Good evening. Welcome to the City of Fairfax planning commission meeting of Monday evening September 10th 2007. Please rise and join us in the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Good evening to all the members of the commission. Welcome back from your summer break. Although I know many of you have been working with city staff and our city council on planning commission issues and city planning master plan issues. I'd like to turn briefly to Mr. Hudson to introduce the staff who are here. We have some new faces and some returning faces. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to introduce Sue Cotlesa, sitting opposite me. Sue was with the city for an extended period of time. How many years were you here? 12 or 15 years. 15 years. She left us about four years ago to become the first planning director for the town of Duck in North Carolina. Family circumstances brought her back to the region and I was able to recruit her to come back. So she's going to be serving as our chief of planning. She'll be the planning commission's permanent liaison. She will be working with the comprehensive plan, the perfect full of our master plan, the rewrite of the zoning ordinance and the infill development issues that are on our plate right now. All those planning related issues. So you'll be seeing an awful lot of her in the future. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. And welcome back. We're delighted to have you staffing us. And we're going to have a very busy fall with all the items on our agendas. So we look, we collectively look forward to working with you. We have a rather full agenda this evening. Is there any discussion about the agenda before we begin? Second. All those in favor? Aye. All right. An acting unanimously. I'd like to open the meeting to any presentations by the public for items not included on the agenda this evening already. Are there any general marks by anyone who is in the audience today? Okay, not seeing any. We'll move on to item number three, which is a public hearing to consider the request of PNC Bank North America by Catherine Puscar Attorney in fact to rezone approximately 1.29 acres from R3 residential to C2 retail commercial with proffers on the premises known as tax map parcels 57-1, sub-prone 2-1-17-1-18-1-19-A, and also known as 106-31-106-3-3-3-106-4-5-106-4-9 main street, and currently classified as mixed use on the comprehensive plan future land use map. Mr. Johnson, will there be a staff presentation? Yes, Mr. Colone, we'll give it the staff presentation. Good evening. Good evening, members of the commission. Again, I'm Nick Colone, and I'm here to present the staff report and the presentation about the sea. Good, could you move the microphone a little bit closer? Thanks. As stated just a moment ago, the Application for PNC Inc. Resoning at 10.6.3.1.10.6.45 and 10.6.49 Main Street. Locations at the initial drive and Main Street. Technical difficulties here. Right now there exists three buildings on the property. It is owned currently R3 and again the these rezoning some R3 to C2. There exists the surgical center to the north of the property on along Main Street, cemetery to the rear and the being developed as we will not as we speak right now. I think it's called Quotland Development which formerly Jaguar town homes to the west of the property. The African seeks to demolish the existing commercial structures and rezone the private to allow the financial institution with the drive to. Now, tonight's hearing and it's a recommendation to the council, we're going from R3 to C2, however, whatever the recommendation comes out to tonight, there are other land use actions that associate with this, that council were born on, but are included in the presentation the staff report for the commission's information, which is a special use permit to allow the drive through with the financial institution. The C2 allows the financial institution without a drive through, but to have the drive through with the financial institution. The C2 allows the financial institution without a drive through, but to have the drive through immediate special needs permit. Also, especially the permit to be developed in the floodplain, and special exceptions to allow construction grading in the CW-50 feet of the RPA, and is a way for the loading space requirement as well. There's also a variance request to eliminate the additional eight feet right away along Main Street. Back in the last planning mission work session, I believe it was back in May a couple of items from Afghanistan, the importance of the building, which I will touch upon in the presentation that was included in the staff report and have some clarification with that as well. Also, there was concern about the architectural renderings that were shown at that work session. And primarily the glass front of the building and the elements have really been conformed to the transition district look that were seeking in the community parents plan and the comp plan. The proposal before you, the site plan includes, this will be the location of the building here, obviously you can see the PNC bank with the parking adjacent. There will be 10 foot sidewalks along both frontages of judicial drive and main street. The entrances are off judicial and main street that is judicial drive entrance is right in, right out only. I also want to point out what we're going to be discussing a little further is the RPA, which is along these hash marks here. And the floodplain runs roughly about here and to about here. Very difficult to see on here, but that's an approximate width with this point that I have here. The applicant is providing a hammock that brings the property closer to the plan and can be pronounced plan objectives. as stated in the staff report Exceeding open space requirement replace an obsolete buildings or under utilized buildings would improve the architecture and Providing sidewalk landscaping gas lining the streets are just stated along Main Street and traditional drive This specific section in the comp plan it deals with the westward extension of the old town transition district. And the items or objectives here is, this location should support a unified development of that parcel, meaning what it's this building that's being built, or I'd say, with another development that it is congruent with each other. Also, on site, as you noticed, there's the floodplain, it's in the staff point at the RPA, and try to preserve that narrow card as much as possible. Also, parcel consolidation, which the application, as part of the variance request, that variance request is cited from action from the subdivision action, in this case, the subdivision action is consolidating the parcel. And they are controlling the parcel, which is an objective of the comprehensive plan. And again, they're underutilized forms of development should be redeveloped and encouraged personal professional services in dislocation as long as it's the physical character of the old town. Now back to the resource protection area for a moment, now, and the floodplain, and that matter, the building itself is not in the RPO, the floodplain. It's the parking area, the drive entrances, they're actually in the floodplain and the RPA. So the building itself is out of it. The surface parking driver, I stated here, are out of the floodplain. So the building itself is not in question. Now, there's two issues, I shouldn't say issues, there's two items with the floodplain RPA. We'll touch the RPI first. The requirement, I'll criteria in the zoning ordinance, is simply to mitigate any further impervious areas. What's happening with this site is the impervious areas being reduced in not only size, but also in pollution runoff content. It's actually meeting the requirement. In terms of the floodplain, if we go back to the work session as well, if you remember there was discussion on the floodplain requirements and where this fell in terms of support by staff. The issue came down to, there's two mythologies. We have a Doberin Davis study which Public Work staff goes by, but when changes are made to the floodplain, and especially Jason to the Jason sites like the Jaguar, there's a change in location of this, and I think the engineers could speak better. So what happened was they used a different methodology updating the exact location of floodplain. As it turns out, the end result is similar. It's only raising the floodplain about an inch. We allow up to a foot. And actually at some point it's actually maybe narrowing the flood plan. So it turns out that it's okay. It's not using the Davis study itself. It's based on new cross sections of where the flood plan is located. Now just touching on the subdivision variance for a brief moment. Again, they're asking for relief of the A-foot right away dedication that would normally be provided to me to requirements of 42 foot right away and the complaint wants that to go to 50 feet on on each side. So this happens 42 to 8 to give the 50 feet. Relief from this also want to point out it is mitigating the requirement or somebody requiring from the underground utilities, the applicant is asking to be, let them that as well. Now again, it's not before this commission, but again, sphere information council will have to vote on that. Now, staff has concluded because of the constrained RPA on the site and the floodplain RPA, if the dedication would be provided, it actually will push the building and the asphalt areas, further into the RPA and closer to the floodplain which is in conflict what we want to see and actually the placement of the building in terms of uh... street frontages and those locations in some of the old town transition area is is not in conflict so the placement of the building and the parking and providing the streets gaping plus keeping the building outside out of the floodplain of the RPA is supported. So staff is comfortable with the variance at this point. In terms of traffic circulation, if I go back to the slide, again, it's right in right out and there was some concern back at the previous work session about, you know, cut through traffic along here. What the African has done is at various spots, I'm sure I'm not hitting all of them, is put stop signs. Coming in, I'm not sure if one was there. Coming in now, just to have more traffic calming at that location, just a slower traffic down. And to, you know, I know I people were trying to cut through and hopefully that wouldn't occur. Now in terms of the elevations, as you can see here, this is not that glass structure that that commission was concerned with. It's more of the 20th century traditional look and it seems to fit the parameters in the old town transition. This is what you see here. The above elevations, actually the elevation you would see is a southeast elevation coming from Main Street, if you're approaching East. And then that's the main entrance from the parking area. The bottom photo or elevation is actually you'll see on Main Street itself. And the next elevation, you'll see this, the above one is the initial drive location, and then the back of the building with a drive through is obviously the bottom one. At the, I believe it was the main meaning, there was a concern about, again, the stir-up significance of the probies on the site. Now, there's an archaeological assessment included abstract, including your staff report with you and an architectural assessment. I don't want to mix the two up. I was pointing out to you earlier. And essentially, what we know right now with those two assessments, the site doesn't you and an architectural assessment. I don't want to mix the two up. I was pointed out to you earlier. And essentially what we know right now with those two assessments, the site doesn't contain anything. Artifacts that contribute to historic character of this commercial area. And primarily was the loss of the central feature was the where we'll keep on the frame house, the midst of the significance of this. However, this is on slide two past. This is not completely agreed upon and historic FAFAC's HFCI requested a central letter to the state and the com trollo which is part of the federal regulating community regarding this. I requested a section 106 which is in process now. The applicant has actually applied 4106 to have more study done in this property. Again, this does not mean, oh, these are historic structures. It just means that once that request is made, the federal government essentially has to look into it. I'm standing several months. Yes, Mr. Hussle. A wide range of time frames that these things go through. Through the 106 process. I've spoken with the folks at the state here at the Department of Historic Resources, who have basically said that some of these can be handled in as little as a handful of weeks. There, so several months might be misleading. I've been led to believe that this process would take a couple of months, I think, was the way it was characterized. Okay, thank you. And I just want to be sure that I understood. Essentially what you're saying is the placement of the building and the parking lot on the lot as presented to us this evening will mitigate essentially the watershed issues. Okay, because that was an open question that Commissioner Pumphrey had emailed to me asking about because there was some competing reports in the documentation. And the other item I do want to follow up with because this was an open item for the commission as well is the historic significance of the property. And in fact, we had asked for documentation, I believe it's from Mr. Martin who was here this evening, there was a separate document. Does he concur with the recommendation of staff this evening? I think he generally concur, but I let him speak to that more specifically. Okay. At time appropriate. All right. Thank you. Please continue. And with that actually brings me to my last side. I just want to sum up in general compliance with the Complan and City Code. The subject property is a difficult property. There's a lot of constraints on the property. It's particularly the floodplain of the RPA. But the building placement, front's appropriately the streetscaping and elements that we're looking for on this site in terms of design and the use itself is supported in the conflant. So generally, we conclude that a favorable look upon this application. And with that, I thank you for your time. Very good, thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for staff? Please Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. Mr. Cologne, I'm talking about the eight foot waiver of the right of way. How will the street line up when the construction is complete with the rest of the intersection as it's coming eastbound on Main Street. You have a turn lane, the turn right on traditional drive and two lanes coming straight through. Where will the street opposite the bank be in relation to the turn lane? Will it be out in the road further or will it be back in with the turn lane as it finally lies out? And the question I guess that I'm leading toward it will follow this with this. What is the impact on any further development if we were to change any of the road structure in the future to have right away going through there? Would that constrain the city at all? I'll answer the second half first, then I'll back up. In terms of the impact on future right away, there's a lot of similar issues in terms of RPA and floodplain in that area. And we'll probably be running to that conflict and we'll just have to look at it in each case. In terms of where the rover wind up, to be frankly frankly, honest, the since their old puma will be provided and I'll leave any more on the other side, and it'll be, that I have, you kind of, the engineers are here for the applicant and maybe speak to it more, will be in the same configuration. So nothing will be changing yet. Thank you. Dr. Combe. Mr. Chairman, I think I have two comments and maybe I want to understand it. Number one, you said that traffic flow will have not any impact on sight, because you are going to put two stop signs. Several. Several. The question is that I drive the road everyday, judicial drive and mixed it. The way it is now, the traffic is being jammed. How can you say that it will have not an impact when the traffic will increase? My question really is how much increase in the traffic this project will have? Number one, how the Jaguar development when it is finished. You have, you know, you can see the model. What's the your analysis? Let me clarify it. There's two questions within your question. The first question is, in terms of on-site, the idea of the stop sign, we're not saying it was going to guarantee cut through, we're trying to mitigate that if that should occur, especially if you do this show, you know, and Main Street, you know, Main Street particularly backs up. So that's just something that the applicant is providing to try to help, you know, assess that. You know, of course, if it becomes a big issue, the applicant I'm sure would take a look at that and see what other mitigation measures would be for that. Now, in terms of traffic impacts, the minor, I'm not sure if they're using the right wording, but the minor traffic study that was submitted to the peak, daily traffic on that site, will increase traffic roughly about 150 a peak hour, I believe that will be on the Saturday around 1 in the afternoon. So in terms of a numbers term, the MPIC is not significant. But what reality is out there and anywhere in the city and many other cities is traffic winds up, traffic stacks, and actually you can't use numbers to fully guarantee there's going to be no further issue there. I don't know, hope that clarifies a little. And maybe the applicant could add to that. I think one other question on page three of the report. Of the analysis or the report? Oh, I would say. And forgive us, it's a new format we're trying to go through. We can't get you in time. Yeah, OK. I think this buffer, I think there is to it about seven original proper and created by the staff. I think the one recommended by staff really are meaningful, they're relevant and I think they will contribute to the public good. But the first seven, either if you read them, I'm not a lawyer, but if you read them, they are really, you cannot complete any project without meeting them. Those are the requirements, they're not the proper. It does not add anything to the public good. Prof. should supposed to add something to the public good. And the one that staff recommends I strongly support. So could you either comment and tell me why they are listed 10 when they're meaningful only R3? Well, the proffers instead of general offer by the applicant. And the first seven are just general profits that normally associated with rezoning to make sure that what's approved is approved and continues to be built. I can't speak to their thoughts on what they had offered. But in looking at it, staff had these three other concerns with the site. And because of the influx of the issues that we've had with the historic significance of this property and we kept postponing the decision and putting on hold, we haven't had time to flesh this out completely yet. But I have given the copy of this the applicant, I'm sure they will comment tonight on these three whether they're willing to offer that as well. I have two questions. Maybe I can run them together. The first relates to the Boller Engineering study page 304 and it also ties back to the first proffer on the FEMA study. The middle paragraph, I mean you're headings on the top section, the bottom section you've got a corrected effective model and effective model. You're talking about FEMA, the Department of Public Works, is saying it's not being compared to the topographic conditions. You mentioned Duberry, and I remember that we had a discussion in June, I believe, with staff. Are we dealing with semantics here? Some of your differences are pretty hard to measure. And are we creating a situation where the applicant may have trouble with the first You're talking about page three and four of the analysis section? The Boller Engineering Report. The Boller Engineering Report. Right. Okay. Sorry. Well, okay. Let me, I'll let the applicant address that a little further. Okay. But in terms of the, the letter what the letter was trying to distinguish was, and maybe there is a matter of semantics, there's the difference between the two studies, the two studies. What we have, I'll do by any study, and what changes over the course of the years have happened, and what female looks to is where is it now? Now, I'll let them explain that a little more. In terms of the profit itself, we would like to see, and sometimes it's out of your hands as well, but we'd like to see before the side plan is approved, something at least to Cllomar, which is the initial level of approval, once we send it to them, then I'm signing off and it's so we can feel comfortable approving the site plan. Thank you. And then I have a question of the applicant later. I have an act of that. I have an act of that. I have a few minutes lines. Impact on where we are with procedure. My understanding is they would have to go back and try to work out to FEMA deems as necessary and see how it affects the property and they may not be able to build, for example. Mr. Fitzgerald? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what this is the appropriate place to ask this, but previously the issue had been raised by me with regard to the turning movements off of Main Street Westbound into the site. And my question at that time was why was it not going to be any left turn deceleration lane stacking lane, whatever would be the appropriate terminology. And I see that the plan still has not changed. Correct. And then my question is have us that didn't look at and studied by somebody and particularly in light of the fact that I walked Main Street from University Drive to Camp Washington and every entrance that required a left turn off a Main Street had a deceleration lane, including the one immediately adjacent to this property that's currently under construction. Stacking lane was required there. So my question is Why is this the exception to the rule? Why is there not going to be a Left turn stacking lane in that particular location? Well, it has been floated to public works and they've looked at it several renditions and obviously as the point has in chain They want to concern about not providing the left turn lane there. They think the traffic amounts warranted it. So as just what the comment is, you know, if you're uncomfortable with that, obviously the applicant is still, well, no one to them. Yes, I am uncomfortable with that. Just due to the fact that it doesn't see anybody wants to come out and say this is the reason why, why we are not requiring it. There must be some logical reason out there, particularly when every other intersection. If that entire stretch of the roadway has a left-turn deceleration, I'd like something a little more specific rather than just, well, we don't think it's necessary. Maybe we can invite the applicant to try to address that issue as well, to make that they can. But that will follow up with staff after applicant's presentation. I would like to invite applicants representative now. Please introduce yourself. And I also want to say thank you because I think you've listened about some of the architectural concerns that were raised by the Planning Commissioners during our work session before. So. We have tried. Hi, my name is Kathy Puscar with Walsh Kaluci, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant PNC Bank. We do have our Susan Gollum with PNC Bank. We also have our engineer, our architect, our archaeological consultant, and our historic preservation consultant, excuse me. With us this evening, we have had a number of work sessions with you and we appreciate your patient's tolerance and continued guidance for us. We hope we've hit the mark this time. I believe the main issues when we were here the last time did have to do with the flood plane study and the methodology and a discrepancy between where we believed the methodology should go and where staff believed that methodology should go. I think Mr. Foster picked up on it in the discussion about the letter from Boulder and basically what was determined that at the end of the day, whether you use our methodology or the city's methodology, the impact is so minimal that we believe that FEMA will issue the appropriate approval and that we don't even rise to the level of something that would really kind of trigger concern on FEMA's part. As a corollary to that, the FEMA approval is required for us to proceed with construction. We may want to tinker with the wording of that proffer, but we don't have a problem with including that as a proffer. Nor do we have any issue with including the other two proffers that are suggested. That being said, we would like to take a look at the specific language. It speaks to additional plantings in the staff recommended proper number two. We probably would want to nail down a little bit better what we mean by that and what the level of additional plantings might be limited to. But in principle, those additional staff proffers are acceptable to us and we can incorporate them in advance of the City council hearing. The second item which you touched on is the architecture. We kind of heard some comments the first time and we were enthusiastic thinking that we might be able to revise the existing building and get your support and we came back again and we heard a few more comments and I think at the end of the day we realized that really perhaps the particular building that we were using that we were excited to use and we did try to pick up on features in the city of Fairfax. Perhaps just kind of wasn't hitting the mark in what you all were trying to tell us relative to your vision of a building that's in the transition district in the historic overlay going into the historic overlay. So we did revise the architecture. I don't know if we could just put it up so that other people can take a look at it. This building, although the architecture is much more traditional, will still qualify for lead certification. It will still have lead elements. The amount of each element is probably going to vary from what we originally saw as a more glass transparent building. amount of each element is probably going to vary from what we originally saw as a more glass transparent building, but I have been told by the architects that we will still qualify for lead certification and certainly intend to do that. Traffic. The traffic, as we mentioned, going right in, right out on judicial, we did provide trip generation and that trip generation showed that it would have minimal no adverse impact on the traffic. As to Main Street, we did revisit that issue with staff and they were confident that the left turn lane was just not warranted there, that the levels of traffic that would be going left into the site didn't warrant that improvement. So we kept the plan as it was. I think the last issue that we discussed, although there may be some minor points that were brought up by commissioners, dealt with the historical significance of this site and a concern by HSCI that perhaps the buildings that are there should be preserved. Obviously, we don't think that's the case. We have tried to follow the comprehensive plan which encourages consolidation and redevelopment of this site. We did meet with HFCI, which was recommended by this body. I think, and they can speak for themselves, I think that they did. You know, if the buildings were to go away, I think they preferred the architecture that we're showing now, but once again, I'll let them speak to that, I think they preferred the architecture that we're showing now, but once again, I'll let them speak to that. I think they were pleased with what they saw as a revision. We are now in a section 106 process, which probably our consultants can describe a lot better than I can, but we are confident that that process will result in certain mitigation measures, but not preservation of the buildings. And mitigation measures, we've done a very comprehensive study. I think that was the Chris Martin, the study that we've provided to Chris Martin. We did both a Phase I archeological study and a Phase II architectural study of the existing buildings. It's very comprehensive, very thorough, and I think provides the history of the site as it evolved over time. In addition to that, our consultants have suggested that we put together a brochure. It would be eight to 10 pages that would include photographs, maps, historical documentation about the property, and then also perhaps doing some type of photographic and text display within the bank itself, with the real idea being that people of Fairfax City who visit the property can see the importance of the site without having to dig in some library somewhere to find out how this site evolved and how we got to where we are today. So that's what we've proposed. We're very excited to be in Fairfax City. It's been a little bit of a long road, but we are looking forward to moving forward. And if that's acceptable to you, I will just have the consultants available for questions and we'll just end with that. Well, I would like to, if the commission would also allow me a little latitude here, I would like to learn a little bit more about the 106 process from your consultant and also in the bite Mr. Martin up to speak to his position or findings relative to this property. Okay. Mr. President. Why don't we go with you? Thank you. If you'd introduce yourself to the home audience. Thank you, Mr. Barronbaum. I'm Chris Martin, Historic Resources Director with the City. And our office is independent from the planning office, but we are a city office. And as you might guess, we try and present the facts on such cases as we are dealing with today. And those are weighed by yourselves in the City Council, along with other aspects of every project involving historic properties. Related to the one of six process, my comments or written opinions relate to that somewhat. We wrote an opinion that the buildings might have some local significance. The opinion was asked for by the state. The state then weighed the consultants very thorough and detailed and well written, excellent history and determined that the buildings were not individually eligible for the National Register individually. But themselves, based on their exterior appearance, could potentially be included in an expanded historic district if the city chose to do so. Just by that opinion, it renders the building's historic, whether or not any expansion of a historic district is ruled upon or decided upon. So for the purpose of the Section 106 process, from the state standpoint, and it's sort of complicated and it could be argued, but it's actually quicker to go along with that probably from PNC standpoint to go to the next steps. And those are mitigation of any adverse impacts of those buildings. And some mitigation steps have been mentioned by PNC, I think historic Fairfax will also weigh in on this project. And I would expect some mitigation to occur one aspect that we were thinking about internally is moving perhaps one of the buildings but as you know moving a building is very complicated. We've run into this situation before you have to find a place to put it, plan for its care, the cost, the budget, et cetera, and there are preservation restrictions along with the process as the consultant pointed out on taking care of a building after you do that. The exterior appearance of the middle building, in my opinion, in my office's opinion, is the most interesting of the three. And so that's the building that, as far as the preservation value, I think, might have the most. The problem, of course, is it's not that easy to just move a building somewhere. And unfortunately, I haven't been able to find or come up with a great solution. Regarding that, it's, again, it's very difficult. So I would expect the mitigation to include some sort of recording as the consultant, as PNC has suggested in a consultant may comment on. And that I think would be part of the PNC's compliance with the section 106 process. So that's where our office stands and our offices, as I said, one office among many. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any other questions from the commissioners for Mr. Martin? Nope. Okay, I'd like to invite the applicants, consultant, and up as well to address the process that we're in. My name is Kim Snyder and I'm from Thunderbird Archaeology. And Section 106 process is triggered by the Federal undertaking, which is the issuance of permission from OCC to open the branch bank. Normally what happens in this section when a six process is you evaluate any resources on the property and then the SHIPO or the Virginia Department of Historic Resources in this case actually has the final word on whether or not these buildings or archaeological sites are significant. Once they determine whether or not they're significant or potentially significant, then the next step would be to determine whether or not there is going to be an adverse effect. If there is an adverse effect, then there has to be some kind of mitigation for this adverse effect and that's what we're dealing with here. The buildings on the PNC property have been determined to be contributing resources if the historic district was expanded based on a 2004aceries report. Whether or not that expansion is actually occurs does not make any difference. From a section 106 standpoint, the buildings are still treated as contributing resources even though they are not individually eligible. Because of this, the demolition of the buildings or any other adverse effect requires mitigation. Mitigation can come in many different forms. Okay. Now the applicant has suggested some forms of mitigation. Other examples of mitigation from other areas that you could speak to? Well, I mean, there's, you know, that you can use almost anything as mitigation, that it's pretty free form for an archeological site you can do data recovery, you could do additional research, you could do some kind of educational thing. What we felt that the brochure may be a good thing, because that would have the greatest public benefit for the citizens of Fairfax. A lot of the types of mitigation that you can do end up to be reports or something that are stuck away in a library or on file at the state and no one actually sees them. There are other kinds of mitigation. You can do additional research and things like that. You can do additional photographic documentation. There's, you know, it's pretty free for them. There's nothing set in stone about the type of mitigation that you would have to do. Great. Thank you. Members of the Commission, are there any questions from Mr. Snyder? Mr. Cunningham? Yes. In terms of additional mitigation, is it, has it been suggested or considered that I know in the number of other places in the city, we have recently put up additional historical type plaques or markers. In addition to a brochure, has there been discussion or consideration of putting up something that would indicate the location of the site of the original railroad? Certainly, that could be a possibility. Those kinds of things. You know, PNC would have to make the final decision, but that could be a form of mitigation. Okay, but that type of thing hasn't been discussed. It's, has it just been a unilateral discussion that- No, we've talked about, I mean, we talked about it with PNC in general terms, yes. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Snyder. And how of the applicant? Are there any other questions where we move into the hearing? Yes, Mr. Kunninghanna. The original plan will look lovely over on the Fairfax Boulevard at the circle, or certainly on the little river turnpike, kind of rather... Just looking branched down there that needs your kind of attention. Having been around banking and banking regulators for all of my adult life, I'm not sure I wanna ask this question. And if you can't answer it, just tell me you can't answer it. Are you becoming an advocate like me? No. One of the plans for the existing branch on judicial drive. Is that to be closed? OK. OK. OK. And just in case the mic didn't pick that up, the response was that determination has not been made yet. Okay. Great. Are there any other questions? Yes. Yes, and my additional questions would go to the applicant, either to Ms. Baskara, one or for people. What would the impact be on PNC bank in terms of moving the building back the eight feet undergrounding the utilities and not relieving the right-of-way restriction. The project would not be economically viable. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, on that note, we have four individuals who have signed up to testify this evening, and I'd like to invite them one by one. The first individual to sign up to testify is Mr. David Pumphrey. You could please come up to the microphone and introduce yourself and your address. And affiliation. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present testimony here today. I'm David Pumphrey, a live at 109 Forest Avenue. I'm the vice president of Historic Fairfax City Inc. And I'm speaking here on behalf of HFCI. I'm here tonight to voice our continuing opposition to the application by PNC Bank to build a branch bank at the corner of Main Street and Digital Drive. The project as proposed will result in the destruction of four structures that together are representative of an important period in the history of the city of Fairfax and contribute to our knowledge of local architecture and history. I will address the question of the value of the historic resources and Mike Papas, who is the head of our historic properties committee, will address a few other points in terms of the staff report for the application. As you know, HFCI's volunteer organization is committed to preserving the city's historic resources. These resources make an important contribution to the unique character of the city. We work closely with the city on a wide range of activities to highlight these important resources and to work to preserve them, consistent with the continuing growth and evolution of the city. HFCI also serves as an advisor to the Planning Commission and the development of the comprehensive plan treatment of historic resources, and we are actually anxious to follow up on the work session we had before the summer break to continue that process. We look forward to working with you in that area. One of HSCI's principal goals is to ensure that historic resources are considered along with other priorities in the city's planning process. So in that capacity, as was mentioned earlier, we addressed the planning commission of the work session on May 21st to express our concerns about the proposal. We subsequently met with PMC bank representatives and with the mayor at his request to explain our views. We believe the structures and question are reflective of the city's character at the turn of the last century and through the middle of this century. One of the buildings, as was noted, has a direct connection to the Electric Street Car Line, the connected Fairfax City to the City of Washington, and gave birth to the city's role as a home for commuters while the others provide examples of residential and commercial buildings on the first half of the century. Taken together, we believe they provide a unique picture of the transition of the city from a largely rural town to a residential and commercial center. This group of buildings also forms the gateway to the historic district of the city. Property is at the edge of Old Town Fairfax National Registry, Historic District, if you have any of all this on. The importance of the properties, role as a gateway is demonstrated by the inclusion in the transition overlay district. We strongly disagree with the staff's conclusion that there's quote, that there is minimal historic significance of this location end quote. We would like to agree with the conclusions, and I believe Chris Martin just reiterated in a letter he wrote to the architectural historian for the state that these properties are locally important for the architecture, physically reflect and convey their past sense of place and character at the west end of town from circa 1905 through the 1950s and therefore agrees with the recommendations in the 2004 survey update that these properties should be considered as a contributing resource and a expanded downtown register historic district which we understand the state has now accepted that That concept that these are contributing properties The proposal presented by PNC provides no scope for preservation of any aspect of the properties The design for the bank on this location makes no attempt to incorporate or reuse the buildings on this site, which was one of the focal points of our discussion that we'd have with the bank earlier. I think it would like to note that it's particularly ironic that PNC proposals be considered now at the same time that another historic resource across judicial drive, the 150-year-old unfinished railroad bed, has just been destroyed for the construction of new condominiums. We believe that the approval of the PNC application will permanently remove another piece of the city's heritage. Allowing these historic resources to be lost, we believe would be inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan, which has stated as an objective quote to preserve and probe the city's historic resources and includes a strategy to discourage demolition or inappropriate use of valuable historic resources and includes a strategy to discourage demolition or inappropriate use of valuable historic resources. A couple of other items, we've also had some concerns about the impact of developing a bank with a 24-hour drive-through service next to Fairfax Cemetery. The cemetery was established as a burial place for Confederate veterans of the Civil War and is a significant historic resource owned by the city. We feel that the presence of a brightly lit commercial establish that is essentially open 24 hours a day by virtue of the drive-thru poses potential adverse impacts of the character of the cemetery, but we have not seen this question addressed in the staff report. Finally, another comment is we believe that the project is proposed with the drive-through facilities is inconsistent with the city's goal of creating walkable downtown environment. The city is made clear on other applications that drive-through facilities are not to be not considered to be consistent with the intended character of our downtown. The historic resources we believe are the city are best seen and enjoy on foot rather than on a car. So finally, just to reiterate, HFCI would urge the Planning Commission to reject the application in this form, and thereby send a clear message that the City of Fairfax is committed to balancing growth and development with the preservation of the historic resources that are critical for our unique identity. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pumphrey. Are there any questions for this test? That's funny. Mr. Speaker. Okay. Thank you very much. I would like to invite Michael Papis up to the podium. Good evening. I'm Michael Papis, 3701 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax City. I am a City Council appointed member of the Board of Historic Fairfax City Inc. And a member of the Historic Investigative Properties Committee of that Board. As noted by Mr. Pumphrey, the project has proposed will absolutely result in the destruction of four buildings that together are representative of a very important period in the history of the City of Fairfax. I will address however our concerns with the staff report on this application. In essence, I believe that we must question the reliability of a staff report that has not only ignored the input thus far of HFCI, the very group that has been chartered by the city to give advice on such historic matters, but has also ignored the input of the city's own historic resources director up until today, however. In fact, the positions of the city's local historic resources, namely HFCI and Dr. Chris Martin, are not even mentioned in the report itself. Rather, the planning staff has chosen to favor exclusively the self-serving historical report of the research group that was commissioned by the applicant itself. To know the way surprised, the report came with the conclusion that the buildings in question have little historic value, a conclusion that all the enough provides the greatest financial benefit to the applicant. It was not until just today that the applicant has conceded that the properties do have historic significance. The staff has yet to do so. We must ask why didn't the city planning staff include in their staff report the well-documented June 6, 2007 letter of Dr. Chris Martin, the city director of historic resources that he sent to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, which was supportive of the historic preservation of the subject property and buildings. which was supportive of the historic preservation of the subject property and buildings. I believe Dr. Martin has spoke about the essence of his support for the historic significance of these buildings. We must further ask, however, that as to why didn't the City Planes Staff include the July 18th, 2000 letter to the applicant from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that concurred with Dr. Martin's conclusions regarding the historic value of the subject property and the buildings. We must also ask why the planning staff did not include in their report the documented efforts on the part of HFCI to meet with the representatives of PNC Bank to explore ways to mitigate the adverse effect of their project on this historic site. We did meet and so far the only mitigation offered was the same one that they offered originally and that was the brochures or were moving on. We must also question why the planning staff didn't even acknowledge that there was at least a controversy in their report as to whether the buildings in question warrant historic preservation. And finally, we would ask why hasn't the Planning Commission been given a copy of these documents I've mentioned for review? At least we have no evidence of that. And here's the main point. As you all are well aware and I've noted by your questioning, in addition to the historic preservation issues, there are many other potential pitfalls in the development of this site. There are floodplain issues, traffic issues, design issues, side issues, social issues, and others. Given the planning departments one side of the approach to the historic preservation issues that I have described, we can only question what are the critical problems it has chosen to ignore and pressing for the PNC drive and bank plan. I will conclude by suggesting that this highly controversial plan is supported by a planning report of questionable value. I must therefore ask you to vote against the PNC bank plan in its present form. To do otherwise, we believe would be a gross disservice to the citizens of this city, past, present, and future. Thank you. Mr. Pappas, I have a question. I want to thank you for your presentation. I want to ask you about the mitigation efforts and the meeting. You basically presented the discussion with PNC as a take it or leave it with regard to brochures or nothing else. And I'm paraphrasing you and I acknowledge that. What would you label or define as meaningful mitigation in these circumstances? What we suggested, and actually we, I did, as a matter of fact, I think I penned this letter and I got a y'all a copy and everybody involved a copy of the layout of the meeting, this meeting at an effort to discuss matter. It wasn't with the applicant, it was with the applicant's attorneys and some members of the city staff and Dr. Martin was available for questioning. And we concluded that the HFCI would consider supporting the project if PNC Bank would also consider the adaptive reviews of at least one or two of the buildings in their plan. Are there any other questions for Mr. Papis? Please. Actually, I just follow up to the Chairman's question. Mr. Papis, what else? I mean, do you have a position, bank has a position? Absolutely. What is your meeting in the middle, or if you really want to do about this conflict, or whatever? What is the meaningful mitigation that- Right now, I'll answer that. Just want to preface it by saying, right now, I am under a mandate by a vote of HFCI Board, which was practically unanimous that required that we act to preserve all three of the buildings. However, we are, we understand the section 106 process. I say that with great preparation. I think I might understand the 106 process, but we also understand that it's all about mitigation, just as you suggest, Mr. Conn, meeting in the middle. Sounds like exactly what we need to do. We, I go back to what we had, I don't want to say, offered, but what we had felt that we could consider, and that would be, as long as there was some adaptive reuse, yeah, we've got to have a win-win situation here. We're for development in this city, We're for preservation in this city. I think it can work both ways. Here they are, they're trying to knock down three buildings that two of which are from the turn of the century and put up another building that they say is from the turn of the century in character. It doesn't quite make sense. I'm not saying it would be easy or inexpensive to adaptively reuse some of the buildings. But I'm saying that because of the grandfathering in of these buildings with respect to the floodplain, in essence, the some of the parks is greater than the whole itself. And I don't know why they can't make sense of the fact that they could reuse this, get what they want. And, you know, again, maybe a little bit expensive, but welcome to the City of Fairfax and our love for historic preservation. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Just coming in. I want in and it's going to touch on the subject of adaptive reuse. I believe Dr. Martin alluded to it too, is HFCI's position that adaptive reuse requires adaptive reuse of one of those buildings on its present site and on the construction site, or is adaptive reuse also something that overlaps to the portion of moving one of those buildings to another site. and being able to preserve the building, although not on the original site. And where does the cost of this kind of an economic activity fall? I for one, I'm not big on musical buildings because I think Dr. Marn has said, you're talking about considerable logistic problems where you're gonna put them. We already have a number of buildings floating around that got a figure out where to put them. I, however, again, speaking personally not for the board, I would certainly be inclined to see if it were to make a positioning for the bank's building. I would be inclined to see the movement on the property of at least one of the buildings and to try to again. Again, this is my own feeling I might be speaking out of school by saying it, my own feeling I'm moving on the property to eliminate some of the logistical and placement issues, again, just for the sake of preserving something that is so important. If it's so important to, well, again, it's important. I think it's important to be in C bank too. Thank you, Mr. Pappis. Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead. I wanted to talk to you. The question then, my sense in the answer to this is that adaptive reuse would be on the site, as HFCI explored what trying to move that building on the existing site if it were to be moved would do to impact the project. If the applicant has just told us that not being able to underground utilities and moving the building 8 feet to allow for road ride of ways would make it economically unviable, has any cost or analysis or anything else been done or estimate been done by HFCI in terms of the impact of trying to work around a building on the site. Absolutely not. We did explore. We had an architect. I should mention there was an architect that there were a couple of architects at this meeting that we had with the attorneys of PNC bank. And one architect was a local architect who was there, trying to assist in finding a way to come up with, to do this adapter for use, without moving the buildings as they, and he, he at least felt that it was feasible, and I believe that the attorneys for PNC Bank would occur, it was at least feasible, maybe not economically feasible for them, but at least feasible to incorporate two of the buildings, that being the building, the westernmost four square building and the cute little managers, depot managers, house in the middle to incorporate those two buildings into just the very type of operation that they foresee without leaving them and then grandfathering in what you got. Great. Thank you very much. Why don't we move on to Mr. Ed Trexler also of historic Fairfax Good evening I'm Ed Trexler 3713 Devon Drive From 1972 to 1984 From 1972 to 1984, I served on the Planning Commission, chairing it for several years, and I think I was vice chair for one year. But tonight I'm coming to you in the capacity of the chairman of the historic sites and marcus committee. the Historic Sites and Markers Committee. Our particular committee does serious research on sites and events and people in Fairfax City with the aim, possibly, of protecting sites and also placing historic markers. By the end of this year, we will have placed six historic markers in the city of this year we will have placed six historic marcus in the city of Ann Fax. What I would like to do is to sort of share with you some of the material that has been relevant to this site that has been worked on by my committee and I have a And I'll just walk you through those handlers. I'm looking forward to seeing you in the... ...we'll probably... You can start with the director. That's fine. Well, I'd like for you to have your hand what I'm going to talk about. Thank you. All right. First in the package of the historic landmark criteria for the City of Fairfax that my committee developed in 2003, I have pointed out a particular item that may be relative to this case, which refers to a move building with architectural merit associated with historic persons of our events. Second page, staple together, are a list of some 84 sites that were identified using those criteria those criteria that seem to be from a first analysis to be worthy of protection or the erection of a marker. Items 5, 6, and 9 are relevant to this site. The next package looks like that are two pages that are tied together. That's a study that's in a book of mine which shows the route of the Old Trolley line where the railroad avenue loop was, which within that loop was where the old station has, and it was both a residence and the station has for the station managing. Later that line was run all the way up to the court house, and there's a little history in there on that. Last is a list of proposed historic markers that we're working on in the city. Some of those have already been erected, you'll see dedicated. Item 12 is the trolley station. It was something that we've had in mind that we thought was worthy of marking someday. And so that's sort of where my committee is. My committee does not get involved in the political issues. We sort of would say that we are a historic resource for decision-makers. There's a lot involved in erecting a marker, for example. Every historic marker, every statement on that marker has to be substantiated by primary source reference material. And that's the kind of stuff that my committee has been doing. With regard to this site and the item that I marked on the first page, a move building with architectural merit, I want to bring to your attention the possibility from photographic evidence and there's still a whole lot more research that needs to be done that the building, well, can I approach the Yes sir. You may. Yes. Picture right here. And may I suggest that you turn this over to staff and I believe we have the capacity to put this visible for all of us to you. Okay. Let's take advantage of the room. Now can I see it? You should be able to, let's see how they do this. We are with us. While we're waiting, I must say that from the time I served on the Plenty Commission, We'll just have to move that microphone. Very good. We just have to have to bit of a 90 degrees. There you go. The other way. That's right. All right. That particular building is the old station there. Manage was host and station that stands today and you can see on the right sort of the cut where the ultra-lion ring and that size building and general construction was sort of a standard for the station and now that his house is along the trawly line. And let me see if we can go to this one, where's the red that? This is the station, now the New Jersey's trolley station that stood between the loop all around the road and there. I'm not sure when it was moved, that's still the subject of research. But as you can see, there's a little hill there going down to the creek, so it's not as flat as the other. But there's a lot of seminary in the design. The porch around has the same kind of trim on it. The roof is a little different. You can hear me? I can hear you. Oh, OK. Let's try. All right. So you know what? Sit here. All right. All right. So, you know what? Sit here. All right. Very gracious to be back here. And if you don't have to show me how to get this thing, let me turn this one. Okay, fine. So I think what we're looking at here now is whoops. Now were those properties preserved through relocation or were they simply maintained on their sites? I'm just curious. Properties meaning the building? Yes, that you're speaking to now. Building and the next thing I'm going to show you is, I got it upside down, is the building on the corner that's, you know, part of the subject. That would be this building right here. If you will look at that in the trolley house there, I think there's certainly a strong possibility that that's the same building, that that building was relocated. That was a common practice around the turn of the center to move buildings around. The old Judge Henry W. Thomas House, for example, was a big frame house that stood at the bend in the road on the old Lot 24 and 25 in the old city layout, was picked up and moved over to Mechanics Street, which later is now called University Drive, and then John Barber built his big house, well that house used to be. And then in 1960 John Barber's house was picked up and moved over to the edge of 123 to make room for a building construction and that particular building now is the Il Lupo building and some of the name on it. So I want to be sure, is there a recommendation that's coming from your committee to the Planning Commission this evening? Is there a recommendation? Is it a historic marker? I just wanted to alert you to the possibility that one of those buildings was that original station. This hearing came up sort of quick for me and there's a lot of research involved. It's established something like that the way I usually do it is I'll have to go through all of the deed work and find who owned the building during periods of time. And then I'll look at the tax records to see what the valuation of the building is. And that's the way how you can usually determine when a building was added to or subtracted from a lot. And roughly the value of it. And that work has not been done. There's another thing that I had intended to do, haven't done it yet, is to interview Mr. Lehman Young. Some of you may know Lehman. Lehman was born, I think, like 1916. He remembers, he possibly would remember the moving of that building. But it was a fairly common thing to do to move that building. Move buildings in that time up through 1960. They still moved on up there around like the barbers. That was a fairly large house. That was the... Now, would the issues that you're looking at, would they have been examined by Mr. Martin or by the applicant's consultant? I don't... An applicant's consultant would not have the depth of knowledge of local history, would probably not, they would be all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all published a book on downtown Fairfax, history at downtown Fairfax. And there are about six buildings there that I studied. The history of the building, the history of the families that lived in the buildings and the events that took place if you were standing in front of those buildings. Well, the research for those things took a year. You know, it's a lot of work involved in doing that. It's not something you can go on the Internet and look up. You've got to go through all of these old tax records. Mr. Trexway, I'm going to interrupt you for giving me. But I do want to afford the commissioners an opportunity for any questions. Yeah. But I see also that we have our experts from the city staff standing up. Would you like to make a more? Just briefly, it's a very interesting idea and theory that Mr. Trexler has. I've looked at some historic photos to try and compare from my opinion. I think we could easily look at the building on the corner itself and probably tell if it had been moved by looking at the foundation materials in particular. And that might lend a lot of insight fairly quickly. It's a very interesting theory. The form is nearly identical to the station. And Mr. Trexler brings up a good point about the character, the relative character, whether or not it's the same building, which was on the other side of the street. The form is similar. So the purchase was taken off and the new porch put on. But the form of the building seems to be quite abstract. So thank you. Are there any questions from Mr. Trexler on the committee? Could I make a few closing statements? Please. Having been on the planning commission, I know the importance of the comprehensive plan. And there's nothing in the comprehensive plan that speaks through the fact that we've been doing a lot of research in the city on historic events and historic people and historic sites. And I think that there should be better communication between HSCI, particularly my research committee and the planning commission, because I think if you're gonna make intelligent decisions on behalf of the citizens of the city of FAFAC, you really need to know what's going on and the potential importance of some of these sites. And so I don't know how to go about doing that. We used to have, when I was on the Planning Commission, we would have work sessions with people. Obviously, if you were going to, for example, put this as an addition expansion of the historic district, there would have to be public hearings for that. It's the only fair way to operate. But I would like to try to encourage you guys to think about that and see if there's a way that you can accommodate the historic work that we are doing into the planning of the City of Fairfax. No, absolutely. One older issue. Good. Then we have to wind out because we have to move on the agenda. Okay. Well mitigation. We do historic marcus. We could use some funds for historic work. Absolutely. And let me say to all the representatives from historic Fairfax, we're here this evening. We view the work session, which was held earlier this year, is the first of future work sessions, so that we can't identify and do something about the need to identify more historic properties within the city, separate from part from the issue this evening. Are there any questions from the commissioners? All right. I'd like to invite Mr. Bruce Harris up to testify. Thank you, sir. I'll try to be brief. I am a, I think I can be safely described as a disinterested participant here. At least I have no direct interest one way or the other outside of perhaps the emotional and social. Can you share your address with us? Thank you for your address where you reside. Bruce Harris, I am an anthropologist. I reside at 104-11 Stratford Avenue, in Fairfax City. And I have become aware of this proposed development in the last couple of weeks. And tried to take a look at the documentation. I can't say that I have completely absorbed the documentation. But I think I've got a rough idea of the general proposal and some idea of the potential impacts and that's what interests me more than anything else I think. I think we've heard this evening a couple of different sides. Discussion as to whether or not certain buildings constitute, in fact, historic properties could potentially constitute, might in aggregate or not constitute and so on. I think the real lesson that I'm drawing from this evening is that there needs to be some accommodation here. Nobody, I'm not a let-ite. I'm certainly not against development and I think nobody here is against it. It strikes me, however, on reading documentation that there's been a considerable accommodation of the applicant's interests. I noted just going through what I've seen here that there is the request, for instance, on the part of the applicant for rezoning of subject property from R3 and C2 districts to the C2 districts permit an institution with a drive-through. They also request special exemptions to permit construction grading and paving and resource production area. They also request a modification of the stacking space width requirement for drive-through establishments. They request a waiver of loading space requirement. They request special use permits for a financial institution with the drive-through component and redevelopment in a floodplain. They seek a variance from the subdivision ordinance to reduce the right-of-way dedication on Main Street to zero feet. And they request the approval of administrative waiver to allow an encroachment into the Landward 50 feet of the buffer component of the RPA. And the upshot of this is that at the end of the day, they also are essentially requesting the ability to demolish three buildings, which may or may not be historic. My concern is not so much whether these buildings are historic, but my concern is the social impact of a kind of gradually erosion in the traditional nature of a community, and this strikes me as that kind of erosion. I don't think it's something we can or even want to prevent completely, but I do think it's something that we want to moderate. I do a lot of work on projects in developing countries, and when we talk about mitigation, we don't talk about a plaque that says there was a building here once. We talk about can we preserve that building? Can we, in some way, integrate that building with the new uses which are being promoted or proposed for that area. I just think this is something that we've got to get to at this stage. I think it's important for Fairfax as a city to preserve to the extent possible buildings which have been here for a long time. And I'm not particularly interested if they are qualifying for the historic register or not. The station master's house is an interesting and a fascinating building. It's something that I think we should, if we can preserve, perhaps the other two buildings? Not, I don't know. This is a matter of negotiation. But I think the negotiation has to begin from this point at which we say, look, we can have a bank here, we can have a drive-through bank, we can provide them with the waivers and the exemptions of their requesting in substance, although there may be some details there that need to be looked at as well. But as a quick pro quo for that, frankly, then we need to talk about some way in which we can preserve something that is important to the community, and these structures are important to the community, whether or not they technically qualify for the historic register. And that's really all I have to say is that I think we need to think very seriously and it's not a decision to be taken lightly to tear down buildings that have been here for over a century. And it's insufficient in recompense for that to put up a plaque that says there were once buildings here that were of some significance. The alternative, of course, is we could leave the three historic buildings and put up a plaque which says this is the site of the once proposed PNC drive-through bank as a mitigation measure. But again, I think that's going too far on the other side of accommodation. I just think there has to be an accommodation here and I think it's possible for people with good intent to come to that accommodation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Are there any other individuals who would like to make a presentation or testify before the Planning Commission this evening? Would you like to respond to something? Yes, please. Thank you. I think the problem here is that the will of the community may be different or at least HFCI may be different than what the will of the commission and or the city council was when they adopted the comprehensive plan. And for whatever reason, the comprehensive plan has not been changed. The comprehensive plan speaks to parcel consolidation and redevelopment. Parcel consolidation and redevelopment. It doesn't speak to preserving buildings or adaptive reuse of buildings. And that is what PNC Bank relied on when they conducted a feasibility and due diligence study of this site. And that is what PNC Bank has worked toward for the last two years. And as you know, it only came up in one of our last planning commission work sessions that this was an issue that should even be considered. The study that's been referred to as a 2004 survey that was done and as far as we understand and have been told it has sat on a shelf since it has been done. So it was not adopted by the Commissioner Council. It is not been vetted by the community and I can't speak to why that hasn't occurred. All I can speak to is the fact that my client came to Fairfax City in good faith andax City in good faith and has preceded in good faith. The second portion of that comprehensive plan speaks to the preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive land. And while Mr. Harris is right when he mentions the number of waivers and modifications, those waivers and modifications at least a majority of them are intended to make the least environmental impact on the site. I did mention to you that undergrounding those utilities because of the size of them would make the project infeasible, but the other part of that is that by moving the building eight feet away from the street, we're further impacting the very area that the comprehensive plan in that the city has asked us to preserve and mitigate. Same thing with reusing the building. So I just have to say that for the record because PNC Bank believe me wants to be in the city of Fairfax. And had they known from the outset that this was a site that either was going to require preservation or adaptive reuse, I can tell you that their analysis would have been something probably very different. I think Mr. Trexler is also right when he spoke to the idea that, you know, applicants consultants don't usually have the kind of history that he could provide. I think I agree with that. However, in this particular instance, we took it to that next level. We did the archaeological phase one study, and then we did the phase two architectural evaluation. And as I've been told by the consultant, sometimes this report itself is a mitigation measure. And according to our consultants, this building was original to the property that they have done research, and it was not moved that it actually was constructed on the property. They can speak to that more specifically. But I do think that PNC Bank has gone beyond the colloduty to get a very accurate thorough history of the buildings on the property. And finally, I have to say I'm a little dismayed with Mr. Papis' characterization of our meeting. He kind of makes it sound like a bunch of attorneys showed up and said, we're not going to do anything, take it or leave it. It actually was the attorneys. We also brought our historic preservation consultant and we also brought our architects with us. Unfortunately, Ms. Gollum is out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The day of the meeting she couldn't make it, perhaps we should have rescheduled it, but we didn't. So we did talk about various issues. We did speak to the fact that we had been in the process for two years, that we wanted the in the city of Fairfax, that we want to work with them on meaningful mitigation measures. But relocation of the building or adaptive reuse of those existing structures, unfortunately, was not an option that would work for us. And even at that meeting, Ms. Coleman was there, Michelle Coleman, who even spoke to some of the prongs that that may even cause from a zoning standpoint. And we didn't get far enough to say X, Y, and Z, but it was not as simple as us just saying no. I had thought there was a thoughtful conversation, perhaps we didn't come to agreement, but I just wanted to put that on the record. Allow me to ask a follow-up question. Thank you for all of your responses. If, in fact, the discussion about adaptive reuse would continue, but it would not involve a cost to the applicant, meaning PNC. Would PNC be willing to continue discussions with historic fair facts to try to save, in particular, the Station Master's House, which it seems to be some consensus that there may be some historic interest particularly in that property. When you speak to adaptive reuse, do you mean relocating the building off site? Well, that would be a question for a direct discussion whether it's on the side or off site. I think either of those options have been considered and both the expense and the time associated with the process required to either figure out something that would add to that. Number one, I can't think of a way that it wouldn't cost us to be honest because it would either cost us in money. We'd have to do the design unless somebody was going to reimburse us. We'd have to do the construction. We'd have to do the preservation and then that also would create a time problem. The consultants may be able to speak better to that but I think PNC would would not proceed. I can't even say probably, they would not proceed. Okay. I would like to ask, maybe I'll turn to Mr. Martin because you have some familiarity with other relocations of properties within the city. If in fact, resources were identified. Regardless of how to relocate that part, that one building, what impact on time would that have from your experience? I think if everything were in place, the mechanism to move a building, it's complicated with utilities and things. We move grandma's cottage and that's the one that I have the most recent experience with. And that was at least four month process, at least. We have to find a site, get a foundation, they'll coordinate with utilities to move telephone wires, close the street, move it, depending, speaking of moving it off the site. Something like that would involve some time in planning. Just one follow up question, Mr. Pumphrey, if I could invite you back to the podium. With regard to the request which has been made to the OCC and the state with regard to whether or not this is the 106 process that's been defined here, I presume that historic Fairfax has sent a letter or made some sort of request or comment in that process, is that true? Yes, we sent a letter to the comptroller to indicate our concerns about the historic nature of the project. And did you include any ideas for mitigation in that letter? No, we did not. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make any testimony or comment before the Planning Commission? Mr. Papis? And then we'll close the public hearing. Please come up to the mic. For the answer to your question, Mr. Poverty, we did not because it is not right for that mitigation process yet. There is a, there's another hearing level and there is fact-finding level by the comptroller of the currency. And the point at which there is mitigation has not arrived because that mitigation entails the applicant meeting with all interested parties, meaning not just HFCI, but a city council and the planning department, any other interested parties that have been identified and HFCI has been identified as one and having a meeting, having either a discussion via email, etc. or an in-person discussion, but indeed having a meeting with an effort towards mitigation. And then another question, another answer you had mentioned or you had questioned earlier, how long will that process take. I think we've had some speculation as anywhere between four or excuse me, four, I believe eight weeks to six, eight months or whatever. My understanding is if it gets to the point that there must be a must go to a decision making regarding the historic nature, whether or not these are, in fact, historic properties, then that would go to the keeper of the national registrar. And that process, I'm understanding again, on good authority, is that process could take up to six months. If there's a concession that indeed these properties are historic, then we get right into the mitigation. Thank you very much. We'll feed back. We're going to close the public hearing now and move on to Commissioner discussion. Is there any discussion, Mr. Foster? Well, I have some thoughts. I'd like to first commend Mr. Colono on his time and energy on behalf of this project. I'm sure it was not all pleasant and there was some pain involved, but thank you for that. And I would like to thank the applicant for their sensitivity to a number of issues that have been raised throughout this process. But I think our responsibility as a planning commission is to give the applicant an answer. One way or the other. And that we have been dealing with this for some period of time. So I think we need to press on floodplain issues, the setback issues. I understand those and I think HFCI raises some important issues at the same time they do not address some very significant issues and one of those relates to the current land owner and I'm not an attorney and sometimes I'm very pleased that I'm not. But it would seem to me that we're dancing up to the subject of a public taking depending on how we address this and deal with it. And it seems like we're starting to get beyond the purview of the planning commission with some of this discussion. Any other thoughts from the commission? Mr. Cunningham? I guess my thoughts would be to summarize on what we've been through and that this has been a lengthy process as the applicant is alluded to and it's historic perfect has alluded to. The property has been the subject of planning commission discussion for some Six years or so since we had the open spaces committee and I know it came up and was discussed at that time Mr. Trexler indicating that in the past there was comprehensive plan we reviewed We have a requirement to review it every five years and I know that this property and others were discussed when we did the last five year review. I would put that at least four years ago because I know that we're due to to revisit that subject in the coming year. a new subject and it is one that I think as was alluded to in discussion needs to be pursued because our discussions with HFCI need to be expanded on this comprehensive plan review as they were touched on in the last and trying to identify the city's historic properties, identify a game plan to preserve them and do that as expeditiously as possible so that situations such as we're dealing with now where it appears to be a last minute activity are avoided and that we have given careful consideration in the process leading up to both the applicant coming in to make a request and the city's responsibility for properties that have been there for over 100 years to not languish and be undocumented until there's an action going to be taken on them. I think considerable work can be done to improve that process and we have a responsibility to do it. As regards the current property, I think we've had a very discussed or constructive exchange of positions and information and that all of the parties from the staff through the applicant to historic Fairfax, the planning commissioners have been participating in this process so that I think we're at the point where We need to to make a decision and make a recommendation that is forward to the city council for their consideration and I think I tend to agree with Mr. Foster That we should stay within the purview of the planning commission and the comprehensive plan that we have currently With the guidance in in terms of making our decision. Mr. Preserville, did I go on to ask? No, I don't think I could add anything more to what the other commissioners have just herbalized. I have the same concern we've had this on our plate a long and a long time and it's unfortunate that the historic issue came up so late in the plan. But we do have to make a decision and move on. Dr. Cahn? I think all the information has been brought up. However, I must say that it's time goes to study and the idea is very strong, it's very safe. What else do you think? And not to lightly say yes, and I think for me it has become a different part. I mean, I would go on either way, but I think when I first came in and what I heard, for me it has been a very persuasive argument but I'm not sure that I'm going to disclose how I'm going to work forward when the time comes I want but as I say I want to thank the historical society making me very strong and very persuasive and very compelling case to preserve historical sites I'm impressed and I think my colleague historical sites. I'm impressed. And I think my colleague has said, and I'm also want to appreciate that first. The PNC Bank has made that first, and then gone on on the way to accommodate. This is a very difficult issue. Very difficult issue. Thank you. I'd, before inviting a motion, I'd just like to add my thoughts. I thought that this of all the meetings that we have had on this subject for this particular property is actually been the most satisfying because finally all of the issues, the historic nature of the property, of strong redevelopment proposal, all of the issues were being discussed and it allowed me to think that we finally are getting very good information to make an informed decision as a commission. I'd like to say that in the future I hope that we can have this type of discussion much much earlier in the in the process and I concur extremely extremely unfortunate after years of discussion on this particular parcel that the issues of the historic nature of the parcels or the property, particularly one building, the station master building, came to light in such a strong way. And I think that's a good thing, but it's not fair to everyone involved in the process from the applicant to, frankly, all of the residents in the city as a whole. I do believe that, and I'm going to say this, that I would like to strongly recommend that regardless of the vote this evening on the motion that will be introduced, I would like to urge the City Council, historic Fairfax, NPNC to look at all ways or measures possible to look at the adapted reuse of that station master property. That would be win-win for everyone, for the corporate reputation of PNC, for historic Fairfax, and for all of the residents of the city of Fairfax. Sometimes the legal process, the process for approval for redevelopment of a property, is not the answer to all issues. Maybe the win-win scenario here, as was suggested by Mr. Harris, is simply a meeting of the minds between the properties, the pragmatic solution to protect that potentially historic property. And with that, we'll call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, based on the public convenience, welfare, and good zoning practice, I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application of PNC Bank by him, Catherine Piscar, Attorney, Agent, to rezone Main Street, and more particularly describe this tax map partial 57-1 subparagraph 2, 117, 118, 119. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Is there a discussion on the motion? We'll call the question then. We'll do a roll call vote. We'll start with Mr. Cunningham. Aye. Dr. Codd? No. Mr. Codd? I'm Mr. Foster. Mr. Petodd? No. Mr. Codd. I'm Mr. Foster. Mr. Petrerold? No. And the chairman will vote aye. So what's our tally there? Three to two. The motion passes. Okay. Like everyone in the process, this has been a very strenuous process for everyone involved and I'd like wish all the parties good luck and we look forward to continuing to work with you Moving on the agenda I believe I'm moving to the outreach item next on the agenda is that correct? I believe we're moving to the outreach item next on the agenda. Is that correct? Yep. Ms. Cotelasa, why do I invite you to present this issue? It's an ongoing discussion for the commission. Thank you very much, Chairman Bairromo. Gred back through planning commission minutes to determine what some of your previous discussions had been on this issue. I think a large part of it was brought forward by commissioners, Humphrey and Simmons, who are not with us this evening. The basic draft that you have in front of you tonight is one that commissioner Simmons provided to us and I have put in blue italics on this list some annotations from the staff to talk about some of these issues. In general, the front part of the draft identifies what the minimum state requirements are and how the city meets them in notifications. We've added in one of the changes that has come out of the most recent legislative session, which has to do with letting people know when there are changes to blood maps. This body has talked about various supplemental outreach issues and approaches to be able to get more people interested at the early levels of projects such as the one that you just heard. Series of those are identified predominantly being the city scene. I discussed with the community relations department several of these things, how long the lead time is and what they take. Interestingly, the city scene has a really long lead time. You can put in that you've got a planning commission meeting, but very often the planning commission agendas are not done more than six weeks in advance, which is really the lead time that occurs in this document. It's fairly static documents. So it's a good place to put the meetings are occurring, but maybe not which issues are being discussed. Channel 12, of course, is a very fluid medium. You can usually get something on there rolling on the screen, even as late as Friday before the meeting. We can say, what issues are going to be discussed for example at the planning board meeting. What I found interesting was the community's e-mast notifications. You can get up on the city's website and sign up to be notified about a series of almost 20 different things, one of which is the planning commission. I checked to find out how many people were signed up for the planning because you can sign up for each one individually. There are 215 people currently receiving notification of your meetings. And when the space allows, I think there's only like 150 spaces for letters. So it's a very short notification. But for example, for this meeting, Ms. Marizuski put up planning commission meeting, the date and the time and identified PNC, was able to get enough in there as that public hearing that would be occurring tonight. That's the most quick and easy thing. It can happen almost instantaneously. And a notice goes out to whoever is signed up to receive those particular notices. As a matter of course, your staff sends out a notice to civic associations on something that abuts a particular neighborhood to businesses that are also abutting. Often we'll go forward with the list and the lists are generally mailed to Chambers of Commerce and various business organizations so that they can keep track of what's going on. Very often we'll have meetings with civic groups they'll invite someone from the planning staff to come and talk and you know find out what the current status of things is as we go through the planning commission process for the comprehensive plan we'll have many more of those outreach meetings and on the master plan as well. Two things that weren't on that list, but I'm sure have been identified in other discussions you've had. One is property posting. If there's an activity occurring on a site, the same day that the legally required mail out is done, which is generally a couple weeks before the meeting. There's a big sign that goes on that property that something's happening there. And people who are nearby, who pass by, who want to find out more information, generally call us and say what's going on here. And we can give them pretty detailed information. The other thing that was listed here, which is I think probably our biggest resource is the web. Not everybody has computers, we recognize that. That's why there's all sorts of avenues to do this. But a great number of households are plugged into the internet. And it's timely we can put information across there. And finally, I just offered for another thought is this city university concept, which has been done in a few different communities to educate the citizens and to actually help the citizens in their role as good citizens to come in and be informed and follow the process. Sometimes it's really scary, you know, you can't fight city hall. Well, city hall isn't just a building. It's a group of people performing different functions. And through a process like this, a group of students, say 30 students, 25 students can come in and meet with each of the departments and find out what the functions are and find out how to plug into the process and when. And to get them, you know, joining you as a planning commission in a project long before it reaches its final decision point. That may be a good way to go. And I talked to the community relations folks about it. I think they tried something similar a few years ago, but would be willing to consider that again. So since your other folks aren't here tonight, I just offer that information and maybe we can bring it up again. Right. Well, I think this is really building in our earlier discussion and I'm just going to lay stuff like to thank you for expanding the draft that we're looking at. I find in particular the suggestions that you've made is very helpful to our discussion. We've had some informal discussion that we really would like to use these as sort of the rules that we live by. And as we're beginning to talk about Fairfax Boulevard and other outreach initiatives, this is going to be very, very helpful. Let me turn again to my fellow commissioners to ask for their thoughts about the document and how we should be using it. Dr. Khan. Well, Mr. Chair, I think very well I like the additional points here, including, if you look at what is legally required should be enough, but it really shows the character of the Fairfax City that you want to go extra mile and you want to do what is good, what is right for the public. So I like what you, the language you have included. I also like the flexibility. I like the loss of discretion. And there's a lot of priority. But I think I like it. It's well done. Thank you. Two points on the number two supplemental outreach. The item you added on property posting, is that not a state minimum? There is a requirement for written notice that's done by mail. But don't we post on properties now? I will double check the current code. It has been in some areas required and not now. I'm not sure what it is. We have always done it whether required or not, because it's really a help to the community. All right. And then the FEMA, you might want to make that one number three, because what we were trying to do here was to identify what was required as a minimum. That was number one. And then number two, supplemental measures we could take based on the action, the specific action of a given applicant. And number three, or the FEMA paragraph, seems to be more a change in maps where you're notifying a broader audience unrelated to a specific application. But other than that, I think it's marvelous. And thank you. Mr. Ritzertle, I think it's marvelous and thank you. Mr. Ritz-Sarrell, I think it's definitely a move in the right direction and that we congratulate you on the amount of work that they put into it and we're at today. I think that we should move forward and get this implemented some form of planning commission policy and procedure that you can use as guidance in future applications. It's kind of unique. Let's. I guess my principal thought is to start by saying, welcome back, Ms. Cotlessa, because one of the challenges I think we've had with this kind of document in the past is that it requires some form of organization to keep track of what we're doing. And in the past, I don't know that the Planning Commission has had a staff that was organized or responsive enough to put this in with the rest of their duties. My thought is that this is a good document. It pulls together a number of things we've talked about, practices we have had. It pulls in some of the other legal requirements that we have as well into a single document that we can now review under the time of outreach. But we now need to find a place to put it. I think we've only got one planning commission adopted document at the moment that I'm aware of, and that's our General Guideline and Bylaws. So either we need to think about a step that we're going to adopt this as an attachment to the bylaws or that we have to sort some other place where we have documents and requirements that we can keep up. And as such, Ms. Kotlesa being here and being able to give us greater time and and attention is the one place that I think the planning commission is going to keep this and that none of the planning commissioners that I'm aware of in the past have been acting as a secretary for the commission. So that would be the one thought as we begin to adopt documents of this nature. It's a very good point, Mr. Foster. I'd like to suggest an alternative approach. When you're dealing with bylaws, you're dealing with a formal action. And it would seem to me that we would want to keep our flexibility and make this some kind of operating procedure so that if we need to change it, we can just change it. Without going through the formal process of motions and amendments and discussion and that sort of thing. We can just add as necessary or a state law changes that maybe we should try to codify our operating procedures and that this becomes part of that. What I'd like to suggest is that staff take a look at and speak with the council, City Council on this to find out what would be their suggestion for how we use this as guidance on a case-by-case basis. So I'd like to have this on our next meeting agenda as an action item and I'll work with the staff to get it to a point where it can be represented to the commission. Also, I'd like to add that I'd like to present our ethics canons as an action item for the planning commission. With the follow-up request that we'll send to the City Council for a work session meeting with them on those items as well. And those are going to be two separate agenda items. But my goal would be to wrap both of these issues in a positive way, at least on how we use this guidance or the ethics cannons as a commission. And I think it's already appropriate to wait for the return of Ms. Pumphrey and Ms. Simmons commissioners as we vote on this. Would that be acceptable to everyone? Very good. Yes, Mr. Foster? I was under the impression we had already passed the resolution by by formal vote. What we have voted on was forwarded to Council. What we have voted on was to forward it to Council for their review and action for all city planning commissions and advisory boards and we were waiting for their feedback before we took action. What I'm suggesting to the commission is that we have waited quite a period of time and it's time for us to say how do we feel about an ethics cannon for the planning commission. And we will continue to pursue the meeting work session with city council, which is my understanding they would welcome. Okay. Why don't we move on to the discussion of the new 2007 state legislation related to community development? This is another item that I think in the May or June timeframe, the Planning Commission asked for a report on what new legislation had passed in this act of general assembly that were related to land use transportation in similar. I went through about 60 pages of these approved bills and pulled out for you the ones that you have in your package described. They're all fairly briefly described. Let me summarize what I think are probably the important three or four that really may affect what we're doing here. There were a couple of new bills passed on overcrowding and looking at issues of overcrowding, providing localities with more tools, ways to get in and look at the issue when you've got a problem, and more teeth in terms of enforcing rules that we have on the books about those issues, both from the zoning and the building code perspective. That's one thing that's occurred. From your perspective, it may be interesting. one of the things that the new legislation is done is provide that in the comprehensive plan you will be looking at ways to accommodate larger volume transmission lines from for example for larger volume electric lines and where those can and should be placed in the city where they have been, where they can and should be placed. Previously, you know, there's always been budding heads in the community about V.Dott and Virginia Power and all of the big utilities coming in. This session, the legislature said, when you're going to bring in lines that are above 150 kilobolds, fairly large transmission lines, we should have a look at, in a say in, where they may happen. And as we go on doing our master planning in the Fairfax Boulevard corridor and establishing nodes, those larger lines are necessitated when you have substations necessary, and the substations may be necessary depending on the types of development you have. So that's something that will be right for us as we go through our next round on the comp plan. The other interesting thing is that you all have probably noticed is now when you sell a house, a residential single family house, you are required to make a statement saying that there are no outstanding zoning violations of which you are aware on the property. Many of you have heard the caveat, Emtor, well, when people are buying commercial properties, they'll often do due diligence and double check and see what's going on in terms of building or zoning violations before they buy a property. But those of us who have bought in sold houses often don't even think to do that. This has now made it incumbent on somebody selling the property not to knowingly pass a problem on to the next property owner. There are a couple of studies that will be occurring and either continuing or occurring one had to do with fuel efficient vehicles and people movers and purchase and trade of development rights. All of those will be continuing in the next session. This is just to keep you up and informed. I've passed all the information on the zoning issues, to the zoning administrator, on the subdivision issues, to the subdivision, a site plan coordinator, and we will be carrying forward on these others that affect you directly as we go through the complaint process. I want to thank you. This is extremely helpful, and there's a lot of very good information here for us to review and as we begin to think about also a broader review of our zoning ordinance It's good to have a primer on some of the updates that are happening on a statewide basis. Are there any questions about this document from the commission mr. Foster Ms. Kodel has on House bill 2500? Yes. I don't know that we qualify as a high growth community because 5% is what a thousand people, but that's over a 10-year period, where we make well if I. Yes, and also what this does is it provides the same opportunity to use the proffers to communities that are traditionally not northern Virginia communities, some rural areas that might be experiencing high growth. Well, that was thrust in my question. Does it give us more flexibility to look at proffers that may not necessarily be on the site of the improvement? I will look into that and bring you back more information on that. And I don't know specifically the following House Bill 2503 is this kind of a reverse TDR? Yes, that's a good way to describe it, absolutely. Thank you. Any other thoughts or questions from the commission? Well, that said, we will continue to review the document. We reserve the right to come back at our next meeting with additional questions. And I'll provide you with full built-in if you don't have access to that. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is a review of the minutes from the meeting of July 9, 2006. I have one minor edit while I appreciate the honorary doctorate I have been awarded. I am not Dr. Barrenbaum in the minutes. Are there any other corrections to the minutes if not we can entertain any motion to accept as ended. Seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Very good. The staff report, Mr. Hudson. Terribly much that. I would like to say a word about the department and the City Council authorize a reclassification of a position for us during the budget process and the real reason for that was to try to provide us with a level of employee, I'd employ with a level of experience that we could bring in basically get some additional work done that we sorely need. We use that it was not a new position, it was a reclassification of existing positions, it was a vacant position, we were able to recruit Miss Codolesa, as I said. In addition to Miss Codolesa, Mr. Blavins will continue to work in the capacity of community development. So the rezoning land development types of activities, Jack will be the chief of that operation. Ms. Coleman will continue with zoning matters and has zoning administrators sort of chief of that little zoning operation, it's with the very serious, complex, pressing, numerous zoning related issues that we had, frankly, it was time for a full time zoning administrator after all this time. And there are some very high profile kinds of zoning issues that are on our plate right now. And we absolutely needed more time to dedicate to those kinds of issues. So fundamentally with this layout, we are very optimistic that we are capable now of handling the kind of work activities that are coming our way. Again, what it means to the Planning Commission is sort of a more consistent attention and hopefully smoother better coordinated meetings and staff support of meetings. And I absolutely no way mean to take away from Ms. Coleman's performance. Ms. Coleman was split between the development applications as well as the planning commission stuff as well as a lot of long range planning items and I mean some of the long-range planning items but all the development items and frankly it's just too much for one person and so I'm very pleased and thankful that the the city council allowed us to make these make these tweaks in our organization and again I'm looking for very good things as a result of it. Thank you. Good. And I want to first express our appreciation of Ms. Coleman, who has just been heroic in her efforts. We know that she has been handling a very large workload, and we're very appreciative in which the best of luck. And we know we'll be working with her and you on other projects in the future. Yes. If I may just briefly before you end your next meeting is scheduled for October 8th which is a Columbus Day holiday when the city is normally closed. Therefore you traditionally would reschedule the meeting perhaps October 15th which is the following week. I want to find out what your pleasure is on that. Question why don't we have a September 24 date? Right. I was going to ask the same question. I'm sorry. You're next. First meeting. Yes. We'll be having them. Okay, Chuck with you. Okay. Sorry. But I am open to rescheduling that October meeting is everyone else on the commission, friendly to that idea. So So if we could just send out an alert as Pumphrey and Simmons and others who may be interested in that. I would like to just move on to commission comments and we may invite staff participation with some of the areas. There was a very good work session with the City Council and some other groups within the city. And I'd like to turn some of my fellow commissioners to in fact speak to that who would like to who would like to jump in because you know the agenda I'm talking about. Well the the steering committee met on August 24th, Master Plan. The steering committee is the mayor and council, two members of the EDA, two members of the B.I.D. Board, and two members of the planning commission, Mr. Kenning-Ham and myself. That's three. I was there too. And I think the entire planning commission was also invited, so you were there, Dr. Conn was there. I think it was a very positive meeting we met from 12, 30 or so until about six in the evening. Everybody seemed to be on the same page. It was a pretty efficient meeting. We did wander off into the underbrush from time to time, but that was generally right before we needed a break. But I think there was general agreement on several major issues. One would be the transportation component. And the feeling was that we would try to pursue a boulevard approach as recommended by Dover Cole of the five middle lanes two in each direction with turn lanes, and then the two auxiliary lanes on the outside, one way on each side, and it was referred to as five plus two. And then there was general agreement on in the centers, camp washing to Northax in Fairfax Circle of grid streets, roadways off of the boulevard. Everybody seemed to like the concept of the building roads, access lanes. Parking would be more of a shared basis rather than parking established for each parcel. And the idea was to get the automobiles away from the street funds, get them out of sight into structures or behind buildings. And then there was a nice discussion about the proposed Fairfax circle roundabout and the group seemed to feel that we needed more information from the traffic consultant no decision was really reached on that. I thought it was a good meeting. I enjoyed it. Thank you, Mr. President. I would second Mr. Foster and those people who were there that it was, I think, a very productive meeting and that there was a sense that we're moving forward with the implementation of the plan and, and especially that emphasis will put on those areas in which immediate action can be taken so that we keep the process moving in the adoption of it. With that said, I'm looking forward, I think, as we left the plan with items due to what the staff and over-call our master plan contractor are putting together because I believe it's sometime the middle of this month or hopefully by our next meeting that will begin to get a handout that was suggested to be developed so that we can begin to look at those items that we can continue to share with the public and spread for information to keep this process moving. Exactly. One of the thoughts that I would add to it at this moment is that in light of the discussion, we just had a little earlier this evening, it's probably time to be encouraging historic Fairfax Inc. to become involved and aware of this process because we're talking about major changes on the Route 5029 corridor. All of that is existing property. It was largely constructed in the 1950 and 60 time frame. But when we start talking the historic aspects of properties that we heard mentioned earlier, this needs to be an invitation for them to be looking at the process now because actions that they may or may not want to look at are going to be forthcoming. So it's incumbent on all of the people who want to play and have input into the master plan to do their due diligence as we come up with that process in the coming year. That being said, I'm extremely pleased with the progress we've made at this point and trust that we'll keep the process moving forward. Dr. Cunt? I think I did know, but I would just add another thing that I was severely impressed. The openness and the consultant very fascinating, very, I mean there was a no hidden agenda to speak. Everything was open for discussion and the decision was made thinking listening to people and it was extremely democratic, very fascinating, very professional and I didn't feel bored. I was there for six hours. So very lively discussion. So it was really well done. I would like to add that I thought it was a very good work session with full participation from the boards and other key players in the process. One of the points that I made during the course of the discussion was the very active and appropriate role that the planning commission should be playing in this process. That we are a resource to the City Council and that we will as soon as we have our working document from Dover Cole and staff begin a discussion of how we can take our new outreach guidelines, guidance, whatever they ultimately become, and make them real. So that in fact, issues of size and scope, issues of how we vision. I mean, one of the surprising aspects of this whole process is that this is a 100 year, correct David, a 100 year document, which is beyond many of our ability to fathom what, in fact, Fairfax Boulevard will look like. Now, that said, there are some immediate opportunities on Fairfax Boulevard, where if we move along expeditiously in adopting the right approach for our community, he will have just a profound impact and make Fairfax Boulevard the destination that we would like it to be, reflecting the characteristics of our community, but also frankly the tax generator, the revenue generator, it historically has been using a mixed use approach. And I was very excited by the meeting, please. Would you like to say something? Yeah, just to echo all of that I mean actually it was really the first time that the steering committee the mayor and council along with the planning commission and the Business Fairfax Boulevard Partnership and the EDA it actually all gotten together in one room and in sort of literally and in some care Figuratively in some cases literally rolled up their sleeves and tried to really delve down and say, okay, there's some basic principles here. Let's weed through them and see if we agree on them, actually. And I agree, it was a very positive discussion. And certainly to the extent that it gave us marching orders. And I can assure you're weird treating this with the highest priority and we'll be moving on this quickly and getting back to you as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Thompson, I know they filmed the program. Is that available on the internet in some way? How is that being used? They're, they did film it indeed. It's going to be edited. It was a long meeting and to try to get the highlights in there. I'm not sure if it's going to be on City Screen 12 or if it's going to be available over the web tour or what you're doing. I spoke to the community relations office. They did a new form of filming this time. They used complete digital filming. And it apparently is a very difficult process to get it off that camera and onto something. I got tonight, when I got here, a raw version of it that needs to be cleaned up. It's got little end pieces and beginning pieces that are just, stuff shouldn't be there. My understanding from them is by the end of September, they expect to have a finished sort of DVD version that they can link on the website. And I guess people can then ask for a copy of it as well. Very good. So this will be an ongoing agenda item for us. And in particular, I'm hoping that Miss Simmons, who is not here this evening, can also continue to play a very active role, particularly in the outreach to the business community on some of the developing issues. Because we really want to bring in all the stakeholders into any process that we have. Are there any other commissioner comments this evening, Mr. Hostero? No comments. Right. Anyone else? Mr. Foster? Anyone else? Mr. Foster? Tomorrow is 6th anniversary of September the 11th and in my past somewhere I had the honor, the distinction, whatever, of living in Manhattan and working in the World Trade Center on the 104th floor of Tower 2. And that particular day, I had 34 friends and acquaintances die as Tower 2 came down. And so I just wanted to remember all of them. There were 3,000 other people and many of us new people that died that day. But those 34 I can still see faces and on new kids and spouses and it's a sobering memory to go through to lose 34 friends all at once. But Mars today, so. Right. Thank you for raising that commemoration and the day and our present thoughts continue to go out to all of the families and individuals impacted by that. You know, just on that it's a very difficult day for all. Any other comments? The only addition I would make to that is that I believe there was a ceremony here at City Hall tomorrow night at 7 o'clock and 6.30 or 6.30 tomorrow night and I would like to invite everybody to to come and attend and I know with the great viewership that we have for this program that that should spur significantly increased attendance but I would like to remind everybody please to to come and help the city celebrate. Well we have 280 or so folks on our email. There are. Chairman Barabelle, I just got a correction. This will not be online. It will be available as a DVD set to anybody that wants to. I think it's probably a bit intense to be online. It's pretty long. It's a lot of hours. All right. Keep an eye out for the info, Marshall. All right. I'd like to. I'll put the info on the video. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to play a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go to the bathroom.