Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We can call the Wednesday, July 1st, 2026 meeting of the Foster City Planning Commission to order. Mr. Treanor, can you call the roll, please?

Mr. Duncan?

Here.

Mr. Krasner? I'm here. Chair Coma?

I'm here.

Mr. Stephens? Here. Mr. Kravinsky? Here. Thank you. Absent is Mr. Polinsky and Ms. Friedlander.

Great, thank you. And we have a few things on the agenda tonight. Any discussion of the agenda? If not, is there a motion to adopt?

Madam Chair, I move to adopt the agenda as presented.

A second for Mr. Kravinsky. All in favor? Aye. Okay, do we have any petitions this evening, Mr. Traynor? I guess first the summary of written correspondence, please. Yeah.

We had several petitions for the Commission tonight. Barbara Conati and Joseph Conati wrote about Virginia Village with concerns and recommendations for its redevelopment. Rebecca Johnson wrote about a recent Department of Historic Resources case to consider historic designation for the Virginia Village site. Leslie Spitz-Edson wrote with concerns about Lee Park 2 application, specifically safety, noise, and lack of green space for the site. Nader Barouk, Heather Presler, David Ali, and Amanda Mizell also wrote about Virginia Village with some concerns and recommendations for its redevelopment.

Great. Thank you. And do we have any in-person petitions this evening?

Yes, we have one, Nader Barouk.

Okay. Welcome, Mr. Barouk.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As Mr. Trainer referenced, I did write the city earlier this evening, but wanted to highlight a few points. The small area plan has already promised the transition in height and intensity at the Winter Hill Edge. What I'm asking you tonight is that you make these promises specific in two particular ways. First, keep parking structures and service off the Winter Hill edge. The released RFP already puts garages off Maple frontage. The same protections should apply to Winter Hill, and the plan shouldn't allow the parking to butt up against the Winter Hill residences. Second, step the heights down to three stories for the first 30 feet of depth at the edge. That's what the residents asked for during the planning sessions. They said three to four stories closest to Winter Hill in the park. The draft small area plan and zoning don't quite get there. This is an opportunity to address those issues in the small area plan. I've submitted a letter with those two requests, which explain them further. Please build them into the small area plan and zoning as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burke. Any other speakers?

No. No, Chair.

Okay, that brings us to our action items. 5A, Lee Park 2 subdivision plots. Welcome, Mr. Zeng.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Henry Zhang with the Planning Department. The item in front of you tonight is the subdivision application for Lee Park 2. This application is to consolidate three existing lots along Park Avenue and to further re-subdivide it into 15 lots and one common parcel for the development of a 15 Townhome project. The site has 0.71 acres of land in the T1 transitional zoning district. Townhome is by right use in the T1 zone. The Planning Commission last reviewed this subdivision application in a work session on June 17. No changes of any kind has been made to the subdivision paths. Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the proposed motion. This concludes the staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tseng. OK, so we saw this in work session are in our last meeting. Any other questions or discussion tonight? No, if not, is there a would somebody like to make the motion? Did staff draft a motion?

Yes, ma'am. I can do that.

OK, Mr Stevens, please do the honors.

I'd like to make a motion regarding subdivision application munis number 2025-0923. Whereas the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision application meets all applicable requirements of the city subdivision regulations, Chapter 38 and zoning ordinance Chapter 48 as currently applied. And the proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And whereas the proposed subdivision application is to consolidate three existing lots located at 705, 705 and 703 Park Avenue, RPC number 51-131-024 and 026, Sweeney and 701 Park Avenue respectively, which is RPC number 51-131-028 CDR. And to subdivide into 15 fee simple lots and one parcel at 81 North Lee Street for the development of 15 townhomes. And now, therefore, I move that the Planning Commission grant approval of preliminary plat of subdivision and final plat of subdivision contingent on the final approval of the site plan by the designated agent for 15 lots and one parcel.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Is there a second?

Second.

Second, Mr. Duncan. Can you do a roll call vote, please, Mr. Treanor?

Mr. Duncan? Yes. Mr. Krasner? Yes. Mr. Stephens? Yes. Mr. Kravinsky?

Yes.

Chair Coma?

Yes. Thank you. Motion passes.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Tseng.

And one question. What is the status of the site plan?

Yes, sir. The designated agent just recently disapproved the second submission. We are expecting the third submission. The reason for the disapproval is the matter of time, because the second submission, the review time limit is 30 days, so we don't have the time to turn around or submit anything new. The third submission will be subject to 14 days, so even shorter. So now we're expecting the applicant to address all the comments to review the third submission. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you for the update. Okay. I think that brings us to our next action item, which is 5b, updates for Chesapeake Bay regulation compliance.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M GOING TO GO OVER MY STAFF REPORT AND THEN I'M GOING TO PUNCH OVER TO BEHAILU FOR HIS AND THEN WE'LL DO OUR Q&A KIND OF LIKE WE DID LAST TIME COMBINED. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION IS REQUESTED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENT FOR EVERYONE, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, RESILIENCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES. City Council referred the draft to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation during a regularly scheduled meeting on June 8th of 2026. City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and take their final action on this item during their July 13th, 2026 meeting. of the proposed motion. And I do just want to take some time to look at this comments matrix here, beginning on line 16. There were a couple of different comments that came up during last meeting regarding the draft, and some were more specific to the draft. We've made those edits. There was also a request for there to be something early in the document that notes when the amendment took place. So we went ahead and added that to the cover page. So when you're looking at the draft, you'll now see that there's the adoption date from February of 2020. And then there's a space for the amendment date right on the cover page. So folks can know that this chapter was in fact amended in 2026. Yes, and now I'm going to turn it over to Bahailu for his staff report. Thank you.

Thank you, Emily. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Bahailu, Stormwater Engineer. Tonight, the proposed motion to be moved to recommended the City Council approve TR26-14 amending the Code of the City of Falls Church, Virginia Section 38-30, preliminary and final plot required, and Section 38-34, general regulation to comply with Chesapeake Preservation Act. and correct City Code reference and further. The other motion moves to recommend the City Council approve DR26-15 amending the City of, amending the Code of the City of Falls Church, Virginia Section 48-1134 when required to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area In Section 48-1135, preliminary survey documents. Section 48-1137, required information. Section 48-1141, consideration. And Section 48-1179, intent and objective. In Section 1180, three canopy coverage to correct typographical or City Code section reference errors. Tonight, Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding amendment to Chapter 38 subdivision and Chapter 48 zoning of the City Code. City Council referred the draft code amendment to Planning Commission for its review and recommendation during a regular scheduled meeting on June 8, 2026. City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and take final action on this item during the July 13, 2026 meeting. Staff is recommending approval of a proposed motion for background information. I have attached the uh june 8 20 26 star staff report that we presented to city council and uh that's all i have and if you have any question please all right great thank you both

Okay, so we saw these in work session. These are required changes to bring us into compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Regulation Ordinance. I think we had some minor changes, which staff has now incorporated. Are there any additional questions or requests tonight? Mr. Duncan.

Could you call up the page that's got the Comp Plan Chapter 5 headline page on it? the cover page yeah okay yeah is that the first attachment to the that draft uh version right there yep okay if you go down is it the next page it has the roster of people who were on council when it was first adopted or is that another document that i

Yeah, there's no roster included in this chapter. I don't believe there is one in the 2020 version either. There is at the end where the resolutions are. There's a little bit more detail about the different folks who saw it, like boards and commissions and gave comment through the public process there. SO, YEAH, THAT'S TOWARDS THE END.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT I SAW SOMETHING GRAPHICALLY, BUT IT'S NOT POPPING UP IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, SO IT WASN'T A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. STEPHENS.

I HAVE A COMMENT, BUT IT'S NOT ON THE CHESPEAK BAY PART OF THIS, SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAS A QUESTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION, AND MAYBE MORE FOR BAHAILU AGAIN. since I'm, like, getting usually more on the technical side of things here. Another thing, and I don't know if this belongs in the comp plan or not, but I think, you know, another key component to having, like, a really good, you know, effective RPA ordinance, it's the enforcement side of it. You know, I wonder, like, you know, again, how often we, you know, if there are violations of people who have disturbed without permits, you know, over the 2,500 square feet, you know, how, you know, what are, I don't know if that, you know, something kind of belongs in the comp plan or not. It may not. But I'm also interested to know, you know, how that plays into that because that's a key part of it, too, is that we have the rules in place, but it's how good are we about when we find problems, you know, and people that have not followed that or are not maintaining their stormwater systems, like inspections, you know, things like that, their BMPs, all that stuff. So I don't know, again, if there's, like, in a general way that could be. And I apologize for not mentioning this at the work session. if there could even be a brief mention in the comp plan just at a very high level about the fact that we have such a program in place, because I know we do. We have inspections, we have a mechanism, but I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Yeah, so regarding the land disturbance, if it is less than 2,500 square foot, We don't require a grading plan. But still, it comes to our table, and we send the letter to the applicant saying, we have an inspector go out and inspect the site. And at any time, they will measure it. And if it is exceeding the 2,500 square foot, we issue a stop work order.

RIGHT.

AND WE REQUIRE THEM TO SUBMIT A GRADING PLAN. THAT'S WHY WE SEND THEM A LETTER AHEAD OF TIME. THE GRADING PLAN PROCESS WILL TAKE FIVE, SIX MONTHS. SO BEFORE THEY GET INTO THAT, WE NOTIFY THEM, DON'T EXCEED. IF THEY EXCEED, THAT IS THE PROCESS. RIGHT. AND THE ROPA If it is in the grading plan, we require them the WQI, which is water quality impact assessment, which is showing the mitigation of land disturbance and reducing the impact on the water streams right next to the development. Besides that, like I said, on the final inspection, we go out and inspect the grading system. But regarding the stormwater management facility they have, we have around 400-something single-family house stormwater management plans. So based on the state's requirement, we inspect them every five years. And if we have hours, we inspect them every year. And we have around 46 stormwater management facilities. The school-owned 27 and DPW-owned 20-something, and we inspect them every year. year. Around this time, I just get the notification from our consultant. They finished this year's cycle just the other day. So once we get the report, we send out the hard copy to the single family owners to address the any deficiencies that...

Right, they have to address it and fix the BMP. I mean, and again, so obviously we're required to do that, but it's important, I think, that, you know, as part of reminding the state that, you know, we have an active program. Despite being a small jurisdiction, we have a very robust... you know, probably rely on a third-party contractor, which is, there's nothing wrong with that, you know, to do the inspections and do the recommendations and all that. So I don't know if that belongs in the comp plan or not, but just, but it's a big piece of the puzzle, because you can have all the rules in the world and the goals, but, you know, showing that we have the, because there is an implementation section in here somewhere. Where was that? Page, somewhere here, I think I saw implementation.

Yeah, it's at the, At the very end, there is a chart.

Yeah, or a page 37 implementation. So I don't know, maybe like it could just be a couple sentences that just you don't get into all the stats that they just quoted, but just something to say that the city has an active, you know, inspection and ongoing inspection program and enforcement program to ensure, you know, both current and ongoing compliance with the Chesapeake Bay ordinance that we have. I'd be good to just add that in there.

Yeah, I believe we have some information regarding the payment piece in the city in Chapter 8, I believe, in the plan that we just adopted a couple of months ago.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Okay. Oh, Mr. Stevens.

Yeah, I didn't have any comments on the changes relating to the Chesapeake Bay. I think those all look fine to me. But I was going to make a comment. If you could go back to the Chapter 5 draft, page 11, or no, I'm sorry, page 10. Yeah. So there's that paragraph that's in the middle there. The changing climate jeopardizes human health. I think that's where you mean to reference the graphs on the next couple of pages. You might want to. add that to what that is. Those are I mean, those are interesting graphs, very relevant for what we're going through, especially today with the temperature. But I think the graphs were a little inscrutable. I mean, they might almost benefit from some additional labeling and maybe a little bit of text to the effect of you know, what the key takeaway is. By 2040, we will have X number of days of more than one inch precipitation than we did in 2005, you know, whatever that correct thing is. But I thought, you know, they're good. They're good graphs to have. And page 12 is particularly relevant with the temperature there. I think that fits right in line with what we're experiencing in real time here. So that's that's the only comment that I had. Thanks.

Yeah, of course. We can definitely expand those captions a bit to tell that story.

Good.

Great. Any other questions or comments? Would somebody like to make a motion? And I guess, do you want to make a motion that includes the suggestion from you, Mr. Stevens?

No, that's okay. Mine's just off to the side. It's not part of...

Do you want to make the motion? I'd probably add my recommendation to the for the comp plan. Okay. Part of it, I think. Yeah, I don't think it needs to be a lot of extra work. Just a paragraph, a couple sentences just alluding to the fact that we we we have a very active INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT, AND CITIES SHOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT. OKAY, SO I'LL TRY TO GET TO THAT LANGUAGE IN A SECOND. LET ME PULL UP THE RIGHT THING HERE. OKAY. SO IS THIS TWO SEPARATE?

IT'S TWO SEPARATE, YEAH, ONE FOR THE COMP PLAN AND ONE FOR THE ZONING.

SO LET ME DO THE COMP PLAN FIRST, I GUESS.

Okay, great. You'll do both. Thank you. I'll do both.

Someone else is really dying to do it. It's a burning desire. I'll do it.

Well, is there a separate staff report on the zoning ordinance or are we sort of covering both here? And I'm sorry, actually, I think it's a public hearing. I need to open it to the public. Is there anyone here to, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? OK, seeing none will close the public hearing. Is there is there another staff report on the zoning ordinance or? Is it OK for Mr. Krasner to sort of do one motion and then the next?

Yes.

Which one? There is another staff report. Yeah, there is a staff report. Okay. So let's just, yeah, we'll just do the comprehensive plan chapter now.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, we can talk about the other one.

I didn't really have any comments on that.

Separate motions.

And two separate motions, yeah.

Okay. That's, no, I agree. That's the proper way to do it. All right. Let's pull up the comp plan part first. Okay. So in item number, let's see, TR 2618. This is a resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Environment for Everyone, Environmental Sustainability, Resilience, and Natural Resources chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to add required elements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program. So I move to recommend that City Council approve TR 2618, amending the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Environment for Everyone, Environmental Sustainability, Resilience, and Natural Resources chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, adding the required elements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program. And I will add on to the pre-prepared motion that I as part of that I also would recommend that the final version of the comprehensive plan include reference in the implementation section to the city's current and ongoing enforcement sorry inspection and enforcement program for stormwater management and best management practice compliance

All right, thank you, Mr. Krasner. Is there a second? Mr. Kravinsky with the second. Can we have a roll call vote, please, Mr. Traynor?

Mr. Duncan? Yes. Mr. Krasner? Yes. Mr. Stevens? Yes. Mr. Kravinsky? Yes. Chair Komal? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Okay, so then I think that brings us to the zoning ordinance aspect of this update. And there's an additional staff report for that?

Yes. So we've separate motion provided.

Okay. Is there any other discussion that we need to have about this is just incorporating the same recommendations?

Correct. Yeah, it's everything Baha'i Lu covered. Okay. This was, yeah, so this was the... Exactly that.

Okay. All right. Okay. So I think you're, well, do I need to open the public hearing on this item as well? Okay. All right. So we'll open the public hearing on TR 26-15, sorry, TR 26-14, this resolution to amend the code of the City of Falls Church to incorporate updates for Chesapeake Bay regulation compliance. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And now, Mr. Kressner, I think you can do the honors.

Okay, yeah, I'll move them both. I guess it's two separate motions, actually, because it's two parts of, or it can be one motion. Yeah, correct. Two motions, yeah, two parts of city code, it's two chapters. Yeah. That's right, because the stormwater rules live in both the zoning chapter and chapter 38. And yeah, and again, we've talked about this at the work session before I make the motion, and we had no comments. I mean, this is essentially recommendations from the state to come into compliance and update our ordinance, which was out of date. I agreed with that. So getting right with DEQ is generally advised. So I fully support the city making these changes to our ordinances to come into full compliance. so therefore with that said I'll move first to recommend to the City Council that they approve TR 2614 amending the code of the City of Falls Church Virginia section 38-30 entitled preliminary and final plats required in section 38 34 and titled General Regulations to Comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, known as the CBPA, and correct city code references. So that's first motion.

Can you do them at the same time, or do we need to have a, so we should do a second on this first motion? Yeah. And then vote. We can break them up. And then do a separate.

Okay.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Duncan with the second. So roll call vote, please, Mr. Treanor.

Mr. Duncan? Yes.

Mr. Krasner? Yes. Mr. Stevens? Yes. Mr. Kravinsky? Yes. Chair Coma?

Yes.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Great.

Thank you. Great. And then... Lastly, on this item, I will move to recommend that the City Council approve DR 26-15, amending the Code of the City of Falls Church, Virginia, Section 48-1134, titled when required, to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, CBPA, and Sections 48-1135, entitled Preliminary Survey Documents, Section 48-1137, required information, and Section 48-1141 Considerations and Section 48-1179 Intent and Objectives and Section 1180 Tree Canopy Coverage to Correct Typographical or City Code Section Reference Errors.

Thank you, Mr. Krasner. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Duncan with the second. Can we have another roll call, please?

Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Yes. Mr. Krasner? Yes.

Mr. Stephens? Yes. Mr. Kravinsky? Yes. Chair Coma? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

Great. Thank you both for all your hard work on this.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

All right. That brings us to our last action item, which is our minutes from our June 17th meeting. Any updates, changes? If not, is there a motion to approve?

Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 meeting as presented. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Mr. Kravinsky abstains. Yes, thanks as always, Jack. Great job. Okay, so that brings us to our work session items tonight. 6A is Virginia Village. And we have both the Small Area Plan Amendments and Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 Amendments. I don't believe we've seen the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 Amendments. Is that new or am I misremembering?

That's correct, yes. This is technically your first work session. on it. It's sort of been discussed sort of tangentially, but we'll go into it more. Yeah, makes sense.

Welcome, Zoe.

Thank you. Yeah, hopefully I'll keep this presentation pretty brief. So you should have last seen the small area plans at your...

Excuse me, you might want to elevate the volume a little bit. Sorry, can you hear me now? That's better.

Okay. Thanks. Sorry about that.

JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE SCHEDULE A LITTLE BIT.

YOU LAST SAW THE SMALL AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS ON JUNE 3rd. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE HAD A CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON THE 15th, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 22ND, AND THEN WE ARE HERE FOR A WORK SESSION TONIGHT PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 15TH. So the only other items I really wanted to highlight are the changes that have been made since the last time you saw the small area plans, which are number 307, line 307. SO THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXISTING VERSION OF THE PLAN TALKS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL AREA AS BEING PRIMARILY RESERVED FOR OFFICE OR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT that an update to that language should be included in this update to adjust that to be more welcoming to residential uses. That was included in the draft South Washington small area plan. There have been a few other language adjustments around CREATIVITY AROUND ADDITIONAL USES IN THE VIRGINIA VILLAGE AREA FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND OTHER POSSIBILITIES. AFTER THAT, THERE'S A TABLE GOING INTO SOME OF CITY COUNCIL'S COMMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS ABOUT WHEN THE SMALL AREA PLANS ARE DUE FOR AN UPDATE, WHAT IS BEST PRACTICE FOR UPDATING THEM. THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THAT THAT ARE CONSIDERED GOOD PRACTICE, WHICH ARE REGULARLY SCHEDULED UPDATES. like every 10 or so years, updates from major changes such as economic or demographic shifts, or updates based on progress made on the goals within the small area plans. There are a few other small changes you can see, including a reference to the specific history of the site being a war worker housing development. I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT, BUT I WANTED TO MENTION BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT ABOUT HIGHLIGHTING WHICH MAPS AND IMAGES HAVE BEEN EDITED OR ADDED, WE AIMED TO OUTLINE THOSE IMAGES AND MAPS IN RED, SO THAT SHOULD SHOW ONES THAT HAVE BEEN updated or replaced or new images added. So with that, I will open the floor to any discussion. Any questions? Great. Thank you so much.

Any questions? Discussion?

Mr. Kravinsky. I'll just make one comment. don't know where it shows up other than the staff report but I think I was looking for the walkthrough that was conducted just prior to the City Council meeting was that on the 15th perhaps or on the 22nd maybe on the June 15th City Council meeting I think you should identify that that was a pretty informative thing that happened as part of our schedule that we got a lot of Great feedback from that walkthrough.

Yeah, we can definitely note that. Thank you.

Thanks. Mr. Duncan.

I keep chewing on this like a dog on a bone, but the sentence that you've added about the significance of the site as an example of the war worker housing boom in the region during World War II, if it is now fairly well established that These quads were built in 1941. I wonder if we can say housing boom in the region before and during World War II. That shape, false church, etc., etc. Just because I believe, if it's true, that these were built in 1941, that would have preceded the declaration of World War II on our side.

We can definitely make that audit. That has taken me back to my AP U.S. History class.

Not that I was around then, but my father was.

No, it's a good note to make.

It sticks in my mind because my dad graduated from high school in 1942 and then joined the military, so it was pretty early in the concern. Anyway, thank you for adding what you added, just that one tweak.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Krasner.

A couple of things and more questions. I mean, obviously, there's been a lot of comment, some public comment, you know, about the open space, you know, changes in the plan. And, you know, I know, you know, I understand, like, why we're making the change. from, you know, the original, the current text, I should say. But I think, you know, there have been some good points raised about the fact that, obviously, you know, the way that, and again, I'm not getting even into the argument or debate about the order of things, but the zoning, the draft zoning and the RFP, you know, talks about, or not the RFP, the draft zoning talks about, you know, the open space option, like open space being an option that can allow you to access the overlay and, you know, Don't we need something in the small area plan that still speaks to the importance of open space as it relates to this area of the city? And I think I'm sure you've heard those comments. I'm not coming up with that myself personally. I mean, I agree with it, but it's been raised by neighbors, by others. So just more of a question about that. Is it appropriate for us to, I think, add some language there? And we can talk to me as a commission about what the form of that might be. capture it but I think in order to support the zoning I actually do think it is necessary that we have some support in the comp plan for it as a goal in this area of the city

Yeah, so I think in the current proposed text, there are a few places that reference integrating green space and green links and connecting different open spaces. I believe there are a few other places. Sorry, the two plans are getting mixed up in my head a little bit. But I believe there's some proposed language around the green space, the potential for expanded green space if redevelopment ever happens on the Bull America lot, which is more in the DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA PLAN, BUT WE CAN LOOK FURTHER INTO INCORPORATING LANGUAGE ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT THAT IS IN THE CURRENT ZONING PROPOSAL AS WELL AS WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC.

I guess, yeah. I mean, so can you point to me, point me to rather the, where in the plan?

Yeah, it's page 70.

Where in the plan specifically now, like what the language is. Because I think, you know, there's one thing to talk about it in general, but since the zoning is getting pretty specific.

In the actual like red line plan.

Yeah.

If you go to 70, Jack, and I think this is unchanged. Unchanged. Scroll down. Yeah, there's a section. And then in the Virginia Village context, there are also, as Ms. Larrief said, references to green space and... within the plan. But I think what was removed was, you know, the contemplation of basically turning Virginia Village into a park.

No, I get that. I get that. And I think that, you know, I mean, personally... That's not the goal. Yeah, that's no longer the goal that we want to see. We don't want to... Our goal is not to write... DEMOLISH, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDINGS AND TURN IT INTO AN EXTENSION OF THE PARK. BUT, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS, SO WHERE, DO YOU GO TO THE VIRGINIA VILLAGE SECTION?

AT 73, JACK, I BELIEVE.

JUST AS FAR AS HOW WE, HOW WE, I GUESS HOW WE TALK ABOUT THAT CHANGE, YOU KNOW. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY SIGNIFICANT ABOUT FACE.

FOUND ONE MORE, JACK.

IN THE PLAN IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ZONING THAT'S GOING TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

Where did I see it?

Here it is there. Redevelopment should also integrate green space, placemaking elements, and green links, connecting Big Chimney Park to South Maple Avenue and other nearby green space areas. Yeah. So that's within that particular area.

Right. I was mentioning it. I guess the question's like, I don't know, since it's like there's only two ways you can access the overlay, open space or that. I just don't know if it needs to be accentuated more, if we really want that. I don't know. I know there's still some debate about that part of it, you know, on the zoning side. But, you know, I think there's some merit to keeping the option. But I just wonder if we need to have more specific language about how we would see that work. You know, if we're envisioning that some of these smaller parcels, maybe that don't consolidate or only maybe two consolidate, and they use the open space option, you know, what are we envisioning? How that would work? You know, do we want to provide any guidance about how we would want to see that, the form we might want to see that take? I don't know. I don't know. I just think, again, I've heard that comment from multiple places throughout this process, and I think there's some merit to that, being a little more deliberate and specific about it.

Has staff had any additional discussion about that sort of open space option?

That might shed some light. As far as the small area plans, the additional discussion around open space has primarily been in connection with the downtown small area plan and looking at that. uh the bull america site and what the recommendations were there um but i the zoning side jack might have um more to elaborate on as far as the discussion around open space yeah i mean i think what mr krasner is looking for is like if people are availing themselves of this sort of like open space option in the overlay like how do we want to direct that if if we can from the small area plan

Yeah, that's that's a good question, and there was a lot of discussion about this topic at the last Council work session, particularly as you know, is a similar conversation that the Commission had about whether the open space requirement would undermine the affordable housing goals that. this whole, you know, effort is based on. And so there is a directive to staff out of that meeting to come up with potential conditional approval for the open space requirement and thinking about how that might play into the proposed zoning amendments and so council granted first reading to the Amendments that were drafted at their June 22nd meeting but also Included a directive to return to staff basically for a new first reading with that conditional approval OPTION IN IT AS WELL. SO STAFF'S CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF A TERTIARY GOAL, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD A LOT FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT OPEN SPACE IS VALUED EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABILITY IS, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER ONE CONSIDERATION. SO HOW DO WE GET BOTH?

WELL, AND THE PLAN CAN SAY THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, THE PLAN, AGAIN, JUST LIKE WITH THE ZONING AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE PLAN CAN BE AS SPECIFIC OR AS GENERAL AS WE WANT IT TO BE. um you know if there's consensus that right there's a primary goal secondary tertiary you know the plan can can direct that that like preference would be given or that the priority is to provide housing however um you know secondarily you know open space is important and if it's provided you know i don't know it's just to me if if we're gonna only allow the access to the overlay with those two choices i mean at least under the overlay they're not ranked you know what i'm saying like they're not They're not right. I mean, this gets to, like, bigger picture arguments I have about, you know, should this be a special use permit process, SE process, whatever, where we would have some ability to negotiate, well, actually, you know, our comp plan tells us that Our primary goal is housing. You're coming in with a proposal that's using the open space, but in that location for this reason, maybe we don't think that's appropriate. You know what I'm saying? So that's like, but if we don't have the language here and we just throw out the zoning with two choices that they can freely, anyone could freely choose from, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ABILITY TO GUIDE THAT. BUT IT ALL STARTS WITH THE, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONING TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT ALL STARTS WITH THIS MALARIA PLAN. AND LIKE I SAID, ESPECIALLY IF THIS WINDS UP GOING TO A, WHICH I WILL CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR, YOU KNOW, I KNOW NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME, BUT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR SC-TYPE PROCESS, HAVING COMPLAINT LANGUAGE TO HANG OUR HAT ON BECOMES SUPER IMPORTANT IN THAT TYPE OF AN ARENA. And so to the extent this small area plan can be, you know, can reflect our priorities very specifically, that gives us a lot of leverage with a potential, you know, developer to say, you know, look at the comp plan. It's right in there. Here's what we want, and here's how we want it to be. Your proposal isn't quite doing that. And that's why we're not ready to support it. That's kind of how I would love to see this whole thing play out. But at a minimum, I think having more direction in here would still be helpful, even if this winds up as a by-right thing. And we'll argue about the zoning at another meeting, I guess. Still having really good guidance in here is important. I think traditionally, you know, in the city, our plan has been pretty, well, I shouldn't say always been more general. It's not. The small airplanes are pretty specific. But there's nothing preventing us from being really specific on the site if we feel it's appropriate. And maybe this type of site, it is appropriate to be really specific and reflect more of what we want the zoning to do. And also, the last thing, and then I'll shut up and other people can chime in, but it also will help the city to, you know, to make, to defend, you know, if there's ever any challenges to this zoning, having comp plan language that clearly supports it and reflects the zoning is a great way to defend your zoning ordinance if you can point to the comp plan and say it's doing exactly what the comp plan said we should do. So that's, you know, that's where I'm coming from on this. And it's the open space. There are other things I would maybe talk about too. The relationship to Winter Hill and being more specific and deliberate about where back of house and parking and utilities and stuff goes on the site and things like that. I mean, all that without having to, you know, rewrite a, you know, have it be as specific as a zoning ordinance, we could be more specific in here as opposed to just kind of being a little bit more general and flowery. We could really drill down.

Yeah, there's some specific guidance around Winter Hill that's already proposed at the top of the right column there. Taller buildings should avoid casting shadows onto existing homes and parks.

Right, but there are other things, like again...

Right, and yeah, so you're telling staff that you'd like to see another sentence like that on parking, back of house.

I guess what I'm saying, yeah, I guess, you know, really to distill it down for me is that And I'm reading the tea leaves, and if it turns out that there's just not the support for a special use permit or SE process, then having as much specificity here, it can be helpful. Again, it's not going to have the force of law like an ordinance would have, but it certainly helps to direct what we want and don't want to happen. I've heard a lot from neighbors and others who live on the Winter Hill side. AND IT MAY HELP TO ASSUAGE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS SORT OF... I DON'T THINK I WANT TO... WE'RE NOT NEGLECTING OR IGNORING THEM. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ATTENTION PAID AND MEETINGS, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT THE MORE THEIR CONCERNS CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE PLAN, YOU KNOW, These are the concerns that we all feel are valid and we agree with. I think it's just better in this process. So, again, this is part of the nature. We're doing this all simultaneously, so we're looking kind of forwards and backwards at the same time from comp plan to small area to zoning. And then don't even get me started on the RFP. I mean, it's the whole thing. But, you know, in some ways, this malaria plan is probably second in importance after the zoning as far as what's, you know, how the rubber meets the road. And I don't know. I just think that there's some room to be a little more specific on things that we – there's consensus that we care about and feel are really important that we want to see reflected in the zoning because I think that this is how we set the stage for that.

That's helpful. Thank you, Mr. Krasner. Any feedback, thoughts? A couple. Mr. Stevens.

Yeah, kind of at a conceptual level, and I should proceed this by saying it's not an issue that I feel overly strong about, but when I read the small area plan the way it was before and the possibility of converting some of the parcels to parkland, that kind of struck me as that discussion is occurring at a time when housing wasn't quite the urgent crisis that it is today. And so I kind of don't see as much of a justification for that at this stage to convert actually convert whole parcels to additional parkland. I mean, as much as that might be nice at a conceptual level, it kind of really sidelines the whole urgency of housing and that crisis. So I kind of come down more on the side of let's use this area as much as we can. It's consistent with good community compliance with housing. So you can't do that if you convert it to a park.

No. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Kravinsky?

Thanks. So I won't weigh in on the merits necessarily of the open space or not open space, the heights, the setbacks, the by right, but I do think We should keep this small area plan as general as possible without giving too much specific guidance. And we've gotten some great feedback for this meeting, including our speaker tonight, to incorporate things into this small area plan, but I would note that Right now, the center of gravity on this discussion is happening at the city council level. There's a lot of very robust discussion both within the city council members and the public from the June 22nd meeting which went on for five hours. I think we have to be a little bit cautious from a planning commission perspective to sort of preempt that robust public discussion that's happening at the city council level. I'm just a little concerned that they're having that great discussion and we don't want to necessarily box them in in terms of what their zoning decisions should be by writing it into the small area plan so that my perspective is. We keep it as general as possible. We encourage as much as public engagement as possible, but we encourage it at this point at the. zoning uh part of the zoning process and within the city council discussion so uh that's where the center gravity is right now that's all i have thank you mr duncan thank you madam chair um i would like to express my uh support preference even for the staff language

and here's why from the earliest discussions that I remember attending particularly the one at Oak Street Elementary School where we began to talk about what the redevelopment of Virginia Village might look like. There was considerable support for what would be called, I think, a linear park between Big Chimneys and South Maple. I thought that was a good idea. I think Bernadette and I were at the same table and We both thought that was an interesting idea. When I read this, I assumed that staff had picked that idea up and was to some degree running with it and getting some more flesh on that bone. There's a difference between open space and green space. If I'm one of the developers who's looking at our RFP, and I see open space, that could be paved space with, you know, plantings, something like, what's it, Founders Row 2, where Mr. Stevens and I had coffee yesterday. It's a very pleasant outdoor patio. It's not really green space. It's open space. In that setting, it's, I think, fine because we were dealing with a very constrained lot size there, and we got some nice open space. But at Virginia Village, we have the room to provide actual green space, not a park. I agree with Mr. Stevens, as maybe was looked at 15 or so years ago. But a green buffer or a green connector, which is what I read when I see the language that the staff is proposing. You know, the... rose garden used to be a green space and now it's just an open space because of the paving that the president instituted i would like to see us try to influence the development community to present proposals that would include green actual green space and particularly space that would connect one end of the development to the other so i actually like what the staff has proposed here and feel like it gives more specific guidance than if we just said open space.

Thank you. I agree with you, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Kravinsky. And I also agree with Mr. Krasner. So just so I understand the discussion from City Council on Monday, the request to staff is that you look into whether there would be a conditional use permit that would be required for accessing the over the open space path of the overlay. Is that right? And that would be different from the affordable housing, which would still be by right.

Correct.

Is that what they're asking you to think about?

Generally, yeah. The request was to consider and provide options to counsel about a discretionary process.

For the open space options specifically.

Specifically for the open space, but potentially for other elements as well. Potentially height and other kind of lot coverage considerations. But the open space was kind of at the heart of those conversations.

Yeah, I mean, I can understand. I think what Mr. Krasner is highlighting is like, if it's just kind of up to the owners of the properties and some of them own multiple properties, like they could just decide this is where the public space is going to be. And it's not sort of occurring in any kind of organized fashion where the the public is, we're thinking about like where the public space should be. It would just be kind of occurring naturally and it's open space, but it really is just like benefiting, I guess that neighborhood, which is a good thing. But I understand why you might want something that's a little more organized. I also though agree with Mr. Kravinsky about keeping this relatively high level. I think you get into too many specifics and it's just not really, I think, the purpose of this level of planning. And I agree with Mr. Duncan that the staff language calling out the desire for integrating green space and green links is, that's like a nice level of specificity for me. Mr. Stephens, did you have a comment?

No. I was going to ask Mr. Kavinsky whether you think the staff language does what you were asking for, you know, to keep it at a certain level of generality.

I think the way it's written, yeah, is about right. All right. I would agree with that.

ANY OTHER?

JUST TO REACT TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO UPDATING THE COMPLAINT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE HAVE A STATUTORILY REQUIRED ROLE TO PLAY. SO CITY COUNCIL ALSO HAS A STATUTORY ROLE TO PLAY, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY ALWAYS SORT OF BEGINS AND ENDS WITH THEM, AND THAT'S FINE. BUT, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT JUST HERE YOU KNOW, SO WE DO HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY, AND WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. THEY SOMETIMES TAKE IT, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. THEY SOMETIMES MODIFY IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER STATE LAW. IT'S REQUIRED THAT WE DO REVIEW CERTAIN THINGS. WE'RE KIND OF THE STEWARDS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH THE SMALL AREA PLAN IS A PART OF. So we're well within our purview here. We're not out, you know, including in the zoning ordinance for that matter, but we're well within our purview to provide comments. And it's, I don't view that in any way as, you know, sort of, we're not short-circuiting anything. I mean, that's, they referred it out to us. We're providing them comments on it, which is, you know, in that sense, that's a normal process for us. You know, as far as how specific we should be, like I said, I think it kind of depends on where we wind up going. I mean, I agree to the sense that if this winds up just being a buy right thing then it's all going to come down in the zoning ordinance you know and getting that right um you know in house and then that has to be super specific um again this is all part of my you know obviously i'm my you know it's no secret that i feel that it should be a discretionary or legislative process in which case having very firm and good guidance in the small area plan IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HELPS YOU TO, AS PART OF THAT DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, A REVIEW, IT GIVES US SOMETHING TO BASE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON. WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE REACHED, AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, PLANNING 101. WE'VE REACHED A CONSENSUS AS A COMMUNITY. WE'VE ADOPTED A COMP PLAN AND INSPIRATION PLAN THAT TELLS US THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO OCCUR HERE. in general, and we can, you know, obviously there's different opinions about how general, and now here's our zoning ordinance, which sort of allows it to occur, but, you know, when we're advocating for certain design or certain aspects of a development, you know, you're always on the soundest footing if you can point to your comp plan and say, COMPLAN, WHICH WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY, AND THE COUNCIL SAYS, DO THIS, AND YOU'RE NOT QUITE DOING IT. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE WIND UP IN A BY-RIGHT PROCESS, I GUESS I KIND OF AGREE, AND THAT WOULD, IN MY VIEW, BE UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE COMPLAN BECOMES, YOU KNOW, A pure guide. A plan is always a guide. Whether it is the malaria plan or the comprehensive plan, it is a guide. There are certain things about it under law that it matters, but it is a guide. It is not the force of ordinance. But if it can help support your ordinance, it becomes very important. If it's just going to be a by-right thing and it's all been predetermined, then I agree. There's not much point arguing about the language and the comp plan because it's not going to matter. The zoning ordinance is going to matter entirely, getting that right. But my view would be this does matter because it sets the stage for setting up the zoning. And ironically, then maybe the zoning doesn't have to be so specific. The comp plan provides a good guide and the zoning allows some flexibility, then through a process, a public process, we can work and negotiate towards the result that the community wants and that everyone feels is the best for Falls Church as a whole. So, you know, that's just my reaction to that, that we're somehow stepping on council's toes. I don't think so. You know, they're free to ignore us, but, I mean, there's a reason we're here, and that's, to me, this is one of the reasons why we exist.

as a body I certainly agree I certainly agree the council is free to ignore me if they want to you know I I don't disagree with much of what mr. Krasner says I think it's appropriate for us to give advice and again I'm pretty satisfied with the way staff is you know, trying to negotiate some pretty strong opinions that don't necessarily agree with each other in this phase of the process. You know, the Small Area Plan is not saying to a prospective developer, we insist on substantial urban park on this development side, nor is it saying to the developing community we want maximized build out of structures to increase the affordable housing count to the maximum feasible. And there are voices who are calling for that too. So I'm pretty happy going to city council with language that is as it is expressed here. And being mindful also that any developer who's going to be looking at this site is going to look across the street and look at the Quinn building, which is going to be a 10-story building. And it's got that height because there's fair amount a good amount of open space included in that development so to be compatible with its neighbors it would make sense for there to be green space again in the virginia village development right across the street from the open space of the quinn building So I guess I'm of the school that thinks that as we move through this process and the more we talk about this, the more it will be clear to somebody who wants to submit a proposal that if they want to be seriously considered and scored well, they'll make an effort to provide us with green space, as we say here in the small area plan language.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Go ahead, Mr. Kravinsky.

So not to prolong this, but I'm curious what Mr. Kersner's, do you have specific edits that you would add? I think we're looking at the bottom right paragraph 173, is that correct? Where it says redevelopment should integrate green space. Do you have specific language that would be more specific?

Well, I mean, I don't know if I can do it from the dais. I mean, I think that that's a very general statement. Redevelopment should integrate green space, placemaking elements, green links. You know, there's many forms that could take. I mean, I think if we – I don't know if we've spent the time to think about what the infill projects might look like. You know, if people were to elect to use that option, you know, how would we want that to be? You know, is there – I don't know if we've thought about it. I don't know if I can write, you know, plan text, you know, off the cuff, but, you know, what I'm saying is I think that it's very general, which maybe is okay, but I'm trying to envision a scenario where, right, you know, now we're trying to write, and I forget exactly the order. This is, right, staff can please remind me, like, this is going to, we're due to vote on the comp plan changes well before the zoning, right? The zoning is, like, a time frame out into the fall, correct?

Correct. So your public hearing is scheduled for your next meeting. Right.

This is, like, right now. Right. But the zoning is, like, going to hang open. September or October. And so, again, like, I get back to just, like I said, Planning 101 is that the comp plan needs to, you know, the zoning should reflect the comp plan. You know, it doesn't, like I said, it's not that this has to be as specific as that's going to be. But if there are certain things in the, like, if we want to, well, for example, the whole option about it, the whole debate about whether there should be an open space option or not, I mean, if... be honest with you that if it's not you know more specific in here i think you know we kind of i don't know it calls into question the validity of having that option in the in the in the zoning ordinance i think we should if we don't really feel that's important or the idea about ranking that saying okay this is our top priority but secondarily you know something like this could be considered um you know there's no real there's nothing that reads in here about i mean yes we talk about affordable housing but then if our ordinance gives this other option Where do I find that support for that? I think we're vulnerable to a challenge on that, frankly. So I just think that it would be helpful to have more specificity on that, because then it might give us more ability then to continue to debate it when it comes time to do the zoning. The zoning, again, doesn't have to be identical to that, but it has to have its support and foundation in the small area plan. And so in some ways, it makes it harder, I think, to do some of the things we might want to do in the zoning if we don't refer to them here. Certain protections for the neighborhood. I think we talked about the height, but there are other things that I know neighbors are concerned about, whether it's the location of the parking, location of certain utilities, know things of that nature um you know certain the types of screening and buffering we want to see adjacent you know that and hopefully those will work their way into the zoning i mean we're going to again at a later date we'll try to dig into that roll up our sleeves and try to dig into that but if there's not support for it here it just makes it that much harder and it's it's ideally we would have some you know more specific allusions to it here so that's kind of where i can't write the text from the day is right now Um, that wouldn't be the right way to do it anyway, but that, that's where I'm coming from. And again, this is evolving again in real time. I get it. I was at the council meeting, not on the 22nd. I watched a lot of that. I was away that week, but the other, the work session, I know there's a lot of discussion happening throughout the continuum, which is again, not the, it's a difficult way to plan. It's difficult way to do stuff. Um, and we're, we're living it. It's, you know, you're feeling it, right? It's hard because we're doing it kind of in an unusual way. unprecedented and I you know it's perfect it's allowable to do it this way but it's it's harder because we don't have you know we're like what should be our guiding star should it be something you know it's like we're writing the comp plan to fit some other thing but I don't even know what that is yet because we haven't figured out the zoning it's all very confusing but but there are certain things that I feel like are I've heard all the groundswell of consensus about from the neighbors and I think that, you know, if I had to just, you know, kind of distill it down into what I'm looking for here to have a little bit more specificity on the protection for the neighbors there in here, you know, in a more specific way, that would help us then write zoning that, you know, would help to implement that, you know, and have it all sort of fit in a more logical way.

Thank you, Mr. Krasner. Any feedback or reaction from you, Ms. Larive?

Yeah, just we'll take that into account when we're looking, continuing to look. There's a section reserved in the zoning chapter of the small area plan that's currently being held as a bit of a placeholder until we have a little more feedback as far as the special use elements. There's some room for more language around some of the things we hear as strong consensus items. um it's been our general policy to keep this level of planning a little bit um more vague as um especially as we've seen with some of these updates how some of the more specific elements have not have resulted in um some relevance such as the uh the city center sections of different small area plans just some some areas where we got very specific it caused issues But there's definitely more room to explore. Off the top of my head, I couldn't come up with all of them. They're very long plans, but there are a few other areas where we talk about the use of more public space and open space in that area. Specifically, I think we talk about in the proposed land use when we talk about big chimney. We talk about any development adjacent to it should be the exact wording escapes me and my that's very slow right now, but That it should be taking into account that porousness that green space It should have a natural transition and and ideally have expanded green space There's a few different spaces is all I mean to say and and as we look to take this to the June 15th meeting we can take a closer look at where that language can be

um explored as especially in accordance to the zoning ordinance that's being discussed yeah I think the language you might be referring to is on page 72 redevelopment within Virginia Village should provide enhanced connections and complementary open spaces to Big Chimneys Park that would strengthen existing pedestrian and bicycle connections to the area is that is that the reference or one of them maybe

Yes. Yeah. That's one of them. And then there's another language. Again, I've been reading these a lot, so it's blending all together, but there's additional language around having green screening between the Winterhill NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANY FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT. THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE PLAN THAT TALK ABOUT IT THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE IT'S ALIGNING WITH THE DIRECTION WE'RE GETTING FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Krasner's comments on the buy rate versus discretionary process reminded me that I want to kind of take the pulse of the Commission on that question. I think it might be useful for Council to kind of have a sense of where the Planning Commission stands on that, even if you may not have a firm opinion at this point. But, you know, staff has recommended a buy-write process. It sounds like there may be some discussion for how the open space pathway at least might change. But as far as the affordable housing path in the overlay, staff has recommended a buy-write process. I think Mr. Krasner has laid out the argument for a discretionary process. I'm just curious where everyone else stands on that item or on that question. Is this something you're prepared to, like, share tonight?

Well, I understand the argument of by right, and I completely support it. I think it's, in general, the best approach in terms of increasing housing supply. That said, I do think we have a pretty special circumstance here, and I feel as though if we do have a special exception or a special use process, it should be a special use light, and it should be as un-onorous on the applicant as possible. And I think our attorney had indicated that you could have a very special exception light process just to make sure that whatever development is going in is achieving our goals. So I would probably argue that in this case, some kind of special exception, very light process would be appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Kavinsky. Mr. Stevenson, and acknowledging that like your where opinions can change as we as more facts come clear over time.

Right. And I think that's kind of where I'm at. I'm still kind of working this through different angles of thinking about it, but generally where I've come out so far on this is that by right by itself might be arguably a problem given to 30,000 square foot parcels that can be developed. But in this case, we have an RFP, which is giving us a fair amount of insight into what's possible and to allow us to make more tangible perhaps down the road as far as what can be done. So I'm okay with what we're calling a buy-write process with the RFP process that we have layered on top of this.

Thank you. I think we know where Mr. Krasner stands. But we can...

I'll spare you the whole soliloquy, but... And I think, well, just to drill down, I don't want to repeat myself. You've heard me before, but I mean, right, the whole idea of, you know, for some reason the term special exception, right, has a bad, leaves a bad taste in some folks' mouth as far as the history of that. that tool in the city. Right. We could if you want people feel better calling it a special permit under state code, those things are identical for the record. There's no difference, but they can, you know, but yeah, we can call it whatever we want, whether it's special permit or SE. And it can be right. You can have as very specific standards or requirements or as little. I think I'll just real quickly just again reiterate that, you know, having the control to, you know, this is a different thing. I know like right now in the planning sort of zeitgeist, it's very in vogue to say that, you know, that everything we've ever done before is the problem, whether it's zoning, whatever it is, and just say, You know, and like long public hearings and NIMBYs and people coming out, that's prevented. And there is some truth to that at a macro level. That is, there's some truth to that as far as what zoning has done. However, you know, we bring it down to our community and then to this site and how, ironically, you know, if we want the best outcome here for affordable housing, retaining some control, you know, is going to be, I think, is so important. So it's don't let the argument, my only advice or my admonition would be don't let that sort of, again, popular kind of sentiment of like all discretionary process is bad, stifles housing, stifles development, don't let that apply just completely unfiltered to this because this is a little bit different and we ironically here we want the control not so we can let a bunch of people that don't want anything to happen here like to kill something that's not I don't think any of us want that but to make sure this happens right so that because there is no other Virginia village in town so that's my thing that's why I think it's important to retain control so that we don't roll the dice and see what we get and maybe come up a little short and be like man I wish we had thought of that

Thank you, Mr. Krasner. Mr. Duncan, did you want to weigh in?

Oh, sure. Why not? Thank you for asking us to express our thoughts. I think it's helpful for the community to see that, you know, the balancing of competing interests in a challenging situation like this is difficult, and there are people who have, you know, honest disagreements or differences at least in emphasis about how we should go forward. All of what we say falls in the lap of the staff, so I try to read what it is the staff has suggested. And as I said earlier, when we were talking about green and open space, I think the language that we've got here is specific enough in general, not only on that issue, but on most of the others, too, including historic significance. A reference is made to that, as we've talked about. I know there's been some e-mail communications about historical significance and are there tax credits available for Virginia Village redevelopment if we go down that road. That's a good conversation to have, particularly if you can overlay historic preservation tax credits with low-income housing tax credits. These are challenging things, and they deserve to be examined as things closely as time will permit. And I would close with that notion of time and what it will permit. It's been my experience that, you know, about once every generation we take a hard run at doing something really significant for affordable housing in the city and Winter Hill Senior Apartments in the 90s and the Wilden Building, which did not end up happening in the mid to late 2000s. and now this Virginia Village redevelopment potential. And when the stars align to even make something like we're talking about possible, we need to keep our eye on the clock and our eye on the opportunities for financing to help us do whatever it is that we decide we're going to do because we're going to need some financial help. We're going to need low-income tax credits or preservation tax credits or some city resources. some sort we're going to need help from the feds and as everybody reads in the paper there's some prospects of that bubbling up we're going to need some help from Virginia State Housing folks so all that needs to be taken into account when we pace ourselves and that I think is why we're going at a speed which is deliberate but it is a speed it is not just a abstract discussion that can go on and on and on, so I will stop going on and on about it. But I did want to close by thanking the staff for trying to put into print a useful document that expresses the opinions as best you can of a broad range of views. and opinions and speaks for that constituency, which does not have a voice. By definition, it's people who can't afford to live in the city of Falls Church. We want more of those people, people who serve our restaurant clientele and health care needs and all the income-level folks who make the city what it is, what's special about it. We need to create more opportunities for them to live in our community. And so I'm for whatever process enables us to take the current population into mind while also remembering that we're trying to build for future generations too.

Good reminder, Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Personally, I would align myself with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Stevens' comments, particularly with regard to the RFP. I feel like between the RFP, the city owning that land, and the careful attention to the zoning code that I know will be paid, that I think I'm feeling comfortable with the buy-right approach. So, okay. Helpful. And I guess we'll hear from Mr. Polinsky and Ms. Friedlander when they come next meeting. Okay, I think any other discussion on the small area plan amendments? because I think we also want to maybe briefly discuss the comprehensive plan chapter four amendments. Okay, I think we can move on to that item. Thank you.

Jack will be leading that side of things.

Yep, thank you Zoe. So this item is a bit of a housekeeping item. One of the first bits of feedback we heard from the outset of this initiative was that it would be ideal if the Virginia Village area was under a single set of guidance. So currently, Virginia Village falls within two separate planning opportunity areas. And the planning opportunity areas basically dictate the corresponding small area plan. So every small area plan makes recommendations for that respective planning opportunity area. And so that's why you have the downtown and the South Washington Street small area plans is because Virginia Village is split into these two different areas. Planning opportunity areas and the planning opportunity areas are mapped in chapter four of the comprehensive plan and so related to You know the amendment Zoe was just talking about bringing all of Virginia Village into the South Washington Street small area plan would require a boundary adjustment of the two corresponding planning opportunity areas again which are mapped in chapter four of the comprehensive plan so this is the map that you're looking at on on the screen this is as it appears today in the comprehensive plan so the The comprehensive plan amendment proposal would simply be to bring the four city-owned Gibson Street properties, which are currently in the downtown planning opportunity area, which is labeled number five in this map, just adjust that so that they come into the same POA as the rest of the neighborhoods.

All right. Great. Thank you. So this is sort of the overall, the sort of umbrella. This is the land use chapter, right? Chapter 4. Correct. Yeah. So it makes sense to me. Any discussion, questions about this? The boundary adjustment?

No.

Okay. Thank you. I'm glad we caught that. Change was necessary. All right. I think that brings us to our information items.

Could I just add a couple of typo things? Remember the Founders Road discussion that we had about every time, whether it had an apostrophe or a plural or not?

Yeah.

Now we're going down the same road with big chimneys. Is it one chimney? Is it a chimney of somebody's? Is it two chimneys? I think the answer is it's big chimneys. There were two in the original building.

Plural chimneys, not possessive.

Plural, not possessive. Thank you for expressing that as my English teacher in eighth grade would have. Come with our grammarians.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, yes. No, I just went to Google Maps.

So do a universal search and change chimney to chimneys. Chimneys, plural.

Noted.

Thank you. And second, the thing that I brought up earlier is 6A attachment 3, South Washington Small Area Plan version 3, I think it is. Under the acknowledgements page, which is on page three, there's a list of city council who were serving when that was adopted, which includes Ms. Berry and me on the same line. And while I'm honored to be associated with her on the same line alphabetically, she should go above me.

Which page was that, Mr. Duncan?

Page 3 is in the South Washington area plan, page 3, 6A attachment 3. Anyway. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Thank you.

You're our eagle-eyed. I might be the grammarian, but he catches all those small things. Okay. Thank you for that, Mr. Schrader. Any information items? Any commissioner reports? No. Mr. Duncan, did you have?

Is this where we report that we may not be in town for various?

Maybe we can talk about that with a look ahead.

Okay.

Yeah. And the director's report tonight, will you present that?

Yes. So there's one attachment tonight and that's the 100% design plans for the Park Avenue Great Streets project. I know that's been in the works for some time. I think we've had various design iterations since I've worked here. And so it's exciting to see the 100% design plans. If there's any comments, I can capture those and send those to the project manager and then on to VDOT. So let me know if there's any... Any comments or questions or points for clarification there? And then the second item is a request for the Commission to identify your representative on the Virginia Village RFP Evaluation Committee. Um, this group will meet, um, in August, so that individual should expect to, um, be able to meet in person, um, for a handful of meetings in August. That schedule's forthcoming. Uh, so I know that's, that was a request from the Commission about some more details, uh, and I understand that that schedule's still being put together, but I'll be sure to circulate that as soon as those dates are known. That would include meeting with the consultant, Jones Lang LaSalle, and then obviously with the larger group as submissions come in. There is a chance that, depending on the volume of bids received, in the RFP that this process kind of bleeds into September. We'll kind of just have to see what that looks like. So that individual should be, again, available for all of August and potentially the first half of September, I would say.

Okay. Do you think we'll have more clarity? I'm curious about the timing because you're looking for the recommendation or the nomination tonight. Is it required that we make that decision tonight, or could we wait until our next meeting when we have more clarity on the meeting schedule or potential meeting schedule?

Art, do you know, is that a hard schedule tonight?

I think our next meeting is the 15th.

I know these will be in-person meetings here, but if there's a possibility for a person on the committee to have a virtual option for a particular meeting, I'm just thinking of myself, if I could do it. Most of the time, if someone could be there 90% of the time but then needed a digital option or virtual option for a meeting, It'd be helpful to know the specifics before committing.

I think those are definitely important questions. And I think given that the commission meets again in two weeks, that it probably isn't the end of the world to not identify that individual.

Are there meetings expected with...

I would say that there are some meetings that occur before August 7th. If you can remind me, there's some walkthroughs, there's some questions. I think it might be beneficial if the... View Committee or the evaluation committee is known before some of those feedback meetings. I know the council had requested that the members be identified prior to we would have preferred to identify them prior to the issuance. So two weeks, I think we're running into problems because I think there are some meetings which I know there's questions, there's feedback from the vendors, and I'm not sure how much staff wants the evaluation committee to be involved in those pieces.

Okay. I mean, I guess we're just trying to figure out what somebody might be signing up for and to make sure that they're able to actually be there. How does everybody's August look and do we have any volunteers? I know I'm out of town for a week that month.

Here's a couple related dates that are newly published on the Virginia Village project website.

So you're referring to the guided site tour and the evaluation committee would attend that tour?

I'm not sure that they would, but I was actually wondering about the deadline for questions. I'm not really sure how much they're going to be involved prior to the 6th.

Yeah, that seems like things the staff would answer.

There's also an amendment. That's what I'm not sure. I kind of defer to staff on this, but I think it's going to have to be some meetings, at least one meeting prior to getting the... responses get organized.

I think I mean, the deadline for questions is for potential responders. So that that'll be more, you know, questions for, you know, for those folks with with staff and and I think JLL and then the next meeting is July 21st. So again, the commission meets July 15th. So I think if if the if the count if the um commission can commit to again i guess well and we have homework staff is homework to do too to send you all some more information at a time um but july 15th seems like it could it would be an okay date i mean i guess it the benefit of that would just be maybe we'd have a little more clarity on like when those meetings might be um and and then we would know that we're nominating somebody who can who can be there

FOR ALL OF THEM.

SURE.

DO YOU WANT TO GO, MR. SENATOR?

DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON MR. CRASTER'S POINT ON THE VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION?

I COULD DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.

MIGHT BE GOOD TO SORT THAT OUT.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, TOO. WHO'S INTERESTED, THOUGH?

MANAGER CHAIR, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN CARRYING THE VIEWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTO THE EVALUATION PROCESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. would be out of town from July 9th through the 19th should be back here the week of the 20th and except for occasional appointments plan not to be anywhere out of town through Labor Day all right I'm also interested you know I think I could you know be helpful my experience in site planning and reviewing development proposals

you know, for 20-odd years. So I think I could be helpful on it. Obviously, I'm interested. I'm around for the most part. I have a couple, like, weekend, bookended type of, like, long weekends planned in August. And then, like, LABOR DAY WEEKEND, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LEADING UP TO THAT AND MOVING MY SON INTO COLLEGE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY, LIKE, OVERSEAS TWO-WEEK EXTRAVAGANZAS. COLLEGE TUITION IS AID UP THE BUDGET FOR THAT. BUT, YEAH, SO I'M INTERESTED, YOU KNOW, IF FOLKS WANT TO APPOINT ME OR WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS.

GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. KRASNER.

Well, I was going to say I was going to be out of the country in August, but now that Mr. Krasner has mentioned that it was an extravaganza, maybe I shouldn't mention it. But I'll be out of the country.

All right. Mr. Stevens?

Sounds like we have two excellent candidates here.

Yeah.

don't want to pile on anymore here so i'm happy to stand aside you can talk about it without me on i'll i'll call in on july 15th but i'll be down in tennessee that week dealing with my father's estate matters so okay i'm i'm available for a phone participation in that meeting but i'll not be there in person

And hopefully we would have also Mr. Polinsky and Ms. Friedlander to help nominate our willing volunteer. Thank you both.

I think Ms. Friedlander said she would not be at that meeting. Oh, you're right. But Mr. Polinsky, I think we're expecting.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah, if the 15th is okay, I think that might be helpful just to have a little more clarity on timeline issues. All right. Well, thank you. And thank you both again. Any correspondence? No. Okay. I think that's it. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you all.