To- City Clerk, City of Falls Church,

From — Ann O’Neil

200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Falls Church, VA

Re- Cottage Home Project

I was an owner in the city of a geriatric care management and home care company for 28 years until last

year. Over the years, people came seeking advice and direction regarding the kind of housing available

for their particular situation. There were few alternatives, much to their disappointment, if their choice

was to continue to live in the city.

The cottage type housing is needed to retain more of our older residents and provide some middle type

of housing which is between large single family homes, apartments and condos! townhouses. The safety

of everyone who lives on Railroad Avenue is being improved by the road and emergency turn-around

and by retaining all of the storm water runoff.

I strongly support the cottage home project.

:5/’ f/J2//

From: Julie Harrison <1julieharrison@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 8:57 AM

To: City Clerk; Carly Aubrey

Cc: City-manager; Wyatt Shields; Stephanie Gorman-Dorsey

Subject: For city council meeting tonight

Good morning Celeste,

Can you please send a copy of this drawing (attached) to all the city council members and all members of the

planning commission? This is a topic that I will be focusing on when I get up to speak. They need to all have a

printed copy in hand so they can understand what I'm talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words…)

Thank you for your time!

Julie Harrison

May 7, 2017 Dear City Council and Planning Commission, I and several of my neighbors are very concerned about requirements not being met by the applicants of the Railroad Cottage Condominium project. According to your own documents posted online, your staff has the following concerns that have yet to be addressed: Carly Aubrey, Senior Planner:

1. Required that developer submit draft condominium/homeowner association and/or covenant documents pertaining to age restrictions (emphasis added) and maintenance of common areas and landscaped areas.

2. Required that the developer include the disposition of stormwater drainage and detention systems indicating pipe sizes, types and grades, including all calculations.

3. Required that the developer indicate type of enclosures and screening for trash storage. Kerri Oddenino, Planner:

1. Question: Moving In/Out: How will delivery trucks service the site? 2. Question: How will move in/move out work on the site?

Doug Fraser, Building Official

1. Consider 7’ perimeter fencing as part of the side and rear landscaping buffers 2. Note: 18” drop-off on either side of long wood walkway might be a hazard (emphasis added)

for people with vision or mobility/ balance issues. 3. Question: Would fire personnel be able to tell if someone is sleeping in common house?

Jason Widstrom, Dept of Public Works:

1. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be required at the final site plan stage. The applicant is advised to begin planning a strategy for runoff containment on-site.

2. The total phosphorus load shall be reduced at least 20 percent below the pre-development total phosphorus load using on-site stormwater management techniques. Calculations must include improvements done to the road.

3. Stormwater management shall be designed to completely infiltrate or contain the first inch of stormwater runoff on site.

Chris McGough, Waste Management:

1. Some of the units are quite far from the proposed dumpster location.(emphasis added) This may pose a problem for certain residents in the target buyer base.

Stephanie Rogers, Transportation:

1. The applicant must demonstrate the proposed parking will be adequate for residents and their visitors given that parking is not and will not be permitted along Railroad Ave. (emphasis added)

Kate Reich, City Arborist: 1. Require that developer include a Tree Preservation Plan that details tree locations and critical

root zones, 2. Require that developer include tree protection fencing, and other tree preservation measures.

Todd Hafner, NOVA Park Authority

1. As you know, we can't grant permanent rights in the park property, nor can we predict what our future park development needs might be.

2. The space occupied by the proposed improvements could someday hinder NOVA Parks ability to develop the valuable park property and to provide facilities to benefit the public.

3. Accordingly, there will need to be language in the agreement with the City that indicates NOVA Parks may remove or develop the Grasspave areas and designated emergency vehicle turnaround at its discretion (essentially everything outside of the existing 12 foot wide public road easement), and

4. the City will not deny approval of future NOVA Parks plans and permits because of the existence of the Grasspave strip and turn around area.

John Boyle, Zoning Administrator:

1. Note that ordinance states: All vehicle parking generated by the site shall be hosted entirely on the site.

2. One issue is the setback along the western edge of the site. The proposed setback on the plan is 10 feet, however the code requires that when abutting a residential zoning district, as is the case here, the setback is increased to 15 feet. (emphasis added). The car port will straddle the 15-foot setback, but this is allowed. Sec. 48-241(a)(14)(b) clarifies how structures relate to landscaping buffers and setbacks. The car port cannot be in a landscaping buffer, but is not subject to setback. The effective impact is that the car port shown on the plan only needs to stay beyond the 10-foot landscaping buffer, which it does. Change the setback along the west edge of the site to reflect 15 feet.

I would like to personally add that I am not sure how the western-facing solar panels will work, considering that the proposed carport will be completely in the shade of a 3-story house next door plus the developer's own trees. My primitive understanding is that solar panels require sunlight to function properly. I would appreciate you addressing these concerns before any approvals move forward.

Thank you, Julie Harrison

From: Stephanie Petras-Dorsey <namasteph72@icloud.com>

Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 9:38 PM

To: Carly Aubrey; City Clerk

Cc: Stephanie Petras-Dorsey; Joe Dorsey

Subject: For Council members: Monday, 8 May meeting about Railroad Cottages

development

Attachments: RailroadCottages_TPs_v2.docx

Hello Ms. Aubrey and Ms. Heath —

Attached please find a document that we would request you share with the both the City Council and

Planning Commission members in advance of the Council meeting on Monday, 8 May at 7:30 pm. We

appreciate your time and attention to this request.

Respectfully yours,

Stephanie and Joe Dorsey

From: Judith [mailto:judithlmathis@yahoo.com]Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 7:26 PMTo: City ClerkSubject: Railroad Cottages

lam unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night, but my husband and I want to urge the Council toapprove preliminarily the proposed Cottage5. In our view, these cottages offer a welcome alternative tohigh rise buildings for those of us who want to downsize and to stay in Falls Church. It appears they arethoughtfully designed with energy saving features, to foster community, and that the landscaping issimilarly creative and respectful of the environment. The concept of the Cottages fills a growing needwith our aging population, and this development burdens the community less than big houses withfamilies on those lots.

Judith and Dallas Mathis

Sent from my iPad

From: Stephen Hiscoft [mailto:hiscotts@gmail.com]Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 2:44 PMTo: City ClerkCc: Debbie HiscottSubject: Writing in support of Railroad cottages

City Council,

In advance of the Council meeting scheduled for Monday, May, 8th, 1 write to strongly supportproceeding with the currently proposed plans for the Railroad Cottages. My wife Debbie and Iare completely in favor of the development.

As longtime Falls Church City residents, we hope to stay in Falls Church afier our threedaughters leave home for college, but have been concerned with the cost of maintaining ourcurrent home into retirement and also concerned about the limited options currently. That said,we would strongly prefer the benefits of a community like the Cottages. Among them are thefollowing.

• Smaller home with comfortable footprint and features• Community benefit of 55+ neighbors and community areas• More affordable home• Easy access to the trail and nearby services

I would also note that we’ve remained well apprised of the plans and details and appreciate thetransparency of the developers. We recognize and appreciate the improved access and safety, aswell as the environmental and water runoff benefits. The developers seemingly have madeconsiderable concessions and investments to make the project a thoughtful communitybenefit. That said, we’ve been disappointed to see the many mis-truths spread by the nearbyneighbors who have been vocally opposed. As citizens, we all have the right to our preferencesand opinions, but itts unfortunate that they have chosen to misrepresent details and plans tofurther their cause.

Please let us know if you would like to discuss any other details or we can be helpful othenvise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Stephen & Debbie Kiscott405 N. Van Buren Street

From: Tina Hegadorn [mailto:gelfadorn@yahoo.coin]Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 11:13 PMTo: City ClerkSubject: In Support of the Railroad Cottage Project

Dear City Clerk,

I am writing in support of the Railroad Cottage project proposed by Theresa SullivanTwiford.

As an 18-year resident of the City, and someone who will soon be an “empty-nester” Isee the many benefits of a cottage community in the City of Falls Church. Thiscommunity offers active adults an alternative to condominium/apartment living, willfoster community among the residents, and will be an aesthetically pleasing site alongthat part of the bike trail.

During the years our family has lived in the City, we have watched many changes withnew businesses, a hotel, new apartment buildings, and many new houses.Unfortunately, we also have seen many families leave the City once their children havegraduated from George Mason High School. A cottage community with smaller houseswill offer residents a viable alternative to stay in the city and remain a part of acommunity.

I have seen the plan for the community, and know that the developers will address all ofthe concerns regarding this project, including traffic, water runoff and vegetation.

Again, I fully support this project and hope that the members of the Falls Church CityCouncil will see the benefits of the Railroad Cottage Project.

Sincerely,

Tina Hegadorn

Tina Gelfand Hegadorn410 Lincoln AvenueFalls Church, VA 22046703-969-0394

From: Linda Neighborgall <lneighborgaIlmsn.com>Date: May 6,2017 at 11:12:09AM EDTTo: <citycletk6ifallsehurchva.gov>Subject: Railroad houses

This is s message for the City Council.

I write in opposition to the application to build the so-called railroad cottages on the proposedsite. The major drawbacks IMO are the following.1. There are too many structures planned for the small site.2. Vehicle access, particularly for construction, commercial and emergency vehicles, isproblematical at best. The dead-end road serving the area is little more than a narrow countrylane on a flimsy roadbed that is inadequate, even with the minimal plannedexpansion. Construction-related lane blockages and delivery truck parking on larger, moresolidly-built roads like Broad Street have posed frequent traffic problems - just imagine the morepermanent problems that predictably will occur on Railroad Avenue.3. It appears that the NVPA’s grant of permission to widen the road onto park land usingconcrete payers is temporary and conditional, with NVPA reserving the right to reclaim the landfor their own use at any time. When they do, what then?4. The proposed homes are not really cottages at all; they are too large to be cottages. Estimatedto cost in the vicinity of $700K apiece, they are not affordable homes. They do not reasonablymeet the criteria for affordable housing for the elderly.5. Whether age restrictions are enforceable is an open question. These proposed homes are largeenough to attract owners with children who want access to FC schools. The potential for costly,drawn—out litigation in that event is very real.6. Parking arrangements are inadequate for one car per home. It is predictable that somehomeowners would have more than one car as well as visitors and frequent visits by caregiverswho will arrive by car, as reasonably might be expected with an elderly population, and will needparking spaces. Parking is disallowed in Railroad Avenue and so will spill over into theneighborhood, including into Fairfax County neighborhood streets. Does the city want to dobattle with the county over creating this permanent conflict?7. The developer’s and city’s assurances that city infrastructure, particularly the stormwatersystem, is adequate to accommodate this proposed development are not entirely convincing inlight of historically unftilfilled assurances about the continuing (but undedbnded), inadequatestorrnwater management. lack of sidewalks and street lighting in some parts of the city, lack ofpublic parking and the rest.8. By approving this development on this too-small, ill-suited site pursuant to the newordinance you will be setting a precedent for every property owner with a little extra land toconstruct their own similar overly—dense cluster housing; and it will be difficult to say no whenthey apply for permits. Subdividing large lots to accommodate additional single-family homeshas been controversial and has taxed our already over-stressed infrastructure. The potentialproliferation of dense, crowded cluster housing throughout the city and the demands on cityservices will blow the roof off our citizens’ tolerance level.9. Has the city discussed the possibility of acquiring the property for use as a park? There isn’tsufficient parkland in that part of town; and converting the land into a city park would be awelcome buffer against the close-by commercial zone, as well as a compatible extension of theadjacent W&OD Trail.

You might have concluded by now that I am opposed to cluster housing designed to serve theelderly. lam not. I am opposed to this development of too-large, too costly homes packeddensely on this site. I would enthusiastically support a similar development in a moreappropriate location, for example downtown on the bowling alLey property if it could beacquired. I would also like to see the city give up its historical opposition to allowing modular,free-standing housing modules for the elderly and disabled (ofien referred to as “granny flats”)on private property - another very effective way to keep families together in a community-basedsupportive environment.

Finally, I wonder at the way this proposal and the supporting ordinance came about, at the air ofcronyism surrounding it. Whatever the Council’s good intentions, the appearance is that theCouncil, the City Manager and the frequent FC project developer who heads this project - a manappointed to the city’s Economic Development Authority in spite of his obvious conflicts ofinterest - put their heads together and revised the city development ordinance for the specificbenefit of this particular developer. Even the appearance of that kind of favoritism, the bendingof the power of city government to the wishes of a specific private interest, a private interest whohad a hand in devising the relevant code section revision, smells bad at a minimum. I urge theCouncil to avoid this kind of apparent cronyism in your otherwise admirable zeal to provideaffordable housing for the elderly and to reject this proposal for the Railroad Cottages on themerits. I encourage you, to the extent you can, to work toward acquiring this property from thedeveloper for the more appropriate use as parkland and help developers to find a moreappropriate location for such a project elsewhere in the city.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Alison [mailto:alisonmiller@springstreetproperties.com]Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2017 5:40 PMTo: City ClerkSubject: Comments on Railroad Cottages

To City Council,

lam a long-time resident of Falls Church City, living at 605 S. Spring Street since 1999.

I recently attended the Council walk for the Railroad Cottages and came away convinced that the project is very ill-conceived. There are things that don’t make sense to me, especially for an over-55 community. Here are myquestions:

• Where are peoples’ cars or their guests’ cars going to park? Even those of us attending thewalk had to park on Fowler Street, and some on Sewell, to get there. The few proposed parkingspots will not be nearly enough for 10 residences, in my opinion

• Reducing car use isa great idea but to do that it must be easy for people to go about their dailylives without needing their cars. The placement of this development doesn’t do that. It is noteasy or convenient to get to Giant or Rite-Aid from this location, especially in foul weather.

• Even if you have a parking slot in the parking area on the western edge of the parcel, how doyou transport heavy or bulky objects, like groceries, from the car to your cottage?

• There is no access for service providers. How will construction equipment or supply trucks getto the parcel to develop it in the first place, much less make service calls for residents afterthey’ve moved in? Does your plumber park on Fowler Street and hike in? What if you buy anew couch, same?

• If you are an over-55 buyer in 2017 with the intention of aging in place, how do you get fromyour parking slot to your cottage in rain or the dead of winter, especially when time has passedand you’re not so steady on your feet anymore? I don’t think the boardwalk i5 going to be veryappealing or safe in those circumstances.

• Density —10 cottages on 1.3 acres is too dense. As per the Falls Church City map this is partlyin a resource protection area, which limits construction. How can a RPA support 10 cottages andall the infrastructure that goes with them?

• Property value — what will wear and tear up and down Railroad Avenue do to the propertyvalues of the homes that are already there, including a new house to be built by a couple whojust bought a lot there? The City of Falls Church zoning is designed to maintain current density oreven reduce it, as the recent sub-prime lot ordinance from a couple of years agodemonstrates. Was it the intent of the Cottage Ordinance that passed in February to take R-1Alots that should be used for single-family houses and convert them to high-density cottages? IFthat’s ok what will stop my neighbor from getting permission to put cottages on his lot? This isa very dangerous precedent to set.

• Summary - Why would someone who is over 55 (or anyone) want to live in such an accesschallenged location, where it’s difficult for them to get where they need to go and for others toget to them?

Thanks for your attention,Alison Miller

-Original Message-From: Bradley D. Keister [mailto:bradleydkeister@gmail.comlSent: Friday, May 05, 2017 9:41 AMTo: Carly AubreyCc: Kathryn B. KeisterSubject: railroad cottages

The purpose of this email is to record our strong opposition to the proposed railroad cottagedevelopment. While the idea is interesting in principle, in practice this is too small a space.

The proposed units would be built at the end of a narrow (essentially one-way) street, with limitedaccess for emergency vehicles (always a problem, but potentially more dangerous for more seniorcitizens). With 10 units, there could easily be another 15-20 cars, which that street together with Fowler(the only way out) cannot handle. There are also already serious drainage issues on the propertiesadjacent to the affected lots, and further development will only aggravate the matter.

Judging from the number of opposition signs in the immediate vicinity, we would find it distressing tosay the least that the City of Falls Church would force such a plan upon its neighbors.

Sincerely,

Bradley D. KeisterKathryn B. Keister1307 Ellison St.Falls Church

From: kristina new [mailto:kristina_new@hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:57 PMTo: City ClerkSubject: Please pass to City Council Members

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you for serving on City Council. I appreciate your service. I was at the brief meeting toreview the cottage development project on Railroad Ave last night and I had some additionalquestions regarding the project that I hope someone can answer:

1. What entity enforces the age restriction? Can the city or other entity legally restrict cottageresidents from housing school aged children? Can the city or other entity legally restrictchildren living in the cottages from attending FCC schools without a legal battle?2. The parcel currently includes 3 lots. Would a zoning/variance change be necessary to buildmore than 3 homes by right? If sub divided, what would be the number of homes? Would anybe on sub standard lots?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

Kristina New413 Lincoln AveFalls Church, VA 22046

From: Theresa Twiford [mailto:tstwiford@mac.com]Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:59 PMTo: City ClerkSubject: Railroad Cottages Letter of Support

Celeste, Can this email be included in the councils RR package for Monday?

From: Ross Chapin <rossrosschapin.com>Date: April 28, 2017 at 4:17:57 PM EDTTo: Theresa Twi ford <tstwifordcWmac.corn>Subject: Falls Church

Theresa,

Thank you for the update on your project in Falls Church. And congratulations for bringing itthis far! Its a good project that others will look to for inspiration.

Your proposed plan appears to he designed sensitively in relation with neighboring properties.The layout of the shared spaces, the community commons building and the large porches willfoster a close-knit neighborhood. If your household size is small, the parking allotment should besufficient. In the pocket neighborhoods we’ve built with small houses, the actual use is around1.25 spaces per household.

I wish you the best in moving this to reality!

Ross

Ross Chapin, FAIA

RossChapinArchitects195 Second Street • Langley, WA 98260-0230

0: (360 221 2373C; (360 929 9007E: ross©rosschaoin.comW: www.rosschaoin.comW: www.ocket-neiqhborhoods.netFb: Facebook

Author: Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small Scale community in a Large Scale World

From: Maria Kanellias [mailto:marousk6l@aol.com]Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:26 PMTo: Carly AubreySubject: Railroad home

1 think it is about time the city is allowing the building of 55± homes for those who need todownsize, who can no longer afford the property tax burden. With all the development in thecity the middle aged were always lefi out. This is good and the city needs more of it.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

To Falls Church City Council and Planning Zone Commission Members – In light of the recent discussion surrounding the proposed Railroad Cottages (RC) development, we believe the real problem – biased rezoning of a previously-declared “undevelopable” land parcel for the financial benefit of a favored developer – needs to be addressed. We do not dispute the concept of a cottage housing development, nor a 55+ community. Falls Church City indeed can benefit from diverse housing options that are developed smartly and align with existing neighborhoods; however, the RC development does neither. While the Cottage Ordinance has in fact been passed, it is not specific to this proposed development site on Railroad Avenue. The developer has not proven WHY this particular location – a 1.25 acre, triangular-shaped land parcel located at the end of a one-lane, dead-end road in a low density R-1 area -- is ideally suited for this condo-style development. Railroad Avenue is the WRONG LOCATION for such a dense development. Allowing the subdivision of three (3) lots to accommodate 12 structures – ten 1,500 sq. ft. houses, a common house, and a carport – sets a dangerous precedent for the potential subdivision of other land parcels in the City – and goes against the 2014 legislation against subdividing lots. It is not fair (or ethical) to have the zoning laws arbitrarily rewritten and bent in favor of a popular local developer who has contributed to multiple City officials’ campaigns. Other reasons why Railroad Avenue is the WRONG LOCATION for the proposed RC development: INADEQUATE PARKING: The site plan allocates 13 parking spaces for ten 1,500 sq. ft, two-story houses – an inadequate number of parking spaces for the projected number of residents. If this development is aimed at persons 55+, why does the current site plan NOT HAVE ANY handicapped parking and oversized parking spaces for larger vehicles? The parking spaces in the “Flower Building” – also developed by Bob Young - are 8’1” wide, more narrow than those at Harris Teeter, which are 8’7”. This extra 6” makes a big difference for ease of accessibility in/out of cars, especially for those elderly persons with special needs. Assuming the 10 RC houses have 13 vehicles for the 13 parking spots, there lacks adequate space for overflow parking for residents, guests, visiting health care workers - AND for the current residents of Railroad Ave & their visitors. Existing Railroad Ave. residents currently face extreme overflow parking challenges on this one-lane, dead-end road, and a dramatic increase in the volume of cars will only exacerbate a current neighborhood dilemma. So where is the nearest Falls Church City street parking where these extra cars can park – Ellison St. & Fowler Avenue, which is equivalent of 3.5 FOOTBALL FIELDS (over a block) away from the RC development site? Conversely, Railroad Ave. guests could inconvenience our Fairfax neighbors by parking in their spots along Fowler or Sewell. This long walk would be challenging for a 55+ community, especially in the cold, rain, snow, ice, and heat/humidity. What then? Furthermore, the location of the carport – 10’ from our property – will cause air, noise, and light pollution that could be mitigated by relocating it away from existing houses and placed near the NoVA Parks maintenance shed. Building a carport at the exact minimum setback is unprecedented in the City, as other “pocket” neighborhoods in Falls Church (Steeples Court, Bishops Court, Park Ave.) either have a garage, driveway, or other designated parking spots FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL HOUSE and do not abut minimum setbacks of existing residences. These communities provide 2 spaces per home, plus on-site guest parking or easily accessible street parking. The RC development does not. Railroad Ave. is the wrong location to build a development without adequate, on-site parking for each individual house.

DENSITY: Per the site design, the proposed houses will be no more than SIX FEET APART at the point of the kitchen “bump out.” Zoning laws call for 30’ between structures. Why jam so many buildings onto a 1.25 acre, triangular shaped land parcel? Could it be that the developer needs to sell this number of houses in order to maximize his profit? Again, Railroad Avenue is the wrong location to build so many structures in such a tight space, as it does not align with the existing neighborhood R-1 zoning. TRASH: The current site design puts the trash at the rear of the development near the carport. How realistic is to expect an elderly homeowner in house #11 (at the tip of the triangle) to walk the equivalent length of a football field (100 yards) to carry out the trash? Who will take all of the 96-gallon trash and recycle receptacles

out to the road for pickup, and return the empty cans? Conversely, what if the trash truck cannot reach the trash cans or turn around (because of the likelihood of illegally parked cars near the carport) – this will cause unpleasant odors and vermin, neither of which are acceptable to the neighbors. STORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT: An easement to Ellison Ave. is required to allow storm water drainage. Houses along Ellison St. already experience flooding, which this project would only exacerbate. If the Ellison St. neighbors refuse to grant the easement, what changes will need to be made to the site plan? Furthermore, this land parcel is within close proximity to Tripps Run, and contains a Resource Protection Area. What environmental mitigation plans are in place? What about replanting the trees on the W&OD that will be removed? The architect’s plans show a 10 year growth – that’s nice, but we are more concerned with what will it look like 6 months after construction. INCREASED TRAFFIC of up to 57 trips per day (according to the developer’s estimates) along Fowler & Railroad Aves. represents a danger to pedestrians on Railroad Ave & bikers who access the W&OD trail at this intersection and creates greatly increased congestion in a neighborhood with limited ingress/egress options, particularly when it funnels into the S. West & Broad St. intersection. We believe the City should devise its own traffic estimates and not rely on the developer’s data, which we believe is low. ENFORCEMENT OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT: According to federal law, 20% of units in a 55+ development do not have to be allocated for residents 55+ – to potentially include school age children, who would attend FCCPS at a cost of $17k/year. The developer asserts that the age restriction will be tied to the deed. Who will enforce this restriction? Is the City ready to evict minor children? If enforcement falls to the HOA or a condominium association, on what legal basis could an HOA/CA restrict the age of residents – and still comply with federal laws? There have been lawsuits across the country in similar 55+ communities. What plans do the HOA/CA have to enforce this age restriction and fight subsequent litigation? What happens when residents of this dream community begin to file lawsuits against one another? Given all the costs the developer would incur to complete this project as proposed, to include but not limited to – widening the road with pavers, tearing down trees along the W&OD trail, moving power lines, storm water drainage and water retention plans – it’s no wonder why the developer NEEDS to sell 10 houses in order to make a profit. But let us ask, what is the REAL BENEFIT to the City for such a project AT THIS LOCATION? We fail to see a benefit for the City – rather, we see a financial benefit for the developer. The City Council has an obligation to the taxpaying citizens of Falls Church to act upon THEIR concerns – NOT on the financial interests of the developer. We strongly urge you to keep the “Little City” little – and vote NO against this “special exception” rezoning and subdivision. Rather, we recommend the developer build a cottage community at a different location, on a more suitable land parcel with adequate ingress/egress, parking, and accessibility for elderly residents – OR severely curtail the scope of the RC development to 5 houses, move the carport location, and keep trees numbered 145, 144, 136, 137, 97, 96, 95, 94, 90, 55, 54, 32, 33, 24, 23, 15, 14, 13, 2, 498, and 38. Another alternative is to build three (3), by-right houses on these 3 lots. Thank you for your time and attention regarding this matter. Respectfully yours, Stephanie and Joe Dorsey 1002 Railroad Avenue Falls Church, VA 22046

From: Theresa Twiford <tstwiford@mac.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 4:02 PM

To: Carly Aubrey

Subject: Fwd: Railroad Cottages Letter of Support

Carly, I sent this to Celeste also, but will you please see if this email can be included in the

councils RR package for Monday?

From: Ross Chapin <ross@rosschapin.com>

Date: April 28, 2017 at 4:17:57 PM EDT

To: Theresa Twiford <tstwiford@mac.com>

Subject: Falls Church

Theresa,

Thank you for the update on your project in Falls Church. And congratulations for

bringing it this far! Its a good project that others will look to for inspiration.

Your proposed plan appears to be designed sensitively in relation with

neighboring properties. The layout of the shared spaces, the community commons

building and the large porches will foster a close-knit neighborhood. If your

household size is small, the parking allotment should be sufficient. In the pocket

neighborhoods we’ve built with small houses, the actual use is around 1.25 spaces

per household.

I wish you the best in moving this to reality!

Ross

Ross Chapin, FAIA

RossChapinArchitects 195 Second Street • Langley, WA 98260-0230

O: (360) 221 2373 C: (360) 929 9007 E: ross@rosschapin.com W: www.rosschapin.com W: www.pocket-neighborhoods.net Fb: Facebook Author: Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small Scale Community in a Large Scale

World

From: Maria Kanellias <marousk61@aol.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:26 PM

To: Carly Aubrey

Subject: Railroad home

I think it is about time the city is allowing the building of 55+ homes for those who need to

downsize, who can no longer afford the property tax burden. With all the development in the

city the middle aged were always left out. This is good and the city needs more of it.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

From: City Clerk

Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:19 PM

To: Carly Aubrey

Subject: FW: Railroad Cottages project

Didn’t know if you got this comment.

Celeste Heath, CMC

City Clerk

City of Falls Church

300 Park Avenue

Suite 303E

Falls Church, Virginia 22046

(703) 248-5014

(703) 248-5146 (fax)

From: Karen Oliver [mailto:karen.oliver.for.fccc@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 7:12 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Railroad Cottages project

Public comment for the record ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bethany Henderson <bethanyhenderson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:58 PM Subject: Railroad Cottages project To: Letty Hardi <lhardi@fallschurchva.gov>, "P. David Tarter" <dtarter@fallschurchva.gov>, "dsnyder@fallschurchva.gov" <dsnyder@fallschurchva.gov>, "dsze@fallschurchva.gov" <dsze@fallschurchva.gov>, "koliver@fallschurchva.gov" <koliver@fallschurchva.gov>, "mconnelly@fallschurchva.gov" <mconnelly@fallschurchva.gov>, "pduncan@fallschurchva.gov" <pduncan@fallschurchva.gov> Cc: Daniel Henderson <threeputtdan@gmail.com>

Good evening city council members, We write to share our thoughts on the proposed railroad cottages project. We live nearby the proposed site, and walk by it regularly. We are generally a fan of the concept of the cottages, and would like to see them at that location. We think it brings great diversity in value to our neighborhood. However, like several of our neighbors who signed a petition that we understand was submitted to you recently, we have some concerns about the impact on the surrounding community. Specifically, if the project moves forward, we think it is essential to ensure that the current road condition and (lack of) maintenance, and flooding of the neighboring properties that happens as a result, is addressed. We also think it is crucial that any development designed for older people, who are more likely statistically to have emergency vehicle access needs, ensure

that there is sufficient emergency vehicle access. As we regularly walk and bike by that site, we cannot envision how an emergency vehicle could easily get down the road, turn around, and get back out. We know the Santa fire truck does not go down the road currently for example, because it is difficult to get back out. Lastly, we do think it is unrealistic to assume that every cottage owner would only have one car, and that the vehicles would fit in the proposed number of spaces available. Not to mention, there is essentially no guest parking for their visitors. The road in its current condition cannot handle much vehicle parking, especially with increased road traffic. And there is no other walking from a vehicle entrance to the cottages except that road, as they are surrounded by private property and the W&OD trail. Well we understand that this is a developer choice issue, we do doubt that the $700,000 per cottage number we have heard bandied about really makes the cottages affordable, thus meeting the stated purpose. Certainly people able and willing to pay that much for a 1200 square-foot house are in an income bracket able to have more than one car. We understand that you are walking the site soon, and hope you'll take a careful look at the road and the access issues when you do. Thank you for your consideration. Bethany and Daniel Henderson -- - Bethany 703-635-9637 Sent on the go. Please excuse my clumsy thumbs ______________________________________________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message and any attached files are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ______________________________________________________________________

-- Karen R. Oliver Falls Church City Council Mobile 571-421-6950 ______________________________________________________________________

Railroad: Key Concerns April 17, 2017 VOICING OUR CONCERNS AGAINST THE PROPOSED RAILROAD COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT, AND

SEEKING TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE OVERALL SCOPE

We do formally express our concerns related to the proposed development of the Railroad Cottages on 1006 Railroad Avenue, Falls Church, VA 22046. As taxpayers, we are committed to maintaining the integrity of our neighborhood and our quality of life and environment – which is jeopardized by the scope/density of the proposed cottage development. This proposed development will negatively impact the following:

● Public safety/fire emergency response risk ● Parking ● Traffic ● Storm water drainage ● W&OD trail ● Neighborhood noise levels ● Vegetation and existing trees ● Property values

Our intention is to make the following entities aware of the situation so they can reevaluate what a suitable alternative plan might be: Falls Church City government officials and other involved parties – including but not limited to – the Falls Church City Council, Falls Church City Mayor, Planning Committee, Fire Marshal, Public Works Committee, and the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. We are not opposed to the development of this property per se (it is currently zoned for 3 houses on 3 lots, with the combined area being 1.25 acres). The developer is proposing building a total of 11 units, including a community house, and a carport to cover 10 cars, with extra guest parking for 3 cars. Each house will be 1500 square feet overall with 2-bedroom plus den. Each house will have a footprint of 1000 sq ft and be ONLY 6 FEET APART. The scope and density of this proposed development as written will negatively impact the neighborhood in the following ways:

1. Public Safety/ Fire Emergency Response Risk. The width of Railroad Avenue – approximately 11 feet – allows for one-way traffic only. Residents must back out of the way to accommodate a car going the opposite direction. This narrow road is almost too small to allow a standard fire truck. Currently, the turnaround at the end of the dead-end road is not wide enough to support a fire truck turning itself around. Also, people frequently park here illegally to use the trail. With the proposed development, there will be a minimum of 12 new structures spaced no more than 6 feet apart. Should one of these structures catch fire, it could spread quickly from one structure to the next (even with sprinkler systems) and therefore poses a significant risk to adjacent houses in the neighborhood – especially when the road cannot adequately accommodate a fire truck, police cruisers, and ambulances. Furthermore, if blocked by overflow parking from the new cottage development (a very realistic scenario), the turnaround will not be able to accommodate enough space for emergency vehicles’ egress. Meanwhile, it remains unclear how any changes to the width of Railroad Avenue will impact the location of the fire hydrant near the intersection of Railroad and Fowler Avenues.

2. Parking. The developer has only included 10 covered parking spots, two (2) temporary spaces for loading/unloading (spots that block fire truck access), and three (3) “extra” spots on the side of the carport. If the residents of each unit have at a minimum two (2) cars, this would total 20 cars, with only 13 permanent available parking spaces – leaving the question unanswered about where the remaining 7 cars will park, let alone those belonging to any visitors or guests. (The development team believes that each owner will prefer to walk everywhere and therefore only have one car, which is unrealistic. Most families in this area have 2 cars or even 3.)

* (Google image is of 30 cars, projecting if future residents own 2 cars and host a guest. The above photo parking lot luckily can accommodate that, but what if there were only 13 spots? *photo credit to Cory Lum of Civil Beat) Railroad Avenue is a “No Parking” zone, as it is a one-lane paved road with no space for street parking. Translation: visitors and residents would be forced to park a block away on Fowler Street, which impacts those residents (and making it a long walk for homeowners, especially if laden down with grocery bags, packages, or sports equipment, etc).

3. Traffic. Statisticians devote entire careers studying metrics of how many car trips per day people

make to school, work, etc. Suffice it to say that the number of people living on Railroad Avenue would double (from 20 to 40+) and therefore it is reasonable to project that traffic would also double (potentially triple). Current traffic levels are already maxed out for the type of road. (The developer has submitted his own independent study that reveals the new plan to cause between 37 and 57 new “trips” per day … this is a huge impact to people that use the trail, as well as to the existing homeowners.)

4. Storm water drainage. Railroad Avenue does not have adequate stormwater drainage, curbs,

nor sidewalks. During a storm, water escapes down the pavement of Railroad Avenue and floods the north side of the street, where there is no sufficient permanent drainage. Once the road is heavily traveled by countless construction vehicles and significantly increased residential traffic,

the resulting damage to the road will cause additional flooding and drainage issues, and which could potentially flood current homeowners’ basements and yards. It is our understanding that Falls Church Public Works does not consider Railroad Avenue to be an official Falls Church City street (as it is owned by the Northern Regional Park Authority - NVRPA) and therefore will not make the proper investments to upgrade and repair the road as warranted to accommodate storm water drainage. This is unacceptable to existing residents and should be unacceptable to any future potential investors or buyers of the Railroad Cottages. If the road is widened, the sloped terrain – at a minimum – will need to be re-graded, re-landscaped, and could result in additional runoff and erosion that will need to be addressed to prevent further damage to property. And rerouting the water to cut through properties to Ellison Street is not an acceptable solution to residents of Ellison Street. THIS IS A KEY CONCERN AND MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.

5. W&OD Trail impact. The big question that remains unanswered is who really “owns” Railroad

Avenue – is it the City of Falls Church, or the NVRPA? The developer has proposed widening Railroad Avenue by six (6) feet and using “green” pavers, which requires cutting down the small trees and shrubs planted between the road and the gravel trail that runs parallel to the paved W&OD trail. The widening of the road will reduce the size of the strip of land between the paved road and the gravel trail immediately adjacent to the W&OD trail, – causing elimination of trees, shrubs, landscaping, and natural beauty that provide a degree of privacy to current homeowners.

6. Neighborhood noise levels. Increasing the number of residential structures on Railroad Avenue

– currently four (4) houses with approximately 20 residents – by adding ten (10) cottages with potentially 2-4 residents each, could potentially increase the population density by over 100%. In addition to the doubled population, noise from up to 10 barking dogs, a vast increase in traffic, numerous delivery/contractor vehicles, and construction/moving related activities would create noise disturbances that do not currently exist, and turn a quiet single lane road into a thoroughfare. Frequent (daily?) noise disturbances decrease the quality of life of neighbors.

7. Vegetation and existing trees. Current plans call to remove almost all vegetation on the building

site and replant the area when the construction is complete (in about a year or year and a half). All drawings show the development with renderings of trees after 10 years’ growth … a long time to wait, especially when the land has mature trees and plants now.

8. Property values and other concerns. Falls Church residents enjoy high and increasing property

values due to many factors, including but not limited to a stellar public school system. The owners of land on Railroad Avenue, Fowler Street, and Ellison Street currently maintain solid home values in part because of the secluded and private nature of their streets. All of the above issues numbers 1-7 could negatively affect that. Additionally, another concern is that a community trash/ dumpster and recycle area have not been identified – if placed by the carport, this would create a stench during summer, as well as attract vermin, unwanted wildlife, and insects, which will negatively impact the adjacent neighbors’ property and reduce enjoyment of their outdoor space.

WHAT ABOUT RENTALS??? The developer claims that the property can only be sold to “seniors” age 55 and older, and that there will be zero impact to the school system because there will be no kids. Even if this were true (which we doubt, many people age 55+ have small kids or teenagers), what is to prevent someone age 55 from buying a unit and then renting it out to a family with kids? Maybe the owner took a job transfer abroad, but has no plans to sell, so in that case he would need to rent it out. This is a realistic scenario and should be addressed.

Currently, the “by rights” legal amount of houses that could be built on the 3 combined lots is … 3. We believe that 3 “normal” size houses might be more suitable for the land than 11 buildings with inadequate parking. (Why would City Council go against the ordinance passed a few years ago stating that lots can no longer be subdivided?) The idea of age-restricted “affordable” housing for seniors is admirable and attractive, but not at the expense and disregard for current residents and neighbors of adjacent properties. We ask that elected City officials and other related parties take into consideration these concerns as outlined above when voting on any ordinances or zoning issues related to this proposed development. We seek to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood and quality of life/environment; these are jeopardized by the scope/density of the proposed development.

Comments from Online Petition RE: Railroad Cottages

Name City Date Comment

Alixandria Lapp Arlington Apr 16, 2017

11 homes in a space designed for 3 is simply too many! Thank you for listening.

Carol Abel Washington Apr 15, 2017 I am very familiar with both the location and the neighborhood. I can't imagine the impact of so much density in such a tight space with limited access. I don't think this is the right thing for this space.

Alex dorsey Apr 15, 2017 This plan to 11 buildings in the area that is given isn't possible and not fair to those who already live on Railroad avenue.

Amy Falls Church Apr 12, 2017 Wondering how 11 houses, and the vehicles belonging to the households, can fit onto 3 lots - 1.25 acres. Not sure that $700K is affordable housing for seniors.

Dean Miller Falls Church Apr 11, 2017 This is is poorly planned and makes little sense

Dave Hagigh Arlington Apr 09, 2017 Unless this housing is "only" for seniors (and not just 55+), let's not let the builder claim it's for seniors when anyone can live there. The City has enough residents already and this is just overkill.

Bethia Sherman Falls Church Apr 08, 2017 I don't call senior housing affordable at $700,000 per house.

Bradford Karony McLean Apr 08, 2017 Don’t build

Karson Claussen White Lake Apr 08, 2017 People bought there for a reason. That such a variance is even being considered is farcical.

Daniel Horowitz Hayward Apr 08, 2017 Curious how the developer got the "exception" without citizen input. Perhaps it's time to have new Members of the Commissions that approve the exceptions.

Teresa Schauer Hampton Apr 08, 2017 Besides being bad for nearby property owners, this is also bad for people who use the W&OD trail.

Mary Ellen Miller Falls Church Apr 08, 2017 Shortsighted plan, this does not have adequate ingress/egress - does not fit Too many houses.

Scott Pierce Arlington Apr 08, 2017 Totally opposed. If every property owner in town can't double and triple the number of dwellings on their property, why should this developer?

Anthony P Scardino

Alexandria Apr 08, 2017 No to Railroad Cottages!

Anonymous Apr 08, 2017 The cottage houses are too dense for such a small piece of land.

Meg Klekner Falls Church Apr 07, 2017 not designed to fit the style of the neighborhood Roads not designed to handle traffic Yes to senior living no to density

Stephanie Petras Dorsey

Falls Church Apr 07, 2017 We firmly oppose this development, which is literally next to our house!

Julie Felgar Falls Church Apr 07, 2017 Too many houses, too small a place.

Andrew Clark Falls Church Apr 07, 2017 We don't need more congestion, this a poorly thought out plan

Julie Harrison Falls Church Apr 07, 2017 The project is much too dense! Thank you for doing the petition.

From: City Clerk

Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:05 PM

To: City-council

Cc: Carly Aubrey; Carol McCoskrie; Wyatt Shields

Subject: FW: 11 houses in my backyard, right next to the bike path

From: Letty Hardi [mailto:lettyhardi@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 3:47 PM To: City Clerk; Wyatt Shields Subject: Fwd: 11 houses in my backyard, right next to the bike path

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Julie Harrison <1julieharrison@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM

Subject: 11 houses in my backyard, right next to the bike path

To: 1timothyharrison@gmail.com

Thanks to all who have signed the petition.

If you have not, please take a quick moment to look it over.

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-railroad-avenue-cottages

Basically a developer wants to build 11 houses with carport parking for only 10

cars on property adjacent to us (right next to the W&OD trail). It's zoned for just

three houses. I'm attaching a photo image to show you what this is.

The Planning Board meeting is tonight at City Hall at 7:30. Thank you. Julie

Harrison