Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, February 9th, 2026 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Nia Bagley, chair. Tonight, we will hear and discuss the one agenda item, the Leki Garden Apartments, and the following elements along with it. The general land use plan amendment resoning and the site plan number 482. A few pointers before we get started. For participants, present presenters and speakers joining the meeting through Microsoft Teams. Please keep your phones and other electronic devices muted until you are called upon by the clerk. Please turn off the sound to any devices around you to minimize interference and keep your cameras off until the clerk announces your name to speak. When called upon, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is in the meeting command bar or at the top of the screen. The moderator nor the clerk have the ability to unmute your mic. Once you have spoken, please mute your mics and turn your cameras off. If you are dialing in by phone to join the meeting, please press star six to unmute. Public speakers will be called upon by the clerk at an assigned time. Pre-registration pre-registration with email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We are not able to accommodate additional speakers. All speakers virtual hybrid will receive 2 minutes to comment as individual. Only representatives of a county boardappointed advisory group committee and or commission will receive three minutes to comment. A timer will be displayed on the screen if speaking virtually and speakers in person will follow the timer stationed at the podium. Audio of tonight's meeting is available via phone. If commissioners, presenters, or speakers lose internet connectivity, please reconnect by phone. However, if you are dialing in by phone and unable to see the screen, we will provide an audible 60 30 second warning to wrap up your comments. You will be

muted when your time has expired. The meeting chat is active for presenters or commissioners who need technical assistance only. Please do not use the meeting chat for discussion, public comment, questions about agenda items, or requests for further information. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. Tonight's meeting will be available for review through the YouTube platform. A link has been provided on the planning commission website 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Although the meetings will no longer be a live broadcast, the meetings will be available for review with closed captioning on Comcast Xfinity channels 25 and 1073, Verizon FiOS channels 39 and 40, 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website via a link to YouTube as stated. All information associated with tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. Madame Clerk, please call our first item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first and only item tonight is the following. 1 A GLP A25-00002 GP-371-261 the general land use plan amendment for 2031 North Woodrow Street 1B RZN25-00006 resoning and 1 C SPLN25-00007 site plan 482 we I have Chrissy Wallish to present this item this evening. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening members of the planning commission. As Jel said, I'm Chrissy Wallish with the Department of of Community Planning, Housing, and Development. I'm joined by Sergio Ver Cocha with the Department of Environmental Services and we're here tonight to present to you the Lucky Gardens Redevelopment Project. The applicant, True Ground Housing Partners, has submitted three land use applications for your consideration. The first is a request to amend the county's general land use plan to change the site's designation from lowmedium residential to low office apartment. The second is is a reszoning request to reszone the property from RA818 multiple family dwelling district to CO1.5 mixed use. And the third is a request for a site plan to construct an 11-story residential building with 249 resident committed affordable residential units. The subject site is located within Waverly Hills neighborhood and is directly south of the Lee Heights shops. It's bound by North Woodro Street to the west, 21st Street North to the north, North Woodro Woodstock Street to the east, and 20th Road north to the south. Condominium buildings and rental apartment buildings are located both to the east and west of the site, and single family homes are located to the south. Woodstock Park is located to the southwest. Site is currently developed with two four-story garden apartment buildings constructed in 1949 containing 40 affordable housing units and their associated surface parking lots. The slide shows views of the site's existing conditions. We'd like for you to note the grade change from north to south as well as the site's relationship with 21st Street North, which you can see in the image in the lower right of the screen. This is a private street and is utilized as a one-way drive aisle for the Lee Heights Shops parking lot. Lucky Gardens is located within the boundaries of the Langston Boulevard area plan which was adopted by the county board in December 2023. If approved, this will be the first site plan subject to the guidance of the new plan. The area plan provides a series of policies and implementation strategies to guide future public and private development decisions and ultimately the plan will help transform the predominantly car oriented strip commercial and residential corridor into a green mixeduse main street that

provides safe and multimodal access and is rooted in environmental resiliency, economic sustainability and equity. The site is located within area 3, which is considered the heart of the corridor and partially within the planned activity hub, which is envisioned to contain a new plaza, parks, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to serve the community. Next, we'll look take a look at the development proposal. As mentioned, the proposed club amendment is to change the site's designation from lowmedium residential to low office apartment, hotel. The Langston Boulevard area plan expects GLUP amendments in conjunction with redevelopment proposals in order to align the land use designations within the plan's future vision. The GLUP map on the left shows the site's current designations while the map on the right is an excerpt from the area plan showing future expected GLUP designations. As you can see, the Lucky Garden site is identified for f for a future designation of low office apartment. So, the requested GLUP amendment is directly in conformance with the guidance of the area plan. The applicant also proposes a resoning of the site from RA818 multiple family dwelling district which you can see in the zoning map on the left to CO1.5 which which is a mixeduse district. The reasonzoning is encouraged by the area plan so the site can achieve a higher density than permitted under the existing RA818 zoning and it also better aligns the zoning district with the proposed GLUP designation of low office apartment hotel. The text on the right highlights the section of the area plan that encourages reszonings to CO 1.5 in conjunction with the GLP amendments to low office apartment hotel. Here's a closer look at the development proposal. The applicant's presentation will also provide more details. The proposed building will contain 249 calf units. The proposed density is 183 dwelling units per acre. Provision of public space in the form of a greenway for tree preservation and storm water mitigation. 218 vehicular spaces and 106 bicycle parking spaces to be located in a below grade garage. The proposed rate parking ratio is 0.82 spaces per unit. There are two loading bays accessible from North Woodstock Street and proposed

zoning ordinance modifications for additional height, additional density, parking ratio reduction, and density exclusions. This slide shows a rendering of the building from North Woodro Street and 20th Road North in a site layout exhibit where you can see the greenway on the southern end of the site as well as an interior private courtyard. Next, we'll take a look at the analysis of policy conformance. For land use and density, the applicant is proposing a fully residential building which conforms with the use maps from map from the area plan on the left. For density, the tabulations are shown in the table on the upper right of the screen. sight space density under the CO1.5 zoning district which permits up to 72 units per acre for residential uses is 98 units. The applicant is requesting an additional 151 units above the zoning ordinance space which they are achieving via zoning ordinance section 1559 which permits additional density in exchange for the provision of affordable housing which this project provides. The table in the lower right provides the proposed affordable unit mix which you will note there is a large number of two plus bedroom units or familysiz units which are in high demand. The area plan calls for a maximum building height of 10 stories or approximately 125 ft along 21st Street north on the northern end of the block and then a tapering down to seven stories in the middle then to five stories on the southern portion of the block as demonstrated in the building heights and form map on the left. The portion of the building that fronts 21st Street North is 10 stories tall if measured from average sidewalk elevation. And 10 stories is what you would see if you're looking at the building from Langston Boulevard. However, due to the steep grade change in the zoning ordinance requirement of measuring building height from average site elevation, the P1 parking level technically counts as an additional story. However, the building height in feet of 111 ft is well within the maximum height range for the site which permits building heights of up to 125 ft. The plan established a heightened feet range in order to to accommodate for sites like Leky Gardens where there is a steep grade change and the calculated average site elevation may affect number of proposed stories. Given these factors, the proposed building height is consistent with the plan's recommendation.

For building form, the area plan calls for the building to be set back from the southern property line by 35 to 40 ft to accommodate the greenway. The plan then calls for the building to be tapered to provide a suitable transition to the single family houses to the south. Per the plan, there should be stepbacks in the building massing of 10 ft from the build two line on the sixth level and 90 ft on the 10th level as shown in the plan on the left. The applicant has provided a 10-ft step back on the fifth level which is appropriate given the grade change and 80 foot step back on the seventh level which is appropriate because there are three total stepbacks and a third step back of 32 ft. Swantes. Yes. Would you mind slowing down just a minute? Thank you.

And a third step back of 32 feet on the 10th level. Overall, the proposed building massing and tapering is in conformance with the area plans guidance. On this slide, you can see renderings of the proposed architecture, which the applicant will discuss in more detail in their presentation. The proposed architecture generally conforms with the building mass and articulation guidance found in section 433 of the plan as well as the design elements guidance found in section 435 of the plan. Turning to transportation related aspects of the project, we'll look at both streetscape and parking details. For the streetscapes, the sidewalk and landscape strip dimensions on all four street frontages either meet or exceed guns found in either the area plan and or master transportation plan. For parking, the applicant proposes a total of 218 spaces with 206 allocated for residential use and 12 spaces for visitor parking. This equates to a parking ratio of 0.82 82 spaces per unit, which is below the zoning ordinance requirement of 1.125 spaces per unit for this project. The applicant is requesting a parking ratio reduction to permit a ratio of 0.82 spaces per unit, which staff supports given the site's proximity to transit options and the project type being that of affordable housing. The applicant will also participate in a transportation demand management plan. Next, we'll look at public space and environmental impacts. As depicted in the public space network map on the left, the site is expected to contain a greenway on its southern border with its purpose being for tree preservation and storm water mitigation. The plan recommends a greenway width of 35 to 40 ft. And the applicant's proposed greenway width varies between 28 ft wide and 43 feet wide, which staff finds generally conforms with the plan's objectives for the space. The applicant is granting a public access me easement over this space so that it is able to be utilized by the public. Street trees are proposed along North

Woodstock Street and North Woodro Street. However, on 21st Street North, smaller ornamental trees are currently proposed due to a conflict with aerial power lines which are proposed to remain with redevelopment. In addition to the provision of the greenway, which will help catch storm water runoff, the applicant is also constructing an underground retention vault. Both of these provisions help to ensure that the project conforms with the stormwater mitigation guidance of the area plan. In regard to tree preservation, after the conclusion of SPRC2 in December, staff determined that one of the mature mature trees within the greenway would be unlikely to survive post construction due to the proposed building footprint being placed too close to this tree. Due to this, the applicant is unable to count this tree toward their tree canopy coverage and therefore is not anticipated to meet the tree canopy coverage recommendation in the area plan of 35%. The proposed tree canopy coverage is approximately 29.18%. We know this is a planned deviation. And last, the applicant proposes to achieve lead silver green building certification as a result of input received from the public during SPRC as well as by comments provided by staff. by staff. The project has evolved

significantly since its original submission. Here you can see the improved improvements made to the building's architecture. The applicant has also added additional entrances, windows, and louvers to add street level activation and breakup length facads. The proposed site access is also improved. You can see in comparison in these two plans on the screen, the applicant consolidated and relocated two parking entrances from North Woodstock Street to North Woodro Street which is recommended in the area plan. They have also added an additional building entrance on the P2 level as well as two bike rooms. Next, I want to flag three site and building design matters that are either a deviation from the area plan or a standard site plan condition. The first, as we discussed on a previous slide, is the loss of a mature oak tree, which is pictured here. Because that tree is so large and because there are numerous site constraints in this area, including the proposed building placement and underground utilities, any replacement tree would have to be much smaller and therefore wouldn't count toward the tree canopy coverage as much as the existing tree does. The applicant does believe this tree will survive post construction, so we're working with them to make sure landscape plans and conditions provide appropriate options for future plantings. The second is the placement of a transformer box within the greenway. For standard site plan conditions, all electric transformers must be placed in an underground vault. While there is precedence for staff permitting above grade transformers in the past, the applicant has needed to demonstrate constraints or circumstances that prove placing the transformer underground infeasible. The placement of the transformer on the Lucky Garden site is adjacent to the building entrance, a building entrance within the site's public space and highly visible from the public rightway. Last, standard site plan conditions require that all existing aerial easements within aerial utilities within 5 ft of the property line must be removed and replaced underground. However, since the utility poles are located on private property, we cannot enforce this condition as it requires approval from the owner of the Lee Heights shops, which to date the applicant does not have. While staff acknowledges the circumstance, we also assert that the pedestrian experience and neighborhood aesthetics will be negatively impacted in this area of the

site due to the retention of these utility lines. Although these elements are acknowledged as subop suboptimal, staff concludes they do not outweigh the project's benefits given that the redevelopment would deliver 249 affordable units and otherwise conforms with the area plan. This timeline shows the public review process for the site plan. We held the online engagement event in October. We had the first SPRC meeting as well as an in-person walking tour in November and the second meeting in December. The transportation commission voted unanimously to approve the project on February 5th, and the project will go to the housing commission for action on February 12th. We have also received letters from the FNRC as well as the C2E2 regarding this project which have been transmitted to the commission, the county board, and to the applicant. The county board will hear this item next Saturday, February 21st. Generally, the project conforms with the guidance of the Langston Boulevard area plan except for the tree canopy coverage. Also, it will provide 249 calf units, which equals 10% of the overall Langston Boulevard area plan affordable housing goal to deliver 2500 units by the year 2040. It will also provide 180 units that are two-bedroom and larger to accommodate families. And we'll also provide a greenway for storm water mitigation and tree preservation. Last, the project will achieve lead silver green building certification. Given this analysis and staff's findings, we recommend that the planning commission recommend to the county board to adopt a resolution for a general land use plan amendment to change the designation from lowmedium residential to low office apartment hotel to adopt an ordinance for reszoning of the property from RA18 to CO1.5 and to adopt an ordinance for a site plan to permit the construction of 11story residential building with 249 committed affordable units in a parking ratio of 0.82 82 spaces per unit with modifications for additional density, additional building height, reduced parking ratio, density exclusions, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development.

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

Good evening, Chair Bagley and members of the planning commission. My name is Zach Williams. I'm a land use attorney with Venable and I'm representing True Ground Housing Partners in this application. Uh, presenting with me tonight will be Jordi Fabian with True Ground Housing Partners as well as Yan McCobnik with Davis Carter Scott Architects and Feliz Bria with Gore of Slate. Going to go ahead and bring up our presentation. To kick us off, I'm going to hand it over to Jordy Fabian with True Ground Housing Partners. Um, yeah, I just want to say a few

I just want to say a few words. Uh, thank you everybody for um appreciate everybody's time uh on this process and as well as the committee feedback. Um it does it it has helped make this project a better uh project and essentially being able to gather everyone's feedback. Um I just want to tell you a little bit about True Ground. We are a nonprofit affordable housing developer. We're based in Arlington. Uh we have done several affordable housing projects in Arlington specifically and this is a property that currently True Ground owns and we're looking to redevelop and we're very excited about it. Great. Thank you, Jordy. So, before we get into the project, we did want to walk through how we got here. Um, this is the first project to be considered by the planning commission under the Langston Boulevard area plan. Um, and we are excited and proud to be here tonight with you to have the first project uh under discussion. But it took a long time to get here. As folks may know who were involved with the plan, the planning process started uh depending on who you ask 5, 10, maybe 30 years ago. Um it was a long uh community oriented process. Um a lot of community input and ultimately resulted in the plan uh that um has now uh we've seen several projects come forward. This being the first. The site uh is located at an existing True Ground uh housing site uh called Leky Gardens with 40 existing uh units uh there at 2031 North Woodra Street in Arlington. Um it's uh just under a acre and a half in total size and as already discussed zone to the RA818 zone. Um quickly the Len Blowart area plan um it set forth a whole host of guidance and standards for sites. Um this site was one of the probably the most discussed sites during the process. Um

with height and density being one of the most discussed topics. Um I highlight that here only because the building that you'll see here while we present it here today um it was the result of quite a lot of discussion and negotiation with the community. Ultimately what was determined to be appropriate by the county board was a stepping down approach from 10 stories down to five. And the building follows that form as you'll see in a few minutes here. I also call out this slide. Not all sites in the plan have this type of detail associated with them as far as what the appropriate height and density is given the grade change, the grade differential on the site and the uh the confusion about what counts as a story. Um the plan was very explicit about what would be permitted, what was considered appropriate on the site and this page out of the plan uh illustrates that and again that the application is in conformance with the plan guidance. Beyond uh height and density, the plan speaks to all kinds of other uh topics uh as well as open space and greenways, both of which are recommended on this site with a significant buffer uh to the south, which this u project uh is in conformance with. Um in particular, the the new building will track the same footprint as the existing buildings. Um and so that was discussed during the plan review and during the plan adoption, and the project does in fact do that. Getting into the project itself. Um this is a all affordable project with 249 committed affordable units from 1 2 to 3 to four bedroomedroom units. Um there will be a two-le parking garage partly underground with 218 spaces. Um the parking ratio inclusive of the 12 visitor spaces is 888. Um, as I already mentioned, the massing and the height are all in compliance with the Langston Boulevard area plan, as is the setback and the buffer allowing for that

greenway to the south. Um, there's also significant underground storm water detention and overland relief that's being provided with this plan. Again, all in conformance with the guidance of the Lenson Boulevard area plan. Um now we believe we are meeting the three 35% tree canopy coverage and we can talk more about that as we go through this meeting tonight. Um we believe that tree that M volunteers discussed will survive and if it in fact does we will be meeting that 35% tree canopy coverage. Um the building will be meeting lead silver and energy star certification and you'll also see there's a private courtyard and and typical resident amenities that True Ground provides for its residents. I'm now going to hand it over to Yan Makovnich with Davis Carcott to walk through the elevations. Uh good evening everybody. So now we're going to walk around the building, look at the the exterior design. So we now we are at the corner of 21st Street and and Woodstock Street where there is located the main entrance to the building and it's kind of the most visible part uh of the building itself especially when you're approaching it from Langston Boulevard from the north. There was the main entrances and it's kind of the only element on this building that you see and and it's a vertical the rest of the building the way it's designed especially now when you see on the 21st street which is the north elevation would have like the typical composition horizontal composition of the base the main body of the building and the top the materials on the buildings are combination uh at the ground levels uh masonry and we For the upper level is a combination of masonry, cemental panels and uh uh fiber cement uh facads. This is actually the probably the best diagram in in a 3D massing showing the

Langston bullbar, the setbacks and the heights of the building. And you can see that actually that really helps to break up the massing and almost make the building feel like rather like a one single building like more more groups of buildings. And we also continuing the more horizontal expressions. And uh you can kind of also see there is a little notch at the corner of the building when we accommodated in this area additional uh space for a storm water uh pipe and also a little bit additional space for a tree root system of very beautiful tree that we have on this corner of the building. Again here you can kind of see that the base of the building the horizontal part is the mostly the masonry and above it it's a combination of again of a of a uh cement board fiber cement boards and and the masonry. Uh this is another view which is like a north uh north northwest corner with the 21st street and woodro street. And again you kind of ste see how the building starts to steps down uh towards the residential neighborhood single family homes in the south side with the going from the 10 9 to six and the four floors. This diagram this this view is actually kind of from the entrance to the Woodstock park if you will. believe it's a southeast corner. It's a Woodstock Street and the 20th road. And you can kind of see that really the nine and 10 story portion of the building really from this side especially when you get closer would be completely uh hidden from the view. So you would you know perception would be really this is between five to six sevenstory building rather a 10tory building especially because the very steep slope that you see as it goes up uh on the Woodstock side. Now we're going to go a little bit closer. This would be the main entrance again on 21st and Woodstock at the

corner. And uh we also use a little bit of a different color here. It's a true ground green that would uh would be incorporated into the canopies and the main portal of the entrance uh into the public areas. And we have this going to be the most street activated side of the building where there would be functions such as lobby, leasing and other social areas. on this this this is a view on a Woodstock street as it steps goes steeply down. And what we did, we moved the facade of the building a little bit further away from the sidewalk and created kind of a landscape buffer. And we're going to do some planting to soften up that transition between the sidewalk and the building. And also when you see there on that long horizontal uh element uh the the masonry at the at the base that's basically when the building it changes from the garage to a residential units. So we would use uh masonry and uh architectural metro grillil panel uh uh grills that can have some bofilic element uh bofilic patterns in it. This is another view just going to go quickly. This is a wood. It's at the Woodstock corner when there will be a secondary lobby where people coming from the park can also enter the building and there is a transformer enclosure we will mentioned earlier with the design elements materials that would kind of replicate the main building. So it would feel like like part of the building rather than like a separate element. on this one. This is the entrance to the build the building on the uh the secondary lobby on Woodro side which is a little bit higher up.

That is the end of the time. Are you close to wrapping up? Yes, this is actually the last view I believe. Awesome. Oh, no. Actually, no. There are some floor plans. I'm sorry. Could we make it like 2 minutes max for the whole Okay, I'm going to fly through that. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we can skip then this one and we just go quickly to the floor plans. This is just the section the floor plan. This is the lower parking garage level of the of the building. This is the upper level which also have a loading area and the entrance and second from the secondary street from Woodro Street on the left side for the vehicles. It's a ground floor when there are mostly residential units and the common areas and the uh and the and and the residential courtyard. On this slide, we are just showing different different floor plans as the building steps up and the floor plans become smaller and smaller and eventually becomes a U-shaped building and it the 10 floor it's it's about just 30% of the total footprint of the building on the top floor. And this is just the colored side plans showing existing trees at the south side which is the greenway or the small park that we're preserving the green buffer the street trees along the street with uh on on both sides east and west they're about six foot uh a tree panel and the sixoot sidewalk and again greenery in the residential courtyard and I head over to police

just to move this ahead why don't we go over to the slide on parking um because we expect that will be some questions about that and this will be our last slide. Sure. Sounds good. Um wanted to just quickly touch on the parking. I know parking was a the parking ratio um was a focus of this site. So we did do some comparable studies at some other uh sites within Arlington for compare for comparison. The most notable is the existing Lucky site. You can see that's a 7 ratio. Um and then as well as listed below are some other sites um along Columbia Pike and uh kind of aligns with the proposed parking ratio. So, we're happy to come back and discuss this one further if that's helpful. And we have our whole team here and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Williams and company. Uh, Madame Clerk, do we have public speakers tonight?

We do. We have uh nine speakers, I believe. For the speakers online, I will be calling your names first. So, please listen for your name. You're responsible for turning on your camera and your mic. Once the clock has completed, please turn your cameras and your mics off. Thank you. The first person to speak this evening is John Muso, followed by David Willard. Good morning, M. Good evening, Madam Chair and Planning Commission. John Muso with the Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the chamber, I wish to express our strong support for this project. Um, as noted in the previous presentation, this project would generate 249 committed affordable units, uh, which is a tremendous, um, addition to the affordable housing landscape here in Arlington, as well as a tremendous achievement for the goals in terms of the Arlington County affordable housing master plan and for the Len Boulevard area plan. Uh, we very strongly this would be a welcome addition to Len Boulevard corridor and Arlington County at large. Additionally, we are very happy to see the additional community benefits as mentioned in the in the uh presentation such as the greenway, storm water preservation, tree preservation and so forth. So, we do strongly recommend that you each uh recommend the adoption of as mentioned the reasonzoning GLP amendment and site plan amendment for this project. So, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Musa. Our next speaker is David Willard, followed by Bernie Burn.

Hi, my name is David Willard. My wife and I live just a block off of Langston Boulevard. I strongly support the Lucky Garden site plan is presented. This is exactly what the county envisioned and plan Langston Boulevard and it's exactly what our community needs. This project is going to give hundreds of families the opportunity to live in an amazing walkable neighborhood. Uh, the Art 55 bus service on Cherry Hill Road provides fast and easy access up and down the boulevard connecting to the Orange and Silver Metro lines at Roslin and East Falls Church. Art and Metro buses along Glee Road also provide easy access to the Boston neighborhood and Metro Station. Together, this transit access reduces the need for residents to make every trip via car, lowering the building's parking requirements and the local traffic impact. This building and its new residents will be an asset to our community and will further the county's vision of a dense, walkable, transit oriented, and vibrant Langston Boulevard. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bernie Burn, followed by Alice Hogan. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um, this is not a good project. Uh the building's private open area should not be within the building and should not be private. Externalize this open space. Make it available for public use. That's important, believe it or not. Uh the project lacks real myofilia. Plant native flowering vines that will climb from the ground on trelluses, create green walls between windows, hang native vines down from the roof at all ledges and setbacks. There are none. The group has the building has no green roof. It needs one. Why isn't it there? As I informed the applicant, many non-native plants and cultivars do not feed or provide habitat for native pollinators. However, the project retain 38 non-native plants. 23 of these are not native to North America. 15 are native to North America, but are not native to other county. One of the largest canopy trees, London plain trees, is not native to North America. What's going on here? The project should not have any cultivars unless they are more resistant to disease than their parents are. Nevertheless, this project will contain 38 cultivars that lack any such disease resistance. Replace all non-native plants and cultivars with similar plants that are native to Arlington and its vicinity. Do not use cultivars simply because they are sub short or pretty. It looks like you're doing that. The project will contain I don't know what what landscape outcome you had doing this. It's really not good. The the planting the project will contain that common milkeed. This is good. It's maybe the only thing good about the project. Studies have shown that the more than 80% demonic butterflies overwintering in Mexico had fed on common milkweed as caterpillars. This project will only be lead silver. Although the project will create affordable housing units, that is no excuse for not being lead gold or lead

platinum. They just want to save money. Please direct the applicant to correct these deficiencies before the county board considers this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. B. Our next speaker is Alice Hogan, followed by Joan McIntyre. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay.

Yes, ma'am. Good evening, commissioners, um, and staff and presenters. Um, my name is Alice Hogan. I work with Navaja, the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance. I'm the Arlington director, and I want to thank um, True Ground Housing Partners, and the county staff for working so hard and bringing forth a wonderful project. Um, I want to echo the comments of John Muso as well as David Willard um about the benefits of this expanded property for the Langston Boulevard corridor. Um, over 200 net new units um, which is going to hit 10% of the goal for the entire corridor in one project is really um, wonderful for our community. It's within the height. It's got two, three, and four bedroomedroom units. Some of them are deeply affordable. Um they're replacing 70 plus year old units and offering first um uh chance to return um for current residents. So imagine coming to a brand new building. Um I appreciate the parking ratio and that's going to help us as we move away from car dependence as a county. Um it is lead silver in addition to all the other things it's trying to accomplish. So, we're very grateful for that. Um, and for the site and storm water upgrades that the count the community will benefit from. Um, I want to applaud you all for working together um with the community and the staff um suggestions to bring forth a a much um um improved proposal than from the start. And that shows that our Arlington process really works. Um, this will be the first affordable housing on Langston Boulevard since the plan in a high opportunity neighborhood and it will add socioeconomic and cultural diversity. So, um, we're very much in

favor and thank you for bringing it forward. Have a good evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joan McIntyre followed by Jeffrey Williams. Two minutes or three? Two. Because I thought I You give the option to sign up for different minutes that should be changed on the form. Two. Okay. Thank you.

Keep it to that, but I'm just saying the form should be changed. Okay. Uh I'm John McIntyre speaking on behalf of EcoAction Arlington. Um we strongly support the development of affordable housing in Arlington. Um, creating community that has room for a diverse population and a broad range of income levels is a part of environmental justice and these proposed projects will actually help meet that affordability within Arlington. However, consideration of affordability and environmental justice needs to go beyond availability of housing include energy affordability, resilience, and the um ensuring that the future residents can take advantage of the transition to clean renewable energy. Um this project with its commitment to lead silver and some of the other information on the energy models indicates it really falls short of meeting this criteria. We asked the planning commission to recommend improvements to the plan that will f prioritize a high-erforming um building that will be more resilient as well as lower energy costs. Um highly energy efficient in the systems that are used including taking advantage of heat pump technology. full electrification to um facilitate the process to renewable um energy grid and a minimum infrastructure to support the development of um electric vehicles. Sustainability and climate resilience is not a luxury and should not be and should be a core design element for um all projects. Projects such as Goodwill and Melwood really indicate that this is possible for affordable housing units. Meeting higher standards will ensure long-term saving cost savings, a healthier environment, a more resilient building and protect and protect the residents from climate change and um that's thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeffrey Williams followed by Jason Schwarz.

Is it on? Okay. Hi, I'm Jeffrey Williams. My family has lived in Arlington for over 60 years, and I've seen many neighborhoods change, mostly for the better. But change often raises anxiety for current residents. In reviewing the SPRC public comments, I noted a number of resident concerns, including density impacts on infrastructure, building heights, and vehicular congestion. How do we balance these concerns with the advantages of the proposed site plan? Does the proposed Lucky Gardens development meet the adopted planning goals? The key housing policies in the Langston Boulevard area plan call for taller buildings near activity hubs to prioritize more multifamily homes, especially with two or more bedrooms and focus on preserving and replacing affordable housing for low and moderate income families and meeting residents needs to increased building height and density. The proposed 10-story building will 249 committed affordable units, including two, three, and four bedroomedroom units. This will replace buildings with surface parking that currently provides 40 units. This will add over 200 units of new housing for families with modest incomes. Ley Gardens is consistent with the plan's guidance for this site. During the SPRC process, the building's architecture and materials change significantly. Although opinions may vary, the revised design is generally more attractive and blends better with the neighborhood due to improved materials and features. I strongly support the Lucky Garden site plan proposal and encourage you to recommend approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Schwarz followed by John Bloom.

Hello, my name is Jason Schwarz and I support uh the recommendation for approval of the site. This project meets the zoning and policy guidelines for the site. It fits exactly what the Lynxen Boulevard area plan prescribes. This new housing will be an incredible improvement for current residents and residents moving into the site. I can only imagine what the residents um that could be moving to the site are facing right now with the cold weather. This will be a extreme step change improvement for them in their quality of life. This site is very important because it places new calfs in a very high opportunity area. The lack of new calves in North Arlington and particularly this far north as a county recognized problem and this site will help address that. The housing is safe, eco-friendly, and overall high quality in all features such as Indian laundry. Um, that's that's nicer than my than my apartment has, and um it certainly uh will be a credible quality of life improvement. Again, uh this site as a transformation is long due. Uh plan Langston Boulevard kickoff was in 2019. So, we're going to look at the first site being delivered, first structure, uh nearly a decade after uh the the site plan uh plan Langston Boulevard was kicked off. And that to me is way too far of a timeline. So, we need to catch up and that starts right now with approving the site and then looking on to see how we can speed up Linkston Boulevard so that more of uh buildings like this can come online. Um, lastly, this uh project will be great residence for people uh to live it with dignity. Right? This is going to be on an area where there's no highways, no arterial roads. People residents are going to be able to open their window and not have to listen to loud trucks, cars uh go by where we often place other affordable sites and apartment buildings. Um, it's really important that we put apartment dwellers in high opportunity, quiet, comfortable, safe areas like this to integrate into the fabric of our society. So, with that, um, I strongly support approval and I'm very excited to see this project come forth and kick off Linkson Boulevard. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last speaker for the evening is John Bloom. Hello, I'm John Bloom speaking for the Sierra Club's Ptoic River Group. We're strong supporters of affordable housing and Leki Gardens. We're proud to stand with the affordable housing community through difficult issues in the past and will do so in the future. We're also deeply concerned about climate justice for low-income families and with Arlington's climate commitments. I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of EV ready parking. The idea obviously is to make as many spaces as possible available for EV parking in the future. We can't continue to set up the awful situation we have now with the existing buildings where retrofitting for EV parking is a nightmare. It's especially important for low-income residents because EVs already have a lower total cost of ownership than comparable gas cars. And the cost of used EVs is a bargain. The cost advantage of EVs will only grow in the future. Access to charging is the biggest challenge and new construction is the critical time. Once the concrete dries, it's too late. The proposal to make fewer than 5% of parking spaces EV ready would be a serious mistake. True Ground may find that using low power solutions, including some level one charging and using load management software, allows them to use the same electrical capacity to serve 48 times more parking spaces than if they use standard level two charging assumptions. So, we hope True Ground will consult with the air teams experts and others to develop a plan to provide substantially more EV ready spots in time for the county board meeting. We think the planning commission should ask for this and the True Ground should agree. It's

the right thing to do for tenants and the climate. Thank you,

Madam Clerk. Are there any commissions speaking tonight? Yes, we have Mr. Benson for FNRC.

Good evening. I'm Bob Benson with the Forestry and Natural Resources Commission. You all have our letter to the county board with recommendations to improve the tree design of this project. I talked about those points at the two SPRC meetings, and I won't go through them here, but I do want to offer a couple observations. First, a reminder. Arlington falls well short of its 40% tree canopy goal, and we're losing ground on private property development. Given that clear trend, when it comes to site plans, every tree counts. The FNRC supports the original goal of the site plan to hit the 35% Langston canopy target and conserve some of the existing trees. This will benefit the low and moderate income families who will call this neighborhood home. We want shade for them, not heat islands. However, my commission is concerned that we made recommendations through several rounds of review now to conserve the trees along 20th Road, including that specimen oak tree, to bury the power lines on 21st Street, negotiating with Lee Heights with county facilitation if necessary, to plant more street shade trees, and to create seven or eight foot wide tree planting strips, which national experts believe is the optimal width. But we haven't seen these changes yet in the plan. And we're not the only ones making these points. The county urban forestry staff and other public commenters have made these recommendations as well. Plus, we now know that the specimen oak tree on the southwest corner of the lot will be severely impacted if the design is not adjusted to allow for better root protection. This is the technical view of our county staff urban forestry experts. The loss of that tree will prevent the project from meeting the 35% Langston Boulevard goal. Lo lose it by by quite a

bit down to 29%. We think and the urban forestry staff thinks that a small adjustment in the building footprint in that corner would ensure that the tree would survive. So my commission urges your commission to seriously address these points, maybe even make them a condition for approval. Our recommendations are not working at cross purposes with the affordable housing goals of this project. They will not result in the loss of units. Instead, they will increase benefits for the people who live in this building and in this neighborhood. We owe it to them not to cut corners on tree plantings and landscaping. Thank you. Uh did this come be in front of uh transportation?

Uh yes it did. Uh madam chair. It was at our meeting last Thursday uh February 5th. Um as Miss Walnutish has mentioned it was voted 9 to zero unanimously to support the project. Uh we had discussion of a number of points. Um we did feel that the parking ratio is appropriate for this. Um, we did hear from the applicant that roughly 8 to 10% of the units will be supportive units which tend to not need automobiles which helps bring down the number of people who could be potentially needing a parking space in the garage. Um, we we also looked at uh traffic um the design of the intersection of 20th road and Woodstock where there are bumpouts and a traffic circle proposed. Um they confirmed that traffic can and trucks can get through. It will make it safer for pedestrians to cross right there. It will slow traffic. Um that is viable. That the design of that is viable and will be included. Um the traffic generated by the project um is projected to be about 40% going east along Langston and Cherry Hill uh Cherry Hill Road, 20% going west, 20% going north on Glee, and 20% going south south on Glee. Um that this additional traffic is not projected to affect either Cherry Hill or Woodstock or Langston um intersections. um that there doesn't need to be any real changes to traffic timing or lane width or anything like that. Um we did have a good discussion on bike lanes um and the rationale for having the parking lane be inside um having the parking lane be inside of the bike lane up against the sidewalk. Um and this is all paint. it's, you know, however we look at it, it's going to be just paint rather than a a um cycle

track. Um we questioned whether we could instead paint a small buffer between the bike lane and the traffic lane. Um yeah, you know, that's something that staff said they can look at at this stage. They're not recommending that there be a bike lane between the parking lane and the sidewalk because the um overall width of the rightway is too narrow to support that. under county standards um and as applied by by our our traffic staff. Um we pushed back a bit on that um and wondering why for whether this yeah you know how does it work for the safety um where is it where is it more dangerous inside or out um their concern why staff has is that if a door opens on the um drive on the passenger side bike is coming through there really isn't any place to go because there's a curb there hit the curb you fall off which is a concern. Um we then said however on more doors open on the the traffic side and you swerve into traffic which is also pretty dangerous. So the discussion went back and forth and realized this is not really a issue for this particular site but it's more of a countywide um uh policy issue. So um again as I mentioned we did vote unanimously in favor of recommending this project to go forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lantel. Um, Commissioner Berky and, uh, Commissioner Amado, thank you so much for chairing this project and for also providing all of us a very detailed report. So, Commissioner Berky, if you would like to speak.

Famous last words, try to be brief. Um, thank you, uh, and I appreciate, uh, co-charing this with Commissioner Amado. What a lovely way to get to know another commissioner. Uh really recommend it. Um no uh really thankful to staff uh Miss Wallish and um Mr. Vero uh Coacha uh for their work on this. This was uh a thoughtful application from True Ground and their partners and appreciate all the the um the back and forth and your patience with me uh when I've had questions over time. Um this project really did we say it but it's true it we have to we need to keep affirming this it did um benefit from the community engagement we had a lot of folks from Waverly Hills uh come to meetings and write in we have a lot of other folks um you know I think generally speaking it's fair to say this project at the SPRC level um we have a lot of folks who are very excited about this project for the affordable housing it's going to provide um we also had a lot of folks who are concerned about the height and density and are concerned about the parking and we're going to talk about that. Right? So, those are kind of two um big buckets. I'm just going to summarize very briefly so we can move to the discussion. Um a lot of this already is in the staff report, but um you know, some of the kind of the bigger things that we've talked about in the SPRC. You know, we did talk about the height, right? And it it appearing is 10 stories in some places and 11 in others. Um and the staff has explained that that still is compliant um with the Langston area plan. Um but we can talk about that. Um some folks in the the the neighborhood have argued for a sevenstory limit. That's not um per se what the plan calls for. There's some disagreement there. Um so a lot of that the discussion at the SPRC se level really was what does the area plan prescribe and staff has laid that out which is it sort of it steps down as you get away from the Lehigh the Lee Heights shops, right? and that, you know, I was not on the planning commission then, but I recall the robust conversation about this specific site

being called out and and it essentially being a compromise how it steps down, right? Um, we did talk a lot about parking um and there being less parking than is envisioned by the zoning ordinance and the applicant has provided their rationale as to why uh this is appropriate. So, there's a lot of back and forth um especially with overflow, you know, with the parking itself in street parking and and how it currently exists um on the surface lot. There was a lot of back and forth and to the applicant's credit, they even went out different times of the day. Kind of evaluated what the parking vacancies were in the lot looking at, you know, things like that. And I think that didn't necessarily satisfy everyone, but certainly assuaged some concerns, right, as we had that dialogue. you know, moving to environment and grow uh open space. You know, we talked about there's going to be a greenway, which the applicant um is providing. Um I think a conversation about the tree canopy tonight um is certainly worth uh discussion and Mr. Williams, you know, raised um the concerns about that the one large oak tree. Um and then of course we talked about the lead silver certification. Um, and anyway, I I'll I'll wrap it up to say, you know, it is worth again repeating that the applicant um is proposing to provide 249 committed affordable housing units, which in my personal view is a big deal. I remember 10 years ago, 12 years ago, whatever the affordable housing master plan, the discussion was, you know, where can we get affordable housing that's not just in Columbia Pike. This is affordable housing not in Columbia Pike. This is Langston Boulevard. Um, and this potentially gets us uh quite a bit of the way we want to be uh for the affordable housing uh plan, master plan goals, but obviously the the sector plan goals as well. Um, so that's my summary. Commissioner Amadeo, do you have anything you'd like to to add? I second everything you said and also wanted to to add that it was a pleasure to work on this really. Uh and also to see the development and I really appreciated the applicants paying a lot of attention to

comments and feedback and the feedback came hard and fast and so I really appreciate that the architecture has been revised a few times. I appreciated seeing the corners activated like the uh staff requested. I think they got some feedback on that. I think so there are still things to talk about but definitely it's come a long way baby.

Um one last note before I forget. Um so we so just to conclude we will be making motions to recommend um this project go forward. I did also include an additional motion which you may have seen in the SPRC report. um you know to the credit of several uh advocates and folks um they did uh they're they're holding us accountable to our values uh this project did not benefit from the participation uh of a current resident um that's not to say that you know anybody made a mistake it's really it was really me I I take responsibility for that um you know projects like this to the extent that we can ask folks to participate it really benefits uh to actually have a real seat at the table and so I'm going to be making a motion to that effect to to at least ask that we make a greater effort to to ask folks if they're interested in participating not just in affordable housing development, but anytime there's um a current residential building being redeveloped that current residents at least have the opportunity to participate um if they would like. Uh but that is the conclusion of my report. Thanks.

Thank you. This is now open for uh our discussion. Um, we can follow the traditional SP. I know that uh, Commissioner Berky and Amado in their report put through some items for us to discuss, but we'll just go through the standard ones. No, you don't. You would prefer to go through just the ones in Commissioner Berkey's. Okay, we can do that. So, in that case, the first one is building height and massing. Anyone have any comments on that building? Commissioner Torres.

Hello. Good evening everyone. Thank you so much for all your hard work. I can see everyone put a lot of time into this project. Um, uh, I ultimately will support this project, but I am concerned that the building does look very blocky and doesn't have enough shadows and potentially um, changes this area dramatically from what it used to be to what it is going to be. So, I know there's going to be a big impact in this area. So, I'm a little bit concerned. Any other comments on Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner, tell me. Go ahead.

Um, you know, as Commissioner Burkie mentioned, this has been was discussed a lot when Plan Langston Boulevard was being discussed. Um, I want to just sort of point out and raise because this was very much a controversial pro uh project for the height. the neighborhood was did raise a lot of concerns about the appropriateness of going up 10 stories and sort of blame playing Langston Boulevard for that and the area plan. Um what I want to observe is that even if the Langston Boulevard area plan didn't exist because this site is will be 100% affordable um and by right now in RE818 it could it was for up to four stories by right from multif family. Um, the applicant could have come in with, if there was not an area plan, with a proposal for a 10-story building using the provision in the zoning code, which we used for the Marbella, which gives six bonus stories above what is otherwise allowed for 100% affordable units. um it'd still have to go through site plan, but there wouldn't be the guidance that that the plan that the Langston area boulevard plan has for this with the required setbacks and setbacks. Um we don't know how it could come out, how it would come out if it put it say there wouldn't be the guidance that we had under uh the Langston Boulevard area plan for this building. Yeah, it's not perfect. I agree, but it does comport with that plan. Um, but we would have gotten something similar if there was no Langster Boulevard area plan in this same site. So, I want us to keep in mind that um the argument whether it be seven stories, while I fully understand where people are coming from, um it would probably have happened anyway. We need additional units. And the whole point of

the bonus six stories in the zoning ordinance in unplanned areas is to do this very thing to get housing, affordable housing into this county. Um, so I just want to make that observation rather than have a question. Uh, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lel. Anybody else on building height and massing? Commissioner Patel.

Um, thank you, Chair Bagley. I would just say um while I do not have specific concerns around the density or the height of this building, um I appreciate Commissioner Torres's comments around um you know what it would look like in this space and it's something very different than what many neighbors would are are used to experiencing in that particular space. I I want to be able to um acknowledge that um jump for them. And so, um, you know, I appreciate Commissioner Lentel's comments about getting additional density. Uh, I will echo comments from Commissioner Shriner from many, many meetings ago and and make sure everybody understands that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. In this particular case, I think what we are hearing from the community is we should because this is a prime opportunity for us to be able to achieve a very important goal. uh for this county, which is affordable housing. And not just affordable housing at the levels that we see in many other projects, but to be able to achieve affordable housing at deeply affordable rates and at units that are much bigger um and and uh have the diversity of units that we are seeing at this particular project. So, um, I appreciate the the any concerns that may have come up and I do remember with Plan Link and Boulevard the concerns that came because this is a different project than what that area looks like. Um, however, the benefits I think far outweigh um the concerns with regard to the massing of the project. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next topic is architecture. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Steinber. I was going to align myself with Commissioner Patel's comments and I also thought it was really I don't know in which category this next comment will fit, but I wanted to also

um praise Commissioner Berkey's statement that the process might have really benefited from having a resident involved in it. And I think that's something we should really think about for future SPRC's when we're thinking about the composition of, you know, who's invited to the SPRC process and how we can make that something that is accommodating of maybe some different schedules and sort of voices that we're not necessarily hearing. I don't know which category that fit into, so I did it now. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next topic then is architecture, which you kind of addressed. Yes. Um, are there any other comments about architecture? Commissioner L, tell me.

Uh, yeah, I do appreciate the changes that the applicant made in response to the community and the SPRC's comments on the original design of it. Um, it it it is definitely improved. I still think it's not quite up to the level of a lot of other True Ground projects, which are really good. Um, I've been always been impressed by True Ground and the the quality of the architecture that they don't look they look like market rate housing. Um, which they should. This one is not quite up to that level of quality. Um, it might be because of simply the the size of it and the blockiness. Um, I don't know, but it is an improvement. I recognize that and because of that I'm, you know, I will I'm definitely supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Amado,

uh, I, you know, I've been making lots of comments about the architecture during the SPRC meetings and, um, I, you know, I, I have seen that they've come a long way. I do agree with Commissioner Lantel that there's still way that we can improve. Um, so I'm hoping that during the design process and once you start really putting in, you know, all the apartments, all the different functions that some light comes into this, you know, building that the alignment of some of the shapes is still a little bit off to me. Um, so I'd be glad to continue like being like a fly on the wall or even bigger than that for this project because I really do care about it. Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Thank you. Uh, well, first I'm really excited about the project. I'm excited to see us um make a big jump of 10% towards our goals for affordable housing on our Langston Boulevard plan. Um, I'm really excited about the familysized units that you all will be providing. um especially a four-bedroom unit or two uh which I don't think I've ever seen in my time on the commission, but that really gives the opportunity for larger families to have a place to live. Um my sister has seven children and this could, you know, theoretically be a place for her um or for families that want to have multigenerational living. So, I think this is really exciting. Um super excited as well about the 30% AMI. The question that I did have was uh just more generally if you can talk through some of the trade-offs about the type A accessible units. I think you're offering six out of 249. So, you know, why not offer more? Are the units more expensive to build? Do they take up more space, so therefore you're giving up some of the bedrooms? Um do a certain number of units require different fire

code uh requirements? Like why not offer more units that are type A accessible? So I can take that. Um so in in terms of accessible units uh we typically try to um be conscious of how many uh we provide. Um, in essence, uh, we want to make sure that we're balancing out the number of accessible units as also many residents that come in and that all, uh, come as as as tenants um, don't necessarily might have that access the accessibility requirements. Um, we try to typically try to provide 5 to 10%. I think in this case we're doing what 5%. We're doing 5%. Yeah. So as as more funding comes becomes available uh we tend to either migrate to a higher percentage I many of the projects we we stay between five and 10%. At this point there's some fundings that have not been available. Hence it's we're more we're more limited as far as we can do.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Torres, did you have another comment or question? Well, I'll just add that um my concern is in this particular area if um the building doesn't look like other if this building wasn't affordable, would it be designed in the same way? And so that's one of my concerns because I think that we don't want to make um I love that it's affordable, but I want to make sure that the architecture matches a normal um design in this area.

Thank you. Okay, next uh topic is transportation parking within and around the perimeter of the property. Any comments, questions? Huh? Yes, it would be parking as well. Okay. So, Commissioner Peterson,

thank you. Um, I wanted to follow on to the point that Commissioner Lentelme was making from the transportation commission. I brought this up during the SPRC process. Um, this site is going to see a five times increase in the number of kids that are hanging around, playing around, biking around. And so the fact that we are putting an unprotected bike lane on the street, um the street that kids will be using to get to Glee Elementary, the street that kids will be using to get to Washington Liberty, makes me really uncomfortable. Um you know, if the kids are riding down the street in this unprotected bike lane and somebody opens their if the driver opens their car door, that kid is going to get doored. they're going to get thrown into traffic and that is a very very dangerous situation. So as a mother I would tell my kids don't ride in that unprotected bike lane ride on the sidewalk which then jeopardizes the safety of pedestrians. So for this particular area and for other similar sites, I don't understand why when we are redoing a street anyway, why don't we just paint the street so that you have a protected bike lane that is protected just by nature of the fact that there are parked cars on the street. I know that's not the county policy. I know that's not what the MTP says right now. I really call upon staff to talk to the bike advisory committee um and find out, you know, what what how are they thinking about this? How are mothers thinking about this? Um you know, women are generally considered an indicator species, the so-called term that says, you know, when a community's infrastructure um is safe enough, you have achieved like a parody of gender where men and women are both out there cycling, where mothers are taking their kids cycling. And I think when you have these unprotected bike lanes, that contributes to the fact that we don't have gender parity in our cyclists on the streets. So I really think that

staff needs to go back and look at um whether it is acceptable to have unprotected bike lanes when we are looking at opportunities to repaint the streets anyway. Um and especially when we're looking at um areas where there are so many kids that are going to be cycling to and from school and around. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

Thank you. I and I'm not sure whether to ask this question now or later, so I'm going to throw it out now. Um, I did have a question for the applicant. You know, we just heard a speaker talk about really the importance of electric vehicles and having enough parking for electric vehicles. And I think, you know, we can all see uh as as the years go by, we have more and more every everywhere on the streets and and so I would like to hear a little bit more about how many uh parking spaces you are planning for electric vehicles and if um the possibility would exist to increase the amount.

Yeah. Um so I'll take a first part then I'll pass it on to our construction manager uh who can expand. But essentially um we we would like to in a perfect world we would provide um EV more EV rated spaces. The limiting factor is essentially cost and the transformers that um have been placed. So essentially we we did a study uh based on the existing the current transformers we have uh we're able to provide up to 10 spaces. Going above that requires more uh additional transformers which then essentially what that does is we have to be able to balance out uh the priorities between the greenway uh the existing trees uh because then that expands essentially the area that the path that's required for the farmers behind that building. Right now we are providing the vault we're preserving the trees. There's an existing storm sewer line that we're also maintaining. Um we're also providing uh a few a couple vir I think a couple bio retentions as well as well as a transformer p. So the limiting factor is that and also in addition is essentially the other factor is cost and I'll pass it on to Ted uh maybe he can expand.

Good evening. My name is Ted Calison. uh with KCM represent uh Drew Brown. Um so we are kind of at an inflection point with the size of our transformers as Jordy had mentioned and that is the challenge. We um don't have the physical space and we couldn't even if we undergrounded we wouldn't have the space was not the space within the property line or outside the street in order to be able to put vaults. Uh we have 10 cars. we might be able to get up to 15, but obviously we're right in the uh process of entitlement, so all these numbers aren't tied down exactly. Um, so we do have anywhere from we have 10 maybe 15 car charging stations and we will have EV ching stations for the bikes. So we will have those provisions. If we can add more, we will add more, but again, we're limited by the transformer sizes, the size of our service.

No, no, thank you so much. I I think it was interesting as we heard a speaker earlier talk about the you know innovative ways that we can use you know charging more efficient charging stations balance the load. Um I think you know we talk about affordability right we have affordable units but gas is expensive most of the time and of course you have access to public transportation but I I think it's important to really consider you know the accessibility of EV chargers for bikes and and cars.

Understood. Thank you. Commissioner Gra u also going along the lines of um having EV ready sorry I'm I'm wondering have you guys explored not just EV ready but EV capable just to have uh additional options I know E2C2 mentioned um uh sent a letter to you guys to explore that as commissioner uh mentioned um gas is very expensive. So looking at more holistically what we're providing the residents also u contributes to affordability. Um that's all I wanted to say. Thank you

Commissioner Patel.

Um so I uh think that maybe Commissioner Berkey's comment earlier is maybe a little more instructive on the point about um what resident experiences are in this space around EV ready and EB capable. I think it would have been lovely to hear how many people actually have electric vehicles because frankly those 15 spots may be enough because we haven't met we haven't come to that place where it's balancing out for people who are going to need housing at 30 to 60% AMI. It's it's not. And so yes, the price of gas is expensive, but so is the price of electric vehicles. and and I think we need to be mindful of what it is that we are attempting to achieve here not only right now but also in the future. So, uh, Commissioner Gatada's point around, um, EV capable is certainly a good one, but where do we actually have that tipping point in terms of the the um, individuals who will be residing at this location for us to start to see that? And we have other spaces, other places with True Grounds portfolio to better understand what the needs are of the residents who live in in those buildings um to determine what that what needs to be there on site. Um so I don't know if you have some of that information that says, hey, this is going to be okay for us for X, Y, and Z period of time. It's not going to I I find it hard to believe that it's going to change people's behaviors in in in terms of deciding whether they're going to get an electric vehicle because there's 15 spots downstairs right now, particularly if there's going to be a commitment from True Ground to say we will figure something out um in terms of making that available for cars in the future. Um I

will just say that you know my particular understanding of other um buildings that look the same uh this is going to meet the need right now and for the foreseeable future. So, I guess to um to kind of answer your question, we we did look at the just the current building, how many people have electric vehicles, and the answer is that none. Um I don't have that information about our other buildings, but that's something we can definitely take a look at. Um overall, that hasn't been necessarily sort of a a demand that we have seen from residents through our asset management. in our program is really based on community feedback. Um but definitely I can look into other projects where we have uh provided EV spaces and how those are being utilized. Um if if if there are any electric vehicles that aren't being utilized.

No, I appreciate that and I think the point is maybe a little bit more rhetorical is you know let's make sure that we understand what it is that we're doing in a particular space. It doesn't mean that we're closing off avenues for opportunities to be certainly where we want to be, right? But there are reality. The reason why we have a building like this is because there are realities and solutions we're trying to provide. And when we are trying to provide those solutions, there is the inner ring of people that we are trying to provide solutions for. Right? to the residents here, the tenants here, what do what is it that they need before we start adding costs and eliminating units because we want to put some amenities that may not be of benefit to the people who live there. Thank you,

Commissioner Berkkey. Then Commissioner Peterson.

Sure. I'll I'll start by saying I associate myself with Commissioner Patel's remarks. Um um so if I uh if I'm hearing the applicant um if we stipulate that this is something that we want which is more uh EV capable spots the the two impediments are essentially space and cost. Am I hearing that right? It's the space for for an extra transformer or more and it's the cost right to the project. So thinking out loud, uh, but to me thinking like as a body for the planning commission, so the cost is something that we may have some influence over, we may not. That might be something that's like a state legislative thing because with these affordable housing projects, these applicants have to fit within these financial boxes, right? There's a lot of entities, they're getting tax credits, that sort of thing. So maybe that's something we have influence over, maybe it's not. the space issue I think we definitely have some influence over which is that you know what the applicant is telling us is like look we're doing all these other things be to provide community benefits we've got the green wave we got the biophilia you didn't mention the biophilia but like other things right and we sort of we we want to do these things to enhance the site and we're mitigating density and all that but like they're trade-offs like it's not perfect like um the transformers is a good example like I don't love where they're they're on they're proposed to be on the site but it's a trade-off because everything has to sort of fit. So like I still support this project because we just can't get everything we want all the time. So I think if if we're serious about as a commission of saying this is something we want to pursue which is having more projects and and by the way Mr. Bloom's comments. I really appreciate you coming tonight and articulating this because I think it's worth discussion. But if this is something we want to do, I think we have to think how do we make space and that might be trade-offs and then how do we help uh with the cost and maybe that's trade-offs, but also maybe like other things that we can't necessarily do, right? So, so I think we need to

think about the impediments and how we can play a role in solving them versus just like hashing it out every time we have a site plan. Thank you, Commissioner Peterson.

Um, yeah, I just wanted to recommend that perhaps you are able to speak with um, Arlington's air team um, to just see if they have any recommendations on this front. Um, I agree that if you do not have residents that need EV parking right now, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of resources and money um, providing EV parking. But I think if you can look into EV capable, how expensive is it? Is it a moderate cost? We're looking at a project that that is going to last 30 years. So because people don't need these spaces right now doesn't mean they won't need it in 15 years. And as somebody who lives in a high-rise that was built in the '90s, it is very very hard. Like our building cannot figure out how to make it possible for people to park their electric vehicles. And so then we have, you know, a lot of units of people that can't get an electric vehicle. So just kind of thinking what are the things that we could do to at least set yourselves up? Maybe um you know putting the the conduit in but not the wires. Um maybe having some level one or level two charging stations, just some plugs, like whatever is the kind of lowest hanging fruit that wouldn't have a big impact on cost. And I think the air team might be able to help you out with that. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a question on parking and this goes back to a number of the correspondents and things that I saw from the neighbors about their concern about parking into the neighborhood. I guess I appreciate the slide that you brought that talks about um the parking ratios. What I'm more interested in is your experience in some of the buildings. For instance, in my own neighborhood, I have heard from area residents that the parking from Towiliger uh has impacted the neighborhood. So, um in the and there

are communications that go on to, you know, try to help this. So number one, I'm going to assume that you will continue neighborhood conversations, civic association conversations, but what happens if the ratios turn out to be a problem? What is just for the benefit of the neighbors who brought this up? What is the resolution? How do you address that? Thank you.

I can I can speak to that and Jordy might might want to chime in as well. Um but yeah, I think so we did look at some of the most comparable sites that that you know are comparable to this to this one in terms of location to metro rail transit things like that and that those were the ones that we looked at as part of this of part of this project process. Um I think the existing LEI site was you know probably the most interesting because that actually shows on this site exactly what they're experiencing. Um, and so I think some of the, you know, between that one and then the others that were largely along Columbia Pike, I think it it gave us comfort that this is the, you know, the right the right ratio. Um, we we did also when we were out looking at these, um, the over the parking, we went out at like 11 p.m. or so. So that was that's typically what we see is the kind of the peak time for parking. We saw that there was some, you know, on street spaces available as well. So I think that, you know, gave additional comfort that there's there's some space around the kind of proximity. um if if for some reason there were there needed to be people parking in that area. Um and so I think the other the other comment is just that I think the site will be part of a transportation management plan. So I think there will be kind of ongoing monitoring that will occur you know at the typical intervals with the county. So that that's something that will continue to be studied. I think you know one of the things that that that program looks at is like garage occupancy um just you know trips to and from the site. So I think that's that is something that will be monitored as part of the county process moving forward.

Okay. I would strongly encourage that you maintain a great degree of community, you know, feedback and things just given the um the comments that have come up. This is for staff. Um if uh and of course I've just had a mind blank. Isn't that interesting? Um, I'll get back to it. Thank you, Commissioner Huvara, and then Commissioner Lenti. So, I really appreciated uh your slide about the um comparable affordable projects. I know that the average is actually 76 um ratio and you will be inc right now um at the site existing site it's 7 and you're going to increase it to 82 uh% um sort of ratio and so I feel comfortable with proposing this with moving this project forward because while I know that the residents have expressed concern I this is actually an improvement on the current conditions. I also think, you know, going back to Commissioner uh Berkey's comment about sort of tradeoffs that um we need to make trade-offs as a community if we're going to go with affordable housing plan and master plan and making sure that we have more units um for our community. I think it's really a conversation and we really need to get to the point where we're prioritizing people over cars and parking spaces. Um, thank you,

Commissioner Lelman. Yes, I agree with what Commissioner Cavaris just said. Um, some some points, and these may have come up at SPRC, at the current Licky Garden site, do the tenants have to pay if they want to have a parking spot in that lot? No, they don't have to.

They do not. Are there any restrictions on the type of vehicles? Like, if they had a pickup truck or a commercial van, would those be allowed to park there? I don't have that answer for you, but I can get it for you. But my sense is typically they would they would not be allowed to park commercial vehicles on site because that was one of the concerns that the you I'm not talking about like a dump truck. I'm talking about something that would be the size of a of a of a reg of a personal vehicle, you know, a small van or a small pickup truck. Um, the reason I'm asking that was one of the concerns the neighbors had is that commercial vehicles were taking up street parking. Um I did walk the site a couple of times in the uh the the evening and you know early on a weekend morning and I absolutely agree that there's a number of parking spots that are simply not occupied on the current current site. So I think the 7 really you know I did some ground truthing and yeah it it verifies that. So I'm totally comfortable that not every space is going to be used in the new building also. So, I'm also comfortable with the ratio, but I think that you might want to think about what vehicles are allowed, if they fit in the building and they're tenant owned, allowing them to do so to keep it off the street. Um, I think that would go a long way to alleviating concerns of the of the neighborhood um so that it does not adversely impact parking, you know, the the parking in the area. So, thank you.

I have another question. Um, where would guests park? Uh we have 12 visitor spaces. Okay. And if there's more than 12 visitors, they go there. There's also street parking. Okay. Uh staff question. I remember now. Um is there RP around residential parking permit program around that area? There is none and site plans are not. Um they they don't Well, I know the site plans don't, but for the residents um neighborhoods are is RPP in effect there? It hasn't been noticed.

I didn't think so. Okay. Thank you. That is something if neighbors are listening to this, that is something that you can certainly petition the county to have them come and look at. So, to help you protect your spaces. Um, have we exhausted parking? Oh, nope. I take that back. Commissioner Amado and then Commissioner Torres. The the parking of large vehicles was one of the very first questions that came up during the um meetings. I I didn't quite hear the answer. it. You're not allowing parking of uh commercial vehicles. There was there's no restriction.

There's no restriction. But from what I remember, one of the early exchanges we had, you mentioned that you were going to look into allowing having some larger spots for those. that I don't I got Can you answer that the the height of the Well, there are there are a few areas in the garage where you could park a larger vehicle, but the the way the garage is designed, it's designed to clearance approximately 8'4.

So, that would be the largest clearance that you could have for the for the vehicle, which are like some the vans on the handicap vans, those are the they usually those are usually they dictate the minimum clearance for the garage. So that would be the maximum for the for the vehicle to to fit in. That would have to be within like 8'4 8'6 maximum height height clear height.

And just so I so as part of that question that came up in the I think it was the first SBRC we did look at um uh the resident. So essentially looked at how many residents were had registered vehicles. We went through those vehicles and um none of those vehicles were any sort of commercial vans uh that were being utilized. Um we also um had a conversation with property manager um and the maintenance manager who's very involved on the community and knows everybody because the question there was a question about vans being parked on the street. Um and essentially it was alluded that our residents were parking vans on the street. But the case is that uh none of the residents have working vans. Um and what we had heard was that there was a construction site nearby and some of those folks were leaving you know those vans overnight. Um so from our end um we right now the property the residents do not have any sort of working vehicles. I guess the followup would be if many of the residents would have would get commercial vehicles, can adjustments be made to the parking situation so that they don't park all over the streets? Well, you could re

So, you could re I think first all of the vehicles that do park on the site are registered. So, we know what vehicles the residents are using. Um, and so there was this initial um assumption I think in the community that these vehicles were Lucky Gardens residents vehicles. Um, and we we proved that not to be the case and we know that because we have we literally know what vehicles they have. They have to register them. projection that they might be also. But I guess my my second point is if they did want to park those vehicles on the site, they could. Um, and in other words, there's no restriction. So, it's not as though they're not parking there because they can't park there. No, I I hear you. It's just that some of them are a little larger. That's that that's really the point that we made early on.

Yeah. I think it's I think we're already limited in our garage. Uh, obviously, we already have, you know, only so many spaces and Yeah. the the challenge is if we were to expand any of those spaces, we would lose spaces. Um, and so I think we did look at this very carefully and we determined that the reality is that that the residents, none of them now and and for the most part at other communities don't have those types of vehicles. Okay. Um whereas most that want to park in the site have standardiz vehicles. And so again, it's a question of trade-offs and the experience was just not bearing out that there was a need for commercial parking inside the building.

Could I make a quick point about the electric vehicle? Um the electric vehicle controversy is really kind of big because the um technology keeps changing. And so to to create an infrastructure that addresses one type of technology for electric vehicles, I it I don't know how much longer cuz they already have static charging, dynamic charging that is wireless for instance. So there's like it's a different technology that's being advanced in Sweden and actually they have a pilot program in Detroit. And so anyway, just a little side note that, you know, maybe electric vehicles look very different very soon.

Good to know. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Torres, did you have a comment?

I do. My um Well, first of all, I really want to support this project. I really, really do. Um, however, parking is an issue for me because um, I don't think cars and parking spaces are important, but I think that having one parking lot at least for per unit is so important because as much as I want to be in an area where we are a car-free designed Arlington, we're just not. It's a necessity for people to have a car, um, especially for people that might be living in these in the in these units. um not just to go to work, but also because they might have kids and they might need to take them to school or events. So, as much as I want it to be a car-free area, we're just simply not designed in that way right now in Arlington or most of the United States as much as I would want. So, I think by um I understand that you use comparable design for this building, but I think Arlington as a whole is um not taking into account that Parking is already an issue uh even without adding density not just for businesses but residents but um it's going to become more of an issue if we don't really examine this properly.

Okay, moving along now to open space and landscaping including trees. treat. Thanks, Commissioner Patel, then Commissioner Huvar, then Commissioner Robertson.

So, I want to pick up on um uh Dr. Burn's comment about the native trees. Can't believe it. But I um I found it interesting that there is an issue around not having native trees within the plan. So, you know, we don't need to spend a lot of time on this. I just am going to impress upon you guys to make sure that the trees are native. I mean, at the very least, his concern about not being North American is like a problem. But you don't we don't have to spend any time on this comment. I just say at the end of the day, please make sure they're native trees. Thank you. And plantings. Let's extend it to the plantings as well. Thank you. Commissioner Bar

uh would like to associate myself with Commissioner Patel's comments about having uh North American native trees. I did notice from um your uh renderings that there's a lot of imperous um areas within the sort of courtyard and I was wondering if there were more opportunities to increase to put more trees there so that you're increasing the tree canopy since right now if that tree dies you'll be at 29% as opposed to the 35% minimum that um is sort of our goal. Um David, do you want to speak to the efforts we've made to find space for trees?

Yes. Um hey, uh I'm David Jeb with Studio 39. We're the landscape architects in the project. Um and in the courtyard, we have pretty much maxed out where we can there's a soil volume issue. Um where you have to have a certain soil volume for the trees to count them for canopy coverage. And right now we are um the large planters we have in there are maxing out the trees we have in there or to get the canopy coverage. Um and also what we do have in the courtyard is we have some we do have pavers but we also have some artificial turf areas which is permeable. So it's not it's not quite all hard surface. So there will be some soft surfaces and also the playground area. We have a servicing on on that as well. So it's not all really hardcape in there.

And were there other opportunities too? um sort of increase. I I think this is more sustainability but maybe okay um sort of biophilia. I was looking at the renderings as well and um you know I recently uh chaired the SPRC for the Alexen building and there was just beautiful sort of rendering of um where you have interaction with nature and I don't see that much of the development there. It's just like, okay, you have that little ringway, but there isn't. I saw one or two benches maybe, but it didn't seem like a space where the community could really gather or it could be more inviting so that there's an interplay with uh the environment particularly, you know, there's going to be a lot of children. I know there's a little um playground in the inside, but still it could be it we could make me we could make I would think or I would hope ways to make the um space more inviting. uh particularly where the transformers are. Maybe there could have been an opportunity for you know green walls around it or um yeah I was just curious if you explored those um elements and I was also wanted to follow up again this is more sustainability but I know E2 uh C2 reached out to you about potentially um moving from leads uh silver to gold and you guys said would explore it but I don't think we've received a response on that yet. I'm just curious where that stands.

You want to go to the lead first?

Talk about the trees. Um yes. So um we looked at this area quite heavily. Um and the big thing for us is to um to maintain the 35% canopy coverage and impacting any of those trees would bring us below that threshold. um and and talking with staff um doing any kind of like uh people talk about walkways and things like that to kind of walk through there. But any kind of disturbance to the uh to the area will start impacting the roots. Um so the reason we didn't actually put a hard surface in there, we left it more um more organic um more natural. Um we did put um the benches and some uh a picnic table in there to kind of activate it a little bit. People can get in there. we does not have a defined path because we want to make sure we maintain the the trees and and the root safety on this. If that answered your question.

Okay. And what about uh the lead certification changes?

Yeah, so I can talk about that. Um so we've we've looked at at going to lead goal. Um so in essence uh we're trying to balance out um the different sort of requirements that we need to meet. Um in this case sustainability, constructibility, cost containment, long-term operability. Um and essentially in sort of going to lead goal, it requires us to being able to sort of limit in certain ends on so as far as lead there are different points, right, that we we can get. Uh but we're sort of at the limit where any of the points to kind of get to that threshold would limit um some of the materials that we might be able to use. Um it could it could increase the cost on on the construction cost. Um and at this point essentially we're we're trying to manage our balance

we're trying to balance that out um

to ensure that from here until closing and we in essence if everything goes well we're anticipating to close sometime in mid 27. Um as you know inflation and cause contractions keep rising. we're still sort of on on the hook until we can close and essentially being able to go to lead goal could potentially hinder our ability to close in if if budget if the budget goes up. Um so that that being said I just wanted to kind of go over what we are providing. Uh so in essence that we're we're meeting the lead certification silver um energy optimization while 20% improvement in the building energy performance is required. Uh we're currently moing about 20 22 uh% improvements. Uh as uh we're also uh providing waste diversion. Uh the project will divert at least 75% of construction waste. We're meeting energy star certification. Um the project will target post occupancy energy star certification with a minimum score of 75. Uh the project's current score projected score is 86. Um we discuss some of the uh EV spaces. We're providing 10 EV ready spaces. Um as far as light pollution, the project will select dark sky qualified light fixtures uh for at least 90% of exterior lighting excluding emergency or code required fixtures. And also uh we're also looking to uh meet the energy star MFNC uh certification. Uh the project will pursue the EPS energy multif family construction certification which focuses on demonstrating improved energy efficiency and fight thermal envelope. So in essence um just want to say that we're sort of limited as far as how much we can do and as you know our affordability is cap at 60%. So we want to also be able that also limits as far

as how much depth we can get for the project. Uh so at some point we have to sort of find uh be able to find the right balance.

I understand. Thank you. I appreciate that um sort of answer. Uh the only thing I will say is that often in projects we see that sort of interplay and a bit of conflict it seems between our affordable housing goals and also the environment. um if there's any way that maybe in the future as financing sort of u proceeds that you take that more into consideration because it will deeply impact the residents right uh if you don't have as much electrification if you don't have um more efficient energy building like the um uh gas co sorry the um utilities cost will be higher and so I think just taking a more broader um approach and considerations that would ultimately benefit your residents as well. Um, but I understand the con financing constraints you are facing. So, thank you,

Commissioner Robertson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, a couple of questions and and maybe a comment for the applicant. What's the status of any discussions, if there are any discussions with the owners of the Lehi Shopping Center about the possibility of undergrounding the power lines? Um so we've been in discussions with uh the owners over there for the better part of a year now. Um and uh we've uh provided certain proposals and and other things that we've uh we think would be good idea for construction beyond even the undergrounding issue. There's a lot of coordination that has to go on since we're adjacent um to their site. Um those discussions are still in progress. Um they they have hired an attorney to review the proposal. Our understanding is that's still under review. Um we haven't really gotten any substantive responses yet, if you will, from them. Um they're well aware of where we are in the project timeline. Um you know, we we've put we've done everything we can u to make those proposals and we think is, you know, some good proposals as as far as coordinating in that area. Um but it, you know, it it takes two to tango in this case. It's their property. um and we need their consent to be able to go on to it. and to the county staff, what's your opinion about why the applicant, despite uh from the county board report uh your numerous conversations and objections to having the uh the transformer vaults above ground rather than below ground? Why is the applicant instead continuing to place them above ground? Thank you for your question. Um, yeah, we asked the applicant to for the possibility of undergrounding these

vaults within the garage or within the the um the sidewalk areas or driveways wherever possible. There is a number of utilities in the area which impacts this. Um, and we've had difficulty, I guess, like accepting the above grade transformers, but we have put a condition in the report that you will see that they will be screened from uh the public right away or along the sidewalks. Madam Chair, I'm not um often a fan of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am occasionally in favor of letting the better be the enemy of the good. Um, we've heard concerns expressed about, and there's no doubt that this is a good project. We've heard concerns expressed about architecture, about unprotected bike lanes, about trees, about transformers, about parking. Uh, I think the act applicant can and should do better. Thank you. And I think we are going to move. Oh, actually I do have a couple quick questions. Not to belabor the tree issue. However, um this is kind of a general u bucket right here. Um going to Dr. Burn's um comments. Um can you re-examine the use of cultivor native species? Um cultivor are not the best. I'm a master gardener. They're not the best. Um so can you reexamine that?

We can take a look at this. Thank you. Um a a question though on that is um with the sometimes with spatial constraints um the cultivars even though they are a cultivar they kind of fit within a space and I know in trying to create um some bifilic elements along the sidewalk on on Woodstock is we did push the building off um off the sidewalk. We have a landscape strip there and we are going to put shrubs in there but we want to make sure we have a shrub that's going to fit in the space. So it like there's a native or a nickberry. It's going to go 8 ft wide 8 ft tall. Yeah. Our preference would be we really would like the reliance more so on the native, right? No, it'll be a native. It'll be a native species, but Okay.

And also, will you be including common milkweed? It's on It's on the list already. Yes. Thank you. All right. Um, couple other things too. Uh there seems to be a discrepancy between what I've heard about you believe the tree the pin oak is going to be okay and staff maybe doesn't think it's going to be okay or uh should I say um our uh arborist our staff arborist does not believe it's going to why do you what information do you have that

so to start off the process when we started going through the process of kind of delineating um square footages, disturbances of of roots and things like that. We were looking at the ordinance of uh uh 20 24 um which allowed for up to 30% of the critical root zone to be I mean if if it were um impacted um and we had originally had a 25% impact on the critical route and then we went down to with the new redesign it went down to 23.35. So, it's still below that old threshold, but actually on the day of or day after we submitted our first plan, um the understanding um uh roots and uh tree roots and uh uh and impact with construction came out. I think Vincent was the uh the author of that. Um and it went down to 10%. Um but we were still going off of the um the original ordinance of of 30%. Um we're we are going to we have every anticipation of of this tree living hopefully. Um and what we're going to do is mitigate it with um all kinds of uh tree uh root pruning tree or air aeration. Um whatever we can do to save this tree um it because it does help us get us to that 35. We're right at 35.05% can be coverage with that tree. And uh what measures do you have in place to protect um not just that tree but the other things that are there uh during construction?

We're going to be putting up tree fencing um the the the chain link fencing um and we'll make sure we people stay out more during the construction process that will stay out of those areas. Okay. Um also let's see here want to make sure I have covered everything. um the planter strips being 8 ft by desire versus where you're at now. Is there any way to help address where you're at?

Um in order to have the 6ft sidewalk um and on the the actual um sector plan, it it is a six-foot landscape strip. Like I would all be all for having a 78 foot landscape strip, but we designed it to the uh to the standards of the plan with the six foot. Unfortunately,

for the purposes of brevity, because I want to move on to other things here, but um where I grew up, the affordable housing projects did not have the trees. They had like sand lots. um they didn't have the benefit of some of the neighborhoods where we actually have trees and it's really nice um for the mental, physical, emotional well-being of your residents. I strongly encourage you take a look at some of what forestry and natural resources said. See if you can work with them. attempt to make this as pleasant and as healthy for not just your residents but really for the county as we struggle uh with our tree canopy and the loss of wildlife and the loss of native bees and other things that we have seen. So, whatever you can do to work with that uh I think will go a long way. And just for the record here tonight, a lot of these questions are going to, as you might guess, also come up at the county board. So, you know, um this might be a great way for you to kind of say, "Okay, I need to add this or delete that or do the slides." Last question on this. Um bird friendly glass. Do you have that?

Oh, currently the way the building is designed, we have um we are using standard glass. Usually for the bird friendly glass, there are special frids and other things they are designed into the glass itself. But the currently the way we have we have a more standard glass. I mean we would be lower reflective glass and stuff that don't confuse birds and flag but no we would not have the the special type of free glass and it's used extremely rarely on the buildings. So this type I didn't catch the last part of what you said. It's used extremely

this this type of glass. It's not extremely often that you off that you that you provide it on the entire building like for like the entire that that freing part and the vision glass of the of the whole building like on every window. You're not providing it on any we are not we are not providing we we using standard glass but with with bit lower reflectivity but it's not a bird friendly glass as per se with a with a frit pattern on it. Is there a reason I'm sorry chair badly is there a reason why you're not using vertif glass? We just that's uh how we normally standard this is we're using standard glass we we use on on on most of our project residential projects

but is other than the fact that that's what you do is there some reason is it a cost reason like what's the reason well there's definitely on the on the bird friending glass there's also code cost reason but there is also a certain pattern that is actually in the glass that you can actually kind of little see also when you are inside the building because of the pattern and it's usually used on the bird friendly glass.

I think I'm going to I'm going to say this kind of honestly. I think you're losing a lot of people right here on this commission because you're not using bird friendly glass. That is standard for the projects that we look at. So, I think had we not gotten to this point with Chair Bagley asking this question and and I'm not going to this is no reflection on on you, Commissioner Berkkey, but it is a normal question that comes up during SPRC. So, I think many of us are hearing this for the first time and I think somebody will likely be making a motion that this this building needs to have bird friendly glass. Uh, I would like to further that by saying I personally wanted to figure out how to bird friendly eyes some glass in Michigan. and I went to the Forestry and Natural Resources Commission and David Howell sent me a bunch of information on very inexpensive resources that you don't have to necessarily do the frittering and all this other stuff. I would think that that would be something that residents might even want to be a part of. Oh, let me pick my design that goes on the window. Trust me, these are very inexpensive decal things that are available, but something should be done. Um, again, this is this is all about the community um being able to be in a place that they probably haven't been able to be in the past where there has been more green in nature and stuff and you want to further that. You don't want to, you know, put it backwards. So, I would just say you need to try a little harder on that. There's a whole bunch of free resources within the county and the commissions that can help you with that.

Commission if um I don't know if you wanted them to answer or that was because I have a I promise I'll keep them brief.

Go ahead. Keep it brief. um as uh with Commissioner Peterson and um mentioned about I really do feel now as we're getting more into the conversation and it's unfortunate that it's 9:00 when we're getting into it, but I do feel like there's a lot of um more robust sort of thinking that you could have done with this project. It's really um it's astonishing really that we're at this point and there's been not as much consideration as I would have thought both for the environment for adopting options that could be cheaper. I know Commissioner Amedo mentioned, you know, there's new technologies that could be emerging that could actually um, you know, help lower cost with bird friendly glass, which is something that we routinely see um all the way to my comments about biofilia that I don't see that it's as imaginative as it could be seeing other projects and actually having been a true ground facilities um that you have already um obviously done. So, um, I'm just really remissed that we're at this juncture and it really saddens me because it's a great project and I'd like to associate myself with Commissioner Bagley which she mentioned this is an amazing opportunity to increase, you know, the number of caps that we have in that. And it just seems like the first opportunity we have to do this, we're not even pushing the envelope quite a bit. We're sort of providing the bare minimum. And I think that's really sad. uh not just for the com for current and future uh residents. Um so that's all I'm going to say.

I have a comment for Mr. Peters.

Okay. I just want to um so I am a person that usually calls for like all the biophilia in the world. I'm usually the one that's asking about bird friendly glass. Um, but I also am so appreciative of the potential of this project to achieve some of our very important goals for Plan Langston Boulevard. And it is providing units at deeply afford for deeply affordable um at deeply affordable rates. It is providing the familysized units. Um, a lot of times when we're talking about bird friendly glass and more biofilia, we are asking a for-profit developer who um, you know, they're going to be charging like 3,000, 5,000, 7,000, $9,000 a month for their units. And so I'm okay asking them like, okay, maybe provide a little bit more to the community and and for the on behalf of s sustainability. Um, but every additional thing that we ask this applicant to do, it's going to have to in order for the financing to work out, it's going to have to come out of something else. So, we're maybe going to get a less, you know, one less unit for each extra parking spot that we require because parking spots are very expensive to put underground. Um, a lot of times when we are seeing bird friendly glass in a project or seeing um, EV charging stations, it's because the applicant is applying for the green building incentive program and those are some of the requirements in order to earn your extra density. But the applicant doesn't have to earn extra density here because they're giving us so much affordable housing, which is amazing. And so as a person who is usually the one asking for all of these green and sustainable things, I don't want to lose all of the wonderful things that this project is providing to get those extra things. I mean, we should have beautiful biofilia in an affordable housing property. We should

have no dead birds around the sidewalks um at an affordable housing site where kids are going to be playing and seeing these poor little dead birds. Um, but I also I I want this project to succeed. I think it can succeed. If there is an issue with um the birds around the building, we can get stickers to put on the windows. Um, and so I just wanted to say that um I I really think this project is fantastic and I hope that we do vote to approve it tonight. Thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

100 years. Uh, no, just kidding. Thank you. Um, I I did actually Yeah, 100 years. Uh, I did just want to make one positive comment, um, while we're while we're talking about all the things we we wish we had. Um, I did really want to say that I appreciated that, you know, um, all the storm water retention work um, that was work in the design. Um, in the Langston Boulevard area plan, this area was cited as having storm water issues. And so I I did want to just highlight that I appreciated all the work about the bio retention planters and storm water retention vaults and I think that that those were great additions. Um one last comment not to I I am supportive of this project and I know that this would not be changed at this time but I do also um generally think it's it's valuable to have um open spaces that are not closed in buildings and that are accessible to all. Um, and I worry that this is it's not going to get a lot of light and be used whether it's by children or whomever, but obviously that is um I know we're late in the process and just wanted to get that on record.

Yeah. Yeah. It's it's Commissioner Steinberger and then Commissioner Patel. So I think this question is actually for staff who I can't see because of where the DA says but that's okay. Hi. Um no okay sure. Um, but in terms of bird friendly glass or what are typical approaches for Oh, hi. Um, our typical approaches for that. Do we typically have slight plane conditions or requirements to approach that? I thought above a certain height and certain flight path plan bird things we do.

So, you typically see bird friendly glass on projects that are utilizing the green building incentive policy. So, as Commissioner Peterson stated, those it's that is what that comes from. So, we there's no standard site plane condition that requires bird friendly glass. They are not utilizing the green building incentive program. So, we cannot require green build bird friendly glass on on this project. Um, so GBIP not standard sipline condition.

Okay. So, that's where it comes into is with the green building incentive plan. And there's not that's not applicable here for Okay. So, I would simply say that and Commissioner Peterson used the term dead birds. I think I counted three times. Um, so dead birds are not a great look for anyone. So I would think that we would want to have a plan going into the building that would address those. Um, I'm not, you know, interested in making the building more expensive for the sake of making a building more expensive. But I also think that if the approach is going to be to use one of the suggestions that Commissioner Begley alluded to, the decals or what have you, that that needs to be something that the building is providing, that needs to be something that the building is telling residents they have to do. that needs to be part of the conditions for living on the site. Something that will address how to meet standards to to create an environment where you will not have the dead birds. Um, and you know, overall make the environment more, you know, pleasing to live in. Um, so, you know, I'm not going to hold the project up because it doesn't have bird friendly glass. I don't think Bird from the Glass is a one-sizefits-all, you know, uniform, like this is the only way to get to the end result you want, which let me be clear is living birds. Um, so I I I do think that that needs to be a plan for how the building is approached. And I think what you're hearing, and I I recognized it late in the evening, what you're hearing is legitimate surprise from commissioners that this has not been addressed already because we almost never get to this point. Like nine times out of 10 I think Commissioner Begley asked that question expecting you to say yes of course we have bird friendly glass. This is our plan. The fact that that was not the response has generated this conversation. Thank you Mr. Patel.

Yeah. I mean, I I um I want to kind of bring this back in a little bit to say many I know I can I can I can look at Commissioner Berkey's face and see how um contrary to our process this really is in terms of many of the questions that have been raised tonight are part of the SPRC process and should have been raised at the SPR process and do not deserve to be here right now from the dis um friends really right I We are here at 9:07 now because 90% of the com comments this evening were SPRC questions. So I can understand that frustration. Um and and I will align myself with and associate myself with that frustration that you are seeing on Commissioner Berkey's face. With that said, I think that there's a couple of loose ends that I would hope that we could just tie up right now and say yes, perhaps this building design is not as good as your other portfolio as as the other designs in your portfolio. There is still room to make some changes and we encourage you to do so. There are opportunities for you to increase biofilia at this particular site. We encourage you to do so. There are opportunities for you to make the glass bird friendly. We encourage you to do so. Um on that specific point, I would say many of the residents that you are um supporting um find themselves severely impacted by disinvestment in their lives, right? And so they may be particularly sensitive to seeing dead birds at the front of their building and around their building and that's not okay. So any way that you can figure out how to make sure that that doesn't happen, it's not just for the birds, it is for the trauma that many people who reside at this building are experiencing who will reside at this building are experiencing. The other thing is like the EV vehicles. You know, we have spent a lot of time that should have been spent at SPRC having this conversation. But there is a bigger question when we're talking about

accessibility around um parking and that is or the people who require accessibility. It seems like maybe 12 parking spots aren't going to be enough and now we have 15 EV spots that are likely going to be unused. And so I'm hoping that there is some thoughtful consideration around how you can repurpose some of those EV spots to ensure that you have ample guest parking particularly for the residents who need assistance. Um I I think the other conversation that I would have wanted to have but it's now almost 910 on a largely uncontroversial project is one with staff around transportation particularly we are now onlineing a building that is higher density in a space that contrary to one of our um public speakers this is a highway it's route one route 29 and there is significant traffic on there and commissioner Milan tell me and I can argue to the cows come home on how utilized it is or how underutilized it is, but I will say in the morning and in the rush hour um to Commissioner Peterson's um prior comments around the safety of children when they're going to school um this is a bigger issue and to say that we can just stay at the same timing on Langston Boulevard when this building ultimately comes online and in connection with the other buildings that will be coming online because Langston Boulevard really does hold this particular planning area really does hold a lot of our hope for getting some more affordable housing online. Um, and that will mean much more density. We need to start looking at this in a bigger, fuller way and not just sight specific and saying what the traffic impacts are going to be as a result of that project. So, we've now got, you know, this particular project with 248 units, is that right? Did I get that? 49 units. There's going to be another project. And so if we don't think about the impacts that came with these 249

when we online another project and we think about Langston Boulevard, I will be so much more correct than I am today. Um and Commissioner Lantel will be so much wronger. Right. And so we need to make sure that Langston Boulevard, particularly between Glee Road and Spout Run, that there is something that is done because it is it is a problem. It is a problem. So that none of that requires any commentary or any response because we don't have the time for it, frankly. Um, but I appreciate the fact that we probably could have resolved a lot of this at SPRC and not spent so much time here on the county's dime and the public's time. So, thank you.

Okay, moving on to which I think we kind of have discussed this already, green building and sustainability, including storm water. Is there any last questions, comments on that? Okay. Construction. The only thing I would say to the applicant is again robust um community engagement to make sure everybody is fully aware of the you know what's going on in construction and and I'll say this um I've said this before a lot of times the people who are then in charge of construction on the site have never been to any of these meetings. They never heard from any neighbors. In their opinion, you know, a naggy neighbor is a naggy neighbor. It's really, I think, to your benefit to make sure that whoever you have on the ground is apprised and is open to communication. Communication solves so many things in life. So, please spend some time in that. I would appreciate. Um, we do have Commissioner Berky and I did add another topic which is affordable housing community benefits. Anyone have any questions or comments about that? Uh, Commissioner Vera.

Um, again, thanks so much. This is great. Um, that there's going to be so many calfs, particularly some that are four units, uh, four bed units. Apologies. Um, Arlington has about 10,000 residents who are in the 30% AMI range. I know you're providing 11 uh units at that uh AMI and the vast majority are at 60%. Did you guys explore doing another breakdown of let's say 70 uh% and then allowing which would allow for more 30% AMI units. Um and if so and also what is the breakdown of the uh 11 AMI units? Are they onebedroom, two-bedroom, threebedroom is any of the four bedrooms? Will they be uh at 30% AMI? So, the breakdown of the uh 30% AMI units is uh five one-bedroom units, four two-bedroom units, and two three-bedroom units. Uh the fourbedroom units are currently on the 60% of AMI. And uh to answer your question um as far as whether having more than 30% of AMI units um typically our our uh breakout of AMIs is really um to be able to we apply for 9% tax credits. So we typically try to stay as competitive as possible to be able to win those 9% tax credits which essentially allows us to close a significant amount of the gap. Uh but at the same time we have to balance that out with being able to underwrite the debt and uh the challenge is that going to more 30% of my units uh increases the financing gap which then

essentially um makes the project not feasible. So in in a lot of the MI breakdowns is just trying to balance that out. Trying to balance to make sure that we're still providing some mission but at the same time that we're able to uh close on the project.

I understand. I suppose um to make that offset what I was suggesting is having like some units at 70 or 80% AMI for example to allow for some of the other units to be at 30% AMI. And I understand that financing obviously with increased risk it makes it more difficult to uh gain financing but my comment is to say that there are a lot of residents that need um at the 30% AMI level. So if there's any way to explore how to come to that break uh to achieve more of those units I think that would be really helpful. Um that's all I have to say about that. Okay. Um I am going to go to one other topic and that is called other and this is for staff. Um as commissioner uh Berky was opining and has put forth a potential motion here. I'm just curious having chaired a number of SPRC's and being the SPRC chair this year. How does it happen that someone from Leki Gardens was not, and this is not an accusation, it's just I just need to in my own mind understand how this might happen, would not have been invited or given a seat at um the SPRC.

Sure. So, when we're creating our SPRC rosters, we use a set list of commissions and advisory groups that we reach out to to u then provide us with a representative. So, we looked into this. We we received requests from the public during the SPRC process. And as you know, this process went very quickly. So, about halfway through, we received a request for a member of the Leky Gardens community to be on the SPRC. But unfortunately, because of the fast pace of this project, we weren't able to identify a person and to to appoint them to the SPRC because, as you know, that that includes an an amendment to the SPRC roster. However, there is some good news that comes of this. We did find in speaking with Charles Sims with True Ground, we did find out that True Ground has a resident council and it is comprised of residents of their communities. So, moving forward with True Ground projects, we are hoping to be able to involve a member of the community. There are just some logistics we need to work through such as not all of their projects in Arlington. Um, and not all of the commissioners on that that resident council live in Arlington. So, we are hopeful for the future that we can have better representation on the SPRC. you just don't have standard practice in place right now to accommodate for residents on a SPRC.

I mean, I'm I just have to say I was kind of taken back, surprised that I mean, in conversations with staff up until now. I mean, there's people physically there now. It should have just been a given, I thought. So, we understand and we are also supportive of it. I think in the future, we're going to make much more of an effort to in order, but we have we have corrected this. Yes. So for that reason, I will probably not be supporting the motion because I think it sounds like we have it is it's something we'll look into for all affordable housing projects. While we have identified a solution for true ground projects, we are hoping to mitigate or you know find a solution for this. Yes, for all affordable housing projects. Okay.

Just can I make just one comment on that quickly? Um I will just say um from my perspective as a civic association later with many multi- uh residence units in our area, it is very very challenging to get representatives from those buildings. And so I think just to give a little break here to staff, you can ask all you want, but it doesn't mean that you're going to get um active participants. Well, and we have this same issue when you know we have development potential development coming up in their rental units around trying to find anybody who you know wants to res. So it's not a reflection of that. It's just a reality that you know we would ask and it may be very challenging but at least the question is asked and then it's documented that we have asked and so somebody comes up at the 11th hour then it it solves that. Yes. Commissioner Berky than Commissioner

Sores kind of loop back and I I appreciate the question, appreciate the explanation. Uh, Commissioner Garcia, I think that's that's an astute point as well. Um, that it's a commitment of time and finding folks to participate. It's it's it's it's not easy. Um I you know I'm uh I'm going to propose the motion because I I think it is important maybe not just at affordable housing projects but anytime uh we have redevelopment. Um the the the sentiment isn't to require it's really just to ask that the applicant make best efforts to advertise and solicit. They can't force anybody to participate nor would we want them to. Um we we just want them to to make best efforts. you know, True Ground historically has been, you know, pretty good at at community engagement within their own communities. So, I'm confident that, you know, just informally this will be successful. Um, I'm looking at all projects, right? Not just True Ground projects. Uh, this is important. Um, so for us to at least maybe as a commission affirmatively state this is something we value to at least try. I want to give credit to both uh Miss Alice Hogan as well as um our colleagues in the housing commission who raised this. And honestly, I take responsibility. It's something that I I should have pushed harder on and I think um we have an opportunity in our next projects to to do so. Thanks,

Bishop Torres.

I guess I just want to know why it's difficult. Is it a language barrier? Is it we're not um informing them properly? I mean, there has to be a reason. And the reason I I'm concerned about this, and I didn't realize that this was the case, is when we see projects where the community actually engages and gives our feedback, we get wonderful projects that we're more than happy to approve. So, you know, that's a big concern. staff, would you like to comment about some of the difficulty that we have sometimes with um finding somebody in say a large building or whatever? This is a Yes, Mr. Triber.

Hi, my name is Aaron Shriber with the planning division. I'll help Chrissy with this just about because the questions about a larger perspective I think in terms of you know challenges not just on this project um but I would also reflect back on what Commissioner Garcia said. Um and I know that she can speak from some recent projects in her civic association where there are severe challenges uh to getting residents to participate in SPRC. I think one of the big issues that we have faced in the past is that uh one from a communication perspective trying to find the right contact. I think we've solved that over the last few years. Uh we do have a database that we compiled over the last few years getting all of the points of contact uh for residential buildings. So we're doing that outreach. Um but also there are times and this is an example uh the redevelopment proposal specifically is speaking to that building and it is by the current residents landlord um who is proposing that and there are sometimes issues of fear. Um I think um I would hope that there's not intimidation. Uh but what we have experienced is there's not always a great willingness for um rental residents of those buildings who are directly being having their their house or their home being talked about for redevelopment. So that has been a significant challenge. Uh we do that outreach. We still try and engage with residents. I think this is an interesting motion. Um but as Miss Wallenish uh mentioned that is something that we have had uh conversations with True Ground about it. It was very uh heartening to hear about their um the work that they do on their council with all of their buildings. I just don't know if we're going to have as much success on some of the other market rate buildings uh when it's less of a collaborative process uh where residents are invited back. And so it's something for us, I think, to continue to work on. Um I will let you know of some things that we've done in the past. Again, Miss Garcia is probably aware of this. Um

when we were going through the Riverhouse project, uh we tried to engage residents. Uh JBG Smith gave us the ability um to put some flyers in the building to at least make the residents aware. We ended up getting some residents who participated in the conversation, but never do I think we had the willingness for members to sit at the SPRC table, but at least we have opportunities to go and engage. And I think that's where where we found some success on some other projects. uh but a good motion we'll continue to explore and I think that there's different engagement strategies we can take depending upon the type of project. Commissioner Patel.

So I have a a comment. I will not be supporting your motion commissioner Berky and the reason why is because I I mean it it is what it is right. We are saying it right now saying that we need to do it. any SPR chart PRC chair can make sure that it's we've made best efforts to do it. Um the reality is also it is a privilege that many do not have to spend this much time at a meeting and there were a number of other people that were here at this meeting who have left because this it's almost 9:30 at night and to say that we are going to have people are going to commit to that kind of time. Time is a barrier across the spectrum. You don't have to be a renter to say time is a barrier. Time is a barrier for me right now because I I'm telling you, we did none of us thought this meeting was going past 9:00 and here we are. Time is a barrier. And so, who is going to willingly show up and say that they're going to continue to show up over and over and over again when we say it's one SPRC and it turns into three SPRC's and you know, you have no idea what it's going to look like. Nobody here tonight thought this was going to look like this. And so to say that we have to have a motion to require it or even say that we're going to make best efforts, if all it is is best efforts, then that's not motion worthy for me. It is we're going to make best efforts and everybody who's involved in that process is going to do it. Thank you.

Okay. And speaking of motions, Commissioner Berky. Yes. Thank you. Um Okay. Okay. So, I have three motions. So, we'll go with the first one. I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board approve the general land use plan amendment GLPA25-00002. Think I got the zeros right. to change the designation from lowmedium residential to low office apartment hotel located at 2031 North Woodor Street RPC's number 07-01 0C-00001 and 002

seconded Commissioner Peterson. Thank you. Andy, would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, sure. very briefly. Uh I think we've we've had quite a considerable conversation tonight. The applicant has made a lot of changes. I uh of I am of the opinion that uh a lot of the issues that we want to resolve from a policy perspective are um I think we've got to figure out as a commission where the best avenues are to sort of tackle those. I think um given that this is the first project of its kind in the area plan in the significance of the affordable housing it will provide uh I'm proud to uh support this motion. Okay. So alphabetically, um, Commissioner Abado, I, Commissioner Berkkey,

I, Commissioner Garcia, I, Commissioner Havaro, I, Commissioner Lentel, I, Commissioner Patel, I, Commissioner Peterson, I, Commissioner Robertson, I, Commissioner Steinberger, I, Commissioner Torres, abstain. Abstain. Okay. And Commissioner Baggley, I'm an I. So, we have one, two, three, four. Oh, and Commissioner Johnson, just for the record, recused herself both from the discussion and the vote. Okay. So, I have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 eyes and one abstension. Okay. Next motion.

Thank you. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board approve the reszoning ren 255-00006 of the property from RA 818 multiple family dwelling district to CO1.5 mixeduse zoning district located at 2031 North Woodrow Street RPC's number 07-01 0-001 and 0002. Second. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Robertson. Glenn, tell me. Glenn, I'm sorry. I can't say around the thing there. Okay. Um, would you like to speak to your motion? No. Okay. Going to the vote alphabetically. Commissioner Amadale,

I. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Garcia, I. Commissioner Havaro, I. Commissioner Lental, I. Commissioner Patel, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Did I get Commissioner Peterson? I Jeez. Commissioner Steinberger I. Commissioner uh he's gone. Commissioner Torres abstain. Okay. And Commissioner Begley I. So I have 11 eyes and one abstension. Do you have another motion?

Yes, I do. Thank you. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board approve site plan SPLN25-00007 to permit the construction of an 11-story residential building with 249 committed affordable units and a parking ratio of 0.82 spaces per unit with modifications for additional density, additional building height, reduced parking ratio, density exclusions, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development. located at 2031 North Woodro Street, RPC's number 07-010-00001 and-00002.

Second. Commissioner Peterson seconded. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your motion? No. Thank you. Okay. Let's go to a vote alphabetically. Commissioner Amado I. Commissioner Berkkey I. Commissioner Garcia I. Commissioner Gua I. Commissioner Wentel I. Commissioner Patel. I Commissioner Peterson I. Commissioner Robertson. Commissioner Steinberger. I. Commissioner Torres. Nay.

Okay. Commissioner Begley eyes. So that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine. Nine uh eyes's and two um a Okay. Commissioner Berky, you have another motion.

I do. Um, I move that it is the sense of the planning commission that because it is critical for current residents of residential buildings proposed for redevelopment to have a seat at the table during the site plan review process, um, that it recommends that staff consider making it a standard operating procedure during the site plan review process. that it require applicants to make best efforts to advertise and make known to current residents the opportunity for one resident to serve as a resident representative to the project's site plan review committee sir seconded by Commissioner Garcia. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, thank you. Um, again, I I'm making this motion because I think it is important for uh us as a commission to recognize um the need to include current residents. I the the reason I worded it the way that I did was to acknowledge the fact that of course we don't we can't nor do we want to um require uh a resident uh to be on the site plan review committee. I acknowledge the difficulties in this um and I don't disagree that it is a privilege to be able to go to a meeting at 7 PM on a week night. Um I think all that being said, I think it's still fairly reasonable um for us to really push for this opportunity even if staff is already working with True Ground. I think it's something that um has been off discussed is not really a major ask um and it's a it's just one more thing that we can ask staff to do to provide that opportunity for input whether it actually is exercised by residents uh or not. Mad Chair Bagley. Um I will be voting against this not because I disagree with the with the sentiment behind it but because we already have the power to do that. As all of us who have served as SPRC chairs in the beginning when we first sit down with staff and the applicant we get a list of who should be sitting at the table. we can then say, "We want somebody from this project, this condo, this uh rental unit to be at the table. We want them invited." And I've never once had staff say, "No, we're not going to do that." They have always said, "Yep, we'll get that in there." And I've gotten my rosters the way I wanted them to be. So, we have that power right now. Each one of us when we are chair of an

SPRC have the ability right now to to ask and require that someone be invited to sit at the table. Uh Chair Bagley, I'm going to align myself with uh Commissioner Lental and I want to make sure that it's on the record that I will be voting no for the same reasons.

Uh Commissioner Steinberger. Um, so I I will also express my intention to vote no on this. I think for some of the similar reasons that Commissioner Lenti and Commissioner Vatel have addressed, but I think also I' I've made a standard sort of for myself when we have these sort of larger policy type like since the commission um you know we're trying to make a policy change in the midst of you know voting on a particular SPRC um site plan matter. I I don't generally view that as the way that we should be approaching what we do from the dis and so I will be voting no on this as in that same vein not because the sentiment is not is one that I disagree with but for sort of the the policy reasons of this is not the way that I view that my role as a commissioner should play out. Um but I I appreciate the sentiment. I think it is a good one. I think we need to be very cognizant of this. I think we have highlighted the issue to staff appropriately that this is something we are going to be looking for when we are designing SPRC rosters and I look forward to not having this conversation again.

Thank you. Um, I'd like to just quick Sorry, just quick question in regards to what Commissioner Steinberg was saying. Is is that are we saying that it's connected to the current motions of the the plan that we are looking at today? Um, and if that is the case, okay, just so I'm wondering if if I need to recuse myself from that as well. That's what I'm asking. Okay. Thank you. I So, you do not want to vote on that or you do? Oh, no, I do. Okay. Thank you.

I did just want to quickly voice support for for this motion. Um, not because we can't do it now, but I think it signals that it is important to us. Um, and I think it signals to the county that it's important. And I think, you know, as someone who has had a lot of struggles trying to get people in buildings that are underdevelopment to participate, I think it also leads to a chain effect of the county having the staff they need to do that outreach. And so I think it's important to document it and show that it is important to us that that people like uh Mr. for Jeffrey Williams here, our only Riverhouse resident who comes to every single meeting uh that the county has. Like I want him to get credit for that and I want him to have a seat at the table. And so I think it's a I think it's an opportunity for us to say that that's important.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Torres and then Commissioner Peterson.

When you have a small residential addition, you normally get signatures from all of the residents around. they don't even have to show up, but they sign and say, "We acknowledge that this is happening and that's all you do." Is that something that could be added or an option to this motion? Cuz I actually do think that at the very least we should know that they know it's happening right now. I don't know if I don't really know if they know if they paid attention, if they read it. I don't know. Yeah. Is the question whether notifications would staff like to comment on that? I mean, that is something that I think that we would want to discuss with our county attorney in terms of um that requirement. Uh because again, for any site plan project, we require owner uh participation and notification and we have them provide all of the documentation for in terms of requiring a petition for individual residents to sign as a let's just call it a submission requirement. Uh, I don't know to what degree we can force them to do that, but it is something I can take back and have that conversation. We can report back in future meeting.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Um, I do plan to support this motion. And one of the parts of the motion that stands out to me is that it would require applicants to make a best effort to advertise and make known to current residents the opportunity to participate in this process. And so we can do as much as we can to make sure somebody is invited, but if the applicants aren't being required to advertise to their community, you know, whether or not we say, "Let's put somebody on the on the SPRC roster," if they don't know about it, they can't get invited. So that's why I plan to support this. Are we ready for a vote?

Okay. All right. Uh, alphabetically, Commissioner Amado, abstain. Okay. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Garcia, I. Commissioner Rubaro, abstain. Uh, Commissioner Lantel, nay. Commissioner Patel, nay. Commissioner Peterson, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Steinberger. Nay. Commissioner Torres. Hi.

Okay. And me, I am voting. Commissioner Begley is voting no. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, that's right. I forgot. Commissioner Johnson, sorry. Oh, I Okay, very good. All righty. So, we have one, two, three, four, five, six eyes. We have one, two, and one, two, three nays and two extensions, I think. Correct. Right. Is that what your numbers also show, Mr. Shriber? No, 642. One, two, three, four, I think four.

Six and four nos, two abstensions. Okay. Four nos. Uhhuh. Okay. Thank you. Yes, we have it at 642. Correct. Yes. Right. So, the motion would pass. Yes.

Thank you. Um, wow. So, again, I want to thank um Commissioners Berky and Amado. was a rough night. Babe, you did a great job. You think it's easy up here. No, it's not. Um, also staff for uh all the effort and going back and forth and working with the applicant and also the applicant. I think you've um responded well on many things up until now and hopefully with the conversation tonight, you've got a couple other things that maybe we'll hear about in the future. So, and thank you so much for public commenters who took the time to uh see this process through. So, um thank you all very much. And I think with that we are ready to move to uh uh commission business. Correct. So, hopefully quickly. Uh Mr. Shriber, do we have any um staff updates?

I don't believe we do today. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Peterson, do we have any um LRPC updates? Just that we um anticipate having two meetings during the month of March. One for a project and one for um the uh work plan, staff work plan. Awesome. Thank you.

Okay, great. SPRC, that's me. I believe we have two rosters. One is um Do you want to put those up? One is Dominion Arms. Thank you to Commissioner Robertson for chairing that project. Appreciate that. Uh while she's putting that up, awesome. Thank you. Um I seek unanimous consent for this. Great. Thank you. Uh the second roster is for Air and Space Force Association. Thank you to Commissioner Steinberger and Commissioner Torres for um chairing this. Uh for this I seek unanimous consent. Thank you so much. All righty. Uh a couple other things. Waverly Ridge, we have SPRC number two on February 19th. And also just announced today, SPRC number one uh is for the Spire at Fairmont on February 23rd. Um, does anyone know if the Zoko meeting, since Commissioner Striner is not here, if the Zoko meeting on February 17th is a go? I have not seen anything about it, so I'm wondering if it is. It's on the schedule, but I didn't see. Thank you for looking that up. While he's looking that up, u Commissioner Berkkey, anything on um formbbased code?

Uh, nothing to report at this time. Okay. Commissioner Steinberger, anything on PFRC? No. Great. Um, any other updates? I have a question on SPRC. Could we in the future try to not schedule SPRC's the same night as the trans transportation commission meeting. Okay. Because last Thursday was transportation commission. We also apparently had an SPRC. Was that a lexon? Yes. So, if we could avoid that, I'd appreciate it.

Okay. I will definitely take that to heart. we will we will make sure that does not happen. Um so thank you again to staff, applicants, public speakers. Um and uh also thank you to Commissioner Wavar who will be representing the commission at the county board on the 21st of February. Hearing nothing else. Yes. I'm sorry. Did we miss something? Approve the meeting minutes for January about that. I never you know I passed right over that.

Huh? Oh and the annual report. Thank you. See, this is why this is why you're all here. Um, so, uh, I would like to seek unanimous consent on the, um, January, uh, minutes. Yes, we're good. Okay, great. And I would like to seek unanimous consent on the report, annual report. Awesome. Great. Thank you. Now, thank you all very much. Um for everyone tonight, thank you also for your patience last month when we did the lease on assignments. This was really super important to madame clerk uh that we didn't extend those and I understand we still have one vacancy, do we not?

We do not. Uh somebody took it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, thank you all very much and thank you especially to um Madame Clerk and u Miss Harrison uh who keep us all in um some semblance of order here. Uh this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.