Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, commissioners. Tony Austin, planning office. This evening, we will have a presentation for the proposed capital improvement, program for the fiscal years 2027 through, 2031. And mister Dave Beavers is here, from the planning and financial budget department, and we have mister Scott Halsey online who is the coordinator for facility planning research assessment and data services department, who will be the one doing the presentation this evening. Thank you.

Hey, Scott. Scott, can you hear us?

Yes. I can.

You are more than welcome to go ahead and start the presentation.

Okay. So a little outline of the presentation tonight is we're gonna start with the student enrollment trends and then look at the fourteenth high school considerations, And then we're gonna migrate into the approved and proposed capital improvement projects that we had last year in our CIP that was approved, and what we're proposing this year in this year's CIP with new constructions, additions, renovation, maintenance, and different energy efficiency and sustainability measures, and then, of course, the impacts it will have on our budget. So I'll highlight overall of the presentation. We are looking at enrollment is continuing to decline, yielding significant capacity gaps at schools, and these changes will lead to multiple future decisions about facility usage, long term and short term. And we could have possible consolidation in our future and looking at possible mitigation strategies of closing buildings.

The fourteenth high school costs have risen dramatically, and that's where we came up with a scenario A of continuing with the fourteenth high school or scenario b, discontinuing the fourteenth high school. Our board did recently vote to approve to discontinue the fourteenth high school, which they selected scenario b, and that's what we will be presenting mostly on tonight. So jumping into the student enrollment and long term plannings and considerations.

Yeah.

Looking at the overall lay of the land, population, and what is going on in Prince William County, we are still seeing out migration to the Richmond suburbs, to the Raleigh area. It has the out migration has slowed down a little bit since the pandemic where we're almost seeing an even shift of a little bit less than 2% of out migration. We are seeing declining birth rates. Birth rates are declining since 2014. We did see a slight increase in the 2120 two year, and that might be a pandemic boom, kinda like the baby boom back in the day, but the trend has continued downward and we're roughly at 5,717 births, which in five years, we would see them as possible kindergartners in our system.

So looking at our population period pyramid, you see that the top is very heavy. We have roughly 7,000 students at the high school level, and then at the elementary school level, we're seeing roughly 5,500 to 6,500 students. From the twelfth grade cohort to the kindergarten cohort, we see a delta of roughly 1,600 students, which as that bigger cohort comes in and that smaller cohort comes in, we're going to see that declining enrollment happening because we're not replacing that upper cohort with the same size cohort that is coming in at the kindergarten level. This past year was our was the first year since 2012 that our first grade cohort dropped under 6,000 students, which is another milestone to see that our enrollment is declining overall. Looking at our five year projection of PK through twelfth grade students, we're looking about a 3,000 student decline over the next five years.

It's pretty gradual overall as we're seeing roughly about 1,200 students decreasing when we're knocking out those bigger cohorts at the high school level, so we are looking to see roughly a 3,000 student decline over the next five years. Now breaking it down, this is by kindergarten to twelfth grade at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The table to the left shows a linear extrapolation if we were to go outside of our five year and seven year projection model at the high school level seven years and five at the middle school and elementary school, and how much space we would have available at those three levels. So we are looking to see overall decline of roughly 6,000 students over the next ten years, and the out years were done by a linear extrapolation model just based off the historical and current data we do have and off our projection data. You do see the elementary continue to decline.

In the fifth year, it does have a slight increase and that's because the increase is because we get that data from the county demographer, Mr. Engelman, and he helps us project what the births could look like in that fifth year because the Virginia Department of Health has a one year lag of the data we use to geocode where births are currently in Prince William County and those are that's a data point we do not have, so we do collaborate with Mr. Engelman over at the county. Looking at the high school, high school is declining over the next seven years, and middle school is declining as well. The linear extrapolation does show a slight increase at the middle school level, but we would anticipate a steady decline of what you're kind of seeing in the first five years at the middle school level based off what we're seeing at the elementary and how births are reacting.

So going away from enrollment and looking at the high school the fourteenth high

school overview and considerations, It was approved last year of a 1,400 seat high school and it was scheduled to open in the twenty nine-thirty school year. The intended overcrowding relief was the Eastern high schools. And when we were looking at the considerations of whether to discontinue the fourteenth high school or continue with it in the CIP, we looked at a range of things of net transfer rates and how they contributed to overcrowding at certain schools. You do see schools like Osborne Park that are overcrowded have 34% more students attend the school than are zoned for the school. So transfers are a big issue that do contribute to overcrowding at schools like Osborne Park, Colgan, Forest Park.

Approximately projected in 2930, approximately 1,000 seats were going to be available when the school was slated to open and moving into the next year, we were looking to see upwards of 2,000 seats available projected in 02/3132. Here is the graph and table of what we were looking like looking like at this time. The top shows how much space would be available if zero capital improvements were done. You see that we would have roughly a thousand vacant seats as stated on the previous slide and in 02/3233, we would have upwards of 2,000 seats. Looking at the schools who could be impacted by redistricting, those schools were only if you had perfect boundary lines, were only going to be overcrowded by 435 seats.

If we were to add the fourteenth high school, we would have upwards of 2,400 seats available in 2930 and then in the out years in 3233, we would have upwards of 3,400 seats available across our 14 high schools if the fourteenth high school was constructed, which would be roughly one and a half high schools of available seats. Now I'm gonna turn it over to mister Beavers, and he's gonna go over the escalated cost estimates for the fourteenth high school. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, mister Halsey. Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Dave Beavers. I'm with the budget department.

So the slide we're looking at here basically shows us what the cost estimates for the fourteenth high school were looking like prior to undergoing our CIP process. We had estimates done from three different independent firms that gave us a rough estimate around 352,000,000 Based on our previous year numbers of $223,000,000, this is a very significant increase and caused pause amongst a lot of folks. As mister Halsey indicated, we presented two scenarios to the school board. Scenario a with the fourteenth high school, scenario b without it, and they opted to go with scenario b. Now I'll go over some kind of summary information and include some detail about projects that we're doing.

Hopefully, you all got a copy of the presentation. So I'm gonna move a little bit quickly through this. Will they get a copy of the presentation?

We'll make sure they get a copy.

Okay. Super. Super. Because there's a lot of detail here. This slide shares new projects that we added to the proposed CIP and is still proposed at this point. Within additions, we see a $22,000,000 proposed Marsteller Middle School addition with HVAC replacement. We're gonna include geothermal with that as part of

our

sustainability measures. We also feature under renovations. We've got some cost changes at Woodbridge Middle School and Brentsville High School. And we've added this year renovation at Hampton Middle School to the tune of $85,000,000. Facility modifications include kitchen renovations at both Coles Elementary and Nabsco Elementary, that were developed in house.

And we see, under, the the facility modifications, we also see press box replacements at Potomac High School and Woodbridge High School where we are addressing some structural integrity issues. Maintenance category includes roof replacements at Marsteller Middle and Wood and Potomac High School, sustainability investments in LED upgrades, outdoor learning environments, and solar photovoltaic arrays at six schools. We have a significant investment in replacing playgrounds at schools that are in poor condition. Lifecycle replacement of school division equipment, it is a new topic and we'll discuss that further on in the presentation. Oops. Let's see

if I can go back one.

Okay. As we talked about scenario a, scenario b, just to give you a little insight into what was included with both. We would with scenario a, we would have had had to add a $128,200,000 to the CIP. With scenario b, to offset the removal of the fourteenth high school, we've added a couple projects as as offsets. These include Garfield High School Robotics Center and Unity Reed High School Robotics Center as East West to provide that opportunity for students.

We've added geothermal at Bull Run Middle School, LED upgrades, building automation system upgrades, and some strategic feasibility study. So the net difference between scenario a and scenario b was a total of $256,000,000. So and as we said, the school board has chosen to go with the the least expensive option in this case. And this just shows you what how that difference between scenario a and scenario b broke out. Scenario a would have increased our construction category by 302,000,000 whereas compared to scenario b and scenario b increases the maintenance costs by about $46,000,000.

So that's the difference between the two with $256,000,000 differential. When we look at the overall CIP and this is now we're stepped outside of scenario a and scenario b, we see the project existing projects that we have and some of these are still coming to fruition. So we're shown we're shown for your reference here. And then projects that we have some funding changes. This table happens to show fourteenth high school as scenario a here and then scenario b here.

With additions, we see some cost changes in the in this category. We see some date changes. We see Pennington traditional now pushed to May 2029, and we got some funding changes. We've increased that to $30,000,000. We've got Dale City Elementary addition, and then the two robotic centers that we've added.

When we look at renovations, you can see here that we've we've pushed the Vaughan Elementary School renovation to June 2029 due to some technical challenges there. That project is gonna cost a total of 72 sorry, $74,600,000. And we've also changed the cost totals of Woodbridge Middle School renovation and Brentsville High School based on independent third party evaluations. And again, we're adding the Hampton Middle School renovation for a total of 85,000,000. We're doing a number of improvements in the artificial turf realm.

You can see here we're adding artificial turf replacement at Potomac High School. We're also upgrading the turf carpets at a number of middle schools that these fields were done in cooperation with the county. I think the county paid for the fields on school division property. And then with the concept that the community would be able to use these fields, It's now time to replace the carpets. We're sharing that cost with the county.

So this, represents the school division's investment in that endeavor. We're doing new practice turf fields at all of our high schools for the students to use and then a number of the included in the f y twenty five CIP, we had a number of artificial turf and track replacements shown for your reference here. Here we have roof replacements and repairs highlights from the CIP. We continue to monitor and replace roofs as necessary. We plan for their life expectancy and then evaluate conditions on a year to year basis.

This year represents a new endeavor we're undertaking with capital asset replacements. We've looked at what assets the school division owns, what are the life expectancies of those assets, and when should we be when should we be replacing those assets. One of the key things that we had previously been relying on the individual schools to do was to replace playgrounds. Now we've we've found that it's really beyond the, the capacity of the schools to do that. So we've we've undertaken that as a centralized function and I think we're gonna do that in a number of other areas to remove that responsibility and burden from the schools.

You can see we're doing stage curtains, maintenance equipment trailers. We're dealing with some capital replacements at the aquatic center and then custodial equipment. So we envision this arena growing over the next couple years as we invest more in capital equipment replacements. Alright. Moving into sustainability and energy efficiency, you can see LED upgrades that we've got scheduled.

We've added in to the CIP this year a number of 22 in fact, 22 schools where we'll be doing LED upgrades. Additionally, with scenario b, we've included five more schools to be upgraded to LED. So this is a great cost savings and lighting quality improvement for the schools and the students. A new initiative we've undertaken is outdoor learning environments to provide spaces outside of the school for the students to be able to learn. We are we've rolled out this program that will take a number of years to implement, but we've we've started this program to provide these outdoor learning environments at schools.

This table shows where we'll be undertaking retro commissioning. Essentially, this is looking at the building automation systems and reevaluating how that system is operating, replacing it, and may basically making our smart building smarter. So this is a significant investment for us and we will yield some energy and efficiency savings from this. Then solar photovoltaic installations, we're planning at six schools included in last year's CIP and then six additional facilities included in this year's CIP. Alright, we'll really quickly run through some funding schedule changes.

This is the, proposed CIP, $1,079,128,215. Last year's CIP was this amount, representing an increase from 26 to 27 of about $25,000,000. When we look specifically at how we're paying for that, we see a decrease in bond funding and an increase in general fund transfers. So essentially, we're moving away from debt and and use utilizing more of our cash resources. This shows the specific years of bond issuance when they're changing from last year.

We see some decreases year by year and some minor increases out in the later years. But we're we're we're dropping this v 25 addition of bonds and we're at a 105,000,000 and picking up a $57,000,000 fiscal year 30 amount for only 57. So that yields us some savings. As you know, whenever we take out bonds, have to pay debt service, basically mortgage payments. So borrowing less leads to more resources available for schools and students.

This is our timeline for completion of the budget and CIP. Today is March 11. The school board is going through final markup tonight. You saved me from having to go to that, so thank you. But we're looking at coming, approving the school divisions budget on March 18 and then we'll bring it to the board of county supervisors for consideration. Alright. That concludes the presentation. I'm available if you might have any questions.

Commissioner Scheifler.

I had a question about trailers. Is there, you know, with this drop in enrollment, is there a strategy to kind of end the use of trailers? Or is there some sort of pathway you guys are going down? Because I saw on the high school thing, like, some people have, like, 800 spots available, but there's five trailers. I'm not sure what what is the school strategy for? Because again, theory, wanna get rid of all the trailers before we start school closing schools and things like that. I don't know if there's a strategy on that or what what's the plan?

So we're endeavoring to reduce and eliminate the use of trailers. It's a long term goal and we we have to evaluate the applicability of all trailers every year. We look go through and work with staff to determine that trailers are in fact needed still out of school. You're right. Our long term trend is enrollment decline. So there certainly should be opportunities to harvest, decreases in trailer usage.

It'd be good to have some straight chart showing, you know, how many trailers you have and, you know, kind of a projection. Because, like, my son goes to Osborne Park, you know, they have trailers, but they're letting more students in than they probably need to. And I'm confused by that concept of, you know, some of the schools that are overcrowded, and they're getting influx of more students. Like, I don't know what is the process there.

I I can't speak to the full nature of your question, but I can say that, the the transfer policy, allows students to move from one school to another, is being evaluated and, they're looking at how that should be best implemented.

Is that one of the reasons why the robotics were put on there, potentially add more programs to those schools or potentially? Or

That is not a direct correlated situation. The robotic centers were to be a robotic center was to be offered at the fourteenth High School. As we're not providing the fourteenth High School anymore, I think the the intent was to, be able to offer that program, in a timely manner to students as it's been advertised.

Okay. Thank you. And

mister Beavers, if I can just jump in too. With the discontinuation of the fourteenth high school, we could look at county wide redistricting at the high school level in order to kinda mitigate that overcrowding at certain schools. And then with if we were to approve new attendance areas, that could be a possible solution to help that overcrowding abatement and getting rid of the affordable classrooms also.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ross?

Is the geothermal HVAC addition a pilot program that would eventually get rolled out everywhere if it's successful? Do you know or is it just a one off because of something unusual at that school?

It is not a one off. We've we've implemented it at I think it was was it Neabsco, Scott?

Bel Air, I believe.

Bel Air. Okay. We've deployed it at Bel Air, to great success. I think the one feature of it is that it requires a large site to be able to drill all these wells, if you will, for the geothermal system. So it's it is site dependent. We can't deploy it everywhere, and it is expensive. So large initial outlay, cost savings, and decreased complexity to the HVAC system over time. So where we can deploy it, I think we're looking to to do that.

Okay. So we already put our toe in the water and we like what we found?

Yeah. I I think that's a good assessment.

Okay. This is sort of looking in the rearview mirror, but I'm really curious why the price estimate for the fourteenth school jumped so much. Was there was there any single factor or you know what?

I think there was some impact of the site itself. There were some questionable soils on the site. I think the the full evaluation of the site in terms of the elevation change involved, had an impact on the increase in the cost. I'm gonna reach out to my friend, mister Halsey, and see if he recalls any any details as to why that cost estimate went up so much.

Yeah. That's something we'll have to get back to you on with our construction team, and they can provide you a better outline of what really increased those costs. As miss mister Beaver stated, a lot of it did have to do with some of the site work that needed to be done, but we can get you a better list and a comprehensive list from our construction department.

Okay. Thank you. You know, I'm I'm really not trying to conduct a thorough investigation. Just, when I'm looking at cost estimates, a year or two from now, I'm curious how much windage I should apply to them in case we discover another problem. So just a summary, top level summary. Thank you, chair.

Mister Beavers, I have a question in regards to your estimate, how you come up with the construction budget for, like, the fourteenth high school. Like, how long ago was that estimate done, and did it take into account any kind of inflation, or what was it that accounted for the difference? And I apologize if I'm asking you. You already said it, but I was a little bit late.

I cannot answer that question right now. I think well, I can't I can't give you the nuts and bolts of the site specific information. I can tell you that we do, provide when we have a set of drawings for a facility. We provide those to to third party outside independent evaluators to estimate costs for us. I think I can say that that was done a year ago and that we did it again to reflect the updated design of the facility at full design.

And that's where we got the cost differential. You know, we don't do the cost estimates in house. They do take inflation into account as to the the date of when we're gonna bid the project. So so we do consider those things. It's just a matter of, I think, at least from my perspective, the the site cost, the soil work, the amount the amount of dirt that had to be moved to facilitate the site. I think that had a lot of impact. But as mister Halsey said, we'll work with our construction team to give you a brief summary of what factors were involved.

Okay. I have another question because once you got that amount, did you did you go back with to the design team with any kind of value engineering estimates or whether they could reduce some amenities or to get the price lower, or did you all just present that to the school board and that they decided to scrap it?

I was not privy to those conversations about, the strategic direction there. I don't know if value engineering at that last stage occurred. Mhmm. I'm sure value engineering went into the design part in terms of ensuring that what they were designing was cost effective.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sheikh.

Thank you, chair. On the sustainability and efficiency piece, the school board is slowly increasing LED lights or upgrading to LED in different schools. And I also noticed there was another upgrade of solar panels. Is there a deadline when the all the PWSCS will adapt to solar power and then LED lights for the entire PWSCS?

So I think the LED component is closer to completion. I think we're we're envisioning by 2031 that we will have all facilities converted to LED. The solar is a little bit different. We're still as your fellow commissioner put it, we're still putting our toe in that water and and making sure that that's the strategic direction that we wanna go. We're doing it at Occoquan, the new replacement school. We've got a number of schools that we're doing it. I think as the technology improves in efficiency, you're likely to see an even greater rollout of that program.

Will that rule include buses with electric also with the charging at the school the same way?

We are putting our toe into that pool as well. I think there have certainly been some public cases where school divisions have have rolled back, from deploying electric school buses based on a number of factors. But we're certainly, we've been engaged with Dominion Energy on a pilot program for electric buses. We're looking at electrifying our fleet. I don't think we've got, strong, strategic plans just yet on the electric vehicles, but I know putting in charging stations is definitely on our radar.

Another thing which always concerns me when it comes to Prince William County School systems is the schools which have high-tech programs available to them, robotics, software development, network engineering platforms, they normally perform really well in their SAT scores and they also perform really well like producing or higher graduation rates with higher GPAs. Now does the school board look at which schools are the lowest performance and then which programs are missing from those schools? Is that something which school board always assesses?

That is certainly one of the things they consider when they're working through their program. We are getting ready to do a larger evaluation of program locations possibly resulting in division wide, reboundaring of schools, as mister Halsey mentioned. So that's definitely something on the on our plate for consideration. The location and availability of these programs, is certainly, something that we're we're we're aware of.

The reason I asked, so I lived in, on Route 28 closer to Liberia Avenue for a very long time. And my son was interested in robotics, and he was interested in IT. And the only school which offered that program was Battlefield High School. But when we compared Battlefield High School and then my other kid went to Hilton and then my daughter went to currently now Unity Reed, so I saw the investments which were made in Battlefield were a lot higher in different programs than Unity Reed. So we saw the difference, how programs have been differentiated, and that's also resulted in whatever we see in the inequality in education in schools.

So does this that's why I want to make sure, do we look at or does the school board looks at how much money is being spent in each school in different programs and compare those as well?

Yes. They absolutely do. And just FYI, the, the IT program is also offered at Forest Park.

Forest Park. No. Yeah. I saw that one. My nephew ended up going there from the Eastern end. Yeah. Is there a way you can also send us any results for each school, like graduation rate versus the program investments the school board had made in each school? Is that possible?

There's certainly information available with respect to the scorecard type information that can be shared. I can't cite any particular investment information that might help you, but I'll be happy to share the scorecard information.

Oh, but you know what I'm trying to see. I want to see how much money is spent in Battlefield versus Forest Park versus Potomac versus Hilton.

Yeah.

And then what's the impact of those investments? I'm trying to correlate the data if possible.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you

so much.

Thank you, commissioner Sheikh. Alright. So we're going now to commissioner Sherman.

Welcome. Thank you. I think I have a easy question for you. I'm I was trying to find it online. I have a process question. So the CIP is five years or six years?

It is five years.

And when they vote, the school board votes, they're voting on the current year or the projected next year budget?

We're voting the school board's voting on the whole five year plan. Okay. And in essence, you're right. They're they're really the impact is year one. That's that's the, where the the, rubber meets the road. So year one is where we'll see the changes and years two through five are what the plan is.

And my last question, I guess, more theoretical, but I assume that when they were estimating the cost of the new school, they projected it over the five year capital period.

Yes. That's correct.

As part of their deliberation. Thank you. And thanks for the presentation.

Thank you.

Okay. Heading back to commissioner Ross.

We've got enough time for me to ask this question. Can when you send this material to after the meeting today, can you put in citations to the sources for the population decline, Northern Virginia population outflow statistics and information connected to that. It's something that I need to become smarter about so that I can agree or disagree with the CIP and have intelligent conversations with the community. So please just, you know, give us the the sources for that info.

I think when you get the presentation, you'll you'll see that on the the slide that has the map of Virginia on it with the different colors. There's a citation there. I believe it's the Weldon Cooper Center that

Where is that cast? It's, I think the map itself is from Weldon Cooper on that migration. So that is something those sources are on that slide already of where we presented that table and got that data from.

Sweet. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Going down to commissioner Scheifler.

I just had a question on, I think it's the, solar panels. I think you said you're making, like, a $22,000,000 investment in solar panels. Is that correct?

Well, we can find that.

Yeah. That no.

That's correct.

Yeah. It's 22,500,000.0.

Thank you. So is there any information on kind of what the return on investment is that? Is what of the ex ex expected return on investment? Is it supposed to pay itself off in ten years, fifteen? I mean, I weren't sure that might be useful to have in this slide or say we're investing this twenty this is an investment that will lower our operating costs over time. It'd be good to understand what that is or what that projected to be. I know I think you said there's still working that out as far as, you know, what that would look like, but

So the last time I asked the same question, question, the ROI, the or the payback window was down to ten years. Okay. It previously had been like twenty five years. But what I was told from our energy and efficiency folks was that it was down to ten. I can work with them if you want something more official than that, but that's what I've been told.

Okay. That's good.

I just wanna

better sense. Something that I mean, I'm trying to present this and say, hey, we're spending this money, but this is actually one that's gonna return have a return on investment that over time that the operating budget will be able to be.

Yeah. The LED pays off in two or three years.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I understand that.

Okay. Any more questions? Commissioner Moses Natt.

Well, it's a tangential question, not for you, but for staff. So as I'm listening to this, and I'm sorry, I wasn't able with the issues, I guess, with streaming. I couldn't stream it on my way over here. So, and I don't know if this was talked about, but with the, you know, with wiping out the need for the fourteenth high school, I wonder with staff, how does that correlate? It just makes me wonder how that decline in student population, which wiped out the need for the fourteenth House School, correlate to the purported housing deficit that we had? Because I would imagine the decline in students means a decline in families. What's

the

correlation between the two? Well,

I mean, we can get back to you on something like that. We did have a deficit in housing production which certainly would have decreased because a lot

of new

housing, particularly single family, would have people with children moving into them. So that may have been part of the decrease. But also, our population is aging. So we might have a larger cohort of elderly. And that's a, you know, nationwide phenomenon that, you know, we haven't that baby boomers are, you know, increasing. And even the next generation is beyond childbearing

years.

But we could get a little more analysis. We can talk to the demographer, see if we could do a little more analysis on that to see if there's some correlation.

Thanks. For some reason, I was down the rabbit hole looking at some of the old housing projections that we've gotten back in 2019 and then ended up to the ones today, and I'm like, okay, if we've got a decline in population and an exodus of population, how do we square the two with all of the housing projects that we've approved lately, particularly, you know, multifamily, as the focus. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Okay. Any more questions on the dais? Seeing that there are no more, we definitely wanna thank you for coming and giving us a presentation, and, actually, thank you to the other gentleman that was online. We appreciate all the wonderful information you provided, and, we look forward to seeing you next year.

See you at the public hearing.

Oh, that's right. We'll see you at the public hearing. This concludes our work session. Please come in and have a seat. We're gonna start the meeting now.

This is the meeting for the 03/11/2026 planning commission hearing. We had a work session at 06:00 where I'm sorry.

Yeah. At 06:00

where we had a presentation from the Prince William County Schools on the capital improvement program. And at 06:45, we had an agenda review. And now we ask everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sheriff Brown? Here. Advisory justice? Here. Commissioner Carroll?

Here.

Commissioner Mosesnett? Here. Commissioner Ross? Here. Commissioner Scheifler? Here. Commissioner Shaikh? Here. Commissioner Sherman?

Here.

We have quorum? Here.

Thank you for everyone who is not familiar with our newest, commissioner from the Potomac District, this is Commissioner Michael Sherman. So we welcome him. This is his first planning commission. Since we're all here, we know that there's no remote participation, so we're gonna skip that. So for item number six, do we have any items on the consent agenda?

Chair Brown, we have no items for the consent agenda.

Okay. Moving on to item number seven, do we have any items on the expedited agenda?

Chair Brown, we do. We have request for three items 11 a, Virginia Gateway Silver Diner, special use permit, item 11 b, rezoning innovation South rezoning, and item C, rezoning, Maple Dale Residential rezoning.

Okay. Thank you very much. We will now move to item 11 a, which is the expedited agenda. Special use permit SUP2026Dash00011 for Virginia Gateway Silver Diner signage, and that is in the Brentsville District. So we will now turn it over to doesn't he ask for public hearing? Oh, sorry. We will now open up the public hearing, and we will now move this over to commissioner Carroll for the Brentsville ville Magisterial District.

Thank you. There's no one signed up in person or online for this one, so I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

With that, I move to recommend approval of S U P 2026 Dash 00011 Virginia Gateway Silver Diner signage subject to the conditions dated 02/11/2026.

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been made by commissioner Carroll to approve special use permit S U P 2026 Dash 0001 1 and has been properly seconded by commissioner Sheikh. Madam clerk, will you please call the vote?

Sheriff Brown? Yes. Vice chair of justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Mosesnett? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Sheikh? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on now to item 11 b, that's rezoning number REZ2017Dash00005 for Innovation South rezoning. Again, we will, punt this back to commissioner Carroll for the Brentsville District.

Yes. We have one individual signed up, opposed to this. We will let them speak. Mhmm. Melody Miller. Yes. In the back, just name magisterial district or generally where you live, and then you'll have three minutes to speak or five minutes to represent organization.

Okay. So my name is Melody Miller. I actually live here, but I run fire and rescue in the district where you're going to, consider this petition. So, I'm the officer on the ambulance. I regularly run accidents in this intersection because of what's already there.

There is a gas station already there. There's a why not stop, and there's a gas station anchored on the other side of university. So, I didn't see in the proposal anything to really like, any extraordinary circumstance for all of the multiple design exceptions and waivers that this developer asked for. In my view anyway, waivers should have a compelling reason, and I didn't see anything. I do like that they're trying to preserve the, nature, but there is no market demand that was accompanying that.

There's no market analysis of what already exists, and that is already a very tricky intersection as it was just redesigned less than five years ago. We're still running accidents by people who come and have lived in Prince William County forever, and they don't they're not familiar with the new road. I don't know if you guys are familiar with it. There's now a hard left turn. There's all sorts of changes on Godwin And 28, and there's all sorts of construction on, University.

There's also, a lot of stuff over there with Micron because there was a fatality accident there several years ago with Micron. So it's just a very confusing place. And having a gas station that has a lot of through traffic, especially if you're gonna have a a drive through, I think is gonna, a, significantly increase the fire and rescue burden. And I don't see that there's any gain to the citizens of Prince William County by having literally another gas station when there's probably four of them within a quarter mile radius. I also didn't see in the in the proposal any dedication to native plants or xeriscaping.

We have a tremendous problem in Prince William County with invasive plants. That is an area there's a retention pond right there that has a lot of flocks of geese and other wildlife. They're taking a lot of it out, a lot of the the landscaping in that area. But I don't they say that they're gonna plant it and landscape it, but I don't see any requirement at all for native landscaping. And I think they're just gonna put whatever's cheap and easy, and that's gonna cause a lot of ecological damage and some, stormwater concerns.

So I also would like to see I know I'm one person, but, I would like to see a tree canopy analysis. There's a lot of traffic in that area. The bypass for 234 goes right there. 66 is right there. There's a lot of vehicular traffic. The air quality is already pretty trash in the summertime. And if you're gonna cut down a couple acres of trees, I would love to see an air quality analysis just to see if we can afford for people that live there and breathe there, myself included. I mean, I don't live there, but I I spend a lot of my time there staffing a a fire rescue unit that I would I would love to be able to actually breathe without that being carcinogens. And that's all I have on this one. So thank you very much for listening.

Thank you. And then do we wanna let the applicant respond real quick?

Applicant, would you like to respond? I

just wanna respond to the fire and rescue. We did reach out to the fire marshal's office. They did review it. There is a monetary contribution associated with it. They did not provide any concerns, from what we heard from, the public speaker. So from our standpoint, you know, we we go by the evaluation that we get from the fire marshal's office. I'll let the applicant address the other issue.

As far as transportation for this specific site, the applicant has also proffered dedicated turn lanes in and out of the site. So there's a dedicated left turn lane on University into the site, as well as the dedicated right turn lane into the site. Actually so this site is already zoned and can have uses, so it is less trips than what could be on the site by right, and that's the same as far as the tree canopy as well. But as part of our proposal, we do have significant open space, and I can read those amounts just so you have them. So of this site, we do have two land bays.

So land bay a and land bay b, and land Bay B is our open space land bay, which is completely tree preserved in 8.84 acres. Of that site is tree preservation. And the applicant, commissioner Carroll, part of your motion, is willing to do a condition. Ultimately, staff drafts the conditions, but the applicant would accept a condition that 85% of new plantings on the property be native to Virginia. And then just 38% of our site is tree preservation.

Okay. Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

So I'd like to thank the speaker for coming out. If you're able to, please email the supervisor's office. Just share those concerns so we can make sure we're tracking those because we're just the recommendation, then it goes to the board for final approval. But definitely wanna make sure we're hearing those concerns. And

a point of clarification. They say the fire marshal's office, but in DFR, the fire marshal deals with Carson. The DFR deals with operations.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. If if you can just email

Yeah.

Those, and we'll we'll definitely review. But with that, I move to recommend approval of R E Z 2017 Dash 00005 Innovation South, subject to the proffers dated 09/12/2025 with the following recommendations. Between now and BOCS hearing, continue to work with county staff on incorporating a crosswalk across Godwin and inclusion of 85% of new plantings being native to Virginia.

Second. Okay.

The motion, has been properly made by Commissioner Carroll and properly seconded by Commissioner Justice to approve rezoning REZ2017Dash00005 for innovation style rezoning. Madam clerk, can you please call the vote? Sher Brown?

Yes. Vice chair of justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Moses Smith? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Shake? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay. So I'm gonna take over his chair because the next one is in our current chair's district. So commissioner Carroll, is anyone signed up to speak for item c?

We have four speakers. Three are against.

So it would go to the regular public hearing.

We're gonna have to move it. Okay. I'll hand it back over to you. Okay.

Thank you very much. We're going to take item C off and put that on the regular public hearing. We will now move to item eight, public comment. If anyone has any public comments that are for items that are not on our agenda for this evening, you are welcome to get up and speak. This is for public comments for any items that are not on our agenda this evening.

Seeing that there's no one, to speak, we will now move to

We item number did have a couple people online. Not sure if they are here. And I would just clarify too if anybody was wishing to speak on the Green Haven as that is closed. If there's any comments on that, now would be the time. But were there any speakers? Are there any speakers online?

Good evening. Yes, sir. We have one speaker online, Michael Feitman.

Yes. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes to address the planning commission meeting. I'm gonna turn my camera on. I know You guys wanna see me or not. So it's my name is Michael Whiteman. My family and I have lived in the Amberleigh Station development since 2004. I've searched for a word that can best describe our feelings regarding the proposed 11 data centers that would encircle our neighborhood. At this time, the one word that I feel would be most appropriate would be aghast.

We moved into this quiet little neighborhood over twenty years ago. Only one entrance and we were surrounded by forest. An ideal location for our home and family in Prince William County. How in the world have we arrived at this meeting in discussing 11 data centers that will tower over our homes, create constant noise, impact the value of our homes, and above all, impact the quality of life of all our households and families that'll be surrounded now by data centers and not forest. Looking at the site plans, it's disturbing that this is even being proposed.

It appears that our little neighborhood has been singled out to be punished and subject to the atrocities of data centers. I ask each member of the commission, the property owner, the developers, would you wanna live in our neighborhood for the next several years during construction and then live with the aftermath of the destruction of our serene way of life? We bought our homes here, raised our children here. We've invested in a location and lifestyle that may be taken away. Would you wanna live here?

I reviewed and responded to the notice by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It's interesting that the subject of the impact on the environment and wildlife needed to be studied. What about the children, women, and many that live here? In the twenty two years that we have lived here, I'm sure we have outlived any field mouse, fox, bat, or any other life form. Where is our impact statement?

Please do not allow this development to proceed at this location or near any neighborhood such as ours. I've driven around Bristol, Gainesville, Haymarket, Manassas, and I'm shocked to see the homes facing directly across the street from data center monstrosities. I can only imagine how these homeowners feel and probably are trapped and not being able to sell their homes. Please vote no on this development. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers online?

Good evening. We have one who is trying to join now. I'm not sure how you wanna handle that.

Is he on or is she on?

She's, in

the process of joining as we speak.

Okay. We can give her thirty seconds.

Thank you.

Okay. Has the speaker joined?

Excuse me. Yes, they have. Our next speaker is Jessica Grove.

Hi. I'm sorry. Which I'm I just joined in. Which one are you going over?

This is public comment for anyone to comment on items that are not on our agenda this evening. What are you here to speak about?

I'm here to speak about a lot, but I'm going skip it for right now, and I'll join for the public hearings later.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers online to have their say in the public comment?

No, we have no other speakers. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. We will now move to item nine, deferral and oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. We will now move to item nine, deferral and continuation. Mister Venegas, do we have any deferrals or continuations?

Chair Brown, we do have one continuation, rezoning 2025 Dash 9 Greenhaven at Broad Run.

Okay. Thank you very much. This particular, case was deferred, and the public hearing has been closed for this. So I will now turn this over. This is item number REZ2025Dash00009 Greenhaven At Broad Run, which is in the Brentsville district. So I'll turn this over to commissioner Carroll.

And I think we're gonna have a brief presentation by the applicant and then the county archaeologist just to fill us in on the recent developments.

Good evening, chair Brown and members of the planning commission. My name is Janelle Cameron with Walsh, Kaluchi, Lubeli, and Walsh here tonight on behalf of the applicant, JR Real Estate.

Yep.

We are here, to talk to you tonight about Greenhaven at Broad Run, which is a 120 acres in size along Vint Hill Road and Pioneer Drive. We were at the February. The public hearing was closed, and it was deferred. Commissioner Carroll specifically made a motion to defer, as it related to Historical Site 44 P W 1530 to understand the historical commission's previous review of the application, as there was a suggestion that the historical commission did not review the proffer, the phase two report. Historical Site 44 P W 1530 was mapped in 2003 when a phase one was conducted on the site.

The findings in 2003 included 17 artifacts from eight positive shovel tests. The artifacts included six fragments of whiteware, five fragments of pearlware, three unidentified fragments of ceramics, one olive amber liquor bottle glass fragments, and two oyster shell half fragments. In 2003, the study concluded that there were no architectural materials and all artifacts that were found were in the plow zone area and because the nature of the site and the deflated nature of the soils, the phase one concluded that no features are expected to be found in that area. The phase two did not identify any features but found ceramic glass, lithic scatter, and nails. The phase two recommended that the site is eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

And this just provides a timeline of the phase one and phase two reports. The phase one was completed in 2003. The applicant completed a phase one archaeological survey and a phase two evaluation. In September 2003, that study was submitted to the county on 08/14/2024. On 11/12/2024, the historical commission reviewed the phase two study and recommended no further work.

12/10/2024, the meeting minutes were approved by the historical commission, And then there was a question at some point from historical commissioner as to whether there was a cemetery on-site. In May on 05/20/2025, the historical the cemetery preservationist in the county concluded that there is not a cemetery on the site. Based on the feedback that we heard between the February 25 planning commission, and this planning commission, the applicant provided proffers to the county that requires an archaeological phase three report, curation of any artifacts that are found with the phase three report. All of the artifacts that were found with the phase two have been curated with the county already. It also requires a mitigation plan.

The applicant proffered a historical marker, and the applicant also proffered an interpretive sign. At the historical commission public hearing yesterday, the historical commission re reviewed that phase two report, and they made recommendations. And I can answer any questions that you all may have.

Commissioner Justice?

Oh, resolution to be approved, I understand.

Yes.

So this doesn't have to do with the historical study, but since you're back I'm back. I asked about a reduction in density last time. Yes. Can we revisit that?

Yes. The applicant is willing to reduce the density by 20 units.

I don't have any other questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Carroll?

Thanks. Just to add a little context, and I know you showed me earlier, but just to make sure all my colleagues are aware, can we perfect.

I apologize. It started from the beginning. So this is the site that was found. There are no structures that were found on the site, and we do not believe that there are any structures just based on the shovel test and digging that they had to do for the site, for the phase one and the phase two.

Okay. Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

Just showing where it is in relation to our site plan. I guess this is a question for Justin. Just in terms of kind of process related, I know in the phase two report from August, I think it was August 2024, that had recommended the phase three to be done. Like, what, like, what happened? I guess, why was that never done? Because now we're including into the proffers now almost two years later that we're still gonna do the phase three.

Chair Brown, planning commissioners, my name is Justin Patton, county archaeologist, planning manager within the planning office. Those phase three studies have traditionally been something that is proffered.

Okay. So the expectation is when would it like, I guess, what's the time frame, the length of a Phase III report? And when would

that

Well,

if you look at the proffers that have been recommended, change the fieldwork is and reporting is completed prior to site plan approval. And if it extends, we would modify the site plan, build around it and then finish our fieldwork and then do a site plan revision.

Okay.

It's we do this we've been doing this for twenty or more years.

Okay. And my last question for now is, does the Phase III, does that necessarily go dig deeper than a phase one or a phase two study where we may find any sort of structure, potential structure?

So the purpose of a phase three is to mitigate adverse effects to an archaeology site. So the phase one is an identification survey, and the phase two is an evaluation survey. Phase three is an extensive detailed effort to recover as much information as possible from the site before it is no longer there. And as this commission knows, archaeology is a destructive process. We recover information as we excavate, and we do additional analysis post excavation. So the intent of a data recovery or a phase three is to recover as much data as possible and then report that out. So it's a very labor intensive effort. It's a very methodologically intensive effort, and it takes a long time to write up that report.

Okay. I

have a question for, Justin.

We just clarify something really quick. Okay.

Commissioner Carroll, so mister Patton's a subject matter expert, and, he is correct. Usually, with phase three, we do it prior to site plan approval. But in this instance, the applicant didn't move forward with it, you know, prior to come to the PC because the historic commission at the time said no further work needed. So I just wanna clarify that that was the distinction. But mister Patton is correct that we usually put it in the proffers that it will be done prior to site plan. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification, mister Venegas. So mister Patton, would you say that, from what you've seen, would you recommend a a phase three or you don't do you think it's necessary?

I would am recommending a phase three.

You would. Based on what?

Based on the material that's been found

Mhmm.

The age of the site, and the possibility of it being linked to a slate site.

Okay. Thank you. Moving down to commissioner Ross.

This is just stay Justin. I'm not sure who answers this but the historical commission's recommendation is that the equivalent of what we saw in the proffers offered tonight or would the proffers have to be updated again in order to include the commission's recommendation? So

the stepping back just a minute, the commission accepts the phase three recommendations. They also recommended give me just a second here. So they also made some very specific recommendations regarding some of the proffers.

Thank you for putting that up.

So they recommended that to delete proffer 14 was to install a historical marker. And they wanted to take that effort and add that effort to proffer 15, which is to install one interpretive sign, which is if you think of the National Park Service wayside style signs that we see everywhere, That's the style of sign for for that proffer. But apply that historical marker effort to proffer 15. The wayside signs have a wider variety of media that you can implement through that product. So they felt that would be a better way to tell the story than a historical marker and one interpretive sign.

Okay. If I heard you correctly, gave us more clarity on what the commission's recommendations were and they would require further modification of the proffers perhaps between now and a board vote.

Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank

you, chair. Commissioner Moses Nick.

Thank you, chair. Miss Cameron, I think I saw that there is a cemetery on the adjacent property. Is that correct? I thought I saw it at the bottom of one of your slides. And I just my only well, go back to that slide, the one you just passed. There's a cemetery adjacent to the project area south of Bent Hill, Woodlawn Church Cemetery.

If I may answer that question.

Yes, mister Pat.

Commissioner Moses Ned, there is a cemetery on the opposite side of Bent Hill Road from this application.

Okay.

So it's not impacted by this application.

Thank you very much. That's exactly what

Okay. Seeing that there are no more questions, we will take it back to Commissioner Carroll.

Thanks. Just one two quick questions. So if the Phase III does determine there is a structure there, is that still or is the would the plan be to preserve that structure at that point? Or would that still be a potential recovery, relocate? Or is it just kind of TBD?

TBD, but likely potential recovery and relocate.

Okay. And then the follow on question to Commissioner Justice's density question. The 20 residences decrease, are we potentially looking at removing the homes from this location?

Reducing the amount of townhomes on the site, which are to the front of the site. Okay.

I have a quick question for you, miss Cameron. Yes. If you reduce the amount of homes, would that reduce the amount of affordable units?

No. Yes. Nope. Don't worry. Yes. Yes. We do 10% of the total units as affordable. Okay. So the reduction would reduce the amount of affordable units.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Seeing that there's no more questions, it is back to you, commissioner Carroll.

Thank you. So, you know, my job as I see it as a planning commissioner is to get these land use cases in the best possible shape before they go to the board in terms of any outstanding questions, lingering issues, kind of unknowns. And unfortunately,

with

everything that has kind of took place, I just do not have a comfort level at this point in recommending this for approval based on kind of the unknowns. I think we've done a great job trying to mitigate some of that over the past two weeks, especially taking into account what the historical commission did last night. But I mean, we're at the point this is already scheduled for the Board at the end of this month. And I mean so they're not even gonna have the historical commission resolution if if that's coming in April. So, you know, I am disappointed that this is already scheduled for the board before we've even have made a resolution or a recommendation.

So with that, yeah, I can't support this iteration of the project, and I move to recommend to now of REZ2025Dash00009.

Second.

I'm sorry. Hang on one second. We have a light on from director Washington. Would you like to comment before we?

Sure. Just wanted to speak to Commissioner Carroll's comment related to this case being scheduled on with the board on March 31. Just wanted to note that all of the cases that were before the Planning Commission from for for the February 25 public hearing. Planning commission public hearing were scheduled for an additional evening public hearing with the board on March 31. Most of the cases that were scheduled, including this one at the February 25 Planning Commission meeting were the cases that were originally scheduled for the January 28 Planning Commission meeting that was canceled due to the weather conditions.

And there was a desire by the board to in order to avoid further delays with those cases to go ahead and get those scheduled for a public hearing at the March before the April because April, pretty much, we can't have any evening land use cases because that's pretty much budget. And so it would all those cases would have had to wait until May. So that's why it was scheduled. But the final agenda that goes to the board is dependent upon the Planning Commission actually taking action on those cases.

Okay. Thank you very much. Did you have a

Can I just ask a quick follow-up I to recognize we had the weather in January? But have since our deferral two weeks ago, has anyone touched base with the board about why we had deferred it for the two weeks?

Yes. Yes, I spoke with the chair about it. Okay. And yes, I spoke with the chair about it, noted that it was deferred until March 11 and had a discussion as to whether or not to keep that case on the agenda assuming the Planning Commission takes some type of action tonight and the chair wanted it to stay on the agenda assuming the Planning Commission takes action on it tonight.

Thank you, commissioner Moses Nitt. It's okay. It's okay? Alright. The motion has been for r e I'm sorry. For REZ2025Dash00009Greenhaven at Broad Run. Commissioner Carroll has made the motion to deny, and it's been properly seconded by commissioner Ross. Madam clerk, can you please call the vote? Sher Brown. No. Vice Chair of Justice.

I appreciate getting the definitive answers, from the county on a lot of the questions that we had last time, and I'm also happy that we had a reduction in units. So for that reason, I'd be a no. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes. Commissioner Moses Smith? No. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaikh? No. Commissioner Scheifler? No. Commissioner Sherman? No. Motion fails.

I'd like to make a motion to approve rezoning REZ 2020 Five-nine Greenhaven at Broad Run.

Second. Okay.

We have a motion on

the floor to approve REZ 2025Dash0009 by commission by I'm sorry. Oh. I'm sorry, everyone. Vice chair justice has made the motion to approve R E Z 2025 Dash 0009, and it has been properly seconded by commissioner Sheikh.

Point of order. Can we add the

proper, statement date of February 27?

Can I amend Yes? My

Yes. You can.

Yes. Okay.

I'll just add it to.

Thank you.

So what what was the change?

Add the historic the cultural resource elements that we, went over.

Okay. But that doesn't include minus 20 units?

It does not.

Okay. So we wanna make that as part of the motion.

Okay. Withdraw your motion.

I'd like to withdraw my motion and make a new motion.

Go right ahead.

What was that date one more time?

It was 02/27/2026.

February 26. I'd like to make a motion to approve rezoning R E Z 202500009 Greenhaven At Broad Run with the proffers dated 02/27/2026, and included with that is the reduction of 20 units. I thought that was included with the February 27. And the incorporation of the historic Commission's Commission's recommendations. Second. Thank you.

Thank

you. The motion has been made, to approve r e z sorry. R E Z 2025 Dash 00009 Green Haven At Broad Run by vice chair justice, and it has been properly seconded by commissioner Sheikh. Madam clerk, can you

please call for the vote? Sher Brown? Yes. Vice chair justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? No. Commissioner Moses Smith? Yes. Commissioner Ross? No. Commissioner Shaikh? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. We will now move on to item 10, which is the planning director's time, so we're to turn it over to Director Washington. The floor is yours.

Just give us one moment, get the presentation loaded. Evening, I'm Tanya Washington, Planning Director with planning office and here to provide some quick updates on recent planning office activities. Next slide. So I mentioned during my previous, planning director's, time that we were going to be doing the kickoff community meetings for the sustainability and reasoning as comprehensive plan amendment, and we have completed those meetings. There were three of them.

The first one was an in per excuse me. The first one was a virtual meeting on February 18, and then we held two in person meetings on February 26 and March 4, and we got some great participation from community members who joined us virtually and in person. This is just a snapshot of one of the boards that we had at the in person meetings. I also wanted to note before I move on that while these particular community meetings, these are just the kickoff meetings, so this is just the first opportunity for the community to engage. We do have an online survey that is open until March 18.

It is available on the PWC Works website. We have our project page for this effort. And so if there are any community members who want to look at the materials from the kickoff community meetings, there is a recording of the virtual meeting as well as the survey. We definitely, encourage residents, to take a look at that.

Your QR code is dead. Says it's found.

So your survey does not come up with a valid face.

Excuse me. Please allow her to complete her presentation. Thank you very much.

Thank

you. Thank you for letting us know. We'll fix the QR code, but if you search for PwC Works in any search engine, that's what I do. I actually have a link to it, but if you go to that page, to the main page, you'll find a project website and you can get to the survey that way. But thank you for letting us know that. We'll get that corrected. You can move to the next slide. So these are just some images from the in person community meetings. I wanted to note and this was something that we talked about during the meeting. The planning office is leading this effort because it is an amendment to the comprehensive plan.

However, it is a multi departmental effort. So we have our project team includes representatives from the office of sustainability, the office of emergency management, as well as transportation. And so there are multiple people shown speaking because we all shared the duties of talking about the project and providing a lot of background information for that. Next slide. I also wanted to note that last Monday, I was a speaker at the county's twenty twenty six state of the county event.

There were, three panel discussions with a variety of department directors, and I participated on a panel called Reimagining Living and Playing in a County, where, I, along with the director from the Department of Parks and Recreation, a representative from the Department of Economic Development and Tourism, our housing director were interviewed by chair Jefferson. The video of the entire event is on the county's website if you would like to take a look at that. Next slide. Thank you. And so this is a snapshot of the PWC Works website.

As I noted, the sustainability and resilience comprehensive plan amendment can be accessed from there. But I particularly wanted to highlight an additional project that the planning office has added to PWC works. This is the land use review process improvements initiative. There are quite a number of initiatives and efforts that our department has undertaken to streamline and to make the lane use case review process more efficient. I want to give particular shout out to Alex Venegas, who is the assistant planning director for the land use review division.

The majority of these improvements, pretty much affect his division and his team and their work, leading the county's review of land use cases at the most. We have another assistant planning director, Tony Alston, who's also here. The countywide division that the countywide planning division that he leads also reviews some land land use cases such as CPAs, etcetera, and so their efforts are included. But this is a great way for us to document and share with the public the variety of efforts that we have been undertaking. One of our big objectives is to move the entire process fully online.

We currently receive PDF applications, paper copies, and everything is up into inner gov where the case records lie. But ultimately, there are a number of efforts that we've undertaken, again, to streamline it and to get this process fully online. I also just wanted to highlight quickly that that webpage also has several case management metrics that we will be reporting on publicly moving forward. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Seeing that there are no questions, thank you, Director Washington, for that wonderful presentation. We will now be moving to item 11, public hearings. Please let me remind everyone that we do not, permit people in the audience to speak, out speak out of turn. If you are going to make a comment about a particular case on the docket, we ask that you go to the back when we call for the public comments for you to speak, and please do not yell from your chair.

And we want you to be respectful because we are conducting county business, So thank you for that. We'll now be moving on to item c, and I'm gonna let, vice chair justice take over this part.

Thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant to come up to present item c, Mapledale Residential Rezoning. Good

evening again, Chair Brown and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Janelle Cameron with Walsh, Colucci, Lubeli, and Walsh here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Rock Creek Property Group, seeking a rezoning. With me tonight are members of Rock Creek Property Group, our civil engineering team, as well as our transportation consultants. As a road map, we're going to walk through with you all the property location, land use, and zoning, the proposal including the layout, buffers, unit mix, as well as amenities, and I will go ahead and get started. So the property that we are talking about today is at the intersection of Ridgefield here and Dale Boulevard here. Excuse me, miss Cameron. Yes, ma'am.

Ma'am, why are you standing?

Oh, because I'm gonna become

I'm sorry?

She'll you.

Uh-huh. She'll call you

with me. What's your turn?

So I just got up.

Okay. You can just have a seat. We'll we'll recognize you. Not right now. You can have a seat, and we'll we'll let you know when it's time. Okay?

Okay.

Go ahead, miss Cameron. Okay.

So the property is approximately 15.68 acres, and it is located, again, Ridgefield in Dale Boulevard. The property is currently zoned RPC residential community with a commercial land bay, and the applicant is proposing this rezoning to PMR plan mixed residential. It is designated in the long range land use plan as mixed use three in parks and open space. This slide shows the portion of the Dale City RPC. So, again, it is designated in this area here as RPC commercial.

And this slide here shows the walkability and contextual exhibit to be able to see what is surrounding the area. So Beville Middle School is here, the Boys and Girls Club is here, Prince William Ice Center is here, Waterworks Waterpark is located here, and then this is the Mapledale Plaza Shopping Center. This slide is an illustrative of the proposal. The applicant is proposing to construct a residential community of 208 units. A 174 of those units are multifamily stacked units, which could be two over two or back to back units, and 34 of those units are townhome units.

The applicant is proposing 24 affordable dwelling units, 10 of those units up to 80% AMI, and 11 of those units up to a 120% AMI. In a meeting that we had with, chair Brown, she requested that we flip that number. So do 11 of the units up to 80% AMI and 10 of the units up to a 120% AMI, and the applicant is willing to make that change in the proffers between the Planning Commission and board. The applicant is proposing approximately 40% of the site as open space, and in the next couple of slides, I will walk through with you the buffers. Access to the site will be from Ridgefield Road in this area here, and then using the existing shopping center access on Dale Boulevard in this area here.

This slide shows the proposed housing. The applicant is seeking housing waivers to the PMR standards, and this slide here shows the multifamily stacked units, and the applicant again is seeking waivers to the PMR standards. And this slide here is an illustrative of the open space plan. The applicant again is doing 40% of the site as open space. That is an increase of 10% over the required PMR 30% open space.

The applicant is also providing a 30 foot buffer north of the site, 30 foot buffers adjacent to Richfield, and 30 foot buffers along Dale Boulevard. The applicant is providing a 30 foot buffer in this area here around the commercial. As part of the proposal, the applicant did seek a waiver of the 50 foot buffer that is required adjacent to the commercial shopping center. The goal for this development was really to integrate the residential with the commercial to make it more of a mixed use feel, which is why the applicant has requested a waiver to that buffer standard. This slide here shows the amenities, so the applicant has proffered the amenities which include this is the existing building here that is the existing Hilton office building.

The applicant will be retaining that office use as part of this proposal and request. The applicant has proffered that 3,400 square feet of this building will be within, for clubhouse that will be made available to the residents. The applicant has also proffered a park and gazebo in this area here, a courtyard in this area here, and then a playground for ages two to 12, in this area here. And meeting with commissioner Moses Ned, she asked if we can look at alternative playground designs that are more unique in nature similar to some other projects that have come before the planning commission, and the applicant is willing to make that revision as well in the design guidelines. As part of the proposal, the applicant is required to do a traffic impact analysis, and as part of the traffic impact analysis, the applicant is required to look at the six intersections on the screen.

With a traffic impact analysis, you're required to look at what is the level of service today, what is the level of service in the future, considering a 2% annual growth rate per year, as well as any unapproved projects that are in the pipeline but not yet developed. The applicant is then required to look at what is the level of service in the future with that 2% annual increase as well as any unapproved projects and our project to look at whether or not the levels of service at these intersections will be degraded. And if there is degradation to those intersections, the applicant is required to mitigate those impacts. The traffic impact analysis is reviewed by both VDOT and Prince William County Transportation. The applicant here, as part of the traffic impact analysis, it came back that there are no that the level of service is the same in the future, so there's not a degradation of the level of service.

The applicant is required to construct their proposed site entrances as shown on our master zoning plan, provide pedestrian connectivity as provided in the master zoning plan, as well as provide signal timing adjustments. The applicant is required to have a 200 foot taper along Richfield in this area here. That was not shown on our master zoning plan, but the applicant will update the master zoning plan to include that 200 foot taper. This slide here shows the interior street network. So the interior streets are 22 feet in width where the alleyways are and then the private streets are 24 feet in width.

The applicant is required to provide four seventy seven parking spaces and the applicant is providing five zero six parking spaces. This slide here shows the pedestrian connectivity, so the existing pedestrian connectivity. There is a sidewalk that is along Dale Boulevard. Portions of the sidewalk may not meet today's standards. So a sidewalk today is required to be five feet in width.

The applicant is required to if the existing sidewalk does not meet today's standards along the property frontage to upgrade that to five feet. And then the areas that you see in yellow are the sidewalks and trail connections through the property. This slide is a rendering just to show you what the property looks like and this is the existing shopping center, so these are the homes that would be adjacent to and line the street into the existing shopping center. And this slide is an interior rendering. One of the comments in the staff report pertained to schools.

The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution for schools. The applicant, these schools are required to go to King Elementary School which is currently under capacity but if you look at the area as a whole there is significant capacity in the Lazo Planning District. So this shows the excess capacity within the Fur Lazo Planning District which is three nineteen. And that concludes my presentation. I can answer any questions that you all may have when it's my time.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and hear from staff.

Good evening, chair Brown and commissioners. My name is Alex Venegas from the planning office, and I'm the case planner for Mapledale residential rezoning. So this is a request to rezone approximately 15.6 acres from residential plan community to PMR to develop approximately 208 dwelling units. And this is the breakdown, a 174 multifamily stacked, 34 single family attached. And they also have a request for a height modification from 45 to 55 feet.

As described by Janelle and the applicant, this is the general location. It's adjacent to Mapledale Plaza, which is a commercial shopping center. It's at the corner of Ridgefield Road, Dale Boulevard, and the next closest intersection is Queensdale, Mapledale Avenue, and Dale Boulevard. Staff is recommending approval for this application. So as part of the comprehensive plan long range land use, this area is m u three, mixed use three.

It does have a portion that's parks and open space. In this the zoning district is RPC with the underlying district of commercial. Part of the reason we changed this to mixed use three is because we envisioned that we wanted to create a little area where we have both residential that could support support the existing shopping plaza, and we believe that this application does that. Again, it's also in the Dale City small area plan, which envision this area as having residential to support that the shopping plaza. So this is a retail shopping plaza built in 1990 within the Dale City residential plan community.

It's approximately 1,600 I'm sorry. A 168,000 square feet of retail space and office space. And in addition, it has the 14 acres of vacant land and that vacant land is what the applicant is proposing to develop residential units on. They're also providing affordable dwelling unit density bonus. So they're providing 21 affordable dwelling units and as you heard, they intend to switch.

They're going make 11 units up to 80% AMI and 10 of the dwelling units will be up to 120% AMI, which we consider workforce housing. This is the existing conditions map. Oops. I think I went

back too far.

This shows the ingress and egress to the property or to the proposed development. One access point is through Ridgefield Road, and the other one's to use the existing ingress egress to the shopping plaza. And the main arterial road will be a private street. This is the open space and buffering plan. The applicant did provide a greater buffering than I'm sorry, a greater amount of open space than what was required for this district.

And as you can see, they're providing buffers all around. The buffering between the shopping plaza and the residential development, the applicant did request a waiver for. We are supportive of it because we do want this to be a walkable environment. We want people to be able to walk to Giant and the other types of shopping and retail within that plaza. They are making some transportation entrance improvements and this is also showing the utility plan associated with that.

This is one of the tapers that was that's existing. This is the illustrative plan of the development, and this shows the pedestrian network that's that this development has its internal connectivity to the shopping plaza and this shows all the connective pedestrian areas within that network. They are gonna provide some multifamily stock stacked homes and these are the lot dimensions. They are also requesting a height waiver which staff is approving of because that provides opportunity to make the development mixed use and have a little higher density associated with the development. These are some of the elevations of what it would look like within the development.

The applicant also provided some additional illustratives. And these are the townhouse elevations. Open space and landscaping is shown here, and these are the amenities. I'm gonna go through those again as the applicant already went through that. And staff has recommended approval for rezoning 2024 Dash 00045 Mapledale Residential subject to the proffers dated 02/23/2026 for the following reasons.

The surrounding use and land use designations are compatible with what is being requested in the rezoning. The proposed residential project provides needed housing within the comprehensive density identified in the Dale City small area plan as well as the MU three mixed use community classification within the comprehensive plan, as well as a proposed residential project provides a walkable community, which is very important with easy access to both pedestrian and bus facilities on Dale Boulevard, as well as the retail commercial development to its west. And with that, we'll gladly take any questions that the commission may have.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna go ahead and do public comment time, and everybody can speak in the back. Individuals will have three minutes, and if you're with an organization, you'll have five minutes. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes. Brenda Kelly Nevin.

Nellum, n e l u m.

Nellum. Thank you. Renee Struark, Melody Miller, and Derek Cunningham. Just again, name, magisterial district, or generally where you live, and you will have three minutes unless you're representing organization.

I just came to voice my concern because I'm not really fully knowledgeable

Could you on pull the mic? You can actually grab just pull it down so

we Can hear me now?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

My name is Brenda Kelly Nellum, and I live in Neabsco District. And I have a concern. I'm also a life member of the Dell City Civic Association. I plan to take this issue to the Civic Association because I have concerns about this for the overcrowding of the schools, which we have been through when this happened before. And I'm also concerned about the shopping centers. Will we have enough shopping center? And that was what I wanted to to voice my concern about those issues. And that's it.

Thank you.

Were there any other speakers? Renee, Melody, or Derek?

Not one of those people would like to speak.

You absolutely can. Yeah. If someone didn't sign up and would like to head to the back to speak, now now would be the time.

Hi. My name is Carrie Langerman. I have I live on Quiet Place. It is a house that backs up to where this is being rezoned. I am vehemently opposed to this. One, I don't think we have the infrastructure to support it. We are already overcrowded. I have young kids in the schools. It is full. People zip down our streets already, adding 500 more parking spots upwards of two fifty, 300 houses that add so much more.

What is the plan to accommodate all these additional houses? And our giant is not large enough. Are we knocking down every other tree on the other side of the street to build another shopping center? We are getting rid of every green space to crowd our spaces. We do not have the infrastructure. How are we that have lived here a long time? I bought a house fifteen years ago here. Being accommodated for all of this building and growth, what ensures we are still okay in this area? I am completely and completely opposed to this, and it impacts my house directly. I'm right there, right behind it.

So I I really hope that we do not allow the rezoning. Adding that all this additional is really awful, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you. My name is Paul Brown. I live in the Princedale section of Dale City. Recently, we just put up an entire apartment building complex in my neighborhood, the Fitzgerald Building. Mhmm. That has brought nothing but chaos to my neighborhood. Mhmm. Lots and lots of cars parked along the street. Lots of of trash.

This this past weekend, we had the entrance sign to my neighborhood run over by a car. That's only maybe a half a mile to a mile max from where we're talking about putting this new destination of homes. The homes we don't need. I've lived in that Prince Dale section for twenty years. Before that, I lived right behind this Mapledale Shopping Center in the townhouses for ten years.

So I know the area well. The homes that we're talking about building, you're asking to put them on a hill, plus you wanna put another amendment to make the buildings even taller. So I gotta come out of my neighborhood and look at skyscraper. Quite honestly, whoever the architect is for these buildings, they're they're they're atrocious looking buildings. So I I don't think that I need to have that in my eyesight for the next twenty years that I plan to live in this area.

I'm not happy with the immediate plan of putting up buildings that really have no in or out way. That that is a very poor entrance for the the destination coming off of a the hill the street that connects the that's along Ridgefield. Ridgefield. If you're going down a hill and then turning quickly into a neighborhood, it's a bad it's gonna be a bad decision. There's gonna be accidents there.

People are gonna turn quickly on it. You're taking away the green space too. And it's a strip mall. It's not a residential it's not a an area like this Quartz area that they're building. It's a strip mall. Okay? We have to recognize it's it's got a shopping center and a sheets. You're gonna also ask to put in adjusted home value homes. I don't know what the term is for it, but affordable homes in a strip mall. That's what you're going to get.

You're going to get lower income people in a strip mall area, and it's going to bring down the home values for the whole area. I don't think we need it. I highly ask that the board vote against it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I start my time, my name is Melody Miller, but I wanna apologize, to the planning director. I did not mean to interrupt you. You just kept mentioning the QR code, and I didn't know that you didn't know it didn't So I didn't want you to give everybody a thing that wasn't working. So I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt you. My name is Melody Miller. I live in Yavsko. I actually live, like this gentleman. I live right behind Mapledale Plaza. I've lived here since the mid nineties.

So, clearly, I've seen quite a bit of evolution, in Dale City. I've been running for and rescue for twenty six years, but I've lived here for much longer. My very first concern is the lack of justification for the zoning change. There are, under the current zone, they are allowed to do everything that they wanna do, and there doesn't seem to be a compelling enough justification to move to a less restrictive zoning code and then add a bunch of waivers on it. So, I didn't see any justification, especially because there are two other proposals for that Mapledale area, all of which have high density housing.

For the AMI that they're suggesting, those income, 80% and a 120%, they do not support housing diversity, especially for people of color. It the median income in Prince William for 2024 is $94,000. If you have to make a 120, that's a $130,000. I mean, that's still not enough for teachers or fire and rescue or civil servants to afford a house in that neighborhood. Their environmental assessments, appear incomplete.

You're taking out acres and acres and acres of established old growth woodland that help us control stormwater. As somebody who regularly has two and a half standing inches of water and a fully involved mosquito community in my backyard because of poor stormwater management, that berm is the only thing keeping me from being eaten alive. I mean, I could probably stand to be eaten alive, lose 20 pounds, but I would prefer not to kill the ecosystems that are already there, especially the possums that eat the ticks. The ticks are out of control since we don't have true winter. The mosquitoes are out of control.

The screech owls, the bats, they don't have any place to go. And I can tell you from my cameras, most of them, when you put townhouse communities are coming into my yard. So, I there's no wildlife relocation plan. There's no talk about preserving ecosystems. Again, I'm a big native xeriscaping fan, so there's a there's a lot of landscaping and benches and things like that, but that is not replacement for what we are destroying, especially in the greater context of the county, how much we're destroying it. There's gonna be a large increase in impervious surfaces. That water's gotta go somewhere. It's gonna go into the strip mall. It's gonna go into the houses. It's gonna go into Ridgefield.

And that's on a slope, so it's gonna go into traffic, and it's gonna cause hydroplaning and accidents. The schools are already overcapacity. I know there's money on the table to offset that. That doesn't pay for teachers. Prince William County already has a teacher crisis. We're hiring people who do not have teaching degrees. We're hiring teaching assistants at $19 an hour. That's not gonna solve that problem. The traffic is not considered the the traffic coming from the West end of the county. As somebody who lives in Queensdale, I can tell you that when they built Ridgefield, I have people that have moved because people cut through my neighborhood at 50 miles an hour in a 25 foot zone 25 mile per hour zone, and the only thing they did is add a stop sign.

There's no independent environmental review. There's, just a lot of things that are missing, and it really doesn't serve the current residents or the county at large. So thank you for your time, and I will email those concerns. I already know what you're gonna say, but thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Elena Schlossberg, and I'm in the Gainesville district, and I don't really have much to add to the speaker before me. I don't live in this area, but boy, I'm hearing some similar things from the community next to this development, higher density than is allowed, concerns about the environment. But I actually just wanted to point something out very specific, in that the map that you showed had parks and open space. There is a problem in Prince William County with where the 2040 comp plan colored in parks and open space where there were trees. And it gives a calculation that is inaccurate for our tree canopy that's gonna be protected.

Clearly, the long range use designation for this parcel is for development. It is not for parks and open space. I I'm I'm guessing. I haven't actually looked at it, but that would be my guess because I don't see anywhere in the rezoning where Joannell talked about the removal of the parks and open space. So I just want to point out that one of the issues that we are experiencing everywhere in Prince William County is that in the 2040 comp plan, they colored in with a marker any place that looked green, parks and open space, but in fact, it is not parks and open space.

The long range use plan is often very different, and I think it gives mixed messages, and it is not doing the county a benefit by not being accurate at a time when we are clearly not protecting our quality of air and our quality of water. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Rabia Fakih. I live off Prince Dale, just like the gentleman mentioned. I moved to this area 2009. It was a wonderful place to live in compared to Alexandria, and we purchased this house in Northern Court. And the the entire everywhere I go now, there is a construction. Minervie Road, construction on both sides. Caden Hill, on one side. Prince what was it? Prince William County Parkway, construction both sides along.

My my commute to my school I'm I'm school teacher in Arlington County, and my commute used to be forty five minutes. Now it's an hour and ten minutes as it is. Dale Boulevard will be very crowded. With the new development that they have down the street, we had water main broke, and I was told that I cannot get to my house that evening when I came back from work because my my van will sink. And they fixed that.

It's still not fixed properly and every time I go inside my neighborhood I'm so scared that my car will sink in there. And that was a result after that development dig that that specific space and they added more water main in there and that was the result. As I also have concern about the trash that the gentleman was talking about in those development and the security because there is a police car every other day in this community. That will bring the security down, and I don't want, like, I'm not comfortable sending kids around that area. My kids used to play freely on Northern Court.

Not anymore. Not anymore. And I do oppose this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Good

morning. My name is Derek Cunningham. I'm in the Neapsco District.

Could you pull the mic up?

Yes. I'm in the Neapsco District. I've been living in this location since 2003. I also live on Northern Court. As many people here as I'll often said, essentially, are in a heavily dense area.

I believe there is no justification to go from a zoning code that, specifically notes that is that areas and spaces are meant to be built in an orderly fashion to one another to a less restrictive zoning. All this does is provide permission for any type of residential construction to be done in a manner that does not suit the population and the surrounding area and the populace in the area. As of right now, the area is highly dense, especially with the recent construction of the Fitzgerald Apartments that are on 1525 that is 13525 Grayson Hills Circle. Essentially, with this area, there is no reason to add anything because of all the traffic that we currently have. With those new apartments, not only have there been multiple break ins to vehicles, not only has there been an overflow of trash that the residents are not managing properly, that's resulting in not only, the customers there being blamed by the own residents there.

I've had conversations with many people who actually live in their apartments. They're being blamed for the trash themselves because the management does not actually feel like it's their responsibility to clean up their own area. There's also the water main breakage that did happen while we had the weather incident that occurred earlier. Essentially, had tapped into the water main that is the entrance of our community, and because they had done so improperly, because these residents were rushed because the prior priority was to give me make money from these apartments as opposed to actually care for the community. The result was that the water main ended up bursting, and a lot of people, including my grandmother, were not able to get to their homes because of that.

And I and many other men had to shovel around all the torrential water that was going down our neighborhood, and it ended up helping my grandmother get home eventually after several hours. With this, I heard justification earlier that this, residents community will be made in in in an attempt to support the shopping center that is there that the giant is within. That is not a good justification because the shopping center that's already there is already currently supported and well supported by the community that's here. It is already very dense. It is already very populated.

There is a missing amount of traffic getting to and from work every day. There is no need for added people. All that would do is hurt the per population that is trying to get their groceries. And because Giant is there as well as many other services, such as cleaners, all you're doing is hurting people trying to go and get their daily routines done. You're not helping anybody. You're not providing any form of support. You're actually hurting the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have anybody online?

We had one person signed up, but it was miss Miller. So I believe we are set.

Okay. Perfect. I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing, and I'd like to allow the applicant and staff to answer any of the issues that were raised, and then we'll continue to our questions.

Absolutely. So I actually wanna start with the last point first. So the applicant, Rock Creek Property Group, they actually own the shopping center. So Rock Creek Property Group bought the four remaining shopping centers that Hilton owned along Dale Boulevard. So Center Plaza, Glendale Plaza, Mapledale Plaza, and Ashdale. Ashdale. Forestdale. Forestdale. Yeah. Forestdale Plaza.

Their goal was to really renovate and revitalize these shopping centers. This shopping center has the most vacancy rate out of the other three that are along this corridor. And really, they have seen and heard from their tenants the need to have more residential along the corridor. And as, you all have heard, COG has said that we are having a shortage of housing, along this area. The other thing that I did want to mention, I heard a lot about just traffic and the number of trips.

Because this site is a commercial site, the residential is actually less trips than what is permitted by right on the property today. And VDOT did review VDOT and the county did review the access in and out of the site as part of the traffic impact analysis. And as it relates to storm water management, the requirements by both the state and the county is that you have to treat the site post development the same way it is pre development. So you have to make sure that the runoff off of the site is not more than what it is today and oftentimes it ends up being less with the storm water management that is being provided on the site. So the applicant for this site has planned underground storm water management facilities as part of the process.

And I think I hit most of the comments or all of them, and if I didn't, I'm sure the planning commissioners will ask me.

Thank you.

Just for some clarification. So the Fitzgerald Apartments was a by right development. We had no say so in that. That's something that came up. But as a resident that goes to the shopping plaza who's been patronized the shopping plaza for the past fifteen years, I've seen the changes. I mean, I go to L and B. I go to Giant. I go to Ricky's Chicken. I go to all these different shopping retail shops. And a lot of them have been struggling over the years.

That's why, you know, this development, believe would be very supportive of helping, you know, bring more clientele to these areas. I know Giant has always had a challenge struggling. They have another one down in Central Plaza and haven't lived in Dale City since 1970. I've seen a lot of changes and a lot of people were against a lot of the development, around this shopping plaza even before going back to the nineteen nineties when a lot of this development was built. But these retail areas, suffer unless they get clientele coming to them.

And this I think will help that shopping plaza get the new clientele that they need. Then the other thing was the storm water. There was someone brought up the issue with storm water. There is gonna be underground storm water, and it's set to meet the, you know, current regulations, are much better than when this was built in 1990. So that that should see an improvement for this.

And then the last thing with the water main break, know, that's I don't know what happened there, but I do know that that does happen frequently. I mean, when you have agent infrastructure, things happen. And even when you're tapping into a new line, that's a challenge that you always experience. But that's something out of our purview, and it's not related to this actual application.

Thank you.

Chair Brown, if I may. I can.

I'm sorry.

Vice chair, justice, I just wanted to add with regards to the, complaints that several of the speakers noted about the Fitzgerald Apartments. I took notes about that and I will follow-up with some of our county departments who may have where that may fall under their purview to address. So I just wanted to note Great.

Thank you. Alright. We'll start with Commissioner Scheikler.

This is most likely for staff. I just wanted to pick on the parks and open space designation in the comp plan. Why is there not a comp plan amendment associated with this? I think that's a pretty drastic change to go from parks and open space. I've seen a lot of other developments. I think one near the the park on February. They got initiation because their parks and open space. Like, why why is this not addressed? Seems like it's overlooked.

So it it wasn't necessarily overlooked, but, I do agree that there are challenges with I heard one of the speakers, I think it was Elena, bring up that, you know, there are areas that are parks and open space that are on private property, so therefore, we can't really enforce that. They are providing 40% open space, which makes up for that particular area.

Is that only for the M U 3 part or do we count? For the entire We're that everything's m u three when you do all the calculations.

Yes. That is correct.

That doesn't make any sense. Like, I'm confused why you would do that.

Well, because we have the 40% open space in there. So

Okay. Well, I'm just saying

we that's something we probably need to evaluate. I I agree.

I'm frustrated that we see, like, oh, it's in in comp with the comp plans as yes. I'm like I mean, frustrated when I see approximate space and then we just ignore it. Like, you know, even when the compliment mean, just I just struggle with why we're not addressing those pieces. Like, I don't know why it was put in the first place. But, again, I think that, you know, that's the expectation when the when the the citizens see parks open space. Oh, this is gonna be parks open space. So and that's what they expect or that was approved. So I just wanna understand. I still confused why why we're not having a comp plan amendment.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Scheifler. David McGetigan from the planning office. Perhaps I can give you a little more light on the parks and open space and use of MU3 in this context. The parks and open space is again the language plan is our twenty year vision out to the future.

And we need to plan where we're going to have green infrastructure. It's not a to be a one for one where we have existing protections in place. That's not planning for the future if we already So have it we plan parks and open space as far as our green infrastructure to do that. And that's why there's privately owned land that is planned for parks and open space. But that doesn't mean that there's other ways to to do this in protecting open space.

And and having 40% of the site protected in open spaces is one way to get to the planning of additional open space. In addition, the plan is a guide. And I've said this before, The the the land use plan, even though it's it's GIS and has specific lines on it, it's really a broad brush. And I'd like to to consider it as taking a a a bigger view, a higher level view, and blurring the lines a little bit on when we interpret the comprehensive plan. So we wouldn't necessarily require a comprehensive plan amendment in every single case.

It's really very contextual and depends on how the proposed development fits into the character of the area and what was intended generally as as a guide by the comprehensive plan.

Well, I'm

just saying two weeks, we have a plan. Same thing. Parks and more space, they have a comp plan with it. I'm just saying that, you shouldn't make the assumption that you have you're doing the calculations as it as it's m u three. I mean, that's that's what's confusing to me is, like, the analysis shows, like, we're just assuming this is gonna be M U 3 and not Parsonova space. And that's a disservice to citizens who who assume that, you know, that's what the plan is, that that will be preserved at some level, and it's it's not being obviously in this case. So I appreciate it. We have these cases that it's clear that we're just ignoring the parks number space and going forward with our analysis. I mean, I just wanna make sure that that's clear in the staff report that that's what we're doing. I mean Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. So I'll leave it at

that. Thank

you. Commissioner Moses now.

Thank you, vice chair. So my question, With regard to, the community, Miss Cameron. When we met, I'd asked about, projects. That had been designed similar to this, but are there success stories? That the applicant has had where we've got a low a low tenant occupation of a shopping center, and it's been turned around by a community designed like this.

And I asked because I know he's purchased all four with the idea of of renovating, revitalizing them all, but what we've heard from the community and from mister Venegas is that this one is probably the most the one with the most capacity that needs to be filled, and I'm just wondering about some success stories that we might be able to look to as as we look at this project.

We can get you some exact examples, but when they bought these properties, it was doing this in mind. So they actually reach out to their counterparts that have done things similar in other jurisdictions, to see when they added the residential, how did it help with the pro form a and they all saw that by adding the density to these shopping centers, that the shopping centers performed better, and that they were also able to get different client different types of tenants in the shopping centers as well.

Okay. So when we talk to talk about the tenants, could you talk about, and I think we talked a little bit about this when we met, the, and I know you don't know exactly the anticipated, price point for because you indicated this is a for sale project, unlike the rental across that's nearby.

Okay. It would be between 400,000 into 650,000 depending on the unit type.

400 to 600,000, which would be that different clientele going into

Correct.

The shopping center that we talked about.

And then some of those units would be made available under the affordable dwelling unit ordinance, and it does say up to 80% and up to a 120%.

Okay. And so when you talk about the shopping center, I know it's 4040% open space within the residential

Yes, ma'am.

Area. How and and I know there's a buffer waiver request going into the shopping center parking lot. But in order to keep this, because I think it's pretty much kind of a a bit of a concrete desert, is there anything that will, also be on the backside? Not to separate the two because I see what you're trying to do, but just to provide more tree canopy in that area.

So I think what you're asking I like to rephrase the question just so I make sure I understand it moving forward. But this is the travel way here. Okay. So it is adjacent to the travel way. So one of our rendering showed it pretty well. So this is the travel way. So there's the sidewalk and then trees along the travel way. That is the design of it. So I think what you were asking is, are there opportunities to maybe add additional trees in that area? We can absolutely look into that.

Thank you. I think that's my three questions.

Okay. I have a couple questions. This question would be for staff. Schools was brought up three or four times. Can we review the the schools in the area?

So, I reached out to the schools, to see if they could look at, analyze the things because based on the CIP that we heard earlier today, you know, there's a decline in in schools. But we did notice in the application itself, although the applicant is providing monetary contributions to help out, Bevel had a slight increase between 2029 and 2030, and we don't know what residential development is adding to that. So we've asked the school staff to provide us an update on that. So we we haven't received a response yet, but once we do, we'll

So is this

is this school that would service this community at or over capacity right now or not?

It's it's thought it was

elementary and middle.

Elementary and middle.

Are at capacity or over?

Overcapacity. Overcapacity. Yeah. There's a right there. And there was, you know, one of the things that we heard from the during the CIP session earlier today is that, you know, they're they're looking at the cohort reduction because, you know, that's what we're seeing here in, I guess, the region.

But in Prince William County, we're seeing a reduction in the cohort. They also have the opportunity to redistrict as another another method. So but, once we hear back from the schools, we'll we'll provide that update.

My next question is for the applicant. You know, with these projects, parking always comes up as a concern. I know that we handled another project that was on Route 1 where the owner of the shopping center was the same as the development, very similar to this. How is this neighborhood parked versus is there a sharing between the two?

Absolutely. So at the current time, our master zoning plan shows that we are over parked and over parked just on this site. Okay. So the question that I believe you asked was, could we look into doing a shared parking agreement with the shopping center? And that's something that we can look into adding the proffers Mhmm. That there would also be not shared parking so the customers can't park in the residential, but that the residential can park on the commercial.

Because the concern is that they start parking on the streets and neighborhoods around and then it starts creating an issue there.

Yes.

Okay. And there is no parking, just so you're aware, on Ridgefield And Dale Boulevard.

But there's a neighborhood

Yes.

But there's a neighborhood yes. So I understand what you're asking. We can absolutely do that.

Okay. Commissioner Care?

Yes. Thank you. So I I too have concerns on the whole parks and open space issue. You know, I feel like some weeks, it seems to be a common occurrence where we're getting these cases with parks and open space, and we're not having CPAs. But I know in Brentsville, we we do have CPAs for parks and open space.

So hopefully, we can just get some clarification and consistency on that. And I appreciate the explanation on kind of, like, the broad abstract interpretation, and I do hope that same broad deference is given when we hear our next case on our substation. But in terms of here, and this will be a question for staff, the small area plan, I believe this was in the Dale City small area plan. Do we have the designation of what is this parcel is designated in the small area plan?

They're they're the same. The MU three and parks and open spaces. The the small area plans match the long range land use map. There's no difference between them.

Okay. So it's not I was trying to pull it up earlier. So it's not a the suburban neighborhood?

No. So in the when the 2040 comprehensive plan was adopted, we adopted new maps for all the small area plans so that they match the the current scheme. Okay. But those weren't updated in the print version of the small area plans.

Okay. Perfect. And then just my last question. In terms of the height, I know a couple of speakers made reference to the height of the units. Yes. This will be for the applicant. But in terms of the height, are are we

Please be respectful with your chatter.

Are we go and in term

If you wanna talk, you can go outside the chambers.

Just in terms of the height, for the applicant, are we at or below what is allowable in this zoning ordinance, or are we going above

We are seeking the height modification, but it's really to allow for rooftop terraces, and it's based on how the county defines, height in the zoning ordinance. So if you think about a pitched roof, the pitched roof is the same no matter whether it, the pitched roof will always be the same, but because the county zoning ordinance, defines height as the midpoint of the roof, when you have a, terrace, the midpoint of the roof is increased so that height as how we define it is increased, but the visual is not.

Okay. I I think I'm understanding. And a quick follow-up. So if we're going higher for the notices we mailed, did we send those out to the 13

We did, and we actually did a community meeting, and I'll get you those numbers. So we have held a community meeting, and we invited 1,321 people. So we went out pretty far, actually more than what our notice required as far as notice. And we actually had to send out the notices twice because the first notice, it was during the snowstorm and the schools were closed. And so yes. But we did it did go out further and then we also went further than that for our community meeting.

Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Sherman.

Hi. Thank you. I I had similar question on building height. Is the intent I know we're not at design quite at design yet, but is the intent for the maximum height to be spread across the site, or

are you

planning to step step in from the edge of the site from 45 to 55?

So the intent is for the maximum height to be So these here are the two over two units. So those could be up to the 55, but that depends on whether or not somebody the home is built with the rooftop terrace. So if the home is not built with the rooftop terrace, it may not be that high. And then these homes here are the townhome units.

And my second question is, you showed renderings from Ridge. Was it Ridgefield? But do you have a rendering from Dale Volleva Park?

We do not.

What about from the northbound?

We do not. We're getting them.

I guess I'm I'm slipping into design mode, but I would just encourage to think about stepping from the residential neighborhood and keeping the hike in in the interior. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Scheifele?

Can you confirm so this site's gonna be clear cut. Right? Yes. Okay. So I mean, as we talked before, big concern is know, with the opportunities to create some sort of unistered buffer along Dale Boulevard because it's a really pretty drive, and and something I enjoy. I think just going back to the Fitzgerald, that was a pretty area. Now it's clear cut completely, and that was my right. But, again, are there opportunities? Seems like we're jamming so many houses in here, getting extra height. I just I struggle with, you know, the opportunities because, again, this is gonna be clear cut.

Deal board has 30,000 cars on it, and, you know, that's to me, that's someone who can't go outside because it's too loud. So I'm just are there opportunities to create more buffer area along this main drag to enhance the enhance the aesthetics of the road, is really Dale Boulder is really pretty drive now. And I'm just I hate when we keep tearing all these trees down and not providing that enhancement, you know, for all the users of this road. Are there opportunities to do that or lessen the amount of housing units to be able to allow for, you know, a more undisturbed buffer? I just don't know if that's feasible, but again, think it's just it's a I don't know.

It's a disservice to clear cut everything, you know, in these mature forest here. Because it's it looks really pretty on here. It's like, yeah. We got that. But that's, like, you know, thirty years from now.

So I just I struggle that's what I struggle with is, like, was there any attempt to try to do that? It seems like we're trying to jam over densify this area to get bonuses. But, again, just to make to have the development be more within kind of the context of the area, I guess? I don't I mean, I I just struggle that we're just clear cutting it and, you know, we're and there's there's not much effort taken to kind of preserve the nature or the the aesthetics of the existing area along Dale Boulevard? Thank you.

Okay. So we looked at the site. There is actually significant grade differences on this site from a topography perspective. There is a lot of cut that has to occur on the site, and so we can look at opportunity you asked us if we can we can look at opportunities for tree save areas. I'm not sure how many tree save areas or where we can do it because of the topography on the site, and it would be very significant retaining walls, like 30 feet significant retaining walls, but we did task our civil engineer to look to see if there are opportunities for tree safe areas after the meeting that we had.

Okay. Because the density calls for eight to 12. No one to go the whole way to 13.

It calls for eight to 12, but it also the housing chapter also focuses on and incentivizes providing affordable housing, which gives you a density bonus when you provide that affordable housing.

Okay. There's also a person in the open space area too. So alright. Thank you.

And I guess the other thing I just wanted to mention is today, it is commercial, so there could be by right development here today. And I understand we're asking for something, so when we ask for something, we need to negotiate to give something back. So I understand that and we are looking at that, but I do want to mention, like, this is not an a one site that cannot be developed today.

Thank you. Chair Brown.

Thank you. Miss Cameron, how many people attended your community meetings?

Seven.

And how many notices were sent out?

1,321.

Okay. Twice. Twice. Yes. Okay.

And the county also provides postcards when the applications are submitted. They also provide postcards prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.

Okay. How does does the topography impact the building height here, or will you plan to infill that and then build? Will there be varying heights?

It varies in height.

Okay. So if it varies in height, and I'm just gonna make this assumption, if it varies in height

It will be varying height throughout the development because of the topography.