Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And okay, I tried to

Oh, okay. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Uh let's call the meeting the Wednesday, November 5th, 2025 meeting of the Falls Church City Planning Commission to order. Uh Mr. Trainer, can you do a roll call, please? And I just want to remind everyone to please speak into the microphones. Uh, Mr. Duncan here. Mr. Kraner here. Chair Kont I'm here. Mr. Stevens here. Mr. Pollinsky here. Thank you. We have a quorum.

Great. And uh we do have one member who would like to participate remotely. Uh Miss Freedellander. Miss Freedellander, can you identify your location and the reason for your participation by electronic means? Okay, thank you for that. Uh, is there a motion to approve her participation? [clears throat] Madam Chair, I move that the planning commission approve electronic participation by Miss Freedellander in this meeting for family reasons pursuant to the planning commission's policy for remote participation in planning commission meetings that adopted on February 5th, 2025. Second. All right. All in favor? Hi. Hi.

Hi. I would note her her video is not clear at the moment. Maybe that'll Yeah, you're a little pixelated. We can we hear you just fine. That's the most important part, I guess. But you kind of look like a Van Go painting. Yeah, it's a it's a it's kind of It might be better to turn your camera off until maybe try again later. I don't know because Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, and we hear you. We hear you loud and clear. It's just a video is off. That is some kind of look with that pixelated video though. Yeah. [laughter]

Uh so no speaker series tonight. Um do we have any speakers tonight, Mr. Trainer? Thinking no. Oh no. Just think we'd need to adopt the agenda. Oh, thank you for that. Um do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? I move to adopt the agenda. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. No speaker series. Um Mr. Trainer, there's no Is there anybody here to speak to the commission tonight?

Uh no, Madam Chair, I've not received any uh speaker slips uh to address the commission tonight uh regarding written petitions. Uh the commission did receive one from Paul uh Flush, 206 Southwest Street, wrote to the commission uh with concerns uh about on street parking on Southwest Street.

Okay, great. Um any let's see on action items. Uh did everybody get a chance to look at the minutes from our last meeting October 15th? Any edits? I have none. I move to adopt the minutes of the meeting of October 15, 2025 as presented. Second. All in favor? I I I abstension. Miss Freedellander. Uh, Miss Freedellander was absent. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Well, that went pretty quickly. So, that brings us to our work session items. Um, I know we have one member of the Urban Forestry Commission here. Hello. I'm Andrea. I'm Kathleen. Kathleen. Nice to meet you. Okay. Uh, do we need to wait for a quorum for the urban forestry commission or what's the sort of procedure? No, due to unforeseen circumstances, we won't have quorum with the urban forestry commission tonight. So, this is kind of a Okay, okay, we're just here in Great. Thank you for being here. Um, so I guess of who's introducing the item. Great. Mr. Matusk.

Hi. Good evening everyone. Um, we wanted to continue a conversation that started um earlier this year, I believe in March, with the city council, but has since gone on to involve uh additional analysis, research, uh, internal conversations uh that I think speak to a much bigger volume of work that at least through the end of this year will help identify some near-term objectives, but also set the stage for additional work to come next year as we kind of continue to prioritize uh tree canopy uh for the city. So, what I wanted to do is kind of continue the conversation that um we most recently had with the council, I believe in October or September of this year, um and set the stage for a return to this group um in late November where we can have some additional conversations with recommendations and additional analysis which is being finalized as we speak. So with that, I wanted to hand things over to Charles Prince, Kurt Lawrence, and Cameron Gaines who have been working collectively across both departments to compile this information and would be happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Comment, Vice Chair Stevens, and the planning commission. Uh, happy to be here tonight. I'm Charles Friends, the city arborist. This is Kurt Lawrence, environmental planner. Tonight, Kurt and I are going to showed some tree canopy data we've compiled, and Kurt's going to kick us off. Okay, let's get the presentation up for us and we'll jump right in. Okay,

should Okay, go back on to the uh benefits. There we go. Okay, so we're going to start with the benefits of urban trees. I'm sure everyone might be familiar with a few of these, but uh we think it's a great starting point for us. Um, so not only are they a great um aesthetic piece of any city or community, uh, but they have a number of benefits including, uh, filtering the city's air, cooling city streets, uh, reducing rates of cardiac disease, strokes, and asthma due to improved air quality, protecting biodiversity, and increasing habitat, um, reducing obesity levels by increasing physical activity, including walking and cycling, managing storm water, um, increasing neighborhood property values, and reducing stress. um by helping interrupt thoughtful patterns that lead to anxiety and depression. Sort of the biofilia aspect. Um another fun fact is that according to a Texas&M forest service study, uh trees can actually be a stimulus to economic development um attracting new businesses and tourism. treated commercial retail areas are more attractive to shop in. And in fact, retail rates were 7% higher for properties having a quality landscape versus comparable properties lacking that value. Uh and additionally, shoppers willing are willing to pay about 10% higher prices for products in a shopping area with those trees compared to areas without them. Okay, moving right along. Uh we'll talk about how we got here. Um so for some time the urban forestry commission has identified a lack of tree canopy requirements um kind of leading to tricky conversations during the development process regarding our tree canopy in the city. Um, so during during reviews, uh, with no requirement to to fall back on, um, the Urban Forestry Commission, other folks in the city

found that there was really no firm way for the city to require trees during the development process. Um, and so with no minimums, the ask was for more tree canopy um, requirements in the city. Um and as well as the urban forestry commission, the city council included tree canopy in its 2024 2025 strategic priorities for environmental sustainability. Um so with that, we've noted that the code of Virginia permits tree canopy minimums of uh 10% in commercial areas. Um and then since then, uh more recently on October 6, 2025, uh we had a very similar conversation with the city council. Um and then since then we had an initiating resolution passed by the city council on the 27th just a couple weeks ago. Um and then since that initiating resolution and uh the first work session in October, staff has continued to assess tree canopy data and uh we're working towards finalizing um how the future is going to look for this tree canopy and false church. Okay. See, try to click on your screen there. Um, and then I do want to be clear that the um area we're looking at tonight are the commercial areas where this 10% um maximum might apply or minimum might apply. As you see on the map there, um kind of those inner areas of the city along the major roads, um are going to be the major focus area for this evening's discussion. Okay. So, so with that, I'd like to get into the current regulations for non-residential zoning districts. Uh so

there is not currently a tree canopy minimum but there are certain rules that come into play during the development process. Um so for example interior parking lot plantings are required for lots exceeding 3420 square ft. Um so in that instance 5% of the square footage of commercial surface parking area must be dedicated to interior planting or vegetation. Um, and then on the perimeter of parking lots, uh, Ford canopy trees are required every 100 feet of that parking lot perimeter where the parking lot is adjacent to either a public street or in a budding property. And lastly, we have the buffer planting between zoning districts. Um, so four canopy trees every 100 ft of buffers on lots zoned um, RC, RTH, RM, OD, T1, T2, B1, B2, B3, and M1. when those lots are adjacent to any R zoning districts. Okay, so what does that look like in practice? So rather than dive into a slew of uh site plans and try to figure out how the landscaping plans apply in real life, uh what we did is kind of break down site plans um by uh the steps by which they they kind of acrue trees on their property. So, as you'll see on the screen in front of you, you've got a table to the left that kind of describes the uh tree type um canopy coverage um in square feet. And then that correlates to a number of squares on uh the right side of the di the right side of the screen which is a sample diagram which is really just taking more of a complex site plan and turn it into a simple 10x10 square um which where each of the squares within that grid um represent a certain area. So for this specific example we will look at two tonight. This is the Harris ter site at 301 West Broad Street. So if

you can imagine that site is about 110,000 square feet. So each of those um squares inside the diagram on the right side of the screen are about 1100 square f feet. So as we go through this exercise you'll see the screen populate with the type of tree. So the perimeter parking lot trees for this example yielded zero square feet of tree canopy coverage because there is no uh surface parking lot at this site. The same is true for interior parking lot requirements. Um but for the buffers, we did get a good amount of uh tree canopy coverage using that requirement. There's a residential um zone to the left of this uh diagram in this scenario. And there you had a good grouping of trees that represented by the colored squares.

Yeah.

Yes, that's correct. And so these are sort of oriented to how we get them um at the site plan. So if if you've ever looked at the site plan for this one or or the next one, it's sort of that same orientation just kind of simplified down into a square. Um so moving along after the buffer trees, uh the street tree requirements um yielded almost 2700 square feet of trees, which is represented by the other squares there. um no other trees were planted there. So we ended up with a total of a little over 15,000 square feet of tree canopy coverage or in other words 13% of the site. Okay,

that's according to the site plan. Yes. So the landscaping plan. So that's a good note. Um these diagrams were derived from the landscaping plan in the site plan which uses the um one of the attachments is the Chesapeake Bay uh tree canopy worksheet which assumes certain square footage governments covers coverages for um different kinds of trees based on their size. Um, so for example, different types of trees at 20 years maturity might be 200 square feet or 315. And you can use the landscaping plan that'll tell you exactly what trees are being planted compared to that sheet and then get a total amount of of tree canopy coverage for that area. Does that make sense?

It Yeah, that's fine. what where I was headed. I was just curious whether we um actually enforced the site plans. I don't you know maybe on some periodic basis or on a sample basis just to go back and look and see if uh the trees that were supposed to be installed as part of a site plan are actually there or uh you know over the years of course you know trees die and so forth. So uh yeah uh yeah I'll take that question. Yeah, site plans are are held within perpetuity, right? So, they have to keep they have to keep their site plan, right?

So, uh it's kind of a report basis. Uh or if I'm walking down the street and I notice something, uh I'll work with the each property to get them back in compliance. Uh if I have to get zoning involved, that happens. But, uh yeah, they they're required to keep it.

So, it's possible that um you know, some some sites may not be, you know, fully consistent with what their site plans required. you know, trees died and just weren't replaced. I know I look out onto uh this place where the gym is that I go to and I could see the other they get trees that have died and they haven't replaced them. I mean, maybe they plan to, I don't know, but uh I'm just curious, you know, that that there might be an opportunity there for the city if uh if u if there was kind of a better enforcement that perhaps that could fill in a few gaps. Sure. Yeah. And if you do see any uh any properties not meeting our site plan, definitely give me an email and I'll look into it. Absolutely.

Right. And I I know you're by yourself, so it's kind of hard to Yeah. But I'm just kind of curious whether the city uh has any uh has any capacity to take a look on a sample basis perhaps at site plans to see how well we're doing. So, okay. Thanks.

Sure. Uh well and to your point it's important to note that these uh landscape plants provide the canopy at 20 years maturity for these trees. Um so it's possible that within that first 20 years um the tree canopy might not be representative of what's in the plan and what's projected. Okay. So moving along to um another site here. So this similar diagram uh for Madera Falls Church. Um so if you can imagine it's kind of a 90,000 square foot site. Um so each of those squares in that diagram would be about 900 square feet. We'll go through the same exercise again. So again in this property there is no surface parking lots. So we did not trigger the requirements um as list in the zoning ordinance for perimeter parking lots. Um interior is the same way. Um, and then the buffer here is is much smaller and it only yielded 1,400 square ft of tree canopy coverage for this site. Uh, street trees added another about 5,400 square ft of tree canopy coverage. Um, we did have a few other trees planted in sort of the kind of pedestrian area off of the street, uh, which added about 1,200 square feet of, uh, tree canopy, which brought us to a total of about 15,000 square feet of tree canopy coverage for this site, which is only 8% tree canopy coverage. Okay, I'll pass to Charles.

Thanks, Kurt. Uh [clears throat] as you know, as we all know, there are many challenges to urban forests. Um one of them is land development. Um but there's many others including invasive species such as the spotted lantern fly is our newest one. Uh minimal root areas with small streetscape planters uh or reduced streetscape planters opposed to where they naturally grow. The heat island effects and there's many others. Um so this is just a typical SE. Um there's a small buffer planting in the lower right next to the single family home, but you can see the significant tree loss from this project when you compare the left to the right. And the the of course the the idea of these is to get as much building square footage as possible. U but I think we can mix the two.

Uh Oops. Is that Washington? No. Uh Northgate. Yeah, this is Northgate. Oh, Northgate. Yeah. Interesting. Thank you.

Uh so next I'll uh just a typical minor site plan. So this was not special exception. Um but you can see the significant tree loss, mature tree loss, especially along the perimeters on this project. And just shows kind of the the difference in the tree canopies. What's that? Uh that was uh the new Volvo dealership. Well, new the newer one. Yeah.

Absolutely. What is the calculated net loss? We haven't gotten to the net loss numbers yet where we were just kind of uh well for before and after. That's really hard to calculate. Uh these projects aren't required to show the existing tree canopy and then the installed tree canopy. So right now the only data really have I mean we could you know draw squares around it and get get the tree canopy before but we haven't started doing that yet. [clears throat]

get down to this level. So, u just occurs to me that on these uh projects that you've shown,

I wasn't here for the Northgate, but I know on the Volvo um and I think Harris ter is that the other one that you had up um staff recommendation was to approve those. So, I think maybe that underlies part of why you're proposing, you know, that we move forward with this legislation because, you know, on one hand, we say we should do this. On the other hand, whoops, we got a problem with trees. So, I think the legislation or the ordinance updating the ordinance kind of gains some some sense in that context. But not to forget that the staff recommendation was to approve those those projects.

Of course. Yeah. I I'm not saying that these should not be approved and and the point is actually yeah to give me a little bit more muscle as a city arborist when I during my reviews like no we we need to see these and really when special exception comes in like hey we have a minimum you know a code minimum so when you're doing a special project maybe give us a little bit more you know uh but having a base line gives me more more muscle to kind of say now like we need to see these minimums. Yeah, that is certainly a point. All right. Um, so here's just an example of all the completed projects. Um, and there and if you look here on this left column, this is where I really want to focus. Uh, so this is the onsite trees. This uh is not the the trees that were put in the streetscape. Uh yeah, so this is just what is on the site and this is what I really want to focus us on. Um so there's five projects under 10% within the property line. Um and I think with some small adjustments we could have gotten well with some exceptions. Uh Mera is at 3%. That would have taken a significant lift to bring that to 10. But uh bringing all of the the properties that are under 10% up to 10 brings our average if you see down the bottom row the average tree canopy from 11% to 12 to 13%. So just a small change uh for our tree canopy minimums can make a pretty big difference. Those figures don't show the street trees.

It does. Yes, that was the next column. Oh, sorry. Yes. So, um it's the third column. Canopy from street trees only. And then there's the combined. Yeah. Okay. So, the combined averages out to be 17%. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, the bonus is the calculation. They they calculated we're giving them a bonus because they keep native trees in terms of how we count the canopy coverage.

So, the Chesapeake Bay ordinance gives a percentage for planting native trees. Uh city policy has basically been we only plant native trees. So, that's assuming that these are all going to be native trees. Um, but yeah, I mean if if you add everything up, the the last column that is everything with the bonus and the street trees, but I guess my question would be like in terms of mitigating heat island effects or things like that, like the bonus doesn't really matter in that particular concept, right? Uh, to the Ches Bay preservation ordinance, it does, but to your point, like

it doesn't make more trees. It does not make more coverage on the on the site. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Then that that is a little frustration I I have with it since our policy is to be native only. But I I I believe we haven't gone all the way down the rabbit hole, but I believe we're going to follow the we're going to have to give the bonus fairly certain. And that's just another kind of uh argument to to have the 10% minimums on site of the property because if we're already if they're already getting 25% bonus like let's

I was going to say like if they if they have 5% and they get or 7% and they have native 7% all native trees they effectively have 10% right at math but like effectively they're

so like you said Madera the new one founders would have been a big lift to get there. But if it's all they put 4% more native trees on there, then it gets them to the the way we're calculate like is the question the way that and I I've read about the what the city council talked about, but I'm I'm unclear on this particular thing. Is the 10% as a floor some number as a floor in terms of trees inclusive of the bonus that would be uh acquired based on having native trees?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Of course. as we stage one right now discussing states restrictions in our code. Next year we're going to get into what we expect is required the way it's prescribed the way it lives in various documents I think set a much higher bar% today we can probably have a conversation about project limited in our negotiation abilities but moving forward we're trying to establish a much higher bar as you'll see later this following the mechanisms that other jurisdictions rely on beyond just

question about um Brent uh sorry so I think that now that's a change the the street tree counting street trees or not counting street trees so currently forgive me because I probably should know this we do we do count street trees now well we don't count anything there's there's requirement for the special exception. So we counted street trees in here to to paint the full picture. I mean for canopy credit. Now you're saying we don't allow there's no requirement. So we're not really counting any we don't have a canopy credit. Yeah, we don't have any canopy right now at all in the commercial areas. But as part of our assessment though you do.

Well, I mean outside of the buffer but buffers aren't usually street trees. That's between Yeah. certain zones. Uh, and my argument for not counting street trees, like for example, Founders One and Founders Two, they tore down street trees and are just replacing them. So, why should we give credit to them? They took down mature street trees to put up Yeah. I mean, kind of small street trees and it's not on on the subject property,

right? No, it's a policy. I I I totally get it. It's a policy debate in a more urbanized area that's already kind of a constrained site. you know, if we're trying to get to a certain, you know, overall canopy kind of in the city, obviously like, you know, we we we we like to think sight by sight, but ultimately we really are more concerned with like sort of at a wider scale, how much canopy, you know, is in a given area. I mean, ideally, it'd be evenly distributed

everywhere. And sometimes a constrained commercial site is, you know, I say constrained meaning it's going to have by its very nature of being a densely developed urbanized site is not going to have the same capability to provide, you know, the same percentage of canopy like on site all the all the time. It depends. It's like a push and pull, you know, when we're pushing for certain levels of density there. Um, you know, that's, you know, inevitably we may have to, you know, look at things like counting street trees. Um, but I I agree with you. It's the devil's always in the details. It's how do you you make sure those trees are going to survive, soil volumes, all that stuff like you know that um how they're planted in you know in the street. Um anyhow so you're I guess I don't know if I knew that that we don't maybe I did and I forgot that we don't have any requirement now on our in in our commercial areas. I thought we did but maybe we don't. If we don't I guess it's something to think about as a policy decision like whether or not if they're done properly street trees you know provide just as much canopy as you know trees on private property. It's just a matter of making sure they're

installed correctly and maintained. But um any and you know I I always it's kind of a joke I always bring up Fairfax but Fairfax actually recently um looked at that like three or four years ago and actually went the other way. They used to not count street trees in urbanized areas. They always had a 10% canopy requirement. They decided to allow street trees but again subject to like there's a lot of caveats to that. I mean, how it's how it's installed. Um, other other factors. I'm not, you know, I mean, I could point you to what they've done. It might be interesting to look at how it's worked out in the last two or three years in like more urbanized areas like in Tyson's and Reston and, you know, that's kind of why they did it. They were trying to be flexible, you know. Um, but I get it. It's like, yeah, it's kind of a policy question. We should continue to chew on it. Yeah. I think where that's going is and this table is actually a helpful guide in that if we get to a point next year where we're evaluating the role of street trees particularly net new additional trees um what deserves to take credit for um if they're included in the analysis I think the expected number the percentage of tree canopy we would expect most sites to deliver would be higher if street trees for whatever reason are not able to be counted, that percentage would probably go down in terms of our expectation. And I think this table is a good assessment of what numbers are we seeing with past approvals uh with and without street trees and how does that inform perhaps on a more aggressive approach to achieving canopy which no doubt I think on smaller sites we're going to have to have some relief because they're they should not be held to the same standard as an SC site which is kind of starting from scratch and has a lot more flexibility.

Yeah. Also, I'm I'm just kind of curious, Mr. Matus, are you familiar with the concept called urban transact? Yeah.

Yeah. Uh, basically, it's it's an architectural thing where, you know, you kind of have your your densest development in your core downtown and then it kind of gets lighter as as you extend out. And, you know, it strikes me that in your in your absolute densest area, it's going to be 10%. It sounds reasonable, but to go much above that is going to be a challenge. But then question arises, do you do it when you know in your absolute densest area as opposed to you know trying to balance it out with with higher canopy outside of that? Just curious in places like either Fairfax County or Arlington whether they kind of deal with that nuance so that rather than one sizefits-all like you know all commercial has to do this do they vary it based on where it is within the the framework of density that that they allow. I've seen jurisdictions rely on street typologies um and variations in urban environment uh where the number ranges and I think the less urban you are the higher the number is

right but using that logic I've not seen sites go below let's say 15% minimum but go as high as 40% minimum because you have sites that already have garden style apartments heavy tree canopy um and they're well within reach if you just kind of catch this early, plan for it, and work with the applicants to get there. Um, and that range allows you to get to a reasonable number.

That logic aside, I I think the bigger argument you're going to see us make later this year and next year is that what is the role of tree canopy for the city? And do we value that in the same way we value commercial uses, for example? Is that what the city is known for? Is that is that part of our brand? If we believe that tree canopy is part of what makes false church the charming city that it is, then we should be prioritizing much more than we currently have. Some of that lives in the commercial standards and some of it may have to live in the residential ones. And I think with the evidence we're going to come back with, you're going to see where the current concentration of canopy is and where we're seeing the biggest losses. uh and I think the debate in front of us is how much uh of that share uh falls in the commercial side and how much falls in the residential.

Collectively, we're trying to address both

is part of that calculus building out the business plan of or business case of how much commercial or residential space would be lost in order to have a higher percentage of tree canopy. uh in order to have that conversation on like a we're willing to spend x dollar x number of cents on the tax rate in order to have higher treat which is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. I'm just curious like as you think about putting together that conversation is that the way we're thinking about or we think about it in a different way. I think we're thinking about it how we com consider competing trade-offs in terms of the role residential neighborhoods play in maintaining the city brand, the character, the kind of the destination that has become for families and the role that commercial properties play in the economic development driver that they've become. Uh the earlier map I think showing the existing concentration of canopy is is pretty compelling. It's from 2014 I believe. Um and you can already see at that time what the conditions were.

Uh if you look at where we are now, things certainly look a little bit more uh dire in terms of the loss that we've experienced in the last decade or so. So I think what we're trying to do is look ahead to the next decade and what we want to do about that particularly since anytime you lose canopy it is very difficult to get it back. We're not planting forests. we not have just plain sites willing to, you know, not develop and instead just provide canopy. Although there are examples where we've acquired sites to expand park space. Uh but if you think about just what goes into like 1% canopy loss for the city, how many square feet is that? How many trees you would have to plant to make that up? There's an argument to be made that once it's lost, you can't get it back. Uh so I think we're being very mindful of what are the trends we're experiencing particularly with the development that's happened and really the patterns we're seeing in the residential neighborhoods and then how do we kind of reassess and recalculate what needs to happen in the commercial areas.

Yeah. I mean, I think that's a very valid point to to bring up. And I think the thing that would be helpful for me is understanding like if we looked at Founders Store 2 and we said, "We're going to make it x% smaller so that it can fit 10% tree canopy, not without the botus, not but like 10% tree canopy. What does that site look like? And how much how many fewer apartments are there? How many fewer restaurants are there? Um how like the same with the T-zones, right? Like we we built T-zones. It's more hardscape. It's more impervious places because the buildings are bigger. How many fewer apartment or town homes will we need there? Just because I think that gives us an apples to apples type of conversation to have like not not against what you're saying. I just think it would be easier to understand uh easier for me to understand like

we are we are mandating the max allowable for T-zones in terms of tree canopy just FYI 15%. Right. Yeah. And if I may add to that, u so when you have a project coming in like a developer saying, "Hey, we're going to develop this land." If they know before they get to their drawing board, what we expect for tree canopy, they can better design that building uh to to fit the space. Yeah. I would love nothing more for Joe Muffler to like have said, "I'm going to put trees here on this corner than um another um laser spa or something like that." But like I think the question I have is like the city has also made its decision that we're going to lower the tax rate and we're going to do it through commercial development.

I think that it is a there is a fixed amount of space and it's a it's a zero sumish type of game like we either build more like buildings or we don't and I think that trying to understand those questions is are we willing to pay 0.01 cents more on the tax rate to have more trees? I think I wouldn't say yes, but I think that's the the question I'd like to understand.

Yeah, there are a lot of competing interests and I agree that trees are part of the city's brand. Um, I think also as planning commissioners, we need to be thinking about like planning for the future 50 years from now. That the where we can expect a lot more heat, right? And so, how are we equipping the city to be resilient in that potentially much warmer future that we're all headed towards? And trees are a big part of that. Ironically, I mean, I'm looking at the map. I mean, one maybe potential bright spot is, you know, Gordon Road is almost, you know, completely devoid. So, even any requirement, forest, right? Forget everything else.

Any requirement there, you know, will be an improvement even if even with a very dense urban development. So, I mean, you know, in that sense, right? I mean, we can't lose sight of that, too. But, yeah, I think also it's important, right? It's like I mean we're we're concerned about I guess sort of the microclimate of like you know you know what Tree Canopy does in the urban area but again I think we have to like and maybe we've already done this again forgive me I just you know we having a citywide goal or like a you know breaking the city up and having like a goal for percentage of total coverage and whether that's you know going to be more you know inevitably some of it's going to be more heavily concentrated in the residential areas where there's more room for trees. I mean, I think, you know, as far as goal setting, you know, I think there's some benefit to that. I mean, I think it's kind of right. It would be if there was a forest of trees next behind, you know, Founders Row and Founders Row had no trees. I mean, from a kind of an environmental perspective, it still provides a benefit. Uh, but I get it as far as like, you know, temp, you know, hotter environment and less shade. I mean, there's, you know, there's the trees play a role even in even in a very dense development. So, but yeah, I think we need to look at it carefully because um, as Mr. Pinsky was saying, you know, it's right we have a limited area for commercial development and and it's always a balancing act and you know in those areas we've kind of you know our planning for you know essentially the last number of years and if not decades has been to concentrate less green space there knowing that you know we're trying to have more more development. Um so anyhow but some you know you but there's no reason why we can't have more than we have now. We're telling we have no tree canopy requirement. We certainly can can have more than, you know, have some have some on these urban sites. It's just a matter of how we do it. And that's also gets back to like all right, you know, there some of it's in the right of way, you know, maybe that's okay. Um, you know, because there's still trees, they still count. The tree doesn't know if it's on public or private property. Um so anyhow

and I think to staff's credit you know the list of approved projects you know they're simply documenting that even with simply effective negotiation you can get to 15 20 even 25% canopy as several sites have been able to. So I think the proof of concept is there where on small commercial sites and large SC projects uh you can reach those levels of canopy and still have an economically viable project that's not foregoing density or units simply to meet this objective. Um I think what we're trying to do is look at consistently can we do better than that. Um and you know what are the consequences and trade-offs of doing that? Um, and I think that's going to be some of the additional analysis ahead of us next year since the the initial phase of this, the 10% is is already kind of embedded in the products that we've been getting. So, uh, I don't think the 10% is the controversial part. It's anything above that.

I've heard you say that before, so that's helpful to continue to hear. I think I don't have a lot to add from what has already been said, but uh what you just said, not foregoing density or units to advance, you know, the tree canopy seems like that's the holy grail we're trying to reach for. And I mean, I've been involved, I guess, in eight or 10 of those 14 15 items. And in every case, yeah, we didn't really have a specific number because we didn't have a number. Uh but in every case we always were negotiating you know about more units, more density so we could do more affordable you know we give more to the schools or you know that that conversation happens with every single development and there are some places in town that are better suited to I would argue density and [clears throat] less tree canopy uh simply because of you you know, their location right on one of the major corridors. Um, I don't know. That's one perspective. I did want to ask question, Charles, about what you said about the size of the trees that are taken down and how long it takes to uh recover from that basically because that is something you hear a lot of folks, oh gosh, it's so terrible to see that tree go. But if you have a, you know, half ccentury perspective, I mean, just look at the old postcards of false church. We've we've planted, grazed, torn down, and planted and raised and grown up at least two or three cycles since we became a town in the late 1800s. And I while I understand that people here today, you know, don't necessarily think about what it's going to be like 50 years from now. In fact, there are people who have lived here 50 years and have seen that, you know. So is there I

mean is there something we should be doing differently in that regard? Should we require uh the trees that we are asking to be planted to be bigger? I mean there's money involved in that. There's logistics involved in that. But that's that could be part of the negotiations if you want trees that don't take 20 years to get to be significant. I I guess I would like not tonight but I would like to get some perspective from the arbor arborist experts on what's involved because you know I understand that the trees that get planted in most of these new developments are pretty modest looking but you know they're like the tree that I just cut down at my dad's house you know which was planted 60 years ago and was tall as as I was back then and over those 60 years became this massive oak tree which finally had to be taken down because it was falling on the house.

And that's that was that's a success story. You know, I did my job during my time here to let that tree get from a sapling to a towering tree and now it's all got to start over again. That's basically what what position we're in, too. All right. Thank you.

All right. I just have a couple more. um slides here to show. Um so, uh yeah, single family homes aren't immune um to development. Uh you know, I know I went through a lot of commercial, but it's where we really found the gap, but I just want to give uh some examples of single family homes and the challenges we face there as well. So, here you can see this was one lot that was subdivided into four homes here and that that was a really big change. Um um it's on East Broad Street. Mhm. Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

But we're still we're continuing to evaluate the impact of residential development. Uh that's going to be part of our our next evaluation, our next phase of of analysis is are how well are we doing on residential? But we just found such this big gap in the commercial side that we're we're not basically having any requirements and it's been a challenge over the years to kind of get leverage because when the developer comes and they have their footprint of the building, it's really hard to change that footprint. Um but so I just want to give you in conclusion. Um we're going to recommend uh 10% canopy coverage in the city code for on-site trees when the zoning districts that don't have any minimums. Uh that's that's kind of where we're at the moment and um happy to answer any more additional questions that may have or

we had a lot of discussion already. Thank you for humoring us. Sorry to interrupt your presentation. No, no, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. No, there's a lot of big questions I think related to um Can I ask can I ask can I ask one question before we leave the last screen? Um back to the residential. Uh

yeah, could you go back one? I understand what you're saying. Obviously, we've got nothing and so let's get something for commercial. But, you know, the public's perception of developments in their neighborhoods that do take down, you know, the whole lot of everything does seem like a driving force uh behind the anxiety of the loss of tree canopy. And uh it would be helpful, I think, for everybody to know what we're allowed to do legally on private property, what we might aspirationally ask the legislature to give us more authority to expand if that was possible, particularly in the new political climate in Richmond, uh sooner rather than later because, you know, the political climate can change

and I would encourage us because you do hear so many people talk about, you know, oh gosh, the beautiful tree that was next to that little house that got torn down. Why did the whole thing have to go? And there's reasons. Some some are rooted in law and some are just rooted in economics. But I I would encourage us to have a conversation that includes that. uh if you can give us anything just in the way of a guidance as a starter on what council might uh do about residential and and to close that thought out um education about you know your trees and the health of them. I mean not to pick on my neighbors but you know when they moved in and expanded the little house that was like behind next door first thing he did was cut down all the trees and you know, they looked okay to me. I had to rake the leaves every fall, but you know, they're beautiful trees, but their preference as an owner was, you know, I don't know, they were concerned about tree limbs falling or whatever. And um there wasn't really any recourse that I had. I couldn't go point to something and say, "No, that tree is okay." Or go talk to somebody and get a opinion about whether that tree's got another 20 years left in it before it's going to start needing to be taken down at the end of its natural life. If we could provide that sort of information, somehow that might mitigate some of the tree takeown that that happens almost automatically now with any kind of residential development on any size lot. [snorts] Yeah, residential lots are very challenging. I deal with those on a daily basis. Uh I do provide anybody that calls me any information I possibly

can guide them to uh without overstepping my legal balance. But yeah, I want to make sure you have a chance to weigh in Miss Norman and Miss Freedellanders online. But yeah, please.

Okay. Okay. Uh Sharon, did you wanna did you have any comments? I just I don't want to forget about you. Now,

we are including everything within the site, even if it's on an above ground courtyard, if it uh meets minimum soil volumes, uh anything any any tree on the property. I have really Right. That was Otherwise,

Um, so that hasn't really been uh addressed here kind of other means of of specifically heat island effect. Um, we've been looking at trees pretty holistically as a combination of you mentioned shade but also water retention, air filtration, um, human benefits on top of that. Um so something like uh urban heat island effect um might play into um some of the um sort of green building aspects we get out of special exception projects. Um for example, we have [clears throat] uh some green roofs on some recent projects that help alleviate urban heat island effect. Um but the this focus has has been trees and um the right like the the state law that we've been looking at here specifically doesn't have any kind of tradeoffs for urban heat island or any of the other sort of benefits like it doesn't like you know shade structures. It doesn't say you know that's a good substitute either. Um, but it's a great point because I would agree that if we can maximize um, you know, urban heat and sort of benefits in the city, I think that would be a go a long way um, for kind of getting to what we've been talking about tonight, which is the perfect kind of combination of all the benefits of trees and then everything you get out of out of a fully developed site. I have a question about that actually because I thought I just saw something from in some city communication. about how we are planting younger trees

because they establish their roots better. So, what is the best practice in terms of the maturity of the tree? That is a great question that I could talk to you all night about. Uh, but I will try to keep it brief. Um, so for some of these larger projects, we are requiring 3-in caliper trees and and those are planted with machines. They're they probably weigh every bit of a,000 pounds. Um, so if you talk to an arborist, uh, those trees are going to take longer to establish, but once they get established, they're already a lot bigger. Now, when we go to plant trees, uh, let's say like, uh, a couple years ago, I went and planted 750 saplings in the forest,

right? Those take I mean, we basically put a hole in the ground, stuck a tree in it, closed it up, threw some water on it. That's it. That's all you have to do. Mhm. For a big tree like that, you're going to have to water that for well, it's in an Most of them are in a streetscape with irrigation, but those need constant care and watering to make sure they're getting enough water, but once they get established, they they're usually pretty good. So, it it's there's a trade-off. The bigger the tree, the more care you need initially, but the faster you get to that the canopy coverage that you're seeking. When you say needs more care, do you have a rough timeline for how much is more care?

Uh I'll just speak from my experience. Uh I haven't really planted trees that big, but uh in the past during the neighbor tree program, we planted one and a half to two inch caliber trees. We watered them for two years after just to make sure they got established. Now, if I were planting three to 4 inch trees, um actually I did that in one project uh and I'm uh didn't work out for a number of different reasons than water, but uh we we plan to water them for three to four years.

So, I know the ones that we planted on Hillwood initially with the near the multimodal plaza, those initially failed and had to be replanted, but I think there was some other reason for that. It wasn't like a water thing. It was something that nursery sent us a bad batch of trees or something like that. Is that right? I don't recall the exact reason, but yeah, there was some mixed in. They were they were definitely a larger Yeah. Um I know I have other questions, but I want to give everybody else.

Just one other question. Um I noticed that the Founders Row the on-site uh canopy excluding street trees was was 5%. U that site obviously had a very large underground parking garage which I'm sure played into the reason why it's only 5% or so. As you go through your analysis, would you be working with um I don't know maybe a developer, architecture, somebody to say now is it possible to have rearranged or redesigned that project to get at least the 10% or maybe even higher? Um, I'm just kind of wondering how we how we deal with a site like that that uh has such a large underground parking garage. I I I don't think we can we'll be able to go to that extent um for a number of reasons, but kind of coming uh back like I commented before, if they know what they're expected before they start drawing their plan, putting their building footprint, um they're going to know it's like, okay, we need at least, you know, six feet of soil here. So, do we go a little bit deeper? Do we, you know, how do we do that? Um, I think that's going to be on the designers and architects to to figure out, but I do think it's possible if this was for a single family. Um, I did ask the the builder, they came to me and said, "Hey, this neighbor's really upset. I'm possibly going to kill their tree. Like, can you give me some advice?" I was like, "Oh, yeah. Well, can you move the house 10 feet back and, you know, move the driveway to this side?" And they just right there on that phone call said, "Oh, yeah. We can do that. No problem." So, I I really want the the folks coming in to to find the ways to do it, right? Because the the people coming in here building these large buildings, they're real smart folks, right? Like let's not pretend they're not. Uh so I I think

just having a expectation set forward, they're just going to make a better product. I think in the end I say the 10% is I don't think should be considered a heavy lift. Uh where we go beyond that is maybe a more complicated discussion but uh well and for founders one most of that's a buffer. So yeah the along the St. James property there. So they were required to put that in right like they're not complaining or saying oh my gosh the financials aren't going to work out because we need to put this buffer in because that's an expectation set up from the beginning. Thanks.

Can I add something too there? the um so founders row was an example where it was only 5% um right in that far left column that we looked at earlier. Um, so on-site tree canopy excluding street trees. There were some others in there that went above 10% like wind was at 17%. Uh, Broaden Washington at 16%. Um, could you share that again? Uh, the table. It's just helpful. It's a good chart. Thank you.

Um, and then Pearson Square 13% with a bunch of others kind of hovering around 10. Um, so it's certainly possible and I usually from this um, exercise and also just existing in the city, it's usually in those buffer areas in between um you know the development and then usually a residential zone. Um there's a photo here on the slide Charles if you go to that slide there with the Broad Washington project there. Yeah, right there. So if you see there, that picture on the right is from behind the broad Washington building, which has no surface parking, but the buffer requirements kicked in to have that massive kind of buffer zone, which ended up being a really beautiful and kind of well-designed um amenity,

right? Um and then if you do go to the um the chart at the bottom with the other ones,

uh there's that backup. It was a uh it's true that that founders was only a 5% but I I think with um all those other projects proven that you can go even further above 10% I think it would be feasible on almost all of the you know special perception lots to get to get to that number. Um and the other thing that I'll point out is um something that came up at the city council meeting. Um there's a question about about the buff about the 10% minimum and it kind of came to a good point that it's really to cover gaps in in the uh development kind of environment we live in. Right? So all those other projects that are getting your 17 or 16% will still get those because the buffer requirements are just because it's good development. Um this will really just pick up the ones that are below that 10% and address those gaps. Just one other more of like again another comment is like the other sort of valve that you're playing with on these things is the bonuses too, right? I mean whether or not because in our code currently and that's common everywhere is you know you can get it's 10% but some trees you know get a bonus if they meet certain criteria if they're and you know that's again that's something I believe that the city has I don't know how much the state code limits us in that or not but the ability to how much we give or don't give a bonus to get to the 10% is the other way too that we kind of you know you kind of play with it to get more you know um so and I think you me I think the report alludes to that a little bit in there but you know I don't know if you've gotten to that point yet too where you you know we developed like a policy on how much we would allow commercial sites to utilize some of those bonuses. Have you thought about that yet? You probably have thought about it. I mean is it

uh well so this phase is really just data gathering and we're trying to get feedback to see kind of where what rabbit holes we need to chase and what leads and things like that. I mean we've certainly considered a lot of different things just through conversation but uh nothing real solid at this point. Okay. Yeah. Obviously that's you know you're familiar with that. So that's something that you know as you're developing it further

is a way also to sort of like you know get it to work and be more feasible because obviously if you find you know if we make the restrictions you know we all love trees but if we put the restrictions at something at a point where they couldn't really meet it everyone would be coming and asking for waiverss and modifications that's also not what we want. and the bonuses, you know, if you're too lenient, you know, you wind up getting less a lot less fewer trees, you know, in total. So, it's like a again, it's a give and take, but um something that probably needs to be part of it. I know landscape architects and engineers are really good at playing the game and get, you know, finding a way to meet it with the bonuses and you got your review of the plans, you know. Um, but so yeah, so it's it's important that we craft it in a way that, you know, sort of acknowledges that it allows some ability to be creative and get credit for something that deserves it but not, you know, but still, you know, make sure we're getting what we're what we expect, but not without being too strict as well because the sites need flexibility. these urban sites just need need it in order to I think still be able to be developed the way we want it per the other goals the city has. Just to add to that, part of the challenge in kind of retroactively assessing the impact of where we want to go, where we would like to end up in terms of tree canopy to previously approved project is that the fact that we were asking or we could not ask or expect or require a certain percentage from the very beginning. when these applicants come in maybe have a conceptual idea more refined application and the you know finalized plans is that they were never in most cases forced to I think push the envelope in terms of creativity and what's really feasible. So what we're looking at is really the best we could do absent of a requirement. Um, and if we actually have targets and goals where we like to end up, uh, part of what will have to happen is that we're not asking for those numbers. We're asking for something more aggressive knowing that some flexibility would

actually have to be embedded in that as we work with uh applicants teams in uh good faith I would say to make sure that when necessary and um earned that flexibility can be provided but I cannot see any scenario where we would accept some or support something below 10%. Uh some of these sites are so challenging and with bonuses, with street trees, they've documented that it's it's usually possible. So I I struggle to imagine the hardship on any property not to get to 10%. Um and there may be a time where we may also have a conversation about parking. Uh some of these lots that require on surf surface parking to meet minimums that they may not even need because the market actually calls for a lower number. were utilizing spaces that were forcing applicants to deliver in lie of street trees or other on-site trees that could have easily exceeded this, you know, minimum. Uh so that might be some give and go in terms of where we have modifications and waiverss. Do we absolutely need all that parking where maybe even three or four spaces could give us two trees?

Well, the other variable is height, too. We saw that on Quint. One of the reasons we got such a high percentage of trees is because they could build a higher. They left a lot of open land, which is what the city wanted, but in exchange for that, they had to have a taller building. So, yeah. And just to to real quick, just to clarify, it's 10% you referred to uh 10% counting, I think, uh street trees and on-site, but the recommendation from staff is 10% on-site. Is that right?

Yeah. Okay. And if I repeated back what you were saying, it's effectively that Madera could have hit 10% if they had known that was a requirement at the beginning when they brought it, but then they they bring their initial idea and now we're asking them to change it to add trees and that becomes a whole different type of conversation than I know I got to have 10% in here. Good landscape designers I think can actually push the envelope much further. founders row. I mean that the planter boxes in in on their own I think limit what type of size trees you can put in there. So internal to the site that was a strategic decision which may have solved some issues but prevented additional canopy from even being possible because those trees can only grow so big. You can't plant a mature tree in a planter box that small.

So that decision alone already reduced um the potential for that site which is where we ended up with the 5%. Yeah. Um, sorry. I also Sharon had her hand up a while ago. It went down, but I don't, do you have a a comment or a question? Okay, keep talking.

Danny, do you have any other comments? Okay, I have a few questions. Um, if you'll humor me. So, one thing, one we're looking at this table, which I think is really helpful. Um, one thing that struck me is that like these are all different size sites and so that 3% number for the the Modera project has like a bigger impact for the city because it's a larger site, right? And so I think I don't know if there's a way to like think about that um as you're pulling these numbers. It's it's it's like I'm glad that we're sort of averaging out these percentages, but also sort of like what is the actual physical space that we are either gaining or losing, I think is something to think to consider. Um, a couple other questions. Uh, I think you re are recommending that we apply the 10% requirement to the OD district and I was curious about that because that's right where we're sitting. I'm kind of wondering should we be making an example of requiring a higher percent in OD. I know there are other areas that are also OD, but um, the official design district is primarily city hall, right? And the city hall campus

and the false church. And so, can we be aiming or should we be aiming for a higher number in that district? Well, I I think if it was up to us, we'd be asking for 30 or 40%. Um 10% is simply the the maximum the state will allow us to ask. Okay. Even though it's not like a commercial area, is that is that 10% limit for commercial areas or anything that's non? I believe it's commercial. Residential has a different one. Correct. Because this is not zone commercial though, right? Like this not a business. official design. It's not a commercial district, is it? I don't I should probably know this, but I do not. Yeah, I'm thinking of the attachment on the last page of the report where I think we've updated the table there.

I think the state code calls it non-residential um Okay. zones. So, if it's non-residential, then it's Yeah, this is definitely that different.

Okay. Thank you. Um, a couple other questions. What kinds of policy documents are like other localities using to achieve a higher percentage? You you referred to that in the staff doc. I'm just curious like what what are some examples that you're seeing from other localities. Not not I'm not asking about the 10%. I'm I'm in support of the the 10% recommendation as well acknowledging all of the complexities and the trade-offs that we have to work through. But like if we're aiming for higher than that, like how do we how do we incentivize it? Uh so this will become clear as as we come back with a fuller report on this. But for example in Alexandria they have just a full um document called the landscape requirements and you can read through it. It's it's like a 100 pages of um really detailed requirements for their landscape. And for us um we kind of have the the streetscape requirements but um it doesn't really fully address the the problem as sort of head-on as those landscape requirements do. Um, and then in Alexandria, there's a couple of uh small area plans that sort of address the issue. Um, and kind of through policy are able to go above 10%.

Okay.

It kind of comes down to the practice of negotiating and ultimately reviewing SE and site plan proposals. Um and I kind of some of the battle wounds of dealing with land use attorneys and their design teams in terms of which documents are referenced in those conversations. We get to the voluntary concessions and final negotiations. you know, comp plan elements, small area plans, streetscape standards, any document like that that enables an applicant to demonstrate why they should be off the hook or perhaps that requirement doesn't apply in this case, that's something that next year we have to evaluate because if those documents continue to either be silent or require a less stringent requirement, that puts us at a disadvantage and kind of waters down the overall goal that we're trying to achieve. Um, so either changing the role those documents play in the SC process or verifying that all of our documents speak the same language and have clarity in terms of our new elevated expectation.

Yeah. So we're baking trees as sort of like a core part of false church city's identity into all of those documents. That's the that's right. And I think another example, I think there's only like two small area plans, the east and and west end. I think that actually speak to a specific tree canopy requirement. I think it's like 15% if I'm not wrong. Is that a goal or a requirement? A goal. Target. It's not a requirement. Um, and there's some area plans that I think don't mention it at all. Um, but that's partly because when they were created, um, and I think we're at a point where bofilic design, canopy, right? Um,

heat island effects, those are kind of emerging issues that we just need to address and and find a way where they can live in our documents as we gradually update them. recognize that we can't change every single document in one year. No. Yeah. But as we're updating them, keeping that in mind, I think that's smart.

Um, you mentioned, you know, shade bylic design, green roofs, and it could those things be like a an emergency valve on, you know, sites that like really cannot comply with this 10% onsite like is there room for negotiation there or are we really do we really think like it anybody should be able to comply with that? I think everybody should comply. Okay. Thank you. 10% is uh if you ask people that really care about this, 10% is laughable. Is too small. We should not even be having a conversation about 10%.

Yeah. Um Okay. And then another question on uh sort of like you know achieving that that higher number like are you are you sort of contemplating prioritizing trees more in the SE criteria is that something that is sort of being discussed because I I know that's a complex you know like what are we evaluating these different projects on I know we have these like primary criteria that are the three things that we really care about and then all these secondary criterias and I think trees are in there and so like if we really want that to be the message to developers that we value trees like we could elevate it or have that discussion. It's probably a can of worms.

It will be and we'll get through it. But um I I think that's looking ahead to next year that's going to be the conversation we'll need to have and elevating this as a priority. What does it do to other priorities? Yeah, it's a trade-off. I don't think we're going to end up with a clean and convenient formula that says on every given site we can dictate, you know, if affordable housing kind of wins the competition over canopy or sustainability wins, you know, over both, it's kind of we need it all. Yeah.

Right. So, I I think we'll find a way to get there, but it does have to be a debate about other objectives that every single site may be asked to address.

Yeah. One other observation I had when I was looking at this table is like I think anecdotally the least liked building is the Modera like that building and it's at the bottom of the list right 3%. So like there's been an out there's there the reaction from the residents to that building. I think there are other reasons why people don't really in particular really don't like that building, but um that might be a big part of it. It's the lack of trees. Trees make for like much more attractive spaces and we are sort of like curating the public space that all of our residents are spending time in. And so we need to make those places um livable, attractive, nice to be in, safe, all of those things. Trees are a big part of that.

I think it also gets into an equity issue where We want we don't want to end up in an environment where renters who as of our latest counts make up 45% of the population here that they are not able to enjoy the benefits of tree canopy that only homeowners can live benefits. Yeah. So, I think we're in a position to strategically kind of inform and uh impact that environment uh and maybe have a small change to make sure that at least we're doing what we can in the context of other priorities that are placed on commercial sites that the residential neighborhoods don't really have to deal with. So, yeah. You can I break in?

Go ahead. I'm done. Is Madera the founders too building? Yeah. [clears throat]

What would the percentage of canopy be if along Ellison Street instead of the lawn that ended up there, we had required that that be planted with trees because that was just, you know, what they recommended and we like the look of it, frankly. And I think actually it turned out very well. I don't have that exact number off the top of my head. Uh but I can say each tree would have been about uh counted for about 275 square feet. So if you put what four or five trees there, I mean that's another um what four trees we apologies about just over a thousand. Um

let's see what our charts bumping the percentage up to what? Yeah, it would have been small, but I think it would have it would have really improved the Ellison Street side uh to have road trees. Were trees not discussed for that uh little park area or was there some reason that we couldn't do them? I don't Well, there there are a couple of trees at the corner of Southwest and and Ellison.

Okay. My recollection is again we were so focused on affordable housing as the marquee feature of that building along with all the other things but that in particular that we did not dwell on trees and I'm not sure there was an understanding or let me put it positively there could be a greater understanding that you know if choosing between lawn and tree you all would prefer tree

which is not what I would prefer But, you know, I like the way it looks, the way it turned out. But I I can understand how you could have an intelligent discussion about that. And yeah, we should have I should know the answer to that. Like, oh yeah, we talked about that and we decided that thought there was a storm water.

Yeah, I mean there are other factors involved. Whatever. Anyway, uh leads me to one other question which is is there uh the function of trees as storm water management tools? uh is mentioned I think on your very first slide. Is there any comparable chart to uh the one that's up now on what the under underground capture devices are for each of these developments so that we could answer that other public question of you know oh there's you know runoff from that development. It's like no in fact there's actually less runoff. Well, I don't believe that because they cut all the trees down. Well, trees are not the only element of storm water management in modern construction. And as far as I I don't know if if development services has access to numbers that would show that there's an underground activity that you know captures, holds and releases over time, you know, storm water events. Is that information available to you all from somebody? Uh so I don't deal with storm water directly but I can answer some of these questions uh or partially answer I suppose. Um depending on when the storm water code changed uh I believe current projects cannot release more water post development than pre-development

right uh all developments have to show that in some degree. Um now I'm sure uh founders one and two I'm sure that those were fall under that law but yeah they they have to show that on their site plan. Yeah that is publicly available information right? Yeah. Yeah. may be unnecessarily exhaustive to although it would be kind of interesting because my my perception would be that you know the Broadway we didn't have ourselves together enough to require a big underwater capture

and so they've always had issues related to their location right on top of a spring um and uh some of the other newer developments yeah we ought to be able to show at any rate and explaining all this to the public that's component that's worth, you know, making the public aware of because it does have some storm water mitigation impact. [snorts] Yeah, one of the benefits of trees. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I know we're running a little behind. Um,

reminds me of the kid who was the youth rep on the tree commission one time and he said after a year of sitting through these meetings, he said, "I never knew so many people could talk so much about trees." [laughter] A lot to say about them. Um, any other questions or comments? Miss Norman, you're you're good. Thank you for joining us. Yeah. Okay, Mr. Stevens. Okay, great. Well, thank you both so much for all of the research that you're done. So, um, when is this coming back to us? Sometime next year, I think is the plan that you said at the top. You're you're doing more research, more date

in November. Oh, okay. busy month of our data analysis. The week after

in early December, correct? and the but the recommendation is not changing. Okay.

You got us got us for a public hearing on the 17th of December.

Yeah, that would be better. Yeah, great. Okay, thank you both very much for the presentation, for answering all of our questions, and for all the work. Comes up, uh, got my email.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you. All right. Well, that takes us to Oh, and Miss Norman, thank you for joining us. Appreciate it. Uh, so that takes us to um our next work session item, which is zoning cleanups. I'm sorry that we're running behind, Jack. Not quite. We got uh six minutes. We had a we had a lot to say about about trees, so yeah, that's okay. Um, bye. Thanks.

Yep. Item 7B tonight, yeah, is a a work session on three cleanup items. Um, and these are true cleanup items. Um, meant to clarify meeting where ambiguity has been identified in the course of administering the zoning ordinance. Uh, remove obsolete language. uh in this case an obsolete code section uh and to otherwise increase clarity. So the uh three items uh the first involves the halfstory definition. Um the second one I'll cover is uh the antenna ordinance and then lastly uh the obsolete code section is section 48 uh 1104 which is uh a single line So regarding the halfstory definition, uh the halfstory definition of course relates to you know the measurement of of buildings uh and is currently in conflict with the uh recently updated accessory dwelling ordinance. Um the halfstory definition actually um discusses when a um half story is considered a full story if the person living in there is not your janitor. So, uh, staff recommends, uh, removing that clause from the halfstory definition because it is in conflict with the, um, the recently updated accessory dwelling ordinance. And so this this last language mean that this is not important, but like does the old language mean that if a half story was lived in by a janitor janitor, then it was considered a full story?

Uh, it is the opposite. If if if I'm reading it right, uh if it's um it's a halfstory um if it's occupied by someone other than a janitor or other employee of his family unit or talk about domestic like employees versus regular. In fact, take us down a rabbit hole that's unnecessary. I just it was curiosity.

I wonder intended to be used to allow commercial

all these wealthy [snorts] uh ancestors here. Yeah. Well, weird commercial if you lived lived above a janitor, but it's still not applicable to current state. It made me it made me wonder when when this was written like what do you know how old um like the original code when the original code was it like does it date back to the founding of the city? We can look back in Munichode. It has the reference dates for every time each section was updated. The 40s. Yeah, because this seems 40s.

Okay. Okay. This seems older. Yeah. Uh I mean it it would take some digging because obviously the uh computers didn't exist back then, so it wouldn't have that digital trace. But I mean zoning only dates to what, like the early 1900s? Yeah. Virginia. Yeah. So yeah, I mean it it'd be an interesting research project to see when the half story definition was introduced. So yeah.

Um but anyway, in in terms of the the cleanup, um it would just be removing this second part of the definition. And so the definition would would be purely about um you know the the structure of the wall not who's living in it.

Right. Correct. And the the draft code is uh at the end of this report if um anyone's interested in that. So, regarding the antenna ordinance, uh now we do have uh this was last amended in 1986 uh before there were um several different types of um common antennas. Uh and so our ordinance uh specifies in the antenna uh ordinance that it relates um particularly to um television and and radio antennas. Um but the the most common type that the city sees applications for are telecommunications specifically. So the cleanup is um getting rid of, you know, uh wherever antennas are are mentioned, it's typically preceded by the specific kind of antennas. Uh and so the cleanup item is just removing that those descriptors and just having antenna. Uh and a um definition has been added in the definition section uh of the ordinance to describe what an antenna is considered. And that would include all the kind of operating equipment um used to um for the antenna to function. So uh there's several uh kind of technical terms that uh the zoning administrators included in there that she sees and deals with on on a regular basis for for these kind of applications.

Thinking ahead a little bit, it's kind of off the charts here, but I don't know if you've heard of induction charging for electric vehicles. That's where you can do it uh without a chord. You know, it kind of does it with radio waves.

Uh I don't know if this would anticipate that in the future at some point if it's uh in other words, is the definition of antenna kind of very precise or you know very it would exclude a lot of other things. Maybe it's not important for that now, but I could see given the uh widespread use of Bluetooth and other things like that that possibly other things could be captured by by this at some point depending on how it's written. We can um I'm happy to um go go to the definition that that we've included and we we could take a look at that. Yeah, I'm probably pushing it too far. [laughter]

Is like our do we have like is there another part of the code that we're more like where it regulates like cell cell antennas more detailed or is this it? Do we have anything like that for like collocations and we have any other information in the or sections of the ordinance that speak to that? I believe this is it. Um and the so there's just one section of the ordinance but um the the ordinance itself has several sections. Uh that's six or or seven. Uh so talks about yeah how antennas are um

regulated. Um but again it's it really kind of uh this may be something that to your to your point um Mr. Kraner may need to be updated more uh thoroughly. U but this cleanup item the scope is is just broadening it to include all antenna types. I mean, how they were getting taller buildings in the city like, you know, the chance that someone may want to He had some, you know, sell antennas to fix a dead spot somewhere is more I'm surprised. Yeah, surprised. I guess it hasn't come up before. Maybe we didn't have tall enough structures people weren't interested. I mean, I'm surprised we didn't ever get an application for a for a tower or monopole or something. Have we ever seen anything like that? Do we do we have one in? Yeah, there's one over there.

We have a monopole or flat, you know, like when they hide is there's that lot over there. There's the Oh, yeah. How do we regulate that? Is that in this section? Uh, I assume it would be size and number grounded. Um, every antenna requires a special use permit. Uh, so there's no byite uh antenna installations. Um, okay. There's different um there's different uh allowances I think based on like the signal like there's language in there like if um a homeowner wanted to put or you know site their antenna for

their TV they had to prove um that the signal uh was such that it it would not allow their TV to work. Um there's sort of some archaic language that was a loophole. I wonder if that's how that thing got built because this is talks about satellite and television. I wonder if when that monopole got built if they just somehow the zoning should say well it's not you don't need a special permit you can just do it. Sure. I mean depending on when that went up too because this was last amended like I said in ' 86. Um and and I don't know the extent of those updates when when that happened. So it could be that the ordinance was substantially written in ' 86 and maybe that went up before. I

mean that sensus is good and that it closes that loophole although it's very restrictive. So like right it talks about nothing can be taller than Yeah, you know 12 feet. Um oh the diameter should not exceed 12 feet. No ground mounted 10 feet. No ground mounted antenna can exceed 10 feet. So that would like pretty much preclude a monopole. Yeah, I was gonna say that's not that. So anyhow, well, yeah, I mean, I know this is a cleanup and we're not looking to like do a, you know, the wholesale, you know, new part of the ordinance, but, you know, that may trigger that. Okay. I assume the 5G antennas for the telecommunications are excluded from this, right? Uh, this this would include all all antenna types.

So, it would include that. Okay. Because I think that that don't they put the antennas for those on the polls? Um I don't know the particulars, right? Um like on Dominion poles. I mean Yeah. Sometimes they have like smaller, right? Like at like Brett, those have a very limited coverage area because they're low to the ground, right? Yeah. So telecommunications, right, are are the most common type now, right? But they're not specifically because the ordinance is so specific in the types of satellites it's dealing with now. It's it's are the zoning administrators having you know similar conversations with applicants that this you know would apply to all um any antenna. This now just says any antenna. Yes. Covered by this thing.

Yeah. So like we can go down. Do we have a definition of the word antenna? Yeah. I [snorts] think that's what that's what you're bringing up. So Aikita has to consider each application for an antenna individually. Yeah. So every every application goes to the BCA for special use permit. Even like the corporate place, I mean down in Tennessee, my own home place, they did not have that requirement. And all of a sudden, I went there one day and there's this massive pole in the middle of the yard and it's there to support the internet

for the neighborhood because that would require special use permit. That would not that would require special use permit here. So, yeah. So if Founders Row wanted to put a 5G or self cell antenna on top of the building or I wanted to add a satellite dish to my house, they both go through this. Yes, correct. That's my understanding. Okay. And the definition here um includes any similar equipment used for transmission and reception of electromagnetic signals. Does that cover the charging you were talking about? It probably does. Yeah.

Uh, and so yeah, there's several different types here. Transmitted, received radio, television, cellular data, or other wireless communication signals. So that would all be captured under the antenna ordinance. That's a dumb question. Electromagnetic signals include microwave signals. Are we looping in microwaves this? Um, I assume so. Um, a 10 foot tall microwave or any not a microwave, but it does produce microw electromagnetic signals. Yeah.

Uh, I can make a point to uh follow up on that. If we need to specifically include that in the definition, we can I look does not include microwaves. Is that is that the idea? Well, it's just like if we need to specifically mention microwaves. Microwave. The microwave is not an antenna, right? I agree. But regulations, don't they? I mean, I agree, but it's they transmit microwave in your private property. I mean, unless somebody's putting the microwave in their backyard, like microwaving things. I don't know. Seems like an edge case.

I agree. I like I'm trying to think of like if I didn't have to like sleep with a lawyer every night, like I probably [laughter] But it's comes with the territory. Yeah. How can somebody [laughter]

Okay, we all learned a lot about antennas. We don't want to dirty up your cleanup. I mean, right. The whole there's like a whole I mean at the time like, you know, 10 20 years ago when cells, you know, technology was proliferating, you know, like monopoles and the proliferation of cell equipment was a huge zoning issue, you know, it was like and so, you know, surprising we never up I guess because we're low. I mean, anywhere there's a high spot is really where we want to go. And we're kind of like the hills are around town or just kind of just outside like Mount Daniels in the county. There's right, you know, there's a couple other hills just outside. So, like that's probably why we didn't sort of see a rush where we had people because otherwise we would have dealt with it early, you would think. I mean, I know we do have some um Yeah,

didn't the schools just uh review one? I thought the schools were adding one. Did I dream that? I thought there was a discussion. Yeah. I mean, it's funny. I'm pulling up some like I don't know how accurate it is. There's some like, you know, commercial some third party website that like locates antennas near you and there's like they show some in the city. I don't know like on buildings. I don't know if that's accurate or not. Well, they must be complying with our uh regulations. Maybe because they weren't television or whatever. Maybe we didn't. They're allowed to It says all roof mounted antennas exceeding 3 ft above the roof line shall be concealed from ground level. So you just can't see them. We did have there wasn't there was but I'm saying they needed a special permit. I don't think they were getting special [clears throat] across the street from city had an antenna.

Yeah. I wonder if this inadvertently opens up a can of worms where now like things that before that people were just adding to their buildings all of a sudden now triggers a special permit. Yeah. Because before we weren't regulating it. I don't know. It' be interesting to know like how many antennas we have in the city that just didn't didn't go through this process and are just there. I think there are some. I mean, I'd have to drive around. I mean, they're pretty well concealed these days, but yeah, I feel like there are some on top of buildings, you know, like, you know, you know where there's some on um on on Oak on the corner of South Oak. Yeah. That older office building building. Aren't there cell towers on top of that or sell tennis on top of that? That tall building that 10 stories. That older office building there that's like always half vacant.

You said electromagnet. Yeah, that one. Isn't there I feel like there's a cell tower on top of not tower antennas on top of it. So that'd be captured in the new definition. I don't know. I don't know. But it'd be interesting to know. I don't know. I mean, like I said, it's I think in general like taking out the reference to TV only is good, but I wonder if we were going to open up

some, you know, a rush of special permits at the BCA. I don't know. Um it'd be interesting to know. I mean before you make the change if there's not something else you want to do in addition but I don't know yeah 803 yeah there are some on that one I don't know it seems like there are sell the antennas in the city now that probably didn't get a special permit so yeah there definitely are some on top of that building or just that's just for instance 803 I don't know if they ever got I doubt they ever got a special permit can can you clarify when the special permit is required is it for any antenna or Is it just like if you're putting an antenna in, you have to meet these regulations?

Yep. Um section 481208 uh specially used permit required says no uh satellite television antenna or groundmounted conventional television or radio antenna may be erected on any lot without obtaining a special use permit. So the uh change it just to say any antenna just be antenna. Then like then literally every antenna needs a special permit right is every ant is the words electromagnet sorry I'm coming back to this is the word electromagnetic signals in the current there's no definition right now

so we're not we're changing both the we're changing both the def getting rid of the like TV or radio antenna speci specificities right and adding the definition of an antenna correct Okay. Okay. So, it sounds like Mr. Carner has questions about the special use permit being sort of broadly applied to all antennas. Is that something that you could follow up with Aikita on? Sure.

Just to find out like I don't know if they needed building permits or electrical permits to install any of this stuff. It interesting to know how many antennas if the city had to issue any permits for antennas that like were not television and radio or whatever. So, they didn't need a special permit, but now with this change, they actually would have needed it, and we wouldn't have been able to issue the building permit. They would have had to go to the BCA. I just don't know. I mean, it'd be interesting to know if all of a sudden now things before that were pretty routine and weren't really raising any eyebrows, all of a sudden now have to go through a special permit process. Um, you know, by by this change. Like, I just don't know. Maybe, yeah, I don't know how we were interpreting it. Maybe there was some innovative zoning administrator interpretation that would by right antennas.

Yeah, because now this would make no antennas by right where it seems like now some of them might be. I don't know. Yeah. So, so far this year uh as of the staff report and I can check with Aikita that these numbers are still good because I think this was put together in early October. Um so far in this year as of October the city's received six antenna applications and we average a total of three every year. We've averaged three every year since 2020. But those haven't got Did those go to the BCA? I'm not aware of the BCA approving a bunch of special permits for I believe so. They did go to the BCA. Okay. When I was on the BZA, which was a while ago for four years, I never saw one antenna application. Zero.

I just wonder if they actually went. I don't know. You might want to double check if they're actually I can double check

if they were going. I have some I have a couple people I know on the BCA and I don't I don't recall them ever mentioning they were reviewing antennas. They review a lot of signs. They're kind of cranky about that. I don't like they don't like having to review so many sign applications, but in addition to the residential stuff that they do, but I haven't heard about antennas. So, might want to check if they're okay. Maybe we weren't enforcing the ordinance proper. I don't know what was going on. But now we now we would kind of have to. Like I said, maybe before there was an interpretation. you know, I could see our former zoning administrator, um, you know, who was very creative, um, you know, finding a way to, you know, say, well, doesn't say cellular, so you're good. Where whereas this change would make it so that you couldn't you couldn't even try to interpret it because it'd be so black and white. So, something about, you know, we don't want to have the BCA full of antenna applications for stuff that's

Yeah. Well, speak speaking of that, I think one thing that would be useful is if we uh were clearer on the definition of what an antenna is because the way that it's currently laid out, light bulbs, electric heaters, microwave was the joking was the joke. But like if somebody didn't like that you put up lighting in your uh in your front yard, then they could say that technically an antenna because it transmits electromagnetic signals, right? So I think that that piece of this is an outdoor Wi-Fi. Some people put like a like a Wi-Fi antenna in their backyard because they want to get better coverage out in the back of the you know where they sit under a tree or something. I don't know. Yeah. So, I don't know. Yeah, we should be careful. We don't want to like be too strict. Okay.

Because I think we're really worried about if we were going to require special permits, it'd be for like large, very tall structures. Yeah, definitely get the point. Visually kind things that are obtrusive, right? Like in the old days like you know in old zoning ordinances you would often see but you know if people were ever remember when people used there was a hobby when people were into ham radio and stuff. Yeah.

There were some guys who would install like it was usually guys they would install like large large antennas on their house or in their backyard like really big ones. And so a lot of these parts of the code were geared to like control that. So some guy, some hobbyist, you know, didn't like erect a 50- foot antenna on his roof to get so he could talk to somebody in Belgium or something, you know, on the ham radio, amateur radio. So yeah, that was like the intent of it. I don't think the intent now would be to, you know, require that kind of review for little panels that are completely concealed, you know. I I would argue if it's if it's completely concealed behind a parapet or something, we don't care, you know. um if it's like short and below the roof line and concealed. Well, it's somebody else's issue that Yeah. regulates that kind of stuff,

right? Well, we I mean, from a zoning perspective, we wouldn't care. I mean, it could we could, you know, could be our issue, but I don't think we want that to be our issue, you know, for those types of things. There' be other things maybe we would want to restrict it, but not Yeah. So, just be careful. That's like a small change. That's the problem with anything in the zoning code. Little changes can have weird unintended consequences. So, it's worth talking to Aikita and others about whoever is working on this to, you know, with you to to try to make sure we're not opening a can of worms. Sure. That's a good comment. Thank you. Do you live on your half story?

All right. Um, Jack, do you want to finish your I think I think you've you've gone you've gone through two of the three items in your report. I'm sorry for the discussion. Little did you know the last one is uh an obsolete code section. It's one line. It reads conditional uses permitted by special use permits are prohibited. It's not connected to any other section of the code. This is uh something that was basically orphaned uh from a previous code cleanup. So um the recommendation is just to delete it. Additional uses permitted by such are prohibit prohibited where? Yeah. Like

right it's there. It's not tied to any again any other district or or use. Uh it was clearly meant to communicate something at some point, but now it it just doesn't make any sense on its own. That is weird. Yeah. All right. We should have chat GPT go through all of our code, find all of I was thinking that too. Yeah. Not the world's first idea. Doesn't make any sense. It's like internally inconsistent. The whole point of a conditional use is that it is permitted if you get it approved by special permit. We're saying it doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it looks like it's trying to get around something, but I don't quite yet. All right, great. Any other questions about microwaves or antennas or anything else? But

just like a general com not these three. Yeah, we we already beat these up, but like I'm sure there are many others. I know, you know, there's only so much we can maybe bite off in one, you know, one chew, so to speak, or chew in one bite, but it's a it's it's Yeah. There are a lot of other things in our ordinance that are out of date. Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's it runs the gamut. I know like again like there are big problems, little problems, but there's so many inconsistent stuff in there which you guys know and Kea knows. I've talked to her about it. Um and I know it's like right, you know, we only have so much bandwidth on the staff side to like focus on any one of these issues at any one time. But um you know, I don't know how you pick these specific three. These are maybe like the lowhanging fruit.

Exact. Yeah, these are just the most straightforward, the lowest hanging fruit. We've got a larger list of um uh things to address. Yeah. That range in substance and warrant definitely more conversation and probably some some engagement um some additional engagement. Uh and so those will be Yeah. So we've got an ongoing list. Yeah. And I've talked to Aikita about having like and she's I think on board with the idea of like a work program where like you know you gota you got to lay it out. It's not all going to happen immediately and you know you got to then work on what's a higher priority but you know until we you know the better you know you know cataloging it and saying okay we know that these sections are potentially problematic

and you know we want to in the future you know eventually get to it. I mean it may take time and priorities can change but yeah keeping a running list of problems is really important in the zoning ordinance because yeah there's so much in there and our code yeah I think you know it's so easy to ignore it. That's what's happened unfortunately with our ordinance is that things have been ignored over the years and then you wind up with like right tons of just one-off interpretations and you know like the latest I think thing that was brought that to a head I know was the driveway thing that like you know previous zoning administrators were allowing there's a part there's a weird part of our code that said you can only have a driveway that's like one car wide basically [clears throat] you know um and there's a bunch of weird

you know conditions about it but our previous owning administrator had found a way to like sort of kind of get around it for people building these houses that have a twocar have twocar garages and want a two-car wide driveway. Um, but our code really didn't allow it. That's why a lot of our driveways, if you notice, they neck down. Um, and it kind of gets awkward, but some people have, you know, don't have that and it was inconsistent and it's because the code was kind of inconsistent. And I know Aikita had like now, you know, she was kind of the new sheriff in town and said, "Well, says this, I'm enforcing this." And it went to the BCA, they appealed it. I mean, there's been a couple higher profile things where people were like, "But wait,

this other guy got to do it." And so yeah, that's what happens when we don't update stuff regularly. So anyhow, and I know, you know, kind of preach to the choir. You guys know that. But yeah, so keeping a running tally of like problems is important. You know, some are going to be require more work. But yeah, so this is good. I'm glad we're doing the cleanup, we should have more cleanups. And if we had a list we could comment on, you know, to see what the priorities are, what's on the list, that would be good. Okay. Um, so this is coming back to y'all for your public hearing. It says December 17th here, but that meeting has been cancelled, so it's coming back to you December 3rd for your public hearing. Thank you.

All right. So, I think that brings us to information items. Any commissioner reports?

Got one. I always look at Mr. Stevens and Mr. Duncan. They always have something.

Yeah, he goes to a lot of meetings. Um I attended uh for our chair uh a meeting of the uh the chairs from around the region. Uh so I guess that started up this year kind of an informal group of uh exchanging information. So um we met on the 17th of October and I'll just kind of quickly share the topics that we talked about. We talked about single stair design for the smaller multif family buildings and the chair of the Montgomery County Commission wrote a very nice article on that. So if anybody has a uh you know kind of a burning interest on you know what's behind all the single stair discussion uh this is a pretty good article uh doing that. Um they talked about uh some of the jurisdictions making approval for housing in um on faith-based property easier as a a way to kind of one additional tool to address a housing problem. Right now I mean you could try to do that on a let's say a church property but it might be very difficult. So they trying to look for ways to make that easier. Uh I took note of the fact that Montgomery County has a 15% affordable dwelling requirement. So that's just it. If you want to do something here, it's got to have at least 15%. Um big a problem that the other jurisdictions are having that I don't think we have here and is that after they approve a project, nothing happens. The developer for whatever reason just kind of departs, [laughter] moves on to something else, and I don't go through with the approval that they received. So, I don't think that's something that we have here, but that is a big problem. Several jurisdictions, Arlington mentioned that. Um, Montgomery County, not sure about Fairfax whether they mentioned that or not. Uh, then the

other big issue that they're all working on is a conversion of commercial to residential. And again, I don't think we're doing much of that here. So, anyway, it's it's a good idea to get together with the uh with the other jurisdictions. I guess they want to try to meet quarter quarterly. So, we'll see where that goes. That's it. Awesome. Thank you. [clears throat] Speaking of that, do we have a any update on Echenise? I mean, they got their entitlement and that that's a project that there was a big for sale sign in front of that building after [clears throat] and actually Yini Jewelers too. We got two projects that I would count in that basket of we approved them and

nothing's happened. wanted to approve them and what's going on. Yeah, maybe at some point when we do a year end or year beginning, you could catch us up on what's happening in either of those. Either or both. Both seem to be at these late stages where

literally a handful of storm water comments and other things need to be addressed. But I think in each case we're looking for an efficient path where some initial site improvements or demolition can take place as those additional items are resolved. Um with econo going to be um gradually eventually impacted by the the next townhouse development that's being proposed by Madison Homes because that's that's the block they're targeting. So but I think there's a target there to finish construction by next summer. Okay. We didn't actually approve you, right? We didn't. But I guess maybe that's a moot point.

Yeah, we ran out of time on that one before the We had seen it a few times, but then Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Jack sent around an invitation for the West Falls Church Metro, which is not to be confused with the West Falls development on our side [clears throat] on Wednesday, November 19th at 9:30 groundbreaking ceremony with all the Fairfax and Metro people and we are invited

Tech, right? I assume hit you know should be the whole the whole gang I guess. So I ask where and specific they didn't seem to know just yet but somewhere details will forth come about exactly where the groundbreaking event will be anyway we're invited EDA met Tuesday night last night. Yeah. And

that changed or did you go? Yeah. Yeah. And uh mostly talked about things that don't relate to us. So there was some discussion uh towards the end about rentals, commercial [clears throat] rentals filling out that you know all the locations West Falls and Founders One, Founders 2 seemed to be going along. Okay. There was also a little discussion about Stratford Garden and their hope that they might clear the hurdles set before them sometime in December.

We're closely monitoring um almost weekly site visits. Um it's looking better. The outside is at least Yeah. [snorts] Does it seem that they're all going to open the whole shebang at once rather than their initial opening it in phases? I'm not sure how many phases that structure can [laughter] support be broken up into. Um, but that's something our building official will be closely monitoring as we get to the Okay. CO is insurance.

And there was [clears throat] discussion about the uh fall or the winter wonderland event that is going to be in early December, I guess. I'm not sure. Do we meet? Yeah, we meet again before that. So, that won't be at Founders this year, right? I think it is at I think it's being run by It's being run by Founders. Okay. And they're supposed to really, you know, have the whole range of

Santa's train and the firet truck and, you know, all that. Tuesday night after 1st of December, whatever that first Tuesday of December is. Anyway, that was the EDA. Thank you. Uh the architectural advisory board has added two more permanent members which means they now have four and now have enough for a quorum. So they will start meeting again uh next week. They have not met I believe in three or four months. Uh so they should have additional some input on things starting next week. Okay. We haven't had too many projects coming through.

Not much for them to talk about but good time to not have a quorum. Uh yeah, I did the last one uh virtually and my six-year-old walked in and they were talking about Lucky Strike Bowling and he asks every time we drive by the bowling alley when we're going to change the name to Lucky Strike. So people are paying attention. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They redid it.

Um I did have a question about the council discussion on vision zero and complete streets. Um are is that something that we're going to have an opportunity to weigh in on or is it not coming to us? also a little confused about like when things are sort of made as amendments to our comprehensive plan chapters or sort of like supplemental pieces of the comprehensive plan chapters and when they're just sort of like approved by resolution by council. So any clarity on that because they're they're definitely of interest to planning commission. I'll start.

Uh sure. I talked to uh Amanda Brain, our public works director, and she's planning to come by uh when you all receive the CIP quarterly update, which is I think in December. Let me the look ahead. Um she plans to join Caitlyn for that presentation and um um plans to speak about that. Okay. Um great. So, I would I would direct any kind of questions about Vision Zero specific initiatives to her when she when she arrives or if you want to give um them to us, we can um start working on those before.

I mean, nothing but enthusiasm. Um I mean, I may have questions, but I guess I was wondering why we sort of baked complete streets like into the vision zero uh plan. It just feels like some I don't I don't know. Maybe that's normally that's how localities handle these things. But um complete streets just strikes me as more of like kind of like a plan for like what we want our public spaces to look like. though maybe we're only applying it to de new developments and and not to other streets like Lincoln Avenue for example that we're redoing like so that that's my question is you know some of these things seem like CIP related or planning commission related and so having a adopting like a complete streets policy seems different than like a vision zero re resolution I just don't know how all these things fit together and how they fit in the comprehensive plan and the CIP does that make sense Yeah.

Yes. And I think Amanda's going to do a good job of kind of highlighting what I think is becoming a newer strategy by DPW and others to streamline all those different initiatives, it's it's if you really start to add it all up, it gets a little bit cumbersome. And uh many have a lot of overlapping priorities, sometimes involving similar blocks. Um, and I think the focus is to really figure out a way where we can be more agile, move quicker, um, have more predictability with respect to how we're solving certain typical problems.

Um, but also I get to a point where, um, I think we can kind of streamline the procedure for, uh, the way some of these projects even get born. Uh so I think you'll see her cover a lot of those ideas uh which are really still in the inception stage. I think we're just kind of beginning to develop the framework and a lot more work is going to happen next year as well. Okay. So they're tenatively scheduled for November the 19th. Yeah, I see. Yeah, correct. We'll remove that tenative tag that's confirmed. But then council is also voting on the vision zero resolution next Monday believe so

and that includes the complete street. Okay. Um I'm all for all of it. So I just want to understand how it all fits together and how it fits with the neighborhood traffic coming program too. All right. So any other commissioner reports? That brings us to the director's report.

All right. Um just following along the uh attachment that Jack was able to prepare. Uh we completed our third quarter uh quarterly report. Um so with Emily's help, there's a lot of helpful information about all different things that happened uh since July. Uh so that document is attached to the packet that was posted. Um very similar information that we've had in the first two quarters. Uh in addition to that um there are two DPW updates. One involving Park Avenue great streets where the consultant engineering firm has provided some additional information on the 90% plans. So we're passing that along. Uh and similarly for the Cherro Avenue bridge, VAT has made more information available uh on their 100% design drawings. So anytime we get those, we try to disseminate them to various groups. So

that's kind of planning commission's copy. Thank you. Any questions on any of the director report items? Um, kind of tangential in a way, but have we received any um applications yet for accessory dwellings? Um, I know we've received at least one um and we've received several inquiries um about it too. So, um I can double check on if that number has gone up, but with the first application came in at least over a month ago, I think. So, it's possible there's more. Uh but I do know we have at least one.

Yeah. Be curious to see how what kind of reaction uh response we're getting. But, uh in in good time, not nothing urgent. Um I just wanted to say congrats to the zoning team on the win. The there was like an award that they won. Uh, which is great. The VAPA awards ceremony. Um, sorry.

Oh, Sharon, go ahead. Thank you for 90%. and We've done some additional due diligence uh and we've been meeting with the builder um the restaurant uh owner. Uh what we've learned is that at the time of the site plan approval, a waiver of loading um space was approved. So, the second curb cut on Little Falls that gets you into what is now a paved surface parking area is solely for parking purposes. Uh, and with that waiver, the applicant has then proceeded to kind of finalize their internal operation such that the first curb cut, which now, if you just look at it, leads

right into the new expanded structure, is actually going to serve as part of their loading operations. They've poured some concrete at the edge of that uh curb cut uh that leads right into some of their doors. So that curb cut, while initially I think um made sense to remove because it wasn't serving a purpose, we now have confirmed that it will in fact serve a loading purpose for the restaurant use. Um and therefore we are inclined to keep it to ensure that their operations run smoothly and we're not creating other issues with their parking. Um so that there's a reason why that curb cut was not included in the CIP project up the street. Uh it was solely part of their site plan. Um there is some good news outside but adjacent to that area. Um they in the process of locating a fire hydrant created a pinch point in their clear sidewalk there. We've been able to work with them to expand the sidewalk to make sure that even with that fire hydrant, we've been able to kind of widen the clear sidewalk on what will be a very prominent corner. So, uh to the south of the curb cut we just finished discussing. Um I think you actually walk by there tomorrow, you should see the finished condition now of um kind of a healthy six foot instead of a 4ft zone.

They're going to have loading. I'm sorry. They're going to have a loading. They're going to be loading their like right off the sidewalk there as opposed to like coming into their parking lot. Is that what they're going to use that curb cut for? They're going to be accessing it using the existing curb cut. But if you look at what's been approved and what they finished completing outside of their building, there's actually a poured concrete driveway that leads right up to the building that does not compete with other uses and seating areas and parking on that site. So this was kind of their way of utilizing some existing infrastructure um and carefully organizing their interior fit out to make that work maybe.

So that wasn't we I don't even remember we approved that site plan. Right. I think I don't remember that being an intention. Right. Did we did we have that on there? I don't not too many people did. No. Maybe it wasn't contemplated at the time. I I suspect it just evolved into that. Yeah. Well, I don't know. I mean, it's sort of not ideal. I guess it's done. It's done. Is done. I mean, I don't think we would have approved it if they had said we're going to be loading, you know, kegs of beer and whatever, you know, like right in the front on that corner, you know, off of that curb cut. Did they show closed on the site plan? We could not see any. We asked for them to remove the curb cut, but I think that ultimately it was still there. They

I think that was not um so they I don't So, the site plan did show it. They were not agreeable to removing not I don't sorry the applicant was not agreeable to removing the curb cut. So yeah still show was a a challenge. Yeah because they have three curb cuts on that site that you know and they weren't going to use the other one either. I mean I think right they're not using the one on broad. They're not I think we're getting to an economic feasibility issue with them because it's these are all common sense issues and I think on a typical site we would obviously

try to do that. I think the intent is to to support kind of the adaptive reuse and kind of revitalization of a commercial use which I think really helps with the character of the city. It was a big push to

Yeah. I mean the city did but we should still not compromise on our values and our standards in the name of helping one particular business that may be there for a period of time and one day may leave and may sell. And so I think we need to be consistent on you know how we're doing that kind of thing. thing. I mean, when we're a small jurisdiction, we like to work closely with, you know, land owners and tenants and, you know, get people to help people out, but, you know, I think I remember on that one pushing that issue with them actually and hearing, you know, I mean, listen, every project's got a budget and everyone would love to delete things from the budget that they'd rather not spend money on because it doesn't really help their bottom line. But, I mean, that's where the push, that's where the public private kind of, you know, interface happens. So, anyhow, I mean, just a general comment. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone on that. I'm not privy to the discussions. I don't know what exactly happened, but um you know, I think when at least when we approved site plans, I guess that's not going to happen anymore. We were pretty intentional about things we did or didn't do. Um, and so, you know, I feel like the city should continue to treat the what was approved as sort of the default and any changes from that should be really carefully evaluated, especially when it's, you know, something like that, which kind of goes against good urban design. Just my editorial on that. But anyway, I'm sure it'll be a good business or I think people are looking forward to it um opening up. But yeah, I remember talking to them about that at the time. we got a similar answer like well we we really don't want to spend money on that taking that curb cut out.

Yeah, I think what's built reflects the approved plan. So I think we didn't see anything that violated the final set um that we received but uh I think the use of that poured concrete and the driveway um I did catch some people by surprise.

Go ahead. That's what Mhm.

Did you have another question? I was just looking at my calendar. So, are we finished with that or have we Oh, go ahead. Uh, I think I think I think yeah, there's a board and commission appreciations dinner next Monday here at six o'clock for everybody. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. All right, any other questions on the director's report items?

Yeah, one question is sort of related to that last topic. Um, is it within the planning commission's purview at all to have any questions about uh either ride share or loading parking or temporary parking on major thorough affairs um like on Broad Street, on West Street, on uh Washington. We tried to design like for example Broad and Washington. We designed a couple little like pull outs. Yeah. Pull outs for that very purpose. So it certainly is in our purview when we're reviewing a plan but not like in general like there's a lot of loading for places restaurants and especially at founders

road becomes a traffic issue like for example you know I mean I know we've talked about like buyer has come I don't call them out but we don't have that many car dealerships in town when they came in for the site plan for their um for their new facility we talked about the the problem of like you know getting auto deliveries and sitting in the middle of brush street and with car carriers and they promised us, "No, that we don't do that. We're not supposed to, you know, anyone who does that, we're gonna, you know, make sure any of our delivery drivers know not to do that." I see it all the time. I still see it. Yeah. All the time, almost weekly. I see it. Um, so yeah, to the extent when we're when we have an application and it's something physical with the site, we can definitely do,

but not not in a general sense. Like I see it on like at Dominion, at um at the Whole Foods at places where they're doing deliveries or they're like the horse. Technically it's illegal to do that. You can't you know you can't just park a truck in the middle of you know and like it's no stopping no you know standing there. I think you're not supposed to park there. It becomes like an enforcement issue you know for our small police force. I think I don't know if anyone else happens at Northgate too opinion about it but yeah we tried to account for that you know on broad in Washington and some other projects we've tried to allow for that. So knowing that people are going to be getting Ubers and stuff and we don't want people blocking lane of traffic but it's hard you know you know to to control human behavior can be difficult. Yeah. Okay.

At what point in that vein do we go with the urban model which is you know delivery is only between 10 and two or whatever like they do in DC. So is at least not to clog rush hour traffic. And if we if we wanted to ask for that what's the process? I agree with you. It's the non- lawyer that lives in my house is fed up with Uber and Lift drivers just parking where they want to on Broad Street, letting people in and out. But it is a component of urban living that, you know, everybody else pretty well accepts. But there are loading restrictions in DC and they have built like especially Founders Row has built like a street against what I would think is the better pedestrian experience like there's so use the I would like to require them to use the areas that are within the facility

uh or on West Street or like founders too is the garage is built to include drop off space drop off spots. So I think that's the that's the part like either seeing that was in planning commission in our perview at all to like in create more fines or like I know that infor like Mr. Stevens saying like not sorry Mr. craftsman were saying like it's an enforcement question but also like can we make enforcement worth it to go do because there's value in it or find the building anyway but is it a site plan review you know after a year do we ever go back and say here's what we had in mind and here's how it's working I would love to do that

just for one question like that but just generally speaking you know did the trees live did the you know storefronts open to the public like they're supposed to be because sometimes, you know, a new business will come in and cover up the windows, which is not what we had in mind. I don't know. I mean, it's occurred to me a few other times that we should have a in the same way that the cottage ordinance has a built-in, you know, look back after a certain period of time, which we, you know, are trying to get back to. But do we ever do that with the bigger projects especially? I think it's a matter of resources and um yeah I mean what kind of load does that put on you guys right

also has any have any site plans come through post has the change official because it's not we haven't actually done the final public hearing thing but like has anything come through to you how's that worked how's that gone

I think the Madison homes will be the first true case everything else generally started I think you all had a chance to weigh And um so I think this winter, depending on when they want to file, I think we'll be a good pilot. Um and again, we'll do our best. We'll check as many boxes as we can. Uh I'm less concerned about the 40-day window. It's it's kind of artificial and manufactured. It doesn't mean much. It's simply a slightly different label for an existing process that's still going to have to take place. So if we're done, we're done. If not, additional rounds will be needed when they're going to approve something just because 40 days have come up. So,

yeah. Okay. Great. Um, back to Stratford real quick. Uh, Mr. Crash was correct that there was a bike rack, the proposed double-sided bike rack in that location where they're planning to do the loading. So, I'm curious where they're relocating the bike rack. I think one of the things I liked about that bike rack was it was on like a nice prominent corner near the entrance. Often bike racks are relegated to the rear of the parking lot where maybe they have a few extra spaces near the dumpsters. So I wouldn't want that bike rack to be downgraded to a worse position on the site. Um so if you could maybe find out where it's moving, you can check on that.

Be good to know. Um and it was for 12 bikes. That's what was on the site plan. So, that's what I'd like to see. All right. Any other questions, comments? Great. Well, thank you all. Appreciate it. Sorry we didn't uh hit your 9:15 estimate, Jack, but yeah, no discussion. I didn't see that one coming. Yeah. Did we We don't have any correspondence, right? We heard correspondence. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. We're adjourned.