Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's call the Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Falls Church City Planning Commission to order. Mr. Traynor, can you call the roll, please?

Mr. Polinski? Here. Mr. Duncan? Here. Mr. Krasner? Here. Chair Comont?

I'm here.

Mr. Stephens?

Here.

Mr. Kravinsky? Here. Thank you. And Commissioner Frieslander is absent.

Okay, great. Any discussion on the agenda? If not, is there a motion to adopt it?

Madam Chair, I move to adopt the meeting agenda.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Do we have, Mr. Traynor, can you provide a summary of written correspondence this evening?

Yep. Joseph Shirizi wrote the commission in support of zoning changes, expanding affordable housing in Virginia Village. Stephanie Powell wrote the commission supporting increased setbacks and step backs from existing homes and Big Chimneys Park in Virginia Village. The Environmental Sustainability Council sent the Commission a memo supporting sustainability measures in the Virginia Village Request for Proposals and made recommendations for inclusions of certain sustainability measures. Nadirin Bernadette Baruch wrote the Commission on a variety of Virginia Village topics, including process concerns, building separation, height standards, and neighborhood compatibility.

Got a quick question. Go ahead.

Yeah, quick question regarding the ESC memo. I was at that meeting where they discussed this enterprise green communities standard for affordable houses. Is that something staff will be looking at? And I realize it's probably more appropriate for the RFP than it is for what we're talking about tonight. But since it is new, I'm not really familiar with it. I was just curious whether staff would take that on and evaluate it.

Sure. Yeah, we'll definitely look at it. Yeah. Similarly, staff hasn't had a chance to research specific recommendations from the ESC yet, but we can certainly do our best to at least become more familiar and make some recommendations on some of those measures the next time it's before council in two weeks.

I've reached out to a planning commissioner in Alexandria. I think Alexandria may have used this standard, so I'll share anything that I find out. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens, for taking the initiative to do that. And thank you, staff, for looking at those standards that were recommended by this ESC. Do we have any in-person petitions tonight?

I have not. Oh. Yes, a few. Hot off the press. Yeah, I've got two. First is Jennifer Resta. BEING ON VIRGINIA VILLAGE.

GREAT. WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE ABOUT THREE MINUTES. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A TIMER THERE.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Rusta, and I live in Winter Hill, directly north of the Virginia Village site. The shadow studies in tonight's packet confirm the problem. From December through March, the proposed massing casts substantial shadows towards existing Winter Hill homes. This is not a hypothetical anymore, it's shown in the city's own materials. The community feedback called for preserving sunlight, avoiding overshadowing, stepping down toward Winter Hill, and providing meaningful buffers. The studies show exactly why those protections are needed. I'm asking the commission to use the shadow studies as a basis for strengthening the ordinance, not just acknowledging the issue. The Winter Hill boundary needs stronger setbacks, lower edge height, and step backs that begin earlier than 40 feet. If the studies show the impact, the zoning should respond to the impact. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Next is Nader Barouk, 243 Gundry. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, commission members. My name is Nader Baruch, and Bernadette and myself live at 243 Gundry Drive, and we've lived there since approximately 2005. And we submitted pretty extensive comments. Hopefully, you'll have a chance to look at them. Lots of them were attachments, so we offer them in the spirit of trying to be productive and trying to improve the overlay district that's being discussed. one of the core points that we wanted to discuss is the setbacks first i think transparency is very important in our process knowing that specifically when i served on the council and as mayor of the city unfortunately at no point was the issue of the 25 foot setback discussed the first time the community saw it when it sort of appeared in an RFP draft. It wasn't discussed in any of the framing discussions, nor was the community asked to talk about it until now. And it kind of sprang up from really nowhere. So when there was discussions about heights, limits, et cetera, The 25-foot setback was just never discussed. So I think that's key as we're having this discussion. And it's key from the city's own report that the 25-foot setback doesn't work. It casts shadows onto the park, which we've spent council's amounts of money on redoing for storm water management. And it also doesn't work for Winter Hill, given the shadows that are cast and the massing that it results in. Nor again was that ever really discussed as we were discussing the small area plans. We're not asking for anything extreme. We're saying let's look at it, let's analyze it. We think 35 foot setbacks in a minimum is where the floor should be, and we should have a discussion around that. The existing site already maintains about 40 feet of separation. The overlay district would reduce that precisely at the moment where heights increase anywhere from three to seven feet, or seven stories, depending on where you are. A 35 minimum is a reasonable starting point, but full analysis site suites such as massing studies and visual simulations should be looked at before we set on an absolute amount. Additionally, the overlay district doesn't have any explicit protections as far as parking structures and where those should lay out. According to the code right now or the proposal, you could have a parking garage 25 feet from Winter Hill. Is that appropriate? I don't think so. I think we have to look at the setbacks with what we're seeing in other areas. We know that 25 foot setbacks have resulted in damage to Winter Hill homes in the past, specifically Pearson Square. And we know that that area is pretty short. Where setbacks have worked is near Lawson, Lawton Street, on the Whole Foods site, and we know it's also worked on the Pearson site where it butts up against the Pearson Square building where there's approximately 40 feet or so of buffering. So I encourage the Commission to look at those other setbacks and act appropriately in realizing what we've done elsewhere and setbacks that have worked and where it hasn't worked thank you thank you for comments

Okay, I think that brings us to our action items. Tonight, we have our Planning Commission minutes from our May 6th meeting. I believe we are going to defer those to our next meeting. Is that right, Mr. Treanor? Correct. Okay. So that brings us to our work session item, item 6A, Quinn subdivision plots. Mr. Matuszak, did you want to introduce this or is it we're just going straight to staff?

I have full trust in staff and they're very much prepared, so no introductions needed.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Comet. My name is Laura Arsenault, and I'm here tonight to present a brief summary of the Quinn Home Stretch Redevelopment Consolidation Application updates to the application since the Planning Commission approval in 2025 and next steps. The proposal is considered for work session only tonight. Let's see if it's on. First step.

Can I move it up?

The site is comprised of three existing parcels located at 350 and 360 South Washington Street and 303 South Maple Avenue. Each parcel is about 0.6 acres when combined and when combined will be a total of 1.86 acres. Each of the parcels are zoned B2 mixed use and designated in the comprehensive plan as mixed use. They're currently used as office buildings. Okay, thank you on February 26, 2024 city council approved a resolution approving 2 special exceptions. 1 was a residential use within a mixed use development project and 2 was increase of the building height with a bonus of up to 40 feet with a maximum height of 115 feet. The approval included a 10-story senior living, human care, mixed-use building with 233 human care units, medical office, retail, restaurant, and a nonprofit use. The approved SE proposal also included a partially underground parking garage. The subsequent site plan and subdivision were approved by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2025, with architectural modifications and minor deviations.

No. You touched it.

Following the March 2025 Planning Commission approval, Fairfax County engaged the City of Falls Church in an extended discussion over the sanitary sewer capacity, which concluded in January 2026. Due to the length of these parallel efforts, the Quinn site plan and subdivisions approvals expired. To reconcile this delay, the site plan approval was extended by the planning director and the DPW director on April 17th, 2026. However, the subdivision plan establishing the consolidation expired per city code in August 2025, and it requires additional planning commission public hearing and approval. Since the subdivision was approved in March 2025, there has been one adjustment to the subdivision plan, which is the size and length of the proposed Fairfax County Water Authority easement as shown in the staff report. I think one more slide. Lastly, the staff recommends approval of the subdivision application as proposed at the public hearing proposed for June 17th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Miss Arsenault. Any questions for staff on this? Yep, go ahead, Mr. Kressner.

It's more just background. I mean, I know, I mean, the subdivision is more, you know, perfunctory, but the sewer service or the sanitary sewer issue that led to the delay, I mean, I, you know, obviously the commission wasn't really party to that. I'm just curious to understand what that was and how it was resolved and what was the reason for the delay.

Part of it was negotiations between the city and Fairfax County on capacity. At the time during the SE, I think at that time we had planned to go to Arlington, but I think the city was still open to negotiating with Fairfax County, so they were trying to negotiate at that time and leaving their options open. So by the time we got to the site plan, I don't think the city had still decided. So we're still waiting almost a year after the site plan to figure out which way they wanted to go. And in January 2026, they finally made their decision or finally agreed with Fairfax on the capacity issue. So then. They decided to go with Fairfax, and then the subdivision had expired six months after the approval, and the site plan was almost expired, but we just got that extended approval.

Okay. So it was purely a capacity issue. It wasn't infrastructure. It wasn't the mains in that vicinity. It was capacity at the plant deciding. And we're kind of at the boundary of the two. That's why they even had a choice, correct?

Well, yes, it was a choice of the city which way they wanted to go.

Arlington required a force main, though, so it's going to be more expensive.

Right. I was talking about infrastructure, right, as far as what would have been required. But, you know, again, I don't think, right, my main point was that I know that part of the city, And I'm not sure exactly if it went the other way down Hillwood, for example. There have been some sanitary sewer infrastructure problems in some of the residential neighborhoods, backups, you know, some old infrastructure that's obsolete in that area. So I'm just making sure that that wasn't the reason. And whatever it was is addressed. It sounds like it was. Yeah. So I appreciate it. Right in the background, Ms. Harrison, I think.

Any other questions? Go ahead, Mr. Plinsky.

Sorry. In a consolidated plan, what is the official address of the property and where is that located?

The official of the three parcels?

Yeah.

It's 350 and 360 South Washington and 303 South Maple.

So when this is consolidated, when this is consolidated, if this is, like if we go through this, is this a, does it become one parcel at that point? Yes. Do we know what the address of that parcel would be at that point?

It depends on a lot of things, such as where the openings are. It'll be determined at a later time.

Okay. All right. So questions of in and out based on a consolidated property is something that would get handled later. Like in and out.

Right. Openings. It just depends. There's a lot of things that go into it. I do not know all the things that go into it. But it comes at a much later time in the process. Okay.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Anyone else? I have one. Why are subdivisions approved for such a brief period of time? Six months doesn't seem like a lot of time. There must be a reason for that length of time. Are we legally required to use that amount, or is that the city's choice?

That's a great question. And it's in the code. And for some reason, they don't align with the site plan requirements. I think it's a city requirement rather than a state, but I can follow up on it. But it says in the city code it's six months. It just seems like a lot to go through this every six months if a project runs into delays. You can get it, I'm sorry, you can get it extended. It's just that six months came up really quickly and we missed. Oh, we could have gotten it extended. I see. Okay. Yeah. But we realized it a little too late. Okay. And so we're just back here.

Well, thank you for answering our questions. I don't think there are any more. So if not, is there a motion to approve?

I think it's just a work session, right?

Oh. Oh, yeah. We're only at work session. Okay. Well, no more questions from us. We'll see you next month. No, on the 17th. On the 17th. Okay. So we'll see you next time. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Arsenault. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Okay. That brings us to another work session item, which is the Virginia Village Small Area Plan Amendments.

Yeah. All right. So we we will, Zoe, I'm sorry, you want to introduce yourself?

Hi, Zoe Lareve, planner. I, with Jack and Matt, have been working on the Virginia Village project. We've combined some of the information into one PowerPoint, but we'll have a marking point where we can stop on the small area plans for comment.

so yeah so there's on the agenda tonight's two different items concerning uh the small area plan text amendments and proposed uh zoning ordinance amendments uh related to virginia village uh so we prepared one presentation that kind of covers both um but it sounds like uh it may be beneficial to go through the small area plan amendments first uh see if there's any sap you know specific discussion before BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. AND IF THEY BLEED INTO EACH OTHER, THAT'S OKAY. A LOT OF THE INFORMATION IS SIDE BY SIDE.

IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE TO WORK ON THE SMALL AREA PLAN FIRST? SURE. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD.

Sure, so I can do some of the introductory stuff before Zoe gets into the SAP amendments. This is the kind of immediate look ahead for Virginia Village items. So tonight the Planning Commission has its work session on small area plan and zoning text amendments. City Council is scheduled to take both up on their June 15th work session. And then a walking tour is being discussed. This was suggested and talked a lot about during the council meeting. uh let's see was that last week my days are are off already but the the last time i was at council recently um the the council was was talking about the benefits um of a walking tour and so we're we're working to schedule that uh with property owners and um the city uh and so we'll have more information on that um um coming up so we'll keep you all in in the loop um And then so the City Council is also scheduled to take first reading on the small area plan text amendments and zoning amendments during its June 22nd regular session. And then after that, the two take some different paths. So the small area plan amendments right now are scheduled to have their public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council's final consideration in July. But then for the zoning amendments following first reading in June, Those would not have their public hearing or final consideration dates until the third quarter of the year following release of the RFP and once the city receives submissions. So that's the immediate look ahead for small area plans in zoning text amendments. All this information, of course, will be on the Virginia Village website for anyone listening and wants to stay informed. That's fallschurchva.gov slash Virginia Village. And so moving along, this is a slide we've been using to sort of like a roadmap in a way of how the small area plans and zoning considerations relate to each other and then also the comprehensive plan. So tonight, of course, we're talking about small area plan amendments and zoning, proposed zoning text amendments. The small area plan amendments, proposed amendments are, you know, have come out of community conversations staff had in the spring, kind of identifying what are those kind of core CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VIRGINIA VILLAGE AREA, AND IF ANY, YOU KNOW, REDEVELOPMENT WERE TO HAPPEN THERE, WHAT SHOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? SMALL AREA PLANS TEND TO BE MORE CONCEPTUAL, BUT, YOU KNOW, CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THINGS LIKE TRANSITION TYPES, OPEN SPACE, AND USES, BUT IT'S REALLY UP TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO DEVELOP THOSE MORE NUMERICAL HARD NUMBERS THAT KIND OF DEVELOP THE uh development box that sort of then um realize the the vision set in the small area plan so in terms of specificity the the comp plan is the most general and then the zoning ordinance is the most specific and with small area plans right in between so with that i'll turn it over to zoe to talk a little bit more about the small area plan scope

All right. Yes. Thank you, Jack. So the small area plan updates focus on four related to Virginia Village focus on four main topics that we heard within our community engagement, which you've seen in various forms. But the overall categories are building scale and density transitions, housing and affordability, open space and connectivity, and complementary uses. In addition to these four categories, there are some other administrative changes that we have decided to do some light updates while we are updating the plans. Part of that is changing the planning opportunity area barrier so that all of the Virginia Village neighborhood is within the South Washington planning opportunity area. Right now it is split between the South Washington POA and the downtown POA. As you can see in the image on the screen, those four properties off of Shirley, I think, are in, off of Gibson, my apologies, are in the downtown one as it currently stands. Shifting that so that all of the guidance for this site is contained within one small area plan and one POA. So as part of that we are removing the references to Virginia Village from the downtown small area plan. We are also looking to update some out of date maps and references including some larger projects, just reference to some larger projects that went through. As well as resolving accessibility issues and updating some of the visuals, this is a larger push that the city is doing. And so it coincides well with this project to have the document meet some of those standards. All right. As you might have noticed, looking through the attached South Washington plan, it is still in a draft format. I believe the version that was attached for you was the redlined version, which is a bit hard to read. We are still working through a decent amount of edits. They are long plans, and as it turns out, the formatting is a larger issue than we previously thought. The IAEA plans were drafted 12, 13 years ago and just used different things. So it's been, that has taken longer than expected, but we have been able to include in the draft that you can see of the South Washington SAP that most of the language around Virginia Village has been updated. There, the only remaining one you can see in the upcoming column is some of the language around zoning that is waiting for the consecutive process of the zoning update to continue forward to finalize that language more. There's also is improved formatting. There's it should be meeting some of the basic accessibility standards in its current format. What's still in process are updates to projects that have developed since the small area plan was adopted. So the big ones being 455 Tinner Hill, which was just a AN IDEA AT THAT POINT. YOU CAN SEE SOME REFERENCES TO THE RESERVE AT TINNER HILL, THE QUINN PROJECT, THE ADOPTION OF THAT, AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE TINNER HILL HISTORIC AND CULTURAL DISTRICT, AND SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE AREA. While we won't be providing in-depth detail about these projects, we are hoping to bring it to be factually correct. So when it says updated on this date, there aren't glaring errors that conflict with the date we have. So we are also working on still updating some of the maps and adding alt text to the photos, so some just additional formatting things. For the downtown small area plan, that is not attached at this moment. That plan is even older. That was, I believe, the first small area plan that the city completed and has even more significant formatting issues that have RESULTED IN SOME DELAYS, BUT WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON THAT AND ARE PLANNING ON HAVING IT AVAILABLE IN THE CITY COUNCIL PACKET AND CAN ALSO HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN UPCOMING MEETINGS. All right. I won't go into a ton of detail on these charts because, for one, you've seen them quite a few times. And I think there will be more interest in the zoning proportion of them. But I wanted to point out that the related text in the small area plans The text changes that relate to the what we heard is shown in those page numbers. We very specifically, when going through the Virginia, references to Virginia Village, looked through the matrix and all the comments we heard during the community engagement process and used those to guide what we did, what we wrote about Virginia Village. So unless there are specific questions about the different categories, I will spare you going through them individually more than once.

I think we can refer to them if we need to. Yeah, that's fine.

So that pretty much concludes the portion on the small area plans. If there are any questions, comments,

Yeah, yeah, great. Well, first, I just want to say thank you, because I know this is a really big effort to go through such a long plan. And I know that Word, I guess I'm presuming it's in Word, it's really difficult when you're making edits and your visuals are jumping around page to page. So that's what's happening. You have my sympathy. First-hand experience with that. Mr. Polinsky, you want to kick us off?

And one question about the timing and the order of operations for the work here is the small area plan have to be adjusted before anything can go forward in Virginia Village or is this unrelated effectively?

I wouldn't call it unrelated, but it does not need to be completely done and dusted for other steps to move forward. I think we are hoping to stick with the original plan, the original schedule for the small area plans so that we have them adopted and in hand as policy when the RFP goes out. But I believe that the guidance that is in the draft small area plans is also shown in other areas such as the zoning, the proposed zoning overlay district and the RFP.

They've missed this elsewhere. Can you remind me of the timing for when the RP is supposed to go out? Slash this should be approved, done and dusted.

Yeah, Matt, if you're online, you could probably speak a little bit better to those dates. But I believe the RFP, so council is reviewing or will review the latest version of the draft RFP at their next work session. And then once that's finalized, I believe that is slated to be released by the end of June, the RFP. And right around that time is when the small area plans are scheduled to be approved also, the text amendments. And that come back through here or does that come back? Yeah, for your public hearing. That'll be in July. All right. Thanks.

All right. Anyone else on substance? Mr. Krasner.

I was going to... I wasn't sure when to... make some certain comments. But Mr. Polinsky, Commissioner Polinsky, just raised a very good point, I think, about process. I mean, I don't know. I feel like, again, we're kind of going about things a little backwards. The RFP, one thing that's missing in Mr. Treanor's really great flow chart there, you know, would probably be at the bottom of that arrow. If you go back to your chart there, comp plan, YOU KNOW, SMALL AREA ZONING ORDINANCE. I MIGHT PUT RFP AT THE VERY BOTTOM AFTER THAT. ONCE YOU'VE DONE THE FOUNDATIONAL WORK, THE BIG PICTURE VISION, YOU'VE REFINED IT AT THE SMALL AREA PLAN LEVEL, YOU'VE THEN WORKED BASED ON BUILDING THE SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FROM THE CITY AT LARGE ON THE SMALL AREA PLAN, YOU'D WORK ON THE ZONING TO TRY TO GET THAT RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO. AND THEN AFTER THAT, THAT WOULD REALLY INFORM THE RFP. AND THEN YOU'D SEND IT OUT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WITH ALL THAT WORK AND PROCESS AND INPUT TO INFORM, YOU KNOW, THAT WENT INTO THAT, AND DEVELOPERS WOULD KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR. THIS IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT. THESE ARE THE GUIDELINES NOW THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE. BUT INSTEAD, IT SEEMS LIKE THE RFP IS KIND OF JUMPING TO THE TOP AND GOING OUT FIRST, YOU KNOW, BEFORE ANY OF THESE OTHER STEPS ARE GOING ON. And I think that's a problem, frankly. I mean, we can talk about each step here and we'll try to make them work, but I think that's a problem, doing it that way. And I think that it leads, rightly or wrongly, it can lead to the impression of, you know, that this is all a fait accompli, that this is all, you know, a means to that end that's been predetermined, whether that's true or not. THAT THE SEMBLANCE OF THAT IS VERY MUCH REAL IN THE COMMUNITY, AT LEAST IN SOME CIRCLES. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE LEARNED FROM SOME OTHER PROCESSES HOW THAT CAN PLAY OUT. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT. I KNOW COUNCIL CARES ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BY HAVING THIS ORDER, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHEN WE MET TO TALK ABOUT THE COMP PLAN STUFF IN THE EARLY MAY, I DON'T THINK WE WERE EVEN TALKING ABOUT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT. You know, so I don't even know how we got there yet, but now we're there. I don't know. The commission had no input to decide whether or not to maybe, you know, could do an overly zoning district, but in any event. So I don't know. I mean, that's more editorializing. I mean, I think the comp plan, until we know, you know, is, I don't know. I mean, I don't know how, the process hasn't concluded, I think, fully, so it's difficult to make sure the comp plan is capturing everything. So I don't know. And I have comments certainly on the ordinance we'll get to later. Excuse me next, but, you know, Mr. Mr. Blinsky's comments kind of, you know, made me think, wait a second. And I and there are some comments from the community that seem to speak to that as well. So, you know, I don't know. I mean, I don't know at this point, you know, in our role is the train left the station and we're just along for the ride. But. YOU KNOW, IT'S STARTING TO FEEL THAT WAY AGAIN, AND IT KIND OF REMINDS ME OF OTHER THINGS WE'VE DONE WHERE IT'S LIKE WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, THE TRAIN'S ALREADY OUT, AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF ALONG SOMEWHERE FAR BACK TOWARDS THE CABOOSE. SO I DON'T KNOW. IT'S MY TUTORIAL, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. AND WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THAT AND MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY KNOWS IT, I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE. YOU KNOW, DOING THINGS CONCURRENTLY IS NOT ALWAYS A TERRIBLE THING. CONCURRENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CAN HAPPEN. You know, it's not ideal. It can happen. But in this case, it seems like, again, the RFP is out ahead of all of it. And I have a weird feeling that the responses to the RFP are going to wind up trying to inform the regulations in the ordinance, which is also a little bit backwards. But anyway, so that's my concern overall. The big picture, we can get more nitty gritty stuff about the actual overlay district when we get to that. But, you know, I think that we have to make sure we try to You know, there's a reason why, you know, that's how you typically would go about these things. And instead of just having a preordained or notion that it's all been decided already, this is what we want, and now let's fix the problems in our ordinance and our plan to make it so we can do that. Because we did that before in some other, you know, processes here, and it didn't work out, and I don't think so well.

Did staff want to respond to that? Either you or Matt, who's online.

Yeah, I think Matt might have his hand up, so let me all... See if you can find him. Yeah.

hold on matt stop sharing my screen there you are nice to see you can you guys see me okay yeah yep okay um lots to unpack in that comment uh and i do recognize that it's one that some folks share which i think is a natural reaction to what I will consider a different rather than backwards process. We can have comparisons to how things may have done in the past, what may be typical, air quotes. The way I would rather have us think about this is, The practices and examples from the past that we would love to avoid in this case are ones where staff, commissions, the community spends months, if not years, on drilling down to every square inch of recommendations believes or is of the impression that we've reached a perfect compromise, an incredible solution, only to see that solution collect dust on the shelf because the development community, the market, where the experts are, were never consulted, and when they finally seen it, demonstrated to us through clear and obvious signals that it's never going to be utilized. And I think it's a luxury we simply don't have when it comes to affordable housing in the city where we would rather, at the risk of, I think, raising some anxiety, which is healthy in this process, but bring those folks in earlier to test whether or not we've actually stroked a fair balance. And when we get into the second part of this topic and the code changes, we'll highlight how we're doing that. But I do want to just return to something because I've seen it hurt several different times in various comments. I want you to think about what would it look like if staff took the opportunity in the first quarter of this year and just showed up with zoning changes to the community and that was the beginning of our conversation. What would be the optics and perception of that and what would we even base that information on? Instead, the conversations we had in March and April were to introduce all the different things that currently guide this site. We've covered the comp plan, the small area plans. We did show a zoning map. And what we were very clear with everyone is that we wanted to revisit all that guidance Based on the feedback we collected, figure out where does that feedback and current community sentiments best live to document and memorialize what we're hearing. At that time, and we've been very clear in our presentations, is that the general feedback, is fairly consistent. We don't consider it controversial. And I think we clearly see where it needs to be updated in the small area plans. So as you see staff schedule about getting those to the finish line and having a second reading in July, it's because we don't really hear too much feedback and concerns about what's being proposed there. What we have heard in addition to that general feedback is very prescriptive guidance and expectations about what people are really concerned about when it comes to Virginia Village. And for us to really do something with that information, rather than ignore it, rather than just leave it behind, is we have to carry it into the zoning ordinance. And it also has to be clearly expressed in the RFP so that the developers understand that very specific and detailed feedback we've heard. As a result, and to have a meaningful and authentic engagement, there is no way for us to generate that zoning language because until April, we were not aware we need to go that deep into the changes. And we needed to kind of test that as well with some staff analysis, some modeling, which is why once we got far along with the small area plans, only then we started to sequence, here's where we think we need to be on zoning changes in some of the more detailed examples, which is what we have tonight. The beauty of the process, and again, I'm speaking of it favorably because I have seen it succeed in other places at various scales, is we want to basically test the market before we finalize the code changes. And we think we can successfully achieve that by getting to a first reading in June, waiting to see how the development community and consultants react to that information, and be in a position to then, if we learn something new, if we realize we're off, Maybe go back two steps and revisit the code changes because we'd hate to adopt that immediately and then have the consultants and the development community tell us we're actually way off base, we're heading in the wrong direction. And that is something different. And I think we just need to own that. And we do. It is, I think, presenting new challenges, which we can navigate. But I think there is a clear advantage to doing that. So we're going to try to continue to highlight that. And hopefully by the time we get to September, October, this case will be made. But I realize it's new and it's different. So we want to continue to have dialogue.

Thank you, Mr. Matuszak. Mr. Stevens.

Okay, I'll try to pick up on a couple of these points. I was thinking as I was reading through this, you know, how this contrasted a bit with what we did with T-Zones, where in that case the council kind of came out with very specific zoning recommendations, and that kind of preceded kind of a bigger discussion, a more general discussion with the community on what was the city trying to accomplish. And I think at least with what I've seen here, we're trying to do some of that by coming out with changes to the SAP. Admittedly, at the same time that we're dealing with proposals on the zoning ordinance, but at least that opportunity is there to talk about high level, what is it that we're trying to accomplish before the very specific zoning ordinance details get discussed. But I acknowledge it's very challenging on this trying to have these things all done at the same time and to keep them straight with one being really in a sense required to do the other but they're all occurring at the same time. So this is a very challenging approach here to get to an end result. have a couple of other observations to make on the small area plan, even though generally I'm okay with, I think, what staff has proposed at a higher level in terms of trying to deal with the housing issue and so forth, and the fact that existing zoning doesn't really permit that, so there need to be changes. So that part I'm more or less okay with. There are a couple of little pieces that did catch my attention. And I realize that, you know, you're not trying to go through the core commercial area here so much, but you do touch on it in a couple of places. For example, on page 53 and page 58, you touch on it. And I just thought I'd highlight, it discusses the, where residential should go. And it's pretty much left through the small area plan to say that it's going to be left, the residential is going to be left for the peripheral areas, which I gather is Virginia Village. But then it goes on to say that we want to reserve for the core commercial area hotels and office buildings. And that, to me, seemed kind of quaint, maybe wishful thinking that, you know, I think we're kind of past that. I mean, would this allow, for example, a building like at Broad and Washington? It doesn't appear to me that it would, that that would be consistent with the language that we have here. ENCOURAGE STAFF TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA OF HOW RESIDENTIAL FITS IN ON THIS SMALL AREA PLAN. SO THAT'S PAGE 53 AND 58 ARE THE AREAS WHERE THAT'S MENTIONED. SO I GUESS I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. AGAIN, JUST TO SUM UP, THE HIGH LEVEL, I'M KIND OF OKAY. SPECIFIC LEVELS, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE TROUBLESOME.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I'd highlighted those two pages as well as ones I wanted to talk through. Mr. Plinsky.

Thanks. And thanks for that great explanation. So, first of all, commend the staff for trying to juggle the RFP, the small area plans, the zoning amendments, and stuff like that. I get how complicated that is, and I think you guys are doing a pretty good job sort of juggling that together now. But let me just try and understand a couple of things. First of all, when you talked about the RFP, you mentioned there's going to be a work session with City Council. Will there also be a public hearing with City Council before the RFP is released? Or is it just a work session?

think it's a slight well maybe it's they'll be just to clarify so June 8th which is their action meeting similar to I think what occurred two weeks ago public testimony can be made on any topic so I'm sure folks will probably use that opportunity to provide comments so that would be the next public testimony window a week later on June 15th we're back to a work session and then June 22nd would be the next action meeting where, again, more public testimony is available on the RFP.

On the RFP. And on the small area plan and the zoning amendments, we're going to see that July 15th, the PC, as a work session. Is that correct? No, that's a public hearing on July 15th. So the next time we see it will be July 15th. This... the small area plan and the and the just the just the small area plan amendments.

Right. Yeah. The zoning public hearing after first reading won't come back to the commission until probably September.

And let me just understand if I heard Mr. Matusak right here. So the RFP will go out prior to finalizing the zoning amendment, is that correct? That's the current process?

Correct, but after first reading.

After the first reading, and then the anticipation is that feedback from the RFP is then going to inform whatever changes have to come to the zoning. So, a developer may come back and say, I can't do 25 feet, I can't do 40 feet or something like that. unique. This is my recommendation. It's the only way I'm going to be able to bid on this project. Is that correct?

So, yes. So we have our, you know, our kind of north star ideas that are non negotiables. Right. So it's not like we're we're opening the RFP for discussion on everything. Right. If someone says, I actually don't want to do affordable housing, you know, that's well, right, then we're not going to entertain that. So part of it is getting feedback on some of those things that can be massaged, right? Perhaps it's, but part of this process, the zoning process is also figuring out where we are as the city, where do we want to be on things like setbacks and step backs and height and that kind of building envelope and open space, all those things that need to be considered so that when, so I think that the city is in a kind of better place to sort of take in that feedback from a developer and, you know, have those kind of conversations.

So we have a concept of what we'd like to see, and then we're going to be... It's going to be informed by the responses to the RFP. Is that correct?

In part, but, yeah. So... I mean, I don't want to say that we're going to adjust the setbacks or height or anything after, certainly not after first reading, right? First reading is when we're going to have a pretty good idea about what the zoning ordinance is and legally, you know, can't change significantly without a new first reading. So it's going to be largely intact after first reading. I think where we're going to look for the kind of creativity in responses back to us is maybe things that the zoning ordinance might not address, things that we hadn't considered. And so, again, just kind of having, seeing what the kind of creative responses we get back and how that relates to, you know, the first reading. So it's...

So maybe we touched on this a little bit during the May 15th or May 18th City Council meeting, but Once the RF, once the proposals come back, we're essentially behind closed doors of people evaluating the incoming proposals. You essentially have a selection process, a source selection process where you're grading and stuff like that. I'm not quite sure, could you walk me through how once developers provide their RFP input, how that gets seen by the public and they can help shape whatever proposal comes forward. And I think Mr. Matuszak mentioned on the 18th that we're going to have city representatives and they're going to, we're just going to have to trust them to sort of evaluate these RFPs. But it seems to me that there's a wide variability in terms of the types of proposals that could come back. And scoring them might require some kind of public input, like do we want renovation? Do we want garden apartments? Do we want high rise? What is it we want on the from? And I'm not quite sure how you score that without the public input. And the only other thing that I and so maybe you could talk to that. And the only other thing that I would say is what was brought up at this council meeting was the idea of an RFI as opposed to an RFP. And I'm not sure that that's viable. I don't know how the process works, if that's something that can be done where you could then just get input back as opposed to proposals that then have to be evaluated in an acquisition process behind closed doors.

Mr. Matuszak, thank you, Mr. Polinski. If you could answer that, that would be great. And then I just want to make sure that we circle back to the conversation about the SAP because we are going to talk about the RFP, I think, and the zoning ordinance. But I just want to complete our discussion on the small area plan amendments first. So, Mr. Matuszak, if you could answer that just for like big picture context for all of us, I think that would be helpful. And then I'd really like us to focus on the small area plan discussion.

Great question. And you covered a lot of ground. Here's what I'd like to remind everyone of. Again, we don't do too many of these. So I think it is unique in that respect. So I think the repetition might help in terms of what we are. trying to accomplish what stage of the process we're in and meaning perhaps what's not happening. I think when we use the term RFP, it sets an expectation that at some point in the next few weeks, we're going to magically receive these proposals from developers that somehow over the course of five to six weeks, free of charge developed these fully grown projects that are ready to be approved and constructed a week later. What we're really doing, if you read the entire, I think we're up to version three now of the RFP, is we're simply looking for the approach. What does the development community think, based on what we've been able to acquire and consolidate, based on the guardrails that we are establishing through the code changes, basically our red line, our non-negotiables, whether it's height, bulk plane, setbacks, within all these protections and what we've been able to consolidate so far, can someone convince us that they have a creative approach to pick up and go even further with potentially redeveloping portions of the property? We're not going to have a project in front of us this summer. We're going to have a strategy, and that strategy is going to have two parts. Physically, geographically, what do I think might make sense from a very general conceptual perspective? And financially, from what I've been able to, as my team had looked at the site and what we offered in terms of background information, do we think there's a path to make it financially feasible, given all the different funding sources and everything else that goes into similar projects? What combination of private versus affordable units do I think I can really achieve? How many different city goals can I tick off with the right strategy? So we're using the next few months to find a reliable partner, a creative partner, one with experience in solving complex, challenging sites in a tough market, and has a proven track record with financial strategies that still work in a small jurisdiction. That's all that's happening. Even if we find someone like that, and we might get a bunch of responses that say, you're not there yet. You're going to have to purchase a few more lots, and then we can have a conversation. And I think we've been very clear with everyone, that feedback is just as healthy because it lets us know what our next steps might be. But we have to ask the question. That has to happen. Otherwise, we have no path to go forward or backwards. As that information comes in this summer, what it will allow us to do is then figure out do we enter into an interim agreement that through the second half of this year and into 2027 would allow the development team to then get their design team together to get us a more specific proposal, a proposal that would still have to go through a usual review process. So we have all those different steps ahead of us but we do need to identify someone we can trust and someone who can think creatively and perhaps might be onto something that we're just not going to be able to do on our own as a city. This is a development question. We're not developers. And I think that's a common trap that we fall into where we think we know everything. But in fact, what we don't want to do is spend all this valuable time and engage with everyone and get all this great feedback and then only afterwards realize that none of it is buildable. I'd rather know that upfront and have that inform us and see what kind of additional conversations we may need, which is very likely potentially going to spill into the latter months of the fall. We don't know. So that's kind of where the RFP schedule is. And to answer your maybe initial question, yes, there are purchasing rules that prevent this from being a public process. What we're going to try to do, because once the RFP is issued, certain rules automatically kick in, we do want to have things like an executive summary, things like a overall outline of what the approach might be, something that perhaps the developers are able to prepare that we could share publicly. There's going to be a lot of information in those proposals, these ideas that is proprietary, that is sensitive, that we can't for a number of reasons share publicly. The beauty of the evaluation committee that we're going to be standing up soon is that these folks, I think, have a larger representation of the entire city, and they would have to bring their findings to the council later this summer for a public conversation. So we are picking strategic representation of the city, and I think the city manager has been open about that conversation in recent weeks. And that public conversation about what their assessment of the proposals has been supported by our real estate consultants that will be actively helping us review them will be public discussion, I think, in late August and early September, I believe. So, as we're shifting that schedule further into the fall, I think everybody will have a chance to learn about that.

That's very helpful. Thanks. And what I got from this, and maybe you can correct me, is this RFP, and that's what I think is causing a lot of angst among some of the residents, that the RFP is really just going to give you a sense of what developer would be a good, reliable partner, not necessarily the specifics about number of units and setbacks and things like that. There's still a lot of flexibility once you zero in on a partner. Is that true?

Yes and no. What you're probably going to see is that we've spelled out some very specific guardrails that we're going to continue to evolve through this month. Um, and they set expectation of this is probably where the city wants to be. I think we, we can't be pushed any further than that. We're open to having a conversation if in fact, there's something really critical here. Um, but within those parameters. Folks usually will have enough information to do a general. you know, assessment of how much can you not just fit, but also park, accommodate loading for, and do some of those quick assessments that I think developers are very used to any time they consider approaching potential sites. This happens very often. That initial assessment may often yield that it's not worth it. We're not getting a good feeling. It doesn't seem to be in the realm of consideration. Let's move on. This may not work. But if the numbers initially signal that perhaps there's something there, what would further inform what that looks like and how feasible it is, is when something like a site plan would be filed in late 2026, At that point, you would have the benefit of understanding more clearly utility impacts, loading, access, and many other details that you can't really get to until a design team is committed and has prepared a full set of drawings. So we might get a general estimate, perhaps a range of units this summer, and then we're going to probably see a much more refined version of that as we get into the latter parts of the year.

thanks very much and i will all right any thoughts on the small area plan or are you good on the on that okay thank you how about down this way uh can we stick to the small area i'll try to steer us back to the small area plan thank you before i before i do just briefly good good questions good concerns good discussion all this i think is helpful in building trust and a process which is you know, like some of the other developments that we've done in the city over the last 20 years, unique. And I think appropriately so because the potential for this site is unique in its ability to deliver affordable housing on a scale that we've not been able to attain before while still respecting the space of the neighboring residents and other buildings that are nearby. I can't get my head around, you know, the third quarter of 26. That's just too far down the line. A lot of exciting things are going to happen between now and then. Council the other night got to the point of saying, you know, okay, let's say we go through all this and we just don't like what comes out in the third quarter. And, you know, I see art. nodding his head, you know, yeah, you can just reject it. I mean, if there's some fatal flaw in whatever is developed through this process, then it won't go forward. Simple as that.

Up until the point of a comprehensive agreement, as I recall.

Yeah. Well, it's a legitimate question to ask, you know, why spend so much time on on this topic generally, but the answer to that is there's an urgent need. There are 169 units that are going off program or threatened to go off program in the next very few years, and we must take some decisive action to address that if we're going to follow Council's stated priorities of providing housing for all. And housing for all includes people who are helping us teach our kids and put out our fires and protect our community and work in our shops and groceries. We cannot be a true community if we continue to outsource the workforce in the numbers that we do now. I challenge anybody going to any restaurant in town to ask the server where he or she lives. And if you find somebody who lives in the city of Falls Church, then let me know and I'll buy you an ice cream cone. It's something that every generation or so, we take a crack at trying to solve. We solved it very nicely with the Winter Hill Assisted community that's been a very successful affordable housing product. We did not. We swung the bat at the ball of the wilderness 20 years ago and did not succeed. I'm hopeful that this time around we will succeed. Anyway, Madam Chair, to take us back to the small area plan question, what I would like to do sitting where I am is is ensure that whatever is in the language for the small area plan and or the zoning language that we consider is broad enough to encompass whatever options the market might bring to us so that we can then have a discussion in the fall about more specific project. Is it going to be wholly redeveloped? Is it going to be spot remodeling? The range of options before us are so considerable that I would just like to make sure that staff provides us with zoning and small area plan language that gives latitude for us to have a community conversation about more specifics later on in the year and not try to include language in the zoning code that, you know, prejudges anything at this stage.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Any other comments on the small area plan?

I had a question. Did I understand you, Mr. Treanor, to say that you're still working on language for the small area plan that's going to address zoning?

Yeah, I think it will have to. I think we're still thinking through maybe how best to do that with, you know, what specificity.

So there is... Because right now, I mean, I couldn't draw the change from 40 feet to 25 feet, let's say, on a setback from the small area plan. So I assume, you know. And then likewise, the recommendation to go up to seven stories. That didn't fall naturally out of what language I've seen so far.

Given that this is the first work session by anybody on the first draft, I think we'll get more clarity on some of those numbers and the small area plans will be updated accordingly.

If I can expand on that a little bit more just to say that we probably will not include details like that in the small area plan in the zoning section. It will be more centered around what zoning METHOD WE CHOOSE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PROPOSING A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO IF THAT'S WHAT GOES THROUGH, IT'S FINALIZING LANGUAGE AROUND THAT AND WHAT IT'S CALLED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT THAT THE SMALL AREA PLANS ARE HELPFUL IN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE FAIRLY GENERAL ABOUT THESE THINGS AND THE ZONING CODE GETS MORE SPECIFIC.

Can I ask a question in that vein? Let's just take, for example, the Broad and Washington building. Whatever the small area plan said about that area, whatever the zoning code said about that area, when we got down to brass tacks and we were going to build a building at the corner of Broad and Washington, we recognized that the folks on Lawton were not too excited about it and wanted a much more robust buffer than the developer brought to us. And over a period of months, if not years, we arrived at a final approach that I think speaks to our ability to take individual situations, and no matter what the zoning or small area plan language is above it or underneath it, You know apply it to linear park that runs behind the broad Washington building that provides a pleasant buffer between that building and the residential area next to it and the Community was very involved in. IN THAT, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE MATHEMATICS OF IT, THE DISTANCE AND SO FORTH. THAT IS THE SORT OF APPROACH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US TAKE ON THIS PROPERTY, WHATEVER WE END UP DOING WITH IT.

MR. KRASNER, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO POINT OUT?

CONFESSOR DUNCAN IS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THAT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT WENT THROUGH A VERY RIGOROUS PUBLIC HEARING process the we'll talk about it in a second but the the overlay district is talking about making it all by right so we wouldn't have there'd be no ability to do that by rightness i've come to learn in the current draft of that so i'm just saying that was only possible because of that and we already see language in there that would be counter to which you just described, a very rigorous public process. So if the zoning isn't perfect and it splits by right, well, you're stuck with it either way. You see that with the T-zones and getting townhouses facing the side of a parking garage. That's what would happen.

We'll talk about that in a second. That's why I framed my comment in the fashion of a question, which is send us language that will not preclude... any particular outcome on this site so that we do have the flexibility. And as far as buy-write negotiations, I mean, buy-write does not mean I've learned, does not mean the developer gets to do whatever it is that he or she wants to do. We have gone through extensive discussions here on the Planning Commission on buy-write applications. They have to be a little more faster pace than used to be the case because of what was given to us down in Richmond. But we still have considerable input and influence on what somebody who wants to build a project in the city does, even if by right is the nominal approach, in my opinion. But I do want to be respectful of I don't want to prejudge anything that, you know, in the language that we're talking about for zoning or overlay or small area plans that precludes any specific outcome.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Any other comments? I have a couple. Could we go to page, the two pages, I flagged the same two pages that Mr. Stevens did, page 53 and page 58. One of them, page 53, addresses the future of Virginia Village, and the other addresses the residential vision. And I just feel like those are the two pages that we kind of really want to get right. with these updates. It's funny to me that we flag the same, too. I did have a suggestion about the language that we're using about page 53. Yeah. about Virginia Village here in that bottom right. The city has acquired several lots in Virginia Village and may choose to renovate or redevelop those portions of Virginia Village to retain or expand affordable housing. And I guess I'd just suggest like maybe something a little more general here. Like the city has acquired several lots in Virginia Village with the intention of supporting the city's affordable housing goals. I don't know that we need to get into capturing this sort of moment in time and would we do this or would we do that? I think it's pretty clear that the city has an intention. The reason that we've been acquiring these properties is to support our affordable housing goals. So I just recommend something a little more general there and less perishable, I guess. And then on page 58, the residential vision, I just want to make sure everybody had a chance to look at that. So we're saying, what was triggering you in this particular page, Mr. Stevens?

It's trying to, in my interpretation, it's kind of allocating residential off to the side and that the core commercial area is going to be just for hotels and so forth that we used to think in those terms. And I right away was thinking of Roslyn, which back in the 60s and 70s built all of these wonderful office buildings that were ghost towns at night. And I think people have learned over time, Arlington learned as well, you've got to build in residential with it. So I just get a little nervous when I see an area that's reserved just for hotels and business and so forth, that we really should be looking more at a mix of activities to make sure that it's vibrant and stays active.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Yeah. Any other thoughts on that?

from the commission?

Thoughts from staff?

Yeah, that's one thing we have flagged as looking at further. The question isn't, I think in the mind of staff, the question isn't whether that's still our vision, it's whether changing that is in the scope of this update or if that is outside of the Virginia Village.

These sort of targeted updates that we're trying to make.

Yeah, I think in both this small area plan and the downtown small area plan, and reading through it, there are some great thoughts and ideas that ring true today, and there are some visions that are very specific to the time and place it was written, and so I think that what you called out is one that that stuck out to staff as well as something that might not align with the current climate and the city's aspirations. So it's good to get the advice that there's desire to shift that in this edit.

I think if we're sort of like aligning it with like, okay, here's current reality, right? I mean, you're making some factual updates to the plan to kind of reflect new projects. And then I think, I don't know, to Mr. Steven's point, there also has been market changes that might be sort of, you could consider them like factual updates. And I know that's changing kind of like our goals and intention. But if you're hearing from the Planning Commission that we would support that, then I think, you know, it's something staff should explore. Keeping it targeted, I understand that not wanting to open things up too much.

Thank you. It's good feedback to get.

Go ahead, Mr. Dillon. How do you relate that to the sentence about ground floor retail? There's been already discussion that all these groups, Council and Planning Commission and elsewhere, about You know, what should be on the first floor of whatever prospective Virginia Village redevelopment we might do, modest or extensive. And, you know, the accepted old wisdom was, oh, you got to have ground floor retail in every new building you do because that's just the way it is. That was the Tartar Doctrine. And we've moved away, well, we haven't really moved away from it. We've talked about moving away from it because there are certain other uses that You know, for example, affordable housing that are so important that we'd be willing to give up ground floor retail if it enables us to have another floor of affordable dwellings. So again, I just want to make sure that we don't prejudge that with any language that we have here as it applies to Virginia Village.

Fair enough. I think allowing for some possible retail is okay, but requiring it, which I think is where you were at, may not be a very good thing.

So the ground floor retail can be included with moderate density is, to me, okay language. Can be.

You want to couch it in the context of services, you know, services that work with residential needs, like daycare and that sort of thing.

Right, exactly. Social other social goods, but I don't know. Personally, for my money, the need for affordable housing is so great that I would weigh on the side of not sending any signals to the development community that we expect any ground floor activity in an affordable housing building so as to maximize you know, the number of units that you could get in that building. Right. But that's just me. We should have a conversation about it.

I think we're pretty clear on that in terms of how we're describing our goals with Virginia Village in this document. But, like, the broader vision for the South Washington Street small area plan. could incorporate, you know, buildings where their commercial would be appropriate on the ground floor use, right? Are you seeing a reference that's specifically about Virginia Village and commercial? No, I don't, but that's fine. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. And that'll also be, I mean, captured in other documents.

One other quick question, if I could, and this relates to what Mr. Kavinsky brought up, the process and the opportunities for public expression. I think it is very important because it is a lot to absorb in a fairly short time, and we need to pull out all the resources that we have to try to explain, okay, council's going to talk about this. That's a time when you could come and say your two cents worth, and two weeks later you could say it again. then two months later you can warm it back up and say it again, particularly as it relates to the pre-RFP meetings. Let's do all we can to let the public know when it should come forward and speak up because, and this is a question, Matt, is it your experience or expectation that people who are in the development community send somebody to, Push the AI button on city information and find out what it is that people have been saying about a property like this as they prepare their responses to the RFP. I mean, is anybody out there listening to us beforehand?

If they are, I'm not getting weekly updates from that organization. But what has been happening is if you really evaluate the last several months, we've really started to have these level of conversations in November. So there was a work session, I believe, on the 17th of November. where I think we've kind of begin to pivot from our previous posture on Virginia Village. Some recent acquisitions finally finalized, and it's at that point when we laid out and started to have conversations about what could a unique, different process look like that was both meaningful, authentic, and at the same time, uh respect some of the challenges that are still in front of us um how can we be strategic and opportunistic here um and since that time we've had a lot of conversations you know some of them i'm not sure if we had a slide tonight on this but we've been meeting with various community stakeholders in publicized but not recorded meetings. However, there have been a lot of discussions with this group, with the council that have been picked up by various media outlets that have begun a broader conversation and It certainly helped increase the awareness about the topic. We've also, as we've been mentioning to council, spent this past winter having some informal conversations with various partners and industry experts. That certainly helped. I know staff has regularly visited housing conferences where further networking information has been shared to raise awareness about the upcoming opportunity. The interest is certainly there. I think we feel comfortable and have received enough signals that we don't need to go through a step to verify who's interested. I think we're ready to see how creative people are. And I think we have regularly received inquiries about, you know, at what point is this going to happen? Is this going to happen? uh let me set some resources aside there's a lot of interest to help us solve this situation or at minimum let us know that it's premature and we at least from staff's perspective from the council's perspective we're curious enough to have that answer because it would really help us no matter what direction we go into after this summer

I see. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, obviously, I would hope that some developer would be bright enough to, well, let me put it this way. I mean, if anybody's listening out there, this member of the Planning Commission would like to see a solution on this site that, you know, respects the abutting residential area directly behind it. And that's a North Star, I think, for a lot of us. Because we think it is doable. It would be more doable, in my personal opinion, if we had access to more of the Virginia Village quads. And I know we're not talking about discussions that are probably being held with other owners of some of those properties, but if some of those property owners would participate in this exciting opportunity, it would make it easier to provide ample affordable housing to meet the 169 number that I mentioned earlier and respect the view shed of the Winter Hill residents who would live behind the new development.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Do you have another thing, Mr. Polinsky?

I have a specific question about the small area plan. Sure. I'll stick to small area plans for now. Thank you. Related to some of the comments from council, some of the council members last week or whatever the conversation was this week, I forget what it was. Monday. Monday. There was questions around different variations, different thought processes around how to make this land available to developers. They talked about a lot of different options and combinations of retail and other things. Does that particular kind of conversation go in the small area plan If we want to go with the CLT or we want to go with a city-owned land, making that available as a concept in just this small area plan, is that a thing that we need to include in there to make that an option down the road, even if we don't end up using it? Or is that completely separated from the small area plan?

I think I would have to go back and watch that council meeting. I was on vacation. I just got back to give you a more specific answer. My instinct is that specific land agreements and legal agreements might to be too specific for a plan like this, but we also could put some reference to these are some options for ways. I know there's a whole section on parcel consolidation and how that can provide different opportunities in the area. So, I would have to go back and listen to the specifics, but yeah, my instinct is maybe a touch on it, but not get too specific.

These feel like nightmares I have had from college about showing up to take tests. So apologies for dropping this on you. No, no worries. Sorry, Mr. Matuszewski, we're going to jump in there.

If I can chime in real quick, my recollection of that conversation was such that, and Zoe mentioned this earlier, the nature of these area plans generally wants to be at a certain level of detail that I think is treating all sites as equally as it can. We don't want to maintain a certain level of specificity across different sites that are within, let's say, the Washington opportunity area, and then suddenly once we get to Virginia Village, be very prescriptive and overly detailed because we may be onto something that might materialize. We're trying to make sure that these plants can live on their own for quite some time. We don't want to be in a habit of every two, three years going back to revisiting them. There's just no resources to do that. And what we'd rather do is rely on the zoning ordinance to, I think, be more prescriptive. However, as you'll see in the second part of this conversation, The challenge in front of us is that the zoning language is meant to apply to the entirety of the site, including privately held properties that have expressed to us at recent meetings. They want to have the same opportunities that the rest of the lots have, meaning the city-owned lots. We should not be trying to establish special rules. So as you'll see in that conversation, we've done exactly that and expressed what that path looks like. The RFP is a special tool where it actually allows us that freedom to be a little bit more clearer, a little bit more specific and set even a higher bar for what happens with our city owned properties that would not apply to the other privately held lots. And that's the opportunity in front of us is that with the RFP and the guidance will express there because we are owners and therefore will dictate the terms under which we will come into any agreement.

with a developer it gives us the opportunity to use the RFP to check some of those boxes that perhaps the zoning ordinance on its own or the small area plan simply cannot okay I I think the thing that I would love to see us consider as we go through this and you get back from being on vacation uh is some level of indication that we are willing to be more maybe we want to be more adventurous here about housing like this is an area that we want to focus on because this neighborhood and this area is more adept at that, but it has to work for, obviously, all the residents there and the city at large. I think that's a piece that I would like to see in the small area plan as we indicate our intentions for that area.

Yeah, that language can definitely be added to encourage more creativity and flexibility. I think that's definitely something that could be alluded to.

Great, thank you. I just have one final thing. Can you go to page 62? This is the other page that I flagged. It's about the future land use. And I guess, you know, this was written in, what, 2008 or something? Like, I know the Future Land Use Map has changed significantly since then. I didn't see a lot of changes in this area. There were some deletions related to Virginia Village. But I guess I would just ask staff, like, if you could just take a really close look at this, and does this comport with kind of like what the future, like today's state of the Future Land Use Map? I didn't have a chance to kind of like compare The future land use map is recorded in this plan with like what we have today But I think this is another page that is important to get right Yeah, definitely.

I think I think this is a part that the Virginia Village aspects have been updated, but more of the factual stuff is still ongoing. It's just two separate 100-page documents.

Oh, I know. You've done an amazing job so far on these updates. It was very thorough. And then my final question is on the maps, how do we denote changes? I don't know that I've reviewed map changes. I'm sure we have at some point, but how do you show the change? So currently we don't denote anything.

In this plan, right? And are you anticipating any changes? I think the best way we are showing if a map has changed is the new format, which has been part of the accessibility standards update for the city. Jack, if you could go up to page maybe 14 would be a good one. You can see how this type of map looks different from some of the older ones where there's two columns or a column on the right side and it has some different things, like the legend over there and the North Arrow. So it's not, the maps that look like this have been updated. If the content has been updated, that's not specifically specified at this moment, but could be described in the staff reports, I think is the best way to do that. Okay.

Okay, yeah, that would be helpful. Any sort of summary of which maps changed. And just on the accessibility, it's not really accessibility, but I think we're rendering all of the maps in Esri now on the website, but there's no dates anymore when it was last updated, because the actual PDF maps used to include the signature, and you could see the date, and so then I know

when we last updated the future land use map and that information is not really easily accessible on the city website anymore so just yeah that's feedback that's a good comment and uh an ongoing issue where we're trying to work out with some of these things but um i think that's that's also a concern on staff and super staff that we want to make sure people can tell when things are updated. For the most part, a lot of our mapping services are much more, are fairly up-to-date right now. Our new GIS staff has been updating a lot.

Yeah, I love it. I mean, even just adding a little line in have text above it just last updated on the state would be all we need.

Did you have a comment, Mr. Krasner? Just something popped into my head about the maps. I mean, if we're changing the future land use map, don't we need to show that specifically? Like, you know, graphically, like we're changing from this to this so that it's clear where that change is happening?

I think we aren't proposing any actual changes to the future land use map with this.

I thought we were changing something there. I guess the area map boundaries are different.

We're moving the small area, yeah, those four parcels into the... That's maybe different.

So we're not changing the future land use map?

Correct.

Okay.

It's just changed.

That we would need to show very specifically. Yeah.

The future land use map has the whole site as mixed use, which we're not proposing. We're not changing that. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Any other comments on the small area plan? Okay. All right. I think we can proceed to this. Does anybody need a break? It's 9 p.m. Are we okay to power through?

Take a five-minute break.

Five minutes?

That's just me. I could just... jump out on my own.

Okay. All right. Well, maybe we can power through. All right. Okay. All right. Sorry, Mr. Krauser. I'll take my own break. Yeah, take your break. I think you all had a presentation, part two.

Yeah.

So now we're going to discuss the next item on the agenda is the Virginia Village Zoning Tax Amendments. So this is the overlay that was previously discussed somewhat.

Yeah. What came out of those conversations with the community in spring were those goals for Virginia Village. particularly around housing affordability, around different transition and park space. And so following those conversations, we looked at the current zoning tools to see how adequately they address those goals, as well as the housing diversity that's included in the comprehensive plan vision for the Virginia Village area. And there's more details included in your staff report. I'm happy to dive into those further. But generally, the site's covered mostly by the RM or Residential Multifamily District. That's what you see in brown in the site. And then the Gibson properties are the B2 commercial district. And the whole site's covered by the Mixed Use Redevelopment 1, or MUR 1 overlay, which introduces by right mixed use redevelopment options to the underlying zoning district where mixed use redevelopment might not be permitted, or at least not by right as a permitted use. And so we looked at these tools that are there today and compared them to, again, the comp plan and those community conversations. And we found that there's a lot of barriers to the existing zoning to accomplishing those goals. Those are generally a large minimum lot area or, you know, development area requirements, really prescriptive density requirements, particularly in the RM district that precludes any real expansion possibilities on the individual lots. And then also other kind of prescriptive use ratios, things that were developed, frankly, under a different economy. And so there's a lot of issues that are in the way to basically achieving the goals of housing affordability and variability on this site. And so the next piece then, following those conversations, in realizing the... The aspirations for the community for this site would be to consider some updated zoning tools that facilitate those housing goals. And so that's what the this first proposal is for is is for a new. overlay district that would essentially replace the mixed-use redevelopment one overlay on the site and would introduce a new overlay where the underlying zoning districts would not change but would introduce similarly a path to affordable housing, to open space, to different housing typologies, sizes, and affordabilities. in a sort of the least disruptive manner. And by that, I mean the other option would be to amend the underlying zoning districts, which are scattered across the city and so could have unintended consequences far away from Virginia Village. So in order to kind of keep this kind of targeted approach, we thought the overlay district would make the most sense here. And so I'll walk through, you know, just some of the main considerations here. They generally follow the buckets in the small area plan conversations that Zoe went over. But starting with building scale and density transitions, the proposal currently includes a 10 foot building step back for any part of that building above 40 feet. So similar to the kind of townhouse form that was approved for the for the T zones. And then also introducing a what's called a bulk plane requirement where there's a it becomes a sort of sliding scale depending on how far a building is from the lot line dictates how tall it can go. And this is something this is a concept that's really only exists in the city within the M.U.R. ordinance. And so we sort of adopted that idea because we think it's a good idea and just made some tweaks to it that are more specific to Virginia Village. And so that would be at a 45 degree angle. The proposal also includes the seven stories maximum building height and in conjunction with the bulk plane, which the draft zoning text specifies that the bulk plane would be related to. any Gundry Drive address. So that's meant to push the tallest building highs and use intensities towards South Maple Avenue. It's something we heard a lot during the small area plan process was that the highest building Again, heights should be further from the Virginia Village and or excuse me, the Winter Hill and Big Chimneys Park area. And so that's the intention of the bulk plane is to push those elements towards the more commercial corridor, South Maple Avenue. regarding building scale and density transitions. So an entire development proposal area within the overlay district would be subject to a minimum 25 foot setback. That would be sort of a perimeter setback. And that takes effect when any proposal would be adjacent to a residential district or a public park. And so any residential district, either internal or external to the overlay, would trigger that 25-foot setback. And then there's also screening language in there that borrows from the more kind of intensive use screening that the city already employs. And so when you have a more this is typically typically you see these screening requirements for a like a special exception that takes place in a commercial or business district that's adjacent to a residential district. We we basically took that same language because that was already in there and has been employed throughout the city for similar type developments. We keep going to housing in affordability, obviously huge consideration. So this one takes some some explanation because what we've included here in the first draft is a minimum affordable housing contribution of 12% at 60% AMI or below. We've got an important caveat here that obviously the RFP process would go much further than that and would require a substantially higher affordable housing component. With the RFP, the city is going to have a lot more discretion than the overlay, which is, you know, sets those kind of minimal or the minimum sort of standards that any development that takes of the overlay, you know, needs to comply with. But anything, you know, that may follow after the RFP would need to show an affordable housing contribution of at least 12 percent. Regarding housing typology, the ordinance doesn't isn't as prescriptive as some of the current zoning about the housing typologies. And again, density that's purposely purposefully been left more more open to kind of encourage that development and really get creative with how folks return different housing types and sizes on the site. So regarding open space and connectivity, another huge consideration and value that we heard in the community is Big Chimneys Park and connections to the park and the open space that the site currently enjoys. And so one of the other access points to the district would be providing either that affordable housing, piece or substantial open space piece. Um, and so any-any-anyone that, um, you know, again, that follows the RFP would be required to either those those would be your two kind of entry points to the density incentives considered in the overlay is at least a 50 percent open space requirement for the whole respective to the whole proposal or that affordable housing piece. And I guess also also worth mentioning is the mentioned earlier, the kind of screening and buffering requirements does allow for these kind of paths to Big Chimneys Park in the city would certainly encourage these kind of linear connections to the park when it can. That also provides opportunities for wayfinding in these sort of sense of place improvements that could happen there and kind of driving traffic and attention to big chimneys. And again, sort of uplifting the the identity of the park as kind of a core community asset in this part of town. Parking is a standard, you know, that would follow our off street parking requirements that are currently in the code. Some other standards that I'll mention, you know, stormwater, tree canopy requirements. These are all standards that the city has for development, you know, across the city. So there's no specific requirements in this draft code. And then complementary uses. So in addition to residential, obviously, the overlay is substantially encouraging of housing. That's, again, the kind of North Star use here um but you know in our conversation with the community we also heard about some other um some you know housing uh residential supportive uses uh that might be beneficial here things that um are scarce across the city like child care uh daycare uh some you know housing supportive services um and so the uh the draft does include uh in in allows for certain other uses other than residential. So again, here's the kind of zoning context, and we've included a couple GRAPHICS MAYBE TO HELP THE CONVERSATION. WE HEARD AT COUNCIL AND FROM THE COMMUNITY RECENTLY THAT SOME MORE SURROUNDING CONTEXT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IN CONSIDERING ANY ordinance updates. And so right next door, obviously, Pearson Square and the tax analyst, that's going to be kind of the the one that comes to mind the fastest being right next door to Virginia Village. And so we've pulled some this is from the site plan. The current setbacks that were PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN. THESE ARE THE MINIMUM SETBACKS THAT ARE PROVIDED. OBVIOUSLY, THE SITE KIND OF VARIES IN GRADE FROM ITS NEIGHBORS, AND SO THOSE SETBACKS ARE BIGGER IN SOME AREAS, BUT THEY'RE NOT SMALLER THAN WHAT'S PROVIDED HERE. We took some other exhibits included in that site plan that shows how the proposed development of Pearson would look compared to the surrounding residential neighborhood. And so these are kind of These are two scale just sort of diagrams that show the current Pearson building relative to different neighbors around the site, which are highlighted in yellow in the next couple of slides. In red is the kind of current conditions and the setback. And then in blue is what's proposed in the current draft ordinance. And so you've got the 25 foot buffer because and we may so that the BULK PLAIN, YOU KNOW, WOULD APPLY TO ANYTHING ON GUNDRY DRIVE, BUT SO, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T TECHNICALLY GUNDRY DRIVE ADDRESS, BUT IT WOULD APPLY WITH THE SAME ORIENTATION THAT THE WINTER HILL AREA WOULD HAVE TO THE SITE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SOUTH OF IT, THAT BULK PLAIN IS PROVIDED TO KIND OF SHOW HOW THAT WOULD BE RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. And so we've included, I think there's two different neighbors. This is 420 South Virginia Avenue. You can also see down here kind of a screen grab of satellite imagery where that is in relation to Pearson Square. So you can see just kind of another depiction of the current conditions. And then 301 Rollins Street is the other one that has the same sort of relationship to Pearson Square as Winter Hill neighbors might to the Virginia Village area. And then lastly, we've included what what a kind of internal use would what kind of relate to the current proposal. And so this considers privately owned properties that aren't currently considered in the RFP process or might be next to a property that could redevelop under the current proposal. And so this shows this is one of the Shirley properties and shows its relationship to Pearson Square today, again in red versus the, you know, what could be developed under the current proposal in blue. And if it's helpful, we have some less kind of descriptive slides on broad Washington. And as we go on and have more time to kind of refine these materials, we can add some other mixed use projects. But we've also included Broad and Washington, the kind of setback area on Lawton Street. We can dive more into that if the commission likes. But I know that's a lot of information. I want to turn it back to you with any questions. So thank you.

That was great. I think you anticipated a lot of the questions that we might be having tonight. All right. Who wants to kick us off? Actually, just maybe one clarification question on the 33-degree bulk plane for the Virginia Village. That wasn't proposed. Are you considering that?

The 45 degree?

The 33, sorry. And so we haven't specified a bulk plane for the abutting Virginia Village properties, but in your diagram, it was 33 degrees. Is that something that you're considering or?

Yeah, good catch. And I should have mentioned that. That's really just there for reference. So the bulk plane would only apply, let me pull the...

Yeah, I know. I guess I'm wondering, you know, considering the experience of those residents, like, is that something that we want to include?

It's certainly something we could talk about. That was there for reference. So the bulk plane would only apply, respected to the Gundry Drive properties behind. And sorry, we didn't include the map of the site, but you can kind of, so it would be kind of the back spine back here.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. I was curious about the internal, any sort of internal bulk plane that we might be contemplating.

So internally, in addition to the 25-foot project perimeter, there would be that step-back requirement as well.

The 10-foot. The 10-foot above 40 feet. Above 40. Or at 40. above 40?

Yep. After 40 feet, everything above that steps back.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone want to kick us off? I have a bunch of specific questions, but I'm happy to... Well, I mean, I have a few questions.

I mean, I have some opinions, but... Maybe questions.

Let's do our... I've got plenty of those. Let's do our questions first, and then we can all share our opinions at the end.

How about that? Okay. Well, Fine. Get another chance. No, I know. I'll start off with some questions. I mean, why only 12%? If this is all about affordable housing and we want to have affordable housing, and I get it. I mean, you know, you were saying most developers need to subsidize that some way with market rate. isn't all percent I get for the city on stuff this would be only on half the neighborhood so what about you know the other half that we don't control we approve this in a few months you know

WHAT WHY THAT SO I'M SURE THAT YOU GUYS THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BETWEEN SPECIFIC NUMBERS SO I SEE MR. MATUSIK'S GOT HIS HAND UP SO I I CAN MAYBE LEAD US OFF WITH THAT THE 12 PERCENT COMES FROM THE AFFORDABLE LIVING POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED RECENTLY THAT ESTABLISHED A NEW THRESHOLD FOR THE CITY IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE A BASELINE OF 12 PERCENT AS A STARTING POINT IN IN ALL YOU KNOW SE PROJECTS GOING FORWARD SO THAT WAS THIS IS A SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT WE'RE CREATING JUST FOR THIS PURPOSE

Why not go higher? I mean, why not? The whole idea, and that's all I've ever heard about Virginia Village, is we want to retain the number we have, plus yield as many more as the land can reasonably accommodate, given all the constraints and everything we've been talking about. Why not go more? Because I think the concern is you're going to get a lot of market rate in there. And again, I don't want to go backwards, but this whole idea about the development community going to be like the oracle that's going to provide us all the magic answers. I think we're being a little bit naive if we think that the development community is going to care a lot about some of the issues that we care about. Developers aren't evil. They do what they have to do. It's a business. They're going to want to maximize. They're going to try to offset that. Affordable housing has to be subsidized. We all know that. Someone's got to pay for it. It's cost to build, cost to do it. The city's got either a city or a developer. The only way the developer is going to subsidize it is through market rate and other uses. That's where, again, it gets into this weird situation where we're going to allow a lot of density And, you know, there's going to be a good chunk of market rate on that site. I don't know. And that's like, is that worth it for the, you know, the additional affordable? I don't know. It's a very, so I don't know why 12%, we would set 12%.

Mr. Matuszak, do you want to weigh in on the 12% question?

Why not go higher?

Yeah.

Absolutely. Yes, we've spent a lot of time focusing on this issue. What I like to do is actually frame it a little bit differently that might save us some time in understanding that number because I can see why I think that reaction is the first one that comes to mind. The 12% is strategically designed for application with any future phases of change whatever they might look like on this property that involve privately held lots it is not intended for the ones that we control and that we are guiding through with the help of other tools including the rfp we know that our bar for the properties that we own is much higher than that and we've been very consistent that at minimum we need to make sure we are uh accommodating folks who are on the site right now pending income verification We want to strategically consider any additional affordable units that might be expiring elsewhere in the city in the coming years. I think we've been very clear as has the affordable living policy that we have a shortage, we have a gap. We have a huge wait list in the region and in the city. So we do want to grow the inventory of affordable housing. And we do understand that that would be one of our priorities and really a condition upon any kind of agreement with a developer about why we would be proceeding forward. What the zoning language is doing is what guidance are we setting in stone with these changes once they're adopted at some point later this year such that Once city-owned properties have a path forward and figure out what their vision and outcome might be, how do we set the stage for other owners on that property to also have a path forward? We've heard from them in recent meetings. I think it's only fair that in the future, some of them own multiple lots on that property. A lot of those lots are not contiguous. Some are on Maples, some are on Shirley. It's challenging. And really, back to your point about somebody has to pay for this, we would not be involved in those future instances where somebody would be taking advantage on utilizing this new overlay district because what you're seeing on this page are really the two entry points into eligibility for the new overlay. Either we're getting a minimum number of affordable housing and that might be based on a lot of factors. Does somebody have two lots? Do they have a consolidated four? What do they look like? Where are they located? What are the ideas from that property owner in moving something forward? Perhaps they can make 12% of their project, which is probably going to be smaller than whatever we can establish. Maybe that's feasible. Maybe it's not, and the other entry point, as you read through the language, is public open space. We've heard loud and clear, the small area plan and past community conversations, we're discussing increasing that inventory. So we wanna make sure that as these property owners working into the future, as they consider their path forward, whenever change happens, and we're not dictating that timeline, it is completely up to them, that they also have a chance to weigh, maybe affordable housing worked for a few other folks, it worked for the city, but my path forward to entertain and become eligible for more flexible design guidance is that I'm gonna dedicate a minimum amount of my space however many lots I've been able to acquire and consolidate as publicly available open space. So that's what this is trying to get to is what happens after our upcoming potentially knock on wood partnership with a developer. How do we want to structure this district to also serve the privately held units moving forward?

You know, I appreciate that. I understand that. I think, you know, right now it's 100% affordable there. And I think setting such a low bar. I actually think 12% citywide makes a lot of sense. I mean, there are areas of the city that you know, again, for a typical kind of mixed-use project, you know, that we've seen, you know, multifamily, I think that number is in line with kind of what the market can do. And I sort of understand those limitations. I mean, I'm well-versed in that. But, you know, this is kind of, again, we've always talked about this, like, special little, you know, kind of community that we're trying to emphasize affordable housing. It's not like the rest of the city. We want to emphasize it here even more than we would other places because of the history, because of, you know, kind of, you know, the fact that it kind of is a unique opportunity. And so I guess I'm just concerned we only control half of the site. So the other half that we are not even, we're like minus less one, one below half. I know there's another nonprofit. But so it's a risk that, you know, you know, half the site, if you set such a low bar and you do it by right, which that's my other point, is I do not think that any increases in density should be by right because by setting such a low bar and saying, there you go, that's all you're going to get. We know that. That's all you're going to get. Developers are not going to come in and do more than the minimum. We all know that for affordable housing projects. They will do the exact minimum they have to do. It's very expensive to finance these things, so that's what they'll do. They'll maximize the market rate. I don't know. It seems strange that we would set such a low minimum for the rest of the neighborhood and allow it by right. I mean, I think my big picture is that we shouldn't allow any of it by right. To Mr. Duncan's point before about how successful we were on Lawton with working abroad in Washington and having a good end result there, I don't want to say that nothing would have been a disaster had it all been by right, but I'm telling you that it's unlikely we would have probably gotten the concessions that we got. And I appreciate Mr. Duncan saying, well, if they go through a site plan process, they're going to listen to the city. Well, to a point, but legally they have no obligation to listen to anything beyond what's in the code. And we see what that means as far as number of units, what it means for density and layout. And so if it's between losing units and providing a better buffer... And they have the legal right to build that level of density. That's what they're going to do. So I think, you know, I don't know why we feel like we need to, you know, sort of give developers free reign. It assumes that we're going to get this overlay district right, perfectly right. I'm okay with allowing flexibility and, you know, having options in here. But if we allow it by right, you know, and we sort of misjudge something, I mean, we're stuck with the results. And so I think that's a huge risk as well. I mean, I don't know why we would do that. I mean, you know, I don't know why we feel like, you know, I don't know. It's an in-demand area. I mean, I think the concern that developers will balk at that, I don't know. I mean, I think a negotiation kind of yields the best results, but you can't have a negotiation when it's just by right. You're not going to get the same level of response from the landowner at that point. I'm concerned. I think 12% is too low. I think that the other part of the code where you're... I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the buy-right thing. I understand the theory about we've got to make it as easy as possible, otherwise they won't build it. I don't know if I agree with that. I think we're very necessarily on every piece of land everywhere that that's true, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that. Last part, my last question, and I'll let you respond to everything the topology. So, you know, as far as the range of things, I mean, I think also we have to be cognizant of, you know, the cost to build townhouses versus multifamily. And so we allow townhouses That's very likely what we will get because townhouses have the biggest return on investment for most residential builders. They're the cheapest to build, and they can charge the most. They get the most profit out of townhouses. And we see that in the T-districts, and we would see it here too. So we need to be careful. We really want to maximize the number of units and density, but we allow this range that includes, you know, attached single family. We're very likely to maybe not maximize the yield per acre density that we might want. So those are my big concerns, the buy right, the 12%, and allowing townhouses. If we want more density, we probably should prescribe that in the overlay. It's OK. I understand there has to be some buy right development at the underlying zone, wherever it's going to stay. People could rebuild the four units they have exactly with a brand new building if they wanted to buy right. That's OK. So anyhow, that's what I'm interested to hear. So you spoke to the 12% a little bit. only by right and why allow for the attached single family as opposed to specifying we want multifamily or other types of units that maybe are not attached single family.

I should have rolled the questions down. That was a lot. Back to the 12%, I think it's probably accurate in everyone's interest to, again, these responses are focusing on the privately held, the middle portion of the property. I'm not discussing the city-owned lots. When you consider what's happening there and we've been corrected several times in recent meetings that there are several property owners who have invested into their properties. They have maintained them. Their rents are higher than what we are experiencing on the city portions of the property. They make that very clear and they plan to continue to rent them out and there's a demand for those units. But what we are setting as an expectation is that affordability through redevelopment would be at a higher subsidy, meaning a different level of average median income here. So there's already an increased level of investment to achieve that goal through redevelopment. 12% is actually not that dissimilar than what we're experiencing with other SE projects. I know there's this philosophical nobody's going to win debate out there about we do such a better job with SE projects. That's going to be open to interpretation. I think by right projects often get an unfair criticism because perhaps early on they were not structured properly. And I think there's a human nature and desire to have as many opportunities to regulate and form, evolve and mold projects, which I sometimes enjoy myself. However, if you look at the recent SE projects, have they really delivered significantly more than 12% of the overall units as affordable? I mean, we've been able to get 20, sometimes 30 units, but of the overall building, what is that percentage? So if we can establish averages there and they're significantly higher than 12%, then we can have that conversation. But even if we do, which I don't think we're going to be that far off, the debate is really about What's really physically left? And this is where philosophically in practice, what we need to get away from and kind of just be mindful of is... We can never predict how long it will take for any one owner to consolidate and strategically acquire more and more lots the way we've been fortunately able to in the last five years based on the current property owner structure that's left on the site. Is it possible? Sure. Would it take 20 to 30 years? Maybe. Does somebody have that patience? And the reality is, I would imagine that more and more of the current property owners, if they ever get to a point where perhaps there's just no further reinvestment left in those buildings, they're just too old, some level of change has to happen, They're not going to wait and continue to wait for that perfect project to appear. They're going to move forward with whatever they have access to, which at that point was probably going to be some combination of two or three of the existing lots. And it may very well be that they're probably spread out throughout the property. Very few, I think, are lucky enough to have two consecutive, three consecutive lots under their ownership that at least makes things more feasible. What we've already done, because we're heading in this direction, is we now depressed the building envelope on all those different lots because we have rules that apply along all the critical perimeter boundaries of the site and within the lots themselves. There's other protections there so that development next to a lot that hasn't yet changed also has to be respected. On top of that, we have the vertical depression in terms of maximum building heights. So that's all going to yield certain products. And at this point, I don't think we know exactly if we don't want to have townhomes because we really believe in multifamily. I think we want to have options available to us because we just don't know how the market will react. So this is where I think this push-pull of, you know, let's be strategic, let's kind of give options. We're trying to use form-based solutions to capture our guardrails and then see how reactive and creative the development community might be.

I'll say one more thing and let others go, but I appreciate all that. But I think, again, it's a huge risk to just kind of say, you know, we're going to set up this overlay district. We think, you know, it might work. and we're just going to kind of let it go and see what happens. What's the harm in having a public approval process? I disagree with you strenuously that buy-right development is always better, always worse. I think the projects that have gone through the process are better for having gone through the process on all of them, actually, to be honest with you, compared to the buy-right projects. I hate to beat up on the T-zones, but I love to do it. If we didn't have a buy-right There would not be a row of townhouses whose front door open up to a parking garage. That wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have allowed it. We would have said, that's terrible design. What kind of environment are you creating? And I get people paid a lot of money to buy those units, or they are about to. But again, I feel like that's what you get, unintended consequences, when you just kind of do some rough bulk analysis and say, all right, market, go for it. Not that we shouldn't have any biodevelopment, but why here? This is so important to us. This is this critical piece. Why would we leave it to the market? Why not at least start out having some controls, see how it goes. I mean, if we think we get it right and we kind of have a template, we kind of get a project under our belt and it worked really great and we think it works and the community, Winter Hill, buys in and says, yeah, that worked. I like how that turned out. Okay, maybe we relax it later. But why just kind of like just kind of say let's go and just throw it out there and cross our fingers um on the private side i'm not talking about the half that we own but the half that we don't it's huge risk i don't know why we would take that if we're so concerned about that about this is so precious these lots why open it up like that why not let it go through the planning commission let it go to the council let the community have input like every other major development that incite in the city that was important it went through a process like that so i don't know that's my piece on that i'll let others go but feel strongly against allowing buy-right for that type of thing.

The last thing I'll mention, and again, respectfully, it's a double-edged sword, I think. There are some poor examples of SE projects that probably could have had a better outcome. And I think we do have positive outcomes with buy-right projects. So it's a mixed bag across the spectrum, I think. So I don't want to make it sound like or have my points be interpreted as I prefer one over the other. There are successes on both sides. uh and i think we are as we look at the code language which is the portion of the agenda i think we do have the most critical guardrails in there and through the review process which is i think near the end of the code language that we've had at the end of the staff report we clarify the conceptual review process the preliminary site plans that would have to be filed the other briefings that involve the planning commission. So there's a lot of, I think, structure embedded in there.

There's no teeth to that. I mean, they have to meet the minimum requirement, and that's it. There's no ability to really negotiate on critical things. We can negotiate on the lipstick, but we can't change the critical parts if it's by right. I mean, and if we write the most perfect overlay district in the history of the city, it'll be great. But I think that's a huge risk. I think our experience has shown that, and not just us, anyone, that it's very difficult to do that, especially in such an untested thing. As we've said, this is kind of unique. It's kind of the first time we're doing it. Why take that risk that we could maybe not get it right? And let, you know, why not go a little more cautiously and slowly and see how it plays out over the next year if we adopt it this fall. And then we can always relax it later. But after it's done and built, there's no going back. And it's a very small area. It's even smaller than the T-Zones, you know, as far as, like, what's there. If there's a couple things that develop in a way we didn't anticipate as a result, we might regret it. And why would we want, you know, look back so soon and say, darn it, I wish we had thought of that. Anyhow, that's my two cents. I'll let others go.

Last thing I'll mention, I promise I'm letting this go. There are also risks associated with the SE process and the kind of very dragged out negotiation process. Those are not risk-free. So I want to make sure we're not unequally comparing the two.

Risk to the developer, I get it. Risk to the developer, and I can see that sometimes dissuade people. I understand all that. But, you know, we're not an economically depressed jurisdiction. We are an area in demand. People want to be here. People want to build here. And we should harness that. You know, I mean, we don't need to, like, beg developers to come build here. You know, the easier we make it, you know, it's already, you know, very attractive. So, I don't know. I just feel like we're, you know, I don't know. It's not the way I would recommend we do it, but I'm just one voice of seven.

Did others have questions about the 12 percent? I know I had some questions about it, too.

Not on 12 percent.

Not on 12 percent. Mr. Kaminsky.

I might echo what Mr. Kastner was talking about. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, we're creating an incentive through the 12 percent and through the changes in the setbacks, particularly the houses along the structures along Maple. They could actually There's a huge now financial incentive for those to become non-affordable housing units, right? I mean, somebody could increase density significantly, change the set, we're changing the setbacks. And what is currently affordable housing, market rate affordable housing could potentially be redeveloped for townhouses, seven-story buildings, apartments? Am I getting that right?

I guess for me to follow the math there, do you have a number of units in mind when you envision this project? Just so we could apply the 12 percent and then whatever that number comes back, compare it to the four units that are currently on the site?

It's more than four. It's actually 20, right? There's 20 units in those five quads on Maple.

Well, that's what I'm trying to understand is how many lots in your mind have come together that we don't own that would represent this project.

If you could bring the map up of the Virginia Village site, Jack, I think that might be helpful. So there are five facing Maple. I have the same question as Mr. Kravinsky.

Well, let's say somebody wanted to take 300-302 and you could either do fairly dense townhouses or you could potentially do multiple-story building. And at some point in time, you might only get, let's say there was 10 units out of that,

market rate units which would be more expensive than the current units you might get one affordable housing unit out of it maybe two if you round up if you round up but you're going from 20 to 2 potentially that's my concern too i mean i don't does that is that like is that you do not foresee that happening

So in this scenario, and it's a good debate, if the number needs to be adjusted, that's what we're here for. But in this debate, the sites in question allow you to currently, I think, go from five to seven stories, and we're saying that somebody's going to acquire those two or combine them in such a way where they're only yielding 10 units? Or what would be the new yield of the units?

I'm envisioning like somebody assembles 300 through 308, everything facing maple.

Yeah.

Right. And that's 20 units currently because there's five quads there, 20 naturally affordable units. So they purchase all those. They probably, as Mr. Krasner said, build townhouses, maybe, I don't know, 10, 8 units. and you get one or two affordable units that are townhouses. So I think that's what I want to avoid. I was surprised to see that the private owners were able to sort of access this overlay so sort of easily without a lot of affordable benefit, which I think is kind of our public purpose here of creating this overlay.

I think my concern is that we're going from, we're actually creating the incentive for to get rid of the existing affordable housing by allowing more density, shorter setbacks, more height. You're making that property more valuable. And whatever vision we had of acquiring those additional properties, we've just created a much higher market value for those properties, for those lots.

So that would be good feedback tonight is if you feel like there's a different number that works, perhaps even one that works for multifamily, one that works for townhomes, that would be good to know if we feel like we're getting into the specific consequence where that incentive is being created because that number results.

For me, it's losing any of these units at all, though. I don't know that there's a scenario where the percentage affordable results in more units than we have today. I think we can achieve that in our publicly owned properties because we're going to build a big building there. But if we allow townhouses, then I think we will. I mean, as T-Zones has shown us, that's probably what we're going to get. So I think we lose units.

So is there a number that works better for you guys in terms of what we just discussed?

I mean, I think that's the challenge.

As a percentage of the total, I mean.

Well, I guess I just question the premise of like why the private owners should be able to sort of access this overlay without some kind of partnership with the city to achieve like our affordable housing goals.

I think some of it gets back to the current MUR overlay, which does apply to the entire property. Zoning is not something you can really structure based on ownership, and I think we do get into additional and very uncomfortable challenges and conflicts when we start to treat properties differently unless we're involved somehow. I think it does get into who would be paying for the subsidy, and even a handful of units on a particular site subsidized for a certain AMI level for a duration of several decades, if not for the perpetuity of the project, that carries a significant cost. But we can certainly keep tweaking the numbers, particularly if it means maybe one set of numbers applies in a townhouse scenario, and one might apply better for a multifamily, and then continue the comparison between how those numbers might perceive the likelihood or incentivizing redevelopment, as opposed to the other number we have for achieving public open space.

I personally, quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to Any advice on this? My concern is that I thought the idea was that we were going to do this development now and then expand out as we could acquire more properties. It seems as though the current zoning draft is going to disincentivize us from ever acquiring new properties. and is going to incentivize the current owner to build high-end market-rate housing. And maybe that's the only solution, you know, without doing spot zoning or whatever is, you know, but I'm not sure. It just strikes me as a challenge to think that through.

Any other thoughts on the 12%? Mr. Duncan, you were trying to get in.

I'm not smart enough either, but it won't prevent me from making a suggestion or asking for input further. I've been around long enough to remember when we went from less than 6% as our requirement for ADUs in the multifamily buildings up to 8 and 10 and then 12 I think finally was the highest number at Founders Row 2 despite legal instructions that we didn't really have the authority or that at least we were risking a lawsuit by making that demand. Fortunately, no lawsuits ever ensued, and we got the units in those buildings dedicated, some of them for the life of the buildings, but I would just like to get some legal guidance on whether we're even allowed to, I understand we can do what we want with a city-owned land, but are we allowed to set that high a bar, or is there a risk in inviting litigation? At some point, it becomes almost the equivalent of an eminent domain. We're almost taking the properties by limiting their ability to be redeveloped

i would think but i'm not your i'm not your attorney anyway ask the lawyers i can play one for just a few minutes but i think we are safe in that we are not removing the by right zoning districts that are currently there and will continue to be there we are simply replacing an overlay district which is simply an option if people are interested if they feel like it makes sense for them and they can do that to achieve our city objectives, then they opt into it. Therefore, we're not requiring anybody to do that. It's their choice whether they want to participate and therefore play by the rules of that district.

Okay. That's helpful. Thanks.

I guess I would say, like, if we're trying to set a bar for achieving our objectives for affordable housing on this site, then it should be, I would say, a much higher number, like 30%, which I think is what we have.

I mean, I can throw out a number, but, like, I think the question I would have here is... We've said that the greatest need is at 40 to 50 percent AMI, not just at the 60 percent threshold. We have like 5 percent affordable inventory right now. My suggestion here would be 25 percent of units at 60 or below, 60 percent AMI or below, or at least like some concept of a minimum of how much could be built in order to get a lot of what Mr. Kaminsky, Mr. Krasner have been saying around basically turning this into creating an incentive to create a more dense, more market rate environment. I would love to see us put something in here that says something along the lines of, there's a minimum, it has to have a minimum of 20 units in it, or it's, you gotta redevelop whole quadplex. Like you can't just like one quad out of something that indicates that this is not just one town home out of 12, which doesn't really solve our problem. Um, as well as really focusing on a lower AMI to create some of the space that we haven't gotten already, uh, or that we don't have elsewhere in the city.

Or, um, yeah, you have to replace what you are.

Maybe in a percent. That's a good, I like that idea. Like there's a percentage wise, like if you redevelop X percentage of the overall, you have to give the overall, increase that by the same percentage overall.

Yeah. Or if you have five, five lots with 20 units, you have to provide 20 units. I don't, I just, I really hate the idea of losing the naturally affordable units that we have today. Um, unintentionally, I think.

We can come back with an adjusted formula or maybe an option, options for formulas that I think start with and prioritize the kind of what is our baseline today. And development should help us to at least whatever that is, double it, triple it, and have that be the driver of and scale it proportionally so that whether there's three lots that came together, so let's say 304, 306, 308 Shirley, at some point in the next few decades become under one ownership, and that's all they have. So how would they come together if they don't own anything else between Shirley and Maple? So we're never going to get to a point where a formula, I think, addresses all potential hypotheticals, but we can get close. So let us come back with maybe some revisions to that.

Can I ask a follow-up question to that? If we're coming back with revisions and this is going to City Council on June 22nd for the RFP to go out, are we going to be able to be inclusive of that in the RFP?

We are because... Let me backtrace. This discussion, the last half hour of which is focused on the privately held properties. The RFP has separated language about what our expectations are for the city-owned properties. And I think as we initially set some minimum targets for affordability, based on feedback we've been consistently receiving, is we've kind of walked that back a little bit because we want to see what's possible, how creative the applications might be, and then have a conversation about what we're hearing. So there is an evolution of a minimum quantity value that we've set. And I think to respond to feedback, we've adjusted that. But the expectations are far above and beyond what this conversation is when we are discussing what the RFP might deliver.

Can I add one more thing on the open space? I have the same concern there. I value open space, but I don't value it more than I value the affordable housing that we have on this site today. So same concern there. If you assemble those three parcels and you wipe them all and then you build on half the assembled lot, it's still a reduction in affordable housing. SO I THINK BOTH PATHS PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, OUR MAINTENANCE OF, LIKE, THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE AT VIRGINIA VILLAGE TODAY.

SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT REDUCING THAT POINT OF ENTRY OR INCREASING IT, I GUESS, WOULD THAT BE THE RIGHT SHIFT?

I don't know. Maybe it's 100% open space, but then again, you're still losing the units. I mean, these are private properties. People can redevelop them as they wish, to your point earlier, under the different existing zoning codes. So I'm not saying that they're going to be what they are in perpetuity. I just don't want to create incentives that encourage people to remove what we have today. and replace it with something that is that is less than what we have today.

That's a good point.

Mr. Stevens.

Can we go on to a different subject or?

I think I think so. Yeah. So we'll look we're happy to engage with this on this with you. It's tricky. And I understand not wanting to treat these properties, you know, differently. So I'm hopeful we can get there.

I guess there's also JLL as another source of input. Yeah, I was going to talk about setback. We've got a lot of public input on setback next to Winter Hill. I think it's reduced from 40 feet down to 25 feet, so I was just wondering if staff could maybe elaborate a bit on how we get to that point. Does that tie in to some specific estimated increase in number of affordable units, or is there some kind of a calculation there? Where did the 25 feet come from?

Sure. So we started with the, you know, MUR has a, I believe it's a 20-foot perimeter. And so we, you know, recognizing that that might not be enough, we, you know, went to 25 in that area. you know, kind of gives you some flexibility about how you scale up. If you're able to build closer, you can build at a lower density and work your way up to the larger scale instead of, you know, relying on a further setback and condensing closer to South Washington Street. You know, you might be it offers some more flexibility in terms of unit mix and sizes and things like that.

Can I follow up on setback, too? Sure.

Because we're proposing, if you go to line 417, we're proposing a 15-foot setback, I think, on Maple Avenue, Bowl America, and abutting other internal setbacks. Is that correct? So it's the 25 feet in the rear and then 15 everywhere else, including the front yards? No?

Did I get that wrong? That's yeah. So the in the staff report, go down, Jack, the twenty five. Yeah. What would apply to any? Any any proposal in the overlay that it joins a residential property? not within the overlay.

So, yeah, so I guess if you go to line 417, when adjoining a commercial zoning district, interior uses or lots located within the overlay area or public right-of-way, like Maple Avenue, redevelopment provides a minimum setback of 15 feet. Yeah. So there's two different... So we can expect 15 along the Bull America site, along Maple Avenue, and then... Or proposed is 15 along Bull America, Maple Avenue... And then interior sites, which today is probably, what, 10 maybe, but at a lower height, like side setbacks. In height? The setback, interior setbacks between quads is like roughly.

Oh, today? Yeah. Oh, 15.

It's 15. Yeah. Okay.

15 on both sides, so 30 feet total.

Okay. Okay. Okay, so just flagging that. Is that where we landed on Park Avenue? Was it 15 feet? I'm sorry, on the T-zones.

On T-zones. For which yard? I think it was maybe 10 on the sides, 30 in the rear. The front. Yeah. Front was maybe 15 or 20. Yeah, I can't remember. I'd have to go back and look, yeah.

I think as a summary graphic maybe, and apologies for switching presentations, but if you go back, Jack, to the slides you were covering earlier, I think on slide 22 we have kind of like a summary visual of what the text is capturing.

um between the bulk plane and the setbacks um it might be in the source file perhaps i think that was a different uh version matt but uh that was inclusive of the kind of summary of uh components in the proposal versus uh like standards

Correct. I think they were both showing the bulk plan and then the various setbacks applied.

Yeah, I guess I'm just thinking that the 15-foot that sort of, I think, contemplated for Maple Avenue, that's also where we're contemplating, like, you know, our highest heights, right? Right. Six, seven stories. So I don't know if we didn't go that high for T-Zones. So, you know, and in our commercial areas, it's a 20-foot setback.

Okay. Yeah, T-Zones doesn't have that permitted height. So that's why it was a little closer.

Part of what happens there, and this might be an interesting way to pause on that, is when you look at the Maple Avenue properties, and there's a handful of different ownership structures right now. I know one person owns two lots, but then it gets more complicated in between those two. The debate I think we're having is how much and at what point of any of those properties the privately held ones may redevelop in the future. We do have an initial kind of protection that establishes what will be a different angle of a bulk plane where The 10-foot step back after you get to 40 feet in building height does create a very similar effect that we've been prioritizing on the more delicate boundaries of the property. It's to account for the fact that at some point someone may redevelop close to a property that hasn't redeveloped yet but at some point they might in the future we don't know so treating those more commercial edges that have a less certain future and at some point may redevelop we're being mindful of are we designing the code language for what's today or are we designing for what could be in the future So that's kind of the debate we're having in terms of how do you treat the different portions of the property based on where we are, the conditions of the buildings, and what we've heard from those property owners.

Yeah, I guess I'm just thinking, pairing the sort of, you know, six or seven story height on Maple with a 15 foot setback, I don't know that that's adequate. I don't, you know, I think Like with buildings of that height, normally we would require a 20-foot setback.

Gotcha. We can, in addition to, yeah, the materials we've provided that show the setback relative to like residential properties, we could include the front setback area relative to the height.

Yeah, it's really the pedestrian experience on the street.

Okay.

Sorry to jump in.

No, that's perfectly fine. So the next thing I was going to talk about was step back. I think you've got this at 40 feet for a 10-foot step back. That's right. 40 feet, I mean, that's three stories, right? So basically, we're saying you've got to have four stories before you're going to get a step back.

So, yeah, I mean, it varies based on your, you know, exactly how tall, you know, you're floor heights are obviously with the this is something that, you know, I think the city first adopted with with the T zones. So that's you could have three stories before you step back to up to forty five. And so that was that language, you know, is sort of, I guess, where we took it from, but that's correct. So you could go up to three stories or about 40 feet, give or take, before you have to step back 10. Yeah, and you go higher than that.

At this point, I'm just trying to understand it, and then I'll have to think it through some more. But, okay, thanks for it. Are there any questions on the step back before we go on to the next one?

I have a question on stories, which is maybe... Well, that's my next question. Okay, then you go ahead.

Yeah, so... On the height, we're allowing up to seven stories. Pearson Square, I think, is a combination of five stories and four stories. It kind of goes up and down. Tax Analyst is basically four stories with some kind of a structure on top that arguably you could say it's five stories. So, you know, it strikes me, and the other characteristic that I just noticed today when I was out there looking at it is that Pearson Square is at a lower elevation. I mean, you can kind of see as you go up Maple Avenue towards Virginia Village that it, elevation increases. So, seven stories on Virginia, at Virginia Village is going to seem even higher relative to Pearson Square because of that elevation change. I guess my initial reaction was, although I'm still certainly open to thinking about it some more, is that seven stories is too high and that we should be thinking more in terms of perhaps six stories. But that's a preliminary thought. I'm open to discussion on that. But having it to stay in line with the other buildings that are on that block seems to make sense to me. I'll just kind of share that. I don't know if there's anybody else that wants to talk about height. I think you said you had.

Oh, I was just curious if we were going to specify stories but not the number of feet. Normally we would do both. So I was just curious why we didn't do that here.

We could. Generally, the floor height in a multifamily building is known, which is about 10 to 12 feet, give or take. Within seven stories, that just allows you some flexibility in terms of the design, whether you utilize all seven. You can play with density in that way. regarding the heights. So yeah, Pearson Square averages 55 feet. There's points of it that goes up to 65. And so it kind of fluctuates between five and six stories. And Thinking about just kind of the way that the small area plans and the kind of future land use maps are laid out presently is that the highest intensity is around the Washington and Broad intersection, the downtown area. And so thinking about increasing heights as you enter that kind of downtown area, that's sort of the there's different ACTIVITY ZONES THAT CALL FOR HIGHER INTENSITIES AND HIGHER HIGHS. THAT'S WHERE THE QUINN BUILDING WAS APPROVED. THAT'S IN A HIGHER INTENSITY AREA. THE TINNER HILL BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. in the small area plans envisions these kind of higher, more intense buildings, and you're kind of building towards a peak of that downtown area. So that's something to consider in the way of the general form of the kind of built environment when thinking about other sites that may relate to the kind of, again, the built environment.

Okay. That's helpful. We also got input on concerns about having a parking garage that could interface undesirably with some of the homes behind Virginia Village. And I seem to recall in our T-Zone deliberations that we had that issue with the Broadway. And I think, if I recall, we found a way to address that so that that issue didn't arise. And I'm just wondering if that's something we could do with Virginia Village.

Certainly, yeah. Yeah, we can take a look at that. With T-Zones, I think we had to amend the whole special use permit language that regulated that. And I don't remember exactly the details. But, yeah, we certainly, you know, can take a closer look at that and have some more research on that.

It seems like a relatively easy issue that we can resolve and eliminate that as a concern. That's basically all I had.

all right mr duncan two quick questions i hope um on setbacks is the whatever the number is 25 35 um is that a is that a hard uh at above ground number in other words can the construction encroach underneath closer to the line than 25 feet if When the work is all finished, it's filled back in. This addresses the concern about disruption that construction causes at the foundations of nearby buildings.

No, I don't believe so. If it's considered part of the building, then it's subject to that setback.

So no subterranean activity should be allowed to occur within 25 feet, 35, whatever the number is.

Right. I don't believe so. I mean, that's something I could check with the zoning administrator for a more kind of technical...

I feel like I should know the answer to that. I mean, there are some buildings that we've built where the garage goes underneath further than the building itself does, so...

Usually if you're below grade, the setbacks don't apply. I mean, if you're below grade. Right. Yeah, because usually we're regulating what's above the ground.

That's the terminology. So I would put a marker in for trying to measure it above and below grade just to protect against construction disruption. And the second thing was, I forgot. What was my other question? Oh, heights. Heights. At least at the table sessions that I went to, I think I went to all of them, there was a variety of opinions about what is high-rise. Some people think high-rise is in post-churches, like three stories. But there was a general, I would say, without speaking for the whole crowd, but I think a general satisfaction with the Pearson Square building itself, the way it looks, the way it feels against the street. Which surprised me a little bit. I thought some people might think it was too tall. But whatever height it's at, I would say, you know, that's a marker. I think we can... Now, if the Quinn building gets built at 11, if I'm on Maple Avenue and the Quinn building gets built at 11 stories, then across the street on Virginia Village properties, that step down to pick a number five, six has been mentioned. And, you know, I could get the number of affordable units that I mentioned three hours ago. That would be fine, assuming that five would then step down to four and maybe even three on the backside of Winter Hill. I don't know how many feet that would be measured at, but I wouldn't be too bashful about having density at the five-story level along Maple Avenue. if that gave you the density that enables you to have more, less massing in the backside of the building.

One more question about the shadow studies. They were done on, at least the one I can tell, they were done on June 1st. Has there been any view of that in less optimal times for where winter sun would drive shadows? Is that last slide the one that shows all the different variations? Correct. All right. There we go. Got it. I didn't get that far down there.

I think we chose the three times we did because those were the ones submitted with the Quinn application. That's how we chose the times. We can run the same program for any day of the year time, but we chose those for that reason.

And I don't know if this is technically expected to be included in here, but is the expectation of this represents a 25-foot setback, or are these just general views?

So I believe we referenced, we used three different scenarios to kind of build just these masses there. Okay. It might vaguely look like a building, but they're not supposed to represent any actual proposed building, but we, The first one I think is the existing structures. The second is going to be the structures if the current zoning, not the under overlay district, but if the current zoning was taken to the maximum amount. And then the third is with the proposed new overlay zoning. Jack can correct me if there's anything there.

That's right. Yeah. So, yeah, so Section 1 shows, yeah, the current building forms today. Section 2 shows if, you know, under the current zoning, if you took that to the maximum building envelope, what the under, again, what you could do by right today, what those shadows would look like. And then Section 3 shows shadows under what could be built under the current proposal. Okay, thank you.

So Section 3, I'm confused, like is not, is it showing the Winter Hill neighborhood on the left side of the frame?

So I think just for this view, what we're looking at, because I know we've had a lot of different iterations, it's capturing the height and bulk plane and setback requirements that are in the code language, but giving you zoomed in perspectives of three portions of the property, since it's more difficult to, I think, visualize that all on one page. So breaking it out into these scenarios allows you to look at what's happening at different portions of the property at different times of the year. So for this scenario, for this page, I guess, we're seeing what the 25 feet with a 45-angle bulk plane would look like. Initially, I think section one is on the southern portion of Shirley. You're seeing closer to Tax Analyst, so Winter Hills on your right, the quadplex is on your left. Section 2 now does a 180, so you're looking up at Big Chimneys Park and you're seeing the northern edge of Shirley as it meets Gibson. And here you kind of see various portions of private property redeveloped where, you know, what would that look like based on those same applications throughout the year? And then finally, there's more of an emphasis on the northern part of Gibson in its totality where you can kind of just kind of strike that cross-section across the northern part of the property. But I think for this one, and we can do many more, The intent on this page was to kind of show, I believe, a more similar scenario, just different times of the year.

Yeah, I think back to the Winter Hill conversation you were just mentioning there, I think it would be really useful to see what like a 4 p.m. shadow would look like in the winter, just to understand how deep that got into the neighborhood. I don't think that's a showstopper, but it would be good to know.

So it's west, right? So would it be the morning? Yeah, I think the morning. That's why we have the 10 a.m. Because it's rising to the east.

And we can add more, as we mentioned. This is something we can add additional views to, additional times, you know, give everybody a full picture.

Yeah, I guess I'd just like to see it as, you know, with the, I guess I'm a little confused about what Section 3 is showing. We want to see it with the park, and we want to see it with the neighboring properties.

Yeah, the Winter Hill, like how it impacts Winter Hill is my primary interest, yeah.

Any other questions? We're closing in on 1030. I have two quick, hopefully quick things. Maybe not. I don't know. Line 390 in the draft code I just want to make sure I'm reading it right. Yeah, okay, so permitted uses. Any uses permitted by right in RM, multifamily residential, and B2 central business districts. B2 central business districts is like a lot of uses, so I'm curious about that. I know we had sort of specified a few kind of specific uses for the city-owned parcel, but it sounds like for these kind of like market-owned parcels, they would be able to access a lot of different uses. So why include B2 here?

Sure, yeah, so that's just keeping, obviously, the uses that are permitted there today.

Under MUR or under the...

In the underlying zoning districts. So thinking...

In RM. Okay, I didn't know RM can access central business uses.

I'm not sure that those telescope but we can we can double check but so yeah so this is this is saying permitted permitted uses in the overlay you know include those that you know you could already do by right within the underlying zoning districts as part of a redevelopment in the overlay so it doesn't preclude those it

But this isn't B2, is it?

The properties on Gibson are B2.

The properties on Gibson.

So these are all zone B2. Okay.

All right. So, yeah, I guess, like, do we want, do we still want those zone B2? Like, I don't know. Like, I feel, because you're applying this to the whole parcel.

We own them, I guess, so... We could take another look at that.

Yeah, the B2 just surprised me. And then I went and looked at what those uses are. It's like hotels and, like, all sorts of, you know, things, and it would be by right. So, potentially by right. So I guess I just would look at those uses. I think specifying the specific ones that we want to see as sort of, like, complementary uses to an affordable project, that makes sense. But, like, just opening it up to B2 seems... Gotcha. ...was surprising.

Sure.

And then the only other one, oh, the duration of the affordable housing, because we say that it's required here in the overlay zoning, but we don't say for how long. Okay. And I mean, you know, they could be like, Right. One month. So I think we need something there. And I mean, to our conversation earlier, I would go for a higher bar life of the project. We're at 1024. Anybody else have any comments on the overlay? No? Okay. Well, thank you for this. It's like a good first discussion. So our next steps on this, we'll see it again in another work session?

Yeah, we may need to schedule another work session. I think that would be helpful. None is scheduled right now, so we can talk about that.

Okay. But again, like, this won't be a, well, first reading in July?

First reading right now is scheduled for end of June, I believe.

End of June. Okay, but we're not approving it until Q3.

But it would, yes, correct. The Planning Commission wouldn't have a public hearing until September.

Okay.

May I ask when the council is scheduled to choose the evaluation committee to look at the RFP submissions and how that works just for public information?

so right now uh we are reaching out to various uh commissions to with the city manager's assistance uh identify representatives that the group would want us to bring in i believe right now the list involves the economic development authority the planning commission the housing commission city council uh and staff and kind of mapping out the updated schedule that takes us into september uh considering that we would be spending uh significant portions of the summer evaluating working with our real estate consultants um you know what does that mean who's available uh so we're trying to solicit some names uh and that's something we would bring to the council and i'm sure have a further conversations about standing that up uh and being very clear about timing and expectations But some of that outreach, I think, is beginning this month.

Great. Yeah. So we're going to have a tribute. So if you're interested, let me know.

I'm not going to be able to do it myself.

OK. I think that brings us to our information items.

Do we want to do the time?

Oh, yeah. Maybe we have three minutes, so we may not get through those.

We have a director's report still, so.

Okay. Is there a motion to extend our meeting maybe to 1045? I don't know. Mr. Matuszak, how much time do you think you need for the director's report?

One minute.

Okay. All right. Let's do 1045, just in case. So moved by Mr. Duncan, is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, 1045. Okay, so any commissioner reports? Do you want to?

Yeah, a couple. There's a lot of news, of course, over the last couple of years about Missing Middle in Arlington, their expanded EDO, expanded development options. I had a chance through the Coalition for Smarter Growth to take a walking tour, which was very helpful. If you get a chance to do anything like this, I'd encourage you to do it. So we're able to see all of the different types of housing that they're allowing. uh at this point and so it's good kind of perception to see what specific projects like a duplex a triplex there was a church across from the boston metro station that got redeveloped into 130 affordable units uh it was very very uh smartly done so anyway i'll just say that uh if you get a chance to take a tour of their of their EDO results so far, it's definitely a good thing to do. By the way, there's six plex I wasn't real happy with. I could see why people would be upset with some of those, but that's a separate discussion. The other thing is it's actually a reference to the, where it says correspondence, single stairwells. I got that article through attending one of the chair of the planning commission meetings on behalf of our chair. So I encourage, there were some questions I think at a recent meeting of ours about what's this single stair thing all about. And this article I think does a very good job of laying out what the issue is and what the benefits are. So I would just bring that to your attention. And then the last thing I had was that we both, Commissioner Duncan and myself, attended the EDA meeting last evening and there was a lot of discussion about the proposal to possibly expand the farmers market by closing off Park Avenue and Little Falls and putting some stalls out on those locations. So there's a lot of people there, a lot of restaurant owners and Other people were there, some were for it, some were against it, so a very interesting discussion. I'll just share that piece of information.

The outdoor drinking.

Yeah, I wanted to call that one out. That was like a very interesting concept. It's a sip and stroll. I think it's June 13th.

Yeah, it's coming out. Sophisticated.

I will say with regard to that expanded farmers market, I don't know what the for and against are, but I will say I got an earful from at least one of the current farmers market folks saying, you know, nobody came to us to ask our opinion. And so it might be, if that's going to go forward, it'd be good to encourage sort of taking a poll of the current folks who man the farmers market in advance, so.

For me, I really like the idea of opening the street to allow more space for people. It's very congested in the market. I think Park Avenue, expanding it into that area. Even, like, picnic tables. I'd love to have some of those removable bollards that we could use. Like, yeah, to me, it's just about creating more space for people to enjoy the market. Anything for more vendors? Potentially, yeah. I mean, what kind of vendors, I think, is a lot of the question that is driving some of the opposition to the proposal. And I don't know that anybody's suggesting that the existing vendors be moved in any way. It would be additive. Either space or maybe more room for vendors, maybe both. So I don't know that there's a specific decision.

Well, I think the EDA discussion shows that it's a very complicated subject.

There's going to be a lot of discussion.

That's all I have.

Anyone else on reports? Okay. I think we're ready for you, Mr. Matuszak. Your one-minute summary.

This one's very brief. The council's strategic priorities were formally adopted at its recent meeting on May 26th. So this is more of a kind of a general awareness announcement to continue to work with them on the next year and a half as we kind of proceed and mark progress and momentum. But also check in periodically to see, you know, are there things that we need to be reprioritizing to make sure that the various strategies and priorities set aside are all basically progressing throughout this and next year so that was just a quick update on that and then also the Washington Street bus shelter and road improvements have reached 30 percent design so some additional materials have been posted and with Jack's help we've been able to share those as well so I'm sure feedback can be collected as well great thank you

One minute. Nicely done. Any discussion on what Mr. Matusik shared? No? Okay.

On the South Washington, just to say that it looks like there's going to be some pretty tight pinch spots there to accommodate a bus shelter and a trash can and preserve access to some of the businesses. I would encourage staff to make sure that they're aware of what's going on. Also, that's done in conjunction with the county, right? So whatever's happening on one side... the county is involved in the other side.

I'm sure there's plenty of coordination going on, but that seems to be the case.

All right. And then the information items, the only other one was one that I shared about Charleston's approach to affordable housing. It's some parallels to maybe what we're trying to do here. But just on a much larger scale, reading about this kind of reminded me of some of the sort of creative approaches that we're trying to take with smoothing the path to development, but being very clear about what we want.

It was by right.

Yeah, it was by right. Yeah, on a much, much larger scale. So it's a really interesting piece. A good example of what people are trying to help make affordable housing happen. It's not easy.

This is published by Congress for the New Urbanism, which I've been a member of for about 10 years now.

Yeah, they have really terrific content. All right. If nothing else. Oh, yeah, maybe look ahead. Can we do look ahead? So June 17th.

So we've got a busy summer coming up. June 17th is your next meeting. We've got action on the Lee Park 2 subdivision or excuse me work session followed by works at action meeting. The updates to the Chesapeake Bay chapter of the city code is coming at you. That affects chapter five of the comp plan, zoning ordinance, and the site plan subdivision ordinances as well. And I don't know the full scope of that, but I understand it's kind of just updating certain things and just making sure all of these components are coordinated in that updated manner. And then also action on the Quinn subdivision that you held a work session on earlier this evening. That's on June 17th. And then July, we've got a tentative holding for the Tinner Hill rezoning. So you might recall this has been out there. So we'll see if that holds. And then we've got your public hearing on the Chesapeake items. Your second meeting in July is the 15th. I'LL GET TO GREETING OF LINCOLN IN A SECOND. AGAIN, TENTATIVE REZONING, PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN THIS IS WHEN YOUR PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE COULD MAYBE SQUEEZE IN THE WORK SESSION ON ZONING.

Zoning the overlay? I think we could use another one. So would that be either June 17th or July 1st?

In July, yes.

In July? July 1. Because like Council's approving that first reading in early July, late July?

Right. That's a good point. I think it's, yeah, late June would be when scheduled first reading is.

So if we, if we could do another, I don't, I mean, I guess, I don't know, maybe it doesn't need to be a public hearing if we want to provide a recommendation to council June 17th for the zoning overlay. Mr. Ginn is in the, in the audience. He might have some insight for us.

This morning at the agenda meeting, there was some discussion about. I turned it on.

Yeah, maybe bring it up a little. Yeah, you do sound a little. I can hear it. You're just not very close to it.

All right. This morning at the agenda meeting, we had a discussion about the work session on the 15th, about including planning commission at the work session on the 15th. And where we had left it was based on the discussion you had tonight, I was going to make a recommendation to the rest of the council. While I was sitting there, I already sent it out saying we should be inviting you to the 15th. I think there's still a lot of discussion. You had a lot of good points. And so keep that in mind that you'll probably get invited to participate in the council work session on the overlay on the 15th.

Monday, June 15th. Okay.

I guess we'd still have to do 17th. We're still sort of filled up on the agenda for the 17th.

It may be a double of July 15th.

The June 17th is our next meeting, and then we would be adding the 15th potentially as a work session.

You have a bunch of non-Virginia Village stuff going on.

Yeah. I don't know. Maybe we can discuss that offline.

That sounds good. And similarly, Chair, we can talk a little bit more about Greening of Lincoln. There was a request by the commission to stay informed about the greening of Lincoln. That's going on substantially a public works project, but there are planning elements to it as pertaining to the right of way. And so this could serve as a project update. The team also has a VDOT requirement to hold a kind of public information session, and we're Wondering if the Planning Commission could serve as that kind of venue for that. So we can talk about whether that kind of fits with the schedule and the kind of flow of any time constraints we might have. But yeah, it was a request by Public Works to kind of see if the Planning Commission might be able to accommodate that or if they might need to schedule a separate meeting. So we can talk further offline, but that's what that item is.

Yeah, I mean, I think we'd be interested in the project. I guess it just depends on how much public, if it's an information session, then it's usually more of a maybe conversation with the community. I don't know that this lends itself to that kind of discussion. Okay. And I see Lee Park 2, the subdivision is on for our next, the work session for our next meeting. Is the property that the owner of that property, the Econize property, is that for sale again?

The current? Or the Broad Street, the new site?

There's a for sale sign, and I saw a listing somewhere for it, and it included the approved plan as sort of what you were buying.

That seems to be the current, I think, anticipation by the owners to test the market on that.

Yeah, I guess it just made me think of the discussion we had about, I think Mr. Krasner brought up, like, I think we made a change on the parking being for sort of that particular use, because it was a quite large building. If it's a closet store, then you don't need a lot of parking. If it's something else, like, maybe you need, I don't know. I'm not arguing for parking, but I don't know. It just, I thought it was, I've never seen somebody sort of, like, go through, The entire process and then turn around and sell the finished approved project to be built. So I thought that was interesting.

It's hard to tell if that was the original intent. I think the sense we're getting is that in this current... Or it almost begins to look more appealing in that if you're ready to proceed in this office product, we've gone through the process for you and proceed right to construction.

Yeah, just something to keep in mind.

The parking restrictions that we allowed.

Yeah, I think they followed the use. I don't remember the wording or that was our recommendation.

Because I know we talked about it. I mean, we did ask him fairly directly if he was actually going to build the building. And I remember coming away from the meeting thinking, you know what, I'm not sure he is.

Maybe, maybe not. It was an ambitious plan.

But the parking, you know, allowances, do they carry forward to the new owner? It's the question if the new owner is coming in with a different use.

I think they do because it's site plan to site plan.

Site plan to site plan. So, yeah, it can, yeah, I mean, it could be a different use.

I thought we tied it to the use. I remember you flagging it in the discussion. I thought we tied it to the use.

Did you check on that? Because I've had a couple other people ask that, too. Yeah. And is there anything going on with Yosini? We're sort of 0 for 3 in all the things that we've, you know. spent time on lately.

We can check in on Yassini.

And what about North Washington? Did that go forward?

258.

Yeah.

Sorry?

258, North Washington. The historic property.

Right. I believe that probably... I think we're still waiting for a resubmission.

Still waiting for a resubmission. These things take time.

They're probably across the street from that one. Real quick, we're running out of time. They just demolished without... They just demolished a single family house, Zone T1. uh... that little old house that was the dentist between the company that it is a down payment office building i thought that your chance i wonder if the church returns all the way to the corner okay i don't know if they're going to consolidate some t one so yeah uh... it's likely going to be a part of parking expansion from over here in but we've not received a formal application and they only have about the demo permit was not all the way in like i have to keep that inches and uh... YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT THAT THEY'D ALREADY DEMOLISHED IT.

THEY TOLD US THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, SO I SUSPECT THAT'S PROBABLY PART OF THAT PLAN.

MAKES SENSE.

IT'S QUITE A LOT OF PARKING THEY HAVE NOW.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT A BALL ROOM OR AN ULTIMATE FIGHTING CAMP. THEY MIGHT TRY TO CONSOLIDATE THAT WITH AN OFFICE BUILDING ON THE CORNER.

YEAH, ME TOO.

DO SOMETHING REAL THERE.

THEY USE THAT OFFICE BUILDING.

MY KIDS WENT TO THAT DAYCARE, AND THEY USED TO GO TO THE 301 BUILDING.

Okay, I think we are at time and off topic. Thank you all. I think we are adjourned.