Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Prince William County Planning Commission hearing. Today, we had a work session at 06:00 this evening to discuss the Planning Commission's bylaws followed by a 06:45 agenda review. We are now ready to, start the hearing. So please stand for your pledge of allegiance.

Thank you, everyone. As a reminder, please turn off or at least put on silent your electronic devices. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll? Brown. Here.

Commissioner Carroll.

Here.

Commissioner Landrum. Present. Commissioner Ross. Here. Commissioner Schaffer.

Here.

Commissioner Sherman?

Present.

We have quorum.

Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up for remote participation? No? Thank you. Moving on to item number six, we have the consent agenda. We have first brief and resolutions planning commission hearing for 03/26/2026. Brief and resolutions planning commission public hearing for April 8. Brief and resolutions planning commission hearing for April 22. I'm can I have someone make a motion?

So moved. Second. Thank you.

The motion has been properly made by commissioner Sherman and seconded by commissioner Landrum to approve the items on the consent agenda for March 25, the briefing resolutions for March 25, April 8, and April 22. Can you please call the roll?

Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to the expedited agenda, we will now move that to Mr. Venegas. Do we have any items on the expedited agenda?

Chair Brown, we have four items for the expedited agenda. Item 11 a, Griffin Heights, rezoning twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero zero three. Item 11 b, special use permit, February. Special use permit, s U P 2026Dash00018 Flavor Hive SUP amendment. Item 11 e, special use permit 2026Dash00002, Dumfries flagship car wash.

Okay. Thank you. We will now we first do we have anyone signed up for any to speak against any of

those? As of right now, no. And no one online for those cases.

Okay. We will now open the public hearing for the expedited items, and we will now move to commissioner Landry for the Woodbridge Magisterial District.

I would, like to, move that we recommend approval for

So close the public hearing.

Oh, yeah. I'd like to, move to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

And I'd like to, move that we recommend approval for item number REZ2026Dash0003, Griffin Heights. Second.

Thank you. The motion has been made by commissioner Landrum Landrum and properly seconded by was that commissioner Ross or Scheifler? Okay. Commissioner Scheifler. Madam clerk, will you please call the

roll? Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to special Sure.

Sure. I don't think the motion included the, proffers dated 04/15/2026.

Thank you for

reminding If not is crucial, we might need to revote.

We might need to. I'm sorry about that. Commissioner Landon, do you know when the proffers were dated, or do

we It's need to 04/15/2026 according to the, electronic agenda.

April 15.

Yeah. April tax day twenty twenty six.

Okay. So

Okay. So we will, we will actually redo that motion. Thank you, commissioner Ross, for pointing that out. So we'll now, open the public hearing and move to hear, motion for rezoning REZ2026Dash0003GriffinHeights. Commissioner Landrum.

I'd like to move and close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

And I'd like to, move that we recommend approval for item number REZ twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero three Griffin Heights, subject to the proper conditions dated 04/15/2026.

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been properly made by commissioner Landrum and it's properly seconded by commissioner Scheifler. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Sher Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Bronx? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to special item, I'm sorry, item 11 b. Special use permit SUP2026Dash00008 for Savers Manassas. We will now open up the public hearing and move it to commissioner Ross in the, Gainesville District.

Okay. Now we have no one signed up to speak. Correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Then I recommend we close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Just one second here. Okay. Chair, I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend approving subject to the application conditions dated 02/06/2026, the special use permit application entitled special use permit number SUP2026Dash00008SaversManassas.

Second. Thank you. The motion has been properly made by commissioner Ross and properly seconded by commissioner Scheifler to approve special use permit SUP2026Dash0008, Savers, Manassas. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sher Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Shay Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item number 11 c for special use permit SUP2026Dash00018 for Flavor Hive s u p amendment. We're gonna open the public hearing now and kick that over now to professor to, commissioner Ross again for the Gainesville District.

So no one in the audience plans to speak? Okay. I recommend we close the public hearing, chair.

The public hearing is now closed.

Chair, I move that we that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend approving subject to the application conditions dated 04/25/2020 the special use permit amendment application entitled special use permit s u p two zero two six dash zero zero zero one eight flavor hive s u p amendment.

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been made, by commissioner Ross and properly seconded by commissioner Scheifler to approve special use permit SUP twenty twenty six dash 00018 for the Flavor Hive SUP amendment. Madam clerk?

Sheriff Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item 11 d. It's for oh, I'm sorry. Oh, we're taking that off. That's right. I'm sorry about that. Moving on to item e, special use permit SUP 2026Dash00002 for dump Dumfries flagship car wash. We will now open up the public hearing and move it over to commissioner Sherman.

Madam chair, I have to abstain from making a motion on this particular initiative.

Oh, that's correct. Commissioner Scheifler, we will need you to make the motion.

Is there anybody signed up to speak?

There is no one signed up. Just to make sure no one here wishes to speak on the Dumfries flagship car wash? K. And no one is online, so good.

Okay. Thank you. So I wish to, close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I recommend that the planning commission approve, recommend approval for special use permit S UPDash2026Dash0002, Dumfries flagship car wash, Shop to the conditions dated 04/09/2026.

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been made by commissioner Scheifler to approve special use permit s U P2026Dash0002 for Dumplings for car wash and has been seconded by commissioner Landrum. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Sher Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Abstain.

Motion carries.

Thank you. We will now be, moving on to item eight on our agenda for public comment. We will now open up the floor for public comment for anyone to speak on items that are not on our agenda today. Do we have anyone signed up to speak on items not on our agenda?

There is no one in person and no one online. Okay.

We will be moving on then, to item number nine on our agenda to deferrals and continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any?

We have no items for deferral or continuation requests.

Thank you. We will now be moving on to item number 10, which is the planning director's time. And so, mister McGetigan, do you have anything for us?

Thank you, madam chair. Just, two quick things. One, I wanted to, recognize, George Phillips. He's retiring, and he's been here for fourteen years supporting the planning commission. And and so he's been a great help and support for all of our cases and working on transportation issues through multiple years and cases, and we really appreciate his support and help in the planning office in getting these cases done.

So thank you, George. There's also wanted to let everybody know a status update on on some of our projects that we're working on. One is the sustainability and resilience comprehensive plan amendment. And Alex has pulled up our PWC Works website. And if you go to the county's main web page and go to PWC Works, you'll find this link to this page as well as other projects that the planning office is working on.

We are finished our initial rounds of community engagement and are working on developing text. We have a consultant on board that's helping us do this, and we hope to have some draft language by the fall of this year. So there's also the zoning ordinance comprehensive zoning ordinance update project. We also have a PWC work site for that. That's ongoing as well.

And we are looking to do some outreach to stakeholders and begin working on this project. This is going to be a long term project. It's going to take a while. We hope to get it done to the planning commission in the summer of twenty twenty seven or late twenty twenty seven. It's a comprehensive look at the whole zoning ordinance. And that's all I had, madam

chair. Thank you, mister McGettigan. We appreciate that, update, and the happenings going on with the office of planning. Sounds like a lot of exciting things are going on. And then we wanna congratulate, mister George Phillips. We will certainly miss you, and we certainly would love for you to just come back and visit us and sit in the audience. Sure.

Sure.

Okay. So we won't see you again. Is that what you're saying? Okay. Great. We can definitely arrange that. Alright, Commissioner Ross?

Well, well, while we're passing the hat for George, Alex, could you pop up that web page one more time real quickly if it's still available? I I want to point something out to the constituents that shoot, it's gone. Anyway, in the in the top right corner of both pages we looked at, there's a place where you can sign up to have information pushed to you so that you don't have to remind yourself to visit this once a week or once a month. And so I'm gonna also personally take that back to the to the residents that asked me about these projects. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you for that announcement. Alright. Moving on. We are now on item 11 on our agenda for the public hearings, which we have two items on our agenda today. So we will start with 11 d for rezoning r e z twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero twenty three Attain at River Oaks, and the public is here public hearing is now open. Applicant, miss Cameron.

Good evening, chair Brown and members of the planning commission. My name is Janelle Cameron with Walsh Kaluchi, Lubeli, and Walsh. Here today on behalf of the applicant Bonaventure seeking a rezoning. With me tonight is Star, Nyan, and Bindu Taylor, also with Walsh Kaluchi. We also have JP Highland, Chris Cobb, Nashua Hassan Lee, Jeff Price with Bonaventure, Mike Garcia as the property owner, and then we have a civil engineering team, as well as our traffic consultants here that are able to answer any questions that you all may have this evening.

As a road map, I'm going to introduce you to the property location, walk through the zoning, go through the proposal, open space, traffic, and then we have some three d renderings and elevations that we will provide to you all. So the property is located on River Ridge Boulevard. Here is Route 1. Here is River Ridge Boulevard. It's about 17.3 acres in size.

There is the Walmart in this area here. The property is currently zoned b one general business, and it's comprehensively planned mixed use three. PMR is an implementing district in the mixed use three category. Mixed use three recommends four to 12 dwelling units per acre. Multifamily are considered primary uses within the mixed three mixed use three designation.

And then this slide here is a contextual exhibit that shows you how the proposal fits in with the surrounding area. So we have River Oaks Shopping Center in this area here. We have townhomes and multifamily across the street in this area here. We also have townhomes in this area here, single family in this area here. All of those are part of the River Oaks subdivision.

And then on the other side of the power lines, are located here, there's additional townhome, single family, and multifamily development. The applicant is proposing 300 residential apartment units. 10% of those units will be affordable, which means 5% of those units will be made available to people earning up to 80% AMI, and 5% of those units will be made available to people earning up to a 120% AMI. 40 of this site is proposed to be open space. The applicant is proposing an undisturbed 30 foot buffer in this area here adjacent to the single family detached units.

The applicant is also proposing additional buffer area of 70 feet in this area here. So in total, it's a 100 feet along that property line. The applicant is also proposing a six foot fence along the property line adjacent to the single family residential as well. The applicant is proposing a 50 foot buffer adjacent to the fire station in this area here. There is a storm drainage easement that runs through this buffer sort of like this.

The applicant, as you will see in your proffers, has proffered that in the event the utility holder has to remove trees within that easement area for maintenance, the applicant, subject to the utility holder's approval, will replant in that area. The applicant is proposing two access points. So there will be one access point here, which will be a shared interpersonal connection with the fire station, and then one access point in this area here. The applicant has also proffered to provide a bus pad along the River Ridge frontage and then proffered a monetary contribution for OmniRide to construct a bus shelter. This slide shows the out the open space area.

So, again, it's about 40% of the site is open space. 1.7 acres will remain undisturbed, and this slide here shows the areas and where the amenities will be. The applicant is proposing several amenities as part of this project. These show samples of the courtyard amenities. This shows the area where the dog park will be, and then there will also be an indoor dog wash area.

This slide here shows the playground, and then there will be other indoor amenities that are provided as part of this project. As part of the proposal, the applicant is required to do a traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis is scoped by both VDOT and in the county, and then both VDOT and the county review the traffic impact analysis, provide comments, and ultimately they will accept the traffic impact analysis, meaning that they accept what the findings are. With the traffic impact analysis, the applicant is required to look at what is the level of service at the intersections that you see on the screen today, what is the level of service at these intersections in the future without this development, and in the future requires you to look at a 2% growth rate per year, as well as any future projects that have been approved and not yet built. The traffic impact analysis concluded that this proposal does not degrade the levels of service at these intersections.

The level of service actually stayed the same in the future with our project as it is in the future without our project. The TIA asked for us, suggested that the applicant make revisions to the plan, and that was suggested by VDOT. So the applicant is required to restripe this right turn lane here to make that a right turn only into the fire station access. The applicant is also required to construct the entrances. The applicant is required to do a traffic at this area here.

It's a blinking light today for the fire station, so essentially it's an emergency traffic signal. The applicant has proffered that they will do a signal justification report at the time of site plan to determine if that traffic signal will need to be upgraded to a, full signal. The applicant has also proffered that they will do a high visibility crosswalk across River Ridge Boulevard in this area here. As part of the proposal, the applicant is seeking a parking reduction of 12%. That parking reduction was approved, recommended for approval by Prince William County Department of Transportation, and in looking at the reduction, the applicant actually did a study of similar projects that they have, that are similarly situated in suburban areas to determine what is the parking ratio that their residents need.

In that instance and what the study found is there about between one point two and one point three spaces per unit. With this 12% reduction, the applicant is looking at a 1.54 space ratio per unit. The applicant is also providing additional bicycle racks on the site, so 30 are required. The applicant is providing 60, and as mentioned above, the applicant is proposing a bus pad and then a monetary contribution for the bus shelter. The applicant with that study also looked at the ITE parking manual, so that is a parking manual that is used throughout the country to look at what are the parking ratios for apartments that they are seeing nationally, and this parking ratio is higher than the national that you see in the ITE manual as well.

And then this slide here shows the pedestrian connectivity. So the applicant will be proposing pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, and that's what you see on in yellow. The applicant will also be constructing the sidewalk along the River Ridge Boulevard frontage that will connect to existing sidewalks within the corridor, and again, the high visibility crosswalk in this area here. One of the weaknesses in the staff report pertain to the fact that the applicant is not providing a sidewalk along this entrance here, and that's due to the topography of the site. There is significant topographical challenges within the area, so it's actually lower at River Ridge and higher, and so from that aspect, the sidewalk would not be ADA compliant, and this here helps show that to you all.

So as you can see on the screen from a grading perspective from the existing grade, it's at a 100 and a 110 close to River Ridge Boulevard, and then as you go up the site, we get to one ninety and one sixty. So there is significant grade changes within the site. As part of the rezoning application, design guidelines and building elevations were included. The design guidelines showed the building elevations that you see on the screen. One of the weaknesses in the staff report is that the design guidelines state that this is for illustrative purposes only.

The applicant is willing to remove that language between the planning commission and board. In addition, based on feedback from county staff, the applicant is also upgrading the building elevations to look more like what you see on the screen. Staff also asked for renderings and viewpoints to be able to see what the building would look like in a three d, way. So this is what it would look like if you're actually in the site, and then this shows the area that will have the pool and courtyard. And then we also did viewpoints from the four view sheds that you see on the screen along River Ridge Boulevard, and then within the single family residential and this area here to be able to understand what is the visual impact.

So if you are looking in this area here, so this is east on River Ridge Boulevard, this is what you would see. These elevations do show the older color and not the newer color of the buildings that will be changed between planning commission and board, and then this is west on River Ridge Boulevard if you're looking in this area here, and then this is further down on River Ridge from this area here, and then we also did the view shed specifically from the cul de sac within Chevoyte Hill Court in this area here. And that concludes that concludes my presentation with a positive staff report and recommendation for approval. We respect request that the Planning Commission also recommend approval, and we can answer any questions that you may have when it's our time.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cameron. Okay, we will now move to the staff report.

Hello, everyone. Good evening. My name is Kobra Boboi. I'm case planner of Atlantic River Planning Office. Today, we are going to review the rezoning application.

This is a rezoning application. During this application, the applicant request to rezoning of the 17.28 acres from B1 to PMR general business to plan mixed residential to allow for development of 300 multifamily units. The application is located south of the River Ridge Boulevard, and it's close to Richmond Highway. The zoning of application is b one, and the long range land use project is MU three. With MU 3 in MU 3, the target land use is for residential development and also for nonresidential, with primary use for single family attached, single family detached, multifamily office and retail.

And the implementing zoning with MU3 is for PMR, PMD, R16, R30 and also office. The target residential density in MU3 is between four to 12 dwelling units. Following the provided affordable dwelling units provided by the applicant and considering 12% bonus density, the provided density of application is 14. The minimum requirement open space in MU3 is 20% and in PMR is 30. And with this application, the applicant requested to provide the residential development for multifamily.

This is a request for PMR, and the provided open space with this application is more than 40%. So the zoning and comprehensive plan for this application and project are consistent, but the proposed residential density is higher than MU3 target. In this slide I'm going to review what's the exact purpose of MU3. MU3 recommend for development as in residential and commercial development under some consideration and condition. And in the other means, the MU3 has a recommendation for development considering pedestrian friendly for entertainment destinations, public facility, accessible to surrounding neighbors who street and interconnected and serve cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

And also MU3 recommends all the development try to have a connection to bus street and they emphasize in public transportation and transit. And the other thing, one of the other key points is MU3 is related to affordable dwelling units. In this slide, I'm going to review what's the purpose of this development. With this rezoning application, the applicant request for residential development. This application is contained of the one central building at four story with 300 rental units, 141 bedroom units, 162 or more bedroom units, 10% or 30 of the units will be for affordable dwelling units, and the proposed development will contain of the active and passive amenity.

If I want to review on community design and what's proposed with this application, or if I want to mention to some of the strength of the application, I would like to start with amenity area. With this application, the applicant proffers to provide indoor and outdoor amenity area. As you see in this slide, the application is contained of the three multi purpose courtyard, pool area, and also indoor amenity area, dog park, and playground. The application proffers to provide 60 bicycle parking, three charger stations. The applicant proffers to construction of bus shelter, and in addition, proffers to provide a monetary contribution to provide the pool of area and bus shelter on River Ridge Road.

And one of the other key point of application is related to in addition to internal workability, the applicant prefers to provide the facility for visibility and accessibility of the citizen to other and adjacent neighborhood and community with walking and by proper crosswalk. So we can name the application as a pedestrian friendly application. The applicant proffers to provide 30 of the units or 10% for affordable dwelling units. The other key point of application is related to inter parcel connection. We have a fire station in this point and the applicant proffers to provide the accessibility between future development with fire station area.

All the requirement open space and buffering meet with the applicant in the application. As I mentioned, applicant provide more than 40% buffering and open space with this application. That is more than requirement 2030%. And the other thing, all the standard of the stormwater management also provided by the applicant. The other key point of application is related to availability of the space for the student generated by the project in future.

And application review by the school, and the school didn't have any concern with this project. The weakness of application one of the weakness of application is related to parking space. The application required to provide five twenty five space, but the applicant tried to provide the maximum parking space is four sixty two. The reduction is 12% requirement parking space waiver by the applicant and the waiver provided by the applicant and the staff of the transportation review the waivers and the recommended approval provided justification and some of the document by the applicant. The other concern of application as I mentioned is related to density.

The standard of the density in MU3 is between four to 12 dwelling units per acre, and the application density is around 14 dwelling units per acre. Staff recommended Planning Commission recommend approval rezoning REZ2020Dash00023 attain at River Oaks subject to proffers dated 05/01/2026 for following reason, Consistency between the zoning and low range land use, the development and proposed future development is aligned with surrounding land use, land condition, and characteristic, and also the applicant meet the county's housing policy that provide 10% affordable dwelling units with this application. Thank you so much. My pleasure to answer your question or more details.

Thank you, Ms. Bye bye. We will now open the public hearing, and we have do we have folks signed up for this?

We do.

Okay. I'll turn it over to Commissioner Herro.

Thank you. So we will do public comment time on this public hearing. I will call the first five names on the list, doctor Lawrence Howard, Paul Reklaue, Robert De Silva, Jordana Adams, and Callie Lake Robinson. If you can head to the back microphone, you'll have three minutes to speak, five minutes if you're representing an organization. And then just before you speak, just name magisterial district or generally where you live. And then three minutes or five minutes if you're representing an organization. And then I'll call individuals up kind of in groups of five.

Good evening, chair, members. For the record, my name is doctor Lawrence Howard. I am a resident of Shavoyd Hill Court, which directly borders the site. Merriam Webster defines buffer as a protective barrier, and Prince William County code, specifically section eight zero one, reinforces this. It states that buffers exist too, and I quote, encourage the conservation of native woodlands and stabilize the environment's ecological balance.

Again, this is from the Prince William County code. Currently, this buffer consists of mature 45 year old American chestnut oaks, most about 80 feet tall. Section eight zero two is explicit. It says, the primary means of buffering should be through the preservation of healthy native woodlands. This developer is asking the county, you, to waive its rights to its 100 foot buffer, reducing it to only 30 feet.

They intend, as they told one of our residents verbally, to clear cut the entire buffer area to make their construction process easier. Let's be clear. You cannot replace mature forest canopy with six foot cheap contractor grade trees and still call it a buffer. It's not a buffer, a protective buffer at that point. It's just a landscape ornament that'll take fifty years to provide the same acoustic and environmental protection that the buffer provides today.

County code section eight zero one allows for alternative compliance, but only when full compliance is either impractical or impossible. The developer has demonstrated no such hardship. Their request is born of convenience and profit, not necessity. For you all to waive this requirement would be an arbitrary decision that ignores the criteria of your own code and ordinance. I urge you to consider the legacy of your decisions.

This county has already suffered fallout, financial, political, and judicial, when established guidelines and expert advice are ignored in favor of developer requests. Need I remind you of the county's recent approval of a massive data center adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield? And, of course, along with that, the subsequent crushing legal defeat, which cost the county's taxpayers, us, $1,000,000 to defend. Do not let the developer convenience override the protective barriers county laws were designed to guarantee. I request that you uphold the standards of section 800, that you protect the native woodlands, and that you deny this request to reduce the county's buffer.

Buffer.

Thank you.

Deny request

Well, that's a tough act to to follow. My name is Paul Recklau. I live on on Castbrook Lane in River Oaks. I'm I'm also I'm also representing the the community and on the River Oaks Community Association board. And I've been there for on the board for twenty five years now. We we moved in here 1999. And, you know, I I look at these nice presentations. Looks great. The act what happens if you approve this, I think, is gonna be bad. It's just not gonna be good.

And and I'm I'm wondering now if if the planning commission works for developers or residents because what I'm seeing is you're working for developers. It looks like a developer wrote all the recommendations that you're you're accepting. We have a huge issue with parking in River Oaks. We've got cars up and down the streets and in the cul de sacs. We allow four park we allow in the in the townhouse area, which is I'm in a single family, but in the townhouse area, which is mostly relevant here, the townhouse, we allocate they get two reserve spaces for each unit.

Plus, we give them two visitor spaces that they could use hang tags and park their personal vehicles in those spaces. Cut and there's still not enough space for vehicles. I don't know where you did these four studies, but I suspect they were not near here or in this area because we are short on parking. The density is a problem too. You've got too many you got too many units in there, not enough parking spaces.

We've we've got parking we've got service trucks and POVs and junkers parked up and down our street in streets in the single family as it is. This isn't gonna make it any better. You're gonna get a bunch of drop off vehicles. It's the other and then I see this this fairy tale that that the developer's trying to give you about, we're gonna give you bicycle storage. This is not a bicycle friendly area at all. It's it's hazardous out there, and you can there aren't many people riding bikes. Nobody's riding them to work from River Oaks. I can tell you that for sure. The other thing is, oh, we'll give you a bus stop so people don't have to have cars. That's a big joke.

Nobody rides those buses either to work. They're driving to the commuter lot. They're getting on a OmniRide bus, or they're driving to the VRE station and getting on a train and going up to DC. Nobody is you're gonna have cars, cars, cars in that thought. And, you know, I've run out of time here. I just implore you to take a second look at this. I don't think any of you have actually driven through River Oaks to look at these streets and see what they look like. Go there in the morning. Like, a Sunday morning would be great where there's cars up and down the street and in in the intersections, basically. Yep. Thank you for your time.

Everyone, please be mindful. This is a county hearing. I understand you agree. We see that. Please maintain decorum. Go ahead, sir.

My name is Robert D'Silla. I've been in River Oaks for thirty years. I've been on the board with Paul over half that time. I also wanna talk about the parking problem. We get as Paul articulated so well, we get a lot of parking issues in our community.

What those maps did not show, and you've got a lot of maps up there today, what they did not show is the only VDOT streets where public parking is allowed is right where we live. It's Casbrook Lane, Chavoy Hill. I'm on Pulpit Hill Court, Cleve Hill Court. This is where people from the townhome section, people from Southbridge, not even our neighborhood, the adjacent neighborhoods come to our our VDOT streets and they park. So we can't solve that problem right now, but we can keep that problem from getting worse.

And 1.54 spots to anybody who's lived around here is flat out laughable. It is not gonna work. Their cars are gonna spill out into our streets and make a bad situation worse. It won't be safe. We have we have issues with, you know, kids, and you can't see the kids because of the parked cars and the big trucks.

We have spotty enforcement from the the county. I I have a email chain with the county parking because I act as kind of a don't tell anybody, but I I take pictures of license plates and I email it to the county so we can get some level of enforcement. There aren't enough hours in their budget to get proper enforcement. So this change, while it might be a really good idea for the developer, is a really bad idea for the residents who live there now. So I yield my time.

Good evening. My name is Kelly Lake Robinson. I'm also a resident of Shavoyd Hill Court. You know, I sat down last night and I was trying to make sure that I, you know, wrote this so nice and proper so that I could convey basically the same message as the other residents. The 17 acres, okay, for as long as we've lived there, this development was built in 1991.

For thirty five years, we have enjoyed green space. I would ask before you make your decision, every single one of you to please drive through our neighborhood. Come down River Ridge, say, when people are getting home from work, you know, anywhere between three, 05:00, and you will see the traffic that they have spoke of. It it's horrible. And then for the idea to think that a stoplight as soon as you turn off of Route 1, no.

You're talking major, major accidents. I agree with what the guys have said. Whoever have done these reports, they're bogus. They are not realistic. You need to drive, actually, down River Ridge, up our street on Shavuot, you will see what we're talking about.

Besides the fact, I mean, people say animals can move, trees can regrow, whatever. There are are protected species that that area is a breeding ground, a nesting ground. It has been this way for who knows how long, longer than than we have been there. You know? I think it's very, very sad.

I agree with what others have said. That to be told they need 300 units to be profitable. When things that I've read in the past, recommendations were that of say 200, 207, maybe 240 max. And all of a sudden, it's 300. It it it's it's it's absurd.

The space like also where I've been read, I've read and I've spoke with other people. It is too dense of a project for that piece of land. Too dense. It it it this this is not feasible. These pretty pictures they're showing you, these things that they're telling you they can do, it's not.

It's just not feasible. You need to come see the land for yourself. Come up our streets. And like they were saying, do a drive by, like, on, say, a Saturday night, a Sunday morning, and you will see the cars that are parked. We've had to call and get cars towed that have been left on Shavoy, on Casper

Thank you.

On Cleave.

Thank you. And before the next speaker, the next speaker is Duana Poe.

Please, everyone. No clapping.

Thank you. Duana Poe and Judy Hopper. That is everyone I have signed up on the sheet. If more individuals would like to speak, you can definitely queue in the backlist. Just keep it for the fire marshal just kind of in groups of five at most. But thank you. We can go to the next speaker.

Good evening. My name is Jordana Adams. I live on Cliff Hill right across from. I've been a resident of River Oaks for twenty eight years. I've been a local realtor for eighteen years, and I love my community.

And I truly believe from a developer point of view, I can see why they wanna build on this land. But as a real estate agent, even though this is my bread and butter, I feel there's a space for every for everything. This is not the space for this type of a development. It's there for to preserve nature, to preserve what we have, not to lose, you know, protected species and and trees that's been there longer than we have. And 17 acres is not worth losing our, you know, piece of mind.

We don't have a lot of greenery left in Woodbridge. We're busting at the seams. And I can only concur about the traffic impact on River Ridge Boulevard. We already have a lot of through traffic to Potomac Shores, Southbridge, then the cars along Casbrook on My street, Cliff Hill, Chevroix. Then also the schools will be impacted. Potomac Shores is not building schools for, this apartment complex. They're building it for their own residents. They're already taking in students from Southbridge. So that will be those numbers are not going to be correct. And by 2029, none of these numbers will be correct.

And matter of fact, the density report on these 17.28 acres and not 17.3 acres is not correct either. That was brought up on one of the charts. So density, traffic, implications, there's a lot more that goes along. And then also police, safety is going to be an issue. I mean, there's a lot more at stake here than just what was brought up in pretty charts as everybody agreed to.

So I truly believe this is not the space for this type of a development. And yes, we can tear down trees and we will never get that back. Like everybody said, it's going to take fifty years to regrow. And I truly believe we should preserve some greenery in our county. We're having in the Quads District, totally.

We have barely anything left in this county. So is it really worth developing a 300 unit complex? It should really be 200 and what was that? Seven according to this density report. So I'm asking you to really rethink this over and, look out for your residents. Thank you.

Good evening, chair and board. My name is Duana Poe and I also live on Shavoy Hill Court. My concerns, as my neighbors have aptly put it, do center around the traffic as well as the parking situation. To think that there is to need a waiver for the amount of cars that they need, parking spaces for the amount of residents that they have. 1.5 is not it may be higher than a national average, but I think we all agree that this area is more densely populated than the national average.

The parking, as they've said, we've had cars left in front of our house. We had one from the time of the freeze in January. It was just moved covered with pollen three months later that parked in front of my house, not allowing any of my visitors to park in front of my own house. Again, I probably reported on and towed because improperly left there. The spillover from the townhomes already, we can only imagine that it will get worse with this as they've said.

Again, that the answer is not public transportation. The people utilizing these type of units are not gonna be using public transportation in Woodbridge, Virginia. As stated, they will be going to a commuter lot or commuting themselves to their place of work. They're not taking public transportation. It will be very lightly used at best.

So I implore you not only for the preservation of the buffer and also it concerns me that they were are willing to just cut everything down. Like they said, the trees that are there that are so substantial deserve to be left in place not for their convenience to be cut down, but they need to be left in place and preserved. Virginia stands on this, preserving our green spaces and preserving the heritage of these areas. And any dogwoods or anything that are in there cannot be cut down. They need to to rethink this. So I implore you please do some more research before this goes forward. Thank you for your time.

My name is Judy Hopper. I live on Chavoid Hill Court at the very top, and I can tell you that I have lived here for twenty nine years, and our community has thrived because we've managed to keep our develop all the other development away. We have enjoyed our nice, quiet, peaceful community without much disruption. However, when the apartments were built, directly behind my house, I can tell you if you look, check the police blotter, there were so many calls for trespassing because people were coming from those apartments all the way down on our street. They were leaving trash in my in my yard.

They were yelling things at me if I was out in my yard just just working in my yard. They're yelling at me. They were very disrespectful. They came one night and were in my backyard with flashlights. I'm assuming they were trying to steal my basketball goal that was in the backyard.

It just it was terrible, and it's kinda calmed down because everything has grown back up a little bit, but if you look how close that is to to my house, it's it's going to be right back in I feel like it's gonna be in my backyard, and I don't I don't think anybody wants that in their backyard. It's gonna have a devastating effect on our entire community. Like she said, the schools are gonna be over over loaded with kids. They're already at high high numbers, and it's I don't even know if they even have room to expand the schools, because they're they've already expanded it. So where are the kids gonna go?

So in that small area of three you keep saying 300 apartments, what doesn't sound like a lot of people, but if you think of two people, three people for apartment, that's like 900 people in that little bitty space. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And the cars is crazy. I almost get hit every morning when I leave for work.

I have to go so far down out of my road to see past all the cars that are parked illegally all around the corners. I have to go all the way out just to even see around them, so I can so I can get to work every day. Yeah. There's also I see a lot of the endangered species that are in our woods. We have the the woodpeckers, we have the box turtles, we had some hawks back there.

There's just a lot of animals back there that would be affected by this, and and the woods, the half the woods were already taken down once for the for the other, when the fire department was put up. So the a lot of our trees are already gone. I I think you need to come to our community and come and look like they said on a Sunday morning and see how crammed we are and see how we can't even drive around because of all the cars that are coming all the way up our street.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Brenda Hines, and I'm a resident at Potomac Shores. The reason why I'm here is because I drive River Ridge every single day, multiple times a day. I also drive through the back area to get to the entrance that they've now created another stoplight, that little triangle loop off of 234 to get on Route 1. So I'm up and down those roads all the time.

I have one child that lives in the apartments that are gonna be technically right behind what you're building, and then I have another child that's in River Oaks in the townhouses. That's right across the street from the fire station. I go pick up my grandson from River Oaks Elementary, and the cops are already there for the teenagers because when they get off the bus, they're getting into gang fights right there from the middle school, right there where they wanna build and have more kids there. There is enough low income housing on that east side of the corridor on Route 1. We don't need another 300 units, which what did they say?

30 was for the lower income. We don't need more, and it's a beautiful picture with all these bike racks, and they can't even put a sidewalk in. Where are they going to ride the bikes at? Around their apartment complex? It's a beautiful picture, but it doesn't fit in that spot. We don't have the space. We don't have the parking support. We can't afford to live in apartment in Prince William County on one person's income. That means two people are gonna live there. That means you're gonna have two commuters per household.

Even if you have one person that does get on a bus, very few of them get on a bus unless they don't have a job that actually pays much of their bills. That means they're going to the mall. Most people don't ride the bus to go get to another location so they can get to a job that pays enough income to live in apartment in Prince William County. Please look at the parking areas. I see River Ridge.

I see that River Oaks. I don't know the name of the road that where the pool is that cuts to the back road. There's all these vehicles, SUVs, box trucks. I don't even know how they're allowed to park there, but they are because, I guess, it's county roads. Those are things that are above my head. It doesn't work. It doesn't smell right. Don't process. Please deny. Thank you.

Good evening, chair and board. My name is Alana Sanchez. I live in Melody Landing in River Oaks neighborhood. I'm here on behalf of my mother. She purchased her home in July 2023.

I would say since then, we have seen an influx of traffic because mind you, that area is hit by traffic from Quantico, Triangle, Manassas. Of course, we have Dumfries as our neighbors, but I see that this issue will this development will be a problem because we already deal with backed up traffic in that area. I would advise you to please come to that area when it's 3PM to 5PM when people are getting off work. That area where this development wants to happen will be an issue. We already have backed up traffic.

This will create more congestion. I would really advise you to please take a look at this. Take a look at the information that they have provided you. I do not believe it is viable. I do not believe it comes from a good place.

I think it's gonna affect us as the residents because we will have to deal with the aftermath of this issue of people being close to our neighborhoods, close to the vicinity of where we live, where we consider it to be a place of peace for us, to be in our households, to be in our neighborhoods, to be able to walk in our neighborhoods, to be able to have time with our neighbors, to be able to enjoy the goodness of the life that we have worked so hard to have. And I am tired of developers coming into this county and doing whatever they want because of profit, because of money. Greed. It's greed. Amen.

Because we have enough apartments in this county for low income families. But even then, families are still struggling to make ends meet. So how are they really helping people? I mean, for me, this this will be a frustrating situation, because my mom worked really hard to be able to purchase a home for us to have something for our family and for our legacy and for people to feel entitled to come in. And because they have a little bit of chunk change to throw in the faces, that they can do what they want and think they're entitled to the land, entitled to the trees, entitled to the species, we should be pushing to conserve what we have left.

There is enough congestion in this county as it is. Everywhere you go, there is traffic. There as much as we try to do, there will this will this will definitely heighten the stress on people trying to get to their homes. I would really advise you to take a look at this and rethink this and think about your constituents. We would greatly appreciate you guys to take into consideration everything that we have said and how we have expressed our feelings about this respectfully. Thank you for your time.

Hi.

I my husband and I just moved to Prince William County in 2022. We're pretty new in Fort Hill Court.

Say your name real quick.

Oh, my name is. Thanks. So we moved in 2022. We bought a single family home. We're actually just across the street from where the 30 foot buffer is from our neighbors. Initially, we did do a drive by through the neighborhood to see because everybody tells you when you buy a house, you know, feel out the neighborhood, see if you like it, see if it's safe. And we just assumed, oh, it's just a party. It's a weekend. People are having, you know, friends over. That's why it's so saturated in this neighborhood.

It'll be fine. We purchased the home. If we didn't have the neighbors that we have, we honestly would have left immediately. Like, we would not have stayed in this house because the traffic is so condensed on Route 1. I don't know if you would take a survey in this room to see if anybody doesn't use a vehicle to get to work, but I commute. I used to work in DC. Now I work in Fairfax County. I think all of us commute to get to work. We have to commute to get to work because not many people work from home anymore. And the Route 1 traffic gets, pulled over because 95 is so bad.

I think we all know 9566 is terrible. Route 1 always gets all the back of flow of traffic. It's the only way that we can get home. Backroads are now filling up. I mean, it's like, I have to take the easy pass or it'll take me almost two hours to get home, and that's just from Fairfax. And I just take this commute every single day. Route 1 is so saturated. When I get home from work, I get around the time kids are coming off the bus from school. The parking situation, I know everybody has beaten it to the ground, but it is it's terrible. The kids are dodging cars.

There's people that park right at the stop sign. We have called on several occasions. I've, wrote up a petition to the HOA. I've talked to local, board committees to talk about the parking situation because it is it is so bad. It's dangerous. I mean, if you drive through your neighborhood and at the intersection where you leave your house, it's cars just backed up, work trucks, box trucks. I have to be in the middle of the street before I can even see if it's safe to turn, and by then, if a car is coming, it's too late. We all know everybody's rushing to get to work. Everyone likes to speed. Like, I I get it.

Like, it is hard to live in Northern Virginia. It's so saturated and dense, but it is dangerous. We've almost gotten an accident twice because we cannot see and people are flying down the street or they could even be going 30 miles per hour, but if they hit you then it's an accident who's liable for that when they're parked illegally? And this is just the townhomes that are just right across from our neighborhood. I mean, we have so much backflow, and we talked to the police. They said it's a public street. I talked to the HOA. They're like it's a public street. If if Prince William County cannot even enforce this, then how are they gonna enforce the incoming amount of units that will be right next to our neighborhood? I would just like to know how they would be able to fix that. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ivory Hai. I'm just here to basically reinforce what everyone else has said. My family's lived in River Oaks since 1991. And I grew up there. Like, I'm born and raised. I I still live in the same house since I was a kid. And I've seen how traffic has gotten immensely worse. It's taken me thirty minutes to get from my house in on Miranda Lane to Dumfries, which is, like, a five to ten minute drive. It's taking me thirty minutes at peak traffic, which is ridiculous.

Traffic is bad. As other people have mentioned, the schools are already at max capacity. I was just talking to a neighbor not too long ago, and their daughter is in a terrible situation at a terrible school because she can't get into her local school. On top of that, I just want you guys to just really think about, like everyone said, drive through the neighborhood, see what's actually happening because none of that seems practical, especially when they're already building and developing in Dumfries. And I know Dumfries isn't us, but we're all connected.

And we travel frequently back and forth. So that court's district, all of that development happening, I'm unsure if they accounted for that in their analysis, but I'm quite sure the way people try to cut through traffic and find back roads, we're going to be that back road and it's going to compound on top of the traffic that already exists. So please take your residence in mind and make the right decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers who would like to speak?

My name is Matt, and I'm in that neighborhood behind there. This project just reeks of greed, and there's already enough problems, and you've heard it from everybody up here. And one of the big concerns for me is, someone just mentioned it, is, you know, these neighborhoods are meant for kids to run around, have grow up, play. There's been many times where I've seen kids because there's so many cars parked along the way, the cars will hit these kids. I mean, they you can't see where these kids are coming from.

There's so many cars in the way, and I think that's a big liability waiting to happen, especially if we start getting more cars starting to park in there. So I don't know. And I've seen that. I've seen that plenty of times. I saw it in my neighborhood where I used to live.

I saw this girl, this mom and this girl, and she was riding in the bike. And the truck driver couldn't see them, and the truck driver ended up dragging them, and the little girl along the path or along the concrete and killed her. So I think this is dangerous, and I don't think you're taking this into consideration of how dangerous this is to have all this traffic come through there. Also, like everybody else said, there's animals in there. And sure, maybe everybody's not up for animals and they don't care about them and but there's deer that come through there.

You know? And there's turkeys and, you know, you take away that land, then what are they gonna have left? They're gonna have nothing. But you know what? Maybe we propose you take that 50 feet behind you that you wanna give to your people in the apartment complex and give that back to us along the neighborhood. I mean, that's greedy right there. I mean, why do you need all that open space in the back? You already have enough open space back there with the electric line. So why are you taking more space away from us and the animals and you could create a this this looks like a terrible planning. I don't know whoever made this.

It's just awful. So, anyways, it just reeks the greed. That's all. I just wanted to come up here and stay my disdain for this project.

Thank you.

Good evening, commission, all my neighbors here. I'm Boor Freischev. I'm living in Melody Landing. That's going to be across from the so called new development by developers. I came in 2014.

I moved to Amelody Landing and found out later on I'm a member of the maintenance board at Amelody Landing and also a member of of Lennar HOI. I found out what happened when when a county doesn't take care of its citizens. So I wanna remind you all, 2008, 2009, you built Melody Landing, and you allowed the developer in the end to change their plans because they ran out of money because it was 2008, 2009, and we had a crisis. It's 2026. The economy is not the greatest, and you want this to be happening.

I find it most unbelievable. Then planning. You're telling me there's no traffic. Melody Landing is across. That intersection where they propose to to build that road will add more traffic, and then we have traffic going to Melody Landing from Highway 1 from in from Highway 1 into the into our development to the apartments because there's only one exit that be that allowed. Okay? That's an exit. That's it. So I don't understand who's doing the planning here. But sometimes I question if anybody really cares about the residents of this county because what you all see is dollar signs.

That's all. You see a tax base, and that's all what you care about. These developers tell you a great story. They put a great picture. It looks wonderful. This is not Oklahoma. Okay? In Oklahoma, that density works, not in Northern Virginia. Oh, bus service, eight years, I lived overseas in Germany. They actually talk if you require transportation. Don't even compare Prince William County to any transportation. I find it almost insulting to me as a resident to see this and have somebody talking like we are complete idiots. That's an insult. But this is continuously happening in Prince William County, and I'm saddened by that. We deserve better, and we deserve better planning.

Thank you very much. Thank

you. Any other speakers? Alright. Okay.

See, is there anyone signed up online? No one online. Alright. Thank you. Okay. We're going to ask the applicant to come back to address some of the concerns that she's heard.

Thank you, Chair Brown. I tried to categorize the concerns, into main categories. I'm sure if I missed any, you all will ask me during question time. But I first wanted to start with this property is currently zoned today. So it is currently zoned b one general commercial.

A majority of the property does not have proffers on it today, and the proposed use is actually less intense than permitted by right commercial uses from a use perspective and a transportation perspective. It would be significantly less trips, the residential, than commercial on the site. And then I'll start with transportation. I think that was the biggest one that I heard. The applicant is willing to look to see if there can be more parking spaces added to the plan between planning commission and board.

The other thing we just wanted to mention is as part of this proposal, as it's currently designed, it's actually a majority of one and two bedrooms. There are only sixteen three bedrooms being proposed, whereas the townhome developments that are in the adjoining areas, they're all three bedroom or majority are three bedroom townhome units, so it's more people per unit. And then I did want to pull maybe county transportation because I do believe that there is a county project along Route 1 that is in the works to help with traffic through Route 1.

Thank you, Janelle. Chair Brown, members of the commission, Kevin Wyrock, transportation planning manager for the county. What Janelle is referring to is our Route 1 widening study. Route 1 in the comp plan is a six lane major, I think, principal arterial, throughout the county from, the border of Fairfax down to Quantico. This is one of the few parts of Route 1 in the county that is still four lanes, and we are aware of the traffic issues there.

They are significant. We're there's no getting around it at this point. However, we are currently wrapping up a study with VDOT that is looking at widening, Route 1 for this remaining four lane section, and we are applying for smart scale funding for design and construction. So while it's not an immediate fix, we we are aware of the problem we're working to fix, and we're hopeful to have something in the pipeline within the next few years very shortly. Also, will include a

Excuse me. Excuse me. Please. You have to you have to have proper decorum. This is a county planning hearing. Please be respectful. Respectful. Thank Thank you. You.

This will also include, the connection as shared use path throughout the Route 1 corridor that'll help with the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the area as well.

Thank you.

And then I just wanted to piggyback off of that. So as part of the proposal, again, we had to look at what are the levels of service at the various intersections that we were required to study. And this proposal is not degrading the levels of service, so they will remain the same levels of service from a letter grade perspective at all of the intersections that we were required to study. And then I also wanted to hit on the buffer comment. So the applicant is only required to provide a 30 foot buffer adjacent to the single family detached units.

The applicant is not seeking a waiver of the buffer requirement adjacent to the single family detached units. The 30 foot buffer is going to be maintained and preserved. It's outside of the limits of development. The applicant as part of this proposal is adding additional landscaping in this area here that meets that 100 that will equal a 100 foot buffer, but I just wanted to be clear that we are not reducing the required buffer adjacent to the single family detached units. Where the fire station is, we also are not decreasing that buffer.

The waiver is to allow for the existing storm water drainage easement to stay within the buffer area that we are providing. And then I wanted to hit schools. So as part of the rezoning application, the application is distributed to Prince William County School Staff. School staff did review the application. They look at current projections, and as it's indicated in the county staff report, planning staff for Prince William County Public Schools indicated that there would be enough capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school level to accommodate the students that would be generated from this project.

And I think I hit all of the comments, but I'm happy to answer any questions when it's my time.

Thank you. Okay. Let's see. Staff, would you like to address? I

don't think we have anything to add to it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Well, let's ask the applicant to come back up because I see, we will now go, down the diocese for questions. So, we have Commissioner Scheifler. I see you with your light on. So, go ahead.

This is probably a question for Kevin transportation. Just based on the topography, it seems like, you know, that road there that's being built, it has, a 80 foot drop. Is that really necessary? It seems like they're doing a lot of work, gotta clear all these trees for, you know, is that is that necessary based on the needs? I've seen we've seen projects that only have one entrance, you know, before. And again, is it better to enhance the entrance on the towards the fire station versus trying to save more save more of that land to be undisturbed?

We can take a look at that between, now and the board hearing. Typically, we don't get into constructability issues with that, during the rezoning process. That would be a site plan.

But is it required or are we forcing them to exits or

Typically, do like multiple entrances and exits not only to break traffic over multiple, you know, intersections, but also just for connectivity issues. Based on the number of trips, I'd have to go back and look at the MZP to see how many trips they have going through each one.

So I'm trying to understand that. That seems like that's being built at a large expense and then what we're over the limit of really what's allowed. So I mean is that causing us to have 300 units instead of 200 units? I mean trying to better understand is that caused are we forcing the applicant to have that or

I can't speak for the applicant but I can look at the trip numbers and get back to you on that.

Okay. And

one other question, building the Potomac Shores Parkway extension, does that show a decrease of traffic on the I'm not sure what whatever the main road there is.

I don't believe that road was studied as part of the TIA for this application.

Okay. Because I feel like it's, you know, right now, Promontory Shores is kind of forced into this area, whereas if they build the connection directly Route 1, it seems like that will lower traffic?

As a general role in transportation planning, the more connections that you have from one location, the better traffic will flow

So I around mean, would the be rest good for the residents to know that if that's making it is going to make a difference. Because again, I've heard a lot of people complain about traffic, but if that is pulling all the petroleum short people to Route 1 Or 95, is that making this situation better?

I would imagine it does contribute to it or improve it with full connection but again that would be you know something that you can ask the applicant for and they can run that analysis perhaps.

Okay.

Miss Cameron do you want to address? You have an additional answer? Just

one thing. Our traffic consultant believes that we would need a waiver, so VDOT would require two access points for SSAR, which is a requirement in their DCSM. And we do believe that the Potomac Shores Parkway would actually relieve traffic here because the idea is that it will get more traffic through Route 1, but also help with cut through.

So it'd be good to get that information Absolutely. For, you know, the people who've been talking. Yeah. I just wanna make sure that they have that information as well.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Okay. Moving down the dais, commissioner Landrum.

Yeah. So I I'd like to, I'd like to speak to some of the concerns that were raised by the residents about tree preservation, habitat loss, etcetera. I very much agree with that sign, and and I I have great concern about the possibility of the trees in those buffer areas being clear cut in the supplemental buffer specifically. I understand outside the limits of disturbance, there's there's or limits of development. There's there's less that you can do.

But the within the supplemental buffers, there is a significant number of mature healthy trees. And, you know, you when you're building a parking lot, you know, you it's it's not necessary to clear cut the trees to do so. And in some cases, it's actually more advantageous from a from a construction standpoint to not clear cut the trees because then you don't have to worry about root systems maturing as the trees grow and tearing up the pavement of the parking lot, which ends up being an ongoing maintenance expense and certainly to the detriment of folks that live there, especially if parking's already tight. So what I'd like to ask then and I'd just like to say that as as far as, you know, as as far as applications go, the the applicant has has really, you know, done a done a terrific job addressing the issues that were raised when they met with the supervisor, when they met with myself. And and so I've got an additional ask here, which is, you know, would the would the applicant be willing to proffer that that that there that that there be no removal of healthy trees within the buffer areas and supplemental buffers on the Northwest and Southeast Bounds and that all tree removal in those areas be, be subject to the county arborist's approval on the basis of healthiness.

Excuse me. Excuse me again, please. Thank you.

So we can look into your request, but the issue is that there's a 50 foot grade difference, so to make up that grade, it would be a huge retaining wall, so we would have to specifically look at, specifically in the supplemental areas, so we would have to relook at the grade of the site to see what would require specifically a retaining wall. We have proffered additional reforestation area within the RPA of trees that have already been removed to add additional plantings, and that is in proffer, Sorry. Just wanted to make sure. Proper 14.

Could could you please go to the topographical map

Yes.

With the elevation lines?

Yep.

And and and the specific 50 foot elevation drop that's being referred to is is where on that map?

So just to give you so it's a 100 here. Mhmm. It's one fifty here. So it basically drops throughout the area here.

Right. So the the specific the specific bounds I was referring to were the northwest and southeast bounds of the property, not the northern not the not the northern bound and not the southwest bound. That that's a power transmission corridor there on the bottom left, and then up there is there there's there's not a 30 foot buffer up there.

So I think what you were looking at and I just wanna be clear. Is the buffer adjacent to the single family detached, which is this buffer here?

And the fire station.

And the fire station.

Correct.

So this buffer here and you can see, just looking here that the gray difference is also within here. And I'll have Chris, our civil engineer, explain it. Thank you. You're welcome.

Hi. Chris Lennon with iMeg. What was the question exactly?

The the desire is for the applicant to proffer to not remove mature I'm sorry. Not not mature. To not remove healthy trees within the 30 foot well, not yeah. I'm sorry. Within the buff within the buffers and then also the supplemental buffers on the northwest diagonal and the southeast diagonal bounds. And then that the county arborist would sign off on the removal of trees on the basis of healthiness.

So the grading is the issue. You can see on River Ridge, there's about 50 feet of elevation difference. So we have one entrance on the eastern side, and we're also connecting to the fire station. So we have to kind of meet in the middle with our building elevation. And then from there, we grade down to the existing conditions. So from the parking lot in that supplemental area, we're doing grading and then stopping at the undisturbed buffer.

How much grading?

In terms of vertically?

Right. Well, from In the I'm sorry. Specifically in the supplemental buffer, how much grading is being how much regrading is being done?

We are bringing the grade down at 20 feet.

Okay. That's my three questions. Thank

you. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. Miss Cameron, the the the question that, apparently, the the residents are raising is the

amount of trees that will be cut. Is the plan to clear clear cut this property, the partial, and then grade and then build? So the entire property will not be clear cut, but a majority of it will be. So if you look on this slide here, what you see in this area here, so this line that says LOD, that's the limits of development. So everything outside of the limits of development will be maintained.

And that is due to the grade of the site. So if it was a commercial use, we would still need to grade the site to make it work. Essentially, it's because the site is a hill.

Right. So I understand that. And so the question I have is it possible to have a certain amount of tree save even though you are still having to grade?

So we have 1.7 acres of the site is tree preservation, so outside of the limits of clearing and grading. And is the question could we look at adding additional tree safe areas?

That is the question actually.

Yes.

And then how much could you add?

We would have to look at the grading in order to be able to do that, to tell you the exact amount.

And in terms of adding more tree save, could that be done on both sides of the property, where my colleague, commissioner Landrum, just referenced in terms of where the fire station is?

We would have to look at the grade on both sides of the property. Okay.

Okay. That's I think those are the three questions I have. I will move down to commissioner Sherman.

Good evening. I have a few questions. Sticking to the grading issue, that's a significant drop as you've shown with the topography. And I guess my question is how are you going to manage erosion control if you're gonna remove all these trees? So I I would concur with the notion of trying to save as many of the trees as possible from from erosion control perspective.

Both the county DCSM and the state regulations require us to provide erosion and sediment controls. On the lower right hand side, there's wetlands there. And in that area, we're required to do double protection to make sure that no sediment leaves the site.

Okay. I would ask you to especially doing site planning to really look at that and take some of the comments about tree preservation and whatever measures you can do to sort of not just clear cut and cause more issues. And then related to that, I would ask about your stormwater management plan. Could you talk us through that a bit? What is the impervious service amount that you're adding?

Janelle, do you have the impervious surface? Yeah.

So the applicant is required for stormwater management. We're showing a potential facility here and a potential facility in this area here that would likely be underground? No. Above ground for both of those? Above ground stormwater management facilities for both of those.

We're required to meet state and local regulations as it relates to storm water management. One of those regulations is also that we have to treat the water on-site and that the flow off-site has to be basically the same condition or at the same rate as a forested condition. And so from that perspective, from Virginia, they are very strict and stringent on storm water management quality and quantity as well as runoff, and we would have to meet those requirements and have that shown at site plan.

Thank you. I guess my last my third question, and this is really for staff. There any plans for transportation staff? Are there any plans to do any traffic calming? We heard a lot of comments about safety along River That River Road, I believe. And I'm just curious, you know, we're hearing all of these complaints about safety. Are there any plans that you're aware of to do any traffic calming or short term solutions while they're thinking about widening Route 1 for River Road?

I'm not aware of any at this time, but we do have the speed study program that we can go out there and take a look at what the average speed is on the roadway. If there is a problem, we can propose mitigations in coordination with VDOT. In addition, the, applicant has proffered the high visibility crosswalk at the entrance. That's going to help with slowing down traffic too. And if it's signalized, that'll also help slowing down traffic in the area. As far as the side streets in the residential neighborhood, That they reach out to

is a state road, right? I'm sorry. River Road?

Yes. Yes. All of these are VDOT roads. So everything needs to be done in coordination with them, but we can do speed studies to help identify problems and and propose mitigations.

And no, this is not on the applicant, but I think it's worth at least investigating as part of the development, you know, what measures could be taken with VDOT, coordinating with VDOT on on River Road?

What we have done with other projects, when this has come up is we've coordinated with the supervisor whose district this is in and Prince William County Department of Transportation between planning commission and board. And what they have normally done is exactly what Kevin said, which is initiate the speed study to look at options for reducing the speed along that roadway and also if there are other mitigation measures for traffic calming. But that's something that, has been part of a planning commission recommendation, and then we've coordinated with the board supervisor and county transportation.

Manager, I have one more question. I know we're supposed to limit it to three, but if I ask this one, then I'll

have to ask later.

Do you mind going to the elevations, the three d rendering? Yes. So you mentioned that you are going to remove the language that says, for illustrative purposes only. And I just want to also, by removing that, that you still have the ability to make revisions, positive revisions to the elevation and the design as as needed between now and the

Yes.

The time to move on. So removing that is not gonna stop you from continuing to study these elevations.

Correct. So I think you when we met with you, you had specific questions as regarding the scale in some of the columns.

Yeah.

And so that basically is just removing for illustrative purposes only, but we do have the opportunity doing that committing to that between planning commission and board doesn't mean that we cannot address your comments between planning commission and board. There's also language in the proper statement itself that would allow minor modifications to the building elevation subject to planning director approval.

Yes. And just for the record, I did I did have concerns about some of the just articulation and matching and the proportions of the, different elements of the elevation, specifically the columns. Just continue to study those during the site design process. Thank you.

Okay. Moving back down the dais, I'm gonna ask a couple questions. Miss Cameron, what current what is the current level of service for those particular intersections that you mentioned?

So the existing level of service at intersection of Richmond Highway and River Ridge Boulevard during the PM Peak is a d. During the PM Peak background future conditions without our project is a d. And during the total future conditions, so with our project, it's a d. At the intersection of River Ridge Boulevard and the Fire Access Point, and it's probably better if I have a plan, to show you also, at this intersection here, the levels of service in the AM PM peak hour today in the future without our development and in the future with our development is a b. And then at this intersection here, the overall levels of service in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour today in the future without our development and in the future with our development is also a b.

And then at this intersection here, which is Intersection Number 4, today, in the future, without us, and in the future with us, that level of service is an a. Okay.

Thank you for that. I have another question regarding the parking. I know that when we met, we discussed the reduction in parking. Okay. And I understand that the developer did their own sort of parking study with their other sites. Are there other sites in the Northern Virginia area or are they located elsewhere?

Those two sites were located elsewhere, but we did look there are other projects within Prince William County that also have a 12% reduction. I understand that. But the study was not in Northern Virginia.

Okay. So where was the study?

I can give you that. Give me one second. Okay. Put that down. They were in the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area. Okay.

Okay. Is that area considered comparable to Woodbridge? Or who can talk about that?

Yes. From a suburban standpoint of where they are, their trip their transportation network, is comparable. And population? I think they're more populated. I think they might be more populated. I think they're more populated.

Yeah. I was thinking that as well. So okay. And then my final question is what what would result what would be the result for the developer to actually, have the parking spaces meet the parking requirements of the DCSM with no reduction?

More retaining walls, probably underground stormwater management, and less tree safe.

Okay. So what I'm hearing is I think the current I think the the parking reduction of 12% resulted in how many spaces? About 50? We were

at so the actual reduction I wanna make sure I

give you. I think it was five twenty five.

So it's five twenty five and it's going to four sixty two.

That's what I thought. Okay. So is the developer willing to, increase the the the number of parking spaces?

We're willing to look into it between planning commission and board to see how many spaces can be increased.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Moving down the dais, I'm going to commissioner Landrum.

Between now and the board, could could the applicant put together, some viable alternative, site plans that include, let's say, 50 feet of tree save along the or along the Southeastern border and then the additional parking mentioned by Chair Brown, as well as, another option that would extend that to, 75 feet?

We can coordinate and meet, at chair not chair. Supervisor LaCourie's office, with you and walk through the plans that we can look at to see what are the impacts.

Okay. But, as far as having some alternative looks at at that, is that something that could be done?

Yes.

Okay. And then the another question unrelated to trees is what what standard electric vehicle chargers are planned to be installed?

Level two chargers?

Are those using an NACS connector or a CCS connector?

You're asking hard questions. The CCS connector is the connector that's outside here today?

Yeah. That nobody uses and that no cars have a port for anymore.

My car does.

Well, you've got an older electric car then.

I don't know yet. That's something that we normally don't commit to, just the level charger, and I think part of that reason is CCS versus the other one versus two years when this is constructed. There might be different technology.

So the reason I ask this is because 75% of automakers today have adopted an ACS as the standard. And as a electric vehicle driver that has an ACS vehicle, I'm in I'm immensely frustrated. Whenever I pull into an area and I'm planning to charge my car and I realize I can't stick the charger in my car. So I'm just you know, I I just think to the fact that there's just like a super saturation as far as electric vehicles around here or Tesla vehicles or other vehicles that would inevitably use an an NACS charger. And so I just think of the poor resident that gets an apartment here and thinks that they're gonna be able to plug in their their new electric vehicle or their old electric vehicle and they get in there and they try to jam the port in, they can't. And they can't charge their car and they've been burned on an amenity. So

Can we offer an adapter?

The the the there's there's so there's there's three there's there's three modes of electric vehicle charger. There's the there's the dual charger. Right? There's the NACS only or CCS only, and then there's the chargers that have an attached adapter. The attached adapter inevitably gets cut off and stolen by somebody.

So my my recommendation and and my request would be that the chargers either be a a dual head standard where it has both as an option on their own separate cables or the an NACS standard, which which again is is the it's like VHS versus Betamax, Betamax lost, VHS one, NACS is VHS, and CCS is Betamax. And nobody uses beta into, you know, after 1980, like, '4. So if if those charges

Can

you put that in your recommendation?

I can.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on down the line to commissioner Ross.

Thank you, Chair. Will, the near the residents nearby mentioned some guidance and maybe some laws from either Commonwealth or the local, ordinances that encourage or demand saving mature trees. How much are their teeth in those guidelines or are we doing what might be done if it was developed say for commercial purposes where the trees are going to get cut down, a buffer. I don't think our county ordinances require buffers to preserve trees, but we know it's a good thing. Tell me about it.

Yeah. So Royal Shoop County Arbors, Our DCSM 800, the language says that preservation is preferred, not required. And that's the hiccup is you have to look at the language and that's the constraints that we have to go by when we review. So the applicant is preserving a certain area, but there's no numerical quantification for that. So when they offer preservation, we look at that as a positive.

Even if it's a little positive, it's a positive still. The fact that they are offering an increase to the buffer along the single family homes to offset some other areas, again, we consider that a positive. Now extending the preservation area, that's usually the issue that it comes down to why they can't preserve trees is because of grading issues. And so if there's a dramatic increase or decrease depending on how the land lays, Retaining walls can be used, but at the same time, they also have their problems because you have to build the retaining wall, then you also have to clear behind the retaining wall in order to construct the retaining wall. So it's kind of a catch 22.

Try to preserve more with retaining walls, but you still end up clearing some just for the retaining wall itself.

Okay. Yeah. I looked at some old pictures and this area used to be beautiful hardwood forests everywhere. Now many of these homes are all these homes are parked in part of what the forests were and this looks like one of the last vestiges, it would be nice to save it. But I'm not going to buy it from the developer.

Right. And there again, forest fragmentation obviously is a huge concern. When we get into the eastern part of the county, it's more prevalent obviously because it's so highly developed. You can see in some of the other developments that it's islands or, you know, linear features. So this is kind of a large portion of forested land. And being that there is an electrical, transmission line right away running through there, you know, that is gonna act as a wildlife corridor to some extent, but forest fragmentation is a problem that we're trying to discourage.

Yeah. The road that leaves the site going to the upper right of the picture

Yes.

Appears to slice through resource protection area.

Yes.

Isn't that forbidden?

It's not forbidden. Again, it's discouraged. And and that and that's that's the hard part. Right? Is, the DCSM speaks to, you know, RPA as far as if it's unavoidable. One of my comments was to shift that entrance over and try to stay out of because there's RPA, there's wetlands, there's that kind of thing. But with the way the drainage of the property, the potential layout for stormwater, ponds in the front, and all these other factors, the applicant has decided to go through the RPA.

Final would be protected species. Are you aware of any endangered or protected species that are at this site?

Not that I'm aware. When we did our field site, you're going to see wildlife in every forested area in the county. Deer, turkey, turtles, squirrels, foxes, all that kind of stuff. Again, none of them are necessarily endangered or protected in in a sense. We didn't do an intensive survey, but we did walk the entire site and we didn't find anything that would match that criteria for protection.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Moving on to commissioner excuse us, please. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yeah. Just, I guess two requests for the applicant. It'd be good to know, you know, if you don't build that connecting road, how much additional undisturbed land could be saved? I don't know if that can be found now, but some that'd be good information to know as far as, you know, do we need that connection or not and how much more undisturbed land could be created. My other request is for the view sheds.

It'd be good to see what this looks like in the wintertime. Have you have you So got pictures of that? Because, again, it looks okay in the summer, but, again, the winter may show a lot more, especially from the town from the single family units just to that

looks like. Not take photos of the property in the winter. This was done very recently. I don't know if there's modeling that can be done for the winter, but we can ask that question to the architect.

That'd be good to know just so that the residents can see that. I think they're probably more aware of what it's gonna look like than than what is being shown just for the board to understand, you know, what this is gonna look like in the wintertime for these residents as far as a view shed from their house.

Yes. And then just on the access road, I also wanted to mention that the exact location was also based on the fact that it was at this intersection here, which is what v dot wants is for access points to be at intersections and not offset not offset in this situation. So that also dictated where we were placing the access. But commissioner Scheifler, I do understand your specific question was to look to see if that access point is needed. And if it's not needed, then what is the tree safe area that can be accommodated.

So, obviously, that's that's being built at a high cost. And, a lot of the discussions are it's you're going above the the limit of

Density.

How density. And, again, can that become down come down to 14 if you don't have to spend, you know, however much money that cost to grade and build that road. Just an opportunity to under understand that and as you meet with residents as this project goes forward, again, that's good information for them to understand what opportunities there are because, again, they're talking about density and traffic. So how do we best mitigate those as we go forward?

Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Ross.

Civil engineering question, Janelle.

Okay.

Well, you're I

know what you meant.

I think you're gonna slice the top off a hill to create the site where the central buildings are gonna be placed and and maybe slice some more off of the edges for the buildings that are around the edges. Where is all that dirt going? Are you is the site gonna be neutral or are you gonna have a disposal problem?

It's always the goal to keep it neutral. So, you know, the Eastern entrance is low and the western entrance is high. You try and set the building where you cut on one side and fill on the other side, but there probably will be some export dirt on this property. Okay.

Do you have you do you have any guess where you're gonna export it to and hopefully not my next door neighbor?

To a legal site that is coordinated with Prince William County Watershed Department. Good.

Good Good answer. Okay. To everyone that recommended I go visit, I can't go there tonight. If they ever decide to build something else near you, invite me a month in advance. On the traffic stuff, just to connect what you described to us to what the residents described to us. If it was a commercial development, there might be more trips per day, but those are generally at a different time of day than residential trips. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. And when we looked at it, we looked at the AM, PM peak hour and then the total day trips.

Go ahead, Joanna. I'll jump

in when you're ready. So

not necessarily, at different peak hours. They make us look at, like, what is the peak hour of the road corridor itself. And then, George, you can jump in.

Just real quick, George Phillips, Prince William County DOT. Retail trips are typically very low in the morning. So in the AM peak hour, you're going have a relatively low number of trips. But in the PM peak hour and weekends, they'll be much higher. That makes sense.

And just something else I wanted to add real quick. You know, we threw out level of service A, level of service B, level of service D, E, F. Just so you understand what that means, when we say level of service a at an intersection, that's the average delay that a car would be sitting at that intersection. So a level of service a is zero to ten seconds, B is ten to twenty seconds, C is twenty to thirty five seconds, and level of service D, which is kind of the acceptable standard that we allow, is thirty five to fifty five seconds of average delay just so people can relate to what that means.

Okay.

On the parking topic, I think I still got a third left here. The we've had applicants come through at other times that talked about monitoring the number of vehicles, apartment occupants or rental occupants would have at the time the occupants signed the lease and then actively managing their property to ensure that they weren't lied to when the lease was let. Is that the sort of management you're planning to do here or would agree to do here so that the spillover that's been described won't leave your property and also won't enter your property?

So all the residents will receive stickers. So if you park at the site, you would have to have a sticker. So you can't just come and unilaterally add another car. I think what you're specifically asking is that there have been projects that have proffered that they would monitor it at that time of lease signing, so they have an understanding of what the trips are throughout the development and as the project progresses, but then as people are leaving and coming in. I have not seen that proper, but I'm happy to coordinate with you and county staff to get a copy of that and review that with my client.

Yeah. I'll be glad to see

if if my recollection is correct.

Okay.

What what I remember was the thrust of it was someone rents a two bedroom apartment. You don't just ask the one person to sign the lease and then pile four to six or eight of their buddies in with sleeping bags and cars. Instead, they made sure that the occupants and their vehicles were accounted for. And the leaseholder was held accountable for it.

Yes. They do that here

as well.

Well, what you described is slightly different. So we need to we do need to have that conversation.

So Yes. But with the so I know when that they sign the lease, they make sure whoever's occupying signs the lease. And the lease usually has provisions that says you cannot have guests longer than thirty days.

Yeah. Well, the trick was they actively managed it after the signing.

Okay. We could get that for you.

Thank you. I yield. Okay.

I'm gonna skip you, commissioner, because, commissioner Sherman has had his light on. Well, you turned it off.

Well Commissioner Ross asked the question I was gonna ask about the

Parking management plan.

Park well, it was really a I was gonna ask about current zoning and land use just just for clarity is

b one. B one. General commercial.

And it would be if if built as

Let's assume it that it

would be it would have a net increase in traffic?

Correct.

Okay.

Now I'm gonna go back to commissioner Landrum, and then I'll go to you, commissioner Carroll.

Going back to the back to the topic of trees, commissioner Ross brought up a good point. It was eliminated by staff about the there's not a there's not an ex there's not a total prohibition on on tree clearing clearing in areas outside of the LOD. This is kinda like one of those bare minimum things where you're talking about 30 feet. It's an area that you can't grade anyways. What I'd like to what I'd like to see is that you do guarantee that there will be no tree clearing in those areas.

And that that be that that that that be an explicit proper condition that's added to not remove any trees from that 30 foot buffer and then the additional buffer on the side of the fire station. And that shouldn't be any issue for you.

So I want to just correct something that you said. So our first submission application had complete clearing of this entire site. And so we were clearing in that 30 foot area. We had we had a meeting with the community, and we heard about tree preservation and tree safe area. So the required 30 foot buffer is outside of the limits of development.

And so it you said it couldn't be used anyways, but we could our original plan was to clear cut the entire development. So what we can do and what we've looked at before is specifically proffering to the limits of development. So currently, our proffer is that we are in substantial conformance with the master zoning plan, which includes the limits of development. But if you want additional language, there is limits of disturbance language that we've added in proffers as it relates to the buffer areas. And we could do that.

I we are already showing that with the 30 foot buffer adjacent to the single family detached. But based on the grade, I can't commit without doing the grading for the buffer adjacent to the fire station.

Well, so there there is a buffer on the on the site plan adjacent to the fire station. Correct?

Correct. And that's outside of the limits of clearing and grading, and it will be replanted.

Could you could you pull up that map, please?

Yeah. Absolutely. I'm gonna show it on the landscape plan. I think that might be

And and respectfully, we're not we're not looking at the original plan. We're looking at this one.

I understand that. But I

Right.

But we but what you said was

it can't I'm specifically I'm specifically specifically asking about an improvement that could be made on behalf of the residents to this plan. And and what I'm asking is is within those buffer areas where you already can't grade, right, is the applicant willing to be agreeable on the on the language of not removing any healthy trees at all? Because as the as the county arborist illuminated, there there is there is not an total ban on tree cutting in that area as I understand it. Is that correct?

I don't think that's the case in this instance because when you have limits of development and they're proffered on a plan, you can't remove healthy trees and do development outside of the limits of development. But to give extra protection, yes, we can add a limits of development proffer, and there is a standard one that we've worked through language with planning staff and watershed staff.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Moving down to commissioner Carroll.

Yes. Thank you. You kinda just referenced this very briefly, but could you speak to the community outreach and the community meetings that you've held throughout this process and then kind of some of the feedback that was taken from the community and implemented?

Yes. So we had two community meetings. Unfortunately, the first community meeting missed the neighbors that live on Shavoyte Hill. So we were made aware of that. There was a specific resident who called to let us know that her neighbors did not get noticed. That was not intentional. She let her neighbors know about the meeting. She showed up to the meeting. They could not show up. We held a sec a second meeting, basically did the exact same thing as it relates to the community meeting.

So we held a second meeting with those community members. If you give me a second, I can give you the number of people we sent invites to and the total people that attended. A lot of the feedback you've heard today, but it pertained to traffic, schools, and then vegetation, and just not wanting development on the site. So you've heard those concerns today.

Sure. And then was that recent or was that or if you have the date?

It was last year in October and November.

Okay. Okay. And then in terms of the parking situation, is there any allowance or set aside for visitor and guest spots? Spots?

Yes. So usually, if you are a visitor, there are visitor spots, but then there are spots that are strategically placed if you are a visitor looking to lease. So a potential resident, they would have spots as well, but that's all included in the parking calculation.

Okay. So then the number for actual residents will actually be lower than the three or whatever that number is if some if some of those spots are being reserved for potential VCs and some of those spots are reserved for guests and visitors of the complex.

Yes. And how the county does their parking calculation is they included they include a total parking ratio that assumes residents and guests, and we did a reduction on the total parking ratio. Okay.

And then I guess a follow-up for transportation staff. And if you could just kinda speak to the reasoning and your comfort level, or I guess department's comfort level approving the the waiver for the reduction in parking?

Sure. The applicant actually came in with a request for a 15% reduction. We were not comfortable with that number. The reasons that we're supportive of 12%, some of them mentioned already. I know that there's been comments about the transit system.

This is actually a fairly transit supportive site county for as far as county standards are concerned. There are two bus routes that go along there, one along River Ridge, one along Ripcot, one short walk away. When you combine them, that's a frequency of twenty minutes during weekday peak, which is pretty solid. Typically, thirty minutes or less is what we wanna see as far as reliability that people can, you know, be sure if they miss a bus, they can get next one in a fairly, you know, short amount of time. Those buses connect to not only the VRE system, but also the Neabsco commuter garage.

Those have, express routes that go to the Pentagon to DC. So it's a fairly transit supportive site and that helped our comfort with it. Knowing in the comp plan that we have plans for the shared use path along U. S. Route 1 and the future Potomac Shores VRE Station as well, The connectivity for multimodal transportation is there as well.

And it's not just for commuting. When we talk about parking reductions, we think about not just commute trips, but also how many trips do you need in a car to meet your daily needs, your errands. There's a grocery store right across the street that helped us with a little bit of the walkability aspect of the site as well as it's a pretty significant walk, but some people do it to the Dumfries commuter lot at 02:34. There are express routes to DC from there as well. So when you add that all up, we've seen this at other apartment complexes that come in rezonings.

12% is on the high end of what we've approved in the past, but we're comfortable with it based on the area that's in the transit proximity. And the applicant also proffered some improvements to the bus stop in front. That's going to help. There are many comments from the residents that people don't use the bus system. And I won't get into the numbers.

We are seeing significant increases in ridership on the bus system compared it's almost reaching pre pandemic levels as a matter of fact, which we're really happy about. But having a shelter there, having a safer place to board the bus helps with that perception issue, and it helps people who would not use transit maybe consider it, especially for commute trips. Add that all up, we're supportive of 12%.

Great. Thank you for that. Okay.

Commissioner Sherman.

Madam Chair, I'm not sure if this question is for staff or the applicant, but you mentioned that when you did your TIA, it accommodates and looks at pending development. And I wanted to know what is pending in the adjacent areas in terms of development that you're aware of?

So when we looked at the traffic at the time, there was nothing immediate in this area, but they still make us account for the 2% annual growth rate per year.

That's across all end users, just 2% growth? Yes.

It's a 2% growth rate along the corridor, so it's the road network that's a 2% growth rate. So essentially, what they're looking at is what is the total number of trips along this corridor and at these intersections and then they grow that by 2% per year.

So there are no and maybe this is for staff, but within the immediate area, are no specific retail office or other SUVs in the pipeline that as part of the

There is

need area? I'm thinking, you know, couple

There's a Starbucks that's in the pipeline a little bit further up, but that was considered a net sort of stay because there is an it's replacing an existing restaurant.

And it's passed by trips.

And it's passed by

trips. And

then can I answer sorry? Commissioner Carroll, you asked specifically about the community meetings. So the first was held on October 14. We sent out 2,205 invites, nine people attended. The second meeting was held on November 10. We sent out 94 invites and 14 people attended.

Thank you, Seth.

Thank you. Okay.

Well, this was a wonderfully robust, discussion, and now we're gonna turn this over to commissioner Landrum since this is his in his district.

I'd like to move that we recommend approval. Oh, I'd like to move yeah. Move to close the public hearing. Apologies.

Mhmm. The public hearing is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval on this of this project conditioned on the following conditions. The first is that the applicant work with the supervisors. Oh, right, right, right. And the subject to the proper statement dated 05/01/2026, and on the following conditions. The first to be that the applicant work with the supervisors' offices and county staff to explore the option of removing the River Ridge Connection Road to reach the county parking recommended or the county parking guidelines and not and not have a reduction in in parking from that standard.

And then also, two, to expand the amount of tree preservation on this site. The second is that the chargers on the property either follow the NACS or a dual NACS CCS standard without adapters. And think that's oh, and then that the illustrative purposes only language be removed. And yes, that's the motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. The, motion to approve REZ2025Dash00023 has been properly, moved by commissioner Landrum and properly seconded by commissioner Ross. Can we please, madam clerk, call the roll? Sheriff Brown?

Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

So I'd like to thank all the residents that came out tonight. You know, coming in tonight, I I didn't really have any major concerns with this. But, you know, living in a diff different district, like you said, you know, I do rely a lot on the eyes and ears on the ground in the neighboring communities, the neighboring residents. And, you know, I I think we didn't miss the mark on a couple things here. And I think some of those things could be fixed. I think a deferral could be appropriate to try and fix those that we could hear and see that before we moved it forward. I like the suggestions, but none of those are guaranteed at this point. So I'm a no.

Commissioner Landrum?

I would echo just the the appreciation for the public comment. I would I would say that, you know, one of the things that that we did not receive any emails on in our office, well, maybe, like, one or two, was this case. And so don't just come out if you've if you've got a a project that you're opposed to, don't just come out to the public hearing, Email us. Call us. Schedule a meeting with your supervisors because getting getting those comments to us and our supervisors ahead of time makes it a lot easier easier for us to review these applications on the dais and not have to go through these issues for the first time. But certainly appreciate the feedback, and I'll go ahead and vote yes.

Commissioner Ross?

No.

Commissioner Scheifler?

I still think there's more work to be done on the density side, so I'm a no.

Commissioner Sherman.

Yes.

That is a tight vote And, Fails. The motion fails.

Okay. We are now moving on.

To item Can I make a substitute motion? Sure. I'd like to recommend that we defer rezoning REZ 20 '25 Dash00023 attain at River Oaks, to date uncertain.

Second.

This actually, the motion has already failed. And so So

an alternative motion can be made, whether it be a recommendation for denial or deferral.

Oh oh, sorry. I I might have phrased it as substitute motion. I mean, a second motion.

Okay. Thank you. That. Okay. So you made your motion. Did someone no one seconded it? Did someone second it?

Second.

Okay. Madam clerk, call the roll.

Sher Brown? No. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Landrum? No. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shyford? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? No. Fails, tie vote.

Madam Chairlick, I'd like to make a substitute motion.

New motion.

I'd like to I'd like to move that rezoning REZ2025Dash0023 attain at River Oaks be denied.

Second.

Okay. Madam chair I need madam clerk. Call the roll, please.

Sher Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

So, I mean, I I obviously have my concerns as I stated. You know, I I'm gonna vote yes to the denial, but I do wish we could have deferred it so we could have taken that look at it instead of just kicking it to the board one way or another.

Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? No. Motion carries.

Okay. We will now move on to item 11 f. For those who are exiting the chamber, please do so quietly because we're still conducting county business. Thank you for your attendance. We will now move on to rezoning and proper amendment REZ two zero two five dash zero zero zero three for project industry. Miss Cameron, you are up.

Good evening, chair Brown.

Please please please move quietly and exit the chambers. Thank you. I'm sorry, miss Cameron. Go ahead.

Good evening, chair Brown and members of the planning commission. Again, my name is Janelle Cameron, for the record, with Walsh Lubilai, and Walsh. Here with me tonight from Black Chamber Group is David Falcone. We also have our civil engineering team here as well as star Nayan with Walsh, Lubilai, The property that we are talking about is currently zoned MT Industrial Transportation with a small portion of the site Industrial Park Court zoned a one. It is comprehensively planned I four.

The property was originally zoned in 2003 and data cent data centers are permitted by right on the property today. However, the FAR was limited to point three and the height was limited to 45 feet. In the MT District, the maximum FAR is point seven five, and the maximum height is 75 feet. The property is located within the Data Center Overlay District. In this slide here is a contextual exhibit that shows you the surrounding area.

The property is located so here is Wellington Road. Here is Rollins Ford Road. It's comprised of 10 parcels and is a little over 42 acres in size. This slide here shows the illustrative. The applicant is proposing two buildings, a maximum floor area ratio of point three five, and a maximum of 85 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment, but excluding the elevator override.

The applicant is also including a public facilities review for the substation on-site. The applicant is proposing 28 of the site as open space, which is almost double the 15% open space requirement in the empty district. There is an existing cemetery on the site here. As part of this proposal, a 30 foot buffer was already per already required under the existing zoning. The applicant is proposing supplemental plantings around the cemetery, our protective fencing during construction, temporary signage during construction, permanent signage for the cemetery itself, and the applicant is proposing five parking spaces.

Access to the site will be from one access point solely from Rollins Ford Road. With this application, the applicant has included additional proffers, which include sound mitigation measures, trails for parks and recreation, sustainability measures, proposed areas for storm water management, and commitments to the limits of clearing and grading. This slide here shows the proffered building elevations. Again, the applicant has proffered a maximum building height of 85 feet inclusive of mechanical equipment, but it does include the elevator override, which you can see in this area here, which is the portion of the elevator that is used to service the elevator and access the elevator during emergencies. And we thought it would be helpful to provide a contextual of what is surrounding the areas.

So the area, the property is located within an industrial area and is surrounded by data centers, and then here is Jiffy Loop Live. When we talk about data centers, we often hear proximity to schools and residential, so as you can see on this screen, the property, this here is the nearest residential, it's a little less than a half a mile away, and then it's over a third a mile away from Chris Young Elementary School. The nearest residential in this area in here is over point six miles away, and then the from and these distances that I'm giving you are from the property line and not from the data center building itself. And then from Gainesville High School, it's over half a mile away. We often hear what will it look like, so we thought it'd be helpful to provide view sheds from some of these areas for you all to be able to see the sight lines.

And so this is the existing condition from Gainesville High School, so, again, it's over a half a mile over half a mile away. And then this is designed to point you, if you were looking over half a mile away through the trees, where your eyesight should look at, and then this is what you would see. So you would not be able to see the building from this location. We also did this from the intersection. So if you're at the intersection of Wellington and Rollins Ford, and this is what you would see.

We also did it specifically from Chris Young Elementary School, so if you're looking at this area here, again, where to point your eyes, and it would not be visible, and this is over a third a mile away. And then this is if you are at the front of Chris Young Elementary School, where to point your eyes and it would not be visible. And that concludes my presentation with a positive recommendation from staff. Fully request that the Planning Commission also recommend approval. And I'll be here to answer any questions when it's my

time. Thank you, Cameron. Staff?

Hey. Good evening. Scott Meyer in the planning office, members of the planning commission. Nice to see everybody. So, this is, actually a dual request.

It's a rezoning and a proffer amendment, just because the applicant is, they are, amending the, proffers that were previously approved from PLN 2020, 2003Dash zero zero two four two. And it's basically overhauling those proffers and replacing them with the new proffers. There's also it's also considered a rezoning. There's a little history with this where there is a portion of county owned right away, which is being included in the rezoning application, but it's also being vacated and thus included in the entire 42.28 acres. So the ask is again to rezone 42.28 acres.

It's keeping the same zoning, industrial transportation, but it's specifically amending and superseding the previous proffers and to allow for data center development. As Janella mentioned, the previous development was more of a low rise industrial development and this is allowing for also an electrical substation up to a 111 feet. So with that, we also have an increased notification, is, you know, 1,310 feet because we're looking at, also the height of one of the poles for the electric substation. There's 10 g pins involved and also residual right of way, which I pointed to here in the front at the intersection of Rollins Ford Road and Industrial Park Court. Staff is recommending approval.

This is currently planned as I four and from perspective data center application, this is actually in an ideal area from staff's view. It is around other data centers in a very heavily industrialized area. As Janelle had pointed out and that was a very helpful graphic, it's a substantial distance from residential sites and also school sites. Jiffy Lube Live is to the west here, and we have the Rollins Family Cemetery, which is being preserved. And still the 30 foot buffer with enhanced plantings around that is being not impacted by this development.

So again, this is the entire area here. There is also an environmental resource protection feature on the northern part, the eastern part that is being avoided. There's pretty substantial environmental resource protection overlay areas in here. But you have to point out, and I must mention that the site is already developed and built out. So with this new development, there will be no further impact and degradation to these environmental areas.

Just a little bit of background here. The previous site, was zoned for Bristow Industrial Park and limited the height of structures of 45 feet. With this development, we're we're gonna have, up to an all inclusive height of 85 feet. That does not include elevator overrides and also the electric substation up to a 110 feet. And as I mentioned before, this is both a rezoning and a proffer amendment.

There also was a separate legislative item that went to the board back in October. Real quick, that allowed for, the county executive to include the extra, portion of the front to be included in this, rezoning area and that's a separate board resolution item. I attached it at the back of the staff report and, as I mentioned before, new impacts are being avoided. This was originally scheduled for the planning commission last month. The applicant requested deferral to a date certain on tonight just to clarify the height provisions and to allow for re advertisement.

There were also a couple extra minor amendments including additional proffer seven point b one which included extra fenestration for building a which faces the cemetery and also there was an increase from two spaces to five spaces for the cemetery parking. So that is all included in the proposal before you. This is showing the existing development as I mentioned before. It's heavily industrialized. The cemetery is remaining unimpacted.

You're already familiar with the site, as Janelle mentioned. This is the proposed electric substation, which will include a switching station area as well. We also were able to have the applicant provide enhanced landscaping along Rollins Ford Road. As I said, it's in the data center overlay. It's a far distance from other residences, so we feel it's ideally situated for such use.

This is from the generalized development area. There's also a public facility review, which is the applicant's proposing where the substation is to be, so therefore it's deemed a feature shown on the plan. And again, as Janelle mentioned, there's open spaces being retained around the site. There's also, this is a profile showing Rollins Ford Road, just a slight modification in the landscaping. And this the applicant included, Janelle included more, site view perspectives, but this is showing as you're entering the site from Wellington Road and Rollins Ford.

Again, you won't be able to see the site based on its placement and this is from Chris Young Elementary School. Again, the applicant included that. They also provided several line of sight exhibits and it's not showing that there are any obstructions overall. And we've seen the building elevations and staff is recommending approval. It's yes consistently.

We do want to point out that, the height does not include the elevator overrides. We continually say this or at least in my analysis I do that. Staff prefers to have the height be all inclusive of the elevator overrides because you're gonna have a little portion extending above the height of 85 feet. Not a major thing, but just a design consideration worth mentioning. It is consistent in all the other categories.

His staff is recommending approval subject to the proffers dated April 24. As I mentioned, this is an heavily industrialized area among other data centers. As proffered, we feel the impacts have been adequately mitigated. And this is also going to facilitate the delivery of the data center, in an area where there are already data centers. So thank you and with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. We also have the applicant here and we have a county staff as well. Thank you. I know it's been a long night, so just, that's all I have. Okay.

Do we have anyone signed up to speak?