►
From YouTube: Arlington County Planning Commission - December 4, 2017
Description
To view this meeting with the agenda, go to https://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=44
A
B
C
So
the
zoning
ordinance
amendment
tonight,
CoA
2017,
oh
7,
is
an
amendment
to
section
11.3
point
for
establishment
of
historic
districts.
The
proposed
zoning
ordinance
amendment
would
amend
the
portion
of
the
historic
preservation
overlay
district
ordinance
regarding
the
study
and
creation
of
new
historic
preservation
overlay
districts.
The
proposed
amendment
would
create
standards
to
establish
how
requests
for
Historic
Preservation
overlay
districts
are
made
and
who
has
the
standing
to
make
such
requests.
A
I'm
sorry
because
I
meant
to
in
my
introductory
remarks
make
it
very
clear
to
distinguish
this
item
from
the
housing
Conservation
District,
just
in
case
somebody's
watching
at
home,
or
we
could
so
I'm
just
gonna
state
that
right
now
interrupt
you
real,
quick
and
just
make
sure
that
everybody
understands
that
this
is
a
different
item
and
you're
gonna
you're
about
to
explain
in
your
presentation
what
this
is,
but
I
didn't
want
anyone.
Perhaps
he
was
watching
us
online
or
whatever
to
be
confused.
A
C
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
tonight
is
to
to
explain
how
the
historic
preservation,
zoning,
like
zoning
overlay
districts,
currently
work
and
the
history
of
this
portion
of
the
zoning,
ordinance
and
I
think
giving
you
the
background
in
the
history
and
explaining
the
mechanics
of
the
ordinance
will
create
a
better
framework
to
understand
the
small
changes
that
we
are
proposing
tonight.
So
again
is
a
little
bit
of
background.
We
were
talking
specifically
about
section
eleven
point:
three,
the
Historic
Preservation
overlay
districts
ordinance.
C
This
was
established
by
the
County
Board
in
1976,
so
we've
had
this
portion
of
the
zoning
ordinance
allowing
for
historic
preservation
districts
for
a
little
over
40
years.
It
was
updated
intermittently
in
the
70s
in
the
1980s
and
then
in
2009
and
2010
staff
undertook
a
complete
rewrite
of
the
zoning
ordinance
to
update
it
and
to
to
modernize
it
and
to
incorporate
other
sections
of
the
code
and
the
ordinance
that
would
be
better
suited
to
be
in
the
historic
preservation
district
ordinance.
C
We
also
updated
it
in
2016
to
include
provisions
specific
to
the
designation
of
properties
owned
by
Arlington
Public
Schools,
also,
as
part
of
modernizing
the
zoning
ordinance,
we
created
sections
on
design
guidelines,
as
well
as
including
criteria
about
how
a
property
should
be
evaluated
for
its
historical,
cultural
or
architectural
significance.
Currently,
there
are
26
localities
in
the
state
of
Virginia
that
have
local
historic
preservation.
Ordinances
we
are
authorized
to
do
so
under
the
Code
of
Virginia.
C
Historic
districts
may
be
established
only
by
ordinance
and
localities
may
create
architectural
review
boards
to
administer
historic
district
designations
and
permitting
and
in
arlington
county.
Since
1976
we
have
had
what
is
now
known
as
the
historical
affairs
and
landmark
Review
Board
their
function
is
laid
out
in
the
zoning
ordinance
is
to
recommend
properties
be
considered
as
historic
districts.
C
They
recommend
that
excuse
me
make
those
recommendations
to
the
county
board
and
they
also
review
permits
within
the
historic
districts
now
across
the
state
of
Virginia
standards,
for
considering
how
Historic
Preservation
overlay
districts
are
considered
vary
widely
by
locality.
Some
localities
only
allow
historic
district
study
requests
to
come
from
local
governing
authorities,
or
so
your
City
Council,
your
town
council
and
the
designated
architectural
review
board.
C
So
the
first
step
is
a
request
is
submitted
anybody
any
any
person
anywhere
may
currently
submit
a
request
in
writing
to
the
historic
preservation
program
coordinator
or
to
the
HLR
be
chair,
and
then
our
ordinance
requires
that
the
historic
preservation
staff
informed
the
property
owner
and
the
person
who
has
requested
the
district
designation
and
they
are
not
always
the
same
person
within
10
business
days,
that
a
request
has
been
received
by
our
office.
The
next
step
involves
historic
preservation,
staff,
researching
a
property
and
producing
relevant
historical
information
about
the
property.
C
The
HP
staff
writes
the
initial
historic
district
designation
report
and
makes
recommendations
to
the
HLR
beyond
whether
or
not
a
property
may
meet
two
of
eleven
designation
criteria,
as
outlined
in
the
arlington
county
zoning
ordinance,
and
I
should
note
that
there
is
no
timeframe
associated
with
this
in
the
ordinance
the
staff
is
and
the
HLR
b
are
not
required
to
respond
within
30
days
60
day
90
days,
145
days,
it's
not
like
other
portions
of
the
ordinance.
There
is
no
time
frame.
C
So
often
step2
can
take
30
to
60
days,
sometimes
for
very
complicated
districts,
particularly
cemeteries.
Where
there's
a
lot
of
genealogical
research,
it
may
take
upwards
of
a
year
to
complete
all
of
the
research
we
have
to
do
just
to
get
to
the
finding
of
two
of
eleven
designation
criteria.
So
the
next
step
is
public
hearing
number
one
where
the
HLR
be
schedules,
the
public
hearing
to
determine
if
a
property
may
meet
two
of
the
eleven
criteria
and
then
the
hov
recommends
whether
or
not
a
process
and
the
research
by
staff
should
continue.
C
If
they
do
make
that
recommendation,
then
the
HP
staff
completes
the
detailed
historic
research
on
the
property
and
completes
the
designation
report,
and
this
is
the
phase
where
staff
does
the
analytical
work
to
determine
if
there
are
more
criteria
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
a
property
could
meet
for
historical
significance
and
really
fleshing
out
how
a
property
may
meet
those
criteria.
In
this
timeframe,
staff
also
works
with
a
property
owner
to
draft
historic
district
design
guidelines.
C
The
next
step,
step
five,
is
that
the
HL
RB
will
schedule
its
second
public
hearing
to
determine
if
the.
If
at
least
two
of
eleven
designation
criteria
have
been
met
and
the
HL
RB
will
make
a
final
recommendation
as
to
whether
the
historic
designation
report
and
the
accompanying
design
guidelines
should
move
forward
to
public
hearings
at
the
county
board.
The
next
step
involves
all
of
the
The
Associated
public
hearings
with
establishing
the
historic
district.
C
Typically,
they
go
to
the
lrpc
at
least
once
it
will
go
to
the
county
board
for
the
request
to
advertise
and
then
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
back
to
the
county
board
for
adoption,
and
then
there
may
be
other
neighborhood
and
Commission
meetings,
as
required
depending
on
the
particular
district.
Then
the
last
step
is
the
post
approval
process.
C
The
adoption
of
the
new
historic
preservation
overlay
district,
where
the
zoning
map
is
amended,
permanent
records
are
updated
and
staff
continues
to
keep
in
very
close
touch
with
the
property
owner
to
work
with
them
on
future
projects
and
to
communicate
with
them.
The
new
requirements
for
their
historic
district.
C
The
request
must
be
made
on
a
County
application
form
that
will
require
basic
property
descriptions,
historical
information,
photographs,
etc,
and
I
will
speak
about
those
those
that
specific
information
further
and
we
are
limiting
the
requests
based
on
the
property
type
that
people
are
asking
us
to
study
whether
it
is
a
single
or
a
multiple
property
and
then,
as
part
of
step.
Two
we
are.
C
We
are
changing
that
ten-day
time
frame
to
a
30-day
time
frame
where,
upon
review
of
the
application
form,
it
will
be
the
Historic
Preservation
coordinator,
who
will
deem
whether
an
application
is
complete
and
then,
when
the
application
is
complete,
the
property
owner
will
then
be
notified
within
30
days
of
that.
Finding.
C
So,
as
I
briefly
mentioned
before,
we
are
modifying
the
standards
for
who
may
request
these
studies
and
how
they
are
requested
for
single
properties.
A
request
may
be
submitted
by
an
Arlington,
County
resident
or
a
property
owner
for
multiple
properties.
Requests
will
be
accepted
only
from
Civic
homeowners
or
condominium
associations
for
properties
within
their
own
boundaries.
C
So,
for
example,
Lyon
Park
could
not
recommend
that
Lyon
Village
be
designated
as
a
local
historic
district,
and
we
would
also
accept
a
petition
signed
by
25%
or
more
properties
within
the
boundary
of
the
proposed
designation
and
I
also
wanted
to
make
clear
that
the
HLR
be
Arlington
public
schools
and
the
county
board's
standing
to
request
historic
preservation.
District
studies
remains
unchanged.
Each
of
those
three
groups
may
continue
to
do
so
on
their
own
motion.
C
So,
regarding
the
application
form,
we
looked
very
closely
at
what
other
local
jurisdictions
do
in
Virginia,
looked
at
what
happens
within
the
District
of
Columbia
and
looked
at
Montgomery
County
and
in
Prince,
George's
County,
and
also
the
the
information
forms
that
are
used
by
the
Virginia
landmarks
register,
as
well
as
the
Maryland
historical
trust,
to
see.
What's,
what's
the
baseline
about
property
information,
so
we
put
together
a
draft
basic
form
where
we
would
ask
people
to
submit
to
us
what
is
the
address?
C
What
is
the
real
property
code
and
any
ownership
information
that
they
may
have
a
one
to
two
paragraph,
physical
description
of
the
property?
It
is
a
house,
it
is
a
cemetery,
it
is
the
neighborhood.
It
is
a
fort,
a
one
titude
paragraph
description
of
the
architectural
cultural,
historical
significance
of
the
property.
This
was
an
african-american
store.
This
was
a
Civil,
War,
campground,
etc,
and
then
photographs
maps,
newspaper
articles
and
other
supporting
documentation
throughout
this
request.
This
this
process
for
the
application
form
that
people
would
be
submitting.
C
We
do
want
to
reiterate
that
historic
preservation
staff
will
continue
to
communicate
with
whoever
is
making
the
request
to
collect
information
throughout
the
process.
We
don't
intend
for
people
to
submit
the
application
and
we
look
at
it
once
and
say
no,
this
isn't
this
isn't
any
good.
It
will
be
an
iterative
back-and-forth
process.
We
are
a
very
you
know,
we're
a
small
group,
but
were
very
hands-on
with
with
the
community
and
we're
used
to
working
with
people
to
solicit
that
type
of
information,
and
we
would
continue
with
that.
C
Once
we
receive
the
application
form,
then
it
will
be
up
to
the
historic
preservation
staff
to
continue
to
prepare
the
analysis
of
whether
or
not
a
property
meets
two
of
the
eleven
criteria.
We
do
not
expect
the
community
members
to
undertake
that
analysis
if
they
want
to
and
want
to
submit
that
as
part
of
the
process.
Of
course,
we
would
accept
that,
but
that
would
not
be
required
and
we
are
planning
to
have
paper
and
electronic
copies
of
the
form
available
after
the
zoning
ordinance
amendment
is
adopted.
C
Give
you
an
idea
of
our
our
timeline
and
our
public
outreach.
This
was
heard
twice
at
the
HLR,
be
in
October
and
in
November,
and
they
have
submitted
a
letter
to
you.
This
also
went
to
zoko
in
November.
We
had
our
request
to
advertise
at
the
county
board,
November
18th
on
the
consent
agenda.
We
are
here
tonight
and
are
scheduled
for
the
County
Board
on
December,
the
16th.
That
concludes
the
staff
presentation.
Thank
you.
D
Gee,
a
member
of
Planning,
Commission
I,
don't
have
my
slide
today,
so
I
will
try
to
speak
slowly.
I
have
several
concern
regarding
this
proposal.
So
first
established
ins
in
didn't,
discuss
the
purpose
of
historical
preservation
lula
district,
described
when
zoning
ordinance
and
to
achieve
the
general
purpose.
The
county
seek
promote
local
historical
preservation
through
the
identification
protection,
historical
resources
and
3
designation,
local
historical
district
in
encouraged
nomination
and
the
county.
D
Many
years
ago,
from
90s
and
early
adventures
make
architectural
survey,
and
it
was
the
basis
of
nomination
and
I,
have
a
note
from
the
store
Civic
Association
median
sent
to
the
county
that
the
county
recognized
the
stoker,
neighborhood
I'm,
sorry,
Alton,
County,
County,
recognized
significance
of
place
in
Swanton,
school
and
I
recommend
initiate
an
elimination
of
historical
neighborhood
for
National
Register.
The
can't
you
do
that
Association
just
was
proud.
Now,
County
have
no
right.
Only
citizens
getting
the
signatures
could
nominate
why
the
county
step
up
from
the
process
initiated
historical
districts.
D
Why
is
the
buildin
to
make
the
studies
shift
to
the
citizens?
This
is
not
clear
now.
The
second
question
is
that
series
distinguish
between
voters
already
started
a
new
object
and
if
this
already
on
the
staff
record,
if
included
on
historical,
local,
historical,
historical
inventory,
why
the
study
should
be
go
again
and
I
favor
that
when
architectural
study
was
done
for
Virginia
register,
it
was
said
that
only
this
concerted
particular
owner,
this
edgy
stuff
was
Putin
Snyder
and
he
sees
it
cited.
The
stupid,
Civic
Association
account
decision,
2002
supporters.
D
Why,
when
somebody
outside
somebody
outside
science,
a
petition
over
against
new
on
us
is
more
than
fifty
percent
change
should
should
stop
this.
It's
already
paid
in
on
fire,
and
this
amendment
do
not
take
into
account
districts
which
already
started,
and
the
previous
owner
does
have
a
concerned,
and
they
think
it
should
be
distinguished
what
Hong
Kong
do
and
the
last
card
board
could
initiate
studies,
but
could
not
nominate.
D
A
E
E
Those
were
incorporated
into
the
language
mostly
having
to
do
with
a
little
bit
of
the
process
of
referring
it
to
the
Zoning
Administrator
and
then
to
the
HLR,
be
filing
with
the
Zoning
Administrator
rather
and
then
referring
it
to
the
HLR
be,
and
then
we
looked
at,
we
discussed
the
25
percent
number
and
I
think
ultimately
concluded
that
that
was.
That
was
a
good
number.
We
also
felt
that
the
30-day
time
period
was
helpful
to
staff
for
the
10-day
time
period.
That
currently
exists
is,
is
a
bit
rushed
in
many
respects.
F
A
F
You
Commissioner
gacho,
thank
you,
Miss
Bell
Oh,
miss
Lachaise
tourism
is
Lawrence.
Soco
heard
this
issue
at
its
November
14th
meeting.
The
proposed
changes
to
the
zoning
ordinance
are
meant
to
create
a
standard,
predictable
process
for
the
historic
preservation,
overlay
district
requests
and
for
our
purposes
tonight
we're
focusing
on
the
three
main
changes
here:
the
required
completion
of
a
county
application
form,
including
specific,
requested
documentation.
F
But
during
our
meetings
we
asked
her
about
this,
and
some
of
you
might
remember
that
she
noted
that
we
had
requests
from
all
over
the
world
to
preserve
the
parking
garage
that
was
associated
with
water,
deep
throat
throat,
so
it
just
so
that
that's
the
impetus
for
some
of
this.
This
is
the
background
for
some
of
these
changes
and
then
last.
F
The
third
one
is
the
increased
time
period
for
a
property
owner
notification
from
10
to
30
days,
in
recognition
that
some
of
these
requests
take
a
lot
of
time
to
get
all
of
this
information
together.
So
at
our
meeting
we
felt
that
these
changes
all
seemed
quite
reasonable
and
would
implement
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Other
issues
that
came
up
were
some
zoko
members
wanted
to
see
the
application
form
and
they
asked
how
staff
would
respond
to
incomplete
applications.
F
But,
as
noted
staff
is
willing
to
meet
people
on
a
spectrum
wherever
they
are,
you've
missed
this
photo
or
I'll,
come
to
the
house
and
walk
you
through
the
process.
Whether
certified
mail
would
better
ensure
that
property
owners
were
notified
if
they
were
not
the
ones
making
the
request,
but
we've
been
assured
that
it's
not
been
a
problem
so
far.
F
They
do
reach
out
and
they
make
sure
that
the
property
owners
do
know
that
such
a
request
has
been
made
if
they
did
not
make
it
themselves
and
how
an
appeal
process
might
work
either
for
a
property
owner
who
was
denied,
but
who
requested
the
designation
or
for
a
property
owner
who
did
not
seek
this
designation
and
it
was
approved
when
it
was
sought
by
others.
So
those
were
the
three
issues
that
came
up.
A
G
Have
a
couple
thank
you
on
line
38,
where
it
says
well,
37
and
38,
where
it
says
30
days
of
receipt
of
an
application
deemed
complete
via
first-class
mail.
It's
a
question
about
the
definition
of
complete.
Does
that
mean
that
the
application
itself
is
complete
or
does
it
does?
It
also
imply
that
somebody
has
determined
that
there's
merit
to
the
request.
C
It
will
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
Historic
Preservation
coordinator
to
determine
if,
if
an
application
is
complete,
meaning
that
we
have
all
of
the
information
that
the
HLR
bee
would
reasonably
need
to
make
a
conclusion
about
the
of
11
designation
criteria
that
making
that
decision
is
is
never
up
to
the
program
staff.
It
rests
solely
with
the
HLR
be
so
we
just
it
would
be
complete
when
we
feel
that
they
have
enough
information
to
to
reasonably
come
to
a
conclusion.
C
G
C
G
Right,
so
that's
a
legal
standard,
yes
and
item
number
8,
which
I
know
you
are
not
changing
as
a
result
of
this
I
just
wanted
to
note
and
I'm
not
gonna
make
any
sort
of
motion
to
this
regard,
but
in
the
future,
when
you
might
be
looking
at
this
again,
I
found
88
to
93
a
very
confusing
sentence.
So
at
some
point
in
the
future,
if
you
were
looking
to
change
that,
I
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
that
sentence.
H
A
Right,
commissioner,
shell
did
you
ever
follow
up
on
the
30
days,
because
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
that
before
it
turned
to
you,
miss
bellow,
the
we're
adding
not
only
extending
10
days
to
30
days,
but
we're
actually
adding
that
language
about
deemed
complete.
So
is
there
any
timeframe
associated
with
how
long
staff
can
take
to
to
deem
it
complete?
In
other
words,
it
seems
like
we
could
be.
C
Understood
one
of
the
things
that
we
looked
at
were
similar
application
type,
similar
application
forms
in
the
county
for
the
site
plan
review
process
and
also
the
use
permit
review
process
that,
for
example,
have
a
Honda.
They
have
180
days
baked
into
them
already.
The
idea
is
not
to
to
stretch
you
know,
deeming
the
application
completes
so
far
out
that
it
never
actually
comes
to
a
conclusion
point
because
then
it's
just
a
lingering
part
of
our
work
program.
C
Part
of
our
work
program,
is
to
deal
with
every
designation
request
that
comes
in
the
door
in
a
timely
fashion.
We
did
not
want
to
put
a
timeframe
into
the
ordinance
because,
as
I
as
I
alluded
to
before,
some
of
our
designation
requests
to
do
them
properly
can
take
a
year's
worth
of
research,
and
we
we
know
that
we
know
that
some
of
them
can
go
very
quickly
and
some
of
them
can
take
a
very
long
time.
C
So
we
wanted
to
give
flexibility
for
the
Historic
Preservation
coordinator
to
work
with
with
the
requester
to
get
things
done
in
a
timely
manner,
but
not
to
put
an
artificial
time
limit.
Just
knowing
that
this
type
of
work
can
to
do
it
correctly
can
can
take
a
long
time
to
do
justice
to
the
process.
I
I
I
If,
if
we
in
the
previous
example,
we
only,
we
have
to
notify,
say
you
have
an
unlikely
neighbor
who
you
don't
like,
and
you
wish
to
place
them
in
the
historical
affairs
landmark
review
board.
Maybe
that's
good,
maybe
it's
bad!
Maybe
the
owner
doesn't
want
that
previously
under
the
existing
zoning,
they
receive
a
note
in
10
days,
letting
them
know
whether
or
not
you
would
talk
to
them
before
or
not.
But
under
this
one
I
think
there
is
a
slight
loophole
that
you
could
sit
for
a
long
time
without
anyone's
knowledge.
Sure.
K
H
K
C
Some
jurisdictions
require
a
petition
signed
by
50%
or
more.
The
city
of
Blacksburg
is
one
city
of
Charlottesville.
Has
a
similar
number
other
places
required?
Just
a
signature
of
says,
Lynchburg
has
five
registered
voters
can
submit
a
petition
which
is
which
is
interesting
for
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places,
for
a
district
to
to
be
accepted
by
the
Park
Service.
C
You
are
required
to
have
50%,
plus
one
of
the
property
owners
consenting
to
that
historic
district
being
created,
and
then
our
NC
program
in
the
county
you're
required
to
have
the
affirmation
of
60%
of
owners
along
the
linear
frontage.
So
those
are
much
higher
thresholds,
but
those
are
the
thresholds
for
approval
of
a
historic
district
or
of
an
NC
project
in
the
county.
C
So
we
we
looked
at
25%
as
a
reasonable
threshold
to
initiate
a
study
that,
if
you
could
garner
the
consent
of
25%
of
your
neighbors
or
people
within
the
district,
that
that
was,
that
was
a
sufficient
sufficient
number
to
show
some
measure
of
community
support,
perhaps
not
enough
to
carry
something
over
the
finish
line,
but
certainly
enough
for
us
to
warrant.
Looking
at
it
and
doing
an
initial
study.
K
E
L
I'm
sorry
I
was
going
to
come
in
about
the
10-day
in
the
30-day
and
I
believe
that
the
30-day
really
has
to
that
comes
from
when
there's
a
multiple
property
request.
So
the
time
it
might
take,
depending
on
the
size
and
and
some
of
the
experience
of
hrb
is
actually
a
lot
depending
on
how
many
properties
there
are
and
to
turn
it
around
in
ten
days
is
difficult
for
single
property.
L
You
think
the
language
that
we
have
before
us
is
within
30
days,
so
I'm
hopeful
that
if
there
was
the
single
property
that
staff
might
get
back
to
them
more
quickly,
I
think
with
Commissioner
Hughes's
concern
in
mind,
whereas
having
the
expanse
to
30
days
when
there's
multiple
property
requests
with
the
25
percent,
it
gives
more
time
so
I
I'm,
just
saying
I
think
there's
a
little
elasticity
there.
Mr.
commissioner
Hughes
wants
to
come
in.
I
Commissioner
Hughes
Thank
You,
commissioner
I
guess
I'll.
Do.
Commissioner,
you
got
community
I,
appreciate
that
and
I
understand,
but
I.
Think
in
your
response.
The
30
days
is
not
30
days
from
the
receipt
of
the
application.
It's
30
days
from
it
being
deemed
complete
by
staff,
and
we
know
our
staffs
good
and
they
hopefully
will
stay
with
us
forever.
But
that's
not
always
true.
So
I.
L
Still
think
that
the
elasticity
and
I
think
the
completeness
has
to
do
with
just
being
able
to
get
as
much
information
as
we
know
and
I
think
the
new
form
is
going
to
help
with
that.
I
think
right
now,
just
requesting
a
letter
when
you
have
no
idea
exactly
how
much
you're
supposed
to
put
into
it
can
lead
to
a
completeness
issue,
whereas
with
the
form,
particularly
as
I,
think
weeks,
staff
experiments
with
it
and
and
makes
it
more
fulsome,
will
have
the
completeness
issue
put
to
bed
Commissioner.
A
F
So
this
gets
somewhat
Commissioner
Hughes's
concern,
and
this
was
the
issue
that
was
raised
at
SoCo.
What
is
the
process
for
appeal
if
a
property
owner
didn't
nominate
their
own
property
and
they
don't
want
this,
but
it
is
somehow
designated
or
the
converse
it's
some.
It
gets
a
little
bit
to
the
25
percent
as
well.
What
if
there
is
not
consensus
in
the
neighborhood?
How
would
they
go
forward?
F
C
The
only
final
action
that
would
be
appealable
would
be
the
county
board's
adoption
of
the
zoning
overlay.
Everything
else
to
that
point
would
just
be
hearings
by
the
HLR,
be
making
a
recommendation,
a
recommendation
by
by
the
Planning
Commission.
So
it
would
be
the
same
type
of
appeal
that
a
property
owner
would
have
if
they
objected
to
the
county
board
down
zoning,
their
property
or
zoning,
their
property
from
r6
to
c2,
and
they
don't
agree
with
with
the
correctness
of
that
zoning
category.
It
would
be,
it
would
be
the
same
type
of
appeals
process.
E
The
HLR
DB
still
has
a
flexibility
under
the
under
the
language
to
determine
that
the
criteria
and
the
zoning
ordinance
have
been
met,
but
can
either
recommend
designation
to
the
county
board
or
not,
and
in
the
face
of
overwhelming
opposition
from
an
from
an
owner.
There
was
a
situation
which
we
declined
to
recommend
designation
to
the
county
board.
Thank.
F
A
F
You
thank
you.
I
move
the
PC
recommend
the
county
board
adopt
the
ordinance,
as
shown
an
attachment,
a
to
amend,
reenact
Andry,
codify
section
11.3,
historic
preservation,
overlay
district,
specifically
section
11
point
three
point:
four
of
the
arlington
county
zoning
ordinance
in
order
to
establish
standards
for
requesting
historic
preservation,
overlay
district
studies
seconded.
J
Also
had
a
question
about
organizations
that
are
allowed
to
make
make
these
applications
would
it
be
reasonable
to
expand
it
to
include
the
Business
Improvement
Districts
and
entities
such
as
C
pro
Lee,
Highway,
Alliance,
Clarendon,
Alliance
or
other
organizations
that
may
come
into
existence
like
that,
and
the
reason
is
is
that
when
you
have
a
long
corridor
with
multiple
homeowners
associations
and
civic
associations,
sometimes
districts
could
overlap
and,
of
course,
the
way
it's
written
now.
The
civic
associations
can
only
do
within
their
borders.
The
homeowner
association.
J
J
It
may
not
happen
it
presumably
be
pretty
rare,
there's
also,
actually
some
doughnut
holes
in
the
county
that
are
don't
belong
to
any
homeowner
association
or
civic
association,
but
could
fall
within
one
of
these
other
organizations.
I
think
that
it
wouldn't
hurt
to
add
these
as
additional
organizations
that
would
be
allowed
to
make
the
applications
I
don't
think
would
make
any
additional
work
for
the
for
the
staff
on
this.
But
it
would
be
sort
of
a
belt
and
suspenders.
C
This
comment
was
made
at
Zuko,
and
staff
did
did
consider
it,
and
we
spoke
internally
about
how
how
that
language
may
be
written
into
the
ordinance
and
what
benefit
it
would
provide
to
the
ordinance.
Ultimately,
we
did
decide
that
the
provision
that
we
wrote
in
requiring
a
petition
of
25%
of
the
owners
would
be
the
appropriate
mechanism,
and
currently
you
know
if
you
notice
as
part
of
this,
we
are
not
amending
the
definitions.
Section
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
condo
association,
homeowners,
Civic
Association,
are
terms
that
are
well
understood.
C
There
was
some
debate
about
how
we
would
describe
these
types
of
organizations,
one
to
the
different
corridors
that
we
have
in
the
county.
We're
starting.
You
know
we're
continuing
planning
for
lis
highway.
We
have
the
RV
corridor,
we
have
the
Crystal
City
route
1,
we
have
Columbia
Pike
a
number
of
those
corridors
within
their
sector
plans
and
along
Columbia
Pike,
already
call
out
historic
districts
and
historic
properties
for
different
layers
of
protection
and
and
again
what
we're
writing
in
with
the
petition.
C
L
Wanted
to
to
make
it
clear
that
the
process
for
the
designation
of
individual
buildings
right
and
is
still
able
to
be
requested
by
someone
who
is
the
property
owner
and
who
isn't
or
who
isn't
the
property
owner?
The
only
change
is
for
multi
district
multi
building
districts
so
that,
because
I
know
there
had
been
some
confusion,
I
think
in
the
community
early
on
when
this
came
out
that
it
had
to
do
with
individual
buildings,
and
it
doesn't.
A
B
M
Thank
you
good
evening
wanted
to
provide
a
quick
overview
of
the
package
of
amendments
that
we
are
proposing
that
impact
both
form-based
codes
on
Columbia
Pike,
the
commercial
centers
and
neighborhoods
for
Mays
code.
There
is
a
substantive,
substantive
quantity
of
pages
that
relates
to
the
proposed
track
changes
to
the
code.
I
hope
this
presentations
simplifies
that,
in
addition
to
I,
think
what
the
staff
report
explains
and
hopefully
through
the
presentation,
we
can
explain
why
there's
so
many
changes
being
proposed
tonight,
I
wanted
to
provide
a
quick
overview
of
the
form
based
code.
M
Many
of
you
are
familiar
with
it.
Those
may
be
that
not
as
much
I
think
we
have
a
similar
starting
point
as
we
begin
to
discuss
the
proposed
changes,
but
I
also
wanted
to
spend
some
time
explaining
the
purpose
behind
this
amendment
and
while
we're
even
looking
at
it
so
to
begin,
there's
two
form
based
codes
along
Columbia
Pike.
The
original
one
was
adopted
in
2003
and
applied
to
several
the
key
commercial
intersections
along
the
pike.
Its
purpose
was
to
primarily
incentivize
redevelopment
that
hasn't
been
occurring
on
Columbia
Pike
for
decades.
Prior
to
that
adoption.
M
Ten
years
later,
in
the
in-between
areas
of
those
notes
in
the
multifamily
areas,
the
neighborhood's
form
based
code.
The
second
one
was
adopted.
Its
purpose
was
somewhat
different.
It
was
intended
to
make
sure
that
families
at
different
income
levels
could
still
find
housing
along
Columbia
Pike.
It
included
additional
requirements
for
lead
in
affordable
housing,
and
both
of
them
are
treated
as
overlay
districts
on
Columbia
Pike,
the
by
right.
Zoning
still
applies.
The
general
land
use
plan
still
exists,
but
they
are
structured
similarly
and
we'll
kind
of
get
into
that.
M
As
we
look
at
some
of
the
proposed
changes,
this
gives
you
a
better
sense
of
the
geography
along
Columbia
Pike
and
how
each
of
the
form
based
codes
applies.
The
darker
hatch
are
the
commercial
areas
that
were
regulated
by
the
first
Commercial
Code.
The
lighter
red
areas
are
the
neighborhoods
and
multi-family
areas,
and
this
intentionally
omits
most
of
the
single-family
homes
which
have
not
been
playing
before.
M
Within
the
form-based
codes,
even
though
each
one
has
several
different
sections
that
regulate
a
wide
range
of
topics
with
regarding
building
design,
the
two
that
we're
going
to
focus
on
tonight
involve
the
architectural
standards,
but
as
well.
The
building
envelope
standard
between
the
two
of
them
money
are.
The
topics
that
we've
heard
from
the
community
and
stakeholders
could
be
used
to
enhance
some
of
the
future
building
designs
that
we
might
see
on
Columbia
Pike.
M
Staff
took
a
look
at
the
local
and
regional
development
patterns
over
that
same
period
of
time.
We've
engaged
the
development
community
with
experience
on
Columbia
Pike
and
who
participated
in
previous
four
marisco
projects,
and
we
also
provided
a
survey
and
some
additional
joint
work
sessions
with
various
stakeholders
to
get
their
feedback
I
think
prior
to
jumping
into
the
actual
amendment,
we
did
want
to
highlight
some
of
the
actual
styles
that
have
been
approved
in
Columbia
Pike.
These
next
two
slides
give
you
a
sense
of
the
different
designs
that
have
been
brought
forward
and
approved.
M
This
is
the
most
recent
five-year
increment
where
we've
had
10
projects
approved
them
on
Columbia
Pike.
You
can
see
there's
a
wide
range
of
architectural
styles.
However,
some
have
been
raised
in
association
with
concerns
that
there's
a
similar
design
that
sometimes
occurs
on
Columbia
Pike
going
backwards,
the
first
five
year
increments.
Since
the
original
adoption
on
the
phone
based
code
had
less
redevelopment.
M
However,
there
was
a
mixture
of
concrete
and
wood
frame
construction
for
the
primary
purpose
of
this
analysis,
we
wanted
to
focus
on
the
wood
frame
construction
because
that's
predominantly
what
we
see
on
Columbia
Pike.
This
has
a
lot
to
do
with
the
potential
density
that
could
be
achieved.
Many
of
the
sites
can
only
go
up
to
six
storeys
in
height
at
that
point,
you're
not
really
looking
at
concrete
construction
in
a
non
metro
area.
There
are
some
sites
that
are
for
bonus
density
that
could
get
you
beyond
60
and
again.
We've
had
several
concrete
projects.
M
One
of
the
other
things
we
continue
to
highlight
throughout
this
process
is
the
fact
that
we
only
influenced
so
much
of
what
impacts
the
design
process.
There
are
many
other
external
factors
they
can
see
on
this
slide
that
influenced
the
design
team,
the
developers
in
just
general
market
forces,
but
the
one
piece
that
we
have
influence
over
is
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
it's
the
degree
possible.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
if
there
are
any
refinements
that
could
at
least
help
us
achieve
better
architecture,
we
make
sure
we
cover
those.
M
To
recap.
Some
of
the
effort
that's
took
place
early
this
year.
I
wanted
to
quickly
just
spend
some
time
discussing
the
three
work
sessions
that
we
have
joint
workshops.
These
included
collaboration
between
the
form-based
code
advisor
working
group,
the
design
review
committee
of
HL
RB,
the
pike
presidents
group
and
the
Planning
Commission
starting
in
March.
We've
had
a
very
insightful
review
of
the
development
reviews
in
the
regional
geography.
This
included
over
60
projects
between
Maryland
DC
Virginia
and
several
different
jurisdictions
again,
with
a
focus
on
wood
frame
construction.
M
In
some
cases,
even
nationally,
some
of
the
research
has
begun
to
even
identify
them
by
a
specific
name,
but
basically
deals
with
non
specific
designs
that
could
be
easily
transferred
between
communities.
They
lack
a
certain
identity
and
therefore
they
don't
really
offend
anybody
and
it
can
be
easily
transplanted.
M
The
next
workshops
that
we
had
in
May
of
2017
looked
at
visual
corridors
throughout
the
region,
not
just
in
Arlington
but
also
in
Alexandria.
So
we
took
a
close
look
at
how
those
corridors
developed.
We
also
compared
them
to
where
Columbia
Pike
is
clearly
we're
still
very
early
in
the
stages
of
our
visual
identity.
I
think
Columbia
Pike
is
just
kind
of
beginning
to
get
into
that
process,
even
though
we
had
17
projects
approved
so
far.
There
are
still
a
number
of
sites
that
have
not
been
developed,
and
many
may
not
in
the
long
term.
M
So
this
gave
us
a
sense
of
some
of
the
distinct
styles
that
had
been
adopted
in
those
other
jurisdictions
and
corridors,
and
it
helped
us
kind
of
self
reflect
on
what's
happening
and
which
direction
we
want
to
go
on.
With
regards
to
Columbia
Pike,
the
last
workshop
took
place
in
July,
and
this
one
we
actually
invited
the
development
community
with
experience
with
form-based
code
and
provided
a
very
open
discussion
around
the
framework
of
changes
that
we're
considering
at
that
time,
some
popular
themes
began
to
arise.
M
M
So
for
tonight
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
really
cover
three
main
categories
of
amendments.
The
first
one
I
think,
is
the
most
critical
there's
a
defined
term
in
each
code,
complete
discrete
vertical
facade,
composition
for
simplification
and
tonight's
purpose.
I
wanted
to
just
rely
on
facade
compositions
when
dealing
with
that
topic,
but
that's
also
grouped
with
building
placement.
So
we
took
a
really
careful
look
at
what
could
be
done
differently.
M
M
We
believe
that
there
are
no
consequences
to
ensuring
that
between
architectural
standards
and
billing
envelope
standards,
the
two
codes
can
kind
of
speak
the
same
language,
we've
consisted
in
their
terminology
and
their
structures,
so
the
second
and
third
columns
you
know
in
categories
really
speak
to
page
layouts
organization
of
standards
and
at
least
with
those
two
sections
in
each
code.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
they
kind
of
read
and
we're
understood.
M
Similarly,
so
starting
with
the
first
one
again,
the
the
key
adjustments
are
really
intended
to
adjust
how
the
compositions
along
building
facades
are
treated
again.
When
we
mentioned
facades,
we're
speaking
of
the
main
building
edges
that
face
the
public
streets,
so
edges
that
face
the
rear
alley
or
side
condition
are
not
impacted
by
this,
but
beyond
just
the
definition
and
maximum
links
for
compositions.
We
also
wanted
to
highlight
the
intent
statements.
M
The
way
that
these
things
are
defined
and
what
kind
of
graphics
we
use
to
support
some
of
the
regulations
throughout
the
presentation,
I
also
try
to
highlight
some
opportunities
for
new
flexibility,
as
well
as
a
starting
point.
I
wanted
to
highlight,
what's
currently
happening
in
the
commercial
form
based
code.
A
similar
situation
exists
in
neighborhoods
code,
but
this
is
a
good
starting
point.
M
First
of
all,
the
facade
composition
statements
are
kind
of
sprinkled
throughout
the
code.
Section
3,
which
really
covers
the
regulating
plans,
stipulates
how
how
how
far
apart
the
actual
compositions
need
to
be
there's
a
maximum
distance,
that's
applied
in
section
8
and
the
attachments
there's
a
determination
that
made
since
the
original
adoption
that
further
explains
what
a
composition
is
and
what
criteria
we
used
to
evaluate
them.
In
this
case,
just
like
a
neighborhoods
code
designers
have
to
pick
three
of
the
five
categories
to
determine
that
they've
met
the
composition
requirements.
M
The
proposed
changes
that
we're
looking
at
that
would
apply
to
both
commercial
and
neighborhoods
form
based
code.
First
would
clarify
exactly
what
the
meaning
of
this
term
is
provide
additional
illustrations
that
highlight
what
we
mean
by
this.
What
are
good
examples
of
a
facade
composition,
they're
also
going
to
completely
re-evaluate
the
distance
at
which
compositions
compositions
need
to
last.
So,
instead
of
using
a
hard
number
for
the
length
of
facade
compositions,
we're
going
to
make
it
proportional
to
the
proposed
building
height
and
that
way,
whether
it's
a
four
story
or
a
eight
story.
M
Building
that
composition,
distance
will
fluctuate,
there's
also
a
new
element
that
we're
introducing
specifically
geared
to
the
transitions
behind
between
facade
compositions
and
the
material
detailing
that
has
to
occur
when
those
two
things
meet
so
that
the
images
you
see
below
are
some
of
the
inspirations
that
we
found
in
our
research.
That
kind
of
led
us
to
this
recommendations.
M
Additionally,
behind
beyond
just
further
defining
this
concept,
we're
making
sure
that
all
four
of
these
elements
have
to
be
met
on
each
facade
composition.
So,
while,
overall,
it's
a
somewhat
of
a
simplification
of
design,
it
is
kind
of
increasing
the
threshold
and
the
quality
of
architecture
that
we're
going
to
get
on
future
projects.
M
One
way
of
further
illustrating
this
and
and
I
think
the
benefits
from
just
looking
at
the
staff
report
or
the
track
changes
is
looking
at
a
case
study
which
is
currently
under
construction
on
Columbia
Pike
and
B
Cannon
Street.
This
is
the
forty
seven
or
seven
building,
which
is
a
four-story
condo
project
with
ground-floor
retail.
Here
I
wanted
to
emphasize
the
two
facades
which
front
a
public
right
of
way
on
the
left,
yeah
Buchanan
Street
on
the
south.
M
You
have
Columbia
Pike,
and
here
you
can
see
where
the
alley
and
the
rear
of
the
building
is
as
well
as
the
general
distances
for
each
facade
from
a
street
view.
The
way
that
this
project
was
reviewed,
applied
a
60-foot
maximum
average
to
the
compositions
which,
when
considering
the
lengths
of
these
facade,
resulted
in
six
different
facade
compositions.
M
So
this
is
basically
using
the
maximum
average
that
same
approach
using
the
two-to-one
ratio
that
we're
proposing,
which
is
based
on
the
proposed
height
of
the
building,
would
cut
that
number
in
half
where
you
would
only
have
three
different
facade
compositions
in
a
good
way
of
visualizing
that
since
I
know
these
are
really
helpful.
Is
this:
is
the
approved
facade
that's
currently
under
construction?
M
If
the
approved
proposed
recommendations
were
in
place,
it
could
look
like
potentially
like
something
like
that,
so
the
existing,
very
busy
facade,
a
lot
of
different
changes
could
bring
us
closer
to
a
more
simplified
architecture
and
I
think
something
that
the
community
has
indicated.
They
would
prefer
in
exchange
for
what
we
have
today
separate
from
the
facade
compositions.
We
also
looked
at
building
placement
and
again,
every
site
has
a
very
strict
required
billing
line.
M
They
have
to
commit
to
at
least
75%
of
your
building
has
to
be
located
on
that
line,
and
there
is
very
little
room
for
variation
when
it
comes
to.
Can
you
be
in
front
of
it?
Can
you
be
behind
it?
So
one
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
highlight
is
kind
of
the
existing
conditions
in
both
codes.
You
can
see
that
in
commercial
code
there
is
some
potential
for
flexibility.
M
You
can
be
two
feet
on
and
off
that
line
and
still
consider
to
be
on
the
RVL
in
the
neighborhoods
from
base
code
that
distances
increase
to
30
inches,
but
it's
only
into
the
buildable
area.
So
it's
a
different
kind
of
treatment.
The
bottom
half
of
the
slide
captures
the
percentages
that
the
building
has
to
meet
while
being
in
the
zone.
M
So
one
of
the
things
that
we've
done
is
really
focused
on
the
projects
that
need
to
be
that
that
generally
located
on
Columbia
Pike,
the
multifamily
and
mixed-use
buildings,
we
didn't
really
touch
the
townhouse
developments
that
are
further
into
the
neighborhoods
and
when
you
look
at
those
least,
the
ones
that
were
approved,
this
minimum
variation
and
the
billing
projections
really
becomes
flat
once
you
kind
of
get
away
from
being
right
at
the
bill
even
across
the
street.
So
even
a
two
foot,
you
know,
setback
for
some
of
these
facades
is
minimal
and
barely
noticeable.
M
So
one
of
the
things
that
we're
proposing
is
to
increase
that
distance
to
36
inches
and
make
sure
that
can
occur
forward
and
behind
the
RVL.
In
addition-
and
this
is
really
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
to
regulate
how
much
of
the
RPL
is
occupied
by
a
building,
we're
proposing
a
maximum
percentage
that
cannot
be
exceeded
by
any
project,
and
this
could
be
addressed
by
having
a
unique
corner
condition
or
proposing
some
additional
setbacks
in
the
building
or
breaks
in
the
facade.
That
would
get
you
under
that
number.
M
One
of
the
things
that
we've
heard
is
that,
while
the
requirements
are
great
and
it
forces
people
to
be
more
creative,
if
every
project
has
to
meet
the
same
requirements,
we're
likely
to
kind
of
get
the
same
outcome
where
every
project
starts.
To
look
the
same.
So
in
an
effort
to
impact
that
we've
proposed
a
couple
of
incentives
in
the
commercial
form
based
code,
which
already
exists
in
the
neighborhoods
code.
M
In
this
case,
we're
talking
about
rooftop
amenities,
which
would
not
count
against
your
total
story
count
or
breaking
up
your
private
open
space
requirement
into
multiple
areas.
Right
now,
they
all
have
to
be
consolidated
in
a
single,
continuous
area
in
order
to
qualify
for
these
incentives,
we're
proposing
that
two
things
have
to
be
provided.
One
is
a
complete
set
back
of
the
upper
storeys
for
a
minimum
of
six
to
eight
feet,
and
this
is
most
recently
accomplished
on
the
ripe
banana
coffee
project
on
Barton,
Street
and
Columbia
Pike.
M
In
exchange
for
that,
you
will
qualify
for
those
two
relief
measures.
The
other
way
you
qualifies
by
providing
green
or
solar
roof
technologies
which
again
we're
not
seeing
because
they're
not
required
so
I.
Think
in
this
case,
maybe
some
developers
might
be
interested
in
providing
that
in
exchange
for
the
new
flexibility
that
we're
offering
again
purely
in
the
commercial
code
since
those
options
already
available
in
the
neighborhoods.
M
The
other
second
and
third
category
of
the
amendment
is
more
streamlined.
We're
dealing
with
reducing
some
of
the
overly
prescriptive
regulations.
We
actually
kind
of
went
through
this
exercise
back
in
2012
when
the
neighborhoods
code
was
being
adopted
and
we
were
evaluating
the
architectural
standards
in
that
document.
M
What
this
is
doing
is
bringing
the
commercial
code
consistent
with
what
we
have
in
the
neighborhoods
code,
so
some
of
the
things
like
maximum
window
dimensions,
lighting
standards-
and
you
know,
cornice
projections
they're
being
eliminated
to
be
consistent
with
the
neighborhoods
code
and
we've
heard
from
the
development
community
that
they're
really
not
impacting
the
design
of
the
building,
it's
just
kind
of
being
overly
prescriptive.
We're
also
using
a
similar
structure
to
the
regulations,
that's
currently
being
applied
at
the
neighborhood's
form
based
code.
M
This
includes
shifting
some
of
the
existing
regulations
and
the
Commercial
Code
to
newer
locations,
which
is
why
I
think
you
have
so
many
pages
of
track
changes,
because
a
lot
of
the
text
is
shifting
around
that,
in
some
cases
we're
completely
rewriting
a
section.
Otherwise
it
would
have
been
a
much
smaller
package.
M
One
of
the
other
things
that
were
emphasized
throughout
many
of
our
joint
workshops
is
the
issue
of
science.
Currently,
both
form
based
codes
have
a
unique
set
of
standards
that
apply
only
to
Columbia
Pike.
We
are
proposing
to
remove
those
standards
and
simply
refer
to
article
13,
which
would
bring
farm-raised
core
projects
consistent
with
other
cycling
projects
throughout
the
county
as
those
science
science
standards
change,
so
would
they
for
Columbia
Pike.
M
Lastly,
the
organization
of
standards
is
going
to
follow
a
more
streamlined
approach.
We're
trying
to
for
each
subtopic
have
kind
of
a
two
page
approach.
One
page
is
full
of
text
organized
in
consistent
format
and
language.
The
other
page
is
more
visual
and
has
not
just
appropriate
examples,
but
also
inappropriate
examples
based
on
our
feedback.
Inappropriate
examples
are
just
as
valuable
and
I
think
speak
and
support.
Many
of
the
text,
language
that
we
have
proposed
here
and
we've
kind
of
went
through
great
extents
to
find
those
examples,
and
hopefully
they
make
a
difference.
M
This
is
a
couple
of
examples
of
those
again.
Some
of
them
are
based
on
recently
approved
phone
based
code
projects.
Others
are
local
developments
that
we
found
and
some
even
include
Google
Street
maps
of
projects
that
were
sent
to
us
from
some
of
the
stakeholders
that
we've
worked
with,
and
you
know
please
make
sure
you
use
this
for
this
particular
topic.
M
So
as
you
look
through
the
amendment
document,
there's
several
pages
that
are
topic
based
that
include
visual
examples.
The
process,
as
I
mentioned,
to
took
most
of
2017
to
complete
following
the
workshops
that
we
had
in
the
first
half
of
the
year.
We
went
back
to
each
stakeholder
group
independently
to
review
the
proposed
changes.
Most
of
this
occurred
in
September
and
October
with
requests
to
advertise
last
month,
there's
been
general
support
in
each
meeting
behind
the
amendments.
M
M
Hopefully,
that
makes
the
difference,
but
we
believe
that,
based
on
the
approve
proposed
changes
that
we're
giving
ourselves
a
better
chance
of
having
better
architecture
on
Columbia
Pike,
these
are
in
keeping
with
the
vision
of
both
the
Coney
Pike
initiative
and
the
neighborhood's
area
plan,
and
they
provide
a
lot
of
consistency
between
the
two
codes.
So
staff
recommends
the
adoption
of
the
proposed
amendments
to
both
commercial
and
neighborhood
phone
based
codes.
This
concludes
my
presentation.
Thank.
A
I
Commissioner
good
job
Hue's
this
was
we
heard
this
to
the
form-based
code.
Back
in
September,
all
members
of
the
forum
based
code
advisory
working
group
were
very
supportive
of
the
changes
and
had
been
taking
part
in
the
process
from
the
beginning
of
spring.
I
do
think
it's
important
to
note
just
as
we
go
forward.
I
There
is
some,
you
know,
conversation
I
think
you
know.
Are
we
going
to
move
towards
great
architecture,
maybe
not
as
great
as
we
could
all
hope
for,
but
are
we
gonna
have
better
architecture?
One
hope.
So
we
might
enter
the
knotch
period
from
the
turret
period,
but
you
know
I'm
one
that
says
that
you
know
we
always
have
to
make
progress,
and
so
that
being
said,
I
think
one
thing
that.
I
F
Thank
You
commissioner
gotcha
Thank
You
mr.
Matuszak,
so
Co
heard
this
at
its
September
27th
meeting,
and
the
proposed
changes
generally
are
meant
to
encourage
greater
architectural
diversity
along
Columbia,
Pike
and
Shu
achieve
consistency
between
the
Columbia
Pike
form-based
code
and
the
Columbia
Pike
neighborhoods
form-based
code,
and
these
changes
reflect
what
staff
has
heard
from
the
community
in
the
form
based
code
advisory
working
group
in
the
development
community.
So
there
is
a
lot
in
the
presentation.
F
I
tried
to
summarize
in
our
report
its
page
2
of
the
overall
zoko
report,
the
gist
of
the
most
substantive
changes,
try
to
categorize
them.
So
in
order
to
achieve
the
desired
less
similar
building
facade
design.
The
proposed
changes
include
this
new
minimum
distance
for
individual
facade
compositions
and
an
expanse
of
maximum
distance
for
individual
facade
composition.
That
was
the
slide
mr.
mcusic
showed.
F
That
said,
we
would
go
from
six
to
three,
so
we
might
have
some
larger
expanses,
but
it
still
looked
highly
desirable
and
then
a
requirement
that
all
four
of
the
identified
facade
elements
would
vary
with
each
composition,
the
window
shape
and
grouping
the
wall,
materials,
the
window
percentage
and
the
treatment
of
the
corner
saw
roof
line
in
the
past.
It
was
three
out
of
five,
so
we're
being
a
bit
more
prospectus
prescriptive
with
that
as
a
way
of
breaking
up
the
massing
of
the
large
buildings
changes
to
the
building
placement
along
the
required
building
lines.
F
Again,
one
of
the
goals
is
to
try
to
bring
the
two
into
closer
alignment
allowing
the
changes,
including
the
development
project,
adherence
to
either
setting
the
upper
storey
facades
back
at
least
eight
feet
from
the
ground
store
from
the
ground
storey,
reserving
a
minimum
portion
of
the
roof
for
vegetation
or
solar
panels.
I
personally
am
really
pleased
to
see
this
addition
to
the
rooftop
amenities,
because
that's
something
we've
started
to
hear
in
site
plans
and
I
think
that's
a
very
smart,
pragmatic
use
of
space
in
our
densifying
urban
corridor.
F
Community
issues
raised
with
regard
to
the
sign
signage
regulations,
the
proposal
to
remove
the
distinctive
ones
from
the
forum
based
code
and
instead
regulate
future
projects
with
the
science
standards
and
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance
and
as
a
way
to
reinforce
the
style,
neutral
architecture
for
town
homes
that
propose
changes,
including
the
new
photographs.
The
changes
to
promote
consistency
between
the
two
codes,
including
the
opportunity
for
at
grade
entrances
to
townhomes
and
the
requirement
of
the
landscape,
landscaping
or
garden
wall
to
provide
privacy.
F
At
the
zoko
meeting,
we
were
fortunate
I'm,
Commissioner
Hughes
was
able
to
take
a
few
moments
and,
as
the
chair
of
the
form-based
code,
advisory
working
groups
share
a
soco's
understanding
of
where
the
community
was
on
these
issues
and
what
their
process
had
been
like.
So
there
were
no
substantive
issues
raised
at
SoCo.
I
have
a
few
issues
regarding
the
language
that
we
can
get
you
in
our
discussion.
A
A
F
Since
we
are
asking
to
meet
all
four
of
those
requirements,
could
we
consider
adding
in
and
after
each
element,
different
fenestration
type
and
change
in
wall
material
and
change?
It
okay,
sure,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
and
then
this
is
miscellany,
but
throughout
the
additions
and
I
know
there
are
page
after
page
of
these
and
so
I'm
sure
this
probably
hasn't
come
to
your
attention.
F
Yet
there
are
the
odd
missing
period,
changes
in
font
type
and
then
with
the
word
facades,
sometimes
using
the
sign
under
the
sea
and
sometimes
I'm
just
looking
for
consistency
in
the
final.
That's
all
I
have
oh
and
also
consistency
in
labeling
the
photos,
perhaps
putting
the
the
labels
underneath
each
row
of
photos.
It's
somewhat
drawing
visually
to
see
it
one
way
and
then
another
way,
but
otherwise
that
look
at
the
excellent.
Thank
you.
A
G
G
The
question
I
have
is
about
the
rooftop
and
specifically
the
green
room
top
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
what
you
were
saying,
since
there
are
some
areas
in
along
Columbia
Pike.
That
I
think
that
the
neighborhoods
plan
was
hoping
could
could
be,
could
create
some
green
space
that
doesn't
otherwise
already
exist
in
your
presentation,
it
sounded
like
perhaps,
and
I
may
have
misunderstood
that
maybe
some
of
the
green
roofs
could
substitute
for
contiguous
green
space
on
the
ground
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
didn't
misunderstand
that
so.
M
In
a
commercial
form
based
code,
which
is
where
that
language
applies,
green
roofs
are
encouraged,
but
they're
not
required
just
like
building
setbacks,
or
you
know
a
pleasant
distinction,
but
we
never
see
them
so
in
order
to
incentivize
those.
We
package
them
together
to
provide
some
additional
flexibility,
that's
in
the
neighborhoods
for
misquote,
but
not
yet
in
the
commercial
code.
So
in
this
case
green
roof
technology.
M
If
it's
provided,
could
allow
you
to
then
separate
and
break
off
your
some
of
the
square
footage
that
is
required
on
every
site
for
private
open
space
just
for
the
residences
and
that
square
footage
still
has
to
be
met.
And
it's
separate
from
the
green
roof
technologies.
They
would
have
their
own
unique
minimum
size
requirement.
That's
captured
in
the
track
changes,
but
again
it's
attendant
to
basically
incentivize
it
on
some
projects
where
we're
not
getting
them
on
any
other
ones.
M
K
K
Oh
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
you
could
help
me
kind
of
through
how
you
arrived
at
the
kind
of
calculations
204
to
209,
the
kind
of
watts
per
square
foot
helped
me
understand
where
that
came
from
and
also
I'd
be
interested
in
knowing
on
204
205.
Why
that
watts
per
square
foot
the
1.5
watts
per
square
foot
is
inclusive
of
the
mechanical
equipment.
This.
M
Is
based
on
the
input
we
received
from
staff
and
des
which
has
dealt
on
this
issue
with
several
recent
projects
and
based
on
their
experience,
input
from
developers.
They
believe
that
these
minimums
would
still
meet
the
intent
of
the
changes
that
we're
proposing,
but
still
appear
as
an
incentive
and
potentially
entice
some
developers
to
take
advantage
of
I
think
we're
trying
to
be
cautious
in
our
preliminary
approach,
since
these
are
brand
new
incentives.
It's
in
that
place,
standard
too
high
and
not
have
anybody
take
advantage
of
it.
M
K
Is
that
kind
of,
if
you're
contending
with
mechanical
equipment,
there
will
be
some
shading
that
will
occur
that
will
shade
some
of
your
solar
array
and
make
it
less
efficient.
So
you're
not
gonna,
be
able
to
necessarily
think
of
your
whole
roof
as
something
that
you're
gonna
be
able
put
solar
on,
especially
if
you
have
a
northern
portion,
you're,
not
gonna,
it's
gonna
be
shaded,
and
so
maybe
something
to
consider
I
don't
tend
to
make
a
motion
necessarily
tonight,
but
maybe
something
to
think
about
yeah
I.
M
Think
from
a
practice
standpoint
when
we
generally
meet
with
applicants
very
early
in
the
process
prior
to
any
formal
submissions.
Generally,
those
type
of
discussions
take
place
and
in
this
example,
if
we
would
pose
that
question
early
enough
staff
who
were
involved
in
developing
these
minimums
would
be
at
that
say
one
to
kind
of
guide
the
development
team
to
make
sure
that
that
conflict
is,
you
know,
avoided
okay,.
K
N
Also
want
to
follow
up
on
the
incentive
for
solar
just
to
preface
echoing
some
of
my
fellow
commissioners
I.
Just
think
this
is
an
absolutely
wonderful
effort
and
I
really
commend
you
for
having
undertaken
it.
I
know
it
was
a
long
process
and
a
lot
of
thought
just
very
quickly.
That's
not
on
the
solar
issue,
but
I
thought
it
was
absolutely
fascinating
to
see
the
translation
of
the
regulation
into
a
picture
that
you
showed
with
the
number
of
facade
changes
and
I.
N
Think
that
in
particular
captured
for
me,
something
that
I
think
could
be
understood
as
a
universal
principle
of
design
in
which
you
have
to
have
a
foreground
and
a
background.
If
everything
is
foreground,
you
don't
know
where
to
look,
and
you
don't
know,
what's
important
and
there's
a
sense
of
fragmentation
and
disorganization.
N
There
are
lots
of
variables
and
the
technology
I
think
really
has
evolved,
with
a
greater
sensitivity
to
shade
and
the
ability
to
produce
energy,
the
other,
the
other
disincentive.
We
have
in
Virginia's
that
we
don't
have
feed-in
tariffs.
If
you
make
more
energy
than
you
can
use,
I
believe
there's
a
credit
to
you,
but
in
other
jurisdictions
you
can
sell
it
and
make
money
on
it
all.
That
is
to
say,
it's
very
exciting
that
this
incentive
is
in
the
code
and
will
the
County
yourself
or
even
DES,
be
monitoring.
I!
N
M
Definitely
expect
some
level
of
monitoring,
not
just
with
that
statement,
but
also
just
in
general,
the
package
of
changes
that
we're
proposing,
because
I
think
we
want
to
see
what
the
impact
is
on
some
of
these
upcoming
projects,
which
we
do
expect
to
have
some
next
year
and
that
what
does
that
mean
to
the
façades?
You
know:
are
these
amendments
working
properly
and
are
any
further
refinements
necessary?
Will.
N
L
We
weren't
just
hashing
out
it
wasn't
an
SPRC
meeting
we
weren't
just
going
on
one.
It
was
very,
very,
very
interesting,
so
I
thank
you
for
a
very
clear
presentation
this
evening,
but
also
for
that
process.
I
think
it
was
also
great
to
see
sort
of
the
interdepartmental
collaboration.
It
was
all
it
was
really
helpful
to
all
of
us.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
So
what
I?
What
that
question
is
I,
wouldn't
existing
projects
that
the
there
under
the
ordinance
right.
So
as
the
ordinance
changes,
they're,
not
grandfathered
in
necessarily
or
or
are
they
are
existing
projects
grandfathered
under
the
old
rules
or
with
the
new?
The
rules
of
article
13
now
be
available
to
even
existing
projects
that
were
built
under
the
form
based
code.
They.
M
Would
be
available
to
the
previously
approved
projects,
I
think
it's
just
a
question
of
how
we
would
administer
if
any
changes
would
be
proposed
by
those
owners.
I
think
in
the
earlier
instances
where
comprehensive
signed
plans
were
submitted
as
part
of
the
application
process.
That
would
be
a
separate
process,
although
probably
handled
through
an
administrative
change.
M
Other
projects
I
think
we've
also
kind
of
handled
that
way
as
well,
but
many
of
them
are
in
the
construction
now
and
haven't
really
finalized.
I
think
what
happens
on
the
ground
floor
and
many
of
the
sign
changes
impact
the
retail
environment
on
that
ground
floor,
so
that
I
expect
that
many
of
them
will
come
in
if
they
believe
there's
an
advantage
to
the
proposed
changes.
A
Okay,
I
think
you
you
may
want
to
just
make
that
clear
and
and
staff
report
that
actually
the
provisions
of
article
13
would
be
of
avail
to
existing
projects
and
to
the
extent
that
there's
anything
to
think
through
on
the
staff
level
in
terms
of
how
you
would
handle
that
would
encourage
you
to
do
so.
Alright,
commissure
LAN
tell
me
I
also.
J
That
architecture
is
the
same
and
we're
fighting
very,
very
strong
headwinds
and
in
trying
to
improve
the
level
of
our
our
design
here
and
it's
a
worthwhile
effort
and
I'm
hoping
it
will
result
in
improvements.
I
think
we're
on
the
right
track,
but
it's
just
it's
incremental
rather
than
transformative,
I
suppose,
and
it's
not
because
of
anything
you
guys
are
doing
or
not
doing
we're
just
fighting
economic
forces,
legal
forces,
tax
forces
lender
forces
that
it's
hard
to
counter.
But
again,
thank
you.
I
agree.
J
A
K
Mr.
mcusic,
on
the
precedent,
images
that
you
have
throughout
this
is
a
kind
of
a
general
comment,
so
I
don't
think
you
necessarily
need
to
turn
to
any
one
page,
I'm
glad
they're
here.
This
is
great
I.
Think
when
our
discussions
at
back
in
September,
we
had
some
discussions
about
whether
the
president
images,
especially
for
the
ones
that
inappropriate,
might
need
a
little
bit
of
context
about
what
in
the
image
was
inappropriate.
K
So
I
would
encourage
staff
to
think
about
adding
some
text
there,
because
on
page
40,
it's
great
it
has
poor
use
of
building
materials,
incorrect
hierarchy
of
wall
materials.
But
if
you
go
to
42
and
44,
it
just
says
you
know
inappropriate.
Awning
things
like
that
and
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
know
what,
in
that
image
is
inappropriate
and
how
it
corresponds
to
the
language
that
appears
above
here.
K
Yeah
I
mean
inappropriate
mechanical
equipment.
It's
pretty
easy
that
one
is
pretty
obvious.
You
can
see
them
in
the
street,
but
and
they're
not
screened,
but
I
think
it
might
just
be
helpful
a
little
bit
more
context,
but
I
appreciate
that
they're
here
and
I
know
we
had
asked
for
that.
So
that's
great.
Thank
you.
Thank.
I
I
moved
to
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
the
county
board
adopt
the
attached
ordinance
to
amend,
reenact
and
recodified
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance
as
follows:
article
11
point
1
Columbia,
Pike,
form-based
Code,
appendix
Columbia;
Pike
form
base
code
districts,
Appendix
A,
to
amend
the
regulating
plants,
building
envelope,
standards,
streetscape
standards,
architectural
standards
and
definitions,
an
article
11
point
2
Columbia,
Pike,
neighborhoods
form
base
code,
districts,
Appendix
B,
to
amend,
building
envelope
standards,
architectural
standards
and
definitions
shown
in
attachment,
1
and
2.
Second,.
A
A
You
any
further
discussion
all
right
and
I
will
certainly
just
pile
on
again,
as
others
have
and
and
congratulate
staff
on.
Remember
the
very
first
time
we
met
and
talked
about
this
and
I
wondered
exactly
where
was
this
gonna
go
and,
and
actually
it's
gone
very
well,
I
think
and
a
great
body
of
work,
so
very
good
job
for
staff.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Please
raise
your
hand
all
those
opposed,
abstained.
A
B
O
Thank
you
good
evening,
I'm
here
tonight
to
provide
information
for
you
on
a
proposed
general
land-use
plan.
Amendment
rezoning
and
22:32
determination
request
for
three
parcels
that
were
purchased
for
construction
of
a
temporary
fire
station
to
be
used
during
construction
of
a
permanent
fire
station.
Oh
sorry,.
O
So
in
summary,
the
proposed
actions
we
are
looking
at
tonight
are
a
general
land
use
plan,
amendment
for
parcels
outlined
in
red
from
lo
residential
to
government
and
community
facilities,
rezoning
from
r6
to
the
S
3,
a
zoning
district
and
a
request
for
a
22:32
determination
to
confirm
staff's.
Finding
that
both
the
temporary
fire
station
and
permanent
fire
station
to
be
constructed
are
consistent
with
the
county's
comprehensive
plan
per
the
Virginia
Code
section
15
point
2
20
to
32.
O
By
way
of
background.
There
is
a
history
to
the
where
we
are
today.
With
regards
to
this
fire
station
in
July
2016,
the
her
fire
station
number
8
task
force
a
recommendation
from
them.
The
County
Board
voted
to
approve
a
plan
to
rebuild
fire
station
number
8
at
its
present
location
on
Lee
Highway.
At
that
time
they
also
asked
staff
to
explore
options
for
construction
of
a
temporary
station
to
be
built
on
site
during
the
construction
of
the
new
station.
O
O
O
So
one
thing
to
note
is
that,
typically,
if
a
club
amendment
and
rezoning
is
needed,
that
would
be
concurrent
with
review
of
a
building
plan
as
a
site
plan
for
that
project.
However,
in
this
case,
the
construction
of
the
the
development
of
the
new
station
is
a
matter
of
right
in
the
s3,
a
zoning
district,
which
is
what
is
the
current
zoning
designation
for
the
site,
so
the
project
will
not
be
coming
forward
through
a
public
hearing
process
again.
O
In
addition,
the
county
board
has
provided
guidance
during
the
through
the
acquisition
of
the
parcels
that
they
would
be
used
specifically
for
a
temporary
station
and
also
there's
been
a
significant
community
process
leading
to
where
we
are
today
that
these
parcels
would
be
used
for
a
temporary
station.
So,
with
all
that
background,
it
is
appropriate
at
this
time
to
bring
forward,
but
generally
use
plan,
amendment
and
rezoning
request
so
that,
following
this,
the
design
process
can
move
forward
with
community
review
involved
in
that
in
that
effort.
O
So
that
said,
staff
did
conduct
an
analysis
to
determine
if
the
general
land
use
plan
and
zoning
district
needed
to
be
looked
at
and
concluded
that
a
general
in
use
plan,
amendment
and
rezoning
wasn't
appropriate
was
needed,
and
what
we
concluded
was
that
the
sites
the
parcels
acquired
should
be
changed
from
low
residential
to
government
community
facilities.
The
reasoning
for
this
is
that
the
government
and
community
facilities
designation
provides
for
county
state
and
federal
administration
and
service
facilities,
which
includes
a
fire
station.
O
In
terms
of
the
rezoning
staff
recommends
that
the
parcels
be
rezone
from
r6
to
the
s3,
a
zoning
district.
This
is
again
consistent
with
the
permanent
station
zoning
district.
It's
also
consistent
with
the
government
and
community
facilities
club
designation.
It
allows
for
the
planned
fire
station
program
needs
specifically,
as
I
mentioned
before,
it'll
be
a
buy-rite
use
and
the
proposed
the
concept
plan
for
the
new
station
is
looking
to
be
less
than
the
45
foot
height
maximum
in
the
s3
zoning
district
and
this
s3,
a
zoning
district
is
typically
found
adjacent
to
low
residential
areas.
O
So
that
brings
us
to
the
22:32
determination
request.
As
you
may
be
aware,
the
Virginia
Code
requires
that
no
building,
public
building
or
structure
be
constructed,
established
or
authorized.
Unless
and
until
the
general
location
or
approximate
location
character.
An
extent
has
been
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
found
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
O
So
staff
has
conducted
of
study
to
determine
if
this
station
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
we
do
find
them
the
temporary
station
and
the
permanent
station
to
be
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
it's
designated
as
government
community
facilities
on
the
general
Lane
use
plan.
With
this
general
Lane
use
plan
amendment,
the
entire
site
will
be
designated
as
such.
O
So,
just
as
an
additional
note
on
22:32
determinations
staff
is
working,
staff
is
aware
that
these
22:32
determinations
are
coming
forward
as
a
request
with
more
frequency.
The
county
is
in
a
phase
of
building
acquiring
and
building
more
public
facilities,
so
staff
is
working
to
develop
a
more
formal
approach
to
conduct
22:32
determinations
specifically
we'll
be
looking
at
ways:
a
method
for
showing
existing
and
public
future
public
facilities.
O
More
specifically
in
the
comp
plan,
what
really
will
be
looking
to
develop
a
more
standardized
process
for
bringing
22:32
determination,
request
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
some
greater
clarification
and
when
22:32
determinations
are
needed.
So
this
is
something
that
staff
is
working
on
right
now.
O
Just
a
timeline
for
this
project
and
next
steps
we're
here
tonight
at
the
Planning
Commission.
The
next
step
would
be
the
county
board
public
hearing
and
final
consideration
of
the
genuine
just
plan
amendment
and
rezoning
later
this
month
and
then,
following
that
in
2018
and
2019
des
facilities
will
be
working
on
the
planning,
design
and
construction
about
the
temporary
and
the
permanent
station.
O
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
approval
of
the
general
Lanie's
plan
from
low
residential
to
government
community
facilities
for
these
parcels,
as
well
as
rezoning
from
our
success.
3A
and,
in
addition,
staff
recommends
the
Planning
Commission,
find
the
location,
character
and
extent
of
the
temporary
and
future
future
permanent
fire
station
in
compliance
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
then
transmit
these
findings
to
the
county
board.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
L
You,
mr.
chairman,
as
the
lrpc
met
on
November
1st,
to
discuss
the
proposed
glup
change,
rezoning
request
in
2230
to
determination,
Ms
Brown
has
already
gone
over
some
of
the
history
of
the
planning,
the
fire
station
8as,
as
well
as
the
need
for
the
temporary
station
and
how
the
parcels
have
already
been
acquired.
Our
own
Commissioners
role
was
our
Planning
Commission
representative
on
the
fire
station
number
8
task
force
and
is
also
the
chair
of
our
P
FRC,
which
I
think
eventually
we'll
hear
a
use
prevent
for
the
station
or
whatever
is
appropriate.
L
It
may
or
may
not
come
through
P
FRC,
we're
not
sure.
So
let
me
talk
about
that
a
little
but
later
in
my
report,
after
staffs
presentation,
which
is
very
similar
to
what
we've
heard
this
evening,
our
discussion
first
came
on
about
why
we
were
doing
the
glop
and
rezoning
now
and
not
when
we
have
a
project
to
approve
and
I
think
you
heard
staff
speak
to
that
this
evening.
L
We
did
note
that
the
land
is
contiguous
to
the
current
firehouse
and
it
is
reasonable
to
go
ahead
now
with
these
changes
without
the
specific
project
site
plan.
However,
lrpc
members
were
very
clear
that
this
is
a
special
case
with
clear
circumstances.
It
should
not
be
seen
as
a
precedent
for
any
other
type
of
public
facilities,
such
as
a
school
use,
which
would
not
be
given
a
Glover
zoning
change
without
a
publicly
vetted
use
permit.
L
So
that
is
to
say
that
if
there
is
new
land
that
is
not
already
ApS
owned
for
a
school
I
think
we
would
be
very
clear
that
we
need
to
do
a
determination
before
anything
would
proceed.
At
least
that's
in
cow
lrpc
saw
it.
The
22:32
finding
here
seems
straightforward.
Excuse
me
I
mixed
the
two,
the
22
32
and
the
glove
and
the
rezoning
and
I
think
we
we'd
want
to
be
very
clear
in
the
planning
before
there
would
be
actually
a
school
building
and
to
determine
if
the
site
was
appropriate
for
those
changes.
L
The
22:32
finding
here
seemed
straightforward.
Also,
given
the
current
zoning
of
the
contiguous
parcels
and
the
proposed
use
of
the
acquired
parcels
for
the
temporary
station,
it
was
noted
that
the
language
in
the
state
code
seems
to
indicate
that
to
even
authorize
the
design
of
a
public
facility,
a
22:32
determination
would
need
to
have
been
done.
So,
as
the
station
is
being
ready
for
planning
and
that
planning
should
proceed
again,
it
seemed
to
back
us
into
the
22:32
determination.
L
We
also
stated
that
we
were
uncomfortable
and
with
not
having
criteria
for
making
22:32
determinations
and,
as
you
heard
staff
this
evening,
I
think
they
are
working
very
diligently
on
a
set
of
proposals
that
we
will
be
hearing
at
lrpc
early
in
the
new
year.
So
I'm
satisfied
our
thoughts
have
not
fallen
on
deaf
ears
that
is
being
worked
on
as
the
replacement
at
fire
station
eight
was
the
subject
of
a
public
process.
Lrpc
members
noted
that
there
should
be
some
public
design
review
even
before
there
are
hard
drawings.
L
As
well
as
have
the
opportunity
to
hear
from
staff
technical
needs
of
the
stations,
what
what
what
they
feel,
how
it
might
work
in
the
community
have
a
good
exchange
of
ideas,
because
this
was
his
Commissioners
role
could
attest
to
a
a
very
interesting
process
in
order
to
determine
the
best
location
for
fire
station,
8
and
I
think
there's
a
great
deal
of
a
community,
not
just
the
neighborhood,
but
a
larger
community.
That
feels
a
great
sense
of
ownership
and
interest.
So
how
such
a
meeting
could
be
convened,
I'm,
not
quite
sure
yet.
L
Although
the
staff
report
does
allude
to
a
public
process,
we
also
talked
about
what
would
happen
with
the
parcels
being
used
for
the
temporary
station
and
staff
has
indicated.
There
will
be
a
planning
process
for
the
land
being
used
for
the
temporary
station
that
isn't
incorporated
into
the
final
station
site.
So
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
lrpc,
even
with
their
stated
reservations,
felt.
L
It
was
possible
to
go
ahead
with
the
change
in
the
glove
and
the
rezoning
and
the
22:32
finding
for
fire
station
for
the
temporary
fire
station
and
the
permanent
fire
station
number
eight
and,
of
course,
I,
would
ask
commissioners
role
to
add
whatever
he
would
wish.
Having
again
been
our
representative
on
the
fire
station,
a
task
force.
K
A
community
did
a
very
good
job,
she's
right
to
say
that
it
was
the
process
was
at
times
contentious
the
working
group
difficult,
but
I
think
the
community
is
very
excited
to
have
a
new
fire
station
there
and
I
know
staff
is
working
with
them
and
trying
to
design
a
great
fire
station.
I
would
reiterate
I
guess
to
mr.
K
Another
community
is,
as
most
communities
are,
would
be
interested
in
knowing
kind
of
how
that
affects
their
lives
and
also
I
know
there
participated
in
the
working
group.
We're
very
interested
in
the
historic
preservation
is
something
we
discussed
at
the
lrpc
I
know
you're
you're,
keen
to
that,
but
I
know
that
they
would
would
be
good
to
have
a
public
meeting
to
kind
of
discuss.
Those
things
provide
you
an
opportunity
to
to
convey
how
you're
gonna
be
honoring
their
current
fire
station.
P
Thank
You,
commissioner.
Yes,
that
is
our
intent.
We
are
in
the
very
firmly
formative
phases
now
of
requesting,
but
proposals
for
qualified
architects
to
design
the
fire
station,
and
once
we
have
a
design
firm
awarded,
then
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
have
the
first
community
meeting
to
hear
what
the
particular
interests
are.
That
they'd
like
to
see
reflected
within
the
fire
station
program.
Well,.
L
P
A
You
mr.
May
Commissioner
Hughes
before
I
recognize
you
I,
want
to
frame
a
couple
of
things
here,
just
to
helpfully
hopefully
move
our
conversation
along.
We
do
have
extensive
organizational
business
to
get
to
this
evening,
so
I'm,
mindful
of
the
time,
doesn't
mean
that
we
shouldn't,
you
know,
make
sure
that
we
have
a
chance
to
answer
all
of
our
questions,
but
what
I
did
want
to?
Let
you
guys
know
just
to
reiterate
on
the
22:32
finding
I
had
the
opportunity
to
discuss
this.
The
other
day
with
mr.
A
Duffy
and
our
current
chair,
Jeff
Fassett
and
as
staff
has
indicated
in
their
presentation.
I
just
want
to
confirm
for
you
that
staff
will
be
coming
forward
with
more
specific
standards,
but
for
those
that
were
here
the
last
time
we
had
one
of
these
2032
findings.
It
also
I
think
you
know
should
be
noted
that
this
provision
and
state
law
seems
to
be
fairly
clearly
written
for
those
kinds
of
localities
that
don't
have
very
robust,
necessarily
the
same
level
of
robust
planning
processes
that
Arlington
does,
and
so.
A
In
that
context,
it's
I
think
it's
a
little
easier
for
me
to
to
move
forward
with
the
22:32
findings,
not
that
we
shouldn't
have
some
some
clarity
and
what
all
that
is.
So
there
will
be
more
clarity.
Forthcoming,
I
appreciate
very
much
the
thoroughness
of
the
job
that
was
done
both
at
lrpc
and
in
your
report,
commissioner,
yeah
Kamini
I
think
that
there
is.
A
We
definitely
won't
want
to
discuss
the
issue
of
pfr,
see
and
I
think
that
we
should
maybe
think
about
a
motion
to
that
to
that
effect
and,
having
said
that,
I
think
I
would
just
encourage
us.
Let's,
let's
try
to
focus
in
here
on
the
very
specific
issues
and
get
to
a
motion.
Commissioner
Hughes
thank.
I
O
I
I
P
I
think
that's
a
question
in
two
parts
in
terms
of
the
suitability
of
a
house
for
another
purpose.
When
the
firemen
are
finished,
we
don't
plan
any
structural
renovations
or
any
changes
to
the
basic
four
bedroom
residential
structure.
That
is
there
what's
allowable
within
use
permits
and
zoning
out.
Leafed
miss
Brown.
O
F
Because
this
isn't
expected
to
come
forward
as
part
of
another
public
hearing
process
and
given
the
historic
context
of
the
site,
I
would
like
to
just
go
on
the
record
as
saying
I
hope
that
we
can
have
some
reference
to
that
and
either
the
architectural
design
or
the
interior
I
know.
This
is
really
important
to
the
community.
This
is
actually
full
disclosure
of
my
neighborhood
fire
station.
F
This
is
where
my
kids
and
I
used
to
go
bring
brownies,
and
these
are
the
fire
fire
men
and
women
that
we
would
invite
to
our
block
party
and
I.
Think
beyond
that,
you
know,
people
I
know
we
have
to
rebuild
some
of
our
buildings,
but
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
completely
change
them.
We
argue
a
lot
about.
We
have
no
placemaking
and
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
reference.
Some
of
that
when
we
do
rebuild
these
things,
especially
in
the
same
location,.
K
Historic
preservation
was
one
of
the
principles
of
the
task
force,
so
it
was
very
much
a
part
of
our
conversation
and
the
community
was
very
adamant
that
they
didn't
want
dirty
just
be
a
plaque.
They
wanted
there
to
be
something
bigger
than
that
that
honored,
the
history
of
the
men
and
women
who
were
involved
at
that
station
well,.
A
Then
I'll
last,
if
you
don't
mind
me
following
up
commissioner
gearing
I,
will
ask
staff
whether
or
not
those
principles
that
are
that
were
in
the
report
of
the
the
fire
station
aid
task
force
rather
or
not
those
principles.
It's
the
county's
intent
to
carry
those
principles
forward
with
the
design
for
the
new
fire
station.
P
O
You
mr.
may
may
be
better
to
answer
this,
but
from
my
presentation
specifically
go
back
to
that
slide
in
terms
of
phasing.
So
the
temporary
station
which
is
outlined
in
red
would
be
designed
first
and
that
would
include
the
demolition
and
construction
of
the
demolition
of
the
existing
single-family
homes
and
kind
of
in
the
center
of
the
site
and
construction
of
an
apparatus.
Bay
use
of
the
existing
state.
Existing
house
northernmost
on
the
site
for
the
temporary
living
quarters
and
and
then
designing
construction
on
the
permanent
station.
P
The
other
aspect
of
the
temporary
station
is
the
apparatus
Bay.
It
will
either
be
a
pre,
assemble
building
or
a
tent
very
similar.
What's
going
on
at
Fire,
Station
10
site
adjacent
to
the
Wilson
School,
it's
only
significant
placemaking
in
the
neighborhood.
Well,
it'll
have
a
flagpole
in
front
of
it.
We
would
reserve
the
design
of
the
permanent
fire
station
for
where
we
would
have
any
reflection
of
the
community
input
and
the
historical
nature
and.
P
G
P
Q
P
H
P
Q
A
A
L
A
A
K
K
A
A
L
I
think,
as
I
was
saying,
as
staff
was
laying
out
22:32
if
we
have
the
we
voted
for
the
club
right,
which
is
public
changes
it
and
then
the
zoning
s3a
that
very
much
sets
up
the
site
for
being
appropriate
for
a
temporary
station
and
the
permanent
station.
So
then
the
22:32
would
follow
from
that.
So.
N
We've
had
this
twice
now,
at
least
in
the
last
month,
or
two
about
twenty
to
thirty,
two
and
I
guess
I'm,
just
trying
to
understand
the
the
course
of
events,
the
elements
of
the
process,
so,
if
you
were
to
or
when
you
come
forward
with
criteria
as
we've
been
suggesting
and
you've
agreed,
are
wise
to
provide
and
another
such
determination
is
necessary.
Finding
is
necessary
from
us.
Would
the
twenty
to
thirty
to
proceed
other
amendments,
or
is
this
really
the
the
set
table?
This.
L
Is
a
good
way
to
do
it
I
think
this.
This
makes
the
most
sense
it
progresses
along
nicely,
so
we'll
we'll
see,
because
we
actually
don't
know
in
some
other
twenty
to
thirty
two
situations,
whether
the
glop
or
the
zoning
might
already
be
in
place.
There'll
be
each
individual
situations
for
this
one
I
think
this
is
a
good
flow
and.
A
So
we're
we're
as
almost
every
other
motion
that
we
make
as
a
recommendation
to
the
county
board.
This
is,
in
fact,
actually
a
finding
of
this
body
of
our
own.
That
is
required,
so
I
think
just
for
the
sake
it
could
have
been
done
together,
but
I
agree
with
Commissioner
Yamini
that
keeping
it
separate
just
because
it
has
its
own.
It's
it's
an
action
specific
to
this
body
beyond
the
recommendation.
I
think
helps
to
just
make
that
very
clear
and
nice
and
clean
all
right.
Sorry.
N
Not
to
belabor
the
due
to
belabor
this,
but
the
I
I,
guess
I'm,
really
just
trying
to
better
understand
the
twenty
to
thirty
two,
the
glove
change,
the
zoning
change
in
the
relationship
of
those
three
and
I
think
I
do
understand
the
intent
here.
You
can't
make
a
finding
if
there's
nothing,
to
sort
of
make
a
finding
about
so
it
it.
It
does
make
sense,
but
the
twenty
to
thirty
two
is
is
really
as
I
read
the
law
and
as
you
reported
the
law,
there
are.
A
N
I
do
think
that's
why
I'm
asking
the
question
and
and
I
don't
think
I'm
going
to
get
to
a
resolution
of
that
tonight
and
I
will
cease
my
line
of
questioning
as
soon
as
I
can
finish.
My
thought,
if
that's
okay,
so
just
very,
very
quickly,
really
I'll
do
this
in
the
next
60
seconds.
The
the
22:32
involves
the
above.
Does
it
designating
or
identifying
the
approximate
location,
character
and
extent
of
each
feature
of
the
development
to
come?
It
is
that
right
do
I.
Have
that
right.
O
N
A
A
Amend
that
I'll
second,
that
subject
to
discussion,
I'm
wondering
commissioner
yeah
committee.
If
we
shouldn't
indicate
in
the
motion
that
we
find
it
somehow
contingent
as
amended
or
contingent
upon
the
amendment
that
we're
recommending,
because
we're
making
a
finding
tonight
based
on
what
we
just
recommended,
that
the
board
do
so,
our
finding
is
only
true
if
the
board
in
fact
amends
the
club
I.
L
O
So
the
first
thought
that
comes
to
mind
is
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
will
be
doing-
actually
it
just
as
an
administrative
update,
will
be
to
add
the
the
crosshatch
symbol
to
the
club
indicating
public
ownership.
So
that's
not
necessarily
something
that
would
need
the
board
action.
The
second
thought
that
comes
to
mind
is
that
the
government
community
facilities
designation
already
applies
to
the
majority
of
the
site.
It's
it's
just
the
three
parcels
to
be
used
for
the
temporary
station
that
are
really
in
question.
A
N
Not
to
beat
a
dead
horse,
but
that
was
why
I
raised
the
questions
earlier
about
sequence.
That's
exactly
why
I
did
that
in
order
to
really
to
understand
what
we're
finding
and
what
we're
recommending.
However,
I
think
in
the
at
the
end
of
the
day.
For
me,
it's
six
of
one
half
a
dozen
of
the
other
and
I
would
be
happy
either
with
your
amendment
or
or
without
it.
I
think
it
gets
the
same
place.
N
A
I'm
gonna
know
that,
on
page
five
of
the
staff
report,
the
paragraph
on
twenty
to
thirty
two
determination,
the
last
sentence-
and
this
has
been
reviewed
by
the
county
attorney
of
staff-
can
confirm.
Therefore,
with
the
existing
and
proposed
changes
to
the
general
Land
Use
Plan
staff
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
find
that
the
fire
station
is
shown
on
the
comprehensive
plan.
I
I
R
You
I
think
I
largely
agree
with
Commissioner
Hughes
in
substance.
Mr.
chair
I
think
I
agree
with
you,
but
I
share
Commissioner.
Our
community's
procedural
concerns.
I
think
I
have
one
further
procedural
concern,
which
is
that
I
worry
that
such
a
contingent
finding
would
risk
exceeding
the
scope
of
the
Commission's
authority
in
finding
that
a
plan
is
only
consistent
with
the
glup.
R
Should
the
county
board
exercise
its
authority
in
a
manner
how
we
want
it
to
exercise
it
I,
don't
that's
just
a
concern
and
and
I
think
that
I
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
find
a
way
to
bundle
for
situations
like
this.
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
wait
to
find
a
I'd
like
there
to
be
a
way
to
bundle
of
finding
with
the
recommendation
that
that
is
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
do
what
you're
suggesting
mr.
chair
I'm,
just
not
comfortable
that
I.
R
A
Sure
sure
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
I
just
reading
that
that
whole
paragraph
talking
about
the
justification
is
that
the
existing
fire
station
is
designated
as
government
and
community
and
community
facilities,
as
will
be
the
area
plant
for
the
temporary
station.
If
the
proposed
glup
amendment
is
approved
by
the
port,
the
entire
paragraph
of
the
determination
includes
all
of
the
contingencies,
so.
A
L
A
A
J
J
N
N
A
L
It's
not
really
a
question,
just
a
comment.
Sure
Commissioner
Atlanta
me
and
I
have
begun
meeting
with
staff
and
the
applicant
for
Virginia
Hospital,
Center
site
plan,
of
which
I
think
our
first
one
is
December.
18Th.
Is
that
correct
and
they
will
be
longer
meetings
because
there's
a
three
neighborhood's
involved
and
it
is
set
in
the
location
of
the
county
that
are
not
used
to
doing
site
plans.
L
We
do
now
and
has
been
trying
to
fold
in
the
proposed
agenda
that
we
had
from
the
SPRC
working
group
and,
in
fact,
I
think
we
found
something
today,
just
in
discussing
the
first
meeting
about
there's
something
on
that
agenda.
That
comes
third
that
maybe
needs
to
go.
Second,
and
and
so
I
I'm
hopeful
with
Commissioner
LAN,
tell
me
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
look
at
that
and
then
in
a
way
it's
really
Road
test.
It
excellent
so
see
we're
see
where
it
comes
out
of.
N
N
The
design
of
that
agenda
was
based
on
the
notion
that
we
often
looked
at
a
site
without
looking
at
the
context,
the
neighborhood
context,
the
schools,
the
parks,
transportation
network
very
often
when
the
urban
design
and
research
group
do
a
site
analysis,
they'll
start
with
a
very
broad
I,
think
550
500,
foot,
expanse
and
then
narrow
in
the
agenda
that
we've
been
using,
focuses
on
the
specific
site
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you'll.
Remember
that
we
start
well
how
many
where's
the
nearest
school.
Where
is
the
nearest
parks?
N
And
so
what
is
the
building
next
door?
Is
it
going
to
be
too
shaded?
So
in
this
way,
with
the
the
design
of
this
agenda,
we
will
put
the
context
front
and
center
and
I'm
really
delighted
that
you're
experimenting
with
it
and
that
this
way
we
can
get
response
from
staff,
because
I
have
been
concerned,
they're
very
used
to
the
old
agenda
and
I
hope
through
a
cooperative
sort
of
back
and
forth.
This
is
an
experiment.
J
What
we're
hoping
it
was
interesting
to
see
a
certain
amount
of
bewilderment,
maybe
from
the
applicants
side,
which
surprised
me
a
bit,
but
we
did
explain
to
them
what
we're
trying
to
do
similar
to
what
you
just
did
here
and
I.
Think
at
this
point,
they're
going
along
with
it
we're
on
board
with
it,
for
their
presentation
could.
N
I
just
ask
one
more
question:
when
commissioner
yeah
Kamini
and
I
discussed
briefly
the
Virginia
Hospital
Center
SPRC,
she
you
suggested
that
it.
It
perhaps
would
be
an
SPR
see
somewhat
like
Boston
Quarter,
with
a
lot
of
community
public
in
attendance
or
did
I
misunderstand.
That
was
only
for
the
first
meeting,
or
do
you
plan
to
continue
taking
some
sort
of
extensive
public
comment
in
addition
to
the
normal
work,
we
do
like
the
SPRC
table.
L
Each
have
more
or
less
issues
and
more
or
less
interest
of
their
own,
and
it
is
my
hope
that
that,
for
each
of
the
SPRC
meetings
we
will
have
enough
time
left
to
ask
for
comments
from
others
in
attendance
than
at
the
table.
But
at
this
point,
I
think
we
at
staffs
count.
We
have
anywhere
from
22
to
26
members
of
SPRC,
because
we've
also
added
a
representative
from
the
Community
Services
Board
from
the
Commission
on
Aging
and
the
Commission
on
disability,
given
the
subject
matter.
L
So
that's
that's
a
lot
of
folks
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
have
the
discussion
at
the
table
and,
as
you
know,
America
is
a
representative
government.
So
is
SPRC
much
of
the
interest
works
through
the
people
at
the
table.
However,
there
is
a
great
deal
of
interest,
and
so
we
will
we
will
endeavor
to
do
that.
It
is
not
an
agenda
item
because
it
is
not
an
agenda
item
for
lrpc,
SPRC
or
zoko.
It
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
chair,
but
we
will
import.
A
L
You've
seen
a
preview
of
coming
attractions
through
the
20-hour,
our
relentless
pursuit
for
clarity
on
22:32,
and
so
that
that
will
be
coming
our
way
in
the
new
year
and
at
the
work
session
on
the
12th
I
think
through
staffs
work
plan,
you'll
hear
some
more
things
about
what
may
be
on
LR
PCs
plate
in
2018.
I
would
point
out
that
we
have
a
to
special
glut
processes:
kicking
off
on
December
13th.
L
One
is
for
the
so-called
staples
site,
which
is
where
staples
is
on
Wilson
Boulevard
on
the
edge
of
Ashton
heights,
but
in
the
Virginia
Square
neighborhood
and
where
our
second
one
is
and
I
am
sharing
that
and
our
second
one
is
being
chaired
by
Commissioner
we're
if
you'd
like
to
just
put
in
a
plug
for
that.
One.
R
R
Hc
now
proposes
to
convert
the
bank
use
into
affordable
housing,
committed,
affordable
housing
and
to
support
that
with
townhouses
around
the
area
of
the
townhouses,
the
the
form,
based
that
the
neighborhoods
plan
sort
of
anticipated
that
it
would
be
much
lower
density
and
that
it
would
be
mostly
I
believe
townhouses.
So
the
question
is
going
to
be
well
there
going
to
be
a
number
of
questions,
but
whether
or
not
this
model
is
is
going
to
be
consistent
with
what
has
been
anticipated
so
far.
L
I
think
that's
the
general
of
overview
as
as
we
approach
each
one.
These
both
of
these
meetings
will
be
very
preliminary
to
discuss
what
the
site
is
and
what
the
process
is
and
what
the
requests
have
been.
Modeling
and
math
massing
will
be
in
the
second
meeting.
For
each
of
these
to
begin
to
decide
and
contemplate
is,
is
this
in
the
realm
of
consideration
for
a
club
change,
I.
N
N
Toward
a
conclusion,
but
I
what's
been
on
my
mind
since
I
think
Bob
Duffy,
who
raised
the
issue
having
spoken
with
new
commissioners,
the
new
and
the
newer
commissioners
that
education,
training
kinds
of
support
would
really
be
welcome.
I've
heard
this
for
my
entire
5
years
on
the
Commission,
and
it
really
is
very
difficult.
N
Staff
has
an
awful
lot
of
work
to
do
and
I
believe
there
used
to
be
a
little
booklet,
which
is
way
way
out
of
date
now,
and
so,
given
that
time
constraint
and
burden
on
staff,
it
occurred
to
me
that
we
could
pull
in
certain
kinds
of
educational
resources
in
connection
with
lrpc
events,
issues
or
SPRC
issues.
So,
for
example,
different
housing
forms.
N
What
do
they
look
like
I'm?
Not
an
architect,
I,
don't
know
we
could
ask
the
urban
design
and
research
group
maybe
to
come
up
with
some
proposals,
or
some
some
I
mean
some
slides,
discrete
topics
that
are
related
to
specifically.
What
is
what
the
substance
is
for
an
lrpc
meeting
and
and
I
know
the
lrpc
is
going
to
be
quite
busy
as
well,
so
perhaps
we
could
have,
we
could
set
up
again.
N
The
the
SPRC
working
group
to
hear
that
kind
of
information
I'm
just
putting
that
out,
laying
it
out
on
the
table
for
you
all
to
think
about,
and
if
you
think
it's
a
good
idea,
then
maybe
we
can
put
our
heads
together
and
Herrmann
when
that
might
that
sort
of
educational
background
might
be
appropriate?
We
did
the
do
this
with
two
seminars:
the
UDR,
the
urban
design
research
group,
presented
two
seminars.
There
was
a
concern
that
it
it
they
were
not
as
well
attended
as
they
might
be,
and
I
thought
it
might
be
more.
K
L
L
L
K
A
F
That's
all
I
won't
get
to
say
that
much
longer
we've
had
our
last
SoCo
meeting
for
the
year
and
we
will
have
one
more
shoe
that
will
hear
on
Wednesday
related
to
zoning
changes
all
caught
up
on
your
reports.
But
this
is
the
one
regarding
taking
out
the
town
house
by
right
development
and
some
of
the
art
districts.
K
K
So
that
we're
gonna
be
me,
that's
kind
of
TBD,
but
we
will
be
meeting
generally
around
the
farmers
market.
I
know
that's
kind
of
congested
missed.
All
Hut
is
gonna,
be
sending
out
ApS
some
more
details
about
that.
So
that's
TBD.
If
you
want
more
information,
let
me
know
or
missed
all.
Ok
what
time?
Sorry
can
you
repeat
that
there'll
be
two
opportunities?
10:00
a.m.
and
11:00
a.m.
that's
a
site
tour
we're
in
walking
the
site
looking
at
the
context,
so
please
come
out.
K
We
are
doing
this
during
the
farmers
market
intentionally
to
see
all
that
operates.
Roberts
witness
who
represents
the
farmers
market
is
part
of
the
working
group
part
of
the
PRC,
but
we
were
wanting
to
see
that
process.
We
also
have
an
SPR
see
a
week
from
Wednesday,
so
it's
December
13th
and
it
will
be
at
discovery
school.
G
So
this
past
week
the
both
boards
actually
match
the
county
board.
Last
Tuesday
and
the
school
board.
Last
Thursday
the
county
board
appointed
members
to
the
Career
Center
working
group,
specifically
the
Civic
Association
members
and
any
Commission
members
were
appointed
and
I
was
designated
chair
of
that
group
and
then
on
Thursday.
The
school
board
designated
PTA
parent,
reps
and
student
reps.
That
will
also
be
serving
on
the
on
the
the
group
and
also
designated
designated
me
chair.
So
it's
nice
to
know
that
they
agreed
on
that
and
so
I'm
very
excited.
We're
kicking
that
off.
G
I
know
that
there
is
a
little
bit
of
pressure
to
try
to
meet
in
December
public
notice
being
two
weeks
that
puts
us
into
the
week
of
the
18th.
So
we'll
we'll
see
if
we
end
up
meeting
in
December,
I
think
again,
staff
and
the
board's
would
like
us
to
meet
in
December
to
at
least
have
a
kickoff,
but
that
is
to
be
determined.
We
have
an
organizational
meeting
just
with
stay.
I
have
an
organizational
mean,
adjust
the
staff
this
week.
So
we
can
talk
about
that
and
talk
about
the
schedule.
G
I
anticipate
that
we'll
be
meeting
twice
a
month
because
it's
a
very
short
timeline
we're
supposed
to
be
done
by
August,
but
that
really
I
think
means
that
the
report
needs
to
be
well.
All
the
you
know,
all
the
areas
of
consensus
and
and
areas,
perhaps
where
we
may
not
achieve
consensus,
but
I'm
hopeful
that
we
will
achieve
consensus
on
many
items
really
has
to
be
done
by
June
July
so
that
the
report
can
be
written
in
August.
So.
A
You'll
have
a
very,
very
busy
spring,
and-
and
thank
you
for
agreeing
to
take
that
on.
That's
that's
gonna,
be
I.
Think
a
I
don't
know
what
to
compare
it
to,
but
in
terms
of
just
in
recent
memory,
I'm,
not
even
sure
that
I
can
think
of
what
would
have
the
delay,
the
levels
of
complexity
and
and
the
enormity
of
the
task
actually
not
to
scare
you
not
to
frighten.
You
I
think
you
know
what
you're
it.
A
Think
that
that's
the
right
approach,
because
I
think
the
more
that
the
more
opportunity
there
is
to
discuss
things
again
and
given
the
accelerated
timeframe
to
get
ideas
and
input
out
on
the
table
sooner
rather
than
later,
I
think
the
most
helpful
it's
going
to
be
to
the
process
and
the
more
likely
we
are
to
find
the
kind
of
creative
solutions
that
we're
all
counting
on
you
to
find
for
us.
So
so,
thanks
for
taking
that
on
and
now
we'll
go
to
forum
based
code,
we.
A
A
A
You
go
all
right
so
now
it
comes
to
the
chairs
report,
so
my
final
report
and
I'll
get
something
out
of
the
way
real
quick,
which
is
you
guys,
should
all
know
and
have
on
your
calendars
that
we've
got
a
work
session
with
the
County
Board
on
December
12th
a
week
from
tomorrow
night.
The
agenda
is
going
to
be,
as
we
discussed
a
little
bit
earlier.
The
update
of
the
SPRC
operating
guide
from
Jane
will
also
talk
about
staff
is
going
to
give
a
presentation
on
communicating
Arlington
County's
priorities.
A
This
was
sort
of
you
remember
that
color
wheel
of
the
glup
and
and
it
exactly
that,
communicating
it's
that
there's
no
policy
change,
there's
nothing
earth-shattering
here!
It's
really
just
how
we
talk
about
the
glup
and-
and
this
was
for
those
who
were
falling
along
last
year-
kind
of
the
follow
up
to
the
blue
ribbon
panel
idea
from
one
board.
A
It's
the
opportunity
one
to
hear
staffs
presentation
to
the
board
in
terms
of
where
they
think
the
priorities
are
in
the
work
plan
for
the
des
for
the
planning
division
next
year,
and
then
we
will
have
some
opportunity
to
provide
some
provide
at
this
work
session,
depending
on
how
time
allows
to
provide
some
some
broad
feedback.
Oh,
you
know
very
overarching
kind
of
priorities
and
goals
that
we
see
that
we
hope
the
board
the
board
would
pass
on
to
the
to
the
manager
for
the
work
plan
and
then
it's.
It
also
sets
the
groundwork.
A
I
think
for
I
believe
it's
customary
where
mr.
Duffy
would
come
back
to
the
Commission
I
guess
in
January
or
February
February
to
come
back
exactly
to
to
present
to
the
Commission,
the
more
formal
than
there.
At
that
point
proposal
for
the
FY
19
work
plan,
and
that's
that's
the
agenda
for
the
for
the
work
session.
Are
there
any
questions
on
that
all
right,
so
I
did
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
really
express
to
all
of
you
just
what
a
phenomenal
experience
it
has
been
to
have
been
on
this
commission
I.
A
It's
really,
this
is
I,
think
a
great
body
and
I
think
in
fantastic
hands
and
moving
forward.
I
think
will
continue
to
do
all
of
the
kind
of
great
work
that
we
have
done
collectively
and
that
this
body
has
done
prior
to
any
of
our
time
on
this.
It
really
is
what
makes
Arlington
so
special
and
I'm
very
proud
to
have
been
a
part
of
it
and
really
grateful
to
each
of
you
for
the
opportunity
to
have
served
as
chair
this
year.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
It's
it's
really
been
fantastic
and
with
that
I'm
gonna
now
nominate
Commissioner,
Jayne
Siegel
to
be
our
chair
for
next
year.
I'm
really
really
pleased
to
do
this
for
three
primary
reasons.
One
is
she
really
gets
gets
it
gets
what
we're
all
about.
She
understands
at
a
very
deep
level
and
the
many
many
many
conversations
that
we
have
had
over
the
past
several
years
and
we're
really
we
weren't
appointed
the
exact
same
month.
But
what
are
we
we're
like
twins
separated
by
two
months
or
something
like
that.
A
And
in
July,
maybe
I
think
it
was
June
or
July,
so
we've
been
on
for
pretty
about
the
same
time
and
we
both
kind
of
came
up
to
speed
together.
I
had
had
really
sometimes
deep,
sometimes
silly,
but
but
always
always
stimulating.
Conversations
on
a
host
of
topics
and
I
know,
as
I
said,
I
know
that
she
that
she
gets
it
and
knows
what
why
we're
here
and
what
we're
all
about
and
I
think
you
saw
some
of
you'll
see
some
of
that
or
you.
A
If
you've
read
the
draft
operating
guide
and
what
and
sort
of
in
the
presentation
that
we
did
at
EDC
really
that
high
level,
what's
the
Commission
all
about,
she
gets
that
very
well
number
two.
She
also
I
think
understands
from
a
technical
level
from
the
numerous
numerous
conversations
she's
had
with
the
multiple
folks.
I
know
that
that
Jane
has
invested
more
time
than
even
I
have,
in
terms
of
reaching
out
to
members
of
staff
to
reaching
out
to
the
development
community.
A
The
the
land
use
attorneys
to
ask
questions
to
really
get
at
the
kinds
of
the
la
the
level
of
depth
that
you
can't
necessarily
do
in
a
meeting
at
you
know
at
eight
or
nine
or
almost
10
p.m.
at
night,
but
she
goes
that
extra
mile.
It
takes
that
extra
step,
so
she
really
understands
it
at
a
greater
depth
and
and
from
a
technical
aspect
of
it.
A
And
if
you
don't
believe
me,
just
have
coffee
with
her
and
start
talking
about
the
skyline
of
Rosslyn,
and
she
will
demonstrate
quite
clearly
that
that
she
has
a
really
keen
technical
understanding.
And
finally,
she
is
the
quintessential
team
player
and
I
think
that
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
I
love
about
this
body
is
that
we
are
a
commission
of
equals.
I
might
sit
up
here
and
pontificate
as
chair
and
and
and
all
of
us
and
I'm
included
in
this
can
be
prone
to
get
a
little
ahead
of
ourselves.
A
But
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are
Commission
of
equals
and
I
know
that
Jane
will
respect
that
and
she
I
am
quite
certain-
will
be
look
out
always
for
what
is
the
best
interest
of
the
Commission.
It's
never
about
any
one
individual,
it's
about
what's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
Commission
and
in
serving
the
county
in
that
card.
So
with
that
I'm
very
pleased
to
nominate
Commissioner
Siegel
to
be
our
chair
for
2018,
do
I
have
a
second
seconded
by
Commissioner
roll.
Thank
you
any
any
discussion.
N
Think
I've,
learned
more
from
my
fellow
commissioners
way
way
more
about
our
processes
that
the
technical
aspects
and
the
value
that
we
bring
to
community
engagement.
In
fact,
we
are
a
the
fulcrum
of
community
engagement
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
do
that
I'd
focus
on
or
I'd
be
mindful
of
going
forward
is.
N
Are
we
doing
as
much
as
we
can
in
terms
of
outreach
making
sure
that
everybody
gets
his
or
her
say,
certainly
within
our
processes
within
the
SPRC
process,
which
is
not
just
an
open
house
public
meeting
but
I
do
believe
in
the
value
of
people
coming
to
our
table
our
meetings
and
telling
us
how
they
feel
that
creates
buy-in.
That's
only
the
beginning
of
it.
N
Actually,
when
I
heard
a
mr.
blinky
today,
who
I
believe
is
Russian,
who
found
canoe,
expressed
concern
about
a
decision
the
county
had
made,
he
felt
the
citizen
should
make
this
city,
not
the
county.
I
think
he's
reacting
to
his
past,
not
our
present.
We
are
a
citizen
democracy
here
and
we're
democracy
in
action.
I'm
gonna
stop
right
there.
So,
if
you
vote
for
me,
I
promise
you
I
will
make
the
trains
run
on
time,
we'll
try
to
iron
out
processes.
N
If
there's
a
problem
in
that
regard,
please
just
call
anytime
night
or
day
email
text
I
really
want
to
make
sure
that
we
work
as
efficiently
as
we
can
with
staff
with
the
board.
If
you're
interested
in
doing
something.
Let
me
know
I,
don't
want
to
anoint
anyone
I
think
we're
not
paying.
We
spend
a
lot
of
time,
and
so
you
should
work
on
things
that
you
really
want
to
work
on.
N
I
also
think
chair
can
provide
some
leadership
and
I
would
like
to
pursue
this
idea
of
Education
I
feel
our
work
will
be
more
effective
as
we
share
certain
fundamental
understandings
about
design
urban
design
and
placemaking.
So
if
you
see
an
opportunity
to
do
that
by
bringing
in
the
UDR
group
or
others
both
in
within
our
meetings
or
even
separate
meetings
external
to
that,
let
me
know
so
I
think
I
think
that's
all
I
want
to
say.
Thank
you.
One
more
thing.
I
would
say
we
are
a
collection
of
individuals.
A
N
You
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
we
have
one
more
order
of
business
before
we
really
enjoy
ourselves
because
I
have
a
gift
for
you.
They
gave
it
to
me
and
that
is
that
I
would
like
to
nominate
James
role
to
be
vice.
Chair
of
the
Planning
Commission
I,
don't
know
James
as
well
as
I
would
like
to,
and
we
will
have
an
opportunity
to
work
closely
together.
N
I'm
very
excited
about
working
with
James
I
think
he
and
I
come
at
issues
from
different
perspectives
and
I
think
that
is
a
way
to
enrich
our
our
output
and
effectiveness.
We
chatted
a
little
bit
about
this
and
he
would
like
to
continue
representing
the
FRC.
Cheering
pfr
see
it's
an
area
where
I
will
come
to
more
meetings
than
I
have
been
it's
very
hard
to
go
to
all
the
meetings
but
I
plan
to
do
it,
but
I
think
P
FRC
is
in
good
hands
with
James
I'm.
N
A
A
A
A
The
answer
is
yes,
the
answer
is
definitely
yes,
but
she
also
has
one
of
the
most
amazing
smiles
of
anyone
that
I
know
and
and
I
love,
seeing
it
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing,
maybe
more
of
it
actually
and
Michelle.
I.
Think
that
you
are
just
somebody
who
you're
always
positive.
You
never
have
anything
negative
and
nothing
that
you
just
carry
that
positive
energy
with
you
all
the
time,
and
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
to
be
able
to
work
with
you
and
to
see
you
so
thank
you.
N
Passing
in
my
state,
we
do
the
passing
of
the
Torah
from
the
parents
to
the
child
at
the
time
of
Bar
Mitzvah,
so
that
is
simply
floating
through
my
mind
at
10
o'clock.
This
is
a
little
different,
because
Erik
I
consider
to
be
my
friend
my
colleague.
We
I
feel
like
we're
horses,
pulling
the
same
cart
down
the
road,
hopefully
not
up
a
hill,
but
down
the
road
and
I've
learned
an
enormous
amount
from
you.
If
I've
enjoyed
absolutely
working
with
you,
it's
just
finish.
N
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
everyone,
so
we
will
be
back
to
business
on
Wednesday
and
then
we
have
the
work
session
on
the
12th
and
then
that'll
be
that'll,
be
our
final
meeting
of
the
year
other
than
obviously
that
if
there's
lrpc
S&S
prc's
after
that,
as
we
already
talked
about,
okay,
great
see
everyone
Wednesday.
Thank
you.