm going to move on to Commissioner Steinberger now. Let's keep affordable housing towards community benefits. Okay. Um, Commissioner Lent, tell me.

Yeah. I think one of the comments that the applicant made about density is an interesting one in that the number of bedrooms that'll be coming up on this unit on this property are three and four. So we're talking about well over 150 bedrooms which you know and you're right there probably will be more people living here um than per unit than in a typical apartment building that's built now. a rental apartment building which is built in this in the county right now which tend to be as we've seen roughly around one two bedrooms. Occasionally we we're thrilled to get a third bedroom. Often we get studios instead. Um so it's usually geared toward singlessons and couples for the most part. Um this is so the density is going to be more than what it appears to be with just 47 units here. uh it by density I mean by people actual people in coming to this new community. So I'm comfortable with that. I also was I'm no longer with Langston Boulevard Alliance. My term expired in December, but I am well aware of the history of this this this property here and Langston Boulevard Alliance back when it was Lee Highway alliance was working on this. It goes back that far. Um, I certainly am disappointed that artists didn't didn't work out and Solar didn't work out. And that wasn't because people didn't try to make it happen. There was a huge amount of work to make those actually happen. And the the rigidities of the market just turned everything upside down. Um, and they ended up walking away. And that's unfortunate. The community was unhappy about that. LBA was unhappy about that. Nobody was happy about that. But this but to but that's that's water under the bridge. We can't get what we wanted there. Um other senior projects are not going forward in the county also. It isn't just this one site. Um

thus the project remember town houses were proposed even before artists um and they didn't happen but they were proposed for this site anyway. Um it doesn't do violence to the plan Langston Boulevard um to the plan and given how long I've been working on Langston Boulevard plan I would be jumping up and down screaming if I felt this is really doing violence to it. Um, I have 13 years invested in getting the Langston Boulevard area plan in place and I feel that this is a decent project that you're right, it does not fit every single corner of the of the plan, but it's close enough that it fits the certainly what we want to have in this county, which is more people, more variety of housing, um, that are good quality, more green space, more public green space, the storm water management, which is extremely important in this area. Yeah. But just going down the list and that but anyway, as far as the plan goes, how does this fit Langster Boulevard plan? I think that again, it's not perfect, but it it's close enough that I'm comfortable with it after my time. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, as we're told as planning commissioners that we are keepers of the plan. So, I am struggling as a planning commissioner hearing that the Langston Boulevard plan calls for seven stories here, but maybe it doesn't. But knowing that the overarching goals of the county are more density and more housing because so many people want to be here. Uh and I would also like to address Mr. Cummings staff does not feel they are informing based on the plans. They don't get a chance to feel until after they leave here and they're like I'm glad this is over which we don't get a chance to see. So I just want to clarify that. Uh, I'm going to move us on now to site design and layout. Any comments, questions? Commissioner Str,

I I guess this isn't really a question more so I'm just I'm I I'm in the same boat with you. Like there are pieces of this that I like. There are pieces of this that I'm uncomfortable with given what's in the plan, you know, and and one of those pieces is the public space. I'm really concerned with how small that is. Um, you see a lot of these little pocket parks on the corridors and they're just they're just tiny and and I'm I'm just concerned at the at the the very small stature of this of this um site. And I guess I don't know, is there any sort of way to sort of reconfigure what's there, you know, to to allow for more space for this thing? I mean, because we're looking for we're looking at something that's half of what was proposed in the plan. And in response to the comment about the hypothetical, it is a hypothetical, but it's the hypothetical that was adopted and is in the Langston area plan. So, it is on us to at least, you know, kick the tires and make sure that we're getting the most out of it that we can. So, that's the only comment I suppose I have on that front. Okay. Oh, Commissioner Peterson,

thank you. Um, I just wanted to um follow up on Commissioner Amado's point about um that center lane of traffic uh in the center of the site design. Um the applicant has suggested they have to have that because of the fire truck uh regulation and I just wanted to get your staff kind of feeling about that. Is there a way to remove that center um lane of traffic so and maybe put some green space there so that we could get to the um tree canopy requirements of the site. So that uh so I think it's Bryce Johnson for the record with the uh that center lane is providing required 26 foot wide fire aerial access. Um it for a fire aerial access, it doesn't strictly have to be a street, but if it weren't a street, it would need to be um reinforced so that it could still support fire trucks and kept clear. Um which would then preclude any trees. Um so like there's some other options, but it doesn't really address what it seems the commission would be seeking with that.

Thank you. But I guess that's a good question. Is it can it be more permeable or can it be done a little differently? Does it have to be completely paved? Uh, that would be a conversation with the fire department. Um, but it could be I believe they do tend to allow some previous Yeah. where the again it just needs to be that reinforced uh material is the the biggest component of that.

All right. Uh let us move on now to open space and landscaping. And I'll start this off as depending on which plan you're believing and we're going with tonight. Um we think that uh the Langston Boulevard area plan envisions 17,400 square ft of public space. Um so with some revisions uh they are up to uh beyond I believe what artists had um proposed. So, open space and landscaping questions, comments. Commissioner Steinberger,

yes, thank you. So, with regards to Sorry, I'm going back to my notes. With regards to tree canopy, what I saw 26% tree canopy coverage is what's proposed here. How does I guess maybe a question for SAP, how does that compare to other similarly situated sites in the county? What what is that sort of where are we? Where does that scale to? Um, so maybe we can just look at site plans subject to the Langston Boulevard area plan. Sure. But I don't like the other question answered.

I don't know if you recall what Walgreens was at. Yeah, Walgreens met their 35%. Uh, but that was again a project that was above seven stories and I believe the plan recommends 35% target for seven stories and above and 20% below seven stories.

20% below. That's what Blanks Boulevard plan recommends. Okay. So, for other areas of the county with the similar zoning, is 20% also the standard? It's more in terms of the prevailing sector plan or area plan would have guidance for tree canopy coverage. Similarly, if a glo study kind of provided those recommendations um with Langston Boulevard, you know, it is established in the plan itself um kind of having those two tiers, but then also does have a quarter wide tree canopy target of 35%. Sorry. The the county has that across all of Arlington.

Just uh Langston Boulevard. Just Okay. Just Lson Boulevard area plan. Okay. But for the county as a whole, what what would the the average tree canopy coverage target period? Do you have that information? I don't. Although we can look to I guess kind of the forestry and natural resources plan uh which does have targets of 40%. 40%. So even 35% is below that 40%. Yeah.

Okay. Um I appreciate that 26 is higher than 20. I can do that level of math. Um I don't I I'm a little troubled that I don't think we're doing as much as really we can and not asking to get to 35%. But I feel like you can do better. Um, and I'm I'm not convinced that resting on 26 because it's greater than 20 gets me where I want to be for the site. Um, I'm not really a big fan of just meeting the minimum. And you're going to hear me talk about that when we talk about community benefits shortly. So, I I'd like you to think before you go to county board on what it would look like to get you better than 26% here because I don't I think it can be done and I would encourage you to think creatively.

Yeah. Do you want us to respond? Um I I don't think we can and I think that we have

I know but we have been working on this very creatively for a long time and um we've maximized the tree planting throughout this area. I think that in the public open space it's well exceeding the goal of 40% for that area which is great but we on every one of these projects quite frankly we work with the urban forester etc and all staff to try to maximize how many trees we can fit. We're often working on, you know, putting them closer together, compromising spacing, things like that to try to get as many as you can in. Um, for reference, other projects throughout the county, I mean, the rarely do they even exceed 20%. I mean, the Chesapeake Bay requirement is 10%. There's a lot of lofty and um, aspirational goals in this subject plan, which is great. Um, again, I would point you to the correct goal here really should be 20% for a site like this. We're exceeding it. We're very happy about that. We're very proud of it. We have worked to try to maximize the canopy. Um, if there were a way or if there was any sort of spot short of again, I mean, I understand that folks want us to explore removing all the pavement, etc. And we've looked at that and that's extremely difficult, if not impossible to do as well. So, it's a very difficult situation. That's that's what I'll say. Um, but we will absolutely think about your comments. Um, running up to county board, of course.

Um, can I follow up in terms of trees that are being preserved? Is there a graphic to show that? I don't know if the applicant can speak to that. We can. Whether there are preserved trees,

um the site is wooded and it's going to be largely cleared. There is a very large gap between the number of trees um that uh are being taken down and the number of being planted that is mitigated through a canopy fund contribution. um that's a standard condition and here I think that could range well the value just went up in the new standard conditions to $4,000 a tree and so under that it gets to like $700,000 to the county for the last planning condition and so that's a calculation that's

help to help mitigate the fact that it is heavily wooded and um you know we're planning as much as we can but um there's a significant significant cash contribution here that is required and that's not based on any FR metrics like affordable housing is it's charged always. Does that calculation take into account the coverage the expected tree canopy coverage? Does that reduce the cost of that? We get credit. Go ahead. So the tree canopy fund contribution is based on the trees removed and not replaced and not replaced physically replaced. So if the applicant were able to get above even higher than 26% it would in theory reduce the amount of cash.

Yeah. We would save a lot of money. So, seems like our interests are aligned. They are. That's why we Okay. Plan as So, I appreciate you going back to look into this. Look at I did want to just mention in terms of the public space itself, you know, there are guidelines for kind of the uh recommended uses for it. So, in this case, it is a plaza park hybrid. So, that I guess doesn't necessarily mean it should be fully planted with trees. to have kind of open areas for those park amenities, but also hardscaping for plaza-like amenities as well.

Uh, I just want to follow up on a couple of Dr. Burns comments. Um, we are going to go native here, right? We're not going to Thank you. Um, including native trees, correct? So, we're not going to see flowering dog woods. We're going to really see native trees. Correct. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Um, let's go on now to building height, form, and architecture. Mr. Ster, nice. I like it. I go ahead.

Could respond to Well, it was Bernie Burn who also mentioned a green rooftop um and having flat roofs. Can you respond to that?

Of course. Um we felt like uh one of our slides if if we could show it but um we were showing how on the roof decks which are flat so obviously behind that you have the flat roof with mechanical units on it etc. Um the roof decks we've been showing how planter boxes etc can fit up there and um how they could work right if people want them of course they're going to own these but um that can green up the roof significantly and folks can plant entire you know gardens and whatnot up there. This is a accurate rendering of what would be possible up on the roof deck. Is the siding fiber cement?

The siding on the absolute top floor because everything else is masonry. What is our material on the top floor? It's a cementitious product. I don't know if we would call it siding, but there's no vinyl, right? I don't know. I know you're an architect and you're talented. You know more about this than I do sometimes, but this is not about me. It's really about the people that are going to live here. They need to have good materials. Oh, I agree. Okay. Yeah. Shriner.

So, kind of going off of that, um, with the solar, the elevator, the planters, I'm not in the architecture and real estate game, so you might have to enlighten me on this. Are those sort of default pieces that are going to be in every one of these units or are these just going to be units going to be uh ready for those things as add-ons as as people purchase these? They would all be add-ons. They're all options. And um you know, BCN's a custom builder. There's a lot that they can do. Um and options that maybe even haven't been thought of or discussed tonight. If they are feasible, meaning if they can be permitted and built, they'd be happy to do that. But, you know, just like any other home builder, if you work with them, you can do a lot of different things. Okay.

Um, if you so choose. And is there anything sort of in this realm that does come default or out? Go ahead, Brian. I mean, what comes with what doesn't, etc. Yeah. Yeah. We go. So

um the units are being designed with a conduit first and foremost so that we can provide solar on these roofs so that you can ultimately put solar into these units. Um you know we're doing a number of different energy efficient uh solutions in these units. BCN has been a green home choice builder. There's no specific code right now for how these should be built. Um but BCN is obviously interested in building quality. We've been Arlington for 28 years building and our success in this community is based upon building quality high-end projects in and across neighborhoods. So, I mean, we're going to be obviously we've started our early marketing on this project and we've heard from people about what they want and obviously elevators was one of the big things that we've started to learn really were something that was very important because there's a huge demand for age in place housing right now and particularly in these neighborhoods right here in Waverly Hills and surrounding Cherry. So, I mean, we are obviously it's still early for us to figure out everything that can be done here, but BCN's breath of building experience and single family homes is 200 plus homes and town home communities. Our goal obviously is to build the best product that we can and listen obviously to what our clients and customers want.

So, hopefully that explains to you. It

does. Yeah. And then if I if I may just put a plug in for, you know, electric heat pumps, um energy efficiency measures like you mentioned, um all electric appliances, things like that that kind of bring the carbon footprint of this thing down. Um you know, those are all things that we're generally supportive of and I think CTV2YC is nodding their head, so they are as well. Thank you. Just one more comment on building height. Um again, last night we heard Walgreens. We had neighbors in front of us who really would have loved to see town houses versus a tall building. We had Lucky Gardens neighbors in front of us who and then the county board questioned for almost 2 hours about height when they were hearing uh the Lucky Garden site. So, I just want to remind everybody and as a former civic association president myself who went through this in the Boston Virginia Square corridor, the neighbors there would have found it a luxury that they could have town houses versus a higher building. So, let's move on to transportation now. questions, comments about parking.

Yeah, good. Uh, Commissioner Peterson, um, this kind of is parking/ sustainability. Will there be, um, EV charging in all the parking spaces? Is that an add-on as well? That will be standard in the units.

That's standard in the units. Okay. Thank you. Green building and sustainability. I want to start here. Prior to SPRC2, I received an email as did uh Mr. Lamb from C2E2 saying that they were unable to assess the project as we have become accustomed to getting a scorecard from them. So if you go back and look at that recording, I dedicated close to 10 minutes in that meeting to facilitate between the rep, Mr. Freriedman, and the applicant how can we make sure they get information to a point and if somebody goes back and looks at that recording, you will see Mr. Cummings dutifully ripping up a piece of paper and handing contact information to um Mr. Freriedman. So, imagine my surprise when I get an email um I'm copied on an email on March 26 saying, "We reached out directly to the developers representative after SPRC2 and sought sustainability documentation again with no response. Given the lack of information, we attend to recommend that the board reject the project. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy moving forward, C2E2 recommends that any SPRC and PC meeting be postponed if relevant document documentation required by the county site plan conditions and if applicable to the project green building incentive policy is not submitted in advance. So before I go further with that, ju can I just ask the applicant what happened after SPRC2? Thank you. Yeah, I will say that I don't specifically remember ignoring an email or anything like that. I acknowledge that that

easily could have happened. Um, functionally in reality, what was happening at that point was we began to talk to staff about what we could or couldn't do um and what we were looking at and there is no GBIP program for towns right now. We looked at something else that maybe we could have done um at least as sort of a pilot or to look at study, you know, what could the process be? We met with them a couple times. Um ultimately, I think staff took a position that they would want um if we were going to pursue that, they would want us to do bonding and testing and other things that we weren't willing able to take on with this project. Um, and from there it fell back to, okay, we're negotiating the conditions and there may or may not even be a specific commitment to some of these things in the conditions given the outcome of those discussions. Also, at the same time, we ended up with staff recommendation of denial and then pivoting to more existential threats that I needed to pay attention to. And so, it fell off the wayside a bit. And um I'll take responsibility for the communication failure, but I don't think what was going to happen ever was anything other than the site plan condition being given to CTE to to show what we were committing to in the conditions legally. I don't think that realistically we were going to do an energy model or other studies that cost money and consultants that we don't even have on the team to explore some of these. What they are used to seeing and analyzing that give them the most information are detailed energy modeling and lead scorecards that are provided typically by folks who are participating in the green building incentive plan. When you're not participating in that plan, there's not really any incentive to do anything, especially for a town home where there's not even, you know, leads silver certification as a back stop in the standard conditions. It's just the green building contribution. It's like 4.5 cents a foot. Um, and so that's what it defaults to. And so we were offering to do an exploratory, hey, we can use this certification program

for a couple of units knowing that we don't need to earn any density or anything here. Um, but that there just wasn't an interest understandably, I'm not blaming them at all, um, by the staff for that if we weren't going to like bond something and really promise performance, etc. And again, that's all part and parcel of the discussion about, you know, how much should a project like this give? um and it's already giving a lot to measure it to what it is. But we understand this is Arlington and there's a lot of expectations and we try to meet as many of them as we can. It's just that in this era it is very very difficult to get anything off the ground. And the cushion of extra money or extra resources that used to be there to address all manner of things that folks are so concerned with rightfully so in this county has disappeared. and I no longer have the ability to say, "Guys, can't we just do this?" Because the answer is, "I can't even get a loan for this right now." It's different with this. These you can build in little sections as you go. It is a far more feasible, phasable product, which is part of the reason that it's far more financially viable because you can creep it out and sell them. And it's just much much easier than finding $30 million no one has to invest in a region in a multif family building when you know we have all kinds of problems in DC and all kinds of mayhem in our local economy. So it's a long-winded answer, but I do want to say that if I miss an email to at least tell them guys this is where we're at. That's my fault and I take responsibility for that always. Um otherwise it's the reality of where we are and what we can commit to which is just not a lot but you can understand too that we are doing things that are very much good for green building just as a matter of the market of what people expect here. These are going to be all electric just because you don't I don't think we think we want to deal with gas.

No we don't. Yeah the EV charging etc. Those are the low the energy fixtures all that stuff.

A couple other comments before I open it to others. Um, my standard routine when I chair a project on behalf of the commission, I don't go through what I expect. I go through a litany of the things that really for the benefit of the applicant if they are not as skilled at this as you are, Mr. Cummings. um a litany of the things that they can expect in this process and should be prepared for if nothing more so than being fair and hopefully making the process then that much more smooth because everybody is anticipating some of the things that will be brought up. I'm pretty sure I did this this time. I always do it. Second, this is a group of volunteers, well-meaning volunteers who take it upon themselves to be away from their families at this time to miss the first half of the final championship game with their alma mater playing. Um, and in the hopes that hopefully they can make the county a better place to be after they're gone from it. Um, I just need to send a message out there that this should have never happened. Um, I find it so disrespectful to not just um the commission itself, all commissions, we now are on the hot seat with the county boards. How'd you let this happen? despite the fact that you can go to that recording and say, "I did everything in my human capability to make sure this was not going to happen." So, it's it's insulting to the staff. It's insulting to the process. It's insulting to the county. and I have been struggling with some sort of a motion

that I can make, but there are a number of green options that staff could have um offered and discussed. I get the sense, and I certainly hope I'm wrong here, but I get the sense is we're coming in under one F, so we don't have to do anything else. And I don't like feeling that way. I think it's unfortunate, but I haven't decided yet what motion I might make at the end of this, but we can't have that happen to a commission. Um, it just should not happen. I don't want to ever hear it again happening, at least while I'm part of this. So, uh, I just wanted to go on record with that. Any other comments about, um, green bill? Yes.

I'll associate myself with Commissioner Bagley's Chair Bagley's comments. Um, I think it's really unfortunate. I appreciate you taking ownership of that so your client didn't have to, but it kind of sucks.

You know, if the plan was all along, we're not going to do anything for green building, then go ahead and just put that in the presentation. From a staff perspective, maybe what we should see in the future is all the plans that they could have done so that as when the county attorney pulled us aside in our private meeting and said, "You're certainly welcome to um shame applicants, we could have shamed them." So, um I I just think we all collectively need to figure out how we do this better because I never, like I said, I never want to hear this again. So, any other comments, questions? Commissioner Peterson. Um, Mr. Lamb, can you explain a little bit more about the fact that there was a program, but it expired and there is going to be a new program in the future? Is that a county program or is this like a national program to get a certification? um was was there anything that staff could have done to compel this information for C2E2?

So I will say staff have made comments from the very beginning about you know asking the applicant what kind of green building elements you are proposing you know from the beginning uh in terms of kind of the prevailing guidance for site plan townhouse projects not requesting additional density. It kind of goes back to the program you were alluding to which has been discontinued for a few years now which is the green home choice program. I believe it's administered by it was administered by the county but I think it's a national program. Um so kind of in the absence of that staff were looking at other green building certification programs suggested it to the applicant are still open to working with the applicant on you know finding another certification program as uh Mr. Cummings mentioned we do want it bonded to ensure uh you know if for some reason they don't receive certification there is kind of um some kind of offset for that. Um so you know we are still willing to work with applicant on something. Um but but again kind of going back to that prevailing guidance in the absence of that it's kind of like working with applicant on a comparable alternative.

And so the standards for the program that has retired, they were lower than the alternatives that you were proposing which required bonding which the applicant decided wasn't worth it. It was a different type of program. Okay. And Mr. Dr. Feifer, is it can you remind us is it in a work plan to get back to get back to this type of program that used to exist but no longer does that maybe there is an appetite to take part in? Uh it's not in the planning division work program. We can circle back with our partners in dees to determine you know uh how they're looking at it and when they might bring that back but um yeah it's not in our work program.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I also have a quick sustainability question about solar panels. Um, can you give me an idea how much does that option cost for an applicant or for a a home buyer? Um, I'm not familiar with the exact cost of what it would cost to put that system in, but we're going to leave the townhouse in a state where there's a conduit that will run to be able to bring power from the roof down to a charging station that would be into the garage. So, that will be in place already at no cost to any of the homeowners. Um, we've been involved, BCN has been involved in, you know, using a number of different solar roofs. We've done a number throughout neighborhoods. Lion Village, we've done a couple. Um, but you bring in an outside provider who actually installs the system and that's typically set up by the homeowner because they ultimately are looking to um, in certain cases a tax credit for installing the system and ultimately they're looking to sell the energy back to the grid. So, typically that piece is done by the homeowner directly, but we've gone ahead and facilitated that in a number of homes.

Okay. I mean, it would be fantastic if this option because it's so good for the county, it's so good for the planet, if that option was really encouraged to your future buyers, maybe it's included in marketing materials. You know, in the materials that you showed us tonight, there aren't any solar panels depicted on the roof. But it would be lovely if that was depicted maybe with like a little note, optional add-on. Um, but similar to the planters that you showed us, um, I solar panels I think would really encourage people to see what could be a possibility and hopefully get it to the point where people are buying into that. Certainly, that's something we'll definitely have experience in and we'll put on our materials.

Okay. Not seeing any more questions on that. Uh, construction phasing, there really wasn't much discussion there. So, on to community benefits. I think Commissioner Steinberger, you want to lead it up? reminder, what's the timeline for when construction might start if this is approved? Is that identified? I mean, I think the hope would be that as soon as we get through the planning comm planning commission and county board, we'd look to file plans hopefully to be reviewed this fall with a premise to try to start construction toward the first quarter of 2027.

First of 207. And understanding this could be a phase development, which I appreciate from a financial standpoint makes a lot of sense. What might be the timeline if everything went swimmingly and you got all the funding at all the phases you wanted? When might construction be completed? Uh, this would be about an 18-month project maximum for all for all 47 units. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Community benefits.

Let's talk affordable housing. Um, okay. So, there's no mandatory this just confirming with staff that I'm understanding here. There's no mandatory affordable housing contribution required is there is it's not even as a standard site plan condition. Correct. So it's exempt from the zoning ordinances base affordable housing requirement which is which applies to projects over 1.0 F. Okay. So by saying under 1.0 0 F that is not that's that does not trigger that site plan condition for a mandatory cash contribution correct they're except

okay yeah and again that would be a cash if was above 1.0 0 F it will be a cash contribution requirement not an on-site unit requirement or it could be either but every developer chooses the cash contribution the one the latter yeah

okay so just because you don't have to do something doesn't mean it's not a nice thing to do um honestly it's an economic decision obviously you're a business but at the end of the day we developer after developer come before us and we are pushing and pushing and pushing for not just, you know, increases and and going above and beyond in terms of the cash contribution, but really doing whatever you can to get on-site affordable units. I recognize in the economics of this development that on-site affordable units is not going to happen. Um, unless you tell me that I'm wrong and somehow it will happen and that'd be great, but I don't expect that to be the conversation we have. But the biggest thing that I think differential, you know, we've heard about the open space, you know, differences in terms of what they'll plan LON Boulevard, um, Langston Boulevard plan, you know, would have, you know, sought for this site versus what is actually going to be achieved at this site. Um, we've heard about how it, you know, aligns to a lot of what Link's plan, the Langston Boulevard plan wants. But I think the biggest area where we're not seeing anything advancing, you know, priority goals of the Lynx Boulevard plan is in, you know, getting more affordable housing units online. And the numbers from the plan, it's like 2,000 additional, no,

how many?

2500 additional units. That's a huge number. Um, I don't expect this development or any one development to allow us to hit that. Um, but the ability to advance that goal in any capacity, you know, ideally on-site, but I recognize that's, you know, not the reality here, but of achieving that across the county, I think matters. And I think it sends a message. And I think that we as a planning commission body are not I will speak for myself. I don't feel that I am in a role as a planning commissioner being effective if I am not pushing on those goals and asking us to achieve everything that we can in that regard. I am very appreciative that the community is in favor of this development. I think these are nicel lookinging town homes. I live in a town home. I like town homes. But at the same time, I think that we should not settle for I didn't have to do it so I didn't. And I'm a little afraid that that's the attitude as we've heard with the C2E2 response that's being taken here. And I don't like that. And I think that there's an opportunity here to go above and beyond. And that should be the expectation we have for any of the developers in front of us. Whether or not you're seeking bonus density or seeking something beyond, there is a benefit to being able to do good development in Arlington. I think you've seen that as a business already. You're a local based um developer. You've done a lot of other work in Arlington. And I think that those are the kind of conversations, the kind of emphasis we need to be having as we go forward. And that's the challenge that I'm putting forward to you. And you can respond or not. I can respond to at least say this. I mean, I agree with everything that is sort of behind what you're saying as a

values statement. Um, we are absolutely not doing the bare minimum here. That is just totally not what the case is. The project is delivering a lot of community benefits when it's not even requesting any bonus density. I mention that not to say, oh, we don't have to we don't have to do this. From a policy structure, the way that everything works in Arlington County for these special exception site plans is that you earn the density in your base density, which is the um density permitted under the zoning ordinance with approval of a site plan with the standard conditions and those contributions. That's what earns you that. Everything above that is then um earning bonus density. Um everything that we're paying to the county or doing is part of that. every single developer that ever comes in front of you is always going to have that exact attitude because we are relying on a system that was designed in a certain way so that we have predictable costs and outcomes as well. Um, that's not to say that BCN couldn't choose to do something above and beyond or couldn't choose to, you know, donate money throughout the community like they have, but specific to zoning, especially in Virginia, and I'll mention this just because I think it's in this conversation, I think it's worth mentioning, and I'm not trying to say this as a gotcha or anything like that. I'm probably the only lawyer in the room. Um, in Virginia, if the locality is asking for more than it's supposed to get, that is considered an illegal profer demand. And that's that then can if someone were to sue later, void, not void the approval, but could void any of the um profers that were requested, any of those benefits that were requested. That's not going to happen here. We're not interested in that. That's not what we do. Um, and certainly would never be the choice of anybody here. But that's the law that's governing this. Um, if you're in other jurisdictions where people pay more attention to this, you'll have um board of supervisors members and planning commissioners say things like, "Oh, but we can't ask for people to give things and profers, which are the same as community benefits and conditions because of the law." Um, we

don't do that here in Arlington. We talk about it very frankly, which I enjoy, and there's absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. Um, but I'll just say that I really think that this project is giving way more than the minimum. Um, and we came at it with that philosophy from day one because we knew that with a town home project that was less dense that if we were going to be technical about it, there's a lot of things that we don't necessarily have to do. If I was going to rely on solely what I thought was legally necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project under, you know, established law, it wouldn't even necessarily be giving a park. If this project was in Prince William County or something, I think we'd be in that situation maybe offering, you know, some recreational space for the residents because that's mitigating the impact on the community, not, you know, putting more pressure on public parks or something. But we saw important community benefits that were in the artist plan, wanted to maintain those, knew that that's really important to the community and everyone here, and we're doing that. We would absolutely be open to rearranging any of um what is being offered right now. And I mentioned things like you know there's a threequarter of a million dollar tree canopy fund contribution. Um you know any of that could be directed towards uh the affordable housing investment fund and we would be 100% willing to do that as well. I think that giving more above and beyond what we are right now would be very difficult. That's not to say that we can't think about that and we will and I know that the concerns that you're raising right now about affordable housing specifically are shared by board members and by all kinds of stakeholders throughout the county and we have heard that and we're thinking about that too.

You got the message. Thank you.

Any other comments about community benefits? Okay. Well, then I guess we're ready for motions. I will go ahead and read the main motion that we were given by staff and then we can vote on that and then I know we have at least one more motion. I haven't still decided about one myself yet. Okay. I move the planning commission recommend the county board denies an application for a site plan amendment SPLA25-000027 uh SP number 452 to permit the construction of 47 townhouse units with modifications for lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 North Taylor Street. However, should the county board approve SPLA25-000027, the county board must vote to enact the attached site plan amendment ordinance and conditions of approval. Do I have a second?

Okay. What does that mean? We can't vote on it. Uh I think if there is no second then there is no motion. Okay. Very good. Okay. So um I think um madame clerk you can put this one on the screen for us. Yeah. I want to make sure I I got the language right. So if I I have language. Yeah. I just want to make sure your language matches what we're looking at. So there might be one modification I realized. Um

yes. I move that the planning commission find that the application for site plan amendment SPLA25-000027 aka SP number 452 is not inconsistent with the master transportation plan or of the Langston Boulevard area plan and so recommend that the county board approve the application to permit the construction of 47 townhouse units with modifications for lot coverage, front and sideyard setbacks and other modifications necess neessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 North Taylor Street. Second. Oh, second.

Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Striner. Any Would you like to speak to your motion? Um I don't think we really need to uh other I just want to remind people that applicants don't have to build to the absolute density required and we've seen that so often lately in Boston in the other metro corridors and this is the first time maybe coming up here but it's been unfortunately unusual that an applicant actually does maximum density anymore. Well again that's cost that's cost. I have a question. Yes. Go ahead.

I I'm still unclear. Are we still requiring that they meet some of the like that they need to communicate? I mean, what what are we just passing? You're passing the It is as this motion says it's passed. You're not putting any exceptions. Well, if you wanted to make a motion to amend the emotion that he's making, then you could do that. Do a second. What ready? But I, you know, I think it'd be interesting for me to make sure that some of the requirements are still complied with going to the other commissions and at least respond. You know, I don't know. That should be part in my mind of what we're going doing next. That could be a separate motion. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm not prepared to make one. I wasn't expecting to make one. So, I don't know what to do with that. Might I because we did discuss this so much again as the chair made really clear. Yeah. that could be in my comments to the county board in two weeks when I do the our presentation to them on this matter. Well, I do believe that the um Mr. Feifer's um PC letter will probably summarize the conversation pretty well. Yes.

Yeah. I would like some of these questions answered, you know. So, that that's I'm just a little uncomfortable overall right now. That's all I have to say. Well, and you can reflect that in your vote as well. So, you have a choice of making um a motion to amend the one that is currently on the table or you can reflect whatever in your vote. Okay. Are we Go ahead. Can Commissioner Lan tell me just read the motion one more time? Yes. And can we put it on the screen? Yeah. Madam Chair, that would be Yeah. Madam Clerk, could you put that Yeah. Thank you.

And can I ask a question before you read it? in case maybe there's some change to it. Do we need the the beginning part that says we find it in accordance with the master transportation plan and Langston Boulevard alliance plan or Langston Boulevard plan? Um don't because my concern is that I acknowledge that it doesn't meet all of the plan goals, but I am still interested in supporting this because of the fact that it is has for a long time been an unproductive lot. This is a reasonable pro project and an alternative could be 14 single family homes which I would not like to see.

Would you be be making a friendly motion to simply remove that language in the current motion? Yes, I think you'd be striking the it's not in after 452. everything between 452 and um and and and recommend. Yeah. So, I move the planning commission find that the application for the site plan amendment SPLA25-000027 aka site plan 452 no findings. Okay. We need to I move the planning commission recommend

recommend the county board approve you taking everything right from find up until so and I have to but I have to still refer to the actual number of the site plan and everything. that I think. Okay, here's on the fly. What's happening? I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board approve the application um

under for site plan amendment SPLA 25-000027 aka SP number 452 to permit the construction of 47 town S units with modifications for lot coverage front and sideyard setbacks and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 North Taylor Street. Second. I was going to second it. Okay. Okay. So, on the new motion, are we ready to go ahead and do you understand? No. Okay. So, you amend on the

Hold on. Just one moment. like judgment that we don't need don't need. So it goes from I move the planning commission recommends and then he added in that way but I don't see how this addresses what we took out this stuff about a not inconsistent so the policy assessment like you're not making a judgment anymore. Okay. Does that make sense? Okay.

Okay. So, are we ready to move to a vote? Yes. All right. Going alphabetically. Commissioner Amado, I think I Madam Chair, excuse me. Uh, Madam Chair. So, just just a quick point. Um, so what I have right now is that the the language is not inconsistent with the master transportation plan or L Boulevard area plan. So, recommend that the county board approve the application is the language that has struck. That's yeah I'll read it once more so you might have it with that language struck here is how it reads reads and I'm not sure it's grammatically correct that's what I'm getting at so the planning commission finds that the application

no finding no findings no finding okay so the plan so is so is language inserted that says the planning commission recommends that the county board approve the application for site plan amendment SPLA 5-000027 aka SP number 452 to permit the construction. So, it's cutting and pasting, moving stuff around.

Okay, I got it. Thank you. Okay, how do we vote? Yeah, I'm just going to make one other comment. I um as somebody who's been in real estate a very long time, I do appreciate that we do have for sale town homes here, I unfortunately am not going to be able to support this for a number of reasons. Um between the whole C2E2 fiasco and um just again the defender of the plan. Okay. So, Commissioner Amado, you okay, Commissioner Lanto? Oh, I I Commissioner Peterson. I Commissioner Robertson,

no. Uh, Commissioner Steinberger, I. Commissioner Striner, I.

And Commissioner Begley is a no. So, we have five uh eyes's and two nazs. So, it passes. Correct. Okay. Um, I do want to thank the staff on this and I understand why you recommended denial and if I was in your shoes I might have done the same thing. Um, we have a different role than you do up here that the planning commission but you're taking a stand on that to support plan Langston Boulevard. I certainly appreciate um I you know again I've worked on it as I mentioned for so many years and the fact that you're you are looking at it very closely and comparing everything is very very important and I'm happy you've done that um and it's clear that you are doing that and taking that role very very seriously. So I thank you for the work and certainly my vote is not a reflection on your competence ability or professionalism in the least. I want to make that really clear.

Yeah. I just want to again thank Mr. Lamb and um Mr. Johnson for all the hours and effort on this. Also want to thank the public commenters. I want to thank the applicant um and uh again thank uh our um we couldn't do it without you staff over here Miss Johnson and um Miss Harrison. So on that note, thank you all very much. Have a great evening and this uh we are adjourned.