MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING/WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF FAIRFAX CITY HALL, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA January 22, 2018

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING/WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF FAIRFAX CITY HALL, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA January 22, 2018 After determining that a quorum was present, Chairman Cunningham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Chairman Paul Cunningham and Commissioners Mark Angres, Tom Armstrong, Tom Burrell, Joseph Harmon, Janet Jaworski and Karen Wheeler-Smith. Member(s) Absent: None. Staff Present: Brooke Hardin, Director, Community Development & Planning; Jason Sutphin, Division Chief; Cindy Petkac, Division Chief; Paul Nabti, Planner III, David Hodgkins, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director and Tina Gillian, Secretary. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Cunningham led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Presentations and Proclamations. Mr. Cunningham presented a resolution of appreciation to outgoing commissioner Dennis Cate. 3. Discussion/Adoption of Agenda. MS. JAWORSKI MOVED TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Presentations by the public on any matter not calling for a public hearing. No one from the audience came forward to speak. 5. Approval of Minutes: Consideration of December 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes. MR. HARMON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MS. JAWORSKI, WHICH CARRIED 5:0 WITH MS. WHEELER-SMITH AND MR. ANGRES ABSTAINING. 1

2 6. Consent Agenda None. 7. Items Not Requiring a Public Hearing. a. Consideration of the 2017 Annual Report. Ms. Jaworski stated she liked the new format and the inclusion of the photo of the city map that was created by staff member Kelly O Brien. MS. JAWORSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL REPORT AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MS. WHEELER-SMITH, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Review Bylaws. Ms. Petkac stated the bylaws are required to be reviewed every two years, with the last review occurring in She said staff has received no requests for changes to the bylaws since the Planning Commission s last review. Mr. Harmon said he has reviewed the current bylaws and believes they are fine for another two years. Ms. Jaworski agrees the current language is okay. She suggests the bylaws be readopted with the current Planning Commissioners as signatories since Mr. Cunningham is the only remaining Commissioner from the 2014 signatories. MR. BURRELL MOVED TO ADOPT THE BYLAWS WITH TODAY S DATE, AS AMENDED TO UPDATE THE SIGNATORIES, SECONDED BY MS. JAWORSKI, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c. Nomination and Election of Chair and Vice Chair. MS. JAWORSKI NOMINATED MR. CUNNINGHAM TO BE ELECTED AS CHAIR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SECONDED BY MR. ANGRES, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. HARMON NOMINATED MS. JAWORSKI TO BE ELECTED AS VICE-CHAIR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SECONDED BY MR. BURRELL, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. d. Appointments to Boards and Commissions. MS. JAWORSKI NOMINATED MS. WHEELER-SMITH TO SERVE AS THE 2

3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (PRAB), SECONDED BY MR. HARMON, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ANGRES NOMINATED MR. CUNNINGHAM TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BAR), SECONDED BY MR. BURRELL, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. JAWORSKI NOMINATED MR. BURRELL TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR 2018, SECONDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Public Hearings. a. Z Request from Paradigm Development Company, applicant, by Mathew G. Roberts, Esq., Agent/Attorney, for consideration of a Map Amendment (Rezoning) from RM Residential Medium to PDR Planned Development Residential, pursuant to City Code Section and a Planned Development Review pursuant to City Code Section to allow development of up to 43 residential townhouse units on the premises known as 4131 Chain Bridge Road and more particularly described as Tax Map Parcel(s) Mr. Nabti presented the staff report which has been incorporated in the record by reference. He stated the property is located between Chain Bridge Road and University Drive. He said the property is zoned RM, Residential Medium, and is bounded by townhouses, the County Judicial Center and various office uses. He said the property is designated as mixed use on the future land map. He said the property is located in the Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District which provides specific guidance for development in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the zoning ordinance also provides specific provisions for this district and the intent is to provide a transition area from the historic old town to the standard development of the city. He displayed photos of the existing conditions of the property and stated the applicant requests to rezone the property from RM, Residential Medium, to PD-R, Planned Development Residential. He said the site would remain in the Transition Overlay District. He said the applicant is requesting modifications to the following code sections: A to allow internal streets without sidewalks on both sides A to allow tree canopy of 10 % B to allow internal streets with no street trees 3

4 He said the applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the amount of open space and required dimensions per code section B.3. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and Old Town Design Guidelines for the Transition Overlay District (TOD). He said the Comprehensive Plan supports: 1) Residential uses in the TOD; 2) Provisions for open space; and 3) Scale of development that reflects the surroundings. He said the Old Town Design Guidelines are similar, including: 1) Scaling that reflects surroundings; 2) Providing closure of space; and 3) Parking for the development. He reviewed the following requirements from the TOD that cannot be superseded by the PD-R designation: No minimum lot area Maximum height: 48 feet Build-to line: 10 feet maximum Side and rear yards: 0 feet Maximum lot coverage: 90% Maximum building coverage: 80% Sidewalk: 10 feet minimum Parking reduced Signage subject to BAR review He said the build-to line and sidewalk provisions will apply to this development and the applicant will be requesting special exceptions to these. He reviewed the two proposed site plans (Option A and Option B) provided for consideration by the applicant. He said the applicant is asking for the Planning Commission to approve either Option A or Option B. He said if the Planning Commission decides to provide a recommendation of support to City Council then staff requests they also include which option they support in their recommendation. He then reviewed the proposal summary shown below: Option A Option B RT Standard PDR Standard Residential Units No max. Density (DUA) No max. Tree Cover 10% 10% 15% 20% Open Space 16% 14% No req. 20% He reviewed the proposed streetscapes along Chain Bridge Road and University Drive. He said the applicant proposes to relocate the existing retaining wall along Chain Bridge Road - with the exception of two areas that have existing traffic and utility poles. He said staff has determined 4

5 the poles are not obstacles and has advised the applicant to consider ways to meet the 10 ft. sidewalk requirement at these areas. He said the applicant may be providing an alternative option tonight. He said staff has also requested the applicant provide additional pedestrian access points on the north end of the site. He reviewed the proposed parking and said the applicant has proposed parking in garages and nineteen surface parking spaces in both Option A and Option B. He said there are also additional parking spaces proposed that will be reserved for short term parking for delivery trucks. He said the architecture for the site was reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on January 3, 2018 and the BAR has provided a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to city council. He said the units will be 21 ft. wide and 47 ft. deep for a total floor area of 3,244 sq. ft. per unit. He said one BAR condition requires the applicant to explore modifications to the standard side elevation. He said the applicant has not yet submitted modifications to the architectural design, however, they have indicated they will comply with this condition. He said the units that face Chain Bridge Road will have a different elevation than the rest of the units. He said the estimated height for these units, measured to the midpoint of the roofline, is 28 ft. and the other units are 39 ft. He reviewed the surrounding building heights and stated staff recommends approval of the requested zoning map amendment from RM, Residential Medium, to PD-R, Planned Development Residential, subject to conformance with the Option B plan as submitted. Mr. Harmon asked for the width of the proposed internal sidewalks. Mr. Nabti said the proposed sidewalks are five feet wide. Ms. Jaworski asked for the size of the proposed common area. Mr. Nabti said around 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Armstrong asked if outreach efforts were made to property owners in the mixed use area to consolidate their parcels for a joint development. Mr. Nabti said there were recommendations to take measures in that direction during a joint study with George Mason in 2014, however, he is not aware of his department approaching individual property owners to consolidate. Mr. Armstrong said the adjacent bank property has an under-utilized parking garage that could be part of a shared parking area. He has a concern that the PD-R District is intended to provide planned communities that contain a mix of housing types and this development does not have a mix of housing options. Mr. Nabti said staff considered different options for this development. He said planned development provisions, such as shared open space, made the most sense for this development. 5

6 Mr. Armstrong asked for the locations of other developments designated as PD-R Districts. Mr. Nabti said this is the first development under this ordinance. He said previous planned developments were reviewed under the standards of the old ordinance which has changed. Mr. Armstrong asked for clarification that the minimum size for a site is two acres. Mr. Nabti agreed that is the correct size. Mr. Burrell said it appears to be okay for this parcel to be completely residential, even though it is designated as mixed use, because surrounding properties are designated commercial. He asked if this has been allowed for other developments. Mr. Nabti said this was allowed for the development located along School Street and Chain Bridge Road and the Mayfair development. Mr. Burrell asked why the rezoning request is for the PD-R District and not the RT District. Mr. Nabti said the RT District could have been used with additional special exception requests, however, staff considered the PD-R District appropriate because of the open space goal of the development. Mr. Cunningham said both Option A and Option B lack buffering of the townhouses. He asked whether buffers should have been required since this is a residential property located next to a commercial property. Mr. Nabti said the Transition Overlay District provisions allow for the side and rear yard requirements to be zero feet. Mr. Cunningham asked if this will allow the future residents to demand buffering of neighboring properties when this property will not have the same requirement. Mr. Nabti said this can happen in other locations, however, in the Transition Overlay District buffering is required only in places where a higher intensity use abuts a residential use that is located outside the district. At this time, Ms. Micheline Castan-Smith, Paradigm Development Company, came forward to address the Planning Commission. She said the units in Option B were placed along University Drive to create a wall based on comprehensive plan requirements. She introduced Mr. Adam Steiner, landscape architect, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Steiner said a dog park, a children s play area, additional seating areas and general open space are proposed for the site. He reviewed examples for a proposed sculpture and said bike racks will be available on the site. He 6

7 reviewed site access, lighting plans and the proposed retaining walls. Mr. Robby Malm, representative from Craftmark, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He reviewed the architecture and said earlier comments regarding side elevations and individual appearances for the units have been addressed. Ms. Castan-Smith introduced Mr. Matthew Roberts, counsel from Bean Kinney & Korman, Mr. Clark Ewart from Paradigm and Mr. Clayton Tock, engineer from Urban Ltd. Mr. Burrell asked who will own the road when the development is complete. Ms. Castan-Smith said the Homeowners Association will own the road located behind the townhomes. Mr. Burrell asked if any part of the stormwater system is located offsite. Mr. Tock said the stormwater management facility system is not offsite. Mr. Burrell asked if only one mailbox kiosk is proposed for the site. Mr. Steiner said there are three mailbox units proposed in one area. Mr. Burrell requested for the mailbox units to be spread throughout the site. He asked if Paradigm has contacted the commercial property owners to the south about shared parking and access from their commercial parking lot. Ms. Castan-Smith said this was considered with their earlier development, however, there are elevation problems that prevent this from happening. Mr. Armstrong asked if there are retaining walls located around the entire site. Mr. Tock said there are retaining walls on the north and southern property lines that run west to east. Mr. Armstrong asked for the distance between the proposed retaining wall and the existing retaining wall located on the adjacent bank lot. Mr. Tock said there will be approximately eight inches between the walls. Mr. Armstrong asked if handicap parking is proposed in the visitor parking spaces. Mr. Tock said there is one handicap parking space proposed. 7

8 Mr. Armstrong asked for the selling price of the units. Mr. Malm said the base asking price will be in the mid to low $700Ks. Mr. Armstrong asked how many bedrooms are proposed for each unit. Mr. Malm said typically three bedrooms - with a loft that can also be converted into a bedroom. Ms. Jaworski asked if Paradigm has information prepared tonight for the widening of the entire section of the sidewalk along Chain Bridge Road. Ms. Castan-Smith said they are currently in discussions with Dominion and a consultant about the widening. She believes they can accommodate staff s request to widen the entire sidewalk, however, they do not have a plan in place tonight. Mr. Cunningham asked how snow removal will be handled for this site. Mr. Ewart said the Homeowners Association will have a snow removal contract in place and the visitor parking spaces can be used as temporary storage for the snow. Mr. Cunningham said this can be a challenging problem should there be large amounts of snow. He asked whether the outside air conditioning units will be adequately protected during snow plowing operations. Mr. Ewart said contractors will have insurance to cover damages. Mr. Cunningham asked if the decks proposed for the top stories of the townhomes will face inward or outward from the courtyard. Mr. Malm said the roof decks will face the rear of the units - looking outwards from the site. Mr. Cunningham voiced his concern that residents will have views of their neighbors property from these high level deck areas. At this time Mr. Andy Kolls, Armstrong Street, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He is here tonight representing the Board of Directors for the Inns of Court and seventeen property owners located within that site. He read a letter from the Board of Directors which has been incorporated into the record by reference. He said the Board is pro-development, however, the plan put forth by the applicant is not appropriate for the site and is inconsistent with the zoning district requirements. He said the applicant s plan has many deficiencies regarding open space requirements, tree canopy, screening, sidewalk widths and snow removal. He said the applicant s proposal will result in the death or destabilization of trees located along the Inns of 8

9 Court property line. He said the applicant s proposal will impact future development of the Inns of Court property. He said the Board requests that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application. At this time, Mr. Ted Wiss, Breckinridge Lane, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He has a concern regarding the density of the units. He said the units are facing inward which makes for an unattractive environment. He said the townhomes are not wide enough and folks will be unable to park larger vehicles in their garages. He said the developer can reduce the number of townhomes to thirty-seven and charge $50k more for each townhome. He said there are not enough proposed parking spaces which will send people over to Breckinridge to fight for parking spaces. He is concerned about the environmental impact of so few trees proposed for the site and he is concerned about his property values and way of life. He said Breckinridge currently has drainage issues and he urges the Planning Commission to ensure drainage issues are addressed should they support this application. Mr. Sam Garbia, 4151 Chain Bridge Road, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He said his unit is four feet from the proposed site and he is concerned that trash will be stored on the Chain Bridge side of the proposed development and therefore be visible from his property. He said there is currently not enough space for people to walk on the sidewalk. At this time, Mr. Cunningham asked if anyone else in the audience would like to come forward to speak on this matter. Mr. Kolls returned to the podium to speak. He said the decision to pursue the PD-R District is what is affecting the neighboring properties. He said the RT District would have been the better district to pursue. At this time, Mr. Cunningham closed the public hearing. Ms. Jaworski asked Mr. Nabti to step her through the process regarding the agreement Paradigm needs in order to disturb trees on their neighbors property. She asked if this is a condition of approval and what will happen if Paradigm cannot obtain approval from their neighbors. Mr. Nabti said any agreement would be reached privately. He said if the Planning Commission and City Council approve this project it would not automatically authorize Paradigm to perform the work. He said if the applicant cannot secure the agreements they would not be able to receive permits for the work. Mr. Harmon said he is disappointed that his comments regarding the need for mixed uses on this property have gone unheeded. He prefers Option B over Option A, however, he still believes this project is too dense for this space. He is generally not in favor of the application as it stands tonight. 9

10 Mr. Cunningham reviewed the relationship between the City of Fairfax and George Mason University. He discussed the need for appropriate buffers between the city and the university. He questions how this plan meets the development goals for this area, the city, the university, or the comprehensive plan. He said there are a number of exceptions for items that do not meet the zoning regulations and a number of neighbors who may be impacted by this development. He said he has difficulty supporting this application. Ms. Jaworski said she likes the architecture of the development and the proximity of the development to the downtown area, however, she agrees that it is too dense when compared to the surrounding townhouse communities. She doesn t like the proposed tree canopy and that neighboring trees will be affected by this project. She said the proposed open space is approximately the size of her own lot and she cannot see sharing that size of a space with people. She said although there are some merits to the project, she is not in favor of the project at this time. Mr. Armstrong said he agrees with Ms. Jaworski and does not believe this project is a good example of a planned development residential district because it does not encourage a mix of housing options. He cannot approve this project. Mr. Angres asked the applicant whether mixed uses were considered when they began to develop this property. Mr. Ewart said it has taken two years to get to this point. He said they have taken into account the comments received. He said retail for this site did not make sense. He said this development was a guinea pig for this district and it is hard to be the first site through the process. He said special exceptions are necessary to conform to all the requirements of the zoning regulations. He said their mission is to work with their neighbors to ensure they are happy. He said there will be no change to the level of services of any intersections as a result of this development. He said the massing is appropriate for this site. He said the city will collect approximately $120K - $150K per year from this site. He said this is a walkable location that can support downtown retail businesses. Mr. Angres said he struggles at times to understand what the city or its residents want or propose for the sea of parking lots located between Armstrong Street and Sager Avenue. He does not have a problem with the proposed density. He said the downtown needs density in order to support businesses. He would prefer something else, however, he considers this an okay start. Ms. Wheeler-Smith said she is underwhelmed with this proposal. She said another option could be to redevelop the site as residential medium and place a few detached homes on the property, however, she does not believe that is the answer either. 10

11 At this time, MR. BURRELL MADE A MOTION THAT BASED ON THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, WELFARE AND GOOD ZONING PRACTICE, WITH RESPECT TO REZONING APPLICATION Z , WHICH HAS BEEN FILED FOR THE LAND KNOWN AS 4131 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TAX MAP , THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION OF PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BY MATTHEW G. ROBERTS, ESQ., ATTORNEY/AGENT, TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM TO PD-R PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: The density of the applicant s proposals, as set forth in Options A and B of the Master Development Plan, is incompatible with and will adversely impact adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood; The applicant s proposals, as set forth in Options A and B of the Master Development Plan, will adversely impact the safety and welfare of residents living in the vicinity of the subject property. Motion was seconded by Mr. Harmon. Mr. Burrell said many red flags were raised during his review of this project. He said his twenty years of experience as a Homeowners Association Board member makes him concerned for the end users of this development. Mr. Harmon clarified his comments regarding the need for commercial uses at the property. He said the developer could include uses other than retail as the commercial element. The motion carried 6:1, with Mr. Angres voting against the motion. b. Proposed Capital Improvement Program (FY2019 to FY2023). Mr. Armstrong asked if the recommended improvements for the Green Acres facility are considered urgent and whether the improvements will be addressed immediately. Mr. Hodgkins said several of the items are fairly urgent due to the age of the facility and the use of the facility. He said staff is looking at the Green Acres facility and at additional projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He said there will be significant changes to items that are not absolutely necessary for FY2019. He said some items will be deferred or reduced in the final CIP. Mr. Armstrong asked which improvements will be completed at Green Acres and whether the 11

12 proposed projects will be broken out separately or kept as one item. Mr. Hodgkins said the projects could be broken up based on priorities. He said in most cases the improvements are not package improvements, they are independent of each other. Mr. Armstrong said he would hate to see the city make big investments - such as the installation of long lasting chiller units - if the rest of the Green Acres facility remains inefficient. Mr. Hodgkins said that issue has been an ongoing concern at the Green Acres facility. He said major improvements tend to be held back until the future of the facility is determined. Mr. Cunningham asked if this year s overall CIP funding will be greater or less than last year s CIP funding. Mr. Hodgkins said staff is trying to maintain the funding level of last year and the year before. He said CIP funding had been cut following the recession. He said projects that fell behind during the recessionary period are being caught up on. He said based on revenues coming in, and other pressures, the city needs to keep the CIP funding within the same range as before to maintain infrastructure and facilities in good repair. Mr. Cunningham asked if the city has built enough cushion into the budget to address bad economic times that may come along. He asked if there will be enough in reserve to keep projects running for a year or two without damaging the CIP funding. Mr. Hodgkins said this is an area that is being looked at closely. He said City Council is considering the fund balance and larger funding for rainy day funds. He said there is currently a ten percent fund balance which will cover cash flow issues. He said City Council has added additional funds this year to have set aside monies for such things as WMATA costs. At this time, Mr. Cunningham opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment on the recommendation of the CIP. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing. MR. BURRELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER PC AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A, FINDING THAT THE PROJECTS DETAILED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2019 TO FY 2023 PROPOSED ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER FOR FUNDING THE PROJECTS CONTAINED THEREIN, SECONDED BY MS. JAWORSKI, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Adjourn Regular Meeting. 12

13 10. Work Session: a. Discussion of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Petkac discussed the proposed Planning Commission meeting schedule and meeting milestones that will get the Comprehensive Plan to its draft stage and a public hearing. The meeting dates range from February 6, 2018 to May 28, Reconvene Regular Meeting. 12. Staff Report Ms. Petkac confirmed she has accepted a position as the Director of Planning & Zoning with the Town of Vienna. She has enjoyed working with the Planning Commission and is always in awe of residents who volunteer to serve on boards and commissions. She thanked the members for the work they do on the Planning Commission. 13. Commission Comments. Mr. Burrell No comments. Mr. Armstrong No comments Ms. Jaworski Wished Ms. Petkac good luck in her new position with the Town of Vienna and said she will be missed. She welcomed Mr. Nabti to his new position. She welcomed Mr. Angres to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harmon Thanked Ms. Petkac for her leadership and service to the Planning Commission and for going above and beyond what is required of staff. He welcomed Mr. Angres to the Planning Commission. He said the City Council will be holding a work session regarding a Fairfax County project called One University next Tuesday. He said the project will be located next to the field house on Chain Bridge Road. Mr. Wheeler-Smith She reported from PRAB that Parks & Recreation received $13.6 million dollars to finish the George Snyder Trail. She said the new Holiday Market was generally a success and that Parks & Recreation hopes to expand this event next year. She reminded everyone the Chocolate Lovers Festival is coming up in February. She congratulated Ms. Petkac on her new job in Vienna. Mr. Angres Thanked everyone for their welcome wishes and wished Ms. Petkac the best of luck in Vienna. 13

14 Mr. Cunningham Reminded the Planning Commissioners that their annual Economic Interest and Real Estate Statements are due to the City Clerk s office by the 31 st of January. He said there is a $ fine for failing to provide the statements on time. He welcomed Mr. Angres to the Planning Commission. He said Ms. Jaworski will be covering the February 6 th and 12 th meetings. He thanked Ms. Petkac for her work and support of the Planning Commission. 14. Adjournment. Meeting Adjourned at: 9:57 p.m. ATTEST: Tina Gillian Tina Gillian, Secretary 14