Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

Speaker 2Hover Hover guitar solo Thank you.

Kirsten LockhartThank you. Good evening. Welcome to the Monday, October 12, 2026, regular meeting and work session of the City of Fairfax Planning Commission. Our first item of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise as you are able and join me. I pledge allegiance to

Paul Cunninghamthe 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.

Kirsten LockhartI am in receipt of a request properly filed by Chair Jim Feather for remote participation. Do I have a motion?

Tassos McCarthyI move that in accordance with the Planning Commission adopted policy that is permitted by Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3708.3 to approve the request from Planning Commissioner James Feather properly submitted in writing prior to tonight's meeting for remote participation subject to the requirements outlined in the Planning Commission adopted policy and applicable in all or portions of the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2026. Second.

Kirsten LockhartMotion by Mr. Carney, second by Mr. Cunningham. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Welcome, Chair Feather. I will now turn things over to you.

James FeatherThank you very much for admitting me. Sorry we're in our final throes of the madness of leaving Maine for the summer, so I appreciate that being accommodated in this way. Next order of business is discussion and adoption of the agenda. as required. Are there any comments or questions or proposed changes to the agenda? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as it's been presented. Mr.

Paul CunninghamChair, I move the agenda to be adopted as presented.

James FeatherSecond. I move and seconded by Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Dr. Rice. All those in favor say aye.

Tassos McCarthyAye.

James FeatherAye. Opposed? Any abstentions? It passes unanimously.

Matthew RiceNext order of business is presentation by

James Featherthe public on any matter not calling for a public hearing. We have one public hearing this evening related to some zoning text amendments, but otherwise just a work session and one order of business requiring no public hearing. Is there anybody who signed up ahead of time to speak? no no one okay anybody in the room who would like to address the planning commission at this time related to a matter other than what we have a public hearing on this evening if

Matthew Ricenot you're welcome to come forward seeing

James Feathernone we will move forward uh the next item of agenda is consideration of december 14th 2026 meeting minutes those were also issued ahead of the meeting as required any Any comments, questions, additions, corrections to those minutes?

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair, I move that the Commission adopt the meeting minutes from the September 14, 2026 regular meeting as provided.

Paul CunninghamSecond.

James FeatherAnd moved and seconded to adopt the minutes as issued. All those in favor say aye.

Daniel DrummondAye.

James FeatherAye.

Daniel DrummondAbstain.

James FeatherOpposed and one abstention. Approved five to zero to one. All right. Next item of business is an item not requiring a public hearing. This was a later addition to the agenda from the initial issuance of the agenda. It's a motion to amend Chapter 86 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, and that's the subdivision ordinance. So we'll entertain the staff report at this point.

NaptystaffThank you, Chair Feather and members of the Planning Commission. This is a staff proposal to ask the Planning Commission to initiate amendments to Chapter 86 of the City Code, which is the subdivision ordinance. The reason for this potential change is that the subdivision ordinance includes a standard that only allows new lots that are created in the city to front on public streets, not private streets. The one exception to that is for our plan development districts and most of the types of developments that we've had over the past couple of decades that have included new lots, including townhomes and small scale single family and those types of things have fronted on private streets and they have used that provision through plan developments in order to accommodate that.

NaptystaffOn September 14th, the Planning Commission initiated potential zoning text amendments to support our adoptive smaller plans. And that includes a recommendation to establish a new activity center district. Among other things, this could potentially accommodate those types of developments that would establish new lots on private streets. And so in association with that, we have scheduled that public hearing for October 26th. If those amendments are approved, we would also recommend that the Planning Commission consider amendments to the subdivision ordinance to allow new lots to apply on private streets in the new activity center districts. This would be in addition to the planned development districts where they're already allowed.

As stated in the staff report, initiation does not constitute support or approval for these amendments. It's only allowing us to bring it forward to you for consideration, and we would do that on October 26th. So I'm happy to answer questions. motion.

James FeatherAre there questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to initiate these amendments.

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair, I move that the City of Fairfax Planning Commission initiate amendments to Chapter 86 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia as part of the regular review and maintenance of the subdivision ordinance, articles, and sections contained therein, including but not limited to design and improvements. I further move that a public hearing be scheduled for consideration of these amendments.

Paul CunninghamSecond.

James FeatherI moved and seconded to initiate these changes. If there's any other discussion, I'll be happy to entertain it at the moment. Seeing none, just call for a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next order of business is a public hearing, and these are proposed amendments to the Code of the City of Fairfax Chapter 110, which is our zoning ordinance to amend portions of the articles and sections contained therein, including introductory provisions, zoning districts and regulations, site development standards, development review, nonconformities and definitions related to affordable housing on tax-exempt properties and other miscellaneous amendments. We had an

introduction to this topic at our previous meeting, and we welcome back Mr. Foreman to present the staff report for the public hearing.

ForemanstaffThere we go. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Chair Feather. This agenda item is a public hearing. It's for a series of zoning text amendments. And if you all recall, the Planning Commission held a work session last month to discuss these topics. And these amendments cover a variety of subjects. The topics themselves aren't related to each other. They're items that staff has identified as things that may warrant zoning text amendments, and some of these items have been identified due to legislative changes and others just trying to resolve inconsistencies within the zoning ordinance text or items that just warrant additional clarification. The City Council held an equivalent work session to review these amendments also in September.

And the amendments we're discussing tonight, these include amendments that relate to legislation that was passed by the General Assembly earlier this year and that pertains to the construction of housing on properties that are owned by churches or by other tax-exempt organizations. This is a legislative change and the reason is because zoning changes are needed to align our zoning ordinance with this legislation, with this requirement. This topic produced most of the discussion both here at the Planning Commission work session and also at City Council's work session, most of the discussion on this bundle of amendments. and the discussion there was mostly related to trying to understand the legislation itself because it is somewhat involved. The second group of

amendments tonight relate to the city's noise ordinance and removing references to noise that are currently in the zoning ordinance. The reason for that is because those provisions are now covered elsewhere in the city code and we also have a few other amendments that help with the administration of the ordinance in general. Like it says at the bottom here, Planning Commission held a work session to discuss these amendments on September 14th and City Council discussed these amendments on September 22nd. So we'll discuss the more complex of the topics first, the affordable housing on tax-exempt We reviewed this at the work session, but this is a significant enough piece of legislation that it's worth discussing these main points again.

These amendments that we're discussing tonight are in response to a bill known as Senate Bill 388, and this was passed by the General Assembly, was signed by the governor this year. So SB 388, like it says here, this requires localities to allow by right residential development on certain property that's owned by religious institutions or owned by other 501c3 nonprofits. And the General Assembly's intention with this was to promote the construction of affordable housing units, and there's affordability standards that have to be met in order for a nonprofit landowner to take advantage of this bill. A notable one is in the green box here, and that's a requirement for a certain amount of affordable housing,

and specifically at least 60% of the housing units constructed in these cases must be considered affordable. And affordable, again, relating back to the state legislation, is described as under 80% of AMI or 80% of area median income for rental housing or for ownership housing. That number is under 120 percent AMI. Now, aside from the affordability provisions, there are other standards, and like we discussed at our work session, these standards, you know, things like dimensions or details or developments, these things are typically created by localities. But with this bill, the state is mandating these specific standards instead. So for projects that are built on qualifying properties and that meet these

affordability guidelines, this slide shows the major dimensional mandates in this bill. So projects that are built, again, according to this bill, they can be up to 45 feet tall. There may be as little as 10 feet of setback between any building that's constructed and Localities must allow projects up to at least 20 dwelling units per acre or at most 20 dwelling units per acre. Localities cannot require more than one parking space to be provided per residential unit. Now, the way the state legislation is written, localities must allow development that meets these standards and must allow it regardless of any local standards, regardless of any property zoning. So that's the reason for the zoning text amendments we're discussing tonight because we need

to make allowances for this kind of development that's now compulsory. Due to this state legislation, we need to make allowances for that in our zoning ordinance. Now, we talked about this last month. Developments built under this legislation, they may be entirely residential, or they may include some non-residential uses as well. And again, the legislation has conditions for that. The main element here is that residential uses must comprise at least 70% of the project's gross floor area. Any non-residential space can be religious worship space, can be space to house nonprofit organizations or ancillary uses to those two things, to religious or nonprofit use. So we're not delving deeply into the bill tonight.

This is just a summary, but we figured that seeing these mandated standards, this helped put the whole thing into context and exactly what we're doing with the zoning text amendment. Now, from an actual land development standpoint, these standards in the bill are important. Like it says here, development that meets all of this bill's standards. It must be allowed to be built, so the state did not grant discretion to localities on this. As far as what organizations are able to apply for development under this bill, this applies to land that's owned by 501c3 nonprofits. So that includes tax-exempt religious institutions, and it also includes other 501c3s, and we'll take a look at a map of those properties in the city in just a few moments.

But keep in mind, a nonprofit organization must own that land for five years before applying for development under this bill. Now, at the bottom here, this shows that the bill, so SB 388, becomes effective on January 1, 2027. And right now, there's a sunset date of January 1, 2031 in the bill as well. Now, the reason we're discussing this tonight in the context of the zoning ordinance is, again, because our ordinance needs to be amended in order to create a provision for this development that now is permitted or required under the State Act. And these are the amendments that are proposed, and this is all in your packets. We're proposing to add a definition to Article 9. That definition would be for nonprofit affordable housing mixed use.

This definition itself references state code directly, and we had talked about this at the work session, says that this use is a site constructed to accommodate the provisions specified in the Code of Virginia, gives the section number as amended pertaining to affordable housing on certain properties owned by tax-exempt organizations. And again, this and the other amendments give the city flexibility in case the state modifies the legislation. We don't have to come back. Since this relates directly to the legislation, to the state code, we wouldn't have to come back and make additional zoning text amendments if the state code changes. The amendments also add a use description and dimensional standards to Section 351 of the ordinance,

and that's the section for residential use standards. And also the amendments add a notation to the principal use table, indicating that residential uses may include nonprofit affordable housing mixed use. And with these amendments in total, the state requirement here can be implemented conflicts from our own zoning ordinance. Now, at our work session last month, the Planning Commission asked for a map that shows just where in the city are properties that are owned by 501c3 organizations, and this is the map. Part of the reason the Planning Commission and the City Council was interested in a map showing this as well. But the Planning Commission wished to see this because the state is very broad in saying

that all 501c3s that own property can develop their property according to this bill. So there was some interest in seeing what other kinds of properties may be included besides religious institutions, and there are 35 individual properties shown here. Now keep in mind some of these are under common ownership. There are 14 churches and their property shown on this map. The churches themselves are the biggest type of properties, but the other kinds of properties can make up maybe about 40% of the total as well in terms of overall acreage. So the largest of the non-religious institution properties, The largest one is the Inova site just south of City Hall, so that's ten acres. You can see that at the bottom there.

University of Virginia owns the property where the OLLI Center is located on Roberts Road. University of Virginia is actually incorporated as a 501 , which is unusual for a university. So that is a 501 owned property. George Mason is not a 501c3, but the GMU Foundation is, and the foundation owns about three acres of property on Chain Bridge Road, again, just across from the Inova site, so that's shown on here too. There are also about 10 single-family detached homes in the city that are owned by 501c3s of various kinds, and some are group homes. Some are properties that are owned by churches. It's unclear whether the state intended for those kinds of properties to be included in a high-density housing bill, but they are.

So those are shown here as well. And I should mention there are a number of townhouses and condominiums, both commercial and residential condominiums, that are owned by 501c3s. We haven't included them in this map, so this is... is only non-condo and non-townhouse properties. Like the notation says at the bottom, this does not show the five-year ownership. Some of these properties have been recently acquired, but this is a map of 501c3s that we're aware of located in Fairfax. So that is the nonprofit housing bill. I can pause, see if there's any questions now before we move on to some of the other items.

James FeatherThank you, Mr. Foreman. Any questions on this topic? And I can't see hands, so I've asked, Mr. Lockhart to sort of flag for me. I see Mr. Cunningham.

Kirsten LockhartDr. Rice and then Mr. Cunningham.

James FeatherOkay, thank you.

Matthew RiceThe athletic field at GMU. This is actually kind of a trivia question I throw at students, which you've completely ruined with your breath. The little spur further south, that little point actually crosses the GMU baseball field. So the trivia question is, you know, pull down a data layer from the open data portal, you know, is first base in the city or in the county. is home plate and city and the county in both cases city third base second base in the county so are the playing fields even though you've stated gmu's not incorporated 501c3 is that spur there on the south side is that truly a 501c3

Foremanstaffthat that is owned by the university of virginia not by george mason university according to city tax records now we didn't go in and do the the So I can't rule out the possibility that that might have been transferred at some point along the line, but it is listed in city tax records as being owned by the University of Virginia. Okay.

Matthew RiceYeah. Maybe I need to look at my own trivia question and make sure that I'm on solid footing as well, but I do usually overlay and double-check. Last time we talked, we all were somewhat alarmed at the height limit and the setback, combination of those two is quite unusual and would be really I think highly objectionable for most folks and you know our three or two areas to have suddenly four stories ten feet off the property line clearly nothing we can do about it I think you were clear about that last time is there any danger of this generous allowance for development to sort of raise equity questions and bleed over into other land use issues in the city is there some way we can clearly uh firewall this off to keep it from

negatively impacting other development issues i

Foremanstaffyou know i i think the only way to address it is legislatively through the state legislature. And as the bill is written now, there doesn't seem to be much that homeowners or localities can do in that kind of situation. But I think it would have to be a legislative fix.

Paul CunninghamThank you. along with Dr. Rice's trivia question. My trivia question to start is the corner of Campbell and Fairfax Boulevard has a large unit with affordable housing as its intention with 54 units of affordable housing going up. And I don't see it marked in green on the map. Is the status of that an issue?

ForemanstaffThat property is owned by a for-profit subsidiary of a nonprofit. So that, and I can't remember what the address is. I think it might be 9640 Fairfax Boulevard, but the owner is 9640 Fairfax LLC or something along those lines. We did research into the ownership of that property into Westwood Oaks. and the Presbyterian Church affordable housing complex, all of those are owned by for-profit subsidiaries or by for-profits, even though they're affordable housing. So those properties would not be considered 501c3 owned properties right now.

Paul CunninghamOkay, thank you. My follow-up question is going to come as regards tax status and zoning map status. Most large churches, and I will use the Presbyterian church as an example, are a 501c3 that are a tax-exempt organization. When we put affordable housing on that property and build it, I notice it's either for rent or for ownership. What does that do to the tax status of those residential units that are built there? Are they taxable as residential units or are they non-taxable as owned by the church?

ForemanstaffPer the state legislation, housing units that are built according to this would be taxable, and they would be taxable because they would be income generating. Now, they would likely be taxed less than an equivalent market rate unit because they're less expensive or as for ownership units, they'd be less expensive for rentals. They would rent for below market rate, but they would be taxable property.

Paul CunninghamOkay. My next question then comes to the status. Most of the original property was approved and zoned for the not-for-profit organization. And as such, it has a plat that states that. When you take out a portion of that, turn it into affordable housing, and said it's an ownership unit, does the church continue to own it, the underlying land, or does the land go with it? the rezoning of the property because of the dimensional change that goes into the plat.

ForemanstaffThe properties would not be rezoned and it says in the state code that they would be that development along these lines would be permitted by right and without a rezoning. So there would not be a rezoning involved. As far as ownership, the state legislation doesn't stipulate what the ownership is and the presumption is the ownership could be anything that the tax-exempt organization can sell the property to another organization they could maintain control of it they could operate it on the land lease kind of basis they could shift part of it to another entity and and keep a part of their property it I think there's a lot of options there

Paul CunninghamSo you ultimately can have some of these properties when you come up to do something else with it that have a plot that is not accurate, so to speak, because portions of it have been turned into another purpose, may have been become single family residential and sold several times. And when they come up to deal with some other issue, then you have a plat that has to be addressed. Is that accurate?

ForemanstaffThese would go through subdivision plat review just like anything else. re re subdivided if that's part part of it or replanted uh so there it wouldn't be a case of having an outdated plat

Paul Cunninghambut if you're going to have a single family house on it that is ownership and is sold is it sold as part of the plat of the church no or is it sold as its own plat that has to be rezoned to residential from

Foremanstaffit could it could be re subdivided and could could be ownership units now if it was ownership units and if it was income restricted if it was affordable housing that affordability would have to remain in place for 30 years so there there would be limitations to that effect but it could be its own parcel

Paul Cunninghamso there may be some issues that we should of that will complicate the situation going forward?

ForemanstaffThere will undoubtedly be complicating issues going forward. It's unclear exactly what, because, and the reason it's unclear is that these are permitted to develop into a whole variety of things. It could be entirely residential. It could be mixed use with a church or a nonprofit sharing space with housing units. It could be multifamily. It could be townhouse. you know it's

Suttonstaffhard

Foremanstaffhard to say what if anything this would turn into

Paul Cunninghamokay thank you

Daniel Drummondthank you very much good to see you again mr foreman good to see you uh three questions and they're not related um first off do you know what precipitated uh the general assembly to enact this legislation just in general terms was there a problem they're trying to solve

Foremanstaffi i think the problem is general affordable housing i don't can't speak to anything more

Daniel Drummondthat

Paul Cunninghamokay and

Daniel Drummondthen in northern virginia before this legislation becomes enacted are you aware of any examples like maybe in arlington or alexandria or fairfax county where they may already have enacted something like this absent the state legislation

Foremanstaffi i'm not aware of anything that was enacted like this there are examples of churches or other non-profits that have built housing on land that they okay yeah

Daniel Drummondthat's what i'm asking just curious

Foremanstaffright

Naptystaffno there there are

Foremanstaffthat kind of development but nothing legislatively that you know had a blanket approval like this got it be

Daniel Drummondgood and last question is a zoomed in and I just want to make sure I've got this correct in the southwest corner there's a big green rectangle is that green acres oh

Foremanstaffno that's the OLLI oh

Daniel Drummondokay yeah it's hard for me to see there yeah okay i just threw me off for a minute there yeah

Foremanstaffthat's that's the ollie the ollie site is big it it goes back really far there's a flood plain that goes in the middle of it got it uh so the notation down there at the bottom that says that this doesn't show historic or environmental encumbrances and that could be an environmental encumbrance the whole thing would not be able to be glad I asked thank you very much

Kirsten Lockhartgo ahead

Tassos McCarthyall right understanding that this is something that's just gonna happen I just wanted to see if we had done any research on to okay it can be 10 feet off and 45 feet tall and that is what it is do we retain any discretion in being I assume that's Cobbdale. I assume that's a senior center, senior residence halfway house. There's nothing that the city could do to help provide a buffer in the example. Is there any additional layer, not preventing someone from doing it, but controls that we could put in place to help offset the impact?

ForemanstaffIn reading the state legislation, I haven't seen anything.

Tassos McCarthyOkay. That's disappointing.

Bob BrandtapplicantDoes this legislation require that these

Tassos McCarthyproperties be developed using tax credits as LIHTC deals, or can they be done anyway? No. It's not required. Does the City of Fairfax have a compliance department? For affordable

Foremanstaffhousing.

Tassos McCarthyCorrect.

ForemanstaffOur housing director, I think that we typically work through Fairfax County in administering current committed affordable housing. Which was probably developed under LIHTC and

Tassos McCarthyis probably administered by Virginia Housing. Okay. So that gets to the core of my question. Say someone doesn't use tax financing. It's not a LIHTC deal. How does the city intend to enforce that those are being maintained if Virginia housing is not required to under LIHTC? And then, moreover, once they are then sold, who is going to ensure that those units are not just you have a new 10 unit on a half acre in Cobdale actually gets turned to market rate with no oversight.

ForemanstaffAnd that's a good question. I'll follow up with our housing director on that, you know, about how it would be administered. I'm not sure if one of these developments would be administered, you know, in partnership with Fairfax County as our current affordable housing projects are, or units are, or whether it would be some other avenue. And we would certainly want that oversight and we would have that oversight. I'm not sure where it would come from.

Tassos McCarthyOkay, because I'm involved with quite a few LIHTC properties and it's burdensome. So, A, making sure that we're, you know, we're equipped to do it. And then, B, making sure on the back end that the intended use is actually being followed through it.

Kirsten LockhartSo, just a quick follow-up. You did mention the five-year holding requirement as well as the eligibility of 501c3s. I know that the amendments specify a specific reference to the new state code. Do we feel that that's sufficient in terms of describing sort of the burden of responsibility for any sort of title search or kind of getting to clean title before development that would be required for this type of development?

ForemanstaffYou know, as far as the title search, I have no idea how that interacts with this. if you have something that there's a deed restriction on a property, you know, not allowing, for example, multifamily housing. I don't know how that would play out with it. I think these developments would have to go through subdivision review the way that any other property would. There's a section of the state legislation that does say that the locality would have to do subdivision ordinance and plat approval like it would for any other property. I think the title search is on the property owner, not on the city. But I think that that would work the way it does with other properties. I just don't know what the interaction would be in the case of a deed restriction.

Okay,

Kirsten Lockhartthat's really what I was getting at is do we feel like the language is written such that the burden of proof for lack of Yes, better word is with the applicant. Yes, it is

Matthew RiceSo I think I Would love to have this remain a permanent part of our agenda every three or four months and just have an update ultimately the complexities that you cite will be in some jurisdiction and when there are court cases or legal issues that come up I think we all would love to hear about it and I don't know who tracks would track something like that or have that as a little research part of their portfolio but I think keeping track this would be great considering the things that could happen over the next four years

Paul Cunninghamone other question in in looking at the dates that this legislation is effective it's effective for four years but you have to have owned the property for five years which means the property has got to have been owned one year prior to the legislation being passed since it's supposed to sunset after four years is there a likelihood that this legislation intended to be continued and rolled over? Or is this just a window so that anybody who's owned their property for a year has four years to do something with it? And then the intention would be for it to sunset.

ForemanstaffI can't say what the legislature's intention is. A future legislature could certainly modify that expiration date and extend it. I don't know if that would happen or not. But as it is now, you're absolutely correct that a nonprofit could not buy a property now with the expectation of taking advantage of this bill unless there's a legislative change. Thank you.

James FeatherAs Mr.

SuttonstaffForeman has told us before,

James Featherpredictions are difficult, especially about the future. Yeah. Yeah. Vice Chair Lockhart raised an interesting question, which is interesting. I'm facing in a discussion up here in Maine, where our summer home is, about accessory dwelling units and state legislation that requires municipalities to allow ADUs. We've had our own discussion recently about ADUs. One of the things in the main legislation, which struck me with Ms. Lockhart's comment, her question was if there are legally enforceable deed restrictions in place, the legislation does not supplant that. So that's something that we need to keep an eye on if there happen to be such deed restrictions or covenants for some of these lands. Does the Virginia

legislation address that sort of question? I don't know whether we'll have to deal with it facts, but at some point in the future, we may have to think about that. But at this point, I'm not sure that we probably know enough to do anything differently at this point, other than to move forward and accommodate the state mandated changes. But it was a very good discussion. Great, great questions and thoughts. Anything else on this subject? Okay, Mr. Form, would you like to move on with the others?

ForemanstaffWe can move on to the easy stuff. The rest of it, easy by comparison. This next section here pertains to the city's noise ordinance. So city council adopted a new noise ordinance back in May, and that updated the city's existing noise standards. So those standards had been contained both in Chapter 38 of the city code and in the zoning ordinance. So those standards are now completely contained in Chapter 38. And what that means is that most of the noise standards that are currently in the zoning ordinance are now superfluous because they have been moved to Chapter 38 instead. When City Council approved the new noise ordinance, it was mentioned that a follow-up step would be to remove the unneeded noise regulations from the zoning ordinance.

And that's what these amendments do. So specifically, this removes about two and a half pages of very detailed so-called operational performance standards from Article 4 of the ordinance. So those cover things like permissible noise levels and details about how to measure noise and so on. So those types of items are now contained in Chapter 38 instead, along with the rest of the noise regulations. There are some very general references to noise that are proposed to be retained in the zoning ordinance, but the specific standards and measurements are now covered elsewhere, so that material is recommended to be removed. This next item clarifies an inconsistency in the zoning ordinance text. So these amendments make it clear that detached carports are allowed,

You might not think that that is a question, but it is because the existing text is confusing. There's a conflict between how carports are treated in the accessory structures section versus how they're defined in Article 9. The amendments here clarify this. They do it by changing that Article 9 definition, making clear that carports can be a structure in addition to being as well as being an addition. And that's where the confusion is. Also take some of the detail that's currently in that Section 9.3 definition, moves it to a line item in the permitted encroachments table. And that line item deals specifically with attached carports. And that detail is better suited there. So those two amendments just make the intent of the ordinance much clearer, clean up that inconsistency.

At our work session last month, there was a question about whether we really need to keep the phrase in the carport definition that states that carports are for the shelter of motor vehicles. Now, staff does recommend keeping that provision for now for carports as well as garages. There's a similar phrase in the garage definition. And the reason is because those two types of structures are actually treated differently than general storage structures on residential lots. Now, if in the future, if the zoning ordinance is amended to make all accessory structures having similar standards then it would be no problem to remove that kind of phrase but for now there's a actually a reason to keep it and finally there are just a few miscellaneous

amendments in this bundle we see them summarized here uh the sections in the in the sections of the ordinance dealing with non-conforming lots and non-conforming structures there's some imprecise language where the meaning of terms like lot and building regulations is not explained. These amendments standardized that language just to take away any potential confusion. That middle item there relates to the footprint standard for residential accessory structures. And this ensures that it's clear that detached accessory dwelling units, and those are the types of units that were recently approved by City Council. So ensures it's clear that detached ADUs are included in this provision, just like other accessory structures.

And finally, there on the right, this is an amendment that clarifies that zoning permits are equivalent to building permits for the purpose of maintaining the validity of approved SUPs. And what that means is that when a special use permit, an SUP is approved, that SUP automatically expires after two years unless some kind of action is taken by the property owner. It says in the zoning ordinance right now that that means getting a building permit, but not all SUPs require building permits. So this amendment adds the phrase or equivalent zoning permits so that those types of SUPs aren't caught in some kind of gray area where their status is unknown. So that wraps up the amendments that are in this bundle, concludes our presentation.

As for next steps, like it says here, City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this series of amendments at its November 10th hearing. And I should mention as well that even though this is all one agenda item for us tonight, there are two separate motions and ordinances with tonight's package. So the amendments dealing with the affordable housing legislation have a separate motion here. So dealing with affordable housing, those are included as attachments B and C. and the other amendments, which would be D and E, contain the amendments for all of the other topics. So I think that's it, and I'd be glad to answer any other questions.

James FeatherAre there questions for the staff? Any other discussion before we open the public hearing? Okay. This is a public hearing, so the public is invited to come forward and offer comments. You'll be allotted three minutes to address the commission on these proposed changes. Has anybody signed up ahead of time on that clerk? No. And is there anybody in the room who would like to address the commission on these agenda items at this time? Seeing nobody rushing forward, we will close the public hearing and move on to action by the Commission. Madam Vice Chair, do you have the two motions prepared to read to us?

Kirsten LockhartYes. Chair Frederick, this first motion pertains to the amendments addressing affordable housing on tax-exempt properties. I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 110 zoning of this code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to amend portions of articles and sections contained therein, including zoning districts and regulations and definitions.

James FeatherIs there a second? Is there a second? I didn't hear.

Kirsten LockhartSecond by Mr. McCarty.

James FeatherOkay, thank you. I move and seconded to recommend approval of the zoning changes related to affordable housing on tax-exempt properties. Any final discussion on this matter? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes unanimously. Ready for our second motion. MS.

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair, this motion pertains to those amendments addressing noise, carports and other miscellaneous topics. I move the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 110, Zoning of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to amend portions of articles and sections contained therein, including introductory provisions, zoning districts and regulations, site development standards, development review, nonconformities and definitions. MR.

Tassos McCarthySecond. MR.

James FeatherThere's been moved and seconded to adopt these other changes. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Foreman, for all your work working us through this and for all the discussion on the part of the commission. next item on the agenda we shall recess our regular meeting and go into a work session we have one work session item this evening and that pertains to 10501 10515 and 10523 main street this is a pre-application briefing to discuss an amendment for an approved rezoning in 2023 to accommodate proposed mixed-use development. The concept plan is for 85 condominium units,

22,006 square feet of office, including a bank with drive-thru, 8,190 square feet of restaurant and 7,889 square feet of residential storage in a seven-story upper-story residential mixed-use building. Welcome, Mr. Frederick.

FrederickstaffGood evening Chairman Feather, members of Planning Commission. This is a pre-application briefing on a potential development proposal for 105-101, 105-15, and 105-23 Main Street. This briefing is the first step in the current land use review procedure adopted in 2020, intended to advise Planning Commission and Council of Interest in developing property in the city. As a quick overview, this differs from a work session in that no land use application has been filed. The submission materials are not especially detailed and this presentation will be relatively brief and primarily for informational purposes. The potential applicant is here to discuss the proposal and at this point the potential applicant has met with staff and received very high level feedback which is in your packet.

the subject property is located at 105 01 through 105 23 main street on the south side of of main street west of west street north of page avenue and east of judicial drive three lots totaling 1.7 acres it's a former site of wells fargo restaurant and existing office building the subject property is located in the activity center place type in Old Town Fairfax small area plan the current zoning designation is commercial urban district in the transitional overlay district so the map series shows a future land use designation of activity center and the zoning designation of commercial urban the 2020 plan the 2023 plan was approved for 79 units with the day

James Feathercan I interrupt for a second I do not see your presentation I only see the room so something probably needs to be shared to the teams meeting thank you

Foremanstaffthank you

Frederickstaffokay sorry about that do you want me to start over

James Featherno no that's fine okay

Frederickstaffthe 2023 plan was approved for 79 units with a density of 44 dwelling units an acre uh approximately 37 000 square feet of office space including a bank with a drive-through facility roughly 7 800 square feet of retail restaurant space 310 parking spaces and structured parking and a story building measuring at approximately 94 feet the applicant is proposing to increase the number of residential units resulting in an increase in density the plan also increases the retail restaurant space while reducing the overall amount of office space and the number of parking spaces the building height is proposed at seven stories and approximately 98 feet so so here's a concept plan so again we're looking at 85 condominium units roughly 22 000

square feet of office including a bank with a drive-through approximately 8 200 square feet of restaurant and 7900 square feet of residential storage in a seven-story building it's also an upper story mixed-use building so the building that has it's proposed to be shorter in height and the footprint is slightly smaller partially due to the number of structured parking spaces being reduced down to two levels and 224 spaces are being proposed the applicant is proposing pedestrian connections along main street and west on the and on the west side of the property vehicle access hasn't hasn't changed since the 2023 approval so the vehicular access is on the west side of the building from main street and the proposed connector road is along the south

side of the building going east to west from Main Street to West Street the applicant is also proposing landscaping along Main Street and a proposed connector road and a proposed east-west road so the road connections largely remain the same and the layout typically is just a smaller footprint and the building height is slightly taller the next image shows the property boundaries property boundary outlined in red so the connector road that goes from Main Street to West Street is in the city and also in the county so the applicant will need to coordinate and receive approval from the county for the for the road that is largely the only access point into the building as all access points vehicle access points are to the rear of the building so the

architectural design there's some changes to the architectural design this is a north elevation this

Paul Cunninghamis the

Frederickstaffsouthern elevation so this is the back side of the building and you're looking at the east and west elevations staff has identified potential land use applications one would be a general amendment an amendment to the general development plan amendment to the proffers and a major certificate of appropriateness for architecture and landscaping the council would see this briefing in October 20 it says 26 I believe it's the 27th is the correct date so you followed by potential land use applications development review work sessions and then public hearing again the council briefing is set for October 27th I'll

Naptystaffstand by for any

Frederickstaffquestions that you have that you may have the applicant is here to address planning answer any questions I'm at this time. Thank you.

James FeatherThank you, Mr. Frederick. Any questions for staff at this point? And Ms. Lockhart, I'll ask you to sort of keep an eye on who gets their hand up.

Kirsten LockhartMr. McCarty, would you make a start?

Tassos McCarthyThank you. What's the status of the discussions with the county regarding that road? Because it seems like it's like a linchpin of the development, so I'd be curious to make sure that that's, you know. Yeah,

Frederickstaffthat's probably a question posed for the applicant.

Tassos McCarthyOkay. And then parking, and maybe this is for the applicant as well, you're one over the requirement. Understanding there's a lot of different uses there, residential, bank customers, office, I'd like to talk a little bit about the flexibility for peak demand. have the best the staff looked at that at all

Frederickstaffat this point we have not this is high-level at this point so we would receive a traffic study and then we'd also take a look at the mix of uses as well as I don't believe at this point that they're planning on having a parking study because they meet the requirement at this point but those are discussions that we would have going for if once we receive an application

Tassos McCarthyokay and then you mentioned traffic plan you identified that collision point with the bank and the parking garage right

Frederickstaffyes based on the preliminary drawings that we received there appeared to be some points that would would be conflicting the previous plan showed those everything had been worked out for it and so the planet we received here for this briefing it kind of had some conflicts so we don't need to go back and work on on that with the applicant and try to make sure those conflicts are addressed

Tassos McCarthyokay and then lastly and again just defer if this is better for the you know the applicant the previous plan had a had a park and I understand that that's going to be left you know because of future use was there any discussion you know an additional public benefit to supplement that in in in the of having the park

Frederickstaffthat would be a question for the applicant the the part uh was located it's this county-owned property and so that's something that the applicant would need to discuss with the county if they would um if they're going to bring that into the application but it's my understanding that as of right now it's not part of the application

Tassos McCarthyunderstood thank you

Daniel Drummondquick question for you how tall are the other buildings that are adjacent to this applicants project

Frederickstaffso to the west is a Fairfax building and that is roughly 79 feet almost 80 feet in the front and I believe there's an additional height towards the rear so you're looking at about 89 feet and then the Mosby building is six stories in the front seven in the rear and that's roughly around 70 feet if you include the penthouse you're looking at almost 80 feet

James FeatherThank you.

Paul CunninghamI believe one of the major issues that I'm not sure was ever adequately resolved involved the inclusion of affordable housing in specific buildings as they're constructed when they're multi-family and being approved. has that issue been resolved finally with this project and if so

Frederickstaffhow I believe they're still seeking a modification but I'll let the applicant address that

Paul Cunninghamokay that's my principal question go ahead

Kirsten Lockhartokay I have one more question for staff and this is applicant agnostic but when we have a project reapply after something and it did not execute as approved, what is our line of questioning or our line of inquiry regarding lessons learned about why that project did not materialize in the way that it was proposed and in the way that it was approved?

SuttonstaffGood evening. I think

James Featherthere's a couple of- Mr. Sutton.

SuttonstaffThank you to the multiple chairs here, guide us through the meeting. A couple of aspects here that really do need to be thought through. One is we review projects based on compliance with comp plan, with Boat & Co. standards, zoning standards, and a number of other, including transportation standards, where staff doesn't have a role as in where an applicant may choose to set pricing or where they believe the market may lie. In this case, and the applicant can certainly speak to this, it was a product type at a market price that was probably not realistic. Again, not something that staff has a direct result in. Where staff's review does come into play, I think, in maybe an after action is where

our market demands for things we know, there are a market for things that our economic development team typically gets into. were there changes, seismic changes in the market? Were there types of uses that should have been thought about? Were there plans for construction type that was very tenant specific and maybe that tenant business changed or some other market influence created an issue that may or may not have impacted a certain development? It's rare that a project doesn't complete. Typically, it's a very small project. or something of smaller nature, a stand-alone building that we see take a long time or not complete for a number of financial reasons. In a case like this, though, it really is incumbent upon, or I should say it's the performance that the developer has,

whether or not they've adequately judged the market and if they've got a product that could be delivered.

Kirsten LockhartThank you for that. I mean, in this case, we do have two fairly high-density large projects that are not going to materialize as approved. So my question is, you know, what do we as a city need to do better to prevent that, right? Where's our – obviously, there's market forces that are outside our control. There's decisions that private landowners get to make. But from our process perspective, where can we lean in a little bit more to make sure that we're not sending things out to ultimately fail?

SuttonstaffYeah, a very broad question probably could be its own work session. The other one you may be referring to, Davies, I don't want to assume, which is not atypical for a rezoning to sit for a period of time for them to come through. Market adjustments, take on partners, look at various factors, cost-saving measures, fully design out a site. Not atypical for the region. A lot of properties get entitled and sit up to 20 years and then come back for plan amendments. We're very lucky that people do build here after they get approvals.

Kirsten LockhartNo, we did make some changes to that entitlement process to put a time limit on it, right? That was a lesson learned from Leighton Hall. So obviously we can adapt, we can overcome, right? So I want to make sure that in this particular case and others that may come up soon that we are adapting as appropriate.

SuttonstaffIt's a great opportunity, Mr. Nabte, is going to be kicking off a review of the small area plans, and eventually you'll have the comp plan back before you. Very valid question, and I think one that is prime for discussion.

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair, for

James Featherthe staff. If not, I would invite the applicants representative to come forward, not for presentation, but to address specific questions that were raised. I made a list of at least five of them. One was status at East West Road on discussions with the county. One was on parking. One was on the park land itself. One was on affordable housing. And I heard a broad one, which is my own question, is what changes have been made in response to market factors that was alluded to in your comments. the applicant how's this going to look different besides the obvious number of changes in residential units and the commercial space squares footage and so forth what are the changes that are really being accommodated that we can potentially move forward with a more viable project that vice chair

blockhart has alluded to yeah

Kirsten Lockhartmr brent you got all those you ready i

Bob Brandtapplicanti i've done my best to take Can you all hear me? I can't

James Featherthank you. Can you hear me

Bob Brandtapplicanton the? I

James Feathercertainly can.

Bob BrandtapplicantOkay, great. Well, thank you all for having me back here this evening. For the record, my name is Bob Brandt. I'm a land use attorney with Walsh Colucci, Lubaline Walsh, and very pleased to be back in this room after just a little bit over three years to talk about this project. I want to start by just talking about what brings us here this evening, and it's the question that Commissioner Lockhart asked. And I think that the question that you all are asking is, why are we here? And the reason is that things change. Times change. When this application was approved in the summer of 2023, when the applicant subsequently filed a site plan, market conditions were different. Construction costs were lower.

Interest rates were lower. And I would submit that that's not – it might be relatively unusual for the city of Fairfax. that get approved in the city generally get built. This is actually one of the few that I've been back through the process with the commission, ultimately city council, to pursue amendments for, but it's certainly not unusual for this region. I'll start by saying just personally in my practice right now, and I practice in a number of different jurisdictions, I'm working on a handful of applications that are seeking to amend land use plans, rezoning plans that were approved at a point in time when the project was viable market conditions were favorable but again times change and so necessarily sometimes plans need to be revised

plans need to be adapted and that's what brings us back through this process and and to you all this evening i want to start by saying that our intent with this application is really not to reinvent the wheel when this application was approved in 2023 there was a lot of excitement about it it presented an opportunity to revitalize and redevelop three aging parcels two of the buildings have since been demolished and it presented an opportunity to inject some mixed-use activity in the activity center in old town fairfax and so yes while we have to go back and revisit this to ensure that this project is viable I think those there's there's certain fundamental aspects of this property that remain

unchanged and so for sale residential product type in the heart of Old Town Fairfax that's carried forward ground floor retail and a significant amount of office space that has also been carried forward significant improvements to the city streets street grid the transportation infrastructure through connection to Main Street. Those elements have been carried forward as well. Finally, I would submit that the images that Mr. Frederick had up on the screen earlier with the elevations and the renderings, the kind of reimagined look of the building, are a substantial improvement to what was approved back in 2023. And so the applicant's intent here again is not to reinvent the wheel but frankly to build upon, enhance, and ultimately make more viable the project

that was approved a few years ago. So let's start by, and I did take notes, I tried to take notes, but I want to start by maybe working backwards a bit and talking about Chair Feather's question, what's changed? A couple of things. One, the building is designed differently. The floor plate for each of these residential floors is more efficient. The unit sizes are, generally speaking, smaller than what was approved in 2023. that's in response to market conditions some of these units were significantly oversized what the market informed us after the fact was maybe the market for such large units is not there yet but what we have now is a more efficient and I would submit a better design building the amount of office space in the

building has been changed a little bit we are still continuing to have a very significant office component the first floor of this building will include just over 22,000 square feet of office space that's intended to house an existing financial institution in the city that wishes to remain in the city but relocate to this building. The office space that was removed was medical office. At the time of the approval, it was contemplated that some medical office tenants might want to make use of this space. In retrospect, lessons learned, what the applicant found was that the market for that space wasn't necessarily there, so there has been some office space removed from the building, but space that was originally approved.

The retail or restaurant space on the east side of the building, closest to Old Town, that's been carried forward. It's actually been enhanced in size and expanded to just over 8,000 square feet. So those are some of the changes to the building program, the development program in the building. Other changes besides the architecture that I mentioned, and I think one of you, I forget which one, asked about the park. the corner plaza the corner park that was proposed with the originally approved application has been has been removed from this and there's there's there's a couple of reasons why the main one is that as we went through the process with the rezoning in 2023 and as we continue to have conversations with fairfax county which owns that corner of

the property what we learned is that their vision for that piece is different than what we had originally envisioned back in 2023 at some point in the future and the years been reimagining its plans for the judicial complex at some point in the future when the county is a little bit further down the way and it's been its redevelopment of the judicial complex it does plan to install a pedestrian connection to Main Street right through the center of that of that corner piece at the corner of Weston Main what they envision is something that's far more simpler simple than what we had originally envisioned for that plaza and what the county informed us is that well when they're ready to make that

connection it's their property what they eventually plan to do was remove that Plaza and just install that main pedestrian connection so we felt that it's more important at this point not to put something there that people fall in love with an activated public positive people fall in love with only for Fairfax County to come forward at some point in the future remove that Plaza and just install a pedestrian connection to Main Street and so we feel that it's more prudent in the interim condition to leave that piece as it remains as it corner, a wooded parcel at the corner of that intersection. Aside from those changes, parking, I know Commissioner McArthur, you asked about parking. We are currently just over the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.

When this was approved in 2023, we were significantly over. We had, I think, three and a half levels of below-grade parking. One of the comments that we actually heard going through the process back then was that there was too much parking. incentivize people to drive we don't want to over incentivize car ownership in in the heart of old town fairfax we want to disincentivize that to reduce traffic and so what we're coming back forward with is something that's i'd say a right-sized parking ratio again we meet all the minimum requirements as we go through this process i'm sure there will be discussions about that but we feel that we have now an appropriate amount of parking one of the things that does is frankly

it makes the building more viable by removing, I think it's a floor and a half of below grade parking. That's some significant cost savings that will, again, enhance the viability and the ability of the applicant to realize this vision here. So I think that for the most part covers most of the main changes. Commissioner McArthur, you asked about status of conversations regarding the road. We've had discussions with Fairfax County dating back to the pre-application concepts, I think, in the 2018-2019 timeframe. We have reached back out to them yet again to inform them that we are going to be going back through this process, the land use process in the city, making some amendments here. I expect that there will be some continued conversations about that road and the connections that we're proposing to make here,

but I can say that the county was generally supportive of these roads. you look at their master plan and if you look at their zoning approvals for the judicial complex, it shows both of these roads. And so the conversations we had with the county back in the, I'd say, 2018 to 2023 timeframe was that they were generally supportive, not generally, they were supportive of the applicant constructing these streets. But again, we'll have to reengage them as we go through this process. Commissioner McCarthy, you also pointed out the comment in staff's memo about the potential intersection of the garage entrance and the drive-thru bank. That's something that we'll certainly work through as we go through this process working with staff. I would just say that

this is a requirement that the future tenant the financial institution needs. They need to have that that drive-thru facility there to serve their retail branch, but like most financial institutions, those drive-thrus tend to be very low volume. And so, yes, we know it's an issue. We'll work through it as we go through the process with staff. but i suspect that we'll be able to find a solution there um commissioner mccarthy you also asked about the park the additional public benefit i i would submit that this project overall is a massive public benefit to the city two-thirds of these parcels are vacant today the two buildings that have been demolished what we're proposing here is a true mixed-use development with commercial

and residential uses, opportunities for homeownership, opportunities for affordable homeownership. This project will be subject to the ADU ordinance. Commissioner Cunningham, I know you asked about the status of the ADUs. We're still working through that a bit internally, but there will be at least some affordable dwelling units in this building at the end of the day. Again, working through that, we'll continue to work through that with staff as we go through here but I think those are some of the some of the few but significant public benefits to the property I think that covers most and I was taking notes quickly as you were all asking questions earlier but hopefully that covers most of the questions that have come up thus far but I'll just wrap up and before we

open it up for discussion by saying that my client is in the room with me this evening the Oxhill companies they've really appreciated the interactions with this Planning Commission with staff over the last several years, over the first iteration of this project as it moved through the process a few years ago. Very much looking forward to continuing those discussions, again, with the ultimate goal of realizing this vision. Thank you.

Kirsten LockhartThank you, Mr. Walsh. Sorry, it seems that Chair Feather has lost audio, so I'll be scribbling notes as well as taking questions. But Mr. Cunningham.

Paul CunninghamThank you. Yes, regarding your comment, I guess the question I would have related to that is, I know that the price point has changed since the original application came through for the units that were going to be there. Is the price point now in a range that will really allow affordable units and the percentage that the city requires to be included in this area? and is the rest of the cost of living in the units taken into consideration for affordable units to remain affordable at that point and that I presume you're still going to have if these are for sale condominium type units a need to have an ongoing cost for continuing maintenance and support as well as parking and all of that so that the cost of the unit is not the only cost involved with housing

but the ongoing maintenance cost of of either the utilities or the other things whether they're broken out by unit or in the aggregate are taken in as the is the total cost picture adequate in the new the new proposal

Bob Brandtapplicantso i don't have commissioner that's a great question um i don't have specific information at this point anyway about the final price point the target price point for these units, but it is still intended to be a high-end luxury condominium building. And the points you make are good ones, and frankly, they get to the challenge of providing ADUs affordable housing in a building like this, because at the end of the day, once the building is constructed, once these units are sold, once the affordable units are sold to qualified purchasers, there is the issue of the ongoing maintenance. Like most condominium, like all condominium associations, each of these units will be subject to assessments, and all of the unit owners will be required by covenant to share

in those costs and share in those assessments. And so, frankly, the points you make are good ones, and they get to the challenge of providing affordable units in buildings like this, higher-end luxury condominium buildings, but those are issues that we'll certainly need to work through as we go through this process.

Paul CunninghamOkay. Is it still possible then that the discussion may include the subject of providing the affordable housing at another location as we work through this?

Bob BrandtapplicantThat's certainly a possibility. I don't want to foreclose those conversations from happening as we go through this, but that's a possibility.

Paul CunninghamThank you.

Tassos McCarthyThank you for answering my initial questions. When did you guys begin reengaging, relooking at this project? Never stopped.

Bob BrandtapplicantNever stopped. My client, Chris Smith from the Ox Hill Company, said, just for everyone out there listening, never really stopped. We got this approved in the summer of 2023. They submitted a site plan shortly thereafter. They demolished the building shortly thereafter. Market conditions changed, but I know that the Ox Hill companies have been looking at this and trying to figure out ways to make this work ever since.

Tassos McCarthyCertainly. And the reason I ask when is because, as I'm sure he knows, rates have gone wild over the last six, eight weeks. And to the point Ms. Lockhart made, you mentioned that the project wasn't constructed because of market conditions. And you mentioned that this project would be a big public benefit to the community, of which I agree. but what is not a public benefit is a raised construction site in the core of downtown. So I guess plainly my question is, is this project as submitted right here viable?

Bob BrandtapplicantI don't, respectfully, Commissioner McCarthy, I don't think I would be here with the folks behind me if it wasn't. I can assure you that everybody on our end of the table has every incentive to make this work. We believe in the city of Fairfax. Oxhill firmly believes in the City of Fairfax, that this project itself can be very successful. They want nothing more than to get through this process and get it built and move on to other ideas that they have. It's unfortunate, again, that it's taken some time to get back to this point, but we're optimistic about the future here.

Tassos McCarthyCertainly, and I think the City would benefit from it. I just hate to see us going through this process with something that's going to fall victim to market conditions for another

Bob Brandtapplicantthree years. Yeah. I wish we all had a crystal ball, but you just never know.

Matthew RiceLast time we talked about this, we expressed a lot of concern about the promise of future ADUs at another location. I guess I just want to reiterate that that anxiety I think never left really and I think we just had faith in an awfully good project that would bring a level of housing in the city we didn't have and all the other good things about it just allowed us to say, okay, maybe something will emerge. But I really do think that the affordable aspect needs to be concrete and needs to be specific and needs to be something that we will see materialize. I know that mixing affordable units amongst, you know, multimillion-dollar units is not always a great idea. But I think the idea within the ordinance was to have larger developments recognize the context of the city.

The people that are the service employees and clerks and school teachers and, frankly, professors, all depend on some element of affordability to be in the community for it to work the way it should. So I think that issue is something that every single discussion will need, something quite specific to make sure that that happens. Another item that we discussed last time, and not to dwell on the approvals in 2023, I don't think it's helpful to go back there and rehash everything. the renderings all still show a west excuse me an east facing view kind of toward the courthouse that's a county owned property that's very verdant and green and mature trees in fact there will be no control over that we don't

really know what will materialize and if you've expressed the county's view is corridor to Main Street part of our idea last time was that this would be green and beautiful the public space to some extent obscuring the fact there was a large seven eight-story building of decidedly not historic character in close proximity to the most historic buildings in the region and so that proximity was easier to handle given that there was a nice green space that would be dedicated you know trees and foliage and screening of this building the extent to which that side that east side of the building has a traditional look or at least some screening that would keep the restaurant portion on the lowest side you don't want to hide anything or obscure anything but the

presence of that park on that side was was a feature that allowed us to overlook the fact that there's such historic properties next to something that's not so those those are two issues right now it's the you know renderings that still show trees and beauty on that side when in fact that may disappear completely and how do we reconcile the historic nature of that side and then the adu issue so if you could speak to either of those i'd love to hear

Bob Brandtapplicantcertainly dr rice and and i guess i'll start with the adu issue and as i as i mentioned before that's certainly that's something we're this is the feedback that we came that we came to receive and we're digesting all of this right now and when we submit the application i think we'll we'll have a more concrete idea of where we are where we're headed with the adus on the uh the points you make regarding the east side of the building and i i agree with you i think that that corner plaza that we that we we proposed back in 2023 would have been great i think the good news is that at least in the interim condition that that whole corner piece that's owned by the county it's fairly densely wooded if you walk or

drive by it you know it's it's pretty thick vegetation and that will exist and we don't know exactly what the county's plans are. We can't predict what their timeline is for that piece, but that will exist for at least some period of time to serve as a really nice natural buffer, if you will, between the proposed building and the courthouse. When the county does move forward with its plans and establishes that connection to Main Street, I'll have to go back and look at their plans and perhaps we can overlay them into our drawings. I do know that there will be some vegetation there. to clear-cut it put a sidewalk in call it a day my understanding and my hope is that the county will similarly landscape that area to provide some sort of buffer

but architecturally and mr. Frederick has the the images up here on the screen I think one of the things that we have responded to already is the general desire to have a more more Fairfax looking building not necessarily something that duplicates the historic nature of the courthouse, but something that's more compatible with the colors, the materials, the textures that you already see in and around Old Town today. So you see the use of brick, pre-cath stone, you know, it's going to look like a building that's built in the 21st century, but we're trying to borrow from some of the materials and textures and colors that you already see around Old Town. I think one of the, I I think one of the biggest criticisms we heard from the community, some folks, the last go around was that the building just didn't look like it fit here.

And so our design team, the folks at Ox Hill have really tried to change that and improve upon that architecture as we go forward this time.

Matthew RiceOkay, thank

Bob Brandtapplicantyou. Good points.

Matthew RiceThe other aspect that was actually great was the green roof infrastructure and some foliage on the top That helped me be much more comfortable with the fact that there's very little tree cover. Otherwise We do have certain limits that we stick to the presence of any Green roof Even the less extensive variety of green roof vegetation on the top of the building was a compelling design feature last time it'd be great to see something like that reemerge okay

Bob Brandtapplicantthanks great feedback

Daniel Drummondthank you very much I appreciate Ms. Lockhart's comments about Leighton Hall when I served in a different role we got that approved and so I still have a little bit of scar tissue from that so you can appreciate especially the question from Mr. McCarthy about market conditions one thing I am concerned about too is just you know when we're at seven percent interest rates now I don't see them abating anytime soon and construction costs haven't gone down since 2023 so that's just something to keep in mind is that I think that especially when it comes to affordable housing like Dr. Rice was bringing up and Mr. Cunningham I think that's something to consider is that you know we've heard this before and I just want to make sure it's something that's going

to go through. So a couple quick questions for you. Actually, I believe your firm handled the Layton Hall.

Bob BrandtapplicantMy partner, Lynn Strobel, did. Yes. It was just before my time at Walsh Colition, but I've heard about it. Yes.

Daniel DrummondLovely person, and it was a great experience up to a point. So in terms of setbacks, can you talk a little bit about setbacks and also how they compare to the surrounding area? Because when I'm looking at, this is really Dr. Rice's specialty, not mine, but when I look at the maps, what I'm seeing is significant setbacks across the street and some other places. But when I look at the map that's from there, and it's very hard for me to really see, seems like the setbacks are relatively narrow. And one of the concerns I think I have is just not having this sort of cavernous feel, if you will. for example scat on the circle which by the way this building looks a lot like i think in many ways um is perfectly appropriate because of where it is here it's a bit different

Speaker 2and

Daniel Drummondi'll get the scale in a moment but the setback sometimes can often help mitigate that cavernous look and feel it like if you go down i think it's broad street and falls church right where it's like the buildings are literally right on the road. So maybe you can address that. I've got a couple other

Bob Brandtapplicantquestions. I can certainly touch on that, Commissioner Drummond. So the proposed building, the proposed setbacks are largely in response to the existing zoning regulations that are in place for this property, which is located in the Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District. And so under the zoning ordinance, and I'll paraphrase, I don't have it at my fingertips, The zoning ordinance envisions buildings built to or close to the street frontage to establish that urban character, that street wall along streets like Main Street. And so what we've proposed here is either in line with or as close to in line with those setbacks as we can get. I think you make some good points about not wanting the building to overwhelm the street scheme, not wanting to have a monolithic appearance.

And so what we're trying to do to respond to that concern is to utilize architectural techniques, landscaping at the base of the building, fenestration, things like that, so that the ground floor of these buildings are activated, that this building is activated to the extent possible, and that the presence is softened by the provision of landscaping, street trees, a wide 10-foot sidewalk, and other techniques like that. but the reason that you see the setback particularly along Main Street that you do here is that it's responsive to the the TOD regulations which encourage buildings to be built to the street but it's certainly as we go through this process will be providing more detailed renderings and images and site sections

and things like that to better illustrate the condition of the street level

Daniel Drummondokay thank you and then in terms of the traffic mitigation I travel that it's how i get to work to go to rustin that is a very congested area um can you and i apologize that i was not here on the planning commission when this came up probably before but can you speak to more of this about the mitigation you plan absolutely

Bob Brandtapplicantand there was as you can imagine there was extensive discussion about that exact topic as we went through the process there was a a very detailed traffic impact study that we prepared uh with the 2023 approvals um one of the things, I didn't mention this, but one of the things that we are continuing to carry forward is a commitment to building a traffic signal at the intersection of the new, we call it affectionately the Main Street Connector Road. That's the new road that's going to be built on the left side of the building there. There will be a new traffic signal installed at that intersection to control the flow of traffic in and out of the building and along Main Street. One of the, I think, positive things about these changes that we're looking to make,

while there's a slight uptick in the number of residential units, residential units aren't heavy trip generators, the reduction in the amount of office space that we're proposing now by our initial calculations will result in a slight decrease in the overall amount of traffic. I think all of us have driven through, I've driven through this area of the city many, many times during rush hour. We appreciate it. We understand that there is a lot of traffic out there on the roads today. but the traffic study that we did in 2023 demonstrated that there would not be unacceptable changes to the level of service of all the studied intersections. And with this overall, we anticipate decrease in the amount of traffic.

With the proposed development changes here, we anticipate that the conclusions would be the same. But we will certainly go through that analysis once again as we go through this working with staff.

Daniel DrummondGot it. And then one last thing. Can you explain a little bit of why you're going up in terms of building height? Because I know that, and this is why I asked the question earlier about comparable size and height. And it looks, if my map is right, the new building, if constructed, would be roughly nine feet higher than the closest adjacent building. I think that's right.

Bob BrandtapplicantSure. So it's actually a fairly minor increase. The approved building is up to 94 feet, and that's measured from average finished grade. This site actually has a lot of topography. It drops off pretty significantly as it goes east to west from West Street to the new Main Street Connector Road. So the approved building, again, 94 feet. The proposal is for 98 feet, so we're seeking four additional feet of building height, which I would submit over the course of a 94, 98-foot building is not going to be significantly perceivable from the ground floor. that my understanding is just to provide some flexibility we've made some adjustments to the floor-to-floor ceiling heights between each of the floors but you know over the course of the of the full building it's not going

to be a substantial increase right

Daniel Drummondthank you very much

Bob Brandtapplicantthank you

Paul Cunninghamthank you mr. Frederick I believe we've got a drawing that shows elevation for the neighborhood I'll call it from the courthouse down to the Fairfax building

Frederickstaffwhich I'll be

Paul CunninghamI'm not sure where it was but I thought it was in my preparation building heights along that way and my other Mike my two observations with that in terms of height and setback is what's the what's the setback on the Fairfax building

Bob BrandtapplicantCommissioner Cunningham I'm holding

Paul Cunninghamon that's pretty materials that is the printed material I share it with the planning commissioners I don't know way to pick that up. I don't know that Mr. Is it on slide nine?

Daniel DrummondNo,

Tassos McCarthyit's

Daniel Drummondon slide

Bob Brandtapplicantnine.

Daniel DrummondOh. My

Bob Brandtapplicantapologies. It's on slide nine of your presentation. Sure. I think it was in the printed materials that we submitted with this briefing. Yeah, there was

James Featheran image.

Bob BrandtapplicantExactly. Okay. Here's what I can do. Mr. Feather, this doesn't help you, but I can pass around my packet so the commission.

James FeatherWell, I've got it up. I can see the drawing from the staff report.

Paul CunninghamI've seen a copy of it so that it shows that it is essentially the height of essentially the height of the courthouse building not the steeple on the courthouse building that you're looking at for elevation as it comes down and then it is slightly higher than the Fairfax building which is at a lower elevation also being further down the hill what's the setback on the Fairfax building do we know because i believe it comes out essentially to the street in the same way that this building comes out set back and then there's a small building between the two that may be set back a little bit but that that small building is is becoming an orphan or whatever and that it doesn't it doesn't fit when we're done with these other buildings being built so

it will be a challenge to repurpose it but but it shows that the Heights this this is a big building much as the courthouse building is a very big building on the other side so that it did not seem to to tremendously overweight it and it is not so tall as to overshadow the steeple and the and the old courthouse on the corner especially if you're coming down Main Street from to east because of the slight offset of the street that it gives you for the angle of seeing things. So I think those would be important viewpoints to be able to give to people for an understanding of what they're seeing in the perspectives going forward and looking at that. And again, the setback on the south side of the street between this building and the Fairfax

building in comparison I think would be a good visual for people to grasp to get a sense of what the neighborhood is going to look like when it's done. Sure.

Bob BrandtapplicantAnd I think those are good points, Commissioner Cunningham. And I don't have the specific setback for the Fairfax building, but anecdotally I believe it is situated relatively close to the street as this building would be.

Matthew RiceIt's 25 feet from the edge of the building to the midpoint of the sidewalk. Okay.

Bob BrandtapplicantThe other thing, and your comments got me thinking about something I didn't mention, although we talked about it a few years ago. If you're looking at the site, let's say you're sitting in your car, you're walking along Main Street, you're looking at the site today, one of the things that you immediately perceive is the rather large parking garage that's on the judicial complex right behind it. So there is a very large structure not on the property but immediately behind it. And so, again, I would submit that the architecture that we've developed here, yes, it will be a larger building, certainly larger than the buildings that were on the site previously. But I would also submit that it's probably a more attractive building than the existing concrete utilitarian parking garage on the county's property today.

Paul CunninghamPerhaps that's true, although they use red brick on there, so it looks like it's a brick building. Fair enough.

Kirsten LockhartIf I may ask a few questions about the non-residential usages of the property, it's mentioned that there's a residential storage component to this. Is that an amenity for unit owners or is that a commercial use of the building?

Bob BrandtapplicantIt's anticipated to be used by the unit owners. Condominiums, I used to rent a condominium in Arlington before my wife and I bought our first home in Fairfax. They don't have a lot of storage. And so we have reserved, I think it's just over 8,000 square feet, give or take, in the building. the south side of the building, so not the piece facing Main Street, but the piece facing towards the courthouse complex. There is a storage area there for the future unit owners.

Kirsten LockhartOkay. And then respecting the anonymity of referring into it as a financial institution, are you still in the same agreement with the financial institution that you were for the 2023 proposal? That's correct. Okay. Because when this proposal came to us originally, there was some sense of urgency to retain that business in the city, which I think everyone on the Planning Commission at the time recognized was valuable and an important goal to achieve with this property. I'm glad they're still here, that they have not walked away, but I did want to kind of bring that up as, you know, that definitely weighed heavily on the scale in terms of moving this project forward originally. Are we calling their bluff?

Do we believe that they're in this for the long term and they are committed to this site and to remaining in the city, or do we sort of remain on a tenuous basis in terms of our ability to provide them sufficient office space?

Bob Brandtapplicantconversations with that financial institution I do believe they are they remain very interested in staying in the city and moving to this building in particular.

Kirsten LockhartMr. Chair back over to you.

James FeatherThank you very good discussion. I missed a little bit of it when I lost my audio but I'm back in. A lot of the questions that I have for the applicant I think have been addressed already just a couple of things that I think want to make sure you're you've heard are well aware of mr. Brandt on behalf of your applicant that remain concerns for the Commission pertain to the affordable housing of course setbacks we can talk about but lines with the zoning ordinance is is all we can expect or require and that's fine. Same with the parking. As the application comes forward, if it comes forward, we're well aware that you're well aware of what those are. I see this as a bit evolutionary than revolutionary.

There's some change in unit mix is fine. I think I agree that several feet make a little difference there have been discussions this evening about the design and the appearance the architecture we have a board of architectural review of course which will um have more comment about that but i was aware that when the applicant application went forward last time that some changes were made i believe at the city council approval to add more red brick in the area adjacent to the historic courthouse. Whether what's proposed now is kind of in the spirit of that, we'll leave up to the Board of Architecture review and the City Council. We are certainly free to comment on any aspect of an application,

but it's not really our purview. The other thing that was discussed previously, we have no real clue what the very long-term vision for what the county plans to put on the adjacent property. They could very well put a 10-story building or two on their site, and it would make this building seem small by comparison. So it's difficult, as we commented earlier, to understand or predict what the future is going to hold, what the county may do. I think Mr. Cunningham alluded to the appearance of this versus historic courthouse versus buildings that are further down the road. Feels to me still a reasonable fit. I'm not sure I understand the math. If I understood the staff report correctly, that it's changing from an eight-story building to a seven-story building,

but it's getting taller. But I'm not sure. It's probably more about the height than anything. Again, it feels to me like a relatively minor change. I'm very here with the Board of Architecture review has to say about this. I'm not sure if in one year planning to go forward to them with a work session. If it's while I'm still a member of that, I'll put that hat on at that time. But at this point,

FrederickstaffI'm not going to overwork

James Featherit. It does appear to be a little bit more bricky than what happened previously. If it's sufficiently so for the bar and the council, we'll leave up to those bodies. But I think those are the only other comments I had. Again, a lot of it had been discussed by my fellow commissioners. So anything else? If you believe staff and or the applicant's representative heard sufficient thoughts and feedback from the commission at this point?

Bob BrandtapplicantI guess I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of your comments and all of your observations up here this evening. As I said at the beginning, we're excited to be back here, going back through this process once again, and we'll look forward to working with staff and working with each of you as this goes forward. Thank you.

James FeatherI think we're all counting on something happening at this site. It's been kind of a sore spot in the city for some time now, So we hope the changes driven by the market and the design changes make it even more viable to move forward.

NaptystaffThank you.

FrederickstaffSo one last thing. I believe Mr. Drummond asked about the setbacks for the Fairfax building, and it's 22.7 feet. So it's pretty good. It's very precise, Mr. Price. I can't take credit for that.

Bob Brandtapplicantmr

Frederickstaffstuff

Bob Brandtapplicantyeah thank you all very much appreciate it

Frederickstaffthank you thank

James Featheryou okay nothing further uh we will reconvene the regular meeting and move on to the staff report for mr napty

Naptystaffthank you mr chair and members of the planning commission A quick recap of the past couple of city council meetings. On September 22nd, they had a public hearing on the proposal for the highlands at Mantua development that was ultimately approved. This was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 27. They also had a work session on the Texas amendments that you had a public hearing on tonight. And then they see October 6th, they had a work session on the smaller plan related zoning text amendments. This is similar to the work session that the Planning Commission had on September 14th. The comments that the Planning Commission provided to staff were shared with the City Council during that discussion.

for upcoming planning commission meetings October 26 we will have three public hearings as currently scheduled one for the courthouse plaza redevelopment proposal one for the proposal at gallery at city center and then one for the smaller plan zoning text amendments following that we will be focusing on the capital improvement program throughout the rest of the year with a couple of other potential city related items. And that's all we have. I just wanted to welcome Commissioner Drummond and say thank you for joining us. That's all we have for the staff report tonight.

James FeatherAny questions for staff? Okay, we'll move on to commission comments. Let's do a round robin if Ms. Lockhart would sort of go around the room and I'll close out. No comments.

Paul CunninghamI would like to say welcome to Commissioner Drummond, to the Planning Commission. I know that you've done bigger and better things in the past, but we really appreciate the expertise you're bringing to this august group. As much as we are a 12-month group, even though it's an august group, that's all right. And with that, I have no additional comments. Thank you.

Kirsten LockhartI'd also like to welcome Mr. Drummond and also say thank you to staff for all your contributions to the Fall Festival this weekend, was fantastic so thanks for the extra duty uh

Daniel Drummondthank you for the welcome and uh appreciate being here and nothing's better than being on the planning commission for the record thank you

James Featheranybody else back to you mr rice anything mr rice anything from uh

Matthew RiceYep, crab has a whole bunch of things simultaneously on their On their list of responsibilities several large projects The eventual opening of full town hall after revisions are completed is in the future the Finishing of the rebuild for Tice Park is still Happening the playground and areas renovated for Pat rodeo look to be open and look fantastic the parks Have a nonprofit board now that's able to help raise money so it's a 501c3 and I think they've received their state of Virginia allowance to raise funds and so the Parks Foundation is perceived to be a way to do things like sponsorships when a naming rights policy is clear in the city there will be an opportunity to raise money through mechanisms like that

as well so the Parks Foundation will be a big part going forward being staffed by colleagues from the Planning Commission so there's tons of experience and expertise with the Parks Foundation that we're all looking forward to benefiting from in general parks is already looking at the CIP process and trying to identify their needs and so the PRAB board has gone through a first round of just talking and listening and generating ideas about that CIP process the parks structure the parks and recreation and historic resources department I should say with a new longer name the structure of their organization is incredibly flat so they have a director and then they have seven or eight different divisions. I've expressed some deep concerns about the fact that it doesn't look like or match

any of the other departments in the city, which are much more vertical in their management. What I mean by that is that most departments in the city have a director and then have people that oversee large portfolios that act as deputy directors. And there are some parts of city government where there really are associate or deputies the parks is extraordinarily flat and that causes me some concern and so what I would like at least to advocate for is at some point discussions on personnel changes that would involve a deputy director position for parks it just um it's inherently difficult to run something so complex and so important in the city and invest ALL THE POWER IN ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S DOING A GREAT JOB I THINK BY ALL MEASURES IT JUST UM

HAVING REDUNDANCY AND HAVING SOMEBODY THAT COULD TAKE OVER UH WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT GIVEN HOW MANY LARGE CAPITAL PROJECTS THEY HAVE GOING RIGHT NOW AND A LACK FRANKLY OF UH IN-HOUSE PEOPLE TO DO PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR THESE LARGE COMPLEX PROJECTS AND CONCEIVABLY A DEPUTY DIRECTOR role for parks would incorporate some project management expertise so that last part is just my private view and not an expression of crab sentiment generally but just my observation being a part of many different parts of city government and at least being aware of how things operate so I'll leave it there thanks thank

James Featheryou

Matthew Ricesorry Jim I got a request for one more clarification Parks has now completely moved their office to the old GMU Commerce Building and it's just a very Anyway, it's an interesting experience Commissioner Cunningham

Kirsten Lockhartcalled it an outhouse. I would just like to state for the record

Matthew Riceinappropriate It's no longer an in

Paul Cunningham-house

Matthew RiceIt's um, it's a building that you know I signed my first employment contract at Mason in the upstairs that used to house a HR and finance Used to handle the research unit for the Dr. Leaping D who's one of the most distinguished professors in the College of Science So I have a lot of history on my academic site in that building But I'm very happy that parks has space and storage Places to store things. I think this is all very temporary while willow chair was being built in and if mr Cunningham has views on the building and what it It's function and so forth. I'll leave that to him. Thanks Thank you.

James FeatherI will add my welcome to Mr. Drummond. I look forward to connecting up with you face-to-face over coffee. I return to Fairfax at the end of this week, and I'll touch base about getting together and having a chat. So welcome. Welcome. The Board of Architecture Review has had a couple of meetings canceled. Both meetings in October, I think, were canceled. They did meet on September, in September 16th, and there were two public hearings. One was the repainting of the Lehigh Motel, which, as many of you know, had become this purple and white sort of color. Apparently that happened just before the people who bought the building closed on it and were quickly informed that they were out of compliance.

But the bar had approved a repainting scheme to get it back closer to what it historically has looked like. The other public hearing for the architecture for the combined courthouse redevelopment of Courthouse Plaza. and that got approved, a recommendation for approval to take to the city council by unanimous vote. And we will have our own public hearing on that. On the 26th, as Mr. Napty mentioned, that will be a very full meeting for us. So please come prepared to spend some time, perhaps caffeinated, and there will be a lot of preparation that will be expected. And I expect we'll get a lot of public comments, matters that will be before us. So I'm just trying to prepare you for that. We'll have a long night of it.

But I know you're all up to it. And we've got a great commission in place here right now. Nothing else from me. So if no other comments from you, we will consider the meeting adjourn at this hour, 8.58. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 2Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.