City Council - Regular Meeting

We'd love to get a photo with you as well.

So I heard you guys trade pens, and so we do have pins for you.

you Thank you.

Alrighty.

Well, that was a great way to kick off tonight's meeting. The room is much emptier now. The median age is actually a little older as well. But no, I think I really appreciated her lovely sentiment about bringing sports, bringing kind of community together and the importance of like teamwork and discipline and perseverance and good sportsmanship, especially when, you know, the world is very divided in various things. So it's a good lesson and a good reminder for all of us. So let's get into the rest of the agenda. Do any oaths of office tonight?

I don't believe so. Thank you.

Okay. Let's move on to receive a public comment. We start with a summary of written comments, please.

Yes. These are the summary of written comments received since your last action meeting regarding Virginia Village. Carl Anderson urged council to limit Limit height to three stories along the residential edge of Winter Hill, restrict structured parking from being within 150 feet of Winter Hill, not to adopt the final Virginia Village zoning before authorizing or issuing the RFP, and to retain council authority to review the project. conduct impact studies on the surrounding neighborhood robert barnett said parking and service areas should be screened from adjacent residential streets he said blended preservation should be considered for access to tax credits and he supported preservation of history and architecture the following urge council to limit the height to 40 feet at winter hill require a step back on the upper levels of 20 feet rather than 10, assure that shadows do not impact Big Chimney's Park and the Winter Hill neighborhood, and to restrict garages and service areas from facing the Winter Hill residential area. Those were Nader and Bernadette Baruch, Barbara Connedy, Joseph Connedy, Julie Harris, Amanda Mazzell, and David Ali. Lori Fred urge council to restrict garages and service areas from facing the Winter Hill residential area require a step back on the upper levels of 20 feet and to allow a historic review process to be completed before selecting a developer Rebecca Johnson submitted information regarding a timeline and requirements for historic designation for Virginia Village and She said council should leverage tax credits at a Virginia Village resident and a nearby neighborhood resident to the RFP Evaluation Committee and amend the RFP or scorecard to include weighing historic tax credits and preservation. Kathy Kleinman urged council to restrict the height to 40 feet, restrict garages and service areas from facing winter hell, assure that shadows do not impact big chimneys or winter hell, and add two members to the RFP Evaluation Committee. Sarah Mallory and Frankie Parkstrike both urged council to limit the height to 40 feet, assure that shadows do not impact Big Chimneys Park and Winter Hill, and restrict garages and service areas from facing the Winter Hill residential area. Bob O'Brien urged council also to limit the height to 40 feet, assure shadows do not impact the park and the neighborhood, restrict garages and service areas from facing the residential area, and improve stormwater conditions to prevent flooding in Big Chimneys Park. Mary Lou Pickle asked council to restrict garages and service areas from facing the Winterhill residential area, restrict the building height to three stories at Winterhill, Have the special exception process be effective prior to July 1, 2027. Consider additional funding options, such as historic tax credits, and improve stormwater conditions to prevent flooding in Big Chimney's Park. Heather Pressler asked council to limit the height to 40 feet, require a step back on upper levels, restrict garages and service areas, and not allow additional shadow impacts, and consider historic preservation incentives. Mark and Jennifer Resta asked council to limit the height to three stories, with this step up to four stories after 20 feet, requiring a step back on the upper levels of 20 feet, and assure that shadows do not imping impact the park or the neighborhood, restrict garages and service areas from facing the Winter Hill area, and improve stormwater conditions at the park. Beverly Warnick asked council to explore whether Virginia Village qualified as a federal historic district and if there was grant funding or tax credits available to property owners. She also asked council to ensure that the final version of the zoning code amendment treated public and private owners fairly and equally. and supported including a Virginia Village representative on the RFP Evaluation Committee. Celeste Will and Farley Will asked Council to limit the height to 40 feet at Winter Hill and assured that shadows do not impact the park or the neighborhood. Rohaney Winter said she was concerned by the updated shadow study information in the agenda package and the change to the proposed height. She said she supported, including a Virginia Village representative on the RFP Evaluation Committee. In other comments, the Arts and Humanities Council requested $1,500 in FY26 year-end funds to support the fourth annual volunteer-led City of Falls Church Arts Day in April of 2027. The CACT provided their March 2026 recommendations following the 2026 snow event that asked for improvements in snow and ice removal around Oak Street Elementary and Citywide. I think that was sent in preparation for your last work session on snow removal. Craig Chaney requested an update on sidewalk construction at Columbia and Washington. Dave Gustafson encouraged the city to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers similar to the prohibition that Arlington's County Board recently passed. Andrew Olsen thanked council for discussing snow removal prior to the winter so dangerous conditions could be avoided. He also noted issues with the neighborhood traffic calming program. John Tepperman wrote about emerging EV charging technologies, including solar canopy systems with battery storage and mobile robotic chargers suited to existing garages. AT Weiner wrote to ask council to evaluate the traffic, roadway, and public safety impacts of adding hundreds of new apartments in the Seven Corners area and requested rumble strips on East Broad Street near the church to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety.

Great. Thank you. And then before we take public comment in person or virtually, I know that we have two items on tonight's agenda that have public hearings. So you're welcome to either speak now during the open public comment period or before those public hearings. And then the third item of business we have related to Virginia Village is a new first reading on the zoning text amendments. And so that one does not have a public hearing. So if you have comments on that, you can speak during the public comment period right now. I know that not many people want to stick through a long meeting agenda So we would welcome all the public comment regardless of where it is on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting shortly So let's call the first people, please Yes, first we have John Stein followed by Mark Massey Welcome

Thank you. Good evening, members of city council. My name is John Stein. I'm with Scouting America Troop 349 at the American Legion, and I'm also a youth representative on the Urban Forestry Commission in Falls Church. Over the past year, I've worked on Scouting America's Distinguished Conservation Service Award, for which I led two natural resource protection projects. These projects focused on various threats to biodiversity seen in many communities worldwide. And I've had incredible support from the Urban Forestry Commission and funding from the Village Preservation and Improvement Society. Over my time in Falls Church, I've seen the city's commitment to the environment, especially through events such as the Arbor Day plantings. And I'd like to share what I learned and encourage continued focus on making the city green. So for the first project, which took place at Isaac Crossman Park, we focused on reforestation in an effort to increase biodiversity following an emerald ash borer invasion in the 2010s, which removed many native trees. A tree survey was conducted, and that determined a tree planting list, which was eventually obtained using funding help from the Village Preservation and Improvement Society. The trees were labeled for public outreach, and they were also caged to prevent deer browsing. And this spring, I was happy to report that over 75% of the trees survived the winter. Trees provide vital habitat for native animals, as well as shade. water management, and vital carbon capturing for our community. And projects like this are possible all around the city and parks and other public spaces. So I'd like to encourage the city to keep its commitment to the environment and to support small projects such as these to make the city a better home for wildlife. The second project we completed took place in Howard Herman Park behind Oak Street Elementary School. We removed four patches of invasive species, and we replaced those species with native pollinator plants to sustain local biodiversity. Oftentimes, suburban communities become dead zones for wildlife, which is very unfortunate as houses and lawns can displace food and habitat. But incorporating native pollinator gardens into everyday city spaces is a great way to undo some of this. i've seen great um spaces for small pollinator gardens in falls church including even in the sidewalk renovation has created ideal space for pollinator gardens and i'd like to encourage falls church to continue to incorporate native plants in their park landscaping and other city planning thank you next we have mark massey followed by joseph conady

Good evening.

Some of you all have heard me speak before. I am not a real estate agent. I'm not a real estate lawyer. I'm not many of the things that I think you're used to hearing. I am a local citizen. I have become aware of the rezoning items and the The thing that gets me most about this is the one day, in effect, one business day turnaround that we've had to look at the impact of the shadow study. It, to me, directly impacts the very enfranchisement of the citizens of Falls Church City. It's like, oh, first we have this study. But it was wrong. OK. That's bad. But things happen. We all know that. The older I get, the more I know that. But then when you go to recover from the bad, you conduct a second study. You repair it, which is right, very right. And thank you for doing it. But to not give the citizen. the time to really digest it and really get into this and provide thoughtful input and cogent ideas back to the council and back to the community. Frankly, to me, it's travesty. And the city council of the City of Falls Church has a long history. of listening to the public and trying to make it possible for us to give great input. And you guys normally, and I'm talking about this from a historical view, normally take good account of it. But how is it possible for us with a 24-hour time, basically, to truly think through it? I don't think it is possible. And I really think you need to slow down on this and just put a stop to it for the short term, to let the citizens have a chance to really look this over and get back to you and get into the process, because that's what we're here for, is the process. And I hope you take these comments to heart. I've been a Virginia citizen my whole life. My family has been in Fairfax and Falls Church for almost 70 years now. So that's what I wanted to say. I want you to really just look at this in its direct simplicity that preventing these steps of letting it go that quick is really dangerous to the democratic nature of our city government. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Joseph Kennedy, followed by Bernadette Baruch.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to address you. I have talked to you previously at your 1 o'clock in the morning meeting. I stayed with you the whole time. You had some publicly stated goals that I would like to reiterate for you. One was to have a public, transparent process that responded to the community's concerns. Secondly, you had a goal of ensuring that the new development was harmonious with the existing community I was heartened by some of the changes that appeared in the draft language however for some reason that I have not been able to figure out those revisions were undone actually undone in a way that's deleterious to meeting your goals. Specifically, I'd like to point to some things that would make the process more transparent and that responds to the community's concerns. Again, as was stated earlier, the height limit approximate to Winter Hill must be a maximum of 40, not 50 feet, which was redrafted, I think, without your input. The original 40-foot height limit should replace the staff's unjustified increase. All dwellings at the boundary of Winter Hill residents should be limited to three, not four stories. At a minimum, require a three-story edge for the first 20 feet of building depth. before stepping up, incorporating the setback and bulk plan on top of that, not instead of it. The upper floor step back should be a minimum of 20 feet, not 10 feet. 10 feet is less than four steps for an average height person. As I've written previously, garages and other work areas, trash, loading docks, et cetera, should not face the Winter Hill residence area. The current hidden from public view language is too ambiguous. We are entitled to the same protection given to Maple Street. Finally, do not put the existing house in shadow. As the previous gentleman explained, do not allow shadows on Winter Hill and the much-used and important community resource, Pig Chimneys Park. That park is very valuable, and Winter Hill is also a valuable community resource. Don't put these resources at risk by rushing or changing publicly shared language in deleterious ways. One closing comment. There are a lot of people who share my views and weren't able to attend tonight's meeting or have an opportunity to respond in writing. So please consider carefully your own goals, what you've stated to the public, and how these changes undercut your stated goals. Thank you very much for your attention. I respectfully submitted them in writing earlier. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Bernadette Baruch followed by Carl Anderson.

Mayor and members of council, my name is Bernadette Baruch, and I live at 243 Gundry Drive. I am here tonight to speak about Virginia Village and the latest changes proposed by staff. Over the past several months, this council and community have worked hard to reach common ground. Staff's latest proposal undermines that work. We understood that the maximum height along the Winter Hill edge would be 40 feet. On Friday, we learned staff is now proposing greater heights than 40 feet. Once again, significant changes are being introduced at the last minute as this project moves toward approval. That is not a transparent or credible public process. I have attended and participated in the public meetings, as have many of my neighbors. This council asks the community to engage in good faith. How can we do that when the standards continue to change? This is not transparency, and it is not good public policy. The mayor recently said that once this project is built, people will not remember the heights or setbacks. I disagree. My neighbors and I will. This is our home, our community, and these changes have serious impact on our community. We will live with these decisions every day. These changes have real consequences. I hate to have to repeat myself, but Virginia Village is an important opportunity for Falls Church, but it cannot become an example of development first and public process second. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carl Anderson, followed by Nader Barouk. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'll try to be brief. It doesn't give me great comfort to know that on the 22nd, you, I think, gave assurance or voted to have a limitation of four stories along the boundary of winter hill with the virginia village and that uh... city staff immediately came up with a fifty-foot standard which would be five stories which would dwarf the adjacent town homes uh... second of all i think there's certain aspects of development related to safety Big example, I think in the last couple of weeks it was put out on the internet and I think on a couple of local publications that the most dangerous intersection in Falls Church is Broad Street and Washington Street, which is right where the new Whole Foods is. And I think if you think about the idea of putting three short stop lights within a half a block range of that intersection, which is the way it is on the Washington-bound side of that intersection on Route 29, you're going to create gridlock, which you've done. And when people get gridlocked, they get impatient, and then they get angry. And when people get impatient and angry, they do stupid things, and then you have accidents. So I would like to submit that the city staff has actually planned to have accidents at Broad Street and Washington Street. And I used to work in safety regulation with offshore oil and gas. And we found that when we look at accidents, we call them unplanned or, excuse me, unwanted events. Because when we really examine what happened, we actually plan the disaster. Because if you look at the causality involved in an accident, you create conditions that are going to lead to an accident. Most obvious case being if you insist on riding people's rear end in traffic, you're going to get into a fender bender. All right. Now, another good example is that disaster at National Airport in early 2025 with the military aircraft flying in close proximity of the civilian aircraft. Now, finally, I think With regard to Virginia Village, I think regardless of what we say, city staff and the developers are going to try to cram as many units in that new development as possible. And I think they're going to do it regardless of anything we say or any objections we raise. And one thing I've heard is that right now on Shirley Street, there's a dead end, okay? And I understand that it's been considered that they might change the dead end to the other end that at Gibson and Maple Avenue. But I would like to say there should not be a dead end at either end because if you cram a lot of residents in there and then you have an emergency, if you can't get fire trucks and ambulances in there, you're going to have trouble. So please eliminate any idea having a dead end anywhere in that development. And I'll shut up now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Nader Barouk followed by Mary Lou Pickle.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Nader Baruch, and I live at 243 Gundry Drive. I and others engage in this process in good faith, looking time and time again for a genuine win-win solution and outcomes. But at several points throughout this process, it's clear that things have become broken. Early on, when the heights and massing were being discussed as part of the small area plan discussions, I had great reluctance in engaging, but I was encouraged to do so by several council members and others, including staff. However, staff never brought up such things as reducing setbacks, and they were never put on the table as an option, even though setbacks, not heights alone, is what actually protects Winter Hill and the neighborhood as far as shadows and sunlight. When I pushed back on this, staff's response was to characterize the neighbors as simply opposing anything wanting to be built. That is not true, and that's not what I said. In fact, my name is on the small area plan that calls for affordable housing in this area. In any characterization counter to that, I find extremely personal and troubling. Then staff produced the shadow study claiming that this project and the zoning would add no shadows beyond the current conditions. I asked staff directly whether that was right. Instead of checking their work, staff doubled down and reaffirmed that it was right. The public relied on that representation. That's the reason why the concerns raised earlier in the process were set aside by myself and others. The shadow study and massing turned out to be wrong. The December study, the worst case as far as shadows, had been mislabeled, with March being much shorter than was actually there. And they were mislabeled between December and March. Staff called it a cut and paste error. But even after acknowledging that error, staff on the same day sent the same flawed studies to developers in the RFP memorandum. The proposal is now being drafted on bad data. That genie cannot simply be put back into the bottle. And on top of that, staff is now proposing even greater heights along the Winter Hill edge. That's deflection. It's not the way to get to a win-win and to work towards a good outcome. Staff's justifications will not hold water, and I don't want to relitigate that number tonight. But what I will say is walking that commitment back is not how you build trust in the process, and that's how trust gets lost. What I'm asking the council to do is stand by, acknowledge the error, and hold itself to the standard it already put into the record. Concretely, I ask the staff or the council to direct staff to revise the zoning so that the permitted development does not increase shadows over Winter Hill or big chimneys beyond the existing conditions and that the standard staff put on the record and relied on stay in place. Restore the 40 foot wrap up. I'm working on it. Got two more points. Restore the 40-foot maximum height at the winter edge and increase the step backs from 10 to 20 feet triggered at 30 feet, not 40 feet, and prohibit parking in back of the house on the back. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Mary Lou Pickle.

Good evening, Council, Mayor.

There's been a lot of work done on this. Thank you for that. I always say thank you because I know it's a lot of work. And let's try to get to a win-win. In voting for Virginia Village zoning, please safeguard communities and residents by limiting heights to three stories at the Winter Hill Edge. I don't want to throw shade on this project, but it will certainly throw shade on Winter Hill. the city's erroneous shade study that recently came to light document this and the zoning what I meant to say is the the bad data in the in the shadow study is in all the documents and the zoning is based on it so let's make it right tonight go back to the original language and have 40 foot maximum height level at the Winter Hill edge Even that height will throw shade on the residents. But three stories is better than a good compromise. To determine the height, don't just look around at what's been allowed to have been built in the city recently and conclude that developers must need that extra height to move forward. Tell them 40 foot max and let them figure out, do their magic, and make a project that fits with the neighborhood. They can do it. And in the remaining time I have, I just wanted to reiterate, please do not approve a height that will increase the shadow on Winter Hill beyond existing conditions, which is a standard that staff already put on the record. Restore the 40 foot height maximum at Winter Hill Edge. Increase the upper floor step back from 10 feet to at least 20 feet. And that has to go into effect at 30 feet rather than 40. Otherwise, you're going to have a 40 foot wall. and then like a little blip, and then it goes up. So please protect this from a 40-foot wall. And if you have the setback, trigger at 30 feet. Prohibit parking structures and back of house uses on the Winter Hill edge. Now, you're already doing this for a passerby on Maple Avenue. And I feel like the people that live there 24-7 deserve the same kind of protection from those noisy and loading and docked and cars coming and going so please give us the same consideration thank you for all the work you do on this y'all are close I can tell but really it needs some tweaks and if you can't do it tonight just take a deep breath and get it done two weeks from now or the next week thank you very much thank you that's the last speaker we have signed up so far

Great. Thank you all. And again, if you have a public comment, again, remember we have two public hearings related to the small area plan and the comp plan, but no public hearing related to the zoning ordinance, which is the third item on the agenda. Let's move on to report of the city manager. Mr. Shields.

Thank you, Mayor Hardy, members of council, and members of the community. I just have a very brief report tonight, and that is to note that on Thursday, July 30th at 7 p.m. in this room, we'll have a town hall meeting on the greening of Lincoln Project. And so I want to just note that. And it is sort of targeted towards residents on Lincoln Avenue to get an update on that project, but it's open to the entire community. Staff will be present to go through the plans. And I just wanted to share that information with the public. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

um i will get to council request shortly um actually just one quick thing i wanted to say kudos to staff for civic jam last friday especially the rescheduled event so thank you very much for all the work that went into it um it seemed like it was really successful and great weather and so uh thank you to public works park and rec and all the other teams that work to make it successful it was a very nice evening in foster yeah ms underhill you had a request

So I am on the listserv for the greening of Lincoln, but I didn't get a message about it. Andrew Oleson did send out a message to the neighborhood, but if you could just double check that a notice went out to the contacts that Tony has, that would be great. And it's possible I missed it.

Other council request? Ms. Reagan?

I'm also on the Greening of Lincoln. I know the Greening of Lincoln has multiple phases and multiple parts. And can you clarify, are there any specific phases or parts that those meetings are going to address? And are there phases and parts that it will not address?

It is, I think it's a general overview of the project. We are, of course, going to focus on the stormwater phases that are underway right now. Those are kind of the here and now questions and update the public on the outer phases and the traffic calming and other traffic improvements on Lincoln Avenue.

Sorry. Other council requests?

Vice Mayor? Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mr. Shields, I had a neighbor contact me to remind the city and the council about House Bill 909. As of July 1, it's prohibited that anyone is to carry firearms, even with a permit within 100 feet of an election site. So I didn't know if that's something we should put in the focus or what have you.

Carol Luton asked me to make sure that that wasn't that we were all aware of that thank you for that and I'll talk with the registrar also just in terms of that all the communications about elections I think that would be a good place for people to be looking for that information along with people

Ms. Flynn? I'm going to raise just three items. So we have on business on the agenda the three Virginia Village items. You know, I recognize sort of the public trust issues that have arisen around these issues. I wanted to put on the record that I had a conversation with the city manager about these issues today in terms of sort of unexpected changes, deletions from the materials or omissions from the materials, as well as sort of the issues around the shadow studies. I take the public trust issue seriously. I asked Mr. Shields to make sure to communicate to staff the importance of maintaining public trust through this process and also maintaining council trust through this process. So before we get to the items, I didn't know if you wanted to address at all sort of anything coming out of our conversation or generally in terms of ensuring that it is clear sort of in the staff reports and the packets as to when changes are being made for what reason so that the public and the council aren't left sort of digging around having to make sense of what may have changed and for what purpose and you know at kind of whose choice and

So I appreciate that. I was planning to make those comments at the start of the Virginia Village items, beginning with the comprehensive plan items. But I will speak to it now. First, I want to reaffirm the staff's commitment to serving the public and to serving the council and the entire community on any issues that are before the city council. That's a mindset, and it's also tactics and strategy, because the public is trying to follow this process, and when there are changes, our commitment is to be very clear about those changes so people do not need to hunt for them or find them and then ask questions about them. So we will re-dedicate ourselves to that need and to doing that work. I have spoken with staff about this today, just because there's been a lot of conversation about it over the weekend and today. I've spoken directly with community members, and they've shared their perspective on the process with me directly. appreciate those conversations and so as we go forward this is going to be a long process the land right you know that's in Virginia Village is owned by the tax was bought for by the taxpayers of the city and so we take its future its present and its future very seriously this is a public project through and through and so and we know that there's this is going to unfold over many months going ahead there's also going to need to be money associated with this as well as land use decisions and all of which as we go through those decisions trust has to be maintained and so we will do everything we can to maintain transparency about things will change we know that And when they do, to be clear about what is changing and why they're changing and then ultimately who the final decision maker is. And on those tonight, you will see there are changes that staff have proposed. We'll talk about those. And then ultimately the city council can make decisions on them tonight or set the stage for future decisions on them in the coming weeks.

And just to be clear, you and I also had a conversation. I appreciate all of that. I think it's important for the public to hear. I appreciate doing it now, given sort of the public comment. You and I also had a conversation about, yeah, just sort of decision making, right, and the sequence of decision making. And I think it's important where we are working together with staff. We're working through issues together. But my sort of expectation as a council member is that I see sort of council direction implemented in staff reports and to the extent that staff wants to revisit issues right either it may be that they weren't clear or that if issues were clear but staff still stands with or you know um its recommendation the council's you know directive is implemented in reports and then staff can raise you know why it continues to have a certain view on things and whether council wants to revisit the issue and so i will put on the record like that is my expectation for sort of how this process works and how it will continue to work.

Do we have other council requests? I had one. I know we got a public comment about the Washington and Columbia pedestrian works. I ran through there Friday and again today. And so it is still inaccessible to the public. And I understand the delay with that intersection work is unfortunately dominion. power, but to the extent that we can actually help with pedestrian detours that people have noticed before they get to the intersection, that's important. Because I was stuck stranded, and I took a detour into the church that was right there, Christ the Crossman. And if I were not able to navigate the sidewalk and the un-ADA standards there, I would have been stranded right there, and I'd have to go backwards. And I think the closest intersection would have been Park Place. So if we can address it, especially if that intersection is going to remain closed and inaccessible for a while, that would be helpful. Ms. Connolly?

And I also have a similar request regarding the traffic circle at Maple and Annandale. That one also is just taking a long time, and there are some dead ends for pedestrians.

We'll follow up on those as well.

It would be great, actually, to get an update on when that's going to be done. Thank you.

staying on the transportation topic um i had a conversation with a resident at broad and washington today there's still a lot obviously that is a difficult intersection there were some interesting ideas i'd like to get an update on when we think we'll be able to start implementing dynamic lighting something better for the the timing utilizing the smart cities functionality i know that's on the plan I'd like to understand when that is the other suggestion that came up is because East Broad backs up so much it blocks the exit from the Brown Washington building that maybe we could have DPW look at block the don't block the box type striping outside of that that entrance

put it on the list probably not top priority but you could have something like that on the list right understood last call for council requests okay let's move on to business on the agenda

you call the first item please yes the first item is a public hearing on TR 26-23 resolution to adopt amendments to the downtown and South Washington Street small area plans relating to land use zoning and related guidance for the Virginia Village area

And Mr. Shields, I guess before you call staff up, since you already gave your preamble, I was just gonna offer a quick comment to start if that's okay. So I appreciate Ms. Flynn's comments about kind of public trust and transparency. I think that is shared by many of us up here. I also appreciate Mr. Shields kind of you reiterating everyone's commitment to serving the public good. So before we kind of start the further discussions, I know it's going to continue, I wanted to offer everyone kind of a reminder and a theme that I often talk about. I think for staff, I'll start off by saying that these are obviously really complicated projects with hundreds of pages of plans and revisions and staff reports. I know that there's going to be mistakes or inconsistencies or things that need clarification. I think the ask, to put succinctly, is that when we find them, we should point them out, correct them, and move forward. And that is the kind of accountability and transparency that's important to build public trust and to sustain it. I think you've heard that from Ms. Flynn. I think for everyone else, though, so I've read all the public comments. I've heard the public comments tonight. I also think it is important that we try to distinguish and hold ourselves remembering the difference between human error and intentional misconduct and suggesting that anyone is trying to deliberately mislead the public or staff going rogue without counsel direction is a serious accusation and one that should only be made when the facts support it. I know that our staff works incredibly hard, especially on a priority for a project that we all believe is important for the community. I think that you all deserve the same respect and presumption of integrity that we want to extend to ourselves. I often say that we should try to extend positive intent when we can, because I think life would be too hard if we assumed everyone was trying to make it out and screw us. So in fact, I think reasonable people can disagree. But I hope that tonight and always that we can commit to assuming positive intent, focus on the facts, and engage each other with the respect that our community expects from all of us. So with that, staff report, please.

Thank you, Mayor. So our planning director, Mr. Matusik, will introduce the items. And Mr. Matusik, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And good evening, everyone. Can you hear me? Can you hear this?

Just to put a final point on the last couple of comments, I do want to reiterate, I think, the trust issue. I think we take that job very seriously. Staff has been working diligently across multiple departments on this very critical process. I think at times the schedule and other elements, competing priorities, I think it made it difficult to track the various evolutions of our work. So I think we take ownership of that. Instances where I think any graphics were incorrect or something was mischaracterized, I think we definitely take accountability accountability for that however that's all it was is simply a mistake in terms of graphic production the analysis through shadow studies I think are valid we stand behind that work if you look at the exhibits 99% of them have been the same they have not changed and I think what they really depict is not an increase in shadow compared to what's been demonstrated in existing conditions which I think is the main intent and purpose of that analysis and staff has committed to providing additional studies should conditions warrant we learn more through the RFP process but I do want to speak to the integrity I think we are all working towards the same goal this is an important development and the opportunity to reach affordable housing I do want to continue the debate with community I think it helps the products and the analysis get better it's going to continue beyond tonight and I think simply what's happened last week it's not something that we should continue to signal as something that's malintent or has any kind of further meaning behind that. So I think that's an important distinction. And I think what you also notice is that some of the newer information, the evolution of our work in the last week or so, is directly tied to feedback we've collected and received from the Planning Commission, from you all at the last work session. We spent a lot of time last week in going point by point of what we've heard and adding some additional clarity to that. There's a basis and origin behind everything that's changed since the last time you saw the material. And I think, as you'll see in the presentation by our two staff, Zoe and Jack, it'll become clear. But we can also have a debate about what we intended, what we meant, and where we want to move forward. As we mentioned earlier, there could be opportunities for additional first readings. There's also plenty of space in this gray area between the first reading and the second reading where technical changes can still occur. And we hope that that continues as we get more feedback. But I do want to just set that as an introduction before we see the staff's presentation, focusing mainly on what's changed since last Monday night.

So I just want to put that out there. Hello, can you hear me OK? We will try.

I'll try to project a little bit more. OK. All right. I'll try for that. Sorry, I'm soft spoken sometimes. I will be covering just the first portion of this, which it will mostly be on the SAPs, the small area plans. But to give some quick context, as believe everyone's aware but uh just to clarify again the map you see uh shows the entire area the red outline being the um virginia village area in that space the zoning and small area plan and comp comprehensive plan apply and then on the green lots and the green lots only does the request for proposals apply all right Next you will see an abbreviated schedule, mainly focusing on the zoning changes in the staff report. You can see a much more extensive schedule, including extensive community outreach done earlier this year, as well as continuous meetings. A key thing that I wanted to point out that Matt mentioned, A moment ago is that the first reading for the zoning is tonight, but the public hearing and final consideration for it isn't projected until Q3. So we have some time in between. All right, now to talk about the small area plans. I will keep this pretty brief. The scope of the amendments to the small area plans were to consolidate the guidance for Virginia Village into the South Washington small area plan, and then to revise the recommendations for Virginia Village related to the building scale and density transitions, housing and density, open space and connectivity, and complementary building uses. Other clerical changes that we took this opportunity to make included updating out-of-date maps and references, resolving some of the accessibility issues and updating some of the visuals, as well as adding in some references to the major projects that have been completed or approved in the planning opportunity area since the plan's adoption. OK, to quickly highlight some things that I know have come up continuously that we consider to be out of scope for small area plans based on what historically we have contained in our small area plans. So there are, I want to say, five of them. I know I know this. but all of them try to stay at a similar level of detail. So we tend to not include things like shadow impacts, specific heights or amounts for the building setbacks or step backs, parking specification, resident relocation and other protections, and specific size and use limitations for the grand floor uses. These things we choose to cover in other areas that are intended for more detailed descriptions, like the RFP that we've been working on, zoning, the design guidelines, amongst other documents that guide work in this area. Then to quickly call out two of the larger changes that have occurred in the small area plan since the June 22nd work session. We have added a Virginia Village overlay subsection within the proposed zoning section. And that goes into just a very general overview of what some of the goals of that overlay are. We have also added a change to the structured parking subsection language to broaden the scope of the recommendation that was already in there that originally said that a garage should be concealed from public view. We have changed that to it should be generally hidden from view and added a few more techniques that can be used to achieve that goal, including screening and strategic site design. And with that, I will open it up to any questions.

Thank you. Questions for Ms. Lareve on the small area plan changes?

Thank you for all these changes. I noticed a lot of things that were updated. In the South Washington small area plan, you have the resolution adopting it in 2013, I think, 2014. And I'm wondering, can you add tonight's resolution adopting this? And then also in the downtown area plan, can you put both of those in there as well, the original one and then tonight's adoption?

yes definitely great uh we will also add a um note i think it's at the very bottom there's a small paragraph that talks about the implementation and then and the adoption and we will also add tonight's date if it gets adopted to that okay that's great um on page 69 it mentions the easter seals child care and it says the development was completed in 2020 but it was actually 2013.

We can correct that. Thank you.

Yes.

Everything else looks really good. Thank you. The new graphics are great, really lively, and show a good sense of the area. And I think you did a good job of merging the old and the new, knowing that at some point, we'll redo the whole thing. But for now, this is good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Thanks so much for your presentation. Mr. Machusak, thank you, too, for your words. Two quick things that I have. One is looking at the staff report. I'm looking on page 13. There is a chart there, and it talks about a planning commission motion, and this is about the structure parking. And so the Planning Commission's motion is additional amendments to be drafted by staff to ensure structured parking is shielded from public and adjacent residents' view. The response to the right isn't I feel like it doesn't quite hit what the Planning Commission suggested so I might want us to think about being a little bit more specific about both public view and the adjacent Residents views in this case Winter Hill. So if we could maybe just take another look at that as I said, it was Planning Commission's motion on that and then also on page um 73 i think there was just a line that dropped off um and i spoke with mr shields and i'm sorry if mr shield you already mentioned this and i missed it but um there's on page 73 on the right side this is of the small area plan the top paragraph um there was a line that um used to say taller buildings should avoid casting shadows onto existing homes park areas when possible and that seemed to have dropped off from one version to the other and i believe mr shield said that was just an oversight so if we could add that back on um it's that top the on the right side that top paragraph uh where it ends with the tallest parts of redevelopment being cited closer to south maple avenue and then it it ended originally with that one line taller buildings should avoid casting shadows onto existing homes and park areas when possible so that's it for me thank you so i will note um if there if just for full disclosure that was dropped out a couple of weeks ago it was

intentional but it is an example of one kind of in our conversations today that we want to be very transparent about changes like that so everybody can see it know it comment on it and in fact this was noted as being a change in the matrix of comparisons um as language was still in there but in fact it had dropped out okay and so this is something we got comment on over the weekend this is an example of one where we want to do a better job of being very transparent about changes now now having said all that um if it is an important sentence to the city council there could be a motion to add it back in or or just by consensus but maybe zoe if you had any other sort of context or background for that

Yeah, so the reason it was dropped off was through the editing process. In looking at the scope, we kind of found that that's the only place that's really mentioning shadows in the small area plans. That was part of that kind of negotiation and request from Planning Commission to kind of generalize some of these things. As Wyatt said, with that being said, it's something that we can add back in if the council would prefer it. Yes, and we want to apologize about the matrix that was drafted. a few months back with some of the original versions and it just slipped through the cracks that that sentence got cut and was not reflected in the matrix so apologies about that so what i'm hearing is that we don't reference shadows in any other small area plans and so staff removed that because they felt it would be inconsistent with how we've done small area plans elsewhere is that the That's generally the thought. I haven't searched shadow in every single small area plan. But to our best knowledge, the level of detail does not usually include things like that. But it is completely up to council if that's something they would like to include.

also to piggyback to i guess the vice mayor's i guess it was line 325 because that was also my question the planning commission i know they discussed it i did not watch the whole film but i think there was some debate about whether to add it to the small area plan or the zoning language and i think the planning commission wanted to add a small area plan around shielding structured parking

Yes. So that was part of their motion. And the language that is in the staff report is what we came up with to generalize that request. We had heard from community members that they wanted us to just drop the word to drop the word public and to have it apply to all spaces so we did that as well as adding in some of the specific strategies that planning commission referenced we decided to go that way rather than more specifically call out adjacent residences and the park just as a matter of wordsmithing but we're happy to to make any edits to that if that's a request from council

It seems like the new language, at least my read of it, is broader. So you're not specifying that it's only the public and adjacent residents view, but hidden from anyone's view.

Yes, the idea was to kind of take the language from the sentence above, which is talking about the Pearson, sorry, the tax analyst parking structure that says it is generally hidden from view. So we, seeing as that's the language in the above section, we decided to bring that in as the guidance.

Yeah.

Got it. OK.

I will say I attended that Planning Commission meeting I don't think the Planning Commission was as locked in on the specific wording as they were about the spirit of it and so I think I'm actually comfortable I think the public piece of it really caused a lot of issues because what does that mean and I think the language they've landed on, keeping it broad. And it does, I think, capture the spirit of what the Planning Commission was trying to say.

So you feel taking just the word public out would meet what the Planning Commission was intending?

I think the word generally also, because you're not going to be able to hide these things from somebody standing 10 feet away. So there was a concern about that. the public one of the things they really had heartburn was public meant from the street but not in fact we even asked public view does not include from publicly accessible places such as the parking lots within winter hill so i think this now is actually encompassing that Because if it's generally hidden from the parking lots of Winter Hill, it's generally hidden from the buildings as well. So I think this actually captures the spirit.

And you were at that meeting. I obviously wasn't. So how does everyone feel? So the line that I had talked about getting dropped off at some point, but I feel that the line is not pushing anyone into it. It said, you know, taller buildings should avoid casting shadows on existing homes and park areas when possible. So there is, you know, it's not a hardcore, you must do this. It's just a suggestion, but I didn't know what other council members felt about that.

Can you just, where's that line? I'm trying to find it in the.

it's not in there so it's not it used to be in this paragraph on the right that starts the areas located between low density resident that paragraph ended with that line and it's not there anymore so i understand the desire of staff to to set a line of what's in smaller plans what's in the next and um

I don't think the small area plans should get too specific, but the line you were reading, it's not very specific.

That's what I was thinking. It's very general. It's almost like a suggestion.

Yeah, and that seems appropriate for a small area plan. And in fact, I would suggest that when we update other small area plans, maybe that line should be getting added into those. The fact that it's not in the other ones, Some small airplane has to be first. And I think it's generic enough, it's general enough that I think we're going to be okay with that.

I would agree with that. I didn't view the sentences like prescriptive or overly prescriptive in any way, sort of read it right with the should language as opposed to the must language, and then with the when possible is appropriately caveated. And I think as we talked about, and I think came out of the visioning meetings, one of the things that was important was preventing increased or overshadowing. And it would be appropriate to include in the small area plan, because that's the direction that staff is taking, and then thinking about heights and step backs and all of those things. So I would include it for that reason. And we've seen other developments, including Pearson Square, for example, where, you know, then a development community looks at that language and it thinks about like, oh, where should cutouts be or where should, you know, different articulation and massing be affected in order to kind of at least think about kind of these issues and visual impact and shadow impacts. So I'm with you on reinserting it into it. Thanks. Ms. Underhelm.

Yes, I don't fully understand in terms of these small area plans. This is something that we need to stick to when planning, but it's mostly a guide. But does that open us up to any legal risk if for some reason, could someone come after us and say, well, you didn't do enough for the shadow and open space or whatever it is that we...

say in here like could this open us up to any sort of risk if no no okay this is this is mostly a suggestive document going forward that's correct other comments do we need four people to say that would like it changed so far there are three so far there are three i'm happy to make it make that change i think it's

It doesn't change it that much and it mentioned something that matters and I think mr. Egan's right We should probably look at other small area plans with that concern Laura.

I think you have the best handle on it. Do you want to make a motion?

You

I forgot the exact word. You know, if council wants to continue on with comment, we'll draft, you know, while you all are doing that work, we'll draft it up.

Okay. Thank you. You have the original language before it was dropped, so it's not complicated. Other questions or comments on the small area plan?

Otherwise, I'm going to open up for public hearing.

Okay, I'm going to open up for a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to comment on TR 26-23?

I see Mr. Baruch is approaching.

Thank you. I sort of want to talk about this item, but I sort of don't because I think it's being resolved. But I do want to point out something that I heard the mayor say, and that was... And I don't know which public comment it might have come to. And I just want to clarify, at no point did I hear this evening, either from my comments or others, disparaging staff or placing intent, but simply providing facts of what happened. And unfortunately, when we start alluding to reasons why the public is making comments and asserting that they're trying to disparage staff, That further itself erodes trust. My purpose of making the comments this evening and throughout this process was to help develop further trust. But I hope that the council at the same time is hearing that trust is eroding, whether it's because of purposeful error, which I don't think it is. I think it's just been error and human error. But regardless of that, that does erode trust when staff is asked whether information is correct, and they don't check the work, and it continues. And it's only by citizens challenging it that it gets fixed. And again, it's too late at times to put the genie back in the bottle. And it's like what we tell our kids. When you make a mistake, you own it, and you try to get to a fix. You don't double down. You don't allude to increasing the heights. You work with what you did to try to live with the standards you set and work on it cooperatively to get to a win-win. And that was the spirit of my comments and I think others you heard this evening. It was not to attribute malice to any staff or to the city. I think it's far from that. It was simply to point out that mistakes were made but we need to own it as a community and move on and get to yes. And that was the spirit of my comments. And I appreciate the vice mayor raising the point about the metrics, because that's also was an important point. And I think it was, again, human error. But when you read the metrics, which I think most people do, you would assume that that language actually appears in the operative language, and it didn't. And it was only because I happened to be reading and trying to find it in context where I noticed that one line, which was important to myself and other community members, was gone. And that's not to say that it was purposeful or not purposeful, but it was also not transparent. It was never discussed until this evening. And it wouldn't have been discussed had a citizen not raised it. Because it didn't live somewhere. And that's simply not OK. And that's not attributing malice. That's simply stating a fact. And we as a city need to do better, period. Thank you.

Are there other public comments on TR 26-23?

Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. The item's back with council.

Further discussion, or is there a motion with the amendment that we discussed?

do do we need to read that again that line or staff's pulling up the I was sending I think the motion would read move to add the following sentence taller building should avoid casting shadows onto existing homes and park areas when possible in the South Washington SAP and the location Zoe

It should be on page 73, I think. Page 73 at the end of the first paragraph on the right side.

We want to get very specific.

And your pages won't be changing? Can we reference that? Or I can hear...

The pages may change because we try to put out a clean version onto the web page. So that would be, we will keep a version that has all the edits on the web page, but we will also put a version that does not include the crossed out text and the red and all that. So it's an easier read for people who are not wanting to look into the details of the exact changes.

Can we not reference the page then in the motion? Can we just say at the end of?

the paragraph starting with that sentence right yeah Aaron's going under the development section yeah so I would add a motion that in the proposed land use section on redevelopment that the paragraph beginning the area is located between low density residential areas that the sentence which was removed is reinstated to the end of that paragraph. And that sentence reads, taller buildings should avoid casting shadows onto existing homes and park areas when possible.

I think I've got a handle on where we can move.

We could just say after this sentence.

Was that a, but that was a motion. That was a motion. Yeah, there's a motion on the table. I'll second it. There's Downs on the second. Call roll, please. Mr. Agin?

Yes.

Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? And Mayor Hardy? Yes.

And Ms. Flynn, in the beginning of your statement, it was to adopt TR 26-23. Did I miss that? Oh, yeah. I didn't do that one yet.

I thought we were doing the motion.

So this is just a motion to amend?

TR does that as amended. That works.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to adopt now, TR 26-23?

I move to adopt TR 26-23 as amended.

Second. Second. Oh, I see Mr. Snyder has his hand up.

Yes, thanks. On another topic, we heard a lot of folks commenting on stormwater and drainage challenges in that area. And I note that there is some language on the small area plan that I wanted to call folks attention to. I think it's toward the end. And I wanted to ask the appropriate staff, Does the current language provide for the eventuality that conditions would not only be neutral, but potentially be improved over the current drainage and stormwater that's there? I'm not asking for a commitment for that, but I want to make sure that the language doesn't preclude that.

I believe we did not alter the utilities environment section. It's a pretty brief section and one that we viewed more as being part of a larger update. I know there is also a stormwater master plan in discussions that we would want to have to advise any work like this that we are doing. Yeah.

So I just, I just, again, want to call attention to page 129.

And I mean, I found the language to be pretty good, but I want to make sure that I understand what it means. And is there a general recognition that significant stormwater and drainage issues exist there and will have to be addressed in this anything complying with a small area plan?

And maybe for the benefit of the public, I'm going to ask Mr. Shields to just generally talk about our stormwater regs that would apply, whether it's in the small area plan or not, saying that might give the public some assurance about what's already on the books.

So as a broad statement, any redevelopment is going to improve stormwater on the site. There are no stormwater facilities on site right now. This property was developed before there were any stormwater regulations. And so the city code, which follows the state code, requires that, A, there can't be any increase in concentrated runoff from the site post-development. And in addition to that, we have provisions to improve water quality and to retain the water beyond the current flows off the site. I can't speak to the specifics and the ratios on that, but any redevelopment does require at least the maintenance of the status quo and most often a betterment of the stormwater situation.

And we know that there are stormwater drainage issues in that area, having spent a lot of effort on the park. And so my hope is that the language, although it's general, will be applied in this case in a very firm and proactive way. Thank you.

Okay, there was a motion and a second. Let's call roll then. This is to adopt TR 26-23 now after the amendment earlier. Yes.

Mr. Agin?

Yes.

Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Mr. Snyder?

Yes.

Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Ms. Larrief.

Let's call the next item.

Yes, our next item is a public hearing on TR 26-24, Resolution to Amend the City of Falls Church Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 Addendum, Revitalization Areas, Small Area Plans, and Urban Development Areas in order to relocate the following parcels out of planning areas. Opportunity Area 5, City Center Downtown, and into Planning Opportunity Area 6, South Washington Street Corridor. 202 Gibson Street, RPC 52-309-002. 204 Gibson Street, RPC number 52-309-003. 206 Gibson Street, RPC 52-309-003. and 208 Gibson Street, RPC number 52-309-005, and to incorporate by reference all small area plans adopted by City Council into Chapter 4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.

And Mr. Jack Treanor will provide staff report on this item.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Shields. Yeah, I'm going to be working from the staff report, but there's no updates to this report from Council's work session on the 20th. I don't have much to add from the city clerk just read the title. This is again amending the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, amending the South Washington Street Planning Opportunity Area boundary to include those Gibson Street properties in the Virginia Village area to bring them all under the same small area plan. and amend the downtown POA accordingly. And then, yes, all of the adopted small area plans will be formally adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan.

Mr. Prater, Ms. Connolly?

If we're thinking about adding that line about shadows to all area plans, is there an appropriate place to put that in here as well? The line we just added to South Washington.

I believe that's probably small area plan specific. I'm not sure that belongs in the larger chapter, because that's even more general than the small area plans. Is that what you're referring to? No, no, no.

We just added that line to the South Washington small area plan.

Oh, at the end? I'm sorry.

Just that line about not creating shadows on existing And Mr. Egan said we should really think about adding that to all of the area plans. I'm just wondering if there's an appropriate spot to put that in here. I don't know where that would be.

This is the comp plan.

Oh, this is the comp plan. All right, forget it. Sorry. I'm so sorry.

There's so many plans.

It's OK. So many plans. Oh, that's embarrassing.

Sorry. That's OK. Any other thoughts?

OK, I'm going to open the public hearing. Any members of the public wish to open or discuss and comment TR 26-24?

Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Any further discussion, or is there a motion?

I move to adopt TR 26-24. Is there a second?

I'll second. Under Hill on the second.

Call roll. Mr. Agin? Yes. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Mr. Snyder?

Yes.

Ms. Underhill?

Yes.

Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, Council.

Ms. Hardy, while I'm thinking about this, I do think we received one public comment as to this particular item, and so I just wanted to respond to that very quickly. as I understood it the public comment was concerned that by moving the four parcels from the downtown small area plan into the South Washington small area plan that those parcels would be treated differently from the other Virginia village parcels and so the intent of the move of bringing these four parcels from that one small area plan into this small area plan is actually so that the parcels can be considered alongside the rest of the Virginia Village property I just wanted to make that clear given the public comment we received thank you for that clarification yep we're ready to move on to the next item

Yes for first reading we have TO 26-15 ordinance to amend the text of city code chapter 48 zoning article 4 districts division 1 generally to clarify optional redevelopment opportunities throughout the code article 5 supplementary regulations division 3 reserve to add regulations governing the Virginia village village affordable housing zoning district and to amend divisions four and five by renumbering to division four the content of the existing division five mixed-use redevelopment regulations and renumbering to division five the content of the existing division four filling stations and public garages and to amend division seven site plans Section 48-1137 required information, subsection 5, to allow exceptions for certain developments within the Virginia Village Zoning District.

Just by way of introduction for this item, for the public's information, this zoning tax amendment was given a first reading by the City Council on June 22nd of 2026. It's back for a new first reading, and one of the headline changes is to have a special exception provision for projects under the Virginia Village District after July 1st. There are other changes, however, and Mr. Traynor is going to walk through those. And one of those was referenced by public comment earlier tonight about those properties within 150 feet of properties that have a Gundry Avenue address where kind of the diagrams had all called for them to be three to four stories maximum height. And the council direction was to have the feet associated with that. And we had proposed 50 feet. We've gotten a lot of public comment on that. Mr. Treanor will sort of discuss what the thinking was behind the 50 feet. But ultimately, we'll have a good discussion about that item as well. as some other technical changes that we've made since the last time the council saw this at your work session on July 20th. Mr. Treanor.

Thank you, Mr. Shields. Yeah, thanks, Dave. I'm going to return to the PowerPoint we've provided, and I'll start with... Again, another acknowledgment that there was an error in one of the attachments, the shadow studies, specifically regarding the 10 a.m. December shadows, which were in fact showing the March 10 a.m. But that the other ones were correct, we double-checked those. So specifically, the December 10 AMs were, again, showing the March 1s, again, at the same time, 10 AM, and those have been corrected. But in terms of the actual proposal, that's what I'm going to cover now. So the most substantive change in the proposal since Council's July 20 meeting was there was a request we heard to further investigate the public open space option and adding some additional considerations around that approval. So staff has amended the proposal to make the affordable housing contributions relevant to all applications be it by right or special exception but also provide for that move that open space requirement to special exception only we've also added some additional criteria around that consideration but all of the additional requirements that were in there previously describing you know the the It must be contiguous. It has to be public open space. Those kind of more physical requirements remain. And again, what's been added is that this has been removed to the special exception process with a clause about council may consider the public open space. And so there's some, again, more additional, more wider breadth of consideration for the open space requirement compared to the affordable housing. Next, I'll cover building design, and I'll touch on the second row first. So we heard the question last time about a Gibson Street setback. We've incorporated that to mirror the South Maple Street setback of 18 feet. We also discussed incorporating that same kind of building step-back structure along Shirley Street. Previously, we had it for any property that shared a property line with an RM district, and that didn't apply to those properties that are across the street from an RM district. And so there was that inadvertent potential tunnel effects that could be developed along Shirley Street. And so we've incorporated that same step back requirement for any property within the district that is across a street from an RM district within the district. So that's meant to get at any Shirley property. Regarding building heights, so we previously were keeping, as proposed, the three story or 40 feet, whichever is less building step back. So you can build two, three stories or 40 feet, whichever is less. And if you exceed those parameters, you would be required to step back the building 10 feet. That remains in the proposal. And again, that applies to any building face that fronts an RM district. So that applies to Gundry. The Gundry properties in Winter Hill, that applies to any other adjacent, adjacent RM zoned district within the proposed Virginia Village district is when that step back would apply. Additionally, that six stories are 75 feet maximum. That's what you can do today in RM. So there's no change there. And then regarding the four stories or 50 feet, whichever is less, there was a council directive at your July 20th meeting to investigate a foot maximum instead of just saying 40 feet. Four stories, excuse me, what would be a corresponding beat? And so staff went and looked at, you know, what are some examples of four stories across the city, particularly in those kind of transitional edges? And, you know, what we've seen have been townhouses built in the T1 district. And so the townhouses represent this sort of transitional in height and intensity is something that represents that, again, that transition from Winter Hill to the more commercial high-intensity area of South Maple, even within the district. And so looking at kind of more what those dimensions are, the T1 dimensions permit a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet. And so this type of product really requires above 40 feet to kind of achieve this form, the kind of modern townhouse. You have your kind of three stories, which all can be about 10 feet, but you have between the floors additional space that typically tends to push you above 40 feet. And so to apply even that building step back, approaching 40 feet, it's difficult to achieve A PRODUCT LIKE THAT UNDER THOSE PARAMETERS. SO THAT WAS THE RATIONAL, THAT WAS KIND OF THE BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION IS LOOKING AT WHAT FOUR STORIES IS BUILT TO ACROSS THE CITY. AND SO THAT'S BEING PRESENTED FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION. Next I'll move on to for some additional vegetative requirements and buffering We also heard at that July 20th work session to consider some again some additional buffering between the Virginia village properties and some adjacent commercial properties and so that has been addressed in the code as well as some additional language around internal our and districts and I guess a general overview of that is we pulled the kind of existing buffering between similar districts that is already in place. And so because that wasn't already employed here, we basically took these similar kind of conditions that are already regulated similarly, and we just applied them here. I'm happy to go into more detail on those if there's any questions. And then lastly, parking guidance. And so this has already been touched on a little bit. Again, I think Staff, you know, kind of recommends instead of prescribing some more of these kind of more specific building details, kind of putting a placeholder in both the code and the RFP that was put out and relying on similar language in the small area plans talking about you know the guidance for you know such building designs and then if need be we can get more specific down the road but staff recommends keeping again this kind of more general guidance and to kind of help guide the the rfp submissions and then seeing if if there's a need for additional uh need to address that then we can return to that topic before final consideration which is scheduled for late october and that is all the updates to the zoning proposal council and happy to take any questions great thank you mr trainer i'm sure there will be questions and comments i want to go first nobody wants to go

Vice Mayor?

Well, I have two. These are more, I think, housekeeping matters, but I just want just to make sure that our documents are correct when people read them later. On page two of the staff report, let's see sorry i'm sorry page four of the test staff report um towards the bottom where it says um would the new overlay district permit redevelopment be by right does that need to be changed with the new date until july 1st 2027 With the gray, you know, because it's a new change? I don't know.

So there is still the, as proposed, the buy-write option, which would carry until next summer, following which all the options would move to special acceptance.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Like, if you look at it on the right, it just seems like it's always going to be buy-write. So do we have to add that language in there?

Sure, we can.

Just, you know, to just be... more clear for people. Absolutely, yeah.

And then one other, this is just one more housekeeping thing. On line 620, hold on, let me get to it. So on line 620, and I was just looking at this, and it was about setback requirements. And if I'm looking at this right, so if you look at letter F, it says at least 35 feet from any public park property line. Shouldn't that also say from Gundry Drive? I mean, it looks like that on the diagram. It's just not indicated in the text above. I'm not sure if I'm looking at that correctly.

Yes. That's right. The setback, yeah, is intended to be 35 feet from Gundry Drive.

So we would just say any public park and Gundry Drive property line.

Correct. Just add that in there. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Others?

Just to add to what Council Member Downs said, one thing, going back to the buy-write, I think it's all, when you're updating that, I think it's important to be clear that nothing in the overlay eliminates the ability of a private property owner to develop buy right using the underlying zoning. So the RM that currently exists, they still have full buy right.

That's correct.

We just need to make sure that's clear. I guess I'll open up the discussion on the big issue. At last week's meeting, I raised the concern about eliminating the feet because I'm not, I'm never really that thrilled with using stories in zoning just because stories is a undefined standard. It's like how high is a story? That's why at last Monday's meeting, the 40 feet had been removed from from it. So when we said to put the 40 feet back, what we saw was coming into the work session, it had been four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less. And I was comfortable with that in the previous first reading because of the 40 feet, it meant maybe that first story is partially below grade, things like that, which then gives the space to do four stories, three and a half, kind of. But when you updated it for this one, last week, the 40 feet got taken out. This week, it got put back in at 50 feet with the same reading. And that clearly has caused a lot of consternation from a lot of people. And I have heartburn with that. What we were really saying was that we need to have 40 feet in there. Please restore what had been there. And I would like to see what had been in the zoning from the first reading restored, which is the four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less. And because that way, that first story can be below grade, can deliver affordable housing in basement apartments, can deliver accessible apartments with the basement and first floor. So I would like to see that language that was there prior to what we saw last Monday restored.

Others?

This one. I have other comments, but on the height in particular, I agree with Mr. Agin. I would like to see four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less. I mean, I think, yeah, I agree with council members that felt like we needed to maintain the height cap. in terms of making sure that the edge didn't get too high, but also to the extent that someone can put four stories in 40 feet. I don't want to artificially limit their design. If what I'm feeling like the important feedback is, is maintaining that there actually is a meaningful cap on sort of the height at that back edge. So I'm with Mr. Egan on reinstating the 4 or 40, whichever is less language. And then I have others, but I'll let others comment on that issue first if they want.

Mr. Snyder.

yeah i agree with council members agan and flynn i think at some point we need to get a motion on the table to get a vote on this but i agree with the position that they're taking others yeah i'll be the fourth voice on that one that i would agree with that

And if I understand from staff, I think what you're telling us that you really can't build four real stories at 40 feet. Is that?

Well, yeah. And I'm not a developer, but a lot of the feedback we've gotten to date, particularly when doing the T-zones, was that 45 feet was necessary as a cap because typically for four stories, you're between 40 and 45 feet.

So I think what we got comfortable with at first reading was four stories. I think conceptually is what we've been talking about was four stories. And I think in that translation, it shouldn't have been 40 feet, I guess, if we were, as a council, comfortable with four stories. I think the tough thing is that we said 40 feet or four stories. I think the policy intent was four stories, because that's what we felt comfortable based on the grade difference, the 45 bulk plane angle, and all the other details that we wrestled with. And now the reality that you're kind of telling us is that you can't really build four stories at 40 feet. And so we're kind of stuck with, well, what do we discuss with the public at the first first reading? And what's actual building reality?

And I would argue that you're correct that four stories above grade is not possible in 40 feet. But when you bring in that partial below grade story, now that extra five feet is actually below grade. So it's kind of like 3 and 1 half stories 40 feet, but you're really getting four stories worth of units and housing.

Yeah, and I mean, and I would add to it, I think you're saying you can't replicate the Park Avenue T-zones, but I haven't heard, like, an absolute no, you can't put four stories in 40 feet, and you might not be able to do it with, like, nine or ten foot ceilings, but you can surely make a building that's 40 feet tall with four stories. I mean, I'm an AI skeptic and don't use it all that much, but if you ask...

they will say, yes, you could actually do it and give you drawings of people who have done it.

So anyway, I mean, I'm prepared to make a motion as to buildings located within 150 feet of any property line.

I think there's more council discussion.

Others have other comments. Ms. Underhill?

I was actually just curious because there was talk about putting things underground. Is underground really I know that there were talks about stormwater issues and water retention issues on this area. And so I was just wondering if underground is actually a realistic option on the site. Do we know?

I'll say it's unlikely for smaller developers who are redeveloping perhaps a single property. But a larger scale entity with more resources might find that they have an easier time doing that.

So it would depend on the size of the project, just whether or not they could go underground.

So a question, maybe a clarification on how we measure height. So a common complaint we get in R1A and R1B neighborhoods is people often exceed 35 feet in height, which is the height limit for single family homes. They often go to 40, 45, because I think we measure from the midpoint of the roof line, is that correct, and not the peak?

That's correct. You measure at the midpoint of the roof line, as you described, Mayor, and then also the average grade of the site.

Does that also apply here in measuring height, assuming the roofs aren't flat?

It would, yeah. We're not proposing changing the way that those measurements are done.

So could people get creative and not have flat roofs and figure out how to gable their fourth story?

Potentially. I'm hesitant to weigh too much in that topic without talking more with the zoning administrator, but certainly folks could get creative with how they meet the regulations, sure. Yeah.

I think the thing I'm trying to get comfortable with without using AI, as Ms. Flynn talked about, is I would hate to shut the door on four stories, because ultimately, We are trying to balance public policy objectives here, which is to build affordable housing and add enough on a relatively small parcel, but also being respectful of the neighborhood and what we think neighborhood compatibility looks like. And so if we can find that balance and figure out how we can do four stories, which, again, is the policy intent of council, not three, and within 40 feet, because people can get creative with their roof line, I think people could get more comfortable with.

I actually think Taking this 40 feet would encourage developers to do things with sloped roofs and dormers and gabled ends such that we may get more of a small town feel, more in keeping with what is there now. I think this would actually encourage them not to go the box on box architectural styling and be creative.

Yeah, the other question I had is, if we stick with the 40 feet, then what would your recommendation be for the step back, or would there be a recommended step back?

The current step back is at 30 feet, go back to 10 feet, and step back, correct? That remains the same?

I believe we have it at 40 feet, three stories and 40 feet.

Right, but if, so if there's, So there would be the others.

OK. What meets the bulk plane calculation at 40 feet?

At 40 feet height?

If we kept the 40 feet height or four stories.

What meets the bulk plane?

For the step back. What's drafted in the?

in terms of, oh, like the step back, how far would you have to be stepped back from Gundry to get to 45?

Yeah, I assume it's what we adopted in the first first reading.

Right. Probably closer to somewhere between 40 and 45 feet, I would think, to get to four stories. Was that your question? Yeah, because you're at a 45-degree bulk plane. You're essentially, you have to be as far out as you are height. So I'd imagine around 40 feet.

Yeah, I think it depends upon the change in slope. So if it was flat all the way to the property line, which we know it's not, it would be 35 the bulk plane would hit at 35 feet because it's a 35 foot step back so and i don't think the that rise is really more than five feet in most areas i think it's three or four feet so it would probably the bulk plane would probably be hitting at 40 feet and you'd see that step back yeah the grade does vary across the site uh it's highest at the west end and levels out uh the more east you go

Ms. Connelly.

So then you're saying if we keep it at 40 feet and four stories, there's not any step back on the Gundry Road side? Or is the step back at 35 feet?

Well, I mean, if you could still build to 40 feet and four stories, you'd still have to be stepped back at three stories. OK. Because it's whatever's less. So if you could achieve that, then that would still apply.

So you'd have the step back at three stories?

Correct. OK. To get to your fourth story, which is also capped at 40 feet.

And then there have been some requests to do a 20-foot step back. It seems, when I'm looking at the map, that that's like half the building.

Correct. You're introducing more design challenges, particularly on that edge, where, remember, on the far end, There's a disconnected piece from what I like to call the lightning bolt. And I've heard that elsewhere, too. So there might be some more creativity required to develop something meaningful over there. And introducing 20 feet, again, you're slicing some valuable floor space off the top most story, which can hinder, obviously, what you could do there.

But if it is a 10-foot step back, which is what we're contemplating, that fits within the bulk plane, at three stories, it would start to step back.

Correct. After three stories, you have to step back 10.

Thank you.

Other thoughts on this item?

See whether we can come to a decision on this before moving on to the other.

Madam Mayor, before council makes decisions, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. and I think suggest two changes. One was, and you've already discussed the 40 feet in height, which is under review. The second one was under section 48-1031 number one, which is at line 663, 664. um that section provides the minimum affordable housing requirements and it really should be limited to buy right applications because under the special exception applications your i i would expect council would want some flexibility to trade um open space and design elements for the you know and maybe have some flexibility on that um the number of affordable housing units. That's the general purpose for a special exception is to provide you with that flexibility. And so my proposed change, if that's the intent of council, is to put in number one in between all, you know, the first two words are all development applications. And instead it would say all by right development applications.

Thoughts on that? I think we're fine with that edit as well.

All right. The next one was section 48-1030, letter E, which is the tree canopy. What line number are we at? Yeah, let me find it, please. 658, right above where we just were. In lieu of referencing the state code, which is not advised, I recommend that we take the smallest percentage that's allowed under that code, which is 10%. And so we would replace what's in letter E in its entirety with the following sentence, which is, by right, developments in the district shall provide a minimum tree canopy on the development site such that when measured 20 years after the first certificate of occupancy is issued, the tree canopy shall cover at least 10% of the development site.

I think that goes against what staff was trying to do to not have fixed things throughout so that if the state changed their rules and expanded it, we wouldn't have to change our code. Let me ask staff, is there a... Another part of the city code that could be referenced that then references more specifics. So it all stays. So it's not going directly to the state, but it's actually going to something within the city code.

Sure. I mean, other districts do have prescribed tree canopy minimums, other zoning districts that are captured in conditions applying to permitted uses section typically. So if it's separate from the commercial tree canopy ordinance that the city passed recently, which covers a broader swath of development in the city, typically that's found spelled out in the individual district so what the city attorney is proposing is more consistent with what we've done in the past it yes it could be it yeah There's I think what staff was getting at is that if and when the state regulations change, we would then have to update local code.

But to the city attorney's point, there's different ways to do it.

I guess I'm confused why the city attorney is making that recommendation. Because I thought the point was to point to state code, so that if state code changed, we would still have the most updated version. I think it was Ms. Reagan's question.

So there's two different types of state codes. One is self-actualizing, meaning the state law is the state law, and it does not require you to adopt an ordinance in order to effectuate that law. That law is the state's law, and we can reference it. We don't have to adopt it, because it's already the law. The tree canopy ordinance is not one of those statutes. That ordinance, that statute authorizes you to adopt an ordinance. And that statute has a lot of different requirements about what your ordinance has to contain. And it envisions that the locality and the law is that you can't simply reference state law when you are required to adopt an ordinance unless you have specific authority. It so happens I just recently looked into this for the police because they were also looking into whether they could just reference state law. And there's case law on that. So it really is when the state code suggests, so for example, unlike the zoning notice requirements under 15.2-2204, those zoning notice requirements are the law. Whether you adopt an ordinance or you don't adopt an ordinance, And so in that case, I would not recommend repeating the state law in our ordinance, because when that state law changes, your law is just wrong, and it's no longer valid. But with tree canopy ordinance, because you are required to adopt an ordinance specifying your tree rules in order to take advantage of the tree laws, you should be adopting an ordinance that creates those tree laws in your ordinance and not by reference to a state law.

OK. Can it be like as adopted by the city? You know what I mean?

So if it's, I'm just trying to think of like, no.

I don't understand the question just yet.

That if it's not a self-executing state law, but the city takes the steps to adopt the ordinance consistent with the state law,

Like, this is the ordinance that we're adopting, and it's consistent with, say, just consistent with state law?

Yeah, but I mean, so we have our local ordinance, right?

That's... We don't have a local ordinance that would apply to this... overlay district right got it that's the problem now otherwise we would we can certainly reference our own laws when they're located and in fact I recommend that we do that rather than state our laws in more than one location because then you end up accidentally you know the underlying RM not carry the tree canopy requirement because if the underlying RM carries it shouldn't it carry into the overlay or no it does not it has to be repeated in the overlay for it to apply got it yeah okay was there anything else city attorney um yeah one more thing and i'm sorry it was self-executing not self-actualizing that's a very personal thing not not legal um okay so ben uh i did want to point out and i think um i think mr trainer did talk to this but um just to make sure everyone's clear that the way the ordinance used to be written and the way it's written now

that there is no if you're developing by right there is no open space requirement and I just wanna make sure that's clear yeah so I had a question on that I guess I'm trying to I'm trying to process your earlier suggestion on the tree canopy no on line 664 right so affordable housing and open space requirements and then 664 suggestion under number one that all development applications shall satisfy the following affordable housing requirements and i guess i understood the buy right piece of it to still be through july 2027 or until july 2027 or everything except you can now prior to July 2027 and post-2027 only get open space by going through a special exception process. That basically open space is always subject to special exception from the get-go. And that for the buy-write applications, I mean that for the affordable housing applications they are by right without a special exception through July 2027 and that they too have they go through the special exception process as of July 1 2027 so What I'm not understanding is just because I'm reading it on the fly. In 664, if we say all by right development applications or whatever the earlier suggestion was, I thought that all development applications, whether by right or special exception, have to satisfy one, and that the special exception in two always applies regardless of where you are in the timeline. So I think that we actually probably don't want to add by right to 664, unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the suggestion.

I mean, as you consider that the thinking all along has been that The burden we put on any development in Virginia Village is that you either deliver open space or you either deliver affordable housing. Forcing both on any single development would make it infeasible. I think what we heard at the closed session on July 20th was that we didn't want to forego a scenario where development potentially could take some affordable units offline by removing a quadplex. and delivering open space by which in that exchange we'll be losing affordable housing. So I think to kind of get ahead of that, the updated language drives at the point that after July 1, when everything becomes and has to go through an SE process, it would be up to you all to use certain specific criteria to evaluate If the time was appropriate, if the metrics were met, have we delivered enough affordable housing already in Virginia Village where you felt more comfortable at that point to consider an open space contribution in lieu of affordable housing, which is how the second bullet begins. It states that premise where in exchange, or rather instead of providing affordable housing, here's how you could be eligible for an open space commitment.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just asking on number one, on the buy right,

the the inclusion of by right in line 664. it means that if if you add by right in line 664 it means that when you're in a special exception application process you may require those minimums to be met and you may not. You'd have flexibility depending on the proposal. And it wouldn't have to just be open space. It could be that somebody has a new idea and that new idea is maybe more expensive, but maybe you've gotten so many affordable housing units that you're kind of like the new idea. But the only way to make the new idea financially feasible is to trade some of the sum.

Go to 80% instead of 60%.

Yeah, or some different percentage. It could be just 50. It could be 55. this this is very spit the sixty percent or whatever the percentages are are very specific and in a special exception situation typically the legislative body has a bit of discretion to go you know even if it's small discretion to deviate from the by right standards and if you I just want it to be clear that without adding by right in that line 64 664 you're removing your discretion in the special exception application process.

I think part of what led to this language is that we've heard loud and clear from various commissions and advocates that this should be the minimum that all projects should deliver, should development be entertained on this property. It still leaves the door open to what else buildings deliver because as you see in sub-bullets A and B under 1A, it only speaks to a certain percentage of that development so it's for town homes a one-to-one replacement and then for multi-family it's 50 the rest of that building is up for debate and could be modified could target those higher ami categories so i think that's already built into the language yeah i'm just concerned as to what like that that if we add by right to 664 that

this is sort of like the starting place falls away completely and like what is our rubric as to assessing the housing component at all and so I guess I special exception situation yeah and well so the special exception conditions do ask whether that's line 664 that whole section 1031 whether the standards have been met so that's a required consideration in the special exception process But it's not 100% mandatory. And so there's not a wrong answer. It's just if you would like to have any discretion, you would want to insert by right in that section. That's 664. And if you would like to remove discretion, then the way it's worded right now is correct.

Yeah, I mean, we would still have, yeah, so at a minimum, through a special exception process, someone would have to come in and satisfy 664 through 674 unless they were using the special exception to put forward an open space requirement. But for the special exception process, we would retain discretion as to what else was happening under subsection 1.

I hate to ask, but could you say that again?

OK. So what I'm saying is that what I'm concerned about is that it seems like if we say on 664 that it's by right, that we are saying that through a special exception process, you actually do not need to come in with a proposal that at a minimum satisfies 664 through 674. And I guess what I would like is I would still like the application to, at a minimum, satisfy 664 to 674, but to have discretion on the edges of someone saying, well, we're giving you x units. They're all studios at 60%, and are saying, well, that is not meeting or, you know, The affordable living objectives right now, they need to be like one bedroom at 60% for this project.

And so tell me again, you want your discretion at the edges. Does this language give you the discretion you're looking for, or do you need a different?

Well, I'm just wondering if we put in buy right, What is the standard that we're applying in this special exception process as to the affordable housing proposal?

Doesn't line 519 under the SE rules point to this section?

It does.

So doesn't that say, like, if you're trying to get an SE, you have to satisfy this already.

Well, so that could be more clearly worded. But no, you don't have to in a special exception, because the words are consider. And special exceptions are judgment calls. And you get to balance the criteria in a special exception.

It's something that I'm lost on. So the original intent when we came up with the overlay or this kind of alternative district, it says you get to access this more flexible zoning with higher heights and more density if you satisfy open space or affordable housing. I think you heard enough angst about the open space requirement. So staff is removing the open spaces. You can only access this new district if you satisfy affordable housing. Everything else, you know, if you want to do anything else, or if you are after July 1st, 2027, it's through an SC only, or the underlining RM zoning that you have today.

And these were two elements specifically pulled from previously established adopted small area plans where whether you look at a map with a narrative, it was always a combination of housing and open space. Yes.

And so I guess with the city attorney's language by adding it in there, that seems consistent with that objective, that the affordable housing requirement is consistent with, in order for you to use the overlay or the new district, you have to meet these requirements. If we left it vague and said, well, even if you use an SC, you have to achieve that. I think the point from the city attorney is it doesn't give us that discretion, which is the point of the SC process. Is that my understanding of?

That's correct.

I mean, I can process it at a later time if other people are tracking.

I think I understand it. I think I'm okay with this change. But I also want to point out, this is a first reading. So if we're not changing the intent, but we're tweaking the language to make it work with the intent and what we're trying to do... between here and second reading. I mean, that's normal.

So the changes I'm talking about tonight are only the ones that I think will trip us up. I have other edits, but they don't require a new first reading. These are the three that I thought would likely require a new first reading if we didn't address them tonight.

The other question I had on the way the open space has been pulled out, The way I read this, does this mean that if somebody wanted to take advantage of the open space prior to July 1st of 2027, they could, but they would have to go through the special exception process? So if they got everything together and did it in June?

That's correct.

No, it simply means the open space requirement is not, or option, is not available until July 1.

from tomorrow you go through the special exception process.

That's the way I was reading it.

And to me that makes sense. Which I'm fine with. You don't want to incentivize people putting up parks until we know we have housing.

I think the language that's currently written also forces you to complete the affordable housing requirement. And that's where I think we get into both Somebody might come in asking for a public park, but they would still be subject to the affordable housing requirements.

Yes, but they would then have to go through the special exception, even if it was before July 1, because they're bringing in the open space requirement.

And I'm good with that.

So even though the SE kicks in on this district on July 1, if someone was proposing 10 stories, something beyond what we've contemplated in the zoning, that would still be an SE, correct?

Because it doesn't? That is not actually

That's right.

Yes, that's right So the SC applies after July 1st assuming you use the current rules as we've laid out But if someone wants to propose something that is way beyond even the zoning we've contemplated way before July 1st It doesn't fit RM zoning doesn't fit this new district They would have to get a special exception for it though So any rules not listed here?

Yeah, so go through an SE. I

So the question that I'm hearing is, we all know that everything is only available by special exception effective July 1, 27. The question is, starting the day this is adopted, what is the special exception for at that point? And we know it's for the open space in lieu of affordable housing. That's one that's available right away. And then the question is, oh, jeez. Sorry, there it is. And then the question is, effective immediately, can you apply for a special exception just to deviate from the buy-write rules in any creative way you'd like? And we can make it say that. I need to check to see that it does say that, because I'm not sure, honestly. But if that's what everyone thinks it's supposed to say, we can make sure that it does.

Does it need to say it so explicitly? Like if you list, here's the rules for, here's RM zoning, which we already have listed separately. Here's the new rules for what this new special district does. If you don't satisfy E or those, then you don't qualify or you'd have to get an exception from council.

We would have to be more explicit than we are right now because the special exception section of the ordinance says effective July 1, 2027. And so...

Just to be clear, I think part of the reason why the language currently doesn't go into that detail is because, and per the conversation we had to start this item, we're trying to be predictable. And I think where this is starting to head into is kind of a gray area that nobody has envisioned, nobody has discussed, back to the whole trust issue. So I think what we're trying to do is frame there's only a few options of what we envision, what we want to achieve, and what we're structuring the language for. And I think staff was not, to date, I think, going in a different direction or anything else. Just submit an application. We'll have a conversation with you. So I think that runs counter to what we've been trying to achieve and kind of building, I think, in terms of a trust factor with stakeholders that were involved with this process to date. But again, it's something we can consider revisiting if that's the direction.

Yeah, I mean, that's bringing me back to my question, right? Like, to me, I thought that we had agreement that all development applications shall satisfy these affordable housing requirements, regardless of when you decide to come in with that application to unlock the expanded parameters, that you would need to satisfy that. And if you decide not to do that because you're providing open space, then you're now subject to special exception from the get-go, because the primary reason of the overlay district is to help achieve affordable housing. So you shouldn't be able tomorrow, unless you're already able to do so in your RM, like you decide I'm just tearing down my quadplex and deciding to have a park for myself on my property. is that in order to say, I want to do this without the affordable housing component, but to dedicate open space, that we, the city, would need to have a conversation with the applicant about doing that instead of providing affordable housing. And what I'm not understanding about the 664 suggestion is to all all by right development applications is that I thought that it was for any application that's coming in special exception or by right, regardless of when the time is, you should be satisfying these things. And what I was talking about in the special exception process of like having that conversation was more of the, we need to, We need to see where we are. We need to see you want to game the system and give us like 200 square foot studio units at 60% AMI. That's not going to work because it's not actually helping us achieve our affordable housing goals, even if you are technically meeting the code. It's not like do whatever you want on the property and put up a building that's 10 stories high.

And since it seems like the effort, or the intent here is to maintain some level of discretion. Once we get to the SE stage of potential applications, you'll note that the only two elements we're kind of capturing here, which again, don't speak for the entirety of the building that could be proposed, are AMI levels and the quantity of units, not bedroom sizes or counts and all that other stuff. And because it doesn't spell out the entire complex or the entire 100% volume of the units, there is plenty of other things that could be negotiated once this minimum is reached. And I think if it's removed to only apply to buy-right applications, it does put into question what is your minimum when reviewing SE applications that deliver affordable housing. Could that minimum be much lower than what we have now for buy-right? And that's where I think we run counter to the feedback we received.

The challenge I'm having is actually in the standards of development, which is also in that first required consideration, which is basically saying through the SE process, we would consider whether they met the standards of development and the permitted uses, but basically saying that the SE process is giving a backdoor, basically saying you don't have to meet any of it. Setbacks, building heights. If you come through this SE, you could build a 20-story building if you can get the council at the time to approve it.

And that's not the intent. I will go ahead and say that when drafting this, that was not the intent.

Oh, I don't think it was either. But I'm reading this. I'm thinking.

I mean, I think we should be clear about that. But I think we were intending that the standard apply to all projects. And so the special exception is for the council to apply some balancing, some balancing tests within the four corners of what has already been established as buildable on the site.

Yeah, I'm just, and I don't think it was the intent at all either.

I think it was, but reading it now, I'm like, I think if you look at 519 through 521, it pretty clearly says even for SC projects, you will be evaluated if you met all these different regulations in the order.

That was my point is that it already points to it. And so by adding the language that the city attorney wants at six, by limiting that paragraph and 664,

Right.

So I'm indifferent as to what you choose, but I just wanted to be clear that if you don't put buy right in line 664, you lose discretion as to those metrics of affordable housing when you're evaluating a special exception. And the second point that you should be clear about is special exceptions by law allow you to exercise judgment. And unless something is prohibitively constrained, which it is not written that way right now, you have the judgment to make decisions based on public policy. And you do not have to meet the standards of development the way it's written right now. And so if you want that to be the case, we would need to firm that up.

yeah because i was looking at 544 which does say as a by right use which would be consistent with what the language is being proposed and then i'm like and i feel like it's give it the the intent here is to give us a little bit of flexibility so if they come in and they say we want in order to give you this you know a whole bunch of extra affordable housing we're going to ask for two feet more

That's right.

That's something we would discuss and we'd want that flexibility.

It's like, is there a way to... You want to constrain your flexibility? You could say something like the council will consider deviations from the standards of development up to 15% or some kind of, you know, give yourself a window. I feel like we're just making numbers up at that point.

I guess I want to go back to 664. So to your point about, like, creating flexibility for ourselves. Let's say someone comes in with a really great SC proposal that has actually 65% AMI, which is 5% more, but it's really appealing on all the other standards. If we left paragraph between 664 to 675 vague, they wouldn't be allowed because they're not hitting 60%. That's right. And so that does not give enough discretion to the council. And so I think I'd be fine saying, let's clarify that it's only buy right development applications that have to meet that section. So that should someone come in with a 65% AMI project or something that's got 48% of the units being affordable, like those are judgment calls. And I don't think if we leave out that language, we'd be able to Apply that judgment is what I'm hearing you say.

That's right. You would not be able to apply the judgment.

So to me, that seems compelling that I'd want to see the 48% affordable housing project or the 63% AMI levels, whatever it might end up being. So if you want to say these hard and fast rules are only for buy-write projects and insert that in line 664, just one word, right? All buy-write development applications shall satisfy the following requirements.

That's right. I would just insert buy-write after all and in front of development.

how does the council feel about that i mean i have less issue on the affordable house like flexibility on the affordable housing goals and exactly how they're met based on where we are in time what i do not want to do is to blow up parameters that we're trying to get community input on and community buy-in for something because they mean nothing a year from now as to what the setback is, what the step back is, what the height is. And so I'm not going to support that unless the box is, so to speak, as council sometimes talks about the box, is not going to change.

The language that the city attorney is proposing on 664 is just for that paragraph. If you want to, again, access the overlay, you have to meet the setbacks, step backs, height requirements we've all discussed. If you want to deviate from that, it's a special exception.

That's correct. And on the special exception language, you could change it to say, council shall consider reasonable deviations from 1026, 1030, 1031 in order to allow for creative creative proposals that meet public policy, but they shall consider how closely you're coming to meeting those standards. Something just a little bit more beefy.

Yeah, I mean, I'm comfortable, especially in the affordable housing piece, I'm very comfortable with that because I'd like to have the flexibility for instance if somebody comes in with a project that's got a bunch of affordable two-bedroom and three-bedroom units but they're 80 percent am i i want to be able to i want the flexibility to approve that um that would be just a different type of need um it's i'm really trying to understand that 519 area where it It's basically saying, hmm, we considered it, and we're going to ignore it. And that is not the intent by anybody. Staff, council, absolutely, it's not the intent. But 10 years from now, there will probably be seven different people up here, and I want to guide them. And it's like, how much can you... Mayor Hardy's right.

We put anything in there, it's just throwing a number in there. It's just not...

I don't know how to make sure we're... Well, is there a way...

So on that point, then, from 519 to 521, subsection A currently lumps in permitted uses, standards of development, and affordable housing and open space requirements. And so is there a way, for example, to make sure that the permitted uses and the standards of development are requirements you have to satisfy, whereas section 48.10.31 allows for reasonable deviations in the special exception process? So you would say whether subsection A would become something like whether the proposed development meets the regulations of 48.10.31 1026 and 1030 and then you'd have a new subsection b that says something like whether the proposed development you know is consistent with 48 1031 or you know introduces only reasonable deviations from the intent of the overlay district or whatever it is to like capture it and then you know then you'd have new subsection c consistent with street safe standards and then subsection d would have the remaining piece so that the parameters for all the box don't just fall away.

So A would mandate compliance with 1026 and 1030. B would address 1031 and allow for reasonable deviations. And then the rest of it would look the same.

I would prefer to have permitted uses in the reasonable deviation, actually, because we just don't know with permitted uses. There may be something cool that somebody brings in.

I mean, I thought the whole point of entire number two is there's reasonable deviation. That's the point of a special exception process is that it's council's judgment on whether we're reasonably meeting ABC.

Yeah, but it's judgment on what the community is allowing us judgment on. And I have not, we've had no conversation on whether the community is allowing us judgment on going up to 10 stories.

But in an SE process, there would be all the normal public hearings and discussions.

Well, not in the SE processes. We did it as a streamlined SE process. We did it as a streamlined SE process because it's predictable. If you want to blow up the zoning parameters, then you're going to need a more robust SE process to actually allow for input in more than 60 days.

guessing if someone proposed 10 stories and it was a 60-day review period we probably would just reject it probably what would happen i mean you're set you're setting rules as to what can happen not would have i do want to make sure so that we've i think the city attorney proposed three things i think we've covered two of them one on tree canopy one on adding the word buy right to the affordable housing section. I lost what the third one was.

And the third one was just to, well, the third one was the height that you've already discussed, so I don't need to go over that again. And then the fourth one was just to point out what prompted this discussion is that if you're doing a buy right development, there is no open space requirement. So that won't be something you get out of those site plans necessarily, probably not.

Are people comfortable with that? I think that was kind of what we were circling around is that we didn't feel like we wanted to let people take advantage of the buy right overlay with open space, that we only wanted them to meet housing. OK. So I see head nods. Is someone tracking these changes so that when we do first reading, we're capturing these?

I am, and I can repeat them when we're getting to the motion stage. I can just say what the deleted text will be and what the replaced text will be, because I have it written down for the ones that I'm discussing with you now.

Do you have enough direction on the lines 517 and beyond about whether there's discretions what Ms. Flynn proposed?

I feel like we haven't settled that just yet, so...

mean i personally feel like that entire section is up for discretion but if people want to like add in that language for only certain sections that's fine with me because mr agan then proposed that permitted usage should have some discretion and affordable housing might have some discretion yeah i think permitted uses and affordable housing open spaces should have a reasonable discretion be open to reasonable

um adjustment well i'd say standards of development would be open to minimal so if you were if there was some small change we'd have the discretion but you couldn't like blow up what's there so i think that sort of language it just kind of sets the tone for just what we could do so minor deviations from

standards of development standards of development and then reasonable for permitted uses in the affordable housing you mean the whole section or do you just mean the accessory uses I'd say the whole section It puts it in the...

It's just like a giant question mark. What do you want to put there? Let's put a bowling, a little duck pin building there in 10 years. That has no housing or no park.

I guess I'm thinking about if there was a warming center or just something that we just haven't thought about.

Do other people have opinions or are we saying that it's permitted uses and the affordable housing are the two sections? Ms. Gillett, I will trust you're capturing this and you will...

Okay, yes. So I have right now, if there's consensus, minor deviations from standards of development and reasonable deviations, which are greater than minor deviations for both the permitted uses and the affordable housing standards. And then if you would like some... other more reassuring language we could say with those deviations being consistent with the purpose the overall purpose of the district to provide quality affordable housing or is that too constraining i don't think we need that yeah okay all right so then i've got it okay

Can I ask one question? Sure. Some other language while we're on the point. In 459 to 462 in the intent section, we now have this language about building articulation, facade projections, transitions in architecture, and the use of high quality and durable materials. If it lives in the intent section, how is that getting enforced? Like, shouldn't that language be live somewhere, like live in the special exception or live somewhere other than the intent section.

We've struggled with that, but that is the best place for that type of language. Architecture is not something you can really codify or have a specific metric for, kind of like art, I guess. And living in the intent statement, lend itself to some of the other statements that are in these two paragraphs. And it also becomes the umbrella for both by-right and SE application. So then it kind of covers all scenarios, all developments, regardless of when they're filed.

OK.

So I think we covered all four of the city attorney's points. And we previously were on building height. They don't know whether we finished that conversation.

I don't think we did.

But just for our tracking, were there other comments? I think you had one.

So on architecture, Sorry, I thought you were done. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I might have had a sidebar and missed something that was said that was important. But I do think that language is very appropriate in the special exception standards because you do have discretion there, and that language is subjective. I have seen instances where if you do want to develop more particularized architectural standards that have to be met, we could develop those.

We have not done that.

So the intent language on architecture is too broad, too vague to be a standard for by-right development, but it is adequate for a standard under the special exception. So you're fine with where it is in line 459? No, I would move it to special exception.

Yeah, like that was my reaction to seeing it where it was, that it likely should live under the special exception and that hopefully we achieve those same things through like a negotiated process and an RFP, for example, if it were happening before next year.

Right.

So you're saying it should not be in line 459, that it can only apply to SEs?

That would be the effect of that.

Yeah.

Which is not the intent, because I think we've talked about how we wanted to make sure that, especially for a buy-write application, you would want more building articulation, like be able to spell that out, because we don't get to review architecture.

So where it is right now, you have no control over architecture and buy-write applications.

Which is why I think we added that language to encourage that kind of building design. Yeah.

And it is voluntary. So you can't... Buy-write development is... They only have to do what you...

Yes, I think we understand that trade-off, but I think that's why I think we discuss adding that language so that it applies to buy-write to the extent possible, it's voluntary, but encourages that from a buy-write application that we normally wouldn't see through like an SECDP that we get.

so okay so I guess it's okay to leave it there we can I mean obviously it's the intent of the district so when you're doing the special exception you can refer to that even if it's not listed as a mandatory consideration it's still up there as one of the intentions of the district. So it is fair game where it's listed. What I'm trying to communicate is if you would like to have some architectural standards that have just a little more teeth that you could actually impose in a by-right situation, we could develop that, in my opinion.

I'd like to point out that my feeling is that this is going to get restated and replaced by the urban design master plan when when that's completed in six months or whenever that is I assume the urban design master plan would apply to all districts including this one so and that that would be more specific and more are actually focused and have a lot of this stuff as well. In some ways, I feel like this is precarious until that comes into play. Is that right, or does that make sense?

Well, the challenge with these regulations is that the minute you cross the boundary of trying to codify architecture, your inevitable outcome is you're going to create a formula that every project is going to follow, because that's how you get to an approval. And that creates a new problem, which is why we don't codify architecture. We put in an intense statement so that it applies broadly to everyone. It highlights what we're trying to achieve, what I think we heard clearly from the community. And unless you're in a historic district, which this is not, other things related to architecture would kick in, and it would be more predictable, straightforward review. But for most applications, you try to not codify architecture.

Well, I know we're talking about somewhere in here it says it has to abide by our standards, our design standards. I guess that's where I'm getting to is that what we're talking about here is hard, needs its own discussion. It's going to take a lot of time. And we kind of got the mechanism to have that discussion separate from Virginia Village for the entire city.

Councilmember Agin, that document that you're referring to will not be an ordinance, and so it would not be compulsory for by-right development. By-right development would not have to comply with those guidelines.

Would it be something that the designated agent would refer to when evaluating site plans?

You cannot impose, no, I mean, it would have to be voluntary compliance is what I'm trying to say.

OK. I think for that reason, that's why I feel like having that language in this intense, so it applies to by right and SEs with our intention that you use you know, interesting facades and various materials. Like, that's why I think it's...

I see that. I'm okay with, even if it's not in the special exception, it should still be referenced. If you want to leave the special exception silent on that point, we can, just knowing that the intent clause is already stated. Or if you want to add a condition in the special exception about architecture and, you know, referencing the intent, we could do that, too.

I think I'm personally fine with that addition and where it is now.

OK. Is that the consensus? Yes. OK. OK.

So I think we, is that all the things we've covered for me?

That was it.

OK.

So I want to go back to Heights to see whether we can put a bow on the discussion. Ms. Underhill?

I just, I mean, I guess I generally have a question, which is, I guess my overall worry just generally is, well, I would love to have three stories or lower on the Winter Hill side. But I guess we need to take into account the entire picture as a whole. And maybe we're also capping the Maple Avenue side at six stories potentially. And so every time we... cap the height lower and lower. Let's say that 40 feet is indeed three stories. That then means that those town homes can only sell for a certain amount of money. And that means then that the city either needs to contribute more money to the project to be able to make everything pencil out, because if we want a certain amount of affordable housing to be in this project, then those town homes are going to support That funding that goes to the whole project overall and so we're not able to get enough money from those Homes along the winter hillside then that means that we have to maybe go higher or we get less affordable housing or the city has to contribute $500,000 to this project and that's information that's worth knowing especially if we're putting limits at all these points and so I'm not asking us necessarily to change the heights, to have the 40 feet is possibly fine. I'm deeply concerned, though, that if we do that, then we're not necessarily getting a better understanding of all the trade-offs that we're making. And so then at the end of this, we say, oh, we need to contribute $1 million to this project. like well actually if we could have had just five feet and made it 45 feet then this project would take way less taxpayer dollars it wouldn't necessarily affect um winter hill residents as much maybe we get some really nice finishes or whatever else and so there might be other ways to find a compromise so um and to the point about going underground and going underground is really expensive and so suddenly that's also like more money that the city has to contribute so i guess my general concern is how do we get this information If we cap it at 40 feet, which then makes it three stories, because if it does turn out to be impossible to get four stories out of it, which then reduces the amount of money that we can get from those projects along Winter Hill, how do we find out that information?

So first thing I'd like to highlight, and we did have a slide profiling some of the newer townhomes on Park Avenue, which I think depict where the market is. I think this is what's being delivered. We're actively reviewing and about to approve a third of these. None of them have basement units. And they're generally flat sites. That option is there if they wanted to take it. But we don't see the market delivering that. So that's one initial response we have. And those are all fairly recent applications over the last 18 months or so. Knowing that, I think when you walk up and down on Park Avenue and you look up at the facades of these buildings, it's very difficult to actually see the fourth floor unless you come around the edge of the building. So I think that transition at three stories, 10 feet back before a fourth floor begins is actually quite effective and does meet, I think, a similar scale that Virginia Village has. So I think we're modeling a lot of these proven physical examples that I think we can all walk by as something that we think could succeed in Virginia Village. Establishing the height at 45 feet, if 50 is problematic, I think is a great compromise in that it would allow us to remain true to the massing examples that we're borrowing from. But at the same time, allow the RFP respondents to kind of give us a verification if 45 feet works. They might come back, that's exactly right. Or they might come back, everything I'm putting in is between 45 and 50. Is the city willing to go up to 50? And maybe that's the threshold. Unless the RFP process signals that we need to go higher, then we do. And we can do that in time for the second reading. But until then, maybe we stick with 45, given that that's what's being produced here.

What if we did 45 but then we increase the step back to 15 feet?

I think the challenge for that is Once you go beyond 10 feet, from a buildability perspective, these are all wood frame construction projects. Even a 10 foot step back is somewhat challenging and becomes very expensive. The further into the site you go, the more structural issues run into, the more expensive the project becomes. I think what staff factored in and balanced some of the feedback we got on that issue is that 10 feet, as shown in these recently built examples, is quite effective. And I think it achieves the purpose. Light and air is able to reach Park Avenue. You can't really see that fourth floor. The buildings are experienced, from a pedestrian perspective, as three-story structures. So I think we're going to continue to recommend 10 feet as the setback for those. And I do worry that something as significant as 20 feet, A, does not really accomplish anything but does make the project more expensive. And it really won't be any more felt differently than the effect we have on Park Avenue with the townhomes.

So, okay, that's interesting. That's a good perspective. In terms of, so I'm just looking at, I'm on page two of the staff report. So, you know, that's where we had originally, you know, it was changed to 50 feet. And then it says a required step back after three stories or 40 feet. So, Should we just have it be a required step back after three stories or 30 feet? Or 35? I don't know. To me, if we're going to look at 40 to 45 feet, I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out. Now that we're not going to be, we're saying, I think we're all agreeing, no to 50, maybe to 45. But what, so where would that required step back be? Three stories.

If I understand the question correctly, if we are willing to entertain a maximum height of 45 feet, that's the equivalent of four stories, which I think we have a consensus on earlier. What we could lower is the 40-foot dimension at which the building step back is applied. So it would still be three stories, but instead of 40 feet, we could say, for example, 36 feet, which I think is a more common threshold at which people can deliver and meet three stories. So that could be lowered by a couple of feet, and we can test that.

I guess my concern is whatever we do we're going to get requests from some of the developers to go higher and go more and I'd rather hold the line now and then see what they come back with if they come back and say no I can't do it or I mean looking at the townhouses one huge thing that those have is garages and so you can't go down with a garage Wow I'm not really expecting the RFP response is to have garages in that same way. I just don't see it happening. So that's actually the biggest constraint on why you can't go down. The other piece of it I'd like to point out is with the RFP, we're only talking about four of the seven-unit lots. The other three in the middle, which could be a larger building, They're not getting money from us. That's going to be a private development. I would not expect to spend anything for a private developer in that center section. We're setting criteria for what they can come in with. For us, what we might contribute money to are the responses to the RFP. And that's the two on each ends. The middle three, those are private properties, and I think the private property owner, they want to redevelop it.

I encourage it. But I think your parking argument applies equally to the entire frontage, where no matter which of those lots comes in, they would have to park at a certain ratio. So the basement situation, I think, becomes challenging for everyone.

Yeah, and it could be that it drives a mix of heights because nothing says that everything has to be even it might be some go down some go up some are you've got a mix of three and four I don't know I mean it's I would rather see what comes back from the RFP before we go that those extra feet and it may be that they come back and just say This is one of those things that you wanted to find out. And we kind of need 43 feet or something like that.

I guess the point that I think I understand from Ms. Underhill when she talked about trade-offs is regardless of whether you're contributing money to the project or not, whether it's a city-owned parcel, is that by cutting down on the building envelope, you're essentially reducing options. So when we cut from seven to six stories in Maple, you are reducing options. By limiting the height on Gundry, you're reducing options, and you don't know what the trade-offs are. Because we might be willing to actually have seven stories if you actually only had two stories facing Gundry, right? But now that's not even a possibility because we cut it down to six.

and so that kind of trade-off discussion i think is what you're kind of highlighting yeah i just i'd like to be able to understand the trade-offs um before sort of saying like we absolutely can't do this and so but i don't know maybe there's a way to get some of that information of the trade-offs even if we do set certain things and so i i don't want to limit us is is my main concern here and so Yeah, there probably are things where we're willing to make a trade-off where like, oh, maybe, you know, 65 or 70 feet is okay in one area. If that means that, you know, we get family-sized units, this much affordable housing, it keeps the units near Winter Hill lower. There's all sorts of different moving parts to this, and I just want to make sure that we're not boxing ourselves into something where we don't have the flexibility later on.

I understand what you're saying, Ms. Underhill, but I do, you know, for this specific, the lots that, you know, butt up against Gundry, I do think that, you know, we've had community feedback. So I think it's quite a balancing act, right, between taking that community feedback. You know, I think our four properties that butt up against Bowl of America, the ones on to, it's just these couple lots that back up to Gundry, I think. To me, we just have to be a little bit sensitive towards the height of those. But I think the rest of, you know, to me, I don't know. To me, I feel like I know the community came back and said, you know, we've heard a lot about 40 feet, 40 feet. You know, to me, maybe that's a compromise is to go 45 feet, but then try a step back at 33 stories or 36 feet. And maybe that's a little bit of a compromise that, you know, we would go a little bit higher, but we'd make that step back. come into play a few feet earlier. So maybe that would be a way to thread the needle. I'm not sure.

I like that, because I guess I'll remind us is that where we did have consensus before we got hung up on feet is we did have consensus on four stories. We felt comfortable with that as a group, as a majority. I think what got complicated is translating that to actual feet.

So if we are still comfortable with the idea of four stories above grade,

45 feet would accomplish that.

See, I would argue that we didn't have consensus on four stories. We had consensus on four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less, which to me was 40 feet because of these concerns with, and the four stories was just giving developers flexibility of how to use the 40 feet. So when I voted on the first reading prior, i was voting on the 40 feet not the four stories i don't think we really truly had consensus on four stories it was four stories or 40 feet whichever was less different people interpreted that differently but i was on board with the 40 feet maybe a lesson learned separate when we're done with all this is we just either do stories or do feet okay other comments mr snyder

Yes, Madam Mayor, thank you. So we've debated this quite a lot, this particular issue. I know what I was voting for, which is a limit of 40 feet. I think that's what the neighborhood was expecting. And I think if we go up, we're walking back a commitment. You want to talk about raising a credibility issue, that would be it. So I would... There's no... no reason to assume that we're necessarily going to get the same product that was permitted under the t zones on um on the park. So Council Member Flynn said a few minutes ago she was going to propose an amendment. If I were there, I would propose the amendment. I just think we need to resolve this. It's four stories or 40 feet, which is I strongly support because I think that's the commitment we made to the community. You want to talk about credibility issues? Let's walk that back. by increasing the number of feet, regardless of the arguments made to the contrary. So that's where I am on this issue. I have a couple other questions, but let's just deal with this issue. Let's just vote it.

then i would move if we're ready on lines 572 to 574 which is where i think this is located and would be the place that we'd need to make the vote the buildings located within 150 feet of any property line of a property that runs on gundry drive shall not exceed four stories or 40 feet in height whichever is less second

Mr. Snyder on the second. Is there any further discussion?

Is there a way that if we set this, how can we find out what the trade-offs are? Can we find out that this means that the city needs to meet our affordability goals? we'll need to contribute x more dollars, or how can we find out what the trade-offs are during this process? Or if, let's say, 45 feet would get us x much more floors such that the buildings would sell for that much more, and then we would need to contribute that much less.

For the city-owned parcels, how does the RFP process give us some of that feedback before we drop second reading?

So you'll have the proposals in hand by the time you get to second reading. And so the language at four stories and 40 feet is what was in the RFP. That's what was at first reading. So that won't be a surprise to the people who have been looking through the information. Is that right?

was that something discussed and any addendums or anything like that no but my comment was to highlight a phrase that I think Billy shows up several times throughout the RFP where we are curiously asking for feedback on things that have been to this point drafted and reflected in the RFP that could potentially make a big difference with a subtle adjustment in the same way we are asking people to highlight why they chose one scenario over another. We're curious about all of them. So knowing why some were omitted or not pursued, I think, is just as critical and helpful for us as the one that somebody may have picked. So there is, I think, one or two references that speak to if there's anything in these standards of design that you think is really challenging, uh just like the six versus seven story on maple avenue we want to know and tell us what that difference is i don't know if it's going to go to the exact level of detail where somebody can quantify the difference in future investment by the city to make the project viable But we hopefully get some rationale back from developers. OK.

So let's say they can make it work at 42 feet. Would we maybe get four stories work at 42 feet? Would we maybe get that feedback back such that and then if we were to get that feedback, could we then amend this to be 42 feet if that's what's needed to make the project more viable?

My understanding is, per purchasing rules, that the purchasing agent and the evaluation committee will have the ability to ask follow-up questions. And I think if there will be in-person interviews with some of the higher scoring respondents, questions like that can come up to get further clarity.

OK, so we could get that information. If we get that information, it comes back to really make this project viable. It needs to be 41 feet exactly. then can we go and amend this document? Or what is that process?

So I think what we've been highlighting is that there are kind of two baskets of changes between the first and second reading. Some are more substantive and require another first reading. Some are, I think, just clarifying. So I think once we are establishing parameters that things like building heights would be regulated, here's how we're going to do it, and then all you do is simply come back and tweak the number, that's technical enough where The scope of that change has been advertised with the first reading. You're simply refining the number. So that's something that can happen without another first reading. Had we gone in a very different direction and used a whole different framework for measuring height, let's say switching to a floor area ratio or units per acre, I think that might require another first reading.

Thank you. I guess just said more succinctly, I guess I share Justine's curiosity on whether people might need more flexibility through the RFP process. And so I'm looking at Ms. Connolly as kind of our unofficial designee on the evaluation committee that as you guys evaluate proposals, if you find that the heightened setback limits really restricts what we are seeing and proposals or proposers indicate that they need more flexibility, then that's something that should hopefully come back to us before second reading. that I guess I want to remain open-minded and I don't want to restrict ourselves on what those options might be I guess I'm looking to the city attorney whether that's another first reading or do we think this falls in the area of okay to keep this as the first reading if we adopt tonight at 40 feet and then say someone needs 41 feet or 42 feet

I agree with Mr. Matusik that if it's not a new idea and if the change is only one of scale and the scale is relatively a small scale change, that that should not require a new first reading.

Okay. That is helpful. Thank you for that discussion. We had a motion and a second by Mr. Snyder. Call roll then on that amendment.

Mr. Agin? Yes. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Mr. Snyder?

Yes.

Ms. Underhill? Yes. And Mayor Hardy? Yes.

I'm sorry, can you repeat what that motion was, please?

It was to amend line 573 to 40 feet. Thank you for the height. Thank you.

other items other items for discussion um and then i also before we close that i needed to make the amendment to line 629 to add a gundry drive with that 35 foot setback with your permission madam mayor i'd like to read through the changes all of them um but did we just have a was that a motion yeah i can make i haven't made the official motion but or is it just a staff correction i don't know do you need a motion she we do need a motion because it's a new setback okay yeah it's it's um it's delayed it's shown in the diagram below but Everything else in that diagrams put in text above except Gundry Drive wasn't included So and mr. Trainor said that I was correct on that So so the motion would be to change line 629 to say at least 35 feet from Gundry Drive and any public park property line Going to drive property and any public park property line.

I For what it's worth, it was in the June version. I think it just got dropped.

Do you care about the June language? Or does it matter?

Yeah, I think we did have language in it in the June version.

In June, it says at least 35 feet from a budding Gundry Drive or public park property lines.

I'm reading the code from the June ordinance. Good catch. So does that need to be an official motion then and vote on that?

So what I would like to do for the record is when we're to the point where we're making ready to act on the first reading, if someone could ask me to recite the changes that we've discussed tonight in a list. There's six with two clarifications. I'd like to put that all into one action.

but for this setback do you need miss downs to make no because i would make it for her in the when i read it on the list so does that motion die for lack of a second the motion that she just i guess i'll just withdraw the motion and and ms gillette will summarize summarize it and make the motion right other people have things to raise on the zoning tax amendment

um yeah two questions madam mayor um first of all the issue of um of loading docks and other uses like that potentially a budding winter hill have we addressed that to prevent that from happening there was a slide on that i think i remember staff could speak to that is it addressed in the text

Yes, staff's recommendation is unchanged from the last meeting, which is that those sort of more specific design parameters be addressed down the road between first and second reading.

Well, I'm a little bit concerned about that because we've addressed it on maple. Why wouldn't we address it on winter health side? I mean, I don't see why we would reserve that. Does that suggest that we could get a plan that would put loading docks facing Winter Hill?

So two things to note on that front. The suggestion has been raised, I believe, back in June. And we've had several folks from the community actually instruct staff not to use that language, because it would signal that we're actually contemplating having parking garages in that area. I think what we've kind of reached as a compromise is to kind of evaluate the RFP responses to see how they are creatively orienting the site, how the street configurations might work with any development scenarios, and from that, have some lessons learned that guide us into very similar prescription or prescriptive language that we've used along Maple Avenue, which may involve a proximity or kind of an offset, and may use kind of orientation guidance and also screening. But I think for now, I think the sensitivity has been let's not signal and proactively encourage folks to consider having parking near that edge. Let's see if they even need it. So I think we're kind of waiting to see and then expecting to update that either through another first reading or directly in the second reading.

So let me just, what you said is a bit confusing because if we prohibit it, why is that suggesting that that's okay? I mean, I don't understand the logic.

I struggle with it myself, but it was shared with staff, so we try to respect it in our current draft.

I mean, I'd like to have something in there. I think we need it in there as protection for the Winter Hill community. They don't want loading docks and other things like that, abutting their backyards and side yards, front yards.

So why wouldn't we have that in there?

We're comfortable with adding language that talks about screening. I think what we're not comfortable with because we don't have enough data is to suggest a specific distance of an offset, whereas I think on Maple Avenue, considering what's permitted there, it's much more easy to preview a multifamily product that might have frontage on Maple, and we wouldn't want to have a parking garage right behind the public sidewalk. When you're dealing with the back of the property, which is kind of the Gundry Drive edge condition with Virginia Village, it's unclear how much of that property beyond Shirley would be required for parking garage access, for example. Would we only be seeing townhomes? So this is where I think some of those questions can only be answered through the RFP process.

i don't see hopefully everything loading docks and parking garages up other than winter hill is that tough to do i just don't understand that can i ask okay as a follow-up to mr snyder's question i mean i don't want to move us totally off of the zoning text amendments but to me this issue seems like it should be better address than it currently is in the rfp addendum so in question 25 of the rfp addendum it said is staff preparing any further guidance related to potential parking structures on this site and then the answer was yes similar to the guidance already provided along south maple avenue additional guidance is anticipated as the zoning language is finalized to address proximity of parking structures their orientation and exterior screening as it relates and so i think that's where the issue is coming up for the neighborhood and that there seems like it's like well we anticipate it but we're not telling you what it is so it's not actually any sort of guidance as to what you should do because it only exists as the south maple and not as to winter hill right now so my suggestion would be to at this point capture this more fully in answering question 25 so that it incorporates the language that we agreed on in the small area plan as to you know the updated hidden generally hidden from view as an answer to that and then potentially include like the loading what is it loading areas trash mechanical equipment back of house should be you know designed or oriented away from neighboring homes wherever possible. You could put those two things in without it dictating where things have to go and still providing flexibility to not have numbers in the document.

We can work with something like that.

So that would be my suggestion to updating the addendum to respond to the concern while still trying to get the feedback as to what the designs come in as. But more protective than it just referencing South Maple and saying, we'll see as to when we finalize the zoning language.

How does staff feel about that adding to the RFP addendum?

What you describe, I think, is generally where we are in terms of available information to provide that guidance. Anything beyond that, I think, is what we're waiting for the proposals to inform us on.

OK. So it's the guidance that Erin suggested.

In the RFP addendum, not changing the zoning tax amendment added in there. But knowing that we can change it if we need to on second reading.

Yeah, and I think what I heard was borrowing from the small area plan language. Right, right, right. I think we've captured a general level of guidance that isn't site-specific.

I mean, I'd say the small area plan, and then to the extent you can include the, like, loading area mechanical equipment concerns without putting a number on them, right? Like, just they shouldn't be, like, in someone's face, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's, that's, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, just just such things like a reasonable approach. So if I can have a planning director indicate that that that'll it can be addressed that way.

It's okay. Okay.

All right. Two other issues. We've got a lot of interest in historic preservation. I understand that the RFP, that's certainly a possibility under options A and B and maybe even under C. There's a lot of discussion about bringing to the RFP proposers the notion of the availability of historic preservation grants. How are the planning

the director deal with that question.

Can you repeat the actual question in that?

Yeah, the actual question is, because we've got a lot of input from citizens on historic preservation, and I think of the RFP options A and B, and maybe even C, that variations of that are possible. Then the next point I want to make is that during the RFP negotiation, that the availability of historic preservation grants just be considered in connection with any proposals to the extent that it's reasonable. And I don't think we need any kind of formal action or amendment, but it was an issue that I've seen a lot of interest in.

Yeah, all right, that makes sense. The RFP, and I mentioned this, I think, at the last work session and previously at the Planning Commission earlier this month, It does allude to, and I think opens the option to consider historic tax credits. I think we're looking for any and all means by which we can fund change on this site in preservation of affordable units. It does talk about a blended preservation option as something that should be considered.

And more broadly, we do encourage folks to kind of mix and match various

scenario so you don't only have you know pick one singular one if given the properties that we have acquired different answers might work for you depending on where you are on the site so that that portion is in there as well there is i think a more robust conversation and response with respect to affordable housing and that these are structures that were built in 1940s so I think entertaining them as a historic district would be a new precedent for the city while there is a path to do that I think we have not really heard from the property owners themselves asking for preservation I think it's more from the surrounding community and other advocates that are keenly aware and interested in that And it's not something that, again, being true to the previous community engagement that has taken place 10, 15 years ago, when we drafted both small area plans capturing Virginia Village, historic preservation was not high on the priority list. It was always envisioned as medium-density residential or an open-space contribution, both of which envisioned the demolishing of the quadplexes. So I think if historic preservation through those efforts, each of which took a year to complete, I think highlighted and emphasized historic preservation as a strong option, I think we would have taken that much more seriously in the 2026 engagement. But we try to not rewrite some of that language and be true to the engagement that happened earlier.

OK, thanks, Rob. Those are all the questions I had.

Ms. Connolly. So I just wanted to talk about the shadow study a little bit, just so if you could, if you can go to the shadow study and the staff report.

I guess it's a separate attachment, yeah.

it takes a minute to get oriented to all of this and I know all of us have spent a lot of time looking at it but if you look at the existing conditions the next one and the most for all three seasons I think yeah frost the next one right okay so we've got existing conditions December 10 a.m. We've got the line one and the line two where we're looking at. Then we're going to compare that to the proposed.

Let's scroll down a little more. Keep going.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. All right, so this one, December 10 AM, was the one that was replaced, correct, Matt?

The first two images on the left, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK. So my first question is, does the shadow study take into consideration the change in grade? Because where the number one is, it's almost a level grade. Where the number two is, when we stood out there and did the tour, it's a much lower grade. So does this take into consideration the grade?

Yes.

It does. OK. And this is a 40 foot tall building with a 35 foot setback.

Correct.

And a 10 foot step back.

Yes.

That's all in there.

Both of which are applied near Big Cheney's Park and the entire boundary with Wintergreen, Winterhill, sorry.

Okay.

So this, you know, if we look at March at 10 a.m., not so bad. December at 10 a.m., it's a little bit worse for the properties that are right on the winter ledge there. Is there anything we can do to alleviate some of that? I mean, a shadow is a shadow, right? We have sometimes... There are worse things in the shadow, but is there anything we can do to alleviate some of the shadow as we're drawing the zoning?

So one thing I wanted to point out, if we can actually scroll up in that same presentation, there are two images from existing conditions. So we can kind of see what's happening there today. Keep going. There's street view images. Actually, photographs we took. Keep going. Right there. OK, so this is what's happening in early June at 10 AM along the Gundry Drive address and along Big Chimneys Park. It's 10 AM, existing conditions. And the heavy vegetation that's there that's going to remain there is already providing those significant shadows. Right. What we've also done in recognition of that, but also to ensure that the buffer between the properties and any development, I think is considering that transition and the delicacy of that, is looking at not just increasing vegetation, but we've also added evergreen trees. So that year long, including December, shade from vegetation continues. So this effect that you see, we expect to continue with redevelopment, and we believe that the vegetation shade is actually going to far exceed any shade from a future building. And I think that was kind of the premise and intent behind it. Are we making shade any worse?

I haven't thought about that. OK. Can we just, I understand what you're saying, but looking at diagram 1, existing condition, December 10 AM, and looking solely at the picture of scenario A, December 10 AM, and scenario B, December 10 AM, Can we agree that the shadows are more significant under A and B than existing absent the argument about the vegetation? what's difficult about that is the modeling can only account for buildings and elevations can we just have a yes on the on this on the shadows are larger in a and b from the buildings than the current buildings okay yeah so i think that's good i think that we just need to like set that as a premise we all agree that the die that the that the diagram shows the building's getting larger. I mean, the shadow's getting larger as the buildings have gotten larger. Now, whether the shadows are there regardless or they're different when you take the vegetation into account, maybe, right? Maybe the vegetation or the evergreen trees would be making the shadows regardless. I just think we need to have, like, agreement that the building shadows have grown under scenario A and B.

Right, and I think part of the analysis as we evaluate this tool among many tools to establish what's appropriate is that it informs the way we structured building setbacks and what's happening in that transition area. And I think we continue to elevate what level of vegetation is required and how we want to treat that because it's not just about buildings. So while this is a piece of the puzzle, it doesn't tell the full story. And I think utilizing existing imagery, having sight tours so everybody can experience that, both in the morning and evening, I think is quite helpful because it does provide a much more comprehensive picture of what's actually felt and experienced beyond however far this can take you.

I'm just saying, if you say there's no change, depending on how you caveat there being a change or there not being a change, I think it's important to just acknowledge existing conditions December shows this. Proposed A, December shows this. Proposed B, December shows this. And there is a difference and a larger shadow from the buildings. Now you can talk about whether or not we should understand that shadow in a certain way, or that shadow will be experienced a certain way, given the vegetation that also accompanies things in the buffer and whatever else. But I think that just as a foundation for that conversation, We just need an acknowledgment that the shadows are larger in scenarios A and B to have the conversation. And it may be that, yes, the shadows get larger because the buildings are going to be bigger. Or in Pearson Square, the E turned a certain way and the cutouts were certain places in order to accommodate. shadows that would otherwise be there that weren't there. I am just hearing community concern that the response is that there's no effect of the buildings on the shadows. And so I think it's just important to be like, I'm looking at the picture, and the picture shows increased shadows from the buildings. And then we can talk about how people experience those shadows in light of the vegetation that you're also talking about.

I think the premise, though, embedded in what you just said is that somebody at some point committed we would not be changing shade or adding to it. I think what we committed to, and some of the commenters said, we would not be making shade worse than it is today. And I think studying existing conditions that do involve vegetation, I think, informed that. And that's what led to our statements. If we take vegetation out of the equation, you're perfectly right. But vegetation is there, and it's a significant aspect of what's felt today and what we're trying to institute with development. So that's something we wanted to factor into the broader picture of what's actually going to be experienced full build out.

And then this is proposed scenario A and scenario B. We're probably going to end up with a scenario C or D that is not this. Correct. It's possible. I mean, it could be similar, but it's not going to be the exact same thing. So that's another thing that will happen as we get responses to the RFP. We're going to be able to take a look and see what those proposals do for the shadows.

Correct. That was going to be my question as well, is these seem to be based on the maximum amount that you could do for a building, and buildings are not going to look like these boxes. They're going to be... something else, they might have sloped roofs. In fact, sloped roofs might actually lower the shade because sun's coming right along the roof. But I wanted to understand at what point during this process with the preliminary agreements and we've selected, are we going to get shade studies that reflect the actual proposal that we're interested in?

I think that's something we've committed to revisiting over the summer. I would imagine by the time we get to late August, I think we have an opportunity to do that. So that's something I think we've committed to in several instances where if we learn something new, if we're seeing a scenario C or D that we haven't envisioned before, we'll put it through the model and kind of show another comparison.

So just to put a bow on this discussion, I think the public comment was concerned about the shadow studies changing. So there was a shadow study in June when we adopted the first reading. And what we found is there was an error in one of these, one of the December ones. Is that correct?

Yeah, December was showing March instead of December.

OK. And so that's what I did. I went back to actually the June shadow studies and compared them to the July shadow studies to compare the difference. And yes, there's a bit of a change, but I think your point about how trees also make shadows, and now that we're adding evergreen trees in there, that will also create shadows as well on top of the existing conditions of the deciduous trees, I think is helpful for us to consider.

Can I ask one last thing about the shadow study? The RFP addendum in question 23 links to the June 22 study. So at the same time that you update question and answer 25, if you're making that update, can you also ensure that the July 27 shadow study with the correct renderings for December for both A and B are the thing that's linked to answer 23?

Yeah, that's actually something on our radar. As a few additional questions have come in, we're going to be issuing a second addendum this week just to kind of get back to the development community as quickly as possible. That will be in there.

Okay. Can I just ask my last question on the RFP, since we're talking about it, the addendum? Just so I understand, the question one on the addendum had a question about the due date is August 6. And I guess the person, the potential respondent, was concerned about the August deadline. and I guess we feel as though that's the latest that we can go in order to stay on our timeline I guess I'm just concerned like if people are saying we can't have everything that you want in your packet this quickly but we could get it and we could get more information and determine whether we could do something if we had X amount more time whether we are going to get things in response that are not as complete or have issues with them when we drill down into like the bases and assumptions and completeness of the submissions when we are already hearing from some potential respondents that they don't feel like they have time to put like the entirety of their packet together in the way that they would otherwise do.

So, so far, that's not been a pattern from the majority of people that have attended our pre-conference toward the site and have been exchanging email correspondence with the purchasing agent. If it does become a pattern, I think we will have to revisit that date. I will also say that I think one of the first things most firms will ask in this situation is for more time. Yeah, yeah, no, I get it.

I just wanted to ask about it because having seen it, I was just concerned if we're if we're then creating an issue for ourselves when we drill down into the materials or we drill down into the responses or we try to go from a conceptual plan to something with more information, if there are going to be problems because people did not dedicate the amount of time they should have to the initial responses they provided us.

Yeah, I think during the tour, I believe that same person, as we were engaging, started to highlight that part of the reason they asked is because they were under the impression that we would only issue one addendum and it would be only after July 30th, which is the question deadline. So I think as a strategy, we actually said we'll issue three or four if we need to and get that over to you within a day or two so you don't have to wait that long. And hopefully that saves the issue.

okay we're at the point for the city attorney to recite the edits to date or do we have any other final items remember we have one more item on the agenda and then we have three items in closed session tonight

OK, I think we're ready, Ms. Gillette. OK. The amendments or clarifications, as I have them noted, are one, amend section 48-1030A subsection D to strike four stories or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, and replace it with four stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is less. Amend, the second one is to amend section 48-1030B subsection F, which is at line 629 tonight, to add at least 35 feet from Gundry Drive to the sentence that requires a setback from public park property lines.

Number three, amend section- I think that needs to be from Gundry Drive property lines.

Right. You're right. At least 35 feet from Gundry.

Other ones have face a curb. But where is the building? It's not like.

So at least 35 feet from the rear lot line of properties fronting on Gundry Drive?

You want me to pull up the June one again?

Let me see Please stand by

It says in the last version I have, at least 35 feet from abutting Gundry Drive. So the sentence in full says, all buildings within the district shall be set back from face of curb or property lines where no curb exists. That language has changed as follows. So at least 35 feet from a Budding-Gundry Drive.

But I don't know which are public park property lines. So if you just continue to the end of F, like where it said a Budding-Gundry Drive, and it says public park property line, the property lines go to both the Budding-Gundry Drive or the public park.

So it would be at least 35 feet

think to the rear property line of properties fronting on Gundry Drive right might be easier just to make a letter G and have it online at least 35 feet from any from the property line of any property with a Gundry Drive address

At least 35 feet from the rear lot line of properties fronting on Gundry Drive. I don't know if they're rear. Because it can be like the side lot. Rear or side. Rear or side. So it's really the property.

It's a property line with a Gundry Drive address.

Yeah. From any property line of a property fronting on Gundry Drive.

OK, I guess.

at least 35 feet from abutting property lines of properties on Gundry Drive? Is that? Planning director should.

I'm looking at letter E, which might be at least 35 feet from any abutting property line From the property, from the, looking at E, at least 35 feet from the abutting property line of any property with a Gundry Drive address.

I think Gundry Drive address is probably the better way because of the orientation of all the units. Okay. That's how we started with that. It's weird.

It's a model after E, but write a new G. Yeah.

Okay. At least 35 feet from any property line of a property with a Gundry Drive address.

Is that it?

I think it's the not any.

At least 35 feet from the abutting property line of any Gundry Drive address property. Sure.

okay i got that madam mayor yes um i'll note that there was a motion to amend line 573 that was adopted by council i don't know if that makes a difference for this motion regarding the 40 feet around what about what we're talking about right now was that the first thing you said was

number what was was that you know I just want to know you're right um okay yeah already been adopted so an amendment okay let me just start I'll start over so number one is not any longer the feeks we've already done that but we'll just reference that that occurred and then number two is the one we just finished about Gundry Drive so number three is amend section 48 dash 1031 number one by changing all development applications to all by right development applications. Then amend section 48-1029, which is at lines 519 to 521 tonight, to clarify that the special exception may allow minor deviations from the standards of development at section 1030 of this ordinance and may allow greater but reasonable deviations from the permitted uses and affordable housing standards of this ordinance. Number five, replace section 48-1030 letter E in its entirety with the following language. By-right developments in the district shall provide a minimum tree canopy on the development site such that when measured 20 years after the first certificate of occupancy is issued, the tree canopy shall cover at least 10% of the development site. And then number six, the intent language, it has been agreed that we will leave the architectural language in that location and that no architectural mandatory requirements will be imposed on by-right development. But the intention will still be requested for by-right development. We have clarified that there is no minimum open space requirement for by-right development. And we have clarified that the special exception for open space will be available immediately upon adoption of the ordinance, but that all other special exceptions will not be available until July 1, 2027.

And that's all I have. Looking to see if that's consistent with our understanding. Three hours later. So is there a motion then for a new first reading? As the city attorney recited, I guess.

I move to grant first reading to TO 26-15 as revised. Refer to the Planning Commission and set a public hearing in second reading for October 26, 2026, and advertise the same according to law.

Is there a second?

second you didn't hear me no downs on the second oh just saying but i mean does it have to say as amended because the other that's what i was thinking the one the one amendment is carried with the motion as amended and revised yeah as we mentioned that revised yeah right that's what i was thinking sally is that

I didn't understand that.

I'm saying that we did the 40 feet by the motion.